For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.
Part of the problem is the increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgement on it. Instead, they simply give the paper author(s) the benefit of the doubt. I have been in this position many times when reviewing a paper for publication. This leads to group-think, as the number of experts in any sub-discipline dwindles.
If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.
A recent paper published in what is arguably the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature, claimed that the oceans have been warming considerably faster than estimates made from actual thermometer measurements, which remain rather sparse even in the Argo float era.
Enter Nic Lewis, who along with Judith Curry has been publishing some of the most thorough estimates of climate sensitivity based upon the observational data and the usual assumed anthropogenic climate forcings (mostly increasing CO2). Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.
The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.
The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.
AGW theory has simply hi jacked natural climate variation which means the climate sensitivity issue to CO2 is a non issue.
In addition they are using the completely false argument that the recent ocean warming is some how connected with CO2. The reality is it was connected to an extremely active sun until year 2005.
I am thankful for this prolonged solar minimum and weakening geo magnetic field so we can really find out what the climate is or is not sensitive to.
The test provided by nature not man is now on and we shall see.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
David,
Please explain how your comment contributes to the discussion of the original blog essay!
Since you will be unable to do that, please apologize to Sal. D Prete for your typical ad hominem remark.
Since you are not going to do that either, please accept my opinion of you being a mule’s ancestor as being proved.
Best wishes,
Lewis
That mule’s ancestor thing was a rib cracking moment …..LMAO!
SdP has been wrong since forever. He deserves to be called out for all of it.
THink I’m wrong? Prove it.
I have to admit….it seems fair game to point out prior predictions. After all, I do see lists of climate predictions of doom that don’t come true.
Bryan Knauss says:
I have to admit.it seems fair game to point out prior predictions. After all, I do see lists of climate predictions of doom that dont come true.
___________________________________-
Climate predictions did predict rising temperature, rising sealevel an decreasing sea-ice area. Many years before.
It all came true. And will go on coming true.
Salvatore del Prete predicted in 2010 that the climate was cooling. Indeed, in the years following, only in 2016 and 2017 was the mean anomaly greater than that of 2010. The essentially flat-line trend from 1998 to 2018 confirms the suspicion of most reasonably minded individuals that predictions of catastrophic temperature rises based on current data were irresponsible.
It’s unfortunate that many on this blog have firm set views and have almost become incapable of reason, and seek instead to ridicule and belittle those opposed to their opinion. If the simple explanation of AGW is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat, then failure of a steady temperature rise since 2010 in the presence of increasing CO2 deserves a simple explanation as well, or is proof that the original premise is false, or shows that there is insufficient data to make a conclusion. In which case we would all do well to be prudent in forecasting, and admit that either future cooling or warming is equally likely.
That the IPCC aims to reduce warming to fractions of a degree by marginally reducing the rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is ludicrous, and its incompetency should be exposed by all conscientious scientists.
Mac says:
Salvatore del Prete predicted in 2010 that the climate was cooling. Indeed,….
___________________________________
Indeed it was warming.
GISTEMP +.40/dec
Had CRUT +.31/dec
UAH +.28/dec
RS S +.32/dec
Much more than average.
And although starting year 2010 was quite warm.
David A,
Does this mean you will finally accept IPCC’s numerous prediction/projection failures?
Snicker……….
Two of the worst examples of this bias are Harde’s disallowed reply to Kohler (https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored) and the complete denial of Pat Franks work on error progression.There are many more examples but these take the cake.
Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers on ‘dog rape culture’, ‘a conceptual penis’ and re-printing a version of MEIN KAMPF.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6239071/Academic-journals-caught-massive-hoax-involving-20-FAKE-papers.html
These are not so ‘academic’.
I believe that’s a hockey stick graph on that paper!
SST readings since the beginning of ARGO (2002 I believe) have remained consistent IMO. The main outlier is the most recent 2016 warming where it seems to give too much credence to Arctic and tropical SST readings (a serious bias). 3600 ARGO buoys that continuously dive to 2000 meters over long periods of time still leaves a huge gap in recording global surface temps within a daily “snapshot”. I think the ARGO system is garbling up the SST data and analysis even more than hoped. We are still far from getting a true snapshot of global temperature trends. There’s way too much movement in the entire climate system to point a single finger of causality at an overall 0.0001 atmospheric mole fraction change over the past 150 years IMO.
“I think the ARGO system is garbling up the SST data and analysis even more than hoped. ”
What is this opinion based on?
Too much time and movement between each individual reading. Not all readings come at the exact same time. It’s not a real snapshot that holds any global reading in place. That’s why there is so much variability.
Nate,
I think Patrick explained it adequately. A true average temperature is impossible unless you can place identically accurate thermometers at every point on the planet.
I didn’t know the ARGO buoys dive. If that’s what they do, that leaves a lot of questions about what the temperatures are doing at the top and bottom during the dive. Maybe they’ve characterized that often enough for at least one buoy located somewhere constant. Do you know?
Unlike land and atmosphere, ocean temps below the surface are not changing over the course of a day. In any case, the noise this produces will be random, and average out.
The locations change slowly and are tracked. There are no urban and rural in the ocean, and temps are spatially correlated.
I don’t see the big problem.
It was not a problem, it was a question. Now I’m even more curious about whether sufficient studies have been done with enough buoys concentrated enough to know that averaged noise and spatial correlation is not erroneous? The temporal temperature changes are in thousands of a degree, aren’t they?
Perhaps you know stuff and just aren’t bothering to say how. Or perhaps you don’t know and are just making stuff up.
“I think the ARGO system is garbling up the SST data and analysis even more than hoped.”
“I think Patrick explained it adequately. A true average temperature is impossible”
“Too much time and movement between each individual reading”
These are assertions, not questions. Again people making over-the-top claims based on a feeling, not real data.
Issues of movement are not issues if they are negligibly small. How much movement is there? How much is too much?
From ARGO:
“How accurate is the Argo data?
The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to 0.002C and pressures are accurate to 2.4dbar. For salinity,there are two answers. The data delivered in real time are sometimes affected by sensor drift. For many floats this drift is small, and the uncorrected salinities are accurate to .01 psu. At a later stage, salinities are corrected by expert examination, comparing older floats with newly deployed instruments and with ship-based data. Corrections are made both for identified sensor drift and for a thermal lag error, which can result when the float ascends through a region of strong temperature gradients.”
Issues of under-sampling are based on a feeling that the number is too small. How small is too small?
Example: polls of < 1000 people can sample the opinions darn well of 300 million Americans.
I did not pose my questions well and frankly don’t know why I’m bothering to ask.
Do you know if the ARGO averages and spatial correlations you referred to have been verified by sufficient measurements across depth, area, and time?
If you don’t know, just say or knock yourself out investigating it. I could do it myself if I had the time.
And forget polling. Totally irrelevant for validation.
ARGO measures in the top 2000 m of the ocean, and very little at the surface.
@ David
Don’t they take continuous temperature, salinity, and other measurements at all times while listing their position (depth and lat/long location?
Regarding the above Argo discussion, the data has been corrected/corrupted:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling
Steve ,
Good example of scientists working hard to get measurements right. Real world measurements are hard (just ask Roy!).
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-332851
Roy,
You’ve just illustrated science working as it should. A knowledgeable critic weighed-in, and an error is caught. Nothing prevents this from happening with any paper.
Science, ultimately is self-correcting. Just faster than usual in this case, with an obvious error.
You seem to have missed the point.
Roy, you yourself have published a peer reviewed paper (more?) that turned out to be badly wrong, because of a sign error. Whose fault was that, the reviewers?
I realize skeptics (“etc”) are looking to score any points they can. But this is how science works. This is a great example of how science works. I was taught that peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right, it means it’s not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards, especially in citing earlier and related work. The scientists who wrote this paper quickly considered Lewis’s comments and worked to fix their error, even though Lewis was unprofessional in criticizing the Nature authors. He told Reason magazine:
“I’ve had no substantive response from Professor Resplandy, just a non-committal reply saying that they were looking into the questions I had raised and if they found anything that needed correction they would address it. Unfortunately, they have every incentive to conclude that they don’t need to take any action! So do Nature; journals don’t like being made to look foolish.”
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/08/is-new-study-claiming-the-oceans-are-war
Nic Lewis should apologize to the Nature authors for this.
That’s huge chutzpa you calling for an apology from Nic Lewis.
I’m not familiar with the specific paper of Dr. Spencer’s to which you are referring. Did the sign error make a difference in his paper’s ramifications? If not, it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. /pun off
The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature
Carl A. Mears, Frank J. Wentz,
Science, 2005
Abstract
Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth’s surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites’ measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the OPPOSITE SIGN from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.
“We agree with C. A. Mears and F. J. Wentz (The effect of diurnal correction on satellite- derived lower tropospheric temperature, Reports, 2 Sept., p. [1548][1]; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower..”
response of Christy and Spencer in Science, 2005
Thanks for clearing that up, Nate.
Chic: Nic Lewis was unprofessional.
For that he should apologize to Resplande et al.
What could you possibly know about professionalism? You are nothing but a pest spewing your religious fanaticism. Why not back up your plagiarizerish citation polution with some research of your own instead of annoying every skeptic commenter on every blog you haven’t yet been banned from?
David is a professional denouncer. He will inform on you should you use a joke which offends his feminist religion.
David,
And how many publications should apologize for the disdain with which they treat those (See Dr. Spencer’s original essay) whose politics don’t adhere to the AGW agenda? Name a few, please, you’re so erudite and knowledgeable about such.
As Dr. Spencer mentioned above to a different poster “you missed the point”. The fact that his name was on a paper that had a sign error is not relevant to the question of whether or not papers that support AGW receive adequate peer review.
“You seem to have missed the point”
You summarized the point at the end.
“the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.”
So the point seems to be that a peer reviewer missed an error. Oh well, big deal, it happens in every field from time to time.
No pattern, trend, widespread problem is demonstrated.
Nate,
That’s not the point I got. What I got from the article was:
i) The number of qualified people to review articles in climate journals has dramatically shrunk.
ii) The reviewers of articles in climate journals tend to be biased based on their own views.
If I’m reading between the lines I gather a smaller number of biased reviewers may be inclined to accept something for publication that appears to have a conclusion that matches their bias without much review, whereas something not matching their bias tends to be more than thoroughly reviewed…
Of course, this is Roy’s opinion (it is after all on his blog…) and I gather based on your posts you would disagree.
Barry
“So the point seems to be that a peer reviewer missed an error.”
Should be:
So the point seems to be that a peer review missed an error.
And the “scientific rag” should have an editor who is able do math.
“The number of qualified people to review articles in climate journals has dramatically shrunk.”
Not sure why that would be. I would expect the number of available reviewers to be proportional to the number of people publishing in a field.
‘The reviewers of articles in climate journals tend to be biased based on their own views.’
Reviewers have always had their own quirks, biases, and specialties.
Might say: peer review is the worst way to review papers, except for all the other ways.
Roy is able to get papers published, even ones which have errors missed by peer reviewers (see discussion above).
After getting published, certainly, a paper in Nature gets more scrutiny from all, as this one did.
IMO, because of the politicization of climate science, there is a tendency for run-of-the-mill contrarion papers to be over-hyped in the conservative media as major important developments, when in fact they may have flaws, and are just one paper out of many.
This draws the attention of critics, who would otherwise not have noticed and let it slide.
This has happened to some of Roys papers.
Nate,
Your statement about available reviewers may be correct. It also may be correct that qualified reviewers are fewer.
As you say, peer review is the best of the flawed approaches. However, if people allow their biases to guide a review process it starts looking like philosophy not science.
IMO, hype goes both ways. Just like peer review bodies… legislative bodies and news media are also biased… as are you and me. With news I tend to watch multiple sources and try to interpolate to determine the ‘truth.’ When it comes to climate science, it seems a hunt for ‘truth’ may also involve multiple sources.
Barry
Well put
“IMO, because of the politicization of climate science, there is a tendency for run-of-the-mill contrarion papers to be over-hyped in the conservative media as major important developments, when in fact they may have flaws, and are just one paper out of many.”
Where is this conservative media you speak of?
The usual suspects. Fox News. Newsmax. Breitbart. Daily Telegraph…
Nate, You did miss the point.
The erroneous Nature article was not the proof of academic bias, rather, academic bias was first argued, and then it was argued that academic bias was likely in play in allowing this nature article’s errors to go unnoticed
The Psychological literature proves the existence of this effect, test papers were written with exactly the same logic, but with different data. Half of the paper’s data supported one conclusion, half of the papers supported another. Reviewers who are biased for one conclusion found more errors with papers against their narrative than with papers supporting their narrative, even though both papers are exactly the same but for the data. Some reviewers even found errors that were not in the paper. So when Roy says “I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.”, his experience was probably not an isolated incident.
“Nate, You did miss the point.”
Well maybe. As I agreed, peer reviewers are human.
But the error in the Nature paper was the only ‘evidence’ given to support the narrative. But it is just a blip, that could also support a narrative that–Hey, errors occasionally happen.
The evidence given for a widespread problem of bias in climate science is just anecdotal, from an author with an agenda.
But it certainly does a good job of throwing red meat to the readership.
It’s a tactic used regularly by cable news. Lets go out and find an egregious example of something to support the agenda, an illegal-immigrant rapist-murderer welfare-cheat, and showcase it. How common is this phenomenon is not stated. Its left to the audience to assume that it must be VERY prevalent.
In reality, it’s more rare than US-citizen rapist-murderer-welfare cheats, but no one in the audience cares.
This is climate science peer review process at work
https://goo.gl/PB32hC
The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.
The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.
Unfortunately You people still think this is some kind of error, it is not , this is all deliberate.
The scam of AGW is all coming to an end.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 14, 2018 at 2:45 PM
The scam of AGW is all coming to an end.
If only that were true. This mess is going to continue for years to come. Too many people have tied their careers to it. It’s a Trillion dollar business and it’s not going bankrupt anytime soon.
Eben, what evidence do you have that this was deliberate? Any whatsoever?
Which part of “Stay out of my posts you creep” do not understand ?
Prove it’s not.
Eben,
DA is something we have to learn to live with. It’s hard to BBQ without drawing flies.
Eben doesn’t like being called out on his lies.
Perhaps more good news in another arena – persistent observation:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aurora-flight-sciences-reveals-solar-powered-autonomous-aircraft-odysseus-300750256.html
Spot on. Lots of folks seem focused on whether or not the results of this particular paper confirm their previously held beliefs but that is beside the point. Dr. Spencer is correct in his assessment that the primary take-away of this particular episode is to point out a serious flaw in the peer review process. Not to criticize it unduly, since after all the reviewers do so on a voluntary, unpaid basis and it can take a substantial amount of effort to thoroughly review a paper.
My own experience I think mirrors Dr Spencer’s in that reviewers tend to have areas of specialty which they use as a lens with which to review a paper. Most of my papers have a fairly mathematical bent, although they sometimes wind up in journals that are more experimentally oriented or are traditionally less math oriented, such as microbiology, photochemistry, or observational astronomy. Reviewers often produce comments that are largely tangential to the main thrust of the paper but focus on whatever is the specialty of the reviewer. Only when the journal is focused on mathematics do the reviewers weigh in substantially. From my point of view, it is a pleasure to have someone critically review the work to improve whatever I publish. I would not be surprised if none of the reviewers of this paper actually tried to check the math by doing it themselves. I have often found the statistics applied in papers (in many disciplines, not just climate science) to be crying out for review by a specialist in statistics.
This issue tends to lessen even further (as if it needed it) the strength of the appeal to the authority of “peer reviewed literature” as some kind of gospel that speaks the infallible truth. Galileo got it right when he said “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” We should all strive to be that humble individual.
” reviewers tend to have areas of specialty which they use as a lens with which to review a paper.”
Those lenses are called hockey stick glasses
https://goo.gl/Vw4VeJ
I did not mean that statement to be at all derogatory. Somewhat the contrary actually. Often a reviewer will clearly be specialized in a particular experimental area and they will pay great attention to see that details of experimental processes or procedures are clarified, when in fact the overall gist of the paper may be theoretical. Or the reviewer may work in a specific mathematical area involved in the paper where there are expectations as to specific notations to be used for certain kinds of quantities. Although one’s paper may be internally consistent and correct, it is beneficial to have the language of the paper (i.e. the notation) accord with expectations and the comfort level of that segment of readers who would otherwise be taken aback or confused. Comments like that are always welcome. Often one reviewer will clearly focus on one aspect and another on another aspect. In the best of all worlds the waterfront would be covered. I have rarely, but not never, seen reviewers clearly opinionated enough about some specific point to be unable to find an amenable solution. Admittedly, I don’t work in climate science so I can’t speak for the practice in climate science. My experience in other disciplines is that most reviewer comments improve the quality of the final paper.
fah: How did Christy and Roy’s notorious sign-error paper get through peer review?
How many times are you going to make this point without citing the paper and whether the sign change was insignificant with respect to the paper’s conclusions?
David makes it up as he goes along and then tells how he is a scientist because he got a degree in something or other.
Any facts, Lewis? None that I’ve ever seen so far.
“Correcting Temperature Data Sets,” Christy, Spencer et al, Science v310, 11 Nov 2005.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/972.full?etoc=
PS: This is pretty famous/notorious error. Everyone commenting here should already know about it.
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
Thanks Roy, but can you also tell us what you think of the joint Royal Society/ NAS Q&A. Their point 20 looks at the outcome if all human co2 emissions stopped today. So just a fantasy, just ask China, India and the non OECD countries.
We know the ice core studies show co2 levels remain elevated for thousands of years after temps dropped at the end of the much warmer Eemian inter- glacial, so I suppose this could be correct if you accept the ice core data.
But would the temp remain at present level and not drop for a thousand years or more? And would co2 levels not drop to say 1800 levels for many more thousands of years? If they are correct then it doesn’t make much sense to rave on about all their wild so called MITIGATION .
And the non OECD countries co2 emissions continue to soar, so the Q&A above is just absurd. Here’s their point 20 and a link to the larger graph. So Roy what do you think of their point 20 Q&A and the 2013 Zickfeld et al study?
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig9-large.jpg?la=en-GB
Here’s their answer—–
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
20.” If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?
Climate change: evidence and causes
“No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
fig9-smallFigure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2 concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013 (larger version)
If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing (see Figure 9). Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits”.
Atmospheric CO2 growth is not related to human emissions. See”Responsiveness of Atmospheric Co2 to Anthropogenic Emissions” by Jamal Munshi
Hah! B.S.
Neville, you’re right. Worth reading:
“The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html
David,
Are you stupid on purpose or were you born ignorant?
Neville,
Dr. Ed Berry published a paper that I think would contradict some of the Royal Society suppositions (which I did not read):
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/
Their conclusions assume effects of CO2 which have not been proven, therefore they have no idea what temperatures will do regardless of what CO2 levels are.
Chic: Ed Berry’s claims are pure junk. (Nor has he “published” a paper — blog posts aren’t science.) If you look at Ed Berry’s equations (have you?), he assumes that once a CO2 molecule leaves the atmosphere nones take its place. In fact, there is a continuous flux of CO2 molecules between the atmosphere, ocean and land.
Dr. Berry asks, “What is Appell’s problem?”
Appell’s problem is my preprint threatens his climate religion, and he cannot find any error in my preprint.”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/david-appell-phd-punches-tar-baby/
“The American Meteorological Society (AMS) published my paper: ‘Contradictions to IPCC’s Climate Change Theory’”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/the-american-meteorological-society-posted-my-paper/
Chic: It’s clear you can’t evaluate the veracity of Ed Berry’s claims for yourself.
It’s why you end up believing anything as long as it satisfies your personal biases.
I’m not the frump claiming Dr. Berry’s paper is “pure junk.”
(Nor are you authorized to decide what is or is not science.)
Put up or shut up.
“It’s why you end up believing anything as long as it satisfies your personal biases.”
You have no idea what I might end up believing. I am a skeptic, not a robotic AGW shill like yourself.
Chic, I’m read your comments and seen your standards. I have yet to see you analyze any paper based on its science — You will believe anything if it tells you what you want to hear.
What bonafides do you have to judge anyone’s standards? What papers do you expect to be analysed on a blog? In your own words:
“Nor has he ‘published’ a paper blog posts aren’t science.”
Calling Dr. Ed Berry’s paper junk is not a scientific analysis. So analyze it scientifically and prove you are not just a political hack even AGW supporters are likely ashamed of.
DA – So, I read the paper, and I’m not a climatologist, but proving him wrong would be trivial. You post here with a sense of authority. Is it not worth your while to prove YOUR scientific worth to a bunch of skeptics and thereby win points with those of us that consider ourselves open to new data by actually refuting the paper on a scientific basis. (It really wouldn’t be hard.)
Joseph,
Re: Ed Beery’s article
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-330308
“The American Meteorological Society (AMS) published my paper: ‘Contradictions to IPCC’s Climate Change Theory'”
No, Berry’s paper has been POSTED online by the AMS prior to presenting it at a conference. Saying that it has been PUBLISHED is just weasel words. It hasn’t been through the formal peer review process yet, as Berry himself indicates in the article.
“I made it a PREPRINT because I will submit it to a scientific journal.”
Publish: to make generally known, to make public announcement of, to disseminate to the public, to produce or release for distribution; specifically: print.
When you are done nit-picking, can you make any intelligent challenge to his PREPRINT that has been available for public review for some time now. Surely you can point out the flaws in his physics model which contradicts climate change theory.
Chic, you’re laughable. To “publish” in science means something, an it certainly doesn’t mean whatever junk Ed Berry throws up on his blog.
Desperate deniers need to think so, though.
I’m not the one who makes a fool of himself on this blog and elsewhere day after day. I pity you.
If you can explain what is junky about Dr. Berry’s physics model, just do so. Stop with the deflections proving you are a fake, phony, fraud.
Chic, you were clearly responding to (trying to rebut) David saying Berry had not published a paper. You still are. If you don’t understand what a published paper is with respect to formal science, then you may want to find out. Having the AMS post a link to a thesis online is not it. Publishing is about having your work reviewed by experts and passed.
Berry’s thesis could be brilliant. I don’t have time to check it out. But brilliant or not, it hasn’t been published WRT to the scientific process. You can still reasonably ask for people to check it out, but the imprimatur of “being published” you are trying to give it is simply false.
Barry,
You clearly aren’t understanding that I don’t have a snooty attitude about publishing that you seem to. Are you so astute a scientist that you can’t stoop to the level of those that can’t, won’t, or don’t publish in a journal that meets your standards?
If you don’t have time to “check it out” then pontificate on publishing on some other more prestigious blog. I’m left to assume you also can’t critique Berry’s physics model scientifically, a deficiency to which Appell has already tacitly admitted.
Berry is submitting his paper to a journal. As he said. Her seems to think it is an important step to take. This isn’t about feelings or superciliousness, it’s about accuracy. Berry’s work hasn’t been formally published. Maybe it will be. Chill out.
No, I won’t chill out. Accuracy? Give me a break. His paper presents a model that explains data allegedly better than the IPCC model does. If you have a problem with accuracy, say what it is.
You have plenty of time to comment on all sorts of discussions on this blog. Until you show otherwise, I will assume you either don’t understand the paper or haven’t yet figured out a way to challenge it.
You may be interested in this, Chic.
http://euanmearns.com/whats-up-with-the-bomb-model/
Dr.Ed Berry’s preprint fleshes out Harde’s 2017 Paper that followed the work by Murray Salby of the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hadre was not allowed to print his rebuttal of the weak criticism of his paper by Kohler etal. (https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored) Salby has a new video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5335&v=NtIgMftbUuw) of his presentation in Germany discussing the physics in this analysis, the egregious censoring of Harde and the total failure of the Kohlar work to fit in a physical universe. Bottom line the recent increase in CO2 is only a small part anthropogenic and trying to control climate by not using fossil fuels is a lost cause.
Bottom line the recent increase in CO2 is only a small part anthropogenic and trying to control climate by not using fossil fuels is a lost cause.
15 papers on the global carbon cycle.
35 papers on anthro CO2 observations.
8 papers on anthro CO2 emissions.
14 papers on the oceans as a net sink of CO2.
Bottom line: the recent increase in CO2 is entirely or very nearly entirely due to human activity. If so, skeptics can always refer to talking point numbers 12, 28, 29, 30 and 121.
Cmon guys, DMA and Chic, whenever there is a disagreement between their model and data, Berry and Salby assume the data must be wrong.
The ice-core CO2 record must be wrong.
The experts on the carbon cycle are all somehow idiots who’ve made obvious arithmetic errors.
Like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VIMzhfeYc
the anthro CO2 is taken away, but replaced by an equal amount of natural CO2.
This coincidental match has been repeating decade after decade for a century.
Barry,
With regard to Euan Mearns, He seems to be arguing “14C in the atmosphere cannot be used to measure the rate of CO2 sequestration. Berry says he’s wrong. I think probably, because Berry is claiming 14C has a greater residence time than 14C. It seems that Mearns is saying the opposite, but neither say the IPCC is correct. I will have to wait until Berry explains why Mearns is wrong to say anything more.
More objections to the Bern model are located here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
“By supporting the Bern model and similar carbon cycle models, the IPCC and climate modellers have taken the stand that the Keeling curve can be presumed to reflect only anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The results in Paper 13 show that this presumption is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results that have a direct bearing on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As long as climate modellers continue to disregard the available empirical information on thermal out-gassing and on the relaxation kinetics of airborne carbon dioxide, their model predictions will remain too biased to provide any inferences of significant scientific or political interest.”
With regard to the 72 papers you cite, how do they show that Berry’s physics model is incorrect? And what are talking points 12, 28, 29, 30 and 121? Science isn’t done by publishing more papers than the other guy/girl.
Nate,
I like Jeff Goldblum, but I have no idea what coincidental match you are writing about. Don’t cmon guys us without something substantive to discuss.
No one is calling experts idiots except the usual suspects on this blog.
Nate says”whenever there is a disagreement between their model and data, Berry and Salby assume the data must be wrong.The ice-core CO2 record must be wrong.”
As I think about the process of forming firn and ice containing CO2 bubbles I must agree with them that this “data” is at best unreliable and likely only useful for general trends on atmospheric CO2 over long time span. As the conditions change from year to year some of the air is possibly trapped within a few years while other bubbles form for periods of 50 or more years as the ambient atmosphere has partial access to the openings that will be eventually closed off. There are changes of state that take place as the pressure is increased. Then somehow the decision to declare the CO2 is 82 years older than the ice it is trapped in so it can be treated as exact correlation to the ice timeline.
To get to the conclusion that all of the CO2 increase is from human sources you have to come up with a mechanism that changes sink rates such that the changes in human emissions rates are pre-adjusted so the atmospheric growth rate remains constant. That is hard for me to envision.
None of the carbon cycle stages out side the atmosphere are important to the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have seen nothing materially diminishing the work of Salby, Harde or Berry in the SKS articles and am impressed with the multiple independent methods of physical analysis that lead to this low human impact conclusion. The effort to censor Harde
( https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored) is not acceptable in any effort to find truth
Well said, DMA. Obviously we are on the same page.
Whenever there is a disagreement between skeptic data and the AGW hypothesis, alarmists assume the data must be wrong.
“process of forming firn and ice containing CO2 bubbles…”
This is a story that has been invented to rationalize why the ice core data must be wrong. But there is no real evidence that this story is accurate. Many research groups have validated the ice core data.
This is similar to the murder trial defense inventing another scenario that MAY have happened, to raise reasonable doubt, when there is no doubt.
Body snatchers: indeed
When one plots CO2 concentration vs Cumulative emissions since 1959, an extremely linear curve is obtained, indicating near-perfect correlation.
Eg with this tool http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
The amount of cumulative emissions is ~ double the amount accumulating in the atmosphere. The difference is approx. what is found to be accumulating in the ocean and biosphere.
This is at least 6 decades of quantitative match between emissions and concentration.
Going back to 1880, the match continues but with more wiggles in the plot (as expected).
The idea that this match is coincidental, that human CO2 has all been absor*bed and yet replaced by a carbon-copy, :>, made of natural CO2, of just the right amount, decade by decade, is as plausible as human beings getting replaced by alien exact copies.
The idea strains credulity.
This alternative theory is not quantitative. It is speculative. It cannot account quantitatively for the movements of carbon in the system the way that the anthro model does.
The CO2 record shows ~ 6 ppm decline between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age,
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
and no other large changes in the last 15,000 y.
Without finding any evidence of such large natural variations of atm CO2 in the 15,000 year record, it strains belief that a natural rise of CO2 of 120 ppm can be driven by a temperature rise of 1 degree C.
DMA,
“To get to the conclusion that all of the CO2 increase is from human sources you have to come up with a mechanism that changes sink rates such that the changes in human emissions rates are pre-adjusted so the atmospheric growth rate remains constant. That is hard for me to envision.”
No. Atmospheric growth rate is not constant. You’ll have to explain this.
“None of the carbon cycle stages out side the atmosphere are important to the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
How ridiculous. Of course they matter. They are the sources and sinks for atm CO2!
“the weak criticism of his paper by Kohler etal. ”
Here is the abstract of that ‘weak criticism’ commentary puplished in the same journal by Kohler et al.
“Harde (2017) proposes an alternative accounting scheme for the modern carbon cycle and concludes that only 4.3% of today’s atmospheric CO2 is a result of anthropogenic emissions. As we will show, this alternative scheme is too simple, is based on invalid assumptions, and does not address many of the key processes involved in the global carbon cycle that are important on the timescale of interest. Harde (2017) therefore reaches an incorrect conclusion about the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Harde (2017) tries to explain changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration with a single equation, while the most simple model of the carbon cycle must at minimum contain equations of at least two reservoirs (the atmosphere and the surface ocean), which are solved simultaneously. A single equation is fundamentally at odds with basic theory and observations.”
Nate says
““process of forming firn and ice containing CO2 bubbles…”
This is a story that has been invented to rationalize why the ice core data must be wrong”
This is not an invention but common sense. The wind blows snow around if there is any melting CO2 gets dissolved,different rates of sublimation effect different yearly snow packs. So why is the offset chosen at 82 years to align CO2 with the age of the ice when the estimates of time in firn to ice layer is 15 to 45 years? It’s so the ice core up tick will match the Keeling curve. Why not just shift about 40 years to match the CO2 rise in the mid 1940s documented by thousands of chemical air analyses in Beck 2007? Probably because that would require acknowledging those analyses. There is good stommata evidence from three continents that CO2 was over 350 PPM about 8000 years ago that has to be dismissed to accept the Ice core data as accurate.
Further Nate says “No. Atmospheric growth rate is not constant. You’ll have to explain this.”
Human emissions rates took a big jump around 2002 from about .04 to .14 PPMV per year per year
I just got a hip replaced last Thursday and it is a little hard to focus. I inadvertently hit the submit button too soon.
I will finish this comment later.
‘Common sense’ is not equivalent to real science.
Show me a paper that demonstrates this.
What’s wrong with Berry’s article. Many, many things. He misrepresents the literature, the Bern model, the natural vs anthro CO2.
Example:
Various places he makes the claim that the natural carbon inflow is so much larger than the anthro inflow in each year. Therefore it is responsible for the rise. It is larger, 10 GT for anthro, 100 GT natural, but natural is seasonal and hemispheric, therefore oscillatory, so averages to 0 over a year.
It is very similar to the large seasonal oscillation in temperature, 30 C in my region. Comparing this to the temperature rise due to climate change, 0.017 C/year, and claiming that since the natural part is so much larger, climate change must be natural–that makes no sense.
He then says:
“In its core argument, the IPCC correctly notes that
human emissions from 1750 to 2013 totaled 185
ppm while atmospheric CO2 increased by only
117 ppm. But the IPCC incorrectly concludes that
this proves human CO2 caused the increase.
The IPCC argument omits natural CO2 which
totaled about 26,000 ppm in the same period. So,
the stronger logical counter-argument is that
nature caused all the increase. ”
What he is doing here is taking the natural oscillatory flow of CO2, which sums over time to 0. But he sums it as if it is not oscillatory, and of course gets a huge nonsense number.
I could equally well have summed the seasonal temp change in my region, 30C, over the same period, and get 8000 C!
IOW, very dumb.
DMA,
‘To get to the conclusion that all of the CO2 increase is from human sources you have to come up with a mechanism that changes sink rates such that the changes in human emissions rates are pre-adjusted so the atmospheric growth rate remains constant. That is hard for me to envision’
There are some natural variations due to ENSO, but:
Here is a plot of atm co2 vs. cumulative emissions. An excellent match.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1958:2016corr8238.png
“…but natural is seasonal and hemispheric, therefore oscillatory, so averages to 0 over a year.”
Bad reasoning. This is like saying sometimes the cars on the Northbound freeway go faster, sometimes slower, therefore it is oscillatory, therefore nobody ever gets anywhere.
“Here is a plot of atm co2 vs. cumulative emissions. An excellent match.”
Bad link. Not a difficult thing to match in this domain. Plus, the thumb is firmly on the scale.
https://tinyurl.com/y9ctrhls
“Bad reasoning. This is like saying sometimes the cars on the Northbound freeway go faster, sometimes slower, therefore it is oscillatory, therefore nobody ever gets anywhere.”
Silly analogy. CO2 is demonstrably oscillatory with the seasons. Trees leaf out and drop leaves every single year. Water warms and cools every year. Unlike cars, CO2 is not trying to go in one direction.
A better analogy is hemispheric temperature. It is oscillatory with a huge amplitude (30C) compared with annual climate change 0.017 C. Both can be happening without affecting each other.
“Unlike cars, CO2 is not trying to go in one direction.”
CO2 goes in one direction, from sources to sinks. It never goes from sink to source.
Really??
Trees can be sources or sinks. Ocean can be source or sink. They oscillate from one to the other.
Really. Growing trees are sinks. Rotting trees are sources. Cold oceans are sinks. Warm oceans are sources.
These are not the same trees and oceans. You are merely playing semantic games.
Atm CO2 is demonstrably periodic with the seasons. The Earth ‘breathes’.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41604760
The NH soil and Forests are a SINK in Spring-Summer and a SOURCE in Fall-Winter.
I assume based on Henrys Law that bodies of water are a SOURCE in summer and a SINK in Winter, but this apparently is a smaller effect.
Measured atm CO2 ‘breathing’ by latitude. Pretty cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVYt9ZDDfBs
I happened to see this paper while discussing with Bart.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534253/
Its figure 1 seems to contradict what edberry is saying, that the IPCC models do not fit the data.
The Graven Figure 1 shows 14C data from 1940 to 2012 and model projections from 2005 to 2100. She doesn’t refer to Bern models which Berry is ascribing to the IPCC. So it is not clear to me that Graven is using the same IPCC model(s) that Berry claims do not fit the data. Graven’s paper makes the point that carbon dating may be limited to samples over 2K years old rather than concluding anything about CO2 emission residence time.
OK.
She cites previous work which established what was going on previously:
Prfior to 1950s and bob efffect, C14 was decreasing in tree rings:
“First observed by Hans Suess in 1955 using tree ring records of atmospheric composition (4), the dilution of 14CO2 by fossil carbon provided one of the first indications that human activities were strongly affecting the global carbon cycle.”
More recently:
Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2
Ingeborg Levin, Tobias Naegler, Bernd Kromer, Moritz Diehl, Roger Francey, Angel Gomez-Pelaez, show all
Pages 26-46 | https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00446.x
Abstract
Global high-precision atmospheric Δ14CO2 records covering the last two decades are presented, and evaluated in terms of changing (radio)carbon sources and sinks, using the coarse-grid carbon cycle model GRACE. Dedicated simulations of global trends and interhemispheric differences with respect to atmospheric CO2 as well as δ13CO2 and Δ14CO2, are shown to be in good agreement with the available observations (1940–2008). While until the 1990s the decreasing trend of Δ14CO2 was governed by equilibration of the atmospheric bomb 14C perturbation with the oceans and terrestrial biosphere, the largest perturbation today are emissions of 14C-free fossil fuel CO2. This source presently depletes global atmospheric Δ14CO2 by 12–14‰ yr−1, which is partially compensated by 14CO2 release from the biosphere, industrial 14C emissions and natural 14C production. Fossil fuel emissions also drive the changing north–south gradient, showing lower Δ14C in the northern hemisphere only since 2002. The fossil fuel-induced north–south (and also troposphere–stratosphere) Δ14CO2 gradient today also drives the tropospheric Δ14CO2 seasonality through variations of air mass exchange between these atmospheric compartments. Neither the observed temporal trend nor the Δ14CO2 north–south gradient may constrain global fossil fuel CO2 emissions to better than 25%, due to large uncertainties in other components of the (radio)carbon cycle.
What is this for? Because someone else has a model, Berry’s can’t be right? If you are going down this road, you have to explain why Berry’s model is wrong and the other models are right. I wish I could do it for you. Not this week ….
Chic,
It seems clear that you havent looked into it very deeply.
Lets face it, you prefer to believe contrarions, because they are contrarions, not because you’ve determined that their science is superior to mainstream science.
I’ve pointed out several basic problems, above. Many others have as well. Do you care? You should.
As pointed out by the Comment on the Harde paper, these guys are not themselves carbon-cycle experts, yet dismiss the work of carbon-cycle experts, and don’t bother to even cite it.
They say that the behavior of carbon on Earth obeys a single, fast, relaxation-time model, IOW much simpler than what the carbon-cycle experts have learned thru 60 y of research.
Really? The Earth is simpler than we’ve thought?
Or are these guys just ignoring the complexity?
Nate,
It is true I haven’t looked at CO2 residence time papers deeply enough. Meanwhile, I am gathering background on this issue. Thanks for papers you have cited.
OTOH, not citing someone’s paper is not sufficient criteria for discrediting Harde’s or Berry’s arguments. Your argument seems to be that since other experts came to a different conclusion, then Berry et alia must be wrong. It is up to you or their opponents to explain why you are right and they are wrong.
I don’t have the time so I don’t expect you to do better, but just saying Johnny-come-latelies can’t disagree with experts is not a good argument. Isn’t it possible that two completely different models explain the same data? Berry did suggest Occam’s razor should apply.
See here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-330308
and “Berry did suggest Occam’s razor should apply.”
Indeed it should. Simplest idea is that we’ve emitted stuff and it has accumulated. Excellent match to data:
Both cumulative carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentration since 1959 are gently curving upward with similar shaped curves.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CDIACData/cum_global_co2_emissions&STATION=cum_CO2_emissions&TYPE=i&NPERYEAR=1&id=someone@somewhere
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CDIACData/maunaloa_f&STATION=Mauna_Loa_CO2&TYPE=i&id=someone@somewhere
How similar?
“When one plots CO2 concentration vs Cumulative emissions since 1959, an extremely linear curve is obtained, indicating near-perfect correlation.”
Both cumulative emissions and concentration have increased 4x since 1959.
“The mass of cumulative carbon emissions is ~ double the amount accumulating in the atmosphere. The difference is approx. what is found to be accumulating in the ocean and biosphere.
This is at least 6 decades of quantitative match between emissions and concentration.”
The alternative model of Berry et al. does not seem Occam-friendly at all:
“The idea that this match is coincidental, that human CO2 has all been absor*bed and yet replaced by a carbon-copy, made of natural CO2, of just the right amount, decade by decade, is as plausible as human beings getting replaced by alien exact copies.
The idea strains credulity.”
‘When one plots CO2 concentration vs Cumulative emissions since 1959, an extremely linear curve is obtained, indicating near-perfect correlation.’
Finally figured out how to show that plot, I think.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1958:2016corr8238.png
‘Both cumulative emissions and concentration have increased 4x since 1959.’
Sorry, wrong. The emissions and the rate-of-change of concentration have both increased 4x since 1959.
“Simplest idea is that weve emitted stuff and it has accumulated.”
Simplistic, not simple. It implies a very contrived type of system that treats anthropogenic and natural flows on an uneven playing field.
“Both cumulative carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentration since 1959 are gently curving upward with similar shaped curves.
Gently curving time series are easy to make similar – just do a linear regression of the one against the other. As long as the curvature is in the same direction, you’ll get a decent fit. That makes it essentially a coin toss.
What is difficult is matching every nook and cranny, as well as the long term. That’s what the temperature data does.
“What is difficult is matching every nook and cranny”
We’ve been over this many times. Without rising anthro CO2, there would still be the nature-driven nooks and crannies, due to seasons, ENSO, volcanoes, etc.
The anthro CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the seasons, ENSO or volcanoes. These are the largest drivers of natural variations and have been going on for eons.
So to say anthro CO2 MUST explain these nooks and crannies, that already have a separate explanation, is completely illogical.
“As long as the curvature is in the same direction, youll get a decent fit. ”
Yes, you get a ‘decent’ fit for either Cum emissions or integrated temperature on one axis and Co2 conc on the other.
I showed the fit for cum emissions vs Co2. The fit is objectively excellent, with R ~ 0.999, with no adjustable parameter.
While for temperature the fit is poorer with both eyes and R, and requires an adjustable parameter. If you can show otherwise, please do.
And again, nothing ‘simple’ about having an ongoing, for a century or more, coincidental quantitative match of ‘natural’ emissions to anthro emissions.
That is highly improbable.
“It implies a very contrived type of system that treats anthropogenic and natural flows on an uneven playing field.”
They ARE uneven. Not contrived at all. One is seasonal, hemispheric, and oscillatory, and is a carbon exchange between 3 reservoirs, and the other is a monotonic addition to all 3 reservoirs.
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-330308
“The fit is objectively excellent, with R ~ 0.999, with no adjustable parameter.”
Nonsense. You have to scale the total emissions by roughly 1/2 to get a fit. That’s an adjustable parameter.
An “excellent fit” in the absolute concentration domain is not noteworthy. It’s like a detective saying he found the perpetrator by matching the size of a depression on the victim’s neck with the size of the perp’s thumb. Big whup. But, if he said he’d matched the far more detailed fingerprint, that would result in a conviction.
“That is highly improbable.”
Not in the least.
“Nonsense. You have to scale the total emissions by roughly 1/2 to get a fit. That’s an adjustable parameter.”
For temperature, you need to pick a 0 for it to get even a linear fit. It appears to be arbitrary. You need to scale by an arbitrary factor. Can anyone predict this factor??
For emissions, to get a line, no adjustment needed at all.
To make fully quantitative prediction, yes. But the factor 1/2 is not arbitrary.
a. plausible-it is comparable to but less than 1
b. Agrees with measured accumulation of CO2 in other 2 reservoirs- ocean mixed-layer and land biota.
c. Agrees with carbon cycle expectations.
“For temperature, you need to pick a 0 for it to get even a linear fit.”
Well, duh. The baseline for the temperature anomaly is arbitrary. Why should it match up?
“You need to scale by an arbitrary factor. Can anyone predict this factor??”
How do you pick your factor of 1/2? Yes, this is an arbitrary factor, too.
“a. plausible-it is comparable to but less than 1
A neutral fact. If it were greater than 1, it would be disqualifying. Less than one doesn’t tell us anything.
b. Agrees with measured accumulation of CO2 in other 2 reservoirs- ocean mixed-layer and land biota.
After the fact. Not based on anything fundamental. It’s no different than my choosing the scaling factor for temperature based on observation that establishes it.
“c. Agrees with carbon cycle expectations.”
Again, after the fact. You are just rationalizing what you want to be true.
“Big whup. But, if he said hed matched the far more detailed fingerprint, that would result in a conviction.”
1. There is a quantitative match (~constant scale factor 1/2) for decades to emissions, the other 1/2 can be accounted for.
2. There is Motive, Means and Opportunity for emissions. IE there is direct causative mechanism for emissions to result in accumulation.
3. There are other CSI evidence. Isotope analysis. Prior to 1950s tree rings showed a decrease over time in C14. C13/C12 ratio decreasing is a fingerprint, O2 decreasing is a fingerprint. Carbon with depth in the ocean is a fingerprint.
4. The century long spike in CO2 is unprecedented in the ice core record for at least 20 millenia. Yet both the size and decade by decade history of the spike matches human emissions.
5. Looking at the 20ky CO2 record, the spike in CO2 sticks out as a singular, sudden, large vertical jump. A singular, sudden, large natural spike in CO2 at precisely this moment in history, with this magnitude, and with this decadal history, arriving simultaneously with a sudden, singular, large human-emissions spike, of the right magnitude, with the right decadal history, is highly unlikely and implausible.
6. There are no big holes in the anthro emissions model that need to be filled by another speculative, improbable, implausible model.
“a. plausible-it is comparable to but less than 1”
“A neutral fact. If it were greater than 1, it would be disqualifying. Less than one doesnt tell us anything.”
Let me be more explicit. The 3 main fast-equilibrating carbon reservoirs, atm, land biota, and ocean mixed layer, are comparable in size. Therefore a-priori, a prediction of ~ 1/3 for the atmospheric fraction can be made. The measured value is ~ 40%.
‘Agrees with measured accumulation of CO2 in other 2 reservoirs- ocean mixed-layer and land biota.’
“After the fact. Not based on anything fundamental.”
So what? Fundamentally it shows mass conservation. The carbon cycle has been studied and modeled better and better over last 60 y. The ocean carbon chemistry is understood. The measured carbon flows, to first order, can be successfully modeled.
“Its no different than my choosing the scaling factor for temperature based on observation that establishes it.”
Completely different. No one (you?) can even estimate the factor based on theory. You have not even bothered to compare to real numbers found in nature.
“…the other 1/2 can be accounted for.”
Of course it can. You can always rationalize it some way. But, it’s a kluge. It’s just a way of sweeping some untidiness under the rug.
“IE there is direct causative mechanism for emissions to result in accumulation.”
Actually, there isn’t. Dissipative systems do not just accumulate, they also… dissipate. For a linear dissipative system, the accumulation due to a given input can never proportionately exceed its proportionate contribution. You’ve got to have a strongly nonlinear response for a 3% addition to result in a 30+% additional accumulation. Such a highly nonlinear response (polynomial order > 10) is not plausible.
“There are other CSI evidence.”
These merely fail to contradict. They do not convict because there are other potential explanations.
“The century long spike in CO2 is unprecedented in the ice core record for at least 20 millenia.”
The ice cores smooth the data considerably. Spikes get hammered down. We do not really know how well the ice core data represent the distant past. There is no corroborating evidence with which to validate them.
“There are no big holes in the anthro emissions model…”
There are. Throughout the 2000’s, emissions rose more than 30%, while the rate of change of concentration flatlined coincident with the stall in temperature anomaly.
“Therefore a-priori, a prediction of ~ 1/3 for the atmospheric fraction can be made.”
This is mere rationalization after the fact again.
“Fundamentally it shows mass conservation.”
It shows nothing of the kind. Mass conservation imposes only a one-way requirement – the causative input cannot be less than the output. It does not demand that if a given input is less than the output, it must be the cause of it.
“No one (you?) can even estimate the factor based on theory.”
I can establish that there must be such a factor, and I can deduce it empirically from the data. That’s as much as you can do for your factor of 1/2.
Correction: “It does not demand that if a given input is greater than the output, it must be the cause of it.”
Enough with this nonsense about rationalization after the fact!
It is entirely ridiculous and simply an excuse to deny data or even look at it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to fit observations into existing models, or vice-versa.
The whole point of science is to rationalize what is observed. Sometimes the theory comes before the observation, sometimes after.
In climate change, arguably much of it is before (Arrhenius, Callendar, Hansen). Some after.
The basics of the global carbon cycle was understood 60 y ago. I have read a few papers recently on carbon cycle. The models are mathematically sophisticated. But have been constantly informed by measurements over the years. The data is extensive.
“There are no big holes in the anthro emissions model”
“There are. Throughout the 2000s, emissions rose more than 30%, while the rate of change of concentration flatlined coincident with the stall in temperature anomaly.”
I’ve seen the plot and it is very unimpressive. The variation in rate of change of concentration is much larger than any trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985/mean:12/derivative:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985/mean:12/derivative/trend
You see a flat trend in here anywhere? Who can tell?
“The century long spike in CO2 is unprecedented in the ice core record for at least 20 millenia.”
“The ice cores smooth the data considerably. Spikes get hammered down.”
Spikes of less than 2 decades, yes.
The rapid rise in the 19th to 20th century is clearly visible in Law Dome and other records. It has not been hammered down.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
What else you got?
Carbon emitted and is accumulating…
“Actually, there isnt. Dissipative systems do not just accumulate, they also dissipate. For a linear dissipative system, the accumulation due to a given input can never proportionately exceed its proportionate contribution. Youve got to have a strongly nonlinear response for a 3% addition to result in a 30+% additional accumulation. Such a highly nonlinear response (polynomial order > 10) is not plausible.”
I heard this many times, and yet I never see you trying to compare this speculative mathematical model with real world data.
In contrast, carbon cycle models are constantly being constrained and corrected by real world data.
Why don’t you do that?
‘Dissipative systems do not just accumulate, they also dissipate.’
How much is dissipated per year? Do you know?
How large are the fast-reacting reservoirs compared to the annual emissions? Do you know?
My understanding is that the fast equilibrating reservoirs are only about 3 x the atmospheric reservoir ~ 3000 Gtons of carbon. The annual emission of 10 Gtons, goes into the atmosphere and rapidly (in a few years) equilibrates among the 3.
An accumulation of 4 Gtons/y in the atmosphere is therefore plausible, which is 0.5%/year or 2 ppm/y.
BTW, The C14 emmitted in 1950s-60s is equilbrating w ~ 15 y time constant, consistent with the annual carbon exchange among reservoirs of the sizes mentioned.
“Enough with this nonsense about rationalization after the fact!”
That is what you are doing. I am trying to open your eyes to your own efforts to convince yourself. There is nothing more arbitrary about my model than about yours.
The data are extensive, and they show the rate of change of concentration being driven by temperature anomaly.
“You see a flat trend in here anywhere?”
Yep. At a time that emissions rise 40%, there is no discernible increase in the rate of change of concentration.
“The rapid rise in the 19th to 20th century is clearly visible in Law Dome and other records. It has not been hammered down.”
The smoothing is not time invariant. The longer ago in the past, the more it is smoothed.
The ice core data cannot be independently corroborated, and so are not dispositive.
“My understanding is that…”
This is all narrative. It may be consistent with the data, but consistency with the data is not dispositive because the narrative is not uniquely explanatory.
‘Yep. At a time that emissions rise 40%, there is no discernible increase in the rate of change of concentration.’
You don’t need data. You see what you want to see, even when it is absent.
https://tinyurl.com/y9xpksjm
‘The data are extensive, and they show the rate of change of concentration being driven by temperature anomaly.’
FALSE.
They show limited correlation between 3 quantitities, co2 rate of change, ENSO, and global temperature.
They do not show cause and effect.
‘Extensive’? what other data?
“The smoothing is not time invariant. The longer ago in the past, the more it is smoothed.”
‘In the WAIS Divide ice core, each of the past 30,000 years of snowfall can be identified in individual layers of ice, with lower temporal resolution records extending to 68,000 years before present.’
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13799
‘Methods
Measurements of CO2 were made at Oregon State University, and CH4 measurements were made at Oregon State and Penn State University. CO2 measurements were made with a mechanical crushing system using methods described by Ahn et al.33. Approximately 1,030 measurements were made on ∼320 separate depths spanning the time frame of 23,0009,000 years BP with a median sampling resolution of 25 years.’
‘The ice core data cannot be independently corroborated, and so are not dispositive.’
Weasel words. It has been extensively calibrated to modern measurements.
The specific problem that you found with the data is what??
‘My understanding is that’
Ive read a few papers, I have a BASIC understanding of what they are doing.
‘This is all narrative. It may be consistent with the data, but consistency with the data is not dispositive because the narrative is not uniquely explanatory.’
If YOU want to overturn the Carbon Cycle paradigm, it is imperative that you understand what data and models it is built upon. Only then can you legitimately prove it has flaws.
I dont believe you or Salby have attempted to get a real understanding of it.
“You see what you want to see, even when it is absent.”
You are just showing there isn’t good correlation in general. I am additionally showing that in a specific interval, when emissions increased a full 40%, there was no discernible change in mean rate of change of concentration.
“They do not show cause and effect.”
They establish that human inputs are NOT a significant cause in the rise, because the two series are clearly linked, and there is no reason for the temperature to increase with the rate of change of CO2.
“Weasel words.”
Yeah, sure. Validation? We don’t need no stinkin’ validation!
“It has been extensively calibrated to modern measurements.”
I can calibrate temperatures to stock market indices. Doesn’t establish a causal connection.
“If YOU want to overturn the Carbon Cycle paradigm, it is imperative that you understand what data and models it is built upon.”
Is it imperative to understand the data and models for astrology before I reject it?
‘If YOU want to overturn the Carbon Cycle paradigm, it is imperative that you understand what data and models it is built upon.’
‘Is it imperative to understand the data and models for astrology before I reject it?’
Again with the ridiculous equivalences between real science and pseudoscience.
Proves my point. You don’t concern yourself with the extensive 60 y body of literature that the carbon cycle is built upon.
Because you assume it must be wrong. That is just purposeful lazy ignorance.
You think Planck and Einstein didnt have a deep understanding of classical physics?
You think Darwin didnt have a deep understanding of prior theories of evolution.
You think Copernicus didnt know the details of epicycle models?
“They establish that human inputs are NOT a significant cause in the rise, because the two series are clearly linked, and there is no reason for the temperature to increase with the rate of change of CO2.”
So you are saying that because there is this correlation, that that ESTABLISHES that another variable, emissions, is not the cause, even though emissions are also clearly correlated.
You don’t seem to understand that science is based on evidence. You don’t have any evidence of causation AT ALL.
You have 2 alternative correlated variables. One of them MAY be causative.
‘Validation? We dont need no stinkin validation!’
Of course ice core data has been validated in a number of ways. You have no idea in what ways the data has been validated or not. You have no specific problem with the data that you can point to that shows it is invalid. This is just a made up story of DOUBT that you would like people to have. Just like the tobacco industry making up doubts about the evidence of health problems of smoking.
Its no less valid then Roy’s satellite data inferring LT temperature from microwave absor*ption, which requires modeling and analysis.
“You are just showing there isnt good correlation in general.”
I am showing that the derivative is very noisy, as is often the case. There is lots of variability due to natural carbon emissions. And there are known mechanisms for that, such as ENSO and volcanoes.
Your statement that about trend NOT agreeing with emissions increase is not a statistically valid. Too much noise.
Your idea is that its ALL natural variation.
The alternative is that there is lots of natural variation plus anthro emissions. The long term trend in the data are consistent with that.
Here is an excellent paper showing all the steps taken to validate the data obtained from ice cores at Law Dome.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668
IMO it looks impressive. And this is just the work of one team.
They are now able to match atm CO2 rise up to ~ year 2000.
An interesting thing they are able to do is, using the drop in C13 ratio that they measure, they are able to show how much carbon flux went into ocean and land relative to the anthro flux input.
figure 5
‘Finally, we use a Kalman Filter Double Deconvolution to infer net natural CO2 fluxes between atmosphere, ocean, and land, which cause small δ13C deviations from the predominant anthropogenically induced δ13C decrease.’
I just don’t see how you can disregard this kind of data.
“Because you assume it must be wrong.”
It might be right, but only if a regime change occurred in the last 60 years. It is also immaterial. The best, most modern, most accurate, most direct measurements we have say that, in the modern era, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.
“So you are saying that because there is this correlation, that that ESTABLISHES that another variable, emissions, is not the cause, even though emissions are also clearly correlated.”
Emissions are not clearly correlated. It’s just a depression, not a fingerprint.
“Your statement that about trend NOT agreeing with emissions increase is not a statistically valid. Too much noise.”
Not when there’s been a 40% rise in emissions. That should have produced a signal easily distinguishable from the noise. It didn’t.
“I just don’t see how you can disregard this kind of data.”
Because you can always make a model fit if your functional basis is dense enough. It’s just an elaborate way of confirming one’s prejudices.
The bottom line is, there is no getting around the match between the rate of change and the temperature anomaly. It is a protruding contradiction that cannot be papered over.
‘Because you can always make a model fit if your functional basis is dense enough. Its just an elaborate way of confirming ones prejudices.’
Again, with the ‘just fitting a narrative’ bullshit, as expected. Its almost as if experiments and data serve no purpose!
Yes they have prejudices: Known facts are likely true, standard physics and chemistry work, methods that have proven reliable before should be tried first. When these don’t work, innovate.
This is what scientists are supposed to do, whether its black holes merging and producing gravity waves, or Higgs bosons producing events that have to be modeled, or what Roy does with satellite data.
They are supposed to try existing methods and models to analyze and understand their data. They are supposed to try to fit their results into the paradigm built from all the other known facts and theory. Because that generally works!
Skeptics cannot just wildly wave hands dismissing all disagreeable data as unreliable. They have to find an ACTUAL FLAW in it.
Read the damn paper and find the flaw! Or if not, take the data on face value, and test your hypothesis with it.
Skeptics cannot just declare that paradigms are equally likely to be wrong as right. There has to be a preponderance of evidence.
We are nowhere close to having that.
‘Not when theres been a 40% rise in emissions. That should have produced a signal easily distinguishable from the noise. It didnt.’
Argument by assertion.
In any case the simple linear trend from 2000 shows an increase from 0.14 to 0.21, a 50% increase, for what its worth.
https://tinyurl.com/y9xpksjm
‘Emissions are not clearly correlated. Its just a depression, not a fingerprint.’
What depression?
The LF rise IS highly correlated with emissions.
It seems I have to constantly repeat that the Nooks and Crannies are not required to be correlated. No one denies that these are natural.
“It seems I have to constantly repeat that the Nooks and Crannies are not required to be correlated.”
You can assert it all you like. But, when you have one series that does fit all the nooks and crannies, and another that does not, it’s pretty apparent which one is the culprit.
I see nothing else here worth responding to.
‘The bottom line is, there is no getting around the match between the rate of change and the temperature anomaly. It is a protruding contradiction that cannot be papered over.’
I see.
Over time this similarity of increase between two observables has morphed into a definitive cause and effect relationship. A biblical truth that cannot be questioned, nor actually tested.
It has become the Michelson-Morley experiment of climate science, and then some.
Each time you bring it up, Bart, your certainty about its meaning only increases.
And yet, with all the climate science data being published, each time you come back you bring no new evidence.
It is astonishing.
Heres some ideas for next time that might actually persuade people:
Bring some real-world data on carbon reservoirs that supports the idea that anthro carbon cannot accumulate.
Bring some new data on measured carbon fluxes that support your models.
Bring some real evidence that the ice core data is invalid.
Bring some new analysis of isotopes that agrees with your models.
Bring a theoretical calculation of the scale factor between temp and co2 growth rate that uses real world numbers.
Bring a p-value analysis of your hypothesis that the prior relationship between second derivative of CO2 concentration and first derivative of emissions ends in the 2000s.
“Each time you bring it up, Bart, your certainty about its meaning only increases.”
Perhaps in your mind. My interpretation has never wavered. This relationship cannot be credibly dismissed as mere happenstance. And, the dynamics it indicates are much more consistent with behavior we expect of general dissipative systems.
‘This relationship cannot be credibly dismissed as mere happenstance.’
And yet the relationship to emissions with the just the right magnitude and history is incredibly dismissed as happenstance.
“And yet the relationship to emissions with the just the right magnitude and history is incredibly dismissed as happenstance.”
Because it is low information. It is easy to produce a spurious match with such low frequency signals, especially when the data are fudged in that direction. It is very hard to do it across the entire frequency spectrum. The temperature to CO2 rate of change matches across the entire spectrum.
I’m getting my wires crossed. That fudge is what they’ve done to try to produce a match between CO2 concentration as a driving force for temperature, not emissions as a driving force for concentration.
The main point is that it is not hard to get a spurious match with low frequency data. That is, indeed, easily happenstance.
The fudge noted above is only relevant in that it speaks to the willingness within advocacy circles to alter data and cut corners to fit preconceived notions.
On a scale of 1000 y, the match to emissions IS high frequency, a unique occurrence, and implausibly spurious.
https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/5bfc0b16-a0d7-4b55-8267-21c4069d303b/jgrd50668-fig-0005-m.jpg
These data have very good decadal time resolution,
“You can assert it all you like. But, when you have one series that does fit all the nooks and crannies, and another that does not, it’s pretty apparent which one is the culprit.”
You a logician, repeating this nakedly illogical strawman statement over and over again, is just baffling.
Anthro emissions must explain all CO2 variation, or they explain none.
How thick can you get?
As all of us agree, there are natural variations in sources and sinks of carbon.
Now humans have added a new source of carbon. Natural variations do not cease as a result.
But here is the crux of the issue. Science claims that anthro carbon emissions do indeed accumulate.
What is your evidence that this is, quantitatively, not possible?
“Anthro emissions must explain all CO2 variation, or they explain none.”
I love that coming after you accuse me of a straw man argument. No, the argument is that there is a candidate cause that explains essentially everything, and there is the anthropogenic emissions, which at best can only explain part.
You want to remove a part of the former, and substitute in the latter. That’s like taking a jigsaw piece that already fits, cutting it in two and discarding half, then wedging another piece in the gap you created.
“What is your evidence that this is, quantitatively, not possible?”
It’s not possible because the temperature relationship already explains the overwhelming majority of the rise.
It’s not possible because there is a fundamental disconnect with the narrative that CO2 levels were tightly regulated in a narrow band for centuries, then suddenly became ultra-sensitive to our inputs. That requires a fundamental shift from high bandwidth regulation to low, and there is no reason to imagine such a dramatic shift occurred. Moreover, such a shift would assuredly be accompanied by greater general variation above and beyond what we add.
It’s not possible because getting a 30% rise from a 3% additional input requires an implausibly, steeply nonlinear sensitivity.
It just doesn’t mesh with everything we know about general dynamic systems and their responses. It is a narrative created by people who do not understand such systems, and implies exotic behavior of the regulatory system which they do not have the background to understand they are tacitly imposing.
There really is no doubt about it. One day, you will look back on this and say: “Huh, that Bart guy actually knew what he was talking about. I wonder why I was so resistant to accepting what is now so obvious in retrospect.”
‘Anthro emissions must explain all CO2 variation, or they explain none.
‘I love that coming after you accuse me of a straw man argument.’
Cmon, I thought it was obvious that that is my summary of YOUR straw man argument.
‘Its not possible because the temperature relationship already explains the overwhelming majority of the rise.’
Illogical. An unproven hypothesis cannot be used as evidence of impossibility.
‘You want to remove a part of the former, and substitute in the latter. Thats like taking a jigsaw piece that already fits, cutting it in two and discarding half, then wedging another piece in the gap you created.’
No substituting of an unproven piece needed, just addition, which is proven.
‘Its not possible because there is a fundamental disconnect with the narrative that CO2 levels were tightly regulated in a narrow band for centuries, then suddenly became ultra-sensitive to our inputs. ‘
Our inputs were never as large as now. No extra sensitivity required.
‘That requires a fundamental shift from high bandwidth regulation to low, and there is no reason to imagine such a dramatic shift occurred. Moreover, such a shift would assuredly be accompanied by greater general variation above and beyond what we add.’
No idea what this means.
‘Its not possible because getting a 30% rise from a 3% additional input requires an implausibly, steeply nonlinear sensitivity.’
3% of what? This makes little sense to me.
Example that disagrees with that.
At home we have one of these soda making machines that adds CO2 to water in a bottle.
If I half-fill the bottle with water, and I add CO2 and seal it, it equilibrates quickly between air and water.
If I put it in the fridge, there is significant movement of CO2 between the reservoirs from air to water. If I take it out, that reverses. I can do this over and over again.
This is analogous to the seasons.
Now, I can add more CO2, and the quantity in both reservoirs increases, by say 3%. I can do this every day for 10 days, to get a total increase of 30%.
This works, so long as Im not letting out too much each time I open the bottle. Of course, after opening it 100 times, without refilling, a significant amount has leaked out.
This is analogous to the venting of the mixed-layer Co2 to the deep ocean, which takes 1000 y.
So why is this wrong? Quantitatively.
Don’t say something hand-wavy like ‘because its a dynamical system’
Do I really need to go into all the differences between a soda bottle that equilibrates in mere minutes, versus a planet-sized ocean with millennial overturning?
Actually, aside from scale, yes you do.
The point is this.
If the fast equilibrating reservoirs (R) for atm, biota, and ocean mixed-layer are modest in size, (they are), and the ratio of annual anthro emissions (A) to the sum of the reservoirs, A/sum(R), is not negligibly small (it isnt), then:
the soda bottle analogy, to first order, is apt, and emissions can accumulate.
What are the sizes of the R? What is your evidence that A/sum(R) is negligibly small?
It’s not apt at all. You cannot arbitrarily decouple fast and slow processes like this. You are just tailoring the outcome to what you want it to be.
‘ You cannot arbitrarily decouple fast and slow processes like this.’
The deep ocean carbon sink takes a thousand years to equilibrate with surface. That is VERY decoupled.
Why do you think otherwise?
The Earths fast-responding carbon reservoirs are what they are, not what you want them to be.
If they are not to large, than the movement of carbon between them will not prevent accumulation of emissions.
What are their sizes?
neville…”Thanks Roy, but can you also tell us what you think of the joint Royal Society/ NAS Q&A”.
The Royal Society have become a hotbed of alarmists. A couple of years ago they were forced by an internal faction to back off on their more extreme claims about global warming/climate change.
NAS used to be a reliable agency till they breached their protocol and inducted climate alarmists. Once the alarmists got a foothold they corrupted NAS bigtime by inducting more alarmists.
With the hockey stick investigation, MBH98, NAS bent over to give some credence to MBH98, although they did lambaste Mann et al for using pine tree bristlecone as a proxy to cover the 20th century. They also told them they could not claim unprecedented warming over 1000 years, reducing it to 400 years.
The IPCC disavowed MBH98 by redrawing the hockey stick with generous error bars to include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period omitted by Mann et al. They reduced the unprecedented portion even further to 1850 onward.
An expert statistician appointed with NAS was not so kind. He agreed with McIntyre and McKitrick that the statistical analysis was bogus. M&M claimed white noise as an input to their algorithms would produce a hockey stick shape.
The statistician also lambasted section 9 of the IPCC reviews as being nepotic. They were mainly friends of Mann who cited only the work of each other.
When IPCC poobah Susan Solomon asked section 9 to review the hockey stick, they completely ignored her directive.
In a pathetic attempt to retrieve something, Bradley of MBH98 claimed the statistician had plagiarized him. He did not claim he was wrong, just that he had plagiarized him.
For cripes sake, the statistician had the authority to investigate him, why should anything quoted from Bradley’s work be classified as plagiarism? Even at that, the statistician did cite Bradley initially, explaining that he thought once was enough.
A further word on the Royal Society.
Circa 1840, the scientist Joule, tried to introduced his experiment before them in which he had proved that work and heat are equivalent. They laughed him out of the house.
It was not till another scientist of noble birth intervened on his behalf that the RS allowed his paper to be read.
The RS is riddled with this sort of la-tee-da ‘Royal’ nonsense. In fact, the UK has been riddled with that brain-dead nonsense forever. Although it’s not as bad these days. anyone connected to the nobility were at one time granted automatic status as officers in the armed forces.
During WWI and II, those idiots showed their incompetence on many occasions resulting in many infantry being slaughtered. At Dieppe, thousands of Canadians died needlessly on a ridiculous mission dreamed up by Mountbatten, who has Royal connections.
Mountbatten was later transferred to the Burma theatre and had it not been for General Bill Slim, and left to Mountbatten, the Allies would likely have lost to the Japs.
The IPCC disavowed MBH98 by redrawing the hockey stick with generous error bars to include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period omitted by Mann et al.
Citation?
Tsk, MBH 1998 only goes back 600 years, not 1000 years.
This is Gordon’s first mistake, and it’s all downhill from there.
The IPCC disavowed MBH98 by redrawing the hockey stick with generous error bars to include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period omitted by Mann et al.
There are error bars ( 2 sigma standard deviation) in the original MBH (1999) 1000 year reconstruction (bottom of the paper).
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf
IPCC version also had 2 std deviation error bars and instrumental tick up at the end.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/069.htm
MBH (1998) – the 600 year reconstruction – also has 2 standard deviation error bars.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
Which also are matched in the IPCC reproduction, linked above.
Gordon has no idea what he’s talking about.
Salby puts the exclamation point on Dr. Spencer’s point.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/
He (Murry) certainly exhibits mild paranoia.
nurse crotchrot…”He (Murry) certainly exhibits mild paranoia”.
Paranoia??? Using mathematics as applied to the conservation of CO2 between atmosphere and surface? He proved his point unlike the alarmist faction who rely only on authority figures and dogma.
You seem to be one of the climate fascists inferred by Murray.
DMA…and very convincingly.
For his trouble, as a scientist with integrity, an Australian university banished him to minor chores outside of the climate department.
Climate fascism is alive and well in Australia.
Reminds me of how Peter Duesberg, a world-renowned expert on retroviruses, was banished by his university for claiming HIV could not cause AIDS.
It took more than 20 years for him to be vindicated by the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, who pointed out that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system.
Any serious scientists would have noticed that deaths from AIDS in countries like the US, Canada, and Europe, where immune function of people is generally high, that AIDS deaths are a small fraction of 1%. Obviously, there are not many serious scientists in the HIV/AIDS camp.
The HIV/AIDS community still banishes those testing positive to a regimen of highly toxic drugs that the drug manufacturers have claimed cause AIDS, destroy livers and blood, and cannot cure HIV.
The only reason those people survive is because their immune systems are good.
Now we have the same issue with climate alarmists who are persecuting skeptics for opposing them. That went right up to Obama, the president of the US.
Duesberg was/is scientifically wrong, and dangerously so. Believing him would cost many people their lives.
Ed Berry is wrong. He claims that once a CO2 molecule leaves the atmosphere, another cannot take its place. Godawful science.
Where does Ed Berry claim that? Would you please be specific so we will know whether or not you truly are full of schit?
My God please shut up. Both of you. Salby is an idiot. DA is a prick who should apologise Nic Lewis.
No, I won’t shut up. DA does not belong in the same paragraph with Murry Salby.
Do you have some intimate relationship with his psychologist or are just popping off because you have a problem with his science?
Salby gets many many things wrong. A few of these discussed here:
https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
Example, he simply dismisses data that disagrees with his ideas, such as the ice-core CO2 record.
Whenever there is a disagreement between his model and data, he assumes the data must be wrong.
Nate,
I don’t consider skeptical science authoritative. Do you? Wouldn’t it be better to use “published” sources?
Can you rebut Salby’s rationale for dismissing ice core data?
Salby has a history of sketchy behavior (Wiki):
“In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby’s federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed “a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity” in his handling of federal grant money.[4] He resigned at Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 the university dismissed him on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.[5]”
This a guy you want to believe?
Problems with the ice-core record:
The gist of the problems raised have to do with time resolution, a smearing over time, up to decades. The ice core people are aware of this and work hard to quantify it in their papers.
The ice-core record does capture the rapid 20th century rise in CO2 concentration. No other change of similar magnitude is found in the last 15000 y. No rise as high is seen for millions of years.
I fail to see how smearing over few decades solves the problem a record showing tiny change in CO2 (6 ppm) between the MWP and LIA, events that were supposed to last more than a century, and supposed to involve global temp change of 0.5 C or more.
Smearing over decades does not solve the problem that the ice core record shows 80 ppm rise in CO2 for ~ 5-8 C rise in global temperature after the last glacial maximum, over a period of many centuries.
None of these findings are consistent with a rise of CO2 of 120 ppm driven by a global temperature rise of ~ 1C.
Nate,
I will bookmark this conversation and try to take it up with you later, if and when I have time. And I will have to do it, because what causes CO2 rise is a major tenet of climate change–probably most important next to whether more CO2 will cause any more warming. I commend you for your efforts making your case, but I can’t agree with you without the same effort on my part.
Secondly, if Salby’s science is correct, I wouldn’t care if he was a mherderer.
Thirdly, your correlations are evidence but not proof of anything. Does Berry’s or Salby’s model fail? That is the answer I am interested in, not how a data fit reinforces your view of CO2 rise.
“Secondly, if Salbys science is correct, I wouldnt care if he was a mherderer.”
As a worldly-wise person (my wife) once said: “liars lie”.
So, assertions that standard science is wrong by Salby, ought to be considered fiction, until proven otherwise with overwhelming evidence.
He and buddies seek to overturn the carbon-cycle paradigm. But what evidence underlying the paradigm are they failing to consider or tell you about?
Looks like tons from my brief survey of the literature.
Chick,
Salby’s 2013 Lecture. I made the mistake of watching and trying to check its claims
He very confidently presents impressive math. Much of which appears fine.
The problems arise when he wants to claim its validation in the real world, and in he makes a series of big misrepresentations of the actual data.
Just a few examples.
1. He says human emissions are 5 GTons, in fact they were 10 GTons in that year.
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/GCP/images/global_co2_emissions.jpg
He claims 150 tons natural and calls this ‘2 orders of magnitude’ higher. 150/10 = 15. FALSE two orders of magnitude ~ 100.
2. A BIG problem. His Plot at 10:12 shows derivative of CO2 and global temperature. I attempted to reproduce this graph here. He clearly has applied a low pass filter. I do that as well.
https://tinyurl.com/yd2xm2f5
But still, there is no way to get CO2 derivative and temperature to rise similarly, whilst matching also the fast wiggles. Here is my plot.
I conclude he manipulated the temperature data somehow.
3. He shows some fancy math and asserts the CO2 in ice core bubbles decreases dramatically over time by diffusion. JUST AN ASSERTION. Then claims the ice core record of long term CO2 concentration needs to be multiplied by a large factor -10x. Thus, he claims the sensitivity of CO2 to temperature is MUCH higher than believed. But gives NO EVIDENCE for this. It is just speculation.
4. He shows a map of CO2 conc over the glob from satellites, showing no increase over cities. FALSE. Many such maps can be found showing strong increases over cities.
5. At 44 min. He compares CO2 rate of changes with temp over only 1982-2010, sees strong correlation, but the long term slope is not a good match at all. See my plot above.
6. At 46:45 he introduces the induced component of co2 rise due to temperature. What he has done is taken the induced component for fast processes (#5), and ASSUMES that this relationship extends to slow processes over many decades. But there is NO direct evidence for this assumption. In fact the evidence we have contradicts this. See my graph above.
He shows a plot of the induced component from temperature vs rise in CO2. They match! But this induced component is simply made-up out of whole cloth.
There are more cheats and deceptions, but these are the main ones.
I co-authored my first scientific publication in 1972 and over the years have seen some huge errors made by all parties involved. I may be wrong on this, but in climate science it appears to me that many of the editors are the most at fault. It takes really no time at to see if the authors of a manuscript are part of the “party” or not. They then choose the reviewers with an outcome in mind.
ed…” I may be wrong on this, but in climate science it appears to me that many of the editors are the most at fault. It takes really no time at to see if the authors of a manuscript are part of the party or not. They then choose the reviewers with an outcome in mind”.
You’re not wrong.
“Party?”
So if you were an editor, you would reject papers no on their scientific veracity, but on what opinions you thought the authors held.
That’d be a disaster.
It will be interesting to see how much or if any media coverage is given to this. And how the Climate Left tries to salvage anything from the paper to support their position of doom and gloom.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/
Thanks for the link David. Indeed many are becoming less alarmed by global warming and it is showing up now with more good reporting. However, opinions are formed over periods of time where credibility is lost and it takes time to rebuild it. And it takes even more time to get everybody on board with it.
What facts about global warming & climate change do you think imply less alarm?
I would say it began when the models went off track, which was just about the time they published in AR3 and by later AR’s they were saying that humans were responsible for half the observed warming, which frankly isn’t much.
I am unfamiliar with that paper. I don’t work in climate science and only rarely look at any papers in that discipline in any depth. I simply don’t have time for that. The exceptions tend to be where specific details of the statistics, math, or treatment of observational device attributes are of interest to me. My comments were not intended as a criticism of climate science in particular, but rather the general imperfection of the peer review process, for which this particular incident serves as an example. My experience indicates that it can be difficult to get a comprehensive review from the process. As a reviewer, I am parsimonious with my time. As an author I see the process as an opportunity to improve the communication capability of the paper so that as wide an audience as possible finds the material accessible and useful. Personally I am satisfied in general with the way it works, but the expectation that it will keep errors out of published work is somewhat optimistic. That is one reason I personally don’t recommend accepting a result simply because it appears in a peer reviewed paper, or even in many peer reviewed papers. If the result is that important to one’s work, one should delve into the nitty gritty details of the reference/paper oneself and duplicate the results as much as possible. All too frequently I have found important details left out or important calculations done incompletely (or sometimes erroneously) in previously published results and subsequent papers refer to the original work without critical assessment. (Again I am not speaking of climate science here and in no way mean this as a criticism in any way of someone’s views on some specific issue within that discipline.)
I did not even read the paper which seems to have people excited about their previously held views, but it appears it presents a new way of measuring something that some in the discipline feel is important. It has been my experience that a paper presenting something new in any discipline has an especially difficult time getting a good comprehensive review, through no fault of its own.
francis…”As a reviewer, I am parsimonious with my time”.
Why should a paper representing lengthy periods of research come down to your opinion as to whether it should be published?
Strikes me as abject arrogance, if not ignorance.
The peer in peer review does not mean a review by one person. The peer review should come AFTER the paper is published, which should be automatic.
THe purpose of peer review isn’t to assure a paper is right, it’s to see that it’s not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards.
Unfortunately you are right. I belong to a profession that takes peer review up to the next level. It would be good for science to follow that example, especially in the case of science that can foreseen to lead to unnecessary government interference in our lives. Of course though science is not a profession as it lacks licensing and uniform and enforceable standards.
Your peer review says a paper is correct?
How, exactly, is that done?
Where did I say it says a paper is correct? What peer review does is ensure errors in calculations aren’t made and that adequate evidence was collected and analyzed to support all the statements made in the paper.
That latter objective is routinely violated in the science community with lots of statements being made in papers where not a shred of evidence was presented.
1. “Parsimonious with time” means one should not commit to reviewing a paper unless one has sufficient time available in the time period allotted to do a thorough and careful review. It does not mean to skimp on time or effort in doing a review. If one does not have time available to do the review properly in the time frame required, one should pass on reviewing a paper.
2. Reviewer comments to the author are meant to improve the reader’s understanding of the work done, making sure that statements made are clearly supported by either the work itself or sufficient references. In addition, notation and terminology should be clearly defined and consistent within the paper and consistent with reader expectations in the field. Figures and tables should be explained and annotated sufficiently that they are clearly understood by the reader without having to refer back to the text of the paper unnecessarily. If particularly relevant references were not included they can be pointed out as well. Authors can sometimes be so intimately familiar with their work that they neglect to see how a general reader would not understand something in the manner it is presented.
3. As an author, reviewer’s comments that are detailed, substantial and insightful are a pleasure to receive as they invariably improve the quality of the final publication. Comments that clearly show an investment of time, effort and thought on the part of the reviewer are much better than summary statements or broad generalizations. Just as in blog comments such as these, it is much more helpful to have comment reference specific lines in the paper than to have a general comment made about making the paper easier to understand.
4. It is much better that a reviewer catch a mistake so that it can be corrected prior to publication. My understanding of this paper in question is that they meant to present a new way of measuring something of interest and importance to climate science. As such, that work in and of itself likely merited publication. The apparent mistake they made in claiming inferences from the new technique would much preferably have been corrected had a reviewer caught it, rather than having to correct it post publication. Modifying the inference in no way detracts from the central (apparent) result that a new way of measuring something useful is possible.
To those submitting papers, remember to respond with point-by-point rebuttals when appropriate. Reviewers do not decide which manuscripts get published. Editors do. And it is the editors who are to blame for this sorry state of affairs.
martha…”…it is the editors who are to blame for this sorry state of affairs”.
Any reviewer should realize that and abstain from participating in the chicanery.
Any scientist would *love* to get published in Nature and Science. And still will.
Cmon guys. You act like peer reviewers are supposed to be god-like. They are not. And never have been. Just part of the process. No mike-drops happen after one paper.
nate…”You act like peer reviewers are supposed to be god-like”.
Peer review is not part of the scientific method and there is no need for it. Publish the damned paper and allow the peers at large to review it.
As it stand, PR is censorship.
Real journals won’t publish junk, because they want to keep up their reputation, so scientists will subscribe and read them. And the scientific community doesn’t want to wade through the junk to get to the good papers.
Nowadays there are lots of predatory journals that will published *anything* if you send them $2000. They’re tailor-made for people like Gordon and Sheldon.
No way to tell if a paper is junk if all peer review does is ensure “its (the paper) not obviously wrong”. Such allows a lot of papers with very uncertain speculations to get published.
If you think peer review means a paper is totally correct, you are sadly mistaken.
See my statement above David. Nowhere did I say peer review ensures a paper is correct. Peer review determines whether a paper has adequate support to make a statement. Here adequate support would be the level of support detailed by the standards setting organization or government agency.
Papers paid by the author will serve the author, do not trust them.
Papers paid by the reader will suffer if their readers are deceived, prefer these.
‘Peer review is not part of the scientific method and there is no need for it.’
I know all the important science advances are written on blogs.
When the next Nobel laureate in medicine has a moment (in the can, maybe) to catch up on the latest developments in his/her field, they shouldn’t bother with the dozen articles that made it through peer review at the top medical journal.
Instead they they should read the hundreds of blog articles by Jenny McCarthy, etc, and all the articles emailed to then by other crackpots.
Right?
If the missing heat is proven to NOT be in the oceans then I take it sensitivity is on low end ?
The uncorrected paper implied that energy budget based climate sensitivity estimates were 0.2 low. The corrected paper implies 0.15 low.
Thus the Otto et al estimate of 2.0 should be 2.15 and Nic Lewis’ 1.5 should be 1.65.
I’m not sure that follows. The corrected version still has more warming than the mean of previous estimates.
It’s only one paper. The main (scientific) takeaway is that this may be a method worth refining.
Notice Roy didn’t mention the peer review that let his own erroneous paper be published.
Or the one that led to the resignation of the editor of the journal Remote Sciences for letting his paper through.
Roy has no ground here on which to cast aspersions.
I didn’t see any aspersions being cast by Roy. He said peer review tends to be sloppy. Much discussion has centered on sloppiness seems to have a relationship to how much prejudice the review has with the conclusions.
Such a total lack of standards in peer review allows for that to occur. In my profession people can be hurt (financially) by errors thus I am ecstatic when a peer reviewer finds the problem before anybody is harmed.
There is little doubt prejudice in a process without standards or liability leads to an uneven application of diligence in a peer review process, such unfortunately is a fact of human nature.
bill hunter says:
I didnt see any aspersions being cast by Roy.
Look at the title of his post.
The title of the paper is a statement of fact. If one is a thief calling a thief a thief isn’t an aspersion. Its a statement of fact. Its truth. Calling somebody a thief when there is no evidence he is thief would be an aspersion.
Just go take the hedgehog out of Uranus.
Science is becoming increasingly tribal as evidenced by the fact that there are now tens of thousands of scientific journals as John Staddon recently pointed out in Quillette.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/07/the-devolution-of-social-science/
While John was writing about the social sciences, things are going the same way in what used to be thought of as “Hard sciences”. For example “Climate Science” uses tribalism to defend itself by asserting that only people who are members of their tribe are competent to discuss their theories.
You may have a Nobel prize in physics or chemistry but if you disagree with the climate tribe your views are illegitimate. If science is to regain the respect of the general public it needs to become less tribal, more transparent, more accessible and more accountable.
gallopingcamel
Good post. I agree.
Like Norman, I believe G.C. hit the nail on the head. The statement is parallel to Dr. Spencer’s point in his Peer Review Blog.
“Science is becoming increasingly tribal as evidenced by the fact that there are now tens of thousands of scientific journals”
Relentless entropy at work. Always increasing.
No – the Internet has made “publishing” easy, with lots of reckless sites who will publish anything if you pay them.
“the Internet has made publishing easy, with lots of reckless sites who will publish anything if you pay them.”
Without any standards of peer review the same pay for scheme, whether its study funders, subscribers, or whatever paying the journal clearly exists. We have seen many old and respectable institutions fall into the political abyss. After all yellow journalism sells.
gallopingcamel says:
You may have a Nobel prize in physics or chemistry but if you disagree with the climate tribe your views are illegitimate.
No, you are wrong if, like Ivar Giaever, you don’t understand the science but spout off anyway. He has, sadly, made a spectacle of himself.
“I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned.”
– Ivar Giaever, 2012, via https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
Are there any climatalogist Nobel laureates other than Al Gore?
Well worth viewing Nobel laureate Ivvar Giaever’s talk in 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5az5OIX2k
Simple enough for even a climate blog gadfly like you to understand.
Ivar Giaever isn’t a climatologist.
Did I say so? That is not the point. I am not aware of any climate-related science for whom someone got a Nobel prize other than the ill-considered Al Gore and the IPCC. A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy, but what credibility trumps it without one?
DA is claiming that if you are not a member of the “Climate Tribe” your views are illegitimate.
I told him so upthread and he got the message.
To the “Climate Tribe” facts and evidence do not matter. Faith in the teachings of climate priests is what matters. The “Climate Science” is a religion that is in bed with crooked politicians. Do you think Al Gore and Barack Obama lost any money by lying about Climate Change?
Science is merely a fig leaf for people like that to hide their naked greed.
World’s Nobel Laureates And Preeminent Scientists Call On Government Leaders To Halt Global Warming – signed by a majority of the world’s Nobel winners in science – 98 out of 171.
October 2, 1997
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971002070106.htm
Which of those 98 Nobel Prize scientists have debated Giaever or published opposing views since signing a “declaration?” Why didn’t the other 73 Nobel Laureates sign it? Science is not done by popular vote.
“No, you are wrong if, like Ivar Giaever, you dont understand the science but spout off anyway. He has, sadly, made a spectacle of himself.”
What is sad is how much is wrong with you.
1) You have no proof that Ivar Giaever doesn’t understand the science.
2) You have no proof that gallopingcamel doesn’t understand the science.
3) You disagreeing with either of them means nothing and there is evidence that both understand the science well.
4) You are the king of spouting off.
5) Ivar Giaever’s presentations are spectacular, whereas yours would probably be disgraceful. (Have you ever made one?)
Einstein, in his 70s, could no longer contribute or even comment sensibly on contemporary physics.
Let’s face it, decades of aging does damage to even genius brains.
Giaever was a very good experimenter. His work was important in its day, more than 50 y ago. Even he admits in his autobiography that serendipity had more to do with his Nobel than his genius.
Someone said “A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy”
And one in a different field, half a century ago, even less so.
