The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2018 was +0.22 deg. C, up a little from +0.14 deg. C in September:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.28 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.22 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22 +0.90 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.34 +0.10 +0.40 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.31 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.41 +0.42 +0.47 -0.54 +0.49 +0.78
2017 09 +0.55 +0.52 +0.57 +0.54 +0.30 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.60 +0.47 +1.22 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.36 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.42 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.45 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.11 -0.12 -0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.39
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.43 +0.21 +0.29 +0.51 +0.30 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.22 +0.17 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.26
2018 09 +0.14 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.19
2018 10 +0.22 +0.31 +0.12 +0.34 +0.25 +1.11 +0.38
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for October, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Dr. Spencer, Last year, I presented a paper at the AGU Fall meeting which was an update to my earlier peer reviewed paper published in JTECH. I found evidence of a potential problem with your UAH analysis of MSU channel 4 data. My analysis showed a bias in your Lower Stratosphere (LS) product compared to the data produced by RSS and NOAA STAR, which can be seen as an step offset at about 1987-1988 in my figures 4.a and 4.b. This offset is most evident in the cross plots, figures 3.a and 3.b.
I also analyzed TMT data, with the results showing that your product exhibits a steady cooling trend for the MSU portion relative to the products from RSS and NOAA STAR. The fact that your MSU data exhibits a declining warmth relative to the other two series from 1979 until about 2004 explains the entire difference between the respective trends calculated for the period from 1979 thru 2016.
Of course, my comparison cant provide a definite conclusion regarding which data set is the most accurate measure of climate change. However, given that two of the three show more warming than your UAH should be given strong consideration. Your comments would be appreciated.
Mr. Swanson. Thank you for the comment. These differences have been noticed and discussed in our publications. For the latest, see Christy et al. 2018 IJRS https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
You are correct in the differences over the period of NOAA-12 and NOAA-14. As discussed in the paper, as we perform an objective procedure relying on data from the non-drifting (at this time) and better-calibrated NOAA-15 to deal with some of the spurious warming in NOAA-14 whereas RSS and NOAA do not. They retain the warming of NOAA-14 relative to NOAA-15 which lifts their time series higher as you noticed. That is the main reason for the difference. As we show using radiosondes with consistent instrumentation, all satellites have relative warming vs. the sondes in this period, but UAH’s is much reduced due to our adjustment procedure. Note that the procedure was developed without any use of the radiosonde information.
Here are the trend DIFFERENCES for 1979-2005 (period of MSU influence), tropics, satellite minus radiosondes (performed at radiosonde grid areas only). This from Table 3
UAH +0.045 +/- 0.066
RSS +0.116 +/- 0.070
NOAA +0.111 +/- 0.069
UW +0.117 +/- 0.069
Similarly for the satellite minus Reanalyses average. (full tropical coverage.)
UAH -0.008 +/- 0.039
RSS +0.066 +/- 0.049
NOAA +0.091 +/- 0.053
UW +0.064 +/- 0.040
As you can see, UAH is insignificantly different from the other systems, whereas RSS, NOAA and UW are significantly warmer.
Dr Christy,
I believe that the major source of disagreement between satellite datasets is the NOAA-15 vs NOAA-14 issue.
You say that NOAA-14 is spuriously warm. Compared to NOAA-15?
The RSS team say they can’t tell which of them is right or wrong, so they keep both and split the divergence. Also, they don’t want to guide significant choices of this kind by using independent data, because they want an independent dataset.
I think this is an interesting subject so I have compared the tropospheric satellite products with (all?) other relevant datasets during the NOAA 14-15 overlap 1999-2005:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=181P3P7qKKGRLGJWENmEMgji4ulPEKEgp
There is not a single dataset supporting the low trend of UAH v6 TLT. The other satellite datasets perform better vs radiosondes and reanalyses, suggesting that NOAA-14 is more right than NOAA-15.
The radiosonde datasets are independent vs satellites, but reanalyses are not since they ingest satellite data. However they suggest that NOAA-15 (TMT/AMSU-5) doesn’t make sense in a weather model (a reanalysis). This sensor can’t be reconciled with other data, it is clearly the odd man out, and become suppressed.
Another possibility is to compare NOAA-15 TMT/AMSU-5 vs neighbour AMSU channels 4 and 6:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaSkpnOUxBVGNpWm8
UAH drops steeply vs the background until Aqua data is introduced.
RSS appears only half wrong. Actually, the drop in UAH matches almost perfectly the residual difference between AMSU-only and MSU-only in Mears & Wentz 2016 figure 7C
Shortly, AMSU channels 4 and 6 corroborate NOAA-14 TMT, but not NOAA-15.
So we have two possibilities, either the NOAA-15 AMSU-5 sensor is right and everything else is wrong, or the NOAA-15 AMSU-5 sensor is wrong.
Accepting the latter very obvious “odd man out” practice would reconcile satellite, radiosonde and reanalysis data, and reduce the structural uncertainty in satellite data significantly.
Olof R says, November 3, 2018 at 7:51 AM:
Hahaha! Notice how the Climate Politburo and its loyal agents never sleep, not until all dissidents are brought comfortable into the fold of ever-warming.
Remember, both RSS and NOAA STAR used to agree perfectly well with the UAHv6 TLT series from ~1997/98 forwards, until Mears & Wentz finally succumbed to the pressure (both outside and inside) and decided to massively ramp up their overall warming from the end of the 90s to the early 00s. NOAA STAR – naturally – followed suit soon thereafter. And voilà! UAHv6 suddenly became the “odd man out”. Go figure!
Olof R,
In this particular case, the “odd man out” is the correct one. The other ones are simply trying their best to justify the models and their pipe dream scenarios by twisting the data and warping reality.
And there’s a very neat way to find out why it’s the correct one. We use the CERES EBAF Ed4 data:
Gl UAHv6 TLT vs. Gl All-Sky DWLWIR at Sfc (EBAF Ed4):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/dwlwir-vs-tlt-uah.png
DWLWIR residual (DWLWIR minus TLT), UAHv6:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/dwlwir-residual-uahv6.png
Gl RSSv4 TLT vs. Gl All-Sky DWLWIR at Sfc (EBAF Ed4):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/dwlwir-vs-tlt-rss.png
DWLWIR residual (DWLWIR minus TLT), RSSv4:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/dwlwir-residual-rssv4.png
The usual from Kristian.
OlofR raises some specific issues with the satellite measurements, that could help account for the large uncertainty and controversy.
That can’t be it. Kristian has the real answer. Its the conspiracy!
He says look at DWLWIR. It should match troposphere temperature!
He fails to mention that the match between them is his unproven HYPOTHESIS, really a GUESS, more like a HOPE, because AGW cannot possibly be influencing DWLWIR.
When temperature data does not agree with his hypothesis/guess/hope, clearly it must be (one of) the temperature data sets thats’s wrong!
Of course he looks at it entirely backwards relative to normal science. The unproven hypothesis/guess/hope cannot be used as evidence of anything. In fact, it has its own problems.
This is just great. We were on the verge of having a real scientific discussion between peers, a discussion that has been scientific active since Christy/Spencer released UAH V6.
And what happens? The amateurs and “sceptics” like Kristian and the obsequious Gordon Robertson comes along with statements like;
“….should not be skeptical of the work done by the experts at UAH.”
What poor sceptics You both are, but what is worse, You effectively destroyed a very interesting scientific debate.
Olof R,
Do you understand the differences in the radiosondes used by Christy et al, and others such as RATPAC?
Have Christy et al made a reasonable choice of radisonde data sets?
Nate,
the radiosonde datasets use different methods of breakpoint detection and correction. Ratpac use fewer stations <85, the others around 500. However, they all give similar results and disagree less than satellite datasets ( think RSS v4 and UAH v6)
Here is a comparison of radiosonde datsets, reanalyses, RSS TTT and CMIP5 model average:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaUzhXR0xmN3pEN0U
In the v6 method paper Spencer and Christy "validated" their product using the two datasets with the lowest trends, Ratpac B and RAOCORE. Both are unfit for the purpose, Ratpac B is unadjusted after 1996, and RAOBCORE is too circular since it is adjusted by reanalysis that ingests satellite data.
Still, even with Ratpac B as comparison it would have been easy to spot the trendbreak when AMSU satellites were introduced: ( the previous v 5.6 product compared much better to radiosondes)
http://postmyimage.com/img2/193_image.png
Thanks, Olof,
In Christys paper that he linked above, his figure 6 shows trends of only 0.085 C/decade for MT for a radiosonde set, IGRA. This seems rather much lower than what you show.
Olof,
Please, get off your high horse and step out of your hazy bubble. The data speaks very clearly on this topic.
The radiosonde datasets – or, rather, the ones with the steepest rise since the millennium – do NOT represent “Troposphere Truth”, as you seem blindly to believe. They are completely at odds with other relevant metrics, such as All-Sky OLR at the ToA (ERBS+CERES), surface temperature (GISTEMP LOTI, Had-CRUt4), and even new and strongly upward-adjusted satellite versions of tropospheric temperature (RSSv4 TLT), exhibiting obvious signs of severe methodological issues starting right around the time of the 1995-1996 switch between radiosonde networks/data sources. THAT’S when the problems began. THAT’S when the bizarre divergence pattern started to appear. It’s got nothing to do with the MSU-AMSU transition.
You’re looking in the wrong plase, Olof.
You see, the RATPAC-A series shows a waaay too low trend from 1979 to 2000/2001 (almost like a “pause”), relative to both UAHv6, RSSv4, GISTEMP LOTI, Had-CRUt4 and ERBS+CERES (OLR). And it’s all because of that major slump that occurs around 1995-1996 in the RATPAC data. We see the same thing happening with the HadAT2 data:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/trends-79-01.png
And so, what happens when it starts out much flatter, but ends up as high at the end anyway? The radiosonde datasets have some serious catching up to do after the first half, so the second half then naturally has to be much steeper in its rise than the other ones (GISTEMP LOTI, RSS4, ERBS+CERES). And that’s exactly what we see:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/trends-99-15.png
You can read all about it (and see lots more plots and comparisons) here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/taminos-radiosonde-problem-part-1/
It simply makes no sense whatsoever. There is no good physical reason why the troposphere should hardly warm from 1979 to 2000/2001, during an extended period of time when both surface temperatures and Earth’s thermal (temperature-based) radiation flux to space (the All-Sky OLR at the ToA) saw a significant overall rise, and then, during the following 20 years, that relation is completely flipped around, tropospheric temperatures now suddenly rising much faster than both the surface temps and the OLR, specifically during the time when most researchers in the field (and, thus, the IPCC) acknowledged that warming rates had slowed down compared to the preceding decades. So that, in the end, the total rise (the only one that matters, right?) from 1979-1980 to 2015-2018 turns out to be more or less EXACTLY equal. Neat, isn’t it? Very fitting. Very convenient:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/ratpac-a-vs-rssv4-tlt-1979-2017-b.png
Dr. Christy, I read your latest paper a while back and there’s quite a bit there which I still need to digest. That said, I think that, as usual, it’s what you don’t say which is important. In the end, you all continue your comparisons of the satellite data with other records, including the balloon data and the re-analysis simulations. Then, you compare TMT data with model results, as you all have done for the past few years in your Congressional presentations, among others. However, in order to perform your comparisons, you first modify the other data sets, transforming those sets into simulated TMT series. You only briefly mention the method used to make these transformations and do not provide any links giving the assumptions used in creating these transformations or links to these the actual weighting functions which you applied in this processing. I did see a blog post in which you listed some or your weighting functions, but a blog post is not a proper reference.
Furthermore, you apply a similar process to the results of GCM runs, then finally show plots which claim that the models overstate future warming compared with your TMT data and your simulations. But, there is a major difference between the satellite data, the balloon data and the modeling results. Both the satellite and balloon data are measures taken at specific times of the day, as you note, the satellites flying over the Equator at (ideally) fixed local times and the balloon data collected at 0:00 and/or 12:00 UTC (mol). The models capture the daily diurnal cycle at the grid point level, thus include the daily low and high temperatures in an average. It’s widely recognized that the greatest temperature change will be an increase in the daily minimum temperatures, which the models will capture, but the satellite and sonde data can not. Not to forget that your graphical comparisons don’t indicate that the MSU 2/AMSU 5 satellite data is contaminated by the well known stratospheric cooling trend, thus the small warming in the TMT and the other simulated data is not representative of the true temperature change in the troposphere, a well known fact which is often overlooked or ignored, particularly in the political realm where your graphs are taken as “the bottom line”.
In your response to my comment, you gave no specific reply about my finding of an apparent bias in your UAH Lower Stratosphere (LS) data set relative to the those from RSS and NOAA STAR. Also, while your comment does mention the differing treatment of data from NOAA 14 and NOAA 15, the warming I found in your UAH data also appears in the earlier data from 8 previous satellites. When those satellites were launched, weren’t the instruments new and likely to be at their most accurate? Aren’t the corrections for orbit decay and drift in LECT applied to the end of the data set collected from each satellite? I must say that I don’t see how differences in later satellites could impact the data for the previous satellites.
My analysis of Arctic data also suggested that sea-ice has a significant influence on the annual cycle in the MSU/AMSU data. This influence is due to the difference in the emissivity of open water and sea-ice, the result being that open water appears colder than sea-ice for the same surface temperature, thus the decline in sea-ice coverage would add a negative trend to the brightness temperature. In addition, melt ponds appear as open water to the MSU/AMSU, thus an increasing trend in the coverage of sea-ice by melt ponds would register as an additional cooling trend. I submit that these effects impact all the MSU/AMSU analysis results.
In sum, I remain deeply skeptical of your claims that your work is the most accurate measure of our changing climate.
swannie…”However, in order to perform your comparisons, you first modify the other data sets, transforming those sets into simulated TMT series”.
You are out of order, swannie, you’d be banned on alarmist sites like realclimate, skepticalscience, desmogblog, for comments like that.
John Christy provided a good explanation and that should suffice. He’s an expert with a degree in climate science.
You talked about Congressional hearings. Perhaps you’ll recall the hearing where Hillary Clinton stood, with arms crossed, glaring at John Christy as he gave his testimony. She demonstrated herself to be a closed-minded, ignorant, and insensitive person for disrespecting John’s integrity and professionalism.
You are doing the same.
That’s why I am glad she lost to Trump, even though I am not a right-winger. The climate gods got her for being rude to John.
Gordo, I looked back thru the hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on which Mrs. Clinton sat, from 2003 thru 2009. All I found was a hearing on 22 July 2008 in which Dr. Spencer testified. Perhaps the hearing you recall was in 2001 or 2002, for which there is less information. Then too, perhaps your memory is that of one sitting at the witness table, since you refuse to identify yourself in any real sense.
As for my critique, I analyzed the available data and documented the results. My JTECH paper was peer reviewed and available for anyone to read and comment on. You, as usual, resort to character assignation and distortions, while ignoring the issues I raised. You have an agenda, which is abundantly clear when you jump from praise of Dr. Christy into the political realm as if that proves anything about the science. Of course, you speak of banning commenters because of their point of view, a clear sign of a far right wing authoritarian lunatic.
swannie…”n sum, I remain deeply skeptical of your claims that your work is the most accurate measure of our changing climate”.
Someone with your understanding of basic thermodynamics should not be skeptical of the work done by the experts at UAH. UAH is the only record with integrity, the rest having sold out to the alarmist cause.
“You should not be skeptical of the work done by the experts at UAH”
You should notice that there is disagreement among the experts.
It is unfortunate that the satellite data has real issues, that lead to such large uncertainty in the trends.
Swanson clearly has the chops to weigh in on this controversy, judging by Christy’s repsonse.
John…good to hear from you. Wish you and Roy well in your work and your battle against The Cause, as Michael Mann called it in the Climategate emails.
swannie…”A comparison of UAH v6 north polar lower stratospheric (TLS) data with that from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is presented, indicating a possible bias between 1986 and 1988″.
Swannie, you are a gem of obtuseness and arrogance. You have essentially challenged the UAH record using manipulated data from NOAA. Has your alarmist ego no bounds?
Recently, you provided an experiment performed on your kitchen stove as proof that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is null and void. You set up a metal plate on an electric stove top ring than heated the plate till its temperature stabilized. Then you mounted another metal plate about 4″ above the heated plate on soup cans and re-measured the temperature of the heated plate.
You noted that the heated plate’s temperature had increased from which you concluded that back-radiation from the mounted, cooler plate had warmed the heated plate.
When a few of us pointed out the flaw in your conclusion, you would not even consider it. You stubbornly stuck to you conclusion that invalidates the 2nd law.
It’s obvious that the heated plate warmed because your tin roof was interfering with it’s ability to dissipate heat via convection. That is a common occurrence with a heat source when it’s ability to dissipate heat is compromised.
I have seen power transistors burn out due to the lack of a proper heat sink in high ambient temperatures that interfered with their ability to dissipate heat. They get so hot you can’t touch them with burning your skin and that heating has no back-radiation upon which to blame the heating.
You repeated the experiment in an evacuated enclosure and arrived at the same conclusion. The rise in temperature of the heated plate was once again warmed due to an interference with its ability to dissipate heat via radiation. When you raise a cooler metal plate immediately in front of a radiating hotter plate, you would expect it to block the hotter plate’s radiation pattern.
The sad part is the AMS publishing your paper against UAH. It appears those alarmists will publish anything that upholds the pseudo-science of anthropogenic warming.
I’ll bet Spencer and Christy have a great deal of trouble getting published in the same alarmist journal.
Gordo, Thanks for the “plug”. For those who may not have seen it by now, here’s the link to my Green Plate Demonstration.
And this is how it really works, if the original black bodies remain black bodies and are not magically changed to insulators:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Huffingman chimes in with his same old distorted version of physics. The lunatic doesn’t understand that the thermal radiation emitted by the Blue Plate must be the same from each side, since the IR radiation is only a function of temperature, emissivity and surface area. His math shows 200 w/m^2 going toward the LHS, but 400 w/m^2 going toward the RHS. But, that’s what we’ve come to expect from the lunatic fringe that hangs out on this web site.
E. Swanson, you still don’t understand the simple graphic.
The blue plate IS emitting the same from both sides. The color-coded arrows should make it obvious.
“black bodies and are not magically changed to insulators:”
Yet JD is quite content to have black bodies magically change into mirrors.
He will never accept reality.
More misrepresentations and false accusations from anonymous Nate.
No surprise.
JD, cmon, we’ve been over this dozens of times.
Your diagram is a fraud. It shows a black body reflecting radiation.
You have never ever dealt with this problem honestly.
Yes Nate, we have been over this dozens of times. And you still don’t get it.
In the diagram, the blue plate reflects the flux from the green plate due to the fact that the green plate is at a lower temperature potential, i.e., downstream of the energy flow.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
In the invalid scenario, the green plate must change from a black body to a semi-insulator, restricting radiative heat transfer. A black body does NOT reject the flux from a “hotter” body.
“the blue plate reflects the flux from the green plate due to..”
Nope. Impossible. Black bodies do not reflect, FOR ANY REASON, period.
In the correct graphic (link above),
1) The blue plate remains a “black body”, reflecting flux due to the 2LoT.
2) The green plate remains a “black body”, absorbing all flux from the “hotter” blue plate.
In the incorrect version, the green plate magically transforms into some unidentified reflector/inulator, defying the definition of a “black body”.
JD: “The blue plate remains a ‘black body’, reflecting flux due to”
JD: 7 is larger than 11 due to 11 being colder.
JD: A ham sandwich is a computer due to this one weird trick.
Don’t stop believin in magic, JD, but go find some new people to share it with.
Nate cannot responsibly support his failed pseudoscience, so he resorts to misrepresenting me, even creating blatantly false quotes.
JD,
You are repeatedly saying that a black body, defined to be a perfect absor*ber of light, can do something impossible: reflect light.
No, no it can’t ever do that.
Why don’t you get that?
Go ask your grandma, if 7 can ever be greater than 11? For any reason?
I am not misrepresenting your quotes at all.
“In the diagram, the blue plate reflects the flux from the green plate due to”
“The blue plate remains a ‘black body’, reflecting flux due to”
It doesnt matter at all what comes after ‘due to’, because impossible means that it NEVER EVER HAPPENS.
Sorry Nate, but you do not get to use an imaginary object fo violate the laws of physics.
And, you are avoiding the fact that your green plate is violating the definiton of a black body.
Also, you definitely are misrepresenting me.
Just a little reality for you….
OK JD,
Impossible = Possible. False = True.
Your message is coming thru loud and clear:
‘I don’t live in your world of facts’ and
‘I don’t need to be rational’
so
‘Don’t take my comments seriously’
OK, fine.
We will abide.
Nothing new.
Gordo, Your comments above about my demonstration of the “Green Plate Effect” just repeat your previous assertions without any sort of proof to support your claims. You simply assert that my results are wrong because they violate your conception of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then give an example which you claim prove your lunatic physics. First you claimed that the warmer plate would “ignore” the thermal radiation from the cooler plate, then you claimed that the Green Plate “blocked” the thermal radiation leaving the higher temperature Blue Plate. There’s no evidence of such effects, which would be easily found by experimental tests of the physical properties of matter.
Without any evidence, your delusional physics compares to that of the Flat Earth mindset of folks who think the Biblical Creation myth is the true description of reality, a point of view which has been shown flat out wrong over and over again since Galileo with his telescope. Not to forget, you’ve agreed with HuffingMan’s ludicrous claims that the Moon doesn’t rotate, which is a fundamental fact of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
What does the comparison show if you use the older version of RSS? The logic that 2 of 3 has significance is flawed for me given the dynamic nature of climate data.
The older version of RSS (v3) would show a similar profile and trend to the current UAH.
The previous version of UAH (5.6) would lie between the current UAH and RSS trend.
https://tinyurl.com/ybx5yrfx
Thanks for the report, Roy.
Indeed. The monthly updates are appreciated.
Still at +0.13 Armageddon, it seems. Could more precision be reported? Let’s take the “debate” to 4 or 5 decimals.
More of the same ,same and the same.
Looks like your claim of massive cooling is a fizzer.
Not so fast. Most of the warming is due to the Arctic which is simply a factor of more open ocean water releasing heat. Add to that the warming tropics due to the building El Nino since June and you don’t have much left.
Where is the heat from all that extra CO2?
Richard: so except for the warming, there is no warming.(?)
Roy’s value is the temperature *anomaly,* so it’s not dependent on normal seasonal heating, like your mentioned in the Arctic.
Over 90% of the added heat goes into the ocean. News this week — a study found ocean warming to be on high end of previous estimates:
“Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition,” L. Resplandy et al, Nature 563, pages 105–108 (2018).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8
Previous values:
http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
Meh. Just a model.
“Without models, there are no data.”
– Paul N. Edwards, “A Vast Machine”
http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/Edwards_2009_A_Vast_Machine_Introduction.pdf
Oceans have warmed in last 40 years as CO2 has gone up – But question is, are the oceans, with 99.9% of the thermal energy the driver, or the driven? The increase of .01% of CO2 to air with only .07% energy is warming the body with 99.9% energy? Far more likely to be natural.
Who/what says 99.9% of the added LT energy goes into the oceans?
Everything I’ve read says it is about 90-93%….
No, oceans HOLD 99.9% of the thermal energy of the planet (excluding below the crust, of course). Are the oceans the driver, or the driven?
The increase of .01% of CO2 to air with only .07% energy is warming the body that holds 99.9% of the thermal energy of the planet? Is .07% pushing around 99.9%?
Again, where does your 99.9% number come from?
PS: Heat gained by the crust is not heat gained by the ocean.
PPS: How much heat *IS* being gained by the crust?
J,
Sure the oceans hold most of the heat, but most of it is deep and inaccessible. What matters is the amount exchanged w/ atmosphere, land and space.
Normally the exchange is tightly balanced. But in recent decades an imbalance is measured with a net to the ocean, at a rate of 0.5 – 1.0 W/m^2. This is small compared to the solar input of 240 W/m^2. But it ~ matches the imbalance between atmosphere and space.
I dont see the problem.
@David Appell
“The majority of the thermal energy at the Earths surface is stored in the ocean.”
– “Most of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is stored in the ocean and helps power oceanic and atmospheric circulation. In this manner, the ocean plays an important role in influencing the weather and climatic patterns of the Earth.”
– “The top 10 feet of the ocean hold the same amount of thermal energy as exists in the entire atmosphere.”
If you do the math, it’s 99.9%
The increase of .01% of CO2 to air with only .07% energy is warming the body that holds 99.9% of the thermal energy of the planet? Is .07% pushing around 99.9%?
J,
Given that the main input and output energy flows to the Earth are thru the atmosphere, is it surprising that the atmosphere could manage to vary the energy input to the ocean by < 1 part in 240?
Joe says:
“Most of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is stored in the ocean and helps power oceanic and atmospheric circulation.”
That’s exactly wrong.
Joe says:
The increase of .01% of CO2 to air…
That’s wrong.
The increase in atmo CO2 is now 46% compared to pre-industrial times, not “0.01%.”
–J says:
November 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM
No, oceans HOLD 99.9% of the thermal energy of the planet (excluding below the crust, of course). Are the oceans the driver, or the driven?–
“The crust is only about 3-5 miles (8 kilometers) thick under the oceans(oceanic crust) and about 25 miles (32 kilometers) thick under the continents (continental crust).”
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/earths-layers-lesson-1
Or to use in sentence, most of the Earth crust is pretty hot.
And most of the ocean is pretty cold.
The crust under the ocean is 8 km and ocean above it about 4 km- roughly they have same thermal mass. Crust is denser material and ocean has more than 4 specific heat per kg, but per per volume water about twice, but there 1/2 volume of water compared to oceanic crust.
And continental crust much thicker and in terms of average temperature even hotter.
But most of crust is isolated/insulated in regards to surface, most of crust is insensitive to the warmth or cold at the surface- or disconnected from “climate”.
Or probably you should not use the term, crust.
Are oceans the driver or the driven?
Ocean absorb more of energy of sunlight than atmosphere or sun warmed ground surface.
It appear the topography of Land strongly affects the ocean temperature.
Or we in a icebox box climate due to the arrangement and topography of land masses.
Or our current arrangement of land masses has caused our ocean to have average temperature being within a range of 1 to 5 C.
And with Earth “normally” the ocean average temperature is about 10 C.
Or a result of plate tectonic activity/geological processes has cooled our oceans and has caused us to living in an Ice Age for more than 1 million years.
And, without an ocean, I believe Earth would have much lower average global temperature.
I would say ocean is global climate and global temperature, in that sense, ocean drives or if you like, is the god or the creator of global climate.
J…”Oceans have warmed in last 40 years as CO2 has gone up But question is, are the oceans, with 99.9% of the thermal energy the driver, or the driven?”
Exactly. It’s likely that significant warming is still occurring due to re-warming from the Little Ice Age. Also, as Tsonis et al pointed out, the interchange between the major ocean oscillations causes an ebb and flow of heating/cooling over decadal time slots.
David-
“The increase in atmo CO2 is now 46% compared to pre-industrial times, not “0.01%.”
I was comparing CO2 to air, not CO2 to CO2.
Yes, CO2 to CO2 is up 46%, but CO2 to air is up only .01%
Nate-
“Sure the oceans hold most of the heat, but most of it is deep and inaccessible.”
Not true, The top 10 feet of the ocean hold the same amount of thermal energy as exists in the entire atmosphere.
(sorry, I’m unable to post comment with link for some reason)
David-
– “Most of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is stored in the ocean…”
Well this site says so, so go argue with them:
see-the-sea (dot) org (slash) facts (slash) facts-body (dot) htm
(sorry had to write the link like that, otherwise comment wouldn’t post)
J says:
November 2, 2018 at 3:40 PM
“Oceans have warmed in last 40 years as CO2 has gone up But question is, are the oceans, with 99.9% of the thermal energy the driver, or the driven?”
_________________________________________-
Is this really a question?
If oceans would be the driver, ie the source of warming, their own temparature would go down, not up.
In fact, oceans are just a buffer for temperature change.
Without them, global warming would be much faster.
David, I said nothing about “normal seasonal heating”. The more open water is in comparison to the baseline period. It has nothing to do with seasonal changes.
The Resplandy paper is pretty laughable. All it take is for China to be under-reporting their CO2 emissions to make that paper nonsense. Of course, you will accept anything from your climate priests.
Fritz-
“If oceans would be the driver, ie the source of warming, their own temparature would go down, not up.
In fact, oceans are just a buffer for temperature change.
Without them, global warming would be much faster.”
Why would the ocean temperature necessarily go down? There are proven naturally occurring cold and warm decadal cycles in the Atlantic and Pacific. Depending on what cycle they’re in, the ocean temperature will either go down or up on its own.
You must understand, the ocean heat content is HUGE.
The state of the oceans now is a product of centuries of back and forth of a complex system that has 1000x the heat capacity of the air – just in the top tier of the ocean – this is not the inaccessible lower depth heat. Oceans run the climate system.
Joe,
“Not true, The top 10 feet of the ocean hold the same amount of thermal energy as exists in the entire atmosphere.”
The ocean mixed layer that exchanges heat with the atmosphere is ~ 100 m = 300 feet.
But it matters little how much more heat is stored in the ocean than the atmosphere.
The atmosphere does for the Earth what the fiberglass insulation does for my house. Both hold a tiny fraction of the heat in the system, but still control the rate of heat loss.
Joe says:
November 4, 2018 at 4:08 PM
Fritz says:
“If oceans would be the driver, ie the source of warming, their own temparature would go down, not up.
In fact, oceans are just a buffer for temperature change.
Without them, global warming would be much faster.”
Why would the ocean temperature necessarily go down?
______________________________________-
Due to law of physics.
Decreasing heat content causes decreasing temperature.
Fritz-
“Due to law of physics.
Decreasing heat content causes decreasing temperature.”
But why would the heat content of the ocean decrease?
Nate-
“But it matters little how much more heat is stored in the ocean than the atmosphere.”
-Actually, it does. A lot.
“The atmosphere does for the Earth what the fiberglass insulation does for my house.”
This leads to my next point: Warmer oceans release more water vapour into the atmosphere, and water vapour is BY FAR the most influential greenhouse gas. That’s where your global warming’s coming from.
That’s why I stated before: Oceans run the climate system.
Nate-
A perfect example in the past few years was the Super-Nino. Huge ocean temperature spike released huge amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere, causing the global temperature spike.
As the El-Nino wore off so did the global temperature.
Joe,
Yes El Nino is one of the ways the ocean and atmosphere exchange energy.
It goes both ways and the atmosphere wind patterns play a key role.
As with the AMOC, its a coupled, complicated system.
But, the fact that the deep-ocean takes so long to equilibrate with the surface, means that the anomalous flows of heat to and from it are small and lower impact.
Joe says:
November 5, 2018 at 2:53 PM
Fritz-
“Due to law of physics.
Decreasing heat content causes decreasing temperature.”
But why would the heat content of the ocean decrease?
_____________________________________________
Because oceans would lose energy, if they would warm the atmosphere.
You just told you graduated and you are engineer.
Either this was not true or your question is not honest.
Fritz-
“You just told you graduated and you are engineer.
Either this was not true or your question is not honest.”
What?? I did NOT say this.
“Because oceans would lose energy, if they would warm the atmosphere.”
Yes, and they are losing energy, very slowly. As I stated earlier, the top 10 feet of the ocean hold the same amount of thermal energy as exists in the entire atmosphere.
All that heat isn’t simply going away in a short time.
There is a lot of back and forth before ocean temperatures change their trend.
Joe says:
November 7, 2018 at 8:43 PM
Fritz-
“You just told you graduated and you are engineer.
Either this was not true or your question is not honest.”
What?? I did NOT say this.
“Because oceans would lose energy, if they would warm the atmosphere.”
Yes, and they are losing energy, very slowly. As I stated earlier, the top 10 feet of the ocean hold the same amount of thermal energy as exists in the entire atmosphere.
All that heat isn’t simply going away in a short time.
There is a lot of back and forth before ocean temperatures change their trend.
____________________________________________
No, they are not losing energy. And they would change their trend at once. They would lose the energy they deliver to atmosphere without any delay.
Just a single joule delievered to atmosphere means one joule less at once in ocean. This one joule doesnt exist twice, not even for one second.
Heat content of oceans would show a decrease, if it would warm the atmosphere. But if measurements arnt completely wrong, there is no back and force, no standstill, and no decrease, but clearly an INncrease. Also in deep layers.
Sorry I confused you with the other Joe. So maybe you really didnt understand.
Joe said:
I was comparing CO2 to air, not CO2 to CO2.
Yes, CO2 to CO2 is up 46%, but CO2 to air is up only .01%
The proper comparison is the relative proportion of GHGs, because it is the GHG effect that causes the av surface temp to be warmer than it would be absent an atmosphere (and absent the insulating effect of the other gases and clouds).
GHGs make up about 2% of the atmospheric mass. CO2 constitutes a fraction of that near the surface but proportionally more the higher you go, particularly in the stratosphere, where water vapour is in far tinier amounts than in the troposphere.
That still doesn’t account for the efficacy of the different gases to absorb (and re-emit) IR.
Based on physics and empirical measurements of the optical properties of various atmospheric gases, CO2 contributes between 9 and 26 % of the ‘greenhouse effect.’
Fritz-
But back to the first question: Why would the ocean heat content decrease? You still haven’t properly explained that.
And as I explained before, there are decadal cycles with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – currently both in warm phases, warming the global oceans.
Also bear in mind that water cools much slower than it heats up – because heating usually involves a lot of energy in a short space of time.
In relation to the Earth, we don’t have the cold source equivalent of the Sun, therefore the oceans cool much slower than they warmed up.
barry said:
“CO2 constitutes a fraction of that near the surface but proportionally more the higher you go, particularly in the stratosphere, where water vapour is in far tinier amounts than in the troposphere.”
Yes, it is interesting to note that it is much colder up there than near the surface, despite CO2 being proportionally more the higher you go…
It is also interesting that the areas of the planet that have the least water vapour have the most temperature extremes near the surface, such as deserts, or in the case of high altitudes (mountains) are colder – due to a much lower ghg effect.
But going beyond just ghg’s, it almost seems like atmospheric pressure determines temperature… Think about it, lower altitudes are warmer than higher altitudes where atmospheric pressure is less.
Joe says:
November 10, 2018 at 1:51 AM
Fritz-
But back to the first question: Why would the ocean heat content decrease? You still haven’t properly explained that.
And as I explained before, there are decadal cycles with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – currently both in warm phases, warming the global oceans.
_______________________________________
So what?
When ocean warms the atmosphere, it delievers heat content.
And when it delievers heat content, itself loses heat content.
Measurements show, its heat content is rising since decades. So it cant be the cause of atmosphere warming.
In fact it only attenuates warming of atmosphere, sometimes more and sometimes less. While la nina more and while el nino less.
There is nothing more to explain.
barry said:
CO2 constitutes a fraction of that near the surface but proportionally more the higher you go, particularly in the stratosphere, where water vapour is in far tinier amounts than in the troposphere.
Yes, it is interesting to note that it is much colder up there than near the surface, despite CO2 being proportionally more the higher you go
It is also interesting that the areas of the planet that have the least water vapour have the most temperature extremes near the surface, such as deserts, or in the case of high altitudes (mountains) are colder due to a much lower ghg effect.
But going beyond just ghgs, it almost seems like atmospheric pressure determines temperature Think about it, lower altitudes are warmer than higher altitudes where atmospheric pressure is less.
Joe,
Pressure doesn’t determine temperature. A scuba tank has 200 times the pressure of the atmosphere at the surface of the Earth, but after filling it quickly equilibrates to room temperature. A scuba tank has twice the pressure of Venus surface atmosphere. Why doesn’t it melt by wet suit?
Also, we know the temperature gradient changes with each atmospheric layer. EG, from surface a negative temperature gradient to troposphere, then a positive temperature gradient through the stratosphere, and a negative one again through the mesosphere, going positive again through the thermosphere spacewards.
Pressure declines fairly steadily as you go upwards, so pressure cannot be determining temperature at different levels of the atmosphere. Something else has to be responsible for these inversions of the temperature gradient. Changes in the relative composition and abundance of atmospheric gases is what causes these inversions. EG, the significant quantities of UV-absorbing ozone in the stratosphere, as well as a lack of convection, is the main reason why temperatures increase with height.
barry wrote:
“Also, we know the temperature gradient changes with each atmospheric layer. EG, from surface a negative temperature gradient to troposphere, then a positive temperature gradient through the stratosphere, and a negative one again through the mesosphere, going positive again through the thermosphere spacewards.
Pressure declines fairly steadily as you go upwards, so pressure cannot be determining temperature at different levels of the atmosphere. Something else has to be responsible for these inversions of the temperature gradient. Changes in the relative composition and abundance of atmospheric gases is what causes these inversions. EG, the significant quantities of UV-absorbing ozone in the stratosphere, as well as a lack of convection, is the main reason why temperatures increase with height.”
True, but that’s only because the absolute effect of pressure on a system’s (planet’s) temperature depends on the background energy level of the environment i.e. solar flux.
This is also why your scuba tank example wouldn’t burn – the ambient energy level isn’t high enough.
The same can be said for AGW where is it?
30-yr trend of UAH LT v6.0 = +0.14 C/decade.
Can you even notice .14 C/decade in a real life thermometer?
You’ve made the mistake of thinking that the uncertainty of an average equals the uncertainty of each individual thermometer.
If the uncertainty of the temperature reading for each temperature station is a constant dT_i = dT, then, assuming the measurements of the temperature stations T_i are normally distributed, the uncertainty in the average of N stations is
d(avg)=(dT)/sqrt(N)
which is much less than dT.
Keep using those El Ninos to create a trend DA.. its funny to watch 🙂
No warming apart from those El Ninos, and by the looks of it no persistent warmth from the 2015/16 El Nino
But just keep drawing those meaningless monkey-based lines, DA. 🙂
Long time lurker. Not a scientist, but Im not without intelligence enough to understand obfuscation, and I was my high school valedictorian and, I did graduate Dartmouth with a degree in engineering. Anyways, even I understand that the post that mentioned CO2 increasing by 0.01% was referring to total CO2 increasing from 0.03 to 0.04% of the atmosphere. If you didnt understand that it speaks volumes about your innate ability to understand others points, and if you did understand then it is another example of climate change alarmists willingness to distort the truth for their benefit. Joe in NY
“Keep using those El Ninos to create a trend DA.. its funny to watch ”
El ninos cannot make a trend.
They just cancel La Ninas, which we’ve had, on average, for the last 12 mo, and you guys ignore.
Don’t forget, Joe Peck, obfuscation can go both ways.
joe peck…”I understand that the post that mentioned CO2 increasing by 0.01% was referring to total CO2 increasing from 0.03 to 0.04% of the atmosphere. If you didnt understand that it speaks volumes about your innate ability to understand others points, and if you did understand then it is another example of climate change alarmists willingness to distort the truth for their benefit”.
**********
If you want to dig deeper, apply that 0.04% to the ideal gas law while holding the atmosphere volume relatively constant. Compare the nearly 99 mass percent of N2/O2 to the puny 0.04% of CO2 using Dalton’s law of partial pressures.
That tells the story. For a 1C rise in atmospheric temperature, CO2 cannot possibly supply more than a few hundredths degree C.
Ric says:
November 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM
“Can you even notice .14 C/decade in a real life thermometer?”
______________________________________
Doesnt matter.
This value is an average of many measurements.
Didnt you know?
Joe Peck says:
November 3, 2018 at 8:57 AM
Long time lurker. Not a scientist, but Im not without intelligence enough to understand obfuscation, and I was my high school valedictorian and, I did graduate Dartmouth with a degree in engineering. Anyways, even I understand that the post that mentioned CO2 increasing by 0.01% was referring to total CO2 increasing from 0.03 to 0.04% of the atmosphere.
_______________________________________
From 0.03 to 0.04 is an increase of 33%.
No matter where you gratuated or how intelligent you pretend to be.
If we accept the radiative imbalance calculations of the warmists a very simple calculation shows that it would take 860 years to raise the temperature of the Oceans by one degree Celsius.
Method
1 find the total mass of Oceans
2 factor in the radiative imbalance as a power input
3. use power mass and specific heat capacity of water and temperature rise of one degree Celsius to derive the time taken.
In fact the time taken would be much longer as no account is taken for melting ice and the very high value of the latent heat capacity of ice.
Gets things into a bit perspective …..doesn’t it
Bryan, that shows that we could be cooking on the surface well before the deep ocean warms. How does that help?
Maybe instead of guessing you simply start reading what really professional people do all the time, probably even before you were born:
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
I see you like graphs.
how about this one
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
You can see over a wide historic range there is quite a variation up and down
Notice the graph shows temperature in Fahrenheit units.
My calculation gives the energy input to the Oceans and is if anything more than 860 years.
Try the calculation for yourself if you are capable.
Sorry but your graph is by no means the right one: I was talking about Ocean Heat Content, and you answer with… Sea Surface Tempoerature!
Bindidon
The sea surface temperature is a reasonable proxy for the Ocean heat content
graph shows 1880 to 1910 …..fall
graph shows 1910 to 1940….. rise
graph shows 1940 to 1985 …..flat
graph shows 1985 to 2015 …..rise
What it does not show is any correlation to the so called greenhouse gasses
Bryan,
Considering the mass of the ocean and the mass of the atmosphere….
If the added energy that caused the rise of 1C in total ocean temp were transferred to the atmosphere, how much would the temp of the atmosphere rise?
If you can work it out the answer may surprise you.
The very first sentence in Chapter five of the IPCC’s AR4 report
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-es.html
says:
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.
You know what Barry? A rise of 0.01°C isn’t going to warm anything more than 0.01°C.
I think it is generally accepted that the first law of thermodynamics is reliable.
So accepting (for the sake of discussion) that the radiative imbalance proposed by warmists is also correct; the conservation of energy equation calculates the time taken for the Earths Oceans to increase by one degree Celsius is 860 years .
Barry
The increased heat content of the Oceans cannot be transferred to the atmosphere.
Heat transfer only occurs from a higher to a lower temperature.
Once the temperatures equalize heat transfer stops.
You misunderstand the question, Bryan.
With your understanding of thermo, transfer (hypothetically) all the joules required to heat the oceans by 1C to the atmosphere and calculate the resulting temperature change for that mass.
Hint: it’s going to be a lot more than 1C!
Can you do the math?
I draw your attention, because you may mislead some people into thinking that a change in oceanic temps of 1C is a small thing. That would take far, far more energy to achieve than heating the atmosphere by the same amount.
Barry
Your question makes no sense because it ignores the laws of thermodynamic.
Transfer of heat energy is governed by these laws.
You could make up all sorts of ridiculous questions but there is no point to them.
For example what would happen if all the excess heat in the oceans was transferred to ‘the white house’ or to the north pole.
Get my point?
I believe so.
You are either incapable of or unwilling to consider my question, and your ‘point’ is to wave it away using ridicule as your device for this. Yes, heat flows from hot to cold, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific point I’m making.
If all the energy required to heat the ocean by 1C were immediately transferred into the atmosphere, the resulting increase of atmospheric temps would be about 36C.
What’s my point? To illustrate that what may seem like a small warming in the ocean is actually an enormous energy increase. A 1C warming of the total oceans is a massive change. The change over the last three decades is an order of magnitude less, but still represents a huge amount of energy.
Steve,
“The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.”
I don’t see your point. The top surface of the global ocean has warmed ~ 0.8 C.
When you heat one side of a thick layer of material, the other side warms very little or very slowly.
Thats the whole point of making my attic insulation thicker.
Barry says
“A 1C warming of the total oceans is a massive change.”
I agree and thats why it takes 860 years for the warmist “radiative imbalance” to accomplish this massive energy transfer
But at the end of 860 years the Ocean average water temperature will go from say 14C to 15C
The near surface atmospheric temperature would also increase by about one degree Celsius.
The mass of the atmosphere is much less than the mass of the oceans..but as you say heat only flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature so needless worries about it being 36degees celcius higher are misplaced
barry says:
November 5, 2018 at 5:49 AM
…
If all the energy required to heat the ocean by 1C were immediately transferred into the atmosphere, the resulting increase of atmospheric temps would be about 36C.
A 1C warming of the total oceans is a massive change.
And if all the energy used to heat up my 30 gal water heater were immediately transferred to a teacup of water it would explode in a ball of super heated steam.
The total ocean has not warmed 1C. Read Nate’s post. The ocean is what – 3700 meters deep? Only the top 700 meters is warmed so ~80% isn’t affected.
Yes the sun is ~5000K and if the Earth didn’t have a pathway for heat to escape, we would eventually heat up to that 5000K. But the Earth does loose heat and all the energy stored in the oceans isn’t going to magically rise up some day and heat the atmosphere to 36C.
You’ve used a convoluted chain of imaginary events to come up with a scary number. But I’m sure you are right, if all the heat necessary to heat the entire ocean all 3700 meters of it right to the bottom 1 degree Celsius, in one giant imaginary explosion yes that’s enough to heat things up to your scary 36 degrees and do a lot of damage.
Why do guys like you insist on coming up with scary scenarios that really don’t represent reality?
Nate says:
…
November 5, 2018 at 8:10 AM
The top surface of the global ocean has warmed ~ 0.8 C.
…
Bodies of water are usually warmer than the atmosphere. And so yes, if the ocean went from 15C to 15.8C the warming of the atmosphere would be greater by no more than that 0.8C.
The mass of the atmosphere is much less than the mass of the oceans.. but as you say heat only flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature
What makes the atmosphere much warmer than the ocean depths? Why doesn’t the heat flow and render the whole system in thermal equilibrium? Something is preventing heat flowing from hot to cold and equalizing.
For the same reason that temperature is stratified, a change in 1C in the oceans would be experienced very differently in the atmosphere.
And if you want to know something else interesting, the average sea surface temperature of the globe is higher than the land/surface average. The skin of the ocean is warmer than the air. Which way should heat flow here?
so needless worries about it being 36degees celcius higher are misplaced
What crazy nut said that this could possibly happen? It wasn’t me.
Ice age temperature changes at the poles saw swings of 10-12C. At the equator, about 3C. A 1C warming of the atmosphere has been accompanied by ocean heat content changes (to 700 meters) of less than a third of that in degrees C. On that simple ratio, a 1C ocean heat content change should produce 3C in near-surface temps.
But the real picture is more complex. Changes in one component do not produce a 1-for-1 change in other components.
Barry says
“What crazy nut said that this could possibly happen? It wasn’t me.”
I think you should re-read your post of 5.49AM above where you say
“if all the energy required to heat the ocean by 1C were immediately transferred into the atmosphere, the resulting increase of atmospheric temps would be about 36C.”
Did I say this could possibly happen?
No, I was inviting you to do an energy calculation. Nothing about any of my posts suggested otherwise.
I don’t understand what could make you misinterpret so badly. I have to assume you couldn’t actually do the calculations, and swung wildly to deflect a simple question.
S D P,
So, it holds steady. This is good. If you are correct in your predictions, cold is in the future. This is not good.
+0.22 with El Nio conditions setting in is not a feather in the warmists cap. Looks like there will be a winter spike because of the El Nio then back to the freefall of the past 2 years come late spring.
So you are not aware of the lag between surface temps and satellite temps?
El Nio damn auto correct
Guess the site doesn’t like the symbol above the n…..I know it’s El nino people
Correct, the site wipes out your keyboard script. You have to use HTML code.
El Niño
Epsilon/sigma works sometimes, testing:
AσT^4
E = ε’σT4
Mr Spencer, why does this page show an error?
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
Look at the bright side, The zero warming has been extended another month , the disparity from the “CO2 control knob” climate models is larger still.
Evidence?
Stay out of my posts you7 creep
Just as I thought — no evidence whatsoever.
DA is getting DESPERATE. !!
Imagine what he will be like when this happens 🙂
https://i.postimg.cc/cC6z3SSd/biggestfail2.png
And here we go for another month of insightful comments!
I just ran the counts from the monthly UAH update article (didn’t include the other two posts). Huffman has broken his own single month record for most posts! Assuming he spends 10 hours a day at this, that comes to a post about every half hour. Of course this is not including his sock puppets or posts elsewhere. That is a bit frightening.
Just curious, did anybody learn anything at all from Huffman last month?
——
Huffm
September 61
October 659
——
Team
September 118
October 352
——
Gordo
September 74
October 245
——
Nate
September 46
October 247
——
Bobdr
September 0
October 176
——
Skept
September 3
October 173
——
Bobde
September 110
October 162
——
Ball4
September 0
October 187
——
barry
September 144
October 125
——
gbaik
September 54
October 100
——
Norma
September 49
October 81
——
appel
September 227
October 80
——
Bindi
September 79
October 77
——
Snape
September 40
October 72
——
Folke
September 0
October 64
——
Prete
September 95
October 59
——
Svant
September 15
October 49
——
Bowdr
September 0
October 40
——
Kraut
September 0
October 39
——
phi
September 31
October 32
Thanks Svante!
There’s a lot of pseudoscience to squash.
And, don’t be frightened, reality doesn’t really hurt. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.
I told you, I am not Svante. I am not anyone but me.
You have a serious problem. Really. Is there some friend or family member you could confide in to maybe get some help?
Svante, no wonder you are unable to learn. There’s too many people inside your head.
Credit for the previous comment goes out to JD, DREMT, g.e.r.a.n, et. al.
No, I can’t be bothered this month. I realized that if people can’t even understand that a wooden horse on a carousel is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not on its own axis, then they either have a learning disability or they are mentally ill. And either way it’s just sad, not even funny any more. So I will be watching, maybe with some popcorn, if anything entertaining happens, but won’t be commenting. Having a little break, getting on with some more important things. Hopefully there will be some funny stuff to check in on occasionally, rather than just depressing. David seems to be on good form, so I will have a few chuckles at that obvious troll and his ridiculous antics. Maybe back next month. People will just have to assume that I am constantly asking them to please stop trolling. Oh and on another thread I saw Norman made one of my favorite comments of all time:
“Some real physics for you. Not that it will matter to you. Yes you can warm your coffee with ice, the energy in ice will be absorbed by the coffee adding energy and warming it. Depending upon the initial state of the coffee.”
This shows the Moon is clearly rotating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
as every astronomer in the Milky Way will tell you.
This is the thing, David, I’m not even talking about the moon any more, I’m literally just talking about a carousel. Don’t even extend it to the moon issue. I don’t know what happened exactly but it seems people are so desperately determined to reject any argument on this moon issue that they no longer even understand the functioning of a merry-go-round. It’s just people making themselves ill. Not funny, sorry. Have fun.
The Moon is clearly rotating.
So what are you complaining about?
DREMT can’t even figure out the correct inertial reference frame to analyze the ferris wheel.
Sure, from the inertial reference frame, it’s rotating. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel. Like I said: learning disability, or mentally ill.
nor the merry-go-round. nor the moon…..etc.
Yeah, ThickticGoneThick, I assume it’s you, seek professional help.
Hfs – there is no “correct” inertial reference frame in which to analyze the ferris wheel.
Don’t even bother David, he makes you look sane.
David,
Stick to stuff you understand. Like the earth heating the sun.
DREMT,
“it seems people are so desperately determined to reject any argument”
Your arguments were rejected when they were flawed and not convincing. Oh well.
You regularly rejected science-based arguments when they didnt support your beliefs, especially when they were way over your head.
Nate, a wooden horse on a carousel is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel.
That is ALL I am saying. If you disagree, seek professional help.
The horse on a carousel first faces north (say), then west, then south, then east.
How is that not a rotation?
Indeed it is a rotation David. It is a rotation about an axis in the center of the carousel.
DREMT,
A horse on a merry-go-round rotates on its own axis wrt to the non-rotating reference frame.
Take a kinematics course. Oh, wait. There are prerequisites, like intelligence. Never mind.
A horse on a merry-go-round rotates about an axis in the center of the platform wrt to the non-rotating reference frame.
Take a kinematics course. Oh wait, there are pre-requisites, like intelligence. Never mind.
DA still can’t understand orbital motion?
DA do you even know what a “planet” is?
DREMT confuses rotation and orbit. Nothing new.
Put a north arrow on the horse. Watch the horse rotate on it own axis about the north arrow. No! No! It’s just imaginary, he shrieks!
SGW (the child playing with his screen name) says “A horse on a merry-go-round rotates on its own axis wrt to the non-rotating reference frame.”
No child, the merry-go-round is not even “rotating on its own axis” wrt anything. It is “orbiting”. Its motiion is “translational”.
That the horse is rotating is not being denied. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel.
Shriek until you faint from your dementure, but you are wrong.
The real point is that MORE THAN ONE model can work to describe a situation. The motion of a moon in a circular orbit always facing the center can be modeled as
EITHER
* an object rotating around the center and NOT rotating additionally on its own axis (ie in a reference frame rotating once per month).
OR
* an object translating in a circle (ie in a non-rotating reference frame), but ALSO rotating on its axis once per month.
You can choose to analyze the motion either way, and both can work.
Much like a ball thrown straight up in a moving train can be analyzed in the train’s frame (it moves straight up and down) OR analyzed in the earth’s frame (it moves in a parabola.
Much like the circulation of a hurricane is due to EITHER the Coriolis psuedoforce (AKA fictitious force, AKA inertial force) in the earth rotating frame or due to real forces in an inertial frame.
Much like a ball rolling down a ramp can be analyzed with the x-axis horizontal or with the x-axis pointing down the ramp.
Basically, if you CHOOSE to work in a reference frame rotating once per month, then the moon DOES NOT rotate within that frame. If you CHOOSE to work in an inertial frame, then the moon DOES rotate within that frame.
The next question is which model is EASIER to work with? We actually have three models presented so far.
* The merry-go-round model (a horse fixed rigidly on a disk).
* The rail model (a horse fixed to a train car rolling around on a pair of rails)
* The axle model (an axle translating without rotating (ie a little notch carved in the axle always points north in an inertial reference frame), and the horse rotating frictionlessly on the axle).
For a circular orbit, I might actually agree with JD that either of the first two are easier to picture and to understand than the third. But for an elliptical orbit. The first two fail miserably.
You could stretch the disk somehow (or let the horse move in an out on the disk, always with the nose forward around the disk) to model an elliptical orbit, which would keep the same side facing directly toward the planet. But that is not how a real moon would face.
You could lay the tracks in an ellipse, always keeping the same side perpendicular to the tracks (but not pointed to the planet). But this is also not how a real moon would face.
You could move the axle in an ellipse, letting the horse always rotate around the frictionless axle at a constant rate (relative to the inertial reference frame). And this IS how a real moon moves.
RECAP: Any of the models works just fine for a circular orbit. Only one model also works properly for an elliptical orbit.
Tim, I am not talking about the moon. I am talking about a carousel. The wooden horse on a carousel is not rotating on its own axis, from any frame of reference. It is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel. Agree, or remain delusional. Your choice.
Define “translation”.
If you are referring to me, I don’t need to, because I am talking about a carousel, and I am talking only about rotation
DREMT,
I am sorry the horse rotating on its own axis about the north arrow violates your safe space.
Deal with it, snowflake.
Tim, your physics is STILL messed up!
Your words: “an object translating in a circle (ie in a non-rotating reference frame), but ALSO rotating on its axis once per month.” is NOT the motion of the Moon!
You are still into “spin”. You are trying to redefine orbital motions.
A racehorse does NOT “rotate on its own axis” running an oval racetrack.
You have to ask yourself why you can’t face reality.
Look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The dark side of the Moon is clearly rotating around the Moon’s central axis.
If you are trying to apply some sort of “translating reference frame” which hovers around the horse, then that is not applicable, because the entire carousel is in rotation about an axis in its center. It’s simply a case of a rigid body in rotation. You are wrong, deal with it, snowflake.
JD,
Define “translation”.
DA, if you ever passed anything close to a physics course, I hope you kept your receipt.
You’re due for a full refund.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Indeed it is a rotation David. It is a rotation about an axis in the center of the carousel.
Yes, exactly.
Thank you.
SGW, define “maturity”.
Thank you, David. Finally!
WARNING! The following experiment will violate DREMT’s safe space.
Get an orange or similar shaped object. Mark a dot on its “equator”.
Grasp the orange in your hand, perform a quarter orbit, keeping the mark pointing towards the center of orbit. You have to rotate the orange in your hand while making the quarter orbit in order to keep the mark facing the center of orbit. The orange has rotated 90 degrees on its own axis while making the orbit.
Bummer, snowflake.
JD,
It’s hard to discuss kinematics if you don’t define your terms.
Define “translation”.
And still, the horse on a carousel is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel.
JD,
You keep using the term “translation”. What are the parameters that must be met in order for an object’s motion to be described as “translation”. A definition, please.
SGW, you’re behaving like a 12-year-old that broke into his parents liquor cabinet.
Sober up, and I’ll try to help you tomorrow.
–Tim Folkerts says:
November 2, 2018 at 9:00 PM
The next question is which model is EASIER to work with? We actually have three models presented so far.
* The merry-go-round model (a horse fixed rigidly on a disk).
* The rail model (a horse fixed to a train car rolling around on a pair of rails)
* The axle model (an axle translating without rotating (ie a little notch carved in the axle always points north in an inertial reference frame), and the horse rotating frictionlessly on the axle).–
How about another model. This description:
“Viewed from above the plane of the solar system, the moon’s orbit looks like a thread weaving in and out of Earth’s orbital path over the course of time. That’s because over the course of 27 days it moves from inside Earth’s orbit at new moon to outside of it at full. At the true scale of the solar system, the thread is almost concentric to Earth’s orbit.”
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2018/01/07/does-the-moon-orbit-the-earth-or-the-sun/
I am not sure how do the horse and/or rail analogy.
Next:
“For a circular orbit, I might actually agree with JD that either of the first two are easier to picture and to understand than the third. But for an elliptical orbit. The first two fail miserably.”
As above moon orbits both Earth and Sun, and both orbits are close to being a circle.
Earth has elliptical orbit around the sun. The average distance is
149.6 million km.
At Perihelion it’s 147.09
And at Aphelion it’s 152.10
If you draw circle with 14.96 mm radius
And if draw the elliptical which centered
14.709 mm and centered 15.209
Both will look like circles
With Moon average distance from Earth is 0.3844 million km
So make circle 38.44 mm radius
And draw the elliptical which centered
36.33 mm and centered 40.55 mm
So it’s going to about 2 mm wider and narrower as compared
to the circle.
For both Earth and Moon.
Hard to notice these ellipicals are actually not a circle
If double the earth distance to sun, scale 149.6 x 2 = 299.2 then have more similar size circles 29.92 mm radius [Earth] vs 38.44 mm radius [Moon]
Which is centered 29.418 mm and 30.418 mm and it’s about .5 mm wider and narrower as compared to circle [a pencil line width].
Or Moon orbit of Earth is a bit less than circle as compared Earth [or Moon] orbit of the Sun. And btw you need to draw a fairly large circle to measure the difference between them and a circle.
Any change in the direction of a vector is a rotation. If a vector in the x-y plane changes from (r, θ1) to (r, θ2), then the vector has rotated by an amount θ2 – θ1.
There are two vectors of particular interest for our horse.
1) A vector, V1, from the origin to the center of mass of the horse, describing the overall position of the horse.
2) A vector, V2, from the center of mass of the horse to the tip of the nose, describing the the overall orientation of the horse.
Suppose merry-go-round turns 90 degrees, with the horse moving from the north side to the east side.
For vector V1, the angle changes from θ1 = 90 to θ1 = 180; a rotation of +90 .
For vector V2, the angle changes from θ1 = 180 to θ1 = 270; also a rotation of +90.
DREMT,
“a wooden horse on a carousel is rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel.”
A strawman. If you think I disagreed with that, you weren’t paying attention.
This motion is ALSO, according to standard definitions, translation plus rotation.
But you reject this because it disagrees with your beliefs.
And according to angular momentum, this is ALSO equivalent to a combination of rotation-on-axis thru cm, and translation of center of mass.
But you reject this because it is science that is over your head.
The entire carousel is just a rigid body in rotation. The horse is no more rotating on its own axis than a dot you draw with a sharpie near the edge of a spinning dinner plate. Argument over.
Tim is still trying to re-defined both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Consider just the plafform of a merry-go-round. The platform is NOT moving. On the east edge of the platform is an arrow, mounted on a spindel through it’s center of mass. The arrow is spinning on its axis. The platform is NOT moving, but the arrow is “rotating on its own axis”.
Now stop the motion of the arrow, and point it due north. The arrow cannot move.
Then start the platform moving in a CCW motion. The arrow is now “orbiting”, but not “rotating on its own axis. The arrow is changing direction, due to the movement of the platform, but the arrow is not “rotating on its own axis”.
The arrow is displaying the same motion as both a racehorse and the Moon.
DREMT,
The fact that you now use the word ‘rotation’ to describe the horse on the platform (and by extension, the Moon), is definite progress.
It is a recognition that rotation means something very specific. It means ORIENTATION is changing. The horses orientation wrt to space is changing over time.
As to whether rotation (orientational change) is happening about on its own axis or another one is simply a matter of the mass being on-center or off-center.
Or rather, it is simply a matter of combining rotation with translation of the c.m. in a circular path.
Nate, I am only talking about a carousel. And I am only going to be talking on this one sub-thread, until people stop responding to me. Then I’m done for the month.
You found some amusing ways to delude yourself before, such as the parallel axis theorem, and I had some fun winding you up about it (because you deserve it). If you wish to believe that the horse on the carousel is rotating about any other axis than the one in the center, from any reference frame, or by whatever means you wish to deconstruct its motion to satisfy your beliefs, then go for it. I will be laughing at you all the way.
JD,
You still have not defined rigid body “translation”.
“Consider just the plafform of a merry-go-round. The platform is NOT moving. On the east edge of the platform is an arrow, mounted on a spindel through its center of mass. The arrow is spinning on its axis.”
The arrow is NOT spinning at all! An object cannot spin until something causes it to spin.
“Now stop the motion of the arrow, and point it due north. The arrow cannot move. Then start the platform moving in a CCW motion.”
The arrow was not spinning to begin with. Secondly, are you saying the arrow is kept pointing north? You are not clear.
Redo. And define “orbiting” while you are at it.
JD, you start by saying the arrow is free to spin on a spindle. If that is the case, then starting the merry-go-round rotating would leave the arrow pointing its original direction (north in this case). This always-pointing-north-arrow is maintaining its orientation with respect to the inertial reference frame — which seems like an excellent definition of “not rotating at all”.
“You found some amusing ways to delude yourself before, such as the parallel axis theorem”
Demonstrating to all that you don’t take science seriously.
Because you just don’t get it. And that’s ok.
But then you shouldn’t be absolutely certain it is wrong.
“I am only talking about the carousel”
Whether its a hockey puck on a platform or horse on a carousel, the moon in orbit, or a pen in an x-y plotter, the laws of motion are universal and apply to all of them.
So if the parallel-axis theorem works for a peanut-shaped object spinning about an off-center axis, it also works for a horse on the carousel and the Moon.
“by whatever means you wish to deconstruct its motion to satisfy your beliefs, then go for it. I will be laughing at you all the way.”
Ok, you probably laughed at the nerds in high school, the ones that went on to work at NASA and IBM.
That’s ok.
But then why are you trying to argue with those nerds, about science?!
That is actually funny, DREMT.
Keep spinning and twisting, Tim.
Your dead squirrel allows you to avoid reality.
Crickets from JD regarding the definition of rigid body “translation”. Figures.
If you cannot even properly describe your merry-go-round example, draw a picture (and take a refresher course in English)
Why SGW, I see you still haven’t sobered up yet.
No hurry, you’re putting on a great performance.
Nate writes an essay on the emotions that I seem to trigger in him simply by stating the fact that a carousel is a rigid body in rotation, and that is the end of it. Utterly obsessed with me, he refuses to write a comment to JD, or gbaikie, or anyone else, and just relentlessly prattles on.
“simply by stating the fact that a carousel is a rigid body in rotation”
In a bit of denial, there, DREMT.
Your quotes that I responded to are cited, and go well beyond this dry fact, beginning with we’re all “mentally ill”.
As far as JD, don’t worry, he’s wasted plenty of my time.
Jesus Christ, people. How can you let these trolls troll you into responding so easily? They’e not interested in what you think.
DNFTT!
Nate and others keep prattling on about the already settled matter, due to either their mental illness or learning disability.
It is fascinating to see how strong confirmation bias effects an argument. Additionally, one can see how often extraneous information is used to muddy the waters vs. an effort to reach an objective truth. The carousel is such an effective way to describe the motion and yet the moon is brought up whenever clarity is nearly reached.
Let’s say there are two children on a carousel horse. One of the horses is missing a bolt that fixes the horse to the pole. The rider on this horse can use his hands to make the horse turn while the other horse is rigid.
The father of one of the children must take the carousel horses to install them. At first, the two horses are placed side by side and placed on a flatbed. The truck is not moving and it is facing North. The children get on the horses and the horse missing the bolt is able to turn. The child on this horse turns the horse so it is facing East, then South, then West, and back North. They now face the same way again but the horse with the loose bolt has made one rotation.
The father allows the children to stay on the horse while he drives the horses to the fair to install them. During the drive North to the fair, the rigid horse always points in the same direction as the truck. The loose horse continues to point E, S, W and back N throughout the ride.
The first question is, are both horses rotating about their respective poles? If not, which horse is rotating?
Now the father installs the horses on the carousel. When the horses are installed, they face a large ferris wheel to the North. Before the carousel starts, the boy on the loose horse again turns his horse to face E, S, W, and back N
The second question, are both horses rotating about their respective poles? If not, which horse is rotating?
Now the operator turns on the carousel which runs counter-clockwise. The boy on the loose horse thinks it is fun to turn his horse so it always faces the ferris wheel, so he again turns it E, S, W, N; but a funny thing happens. Since the carousel is moving, his horse actually faces N, N, N, N. The boy on the rigid horse faces N, W, S, E and then back North
Now, the questions become:
Did the loose horse stop rotating around its pole when the carousel was turned on?
Did the rigid horse start rotating around its pole even though it has never turned before?
If you stop the carousel, does the loose horse magically start rotating about its pole again?
If the carousel was 100 miles wide, neither rider would be able to sense the orbital motion. You would have the loose horse spinning and the rigid horse remaining in the direction of the orbital path. If the horses escaped the orbital path and went straight, the loose horse would still be spinning and the rigid horse would still point in the direction of the forward motion.
If you bring up the moon in response, you have strong confirmation bias.
You are right
‘how often extraneous information is used to muddy the waters vs. an effort to reach an objective truth.’
But then you give us so much extraneous info, its almost impossible to decipher your POV, f_top_t.
BTW, your ‘Forget the moon, focus on carousels’ reminds us of someone. Are you DREMT resurrected?
‘Now the operator turns on the carousel which runs counter-clockwise. The boy on the loose horse thinks it is fun to turn his horse so it always faces the ferris wheel, so he again turns it E, S, W, N; but a funny thing happens. Since the carousel is moving, his horse actually faces N, N, N, N.’
If the loose horse was very very loose-so that there was no friction at all between it and its pole, then the pole cannot exert any torque on the horse.
Then the boy need not do anything, and the horse will simply maintain its N, N, N, N orientation, due to its orientational inertia, as the carousel and pole rotate.
Nate,
Answer the questions first (repeated below), then deflect. If you refuse to answer the questions than you have no intention of seeking the truth and just admit that.
1. On the flatbed, are both horses rotating about their respective poles?
A. YES
B. NO
2. If not, which horse is rotating?
A. Loose Horse is Rotating
B. Rigid Horse is Rotating
3. At rest on the carousel, are both horses rotating about their respective poles?
A. YES
B. NO
4. f not, which horse is rotating?
A. Loose Horse is Rotating
B. Rigid Horse is Rotating
Once the carousel is turned on:
5. Did the loose horse stop rotating around its pole when the carousel was turned on?
A. YES
B. NO
6. Did the rigid horse start rotating around its pole even though it has never turned before?
A. YES
B. NO
7. If you stop the carousel, does the loose horse magically start rotating about its pole again?
A. YES
B. NO
These are simple questions to answer. Your character and integrity will be revealed by your next response.
Many of the questions are self-evident, but I will answer them if you promise to answer mine:
“If the loose horse was very very loose-so that there was no friction at all between it and its pole, then the pole cannot exert any torque on the horse.
TRUE or FALSE?
Then the boy need not do anything, and the horse will simply maintain its N, N, N, N orientation, due to its orientational inertia, as the carousel and pole rotate.”
True or False?
“Are you DREMT resurrected?“
Nate, I am still here, still laughing at you, and will most likely be back next month. Try to face the reality that you are now talking to someone else, at least.
1. On the flatbed, are both horses rotating about their respective poles?
A. YES
B. NO
–NO
2. If not, which horse is rotating?
A. Loose Horse is Rotating
B. Rigid Horse is Rotating
–Loose horse
3. At rest on the carousel, are both horses rotating about their respective poles?
A. YES
B. NO
–NO
4. f not, which horse is rotating?
A. Loose Horse is Rotating
B. Rigid Horse is Rotating
–Loose horse
Once the carousel is turned on:
5. Did the loose horse stop rotating around its pole when the carousel was turned on?
A. YES
B. NO
–NO. It continues to rotate relative to the pole (which is itself rotating CCW). But it is NOT rotating wrt to inertial space or the ground (ie looks N,N,N,N).
6. Did the rigid horse start rotating around its pole even though it has never turned before?
A. YES
B. NO
NO it is not rotating wrt the now-rotating pole, but it is rotating CCW wrt inertial space and the ground (looks N,W,S,E).
7. If you stop the carousel, does the loose horse magically start rotating about its pole again?
A. YES
B. NO
NO, it was rotating wrt to the CCW rotating pole. That continues. But now it is ALSO rotating wrt to inertial space.
DREMT,
I know you have no time for us this month, but it is quite striking that you happened to be reading at just this moment!
Good, I’m glad of the coincidence, now you will amuse even more.
Although it was inherent in the example that the horse only turns about the pole when the child uses his hands to turn the horse, Otherwise the loose horse would perform exactly like the rigid horse without the child applying a rotational force.
“The rider on this horse can use his hands to make the horse turn while the other horse is rigid.”
The pole is an axis line for orientation.
That said, I will answer your questions.
Nate,
As promised, responses to your questions below.
If the loose horse was very very loose-so that there was no friction at all between it and its pole, then the pole cannot exert any torque on the horse.
TRUE or FALSE?”
This is really not germane, the example was orientational (torque, gravity, inertia are outside of the scope of the example and just adds complexity). The assumption was that the child is required to create rotational movement,
Thus, it is hard to answer TRUE of FALSE, because you are really asking a clarification on the structure of the example. The horse would not swing freely back and forth without the boy exerting a force, both horses would exhibit the exact same behavior without children on them. I guess the answer is false.
“Then the boy need not do anything, and the horse will simply maintain its N, N, N, N orientation, due to its orientational inertia, as the carousel and pole rotate.
True or False?”
Again, this would be false. The horses would share the exact same movement without one child creating the clockwise rotation.
I understand why you answered the way you did. You equate any change in direction as a rotational movement of the core object from some external frame of reference. If the truck was driving down a winding road that followed half circles on its way to the fair, you would describe the broad left hand turn as a counterclockwise rotation of the horses and a broad right hand turn as a clockwise rotation of the horses from the frame of reference of the fair. It would look like the children were spinning half way to the left and then back to center and half way to the right.
I disagree. I would view the truck/horses as traveling in variable directions and not rotating on their axis. Directional movement can change the orientation of an object externally, but it does not infer rotational movement to then object itself.
Appreciate your replies
I like your terms ‘sees N, W, S, E’ as good definition of something rotating wrt to space, and ‘sees N, N, N, N, as a good definition of something not rotating.
It agrees with the definitions from textbook kinematics. Which describes TRANSLATION as movement of the center of mass of an object while holding fixed its orientation, ie sees N, N, N, N.
These definitions of motion have worked well for scientists and engineers for centuries.
If the horse is on the carousel and going around and always sees N, N, N, N (regardless of mechanism). Then it is not rotating, but its center of mass is translating on a circular path.
So if the horse is on the carousel and going around while it sees N, W, S, E, it must be rotating. AND its center of mass is also translating on a circular path.
For the horse to go from not-rotating to rotating, there must be a torque on it, this is a form of Newton’s law.
The point of bringing that up was to say that the loose horse on the frictionless pole can experience no torque (turning force).
The carousel rotating can only apply a force on the center of mass of the loose horse. It can only make it TRANSLATE on a circular path. That is normally called orbiting.
While I understand your logic, it creates an arbitrary result from the same motions/mechanisms. To demonstrate, we agree on the following:
On the flatbed and static on the carousel, the loose horse is rotating around its axis (the pole) and the rigid horse is not.
When the carousel is turned on, you state that the loose horse is no longer rotating because it is facing N, N, N, N; and the static horse is now rotating.
Let’s describe the speed of the rotation as 1 RPM for the loose horse while on the flatbed and static on the carousel. Obviously, the speed of rotation of the rigid horse is ZERO RPM. In the example, the carousel also makes 1 revolution per minute. If the motions do not change, but the speed of rotation increases, this should have no effect on defined movement.
If we replace the child with a stronger faster one who can make the loose horse turn 4 RPMs, Since the formula for rotational speed is # of revolutions divided by time. Increasing the speed should not change the definition of the motions.
But what happens in our example?
On the flatbed and on the static carousel, the loose horse is now turning times (4) times per minute. When the carousel is turned on, the loose horse now faces W, S, E, N. The static horse faces the same directions as the loose horse at each quarter turn, but the loose horse has faced in every direction once for each 1/4 turn.
From any frame of reference the loose horse is rotating at four (4) RPMs
If a person was standing in the center of the carousel, he would see the loose horse rotate 4 times for each full rotation of the carousel
The child next to him would see the loose horse rotate 4 times for each full rotation of the carousel
A person on the ferris wheel, would see the loose horse rotate 4 times for each full rotation of the carousel
The motion could be described as:
The loose horse completes four (4) counterclockwise rotations for each orbit around the center of the carousel
The rigid horse completes zero (0) counterclockwise rotations for each orbit around the center of the carousel
If we slowed the horses down to the original speed, it would be described as:
The loose horse completes one (1) counterclockwise rotations for each orbit around the center of the carousel
The rigid horse completes zero (0) counterclockwise rotations for each orbit around the center of the carousel
Any other way to describe these motions would result in inconsistent descriptions based on the rotational speed
** Correction ** Clarifying rotational direction
The motion could be described as:
The loose horse completes four (4) CLOCKWISE rotations for each COUNTERCLOCKWISE orbit around the center of the carousel
The rigid horse completes zero (0) CLOCKWISE rotations for each COUNTERCLOCKWISE orbit around the center of the carousel
If we slowed the horses down to the original speed, it would be described as:
The loose horse completes one (1) CLOCKWISE rotations for each COUNTERCLOCKWISE orbit around the center of the carousel
The rigid horse completes zero (0) CLOCKWISE rotations for each COUNTERCLOCKWISE orbit around the center of the carousel
Any other way to describe these motions would result in inconsistent descriptions based on the rotational speed
Ftop_t
I thought you do not like muddying the waters!
“From any frame of reference the loose horse is rotating at four (4) RPMs
If a person was standing in the center of the carousel, he would see the loose horse rotate 4 times for each full rotation of the carousel”
If by ‘any frame of reference’ you include rotating ones and non rotating ones, then NO that is clearly not true.
In linear motion, kid is running on stopped train at 3 mph East. Train starts moving 3 mph West. Mom on ground sees kid running at 0 mph. Passengers on train see him running 3 mph.
Reference frames matter for rotational motion, just as they do for linear motion. Why wouldnt they?
Your second sentence, the person standing in the center is in a rotating frame of reference. By that I mean his N S E W directions are marked on the carousel. He will see the horse rotating 4 rpm wrt to the carousel and him. A bystander on ground will see horse rotating 5 rpm or 3 rpm depending on the direction horse is rotating.
Fixed horse is rotating 1 rpm relative to Earth, but 0 rpm relative to frame rotating with carousel at 1 rpm. Guy in center sees horse always pointing in same direction, so 0 rpm!
Nate,
You are correct with respect to someone standing beside the carousel.
Nate said:
“If by ‘any frame of reference’ you include rotating ones and non rotating ones, then NO that is clearly not true.”
After analyzing the rotational translation, I do agree that in the example, the bystander would see three (3) rotations. I agree that my statement with respect to the bystander was in error.
Assuming the perspectives line up along an x axis and a traditional coordinate plane for degrees with 0 / 360 degrees rests on the x-axis. We could define the locations as:
Standing on carousel (0,0)
Loose horse (5,0)
Rigid horse (6,0)
Bystander (10,0)
Horse heads pointing 90 degrees, head at coordinate (5,1)
The person on the horse would see the turning horse’s head pass by at 22.5, 112.5, 202.5, 292.5 degrees on the carousel
The person on the carousel would see the turning horse’s head pass at 67.5, 157.5, 247.5, 337.5
degrees on the carousel
The bystander would see the turning horse’s head pass by at 30, 150, 270 degrees on the carousel
(Note: for simplicity, I am considering that the bystander can see the head when it returns to pointing down the x axis)
In order to determine the translation of the loose horse, you would calculate the COUNTERCLOCKWISE rotation of the loose horse’s pole rotating against the centerpoint (0,0) of the carousel and the CLOCKWISE rotation of the horse’s head around its pole
As I mentioned, I agree that the bystander would only see three (3) rotations from his non-rotating frame of reference
It may devolve to semantics, but I would describe the motion of the loose horse’s head as:
Four (4) Clockwise rotations around the axis of the horse (the pole)
One (1) Counter-clockwise rotation of the horse around the center of the carousel
I would not describe the static horse’s head as one (1) rotation on its axis regardless of frame of reference. It would always translate as a counter-clockwise rotation around the center of the carousel
Enjoyed the discussion and the thought experiment.
Thanks.
Ok ftop. I think semantics is one way to look at it. Be well.
ftop = DREMT. Once a clown, always a clown. Same clown pseudo-science.
@SkepticsGoneWild
I have no idea who DREMT is. I joined this thread because I was fascinated by the discussion in September about rotational motion and orbit. Went to the NASA site and searched the web to satisfy my curiosity. For you to sit with your tin foil hat on and make unfounded claims of attribution is unbecoming.
Although I disagreed with Nate, he explored the subject in good faith. You have proven yourself to be incapable of conducting an objective review and have shown you will make evidence free assertions. A simple search would have show my occasional participation on this site over the last 4-5 years.
Intrigued by the the argument that an object on a carousel is rotating on its axis as well, I determined it should be easy to model.
I found this site that has an activity tab which allows you to rotate an object against either a center point (like a carousel) or around its own center of mass (like a rotating planet).
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
If an object is rotating around its axis while it is rotating around a center axis you would apply both of these transformations in order to model the movement. This site let’s you do just that.
For example, transform a shape “around a point” (0,0) 180 degrees for the carousel movement and then transform the shape “around its center” 180 degrees for the synchronously rotation around its axis.
If you use the site below and rotate the object around a center point and then rotate it around its axis, the result is not consistent with a locked horse on a carousel. The horse would be facing backwards from its direction. This is applying the geometry of transformations. An object like a horse on a carousel is transforming around a center point. It is not transforming around its center axis.
If you use this site and only apply the transformation rule for rotating around a center point and then claim that the transformation around its axis is imputed in that movement, you are taking credit for a geometric transformation (around its axis) that has not been applied within the model.
It doesn’t matter if you stand on the center point, on the object, or outside of the area of movement; perception may be different, but the geometric transformation rules to model the movement are the same.
ftop,
Good find. Useful tool.
Notice, with rotation CCW about the origin (0,0), the object points N, W, S, E. IOW the black corner moves around the square.
But can also use TRANSLATION to move object around the origin. In that case it points N, N, N, N as it orbits the center. IOW black corner stays at bottom right.
Try these 2 experiments.
Experiment A.
RESET
cm -2, -3 black corner: bottom right
1.Rotate 90 deg around 0,0.
result: cm 3, -2, black corner top right
2.Rotate another 90 deg around 0, 0.
result cm 2, 3, black corner top left
Experiment B.
RESET
cm -2, -3 black corner: bottom right
1. Translate 5, 1. Rotate 90 deg around CENTER
result: cm 3, -2, black corner top right
2. Translate -1, 5. Rotate 90 deg around CENTER
result: cm 2, 3, black corner top left
Discussion:
In A we rotated square around origin. In B we translated square around origin and rotated it around its center.
The results are the same for the both experiments.
Conclusion: rotating an object around a point, like horse on a carousel, is EQUIVALENT TO translating it around the point PLUS rotating the object on its center.
Nate,
My understanding of the argument is that an object that is rotating around a center point is also in a synchronous rotation around its axis and that is why one side is always facing the center rotational point. Again, I will concede there may be a semantic issue.
To clarify my assumptions, the argument for those that believe the horse is rotating on its axis is that the movement of a horse around a carousel includes
1. A rotation around the center point of the carousel (rotating around a point in the tool)
2. A rotation around the pole (rotating around the center in the tool)
3. These rotations are synchronized
I argue that there is only one movement
1. A rotation around the center point of the carousel
2. There is no rotation occurring around the objects axis (the pole)
If it is agreed upon that this site accurately demonstrates the geometric rules of translation, than the formula for applying the movement to the translation should be to rotate the object an equal proportion around the center point and around the pole.
So there is a 360 degree translation around the carousel and a 360 translation around the pole.
I find it is easier to use a triangle and click on the buttons to Show original and show pre-image
Demonstration
I clicked on triangle until I had one that had a line on the x-axis from 0 to -8 with a point at (-4,-5)
It is an isosceles triangle pointing down on the left of the graph from the x-axis
First, we can click on the “around center” and turn it 90 degrees four times.
This would represent a 360 rotation about its axis
Next, we can enter (0,0) in the coordinates and we can rotate around the center point four times
This would represent one circle around the carousel
If we disagree that these two movements represent a rotation around a center point (one turn of the carousel) and rotation on an objects access, than we cannot proceed further, because these are basic laws
If we are to believe that both of these translations are happening, that we can apply them in 90 degree increments.
First,
Enter (0,0) and turn 90 degrees around the center point
Then, click on “around center” and turn 90 degrees on its axis
Enter (0,0) and turn 90 degrees around the center point
Then, click on “around center” and turn 90 degrees on its axis
Enter (0,0) and turn 90 degrees around the center point
Then, click on “around center” and turn 90 degrees on its axis
Enter (0,0) and turn 90 degrees around the center point
Then, click on “around center” and turn 90 degrees on its axis
The yellow point will again be at (-4,-5), but the movement is not consistent with how a rigid horse moves around a carousel.
Again, one could argue that the turn around its axis is imputed from the rotation around the center, but it is not a valid translation. If no requirement exists to translate “around center”, than there is no rotation around the object’s axis.
If one argues that an object rotating around a center point is also in a synchronous rotation around its axis, the translation rules (both around a point and around center) should apply cleanly with no caveat.
I do not see that happening here.
Ftop,
I noticed you are avoiding using the Translation tool. The whole point of my post was to combine translation with rotation about own axis, to obtain the motion of the horse on carousel. It works.
Translation means move from point a to point b without any rotation. That movement can form a curve or a circle – that is an orbit.
Synchronous orbit means orbit and rotation at the same rate.
You are trying to combine two rotations, and get odd results.
The Hateful Neight still can’t stop arguing with himself. He agrees with the “dry fact” that the entire carousel is a rigid body in rotation, then contradicts himself by suggesting a sub-section of that rigid body can be considered to be “translating plus rotating on its own axis”.
Uggghhh. He’s back.
“suggesting a sub-section of that rigid body can be considered to be ‘translating plus rotating on its own axis.”
Not just suggesting, demonstrating by experiment. The Translation tool allows you to translate (move an object from point a to b without rotation). The rotation tool allows you to rotate an object on its axis.
Combining the two motions turns out to produce EXACTLY the same motion as rotating the object around an off-center axis, like a horse on a carousel.
Sorry, it just works. Even you can try the experiment.
The Hateful Neight still can’t stop arguing with himself…
DREMT: I have no answers-What to do?-I know, toss an insult grenade. That usually does the trick.
You repeated yourself, so did I.
Want two more weeks of DREMT-free commenting? Stop responding.
Ok, DREMT, I control what you do? Weird and sad.
I see that when you don’t have any answers, you just toss an insult grenade.
Keep on arguing with yourself. Who knows, maybe you will even win one?
“when you dont have any answers”
Answers to what? When you are ready to post something besides 5th grade insults, I’ll have answers for you.
Oh, the irony.
😂
I learned he does not mind continually making a fool of himself in front of thousands of people.
Mark, what’s the purpose of your tallies?
If you don’t like the discussions, feel free to start your own treads.
I suppose, with concerted effort, I could make the list. Does it pay well enough to warrant said effort?
Is money your only motivator?
2.5 y ago was the monster El Nino.
So you think the ‘freefall’ from it should continue after 3 years?
Might be wishful thinking.
There is more cooling in the pipeline. Patience.
Nino3.4 temperature anomaly just took another big jump upward, now at 1.2 C:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
DA, ren will be happy to see you’re linking to the same sources he uses.
See, you can learn.
A short term transient event is nothing to hang your hat on.
Neither is ignoring basic physics.
Like the short term transient cooling we got this year due to La Nina.
There is no physical imperative for surface warming with increasing CO2 concentration. There are myriad forcings and feedbacks involved.
Bart, do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit it?
A short term cooling transient event is nothing to hang your hat on.
Nino 3.4 averaged -0.75 in the last 12 mo.
Surface temperatures are determined by radiative-convective equilibrium and input modulation via reflective cloud cover. Stop being willfully obtuse.
“Surface temperatures are determined by radiative-convective equilibrium and input modulation via reflective cloud cover.”
Fancy non-sequitur.
Really does nothing to rebut what was said about La Nina and its well-known effect on surface temps.
I think 3 years in a climate system is not a lot, and doubt most people across the globe could distinguish all that much from this year to 20 years ago. I’m not doubting of forcings or feedbacks, latent heat has and will cause some changes, the question is will the change in the inputs be enough to outpace the system’s forward inertia and how much will the system adapt to those changes.
I wonder why RSS reports two different versions of average global temperature.
V 4.0 which appears to be resisting the recent temperature decline trend as is NOAA &
V 3.3 which is corroborating the decline trend of the other reporting agencies.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnZKG7qUwAAXHyM.jpg RSS here is v 3.3, Sept changes were tiny for all agencies.
Not seeing it. Current values of RSS 4.0 match those of early 2015. Same for UAH.
Comparison of RSS v3.3 and v4.0 and links to them are here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/16/the-new-rss-tlt-data-is-unbelievable-or-would-that-be-better-said-not-believable-a-quick-introduction
v4.0 = best model to date
v3.3 = for comparison
v$.0 best agenda-driven model to date.
uses climate models to try to “adjust” reality to match the farcical “climate models”
Yes, Nate’s right. RSS v4 has a higher overall trend, but like every other GTemp data set shows that recent anomalies are cooler than during 2016 and 2017.
I don’t know what Pangburn is on about.
Armed with a Mechanical Engineering background (MSME, PE, 45+ years working experience) which provides a solid understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer, extensive study of paleo climate as revealed by various proxies, recent study of gas processes at the molecule level, the rudiments of quantum mechanics, and lifetime curiosity, I am wading through the sometimes-misleading data, nonsense, BS and outright lies searching for the truth about cause of climate change. All things considered, CO2 appears to have little, if any, effect on climate.
Yes, Nate’s right. RSS v4 has a higher overall trend, but like every other GTemp data set shows that recent anomalies are cooler than during 2016 and 2017.
I dont know what Pangburn is on about.
Apparently you missed it: ,,… searching for the truth…,,
Oh, does your version of searching for the truth include failing to acknowledge when you’re wrong about something?
I wish you much luck. You will need a great deal.
Bar,, Click my name to see my blog/analysis. I welcome any rational assessment that identifies any significant error in it.
Sorry, you caught my interest when Nate pointed out you were mistaken about recent RSSv4 anomalies failing to drop down similarly to other data sets. I chimed in to see if you would deal squarely with this very straightforward, simple point.
You avoided the point with him and dodged it again with me. I’ve learned from this brief exchange that you don’t deal squarely and to the point. Charlie Brown kept on trying to kick the ball Lucy held for him and swept away at the last second every time. I’m not as stupid as Charlie Brown.
Dan, you undoubtedly have technical cred. But so do all of the PhD climate scientists who disagree with you, and many of us on this blog.
So this is no basis to judge your correctness. Like anyone else, you need to make convincing evidence-based arguments.
Posting arguments here is not working well, probably because of basic failure to communicate and a plethora of childish ad hominem attacks.
The constraints of Feedback Control Theory applied to determination of planet average global temperature, using proxy data extracted from Antarctic ice cores, proved that net feedback (feedback as defined in control theory) could not be significantly positive. This was my first assessment posted at Climate Research. It was made public April 13, 2009. It is still available on line at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/2010/The%20AGW%20Mistake.pdf . Without net positive feedback, GCMs predict little to no Global Warming caused by CO2.
Since then IMO I have discovered the main contributers to climate change. The subject is extensively discussed in my blog/analysis. I welcome any constructive comments and/or identification of errors.
Mother Nature will certainly demonstrate any fallacy.
oops, make that contributors
“ad hominem
adverb & adjective
1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
‘vicious ad hominem attacks'”
Really?
“2. relating to or associated with a particular person.”
This the argument YOU made, Dan. That we should believe YOU because of your credentials.
Nat,, Look again, I said childish, not vicious.
No! I do not believe you should believe me or anyone else because of credentials.
Challenge my findings, all of which have been made available to the public with links to source data. My current blog/analysis and references cover most of my findings.
“Challenge my findings”
I did challenge your finding that RSS4 is not showing cooling recently that UAH is. Not true.
Depends on what is meant by recent. RSS v3.3 and v4.0 stopped drifting apart in about 2015 and v4.0 has trended roughly 0.2 K higher than v3.3 since then. So, if by recent is meant the last 3 years, they have about the same slope; if by recent is meant the last decade or so, not so much.
This issue exemplifies the fog encountered in search for the truth.
The average anomaly for this calendar year so far is .215 (above the 1981-2010 average). At what point can we say that the pause (of 1998-2014) has now returned? When the 13-month average gets down to an anomaly of .2 or below? Maybe .15 or below?
If/when the pause does return, it would represent a full 20 years without meaningful warming! That would mean that the Kyoto Protocol, An Inconvenient Truth, the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Paris Climate Accords and all the other elements of what I say is global warming alarmism and hysteria, occurred at a time when warming was essentially non-existent.
Even if temps dont go down much further, so that its only an incomplete pause, thats still a very minimal rate of warming, much slower than the lower bounds of the climate models on which all the official projections are based.
Don’t see how a ‘pause’ can return.
A new pause could start, perhaps.
Eli: If if if.
The 20-yr trend of UAH LT v6.0 is +0.13 C/decade, the same as its overall trend since 1979.
The 20-yr trend of UAH LT v6.0 is +0.13 C/decade, the same as “natural variation”.
Natural variation due to what?
“Natural variation”, of course!
They say there are no “dumb questions”, but DA, you try to prove that wrong, continually.
What natural factors are causing warming of the LT, land, ocean SST and ocean?
DA, all of the natural factors interact to produce what we call “climate”.
Now, I have a dumb question for you: When do you plan to stop with your dumb questions?
So you think surface and LT warming is due to natural factors, yet you can’t name even one of them.
He believes trends pop into existence without any causative factors.
DA blabs: “…yet you can’t name even one of them.”
“Sun.”
DA is wrong, again.
Nothing new.
des, that would be a “misrepresentation”.
Is that all you’ve got?
Solar TSI has been slowly decreasing since the mid-1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
Try again.
JD
What is the correlation between global temps and the highs and lows of the 11-year solar cycle?
des, how much UV was absorbed by the oceans last month?
Bobdesbond says:
What is the correlation between global temps and the highs and lows of the 11-year solar cycle?
Pretty low, actually.
The Earth’s GMST simply is not very dependent on solar irradiance.
“simply is not very dependent on solar irradiance.”
roflmao..
of course not DA.. no energy from the sun at all.
WOW are you DUMB !!!
It will be hilarious watching if you continue to stick your head out of your troll-hole as the temperature starts to drop over the next several years. 🙂
David, I would venture to say … zero.
spike55 says:
of course not DA.. no energy from the sun at all.
The question is about INCREASED energy from the Sun, not just energy.
Can you point to data showing that? (No, you can’t.)
Nate, a pause could return if temps go back to where they were before a temporary spike. In that case, we would be able to say, ‘Climate hasn’t warmed globally since 1998 [for example], because the average temp is the same as it was back then.’
I’m not saying we’re actually there now; I’m just saying we’re getting somewhat close. I was actually wondering in my comment: At what level of anomaly could we say that?
David, how do you figure that the 20-yr trend is +0.13 C/decade? The global anomaly twenty years ago in October, 1998 was +0.40. Last month, it was +0.22. Show your work.
And even though my discussion of the potential for a return to the pause/hiatus is still an if in my opinion, my statement about the slight warming during the past two decades being outside the projections of all the official climate models, still very much stands. The existence of AGW is not a binary choice: a significantly slower warming due to a significantly lower climate sensitivity then officially assumed is a significantly less serious and less important problem.
“David, how do you figure that the 20-yr trend is +0.13 C/decade? The global anomaly twenty years ago in October, 1998 was +0.40. Last month, it was +0.22. Show your work.”
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/uah6/last:240/trend
Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0127906 per year
just comparing 2 months in a period of 240 months is nonsense if you want to get a trend over that period.
Eli Mi says:
David, how do you figure that the 20-yr trend is +0.13 C/decade?
Linear regression.
Quite arbitrary.
Whatchu got that’s better?
My eyes. Your trendline is biased upward by transient phenomena. It’s absurd.
‘Whatchu got thats better?’ “My eyes”
Thats great, but what does that do for the rest of us?
Never seen that in a Methods section of a paper.
The linear trend over the last 20 years is not statistically significant and is indeed influenced rather strongly by ENSO events as Bart says. It’s a statistical fluke that the selected period matches the overall linear trend so closely.
Eli Mi says:
…y statement about the slight warming during the past two decades being outside the projections of all the official climate models, still very much stands.
Show your work.
1998 was a spike year, just as 2016 was. Not a good choice to start or end a trendline.
Need to consider all the points, and fit a line to these.
Look at other data sets at the surface. Larger trends are seen.
NH land has increased 2.5 degrees F in last 45 y. That is concerning.
https://tinyurl.com/ya4v9p48
Why is it “concerning”?
2.5 F = 28% of an inverse ice age.
Many climate impacts are already making themselves shown. It will only get worse. Do you even give a crap?
No they’re not. There is nothing unusual about the weather. You are being frightened by monsters under the bed. Grow up.
Bart, Like the rest of us, you are judged on the facts and evidence you provide. You assertions, on their own, lack credibility.
Nate, you should get some data you can trust.
Trend since 1979 of UAH Northern Hampshire LT v6.0 = +0.15 C/decade.
+0.015 °C per year?
Yeah, you might lose sleep over that statistically meaningless amount of natural variation.
I won’t.
What are the consequences of +0.15 C/decade, year-after-year, decade after decade?
What are the consequences of -0.15 C/decade, year-after-year, decade after decade?
Is writing like a child really the best you can do?
JD, would you please point out where in the data I should look for this trend of yours.
des, I didn’t mention any exact trend. Look up the word “hypothetical”.
But, if you don’t believe such a trend could occur, consider the peak of 1998 to some appropiate date in 2011.
Hahaha – and 30 minutes earlier YOU were complaining about cherry picking.
Hahaha, you have a great imagination.
And global land anomalies are now breaking through 3 F:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/10/land-only-temperature-anomalies.html
Eli Mi
“how do you figure that the 20-yr trend is +0.13 C/decade? …. Show your work.”
Mr Spencer gives that trend in his original post at the top of the page. Just to show how impartial you are, how about you demand that he show his work.
Temperature anomalies will have to be around 0.1-0.2 for the next years. I don’t really sea that happen. 2018 should have felt then influence of the weak La Nina last winter, but still average temperatures couldnt drop below 0.2 deg. My guess is that 2019 will end up warmer than 2018.
Krakatoa, thank you for giving me a direct response, unlike David, who thinks that writing the phrase linear regression is showing ones work.
I agree that anomalies will have to be under +0.2 for the two-decade+ trend to go down to zero, and for it to be possible to say that the hiatus/pause has resumed. And I am also doubtful, like you, whether that will actually happen. But the interesting thing is, were actually not that far from there at all. Time will tell.
Regarding the least-squares linear regression trendline you linked, what would you say the slope of this one is, for a 21-year trend? (Im not familiar enough with that site to know how to generate the numerical value.) Seems significantly lower than the 20-year:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:252/plot/uah6/last:252/trend
Eli Mi says:
Krakatoa, thank you for giving me a direct response, unlike David, who thinks that writing the phrase linear regression is showing ones work.
Do you really need me to baby-walk you through summing up the x’s and y-squareds? Or using Excel’s SLOPE or LINEST functions?
Eli Mi says:
Regarding the least-squares linear regression trendline you linked, what would you say the slope of this one is, for a 21-year trend?
Eli, are you familiar with the term “cherry picking?”
It’s choosing the endpoints of one’s analysis in order to give the results one wants, regardless of whether they’re scientifically justified or significant.
That’s exactly what you’re doing by suggesting a 21-yr trend. Cherry picking.
BTW, the 21-yr trend of UAH LT v6.0 is still +0.07 C/decade.
You’re cherry picking by stopping the trend today. Of course, it is not presently possible to project further, but that does not make it less of a cherry pick.
These data have long term correlations in them. There is no assurance that the data will continue to evolve along the trendline.
Bart, what length of long-term, statistically significant trend would you prefer I quote?
Bart
As the data has varied between high and low over the past two years, by how much has the 40-year linear trend changed?
David, thank you for actually giving me a substantive response this time. And btw, a little baby-walking or handholding is ok sometimes; dont feel like its beneath your dignity to do so. I dont spend my whole day on this, as you seem to based on your comments here, so Im not as conversant with all the tools used to analyze the data.
I admit to cherry picking to some degree, but only to a degree. My endpoint after all is the present, so the only thing arbitrary is the starting point, and even that is a whole number of years, not an arbitrary month. (The starting point is always a somewhat arbitrary choice.)
And even though its somewhat of a cherry pick, it does tell us something: namely, that the rate of warming over the last 21 years is equivalent to only 0.7 C per century, if your number-crunching is right. That implies that either AGW is not as intense as claimed, or that natural climate variation is more significant than claimed. We are after all talking about an over two-decade-long period of time, not some brief window of a few years that was cherry-picked at both ends. Even if that linear regression result goes up by 0.1 or 0.2 C per century a year or two from now, thats not a very panic-inducing result.
A linear model is arbitrary. Forty years is arbitrary. You are putting on red tinted glasses and getting spooked on account that everything looks red.
Eli Mi
Why 21 years? Why not 19 years? Or 23 years?
Keep in mind David Dilley predicts significant cooling to begin a year from now. Given his record of correctly predicting hurricanes, I think it deserves mentioning.
On what basis is he predicting cooling (which always seems to be juuuuuuust around the corner…)?
The answer should be pretty obvious: solar sunspot activity.
Why does he expect solar sunspot activity to significantly decrease?
What about his prediction for cooling or 2008-9?
Dilley thinks the biggest factor currently is lunar cycles that have stopped Arctic air from moving south. He believes this cycle will change in winter of 2018-2019, and that Arctic air will cause a significant amount of cooling globally.
David Dilley, quoted from his ebook:
“Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the worlds temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s.”
– Jennifer Mahasey blog, 8/26/08
https://web.archive.org/web/20150903185650/http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/david-dilley-predicts-global-cooling-now/
Looks like David the Dill likes to latch on to La Nina events and misrepresent them as a cooling climate.
Yes, I agree Bob. Salvatore invariably gets excited about 3-months trends or less, and is invariably proven wrong when more data comes in.
He never learns….
This ‘cooling around the corner’ has been predicted for at least 16 years by people who don’t like or agree with the idea of AGW.
They’ve been wrong for years. I don’t see that changing.
This ‘cooling around the corner’ …
You are right about that.
AGW is no where to be found. David refers to EL NINO for possible help which is not related to AGW in any manner.
EL NINO – being a 100% natural climatic variable.
AGW is stalled out and El NINO is not the answer.
Salvatore, this used to be your favorite graph:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
What happened?
You mean the same way you were hoping for the La Nina to help you out? I’m glad you agree that the La Nina cooling we got this year has no relation to the sun.
It still is my favorite graph.
SOI index continues to grow.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
SOI is a proxy; NINO34 data are actual measurements —
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Monthly average SOI values
Aug -6.70
Sep -8.49
Oct 2.61
Nino34 temperatures and anomaly (C):
9/5/2018 27.0 0.3
9/12/2018 27.0 0.3
9/19/2018 27.0 0.3
9/26/2018 27.3 0.6
10/3/2018 27.4 0.7
10/10/2018 27.3 0.6
10/17/2018 27.6 0.9
10/24/2018 27.7 1.1
Source:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for
Where is El Nino visible in circulation?
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00973/jgrb7cmaz29l.png
Where is an El Nino supposed to be visible in a map of circulation?
The equatorial current is still strong.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00973/6j6jdbo9zt9n.png
Temperature on the Galapagos 23 degrees C.
Where is the title and legend on that map?
(In fact, on most of your maps?)
Winter in North America will be early.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
How does a graphic that covers only a single day tell you that, ren?
Thanks. The linear regression trend is also given near the bottom left of the data page, next to the word “Trend.”
Incredibly, Roy’s blog does not allow a link to UAH’s data!
His link works for me. It’s not updated for October yet, but that is usual for this time of the month.
Yes, the link works. But I wasn’t allowed to include it in a comment here.
Try using tinyurl.
Yeah, tired of that. It’s pretty pathetic when a blog owner won’t even allow links to HIS OWN DATA.
DA, maybe he likes to see you whine.
I know we do….
You’re saying that censorship is more important to Roy than scientific accuracy?
I doubt it.
I don’t know where you pulled that out of, but I have my suspicions….
Here is what the “experts” on this site have been saying since the La Nina ended:
ren, May 3 2018
“La Nina is weak, but may extend for several years.”
goldminor, May 4 2018
“the La Nina will reinstate itself, and then hold in place for the next 2 years.”
goldminor, May 7 2018
“here comes the next major La Nina, now. This will last for the next several years.”
goldminor, Jun 1 2018
“The ENSO is now going to return to la Nina conditions, although that may take till the end of the summer. At best there may be some slight gain in global temps in some of the summer months. After the end of this summer though, then temps are going down slope for the next 3 years approximately”
ren, Jun 2 2018
“El Nina again renew”
Salvatore, Jun 2 2018
“the tendency is still leading toward La Nina, rather then El Nino.”
Goldminor, Aug 1 2018
“I do expect that a La Nina will start to develop soon around the end of this month or in early September. Once that starts up it should last into 2020”
ren, Aug 2 2018
“I told you that El Nino will not develop”
Salvatore, Aug 11 2018
“the likelihood of El Nino conditions later this year has changed dramatically (from inevitable to very unlikely)”
Recall that Goldminor boasted that he ALWAYS managed to predict ENSO events correctly. Alas, the only evidence we have for his prior predictions is this year – and he got it horribly wrong. Proven success rate: 0%.
Needless to say, he has vanished from the comment section, ready to resurface at a later date under a different name and make the same claims, with a 50/50 chance of being correct.
Ren on the other hand will continue to make BS claims (such as “the tropopause is almost at the surface”) with the same “I’m right even when I’m wrong” attitude that Trump has.
You appear to be counting your chickens before they have hatched.
No, that is what these people were doing. Funny how your bias won’t allow you to see that.
Unlike them, I am not claiming that we are certain to have an El Nino, even at this stage. Only that they were wrong about their La Nina.
des, do you plan to show the results of ALL predictions? Or only a few cherry-picked ones?
As my aim was to show only that THOSE PARTICULAR PEOPLE were wrong, and the claims by those particular people extended over many months, then I have not cherry picked.
So when someone chooses some particular temperatures on some particular dates, that’s not picking cherries?
Is (x-mu)/sigma statistically significant?
JD, Again I find myself having to say HUH??
What part of my post has anything to do with “choosing some particular temperatures on some particular dates”?? As usual, you seem utterly confused.
Not sure why my name changed here.
des, apply your same methodology to temperatures. I’m trying to show you how “aiming” to prove someone wrong is “cherry-picking”. It’s selecting a certain amount of data that supports your beliefs.
So you are claiming that Goldminor was not wrong when he said on August 1 “I do expect that a La Nina will start to develop soon around the end of this month or in early September.”
You have a great imagination.
Your strategy … when you dig yourself into a hole, just give a pithy response in order to avoid the issue.
Bob,
The deniers all think AGW is wrong. But their own nutty ideas all disagree with each other.
You have Goldminor pegged.
Yet another analysis of the moon orbit issue which I typed up:
https://tinyurl.com/Orbital-KE
The non-physicists here won’t have the knowledge to challenge this, and will continue to resort to bluster and personal attacks.
des, it appears you have the velocities wrong, bottom of 1st page.
I stopped there.
Do explain.
If I understand your set up, red ball v should be Rω.
Ahh yes, my diagram was wrong. It is corrected now. You should now have no issue with those calculations.
Next problem is the “AND” at the bottom of page 2. Both of those are the same. You only get to count the energy once, not twice.
I stopped there.
Huh?? Look at the formula I derived a few lines previously.
It consists of TWO terms. Perhaps you would care to explain what each term represents, if not what I have stated.
des, now you’ve got the bottom of page 1 messed up again.
v = Rω, not v = rω
Please make sure all of your mistakes are corrected before I attempt to sort through it again. I can’t find where you are confused when there are so many mistakes.
Indeed. And did it affect anything that followed?
(Spoiler alert – the answer is no.)
I’m trying to figure out where you are getting confused, so the little mistakes slow me down.
In the first example, the total energy should be (mv^2)/2. Your two terms show the extra energy. Obviously something is wrong somewhere.
In the second example, points A, B, and P would not have the same linear velocity, as their radii change as they move. For example, in the position shown, B is (R + r) from the center. At the bottom, B would be (R – r) from the center.
Fix all your mistakes, and maybe it won’t be so confusing.
“Obviously something is wrong somewhere”
So your argument is “I am right, so you must be wrong even though I can’t find where”.
In the second example, how the hell can three collinear points move at different velocities while maintaining the orientation and length of the line? When a line moves a certain distance in a certain direction without changing its orientation, every point on that line MUST move that distance and in that direction. A and B are not moving in a circle, so those radii you have given are not constant. 180 degrees later those radii will have switched over.
A and B are definitely moving in circles.
At point P, B would be moving v = (R + r)ω
Point P at 90° CCW, B would be moving v = sqrt(R^2 + r^2)ω
Point P at 180°, B would be moving v = (R – r)ω
Bob, I see you have the circuits in JD’s brain starting to overload.
JD, I am impressed you caught the typo of v = Rw not v = rw.
JD says “A and B are definitely moving in circles.”
Yes — each moving in a circle with radius, R. Each moving with identical speed and identical period. There are no two ways around that.
Dim, this is obviously over your head.
Try wearing your dead squirrel as a hat. That should help.
Tim,
There are two figures in Bob’s example. In the second figure, A and B are not moving in circles, only P.
In the second figure, A and B will both move in an identical non-circular curvilinear path. Since both the paths of A and B are congruent, the movement of the line segment AB would be considered curvilinear translational motion.
You can always count on JD to revert to insults when he has nothing else.
Imagine B,P, & A being the tips of pencils. Each will draw a circle of radius R. if you think differently, say what shape you think they will be.
A and B will leave trails similar to Figure B, intersecting circles.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
correction. The motion will be circular for A and B in the second figure, just offset from the origin. Still congruent circles, therefore, translational motion.
And the circles will cross each other.
JD,
You STILL have not defined “translation” of a rigid body.
JD
I meant to say … A and B are not moving in circles about O.
A, B and P move in circles with different centres that have the SAME RADIUS and the SAME ANGULAR VELOCITY, hence they MUST have the same linear velocity.
Figure A is transitional motion.
Even an immature drunk should be able to understand the simple motion.
https://postimg.cc/rd4LSJtg
JD,
I want a kinematic DEFINITION of rigid body translation.
Figure A is not moving. I see a hollow cylinder.
You claim to almost have a minor in physics. How do your alleged physics books define translation???
(he really does not have any physics books. only in his make-believe world)
Sigh .. Only the second figure has points labeled “A” & “B”.
* Point “P” moves in a circle of radius “R” centered at “O”
* Point “A” moves in a circle of radius “R” centered a distance “r” below “O”
* Point “B” moves in a circle of radius “R” centered a distance “r” above “O”
This is such basic stuff!
JD,
In order to claim an object is displaying translational motion, it has to meet certain criteria.
What is the criteria? What defines translational movement of a body?
I guess I was wrong. Maybe an immature drunk can’t understand the simple motion.
And, Dim Tim is still trying to understand the movements of the points.
You just can’t make this stuff up….
Wow JD! An admission that you were wrong AND an explanation of why in your opening paragraph!
Sorry des, I didn’t mean to leave you out.
Yes, you have a definite talent for perverting reality.
Feel better now?
How is it that, other than when you are sleeping, there is no time of the day when you are not able to respond within 30 minutes? Don’t you have work to do? Or … is this your work?
Sorry I didn’t respond within your allotted time, des.
I was busy deposting my recent check from Big Oil.
The Arctic sure took a big spike upward in October according to UAH data. This seems to be reflected by DMI Arctic temperature model data.
The DMI data is figured for an area from 80N to the pole. I assume UAH data measures Arctic temperature from the Arctic Circle northward, which would be a considerably larger area. Thus, the temperature anomaly would be quite less. For October, UAH showed +1.11C above normal. If you look at the DMI graph, you can see that the temperature anomaly for last month was +5 to +10C above normal! I know that what DMI calls normal and what UAH calls normal are different things. But you can clearly tell that most of the Arctic warming is occurring closer to the pole. In fact, maybe just about all of it.
So, if most of the above normal global temperature anomalies is occurring at night and near the pole, why is that so alarming? During the summer months, you don’t see such spikes above normal at all. Look at 1958 all the way through 2018. There are no above normal spikes that happen in the summer months. But this is when it really counts; the period of Arctic ice melt.
This is why I think this idea of the Arctic ice melting away to oblivion is faulty. The warming is occurring during the Arctic nights; not during the Arctic days. The Arctic ice is here to stay for a very long time. It will take a much warmer Interglacial Period than what we are currently having to melt the polar ice away.
I could not post the DMI data, but you all know about it.
Assuming you are referring to sea ice, its melt depends more on the temperature of the ocean than air temperatures, and ocean temperatures don’t have anywhere near as much diurnal variation as air temperatures. Only the likes of idiot Guy McPherson are claiming that sea ice will vanish all year round any time soon. But the September minimum is trending towards zero around 2035. Annual variation will probably see it vanish briefly some time before then, perhaps as early as 2022 if we happen to get another 2012. But it will almost certainly not repeat the following year, and 2035 will simply mark the point where roughly every second year is ice free for a brief period. Add another 20 years, sea ice in September will be the exception, not the rule.
If you are talking of melting of glacial ice on Greenland, that is also strongly governed by ocean temperatures. In fact, snow cover is the centre of Greenland is actually increasing. Warmer ocean temperatures around the coast are speeding up the flow of glaciers, and the next result is ice loss. But NO climate scientist is claiming we will lose any more than a small fraction of Greenland’s ice in the coming centuries. Only McPhuckson.
But NO climate scientist is claiming we will lose any more than a small fraction of Greenlands ice in the coming centuries. Only McPhuckson.
Depends on the RCP, which to-date is 8.5.
The different RCPs do not noticeably diverge until about 2025.
Rob Mitchell says:
The warming is occurring during the Arctic nights; not during the Arctic days.
What data says this?
DMI data DA.
Rob Mitchell
1. Why do you consider anomalies for just a month, instead of looking at 30 year trends?
2. You write as if you were the greatest expert: “During the summer months, you dont see such spikes above normal at all. Look at 1958 all the way through 2018. There are no above normal spikes that happen in the summer months.”
If you were an expert, you would know that
– while nearly all topmost absolute temperatures occur during (boreal or austral) summers and nearly all bottommost absolute temperatures occur during (boreal or austral) winters,
– nearly all topmost temperature anomalies occur during (boreal or austral) winter months.
Download anomaly temperature series, and sort them by descending order. Maybe you will then understand.
3. “The warming is occurring during the Arctic nights; not during the Arctic days.”
Where the heck does that nonsense come from???
Just check out DMI data from 1958 through 2018. There you will see the Arctic temperatures from 80N to the pole are quite stable during the summer months. I can’t post the link here, but it is easily available through any search engine. Bottom line, there is NO warming going on during the Arctic days from 80N to the pole.
Hey Blindon, what makes you think I am claiming some sort of expertise? All I am doing is looking at UAH data and DMI data, and noticing that very little, if any Arctic warming occurs during the summer months, i.e., the Arctic days.
rob…”There you will see the Arctic temperatures from 80N to the pole are quite stable during the summer months”.
It’s like climbing on Mt. Everest, which I try to do each weekend. ☺
At 20,000 feet altitude, during a sunny late spring to summer day, the air temp is normally sub-zero, but the direct rays of the Sun will keep you warmish. At night, you can freeze to death as temps plunge to -20C or so. That’s just summer.
At least in the Arctic summer, people can survive the night in summer with little problem.
We forget about the Third Pole, Everest, at 30,000 feet or its sisters like K2 and Kanshengjunga, where ice simply does not melt above a certain altitude (about 18,000 feet) despite all the alarmist claims about CO2 warming. That applies year round even in a region where temps in summer reach into the 30C range at 8000 feet.
Rob,
The summer temps don’t change much because most of the area North of 80N is covered in sea ice even in Summer.
The near-surface air temps are set by the temperature of the ice – 0C.
I got this information in an email from DMI, by the way.
Yes barry, I’ve been using that property of ice in my margaritas for years.
There’s a lot to learn, huh?
binny…”3. The warming is occurring during the Arctic nights; not during the Arctic days.
Where the heck does that nonsense come from???”
**********
From the same source that revealed most global warming occurs in Arctic winters.
Arctic SIE was 4th lowest since 1979, according to [can’t name institute] data:
Source:
[link to data not allowed here]
Jesus Appell, why are you so incredibly inflexible?
Everybody uses here tinyURL, but YOU must show us all that YOU don’t want to, instead of doing what all others do in order to succeed in informing us.
In earlier times I loved to play on flippers. On every of them we could read:
“It’s more fun to compete”.
It seems to me that you turned that into:
“It’s more easy to complain”.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the 2018 Arctic ice minimum ties for 6th lowest since the satellite record began. The lowest was 2012. We’ve had 6 years in a row of Arctic ice closing higher than the 2012 minimum. Looks like to me the Arctic ice melt is slowing down, and may have bottomed out.
Does that bother you DA?
Here’s a graph of September Arctic sea ice with a linear trend line running from 1979 to 2007 (the 2nd lowest September on record) and a view of what happened afterwards.
https://tinyurl.com/yc4my8mm
I see no sign of a slowdown, only the usual variability over a clear downward trend that hasn’t slowed in the last 11 years.
barry, what is the variance in sea ice SUPPOSED to be?
barry…”I see no sign of a slowdown, only the usual variability over a clear downward trend that hasnt slowed in the last 11 years”.
You forgot to mention that the variability applies only to the Arctic summer, which could extend into September. The rest of the year is business as usual with up to 10 feet of ice covering the Arctic Ocean.
It takes incredible cooling to freeze a salt water ocean with typical oceans waves, to a depth of 10 feet.
You alarmists live in a dream world.
Every month shows a decline over the 40 years, not just September. September has the strongest decline over the full period.
Those are facts. No dreaming here.
rob…”Looks like to me the Arctic ice melt is slowing down”
And that’s just in the one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year, especially after solar energy disappears, the Arctic is as cold as it ever was.
DA…”Source:
[link to data not allowed here]”
No…it’s just that you are too stupid to figure a way to post the link. Either that or it’s part of your alarmist scheme to denigrate Roy’s site.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
How “special” was the recent slowdown?
Warmists and Alarmists are still fighting the idea, that there was a recent slowdown. In order to show just how “special” the recent slowdown was, I have created a new type of graph, which shows the warming rate plotted against the date range which was used to calculate the warming rate.
That may sound confusing, but when you look at the graph, it will become clear. The graph is based on very simple principles.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-special-was-the-recent-slowdown
There was no statistically significant slowdown.
UAH LT v6.0 trend since Jan2001 = +0.11 C/dec
I have created a new type of graph, which shows the warming rate plotted against the date range which was used to calculate the warming rate.
I have no idea what graph means, and I’m not going to try to find it out.
It will suffice to give the temperature trend from any month in the past until today. With error bars. Much simpler.
David, using your lack of logic, over the past 10 years my average speed is less than 1 km/h (I don’t move while I am asleep, etc). Therefore I will not accept any speeding tickets which police try to give me.
Can YOU tell what the warming rate from 2002 to 2012 was, by looking at the warming rate from 2002 to 2018? What if there was no warming for 10 years, and then a lot of warming for 6 years? YOU wouldn’t be able to tell what had happened.
Your comment, “I have no idea what graph means, and Im not going to try to find it out”, tells me a lot about you. You are ignorant, and don’t want to change. You should fit in with the Alarmist mentality.
Sheldon, your writing is clearly full of crap, and I’m not the least bit interested in trying to understand you.
Get lost — you have nothing to contribute here.
Sheldon Walker says:
Can YOU tell what the warming rate from 2002 to 2012 was, by looking at the warming rate from 2002 to 2018?
Yes.
Sheldon, your post doesn’t even give units on your numbers, like “0.35.”
“Also nearby, is 2003 to 2013, with a warming rate of 0.35.”
Crackpottery.
Come back when you know how to do proper science, and not before.
David, you quoted that line “out of context”. Here it is with the preceding paragraph.
~ ~ ~ start of quote ~ ~ ~
The strongest slowdown is not all alone. It has some neighbours nearby. The closest is 2002 to 2013, with a warming rate of 0.22 (all warming rates are in degrees Celsius per century, I will not specify this each time that I give a warming rate).
Also nearby, is 2003 to 2013, with a warming rate of 0.35.
~ ~ ~ end of quote ~ ~ ~
Did you see the sentence before the one that you quoted? It said, “all warming rates are in degrees Celsius per century, I will not specify this each time that I give a warming rate.”
Writing “degrees Celsius per century” by every warming rate, is annoying for people reading the article. I explained clearly that I would leave this out. Any intelligent person would appreciate what I did. You obviously didn’t appreciate it.
My advice to you is, “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.
But I don’t expect that you will take my advice.
I don’t believe that YOU are qualified to judge “proper science”.
Sheldon wrote, on his blog:
“Many Warmists and Alarmists would claim that you hadnt even slowed down, and that 7 km/h and 100 km/h were statistically the same value.”
Really dumb, Sheldon.
No one here should look at your blog — it’s full of crap. Simple crap. Get lost.
David,
Stop with the insecurities. Leave them at home. They’re annoying and add nothing to the subject.
On the other hand, if you feel that bad about yourself there are medications available to help.
So you believe the comment he was referring to was an intelligent one, is that right?
Why are you publishing the same so terribly boring stuff all the time on all blogs?
sheldon….”The warming rate (calculated using a linear regression), for the date range from 2002 to 2012, was 0.12 degrees Celsius per century. The graph is an X-Y graph. This calculated warming rate is plotted as a line, which runs from (2002, 0.12) to (2012, 0.12).
This is a horizontal line, which runs from 2002 to 2012 on the X-axis, at a height of 0.12 (the warming rate), on the Y-axis. Now just add more horizontal lines, for all of the other calculated warming rates, and you will have the finished graph”.
**********
Maybe I am misinterpreting your intent. Although I ‘think’ we are on the same side as skeptics, your analysis makes little sense to me.
A warming rate would have to be a positive trend with a positive slope. You cannot have a warming rate beginning at 0.12C and ending at 0.12C and have a horizontal line connecting them.
Rate means the speed at which something changes. Your red line indicating a rate of 0.12C based on a straight line makes no sense unless it is specified with a rate of change of 0C.
If your graph is intended as a bar graph, to indicate the change at specific temperatures, you should not specify each horizontal unit as a rate of change in warming.
“….the date range from 2002 to 2012, was 0.12 degrees Celsius per century. The graph is an X-Y graph. This calculated warming rate is plotted as a line, which runs from (2002, 0.12) to (2012, 0.12)”.
According to the IPCC, the warming rate from 1998 to 2012 was so uncertain they called it a warming hiatus. 0.12C/century would translate to 0.012C/decade, which is close to the IPCC rate if their declared error rate is considered. However, removing the sharp El Nino spike at 1998 should reduce any warming rate even further.
It may even be a cooling rate.
Gordon,
the graph is an experiment, to see if it displays warming rate information in a useful way.
Each horizontal line shows the range of years that is used for that warming rate calculation. If the horizontal lines runs from 2002 to 2012 on the X-axis, then the warming rate was calculated using the data from the years 2002 to 2012.
The height of the horizontal line on the Y-axis, shows what the calculated warming rate is.
Usually when a warming rate is plotted, it is just shown as a point, and you may be told that the warming rates were calculated using a 10 year linear regression. This graph actually shows you the range of years that the warming rate is calculated over. It makes it obvious that there is a lot of overlap in the year ranges, when calculating warming rates that have similar X values.
I enjoy trying to find new ways of displaying data. Sometimes it works well, and sometimes it doesn’t. Some people like the new way, and other people don’t like it. Everyone needs to find something that works for them.
The Western Arctic freezes quickly, which is a bad sign for America, because it means the shift of the stratospheric polar vortex above the eastern Arctic.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00973/zmxxv1mc2col.png
The distribution of ozone at the level of 30 hPa shows circulation in the stratospheric polar vortex.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00973/v7k3nx8x4kgl.png
The air flows from Siberia over the western Arctic to northern Canada.
For comparison, circulation in the middle stratosphere in December 2017.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00973/onx0x3aehcdb.png
A big high in the Eastern Pacific is typical of La Nina conditions.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00973/jry1jgdh3v8h.png
And La Nina is the only time a high occurs in the eastern Pacific, is that right ren?
Yes, if it works for several months.
I will say more, it will have an impact on the development of the high pressure in the north-east of Europe.
If WHAT “works” for several months? Why do you have so much trouble choosing the correct English words to get your meaning across?
This is the pattern of winter circulation over North America.
ren
Could you pleasew stop misinforming us with your private, unscientific meaning?
Please try to learn from professionals:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
David Appell says,
“Really dumb, Sheldon.
No one here should look at your blog its full of crap. Simple crap. Get lost.”
*****
Sheldon does not deserve that. You’re the piece of crap who needs to needs to get lost.
Once again the finger print of agw cannot be dusted anywhere…… And so must endure another month of excuses
What do you believe is “the fingerprint of AGW”?
Look at the red running average curve nose-diving back to the 18 year global warming hiatus level.
Just about there.
The 1999-2014 average was +0.11.
Are we there yet?
For the pause to zero out completely the temperature would have to dip in opposite direction similar to the elnino spike , that’s the next three year proposition.
Or fall slowly over the next 30 years.
I’m trying to point out what the shortest reasonable expected time-frame would be to the impatient , do I have to spell it our really ???
Then let’s hear your prediction. By what year will we get our next 12-month average (UAH) that is UNRELATED TO LA NINA (or to a large near-equatorial volcano, VEI 5 or higher) that is at or below
(a) +0.2
(b) +0.1
(c) zero
For each, give three answers based on
(i) 50%
(ii) 80%
(iii) 95%
confidence.
Salvatore is requested to answer this also.
The only negative anomalies in the future will be in a moderate to strong La Nina, or after a Pinatubo-like eruption. A decade from now, we will need both of those together to go negative.
Given the 4-5 month lag in UAH TLT vrs ENSO 3.4, a few months of warming now seems ‘built-in’, irrespective of whether El Nino conditions develop over the northern hemisphere winter.
By my primitive calculations UAH TLT could go as high as +0.5 or more by early 2019. However, I am often wrong in these forecasts and this one may prove to be no exception.
TFN
We got 0.63 last year with no El Nino.
Yes, but that followed a Nino3.4 value of +0.55 5 months earlier.
At the moment, Nino3.4 is heading towards +1.5, so The FinalNail is correct in postulating a high UAH TLT early next year.
I estimate a 1 in 6 chance of UAH TLT exceeding +0.45 by April2019.
The surface temperature of the Pacific only increased at the equator, not throughout the entire Eastern Pacific.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomw.11.1.2018.gif
Be patient.
ren
That is precisely what an El Nino involves – a warming of the EQUATORIAL Pacific. The most likely scenario is an El Nino similar in strength to the 2002/03 El Nino. Here is the SST map from the early part of that El Nino:
https://tinyurl.com/ya49er9z
Same as now.
Is this in response to my comment? If so, I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Surely if 0.63 is possible outside an El Nino then a significantly higher value is possible as the result of an El Nino.
Before you start making predictions which way the temperature will go read up what the real scientists say about it
https://goo.gl/9U92Np
‘real scientists’ ? LOL!
Dr Norman Page – an oil consultant with a PhD in Geology LOL!
No published papers. LOL!
Who has been incorrectly predicted cooling since 2010. LOL!
real scientists like Valentina Zharkova.
Don’t waste all your LOLs in one post, save some for the last laugh
Real scientists, Eben? Or those you think they are?
What is Zharkova’s training in climatology, or even in meteorology?
This is a classic example of debating straight out of climate shysters handbook , they would not address a single thing of substance from the page , go straight to pure ad hominem attacks instead
She is a great ‘expert’ in Solar Grand Minima predictions.
Eben
In her paper she makes predictions about future sunspot activity. I am not challenging that because that is her field of expertise, although the vast majority of experts say that this is impossible to predict.
In her paper she does NOT make predictions about the effect of sunspot activity on climate, despite what deniers try to claim. She has no expertise to make such predictions.
Re: “Since Oct 2015 sea level has risen at a rate of only 8.3 cms/century. It will likely begin to fall within the next 4 or 5 years”
In three years, I don’t think you can measure sea levels.
Sea level rise has been about 7 inches per century, 7″ converted to cm: 17.78 cm.
Or within next 4 or 5 years, if it remained at 8.3 cms/century from 2015 it could look like it’s falling- and if next 10 year it’s 8.3 cms/century then one could say it’s fallen rather dramatically.
One could read this to say the rate of 8.3 cm per century within the next 4 or 5 year will become lower than 8.3 cm per century since Oct 2015 – say 8 cm [or less] per century from Oct 2015. Even in future and dealing with 7 to 8 years, the noise/error in measurement is large factor, but is better than just 3 years.
Or I tend to think ocean are rising at about 7 inches per century, but btw, about a decade ago, I said it was about 8 inches per century, and think it’s possible within another 10 years, I could saying it’s about 6 inches per century.
8.3 cm is 3.26772″ and would be surprised [maybe alarmed] if I was saying 4″ per century or more correctly .4″ per decade is the new trend [mostly alarmed because it would appear that old age was seriously affecting my mental state].
It seems to me, likely, that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age, though it’s possible within 5 to 10 years there could be evidence of the end of this recovery. And with hindsight the end could have been somewhere around 2015 or much earlier.
But I don’t expect anything dramatic, just as the last hundred years as failed to indicate anything dramatic- [oh I guess, one could call the Dust Bowl dramatic- and it was about 90 years ago].
A little recall for those endlessly debating about El Nino being the warming’s only source (especially Richard M, the major self-named ‘expert’ therein)
1. You all forget that the Nina’s cool the temperatures just like the Nino’s warm it up
2. You all forget that the aerosols produced by all major volcanic eruptions induce a cooling effect (St Helens and El Chichon: VEI 5; Pinatubo: VEI 6).
3. Extracting (1) and (2) out of the RSS 3.3 temperature series (similar to UAH 6.0) gave in 2013 out of 0.124 C / decade a residual increase of 0.086 C / decade.
That is, about 70%.
Eventually the argument as to whether warming is occurring will be determined in time. Statistically, if the current flat-line trend continues, how many years of data will it take before the answer is obvious and beyond doubt?
What “flat-line trend” are you talking about?
bob…”What flat-line trend are you talking about?”
The flat-line trend admitted by the IPCC from 1998 – 2012, which they called a hiatus. That was extended by UAH to 2015, before the massive EN of February 2016 drove global temps up.
Since that peak, we have been gradually cooling, and now we are back at the level of the IPCC and UAH flat-line trend.
As I said earlier, the AVERAGE of 1999-2014 was +0.11.
The average of even the past 12 months is nowhere near that low. In fact, we haven’t had a single month that low since the El Nino.
And the IPCC at no stage referred to a flat-line. They said “the GMST trend over 19982012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 19512012 …. Even with this hiatus in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST”.
Of course, deniers will lose no sleep over their misrepresentations. It is what they are paid to do.
Mac said “the current flat line trend.”
Bob asked “which one?”
And Gordon replied with a period that ended 6 years ago.
Reading for comprehension, Gordon: 2/10
barry’s grade for “desperation”–100%.
There appear to be two flat line trends, one from 1979 to 1998 and one from 1998 to 2018. Something happened around 1998 to 2000 which resulted in a stable shift in measurements of about 0.15, which has remained relatively constant for about 20 years. This shift may be a result of systematic error in measurements, noise in the system, or from an as yet un-identified cause. Certainly there is no significant increase in temperature over the last 20 years. It is this flat-line trend to which I was referring. If this continues for the next five to ten years then the argument is settled? There will be a lot of alarmists with egg on their faces….
There appear to be two flat line trends, one from 1979 to 1998 and one from 1998 to 2018. Something happened around 1998 to 2000 which resulted in a stable shift in measurements of about 0.15, which has remained relatively constant for about 20 years.
That’s not statistically correct.
I use UAH because ‘skeptics’ raise a hue and cry about anything else. The hue and cry is illegitimate posturing, but to save the turgidness I acquiesce.
So,
UAH 6.0 trend 1979 to 1998:
0.162 (+/- 0.175) C/decade.
The mean trend here is greater than the overall satellite trend.
The latest 20 years (1998-1997):
0.078 (+/- 0.171) C/decade
Both trends are not statistically significant. Very little can be said about either of them, whether positive, flat-line or cooling, because the uncertainty includes all those possibilities.
Here’s a visual of the mean trends:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:1999/mean:12/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2018/mean:12/trend
There are ways to test if there has been a pause or not – statistically.
If you are curious Marc, I can chat about that with you and give examples.
Thanks for your reply Barry. I agree with what you say that these current trends are not significant and are based on insufficient data, and may turn out to be positive or negative. The lack of significance is in itself informative. Data from the next 5 or 10 years may be decisive. Even if this does turn out to be a false alarm, at least it has stimulated research in our understanding of weather, and in alternative energy sources for which we will one day be grateful. I just hope that transitions are made at a slow enough pace so that there is no impact on the availability of energy for the poor and disadvantaged….
Mac says:
“Data from the next 5 or 10 years may be decisive”.
Ten years is just a blip. Try 250 years:
https://tinyurl.com/y7c37cyh
“I just hope that transitions are made at a slow enough pace so that there is no impact on the availability of energy for the poor and disadvantaged….”
Yes, the sooner the better. Poverty is a whole different problem though, bundling disparate problems makes a mess.
If you can see that the trends are not statistically significant, (and you seem to understand what that means) then you should agree that the term ‘pause’ is not applicable for the period 1998 to 2012/2015.
A pause would refer to a cessation of something previously happening. The clear inference is “pause in warming.” With the UAH data, we have neither occurring for the periods just mentioned.
One can do further analysis on the same data and determine a warming trend, but still no pause. There are also the other data sets for further insight.
Yes , 10 years in earth time is just a blip,…even less than a blip…..The problem is that politicians (and humans as a whole) tend to base decisions on short term trends, and do not appear to see beyond their career. So a non-significant positive correlation based on insufficient data is used as the basis for wide sweeping changes which impact on energy availability for everyone.
As an a now retired scientist (biological not meteorological) I am embarrassed that science is presented so poorly, and wonder what future real scientists will think of us when reflecting on these times. I think that there are sufficient politicians and scientists with enough intelligence and empathy to transition energy use to renewables at a pace which does not cause misery and hardship.
If data from the next 5 to 10 years reverse the (insignificant) positive correlation, then this will be an argument to focus resources on realistic environmental goals, such as deforestation, pollution, preservation of natural habitats etc….and not on an attempt to control the weather to fractions of a degree Celsius in a specified time by marginally slowing the rate of increase in the concentration of a single component within a background of immeasurable short-term natural variation, which given the complexity of the system is outright ridiculous….
The case for AGW rests on many strands of evidence, not just the temperature records of a thin slice of atmosphere. Fluctuations for that metric are expected.