And yet you pay attention to his views on climate science. Perhaps that has more to do with his POV agreeing with yours than any legitimacy he has?
There is thing called Nobel disease, in which aging Nobelists too often get nutty.
Pauling with vitamin C.
Luc Montagnier -AIDS not caused by HIV.
Josephson just went nuts.
Shockley-Eugenics
many more.
“Someone said ‘A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy.’”
What I said was “A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy, but what credibility trumps it without one?” IOW, if you challenge a Nobel Laureate (is that supposed to be capitalized?), you better have an unshakable counter argument. The skeptical science hit piece on Giaever doesn’t, because it is laced with assumptions that CO2 warms the planet. Still no definitive evidence of that.
DA…”fah: How did Christy and Roy’s notorious sign-error paper get through peer review?”
You have a nerve criticizing Roy and John after make the claim that IR from the Earth raises the temperature of the Sun.
We know where you’re coming from. You interview solely alarmists scientists, for want of a better word, while avoiding scientists who make sense, like Roy and John.
As you say David Appell is not worthy to pass judgement on his betters. He is like that mangy little cur that yaps at majestic horses.
The horses may mis-step or even stumble from time to time but they are still majestic while that cur is…….what he is.
Gordon: IR from the Earth *does* raise the temperature of the sun. Unless you think radiation carries no energy.
Now let’s talk about the UAH sign-error….
“IR from the Earth *does* raise the temperature of the sun. Unless you think radiation carries no energy.”
Do two bodies facing each other with a field of view of unity at the same temperature get hotter? Answer: It depends.
I don’t know what “Field of view of unity” means.
Field of view is the most important parameter for radiation to warm another body. You should look it up and read about it. Unity means the field of view is 1.0. Field of view can vary from zero to one.
Correction: That would be for “another radiating body” rather than generic “radiation”.
bill hunter says: “It depends.”
On what?
It depends because its impossible to stop the flow of heat so heat is always flowing at some rate. If heat is moving through walls and you insulate the last wall both opposing walls will warm. If you insulate the wall where the heat is incoming both walls will cool.
OK.
As Roy has pointed out, you have unqualified reviewers rejecting papers.
Peer review was not initially meant to reject papers from legitimate scientists, it was meant as a screen to keep laymen from publishing nonsense in scientific journals.
No qualified scientist should have a paper rejected.
The case of Barry Marshall should be held up as proof that peer review is rotten. He found that stomach ulcers are caused by heliobacter pylori, a bacteria that can live in stomach acid.
When he submitted a paper to that effect he was rejected with the journal editor listing his paper as one of the ten worst papers ever. Marshall proved his case by drinking a fluid containing H. Pylori and he because ill, with serious stomach issues and foul breath. He cured himself using antibiotics.
Following that proof, his paper was published and went on to be one of the most important scientific papers ever in medicine.
Peer review should be scrapped under its present form. There is no need to reject a paper from someone like Roy, and when climate poobahs like Kevin Trenberth can interfere in the process due to their status on IPCC reviews (both Coordinating Lead Authors), causing a journal editor to resign, then peer review has become political and biased.
Comment from Phil Jones of Had-crut in the Climategate email scandal re papers from UAH:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” vowed Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Jones and Trenberth were both co-ordinating lead authors on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, published in 2007.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/05/remote_sensing_editor_resigns/
How deep does the peer review rot go?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
That Guardian article mentions the tribalism of science which has got even worse with the passage of time.
Pushback is long overdue starting with cutting back on government funding of junk science.
Any progress on finding your missing 150 W/m2?
Generally if a paper makes dramatic claims extra careful review more necessary. For example in mathematics Shinichi Mochizuki claimed proof of a famous unsolved problem. Others have been reviewing his work for years and have not yet verified it.
What better proof of the weakness inherent in peer review than the January 2009 paper by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and their paper entitled Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’?
This is the original ‘97% of scientists agree’ publication.
How this got through peer review I can’t imagine.
The ‘proof’ that the paper was wrong is what?
Nate: clearly you’ve never bothered to read this paper.
For your benefit, here’s how the time-worn statement that ‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ was derived in the paper I’ve mentioned.
Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
These were:
1)‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
2)‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2 mins to complete’ and was administered online.
Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to the most knowledgeable.
Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%.
Nate: the computer system has somewhat mangled my above reply en route, but you should be able to check the figures for yourself. The paper is a nonsensical statistical fiddle, yet got past peer review and into print.
My 7.51 am post has now been sorted out and can be easily read – thank you Dr. Spencer!
Roy has touched on an important point. Specialists are trained to do research not evaluate it. Every speciality in science, medicine, and economics needs a shadow speciality, meaning one having people trained and tasked with finding errors in that speciality’s research. Rewards in the latter field wouldn’t come from discovering something new and exciting. They’d come from exposing errors.
Baloney. Part of doing research is accurately understand and incorporating prior research.
Professional peer review has its own set of standards and procedures.
A good read is Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Unfortunately scientists are a lot like many students who cram for an exam where the questions come straight out of the required reading textbook. Rote memory trumps understanding. Crichton’s story is largely developed on the tendency to take as gospel every sentence in a science study, even stuff that study did absolutely nothing to test. His plot added to that tendency a lot of bargaining by the study funders for speculative statements to be added in surrounding what actually was tested. These speculative statements then became facts in future studies. In my profession every single statement needs to be tested. Likewise peer review reviews tests for validity and mathematical accuracy. We even go so far to pull literature off client shelves that aren’t in the financial statements we write opinions on to help ensure consistency of message. That completeness is what sets professions apart from academia.
You’re a fool if you’re taking your science from Michael Crichton. He has no relevant expertise here.
That actually is not true. Crichton was a degreed biologist who worked in the field for sometime before taking up fiction writing. He spend enough time in the field to see how the sausage was made.
From 1966 to 2000 there were 100,000 published papers on “Reading Reasearch”. The National Reading Panel (NRP) headed by Donald Langenberg and concluded that only 428 of them met the standards .normally used in medical and behavioral research.
Thus about 0.4% met the panel’s standards, implying that the remaining 99.6% were not fit to advise public policy relating to teaching children to read.
So what are the standards used in medical and behavioral research? One issue is the statistical tests that apply. In behavioral research a “Two sigma” level is considered adequate whereas a “Three sigma” or better standard applies in “Hard Science”.
How many “Climate Science” papers would meet the standards of “Hard Science”? IMHO very few. Perhaps 1% will meet the lower standards that the NRP applied.
The important question is why do governments continue to throw money away on research that is mostly junk?
Then where are all your published disproofs of all these allegedly wrong papers? Should be easy based on your claim….
Easy? Actually not. A paper does not need to be wrong to be junk.
Again professions approach these problems with standards. A standard setting body whether it be governmental or professional body promulgates exacting standards to met by professionals working in the field. A reviewer or person familiar with the both the field and standards can fully comprehend the results of the work by understanding the standards under which the work is completed.
In many life sciences standards are difficult to set. In such cases often the approach is to use multiple approaches to find answers most consistent across multiple methods. Often this is inconclusive and estimates end up proving wrong. You are going to be wrong a lot more often if you cherry pick your methodologies to produce desired results.
In Climate Science the most interesting blog to watch from a peer review point of view has been Climate Audit because Steve McIntyre is a professional at exposing statistical junk in such matters as mine salting.
Where are Steve McIntyre’s published papers on all these errors? (Blog posts aren’t science.)
DA: your obsession with published papers is wearisome, to say the least. Do you really think think that someone’s views and criticisms are automatically invalid unless they’re published? Do you really think that the things that come out in coffee breaks in academic departments everywhere have no relevance unless they’re peer reviewed and published somewhere? Don’t be absurd – if a professional statistician has a comment or two to make about a paper, then it’s time to listen. If a biologist lists several possible causes for the death of some species of marine life in a given stretch of ocean or river it’s time to listen. Then there’s the research carried out in industry – confidential for commercial reasons, and then patented if promising. Who cares if Steve McIntyre has published papers or not on areas of concern? The important fact is whether he right or not, or perhaps raising an issue that needs further investigation. You are simply putting up a feeble reason to discredit everything that gets raised on a blog. True enough, nonsense does of course get onto blogs – but interesting and relevant matters are raised as well, so don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
What the other guy said plus: Some of McIntyre’s work has been upheld by the NAS. The guy actually is the kind of peer reviewer that peer reviewers should be like, including his skill set for such a job is impeccable. The only reason guys like Steve McIntyre aren’t doing peer review is because nobody wants to pay for it. Peer review in the professions is a compensated activity often using both internal peer review and external peer review. In fact, an audit of financial statements of a company is very much like a peer review except that the auditors are not the peers of the business they audit.
Now if journals actually had an established professional peer review process then they could hold their head higher, but they don’t.
DA…or Anal Dave…”Where are Steve McIntyres published papers on all these errors? (Blog posts arent science.)”
Where in the scientific method is peer review required or published papers?
BTW…Mac’s partner, McKittrick has many published papers.
bill…”n Climate Science the most interesting blog to watch from a peer review point of view has been Climate Audit because Steve McIntyre is a professional at exposing statistical junk in such matters as mine salting”.
Steve Mac with his statistics partner, Ross McKiitrick, put the boots to the hockey stick. They exposed it as amateur math and their persistence forced the US government to investigate the chicanery. Eventually, the IPCC were forced to distance themselves from their former poster child study.
Mac went after the Had-crut record through Phil Jones, who refused him access to the data. Being a friend of Michael Mann of hockey stick fame he expressed fear that Mac would do the same to him.
Would someone please explain to me how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns warms water given that ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR? Shouldn’t we first explain how CO2 warms water before we focus on the calculation errors? The entire concept is wrong from its start. The very fact the oceans are warming proves CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming.
CO2 warms the atmosphere.
The warmer air warms the ocean at the air-ocean boundary.
CO2’s signature isn’t even measured until you are up over 3km, and CO2 acts to cool, not warm the upper atmosphere. H2O saturates the lower atmosphere so CO2 is irrelevant. Just go use MODTRAN.
Saturation of absorp_tivity does not necessarily imply saturation of consequences. Emission from the atmosphere to Earth depends on emissivity (absorp_tivity) in MODTRAN & it also depends on the atmospheric temperature profile.
ball4…”Emission from the atmosphere to Earth depends on emissivity”
Sorry, it depends on temperature.
You don’t know what you are writing about Gordon.
CO2…”Would someone please explain to me how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns warms water given that ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR?”
It can’t warm water unless it has a higher temperature than the water. Even at that, with a water mass the size of an ocean, it would take a whole lot of warmer CO2 to warm the oceans just a little bit.
The atmosphere does not have a whole lot of CO2.
Peer review is meaningless because the state of the science of climatology has been consumed by man made global warming.
Some how the current state of climatology is obsessed in trying to show how relevant man made global warming is despite the current temperature of the climate , rate in temperature change of the current climate , length of temperature change of the current climate, in no way being any different in any shape ,manner or form from all previous climatic changes when viewed against the historical climatic record.
To take it further the recent warmth coming out of the Little Ice Age has been mild in contrast to earlier times.
I also strongly believe that the run up in global temperatures recently has ended and now a down trend has just become established.
The seeds of this down trend were put into place around 2005 when natural climatic factors started to change and this change is still taking place. All natural factors are now in a down turn (led by solar)and this is going to continue as we move forward.
The item I am watching with keen interest is overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which should start to show a more definitive trend down as time moves forward. In addition geological activity ,snow cover, cloud cover on a global basis should continue to increase, while the atmospheric circulation features a more meridional pattern with lowering heights overall (500mb level for example).
All the above moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field, but instead of the science of climatology being devoted to all the areas I have just mentioned along with looking at the historical climatic record , it instead is transfixed on the global man made fiasco and trying relentlessly to prove this is what governs the climate. What a waste of time and this happens day in and day out as is evidenced by the latest article Dr. Spencer has just posted. We all relentless discuss the man made global warming scam in one form or another over and over and over again.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
February 20, 2018 at 6:37 PM
“Year 2018 the year AGW ends. Oceanic global temperatures only +.15c or so above means will be going lower and albedo is going to increase slightly all due to very low sustained solar activity.
“Very confident.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-288281
Actual oceanic SST: +0.3 C and rising:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
CO2isLife,
Re:LWIR cant heat water
This has been thoroughly debunked many times. I have explained it to you several times. Each time you ignore it, or are unable to refute it.
And again you have amnesia. Go back and look.
Nate, I sincerely apologize for not seeing your previous responses. If you have evidence that CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water I’d love to see it. Do you have the results of an actual experiment? Everything I’ve read makes it very clear that LWIR won’t penetrate water, that the energy in those wavelengths don’t contain much energy, and the fact that the air above the oceans is saturated with H2O that also absorb 13 to 18 micron LWIR CO2 is essentially insignificant. MODTRAN and a GasCell outputs also tell that same story. Here are my questions and I would greatly appreciate your response:
1) Do you have access to a lab and have you demonstrated that LWIR between 13 and 18 will warm water and not cool it through evaporation? There is a paradox here in that the evaporated water absorbs 13 to 18 LWIR.
2) LWIR between 13 and 18 is longer than the wavelength emitted by ice, how could those wavelengths melt ice? Ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR?
3) The air above the oceans holds 400 ppm CO2 but up to 4 parts per 100 of H2O. Any LWIR absorbed by CO2 that isn’t absorbed by H2O is of a negligible amount and what energy is absorbed would quickly defused to other molecules other than CO2.
4) The GasCell clearly demonstrates that more CO2 doesn’t “trap” more LWIR, it is already fully absorbed by 2 meters and you can’t “trap” more than 100%. More CO2 simply marginally lowers the height at which 100% is absorbed.
5) Have you run an experiment with 4% H2O and 400 ppm, 4% H2O and 200 ppm CO2, and 4% H2O and 0 PPm CO2 and recorded the marginal temperature differences of the water? If I heat a pool or water to a certain temperature, expose it to those various atmospheres, does the one with more CO2 cool at a slower rate? That is a pretty simple experiment to run as long as you do it in a thermos with a black body absorber as the top.
If someone would run that above experiment and show the results I’ll gladly accept that CO2 can, in fact, warm water.
“If I heat a pool or water to a certain temperature, expose it to those various atmospheres, does the one with more CO2 cool at a slower rate?”
i.e. in the ocean surface-atm. system, “Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body?” that is free to evaporate.
“I sometimes see the claim (usually in comments on a blog post) that infrared radiation cannot warm a water body, because IR only affects the skin surface of the water, and any extra heating would be lost through evaporation.”
“As can be seen in the 5 minute temperature data overnight, the cooler with the IR shield stayed a little warmer.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comments
CO2islife,
1. Yes did an experiment using an IR ceramic heater (T=300 C) held a few inches above water. It rapidly heats the water.
Liquid water is a good black-body in IR, so of course it should abs*orb IR over a broad range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absor*ption_by_water
remove * to link
Why wouldnt it?
People say that mid IR only penetrates a micron.
Not a problem. The HEAT will penetrate a distance 750 microns ~ 1 mm in 1 s via conduction or 0.75 centimeters in 100 s.
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/heat-penetration-calculator#|timeinput_1
In fact, in the experiment, I probed temperature vs depth of the water with a thermocouple. The top surface 1 mm warmed quickly, but the heat penetrated to centimeters below the surface within minutes.
The IR spectrum of the ocean as viewed from space.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
You can clearly see that in the IR atm window, @ 10 microns, the ocean is emitting lots of IR to space. That is how remote sensing of ocean temp from space works!
While @ 13-18 microns, much of that radiation is getting abs*orbed by the atmosphere.
The CO2 GHE over the ocean in action…
And right on cue, CO2islife ignores facts that refute his claims, as he did many times before.
He will return in a few weeks to repeat the claims.
Nate I sent the explanation below it is so clear cut that CO2 does not warm the oceans.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TO AROUND ITEM 24 IT EXPLAINS WHY CO2 DOES NOT WARM THEOCEANS.
Item 24 shows CO2 does warm the oceans. Perhaps Salvatore points to the wrong item.
I read it differently and the point is CO2 does not warm the oceans and that is why it is on that list.
Here’s what I’m reading for #24 Salvatore, perhaps you are reading another item. Small ocean temperature warming but huge, huge amount of added thermodynamic internal energy in all that water.
Type of prediction Ocean warming
Actual measurements Warming of about 0.06 C over 50 years.
ACTUAL OCEAN WARMING – over past 50 years is not due to IR /CO2 , he is saying it is due to solar this is why he rates the model prediction on this item as being proven wrong.
That is why he is up to 24 wrong model predictions after evaluating this topic.
How much clearer can it be.
Score
0-1-0
Scoring is won-lost-tie system. A win means models and observations reasonably agree. A loss means significant disagreement. A tie means the models or observations give contradictory results.
AGW ocean warming was scored a LOSS – which means significant disagreement and I agree with him, who is Joe D’ Aleo. His web site is icecap
Salvatore del prete says:
May 1, 2018 at 9:46 AM
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“ACTUAL OCEAN WARMING over past 50 years is not due to IR /CO2 , he is saying it is due to solar this is why he rates the model prediction on this item as being proven wrong.”
Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. So how can it be responsible for warming?
TSI reconstruction/measurements 1610-2020:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
The links he gives as sources are no longer available. There is no way to check if his writing is based on actual measurements or how they were done. Peer review is not even possible in this case. So it could be much more clear.
Dr. Spencer’s actual measurements and how they are done are consistent with what the author writes for 15 micron radiation so this passes peer review:
Type of prediction: Ocean warming
Actual measurements: Warming of about 0.06 C over 50 years.
Unclear is what the models show for warming caused by direct heating of thermal radiation at 15 microns since the links can’t be used for that purpose nor does the author specify the amount.
Apparently, the author gave the models a fail because actual measurements show much less direct heating of thermal radiation at 15 microns of 0.06 C over 50 years than an unknown amount of warming he claims the models show. No peer review possible but Salvatore gives it a pass anyway. Read the top post article again Salvatore, it is about failed peer review like you are doing here.
So I’d say your link is very unclear Salvatore & I would not pass it in current form.
David Appell: “Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. So how can it be responsible for warming?”
Actually its the mid 1980’s. But I am surprised you would ask that question. Haven’t you heard about feedback?
It does seem apparent on most graphs of natural warming and cooling of the planet that cooling appears to proceed more slowly than warming. About 1/2 to 1/4 the pace. It took over a century (after smoothing out multi-decadal oscillations in the record) to achieve about a degree of warming, maybe less depending upon the smoothing algorithm. Does that mean for that warming to go away will take 2 to 4 centuries? Seems plausible it could.
I don’t pretend to know the answers but what I do know is most people aren’t patient enough to deal with longterm issues. People get excited by ice and the Northwest passage opening and fail to note that it opened at the beginning of the previous century, closed, opened again at the middle of the previous century, closed, then opened again in 2007. Then they publish 40 year charts of declining ice and moan about the pending doom. Its all insane!
Simply put, where clouds decrease in amount, the water warms. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. A handy plot of the ISCCP results can be found as Figure 3 a
The above is right from item 24.
Ball it has nothing to do with CO2. Give it up. Asinine ,but then again the whole AGW theory is asinine.
That item is from the link which no longer works.
In your clip context they apparently mean where clouds decrease in amount the solar SW increases. The phrase ocean warming is from the initially absorbed LW IR energy at 15 micron earlier.
salvatore…”IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TO AROUND ITEM 24 IT EXPLAINS WHY CO2 DOES NOT WARM THEOCEANS.”
There’s a perfectly obvious reason. The ocean water and the atmosphere immediately above it must be in thermal equilibrium. There can be no heat transfer at thermal equilibrium.
The higher you go in the atmosphere the colder it gets. Heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
SW solar energy can warm the water, as you know, because it has the required energy to raise the electrons in the H and O atoms to higher energy levels. CO2 radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot do that.
Reputable journal type peer review would have prevented Gordon 1:43am from being published. Another example of peer review issues.
A great snowstorm in the states of Pennsylvania and New York.
How IR warms the oceans.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/11/eli-explains-it-all-how-back-radiation.html
entropic man it is more AGW BS! Then again everything they say is BS!
Speaking of BS….
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 6:47 AM
“I said year 2017 is going to be a transitional year in the climate.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
—
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 2, 2018 at 6:13 AM
“Year 2018 is the first year I ever said was a transitional year.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-314681
David global temperatures are in a down trend now not an uptrend.
Since when? Since the largest el Nino of the 21st century?
Salvatore: Prove it.
Salvatore should then do a peer review of EM’s link and explain where the BS is found, why, and which proper experiment has been reported supporting Salvatore’s review.
The article is based on in situ testing so Salvatore needs to find errors made in the experiments.
Salvatore is too emotionally invested to actually look at the science — even his own.
This “bunny” clown is the same one that promoted the “blue/green plate” nonsense.
And, the adoring groupies tag along, seemingly hoping for some kind of “bunny blessing”!
Pseudoscience, and “group think”, on parade.
Eli explains it by assuming backradiation “warms” the skin layer. Somewhat different than David’s “warms the atmosphere. The warmer air warms the ocean at the air-ocean boundary”
This is the smoking gun of CO2 alarmism. Few people can agree on how it works.
Eli explains it with an energy model. David uses the more controversial ‘warming’ language. The descriptions are not mutually exclusive.
It’s not that difficult. The Earth system has a vertical temperature profile that is, on average, fairly stable. The surface is warmer than either direction. It cools from the sea surface down deeper into the ocean, and also cools the higher you go through the troposphere from the surface.
Laws of thermo are that if any part of a steady-state, stratified thermal system warms (or cools), the rest of the layers warm (or cool) in response. EG, If the colder, deeper oceans warm – say from massive increase in submarine volcanic activity – then the top part of the oceans will also get warmer.
2nd Law fanatics who get it wrong would need to explain why the oceans and atmosphere are not a uniform temperature – why there is always a stable temp gradient (for the global average).
If they can explain why the temp gradient does not decay to a uniform temp at all depths and altitude, then maybe they can begin to understand why temperature change in one layer influences the other layers similarly.
Well correct me if I am wrong, but Eli says: “Now comes the elegant part, back radiation warms the skin layer. That means back radiation decreases the temperature difference between the skin layer and the mixing layer, Since convection depends on temperature difference, the rate of heat loss from the mixing layer decreases.”
Seems Eli says it warms the “cool” skin layer. So I have no idea what you are getting at. David says it warms the atmosphere which then warms presumably the skin layer. What many say is it energizes evaporation, cooling the skin layer and transporting heat via latent heat up into the atmosphere. To me it seems inconsistent between David and Eli, not the only time I have seen inconsistency. The first time I saw it as a massive condition was when Gerlich and Tscheuschner published a paper refuting the greenhouse theory and a blog was formed to create a reply to them. Hundreds of posts on that blog produced no reply because nobody could agree exactly about how Gerlich and Tscheuschner were wrong. Eventually somebody published a “slowing of cooling” reply a theory that has no need for a concept of backradiation warming the skin layer.
I didn’t check Entropic’s link – assumed it was to Eli’s green plate post. That’s strictly an energy equation.
So yes, Eli talks more of heat and temperature in his post on ocean heating.
Both actions occur – the atmosphere does warm because of GHGs, and SSTs and deeper warm as a result: if one layer of the atmos/ocean gets warmer, it slows the cooling rate of adjacent layers, and those layers warm also. And the ocean skin gets warmer because of back radiation (which includes the observation that the near-skin atmospheric layer is now warmer – warmer objects radiate more intensely). The same principle of slowed cooling applies for both, but the point of focus is slightly different in David ad Eli’s description. Eli is a bit more detailed, too.
The actual processes and qualifiers are so voluminous it would take pages. Every short-form description of the GH effect in situ is always a compromise between the naked complexity and digestibility. Anyone who wants a deeper explanation should start with Manabe and Wetherald (1967), and probably onto Ramanathan and Coakley (1978).
entropic…”How IR warms the oceans.”
Eli Rabbett was schooled on this by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They pointed out to him that the 2nd law is about heat, not IR.
Poor old Eli fails to get that and he will keep on rambling about heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer ocean that warmed the atmosphere.
None of the sources demonstrate that LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water. For a “settled science” I would expect proving that CO2 can warm water would be a starting point, not a point that is never definitively addressed. My bet is that experiments have been run but the results are simply too devastating to the cause.
The key is you have to control for LWIR other than 13 to 18 microns. That hasn’t been done.
The experiment is very simple:
Experiment #1 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 0 PPM
Experiment #2 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 200 PPM
Experiment #3 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 400 PPM
Experiment #4 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 800 PPM
Any University Chemistry Lab should be able to run that experiment.
Your LWIR source is not from the total atm., you will need to get a flask as tall as the atm. for the proper optical depth. Dr. Spencer has already done that for you & with which to practice your peer review skills:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comments
That experiment doesn’t control for the marginal impact of CO2. No one denies the entire IR spectrum can warm water, in fact, I’m pretty sure it does. CO2 only radiates 13 to 18 micron. Someone needs to run the experiment to isolate the impact of additional CO2 on water temperature.
“That experiment doesn’t control for the marginal impact of CO2.”
Not relevant, CO2 is well mixed gas. There was no measurable change in CO2 ppm overnight or explain how you think it could change the results for peer review around here.
Dr. Spencer performed his experiment on the full atm. with natural LWIR & the results are the same physics as is happening in ocean waters overnight. You still need a flask as tall as the atm. for what you propose – simply not needed, use the atm.
Very simple. Multiple samples of water with varying amounts of CO2. Water warmed to identical temperatures, placed an insulated container with a blackbody lid. Measure the cooling rate of water exposed to varying concentrations of CO2. That isn’t rocket science.
Convection?
Horizontal heat transfer?
Vertical heat transfer?
Polar amplification?
Clouds?
“.. blackbody lid.”
Doesn’t exist.
“placed an insulated container”
Sure. Again, to to replicate Dr. Spencer’s results you will need to fund an insulated container ~100km tall, filled with atm., and through which icy cirrus pass.
And which (also) allows horizontal heat transfer.
Also, transfer into the land and ocean beneath the atmosphere. And out of them.
Ball 4- YOU CAN SPIN IT ALL YOU WANT YOU ARE WRONG AS USUAL.
It is not me Salvatore, I’m entirely using your source info. Practice your own peer review on your source Salvatore – why did you give it a pass without being able to check its references?
BALL it is you . I am very familiar with the person that wrote this which was done 10 years ago. I have known about it for 10 years not just now.
The reference is the person who wrote it . Let’s not start with peer review which is a bunch of crock.
Do your own peer review then Salvatore, contact your familiar person and get the links refreshed. Advise when you havwe them. Let some sun shine on them. Let the rest of us be able to check. Or do you prefer no FOIA, no sunlight. We all know where that has gone.
I prefer in this environment no sunlight
So Salvatore disagrees with the top post, the paper should have had no further peer review once it was published in Nature. In this environment I prefer sunlight on papers.
ball4…”Do your own peer review then Salvatore….”
Only butt-kissers need peer review.
DAVID- the problem for you and AGW is the global temperatures are no longer increasing and this has been going on for quite sometime.
Natural factors which were in an explosive warm mode last century started to turn into a cold mode in year 2005 and now the impacts of this are JUST starting to be felt upon the climate.
I may be fast with my prediction but the trend is going my way not yours. I rather be early then late when making this kind of a prediction. Err on the early side.
It is not a problem for AGW in a future period of the global temperatures no longer increasing & that circumstance going on for quite sometime. That has happened several times already over 2-5 years in the current UAH record. See Dr. Spencer’s last top post to complete your peer review.
When, if, the black line is drawn lower then it will be interesting what points discussions will cover.
ball – what is you point?
Point is this is wrong: “the problem for you and AGW is the global temperatures are no longer increasing”
There is no problem, that has already ocurred without problems for AGW.
ok ball, keep the scam alive.
Arrogant words for someone who’s EVERY predication has failed.
Salvatore, I keep no scam alive. Big scams do not survive proper peer review in any big way. As in the top post, there are errors that proper peer review can discover sometimes after publication date. This is what the test of time means, that is a hard one to pass.
ball4…”As in the top post, there are errors that proper peer review can discover sometimes”
How can proper peer review be done by one or two anonymous reviewers? And why should an editor have the power over whether or not a paper is correct?
In the time of Einstein, a journal editor refused to publish a paper from E because the idiot editor did not think it made sense.
Personally I wouldn’t call one or two proper, I’d just call that peer review. Any journal has a reputation to gain & protect, the more proper the review, the better the journal reputation over time.
Journals have a range of reputations. Editors have a range of accomplishments. Facts of life.
Gordon Robertson says:
In the time of Einstein, a journal editor refused to publish a paper from E because the idiot editor did not think it made sense.
1) Which paper?
2) So what?
Actually Gordon, the informed, critical, one & only peer reviewer didn’t think it made sense & the paper was corrected by Prof. Einstein before being published (in another journal of course!). The peer review process has had a lot of evolution.
A good read in the context of the top post, in part, covers some of the evolution.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.2117822
Ball, thanks for that link. Peer reviewed worked.
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
DAVID- the problem for you and AGW is the global temperatures are no longer increasing and this has been going on for quite sometime.
False.
Linear trends for UAH LT v6.0:
5yr trend: +0.30 C/dec
10yr trend: +0.29 C/dec
15yr trend: +0.18 C/dec
20yr trend: +0.13 C/dec
25yr trend: +0.10 C/dec
30yr trend: +0.14 C/dec
why does it go back up at 30 years?
Because the influence of the 1998 el Nino on the trend is less pronounced when it is nearer the middle of the time series, rather than near one end. Once you get past 30 years in satellite data, the el Nino blips have less influence.
Eg, the trend 1979 to 2015 was 0.114 C/decade, and after the 2016 el Nino, that jumped up a whopping 0.01 C/decade to 0.125 C/decade.
With a long enough times series the big spikes and troughs make less of a difference. The periods DA chose are pretty short to begin with.
@David Appell
“Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. So how can it be responsible for warming?”
Simple, fewer clouds. That is in fact what has happened. It isn’t how hot the sun it, it is how much radiation reaches the surface, mostly the oceans, that matters.
Evidence for fewer clouds?
David Appell “Evidence for fewer clouds?”
If I produce it would you admit that I am correct? Would you admit that it makes sense that fewer clouds would likely result in a warmer ocean? How about if I even produce data showing a sharp decline in clouds right when temperatures step up in 1997? If you agree to admit that you were wrong and I am right if I produce such evidence, simply go visit my blog. It is the current post.
Evidence for fewer clouds?
CO2 IS LIFE- Solar activity has been decreasing for the last 50 years but from such a high level that it did not become sufficiently weak to have an overall cooling impact upon the climate until 2005.
Now we are seeing the start. 1st inning of cooling.
Thanks, my point was to highlight how even with a cooler sun you can have a warming globe. I as you expect cooling to begin shortly, if not already.
There are two aspects, 1) Radiance from the Sun and 2) irradiance of the surface. A hot sun with plenty of clouds means a cooling globe. A cool sun and no clouds and you get a warming earth.
Evidence?
PS: Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
Very good point CO2 is Life.
So is water. Does that mean no one drowns?
DA, is there any reality you can’t pervert?
There is a Nobel Prize in SCIENCE awaiting anyone that can develop a simple experiment to isolate the marginal impact of CO2 on water temperature. There are no experiments supporting CAGW. That one simple experiment could destroy the entire foundation of CAGW. Talk about revolutionary, disruptive, earth-shattering discovery.
Just a few observations supporting AGW:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
David, where is a simple experiment demonstrating that the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 can warm water? That is a simple experiment that isolated the affect CO2 has on temperature.
Also, think about that study you highlight in Nature. The one thing you need to do is control for atmospheric H2O. The one thing they didn’t do was control for atmospheric H20. It is as if they didn’t want to do a valid study. If they did, they would have done it in the driest part of Antarctica. They didn’t. They also could have done the same experiment in a flask in a lab. They didn’t. That study simply provided fodder for people that want to make it look like actual experimental evidence to support CAGW. It doesn’t.
co2…”where is a simple experiment demonstrating that the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 can warm water?”
There is none. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler source to a warmer target, especially a target that warmed them in the first place.
Heat can not be transferred from to anywhere as heat does not exist in nature – per Clausius. An object’s thermodynamic internal energy however can be increased and decreased by radiative, conductive and convective means.
Gordon, I would make one correction to that comment. Energy can go from cold to hot when energy is changed in form.
A cold match can suddenly ignite as chemical energy is converted to kinetic/thermal/radiative energy.
Very cold EM Radiation traveling through outer space can suddenly become hot as it hits our thermosphere and converted from cold em radiation to hot thermal energy.
But yes, heat normally transfers from hot to cold when it is all in the same form. The problem is the GHG effect is about converting one form of energy to another.
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler source to a warmer target
A gross misunderstanding of the 2LOT.
The Earth radiates in all directions. Some of that radiation reaches the Sun. Where does that radiation go — cite the science.
“Energy can go from cold to hot when energy is changed in form.”
The key to understanding that sort of process is the important use of the word energy.
No, the use of the word energy isn’t important.
Heat is being transferred from cold to hot *constantly* throughout the universe.
Or does your hand perceive a block of ice to be at zero Kelvin?
Energy is being transferred from cold to hot & hot to cold *constantly* throughout the universe.
Net energy however, one direction in any defined process, always, universe entropy must increase in a real process. The root cause is thermodynamics is a field of macro averages & that means fluctuations about that avg. always…ALWAYS exist.
You can use the word heat in any way you want David, heat doesn’t exist in nature, since precision experiments ruled heat out of physical existence in Clausius time – that’s a reason he set about writing the book.
Heat is the cause of, and solution to, all AGW problems.
Ball4 says:
Net energy however, one direction in any defined process
So?
The heat being transferred from cold to hot HAS A PHYSICAL EFFECT no less than that being transferred from hot to cold.
The former doesn’t just magically disappear into thin air, as some here seem to believe.
Heat has no physical existence in an object David, thus something that isn’t in an object can not transfer from that object to start not existing in another object.
Avoid the term heat and you will begin to make more sense, and write more sense, about the natural thermo. world around you.
Ball4 says:
Heat has no physical existence in an object
Then what’s in an Thanksgiving oven?
A processed turkey full of thermodynamic internal energy and sometimes stuffing. At a temperature (avg. KE) long enough to make the popper pop.
You wrote “Heat has no physical existence in an object.” So you can touch a Thanksgiving turkey and not get burned?
Sure. You can eat them too. But watch out if the avg. KE of the turkey’s constituent particles (temperature) is high enough, you might get burned.
David, from your linked abstract
“The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processesmost importantly the hydrological cyclethat are not well understood”
Why don’t these “scientists” simply isolate the effect in a lab?
co2…”Why dont these scientists simply isolate the effect in a lab?”
Because they lack the ability. None of them understand hard science.
Sadly I’m beginning to reach that exact same conclusion…and I’m not joking.
Gordon: Describe the lab that includes all the relevant climate features on Earth.
Describe the lab that includes all the relevant climate features on Earth.
BTW, David, the fact that you can’t produce evidence to prove your position greatly strengthens mine. The “evidence” you are producing pretty much proves that the entire field of climate science hasn’t even bothered to validate its most basic requirements. They do “experiments” without even considering the scientific method or appropriate controls. They reach conclusions based on faulty scientific practices. Your “evidence” does more to discredit climate science than to bolster its credibility.
My request is very simple, show me a simple CONTROLLED experiment isolating the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron on water. That simply experiment will determine the credibility of the entire field of climate science. If the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can’t warm water it is game over for the hoax. It is that simple.
Fund & build a flask with an optical depth same as the natural atm. and the experiment will perform as does the atm. Once you have done that, report to a proper atm. science physics lab to run the controlled experiment for you. Allow them to have a CO2 cloud pass by in view of surface water in the apparatus.
There is no real need as Dr. Spencer has already shown what you seek in how the natural atm. LWIR affects the oceans water temperatures at night. And even how added icy cirrus clouds affect that temperature.
Controlled experiments don’t exist in climate science — it’s an observational science.
Next.
CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron must have the physical properties to do so. Those properties can be demonstrated in a lab. You can’t claim CO2 is warming the oceans without demonstrating that LWIR between 13 and 18 can actually warm water. That is easly demonstrated in an experiment.
BTW, yes a black body lid does exist, simply use a chunk of coal with a cooling line running through it.
Then simply use a chunk of coal with a cooling line running through it on your 100km tall insulated column. Or use the existing atm. such as the night time LWIR results on tubs of water from Dr. Spencer’s already completed experiment. Your choice.
The benefit of an experiment is that it is reproducible. Classrooms across the globe could demonstrate that CAGW is a hoax right in their classrooms. Countless people could repeat the experiment countless times. Real science could be brought to climate science.
Experiments can’t be done in climate science, because there is no control Earth to compare against.
This is true of lots of sciences, including geology, astronomy, medicine and environmental science.
cam…”Science is becoming increasingly tribal….”
I think Feynman expounded on that at one time. He claimed that soft sciences were expounding on science that had no rigour. In other words, they were doing nothing more than opining on a subject and passing their opinions off as fact.
That describes the climate science of the IPCC and its adherents to a tee. Many people calling themselves experts on climate science are nothing more than geographers, economists, and their ilk. They lack the in-depth understanding of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics to make rigourous statements on science.
IMHO, that applies to all climate modellers. Even the more qualified ones like Hansen had a diluted understanding of physics. In the case of Hansen that was because he spent his time as a physicist in astronomy, another soft science.
Gavin Schmidt, a modeler, who now leads NASA GISS, absorbed everything Hansen taught him and Schmidt was a mathematician with a limited understanding of hard physics. Even his guru, Pierrehumbert, seems lacking in the basics of hard physics.
And let’s not forget, that in the Climategate email scandal, Mann referred to his crowd in tribal terms. He regarded anyone outside the clique with venom, casting chauvinist aspersions at Dr. Judith Curry.
Gordon Robertson says:
IMHO, that applies to all climate modellers.
Gordon, your O doesn’t amount to a chipmunk’s turd on a Rocky Mountain.
Yes climate science is a very soft science. Its somewhat akin to fishery science where stock assessments are made with predictions of stock productivity. Fortunately for most fisheries, a generation is not a long period of time.
In climate science everywhere you look the concept of a generation is extremely multifaceted.
Its similar to financial cycles being influenced by greed and panic. All very esoteric but very real influences. Enter the hockey stick in probably an ill-advised effort to limit skepticism that will most likely come to roost as a public distrust of science.
In financial auditing such graphs supporting financial projections are a huge problem, probably the number one issue right behind out and out fraud as a threat to financial stability and far more common than fraud.
Tribal is soft term for a cult.
Though tribal is more precise in regards to denoting primitive aspect.
The Global warming cult is primitive and reactionary.
The same can said about Marxism
If you could show the science was wrong, you would.
But you can’t, so you make all kind of ridiculous and desperate aspersions.
DA, the pseudoscience is wrong. You just are in denial.
So you make up all kinds of ridiculous and desperate aspersions.
By the way, the Resplandy et al results didn’t get much lower after their correction, but do now have a much larger error bar: they went from an oceanic heat uptake of 1.33 0.20 J/yr from 1961-2016 to 1.21 0.72 J/yr, a decrease of 9%.
Put a +/- symbol between the numbers above.
The error bars got so large as to really make the whole study next to meaningless.
“Nic Lewis Owes Resplandy et al an Apology,” 11/15/18
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/11/nic-lewis-owes-resplandy-et-al-apology.html
All those who promote AGW look back words instead of forward in time when trying to defend AGW.
They do that because they mistakenly think natural climate variability was not responsible for the bulk of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age- year 2005.
They have hi jacked natural climatic variability to try to make it validate their false AGW theory. Trying to wrongly convey that some how the present climate is in some way different then it has ever been which is such rubbish.
One look at the historical climatic record shows the climate of today is in no way unique in regards to present temperature, rate of temperature change or persistence of temperature change. Not even close to being unique.
To their dismay the natural factors that were in a warming mode started to change to a colder mode in year 2005, and now after a lag time of 10+years this is starting to become more apparent.
Evidence is all over the place from a stop in the rise of the average global temperature, overall oceanic sea surface temperatures steady at best and no longer rising, to an increase in geological activity ,a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, and greater global cloud /snow coverage.
It is going to be interesting to see how the decline in overall global temperatures takes place. Will it be a slow steady decline like it has been for the past year or two or will it come in jerks of quick drops followed by a period of steady temperatures?
This asinine false theory(AGW) I am very confident of it being in it’s last days as the 1st inning of global cooling has now started to take place.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 28, 2017 at 8:00 AM
“Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273890
Salvatore Del Prete says:
It is going to be interesting to see how the decline in overall global temperatures takes place.
“By post 2014, like I have been saying, the temp. decline will become firmly established,” SvP 3/10/13.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2013-0-18-deg-c/#comment-71361
I might be early but better then being late. Cn not be late because saying it after it happens is useless you have to say before and if I am off some (meaning a little early) so what.
How long do we have to wait before we don;t get cooling before you admit to being wrong?
Awesome climate article at CBS Boston – which is the planet I currently live on
https://goo.gl/PQVs6b
Please note the following points relating to graph of US Northeast Jan-March averages:
(i) The graph was falsely attributed to Weatherbell when it clearly comes from NOAA. It agrees 100% with the NOAA data.
(ii) Despite the article being written this week, the graph stops in 2015. When 2016-18 is included, the trend jumps from -1.5 to -0.3.
(iii) Trend for each quarter (1996-2018):
…….. Jan-Mar: -0.3 F/decade
…….. Apr-Jun: +0.6 F/decade
…….. Jul-Sep: +1.0 F/decade
…….. Oct-Dec: +0.8 F/decade
…….. Annual: +0.5 F/decade
Global annual trend in same period:
…….. (Land and ocean): +0.32F/decade
…….. (Land Only): +0.52
So, in that period, the Northeast has warmed at pretty much the same rate as the global land surface.
So please tell me … why did they cherry pick the first three months of the year? Do you think perhaps that if that negative trend had happened Oct-Dec, that they would have cherry picked that quarter instead. Why did they ignore the last three years? Deliberate deception perhaps? And why did they attribute the graph to Weatherbell?
Final question: Do you believe everything you read in the media? Does it ever occur to you to check the data yourself?
Nicholas Lewis himself on global warming scam in video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpLVRPJnL4M
The error in the Keeling paper was caught after peer-review. Not ideal, but quite normal. Peer-review is necessary, but doesn’t mean a paper is necessarily perfect or even useful. This point doesn’t have much new to offer in Roy’s article.
But it is the launching pad for a claim that peer-review is biased. That claim needs a whole lot more substantiation than just this one paper.
Bias is a fact of life, but science eventually wins. I’m not seeing convincing evidence (plenty of assertion, though) that the system is so broken that the truth is suppressed. The comparison with the social sciences says more tome about the parlous state of social ‘science’ than anything else.
Medical science has had and still does have its share of dross and error getting through peer review. But it works well enough that we live longer and receive better medical care than ever this species has. Science works.
Barry:
Science works; GHG thermageddon is pseudo science. Name the major predictions the latter has got right. I will name the myriad that alarmists have got wrong. The models are basically junk. In science we only need one failure to dismiss the conjecture if its prediction was based on it. Prof Lindzen has called it a religion and should be defunded. Prof Happer talks of proponents with glazed eyes and chanting. Both these two have a very good understanding of this field and have little to gain as they are retired.
But let me tackle your earlier comment.
Eli Rabbett’s model is nonsense if it is designed to explain GHG effect which you now claim. Do you see any plates in the sky, green, blue or any other solid surfaces? His plate effect analogy can easily be shown do disintegrate by changing the ab*sorp*tivity / emi*ssivity which effect then runs in the opposite direction to the GHG conjecture.
We have discussed all this before. You were a participant when I asked him to put it to G&T as a rebuttal to their physics paper. He waffled in his usual cryptic style invoking Feynman diagrams – total crap instead of tackling G&T if he had anything of substance.
G&T clearly state that it is inappropriate to apply the SB relationships to supposed air layers and treat them as surfaces particularly at normal temperatures. Ultimately this is a physics paper which demolishes the GHG conjecture and still stands if no-one can rebut it. Eli Rabbett (Halpern) et al tried and got their butts kicked.
Your comment about a T gradient, which is the lapse rate in air, offers you no solice for the supposed dramatic GHG effect other than they help repair the lapse rate faster. In fact G&T did put out a standard physics treatment of the atmosphere which includes the lapse rate development. Has nothing to do with GHGs. I can dig it out if you wish.
The unmentionable D**C* provided good insights yet I noticed in his sole appearance not long ago you criticized his statement about the lapse rate in the Troposphere yet here you are in agreement. Oh I certainly saw what you did which was to create a straw man dismissing him by saying the Tropopause and Stratosphere had different lapse rates when he had only specified the Troposphere.
Pity he was so rude to Dr Roy and hence barred as he had a some good insights and would have helped control some of the nonsense which seems to have taken hold here.
“GHG thermageddon is pseudo science. Name the major predictions the latter has got right.”
I’m not familiar with ‘GHG thermageddon.’ I’ve never seen the term in formal papers or even mainstream science communication.
If you’re going to use such outlandish language, I wonder if a reasonable conversation is even possible. There are plenty of predictions arising from AGW that have come to pass.
Barry:
As to language I feel quite entitled to use the term “thermageddon” as a descriptor given the coverage of certain key players. Take Hansen and his 350ppm CO2 tipping point, Manhattan under water, CO2 so dire that it needs to be extracted from the atmosphere,
we have reached a point where we have a crisis, an emergency but people don’t know that (2008),
using children to file charges against the Govt on the dangers and his other rants.
Steven Hawking (2018):
“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulfuric acid.”
Alarmism is rife with Gore stating privately that fear is needed. Schneider admitted to exaggeration. Mann of course is unstoppable in using destructive weather events to portend the ominous future due to climate change. Our own GBH is in good shape despite the screeching of Prof Hughes, now feted for his ‘defence of science’ (ahem) when Dr. Peter Ridd in suggesting moderation in the conclusions ultimately got the sack.
Dissenting scientists not welcome; fired, ostracized or branded.
I could go on and spill over into the political narrative which is far worse. Gore’s film is part of school curriculum in places perhaps giving rise to a children’s march on Oz Parliament to protest, I guess reminiscent of the 3rd Crusade.
So where are the scientists protesting this travesty of science; dead on their feet perhaps. Where is the scientific method of settled science which should now be called fiat science judging by the environment and the cabal of scientists teaming up with DAs in the US?
Don’t misunderstand what I am saying; the leadership is the cause. I’m fully aware that there are many scientists just wanting to get on with their job and not have the politics intrude. They have certainly witnessed the fate of any dissenters from the “party line” and simply shut up or move on. I don’t blame them. Those that shut up are not the key players and don’t materially influence the policy decisions.
The facts are that this planet is better than any period in human history if judged by its capacity to provide and sustain humanity.
There is a comparative abundance of food with most of the world now in middle class. This is in no small measure due to increased CO2, higher T and fossil fuels. The biggest issue is International tension but no more than in the Cold War period. Perhaps this is why Angela Merkola criticised Trump for pulling out of Paris accord: ‘he doesn’t understand; this is about cooperation.’ Not a word about the putative dramatic danger of CO2!!!
Hawking’s comments are quite separate from the community of climate scientists. Hansen’s comments speak of an emergency, but not “thermogeddon.”
I have zero interest in what the news media have to say about the science. Hawking was not a climate scientist, and so you are producing the extreme fringes of thought on the matter and asking for a response.
If you want to talk about the science, fine. If you want to talk about the media and extreme quotes, there are no doubt interested parties who love to get into the ‘optics’ of the semi-popular soundbytes.
A California insurance commissioner is now an expert on thermageddon (term attributed by wiki to Greenpeace co-founder Robert Hunter in his 2003 book), more anecdotal evidence of “The Sorry State of Climate Science Peer Review”:
“(Camp Creek Fire) is the deadliest and most destructive fire in California history,” said (California Insurance Commissioner Dave) Jones. “Sadly, this is the new normal for California. And it’s only going to get worse because of climate change.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/fire-plagued-ca-wont-let-insurers-cram-through-big-rate-hikes.html
“His plate effect analogy can easily be shown do disintegrate by changing the ab*sorp*tivity / emi*ssivity which effect then runs in the opposite direction to the GHG conjecture.”
If I decide to intellectually change the working properties of a vacuum cleaner so that it pumps air out of the brush end rather than sucks air in, then I can say it does suck matter into it and doesn’t work as advertised.
Disintegrating the example doesn’t demolish the argument, I’m afraid, and Eli’s green plate is a n elegant explanation of how a cooler object, being warmed, can cause a warmer object to get even warmer – when there is an external heat source supplying steady input to the system.
It is a typical diversion of 2nd Law idiots to remove the external energy source; or to turn one side of the black bodies into a reflective surface, or to make the blue plate transparent.
None of this rebuts Eli’s model, any more than me painting a mirror black proves that mirrors don’t function as advertised.
As for lapse rate, my most recent comment re that has been in reply to someone who said that pressure determines temperature. I pointed out that the lapse rate reversed sign through the stratosphere. Why does it get warmer with altitude in that layer of the atmosphere, even as the pressure decreases?
Because pressure does not determine temperature.
Barry:
There are no lessons for physicists in Eli’s plates none that they don’t already know. If analysis of a system proposed is not allowed then state it. In that way your set of analogies will be able to show that black is white and white is black without scrutiny.
Your vacuum cleaner analogy is equally pointless; vacs come with instructions.
The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system. So we already have a starting problem with the analogy as it is meant to simulate how GHG work in the atmosphere. G&T say in part:
that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
– in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
– in any fundamental work on radiation theory
– that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict each other.
More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education or even to physics training.
The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in question has a physical basis. It does not.
In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
In back tracking through the posts trying to find the D* C* comment to which I had I referred (which I did not find as it was earlier than this month) I came across your diving tank pressure analogy issue. No-one says that pressurizing a tank to a high uniform P and then at equilibrium will be any hotter than its surroundings. Again it is a totally inappropriate analogy and I suggest you read the instructions to understand it. I don’t have a link but this will explain it.
On The Barometric Formulas And Their Derivation From
Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics
Version 2.0 (March 9, 2010) (G&T)
This is based on the Ideal Gas Laws so that it cannot then be used for lapse rate changes in the Tropopause and Stratosphere where other processes dominate. That is why D** C** confined himself to the Troposphere.
In the Stratosphere a mix of chemical reactions take place, abs*orp*tion of UV formation of Ozone and release of heat as well as stratification. One interesting conjecture for the Tropopause is the temporary formation of multimers with changes including latent heat (Rowan Connolly).
Sorry Barry, but a similar post appears much further down…
had been trying to post but the D* C* (but I had more characters) preventing it from posting and finally ended at the end of this file comments.
The earth is considered a closed system.
This. Is. Nonsense.
A closed system is impervious to the transfer or loss of matter or energy to or from that system. That’s clearly not the case with the SUN constantly providing energy to the Earth system.
Eli mentions this in his original green plate example:
“What is happening is that one does not have just a hot body and a cold body, but a really hot body, the sun, constantly heating a colder (much), but still warm body the Earth, which then radiates the same amount of energy to space.”
Eli doesn’t consider the Earth a closed system, so your charge here doesn’t apply to Eli’s model.
Eli also speaks specifically to the motion you’ve mentioned here further down in the comments:
However, and here is what folk miss, if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation, the warm body will become hotter if there is a colder body near it because of the interchange of radiative energy between them.
Eli does not think the Earth is a closed system. The blue plate is the surface, the green plate is the (‘greenhouse’) atmosphere, and his model includes the sun.
There’s even several pictures with the sun included, providing energy to the plate system, which is the analog for the surface and atmosphere.
Eli is quite familiar with 2nd Law idiots forgetting the external heat source. He says in the comments:
“You did notice the heat source off to the left in all those diagrams? Maybe not, but it is hard discussing things with the conveniently oblivious”
The sun is included in Eli’s example. No getting around that with words.
Who the hell says the Earth is a closed system WRT radiation? That’s just nonsense. Even WRT matter the Earth is not a closed system, but it is often treated as such because the exchange is so small. This is absolutely not the case with radiation.
Barry:
Why write all this when you did not check first. Energy entering a closed system has to come from somewhere so what does that have to do with the earth being a closed system?
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
Is this your way of trying to avoid addressing the issues I raised.
“The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system.”
They are both closed, by your definition, Tony.
Both open, wrt energy flow, both closed wrt to matter flow.
“The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system.”
The earth system is a reasonably closed system WITH the atm. in place.
The green plate is added to show the basic 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck Law physics of adding an atm. to a planet so both are dealing with an open system exchanging matter with an outside system.
Only the case with the Green plate IN PLACE is analogous to the Earth, and it is solved with it in place.
The example starts with closed systems Earth w/no atm. and blue plate, both systems in equilibrium.
The example is then turned into two open systems when atm. and green plate are added and disequilibrium results.
The example is then closed again with both atm. and green plate in place at higher mass than original system.
During solar minimum California can not rely on rainfall associated with El Niño.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Sorry.
During solar minimum California can not rely on rainfall associated with El Nino.
Precedent please.
bob…”Precedent please.”
Where’s the precedent that CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere is warming it?
Where’s the scientific evidence that back-radiation from cooler GHGs can raise the temperature of the surface that warmed them?
Where’s the evidence that GHGs can TRAP heat? That’s skin to claiming that gas molecules can trap gas molecules.
“Thats skin to claiming that gas molecules can trap gas molecules.”
HUH???
In a few days, the air from West Siberia will freeze Europe.
Ren you have it so correct and all the signs are starting to come in from an increase in geological activity, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation , to increase in global snow cover/cloud cover, not to mention the global average temperature has stopped rising.
My number one watch is going to be overall average oceanic sea surface temperatures which should continue to decline overall in response to low solar.
Continue to decline? Current temps are what they have been since the end of the 2016 el Nino.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Salvatore, look at the pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-94.05,64.02,340
Yes I see Ren.
Yet again, where is your title, data source and legend?
What I’ve learned from the climate alarmists on this blog:
1) Real Science and Experimentation can’t be applied to climate science because you can’t fit a climate in a bottle.
2) Invalid science experiments qualify as evidence if the results support CO2 as the cause of the warming.
3) When a climate alarmists is given a reasonable experiment to prove or disprove their position they reject it.
4) Climate alarmists always frame the argument so that you have to rely on computer models, and that the outcome is only valid if it supports CO2
5) No non-CO2 centric climate model would ever pass Peer-Review even if it has superior forecasting and R Squared
It simply appears that climate alarmists just want to support a conclusion regardless of its validity.
1) You don’t need a column of atm to test whether or not LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water, that is a simple yes or no question on which all CAGW rests
2) The fact that this question hasn’t been definitively answered proves CLimate Alarmists aren’t seriously seeking the truth
3) A NOBEL Prize in SCIENCE awaits anyone willing to test the hypothesis that CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 warms water.
“1) You don’t need a column of atm to test whether or not LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water, that is a simple yes or no question on which all CAGW rests.”
To answer how the actual atm. optical depth affects surface water, you do need to work with the atm. as did Dr. Spencer – that’s a reason he used that particular setup. Or you don’t understand optical depth.
Besides, you would just reject any experimental yes answer to whether or not LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water as you would criticize the experimenter, the experimenter’s education, or even the results. Others would reject the experiment if the atm. wasn’t involved.
Besides that your experiment is not well posed. As stated, you are just advocating testing the 1LOT which has survived all tests to date. Many are or would judge your experiment as a waste of time.
ball4…”To answer how the actual atm. optical depth affects surface water, you do need to work with the atm. ”
You first need to work with the laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics.
Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
Heat doesn’t exist in an object so it can not be transferred Gordon. Energy can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it perfectly in compliance with the second law.
“Laws of thermo are that if any part of a steady-state, stratified thermal system warms (or cools), the rest of the layers warm (or cool) in response. . . . .2nd Law fanatics who get it wrong would need to explain why the oceans and atmosphere are not a uniform temperature why there is always a stable temp gradient (for the global average).”
I would say most likely essentially the same mechanism, which if so, we would know its not CO2.
bill…”. . . .2nd Law fanatics who get it wrong would need to explain why the oceans and atmosphere are not a uniform temperature why there is always a stable temp gradient ”
To whomever originated the quote…there is a temperature gradient because there is a pressure gradient created by gravity. As pressure decreases, unless there is a significant change in volume to compensate, the temperature has to drop.
Ideal Gas Equation
Re 2nd law fanatics…this is not about the 2nd law. The 2nd law comes into it when alarmists claim heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
Not possible. The pseudo-science of a net energy balance satisfying the 2nd law is hogwash. The 2nd law applies only to heat and a generic energy does not apply.
The 2nd law perfectly allows the claim energy can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it. Gordon needs to understand heat is not contained in an object and also the 2nd law is an entropy law.
The 2nd law does not allow the movement of heat from a cool object to a warm object. From an energy standpoint one can “claim” backradiation, but back radiation is a figment of the current popular notion of light as a particle that transmits in all directions.
When you look closely at the issue its really an unnecessary complication because net sensible heat energy always is moving from the warmer object to the cooler object. I hold the view that its uncertain that anything is warmed by backradiation except in a statistical sense of preventing an object from rapid cooling. At least I have never seen anything exploring the issue deeper.
One can argue that the slowing of cooling provides a higher starting point for when the sun comes back up and results in a higher maximum temperature.
I have my doubts about that and do note that we are not regaled with the statistics (trends in maximum and minimum temperatures) that would say something about that.
I assume we don’t because we never get anything unless it can make an alarmist case. . . .like Dr. Lonnie Thompson’s once annual assessment of the qori kalis glacier that he abruptly stop issuing annual papers on after 2007. Now he writes about other glaciers in that area and sometimes mentions he popped in on qori kalis and apparently had nothing else to write about.
OK, I keep hearing the Climate Alarmist claim that you can’t run experiments in Climate Change. The fact is that you can, and the fact that the Climate Alarmists have avoided doing so raises my suspicions.
1) You don’t need columns of CO2, what you need is the impact of CO2. CO2 isn’t important, the marginal change in W/M^2 is. CO2 doesn’t warm water, LWIR between 13 and 18 micron is claimed to.
2) You can use MODTRAN looking up to identify the marginal impact of CO2 on downward LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.
3) From there all you need is to add an additional 1 to 3 W/M^2 of LWIR between 13 and 18 micron and measure if it slows the cooling of water.
Facts are creative people could easily find experiments to prove the basic fundamentals of Climate Change. They just choose not to.
“2) You can use MODTRAN looking up to identify the marginal impact of CO2 on downward LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.”
No you can not. The program does not re-compute the consequences of changes in LWIR on the atm. temperature profile.
Nice Try Ball4, you seem desperate to prevent someone from disproving the CAGW myth. MODTRAN records the marginal changes of W/M^2 for various amounts of CO2. What you need is the marginal change in W/M^2. CO2 is simply the cause of the change in W/M^2. What is important isn’t the cause but the effect. Once again, that is a Nobel Prize winning experiment if anyone wants to pick it up. My bet is there is no way the marginal change in W/M^2 of 13 to 18 micron LWIR will warm/slow the cooling of water. As I’ve said, ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR. You can’t even melt ice with 13 to 18 LWIR.
“you seem desperate to prevent someone from disproving the CAGW myth.”
Not at all. I’m pointing out where you are wrong about the basic physics.
“What is important isn’t the cause but the effect.”
And the effect of 13-18 LWIR on the surface includes the temperature profile of the atm. Saturation of lines is only part of the effect, you are missing an important basic physics.
Seems you think your ill posed test can have an impact, why not run it and observe the impact it has? Because you know there will be no impact on basic science & it is a waste of time as Dr. Spencer’s experiment is already reasonably good enough.
CO2isLife
YOU: “As Ive said, ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR. You cant even melt ice with 13 to 18 LWIR.”
First Ice emits a lot more than 10.5 micron LWIR. It emits in nearly the entire band of IR. What you refer to might be the peak wavelength for ice at freezing temperature. Wein’s Law.
You can easily melt ice with 13-18 micron LWIR. What matters is the wattage not the wavelength of the EMR. That is why microwave energy can cook food.
I really am clueless of what you are attempting to state.
If you have enough watts of that band it will be absorbed by the ice and melt. You can use a strong IR source and have a filter that only allows this band through.
Ice at near freezing may emit 300 watts/m^2. If the IR through your filter exceeds that wattage then the ice will melt.
@Norman “You can easily melt ice with 13-18 micron LWIR. What matters is the wattage not the wavelength of the EMR. That is why microwave energy can cook food.”
No denying that, but we are dealing with real-world examples where CO2 alters the W/M^2 by very little. No natural source produces the wattage of your microwave oven. The Earth emits around 10 microns, or a temperature of around 18 degree C. My point is that for an object that emits a peak of 15 microns it has a temperature between -50 and -110 degree C. CO2 spectrum is of a very very cold object. My point is that a block of ice is emitting more energy in LWIR than CO2 does. Once again, MODTRAN identifies the W/M^2 emitted by CO2. Shine it on a block of ice. It won’t melt the ice. BTW, that is why the CO2 spike at 15 microns peaks at the 220k. That is the temperature of CO2. No matter how much CO2 you add to the atmosphere it never cracks 220k. Check it yourself in MODTRAN. Also, changing CO2 from 280 to 400 altered the outgoing LWIR by 1.5 W/M^2. Shine that on ice and see what happens. Absolutely nothing.
BTW, if you change the settings on MODTRAN to “Looking up” and measure what W/M^2 is actually directed back towards the earth/oceans to warm them, the change in W/M^2 is less than 1 when you use pre-industrial 280 ppm and today’s 400 ppm. We are told to believe that 0.6 W/M^2 of 13 to 18 Micron LWIR is causing catastrophic climate change and warming the oceans. Does anyone honestly believe that an extra 0.6 W/M^2 of LWIR that doesn’t even penetrate the oceans can warm them?
BTW, 1000 W/M^2 or 0.4 to 0.7 Micron Visible Radiation flys right through the atmospheric window and doesn’t warm the atmosphere. You can shine as many W/M^2 of Radar Radiation on ice and it will just pass through it, so it isn’t just the W/M^2, it is the material that it passes through as well. If the material doesn’t absorb it, the W/M^2 doesn’t matter.
Norman, you STILL can’t spell Wien’s correctly. You just can’t learn.
And, a microwave oven can NOT melt ice. The ice must first start melting due to the ambient temperature, then the microwave can heat the water which can then melt the ice.
Microwaves bounce off ice.
You can’t learn physics, either.
CO2isLife
You could not use the blackbody emission spectrum to determine the temperature of emitting CO2. CO2 only emits in a few bands regardless of how hot the gas is.
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch371/lecture/lecture8/img012.gif
The way you can determine CO2 temperature is to measure the actual energy you receive in the CO2 bands and use CO2 emissivity (which is around 0.20 at sea level pressure).
Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bands of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy. Ice will absorb almost all this energy and hence can be melted by the emission of CO2, it would depend upon the watts of energy emitted by the CO2.
JDHuffman
Again with the poor reading comprehension. Get lost pest.
I am enjoying discussing ideas with CO2isLife. This poster possesses reading skills and is not annoying. They seem interested in trying to figure out the truth and science of the issue. Your goal is to annoy and taunt and troll. Boring crap and you don’t stop doing it. So for the time, if I am not commenting to you, get lost and let adults discuss rational science without the little kid jumping in that doesn’t know how to read.
“Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bands of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy.”
No Norman, the bulk of the energy comes from the 15μ range. That means less energy than from an ice cube!
“Ice will absorb almost all this energy and hence can be melted by the emission of CO2…”
If you did some research, you would find this is incorrect. But, you know how much you despise facts….
JDHuffman
Oh no you posted again!
Here are the facts that you hate.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443824.pdf
Ice absorbs almost the entire band of IR. Basically you don’t know what you are talking about but feel the need to pretend you do.
ME: “Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bands of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy.”
YOU: “No Norman, the bulk of the energy comes from the 15μ range. That means less energy than from an ice cube!”
You don’t know what you are talking about but it seems you must post something. Not sure why you do this.
You can’t understand it, my posts are to a more intelligent poster that might understand the points. Waste of time trying to reason with a foolish person like you. Nothing to be gained by it. You are clueless and too dumb to know it.
Norman, you appear to want to argue with me, but you ended up arguing with yourself, again.
I was referring to only the IR from atmospheric CO2. You are referring to the entire IR spectrum.
You’re welcome to try again.
JDHuffman
I keep forgetting your reading comprehension is almost non existent. I guess I need to consider this when I try to respond to you.
When I stated: “Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bandy process lines of thought. You read each sentence as a separate idea that has no relation to the previous sentence. You are not able to process a rational line of thought. It makes communication with you most impossible.s of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy. Ice will absorb almost all this energy and hence can be melted by the emission of CO2, it would depend upon the watts of energy emitted by the CO2.”
First I put the bands that CO2 emits. The next sentence followed this line of thought. You can’t read properly that things follow a sequence. I used the word “this” to indicate that ice absorbs the two band CO2 emits in. I will just have to realize you have little reading ability and can’t properly process rational sequence of thoughts.
Norman, incoherent and incomprehensible.
Notice in your second paragraph, “When I stated…”, the text in quotations is inaccurate. You never “stated” that.
You’re welcome to try again.
JDHuffman
I have to agree with you on that one. My post was a mess. Not sure what happened. I was pasting a part of another post and it looks like something got deleted and mixed up. But that still does not mean you understand any valid physics.
Norman, read your previous comments. You falsely accused me of problems with “reading comprehension”. Yet it us you that cannot communicate coherently, logically, and maturely. You insulted me, and misrepresented me.
You just got caught again.
The reality is you don’t have a clue. You don’t understand the relevant physics. All you can do is insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
JDHuffman
I will agree with your comment. However just because I made a bobble post does not help your reading comprehension at all. In the case of my post I would agree with you that it was messed up. That does not help all the other posts (that were not messed up) that you could not comprehend.
Norman, you are only “agreeing” because you got caught. You have no interest in learning from your mistakes.
Check your own rambling: “However just because I made a bobble post does not help your reading comprehension at all.”
What the heck does that mean? You’re just desperate.
You can’t communicate properly. You don’t understand the relevant physics. All you can do is insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
But, at least you know how to type.
JDHuffman
Goofy. Whatever you want to believe go ahead. See how many idiots on this blog you are able to convince you know what you are talking about. It looks like a couple here and there. I waste too much time going in endless, mindless, circles when you jump in my posts.
You make this blog most unscientific and ridiculous.
So believe what you want, no one will ever change your mind on anything and I am most grateful your ideas are on no consequence to actual reality. Play on this blog. Your ideas are changing nothing, you are not gaining converts.
Norman offers his usual false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Nothing new.
Ball4 “No you can not. The program does not re-compute the consequences of changes in LWIR on the atm. temperature profile.”
The entire purpose of the experiment is to quantify the Delta Temperature for Delta W/M^2 of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.
Ball4 “Not at all. I’m pointing out where you are wrong about the basic physics.”
No you are not, you are demonstrating that you don’t understand the concept. What needs to be answered is if you alter the W/M^2 of 13 to 18 micron on water, will it warm it. It is a simple experiment.
Ball4 “And the effect of 13-18 LWIR on the surface includes the temperature profile of the atm. Saturation of lines is only part of the effect, you are missing an important basic physics.”
No, I’m not missing anything. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the GHG effect and 13 to 18 micron LWIR. As you increase CO2 in the atm you alter the backradiation of 13 to 18 micron on the oceans. The question is, can that small change in 13 to 18 micron LWIR warm the oceans. I say no way in hades.
“I say no way in hades.”
You say huh? That doesn’t make it so. Dr. Spencer’s experiment has shown there is a way in hades. You just choose not to accept the results.
Run your experiment on Earth atm., show results that counter the only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the GHG effect and 13 to 18 micron LWIR and therefore the 1LOT is wrong. You will become well known, that will change the basic science. Your reluctance to do so means you already know it is a waste of time.
Ball4 “You will become well known, that will change the basic science. Your reluctance to do so means you already know it is a waste of time.”
If I had access to a University Lab I would have done it yesterday. I don’t. That is why I am posting this idea on this blog hoping that someone that does work at a University and does have access to a lab would run such an experiment.
Once again, the delta W/M^2 of outgoing LWIR is calculated using MODTRAN. Simply record the delta W/M^2 for various delta CO2 levels. Shine various amounts of W/M^2 of 13 to 18 micron LWIR on a sample of water. Does the additional W/M^2 of LWIR applied to the sample of water cause it to cool at a slower rate than the water sample that doesn’t have the extra W/M^2 applied to it. Pretty simple experiment.
“Pretty simple experiment.”
Yes. That experiment has already been performed by Dr. Spencer using natural LWIR. And he didn’t need access to a univ. lab. You could use your backyard to replicate it. And again, MODTRAN doesn’t know the changing T of the atm. profile which affects the LWIR shining into surface water, in addition to and independent of, line saturation.
“Does the additional W/M^2 of LWIR applied to the sample of water cause it to cool at a slower rate than the water sample that doesnt have the extra W/M^2 applied to it.”
Yes that’s what Dr. Spencer’s data logger showed and his calculations using 1LOT similarly demonstrated including all natural 13 to 18 micron LWIR clear sky at night in Alabama in the summertime. When icy cirrus showed up overnight his apparatus immediately detected the added LWIR. A rough but decently working cloud detector.
When the fluffball gets trapped in his own web, he resorts to mentioning “experiments” and real scientists, to help his case.
But, he always ends up short.
Ball4:
I recall another Tony (retired meteorologist) stating that they would be on the watch out for Cirrus cloud on icy nights as the Cirrus would have a tendency to melt ice on roads creating more hazardous conditions.
I wonder how much of the effect in Dr Spencer’s experiment was due to (1) reflection and (2) latent heat due to condensation and furthermore ice crystal formation. Neither of these are GHG “back radiation” effects.
co2…”I keep hearing the Climate Alarmist claim that you cant run experiments in Climate Change”.
Climate change is a goofy term. There is no such thing as a general/universal climate change. Local climates, the only real climates, can change and we already know the reason why. It’s generally about changes in rainfall patterns due to atmospheric circulation issues.
It has been claimed the Arctic climate has changed which is nonsense. There are hot spots in the Arctic that move around month to month. That’s weather related to ocean circulation patterns.
CO2 IS LIFE – they are in denial of every thing which runs counter to their precious theory.
They are never going to change their minds but who cares.
What matters is what the climate does moving forward, that is what is relevant.
CO2 IS LIFE- I dare say no matter how much against the scam (AGW)the climate goes they will still insist their theory is still valid.
It is been proven wrong on so many levels that I can’t keep track any more. Everything this theory has called for has failed to take place and now all the signs are pointing to colder global temperatures ahead not warmer.
David says you can’t have a climate test well we have one in the making right now, which is increasing CO2 warmer global temperatures versus very weak solar colder global temperatures.
Moderated by the weakening geo magnetic field.
CO2 ID LIFE – as far as ocean warming or cooling it ends and starts with the sun. It is not worth the time of day to discuss it any further.
Yet you have managed to find the time of day multiple times a day, every day for at least a decade. Do you understand the concept of empty words?
If that is directed at me yes I do as in what AGW keeps saying- empty words.
I see you again found the time of day to discuss it further.
bob…”Do you understand the concept of empty words?”
No such thing.it’s a philosiphical concept just like climate change and AGW.
Claiming something is “a philosiphical [sic] concept” is philosophising in itself.
bob…”Claiming something is “a philosiphical [sic] concept” is philosophising in itself”.
You are bereft of awareness if you think that. There are times when you have to observe directly, without the philosophy.
I am claiming ’empty words’ are a philosophical concept since a word in the context in which we post is a written word. It cannot be empty or you couldn’t read it.
Same thing with AGW. If it was real we could experience it. Thus far, I have experienced noo climate change or warming that cannot be explained.
With regard to ‘philosiphical’, the i and o are right beside each other on my keyboard.
It is amazing the lengths those who support AGW theory have gone to ,in order to prove their soon to be obsolete theory.
When I see the tremendous amounts of literature based on this scam I say what a waste of time.
Salvatore,
What is disappointing to me is how some, who pretend to the title of scientists, attack those who have a difference of opinion. That is not science, it is politics.
Best wishes and, as always, I hope you are wrong – warmer is better.
Lewis
The model of ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth distance has uniform temperature of about 5 C.
If blackbody is not an ideal thermal conductive body, it doesn’t have uniform temperature AND doesn’t have average temperature of about 5 C.
Our Moon is example of blackbody which is not ideal thermal conductive body- it’s roughly close the opposite of ideal thermal conductive body.
With our Moon the surface when sun at zenith is about 120 C. And ideal thermally conductive body would be about 5 C. And at night the Moon is about 100 K and ideal thermally conductive body would be about 5 C [278 K].
If the moon had much faster rotation, it be closer to ideal thermally conductive body. And if Moon had an atmosphere it would be more like ideal thermally conductive body. And if the lunar surface was more conductive of heat it would be more ideal thermally conductive body.
Now instead of being more conductive of heat, the surface of the Moon could transparent to sunlight. So if surface of moon had 1 meter depth of glass or other transparent material, the sunlight passes thru the glass and heats the surface below the glass. And this would be similar to blackbody which ideally conducts heat 1 meter below the surface.
So, if Moon was covered with 1 meter depth of transparent material
it would be more like an ideal thermally conductive body.
And if instead of 1 meter depth of transparent material, it was 2 meter depth, it would be more like ideal thermally conductive body
as compared to 1 meter depth of transparent material.
What difference would be if Moon was covered with 2 meters of transparent glass?
Due to Moon slow’s rotation, it seems the dark surface under the glass would get as hot as lunar surface without 2 meters of glass- so dark surface and the 2 meter glass above, when sun at zenith would be about 120 C.
So without the glass about 5 cm of lunar surface warms to about 120 C and with 200 cm of glass, one has +200 cm of glass warming to 120 C. Or 205 / 5 = 41 or Moon with 2 meters of glass absorbs 41 times more sunlight.
Now, I will assume lunar surface and lunar surface with 2 meter of
glass covering it radiate same amount energy if it’s the same temperature, but if glass covered moon retain higher temperature for longer period of time, it radiate more energy because it’s higher temperature.
But another factor relates to where “on or in or under the glass does it radiate from” if glass was opaque to IR light it’s radiates at surface of glass or if transparent to IR, it’s not confined to radiating from the surface of the glass.
And related to this, one might have a question: Can transparent material ever radiate more energy as compared to ideal blackbody surface. A simple answer would be if transparent material could ever radiate more energy per square meter than an ideal blackbody surface, then such transparent material “becomes” the ideal blackbody surface- because definitionally an ideal blackbody radiates the most amount energy per square meter in a vacuum.
So, generally speaking we will assume the glass does not ever emit as much as ideal blackbody surface and is about the same as lunar surface which emits similar or close to ideal blackbody surface.
Now, it’s not clear to me that lunar surface covered with 2 meters
would warmer [or much warmer] than lunar surface at the time period of sundown. Or with Moon, the temperature is near 0 C or colder, and with 2 meter of glass it could be around 0 C.
Instead the greater difference would when the lunar surface gets the coldest [around 100 K] it’s seems the glass covered lunar surface could be about 50 K warmer as compared to non glass cover lunar surface when it’s coldest during night time.
BTW, the sun bathes the oceans with 1,000 W/M^2 of very high energy 0.4 to 0.7 Visible radiation that penetrates 70 m into the oceans. The back radiation of CO2 accounts for 0.6 W/M^2, and it doesn’t penetrate the ocean, and much is simply reflected. Does anyone honestly believe that small amount of additional radiation of those wavelengths can warm the oceans?
Back-radiation from greenhouse gases amounts to more than 300 W/m^2.
The pseudoscience claims it is about 340 Watts/m^2. Treating the atmosphere as a black body, that correseponds to a temperature of about 5 °C, or 41 °F.
“Treating the atmosphere as a black body”
That would not pass peer review as an informed, critial reviewer would point out the atm. is nowhere near a black body and even transmits radiation thus recommend any editor reject that comment.
Fluffball, I was being lenient. Treating the atmosphere as a black body would provide the most energy back to the surface. If you use actual emissivities, the energy returning, and resulting temperatures, drop.
So, you just stuck your foot in your mouth, again.
“Treating the atmosphere as a black body would provide the most energy back to the surface.”
Yes, so JD now admits his 6c3 and 8e3 cartoons contain bogus science wherein a black body would NOT provide the most energy back to the surface raising its temperature to 262K from 244K depicted in the cartoons redefined with a reflecting body.
JD is trapped once again. Great entertainment. Keep it up JD, JD’s pseudoscience is so entertaining.
Fluffball now sticks his other foot in his mouth.
Nothing new.
ball4…”Treating the atmosphere as a black body
That would not pass peer review as an informed, critial reviewer ….”
JD is not claiming the atmosphere is a blackbody, he is referring to the climate idiots who do.
Let’s face it, Kiehle-Trenberth messed up royally when they made that idiotic claim. There is no way that GHGs, making up 0.3% of the overall atmoshere can back-radiate the same amount of radiation as the bazillions of atoms/molecules on the surface.
bob…Back-radiation from greenhouse gases amounts to more than 300 W/m^2.”
You can have all the back-RADIATION you want, that radiation cannot warm the ocean or the surface if it comes from a cooler source.
Do you think the ice in Antarctica is warming the surrounding ocean?
Because of course, when a photon hits the earth’s surface, the photon and the surface know what the temperature of the source was, and refuse to interact.
“…that radiation cannot warm the ocean or the surface if it comes from a cooler source.”
________________________________________________
It can and it does.
What else should happen with its energy???
Think about this question very seriously. It will break your thinking-blockade.
<i"Do you think the ice in Antarctica is warming the surrounding ocean?"
It is if the ocean’s view of ice radiating at 32F (273.15K) has replaced the ocean’s view of space at 2.7K and its view of the atm. at -60F (222K).
CO2isLife says:
BTW, the sun bathes the oceans with 1,000 W/M^2
_______________________________________
I have some interesting news for you:
The earth is a globe!
So even without atmosphere only about 340 W/m^2 would hit the surface.
With atmospere remain about 160W/m^2 to “bathe” the ocean.
Fritz, when I see such nonsense, I like to say “learn some physics”.
But, in your case, you don’t even know the pseudoscience!
fritz…”So even without atmosphere only about 340 W/m^2 would hit the surface”.
You need to revisit your math.
Sorry, my fault.
Of course its 342 W/m^2.
And of course since its 342w/m2, the greenhouse effect is only about 50 watts/m2. Such an irradiance would be expected to warm the surface to approximately 5.5C. The 33degC greenhouse effect is just a convoluted attempt to make it look larger than it is by estimating what effects the water cycle and ghg have in allowing radiation to reach the surface.
News Flash: A Full Moon adds 10X more W/M^2 to the surface than CO2 does. That is how minuscule CO2’s contribution is. A Full Moon provides far more W/M^2 than CO2 does.
“The Earth receives approximately 6.8mW/m2 of reflected sunlight from the moon (see below for details of how I calculated that).”
Interesting.
The CHANGE in CO2 concentration from 280 to 410 ppm has produced a change in forcing of 2 W/m^2 (without taking into account feedbacks).
Then there is the increase in forcing by 0.5 W/m^2 due to increases in methane concentrations, 0.2 W/m^2 due to increases in nitrous oxide concentrations, and 0.3 W/m^2 due to increases in a combination of other minor greenhouse gases, making a total of 3 W/m^2.
Apparently you believe that 6.8 MILLIwatts per square metre is ten times that value, rather than just over 2% of that value.
Compare this also to the difference in solar forcing between the peak of the 1980s and the Maunder minimum – a difference of 1.5 W/m^2.
And Salvatore just swallowed it without any checking for sensibility because it happens to fit his agenda.
Yet during the Minoan , Roman, and Medieval warm periods CO2 concentrations were lower then today and yet global temperatures were as high or higher then today.
Does not say much for CO2 as the climate knob.
Globally, temperatures were NOT higher than today. That warming was regional.
des, where are you keeping the actual thermometer readings from those periods?
Some people don’t think thermometers were invented back then….
Hey Salvatore, it seems your buddy is challenging your assertion that temperatures in those periods were warmer than today. Apparently there is no way of knowing that. What say you?
According to proxies the Little Ice Age was the coldest or one of the coldest period in thousands of years.
Or there were other periods which are measurably warmer according to numerous ways of measuring temperature.
A problem with saying other periods were warmer, or this present period was warmer is lack of agreement about what is warmer or cooler global temperature.
It is said that our present average global temperature is about 15 C.
Our average global average temperature is about 15 C, which is due to the average ocean surface temperature being about 17 C and our average land air surface temperature being about 10 C.
What the subject of global warming refers to do, is generally about regions outside of the tropics warming and/or amplification of warming or cooling of polar region, mainly because this related to glacial or interglacial periods.
Or there is idea that if polar regions of northern hemisphere cool, then glaciers in region can grow, and growth of glaciers in northern hemisphere is sign of heading towards a glacial period.
If you agree generally with that, then temperature of northern hemisphere are directly related to global warming.
Though with our modern pseudo science, there seems to a concern or a lot attention about the tropics warming, because the attention is upon idea that Earth is going to get “hot” rather any concern about returning to glacial periods.
And this is silly or abysmally stupid.
Though it is true the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world, but it’s failing to acknowledge that we are in an icebox climate or known as an Ice Age.
Anyhow, if believe warming northern hemisphere is related to global warming [increase in global average temperature] there evidence warmer conditions allowing certain crops to grow in more the northern parts of northern hemisphere.
Sorry – your buddy JD disagrees with you. You should be arguing with him.
Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 2:41 PM
Sorry – your buddy JD disagrees with you. You should be arguing with him.
Yes, I am lukewarmer and I do disagree with both JD and Salvatore Del Prete.
But we do agree on obvious things, like greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science and many other things.
–Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 2:41 PM
Sorry – your buddy JD disagrees with you. You should be arguing with him.–
I am lukewarmer and I do disagree with both JD and Salvatore and many others*.
But I do agree on obvious things, like greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science- and many other things.
* A problem is the warming effect of CO2 and greenhouse gases has not been measured.
But if greenhouse gases did directly warm the surface, it would be quite easy to exactly measure it.
Or such an idea is easy to disprove and the “debate” would be long over.
Your statement depends on CO2 being the ONLY thing which affects our climate. That is a straw man argument.
–Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 8:53 PM
Your statement depends on CO2 being the ONLY thing which affects our climate. That is a straw man argument.–
Do you mean increasing methane levels is going to cause warming?
“When it comes to global warming, carbon dioxide is the 800-pound gorilla: it’s the most abundant of the long-lived greenhouse gases that human activities generate. But ounce for ounce, methane (CH4) traps more heat, and it accounts for about 20% of the greenhouse gases produced by human activities. Strangely, though, global methane levels “flat lined” from 1999 to 2006. ”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/after-2000-era-plateau-global-methane-levels-hitting-new-highs
Or Ozone “restoration”, or what?
I think water vapor has largest warming effect, but likewise I can’t say how much warming is due to increased water vapor. Also, a significant amount water vapor is produced by human activity.
“The CHANGE in CO2 concentration from 280 to 410 ppm has produced a change in forcing of 2 W/m^2 (without taking into account feedbacks).”
Change the settings on MODTRAN to looking up. What is important is how much LWIR is being sent back to warm the oceans. A cooling stratosphere, the real effect of CO2, doesn’t warm the oceans. When you look at what is being directed back to warm the oceans it is 0.6 W/M^2. Unless you can explain how CO2’s rapid radiation of LWIR into outer space and the resulting cooling of the stratosphere can warm the oceans, your inflated W/M^2 isn’t applicable to the issue of a warming ocean.
How can I debate someone who just makes it all up.
bob…”The CHANGE in CO2 concentration from 280 to 410 ppm has produced a change in forcing of 2 W/m^2″
Don’t know where you learned your physics.
For one, there is no such thing as a forcing in reality. The term forcing comes from a forcing function in a differential equation. If the equation is wrong, or the equation of the forcing function is wrong, the outcome is wrong.
In electronics, if you want to test the differential equation for an amplifier mathematically, you can apply a unit impulse function to its input to observe the effect on the output. That is a forcing function.
CO2 forces nothing. That notion came from climate modelers who have absolutely no idea how CO2 acts in the atmosphere. They have presumed a 9% to 25% warming effect, depending on the humidity.
They had no right to make such a presumption. It is blatantly clear that radiation from a cooler target cannot warm a surface that warmed the target.
That’s basic physics, but the tribal mentality produced by modelers has seriously perverted physics.
Correct! Forcing is a theory. Modtran is about how much additional energy CO2 will absorb through the entire atmosphere. How much if any that results in a net forcing is what the models are trying to guess at. Of course to be in that club you have to accept the religion as to how much results in forcing. All you are allowed to fiddle with is feedbacks and you can do virtually anything you want there as long as it doesn’t result in anything too small.
Ooops, that should have read 1/100 of the irradiation of CO2, I missed the m for milli. Same conclusion however, even 100x the radiation of the Moon wouldn’t cause catastrophic climate change.
BTW, the moon reflects high energy visible light that can in fact warm the oceans. If small changes in W/M^2 can in fact cause CAGW one should be able to demonstrate that the temperatures during a full moon are statistically different from when there is no moon at all. I haven’t seen any studies demonstrating that but it might be worth considering for a “settled science.”
If you read the entire article there is 6.8 reflected and 89 thermal mW/M^2, so a full moon provides 1/10 the W/M^2 of CO2. If CO2 can cause CAGW, you would be able to demonstrate a statistical difference between the temperatures under a full moon and under no moon at all. Anyone up for the challenge to prove that such small numbers actually cause measurable changes?
Ummm…. not next to meaningless, just plain meaningless. Error bars so wide they encompass every recent estimate of warming with plenty of error left over. The results truly are meaningless, and utterly, completely different from the original claims in the paper.
i am doubtful about a most recently published paper in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0673-2
I have only read the abstract (no privilege to read whole paper) and has these queries:
* how could the authors re-simulate Katrina and other hurricanes in a different climate? tracks/frequencies are likely to be different in a warmed climate as postulated in some previous studies.
* if it is just a few-day simulation of the storms so that their tracks are essentially the same in a different climate, what’s new at all about the result that “higher SST gives more intense storms”?
“Theres something big lurking beneath Greenlands ice. Using airborne ice-penetrating radar, scientists have discovered a 31-kilometer-wide crater larger than the city of Paris buried under as much as 930 meters of ice in northwest Greenland.
The meteorite that slammed into Earth and formed the pit would have been about 1.5 kilometers across, researchers say. Thats large enough to have caused significant environmental damage across the Northern Hemisphere, a team led by glaciologist Kurt Kjr of the University of Copenhagen reports November 14 in Science Advances.