No one is trying to “control the weather to fractions of a degree Celsius in a specified time.” This isn’t about weather variation, but about the background state upon which variation occurs. If CO2 is a significant ‘control knob’ the energy budget of the planet, then we do have a large say in how atmospheric CO2 evolves. It is human activity, after all, that is responsible for the rapid increase of the last 100 years or so.And it will be human action that largely determines how the atmospheric concentration will evolve over the coming decades (and possibly centuries).
My view of the mater is this:
We are conducting a vast and uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere. We do not know for sure if the result will be little, severe, generally detrimental or benign.
However, unlike many kinds of risk, this problem is more acute because we don’t get to walk away from the experiment. We’re inside the test tube and we can’t escape. It’s a special risk management dilemma (different in kind than say, fire-proofing your house – you can always build another one if it burns down).
So for me, with a great deal of evidence suggesting that the problem could be very detrimental to societies, and because we won’t know for absolutely sure what the outcomes will be till we’re there, or mostly on the way there and it’s too little too late if the consequences are dire; strong prudence seems the best course of action, balanced against everything else that concerns us.
I think we can make inroads into this issue if we want to, and still deal with other issues in the world. Human society has always been able to chew gum and walk at the same time.
When you’re inside the test-tube with no escape, then being prudent about the conditions of your environment is the only rational course I can think of.
Mac says:
“transition energy use to renewables at a pace which does not cause misery and hardship.”
Carbon emissions have to pay for all those risks, but yes, ramp up gradually to let the economy adjust. Pity we wasted so much valuable time.
Dear Roy
The result you show is anomalies for that particular month relative to a reference period/month. That is fine if you want to see changes from year to year or longer.
Would it be possible to see an estimated absolute reference temperature for a specific month and area so as to compare it with observed temperature.
The temperature would not be the meteorology like 2m hight air temperature, but anyway.
“Would it be possible to see an estimated absolute reference temperature for a specific month and area so as to compare it with observed temperature.”
But… Svend Ferdinandsen: the anomalies are exactly what you need to compare surface and lower troposphere without being confronted with their differences, the first one being their absolute temperature (in the mean 15 C for surface and -9 C for the LT layer).
The -9 for LT layer must be an average over a year.
I was asking how this temperature varies during the year, a value for each month, and divided in the areas that is in the datafile.
Even the LT layer must be colder i winter times and warmer during the summer, at least in the northern latitudes.
If I was at home I could give you any UAH absolute temperature data for any spatial subset of their four atmospheric layers (LT. MT, TP, LS) using their climatology grid data, e.g. for LT:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
with which you can compute absolute temperatures out of their grid anomalies stored in e.g. these files for LT:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0
till
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2018_6.0
Here is an example of a comparison based on anomalies, which would have no sense at all if based on absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TA_173lO4-emhJbcMA__8M_1XlwTPfZA/view
Three surface station time series for 1979-2018, compared with UAH 6.0’s lower troposphere layer microwave scan (restricted to what is above land, of course).
I find the comments and general discussion here to be far too much “in the weeds”. Why not examine the highest level and simplest of facts. What predictions have climate alarmists made, and what realities exist?
1) Sea levels will rise and cover vast areas of populated land displacing millions.
2) Sea Ice levels will continue to decline.
3) Severe atmospheric events will rise.
4) Global food production will fall.
Is that a good start?
1) Actual sea levels measured at a real location, Manhattan Island, and not using “data” and “models” for a “global” view show sea levels fell 4 inches in the last 10 years. I could pick several dozen other islands around the globe, and all would show the same, and then we could find another couple dozen that are sinking into the ocean. Fact is no major populated area is flooding.
2) The Arctic sea ice on today day 306 is 8.5 Sq. Km the same it was on day 306 in 2007. No change in a decade. It appears the decadal average reduction is slowing and possibly even leveling off.
3)This year saw a record low in hurricanes.
4) 2018 looks to be yet another record year for food crops.
The ice is not disappearing, seaside cities are not flooding, storms are not leveling our cities, and food is becoming increasingly plentiful. Do we need to work towards eliminating our dependence on oil, yes 100%. Do we need the world to spend trillions of dollars on dubious IPCC recommendations, no way.
Just one voters simple logic.
joe peck…”2) Sea Ice levels will continue to decline”.
The alarmists fail to qualify that statement. They are talking about a decline during the one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year is business as usual.
Once solar energy stops reaching the Arctic, frigid air from the upper atmosphere descends upon the Arctic. The salt water ocean responds by freezing the ocean up to 10 feet thick.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Once solar energy stops reaching the Arctic, frigid air from the upper atmosphere descends upon the Arctic. The salt water ocean responds by freezing the ocean up to 10 feet thick.”
Why do you continue to make incorrect declarations. Rather than admit you know very little and make up most the material you post, you continue to make stuff up. It is annoying that you will never stop with the make believe fantasy.
Here is the reality:
https://createarcticscience.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/temperature-inversion-in-the-arctic/
The surface cools via radiant emission and cools much more than the atmosphere above. In this measured value the difference is 20 C colder surface.
If you knew even a little meteorology instead of making up things you know nothing about, you would know that descending air warms.
The alarmists fail to qualify that statement. They are talking about a decline during the one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year is business as usual.
No, Arctic sea ice has declined over the whole 40 year record no matter which month you extract. The biggest decline has been for September, the month in which annual sea ice minimum almost always occurs.
barry: “No Arctic sea ice has declined over the whole 40 year record . . .”
Not true sir. See below . . .
Joe Peck says:
barry: “No Arctic sea ice has declined over the whole 40 year record . . .”
Not true sir. See below . . .
___________________________________________
It IS true. And you know it.
http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_mdev_ice-area.png
Joe, I was replying to Gordon, who said:
The alarmists fail to qualify that statement. They are talking about a decline during the one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year is business as usual.
He erroneously believes that there has been a general decline over the whole record in only September. The fact is that the decline is there in every month (ie – over all Aprils, the sea ice has retreated overall in 40 years).
The graph you show, for example is of all September. Of course there is year to year variability. But this variability is not seeing any slowing down of the general downward trend.
https://tinyurl.com/yabo58r6
Absolutely that is a focus for the alarmist community which is why I love this graph:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
One doesn’t need a degree in climatology to realize that since 2007 there has only been one year where the minimum was lower than 4.2 mil Sq Km. Perhaps the decline will continue, perhaps not, but the fact is that as of this moment the annual decline in the minimum is stopped which is most definitely NOT what the IPCC has been predicting for the last 2 decades. If they got that wrong, what else might be wrong with their predictions and is that an agency I want to drive decision making for the globe?
Apparently when you have a couple of extraordinary years of low ice, a return to the previous decreasing trend line is not sufficient to say that the ice is still decreasing. Apparently the outliers set a new standard instead of being regarded as mere outliers.
I am unsure I agree with your characterization of “a couple of extraordinary years of low ice” or why that would alter the simple fact that ice minimums have been stable for a decade. A couple implies, 2 years, so which 2 years were extraordinary and for how long have we returned and how does that alter the change in the rate of decline? Most importantly, where in any IPCC report did they suggest it might be possible for Arctic Sea Ice minimums to remain constant for a decade?
2007 4.2
2008 4.7
2009 5.3
2010 4.9
2011 4.5
2012 3.4
2013 5.2
2014 5.3
2015 4.6
2016 4.3
2017 4.8
2018 4.6
IPCC projects over 30 year periods. This is generally considered (ie by WMO) a full climate period for global change.
The variability in Arctic sea ice cover from year to year is such that even if there were an underlying trend (which, God-like, you knew about), it could easily be obscured by the variability over 10 or even more years.
Short-term data has little info contained within it to help you discern a trend.
A first approach would be to plot the linear trend for the whole period and then examine the data that has caught your eye to see if there is much deviation from that trend. Another approach is to plot the data from the beginning to some point in the not too distant past – you said 10 years? – and then compare.
That’s what this graph does – plots linear trend up to and including 2007, and you can see what the data look like afterwards, compared to the trend to 2007 if it had remained constant to now.
https://tinyurl.com/yabo58r6
It is 2005. You look at the data for the past decade and use linear regression to project where we will be in 2018.
We’re now in 2018. How far off was that projection?
We can check what the IPCC projected against observations:
https://tinyurl.com/ybyyh72k
That was the most recent I could find (2012), but not hard to extend, as every year since 2007 has been lower than 2005 (the previous record holder).
Joe Peck
Here is a graph showing you how sea ice extent developed world-wide since 1979:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wH0gYDGtpfbuezk6beQUv5oTI7O94q-/view
I see two constant trends in the running means:
– Arctic sea ice declines;
– Antarctic sea ice increases.
The rest is all temporary rubbish.
Well, I realized in the end that I would never convince anyone, but I do enjoy seeing the replies. Thank you for the counter post. I do, however, wish you could refrain from words like “rubbish”. I don’t think it’s necessary to denigrate other facts even when you feel they are not important.
In that regard I will begin my reply by examining your use of English. First you use the words “sea ice extent developed”, but you show a graph of an “anomaly”. A graph of an anomaly is not a graph of sea ice extent. The simple fact is climatology models predicted a reduction in sea ice with no allowance for a cessation. I’m unsure how long of a pause is required before climatologists agree sea ice is not diminishing, but right now it looks like such is the case. Even the graph you posted, which is not updated to October by the way, shows a linear trend since 2007 in the Arctic. I will grant that there is an opposite trend at the moment in the Antarctic, but I am eager to see another 3 years of data before I say it is lasting.
As I said, thank you for your response, but I guess we can simply agree to disagree on the relative importance of our data sets.
Mr Peck
It seems to me that you are a very sensitive person.
Here you are quicky called an idiot just because you have an own opinion! This leads to a certain brutality.
But please don’t feel discredited just because I consider a ten year period be ‘temporary rubbish’ in comparison with the whole record.
But… before we continue exchanging our contradictory views, I need an explanation concerning your use of English.
What do you exactly mean with:
“First you use the words sea ice extent developed, but you show a graph of an anomaly. A graph of an anomaly is not a graph of sea ice extent.”
Or, asked more precisely: what do you exactly mean under an “anomaly”?
It seems that our understandings of this word must differ by a lot!
joe peck…”I’m unsure how long of a pause is required before climatologists agree sea ice is not diminishing, but right now it looks like such is the case”.
Remember…the diminishing ice is during one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year it is increasing. That’s more a weather effect than anything. They should be looking at warming effects from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, or even ice being dumped in the North Atlantic due to the Arctic Ocean circulations like the Beaufort Gyre, and the Transpolar Drift.
binny…”Here you are quicky called an idiot just because you have an own opinion!”
Talk about sensitive.
I have called you an idiot for contradicting posts I have made from NOAA in which they admit to slashing their global surface station count from 6000 stations globally to less than 1500.
You come back with statistical bs from GHCN that has nothing to do with the admission. I know GHCN has had thousands more stations over the decades and that NOAA counts statistically derived data as real data.
When NOAA uses real data from 1500 stations globally to derive data for all the 2.5 x 2.5 grid cells they produce, you know there is a whole lot of synthesizing and fudging going on.
Most of the temperatures for those grid cells are not covered by real data. NOAA manufactures most of it in a climate model by interpolating and homogenizing the real data from less than 1500 surface stations, plus data from Argo buoys in the oceans.
I call you an idiot because you absolutely refuse to see the chicanery employed by NOAA to synthesize data.
Not only that, they proclaim certain years as the hottest ever when UAH shows the same years as very average years. NOAA declared 2014 the hottest ever by reducing the confidence level of that likelihood to 48%.
You have to be an idiot to fall for that garbage. You not only fall for it, you produce graphs based on data that is not even used by NOAA.
.
Robertson
As usual you write your ignorant, lying trash here on Roy Spencer’s site.
You do that because you are too much a coward to ‘publish’ your trash anywhere else. Even Pseudoskeptic-in-chief Joe Postma would ban you off his site.
You pretend to respect Roy Spencer but in fact, your lies are a daily insult to him.
Joe Peck says:
November 4, 2018 at 4:21 PM
Well, I realized in the end that I would never convince anyone
_______________________________________
Convince about what?
About falling sea level and growing ice area??
That was a silly attempt.
Data are publicly available. We know them and we are not as stupid as you hoped.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 5, 2018 at 12:50 AM
“Rememberthe diminishing ice is during one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year it is increasing.”
___________________________________________
Unbelievable. You are really a shame, even for climate deniers.
Ice is diminishing during 6 months of the year.
And of course its increasing in winter. Thats because WINTER IS COLDER THAN SUMMER.
Global warming doesnt stop each autumn each year.
And ice area of EACH SINGLE month decreases, compared to the same months of previous years.
Again thank you for providing the graph. It lead me to previous discussions on WattsUp which got me to what for me is the heart of the issue. To wit, the graph you provided is claiming to represent total sea ice volume anomalies going back to 1979, but accurate data on such information is impossible and is based on estimations. However, in 2010 England launched the Cryostat-2 satellite which began taking highly accurate direct measurements of sea ice volume, but even that device is unable to accurately measure sea ice when ice ponding is present. More importantly the data from that satellite corroborates the MASIE Sea Ice Extent data to which I linked. The Cryostat-2 data shows no change in Arctic Ice volume for 10 yars straight:
http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html?show_cell_thk_ts_large=1&ts_area_or_point=all&basin_selected=0&show_basin_thickness=0&year=2018&season=Spring&thk_period=28
Finally, I was unable to determine the original source information for you graph so I am working on a hypothesis that it actually comes from the NASA funded data put together at Cal Tech which is in itself an experimental program using changes in the gravitational field which are then compared to an estimated baseline that is adjusted with each new measurement. Regardless, the data from Cryostat-2 directly contradicts the graph you posted which is not a direct measurement so I’m afraid it appears to me to be further climate science misdirection.
Joe in NY
Joe Peck says:
November 5, 2018 at 10:28 AM
“Again thank you for providing the graph. It lead me to previous discussions on WattsUp which got me to what for me is the heart of the issue. To wit, the graph you provided is claiming to represent total sea ice volume anomalies going back to 1979…”
_________________________________________
Which graph do you mean?
There are satellite-measurements of ice-AREA since 1979.
They are very accurate and show strong decrease.
Noone seriously believes ice-VOLUME doesnt also decrease the same time. You neither, if you are honest. “IF”…
fritz…”About falling sea level and growing ice area??
That was a silly attempt.
Data are publicly available. We know them and we are not as stupid as you hoped”.
Perhaps Joe was not aware of the lies you alarmists spread about sea ice. You have created a huge lie over falling ice levels when in fact you mean during the Arctic’s brief summer.
The rest of the year there is no warming to speak of since it’s -40C or so and the Arctic Ocean is covered with 10 feet of ice.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 6, 2018 at 10:03 PM
fritz”About falling sea level and growing ice area??
That was a silly attempt.
Data are publicly available. We know them and we are not as stupid as you hoped.”
Perhaps Joe was not aware of the lies you alarmists spread about sea ice. You have created a huge lie over falling ice levels when in fact you mean during the Arctics brief summer.
________________________________________
No, I mean exactly what was said and showed several times: Decreasing ice area of ALL SEASONS and ALL MONTHS.
If its a lie, blame arctic roos, not me.
Joe Peck says:
“…
Just one voters simple logic.”
_____________________________________________
Much more a trumpish attempt to cheat simple minded voters.
My experience online has so far shown me that people who react with personal comments instead of discussing the issues are not people I take seriously. Perhaps if I humanize myself:
https://healthunlocked.com/ataxia-uk/posts/137505041/my-sca1-progression-has-stopped.-my-alternative-therapy-for-sca1
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006552090930
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2019225
Just wondering – do you notice people on your side of the debate who make personal comments as much as you notice those on the other side of the debate?
P{lease correct me if I am wrong, but my interpretation of your question’s true meaning is “do I recognize that I may be biased?” I am human and admit I can not stop my natural thought processes which science tells us are inherently biased, always.
Do I notice people on the other side of the debate? Yes, I believe I do, and in general I find their replies to be equally unhelpful in promoting honest discussion.
I find Dr. Spencer’s site to be most interesting, but when I discovered the comments section I was disappointed with what I found, and so I thought perhaps I could interject a tiny bit of genuine discourse. Perhaps I was wrong.
Joe Peck, you will find about a dozen commenters here that are opposed to facts and logic. They want to discourage you from making relevant comments.
Don’t let them stop you.
Joe stated:
“people who react with personal comments instead of discussing the issues are not people I take seriously.”
Here are some of JDHuffman’s comments:
“SGW, you’re behaving like a 12-year-old that broke into his parents liquor cabinet. Sober up, and I’ll try to help you tomorrow.”
“They say there are no “dumb questions”, but DA, you try to prove that wrong, continually.”
“Keep flinging your scum and slime, it just turns into gold here.”
“Yes des, responding to some of the low-lifes makes me dirty, but I use strong anti-bacterial soap…”
“Try to always include some pseudoscience, with your vapid opinions, for the best comedy.”
JDHuffman is a troll, Joe. You cannot take him seriously.
Joe,
JDHuffman is a disciple of Joseph Postma. Really fringe stuff, like the Greenhouse Effect is not real, the moon doesn’t rotate on it’s own axis, etc…..
Just avoid him like the plague.
Obviously SGW is one of the “dozen.
(At least he’s sobered up enough to be using his own screen name, now.)
There’s another one to add to your list, SGW.
des, do you believe I will not respond appropriately to misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults?
You have a lot of false beliefs.
No JD, I believe you will not respond appropriately, period. Appropriateness is not part of your makeup.
You have a lot of false beliefs.
joe peck…”Perhaps if I humanize myself:”
Joe…sorry to hear you are going through SCA1.
Glad you are exercising at a good heart rate. At 52, I’m guessing you are around 222 – 52 = 170 x 0.8 = 136 bpm.
How do you feel at that rate? Would not harm you to work out at 70%, or about 120 bpm. Your fitness would likely increase just as fast over the long term, maybe even faster.
80% and above is getting near an anaerobic range. It would be good for intervals, if you were working out at 70% and occasionally did intervals at 80%.
As a former soccer player who played at very high fitness levels, I learned the hard way that pushing the envelop does not necessarily lead to better fitness. In the early days, we trained till we were literally spitting up blood from our lungs in pre-season. Later on, I learned to ease into training and to build stamina gradually. Works just as well.
I have found that exercise has dramatically increased my quality of life as of late.
Re your diet, I’d like to see you add at least 4 grams of vitamin C a day plus 400 IU vitamin E. The core of our bodies, the cells, depend on C, without it, they fall apart. Both C and E are excellent free radical quenchers as well.
Thanks for the replies Gordon. I am actually investigating vitamin E today as I came across a clinical trial of a molecule, Vatiquinone, that has broad potential efficacy in numerous neurological disorders, but it turns out it is simply a man-made form of vitamin E with powerful anti-oxidant properties that helps with cellular survival:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01728064
https://healthunlocked.com/ataxia-uk/posts/139284679/vatiquinone-epi-743-a-possible-treatment-for-all-ataxias.
As to running, I have been a life long runner since age 14 when I joined cross country in high school. (I believe it may be part of the reason I do not have serious symptoms when the charts say I should.) Up until about a year ago I was running faster for a shorter period of time and probably closer to twice a week, but then I read this research report:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/article-abstract/2664948
In that study only the patients who achieved 80% of max and ran 4 times a week saw their progression halted. That plus the work done in animal models showing that exercise enhances autophagy led me to pick the level I use today. Also, good guess on my max.
I do take vitamin C, I just don’t post that as part of my “Alternative Therapy” as I haven’t found any evidence linking vitamin C to benefits in neurological disorders.
Thanks a bunch for reading that stuff! Puts a smile on my face to think someone is actually reading it.
Joe in NY
joe peck…”In that study only the patients who achieved 80% of max and ran 4 times a week saw their progression halted”.
I know there are benefits of that kind of training but there are good effects from running longer at a slower pace. Obviously you would not want to maintain a pace at an 80% HR for 5 or 10 miles.
There are cellular changes that take place on longer, stamina-based runs. I wonder if that would help?
Mind you, I would run 5 miles, with hills, and add 5 or 10 x 200 yard intervals runs at a pace of 80% or so on flat sections. That was aimed at helping me increase my overall speed.
Good luck.
joe….thought this page on fitness might interest you.
https://philmaffetone.com/method/
Can anyone explain the big increase in HAD 4 Crut data since Jones’s “naughty boy” BBC interview in 2010?
Back then he claimed that the 1975 to 2009 trend was 0.161 c/dec but today using the York Uni tool it is 0.193 c and the 2 earlier warming trends are today lower than in his 2010 BBC Q&A.
I suppose it’s one easy way to find some extra warming to enhance your CAGW nonsense? Certainly is MAN MADE warming, no doubt about it. Here’s the York Uni tool and I used the global UAH 4 Crut krig.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html And here’s his BBC interview Q&A in 2010, see Question A with the 4 warming trends that have now been suitably adjusted to crank up their CAGW alarmism.
Oh and don’t forget this is the IPCC’s preferred data-base. Any ideas? I just wish Willis could look at this data and offer his opinion? This is the longest data-base and yet nobody seems interested at all. But heck what’s an endless waste of trillions $ straight down the drain for a zero return, certainly doesn’t worry China/ India and their soaring co2 emissions? In fact they’re laughing all the way to their banks. See IEA data, unbelievable but true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Would you please post that again without the codes. It is impossible to read the details.
Had4 data has more coverage than Had3, particularly in the Northern polar region and Russia.
This is largely the cause of a warmer trend for the period you cited (and overall), as the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe.
You can google for the difference between Had4 and Had3 and you’ll find articles with more detail. Here’s one.
https://tinyurl.com/ycnhfb6r
As barry explained already, you compare
– Had-CRUT in 2010 (i.e. Had-CRUT3) with Had-CRUT4, whose land component CRUTEM4 integrates hundreds of Arctic stations absent before 2012,
– and, above all, Had-CRUT3 with Kevin Cowtan’s Had-CRUT4 kriging variant, which shows also much higher temperatures in the Arctic due to interpolation combined with satellite data.
You made the usual double mistake, as do all pseudoskeptics like Robertson for example, who does not know anything but boasts and trumpets all the time.
So before writing: shouldn’t you first read papers, e.g. Jones et alii 2012?
You will find all you need there, but… maybe you prefer to discredit the work of others. Your choice.
P.S. Salvatore del Prete wrote last mont the same stuff as you do today.
binny…”You made the usual double mistake, as do all pseudoskeptics like Robertson for example, who does not know anything but boasts and trumpets all the time”.
Facts about Had-crut:
1)gets its data from GHCN, therefore it’s corrupt.
2)In the Climategate email scandal its leader, Phil Jones:
a)threatened to block skeptic papers at IPCC reviews, using his power as a Coordinating Lead Author, along with his partner Kevin. It appears he blocked a paper from John Christy of UAH.
b)bragged about using Mann’s ‘hide-the-decline’ trick, chicanery aimed at hiding decreasing temperatures.
c)applauded the death of skeptic, John Daly.
3)refused to release Had-crut data to Steve McIntyre for an independent audit. Urged his alarmist cronies in the Climategate emails to help him block an FOI submitted by McIntyre to the UK government, asking for release of the data.
All in all, a real classy outfit. The support of its chicanery here, and the scientific misconduct of its leader, by the likes of you and your fellow alarmists, reflects how classy you all are.
Robertson
As usual you write your ignorant, lying trash here on Roy Spencer’s site.
You do that because you are too much a coward to ‘publish’ your trash anywhere else. Even Pseudoskeptic-in-chief Joe Postma would ban you off his site.
You pretend to respect Roy Spencer but in fact, your lies are a daily insult to him.
binny…”As usual you write your ignorant, lying trash here on Roy Spencers site”.
Only an idiot would claim I am lying when everything I claimed can be easily verified. The Climategate emails are there for everyone to see.
Excellent point Joe. I can say that honestly because I have no axe to grind unlike some bloggers on this site.
Then surely you can find an “excellent point” made by someone on the other side of the debate that you are prepared to give equal praise to.
bob…”Then surely you can find an excellent point made by someone on the other side of the debate that you are prepared to give equal praise to”.
And surely you could stop replying like a parrot and provide some scientific rebuttals to sate your whines about the good science being provided from the other side.
Like a parrot eh Gordie? Perhaps you could link to another comment which I have copied this one from. or do you not know what that phrase means?
A cool high above the eastern Pacific creates a low cloud cover that cools the surface of the ocean.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00973/9120nzcky3as.png
Sorry ren – where is ocean surface temperature shown on your map?
ren…”A cool high above the eastern Pacific creates a low cloud cover that cools the surface of the ocean”.
Hey, ren, how’s it going? Keep up the good work.
Yeah ren – keep linking to graphs that you don’t understand.
Good observation Ren, temperature anomalies have dropped since then. Do you expect this to continue?
People keep bringing up ‘the pause’ as if it is a current thing.
Here is the linear trend from 1998 (UAH6.0)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend
It seems to have been completely forgotten by some that the ‘pause’ was based entirely on a linear trend of global temps: from 1998 give or take a few months. To claim that the ‘pause’ is ongoing or has returned, is to reject the measure that gave rise to it. And indeed, some ‘skeptics’ have done precisely this: most tacitly, one or two quite brazenly.
Once the mean trend line since 1998 went positive early 2016 (and WUWT called its ending), some ‘skeptics’ became interested in statistical significance, even though they had been mostly deaf to the notion while the mean trend line was flat or negative. Suddenly ‘skeptics’ started saying “no statistically significant trend” since 1998 (and earlier). They didn’t seem to realize that this doesn’t mean that there is no trend.
barry, do you consider the current +0.013 °C per year a “statistically significant” trend?
Significance depends on duration.
+0.013 over 5 years is not significant. Over 40 years it most certainly is.
Linear trend UAH for the whole period:
0.128 (+/- 0.057) C/decade
[95% confidence interval]
That is a statistically significant warming trend.
barry…”That is a statistically significant warming trend”.
We had a major El Nino in 2016, which has nearly dissipated, producing a positive trend in the process.
The problem with you number crunchers, as both Kristian and I have pointed out, is your utter inability to relate the numbers to the physical causation (context).
One thing is for sure, CO2 has nothing to do with any warming trends.
No, Gordon, the linear trend for the whole period was positive and statistically significant before the 2016 el Nino year. EG,
1979 to 2015:
0.114 (+/- 0.063) C/decade
Statistically significant warming trend.
1979 to 2010:
0.121 (+/- 0.084) C/decade
Statistically significant warming trend
The first year in which the full UAH record achieves statistical significance is 2001.
1979 to 2001:
0.139 (+/- 0.136) C/decade
Attribution of cause was irrelevant to the topic. Go ahead and start a new thread on that, if that is what obsesses you.
Interestingly, all people trying to exxagerate trends speak about them using C / century, and all people trying to do the inverse speak about them using C / year.
Does Roy Spencer use either? No.
He uses C / decade, like do all people having a brain.
barry…”People keep bringing up ‘the pause’ as if it is a current thing”.
Oh… cut the incessant whine and the NOAA-esque statistical attempts to refute the pause.
The IPCC admitted 15 years of it and the UAH graph on this site shows another 3 years.
It’s obviously not a pause, 18 years is ample proof that CO2 is having no effect.
We had a brief positive trend due to an extreme EN in early 2016 and since then the global average has slowly returned to the level of the pause. I’m sure we will have more brief positive trends but they will likely always drop back.
I expect it will continue in this fashion:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
El Nino conditions are present over the last few weeks on a range of metrics. NINO3.4 region SSTs have been above Nino threshold, and most but not all indicators have likewise been at Nino phase.
Some handy links:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Don’t forget this:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Playing with UAH and AMO in graphs:
First UAH and AMO 1988-2018:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:240/plot/esrl-amo/mean:240/from:1988
Then AMO 1860-2018
AMO seams to vary in a periodic way.
If repeated it will change to a colder phase now.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:360/plot/esrl-amo/mean:360/from:1988
A sign can be seen if we uses mathematics:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:240/plot/uah6/mean:240/derivative/scale:50/plot/uah6/mean:240/derivative/scale:50/trend
And what about the PDO?
Temperature above 20 latitudes in the Eastern Pacific.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/gulfcalf.fc.gif
US Pacific
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/uspacifi.fc.gif
So you show ABSOLUTE temperatures instead of anomalies, simply illustrating how temperatures drop off as you head poleward, and pretending it shows cooling.
Thanks ren for yet again showing that you have no idea what your links are showing.
bob…”Thanks ren for yet again showing that you have no idea what your links are showing”.
Did ren say anywhere that he was trying to make a point? He may simply be sharing interesting graphics he comes across. Better still, he may be trying to p*** you off, and he seems to be succeeding.
You seem to be confused about the difference between being pissed off and laughing out loud at his ineptitude.
“Ren-Man” doesn’t have the social interaction skills to even understand the concept of deliberately yanking someone’s chain.
“Playing with UAH and AMO in graphs”
Indeed, that is exactly what you do: playing like a child does with toys.
How can you compare a temperature series showing a trend (be it UAH LT or GISS surface, doesn’t matter) with an intentionally detrended time series like the (detrended) AMO in use everywhere to show the cyclic behavior behind its trend?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
And what now concerns “A sign can be seen if we uses mathematics” : you can’t imagine how many people do “use mathematics” when it fits to their egocentric narrative.
binny…”How can you compare a temperature series showing a trend (be it UAH LT or GISS surface, doesnt matter) with an intentionally detrended time series like the (detrended) AMO in use everywhere to show the cyclic behavior behind its trend?”
Who said the graphs had to coincide in units? He may simply be superimposing one upon the other to show a comparison in slope.
Seems to me that Kristian had to explain that to you as well.
Is it possible to show more incompetence than you do?
binny…”Is it possible to show more incompetence than you do?”
I call you an idiot partly due to your seriously myopic views. You seem incapable of seeing anything in statistics outside of number crunching. That leads me to conclude that you have no formal training in statistics.
lasse…”Then AMO 1860-2018
AMO seams to vary in a periodic way”.
Have you read Tsonis et al on that issue? They claimed all the oscillations operate together, in conjunction and opposition. In conjunction, the global temps rise and in opposition they fall.
AMO is in line with UAH
AMO is de-trended
Still there is a trend in UAH and in the de-trended AMO
Explain this?
Playing with Google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/01/in-the-arctic-amo-nao-predominantly-force-ocean-temperatures-and-cause-major-melting-events/
And this graph:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/NASAGISSGlobalSurfaceTemperatureAnomaly1_shadow.png
Adjustments hide the AMO temperature governance.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AlterationsToNASAGISSGlobalSurfaceTemperaturesSinceTheYear2000_shadow.png
Yes Lasse, I think we could be in for a multi-decadal pause, or near as dammit. See AMO estimate here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7c37cyh
Bobdesbond, it doesn’t look like the PDO does much.
It is disturbing to see some folks still making the mistake of comparing a forcing directly with earth temperature.
A forcing, i.e. cloud cover, a proxy such as SSN anomaly or, TSI, is a power thing while temperature change of a body with effective thermal capacitance is an energy thing. It is conceptually invalid to compare power to energy. To get an energy thing from a forcing (for legitimate comparison) it is necessary to account for the amount of time spent at each activity level. That, of course, is accomplished by taking the integral of the anomaly of the forcing from some reference level. Another example of this type of mistake made by SkS is shown here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DF15dh8V0AAC0CY.jpg
Yes Dan, and that is not the only mistake made. The entire “energy balance” is a joke.
People that subtract 240 (Earth’s “average radiation” to space) from 390 (Earth’s “average radiation” from surface), and then claim the atmosphere is “trapping” 150 Watts/m^2 (the difference), don’t have any understanding of the relevant physics.
These folks are both disturbing, as you stated, and also hilariously incompetent.
What’s that for a nonsense, Mr Pangburn?
Nobody uses such a comparison in scientific papers. All science people use a radiative balance equation based on Stefan-Boltzmann to relate things like TSI and temperature.
A good example of that I read last year with interest (because it was NOT written by some world-wide known pundits):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016716914714977
Bindidon states: “Nobody uses such a comparison in scientific papers.”
The subject is about the confusion of “power” with “energy”. This confusion occurs throughout institutionalized pseudoscience, where Earth’s “energy balance” is being discussed. DA has mentioned his “missing 150 Watts/m^2” how many times?
I know you have mentioned previously that you do not know physics, but at least try to understand a little, before you link someone else to “nonsense”.
Bin,, Perhaps you have inadvertently revealed part of the problem. Relating TSI to temperature only works for steady-state conditions. The planet is never in steady-state. A quick look at the linked paper suggests they might have made a similar mistake. A competent course in engineering heat transfer analysis (including transient) might help.
For the past 40 years, the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere has been a reliable proxy for globally averaged temperature:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/offset:0.6/scale:0.23
There is variation in the stochastic series, of course, but by and large, the series have tracked one another.
Currently, there is a discrepancy, in that global temperature appears to be lagging the CO2 measure. The last time we had such a discrepancy was in about 1991-1992. The global temperature briefly continued upward while CO2 rate of change plunged. At the end of that interval, the temperature plunged to re-sync with the CO2 measure.
I expect we are in a similar holding pattern right now, with some temporary phenomenon holding temperature high. I expect an imminent plunge in the global temperature measure. When it will occur is anyone’s guess, but the handwriting is on the wall. The CO2 rate of change proxy portends rapid cooling at some point in the near future.
That is Bart as usual: pseudomath helping him to “expect an imminent plunge in the global temperature measure”.
But in one year or two or three, when Bart sees he utterly failed, he sure will tell us “Oh you misunderstood me at that time”…
Interesting ploy. Do you have any examples to back it up?
Don’t try to divert and confuse, Bart. You exactly know what I mean with your superficial WFT CO2 derivative toys.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never retreated from the obvious implication that temperature is driving CO2 concentration. It assuredly is.
bart…”I have never retreated from the obvious implication that temperature is driving CO2 concentration. It assuredly is”.
Makes sense. if you heat the oceans, they outgas CO2.
The oceans outgas CO2 only when they are saturated with CO2. They are not yet saturated and won’t be in the near future. Until saturation is reached, what happens as the oceans warm is that their rate of uptake of CO2 slows. Same result, but not the right reason.
(Note that when I refer to outgassing and uptake above, I am referring to the NET result. The oceans are constantly BOTH taking up CO2 and releasing it in a near-equilibrium process. Until we reach saturation, the net result will always be uptake.)
des, at standard atmospheric pressure, what is the temperature of a volume of seawater at CO2 “saturation”?
“The oceans outgas CO2 only when they are saturated with CO2.”
No. The oceans outgas whenever the partial pressure in the atmosphere is less than a proportionate concentration in the oceans (Henry’s law). This will almost always be the case at the equator, and the opposite will prevail at the poles.
Thus, there is a flow, a “conveyor belt” if you will, of CO2 running through the deep oceans, through the atmosphere, and back down again. Impeding that flow has the same potential redistributive impact as impeding the flow of heat radiation to space. The quantity accumulates behind the obstruction until the pressure surmounts the obstruction. Over the near term, that begets the essentially integral relationship we see between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Bart, your model just has very little going for it.
1. It fails to satisfy Henry’s Law. Henry’s law cannot produce a 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 with only a 1 C temperature rise.
2. It does not agree at all with ice-core CO2 history during the glacial-interglacial transitions or the Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age.
3. The ocean’s concentration of CO2 is also rising, which is NOT produced by a temperature rise nor consistent with Henry’s law.
4. The ocean is a NET sink for CO2, so it cannot be the source of it.
5. Anthro CO2 history QUANTITATIVELY matches the accumulation of atmospheric and oceanic carbon. Your model calls that a coincidence and buries anthro CO2 somewhere.
6. Your model makes no quantitative predictions. It has arbitrary parameters that don’t come from the real world, known physics or chemistry. It is just hand-waving and mathturbation.
1. It satisfies Henry’s law explicitly
2. The ice cores have no means of validation. But, even if they did, there is no guarantee that a regime change did not occur. What we know for sure is what the most modern, most reliable measurements tell us. And, they tell us that temperatures have been driving the recent uptick in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
3) Oceanic increase is explicit in my model.
4) The only way to conclude that the ocean is a net sink is through circular logic.
5) The rate of change of CO2 QUANTITATIVELY matches the temperature anomaly, and it also matches all the variation as well.
6) It makes the prediction that if temperatures resume rising, so will the rate of change of CO2, and that they will fall with decreasing temperatures, or stay the same with a temperature plateau. This has already been verified. In the past two decades, the rate of change of CO2 concentration paused just when temperatures did. Contrariwise, emissions kept climbing relentlessly and substantially upward.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
“It makes the prediction that if temperatures resume rising, so will the rate of change of CO2, and that they will fall with decreasing temperatures, or stay the same with a temperature plateau. This has already been verified.”
You simply notice a weak correlation, with a presumption of causation-the downfall of many ideas in science history.
Your model is not quantitative. It does not predict or simulate the 40% rise with 1 C warming. You have not predicted anything other than the pre-existing correlation.
You have not shown corroborating evidence from many other available data sets (ocean fluxes, Co2 vs depth, latitude, etc).
The figure is a cherry pick of less than a decade. Bob and I have shown similar failures of your relationship.
In any case, anthro CO2 does not CANCEL natural short-term variation due to ENSO, etc.
“It satisfies Henrys law explicitly” just a declaration. Again 40% rise is inconsistent with Henrys law.
“The ice cores have no means of validation.” Unproven declaration. Plenty of validation-direct 20th century overlaps.
“The only way to conclude that the ocean is a net sink is through circular logic.”
Nope, explicit measurements of Ocean/atm CO2 fluxes.
“The rate of change of CO2 QUANTITATIVELY matches the temperature anomaly”
Nope it fails to match at low frequencies and high frequencies with the same factor, and the factor is a fit parameter-not predicted by your model. Model does not predict or simulate the 40% rise with 1 C warming.
bob…”The oceans outgas CO2 only when they are saturated with CO2″.
Not so, CO2 is continuously out-gassed from colder parts of the ocean and absorbed by warmer parts. The oceans exchange 50% of the CO2 going into and out of the atmosphere. They absorb 50% of the CO2 emitted by humans.
bart…”The oceans outgas whenever the partial pressure in the atmosphere is less than a proportionate concentration in the oceans (Henrys law)”.
Much better stated than my minimal explanation.
“The figure is a cherry pick of less than a decade.”
Fully 12 years in which emissions increased over 40%, and concentration did not budge.
“Again 40% rise is inconsistent with Henrys law.”
Incorrect. My model is fully consistent with Henry’s law.
“Plenty of validation-direct 20th century overlaps.”
Does not say anything about long term validity.
“Nope, explicit measurements of Ocean/atm CO2 fluxes.”
Not even possible.
“…it fails to match at low frequencies and high frequencies with the same factor…”
Incorrect. It matches very well with a single scale factor and baseline offset.
Bart,
Your model is not quantitative-no parameters in the model come from real world measurements.
Where is the demonstrated 40% increase with 1% T rise?
It is just fooling around with made-up parameters. it is not consistent with know physics.
forgot all about isotopes: there is an awful lot of corroborating evidence that increased carbon in the atmosphere comes from FF.
‘CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.’
‘Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase around 1850 AD’
N:’Nope, explicit measurements of Ocean/atm CO2 fluxes.’
B: “Not even possible.”
Wrong
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/CO2+Flux+Map
“Where is the demonstrated 40% increase with 1% T rise? “
All you have to do is integrate the rate of change. The derivative and the integral are dual to one another, and contain the same information. If the derivative matches, so will the integral over the same interval.
“…forgot all about isotopes…”
And, you can keep forgetting them. This is on the same level as convicting witches because the crops died. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
“Nope, explicit measurements of Ocean/atm CO2 fluxes.”
No, a model of CO2 fluxes. It’s circular. Garbage in, garbage out.
“forgot all about isotopes…”
“This is on the same level as convicting witches because the crops died. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.”
Your usual hyperbolic equivalences between real science and magic, without a hint of justification.
You might as well join JD and friends in the ‘everything is pseudoscience’ club.
Constantly crying wolf in Latin? Not remotely accurate.
bart…”Interesting ploy. Do you have any examples to back it up?”
binny prefers creating graphics in his Excel program based on thousands of NOAA stations that are currently not in use, to compare NOAA data to UAH. He doesn’t understand the difference, please don’t confuse him by asking for scientific evidence.
but the handwriting is on the wall
I wonder when the old phrase “the writing is on the wall” turned into this version. What about handwriting improves the original?
“The phrase comes from the Biblical story of Daniel, in which the prophet interprets some mysterious writing that a disembodied hand has inscribed on the palace wall, telling King Belshazzar that he will be overthrown.”
Probably another Americanism. Like how they turned “I couldn’t care less” into the absolutely illogical “I could care less”.
Uh… no. It is the original. See post above.
Where in your link does it say it is the original?
The biblical phrase is “writing on the wall.” Not “handwriting” on the wall. It came into usage in the same way a few hundred years ago, and only recently have I seen the “handwriting” on the wall more proliferate (but maybe it appears more in olden times than I know).
Always bugged me because it seems a less elegant usage. Don’t get a linguist started!
The phrase has been in usage for over 2000 years, yet you are sure “handwriting” has only recently come into vogue? Why in the world are you arguing this?
The biblical phrase is “writing on the wall.” Not “handwriting” on the wall. It came into usage in the same way a few hundred years ago, and only recently have I seen the “handwriting” on the wall more proliferate. Always bugs me because it seems a less elegant usage.
Actually, the phrase doesn’t appear in the bi-bull at all.
Here is the quote from the Bible:
“In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.” Daniel 5:5
The writing was placed on the wall by a “hand”. In common usage, either “handwriting” or “writing” is correct. “Handwriting” is more descriptive.
“Handwriting is more descriptive”
Because of course without writing “hand” it could have been confused with foot-writing or vag-writing.
Exactly.
Daniel 5 speaks of the “writing” that appears on the wall, but never uses the term “handwriting.”
https://christiananswers.net/bible/dan5.html
There’s no particular quote, the “writing” is mentioned several times.
First appearance of the phrase referencing the notion (1700s) was “writing on the wall.” As far as know it is only recently that this other version has become more proliferate. I’d never heard of it until recently (maybe 15 years ago). Then again, I read a source saying that the “handwriting” version is more common in the US. Couldn’t find earliest usage for that version. Merriam-Webster website has it:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-histories-dinner/writing-on-the-wall
Of course it doesn’t. The original text wasn’t even in English. But, it refers to a disembodied hand, and it is difficult for writing to appear via the agency of a hand without it being handwriting. It’s kind of how the word came to be. Hand-writing, you see. It’s a combination of “hand” and “writing”.
Pro tip: sarcasm works best when accompanied by insight or wit.
It’s an inelegant phrasing, rhythmically and conceptually.
Dude…
Only 1991-92? How about 1985, 1996, 2005-06, 2008 and 2011-12.
How would a similar prediction have turned out for you if you had made it at those times?
Of course, by predicting that temperature will respond to CO2 and not the other way around, you are conceding to the science of greenhouse gases.
And I forgot 2000.
Now – see if you can spot the connection between all those years.
The same graph, but only up to 2000:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/to:2000/plot/uah6/offset:0.6/scale:0.23/to:2000
Bart in 2000: “The CO2 rate of change proxy portends rapid cooling at some point in the near future.”
I’m not saying temperature will respond to CO2. I am saying the CO2 rate of change and temperature anomaly tend to move together. One of two things is almost surely going to happen: the temperature anomaly will plunge to match up to the CO2 rate of change, or the rate of change will jump up to match the temperature anomaly. I expect the former to be more likely, because it is more in line with the ~60 year cycle. We shall see what happens.
What 60 year cycle are you referring to?
Whatever it is, to justify its existence you had better have a minimum of 3 complete cycles of data if the pattern is very clear (2 cycles is coincidence), more cycles if not.
That’s an arbitrary limit. After two cycles, it has staying power, and it is reasonable to expect it will likely continue.
There are 10 year snippets of nino3.4 that look like two periods of a sine wave. Look at 1980s.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni
Then, of course, the pattern changes..
So what? This is what stochastic systems do. A recurring pattern can shift on a dime. But, it is likely to continue a priori.
“But, it is likely to continue a priori.”
Huh?
Before a measurement is made, the most likely outcome is that which adheres to the previously established pattern.
If so, then you should have some success at predicting ENSO a year or two ahead.
And of course, if the second scenario turns out to be correct 6-12 months from now, you will make a similar post announcing that your were wrong?
Previous excursions from the underlying pattern have taken as long as a decade or so to revert to form.
This isn’t a binary judgment. We are dealing with a stochastic system here. One can project the most likely evolution, but there are no guarantees.
By 2026, if the pattern has not reasserted itself, the likelihood of a regime change that has disrupted it will become rapidly more probable. But, that will not negate the existence of the pattern. It simply means I will have to reevaluate my expectations going forward.
“the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere has been a reliable proxy for globally averaged temperature”
Except for “Only 1991-92? How about 1985, 1996, 2005-06, 2008 and 2011-12.”
And don’t forget 1959-1979.
Proxies for temperature need to have a plausible mechanism for the correlation.
Tree rings, boreholes, ice core isotopes, etc, all have a known mechanism linking them to temperature.
The rate of change of CO2 does not have any known or plausible mechanism linking it to decadal temperature change.
Bart,, My finding is that the temporary phenomenon is rising water vapor, mostly from irrigation, which will eventually level out (sect 8 in my blog/analysis).
NASA/RSS TPW thru Aug, 2018 is at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn4VhvlV4AACGDR.jpg
Your “finding”?? Hahaha
“mostly from irrigation”. Can you demonstrate that irrigation is more important than temperature?
I don’t believe irrigation spiked during El Ninos, but temperature certainly did.
Nate,, Irrigation and temperature are about equally important. Calculations in sect 8 of my blog/analysis show that WV has been increasing about twice as fast as calculated from surface liquid water temperature increase. The assessment of world sources of WV in sect 9 reveals that nearly all of the WV increase has coincided with the increase in irrigation. The extrapolation back to the depths of the LIA looks credible.
Certainly the el Nino bump caused the WV bump above the trend. Also certainly the WV uptrend will end eventually, if it has not already ended. The WV trend looked pretty flat from 2002 until the el Nino happened. NASA/RSS TPW thru Aug, 2018: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn4VhvlV4AACGDR.jpg
Sept is up a bit but still below the long term trend. Too soon to be sure what is immediate next.
Dan,
Have you published any of your blog analysis? If not, why not?
It’s a hurdle that is worthwhile.
It would allow peer-reviewers to give you expert feedback/critique, enable your ideas to influence the rest of the scientific community, and let readers (such as us) know that your work has been vetted and deserves our time and attention.
I’m not sure of your culprit, because what I see is a very steady trend since at least 1900, with a ~60 year cycle superimposed on it. So, I think the cause of the observed warming is steady, and long term.
But, otherwise, I find your inputs very interesting Dan, and always look forward to reading them.
Dan, looking at the graph, the El Nino effect on WV is quite large, comparable to the 30 y trend.
How then can the temperature-trend effect on WV trend be considered too small? It doesnt look that way at all.
Nate,, That (temperature effect and irrigation about the same effect on WV) is the result of calculations as shown in Section 8 of my blog/analysis (Fig 3 there ended 2 months earlier than the TPW graph linked above).
My thinking is that el Nino local warm water pushes an extra bunch of WV into the air which shows up in the TPW measurements. This was a temporary addition, on top of the trend. Global average TPW has been hovering between 29.0 and 29.5 kg/m^2 for 8 months. Happenings in the next few months should tell whether the WV uptrend has ended or not. Increasing WV is the only thing substantially countering average global temperature decline so if WV uptrend has ended, GW has ended.
“Increasing WV is the only thing substantially countering average global temperature decline so if WV uptrend has ended, GW has ended.”
Sure, but true if cause and effect are reversed
The observation that WV is increasing about twice as fast as calculated from liquid surface water temperature increase is compelling evidence that about half of WV increase is cause and the rest is effect.
JD…”I was busy depositing my recent check from Big Oil”.
☺
… business acquaintances sharing their life secrets …
… insane asylum cellmates saying goodnight to each other ….
Yes Gordon, it sure rankles the clowns.
They imagine we earn huge fortunes, by being skeptics. Just as they imagine they understand the relevant physics.
Their imaginations help them avoid reality.
Your imagination leads you believe you qualify as a ‘skeptic’.
Des
“Of course, by predicting that temperature will respond to CO2 and not the other way around, you are conceding to the science of greenhouse gases.”
The way I see it, both are responding to changes in global SST, not to each other.
Perhaps not necessarily global SST, which does not appear (though, this could be a product of bias) to be falling at present, but maybe a particular region. If I had the time, I would search the data bases for a match with a particular region.
Sorry – “…does NOT appear to be falling at present…”
In other words, if you had time you would look for an opportunity to cherry pick a region that happens to work in your favour (at the present time), while ignoring the rest.
No. In other words, I would try to localize the effect that is clearly evident in the data even using coarse, bulk measurements.
“both are responding to changes in global SST”
Actually, the carbon uptake of land biomass is very sensitive to temperature and precipitation.
Seems to explain much of the CO2 response to the seasons, and ENSO.
See e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00672.1
This, and the dominant paradigm, are circular exercises. They start with the result they want, and come up with a model that seems to produce the results they see.
But, this can always be done, and does not amount to a compelling argument. It is epicyclic, and it ignores the excellent agreement in the long term between the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and the temperature anomaly. Occam’s razor says the simplest explanation, that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is overwhelmingly driven by temperatures, is most likely the correct one.
Yeah, because of course the discovery of real physics such as quantum mechanics was driven by the Occam’s razor approach.
Sometimes, you should just wait before replying, and make sure what sounds good in your head at the moment is going to make the impact you intended.
bob…”Yeah, because of course the discovery of real physics such as quantum mechanics was driven by the Occams razor approach”.
I think it’s fair to question whether quantum theory is real physics. It’s more a modeled version of reality based on math and models.
In the purest sense, physics should be about observation and conclusion based on the scientific method. QM seems to be the antithesis of that.
The basis of QM is the quanta introduced by Planck. The notion of quanta was derived through fudging math to make the curve of EM intensity versus wavelength fit what was being observed rather than what was expected based on E = hf.
It took real physics to verify Planck’s hypothesis.
There is nothing in quantum theory that can be observed directly. QM is based on Newtonian physics but it had to be developed because Newtonian physics did not explain the motion of atoms correctly.
That does not mean Newtonian physics, or real physics, should be discarded, it is needed to verify the claims of those using quantum theory.
It seems Occam’s razor may apply here. Some modern theories in QM are so absurd they should be abandoned for simpler explanations.
bart…”They start with the result they want, and come up with a model that seems to produce the results they see”.
Nothing new, that’s been going on with statistical models since at least the latter part of the 19th century when Boltzmann and Maxwell began dabbling in statistical mechanics. Same with Planck.
They all had hard scientific results toward which they could work and fit their statistical models. Kind of bass ackwards, since models are supposed to precede the reality.
Maxwell had the work of Faraday as the basis of his electromagnetic theory, even though none of them put it together to realize far-field electromagnetic radiation and its relationship to electrons and atoms.
Of course, electrons had yet to be discovered in the times of Maxwell, Clausius, Stefan, Tyndall, and Boltzmann and the development of statistical models. Planck did his work on the UV catastrophe just as electron theory was emerging but he ignored it. He later claimed that had he paid attention, electron theory would have made his work so much easier.
Boltzmann had the work of Stefan, his professor, on which to build his statistical models. Stefan got his data from the real experiments of Tyndall in which he ran an electric current through a platinum filament till it glowed and gave off different colours.
Planck solved the ultraviolet catastrophe by essentially curve fitting and fudging his math till it fit the curve. From that came quantum theory.
The problem that arises is that there is often an infinite possible selection of system parameters that will reproduce the same observables to within the same error bounds. Finding a unique parameterization is not generally even possible. Constraints must be imposed to winnow down the options, and the constraints selected are frequently a product of confirmation bias.
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Some are useful for advancing human progress. Some are useful for advancing agendas.
bart…”As the saying goes, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Some are useful for advancing human progress. Some are useful for advancing agendas”.
That’s the thing, validated models versus invalidated models. In my field of electronics, you can model a circuit and immediately validate it by building the circuit and testing it. In electronics, experience tells you nothing is ever exact. You can build a circuit using precision components and it likely won’t work exactly as predicted by the model, or by your own design.
That’s a useful application of models and it becomes very useful with binary logic where you can build a complex digital circuit and troubleshoot the logic in the model rather than soldering and desoldering components.
In climate science, it’s a bust because no one can possibly model something as complex as the atmosphere with any degree of accuracy. Modelers have focused on radiation because there were already stock equations for radiation that were easily adapted to the differential equations used in models.
As if that problem was not enough, modelers have included bad physics into the models, like assigning CO2 a warming factor and including positive feedbacks that don’t exist. Take both away and you have no appreciable warming.
Gordon – I agree profusely with your main thrust. Those of us who have toiled with actual hardware, and coaxed it into doing what we want, have an innate appreciation for the necessity of validation that is entirely lacking on the side of those who do not have to produce functional goods.
You can have everything modeled to a tee, and still find it just does not work as it should according the theories that have been rigorously established and verified for decades or longer. The Devil, as they say, is always in the details, and nature takes any path it can to confound expectations.
Designing a working system is like drawing up a legal document. Nature does not adhere to the spirit of the agreement. You must explicitly address and deny each and every alternative interpretation that skirts the intent.
“Occams razor says the simplest explanation, that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is overwhelmingly driven by temperatures’
Must be sarcasm, right?
CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, by 40% in a century. What are the possible models.
1. We dug up a huge reservoir of stored carbon and emitted it into the atmosphere as CO2. It has accumulated in the atmosphere, ocean, and biosphere at approximately the rate of emissions.
2. CO2 is emitted from natural sources and accumulates in the air, ocean and biosphere at a rate that closely matches the anthro rate, while simultaneously the anthro carbon is almost all sequestered into the deep ocean. The increase in natural emissions is due a temperature rise of 1 C in the last century. The temperature rise produces a throttling of the deep ocean sequestration of carbon, by a TBD linear-in-temperature mechanism, possibly the slowing AMOC. The unpwelling of deep ocean carbon is not throttled, even though the AMOC current is.
#1 has lots of corroborating evidence from the carbon cycle, ice cores, carbon flux measurements, ocean chemistry, isotope analysis.
Therefore #2 ALSO requires that the carbon cycle understanding, and all other corroborating evidence for #1 are deeply flawed.
Which best fits Occam’s razor?
#2. Otherwise, you have to come up with some exotic way to dissipate the temperature dependence at low frequency, and that leads to a whole rat’s nest of improbable modeling assumptions.
You need more than just the one correlation graph to hang your hat on. Need independent corroborating evidence like the emissions model has.
How about data showing that the ocean is a source rather than a sink, or data on deep-ocean co2 flux, or the AMOC vs temperature.
You seem disinclined to look for such things that could be supportive.
What’s exotic?
If its the low frequency in temperature, nothing exotic needed there. Just growth of GHG and GHE.
If its low frequency in CO2 derivative nothing exotic there, just emissions growth.
As a result both are going up, and that’s what you would like to call a LF correlation-but its weak, and cause and effect can be (and likely are) reversed.
The temperature model is consistent with a trend in the rate of change, and matches it precisely. In order to shoehorn in a significant contribution to that trend from human emissions, I would have to scale down the temperature model to the point where the variations no longer match.
Alternatively, I can filter out the low frequency portion of the temperature signal to make way for a human influence. But, this is A) completely arbitrary, B) essentially requires treating anthropogenic input on an unequal basis vis a vis natural input (can be done on an equal basis, but only by introducing a very highly nonlinear and contrived dynamical framework that rapidly increases sensitivity as the concentration increases), and C) ignores the fact that there is already an excellent match for the long term trend with the temperature data alone. It would be quite exotic.
This is the route that Ferdinand Englebeen has taken in attempting to refute my position, but he is too inexperienced to realize that he is implicitly positing an exotic, highly nonlinear system response that would be required to justify his assumptions.
I really don’t need more corroborating evidence (though I do have some, such as the standstill in the rate of change while emissions accelerated markedly during the “pause”). Unlike isotope measures or ice cores, this one is not subject to alternative explanations. The rate of change is what it is, and it matches the temperature anomaly, and the arrow of causality is plainly from the latter to the former.
It would be physically possible to have an additional relationship in which the temperature is partly responsive to CO2 concentration. But, if it is a positive relationship, that would comprise an unstabilizable positive feedback loop, so we know that cannot be to any level of significance (i.e., there could be a small sensitivity of temperature to CO2 that would remain stable due to the overall rate of CO2 dissipation, but that rate is evidently small, and therefore the sensitivity would have to be small in the present climate state).
I’ve considered this question in depth – I’ve been hawking my interpretation for over a decade now – and there are no chinks in the armor. This is very definitely what is going on. Eventually, it will be recognized when emissions keep rising, and concentration fails to keep track even more egregiously than it already has.
“The temperature model is consistent with a trend in the rate of change, and matches it precisely. In order to shoehorn in a significant contribution to that trend from human emissions, I would have to scale down the temperature model to the point where the variations no longer match.”
‘Precisely’?
First of all, no. You are obviously too emotionally attached to this idea to be objective about it. Like a mom whose kid got in trouble at school, ‘Not my child, he would never do that’
Secondly. Shoehorn? Circular logic. You are assuming the model is correct. Then claiming the other model doesnt explain the difference.
The decadal trend can be QUANTITATIVELY explained by emissions, and the HF variation explained well by natural – ie ENSO. No shoehorn necessary.
Simple – Occam happy, not exotic.
‘I really dont need more corroborating evidence’
The attitude of a zealot, not a scientist.
Thought you were different from JD and his racehorse.
“The decadal trend can be QUANTITATIVELY explained by emissions…”
Only by making completely arbitrary and ad hoc assumptions about where an arbitrary portion (about half) of it disappears to.
But, you’re not getting it. Even your side admits fluctuations in CO2 are being driven by temperatures. The long term trend in temperature anomaly must therefore also drive CO2, or there has to be some mechanism to remove it from consideration. There is no such plausible mechanism.
As a result, any contribution from human emissions has to add additionally on top of that. There is little to no room for it.
“Even your side admits fluctuations in CO2 are being driven by temperatures. The long term trend in temperature anomaly must therefore also drive CO2, or there has to be some mechanism to remove it from consideration. There is no such plausible mechanism.”
Really?! No such mechanism?! C’mon Bart.
When you slightly heat up a body of water or piece of land, it outgasses until it reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere. It straightforwardly happens in a finite amount of time, determined by surface to volume. It is an exponential with a finite time constant. The derivative is exponential with the same time constant, as you know.
Clearly, the Earth, with several types and sizes of carbon sinks, is going to have several time constants. Yes?
Calculations and simulations, measurements of response to volcanoes, show that these time constants range from ~ 1 year for soils up to 1000 years for deep ocean and much longer for mineral deposition.
It seems quite clear that the response to El Nino, which is a heterogeneous warming pattern, has mostly to do with land response in the areas that warm the most, which is fast. Certainly the deep ocean has little response to El Nino.
No reason whatsoever to assume that the derivative response to a 1 y perturbation (El Nino), should produce the same size response to a 100 y perturbation.
“No reason whatsoever to assume that the derivative response to a 1 y perturbation (El Nino), should produce the same size response to a 100 y perturbation.”
No, no reason to assume it. It is observed, so it is a given. This is like saying, there is no reason to assume a ball released from a height will fall to the ground. Indeed, there is no reason to assume it. We can confirm it directly. No assumption required.
‘No such mechanism’
I gave you a mechanism.
Do you have a solid reason to doubt that the Earth, with several types and sizes of carbon sinks (land, ocean surface, deep ocean, biosphere, minerals) is going to have several time constants?
‘It is observed, so it is a given.’
Circular logic!
You observe a phenomenon, not the cause of it.
You are supporting my POV, and you don’t even realize it. It is precisely my point that we have a temperature modulated flow with very long time constants which begets integral-like action in the near term.
No, if there are some short time-constants, then these sinks are saturated, removed from longer time-scale responses. The long time response, will have a lower derivative.
That’s a fantasy unreeling in your head. It is not mathematically sound, nor does it comport with the evidence.
The burden of proof is on you. Lets see what ya got.
Bart
“I am saying the CO2 rate of change and temperature anomaly tend to move together.”
Yes. Co2 levels increase faster during el nino years, slower during la ninas.
And, in the long term as well:
https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7
“The way I see it, both are responding to changes in global SST, not to each other.”
Bingo!
I was referring to specifically to Bart’s graph, and how it correlates to ENSO
https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cl/files/2017/03/Fig.2.jpg
https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cl/2017/03/16/the-climate-tango-of-enso-and-co2/
Nice article, but just can’t seem to put 2 and 2 together. If the rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature anomaly, then there is little to no room for human influence. The level is determined by temperature. All one needs to do to find the change in concentration is integrate the relationship. Human inputs need not apply.
Bart says:
November 4, 2018 at 7:02 PM
Nice article, but just cant seem to put 2 and 2 together. If the rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature anomaly, then there is little to no room for human influence.
______________________________________________
Human influence to what? To CO2-Rise?
Its not only “influenced” by humans, its completely CAUSED by human emissions. Emissions are twice as high as rise in atmosphere.
Sea surface temperature only gives a positiv feedback.
The warmer sea surface, the slower it adsorps CO2.
You are getting a bit excited there Fritzee all human cause……no influence from any of the 1000 or so natural variations
Regards
Harry
Harry Cummings says:
November 4, 2018 at 9:37 PM
You are getting a bit excited there Fritzee all human causeno influence from any of the 1000 or so natural variations
____________________________________________
Exactly. No “natural variation”.
CO2-rise is completely 100% and alone caused by human emissions.
Nature even attenuates the rising.
Mainly my humans, but not 100%. Without the human input it would still rise and fall, but outside of glacial periods this variation is small.
fritz….”CO2-rise is completely 100% and alone caused by human emissions”.
All 0.01% of atmospheric gases rise?
Gordon Robertson says:
November 5, 2018 at 2:15 AM
fritz….”CO2-rise is completely 100% and alone caused by human emissions”.
All 0.01% of atmospheric gases rise?
______________________________________
All of the 46% rise (from 280ppm to 410ppm) is caused by humans to 100%.
Yes of course.
fritz…”All of the 46% rise (from 280ppm to 410ppm) is caused by humans to 100%”.
You do mean the ‘theoretical’ 46% rise, don’t you?
There is no reliable proof of that. All we have are bubble of CO2 trapped in ice cores retrieved from Antarctic ice. Jaworowski, an expert on ice cores, explained the problems with such proxies.
For one, as pressure increases at depth with ice, the CO2 bubbles turn to solids called clathrates. When drilled out, the pressure reduces and the clathrates turn back into a gas. How do we know the conversion back and forth does not interfere with the concentration?
The areas in the Antarctic from which the cores were retrieved varied markedly in CO2 concentrations. The IPCC picked a concentration that suited their lame theory.
Also, the drilling produces melt water which dilutes the gases.
Studies have been done by reliable chemists like Kreutz, who found CO2 as high as 400 ppmv in the atmosphere in the 1930s.
Remember how proxies did MBH98 (hockey stick) in? In the 1960s, when atmospheric temps were increasing, the proxies were showing declining temperatures. That prompted the team to invent ‘the trick’, a devious scheme to hide the declining temperatures.
Studies have been done by reliable chemists like Kreutz, who found CO2 as high as 400 ppmv in the atmosphere in the 1930s.
Baloney. Kreutz failed to correct for local industrial sources.
DA…”Baloney. Kreutz failed to correct for local industrial sources”.
Kreutz had a degree in chemistry and took great pains to ensure his readings were correct.
“Emissions are twice as high as rise in atmosphere.”
This is meaningless regurgitation of the ridiculously bad pseduo-mass balance argument. The fact that the sum total of all human-caused emissions since Prometheus is roughly half of the observed rise has no bearing on the question of attribution.
It comes down to efficiency of the sinks. If they are inefficient, then emissions collect and take a long time to dissipate. If they are very efficient, they can take out all but a tiny residual of all human inputs.
The evidence before us tells us it is the latter. We can calculate the CO2 level merely based upon the starting point, and the temperature history. We don’t need human inputs to get a very accurate result.
The sinks are very efficient, and the observed rise is the residual of natural inputs, which are on the order of at least 30 times greater than human induced inputs from release of latent CO2 in fossil fuels.
If the rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature anomaly, then there is little to no room for human influence. The level is determined by temperature.
That doesn’t follow in the least. It’s quite possible that the rate of change matches temp fluctuations, and that the overall increase is anthropogenic.
By analogy, if you tracked the changes of acceleration in a car that was driving into a choppy headwind, you would find the rate of acceleration neatly meshes with the fluctuations in wind speed.
But you would be making a poor leap of logic to then presume that it was the wind powering the car.
“you would find the changes in the rate of acceleration neatly meshes with the fluctuations in wind speed.”
There is more than a match with the fluctuations. The long term evolution also matches.
If your wind speed correlates positively with vehicle speed across the entire frequency spectrum, like the temperature record does with the CO2 rate of change, then you probably have something like this:
https://tinyurl.com/y8mlx2nf
If vehicle acceleration was constant (fuel to the internal combustion engine increased steadily), the fluctuations captured by a derivative of that rate of increase could easily match wind fluctuations. It would be a perfect or near-perfect match, because the derivative is expressing changes in the acceleration rate.
And you would produce this wonderfully correlated chart and announce that the overall acceleration of the car is due to the wind.
The rise of CO2 in the atmos year by year is an order of magnitude larger than the fluctuations you are expressing with your chart. Let’s see how CO2 annual and the derivative stack up against each other.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/derivative/mean:12/offset:310
You’re not charting the rise, you’re plotting the minute fluctuations in the rate – which are fairly well (but not perfectly) correlated with temps – particularly ENSO events.
This tiny fluctuation in the rate of change is not an expression of the overall rise of CO2, nor remotely an indicator of the cause of the rise.
“This tiny fluctuation in the rate of change is not an expression of the overall rise of CO2, nor remotely an indicator of the cause of the rise.”
Yes, it is, because of the curvature. The integration of the rate of change produces the absolute concentration. If the series match in the rate of change domain, they are going to match when integrated.
Granted, the match in the linear portion of the rise in absolute concentration is wholly a result of the arbitrary offset parameter selected in the affine temperature related model in the rate of change domain. But, the quadratic portion is a result of the integration of the linear trend in the rate of change, and that is not an arbitrary match.
When the data are scaled such that the fluctuations match in the rate of change domain, the trends match as well. Thus the trend is accounted for by the temperature relationship. Human emissions also have a trend. It cannot be added in significantly without forcing a significant rescaling of the temperature related model to deweight the trend in temperature. But, that results in no longer matching the fluctuations.
The upshot is, the temperature model explains essentially all of the dynamics, and there is little to no room in which to introduce a significant human component.
The trend rate of the derivative since 1979 is something like 0.02 PPM/decade. All that tells you is that the rise of CO2 is (potentially) accelerating. It gives no information as to what is causing the rise. An anti-derivative may also match if the derivative does, match, but you do so much arbitrary scaling to make the fit that the result is meaningless. Except for the offset, the choices in parameters you make to get the correlation have no physical meaning.
CO2 has risen steadily for decades while temps have fluctuated, and even while we had a real ‘pause’ for 30 years last century. Temps are not leading the CO2 rise, or we would have seen a matching curve for the 20th century. And we know absolute CO2 background concentration doesn’t fluctuate wildly because we have 60 years of direct measurement to corroborate.
Even simpler, annual change of CO2 in the atmos is always positive, but not temperature. On the scale you are finding correlation, which is monthly temp and annual CO2, the absolute CO2 record should fluctuate as temperature does. But it doesn’t.
There is a mechanism that explains this steady rise of CO2, and that is the continuous release of CO2 into the atmosphere from human activity.
“All that tells you is that the rise of CO2 is (potentially) accelerating.”
… in lock step with the temperature anomaly.
“Even simpler, annual change of CO2 in the atmos is always positive, but not temperature.”
The integral of temperature is. It is an integral relationship, not a proportional one.
You guys are flailing.
barry says:
“you’re plotting the minute fluctuations in the rate – which are fairly well (but not perfectly) correlated with temps – particularly ENSO events.”
Quite big I would say:
http://tinyurl.com/ycsgfx4g
From here:
https://tinyurl.com/yaogerpr
CO2 changes are a lot like temperatures, large short term fluctuations on a long term trend.
Bart says:
Thus the trend is accounted for by the temperature relationship.
And why is the temperature increasing?
Increased solar activity, decreased cloud cover, normal oscillations between terrestrial heat reservoirs… There are plenty of candidates. The Earth has been alternately warming and cooling for eons. Long before humans ever had whatever meager capacity we do now for influencing it.
Bart says:
Increased solar activity, decreased cloud cover, normal oscillations between terrestrial heat reservoirs
Where is your data?
You haven’t, and can’t, provide any evidence for these claims.
So why are you making them?
bart…”The Earth has been alternately warming and cooling for eons”.
I was reading an account of one of Shackleton’s trips to Antarctica, circa 1910. He had a famous geologist aboard who specialized in glaciology. He stated at one point that glaciers have been melting for thousands of years.
Even in the past few hundred years, due to the Little Ice Age, glaciers have been growing and receding. During the LIA, a glacier near Chamonix, France, grew across a valley and wiped out a village. When the LIA ended circa 1850, receding glaciers since have been blamed on anthropogenic warming.
Gordon Robertson says:
1910! Isn’t 20th century science flawed?
Svante, you realize your graph there is showing changes in the growth rate of CO2, not fluctuations in CO2 levels? The derivative hugely amplifies tiny variations in the rate at which CO2 is increasing. And it is already known that ENSO events affect CO2. What your graph does not correlate is CO2 levels with temperature over time (or ENSO events over time). Actual concentration is increasing. ENSO and temp are not shown to be responsible for that.
barry says:
“Svante, you realize your graph there is showing changes in the growth rate of CO2, not fluctuations in CO2 levels?
The derivative hugely amplifies tiny variations in the rate at which CO2 is increasing. And it is already known that ENSO events affect CO2. What your graph does not correlate is CO2 levels with temperature over time (or ENSO events over time). Actual concentration is increasing. ENSO and temp are not shown to be responsible for that.”
Yes, I just think you are wrong when you say ‘tiny variations in the rate’. The graph shows the rate dropping 50% from 1998 to 2000, perfectly matched to the ENSO.
The long term temperature correlates to ln(CO2) of course.
The ‘ln’ is an IR ab*sorp*tion artefact so that’s another clue for Bart.
“The long term temperature correlates to ln(CO2) of course.”
Two slowly increasing series with slightly positive curvature. Easy to get a spurious match – just perform a least squares regression of the one against the other to get the affine coefficients.
It is much more difficult to get a match of a complex series with both high and low frequency information. There is such a match between the temperature and the CO2 rate of change. The notion that this excellent match is spurious, mere happenstance, is not credible.
“There is such a match between the temperature and the CO2 rate of change.”
Sure, once the three parameters of integration that Bart does are specified. I could pick three different parameters and find little correlation. Bart is simply doing an excellent job curve fitting to find such a match.
“There is such a match between the temperature and the CO2 rate of change. The notion that this excellent match is spurious….”
https://tinyurl.com/yc27r2zn
Do you see an excellent match here, looking a mid to low frequencies, Bart? I don’t.
If you can only see a match when you use your secret recipe, then it is not excellent, and simply a red herring.
“…once the three parameters of integration that…”
At most two, and one doesn’t really count because the baseline of the temperature anomaly is arbitrary.
It matches both in the short term and the long, with effectively a single scaling parameter. Ignoring that remarkable match is just whistling past the graveyard.
Ignoring the mismatch is self-delusion.
“the baseline of the temperature anomaly is arbitrary.”
Not after the value is selected. Your analysis, if fundamental, would return the selected basis value. You have to fit it, I could choose another value & the other two parameters and find much less to no correlation. You really have curve fitted your result.
Absolute gibberish. You two amaze me in how far you are willing to rationalize to avoid what is right in front of your eyes.
You mean it’s all due to deforestation?
That doesn’t agree with isotopic evidence.
My last comment was gibberish, it was meant to go here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-330254
Nice article, but just cant seem to put 2 and 2 together. If the rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature anomaly, then there is little to no room for human influence.
This is simply a leap of logic. High frequency fluctuations by no means account perforce for low frequency rise. They could quite easily be (and almost certainly are) influenced by different factors.
In the animal kingdom, predation attenuates population growth of species. Bart’s leap of logic would, by the numbers, tell us that predation somehow effects the sexual organs, or reproductive drive of the prey.
Why do you keep pushing this false, or at least misleading, claim? The rate of change of CO2 matches the temperature anomaly data in every temporal regime, both the short and the long term. It’s not just the fluctuations. It’s the whole ball of wax.
Not true; you certainly have’t proven that, except by eyeballing a graph. Not sufficient.
Also not true on an annual basis. Why not?
No, Bart.
https://tinyurl.com/ya9brabd
You have 12-month rolling average CO2 rate change matching monthly temp fluctuations. When you match rolling average you see a steady annual rise in CO2 (even steadier than the rolling average), but not temperature. You are claiming CO2 leads temp at the monthly level. They certainly do not when you look at absolute change. The CO2 rate-change is a fairly good correlation, the absolute change simply isn’t.
CO2 rises while the 30-year pause in temps occurs mid-20th century. That’s a significant long term mismatch.
If the derivative gives you good match, then the integral (the anti-derivative) will likely, too. After a bunch of arbitrary parameter fiddling.
And you still have used correlation to determine causation. Surely you know the speciousness of this practice.
Barry, you are not even having the same conversation. The relationship is an integral one between temperature and absolute CO2.
I don’t see an integral relationship is there in any meaningful way. You try to demonstrate with your graph where you adjust several parameters to make the fit, but these values (except for the offset) have no physical basis.
The integral relationship you display arrives not from using values that can be traced to the physical world, but from tuning and tuning until you finally get a fit. Knob-twiddling to get 2 lines to match.
“Knob-twiddling to get 2 lines to match.”
Yes, that is Bart’s contribution.
Bart’s correlation graph, after taking numerous beatings, keeps on getting resuscitated.
Its just like JD’s GPE diagram, Gordon’s Ideal-Gas-Law argument, or Mike’s thermometer in the sun.
Like JD, Mike and Gordon, Bart is remarkably ambivalent or hostile to other science that could test his ideas.
There is a lot of CSI type of evidence out there.
If he’s right, atmospheric carbon ought to have the ‘fingerprint’ of deep-ocean carbon.
Does it?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534253/
There have been no beatings. Just a lot of chaff thrown in the air in a monumental effort to ignore what is plainly visible.
Yes, how do you explain the isotopic evidence?
And why is oxygen declining by 4 ppm a year?
https://tinyurl.com/y7oox7l8
I don’t know. There could be dozens of possible explanations. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
Here is a look at lower-frequency correlations by using a 3 year smoothing.
Scale to make trends match, then higher frequencies don’t match.
https://tinyurl.com/y9d8c8av
Scale to make higher frequencies match, then trends dob’t match.
https://tinyurl.com/yc27r2zn
The single-scale-factor model takes a beating
This is called desperation…
A monumental effort to ignore what is plainly visible..
Bart says:
“I don’t know. There could be dozens of possible explanations.”
Name one that agrees with isotopic evidence and satellite measurements:
https://tinyurl.com/y6vuzses
Satellite measurements with Kriging:
https://tinyurl.com/yd5yqjm5
Showing where CO2 is doesn’t tell you where it came from. And, isotopic “evidence” relies upon assumptions of what the signature should be in the absence of anthropogenic inputs. Those assumptions cannot be validated.
“isotopic evidence relies upon assumptions”
OMG, its called science, Bart.
Isotope analysis is a mature science. The people who make a living studying this stuff know what they’re doing.
Isotope analysis.
Bart: ‘This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.’
Hardly, its called having a hypothesis, and testing it with all available measurements.
Something you should be vigorously pursuing.
Bart says:
“Showing where CO2 is doesnt tell you where it came from.”
It does, because winds and diffusion dilutes it.
The CO2 increase comes from areas with high concentration.
For example the Beijing-Shanghai axis.
It also goes down in areas with high concentration, as sinks attract sinking material. Aggregation also depends on pressure (which depends upon land features and land/sea interfaces) and currents. It’s a very hairy, 4 dimensional manifold governed by notoriously cantankerous partial differential equations.
Bart,
As you can see in the video, the scale is in ppm so pressure does not matter.
Yes there are CO2 sinks and sources, and now you can see them from space.
Sahel biomass burning, China and the Tennessee Valley Authority:
https://tinyurl.com/ybdaqkml
The Gillette coal field and the UMM Said Refinery and Port:
https://tinyurl.com/yal73cmg
I slowly add particulate matter into the flow of water into a receptacle. Where does the particulate matter aggregate? Near the source?
No, near the drain. The outcome of complex flow problems is not predetermined based upon simple rules.
You cannot determine sources and sinks merely based upon aggregation. Aggregation is dependent upon rate and location of input, and the outcome of complex transport processes. You may be able to cherry pick some instances in which your expectations appear to match results, but this is not dispositive, nor globally applicable.
Do you have any evidence that CO2 accumulates by itself in the atmosphere?
Yes, by the fact that it is there at all. It is a balance between what is flowing in, and what is flowing out – accumulation and dissipation. If it were not accumulating, we would quickly run out. To the degree those actions are balanced, the extant quantity is stationary. But, there is no law that demands that they be balanced, and it only takes a tiny natural imbalance to overwhelm the small amount we put in.
I agree. And places of inflow have slightly higher concentration, and vice versa.
Co2 released from a strong source is concentrated. Once it disperses and mixes into the atmosphere it can’t unmix and get concentrated again.
Not without violating 2LOTs requirement of increasing entropy.
Bart, check out https://tinyurl.com/ycmo57lx
Latest paper in review here:
https://tinyurl.com/y9dhm6uq
Averages in fig. 2.
Svante – the thing that ties the areas of highest concentration together is not industrial activity, but greenery. The Western part of the US is comparatively devoid of it. Same with China. The Amazon and Congo are very high in it.
Just because one can find a few places that seem consistent with the paradigm does not mean that other paradigms are inconsistent with it.
You mean its all due to deforestation?
That doesnt agree with isotopic evidence.
” find a few places that seem consistent with the paradigm does not mean that other paradigms are inconsistent with it.”
The paradigm is our understanding of the carbon-cycle. Which is based on known physics and chemistry, and empirical knowledge, 60 years of building more and more sophisticated mathematical models, always being challenged with data.
To borrow from Bart’s logic: a-priori we should expect new data to be consistent with the paradigm that has worked so far.
If it appears to be consistent, then a new paradigm is not yet needed.
Again, you are hung up on the idea that aggregation will only occur at sources. This is a facile viewpoint. Aggregation will occur at attractor regions of the very complex governing dynamics. That can be both source, sink, and mixed areas.
We are talking about CO2 in atmosphere.
All you have is diffusion.
Please find a citation describing how CO2 can congregate near a sink.
Bart,
“just cant seem to put 2 and 2 together.”
That’s evident. Not to worry, I’m working on an analogy that should help.
–Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 18 days
2018 total: 184 days (60%)–
So far 1/2 a year of spotless days
–Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 4.05×10^10 W Cold
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009) —
1/2 as cold as in 02/2009
Will it get colder than it did in 02/2009?
Will it matter if it does, and what happen if get a lot
colder than it did 02/2009 [or stays colder for a longer time]
would that have any effect?
[Other than lower the drag on low orbiting satellites and/or international space station]
http://spaceweather.com/
I find it hilarious that the same people who claim that CO2 can’t have a measurable effect on our climate because it constitutes only only 1 part in 2500 of our atmosphere suddenly lose this ‘skepticism’ when it comes to the possibility of our thermosphere which constitutes only 1 part in 50000 of our atmosphere being able to transfer its minuscule heat content to warm the troposphere.
bob…”I find it hilarious that the same people who claim that CO2 cant have a measurable effect on our climate because it constitutes only only 1 part in 2500 of our atmosphere….”
It’s equally hilarious that you can’t prove it does.
The Ideal Gas Laws say it can’t. But, hey, what did Dalton, Gay-lussac, Boyle, Charles, and Avogadro know when you find them all so hilarious?
When you can’t defend a stance, change topics. Straight from Exxon’s staff handbook.
des, Gordon is not changing topics. He is addressing your own quote.
And, are you really studying “Exxon’s staff handbook”, or is that just your imagination?
False accusations and out-of-control imaginations are often signs of desperation.
Yet again you are confused. I didn’t make a quote. Unless you believe putting ‘skepticism’ in inverted commas qualifies as a quote instead of an expression of doubt.
Very good, des. Semantics and pedantics help you avoid reality.
Feel free to use such tactics whenever you feel trapped by facts and logic.
Yeah – I thought I’d give your approach a try.
Great des, welcome aboard!
Now you won’t need to use all those tricks.
The Ideal Gas Law simply states PV = nRT. The arguments about the impact of CO2 relate to heat, Q, which is not in the Ideal Gas Law. Thus the Ideal Gas Law neither proves nor disproves anything about what CO2 can do. That would be akin to arguing that a small heater inside a large container of gas can’t have a measurable effect.
If you disagree, how SPECIFICALLY do you think “PV = nRT” proves CO2 cannot effect the atmospheric temperature? Is PV/nR somehow fixed — independent of CO2, the orbit of the earth, sun light, or any other variables?
Tim tries to sneak in the old trick of making CO2 a “heat source”:
“That would be akin to arguing that a small heater inside a large container of gas can’t have a measurable effect.”
Desperate delusion or delusional desperation?
JD tries to sneak in the old trick of diverting to a different issue.
If you disagree, how SPECIFICALLY do you think PV = nRT proves CO2 cannot effect the atmospheric temperature? Is PV/nR somehow fixed independent of CO2, the orbit of the earth, sun light, or any other variables?
tim…”The Ideal Gas Law simply states PV = nRT. The arguments about the impact of CO2 relate to heat, Q, which is not in the Ideal Gas Law”.
********
What do you call that ‘T’ thingy? It’s temperature, a measure of heat, Q.
I have tried to remove V, making it a constant. I know it’s not really but it’s close enough to being constant.
Then we have to ignore the dynamics for now, like changing pressure, thermals, etc.
If we can take the atmosphere as a constant volume, or take a layer of it at constant volume, then:
P = (nR/V)T
n is a constant, R is a constant and V as well, therefore
P = T with (nR/V) as the proportionality constant.
Apply Dalton….the total gas pressure equals the sum of the partial pressures. We can apply that roughly as N2 and O2 supplying 99% of the pressure, or thereabouts. CO2 only applies 0.04% or thereabouts.
Although temperature is conceived as an average measure related to all molecules in a gas, I am reasoning that since P = the sum of the partial pressures, then T being equal to P, it must equal the sum of the temperatures supplied by each gas.
Therefore, N2/O2 supplies 99% of the heat, thereabouts, and CO2, only about 0.04%.
Now you can start up the dynamics processes. The situation should remain roughly the same, with CO2 supplying barely any heat.
Untrue Tim. You seem to have an awfully hard time handling truth. That should concern you.
And turning on bold does NOT indicate you understand any relevant physics. Physics really has little to do with typing, as is regularly verified on this blog. So, forget trying to wow anyone with bold. It just won’t work.
Now, if you want me to teach you any more physics, you must first pass the prerequisite.
When a racehorse is running an oval track, is it also “rotating on its own axis”?
The answer is a simple “yes” or “no”. Typing excercises are for typing class.
Tim,
JD has made it clear that his comments are not intended to be rational or taken seriously.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-328284
Nate makes it clear that he has nothing to offer except misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults.
Nothing new.
We are looking for the unit W (Watts) Gordon.
Nate is consistently one of the smartest commenters at this site.
Gordon, you can never explain warming without considering radiative transfer.
AGW is a quantum phenomenon, not a classical one.
PS Gordon: I realize you choose to lie about this.
svante…”We are looking for the unit W (Watts) Gordon.”
Porquoi?
Temperature is measured in degrees.
DA…”AGW is a quantum phenomenon, not a classical one”.
So, thermometers are now quantum, are they?
You need to understand that quantum theory is a mathematical abstraction. It does not describe reality, it just talks about it in vague terms.
QM describes atoms as a differential equation with many solutions. However, we know that atoms are real, physical entities because they have mass and they can be seen indirectly by firing x-rays through thin sheets of gold. Their shadows show up on a screen.
Physicist, David Bohm, an expert in QM once stated that both Newtonian physics and quantum physics, as dualities, have reached the ends of their respective roads. He suggested we might have to find a better way to observe reality without the use of time. In other words, find a better relationship between mass and energy.
Gordon Robertson says:
We want to know the warming power [W], since Q is measured in Joules and we want the rate.
“I have tried to remove V, making it a constant. I know its not really but its close enough to being constant.”
Nope! Not even close! The volume is completely free to change as temperature changes. There is no ‘ceiling’ keeping the volume constant. As temperature changes, the volume changes.
Gordon say:
“What do you call that ‘T’ thingy? It’s temperature, a measure of heat, Q.”
* Temperature is a measure of *average KE*.
* Temperature is closely related to U, internal energy (for fixed mass and specific heat).
* Temperature CHANGE is closely related to Q, heat.
But, no, temperature is definitely not a measure of heat, Q.
“Although temperature is conceived as an average measure related to all molecules in a gas …”
This is a much better description of temperature.
“I am reasoning that since P = the sum of the partial pressures, then T being equal to P, …”
Temperature (in K) is not equal to Pressure (N/m^2). The two are proportional (everything else being equal), but certainly not equal.
“[temperature] must equal the sum of the temperatures supplied by each gas.”
If a box of gas is at 300K, then each constituent– no matter its partial pressure — is at 300K. You seem to be saying that if you add together equal amounts of gases at 100K, 200K and 300K, the overall temperature would be the sum = 600K. I am sure you don’t mean that, so maybe you could clarify.
Perhaps you mean something more like “internal energy must equal the sum of the internal energies supplied by each gas.”
svante…”We want to know the warming power [W], since Q is measured in Joules and we want the rate”.
Q is measured in calories, the joule, 1 watt/second, is a unit of mechanical energy (work) related to the horsepower/watt. However, Joule, the scientist, discovered an equivalence between work and heat, in which a calorie is EQUIVALENT to so many joules.
When you see heat referred to in joules, you are seeing the mechanical heat equivalent of Q. not its native measure.
You have to be very careful with this otherwise you’ll reach erroneous conclusions such as a net balance of ‘energy’ satisfying the 2nd law. When that happens, anything goes, like the pseudo-science of AGW in which GHGs in a cooler atmosphere, warmed by IR from the warmer surface, can radiate the energy back to raise the temperature of the surface.
It’s called perpetual motion and why you alarmists cannot see that is the mystery.
Nice smoke-screen Gordon.
Please stay focused.
There is no unit conversion between power and temperature.
They are different properties.
The ideal gas law does not tell you how much power CO2 can catch.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its equally hilarious that you cant prove it does.
Gordon is incapable of understanding the science, because he can’t handle the math.
“I find it hilarious that the same people who claim that CO2 can’t have a measurable effect on our climate because it constitutes only only 1 part in 2500 of our atmosphere suddenly lose this ‘skepticism’ when it comes to the possibility of our thermosphere which constitutes only 1 part in 50000 of our atmosphere being able to transfer its minuscule heat content to warm the troposphere.”
I think you got your “same people”, confused.
“These results come from the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air 100 to 300 kilometers above our planet’s surface.”
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
The Thermosphere Climate Index numbers refer how much energy emitted into space:
“To help keep track of what’s happening in the thermosphere, Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”).
“Right now, it is very low indeed,” says Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.” ”
And:
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
And it seems you are only one talking warming troposphere.
I was wondering how soon and how cold it will go and will it have any kind of effect [other than the already known effect upon satellites.
So it’s settled – what happens in the thermosphere has no correlation with what happens in the troposphere.
Ok, but what about Stratosphere which about 9.5% of atmosphere, or perhaps mostly just the Mesosphere which is .5% of atmosphere.
I generally don’t think the stratosphere has much effect upon global temperatures though there are others who seem to think it’s has a large effect.
But I do think stratosphere does have large effect upon weather, and perhaps could reach an agreement about stratosphere playing dominate role in global weather.
Greenhouse warming predicts that the stratosphere cools as the troposphere warms. Which is observed.
–David Appell says:
November 6, 2018 at 5:49 PM
Greenhouse warming predicts that the stratosphere cools as the troposphere warms. Which is observed.–
Global troposphere has warmed about 1 C, how much has global stratosphere cooled?
What Would Happen If Mars And Venus Swapped Places?
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/what-would-happen-if-mars-and-venus-swapped-places/
linked from
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
“The question regarding Venus and Mars was proposed as a gedankenexperiment or “thought experiment”; a favorite of Albert Einstein to conceptually understand a topic. Dropping such a problem before the interdisciplinary group in Houston was meat before lions: the elements of this question were about to be ripped apart.”
And,
“Colose noted that without a thicker atmosphere or ocean, heat would not be transported efficiently around Mars. This would lead to extreme seasons and temperature gradients between the day and night. Mars’s thin atmosphere produces a surface pressure of just 6 millibars, compared to 1 bar on Earth. At such low pressures, the boiling point of water plummets to leave all pure surface water frozen or vaporized.
Mars does have have ice caps consisting of frozen carbon dioxide, with more of the greenhouse gas sunk into the soils. A brief glimmer of hope for the small world arose in the discussion with the suggestion these would be released at the higher temperatures in Venus’s orbit, providing Mars with a thicker atmosphere.
However, recent research suggests there is not enough trapped carbon dioxide to provide a substantial atmosphere on Mars. In an article published in Nature Astronomy, Bruce Jakosky from the University of Colorado and Christopher Edwards at Northern Arizona University estimate that melting the ice caps would offer a maximum of a 15 millibars atmosphere.”
And they say Venus would not cool down [quickly- or even slowly].
I disagree in regards to just about all of it.
And I liked the bit at end:
“Of course, moving a planet’s orbit is beyond our technological abilities. There are other techniques that could be tried, such as an idea by Jim Green, the NASA chief scientist and Dong involving artificially shielding Mars’s atmosphere from the solar wind.
“We reached the opposite conclusion to Bruce’s paper,” Dong noted cheerfully. “That is might be possible to use technology to give Mars an atmosphere. But it is fun to hear different voices and this is the reason why science is so interesting!”
Venus mass of atmosphere:
Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg
Specific heat of CO2
Average surface temperature: 737 K (464 C)
CO2 at 700 K is 1.126 KJ per kg per K
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
4.8 x 10^20 kg times 1.126 is 5.4 x 10^20 KJ per 1 K increase or decrease in temperature.
How much does Venus currently emit. Well,
Black-body temperature (K) 226.6 and Earth is 254.0
254 K blackbody emits about 236 watts [or about 240 watts]
And 226.6 blackbody emits: 149 watts- call it 150 watts.
And Venus has something like 510 million square km or
510 million million square meters, 5.1 x 10^14 square meters times 150 is 7.65 x 10^16 watts per second emitted.
And in 1 million seconds: 7.56 x 10^22 watts or 7.65 x 10^19 KJ seconds of heat lost in 1 million seconds.
54 x 10^19 / 7.65 x 10^19 is 7
Or takes 7 million seconds to cool by 1 K
7 million seconds is 1944.45 hours or 81 days.
Or would cool 4.5 K per year.
But not counting how much sunlight is absorbed at Mars distance, and would I say it’s not going to absorb much.
So in 100 years Venus would cool down a lot or if give it, say 500 years it would reach some kind of equilibrium. And one get a significant amount of warming from the contracting atmosphere- or probably more heat than the hot rocky surface of Venus.
Anyhow what happen if Venus atmosphere cools by 1/2 or 737 K to 368.5 K [95.35 C]. Does it change things?
Obviously one far denser air at the surface, but what happens to air at 1 atm pressure- which is currently at about 50 km elevation.
Does it roughly stay at same temperature and merely be a lower elevation. And also does atmosphere above 1 atm pressure also remain about the same. And also do the clouds also basically stay the same.
One thing which should change a fair amount is the Venus global wind. Maybe instead of 4 to 5 days, it takes a week or two to encircle the globe. Or perhaps it even just stops occurring.
And possible if interfere will global wind, this might alter the Venus clouds. The mixing of winds may make clouds be more uniform, so they could get less uniform.
Let’s go back in time to when Venus first appears at Mars distance and it’s hot at rocky surface. The cloud rain acid, it falls and evaporates and then reforms into droplets at higher elevation.
Now acid droplets are acid + plus water. Wiki:
“Venusian clouds are thick and are composed mainly (75-96%) of sulfuric acid droplets”
Or the variation of 75-96% is variation of amount water diluting the acid. A question is what is mostly evaporating first the water or acid. Anyhow, back to wiki:
“Sulfuric acid is produced in the upper atmosphere by the Sun’s photochemical action on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and water vapour. Ultraviolet photons of wavelengths less than 169 nm can photodissociate carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen. Atomic oxygen is highly reactive; when it reacts with sulfur dioxide, a trace component of the Venusian atmosphere, the result is sulfur trioxide, which can combine with water vapour, another trace component of Venus’s atmosphere, to yield sulfuric acid.” So further from the sun, less sunlight and so less production of Sulfuric acid.
So lower atmosphere is hot for decades, it rains acid for decades, and the weaker sunlight is making less Sulfuric acid.
Anyhow, if cloud remain the same or are altered, not sure it’s makes much difference- in terms of how warm Venus is- and if Venus is a habitable planet.
One thing about it, is the weak sunlight at Mars distance is going to cause more darkness at the rocky surface and already has a rocky surface that is mostly in darkness.
The darkness is probably biggest factor making the rocky surface inhabitable especially combine with the pressure.
And in terms habitability some imagine there could be life in the upper atmosphere of Venus at the moment.
But shorten it, I think Venus would become a cold frozen planet at Mars distance- and thereby lack problem of being under so much CO2 and N2 gas and darkness it create at the surface.
Basically, Earth like with 3 atm of N2 with few atmospheres of CO2 with a dimly lit surface. Very cold [not vacation to live in this cold and dim place] and more of desert [a lack of water] than Mars.
gbaikie….”What Would Happen If Mars And Venus Swapped Places?”
It would be a p***-off for one. I’d be looking in the south for Mars and it would be in the West. Venus would be in the south and not the west.
What’s the point of wondering?
Best I could do on short notice/
Think of ENSO as a stock that goes up 400 points one year, down 400 points the next, but stays about the same overall.
CO2 is a small but steady stock – goes up 3 points when ENSO is high, 2 points when ENSO is low.
********
In any given year, ENSO will be the big mover, and CO2 will appear to just tag along.
Long term, though, CO2 is what drives the market (up 250 points in 100 years)
snape…”Long term, though, CO2 is what drives the market (up 250 points in 100 years)”
Lot’s of thought-experiments…no proof.
Proof that GordonR will ignore:
“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
Temperature also drives CO2 in the long term, at least since reliable records became available from MLO:
https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7
As that is the interval over which the lion’s share of the rise in concentration has been observed, it is apparent that human contributions have negligible impact.
How did correlation become causation in this argument?
How does a rate increase of a fraction of 1 ppm over 60 years explain a total increase of 90 ppm?
Bart’s graph of minute variations in CO2 change rate correlating with temp fluctuations don’t get anywhere near explaining the steady CO2 rise which is 2 orders of magnitude larger than the increased change rate.
It’s not just the fluctuations that correlate. It’s the entire rate of change curve in both the short and the long term.
I’m not allowed to post here a simple question to Bart.
What a marvelous science blog this is.
DA…”Im not allowed to post here a simple question to Bart.
What a marvelous science blog this is”.
I have not found one URL I could not post here using a simple change in the URl.
You still don’t get it. The rate of change curve inm any dimension does not demonstrate correlation of absolute change, nor reflects the physical mechanism behind the absolute change.
You haven’t connected the minute CO2 fluctuations with the absolute changes over time. You’re only asserting it.
Over 4 decades the rate of change has increased by potentially 0.02 ppm/decade. Rate change fluctuations are on the order of a fraction of a ppm.
None of this gets a fraction of the distance towards explaining a 70 ppm increase over the same period. The fluctuations in the rate change are not – cannot be – the cause of the rise.
You’ve accounted for the waves but not the tide. Simple as that.
No, Barry, that is simply not the case. The rate of change and the absolute change are equivalent information. The latter is simply the definite integral of the former.
Its not just the fluctuations that correlate. Its the entire rate of change curve in both the short and the long term.
That does not answer the question of how correlation suddenly becomes causation.
And the integral correlation isn’t there. That’s just your tuning.
There is no way that a 100ppm rise in CO2 is caused by temps. Otherwise we would see such changes in the longer term record.
And the ice cores should be showing CO2 changes of of several hundred PPM, as the surface temp changes by 5 and 6 degrees.
Nothing corroborates your over-tuned integral graph. And the rate of change graph aligns with what is already known about those fluctuations.
Your fallacy is: invincible ignorance. Further discussion is pointless.
Roy,
Have you seen this:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2014GL062596http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/email-image-drroyspencer.jpg
When I clicked on your link I got “page not found”.
Me too. Cleaning up his URL, perhaps he meant this paper:
“Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data,” Hans Gleisner GRL (2014).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2014GL062596
That should be Gleisner et al.
Eben said:
“For the pause to zero out completely the temperature would have to dip in opposite direction similar to the elnino spike, that’s the next three year proposition.”
There were a couple of posts 20 months ago at WUWT that asked the same question.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/19/how-imminent-is-the-uah-pause-now-includes-some-january-data/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/14/how-imminent-is-the-rss-pause-now-includes-january-and-february-data/
I’ll update for UAH, going with Eben’s suggestion of the “next three year[s].”
For the mean trend 1998 to 2022 to be zero or negative, the average anomaly over the 3 years from now on (ie, for Nov and Dec 2018, too) would need to be 0C or cooler.
When did we last have a 3-year period averaging a 0C anomaly in the UAH record?
1994-1996.
You can check out what that looks like by scrolling to the top of this page and having a look at the temperature chart. Click on it, or here to get a larger view.
I’m willing to lay bets that the 1998 trend will not return to 0 C/decade or less by 2022.
Barry My question to you is are you using calendar years starts and ends in your calculation ? try a 36 month period instead and check around 1998.
And I bungled up, I meant around 2008
No consecutive 36-month period that includes 2008 gets as low as 0C average.
Joe Peck
“In that regard I will begin my reply by examining your use of English. First you use the words ‘sea ice extent developed” but you show a graph of an “anomaly”. A graph of an anomaly is not a graph of sea ice extent. ”
I still await your explanation concerning this really strange opinion.
How can you write that? Please help me in understanding you.
Anomalies are nothing else than deltas (also called ‘departures’) from a mean of absolute values computed over a given period, called reference period, baseline or climatology.
Exactly as Mr Spencer computes his anomalies out of (1) absolute values and (2) the monthly means of these absolute values within a period (here:1981-2010), so are sea ice extent (or area or volume) anomalies presented in this graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wH0gYDGtpfbuezk6beQUv5oTI7O94q-/view
The original absolute monthly sea ice extent and area data you easily can obtain here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/
It is the data user’s job of course to compute the monthly means and the anomalies out of this absolute data.
If he doesn’t understand the concept of anomalies, he does not have the ability to even understand the concept of relative velocities, so it’s a giveaway that he doesn’t understand basic high school physics.
I think Valentina Zharkova has found the keys to the cause of climate change.
Here is GWPF produced youtube video with title: Professor Valentina Zharkova: The Solar Magnet Field and the Terrestrial Climate.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY
Does it make sense that its the sun?
Maybe this might be of interest for you:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/27/svalgaard-paper-reconstruction-of-9000-years-of-solar-activity/
I note from Bindidon’s link that the record is disturbed because of fossil fuel use and nuclear testing.
Do you know if anyone is taking similar measurements on Mars?
Is that all you were able to read out of that paper?
What a brainless comment.
–Does it make sense that its the sun?–
Yes.
Her idea may allow us to predict solar cycles.
But she admits she does not know much a climate.
And I think she is wrong about about how severe cooling effect will be, but Poland [or Russia or Canada] might get quite cold and I think in terms of global temperature, I think it will be a measurable effect. And could more severe than ice age scare of the 70’s.
Now, if we get some big volcanic eruptions also, it could be a bit worst, but that always been the case- and have not had such a big enough eruption in last 100 years. And it might require more than a single big eruption to have much effect.
Anyhow, over last +100 year, the ocean has warmed and ocean surface has warmed and roughly we are different situation as compared the time of Maunder minimum. And being lukewarmer it’s possible there is some warming effect from the increased CO2 levels. Or in terms short periods of time [a decade or two], it should not have much effect upon global temperature [maybe a larger effect than the increased levels of CO2] but in near term- years- it’s will mostly about weather- cold weather, and probably mostly in northern parts of northern hemisphere.
gbaikie
You are right in expecting some harsh cooling for regions like Russia, Northern America in case of a Maunder Minimum, but only if it is sustained by huge volcano eruption sequences like during the LIA.
But I read somewhere that in their absence, the sum of Maunder, Wolf, Dalton, Spoerer and Oort minima would probably not lead to a cooling above 0.4 C / century.
Few deniers understand or will admit this, but the Earth’s climate is quite insensitive to changes in solar output. The IPCC puts solar climate sensitivity at about 0.1 C/(W/m2), as does differentiating the zero-dimensional energy balance equation, which I’ve shown here many times.
Sunshine during the Maunder Minimum was only about 1-1.5 W/m2 less recent decades:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
I think Valentina Zharkova has found the keys to the cause of climate change.
What specifically makes you think that?
Doesnt this show a downwards trend in global average temps?
The answer depends on which global temps you are looking at.
For the surfaces I’m not sure:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
(The Tokyo Climate Center of Japan’s Met Agency produces the world’s coolest surface temperature series: 0.14 C /decade)
The 0.14 C are for the satellite era (1979-2018).
No. The word ‘trend’ has a specific meaning. You see up and down fluctuations throughout the record. A trend is a more persistent phenomenon.
Kelly Brian says:
Doesnt this show a downwards trend in global average temps?
No.
No.
Kelly…”Doesnt this show a downwards trend in global average temps?”
Are you referencing the UAH graph on this site?
There has been a downward trend since the strong El Nino peak of February 2016. Other than that, the trend was flat from 1998 – 2015.
We are waiting to see where the temps go from here.
A 2-year trend!
Ha!!!
Not statistically significant in the least, Herr Dr Robertson. Not in the least.
Really, Gordon, try not to make ridiculing you so easy.
To All,
Is there a way to edit posts or are we forever stuck with out typos?
Unfortunately not. Many commenters user therefore Winword or the like for preparing them. Before entering I often copy the post into
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and paste its result into the post editor.
Thanks!
Bart
My analogy was off the mark. Sorry for the snark.
****
You wrote,
“The sinks are very efficient, and the observed rise is the residual of natural inputs, which are on the order of at least 30 times greater than human induced inputs from release of latent CO2 in fossil fuels.”
I don’t agree, but at least I understand your argument now.
I laid out a mathematical framework for what I believe is going on here.
Snape
What about reading this?
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/08/temperature-drives-co2.html
There are also other interesting controversies between this Bart and Ferdinand Engelbeen (simply google for both names).
Bart is a lover of simplifications. That’s why he so well-known at pseudoskeptic sites like e.g. hockeyschtick etc.
Meh. The usual obfuscation. Totally misses the smoking gun, to which I refer in the note above to Barry.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-328385
What physics says an.omal.y goes as the time derivative of CO2?
First, you must recognize that it undoubtedly does. You do not need a physical theory for that. You just need honesty. There is a remarkable consistency between the two series, related effectively by a single scaling factor (since the temperature anomaly baseline is arbitrary).
Next, you must recognize that the arrow of causality is necessarily in the direction of temperature to CO2. It is absurd to imagine that temperatures are driven by the rate of change of CO2, without regard to overall concentration.
Then, you can start hypothesizing about a physical basis. My hypothesis was outlined here. It is physically consistent and plausible. I do not claim it is the explanation, but I do expect it is similar in that we have a temperature modulated flow between reservoirs with very long term dynamics which begets integral-like action in the near term.
Without a physics-based reason, you aren’t doing anything significant, just claiming some spurious relation based on looks.
Bart says:
Then, you can start hypothesizing about a physical basis. My hypothesis was outlined here.
I’ve looked at that.
1. you don’t define half the variables you used.
2. you need a lot of free parameters.
3. you think a “toy model” equals reality.
4. you give no physical basis.
The physical basis is a temperature modulated flow between reservoirs with very long term dynamics which begets integral-like action in the near term. If you had more experience in dynamic modeling, you would find this commonplace and unremarkable.
Nice job Roy. Just keep this up for another 200 years and we will all be able to see an obvious trend.
Roy himself states that the global trend is +0.13 C/decade, for the lower troposphere.
DA…”Roy himself states that the global trend is +0.13 C/decade, for the lower troposphere”.
Although Roy has not said so, John Christy of UAH revealed that ‘true’ warming over the UAH range did not occur till the 1998 El Nino. That is in line with the definition of anomalies by NOAA, that -ve anomalies represent cooling wrt the baseline.
Therefore, 18 years of that 0.13C/decade trend represented a recovery from cooling till 1998. From 1998 – 2015, the trend was flat. Therefore, 0.13C/decade does not represent this data well. It does not describe the physical reality.
John Christy has also claimed there has been little or no warming over the range, which is true. There has been virtually no warming in the Tropics, cooling in Antarctica, a variable warming in the Arctic. Since 1998, with the exception of the 2016, EN, there was about 0.2C warming, and it happened all at once.
Gordon Robertson says:
Although Roy has not said so, John Christy of UAH revealed that true warming over the UAH range did not occur till the 1998 El Nino.
Gordon, you are way too easy to make a fool of.
UAH LT v6.0 trend from beginning of record to Jan 1997 = +0.09 C/dec, 3/4ths of today’s value.
Gordon Robertson,
“I have found that exercise has dramatically increased my quality of life as of late.”
****
Sadly, it appears that exercise does little to lessen the severity of Dunning-Kruger.
I hope he gives his body a harder workout than he does his brain.
snape and bob…I understand your plight and your frustrations. It must be hard to be out-thought on physics as badly as I out-think both of you.
And the way that you out think Einstein, right?
Bin
Thanks for the article. Do you suppose Bartemis is related to Artemis? Dimwittys?
****
Seriously, though, the idea is at least logical. If a huge anount of “natural” CO2 is continuously being absorbed by the ocean, and higher ocean temperatures (for example, since the LIA) do this less efficiently, then it stands to reason the excess could remain in the atmosphere. No additional input necessary.
*****
I assume the actual numbers and rates poke a hole in the theory, but I haven’t read through it very carefully yet.
The only hole is the one that ostrich is sticking his head in. Refer to my reply to Bindidon. Don’t assume. Do your own due diligence.
Come on. The science is firmly behind us. We don’t need to resort to insults.
It’s not an insult. An insult would be calling him stupid. Here, I am simply noting that he is ignoring that which is plainly evident in order to maintain his faith in that which he wishes to believe.
Snape says:
If a huge anount of natural CO2 is continuously being ab.sorb.ed by the ocean, and higher ocean temperatures (for example, since the LIA) do this less efficiently, then it stands to reason the excess could remain in the atmosphere.
Yes. It’s not happening yet, but it’s one of the biggest fears of the carbon scientists I’ve talked to. The Amazon is now approaching saturation as a carbon sink, and eventually the ocean will too.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/amazon-rainforest-ability-soak-carbon-dioxide-falling
If the ocean were to stop ab.sorb.ing carbon, it would be bad news.
DA…”Its not happening yet, but its one of the biggest fears of the carbon scientists Ive talked to”.
That’s because you only ever talk to uber-alarmists who are desperate to maintain tenure and get funding for their propaganda.
Gordon: which carbon scientists should I talk to instead?
PS: Don’t list deniers.
DA, here’s what you should do:
1) Get therapy.
2) Learn to face reality.
3) Learn some physics.
The East Siberian Sea quickly freezes.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/ovawsz16kfw4.png
Really?
Look at this temperature world map
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
Start consecutive monthly outputs beginning with 2018 January, and compare the East Siberian Sea with Canada’s High Arctic…
So what? What’s the significance?
???
Robertson’s permanent ignorance
“binny prefers creating graphics in his Excel program based on thousands of NOAA stations that are currently not in use, to compare NOAA data to UAH. He doesnt understand the difference, please dont confuse him by asking for scientific evidence.”
*
You, Robertson, call me an idiot. But in fact, you are the dumbest, most ignorant and most pretentious boaster on this web site.
You never would be able to generate temperature time series out of GHCN stations, let alone out of Roy Spencer’s grid data in order to properly compare them.
You don not know anything of what you are talking about.
And THAT, Robertson, is the one and only reason why you discredit, denigrate, deny and lie all the time.
Really?
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/ui0qs3s65bb9.png
Look at this temperature in US.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/8sdgmajd0sk5.png
And? Any problem, ren? We are November 6th…
Actually I’m in Spain, absolute temps far far above 0 C, but 5 / 6 C below last year according to neighbours.
Congratulations! You can go skiing.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/outwlpbt1edn.png
ren: What does a single-day snapshot say about climate *CHANGE*?
Really?
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/9iuulwm1t8ra.png
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/59147-increased-water-vapor-not-co2-most-likely-reason-for-recent-warm-septembers
Good points, Joe Bastardi.
An appropriate surname.
You are a child.
We are all children of nature.
Same old rubbish you see everywhere. El Ninos cause global warming “step-ups.” The fatuousness of this notion is easily discovered by running the evolution of temps back in time with that premise. A thousand years back and we would be 10C cooler.
Yes. Here is a graph of annual temperatures (surface, from N.O.A.A.) as a function of ENSO type. It shows that El Nino years are getting warmer, La Nina years are getting warmer, and ENSO-neutral years are getting warmer:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
Now watch deniers completely ignore these data, and even deny them.
This winter will be more dry over eastern Siberia and Canada.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Some interesting points:
“However, think about how much we do not know about ocean warmth, like underwater volcanoes. Another thing to consider: If it is true we are pulling out of a glacial period, maybe all we are seeing is where the earth is supposed to go. Perhaps the set point is higher. But who knows what the planet’s temperature is supposed to be?”
Natural factors are leading to a slight COOLING in the last few decades (Sun, Milankovitch factors). So are polluting aerosols.
It is beyond sad that someone like Joe Bastardi doesn’t understand the condensability of water vapor or the Clausius-Claperyon.
Either Bastardi doesn’t understand basic physics, or he is being purposely misleading. Take you pick.
CC *equation*
I “pick”, DA is BOTH ignorant of the relevant physics, and purposely misleading.
Ger*an: Based on what evidence?
Based on your rejection of reality.
The rubbish is CO2 as a possible climate driver which it isn’t.
Salvatore, your level of ideology is exactly the same as that of CO2 alrmists like Appell.
We *SHOULD* be alarmed about CO2.
Bindidon says:
“Salvatore, your level of ideology is exactly the same as that of CO2 alrmists like Appell.”
The difference is that Appell has proof for his facts.
Appell, “proof”, and “facts”, all in the same sentence.
Great humor, Mark!
What facts did I get wrong?
You don’t have any “facts”, DA.
DavidA says:
“What facts did I get wrong?”
I think you were wrong to about Encyclopedia Britannica here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7nczhxe
It was quite up to date and did not contradict you.
Satellite measurements with Kriging:
https://tinyurl.com/yd5yqjm5
The previous comment landed the wrong place …
Salvatore look at the highs in the north.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/py81yiufsde4.png
Thanks Ren.
ren, what does a one-day plot say about climate CHANGE?
Do you understand that a snapshot cannot say anything about change?
Then prove my facts wrong. I’d relish being corrected….
Sal didn’t know what ren was showing him, or why, which is why he had to resort to the polite ‘thank you’.
Salvatore, what do find scientifically wrong with results like these, showing CO2’s effects?
“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
barry
I don’t like these incompetent, dishonest boasters pretending things they do not have half a clue about.
Somewhere I read:
“The alarmists fail to qualify that statement. They are talking about a decline during the one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year is business as usual.”
Here is a 12 month trend table for Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 till 2017, expressed in Mkm2 / decade:
Jan | -0.49
Feb | -0.47
Mar | -0.41
Apr | -0.37
May | -0.35
Jun | -0.48
Jul | -0.70
Aug | -0.78
Sep | -0.85
Oct | -0.82
Nov | -0.55
Dec | -0.49
Average | -0.56
As you can see, all months show a decline. Of course, September is highest: that is here the one and only *business as usual”.
Nice from Joe Peck to explain us that the trend since 2008 is flat, but that probably happened more than once.
Yes, Bin, being factually incorrect is no shame as long as you immediately correct yourself. But this blog is littered with people who not only deny and ignore their mistakes, they affect a condescending tone while they commit them.
Nice from Joe Peck to explain us that the trend since 2008 is flat, but that probably happened more than once.
Of course it has. Lord Monckton claimed the same for the period between 1991 and 2003 (Beaufort Sea). The Arctic has other decadal periods of supposed flatness. All you have to do is select the data precisely to get the look you want.
Not even “immediately.”
If you’re wrong, just admit you’re wrong. That will actually gain you respect.
binny…”Here is a 12 month trend table for Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 till 2017….”
What does sea ice extent have to do with anything? The Arctic Ocean is a dynamics body of water with two major circulation currents in it: The Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift.
The ice is always moving, compressing and expanding. It packs against the Canadian north shore at times leaving the Siberian coast ice free.
The true measure is how thick the ice is on average, which is around 10 feet. It takes tremendous cold to freeze a dynamically moving salt water ocean to that depth.
Clue in. There is no solar energy for several months each winter. It gets damned cold with no solar energy and a piddly amount of CO2 has absolutely no effect on that.
The rest of the year is business as usual despite your un-referenced propaganda.
When you show Arctic sea ice extent decline during the satellite era, you inevitably become an alarmist in the eyes of (pseudo)skeptics.
A few weeks ago, I read an interesting article about historical ice extent data in the Northern Hemisphere, compiled in
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008
The article was written by Patrick Lockerby in 2010:
https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_october_2010
The data unfortunately is not accessible, so I can only show the graph he created according to that data:
https://www.science20.com/files/images/1870_2010.jpg
Interesting to see that the sea ice extent starts declining around 1950. All the time before, the trend was very flat, even for the summers.
Bindidon, as you likely realize, sea ice extent data from 1870 is extremely questionable. Even the latest data, now almost 40 years, is filled with “modeling”. It is even possible that the errors are larger than the actual variance.
All results are based on modeling.
Yes: I do ‘likely realise’.
But it seems to me that or people like you, everything that does not fit to the narrative is “highly questionable”.
There are much more data you trust in that is ‘filled with modeling’. The list begins with WeatherBELL’s reanalysis data, continues with DMI’s Arctic data, etc etc.
All that is based on ‘modeling’.
It is even possible, JDHuffman, that the Monn rotates on its axis. I guess you will crudely wonder one day when you suddenly see a sequence of photographs taken by a spece telescope from a Lagrange point…
Sorry Bindidon, but I don’t blindly accept all data. I especially don’t accept calculated “trends” from unverifiable data.
And a video camera at a Lagrange point would indeed verify that the Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. But that can be verified from Earth, as the same side always faces Earth. People still refuse to concede the point. Just as they refuse to accept that the validity of sea ice extent data is extremely questionable.
This clearly shows the Moon is rotating about its axis – keep your eyes on the Moon’s dark patch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
If it wasn’t, the Moon wouldn’t be tidally locked.
DA, were you able to get a refund on any science classes you may have taken?
It’s a shame you can’t understand and interpret a simple animation. One that clearly shows the Moon is rotating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
It’s a shame that you don’t know any physics.
The resultant force on an orbiting body produces a change in direction. The continual change in direction then forms the orbit. That change in direction is what you see in the computer graphics. It is the same change you see if you watch a racehorse run an oval track. The horse is NOT “rotating on its own axis”.
The concept is not really that complicated, but you do have to be able to think for yourself.
You refuse to look at and analyze the animation.
Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
David Appell
YOU: “You refuse to look at and analyze the animation.
Why?”
That is because g.e.r.a.n is a troll who is not interested in the truth. If you try to pin him down on even one point he dodges and weaves away ignoring the request. I think I tried to get him to answer a question about 10 times on another thread. It is a waste of time to talk with this foolish clown at all.
You will get the same responses over and over with little to show for the effort.
I have asked this poster to do his own experiments, since he does not accept the work of others, he is too lazy to even try. This one is a worthless waste of effort. Let him go and hope he does not invade your conversation. When he does it is always something stupid.
DA, my comment above just explained your confusion about the animation. You don’t have the ability to understand it.
And poor Norman shows up with just the same old false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Nothing new.
Again you ignore the animation, which makes it clear that the Moon is indeed rotating.
No clown, the animation is correct. Your interpretation of it is incorrect. You don’t understand the relevant physics, and you can’t think for yourself.
Possibly you have issues that cannot be fixed.
Look at the animation.
Look at the Moon’s polar axis.
Is the Moon’s dark surface patch rotation around that axis?
You’re right, Norman, of course. But it’s really fun to back these deniers into a corner, and see what lies they will say to try to escape.
Clown, how many times have I explained that animation to you?
Ger*an diverts yet again.
You don’t understand the relevant physics, and you can’t think for yourself.
Possibly you have other issues that cannot be fixed.
Stare at the Moon’s polar axis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Is the black patch rotating about it?
Very good DA. You have provided that link about 4 times, just in the last hour.
Obsessed?
If you want to understand it, try this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-328439
This isn’t about forces, dummy, it’s simply about movement. Movement you are afraid to acknowledge.
Stare at the Moon’s polar axis as it rotates around the Earth.
Is the black patch rotating about that axis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
That’s five times now, DA. Five times, with the same link that you can’t understand.
I have a theory that pseudoscience leads to mental problems. You’re making my case for me….
Why are you afraid to acknowledge that the dark patch on the Moon is obviously rotating around the Moon’s polar axis?
Get professional help, DA.
Ger*an has no reply but to parrot his own self. Can’t argue based on the facts.
Where is the link you’ve used 5 times?
Did you lose your link?
From NASA’s website:
‘The moon makes a complete orbit around Earth in 27 Earth days and rotates or spins at that same rate, or in that same amount of time. Because Earth is moving as well, rotating on its axis as it orbits from our perspective, the moon appears to orbit us every 29 days.’
The moon spins. Need more be said?
Carbon500, you haven’t been paying attention. This is not a new issue.
The Moon issue is a perfect example of how pseudoscience takes over people’s minds. Many different sources claim the Moon “rotates on its own axis”. But, just a quick investigation reveals it does NOT.
But, most people cannot think for themselves, and become intimadated by “NASA”. The Moon issue is a perfect analogy to the AGW issue.
DA…”Look at the Moons polar axis.
Is the Moons dark surface patch rotation around that axis?”
No, it’s not, there is no angular momentum of a radial line about that axis. You are seeing an illusion related to the Moon, as an entire rigid body, performing curvilinear motion, moves in its orbit.
Naturally, the dark spot ‘appears’ to be rotating in the way you claim but that’s the effect of the Moon having one face held toward the Earth.
carbon…”From NASAs website:
The moon makes a complete orbit around Earth in 27 Earth days and rotates or spins at that same rate, or in that same amount of time”.
This is the same NASA, the home of GISS, who has been spreading pseudo-science about global warming/climate change. GISS once claimed 2014 as the warmest year ever using a 37% probability that their claim was right.
Not everyone at NASA is smart. Many of them carve out little niches and spout pseudo-science. Your quote is one of them.
There is no way any planetary body orbits a star or other planet while rotating exactly once during it orbit. The likelihood of that is slim to none. The Moon is performing curvilinear motion in which all particles in the Moon remain fixed in a motion parallel to the tangent line of each point of its orbit.
Tidal locking means what it says, one face of the Moon is locked facing the Earth. That means it cannot rotate on its axis. If it did, the locked face would turn away from facing the Earth and all faces would be seen by the Earth since we turn 28 times in one lunar orbit.
I am not going to get dragged into this whole discussion again. But I think one point needs to be made.
All motion is relative to the reference frame you choose (a few blokes like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein explained this long ago).
* Relative to ANY reference frame not rotating relative to the ‘fixed stars’, the moon is rotating.
* Relative to ANY reference frame not rotating relative to the ‘fixed ground’, the horse on the merry-go-round is rotating.
* Relative to ANY reference frame rotating with the same angular velocity vector as the merry-go-round platform, the horse is not rotating.
Dim, no one is dragging you into this discussion. You are interjecting yourself into it.
So, get over yourself.
I can not be certain if you are incompetent or dishonest. I sometimes think you are both, based on your constant tendency to “spin” the truth.
Here, the discussion is NOT about choosing a reference frame. The discussion is about “rotating on its own axis”, as shown by the gif of the sphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
The Moon, the racehorse, and a race car do NOT “rotate on their own axis”, as they “orbit”.
You cannot run away from reality. It will always catch you.
JD, this discussion is EXACTLY about choosing a frame of reference. You choose one frame — that’s fine. But others choose other frames — and that is STILL fine.
No Tim, the issue is NOT about choosing a frame of reference. The horse, or Moon, is either “rotating on its own axis”, or it is not. You do not get to make up your own reality.
There is probably a small airport close to you. Single-prop airplanes are common at small airports. Ask a couple of pilots to assist you. Have them start their engines, and adjust prop speed to the same rpm. Now, neither prop is rotating, in reference to the other. Stick your arm into the prop of one of the planes. It will not hurt you, because the props are not rotating, “in the chosen reference frame”.
Be sure to have someone take “before” and “after “photos”.
You can label the two photos: “Clown with 2 arms”, and “Clown with 1 arm”.
Learn to face reality. Learn some physics. And clean up your act.
“The horse, or Moon, is either rotating on its own axis, or it is not. You do not get to make up your own reality.”
No, ‘reality’ depends on your choice of reference frame. If I toss a ball straight up as I ride in a car, what is the “real” motion? To me in the car, the ball goes straight up and down. To a person standing beside the road, the ball goes in a parabola.
Both are correct, in their own reference frame (and both understand that the other is correct in the other frame). Neither is “making up their own reality”.
Dim, just do the airplane prop experiment.
That is reality.
Your constant spin is NOT reality.
Clean up your act.
JD,
In your propeller thought experiment, a propeller is indeed not rotating in its own rotating reference frame. BUT *I* am rotating in its reference frame. So, yes, I could still get hurt. Just like a car that is stationary in its own reference frame can still hurt me if I am moving at 60 mph in its reference frame.
People with rudimentary understanding of reference frames know how to calculate results in other reference frames.
For people interested in an introduction to frames of reference, I recommend this classic 1960 instructional movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJMYoj4hHqU
“Without models, there are no data.”
– Paul N. Edwards, “A Vast Machine”
http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/Edwards_2009_A_Vast_Machine_Introduction.pdf
Great book, by the way. Definitely worth reading.
DA…Without models, there are no data.
Obviously an idiot having a delusional moment. The full quote:
“This supposed contest is at best an illusion, at worst a deliberate deception because without models, there are no data. Im not talking about the difference between raw and cooked data. I mean this literally. Today, no collection of signals or observations even from satellites, which can see the whole planet becomes global in time and space without first passing through a series of data models…”
What a load of rubbish…without models there is no data.
This idiot is confusing models with computers programmed to analyze data. The UAH data is not modeled, it is analyzed, partly by programs written by Roy Spencer.
It would be lunacy to analyze the satellite data by hand.
There is no need to model real data. A model creates synthetic data even though it may use real data in its program.
Gordon, the “UAH data” is a set of voltage signals from various devices on various satellite. These voltages must somehow be related to IR signals, which must somehow to related to temperatures of various gases at various altitudes at various locations at various times, which must be somehow related to a global temperature anomaly.
Its not a question of “too hard to do by hand”. It is a question of “how does that series of voltages relate to the final reported temperature?” That relationships between input voltages and output values is “a model”. The fact that this is “version 6.0” indicates there have been at least 5 different models used before to relate voltages to the final reported temperature.
Dim Tim, once again you try to spin reality.
Collecting inputs from satellites and transforming those data into temperature anomalies is NOT a computer model. You are confusing pseudoscience with REAL science, possibly purposely.
The different versions only indicate the continuing effort to perfect the data. The data collected are REAL, not “modeled”. The ongoing problem is to correct any erroneous data, due to REAL issues.
Measuring Earth’s temperatures by satellite is a new technology. Maybe someday, if you learn some physics, you will appreciate the work of REAL scientists. Until that time, you’re just another annoying clown.
tim…”the UAH data is a set of voltage signals from various devices on various satellite. These voltages must somehow be related to IR signals, which must somehow to related to temperatures of various gases at various altitudes at various locations at various times, which must be somehow related to a global temperature anomaly”.
Tim, there is no IR involved. The signal is microwave radiation given off by oxygen that correlates to its temperature. It’s temperature correlates to altitude.
The AMSU receiver on each satellite does produce an average voltage that corresponds to the various microwave frequencies. Think of a bandpass filter centred at 60 Ghz, for argument’s sake. Frequencies of 60Ghz will cause the unit to respond with the highest voltage and frequencies off centre will cause lower voltages.
There are several such receivers with different centre frequencies.
Found this link at random:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249
You can see all the channels used in each receiver and how they overlap. A ground-based algorithm is required to sort them out wrt to altitude/pressure and convert them to temperature.
It would be nice if Roy wrote a piece on exactly how it’s done. Although I understand the basic principles from electronics it would be nice to see how the conversion is actually done.
I am not too clear on the meaning of weighting function. It has something to do with radiation as a function of altitude. I am guessing that on a particular channel, centred for a certain altitude, that the peak of the weighting function is expected to be at that altitude, then the graph of the function tapers off at higher and lower altitudes.
I don’t think there is any modeling going on here, the data received from the AMSU unit is analyzed and applied to a weighting function algorithm.
Here is some info in the form of a lab.
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS6145_Spring2013/Lab8_2013.htm
tim…”That relationships between input voltages and output values is a model”
Not in my books. It’s an algorithm designed to analyze various signals from various altitudes re temperature and sort them out to get an overall picture. Or, you might call it a function.
In electrons there is a hardware device called a window comparator. It analyzes a varying input voltage for levels and reacts to each prescribed level with a digital output signal.
If the voltage various from 1 to 10 volts, you might have windows set at 1v, 2v, 3v etc., depending on the resolution at which you want to analyze the input voltage.
Analog to digital converters operate in a similar manner.
If the voltage is between 0 and 1 volt it might output 0000. If between 1 and 2 volts, maybe 0001. If between 9 and 10 volts, maybe 1001.
I would not call that a model, yet it performs a similar function to the AMSU unit. No known standard electronic unit will automate that process and why would you require one when you can write a program to analyze the data.
All you need are reference voltages for certain frequencies, or something along that line.
AFAIAC, a model synthesizes data. There are models in electronics you can use to perform like a real circuit and it’s all done with software. The model is not taking in data and working on it, the model is simply ourputing data according to an algorithm designed to emulate a circuit.
That might be a better word for a model, an emulator. The AMSU units are not emulating the atmosphere, they are receiving real microwave energy from O2 molecules, and separating each microwave frequency into bands that correspond to altitude.
The ground computer does the work of deciphering the AMSU data. The programs are written by scientists like Roy and John at UAH. They are not creating models of the atmosphere and hypothesizing outcomes.
tim…here is a paper from John Christy explaining the satellite problems and different revisions to address them.
Note in the abstract that this dynamic systems of satellite telemetry has suffered from physical issues tracking the sats and that revisions have been required to adjust for those tracking issues. Note as well the claim that the software they use to decipher the data, shows the sat data corresponds well with radiosonde data.
Note….this pdf appears with messed up type online but it’s fine when I d/l the pdf and load it in Adobe Reader.
****Note that a D-C occurs in the URL I have added 3 x *** and they have to be removed****.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426%282000%29017%3C1153%3AMTTD***CA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
timhere is a paper from John Christy explaining the satellite problems and different revisions to address them.
Sorry I omitted the credit for the paper due to Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell as co-authors with John Christy.
re the link to the Christy, Spencer, Braswell paper, don’t forget to copy the link, paste it in the browser address bar, then remove the *** between the D-C in the URL.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0426%282000%29017%3C1153%3AMTTD***CA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
ALSO…remember the PDF might have distorted print online. When I d/l’d the PDF and loaded it in Adobe Reader 10, it read fine.
Gordon,
I stand corrected about microwaves vs IR. I got hasty and forgot which part of the spectrum was being studied.
I agree with pretty much everything you said about ‘window comparitors” and ‘algorithms’ and such.
The one place I disagree specifically is in your narrow understanding of ‘model’. Consider the context of the book.
“This supposed contest is at best an illusion, at worst a deliberate deception — because without models, there are no data. I ’ m not talking about the difference between “raw” and “cooked” data. I mean this literally. Today, no collection of signals or observations — even from satellites, which can “see” the whole planet — becomes global in time and space without first passing through a series of data models.”
The models in this case might in include things like “the atmosphere is divided into distinct layers” or “Channel 7 on the detector corresponds to the 7 – 10 km altitude” or “temperatures vary linearly between measurements”. Without fundamental assumptions (ie models) about the behavior of both the earth itself and about the instruments being used, you can never go from raw signals to reported temperatures.
JD…”Even the latest data, now almost 40 years, is filled with modeling.”
That’s because most scientists lack the courage to go out on the ice in the Arctic winter and actually measure it. Or measure the depth.
From a satellite, you cannot see ice volume contained in the pressure ridges stacked 50 feet high for miles on end where overlapping ice sheets have collided. You cannot measure the drifting ice or track it to see how much is dumped in the North Atlantic to melt.
All you can do is sit in front of a computer modeling your theories about it.
There were no satellites till the 1960s and I doubt that many were measuring sea ice extent. Prior to that, I highly doubt that anyone cared.
In other words, there’s no way to compare ice extent today to ice extent in 1870.
Here are a few more papers about pre-satellite Arctic sea ice:
“History of sea ice in the Arctic,” Leonid Polyak et al, Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 17571778.
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
(see Figure 2a)
“Early 20th century Arctic warming in retrospect,” Wood and Overland, Intl J Climatology (2009)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1973/abstract
“Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years,” Christophe Kinnard et al,
Nature 479, 509512 (24 November 2011)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/abs/nature10581.html
Walsh and Chapman (2000)
Graph here on top right:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner.html
https://tinyurl.com/ydez9gx5
DA, I always enjoy your collection of pseudoscience.
From abstract of “…the past 1,450 years…”
“…although extensive uncertainties remain…”
Followed a few sentences later by:
“…the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.”
Translation: We don’t know if sea ice is decreasing, but we know it is decreasing, and it is caused by AGW!
Pseudoscience for clowns.
Of course uncertainties exist. They do for all data, including the most recent. But more for the past (obviously).
We certainly know that Arctic SIE has been decreasing long-term since 1979. Why?
Yes DA, all of your links can easily be disavowed.
The more recent data have much more credibility, but still not anything you can “take to the bank”.
But, let’s say Bindidon’s average trend, “-0.56 Mkm2/decade”, is 100% correct.
Now, what does that mean for the next 40 years?
Pseudoscience indicates one thing, reality indicates another.
I know which way your will go….
Answer your own question: What does a trend say about the future?
No, I asked first.
JDHuffman says:
Yes DA, all of your links can easily be disavowed.
Which you have not done and cannot do.
You disavowed your own pseudoscience.
And, you still haven’t answered the question.
JDHuffman says:
Yes DA, all of your links can easily be disavowed.
Which you cannot do and have not done.
Ibid.
See. You’re afraid to confront the facts.
Why?
Ibid
Wow. You won’t confront a simple animation that clearly shows the Moon is rotating.
Says a great deal about you.
Wow. You can’t even place your comments at the correct location.
Along with many other things, it all says a great deal about you.
And still you won’t confront that graphic
Did you miss your last appointment with your therapist, by any chance?
Yet again you won’t confront the evidence.
You disavowed your own pseudoscience.
And, you still haven’t answered the question.
Ger*an still runs away from the evidence.
Get help, DA.
Still afraid to confront the evidence.
Afraid to even *LOOK* at the evidence.
Seek counseling,DA.
Ger*an can’t respond with science, has to use with yet more insults instead.
An obvious fact. Trying to reason, communicate or express scientific points with JDHuffman is a complete waste of time.
You get long mindless exchanges that have zero value and degrade into mindless insults.
JDHuffman will never defend his points. He will declare unsupported ideas and when confronted he will go into his pointless posts like:
“Did you miss your last appointment with your therapist, by any chance?”
This poster is a waste of anyone’s time. This person has no physics knowledge. Lacks reasoning ability and mainly just taunts and provokes other posters with total stupidity, such as the Moon does not rotate on its axis or that blackbodies reflect 100% of the energy that another blackbody emits toward them. A first class clown with a barrel full of pseudoscience he can convince some crackpots that he has secret knowledge and all established science is wrong. The two chief crackpots are Gordon Robertson and g.e.r.a.n’s shadow, DREMT.
You’re right Norman. But I like backing them into a corner and then watching them lie their out of it. Great sport.
Super-clowns DA and Norman team up for some sychopated comedy!