Although the crater has not been dated, data from glacial debris as well as ice-flow simulations suggest that the impact may have happened during the Pleistocene Epoch, between 2.6 million and 11,700 years ago. The discovery could breathe new life into a controversial hypothesis that suggests that an impact about 13,000 years ago triggered a mysterious 1,000-year cold snap known as the Younger Dryas”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/16/a-massive-crater-hides-beneath-greenlands-ice/
Hmm, a 1.5 km diameter iron asteroid. And hitting an ice sheet.
It seems that could make most of ice “fall” into the ocean.
So in a way like the Al Gore idea of entire ice sheet falling into the ocean- it seems to me, you need that level force to do it.
So it hasn’t been dated, and it MAY have struck during the Pleistocene. In other words, they have no idea when it struck.
And no, the ice would not have fallen into the ocean. It would have been instantly vapourised.
There is certainly a lot unknown about this impactor, and it’s certain we will find out a lot more about it.
It seems possible this could be the largest impactor to have occurred in recent time. And it’s even possible it has value in terms of mineral resources, in terms of Platinum Metal Group:
“A relatively new idea in the marketplace is the concept of asteroid mining. It is well known by scientists that asteroids hold a treasure trove of Precious Metals and other resources such as water. Many researchers believe Nickel-Iron asteroids have abundant deposits of Platinum Group Metals, which include Palladium, Rhodium and of course Platinum. The theory holds that if technology can be developed to harvest these natural resources, the extractions can be sold on Earth to help finance further space exploration and habitat development.”
https://www.apmex.com/education/science/platinum-from-asteroids-the-next-rush
So, this could the biggest explosive caused by impactor is recent times- in last say 100,000 years, and maybe biggest explosion caused any event [including volcanic]. Though also maybe only top 10 or 100 in last 100,000 years in terms of all kinds of events. Of course if older than 100,000 years, there is more competition, but if say 20,000 years or less, there would less competition.
Though there is uncertainly about how powerful this event was, nor is there absolute certainly it even occurred, but it seems like a pretty good bet, it did.
I was saying when dealing with such a possible powerful force, things like a significant amount glacial ice of Greenland falling into ocean, then it becomes a possibility.
Here another story about it:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans
And note caption of picture:
A 1.5-kilometer asteroid, intact or in pieces, may have smashed into an ice sheet just 13,000 years ago. NASA SCIENTIFIC VISUALIZATION STUDIO
There could other impactors involved- one is which is found could indicate a higher possibility there more events were also occurring at this same time.
Lots of unknowns and in time we should get a fuller picture.
Known impact craters on Earth, wiki:
“Large craters (10 ka to 1 Ma)
From between 10 thousand years to 1 million years ago, and with a diameter of 1 km or more. The largest in the last one million years is the 14-km Zhamanshin crater in Kazakhstan and has been described as being capable of producing a nuclear-like winter.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth
So 14-km Zhamanshin crater is about 1/2 size of 31 km diameter crater hitting Greenland.
“Larger craters (1 Ma to 10 Ma)
From between 1 and 10 million years ago, and with a diameter of 5 km or more. If uncertainties regarding its age are resolved, then the largest in the last 10 million years would be the 52-km Karakul crater which is listed in EID with an age of less than 5 Ma, or the Pliocene.”
Karakul is probably bigger impacter and certainly has a larger crater.
Largest craters (10 Ma or more)
“Craters with a diameter of 20 km or more are all older than 10 Ma, with the exception of Karakul (52 km) and the newly-discovered Hiawatha crater (31 km, but not yet in the EID) whose ages are uncertain.”
So, wiki mentions the Hiawatha crater, but have not included it in their lists, yet.
The grapes sure are sour this week.
Now follow the temperature in Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-338.96,51.72,780
Is your comprehension always this bad?
Winter is developing in North America.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/cclza5anm9js.png
Ren, I think there are levels of magnetic field weakness(solar/geo) out there which will result in thresholds being breached which will cause major rather then minor climatic changes.
The signs I am looking for are an increase in geological activity, a more meridional atmospheric circulation and or lowering 500mb heights, an increase in global snow/cloud coverage, lower overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and global temperatures.
Much of this is just getting started in response to solar going from an active mode to an inactive mode in year 2005. The low average solar parameters have only been in place for a year or so and all of this is now starting to have climatic impacts. All moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field.
It is going to be very interesting and telling to see how this evolves.
Polar vortex is set according to the geomagnetic field in the north.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/june_2014_magnetic_field/14582208-1-eng-GB/June_2014_magnetic_field_node_full_image_2.jpg
Look below.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/fnzxoagdtmx3.png
Ren can you elaborate on this some? That is the relationship of the polar vortex to the geo magnetic field.
The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/r00c1spjptf2.png
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere takes exactly the pattern of the magnetic field in the north. This always happens in long periods of very low solar activity.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/6f1me1xims8i.png
thanks Ren
PREDICTIONS FOR SOLAR CYCLE 25. INTERESTING OF COURSE I DISAGREE ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED GOOD NOEWS AND BAD NEWS.
So what can we bank on?
Statistically speaking, the current Cycle 24 is scheduled to draw to a close about 11 years after the previous sunspot minimum in January 2008, which means sometime in 2019. We entered the Cycle 24 sunspot minimum period in 2016 because in February and June, we already had two spot-free days. As the number of spot-free days continues to increase in 2017-2018, we will start seeing the new sunspots of Cycle 25 appear sometime in late-2019. Sunspot maximum is likely to occur in 2024, with most forecasts predicting about half as many sunspots as in Cycle 24.
The bad news(I CHANGE IT TO GOOD NEWS) is that some studies show sunspot magnetic field strengths have been declining since 2000 and are already close to the minimum needed to sustain sunspots on the solar surface. This is also supported by independent work in 2015 published in the journal Nature. By Cycle 25 or 26, magnetic fields may be too weak to punch through the solar surface and form recognizable sunspots at all, spelling the end of the sunspot cycle phenomenon, and the start of another Maunder Minimum cooling period perhaps lasting until 2100.
But the good news(I CHANGE THIS TO BAD NEWS) seems to be that none of the current forecasts suggest Cycle 25 will be entirely absent. A few forecasts even hold out some hope that a sunspot maximum equal to or greater than Cycle 24 is possible.
President Trump makes references to scientific studies when predicting the climate doom and gloom, and slip up in studies like this point out climate change is not real. It is a fallacy of overthinking scientists who may be drunk or on pot, I don’t know. Errors like this point out we need to reset climate change studies and start over again. As all of you have argued, the predictions have varied. How much do we really know? Argo is great, but not so multidimensional. Trump isn’t politicizing it, leave him out of this.
doc Thor…”Errors like this point out we need to reset climate change studies and start over again”.
We need to do that with science in general, especially physics. Since the replacement of Newtonian physics by quantum theory early in the 20th century, science has lost direction. There are far too much science being done based on opinion and consensus.
It seems to have reached the ridiculous. I read last night that measures like kilograms, metres, and even the second are being redefined by elitists based on what they THINK the measures should be, based on relativity theory.
This nonsense has to be opposed and stopped. There are serious flaws in GRT with regard to interpretations of what it means. Even Einstein got so desperate that he abandoned his premise that physics must represent observable reality. He based GRT on a thought experiment with no proof whatsoever that time dilates and measures change length due to their velocity.
If we allow these idiots to change physical measures based on thought experiments and theory, science is doomed. Some have already claimed gravity is not a force, that it is a perturbation in space-time.
I think those lunatics need to be removed from mainstream science.
The tribal mentality must not pervert science.
” It is a fallacy of overthinking scientists who may be drunk or on pot, I don’t know. ”
It not a mystery or complicated, you don’t have be Einstein to figure it out
https://goo.gl/1N7UhF
My Newest Post:
A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Science Experiment; An Open Challenge
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/a-nobel-prize-in-science-winning-climate-science-experiment/
Problem is “climate scientists” don’t think backradiation is warming any earth surface [land or ocean surface]
Though there are posters, here, which imagine this is the case.
The problem is climate so called scientist think a trace gas with a trace increase will some how govern the climatic system.
Next joke.
Yes they do tend to go with idea of CO2 being a control knob.
This is from idea that something was causing glacial and interglacial periods.
But people should realize that CO2 is not control knob which caused glacial and interglacial periods.
What is the control knob of glacial and interglacial period is mostly related to the Milankovitch cycles.
What it WAS the main control knob which brought temperatures down from the peak 55 million years ago to the onset of the current ice age 2.5 million years ago. In this case, the knob was controlled by geological processes.
The other control knob being ocean circulation patterns.
“BUT” it was …
salvatore…”The problem is climate so called scientist think a trace gas with a trace increase will some how govern the climatic system”.
None of them explain why the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Era did not cause catastrophic warming. In fact, that amount of CO2 could not prevent the planet cooling 1 to 2C during the Little Ice Age.
That had to be about the Sun.
Dyson hates the nexus of science and ideology. Every time I see someone write ‘CAGW’, I know that an ideologue has spoken.
Your challenge is ill-posed, CO2. There is a range associated with the response of the biosphere to increased CO2, and severity (not catastrophe) is a part of that range. Your challenge is a straw man.
barry…”Every time I see someone write CAGW, I know that an ideologue has spoken”.
The message of the IPCC and alarmists is catastrophic global warming, or CAGW. They just don’t say that.
The ultimate with that propaganda was Hanson’s tipping point, beyond which the Earth would move toward the atmosphere currently on Venus.
That was the beginning of the cult science of climate change, adopted by the tribe.
The message of the IPCC and alarmists is catastrophic global warming, or CAGW. They just dont say that.
The IPCC gives a range. No, they do not rail about “catastrophic” global warming. That is activists’ language. And anyone using it (ie; CAGW) to try and neutrally discuss the science is likewise being propagandistic.
If you use politically charged language, I’ll call you on it. If you can’t separate the science and the politics, you can’t think clearly about the science.
Barry I agree with you. Nothing whatsoever to worry about climate. Science says that.
Until you accurately paraphrase what I’ve written instead of making up something else entirely, you don’t get to say what you agree with me on.
So you said: “No, they do not rail about catastrophic global warming. That is activists language. And anyone using it (ie; CAGW) to try and neutrally discuss the science is likewise being propagandistic.”
I would agree that no real climate scientist would use the word catastrophe as a measure of anthropogenic global warming. However, CAGW is a word commonly used, but not to refer to AGW but instead to refer to a class of “activists” whether they be propagandizing scientists or non-scientists.
Can we agree that CO2 contributes to a temperate planet compared to one with no gases that absorb IR radiation? What one has to do to claim CO2 causes a “range” in global warming is to prove that an incremental change in CO2 from now on can cause ANY more warming. It is entirely possible that all other effects on global temperatures completely overwhelm any further effect from CO2.
So in that context, CO2isLife’s challenge is not a straw-man.
I do agree with your point about CAGW, however. He would be well-advised to let it just be AGW.
BTW, Dyson agrees that increase of atmospheric CO2 should cause the surface to warm, and has described anthro CO2 as the main cause of warming we have observed.
barry…”Dyson agrees that increase of atmospheric CO2 should cause the surface to warm, and has described anthro CO2 as the main cause of warming we have observed”.
Can’t be right all of the time. Even Fred Singer, a skeptic, thinks that. He pans the notion that the 2nd law prohibits a transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
As much as I admire Fred as a scientist, it’s obvious that thermodynamics is not his forte.
If you get to cherry pick what to believe from your “experts” then you are expressing your opinion, not theirs.
“Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 8:50 PM
If you get to cherry pick what to believe from your “experts” then you are expressing your opinion, not theirs.”
Gordon himself has said increasing CO2 levels should or could cause some warming, meaning an increase in global temperature.
An increase in global temperature is not the same as warming the surface, rather it means an increase the average temperature of surface air temperature.
So warming includes increasing the night time air temperature. And there has been a measured increase in night time air temperature.
The average increase of air temperature has been small particularly in regards to accuracy of the measurement, but roughly the average increase in global air temperature has been about 1 C over the last hundred years. But probably more accurate to say it’s warmed more than .5 C over a period of about hundred years.
And it seems to me, it’s possible it [global surface air temperature] could warm more than .5 C in next hundred years- and that would be a lot of warming, and perhaps a significant part of this warming could be due to increasing CO2 levels.
BUT there other factors which could instead cause most of this warming.
The most significant and acknowledged by “all”, lies in idea of “natural variability” or everyone agrees that over time, the average temperature of earth surface [or surface air temperature] has been changing. Basically, “natural variability” means changes not caused by humans and/or changes not caused by all life on Earth- or other factors.
But you also have changes caused by all life [including humans] and changes primarily caused by humans [including effects of humans upon other living processes which in turn have some effect].
As I have said many times, I believe most of warming over last 100 years is due to recovery from the Little ice Age.
And we have yet to measure the warming effect caused by rising CO2 level, ie, is it less than .1 C, more than .1 C, or more than .2 C and also if CO2 level were to remain the same, will it warm further due to present elevated CO2 levels, and will such warming occur within a decade, within a few decades, or within centuries.
And it’s my opinion that within a century and with any reasonable expectation of rise in CO2, the warming effect in this future will be about 0 to .5 C. And if I include all possible factors, less than 1 C.
More than decade ago, I thought it might be as much as 2 to 3 C, and at that time, I didn’t think such warming would have been much of problem. And believe global temperatures have been recently [within a million years] 2 to 3 C warmer then they are now [perhaps several times with this time period]. And over a longer time period, much warmer than this.
But what possibility of cooling. And this is a far more important issue, a cooling of .2 C could be quite bad, I mean in terms of average global temperature, not due measured dips in temperatures.
Or rather being a disaster, the warming of .5 C or more over the last hundred years has been beneficial, and losing a portion of this benefit or losing all of it, would be bad news.
Again, anyone who is vaguely reasonable would agree.
Sort of like is the US were to magically disappear from the world, could be a problem, even though many will claim the US is major source of evil in the World [such as what the Iranian government claims daily]. Though one could blame the US due to it’s action of disappearing and creating a vacuum- any country “disappearing” creates a vacuum and any vacuum causes problem. So you blame it’s existance, and creating the vacuum [still say US is Evil and twice as Evil for disappearing and causing mass confusion].
Likewise cooling would create a vacuum or unexpected consequences, but in addition to that, a loss of warming that has occurred over last century will be a net loss.
I don’t think much cooling is likely, though returning to average temperature of latter half of 20th century is possible though one might call this a pause [a huge pause, global warming “disappearing”, but really nothing burger in term actual global average temperature].
There simply has not been a rapid rise in global temperature, and falling off a cliff in terms global temperature is improbable.
But more importantly there has not been dramatic shift in global weather or climate change [though the Dustbowl could be counted as significant]. In terms of next 10 year, I don’t expect any cooling effect which equals the dustbowl in terms of broad weather effect which occurs over prolonged period of time. But a major part of dustbowl was humans doing things wrongs in terms “land management”, humans screwing up plus weather/climate could result
in problems. And major screw up could be due to the expectation related to the global warming religion.
Freeman Dyson is hailed by skeptics as being a ‘real scientist’ with marvelous credentials.
When it is shown he agrees that anthro CO2 increase has been the main driver of recent warming, he suddenly is just an ordinary, fallible scientist.
Everybody is fallible Barry. One maybe a scientist but that doesn’t come even close to being correct about science topics even 50% of the time. Just that some of us are correct a little less of the time.
So tell me, Bill. Why do skeptics often quote Freeman Dyson on climate science?
I don’t know Freeman Dyson well but my impression of him is as a visionary in technical matters.
One of the most pernicious aspects of “activism” is “McCarthyism”. Freeman Dyson and most scientists allow the possibility of warming resulting from CO2. Such should be the case when the science is so opaque that scientists are not able to consistently able to lay out a full explanation for climate controls.
“barry says:
November 19, 2018 at 2:41 PM
Freeman Dyson is hailed by skeptics as being a ‘real scientist’ with marvelous credentials.”
Obviously Dyson is “real scientist” or an actual scientist rather than say “bill Nye the science guy” or James Hansen the ex-NASA director, or Carl Sagan. Or ex-head of IPCC, the wacky sex abusive railroad engineer. And Mann the hockey stick man and basically all the gang of thugs of Climategate. And needless to say, AL Gore- of the sideshow fame and Vice President who didn’t do anything regarding global warming [a politican unable to convince Bill Clinton].
“When it is shown he agrees that anthro CO2 increase has been the main driver of recent warming, he suddenly is just an ordinary, fallible scientist.”
He didn’t prove what role CO2 played in terms of the then recent warming, rather he could not disprove the effect of CO2, nor has any scientist disproved or proved it’s effects. It is a very small effect and there is lots of noise and realistically will require more time [and maybe greater scientific understanding- but mostly time] before it’s possible]. But he noted the obvious, that it was not a threat and most significantly there more important issues.
I would like to know where he “has described anthro CO2 as the main cause of warming we have observed.”
https://www.edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”
Thank you, Svante.
That was written in 2007? Was that his final word on the subject?
Looks like it here:
https://tinyurl.com/yabeex82
Dyson is 94 years old so he could still come up with more.
barry comments on the same link below.
He’s a great scientist of course.
If the great Freeman Dyson cannot talk sense to a global warming alarmist, I don’t know of anybody who can. That is why I consider the climate alarmists gang to be part of a cult, or tribe as Dyson explains it. I also like to call them “Global Warming Worshippers.”
I agree with RM
The warmists always ignore inconvenient facts.
They have faith only in their eclectic dogma.
If reality contradicts the ‘model’ then reality must be wrong.
Anyone with a training in hard science or engineering can spot this pseudo science for what it is—– a religious cult.
Bryan…”If reality contradicts the model then reality must be wrong”.
John Christy of UAH took satellite data to a modeler to show him how his model projections were contradicted by the sat data. The modeler told John that he did not care, that his model was right.
Modelers are an arrogant lot. They program a model with contrived equations then claim the model is right and reality wrong.
Are you guys even clear on what Freeman Dyson says about AGW? Are you aware that he agrees more CO2 = more surface warming?
Dyson has publicly stated that the benefits of CO2 far outweighs any harm it may do.
barry…”Are you guys even clear on what Freeman Dyson says about AGW? Are you aware that he agrees more CO2 = more surface warming?”
Both Arrhenius and Callander agreed that any warming would be beneficial to humanity.
barry…not quite the way Freeman presented himself, but good cherry pick.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
“An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
Also…
” Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don’t know about them”.
I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.
Freeman Dyson:
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”
https://www.edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
Dyson doesn’t think much of the models. But he does agree about the warming properties of increased atmospheric CO2.
He’s not an expert in climate, or climate models. But, hey, he’s Freeman Dyson, and for some reason that makes his opinion matter. Steven Hawking has a similar expertise on climate science, and he said we should be very worried.
Really, we should be listening to the experts, not famous scientists in different fields.
I can agree with that too. Keeping in mind that the word “warming” is not a scientific word.
Salvatore
I doubt a solar Grand Minimum would bring on the extreme cooling you expect.
The reduction in insolation would be 1W, equivalent to a cooling effect of 0.3C.
At the current rate of warming that would be a temporary delay of about 15 years.
It has next to nothing to do with solar insolation.
My forecast for colder due to low solar has much more to do with galactic cosmic rays and there effects on geological activity and global cloud coverage.
It also has much to do with decreasing EUV light and it’s effects upon the atmospheric circulation(greater snow coverage) and decreasing UV light and it’s effect upon sea surface temperatures.
The change in solar irradiance itself is just an additive to the cooler temperatures not even close to being the main cause.
AP index solar wind speed , and geo magnetic field will be big players in the moderation of galactic cosmic rays, and hence it’s effects.
To sum it up low solar equates to decreasing overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field the result colder global temperatures.
This trend has already started.
Can you put numbers on this.
You mention galactic cosmic rays. The Svenmark effect has been investigated at CERN and is negligable.
Cloud cover has also been investigated and has only a small feedback effect.
I have found no evidence for any evidence or mechanism linking the geomagnetic field with temperature.
EUV is only a small proportion of total insolation and warms the high stratosphere and thermosphere. Again, not a significant modifier of surface temperature.
Say it with numbers. How big are the changes you expect?
What effects do you expect to see on temperature and how were they calculated.
Pretend that you are presenting your hypothesis in a seminar, with your supporting evidence.
I can only say the global temperature trend will be down due to very weak solar/geo magnetic fields. There are threshold levels of weakness as far as duration and degree of magnitude change which I do not know what they are which would make the climatic impact large rather then small.
I said the geo magnetic field’s role is a modifier of given solar activity. When they are in sync the compliment each other.
The galactic cosmic ray issue is far from being solved and I can find many papers that support the theory. I will send one.
EUV light modifies the atmospheric circulation. UV light is a modifier of the ocean temperatures.
I am going to leave it at that. If you want more info. look at my web-site climatebusters.org
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2016/08/30/cosmic-rays-vs-clouds/
Entropic man I have given my reasons many times over.
As far as I am concerned if the global temperatures continue down from here I will be correct and AGW theory will be wrong. It is that simple.
Your global SST is sitting pretty much right on the trend value, So it has not “continued down”.
He said ‘if’.
Reading correctly requires the desire to do so.
Thank you for the Forbush Decrease paper. This is just the sort of information I was looking for.
It lets me estimate the strength of the effect.
The paper shows that a 3600 to 2800 units decrease in cosmic radiation produces a 2% decrease in cloud cover.
Energy budget measurements estimate that global cloud cover reflects the equivalent of 77W/M^2 of shortwave radiation, emit 25W of longwave radiation upwards and return 72W downwards. Net outward flow due to clouds is 77+25-72= 28W/M^2.
A decrease of 2% in cloud cover due to a Forbush Decrease would reduce that outward radiation by 28*2/100=O.56W.
The generally accepted figure is that a change of 3.7W in insolation would produce a change of 1C in average temperature. 0.56W would produce a change of 0.56/3.7=0.15C.
Figure 3 here
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
shows a similar change of 2% in cloud cover from peak to trough of the solar cycle.
You can infer that you would see a similar change in cloud temperature between the top and bottom of a solar cycle, or due to a Grand Minimum. ie 0.15C.
The problem is that a change of this size is not enough to trigger significant cooling.
LG
I’m afraid it is you that has reading issues. Temperatures can’t “continue down” if they are not down in the first place. Do you really believe an “if” changes that?
bob…”Temperatures cant continue down if they are not down in the first place. Do you really believe an if changes that?”
Compared to the first part of the UAH record, pre 1998, they are up.
According to Murry Salby, who is an atmospheric physicist, and who has written books on the atmosphere, there were flat trends pre 1998 and post 1998. Then there was a step jump between the two following the 1998 EN.
I have mentioned that obvious jump several times but it fell on deaf ears. It stands out like a sore thumb on the UAH graph posted by Roy around 2001.
A similar jump occurred in 1977, called the Great Pacific Climate Shift. It was later identified as the PDO.
It seems to me the planet owes around 0.4C in warming and one might expect it to be repaid with a similar cooling at some point.
GR
Irrelevant to my comment and the one I was responding to.
bob…”Irrelevant to my comment and the one I was responding to”.
Typical reply from bob when he has no intelligent reply to offer.
BTW…are you aware you’re name is a palindrome, same backwards as forward? The same would be true if your name was boob, but more fitting.
You have the hide to talk of intelligent replies after that one.
Try to hide your aibohphobia, Dr Awkward. Live not on evil.
The strongest ionization of the GCR occurs in the lower stratosphere and in high latitudes. It grows particularly strongly during the solar minimum.
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-7224.pdf
solar activity and dark ages
Your link gives only an abstract. Is the full paper available?
Funny how on the website for EGU 2017, there are hundreds of presentations, almost all showing both the abstract and the full presentation. Yet this one shows only the abstract. Looks like they pulled the paper.
I have to look so far that is all I have.
When the Scientific Consensus Is Corrected by a Skeptic
…
Where did Lewis debunk the doomsayers? No, not in the esteemed pages of Nature but in a blog post at a website called Climate Etc., a small, dissenting dot in the vast universe of online science discussion. Lewis wrote: The findings of thepaper were peer-reviewed and published in the worlds premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. He went on: Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.
…
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/science/when-the-scientific-consensus-is-corrected-by-a-skeptic/
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Well, I would not call Climate Etc a dot. On the internet probably bigger than any “non skeptic site”.
Why are you repeating the story from the top post? Have you forgotten which thread you are in?
No.
It related to top post, and therefore not off topic.
More than 250000 people protest green policy in France. Policy like publication and peer review is not holding water in the real world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46233560
Are you spinning this, Aaron? What, precisely, is the whole movement protesting?
Aaron is simply showing that not only the working class of America, but the working class of the world is now revolting against this scheme by the elitist snobs, the chardonnay crowd to turn them into serfs!
rob…”Aaron is simply showing that not only the working class of America but the working class of the world is now revolting against this scheme by the elitist snobs…”
I just want to be clear that Canada is in America, since America is a continent, not a country.
barry…”What, precisely, is the whole movement protesting?”.
If you had bothered to read the article the cause of their protest is apparent.
“World oil prices did rise before falling back again but the Macron government raised its hydrocarbon tax this year by 7.6 cents per litre on diesel and 3.9 cents on petrol, as part of a campaign for cleaner cars and fuel”.
The French are paying the equivalent of $1.71/litre, presumably in US dollars. That’s $2.24 Canadian and the most we have paid is $1.50/litre. I’d be p***ed off too.
Here in BC, Canada, we are paying 26 cents/litre on taxes related to Green issues. Motorists are being penalized for driving vehicles. Without those Green garbage taxes, we’d be paying less than $1.25/litre.
I object strenuously to you Green idiots creating this propaganda, leading to carbon-related taxes, based on seriously bad science. Everyone knows governments will jump on this as a cash cow, not giving a hoot as to whether the science is legit. They don’t care.
Cold front from the north-east threatens northern California.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/zmtbq42hdioe.png
The current pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is not favorable for California. The vortex will now be divided into two centers compatible with the magnetic field centers in the north.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-95.40,86.86,296
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php
Very low solar activity.
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_satenv.gif?
When the solar wind is strong, the polar vortex pattern has a more round shape because the wind speed increases in the vortex.
The pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere promotes stratospheric intrusions in the US.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/3544gbhhd9wj.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Barry:
There are no lessons for physicists in Eli’s plates – none that they don’t already know. If analysis of a system proposed is not allowed then state it. In that way your set of analogies will be able to show that black is white and white is black without scrutiny.
Your vacuum cleaner analogy is equally pointless; vacs come with instructions.
The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system. So we already have a starting problem with the analogy as it is meant to simulate how GHG work in the atmosphere. G&T say in part:
that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
– in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
– in any fundamental work on radiation theory
– that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict each other.
More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education or even to physics training.
The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in question has a physical basis. It does not.
In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
In back tracking through the posts trying to find the comment to which I had I referred (which I did not find as it was earlier than this month) I came across your diving tank pressure analogy issue. No-one says that pressurizing a tank to a high uniform P and then at equilibrium will be any hotter than its surroundings. Again it is a totally inappropriate analogy and I suggest you read the instructions to understand it. I don’t have a link but this will explain it.
On The Barometric Formulas And Their Derivation From
Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics
Version 2.0 (March 9, 2010) (G&T)
This is based on the Ideal Gas Laws so that it cannot then be used for lapse rate changes in the Tropopause and Stratosphere where other processes dominate. That is why D** C* confined himself to the Troposphere.
In the Stratosphere a mix of chemical reactions take place, abs*orp*tion of UV formation of Ozone and release of heat as well as stratification. One interesting conjecture for the Tropopause is the temporary formation of multimers with changes including latent heat (Rowan Connolly).
tony…”G&T say in part:”
In their rebuttal to Eli (Halpern et al), G&T schooled the lot of them on the meaning of the 2nd law. They told Eli et al that the 2nd law applies to heat (not EM). The rocket scientists associated with Eli thought you can sum EM and satisfy the 2nd law. G&T explained that you must sum heat, not EM.
You see, in their rebuttal to G&T, Eli etal insisted that if two bodies of different temps were radiating at each other, and only a one way heat transfer was allowed, one plate would not be radiating.
That’s how stupid climate alarmists can be, they have not a clue as to the difference between heat and EM, and that both have very different properties, preventing the energies being summed. EM and heat don’t even have the same units. Heat is measured in calories and EM in eV.
The nonsense Eli is promoting about blue plates and green plates is based on the same nonsense. Even though Eli has a degree in physics, he believes heat can be transferred from a colder green plate to a warmer blue plate that warmed it.
That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it describes perpetual motion. If the blue plate radiated energy that warms the green plate, and that energy can be back-radiated to raise the temperature of the BP, you have perpetual motion.
Barry. What do you mean spinning? They are protesting increases to fuel and automobile taxes according to the article. Point is on paper cuts are easy, but in reality it is very difficult because as humans we rely on fossil fuels for our lifestyle. Society coevolved with energy so to speak and there are no easy alternatives.
Barry. What do you mean spinning?
You said:
“More than 250000 people protest green policy in France.”
When I asked you to be specific you said:
“They are protesting increases to fuel and automobile taxes”
You don’t see how you spun the truth here?
What if the majority of protesters protesting fuel hikes also want CO2 emissions reduced?
You have no data to determine whether that is the truth or not.
That’s why your first comment was spin.
Barry, that was weak. The working class is concerned about their standard of living, not some theory about CO2 being the thermostat control knob of the atmosphere!
barry…”What if the majority of protesters protesting fuel hikes also want CO2 emissions reduced?”
People protesting excessive fuel costs would not give a hoot about the propaganda that passes for anthropogenic warming theory.
Did you guys mean to comment on my comment? Because you didn’t.
FYI, the majority of French people think that AGW is a serious concern.
Most French do not want it dealt with by raising the price of fuel without offsets to cover it for low income drivers.
These are the statistics. Beyond that, what the French “working class” think, or what the people protesting think is data neither you nor I have.
So either you guys are experts on the opinions of the French working class/these particular protesters – or you are as patronizing as the chardonnay sipping elites that stereotype the lower economic classes.
Aaron has no idea, either, which is why his first take was spin. His second take was in line with the article he cited and French opinion polls.
LOL! opinion polls aren’t science. What is meant by “serious”? Its unquantified. I think opinion polls have “serious” concerns about President Trump tweets. But you see few polls on what Trump is doing. Guess they don’t see that as serious.
Another reply that has zero to do with my comment.
How do people’s brains work that they cannot get the point?
The meaning of your words are irrelevant? I can believe that too.
“The earth is considered a closed system. ”
No.
This is where your argument fails.
The Earth is an open system.
Shortwave radiation comes in from the Sun.
Some is reflected, some is absorbed and moves around the system.
It then reradiates to space as longwave radiation.
Unless perturbed, the temperature of the Earth system settles at a value which balances incoming and outgoing energy.
EM
I suggest you go look up the definition of a closed system as obviously you are not going to believe me.
The only caveat is the minuscule amount of matter which can enter or leave that is why I said “considered.”
You are using the classical mechanics definition of a close
The Earth is often considered a closed system for matter, because the amounts entering and leaving are quite negligible.
But you have missed the point by a country mile, tony, because the Earth is NOT considered a closed system WRT to radiation.
Which should be gob-smackingly obvious. All the models, all the descriptions, all the energy budgets……
include the sun.
Barry:
Really? I think you are confused.
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
You are more than capable of looking up closed system.
Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder.
https://www.brighthub*engineering.com/thermodynamics/3607-types-of-thermodynamic-systems-and-important-terms-part-one/
This is a painful exercise when it rejects comments…
That last link has an * inserted before engineering… link works if it is removed
You are more than capable of looking up closed system.
Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder.
You are using the classical mechanics definition of a closed system.
“In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, a closed system is a physical system that doesn’t exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn’t subject to any net force whose source is external to the system.”
That applies to mass and mechanical forces, but not radiation, which can enter and leave the system freely.
I suspect that you are confusing it with the definition of an isolated system in thermodynamics.
“an isolated system is either of the following: a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them. a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass.”
By the thermodynamic definition Earth is definately an open system.
The hydraulic analogies you discuss use water pressure or volume to illuatrate the energy flow, but you should not try to push them beyond their limits.
The reality is straightforward thermodynamics. Greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation from the surface and reradiate it in all directions. A proportion of that reradiation is absorbed by the surface.
The net effect is to reduce the rate of energy loss from the surface.
Entropic man, you make the same mistakes as are in pseudoscience. You can consider an “open system” as a “closed system”, as long as all the mass and energy is accounted for.
And continuing to imply that “greenhouse gases” raise the temperature of the suface violates 2LoT for BOTH “open” and “closed” systems.
EM
May I suggest that you sit down and go through the definition you provided for an isolated system word by word. The earth fails in both those categories so it can’t be an isolated system.
You might finally get that you are in total confusion about a Thermodynamic closed system.
Energy in or out is permitted; matter cannot pass the boundary either way. Even a completely enclosed pot being heated is a closed system even though energy is emitted and absorbed.
It would help if you provide links to any quotes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system
Note the caveat.
“A closed system is a physical system that does not allow certain types of transfers (such as transfer of mass and energy transfer) in or out of the system. The specification of what types of transfers are excluded varies in the closed systems of physics, chemistry or engineering.”
Could you make clear what definition of closed system you are referring to. Are you referring tto the definition used in classical mechanics, thermodynamics, chemistry or engineering?
I suggest that since the greenhouse effect is a thermodynamic effect, that is the definition you should be using.
Particularly, could you clarify where you stand on this.
“In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings. An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange energy and matter. (This scheme of definition of terms is not uniformly used, though it is convenient for some purposes. In particular, some writers use ‘closed system’ where ‘isolated system’ is used here.)”
EM:
I have given you three references which basically are all the same. Examples are also given. It spelled out the Thermodynamic qualifier. I even simplified it for you.
Now you come up with a Wiki that should cover your position of open system. Tell me where does your open system fit in when matter does not move in or out, there are no real net forces on earth and energy freely comes in and out.
Show me on that reference where your open earth system fits as a unique system. How did you decide it was an open system?
I am off to bed so will look forward to what you say. Mine is much easier :).
Withinthermodynamicsthere are three main types ofthermodynamicsystems: open, closed and isolated.
Openthermodynamicsystem. It is said that a system is open if it allows a flow with the external environment, both mass and energy (throughheatand / or work and / or another form of energy), through its limit;
Thermodynamic closed system. Inthermodynamicsit is said to be closed if it allows a flow of energy with the external environment, through its frontier, (by means of heat and / or work and / or another form of energy), but not by mass;
https://solar-energy.technology/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-system
I have now provided three links… how many more do you want?
TonyM
I think we are agreed on the definition now. Both talking about Earth, and Eli’s setup as systems freely exchanging energy with their surroundings but without significant mass exchange.
In thermodynamic parlance, closed but not isolated.
Coming back to the plates, The purpose of the experiment is to compare energy under different steady state conditions.
Eli’s setup also meets the definition of a thermodynamic closed system once the plates are in place.
“The purpose of the experiment is to compare energy under different steady state conditions.”
No, the purpose of the “experiment” is to twist reality to fit imaginary pseudoscience.
entropic…”and Elis setup as systems freely exchanging energy with their surroundings but without significant mass exchange”.
The plates in Eli’s setup are not exchanging energy. There is a one way transfer of heat via EM. All from hot to cold.
Eli is confused, as are all climate alarmists.
I have already explained that in a transfer of heat from a hotter system to a cooler system via radiation that no heat flows between them. Heat decreases in one and increases in the other. That is the transfer, an apparent heat transfer, not an actual physical transfer of heat.
EM acts as the transfer agent when heat in the hotter body is converted to EM and that heat is lost. At the cooler body, the EM is absorbed and converted to heat.
That process is NOT reversible.
Sadly Gordon demonstrates utter confusion writing the plates in Eli’s setup are not exchanging energy.
The “silly wabbit” fools many with the blue/green plates nonsense. Most of the fools do not understand the relevant physics. It’s easy to understand, even without an indepth knowledge of the applicable laws.
Start with the plates in full contact. At equilibrium, the blue plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and the green plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the right.
Now, move the plates one molecule apart. The blue plate would still be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and to the right. The green plate would absorb all of the 200 Watts/m^2, but could only emit to the right. So both plates would still be at the equilibrium temperature of 244 K, just as they were, when in contact.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
“Now, move the plates one molecule apart.”
Then two body radiation enters the example where only one body with a source of radiation existed. Radiative energy transfer has different physics than conductive energy transfer of which JD shows JD is unaware. One molecule apart, there are two plates radiating at each other where previously there was one plate.
8e3 is a bogus cartoon, learn some physics JD & do that by running real experiments. Separate a real plate into two by 1 molecule, 1mm, 1cm, 1m in a vacuum & measure what happens to equilibrium temperature of the plates (replicate E. Swanson’s results too). Let us know what you find (research view factor).
Oh, and try to understand physics of a closed system (one plate in equilibrium with a radiation source) with an open system (adding a plate).
After running the experiments JD, return the results here for peer review. JD’s 8e3 cartoon has been rejected by proper peer review if JD hasn’t noticed. Find a less reputable blog to publish the 8e3 cartoon JD, I recommend a blog with sophistry in the title.
More desperate fluff from fluffball.
He always gets it wrong.
Nothing new.
Right, nothing new JD, because you neglect to learn some physics and do some experiments. To those that don’t learn some physics, nothing is ever new. Just as JD always writes.
Learn some physics JD, enjoy something new to JD. Or just keep having 8e3 rejected by proper peer review since this blog is very entertained by JD’s antics.
Ball4
Your advice to JDHuffman is excellent. I have attempted the same. He will ignore it. This troll hates to get his hands dirty with actual experiment. It is all his thinking and declarations. Experiments are taboo since they would demonstrate his incorrect ideas. He gets his praise from the goofball Postma that thinks he is a genius above all the others. I have read his posts, he understands nothing but he is great at shutting down opposing thoughts.
Postma pats g.e.r.a.n on the head and he gushes in pride. It makes him think he is intelligent. You show him that he is a quack but he does not like the truth.
Keep it up though.
Norman, did you ever wonder why you misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult others so much?
It’s because you have nothing else going for you.
Nothing new.
A Joe Postma ID used to post here until the proper peer review process ran it off. JD prefers to stay and provide great entertainment.
Something new for JD would be to take the ideal proper green plate equilibrium 1LOT solution with the BB blue plate at 262K and then paint the blue plate side facing the green plate with a highly reflecting metallic paint as shown in JD’s 6c3. With that blue plate side aborbing less it would also emit less and the green plate would still emit the same at first with a new equilibrium to be established.
What happens JD? JD already wrote JD knows what would happen above.
Fluffball, and his sidekick Norman Grinvalds, continue to demonstrate their alacrity to pervert reality.
Nothing new.
JD prefers nothing new. Nothing new.
When fluffball and Norman Grinvalds start mentioning g.e.r.a.n and Postma, you know they are defeated.
The funny thing is, they don’t know it!
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You do exactly what you attribute to other posters.
YOU: “Norman, did you ever wonder why you misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult others so much?”
This is what you do in most your posts. You totally misrepresent what people say. When they try to explain it to you, then you go off and say they are rambling or taking typing class.
You insult in most your posts and then think it is bad when you are on the receiving end. You called me a Con-Man repeatedly in many many posts. You call a very intelligent poster, Tim Folkerts, dim.
You make fun of and taunt anyone who uses actual physics against your many unsupported declarations, just like Postma does. You are his disciple and that is why we bring it up.
Well Norman, you just keep typing out your usual drivel. Nothing but misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults. You have no respect for reality. And you can’t learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
More of your unsupported declarations. The same thing you do with physics. You make declarations. I ask you to support them. You divert and dodge and weave and pretend to be doing something of value.
YOU: “Nothing but misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults.”
Okay what are my misrepresentations. Be specific. What false accusations? Be specific. You insult and taunt, you get it back. You act with decency and respect and you get that back.
I suppose you won’t address my questions. Maybe you will repeat your post as if you think that makes it more credible.
Now Norman, we both know this is just a waste of time. If you were sincerely concerned about all your irrational behavior, all you would have to do is just read your recent comments.
But, just so you can practice more of your denial, here’s some recent examples of your misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults:
*This troll hates to get his hands dirty with actual experiment.
*Experiments are taboo since they would demonstrate his incorrect ideas.
*You totally misrepresent what people say.
*You make fun of and taunt anyone who uses actual physics against your many unsupported declarations
Have fun typing out your rambling denials.
JD…”When fluffball and Norman Grinvalds start mentioning g.e.r.a.n and Postma, you know they are defeated.”.
Actually, Postma nailed it when he claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
JDHuffman
YOU consider this incorrect: *This troll hates to get his hands dirty with actual experiment.”
Absolute factual. You are a troll and you do not do experiments. How you call that untrue is just you making up reality.
Another one: *Experiments are taboo since they would demonstrate his incorrect ideas.”\
Again totally correct on my part! You complain about E. Swanson’s experiment but you will NOT do your own and it is because it would prove you wrong. Totally true assessment of who you are! You can take the E. Swanson Blue plate and have the green plate touching, then move them away. The green plate will cool and the blue plate will warm. You say it won’t but you will NEVER verify your declarations with actual experiment.
So far I am 100% correct on both those statements about you. Not even close to being wrong in any way.
Again: “*You totally misrepresent what people say.”
Yes you do this quite often with my posts. When I explain my point you claim it is rambling. You don’t even know what you do on this blog do you?
Finally: *You make fun of and taunt anyone who uses actual physics against your many unsupported declarations”
Absolute truth. I score 100% on all those statements.
You make fun of many posters and then talk about their work and jobs and how they have dead end jobs, I have seen you do this often.
Yup you are a complete phony and your post is validation of your bad behavior on this blog.
Clean up your act!
Norman, you make me right, again.
Your imaginative perversions of reality form your opinions. You mentioned that someone had called you a “con man”. I would disagree with that description. You’re not smart enough to con anyone but yourself, and maybe a few adolescents.
But, at least you can type.
JDHuffman
So even on this issue about your character, you will not defend anything I say about you but just counter with a meaningless empty post (like 90% of your dumb posts).
What experiments have you ever performed? You draw a couple of incorrect cartoons and that is about all.
You have not pointed out which of my comments about you are false or misleading. They are all totally correct. You just have zero knowledge of physics and you have no clue how science works.
Ball4 is correct, the peer process works. You are just a phony pretending to know something. When confronted or asked for evidence you go off on long unrelated comments and then you say others divert. Most know this about you. I think you are only fooling Gordon Robertson. The rest know you are a complete phony.
Grinvalds, I don’t waste much time with you, defending myself. You’re going to try to discredit anyone that does not belong to your false religion. You’re a zealot. The more that delusional clowns like you attack me, the more I enjoy it.
Now, your 1000-word typing exercise, please.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Grinvalds, I dont waste much time with you, defending myself. Youre going to try to discredit anyone that does not belong to your false religion. Youre a zealot. The more that delusional clowns like you attack me, the more I enjoy it.”
The more correct concept would be that I discredit the idiots, like you and Gordon Robertson, that make skeptics look stupid with blatant denial of science and making up all kinds of silly unsupported ideas.
That would be a much better conclusion.
Also you now admit you are here only to troll. Your own words reveal the truth. You want to provoke people to attack you because you enjoy it. That is complete troll behavior.
Will you ever be honest and admit you have zero background in physics and look around the web a bit to read a few things here and there and then pretend you know something about science. Be honest with yourself. It will help you.
He says 12 semester hours:
https://tinyurl.com/ycs3v5ko
Norman, that is not even close to 1000 words. You can do better, boy.
Start banging on that keyboard.
And thanks Svante, a little reality really stands out next to Norman’s nonsense.
“He says 12 semester hours:”
And yet astoundingly, he avoided learning the main thing one is supposed to learn in physics courses, how to solve problems using actual physics equations.
He believes equations need not apply. His problem-solving approach is guessing, as he does with the GPE problem, or declaring as he does with the Moon problem.
Nate shows up with his usual misrepresentations and false accusations, rendering him completely irrelevant.
The poor boy just can’t learn.
JD gives his usual fine-print disclaimer – the one that everyone has learned by now to ignore.
ball4…”Radiative energy transfer has different physics than conductive energy transfer of which JD shows…”
There is no such thing as generic radiative energy transfer. There is radiative heat transfer and the 2nd law specifies it in one direction only.
Are you claiming that EM can be transferred from one body to another and still exist in either body as EM? EM does not exist as an independent entity in the atoms of a body, it is created when the electrons in those atoms change energy levels. It is destroyed as EM when converted back to heat in a cooler body.
The difference between heat transfer via conduction and via radiation, is the medium. With conduction, the heat is transferred atom to atom. With radiation, the heat is converted to EM transferred by EM, then converted back.
You can claim that as a radiative energy transfer but it is heat being transferred, not EM. Heat can only be transferred in one direction only unless an external compensation is provided to make it happen.
“Are you claiming that EM can be transferred from one body to another and still exist in either body as EM?”
No. Heat entity does not exist in an object Gordon. Proven by experiment in the mid1800s.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
JD…”Start with the plates in full contact. At equilibrium, the blue plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and the green plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the right.
Now, move the plates one molecule apart”.
The problem is, JD, Eli specified the blue plate is independently heated. Then it transfers energy to the cooler GP. Energy is then transferred from the cooler GP and absorbed by the hotter BP to raise its temperature.
It’s all quite hilarious. In the process, the 2nd law is breached and perpetual motion is initiated.
Not once is heat mentioned, it is presumed. Eli believes that heat and EM are one and the same and that a two-way transfer takes place radiatively between bodies of different temperatures.
Fluffball still gets it wrong, ad infinitum.
Nothing new.
Tony,
Eli’s 2-plate system is purely radiative. Designed only to show to 2nd Law idiots that the introduction of a cooler object can inhibit energy loss from a warmer object receiving constant heat, whereby it warms. Matter doesn’t enter into the equation. The open system comment is a red herring.
If the introduction of the green plate is what you think makes an open system, this is just an analogy for Earth with and without an atmosphere, a typical thought experiment. There’s no inconsistency.
barry, if you start with two plates together, why would pullling them slightly apart cause one’s temperature to increase? When have you ever seen that happen, in reality?
You are letting your belief system make you into a fool.
In an enclosed system all objects will assume exactly the temperature , regardless what they are made off or what color they are ,
this is as basic as you get , if you don’t know this go back to your skool return your degrees in fizzix and ask for your money back.
exactly the same temperature
Not if the enclosed system incorporates a variable energy source and a lag effect.
(I haven’t been following the discussion – I’m only addressing that particular statement.)
And I’m sure you mean an isolated system. In thermodynamics, a closed system allows for an energy transfer into and out of the system. It is ‘closed’ only to mass transfer.
BDB, please stop trolling.
Yes, Eben. I wonder what the 2nd Law idiots make of the Earth’s vertical temperature profile, where layers of atmosphere and oceans are at different temperatures.
barry…”Yes, Eben. I wonder what the 2nd Law idiots make of the Earths vertical temperature profile, where layers of atmosphere and oceans are at different temperatures”.
A no-brainer for someone who understand physics. Besides, this has nothing to do with the 2nd law
In the atmosphere, pressure is stratified by gravity. As air drops in pressure with altitude, with the volume and mass relatively constant, the temperature has to drop.
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of air molecules and if there are less air molecules per unit volume, there is less kinetic energy hence less heat and temperature. As you thin a gas it’s temperature drops toward 0K.
The oceans are not a gas and the Ideal Gas Law does not apply. Ocean water pressure increases with depth due to the weight of water above it. Some people claim the same is true in the atmosphere but that makes no sense.
Air does not have weight in the same sense as a body in which the atoms are bonded. If it did, we’d be walking around with the weight of large amounts of air above us.
In water, the water molecules are held together by weak charges and water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per square foot. The equivalent amount of air molecules in a container would not weigh very much. A cubic foot of air weighs 0.0807 lbs.
Ocean temperature does not increase with water pressure because oceans are heated from the top. As one goes deeper, the water cools, and cooler water is more dense and sinks deeper. Therefore the coldest water is at the deepest depths.
Typo alert, Gordon:
“…water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per square foot.>
That should be “62.5 pounds per cubic foot”.
Gordon: you say that and water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per cubic foot (not square foot, as per your typo).
I think that you must have been tired when you posted this! Think about it: 62.5 pounds is over half a hundredweight (56 pounds).
This is where the metric system is so much easier!
1 cubic foot = 2.8368 litres.
1 litre of water weighs 1 kilogram.
Hence 2.8368 litres = 2.8368 kilos (at 4 degrees Celsius).
2.8368 kilos = 6.254 pounds
i.e. 1 cubic foot of water = 6.254lbs.
Gordon – I apologise, you’re right re. the amount of water in a cubic foot of water – see my later post, my calculation is decimal point out!
JD…”Typo alert, Gordon:
“…water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per square foot.>
That should be “62.5 pounds per cubic foot”.”
***********
Thanks, JD, obviously a cubic foot of water.
carbon500…It’s kind of amazing all the same that a cu ft of water could weigh that much.
I remember some things uncannily and that one seems to be engraved on the inside of my eyelids. I reworked it as follows:
1 cu ft = 28,316.8 cc and 1 cc = 1 gram.
28,316.8 grams = 28.317 KG and 1 Kg = 2.2 pounds
28.317 kg x 2.2 pounds/Kg = 62.3 pounds
This calculator gets 62.428 pounds for some reason. I would guess the discrepancy comes in how many decimals you use.
https://www.inchcalculator.com/water-weight-calculator/
1 Kg actually = 2.20462 pounds
so, 2.20462 pounds/Kg x 28.3168 Kg = 62.42778 pounds
rounding off = 62.43 pounds
I guess I learned an approximation.
Those units are man-made, weight does not exist.
Svante, please stop trolling.
I did a bit, didn’t I? Gordon didn’t catch it so the damage was limited.
Dont worry, a little bit of trolling can be fun sometimes.
Gordon, it seems to me that the 2nd Law idiots would think that if one layer of the ocean/atmosphere thermal system became permanently warmer, the other layers that were warmer than it would remain unaffected.
EG,
The deepest part of the ocean is about 4C. The surface, 16C+ on average.
If the bottom most layer was heated by 10C, I believe the 2nd Law idiots would argue that the surface temperature would remain completely unchanged. Because the bottom waters would still be colder than the surface – by 2C – and heat cannot flow from cold to hot.
You seem to know why Earth’s average vertical temperature profile is relatively stable. Do you think the surface waters would heat or remain the same temperature in this scenario?
barry, you need to define your term “2nd Law idiots”.
Are 2nd Law idiots those that are uneducated, or willingly ignorant, or both?
barry…”The deepest part of the ocean is about 4C. The surface, 16C+ on average.
If the bottom most layer was heated by 10C, I believe the 2nd Law idiots would argue that the surface temperature would remain completely unchanged”.
The 2nd law only tells you in which direction heat can flow, the problem you pose in one of thermal conductivity. It’s also a problem of heat dissipation.
As it stands, with the surface at 16C and the bottom at 4C, there is continuous gradient of 12 degrees from the surface to the depths. Heat will flow from the surface downward. If you raise the bottom by 10C, to 14C then there is only a 2C gradient and the rate of cooling will slow down.
Don’t forget what Mike used to point out about geothermal activity at the bottom of the oceans.
And don’t forget that the oceans never get colder than freezing no matter how deep they go. That is likely related to pressure as well and heat from the Earth.
When miners tunnel into the Earth, the deeper they go, the hotter it gets.
The rock faces in this gold mine are claimed to be 140 F. Hotter than a hot bath.
https://gizmodo.com/terrifying-facts-about-the-worlds-deepest-gold-mine-1484301368
Gordon,
As it stands, with the surface at 16C and the bottom at 4C, there is continuous gradient of 12 degrees from the surface to the depths. Heat will flow from the surface downward. If you raise the bottom by 10C, to 14C then there is only a 2C gradient and the rate of cooling will slow down.
And if the rate of cooling of the surface waters slows down due to a reduced temp gradient to the bottom waters, does the surface then get warmer or stay the same temperature?
That’s the question I asked. What do you say?
barry, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
You can see it happen here.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
You ask why? The reason has been given to you. When the plates are together the blue plate transfers energy to the green plate via conduction. When they are moved apart the conduction heat transfer goes to zero. So now the blue plate can only lose energy via radiative loss. The maximum it could lose if the green plate was at near absolute zero would be 200 Watts/m^2 on the side facing the green plate. With the green plate considerably warmer than absolute zero it transfers energy back to the blue plate. The amount of energy the blue plate can transfer to the green plate is much less than it could transfer by conduction so the temperature goes up. Really simple, well established physics. I have linked you to the real science many times. I can’t do anything when you think experiments are bogus, valid science is pseudoscience and anything Joseph Postma tells you is absolute truth.
Norman, your “physics” is from wiki. Consequently, you have no depth. But if you were able to use your head, you could figure this out.
If the plates are together, the blue plate is emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, due to its equilibrium temperature. Pulling them apart does not change that. It is then still emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and then also emitting the same to the right.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
It’s okay if you don’t understand. You don’t have enough background, and you can’t thiink for yourself. Just be glad you are able to type.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman, your “physics” is from wiki. Consequently, you have no depth. But if you were able to use your head, you could figure this out.”
There is one example of how you are dishonest. I have posted to you more than one link to valid sources of heat transfer physics. So this is a completely false statement (similar to most of what you post).
I do understand you graphic is complete crap not based on any physics. Just some nonsense you made up. You have zero experimental evidence to support is and zero established physics to support your cartoon crap!
Pulling the plates apart changes everything. If you had studied any physics on heat transfer you would know this. Since you have not studied anything and make up stuff you will never get it right!
When you pull them apart you no longer have conduction heat transfer. It emits the same, which is correct, but it is receiving energy from the green plate. The green plate cools because it is receiving the same amount of energy from the blue plate but it now has twice the radiating surface. All basic, all well understood by people who can read heat transfer textbooks.
Wrong again, Norman.
The only way the green plate can cause a temperature rise in the blue plate would be if it were a heat source, or an insulator. But, it is neither. It is a black body, which absorbs all IR from a hotter black body.
You just don’t get that from your wiki-“physics”….
JDHuffman
YOU: “It is a black body, which absorbs all IR from a hotter black body.”
Yes indeed that is what a blackbody would do. However you forget a blackbody also emits the maximum amount of IR at a temperature. Gray bodies emit less energy at the same temperature.
You also forget there is a constant input of “new” energy. The blue plate is a heat source to the green plate in this case. It sends IR to the green plate, which the green plate absorbs and warms and begins emitting IR.
The green plate acts like a heat shield for the blue plate. It absorbs all the IR the blue plate emits toward it so that none goes through. I do not get my physics from wiki. How about textbooks on heat transfer that are available online.
Poor Norman, you are so desperate.
Most of what you banged out on your keyboard was irrelevant. But the funny parts were:
“The green plate acts like a heat shield for the blue plate.”
You pathetic clown, a “black body” is NOT a “heat shield”! The two are opposites!
“I do not get my physics from wiki.”
I agree, not even wiki has such perverted physics.
Great comedy, some of your best.
JDHuffman
Any object will act as a radiant heat shield. If your source is emitting 20,000 watts/m^2 of energy and you surround it with an object, you will not receive 20,000 watts/m^2 of energy. Any object in front of the source that is not transparent to that energy will be a heat shield.
A blackbody would be a poor heat shield as once it warmed up it would begin emitting but the blackbody surrounding your source would only emit half the energy of the source, the rest would be emitted back to the source.
Norman, you have a huge deficit in the relevant physics. That’s why you are always arguing with yourself. If you claim the green plate is a black body, it doesn’t work for you. If you claim it is a “heat shield”, it doesn’t work for you.
Your pathetic pseudoscience just doesn’t work.
But at least you are funny, and you can type out your humor for all to enjoy.
barry…”Elis 2-plate system is purely radiative. Designed only to show to 2nd Law idiots that the introduction of a cooler object can inhibit energy loss from a warmer object receiving constant heat, whereby it warms”.
No it can’t. It can only affect the rate of heat dissipation. The rate of cooling/warmer is directly controlled by the heat source.
Norman is still confused about that as it seems are you. Norman thinks that if you increase the air temperature in a room that is cooler than a heated object, that the cooler air in the room will transfer thermal energy to the hotter body to warm the heated object.
That is incorrect. The heated object dissipates heat according to the difference of temperature between it and the ambient air. If you cool the air, increasing the temperature difference, the body will cool. If you increase the air temperature the body will warm.
If you have an electrically heated body and you completely stifle it’s means of dissipating heat, like conduction, convection, and radiation, the body’s temperature will be set by the electrical power supplied to it.
When you introduce a means of heat dissipation, the body will cool from its natural temperature set by the electric current supplied to it. The more you increase the means of dissipating heat, the more the body will cool.
If you reverse that process, by stifling its means of heat dissipation, the body will warm TOWARD ITS NATURAL TEMPERATURE, produced by the electric current. The room air has nothing to do with the warming as far as supplying heat to the system.
With Eli’s blue/green plates, the BP receives energy and warms. If there is no GP in the vicinity, the BP will warm to a temperature related to its ability to dissipate heat under the ambient conditions.
If you bring the GP near to the BP, you interfere with the BP’s ability to dissipate heat via convection and radiation. That will cause it to warm toward it’s natural temperature with all dissipation stifled.
Radiation from the GP is not warming the BP.
My explanation satisfies the 2nd law, Eli’s does not.
Gordon Robertson
How does the Green Plate interfere with the Blue Plate’s ability to dissipate heat via radiation?
Also you state: “If you have an electrically heated body and you completely stifle its means of dissipating heat, like conduction, convection, and radiation, the bodys temperature will be set by the electrical power supplied to it.”
What exactly does that mean? There is not set temperature in this case. The body will continue to increase in temperature until it melts or vaporizes and there is no longer an electrical flow.
I have not the slightest clue where you get your ideas from. They seem like random streams of thought. Anything you want to post you do regardless of how illogical it might be or meaningless.
Another NOTE: “Norman is still confused about that as it seems are you. Norman thinks that if you increase the air temperature in a room that is cooler than a heated object, that the cooler air in the room will transfer thermal energy to the hotter body to warm the heated object.”
Yes it actually will do exactly this. I have already shown you this more than once.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F.gif
This is a represents the energy transfer from an object with temperature to one at absolute zero. All the energy of the hotter object is transferred to the absolute zero one and no energy is returned to the hotter object.
In this case (which is what happens in most heat transfer systems)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F2.gif
The hotter object transfers its energy to the colder object, the colder object transfer less energy to the hotter object. The HEAT flows from hot to cold but energy exchange goes both ways.
You will notice that as the cold object gets warmer it transfers more and more energy back to the hotter object. When they are at the same temperature they exchange the same amount of energy to each other. The surface atoms and molecules do not stop moving, they are in motion always if the object has temperature, they are always colliding with each other and exchanging energy.
norman…”How does the Green Plate interfere with the Blue Plates ability to dissipate heat via radiation?
Also you state: If you have an electrically heated body and you completely stifle its means of dissipating heat, like conduction, convection, and radiation, the bodys temperature will be set by the electrical power supplied to it.
What exactly does that mean? There is not set temperature in this case. The body will continue to increase in temperature until it melts or vaporizes and there is no longer an electrical flow”.
*****
Without the GP, the BP is free to radiate in all directions. I have presumed a metal plate for both since swannie specified that in his original experiment. Metals blocks EM. If you bring a metal GP into close proximity with a radiating BP, the metal will block the IR.
If both plates were insulators, it would be interesting to see the effect. If the radiation from the non-conductive BP could pass right through the non-conductive GP, I doubt whether the BP would warm.
**********
If you run an electric current through a conductor, as is required in a heater, the conductor has resistance. In heaters, the resistance is made intentionally of a higher resistance.
The tungsten filament in a 100 watt light bulb reaches temperatures of several thousand degrees. That temperature is maintained by the electrical current supplied by the lamp voltage through the tungsten resistance.
The solution that converts power to temperature is here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176918/how-to-calculate-temperature-of-an-incandescent-bulb-filament
The authors use Stefan-Boltzman, Planck, etc., to convert the temperature of a 10W halogen lamp from its power.
I = fi x T^4
It would be simpler with a 10W resistor emulating a heater because you would not have to worry about visible radiation.
The bottom line is that a resistance with a fixed electrical current through it has a fixed temperature, depending on the material of the resistance. That is the basis of the Stefan Law, in which he got his data from an experiment by Tyndall in which the latter ran an electric current through a platinum filament resistance till it glowed colours.
The temperature range of the platinum filament ranged from something like 500C through 1400C, depending on the current through it.
You can run current through a tungsten filament in a vacuum tube. There is no air in the tube Most of the IR is absorbed by the plate, a cylinder surrounding a bare filament (some use another cylinder around the filament, the cathode}.
Heat gets transferred through the supporting structure to the base and the glass. I have seen plates in vacuum tubes glowing red due to bombardment by electrons.
If you run that tube in an ambient environment where it can dissipate the heat, it will last for years. However, if you increase the temperature of the environment too high, the tube’s glass will literally melt. I have seen power vacuum tubes develop a bubble then explode.
ENTROPIC MAN -LET’S BE CONSERVATIVE
solar irradiance decrease – .1c temp. change.
1/2 of 1% increase in albedo – -.3c temp. change.
One Major sulfate volcanic eruption – -1.0c temp. change for 2 years
Less UV light – -.3c change in oceanic surface waters.
I am saying if solar output is in a prolonged minimum state modified by a geo magnetic field in sync with it, that all the above can be accomplished and the numbers are on the conservative side.
This would equate at a minimum, to a -.4c change in global temperatures and a -.3c change in oceanic surface water temperatures with out taken into consideration any major volcanic activity which would add another -1.0c over a few years.
I say an increase in global albedo could easily be accomplished through greater snow, cloud coverage and major volcanic activity, and the probability of at east one major volcanic eruption over the next few years is at least 50%.
A 0.5% increase in albedo to the above is not unreasonable.
If the above takes place we have entrenched global cooling and all of the global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age would be well on the way to being removed.
ALBEDO
A Change to the Earth’s albedo is a powerful driver of climate. When the planet’s albedo or reflectivity increases, more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space. This has a cooling effect on global temperatures. Conversely, a drop in albedo warms the planet. A change of just 1% to the Earth’s albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 Wm-2, comparable to the forcing from a doubling of CO2.
And of course the earth’s albedo has been decreasing in recent decades, due to, and amplifying, our warming of the planet.
And of course you think past not the future.
Right, of course, I visit this site because I am worried about what will happen in the past.
Salvatore del prete says:
May 1, 2018 at 9:46 AM
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
David, please stop trolling.
“And of course the earths albedo has been decreasing in recent decades, due to, and amplifying, our warming of the planet.”
I do not agree.
From NASA we can read the following (dated 2014):
“In the early 2000s, after the first few years of Terra-CERES measurements, it appeared that Earth’s albedo was declining, a phenomenon that was widely reported in scientific journals and on NASA Earth Observatory. But as more years of data accumulated, and as scientists began to better understand the data, they found that albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though.”
Two pictures confirm this, each in a different manner:
1. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/84000/84499/albedo_change.jpg
2. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/84000/84499/global_albedo_changes.png
That is what I had just sent. The big question is will and if it does how much could the albedo of the earth increase due to greater cloud,snow coverage and major volcanic activity.
I guess it will depend on how much those items increase. I will say if they increase in any measure it is going to translate to a higher albedo.
Throw in sea ice also.
“… how much could the albedo of the earth increase due to greater cloud,snow coverage and major volcanic activity.”
As all ‘skeptic’s, Salvatore, you always restrict what you write to what fits to your own narrative, and deliberately ignore the rest (including albedo increase due to factors you do not seem to know about, e.g. brute force deforestation in primary rain forests, letting sand appear instead of tree leaves).
Thus I repeat: outside of exceptional situations like major changes in the three Milankovich cycles, there are as many reasons on Earth for albedo decrease as for albedo increase.
Look at albedo changes between 1985 and 2015 on the same year’s day:
January 1985
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/1985/GLASS02B05.V04.A1985001.BSA_NIR.jpg
January 2015
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/2015/GLASS02B05.V04.A2015001.BSA_NIR.jpg
July 1985
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/1985/GLASS02B05.V04.A1985185.BSA_NIR.jpg
July 2015
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/2015/GLASS02B05.V04.A2015185.BSA_NIR.jpg
and try to draw correct conclusions.
My main computer is damaged, so I can’t provide you with exact anomaly data as usual.
Bindidon – your thinking just is not there when it comes to why I think the albedo moving forward is likely to increase. You are not connecting the dots for some reason.
salvatore del prete says:
April 25, 2018 at 2:17 PM
“One thing I am sure of which is global temperatures will not be increasing from this point on.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299182
David, please stop trolling.
binny…”But as more years of data accumulated, and as scientists began to better understand the data, they found that albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though”.
This may come as a shock but I am being nice to you today.
Murry Salby thinks the same thing is going on with CO2 concentration. He does not think it is increasing as claimed, he thinks our anthropogenic contribution is affecting the natural conservation balance of CO2 and the increase we see is natural CO2 adjusting to our input.
Anthropogenic CO2 is a small fraction of natural CO2 in the short term. Salby thinks it is the natural CO2 causing the appearance of a linear trend in atmospheric CO2 while it adjusts and compensates.
binny…the intro by someone else is tedious, the talk by Salby is interesting, complete with the math and graphs.
This guy is no lightweight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc
Salby couldn’t keep a job anywhere. Wonder why?
Only deniers like Gordon think he matters.
DA: which part of the graph Salby presents at 1:02:09 in the link supplied do you deem incorrect, and why?
Salvatore
0.4C cooling would put us back to 1980s temperatures.
What rate of change do you expect?
A statistically significant change in global temperature is +/-0.2C. Depending on the dataset you use, we are seeing 0.12C/decade(UAH) to 0.18C/decade(GISS) warming which becomes significant after 1-2 decades.
If you see 0.2C/decade cooling that becomes significant after 1 decade.
Shall we come back to this when UAH shows 13 month averages around anomaly 0C
.4c IN LESS THEN ONE DECADE FROM NOW.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
April 4, 2018 at 12:48 PM
“This year is a turn point in the climate.
“No further global warming.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-295951
David, please stop trolling.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
There really has been no trend in albedo in the past but I expect it to increase now moving forward..
That data* has been extended to Sept. 2016 now Salvatore, albedo is reported to have had a trend down 2000 to 2016 of around -0.57 +/- .19 W/m^2/decade in that time with LW out trending up (to get back toward equilibrium) around 0.35 +/- 0.24 W/m^2/decade for ASR of +0.35 W/m^2/decade consistent with the UAH TLT product showing an increase in the period.
“..trends in TOA flux for this short record are still primarily driven by internal variability of the climate system..” Meaning ENSO in particular: “CERES TOA fluxes exhibit pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. (Albedo) variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage”
*Loeb 2018
..LW out maybe trending up (to get back toward equilibrium) around 0.19 +/- .21 W/m^2/decade..
Again you are talking the past where as I am talking about the future.
IF you could Ball send the albedo data up to year 2016. Thanks
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1
See Fig. 9a for all-sky global albedo graph through 2016 observed in CERES view field.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
February 20, 2018 at 6:37 PM
“Year 2018 the year AGW ends. Oceanic global temperatures only +.15c or so above means will be going lower and albedo is going to increase slightly all due to very low sustained solar activity.
“Very confident.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-288281
David, please stop trolling.
California Governor: “In Less than Five Years, Even the Worst Skeptics Will Be Believers”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/18/california-governor-in-less-than-five-years-even-the-worst-skeptics-will-be-believers/
Apparently it seems Jerry going kill hundreds of Californian in order the make them all believers.
“In an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, Brown countered President Donald Trump’s repeated assertion that the fires are due to poor forest management. Citing a study that found the amount of land burnt in California over the past 15 years has doubled because of climate change, Brown noted that the only way to ensure “long-term forest health” is reducing carbon emissions to zero.
If that can’t be done, “you’re gonna see these fires not only continuing, but getting worse by the year, as they are,” Brown said.”
https://mic.com/articles/192534/california-gov-jerry-brown-climate-skeptics-will-be-believers-within-5-years-as-wildfires-rage#.acTGaIHYf
Every year Brown remains in power, we will get more forest fires and more people dying
Because carbon emission can not go to zero. Nor does Jerry have a plan to have even have California CO2 emission go to zero.
In 2014: 359 million metric tonnes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
hmm, this says:
“California’s factories, power plants, farms and cars pumped 441.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in 2014, according to the California Air Resources Board.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-8342038.php
You think if it was important, the Ca government would accurately measure it and have accurate numbers available for the public.
Something like National debt clocks, and have billboards letting everyone know
But as I was saying Jerry not getting California to zero, but even if he did it would zero effect upon global CO2 levels.
And since it will not go to zero, Jerry plans on letting more forest fires burn out control and kill people and cost tens of billions of dollars in property damages.
Now California has long been controlled by Dem party and 67% of democrats in California think global warming is very important.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-views-on-climate-change/
But apparently Jerry going to have let them burn until there is 100% of the dems who think global warming is very important.
Nationally it’s different picture.
Large numbers of houses aren’t being burnt down by forest fires.
And when asked a question:
Worry a great deal/fair amount about global warming?
33% of reps and 62% independents with dems 91%
Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime?
Rep: 18% Independents: 45% Dems: 67%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx
Maybe we need a new question: Do you think global warming will pose a serious threat, if you were to have Jerry Brown as your governor?
Regarding Jerry Brown’s citing a study that found the amount of land burnt (land burns – that’s a new one!) in California over the past 15 years has doubled because of climate change – this begs the question: how and where exactly has the Californian climate changed over the last 15 years?
If Jerry Brown knows about global warming/climate change why has he not governed the State in order to save lives of Californians who would be killed by climate change.
Noah builds ark, Jerry lead people who mostly believes in global warming into destruction from the effects of global warming.
Jerry is the Pharaoh, he not Moses leading oppressed slaves, why isn’t Jerry listening to the god of his beliefs?
Why isn’t California a leader of US states in terms of CO2 reduction- at the very least.
California has most believers of global warming and the Governor does nothing to protect his faithful believer from this world ending destruction.
Carbon,
Tamino has an interesting statistical analysis of temp/rainfall patterns in Ca, compared with burn area.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/temperature-rainfall-and-california-wildfire/
Barry: I’ve had a look at the link you’ve given, and the following points occur to me.
Firstly, climate is far more complex than the author’s graphs suggest. In my opinion, he’s taken an extremely simplistic view to shore up his beliefs.
Take a look at the very interesting information about California’s climate here:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California
The daily temperature fluctuations for example are striking – in some parts, by 20C over every day, and this varies in different locations across the state.
How can average temperatures have any meaning given this variability?
Also, just look at the variations in climate types across California, from a Mediterranean type to desert.
Again, the question has to be answered if the claim is made that the climate over all all of California has altered – where have it changed, exactly – and how?
Other factors which influence wildfires of course include population increases and changes in the places where people opt to live, social habits (for example outdoor camping, barbecues, carelessly discarded cigarettes), malicious criminal acts (arson), and according to other information, even power line malfunctions – have a look on the internet.
From reading about California I would argue that yes, humans cause the majority of wildfires – but it’s got nothing to do with the supposed climate change due to CO2.
Look at some of the footage of the recent fire – burning embers carried high into the sky – it’s easy see how these spread so catastrophically. Summer brings dry conditions – and, sadly, danger. Minor atmospheric temperature fluctuations aren’t going to alter the situation.
carbon…”this begs the question: how and where exactly has the Californian climate changed over the last 15 years?”
Haven’t you heard, Malibu Beach is under 10 feet of water, all snow on the Sierra Nevadas has melted, there are droughts in California, as usual, and the dry vegetation due to the droughts causes forest fires.[sarc /off]
Oh…the climate of apathy of Californians toward paying taxes that might alleviate forest fires and the means of fighting them, has changed. For the worse.
Meanwhile, they use their precious water to fill swimming pools.
March 2018…16 feet of snow falls on Sierra Nevadas in California. Unfortunately, NOAA has moved its 3 thermometers covering California to the warmer beach area.
https://weather.com/news/news/2018-03-19-16-feet-snow-sierra-nevada-march/
See Gordon lie like a clown, unable to accept that Malibu has serious fire problems now.
Isn’t Gordon clever? He cares for no one but himself.
DA, when are you headed to Malibu to fight the fires?
Be sure to send photos.
The stratospheric polar vortex pattern is now compatible with the geomagnetic field in the north.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/cnmueyvarvlf.png
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/ayyy3q52xnqp.jpg
These exchanges are are becoming more like exercises in futility which is why I rarely post. I attempted to address analogies which are often not appropriate. In Barry’s case there were three:
1. plates to represent the radiation exchange of gases.
2. The objection based on tropopause and stratosphere lapse rates differing from the troposphere.
3. The high pressure gas cylinder as a “proof” that pressure does not matter in developing T of atmosphere.
So I began with the plates saying basically FOR A START earth is an open system vs Eli’s system and then went on to highlight a whole set of issues raised by G&T. Heavens we got stuck in reverse gear with a tirade from Barry and Entropic re earth not being a closed system with others joining the fray including that it waltzes in and out of open and closed classification; split personality of two different systems.
This all misses the point. Even if I had been wrong, which I was not, it does not address the key issues raised by G&T. Halpern got his butt kicked but would not present this plate experiment to them. Of course not; they would laugh at him. He knows that! He gets his adulation from his admirers but that is a poor substitute for addressing the specific physics issues raised.
Barry, yes G&T do know about Clausius: they speak German too.
Once again, we never claimed – allegedly with reference to Clausius – that a colder body does not send radiation to a warmer one. Rather, we cite a paper, in which Clausius treats the radiative exchange [19, 20]. The correct question is, whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the warmer body warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.
The Stefan–Boltzmann T^4-law does only apply to an idealized black body, that is a cavity with a hole placed in a heat bath of constant temperature T .
Global climatologists use crude approximations, from which they compute tiny variations of measurable quantities unscrupulously. This is inadmissible. One example is the conjectured atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect. Even if their theory were correct, the error bars would render their predictions useless, since being gigantic.
Gaseous layers never obey the Stefan–Boltzmann T^4 law. All these calculations (e.g., the shell layer calculations performed in detail by Halpern et al.) are fundamentally wrong and prove nothing. The corresponding four pages of the comment by Halpern et al. are obsolete.
If one introduces discretizations (lattice cells, finite number of layers) one must always discuss either the continuum limit or the artifacts generated by the discretization thoroughly. The “philosophy” communicated by the numerical mathematician and global climatologist von Storch “The discretization is the
model” is not only simplistic but fundamentally unphysical.j
(an interesting footnote: It should be noted that von Storch was one of the first global climatologist who refuted the
“Hockey Stick” by Michael Mann et al. However, as his textbook shows, he still accepts the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse hypotheses.)
I could delve into a lot more but I ask to what purpose – more conflation, digression and merry go round music?
tonyM says:
“I could delve into a lot more but I ask to what purpose”
You might learn something. You taught me that the Sun has a thermostat, didn’t you?
“The Stefan–Boltzmann T^4-law does only apply to an idealized black body”
Learn about the emissivity factor epsilon here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycl5w8qj
It will change Eli’s numbers, but not the principle.
“The correct question is, whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the warmer body warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.”
Not the correct question which is:
..whether the colder body (space at 2.7K) that radiates less intensively than the warmer body (surface or blue plate) warms up the warmer one (surface, blue plate) when space is replaced by a warmer body (the atm. at 250K, or the green plate). The answer is: It does.
svante…”Learn about the emissivity factor epsilon here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycl5w8qj
It will change Elis numbers, but not the principle”.
*********
There is nowhere in that article where it is claimed ‘e’ operates in both directions between bodies of different temperatures. The only time that can be true is when both bodies are in thermal equilibrium.
When the body temperatures differ, one is absorbing and the other emitting. That is the basis of the Stefan-Boltsman equation, especially the Stefan equation I = (fi).T^4. He got the data to work out the formula from a platinum filament glowing (Tyndall) due to an electric current being run through it.
Nowhere in the work of S-B will you see an equation describing a two way transfer of EM. Nowhere in Kircheoff, who developed the theory of blackbodies and emissivity/absorp-tion, will you see a reference to bodies of different temperatures. All work done by Kircheoff was done at thermal equilibrium.
All the nonsense you read about two way transfers of heat between bodies of different temps comes from modernists presuming the S-B equation can be applied both ways, which it cannot.
Eli is one of those modernists who has got it wrong, even though it was explained to him patiently by G&T, two experts in thermodynamics.
Eli does not get it that EM and heat are two very different forms of energy and they cannot be summed and/or interchanged as he does it.
ball4…”Not the correct question which is:
..whether the colder body (space at 2.7K) that radiates less intensively than the warmer body (surface or blue plate) warms up the warmer one (surface, blue plate) when space is replaced by a warmer body (the atm. at 250K, or the green plate). The answer is: It does”.
More pseudo-science from bally. Your explanation contradicts the quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM. There are specific rules that prohibit with EM, the equivalent of water running uphill without a pump of some kind, or water gaining energy by running downhill.
“Your explanation contradicts the quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM.”
My explanation contradicts Gordon’s incorrect quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM; my explanation is consistent with the actual quantum theory which explains that the whole atomic structure absorbs and emits light quanta. The atoms and molecules are vibrating in the plates & earth atm. Gordon, not just the electrons.
Just another Gordon gaffe in the Gordon gaffe wall.
It does not contradict the quantum theory.
The quantum theory is strictly mathematical. What it contradicts is the cartoon depiction of quantum mechanics used in education to give the theory a physical form.
As Einstein said near the end of his career: “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
What do you mean by “It”? Quantum theory has made much progress since Einstein’s time.
You need only study the basics of quantum jumps in molecular spin and rotation modes to understand the vast majority of birth and death of photons in Earth’s atm. Gordon insists on electron level jumps being important in meteorology but they aren’t as energy for those levels is not available so not important in Earth atm. troposphere.
ball4…”My explanation contradicts Gordons incorrect quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM; my explanation is consistent with the actual quantum theory which explains that the whole atomic structure absorbs and emits light quanta”.
Light, as in visible light, is not heat and it is not the heat-related IR of which we speak. Even at that, the reason we see colours is that objects absorb some EM and reflect the rest. Therefore what you claim is simply wrong.
I have explained quantum theory basics regarding electrons as theorized by Bohr, then Schrodinger. I have studied the basic theory extensively in electrical engineering and as part of earlier training in electronics.
Electron theory ‘IS’ quantum theory. The entire basis of quantum theory is the interaction of electrons with the nucleus. Schrodinger based his equation on that, regarding the electron as orbiting the nucleus at discrete quantum levels.
Once again, when an electron transitions down from one quantum level to another it emits a quantum of EM with an intensity equal to the difference in energy between the levels, in electron volts.
The frequency of the EM comes from the frequency of the electron, which is based on its orbiting velocity. The equation is E = hf.
That raises the question as to how a discrete quanta can have a frequency, which is a measure of the frequency in which one cycle occurs in a second. One cycle is the distance from one ‘WAVE’ crest to another and is related to wavelength by inversion.
In order to absorb EM, the intensity and frequency of the EM must match the frequency of the electron and the energy levels through which the electron must rise after absorbing the EM.
That is simply not possible when the energy and frequency of the EM comes from a lower temperature source. The lower temperature energy will simply be rejected and I don’t know and don’t care where it goes.
My explanation corresponds with the 2nd law, yours does not.
bill hunter…”The quantum theory is strictly mathematical. What it contradicts is the cartoon depiction of quantum mechanics used in education to give the theory a physical form”.
So you’re claiming electrons and atomic nuceii don’t exist. With one stroke, you have swept away a major portion of basic physics and chemistry.
I supplied the math in my reply to Ball4, which is a waste of time. I did it so others can see how much bs he spreads.
Let me awaken you from your slumber. I have worked in the electrical field, the electronics field, and the computer field, over a period of decades. I have received electrical shocks and I can tell you they are far from being mathematical. Although some math can be painful, it is never physically painful and dangerous to life.
I have seen the result of electron beams striking the phosphors on cathode ray displays and I have worked with magnetic deflection circuits that move an electron beam across a display both vertically and horizontally.
Is that a cartoon depiction?
Chemistry depends on electrons and proton-based nucleii being real to form the bonds that hold atoms together in molecules.
Just a cartoon…right??
After working with electrons at a distance over decades I don’t know if the simple Bohr model is correct. In ways, I don’t think it can be, but I’ll tell you something, electrons are far more than math. They are real particles with mass and a negative electrical charge. That can all be measured.
We need the Bohr models and it’s amendments to visualize what we are talking about. Those who indulge purely in math, without physical evidence, leave us with myths like the Big Bang theory, entanglement theory, black holes, space time, and time dilation. All products of the illusions created by the human mind.
Your problem seems to be that you have studied some quantum theory from a philosopher who BELIEVES that math is all there is. I don’t give a hoot what those theoreticians believe, I’ve had holes burned in my skin by electrons. I know they are real.
The orbit model may seem surreal, but it’s all we have. Quantum theory is an obfuscated adjunct to Newtonian physics, not a replacement for it. Some quantum theorists have done physics a huge disfavour by spreading the garbage that QM has replaced Newtonian physics.
bill…”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
You have edited Einstein’s comment somewhat. He was speaking with reference to whether EM is a wave or quanta. Then he referred to Tom, Dick, and Harry as thinking they know the difference.
He was questioning whether light is a wave or made up of discrete particle. No knows as yet even though many people presume to know.
ball4…”You need only study the basics of quantum jumps in molecular spin and rotation modes to understand the vast majority of birth and death of photons in Earths atm. Gordon insists on electron level jumps being important in meteorology but they arent as energy for those levels is not available so not important in Earth atm. troposphere”.
What basics of quantum jumps don’t involve electrons?
There is no spin in molecules, only in the electrons which bonds the atoms into molecules. Spin applies only to electrons.
So, the energy levels are not available in the electrons and nucleii that make up nitrogen, oxygen, argon, CO2, and water vapour.
How the h*** do you think CO2 exists as a molecule? Have you gone completely daft?
Here is the CO2 molecule:
O====C====O
The dashed lines represent electron bonds wherein the electrons are constantly absorbing and emitting EM while jumping between those energy levels you claim do not exist in the atmosphere, and which are not important.
Molecules do not emit EM, or absorb it, it is the electrons that supply the bonds to create molecules that emit and absorb EM.
GR says:
Molecules do not emit EM, or absorb it, it is the electrons that supply the bonds to create molecules that emit and absorb EM
Wrong.
Gordon clearly hasn’t studied much quantum mechanics.
“What basics of quantum jumps don’t involve electrons?”
The vibration & rotational quantum jumps that are the main birth and death of photons in earth troposphere by spinning and vibrating air molecules. Basic 1st course meteorology of which Gordon has no knowledge.
Gordon, you need to read what I am saying more carefully. Granted my composition isn’t anything to brag about but I don’t see anything I said as contradicting anything you said, nor was I implying that there are no electrons or nucleii.
My focus is strictly on light quanta and what it is. You acknowledge the wave/particle problem and thats all I was speaking to.
It is fairly well acknowledged that we don’t fully understand how light works but just about everybody as Einstein points how has a little cartoonish movie in their minds about exactly how it works with little photons flying around in all directions. I am not even saying thats wrong. But what is wrong is using that little movie to imagine cold objects warming warmer objects.There is a real difference between the retention of heat and gaining heat.
“But what is wrong is using that little movie to imagine cold objects warming warmer objects.”
Nothing wrong with that Bill, Dr. Spencer’s experiments have shown data for added cold objects in the atm. warming warmer objects on the surface. Happens routinely fully consistent with 2LOT because it is a real process.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Svante:
Ball4:
We are talking strictly physics and not some pseudo physics.
If you feel that you have become physicists and expert at thermodynamics then I suggest you address your objections to G&T and see how you go. Eli or Halpern et al, Barry’s guru, got his butt kicked; you may fare better but I read it in the stars that you will have sore bums.
It should have been obvious that what you are objecting to are verbatim extracts from G&T. Have a go. Eli or Halpern was not prepared to so perhaps you feel you have more competence.
In the G&T paper, the authors do not ever define what is generally meant, or what they specifically mean, by the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. The authors spend all of 99 pages writing an undefined term discussing what others in 205 references write & might mean. In their introduction 3.7.1:
“Unfortunately, the exact definition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect changes from audience to audience, that is, there are many variations of the theme.”
That is hardly original. The paper offers no new physics, not one original experiment, & nothing new or novel.
Passing a reputable college first course in meteorology is your better use of time in this field, these authors have not bothered to do so.
Ball4:
Other than showing you have not understood their paper you try to obfuscate with the very thing they complain about viz:
the non existence of a clear, falsifiable hypothesis.
Here:
G&T say in part :
that even today the atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
– in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
– in any fundamental work on radiation theory
– that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict each other.
They are even more pointed in the response to Halpern et al but I won’t bother digging it up.
Getting a grasp of the Scientific Method may help you a lot. That way we may avoid having you classifying the earth as waltzing in and out of open/closed systems. You will also be able to show us the solid surfaces in the sky whether they be green, blue or otherwise. That way you won’t find it necessary to offer gratuitous advice on studying Meteorology.
I repeat if you believe that you are more capable than Halpern then go for it and put your rebuttal to their work. After all it is a physics paper which has not been rebutted and which demolishes the GHG conjecture. One wonders why with talent like yours around.
ball4…”In the G&T paper, the authors do not ever define what is generally meant, or what they specifically mean, by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Duh!!! G&T claim there is no such effect, how could they explain what it means? In fact, your claim is exactly what G&T claimed about Halpern et al, that they don’t define what it means.
In fact, the authors use your 99 pages in an attempt to defeat the theory, and they do.
G&T are wrong.
Halpern’s paper very clearly defined terms, G&T paper does not define what they mean by GHE so their def. cannot be falsified as it doesn’t exist.
ball4…”Halperns paper very clearly defined terms, G&T paper does not define what they mean by GHE so their def. cannot be falsified as it doesnt exist.”
You still have it backwards, it was G&T who claimed Halpern et al did not define the meaning of the GHE.
DA – “G&T are wrong!”
Kind of like a drive by shooting.
But technically G&T aren’t wrong. Their contention was they could not find anywhere within the framework of physics anything that supported the greenhouse theory. Then they went item by item showing how each was inadequate.
Of course they could have missed something. However, mainstream science is still looking for what they may have missed.