Neither even knows what is being discussed. That’s what makes it even funnier.
This sub-thread started with me asking DA: “Now, what does that mean for the next 40 years?”
He didn’t know how to answer, and started his comedy routine. Norman, just out of his typing class, decided to join in.
Both are hopelessly clueless and hilariously incompetent.
“He didn’t know how to answer, and started his comedy routine.”
Seems like you have an intimate recognition of this routine.
g.e.r.a.n
It took some coaxing but you finally blew your cover.
So many times you are careful and just use the word “funny”
But it had to come out at some point.
YOU: “Both are hopelessly clueless and hilariously incompetent.”
Norman, you appear to have some kind of jealous obsession with some people like g.e.r.a.n, Gordon, DREMT, Claes, etc. These are all people you could learn from. But instead, you prefer to spew your immature attacks. Look at your last few comments here–nothing but your empty, vindictive opinions.
I suppose banging on that keyboard is easier than learning physics….
JDHuffman
You are wrong again, nothing unusual about that.
I do learn much from the people you listed. I learned, because of people like you and the others, science must always be based upon rigid observation, experimental evidence and empirical data. The group you listed makes up science with zero support of any kind. You do it all the time.
I told you before and will tell you again. Take a ball with one half painted blue and the other green. put it on the edge of a platform that can rotate. With one ball glue it to the platform so it can’t rotate on its own axis. Now have another ball that is free to rotate, set it (with a variable speed motor) to rotate at the same rate the platform rotates so that the rotating ball will rotate on its axis one time for each platform revolution. See what results you get. Both balls will have the same side always facing the center. One rotates and the other does not. You could do this test but will not. You are anti-science. You declare things without proof or evidence and want others to believe them.
The other people also do this. Gordon Robertson makes up things all the time. They sound good to him so he thinks that is how the world works. Claes Johnson and Joseph Postma are also in this league. They make declarations but will never do any actual experiment to prove their points.
Yes I learn a lot from the bunch of banana brains. Don’t BE LIKE YOU!
It’s obvious you didn’t do that experiment. If one ball is glued down to the outside of the rotating platform, the same side will always face the center of the platform. If the other ball rotates on its own axis, it will not always face the center of the platform.
Your own “experiment” proves you wrong.
Now, let’s see a 1000-word typing exercise where you avoid reality.
Clowns are so funny.
Norm states:
“With one ball glue it to the platform so it cant rotate on its own axis.”
The glued ball does rotate on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame. Kinematics 101. Put a north arrow through the ball’s center of mass and watch the ball rotate on its own axis about the north arrow.
SGW, who like several other anonymous cowards, likes to change his screen name regularly.
Now the youngster believes that something glued down is also “rotating on its own axis”!
And, the uneducated youngster claims such motion is “Kinematics 101”.
You just can’t make this stuff up….
JDHuffman
I have already done similar experiments using bottles and rotating them by hand to see the outcome.
Doing any experiment for you and posting results is totally pointless and a complete waste of time as you do not believe the results. E. Swanson proved you are worthless in that area! You need to do the experiment yourself. It is not expensive and should not take much time. The only results you can believe are the ones you do yourself.
I already linked you to a computer animation that did this very thing and you did not accept it and considered it fake computer simulation. With your inability to accept the work and effort by others, why would someone waste time proving something to a person like you? You would not accept it anyway.
SkepticGoneWild
My point would be the glued ball does rotate but not on its own axis. It has no axis of rotation in that case. Every part of the platform is rotating but none have an independent axis to rotate about.
The problem with goofballs like JDHuffman and his sidekick DREMT is they believe a Ferris Wheel seat rotates around an axis. They are unable to understand that the axle is rotating NOT the seat. No amount of reason is able to penetrate their fierce irrational thoughts.
I tried using very simple logic but it does not apply to this type of mind. I pointed out that if the Ferris Wheel were stationary with a box of cookies in the seat, if the seat rotated at all CW or CCW the cookies would at some point fall out. When the Ferris moves around this would in no way change the reality of rotation. The cookies still do not fall out, the seats are still NOT rotating as the Ferris Wheel moves around. The think the seats are rotating CCW. Why they come up with this goofy idea I can’t understand. The axle is rotating the seats are NOT. There is no way to convince them other. No amount of reason or logic will work. You have given several great logical points and good links. It has zero effect on this goofy gang.
Norman, It’s obvious you didn’t do that “experiment”. What a phony you are.
You ramble, bluster, and foam at the mouth, yet the “experiment” you recommended proves you wrong.
What a clown.
More typing practice, please.
JDHuffman
Not only do you totally lack any knowledge of physics but your reading comprehension seems severely limited.
YOU: “Norman, It’s obvious you didn’t do that “experiment”. What a phony you are.”
I clearly told you I am NOT going to waste my time setting up an experiment for you that you will call bogus anyway.
I do not plan to set up such an experiment for you. I told you to do it yourself. I already linked you to a visual computer simulation showing what I described and you rejected it.
“My point would be the glued ball does rotate but not on its own axis. It has no axis of rotation in that case. Every part of the platform is rotating but none have an independent axis to rotate about.”
Norm, the ball does have an axis of rotation. Of course the ball cannot rotate on its own axis wrt the rotating platform. But it does rotate on its own axis wrt to the inertial reference frame.
Think of it this way. Imagine you have a small lazy susan on your table. And you glue a ball to the top of it near the outside edge. Now grab the ball with your fingers and make the lazy susan spin keeping yourself standing in the same position. What happens? The ball has to rotate (or spin) between your fingers as you make the lazy susan platform spin.
Just quit talking to JD. It’s pointless. He’s a troll.
Norman, you are no longer recommending your stupid experiment, now that you’ve learned it proves you WRONG!
That means that you can learn. It’s just that you learn really, really slowly.
But, at least you can type.
Roy is now blocking my usual name and email address.
Find a good therapist, DA.
What prevents you from replying with science and rationality?
Don’t you believe therapy is science?
Try it. You don’t have a choice.
Soon, it will be court-ordered….
Some sanity finally returns to US politics.
Some Republicans were terrified Trump would work with the Dems – a reason [one of many] not to elect him in primaries.
So, perhaps, that crazy theory could be tested.
Trump seemed pleased with the election results.
I think Dems missed a great opportunity to get a giant blue wave.
And it seemed that the stock market responded very favorably to the election results [maybe because went as was predicted and maybe mostly because the market tends to prefer a divided government].
Or maybe because it’s the beginning of the end for Herr Trumpler.
bob…”Or maybe because its the beginning of the end for Herr Trumpler”.
It’s a double-edged sword.
Half the nation voted for Trump and this setback with the Dems taking the House is more about Republican complacency and back-stabbing their president than a Democrat win.
Just as the media expected Clinton to beat Trump, they expected a blue-wave sweep by the Dems.
If the Dems do something stupid like ‘trying’ to impeaching Trump (far easier said than done), it will be remembered, and they may pay dearly in the next presidential election.
gbaikie…”And it seemed that the stock market responded very favorably to the election results….”
Why not? Obama hired some of the Wall Street crooks as advisors, who destroyed the US economy.
Democrats and Wall Street make strange bedfellows.
Trump Honors Victims of Communism
–“On the National Day for the Victims of Communism, we honor the memory of the more than 100 million people who have been killed and persecuted by communist totalitarian regimes,” the president said in a White House statement. “We also reaffirm our steadfast support for those who strive for peace, prosperity, and freedom around the world.”–
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-honors-victims-communism/
liked from
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
bob…”Some sanity finally returns to US politics”.
Only if you’re a butt-kissing, politically-correct type.
I am a left-winger. I am not a communist nor do I relate to anything that has gone on in Russia, China, or any of those other abortions perpetuated on people in the guise of humanitarianism. I simply value people over corporations, and profit for the sake of it. I have nothing against people making fair profits.
I have nothing in common with Trump on a socio-economic basis, but I thought Clinton and Obama were worse than Trump in many ways. Clinton is an abject phoney who cannot communicate with anyone who is not politically-correct. Obama paid lip service to humanitarianism yet he took on advisors from Wall Street who had created chaos in US economics due to their abject greed.
When Clinton’s husband, Lying Willie, messed around on her on multiple occasions, she stayed with him and blamed the women for leading Lying Willie astray. I don’t want to see such an airhead, who hates Putin, as leader of the US. It was bad enough with Obama, who bent over backwards to protect the rights of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The new situation in the States is not sanity, it is going to be a stand-off between Trump and emotionally-challenged people who hate his anti-politically-correct stance. It was much better, even for left-wingers, the way it was. The problem was Trump’s fellow Republicans, who were too stupid to support him.
As a left-winger, I’ve had to endure extreme right-wing governments who were bent on making life miserable for the poor. That attitude was based on the right-wing nonsense that the poor could be successful if they only tried harder.
They miss the point, that with unemployment running at 10% minimum, arrogant, selfish employers who won’t pay a fair wage, over-priced accommodations, and business stacked in favour of the wealthy, that the poor, in general, don’t have a hope in hell, of improving their lives.
I don’t kid myself for one second that Trump is not one of that lot, but I have learned to hold my nose, hoping things will improve. The Democrats with their politically-correct notions like carbon taxes are not that improvement. In fact, with their hysterical reaction to Trump’s win, they proved themselves incapable of governing the US.
I think that’s the reason they did not get the over-whelming victory they sought. US voters simply did not trust them after their shameful, hystrionics following Trump’s win.
The sharp attack of the Arctic air in the west of the US on 07/11/2018.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/a60nrp8ana1s.png
Out of interest – what country do you live in?
Visible effect of El Nino (water vapor) on the size of the ozone hole in the southern hemisphere.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/ayivhq5f7dry.png
No title, no scale, no legend – so we just have to believe you when you claim this is showing us something?
And I thought you stated definitively that there would be no El Nino this year.
bob…”No title, no scale, no legend so we just have to believe you when you claim this is showing us something?”
I guess you haven’t looked closely at posts from Bindidon, or Norman.
Bin’s graphs are clearly labeled, and match the description he gives in the accompanying post. He usually mentions the data source, too.
ren frequently provides graphs that have nothing to do with that they’re talking about, or, as in this case, have no labeling to figure out if ren has provided a graph that has anything to do with what ren is talking about.
The senate is still a big problem for democrats. A blue state like California (population: 40 million) is represented by two senators.
A red state like South Dakota (19 humans, 47 chickens) is also represented by two senators.
Yes. We are the United States. That’s how it works.
You mean – that’s how it doesn’t work.
It works as it was designed to work. The Constitution exists not to satisfy the whims of the majority, but to protect the rights of all. Those declaiming loudest against it now will be thankful when the pendulum swings, and they find their own ideals suddenly under assault.
Typical BS Yankspeak.
242 years and counting, mate. When your nation bestrides the world like the US, you can disparage us. Until then, you have only two choices: A) the people in the US are super-men and women, beyond the mediocre capabilities of those in lesser nations, or B) they have a better system worked out.
The answer is (B).
Hahahaha. The might makes right argument.
Yes, national power automatically equates to a superior democratic political system. Why, one only has to look back in history to see that. Let’s start with the 500-year Roman Empire.
–Yes, national power automatically equates to a superior democratic political system. Why, one only has to look back in history to see that. Lets start with the 500-year Roman Empire.–
As Doc Who says, finest soldiers Earth has ever seen [or maybe universe or something].
Anyhow, I take it you don’t like the Romans. I tend to think they were over rated.
But if you consider where Europe was at the time, I thought the Roman empire, did ok. Particularly, relating to their plumbing and roads.
The fact that the point was about robustness of democracy seems to have sailed right over your head. I so hate wasted irony.
–barry says:
November 12, 2018 at 7:12 AM
The fact that the point was about robustness of democracy seems to have sailed right over your head. I so hate wasted irony.–
Robustness of a democracy is comparative. The Roman success and failure was related to democratic system of governance- that it failed indicates a lack of robustness, and that it lasted for centuries indicates some robustness.
Or applied to US, that lasted a couple centuries, indicates some robustness related to this particular democracy.
One could point to Switzerland and claim it has more robust democracy- some do.
One also point to Roman Empire rather short life, compared to other empires.
It seems that in terms of specific type of democracy, the Romans had system which could be transferred or adopted by other nations, whereas one could say with US, it’s system does not easily transfer.
There couple nations which have tried to copy the US, Ie Nigeria and Philippines though US has had huge effect in terms global influence of democracies in general, which roughly could said to be inspirational along lines of revolt and try to do something different.
That US can’t seem to replicate, seems problematic to me, or lack robustness in this way. Though Nigeria seems to doing fairly well these days.
snape…”The senate is still a big problem for democrats. A blue state like California (population: 40 million) is represented by two senators.”
**********
And thank goodness for that. With the loonies in California and New York running the country, the US would be in dire straights.
The Democrats were turfed out due to their propensity for political-correctness. It got so bad that Obama was trying to sneak through climate change initiatives without advising Congress.
Since they lost the election, the Dems have whined and sniveled to the point I can’t stand them. Same for their media cheerleaders like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
It’s surreal these days watching CNN (when I’m forced to watch because someone else is watching) and their politically-correct garbage they call news.
Well if Californians believe this: “If you think the earth warms, radiates more, and therefore naturally cools againyou are mistaken ”
Then 2 senators is probably to much influence for them…
Opposed to the American Constitution?
Bart
“The physical basis is a temperature modulated flow between reservoirs with very long term dynamics which begets integral-like action in the near term.”
*****
The ocean and atmosphere are reservoirs of Co2. Your idea is that as the ocean surface has warmed, its rate of uptake of Co2 has decreased, causing more to remain in the other reservoir……..the atmosphere.
******
Nice idea, but there’s a big problem. Co2 uptake into the ocean has not decreased, it’s INCREASED.
With no extra input, the atmosphere should have less Co2, not more! The reality is both reservoirs are filling up at the same time:
“Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.”
“Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world’s oceans.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Your premise is incorrect. The surface oceans and the atmosphere must move together with a proportionality determined by Henry’s law. They both increase due to increased impedance of the flow to the deep oceans.
Henry’s law is an equilibrium result. The ocean and atmosphere are not in equilibrium. The law tells you what would happen if we stopped emitting CO2 and waited long enough (a couple of decades) for the ocean and atmosphere to reach equilibrium.
Somewhat true. The time to reach local equilibrium depends upon ocean depth, and characteristic time constants likely range from days to centuries. But, Henry’s law explains the driving force, and the atmosphere and upper oceans must move together.
The law does not “explain” equilibrium, it DESCRIBES it. Why do people who don’t understand science believe a mathematical formula explains anything. It is merely a summary of the underlying physical processes.
It is like the flow of a river. Waters upwell in temperate zones, releasing their CO2 to the warm atmosphere. CO2 then flows through the air and the ocean currents to the poles, where it is soaked back up and downwells, beginning its centuries long trek through the depths before again upwelling.
The upwelling content is what it is, and cannot be stopped. But, the downwelling flow can be throttled by a rise in temperature. Then, it is like putting a dam across a river. The waters behind the dam rise both in the waterway and along the banks of dry land. The banks are not getting wet by reducing the volume in the waters behind the dam. They are getting wet because there is less water flowing beyond the dam, and that is causing the waters behind the dam to overflow.
Analogies and metaphors aren’t physics.
“The upwelling content is what it is, and cannot be stopped.”
If the down-welling can be slowed, why can’t the upwelling?
The major upwelling in Eastern Pacific SLOWS dramatically during an El Nino.
Yet, as it happens, atm CO2 levels RISE during El Nino.
Kinda the opposite of your made-up story.
Strongly suggests something else is producing the El Nino/CO2 correlation.
By “slows”, you mean “is dispersed”. That does not stop it from rising, it just makes it less local. You cannot stop it from rising because water is essentially incompressible, and the CO2 is carried along with it.
Water incompressible, yes. The rest, non-sequitur.
The current is Trade-wind driven, the Trade winds slow, the current slows.
The down-going carbon is the one that is not easily throttled, it is highly dispersed. Organic matter from dying organisms is falling to the ocean bottom globally.
The premise of your model is invalid.
The THC does not slow due to wind.
Huh?
Google is your friend.
Google is your friend-look up how El Nino works. Totally disagrees with you. Trashes your model.
Do facts matter to you? If so, why do you ignore so many of them?
So, you are unaware of the thermo-haline circulation. Check.
What is the magnitude of the carbon transport by the THC, and its variation during El Nino years?
Meanwhile why do you dismiss actual MEASURED upwelling carbon fluxes during El Nino?
Data. Will you dismiss it?
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/elnino.html
Not data. Model.
Bart,
Did you figure out the size of this ‘river’ of carbon?
‘Waters upwell in temperate zones, releasing their CO2 to the warm atmosphere. CO2 then flows through the air and the ocean currents to the poles, where it is soaked back up and downwells, beginning its centuries long trek through the depths before again upwelling.’
The important question is whether it is even as large as the anthro Carbon emissions.
If it is comparable to or smaller than the anthro emissions, then it cannot be important for increase of atm Co2.
Looking at this data https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/elnino.html, one can estimate the total carbon released to the atmosphere from the tropical ocean during a year.
I use the average flux of ~ 2 moles C/m^2/year = 24 grams C/ m^2/year and multiply by the total area of tropical ocean ~ 3000 km x 30,000 km with emissions.
I get total carbon emitted = 2 Pgrams = 2e15 grams.
For comparison the anthro carbon emiited each year is 10 Billion tons = 10^16 grams.
Hence the ‘river’ of carbon input to the atmosphere appears to be only 20% of the size of the anthro carbon emitted.
Please check my numbers. But I think this is a pretty serious problem for your model.
This is just a model that assumes flow characteristics that fit the assumption that human emissions are driving the observed rise. It is a circular argument. Nobody has actually measured these quantities.
It is awfully convenient that all data that could test your hypothesis is deemed (by you) to be invalid.
Imagine if Darwin or Einstein took this approach. They took the opposite one, doggedly seeking out data.
Here is the correct data set https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/CO2+Flux+Map
“just a model” “that fit the assumption that human emissions are driving the observed rise. It is a circular argument.”
BS, no such assumption that I see.
It is thousands of MEASUREMENTS of carbon content in surface water and in air and a standard empirical model is used to determine local flux across the interface. A well tested one.
No different from many many measurements. If I step on scale, an empirical model is used to find my mass.
When I use a digital thermometer, an empirical model is used to turn an electrical signal into temperature.
Nobody has a problem with this, as long as the empirical model has been tested.
It’s models all the way down. They cannot be “well tested”, as we do not have comprehensive 4d measurements over the entire globe.
Did an Alien Light Sail just Visit the Solar System?
NOVEMBER 4, 2018 / DR.TONY PHILLIPS
“Nov. 6, 2018: It sounds like a tabloid headline, but in this case it could be real.
…”
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/11/04/did-an-alien-light-sail-just-visit-the-solar-system/
Well one could also say any tabloid headline, also could be real,
Wiki says:
“Astronomers estimate that several interstellar objects similar to ʻOumuamua pass inside the orbit of Earth each year, and that 10,000 are passing inside the orbit of Neptune on any given day. If correct, this provides possible opportunities for future studies of interstellar objects. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua
Also “if correct” is likewise important. But if 10,000 of them are passing thru our solar every day, the “might be real” and “if correct” could mean lots of alien light sails could passing thru our solar system.
The same old “more funding is needed” pseudoscience.
Yeah, that would seem to be the main part of it.
I am not fan of the search for space aliens, and don’t like idea of tax dollars paying for it. I would like NASA to focus on exploration related to more practical matters.
Though if it’s private funding, like SETI, then people can donate their money to whatever they want- good luck, and god speed sort of thing.
What I think is something which should involve tax dollars are looking/detecting NEO, as this relates to near term national security interests and general matters relating to national interests.
Or why this object was detected is probably due or related to tax dollars being spent. As in:
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/intro.html
Not much money is spent doing this sort of thing- and a doubling of the funding would still not be much in terms tax dollars being spent.
tim…”* Temperature CHANGE is closely related to Q, heat.
But, no, temperature is definitely not a measure of heat, Q”.
No, Tim, temperature is a human invention designed to measure relative heat levels. The set points for temperature in the centigrade scale are 0C, the temperature of freezing water, and 100C, the temperature of boiling water.
What is required to melt ice to water and increase the temperature of the water from 0C to 100C?
HEAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on, Tim, this is basic physics.
And claiming temperature is related to internal energy but not heat is ingenuous. Internal energy is heat. Clausius defined the U in the 1st law which is internal energy. He explained U in detail as the energy related to the vibrations of atoms in a solid mass. He further defined it as the work involved in those vibrations and the heat required to maintain them or increase them.
The title of his work on that is The Mechanical Theory of Heat. Joule found that relationship then Clausius expanded on it to form the 2nd law and entropy. Heat and work are equivalent, and U is the sum of both wrt the internal energy of atoms in a mass.
I think it’s scary that modern students in physics are being taught such bs, that temperature is not measuring heat. ball4 has gotten so stupid he thinks heat is a measure of generic energy.
He doesn’t get it that the energy referenced is thermal energy. Therefore heat has become a measure of heat.
Temperature is the measure of heat, not heat.
“Temperature is the measure of heat, not heat.”
Temperature is not even a measure of heat. The thermosphere has a very high temperature (higher than the troposphere), but a very low heat content (insignificantly small compared to the troposphere).
Temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy per molecule.
bob…”Temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy per molecule”.
I see why this AGW pseudo-science has come to be.
What do you think the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules might be? It’s called thermal energy, aka heat.
If you add heat to a gas via flame, or a heater element, the molecules begin moving faster. In a container of fixed size, the pressure increases due to that increased velocity.
Therefore, as you put it, temperature is proportional to the thermal energy of molecules (in a gas).
Gordon Robertson
You get another “F” so far you are flunking out. Why don’t you read a little real physics before you are compelled to post. You just make yourself look like a ignorant person.
YOU: “What do you think the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules might be? It’s called thermal energy, aka heat.”
WRONG (again, normal for you):
http://teachers.oregon.k12.wi.us/mahr/assignments/thermal_energyvs_temp.pdf
Thermal energy is the total kinetic energy of a body. Temperature is the average kinetic energy. Flunked and you will continue to flunk it seems and you don’t care that you are acting like a dumb person. Posting stupid comments all the time that are not remotely true!
Heat represents the TOTAL energy of the molecules, not the average. Temperature represents the average.
You have two containers of the same volume V of the same gas, each at the same pressure P, and the same temperature T (so each container has te same number of molecules of the gas). You combine them in a container of volume 2V (so the pressure doesn’t change) without doing work on the system. Compared to ONE of the originals, the mixture has the SAME temperature but TWICE the heat content.
But don’t let me stop you making up your “science” on the fly.
I can hear the strains of Del Shannon.
A powerful attack of arctic air in the USA.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/v84eg9f7icab.png
High pressure in Eurasia.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/sj21cdfz57d4.png
The problem is that El Nino does not work in North America and Europe now.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
ren: ENSOs are about water temperatures in the central Pacific, not about temperatures in NA or Europe.
Barry what evidence do years u have that shows human activities have increased co2 for the past 100 years
What do YOU suggest has increased CO2 concentrations by 40%?
bob…”What do YOU suggest has increased CO2 concentrations by 40%?”
For one, there is no concrete proof that CO2 has increases 40% since the pre-Industrial Era. Studies since the mid-1800s have refuted that claim.
For another, during the 400 years of the Little Ice Age, the oceans are bound to have absorbed a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. The oceans are kindly returning the gas.
There is little doubt that humans must have contributed to the present CO2 level but whether that is 40% is unclear given the LIA and other factors being mentioned here.
You certainly like your fiction.
CO2 average MLO monthly levels since 1850:
Source:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
+46%
MWP dates 950 to 1250
CO2 lags temp by 800 years
1250 plus 800 = 2050
Why is CO2 rising?
What science says CO2 lags temp by 800 years?
Gordon Robertson says:
For another, during the 400 years of the Little Ice Age, the oceans are bound to have absorbed a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. The oceans are kindly returning the gas.
__________________________________________________________
Another little fault in your fiction: Oceans today are ADSORBING CO2.
About 30% of ouer emissions.
Without this giant sink, rise in atmosphere would be much faster.
And if oceans even would release, rise would be VERY much faster.
Only 30%? Where is the other 20% going? (The atmospheric fraction is about 0.5.)
DavidA says:
Only 30%? Where is the other 20% going? (The atmospheric fraction is about 0.5.)
_____________________________________________
Terrestrial ecosystem also adsorbs. I dont know how much exactly. Not important.
The point is that oceans are a giant sink, not a source.
Yes that’s true but let’s not stop there, when a ghg absorbs ir there is no increase in kinetic energy ergo ghgs do not trap heat there are no blankets of co2
What!!! no response to this comment? its hard to respond to belief destroying fact i suppose.
Where do you think the energy goes?
You asking me Appell or is this one or your regular linguistic gymnastics approach to avoiding the obvious?
Perhaps my response was a little to subtle for you lets try again.
Where does the energy go?
The energy is absorbed and reemitted a multitude of times before it reaches the emission layer and leaves Earth for space.
What is an emission layer:
CO2, H2O, CH4, surface and clouds are IR emission layers and are found at high altitudes, the Earth sheds the IR to space at these layers.
No “heat” is trapped by blankets in this process Appell.
Why do you pretend that all energy heads in an upward direction?
crakar: what data supports your claim?
My reply button seems to be busted
Ice core data shows there is a lag in temp and co2 levels, co2 changes approximately 800 years after temp changes. Question……how many years ago did the MWP end?
About a thousand years ago.
I think its closer to 800 mate
Cheers
Some think Little Ice Age starts in 1280 AD as I recalled is date of large volcanic eruption and 2018 – 1280 = equals 738 years.
But I don’t think it was particularly warm between say, 1200 to 1280 AD
And terms of warmer time period I say around 1100 AD or about thousand years.
I didn’t look at any proxy temperatures reconstruction, if I did I might cite the reference and provide a precise number, which is accordance to the result of that study/analysis.
I will do that now.
Search: global temperature of last 3000 years
https://tinyurl.com/y7xathaz
That looks like peaked about 900 years ago and recovery of sorts about 500 years ago.
And:
https://tinyurl.com/2s722m
indicates peak at about 1250 AD
And:
https://tinyurl.com/yck44clz
Change search to last 2000 years:
https://tinyurl.com/yc27gcxa
Looks peak temperature ended about 1100 AD
So, it seems to me like about 1000 years ago.
“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
https://youtu.be/VIYMJEcAAdw?t=109
Crak: The MWP wasn’t global.
Denier, denier pants on fire
“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
The forecast of circulation in the lower stratosphere indicates the inflow of air from Eastern Siberia over North America.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/11/13/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-100.75,53.15,515
A RADIO TRANSMISSION FROM THE SUN:
“The Parker Solar Probe has just radioed NASA with good news. The spacecraft survived its close approach to the sun on Nov. 5th.”
…
“Earlier this week, Parker screamed around the sun at 213,200 mph only 15 million miles from the stellar surface–shattering old records for both speed and distance. Intense sunlight raised the temperature of the probe’s heat shield to about 820 degrees Fahrenheit. All the while, instruments and systems behind the shield kept cool in the mid-80s F.”
And:
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 21 days
2018 total: 187 days (60%)
http://spaceweather.com/
gbaikie…”Earlier this week, Parker screamed around the sun at 213,200 mph”
********
Did they mention anything about the clocks on the space craft changing time or parts changing length due to the speed?
That’s interesting point. In 5 years there should a large difference between spacecraft clock and Earth clocks.
It’s going fast even during it’s apoapsis, they like to talk about it’s fastest speed, but it’s average velocity is also the fastest.
Another fast spacecraft for long time period was the Mercury Messenger:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/Resources/Publications/Hudson_Colwell.2011.pdf
…
” Analysis by the MESSENGER team determined that relativistic effects were responsible for the additional error. The changes that the spacecraft experienced in the gravity
field and velocity gradients caused the oscillator to run faster or slower than the Earth reference. By using detailed
knowledge of the spacecraft trajectory provided by the navigation team, the mission operations team generated new
projections for the TDTRATE that factored in these relativistic effects. These new projections improved the linear
modeling of the OCXO behavior onboard the spacecraft.”
Re Parker Solar probe and time:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348854/parker-solar-probe-passing-extremely-close-to-the-sun-what-relativistic-effects
A poster said:
“To calculate the approximate total shift in elapsed time you would have to integrate over the orbit. With a period of about 3 months (87.7 days) I get a total shift of about 0.3 seconds per orbit:”
Gordon Robertson says:
Did they mention anything about the clocks on the space craft changing time or parts changing length due to the speed?
Why should they? That’s science established long ago.
Just like AGW………….yeah we get it Appell
Yes, AGW was established a couple of years ago. Not sure why you think your afraid-to-use-my-real-name denialism matters.
A couple of *DECADES* ago….
Radio transmissions? I dont think a radio would work very well at these high frequencies, perhaps it is energy in the electromagnetic spectrum?
Bart
More Co2 is entering the ocean than leaving. Same with the atmosphere. Those are observations, not premises. Where is the extra Co2 coming from?
Entering the upper oceans. There is a persistent flow into the upper oceans from the depths. It is the downflow into the depths that is depleted. It only takes a very small depletion in the flow to the depths to create a significant backup, because the backup in the upper oceans accumulates with time.
Where is your data coming from about deep-ocean flow of CO2, namely that the downflow into depths is being depleted?
Bart has no data. He just makes whatever claim is convenient for his denialism.
Slipping into ad hom – that’s what you do when you run out of arguments.
It seems you have no idea what ad hominem is.
Bart: As you’re well aware, I have pointed out for a long time that the data easily shows you claim to be false, since the derivative of CO2 has a strong sinusoidal component but the temperature anomaly does not.
You have yet to address that.
It’s a ready herring, David. Of course the temperature anomaly does not have a seasonal component. That is by construction. If I want to compare the two series on a one-to-one basis, I have to take the seasonal component out of the CO2 as well. I do that by applying a yearly running average to the CO2 data. The match is truly astounding.
Bart says:
Of course the temperature anomaly does not have a seasonal component. That is by construction.
Baloney.
You don’t even understand what a temperature anomaly is.
–
You don’t understand even the most basic science, and yet you’re sure it’s all wrong.
What a joke, Bart.
What? Are you for real? You think the global temperature anomaly, in which normal yearly variation of the constituents is removed, should have a seasonal component? Where would it get that when it has been specifically subtracted out? What are you thinking? Are you thinking?
Bart is remarkably incurious and reluctant to seek data that could test his ideas.
He has said “I really dont need more corroborating evidence”
He is content with one his one correlation graph.
The more we poke holes in the graph, and his interpretation of it, the more it seems to take on mythic status.
“The temperature model is consistent with a trend in the rate of change, and matches it PRECISELY”
“rate of change of CO2 matches the temperature anomaly data in every temporal regime, both the short and the long term. Its not just the fluctuations. Its the WHOLE BALL OF WAX.”
“There is NO PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE that leaves humans in the control seat.”
Bart it seems has gone full Ger*an on us.
You have poked no holes. You’re just throwing up uninformed notions, and hoping something sticks. You guys are mathematically impoverished, and hell bent on believing what you want to believe.
bart…”You have poked no holes. You’re just throwing up uninformed notions, and hoping something sticks”.
**********
That’s how this motley crew operates. If you defeat their arguments using sound science they claim your science is bad, without offering a semblance of a rebuttal.
Not to worry, Bart, you’re miles ahead of this mob.
How about responding to the science, Gordon?
Sub marine volcanos?
Fossil fuels burned by man emit 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes:
“Volcanic vs Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide,” T Gerlach, EOS v92 n24, June 14, 2011.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/epdf
https://news.agu.org/press-release/human-activities-emit-way-more-carbon-dioxide-than-do-volcanoes/
(This includes submarine volcanoes.)
With this circulation, Hudson Bay will freeze very fast.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/11/12/1200Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-103.23,54.56,680
Bart
“But, the downwelling flow can be throttled by a rise in temperature. Then, it is like putting a dam across a river.”
Again, this is not happening. The downwelling flow has not been throttled, just the opposite:
“But the other side of the equation – the massive absorp*tion of CO2 by the oceanhas received far less attention.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/
This is measuring the content in the upper oceans. The throttling is along the path to the deep oceans. The former is the volume above the “dam”. Of course it is increasing.
“…along the path…”
What does that mean physically?
Bart??
Transport along the THC. Duh.
Bart,
“The throttling is along the path to the deep oceans.”
Where is the research showing this is the case?
********
“”What we are observing in the present day is that mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen….”
https://phys.org/news/2012-07-temperatures-co2-climate.amp
It, or something very like it, is what is indicated by the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.
Somewhere in the CO2 regulatory system, there is a temperature modulated flow between reservoirs with very long term dynamics which begets integral-like action in the near term. The oceans are simply the most likely candidate for exercising that influence, in my judgment.
There is no plausible alternative that leaves humans in the control seat. People like Sune Olander Rasmussen are simply expressing opinions, basing them upon tidbits of information that actually do not establish their opinions, but merely fail to contradict them outright. They avoid looking at or for evidence that would tend to contradict them. It is a case study in confirmation bias.
Bart has no emprircal evidence to corroborate his theory. He just requires this fiction to be true to make the theory work.
It appears you’re confusing Bart’s ideas with the idea of an “anthropogenically enhanced GHE”, barry. “Modern Climate Science”, after all, has no empirical evidence to corroborate its pet theory, simply requiring its own narrative to be true to make the theory work …
When did you start trolling, Kristian?
There’s plenty of empirical evidence, starting with the optical properties of CO2.
Were you going to help Bart out by supplying some corroborating evidence for the claim made just above?
barry…”Theres plenty of empirical evidence, starting with the optical properties of CO2″.
In a laboratory with high levels of CO2. No one has ever performed such an experiment in the atmosphere to demonstrate how much CO2 warms the atmosphere.
In fact, the Ideal Gas Law reveals that CO2 at 0.04% could not warm an ants bum.
In his work, Kristian has provided convincing evidence that any warming we’ve had based on the NOAA record is related to inconsistencies in the GHCN record, rather than an insignificant gas at 0.04%.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM
In a laboratory with high levels of CO2. No one has ever performed such an experiment in the atmosphere to demonstrate how much CO2 warms the atmosphere.
_________________________________________________________
This experiment in real atmosphere is running since 100 years.
And of course, in laboratory optical properties of CO2 have also been tested with low levels. You can nelieve, they are really known.
Extrapolation of specific test results under controlled conditions in the lab to the general, massively complex and interconnected, feedback system regulating the climate on the Earth is foolhardy.
Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation? Does the Earth emit it?
Gordon Robertson says:
No one has ever performed such an experiment in the atmosphere to demonstrate how much CO2 warms the atmosphere.
Gordon keeps lying, shamelessly.
“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
“Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation? Does the Earth emit it?”
Yes, and yes. What’s your point?
If CO2 ab.sorb.s IR, does more of it ab.sorb more IR?
If not, why not?
Show the data supporting your answer.
Bart says:
November 9, 2018 at 4:27 PM
Extrapolation of specific test results under controlled conditions in the lab to the general, massively complex and interconnected, feedback system regulating the climate on the Earth is foolhardy.
_____________________________________-
CO2 adsorbs radiation in lab as well as in nature;
under controlled conditions as well as under uncontrolled.
Physical properties are the same in whole univers.
Kristian’s has deflected attention away from Bart’s utter lack of empirical evidence for his notion that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from a place in the oceans deeper than the layer we see accumulating CO2.
As usual, changing the subject the peddle his views, and giving a free pas to his kith on the point actually being discussed.
Fritz – So what? It is entirely beside the point. You cannot extrapolate impacts based just on similar forcing. You also have to take into account the response of the system to which it is applied.
barry – silly
Bart says:
November 11, 2018 at 2:41 PM
Fritz – So what? It is entirely beside the point. You cannot extrapolate impacts based just on similar forcing.
_________________________________________
I dont understand one word. Which impacts do I extrapolate and which forcing you are talking about?
I only explained that CO2 absorbs radiation everywhere and always. In laboratory as well as in atmosphere of earth or any other planet.
Why do you think laws of physik cant be “extrapolated” from laboratory to the rest of the world?
“In laboratory as well as in atmosphere of earth or any other planet.”
That is not the issue. What is at issue is the impact, or lack thereof as the case may be, on a complex system that cannot be recreated in the lab.
Kristian says:
Modern Climate Science, after all, has no empirical evidence to corroborate its pet theory, simply requiring its own narrative to be true to make the theory work
It’s easy to be a denier like Kristian when you ignore all the evidence.
“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
Bart uses “toy models,” without caring if they approximate reality.
What a bizarre statement. Of course I care. That is why I devised it – to help understand how the reality of the rate-of-change to temperature anomaly relationship might come about.
But you don’t care enough to seek out real evidence to test the idea.
You don’t care enough to run the numbers, to see if order of magnitude, the parameters agree with real-world numbers.
Here is an article about a massive increase (3x) in the transport of carbon from the deep ocean, that occurred 18 k years ago.
It produced a 50 ppm rise in atm CO2 over 3000 years, as the temperature rose ~ 5 C.
https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/scientists-trace-atmospheric-rise-co2-during-deglaciation-deep-pacific-ocean
Rambling, disjointed, illogical pseudoscience, ending with the requisite “We need to figure out how much.”
Translation: Send money!
I already have all the evidence that is required, Nate. The data are very clear. I am telling you water is wet, and you are frantically insisting I must get more data to prove it. Well, I’m sorry. I haven’t the time for foolish non-productive work, nor am I inclined to indulge your denial.
Bart:
CO2 has a strong seasonal variation. Where is that strong seasonal variation in the temperature anomaly?
It has been subtracted out. That’s why it is called an anomaly.
Roy is censoring the substance of my reply.
No Bart. Your claim is about the anomaly, not the temperature.
DA, get help.
What was Bart’s claim about causality?
You must compare anomaly to anomaly. That is why I average the yearly CO2 to remove the yearly signal.
What does that even mean, “compare anomaly to anomaly?”
Define it mathematically.
Roy is censoring my comments again.
“I already have all the evidence that is required”
The words of a zealot, not remotely interested in finding truth.
A correlation that only is apparent when you sprinkle it with your secret sauce, without evidence of causation, is insufficient evidence.
We have pointed out a number of avenues for you to find evidence that could test your ideas.
Why on Earth wouldnt you want that?
It seems clear that you are deathly afraid that your ideas won’t stand up to further scrutiny.
Bart says:
You must compare anomaly to anomaly. That is why I average the yearly CO2 to remove the yearly signal.
What yearly signal in the anomaly? Where is it in the data?
I don’t have the time, and it is unnecessary. The evidence I have cited is dispositive.
I think I would like to point out again that when I don’t respond to a question, it is because I find it an immensely silly question that does not merit a response.
Asked for simple evidence, Bart can provide none. Not any. He’s too good to reply to questions, and has yet to given even one physical reason why his claim should be true.
Junk science. Frightened science.
“Frightened science.”
“Roy is censoring my comments again.”
lol
“The evidence I have cited is dispositive.”
No one here or in the larger scientific community is convinced by this evidence. Therefore it is not dispositive.
It requires people with a logical brain to turn it off.
It requires a series of improbable coincidences, and lots of other findings to be flawed or wrong.
It is a weak correlation without causation, makes no predictions beyond pre-existing observations.
It is based on a hand-waving model. Are its parameters physically realistic? You dont bother to find out.
You assume that the hundreds of experts who have developed a deep understanding of the carbon cycle, must be wrong, but you cannot point out why.
You inexplicably ignore data that could test the hypothesis.
All of these things are hallmarks of a religious view, not a scientific one.
Ok, so you have no evidence to support your theory, and vaguely dismiss any evidence to the contrary.
Then, ironically, accuse researchers like Sune Olander Rasmussen of having confirmation bias.
(My guess is you have little or no expertise in analyzing ice core samples, and wouldn’t be able to distinguish bias from impartiality. So the claim is completely baseless, other than the results contradict your opinion.)
Nobody can claim to have expertise in analyzing ice core samples. It’s non-verifiable.
What are you qualifications to make such a judgement?
(None whatsoever.)
Andrex is a project that studies the circulation of surface and deep ocean water. Way too complicated (and boring) for me:
http://projects.noc.ac.uk/andrex/andrex-publications
A final proof that the Moon is NOT rotating about it’s axis:
Tim…”All motion is relative to the reference frame you choose (a few blokes like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein explained this long ago).
* Relative to ANY reference frame not rotating relative to the ‘fixed stars’, the moon is rotating.
* Relative to ANY reference frame not rotating relative to the ‘fixed ground’, the horse on the merry-go-round is rotating.
* Relative to ANY reference frame rotating with the same angular velocity vector as the merry-go-round platform, the horse is not rotating”.
********
Tim…a while back I proposed a model with two coins of different sizes. One is a Canadian $2 coin, 1 1/8″ dia. and the other a dime, about 5/8″ dia. You could do the same with different sized washers, or even washers of the same size.
The Moon is the dime and the $2 coin is the Earth.
Sit the $2 coin before you and mark a reference frame with a line (y-axis) pointed straight away from you through centre of coin. Then mark an x-axis through the centre of the coin perpendicular to the y-axis.
You are sitting at 6 o’clock wrt the coin, 12 o’clock is the other side of the coin away from you, and 3 o’clock is to your right.
Butt the dime against the larger coin at 3 o’clock. Mark a line (x-axis)across the dime through its centre from 3 o’clock to the other side of the coin so the line is an extension of the x-axis on the larger coin.
Draw a small arrow on the dime x-axis so it points to 3 o’clock on the larger coin. Also, draw a y-axis through the dime’s centre perpendicular to the x-axis.
Now you have a primary reference frame on the larger coin and a secondary reference frame on the dime.
Keep your eye focused on the arrow on the dime’s x-axis where it points to 3 o’clock on the larger coin. Now try to move the dime so that the arrow remains in contact with the larger coin’s circumference.
YOU CANNOT ROTATE THE DIME ABOUT ITS CENTRE, YOU MUST “SLIDE” THE DIME AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE LARGER COIN.
For rotation, that arrow head must turn a full 360 degrees CCW around the dime’s centre while the dime goes around the circumference of the larger coin. That means the coin would have to ROLL around the circumference, not slide.
To keep the arrow head against the larger coin’s circumference, the dime must SLIDE against it and that motion is curvilinear translation.
It is not rotation about an axis.
It’s the same action you’d see if you had a circle which you could cut and bend into a straight line. So pretend that larger coin’s circumference is a circle bent into a straight line. Cut the circle at 3 o’clock and bend it into a straight line so the 3 o’clock position is to the right.
Start at the right end of the line and move the dime with its arrow pointed at the line throughout its travel to the left hand side. That is rectilinear translation.
In order for the dime to rotate about its axis you’d have to roll it along the line.
If you now bend the straight line back into a circle, you are doing exactly the same translation, but this time it is curvilinear translation. You must slide the dime around the larger coin in order to keep the same face pointed at the larger coin.
Yes…the dime’s reference frame is turning a full 360 degrees during its orbit of the larger coin, but that turning is not rotation about the dime’s axis. It’s a property of the orbit.
All perpendicular lines through the dime’s x-axis are moving parallel to tangent lines on the dime’s circumference. If the dime was rotating, those lines would be turning in a circle about the dime’s centre.
Sorry, I do not, and have not carried cash for many years now. I am far too rich to be bothered with coins. I suggest you invest your coin collection in renewable energy stocks.
mickey…”I do not, and have not carried cash for many years now. I am far too rich to be bothered with coins”.
Is this Mickey mouse?
Your reply is typically alarmist and MM.
I have a $10 bill in my wallet that’s been there for months; I pay for everything with credit cards. (If I can’t, I don’t buy it.) I’ve been doing this for over 10 years. Cash is out.
DA, does your therapist take credit cards?
That might tell you something.
A perfect example of what I wrote belong, right on cue.
Btw, $2 Canadian coin:
Toonie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toonie
Gordon Robertson says:
A final proof that the Moon is NOT rotating about its axis:
This animation makes it crystal clear that Moon is rotating about its polar axis. Just follow the Moon’s black patch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
This discussion has gotten moronic, because the usual suspects deny everything they can’t understand.
Gordon
I appreciate that you present an argument, however goofy.
Just one of several errors, “In order for the dime to rotate about its axis youd have to roll it along the line.”
******
See if you can demonstrate to yourself why that’s not true. You’re a great thinker, right?
snape…”Just one of several errors, In order for the dime to rotate about its axis youd have to roll it along the line.
******
See if you can demonstrate to yourself why thats not true. Youre a great thinker, right?”
………………….
I can’t demonstrate it not being true and here’s why.
If you take one half of the dime’s x-axis, the axis with the arrow, you have a radial line. That is a line from the coin’s centre to its circumference, or one-half its diameter.
Don’t know if you know this, but if you run those radial lines around the circumference, head to tail, you can fit 6.28 of them onto the circumference, or 2pi radians. The radial line is a radian.
In order for there to be rotation about the coin’s centre, that radial line has to turn through so many degrees/radians ABOUT THE CENTRE. As long as the arrow on the radial line points to the surface of the larger coin, it cannot turn about its own centre. The angular velocity would be zero about its centre.
I pointed out that all lines perpendicular to that radial line are moving parallel to a tangent line defined where the arrow meets the larger coin’s surface.
That is curvilinear translation, not rotation.
I need to be more clear, but then it gives away the answer. Oh well.
If you “roll” the dime (in common terms), along some distance, the dime will make a certain amount of rotations – determined by its diameter.
You can also rotate the dime at a much slower rate as it moves along the path, allowing it to slide as you do so.
I believe that is called “rolling with slipping”, but I’m not sure. So looking at it from that point of view, the coin does have to roll in order to rotate.
snape….”You can also rotate the dime at a much slower rate as it moves along the path, allowing it to slide as you do so”.
If you do, the arrow will no longer point at the larger coin’s surface. The arrow would have to rotate through 360 degrees during one orbit of the larger coin.
Sea surface and subsurface El Nino indicators are still holding Nino patterns, but the coupling with the atmosphere hasn’t occurred yet to keep Nino conditions sustained. Chances are still around 70% for a full-blown el Nino to develop.
barry…”Chances are still around 70% for a full-blown el Nino to develop”.
If it happens, it will warm for a bit then return to near where it’s at now. We’re overdue for a good La Nina.
Someone asked the other day what the PDO does. From what I understand it affects La Nina more than El Nino. Maybe the PDO has taken a few years off.
We just has two back-to-back La Ninas.
El Nino years keep getting warmer. So do La Nina years. So do neutral years. Data:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zOo8J8PEAME/W1kEtgvh2XI/AAAAAAAALOE/SdiGiRUOB3YathYPDOqSDS8t8PCaHMHlQCLcBGAs/s640/ENSO%2Bseasons.JPG
“from what I understand”
Yup.
Gordon,
you’re making this way to hard:
“I pointed out that all lines perpendicular to that radial line are moving parallel to a tangent line defined where the arrow meets the larger coins surface.
That is curvilinear translation, not rotation.”
*******
Place the two coins on a piece of paper, and consider the edges of the paper to be an inertial frame of reference. Now do your experiment.
The tangent line, “defined where the arrow meets the larger coin’s surface”, is rotating WRT the edges of the paper.
So this is an example of relative motion, just like Tim Folkerts tried to explain…….. the dime is translating WRT the rotating tangent line, rotating WRT the inertial reference frame. Lol!
snape…”The tangent line, defined where the arrow meets the larger coins surface, is rotating WRT the edges of the paper”.
My example already has two reference frames, why add another?
Of course the tangent line is changing angles as it moves around the larger coin’s circumference, what would you expect a tangent line to do? It’s a line perpendicular to a rotating radial line.
You seem to have completely missed my point, or maybe you got it and you are now trying to present a red-herring argument.
As you slide the smaller coin around the edge of the bigger coin, keeping it’s X-axis pointed to the larger coin’s circumference, a radial line from the centre of the dime to the same point will follow your motion and the tangent line will follow it.
The point is that all lines on the dime perpendicular to its x-axis are moving parallel to the tangent line, which is equivalent to all points of a rigid body during rectilinear translation running parallel to the path of the movement.
Have you tried rotating the dime as you slide it around the larger coin to see if the arrow at the end of the x-axis will remain facing the larger coin?
It’s not possible to rotate the dime through 360 degrees without the point on the x-axis pointing away from the larger coin’s circumference.
Gordon says: “The point is that all lines on the dime perpendicular to its x-axis are moving parallel to the tangent line, which is equivalent to all points of a rigid body during rectilinear translation running parallel to the path of the movement.”
Its not equivalent.
For a rigid body during rectilinear motion, all points are not only moving the same direction, but they are ALSO moving with the same speed.
“For a rigid body during rectilinear motion, all points are not only moving the same direction, but they are ALSO moving with the same speed.”
Exacty as with the Moon.
NO!
The far side of the moon moves at a speed of (R+r)(omega) while the near side moves with a speed of (R-r)(omega)! [In a reference frame moving with the earth).
The far side is moving approximately 1% faster than the near side!
Points on the far side must have higher speed because their path is longer.
Dim, did you not learn anything from the airplane prop example:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-328702
You can choose all the different frames of reference you want, but the airplane prop is DEFINITELY “rotating on its own axis”. One side of the Moon is NOT moving faster than the other side. And, the Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. That is the the reality.
Accept reality. Learn some physics. And clean up your act.
Inner and outer tracks are the same length?
Mark, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
That’s not a tree, and your “bark” is more of a whimper!
Learn some physics.
Not rectilinear motion then.
Facts and logic, lad.
Try some reality. It will do you good.
JD, if I paint a stripe on the ends of the propeller blades, the outer end of the stripe is moving the same speed as the inner end of the stripe? A horse at the outer ring of a merry-go-round moves at the same speed as a horse at the inner ring?
https://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/horizonhobby/EFLP105084BL_a0?wid=1400&hei=778
http://gilreathsearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Merry-go-round.jpg
Of course, Tim. That is why you can get just as much exercise running in a small circle in your living room as you can on a track in a stadium. I use this fact to cut down enormously on the time needed for exercise. I just twirl around a couple times, then grab a bag of Cheetos and enjoy my favorite shows.
Tim, you are revealing your deficit in knowledge of physics.
Study “angular velocity”.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotq.html
JD,
We are all waiting with bated breath for your response to my comment on Postma’s blog directed to you.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/#comment-37155
You might want to really think before you respond.
I’ll get the popcorn.
SGW, if you “bate” your breath long enough you will pass out, and fall flat on your face, again!
Thanks for spreading the word. But, you may be disappointed, as I’m pretty sure your hero, ger*, will agree with me. After all, I watched his argument here.
There’s plenty of opportunity for “popcorn” entertainment right here. We’re all waiting for you and Tim to demonstrate how the airplane prop is not really going to chop your arm off, because it is not rotating “relative” to the other prop with the same RPM.
Clowns with no arms are even funnier than clowns with two arms….
JD, I studied your link. It says v = rω.
So let “ω” be the angular speed of the moon around the earth. If R = distance from the earth to the moon, and r(e) = the radius of the moon, then the speed of the near side of moon and the far side of the moon around the earth are respectively:
v(near) = (R-r(e))ω
v(far) = (R+r(e))ω
Are you still insisting that v(near) = v(far)?? Even your own source disagrees with your conclusion!
Dang, the “omega” did not copy properly.
Dim, if you really studied the link, then you didn’t understand it.
And, I have never indicated that “v(near) = v(far)”. You are being dishonest, again.
Learn some physics, and clean up your act.
JD: “One side of the Moon is NOT moving faster than the other side.”
ALSO JD: “I have never indicated that v(near) = v(far).”
Dim, you can’t even take things out of context to cover your misrepresentations.
You should avoid criminal activity. You just aren’t smart enough.
“One side of the Moon is NOT moving faster than the other side.”
= ‘I say I both sides of the moon are moving at the same speed.’
ALSO JD: “I have never indicated that v(near) = v(far).”
= ‘I never said both sides of the moon are moving at the same speed.’
In what possible context is this not a contradiction?
Tim, there is no possible context in which JD’s written words are not contradictory.
It is typical JD antics to run away from JD’s own words. If JD really studied JD’s own link, then JD didn’t understand it. Just like JD doesn’t understand the moon rotates on its own internal axis by simple inspection & JD doesn’t understand cartoon black bodies do not reflect incident radiation.
JD is simply a case study in being a reprobate as JD comments on this site only for entertainment purposes and not to understand basic physics.
Dim–
Both sides of the Moon have the same angular velocity. But their instantaneous linear velocities vary with “R”.
Learn some physics. Quit trying to misrepresent others. Appreciate reality. And, clean up your act.
“Both sides of the Moon have the same angular velocity.”
Thus the moon rotates on its own axis, thank you JD.
“Dang, the “omega” did not copy properly.”
Tim, I wondered why you wrote that because at first my browser displayed omega symbol and now it does not. Happens to a few other characters also.
And fluffball falls flat on his face, again.
The Moon’s angular velocity is due to its orbit.
Poor fluffball, he never gets anything right.
“The Moon’s angular velocity..”
Yes JD, the moon’s angular velocity since it rotates on its own internal axis once per complete orbit of the earth. Glad you recognize that now. Thus both sides of the Moon have the same angular velocity as you write in the moon’s frame.
Next, work on understanding cartoon black bodies do not reflect incident radiation – that would be another achievement for JD.
Tim, notice fluffball’s comment above. If you really want to learn how to misrepresent others, fluffball is your perfect teacher. He has no regard for truth.
Take good notes….
JD, we could walk through the discussion line by line. The original context was clearly LINEAR speed. You can’t pretend the discussion or your initial comment was about angular speed.
But it is good we can at least agree that a rigid body like the moon rotates with a constant angular speed for all parts of the moon (approximately 360 degrees /27.3 days =13.1 degrees/day = 0.55 degrees/hr with respect to the stars).
Notice Ball4’s comment above has no misrepresentaton since JD was copied exactly “Moon’s angular velocity” and Tim is correct. JD thinks JD’s words are misrepresented because JD doesn’t understand basic physics of reference frames.
Yes Dim, we could “walk through the discussion line by line”, but you still would be trying to spin reality.
You wouldn’t stick your arm in the rotating prop. But, you would claim it is not rotating, based on some arbitrary “frame of reference”.
You twist and spin reality to fit your beliefs, but you won’t stand by your beliefs.
Clean up your act.
JDHuffman says:
The Moons angular velocity is due to its orbit.
Completely wrong. The Moon is rotating, with a period equal to it orbital period.
If it weren’t rotating, we’d see different sides of it. We don’t.
Every astronomer in the world agrees that the Moon is rotating.
tim…”if I paint a stripe on the ends of the propeller blades, the outer end of the stripe is moving the same speed as the inner end of the stripe?”
All points on the propeller turn at the same angular velocity. You are interested in how long it takes each point to turn through 360 degrees, not how fast it is going.
The propeller function is determined by how many times it turns per unit time as a rigid body, not by how fast each particle is moving.
DA, where’s your link?
You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. All you have is your link.
Did you lose your link?
tim…”But it is good we can at least agree that a rigid body like the moon rotates with a constant angular speed for all parts of the moon…”
Therefore the Moon is performing curvilinear motion in its orbit. The illusion that the Moon rotates once per orbital period is due to the properties of the orbit.
Ever seen one of those rides in an amusement perk where you stand in a cage and the whole wall with the cages starts to turn? When it gets to a certain angular velocity, they move the floor down and you remain stuck to the wall.
Each revolution of the ride you face N, S, E and W and all points between, yet your body does not rotate about its axis.
ball4…”Both sides of the Moon have the same angular velocity.
Thus the moon rotates on its own axis….”
**************
If both sides have the same angular velocity, they are turning parallel to each other at the same speed, the definition of curvilinear translation.
It also means the Moon cannot rotate about its axis, otherwise those parallel lines would be rotating. They can’t rotate if the inner side always faces the earth.
Clearly the Moon is rotating, as every astronomer in the world will tell you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Gordon Robertson says:
Each revolution of the ride you face N, S, E and W and all points between, yet your body does not rotate about its axis.
That is the very definition of rotation.
JDHuffman says:
Did you lose your link?
The link you always ignore?
DA, you found your link!
Now if only you could understand it….
What don’t I understand about that simple animation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DA, you don’t understand orbital motions.
Learn some physics.
Keep hiding.
Keep fantasizing.
“If both sides have the same angular velocity…means the Moon cannot rotate about its axis”
Huh? Gordon you come up with some of the most outlandish physics gaffes ever written on this blog. On par with JD.
tim…For a rigid body during rectilinear motion, all points are not only moving the same direction, but they are ALSO moving with the same speed”.
********
As would a radial line drawn through a rigid body performing curvilinear translation about a circular orbit.
If you ran a radial line from the orbit centre to the orbiting body, and through it, all points on the radial line would be turning at the same angular velocity, in radians/degrees per second, as the radial line.
You are getting confused as to the difference between angular velocity of a rigid body and particle velocity. On the Earth, a particle on the Equator is moving at close to 1000 mph whereas a particle at my latitude in Vancouver, Canada is moving at 800+ mph.
However, a line of longitude going through Vancouver and an equivalent point on the Equator is turning at the same angular velocity of 360 degrees in 24 hours, or 1 degree in 240 seconds.
If you are standing 10 feet from the North Pole, it will still take you 24 hours to circle the Pole around that circle with a circumference of 31.4 feet.
That meets the definition of curvilinear translation.
““That meets the definition of curvilinear translation.”
Gordon. You have had the wrong definition of curvilinear translation throughout this whole discussion. Your personal definition does not conform to the standard kinematic definition:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”
[[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
You are looking real ignorant.
skeptic…”Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration ”
It’s not my ignorance I’m worried about it’s your inability to read and comprehend.
I have already given a practical example of both. I took a dime and marked an x,y axis on it. I set the dime up on a horizontal line, with the x-axis parallel to it, and slide the dime along the line, keeping the x-axis parallel to the line. That meets the definition above of rectilinear translation.
Had I rolled the dime along the line, the x-axis would have turned through 360 degrees.
Then I bent the line into a circle and performed the same action with the dime. The x-axis remained parallel to tangential lines at each point on the circle. That meets the definition of curvilinear translation.
Tim queried the other point, that all points have the same velocity and acceleration. The definition above lacks precision, it should state ‘the same angular velocity and acceleration’.
There is a difference between the particle velocity in a rigid body referred to by Tim and angular velocity. With angular velocity, all particles along a radial line are turning at the same rate, as required by a rigid body.
If the rigid body was rotating about its COG, that would be another matter.
“The definition above lacks precision, it should state the same angular velocity and acceleration.”
Every kinematic reference I have posted says the same thing! YOU are just making up your own definition.
You are confusing curvilinear motion with curvilinear translation.
Find me ANY university reference that states curvilinear translation meets your DELUSIONAL definition.
You are a piece of work, Gordon. I cannot take anything you say seriously.
“In other words, all the points on a translating rigid body move with the same velocity and acceleration”
[http://www.engineering.uco.edu/~aaitmoussa/Courses/ENGR2043/Dynamics/Chapter4/ch4.pdf]
Bummer, Gordon. “Same velocity”. NOT same “angular” velocity.
And you accuse ME of reading comprehension?? LMAO.
” Consider rigid body in translation: direction of any straight line inside the body is constant. All particles have the same velocity. All particles have the same acceleration.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/mehmet.cevik/Dynamics/Slides/CHAP15_Kinematics_of%20rigid_bodies.pdf]
Gordon,
Your dime experiment is wrong too. Draw a horizontal line through the dime. Sit at your table facing north. Make the horizontal line through the dime align in the East-West direction. If you move the dime along a curve, the horizontal line must remain pointed in the east-west direction throughout its movement in order to be considered curvilinear translation. The line CANNOT move tangent to the curve, because then it would not remain parallel to the original direction, and therefore not be translational motion.
All translational motion does is change the position of the object without changing its orientation.
I don’t know why you insist on making stuff up.
Gordon, I assure you I am not confusing “angular velocity” with “velocity”.
The problem (in pretty much of these sorts of discussions) is that 5 different interpretations of 3 different definitions are being discussed in 4 different subthreads by 15 different people.
At this point, the word “curvilinear” (along with “orbit”). No discussion will possibly be fruitful until people agree on a definition. And then agree on what that means.
The most basic definitions for both “rectilinear” and “curvilinear” are for POINT objects following a particular path. And of course, you can’t talk about “orientation” or “different parts of the object” for a point object.
For extended bodies, we then have to expand the definition. The most common definitions all say “every part of an extend object moves with the same velocity” — which means the same speed, the same direction. So a Ferris wheel seat would fit this definition, where the same part of the seat is always downward.
You seem to want to use some other definition. So how would YOU define this word? If you don’t have a precise, mathematical definition, that is fine. But realize we can’t discuss the merits of your definition if you don’t have a definition!
Let me amend that at little. The problem is that people never seem to get BEYOND definitions to make specific predictions that can be tested.
For example, circular orbits are easy and pretty much any model will suffice. But elliptical orbits force more specific predictions. It turns out the “riding on parallel rails” (which is Gordon’s version of curvilinear motion) does not conserve energy and does not conserve angular momentum during an elliptical orbit of a moon. Same for the “one side always faces the planet” model.
Tim, that’s gibberish pseudoscience.
Learn some physics.
With standard definitions and a non-inverted reference frame that means:
Tim, that’s physics.
Learn some gibberish pseudoscience.
Svante, are you going to stick your arm in the rotating airplane prop, or your head? It’s not really rotating, based on some irrelevant frame of reference.
Go for it.
I understand your reference frame now. You mean:
All your messages make sense now.
Yes Svante, when the frame of reference is specified as “its own axis”, you don’t have the option of another frame. You might end up getting parts of your anatomy chopped off!
As you learned with the airplane prop example, you cannot escape reality. Your pseudoscience will eventually always make you a clown.
You seem to be learning.
You don’t have to thank me….
JDHuffman says:
“Your pseudoscience will eventually always make you a clown.”
Translated: JD’s pseudoscience will immediately make JD a clown.
Svante, you always seem to forget the basics–“Fantasy is NOT reality”.
You may need to tattoo that on your forehead.
Yay Svante- I think you’ve cracked the code.
Yes, JD has the code tattooed inside his head:
“Reality is fantasy”.
tim…”For a rigid body during rectilinear motion, all points are not only moving the same direction, but they are ALSO moving with the same speed”.
I tried to explain this in detail. With a rigid body, the angular velocity is not measured by the velocity of individual particles, or lines. It is measured by the rate of change of a radial line through the entire body from the focal point about which the body turns. Therefore all particles are traveling with the same angular velocity.
The angular velocity of the Earth’s rotation can be described by a radial line from the Earth’s centre to the zero longitude running through Greenwich, at the equator. Even though people standing on the Greenwich longitude where it intercepts the Equator are turning much faster than people standing near the Poles, they are all turning at the same angular velocity.
It’s the same with the Moon orbiting the Earth. You have to treat the Moon as a rigid body with it’s angular velocity based on a radial line turning around the Earth.
It becomes complex if you treat the orbit as an eclipse so for argument’s sake, treat the orbit as a circle. Then the radial line goes from the Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre.
If you consider the Average distance Earth centre to Moon, it is 239,000 miles. The orbital circumference for that average should be 2(239,000)pi = 478000(3.14) = 1,500.920 mi.
The sidereal orbital period is 27.32 days which translates to 655.68 hours. Therefore the average angular velocity of the Moon in orbit is 1,500,920 mi/655.68 hours = about 2289 miles/hour.
This wiki article claims a mean orbital velocity of 2290 mph, which is about the same as my calculation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Let’s look at that with a radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon. The line will turn through 360 degrees or 6.28 radians in a circular orbit. According to the wiki page, the Moon moves the distance of its diameter, or half a degree per hour.
There are 360 degrees for a full sidereal orbit and 655.68 hours to do it. That’s 360 degrees/655.68 hours = 0.55 degrees per hour.
That’s how the angular velocity of the Moon in orbit is calculated, not by the velocity of individual particles, or differently spaced lines parallel to the motion.
This running controversy on these boards is so insane. The Moon rotates with respect to the stars. It does not rotate (except for a bit of libration) with respect to its orbit about the Earth. Rotation is not intrinsic, it is relative. It must be specified with respect to something else.
Everyone is right, and wrong. End of discussion.
I agree with Bart, for once. All motion is relative.
DA…”I agree with Bart, for once. All motion is relative”.
Only to the illusion-prone human mind. We are the only species with the ability to abstract actuality. We talk of sunrises and sunsets and see the Sun moving across the sky as it orbits the Earth.
We invent time, basing the second on the rotational period of the Earth, for which we had to invent the clock to measure it, before sub-dividing the measure into hours, minutes, and seconds.
Then we have the temerity to claim the second can dilate.
Experiments show that time dilation is a fact.
Educate yourself, for once.
Watch: Gordon will slink away and not confront the evidence at all. Or even bother to read about it.
Bart, no, you cannot destroy the moon’s angular momentum due the moon’s angular velocity in any arbitrary reference frame.
These relativity arguments are silly, yes, but entertaining and the basic physics prevails outing those unaccomplished in the field.
Gordon
TIME dilates. The unit of time that we use simply measures that dilation.
Ball4, I have to disagree. Relativity provides powerful insights. I have a 500 g object sitting on my desk — what is its KE? Well in my frame, it is not moving, so KE = 0. But the desk is spinning with the earth at 1000 km/h, so in that frame the object has a large KE! In the Sun’s frame, the speed is even greater.
So the energy of an object depends on the reference frame you choose!
And the angular momentum depends on the frame you choose. Certainly some frames are easier than other (eg aligned to the ‘fixed’ stars), but any frame can be used and can give correct predictions.
Tim states: “…but any frame can be used and can give correct predictions.”
Tim, when are you gong to stick your hand in the rotating airplane prop? It’s not rotating based on the frame of reference of the other prop rotating at the same RPM.
Stick your arm in the prop, or face the fact that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
“Well in my frame, it is not moving, so KE = 0.”
Your frame is moving Tim. You can’t destroy KE with an arbitrary ref. frame either, this is so basic.
Properly you should write “relative to my frame, it is not moving, so relative to my frame its KE = 0”.
This is why JD asks incomplete questions about conserved quantities (for angular momentum sometimes doesn’t state relative to what axis) & then complains about incomplete answers. It’s entertaining to watch JD struggle with basic physics. The best thing is JD will never improve (avoids it studiously) so JD’s entertainment value is unending.
“So the energy of an object depends on the reference frame you choose!”
Yes, you have to state it (which JD doesn’t). PE also depends on your selection of PE=0 reference frame. To be complete, you always need to state PE relative to surface (AGL), to sea level, so forth.
JD, when are you going to realize that BOTH frames of reference predict the same terrible result? Changing frames of reference does NOT change the predictions.
Ball4 says: “Your frame is moving Tim. You cant destroy KE with an arbitrary ref. frame either, this is so basic.”
Einstein would beg to differ! While many scientists were seeking to find the “true rest frame” of the universe (the “aether”), Einstein concluded there was no preferred inertial frame. There is no way to know if the Milky Way is “stationary” and Andromeda is moving toward us at 400,000 km/hr — or if we are moving toward then at 400,000 km/hr — or if we are moving toward each other at 200,000 km/hr.
Which speed is the one-and-only “correct” speed to calculate the KE of the black hold at the center of our galaxy as it hurtles toward Andomeda? Different choices “create” KE for that blackhole!
Tim, when are you going to realize that BOTH frames of reference predict the same terrible result? Changing frames of reference does NOT change the predictions.
IOW Tim, playing with frames of reference does NOT change reality.
You’re learning.
Einstein would NOT beg to differ! His words, 1920:
“(T)he most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of different directions.”
“Different choices “create” KE for that blackhole!”
No, that’s wrong. No form of energy can be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed. It is the v in the KE formula which is relative so that v means you MUST state to what frame the v is relative. JD, being a self-proclaimed reprobate, doesn’t understand this is important so neglects to do that thus answers to JD’s questions about angular momentum are unknown as I pointed out to JD in the last monthly thread.
Einstein 1920 again: “The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation. So that if we adhere to (the Galilei-Newton law of inertia*) we must refer these motions only to systems of co-ordinates relative to which the fixed stars do not move in a circle.”
Furthermore, AE points out you are wrong if you do employ a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to your blackhole for KE=0, then, relative to this system, every fixed star describes a circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a result which is opposed to the statement of that law of inertia.
*Stated in AE words 1920: “A body removed sufficiently far from other bodies continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line.”
IOW, JD, you finally caught up to what I have been saying for a long time!
Now that we agree that reference frames don’t change reality, try to use your understanding to predict reality for an elliptical orbit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329053
There can be only one right answer no matter what reference frame is used. No matter what words are used.
Tim, now that you understand you can’t change reality by changing frames of reference, you need to understand that applies to the Moon.
The Moon is NOT “rotating on its own axis”. So, there is “only one right answer no matter what reference frame is used”.
Keep learning.
JD, you can use whatever words you like. Until you can actually predict something like the orientation of a moon or planet in an elliptical orbit, your words mean pretty much nothing.
Its an easy question — surely with your advanced undertanding you can tell us the right answer and explain your reasoning. Which way does the planet (or moon) in the given elliptical orbit face when it has moved 1/4 of the way around the orbit?
Tim, you’re not going to start imitating DA, are you? Asking stupid questions to cover up for a lack of understanding of physics?
If the object is not rotating on its axis, then the same side will always be facing the inside of the orbit.
No more stupid questions, please!
“If the object is not rotating on its axis, then the same side will always be facing the inside of the orbit.”
Another moronic comment from g I can post on Postma’s site.
Yes definitely SGW, spread the word.
You make a good errand boy.
bob…”Gordon
TIME dilates. The unit of time that we use simply measures that dilation”.
No, Bob, the unit of time we use, the second, ‘IS’ time. There is no other phenomenon in the universe equivalent to that time.
The second is derived from the rotational period of the Earth and that FIXED second is the same second Einstein used in GRT. He said as much, that time is the hands on a clock. That time on the clock is derived from the second we defined based on the FIXED rotaional period of the Earth.
If time dilates, then the rotational velocity of the Earth must change.
If you know of another time, let’s hear it in terms that can be tested.
Many people are under the illusion that a time arrow exists from the so-called beginning of the universe till today. There is no such dimension, it’s purely an illusion created by the human mind. So is space-time.
ball4…”It is the v in the KE formula which is relative so that v means you MUST state to what frame the v is relative”.
I have done countless problems in physics while studying engineering and not once was I asked to state a frame of reference. As long as you draw a system of axes and make no reference to other reference frames, intelligent humans presume you are talking about the reference frame stated by drawing the system of axes.
Not once throughout my career have I had to explain to anyone that I was referring to a specific reference frame.
Reference frames are the domain of eggheads who deal in primarily in abstract science.
If you want to deal with reference frames, trying watching the Sun at the horizon one day, in the morning, and try to see the horizon moving down wrt the Sun, rather than the Sun moving up wrt the horizon. You might find that despite your claims of the vector ‘v’ in a reference frame that you are contradicting yourself.
“No more stupid questions, please!”
The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife …
Dim, the irony always comes out when clowns try to advance their pseudoscience.
You likely miss most of it….
Ball4 @ November 9, 2018 at 10:38 PM
“Bart, no, you cannot destroy the moons angular momentum due the moons angular velocity in any arbitrary reference frame.”
You are introducing dynamics into the discussion. I am speaking purely of kinematics.
Tim Folkerts @ November 10, 2018 at 7:57 AM
What we define as angular momentum is with respect to an inertial frame of reference. We do this because the equations become much simpler there.
But, this is an issue of dynamics, not kinematics.
KE is always the same relative to inertial space. But, in calculations within local frames of reference, we can neglect all but the KE due to relative motion, as the impacts of that neglect are small.
“You are introducing dynamics into the discussion. I am speaking purely of kinematics.”
This makes no sense Bart. Perhaps you can rephrase to convey a sensible meaning. Both analytical dynamics and kinematics are concerned with accelerations in classical mechanics. I introduce nothing beyond your 4:50pm comment context.
“What we define as angular momentum is with respect to an inertial frame of reference.”
Not necessarily, just need to define an axis about which the angular momentum is to be calculated. There could be additional angular momentum about other axes to get to the inertial frame total angular momentum of a rigid body. JD did not do that so JD’s initial problem was not well posed, it had no answer despite JD’s use of a formula rote copied from the internet.
It sure is entertaining reading Gordon (and JD) try to discuss physics as if they were accomplished in the field. Here is Gordon explaining to someone that Gordon is referring to a specific reference frame:
Gordon 5:26pm: “The angular velocity of the Earth’s rotation can be described by a radial line from the Earth’s centre to the zero longitude running through Greenwich, at the equator.”
The Gordon writes Gordon has never had to explain this, “Not once”!
Gordon 5:44pm: “Not once throughout my career have I had to explain to anyone that I was referring to a specific reference frame.”
Great entertainment, great basic physics not so much.
Bart, I am not sure what you are trying to say here:
“KE is always the same relative to inertial space. But, in calculations within local frames of reference, we can neglect all but the KE due to relative motion, as the impacts of that neglect are small.”
KE is most definitely different in different frames. There is no single “inertial space” that gives the single correct KE.
If I have two 1.0 kg objects moving at speed 0 m/s and 2 m/s in my inertial frame, they have KE = 0 J and KE = 2 J respectively. In a different inertial frame moving at 10 m/s, they would have KE = (1/2)*1*10^2 = 50 J and (1/2)*1*(12^2) = 72 J respectively. So not only are the KEs different, the difference between the two KE’s is different (2-0 = 2 vs 72-50 = 22)!
“in my inertial frame, they have KE = 0 J and KE = 2 J respectively. In a different inertial frame moving at 10 m/s..”
Tim, you can’t have two different inertial frames, there is only one universe. There is only one possible inertial frame, the universal one.
The KE will be the same once you account for your moving frame relative to the one inertial frame, energy can not be destroyed or created by changing ref. frames.
ball4, an “inertial reference frame” is any frame where an object at rest remains at rest unless a net force is applied. There are infinite inertial frames. Any frame moving at constant velocity relative to an inertial frame is also an inertial frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
The Michelson-Morley Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment was basically an attempt to find the “true rest frame” of the universe and instead showed that there is no such preferred frame.
Wiki page Tim cites:
“All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another”
“In practice, although not a requirement, using a frame of reference based upon the fixed stars as though it were an inertial frame of reference introduces very little discrepancy.”
This would be the most basic inertial reference frame AE wrote about 12:59pm: “The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation.”
So if one calculates the KE of an object in that frame where the Galilei-Newton law of inertia certainly holds, that KE will be exactly the same in every other frame once the motion of that frame relative to the most basic inertial frame is accounted for. Thus your two KEs are exactly the same once your relative frame motions are accounted.
This is not usually controversial, here it is because certain commenters write the moon is not rotating, has no angular velocity, no angular momentum, when it certainly does in the most basic inertial frame: “The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation.” So the moon must then have that same KE in any other frame they care to construct once the relative motions are accounted as energy is always conserved – otherwise those commenters destroy energy & thus they do.
As far as MM experiment on that wiki page you cite there is no hit for “true rest frame” so you introduce terms not discussed on that page. In my experience, that is not what MM were doing, they were searching for the effects of the aether on light speed and found none.
“Thus your two KEs are exactly the same once your relative frame motions are accounted.”
YES! Exactly! Just like speeds and positions are the same once the shift from one frame to another is accounted for.
I agree this should not be controversial — other than a few people here who are just completely misinformed about frames of reference and rotation.
My only quibble with your post is that you imply there is one ‘correct reference frame’. Relativity says all such frames are equivalent.
There is only one hit in these comments for ‘correct reference frame’ which is in Tim’s comment so those are Tim’s words not mine. I do not imply there is one ‘correct reference frame’ instead simply point out what AE wrote in 1920 “The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation.”
Tim – Apologies. I was trying to point out that, in your example of the object on your desk spinning on the Earth, the KE includes its movement with the Earth, but you can neglect that in local calculations. But, you are entirely correct that any inertial frame is equivalent to any other.
Ball4 – the utility of angular momentum lies in the fact that, relative to an inertial frame, it is constant under torque-free motion. If it is not defined relative to an inertial frame, its utility vanishes.
Bart, yes, that’s another way of writing Galilei-Newton law of inertia and “The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation.”
bart…”This running controversy on these boards is so insane. The Moon rotates with respect to the stars. It does not rotate (except for a bit of libration) with respect to its orbit about the Earth. Rotation is not intrinsic, it is relative. It must be specified with respect to something else.
Everyone is right, and wrong. End of discussion”.
*******
Not really, Bart, it’s an extension of the futility you were facing trying to convince the alarmists that CO2 follows the warming.
The original premise of this debate was that the Moon does not rotate about its axis. You saw that immediately, the alarmists are posing all forms of pseudo-science to get around it. They all believe the Moon is rotating about its axis, just as they believe all that nonsense about AGW.
Your argument that rotation is relative would be fine had the initial problem not been stated so exactly with the Moon as the reference frame. It does not matter which reference frame you might be in, there is no angular velocity about the Moon’s axis, intrinsically or extrinsically.
Besides, I am beginning to question the tenets of relative motion. I just read an interesting argument in which a philosopher discussed the opposing views of Newton and Leibnitz on motion.
Newton maintained that motion requires a force of some kind. He even referred to inertia as a kind of force, which is interesting. Einstein, on the other hand, approached motion from a POV of acceleration, rather than force.
That’s dangerous, acceleration includes the man-made unit of time, where the second is defined based on the angular velocity of the Earth. You cannot filter time out of the definition of acceleration and make it an independent variable.
If you do, you end up with time dilation, which is a contradiction of the definition of the second. If time can dilate, then the angular velocity of the Earth must change.
Gordon – the Moon does rotate about an axis relative to the stars. Time dilation is a fact. Einstein’s theories work. I have seen them all in action, and the calculations proceeding from these concepts are spot on.
It is nothing like the climate debate, where the data are ambiguous and inconclusive, and people have latitude to choose sides within reasonable bounds. We can test the above theories in real time, end to end, and they are spot on every time.
bart…”the Moon does rotate about an axis relative to the stars. Time dilation is a fact. Einsteins theories work”.
Please go into this, it’s very interesting stuff.
I have never claimed E’s equation don’t work, I have only claimed that the second is fixed to the period of Earth’s rotation therefore it cannot change.
Where have you seen the second dilate? You need to be very careful that what you are seeing is not due to another issue involving real forces and masses. You can do it mathematically by using incorrect assumptions about time but in reality, you can’t.
I think E may have gone overboard by ignoring real forces and masses, and their properties, while considering only velocities and accelerations. The scientist who discovered the atom clock, Louis Essen, claimed Einstein did not understand measurement as applied in science. The knock on Einstein is that he tended to solve relativity issues through thought experiments rather than doing actual measurements. As a result, he tended to leap to conclusions that cannot be corroborated.
You can do anything E did using Newtonian physics except at the atomic level. GRT is not required at terrestrial speeds. I think that eventually someone will find a way to apply Newtonian relativity to atomic structures without the hoopla about time dilation and measured distances changing length as speed increases.
Do you not see that the problem with time dilation is the human observer? A human moving on a platform while viewing motion on another moving platform will not see the reality. That is a weakness in human observation.
In engineering drawing classes we spent hours calculating ‘true lengths’ on spherical and cylindrical bodies that the human mind could not visualize accurately.
If you had machines do the observing (measuring) I think they would not detect time dilation.
Gordon – Time dilation due to relative velocities is established by the Doppler shift. The formula for the Doppler shift of sound waves depends upon whether you are approaching the source, or the source is approaching you. With light, the formula is the same either way. That requires a difference in the rate of change of time for the source versus the receiver.
In fact, you can derive the whole of Special Relativity from the Doppler shift alone. And, the Doppler shift is confirmed thousands, maybe millions, of times every day in police and weather radars, and other applications.
You must define what you mean by “time”. If you’ve thought of it as just some nebulous, intrinsic beat of the universe, that is an incorrect viewpoint. Time, like motion, is always relative. It has no meaning applied to a single event. You must compare it to some other event in order to have a measure of time.
For instance, you know that your cake will rise in the oven in an hour. How do you know? By comparing it to the number of ticks of a clock. How do you know how long the ticks of a clock take? Well, it takes an hours worth to bake a cake. Or, it takes a year’s worth to transition to winter, summer, and back to winter. The measure of time always must be compared to something else.
It happens that the ticks of a clock go slower in an accelerated frame of reference than they do in a stationary one. That is to say, the rate of time is slower in the accelerated frame relative to the stationary one.
Let go of your naive conception of time. It is not at an absolute pace. Its pace is relative to other events. This is confirmed every single second of every single day in myriad applications. Turning your back on it, and insisting on your own version of reality, is just covering your ears and clenching your eyes shut. You cannot make progress that way.
Bart 2:05pm, now that’s a sensible comment.
Gordon, consider this example of what Bart is attempting to teach you about time:
Lightning has struck the rails on a railway embankment at two places A and B far distant from each other. I make the additional assertion that these two lightning flashes occurred simultaneously. I ask Gordon: is there sense in this statement?
Bart, you appear to be retreating from your previous stance.
Maybe you have developed an appreciation for reality.
Do you wish to be removed from the “Spinners” list?
Same stance as always. What part confused you?
Does the Moon rotate on its own axis, as it keeps one side facing Earth?
The correct answer can be stated in one word.
The question is incomplete. Relative to what frame of reference is the rotation to be measured?
Sorry, your response was incorrect.
Recommendation is to study orbital motions before the next exam.
Sorry, insufficient information. Please resubmit the question in the proper form.
Ger*an: answer Bart’s question:
“Relative to what frame of reference is the rotation to be measured?”
Bart, your failure to understand the question indicates your failure to understand the basic physics.
Notice the recurring word “failure”.
What basic physics does Bart not understand here?
Be specific.
DA, for starters, Bart is unable to answer the simple question:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-328965
Rather than argue semantics, make an actual prediction. That is the whole point of science — to understand the universe and be able to predict its behavior!
Suppose a planet orbits a star in a rather elliptical orbit, as illustrated here.
http://hildaandtrojanasteroids.net/KeplerII.jpg
One side of the planet is always roughly facing the star (ie the stars move across the sky exactly once during the orbit). At the point in the orbit labeled “A”, suppose you are standing on the right side of the planet — the spot closest to the sun, facing perpendicular to the direction of travel. Draw a huge “X” on the ground.
By the time the Planet has moved to the point labeled “C” (approximately 1/4 of the distance around the orbit), that “X” will be facing:
a) directly toward the star still (“up and to the left” along the line toward the star, but not perpendicular to the direction of travel).
b) perpendicular to the direction of travel (“up” toward the center of the ellipse, but not facing the star).
c) “up and to the right” (about 60 degrees counterclockwise from the x-axis).
d) other.
If you can’t make an accurate prediction of the orientation of the planet at that point, then no amount of arguing about words matters.
bart…”The question is incomplete. Relative to what frame of reference is the rotation to be measured?”
The frame of reference has been stated, the Moon and its axis.
However, relative to any frame of reference there is no angular velocity that can be measured ‘ON’ the Moon. If there was, the face that always faces the Earth would rotate through 360 degrees and away from the Earth.
The rotation to which you refer is an apparent rotation which is actually the property of curvilinear motion in an orbit. Yes, an axis drawn through the Moon will give the appearance of a rotation through 360 degrees but that is caused by the Moon’s momentum carrying it in an orbit around the Earth with one face frozen toward the Earth.
That rotation is caused by gravity pulling on the Moon while one axis through the Moon always point toward the Earth. The Moon tries to move in a straight line. but it is gradually turned around the Earth orbit by gravity hence the appearance that it is turning about it’s own axis.
If you observed the action from Polaris, the Moon would appear to rotate, but is it? Is there another explanation. I think there is.
bart…in other words, are our minds messing with us by wanting to see a rotation?
It can come down to semantics as to what rotation means but I think the initial problem posed specified the frame of reference as the Moon itself.
Gordon says: “That rotation is caused by gravity pulling on the Moon while one axis through the Moon always point toward the Earth. ”
Let me pose a question. Suppose I use some rockets to push a large rock in a straight line. I make sure the rock is not rotating relative to the distant stars. In other words, cameras mounted on the rock always shows the same stars in the same location on the screens. When the rock is moving just the right place and speed, I release it to start a circular orbit around the earth.
The rock is now an unpowered satellite; a moon. Will the cameras keep keep viewing the same stars? Or will a camera facing the earth keep the earth in view, with the stars now changing? (Or do you have a different answer?) If the rock DOES switch so the cameras are now fixed with the earth instead of the stars, what torque caused this change?
Tim, if your rock is released so that the camera faces Earth, then the camera will continue to face Earth, as the rock orbits.
Your example and your questions reveal that you still do not understand orbital motion.
Learn some physics, accept reality, and clean up your act.
JD says: “Tim, if your rock is released so that the camera faces Earth, then the camera will continue to face Earth, as the rock orbits.”
But the camera is not “continuing” to face the earth! Up until this point the earth has been moving across the field of view as the rock moves along a straight line.
Actually, the rock was released so that a camera faces a specific star. So if the camera is going to “continue” to do anything, it would continue to face the specific star.
Why should the rock SWITCH from tracking a specific star and START tracking the earth. Teach me the physics of your world that can create such a torque to change the direction the rock & cameras are facing.
Gordon –
“The frame of reference has been stated, the Moon and its axis.”
That is one frame of reference. To what frame of reference are you comparing it?
This is basic kinematics, guys. If you draw a pair of coordinate axes, and they start out aligned to one another, and at some point in time later are not aligned, then there has been a rotation of the one relative to the other.
“Rotation is not intrinsic, it is relative.”
That depends on what you are trying to measure. If you care about energy, or if want to relate the forces applied to a body to its acceleration using F=ma, then rotation is absolute. If all you care about is the motion itself then it can be considered to be relative.
A non-inertial observer is not in a position to measure the total energy of a system. He is also not in a position to deduce the forces on an object based on the accelerations that he measures in his reference frame.
bob…”Rotation is not intrinsic, it is relative.
That depends on what you are trying to measure. If you care about energy, or if want to relate the forces applied to a body to its acceleration using F=ma, then rotation is absolute. If all you care about is the motion itself then it can be considered to be relative”.
********
I’m glad we can agree on something.
I am beginning to think Newton was right and Einstein wrong. Newton claimed that forces acting on masses is the issue whereas Einstein tried to introduce relativity from the POV of velocities and accelerations. When you don’t acknowledge the source of those velocities and accelerations, as required by Newton, you move into a purely theoretical context.
If you take F = ma, it can be written F = mdv/dt =
md^2s/dt^2. Now we have a time element related to F and there is no time element related to F is reality.
When you apply muscular force to a mass it has nothing to do with time. The only function of t on F = ma is to measure a change the force causes the mass position, because humans need that relationship, not the force and mass.
A theoretical physicist would likely see no problem moving ‘t’ to the LHS and making force and mass dependent on time.
None of this local action has anything to do with reference frames. In fact, I can’t think of too many requirements for reference frames in everyday life. They are more a need of theoretical physicists.
Having said all that, I think it’s important to understand relative motion and escape from illusions like the Sun orbiting the Earth when it is regarded as rising and setting.
“If you care about energy, or if want to relate the forces applied to a body to its acceleration using F=ma, then rotation is absolute.”
No, it is with respect to an inertial frame of reference. That is what makes inertial frames special – equations of motion are particularly simple in them. Newton’s laws do not hold in non-inertial frames of reference. But, other laws do.
“A non-inertial observer is not in a position to measure the total energy of a system.”
Sure he is. It just requires harder math. It is all based on convention, and we have consciously chosen the conventions that make calculations easiest for us. But, that does not rule out other potential conventions.
Agree, except when people start talking about objects departing from orbit, gravity turned off, string cut, etc.
Then there is a real observable difference. The 3 stooges think the moon will not be rotating as it flies off, while the rest of us understand that it will be.
Same goes for hammer-throw. The rotation can be observed, but the village idiots still refuse to believe it.
Quit disrespecting village idiots.
nate…”Same goes for hammer-throw. The rotation can be observed, but the village idiots still refuse to believe it”.
Good example of relativity, village idiots regarding others as village idiots.
Your variety of idiot has still not observed that the rotation is caused by a torque applied by the hammer handle or chain as it is pulled straight by the hammer.
Sure Gordon, whatever you think, but you still havent explained the broom experiment, have you?
“the rotation is caused by a torque applied by the hammer handle or chain as it is pulled straight by the hammer.”
NO. Tension forces in the “chain” act through the center of mass of the ball, which therefore cannot result in a torque being applied.
Yes, for Gordon to have a point, which would be his first, the cable’s attachment point to the hammer would have to have shifted off of the axis-line between hammer cm and hand and in the direction of rotation. Then the tension could produce a torque.
But, this could only happen if the cable was loose BEFORE release. That of course, makes no sense. It only becomes loose upon release, when it has lost all tension.
If the hammer continues to rotate as it flies off, then the cable and its handle will fly around as well, and there will be a small tension, an effect of–not a cause of–the pre-existing rotation.
Nate,
I didn’t make it clear, but I was talking about before release. The cable does not create any torque, so there is no torque created by the cable at the moment of release either
I’m losing track of who is arguing which point, but the cable/chain can and does provide a torque as the hammer is being swung.
The cable must provide a forward force to increase the speed the hammer; the cable must provide a sideways force to pull the hammer in a circle. The sizes of these forces vary, so no simple analysis is possible. But at various times, the force will be acting diagonally at the point of contact at the edge of the hammer, causing a torque about the center. This causes the rotation of the hammer about its own axis.
Tim,
As I stated two comments above, the chain cannot apply torque directly to the ball, since the tension acts through its center of mass. You ever try using a chain as a jack handle?
Tim,
I understand your point. You can pull the ball in one direction, let the chain go slack and pull it in another direction. It’s a very complicated motion, way above Gordon’s pay grade anyway. He can’t even get the definition of curvilinear translation correct.
“The cable must provide a forward force to increase the speed the hammer; ”
I think thats true, and during acceleration the hammer must be lagging a bit behind the hand, so that the cable is at a small angle to a radius. That means a small tangential component of force on the hammer.
I assume by the time of release, acceleration is 0, the cable lies along a radius, neglible tangential force, and no torque.
Emily Becker, writing about the possible el nino:
“However, adding confidence to the model forecasts is the substantial amount of warmer-than-average water below the surface of the Pacific. The October average was the 5th-highest since 1979. These waters will provide a source of warmer water to the surface for the next few months.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/november-2018-enso-update-just-little-bit-history-repeating
pretend? Nice bit of protectionism right there lol
Reply button fails when using my phone 🙁
Logic fails whether or not you use your phone.
A blip up in overall oceanic sea surface temperatures back to where they were after being down.
What will dictate overall global temperatures as we move forward will be overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and they will be going down in response to very low solar activity .
salvatore del prete said:
“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
“back to where they were after being down”
Yes, slightly ahead of the trend value of +0.29.
Over 0.3 C on your favourite SST web site.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
This is where it has been for the last year, while you were telling us it should go down.
We didn’t hit your predicted 0C during NH Summer this year, and we haven’t declined from where things were prior to that, when you predicted that “now” we should see a decline.
Things keep not going your way and you keep denying it.
Salvatore hasn’t hit a claim for almost a decade (and none that I know of before this one):
“Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).”
– Salvatore del Prete, “Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming,” 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Huffy, Gordon
Thanks for helping me understand translational motion.
I put on a striped sweater. The horizontal lines represent the x axis. Next, I held a board in front of me, keeping it aligned sideways with the stripes. That was my reference frame.
I found a large tree, and walked around it with the board always facing the center of the trunk. Curvilinear translation! The stripes on my sweater remained parallel to the board the whole time!
Exited by the discovery, I ran around my yard like looney, always keeping the board in front of me. Still translating!!!
Please!
I thought the discussions on this had finished.
I suspect it is a game invented to amuse nursing home residents!
snape…”I put on a striped sweater. The horizontal lines represent the x axis. Next, I held a board in front of me, keeping it aligned sideways with the stripes. That was my reference frame”.
Nearly there.
Try it on a straight line first. You’d have to walk sideways down the line to keep the lines parallel. Now gently change direction around the tree so you are facing the centre of the tree. Keep going sideways around the tree, always facing the tree centre.
Are you rotating in a circle about a vertical axis through your body? Try it, snape, see if you can turn through 360 degrees around a vertical axis while always facing the tree centre.
Don’t know what your board is about unless you are pointing it at the tree centre as a radial line. Then your stripes would have to be perpendicular to the board.
“More than 1.4 million acres have burned so far this year in the state, said Scott McLean, the deputy chief of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, roughly equal to the totals from the very destructive year of 2017.
And while the strong winds known as Santa Ana contributed to the bigger fires, the link with climate change is inextricable, said Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Its once again in California the perfect recipe for fire, Dr. Williams said. You get a big Santa Ana wind event in the fall before the first winter rain comes. Youve got a lot of people who are always creating potential fires by lighting fires either on purpose or on accident.
And then behind the scenes of all of this, youve got temperatures that are about two to three degrees Fahrenheit warmer now than they wouldve been without global warming.
nursecrapshoot…”And then behind the scenes of all of this, youve got temperatures that are about two to three degrees Fahrenheit warmer now than they wouldve been without global warming”.
Oh, goody, now the planet has warmed 2 to 3F without the slightest bit of data to support such warming. Especially proof that it has warmed anthropogenically.
After nearly 20 years of little or no warming, 15 confirmed by the IPCC, alarmist idiots are still talking about catastrophic warming.
This is equivalent to yelling, “Fire!!!” in a crowded movie theatre. The guy should be arrested for public mischief.
Gordon keeps lying about the hiatus, which data show didn’t happen.
Why?
It did. It still is.
Prove it Bart, with data.
It’d be a first for you.
“Land-only Temperature Anomalies Breaking Through 3F”
10/26/18
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/10/land-only-temperature-anomalies.html
Yeah. It’s called El Nino.
Wrong.
El Nino years keep getting warmer. La Nina years keep getting warmer. Neutral years keep getting warmer:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
They’re just starting at a higher base. The delta has no particular pattern or trend.
Again, everyone knows the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. That is why it is called the end of the Little Ice Age. A warming world is not evidence of a world warming due to CO2.
Bart says:
They’re just starting at a higher base.
Why does the base keep increasing?
Again, everyone knows the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. That is why it is called the end of the Little Ice Age.
Temperature anomalies are calculated with respect to a *CONSTANT* baseline, which has nothing to do with the LIA.
Try again.
Really, Bart, I expected better than this from you.
The warming after the LIA
Requires no Physics. Fantastic!
The reason we are warmer today?
The climate is just like elastic.
This is just dumb.
It was inspired by this inanity:
“Again, everyone knows the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. That is why it is called the end of the Little Ice Age.”
nurse, thanks for pointing out the planet knows how to take care of itself.
Possibly you should learn such wisdom.
No one is worried about the planet. The planet will do just fine.
DA, that might be the smartest thing you ever emitted.
See the advantage of following me?
You are shameless.
You attempt slurs when your pseudoscience fails, huh?
Nothing new.
Just fed up with your lying and trolling and denials and purposeful stupidity. Whether you use the name Ger*an or this one or the next one, it’s always the same — you have no interest in discussing science, just in being a pest. What a useless way to spend one’s time, yet somehow you find it fulfilling, which is the saddest part of it all.
DA, you must have a new mirror!
Enjoy your dexcription of yourself.
I do….
PS Learn some physics.
What physics am I missing?
Be specific.
DA, go back and read my numerous criticisms.
I didn’t think you had an answer. You never do.
Your question wasn’t serious, DA.
It never is.
My question, “What physics am I missing?” is as serious as I can get.
And you can’t answer.
I can answer. But, you just can’t stand the answer.
You deny reality.
That’s why you are a clown.
What physics am I missing?
Be specific.
So far you’ve been all mouth and no action.
DA, as I mentioned, you will deny all reality. But, I’ll play your game this morning, as I drink my coffee.
Here are just a few examples:
1) “Hence the bald statement of the 2nd law, heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot, does not hold.”
2) OK. What I meant is that if you have fluxes incident on a blackbody, j1 and j2, then its temperature is not the average of the two nominal temperatures one might think as given by the SB equations.
If the fluxes are j1 and j2, and both j1 and j2 are incident on the BB, then the average temperature of the BB is not (T1+T2)/2, where j1=sigma*T1^4 and j2=sigma*T^4. It’s
(T1^4+T2^4)*0.25
3) Then there is the link of the Moon orbiting, that you cannot understand, but keep using.
Now, you get to deny all of the above reality. Enjoy.
“thanks for pointing out the planet knows how to take care of itself.”
I should also point out that the planet also uses natural selection as a way of removing idiots from the gene pool. !
Plus one.
As paleoclimate+paleobiological studies show, past episodes of fast climate change have lead to extinctions of many species on earth.
And today’s change is very fast, relatively.
Yikes!
Officials report that the CampFire has destroyed 6,713 structures. It is now the most destructive individual fire on record in California.
Seven of the top 20 most destructive fires in the state have occurred since October 2017. Utterly remarkable.
https://twitter.com/SteveBowenWx/status/1061079974034227201
The cellphone videos coming from there are a terrifying — people driving with fire close-in on both sides of the road. I heard on the radio that a few people had to abandon their cars and *RUN* down the road, the fire came in so fast.
And it’s getting to mid-November. Unprecedented?
When you have a third world government, a lot of bad things happen.
It is said that on average Earth absorbs and emits about 240 watts per square meter.
What would happen if Earth absorbed a lot less than 240 watts per square meter?
What is lowest amount which the Earth has ever absorbed on average?
What is the most amount which the Earth has ever absorbed on average?
I think most people might assume the simplest or most obvious way of affecting how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth would be related to the amount of clouds in Earth atmosphere.
Or perhaps people who believe the idea of a Snowball Earth would think the amount snow/ice that is covering Earth would be the answer to lowering the amount of absorbed sunlight.
Therefore they might claim that when Earth was a Snowball Earth, this was the time when Earth absorbed the least amount of sunlight.
And related to this, when Earth was in deepest and coldest times of a glacial period these are times “recently” when Earth absorbed the least amount of sunlight. Recent, being less than 10 million years ago, whereas Snowball earth was imagined to have occurred +500 million years ago- or not generally regarded as recently.
And a question could be when recently has Earth absorbed the least amount of sunlight and when has Earth absorbed least amount sunlight in the last billion years?
Another way Earth could absorb less sunlight is due massive amounts of volcanic activity and/or by large impactor, ie:
DINOSAUR-KILLING ASTEROID IMPACT MAY HAVE COOLED EARTH’S CLIMATE MORE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
31 October 2017
” Based on earlier estimates of the amount of sulfur and carbon dioxide released by the impact, a recent study published in Geophysical Research Letters showed Earth’s average surface air temperature may have dropped by as much as 26 degrees Celsius (47 degrees Fahrenheit) and that sub-freezing temperatures persisted for at least three years after the impact.”
https://news.agu.org/press-release/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-impact-may-have-cooled-earths-climate-more-than-previously-thought/
Though, further down:
“The study’s authors did not model how much cooler Earth would have been as a result of their revised estimates of how much gas was ejected. Judging from the cooling seen in the previous study, which assumed a smaller amount of sulfur was released by the impact, the release of so much sulfur gas likely played a key role in the extinction event. The sulfur gas would have blocked out a significant amount of sunlight, likely leading to years of extremely cold weather potentially colder than the previous study found.”
“What would happen if Earth absorbed a lot less than 240 watts per square meter?”
Quickly paint the entire surface with a highly conducting metallic paint, thereby reducing the emissivity of the surface to near zero. Because the surface no longer emits much radiation, little can be “trapped” by the atmosphere. Yet the atmosphere keeps radiating as before, oblivious to the absence of radiation from the surface (at least initially; as the temperature of the atmosphere drops, its emission rate drops).
Of course, if the surface doesn’t emit much radiation but continues to absorb solar radiation, the surface temperature rises and no equilibrium is possible until the surface emission spectrum shifts to regions for which the emissivity is not near zero.
Most of Earth surface is ocean.
Do you just paint the land surfaces, or does it include painting the ocean?
I think if covered oceans with black plastic or tar or just muddy the waters, you significantly reduce the amount of the Earth absorbs.
“Do you just paint the land surfaces, or does it include painting the ocean?”
You “paint the entire surface”.
Any color of paint would reduce the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth by a lot.
White paint or even better paint designed to absorb less sunlight could change amount currently absorbed to less than 50 watts per square meter or absorb far less sunlight than Mars absorbs.
“White roofs absorb far less sunlight than darker colored roofs and that makes for a cooler building, but white roofs still absorb some sunlight, enough to raise the temperature of the roof by 9 to 12 degrees Celsius.
Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney have come up with what they believe is the best solution to date: a roof coating that not only absorbs less sunlight, but actually makes the roof colder than the surrounding air, even in intense summer heat.
“This new surface, however, stayed 11 degrees or more colder than an existing state-of-the-art white roof nearby because it absorbs only 3 per cent of incident sunlight while simultaneously strongly radiating heat at infrared wavelengths that are not absorbed by the atmosphere,” said Emeritus Professor Geoff Smith from the university.”
https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/new-roof-coating-keeps-roofs-cooler-outside-temperature.html
Apparently it sort of like Quartz over Silver though designed to work in atmosphere rather than space environment.
“but white roofs still absorb some sunlight, enough to raise the temperature of the roof by 9 to 12 degrees Celsius.”
Yes. This is why I specifically wrote metallic paint. If interested in more detail & for measurements relevant to this problem see Dena G. Russell and Richard A. Bartels, 1989: “The temperature of various surfaces exposed to solar radiation: an experiment”, The Physics Teacher, Vol. 27, pp. 179-81.
Ah yes cue the magic word, once something becomes “unprecedented” all evidence to the contrary can now be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
Everything is now unprecedented and cannot be debated in the minds of the socialist left…..its the vibe
GB you forgot to mention the earth can absorb more or less energy as the sun varies its output or are we still stuck in the solar constant mind set?
I think easier to change sun’s output by moving Earth further from the sun, if Earth at 1.2 AU rather than 1 AU it’s reduces sun’s output by about 400 watts per square meter- less then 1000 watts rather than 1360 watts per square meter.
So if at 1.2 AU, how much does Earth absorb?
Testing my reply button, also why i am here balls you are wasting your time the alarmist crew here believe co2 traps heat like a blanket all talk of emission layers and IR will be completely lost
Crakar24, you are here wasting YOUR time with these ridiculous statements.
CO2 doesn’t trap any heat, nor does H2O.
Unlike N2, O2 and Ar, these two guys absorb IR emitted at Earth’s surface and reemit it in all directions, instead of letting it all go directly to outer space.
What, do you think, happens when less radiation energy is emitted by Earth than it receives from the Sun?
binny….”Unlike N2, O2 and Ar, these two guys absorb IR emitted at Earths surface and reemit it in all directions, instead of letting it all go directly to outer space.”
I keep asking this question but receive no answer. How much of the massive surface radiation does 0.04% of CO2 absorb?
We’re not worried about WV, it’s been there all along and we had no catastrophic warming. Suddenly, CO2 increases about 0.01% of the atmosphere and we are talking catastrophe.
On fact, all atmospheric CO2 was sitting around 0.03% during the pre-Industrial Era and nothing catastrophic happened. Why does 0.03% cause no issues yet a further 0.01% causes catastrophe?
How much of the surface IR reaches space given the inverse square law? Wood, circa 1909, who had expertise with CO2 and radiation, thought it would fizzle out after a few feet.
Lindzen claims surface heat is transported high into the atmosphere via convection, and radiated from there. Wood thought something similar.
Where’s the proof that surface radiation reaches space?
Gordon Robertson
First you do not understand the Inverse Square Law at all. I have explained it to you many times and given detailed in depth
calculations (which you either did not understand or ignored because it does not fit your political agenda).
I have answered you question several times already and given you many graphs to show you how much IR is absorbed by the atmosphere. You also ignore all this or are not able to comprehend the data or you just deny it since it does not agree with your political agenda.
I won’t go into it now (as it does zero good, you ignore it or do not understand it) but I do want to challenge your statement.
Since you have demonstrated you are a very dishonest poster trying to mislead some ignorant people (thankfully the number is very low). Where did you get this nonsense. I want know excuse from you I want you to post a link where Wood said what you claim he did.
HERE: “How much of the surface IR reaches space given the inverse square law? Wood, circa 1909, who had expertise with CO2 and radiation, thought it would fizzle out after a few feet.”
Prove that Wood made such a claim. I doubt you will do this as you already know you made it up hoping to fool a few of the more scientifically ignorant people who post on this blog.
I don’t think even JDHuffman would attempt to support your form of insanity on this one. You really hate science don’t you. You have things that are based upon observation, empirical data, or experiment. All you seem to accept are wild speculations from a few bloggers.
norman…”First you do not understand the Inverse Square Law at all”.
Then I guess R.W.Wood doesn’t understand it either. He was an eminent scientist who was an expert in radiation and CO2. He was sought out by Neils Bohr for his advice on radiation from sodium vapour. He was the one who suggested IR from the surface will be insignificant within a few feet of the surface.
You seem to be the only one, according to you, so what does that suggest?
All you need to understand the inverse square law is to stand in front of car headlights then move a block away and look at them again. Do they still light up the road around you? You can still plainly see the source in the burning filament but the intensity has dropped off remarkably.
The IR radiated by the surface will be a fraction of its intensity within a few feet.
Headlights are point sources.
To create a surface you need a wall packed with headlights, to the horizon and the sky.
Can you see better now?
As usual Svante, your comment is irrelevant.
The inverse-square law applies to both a point source, and a surface.
Learn some physics.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: ” He was the one who suggested IR from the surface will be insignificant within a few feet of the surface.”
I ask again, do you have a source for what you claim about R.W. Wood?
I have not seen you give one yet.
Just because you are clueless about the Inverse Square Law does not give you the right to use a scientist to bolster you ideas. Give support or don’t use R.W. Wood for an authority figure for you misleading and completely wrong ideas!
Norman, are you denying the inverse-square law?
Is there ANY physics you do not deny?
Gordon Robertson
Here is what R.W. Wood actually said: “It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”
This is a correct statement but it does not make your claim at all!
The atmosphere absorbs and emits IR so it is correct to point out that surface IR does not warm the atmosphere which is proven by empirical data (once a steady state exists where the atmosphere is emitting the same amount it absorbs).
Also he knew that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and only IR in the atmospheric window band reaches space directly, all the rest is absorbed after a few feet but the atmosphere itself continues to emit so at the Top of the Atmosphere you have IR being emitted to space from the colder regions of IR emitters. CO2 from much colder regions than the surface and H2O emissions from warmer regions.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
All the IR emitted in the bands that CO2 and H2O from the surface are absorbed in a few meters above the surface. This is not because of your distorted view of the Inverse Square Law. You have the Atmospheric Window which has IR reaching satellites from the surface directly. The CO2 emission is less because of the colder CO2 emission temperature, the H2O is emitted by higher temperature water vapor.
Norman, thanks for providing another example of your ongoing fascination with pseudoscience.
You ramble, on and on, and then proclaim that you are right! And, as usual, you present a link that you don’t even understand.
Nothing new.
“You seem to be the only one, according to you, so what does that suggest?”
Not just Norman, also me, Tim, David, anyone who has solved problems with non-point sources.
JDHuffman
Who let you out from under the bridge. Again you have nothing useful to say, just a mindless empty taunt. Completely normal for you. Again no physics, no valid point. Empty post from a vacuous empty mind.
YOU: “Norman, are you denying the inverse-square law?
Is there ANY physics you do not deny?”
What an stupid comment! Do you every have anything useful to say that has a purpose besides a taunt from a troll?
Norman, I know you have learned to type, but next you need to learn some grammar.
“Who let you out from under the bridge.”
A question requires a question mark, “?”.
“Completely normal for you.”
Not a complete sentence.
“Again no physics, no valid point.”
Not a complete sentence.
“Empty post from a vacuous empty mind.”
Not a complete sentence. And, “vacuous empty” is redundant.
I have to teach you physics and spelling. I might as well start teaching you grammar also.
Or, you could get an education….
Robertson
“… who was an expert in radiation and CO2.”
No he was not, and did never claim to be. Wood was an eminent specialist of light (UV, visible, near-IR). That’s radiation indeed but is a small subset of a wide field.
Many people have severely critcised Wood’s thoughts, beginning with Abbott:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
But you are so heavily involved in GHE denialism that you aren’t even able to carefully read such documents. You simply discredit and denigrate them, like you did many times with Vaughan Pratt’s article about Wood’s ‘experiment’.
My lady Rose wrote that if Arrhenius had been a skeptic of CO2’s effect and Wood one of his contradictors, everybody would have laughed at Wood’s superficial 1 1/2 page note.
She was plain right.
JDHuffman
Great! You are an English teacher. I have already stated you have some talent with spelling. You have little useful knowledge of science or physics and come here pretending this knowledge. Problem is you are unwilling and unable to support your ludicrous declarations.
Good at English: Yes
Good at Physics: No, if you took any real college level physics cours you would have flunked out the same as Gordon Robertson. You pretend physics, you really never studied any of it.
Norman, you keep attacking and falsely accusing others, seemingly hoping to cover your false persona.
YOU are the pretender. You are the one that doesn’t understand the relevant physics. You are so incompetent that you come up with “experiments” that prove you’re wrong!
Your own experiments prove you wrong, yet you can’t identify once where my physics has been wrong.
Probably no one is a better personification of pseudoscience than you.
As usual when a new topic arises JD puts his foot in it.
He says
“The inverse-square law applies to both a point source, and a surface.”
Except for the surface you have to do integration where it depends on the ratio of the size of the surface to the distance from the surface.
For an surface where that ratio is very large the intensity is constant with distance.
Do the Math if you can JD.
Here this one isn’t science, it’s all math and JD can’t do it.
As usual when a new topic arises boob plants his face in the floor.
He tries to pervert the inverse-square law to fit his hypothetical “surfaces”. (He must be in competition to be the “Pimp” of pseudoscience.)
Sorry bob, you cannot change reality. The inverse-square law works, your pseudoscience fails!
Nothing new.
Robertson
“The IR radiated by the surface will be a fraction of its intensity within a few feet.”
That is no more than your typical nonsense.
Earth IR radiation frequency peak is around 10 micron.
Luckily, the atmospheric window (that part of the radiation frequencies reaching outer space without being intercepted by any gas) is, with a range of 7.5-12.5 micron, exactly around the above peak:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yHVHZR48EmHMryU6QPyw0oA-CB-MvxuZ/view
Thus the major part of Earth’s IR radiation is disturbed neither by H2O nor by CO2. (If that was not the case, we would not be here to discuss the point.)
Here you see the absorp-tion/emission intensities at an altitude of 8 km:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7xRta-WGAWhKpaj59a9rvPFr6RmHHke/view
I know: you won’t accept all this. You stay in discrediting, denigrating anyything you either don’t understand or don’t accept.
So what!
JDHuffman
Honestly I have to go back to calling you the blog dork. Not very bright but full of useless taunts to get a knee-jerk reaction.
YOU: ” You are so incompetent that you come up with “experiments” that prove you’re wrong!”
Which one? Not sure what you are stating, probably something stupid since you are the poster of the comment.
YOU: “Your own experiments prove you wrong, yet you can’t identify once where my physics has been wrong.”
I have identified many areas where your physics (if you want to call it that, I would consider what you call physics to be unsupported declarations from you) is wrong. One is about radiative fluxes adding. They do and I have linked you to the definition of the term.
I have proven to you in many links that the Moon rotates on its axis.
E. Swanson has experimentally demonstrated your declarations about heat transfer are garbage. I am sure there are others. Those are some of your glaring errors.
The reality is you pretend that you studied physics. You never have and it seems you never will. You would flunk all courses in physics with the ideas you think are correct.
In encounters with me or David Appell, you will never answer a question but will keep up taunting and diverting away. You are just a dork that is all.
Norman, you have to resort to your juvenile insults, because you can’t handle reality.
You described your experiment of two balls on the edge of a rotating platform. One was glued in place, so that it could not move. You acknowledged that one of its sides would always be facing platform center.
Then you claimed that if the other ball could be rotated by a motor, it could rotate as to also always face the platform center. But you probably figured out that was impossible, and quickly moved away from your own experiment.
You don’t have a clue. You type endlessly, as above, hoping that no one has the time to squash all your nonsense.
You have NOT shown that you even understand about “fluxes not adding”.
You have NOT “proven” that the Moon rotates on its axis. (It clearly does NOT.)
E.Swanson’s “experiment” only “proved” what you wanted it to “prove”. You still can’t produce any supporting evidence of the bogus experiment.
And, in encounters with you or David Appell, I have always answered responsible questions.
Now, back to your false accusations, misrepresentations, and juvenile insults.
So JD Pimp-face no physics degree, you call me a boob, so I am free to wrestle with the pig.
Or is that pimple face with cheetos stained shorts?
You were the one who brought up surfaces, not me.
And no the radiation does not fall off with r-squared from a surface emitting a constant amount of radiation.
Ask any RAD-con ranger you happen to meet, or look up some health-physics.
So we have another branch of Physics you are unfamiliar with.
As always boob, when your pseudoscience gets squashed, your retreat to your scum pit.
Wallow all you want. You can’t change reality.
norman…”All the IR emitted in the bands that CO2 and H2O from the surface are absorbed in a few meters above the surface”.
That’s not what the graph says at your link. It says a few milliwatts of IR are absorbed. If you integrate the CO2 notch in mW over its range, it works out to around 5% of surface IR radiation.
I don’t trust people who make declarations along the lines of this as proof that CO2 and WV are warming the atmosphere. It’s known that the WV spectrum overlaps the CO2 spectrum yet this graph shows them side by side.
There is just no way to accurately measure the effect of CO2 or WV. It’s a guess based on a pre-conceived notion. In other words, they have reached the conclusion that it’s true and found a graph that supports their conclusion.
I much prefer the explanation of Wood that N2 and O2 absorb heat directly from the surface and cannot get rid of the heat easily due to the poor emission of gases.
bobd….”And no the radiation does not fall off with r-squared from a surface emitting a constant amount of radiation”.
Good grief, that ranks up there with ball4’s claim that heat is just a measure of energy and does not exist. bally has not replied to my assertion that we already have a measure of heat called temperature, and that the entity he is allegedly measuring is not generic energy but thermal energy. According to bally, heat is a measure of heat.
Any radiation of any form is subject to the inverse square law. No exceptions, unless the radiation is coherent light from a high-powered laser. Even at that, the beam will spread over distance.
Norman seems to think you need to start at the centre of the planet to measure the inverse nature of surface radiation. He then calculates how much altitude you’d need above the surface before surface IR becomes too weak to be effective.
That’s not how it works. If you have a radar sail emitting 10,000 watts of EM, and it goes out and strikes a target miles away, and returns to the receiver, it has reduced to the milliwatt or microwatt range. The signal has to be amplified greatly to be useful.
That’s because radiation spreads over greater areas according to the square of the distance.
If your assertion was correct, the constant radiation from the radar sail would not diminish with distance and solar radiation would burn us to a crisp.
binny…”Earth IR radiation frequency peak is around 10 micron”.
Yes…and the amount absorbed by CO2 is in the MILLIwatt range.
“bally has not replied to my assertion that we already have a measure of heat called temperature…According to bally, heat is a measure of heat..”
Actually I have, many times, Gordon simply refuses to accept what Clausius wrote that heat is a measure of an object’s total constituent particle KE. Gordon can’t even think accurately enough to write Clausius’ (or my) words correctly.
“a measure of heat called temperature..”
No Gordon, temperature is not heat.
Heat is a measure of the object’s particle total KE, temperature is a measure of their avg. KE.
The average temperature of the ocean near surface waters is say 17C. I hold a common 12oz drinking glass of water at the same temperature 17C.
Is there more heat in the entire ocean near surface waters or in my glass of water?
Gordon Robertson
We have already been through the graphs many times and more than one person has explained the values and how to calculate them. I think you may have dementia of some type. You seem to have memory loss.
The Milliwatt is for each line of the graph and they use steradian which means you multiply the integration of the lines by some value. Depending on how they use the streadian.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/_jcr_content/articleContent/columnbootstrap_1/column0/image.img.jpg/1374178157948.jpg
The CO2 band covers about 200 cm-1 units. You have to multiply the 50 milliwatts by 200 so you get 10 watts for the CO2 band without the steradian multiplier. If it is for a hemisphere you multiply by 2pi for a sphere you would multiply by 4pi. So I really don’t know what your trying to say about the graph. Are you letting me know you still can’t figure out how to solve the amount of energy?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Norman seems to think you need to start at the centre of the planet to measure the inverse nature of surface radiation. He then calculates how much altitude youd need above the surface before surface IR becomes too weak to be effective.”
You just need to find the area of the sphere that the radiation passes through. When it is isotropic the total amount of emitted IR will pass through the total area. To find watts/m^2 you take the total emitted energy and divide by the total area.
At the Earth’s surface the average emission is 510 trillion square meters times 390 watts/m^2.
All this energy is at the surface and will uniformly spread through a larger surface above the Earth.
The radius of the Earth is given at 6,371,000 meters (varies but we can still use this for the calculation).
The area for this radius gives a sphere of 510,064,471,909,788 m^2
You have a total emission of 198,925,144,044,817,427 watts.
If you take the total watts and divide it by the area of the Earth sphere you get the 390 watts/m^2
Now add one meter to the Earth’s radius 6,371,001 to see how much larger an area the enormous watts will pass through. Calculate and you get 510,064,632,030,495 m^2. If you take your total watts emitted (isotropic) and pass it through this new area you will have a flux density of 198,925,144,044,817,427/510,064,632,030,495 =389.99987 watts/m^2. Very little change at all.
If you went up 10,000 meters the radiant flux would be 198,925,144,044,817,427/511,666,935,490,531 = 388.778 so it dropped a couple of watts at that distance.
You use an example of a 10,000 watt emission. That is not much energy for a large area.
You can easily see your idea is wrong if you apply it to the Sun. The Sun is 93,000,000 miles away yet the radiant energy for every m^2 is 1360 Watts. That same energy flux would exist at all meters at our distance from the Sun.
You really need to study the Inverse Square Law. You certainly do not remotely understand how it works. This might be the last time I attempt to explain it to you.
Gordon Robertson
One more for you. Taking your 10,000 watt source of power.
A mile is 1609.34 meters. The surface area of a sphere a mile in diameter is 32,546,588 m^2.
If you take the 10,000 watt emission and spread it isotropically through that area, each square meter would only have 0.000307 Watts passing through it.
The Earth is emitting so much more energy than the 10,000 watts you post about. If you sail were emitting trillions of watts of power do you still think this energy would diminish much in a few miles?
If you take the Earth’s total emission 198,925,144,044,817,427 and divide it in the area square mile sphere you still have an energy density flux of 6,112,012,234. watts/m^2
JDHuffman
I did not back away from my experiment at all. I hate your lying dishonesty but there is nothing I can do about that. I was very clear to you that I WOULD NOT DO ANY EXPERIMENT FOR YOU because of your inability to accept experimental results. I told you to do the experiment yourself. You are just a blatant liar when you say I backed off the experiment because I thought it wrong.
Look at how you talk about E. Swanson’s experiment. That is why I think you are a blog dork not worth any time except for entertainment (ball4 is correct about you).
YOU: “E.Swansons experiment only proved what you wanted it to prove. You still cant produce any supporting evidence of the bogus experiment.”
This is why doing experiments for you is stupid. Your claim it is bogus is that he did not measure fluxes. Why does that make it bogus? It shows all it needs to. The green plate is colder than the blue plate, it is in a vacuum to eliminate other heat transfer mechanisms besides radiant energy, the green plate, moved into place causes the powered blue plate to reach a higher steady state temperature. This was the thought experiment of Eli Rabbet and the E. Swanson experiment confirmed that reality. You did not accept the results and call it bogus.
Norman, notice how quickly you insult people. You readily use words like “dork” and “liar”. Do you know why you do that? It’s because you don’t have a mature, coherent argument to support your false beliefs. So, you get frustrated, and lash out the only way you know how–insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. Truth is your enemy.
You probably haven’t noticed, but I NEVER call anyone “liar”. And, even as I point that out, it probably won’t mean anything to you. You would have to have some basic standards of conduct to understand.
Your “balls/platform” experiment proved you wrong. Your Ferris wheel proved you wrong. You are wrong, and you’re somehow trying to blame me. You run from reality.
Swanson’s experiment is bogus because it does not “prove” anything. But it fits your false beliefs, so that’s all you need. You don’t want facts and logic, or the proper physics, or any meaningful data. You don’t want reality.
Now, let’s have more of your rambling, immature, incoherent ranting. That’s all you’ve got.
JDHuffman
YOU MAKE THIS DECLARATION: “Your balls/platform experiment proved you wrong. Your Ferris wheel proved you wrong. You are wrong, and youre somehow trying to blame me. You run from reality.”
No the balls/platform did not prove me wrong at all. I have not even done the actual experiment, it was a suggestion for you to do. I have already accepted a computer animation of this experiment that you rejected.
No the Ferris Wheel actually proves I am quite correct. I stated put a box of cookies in the seat. If the wheel remains stationary and you have the seats rotate either CW or CCW the cookies will fall out of the seat at some point (seat will be upside down). Having the wheel rotate does not change this at all. I believe you think the seats are rotating opposite the rotation of the wheel. The seats are not rotating at all, the cookies do not fall out during the wheel rotation. The axle is rotating, the seats are not at any time. You have rides where the seats do rotate but not on this one.
JDHuffman
E. Swanson’s experiment did prove everything it set out to test.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
The point of the experiment was to prove that a heated object (blue plate) will reach a higher temperature if a green plate is put close to it so that it absorbs emitted energy from the blue plate increasing its temperature and radiating back to the blue plate which absorbs this additional energy and reaches a higher temperature.
The experiment clearly demonstrates this taking place. Your made up version of physics states that the blue and green plate should reach close to the same temperature (depending upon how far away they are) and the blue plate will not get any warmer than the initial condition. Both your predictions are wrong, Eli Rabbet’s predictions are correct and validated by the experiment. Nothing “bogus” about the experiment. He describes in detail the setup. You could do it yourself and get the same outcome.
The more correct logic is that the experiment proves your predictions wrong so you have no other response than to call it bogus but you have never explained what you mean by that term.
Gordon,
Just look it up, just google it.
Oh, dear, I did that for you.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/64C/jresv64Cn2p121_A1b.pdf
The inverse square law is for point sources only.
Line sources and plane sources have to be handled differently.
Working with radiation for 40 years now, at least I know where to look this stuff up.
You and JD just don’t know Health Physics.
Which is the branch of Physics that deals with measuring radiation in order to determine the health effects of the exposure to that radiation.
Norman, you are so predictable!
You always prove me right, and I always prove you wrong.
What fun!
(If I get time this week, I will do your “balls/platform” experiment for you. It should be easy to prove you wrong, again.}
bob, you are confusing “view factor” with the “inverse-square law”.
Your link is dealing with radiation received from multiple point sources, at a specific point. Now move that specific point to a position farther away, and the radiation will drop in accordance with the inverse-square law.
JD, you incompetent fool.
You can get a meter and measure but that involves work instead of sitting in your mom’s basement with a bag of cheetos.
The paper I cited deals with stuff you don’t understand and was not dealing with any view factors.
Far enough from a plane source and yes the levels fall off with the inverse square law, but up close it doesn’t work that way.
After all the name-calling and insults, bob has to quasi-admit he was wrong.
That’s the best I can expect from such people.
Nothing new.
What goes around comes around.
You ignoramus, you started with the insults, so if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
So don’t complain about getting insulted if you constantly insult people.
So enjoy your cheetos and don’t forget your mom would like help with the rent.
Nothing new from bob.
“Norman seems to think you need to start at the centre of the planet to measure the inverse nature of surface radiation. He then calculates how much altitude youd need above the surface before surface IR becomes too weak to be effective.
Thats not how it works.”
Are you completely daft, Gordon?
That is exactly how it works.
Otherwise the 1/h^2 radiation becomes infinite, as h approaches 0 near the surface.
Does it? Of course not.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
Here you can see surface IR reaches space just fine thru the atmospheric window at 11 microns.
“Wheres the proof that surface radiation reaches space?”
Really Gordon? How the hell do you think satellites are measuring Sea Surface Temperature from space?
Engage brain before fingers..
JD, “The inverse-square law applies to both a point source, and a surface.”
Ok JD and Gordon, so radiation goes as 1/h^2 for height, h, above a surface?
If its say 400 W/m^2 at h = 1 m, what will it be at h = 1 cm, 0 cm?
Nate, I’m glad to see you want to learn some physics.
Just make sure you actually learn something, instead of trying to pervert the facts.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
nate…”How the hell do you think satellites are measuring Sea Surface Temperature from space?”
I did not notice you offering an explanation. The AMSU units in NOAA sats measure microwave radiation from oxygen above the sea surface.
The only measurements of water temperature I have seen is the fudged SST temps of NOAA.
The IPCC, which uses Had-crut data, claimed there was no warming between 1998 – 2012, till NOAA retroactively changed the focus of SST measurements from the traditional bucket over the side – insert thermometer, to the measurement of water forced through ship water intake manifolds.
NOAA got enough of a change, due to the Heat Island Effect, to declare a trend.
The other method is using Argo buoys that reside metres below the surface then pop up to the surface to make measurement before descending again. Somehow, I think that method must be full of discrepancies.
That doesn’t bother NOAA since they fudge the data to a temperature that suits their alarmist agenda.
It’s Gordie the Revisionist.
“Ok JD and Gordon, so radiation goes as 1/h^2 for height, h, above a surface?
If its say 400 W/m^2 at h = 1 m, what will it be at h = 1 cm, 0 cm?”
As usual you guys avoided the question. Afraid it will reveal your stupidity??
According to you bright lights, the flux will be 4,000,000 W/m^2 at h = 1 cm, and infinite at 0 cm.
Earth’s surface does not behave as a point source. Try again, nitwits.
Nate, when you come up with ridiculous results, as you did, that should tell you you’re doing something wrong.
Hint: Stop the insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations, and learn some physics.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
Of course you didn’t understand what Nate was doing JD
He made an assumption, that the earth behaves as a point source, did the calculation and got ridiculous results.
Which would lead an astute observer, that the Earth does not act as a point source.
And what can I conclude about you JD, is that you are not an astute observer.
So go ahead and continue to misapply your inverse square law and post the same diagram.
Or learn some Physics, it might help you with your mom’s rent.
bob must believe the Earth receives the same as the Sun’s surface emits:
“And no the radiation does not fall off with r-squared from a surface emitting a constant amount of radiation.”
Poor bob gets so confused.
Well done JD, you totally misrepresent what I said, but how could someone whose science is aligned with those who imprisoned Galileo do any better.
At least Gordon gets into the 19th Century.
bob, it’s NOT misrepresenting when I quote you exactly.
If you don’t like your own words, take it up with the one responsible….
But it is true JD,
That close to the surface the radiation levels do not decrease in accordance with the inverse square law, because a surface is not a point source.
So are you going to embrace 17th century science or remain with the dress wearing skirts with pointy hats?
your choice
bob, your phraseology is now somewhat better, but still technically incorrect.
How about this: “That close to the surface the radiation levels decrease in accordance with the inverse square law, but such decrease would not be enough to be measured.”
That way, you’re not breaking any laws of physics.
I see Gordon, as usual, has departed the scene and switched topics.
Gordon, did you decide? Do you think the 1/h^2 radiation becomes infinite at the Earth’s surface?
Or was Norman right when he said:
‘Norman seems to think you need to start at the centre of the planet to measure the inverse nature of surface radiation.’ ?
I think even JD’s diagram might agree with Norman on that point.
JD,
I fly in airplanes a lot and prefer the window seat.
When I look out the window as the planes goes up or goes down, the surface looks about the same brightness going up or going down.
Now this is reflected light, but still it should be obeying the inverse square law according to your world view. But it’s snot.
Try again, close to the surface, light does not obey the inverse square law because it’s snot coming from a point source.
You know what a point is, right?
If not, just take off your hat and look at the very top where it comes to a point, a very small spot, not a broad area as far as you can see.
“Now this is reflected light”
The natural earth L&O surface emissivity is measured at around 0.95 so the light you mention is only about 5% reflected; 95% is emitted from ~hemisphere of directions near the surface.
bob, I’ll try one more time.
To properly apply the inverse-square law, in your example, you would use the center of the Earth as your “point source”.
Learn some physics.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
JD, center of the earth, really.
The material between the center of the earth and the surface is opaque, you know what that means, don’t you, pointy hat?
The flux from the earth’s interior at the surface is measured in mill-watts, while the emission from the surface is measured in the hundreds of watts.
So your science is only a couple of orders of magnitude off.
Also the inverse square law doesn’t apply when you have thousands of miles of opaque material for the light to pass through.
What a pointy headed tool.
“To properly apply the inverse-square law, in your example, you would use the center of the Earth as your ‘point source’.”
Very good, JD. Then you agree that Gordon is being an idiot when he says:
“Norman seems to think you need to start at the centre of the planet to measure the inverse nature of surface radiation. He then calculates how much altitude you’d need above the surface before surface IR becomes too weak to be effective.
That’s not how it works.” Right?
Yeah, and the inverse square law doesn’t work if you put a lead brick in front of the source.
The ALARA concept: time, distance and JDHuffman.
bob, that was your stupidest comment yet.
So according to you JD, Norman was right and Gordon was wrong this whole thread?
Interesting.
Nate, if you had any personal integrity you woud ask yourself why you try so hard to misrepresent others.
But, I guess that doesn’t concern you.
Ha! ‘ misrepresent’ is your new favorite word. Always abused.
Hardly, JD.
From the start of this thread Gordon had it wrong and Norman had it right and you attacked Norman and all other sensible people as usual and jumped to Gordon’s defense as usual, and in the end, come to find out you agree with Norman and disagree with Gordon.
Hilarious.
But, I guess that doesn’t concern you.
Well, lets see, I have pointed out to Gordon that he is wrong on this issue several times, including in this thread, and he keeps making the claim, and you tag-teamed with him.
You: “Nate, when you come up with ridiculous results, as you did, that should tell you youre doing something wrong.
Hint: Stop the insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations, and learn some physics.”
How bout you stop the insults, misrepresentations, and stepping in it.
But JD,
In comparison to this statement
To properly apply the inverse-square law, in your example, you would use the center of the Earth as your point source
It was Einstein level genius.
The radiation from the center of the earth doesn’t get very far and so does not drop off in accordance with the inverse square law.
You are good for shielding, that’s for sure.
Not much else though
bob, you don’t understand the physics.
The “point source” is how you work the concept of the inverse-square law. The flux does not have to actually be coming from the center of the Earth, but the math works as if it were.
Maybe you need to learn analytical geometry, before you learn some physics….
See JD, look at this diagram
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
The source is coming from a point, that’s why they call it a point source.
That diagram could also be considered a picture of your hat.
Here’s a physics problem for you
I am standing 1 meter from a gram of radium on a table, JDHuffman comes along and eats it, what is my dose now?
Now I move 2 meters away from JDHuffman, what is my dose now?
Another question for you, you have an infinite plane giving off a constant intensity of 400 watts per square meter.
What is the intensity at 1, 10, 500, 1000, 100,000 and 1,000,000 meters from the plane?
Hint: you don’t need to use the square function on you calculator.
Ibid.
Not up to the task JD?
It was an easy question. The last one anyway.
So you can’t handle some simple physics.
Just to be clear, the inverse square law needs a point source in a vacuum, all other cases must be handled differently.
You would have learned that if you had completed your minor in physics.
Alas, you didn’t and all you can do is troll.
Still does not work…..sigh
Last try….fingers crossed
My phone works better in desktop mode rather than mobile lol
Barry,, Up-thread at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-328347 you had an opportunity to enlighten us on what the difference between RSS v3.3 and RSS v4.0 was about but you chose to attempt to discredit me instead. Perhaps you simply lacked sufficient information. I had looked into this in the past and looked again using presently reported data.
Previous RSS reported data shows either that the instrument on which v 4.0 is based was drifting up or they were tinkering with the source data to make it look that way or most likely some of each given that some previously reported data for v4.0 was changed. This is obvious because v 3.3 report is corroborated by other data. About 3 years ago it appears either the v4.0 instrument stopped drifting or they stopped tinkering as all reported data now shows declining at the about same rate. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drpqhr-VsAANpZc.jpg
What you say about differences between RSS 4.0 and RSS 3.3 could be said – with a minus sign – about differences between UAH 6.0 and UAH 5.6.
Here is a chart with plots of both difference time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf6dWjeCRO7j7ZcvStIemzhftjnUF_pd/view
Unfortunately, the UAH team stopped publishing UAH 5.6 by 2017, Aug 11. Therefore we can’t see wether or not the UAH diff continues decreasing while the RSS continues increasing.
Maybe you carefully read all documents written by both teams in order to really grasp their differing views concerning the NOAA satellies they use.
Dan,
You have beckoned me to the bottom of the thread to complain that I discredited you rather than deal with differences bewteen RSS v3 and v4.