Gordon, if you are correct it ought to be easy to post up G&T’s specific definition of their term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” from their paper to prove that I have it backwards & you (or others) would have already done so. No one will be be able to do so since it is Gordon that has it backwards.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
tonyM…”Getting a grasp of the Scientific Method may help you a lot”.
That would mean bally giving up his main theory that heat does not exist as a form of energy, that it is just a measure of ‘energy’. I have tried to convince him that temperature is a measure of that energy…thermal energy.
“G&T claim there is no such effect, how could they explain what it means?”
Exactly, G&T never define what they mean by GHE so the reader never learns what they mean when using the term.
“G&T say in part: that even today the atmospheric greenhouse effect does not appear..”
Correct, G&T’s “fictitious mechanism” term doesn’t appear anywhere in the literature because those accomplished sources study real, observed & experimental mechanisms in the weather & climate. You two have been completely take in by two charlatans writing 99 pages of stuff they skimmed in the ref.s while never having passed a college course in meteorology to demonstrate they understand their source material.
No experiments, no observations, nothing new or novel in G&T paper just 205 ref.s copied sometimes verbatim, you are better off passing an introductory college course in meteorology and defending that physics than defending what two charlatans in the field published.
Pistons and cylinders do not inhabit the atm. & neither do blue/green plates but they all can be very useful to teach basic atm. physics in such a course.
And Gordon, again temperature is avg. KE, thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy is total KE. There is a difference you continue to miss.
Ball4
If you could stop the balls rattling in your head long enough you might prevent yourself from rambling on about fiction. Conflating and obfuscating on your part about what and how G&T tackled the Science and Physics issues is of no relevance and does not diminish their conclusions. It is simply a diversionary ploy on your part to avoid the hard scrutiny of this field and very clearly highlights that you have no scientific rebuttal to the findings in their paper. That is not a great revelation and is virtually a given.
Halpern, who is a physicist, does at least understand the implications of this paper and went to great lengths with a team of people to try to rebut it.
But look if you feel you are up to the task you have a great opportunity here to set G&H straight:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis
That should be simple enough given that this field has been going for over 150 years. The world awaits your musings or will that be more rambling from you.
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
Ball4:
You must have had a full pachinko parlour of balls rattling around in your head to come up with that.
Let us assume that T can be averaged what have you found in point 1. A set of data points. That I imagine is supposed to be your hypothesis. And the world gasped at such intelligence.
Your garbled point 2 The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013. takes me back to 1938. Your steel balls were working overtime here for I can’t see that year. Even if I could there is no meaning I can attach to the mean of that line being 0.7C lower at that point.
Meaningless Ball4 garbage in same way that he thinks the earth gyrates between an open and closed system is it a tango or a waltz?
I won’t put an interpretation on what you are trying to say other than it looks like circular reasoning reminiscent of many experiments in Social Science. They use data to formulate an hypothesis statistically then test that hypothesis on the same data. I’m sure it may work well for pachinko heads but useless in real Physics.
“That I imagine..”
You are free to imagine anything tonyM, the measured natural data is there for your study. You will have to refer to Dr. Spencer’s papers to understand the black line in depth. A beginning meteorology text will also be helpful ref. for you.
More pachinko balls rattling in you head in an attempt to obfuscate and create diversions to cover you failure to clearly articulate any sound falsifiable hypothesis.
That you can talk of the mean of a point shows your lack of statistical capability. That you refer to the point of 1938 which does not exist in Dr Spencers graph merely confirms the pachinko balls in head syndrome.
Other than that you come across very clearly.
1938 was a bit prior to the UAH satellite era tonyM so of course it is not in Dr. Spencer’s graph. I gave you some credit to be able to figure that out, obviously that was too much credit.
For the black line ending ~1938 one has to use surface thermometer data for the prior years. This has been done and the answer to your question 2. stands:
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
You have enough problems just being clear; stick to the simple principle.
As for black lines, there are no black lines in Dr Spencer’s post if you are referring to his monthly T data set graphic (at least not in terms of data or means). Similarly there is no 1938 year datum point and if it has been done it must be bouncing in your pachinko head.
You clearly don’t understand what a “mean” is and think it relates to a an end point without definition. Now you want to somehow join Dr Spencer’s data set to some unknown data set described only in your head and imagine we all see it. More pachinko steel balls rattling away; more confusion reigns.
All I asked for was:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis
You do see the word “clear?” Do try and understand it even if you don’t understand what a hypothesis is or grasp the Scientific Method.
It is apparent the answers are beyond tonyM’s ability to understand:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
Ball bouncing Pachinko head is back and still can’t
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis.
Pachinko balls bounce around endlessly in his head.
The clear answers to your questions, with no rambling as requested, remain the same tonyM, it is up to tonyM to make an effort at understanding the answers or remain in the dark. tonyM’s choice.
Still unable to formulate a clear falsifiable hypothesis and hence still no supporting evidence.
That is not unexpected as many more capable lights have tried and failed. Failure is excusable when pachinko balls keep rattling in his head.
I must say there is clear concern for his health apart from those balls in head syndrome; he could be colour blind. What else when Dr Roy’s T anomaly graph is in blue and the running centered 13 month average is red yet he keeps insisting there is a black line and a black mean in 1938. Yet no data points exist in Dr Roys graph; its those balls again.
Perhaps it is just his monochrome screen and he is not colour blind. That is to be hoped for. But nothing will fix his lack of knowledge on means and the Scientific Method.
correction:
Yet no data points exist in Dr Roys graph prior to 1979; its those balls again.
“Dr Roy’s T anomaly graph is in blue and the running centered 13 month average is red”
The blue dots are weather not climate. The 13month red line is the average of weather not climate. The black line at 0.0 anomaly is climate 1981 to 2010 (30-year calendar monthly means of weather data).
The mean of the data for black line was 0.7C lower ending in 1938. Given that Dr. Spencer’s data starts in 1979, tonyM should have realized by now that tonyM of course won’t find the previous black line in Dr. Spencer’s chart. It is evident tonyM hasn’t much background in this field to actually be able to credibly find the 1938 ending data. The answers remain even though tonyM can’t understand them:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencers last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
B4’s first claim is that this black line represents the Climatology hypothesis and he repeats it:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
The horizontal black line at 0 (X axis) in Dr Spencer’s chart is the monthly zeroed means. There is nothing quantified in that graph about the actual T distribution or actual average monthly T for that line. It can say nothing more with reference to additional data except that this black baseline monthly average clearly covers the period from 1981 to 1910.
There is no falsifiable hypothesis in this as it is simply zeroed data of a monthly average for a specific period – an established fact. THAT black line will always be zero even if we extend it to the Roman period if data had been available on Dr Spencer’s data base or even in 1938.
He then asserts as evidence to support his errr “hypothesis” that the black line mean WAS 0.7C lower in 1938:
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
NO!!! Nonsense that black line zeroed mean would be exactly the same and remain at zero and has nothing to do with 1938 or 2013. Furthermore he has claimed to splice some other database (unknown to us) onto Dr Roy’s graph which somehow confirms his hypothesis of what….a continued zero black line!!!!
For Ball to say this black line represents the hypothesis is beyond even pachinko heads.
Clearly he neither understands about means nor an anomaly nor that it is not appropriate to conflate and join two separate data sets created by different references and different methodologies and undisclosed by B4. In short he exhibits the qualities of a goose honking away to all and sundry.
It is possible for me to try and unravel some of his gooselike thinking but why bother when does such a marvellous job honking away.
“(Ball4)’s first claim is that this black line represents the Climatology hypothesis”
I do not claim that, I claim the answer to tonyM’s questions are:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
So far tonyM has not unraveled or falsified anything to do with these answers. Therefore, they stand until tonyM can actually clearly, quantifiably falsify either answer.
My requests to B4 were:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis.
One imagines his numerical answers correspond to those numbers.
My analysis of his responses holds:
B4 does not understand the Scienfic Method. Further he neither understands about means nor an anomaly nor that it is not appropriate to conflate and join two separate data sets created by different references and different methodologies (totally undisclosed by B4).
In short he exhibits the qualities of a goose honking away to avoid facing these deficiencies.
tonyM response contains nothing clearly or quantifiably wrong with either answer.
Not even a good try tonyM, I do have to note again you really have found nothing clearly, quantifiably wrong with the answers to your questions. No falsification yet.
B4 shows no falsifiable hypothesis , clear quantifiable or othewise.
He fails there and hence fails to show supporting experimentation.
He honks a lot but no amount of honking on his part can create diversion or camouflage his lack of skills here.
“B4 shows no falsifiable hypothesis”
Of course not, tonyM makes that up as a strawman since all I showed was tonyM’s question answers with clear, quantified, falsifiable accurate statements which tonyM cannot falsify with clear, quantified statements after repeated attempts. tonyM is welcome to try yet again.
My request of B4 was to show:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis.
Now he admits he has not done that and asserts that I am creating a strawman. What sort of illogical goose admits to not answering the requests in a dozen posts and still believes he has a defensible position?
There can be no confusion that “Climate Change” refers to the IPCC definition. There is no doubt B4 has pretended all along to be answering my requests in matched number form as shown from B4’s comment extracts viz:
and the answer to your question 2. stands
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencers last post.
It is apparent the answers are beyond tonyMs ability to understand:
(followed by B4’s 1. and 2. answers)
The clear answers to your questions, with no rambling as requested, remain the same
The answers remain “
Now B4 clearly states he was not answering those questions.
It is hard not to think that B4 is just a liar. Perhaps it it just the loose balls in his head. Perhaps he just does not understand that a set of observations is NOT a hypothesis.
Whatever, he is certainly a time waster and can’t answer my requests by his own admission.
tonyM yet again replies with no clear, quantified, falsifiable rebuttal to my answers. So my answers stand unchallenged. Having failed to do so repeatedly, it is clear tonyM does not know the definition of any of the terms: clear, quantified, or falsifiable. tonyM does not even understand the answers to his own questions. Make no mistake tonyM the clear, quantified, and falsifiable answers are – use dictionary.com:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
To prove tonyM does understand the terms, tonyM will need to post actually clear, quantifiable, falsifiable rebuttals. So far tonyM has not come close to doing so (a remarkable inability) but there is every hope tonyM can learn to do so, dictionary.com will be helpful.
Poor Ball4; in a state of total confusion. He claims to have answered my requests and then admits that he has not.
Schizophrenia, cognitive dissonance or who knows what afflicts him. Whatever, his obfuscation amounts to nought.
He make a habit of these on/off scenarios just like he suggested the earth gyrates through an open and closed system ; a thermodynamic waltz.
His Pachinko Parlor head has been working overtime in this exchange; shiny metal balls flying everywhere but never a coherent response can one get.
Still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4 whether clear, quantified or otherwise. That is to be expected.
“Still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4”
Keep trying to understand the obviously falsifiable hypothesis in my answers tonyM. I’ll let you know when you’ve made clear, quantified progress as you have nothing substantive so far.
Poor Ball4; still in a state of total confusion. He claims to have answered my requests on at least five occasions and then admits that he has not as shown above
Of course he can’t! It does not exist in IPCC “climate Change.”
So still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4 whether clear, quantified or otherwise. That is to be expected.
B4’s Pachinko parlour is still going strong!
Nothing substantive or quantifiable. tonyM does not know what the words mean. Keep trying, let tonyM know when tonyM hits on something.
So still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4 whether clear, quantified or otherwise. That is to be expected.
B4’s Pachinko parlour is still going strong!
Not there yet tonyM, try dealing for once directly with the falsifiable clear, quantities which you studiously avoid that are in in my answers:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
So far tonyM has found no valid rebuttal to any of those quantities because they are accurate.
Poor Ball4; still in a state of total confusion. He claimed to have answered my requests on at least five occasions and then admitted that he has not stated a falsifiable hypothesis as shown above.
Of course he can’t! It does not exist in IPCC “Climate Change.”
So still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4 whether clear, quantified or otherwise.
B4’s Pachinko Parlour head full of shining balls rattling around is still going strong! But, no falsifiable hypothesis!!
The world awaits you with bated breath. Ready set go! How hard can it be for someone who claims to have one?
It is clear B4 does not understand the meaning of a falsifiable hypothesis or the Scientific Method.
He could try learning from one of the giants of Science presented brilliantly here in easy form:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwif6PH-re3eAhVTTn0KHa3ZAe0QwqsBMAB6BAgCEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEYPapE-3FRw&usg=AOvVaw2ztaG4utYFwDD0e1E2ibQx
I agree with Feynman: “reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Here is reality tonyM not PR:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
tonyM continues to offer no rebuttal in clear, quantifiable terms so listen to Feynman when he says not to fool yourself as you are doing so easily observed.
Ball4, if that is your main take from Feynman’s presentation you have learned little for that statement is a general statement not simply confined to developing a hypothesis or the scientific method. Your focus simply confirms that you are clueless on the Scientific Method.
It has not helped you in defining a clear, falsifiable, quantified hypothesis. You are stuck in no man’s land desperately confounding, conflating and obfuscating in answering a simple request.
Keep at it!! It continues to highlight the Pachinko Parlour in your head; bright lights and lots of small shiny steel balls bouncing around. Wonderful display.
Still no falsifiable hypothesis!!
Unfortunately for tonyM’s unclear, unquantified comments: integrating actual measured observations with knowledge logically, clearly, quantifiably results in nature’s Feynman reality:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
tonyM offers no clear, quantified rebuttal based on Feynman’s lecture about the scientific method & tonyM has none or tonyM would have already posted such.
Typical of Pachinko Palour heads they become so confused as to shift the onus of undertaking.
B4 undertook to provide a falsifiable hypothesis.
He claimed he had supplied one. He then stated he had not.
Still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4!! He never will provide one.
Here’s one tonyM – so falsify it using Feynman’s lecture notes process, tonyM hasn’t yet done so:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
B4 can’t even grasp a hypothesis and Scientific Method when a clear simple explanation is given by Feynman to a Freshman class in Physics.
If the simplest can cause such confusion in B4’s Pachinko Parlour head then there can be little hope for him.
Still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4; the colour of bouncing shiny steel balls continues.
Again no rebuttal from tonyM; appeal to authority is not a rebuttal just a common fallacy.
More gibberish from Pachinko Palour head.
He now shows he does not even understand what “appeal to authority” means. Fool!
Still no falsifiable hypothesis. Never will there be one from this fool.
tonyM appeals in his own words to “one of the giants of Science” then claims that is no appeal to authority. Fun to watch tonyM flail around trying to clearly, quantifiably falsify:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencers last post
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
So tonyM finds there is no falsification possible. I thought so.
B4, You are more of a fool than I thought. I gave you a hint by calling you a fool. The least you could do is look up the meaning of appeal to authority.
You didn’t understand the Scientific Method and remain ignorant and hence more of a fool.
“The least you could do is look up the meaning of appeal to authority.”
I did!
The least tonyM could do is look up the meaning of, and clearly, quantifiably falsify my answers but that isn’t going to happen as tonyM shows no ability to do so:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
The answers stand unchallenged.
B4:
The context is clearly this from your statement:
“appeal to authority is not a rebuttal just a common fallacy.”
Feynman’s explains the Scientific Method. He explains it in simple terms so that a simpleton like you might be easily enlightened. You could consult any text on the subject.
Suggesting this is the fallacy of appeal to authority is itself fallacious. Go delve more into it so that you don’t just parrot a phrase without understanding it.
Appealing to Feynman won’t help you tonyM, my answers remain unchallenged. You could consult any text on the subject to do so, yet you haven’t.
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
More fool you! You keep falling over yourself.
The Scientific Method is the basis of Science irrespective of the balls clanging in your head.
Still no falsifiable hypothesis. Never will there be one from this fool.
Gordon: I apologise – I’m the tired one (a good enough excuse as any)!
I slipped a decimal point in my calculations – a cubic foot equals 28.3 litres, that’s 28.3 kilos, and that’s 62.4 pounds – you are quite right, and I shall retreat back to my hole with egg on my face!
carbon…”you are quite right, and I shall retreat back to my hole with egg on my face!”
Retreat not necessary. I am gaffe prone myself as you and JD pointed out with my claim of square feet of water rather than cubic feet.
Thanks Gordon!
https://www.sott.net/article/389992-Is-there-a-connection-between-cosmic-rays-earthquakes-and-volcanic-eruptions
more support for my thoughts on the solar/galactic cosmic rays/climate relationships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casey_(climate_change_author)
I had known that and communicated a little with him. What a terrible thing to have happen. I with him the best and hope he recovers. I do not know how he is doing of late.
cor I wish him the best
I would not wish what happened to him to any one.
Yes, too bad.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:45 AM
I said year 2017 will be the transitional year due to my solar criteria finally being met.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261198
David, please stop trolling.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 9:21 AM
“I am sticking with it which is global temperatures by summer of 2018 will be at or below 30 year means.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256283
David, please stop trolling.
https://nextgrandminimum.com/2017/03/24/cosmic-rays-increase-cloud-cover-earth-surface-cools/
Another part of the solar/galactic cosmic ray connection
While other waste their time with the fabricated AGW climate connection, I spend my time on the real causes of why and how the climate changes.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
David, please stop trolling.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/sverdrup.gif
SOLAR RADAITION AND OCEANS.
What does the ocean do when it’s in contact with a warmer atmosphere?
David, please stop trolling.
The upshot being decrease in solar equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slight higher albedo.
To add EUV light decreases will result in a more negative AO/NAO in winter in N.H. which will on balance add to overall global snow coverage.
Everything moderated by the geo magnetic field which when in sync with solar compliment one another.
Global temperatures have(2016) and will continue overall down for the next several years.
Salvatore
No Grand Minimum just yet.
http://spaceweather.com
Still close to Solar Minimum conditions, but Cycle 25 sunspots are appearing.
I do not see the relevance if solar cycle 25 were to start early or not early. What matters is the solar flux and as long as that stays below 120 were in fine shape if you want native solar activity .
RIGHT NOW IT IS 72
COR – INACTIVE
Under Grand Minimum conditions the cycle shuts down completely.
The appearance of a sunspot with polarity reversed from cycle 24 Indicates that we will have at least one more cycle before the Grand Minimum.
That postpones your solar-induced cooling by one cycle, 11 years.
No it does not postpone anything.
The lag time of 10+ years of sub solar activity is in . Sub solar activity promoting a cooling regime started in year 2005. It has been intact, and is intact, and will remain intact.
Solar cycle 25 is at best going to equal solar cycle 24 in strength and will do nothing to off set the cooling due to solar activity.
It will not be strong enough, long enough to have any effects, just like weaker solar periods prior to 2005 were not weak enough to off set solar warming of the climate.
The big difference is the geo magnetic field is in sync with weak solar conditions and if one embraces galactic cosmic ray climatic impacts such as major sulfate volcanic activity , and global cloud coverage then indeed one will expect the cooling trend which has started to continue as we move forward.
IT COMES DOWN IN THE END TO OVERALL OCEANIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES AND ALBEDO!
What is going to change them and why (weak geo magnetic fields in my opinion) will have the ultimate say in the climate, NOT a tiny increase in a trace gas.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM
“The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261192
Actual results:
UAH LT v6.0 Aug17: +0.41 C
UAH LT v6.0 Sep17: +0.55 C
David, please stop trolling.
–If the bottom most layer was heated by 10C, I believe the 2nd Law idiots would argue that the surface temperature would remain completely unchanged. Because the bottom waters would still be colder than the surface by 2C and heat cannot flow from cold to hot.–
Ah, perhaps now, you can see how volcanic heat, can warm the ocean.
All I see from your response is avoidance of the point.
(The first time I mentioned the point I suggested an imaginary, massive submarine volcanic event: that persists in this scenario)
Jupiter’s moon, Europa might have greater ocean than Earth and have more oxygen in the ocean as compared to Earth’s ocean.
I wonder if Europa ocean has higher average temperature than Earth’s ocean.
Or another way of saying it is: if Europa does have much greater ocean than Earth; does it have to have a higher average temperature of it’s oceanic water than the Earth’s ocean average temperature of about 3.5 C ?
And other thing is, if Europa has more oxygen gas than Earth, does it have more life than Earth.
We already know that Europa has less life than Earth.
–We already know that Europa has less life than Earth.–
How can we know this?
There could be no life on Europa.
But how you know the limit of life on Europa, if there is life in the oceans of Europa?
Btw, I briefly checked out, how much biomass is in earth crust, and roughly speaking one could say it’s still unknown/little known:
” Despite the infancy of research into the deep biosphere, its clear to many in the field that science has long held a warped view of what constitutes life in our universe. Researchers are far from agreeing on the extent of this underworldone 1990s paper controversially suggested that deep life constituted 50 percent of the Earths current biomass,16 though most estimates are now below 15 percent. Before the rise of land plants around 400 million years ago, though, deep biomass could have outweighed life on the surface by an order of magnitude, according to calculations published this summer by McMahon and the University of Aberdeens John Parnell.”
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/life-thrives-within-the-earths-crust-64805
And wiki had some interesting to say about the topic, but I was thinking about when Earth had the most biomass. And it as guess it might have been when Earth had the most forests and/or least deserts. [to answer my own question].
Also maybe, at a time when the ocean was not as sterile as our present oceans.
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere gives the direction of circulation in the upper troposphere.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/uiz660s85wh7.png
So what, ren?
David, please stop trolling.
All these 2Lot ‘specialist’s deliberately ignore what Rudolf Clausius wrote in 1887:
https://tinyurl.com/y7gnjgwa
Clausius wrote:
“… it is known, of course, that not only the warm body radiates to the cold one – the cold body radiates to the warm one as well; but the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always is, as can be seen as established through experience, that the colder body experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
No: RADIATION does not happen only from hotter to colder objects. HEAT evidently does.
Furthermore, one has to substitute in Clausius defn. of heat (not your own) to understand what Clausius really meant:
Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
This is then what Clausius meant when writing that passage in German, translated:
“.. it is known, of course, that not only the warm body radiates to the cold one – the cold body radiates to the warm one as well; but the total result of this simultaneous double measure of their kinetic energy exchange always is, as can be seen as established through experience, that the colder body experiences an increase in a measure of its total internal kinetic energy at the expense of the warmer one.”
Yes indeed.
binny…”Yes indeed”.
Sorry Binny, parroting is not science. Also referred to in English as aping.
Still being nice. Said with humour.
I’ve been telling Gordon this for months, if not a year — radiation from the Earth is absorbed by the Sun — but he denies even that.
AGW theory becoming weaker and weaker with each passing month as global temperatures fail to rise and are instead falling.
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
David, please stop trolling.
ball4…”.. it is known, of course, that not only the warm body radiates to the cold one the cold body radiates to the warm one as well; but the total result of this simultaneous double measure of their kinetic energy exchange always is, as can be seen as established through experience, that the colder body experiences an increase in a measure of its total internal kinetic energy at the expense of the warmer one.”
You are becoming more obtuse by the minute. BTW…that’s 60 seconds and both are based on the constant angular velocity of the Earth. Ergo, time cannot dilate without the Earth changing its angular velocity.
I just explained to you that Clausius had no idea how heat was transferred by radiation. Nor did Kircheoff, Stefan, Boltzmann, Maxwell, or Planck. Even Einstein would not have known circa 1900, nor any other scientist for that matter.
How could he, he was writing a couple of decades before Bohr explained the conversion of heat to EM by electrons.
When Bohr proposed the notion circa 1913, he was almost laughed out of town.
The really sad part is here we are more than a century later and people like you are still confused about the theory. You are reduced to quoting cherry picks from Clausius in a pathetic attempt to justify heat being transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
Like I’m going to believe whatever Gordon thinks these giants of physics thought.
Ha.
David, please stop trolling.
One can quote Clausius directly and Gordon Robertson will still find a way to twist into a distorted view that agrees with his fantasy made up reality. Where all the Earth’s emitted IR is dwindled down to very little energy after it travels a few meters because of his warped understanding of Inverse Square Law.
All this hand wringing over whether a cold body radiates at a warm body is simply based in ones “perception” of how energy operates.
When we say backradiation warms the surface we mean it slows its cooling. Thats not making anything hotter its merely maintaining heat.
But when you examine carefully a theory that radiation only runs in one direction due to a push/resistance/attraction polar principle it absolutely no effective difference to the concept of slowing of cooling. It simply removes the unsupported and unnecessary idea that the backradiation actually heats anything.
That concept of backradiation heating removes all bounds on what might happen with increasing greenhouse gases. But if we pay close attention to the celestial body next door, the moon, daytime surfaces get hot enough to boil water and maybe cold enough at night to freeze nitrogen. Greenhouse gases have in fact moderated that range of temperatures. So all logic should suggest greenhouse gases in the atmosphere shouldn’t heat anything but instead moderate temperatures by both lowering maximum temperatures and raising minimum temperatures. Looking at the range of moon surface temperatures it suggests that the warming of nights is more efficient than the cooling of days. . . .perhaps by a ratio of 2:1. So the result is the mean is higher and the weather milder and thats a good thing because it wouldn’t be as easy to survive on the moon even if you get all the air you need.
If you actually need for something to get hotter as in making daytimes hotter instead of simply making nighttimes less cold to support your concept of what CO2 will do to the earth you should be aware you are beyond what is known in science.
“All this hand wringing over whether a cold body radiates at a warm body is simply based in ones “perception” of how energy operates.”
Not really based on operception at all, based on experiments that Dr. Spencer performed on the real atm. overnight LWIR from a cold body making a warmer body warmer than a control body not in view of the LWIR.
With no knowledge of physics, fluffball makes up excuses using “experiments” and “Dr. Spencer”.
Same old bag of tricks. Nothing new.
I am familiar with the experiment.
Cloud bank comes in and a surface warms. However, one should look closely at the experiment set up. Note that the plate did not get warmer than the outside air temperature. There is CO2 and moisture at some level in the atmosphere all the way back to the surface. The cloud bank greatly slowed heat moving out to space at other frequencies slowing the cooling and that would allow a warmer object, namely the climate atmosphere, to warm the plate to or near the ambient climate temperature.
So what you had before the cloud bank was zero external heat input, a loss of heat to space or high in the atmosphere and a gain of heat from the climate level atmosphere. The plate cooled in such a state to essentially an equilibrium where the plate cooling to outer space plus high in the atmosphere, equaled the gain of heat from the lower atmosphere. Cloud bank moves in and suddenly the loss of heat to space and upper atmosphere is additionally restricted creating a new balance point very near the temperature of the climate level atmosphere. Note there is no warming being created directly by a cooler object.
“Note there is no warming being created directly by a cooler object.”
Dr. Spencer’s data logger showed there was but it doesn’t matter if you call the data “warming” or not, the result of the colder body cirrus moving into view is the same on the warmer surface object tub of water: a higher temperature.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
For ease of review:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Updated:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
I had not seen that experiment. But its good that its results were 100% consistent with what I said above.
For the surface to warm the climate in any sense other than statistically (e.g. hotter day time maximums) it needs to be able to heat the surface warmer than the ambient temperature.
Both experiments failed to do that.
Yes indeed the global mean temperature might be raised by greenhouse gases by slowing cooling, but cooling is never heating its just various rates of losing heat. One might even characterize it as making temperatures more normal in that greenhouse gases will reduce the diurnal temperature variation. Increased greenhouse gases will absorb more sunlight also. That change in diurnal temperature variation can be seen by looking at the moon and other planets with thin atmospheres. Mars for example that despite having about 14 times the CO2 greenhouse gases has no greenhouse effect.
“For the surface to warm the climate in any sense other than statistically (e.g. hotter day time maximums) it needs to be able to heat the surface warmer than the ambient temperature.”
No.
Study the experiment, the result of the colder body cirrus moving into view is the same on the warmer surface object tub of water no matter what you call it: a higher temperature.
“Mars for example that despite having about 14 times the CO2 greenhouse gases has no greenhouse effect.”
No you are mistaken. Mars effective surface temperature is ~5k warmer than its mean surface temperature (214K-209K).
I don’t know what you are looking at.
Both ice chests of water are cooling at essentially the same rate with the unshielded chest cooling slightly faster with exposure through the atmosphere window to space that is partly blocked by the plate over the other ice chest.
Neither ice chest of water warms during the night.
When cirrus clouds come over head, the atmosphere window is being blocked and both ice chests cool at essentially the same rate.
We know cool source IR can slow cooling but the question that most people seem confused about is whether cool source IR can make anything hotter. If it can’t then how can the surface warm the climate except in a statistical sense by simply aiding in the retention of existing warmth? This is a major problem. Nobody feels mean temperature. When science deigns it acceptable to allow people to be deceived into believing they are going to die from the heat, science is just destroying its reputation in the process.
Language in science needs to be precise. “warming” is not a scientific word as it has many meanings. If people are going to know what greenhouse warming has in store for them is more normalization of temperatures they might actually like that idea. So a bunch of deceivers and liars have taken over the discourse.
“I don’t know what you are looking at.”
Good statement Bill. See the black line after about 1:21am changes trend for about half an hour then resumes for about 90minutes then trends down again. Likely a thick band of cirrus came in, then thinned then got thicker again. From its peak the black line trends down a total of about 0.1F.
Dr. Spencer: “The relative faster cooling of the unshielded cooler was slowed when high-level clouds moved in around 1:30 a.m. (as deduced from GOES satellite imagery).”
This 0.1F is the amount of temperature increase over the other water tub not in view of the added cirrus during the run. Whatever you want to term it, there is a temperature increase in warmer surface water from the added colder cirrus cloud of 0.1F over the water not in view of the cirrus.
This is an example of energy exchange that confuses commenters no end when they erroneously use the term heat exchange.
“I don’t know what you are looking at.”
Good question Bill. See the black line after about 1:21am changes trend for about half an hour then resumes for about 90minutes then trends down again. Likely a thick band of cirrus came in, then thinned then got thicker again. From its peak the black line trends down a total of about 0.1F.
Dr. Spencer: “The relative faster cooling of the unshielded cooler was slowed when high-level clouds moved in around 1:30 a.m. (as deduced from GOES satellite imagery).”
This 0.1F is the amount of temperature increase over the other water tub not in view of the added cirrus. Whatever you want to term it, there is a temperature increase in warmer surface water from the added colder cirrus cloud of 0.1F over the water not in view of the cirrus.
This is an example of energy exchange that confuses commenters no end when they erroneously use the term heat exchange.
–Ball4 says:
November 21, 2018 at 1:22 PM
I don’t know what you are looking at.
Good question Bill. See the black line after about 1:21am changes trend for about half an hour then resumes for about 90minutes then trends down again. Likely a thick band of cirrus came in, then thinned then got thicker again. From its peak the black line trends down a total of about 0.1F.–
Maybe likely.
It’s just like greenhouse gasses cause Earth to be 33 K.
A group of fools unable to think of anything else which could cause the imagined warming of their incorrect model of Earth.
Some might correctly guess a cloud was the cause, but other factor might cause it.
It seems if a life and death issue, many others might have repeated it. And seems possible better ways could also be employed.
But it’s my experience that a roof over a patio causes the ground to quite bit warmer than roofless area. Or use a card table put in lawn, put two stacked bricks under it, and then had two other stacked bricks not under cardtable. It seems like the bricks under card table would remain measurable warmer at night.
gbaikie says:
Its just like greenhouse gasses cause Earth to be 33 K.
A group of fools unable to think of anything else which could cause the imagined warming of their incorrect model of Earth
So what else is causing the 33 K warming?
Yeah I see nothing remarkable with the blackline. Roy’s thermometer isn’t exactly a precision instrument. I have a similar one and it varies a tenth of a degree. Thats why the greenline jumps randomly a good .2 when you sum the two measurements together.
You have too many heat exchanges occurring to conclude anything. You have a cooling ground surface, you have cooling airs, you have air exchanges, you have a shielding plate that is cooling to the sky and the ground and the water. You have two open top insulated ice chests cooling mostly to the sky via free convection, forced convection, evaporation, and radiation and you have a lower rate of cooling of the two ice chests via conduction through their walls.
the general order of cooling rates is ground is fastest, air is second, and bodies of water third. The bodies of water are third because of convection within the body of water.
If you can make real sense of all that with tenths of a degree precision you are a far better man than I.
“Yeah I see nothing remarkable with the blackline.”
The blackline quite remarkably shows that Dr. Spencer’s apparatus was able to accurately detect bands of icy cirrus clouds passing by in its view overnight from several inches deep in the surface temperature water despite all the noise you list.
–David Appell says:
November 21, 2018 at 7:38 PM
**gbaikie says:
Its just like greenhouse gasses cause Earth to be 33 K.
A group of fools unable to think of anything else which could cause the imagined warming of their incorrect model of Earth**
So what else is causing the 33 K warming?–
The main thing is it’s an incorrect model.
Earth is not a blackbody
Earth is not an ideal thermal conductive blackbody which reflects 30% of the sunlight.
But we have gone over this at couple times.
So let’s try a different dance.
We are in an ice age also called an icebox climate and this not common in the history of Earth.
So, why is Earth so cold?
We are in a period of warmer times during our ice box climate, but even in the warmest times of our Ice Age, it’s still cold compared to most of Earth’s history.
And the warmest periods [the interglacial periods] in past have always ended and Earth enters a glacial period. And glacial period last say, 4 to 6 times longer than interglacial periods.
But anyhow, why do the warmer periods, cool?
And why when CO2 levels are the lowest levels [during the glacial periods] does earth warm up to once again become interglacial periods?
During our icebox climate, the average ocean surface temperature is always warmer than the land average surface air temperature.
The average ocean surface temperature currently is about 17 C and the average land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
Why does the ocean surface temperature have higher average temperature as compared to land surfaces?
If there was less land surface [and more ocean surface] would earth have a higher average temperature?
Can earth which completely covered in ocean be modeled, and if can be modeled, does it have higher average global temperature?
Ball4 – “The blackline quite remarkably shows that Dr. Spencers apparatus was able to accurately detect bands of icy cirrus clouds passing by in its view overnight from several inches deep in the surface temperature water despite all the noise you list.”
What I see is a small dip in the black line shortly after cirrus show up. That dip does not appear to be significant considering accuracy of the measuring devices, at a minimum it would require a careful analysis to give it any significance. So what I see is a general trend of one chest cooling faster than the other chest until well past the introduction of cirrus clouds. Then the difference begins to diminish. Importantly before the cirrus clouds showed up the ambient temperature change, a wind direction change perhaps, but its very significant because the ambient air temperature converged rather quickly with the water during which time the shield was becoming more potent so the gap between the two chests continued to widen. Once the air settled down and started recooling and Cirrus was blocking radiation to space the difference between the two chests began to narrow. I don’t see anything unusual or unexpected going on other than the fact cooling is regulated by the temperature of the objects absorbing emissions from the water. Do you see something different than that?
“What I see is a small dip in the black line shortly after cirrus show up.”
Thick cirrus then thinner cirrus concurrent with the dip then thicker cirrus in view again. Note the surface water is shielded from air breezes by the tub upper walls. Supporting simple calculations are provided to support coming to an understanding of the physics.
“The relative faster cooling of the unshielded cooler was slowed when high-level clouds moved in around 1:30 a.m. (as deduced from GOES satellite imagery). I used this simple energy balance model to deduce that the shielded cooler had about 6 W/m2 less cooling than the unshielded one, to account for the relative weaker temperature drop of 0.4 deg F over about 8 hours.”
But if we pay close attention to the celestial body next door, the moon, daytime surfaces get hot enough to boil water and maybe cold enough at night to freeze nitrogen. Greenhouse gases have in fact moderated that range of temperatures. So all logic should suggest greenhouse gases in the atmosphere shouldn’t heat anything but instead moderate temperatures by both lowering maximum temperatures and raising minimum temperatures.
Clouds reflect about a quarter of incoming radiation, while particulates in the air moderate about 7% of sunlight. Oxygen and nitrogen primarily moderate incoming solar radiation through abso.r.p.tion and scattering.
GHGs are so named because of they primarily absorb long wave (infrared) radiation.
IOW, some gases and particles impede insolation, other gases impede outgoing radiation. Ozone is one gas that strongly does both. CO2 is almost entirely transparent to sunlight, so increased abundance has a warming effect on the surface, not a cooling effect.
barry exudes his ignorance of physics: “CO2 is almost entirely transparent to sunlight, so increased abundance has a warming effect on the surface, not a cooling effect.”
barry, increasing the abundance of something that is not a heat source, does not make it a heat source.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Indeed! He is also messed up by propaganda about the effects of GHG on incoming radiation. This link should help some: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Spectral-distribution-of-solar-radiation-observed-at-the-earths-surface-4_fig3_255989402
Barry is right.
This is actually very simple science.
barry and DA are both wrong.
This is nothing new.
You’re right, it’s nothing new — it was understood in the 19th century.
DA, this is the 21st Century.
Try to keep up.
Physical facts never die, they just become part of the high school curriculum.
You may have heard about physics in high school, but you never learned any.
My education is far better than yours.
Which is why you never advance scientific arguments for you claims, you just try to be a pest.
You are vapid.
DA, you don’t have an understanding of the relevant physics. Do you need any examples?
Why can’t you respond with science?
DA…”This is actually very simple science”.
You mean, science for simpletons.
Gordon, why can’t you respond with science? Insults aren’t convincing….
DA, here’s where you indicated two walls of ice, at 270 K, could heat a BB plate to 321 K!
(T1^4+T2^4)^0.25
How many more examples of your incompetence do you want?
Where did I indicate that?
Do the math, DA.
barry…”But if we pay close attention to the celestial body next door, the moon, daytime surfaces get hot enough to boil water and maybe cold enough at night to freeze nitrogen. Greenhouse gases have in fact moderated that range of temperatures”.
Why are you ignoring the oceans, that cover 70% of the surface and nitrogen/oxygen that accounts for 99% of the atmosphere?
Do you think that adding our 0.96% water vapour and 0.04% CO2 to the Moon’s vicinity that the Moon would suddenly warm up?
Gordon Robertson says:
Do you think that adding our 0.96% water vapour and 0.04% CO2 to the Moons vicinity that the Moon would suddenly warm up
Gordon, what does your calculation give for the expected warming under these circumstances?
Show your work.
DA…”Gordon, what does your calculation give for the expected warming under these circumstances?
Show your work.”
I have several times, using the Ideal Gas Law. With CO2 at 0.04% all the warming you could expect from it is about 0.04% of 1C for a 1C rise in temperature.
On the Moon, CO2 at Earth concentrations would produce zero warming. Nada, Zilch. Work not required.
Gordon, your ideal gas calculation doesn’t include radiative transfer.
Why do you ignore that process?
David, please stop trolling.
binny…”Clausius wrote:
it is known, of course, that not only the warm body radiates to the cold one the cold body radiates to the warm one as well; but the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always is, as can be seen as established through experience, that the colder body experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
I am being nice to you again, today, please mark it down.
I have tried to recreate the context in which Clausius wrote those words, somewhere between 1850 and 1879. All the great scientists of that era, including Clausius, Boltzmann, Kircheoff, Maxwell, Stefan, and Planck BELIEVED that heat passed through some kind of aether in space as radiation.
They actually thought heat flowed physically through space as radiation.
You can read that in the words of your quote, that the warm body RADIATES to the cold body and vice versa, which is still true. However, he then implies that heat has been transferred both ways, which we now know is wrong.
Clausius stated for sure that heat transfer between solid bodies via conduction only traveled one way. He made a definite statement claiming heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body.
He made no mention of net transfer in his definition of the 2nd law.
Some have quoted from an earlier article in which Clausius was explaining what he meant by compensation. He explained in the context of compensation, that heat can be transferred in both directions provided some external means is in place to replace the heat lost by a colder body.
That’s how a reverse heat transfer is possible in a fridge or air conditioner using external compensation.
It was not till 1890 that electrons were discovered and it took another decade or more till Bohr claimed in 1913 that electrons convert heat to radiation and vice versa. Therefore, Clausius had no idea that heat was being CONVERTED to EM prior to the EM being radiated.
Although Maxwell knew about near-field radiation as described by Faraday in his electromagnetic experiments, he was confused about the notion of far-field radiation later explained by BOHR.
I don’t know if you are German or French, but if you’re German, you should support Clausius in this. Through his words, he seems to contradict himself, so please don’t leave it up to a bl**dy Scotsman to defend a great, German scientist.
If Clausius is watching from the great beyond, and reads my explanation, he’d like say, “Ya….das gut”.
GRobertson wrote:
“They actually thought heat flowed physically through space as radiation.”
They were correct, obviously, and you are wrong.
GR wrote:
Therefore, Clausius had no idea that heat was being CONVERTED to EM prior to the EM being radiated.
This is a meaningless and useless distinction. Insisting on it shows you are a pedant.
Heat travels through space. Why is that controversial?
Because you want to deny the greenhouse effect, and its increase. That’s what all this is about — the dumbest kind of science denial.
DA…”Heat travels through space. Why is that controversial?”
Maybe through the vacant space between your ears. Heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum as heat. It must first be converted to EM.
Really? Then how do you get a sunburn?
Your skin has a toxic reaction, nothing to do with temperature.
It is the heat of sunlight that power the reaction.
Your skin has a toxic reaction, nothing to do with heat.
What exact chemical reaction are you talking about here?
Why do doctors warn you about UV radiation?
What can UV radiation do that visible light cannot, and why?
The doctors warn you because of the skin’s toxic reaction resulting from exposure to excessive levels of sunlight.
Excessive levels, or excessive UV levels?
The solar spectrum includes UV as you know David. The sunburned skin toxic reaction remains due to excessive sunlight. Nothing to do with heat or temperature.
Robertson
You still try to interpret Clausius’ words in 1887 with what you learned about his knowledge dated 1854.
Clausius very well understood in his late phase the difference between EM radiation and heat induced by that radiation.
YOU are the one who tries to deny how well he did understand that.
And that is exactly what you still ignored about one year ago, as Rose wrote a long comment about Clausius’ 1887 book for the first time on Roy Spencer’s blog (I was on a Canary Island till march 2018, without any computer, but very well remember my discussions with her about your ridiculous reactions).
Go back all your comments till mid 2017, Robertson, and look how you modified your meaning piece by piece inbetween!
No, Robertson: never and never would Rudolf Clausius agree to your simplifying blah blah.
Btw: best greetings from Rose who stays till mid march 2019… on the same Canary Island (San Miguel de la Palma).
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon says:
No: RADIATION does not happen only from hotter to colder objects. HEAT evidently does.
It’s a meaningless, useless distinction.
Radiation carries energy. So does, say, a gas, or a solid. Both can burn you when you touch them.
Stop denying.
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
If you bring the GP near to the BP, you interfere with the BP’s ability to dissipate heat via convection and radiation. That will cause it to warm toward its natural temperature with all dissipation stifled.
There is no convection in space. The only thermal action going on in Eli’s thought experiment is radiation.
So how does the GP interfere with the BP’s ability to dissipate heat? What’s the actual physical mechanism?
barry, the GP can NOT interfere with the BP’s ability to dissipate heat.
That’s why the blue/green plate nonsense is just another hoax.
barry…”So how does the GP interfere with the BPs ability to dissipate heat? Whats the actual physical mechanism?”
*********
As I told Norman, I presumed from the initial experiment by Swannie, who built an evacuated chamber to replicate Eli’s BP/GP thought experiment, that both plates are made of metal. In his first experiment, he had a metal cover over an electric stove ring as the BP, and the GP was a metal tray supported by soup cans above the heated BP.
If the same is true in the evacuated experiment, that both BP and GP are metal, the metal in the GP will block IR from the BP. Metal blocks IR completely.
If that metal is right in front of the non-heated side of the BP, it stops radiation from that side of the BP completely, given that the plates are of equal size and aligned.
If you stop radiation from that side of the BP completely, it interferes with its dissipation and the BP will warm due to an inability to completely radiate the heat it got from the heat source.
In fact, if the GP is really close, as in JD’s scenario, but with a narrow gap, there is likely to be a thermal equilibrium set up between one side of the BP and one side of the GP. In that case, the GP cannot raise the temperature of the BP. Moving it further away reduces its ability to warm the BP.
Therefore, the best you can hope for between the plates, with the GP cooler, is thermal equilibrium. You would have to heat the GP to a temperature higher than the BP in order for it to raise the temp of the BP by radiation.
Gordon Robertson
I am trying to think if you could get more wrong with a post about radiant heat transfer. You come really close to demonstrating that you need to stick to politics. I read your political comments on the blog and they are okay. Politics is opinion. Science is not. It is not ideas you come up with and think are correct. Science is a method of discovering reality based upon evidence.
First of all, the plates could be made of almost any material. Very few materials are transparent to IR (those that are are used in lens for IR cameras). The IR absorbed by any material surrounding it does not change the rate of emission of the hot body. Your ideas are really terrible!
The reality is much different. It would not matter if there were no green plate, if the green plate was made of an IR transparent material and all the IR went through. Makes not a bit of difference. The energy emitted by the blue plate surface is gone. If it is absorbed by some other plate or moves out to infinity these will not alter the emission rate of the blue plate.
You can’t understand any physics even with much help from many posters. The reason the blue plate increases in temperature and the only reason is because the energy it gains from the emission of the green plate. Without that emission its temperature would stay the same. The energy from the external radiant energy will get the blue plate to a certain temperature. The added energy of the green plate will cause it to reach a higher temperature. That is the real physics that is the physics all textbooks state, that is what E. Swanson’s experiment shows that is what you would see if you did actual science instead wasting your time making things up.
You could see it most easily with E. Swanson test if you add a variation. You just alter the temperature of the green plate (say with fluid running through it) so you can make it warmer or colder.
It will absorb the same amount of energy from the blue plate in each case but you will see different effects. If you cool the green plate you will see the temperature of the blue plate drop. That is because the green plate is now radiating less energy back to the blue plate. Warm the green plate but not as hot as the blue plate and the blue plate will increase in temperature. Why? Because it is absorbing more energy from the green plate.
You can do the test, my predictions will come true. I understand the science very well, you not so much. I don’t need to make up my own physics. I will stick to the established physics. Currently it is working very well. Yours not so much.
norman…” Very few materials are transparent to IR”
No EM in the IR range or lower, or higher through the visible spectrum, can penetrate metal, or any other conductive surface.
That’s why metal is used as a radiation shield.
You should know that light won’t penetrate metal. Blocks it completely.
For x-rays and higher, they use lead, but x-ray sources on older colour TV’s in the high voltage section only used metal cages.
When you have 40,000 volts applied to a high frequency horizontal output transformer, the acceleration it causes to electrons produces x-rays.
CO2 is a great absorber of infrared radiation…..
David Appell
I agree with many of the points you make but I am not sure of this one. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is plenty to absorb all the 15 micron band of IR emitted by the Earth’s surface but that is only about 20% of the IR spectrum. I would not call it a powerful IR absorber, other materials absorb much more of the entire IR spectrum.
Norman, in some cases CO2 absorbs, in some wavelengths, all the IR emitted by the surface in just a few meters.
“Elis equations are solely a 1LoT analysis. There is no relation to the radiative heat transfer equation, and they are not derived from that equation.”
I already admitted that you were correct that Eli did not explicitly state the radiative heat transfer equation. He drew arrows with labels.
When he draws an arrow from B to G and an arrow from G to B, he is showing graphically that the NET energy flow is the difference of those two terms.
That IS equivalent to the Rad Heat Transfer Eqn. applied to B and G. He gets the same results.
If this is over your head, that is not my fault.
Now this leaves you still avoiding like mad your fundamental 1LOT pickle.
Do you have a way out or not?
I guess “wrong” is not the right word. Just “not describing heat flow”.
Gordon Robertson
Nearly all materials are opaque to IR and even visible. You have a few materials that are transparent, the vast amount are not. Most normal material (like stuff in your house) will block all the IR emitted. Most materials will reflect some IR (less than 1 emissivity) but nearly all block it.
Metal is used a radiant shield not because it blocks IR (which most materials do) but because it has a very low emissivity. It can get as hot as the object it is blocking the IR from but will only emit a small amount of IR on the opposite side.
Norman stumbles onto some reality: “Most materials will reflect some IR (less than 1 emissivity) but nearly all block it.”
That’s correct, Norman. That’s one of the reasons atmospheric CO2 can NOT warm the surface.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, occasionally….
JDHuffman
What a pointless comment.
You make another declaration: “Thats correct, Norman. Thats one of the reasons atmospheric CO2 can NOT warm the surface.”
Why couldn’t it. The Sun will warm the surface to a certain steady state temperature but not higher, one where incoming solar energy is matched by the outgoing IR, but not higher.
If you add a medium that emits IR when heated then you now have a situation where the surface is receiving more energy and it will warm to a new higher temperature. It is established science. Not sure why you are obsessed to reject it, but you are.
Norman reveals his ignorance of physics, again! “If you add a medium that emits IR when heated then you now have a situation where the surface is receiving more energy and it will warm to a new higher temperature.”
NO! Norman, EVERYTHING that is heated emits IR! That doesn’t meant there is any NEW energy being added to the system. You don’t have any concept of the relevant physics, especitally the Laws of Thermodynamics.
You are obsessed with perverting reality.
JDHuffman
Sometimes I wonder if I can ever find the limit to your ignorance.
You have a source of new energy all the time. What is so hard for you to understand about that!
YOUR IGNORANT STATEMENT: “NO! Norman, EVERYTHING that is heated emits IR! That doesnt meant there is any NEW energy being added to the system.”
The Sun is supplying NEW energy constantly to the system. Do you have any ability to reason or think logically or are you so obsessed to prove GRE wrong you are willing to becomes stupid in the process?
Norman, the Sun provides a rather constant heat source. The Earth remains in a temperature range, corresponding to an equilibrium. CO2 does NOT provide any additional enrgy to the system.
You don’t have any concept of the relevant physics, especitally the Laws of Thermodynamics.
And, you can’t learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman, the Sun provides a rather constant heat source. The Earth remains in a temperature range, corresponding to an equilibrium. CO2 does NOT provide any additional enrgy to the system.”
But it does redirect energy that would have been going in one direction back downward, back to the surface.
If you have any real physics (most doubtful) then you would know this.
That energy directed downward is also absorbed by the surface. Without the GHG the energy would not return, with the GHG it returns and leaves the surface warmer than in the case without.
Nope. You still don’t get it.
The energy emitted by the surface can not return to then warm the surface. If that were true, people could heat their homes with IR reflectors.
You don’t understand the relevant physics, and you don’t want to learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman says:
“If that were true, people could heat their homes with IR reflectors.”
Like this you mean:
https://tinyurl.com/y9f5yzya
JDHuffman says:
The energy emitted by the surface can not return to then warm the surface. If that were true, people could heat their homes with IR reflectors.
Ever slept under a space blanket?
An ordinary blanket?
Did they keep you warm? How?
Svante and DA, a space blanket will work.
Wrap an ice cube in the space blanket and place in your freezer overnight. When your freezer catches fire from all the “trapped heat”, you can then claim CO2 can warm the planet.
Until then, just enjoy your ignorance of the relevant physics.
I do….
How does a blanket or coat keep you warm?
DA, if you would learn some physics, then you wouldn’t have to ask so many stupid questions.
How does a coat or blanket keep you warm?
JDHuffman says:
CO2 does NOT provide any additional enrgy to the system.
No one says it does (in equilibrium).
DA, asking the same stupid question twice is just being stupid twice!
Learn some physics.
No need to ask twice if you could supply a straight answer.
Can this raise my indoor temperature when it’s cold outside:
https://tinyurl.com/y9f5yzya
Sorry Svante, your link doesn’t work. It just takes me to something called AliBaba.com.
OK, try LD-DB-FF in the product search box.
Ah! Reflectivity.
Yes, JDHuffman says:
“The energy emitted by the surface can not return to then warm the surface. If that were true, people could heat their homes with IR reflectors.”
Looks like IR reflectors can make my house warmer.
Well, people can’t heat their homes with infra-red reflectors. The heat source is still the boiler, or whatever. The IR reflective material is insulation. Hence his point about wrapping an ice cube in the space blanket…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I see, it’s just like the GHE. Sun equals boiler and GHGs return IR. House/surface warms.
CO2 isn’t reflective.
It emits IR.
Yes, Svante, “EVERYTHING that is heated emits IR!”
Insulative materials are chosen for their high thermal resistance or reflectivity.
So what sends more IR to the surface, CO2 or deep space?
So what makes CO2 an insulator? Thermal resistance? Reflectivity?
Its ability to block and return IR.
“EVERYTHING that is heated emits IR!”
Insulative materials are chosen for their high thermal resistance or reflectivity.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“EVERYTHING that is heated emits IR!”
Yes, anything like that will work.
O2/N2, not so much.
Thermal resistance? Or reflectivity?
Thermal resistance is for conduction.
IR is radiation.
Reflection can send the majority back.
CO2 will emit in all directions, so you’re right, reflection is more efficient.
“Thermal resistance is for conduction.”
Yup.
“IR is radiation.“
Yup.
“Reflection can send the majority back“
Yup.
“CO2 will emit in all directions, so you’re right, reflection is more efficient.“
Nup. Not a question of “efficiency”. Reflectivity is a property of a material that can make it insulative. Simply “emitting IR” is not such a property. And just FYI, O2 and N2 can emit IR, but that is not relevant.
“Simply ’emitting IR’ is not such a property.
But it is. Half is lost to space so it has to be refilled of course. By convection and what have you.
“And just FYI, O2 and N2 can emit IR, but that is not relevant.”
Correct, David Appell taught me that.
“But it is.”
But it isn’t. Otherwise literally anything could be an insulator.
Yes, literally anything can be an insulator, the difference is only quantitative.
What is the qualitative difference between returning 50% IR instead of 100%?
No, not anything can be an insulator. The sun is not an insulator. An ultra-thin, perfectly conducting black body isn’t an insulator.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“An ultra-thin, perfectly conducting black body isn’t an insulator.”
It is if you do the math or an experiment.
😆
Like Eli or Swanson.
Silly Svante, another one who never gets into long conversations, ever, unless it’s with me.
In Swanson’s experiment, the green plate isn’t an ultra-thin, perfectly conducting black body, now is it?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“In Swanson’s experiment, the green plate isn’t an ultra-thin, perfectly conducting black body, now is it?”
You mean CO2 will be a better insulator in practice than in theory?
An ultra-thin, perfectly conducting black-body plate has no thermal resistance or reflectivity, so cannot insulate. No matter what math Eli comes up with.
For CO2, you yourself regard thermal resistance as irrelevant, and concede it does not reflect.
So that’s that.
You will respond. I will ignore it, and in a day or so will just leave you a message asking you to please stop trolling. Cheerio.
So you don’t do math and you don’t do experiments, just handwaving. Cheerio.
Math being OK doesn’t necessarily mean the physics is correct, and experimental results are open to interpretation. But I know from experience that you “don’t do” logic.
And, as promised: Svante, please stop trolling.
“perfectly conducting black-body plate has no thermal resistance or reflectivity, so cannot insulate. No matter what math Eli comes up with.”
Yes, Svante you are right. He doesnt do math, he doesnt do experiments.
And as I have found: He doesnt do physics, he doesnt do logic.
About all he does do is declaring.
Nate, please stop trolling. Your obsession with me is becoming a little bit silly now.
DREMT, let’s see you apply the Stefan–Boltzmann law to Eli’s plates.
OK, Svante. Well, a black body plate at 244 K will emit about 200 W/m2. A black body plate at 262 K will emit about 267 W/m2. And a black body plate at 220 K will emit about 133 W/m2.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“An ultra-thin, perfectly conducting black-body plate has no thermal resistance or reflectivity, so cannot insulate.”
But it can raise blue plate temperature by 18 C, congratulations.
Further downthread, Nate was rambling on about a radiative heat transfer law. I have a task for you now Svante. It’s only fair since you put me to the test. Can you look through Eli’s math in the Green Plate Effect post, here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
And please tell me where Eli uses the radiative heat transfer equation? That’s the one that you and others mistakenly refer to as the S-B Law, hilariously. The one with two terms.
[I’ll give you a little hint: he doesn’t use it]
There’s only one term in the S-B Law:
P/A = єσT4
I see it all over the page (є = 1).
“There’s only one term in the S-B Law”
Agreed. But I asked you to find the radiative heat transfer equation. The one with two terms.
😂
You just don’t have the math skills to figure it out that all terms are there, DREMT.
The two terms, Tg^4 and Tb^4, are in there, just moved around with Algebra. And they are in the diagram.
See the two arrows between the plates, brainiac?
Oh look, Nate has intervened.
Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation. Eli has not rearranged the radiative heat transfer equation. In the radiative heat transfer equation, Q is the heat flow between terms. Where is Q?
Ok. Here goes. Will you make an effort to understand?
He gives this equation σ T1^4 = 2 σ T2^4 . What is this?
This can be written σ T1^4 – σ T2^4 = σ T2^4
On the left you have Qinput from 1 to 2 (Blue to green) which is the radiative heat transfer law!
On the right you have Qoutput from Green plate to space with T ~ 0. This is also the radiative heat transfer law!
In the end this means Qinput = Qoutput for Green Plate, which MUST be true to satisfy 1LOT.
Nate, Eli is only doing what Ball4 refers to as “1LoT calculations”. He is just looking at the fluxes emitted from the plates, and saying for instance that as he sees it, the blue plate is receiving 400 W/m^2 from the sun, and will emit 200 W/m^2 (i.e 200 W/m^2 from each side). He is simply describing that mathematically. The equation you ask “what is this?” about is what he describes as equilibrium for the energy going into and out of the green plate. It is not the radiative heat transfer equation.
Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation, and the only use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is to convert between temperatures and fluxes.
Q12 = σ T1^4 σ T2^4
Oh c’mon. Is this or is it not the rad heat transfer law?
The fact that he has not labeled it Q12 and has rearranged the terms with legal Algebra does not change the meaning or the results.
(-) did not show up between terms. Should be there.
There is no rearrangement of the radiative heat transfer equation in Eli’s math. That is not what he is doing. You are confused because he is using terms such as sigma T1^4, but this is just so he can work with fluxes and then convert back to temperatures at the end.
Ok, last try. Lets do what Eli did, with ALL steps included.
Start with rad heat transfer law: (eq 3)
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
make e =1, A = 1. Apply to plate 1 and 2 (B and G)
Q12 = σ T1^4 – σ T2^4
Apply to G plate and space (T3)
Q23 = σ T2^4 – σ T3^4 Make T3 = 0
Q23 = σ T2^4
Now comes in 1LOT for Green Plate. This MUST ALSO be satisfied!
QIn = Qout
Q12 = Q23
σ T1^4 – σ T2^4 = σ T2^4
σ T1^4 = 2σ T2^4
This is Eli’s equation. Yes?
It was derived from the radiative heat transfer equation AND 1LOT.
If you can’t understand at this point DREMT, it is because you don’t want to.
Lol, Nate, Eli literally talks through the math line by line as he goes through it. He is not using the radiative heat transfer equation. The lengths you go through to delude yourself, or deceive others, or whatever it is you are trying to do, are unbelievable. Go and talk to Eli.
OK DREMT.
He draws arrows for the less sophisticated people such as yourself, rather than doing algebra. The arrows and their labels are simply a graphical representation of the terms that are IN the rad heat transfer law.
That is WHY we get the same result either way. Yes?
My point is that he is not doing anything wrong, by doing things graphically.
Your protest that he is not explicitly stating the rad heat transfer law is TRUE.
But his resulting formulas DO satisfy the rad heat transfer law and can be derived from it, and 1LOT.
Hence, his formulas are correct, and he gets the right answer.
“He draws arrows for the less sophisticated people such as yourself, rather than doing algebra.”
Nope. All the math is there. And he does not do anything that you describe, because it is pretty stupid. Nate, you don’t even seem to understand that Q is the rate of heat flow between the two terms in the equation. You don’t even mention the heat flow between the sun and the blue plate. And you equate the rate of heat flow between the two plates with the rate of heat flow between the green plate and space. Basically you just write out a load of nonsense and hope nobody will know any better, so you can pull the wool over people’s eyes.
Talk to Eli. He does not use the radiative heat transfer equation. And if you actually read through some of the comments, you will find that eventually somebody actually brings that up.
Glad that you got numbers right for the GPE DREMT.
Now you should have no problems with the GHE.
OK DREMT,
“And he does not do anything that you describe, because it is pretty stupid. ”
I guess you think ordinary physics and algebra is stupid. Clearly you can’t understand it. Par for the course.
“you don’t even seem to understand that Q is the rate of heat flow between the two terms in the equation. ”
Makes no sense. Heat flow between terms in the equation???!
It should be obvious that I do understand how to apply this equation. Not obvious that you do.
“You don’t even mention the heat flow between the sun and the blue plate.”
Was talking about heat flow between the plates. And so what?
“And you equate the rate of heat flow between the two plates with the rate of heat flow between the green plate and space.”
Yes, if you understood the first law of thermodynamics, you would understand why I and Eli do that. But you don’t, obviously.
“Basically you just write out a load of nonsense and hope nobody will know any better”
The fact that you call it nonsense demonstrates that you cannot understand basic physics and algebra. Certainly you cannot even say what is nonsense about it.
In sum, DREMT, you don’t understand basic science and math, you are highly resistant to learning it, yet you criticize it, and the people who do understand it.
Makes no sense.
Yes, Nate, Q is the rate of heat flow between the two terms in the equation. Lol.
You have Qin=Qout. So, rate of heat flow in = rate of heat flow out. OK. But then you are saying Qin= the rate of heat flow between the plates, and Qout=the rate of heat flow from the green plate to space.
No.
Qin=the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate.
Qout=the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate.
And, once again, Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation, and his equations are not derived from it. He does not consider heat flow at all.
Svante, lol. You are on another planet.
“Qin= the rate of heat flow between the plates, and Qout=the rate of heat flow from the green plate to space.“
Another reason this is wrong, is because half the output from the green plate is towards the blue. This is already covered in the rate of heat flow between blue and green, your Q12. So if you mean for your Qin to represent inputs to the green plate, and your Qout as outputs from the green plate, then there is an overlap. Half your output from the green is already included in Q12.
“Qin=the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate.
Qout=the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate.”
Yes, those Qs are for the 2 plate system. They must satisfy 1LOT. Glad you get that. Eli has an equation for that.
My Qs are for just the GREEN PLATE.
Any isolated object, like the GREEN PLATE, which achieves a steady temperature, also has a steady internal energy. Therefore, by 1LOT, it cannot be gaining or losing NET energy.
Thus Qin = Qout MUST BE satisfied for the GREEN PLATE.
“So if you mean for your Qin to represent inputs to the green plate, and your Qout as outputs from the green plate, then there is an overlap. Half your output from the green is already included in Q12.”
Sure, simple to move a term from one side of eqn to the other. Doesnt change anything.
As I defined it, left side is NET input to G from B. Right side is NET Output from G to S.
OK Nate, I think I’m just going to stop talking to you. You don’t seem to understand what the radiative heat transfer equation, or Q, even is. The things I am trying to explain to you are just going completely over your head, whilst you continually insult my intelligence, claim I can’t follow your math, etc etc. It’s really boring and pointless, as talking to you invariably is.
Do you disagree with this, and why?
“Any isolated object, like the GREEN PLATE, which achieves a steady temperature, also has a steady internal energy. Therefore, by 1LOT, it cannot be gaining or losing NET energy.
Thus Qin = Qout MUST BE satisfied for the GREEN PLATE.”
As just one example: “sure, simple to move a term from one side of eqn to the other. Doesnt change anything.”
Just a complete lack of understanding of the point I was making to you. Q12 contains a term for the blue plate and a term for the green. Q is the rate of heat transfer between the two. It takes into account half the output from the green plate already. You can’t just “move one of the terms over”. The radiative heat transfer equation is about the heat flow between the two terms!
You are trying to take that Q, and treat it as an input to the green, and claim it is equal to the output from the green, when it already takes into account half of the output from the green.
You think that because you can do things mathematically, it’s all fine. You forget about the actual physics being described.
You gonna answer my question about 1LOT for GREEN?
“You are trying to take that Q, and treat it as an input to the green, and claim it is equal to the output from the green, when it already takes into account half of the output from the green.”
The way I wrote it made logical sense to me. I grouped together all heat flows on the left of G and all heat flows on right.
You want to group together all INs and all OUTs.
Its just bean counting, as long as no beans are lost, either way is fine.
2 people can solve a problem by defining things and writing things down in slightly different ways, both doing it correctly, and getting the same answer.
Happens all the time.
No, Nate. One problem you have is that you are trying to equate Q12 with Q23 as the basis of “ins” equal “outs” for the green plate. The problem is that Q12 already takes into account half the output from the green.
You can’t get around this. So, you waffle and try to obfuscate. I get increasingly bored with talking to you. Up next? Probably some more insults from you. Or false accusations. Or misrepresentations.
So you are not going to answer my straightforward question? You have no answer then?
Once you acknowledge the error you have made, you will have your answer.
“The problem is that Q12 already takes into account half the output from the green.”
Ill do it the way you want.
Qins = Qouts for GREEN Plate.
Qin = σ T1^4
Qout = σ T2^4 + σ T2^4
σ T1^4 = 2 σ T2^4 this is Elis eqn.
It doesn’t matter how you arrange it mathematically. Physically, it doesn’t work.
I asked “Do you disagree with this, and why?”
Poor Nate. Completely unable to admit when he is wrong.
So you think the first law of thermodynamics does not apply. But you cannot say why.
Nate, what I know is that you are wrong and can’t admit it.
You clearly have a belief, that disagrees with a fundamental law of physics. Yet you will not explain why that is OK.
Its pretty obvious that you find yourself trapped in a logical pickle, with no way out.
Nate, here is your logical pickle. You have claimed that Eli’s equations can be derived from the radiative heat transfer equation. You tried to show that mathematically, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-331110
The problem with that has now been explained to you several times. It doesn’t work. You try to get around that, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-331159
The problem there is that you are no longer talking about Q, which is a rate of heat transfer. So it doesn’t work either. It is not Qin and Qout any more, physically.
Eli’s equations are solely a “1LoT analysis”. There is no relation to the radiative heat transfer equation, and they are not derived from that equation. Unless and until you can admit that, we go no further.
Elis equations are solely a 1LoT analysis. There is no relation to the radiative heat transfer equation, and they are not derived from that equation.
I already admitted that you were correct that Eli did not explicitly state the radiative heat transfer equation. He drew arrows with labels.
When he draws an arrow from B to G and an arrow from G to B, he is showing graphically that the NET energy flow is the difference of those two terms. Yes?
That IS formally equivalent to the Rad Heat Transfer Eqn. applied to B and G. Anyone can look at the arrows and write the eqn.
If this is over your head, that is not my problem.
Now, this still leaves you avoiding facing up to your fundamental 1LOT pickle.
Do you have a way out or not?
More desperate evasion from Nate.
“That IS formally equivalent to the Rad Heat Transfer Eqn. applied to B and G. Anyone can look at the arrows and write the eqn.“
Nate, indeed you did write out the equation. Then as I told you, that equation, if used as the Qin to the green plate, like you did, means that half the output from the green plate is already taken into account in your Qin. So your Qin=Qout, for the green plate, does not work. So, trying to derive Eli’s equations from the radiative heat transfer equation does not work. If this is over your head, that is not my problem.
“means that half the output from the green plate is already taken into account in your Qin. So your Qin=Qout, for the green plate, does not work.”
Already took care of this problem by doing it your way. Remember?
“Ill do it the way you want.
Qins = Qouts for GREEN Plate.
Qin = σ T1^4
Qout = σ T2^4 + σ T2^4
σ T1^4 = 2 σ T2^4 this is Elis eqn.”
Its quite plain that you are just revisiting all your previous complaints, to avoid dealing with my simple but KEY question to you.
How is it that you are OK with violating 1LOT for the GREEN plate?
If you won’t answer, then it will be clear that you have no clue and no integrity, DREMT.
“Already took care of this…”
No Nate. And I already explained to you why not. That is no longer Qin or Qout. Q is the rate of heat flow, you see. I mean I told you that already too. You actually did it as “right” as you could do the first time. The only way you will correctly get the rate of heat flow from blue to green is to use your Q12. And the only way to correctly get your rate of heat flow out from the green plate is to use your Q23. Only trouble is, the two don’t equate on your Qin=Qout 1LoT basis, since Q12 already includes half the output from the green plate. There is no way around it, Nate. Eli’s “1LoT analysis” is simply not compatible with the radiative heat transfer equation.
And if you keep following the logic, you will get to the answer to your question.
Look, DREMT, I think there is nothing wrong with the way I or Eli do the bean-counting of heat in this problem. Both ways agree with the rad heat transfer law. Algebra works.
You think there is still a problem. I cannot understand what it is.
Rearranging an equation does not cause energy to be lost or counted twice.
We do not agree, so lets set this issue aside for awhile.
A separate issue is this:
The 1LOT either IS or ISNT required to be satisfied for the GREEN plate.
What do you say and why?
You simply cannot admit when you are wrong. End of discussion (needless to say I will pop back from time to time, you will not have the last word).
Scared to death to answer a basic question about a central issue.
Telling.
So much for honest debate, DREMT.
Have your last word. In your middle-school mind you think that means you win the argument.
No, I have to have the last word as I am holding up the mirror to you, and it is so important for you and your ilk to have the last word. It’s tedious, but it’s one of my duties.
Now, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Svante, lol. You are on another planet.”
Yes, it’s called Earth.
You prove over and over that you don’t do math.
And yet you threw in the right numbers for the GPE:
https://tinyurl.com/ybxu82ua
Does that not mean you agree about the result?
Svante, please stop trolling.
So it’s the same conclusion as last time:
https://tinyurl.com/y89jxyac
No Svante, I said please STOP trolling. Not “troll more”.
Do you know what’s up with JDHuffman by the way?
He started here and then you took over.
Has he been banned again?
Poor Svante, wrong once again. Have a little scroll right down to the bottom of the comments.
Then please stop trolling.
Do you agree with his image of the GPE?
Do you agree with stopping trolling?
Most people come here to express what they think, but you don’t want to do that. What is your mission here?
I have expressed what I think. You might not be able to follow it, but others will.
Now please stop trolling.
Svante,
DREMT/Halp/JD has been working toward full-time troll status. To achieve this rank, he has to stop caring enough to defend his nonsense beliefs with real facts or logic.
He’s making great strides.
Well, let’s see if I can explain it better. I think I did an OK job yesterday, but I suppose as the day wore on and I was forced to keep on repeating my explanation in different ways to try to get the point across, perhaps it wasn’t explained as clearly as it could have been. So here is part of Nate’s math from earlier:
1) QIn = Qout
2) Q12 = Q23
3) σ T1^4 σ T2^4 = σ T2^4
4) σ T1^4 = 2σ T2^4
No. 1) is stating that the rate of heat transfer in must equal the rate of heat transfer out. No. 2) goes on to say that, according to 1) the rate of heat transfer in Q12 (the rate of heat transfer between the blue and green plate) must equal the rate of heat transfer in Q23 (the rate of heat transfer between the green plate and space). No. 3) substitutes in the radiative heat transfer equations for Q12 and Q23, and equates them to each other, as explained. No problems so far.
Then No. 4) happens. No. 4) is fine, mathematically. BUT, physically, that is then no longer Qin = Qout. “σ T1^4” is not a rate of heat flow. It’s just the energy flux from the blue plate towards the green. So it is not Qin. “2σ T2^4” is not a rate of heat flow. It’s just the energy flux from the green plate, both towards the blue, and towards space. So it is not “Qout”.
Going from No. 3) to No. 4), though mathematically legitimate, is precisely where this goes from physically being about heat flow, and the radiative heat transfer equation, to NOT being about heat flow, and the radiative heat transfer equation. You can’t just shift the terms in number 3) around without compromising the physical meaning of Q12 and Q23.
Oh, there was meant to be a minus sign between the two terms on the left in No. 3), but WordPress left it out.
OK….
You seem to be ok with 1-3. “No problems so far.” Then stop there.
3) σ T1^4 – σ T2^4 = σ T2^4
Now solve the problem. We have two unknowns. We need another equation.
You already agreed Qin = Qout for whole system.
“Qin=the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate. Qout=the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate.”
What is that equation?
4) 400 = σ T1^4 + σ T2^4
Now solve the two equations. What do you get?
Or try out these numbers from your post:
“A black body plate at 262 K will emit about 267 W/m2. And a black body plate at 220 K will emit about 133 W/m2.”
σ T1^4 =267 W/m2
σ T2^4 = 133 W/m2
Do they work?
Nate, why are you responding? Our discussion is over. That was just for Svante’s benefit.
And no, your new 4) is not the radiative heat transfer equation either. Just give it up.
You were discussing my posts so I think can weigh in.
Fine with #3.
Previously fine with #4, not anymore for some reason.
So close… can’t quite go where science leads.
No Nate, I was never fine with 4). It is exactly the same problem once again. You are trying to argue about Qin = Qout, never seeming to realize that Q is the rate of heat transfer, not just energy flux. To find “the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate, and the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate” you need to use the radiative heat transfer equation between the sun and the blue plate, and between the plates (your Q12), and your Q23.
What you have in your 4), and it is the same in Eli’s math, has nothing to do with the radiative heat transfer equation, once again.
Heat flow to space from Blue;
Q13 = σ T1^4 σ T3^4 T3 = 0 so
Q13 = σ T1^4
heat flow from GREEN To space
Q23 = σ T2^4
Heat flow from sun 400
Qin =400
Qout = Q13 + Q23 no need to consider INTERNAL heat flows Q12
Qout = σ T1^4 + σ T2^4
Qin = Qout
400 = σ T1^4 + σ T2^4
Oh and heat flow Blue to Sun is negligible (sun is angularly tiny)
I will assume that was a cross-post.
No.
You wanted heat flows, derived from rad heat tr eq. Thats what I gave you.
This is your previous statement:
“You have Qin=Qout. So, rate of heat flow in = rate of heat flow out. OK. But then you are saying Qin= the rate of heat flow between the plates, and Qout=the rate of heat flow from the green plate to space.
No.
Qin=the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate.
Qout=the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate.”
This is what I’ve done.
Incorrect, as explained. Sorry Nate, you lose again.
Alright, flip-flopper, you tell me what eqn 4 should be.
While you’re working on that see if your original solution (T1= 244 K, T2= 244K, which will emit 200 W/m2) can satisfy eq 3, which you agreed was fine.
Silly flip-flopping Nate obviously didn’t grasp the point of my earlier comments if he thinks I am “happy” with 3). All I meant is that I get what you were trying to do.
Long story short, it’s the same problem all over again. You can’t just shift and mangle the terms around inbetween different radiative heat transfer equations, without compromising the physical meaning of those equations. You can justify it mathematically, but you are no longer discussing heat flow. You are just doing that “1LoT analysis” of energy fluxes between the plates; and that is all Eli’s math does.
Hilarious, DREMT!
I was expecting that.
Not happy with #3 originally, then happy with it for a while (direct quote from you!). Now not happy with # 3 again. No reason given.
Previously fine with #4, as was JD, and everyone else. BTW your original solution satisfies it!
400 = 200 + 200
But now, not happy with #4 anymore. Weird inconsistent reasons given.
Go argue it out with yourself, as you are working on your own equations.
And argue out #4 with JD while you’re at it.
Yawn. When desperate, Nate just starts making stuff up.
“When desperate, Nate just starts making stuff up.”
Just like the universal JD disclaimer.
In any case, eager to look at your ‘correct’ equations, as Im sure Svante is as well.
As you’ve repeatedly said they need to be
1. “compatible with the radiative heat transfer equation.”
And, as I’ve emphasized
2. they need to satisfy 1LOT.
Eqns 3 and 4 do that.
But you disagree, so let’s see yours.
Nate, Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation, and his equations are not derived from the radiative heat transfer equation. As explained. And that’s ALL I needed to explain, because that was the only point I was making to Svante.
You are dismissed. Thanks for running interference for…what, two/three solid days straight? Lol. I know you are obsessed with me, but this is something else.
Simple summary:
DREMT does not do one way radiation.
Fair enough, I’ll add that to the list.
Nate, Qin = 400 – σT1^4.
Q13 is blocked by the green plate, Qout = σT1^4
You can rearrange it to get what you had.
Anyway, I’m glad we all agree on the numbers.
DREMT should have no problem with the GHE now.
Correction, Qout = σT2^4.
“Nate, Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation, and his equations are not derived from the radiative heat transfer equation. And that’s ALL I needed to explain, because that was the only point I was making”
Well, actually the last POINT you made was that you know eq 3 and 4 that I derived directly from the radiative heat transfer equation, are ALSO wrong.
Odd because you showed that eqn 3 had “No problems so far.”
Why again is it wrong?
It is puzzling and hilarious that you claim to now know why theyre wrong, but cannot fix them.
My 4) and your new 4) are wrong for the same reasons, already explained.
3) is OK IF you accept that the rate of heat transfer between the plates should be the same as the rate of heat transfer between the green plate and space.
IF.
But, more importantly, to get to Eli’s equation, you have to do what you do in my 4) as listed earlier. Once you do that, you are no longer discussing heat flow, as explained in my post earlier.
“3) is OK IF you accept that the rate of heat transfer between the plates should be the same as the rate of heat transfer between the green plate and space.
IF.”
IOW, IF the first law of thermodynamics is valid.
AFAIK it always has been.
Any other objections?
I guess “wrong” is not the right word. Just “not describing heat flow”.
“IOW, IF the first law of thermodynamics is valid.”
Silly Nate, we are talking about heat flow, not energy flow.
“Any other objections?”
Yes, Nate. I have explained them in enormous detail over multiple posts. If you are unable to argue against them, you just ignore it and focus the conversation onto something else.
You will now endlessly go on about 1LoT.
Oh geez..
Heat is energy last I checked. And ILOT certainly covers heat.
What are you trying to say exactly? Is there some energy or heat that we missed?
Svante, wanna take a stab at this one?
“You will now endlessly go on about 1LoT.”
I know, those darn laws you have to obey…
No, its totally up to you if I go on about this law of physics that everyone but you seemingly accept.
Svante has been completely oblivious to the entire conversation, Nate.
1LoT’s satisfied so long as the rate of heat flow in to the system is the same as the rate of heat flow out.
No need to bring up your no. 4) again, as explained that does not deal with heat flow.
Nate says:
“Svante, wanna take a stab at this one?”
Simple summary: DREMT does not do one way radiation.
Use heat we’re all OK with the GPE.
He seems to have a problem with the GHE, but is unable to specify it clearly. He gets stuck on semantics and generates a cloud of confusion, which might be the purpose. When you try to pin him down he goes into a loop. No interesting argument to be found.
Yep, good summary, Svante.
“1LoTs satisfied so long as the rate of heat flow in to the system is the same as the rate of heat flow out.”
Very good. So that works for eq 3. Note a ‘system’ can be any isolated object, like the GP.
BTW you can use Svante’s version of eq 4 if you prefer.
Qin = Qout for system of both plates.
400 – σ T1^4 = σ T2^4
If you still don”t like it, tell us how to correct it.
😂
“He gets stuck on semantics and generates a cloud of confusion, which might be the purpose. When you try to pin him down he goes into a loop. No interesting argument to be found.“
Well Svante, when I get talking to someone who does their best to generate a cloud of confusion, probably on purpose, and who goes into a loop when you try to pin them down, I and others have only a few options. Just try to bring it to a close, quit altogether, or keep following them around their loop, and try to pin them down. It’s a bit difficult when you try to bring it to a close, but they are so obsessed with you they just don’t want to stop.
But, that’s how it goes.
OK, onto Nate. This is the response you are going to receive, until you stop replying to me. I will just update the number each time:
#1
As explained at great length, Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation. You cannot derive the equations Eli uses from that equation without switching around and mangling together terms from different radiative heat transfer equations in a way which, whilst fine mathematically, means that physically heat flow is no longer being discussed.
This means Eli does not take heat flow, or the radiative heat transfer equation, into account in his solution. As this was all that I was trying to explain to Svante, I have nothing further to discuss.
“As explained at great length, Eli does not yada yada”
Here you are ‘looping’ back to repeat at great length for the 47th time what you think Eli did wrong. (like Trump does with Hillary??)
Meanwhile we’ve long since moved on to: What are the correct equations?
My eqns 3 and 4 It seems 3 is OK
Svante’s eqn 4
Your eqn 4 replacement. When can we expect that?
#2
As explained at great length, Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation. You cannot derive the equations Eli uses from that equation without switching around and mangling together terms from different radiative heat transfer equations in a way which, whilst fine mathematically, means that physically heat flow is no longer being discussed.
This means Eli does not take heat flow, or the radiative heat transfer equation, into account in his solution. As this was all that I was trying to explain to Svante, I have nothing further to discuss.
Yes, very interesting, energy and heat calculations give the same result.
DREMT, why don’t you tell JDHuffman that his GPE cartoon is bogus?
“…completely oblivious to the entire conversation…”
Never a straight answer.
“…oblivious to the entire conversation…”
I read it all. Summary: Eli used the Stefan-Boltzman Law.
Yes, to convert between fluxes and temperatures.
What he didn’t use, was the radiative heat transfer equation.
Well done, glad you were paying attention, after all.
Good point. Why don’t you tell JD about the plate temperatures?
“Good point.“
Thanks.
“What he didn’t use, was the radiative heat transfer equation.”
Yes, but I did, and showed that his answers are correct and satisfy the radiative heat transfer equation.
So your point is moot.
#3
As explained at great length, Eli does not use the radiative heat transfer equation. You cannot derive the equations Eli uses from that equation without switching around and mangling together terms from different radiative heat transfer equations in a way which, whilst fine mathematically, means that physically heat flow is no longer being discussed.
This means Eli does not take heat flow, or the radiative heat transfer equation, into account in his solution. As this was all that I was trying to explain to Svante, I have nothing further to discuss.
You can:
1) Set up your radiative heat transfer equations.
2) Solve them with algebra.
3) Get the same result as Eli.
Why don’t you tell JD what the result is?
Incorrect, Svante, as explained.
OK, I’ll add it to the list, you don’t do algebra.
The problem isnt the math, so much, its the physics, as explained.
Its OK, Svante. I know you dont do logic, physics, math, integrity, honesty, humanity, decency, truth, or having a soul,
Learn about projection here:
https://tinyurl.com/6hatnzg
Thanks, but you already taught me that by example, with your many derogatory comments.
Still, we agree on the plate temperatures, wasn’t that a coincidence!
He’s still responding! Bless him!
Just trying to get a straight answer.
How did you calculate the plate temperatures?
Svante, you didn’t ask me to calculate the plate temperatures. You asked, “DREMT, let’s see you apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to Eli’s plates.”
I gave you the correct answers for the conversions between temperature and radiative flux for three blackbody plates. Those plates are at the same temperatures as the plates in Eli’s solution, temperatures we all know from the innumerable times it has been discussed. So I, quite literally, “applied the Stefan-Boltzmann law to Eli’s plates”, and gave you the associated radiative fluxes.
It should have been perfectly obvious throughout that I don’t agree with Eli’s solution. You seem to have some idea in your head that “Stefan-Boltzmann law” equals “Eli is correct”. All he is using it for is in conversions between temperature and flux, as you would expect since that is what it concerns.
OK, I’ll add it to the list, you don’t believe in Stefan-Boltzman.
Huh!?
What is the correct solution then?
Why do you think I “don’t believe in Stefan-Boltzmann?”
Am I allowed to ask you questions, or does this always go one way (with you asking questions you already know the answers to)?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Because:
1) You say you “applied the Stefan-Boltzmann law to Eli’s plates”.
2) You got the same numbers as Eli.
3) You say Eli’s solution is not correct.
Svante, do you have a learning disability? I literally JUST explained it to you. Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-333304
What was wrong with it then?
Svante, I think I have to take a few things back. Maybe you haven’t been trolling me. I’m sure you probably do have a soul.
I think it’s just that you are really, really, really…REALLY thick.
I cannot help you. Sorry. I have explained what I meant. I cannot make it any clearer.
You can make it clear by showing your calculations.
Physical formulas and numbers.
You have missed the point.
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56530521e4b0c307d59bbe97/t/57c446039f74564329839146/1472480776115/?format=750w
Picture is worth a thousand words.
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
David, please stop trolling.
ball4…”The vibration & rotational quantum jumps that are the main birth and death of photons in earth troposphere by spinning and vibrating air molecules. Basic 1st course meteorology of which Gordon has no knowledge”.
Once again, what mechanism in a molecule causes the quantum jumps? You seem to think there is a mystical entity in a molecule that bypasses the bonding supplied by the electron that produces a molecule from two or more atoms.
The mechanism is a change in the molecule’s quantum state.
Gordon is too stupid to understand what this means.
“Once again, what mechanism in a molecule causes the quantum jumps?”
The atm. molecule spins with a rotational KE in the base state & when the molecule absorbs a photon it spins with rotational KE one quantum level higher equal to the energy absorbed by annihilating the photon (death of photon).
The atm. molecule spins down one quantum level when it gives birth to (emits) a photon. This energy level is equal to the collisional energy found in earth atm.
This is again basic meteorology Gordon taught in a 1st year course of which you have no knowledge.
ball4…”The atm. molecule spins with a rotational KE in the base state & when the molecule absorbs a photon it spins with rotational KE one quantum level higher equal to the energy absorbed by annihilating the photon (death of photon)”.
And since quantum theory is based on the electron, the quantum states to which you refer are related to the electron.
I don’t recall Schrodinger’s equation saying anything about molecular quantum states. The equation is based on electron orbitals. The orbitals are the quantum states.
Read my lips. Chuck out the term molecule, it is misleading unless you need it to name a specific collection of atoms bonded together by electrons.
“And since quantum theory is based on the electron”
No Gordon quantum theory is based on the atom and molecule rotational, vibrational AND electronic transitions. That which you do not recall is not an argument.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Once again, what mechanism in a molecule causes the quantum jumps?
A molecule in a certain rotation (say) has an energy. In another rotation, it has a different energy.
Changing from one rotational state to another is a change in energy, which can absorb or emit a photon.
DA…”A molecule in a certain rotation (say) has an energy. In another rotation, it has a different energy”.
Rubbish. The energy is in the electrons or the protons in the nucleus.
Clearly Gordon chooses not to study basic meteorology.
B, please stop trolling.
Salvatore del prete says:
May 1, 2018 at 9:46 AM
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencer’s satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
Global temperatures are now closer to my prediction then AGW prediction.
That turns out not to be the case.
Go to Ed Hawkin’s website, to the post on CMIP5.
The prediction is on the second graph, the red oblong.
Sorry for the vagueness. This site rejects anything more explicit.
Here: https://tinyurl.com/yd54uuer
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/73-climate-models_reality.gif
I would say they are off.
What are those blue/green values?