Nate had already mentioned that you were wrong when you said:
“I wonder why RSS reports two different versions of average global temperature.
V 4.0 which appears to be resisting the recent temperature decline trend as is NOAA &
V 3.3 which is corroborating the decline trend of the other reporting agencies.”
From January 2016, the RSSv4 ‘trend’ for the period is downward and on par with the rest of the data sets. It is a steeper trend than NOAA, GISS and BEST, very close to Had-CRU, and shallower than RSSv3 and UAH6.0.
IOW, RSSv4 is in the middle of the pack, and not ‘resisting’ the change seen in other data sets.
Here are the 3 data sets you mentioned in graphic form, displaying the trend in recent temps from 2016.
RSSv4, NOAA, RSSv3
Nate’s is the point I picked up on, and which you chose to ignore.
You are still ignoring it, which I why I ‘discredited’ you in the first place. Care to try again?
BTW, further upthread than you chimed in I had already mentioned some differences between both versions of both data sets.
Barry,, My mistake for thinking you might be curious about what is actually going on between v4.0 and v3.3. The difference between the two over the years as I showed graphically at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drpqhr-VsAANpZc.jpg demonstrates that ,,About 3 years ago it appears either the v4.0 instrument stopped drifting or they stopped tinkering as all reported data now shows declining at the about same rate.,, your comments indicate you did not look at the graph and/or, if you read what I wrote, are too stubborn to grasp it. Instead you show linear regressions of less than 2 years of data, which explains nothing. It is revealing that you assert ,,I am still ignoring,, in spite that I have examined the history and agreed that ,,all are now declining at about the same rate.,, It appears you automatically ignore anything which might disagree with your preconceived notions. Apparently you have little if anything new to offer.
What will it take you get you respond to the point I brought up on entering this conversation?
It was directly based on what you said:
“I wonder why RSS reports two different versions of average global temperature.
V 4.0 which appears to be resisting the recent temperature decline trend as is NOAA &
V 3.3 which is corroborating the decline trend of the other reporting agencies.”
Do you still maintain the RSSv4 is “resisting the recent temperature decline?”
Because it hasn’t.
Why have you avoided responding to this point? Is this to be an endless round of you pretending you didn’t say that and wondering why I don’t get interested in your deflection to a different angle on the differences?
Just respond to my challenge to what you said – the first point I made. There’s the quote above and my take on it.
When you’ve done that, I’ll move on to your other point. Otherwise, forget it.
Ba,
Apparently you are so blinded by your ideology that you are unable to realize that I agreed that v4.0 has been declining at about the same rate as the rest of the reporting agencies for the last 3 years.
Perhaps a graphic might make it clear as well as revealing the folly of your regression over only 2 years. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr1ieVyVYAAh8Ko.jpg
some interesting comments on solar minimum and Valentina Zharkova video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHGbri7gWWw
Interesting?
Not really.
“Zharkova believes her solar model is correct, but at best it can only try to predict when the next quiet solar period will occur. Its influence on Earths climate is outside her expertise, and the peer-reviewed research is clear that it would be a minimal impact.”
Classic two talking points from alarmists play book.
Ad hominem followed by appeal to authority ,redundant useless response.
There is no ad hominem whatsoever in his reply. Apparently you have no idea what that is.
And … “appeal to authority”?? Are you serious? Are you claiming that authorities on a particular topic should not be consulted?
Huh?
There are 4 taking points:
1. Zharkova believes her solar model is correct (CORRECT)
2. but at best it can only try to predict when the next quiet solar period will occur (CORRECT)
3. Its influence on Earths climate is outside her expertise (CORRECT)
4. and the peer-reviewed research is clear that it would be a minimal impact (CORRECT)
Please demonstrate otherwise. Otherwise I win again.
When you stop patting yourself on the back go make a stockpile of alkaline soap , you will need it when in the end all you rainmakers and climate shysters get tarred and feathered.
“When you stop patting yourself on the back go make a stockpile of alkaline soap , you will need it when in the end all you rainmakers and climate shysters get tarred and feathered.”
Spoken like a true loser.
“2. but at best it can only try to predict when the next quiet solar period will occur (CORRECT)”
She is predicting a grand minimum if that is what you mean by quiet period, then (correct).
She says she will be disproven or proven she can accurately predict grand Min and grand Max in next 5 to 10 years. If correct it works in the past as well as the future.
I would say it probably more significant that one know the past, rather than know the future.
Eben
Now THAT was ad hominem. Do you even realise you are practising what you are complaining about?
Zharkova herself says that a ‘quiet sun’ could at best offset global warming for a period.
“I hope global warning will be overridden by this effect, giving humankind and the Earth 30 years to sort out our pollution”
https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-could-hit-uk-by-2030-11186098
Ad hominem, Eben, is when the dumbest commenters on this site name you ‘idiot’, ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ or ‘dumbass’ just because they don’t like what you write.
Dr. Pat Michaels had a great one-liner for John Kerry when he made the statement that we will shame other countries for not lowering their CO2 emissions. Michaels said, “what are we going to do, drop a shame bomb on those countries?
That is basically what global warming alarmists are reduced to nowadays. Dropping shame bombs onto those who haven’t jumped on board the global warming bandwagon!
Speaking of John Kerry and shaming, how about this rocket he has just fired!
” President DonaldTrump a no-show because of raindrops? Those veterans the president didnt bother to honor fought in the rain, in the mud, in the snow – & many died in trenches for the cause of freedom. Rain didnt stop them & it shouldnt have stopped an American president.”
Mickey…” President DonaldTrump a no-show because of raindrops? Those veterans the president didnt bother to honor fought in the rain, in the mud, in the snow & many died in trenches for the cause of freedom. Rain didnt stop them & it shouldnt have stopped an American president.”
We’re talking about a war that was fought about 100 years ago. The US did not enter the war till it was three years old (1917). US soldiers who died should be honoured, of course, but most of the slaughter with the Allies involved Brits, Canadians, and other Commonwealth countries.
All Trump seems to be doing is the same things as US President Woodrow Wilson did when he failed to back up the Allies till 1917.
What we should be talking about today are the bozos commanding those troops in WW I who used them for cannon fodder. Although WWII was not nearly as bad with regard to mindless slaughter, there were many bozo generals in WWII as well who should have been prosecuted after the war.
With regard to WW I, idiots like Haig should have been shot during the war. Same with the French generals who had French troops shot for desertion?
Desertion??? They turned back from overwhelming machine gun fire after being ordered to run right into it. They could not shoot all the troops so they had soldiers draw lots to see who would be shot.
Criminals!!!
Gordon says “WWII was not nearly as bad”:
The Soviet Union applied WWI tactics in WWII. Their military losses were about the same as the WWI total on all sides.
It is the solar /geo magnetic fields not just solar that have major impacts on the climate when in sync.
What I am watching is overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which are still very high but have failed to make any additional progress on the upside for at least the last two years.
I am also watching overall geological activity,global snow coverage and cloud coverage all which will be important clues as to the direction the climate is heading.
My climate forecast is always going to be early during this transitional period but one thing that I will keep in stone is this cooling must occur now- next few years if it fails and global temperatures continue to rise during that time period all of us predicting this global cooling are going to be wrong. There will be no way around it.
If were still the same global temperature wise in the next decade forget global cooling.
It is in the balance.
2016 was one of the 2 strongest el Ninos in 100 years, and you say:
What I am watching is overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which are still very high but have failed to make any additional progress on the upside for at least the last two years.
In the last 2 years since the biggest el Nino spike in the 21st century.
Of course global temps after a massive el Nino haven’t peaked back up to the same level as that el Nino while followed by 2 la Ninas.
Meanwhile, other of your contrarian brethren explain that the 2016 el Nino year was exceptional and should be excluded from any analysis.
One of the most obvious problems with the contrarian view of AGW is that they can’t keep their stories straight. And one of the biggest giveaways that your local contrarian is an agenda-driven bullshit artist is that they never, ever deal with arguments from other contrarians that are the opposite of the ones they are making.
Because they are not remotely interested in the truth, only the agenda.
It’s fricking stark.
“2016 was one of the 2 strongest el Ninos in 100 years…”
Not quite right, barry.
You forget the 1982/83 El Nino, which was the second strongest one:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
You probably rely a bit too much on UAH’s time series, within which this ENSO event is completely absent due to two harsh volcanic eruptions (St Helens and El Chichon).
Yes, arguably the 1982/3 el Nino was more powerful than 2016, but with respect to onfollowing high global temps, the contemporaneous Chichon eruption damped the effect.
If there is any validity to AGW the global temperatures will keep rising. This is currently not happening nor has it for the past few years.
Until new record warmth is accomplished (which it will not be) AGW no longer has validity and as each month passes with out any progress to warmer temperatures the premise of AGW grows weaker and weaker.
“If there is any validity to AGW the global temperatures will keep rising.”
As measured by the black line in the top post.
This black line rise is currently happening & has happened as measured over the past 75 years just as predicted by lab experiments and observed in nature to within statistically meaningful confidence intervals from current calibrated observing instruments.
New cyclical record warmth has been accomplished in the recent global temperature record as AGW has measured, experimental validity. As each 30-year climate period passes with warmer global median temperatures, measured by the black line top post & consistent with basic meteorology, the premise of AGW is proven out.
Even Salvatore’s weather predictions may prove out next few years!
Each 30 year period starting with the end of the Little Ice Age has been warmer and should be due to solar activity not CO2.
This is about to change. I always expected warmer 30 year period until around year 2005, when things started to change.
“should be”?
Salvatore is not very confident.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 11, 2018 at 2:45 PM
Each 30 year period starting with the end of the Little Ice Age has been warmer and should be due to solar activity not CO2.
__________________________________
Last 50 years solar activity has been decreasing.
Even though the solar activity peaks have been declining, the solar influence (as calculated by a proxy, the integral of the SSN anomalies, which includes its influence on clouds) has been above breakeven for earth temperature. The sun has contributed about 0.18 K to earth temperature increase in the last 50 years.
DP
Please link to the peer-reviewed paper which gives this calculation.
Then account for the other 0.78 degrees of warming in the past 50 years.
Solar activity may have been declining for the last 50 years but it was not until late 2005 that solar effects upon the climate started to shift from an overall net warming effect to an overall net cooling effect.
Lag times are involved but they now should be mostly behind us and the climate should continue the cooling trend that started the past few years and accelerate.
Ocean temperatures still warm and that will be the leading indicator.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 12, 2018 at 6:54 AM
Solar activity may have been declining for the last 50 years but it was not until late 2005 that solar effects upon the climate started to shift from an overall net warming effect to an overall net cooling effect.
___________________________________________
Although declining solar activity since 50 years it has just since late 2005 a cooling effect? Why this delay?
But first of all: Which COOLING??
Since late 2005 we have WARMING of 0.25 per decade! Much more than average.
The warmer it gets, the more you speak about cooling.
Bo,
Peer review of climate related papers is so corrupt as to be at best worthless and apparently even misleading.
You say the other 0.78 K 1967-2017 which would mean a total of 0.96 K. None of the reporting agencies report that much but the much adjusted GISS comes closest at 0.92 K. A more credible value would be Had-CRUT4 at about 0.67 K.
My best estimate is essentially a smoothed Had-CRUT4 with a total increase 1967-2017 of 0.59 K consisting of 0.18 K solar, 0.14 K ocean cycles, and 0.27 K from increased water vapor. About half of the 0.27 K is from temperature increase of the planet and the other half is from irrigation. Mother Nature is peer reviewing my work.
“Mother Nature is peer reviewing my work.”
Unfortunately for Dan then, Mother Nature misses Dan’s double counting. Solar is also in the ocean cycles & in any temperature increase of the planet.
test
Let me get this straight, warming since the Little Ice Age is proof of human-caused global warming? I don’t think there is anybody on earth who can actually quantify how much warming is due to humans vs. natural causes.
I’ve heard Dr. Spencer say that global warming could be 10% caused by humans, or 90% caused by humans. We don’t have a clue. Now that statement I have a 100% agreement with!
Good point, Rob. And it gets even better.
Suppose humans were actually able to cause some “global warming”. Then Earth would simply remove any excess heat. Not a problem.
Think of a forest fire. That fire most certainly adds heat to the atmosphere. But that heat eventually gets radiated out to space. The heat doesn’t just stay in the atmosphere forever.
JD, correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is one aspect of your argument that you have been making over and over again in its various forms to the global warming fanatics on Dr. Spencer’s site.
Exactly, Rob. CO2 cannot heat the planet. But, even it somehow could, Earth’s systems can handle it. Hurricanes and El Niños are just two examples. The weather systems we see all involve the transfer of heat energy to space.
JDHuffman says:
Good point, Rob. And it gets even better.
Suppose humans were actually able to cause some “global warming”. Then Earth would simply remove any excess heat. Not a problem.
________________________________________________
Yes, it gets better and better here. Great comedy!
Could you explain, just for our entertainement, what for a planet means “excess” heat? Or lack of heat or necessary heat? And how it distinguishes this categories?
forest fires, vast lava flows, nuclear explosions, asteroid impacts, Hurricanes, etc.
If you add excess heat at Venus surface or bottom of the ocean of Earth, the heat is not removed as quickly.
Fritz struggles: “Could you explain, just for our entertainement, what for a planet means “excess” heat? Or lack of heat or necessary heat? And how it distinguishes this categories?”
Fritz, just for your entertainment, study “thermodynamics”. With enough open-minded research, you will learn the amazing connectivity between temperatures and pressures. Then, you will not have to ask how water “knows” to evaporate, or condense, or freeze, or melt, and how that helps to control temperatures.
JDHuffman says:
November 11, 2018 at 9:07 PM
Fritz struggles: Could you explain, just for our entertainement, what for a planet means excess heat? Or lack of heat or necessary heat? And how it distinguishes this categories?
Fritz, just for your entertainment, study thermodynamics. With enough open-minded research, you will learn the amazing connectivity between temperatures and pressures. Then, you will not have to ask how water knows to evaporate, or condense, or freeze, or melt, and how that helps to control temperatures.
__________________________________________
Very interesting. I am impressed.
But now Im waiting for your definition of “excess heat”, which the planet so simply removes.
Shouldnt be a problem for an open-minded thermodynamic-expert lie you.
Fritz, Earth receives much more solar energy than it needs. It must constantly reject the excess. This excess might be referred to as “excess heat energy”.
JDHuffman says:
November 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM
Fritz, Earth receives much more solar energy than it needs. It must constantly reject the excess. This excess might be referred to as “excess heat energy”.
__________________________________________
More than it “needs”?
How much does it need, and why must it reject excess? What would happen if not?
For which purpose does a planet need energy at all??
Thermodynamic really is a strange stuff. Im glad here are experts who can explain.
Fritz, are you trying the “DA stupid questions” routine?
He tries to look smart by asking stupid questions.
Why do you believe the routine will work for you, when it hasn’t worked for DA?
JDHuffman says:
November 12, 2018 at 6:45 PM
Fritz, are you trying the “DA stupid questions” routine?
He tries to look smart by asking stupid questions.
Why do you believe the routine will work for you, when it hasn’t worked for DA?
_____________________________________
Im not interested in talking about some DA.
No answer to my simple question?
You talk about “excess” energy and “needed” energy of a planet, without having the slightest idea, what you mean by it??
Very disappointing.
Are you sure you ever read a textbook about thermodyamics and all this things you always reccommend to study?
Fritz, just for your entertainment, study “thermodynamics”. With enough open-minded research, you will learn the amazing connectivity between temperatures and pressures. Then, you will not have to ask how water “knows” to evaporate, or condense, or freeze, or melt, and how that helps to control temperatures.
“Ive heard Dr. Spencer say that global warming could be 10% caused by humans, or 90% caused by humans. ”
Could you cite your two sources EXACTLY?
The only Spencer statement I know about in this context is “half natural, half man-made”.
My source is Dr. Spencer himself during a semi-face off against Gavin Schmidt on John Stossel’s show. Schmidt refused to be interviewed at the same time Spencer was. After Schmidt was interviewed, he was given the opportunity to stay on while Spencer was interviewed. Schmidt walked off the set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw
Rob Mitchell says:
Let me get this straight, warming since the Little Ice Age is proof of human-caused global warming?
_____________________________________________
Surely not. Who said this?
Warming till begin of 20.century surely was mainly just recovering from LIA.
For furthergoing warming no cause is known, so its a strong hint for validity of GHE.
No more and but also no less.
I’ve heard Dr. Spencer say that global warming could be 10% caused by humans, or 90% caused by humans. We don’t have a clue. Now that statement I have a 100% agreement with!
Though I don’t quite agree with that assessment, my opinion that therefore humanity should vigorously – and judiciously – reduce emissions can as well be predicated on the above basis.
When we have no other atmosphere to go to, when the consequences are inescapable, let’s get more certainty that things won’tgo badly. I’m no alarmist, but I’m no Pollyanna, either.
barry, you deny being an “alarmist”, but would you go for “extremist”?
That would explain your attempts to promote the AGW hoax, at the expense of reality.
Valentina Zharkova ‘s predictions I agree with we will all find out soon.
Zharkova agrees that more CO2 is making the lower atmosphere warmer, and that any solar minimum will be only a temporary offset to that warming.
The only thing you agree with here is a prediction of colder temps; your perennial catch cry undampened by a decade of wrong calls.
I listened to her conference false Barry . As usual you live in a dream world when it comes to CO2 and it’s magical effects upon the climate.
There are NO CO2 effects, there has not been , is , or will be any AGW.
THE HISTORICAL CLMATIC RECORD PROVES THIS AND THE CURRENT CLIMATE CONFIRMS THIS.
Until the current climate becomes unique meaning new record warmth going back at least 10,000 years the climate is simply on the warm side but no where unique and the ending of the Little Ice Age just prior to this relative recent warmth (which I think is now over)exaggerates it.
I listened to her conference false Barry
Unfortunately, your English here confuses the issue. You have just said her conference was false.
If you mean that I am false in paraphrasing her views, no, I am not.
“I hope global warning will be overridden by this effect, giving humankind and the Earth 30 years to sort out our pollution,” she said.
“We have to be sorted by that time and prepare everything on Earth for the next big solar activity.”
https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-could-hit-uk-by-2030-11186098
Also:
“The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says.
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/
I haven’t misrepresented Zharkova. Those are her quotes.
So either you agree with a scientist who thinks that anthropogenic global warming is worthy of concern, or you don’t agree with her, but like that she talked about temporary cooling enough that you didn’t bother to read about her work any further.
Surprise!
Barry says, “So either you agree with a scientist who thinks that anthropogenic global warming is worthy of concern, or you dont agree with her…”
“Only the Sith deal with absolutes” Obi Wan
She does NOT give a hoot about AGW.
She did not say that, she said all future temperature changes will be determined by solar activity end of story.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/11/05/valentina-zharkova-incorporates-planetary-theory-into-solar-activity-model/
Here is her conference if ne goes 41 -50 minutes in and then 57 minutes , in you will see she is exact opposite of what the IPCC says will happen with the global temperatures. It is repeated again after words.
I am in complete agreement with her and her reasons. She also says after the cooling a warmer period will start all due to Milankovitch Cycle sand the sun itself.
But all I am interested in is now – over the next few to several years.
Took the time to watch the presentation and question period. I thought is was very good. She seems to dismiss CO2 effect but as a non-expert in that area. I also got the impression that she is very careful not to criticize the CO2 is the control knob crowd. I did like her comments on being able for others to replicate her findings. There seems to be a fear from those who do not conform the AGW theory.
In all Salvatore, it looks like your prediction of this decade ending up cooler is still possible. El Nino may be moderate to weak and with conditions in place, La Nina may be strong in 2019/2020. I see the Nino 3.4 index has dropped in the past few days as well as global SST’s anomalies. Perhaps we skip the El Nino altogether. If the 70% prediction does not consider Zharkova and your theories, they could be in for a surprise.
bilybob your commentary is spot on!
Also 1 hour 17 minutes in she says CO2 has NO influence on her model for her global temperature outlook.
She also subscribes to the galactic cosmic ray theory which(I say) means the geo magnetic field will have a roll in all of this.
I like how she shows the IPPC temperature prediction at 46:30 and then bursts in lough , because this is how climate shysters operate, They take a short temperature spike and just project it into infinity
ZHARKOVA- is a very smart person and what she says needs to be taken seriously.
Her solar knowledge is extensive and will be tested. She has put herself on the line. We will see how this all unfolds.
I just more data on the configuration and strength of the geo magnetic field would be more readily available.
cor -wish
Zharkova has been wrong for years.
Salvatore, do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb IR, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?
The climate is now in at the crossroads and we are going to see and find out which way it goes very soon. I feel it is happening but I need more of the items below to make a more definitive turn before my confidence can really increase.
For my money I think it is the geo/solar magnetic field strengths and if they weaken enough and stay weak I think the result will be a major climatic impact to colder conditions.
Signs I am watching for are:
OVERALL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES-decreasing.
500 MB ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS /HEIGHTS-more meridional /lower heights
OVERALL GEOLOGICAL ACTIVITY -increasing.
OVERALL SNOW/CLOUD COVERAGE- increasing.
Time will tell but the potential is as higher now then any other time since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended which was in 1850.
Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Her is my prediction for the starting date for the next El Nino event:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2018/11/predicting-start-of-next-el-nino-event.html
So Ian what you are saying is this current drive toward an El Nino, this winter season is NOT going to happen? Correct. .
Correct! I think this is why the atmospheric conditions are not “coupling” with the observed underlying sea-surface temperature increases in the equatorial Pacific ocean. The SOI index is still neutral, the tradewinds are still blowing normally and the level of cloudiness has not changed in the eastern equatorial Pacific.
Trade winds have been cooperating. It is just a moderate El Nino.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
Nate,
The BEST index, which I am basing my claim upon, does not show that a moderate to strong index has started yet. I base my claim upon this index. Please judge my prediction using the criterion that I have laid out.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ENSO Wrap-up does not show an El Nino event at this point [November 2018]. They have issued an El Nino Alert which is not an actual El Nino event.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml
Ian let me try to pin you down some. For this winter are you saying ENSO neutral conditions will occur , meaning the El Nino region 3.4 average will not exceed a deviation of +.50c for any 3 consecutive months of time?
Thanks
The method that I have used has an innate level of precision that only allows me to identify a starting date to within a roughly 6 to 8 monthly period. No amount of torturing the data will improve on this precision.
If you carefully read my post, Salvatore, you will see that I use the monthly BEST index to determine if a given month is an EL Nino month. Hence, my prediction needs to be judged by that criterion and not the usual deviation of +0.5 C for three consecutive months.
Salvatore,
It is still a possibility that the El Nino could fire up as early as this winter [see the 2009/10 El Nino which started about 8 – 10 months earlier than I would have predicted using my current method]. However, I am sticking my neck out and predicting a start for the next El Nino sometime in mid-to-late 2019.
Note, in 2014, I used this technique to publically predict a start to the last El Nino in March 2015. According to the BEST index criterion, the actual starting date was February 2015.
Thanks Ian.
You appear to be an astrologist, Ian.
No, I have a PhD in astronomy from the Australian National University (1982) and I have dozens of peer-reviewed publications in the fields of astronomy and climate science.
Ian: What are some links to your climate science papers? Do you have a Google Scholar profile? ResearchNet?
You can find a list of my publications at my blog site:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2015/04/scientific-publications-and.html
Most of our work is available online at the Researchgate web site.
Our most recent publication is:
Ian Robert George Wilson and Nikolay S Sidorenkov, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate I: Centennial Times Scales, J Earth Sci Clim Change 2018, 9:2
David,
To save you the trouble of searching through my publication record, here are two additional publications that you might find interesting:
Wilson, I.R.G. and Sidorenkov, N.S., Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the
Southern Hemisphere, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal,
2013, 7, 51-76
http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOASCJ/TOASCJ-7-51.pdf
Wilson, I.R.G., Lunar Tides and the Long-Term Variation
of the Peak Latitude Anomaly of the Summer Sub-Tropical
High-Pressure Ridge over Eastern Australia
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 49-60
http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOASCJ-6-49
Nate,
Maybe you should read the following publication before you pass judgment on this topic.
LI Guoqing (李国庆), ZONG Haifeng (宗海锋), and ZHANG Qingyun (张庆云), 27.3-day and Average 13.6-day Periodic Oscillations in the Earths Rotation Rate and Atmospheric Pressure Fields Due
to Celestial Gravitation Forcing, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, VOL. 28, NO. 1, 2011, 4558.
ABSTRACT
Variation in length of day of the Earth (LOD, equivalent to the Earths rotation rate) versus change in atmospheric geopotential height fields and astronomical parameters were analyzed for the years 19622006.
This revealed that there is a 27.3-day and an average 13.6-day periodic oscillation in LOD and atmospheric pressure fields following lunar revolution around the Earth. Accompanying the alternating change in celestial gravitation forcing on the Earth and its atmosphere, the Earths LOD changes from minimum to maximum, then to minimum, and the atmospheric geopotential height fields in the tropics oscillate from low to high, then to low. The 27.3-day and average 13.6-day periodic atmospheric oscillation in the tropics is proposed to be a type of strong atmospheric tide, excited by celestial gravitation forcing. A formula for a Tidal Index was derived to estimate the strength of the celestial gravitation forcing, and a high degree of correlation was found between the Tidal Index determined by astronomical parameters, LOD, and atmospheric geopotential
height. The reason for the atmospheric tide is the periodic departure of the lunar orbit from the celestial equator during the lunar revolution around the Earth. The alternating asymmetric change in celestial gravitation forcing on the Earth and its atmosphere produces a modulation to the change in the Earths LOD and atmospheric pressure fields.
Sorry, LOD changes aren’t causing rapid global warming.
David,
I am afraid that you are putting words in my mouth. The data that I present here (plus additional research by myself and Nikolay Sidorenkov that has either been published in peer review journals or is being submitted for publication) shows that El Nino events are triggered by a mechanism that is related to the 31/62 year Perigean New/Full Moon tidal cycle. The data is not being used to say anything directly about rapid global warming.
Associated data to that presented can be used to show that most likely candidate for triggering the semi-periodic drop in equatorial trade wind strength is the slowly changing monthly acceleration/decelerations in the Earth’s rotation rate caused by the lunar tides.
If you remove the slow monotonic increase in the world mean (instrumental) temperature over the last 100 years or so and look at the variance about the long-term mean, most of that variance can be attributed to El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (allowing for short-term cooling that is caused by major tropical volcanic eruptions). Hence, the ENSO phenomenon can be used to explain much of the changes in the world mean temperature on sub-decadal to inter-annual times scales.
The jury is still out as to what is causing the slow monotonic increase in world mean temperature.
Nate,
If my model is wrong, then nature has conspired to produce almost all of its moderate to strong El Nino’s since 1870 in a 31/62 year pattern of New Moon and Full Moon Epochs, that are synchronized (i.e. in temporal phase) with the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycle.
New Moon Epoch:
Epoch 1 – Prior to 15th April 1870
Epoch 3 – 8th April 1901 to 20th April 1932
Epoch 5 – 23rd April 1963 to 25th April 1994
Full Moon Epochs:
Epoch 2 – 15th April 1870 to 18th April 1901
Epoch 4 – 20th April 1932 to 23rd April 1963
Epoch 6 – 25th April 1994 to 27th April 2025
In addition, I showed that:
The observational data supports the contention that:
Moderate-to-strong El Niño events in the New Moon epochs preferentially occur near times when the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Solstices. Note that this is equivalent to saying that moderate to strong El Niño in New Moon Epochs preferentially occur near times the strongest Perigean New/Full moons are near lunar standstill.
Moderate-to-strong El Niño events in the Full Moon epochs preferentially occur near times when the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes. Note that this is equivalent to saying that moderate to strong El Niño in Full Moon Epochs preferentially occur near times the strongest Perigean New/Full moons are crossing the Earth’s equator.
The likelihood that this has happened by chance is astronomically small.
Norman, I promised you I would show why your latest “experiment” is just one more fail. (I have substituted arrows for the balls, for clarity.)
The platform (circle) is rotating CCW on its axis. The red arrow is glued to the platform. The red arrow can only move with the platform, it can not rotate on its own axis.
The gold arrow is rotating CCW, in “synchronous rotation” with the platform. That is, it completes one full rotation as the platform completes one full rotation.
Notice that the red arrow represents the motion of the Moon, but the gold arrow is clearly seen “rotating on its own axis”, from the center of the platform.
If you get lost, simply follow the red arrows. They show what the platform is doing.
https://postimg.cc/Mfy5Kh0r
JD,
Apparently you have never had kinematics (or you forgot) so you are unaware of what is wrong with what you are saying. For your graphic to be correct you have to say that the gold arrow is rotating WITH RESPECT TO the disk.
Dan, apparently you are confused by “its own axis”.
Tim Folkerts also believed he could mess with reality. He tried to claim that whether or not something was “rotating on its own axis” depended on the “frame of reference”.
I suggested he put his arm into the rotating prop of an airplane propeller. The prop would be adjusted to be rotating at the same RPM as another prop. So, with the other prop as the “frame of reference”, he would not be hurt because his prop was not rotating.
He may have learned something about reality.
Did you?
No, JD projected his misunderstandings onto me. All motion is indeed relative to the reference frame you choose. With “the other prop” as the reference frame, then *I* would be rotating at 1000’s of RPMs.
JD — watch this video shot from the frame of reference of a sword. In the sword’s frame, the sword is stationary. Everything *ELSE* is moving. But whether you use the sword’s frame or the gym’s frame, the sword is a danger to anything that gets too close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaEZZ43WrTQ
You REALLY need to stop with the strawman arguments and the projection of your shortcomings onto others.
Tim, just when I thought you couldn’t get any sillier….
And, in case Tim forgot how silly he’s been:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329042
I gotta admit you are at least consistent in your misunderstandings and strawmen.
JD, are you now going to argue that the sword can’t cut someone because the camera is mounted to the sword?
If a camera would be mounted to the end of the propeller, the propeller would be stationary in that frame (with the plane and the rest of the world spinning around). Apparently you think that somehow makes the propeller not dangerous???
Keep trying to spin your way out of your own web, Dim.
Nothing new.
So you think that I think a propeller with a camera mounted to it will stop being dangerous???
Because that is all it means to analyze a problem from a particular frame of reference. It simply means you fix the axes to some particular location/object/motion and see how the world looks from there.
I have said all along that the propeller is dangerous in any frame. If you think otherwise, then show any statement to the contrary.
Dim, as I have explained sereral times, you do NOT get to change the frame of reference, to change reality. You were trying to change reality. You wanted to be able to choose your own frame of reference to support your pseudoscience.
“JD, this discussion is EXACTLY about choosing a frame of reference. You choose one frame — that’s fine. But others choose other frames — and that is STILL fine.”
You don’t get to change reality.
Now, continue with your desperate spin.
JD, this is getting old …
Reality is not changed by shifting frames. I have never claimed such a thing. It is only ever you making such claims. Each time, you come back with some projection of your misunderstanding — never a substantive reply showing any growth or effort to understand.
So … point in any quote from me that you think indicates me trying to “change reality”. Anything? Even one? I thought not.
Dim, maybe you overlooked the italicized quote in my comment just above.
Yes, this is getting old. So stop with your ongoing spin. Face reality, and clean up your act.
And what in that quote says anything about”changing reality”???
That’s a stupid question.
Forget about using “DA-type” tactics, and learn some physics.
JD,
Yes, I learned that you are uninformed and desperately resist anyone who tries to help you become informed. It is unclear whether you are profoundly stubborn, are actually incapable of grasping what is being discussed, or just like to argue.
Apparently you have nothing to contribute regarding climate change.
Dan, if you actually “learned’ all that from my brief comment, you should be worried about your ability to process facts and logic. But, likely you’re not the least concerned.
That’s the “benefit” of a closed-mind.
You don’t want to hear about the downsides….
dan…”I learned that you are uninformed and desperately resist anyone who tries to help you become informed. It is unclear whether you are profoundly stubborn, are actually incapable of grasping what is being discussed, or just like to argue”.
You forgot one possibility, that JD is right and the rest of you are wrong.
JD does cartoons; physical correctness is established by those doing proper experiments.
Fluffball has quite a history with his “experiments”. One of the best was where he determined 400 Watts/m^2 corresponded to a S/B temperature of 1452 K!
“BB radiation at 400 is ~1452 K from experiment.”
Correct temperature would be 290 K. So fluffball was only off by a little over 1100 K!!! Not bad for a pseudoscience clown, I guess.
And my ploy got JD to admit his 6C3 cartoon was wrong by JD jumping in admitting JD knew the real answer was 290K for the blue plate 400 W/m^2 emission shown in his cartoon and not 244K as JD shows therein. The ploy worked perfectly, JD fell for it. Hook, line and sinker; I reeled in a small fish. Too easy.
One of the best ever. Thanks for reminder JD. More please.
Fluffball got caught in the act. Now he has to spin his way out.
That’s like the bank robber that got caught in the act.
He claimed he was just testing the bank’s security system!
As you write JD, you were made to admit your 6c3 cartoon is bogus for the blue plate: shows emitting & absorbing BB equilibrium radiation at 400 Watts/m^2…Correct temperature would be 290 K.
Not 244K as JD shows in the cartoon & writes: The blue plate absorbs 400 Watts. It emits 200 Watts in both directions….And no one would say the green plate can warm the blue plate, higher than 244 K.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-292970
Actually proper testing like Dr. Spencer performs would eliminate these bogus JD cartoons & resulting embarrassment for JD, try it, the internet never forgets.
Fluffball, you are so confused.
As your hero, Ger*, tried to explain to you, the blue plate is emitting 200 from both sides, or 400 total. But, you do NOT use the 400 Watts/m^2 for the corresponding S/B surface temperature. You only use the emitted flux, or 200 Watts/m^2.
So he was correct, the corresponding temperature is 244 K, and you are wrong. Nothing new.
Learn some physics.
Sorry JD, you need to learn some physics.
The correct equilibrium temperature for the blue plate is 262K with green plate in place not as you show 244K. The blue plate is a black body so it doesn’t reflect any radiation as you incorrectly show in your bogus 6c3 cartoon.
Everyone that has learned basic ideal radiative physics shows the green plate can warm the blue plate higher than 244 K, all the way to 262K. JD has not learned enough physics.
Fluffball, you’re making so many mistakes here that we need to identify them. Otherwise, when you try to spin yourself out of your own words, you’ll just get even more tangled up.
1) You incorrectly tried to link 400 Watts/m^2 to 1452 K, indicating you can’t even use the S/B Law.
2) You claimed you had verified the 1452 “from experiment”, which verified your willingness to pervert reality.
3) You were trying to somehow add fluxes incorrectly to get to the 400 Watt/m^2. The blue plate, in the correct calculation, is emitting 200 Watts/m^2 from both sides, but that does not mean it is EMITTING 400 Watts/m^2. Fluxes do not add.
4) Now you are bringing up the incorrect solution to the blue/green plate issue. The only way the green plate could cause a temperature rise in the blue plate would be if it were magically turned into an insulator, restricting heat transfer. A black body absorbs all IR from the hotter (upstream) blue plate.
Correct solution is here: https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Now, you can attempt your spin in a logical, organized fashion.
“1) You incorrectly tried to link 400 Watts/m^2 to 1452 K, indicating you cant even use the S/B Law. 2) You claimed you had verified the 1452 from experiment, which verified your willingness to pervert reality.”
Yes, in a disguised effort to get JD to correct me so obviously thus admit JD does know how to correctly calculate Planck radiation and thus admit the 6c3 cartoon blue plate temperature was calculated incorrectly. That was a slam dunk.
“3) You were trying to somehow add fluxes incorrectly to get to the 400 Watt/m^2. The blue plate, in the correct calculation, is emitting 200 Watts/m^2 from both sides, but that does not mean it is EMITTING 400 Watts/m^2. Fluxes do not add.”
From one side JD not two. The context was the earth emitting 400 around 289K (from one side) and you keep misusing or disguising the factor of two, I demonstrated your error in posing problems quite clearly. Several times.
“4) Now you are bringing up the incorrect solution to the blue/green plate issue. The only way the green plate could cause a temperature rise in the blue plate would be if it were magically turned into an insulator, restricting heat transfer.”
No change to insulator needed, blue plate merely remains a black body on both sides, this again demonstrates JD’s errors.
“A black body absorbs all IR from the hotter (upstream) blue plate.”
Yes JD does get that right, and a black body absorbs all IR from the cooler green plate increasing universe entropy except in JD’s bogus 8e3 cartoon where the black body blue plate is unphysically shown to reflect all radiation from one side (green arrow).
JD, learn some physics. Do some proper experiments.
No one can spin like fluffball and Norman. Not even Tim. No one.
They’re the champs!
JD has no cogent rebuttal as there is none. JD has been shown to be able to calculate the correct Planck radiation in the one-sided context (earth surface). JD then knows how to do so in the two-sided (blue plate) context.
Thus, JD is shown to know JD’s cartoons 6c3 and 8e3 are bogus blue-plate special Planck radiation physics and repeatedly tries to deceive other readers by referring to JD’s cartoons. JD has actually caught some fish doing so.
Typical of a self-proclaimed reprobate, JD.
Keep up the humorous deceptions JD, they are so entertaining. Especially the cartoons where JD tries to show a racehorse and race car run down the backstretch tail first never “rotating on their own axis”, those cartoons are simply hilarious.
JD, learn some physics. Do some proper experiments.
See!
dan…”Apparently you have never had kinematics (or you forgot) so you are unaware of what is wrong with what you are saying”.
From what I have read from JD, excluding that to which you refer, which I have not read, JD has a perfectly good understanding of kinematics.
Kinematics has nothing to do with external frames of reference, it involves local motion only, and if a separate FOR is required it needs to be stated.
Based on views of those opposed to JD, if you regard the Sun-Earth system, from a certain FOR, the Sun is orbiting the Earth. Whereas the might be fun for some dweeb theoretical physicist, it is simply not true, even if most people on Earth think it is true based on their incessant references to sunrises and sunsets.
With the current problem, it was stated initially in a very straightforward manner, that the Moon is not rotating about its own axis. From any frame of reference that is true, however, the human mind is prone to illusion and from certain positions the Moon APPEARS to be turning around its own axis.
I have studied kinematics as part of my engineering studies and I have proved it is not turning about its own axis using a form of freebody diagram which I was trained to use. I have also applied the properties required for angular velocity and momentum. I have proved the motion is curvilinear trans;lation, which in an orbit APPEARS to represent rotation of the Moon about its axis from certain FORs.
It’s an illusion. The mind sees a dark spot on the Moon, which always faces the Earth, changing positions relative to the Earth’s centre and PRESUMES the Moon is rotating about its axis. On closer examination, it cannot be turning about its own axis since that requires an angular velocity of a radial line from the Moon’s axis to the spot always facing the Earth.
That radial line is not turning….period. If it was, the line would have to rotate and that means it would have to stop pointing at the Earth and rotate 360 degrees around its axis.
It is impossible for that radial line to continually point at the Earth and rotate through 360 degrees.
Try it with two coin. Mark them both at 3 o’clock then try to make one coin rotate through 360 degrees as it moves around the other coin. The only way the coin can orbit the stationary coin while keeping it marked pointed at the circumference of the stationary coin is to SLIDE it around.
The sliding motion is curvilinear translation, not rotation as understood in kinematics wrt a radial line rotating about an axis.
JDHuffman
Your Gold arrow is rotating twice per platform rotation. I am not sure what that is supposed to show. The Gold arrow rotates independent of the platform. That means it cannot rotate two times for every platform rotation. You are not demonstrating synchronous rotation with your example. You are demonstrating two rotations per platform revolution. With just one rotation, the Gold arrow would look exactly the same as your fixed Red arrow. The Gold arrow could only achieve a quarter turn at the 90 degree graphic. You are fooling yourself. You are having the Gold arrow connected to the platform as it rotates which gives you a double rotation. In reality the Gold arrow is not at all connected to the platform and will not rotate at all with it. The Gold arrow will always point down if you don’t rotate it in some fashion. That is the reality of this situation.
The correct point of a non-rotating Gold arrow would be at 90 degrees it is pointing down not up, at 180 degrees it would be as you show and at 270 degrees it would still be pointing down. You seem to be fooling yourself with this incorrect graphic.
Norman, the gold arrow is being powered by a motor, to provide the same angular veloicity as the platform. The diagram is correct. You are wrong.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
That you cannot see your own error even when pointed out to you does not make me wrong, it just means you are blind.
You have the gold arrow rotating two times for each rotation of the platform.
No Norman! The gold arrow is ONLY rotating on its axis ONCE per each rotation of the platform. Study the graphic. Just take one 90° rotation at a time.
After the first 90° CCW motion, the red arrow is pointing to the left. It is glued to the platform, and the platform has rotated 90°, so the red arrow has rotated 90°, from the start position.
That would mean the gold arrow is then facting right. BUT, the gold arrow is ALSO “rotating on its own axis”. So it gets the rotation of both the platform AND the motor. The gold arrow then points up.
It’s exactly the experiment you called for. It just proves you wrong, so you must deny it.
The gold arrow cannot rotate on its own axis and ALSO never rotate as viewed from the center.
You usually deny facts and logic, but this is especially funny because it is your own “experiment”. You must deny your own experiment!
Clowns are such great entertainment….
JDHuffman
I will attempt to reason with you again. You have the gold arrow connected to the platform as it also rotates. That is not a correct situation. If it is free to rotate it DOES not rotate at all with the platform.
If, in your cartoon, you have multiple rotating platforms that rotate at different rates so that each red arrow is at different positions during rotations, the gold arrow will not be based upon any of the platform rotations. It rotates on its own at its own rate. It has no connection with the rotating platforms.
In your post you have it rotating on the platform and also by itself. You have it rotating twice.
The odd thing about you is that rather than consider the possibility that you are incorrect, you assume you can’t be the one with the bad idea it has to be the entire established physics community.
So you create an example where you have a Gold arrow that is connected and rotates with the platform and also seems to be disconnected and able to rotate freely. You make an unrealistic cartoon and then tell people they are wrong.
That’s some great denial there, Norman!
Predictable, but funny nevertheless.
JDHuffman
The truth is you don’t understand what my point was so you divert with your “funny” line (which used to be hilarious).
If you can figure out what I said I would be impressed.
Norman, the truth is you don’t understand your own “point”.
Here’s your poorly described “experiment”: “With one ball glue it to the platform so it can’t rotate on its own axis. Now have another ball that is free to rotate, set it (with a variable speed motor) to rotate at the same rate the platform rotates so that the rotating ball will rotate on its axis one time for each platform revolution.”
That’s what I represented here:
https://postimg.cc/Mfy5Kh0r
But now, you don’t like your own experiment!
JDHuffman
The Red arrow is revolving around the center. So you have the Gold arrow both revolving around the center and rotating on its axis. You have it rotating twice at the rate the platform rotates once. That is why it has rotated a half turn while the platform rotated a quarter turn. You are no constructing my experiment. You have your own.
You have not done a good job of explaining why you think that the Gold arrow is rotating if the same point faces down.
I have already pointed out, that if you move the Gold arrow around following a square:
Left side of square the Gold arrow does not rotate and moves down the side. The Gold arrow points down as it moves along the vertical. Now do not rotate the Gold arrow as you move it along the bottom horizontal. The Gold arrow still points down all the way. On the right vertical you still don’t rotate the Gold arrow and it points down as you move it up along the other side of the square. Never does the arrow change orientation. If it does it is rotating on its axis.
If you now do the same thing with a rotating Gold arrow. When the arrow moves to the bottom of the square on the left side you rotate it a quarter turn and move it. You don’t rotate it a a half turn as you have done in your graphic.
Norman, the simple graphic is not that hard to understand. For example, at 180°, the red arrow has changed 180° from the “Start” position. That is because the platform has rotated 180°, and the red arrow is glued in place.
Also, at 180°, the gold arrow has rotated 360°, 180 because of the platform, and 180 because it is “rotating on its own axis”.
https://postimg.cc/Mfy5Kh0r
Your confusion: “You have [gold arrow] rotating twice at the rate the platform rotates once.”
The gold arrow is NOT rotating at twice the rate of the platform. It just has TWO motions, not just one. It has the SAME angular velocity as the platform.
Your own experiment proves you wrong, as every proper experiment will. Logic then implies you are wrong.
JDHuffman
The point of error on your part is adding the rotation of the platform to the Gold arrow.
The Gold arrow is free of the platform rotation and it does not matter how fast or slow the platform rotates. The Gold arrow does not rotate with it (in my experiment).
You can demonstrate this by moving the Gold arrow completely away from the platform. The platform rotates 90 degrees and the Gold arrow also rotates 90 degrees. The Gold arrow points to the right after the 90 degree rotation, the Red arrow on the platform points left. You have the Gold arrow pointing up, that would be a 180 degree rotation.
I am not sure why you think it is correct to have the Gold arrow also move with the platform, its motion is not dependent upon the platform at all.
I’ll let you argue with yourself:
Norman: “Take a ball with one half painted blue and the other green [gold arrow]. put it on the edge of a platform that can rotate.”
Norman: “I am not sure why you think it is correct to have the Gold arrow also move with the platform, its motion is not dependent upon the platform at all.”
It’s fun to watch you clowns get tangled in your own webs.
JDHuffman
I think the problem is your reading comprehension.
The blue/green ball is free to rotate, that means it is not linked to the platform’s motion, it rotates on its own or does not rotate.
No Norman, the problem is that you can’t face reality.
You’ve got the arrow riding on the platform, but then you’ve got it not riding on the platform!
An experiment even you can do, JD:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-329346
Nate believes: “Conclusion: rotating an object around a point, like horse on a carousel, is EQUIVALENT TO translating it around the point PLUS rotating the object on its center.”
Nate, it’s easy to get confused by computer graphics, if you don’t understand what is happening. If the red arrow is glued to the platform, it can NOT “rotate on its own axis”!
Try some reality, you might like it.
https://postimg.cc/Mfy5Kh0r
Why do you guys keep posting the same nonsense about “rotating around one’s own axis” over and over again? Is this a discussion thread on merry-go-rounds?
Get a grip and keep on topic, please!
No JD, your diagram is not an experiment.
You didnt try the experiment Ftop linked to. Try it. Or are you deeply afraid you might learn something?
Ric, if you haven’t been following the long “discussion”, you’ve missed some meaningful insight.
“Institutionalized pseudoscience” claims that the Moon is “rotating on its own axis”, as it orbits Earth. Society has been so dumbed-down that many people can no longer think for themselves. They believe that institutions, such as NASA, GOV agencies, and universities, can make NO mistakes. “Institutionalized pseudoscience” has become their (false) religion.
To believe the Moon is “rotating on its own axis”, they must also believe a racehorse is “rotating on its own axis”, on an oval track.
They can’t see their own folly.
So, the issue provides an understanding of how the AGW hoax has lasted so long.
ric…”Why do you guys keep posting the same nonsense about rotating around ones own axis over and over again? Is this a discussion thread on merry-go-rounds?”
This is actually on-topic, it is an extension of the pseudo-science used by climate alarmists on Roy’s site trying to disprove the good work of UAH. In this current debate, we who support Roy and UAH are trying to expose the faulty logic employed by climate alarmists.
The debate is proving that climate alarmists are simply unable to think clearly, hence the nonsense behind AGW.
To believe the Moon is “rotating on its own axis” always facing forward, one must also believe a racehorse is “rotating on its own axis” on an oval track always facing forward.
JD can’t see JD’s own folly trying to convice readers a racehorse on a oval track runs tail first down the backstretch because the horse is never “rotating on its own axis” & the moon doesn’t always face forward because the moon is not “rotating its own axis”. And the glue of an arrow holding the arrow down doesn’t force the arrow into “rotating on its own axis” always facing forward.
Strange but true! In JD’s case just like Bluto’s: Seven years of college down the drain.
More fluff from fluffball.
Nothing new.
Nate claims: “No JD, your diagram is not an experiment.”
Yes Nate, the diagram is an “experiment”. It demonstrates actual motions, and is repeatable. And, best of all, it debunks pseudoscience.
Nate claims: “You didn’t try the experiment Ftop linked to. Try it. Or are you deeply afraid you might learn something?”
I did use the link. Unfortunately, the link did not have an option for orbital motion. You had to “rotate” the object around the origin, which made it cumbersome to both orbit and “rotate on its own axis” at the same time.
JD, you have to use the Translate tool to see that translation of an object involves NO turning or rotation at all.
This would be a revelation for you, I believe.
You can translate an object all the way around the origin, to make an orbit. The object always points in the same direction during the orbit.
In order to produce the moon’s motion you translate all the way around the origin (orbit), while simultaneously rotating the object once on its axis.
Nate, “translational motion” does not involve turning or rotating. You still don’t understand the basic motions.
Your concept of orbiting violates both “transitional motion” and Newton’s Laws.
And, before you start with the stupid questions, remember the rules.
Oh, now Newtons laws? Hows that oh wise one?
Oh nevermind, I know it will be something thoroughly pointless.
ball4…”JD cant see JDs own folly trying to convice readers a racehorse on a oval track runs tail first down the backstretch…”
This is just another one of your trollisms.
You claim heat does not exist, that it is simply a measure of energy. You claim temperature is not a measure of relative heat levels.
In the Moon debate, you offer ridiculous scenarios like a horse having to turn backwards to run down an oval track. A horse can run perfectly well in a forward direction down a straight track without turning about it’s centre of gravity so why should it not be able to run forward around a curve without turning on its COG?
Even when it is pointed out to you that a horse depends on the resistance between its hooves and the track to turn on a curve, with a half-ton riding on it’s hooves, you still insist the horse is slipping on it’s hooves in circles around its COG as it orbits the track in a straight line.
It’s little wonder that AWG has gotten a foothold with all this silliness posing as science.
nate…”In order to produce the moons motion you translate all the way around the origin (orbit), while simultaneously rotating the object once on its axis”.
No simultaneous rotation….not required. Curvilinear translation covers it all and explains why the Moon does not have to rotate on its axis.
Try it with two coins or two washers. Sit them side by side and mark the one on the left at 3 o’clock and the one on the right at 9 o’clock with the marks butted together.
Now try rolling (rotating) the right one around the left one while keeping the mark pointed at the RH coin. It is not possible. You have to SLIDE the RH coin around the LH coin to do that.
The sliding is translation, not rotation.
“You claim heat does not exist”
That is Clausius’ claim from experiments Gordon and you seem to enjoy his writing even if Gordon does not understand thermo. principles Clausius has laid out.
“You claim temperature is not a measure of relative heat levels.”
I do not claim such, that is Gordon’s unlearned statement.
“why should it not be able to run forward around a curve without turning on its COG?”
It would run straight off the course in that case, so it has to turn in the turns.
“you still insist the horse is slipping on it’s hooves”
No.
It’s little wonder that Gordon doesn’t understand meteorology and AGW with all his silliness and misunderstanding of basic science, horse races and astronomy.
Gordon: “Curvilinear translation covers it all”
Show us a definition of ‘curvilinear translation’ from a reliable source that agrees with you.
Hint: there are none.
Meanwhile, do you now understand where you had it wrong on the inverse square law?
Nope. The gold arrow only rotates ONCE, about its own axis.
Before you make predictions about global warming check out what expert say about it , NASA is calling cooling due to solar minimum
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
So?
ball4….part 1
“Gordon simply refuses to accept what Clausius wrote that heat is a measure of an objects total constituent particle KE”.
I have tried to get it through your immensely thick skull that kinetic energy is not a form of energy. It is a description of energy IN MOTION. KE applies to any kind of energy in motion, thermal, mechanical, electrical, chemical, gravitational, to name a few. Each form of energy has different properties and features different phenomena.
It is imperative that you define the energy to which KE applies, which will be made clear in quotes I have included from Clausius, especially the second quote on U, which is internal energy. Internal energy, U, itself is a generalization because, in the case of atoms, it applies to both the heat contained in the atoms and the work they do through vibration.
Clausius explains that in quote 2, on pages 252 – 253 of his first edition of the Mechanical Theory of Heat from the 1850’s. He explains clearly that U consists of heat and work and that both have different units. Therefore to use both in the 1st Law, the equivalent of heat or the equivalent of work must be applied.
part 2
The other day Norman claimed it did not matter if energy is represented as EM or heat as long as the units are expres.sed in joules. Heat is not measured in joules in its native form, it is measured in calories. It was Joule the scientist who equated the joule of mechanical energy to the calorie of heat.
There is no one2one relationship between EM and heat and one must be very careful when presuming one can be subst.it.uted for the other. With relationship to heat, EM must act in a way to respect the 2nd law, meaning it cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body, not even in part, or as part of theorized net transfer.
part 3…
In the first quote from Clausius, it’s apparent where you got the notion that heat is a measure since that’s what Clausius referred to heat as being. However, you need to read the entire ex.cer.p.t to get it that he calls heat the motion of atoms…it’s KE….and also a measure of that KE.
Again, KE is thermal energy in this case. The KE representing the motion of atoms (a vibration in solids) is called thermal energy. The same KE in an electrical circuit is called electrical energy and the same KE in mechanical energy is called work.
Any energy in motion is called kinetic energy. Since temperature is the average kinetic energy of atoms in a gas it is a measurement of thermal energy, or heat.
sorry about all these parts…it did not like the word ex.cer.p.t
part 4
quote 1 from Clausius: bottom of page 21 in the 1879 version of The Mechanical theory of Heat.
“We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva [kinetic energy] of this motion. The nature of this motion We shall not attempt to determine, but shall merely apply to Heat the principle of the equivalence of Vis Viva [kinetic energy] and Work, which applies to motion of every kind; and thus establish a principle which may be called the ?rst main Principle of the Mechanical Theory of Heat”.
part 5…
quote 2: regarding internal energy = U (pages 252 – 253 of original version of The Mechanical Theory of Heat).
He makes it clear in this quote that heat is real and that a body can hold a certain quantity of heat.
“0N TERMINOLOGY.
The new conceptions which the mechanical theory of heat has introduced into science present themselves so frequently in all investigations on heat, that it has become desirable to possess simple and characteristic names for them.
I have divided into the following three parts the heat which must be imparted to a body in order to change its condition in any manner whatever: ?rst, the increased amount of heat actually present in the body; second, the heat consumed by interior work; and third, the heat consumed by exterior work.
===\\\===
I have no hesitation, therefore, in adopting, for the quantity U, the expression energy of the body.
===\\\===
Since the magnitude U consists of two parts which have frequently to be considered individually, it will not suffice to have an appropriate name for U merely, we must also be able to refer conveniently to these its constituent parts.
The first part presents no difficulty whatever; the heat actually present in the body may be simply called the heat of the body, or the thermal content of the body….
***Repeat…THE HEAT ACTUALLY PRESENT IN THE BODY MAY BE SIMPLY CALLED THE HEAT OF THE BODY, OR THE THERMAL CONTENT OF THE BODY…***
In giving a name to the second part of U, however, we are at once inconvenienced by a circumstance which embarrasses the whole mechanical theory of heat, the fact that heat and work are measured by different units. The unit of heat is the quantity of heat which is necessary to raise the temperature of a unit-weight of water from 0 [degrees] to 1 [degrees], and the unit of work is the quantity which is represented by the product of the unit of weight into the unit of length,in French measure, therefore, a kilogramme-metre.
Now in the mechanical theory of heat, after admitting that heat can be transformed into work and work into heat, in other words, that either of these may replace the other, it becomes frequently necessary to form a magnitude of which heat and work are constituent parts. But heat and work being measured by different units, we cannot in such a case say, simply, the magnitude is the sum of heat and work; we are compelled, to say either the sum of the heat and the heat-equivalent of the work, or the sum of the work and the work-equivalent of the heat.
Rankine has avoided this inconvenient mode of expression in his memoirs ‘by assuming as his unit of heat the quantity which is equivalent to a unit of work….
********
Note that the 1st law states heat in the work-equivalent of heat, not in calories. If it did not, the law would make no sense.
The moral to the story is that people who presume energy is simply energy had better take note that you cannot sum heat and work, or EM and heat without first converting one kind of energy to the other.
Ergo, different kinds of energy have very different properties and cannot presumed to be the same.
“it’s apparent where you got the notion that heat is a measure since that’s what Clausius referred to heat as being.”
Very good Gordon, yes, Clausius through his experiments and those of others, long ago determined heat is only a measure not a physical entity. Hereafter you must use the heat term consistent with Clausius defn. now that you admit this, however I expect you will not do so.
“Any energy in motion is called kinetic energy.”
No Gordon, any mass in motion has kinetic energy. That mass also has energy in the forms of potential energy (if in a gravity field) mgh, the mass has nuclear energy E=mc^2, and the mass has a thermometric absolute temperature (K).
Given Gordon’s new found acceptance of Clausius’ defn. of heat, use that to carefully answer my question above, (Hint: in part it is a trick question so be careful to calmly think about heat term consistent with Clausius defn. and you will make thermodynamic progress in your answer):
The average temperature of the ocean near surface waters is say 17C. I hold a common 12oz drinking glass of water at the same temperature 17C.
Is there more heat in the entire ocean near surface waters or in my glass of water?
–The average temperature of the ocean near surface waters is say 17C. I hold a common 12oz drinking glass of water at the same temperature 17C.
Is there more heat in the entire ocean near surface waters or in my glass of water?–
The glass of water warms surface waters of ocean, but there is warmer ocean surface water than 17 C which would warm the glass of water.
Or very large quantities of 17 C water could measurably increase the the temperature of surface waters. And also increase the global air temperatures.
gbaikie…”Is there more heat in the entire ocean near surface waters or in my glass of water?”
Good point gb. I had forgotten about specific heat till after I posted last night.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html
“The specific heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius. The relationship between heat and temperature change is usually expressed in the form shown below where c is the specific heat.
Q = cm (T – To) …c = specific heat, m = mass, T – To = temperature change.
The relationship does not apply if a phase change is encountered, because the heat added or removed during a phase change does not change the temperature.
And let’s not forget heat capacity.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-capacity-d_338.html
“The heat capacity of a substance is the amount of heat required to change its temperature by one degree, and has units of energy per degree”
ball4…”…Clausius through his experiments and those of others, long ago determined heat is only a measure not a physical entity….”
***
Obviously you skimmed my post, cherry picking the part you wanted and completely ignoring the explanation by Clausius that heat is real.
Explain this, straight from Clausius:
“THE HEAT ACTUALLY PRESENT IN THE BODY MAY BE SIMPLY CALLED THE HEAT OF THE BODY, OR THE THERMAL CONTENT OF THE BODY”.
If heat is ‘present’ in the body and/or the ‘thermal content’ of the body, how is it not a physical quantity?
And if heat is present in the body how can it be a measure, as you claim, or a transfer of energy as others claim?
It is ludicrous to call heat a transfer of energy when the energy being transferred is thermal energy. In that sense, heat transferred by EM means that EM is heat as well, even though EM has drastically different properties than heat.
Is energy a physical quantity? Just checking to see how deluded you have become.
If heat can be transformed into work, and vice versa, as proved by Mumford and Joule before Clausius, then how can something that is not real be transformed in such a manner?
And in the definition of U, internal energy, by Clausius, why does he claim it is both the work done by vibrating atoms and the heat required to change and maintain their vibrational state?
“…any mass in motion has kinetic energy. That mass also has energy in the forms of potential energy…”
Once again, the term kinetic comes from the Greek, kinesis, which means moving or to move. Kinetic refers to the property of the energy not the properties of the mass as a unit. If that mass collides with an immovable object, the energy will transfer to the latter leaving the former as it was before it moved, hopefully.
Kinetic energy tells you nothing about the kind of energy. Since a falling mass propelled by gravity is a rigid body, the energy represented is mechanical energy and during it motion it is doing work.
Thermal energy, on the other hand is a name given to atoms in motion, whether vibrating in a solid or moving through space as a gas. The kinetic energy of gas particles is heat and is measured relatively by temperature.
Heat is real, and temperature is a human invention designed to measure relative differences in thermal energy.
Inside the atom, KE is represented by transitions of electrons between atomic energy levels. And by the rotational energy of the atom in its orbit.
Heat as thermal energy is very real and why some modernists persist in perverting the meaning of heat through some lame obfuscation related to a misunderstanding of quantum theory is beyond me.
Explaining that is easy as this is straight from Clausius defn. of heat:
“THE MEASURE OF CONSTITUENT PARTICLE KE ACTUALLY PRESENT IN THE BODY MAY BE SIMPLY CALLED THE MEASURE OF CONSTITUENT PARTICLE KE OF THE BODY, OR THE THERMODYNAMIC INTERNAL ENERGY CONTENT OF THE BODY”.
Use that hint to answer my question Gordon:
Is there more measure of constituent particle KE in the entire ocean near surface waters or in my glass of water?
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat is real, and temperature is a human invention designed to measure relative differences in thermal energy.
No.
Temperature is energy is heat.
For everyday use, we just find it easier to cite numbers of order 1 to a hundred or so. That’s what Boltzmann’s constant does — reduce temperatures to easily imagined numbers.
“How is (heat) not a physical quantity?”
See Joule’s experiments starting in 1842 eventually precise enough (Thomson (Lord Kelvin), Faraday, Dancer, Royal Society) agreed ruling out heat as a physical quantity. Joule also established that the various forms of energy are basically the same and can only be changed from one into another (KE, PE, Chemical, Electrical, eventually Nuclear, so forth..).
“And in the definition of U, internal energy, by Clausius, why does he claim it is both the work done by vibrating atoms and the heat required to change and maintain their vibrational state?”
That is Gordon’s inaccurate, twisted claim not Clausius’ claim which is accurately found on p. 225:
“Let the quantity of heat (alone not including internal work) contained in (U) be expressed by H”
H has become the symbol for enthalpy to this day which is the proper term for the measure of total particle KE in an object. Enthalpy (H) formula arises many times in field of meteorology which Gordon should actually study & quote.
David, temperature (avg. kinetic energy) is not heat (total KE).
Temperature is heat, just in different units.
temperature ~ heat/Boltzmann’s_constant
Heat is not radiation either David.
Ever gotten a sunburn?
That proves radiation transfer = heat transfer.
David, a sunburn is the human body’s toxic reaction to solar radiation in particular parts of the spectrum. Sunburn has nothing to do with the body’s constituent particle total KE (heat) or avg. KE (temperature).
ball4…with regard to temperature
In statistical mechanics they have defined temperature as the average kinetic energy of atoms. Clausius has defined that same KE as heat.
Approaching from a macro level, temperature had to be defined practically, not in terms of average KE, which cannot be measured. Therefore temperature was defined by two set points: the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water.
The absolute temperature scale was defined on the same set points.
As I told you before, to which you did not respond, as far as I know, in order to melt ice, then raise the melt water to its boiling point, you have to add heat.
How would you add generic energy? It has no measure.
Heat is defined by the calorie, which is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1cc of water by 1C.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was the temperature scale invented before the degree? Don’t think so.
It was likely a case of measuring the level of mercury in a capillary tube at freezing then measuring it at the boiling point of water. Then that range was divided into 100 parts called degrees.
Same with time. Planck mentions these facts in one chapter of his book on heat, that we humans invented things like time, temperature, density, etc., based on natural processes of the planet, like its rotational period and the properties of water.
If heat is measured based on a degree C, what is it that causes the mercury to expand in it’s tube to show 1C?
You claim it is kinetic energy. I claim KE is a measure of generic energy in motion and that you need to be specific as to the context of the energy. Mercury expands because it is exposed to thermal energy, aka heat.
In this case, thermal energy is KE and KE is thermal energy.
“Mercury expands because it is exposed to thermal energy”
Here Gordon uses thermal term incorrectly, or at least, ambiguously. Thermal is the shortened form of thermodynamic internal energy. Mercury expands because its thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy is increased after being sufficiently exposed to a mass with a higher internal thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy.
“we humans invented things like time”
Another 2nd time question that Gordon should carefully and calmly think through with an answer:
Lightning has struck the rails on a railway embankment at two places A and B far distant from each other. I make the additional assertion that these two lightning flashes occurred simultaneously.
I ask Gordon: is there sense in this statement?
ball4…”Lightning has struck the rails on a railway embankment at two places A and B far distant from each other. I make the additional assertion that these two lightning flashes occurred simultaneously”.
You are missing something. The human mind is observing the simultaneity and because the strikes are far apart, the mind cannot determine if the strikes are even related.
Go back 3000 years to the ancient Egyptians. A Pharoah is standing on his/her back porch and sees two bolts of lightning striking the ground some distance apart. How would he/she determine if the strikes were simultaneous? He/she could not.
The same Egyptians used a sundial which told them ‘the time’ as they knew it on a face where another piece cast a shadow from the Sun. The shadow moved with the APPARENT movement of the Sun across the sky. At night, time ceased to exist.
Fast forward to modern times, where we have developed a machine, the clock, to track the rotation of the Earth more precisely. We used a basic machine to track one rotation, from sunrise to sunrise, then we divided that period by 86,400 to derive one second (60 min x 60 min x 24hrs).
Later, we found we had out-smarted ourselves since our measure of sunrise (solar time) had not taken into account the movement of the Earth relative to the Sun in its orbit. Therefore sunrise the next day came at a slightly different time.
We had to invent a new time, still based on the Earth’s rotation…sidereal time…that measured the Earth’s rotational period relative to the stars.
Even at that we could not measure simultaneous strikes on a railway track unless we had an electronic means of measuring the induced voltages by each strike and had that electronics connected to a precise clock.
We might sit around forever awaiting such an event so I’m sure there is a better way to measure the motion of light.
Einstein tried to measure it using an observer with clock in hand observing motion on a separate platform. The premise underlying Einstein’s work is the difference in time it takes light to reach the observer. Somehow, the observer is supposed to measure that with a clock.
He can’t, therefore the rest is done by thought-experiment and assumption in mathematical equations such as those provided by Lorentz.
In the case of Einstein, I am trying hard not to be so arrogant as to claim he messed up. I am keeping my arrogance in check still trying to understand how he could have arrived at such conclusions.
I have no idea what he was thinking since all I have to go on is what is written in his GRT manuscript and the interpretation of those coming after him.
However, there are those far better informed than me, like Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock. I would think he’d know what he was talking about when it came to time. He disagrees with Einstein’s assessment of relative motion and time, claiming that Einstein did not understand measurement as used in science. In other words, Einstein took liberties with physical measurement to make sense of GRT.
That I can understand, You cannot take a fixed period of time, like the second, which is based on a constant itself, the angular velocity of the Earth, and claim that second can dilate. That indicates to me that Einstein et al missed something.
I think I know what it is. They all missed the illusions inherent in human thought. When you live by the thought experiment you die by it unless you are totally aware of every aspect with which you are dealing. Einstein apparently made some vague claims in support of GRT that lead to the notion of time dilation.