UAH is up about 0.4 C 1979 – 2009.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:45 AM
“I said year 2017 will be the transitional year due to my solar criteria finally being met.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261198
the blue and green are actual global temperatures from radiosonde data and satellite data.
Compare the two graphs.
The subset of CMIP5 runs on John Christy’s graph were taken from the upper half of the total ensemble shown in Hawkins’ graph.
That is why Christy’s graph appears to show a divergence between the observed data and the models.
There is a second problem. Each model run chose an RCP to describe CO2 emissions and randomised natural variation.
Reality had an RCP between 6and 8, and natural variability towards the cool limit of the ensemble range. Models mapping real RCP and variability most closely also modelled temperature most closely. Those models are mostly in the lower 25% of the range.
Thanks for explaining the CMIPs.
I guess CMIP has the surface temperature, while the actual temperatures are for the lower troposphere, which has a lower trend.
Still the actual values look nothing like the UAH graph we get here, with a trend of 0.13 C per decade. How come?
Svante
CMIP5 is designed to mimic station data, screened thermometers 5′ above ground level.
UAH is based on microwave emissions in the first 5km of the atmosphere, corrected to approximate station data.
Nowadays UAH and RSS track the surface datasets pretty closely. The difference in long term warming rates is 0.13C/decade for UAH versus about 0.18C/ decade for the rest, may reflect that the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere. It may just be an artefact of the 1979 start date for the satellite data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2019/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2019/every/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2019/every/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2019/every/trend
The two graphs use difterent baselines, which is why UAH reads lower. It does not reflect a real difference in temperature between them.
Salvatore’s UAH data looks different, I guess it’s because it is so old?
Svante
For some reason Salvatire gave UAH V6 data up to April 2017.
The woodforthetrees graph I compiled ran to October 2018.
It also gave a linear regression instead of the 13 month moving average.
Salvatore
This compares UAH v5.6 with UAH V6.0.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2019/every/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2019/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2019/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2019/every/trend
V6.0 in blue gives lower temperatures for recent years and a lower trend.
Salvatore’s graph:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/73-climate-models_reality.gif
Dr. Roy Spencers graph:
https://tinyurl.com/mc3ggqd
I guess a lot depends on the anchoring point.
Gordon,
If you bring the GP near to the BP, you interfere with the BPs ability to dissipate heat via convection and radiation. That will cause it to warm toward its natural temperature with all dissipation stifled.
What is this ‘natural temperature’?
The GP is cooler than the BP. Introducing the GP to the system with the heat source (sun) and BP, slows the rate of heat dissipation of the BP, as you said.
What is causing the BP to dissipate its heat less effectively is the added energy now being received from the GP. This does not interfere with the 2nd Law, because the 2nd Law is entirely about net heat, and at all times the net flow of heat is from hot to cold.
As ceiling and wall batts slow the rate of emission of heat from a house, the GP slows the rate of emission of heat from the BP. The only difference is that the former action is mainly convective, and the later purely radiative. But the 2nd Law is broken in neither.
Wall and ceiling insulation can be colder than the room in which they are installed at the time of installation, but they result in a room getting warmer.
Clothes slow heat loss from a human being. There is no violation of the 2nd Law when we say that on a Winter’s day, cold clothes make you warmer after a while when you put them on. There is no violation, then, of the 2nd Law when we say the GP slows the rate of emission of the BP, thereby making it warmer.
The rest is semantics, not physics.
barry’s confuses himself: “What is causing the BP to dissipate its heat less effectively is the added energy now being received from the GP.”
No barry, the GP does NOT “add” energy to the system. Consequently, it can NOT cause a rise in the BP temperature. To cause a rise, it would have to “add” energy, as a heat source, or be a insulator instead of a black body.
barry makes the GP into an insulator: “As ceiling and wall batts slow the rate of emission of heat from a house, the GP slows the rate of emission of heat from the BP.”
Correct barry, but now you have ruined your “thought experiment”, which called for two black bodies.
It looks like you are learning some physics. Keep it up. Pretty soon you will realize that AGW is a hoax.
No barry, the GP does NOT “add” energy to the system.
See how you changed what I said there? I didn’t say energy was added to the “system”. Tricky tricky tricky little you.
That’s why you are a troll, G.
barry, how does the GP “add” energy, if it does NOT “add” energy?
The answer, of course, is that the GP does NOT add energy. You just tried your scam, and got caught. Now, you are trying to weasel your way out with word games.
That’s why you are a pseudoscience clown, barry.
If I mistook your being a troll for you being simply stupid then I apologize. I put the word “system” in quotes because I thought even an idiot would then I understand what I took issue with.
In the GP exercise, no energy is added to the system. The green plate slows the rate at which the energy leaves the system.
Gordon agrees:
If you bring the GP near to the BP, you interfere with the BPs ability to dissipate heat via convection and radiation. That will cause it to warm…
but seems to be unable to answer the primary question I’m asking him – the physical mechanics of how the BP rate of energy loss is interfered with radiatively by the GP.
As for you, you’re back in the troll bin.
barry, you’re still playing word games. Want proof? I’ll take out the mention of “system”:
No barry, the GP does NOT “add” energy. Consequently, it can NOT cause a rise in the BP temperature. To cause a rise, it would have to “add” energy, as a heat source, or be a insulator instead of a black body.
You’re still in the “wrong” bin.
Yes, this is indeed where barry goes wrong. He thinks that if a photon from a cold region is absorbed somewhere inside a warm region, then that will automatically translate (just sum up all the photons moving from cold to hot, right?) into a MACROscopic addition of energy from cold to hot. It won’t. There simply is no direct physical relation between the two notions. He remains utterly confused by the “thermodynamic limit”. MICRO vs. MACRO. Two different realities. Connected, but not directly relatable. (Like the speed of an individual molecule flying through space within a gas and the temperature of that gas.)
Only a HEAT source adds energy. Someplace warmer. Heat is a macroscopic (thermodynamic) phenomenon, just like temperature and pressure. None of these exist as physical concepts in the quantum realm. Heat, temperature and pressure are all macroscopic manifestations of the AVERAGE of ALL individual microscopic processes or quantities of some kind within a certain region. ALL. Not just some of them …
The singular quantum event whereby a photon is absorbed by an atom or molecule can and does NOT in itself cause a change in the “internal energy” [U] and thus (potentially) the “temperature” [T] of the MACROscopic body containing that particular atom or molecule. Which means that the total of ALL photon absorp-tion events occurring within some instant on or in the macroscopic body in question also can’t and won’t in itself cause such a change. Why? Because there are always photon emission events occurring at the same time. The internal energy content [U] of a macroscopic body, and thus its temperature, cannot at any time be subdivided. It is at any instant the result of THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE of energy between now and the previous instant; not just some arbitrary, artificially isolated ‘component’ of the whole. U and T are – by definition – always the average of everything, of ALL microscopic processes and/or quantities within a given system. This is what my “dime analogy” is all about. You can’t split it up into separate parts. The exact same thing is of course the case with a heat flux; with ALL macroscopic (thermodynamic) phenomena. You can always CONCEPTUALIZE it, always IMAGINE it being made up of different, separate parts, adding up to a ‘total’, a ‘net’. And you can thus treat it as such MATHEMATICALLY. But it will NEVER constitute physical REALITY. It is a simplified mental MODEL of reality only.
So, there’s a continuous EXCHANGE of photons between hot and cold, and, yes, one could look at single photons from ‘cold’ and verify that their individual quanta of energy, upon aborp-tion by a ‘hot’ atom or molecule, were ADDED to that particular ‘hot’ atom or molecule. But that’s as far as it goes. You can’t say anything about the body AS A WHOLE. Macroscopic energy (in the form of discrete “flows” or “intensity fluxes” (W/m^2)) is NEVER in nature added from cold to hot. Because such discrete flows or fluxes of energy would, in a heat transfer situation, and again, by thermodynamic definition, constitute HEAT (net) fluxes. Which is why, in physics, you will invariably see the two ‘hemi-fluxes’ (from hot to cold and from cold to hot), mathematically/conceptually making up the net (heat) flux between them, within that ONE set of brackets. You can’t split them. They’re firmly integrated into ONE. Physicists know this. They are not fools. They know perfectly well that those hemi-fluxes are conceptual only, that they’re not REAL separate physical entities that we could ever hope to observe or detect separately (the idea alone is absurd!), but at the same time that the concept itself is indeed useful mathematically. And that’s why we keep it …
– – –
And barry, physics is ALL about semantics. If your language isn’t correct, precise and (internally) consistent, physics will confuse you; or your “physics” will confuse others.
Kristian, that’s a whole bunch of waffle to try and avoid saying that the introduction of the GP introduces an energy EXCHANGE between the 2 plates, which results in the BP warming up.
That exchange is radiative. While the flow of heat is from hot to cold, the flow of energy is bi-directional. The BP absorbs energy from the GP, even as the GP absorbs energy from the BP. That is what happens physically. It’s not a false mathematical construct. That is what actually happens. And we know it happens because there is simply no other way for the GP to influence the BP in a vacuum.
There’s no corruption of physics to say all this.
But you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to deny a fairly simple and well-known observation.
“You can’t split it up into separate parts.”
“You can’t say anything about the body AS A WHOLE.”
You can do all of that. You can even write radiative transfer equations without using brackets.
As if neatening up an equation by using brackets ever said anything about physical reality!
There are many academic volumes that discuss heat transfer by radiation. They often speak of bi-directionality of energy exchange, and even bi-directionality of heat exchange between to bodies at different temperature.
“When two blackbodies exchange heat by radiation, the net heat exchange is then proportional to the difference in T4…”
https://tinyurl.com/yd38uqya
This confuses no one. Engineers reading this material make things that work.
As much as you like to misrepresent what I say and think about the matter, this is still a semantic kerfuffle, with you taking on the role of an overzealous thermo-linguist. There is a reason that the BP has to warm up when the GP is introduced, and it is not some magical process that makes the energy radiating from GP to BP disappear by waving a NET wand.
That’s fine Kristian, barry understands and no need to go through all that again. Educate Gordon if you can.
Just for the record, put me down for real photons and heat as a useful mental construct.
barry, your first mistake: “…the introduction of the GP introduces an energy EXCHANGE between the 2 plates, which results in the BP warming up.”
You keep believing an energy exchange results in warming the BP. That just indicatea you do not understand the relevant physics.
“Only a HEAT source adds energy. Someplace warmer.”
That’s wrong Kristian, because you misuse the heat term. The icy cirrus in Dr. Spencer’s experiment emitted IR from a colder source than the surface water but the thermometers detected that colder IR source adding energy to the warmer surface water in view of the cirrus thus slowing its cooling as shown by the control surface water not in view of the cirrus.
The experiments with black body radiation that brought about the Planck radiation function showed the same result.
I know Kristian avoids experiments as they sometimes conflict with Kristian’s physics writing but Kristian could learn a lot just by looking up the original experiments Planck refers to in his 1912 Treatise on the subject for free right on the internet.
BP/GP:
The only way the GP can warm the BP is if the GP is a heat source, or is insulating the BP.
All agree the GP isn’t a heat source. So all who think the GP warms the BP must be arguing the GP insulates the BP.
There are two separate scenarios, the thought experiment and Swanson’s actual experiment.
Gordon was arguing about the actual exp.
JD was arguing about the thought exp.
Kristian, not sure which.
Actual exp. = real plates, made of real materials, possessing thermal resistance.
Thought exp. = imaginary plates, made of unreal, ultra-thin, perfectly conducting, perfectly absorbing/emitting materials, having no thermal resistance.
Therefore: Thought exp. GP cannot insulate BP (has no thermal resistance).
Actual exp. GP can insulate BP (has thermal resistance).
Thought exp. = BP/GP remain the same temperature.
Actual exp. = addition of GP raises BP temperature 10 degrees C.
The only way the GP can warm the BP is if adding the GP raises the BP temperature, sometimes called insulating the BP.
The GP can warm the BP since adding the GP raises the BP temperature both with simple 1LOT analysis and by lab experiment on BP,GP similar to that done on the atm. by Dr. Spencer.
It is obvious DREMT does not understand the physics supporting these processes.
“an overzealous thermo-linguist.” Darn perfect!
I might add ‘circumlocutory’ in there.
“Therefore: Thought exp. GP cannot insulate BP (has no thermal resistance).”
This is the silly argument Halp went on and on about, just before he disappeared. Hmmmmm.
Aluminum foil doesnt have (much) thermal resistance either. Why does it keep things wrapped in it warm?!
Reflectivity.
‘reflectivity’
So you admit an insulation effect doesnt require thermal resistance. It can arise purely from blocking radiation.
Very good.
Svante says, November 22, 2018 at 7:06 PM:
Hehe, that’s ironic to say the least, considering how “heat” (and not “photons”) is what we actually feel and sense every single day. It is a real physical phenomenon. When you get warm, when you get cold, then you experience “heat”. But in your mind, it’s still just a mental construct, while photons, which really ARE a mental construct, are what’s real. Does make me wonder how you define “real”, Svante …
Svante says, November 22, 2018 at 7:06 PM:
Ok, so when time and time again I have to come back to inform him that as long as he insists on trying to explain the physical mechanism of “insulation” through statements such as this:
then his LANGUAGE is in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that is not something I need to do, I should simply stop doing it, because he already understands …?
Svante, he clearly DOESN’T understand. That’s WHY he keeps repeating his misconception.
You just can’t explain the absolute rise in temperature that a (MACROscopic) body, constantly heated by a second body (a hotter one, thus an active source of energy (‘heat’) to the first one), experiences once it is put into thermal contact with a third body (a cooler one, thus a passive sink (receiver) of energy (‘heat’) from the heated object), insulating it against even colder surroundings, by proclaiming that the cooler third body (being actively heated by the first one, after all) is now ADDING extra energy to it.
Because if that were true, it would indeed violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A cooler object simply cannot in nature ADD energy to a warmer object to make that warmer object warmer still. And it doesn’t. It doesn’t happen.
Yes, this might seem like a semantical nitpick only, but I can assure you it isn’t. If you get the language wrong here, you get the physical process wrong.
barry is seriously confused when it comes to this particular subject, and he will remain that way, as long as he refuses to open his eyes and his ears to reality. He desperately wants to use an inherently NON-thermal phenomenon to explain a distinctly THERMAL effect, when there is and cannot be any direct physical relation between the two.
He wants to be freely able to say that one (macroscopic) body ADDS energy to another (macroscopic) body, to make it warmer, even if that other body is already warmer than the first one. And he does so because he’s convinced he knows what the fundamental, bare-bones physical mechanism behind the warming effect is – one molecule in the cooler body emitting one photon that is absorbed by one molecule in the warmer body, thus for an instant raising the energy content of that one molecule in the warmer body; energy has been ADDED.
But what is he forgetting or ignoring? The whole picture. No thermal effect will ever arise from one particular photon absorp-tion event, ever. What about ten? A hundred? A thousand? A million? A gazillion? Nope. It won’t help just adding up ONE kind of event. You are still ignoring the whole picture. This singular process simply isn’t itself capable of explaining why the temperature of an entire body or surface is going up from one instant to the next. It can’t and doesn’t relate directly to temperature [T] or internal energy [U]. barry is very clearly talking about thermodynamic systems and their thermal states and evolution, but in doing so invokes and tries to make us focus on specific quantum (non-thermo) events – in isolation! – as somehow a direct causal explanation of thermal phenomena.
And so all I’m trying to point out is this:
A photon (a quantum entity) can ADD energy to whichever atom or molecule it wants. (A body (a macroscopic entity) can’t; it is governed by, and thus has to obey, the Laws of Thermodynamics.) Such a quantum addition of energy to a single atom/molecule, however, doesn’t in itself have a thermal effect on anything. There are no thermal effects in the quantum realm. Thermal effects are caused by THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) processes/mechanisms. This is what barry apparently has a hard time wrapping his head around …
MICRO vs. MACRO. Chaos and disorder vs. order and patterns. It is not just a meme. It is an essential distinction to be aware of. Because when you talk about “adding energy” in a macroscopic (thermodynamic) sense, you’re no longer talking about photons, single quanta of energy; you’re talking about flows or fluxes of energy (quantified and/or measured in units like, say, W/m^2). And (thermodynamic) fluxes of energy are essentially macroscopic averages (the NET) of the individual movements of insanely huge numbers of separate microscopic packets of energy within a specified part of the universe. Each microscopic packet of energy of course freely moves in its own separate direction and at different speeds (if they’re atoms or molecules) or at different frequencies (if they’re photons), but the macroscopic NET of them ALL only ever moves in ONE direction and at ONE speed/ONE intensity. That’s the flux, the “flow of energy”.
And no macroscopic energy like that is “added back” …
“So you admit…”
Typical nonsense from Nate. I didn’t bother to mention reflectivity since the two black-bodies in the thought exp. obviously have none, and the real plates in the actual exp, will have very little. Only a very, very small amount of the 10 C rise in the actual exp. could be down to reflectivity, so it wasn’t worth mentioning.
Kristian says:
The universe has these MICRO components. They do their thing and then you can say something about their aggregate MACRO effect.
Thanks for taking your time to tech me about it before.
Wish you could teach DREMT et. al.
“Because if that were true, it would indeed violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A cooler object simply cannot in nature ADD energy to a warmer object to make that warmer object warmer still. And it doesnt. It doesnt happen.”
It does happen. A cooler ground surface can warm another ground surface to higher temperature, because the cooler ground surface is at higher elevation in an atmosphere. Cooler ground surface warms air, and air at lower elevation can warm ground.
And such occurred during period of the Messinian Salinity Crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
And it occurs on Venus, cooler cloud droplets warm air and air warms hotter rocky surface of Venus.
K: “He thinks that if a photon from a cold region is absorbed somewhere inside a warm region, then that will automatically translate (just sum up all the photons moving from cold to hot, right?) into a MACROscopic addition of energy from cold to hot. It won’t.”
It won’t huh? But how does the hot object know how much heat to send to the cold object? What is the mechanism for it to sense the temperature of the cold object?
Barry is talking about the mechanism.
Statistical Mechanics from Maxwell and Boltzmann is explaining the mechanism for heat transfer, and diffusion, and 2LOT, in terms of the movements of atoms and (later) photons.
Svante says, November 24, 2018 at 10:12 AM:
But you EXPERIENCE the macro effect only. And you THEORIZE about the micro entities. Quantum mechanics is ALL about mental models. Thermodynamics is about everyday experience.
I can’t teach DREMT et al. I’ve tried before with the likes of Robertson and Huffman. It doesn’t work. You know that.
Nate says, November 24, 2018 at 3:23 PM:
No, that’s right. It won’t. And I just spent a reasonable amount of thread space above to try and explain exactly WHY, Nate …
*Sigh*
It doesn’t. Heat just flows. Down the hill. The steeper the hill, the more it flows. According to the temperature (and emissivity) difference between the two plates. Heat is specifically a MACROscopic phenomenon. You can’t look deep into the quantum realm and say “Here! This is where, why and how the heat is reduced!” Heat is the average (the net) of the continuous microscopic energy exchange between the two bodies in question. There is no addition of MACROscopic energy from cold to hot. Heat IS the macroscopic energy transfer between the two (macroscopic) bodies. That’s it. Everything else that you might want to highlight is merely part of the continuous and ubiquitous MICROscopic energy exchange. There are no other bulk transfers except the heat (the net). No thermodynamic “flows of energy”. Just individual quanta of energy continuously being exchanged back and forth.
Try to follow what I’m actually pointing out.
Yes, but he’s looking in the wrong place. If you want to explain a thermodynamic effect, then you need to go look for a thermodynamic mechanism, not a quantum effect. That’s all I’m saying …
Kristian, I’m not sure what part of what you are saying that you imagine I disagree with, and need to be “taught”.
If you are trying to “teach” that an imaginary object that has no insulative properties can insulate, then of course I disagree. But I haven’t read where you have said that.
I have read many of your arguments over the years and have always found much to agree with. I’m not sure why some here are leaping to your side when ultimately you have always argued against the radiative greenhouse effect.
N:”how does the hot object know how much heat to send to the cold object”
K:”It doesnt. Heat just flows. Down the hill. The steeper the hill, the more it flows.”
Nope. If the hot object and cold object are spatially separated, the hot object cannot detect the ‘steepness’ of the ‘hill’.
The ‘hill’ is your mental construct.
Meanwhile you keep saying that photons and molecules are the ‘mental construct’.
FALSE, individual photons and molecules can be detected and counted.
Kristian says:
I see what you mean.
Yes, just wishing.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, November 26, 2018 at 6:01 AM:
I don’t. Svante does. Ask him.
Nate says, November 26, 2018 at 8:12 AM:
Nate, are you an idiot, or do you just prefer to act like one?
No one ever claimed any of the objects could “detect the steepness of the hill”. The hill just happen to BE this steep or that steep, regardless of what either object can “detect” or “feel” or “know”. They’re dead objects, Nate. I told you, the heat simply spontaneously results from the difference in temperature and emissivity between the two objects. None of them has to KNOW about the specifics of this difference. They just FEEL THE HEAT. Going out, or coming in. Got it?
Hahaha! You’ve heard of “analogies”, I take it …? It’s a way of describing something rather abstract by comparing it with something more mentally (yes, mentally) tangible. It doesn’t mean I think there IS an actual “heat hill”, Nate.
Oh noes! I just stated that two dead objects could still FEEL heat coming in or going out. I guess that ruins my entire argument …! Who’s the idiot now!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The 2LOT violation rubbish for a start, no. 2 here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
And this little beauty:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“I think that the GP in the thought exp., with no thermal resistance or reflectivity, can not possibly insulate the BP.”
Svante, you quote me, saying, “Kristian, I’m not sure what part of what you are saying that you imagine I disagree with, and need to be “taught”.”
Then you say, “the 2LOT violation rubbish for a start…”
So I guess the obvious question is, what 2LOT violation rubbish is Kristian saying that I disagree with, and need to be “taught”?
Kristian,
“No one ever claimed any of the objects could detect the steepness of the hill. The hill just happen to BE this steep or that steep, regardless of what either object can detect or feel or know. Theyre dead objects, Nate. I told you, the heat simply spontaneously results from the difference in temperature and emissivity between the two objects.”
Well, you said “Heat just flows. Down the hill. The steeper the hill, the more it flows. According to the temperature (and emissivity) difference between the two plates.”
Again, you are unable/unwilling to describe the mechanism for the heat transfer. But you are willing to make a mental construct involving the steepness of a hill, which even by analogy, is not relevant.
Hill analogies are rightly brought up in other contexts, such as an electric charge between two charged plates. Then there is a Force on the charge that can be described by a potential energy hill with some steepness.
Not appropriate for heat flow in vacuum. There is no force on the photons between the plates. There is no potential energy hill.
And duh, we all understand that the plates “Theyre dead objects”
The plates are passive. AND for distant plates, they’re behavior should only depend on their local properties, size, shape emissivity, temperature.
In our ( Barry, me, textbooks, etc) view, this behavior is easy to explain.
The plates emit according to their temperature, sigmaT^4. They emit the same amount no matter what are other object’s properties. AND, since they are BB, they passively absorb all radiation that hits them.
Thats it. Thats all you need.
We get the same answers as you. Our approach is widely used by professionals and educators. There is NO 2LOT violation.
Philosophically, our view is simpler and more logical than yours. It allows us to describe the mechanism, with no need for plates to ‘know’ the temperature of all far away objects around them, and no need for mental constructs of steep hills.
Kristian,
As i mentioned, the professionals and educators use our approach.
Here is yet another course on radiation and a quite rigorous presentation of net flux from a surface.
p. 13 eq 1.36
“The net average radiative flux from the surface, denoted q, will simply be the difference between
the flux leaving the surface and the flux arriving at the surface, i.e.,
q1 = J1 − H1 ”
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf
Nate, please stop trolling.
A little late non sequitur, DREMT.
No one paying attention to you?
Oh, I’ll always get attention from you, not that I need attention. Please stop trolling.
DREMT,
So you think a warm black-body between you and the very very cold 3K of space will make no difference in your heat loss?
Stand next to the freezer. Now open the door. Feel the cold? Did having a warm door in between you and the cold make a difference?
I think that the GP in the thought exp., with no thermal resistance or reflectivity, can not possibly insulate the BP.
“I think that…” Its good to have opinions.
But two facts raise problems for your opinion.
Common sense: Warm GP is shielding hot BP from extreme cold of space.
Law of radiative heat transfer says heat flow between hot BP and very cold space MUST BE HIGHER than heat flow between hot BP and warm GP.
“Its good to have opinions.“
I only said “I think…” because your post, which I responded to, began with you saying “so you think…”
It’s not opinion, or up for discussion. The GP, in the thought experiment, with no thermal resistance or reflectivity, can not possibly insulate the BP.
“It’s not opinion, or up for discussion.”
Ok, not opinion, belief. One that cannot be challenged.
Say it with me:
“I, DREMT, do not believe in the law of radiative heat transfer because it disagrees with my beliefs.”
The usual BS from Nate.
No BS at all, DREMT.
You say this “The GP, in the thought experiment, with no thermal resistance or reflectivity, can not possibly insulate the BP.”
Which can only be interpreted one way. The GP does not change the heat flow from the BP to space. It is as if it is not even there.
But the radiative heat transfer law insists that the heat flow from BP to GP will be proportional to TB^4 -TG^4. Thus with the GP present the heat flow from BP will be much LOWER. The GP does insulate.
So clearly you must not believe in the radiative heat transfer law.
More of the usual BS, from Nate.
OK DREMT, physics = usual BS. At least we know where you stand.
Still more of the usual BS, from Nate.
OK Halp.
And even more of the usual BS, from Nate.
We’re talking to a kid that’s not very bright.
Now now, don’t be rude about Nate.
He knows who I meant.
OK Svante.
barry…”What is this natural temperature?”
It’s my term for the temperature an electrically heated conductor would reach if you blocked all its means of dissipating heat. It’s the temperature reached due purely to electric current running through the conductor.
You can limit the current through the conductor wrt the conductor cross-sectional area so it won’t burn out.
Of course, there’s no ideal way to do that since heat will find ways to dissipate. I am talking about limiting the dissipation as much as possible. At that temperature, which I have called the natural temperature, the device is operating at its highest natural temperature for a certain current.
Once you introduce other devices like heat sinks and cooling fans, you can run the device at a higher current since the heat that could burn it out is being dissipated faster.
So, if I have a 2N3055 power transistor running at its rated temperature, I can only get a fraction of its current capacity, which is around 15 amps. It might burn out around 3 amps without heat sinking and cooling fans. If I use good heat dissipating devices, I can run it close to it’s maximum current.
Conversely, if I begin removing the cooling devices, the transistor will heat up. It is not heating due to external factors, it is simply going back to the maximum temperature the current causes where it cannot dissipate the heat as well.
You’re still not answering the primary question, Gordon. You said:
If you bring the GP near to the BP, you interfere with the BPs ability to dissipate heat via convection and radiation. That will cause it to warm …
What is the actual physical mechanics by which bringing the GP near the BP interferes with the BP ability to dissipate heat via radiation?
barry, please stop trolling.
Some of the above conversations inspired a few posts:
Progressives Believe Your Microwave can both Freeze and Cook Your Food
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/progressives-believe-your-microwave-can-both-freeze-and-cook-your-food/
A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/a-nobel-prize-in-science-winning-climate-science-experiment/
A Full Moon’s Irradiance is 1/6th that of CO2 in W/M^2
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/a-full-moons-irradiance-is-10x-that-of-co2-in-w-m2/
So much ignorance….
We are having the coldest Thanksgiving in the past 100 years and you claim that my design of a climate experiment is ignorant? You claim that the review of the science of a microwave is ignorance? You claim that putting the W/M^2 of CO2 in the context of a full moon is ignorance? How about if I design a computer program that doesn’t reflect reality, but points the finger at CO2. Would that prove I’m not ignorant? How about if I get an article published in Nature that claims the oceans are warming due to CO2? Would that prove I’m not ignorant? Just what does it take to not be ignorant in the eyes of a climate alarmist? To disagree with Freeman Dyson?
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but its rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
– Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
Just curious David, we’ve spent countless fortunes on fighting climate change and the trend in CO2 remains unaltered. We are now having the coldest Thanksgiving in 100 years.
1) How is CO2 causing the extreme cold?
2) If more CO2 is making it cold, how do we stop the warming my reducing CO2?
3) Do you honestly believe that we are better off spending money to control the climate than fighting poverty, improving schools, funding drug research, paying down the debt, etc etc etc?
4) Why do you have such a strong belief in something that can’t be modeled using CO2 as a significant factor?
5) Just how bad do the IPCC models need to be for you to question their validity?
6) What experimental evidence do you have the CO2 is the cause of the warming and that CO2 can warm the oceans?
7) Why do all the data sets disagree, and why do they continually need to be “adjusted?”
8) Why can I find countless individual temperature records that show no warming what so ever over the past 200 or 300 years? Does the GHG Effect selectively choose locations near urban developments?
1) What extreme cold?
DA avoids answering the questions, by asking a stupid question.
Nothing new.
Norman: [i]”The reality is much different. It would not matter if there were no green plate, if the green plate was made of an IR transparent material and all the IR went through. Makes not a bit of difference. The energy emitted by the blue plate surface is gone. If it is absorbed by some other plate or moves out to infinity these will not alter the emission rate of the blue plate.”[/i]
Philosophically and scientifically we still don’t know what reality is.
Your claim is the emission rate of a warm body is not changed by the presence in the field of view of another warm body. However, near as I can tell we don’t know that, that’s an opinion, that’s not established and proven science. What we know is the net radiation loss by the warm body is reduced in the presence of another warm body. But the same “net” can be achieved either by reducing emission rates or summing emission rates by direction.
If science has not established anything beyond that then the KISS principle should apply and a reduction in emission rate should be assumed as it tends to cause less misunderstanding.
If science has established more than that I would be interested in reading the details of how that was accomplished. So far no takers just a lot of people with opinions.
Bill Hunter
It can be verified by experiment. Textbook physics makes this claim. Most established physics is based upon some type of evidence.
In this situation you can have an IR sensors. One pointing at the blue plate and one at the green plate.
The IR sensor pointed at the blue plate will respond to the emission. You will be able to quickly verify that the presence of the green plate does not alter the emission rate.
It is not my opinion at all. It is established science. I am thinking it is based upon lots of tests and experiments throughout the years. Science claims the emission rate is only dependent upon the temperature of a body and the material it is made of (emissivity).
You could probably research the experiments if you spend time in a library looking at science journals on heat transfer. I gave you one way to check it. It would be something you could do in your own home if you have an IR camera. It is far more than mere opinion. You can also read textbooks on heat transfer and you will find this information.
Norman is up to his usual tricks. A whole lot of rambling blah-blah, but not one example, from reality, that verifies his claim that a hotter object will absorb photons from a colder object.
All he has is his pseudoscience. Wild claims about “textbooks”, “experiments”, and such, just show his desperation.
JDHuffman
No I have actual facts and established science backing my claims. You are the one who spouts unsupported rubbish and pseudoscience.
I have linked you so many times to the fact that photons from a cold body are absorbed by a hot one it is a waste of time to continue this process. When I do show how little you know (and you pretend you had 12 semester hours of physics, horse manure!) you just give your standard answer that I don’t understand the material. You say this with no explanation just some stupid declaration. Same as always.
Just the same old rambling blah-blah.
Nothing new.
Norman says:
“you just give your standard answer that I dont understand the material. You say this with no explanation just some stupid declaration. Same as always.”
How could you guess?
Norman says:
I have linked you so many times to the fact that photons from a cold body are absorbed by a hot one it is a waste of time to continue this process.
I wonder which of the deniers here think that a spaceship headed straight for the Sun — colder than the Sun — will reflect off the Sun or continue through it and come out the other side unharmed.
Anyone?
DA must believe a spaceship is a photon.
He’s so confused….
Norman says:
“Most established physics is based upon some type of evidence.”
What is not?
Norman: “The IR sensor pointed at the blue plate will respond to the emission.”
thats an invalid experiment. As the premise is if emissions are triggered by distant objects as opposed to being constant, the object doing the triggering in your experiment is the IR camera not the greenplate.
At one time all IR sensors were only able to detect emissions from distant objects if the sensor in the camera was cooler than the distant object. Now with a wide range of technical patents they can detect the nature of the surface of the distant object regardless of the direction of the net flow of photons. After all there are two objects being affected in any exchange of energy. Some shades of Schrodinger’s cat.
Bill Hunter says:
Your claim is the emission rate of a warm body is not changed by the presence in the field of view of another warm body.
It’s established by the veracity of the Planck law — there is no referral in it to any other bodies in an object’s field of view. THe object’s radiation is solely a function of its temperature and the wavelength being emitted, independent of any other object out there.
You misunderstand what Planck was expressing. This is part of what Einstein meant when he said every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they know what light quanta is but they are mistaken.
Planck built his theory on an internal state of energy, internal oscillators. He even resisted the idea that was introduced by Einstein of the photoelectric effect as he was a proponent of the wave effect of light and did not extend his theory to light. Today without any empirical evidence beyond smoke and mirrors its been described as emissions.
The difference is obvious. A hot object is going to be oscillating like the dickens. The net radiant exchange is calculable through Stefan Boltzmann. The blackbody (strictly theoretical) emissions are postulated upon Planck’s law’s internal states.
Planck and Einstein laid the ground work for photons but the word photons wasn’t invented until years later notably with a lot of grumbling from those recognized as creating them. Both were highly skeptical visionary scientists very devoted to only describing what they thought their theories extended to with an admirable discipline, refusing to speculate on how their theories could be extended. It takes a unique understanding of your limitations and the limitations of what you are discovering to have that ability. Einstein groused for another 50 years and in the end was frustrated that he couldn’t straighten the mess subsequently created out. Quantum theory provided many extensions of Einstein’s and Planck’s original theories that have held up but there is still a lot of spaghetti to get straightened.
I should know better than this by now. This topic isn’t worth arguing its only worth investigating. The key take home message is be very careful about what you extrapolate from the image you have in your mind about how light and energy works. Taking backradiation out of the mix does not take any phenomena ever observed and acknowledged out of the mix. What it does though by removing backradiation is take away a lot of unscientific notions about sources of heat without taking away any observed behavior of objects as they cool.
You totally are missing the point.
The Planck law is true. It accurately describes the emissions from a blackbody. And it so without the need to refer to any external objects.
Prove it and you will win a Nobel Prize
Planck won the Nobel Prize in 1919.
Oops, 1918. But he received it in 1919. WW1.
Planck won the prize for the discovery of energy quanta, not emissions. If you read all the works carefully you will discover many potential Nobel prizes sitting squarely between past winners and current beliefs. Such is exactly as science progresses.
“your claim is the emission rate of a warm body is not changed by the presence in the field of view of another warm body. However, near as I can tell we dont know that, thats an opinion, thats not established and proven science.”
Well, the laws of BB emission and absor*ption are well understood.
No one has thought of a mechanism by which a distant star can influence the emission properties of a detector here. The pnly interaction they have is thru the radiation long ago emitted by the star travelling for years thru space and now reaching us.
KISS principle: the star and detector emit according to their temp. Detector abs*rbs whatever radiation hits it (if BB).
Nate, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
Grow up.
Nate, PST.
bill hunter…”Gordon, you need to read what I am saying more carefully. Granted my composition isn’t anything to brag about but I don’t see anything I said as contradicting anything you said, nor was I implying that there are no electrons or nucleii”.
Sorry, Bill, I realized that after the fact. We are basically in agreement.
I am just tired of reading about molecules as magical entities that can absorb and emit EM by themselves. Molecules don’t exist in essence other than by name. The word molecule is a descriptor for electrons and their associated nucleii, and quantum theory is largely about the electron and its properties.
I realize the Bohr model is unlikely but I cannot begin to imagine what would replace it. I have not read a satisfactory explanation of the math and there obviously has to be one.
With regard to visualization, the orbiting model serves the purpose. The math is not exactly representative when it comes to atoms with more than one electron and one proton in the nucleus.
To solve such problems with multiple electrons and protons, assumptions have to be made and solutions proposed based on the assumptions. Since no one can measure or observe what is really going on, we are stuck with the simplified model of Bohr, which works for the most part.
At least, Linus Pauling did brilliant work identifying molecular structures using that model. He also used x-ray diffraction to verify his calculations.
Agreed. The Bohr model is improved over the constant emission model that preceded it.
I am an auditor rather than a physicist so I approach the problem with the tools of an auditor. It has been a fruitless journey in search of an answer, a lot like G&T’s approach. Proponents call it settled science but even NASA wasn’t able to refer to any advances on the science beyond Fourier, Arrhenius and Tyndall. To capture that I noted that even the guy who is considered the grandfather of global warming, an excellent and honest scientist, Roger Revelle who took up the gauntlet and futilely searched for a proof without success all the way to his death. He always was careful to state the CO2 issue as a “potential problem”. But hey everything in the world is a “potential problem”. Doing something has risk but certainly less risk than doing nothing. I like to think of Post Normal science as a philosophy of stopping progress until progress is made.
Here’s more on the scientific history, if you’re interested at all:
https://tinyurl.com/ya6vsjbz
Science has learned a lot since Roger Revelle.
DA – “Science has learned a lot since Roger Revelle.”
Near as I can tell RR was the last serious researcher trying to validate Arrhenius’ hypothesis. Even NASA on its evidence page couldn’t find anything more to add beyond Arrhenius. I actually emailed them and called them on it. So they added a few computer model and statistical studies but no hard science.
Seems all the serious work done since just kept widening the question. Today no research is being done I know of. Why would anyone like you who believes the science is settled spend any money on proving what they already believe to be proven?
The alarmism RR carefully avoided but was increasing in volume would seem likely to have been why RR collaborated with Fred Singer on a paper that said the science isn’t settled.
Feel free to post links to any research that demonstrates a greenhouse effect that warms something from a cool source above and beyond the current ambient temperature and I will concede. If it can’t warm anything above current ambient temperature and all it can do is preserve ambient temperature I would suggest thats a far cry from runaway warming as postulated of James Hansen.
It seems impossible. The heat that would be radiated back is simply the heat the surface already radiated. Slowing surface cooling at night allows for the warmer climate atmosphere to rewarm a surface that cooled faster than the climate atmosphere.
but I have yet to see an experiment that actually warmed the surface up sufficiently to warm the climate atmosphere. Thats because its the climate atmosphere is what is warming the surface not some CO2 at the top of the atmosphere.
The big mistake most make is that if the top of the atmosphere warmed the surface it would be at the expense of heat at the top of the atmosphere. If that happens diffusion steps in and replaces the heat via free convection.
But in reality the focus is upside down on its head. Heat from the surface should if anything warm the top of the atmosphere by radiation instead of the top of the atmosphere warming the surface. Since warming the surface is at the expense of the heat at top of atmosphere you can’t have your cake and eat it too. simple logic.
Now we are finding the balloons can’t find the tropical midtroposphere warming that was the king pin in the AGW theory.
The daytime earth climate would be hotter if there were no greenhouse gases. The nighttime would be cooler.
But that would be better described as more normal instead of hotter even if the mean rises.
That brings around to the last straw. Why use mean temperature? Is it because science knows that is the only measure that could possibly warm?
Why just measure mean? Why not measure trends in high and lows that the mean is computed from? Is that not alarmist enough? One would think so if one looks carefully at what greenhouse gases could likely do and if those trends showed what I am saying here out the window goes runaway warming.
bill hunter
I lack the time needed to answer your comment point by point, so I will restrict myself to your last sentence:
“Why just measure mean? Why not measure trends in high and lows that the mean is computed from?”
(which is so typical for people who prefer to suspect rather than to look for real information).
Please look at the description of the GHCN daily dataset (one example among many others):
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
and therein at its description:
https://tinyurl.com/y9wdx4wh
In this file you see among lots of other info needed to accurately process the station data:
…
ELEMENT is the element type. There are five core elements as well as a number of addition elements.
The five core elements are:
PRCP = Precipitation (tenths of mm)
SNOW = Snowfall (mm)
SNWD = Snow depth (mm)
TMAX = Maximum temperature (tenths of degrees C)
TMIN = Minimum temperature (tenths of degrees C)
The other elements are:
…
TAVG = Average temperature (tenths of degrees C)
…
As you can see, what you call the ‘mean’ in fact is a secondary measure. This is because many stations in the past did not have the ability to provide for daily averages.
{ My Linux computer is heavily damaged; so I unfortunately can’t show you exactly the difference between TMIN, TAVG and TMAX time series for any region of your choice. }
Btw: if you want to highlight things in italic or bold, you must encose the ‘i’, ‘/i’ etc in ” brackets, and not using ‘[ ]’.
A link to the global mean tmax and tmin over the past 170 years would be more helpful.
“A link to the global mean tmax and tmin over the past 170 years would be more helpful.”
Look at Berkeley’s data:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Raw_TMAX_complete.txt
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Raw_TMIN_complete.txt
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Raw_TAVG_complete.txt
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1id_L_VqcIYiZso0qjcS40QFbWSACFvXx/view
You see what I saw years ago: TMIN increases faster than TMAX since around 1970.
bill…”A link to the global mean tmax and tmin over the past 170 years would be more helpful”.
Binny cannot supply that info because GHCN is piecemeal and totally fudged. The record has been adjusted wholesale to what NOAA think it ‘should’ read.
For example, 1934, till recently, was the hottest year on record for the US. No longer, NOAA has adjusted (I call it fudged) to where they think it should be to show a nice smooth anthropogenic warming from 1850 onward.
When the IPCC announced no warming over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012, a period over which NOAA agreed on the flat trend, NOAA then went back and ‘adjusted’ the SST to show a trend. I think the Obama administration interfered politically to have that done through their alarmist-biased Environmental Protection Agency.
NOAA claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever by dropping the confidence level from its customary 90% to 48%. Then they claimed their information is 48% likely to be true. NASA GISS outdid them for the same year, claiming it was 38% true that 2014 was the hottest year ever.
Meantime, the UAH record shows 2014 as a very ordinary year.
“You see what I saw years ago: TMIN increases faster than TMAX since around 1970.”
Which I would assume is due to ocean surface temperature increasing
and part of that is entire average ocean temperature has had enough to time to warm by a small amount [hundreds of a degree] and add to small sea level rise.
BEST 170 year min/max graphs here (land only):
https://tinyurl.com/ybgdg2zf
and
https://tinyurl.com/ycyczb4y
gbaikie
“Which I would assume is due to ocean surface temperature increasing”
Ocean surface temperature increasing certainly doesn’t have such an influence on LAND temperature.
Robertson
As usual, you behave as the most ignorant and arrogant boaster on this site.
1. “Binny cannot supply that info because GHCN is piecemeal and totally fudged. The record has been adjusted wholesale to what NOAA think it ‘should’ read.”
You are totally fixated on distorting, discrediting and denigrating the work done by others (work you were during your whole life never able to do).
This, Robertson, is the reason why you are ready to any lie and to endlessly repeat them.
Try to learn how to do the job, Robertson, and come back to us when you manage to do it instead of discrediting everybody.
*
2. “For example, 1934, till recently, was the hottest year on record for the US.”
Another proof of your thorough ignorance.
1934 is, still today, the hottest year when yearly averaging the MAXIMUM daily temperatures in the CONUS.
–Bindidon says:
November 22, 2018 at 6:32 PM
gbaikie
Which I would assume is due to ocean surface temperature increasing
Ocean surface temperature increasing certainly doesnt have such an influence on LAND temperature.–
I think ocean surface temperature does have large affect on Land temperature.
And most people are aware that some land area is strongly affected ocean surface temperatures.
Everyone knows that land area of Europe is strongly affected by ocean surface temperature.
I believe in the concept of global average temperature. And global average temperature is mostly global ocean surface temperature.
I believe if you were to cool the surface of ocean of tropics, you cool the rest of the world [by a lot].
You could do it at fairly low cost [as compared to trillion of dollars wasted] cool the entire world by mixing tropic surface water with colder deeper tropical ocean water. Or water moved say 500 meter below the surface and not have a large energy cost [the warmer water is lighter density and if use large pipe there is little frictional loss- or it require a remarkable low amount horsepower to “pump it”.
Do this over entire tropical ocean, would cool the air above the surface of ocean, but in terms of long term, it is a warming effect. So short terms a potential way to massively cause global cooling, and long term a way to increase global temperature.
Or the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world, and it’s possible to stop this heat engine [for years or decades of time].
“Even NASA on its evidence page couldnt find anything more to add beyond Arrhenius. I actually emailed them and called them on it. So they added a few computer model and statistical studies but no hard science.”
“Seems all the serious work done since just kept widening the question. Today no research is being done I know of.”
Oh puleez. You are horribly misrepresenting the depth and breadth of the literature.
“It seems impossible.”
Science often does to the ignorant.
“But in reality the focus is upside down on its head. Heat from the surface should if anything warm the top of the atmosphere”
It does.
Just as the heat flowing out of my house heats the insulation in the walls.
An yet it still insulates-and my house is warmer than it be without it!
Nate, please stop trolling.
I see, now, DREMT. You’re trying to get the last word on all threads. One of your OCD behaviors?
Just mirroring yours and Svantes behaviours, because its funny.
Or its a childish game played by someone with nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.
Oh no, you’re right! I couldn’t believe it when I saw, way upthread, that you had responded to someone called “Steve”, fully two weeks after he had written his comment. Definitely wouldn’t be reading what you are now saying. Hilarious! Why do you do it?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-332854
Look at you! He wrote his comment on the 20th November. Here you are, replying to him on the 8th December. 18 days later! Lol. And you are trying to give me a hard time. Nate, you are ridiculous! You and Svante, doing your litttle “Last Worder” bullshit. You sit here and coldly calculate the last thing you want the GHE Denfense Team to say…and you say it! Again and again. Then you have a go at me, for my parody of what you are! Lol.
Steve’s post came 5 days after the last one in the thread. Give him crap if you think thats a big deal.
I just noticed it recently and responded. Why, because I read his link, found it interesting, and read more about it, found another article, and posted it.
Nefarious?
You are projecting your last-wording OCD behavior and motives onto others.
Sure, sure.
Try to decide what you are going with before you post. If it’s OCD then obviously it wouldn’t be something I could control, so there wouldn’t be “motives”. It’s either OCD OR I am doing something deliberately. Make up your mind first, then your comments might seem slightly less ridiculous.
“I like to think of Post Normal science as a philosophy of stopping progress until progress is made.”
Yes, insightful.
Why is because government is better at stopping things than creating things.
There is all kinds of desire to make government a force for good- and government is simply not that kind of beast.
Govt creates many great things by funding smart people.
Ethiopia does not fund smart people. How many great things do they come up with?
The genius of the US government is limiting the government.
But when government is totalitarian, like Soviet Union or Venezuela then a rich country becomes poor.
Or when the people of country rather than the elites control the country, the people can generate enormous amount of wealth, and such wealth is fueled by innovation of these free people. And enabled by a system of trade or markets- something as old as the caveman- though modern markets are quite sophisticated and complex.
Or when people are ignorant and misled.
“Govt creates many great things by funding smart people.”
DA, do you have any idea of how much has been wasted on the AGW hoax? Much infrastructure in the country could have been repaired, rebuild, and expanded.
Instead, “billions and billions” have been wasted.
DA…”Govt creates many great things by funding smart people”.
It was Eisenhower who started the government funding of scientists in the 1950s and his biggest fear was that unscrupulous scientists would regard it as a cash cow to be milked.
There may be smart people benefiting from government funding but not in the climate alarm sector. There are many unscrupulous types milking the system by writing paper after paper to support pseudo-science, just so they’ll be funded.
Two fine examples right on cue, ignorant and misled.
Come out of your conspiracy bubble, visit a university, see some scientists, the world is not what you think.
Yes Svante, you and DA are two fine examples.
But you’re not likely to even take the first step–too much reality for you.
Btw, re “like Soviet Union or Venezuela then a rich country becomes poor.”
What world look like if Russia had not been totalitarian government,
I think we currently would traveling to the stars.
Which would mean we would already to getting most global energy from space- and in terms Russia, it could choose to be a warmer country, and it probably would make that choice.
“The big mistake most make is that yada yada.”
An auditor claims the professional scientists are all idiots who’ve missed an obvious error.
How original!
Nate, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
I am just tired of reading about molecules as magical entities that can absorb and emit EM by themselves.
Too bad if you’re tired of it — it’s a fact, and there’s no magic to it.
How much quantum mechanics have you studied, Gordon? Did you ever get past the Bohr model?
DA…”How much quantum mechanics have you studied, Gordon? Did you ever get past the Bohr model?”
Enough to get it that Schrodinger’s equation, the basis of quantum theory, describes the possible orbitals for electrons.
Also, a much smarter son of Oregon than you, Linus Pauling, introduced quantum theory to chemistry in North America. Pauling used the quantum theory of Schrodinger but he had to simplify the formula for application to chemistry. He had experience with atomic structure that Schrodinger lacked.
Pauling was an expert in x-ray diffraction and he already knew many things about the expected shapes of atoms and their aggregates, molecules. Pauling discovered most of the shapes of popular molecules by combining quantum theory with x-ray diffraction.
If you read the work of Pauling he talks about covalent bonds and other forms of bonding. In fact, Pauling wrote a book on covalent bonding that is still used in modern chemistry. He also invented the term electronegativity, a direct relation to electrons.
You cannot talk about covalent bonds without talking about electrons. No electron – no bond, it’s that simple.
No bond – no molecule.
Your ignorance of atomic structure and it’s relation to quantum theory is staggering. Then again, you think radiation from the Earth raises the temperature of the Sun.
Gordon Robertson says:
I realize the Bohr model is unlikely but I cannot begin to imagine what would replace it.
Schrodinger’s equation.
Ever studied it?
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
I realize the Bohr model is unlikely but I cannot begin to imagine what would replace it.
Schrodingers equation”.
Do you think Schroddy simply pulled his wave equation out of thin air? It is based on Bohr’s model.
Schrodinger was a realist and he felt physics had to be based on observation. He based his equation on Newtonian physics with regard to wave motion related to harmonic motion. He took the ideas of Bohr, that real particles called electrons orbited real atomic nucleii with protons and neutrons and calculated the relationship of the electrons in discrete quantum energy orbitals, as specified by Bohr) about the nucleus.
The solutions to his equation, which can be many, describe the possible quantum orbital paths of electrons orbiting a nucleus.
Let’s get something straight, the word quantum cannot be separated from the real electron to describe a fantasy world. Quantum simply means the real electron, with a charge, is restricted to certain energy levels as it orbits the nucleus.
Ironically, it was Bohr, circa 1930, who took quantum theory off into a fanatsy land that Schrodinger would not support. That applied to Einstein as well. They both felt strongly that it was wrong to create artificial universes described by a combination of math and thought experiments.
Even more ironically, Einstein abandoned his own common sense when the developed general relativity theory. Rather than base his work on real, observational physics, he went off into a fairy land of space-time. He abandoned hard physics, where forces act on masses to accelerate them, and focused purely on accelerations related to time.
He ignored the forces and masses and focused on accelerations and velocities. Of course, when you do that, you enter a fantasy world where time becomes real and is allowed to do stupid things like dilate.
That means the length of the second can change and since we have defined the second on the constant angular velocity of the Earth, that means the Earth must speed up or slow down to accommodate time.
His math works but the deductions based on the math, like time dilation, are sheer nonsense. Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, claimed as much.
I might add that the spin you mention in quantum theory is a theoretical property added to electron motion to account for eccentricities in the simple Bohr model with a circular orbit. No one has observed an electron spinning on an axis.
Besides, spins are rated as 1/2 or -1/2, which goes not describe the angular rotation of an electron on an axis.
To explain variations of the orbital motion of electrons that were more complex than the simple Bohr model, theoreticians began sub-dividing orbitals into sub-orbitals and giving those orbitals different properties to explain variations from the Bohr model. Spin was one of them.
No one has ever seen any of this theory in action at the particle level and to hear quantum advocates speaking as if the entire science is well-developed or proved is hilarious.
One of the more hilarious theories is that electrons can be in two places at once (entanglement theory). Einstein did not care for that possibility at all, nor did Schrodinger.
When you have an electron exhibiting theoretical circular orbital motion, what happens when that electron is shared with another atomic nucleus? Obviously, the electron has to break from its circular orbit to surround both nucleii.
It’s orbit then becomes really complex and cannot be explained by simple harmonic motion. Over the decades since Schrodinger, scientists have modified the theory to account for such variations in orbits.
I have no problem with that aspect of quantum theory since the theory can be proved to a degree. What bothers me is pure theoreticians taking those principles and expanding them into fantasy, based purely on abstract thinking.
The same thing happened with GRT. The basic theory is fine, it does describe relative motion at the atomic level, however, the fantasies inferred from it, like time dilation and materials changing lengths due to their velocity, is pure bunk.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
To solve such problems with multiple electrons and protons, assumptions have to be made and solutions proposed based on the assumptions. Since no one can measure or observe what is really going on, we are stuck with the simplified model of Bohr, which works for the most part.
What raw ignorance.
The starting point is the Schrodinger equation for the many body problem. From there a number of techniques are used, such as the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation, the Dirac-Fock equations, and the Hartee-Fock method, and not one of them has anything to do with the Bohr model.
Gordon, you are just stupid. Stop spouting off as if you know anything. You don’t.
DA…”The starting point is the Schrodinger equation for the many body problem”.
Do you think your incessant bs changes the truth?
The solutions to the Schrodinger equation are possible electron orbitals.
You seem to think the word quantum means something special. You seem to regard it as a mysterious entity behind which you can offer any kind of bs.
Quantum simply means the available energy states for electrons is discrete. The electron has to abide in one state or the other, not in between. That’s how Bohr applied Planck’s quanta to define basic quantum theory and the definition upon which Schrodinger expanded.
There is no other mystery related to quantum anything. Those who talk quantum bs, as if it’s a different reality, are seriously deluded.
The universe is not a mathematical equation, it is a collection of energy and matter.
We just don’t have the means at the moment to examine the real physical world directly. So, we have settled for fudged math in an attempt to describe probabilities related to real electrons.
Dr. Spencer, if you have access to a CO2 Laser, would you run an experiment to see if it can warm water? My bet is that the surface evaporation causes the water to cool. I know this isn’t perfect, but it would be interesting to see if a 1,000-watt laser warmed or cooled a cup of water.
CO2 Laser Rifle Prototype Mk I BURNING GLASS, MELTING ICE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imzaWnsyi1A
Thanks David, that video pretty much proves my point. When the CO2 Laser, which is backed by a huge amount of Wattage and is focused to a pinhole, was pointed at the ice it didn’t burn through the ice, it simply evaporated the surface. Remember, this is a pinhole focus so the W/M^2 is astronomical relative to what the real W/M^2 of atmospheric CO2 is. You can take 1,000s if not millions of times the atmospheric W/M^2 of the CO2 wavelengths and you can’t burn through even a wafer of ice.
The point of this experiment isn’t to prove atmospheric CO2 can warm water or melt ice, it is to see if a CO2 Lazer, and from your video, it doesn’t look like it can. If a CO2 Lazer can’t do what the climate alarmists claim it is, the 0.6 W/M^2 of atmospheric back radiation certainly can’t (use MODTRAN looking up, not down, we are concerned with what is bathing the oceans)
In nature, radiative fluxes do not add. Even though a square meter of ice emits about 300 Watts, and 10 square meters emits about 3000 Watts, all the energy could not warm anything above the ice temperature.
But a laser effectively adds fluxes, by causing photons to be emitted coherently, and in phase, so that their energies add.
A laser does what the atmosphere can not do.
JDHuffman, not exactly sure what you are saying. I think you are saying that if I mix 2 cups of water together, 1 of 60 degrees and the other of 80 degrees, the resulting cup isn’t 140 degrees, it will be 70 degrees.
My points with the Laser is that CO2 radiates about an extra 0.6 W/M^2 onto the oceans, a small difference from the pre-industrial level. A laser can ramp that up to 1,000 W/M^2. The key being with the laser is that it is 9 to 10-micron wavelength (15 would have been ideal)
The CO2 laser produces a beam of infrared light with the principal wavelength bands centering on 9.4 and 10.6 micrometers (μm).
If a CO2 laser can’t melt ice other than the surface, or warm water, atmospheric CO2 sure as heck can’t. That is the point of the experiment. If a laser can’t do it, CO2 can’t either, and that is a laboratory experiment that you can show to an audience and start debunking this myth. No computer model needed.
You have it correct, CO2isLife.
I only made the comment because the perception in pseudoscience is that radiative fluxes add. IOW, the clowns believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more flux back-radiated means higher surface temperatures. That’s FALSE.
Radiative fluxes do not add. It takes a device, such as a laser, to organize the energy so that it can be added.
JDHuffman, I think you just provided another experiment. It is very simple. That a 40 watt light bulb and measure the radiative flux, turn on another 40 watt light bulb and measure the flux, the radiative flux should remain unchanged. The additional 40 watt light would represent additional CO2.
See any problems with that experiment? That could be done in any High School Science Lab.
CO2isLife
I was playing with the MODTRAN link you posted.
I find the value you get for changing the amount of CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM depends a lot upon the the altitude you enter. You had it at 70 KM looking down. I set it at 1 KM and the difference was 1.26 W/m^2 not the 0.6 you found. I am not sure what the altitude factor calculates but it seems to make a considerable difference to the net change between the two values.
You have to be careful, as the source must always be considered. An incandescent bulb filament can easy have a temperature of 1500 °C (2700 °F). Conceivalby if you had enough such bulbs, properly arranged, you could heat a surface close to the filament temperature, but no higher.
Ice at a temperature of 270 K, would not be able to warm a suface above 270 K. You could increase the amount of ice by a factor of 10, and it could still not raise the surface above 270 K. Radiative fluxes do not add arithmetically. They only converge on the emission temperature.
Same for atmospheric CO2.
Norman, I used 280 ppm for preindustrial and 400 ppm CO2 for today. I changed the settings to looking up, and 0 altitude or the surface.
Looking up for 280 I got Downward IR Heat Flux 368.636 W/m2
Looking up for 400 I got Downward IR Heat Flux 369.264 W/m2
There is a very small difference between per and post industrial Downward IR Heat Flux
CO2isLife
My point would be the amount of difference you get between 280 PPM and 400 PPM is very dependent upon the altitude number you use.
You used 0 and got 0.6. I used 1 KM and got 1.26.
If you go to 3 KM you get an even bigger value of 2.26 W/m^2 for the difference between 280 PPM and 400.
As you go higher the energy reaching the surface seems to be less but the difference in the energy goes up.
I am not sure how to use this tool properly so I could not verify your conclusion about the full Moon energy vs CO2 increase. I would need to know more about how the value the model puts out is calculated.
“My point would be the amount of difference you get between 280 PPM and 400 PPM is very dependent upon the altitude number you use.”
Norman, the oceans are at sea level. The experiment was to demonstrate what the oceans are experiencing. How much energy is reaching them to warm them?
CO2isLife
My point is I do not know what the model is doing with the altitude value or what it means. Does it mean the energy emitted downward to the Earth from a column 3 km high?
With the 0 km you may not see much effect at all since the difference in the number of radiating CO2 molecules in a small vertical column may not radiate much. Not sure.
Since you know more about this model than I do I was hoping you could clarify.
I also found another calculation of the Moon’s full moon energy to the Earth. It is much less.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15o5im/does_a_full_moon_provide_any_noticible_reflected/
I think your source is a little high since he used 400 K for his calculation. The peak temperature of the Moon may reach 400 K but the average is less. You would use an average temperature and not a peak to determine the amount of radiant energy reaching the Earth.
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-average-surface-temperature-of-the-earth-s-moon
So the calculation on your link should use 380 K rather than 400. when you do a 4th power calculation this makes a big difference.
If you use your 0.6 W/m^2 (which may or may not be the real value of a DWIR increase) That means the increase in CO2 would actually be 0.6/0.024 = 25 times more energy.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Not sure how merely quoting someone is an attack on them…..unless it was purposely misquoted?
woody…”Not sure how merely quoting someone is an attack on them..unless it was purposely misquoted”?
Climate alarmists have nothing else to go on. They have no scientific evidence to back their propaganda so they attack the messenger.
If the Heartland Institute published a paper by a qualified climate scientist like Roy Spencer, the alarmists will attack the paper as coming from Heartland, who alarmists think represent Big Oil.
They have no interest in the veracity of the science presented or the integrity of the author.
Climate journals are taking the same route. If a paper is presented by a skeptic like Roy, or Richard Lindzen, their papers are delayed while the alarmists running the journals go over the papers with a fine tooth comb, trying to find reasons to reject the paper.
I think this has been mentioned but here’s a fine example of CO2’s effect on global warming:
coldest US Thanksgiving in 100 years….
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/coldest-thanksgiving-in-100-years-blame-canada/ar-BBPVJSW?li=AArWeBz&ocid=mailsignout
Don’t know how it works, I can’t find any evidence for it in physics literature. However, the climate alarmists claim it must be true and they have asked me to believe them.
MSN has blamed Canada for the coldest Thanksgiving so allow me to get back at them.
They begin:
“Lots of Americans will be serving up leftovers for Thanksgiving this Thursday”.
Later they add…
“It’s Arctic high pressure sinking down through the Great Lakes and over eastern North America that’s set to bring the coldest air of the season (so far) to southern Ontario and Quebec later this week…”
If North America is southern Ontario and Quebec, both in Canada, then the US must be South America. However, they persist in calling themselves America.
How can America be south of North America?
And if Canada is in North America, why does the US call itself America?
I have looked on many maps and I cannot find a country called ‘America’. There is a continent called North America, and the US seems to be included in that continent.
Then again, Hawaii is in the United States but not in North America.
Oh…the confusion!!!
The article is a mish mash.
Did you get interested in it because of coldest ever in some places?
Your need to hear that refrain is the reason you’re confused. You’ll delve into any media trash if it has the right smell. This piece is a prediction a day ahead of the coldest ever Thanksgiving (is that a day or a week or a month in America?) in some places in the North east of the US.
It’s a weather article. But stupid contrarian ‘skeptics’ just can’t help conflating weather and climate. They’re so intellectually feckless that they defend this stupidity by claiming the other ‘side’ do it, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they haven’t justified any intellectual rigour, only sunk themselves deeper into the intellectual muck by aligning themselves with the worst of their ‘enemy’.
Come on contrarians, make a cogent argument for once instead of running propaganda.
And don’t use propaganda of the other ‘side’ to excuse your lack. That’s the lowest justification there is.
barry prods: “Come on contrarians, make a cogent argument for once instead of running propaganda.”
barry, you haven’t been paying attention. CO2 can NOT raise the temperature of the surface. It is NOT a “heat source”. It does NOT “trap heat”. That’s why the instances of cold weather have you so alarmed.
You fell for the hoax.
barry…”Its a weather article. But stupid contrarian skeptics just cant help conflating weather and climate.”
I have no interest in climate. All I want to know is why we are having record cold temperatures 30 years after Hanson got on national TV and announced impending catastrophe unless we stopped emitting CO2 immediately.
Because a warming climate doesn’t prevent record cold weather. There are record cold events every year. But there are more record warm events every year.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262127
Skeptics confuse weather with climate. They can’t understand how, in a warming world, there could possibly be record cold events.
Because they don’t understand statistics. A weighted dice will still give you snake eyes from time to time.
barry, please stop trolling.
Yes, but Alaska is definitely in North America.
Stratospheric polar vortex over eastern Canada.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/8811rv4cwh6i.png
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/sk67hbflwad5.png
Just looked at the temperature map of the US. I can’t wait to see what the global temperatures will be for November. Any bets as to how far temperatures will drop? My bets is that the 13 month average will drop below 0.00 by the end of next year, and that the monthly temperature anomaly will be below 0.00 in a matter of months. I also bet that the lowest low sent in 1984 will be broken within 5 years. The cool sun will have a lag, but its story will eventually be told.
I hope you don’t forget that US surface is no more than 2% of Earth’s, and 6 or 7% of Earth’s land surfaces.
Moreover, you seem to solely consider the temperature fluctuations of the lower troposphere. These correlate on land very good with those measured 2 m above the surface, but not when oceans are included.
Thanks Bindidon, I’m aware of that. My comment was more directed about the record cold we are having in the US as a proxy for the oceans. I attributed that to most likely that the oceans are starting to cool due to the calm sun we’ve been having. The recent strong El Nino also most likely removed a lot of energy from the oceans. My bet is that the cooler sun hasn’t replaced all the energy leaving the oceans, and with time, that imbalance in energy will result in global cooling. It just takes time for the oceans to cool. That Is why I expect in 5 to 10 years we will be taking out the 1984 lows.
CO2 is life-The low solar activity will result in overall oceanic surface waters to cool. Thus far it has been slow with overall oceanic surface temperatures still .324c above 1981-2010 means. That is warm, and I am surprised the oceans are still this warm but I expect this to drop as long as solar activity stays in the tank.
I figure a lag time of 10+ years so 2005 -2019 will be 14 years of subsolar activity in general which I think will start to cause oceanic cooling. The oceans are so vast and so slow to respond to outside forcing but they will. It is just a matter of time.
CO2isLife
Thanks in turn for the reply.
1. “My comment was more directed about the record cold we are having in the US as a proxy for the oceans.”
Where is your proof for that? Or do you simply suppose it?
May I remind you that at the time you have your ‘record cold’ in northern CONUS and Canada, there are lots of ‘record warm’s, especially in Europe, Siberia and… Alaska? Why are these no proxies?
*
2. “The recent strong El Nino also most likely removed a lot of energy from the oceans.”
This is absolutely correct. You see that in the huge convection and advection streams recorded by satellites within the lower troposphere.
*
3. “My bet is that the cooler sun hasn’t replaced all the energy leaving the oceans…”
Well when I look at the Ocean Heat Content plot generated by Japan’s Met Agency
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
I’m not quite sure that you are right here. Because if you were, we would clearly see the El Nino signatures not only for 2015/16, but for 1997/98 as well (the latter was way stronger than the former, look at the MEI index to get convinced).
But we see no OHC drop at any of the two El Nino periods.
*
4. “…, and with time, that imbalance in energy will result in global cooling.”
If this was the case, the OHC plot above should have looked like Silso’s Sun Spot Number plot for the same period:
https://tinyurl.com/ycjhayyv
You clearly can see that OHC/SSN do not correlate at all, even when considering a lag of e.g. 25 years.
*
Sun’s irradiance evidently is the major OHC contributor!
But its fluctuations are not necessarily a hint on soon cooling or warming.
“You clearly can see that OHC/SSN do not correlate at all, even when considering a lag of e.g. 25 years.”
When NASA correlated sun activity with global mean surface temperatures some 25 years ago they required something like 60 year smoothing to get the correlation to stand out on a graph.
Since solar activity was above average for 60 of the last 70 years only moving out of that above average zone in the late naughts it may well take a couple more decades for any new trends to show up.
I should have said a couple decades or more as some evidence suggests that cooling moves slower than warming which has been pretty darned slow.
Bill Hunter
1. “When NASA correlated sun activity with global mean surface temperatures some 25 years ago they required something like 60 year smoothing to get the correlation to stand out on a graph.”
Could you please cite a source?
*
2. “Since solar activity was above average for 60 of the last 70 years only moving out of that above average zone in the late naughts it may well take a couple more decades for any new trends to show up.”
Well when you speak of things ‘above average’ in time series, it would be appropeiate to mention wrt which time period you mean that.
If you build anomalies of the SILSO yearly data wrt the entire period, i.e. 1700-2017, the last data below average is around 1800-1820 (Dalton Minimum).
binny…”there are lots of record warms, especially in Europe, Siberia and Alaska? ”
In Siberia, Alaska, and northern Europe, it will warm from -50C to -45C.
Robertson
As usual, the same kind of dumb comment:
“In Siberia, Alaska, and northern Europe, it will warm from -50C to -45C.”
Robertson, it is of NO interest how cold or warm it is in whichever place. What matters is how colder or warmer it is in these places wrt the mean computed for them during a given period, e.g. 1981-2010.
Solar activity was in an overall warming trend for the globe up to 2005.
It has only been since 2005 that overall solar activity transitioned to an overall cooling trend.
Lag times have to be appreciated and so far we have only 13 years. That said I am thinking 10+ years meaning solar sooner or later will start to translate to lower overall oceanic temperatures. It is just a matter of time. I am thinking the time is short not long.
This not true, Salvatore, look at the SSN graph:
https://tinyurl.com/j9u3r78
binny…”Robertson, it is of NO interest how cold or warm it is in whichever place. What matters is how colder or warmer it is in these places wrt the mean computed for them during a given period, e.g. 1981-2010″.
And as usual, you miss the point entirely.
The warming that is the basis of the hysteria behind climate change means a warming that will seriously affect the environments in which the warming takes place.
Will a warming of 5C, which is way beyond any projection by the IPCC, have any effect whatsoever on temperatures in the Arctic winter, which are around -40C on average?
Yes, it is of interest how warm or cold it is in whichever place.
Your problem is that you are caught up in statistics while completely unaware of the context.
Robertson’s ignorance continued ad nauseam
“Yes, it is of interest how warm or cold it is in whichever place.
Your problem is that you are caught up in statistics while completely unaware of the context.”
As usual, a completely uninteresting answer formulated by a person who does not understand anything.
Nobody, Robertson, is interested in your IPCC hatred blah blah.
And it makes no sense to try to explain you anything: simply because you do not want to understand.
binny…”As usual, a completely uninteresting answer formulated by a person who does not understand anything.
Nobody, Robertson, is interested in your IPCC hatred blah blah.
And it makes no sense to try to explain you anything: simply because you do not want to understand”.
******
That’s why you are an alarmist butt-kisser and I’m a skeptic. You are willing to accept any bs from an authority figure and I’m not.
You can’t explain anything because you are a number cruncher who does not understand the underlying science and evidence behind the numbers.
Bindidon asks for sources:
Source on the NOAA graph correlating solar activity to global temperatures is around someplace. Used to have it bookmarked and referred to it many times. Wayback machine now maybe.
On the averaging period for solar activity, the average was based on the monthly mean sunspot number from the beginning of the record in the early 17th century, including the Maunder Minimum, and comparing it to monthly means for each solar cycle. Cycle 24 appears to be the first cycle to drop below that mean in a long time.
Nov. global temperatures will still be above 1981-2010 means but cooler then last year in my opinion.
What is hard to gage is how the drop off in global temperatures may take place. It could be in jerks followed by stability or even a small rise rather then a slow gradual trend to lower temperatures.
But AGW is over(not that it ever existed) and lower we will go as we move forward in to time.
I get it, according to Salvatore, AGW is over each time the red line dips below the black line which is about 6 times in the UAH data period. Then AGW starts back up again when the red line crosses above the black, also about 6 times.
Or possibly AGW is over each time the blue dot dips below the last month blue dot. AGW then starts up again each month the blue dot is higher than last month.
Actually, AGW will be over when the next black line plots below the current one basis 1981-2010. The optical depth & opacity physics principles of a planetary atm. will remain unchanged in that event even if that circumstance does happen on Earth.
AGW has never started.
Then how can AGW ever be over as you write Salvatore?
I say it for all the fools who believe in it, which are many.
So Salvatore writes something that “never started” is “now over” for “all the fools”.
ball4…”Then how can AGW ever be over as you write Salvatore?”
It never began. There is no proof whatsoever of anthropogenic warming.
I think Salvatore is trying to point out that we have endured natural variations in warming and that the false basis of claims of anthropogenic warming will be evident soon enough.
Gordon’s ignorance of the proof is not evidence of absence.
Gordon’s ignorance is, above all, proof of his ignorance.
ball4…”Gordons ignorance of the proof is not evidence of absence.”
I repeat, there is no proof, only presumptions based on ‘what else could it be’?
No one has proved a one-to-one correlation between CO2 and warming.
“No one has proved a one-to-one correlation between CO2 and warming.”
Gordon must mean on another planet other than on earth where in the lab and out in the wild a one-to-one correlation between CO2 and warming has been proven with replicable experiments and observations.
Gordon is just not knowledgeable in the field of meteorology or quantum mechanics, Gordon just pretends to be informed.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
CO2…”Just looked at the temperature map of the US. I cant wait to see what the global temperatures will be for November”.
It would not surprise if they don’t change much at all, or even warm a tad. It’s summer in the Southern Ocean region and we’d need to take a close look at what is happening there.
I don’t think average temperature means a whole lot.
CO2isLife says:
“I also bet that the lowest low sent in 1984 will be broken within 5 years.”
Yes, this is what everyone needs to get:
https://tinyurl.com/y7rmdvsr
The same thing happened in Europe last summer, the jet stream meanders stalled.
Also, as polar ice is diminished, I guess the polar vortex will center more towards Greenland which is closer to the US.
Svante, the person in your video clearly states that the warm oceans are melting the polar ice. This once again requires CO2 to be able to warm the oceans. A far more likely cause is fewer clouds over the oceans. Unfortunately, there isn’t an easy way to get the satellite temperature data over the N Pole, but I doubt that it is showing much warming over the past 40 years.
Here is your video. Explain what is warming the oceans and explain what is disrupting the jet stream.
https://tinyurl.com/y7rmdvsr
CO2…”Svante, the person in your video clearly states that the warm oceans are melting the polar ice. This once again requires CO2 to be able to warm the oceans”.
From an alarmist POV, maybe. Roy has hypothesized, I think, that warmer water may be coming from the North Atlantic.
There are two major currents operating in the Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift, the latter feeding into the North Atlantic.
The Gyre could theoretically suck in warmer water from the North Pacific while the Drift shoots colder water out the other end. It has already been hypothesized that the Drift is dumping ice into the warmer North Atlantic where it melts and disappears.
At any rate, ice on the Arctic Ocean is always on the move, even as massive ice sheets. They smash against each other producing 40 foot high pressure ridges at the intersection.
I have always wondered if those hundreds (thousands??) of miles of vertical ice are included when sea ice extent is estimated.
Just looked up pressure ridges and got this wiki article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_ridge_(ice)
It claims, “Pressure ridges are the thickest sea ice features and account for about one-half of the total sea ice volume”.
They also reveal that the ridges can extend under water as far as they rise above water. Therefore half of the sea ice extent is hidden from satellites.
It seems possible then that estimates of sea ice extent, especially in winter, are seriously underestimated.
Gordon says:
“It has already been hypothesized that the Drift is dumping ice into the warmer North Atlantic where it melts and disappears.”
No need to hypothesize, take a look:
https://tinyurl.com/k2louzc
Unfortunately, the data set for the North Pole is no longer available, but the N Hemisphere is. I downloaded the data set for the Tropopause which holds the Jetstream. It doesn’t show any warming, so I don’t see how polar ice can alter the Jetstream if there hasn’t been any temperature variation of the Tropopause.
CO2isLife says:
“This once again requires CO2 to be able to warm the oceans.”
CO2 warms earth and the oceans are on it.
The jet stream is driven by temperature difference, which is decreasing, see:
https://tinyurl.com/ybwho7db
https://tinyurl.com/y6ukf6yd
Svante, if the person who made your video bothered to look, he would see that El Ninos are the most likely cause of disrupting the Jet Stream. I you don’t look for the answer, you will never find it.
https://www.curbed.com/2018/9/19/17878302/el-nino-forecast-2018-united-states
You mix up long and short term.
El nino is short term.
Global warming is long term.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
Why are you ignoring the oceans, that cover 70% of the surface and nitrogen/oxygen that accounts for 99% of the atmosphere?
You are referring to a quote in my post that is of someone else – which is why it is italicized.
Immediately beneath that first paragraph I mention nitrogen and oxygen!
You read no further than the first paragraph in a 4 paragraph post. The whole thing is 7 sentences long. Your modus gets a little clearer. You don’t think, you just react.
barry…”You are referring to a quote in my post that is of someone else – which is why it is italicized.”
The traditional way to indicate a quote is by using “QUOT”ation marks.
Italics are used to emphasize a point or dilineate a point or word.
For all I knew, you were emphasizing your opinion.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/grammar/dashes-parentheses-and-quotation-marks/uses-of-quotation-marks
In emails, the standard is >>>>>> before a quote.
I’ve been using this format for years. regardless, that doesn’t change the fact that you stopped reading after 2 sentences and failed to see I mentioned what you thought I didn’t in the 4th sentence.
barry, please stop trolling.
“Also, as polar ice is diminished, I guess the polar vortex will center more towards Greenland which is closer to the US.”
Less polar ice alters the Polar Vortex? Really?
So back in 1959 when the USS Skate surfaced at an ice free North Pole, we didn’t set a record cold, but today, with plenty of ice we are? Also, I’m pretty sure air temperature, not amount of ice, is what will alter the Polar Vortex, and things are pretty cold up there.
Here is a far better explanation. Fewer clouds have allowed the oceans to warm, they have disrupted the jet stream. It has nothing to do about the N Pole whose temperature has not shown any dramatic increase.
The ideal thermal conductive blackbody model indicate a planet at 1 AU from our star would be about 5 C.
If planet is less thermally conductive, it would have average temperature less than 5 C.
The nature of our solar system [and perhaps most of our galaxy] makes planets without atmosphere have low thermal conductivity.
Any planet with an atmosphere would have higher thermal conductivity- due to number of reasons.
Mars has very thin atmosphere which mostly CO2. This thin atmosphere make the surface quite different than our Moon. Our Moon is completely covered with few inches of fine dust. This dust is created by impactors and this dust is highly insulative- as good as any insulation that humans can make. Mars also is hit by impactors- some claim twice as many impactors as the Moon or Earth. But since Mars has atmosphere, it as wind, and this wind one one main factor shaping the Mars surface. And this windy surface prevents Mars from having a surface like our Moon. Or if the planet lack an atmosphere it’s surface would like the lunar surface- covered in dust.
Another aspect of Mars is it’s CO2 atmosphere freezes out when conditions cold enough- mainly in winter of the polar regions and will warm polar regions with latent heat of freezing of CO2.
And one has small warming effect of surface air being warmed by sunlight and transporting this heat to cooler parts of Mars.
So some reason Mars with atmosphere is more thermally conductive as compare to planet without any atmosphere.
And Mars rotates so as to have about a 24 hour day. And it’s axis is tilted at about 25 degrees.
If doubled the mass of Mars atmosphere, this would increase it’s thermal conductivity. And it would not matter much if the added atmosphere was N2, O2 or CO2, though more CO2 could result in more CO2 freezing out at poles and N2 or O2 or argon gas would not freeze out at poles. Anyhow if have twice as much atmosphere this should result in a higher average surface temperature of Mars. Or Mars should absorb more energy and emit more energy- though Mars would be slightly more reflective.
Now, probably more important than increasing average global temperature is where on Mars would average temperature is increase the most?
Two basic options, polar regions or equator regions, which warms the most. Or third option, equator and polar warm by same amount.
Or forth option in terms of night side and daylight side warming to greater degree or equally warming.
It wasn’t my plan, maybe stop here and see if anyone has opinion on whether certain region of Mars would have greater amounts of warming. Or if it’s mostly uniform in it’s warming due to a doubling the amount of it’s atmosphere.
“Anyhow if have twice as much atmosphere this should result in a higher average surface temperature of Mars. Or Mars should absorb more energy and emit more energy”
No — Mars would still be the same distance from the sun and still absorb the same energy. And still emit the same energy. This difference is HOW it emits the energy. Thermal conductivity makes the surface more uniform. As an extreme example, planet that is uniformly 250 K will emit the same energy as a planet that is 1/2 0K and 1/2 297K (ie an average of 148.5 K).
That is the difference that thermal conductivity make. It is due to the T^4 dependence of thermal radiation.
“planet that is uniformly 250 K will emit the same energy as a planet that is 1/2 0K and 1/2 297K (ie an average of 148.5 K).”
Tim, not necessarily since you first need to convert to energies (which can be added) then reconvert back to planetary brightness temperatures (which cannot be added).
Ball4, those ARE energies (or specifically, power per meter)
* 297K => 442 W/m^2
* 250K => 221 W/m^2
* 0 K => 0 W/m^2
The average of 442 and 0 is 221, so averaged over the planet, the two are equivalent for power. The average temperature, however, is 250 K vs 148.5 K.
The closer to uniform the temperature, the higher the average temperature will be.
Tim, writing 1/2 297K is not energy. No energies in my clip.
Tim, writing 1/2 297K is not energy, no energies in my clip.
“Tim, writing 1/2 297K is not energy.”
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. I never claimed anything remotely like “1/2 297K is energy”. Very clearly, 297K is a temperature, and a planet that is 297K on one hemisphere and 0K on the other hemisphere would average out to (297+0)/2 = 148 K.
But that hot/cold planet emits (assuming a black body) 442 W/m^2 from the hot hemisphere and 0 W/m^2 from the cold hemisphere, for an average of 221 W/m^2 — identical to the average emission from a planet that is uniformly 250 K.
This is, of course, not a realistic example. It is simply intended as one simple, extreme example of how non-uniform temperatures lead to lower average temperatures. With less extreme temperature differences, the average would be closer to 250K. We could have hemispheres @ 200K and 281K that emit an average of 221 W/m^2, with an average temperature of 240.5K (only slightly cooler than the uniform planet).
“Very clearly, 297K is a temperature, and a planet that is 297K on one hemisphere and 0K on the other hemisphere would average out to (297+0)/2 = 148 K.”
Not necessarily. It is very clear 297K is not energy. 297K is a temperature so is an intensive property. The 297K brightness or thermometer temperature must be converted to an energy (extensive property) before it can be averaged and then approprately converted back to temperature after that operation. Tim should easily know this. I am not sure why Tim is protesting.
Tim gets this one correct.
Poor fluffball doesn’t even seem to understand the issue.
Ball4, it is easy to convert back and forth between P T using
P/A = (epsilon) T^4 A.
I thought that went without saying. That is how I got all the numbers. That is how I balanced the total power.
That would be either:
“P/A = (epsilon) T^4”
or
“P = (epsilon) T^4 A.”
(297+0)/2 = 148 K is not in that form Tim. To get a valid result, you need to convert to energies which are additive in that form. You are adding intensive properties when only extensive properties are additive. Energy is additive (extensive), temperature is not additive (intensive).
Ball4 ….
A blackbody surface emits power based on the temperature. I get my “valid results” exactly because I do “convert to energies”. Here is the conversion, using S-B for a blackbody (exactly as I have done before and explained before).
* P/A = 0 W/m^2 @ T = 0 K
* P/A = 221 W/m^2 @ T = 250 K
* P/A = 442 W/m^2 @ T = 297 K
If an object with blackbody surfaces is entirely @ T = 250 K, it will emit P/A = 221 W/m^2
If an object with blackbody surfaces is half @ 0 K and half at 297 K, it will emit 0 W/m^2 from half the surface and emit 0 W/m^2 from the other half. The average surface temperature will be”
T(average) = (0K + 297K)/2 = 148.5 K
The average power emitted will be:
P/A(average) = (0 W/m^2 + 442 W/m^2) = 221 W/m^2
If that still confuses you, then I really don’t know what part you are not understanding.
“T(average) = (0K + 297K)/2 = 148.5 K”
No. This is invalid Tim as you cannot physically add temperatures and I’ve explained why couple times. The 0K is not possible anyway. And it looks like you left out a factor of 2 in your power sum.
There are many cases where it makes sense to average temperatures. If I pour 100 g of 10C water into 100 g of 30C water, it will all come to the average temperature of 20 C. If my house is 68F for 6 hr and 72 F for 18 hours, the (weighted) average is 71F. There are limitations to ‘average temperature’, but it is a perfectly legitimate mathematical operation.
“but it is a perfectly legitimate mathematical operation.”
The arithmetic is ok, the physics is not. When you specify the mass, you have improved the physics. You didn’t do that previously and can’t do that with planetary situations where the mass is unspecified with:
T(average) = (0K + 297K)/2 = 148.5 K
Ball4,
1) in the spirit of the original post, the two halves are otherwise identical, so they have the same mass.
2) Mass really doesn’t matter here — we are not doing calorimetry; we are not going to combine the two masses to find a final temperature. The power emitted depends only on temperature (and emissivity), but not on mass. On one side the surface temperature is a single low temperature. The other side is a single high temperature. I can average those tow numbers if I want. It tells me that the average surface temperature is, indeed. much lower on the uneven planet. Even while the average thermal IR to space is the same on both planets.
“1) in the spirit of the original post, the two halves are otherwise identical, so they have the same mass.”
NOW you state that. This is not necessarily generally true about objects having the same mass and orginally was only a “spirit”. Mass does matter.
“I can average those tow numbers if I want.”
You can do anything you want as evidenced around here, to be physically correct though, one needs to specify more than just adding two temperatures where this is physically meaningless without more information:
(297+0)/2 = 148 K
Ball4, these sort of scenarios are always “other things being equal”! I don’t need to say that the two sides have similar composition and topography and emissivity. I don’t need to stipulate that there is no buried radioactive material under one side generating 200 W/m^2 of extra heat. I don’t need to say there is no giant mirror over one side.
“this is physically meaningless without more information:
(297+0)/2 = 148 K”
But there WAS more information. Two equal halves of a planet. The surface temperature was being averaged. Averaged in regard to how radiation is being produced.
If twice as much atmosphere has same average velocity of molecules
as compared 1/2 as much atmosphere, then the 1/2 as much atmosphere has 1/2 as much kinetic energy.
If you double the amount atmosphere and this has the result in the average velocity of molecule of atmosphere to lower, then the doubled atmosphere could have not have absorbed more energy.
So if add twice as much atmosphere by adding vast lakes of liquid O2 or N2 to Mars, the lakes will turn into gas and it will cool the entire atmosphere in the short term, but it would warm back up eventually and when it does this the entire atmosphere could have a lower average velocity, the same average velocity, or increase average velocity. If pick option of having a lower average velocity, you would still have denser air near the surface [because there is twice as much atmosphere] and this denser air could have lower average velocity [and it would have to be to in accordance with your selected option] as compared the Mars atmosphere before it was doubled.
Let’s do something more difficult than transporting or dealing N2 or O2 in liquid form- and consequence of the phase change cooling the entire planet. Let say we add either gas to night side of planet at same temperature as the temperature of atmosphere. This would immediately warm the entire atmosphere, though warming effect depends how much is added over time- as in whether added in a 12 hours or a century of time. And then the question is does atmosphere evenually cool, stay the same, or warm.
“So if add twice as much atmosphere by adding vast lakes of liquid O2 or N2 to Mars …”
The most obvious and useful assumption for “if have twice as much atmosphere this should result in a higher average surface temperature” is that we are talking about the steadystate situation, long after the atmosphere has been changed. Obviously all sorts of short-term changes could be created by adding more atmosphere that is hot/cold/at sealevel/50 km high/etc.
As far as thermal conductivity goes (the whole point you were making), for steadystate conditions, a thicker/denser atmosphere will be more effective at moving thermal energy from hot regions to cold regions (a higher effective thermal conductivity). Anything that improves conductivity will make temperatures more uniform. Anything that makes temperatures more uniform will raise the average surface temperature.
“The most obvious and useful assumption for “if have twice as much atmosphere this should result in a higher average surface temperature” is that we are talking about the steadystate situation, long after the atmosphere has been changed. ”
Yes
“As far as thermal conductivity goes (the whole point you were making), for steadystate conditions, a thicker/denser atmosphere will be more effective at moving thermal energy from hot regions to cold regions (a higher effective thermal conductivity). ”
Yes. Though basic climate is Earth has Tropical zone, Temperate zones, and Polar zone. And tropical zone has the most uniform temperature, though of course the ocean of tropics has a lot to do with such uniformity as does the factor of sun always being fairly near to zenith. But the atmosphere is also part of it.
And basic aspect of thermal conductivity is the distance and thermal gradients, and Tropics involves least distance needed for the transportation of heat.
And as I was saying later, if Mars was at Earth distance and air density about same of less [as Mars at Mars distance], the more energized atmosphere could transport heat a more further distance and was guessing one have more uniformity between equator to poles. Or I am saying a reason there less difference with current Mars is lack of air density. Or Mars is more like Earth stratosphere than like it’s troposphere, and with added air density to Mars, it becomes closer to being like a troposphere.
Though also Mars has less gravity.
“No Mars would still be the same distance from the sun and still absorb the same energy. And still emit the same energy. This difference is HOW it emits the energy. Thermal conductivity makes the surface more uniform.”
I think twice the atmosphere is will increase the amount energy absorbed by sunlight, but I wanted to address uniformity.
It seems the Mars equatorial region currently has higher average temperature than rest of planet. And some claim it’s average temperature is about -50 C. One could also say the equator region has a more uniform temperature than rest of the planet.
And I would say if you doubled Mars atmosphere the equatorial region would become more uniform in temperature AND you have less wild swings of temperature outside of the equatorial region- make these regions be more uniform.
But question is how much, or less quantitative how much would equatorial become a more uniform temperature as compared to outside the equatorial region- significantly more or insignificantly more.
I think the average temperature of equatorial region would increase from about -50 C to about -40 C. Or I think most of uniformity occurs in the tropical zone of Mars. Or uniformity occurs in latitude bands extending from equator.
Or Earth is rather dramatic and Mars is less dramatic in this regard, and I think adding more atmosphere to Mars makes Mars slightly more like Earth.
I was thinking about writing a post, and I thought that Mars lacks jet streams. But then I thought, is that true, so, google. And apparently I was wrong.
“Such dramatic dust storms, however, aren’t the only weather phenomenon Mars has to offer. The red planet hosts clouds of ice and carbon dioxide, tornado-like dust devils, auroras and even complex jet streams–all of this, despite the fact that Mars’ atmosphere is less than 1 percent as dense as Earth’s.”
https://www.space.com/4050-wild-weather-earth-mars.html
It’s older article:
July 10, 2007 06:05am ET
So not related to Mars current global dust storm.
Anyhow.
So move Mars to Earth’s orbital distance. That should remove both of the permanent polar ice caps at either pole. And add some CO2 and water vapor to the Mars atmosphere. But it probably still snow in polar winter, though it might just snow water, rather than water and CO2. And as guess, doesn’t double the mass of atmosphere.
And Mars would be like Moon- when sun at zenith, the ground would be about 120 C. The air on other hand would not be very warm.
continuing.
the air would not be very warm for couple of reasons. Mars has air density of something like .02 kg per cubic meter [or about 1/60th of earth air density with pressure of about 1/100th or .02 times 60 = 1.2 kg per cubic meter]. And if air is warmer it has less density.
And with Mars currently the steep change of air temperature near the surface:
“The temperature on Mars right near the surface, in the path of the Sun, is going to be a lot warmer than if you were to
raise even five feet up. There might be a 15-20 degree temperature change between where your feet are and where your head
is if you were standing on Mars,” Matthew Shindell, curator of planetary science and exploration, said. ”
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/today-mars-warmer-earth-see-how-we-compare
And I would say that if Mars had more air density, there would be this dramatic difference in air temperature near the surface. It also maybe related to wide difference in Mars air temperature- there is no standard height above surface in which air temperature of Mars is defined, as in:
“”Differing in situ values have been reported for the average temperature on Mars, with a common value being -63 °C (210 K; -81 °F).
Surface temperatures may reach a high of about 20 °C (293 K; 68 °F) at noon, at the equator, and a low of about -153 °C (120 K; -243 °F)
at the poles.
Actual temperature measurements at the Viking landers’ site range from -17.2 °C (256.0 K; 1.0 °F) to -107 °C (166 K; -161 °F).
The warmest soil temperature estimated by the Viking Orbiter was 27 °C (300 K; 81 °F). The Spirit rover recorded a maximum daytime air temperature in the shade of 35 °C (308 K; 95 °F)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars
I imagine that 35 C air temperature was quite near the ground.
And even if you had air at 120 C at ankle depth, it’s low density would not be like 120 C air on Earth. But even at ankle depth it won’t be 120 C, though could this hot in greenhouse or parked car [if Mars is at earth distance from the Sun, and Mars distance in parked car, it could over 40 C though average or typically at or below 40 C].
So even Mars at Earth distance would have say 50% more atmosphere it could lower density than .02 Kg per cubic meter because the average temperature is warmer.
Now it seems the reason Mars air is warmer very close to surface is convectional heat loss is inhibited or it’s analogous to urban heat island effect. Or even small scale terrain features are inhibting convection and the surface itself is inhibiting the pathway of random air molecules. And seems to me if air was warmer it be inhibited less by surface and terrain feature.
And at Earth distance, I would guess the air would have a less steep gradient or the gradient of 5 feet become taller, like 100 feet [though disappear at night or where there is less intense sunlight].
Anyhow main thing I wanted to get to is I think there would more unformity of air temperature in regard to equator to poles- both from less density and more energetic air molecules [and also the low gravity of Mars].
Seeing as it was raised by ‘skeptics’ in this thread, I wondered about whether there was any truth to the notion that Californian temps have not gone up. So I tried a straight annual accounting from 1895, the first year in the statewide record.
https://tinyurl.com/ybpoahco
Temps have gone up since then, at a linear rate of 0.2F/decade. I believe that’s similar to global for the period. Of course, a linear trend only gives a rough estimate of overall change, it doesn’t mean that change has necessarily been linear.
Skeptics seem to be interested in only a few months of the year, though – May to October. So checked that for the whole record:
https://tinyurl.com/yc24epek
Still warming and by the same amount overall.
So California has warmed. Whether annually or the skeptic-preferred months of May-Oct, California is warmer in the last decade that any other previous decade in the instrumental record.
Now, if you don’t like the data, fine. But for someone to be saying that California hasn’t warmed, what statewide data are they basing it on?
The website I’ve plotting on has data for the Palmer Drought Severity Index as well. Let’s check it out.
https://tinyurl.com/y8ocxhzc
Annual results return increasing dryness over the long term. The website doesn’t do the PDSI for multiple month periods, but May has the same increase in dryness as the annual result.
I think WUWT has retracted its claim that California hasn’t warmed. I got that second hand, though, so I could be wrong.
You may find the Rutgers snow lab graphs of interest also.
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php
Thanks for the link, I had forgotten this site and its snow cover data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JH3My_IoeVugX4XP9lp6CVxgi3u50oqE/view
We see a flat trend from 1979 till now (the data starts in nov 1966, but there were too many wholes before 1979), and an increase starting by 2010, like that from 1990 till 1998.
Thus Salvatore should be satisfied!
Oops, I’m wrong: the trend for 1990-1998 is four (!) times higher than that for 2010-2018!
Apologies…
The trend for a short interval 1990-98 isn’t statistically significant in the least.
David, please stop trolling.
The monthly Rutgers snow data shows the Northern Hemisphere losing snow cover at a trend of -20,100 km2/yr.
Picking and choosing David?
The fall NH extent shows an increase of 1.5 million sq mile coverage since 1967
The winter NH extent shows an increase of 1 million sq mile coverage since 1967
the Spring extent shows a decline until the past 2 years which show a unusual increase in coverage.
It seems there is more snow in the fall and winter and, until recently, it was melting sooner in the spring. But the past 2 years and 3 of the last 6 show otherwise.
No Lewis, I’m doing the opposite of “picking and choosing” — I calculated the long-term linear trend, and multiplied it by the time interval.
= change.
OR, just above, quoted the long-term linear trend, calculated by linear regression.
You got anything to beat that, Lewis?
David, please stop trolling.
barry…”So I tried a straight annual accounting from 1895, the first year in the statewide record”.
Using fudged NOAA data.
See Gordon type.
See Gordon lie.
Lie, Gordon, lie.
It’s become very apparent that Gordon can’t read more than a few sentences in any post. He said:
“Using fudged NOAA data”
But in my post I said:
“Now, if you don’t like the data, fine. But for someone to be saying that California hasnt warmed, what statewide data are they basing it on?”
Gordon misses the point to trot out his usual smear.
On what basis did WUWT conclude there had been no Californian warming, Gordon? Which data should we use?
Gordon has no evidence whatsoever, and he never has. You’d think this would bother someone who seems to like science, but it never does.
barry and David, please stop trolling.
This not true, Salvatore, look at the SSN graph:
https://tinyurl.com/j9u3r78
Bididon – you should not talk about things you do not understand.
This being one of them. Up to 2005 solar activity was very active this changed in late 2005.
Solar was in an overall global warming trend up to 2005 because the minimums within that time span up to 2005 were to shallow and to short and the maximums were to long and to strong.
I will send a few illustrations to show this fact.
“…you should not talk about things you do not understand”.
You in turn should avoid writing that, Salvatore.
I know exactly what for example Javier means about your very strange “theories”, none of which ever was up to his critique.
Bindidon our strange theories happen to be supported by the historical climatic record time and time again.
Show me an overall temperature rise lasting several decades in extent during a prolonged minimum solar period and vice versa show me an overall temperature fall for several decades during a solar maximum event.
As far as saying you don’t understand perhaps you do but you just disagree. So be it. I am certain myself and Javier along with others like us are correct.
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
(WRONG)
David, please stop trolling.
Javier and myself are pretty much in agreement other then the galactic cosmic ray aspect, and the geo magnetic field’s roll.
Can’t agree on everything.
No one is the authority on any of this including myself, that said data shows evidence of the galactic cosmic ray, volcanic activity, cloud cover connection and I have plenty of company.
Except for the hugest volcanic explosions, Salvatore, they cause cooling instead of warming.
David, please stop trolling.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
illustration 1
So what?
David, please stop trolling.
https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif
The ap index notice how it changed post 2005 . Prior to that it was very high equating to overall global warmth due to solar activity.
This index needs to be around 5 or less to promote significant cooling.
All the factors were in…yet no cooling.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
Says DA the robot whose program has it repeating itself on a continuous cycle. Typical of A I (key word being artificial)
Prove me wrong, Lewis. You can’t.
Record cold in the NE of NA.
Another sample of AGW for the non-believers.
Yes it is cold there, October was between 2 and 4 C below average:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/11/map.png
And parts of the Antarctic experience a similar stuff.
But look at Eastern Siberia with over 4 C above mean.
And I remember very well February 1957: in France and Germany, we had 11 C below average. That was – for us – really a record cold, even if by far not as cold as in really cold countries.
I would point out that the hockey stick graph crowd has told us the weather/climate should be warmer. Why then the record setting cold?
Weather? Exactly so. Climate is weather.
Lewis — the hockey stick doesn’t say a THING about future temperatures — it’s a reconstruction of PAST temperatures.
This is a VERY common error among deniers, and makes you wonder if they understand any climate science at all.
David, please stop trolling.
Yes David.
Lewis guignard
“Picking and choosing David?”
*
The fall NH extent shows an increase of 1.7 million sq mile coverage since 1967
The winter NH extent shows an increase of 0.9 million sq mile coverage since 1967″
Yes, but…
The spring NH extent shows a decrease of 2.9 million sq mile coverage since 1967
The summer NH extent shows a decrease of 4.1 million sq mile coverage since 1967
And that’s how it looks like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18M8I9Ez15mTauwfoMltLqJ9D23MeLoCF/view
Who picked and chosed here, Lewis guignard?
Sorry: not square miles, km^2!
Bin,
Those are the 3 graphs available under seasonal extent.
Pick any ones you want. But,
PLEASE, show me where you found the summer extent. I don’t see it listed at Rutgers Snow Lab, only Fall, Winter and Spring.
Do you have a link?
Did I state something, (other than sq miles instead of KM2) wrong?
Are Fall and Winter increasing in extent, while Spring is decreasing except for 3 of the last six years?
What is your point?
A further point.
Google has proved, as has Wikipedia, that they are not to be trusted for facts.
Please, do better.
I use Rutgers Snow lab and gave you the link. If you don’t like their graphs, don’t attack me, but if you do, do a good job. As it is, you’re wasting your time.
“A 2005 study by the journal Nature found Wikipedia roughly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and a 2008 study in the journal Reference Services Review pegged Wikipedia’s accuracy rate at 80 percent compared to 95-96 percent among other sources not bad for a free, crowd-sourced encyclopedia.”
Livescience, Nov 6, 2009.
https://www.livescience.com/7946-wikipedia-accurate.html
David, please stop trolling.
Firstly, Lewis, I did NOT attack you in any way.
You commented Appell, and I commented you back.
Secondly, I did not use Rutger’s graphs, but their original monthly data:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=1&ui_sort=0
and separated it (for the NH) into four seasonal streams. That is easy work. I did not pick anything.
If you don’t trust me, please do it yourself.
Thirdly, you did not state anything wrong: you omitted the main part (the summer) but that is not your fault.
I simply completed what was missing by using Rutger’s original data.
And sorry: the grand total is that Appell was nearly right when he wrote:
“The monthly Rutgers snow data shows the Northern Hemisphere losing snow cover at a trend of -20,100 km2/yr.”
The NH snow cover loss for 1967-2017 was namely 1.15 Mkm^2 in 50 years.
“nearly right?”
David, please stop trolling.
Lewis guignard
“A further point.
Google has proved, as has Wikipedia, that they are not to be trusted for facts.”
Firstly, I did not use either.
Google Drive is a storage and upload medium anybody can use. It doesn’t produce any data of its own.
Secondly, it is interesting that ‘skeptic’s always refer to Wikipedia when it fits to their narrative, but say that it is “not to be trusted for facts” when it doesn’t.
I don’t use Wikipedia PERIOD. Many schools, public and private, don’t allow it as a reference on research papers – why: because it is too often inaccurate. My non-use stems from its partisan political stance, which is the same with google.
I use Encyclopedia Brittanica and pay for it.
Your generalizations are wasted.
“In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia’s scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica”the most scholarly of encyclopedias,” according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.”
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
–I use Encyclopedia Brittanica and pay for it.–
Can you quote it.
I am wondering if Encyclopedia Brittanica defines global warming theory in significant way, which different than wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
20 years have passed, still no significant warming! Check Dr Spencer’s graph 1998 to 2018! Plot a trendline!
“Salvatore del Prete predicted in 2010 that the climate was cooling. Indeed, in the years following, only in 2016 and 2017 was the mean anomaly greater than that of 2010. The essentially flat-line trend from 1998 to 2018 confirms the suspicion of most reasonably minded individuals that predictions of catastrophic temperature rises based on current data were irresponsible.”
Mac says:
November 19, 2018 at 5:07 AM
….I have the same robot program that DA uses!!
I don’t like Appells’s comments with their mix of arrogance and alarmism.
But may I please you not to restrict your trend estimates to the lower troposphere, let alone to UAH 6.0?
The surface temperature measurements provided by the Japanese Meteorology Agency for example show for 1979-2018 a trend around 0.14 C / decade, i.e. 0.01 C more than UAH.
But… their trend estimate for 1998-2018 is completely different. I don’t have the data at hand, look at the graph:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
We clearly can see a pause for 1998-2012, that is correct.
Bindidon says:
I dont like Appellss comments with their mix of arrogance and alarmism.
Then prove me wrong.
PS: We *SHOULD* be alarmed.
David, please stop trolling.
Bindidon,
You get get global JMA data here for annual:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/year_wld.html
And for monthly:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/mon_wld.html
Note the CSV button for converting either table to text form.
I’d use annual for a linear regression, to diminish autocorrelation.
Thx barry, I had forgotten the place where to find them.
20 years have passed, still no significant warming! Check Dr Spencers graph 1998 to 2018! Plot a trendline!
No statistical significance means that nothing at all can be claimed. You can’t say that there has been warming or cooling or a flatline.
There is a mean warming trend for that period:
0.075 C/decade (+/- 0.158)
That means that the range for this trend, to 95% confidence limits, is anywhere between:
-0.083 and 0.233 C/decade
So colong and warming and flatlining are possible for that period, but neither is determined.
Learn the limits of linear regression.
FWIW, I agree with Barry’s numbers.
barry…”That means that the range for this trend, to 95% confidence limits, is anywhere between:
-0.083 and 0.233 C/decade”
**********
Only a number cruncher could arrive at such a ridiculous range of possibilities.
How can you claim “0.075 C/decade (+/- 0.158)”
+/- 0.158C…..???????????
Give me a break!!! That is alarmist math at its worst.
Mac says:
November 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM
20 years have passed, still no significant warming!
So incredibly wrong.
That’s why you spoke without giving any evidence — you have none. NOne.
DA, please stop trolling.
https://www.iceagenow.info/fantastic-answer-to-climate-change-question-video/
AGW THEORY – has set climate science back decades because of all the time we have had to spend on this nonsense. Taking away from the real causes of climate change which I concentrate on.
Salvatore, you’ve been constantly wrong. AGW has not.
You have no grounds for your arrogance. That’s why I will keep pointing out all your many wrong predictions.
….I don’t understand. Barry agrees with me that the trend line from 1998 to 2018 is not significant….
“No statistical significance means that nothing at all can be claimed. You cant say that there has been warming or cooling or a flatline.”
barry says:
November 24, 2018 at 8:28 AM
…and you agree with Barry’s numbers…..
David Appell says:
November 24, 2018 at 3:09 PM
FWIW, I agree with Barrys numbers.
…and the data is from Dr Spencer’s Graph…..
In the long run DA may be right or SDP may be right….its just too early to tell.
The science is not settled.
Mac: clearly you do not know how to analyze the data for yourself.4
mac….”.I dont understand. Barry agrees with me that the trend line from 1998 to 2018 is not significant.”
Barry specializes in double-talk and red-herring responses.
You need to make it 1998 – 2015 because the early 2016 EN extreme has added a trend from 2015 onward. Of course, if you add data from 2016 onward it adds an overall trend since 1998.
That’s where Barry’s obfuscations and red-herring arguments come in to play. The IPCC announced an insignificant trend from 1998 – 2012 which Barry cannot deny because he’s an IPCC groupie. However, he talks around it using convenient math and claiming 15 years is not enough to be regarded as significant.
Then NOAA, who has Barry as a special groupie, fudged the SST and claimed a trend where the IPCC had not seen one.
Barry is a dyed-in-the-wool alarmist who will give you nothing which interferes with his religious-based propaganda.
mac…I forgot to mention David Appell, who is seen here supporting Barry. Another major alarmist who specializes in regurgitating any old alarmist propaganda upon which he can lay his hands.
Expect him to challenge anything you say with inane questions and assertions he cannot prove himself.
I don’t think it necessary to be shepherded into approved data sets spanning specified dates. My observation was to examine the previous 20 years as is shown in Dr Spencer’s graph. It’s comforting to know that barry agrees with me that there is no significant trend, either warming or cooling, across these dates….
barry says:
November 24, 2018 at 8:28 AM
“So colong and warming and flatlining are possible for that period, but neither is determined.”
It was a surprise that DA agreed with barry’s numbers and therefore also agrees that there has been no significant trend in the last 20 years!!! Since I’m sure that SDP would also agree, then we have barry, DA and SDP in agreement as to the current state of temperature trends according to Dr Spencer’s graph!!!
While I agree that DA tends to attack the messenger rather than the data, barry’s philosophy does seem to be more moderate, and, although I believe it to be flawed, requires a deeper analysis to expose this.
It’s just unfortunate that politics has muddied the science, and logic has suffered. The reasoning and aims behind politics and of science are often not shared. Its grating to read statements and publications which are biased or have not been properly refereed, and which flood the senses of a public which relies on science to deliver unquestionable truth.
AGW crowd will never admit to being wrong. I will if x does not happen over x time with x conditions.
There’s no evidence AGW is wrong.
On the other hand….
“I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
David until the climate becomes unique in contrast to the historical climatic record AGW has really nothing to stand on.
Warming of this degree of magnitude , rate of change has happened many times before and to much greater degrees.
Wrong Salvatore.
The question is the cause of the warming we’re seeing.
When have we seen this rate of warming that has not been the result of the transition out of a glacial period?
David and BDB, please stop trolling.
Recently. commenter Bill Hunter wrote about the idea that GHGs wouldn’t primarily contribute to warming but rather would make temperature maxima lower and minima higher.
I inevitably shared this meaning, as it is the first thing you discover when generating such time series out of GHCN data.
Here is Berkeley’s raw output for TMIN/TAVG/TMAX, for 1880-2018 (anterior raw data is not very useful, as the deviations from the mean become more and more extreme):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EWLpRjacpUpIveFsPiR_70epAxWu5_gz/view
You see TMIN, TAVG and TMAX crossing around 1965-70, and TMIN passing over TAVG while TMAX moves below it.
Any intrelligent idea about why this exactly happens, and why it happens in the period mentioned above?
“Any intelligent idea about why this exactly happens, and why it happens in the period mentioned above?”
Just dumb idea that we recovering from the Little Ice Age.
As I always said, what is important is what cause global cooling, rather than what causes global warming. Or what caused the Little Ice Age?
The general idea is volcanic and the solar min, but need details of how and perhaps other causes.
Important in terms of understanding global temperatures.
What important to humans is weather- regional global and predicting
it, months and years in future.
What is important to humankind is are we entering a grand solar min and what are the weather effect of it.
Weather is not climate.
It’s hardly assured we are entering a “grand solar minimum.” What is the evidence for that?
AGW will easily swamp another Maunder-like Minimum. This exact question was studied several years ago by Feulner and Rahmstorf (GRL 2009), Song et al (GRL 2010) and Jones et al (JGR 2012), and it was found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.
“On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
“Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
AGW has hi jacked all natural climatic items which brought us out of the Little Ice Age, which were in a warm mode until 2005 when the transition started.
Now natural climatic items are in a cooling mode , let’s see how much AGW takes place now.
Yet again Salvatore shows he does not understand climate or AGW.
He thinks short-term natural variations show climate change. He has done this for as long as I’ve known him, and has been wrong with every prediction he’s made for at least 8 years now — and I do mean EVERY prediction.
Yet Salvatore is unable to learn from all these bad predictions, even though everyone else here as learned by now that Salvator is full of sh!t.
David until the climate becomes unique which it is not even close to being you and your nonsense theory have nothing to stand on!
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 24, 2018 at 5:19 PM
David until the climate becomes unique which it is not even close to being you and your nonsense theory have nothing to stand on!
Some of my comments here are getting deleted. Not atypical for Roy’s site.
Anyway, you’re very wrong, Salvatore. The question is about the causes of warming, not whether they have broken any record.
–David Appell says:
November 24, 2018 at 3:04 PM
Weather is not climate.–
A desert depends on the amount of yearly rainfall.
“It’s hardly assured we are entering a “grand solar minimum.” What is the evidence for that?”
No evidence yet. Though is evidence of leaving grand solar Max.
“AGW will easily swamp another Maunder-like Minimum. This exact question was studied several years ago by Feulner and Rahmstorf (GRL 2009), Song et al (GRL 2010) and Jones et al (JGR 2012), and it was found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.”
Global temperature “projections” have been grossly over estimated and we aren’t in grand min yet.
But I don’t expect more than .3 C drop in global temperatures- at least not within a couple decades.
Let’s imagine a .2 C drop in 20 years, that a very long pause and and makes IPCC projections even more wrong. As would a .1 drop in 20 years.
I think currently living in a time, in we quite close to knowing much more about “global warming”.
But let review the recent past, government policies have done near zero regarding limiting global CO2 emission and have huge cost to the public in doing all that they have chosen to do in order lower CO2 emission. And I think one could make strong argument that these policies have increased global CO2 emissions and more importantly, have increased global pollution.
And only thing proven without any doubt is that governments are unable to reduce CO2 emissions. And, more importantly, have “mistakenly” caused more pollution to occur as compared to had governments not tried to reduce CO2 emissions.
Salvatore
“until the climate becomes unique which it is not even close to being you and your nonsense theory have nothing to stand on”
Yet you don’t seem to believe that your little theory is required to stand up to the same scrutiny.
gbalkie: the (positive) amplitude (TSI) of this latest solar cycle was about 1/2 that of the cycles just before it.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_sm.png
So where was the cooling?
David and BDB, please stop trolling.
gbaikie says:
Just dumb idea that we recovering from the Little Ice Age.
If we’re “recovering,” why are temperatures now higher than at the start of the LIA?
PS: The LIA wasn’t caused by the Sun.
Wrong David the Little Ice Age was caused by the sun.
The historical climatic record shows this to be so ,just as it shows every other single cool period on the earth.
Salvatore, prove the LIA was caused by the sun.
To begin, tell us the change in Earth’s surface temperature for a +/- 1 W/m2 change in the Sun’s total solar irradiance (TOA). Prove your number, with science.
David you prove it wasn’t.
David as I have told you 1000’s of times solar irradiance is but a small part of the solar /climate connection.
Then give the climate sensitivity — the solar change required to create 1 C of surface warming on Earth — for whatever solar parameter(s) you think matter(s).
Salvatore
The LIA began around 1300, way before the Maunder minimum.
David and BDB, please stop trolling.
“If were recovering, why are temperatures now higher than at the start of the LIA?”
How about, whatever was causing the cooling was lessen.
Also when glaciers have grown, they have a cooling effect and when they have shrunk it’s warming effect. The end of LIA is when glaciers started to retreat which occurred by around 1850.
Though this mostly about land temperatures [and is mostly only regional] or this effect should be minor in regards to global temperatures.
Some say:
“The cause of the Little Ice Age is not known for certain; however, climatologists contend that reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation, and explosive volcanism may have played roles in bringing about and extending the phenomenon.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age
So, increase in solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation, and less explosive volcanism though it’s not certain, may have played a role in the recovery. Though I tend to think it’s likely about ocean circulation.
And obviously one can factors which amplify or cancel out or delay one another and in particular that could related to the longer term effect of Milankovitch cycles.
gbalkie, you didn’t answer the question.
If it was JUST a “recovery,” why did temperatures go HIGHER after the LIA they were were BEFORE the LIA.
A “recovery” would bring temperatures back to what they were just before the LIA.
But they are significantly higher.
DA…If it was JUST a “recovery,” why did temperatures go HIGHER after the LIA they were were BEFORE the LIA”.
Straight from the alarmist propaganda manual.
There is proxy evidence that the Medieval Warm Period, immediately before the LIA, was as warm or warmer than today.
The vikings were farming the south-western tip of Greenland, something that is not done today.
Not a mention of the MWP in this article. That’s the problem with soft sciences like archaeology, they don’t have hard science to put it all together.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/?cn-reloaded=1
Also…
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
Gordon, we’re discussing the LIA, not the MWP.
And, the MWP wasn’t global, nor was it higher than today’s temperatures.
**
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mbh98_plot_black-white.png?w=720
**
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Gordon Robertson says:
The vikings were farming the south-western tip of Greenland, something that is not done today.
Were they? Some think they named it “Greenland” at a PR move, to attract others to come live there.
Anyway-
“Farming to the fore as Greenland ice thaws,” Frederik Pleitgen, CNN, December 4, 2012.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/04/world/greenland-secrets/index.html
DA, please stop trolling.
Berkeley’s data I considered not reliable. That said urban heat island is the culprit not GHG’S.
“…if temperatures do not show a decline by then(summer of 2018) in conjunction with very low solar activity we will be in trouble with our global cooling forecast.”
Salvatore del Prete, 6/2/2017
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2017-0-45-deg-c/#comment-249606
Do you remember, Salvatore?
“… you should not talk about things you do not understand”.
UHI is only a problem for people who do not know how to construct regional and global temperature averages.
All these people (beginning with geniusses like Anthony Watts) think that all absolute station data of a given region (i.e. rural sites, urban sites, sea level sites, mountain sites etc) is mixed into a melting pot out of which anomalies are then generated.
Nobody (beginning with the Berkeley Earth Team) knowing how to correctly, accurately construct these anomalies would be stupid enough to do that.
The only data I recognize as valid is Dr. Spencer’s. End of story.
Why is Spencer’s data better than anyone else’s?
David Appell says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM
Salvatore, it’s interesting that you accept model results when they show what you want but reject them otherwise.
Why do you accept Roy’s blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? What’s your criteria for acceptance?
• Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM
Why because we agree that is why.
Reply
Salvatore
“The only data I recognize as valid is Dr. Spencer’s.”
Yes, Salvatore, but I suspect you to do that solely because it shows ‘more cooling’ than the others.
If Spencer/Christy wouldn’t have switched from 5.6 to 6.0, nor Mears/Wentz from 3.3 to 4.0, you would write today:
“The only data I recognize as valid is Dr. Mears’.”
Btw: feel free to trust in Dr Maue’s WeatherBELL as well!
It is namely by far the ‘coolest’ surface temperature time series, even ‘cooler’ than JMA’s, especially for the period 1998-2015.
Some will say: “What? WeatherBELL? Buuh! It is a reanalysis based on a model!”.
But a model showing ‘cooling’ always is a good one for you, isn’t it?
David Appell says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM
Salvatore, its interesting that you accept model results when they show what you want but reject them otherwise.
Why do you accept Roys blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? Whats your criteria for acceptance?
Reply
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM
Why because we agree that is why.
DA, please stop trolling.
binny…”UHI is only a problem for people who do not know how to construct regional and global temperature averages”.
Another words for ‘construct’ is fudge. Why should anyone have to manipulate real data?
Watts specialized in revealing surface stations that were seriously affected by the UHI. On one site, the thermometer enclosure was sighted right next to the warm air exhaust of an air conditioning system.
It would help if you researched Watts a bit rather than shooting your mouth off.
Berkeley is just as fudged as the rest. Co-author, Judith Curry, distanced herself from the study afterward because lead author Muller was misinterpreting the data to show results the study did not reveal.
Of course, you being an idiot, you’d support scientific chicanery because of your appeal to authority.
So you have a problem with current temperatures being lowered to account for the UHI effect?
“Watts specialized in revealing surface stations that were seriously affected by the UHI.
…
It would help if you researched Watts a bit rather than shooting your mouth off.”
You may call me an idiot as lomg as you want, Robertson.
That won’t change anything, especially not the fact that you are and keep the most ignorant and pretentious boaster having ever commented here.
You are simply too stupid to understand what I wrote.
Gordon Robertson says:
Berkeley is just as fudged as the rest
How were they “fudged,” Gordon?
It’s a serious accusation. Let’s see your evidence.
bob…”So you have a problem with current temperatures being lowered to account for the UHI effect?”
Don’t overplay the idiot role Bob, the Berkeley study supports anthropogenic warming.
binny…the reason I call you an idiot is your propensity for making dumb claims, like your recent one against people like Anthony Watts on matters like UHI.
This is what you said about Watts…”All these people (beginning with geniusses like Anthony Watts) think that all absolute station data of a given region (i.e. rural sites, urban sites, sea level sites, mountain sites etc) is mixed into a melting pot out of which anomalies are then generated”.
Here are the facts on UHI straight from the official site of Watts:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Watts et al did stellar work identifying the surface station-related errors contributing to UHI in North America.
Are you so much of an idiot that you don’t get it that stations that are affected directly by anthropogenic warming from the likes of the hot exhaust vents of an air conditioner affect the NOAA database?
Where can I read Watts’ peer reviewed papers on surface stations? He made a big announcement at a fall AGU meeting several years (4? 5?) about an upcoming paper, and it never appeared.
DA, please stop trolling.
David Appell says: “How were they fudged, Gordon?
Its a serious accusation. Lets see your evidence.”
David there is no question they are fudged. Every few years the data keepers notice the temperature record isn’t keeping up with the model predictions. So since they believe the models are settled science they go look for possible errors in the observation data. They then engage in wholesale changes to the data based upon some parameter like time of day, or a known temperature methodology at least after one comparison is found to be a bit warm or too cold and they change the data.
In the real world its necessary to do this stuff. But that doesn’t mean the data is going to necessarily be better. It might be worse.
The bias is in only looking for positive changes that closes the gap between the models and observations. We have seen extensive writings on this from people adjusting the data. No serious accusation, nothing unusual its done every day in every field in the process of detecting errors. The real concerns are there are so many people with their fingers in the pot one can’t even get comfortable if the processes are well enough documented to know if the adjustment was only made one time.
This is a problem well known throughout science for hundreds of years. Its a problem in financial markets. Its a big job for auditors to document what management is doing and whether what they are doing is appropriate to represent financial conditions. Its the most common audit finding an auditor typically finds. In academia they don’t have auditors.
If we are going to be making major policy decisions on science there needs to be a complete audit of the findings. Peer review is simply not doing the job, it wasn’t designed to do that job.
The whole of science is one big audit.
Yes the whole of science may appear to be one big audit. . . .just that you don’t know when and how it gets funded so it might take a century or more before the “audit” is complete.
The big difference between an audit and science is the audit opinion is released simultaneously with the audited papers and does not seek the “right” answer but instead seeks for accuracy of calculations, reasonableness of conclusions, consistency of methods, completeness, and whether sufficient supporting evidence is available. No process in science does that. Peer review is little more than getting a peer to say he agrees. There are no standards nor responsibility whatsoever.
The Ptolemaic theory took 1,500 years to get corrected. However, it might have passed an audit because it actually had a blueprint of how it worked.
Here’s some points:
https://tinyurl.com/yaqxrgqz
“seeks for accuracy of calculations, reasonableness of conclusions, consistency of methods, completeness, and whether sufficient supporting evidence is available. No process in science does that.”
Ha! Ha! No process, except the scientific method.
Does auditing have multiple, competing teams of people, with different approaches and methods, working to do the same audit? Do they publish their audits and let all other teams critique them, who then publish their own better versions of the audit? That way the best and most accurate audit facts ultimately come out.
Is that what happens in auditing?
Nate says: Does auditing have multiple, competing teams of people, with different approaches and methods, working to do the same audit? Do they publish their audits and let all other teams critique them, who then publish their own better versions of the audit? That way the best and most accurate audit facts ultimately come out.
Is that what happens in auditing?
In financial auditing you have an independent competing team working on every paper. An audit is a test of somebody else’s paper. Having lots of unaudited papers does not mean any of them have been audited. For all one knows there is no basis to any of them.
This article by Roy is laying out a failure an audit would easily uncover, yet it went undetected through peer review and publication. Turning auditing into a popularity contest seems to win a lot of support from folks here when there is absolutely no basis for it. Volume does not make for a good replacement for organized, standardized and well documented audit tests. One could build a thousand bridges without a single engineering standard, but which one would you like to stand in the middle of?
I was trying to explain how science arrives at facts about the world. It is different from auditing. It involves independent thinking, creativity, ingenuity.
Not every single paper is correct. But the method has a good track record over 300 y. It has given us the modern world, things like the device you are typing on.
Nate:
1st off science is not different than auditing in any respect you named. Auditing requires independence, creating thinking, and ingenuity also.
And there is no disputing I am aware of in this entire thread as to the benefits of science or for that matter of free enterprise that is subject to current auditing standards and also plays a large role in delivering those modern conveniences.
The discussion is regarding peer review in this thread. Peer review as currently practiced in the science community is of benefit only to the journals that publish the articles. And as we have seen journals also benefit from yellow journalism as does any media. Even journals of associations of scientists as yellow journalism raises money for science and thus the journal benefits greatly albeit indirectly.
Likewise the benefits of audits is solely to investors. Investors though represent a wide enough class of individuals so as to promote regulation. Science when doing what you say its benefits are, namely producing modern conveniences that can be produced under a largely unregulated free marketplace in the most democratic sense doesn’t need regulation either.
However, when we become so entranced by science that we begin to use it in political ways, establishing policy that choses winners and losers in a political manner it becomes absolutely begging for better controls.
Bill,
“Peer review as currently practiced in the science community is of benefit only to the journals that publish the articles. ”
Wrong, peer review has worked well, and as you agreed, science has a strong track record in last 300 y. There was no peer review or science standards prior to that with Ptolemaic notions.
In auditing, I assume that if its done wrong, there will be severe consequences. Therefore ‘creativity’ is somewhat constrained.
If a science paper is wrong, its bad, but not dire. It will be corrected when others try to reproduce it and can’t.
‘scientists are a lot like many students who cram for an exam where the questions come straight out of the required reading textbook. Rote memory trumps understanding.’
You have a very ignorant, negative view of science and scientists, what they do and how they do it. Did one beat you as a child?
IMO, society needs experts of all kinds. We need auditors, scientists, cancer doctors, guys who can fix my furnace in a hurry.
All had mentoring and years of training. Generally, they have figured out the best practices for their field. They will have a breadth of knowledge that non-experts won’t have.
I am not an expert in auditing. I’m sure you are. As a scientist, I wouldn’t presume to tell you how you are doing your job wrong. And I’m sure you would think it comical that I would even try.
Armchair experts, such as yourself in this thread, are very unlikely to have figured out what an entire group of other experts, not in there field, are doing wrong.
“The big mistake most make is that if the top of the atmosphere warmed the surface it would be yada yada…”
Yet, you guys keep trying, and it is comical.
Nate says: {i} “You have a very ignorant, negative view of science and scientists, what they do and how they do it. Did one beat you as a child?”{/i}
Now thats pretty childish. You have quoted me out of a context discussing Michael Crichton’s fictional State of Fear. I have great respect for science and it forms the most important aspect of the basis of my consulting work.
This discussion in case you haven’t noticed has nothing whatsoever to do with scientists doing science. It has everything to do with scientists playing an amateur role as an auditor when they assume that mantle as a peer reviewer a field you acknowledge having little knowledge of. One poster linked to a single page summary of what a peer reviewer should consider in a peer review. That is the problem! Financial audit standards and their interpretations would fill a good sized library.
Understand that an auditor is not as knowledgeable about the business he audits what he brings to the party is a thorough independent eye and a knowledge of applicable laws, accounting, and accounting standards (which is very different than auditing standards). When the auditor gets into complex business technology and its valuation they will turn to experts for advice. The point here is not to generate some black or white idea of science but recognize it has some warts. When one argues that all scientists are a pure as the driven snow and that no problems arise out of poor science one has to be wearing blinders or is so devoid of natural skepticism that they probably boxed themselves in so badly as to be incapable of discovering anything new.
Nate says: {i} “In auditing, I assume that if its done wrong, there will be severe consequences. Therefore ‘creativity’ is somewhat constrained.”{/i}
Creativity in science is as you pointed out is greatly aided by being an expert in the field. It may be true that standards are an obstruction to non-expert creativity but the priority here is not to avoid leaving any child behind. For an auditor creativity comes in expressing an opinion, one that informs and doesn’t obfuscate.
Nate says: {i}”If a science paper is wrong, its bad, but not dire. It will be corrected when others try to reproduce it and can’t.”{/i}
Bad science is a problem as I have said in the policy arena. That would be problems that extend from many city councils all the way up to the UN. That truth does not mean science sucks. Just the opposite is true. But standards for financial information did not arrive on the scene before financial information had earned a bad name. My comments are aimed at getting in front of the problem. Dr. Curry has a very good paper on the various sorts of uncertainty found in science papers. Its well worth the read and a good start in a discussion of how to protect the integrity of science.
“This discussion in case you havent noticed has nothing whatsoever to do with scientists doing science.”
“I have great respect for science”
Nonsense. You are being very disingenuous. You made many critical comments here about how climate scientists are doing their science wrong, or fraudulently, and that you know better.
The statement critical of scientists is YOURS, not Michael Crichton’s
“A good read is Michael Crichtons State of Fear. Unfortunately scientists are a lot like many students who cram for an exam where the questions come straight out of the required reading textbook. Rote memory trumps understanding.”
Did you read this:
https://tinyurl.com/ya6vsjbz
Climate science actually did go wrong for half a century.
It was the band saturation and surface budget fallacy.
Perhaps auditing had helped, how?
Nate, far enough. I was trying to condense the State of Fear plot where scientists simply without any skepticism picked off statements from previous science papers put in the papers after being badgered and motivated to do so by funders. Those previous papers had not even tested the statements being picked off. I certainly could have been more descriptive about what I was referring to but now you know.
Nate sez: “You made many critical comments here about how climate scientists are doing their science wrong, or fraudulently, and that you know better.”
I believe what I said is that scientists like every other person in the world is subject to biases. I suggested the hockey stick went pretty far beyond bias into blatant cherry picking, but that’s the exception and not the rule. So if I fell short and didn’t describe deity to all scientists. . . .that was intentional.
You don’t find it at all interesting that each time observations don’t match the climate models its the observations that are deemed to be erroneous? Even when its a fact that nobody has even come up with a blueprint of how a doubling of CO2 leads to 3 degrees warming?
I am not calling it fraud. I am calling it bias. The amount of warming we are looking for is well within all error bars of our ability to observe. So obviously there are arguments that it could be the observations that are wrong. But that leaves us with zero validation that the climate models are correct, which of course they can’t be because its an average of climate models that is considered as being correct.
Svante: “Did you read this”
Pretty boring paper left out a lot of good stuff. Interesting it ends with Roger (The Science isn’t Ready Yet) Revelle.
A science theory that lives primarily on the basis of attacking detractors rather than actually responding with a blueprinted theory is always political in nature.
So auditing could not have helped the Ångström set-back?
OK Bill,
Looks like you are reading denialists blogs, that have a political agenda, and finding confirming information.
On this blog you find a broader range of opinion and truths.
“Even when its a fact that nobody has even come up with a blueprint of how a doubling of CO2 leads to 3 degrees warming?”
Blueprint?
Theory? Of course there is theory. What are you talking about?
Nate, please stop trolling.
Bindion: Nice graph. Why do you think the TMIN anomaly crossed over to become higher that TMAX?
Increases in downward IR from more GHGs in the atmo?
No idea!
I’m not married to AGW, and moreover: why should GHGs have beeen the origin of that around 1965, and not 10-20 years earlier or later?
I don’t know exactly — physics. The usual idea is that SO2 emissions from about 1945-1970, a time of increased traffic that had no regulations on auto exhaust, held temperatures down (atmospheric SO2 is a cooling forcing). By the ’70s the US and Europe were putting environmental regulations in place to reduce these aerosol emissions and thus reduce their cooling factor.
I’ve even seen one paper that hypothesized that above-ground nuclear testing post-WW2 put up enough dust in the upper atmosphere to cause cooling (cooling relative to the GHG warming).
DA, please stop trolling.
Good Morning Bindindon,
In reference to your question” You see TMIN, TAVG and TMAX crossing around 1965-70, and TMIN passing over TAVG while TMAX moves below it.
Any intrelligent idea about why this exactly happens, and why it happens in the period mentioned above?”
Bill Hunter has a similar view to mine concerning TMin/Tmax, however, I would add that GHG’s probably have a greater effect on increasing TMin more than decreasing TMax.
Since TMax typically occurs in the afternoon (there are exceptions) the solar spectrum in terms of energy hitting the earth is maximum at noon (slightly decreasing as the earth rotates) but due to the effect of the atmosphere the surface continues to warm until TMax is reached in the afternoon. TMax would be much higher except for the effect of the atmosphere (as evidenced by the moon). Depending on the composition of the atmosphere (percentage of oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, methane, CO2 etc…) the result is a different TMax but still lower than if there was no atmosphere. This is because GHG’s have different impacts to the total Solar Spectrum that reaches the surface during the day.
TMin on the other hand, is typically during the night (with some exceptions) and usually before dawn as cooling of the surface has maxed out. GHG’s would slow the cooling, thus more GHG’s would result in less cooling. Again, absent an atmosphere TMin would be much lower as evidenced on the Moon. So the increase in GHG’s would result in slower cooling. Thus TMin would increase and since it plays a larger role in regulating earth surface temperature at night, the result is a higher TMin.
Now, for why 1965/70 transition, I can think of several reasons that may have played a role. 1) Environmental laws were helping to reduce particulates in the atmosphere, 2) Solar Cycles were transitioning from warming 1930’/40’s to cooling 1960’s and back to warming in 1970’s to 2000’s, 3) Urbanization 4) Shift to oil from coal for electric generation, 5) Increased biomass.
These factors would change the dynamics of the atmosphere to favor a rising TMin without necessarily raising Tmax. Just my thoughts.
Just my thoughts,
Thank you bilybob for these indeed intelligent thoughts which I share. But you expressed them with more clarity and conciseness than I could do.
Though being, as I wrote many times, ‘not married to AGW’ (in the sense of these not being in my opinion the major warming factor), I nevertheless lack in your list a reference to the interception of Earh’s far IR radiation by IR sensitive gases like H2O, CO2, CH4 etc.
This far IR absorp-tion (and subsequent reemission in all directions) somehow must lead to an equilibrium imbalance and thus can’t be without any effect.
But how this phenomenon could affect TMAX lowering and TMIN increase is unclear to me.
Bindindon, like you I am not married to AGW or any specific theory, but do appreciate some aspects of all of them.
There is much focus on IR and CO2 from the AGW enthusiasts and sometimes I feel that Climate Research has ignored overall impacts of the full solar spectrum and the full composition of the Atmosphere. Visible light and UV add a lot of energy to the surface and depending how it is transformed/absorbed/reflected/refracted on the surface will impact surface temperatures indirectly. Also, adding 400 ppm of CO2 ultimately requires reducing something else by 400 ppm. Is it water vapor, oxygen, methane?
TMax is reduced if the amount of energy reaching the surface that can raise the temperature is reduced more than the impact of the reduced cooling rate. So if adding GHG’s lower energy input to the surface 1% but reduce the cooling rate by 3%, it is still possible for TMax to be reduced. Remember, the energy from the sun is more intense and occurs only 12 hours with a peak occurring where the sun is directly overhead, whereas the Earth is constantly losing energy over a 24 hour period. It is because the Sun adds energy at a higher rate than Earth loses it is why it warms during the day and cools at night (when there is no solar input). There are exceptions due to the movement of air masses. GHG’s are not 100% transparent to full solar spectrum.
As a percentage of total energy flow/transfer, the GHE is lower during the day than at night. But that is primarily due to night time energy flow/transfer is lower than during the day. Thus, the impact to Tmax is less than the impact to Tmin from GHG. This does not mean Tmax will not increase in time given other factors affecting temperature including the planetary cycles, solar cycles, land use changes, atmospheric changes etc…
Please note this is related to our previous discussions on this subject and maybe the reason why 90% of Tmax records prior to 1950 are still intact.
1. “Also, adding 400 ppm of CO2 ultimately requires reducing something else by 400 ppm.”
Wow! Are you sure? While e.g. water vapor is nearly absent above 8 km, CO2 is uniformly present in the atmosphere till up to 20 km.
*
2. “Please note this is related to our previous discussions on this subject and maybe the reason why 90% of Tmax records prior to 1950 are still intact.”
Sorry bilybob: I have to contradict this, as I had shown you months ago that this is valid ONLY for CONUS, i.e. for about 6% of Earth’s land surface.
If you consider all available GHCN daily stations, and manage to attenuate CONUS’ tremendous station overhead (50% of the world’s stations are there, you see that there is worldwide a TMAX increase as opposed to the CONUS situation.
Unfortunately my Linux computer is heavily damaged; I thus actually can’t show you this again.
Bindindon,
I am fairly sure that if I add 400 PPM of anything I would need to subtract 400 PPM of something else, or else I would have 1,000,400 parts. No?
On the issue of Tmax records, I am not referring to Tmax anomalies or monthly averages but of actual maximum temperature records for sites set prior to 1950. These are mostly still intact, including the worldwide record set in Death Valley. My mentioning this is consistent with the above discussion on how Tmax is not necessarily impacted by GHG’s. If Tmax has increased globally, why have the majority of all GHCN sites that have data going back to 1900 somehow been bypassed?
I believe the answer to be that new sites added post 1950, whose Tmax baseline was set in a relatively cool period can easily set new Tmax records. These new sites would show a positive anomaly going forward. Also, the long term sites will show a reduction of their standard deviation in their Tmax data.
Central Park NY in the middle of a huge heat island record maximum temperature is still prior to 1950. Alice Springs Australia, same record max temp prior to 1950, I have sampled many others in every continent and the majority set prior to 1950 are still the record holders.
Hopefully this clears things up, sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
“I believe the answer to be that new sites added post 1950, whose Tmax baseline was set in a relatively cool period can easily set new Tmax records. ”
No, we were first discussing about absolute values. Later on I switched to anomalies, that was the point where we saw that TMIN icreased in GHCN daily faster than TMAX, what is perfectly confirmed by Berkeley Earth’s raw data graph above, though they use a completely different station set.
“… sorry for any confusion I may have caused.”
You didn’t!
bilybob says:
Visible light and UV add a lot of energy to the surface and depending how it is transformed/absorbed/reflected/refracted on the surface will impact surface temperatures indirectly.
Good point. Do you have data/time series for these wavelengths?
Also, adding 400 ppm of CO2 ultimately requires reducing something else by 400 ppm. Is it water vapor, oxygen, methane?
I have wondered about this too, but does atmospheric mass have to be conserved?
Oxygen levels are decreasing, consistent with fossil fuel combustion:
https://tinyurl.com/oahor6x
PPM is a relative measure, the new C’s would lower other ratios, right?
“Please note this is related to our previous discussions on this subject and maybe the reason why 90% of Tmax records prior to 1950 are still intact.”
For monthly USA48 data, I find that 4 of 12 months have the record Tmax before 1950 — 33%.
Source:
N.O.A.A. USA48 monthly
https://is.gd/1AoNcH
David asks “Do you have data/time series for these wavelengths?”
I do not have this data.
David asks “I have wondered about this too, but does atmospheric mass have to be conserved?”
Atmospheric mass already varies over time mostly due to water vapor. My point is the PPM’s have to balance.
David says “For monthly USA48 data, I find that 4 of 12 months have the record Tmax before 1950 33%.”
I was referring to the maximum temperature of a location ever recorded. Thus Death Valley holds the worldwide record from 1913 even though significant GHG’s have been added to the atmosphere. Though given the planet cycles this should eventually fall but not due to GHG’s. Most locations with temperature records going back to 1900 are still valid worldwide. Adding GHG’s would not increase TMAX. Thus deserts with minimal GHG’s tend to have the highest temperatures for similar latitude locations that have more GHG’s. Deserts also cool off faster at night. Adding GHG’s slows the rate of cooling, thus TMIN and TAVG increases, but no GHG is perfectly transparent to Solar Radiation, thus it reduces total energy reaching surface for TMAX. TMAX would be maximized when there are no GHG’s. Actually it would be maximized if there were not atmosphere.
The possible reason TMAX is increasing on Bindindon’s graph is that the range in getting tighter. Thus a location who’s July TMAX was 25-35C maybe 30-34C now. Also, I am not sure how new post 1950 sites anomalies are set.
My point is the PPMs have to balance.
Why?
bilybob says:
Thus Death Valley holds the worldwide record from 1913 even though significant GHGs have been added to the atmosphere.
So? AGW does not cause uniform warming.
Adding GHGs would not increase TMAX.
Why not?
**
BTW, I find the 30-yr trend for monthly USA48 Tmax to be +0.51 F/decade. Pretty big.
My point is the PPMs have to balance.
David Asks “Why?”
You really need to ask? Spell it out.
David says “So? AGW does not cause uniform warming.”
AGW is not part of this discussion.
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/57988-nature-doing-what-nature-does
Exactly Joe.
Poor Joe Bastardi — & Salvatore — doesn’t understand that atmospheric water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
But then, Bastardi once claimed on national television that CO2 is not a well-mixed gas:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html
DA…”Poor Joe Bastardi — & Salvatore — doesn’t understand that atmospheric water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing”.
It’s neither. A forcing is a fiction from differential equation theory. The atmosphere is not an equation.
A feedback is a signal that adds to or subtracts from an input signal in a process of amplification. You are claiming that back-radiation from WV can be added to the EM radiated by the Earth that warmed the WV to amplify the temperature of the surface.
Your understanding of physics is slim to none.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A forcing is a fiction from differential equation theory.”
Then you must think velocity is also a fiction, since it comes from differential equation theory.
DA…”Then you must think velocity is also a fiction, since it comes from differential equation theory”.
Climate models do not use standard differential equations like ds = dv/dt they use differential equations. Of course, you obviously don’t understand the difference.
If you have a relationship in the form S (distance) = vt, it’s telling you that distance covered is equal to the velocity of a mass times the time over which the distance is covered.
If I want to find the instantaneous rate of change of the distance covered, I differentiate to find ds = dv/dt. The equation is now in the form of a differential equation.
Climate models require the solution of such a differential equation, so they begin with one. They begin with an assumption and try to work toward a solution. In fact they use a standard set of equation that relate temperature, pressure, and density, called the Navier-Stokes equations.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/nseqs.html
Having set up their fictitious environment, they need input to test the equations so they apply ‘forcing’ functions to provoke a response. When you hear the word ‘forcing’ used for the environment it is incorrect. Forcing applies to a fictitious climate model environment but lazy (or delusional) modelers have applied it to real atmospheric conditions where it does not belong.
That applies to positive feedbacks as well, one of the mainstays of climate models. There are no positive feedbacks in systems like the atmosphere because it has nothing to create amplification.
Gordon, climate models use differential equations (actually, mostly partial differential equations), because they describe physics. They’re ubiquitous.
Examples:
Newtonian kinematics (like v=dx/dt)
Planetary motions
Electromagnetism (Maxwell’s equations)
Quantum mechanics (Schrodinger’s equation, Dirac’s equation, QED).
Standard Model
General Relativity
and much more.
If you don’t understand differential equations, you don’t understand physics, period.
GR…”Climate models do not use standard differential equations like ds = dv/dt they use differential equations”.
I need to explain this further. I omitted a qualifier for the latter reference to differential equation, so it doesn’t make sense. The first is derived using differential calculus. The second is a differential equation derived from observation and experience and is presented in differential form.
Simple harmonic motion of a mass spring systems is an example.
There are two main branches of calculus, differential calculus and integral calculus. With the latter, one begins with an equation in differential from and integrates it.
That’s what models do. Their environment is entirely fictitious. That does not have to be the case with velocity. It can be fictitious as in a problem set or real as in an actual mass in motion.
Gordon wrote:
Forcing applies to a fictitious climate model environment but lazy (or delusional) modelers have applied it to real atmospheric conditions where it does not belong.
Forcing is the amount of extra energy in downward radiation at the tropopause.
It’s a simple concept. Nothing fictional about it at all.
Gordon Robertson says:
If you have a relationship in the form S (distance) = vt,
That v is the AVERAGE velocity, not the instantaneous velocity.
For the latter
v = dx/t
where both sides are vectors.
Argh.
v=dx/dt
David, please stop trolling.
That would be either:
“P/A = (epsilon) T^4”
or
“P = (epsilon) T^4 A.”
tim…”That would be either:
P/A = (epsilon) T^4″
Is this about Stefan-Boltzman?
If so, have you omitted the S-B constant? Is epsilon not the emissivity?
Just wondering. I’m off to the store for milk. Later.
Yes, that was Stefan-Boltzmann, and yes I forget the (sigma) in the equation. (The post was in response to an early thread, but somehow I posted it down here.)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/24/solar-cycle-update-for-november-2018-warmth-sticking-around-or-cooling-ahead/
Solar analysis and climate implications by David Archibald.
Very, very interesting:
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-archibald
: – )
Yes it is and we have to see if t is correct or not. I am thinking it is but only time will tell.
Salvatore, time has already told, the thick black line is ln(CO2) + volcanoes:
https://tinyurl.com/y8kyzwsk
The graph shows it’s been going on since 1753. You think this will turn around next year?
Next year will be Salvatore’s 3rd consecutive “transition year”.
Not only that, Bob, but Salvatore said cooling started in 2002:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 28, 2017 at 8:00 AM
“Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.
“…Solar is finally entrenched in the values I said is needed to have a climatic impact following x years of sub solar activity in general.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273890
David, please stop trolling.
binny…”Very, very interesting:”
This is why you are a complete and utter idiot, and the shame is, you don’t get it.
The author of the paper submitted an ‘essay’ offering his opinion. You do the same every day and think nothing of it. However, rather than reply to scientific assertions made by the author you provide a link relating him to the Heartland Institute, as if papers published by them make the content of the papers automatically null and void.
Idiots think that way.It’s the basis of realclimate, skepticalscience, desmogblog, and every other alarmist site out there.
Yes, “papers” published by the Heartland Institute (snicker snicker) are automatically null and void.
They’re afraid to submit to real science journals. They’re afraid to present at real scientific conferences.
And we all know why.
DA….”Yes, “papers” published by the Heartland Institute (snicker snicker) are automatically null and void”.
Speaking of idiots….
You are claiming, since Roy has papers published by Heartland, that his work is null and void.
Only an idiot would be unable to see that papers published by Heartland are good scientific papers written by good scientists.
Why then are you here commenting? You have no science to offer, all you do is troll.
As usual, this website’s dumbest and most pretentious ‘uncommenter’ is unable to provide for arguments, and therefore unable to avoid misinterpreting, distorting, discrediting, denigrating and insulting.
If Archibald wasn’t a Heartland/GWPF product whose texts perfectly fit to your ridiculous narrative, you would be the very first one attacking him because of his manifold fields of activity, and would write “How can such a guy contribute to climate discussion in a meaningful manner?”.
binny…”If Archibald wasnt a Heartland/GWPF product whose texts perfectly fit to your ridiculous narrative, you would be the very first one attacking him….”
You are still ad homming the author without offering the slightest critique of his ‘essay’. You don’t even begin to understand such an idiotic attack on the man.
At least when I ad hom an alarmist twit, I offer a scientific rebuttal with it.
I have resorted to claiming NOAA/GISS data is fudged but I have gone into detail as to why. You have not responded once to my claims with a coherent, scientific rebuttal. You present home-made graphs based on the fudged data and offer it as proof.
We all know why…you don’t have a rebuttal. So you resort to the alarmist MO of ad homs, red-herring arguments, obfuscation, propaganda, and outright character assassination. That’s when you are not relating outfits like Heartland to Big Oil.
What’s the evidence N.O.A.A’s data is “fudged?”
David, please stop trolling.
@Nate,
“Josephson just went nuts.”
Very few of my countrymen have Nobel prizes. We are more into Eisteddfods and community singing. Still I have to agree with you that he “went nuts”. However IMHO he went nuts in a delightful way by daring to think outside the box……parapsychology, Cold Fusion etc. We need more people like him.
Here is a link on cold fusion that includes a video:
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/cold-fusion-and-universities-the-time-has-come
If the Rossi reactor shown in the video really was generating 10 kW of power via Nickel + Hydrogen fusion at least six inches of lead shielding would have been needed for “Personnel Protection”. Even at a distance of two meters that is a lethal dose of ionizing radiation in less than ten minutes!
Six years later Rossi’s E-Cat still looks like a scam! In 2015 I visited Rossi’s “Office” in Boca Raton but it was just a mail-box located in a lawyer’s office.
That reminds me this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller
cam…”We are more into Eisteddfods and community singing”.
I did not think there are camels in Wales. Especially, the galloping variety.
I experienced a spontaneous community sing-song at a rugby club in Wales. Quite an experience (enjoyable).
I used to play wing three-quarter for the Coventry RUFC (Rugby Union Football Club) and felt that my nickname should have been the “Gazelle” in recognition of my graceful running style.
Instead my team team mates dubbed me the “Galloping Camel”.
cam…”I used to play wing three-quarter for the Coventry RUFC (Rugby Union Football Club) and felt that my nickname should have been the Gazelle in recognition of my graceful running style.
Instead my team team mates dubbed me the Galloping Camel.”
Hard game. You must have been a decent player.
My Scottish uncle lived much of his life in Binley, just outside Coventry.
When James Clerc Maxwell was a schoolboy on Scotland, they called him Daftie Maxwell.
And Maxwell went on the outshine them all.
Back in 1960 when I was playing for Coventry we were loaded with players like Phil Judd, Mike McClean, Herbie Godwin, George Cole, Ricky Melville, Peter Robbins, John Owen, John Pargeter, Mike Broderick and Peter Jackson. Many of these folks played for England and some for the British Lions.
Most of my starts were on the 2nd team as my mentor was one of the best wingers ever:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1457575/Peter-Jackson.html
I know Binley well. During my 5 year apprenticeship at the GEC telephone works I lived in Coombe Abbey that was a student hostel back then, complete with a moat and ornamental gardens.
Today it is a hotel:
https://www.coombeabbey.com/
cam…”Most of my starts were on the 2nd team as my mentor was one of the best wingers ever:”
Is this Peter Jackson. They said he was pale in complexion.
He looks a proper Englishman from the Midlands region.
http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/image/85849.html
Looks a hard nut as well.
cam…”I know Binley well. During my 5 year apprenticeship at the GEC telephone works I lived in Coombe Abbey…”
I was only there once (Binley) but the place had character. My uncle was a coal miner for much of his life as were some other men in my extended family, most of whom lived in Scotland.
Glad you got to experience rugby at that level.
I lived in New Zealand for a year and Kiwis are rugby-daft, as you know. Something like Wales. I recall some of the wannabees working on garbage trucks in the morning to toughen themselves up. They’d run around picking up the bins in their bare feet.
There is an interesting head post by Clive Best on his blog:
Towards an understanding of Ice Ages
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8679
And lots of comments published by Ralf Ellis, Javier and Clive Best are as well.
ralfellis says:
November 17, 2018 at 12:13 pm
So why would a high ice volume trigger an ice sheet collapse, rather than a retreat back to a more stable volume? It makes no sense. If the ice sheets were happy at 80% of maximum volume, why not just retreat back to the stable 80% level.”
Javier gave ref in his post that ralfellis was replying to:
“Second order factor is global ice volume. This was observed by Parrenin in 1998. The more global ice volume the better. If LR04 d18O > 4.90 per mil and obliquity > 23° you get an interglacial, no matter the value of NH insolation. High global ice volume values strongly promote interglacials at high obliquity.”
So I google: Parrenin in 1998
And this:
http://www.lthe.fr/IGE/pageperso/parrenif/publications/download/paillard-parrenin-EPSL2004.pdf
I have not finished reading it [though I might have read it before] but roughly to seems to be about with cold deep water and it being saltly.
–A mathematical expression of this conceptual
model follows. We need three variables: global ice
volume V forced both by Northern Hemisphere
summer insolation and atmospheric pCO2; extent of
Antarctic ice sheet A forced by sea level changes (i.e.,
by V); and atmospheric CO2 C linked primarily to
deep-water state Tglacialr or Tinterglacialr. The
oceanic switch is forced by the Tsalty bottom waters
formation efficiencyr parameter:
F aV bA cI60 d —
http://www.lthe.fr/IGE/pageperso/parrenif/publications/download/paillard-parrenin-EPSL2004.pdf
It’s about Co2 as control knob and apparently reduction CO2 levels being absorbed- or increasing global CO2 levels
Though also Antarctica polar sea ice increasing.
F aV bA cI60 d
Or typing it rather than failing to copy it:
F = aV – bA – cI [60] = d
I [60] being: “I 60 is the daily insolation (60 degrees S, 21st
February)”
Generally it seem to me that when polar Antarctica sea ice gets larger, warming follows and when gets smaller, cooling follows.
And I would say maybe it has to do with CO2 or maybe not.
I would say it may seem that when earth is warmest in our present icebox climate [5 C average temperature ocean] one should have less Antarctica polar sea ice [though not to be confused with Antarctica glacial ice- which could be more or less] and when less of this polar ice, seems to be related to triggering the start of glacial period [ocean cooling].
Dr. Spencer
Apropos this topic, I just read your Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People in one sitting … a page turner. It should be required reading to live in our world, not just for climate specific understandings but for general understanding of science and politics (and I’m a libertarian who likes to require nothing of anyone).
Your book is a clear and concise set of evidence regarding the climate change topic. It is, however, about 127 pages longer than 99% of our attention challenged population can handle.
I have communicated the more pithy summary below several hundred times to various others with no substantive counter-evidence in response so far. It is based on information I have sourced from you, Dr. Curry and others.
I know you are busy but, if you have time, would appreciate in critical comments about this summary from you (and others) as I continue to test it.
————————–
Evidence (Antarctic ice core analysis) demonstrates that climate change is due mainly to recurring 100 thousand year cycles, not to human effects. We are nearing the peak of a warming cycle that has not yet reached previous maximum levels (when humans were not around); that Earth is warming, therefore, is not surprising. No evidence exists that human impact is significant.
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the arbitrary factor used in climate models to multiply the very small effect of humans, actually is measured at less than half the level theorized to cause dangerous warming by humans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) use of an outdated discredited ECS in their models has added to their already undermined credibility from their admitted lying in Climategate.
If you think humans are driving calamitous global warming, provide real evidence, clearly and concisely. And, “consensus” is not evidence (the “97%” is actually only 0.5% anyway; most of the 97% simply did not reject the POSSIBILITY human-caused global warming). The scientific and academic community once had a consensus that eugenics, acid-caused stomach ulcers and many other now disproven examples were settled science.
This is Roy’s first sentence??
It’s completely wrong.
“Evidence (Antarctic ice core analysis) demonstrates that climate change is due mainly to recurring 100 thousand year cycles, not to human effects.”
Actually the 100 kyr cycle says we should be cooling now. But the Earth is warming.
DA…”This is Roys first sentence??
Its completely wrong”.
You fail to understand how heat is transferred from the Sun to the Earth via EM, and you think IR from the Earth, which is a million C cooler than the Sun, can raise the temperature of the Sun.
Yet here you are accusing Roy of being wrong without supplying an iota of evidence.
Yes, Roy is completely wrong, if that’s indeed what he wrote. (But I kind of doubt it — Roy has written many times that CO2 is GHG with a climate sensitivity > 0.)
Evidence: IPCC 5AR WG1
US National Climate Assessment 4, published Friday.
and on and on.
Roy did not write that. I did.
We are nearing the peak of a 100K yr warming cycle that has not yet reached previous maximum levels (when humans were not around); that Earth is warming, therefore, is not surprising.
My understanding is that the Milankovitch factors that account for the ice ages are in decline, that is, should be causing cooling. What’s your data showing they have “not yet reached previous maximum levels?”
PS: The increase in forcing from manmade GHGs is much larger than the decrease in forcing from Milankovitch cycles.
We have three kinds of Milankovitch cycles (MC)
– Earth’s orbit eccentricity (100 Ky)
– Earth’s axial tilt (41 Ky)
– Earth’s precession wobble between NH’s perihelion/aphelion and winter/summer solstice coincidence (23 Ky).
We are
– near the least elliptic orbiting
– in the middle of the axial tilt period
– in perihelion / winter solstice coincidence (Sun nearest during winters).
Thus we are in these clycles’ conjunction at Milankovitch’s ‘warmest’ level, and over 12,000 years ahead of the first switch to ‘cooler’.
Should climate begin to show cooling, then certainly not because of any of the three MCs.
Milankovitch factors are always in play, but not always large.
A paleoclimate class I sat in on about 1.5 yrs ago gas the current annual change in Milankovitch factors of about -0.003 W/m2/yr. (Very small cooling.) But I don’t have the source for that.
David, please stop trolling.
data showing they have “not yet reached previous maximum levels”
https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/ice-cores-and-global-climate-part-3-co2-follows-temperature/
What’s your data showing “the increase in forcing from manmade GHGs is much larger than forcing from Milankovitch cycles”.
I feel this might be a good time for me to reproduce a comment of mine originally posted on this blog around five months ago, more or less at this year’s summer solstice, regarding the “two-way” vs. “one-way” radiation heat transfer discussion, because STILL people seem just as confused on this topic as ever.
You STILL need to distinguish in your mind – and in your language – between what happens at the MICRO (quantum) and at the MACRO (thermo) levels of reality. Even if photons are individually “transferred” or “added” also from molecules IN a cold object to molecules IN a hot object, this MICRO reality does not and cannot in itself translate directly into a MACRO reality where a thermal power density flux (W/m^2) is “transferred” or “added” from the cold object in full to the hot object in full. Physical reality doesn’t work that way. Those are simply two different propositions individually relevant in two distinctly separate realms only.
Here’s once again what is essentially my expansion of “the dime analogy”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-308771
Since Folkerts et al. apparently find it SOOOO inconceivably hard to catch the essence of my dime analogy and rather keep insisting on ‘misunderstanding’ it as a basis for redressing it in ways that better suit their own take on reality, I will try to get my central point across a little bit differently (although the gist of it all remains exactly the same). And remember now, both this one and the dime analogy are meant as mere abstractions of something real, in order to simplify and thus highlight certain aspects of that something (from the dictionary: “2. the act of considering something in terms of general qualities, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances; 3. an idea or concept formulated in this way”).
Imagine two small parallel blackbody slabs thermally radiating directly at each other across some distance of evacuated space. Their radiation is neatly packaged into distinct quanta of energy called ‘photons’.
Both slabs are dented by 400 tiny hollows, tightly packed and evenly distributed across their surfaces. The bottom slab is warmer than the top one. Every single instant it emits – directly upwards – one photon from each of its 400 hollows, while the top slab does the same, only directly downwards, and – being somewhat cooler – emitting one photon from each of just 350 of its 400 tiny, evenly spaced depressions.
This process is repeated every single successive time unit, so that there’s basically a continuous line of photons making up the fastest-moving queue in the universe stretching all the way from all 400 bottom-slab hollows to all 400 top-slab hollows, and, simultaneously and naturally (they’re photons, after all) occupying the exact same space, an equally continuous line of photons from all top-slab hollows to all bottom-slab hollows, save 50.
What, then, in this situation, happens at each single instant in each single ‘photon hollow’ of both slabs?
# Warmer (bottom) slab first:
In 350 of its 400 emitting hollows, the energy lost through a photon emitted is always synchronously and fully replaced by energy gained through a photon absorbed. These are two separate and opposite processes whose potential (isolated) effects all the time exactly cancel each other out – they play a zero-sum game. The loss of every quantum of energy from the hollow is always perfectly compensated for by the simultaneous gain of another. There is always a photon available to take the place of a lost one.
In other words, the energy (as in ‘energy at any time contained‘) within these hollows remains unchanged from instant to instant, due to the fact that said energy is never really added to or subtracted from, only dynamically (and all the time evenly) exchanged. The full content of hollow energy is never – from one time unit to the next – made up of the exact same individual energy packets. But it is made up of the exact same amount of individual energy packets.
In the last 50 of the 400 emitting hollows, there are no compensating photons coming in from the cooler slab, and so there is only ever a LOSS of energy; no exchange.
THIS is where the warmer slab’s ‘net energy exchange SURPLUS’* is to be found. Only here.
*In the sense that it emits more photons in total per unit time than it absorbs.
# Cooler (top) slab:
For its 350 emitting hollows, the situation is exactly as described for the warmer slab in the first two paragraphs above – a continuous zero-sum exchange of energy.
For its last 50 (non-emitting) hollows, however, the situation is opposite to the one at the warmer slab: There are no compensating photons going out to the warmer slab, and so there is only ever a GAIN of energy, no exchange. And this is consequently where the cooler slab’s ‘net energy exchange DEFICIT’** is to be found.
**In the sense that it emits less photons in total per unit time than it absorbs.
– – –
This was all a QUANTUM MECHANICALLY derived description dressed up as a THERMODYNAMIC process.
All talk of energy exchange, energy coming in and going out, ultimately refers back to QUANTUM principles and models, to the MICROscopic realm. The absorp-tion and emission of photons are intrinsically quantum – hence, NON-thermodynamic – processes.
But, you might ask, isn’t there still clearly a two-way transfer of energy going on in this description?
Well, yes and no. It very much depends on how you view the very concept of an “energy transfer”. On your ‘mental model’. What is the ‘energy’ you’re talking about? Keep in mind, we are all the time referring to photons queuing up. (Also, I have specifically premised that they move in two directions only.) There is nothing MACROscopic about this. The macroscopic aspect comes later.
But do try in your mind to zoom in on each individual hollow. What happens? At each single unit of time, there is just an instantaneous substitution of one energy packet with another, resulting in a non-change in hollow energy. No loss, no gain. Just an exchange. It’s like a magic trick. A snap of the finger and the swop is made. No discernible difference. Everything’s precisely the way it was.
The energy is just constantly THERE. Always available. Always ready to be swopped. A continuous loop or cycle of exchanges always cancelling out potential individual effects, the result always being ‘no change’.
Except for at those surplus/deficit hollows. This is where the energy moves one way and one way only. And THIS is where the entire difference between our two slabs manifests itself. The TEMPERATURE difference. It is the only transfer of energy between the two that will ever be able to CHANGE anything – it drains the hollows of the warmer slab of energy while simultaneously – and in equal measure – filling up the hollows of the cooler one with energy. It SUBTRACTS energy [U] from the warmer and ADDS it to the cooler. Potentially (!) reducing the temperature [T] of the warmer and increasing that of the cooler.
And it is thus the only thermal transfer of energy between the two slabs that we will ever be able to physically detect …
THIS is the macroscopic aspect. The THERMALLY relevant one.
“This is where the energy moves one way and one way only.”
“It is the only transfer of energy between the two that will ever be able to CHANGE anything – it drains the hollows of the warmer slab of energy while simultaneously – and in equal measure – filling up the hollows of the cooler one with energy”
Kristian first writes energy moves one way (incorrect) then writes energy “simultaneously” moves both ways (correct).
Correctly Kristian should have written: This is where the net energy moves one way and one way only.
Ball4
Exactly. I have been pointing this out to Kristian for a long time. He does not accept this and thinks it is a mathematical construct.
It seems all valid science accepts your view. There are multiple flows of energy. There is not just a one way flow of energy. Kristian’s view gets really weird with multiple surfaces at different temperatures.
The view that their are independent energy flows from each surface is the only logical way to view multiple surfaces. You have to add all the inputs from both hot and cold to determine how much energy a surface receives. How much it loses is easy, just its temperature and emissivity but how much is it gaining? I don’t know how Kristian can use his dime analogy to explain multiple surfaces that also require view factors to even attempt to solve the energy balance.
And not so simultaneous when photons are in transit for years, and there is no knowing what they will strike.
norman…”The view that their are independent energy flows from each surface is the only logical way to view multiple surfaces. You have to add all the inputs from both hot and cold to determine how much energy a surface receives”.
Logic has nothing to do with it. It is based on the mechanism in place to convert electromagnetic energy to heat and vice-versa.
For the umpteenth time, heat cannot flow effectively through air, it requires atoms to transfer it. Air will conduct heat but at a very low transfer rate. Heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum as heat, it must first be converted to EM. During the conversion, heat is lost…completely.
There can be no net heat transfer during radiative transfer for the simple reason that heat cannot be transferred (as heat) via radiation. The EM is acting as a proxy for heat but the heat (as thermal energy) was lost at conversion.
Energy is conserved as electromagnetic radiation, which has totally different properties than thermal energy. Upon contact with a cooler mass, that EM is converted back to heat, and energy is once again conserved. There is an apparent transfer of heat through the air but it is only apparent. The actual transfer is a loss of heat at the hotter body and a rise in heat at the cooler body.
That process is irreversible.
So, you are left with EM being radiated by bodies of different temperatures. As you know, with your view angles, only the portions of the other body as seen by the radiating body can be affected by its radiation.
You continue to deny the basis of quantum theory, as proposed by Bohr, then furthered by Schrodinger, that EM can only be absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms. There is no other particle under standard conditions that can emit EM, or absorb it.
There are rules for absorp-tion and emission as laid down by Bohr.
E = hf
The energy and the frequency must match for absorp-tion. You even supplied a movie from the 1960s that explained the effect using the resonance in a spring system. In the movie they explained that the frequency of the energy must match the resonant frequency of the spring in order to be absorbed.
That is a requirement in all resonant systems and the electron orbiting an atom is a resonant system. In order for an electron to absorb energy at a specific temperature and frequency, that energy must match exactly.
The EM from a cooler body lacks the energy and the frequency to affect a resonant system at a higher temperature. That explanation backs the 2nd law and your Net energy balance does not.
NOTE….remove three *** from absorp***tion in the URL before entering in browser.
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/resonance-radiation-absorp
***tion
“For an electron to make a transition from one energy level to a higher one, it needs to absorb a photon who’s energy is equal to the difference in the energy levels involved. When jumping back down, it will emit a photon of that same energy. These discrete energy separations are characteristic of the atom involved, and it’s what provides an atom with its fingerprint line spectrum. Trying to induce a transition with a photon of different energy just doesn’t work”.
Gordon Robertson
You are just becoming an annoying person.
Here: “For the umpteenth time, heat cannot flow effectively through air, it requires atoms to transfer it. Air will conduct heat but at a very low transfer rate. Heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum as heat, it must first be converted to EM. During the conversion, heat is lostcompletely.”
Gordon when did I mention “Heat” in my post? Quit the stupid behavior. I say energy and in your distorted irrational mind you convert it to heat and tell me I am wrong. No, you are the goofball by doing this over an over. Why do you need to be annoying like that?
This one YOU: “You continue to deny the basis of quantum theory, as proposed by Bohr, then furthered by Schrodinger, that EM can only be absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms. There is no other particle under standard conditions that can emit EM, or absorb it.”
Since you made this claim I am throwing out the BS flag. Prove that either Bohr or Schrodinger made the claim that EM can only be absorbed and emitted by electrons in a atom. If you do not provide any proof of your statement than kindly shut up please!
If you knew even a tiny fraction of Chemistry (which you don’t and it seems never will) you would know there is a whole branch of IR spectrometry that can identify functional groups in molecules and help identify the molecule.
https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm
Again: “Photon energies associated with this part of the infrared (from 1 to 15 kcal/mole) are not large enough to excite electrons, but may induce vibrational excitation of covalently bonded atoms and groups.”
I can lead you to the correct physics but I can’t make you understand what you are reading.
A whole branch of Chemistry that is used, works and is well understood and you like a blathering fool deny it all based upon your incredible poor logic and reasoning skills.
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum as heat, it must first be converted to EM.
You have this exactly backwards.
EM energy is a *form* of heat (transfer).
Conduction is another form of heat transfer.
So is convection.
So is any kind of radiation, EM or otherwise.
norman….”Gordon when did I mention “Heat” in my post? Quit the stupid behavior. I say energy and in your distorted irrational mind you convert it to heat and tell me I am wrong”.
***
Using the word ‘energy’ in a generic sense is ingenuous and an example of how alarmists try to bypass the 2nd law using smoke and mirrors.
With radiative transfer of heat there are two distinct conversions of energy, thermal – EM – thermal. In the first conversion, the quantity of heat converted is lost completely, and in the second, EM disappears completely.
You cannot lump those two forms of energy, Heat and EM, and call them a generic energy.
They don’t even have the same units. Heat is measured in calories and EM in electron volts. Therefore to convert each to your favoured unit, the joule, which is the mechanical (work) equivalent of heat and EM, you have to do some fancy converting.
While converting, you have to keep in mind that heat can be transferred in one direction only, hot to cold, without compensation. Therefore, if EM, is going to act as a proxy to transfer heat between bodies of different temperatures, it must do so under the restrictions of the 2nd law.
That means EM can only support heat transfer in one direction, hot to cold.
I have laid out the quantum theory underlying that claim and it supports the 2nd law. Your generic energy claim does not.
That’s because in the text books from which you ‘try’ to glean an understanding of the process, they offer a vague set of equations that can apply only at thermal equilibrium. They have stuck you with the notion of view angle without supplying actual examples of what it means in a practical sense.
Anyone presenting a radiation equation in which EM is absorbed both ways between bodies of different temperatures is presenting a fantasy based on a misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
S-B said nothing about EM flowing both ways between bodies of different temperatures but the equations presented for beginners in your textbook does. The S-B equation is based on the work of Stefan, who used data from an experiment by Tyndall in which an electrically-heated platinum filament wire was heated till it glowed in visible colours.
THE S-B equation is based on a one-way transfer of heat from the filament wire to its surroundings, thus T1 and T2 in the equation of S-B. The original by Stefan only had the temperature of the emitting body.
Your textbook is wrong!!!
The equation in which it shows a two-way transfer of EM is wrong when applied outside of thermal equilibrium. When applied to bodies of different temperatures, it must be applied as a one-way transfer from hot to cold.
As proof that it is wrong, try to find a practical example in the examples they offer of an application of the two-way EM transfer and you cannot. In the real world, it does not happen that way.
In your textbook, whenever they use radiation in a practical example it is always as part of a system where heat is being transferred hot to cold.
Gordon Roberton wrote:
There can be no net heat transfer during radiative transfer for the simple reason that heat cannot be transferred (as heat) via radiation.
Idiotic.
Why does your face get warm when you turn it to the sun?
The EM is acting as a proxy for heat but the heat (as thermal energy) was lost at conversion.
You have this exactly backwards.
“Heat” is simply a generic term for whatever energy is being transferred — EM, convection, conduction, etc.
Gordon Robertson says:
They dont even have the same units. Heat is measured in calories and EM in electron volts.
Wrong.
You’re talking about the *energy* in EM radiation. Its MKS unit is joules. A calorie is proportional to a joule.
And EM fields aren’t measured in eV, they’re measured in volts/meter or newtons/coulomb.
An electron-volt is a unit of energy, equivalent to tiny number of joules — equal to the numerical value of the electron charge in coulombs.
David, please stop trolling.
ball4…”Kristian first writes energy moves one way (incorrect)…”
Can you give an example of energy that does not move one way, from a region of higher potential energy to a region of lower potential energy? Other than at thermal equilibrium?
The mechanical energy related to water only flows from a higher gravitational potential to a lower GP unless you force it in the other direction using a pump. Bolders only fall down the way unless you supply some kind of lift to raise them to a higher potential level.
Electrical current only flows from a higher potential to a lower potential. Heat can only be transferred from a higher potential to a lower potential.
What you are talking about wrt a NET energy transfer is fictitious. It contradicts the meaning of entropy which is based on energy always flowing from a higher potential to a lower potential. That’s because it is designed to address irreversible processes and most processes in the universe are irreversible.
Gordon, ALL real processes are irreversible since universe entropy always increases in such processes.
ball4…”ALL real processes are irreversible since universe entropy always increases in such processes”.
Entropy is an integral. As defined by Clausius, it is the sum of infinitesimal transfers of heat in process.
Clausius did not claim that entropy could increase, he only claimed it is positive for irreversible processes and zero for reversible processes.
You can have different levels of entropy depending on the summation of the heat transferred. I think they use entropies in chemistry as such to predict chemical reactions as well as the degree of the reaction.
..and zero for reversible thought processes – for example those without friction.
“Entropy is an integral. As defined by Clausius, it is the sum of infinitesimal transfers of heat in process.”
No the CHANGE in entropy is defined as the sum of infinitesimal bit of Q/T. The heat AND the temperature matter.
Gordon Robertson says:
Entropy is an integral.
Only in certain simple examples. Entropy can be defined far more broadly than your old-fashioned heat engines:
S=k*ln(W), where W is the number of equally probable microstates (this equation is on Boltzmann’s tombstone).
S=k*(sum over i)pi*ln(pi)
where pi is the probability a microstate will be occupied.
T*dS = dU + p*dV
for any thermodynamic system.
For an ideal gas
Here’s the entropy of an ideal gas, which is not an integral:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas#Entropy
For a black hole:
S = (k/4)(A/lp^2)
where A is the area of the event horizon and lp is the Planck Length.
ball4…”Gordon, ALL real processes are irreversible since universe entropy always increases in such processes”.
*********
To find a universal entropy you’d have to sum the bazillions of infinitesimal transfer of heat in the bazillions of processes involving irreversible heat transfer. You would also have to isolate each T at which the infinitesimal heat transfers occurred.
In other words, it can’t be done.
Entropy = S = integral dQ/T.
The usage of entropy today ranges from scientists to philosophers. I dare say, most of them apply it incorrectly due to a misinterpretation, or a complete misunderstanding, of what Clausius intended when he developed the theory.
Entropy is about heat and nothing else. Clausius intended it as a mathematical proof of the 2nd law, which he stated in words along the lines of ‘heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body’.
That is the true meaning of entropy, the notion of universal disorder was an aside added by Clausius. He did point out that most processes are irreversible, therefore entropy should be ‘positive’, as opposed to zero for a reversible process. In that sense, entropy indicates chemical reactions are causing mass (atoms) to break apart as heat is emitted.
No one has ever proved those same atoms cannot bind together again to form new products.
When you burn a piece of coal to produce heat, you cannot reverse the process and turn heat back into coal.
That is entropy. It is a vague and generalized observation of the 2nd law. So vague, that thousands of people have become frustrated trying to understand it and have resorted to redefining it incorrectly. Some have even redefined it to disqualify the 2nd law.
The philosophy of a tendency toward universal disorder is a purely academic philosophy aimed at titillating academic minds. There is no way to prove it other than going through the exercise I outlined above.
It is an assumption at this stage, like the Big Bang, black holes, evolution theory, and time dilation. All are philosophical theories that have never been proved based on the science we know.
I am not claiming the philosophy is wrong, I am simply claiming it cannot be proved.
Gordon wrote:
Entropy is about heat and nothing else.
Gordon, this is another example of spouting off where you clearly know nothing. Which is why I (and others here) call you an idiot.
Care to explain why Boltzmann put S=k*ln(W) on this tombstone? Where is the reference to heat?
tim…”Entropy is an integral. As defined by Clausius, it is the sum of infinitesimal transfers of heat in process.
No the CHANGE in entropy is defined as the sum of infinitesimal bit of Q/T. The heat AND the temperature matter”.
**********
Tim…you are stating almost exactly what I am saying. However, you are not acknowledging that temperature is a MEASURE of heat.
Clausius covered that by suggesting a heat bath of constant temperature from which the dQ could be extracted. With T constant, entropy becomes S = T (integral) dQ.
If you try to separate temperature from heat, you’ll get a headache. Temperature is an invention of the human mind based on the amount of heat in water at the freezing point compared to the amount of heat at the boiling point.
Depending on the scale used, that interval is divided into 100 for Celsius and 180 for Fahernheit. In the Fahrenheit scale they arbitrarily assigned 32F as the freezing point of water.
The absolute scale is based on the centigrade scale as a lower extension.
I am aware of the statistical mechanics definition of temperature but you have to understand they did not pull that out of thin air. No one sat down with a statistical examination of atoms and drew forth that definition. They already had temperature defined as 0C for the freezing point of water and 100C for the boiling point.
By claiming temperature as the average kinetic energy of atoms in a gas, they were applying a known relationship between the heat of atoms/molecules in a gas and the kinetic energy.
As proof of that, how do they measure the temperature of a gas? Is it not with the same thermometer developed from the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water?
That thermometer is measuring the relative levels of heat in the gas. Heat can be related to kinetic energy through the thermal equivalent of work. Look up the Joule (the scientist) relationship between work and heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
It is an assumption at this stage, like the Big Bang, black holes, evolution theory, and time dilation. All are philosophical theories that have never been proved based on the science we know.
What you mean here is that you’re unwilling to go learn the evidence for these ideas, which all have a great deal of scientific evidence supporting them.
I suspect you prefer to remain ignorant so you can continue to pretend you’re right about everything and the entire world is wrong. It’s an ego thing, and your’s is very fragile.
“you are not acknowledging that temperature is a MEASURE of heat.”
If so, why put both in the equation? Why dS = T dQ? Clearly Clausius thought them enough different to include both independently in the equation.
Now, if you wanted to say that T is *related* to *U*, I could get behind that. Or I would be cool with T is proportional to U for an ideal monatomic gas. But in general, there is a complicated relationship between U & T. But T of a system & Q to/from the system have only a vague functional relationship. For a system at a given temperature, Q could be positive, negative, or zero.
“Entropy = S = integral dQ/T.”
Well, sort of. *IF* you could integrate the heat required to bring a system from absolute zero to the desired state, then you could calculate the entropy of that system in that state with this integral. In practice no one does this
Tim, please stop trolling.
“Since Folkerts et al. apparently find it SOOOO inconceivably hard to catch the essence of my dime analogy”
No. I do catch the essence. I simple disagree with one or more fundamental aspects of your analogy.
As an “average” sort of description, your analogy works well enough. It is a fine description of the overall transfer of energy. It is consistent with the 2nd Law on a macroscopic, thermodynamic level.
But it is inadequate to describe the quantum processes, which are always random! All 400 hollows in one sheet don’t simultaneously emit one photon each. 350 of the 400 hollows don’t at that exact same instant absorb a photon from the other side. It is wrong to say:
“The energy is just constantly THERE. Always available. Always ready to be swopped. A continuous loop or cycle of exchanges always cancelling out potential individual effects, the result always being ‘no change’.”
For “instantaeous” descriptions, you should say something like:
“There are 4000 hollows on one side that each have a 10% chance of emitting a photon; meanwhile there are 4000 hollows on the other side that each have a 8.75% chance of emitting a photon”
or
“There are 100 hollows on one side that randomly emit 0-8 photons in a giving time interval; meanwhile there 88 hollows on the other side that also randomly emit 0-8 photons”
or
“There are 100 hollows on one side that randomly emit 0-8 photons in a giving time interval; meanwhile there 100 hollows on the other side that randomly emit 0-7 photons”
Any of these would MUCH better describe the quantum level. Any of these capture the random nature of the quantum level. Any of these show that, at any given time, any given hollow might have several extra units of energy, or could be deficient several units of energy.
There is no subset of the hollows that just ‘cancel each other out perfectly at every instant. There is not a ‘chain of photons’ where each photon is perfectly and simultaneously matched with some other photon going the opposite way to cancel the energy flow. This is NOT the ‘essence’ of the quantum mechanical exchanges.
Tim Folkerts
Thanks for your good explanation of quantum reality.
I would still disagree with Kristian on any one way flow of energy. Real experience would suggest this is not the case since we can see individual items regardless of the other energy flows around them.
This is the Christmas time. If you have a tree up with lights you see all the lights as individuals. It does not matter is some are brighter, different colors or you have burned out ones. You still see Macroscopic flows of energy from each source.
If you look around you see reflected light from each source. His idea of a one-way macroscopic flow of energy does not seem at all likely in any real sense.
If you can see lights emitting their own energy not at all dependent upon any other light, why would it logically follow that the IR EMR works totally different?
Objects emit their own energy and it flows away from the object. They can receive energy from any outside object in their field of vies. Totally distinct and separate flows that have no bearing on each other. The 390 watts/m^2 emitted by the surface is its own unique flow of energy. It does not matter how much the surface absorbs, they are not connected. You can’t say the Earth is only emitting 50 W/m^2 because it receives 340 from the atmosphere. It emits 390 if the atmosphere emits 340 to it or none. The 390 is based upon the surface temperature of the Earth and its emissivity. It will emit this amount until the temperature of the surface changes. I have not read one textbook on heat transfer that supports Kristian’s views. I have asked him several times for support of his notion, but he does not provide.
You maybe can link me to a textbook that states the energy emitted by a surface depends upon how much energy it absorbs. I have not seen this anywhere yet. I side with Ball4 on this topic. Do you have textbook support where the emission of a surface goes down when you move a heated object in it view so instead of radiating 390 watt/m^2 the new object lowers the emission to 50 watt/m^2. It might be out there, I would like to read it. Kristian is zero no supplying this information.
Norman wrote:
Do you have textbook support where the emission of a surface goes down when you move a heated object in it view
Excellent question. I’d also like to read that response.
Norman, I am not quite sure what you are asking for when you say “You maybe can link me to a textbook that states the energy emitted by a surface depends upon how much energy it absorbs.”.
Certainly, the NET (macroscopic) radiant energy flow of a surface depends on the temperature of the surroundings. If the surroundings are warmer, the net flow will be into the surface; if the surrounding are cooler, the net flow will be out from the surface.
Just as certainly, if you want just the outflow of photons from a surface, that depends only on the temperature (and emisivity) of the surface. You can calculate the energy outflow from the surface, then calculate the energy inflow from all directions to get the net flow; that will give your the net flow.
Tim Folkerts
Thanks for the reply. Yes the NET radiant flow is totally dependent upon the surroundings. My point the emission rate of a surface does not change. From reading Kristian’s posts it sounds as if he is making the claim that the emission rate of a surface is actually controlled by the temperature of surrounding objects. It seems as if you claims the Earth’s surface does not radiate an average of 390 W/m^2 but rather radiates only 50 W/m^2.
I was wanting to know if any textbook made a claim that actual energy flows are only one way, that there is not a NET flow but just a one way flow from hot to cold. All the textbooks on heat transfer I have read make it quite clear that energy is flowing in both directions and it is macroscopic in both directions (watts/m^2). The surface emission is not affected by any energy flows it is receiving, if a surface is 100 C it will emit the same amount of energy regardless of any other surfaces around it. If you have a surface nearby at 300 C it will not alter the amount of energy the 100 C emits. If a surface is 0 C it also will not alter the amount of energy the 100 C surface emits.
The only effect the surroundings have on the emission of the 100 C surface is a secondary one. Each will add some amount of energy to the 100 C surface. A colder surface will add less than a hotter one. This energy can change the temperature of the 100 C plate and then the emission will change based upon the the changed surface temperature.
Norman, please stop trolling.
K”Even if photons are individually ‘transferred’ or ‘added’ also from molecules IN a cold object to molecules IN a hot object, this MICRO reality does not and cannot in itself translate directly into a MACRO reality where a thermal power density flux (W/m^2) is ‘transferred’ or ‘added’ from the cold object in full to the hot object in full. Physical reality doesnt work that way.”
This is just a weird assertion. And it is FALSE. The individual molecules or photons could, in theory, be summed to find the net flux.
Energy fluctuations are a key feature in stat mech and in real objects.
“Thermodynamic variables, such as pressure, temperature, or entropy, likewise undergo thermal fluctuations. For example, for a system that has an equilibrium pressure, the system pressure fluctuates to some extent about the equilibrium value.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_fluctuations
Yet fluctuations don’t appear to be allowed in your story of the divits above. It is missing this key property.
Nor does your story deal with the issue that professionals and educators disagree with you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-331117
Nate, please stop trolling.
Brad Keyes delivers an anti-tribute to the one and only David Appell at Climate Scepticism:
https://cliscep.com/2018/11/27/lappell-du-vide/
Congratulations, David, on achieving such status of infamy.
chic…re your link that lambastes, Appell and Oreskes, both deservedly so, I gleaned this:
“Ad hominem: your argument is false because you are an idiot.
Not ad hominem: your argument is false because of A, B, C, D, E, F, G and, oh by the way, you are an idiot”.
I have tried to explain that to Bindidon and others here, like Appell.
The best quote from Oreskes, IMHO, is the one in which she claims science by consensus is a valid form of science. I am still trying to find a reference to consensus in the scientific method. Perhaps that is stated in an alarmist revision.
Of Appell, the author claims:
“If only you knew how you sound to a scientifically-literate person!”.
Robertson
“I have tried to explain that to Bindidon and others here, like Appell.”
1. Don’t name me together with Appell, Robertson!
2. No, Robeertson: you never tried to explain anything to me.
What is true is that you deliberately misinterpret, discredit and denigrate all what I write and show here, especially correctly designed graphs based on either original data or data I have to generate by my own, as it is nowhere avalilable.
What is true as well is that you denigrate me because you are absolutely unable to do the same job.
I do not know here even one other commenter behaving as ignorant as you do concerning such elementary stuff as time series, reference periods and anomalies.
*
And no one would here, like you do, allow her/himself to write such incredibly arrogant shit like this:
“Astronomers, no matter how clever, lack the in-depth understanding of kinematics acquired by engineers.”
Your are such a zero, Robertson!
Agreed, except you can name me together with Appell.
And I think Naomi Oreskes is great:
https://tinyurl.com/ycyxou3l
The problem with Appell is that he will not let any falsehoods stand. This place is full of them so he has to be very quick, and sometimes he’s a bit too quick.
Svante appears to be coming out of the closet.
Yes, I’m not a good republican, I speak up like Jeff Flake:
https://tinyurl.com/yb4g8gdn
And, like Flake, you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
Svante says:
The problem with Appell is that he will not let any falsehoods stand. This place is full of them so he has to be very quick, and sometimes hes a bit too quick.
I’d rather be too quick instead of, like many here, too slow to even notice the falsehoods.
I appreciate that.
Gross.
The worst thing about David is that he is correct, and he provides scientific evidence.
Ewww.
Yeah, science is icky…
Yeah, it can tell you facts you don’t want to hear.
Your fawning over David is what is so grotesque.
There are many top notch commentators here, for example barry, Tim Folkerts and Nate.
The fawning just gets worse and worse…
The only science based non-AGW commentator is Kristian. Phi had a question about proxy records that I haven’t checked yet. Did I miss anyone?
You missed the only point I was making, which was just that your fawning over various commenters is kind of gross. So, not being able to argue against that, you try to change the subject.
binny…”Your are such a zero, Robertson”!
*****
That would be Mr. Zero to you.
Do you have a sense of humour at all? Or are you a stereotypical Teuton sitting dourly by the fireside with a saber wound on your cheek?
*******
“…you deliberately misinterpret, discredit and denigrate all what I write and show here…”
It’s not deliberate, I don’t await your every post, itching to pounce. I am a skeptic and I support the philosophy of Roy, the blog owner.
I just find what you write and show to be a misrepresentation of science and an assault on skeptics. You base it largely on a fudged database of NOAA and you refuse to acknowledge any evidence provided to that effect, even when NOAA admits it right on their website.
I don’t hate you, if that’s what you’re thinking. I simply disagree with you to the extent that I feel compelled to attack the assumptions you make about science.
What’s the evidence N.O.A.A. “fudges” data?
And don’t give that old argument that Barry has disproved many times.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Or are you a stereotypical Teuton”?
He’s French.
“That would be Mr. Zero to you.”
Good one!
Svante, please stop trolling.
Gordon, it gets tiring correcting all of your many elementary errors.
In fact, almost *everything* you write here is wrong. Many others here recognize that too.
At some point it suffices to note that instead of correcting you yet again on the same think you were corrected on a few months ago.
If you don’t want to be called an idiot, don’t consistently act like one.
Gordon,
Do to his notoriety on this blog, I thought Appell deserved a toast to his infamy. However, I fail to see why you would dishonor Bindidon by associating him with Appell. He has not been anywhere near as offensive, IMO.
I would like to be known for treating everyone here with respect, even while disagreeing with them on the science. There are some I probably owe a few apologies. I draw the line at Appell.
When you can prove me wrong about anything, let me know.
DA, when you can prove you’re right about anything, let us know.
I’m glad “troll” isn’t my highest level of achievement.
It’s good to dream, DA….
chic…”I fail to see why you would dishonor Bindidon by associating him with Appell”.
********
I did not try to relate binny directly to DA, I merely pointed out that the quote from your link re idiots and ad homs had been pointed out to both by me. Although I occasionally resort to ad homs, I try to justify them by offering facts to support them.
I have called binny an idiot on occasion for his steadfastness in appealing to authority, such as NOAA. He replied with an ad hom recently against someone who had submitted an ‘essay’ to WUWT. He failed to comment on his reasons for denigrating the author, based on the author’s essay, he simply dismissed the article since it was posted by Heartland.
Heartland posts lots of good science from good scientists. They likely have a right wing bias and offer articles favouring skepticism. That does not mean the articles themselves are wrong.
I will give binny credit for steering away from comments on most science. He tends to stick to statistical analysis of trends, etc., even though I regard his understanding of statistics to be lacking. Binny seems to think number crunching has value without the context from which the data was derived.
DA jumps in with both feet into topics for which he has not the slightest background.
Name one scientific paper the Heartland Institute has ever published in a legitimate scientific journal. When has anyone there ever defended such a paper at a real scientific journal?
should be …at a real scientific conference.
Mike Flynn uses ad hominems with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek. It’s his shtick. OTOH, when Appell uses them, there’s nothing humorous about it. He tears people down to elevate himself. Major fail.
The problem with MF is he repeatedly posts the same BS strawmen over and over and over and over-to the point that it becomes background noise.
His signal/noise ratio approaches 0. And his humor/noise ratio is extremely low.
Nate, please stop trolling.
That’s the way to deal with a person like him, A few proverbial kicks in the head in lieu of the debate, which would only turn into did too did not idiotic circular argument anyway
Who is Brad Keyes?
(I couldn’t care less.)
If his words were arrows, you’d be ded meat.
I’m confident enough in my education and knowledge not to care what some random Internet dude thinks of me.
Translation: DA is so insecure that he must infest blogs in an ongoing, yet fruitless, attempt to gain any credibility.
Just wondering how ren’s “permanent La Nina” is progressing?
Maybe like this?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
ren’s claim is not faring well; we’re entering an El Nino:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
David, please stop trolling.
I don’t know what systems exist in other countries, but here in the UK a university’s research grant allowance for a particular field of study is based on the number of research papers in that field are published: e.g. if University A publishes 150 papers on high temperature superconductors , whilst University B publishes 200 papers on the same subject then University B will receive more money than University A for this particular field of study. If a research establishment is examining alternative mechanisms for climate change that may increase/decrease the effects of anthropogenic CO2 and they can’t get many (valid) papers published then they will receive little or no funding the next year, therefore there is absolutely no incentive to undertake research outside of the accepted narrative.
It is not only in climate science that the peer review system is flawed. Another example is the role of cholesterol in cardiovascular disease and the subsequent use of statins.
“It is not only in climate science that the peer review system is flawed. Another example is the role of cholesterol in cardiovascular disease and the subsequent use of statins.”
I agree!
John,
Can you recommend a good review article on statins and the need to lower cholesterol? My cholesterol ranges from 180 to 220 without atorvastatin and goes down to 130 to 160 or so when taking it. I noticed a correlation between LDL and total cholesterol, which is nice because I get a cholesterol reading when I donate blood.
How scientifically supportable are recommendations to have low LDL and triglycerides?
Gordon gives free medical and scientific advice here, from aspirin self medication to the folly of Einstein.
svante…”Gordon gives free medical and scientific advice here, from aspirin self medication to the folly of Einstein”.
Not so, Gordon merely passes on science that makes sense to him.
Svante, on the other hand, sits on the fence getting a sore butt.
Gordon’s qualifications to ascertain what science “makes sense” is minimal at best, as he demonstrates here daily.
Gordon, I got off the fence:
https://tinyurl.com/y7bvu83y
Svante, please stop trolling.
chic…”Can you recommend a good review article on statins and the need to lower cholesterol? My cholesterol ranges from 180 to 220 without atorvastatin and goes down to 130 to 160 or so when taking it”.
******
I am offering the following info FYI. You need to research it yourself, obviously, and reach your own conclusions.
Linus Pauling revealed the secret of heart disease shortly before his death. He and a colleague, Matthias Rath, discovered that the cause of heart disease is related to what he called sub-clinical levels of vitamin C, which allow arteries to break down over time and leak. In an attempt to stem the leakage, the body fills the holes with fats, like lipoprotein A. The scab tends to work it’s way into the blood stream attracting other fats.
Rath discovered that the basis of plaques that cause blockages are lysil deposits. Pauling, being one of the greatest experts in chemistry of all time immediately put it together, claiming the amino acid lysine would dissolve the lysil deposits, clearing the arteries.
That formula is now called the Pauling formula and it is basically 3 grams of vitamin C daily, to rebuild the arteries, and 3 grams Lysine daily to clear the deposits in the arteries.
I was using that formula for some time and I go back on it from time to time, even though my cholesterol is fine and I am not at risk for heart disease. After a blood test, in which my doctor was reviewing the result, he asked upon seeing my cholesterol level if I was taking statins.
I told him no, and he seemed astounded. He claimed my cholesterol levels were even lower than someone taking statins.
I should point out that I am a vegetarian who uses dairy products and I exercise a lot.
Of course, this discovery will remain hidden to most as the medical profession dinosaur works through decades of its popular paradigms.
More info:
look on this site for info and testimonials regarding the Pauling formula.
https://www.vitamincfoundation.org/voice/
The following is the site of Mathias Rath who did the work at Pauling’s lab. For whatever, reason, Rath seems to think he did it all by himself and seldom gives Pauling credit.
These are just pointers, you’ll have to dig for your information.
https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/cellular-medicine/
I might point out on behalf of Rath, that pharmaceutical companies tried to have him banned from distributing the information on vitamins he provides. His case was heard in Hamburg, in his native Germany, and the judge ruled in his favour. He commented that Rath seemed to be doing good scientific research.
No one believes Pauling’s vitamin C claims/crap.
Except people who think, but cannot prove, that Einstein was wrong.
Some people will believe anything if it’s what they want to hear.
DA…”No one believes Paulings vitamin C claims/crap”.
Once again, DA weighs in on a topic and an esteemed scientist, neither of which he has the slightest clue.
The recommended daily allowance of vitamin C recommended by the government is adequate for preventing hard core scurvy, it does nothing for sub-clinical scurvy. In other words, many people receiving only the RDA could be experiencing symptoms of scurvy.
Smoking uses up vitamin C. C is used as an antioxidant to combat the ingestion of smoking products. I knew a heavy smoker whose gums bled continually for no apparent reason. Bleeding, swollen gums, for no apparent reason, can be an indication of sub-clinical scurvy.
Besides it’s role as an anti-oxidant, C is involved twice in the formation of muscle. It is required for the formation of collagen, a glue that sticks cells together. C is involved in many bodily functions.
The RDA is 75 mg/day, or 0.075 grams. A 150 pounds goat makes 12 grams/day naturally. Why is it presumed that humans can get by with 160 times less C per day?
Pauling was one of the smartest scientists who ever lived. He introduced quantum theory to chemistry and wrote the definitive guide on the covalent bond. He was recruited by the US government to study medical issues like sickle-cell anemia and other ailments.
He was a world authority on chemical bonding and structure. He was consulted by Watson and Crick after they discovered the shape of the DNA molecule because they had no idea what it meant.
And here you are, a complete raving idiot, who thinks IR radiation from the Earth can raise the temperature of the Sun, claiming the work of Pauling is crap.
You would not know your butt from a hole in the ground.
Pauling (born in Oregon) was a great scientist and humanitarian, but sadly a quack w.r.t. vitamin C.
—
“…the evidence that vitamin C could help human cancer patients is still thin.”
Mega-dose vitamin C as therapy for human cancer?
Piet Borst
PNAS December 2, 2008 105 (48) E95; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809328105
—
“Evidence from most randomized clinical trials suggests that vitamin C supplementation, usually in combination with other micronutrients, does not affect cancer risk.”
US NIH
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-HealthProfessional/
That’s interesting, Gordon. I recall news about Pauling and VitC but never read the literature. I do take mega VitC when I sense that frog in my throat and it never fails to head off a cold or worse.
BTW, if you are vegetarian, then how do you know your diet isn’t responsible for your cholesterol rather than the Pauling formula?
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick is a GP here in the UK and has written several books, including the Great CHolesterol Con, he also has his own blog.
There’s also Ben Goldacre who wrote ‘Bad Science’ and ‘Bad Pharma’, he has a new book out early 2019 ‘Do Statins Work?’
Thank you for that, John. I’ll look into the former and look forward to the latter.
John Collis says:
if University A publishes 150 papers on high temperature superconductors , whilst University B publishes 200 papers on the same subject then University B will receive more money than University A for this particular field of study.
I doubt that. What’s the evidence for your claim?
From a family member who works in our local university.
Pardon me if I reject such anecdotal hearsay.
David, please stop trolling.
John…”It is not only in climate science that the peer review system is flawed. Another example is the role of cholesterol in cardiovascular disease and the subsequent use of statins”.
*****
I have read accounts from two physicians who have stopped taking statins due to the horrendous effects they have on the body.
The basis of statins as a cholesterol lowering drug is based on the Framington study of the 1950s. Ten years after the study, some of the authors had abandoned the theory, however, the paradigm has persisted even though there is no evidence that cholesterol causes heart disease.
Another peer review failure is related to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It still has not been proved, they have not even proved that HIV exists, but that does not stop them targeting this invisible virus with deadly poisonous antiviral drugs.
The scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, has recently come out and claimed HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The data backs him. In North America, only a tiny fraction (a small fraction of 1%) of the population test HIV positive and the same applies to deaths from AIDS. Most North Americans, of course, have healthy immune systems.
There are papers passing peer review claiming the deadly poisonous HAART antiviral drugs are responsible for controlling HIV, yet the drug companies deny that in their literature. They all claim the drugs do not cure HIV. They do point out that the drugs can produce AIDS-like symptoms in the victims, called IRS, and that the drugs can cause kidney and liver failure and mess with blood itself.
In an interview, Montagnier claimed he and his team did not isolate HIV, purify it, or even see it using an electron microscope. They presumed its existence based on strands of RNA they found in a soup of cells taken from a person with AIDS. Other scientists have pointed out the obvious, that those cells could have been a product of other infections picked up by that person.
One of his team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the panel from the Louis Pasteur Institute that set the guidelines for identifying a virus. She completely ignored the guidelines she had helped set in place for identifying a virus as part of the team ‘presuming’ HIV’s identity based on RNA strands.
Dr. Peter Duesberg, claimed more than 30 years ago that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. He claimed a virus cannot behave as claimed for HIV. He is a renowned microbiologist who specializes in retroviruses. For his efforts, he has been ostracized by the medical community and has effectively lost his ability to do research.
In an interview, he pointed out that those colleagues who agree with the theory are driving BMWs. I presume that’s a shot at the bottomless pit of funding from which they draw for being butt-kissers to the hypothesis.
It’s a serious shame that a lot of science is now being run by money-grubbing charlatans. Many of them are also in control of peer review.
Duesberg is wrong. I wonder how many deaths he has caused from people taking his advice. More or less than Andrew Wakefield?
DA…”Duesberg is wrong. I wonder how many deaths he has caused from people taking his advice. More or less than Andrew Wakefield?”
Coming from you, with your ineptness in science, that is an indication that Duesberg is right.
He won the California Scientist of the Year award at one time and he was the youngest scientist inducted into the National Academy of Science in his time.
Duesberg talks absolute sense. There is no known virus that can lay dormant in the human cells for 15 years then suddenly, for no apparent reason, destroy the immune system.
Duesberg was right on another matter as well. He claimed the administration of toxic antivirals like AZT, which was banned as a chemotherapy agent due to its toxicity, was akin to ‘AIDS by prescrip-tion’. He knew these drugs could cause AIDS.
The drug companies who release these toxic chemical now agree, they call it IRS, a drug-induced form of AIDS.
Viral alarmists have argued that since the use of HAART antivirals was introduced in the 1990s, the number of deaths by AIDS has decreased. They don’t tell you the CD-C has reclassified AIDS deaths by excluding AIDS deaths due to the drugs. AIDS deaths have not decreased, they have simply been manipulated using devious statistical means.
The idiots behind the HIV/AIDS myth are as stupid and inept as their alarmist counterparts in climate science.
Gordon, no matter what awards Duesberg has won, he is wrong on the science.
Only cranks like you believe him, based on no scientific knowledge or acumen all all.
He’s a very dangerous man, as dangerous as Andrew Wakefield. And you’re partly responsible for this harm, for spreading his views without analyzing his science.
DA…”no matter what awards Duesberg has won, he is wrong on the science”.
I am waiting for your evidence.
Gordon, what’s the evidence Duesberg is right?
(That’s the way science works.)
Duesberg is an embarrassment to himself and is shunned by the scientific community. A sad example, like Ivar Giaever and Andrew Wakefield, of a scientist gone wrong.
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
As proof that it is wrong, try to find a practical example in the examples they offer of an application of the two-way EM transfer and you cannot.
It happens everywhere, constantly.
The emission of a blackbody per the Planck Law does not depend on the temperature of what else is out there and in what direction.
Molecular ab.sorp.tion does not depend on the temperature of where the radiation came from.
Radiation from the Earth that travel to the Sun is ab.sor.bed by the Sun, and you can cite no physical law that prevents it.
A spaceship, colder than the Sun, is ab.sorb.ed if it heads into the Sun — it doesn’t bounce away or travel straight through it.
Wrong again, DA.
The Sun does not absorb IR. If you insist on believing such nonsense, just try to warm your supper in your freezer.
Your supper absorbs IR in the freezer. That hardly means it thaws.
Reality sets in for physics-deficient DA.
Instead of ever more snark, explain why I’m wrong.
It’s called “2LoT”. A “cold” can NOT warm a “hot”. Earth can NOT warm the Sun. And, as you had to admit, you cannot warm your supper in the freezer.
Learn some physics. (No snark intended.)
Yet another denier who does not understand the 2LOT.
At this point it’s just sad.
DA wants me to explain why he can’t warm his supper in the freezer. So, I mention 2LoT. Then DA claims it is me that does not understand 2LoT!
You just can’t make this stuff up….
Someone with a minor in physics would understand the second law of thermodynamics.
Unfortunately that’s not JD.
Here is the Clausius version
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
When heat does pass from cold to hot, as it sometimes does, there is always another change happening, for example the transfer from hot to cold between the same two bodies.
Now be a good little clown and study some physics.
That minor and your mom’s rent are waiting.
Wow bob, you actually believe the “change” Rudolf was referring to was the flux from the colder object?
That’s funny, but terribly incorrect.
More humor, please.
I didn’t mention any flux, did I schoolboy?
How do you know what Clausius was referring to?
You seem to be terribly misinformed.
Here bob, you can argue with your own words:
“When heat does pass from cold to hot, as it sometimes does, there is always another change happening, for example the transfer from hot to cold between the same two bodies.”
You have no clue about 2LoT.
JDHuffman
Not quite right.
YOU MAKE THIS CLAIM about another poster: “You have no clue about 2LoT.”
The correct wording should be I, JDHuffman, have no clue about the 2LoT or any other physics law. I, JDHuffman, just like to pretend I know what I am talking about.
If you say it like that you will be more accurate. I am taking Ball4’s advice with your continued posting. I can just laugh at your nonsense. It is funny that you think you know what you are talking about. Keep up the entertainment!
Norman, you are as pathetic as you are desperate.
Nothing new.
bobd…”Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
When heat does pass from cold to hot, as it sometimes does, there is always another change happening, for example the transfer from hot to cold between the same two bodies”.
****
Clausius called the ‘other change’ compensation. Your second paragraph is a reference to compensation.
We know heat can be transferred cold to hot if we apply external energy to drive a compressor to compress a gas to a high pressure, liquefied state from which heat can be vented to the atmosphere.
When the HP gas is aerated and converted to a low pressure gas, it absorbs heat from the cold chamber.
Where do you see any such apparatus in the atmosphere? Or, between the Earth and the Sun?
The brilliance of Clausius is that he predicted all that without having electricity, compressors, etc.
DA…”Instead of ever more snark, explain why Im wrong”.
JD just told you, the 2nd law.
Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
And as Gordon has been repeatedly informed, the later work of Maxwell-Boltzmann improved Clausius statement into: Statistically, heat CAN be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body fully in accord with Clausius’ written 2LOT and written defn. of heat.
Gordon has never learned to appreciate this further work in the field of thermodynamics. And, I predict, will not ever bother to understand.
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
Still wrong.
NET heat cannot. Heat transfers from cold to hot everywhere throughout the universe.
Some of the IR emitted by the Earth goes in the direction of the Sun. What happens when it gets there?
GR says:
The brilliance of Clausius is that he predicted all that without having electricity, compressors, etc.
Clausius was born 31 years after Faraday — he invented the electric motor in 1821. Clausius was very aware of electricity.
JDHuffman says:
November 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM
DA wants me to explain why he cant warm his supper in the freezer.
Depends on what temperature your supper starts out at.
In any case, your supper is warmer in a 273 K freezer than it is in 3 K interstellar space. Why?
“What happens when (light) gets there?”
Around 99% gets absorbed, the rest reflected and transmitted.
David, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Does a spaceship that’s colder than the Sun bounce off the Sun, or does it go right through it and come out the other side.
DA, if you’re going to continue with your “stupid question schtick”, learn to use a question mark, at least.
You won’t answer. I”ve made my point.
If your point was you don’t understand the relevant physics, then I would agree with you.
Address the question. You scared?
Come on, you know what the answer is — the colder spaceship will certainly burn up in the Sun.
So why can’t you admit it?
DA, your silly spaceship is not even relevant to the issue. It’s your “dead squirrel”. You’re lost in your pseudoscience and only have a dead squirrel to hold on to.
Learn some physics.
Still wont answer the question, because you know the answer but don’t like it.
DA…”Does a spaceship thats colder than the Sun bounce off the Sun, or does it go right through it and come out the other side”.
I don’t know how you can have the arrogance to classify yourself as a science writer when you offer nonsense like that as a rebuttal.
Stop avoiding the question.
Oh my God…David, I’ve never thought of it like that before. The spaceship…WOULD…burn up in the sun.
You have completely opened my eyes. That is a very, very, VERY unretarded point.
DA…”The emission of a blackbody per the Planck Law does not depend on the temperature of what else is out there and in what direction”.
Your confusion seems to stem from a misunderstanding of blackbody theory, which was introduced to science by Kircheoff before Clausius introduced the 2nd law.
A blackbody is defined as a body that will absorb all EM incident upon it, but emit only energy below a certain cutoff point, beyond which the energy is retained as heat. All of the early work done with BB theory was done in thermal equilibrium. None, of which I am aware, was done with BBs of different temperatures.
Your notion of a two way emission/absorp-tion of EM seems based on your assumption that two BBs of different temperatures will absorb all of the radiation from the other body.
Not true. Bohr proved that half a century after Kircheoff introduced the notion.
None of Planck’s equation applies to two bodies of different temperatures radiating at each other.
Furthermore, Planck’s equation is fudged. He admitted that freely, that he had altered the math till his curve fit the reality. To do that, he had to introduce an exponential with exponents that included temperature and his constant.
He apparently fit the constant to the exponential so the curve would fit the measured reality.
I am not criticizing Planck, I think his discovery of quanta is brilliant. I am just saying that we should be very careful how we apply the equation and not give it properties it does not have. Same with Stefan-Boltzmann.
ps. what Planck’s equation tells us is the following. The likelihood of fining EM emission as frequency increases beyond the visible range becomes increasingly smaller.
Planck’s formula is based on statistical probability, which he inherited from Boltzmann. The actual relationship between EM and frequency suggests an ultraviolet catastrophe.
E = hf would give unbounded EM energy as frequency increases. To get around that, Planck introduced a probability factor in his equation to dampen EM energy as frequency increases.
It seems that beyond the colour green’s frequency at the apex of the EM spectrum, the source of the high energy required to produce higher frequency energy diminishes with frequency.
That suggest the electrons emitting the EM in atoms lack the resources to produce an infinite amount of energy and that their energy is limited as per Planck.
pps. it also shows that E = hf is not true for all frequencies of EM.
Ha!
For what frequencies does it fail, Gordon?
Gordon??
I’m really curious about this one….
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
You have less shame than you have any knowledge of physics!!
YOU make up more unsupported opinions and it does not bother you a bit that you know you made it up, you know it is garbage but you post it as if because you said it, it is valid. Horrible science, terrible physics, only JDHuffman seems to be your equal in making up all types of ideas and supporting absolutely none of it, zilch and then you think you are genius or intelligent!
YOU: “A blackbody is defined as a body that will absorb all EM incident upon it, but emit only energy below a certain cutoff point, beyond which the energy is retained as heat.”
Find me this definition and quit making stuff up.
Here, I found one. It makes no stupid claim that you do and in fact says quite the opposite!
HERE: “A black body is one that absorbs all the EM radiation (light…) that strikes it. To stay in thermal equilibrium, it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it so a black body also radiates well. (Stoves are black.)
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node48.html
I am getting very sick of your stupid made up unsupported and totally wrong physics!! Please just stop! If anyone thinks you are a valid skeptic you and goofy JDHuffman do incredible damage to actual scientific skepticism. Roy Spencer is a skeptic of an catastrophic warming position. You two goofballs that continue to make up false, phony and totally misleading physics make skeptic look like moronic crackpots!! Please stop if you care at all about real and valid skeptic viewpoints. Climate science does not need you two to make up clown unsupported and completely wrong physics!!
JUST STOP! PLEASE you embarrass actual skeptics!
More misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults from Norman.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Continue to make up your own brand of unsupportable science. Ball4 says you are here to amuse the scientific minds on the blog with your hilarious torture and mutilation of sound physics.
Keep it up so we can get some laughs. I think it is funny you pretend to have studied actual college level physics. The running gag is you claim 12 credit hours. Really funny when you could not pass even a High School physics test. They do not allow unsupported ideas to get a passing grade.
JDHuffman: Goofball yesterday, goofball today, goofball tomorrow. This blogs clown. First as g.e.r.a.n and now a phony made up JDHuffman.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
What? No made up physics. Are you ill? Please more of your make believe Universe where the laws obey you and you can’t be wrong. Evidence is not needed, only belief. The magic Universe of JDHuffman/g.e.r.a.n where he is free to make up any rules he likes.
Please give more of you nonsense physics. It is more fun than a two word post.
Norman Grinvalds, you must be so frustrated.
Even constantly slinging mud, you are unable to affect me in any way. You’re so easily ignorable.
You must not have anything to do at your dead-end job….
norman…”A black body is one that absorbs all the EM radiation (light) that strikes it. To stay in thermal equilibrium, it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it so a black body also radiates well. (Stoves are black.)”
It takes a bit of reading to cut through your ad homs to get to your point. Normally I would ignore you but I’m having fun revealing to other readers what a complete idiot you are, as a person, and when it comes to science.
A stove is not a blackbody and it cools by other means than the hypothetical BB radiation. Your mind, and the minds of many other alarmists are so focused on IR radiation that you forget (or fail to understand) that heat dissipation in air occurs via direct conduction to air molecules and the subsequent, natural convection that carries the heat away.
With regard to your black stove, does it absorb all EM incident upon it while it is dissipating heat? The 2nd law says it doesn’t, at least in the IR portion where the stove is many times hotter than the air around it.
The CONCEPT of a BB was developed before the 2nd law was developed and it applied only to bodies in thermal equilibrium. Both Planck and Boltzmann devoted a good deal of time trying to explain the 2nd law, and both failed.
The 2nd law is a fact. Heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a hotter body to a colder body and that has to include hypothetical blackbodies.
I have already pointed out, with a quote from an insulation manufacturer, that homes are insulated in the walls and ceilings to slow the rate of heat through them due to conduction. Most homes provide no means of slowing radiation because at terrestrial temperatures, it’s not a factor in heat loss from a home.
Both Planck and Boltzmann devoted a good deal of time trying to explain the 2nd law, and both failed
Boltzmann has his understanding on his tombstone:
S=k ln(W)
True then, true now.
“Heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a hotter body to a colder body”
Huh? Another Gordon gaffe.
M-B: Statistically, heat CAN by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body and that has to include hypothetical blackbodies.
Yet another Gordon gaffe: actually many homes provide a means of reflecting radiation in the IR band by adding a metal foil to insulation because at terrestrial temperatures, IR radiation is a factor in heat loss from a home.
Gordon makes another gaffe: “Heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a hotter body to a colder body”
Huh?
M-B: Statistically, heat CAN by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body and that has to include hypothetical blackbodies.
Yet another Gordon gaffe on home insulation:
Many homes provide a means of reflecting radiation by adding a thin metal foil to insulation to reflect IR radiation because at terrestrial temperatures, it’s a factor in heat loss from a home.
Sorry, didn’t see first one post so rewrote it.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
None of Plancks equation applies to two bodies of different temperatures radiating at each other.
Planck’s law pertains to the radiating body, and nothing more.
It does not depend on what else is near that body.
Furthermore, Plancks equation is fudged. He admitted that freely, that he had altered the math till his curve fit the reality.
That’s how *ALL* new physics is discovered, Gordon.
—
With the benefit of hindsight, Planck’s law can be derived:
http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~stovneng/TFY4165_2013/BlackbodyRadiation.pdf
“Plancks law pertains to the radiating body, and nothing more.”
No “body” in the law, it is derived & tested from measuring cavity BB radiation at each frequency and each temperature.
The Planck function is worthy of respect, if not awe, in that it contains not one, not two, but three fundamental (or at least believed to be so) constants of nature: the speed of light in a vacuum c, Planck’s constant h, and Boltzmann’s constant kB. You can’t get much more fundamental than that.
The Planck law is about the radiation of a blackbody at thermal equilibrium. “body”
“The Planck law is about the radiation of a blackbody at thermal equilibrium. “body””
Incorrect David, anyone with advanced physics degree would know that wouldn’t be possible to find from experiment as there are no black bodies. Planck law was developed experimentally from blackbody cavity radiation. “radiation”
The original experiments are ref.d in Planck’s 1912 Treatise and free to find on the internet.
The next great awakening of the human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of the equations.
Richard Feynman
Here’s another example of the incompetence of the false religion of “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”.
NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope is more than 15 years behind schedule, and almost $8 billion over budget!
And, if it ever gets off the ground, all taxpayers will get for their money will be more junk in space. Unlike the Hubbel, there will be no way to repair the Webb. (The Hubbel has required about 5 differrent repairs.)
Pseudoscience is a cult, only it’s a taxpayer supported cult.
You could cobble something together at a fraction of the cost. Just get DREMT to keep your trolling down, Salvatore for the solar radiation analysis, and Gordon for the relativistic time synchronization. Trump will understand.
svante…”You could cobble something together at a fraction of the cost. Just get DREMT to keep your trolling down, Salvatore for the solar radiation analysis, and Gordon for the relativistic time synchronization. Trump will understand”.
I am still awaiting a decent scientific analysis from you. Right or wrong, I put mine out there. All you do is sit on the fence, getting a sore butt, and sniping.
I wish I had a nickel for every time a denier quoted Richard Feynman.
They do it because they have none of Feynman’s science.
I wish I had a nickel for every stupid comment you ever made.
JDHuffman
I wish I had a penny for every unsupported declaration you have made on this blog.
I get a bonus dime for every time you post your phony blue/green plate cartoon.
Norman, you can’t find one thing wrong with the proper physics I explain.
All you can do is misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I find everything wrong with your physics and post links to correct physics.
You ignore things when I show you how wrong you are and then go into diversions tactics.
Another fake post from a true phony. Will you boyfriend jump in and defend you?
ibid.
JD..”NASAs James Webb Space Telescope is more than 15 years behind schedule, and almost $8 billion over budget!”
The even grater shame is that 95% of astronomy is done with radiotelescopes, not optical.
Speaking of pseudo-science, the nits who observe a slight perturbation in EM emissions from stellar regions, which show up as spectral shifts in gas spectra via a radiotelescope signal, are extrapolating their observation to suggests planets and other esoteric phenomena.
I guess it doesn’t get you much in the way of funding if you report not being sure what you are detecting. Some go so far as to claim Earth-like planets orbiting distant stars yet no one has ever seen one.
Gordon Robertson, now in a new and improved version, smarter than all the astronomers in the world.
Gordon Robertson says:
Some go so far as to claim Earth-like planets orbiting distant stars yet no one has ever seen one.
Gordon: what evidence do they base such claims on? Do you know?
DA, can’t you keep up with your own pseudoscience?
https://www.space.com/30172-six-most-earth-like-alien-planets.html
JDHuffman
Exactly why do you believe the discovery of exoplanets, by various techniques, is pseudoscience?
I have made this claim about you before and it seems correct now. You have no clue what pseudoscience is. You throw the word around because you believe it makes you look intelligent. Very similar to people who were fake glasses to appear intelligent. Please learn what the term means. Your use of it makes you look super ignorant!
JDHuffman
If you really want to learn what pseudoscience actually is, then you should read your own posts or those of Gordon Robertson. Both of you are great examples of actual pseudoscience.
HERE: “Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support.”
This one applies more to Gordon than you.
There are others that clearly apply to your posts. Review the material and you suddenly learn you post pseudoscience.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
Norman, I’m flattered by your incessant attempts to falsely accuse and misrepresent me. Your futile efforts reveal how little actual knowledge you possess. You act much like a 4-year-old that becomes so frutstrated because they don’t know how to properly express themselves, they start throwing things.
Your tantrums make resonable people appear even smarter.
Thanks.
JDHuffman
There is no tantrum. You are a strange person indeed.
I just pointed out that your posts are all pseudoscience.
This is completely accurate. You are a phony person that is what I point out.
YOU: “Your tantrums make resonable people appear even smarter.”
Really a bizarre response to my most reasonable and accurate posts. You are a dork.
Also you avoid the basic question (which you always do) with your strange post. Exactly why do you believe the discovery of exoplanets, by various techniques, is pseudoscience?
You won’t answer this and go off on a monkey minded tangent about how I am frustrated and throwing things. It is a standard method for you. When someone points out how phony you are you divert away with some meaningless derogatory comment about the poster.
More of the same from the 4-year-old Norman.
Now he’s resorted to name-calling again, because he cannot communicate responsibly.
Nothing new.
“When someone points out how phony you are you divert away with some meaningless derogatory comment about the poster.“
It’s a good job you never do that:
“…strange person…”
“…your posts are all pseudoscience.”
“You are a phony person…”
“Really a bizarre response…”
“You are a dork.”
“…strange post.”
“…go off on a monkey minded tangent…”
“…how phony you are…”
DREMT
You might be JDHuffman, not sure. But my comments are directly related to his derogatory comment to me.
I asked him to supply supporting evidence that the search for exoplanets is pseudoscience.
He went on an unrelated tangent to avoid the question.
Not sure why you choose to defend JDHuffman and will allow him his derogatory comments with nothing from you but when one returns the favor you jump all over it. Why are you so inconsistent?
JDHuffman
YOU: “More of the same from the 4-year-old Norman.
Now hes resorted to name-calling again, because he cannot communicate responsibly.
Nothing new.”
If you learn to communicate as an intelligent responsible adult I am sure most posters would treat you as one.
Here is my adult rational post with a very decent question.
“JDHuffman
Exactly why do you believe the discovery of exoplanets, by various techniques, is pseudoscience?
I have made this claim about you before and it seems correct now. You have no clue what pseudoscience is. You throw the word around because you believe it makes you look intelligent. Very similar to people who were fake glasses to appear intelligent. Please learn what the term means. Your use of it makes you look super ignorant!”
Here is your derogatory reply: “Norman, Im flattered by your incessant attempts to falsely accuse and misrepresent me. Your futile efforts reveal how little actual knowledge you possess. You act much like a 4-year-old that becomes so frutstrated because they dont know how to properly express themselves, they start throwing things.
Your tantrums make resonable people appear even smarter.
Thanks.”
So, why would you expect rational conversation when you reply in this fashion to a legitimate question?
Why does your boyfriend DREMT need to defend you?
Norman reveals his true persona, again:
“Here is my adult rational post with a very decent question.”
“Why does your boyfriend DREMT need to defend you?”
Norman, you are about a far from an “adult rational post” as is the closest exoplanet!
(Hint: Look up “parsec”.)
Norman, try to get it into your head that I am not defending anyone, I am criticizing you. You don’t “return the favor”, you are one of the most aggressive commenters I have ever seen.
DREMT
I know it must hurt if I say something negative about your boyfriend. I guess that makes me aggressive. It is okay to protect the one you love. But if your love wants to discuss any science, he will have to support his declarations, he will have to refrain from taunting posters. If you are honest you would see that most negative comments directed at your love are because he is taunting and making derogatory comments.
If he quits this behavior and sticks to just science then aggressive posts against your boyfriend will cease. Pretty simple isn’t it?
Norman, you’re such a desperate clown.
Your “aggressive posts” are as lame and limp as your pseudoscience.
More horrific threats, please.
We won’t laugh too loud….
Oh, sorry. I should have clarified. By “aggressive” I mean that 90% of your comments come across like an upset child screaming at your older brother because he stole your favorite toy and wouldn’t give it back.
@Gordon Robertson said:
“Is this Peter Jackson. They said he was pale in complexion.
He looks a proper Englishman from the Midlands region.
http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/image/85849.html”
That picture is how I remember him except his rugby shirt was in blue and white horizontal stripes. He had his own business and was friendly to everyone. While I could not win a place on the Coventry 1st team on merit I made many appearances when Peter was playing for England, the British Lions or on business trips.
Back then the Coventry RUFC had a policy that required anyone who missed a first team match to play on the second team before being allowed back on the first team. Consequently, every time Peter Jackson was unavailable I got to play for two weeks in a row!
After leaving Coventry in 1965 I never played on a second team again. From 1966 to 1970 I played for Durham City along with Mike Weston and Stan Hodgson. We were unbeaten in the Durham county championship for all those years. In 1971 I played for NIFC (North of Ireland Football Club) as center 3/4 alongside Mike Gibson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7wiNeDy0NA
Mike was a distinguished lawyer but his brother (Peter Gibson) was even more renowned.
The reality is there has NOT been any further global warming for 2 years and counting.
Are you sure sure?
Here is the list of the 24 month averages since 1980:
1980: -0.13
1982: -0.20
1984: -0.14
1986: -0.30
1988: 0.05
1990: -0.13
1992: -0.09
1994: -0.16
1996: 0.04
1998: 0.22
2000: 0.00
2002: 0.15
2004: 0.14
2006: 0.15
2008: 0.04
2010: 0.21
2012: 0.04
2014: 0.15
2016: 0.38
2018: 0.31
The average for ‘2018’ is that for Nov 2016 – Oct 2018, and so on.
Thus the two last years appear in second position since 1980.
Yes I am sure there has been no further global warming since 2016 and year 2018 is colder then +.31c deviation according to Dr. Spencer’s data.
The data your using I do not use. I only go by Dr. Spencer’s data.
2018 = +.218 deviation not +.31c for year 2018. Dr. Spencer data.
David Appell says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM
“Salvatore, its interesting that you accept model results when they show what you want but reject them otherwise.
Why do you accept Roys blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? Whats your criteria for acceptance?”
Reply
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM
Why because we agree that is why.
DA…”Why do you accept Roys blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? ”
Salvatore has already told you why, he thinks UAH data is the only data with integrity.
Can’t you comprehend anything you don’t want to hear?
2018: 0.31
The average for ‘2018’ is that for Nov 2016 – Oct 2018, and so on.
Thus the two last years appear in second position since 1980.
My comment
I do not do it that way.+.215C doe year 2018 thus far the transitional year.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 6:47 AM
“I said year 2017 is going to be a transitional year in the climate.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
Salvatore, is a 2-year trend statistically significant?
David, please stop trolling.
Roy Spencer explained us many times how much it matters to analyse absolute time series in form of departures from the mean of a chosen period, rather than simply analysing the series themselves.
And even more important is to remove in them cyclic behavior like e.g. seasons in a temperature series, by letting the mean have as units those of the time series, and computing the departures (the ‘anomalies’) on a unit by unit basis.
A good example is Rutgers’ monthly snow cover data:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=1
The 12 month baseline for the reference period 1981-2010 is (in Mkm²):
Jan: 46.87
Feb: 45.59
Mar: 40.13
Apr: 30.21
May: 19.02
Jun: 9.42
Jul: 3.66
Aug: 2.80
Sep: 5.24
Oct: 17.54
Nov: 33.96
Dec: 43.98
You obtain your monthly anomalies by subtracting from them the month’s value of the baseline vector. For daily anomalies, the same happens with a vector containing 366 days.
Compare absolute data with anomalies generated out of them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZbMlKLpGJww7Pn3Kz5h3tjvfR9DFr32/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDeePEiG5oJmMXx9lAezV7QqgTpoGtLw/view
What matters here is not how the plots differ, because when you analyse time series, you mostly don’t care about their look, but rather concentrate on estimates for periods within them. And these estimates you can (let a tool) generate out of absolute as well as out of anomaly data.
What matters is that having removed seasonal dependencies (Roy Spencer calls them ‘the annual cycle’), the time series deviations from the mean will in most cases become much smaller.
And this has some greater influence on the estimates’ standard error, and hence on their confidence interval.
This is easily shown with the example above.
If you compute, for the absolute data, a simple linear estimate using e.g. Excel, you obtain for the entire snow cover period in Nov 2018 (nov 1967-oct 2018), the value
-0.66 Mkm² per decade,
and think: woaah is that much! And if you compute the full estimate with standard error, you even obtain
-0.66 ± 0.45 Mkm² per decade
what means that your estimate can be anything between -0.21 and -1.01 Mkm².
But the same computation with now the anomalies instead gives you
-0.20 ± 0.04 Mkm² per decade
That is not only a much smaller and therefore more useful confidence interval, but the estimate’s base value itself is lower than the confidence interval’s least value in case of absolute data.
Another advantage of anomalies is that when you compute them station by station, it does no longer matter wether or not your stations suffer of UHI, or wether they are at an elevation of 1500 m instead of near the sea.
The price to pay for that is evident: you loose all stations lacking data for the chosen anomaly reference period.
This was a great problem in the past, due to the paucity of stations. Using GHCN daily for example with nearly 36000 stations, the station loss is about 33% for the reference period 1981-2010.
Aaaargh I forgot to first send the stuff to the UTF8 converter!
binny…”Roy Spencer explained us many times how much it matters to analyse absolute time series in form of departures from the mean of a chosen period, rather than simply analysing the series themselves”.
I don’t recall Roy putting it quite that way. If you used absolute temperatures, however, the warming over the past century in tenths of a degree C would look almost like a flat line compared to the +15C or so average. That would put the current warming in proper perspective.
One thing NOAA has done right is offer us an explanation for what you are trying to describe.
From NOAA…
“What is a temperature anomaly?
The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value”.
Please note….the following URL needs to be copy/pasted into a browser with the *** in ncd***c removed before activation.
https://www.ncd***c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
It should be noted, that with the UAH graph on this site, that temperatures prior to 1998 were BELOW AVERAGE for the overall range.
That means, binny, that including those below average anomalies in a trend from 1979 – present should be noted in the analysis. You cannot simply number crunch a trend from 1979 – present and claim that trend has any significance, other than purely statistical. That’s especially true when the period from 1998 – 2015 was a flat trend.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2018_v6.jpg
As we can see global temperatures are in a down trend post 2016, and only time will tell where it goes from here.
1980-2000 featured some active major volcanic activity. Enso accounts for nearly all other temperature jogs up and down.
Solar does not really come into play until year 2017 in my opinion.
“As we can see global temperatures are in a down trend post 2016, and only time will tell where it goes from here.”
2018 Sep +0.14
2018 Oct +0.22
As we can see global temperatures are in an upward trend post September 2018, and only time will tell where it goes from here.
Myckey Mouse…”As we can see global temperatures are in an upward trend post September 2018…”
Have you noticed the red-running average curve on Roy’s graph?
Do you understand anything at all about data, statistics, and graphs?
So you couldn’t tell he was parodying Salvatore’s understanding of what a ‘trend’ is?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 6:47 AM
“I said year 2017 is going to be a transitional year in the climate.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
—
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 2, 2018 at 6:13 AM
“Year 2018 is the first year I ever said was a transitional year.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-314681
David, please stop trolling.
norman…here you go, complete explanation of blackbody radiation.
As opposed to your explanation that BBs emit and absorb EM both ways, the classic BB was defined as a cavity that could absorb EM over its entire surface area but for emission it only had a tiny peep hole in it.
http://www.nada.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
A blackbody is *defined* to be at thermal equilibrium. There it radiates as much energy as it absorbs.
DA…”A blackbody is *defined* to be at thermal equilibrium. There it radiates as much energy as it absorbs”.
Read the article and learn something.
Got anything that’s not amateurish?
(No wonder you believe in crackpots.)
DA…”Got anything thats not amateurish?”
Explain, by rebutting the math, why it’s amateurish.
He explains Planck, S-B, and several other scientific theories using advanced math.
He explains why Planck’s equation is a probability distribution on the upper frequency end. Most people I have seen applying this equation have not the slightest idea that it is a probability distribution.
If you had the ability, and digested what he’s saying, it MIGHT help you understand radiation physics. I doubt it, but it might.
“Explain, by rebutting the math, why it’s amateurish.”
Simple experiments rebut Claes math & many of Gordon’s physical concepts which is why Claes & Gordon totally refrain from experiments.
ball4…”Simple experiments rebut Claes math & many of Gordons physical concepts which is why Claes & Gordon totally refrain from experiments”.
I don’t see you citing any of those experiments. Or are you referring to amateur experiments like those done by swannie?
Try harder to follow along Gordon:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-331412
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Read the article and distinguish falsehood from truth based on experiment, Claes is not an experimentalist. Some of the article is correct, some not so much. For example, the article states:
“Planck’s mathematical proof required a certain set up and that set
up came to define the idealized concept of a blackbody as an empty bottle with peephole. But to actually construct anything near such a blackbody is impossible.”
It is possible to construct such a device. Planck’s law was developed from experiments on an empty bottle with peephole producing blackbody radiation (all available on the internet) and Claes does not ever bother with experiments or experimental proof of his concepts. Too much trouble, to far to walk to a lab.
ball4…”Read the article and distinguish falsehood from truth based on experiment, Claes is not an experimentalist. Some of the article is correct, some not so much”.
And the whine goes on…
Claes has a degree in math and he can present blackbody theory using the complete math. Not only that, he has devised a method to present Planck’s work without resorting to quantum theory.
I can follow the math, having studied to that level at one point. His math is sound.
I guess you missed the part where he pointed out, quite correctly, that using the S-B equation as applied to a two-way heat transfer is wrong.
The basis of AGW is back-radiation, which comes from such a misinterpretation of S-B. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, while raising the temperature of the surface.
That’s not only a contravention of the 2nd law, it’s perpetual motion.
“Claes has a degree in math and he can present blackbody theory using the complete math.”
Just like Gordon, Claes is free to claim anything in math without being tied down by the physical truth found from experiments like Dr. Spencer does. Claes does no experiments to prove any of his points. Too much trouble, too far to walk to a lab.
“Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, while raising the temperature of the surface.”
Experiments prove that wrong when the system is put out of equilibrium by added incident energy. Testing shows you are wrong Gordon so this is perfectly in accord with 2LOT as written by Clasusius. Read the experiments, it is not too much trouble. They are easy & simple.
I guess Gordon missed the part where using the S-B equation as applied to a two-way radiative energy transfer was developed by experiment at the end of the 1800s & has stood the test of time. Those experiments are freely found on the internet. Too much trouble for Gordon and others to bother looking up, Gordon would rather remain in the dark.
Gordon Robertson
ONE OF YOUR UNSUPPORTED DECLARATIONS: “The basis of AGW is back-radiation, which comes from such a misinterpretation of S-B. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, while raising the temperature of the surface.”
If you call heat the NET transfer than it cannot be transferred.
Energy, in the form of IR, can and is transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. This energy combined with the solar flux will cause the surface to reach a higher steady state temperature than if the GHG were not radiating energy to the surface. Based upon all textbook physics on heat transfer. Verified by both Roy Spencer’s experiments and E. Swanson’s Blue/Green plate experiment under high vacuum conditions.
You just don’t know or understand any real physics. You are a crackpot that believes himself to be a genius but can’t figure out the Inverse Square Law.
Both fluffball and Norman use the same techniques to pervert science.
They like to mention phony experiments, that they cannot defend. So they try to cover themselves with the “appeal to authority”, referring to real scientists.
Nothing new.
“They like to mention phony experiments, that they cannot defend.”
I only refer to reliably published, easily defensible & findable experiments JD. I know the library is too far away to walk for JD to find that out & google use is beyond JD’s mental capacity so instead JD prefers to provide great blog entertainment. More gaffes please JD; in many cases JD out-gaffes Gordon & even DREMT which is harder. All are fun to watch play meteorologist.
Ball4 says, “I only refer to reliably published, easily defensible & findable…gaffes”, so Ball4 admits in Ball4’s own words that Ball4 refers to known physics gaffes in Ball4’s endless quest to redefine “heat” into Ball4’s own words, which are quote-mines from Clausius’s own words and reinterpreted back into Ball4’s own words, and in Ball4’s own words an ice cube can boil a kettle full of water, in Ball4’s own words as confirmed by test.
And in fluffball’s latest fluff, fluffball forgot to mention one of fluffball’s bogus “experiments”:
“BB radiation at 400 is ~1452K from experiment.”
Which proved JD does know the proper solution to the blue plate equilubrium temperature is not 244K in JD’s bogus cartoons when JD fell for my deception. Keep up the accurate work and correct your cartoons JD since you showed you do know how to do that. We know you won’t, the blog preferring your entertaining gaffes instead.
No fluffball, what it proves is your willingness to pervert and corrupt reality.
It is JD that is expert at that as observed in drawing the bogus cartoons when JD was proven to be able to understand the basic science correctly (by being induced to do so) – so proving even JD knows JD’s cartoons are bogus. JD prefers to provide good cartoon entertainment not good science. JD will not change so the blog will continue to be entertaining. More entertainment please JD, don’t bother to learn any physics.
More fluff and diversion from fluffball.
Nothing new.
That’s good humor JD, better for JD to comment without any physics to avoid JD’s usual physics blunders.
ball4…”Just like Gordon, Claes is free to claim anything in math without being tied down by the physical truth found from experiments like Dr. Spencer does”.
Your game is pretty obvious, you are trying to goad me into critiquing Roy’s experiments. I have made my position clear on that, I support Roy, his work at UAH, and his opinions in general on global warming/climate change.
Everyone has different interpretations of science and some of mine don’t align with Roy’s. I can live with that because the work Roy is doing is far more important.
What I find tough to digest is your opinions, which are based on some sort of altered reality.
Fluffball continues with the fluff and diversion.
Nothing new.
ball4…”I guess Gordon missed the part where using the S-B equation as applied to a two-way radiative energy transfer was developed by experiment at the end of the 1800s….”
****
I am not aware of any such experiments that prove such nonsense. Before, S-B there was only Stefan’s equation:
R = (fi)T^4
His data came from an experiment by Tyndall in which an electrically-heated platinum filament wire, with a T around 1000C, at least, radiated EM to room air.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Stefan’s equation is based on a one-way heat conversion from a hot body to a cooler environment. Had the filament been in a blast furnace where the temperatures equaled or exceeded the temperature of the electrically-heated filament, the results would have been far different.
S-B itself, is based on statistical analysis performed by Boltzmann, a student of Stefan, who was trying to provide an explanation for the 2nd law. He failed, but his equation added another lower temperature to the Stefan equation as in:
R = e(fi)A (T^4 – To^4)
The temperature gradient indicated by T and To must be from T the hottest to To the coolest.
Besides, Boltzmann equated entropy to probability for his analysis. He had to base entropy on the definition provided by Clausius wherein heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a hotter body to a cooler body.
It was misguided people like you who added the reverse direction, misunderstanding BB theory by taking the definition of a blackbody far too literally.
You are always on about experiment, let’s see you, or anyone else, prove that two BBs of different temperature can transfer heat both ways.
“You are always on about experiment, let’s see you, or anyone else, prove that two BBs of different temperature can transfer heat both ways.”
There are no blackbodies to experiment with Gordon & heat does not exist in nature.
Just look up Planck 1912 ref.d experiments for free on the internet to find BB radiation from a real body at different temperatures transfers energy both ways. The experiments demonstrate there is no Claes math cutoff, Claes math is proven erroneous & Claes did not even bother to check the experimentalists earlier work.
Dr. Spencer’s experiments proved the same thing on the atm. and you write “I support Roy”. So get busy and learn some physics, I can’t do the work for you only point you to the sources. I can lead a horse to water but I can’t make it think.
norman…”Energy, in the form of IR, can and is transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. This energy combined with the solar flux will cause the surface to reach a higher steady state temperature….”
***
Tell me how terrestrial IR can be added to solar energy when it’s not even in the solar spectrum.
In order for EM at different frequencies to add, they must have exactly the same frequency. If they are out of phase, they cancel.
Even if they are in phase, which is not possible with incoming SW EM and terrestrial IR, the amplitude of the terrestrial IR is absolutely tiny compared to the heating amplitudes of the SW solar EM.
Let’s talk about losses. When the surface emits IR, it does so from every atomic nook and cranny on the surface and the oceans. What percent of that IR is absorbed by the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. Of that tiny percentage, over 50% is lost since it is radiated up the way and sideways.
That leaves a tiny portion to back-radiate, and it won’t even begin to make up for the initial losses from the surface that warmed the CO2 in the first place.
There is such a humungous loss of IR from the surface relative to what can be absorbed by CO2, that back-radiation from CO2 could not even begin to make up the losses. If you cannot make up for the losses you cannot raise surface temperature with back-radiation, even if you include WV.
I have not even mentioned the fact that the 2nd law forbids a heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
The only way to raise surface temperature with our present atmosphere is to increase solar output.
“In order for EM at different frequencies to add, they must have exactly the same frequency. If they are out of phase, they cancel.”
Incorrect Gordon. That cancel is only for coherent light. Both high T solar light and low T terrestrial light are incoherent. Much like Gordon’s grasp of atm. radiative physics.
Poor fluffball tries to fake his way, again:
“That cancel is only for coherent light.”
Fluffball, if photons can’t cancel, then they can’t add.
So, you verified Gordon’s point.
JD bungles physics again, very humorous since if the coherent light can cancel out of phase then coherent light can add in phase. JD should stick to providing humor only and stay away from physics.
Gordon Robertson says:
Tell me how terrestrial IR can be added to solar energy when its not even in the solar spectrum.
Tsk tsk!
A blackbody — of which the Sun is a near perfect example — emits ALL wavelengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
There is some upper frequency (lower wavelength) cutoff, because the Sun can’t emit a photon with more energy than the Sun emits, but for all practical purposes it emits everything. And certainly some IR.
Poor fluffball, he gets so tangled in his own pseudoscience.
He just claimed: “Both high T solar light and low T terrestrial light are incoherent.”
Now he’s trying to change back to coherent, because he trapped himself.
Pure comedy.
No change by me JD, any change is only in JD’s imagination, sunlight and terrestrial light remain incoherent. As always. Good humor though. More please.
Fluffball fails to admit he stumbled into making Gordon’s point, for Gordon.
Fluffball will remain in denial, because he lives in denial.
And, he can have the last word here, because he will be here all night trying to get it, otherwise.
Some of us have a life….
Great humor JD, no physics, so JD avoids bungling. More please.
Gordon Robertson says:
The basis of AGW is back-radiation, which comes from such a misinterpretation of S-B. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, while raising the temperature of the surface.
The surface only warms part of the atmosphere. The Sun also warms it.
Gordon, you need to study the adiabaticity clause of the 2LOT, and realize the Earth isn’t an adiabatic system.
The atmosphere isn’t in equilibrium with the surface, the Earth is in equilibrium with the Sun.
DA, have you had any luck getting a refund from whatever institution claimed to have taught you physics?
Ger*an, wake me up if you ever manage a statement about the science.
Gordon,
You need a lesson from Kristian, I’ve taken a few.
Pt = Ph-Pc = єσATh^4 – єσATc^4 = єσA(Th^4-Tc^4)
Ph goes from hot to cold. It is not heat.
Pc goes from cold to hot. It is not heat.
Pt goes from hot to cold. It is heat.
Can you get it?
Apart from my unusual constants.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
You and Claes Johnson are wrong and David Appell is correct. The actual definition of a blackbody:
“an ideal body or surface that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it with no reflection and that radiates at all frequencies with a spectral energy distribution dependent on its absolute temperature”
That is the accepted definition of blackbody. If you and Claes want to make up your own definition of the term do not expect people to follow your arguments.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blackbody
norman…”You and Claes Johnson are wrong and David Appell is correct. The actual definition of a blackbody:”
Your source…Merriam-Webster??? A dictionary???
Claes gives the actual definition by Kircheoff, explaining it in detail.
If you guys weren’t such alarmist boneheads, you’d wade through the article and learn something.
There is a lot of good history in there.
“Claes gives the actual definition by Kircheoff, explaining it in detail.”
Claes does not do so accurately. Claes tries to explain where Kirchhoff is wrong & that it is impossible to build the test equipment that WAS built. If Claes did use the actual tests by Kirchhoff & Planck, then there would be no Claes disagreement with Kirkhhoff & Planck writings & no reason for Claes to write anything. Better to read Kirchhoff & Planck and forget about Claes who does NO experiments proving his work.
Gordon has simply been misled by Claes.
Ball4
I agree with you. I have visited Claes Johnson blog. He is a crackpot. He is a gifted mathematician but he is like Gordon Robertson or JDHuffman. He makes declarations that are not supported nor does he provide any evidence for them.
It is what pseudoscience is all about. Gordon Roberston, Claes Johnson, JDHUffman and most at PSI are using pseudoscience. They make declarations about science ideas with zero supporting evidence.
It is sad that the skeptical side attracts this mental type. It destroys good and rational skepticism based upon the scientific method.
These mental types reject empirical data and distort what actual scientists claim.
More misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults from poor Norman.
He wants so badly to find acceptance for his false beliefs, but all he gets is more rejection.
He just wasn’t cut out to live in reality.
JDHuffman
That is at least one penny for me. You posted a declaration with no supporting evidence.
YOU DECLARE: “More misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults from poor Norman.”
Which misrepresentations? You make the declaration but refuse or cannot support this.
Which false accusations? You make this declaration but refuse or cannot support this.
Which insult? You make this declaration abut refuse or cannot support this.
I don’t know if that counts for three pennies or just one. If you nest unsupported declarations together is it one or three?
Norman, just one example from your comment above:
“These mental types reject empirical data and distort what actual scientists claim.”
Now, your 1000-word typing exercise trying to incompetently defend yourself, please.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman, just one example from your comment above:
“These mental types reject empirical data and distort what actual scientists claim.”
Not valid. You DO reject empirical data and distort what actual scientists claim.
E. Swanson and Roy Spencer have both provided empirical evidence that a cold object will raise the temperature of a heated object. You have rejected these (you did Roy’s when you went as g.e.r.a.n…I think that led to your first ban).
Textbook physics on heat transfer clearly states that a cold object will transfer energy to a hotter one. The NET energy is from hot to cold but there is a two way transfer. You have rejected this. I have linked you to this more than once.
I do not need to defend myself. I am right on all that. You declare things with no support just as you did here. You are once again wrong. Will your boyfriend come to defend you??
Sorry Norman Grinvalds, but your submission has been rejected, due to insufficient word count. It was nowhere near the 1000 words required for those providing quantity, in lieu of quality.
And remember, quoting others quoting you does not count in the word count.
We anxiously await your next submission.
JDHuffman
Your last post was funny but did not achieve the desired state of hilarious. I was not ROTFL, but keep up the pace and you may get some laughs.
Norman, your desperate obsessions, long-winded ramblings, and confused pseudoscience provide enough humor.
ball4…”Claes does not do so accurately. Claes tries to explain where Kirchhoff is wrong….”
I did not pick him up as claiming Kircheoff was wrong, he simply wondered about the meaning of a bottle with a peep hole in it (cavity resonator, aka blackbody).
I wonder the same thing. Somehow they got the math to work out, in certain situations, so good for them. However, they had Newtonian experimental results to fall back on and to draw from.
Boltzmann had the work of his professor, Stefan, as a basis for his work. Stefan drew on the experimental work of Tyndall. Planck was a student of Kircheoff and he had the work of Boltzmann to draw on.
I have nothing against the statistical mechanics they developed but I often wonder what is the point of it all. Planck admitted in his book on heat that the discipline cannot be visualized. I wonder how much longer we are going to go on groping in the dark before we find a way to observe atomic activity directly.
As Feynman put it, one day scientists might get around to understanding what the equations mean.
ball4…I might add that Boltzmann and Planck drew on the work of Clausius. They both used the entropy defined by Clausius as a basis of the 2nd law and they modified it as a probability function.
google is your friend Gordon.
“UK’s national SuperSTEM facility images objects at an unprecedented resolution, right down to the individual atoms.”
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8qxe7z/this-microscope-can-see-down-to-individual-atoms
Gordon Robertson says:
ball4I might add that Boltzmann and Planck drew on the work of Clausius. They both used the entropy defined by Clausius as a basis of the 2nd law and they modified it as a probability function.
Entropy is no more a probability function than is pressure or energy or temperature. It’s a state variable — a given state has a definite entropy — a number, like say “4,” with the same units as Boltzmann’s constant.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have nothing against the statistical mechanics they developed but I often wonder what is the point of it all.
The point is it’s much more general than classical thermodynamics. Given a substance with a huge number of degrees of freedom, applying statistical mechanics to calculate the partition function then lets one calculate observed variables like energy, entropy, the specific heat and more.
In classical thermodynamics the ideal gas law is an empirical statement. But it can be derived theoretically via statistical mechanics.
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
No one sat down with a statistical examination of atoms and drew forth that definition. They already had temperature defined as 0C for the freezing point of water and 100C for the boiling point.
You have this exactly backwards.
Maxwell, Boltzmann et al defined temperature as the average kinetic energy of a gas’s molecules (times its number of molecular degrees of freedom).
The assignment of 0 C (273.15 K) and 100 C (373.15 K) is arbitrary — they’re just whatever values water freezes and boils at.
The manmade temperature scales come after the physics, not before it. In an ideal world we wouldn’t use any temperature units and just quote temperatures as energies, in joules (or eV, or whatever energy unit is convenient). All Boltzmann’s constant does is set the scale between energy and temperature. In an enlightened society, k=1.
In a practical society we use temperature in C,F where K is absolute not man made.
DA…”You have this exactly backwards.
Maxwell, Boltzmann et al defined temperature as the average kinetic energy of a gass molecules (times its number of molecular degrees of freedom).
The assignment of 0 C (273.15 K) and 100 C (373.15 K) is arbitrary theyre just whatever values water freezes and boils at”.
***
The first thermometer by Fahrenheit, with a scale, was developed in 1714. Celsius followed in 1742, basing his zero C on the freezing point of water.
The absolute scale was invented by Kelvin using the properties of a gas compared to 0C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
“In 1848, William Thomson, who later was made Lord Kelvin, wrote in his paper, On an Absolute Thermometric Scale, of the need for a scale whereby “infinite cold” (absolute zero) was the scale’s null point, and which used the degree Celsius for its unit increment. Kelvin calculated that absolute zero was equivalent to −273 C on the air thermometers of the time.[3] This absolute scale is known today as the Kelvin thermodynamic temperature scale. Kelvin’s value of “−273″ was the negative reciprocal of 0.00366the accepted expansion coefficient of gas per degree Celsius relative to the ice point, giving a remarkable consistency to the currently accepted value”.
Hey bally, any idea why the Kelvin scale uses the degree C, if it’s not invented by humans?
You can’t use an energy unit to describe temperature. If you did, “temperature” of a substance would depend on its quantity.
bob…”You cant use an energy unit to describe temperature. If you did, temperature of a substance would depend on its quantity”.
Of course not. Temperature is a proxy for heat, or the kinetic energy of atoms. The heat, or KE, cannot be measured directly, it is measured by its effect on a substance like mercury in a fine tube, causing it to expand, or contract.
The calorie is the basic unit of heat and defined as the amount of heat required to raise 1cc of water by 1C at a certain temperature. Initially, however, Rumford associated work with heat and later, Joule, the scientist, gave a conversion factor from work to heat and vice-versa.
That was a conversion for joules to calories.
Work is measured in joules, which is related to the watt, which is related to horse power. They are all units of mechanical work. Heat is measured in calories and to express it in joules, you have to convert from calories to joules.
When Joule did his experiment he had tiny paddles turning in water. He calculated the amount of work required to raise the water temperature by so many degrees.
Work was converted to heat and a thermometer measured the relative change in heat in the water. If a mercury bulb was placed in the water, heat was transferred to the mercury, causing it to expand.
That’s temperature, the relative level of heat in a substance. Heat is real, temperature is a measure of heat.
If only ball4 could get that.
Heat is not real proven in mid-1850s, temperature is a measure of the avg. KE of the molecules in the area of inspection.
ball4…”Heat is not real proven in mid-1850s, temperature is a measure of the avg. KE of the molecules in the area of inspection”.
Temperature as equated to thermometers was developed to measure relative levels of heat. No one knew anything about KE of atoms in those days (18th century) nor would they know anything about them till electrons were discovered circa 1890. Even then, the structure of the atom was not offered till 1913 when Bohr created a simple model.
Even though Maxwell and Boltzmann offered a theory about the average kinetic energy of gas molecules in the late 19th century, they were describing the atomic level energy that we call thermal energy, or heat.
I don’t know why you have so much trouble with this while obstinately denying that heat is a real phenomenon. Clausius accepted the definition of heat as the kinetic energy related to atoms.
You still don’t get it that kinetic energy is ANY energy in motion. It applies to all forms of energy. When the energy is related to the motion of atoms, either in a gas or as vibrations in a solid, we call it thermal energy.
Heat is another word for thermal energy.
If that same KE describes the motion of a force moving a mass, we call that KE mechanical energy. If it applies to the energy of charges, related to electrons moving in a conductor, we call it electrical energy.
There is nothing special about the term kinetic energy, it is a generic term applied to all energy in motion.
To identify the kind of energy, we use terms like thermal, chemical, mechanical, gravitational and so on.
“Temperature as equated to thermometers was developed to measure relative levels of heat.”
No, your whole premise is wrong Gordon, proven in ~1850s. Temperature measures avg. KE of molecules at the measurement point, heat is a measure of the total KE of the molecules in a body since Clausius’ time. You are so unaccomplished in the field of thermodynamics that you do not understand. Apparently never will.
Heat doesn’t exist in nature, the total KE of the molecules in a body does. A body feels hot or cold to your touch means it has that much total KE of the molecules in there to cause the sensation.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Bobdesbond says:
You cant use an energy unit to describe temperature.
Sure you can.
T=E/k=E
in units where k=1. (k is Boltzmann’s constant.)
k’s sole purpose is to convert temperature to an energy. It’s purely a matter of convenience. Setting k=1 gives
1 K = 1.38E-23 J = 8.62E-05 eV
More confused physics from DA!
He likely saw that equation somewhere and doesn’t understand it only has a specific use. With no in-depth understanding, he believes an equation is applicable anytime, anywhere.
Do you need help understanding k=1?
Do you need help understanding that equation does not apply to the macro world?
Of course it does.
k = Universal_gas_constant_(R)/Avagadro’s_number
I think you’re confused by units where it’s set equal to 1, though you do something similar all the time.
No, you’re confused by the physics.
Consider a large container holding a glass of water with internal energy E.
You would claim the glass has a temperature of T = E/k.
Now add twice the water with the same internal energy. You have doubled the energy, so you would have to claim the temperature doubled.
Essentially, you have added a glass of water at 20 °C to a glass of water at 20 °C, ending up with 40 °C!
JDHuffman says:
Now add twice the water with the same internal energy. You have doubled the energy, so you would have to claim the temperature doubled.
Essentially, you have added a glass of water at 20 C to a glass of water at 20 C, ending up with 40 C.
You don’t understand at all what’s going on here.
I’m simply setting k=1. I’m choosing my units so k=1. This is done all the time in some branches of physics. Also they set c=1, hbar=1 and G=1.
It simplifies the equations, make relationships clearer (like temperature really has units of energy) and no physics is lost.
You do something similar all the time. Do you know when?
DA, you completely ignored my last comment.
You’re wrong about the application of your equation, and now you’re trying to avoid that reality.
What’s wrong with learning some physics?
There is no “application” — it’s simply a choice of units.
A choice of units doesn’t affect the physics.
You do something similar ALL THE TIME. Do you know when?
Okay, you seem to be backing away from claiming that equation applied to the macro world.
I would say you learned something.
Now, keep learning!
JDHuffman says:
Okay, you seem to be backing away from claiming that equation applied to the macro world.
You still don’t understand.
k=1 *is a choice of units*. That’s all. It doesn’t change any of the physics. It just makes the equations simpler.
—
Have you figured out yet where you do something very very similar all the time?
David, please stop trolling.
2 litres of air at a uniform temperature and pressure contains twice as much thermal energy as 1 litre of air at the same uniform temperature and pressure. Where are you accounting for volume in your calculation?
Yes, you can equate the average energy of each constituent molecule to the temperature of the material it belongs to with a judicious choice of units. But you can’t do the same for the material as a whole. It would be meaningless to say “the temperature of the ocean is blah eV”.
bob…”2 litres of air at a uniform temperature and pressure contains twice as much thermal energy as 1 litre of air at the same uniform temperature and pressure. Where are you accounting for volume in your calculation?”
The pertinent formula is the Ideal Gas Equation:
PV = nRT
In DAs abomination he wrote T = E/k = E
How can E/k = E unless k = 1?
In effect, DA is claiming T = E, which is sheer nonsense.
k=1 is a *choice* of units.
In that unit system, temperatures have the unit of energy.
It’s that simple.
k=1 is a *choice* of units.”
A poor choice of units if a US college softball player sees a number in those units on the left field wall instead of 190 or 200.
DA…”ks sole purpose is to convert temperature to an energy”.
Good grief, you’re talking about converting EM of a specific frequency to an equivalent COLOUR temperature. Your formula does not measure the temperature of the body emitting the EM.
My formula doesn’t refer to anything real. It simply says that kT has the same units of energy, so choosing k=1 means temperature has the same units of energy.
That’s it.
This is done in physics ALL THE TIME. They choose c=hbar=G=k=1.
Then everything has units of a power of mass. Or a power of length. Or a power of time. It makes the equations much simpler to calculate with.
You do something similar in real life all the time.
“This is done in physics ALL THE TIME.”
I’ve never run across it once. Planck for one example never did so to my knowledge – he standardized on a system of units at the beginning, said he’d keep to it and he did.
Just a poor choice of words maybe David, experienced writers should have learned to be more precise. Choose units & stick to them, sort of like many spectroscopists plot spectra as a function of wavenumber (inverse wavelength, equivalent to frequency) and would consider doing otherwise an unnatural act.
“Kelvin scale uses the degree C”
That got a laugh Gordon. No, Kelvin scale uses natural absolute degrees with symbol K, Kelvin scale does not use the degree C symbol as you write, not arbitrary. Centigrade scale sets STP pure water boiling man made arbitrarily at 100C and freezing 0C. A change of 1 degree in both is the same amount of change in the avg. KE of the constituent molecules at the measurement point.
ball4…”Kelvin scale uses natural absolute degrees with symbol K”
0C = 273.15K
100C = 373.15K
100C – 0C = 100C
373.15K – 273.15K = 100K
Seem equivalent to me.
A change of 1 degree in both arbitrary C & absolute K is the same amount of change in the avg. KE of the constituent molecules at the measurement point.
ball4…”A change of 1 degree in both arbitrary C & absolute K is the same amount of change in the avg. KE of the constituent molecules at the measurement point.”
How can the C-scale be arbitrary if it is based on the real phenomena related to the freezing and boiling points of water?
The C-scale was developed first then Kelvin used it as a basis for his absolute scale.
That’s why 1C = 1K.
When you begin at 0K, you add 273.15 degrees C to get to the freezing point of water at 0C. Then you add another 100C, or 100K, to get to the boiling point of water at 373.15C or K.
The Celsius scale is arbitrary (as are all scales) because it CHOOSES 0 C for the freezing point of water and it CHOOSES 100 C for the boiling point of water.
Other scales make other choices. They are all arbitrary.
“How can the C-scale be arbitrary if it is based on the real phenomena related to the freezing and boiling points of water?”
100 and 0 are arbitrary Gordon, just like 0, 32 AND 212, they could be any other customary numbers on an alien scale. But 0K on our absolute scale will always align exactly with the alien 0 on their absolute scale.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Am I the only one who feels we are experiencing over and over some variation of the “Blind Men and the Elephant”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Its fascinating to hear people presenting ‘their truth’ while not recognizing that other people could be presenting different aspects of ‘truth’. Some even seem to revel in their tiny knowledge. :-/
“In some versions, the blind men then discover their disagreements, suspect the others to be not telling the truth and come to blows.”
Now THAT sounds familiar!
“In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to “see” the full elephant.”
Sigh. If only ….
“In another, a sighted man enters the parable and describes the entire elephant from various perspectives, the blind men then learn that they were all partially correct and partially wrong. “
Also a marvelous ideal, but ‘sighted men’ tend to get attacked all at once from multiple sides for not seeing things only from one particular, narrow perspective.
“Also a marvelous ideal, but ‘sighted men’ tend to get attacked all at once from multiple sides for not seeing things only from one particular, narrow perspective.“
Hmmm…now who in the climate debate get attacked all at once from multiple sides…?
Tim, it gets even worse when some choose to be blind. Consequently, as we see here so often, the clowns have to resort to debate tricks because their false beliefs blow up in their faces. They even claim to “see” a racehorse “rotating on its own axis” as it runs the race track, regardess of the definitions.
They want to be blind to the truth.
Two brief follow-up comments.
1) Climate is such a big “elephant” that even the “sighted men” can’t see the whole beast. So we all need to retain a bit of humility and accept that others have insights we might lack.
2) Unfortunately, I am sure many of the ‘blind’ here will skip right past “stop talking, start listening and collaborate” and will simply restate their own one-sided perspective without even trying to learn.
Well Tim, here’s a chance for you to set a good example. Is a racehorse also rotating on its own axis as it laps an oval racetrack?
(Without spin, obfuscation, or diversion, that question can be answered correctly in one word.)
One blind man yells “NO! It is definitely NOT spinning on its axis!”
A second blind man yells back “YES, it definitely IS spinning on its axis!”
The sighted man realizes that there is partial truth in each answer.
(Without spin, obfuscation, or diversion, that question can be answered correctly in one word.)
Yes, Tim, the race horse only turns in the turns. Runs head first down the straights. Blind to basic physics as JD is, JD writes they never turn in the turns and thus run down the backstretch tail first. But that’s just JD being entertaining while not understanding even the most basic physics. The best expectation is JD will never learn physics and keep making this blog entertaining.
“Turning” is a synonym of “rotating”, but it’s not synonymous with “axially rotating”, necessarily. A key in a lock turns, and rotates on its axis. A car going around in its “turning circle” rotates, but is it rotating on its own axis, or is it turning about an axis in the center of the circle? After all, it physically cannot rotate on its own axis on the spot.
It’s no surprise that Tim was unable to answer the simple question. I even made it non-controversial by asking about a racehorse. I didn’t ask about the Moon. But Tim is afraid of the truth.
“The sighted man realizes that there is partial truth in each answer.”
So to clowns, when it comes to reality, there is only “partial truth”. But, when it comes to “institutionalized pseudoscience”, the “science is settled”!
The clowns continue to entangle themselves in their own webs.
Nothing new.
I have to thank you all for making my point for me so eloquently. ☺
Yes, with your propensity to spin, every one of your defeats is a victory.
Quite often such talent helps one to avoid reality.
Until it doesn’t….
Tim, what’s your answer to the question? Can something that can’t rotate on its own axis, be rotating on its own axis?
I expect it is all a question of “reference frames”. From one “reference frame” the impossible becomes possible. From the other “reference frame” the impossible remains possible.
And from the third “reference frame”, the impossible remains impossible.
But from the fourth “reference frame”, the impossible remains possible again.
“I expect it is all a question of “reference frames”.”
No, any arb. reference frame chosen can not destroy conserved angular momentum of a race horse in a turn, the moon or turning a key in a lock.
“I expect it is all a question of “reference frames””.
Dang. No, any arb. reference frame chosen can not destroy conserved angular momentum of a race horse in a turn, the moon or turning a key in a lock.
Shhh…dont mention the car.
Tim learned about “frames of reference” when I gave him the example of a rotating airplane prop. He figured out not to stick his head in the prop even though it was not rotating, relative to another prop at the same RPM.
But, poor fluffball can’t learn anything.
That’s why he’s only a “Ball”. No limbs left.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
A car going around in its turning circle rotates, but is it rotating on its own axis, or is it turning about an axis in the center of the circle?
Both.
The Earth both orbits and rotates. Slow its rotation down from once per day to once per year, and you have a tidal locking situation like the Moon’s.
No, that’s JD’s bungling physics again. Tim previously patiently explained to JD if Tim is in the prop frame then the fuselage is rotating frame and presents the only clear and present danger to Tim’s head, not the prop.
JD has had time to think about that but JD cannot think properly about physics even when given time, only thinks about humor. Which is ok because JD provides such great blog entertainment.
“Both.“
I see! So the car can’t rotate on its own axis. But it does
A car has a “turning circle”. But it also doesn’t have a “turning circle”, because it can rotate on its own axis. Although, it can’t.
You’re confused by the car’s tires, which touch the ground with a lot of friction. But the tires are an artificial aspect and aren’t relevant to the essence of the question.
Ah! That must be it, thanks. Silly me, I get these crazy illogical “denier” ideas like: if it is not physically possible for something to happen, it doesn’t. The real answer is: friction, tires, reference frames = impossible becomes possible.
There are no tires on the Moon, which is the underlying question here.
I am just going to take it that your honest answer, about the car, is that it isn’t rotating on its own axis. But you don’t want to say that, because of the moon issue.
The non-spinning-Moon argument was lost a dozen times already. Please don’t feed the trolls!
Don’t worry, we won’t.
“Troll’s remarks are controversial, STUPID, OFF-TOPIC, inflaming, ILLOGICAL, or childish. Sometimes, the comments are enough to enrage the people in the forum to want to respond back with their own negative remarks which starts a flame war and CHANGES THE TOPIC AND ATTENTION of the discussion.
Since, internet trolls are ATTENTION WHORES, this is exactly what they want since they probably don’t get enough attention in real life and need someone else to acknowledge their self-worth and existence.”
I know you’re only trying to change the topic onto trolling and start a flame war, but don’t worry. I won’t bite.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I am just going to take it that your honest answer, about the car, is that it isnt rotating on its own axis.
If the car wasn’t also rotating, it would always face in the same direction.
But it does not.
The main topic of this blog is climate science. The moon spinning was briefly a mildly interesting diversion. But all interesting arguments have been made, repeatedly.
Now the non-spinners have stopped even trying to make logical arguments and just make declarations.
‘The horse and the Moon just aren’t rotating.’
Thats not an argument, anymore than ‘The horse and the Moon just are rotating’.
IOW, pointless.
Nate’s right.
But it IS fun backing the deniers into an ever smaller corner, and watching them ignore questions that they know undercut their claims.
“If the car wasn’t also rotating, it would always face in the same direction.“
David, I says it was rotating. About an axis in the center of its “turning circle”. Silly David.
No, the car is rotating about a center of vertical axis somewhere near the middle of the car.
False. The reason the car is moving in its “turning circle” in the first place is BECAUSE the car can’t rotate about that axis.
JDHuffman says:
Is a racehorse also rotating on its own axis as it laps an oval racetrack?
Yes.
A horse that wasn’t rotating would always face north (say) as he goes around the track. He’s be running partly sideways as he goes around the first turn, he’d be running backwards on the back stretch, and then partly sideways again (in the opposite direction) on the final turn.
It’s easier to envision if the track is square.
A rider on the horse certainly knows he’s rotating.
Thats deep, David. A really deep understanding of the issue, you have expressed there. Unretarded.
This animation makes the Moon’s rotation clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The right-hand side is like the horse that doesn’t rotate, always facing in the same direction.
Oh yeah! That was super-hard to visualize before. Thanks so much for that.
DA amuses us with his ignorance of physics, again!
DA, if you believe the racehorse is rotating on its own axis, as it runs the track, then do you also believe there are TWO different motions occurring?
Or are you just mistaking the “orbiting” action for “rotating on its own axis”?
Yes, the motion can be considered as the sum of two parts — orbiting and rotation.
The Earth orbits the Sun and also revolves around its axis.
Right?
Now slow the Earth’s rotation down from 1 cycle/day to 1 cycle/year.
The Earth is still rotating, right?
But it’d appear tidally locked to the Sun.
That’s what the Moon is doing – both orbiting and rotating.
Slow down, DA. The question was about the racehorse. Now you’ve raced off talking about the Earth and the Moon. If you don’t deal with the responsible questions, people will just think you are evading.
Again,
1) DA, if you believe the racehorse is rotating on its own axis, as it runs the track, then do you also believe there are TWO different motions occurring?
2) Or are you just mistaking the “orbiting” action for “rotating on its own axis”?
Yes.
No.
Now, answer my questions. They make the situation very clear.
(Of course, so does the animation I keep linking to.)
Right. Right.
So you believe the horse has both motions. Then stop him from orbiting. Is he still “rotating on its own axis”?
Of course not. So the horse only has ONE motion. It is “orbiting”, but you are confused by that single motion.
Learn some physics.
The Earth orbits the Sun and also revolves around its axis.
Right?
Now slow the Earths rotation down from 1 cycle/day to 1 cycle/year.
The Earth is still rotating, right?
But itd appear tidally locked to the Sun.
Thats what the Moon is doing both orbiting and rotating.
No, the Earth would still be rotating on its axis. A “day” would then be 365 old days. Someone on the Sun would see the rotation of the Earth.
If the Earth were rotating 1 cycle/yr, someone on the Sun would see the same side of the Earth all year long.
Get two balls, pretend they’re the Sun and the Earth, and see for yourself.
It’d be just like the left-hand side of this animation, which shows 1 cycle per orbit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Nope.
It appears you do not understand what “orbiting” is. You seem to believe orbiting is two motions. You need to clear your head of your pseudoscience. Orbiting is only ONE motion. The racehorse exemplifies orbiting. The horse is NOT also “rotating on its own axis”. It only has the ONE motion, orbiting.
If you ever study physics, look up Newtons Laws of Motion, especailly as applied to orbiting in a gravitational field.
A body can orbit with rotation, or it can orbit without rotation.
In the following link, the first is on the left, and the second is on the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA, instead of saying the same thing over and over, hoping for different results, try learning some physics. The racehorse only has ONE motion, orbiting.
If you can’t understand that, spend some time on Newton’s Laws.
Can a body orbit while rotating?
Can it orbit without rotating?
Yes, and yes.
But, you’re missing the point. The point is you do not know what orbital motion is. The racehorse is ONLY orbiting. Do you understand that?
If the horse wasn’t rotating, it would always face in the same direction, like the right-hand side of this Moon animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
But the horse doesn’t always face in the same direction, does it?
Okay, maybe you’ve missed some of my previous explanations. Or maybe you didn’t understand them. I will try again.
You believe the orbiting motion means the object will also be “rotating on its own axis’. You can’t seem to understand the simple motion.
You believe if the horse started out facing north, and he were ONLY orbiting, then he would be facing north the entire lap. That’s NOT orbiting. That is TWO motions, orbiting AND rotating on its own axis.
Have you ever studied Newton’s Laws, as applied to gravity? Gravity is an essential component of orbiting. The gravitational force and the velocity act together to produce the orbit. The two forces form a resultant force that turns the “moon” around the center mass. The resuting motion is exactly the same as that of the racehorse, as he turns around the track. He is turning in orbit, not rotating on its own axis.
Can you not understand that?
(That’s all for tonight. I’ll try to help you more tomorrow.)
“..facing north the entire lap. That’s NOT orbiting. That is TWO motions, orbiting AND rotating on its own axis.”
That’s where you are wrong JD. There is no rotation on an internal axis only rotation about an external axis when the horse faces north all around the course & runs down the backstretch tail first. The evidence is they run head first down the backstretch having rotated on an internal axis in the turns. Just like the moon, and a race car.
JD should just stick to humor to avoid bungling the physics but of course JD’s physics bungling is so funny there’s that accomplishment.
DA, continuing with the discussion of “orbiting”–
Orbiting motion is “translational”. That means that all molecules of the Moon have the same velocity vector. Each molecule has the same gravitational vector. Consequently each molecule has the same resultant vector. Since the forces do not cause “rotating on its own axis”, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”. It is only orbiting.
The racehorse is only orbiting. If you attached a vertical pole to each side of the horse, so that the poles could mark the track, after one lap, there would be two concentric ovals/circles on the track. See Figure A, in the graphic.
If the horse were also rotating on its own axis, as it orbited, the ovals/circles would cross, as in Figure B.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
Ger*an,
Do you accept that an astronomical body could orbit while rotating, or that it could orbit without rotating?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-331569
It’s a yes-or-no question.
And you were given “yes” or “no” answers, as linked to.
Tim Folkerts says:
“Am I the only one who feels we are experiencing over and over some variation of the Blind Men and the Elephant”?
I didn’t know that story. You’ve been practicing this lesson for quite a while, haven’t you? E.g. different reference frames and heat vs. EMR.
Ah, “Reference Framers”. A group of people that believe “reference frames” determine reality, rather than ref. frames just being different ways to perceive that reality. Of course, if you confront them with this, they will deny that they see it this way. But their use of language gives it away.
Take the rotating airplane prop. The objective physical reality is that it is rotating on its own axis. Before the “moon debates” there is not one single person on this blog who would have argued otherwise. Now, thanks to the “Reference Framers”, you will get people saying, “from such and such a reference frame, the prop is not rotating”. And that’s where their use of language gives them away. The use of the unequivocal “is not rotating”. It shows that they really do believe that reference frames actually determine reality, and somehow make something that is rotating, not be rotating.
If they looked at reference frames properly, what they would say is, “from such and such a reference frame, the prop appears not to be rotating”. Just like a Ferris Wheel car appears not to be rotating, from “the inertial reference frame”. Of course, the objective physical reality is that it IS rotating, or else people would be upside down at points.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_wheel
“Some of the largest modern Ferris wheels have cars mounted on the outside of the rim, with electric motors to independently rotate each car to keep it upright. These wheels are sometimes referred to as observation wheels and their cars referred to as capsules, however these alternative names are also used for wheels with conventional gravity-oriented cars.”
“Reference Framers”, good one, DREMT.
That was just one more way to avoid the issue. Only, they found out it didn’t work when they started losing body parts!
$#9786;
Not enough coffee, yet.
Should be:
☺
If I hold a ball still and drop it, what is the “objective reality” — does it fall down in a straight line?
What is the “objective reality” for my house sitting still on the ground — is it rotating or not?
Sorry Tim, I’m not psychic. You will have to let me know what happened when you dropped your ball, and whether your house rotated on its own axis or not. This isn’t information I am privy to.
Tim, are you needing another lesson on “frames of reference”?
How many body parts will you lose to the airplane prop, before you learn?
I am quite happy to be called a “Reference Framer” and be put in the company of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein”.
So you didn’t understand my point. I’m not arguing against the utility of “reference frames”. But by all means of you are stupid enough to want to be called a “Reference Framer” after I clearly defined what I meant, then go ahead.
DREMT, desperately wanting people to take his ‘important’ post seriously. Then almost immediately not taking other people’s response to his post seriously.
This is what a troll does.
OK Nate.
Nate, I agree, Tim does seem overly desperate here. He can’t answer the simple question about the racehorse, but he wraps himself up in Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein.
Galileo already argued that one out with the Church. The Church, like DREMT, believed in the ‘objective physical reality’ that the Earth, and Tim’s house, are not moving or rotating.
Galileo got in trouble and had to recant, but famously said under his breath, ‘and yet it moves’.
And yet the earth warms.
And yet, Tim’s house is not rotating on its own axis. I assume. Unless Tim lives on some sort of rotating platform. Who knows, with Tim.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
And yet, Tims house is not rotating on its own axis. I assume. Unless Tim lives on some sort of rotating platform.
He does — the Earth.
The Earth rotates on its own axis. Tim’s house rotates along with the Earth, but not on its own axis.
“And yet, Tim’s house is not rotating on its own axis. I assume. Unless Tim lives on some sort of rotating platform.”
Whoosh! Galileo’s point goes way way over DREMTs and JDs head.
Even Simplicio was able to learn something from Galileo.
An unfortunate cross-posting, for Nate there. Unlucky.
DREMT “airplane prop. The objective physical reality is that it is rotating on its own axis.”
Church: the ‘objective reality’ is that the Earth and a house on it is not moving.
DREMT “The Earth rotates on its own axis. Tims house rotates along with the Earth, but not on its own axis.”
Galileo: All motion is relative.
Whoosh!
Whoosh!
“Take the Pope’s house. The objective physical reality is that it is not moving. Before that ‘Galileo’ fellow came along there is not one single person in Rome who would have argued otherwise. Now, thanks to the ‘Galileans’, you will get people saying, ‘from such and such a reference frame, it is moving’. And thats where their use of language gives them away. The use of the unequivocal ‘it is moving’.
Alternatively, instead of stacking straw men:
“Ah, “Reference Framers”. A group of people that believe “reference frames” determine reality, rather than ref. frames just being different ways to perceive that reality.”
If you believe that our human mental constructs such as “reference frames” actually determine “what is real”, rather than being tools to help our understanding of it (note, I already said to Tim “I’m not arguing against the utility of reference frames”), then by all means call yourself a “Reference Framer”.
And, continue to try to ascribe to me a position that I don’t hold, in your usual deceptive manner.
“Just like a Ferris Wheel car appears not to be rotating, from the inertial reference frame. Of course, the objective physical reality is that it IS rotating, or else people would be upside down at points.”
On the one hand you say, reference frames are just different ways of viewing reality.
But then you choose a FAVORITE FRAME, one rotating with the Wheel, and find people are rotating in it. You call this rotation ‘objective reality’.
But people are clearly not rotating in the inertial reference frame, a frame not rotating wrt to ground, and as a result are never upside down.
When your ‘objective reality’ is not the same as mine, its not really objective, nor reality.
“Some of the largest modern Ferris wheels have cars mounted on the outside of the rim, with electric motors to independently rotate each car to keep it upright“
“But then you choose a FAVORITE FRAME“
So, we’ve already had a “misrepresentation”. Now we have a “false accusation”.
How do you decide what is the reality? Well, it’s not always going to be easy and I’m sure you can dream up some difficult or even impossible examples, but I tried to go with two fairly straightforward ones, the airplane prop and Ferris Wheel. You just use logic. The airplane prop, and in some cases Ferris Wheel cars, are literally powered to rotate by motors. So we know that they ARE rotating. Energy is being expended, fuel is being used, to make that happen. In the case of Ferris Wheel cars without motors, gravity is doing the work, but the same principle applies. In some other cases you have objects that are physically unable to rotate on their axes. Therefore the reality is that they are not. And so on, and so forth.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Ah, Reference Framers. A group of people that believe reference frames determine reality, rather than ref. frames just being different ways to perceive that reality.
Define “reality.”
Are you familiar with centrifugal force?
“Define “reality””
OK David. Define “define”.
Alternatively, just think about the Ferris Wheel. It’s not exactly difficult.
I was serious.
Someone in a rotating frame of reference sees objects curve, as if from a force (centrifugal force).
Someone outside the rotating frame sees objects move in a straight line, with no apparent force.
Which is “reality?”
The two different reference frames are two different perspectives on the same reality.
“Ferris Wheel cars, are literally powered to rotate by motors. So we know that they ARE rotating. Energy is being expended, fuel is being used, to make that happen. In the case of Ferris Wheel cars without motors, gravity is doing the work, but the same principle applies.”
And here you are going back to square one. The objective reality is the one that matches your BELIEF about the Moon not rotating.
So, long after the fact you are still searching for justifications for that belief. In the end you make unconvincing arguments that are still subjective.
To match that belief, about the Moon and the Ferris wheel you choose a ROTATING FRAME of reference, to obtain your ‘objective reality’.
But it is still subjective, because may others see the people on the Ferris wheel not rotating and the Moon as rotating.
That is not a misrepresentation.
If Nature has a Favorite reference frame for Rotation, it is the inertial frame of the stars.
If so, then your propeller and the Moon are objectively rotating wrt to that frame, and the people on ferris wheel are not (except for much slower 1/24h).
The usual Nate stuff. Just ignore what has been written, and repeat yourself.
Yove been ignoring all that we have been writing about history and Galilean relativity. Nothing new.
You fail to catch the drift of how it demolishes your ‘objective reality’ notion.
It is either well over your head, or again you are so emotionally attached to your preconceived ideas, that you refuse to consider all contradictory facts or logic.
In any case, DREMT, what’s confusing is that you ALREADY agreed that the Moon and the horse on the carousel ARE rotating, just not about their own axis. Now you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Nothing worth responding to.
The motion of those Ferris Wheel cars would appear like the moon on the right in David’s endlessly-repeated GIF.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
And, as the Ferris Wheel Wiki link says:
“Some of the largest modern Ferris wheels have cars mounted on the outside of the rim, with electric motors to independently rotate each car to keep it upright“
Those motors would be rotating the cars CW, for instance, at the exact same rate that the Ferris Wheel itself rotates CCW. One CW axial rotation per CCW orbit, I guess you could say.
Ferris wheel carriages are orbiting, but not rotating. The carriage riders always face in the same direction (ignoring the little swivels of the carriages).
“with electric motors to independently rotate each car to keep it upright“
Each carriage hangs on its swivel.
Its occupants always face in the same direction, right? (Ignoring the small swiveling movement.)
“Its occupants always face in the same direction, right?”
Correct. And, as explained in the Wikipedia article I linked to:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_wheel
“Some of the largest modern Ferris wheels have cars mounted on the outside of the rim, with electric motors to independently rotate each car to keep it upright“
The electric motors independently rotate each car on its own axis, in order to keep the occupants always facing the same direction.
tim…”Its fascinating to hear people presenting their truth while not recognizing that other people could be presenting different aspects of truth”.
The human mind specializes in thinking its version of truth is ‘the’ truth. As Feynman pointed out, however, we can only approach truth, not find it.
I am not presenting my opinions here as if they are ultimate truth. All I’m trying to do is get as close to the truth as possible.
One way of approaching truth is to negate what is obviously not true.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/30/long-term-temperature-records-contradict-giss-temperature-record/
This is why I only use Dr. Spencer’s data.
Because an unknown person with no known credentials in the field tells you to?
Salvatore has no scientific reasons for preferring UAH’s data; he’s said he does it because it agrees with the conclusion he wants.
—
David Appell says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM
“Salvatore, its interesting that you accept model results when they show what you want but reject them otherwise.
Why do you accept Roys blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? Whats your criteria for acceptance?”
Reply
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM
Why because we agree that is why.
SDP sure knows how to work the clowns.
He plays them like a fiddle. He can probably make them play any tune he likes.
Clowns are so predictable.
The globe is cooling so fast now it causes the earth to crack
https://goo.gl/nMbZaF
All this has happened before:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
“The globe is cooling…”
Could you show us where it does (more than usual, of course)?
binny…”The globe is cooling”
It’s humour, binny. Eben is being humourour by claiming the fault cracks set off by an earthquake are due to cooling.
Are you sure your name isn’t ren?
bob…”Are you sure your name isnt ren?”
ren does not specialize in earthquakes, his forte is meteorology.
Chic Bowdrie
“… However, I fail to see why you would dishonor Bindidon by associating him with Appell. He has not been anywhere near as offensive, IMO.”
Thank you very much Chic Bowdrie for these words you wrote some days ago.
You are right with one exception: I insult everybody back whenever getting myself insulted.
Robertson ist the one and only person insulting me here; but he insults nearly everybody who has a meaning he either doesn’t understand or refutes.
“I insult everybody back whenever getting myself insulted.”
Then, you are in good company with President Trump.
Wow. You seem to view me as the ugly guy.
And with whom do you think are people like Robertson in good company of?
Any idea?
You classical mechanics buffs might like to learn about rotating frames of reference.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rotating_reference_frame
Entropic man, are you pretending to be a “classical mechanics” teacher?
Perhaps you would like to answer the simple yes/no question: “Is the racehorse rotating on its own axis as it laps the racetrack?”
Yes.
Congrats!
Some people are too afraid of being wrong to answer that simple question. They want to answer “yes”, as you did, but they also know it is wrong. So, they find ways not to answer.
You’re wrong, but at least you’re fearlessly wrong.
The advantage of being anonymous, huh?
entropic…”You classical mechanics buffs might like to learn about rotating frames of reference”.
1)had trouble getting link to work in Firefox
2)got it working on an older browser and the article does not address the rotation of a rigid body, only the rotation of particles in different reference frames.
The rotation of particles is different than the rotation of rigid bodies, where a radial line through the body rotates about an axis. It’s the change of the angle between that lines and the x or y axis that defines the motion. With a particle, it’s the angular velocity of the particle itself.
3)the article gives an example of rotation wrt to a reference frame as the rotation of the Earth ABOUT ITS AXIS.
4)it does not talk about a rigid body in orbit about the Earth with one face always pointed at the Earth. In order for the Moon to rotate about its axis under those conditions it is not possible for one face to always be facing the Earth.
Gordon wrote:
In order for the Moon to rotate about its axis under those conditions it is not possible for one face to always be facing the Earth.
And yet it does. So what’s your explanation?
Give it up Gordon. Postma has thrown you clowns under the bus! Postma declares the moon rotates on its axis. He should know, having a MS in Astrophysics, whereas you……well, you are just a clown.
I’m really surprised Team Dork is still spouting this moon non-rotation business when Joseph Postma specifically states:
“The moon rotates on its axis, which orbits the earth”
[https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-37404]
So “Ger-Anne” thinks Postma is a pseudo-scientist.
This is fun to watch. I’ll get more popcorn.
How about we leave the troll accounts to the deniers. This is not our style.
bob…”How about we leave the troll accounts to the deniers. This is not our style.”
‘Our style’????
Do you mean you are associated with this mob of alarmists? Thought you had more sense.
Skepticgonewild
The other post on the link was from g.e.r.a.n and it exactly mimics JDHuffman’s posting on the Moon rotation debate.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-37432
What a complete phony JDHuffman/g.e.r.a.n really is. This phony has no shame and he calls others phony or misleading. This freak is the phoniest most dishonest poster on this blog and he does not care that he is such. Like I said this goofball is really a strange one.
Skepticgonewild? So it was a denier. That explains it.
Postma throws “Ger-Anne” under the bus.
Hilarious!
And his “mini-me” sidekick DREMT.
(Same dumb person. Just an appendage)
Thump thump. LMAO.
Yes, hell of a discussion.
Ha! Direct evidence that anonymous JD posts as anonymous ger*an elsewhere.
“ger*an says:
2018/11/21 at 5:59 PM
The Moons motion is purely orbital. Thats why one side always faces Earth. The motion is analogous to a racehorse, or a race car, on an oval track. Standing inside the track, your would only see one side of the orbiting object. But outside the track, you would see both sides of the horse, or race car.
What confuses people is that there are two distinct, independent motions. One is orbiting, and the other is rotating on its own axis. You can have either motion by itself, or they can occur together. Earth has both motions, the Moon only has one. If we could instantly stop Earth in orbit, it would still continue rotating. If we stopped the Moon in orbit, all motion would cease.
The funny part is that institutionalized pseudoscience says that the Moon is tidally locked to Earth. So, it is locked, but yet it rotates on its own axis! Pure pseudoscience..
“
Or, it’s more direct evidence that not everyone is fooled by “institutionalized pseudoscience “.
I wonder which way anonymous coward Nate will go….
You are also anonymous….
(Ger*an)
You are confused, DA.
Another contradiction in team dork, DREMT refutes JDHuffmans beloved GPE cartoon:
https://tinyurl.com/ybxu82ua
Thanks for bringing more attention to that discussion. You’re thick, but…you know what? I’m alright with that.
SGW, are you really fluffball?
All of you anonymous cowards always sound alike. It’s hard to tell you apart.
“Anonymous cowards?” Look who’s talking….
DA, did you come back to learn some more physics you can then deny?
Your life isn’t very productive, is it?
Well, Postma *is* a pseudo-scientist. But he’s right about the Moon. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
HGS…”Im really surprised Team Dork is still spouting this moon non-rotation business when Joseph Postma specifically states:
The moon rotates on its axis, which orbits the earth”
***********
Postma is wrong.
Look at this animation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Is the Moon on the left rotating?
‘Postma is wrong’
You guys should definitely take this discussion over there. The overall IQ is much lower there. Its the blind leading the blind. You might win some converts.
Robertson
1. I wrote a few days ago
“Roy Spencer explained us many times how much it matters to analyse absolute time series in form of departures from the mean of a chosen period, rather than simply analysing the series themselves”
You write (no surprise at all for me)
“I don’t recall Roy putting it quite that way.”
But he did, in a good head post together with an answer to those missing an absolute UAH global mean temperature:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Why, do you think, did he not simply mention one value?
*
2. And you continue with the usual
“If you used absolute temperatures, however, the warming over the past century in tenths of a degree C would look almost like a flat line compared to the +15C or so average. That would put the current warming in proper perspective.”
Here, Robertson, is your absolute temperature time series (from GHCN daily, all these many stations which are never used, as you so pretty pretend all the time, of course without any real proof of that other than a ten year old NOAA page you carefully hide the half of):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10tclj_rC7io7MWNjWzJTZ_BzDQmToMkH/view
*
3. Is that not beatiful? Robertson, the guy who a few months ago still did not know how anomalies and baselines really work, is suddenly trying to teach me about them!
“One thing NOAA has done right is offer us an explanation for what you are trying to describe.”
From NOAA…
What is a temperature anomaly?
The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.”
No, Robertson. I did not try to describe; I did describe. What you were copy/pasting from NOAA is a bit too simple. The result would simply be:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JfvlB4OJ6gwFsuZVajsUjg_-4Brv2qzN/view
Read Roy Spencer’s post and my comment again.
Look also at
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_climatology_1981-2010_v3.0.csv
Then maybe (!) you will understand what is needed to get an anomaly graph looking like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KaVlFDTuyQxmAK_0TQSztIvsm3OYBwyY/view
*
4. But the surprise for you might that though the trend line in the anomalies is steeper than that for the absolute values, the trend for anomalies itself (0.10 C / decade) is BY FAR less than that for the absolute values (0.39 C).
This is Globe data, Robertson, and not that for CONUS, where absolute values for 1895-2018 have a zero trend.
*
I know: for the 100th time, you will pretend that this is all faked, and based on fudged data.
No problem for me! Who are or were you, after all, Robertson? A simple engineer, like me.
Your agressive, discrediting opinion is here completely irrelevant.
What about learning instead of insulting?
One think you can do, if you don’t want to calculate the anomalies, is take the trend of the 12-month moving average (for monthly data like UAH’s). It’s not quite the same as the trend of the anomalies, but it’s not far off, either. And simpler.
But I WANT to calculate anomalies, Mr Appell!
Because I know it is the right approach.
Sure. But it takes some work. I’m just saying, if you want a quick and dirty answer, calculate the trend of the 12-mth moving average.
binny…”No, Robertson. I did not try to describe; I did describe. What you were copy/pasting from NOAA is a bit too simple”.
And this is why I call you an idiot.
When NOAA, who you worship, offers a definition of an anomaly, you claim your authority figure is offering a definition that is too simple.
Their definition is right on, an anomaly is a departure from the average over a range. It’s not too simple, it is that simple.
Seasonally adjusted or not, an anomaly is a departure from the norm.
When NOAA claims they have slashed the global surface station input from 6000 stations to less than 1500, you claimed they are using thousands more stations. So, you are offering different stories out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
“However, GHCNm v4 uses only those station
records that span a minimum of 10 years, which reduces
the total number of stations to about 26 000.
“The Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Dataset, Version 4,” Matthew J. Menne et al, JCLI Dec 2018
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0094.1
WOW!
Robertson still can’t stop insulting and lying, but… he LEARNS!
Incredible.
6 months ago, he never would have written such a comment about anomalies, as he did not understand what they really mean.
“That means that all molecules of the Moon have the same velocity vector.”
Good definition of translating, JD.
But your figure A shows the far side is traveling around a larger circle than the near side.
Going around a larger circle, in the same time, means moving faster and having a longer velocity vector, than the near side.
Congratulations, JD. You just proved that the Moon isnt purely translating.
Yes, all molecules have the same velocity vector is a good example of translation. By definition.
But all the molecules of the Moon clearly DO NOT have the same velocity vector, with respect to the Earth.
See the left-hand side of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA…”But all the molecules of the Moon clearly DO NOT have the same velocity vector, with respect to the Earth”.
We are not measuring the relative velocity of atoms/molecules, we are measuring the rate of change of atoms making up a radial line through a rigid body.
A rotation of a rigid body like the Moon is measured by a radial line perpendicular to its axis, from it’s centre, to a point on the surface. The rotation of the Moon is measured by the angular rate of change of the entire line.
Obviously, each atom along that radial line takes the same time to turn through 360 degrees. Some have to move faster to do that but their velocities have nothing to do with the rate of angular velocity.
Although each atom along the line is turning at different speeds, the entire line is not.
On the Earth, a radial line from it’s centre to the intercept of the Equator and the Greenwich Meridian (0 degrees longitude) is turning at the same rate as a radial line from the Earth’s axis to where I live in Vancouver, Canada.
Those radial lines turn through 360 degrees in 24 hours, even though a person standing on the equator is moving faster than I am at Vancouver.
Looking down on the Earth from the North Pole, you can view the latitudes as concentric circles. Obviously, the circumference of the Equator is the largest circle and a circle a few feet from the Pole itself would be tiny in comparison. Yet people standing on the Greenwich meridian at both points would cover vastly different distances in the same time.
That is how angular velocity of a planet is measured. It has nothing to do with individual atoms/molecules.
No Nate, you just proved you do not understand orbiting. That just makes you confused.
Want some more confusion?
Everytime the racehorse laps the track, one of his sides gets longer than the other side!
☺
Do you accept that an astronomical body could orbit while rotating, or that it could orbit without rotating? (With respect to the body it’s orbiting.)
DA, that’s the 4th time you’ve asked the same stupid question, that I answered upthread.
How many times do you ask a stupid question before you conjure up a new one?
I don’t think you ever answered.
Link to it.
5
I knew you hadn’t answered.
Let’s start again: Do you accept that an astronomical body could orbit while rotating, or that it could orbit without rotating? (With respect to the body it’s orbiting.)
It’s a simple question.
Poor David.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-331569
6
Tracking DA’s obsessions during commercials is fun.
Now back to the movie….
Emergency: Thanks for the link. It’s wrong, and misstates what I wrote.
Q: Do you accept that an astronomical body could orbit while rotating, or that it could orbit without rotating? (With respect to the body its orbiting.)
Yes or No?
7
Typical troll games.
Not answering tells me you realize both states are possible. You just can’t admit it, for some reason.
8
So which of these animations describes the real Moon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
9
nate…”Going around a larger circle, in the same time, means moving faster and having a longer velocity vector, than the near side”.
You are confused as to the difference between the angular velocity of a rigid body and the motion of individual particles.
If you draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre to where the Equator meets the Greenwich merdian, the angular velocity of the Earth is the rate at which the angle of the entire line rotates.
No matter where that radial line is located in a north/south direction, it will turn at exactly the same rate as the radial line at the Equator. In other words, if you slide that line up and down the Earth’s axis, all the lines will turn at the same velocity.
That’s how you measure the angular velocity of a rotating rigid body.
If I take the same radial line from the Moon’s centre to the face where it always faces the Earth, it cannot turn about its axis. If it did, the same face would no longer face the Earth.
Even if it turned as slow as one rotation per Earth orbit. the face pointing to the Earth would have to turn through 360 degrees.
Take two coins and prove it to yourself. Set them up side by side so 3 o’clock on the right hand coin points to 9 o’clock on the other RH coin). Put a mark on both at this point.
Try to ‘roll’ the coin on the right around the circumference of the other coin. You cannot roll it without the mark at 9 o’clock leaving the circumference of the coin on the right.
The only way you can move the coin on the right around the full circumference of the coin on the left is to ‘slide’ it around.
Sliding is curvilinear translation, not rotation.
If you extend the point at 9 o’clock across the RH coin to 3 o’clock, that line will always be perpendicular to a tangent line at any point of the LH coin’s circumference. Its motion fulfills the requirements of curvilinear translation. All points along that line will turn at the same ‘angular’ velocity wrt to an x-y axis through the LH coin and parallel to each other.
correction:
“Set them up side by side so 3 oclock on the right hand coin points to 9 oclock on the other RH coin)”.
should read:
“Set them up side by side so 3 oclock on the right hand coin points to 9 oclock on the LH coin).
Poor Gordon can’t even figure out what curvilinear translation is! He makes up his own special definition, because, that’s what clowns do.
Postma throws him under the bus and he STILL comes back here to make an even bigger fool of himself!
It’s fun to watch.
HGS…skepticgonewild, the penultimate coward hiding behind someone else’s nym…
“Poor Gordon cant even figure out what curvilinear translation is! He makes up his own special definition, because, thats what clowns do”.
Give me some evidence. skepticgonewild that you have even the slightest idea what I’m talking about.
Your understanding of physics is slim to none and you are an idiot to boot. A cowardly idiot who hides behind someone else’s nym.
Your definition of curvilinear translation does not agree with any standard kinematic definition found in any online University reference source.
The perfect example of curvilinear translation is the motion of a Ferris wheel chair.
Gordon – many words about angular velocity etc.
But none change the definition of speed, which is distance/time.
Hence: “Going around a larger circle, in the same time, means moving faster and having a longer velocity vector, than the near side”
Nate, lost in his pseudoscience, must also believe there are no racetracks. Horses, cars, and people can’t run in large ovals, because one side would be traveling at different speed than the other side.
His failure in logic matches he failure in physics.
Nothing new.
In training, Usain Bolt runs around a 400 m oval track in 45 s. Superfan JD runs around inside the track on 200 m oval path in 45 s. He declares he’s just as fast as Usain Bolt!
Nate, you must have realized how stupid your “different sides, different speeds” nonsense sounded. So, you switched to two objects, trying to recover from your bad logic and bad physics.
But, now you are into a different scenario, i.e. running from reality.
Likely your next effort will be more misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults.
“So, you switched to two objects”
Really JD? You think it makes a bit of difference, one object or two?
Explain that one nitwit.
It’s easy to explain, Nate. You wanted to twist physics. You got caught. So you tried a different twist.
Not only are you easy to explain, you’re predictable.
Speaking of twisted physics. JD loves Postma physics when it comes to the GHE. But NOT Postma’s “moon rotates of its axis” physics.
LMAO!
Speaking of twisted, how many different phony names do you have?
How does it feel being thrown under the bus?
ROTFLMAO.
What a loser.
Maybe you comment each time with a new name. That might impress people. Nothing else you’re doing is working for you.
JD used to bet regularly on a horse called Outside Lane. The horse always ran races in the outermost lane of the track. Shockingly, he lost all of his bets.
I can go on all day with these stories of JDs non-triumphs over reality.
Yup, Nate could go on all day with his misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults.
JD,
“But your figure A shows the far side of the Moon is traveling around a larger circle than the near side.”
Your drawing not mine.
Larger circles have larger circumferences.
Speed = distance/time.
A point travelling on a larger circle, in time T, has a higher speed than a point travelling on a smaller circle in time T.
QED.
With what do you disagree, and why?
I disagree that you can twist physics to claim a race car can’t orbit an oval track.
But, you’ll keep trying.
So as usual, JD you’re caught in a total stupidity, you dodge the question, divert attention, sling insults.
Thank you for proving that the Moon is not purely translating. QED.
nate…”many words about angular velocity etc.
But none change the definition of speed, which is distance/time”
There is a difference between the velocity of an individual particle and the angular velocity of a radial LINE. Rotation of a rigid body is about the change of an angle defined by a radial line through the body wrt to a coordinate axis.
This is obviously over your head because I explained it very simply and you still don’t get it.
If I am standing 10 feet from the North Pole on the Greenwich meridian (0 degrees longitude) my personal angular velocity is much slower than someone at the Equator standing at the Greenwich meridian. Yet both of us take 24 hours to rotate through 360 degrees.
What’s the rate of rotation of the Earth? Is it 360 degrees in 24 hours? Its angular velocity as a rigid body has nothing whatsoever to do with the velocity of individual particles.
Now look at the Moon with one face glued to the same side of the Earth. How the heck does the Moon turn through 360 degrees around its own axis while one face is always pointing to the Earth?
Try the coins and convince yourself.
I explained more simply than you. And it went over your head, Gordon.
Speed = Distance/Time. Longer distance, same time, speed must be higher.
All parts of the moon have the same angular velocity, but different linear velocities, because they are NEARER OR FARTHER from the center of rotation.
JD again scores an impressive self-goal. Then denies it.
His team is behind 47-0, but he insists his team is winning.
Nate, your team lost before you even started playing.
You can’t beat reality.
Team Postma says you lose…………..bigly.
How does the underside of a bus look like? LMAO.
We own the bus, just like we own you.
LMAO.
The following is the text of an email i wrote to Donna Laframboise two years ago after she published on the GWPF web site. Despite claiming on her web site that she answers email, this one remains unanswered.
She may actually have found one paper by affirmers of climate science that suffered from flawed peer review.
_____________
From: Jack Dale
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 5:15 PM
To: ‘[email protected]’
Subject: PEER REVIEW
I read PEER REVIEW Why skepticism is essential this weekend and feel the need to comment.
You state If half of all peer-reviewed research may simply be untrue, half of all climate research may also be untrue. While you present many examples from fields such as medicine, physics, etc., you do not include one specific documented example from the field of climate science. Let me provide some.
1) Soon and Baliunas, 2003
2) Spencer and Braswell, 2011
As you must know, in both cases editors resigned after it was realized that the peer view process was seriously flawed.
In the Spring of 2003, Soon and Baliunas, with three additional co-authors, published a longer version of the paper in Energy and Environment. When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of the revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen said, “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”
+++++++++++++++++
In another case the publisher of a journal ceased publication after it was clear that the peer-review process for a special edition of the journal was highly flawed.
From the Copernicus Publications website.
Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.
Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205206, 2013).
Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.
In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.
Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.
++++++++++++++
You further state Reproducibility is the backbone of sound science. I agree. The hockey stick has been reproduced at least 38 times using different data sets and different methodologies by different researchers.
While these examples of flawed peer-review come from denialists (to use the term employed Dr. Carl Mears of RSS), I am sure with your investigative skills you can find similarly egregious examples by affirmers of climate science. I would appreciate seeing those.
I wrote an article about Soon & Baliunas 2003:
“Hot Words: A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate,” Scientific American, June 24, 2003 (Web) and August 2003 (print), pp. 20-22.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-words-2003-06-24/
PS: Yes, Soon & Baliunas 2003 was a seriously flawed paper. I explained why in my Sci Am article.
DA…”PS: Yes, Soon & Baliunas 2003 was a seriously flawed paper. I explained why in my Sci Am article”.
Have no idea why anyone would brag about the pseudo-scientific claims you wrote.
You were wrong.
DA…”I wrote an article about Soon & Baliunas 2003:”
It’s comforting to see that you make as much of an ass of yourself on the public stage as you do here on Roy’s blog.
Your argument again the Soon paper is that Mann et al in MBH98 proved otherwise. Now I see why you are so defensive about the hockey stick being demolished by McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as NAS and an expert statistician.
The Mann et al paper has since been dropped by the IPCC, leaving egg all over your face. In other words, MBH98 has been discarded as seriously bad statistical work.
Soon & Baliunas 2003 are right, there is evidence of warmer periods than today as recently as 1000 years ago.
The hockey stick has been replicated over three dozen times by different researchers using different data sets and different methodologies.
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
They’re all at the same “church”, singing the same “song”, from the same “songbook”.
Would we expect anything different?
I never waste too much time on such nonsense, but I did click on the first link (Crowley). But, the link didn’t work. That’s a pretty good indicator, huh?
jack…”The hockey stick has been replicated over three dozen times by different researchers using different data sets and different methodologies”.
The hockey stick was initially discredited by McIntyre and McKitrick, who found that white noise in the MBH98 algorithm would produce a hockey stick shape.
M&M lobbied the US government who reluctantly appointed the National Academy of Science and a statistics expert, wegmann to investigate.
Here is a link to McKitrick’s analysis of the process involved with their complaint and the subsequent NAS analysis.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/paleoclimatehockey-stick.html
NAS told MBH they could not use pine bristlecone for the 20th century, which is all they had. They told them they could not claim 1000 years, limiting them to 400 years. MBH had used 1 tree to cover an entire century somewhere around the 13 century.
When the bristecone proxy started showing cooling in the 1960s when the atmosphere was warming, MBH98 applied Mike’s trick (Michael Mann) by snipping off the offending data and splicing in real data. Mann found no problem with that chicanery.
Wegmann, the statistics expert, wrote a scathing report, agreeing with M&M and claiming section 9 of the IPCC review, who produced the hockey stick were nepotic. They cited only papers from friends.
The only comeback MBH offered to his criticism was a claim by Bradley that Wegmann had plagiarized him. They offered not one rebuttal to his criticism.
The IPCC responded by limiting the hockey stick from 1850 onward and redoing the entire graph to re-implement the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that had been discarded by MBH98.
Nice article David.
I am a fan of excellent science journalism, and this fits the bill.
jackdale…”Let me provide some.
1) Soon and Baliunas, 2003
2) Spencer and Braswell, 2011
As you must know, in both cases editors resigned after it was realized that the peer view process was seriously flawed”.
**********
It’s not the job of a peer reviewer to decide whether either paper was flawed. That’s not the purpose of peer review, to have one reviewer decide whether a paper is right or wrong.
That’s the job of the ‘peers’, meaning the entire scientific community.
There was nothing wrong with a reviewer passing on either paper above for publication. Both came from qualified scientists. The more serious problem was alarmists bringing pressure to bear in order to interfere with the process.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure that lay people are not publishing junk. As it stands, peer review in climate science is aimed at ensuring skeptics don’t get published.
No Gordon. A peer reviewer has to decide that the paper is not obviously wrong.
In Soon & Baliunas’s case, the paper was obviously wrong. But the journal where they first published, Energy and Environment, had an editor who was a climate change denier and published the paper anyway. She utterly ruined her journal’s reputation.
DA…”A peer reviewer has to decide that the paper is not obviously wrong.”
I don’t give a hoot what happens, or what an appointed reviewer ‘should’ do, I am talking about the corruption of the entire process. It’s wrong.
Why should cutting edge science come down to one reviewer? In one case with Roy, he had to ask whether the reviewer understood what he [Roy] was writing about.
Peer review should involve the scientific method, where a peer, or peers, proves the paper wrong using the scientific method.
What you are describing is sheer bias, possible corruption, and incompetence re the scientific method.
BTW – Soon was among the authors published in Pattern Recognition in Physics. The authors include many of the usual subjects: N.-A. Mrner, R. Tattersall, J.-E. Solheim, I. Charvatova, N. Scafetta, H. Jelbring, I. R. Wilson, R. Salvador, R. C. Willson, P. Hejda, W. Soon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, O. Humlum, D. Archibald, H. Yndestad, D. Easterbrook, J. Casey, G. Gregori, and G. Henriksson
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/issue1.html
This is the preface to main page of the “journal”.
“Copernicus Publications wishes to distance itself from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP.”
“The purpose of peer review is to ensure that lay people are not publishing junk. ”
Well, that’s a big change over your previous stance, Gordon:
“Peer review is not part of the scientific method and there is no need for it. Publish the damned paper and allow the peers at large to review it.
As it stand, PR is censorship.”
From Stephen Hawking’s last paper, last paragraph in Section 1:
“Throughout this paper we use units such that c = hbar = k = G = 1.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01847.pdf?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Hawking was an invalid pathetically used to promote pseudoscience.
Your link is a perfect example.
Yeah, like you know than Stephen Hawking. Ha. Dunning-Kruger.
You use a similar unite system, setting something equal to 1, all the time. Have you figured it out yet?
DA…”From Stephen Hawking’s last paper, last paragraph in Section 1:”
Black whole theory is scientific nonsense. Some of the stuff covered by Hawking was sheer, theoretical drivel, especially his views on climate change.
I admire Stephen Hawking for his “True Grit”. Few people have the courage and determination to overcome the handicaps he suffered. While he was a contemporary of mine at Cambridge I never heard of him as he was not famous back then.
As a physicist he is arguably in the top twenty over the last 100 years but his views on politics and “Climate Change” are an embarrassment.
No matter his feet of clay we should applaud his accomplishments and forget his foibles.
cam…”I admire Stephen Hawking for his True Grit.”
I agree. The guy had it brutally rough.
Gordon Robertson says:
Black whole theory is scientific nonsense
Yeah, like you know than the entire astrophysics community. Again, Dunning-Kruger applies
So which of these animations describes the real Moon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA…”So which of these animations describes the real Moon?”
The one on the left. It is an illusion that it is turning on its axis. Look at it very closely.
It’s not an illusion. Focus on the Moon’s polar axis, and watch the black patch circle around it. That’s rotation.
Which of these animations describes the actual Moon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Gordon passing his engineering degree:
https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohs7O2afIz1a8bWPm/giphy.gif
Oh wait. That was his clown school graduation photo.
Two engineering students were walking across campus when one said, “Where did you get such a great bike?”
Gordon replied, “Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, “Take what you want.”
The second engineer nodded approvingly, “Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn’t have fit.”
They were only engineering “students”.
An experienced engineer would have completely satisfied the beautiful woman. Then took both the bike and the clothes, all of which could be sold to non-engineers for twice the existing value.
An engineer would build a machine to do it for him, as in the song.
https://www.erc69.nl/song/old-engineers-song/
It is awesome to witness a spirited discussion of tidal locking.
Imagine a planet in close orbit of a sun. For example the planet Mercury:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Mercury is in a 3:2 spin orbit resonance which means that if it had a significant atmosphere it would not condense on the cold side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Given that Mercury does not have an atmosphere you may say “So what?”.
Less than four light years away there is a planet orbiting a very dim star and that planet may be in the “Goldilocks Zone”. Using nuclear rockets we may be able to visit that planet within the next 50 years.
Even if a planet is in the “Goldilocks Zone” there is no guarantee that it will be inhabitable. The atmospheric pressure may be too high (Venus) or too low (Mars). Even with the right amount of atmospheric gases, a 1:1 tidal lock to Proxima B would be a show stopper.
Given the high erudition of Dr. Roy’s flock I suspect that many of you will take the time to read this lengthy and challenging paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5820795/
“Tidal locking” is a different issue from whether or not the Moon rotates on its own axis. Although it is likely another hoax, it is not as easily disproved. But the Moon’s rotation is easy to disprove, just by the fact that it always has the same side facing Earth. People get confused by the “church” of institutionalized pseudoscience, with NASA as its “Vatican City”.
Adding even more humor is the orbit of Mercury, which has the actual “rotation on its own axis”, that the Moon does not. And yet, “Vatican City” claims it is also “tidally locked”! Just more clear evidence of how perverted and corrupted modern science has become.
@JDH,
Good point! Tidal locking and spin orbit resonance are not the same thing. However they are two examples of gravitational effects that have great significance when it comes to the habitability of planets and moons.
The existence of Lagrangian points is another interesting gravitational effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point
You mention the Vatican.
The Moon rotates relative to the Sun. It rotates relative to the stars. It rotates relative to the inertial frame of reference.
It does not rotate relative to the Earth, so you say it does not rotate.
Your geocentric attitude resembles the position of the Catholic church before Copernicus.
???
Entropic man, you answered upthread that you believed (incorrectly) a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, running an oval racetrack. Now, you are off on “frames of reference”. The “frames of reference” is a game played by clowns. Don’t let it confuse you. People have lost limbs not understanding.
The “frame of reference” is “its own axis”, i.e., a vertical axis through its center of mass. Neither the Moon, nor the racehorse, “rotates on its own axis”.
“The moon rotates on its axis, which orbits the Earth.”
Joseph Postma – 11/19/2018
Bummer, man.
JD, a frame of reference needs not only an origin, but also the full orientation of the reference frame. You state your choice of origin (the center of mass). You partially state the orientation (giving the vertical axis (which we could call the “z direction” for simplicity).
But you still need to state your choice for the x direction (and then whether you are using left-handed or right-handed coordinates to locate the y-axis). You are implicitly choosing the x-axis to be fixed with the horse (for example, pointing toward the nose). This is a fine choice, but it means that your frame of reference is changing orientation, ie rotating. Others might choose there x-axis to be non-rotating, ie fixed relative to the stars. This also has advantages.
PS. Have you noticed that for the airplane propeller, you insist on the ‘natural’ choice of a non-rotating reference frame, but here you insist on a rotating reference frame?
Tim, “rotating on its own axis” is not a hard concept to grasp. If you had any knowledge of physics, you should be able to understand the simple concept.
Maybe if you purchase this, and study it daily, you will be able to comprehend.
https://www.amazon.com/Illuminated-World-Globe-Stand-Built-/dp/B01M7Z1CHP?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ipad-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01M7Z1CHP
tim…”But you still need to state your choice for the x direction (and then whether you are using left-handed or right-handed coordinates to locate the y-axis).”
It’s not that complex, it actually very simple. The horse is not rotating no matter which frame you specify. You have to distinguish between actual motion and an abstraction of motion, which is peculiar to the human mind.
If you’re talking about the horse on the track, imagine a circular track to get rid of elliptical focal point issues. Now you have a simple circle with y coordinates pointing away from you through the centre of the circle and x coordinates perpendicular through the centre.
Start at y = 0, x = 100 metres on a conventional x-y grid. Draw a radial line from the 0,0 to y = 0, x = 100 metres. Hopefully you agree that as that radial line turns through 360 degrees its rate of rotation is determined by the rate of change of the angle between the line and the x-axis.
Now extend the line through the horse and allow it to track the horse as it runs. The horse and the line are moving at exactly the same rate ‘around the track’ as measured from the change in angle between the line and the x-axis.
Please try not to abstract this. Both the horse and the radial line will take the same time to travel through one lap.
If you had the horse standing on a platform attached to the line, it would circle the track at exactly the same rate as the platform, which is turning AROUND THE TRACK at exactly the same rate as the line.
At any time, is that horse rotating around the line where the line intercepts the horse’s centre of gravity?
The horse is performing curvilinear translation and that’s why it ‘APPEARS’ to turn one complete rotation per lap. The horse is not rotating at all, no matter which reference frame you spec.
Take a straight track of 1 mile. You would agree that a horse running straight down that track is performing rectilinear translation???
If so, wrap that straight line into a circle and you have the same translation except it’s in a circle.
Gordon sputters:
“The horse is performing curvilinear translation and thats why it APPEARS to turn one complete rotation per lap”
How many times will you screw up the definition of curvilinear translation? (Answer: EVERY TIME) It is quite impossible for a horse to perform curvilinear translation running a race track. With curvilinear translation, the horse would have to face the same direction throughout it run around the track.
If the horse started out facing north down the first straightaway, it would have to keep facing north around the first turn, trotting sideways in an attempt to keep pointing north. Then it would be running ass-backwards on the backstretch facing north again.
You are confusing curvilinear translation with curvilinear motion. Not the same thing.
A horse running a circular track rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, which confuses those who do not understand basic kinematics. (which you don’t, since you keep making up definitions as your go along)
Anonymous Stupid, you prove yourself wrong, again.
By your definition of orbiting, the racehorse MUST be also rotating on its own axis. Otherwise, he would be going sideways through the turns, and backwards down the backstretch.
But, we know the horse is not rotating on its own axis.
So, the racehorse (reality) obliterates your pseudoscience.
Maybe if you change your name, again….
Postma says your physics suck, loser.
“But the Moons rotation is easy to disprove, just by the fact that it always has the same side facing Earth. “
Well we see slightly different sides, so does that mean it is “slightly rotating”? A proof that only “mostly works” is no proof at all.
Tim, you’re so desperate it’s pathetic.
You’re reasoning is as perverted as your physics.
I didn’t say I was “proving” anything, I said I was “disproving”. And the fact that we only see one side of the Moon is all the disproof needed.
Learn some physics, and clean up your act.
“Less than four light years away there is a planet orbiting a very dim star and that planet may be in the Goldilocks Zone. Using nuclear rockets we may be able to visit that planet within the next 50 years.”
It would easier to add an atmosphere to Mercury.
But Mercury is habitable for a spacefaring civilization when it lacks an atmosphere. I would argue it’s more habitable because it lacks an atmosphere. But habitable tends to suggest a planet in which life could evolve. And a planet which has had life evolved on it, could less habitable to humans than a world without life which has evolve on it.
I think there too much interest in idea of finding alien life on some distance planet [including Mars or Europa]. The idea is sold as some amazing and important thing of the discovery of alien life, and I am too keen on it. I would say Earth has life close enough to such alien life- in deep ocean with black smokers and miles under the surface of Earth. Or if it was such a great thing to find alien life- where is all the amazing zeal to discover this “alien life” which is relatively to get to, as compared to Mars, Europa, or some near solar system.
It’s sort like idea of mining helium 3 on the Moon- that it some sort killer app which will drive space exploration. Helium 3 is rare and hard to make- but there is not much use for it. Or might be good if we had fusion reactors than used helium 3.
I think you go to Moon, mainly because it’s low gravity well and because it has vacuum. And we do it now rather in 100 years, because the Moon has minable water. And if mining lunar water, and making rocket fuel, some He 3 will be also mine and perhaps shipped back to Earth- but because it has some value, but does not it has a lot value. What truly valuable on Moon is it’s vacuum and stuff one can make in vacuum and low gravity [or high artificial gravity] and it will lead to Earth having space power satellites- unlimited electrical power for tens of billion of people living on Earth until time when sun leaves it’s main sequence. And solar system using solar energy could support trillions of people with much higher standard of living than we have now.
Mercury distance is nice because it’s shortest path using hohmann transfer to rest of our solar system- it’s 104 days to Earth, and about 6 month to Mars [faster than hohmann from Earth to Mars] and getting main belt or Jupiter and beyond is much faster.
Mercury like our Moon lacks water table, which mean one can easily dig deep, and perhaps make or find large underground “worlds” and create worlds animal and plant life of Earth’s past- and also maybe “worlds” of alien life.
But, the Deltav for a Hohmann transfer from Mercury orbit to Mars orbit is about 4x that for Earth to Mars.
@gbaikie,
Long before we set off for Proxima B we will need to hone our survival skills in a vacuum.
We have made a good start by building space stations but what about self sustaining communities on the Moon or on Mars?
Our survival toolkit will need to include a compact electric power plant such as a MSR (Molten Salt Reactor):
https://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
Personally, I think we should start with the Moon. It’s close by. The path has been cleared. We should not risk having our reach exceed our grasp.
“Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.”
Makes sense.
cam…”It is awesome to witness a spirited discussion of tidal locking”.
Have you tried my coin experiment?
Take two coins and sit them side by side in front of you. Mark the left hand coin at 3 o’clock and the right hand coin at 9 o’clock. Then draw a line across the RH coin from 9 to 3 o’clock.
Try to ‘roll’ the RH coin around the perimeter of the LH coin to emulate the Moon orbiting once on its axis as it orbits the Earth while always keeping one face to the Earth.
You cannot ‘roll’ the RH coin without the mark on the RH coin leaving the surface of the LH coin. The only way to get the RH (moon) coin around the LH coin is to ‘slide’ it while keeping the mark at 9 o’clock against the LH coin’s perimeter.
In order for the Moon to rotate once about its axis as it orbits, that mark has to turn through 360 degrees.
That sliding action is curvilinear translation, not rotation. The proof is in the line drawn from 9 to 3 on the RH coin.
As set up, that line is perpendicular to the LH coin at 3 o’clock. Where the coins meet, there is a tangent line to that point which is perpendicular to the 9 – 3 line on the RH coin. That relationship between line and tangent does not change throughout the sliding action of the RH coin around the LH coin.
Curvilinear translation is described by all points on that line moving parallel at all times. All points on the line turn in concentric circles around the centre of the LH coin. That describes parallel motion
A further requirement for CT is that all points along that line move at the same ‘angular velocity’. Many people here are confused about that. It is the angular velocity of the entire line that counts as rotation, not the velocity of the individual particles on the line.
It takes all points on that line the same time to travel through 360 degrees. Therefore their angular velocity as part of a rigid body is constant.
Gordon blubbers:
“Curvilinear translation is described by all points on that line moving parallel at all times. All points on the line turn in concentric circles around the centre of the LH coin. That describes parallel motion”
NO. NO NO. You are MAKING UP YOUR OWN definition of translation! All throughout this discussion you say the same STUPID thing.
The real definition of translation:
“Translation: It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: all points move in congruent curves.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Your made-up definition is WRONG on two counts. With translation All points move on congruent curves, NOT concentric. And secondly, your two points DO NOT REMAIN PARALLEL to their original position. There is NO ROTATION, or turning of the body with translation.
I have not seen such ignorance from someone who claims to be an engineer.
Anonymous Stupid clown, you are confusing translational. Orbiting motion is “instantaneously” translational. The resultant vector then turns the object infinitesimally. The velocity vector always remains tangential to the orbit. That is “orbiting”.
The motion you are describing would provide the interecting circles, as in Figure B. Figure A is “orbiting”.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
Another really dumb statement from Gordon:
“That sliding action is curvilinear translation, not rotation. The proof is in the line drawn from 9 to 3 on the RH coin.”
No, Einstein. With curvilinear translation, the orientation of the object cannot change. With curvilinear translation, the “head” on the coin could not change its orientation. You CONITNUALLY mess up the definition of curvilinear translation.
Look at page 4 of the following reference. The arrows remain pointed in the same direction when translating along the curve:
https://www.asu.edu/courses/kin335tt/Lectures/Kinematics/Kinematics%20I%20Spring%202005.pdf
“A team of scientists, led by Shuai Li of the University of Hawaii and Brown University and including Richard Elphic from NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley, used data from NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) instrument to identify three specific signatures that definitively prove there is water ice at the surface of the Moon.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180820203638.htm
“Spectral modeling shows that some ice-bearing pixels may contain ∼30 wt % ice that is intimately mixed with dry regolith.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/36/8907
Pixel being 280 280 meter area on Moon.
So take off top 3 cm of fluffy dust at surface of moon about 30% of weight could be water ice. And terms 30 liter per square meter and density of say 1.5 kg per liter 45 kg of water ore per square meter.
And 100 x 100 meter area has 10,000 square meter or 45,000 kg of water ore if just remove top layer. And times .3 is 13500 kg or 13.5 tonnes of water one could extract.
I think you have to get to mining 1000 tonnes of water per year to be viable, but one get to this production rate within say 5 years. Or first year mine 100 tons and double production each year: 200, 400, 800, 1000 tons or more by year five.
So if just removing the top layer one need a larger area, like say 1 square km, would be 13.5 times 100 or 1350 tons of water, so after say year three, one need to mine larger area than the 1 square km- if you are continuing to just remove the top layer.
Another aspect of just mining top layer is might travel a km or two distance to find smaller regions- say about 50 by 50 meter area [or smaller] which have higher amount of water ice at surface or at 280 x 280 meter resolution it’s has patchy distribution over entire lunar polar area and at better resolution of 10 x 10 meter, one might find even better smaller region to mine the surface.
“Arctic will be ice free by 2015.”
-the inventor of internet
“Arctic will be ice free by 2016.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
“Arctic will be ice free by 2018.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year
“Arctic will be icefree by 2050”
https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217786/arctic-ice-free-summer-2050-noaa-study
The end is nigh..
the humiliation will be unbearable.
“Abandon ship, abandon ship!!”
-AGW alarmists, 2018.
Commentaire vachement intelligent.
https://www.iceagenow.info/dr-willie-soon-versus-the-climate-apocalypse/
The reality.
“From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.”
bob…”From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry…”
As an alarmist, do you support the fossil fuel corporations by purchasing their fuel? If you feel so strongly about it why not boycott them and freeze in the dark?
Peanuts. He could’ve gotten a lot more supporting the party line.
Bob- you just can’t accept it when one goes against the shame of a theory you believe in.
Salvatore- you just can’t accept it when the observations contradict the shame of a theory you believe in.
“the shame of a theory you believe in”
So we theory of greenhouse gases being the only factor causing Earth to be 33 K warmer than compared without greenhouse gases. And some of the believers [not heretics of the belief] who think CO2 is main forcing factor and without CO2, Earth would be 33 K cooler.
Salvatore thinks the Sun activity is major factor which alters global temperature. Dr. Willie Soon could be said to be roughly the same:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/02/dr-willie-soon-versus-the-climate-apocalypse/
“Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say.”
Salvatore also thinks solar activity can effect volcanic activity on Earth- which Soon might not in agreement with.
Now original idea regarding CO2 levels is it was thought to cause glacial and interglacial periods, and no one believes this currently.
Personally, I think that having our global ocean causes a higher average global temperature as compared to world without a global ocean.
It’s not just having a ocean but having a large ocean that Earth has.
So, large ocean as compared to small ocean or the absence of ocean is warmer.
To those interested in comparisons between surface station data and lower troposphere data over land, here is a graph comparing GHCN daily anomalies out of over 22000 stations with UAH6.0 land.
In order to show their relation to oceans, plots of UAH ocean and NOAA ocean were added to the former two.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FGHT8yh4efKrLA8h_5xBe3kPyXCGgy3Y/view
Sources:
– UAH: https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
– NOAA: https://tinyurl.com/ydg3acar
– GHCN: https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
Linear estimates for 1979-2018, in C / decade
GHCN daily: 0.19
UAH land: 0.18
UAH ocean: 0.11
NOAA ocean: 0.12
(UAH trends taken from Roy Spencer’s original data. The others were computed using Excel’s LINEST function, which of course gives the same values for UAH data as Roy Spencer’s original data sheet.)
The similarity is amazing.
Both land and ocean pairs differ by 0.01 C / decade.
Claims about faked graphs, fudged data etc will be from now on silently ignored.
Does nothing to convince me.
Your problem!
binny…”The similarity is amazing.
Both land and ocean pairs differ by 0.01 C / decade.
Claims about faked graphs, fudged data etc will be from now on silently ignored”.
Good, ignore me. I just want people who read your drivel to understand you are using fudged data from NOAA and using stations they don’t use.
When you look at the actual graphs provided by NASA and NOAA, they look nothing like the UAH graphs. Both of the former offer graphs that are in the positive anomaly region with a positive trend from 1980 onward.
UAH begins below the baseline from 1979 – 1997 when the large El Nino struck, then it went positive afterward, leveling off for 18 years. Your pathetic, homebrew, Excel propaganda shows none of that.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science …
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/…
Feb 07, 2015 The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever New data shows that the vanishing of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data …
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change…
Feb 05, 2017 The June 2015 report, Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, which updated the ocean temperature
Global Temperature | Vital Signs Climate Change: Vital …
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature
Nov 15, 2018 Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA. A graph and an animated time series showing the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures.
NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud | PSI Intl
https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new…
Veteran award-winning journalist Gnter Ederer reports of a shocking new global warming data fraud in NASAs global temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists.
Peer-Reviewed Stud
This is what is really going on contrary to what Bindidon posted.
Salvatore…when NOAA and NASA claimed 2014 as the warmest year ever, based on a 48% and 38% confidence level respectively, they moved out of the realm of science and into the propaganda of politics.
No scientists with integrity would employ such blatant chicanery.
Their counterpart at Had-crut, Phil Jones, was caught in the Climategate email scandal threatening to use his influence on IPCC reviews to block skeptic papers from the review. He has used every excuse in the book to prevent independent audit of his data at Had-crut.
At least one of those articles comes up with results far different to the UAH record. Because Salvatore and Roberts consider only UAH to be a good temp record, you would think they would then dismiss any results which don’t comply with it.
But no, the message outweighs the science for them.
https://www.iceagenow.info/astrophysicist-mini-ice-age-is-now-accelerating-important-video/
We shall see who is correct very soon.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/11/06/skeptical-meteorologist-joe-daleo-issues-point-by-point-rebuttal-to-warmist-fed-climate-report/
So true and so correct.
In the spirit of dtente, the moon issue might be best addressed by seeing what we agree on. I suspect core of the disagreement is in the words “about its own axis” and/or the word “orbit”. If we can’t agree on the words we are discussing, then nothing further could be accomplished.
Wikipedia seems as good a place as any for initial definitions. So ..
Orbit: the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.
Rotation: a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation.
Are those acceptable, or do we need some clarification/expansion of these definitions.
The anti-rotation crew is just going by the seats of their pants. They do not understand the precise definitions that allow practitioners to quantify the motion in terms of Newton’s laws.
I have tried, but I cannot break through the wall, nor do I see any likelihood of anyone else doing so. I wish you guys would just stop egging them on (and, vice versa). It is very distracting and ultimately useless, yet fills a huge chunk of these message boards.
bart…”The anti-rotation crew is just going by the seats of their pants. They do not understand the precise definitions that allow practitioners to quantify the motion in terms of Newtons laws”.
I have studied this as part of a formal engineering program at university. Have you?
I have supplied concrete evidence that the Moon cannot rotate on its axis if it always has one side aimed at the Earth. No one has refuted my evidence using two coins. No one has demonstrated that you can ‘roll’ a coin marked at a point on the other coin’s circumference around that coin while keeping the mark against the circumference.
Let’s see you do it. That mark represents the side of the Moon facing us and it is impossible to roll (rotate) the coin while that mark remains against the circumference of the other coin.
You can slide it around but slide is another name for translation.
Gordon,
All you have proven is you were drunk during your kinematic lectures since you cannot even understand the simple notion of curvilinear translation, since ALL the online kinematic reference material from every major university disagrees with your made-up definition.
No, but according to Gordon here, NASA is wrong. All the astrophysicists in the world are wrong, with their peer reviewed published papers. Only Gordon and his clown buddy JD are right. Two clowns who can’t even understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation.
Even Joseph Postma disagrees with their nonsense, who by the way has several published scientific papers in the astrophysics field.
It’s not just that all the astrophysicists in the world say so. That would be ad verecundiam. It’s that we’ve been launching vehicles into space for the past more-than-half-a-century based on these principles, and by golly, our satellites and rockets and so forth work.
Bart is just another “camp-follower”. He can’t think for himself. He just tries to go with the crowd. He tries to fake a knowledge of physics, but always falls flat.
tim…”I suspect core of the disagreement is in the words about its own axis and/or the word orbit.”
Tim… the real problem is that you are abstracting reality. There has been an understanding from the beginning that an orbit is a gravitationally curved trajectory around a celestial body. With regard to the horse issue we are calling it a track. The hang up is whether the horse is turning in circles as it runs around the track.
A rotation has to be about an axis, however, the initial problem posed was very specific, that the Moon is not rotating on its OWN axis. The Earth’s N-S axis is plain enough and we all agree, I presume, that the Earth does rotate on its axis.
By rotation about its own axis, we mean a radial line from the centre of the Earth to a point on the Equator turns through 360 degrees in a day. That excludes all particle action since all particles in the line are constrained to turning with the line, or slice. No matter how fast a particle is moving further out, it can only rotate through 360 degrees in one day.
A similar radial line on the Moon from its centre to the side always facing the Earth cannot rotate through 360 degrees since that face would no longer face the Earth for most of its rotation.
In your abstractions, you are visualizing mental images of alternative frames of reference and I think it’s preventing you from seeing actuality.
By actuality, I mean ‘what is’….what is really there, as opposed to what you imagine is there.
I am not knocking you, I had to go through that experience ONCE. I was dragged through it kicking and screaming but once the awareness struck there was no more playing games with semantics and abstractions.
That means, essentially, that in science, you have to call a spade a spade. No more Big Bangs or time dilation. Look at the physical universe as best you can and stop fantasizing. If you don’t know, say “I don’t know”.
Better still, when someone asks you a question you don’t know, say “how the h*** should I know”.
The horse does not turn in circles as it rounds the track, you idiot. It makes one 360 degree rotation for every lap.
Your stupidity is directly proportional to the word count of your posts.
Hint: post less, or better yet, nothing at all.
Gordon shrieks:
“A similar radial line on the Moon from its centre to the side always facing the Earth cannot rotate through 360 degrees since that face would no longer face the Earth for most of its rotation.”
You really did not pay attention during your alleged engineering education. You are comparing the moons motion to the rotating reference frame that the moon is on! Of course it’s not rotating with respect to that, Einstein.
Take a tennis ball in your hand and perform a 1/4 orbit, making the label always point towards the center of orbit. You have to rotate the tennis ball in your hand to make that label face the center of orbit. That’s rotation on its own axis while orbiting. Nothing imaginary about that.
Tim, the definitions are well established and were presented numerous times. The problem is the “Spinners” keep trying to rewrite, alter, or ignore the definitions. Just look at your own failed effort to try to use “frames of reference”, to change reality.
Upthread, you tried to confuse the definitions. I linked you to a child’s toy, a globe of the Earth. You likely may have seen such. You can spin the globe on “its own axis”. A child’s toy illustrates the concept you try to deny. And, just as basic, the racehorse illustrates “orbiting”.
Clowns just are afraid to leave their false religion.
With all due respect, the definitions are NOT well-established here, because every seems to be using different definitions. I could argue that you keep presenting strawman arguments. Which is why we can’t progress — people are using different definitions.
But let’s use your ‘child’s globe’ analogy. See — I can use that analogy to make MY point!
For simplicity, lets assume the globe is firmly mounted to a vertical axle that is held by a frictionless pivot in some sort of base I can hold. I stand still and hold the globe by the base. The globe is not spinning; lets suppose that the prime meridian is facing north as I hold this globe.
I have a friend 5 m away. Hmmm — I’d like to ‘orbit’ this friend; to walk in a circle around him. So I start walking, holding my pretty little globe by the base. After 1/2 an orbit –WOW! — England on the globe is still facing north in the real world! Neither the axle nor the globe has changed oritentation! My friend now sees the other side of my globe — without it rotation!
************************************
Here’s the thing. *Your* definition of orbit has a changing orientation (relative to the fixed star) of the moon built in as the ‘default’ motion. *Most* definitions of ‘orbit’ say the default motion has the moon fixed with the stars.
Either is a plausible starting point.
********************************
I have argued (and you have been silent) that your definition runs into problems with elliptical orbits. What is your ‘default’ motion now?
One side of the moon always facing the earth?
One side of the moon always facing forward along the orbit?
For a circular orbit both of these are the same, and both are correct. For an elliptical orbit, these are different from each other (and neither would describe the motion on any possible moon ).
One the other hand, my default motion WOULD be a possible solution for an orbiting moon.
–the Deltav for a Hohmann transfer from Mercury orbit to Mars orbit is about 4x that for Earth to Mars.–
The difficulty of getting to Mercury from Earth or Mars is the inclination of Mercury orbit. Messenger solved that problem by using a number of gravity assist to alter this difference of inclination, but this required a very long time to get to Mercury.
But leaving from Mercury distance from the Sun or from an orbit of Mercury would not be as problematic for a couple of reasons.
One reason is changing inclination is easier at Mars distance. Another factor is you have two planets between Mercury and Mars and you gravity assist off them to change inclination- though this is not hohmann transfer and I can’t point to an instance of this being done. Though in terms Jupiter with it large gravity well, the different inclination of Mercury should be a rather minor issue- in terms getting to Jupiter from Mercury.
Another aspect is from Mercury one has most launch windows to get Mars (or any where else).
As for claim of 4x from Earth. Do mean from Low earth orbit? Do mean 8.4 month travel time, or 7 month hohmann + patched conic? Or do you want get there in same time period as from Mercury to Mars.
From high earth orbit, it can take very little delta v to Mars, something like 1 km/sec for simple hohmann Earth to Mars transfer and 4x 1 km/see is not much and it could be more than this
I did not do anything fancy like fly-bys. I didn’t even consider a plane change. I just looked at total deltaV for in-plane Hohmann transfers from a circular radius equal to the semi-major axis of Mercury to that of Mars, and same for Earth to Mars.
Nate says: “Looks like you are reading denialists blogs, that have a political agenda, and finding confirming information.
On this blog you find a broader range of opinion and truths.”
Hmmm, what is a denialist blog?
Blogs that don’t consider the G&T paper to be one of the worst ever published.
You would be wrong about the G&T paper. My review of the paper identified that it was a rather thorough review of the rules of heat transfer. I can get picky about the title of the paper “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”.
More correctly it could have been named. “Absence Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects in The Frame Of Physics”
The fallacy argumentum ignorantiam applies to both the G&T title and to the identification of CO2 as the cause of observed warming.
So if G&T meant for their paper to be proof that CO2 does not cause a greenhouse effect, then it would be a paper denying the greenhouse effect. But a critical independent reader does not see such a claim in the paper. Perhaps a lazy reader simply assumed it did from reading the title only.
Further the so-named refutation of the G&T paper does not refute the paper. Claiming that “slowing of cooling” by CO2 is a refutation is false. The known slowing of cooling by CO2 applies only statistically to the radiating surface of the planet, not its atmosphere.
There are many things wrong with the GT paper that many have pointed out.
A big one is that it seems to left out consideration of, or even mention of, the modern GHE papers from the 60s and 70s that really explain the phenomena with modern atmospheric physics and thermo.
Another is that it is 125 pages filled with lots of irrelevancies about general relativity and real greenhouses (no one except confused people are saying the atmosphere is like a real greenhouse) and other critiques taken from or of blogs and other media rather than science.
Another is that it makes the claim that climate scientists and by extension meterologists are violating the second-law constantly when modeling or just talking about the GHE. They aren’t.
And BTW, the GHE is an essential ingredient in all numerical weather models. It is essentially tested every day. So how can it be non-existent?
Svante –
A good auditor would likely note that the Angstrom issue, setback or otherwise, rides on the assumption of the effect of CO2 on climate temperature. An effect can only be saturated if the effect exists in the first place. Make no mistake of what I am saying, I do believe CO2 has climate effects but its very unclear as to what they are. Very clearly CO2 possibly could have effects on “surface” temperatures, but we don’t even measure surface temperatures and saying we do commits one of the most basic logic rules of accurately identifying the object being measured.
Pretty clear then, you would not have found that fault by auditing.
Its not clear at all Svante. It depends upon what information the auditor has. I have not seen the original nor the corrected version of the calculations and data for the Angstrom issue. I am simply just saying that the auditor would probably first note that the theory of greenhouse gases effect on climate temperatures did not have a calculation that had anything to do with climate temperatures. Once that uncertainty was disclosed it may or may not be important to look at the Angstrom issue. However, if the auditor was auditing either the Angstrom paper or the paper that alleges it corrects the paper he would be very interested in a lot more than what was in the article you provided.
So it would be like Gordon Robertson judging Einstein, a complete waste of time for both of them.
Maybe there is a role as a first basic check, correct references etc.
Otherwise a separate evaluation, like the IPCC.
No thats not how auditing operates Svante. Its not one scientist engaging another head to head. Its a process of evaluating the logic, evidence, and the methods used to arrive at a conclusion. You are suggesting science is more trust me than show me on the basis of the reputation of the scientist. In science there is no “rank”. There is only “rank” in the trust me sense.
Here is a very good article on the problems observed to be growing in science. https://www.significancemagazine.com/593
That was a good article. Statistics is a science of it’s own, it would be good for experts in that field to help, people like this:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/12/06/cooling-down-the-what/#more-10199
Just one objection to the article regarding paywalls.
Suppliers try to satisfy customers in a free market.
There is a sharp dividing line in scientific publishing:
Papers that are paid by authors will satisfy authors.
Papers paid by readers will put readers first.
Some of the worst publishing is in the first category.
The latter will not profit in the long run if their (scientific) readers are fooled. That is probably the only sensible foundation.
Science should free, we can not have governments controlling this.
I agree with everything you say there. I have given this a good deal of thought and admit I don’t know the answer.
First auditing depends upon a large degree of independence. In the financial world that’s largely possible by separating the auditor from any source of profit that the auditee might earn. In the world climate system for example, everybody has an interest, thus an opinion, and independence from that opinion is greatly complicated.
In the professional world assurance is obtained via the imposition of various duties like fiduciary ones. If you aren’t paying the professional that link to the duty isn’t made and that seems a critical point in defining what a professional is. It is very much related to caveat vendor where the purchaser accepts the claims of the seller. People just don’t have the same recourses against the government that they have against a professional.
In government, historically, the issue was addressed by the civil service but that was before the military industrial complex and world environmentalism. It was back when government was relatively small and almost all revenues were generated by import tariffs. Still though the civil servant whose sole duty is to the public trust is an improvement on current trends where we have more and more government decision making going to people that have feet in two different boats.
Finally, the need for academic freedom is important for many reasons. However, in a world where government is on a seemingly never ending expansion largely headed back to the government powers of the past there is an increasing need for fewer conflicts of interest while the direction today seems headed toward greater conflicts of interest. That is especially apparent as science becomes more and more important in policy debates.
We actually see this in financial markets. Media makes a lot of money giving advice to readers on potential investments and is not held to many standards in doing so. But this advice is derived a great deal from audited financial statements that are prepared under many standards. So I am very supportive of Roy’s article here of pointing out some need for improved peer review for science papers actually used in the policy arena such as by the EPA in promulgating regulations.
I don’t know the answer. But somewhere in the answer the biggest word needs to be independence applying to a whole lot of aspects of the problem. Science needs to be free indeed. But take heart that enterprise in this country is largely free despite the fact that when soliciting investment the information they use is subject to a huge amount of standards. Making science used in public policy subject to standards does not at all limit science used in free enterprise progress. And free enterprise disappears when the government expands to the level of regulating how almost all products are made. These are important distinctions.
Government expansion is a problem, but in this case it might help. I’m sure the EPA has plenty of competence to do their own evaluation, and I’m sure they do.
One more point the IPCC doesn’t provide a separate evaluation. Despite recommendations relating to its independence it still allows lead authors to feature their own material. Thus rather than being a separate evaluation they are instead simply a marketing vehicle for the author’s point of view. In freak shows its the equivalent of a carny barker. Indeed getting a lead author spot provides a huge marketing platform for that author.
Not that the IPCC could not morph into useful gatekeeper, it would require at a minimum of adopting recommendations already offered to it. Already there are signs of improvement in the science part of the IPCC process. However, it appears larger problems exist in its political process related to how the draft reports are finalized for public consumption. Here the IPCC reports reflect the political desires of nations.
Let me say clearly. Science has an explicit role in “informing” policy. Any paper offered as a science paper that recommends a policy action has overstepped the bounds of science. Science cannot determine policy. Policy decisions are rightfully the desires of those being ruled by the policy. The public are the ones to weigh the costs and benefits of any policy informed by science. Scientists, economists, etc. bring numbers to the table and the public weighs those numbers in relationship to what they have to sacrifice. Its like a buying decision, the paper brings numbers and the buyer decides if its worth it to him or her to buy. All the notions of total costs are subservient to the notion of real cost to the buyer quite simply because the most valuable things in life have no measurable cost. These costs are all immeasurable.
Yes, all you need is to get third party costs and benefits into the price, then everyone can make their own decisions, and the world economy can be optimal.
https://tinyurl.com/kdp4zd9
We do measure sea surface temperatures, and we measure near-surface air temps over land. These are the ones that meteorologists have measured since the dawn of time, and that people care about. I fail to see a problem with that.
Nate: “We do measure sea surface temperatures, and we measure near-surface air temps over land. These are the ones that meteorologists have measured since the dawn of time, and that people care about. I fail to see a problem with that.”
Neither of those two things have anything to do with the “radiating surface” of the planet to which the effects of greenhouse effect apply. Sea surface temperatures are actually subsurface. There is a small cooling gradient in the last few millimeters of the surface from evaporation. And anyone who goes to a beach quickly learns the temperature of the sand holds little correlation with the “near surface” temperatures. Greenhouse gases and clouds tend to close that gap.
‘Neither of those two things have anything to do with the radiating surface of the planet to which the effects of greenhouse effect apply. Sea surface temperatures are actually subsurface. There is a small cooling gradient in the last few millimeters of the surface from evaporation.’
Nonsense and weird.
The land surface heats the air near it via convection, and vice-versa and it averages out the effects of various surface albedos and emissivities. The GHE applies to this layer as a consequence.
SST are done right, often by satellite IR. The last few mm nonsense is a red herring due to conduction and waves.
This discussion is getting rather bizarre. I point out that we don’t measure the temperature of the object to which the greenhouse effect directly applies. You acknowledge that to be true and then make an unsubstantiated claim that it doesn’t matter. If you have some substantiation I would be interested in reading the study.
Science wants measurements to be reproducible anywhere in the world.
Near-surface air temperatures, measured as meteorologists do, in the shade, away from heat sources, fits the bill. Temperatures of parcels of air are what meteorologists model.
While measurements of land surfaces vary like mad depending on the surface (dirt, asphalt, grass), whether its been in the sun or shade for how long, etc. Not reproducible.
GHE affects the temperature and heat content of the surface and the atmosphere.
I might quibble that they should measure heat content of the air (enthalpy), which takes account of the fact that air @ 90F in New Orleans, @ 90% humidity, contains more heat than air @ 110 F in Tucson @ 20% humidity. But temp will have to do.
Nate: I am not disagreeing with anything you just said. But the point I was making is “the greenhouse theory” is not a theory of slowing the cooling of the atmosphere. Its a theory of slowing cooling of the radiating skin temperature of the surface. Greenhouse gases in fact provide the only cooling to space for the atmosphere and in the absence of them they cool the atmosphere less.
I realize this is an arcane point to someone in a hurry to reach a conclusion but the fact is greenhouse gases speed up the cooling of air while slowing the cooling of the radiating surface that the gases reside above. Navigating this little inconvenient fact needs more than an arm wave.
Steve,
Good example showing that doing measurements right is hard (as Roy knows). And shows scientists working hard to GET IT RIGHT.
Looks like corrected, rather than corrupted:
Direct Evidence of a Changing Fall-Rate Bias in XBTs Manufactured during 1986-2008
Article in Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 28(11):1569-1578 November 2011 with 6 Reads
DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00017.1
Cite this publication
Pedro N. Dinezio
19.84University of Hawai’i System
Gustavo Goni
36.57National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
This paper presents direct evidence of systematic depth errors consistent with a fall-rate bias in 52 temperature profiles collected using expendable bathythermographs (XBTs). The profiles were collected using the same recording system and under the same ocean conditions, but with XBTs manufactured during years 1986, 1990, 1991, 1995, and 2008. The depth errors are estimated by comparing each XBT profile with a collocated profile obtained from conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) casts using a methodology that unambiguously separates depth errors from temperature errors. According to the manufacture date of the probes, the XBT fall-rate error has changed from (-3.77 +/- 0.57)% of depth in 1986 to (-1.05 +/- 1.34)% of depth in 2008. The year dependence of the fall-rate bias can be identified with statistical significance (1 sigma) below 500 m, where the effect of the fall-rate bias is larger. This result is the first direct evidence of changes in the XBT fall-rate characteristics. Therefore, for the 1986-2008 period, the hypothesis that the XBT errors are due to a time-varying fall-rate bias, as hypothesized by Wijffels et al., cannot be rejected. Additional implications for current efforts to correct the historical temperature profile database are discussed.
Can you imagine, this idiot, “Nate”? This comment is a response to something written by a guy, Steve, 18 days ago! Can you imagine how pathetic it is that people called “Nate” and “Svante” are paid to hang around blogs, purposefully adding in their little “last words” to try and make sure they somehow dominate a discussion that was finished weeks beforehand! It’s their JOB to hang around, after the main thrust of the conversation has moved on to other things, and slip in a little “last word” at the last minute!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-332854
Here is the comment. Just so you know I am not making this up. Steve wrote a comment on the 20th November. Nate replies, on the 8th December! 18 days later! No WAY is this Steve going to ever even SEE this response. What the hell is the point of this ridiculous BS?
DREMT,
a. Nobody cares.
b. You’re quite deranged.
c. Get back on your medication.
So what is the point of your “last wording”? Why do you and Svante do it?
To keep you from disrupting other conversations.
Makes absolutely no sense.
Regarding the correctness of scientific papers, Pierrehumbert noted (about Lindzen) that some can advance science by being wrong in interesting ways.
You should take part in a contest for one of the most useful blogs on the net.
I am going to highly recommend this blog!
It’s going to be ending of mine day, except before finish I am
reading this enormous post to improve my experience.
Chng ti __n v_ thi cng c uy tn hng __u trong l_nh v_c mi sn b tng, ho_t __ng lu n_m t_i
_ N_ng, tuy l hi_n nay c r_t nhi_u __n v_ thi cng
mi n_n b tng ___c hnh thnh nh_ng chng ti v_n ___c cc khch
hng t_i _ N_ng v cc t_nh thnh ln c_n tin t__ng v s_ d_ng lu di
V_i __i ng_ cng nhn vin _ng __o, lnh ngh_, _ qua tr__ng l_p _o t_o nng cao v
s_ h_u h_ th_ng my mc hi_n __i c_ng nh_ l trang thi_t b_ v ha ch_t nh_p kh_u t_ Chu
u, gip hi_u qu_ thi cng v cng cao, gi thnh c_nh
tranh, ch_t l__ng s_n ph_m cao
D_ch v_ mi bng n_n xi m_ng _ t_i _ N_ng c_a
chng ti s_ mang l_i nh_ng s_n ph_m hi_u qu_
nh_t cho cng trnh thi cng
That is very interesting, You’re a very professional blogger.
I have joined your rss feed and sit up for in the hunt for extra of your fantastic post.
Additionally, I have shared your web site in my social networks
Ahaa, its pleasant dialogue on the topic of this paragraph at this place at this blog, I have read
all that, so at this time me also commenting at this place.
Hi there to all, how is the whole thing, I think every one is getting more from this website, and your views
are nice in support of new visitors.
I delight in, result in I discovered exactly what I used to be taking a look for.
You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day.
Bye
Sir good evening from Nepal
I Want to know about What is the Negative and Positive Comment on Peer Review? Please Send me the document or book related it.
hi!,I love your writing very much! share we keep up a correspondence extra about your post on AOL?
I need an expert on this area to resolve my problem.
Maybe that is you! Taking a look forward to look you.
You can definitely see your skills within the article you write.
The world hopes for even more passionate writers such as
you who aren’t afraid to mention how they believe.
Always follow your heart.
This article gives clear idea in support of the new viewers of blogging, that actually
how to do blogging and site-building.
This info is worth everyone’s attention. Where can I find out more?
Interesting blog content…
great article
Thanks for the recommendations)) I would like to add some books http://essaypapers.reviews/ for literary reading. This will help develop a correct understanding of phrasal verbs.
I am so amaze by how this article was written. It is full of information and I have gain more knowledge because of this, thanks for sharing a wonderful article.
https://innerwestelectrical.net.au/residential-electrician-north-strathfield/
What a thrilling post, you have pointed out some excellent points, I as well believe this is a superb website. I have planned to visit it again and again.
https://www.gostopsite.com
I am a new user of this site so here i saw multiple articles and posts posted by this site, I curious more interest in some of them hope you will give more information on this topics in your next articles.
https://www.19guide03.com
It’s really nice and meaningful. it’s really cool blog. Linking is very useful thing. You have really helped lots of people who visit blog and provide them useful information.
https://www.totosafedb.com
He can be reached at personal email for any Questions about herpes help at: R.buckler 11 [at] G mail com
Diabetes
Epilepsy
Blood Cancer
HPV
ALS
Hepatitis B
HSV-2 VIRUS
LOW SPERM COUNT
STROKE
ASTHMA
OBESITY PROBLEM
Fibroid
Erectile issue
Prostate cancer
Get pregnant
He can be reached at personal email for any Questions about herpes help at: R.buckler 11 [at] G mail com……………
I didnt have any expectations concerning that title, but the more I was astonished. The author did a great job. I spent a few minutes reading and checking the facts. Everything is very clear and understandable. I like posts that fill in your knowledge gaps. This one is of the sort.