GRT is totally a thought experiment. The math works because it is based on the Newtonian relativity which preceded it. Even the atomic level application of GRT involving the speed of light is not out of hand and can be proved at atomic levels.
However, Einstein made some claims about GRT that are lacking experimental proof and are hotly debated. The result of one is the Twin Paradox in which one of a set of twins leaves on a spaceship and travels at the speed of light. When he returns years later, his twin has aged dramatically while he has not.
That is absolute nonsense for the simple fact that human bodies do not age by time. They age due to biochemical reactions. Cells can only go through so many reactions before they become damaged and eventually fail.
Cell damage has absolutely nothing to do with the rotational period of the Earth, from which the second is derived. GRT has several conundrums like that which are based on faulty analysis involving leaps of faith. One of them is time dilation.
When it is said that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous, this means: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A to B of the embankment.
Now what about a real train traveling the tracks between A&B?
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train unless the observing passenger is exactly at the midpoint M when the light arrives, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.
Possibly this will help Gordon think through the twin’s time mentioned. Suppose one twin stands on the embankment and one on the train.
Oh and Gordon, precision experiments show that the twin on the embankment and the twin moving on the train will measure the exact same speed of light from the strokes! How do you explain that?
Gordon thinks he’s smarter than Einstein and all the experimental evidence for special relativity (none of which Gordon knows and none of which he will go look up).
What an absolute joke.
Gordon is afraid to learn. It would utterly shatter his belief that he’s the smartest scientist who ever lived. It’s really a psychological problem, not one of science.
Gordon – time dilation has been experimentally confirmed.
What parts of those experiments did you find deficient?
Gordon: heat and energy are measured in, for example, Joules.
Temperature should also be measured in Joules. Boltzmann’s constant exists to convert energy in Kelvin to energy in Joules via E=(some constant)*kT.
For calculational simplicity set c=G=hbar=k=1.
DA…”Gordon: heat and energy are measured in, for example, Joules.
Temperature should also be measured in Joules”.
*******
Clausius explained this well. In the 1st law, with the form, delta U = Q – W. it’s stating that the change in internal energy equals the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system.
If you look at the Q – W part, Q, as heat, is normally measured in calories while W, as work, is measured in joules. You cannot add the two under such conditions therefore you must change Q to the work-equivalent of heat, or W to the heat-equivalent of work.
Therefore Q has to be expressed in joules so Q and W can be added, or W has to be expressed in calories.
The scientist, Joule, found the relationship between heat and work. The joule is actually a unit of work based on the watt, which is based on the horsepower.
Joule derived a constant which related the amount of work required to raise a quantity of water by 1C. It’s now called the heat capacity of water and is 4186 joules/kg or 4.186 joules/cc.
It just so happens that 1 calorie = 4.186 joules and the calorie is defined as the heat required to raise 1cc of water by 1C.
Coincidence or what? Don’t think so.
We have always expressed heat in calories or kilocalories.
Gordon, do you think regurgitating trivial high school physics facts means anything here?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
It just so happens that 1 calorie = 4.186 joules and the calorie is defined as the heat required to raise 1cc of water by 1C.
Coincidence or what? Dont think so.
This is probably the most clueless, stupidest thing you’ve ever written here, Gordon.
ball…”Mercury expands because it is exposed to thermal energy
Here Gordon uses thermal term incorrectly, or at least, ambiguously. Thermal is the shortened form of thermodynamic internal energy. Mercury expands because its thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy is increased after being sufficiently exposed to a mass with a higher internal thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy”.
Thermal is not a short form of thermodynamics, in fact, the ‘thermo’ in thermodynamics comes from the Greek thermos, which means hot.
Thermodynamics is the study of heat. Thermal is a modifier to indicate a relation to heat. A thermal blanket is a blanket to enhance warming or maintain heat.
Mercury expands in a glass capillary tube because air molecules, which are 99% nitrogen and oxygen, strike the glass and warm it (or cool it). Heat is transferred through the glass from the air molecules in the room. A certain amount of the heat is likely transferred directly by radiation from air molecules to the mercury.
With a thermometer that measures body temperature, you can hold the bulb end under cool water and lower it way below body temperature (or shake it). When the bulb is held between the thumb and forefinger, the mercury can be seen shooting up the capillary tube.
If the thermometer is immersed in water, the heat is transferred through the glass from the water molecules. There is no radiation.
“Thermal is not a short form of thermodynamics”
Correct Gordon, thermodynamics short form is thermo. The short form of therm-odynamic intern-al is thermal.
“Heat is transferred through the glass from the air molecules in the room.”
Using the term for mythical heat entity is the cause of, and solution to, all of Gordon’s problems.
Actually Clausius taught us: Constituent particle KE is transferred through the glass from the air molecules in the room. Maxwell & Boltzmann extended that teaching & by inspection Gordon remains untaught.
Dr. Spencer,
This is completely off the subject, but the link below was posted on Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone yesterday. Interesting?
https://www.academia.edu/37577750/Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory
Thanks. Enjoy your postings and comments following them.
Yesterday? Pffff.
Gosselin a au moins tris ans de retard, comme d’habitude:
http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/10/the-gassy-messenger-n2-and-o2-are-also.html
Macdonald’s stuff is quite a bit old and gets rediscovered every year anew.
He never was able to prove his claims.
Bindidon, did you have any responsible criticisms of the link supplied by Tom?
Or are you just trying to scoff at it with vague, unsubstantiated, disjointed ramblings?
One criticism is that the author references engineeringtoolbox . com for his source of N2, O2 spectroscopy instead of the published literature. Author Table 4: N2,O2: Assumed to abs_orb IR radiation? No.
Oops.
Apparently, the author is just behind in his reading (hey, it’s only 1 page) as discussed by Crawford et al. [1949], collision induced absorp_tion leads to weak absorp_tion features of N2 and O2 in the infrared:
Crawford, M. F., H. L. Welsh, and J. L. Locke (1949), Infra-red absorp_tion of oxygen and nitrogen induced by intermolecular forces, Phys. Rev., 75, 1607–1607, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.75.1607.
Timofeyev and Tonkov [1978] reported that at distinct wavelengths near the band center, O2 absorp_tion may affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.
Fluffball, bindidon will likely appreciate your diversionary tactics.
Unfortunately, your efforts were preempted by the required “responsible criticisms”.
But your vague, unsubstantiated, disjointed ramblings reveal your effort to censor any attack on your pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
All contributions you don’t understand or don’t accept are in your mind ‘pseudoscience’, without any explanation.
So I do this time.
Btw: did you really ever read one of these McDonald’s papers? Or was Gosselin’s ‘resumee’ sufficient for you to take it as ‘science’?
(Let me try again.)
Bindidon, did you have any responsible criticisms of the link supplied by Tom?
Or are you just trying to scoff at it with vague, unsubstantiated, disjointed ramblings?
MacDonald’s claims aren’t even published or peer reviewed. There’s a reason for that.
Don’t fall for every truth-shattering claim just because it matches your biases.
DA, that’s all you do:“…fall for every truth-shattering claim just because it matches your biases.”
Ger*an: What a brilliant, insightful, deeply focused response. You thought hard about that one, yes siree.
Thanks DA, but you make it easy for me.
And, I especially enjoy your continued fascination with Ger*. You must be thinking about him constantly.
I only wonder why you think you fooled anyone.
I just let the fools fool themselves.
I have an easy job.
Think again, troll.
That’s what some of us do, DA.
You should try it.
NASA is now calling for colder temperatures due to reduce solar activity. Shouldn’t this be showing up soon on the UAH satellite temperatures? Roy, do you have any data on solar activity and GAT?
Solar variance is a small player in climate change, with surface temperatures changing only or less than about 0.1 degC/(W/m2).
The change in solar irradiance between the Maunder Minimum and today is less than 1.5 W/m2:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
Dave you do not have a clue,. CO2 is not even a player.
Does CO2 ab.sor.b IR?
Does CO2 emit IR?
(DA never runs out of his stupid questions.)
It’s an extremely essential question. Which you know, which is why you won’t answer it.
No DA, it’s an extremely stupid question. It shows you don’t have any understanding of the relevant physics.
Again….
https://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SOLAR_WEATHER-CLIMATE_STUDIES/2000_06_Jun%20Influence%20of%20Solar%20Wind%20on%20Global%20Elect%20Current%20and%20Weather%20Tinsley.pdf
one of thousands of papers that I agree with.
“….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
Dave the very recent global temperature trend has no longer been going up contrary to the IPCC’S prediction. That is the reality and this overall trend down is just getting started. Get use to it.
The IPCC doesn’t predict weather Salvatore, at least so far as I have read. Perhaps Salvatore has a source for an IPCC prediction on “very recent global temperature trend”.
The first C in IPCC refers to climate which is the black line top post not the blue dots or the red line which are for global weather and recent 13month trend.
Salvatore may be right though, the overall weather trend could be about to trend, for a few years, down like several other times as observed in the UAH record top post. As Salvatore writes, time will tell over next few years about the global weather.
Houston had snow falling today, earliest recorded ever.
Alaska just had their warmest October since records began in 1925.
Alaska’s October was 9.3 F (5.2 C) above their 1981-2010 average.
Their 30-year trend is almost 1 degF/decade. (0.94, actually.)
DA, you’re learning to appreciate local weather!
ren will be very happy with you.
Now, if you can just learn some physics….
Places in Siberia have just reached -40f. Way below normal.
No!
-40 F = -40 C in mid november is no unusual temperature in places like Verhojansk, Oymjakon etc.
Stop misinforming people, Salvatore.
Yes way below normal. You are the one along with your AGW blind leading the blind crew who misinforms.
I have nothing in mind with AGW, Salvatore, and you should know that.
Salvatore Del Prete
I think you might want to reconsider your post. It is not correct. Bindidon is correct. -40 F in mid November is about normal for some areas. I am not sure what source you are using that makes a different claim.
Here is a City located in Siberia that grew from Stalin’s forced labor camps.
Temperature of Yakutsk, Russia
https://images.climate-data.org/location/1806/temperature-graph.png
Here is another one. They have November being warmer but if you look at the linked climate graph it shows that it drops rapidly in November. We are half-way through the Month and the first graph shows around -40 F for mid-November.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakutsk
Stevek
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/11/map.png
Does that ‘speak’ to you?
ok bindidon
Stevek, this is a piece that everyone needs to get:
https://tinyurl.com/y7rmdvsr
All of those who have been taken in by the AGW scheme should start to realize it is not going to happen the way the IPCC keeps saying it is.
They are wrong and it will be proven now – over the next few years.
“Their 30-year trend is almost 1 degF/decade. (0.94, actually.)”
You realize that higher temp anomolies in the arctic are a direct result of lower SIE of course… Evidence of an increased rate of cooling from the ocean to the atmosphere…
Interesting!
Do you have some valuable sources for me to consult?
Why do you think / from where do you know that your idea is more valid than its inverse, i.e. that “lower SIE in the arctic are a direct result of higher temp anomalies of course”?
“Evidence of an increased rate of cooling from the ocean to the atmosphere”
Do you know, PhilJ, that within 60N-82.5N, ocean surfaces ‘cool’ since 1979 at a rate of 0.39 C /decade, and the lower troposphere ‘warms’ since then at a rate of 0.29 C / decade?
Sure. This is basic physics…
As anyone who has spent a night in a quinzy with -30c temps outside can tell you… water is an excellent insulator..
The ocean loses heat to the cooler atmosphere..
as ice forms over the surface less heat is lost to the atmosphere above…
The greater the area of the ice cap, the less heat lost to the atmosphere in that region…
The air (troposphere) above the icecap continues to cool to space and temps drop quickly…
the ocean below the ice remains at a relatively stable temp..
the inverse is of course true as well.. the smaller the ice cap , the greater the heat lost to the atmosphere and the warmer the temp of the troposphere…
Now if I was like the befuddled who claim co2 warms the surface, i would say the icecap warms the oceans… which is of course ludicrous (it merely slows their cooling)
But if I’m going to imitate them (the befuddled), i will be really crazy and propose and impossible scenario to ‘prove’ my point….
‘if there were no ice caps the world would be much much colder’
imagine if you will that ice was denser than water and sank to the bottom…
the surface would continue to cool to the atmosphere (keeping it milder) at a rapid rate… at the north pole .. in the winter the arctic ocean might even freeze solid…then air temps what fall drastically… would ever be warm enough to melt all that water again? ahhh runaway cooling….
As for the numbers you posted… while I was not aware of them they prove my point… greater open water surface area , the higher of the rate of cooling and the more energy transfered to atmosphere, hence higher temp anomolies…
Thanks for the question…!
Ah my mistake… i meant of course to say that ‘ICE is an excellent insulator’
PhilJ
An interesting post but the situation is a bit more complex. Less ice in the Arctic Winter would increase the cooling of the warmer water. But less ice in summer months (sun up 24 hours) will lead to a higher energy gain. It is a complex balance to see how the two opposing energy inputs balance out.
YOU: “Now if I was like the befuddled who claim co2 warms the surface, i would say the icecap warms the oceans which is of course ludicrous (it merely slows their cooling)”
I think the semantics is what is bothering you. If people claim that CO2 warms the Earth that can really be confusing and leads to all the talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But in your stated case, the slowing of cooling, if the water below was heated…say by a large volcano…the slowing of cooling would make the water temperature reach a higher level. The ice is not warming the water but if it is heated and the ice prevents heat loss the result will be a warmer temperature. It may not be correct to say the ice warmed the water, but it would be correct to say that the presence of ice with a heat source leads to a higher temperature.
CO2 does not cause a warmer surface, but the fact that CO2 is in the atmosphere means less energy will be able to leave the surface. Some disagree but the established physics states that the emission of IR by the CO2 will be absorbed by the surface, which slows the cooling. It is losing energy at the same rate but gaining some back so it cools slower. If you then have a heat source (the Sun) you will reach a higher temperature if you have GHG present than if you don’t.
“But in your stated case, the slowing of cooling, if the water below was heatedsay by a large volcanothe slowing of cooling would make the water temperature reach a higher level”
you’re thinking to locally… take the ocean as a whole because the sun is always heating the ocean 24/7…
in Dec the Earth is closer to the sun and with more water in the SH is actually receiving a higher input than the NH summer… at the same time the north pole ice cap is growing …slowing the cooling of the ocean to the atmosphere..
is the temp of the water below the ice higher than it would be without the ice? ….. as my pseudo story showed such pondering of impossibilities is the very thing that gets people who imagine an atmosphere with no co2 chasing down rabbit holes…
but make no mistake it is the power source (the sun) that raises the water temp not the insulating ice..
“CO2 does not cause a warmer surface, but the fact that CO2 is in the atmosphere means less energy will be able to leave the surface”
agreed .. but oxygen and nitrogen are even better insulators than co2.. co2 helps to facilitate the movement of energy through the atmosphere and out to space far more than they do… (but not as much as h20 which is a far more effective coolant…)
just an aside because im still studying ozone production… but it appears that the cooling of the mesophere by co2 increases ozone production.. this would lead to less UV reaching the surface and hence a lower solar input… im not sure about this and wouldnt mind being corrected..
PhilJ
I would have to disagree with your statement: “agreed .. but oxygen and nitrogen are even better insulators than co2.. co2 helps to facilitate the movement of energy through the atmosphere and out to space far more than they do (but not as much as h20 which is a far more effective coolant)”
Oxygen and Nitrogen will only remove energy from the surface in any significant way, they will not add it. You can’t use their insulating properties to stop energy flowing to space, they insulate if you have a warm object, air, cold object. They greatly reduce the rate of conduction loss from a hot to cold body. The only energy loss going to space is radiant and these molecules are not able to stop it.
Your point also neglects that any energy the GHG send to space they also send back toward the surface. GHG cool parts of the atmosphere but will make the solar heated surface reach a higher temperature.
Norman, you keep making the same mistakes:
#1 FALSE: “CO2 does not cause a warmer surface, but the fact that CO2 is in the atmosphere means less energy will be able to leave the surface.”
NO!. CO2 does not “mean less energy is able to leave the surface”. Once at equilibrium, the same energy leaves as arrives.
#2 FALSE: “If you then have a heat source (the Sun) you will reach a higher temperature if you have GHG present than if you don’t.”
NO! You seem to be confusing the facts. There is solar energy, that’s a FACT. There is CO2, that’s a FACT. Put the two together, and you have an equilibrium temperature, that’s a FACT. Now add more solar energy, and you get a higher equilitrium temperature, that’s a FACT.
But adding more CO2 will NOT raise the equilibrium temperature, that’s a FACT.
#3 FALSE: “GHG cool parts of the atmosphere but will make the solar heated surface reach a higher temperature.”
You are arguing with yourself, again! #3 FALSE disagrees with the first part of #1 FALSE:
” CO2 does not cause a warmer surface…”
There are other mistakes, but the above are the major ones.
“But adding more CO2 will NOT raise the equilibrium temperature, that’s a FACT.”
Not a fact since long ago, Prof. Tyndall was a bit astonished when an experiment adding more CO2 raised the equilibrium temperature in his apparatus by increasing the optical opacity inside.
That’s a replicable FACT. JD doesn’t do experiments, JD only does cartoons, so it shouldn’t be expected that JD would understand experimental science.
Why don’t you draw us a cartoon JD that shows there was no equilibrium temperature raise in such a process. That would convince many – especially those convinced by your other cartoons like 6c3 with black bodies that reflect radiation and, oh yeah, carousels.
JDHuffman
Here comes the troll with his poor reading comprehension. You don’t know what I am saying then you call it false. This is a troll tactic you are very good at.
From you post: “#1 FALSE: CO2 does not cause a warmer surface, but the fact that CO2 is in the atmosphere means less energy will be able to leave the surface.
NO!. CO2 does not mean less energy is able to leave the surface. Once at equilibrium, the same energy leaves as arrives.”
If you had reading comprehension you could figure out that I am making a claim of an atmosphere with NO CO2 vs one WITH CO2. It is fairly clear in the writing. You need to improve your reading comprehension. I give you an A+ for troll skills. No one else can keep mindless threads going as long as you can with your taunts and misrepresentations of other posters comments.
Any way you are kind of dumb. I suggest you learn how to comprehend what you read. I doubt you will take this advise. You probably consider it rambling.
Norman likes to deny his own words, and fluffball likes to pretend he has “experiments” that support his pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
Norman is correct, JD, your reading comprehension is poor.
I don’t have these experiments, Prof. Tyndall did them & presented them to the Royal Society and others replicated them. Perhaps JD should learn to read better and learn some physics.
JDHuffman
You are the denier around here. You deny science and you deny you can’t comprehend words or their correct understanding.
Since Ball4 brought it up again, I want you to give the physics that supports your claim that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder body. So far you declare this to be true but you have totally failed to find even one source that supports this claim. Why can’t you support your own declarations with real physics?
You are telling everyone to learn physics. Then do your part and direct people to links that will help them learn.
JD,
“NO!. CO2 does not “mean less energy is able to leave the surface”
good point. my mistake. I read that as means less energy is able to leave the system (ie is lost to space) and remains internal energy.. which is true
now you can take the internal energy of a system and transport it, transfer it, recycle it, transform it however you want, but you cannot thereby INCREASE the total internal energy of the system (energy cannot be created)..
In the case of the Earth system, because it is surrounded by a colder medium (space) entropy dictates that it MUST cool, naturally developing systems that maximize entropy increase, cooling the system at the maximum possible rate.. i.e. the total energy of the system MUST be decreasing…
the only way to increase the total energy of the system is by inputting more energy.. to which the Earth will naturally respond by increasing its rate of cooling until U is once again decreasing…
Norman, if a warmer body absorbs a photon from a colder body, it is inconsequential. You are missing the point.
In the real world, a warmer body could conceptually absorb a photon from a colder body, but that photon could NOT raise the temperature of the warmer body. You don’t understand photons. You don’t understand 2LoT. You don’t understand radiative heat transfer. And, you have no abillity to learn.
But, at least you know how to type….
Norman,
“Oxygen and Nitrogen will only remove energy from the surface in any significant way, they will not add it. You cant use their insulating properties to stop energy flowing to space”
Thanks for the laugh… this just joined Snape’s:
“If you think the earth warms, radiates more, and therefore naturally cools againyou are mistaken as well.”
On my list of knee slappers…
“but that photon could NOT raise the temperature of the warmer body.”
It can if that photon replaces the photon from an even colder body which is what happens in the blue plate experiment when the green plate is introduced. The cooler source of photons (presumably space 2.7K) is replaced with the green plate and a new equilibrium is established with the 400 W/m^2 solar temperature source warming the blue plate. Blue plate rising to 262K from 244K is allowed by 2LOT because universe entropy is increased in this process.
This is what happens with black bodies except in JD’s bogus 6c3 cartoon where a black body is incorrectly depicted as reflecting all incident radiation from the green plate.
JDHuffman
YOU: “In the real world, a warmer body could conceptually absorb a photon from a colder body, but that photon could NOT raise the temperature of the warmer body. You dont understand photons. You dont understand 2LoT. You dont understand radiative heat transfer. And, you have no abillity to learn”
I have far more ability to learn than you. I understand the 2nd Law much better than you ever will, I have a must better understanding of photons and radiative heat transfer than you will every understand.
The absorbed photon will raise the temperature of a hot body that has a constant source of heat added to it. You are not able to grasp this reality even though I have linked you to hundreds of valid physics texts on the topic. No I am afraid you are the one who cannot possibly learn any physics.
I am still waiting for you to link to valid physics that supports your claim that IR from a cold body will all be reflected from the hotter body. I have not seen you post one link yet to support you ideas. Why is that?
PhilJ
YOU: “the only way to increase the total energy of the system is by inputting more energy.. to which the Earth will naturally respond by increasing its rate of cooling until U is once again decreasing”
I do not believe you thought this through. You can increase the total energy of a system if you input the same amount of energy but decrease the amount lost. I think you forget the two processes going on. Energy added and energy lost.
Ball4
What you say is correct and can be verified by established physics. JDHuffman may disagree but he will not link to any actual physics to support his points.
Norman, your willingness to spend hours here, typing out your rambling comments, is NOT scieince.
You have verified you can’t understand the relevant physics. 2LoT is the “Law”. It clearly indicates “cold” cannot raise the temperature of “hot”. Yet, you continually try to get around the “Law”.
You could not do even one legitmate experiment, because you don’t understand the science. Someone like you might set a thermometer on top of a refrigerator and claim the refrigerator (“cold”) was heating the thermometer (“hot”), not realizing the heat coming off the coils in the back of the refrigerator was the source of the warm air.
You don’t understand, and you can’t learn.
At least you can type….
Norman,
‘ You can increase the total energy of a system if you input the same amount of energy but decrease the amount lost’
You missed the whole point of my argument:
If you increase the amount of insulation (growing an ice cap for example) and the output drops below the input the Earth naturally responds by increasing the rate of its cooling… ocean temps rise, ice caps melt… greater rate of cooling from the ocean to the atmosphere and space… entropy demands such a natural response
JDHuffman
I have another ability and skill that far exceeds your own. I am able to link to established valid physics to support my posts and points. You are not so able to do this.
You can taunt but you can’t seem to find support for any of your ideas. I think that is strange.
Here is one of your unsupported declarations.
YOU: “You have verified you cant understand the relevant physics. 2LoT is the Law. It clearly indicates cold cannot raise the temperature of hot. Yet, you continually try to get around the Law.”
Where in the 2nd Law does it make this claim. The Second Law states that Heat cannot flow, on its own, from hot to cold. So how do you define heat? If you do not provide an answer (not expecting you to).
The 2nd Law makes no statement about the temperature of a heated (powered) object and what temperature it will achieve.
All science says the temperature of an object is dependent upon the surroundings. How much heat it is gaining and how much it is losing.
I challenge you (I have done the same challenge to Gordon Robertson… he has not been able to supply anything). Find valid physics that supports your claim that the 2nd Law clearly indicates cold cannot raise the temperature of hot.
JDHuffman
For you, once again.
Actual physics.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process.”
So energy can transfer from a cold to a hot object (that means it will be absorbed, that is what the word transfer means). If the hot object is receiving energy from an external source (E. Swanson valid experiment that you call bogus for no real reason except in hopes to discredit it) and you add the cold object also in the mix, the heated object temperature will go up. Simple physics. It is stated over and over in all real world physics. It also works on all heat transfer engineering in the real world. You are outside of reality.
Norman, your inabliltiy to process facts and logic continually amazes me.
You link to a descripiton of 2LoT, that indicates “cold” can not raise the temperature of “hot”, then you claim “cold” can raise the temperature of “hot”.
Obviously you believe if you can type it, it must be true.
No, but it’s funny….
JDHuffman
Is that all your response will be? Taunts?
In the link where does it make your claim?
YOU: “You link to a descripiton of 2LoT, that indicates cold can not raise the temperature of hot, then you claim cold can raise the temperature of hot.”
Where does the link make the claim that increasing the temperature of a cold object will have no effect on a heated hot object?
Where does it make the claim that a heated object will not become warmer or colder depending upon the temperature of the colder surroundings?
Give sources. You have not done so yet. Evidence JDHuffman, provide evidence.
The validity of a scientific theory is not confirmed by studying the arcane words of long-dead masters.
Mastery of science is not demonstrated by discussing the nuances of semantics.
Scientific truth is not found by linking to the right webpage.
Mastery means being able to apply knowledge to concrete situations and to predict correct outcomes. See if your words and theories fit with reality, not the other way around.
So try applying your knowledge to a concrete example. I have a little coffee pot with a hot plate that supplies a constant power. If I take it outside on a cold day (-10C), the coffee in the pot might stabilize 60C (with the pot plugged in, of course). If I take the pot inside (20C) with the power constant, the temperature of the coffee in the pot will stabilize
a) warmer than 60C
b) cooler than 60C
c) still at 60C
Only AFTER you can make some basic predictions (and agree with others on the outcome) are you in any position to argue words and equations.
If you all agree that (a) is the right answer, then you can try to use phrases like “cold cannot raise the temperature of hot” and decide how that applies to ‘cold’ air raising the temperature of ‘hot’ coffee. Make the words conform to reality!
“If you all agree that (a) is the right answer..”
Valid answer determined by properly doing the experiment described not voting on it. Perhaps several times with CI.
Accurate prediction of the experimental result arrived at by:
1) studying the arcane words of long-dead masters.
2) writing it up with commonly understood semantics.
3) linking to a webpage inspected to be accurate from being accomplished in the field.
Norman, my comment was clear enough. You can’t understand it because you can’t wait to start typing.
Typing is NOT thinking.
JDHuffman
Do you have even a little reading ability? You act like an expert at the English language but seem unable to process words.
YOU: “Norman, my comment was clear enough. You cant understand it because you cant wait to start typing. ”
There was NOT a lack of “understanding” your comment!
I am asking you for evidence and proof of your points. That you can’t get this from my comment shows you have an amazing inability to comprehend what you read. Or you don’t read it and just respond making you a dork!
“Norma”, thanks for proving me right, again.
“You can’t understand it because you can’t wait to start typing.”
Now, more rambling nonsense, “Norma”.
Ball4, perhaps I should have been more precise. I meant ..
*ONCE* you all agree that (a) is the right answer *AS DETERMINED BY EXPERIMENT*, then …
I did not mean to imply that we can vote on the right answer. I meant to imply that there *IS* a right answer. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the right answer can’t participate. Anyone who DOES agree then has to show how their understanding/equations/theories can predict the correct, observed results.
Why does a coffee pot in a warm room get hotter than in a cold room?
Why does a moon in a synchronous, elliptical orbit remain facing neither the planet nor the center of the ellipse during the orbit?
If you can’t predict/explain these observations, then your theory is lacking.
Ah, the beginning of a blog defined peer review process. See the latest thread.
The editor here is not your usual journal editor type though. Blog would be too dull if JD & others weren’t allowed to be so embarrassingly & humorously wrong in comments most of the time. As it is, I observe the blog peer review process works pretty well sorting out JD’s & Gordon’s humorous comments from the generally accepted basic physics.
Tim,
“If you all agree that (a) is the right answer, then you can try to use phrases like cold cannot raise the temperature of hot and decide how that applies to cold air raising the temperature of hot coffee. Make the words conform to reality!”
Cold air does NOT raise the temp of hotter coffee, it cools it…
The power supply (hot plate) raises the temp of the coffee until it is cooling at the same rate as the power input
want to test it? disconnect your power supply before you move the coffee pot indoors… see how much the ‘warmer’ room raises the temp of the coffee…
And of course this whole discussion on warmer and cooler surroundings is a red herring… the Earth’s surroundings remain a pretty steady 3k or so…
Phil,
1) I am glad we agree that (a) is the right answer. Increasing the temperature of the ‘cool’ surroundings leads to the coffee getting warmer.
“Cold air does NOT raise the temp of hotter coffee, it cools it”
OK. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to think about the situation. I think you will agree that we can extend this thought to:
“Less-cold air cools the coffee less.; colder air cools it more.”
Phil,
The point of the coffee post demo is to demolish all the 2LOT arguments people make. It works!
“And of course this whole discussion on warmer and cooler surroundings is a red herring the Earths surroundings remain a pretty steady 3k or so”
Ok. So keep the coffee pot outside, and now surround it with insulation.
Does the coffee get warmer?
Does the insulation material warm? Yes, and yes.
Phil — and now for the *other* point.
The coffee pot can represent the earth. The sun would be the heating element, providing a relatively steady power input. The temperature of the surface of the earth — like the temperature of the surface of the coffee pot — will depend on the temperature of the surroundings. (It is, after all, the surface temperature we are interested in).
The ‘surroundings’ for the earth’s surface gets a bit tricky. There is some conduction to the atmosphere. For *some* wavelenghts of IR (like the “atmospheric window”) the “surroundings” are indeed the depths of outer space at 3K. However, for OTHER wavelengths of IR, the “surroundings” are the much warmer GHGs in the earths atmosphere, which are about the same temperature as the earth’s surface.
Since the atmosphere is ‘less cold’ than outer space, the surface will be ‘less cold’ when there is an IR active atmosphere than without it, because the surroundings are ‘less cold’.
Tim,
“Less-cold air cools the coffee less.; colder air cools it more.
Initially yes, but the power supply will raise the temp of the coffee until it reaches its steady state where it will be cooling at exactly the same rate as the outside steady state temp.. the rate of the energy input from the hot plate..
“Since the atmosphere is less cold than outer space, the surface will be less cold when there is an IR active atmosphere than without it, because the surroundings are less cold.”
The surface is of course warmer with an atmosphere than it would be without one… however so called GHG’s facilitate the transport of energy from the surface through the atmosphere at a much greater rate than oxygen and nitrogen do. Water is of course a much better coolant than co2 and moves enormous amounts of energy from the surface to the top of the troposphere and out to space…
“the power supply will raise the temp of the coffee until it reaches its steady state”
of course.
“GHGs facilitate the transport of energy from the surface through the atmosphere at a much greater rate than oxygen and nitrogen do. ”
Why? you just stated that warmer surroundings lead to a higher steadystate temperatures. Now you conclude the exact opposite!
The earth’s surface receives solar energy. The surface must get rid of that energy to the surroundings to maintain a steady state. The surface can either
1) radiate IR entirely to the cold surroundings of outerspace (with no GHGs).
2) radiate IR partially to the cold surroundings of outerspace and partially to the warm surroundings of the atmosphere (with GHGs).
Your own previous statements agree that (2) should lead to warmer surface temperatures than (1).
Tim,
“The earths surface receives solar energy. The surface must get rid of that energy to the surroundings to maintain a steady state. The surface can either
1) radiate IR entirely to the cold surroundings of outerspace (with no GHGs).
2) radiate IR partially to the cold surroundings of outerspace and partially to the warm surroundings of the atmosphere (with GHGs). ”
you forget all the energy that is removed by evaporation conduction and convection…
as well the IR from the surface that is absorbed by water vapour and co2 is quickly thermalized increasing the air temp and accelerating the rate of convection.. taking the water vapour to the top of the troposphere more quickly where it releases an enormous amount of energy as it changes back to liquid….
the surface is COOLED by water not heated… this is why temps in an arid region get so much higher during the day…
“you forget all the energy that is removed by evaporation conduction and convection
I hadn’t forgotten — just focusing on the issues we had been discussing. Those are important factors, to be sure.
” … as well the IR from the surface that is absorbed by water vapour and co2 is quickly thermalized increasing the air temp…”
Yes, air temperatures increase because of thermalization of IR from the surface. And by increasing the air temp, that makes it TOUGHER for thermal IR to leave because the surroundings have become even warmer. And we know this will tend to RAISE the surface temperature.
“… and accelerating the rate of convection.. taking the water vapour to the top of the troposphere more quickly where it releases an enormous amount of energy as it changes back to liquid.
But all of these effect are only AFTER the air and surface have ALREADY warmed up. They can partially mitigate the warming due to IR, but they can’t actively-over compensate and cool the surface below the temperatures that would occur without water/CO2.
“the surface is COOLED by water not heated this is why temps in an arid region get so much higher during the day
There are many reasons arid regions are hot. For example, the lack of clouds means more sunlight to the surface in those regions.
Conversely, we know those regions tend to cool rapidly at night. That can’t be due to evaporation. In fact, it is due to the lack of water (a key GHG) which allows efficient cooling and lower temperatures.
The Japan Meteorological Agency has released its global temperature data for October 2018. Last month was the 2nd warmest October on record. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ …/t…/products/gwp/temp/oct_wld.html
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/oct_wld.html
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
In northern Germany we experienced this year a centennial summer, and English neighbours in southern Spain confirmed that for UK. Even November is in Germany way above average.
Conversely, last year was way below normal in Germany, and this year the same happened in… southern Spain, some C less according to our neighbours.
At the time PhilJ complained about the coldest April in North Dakota since 50 years, we had the warmest April since decades.
So much about many comments written by people confounding weather and climate.
Bindidon, yes there is so much confounding weather and climate. I’m glad you straightened it all out with your anecdotes.
Who wants to be confounded with facts and logic when they can resort to anecdotal reporting?
For example, my friend has a friend in Egypt who talked with someone in Sri Lanka, who had an uncle in Tasmania. Apparently October was so hot that the polar ice caps melted. The melt water covered the planet, and put out the California wildfires. Then the water all froze again.
See, who would have known about that without the anecdotal evidence?
Quand le sage montre la lune du doigt, le singe regarde le doigt.
Te non habent esse simia
… et le singe tomba bien entendu dans le panneau.
I hope you didn’t hurt yourself….
PhilJ
YOU: “the only way to increase the total energy of the system is by inputting more energy.. to which the Earth will naturally respond by increasing its rate of cooling until U is once again decreasing”
I do not believe you thought this through. You can increase the total energy of a system if you input the same amount of energy but decrease the amount lost. I think you forget the two processes going on. Energy added and energy lost.
No Norman, it is you that did not think it through.
PhilJ clearly stated “total”, indicating a “net” increase. He went on to include increasing the rate of cooling, which results in a decreasing U, further clarifying his point.
You simply refuse to understand. Because a correct understanding of 2LoT puts you on the road to reality, which you don’t want to be on.
JDHuffman
You have not yet made any attempt to prove your version of the 2nd Law is the correct one and mine is wrong so just Shut Up will you?
If you want to post some useful information great. Your annoying taunts really do not do much for anyone on this blog.
When you learn to support your wild unfounded speculations, I will consider them. As long as you taunt and will refuse to prove any of your claims I will consider you a dork.
Norman, when your pseudoscience gets trampled, you always resort to misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults.
Nothing new.
You continue to try to pervert 2LoT. Here’s how you do it:
Step 1: You point out, correctly, that energy flow can occur between “hot” and “cold”. but the net must always be from “hot” to “cold”.
Step 2: Then you start the perversion be implying that any energy “hot” receives from “cold”, will increase the energy of “hot”.
Step 3: Then you claim that the “increased” energy of “hot” means that its temperature will increase. So, you have perverted 2LoT to mean “cold” can warm “hot”.
And, you never learn….
JDHuffman
I guess I have to continue to suffer you terrible reading comprehension. You are not at all addressing what I think. You have your own made up ideas of what I stated and then say how wrong your incorrect interpretations of what I say are.
Step 2: that is not my claim, it is your distorted interpretation and poor reading skills that created this distorted view. I have said it several times, you don’t read it correctly, the energy of cold will have some absorbed by the hot. But it won’t increase the energy of the hot as the hot is losing energy at a faster rate then it gains it from the cold. Totally wrong and nothing I have said. I have even given you the math to explain it to you. The Hot loses 100 units, the cold gives the hot 50 units, the hot still loses 50 units overall so the energy of the hot is not increasing!!
Step 3: My words have only been for a heated object NOT just a hot object with one heat input!!! The energy of the cold will change how much energy the hot loses. If the hot is receiving more for the external source it will heat up. If less it will still cool.
“Norma”, when you’re not denying your own words, you’re arguing with yourself. When you’re not arguing with yourself, you’re changing the scenario.
I never mentioned a “heated object”.
Now, continue with your distractions, diversions, denials, obfuscations, evasions, and incoherent ramblings.
JDHUffman
Only you do this “Now, continue with your distractions, diversions, denials, obfuscations, evasions, and incoherent ramblings.”
You always distract, and divert and deny and evade. I answer all questions directly and fully with zero need to evade or divert. You are so messed up!
Also YOU: “I never mentioned a heated object.
But I did. My points are about a heated object. The Earth’s surface is a heated object. It has input energy from the Sun. I am not sure what you are trying to say with this nonsense. More of your diversions I guess.
Proving me right again, Norma.
“Now, continue with your distractions, diversions, denials, obfuscations, evasions, and incoherent ramblings.”
Norman,
“Step 3: My words have only been for a heated object NOT just a hot object with one heat input!!! The energy of the cold will change how much energy the hot loses. If the hot is receiving more for the external source it will heat up. If less it will still cool.”
The ‘colder source’ that the Earth system cools to is space… it remains pretty steady at about 3k… so what’s your point?
PhilJ
What I said: “But I did. My points are about a heated object. The Earths surface is a heated object. It has input energy from the Sun. I am not sure what you are trying to say with this nonsense. More of your diversions I guess.”
If you take the Earth System you are talking about a different thing than The Earth’s surface. The Earth system receives 240 W/m^2 average and loses this same amount.
The point is that between space and the Earth’s surface is the atmosphere with GHG that radiate downward as well as upward.
The situation is similar to the effects of a radiant shield. With the GHG atmosphere the surface cannot lose the same amount of heat it would without GHG present. By heat I am using the currently accepted notion as a net energy exchange.
https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jas.2011.2238.2243
Norman
It’s time for everyone to ignore this pre-pubescent troll. Let him have his petulant rants. Talk over the top of him to someone else, but don’t address him. He has a deep need for attention and doesn’t like being ignored. Perhaps when he hits puberty he will acquire an interest in girls and leave.
Bobdesbond
Your post is correct. From time to time I attempt to reason with the troll hoping the condition is wearing off (he has been at it for several years). It is sad that it continues. He will jump in to posts unwanted with the troll taunts and really stupid comments.
It seems a waste of time to have any attempt at rational discussion with the troll but sometimes you hope.
Norman,
“If you take the Earth System you are talking about a different thing than The Earths surface. The Earth system receives 240 W/m^2 average and loses this same amount.”
The system loses MORE than it receives (the earth is cooling). Now because the inputs and outputs are variable there may be periods where the Earth is warming slightly due to increased input (and/or reduced output)but entropy demands that this will increase the output until the Earth is once again cooling…
Of course as it cools it loses atmosphere… some is cooked off and some precipitates out… given enough time the Earth will cool till like Mars it has very little atmosphere left..
and finally, like the moon, no atmosphere… at which time it will have cooled to the computed BB temp that climate models try and heat the Earth up from. This is of course the fundamental flaw in those models… trying to HEAT the Earth by adding atmosphere when the reality is the Earth loses atmosphere as it cools…
PhilJ
I do not think you are correct at all. I do not think the Earth’s surface is going in much of any direction (heating or cooling) for several million years. It has varied a few degrees in all that time.
It will cool when the Sun burns out but I do not see it happening before that time.
Your physics is wacko! The atmosphere loss is due to gravity not temperature. The Moon has no atmosphere because the gravitational attraction to gases is to small to hold them. The large gas planets are very cold but still have thick atmospheres. Are you trying to be funny or do you really not know anything at all about science?
It seems at least half of the so called skeptics have no basic knowledge of science and do not want to learn it. They think it is corrupt though they have no evidence for this.
Phil J
Where do you guys come up with this utter crap?
Norman,
“I do not think you are correct at all. I do not think the Earths surface is going in much of any direction (heating or cooling) for several million years. It has varied a few degrees in all that time.
It will cool when the Sun burns out but I do not see it happening before that time”
The sun may indeed burn out (or expand, or explode or whatever) long before the Earth is able to cool till it has no atmosphere, this is why I said ‘given enough time’..
As a planet cools of course the rate at which it cools decreases naturally as well (the moon has very little magma left and cools very very slowly…)and as long as the Earth has large bodies of open water its surface temp will remain relatively stable…
“Your physics is wacko!”
My reasoning follows logically from simple basic physics.. entropy naturally is always increasing… if you see an error in my reasoning I don’t mind being corrected.
“The atmosphere loss is due to gravity not temperature. The Moon has no atmosphere because the gravitational attraction to gases is to small to hold them.”
It is both.
Gravity of course matters.. the more massive a planet the greater its gravitational pull and the more energy required to achieve escape velocity… the atomic weight of an atom or molecule also matters.. the greater the atomic weight the more energy needed to achieve escape velocity..
Temp is a measure of the KE of the gas molecules.. the higher the temp the greater the velocity of the molecules…
If the velocity reaches escape velocity… bye bye… spiraling off to space…
if you want to know what is being cooked off , check the thermosphere… currently for the Earth it is primarily Oxygen, Nitrogen and Helium
“The large gas planets are very cold but still have thick atmospheres.”
They are cold at the top of their atmosphere… but at a point say 7000 km from their center they are very hot… thousands of degrees K…
“Are you trying to be funny or do you really not know anything at all about science?”
I am quite serious… Entropy rules…
“entropy naturally is always increasing”
Why do non-scientists always leave out the rest of the rule:
The entropy of an isolated system increases.
The earth is not an isolated system.
Bob,
“entropy naturally is always increasing
Why do non-scientists always leave out the rest of the rule:
The entropy of an isolated system increases.
The earth is not an isolated system.”
why do pseudoscientists think they can dispense with the Law of entropy?
Here’s a little refresher for you: http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com/
As I said, the concept does not apply in a non-isolated system. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it should apply, it doesn’t make it true.
The law of entropy applies everywhere… get a grip on reality
Get a grip on SCIENCE.
Read ANY book on thermodynamics.
Ok Bob, I’ll play..
the universe is a closed system the 2nd law applies everywhere!
The only true isolated system is the universe thus all real world processes, everywhere increase universe entropy which is the 2LOT.
Ideal processes that are reversible in a thought experiment are ok with universe entropy being the same before and after but these are not of the real universe. An example being a perfectly insulated container (a universe to itself) which doesn’t exist in the real world.
bob…”Why do non-scientists always leave out the rest of the rule:
The entropy of an isolated system increases.
The earth is not an isolated system”.
Because that’s not how Clausius stated the meaning of entropy. He said that entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat into or out of a system at the temperature T at which the changes occur.
Entropy has nothing to do with system configurations, it is about heat transfer.
ds = dq/T
If you sum the q’s, keeping the T’s constant in a heat bath you get S. You cannot increase S if you don’t increase Q.
The 2nd law states essentially that S must be positive, therefore heat must be transferred from a system to its surroundings or from its surroundings to a system AND the heat must be transferred hot to cold, unless external compensation is provided.
philj…from your link…
“The Law of Maximum Entropy Production (LMEP or MEP) was first recognized by American scientist Rod Swenson in 1988, and articulated by him in its current form (below) in 1989. The principle circumstance that led Swenson to the discovery and specification of the law was the recognition by him and others of the failure of the then popular view of the second law or the entropy principle as a ‘law of disorder'”.
I am afraid these people have entropy wrong. Clausius did claim that disorder is an outcome of entropy but that was not the intent of his definition of entropy.
Clausius defined entropy as a means of mathematically stating the 2nd law. He had already stated the law in words as heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer body under ordinary circumstances as being not possible.
There has been no failure of the 2nd law, only a failure of modernists to understand what it means and how it was derived.
The 2nd law and entropy are about heat transfer, nothing else. Many have tried to equate entropy to disorder, missing the thrust of what it means.
Clausius pointed out that entropy is zero for a reversible process and positive for an irreversible process. He was quick to point out that most processes are not reversible. That means most reactions leading to the production of heat are of necessity featuring matter coming apart.
The disorder is an aside, it’s not what entropy was designed to measure.
“You cannot increase S if you dont increase Q.”
So no real mass can ever cool without compensation according to Gordon because that would mean S decreases and that goes against what non-thermodynamicist Gordon writes.
Perhaps Gordon needs to pay Clausius (a thermo. grandmaster) the ultimate compliment by actually reading & quoting what Clausius wrote instead of being misled by a wiki author, text author or using Gordon words to write incorrectly about entropy.
“(Clausius) was quick to point out that most processes are not reversible.”
Clausius did not; Clausius pointed out ALL real processes are irreversible. Again, Gordon should look up and quote verbatim what the grandmaster actually wrote down.
I’ll go even further and note that whenever you see Gordon write a statement of the form “Clausius [or Newton or some other scientific grandmaster] did claim..” right away replace “did claim” with “did not claim” and what Gordon wrote is then more likely to be true.
Even direct text book quotations are not reliable because so often even textbook writers can’t be bothered to go to the library (too far to walk) and so pass on what they think they remember that some other textbook writer (or commenter here) thinks Clausius (or whoever) might have said. The only sure way to find out what our predecessors said is to read them & quote their own words.
philj,
Max entropy principle is not what that link is talking about. Its talking about a newer idea, max entropy production in nonequilibrium situations.
Nate,
from the site: “A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints”
compare with my earlier: “In the case of the Earth system, because it is surrounded by a colder medium (space) entropy dictates that it MUST cool, naturally developing systems that maximize entropy increase, cooling the system at the maximum possible rate.. i.e. the total energy of the system MUST be decreasing…”
Note ‘maximum possible rate’ and ‘the fastest rate given the constraints’ are equivalent.
phil j…”from the site: A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints”
I have read similar arguments and I think they are misleading.
Entropy is an integral, how do you maximize an integral? Surely all factors were maximized during the process of integration of a function, since integration is a sum of the pertinent differentials.
I can see having different degrees of entropy based on the amount of heat differentials being summed in different systems. Why would you need a situation in which the entropy of a system was maximized?
Or, perhaps, where work is being converted to heat, or vice versa, you may have different degrees of entropy depending on the heat-work equivalent.
PhilJ,
“My reasoning follows logically from simple basic physics.. entropy naturally is always increasing”
We understand what that means-it is a statement of 2LOT applied to a closed system-like a heat engine with a hot reservoir and a cold reservoir, all part of the SYSTEM.
In such an engine, the heat flow is always a movement of heat from hot to cold, work done in the process, and an increase in entropy.
Similarly, the Earth has many moving parts like an engine. The hot reservoir (the Sun) and the cold reservoir (space) must be included in the SYSTEM. And entropy increases for that SYSTEM.
Your link is not talking about that ‘simple basic physics’ but about something not basic nor long established.
Nate,
“Your link is not talking about that ‘simple basic physics’ but about something not basic nor long established.”
As I pointed out to GR, I learned these things years before this gentleman discovered his ‘new’ law.
It is nothing more than a reaffirmation of a classic understanding of entropy as a FUNDAMENTAL principle on which the universe operates.
To quote Ball:
“all real world processes, everywhere increase universe entropy”
and with due respect to GR, entropy applies not just to heat but to all processes that have a potential gradient; hot to cold, high pressure to low pressure, high concentration to low concentration..
and frankly, regardless of what alphabet soup one has after their name, if they can’t grasp the concept that water ALWAYS naturally flows downhill (and at the fastest possible rate)then they are destined to produce errors like ‘a colder atmosphere can heat a warmer ocean..’
I ‘ll leave you with a physics definition of a miracle:
A miracle is any spontaneous decrease in the entropy of the universe…
“definition of a miracle: A miracle is any spontaneous decrease in the entropy of the universe..”
PhilJ, then I would argue miracles occur routinely.
As you know, thermodynamics applies to macroscopic systems and the variables are averages for such systems (e.g. temperature, pressure). T&P have meaning only for systems composed of many molecules. Wherever there are averages, there are deviations from these averages (fluctuations) lurking.
So there will always be transitory (and small) violations of the 2nd law (Maxwell-Boltzmann wrote on this statistical distribution in the late 1800s). A fluctuation so large that all the gas molecules in a room spontaneously migrate into one corner is not impossible, only exceedingly unlikely for which we should be thankful.
philJ…”As I pointed out to GR, I learned these things years before this gentleman discovered his new law.
It is nothing more than a reaffirmation of a classic understanding of entropy as a FUNDAMENTAL principle on which the universe operates.
To quote Ball:
all real world processes, everywhere increase universe entropy
and with due respect to GR, entropy applies not just to heat but to all processes that have a potential gradient; hot to cold, high pressure to low pressure, high concentration to low concentration.. ”
***
With all due respect right back, maybe you could explain to the ghost of Clausius that someone ripped off his invention and rebranded it.
I don’t care what you have learned, Clausius defined entropy and named it. He did that based on heat as the integral of infinitesimal heat transfers over a process.
He did mention a bit about disorder due to most reaction being irreversible.
Modernists have stolen his invention without crediting him or paying the least attention to what he meant by it. The more arrogant have claimed the 2nd law is wrong and they have taken it upon themselves to redefine entropy.
Why have they not stolen the meaning of enthalpy? Because it doesn’t fit their stupid metaphysical thought experiments.
As I said, Clausius defined entropy as an integral. How do you maximize an integral?
Mind you, there are idiots out there, and I mean idiots, who are trying to steal Newton’s law of gravitation and redefine it as a metaphysical, imaginary, process called space-time.
Ball,
“The only true isolated system is the universe thus all real world processes, everywhere increase universe entropy which is the 2LOT.”
Exactluly! Or as my favorite physics prof used to say ” water always flows downhill’
philj…”Ball,
The only true isolated system is the universe thus all real world processes, everywhere increase universe entropy which is the 2LOT.”
If that comes from ball4, he is notoriously full of crap about the 2nd law and entropy. Bally doesn’t think heat exists, that it is simply a measure of energy. He does not explain which energy is being measured, which has to be thermal energy. Therefore, according to bally, heat is a measure of heat.
The 2nd law is about the allowed direction of HEAT transfer, as defined by its inventor Clausius, and entropy is a term coined by Clausius to state the 2nd law mathematically.
Entropy is about heat transfer. Entropy does not increase, the transfer of heat increases, with entropy being an indication of how much heat was transferred. Entropy is an integral, the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers.
In fact, entropy does not exist, just as enthalpy does not exist, or temperature. They are all human inventions. Entropy and enthalpy are indicators of the HEAT transferred during a process and the energy contained in a process.
We are talking about HEAT.
If anyone doubts this, then just sum the Q’s in ds = dq/T. That’s the equation supplied by Clausius to define entropy.
“Therefore, according to bally, heat is a measure of heat.”
No. Read & quote Clausius’ actual definition which is the one I use. Gordon just makes up stuff.
“The 2nd law is about the allowed direction of HEAT transfer.”
No, the formal 2nd law is an entropy law energy can transfer uncompensated both ways between objects increasing universe entropy in a real process.
“Entropy is about heat transfer.”
No, entropy is not heat.
“If anyone doubts this, then just sum the Q’s in ds = dq/T. Thats the equation supplied by Clausius to define entropy.”
Not that’s incorrect eqn., look up the actual formula (it’s for an ideal gas) and quote Clausius words.
Also, if you want to follow Clausius you must …
* use “Ergal” (J) instead of “potential energy”
“Rankine proposed for this the term ‘potential energy.’ This name
sets forth very clearly the character of the quantity; but it is somewhat long, and the author has ventured to propose in its place the term ” Ergal” “
* use “Vis Viva” instead of “kinetic energy”
* Include motions of “ether” as part of “heat” .
“We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat
consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and
of ether
* use “Work-heat” as a substitute for “Latent heat”
“[Clausius] has laid down the principle that all heat existing in a body is appreciable by the touch and by the thermometer; that the heat which disappears under the above changes of condition exists no longer as heat, but has been converted into work; and that the heat which makes its appearance under the
opposite changes (e.g. solidification and condensation) does not come from any concealed source, but is newly produced by work done on the body. Accordingly he has proposed the term Work-heat as a substitute for Latent heat m general cases. “
* call “U” the “energy of the body” rather than “internal energy”
“In what follows the quantity U will therefore be called the Energy of the body“
Tim, those have not stood the test of time as they are not principles. Follow Clausius principles which have stood the test of time.
Ball4, that is mostly my point. Clausius didn’t get everything perfect the first time, and we shouldn’t take his writings as some sort of “gospel truth”.
The gospel truth in Clausius writing is the principles he laid out, some for the first time, that have survived the test of time because they are based on proper, replicable experiment. This is why they call them principles.
tim…”Ball4, that is mostly my point. Clausius didnt get everything perfect the first time, and we shouldnt take his writings as some sort of gospel truth”
Yes he did, but you have been taught by idiots who have it wrong.
If you want to mock a great scientist like Clausius, next you’ll be mocking Newton for his quaint terms, like fluxions.
Or maybe you can take shots at Newton as a Creationist. He was very religious.
Vis Viva was a common term used by all scientists in those days to describe kinetic energy.
Really, you alarmist lot are a load of horses asses.
tim…”Ball4, that is mostly my point. Clausius didnt get everything perfect the first time, and we shouldnt take his writings as some sort of gospel truth”.
Have you or anyone else disproved the 2nd law, entropy, or the definition of U as defined by Clausius? I have seen some seriously stupid comments from the alarmists on this blog regarding such definitions from Clausius but no proof that he was wrong.
It wasn’t just Clausius, there was Thompson, Claperyon, Joule, and even Carnot. No one has disproved any of their work.
Clausius improved on the work of Carnot but he gave him credit for what he did.
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies radiate to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as established by experiment, in an increase in the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
Rudolf Clausius
Clausius clearly is stating that …
1) radiation is heat.
2) radiation (ie heat) moves both from hot to cold and from cold to hot.
3) radiation obeys the 2nd Law (because radiation is “heat” and hence covered by thermodynamics).
Read Clausius. Argue with him if you want. He develops the ideas quite clearly in Chapter XII.
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/clausius1879.pdf
Pages 295 ff
Gordon,
Since “no one has disproved any of their work”, then I assume you now agree with the work of Clausius that radiation is heat, that it flows both ways, and that it obeys the 2nd Law.
Gordon, I was not mocking Clausius.
I was mocking you for insisting on Clausius’ words and symbols for some things, but not others. For insisting that he got everything perfect. For not realizing that your understanding of radiation is completely at odds with Clausius.
“Clausius clearly is stating that .. 1) radiation is heat.”
No TIM is stating that not Clausius. Clausius clearly is stating that .. 1) as regards the ordinary radiation of a measure of the (object’s constituent particle) kinetic energy.
The molecules in a solid vibrate, the charged particles move thru a magnetic field, and boom..photons are birthed: radiation.
2) radiation moves both from hot to cold and from cold to hot increasing universe entropy in each process so compliant with 2LOT.
3) radiation obeys the 2nd Law (because radiation is covered by thermodynamics).
Read Clausius yes! & USE Clausius’ def. of heat not Tim’s, not Gordon’s, not the dictionary’s:
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.
Interestingly, the first mention of “Q” by Clausius shows up on page 34 of this document: (https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/clausius1879.pdf)
Quoting a few relevant bits:
“Let any body whatever be given, and let its condition as to temperature, volume, &c. be assumed to be known. If an indefinitely small quantity of heat dQ is imparted to this body, …”
This is very much in the flavor of modern use, where dQ is only ever “heat imparted”, but not part U, what Clausius called “the Energy of the body”. Clausius then spends a dew pages developing
dQ = dU + dW
where “U = H + L” (The “energy of the body” = the “Heat in the body” + “the potential energy of the body”)
Its actually quite interesting (and quite different from what Gordon states).
Tim you have to substitute in what Clausius defined heat to be, not what you or Gordon define heat to be.
“small quantity of the measure of constituent particle KE dQ”
“the measure of constituent particle KE imparted”
…the “measure of constituent particle KE in the body”
& so forth to understand Clausius’ true meaning NOT Gordon’s.
Ball4, again that is basically my point. If we read and understand Clausius, we find he accurately develops the principles of thermodynamics. He used slightly different terminology (in fact, he wrote in German, so he didn’t use the word “heat” anyway).
* Q is still a transfer of thermal energy.
* U is still the energy in a body (“internal energy”) consisting of both kinetic energy and potential energy within an object.
* radiation is “heat” and radiation moves both from hot to cold and cold to hot.
There is no “new climate alarmist” thermodynamics required to explain radiation between surface and atmosphere — it is all basically what Clausius developed 150 yeas ago!
As Tim writes “Read Clausius” & I write do not read Tim. Correctly according to reading Clausius:
* Q is still a transfer of thermodynamic internal energy existing in an object to thermodynamic internal energy existing in another object.
* U is still the total constituent particle kinetic energy in a body (“thermodynamic internal energy”) consisting of both the quantity expended on interior work, and the quantity expended on exterior work since:
p. 84: we include both these quantities of a measure of constituent particle kinetic energy in one symbol U.. actually present in the body (the so- called sensible heat), the quantity expended on interior work, and the quantity expended on exterior work.
* radiation is not “kinetic energy” and radiation transfers thermodynamic internal energy both from hot to cold and cold to hot.
Ball4,
Page 30 ff clearly says U is the sum of H (the “heat existing in a body) plus J (the “Ergal” or potential energy). U is NOT simply the kinetic energy of the particles.
Experimentally this is confirmed in solids, where the specific heat can only be explained by including kinetic energy of the vibrating atoms AND the elastic potential energy of the vibrating atoms.
(I can’t find your quote on page 84, so I can’t comment on it)
*******************************
I quoted Clausius earlier”
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies radiate to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as established by experiment, in an increase in the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
This seems to support my statements about radiation. Your statement about “radiation is not kinetic energy ” is an addition to what I said. I had not commented one way or the other about Clausius’ view on radiation being KE.
*****************************************
Of course, at one level, it is pointless to haggle over these points. Clausius was a genius and his work is amazing. But it is not the final word in thermodynamics. Dissecting his particular wording is interesting, but is not path to full understanding. Thermodynamics has progressed (as it should) over the years.
ball4…”* Q is still a transfer of thermodynamic internal energy existing in an object to thermodynamic internal energy existing in another object”.
Clausius does not define heat in the way you imagine he did. He refers to the quantity of heat in a body.
tim…”Page 30 ff clearly says U is the sum of H (the heat existing in a body) plus J (the Ergal or potential energy). U is NOT simply the kinetic energy of the particles”.
The title of the book is The Mechanical Theory of Heat. Throughout the book he explains the equivalence of work and heat.
As you know, work requires energy in motion. Energy as potential energy is doing no work. However, as work is being done in harmonic motion, driven by a potential energy, there is a changing ratio between the potential energy and the kinetic energy.
If a boulder is on the edge of a cliff, it has potential energy and no work is being done. If you push it off, it has mainly PE and little KE initially. As it accelerates the ratio changes till near the ground where the ratio is in favour of the KE.
As atoms vibrate, they do so with harmonic motion. The energy transforms from PE to KE between vibration cycles. If you have a pendulum in harmonic motion, at the ends of its swings, the PE is max and the KE = 0. Midway, KE = max.
I don’t recall Clausius referring to PE (the ergal) as you wrote it up. He did an entire chapter on work in which he explained the ratio of PE to KE but not in the development of the 1st law, which was only about heat, work and internal energy.
“Clausius does not define heat in the way you imagine he did. He refers to the quantity of heat in a body.”
I do not imagine it Gordon,m you are wrong. I quote Clausius exactly unlike you. Clausius does define heat in the way I wrote Clausius did. He refers to the quantity of heat as a measure of the KE in a body.
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.
If Gordon were to understand Clausius exactly, Gordon would not make so many errors in thermodyanmics when using the term heat.
tim…”where U = H + L (The energy of the body = the Heat in the body + the potential energy of the body)
Its actually quite interesting (and quite different from what Gordon states).”
**********
L is not potential energy, it is work. It represent the kinetic energy in the vibration of the atoms.
On page 27 (41/390) of the 1879 version of The Mechanical Theory of Heat he writes:
“If we denote the total heat existing in the body or more briefly the Quantity of Heat of the body by H, and the indefinitely small increment of this quantity by dH, and if we put dL for the indefinitely small quantity of work done, then we can write:
dQ = dH + dL …………………… (1).
He goes on:
“The forces against which the work is done may be divided into two classes: (1) those which the molecules of the body exert among themselves, and which are therefore dependent on the nature of the body and (2) those which arise from external influences to which the body is subjected. According to these two classes of forces, which have to be overcome, the work done is divided into internal and external forces.
If we denote these quantities by dJ and dW may put
dL = dJ + dW ………………… (2),
and then the foregoing equation becomes
dQ = dH + dJ + dW …………… (II)”.
However, in an 1850 paper, Clausius had already labelled
U = H + J
Page 31 (45/390)
He then claims, based on II above that:
dQ = dU + dW….the first law.
He reveals immediately below:
“The function U, first introduced by the author in the above mentioned paper, has been since adopted by other writers on Heat…”
And it still exists today, just as Clausius defined U in 1850.
GR,
“There has been no failure of the 2nd law, only a failure of modernists to understand what it means and how it was derived.”
And how it applies in the real world.. I find it interesting that this gentelman needed to clarify that in 1989 in a manner that is essentially identical to how i was taught in 1985 by a brilliant professer ; Dr Gerard….
philj…”I find it interesting that this gentelman needed to clarify that in 1989 in a manner that is essentially identical to how i was taught in 1985 by a brilliant professer ; Dr Gerard.”
Sorry…I am not following your meaning. Can you clarify?
My argument is that alarmist climate science is completely misinterpreting the 2nd law as applied to heat transfer in the atmosphere. When it comes to heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, they claim a fictitious ‘net balance of energy’ to bypass the 2nd law.
In other words, they are applying a generic energy that combines EM and heat. The 2nd law is about heat only, there are no provisions for Em flow in the 2nd law.
As G&T pointed out, you must sum heat quantities with regard to the 2nd law in the atmosphere, not net EM quantities.
Gordon,
Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies radiate to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as established by experiment, in an increase in the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
I know you are chomping at the bit to say I am wrong — but that is a direct quote from Clausius. Check out Chapter XII of Clausius’ text on thermodynamics (starting at page 295.
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/clausius1879.pdf .
tim…”Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies radiate to hot;”
This quote is a cherry pick from Clausius and I have explained it over and over. When he made that statement, Clausius had no idea that heat could not be transferred through space as radiation. It was not till 1913 that Bohr (and Rutherford) put it together and explained far-field EM as the transferring agent.
Heat does not leave a body via radiation. It is converted to EM and heat is lost in that process.
Clausius is obviously talking about EM in the statement without realizing that heat is not involved. It is an error, and we must forgive him for that, as well as Kircheoff, Boltzmann, Stefan, Maxwell, and Planck, who all thought heat could be radiated through space (aether) as ‘rays’.
At least he got it that a colder body is warmed at the expense of the hotter body. He maintained that radiation must obey the 2nd law.
Got it!
Clausius is to be trusted 100% — except in areas where you disagree with him.
Gordan,
Sure,
I am saying…
that, despite short term fluctuations in input and/or output, the Earth is cooling.
That Entropy dictates the Earth MUST CONTINUE cooling until it approaches it’s calculated BB temp with its solar input. Let’s call this it’s ‘ground state’
That current climate ‘energy budget’ models take this cold ground state Earth and try to figure how to ‘heat’ it with an atmosphere (and it’s effects).
(Fantasyland)
That instead they should be looking at the actual warm Earth and try to figure how it is cooling toward it’s ground state.
(Reality!)
That this FUNDAMENTAL FLAW in climate science models dooms them to fail, and to continue to fail, despite how many ‘epicycles’ are added to try and tweak the model.
In short: ENTROPY RULES
Hope I cleared that up for you 😉
Phil, is your “ground state” the entire solid sphere of the earth at a uniform temperature (ie the core & mantle have cooled to ~ 250 K)?
I hate to comment any further unless you can clarify. (Basically if this is NOT what you mean, some clarification is in order; if it IS what you mean, there are some serious misunderstandings!)
Tim,
I think the moon has cooled close enough to its ground state, that it would make a good proxy for the ground state of the Earth.
But essentially yes. When the Earth, like Mercury, has cooled till it has a solid interior, it has reached its ground state.
Phil,
A minor point — the moon’s interior is still quite warm (16001700 K according to wikipedia), so hardly an example of your “ground state”.
Much more importantly, climate models deal with, well, the climate — the temperatures and energies and movements of the atmosphere. There could be dealings with the oceans and of the first few meters of the crust as they interact with the atmosphere. Climate models might include the small (less than 1 W/m^2) geothermal heat flow as a tiny perturbation. But that is it.
Climate models don’t deal with the warming or cooling of the solid bulk of the earth. They are ‘agnostic’ about that topic. You seem to be thinking that “global warming” involves warming of the bulk of the earth; that it involves the atmosphere pumping heat back into the earth. “Global warming”, of course, merely deals with warming *of the atmosphere* on a global scale.
“Global warming” (as well as “global cooling”) of the atmosphere on time scales of year, decades, or even centuries is 100% compatible with the slow continued cooling of the interior over time scales of millions or billions of years.
Tim,
“A minor point the moons interior is still quite warm (16001700 K according to wikipedia), so hardly an example of your ground state. ”
Certainly the moon is still cooling (although very slowly) and Mercury is a better example of a ground state, but the moon makes a good proxy for the Earth’s ground state for 2 reasons
1. it is close enough to its ground state that its further cooling will cause negligible chemical and physical changes especially at its surface. (granted they will not be 0)
2. sharing an orbit with the Earth it recieves the same rate of solar radiation as the Earth does (1360w/m2 or so)
” Climate models might include the small (less than 1 W/m^2) geothermal heat flow as a tiny perturbation. But that is it.”
ah but that flow actually HEATS the surface unlike co2 which does not.. so if it is insignificant what then is co2?
“Climate models dont deal with the warming or cooling of the solid bulk of the earth. They are agnostic about that topic. You seem to be thinking that global warming involves warming of the bulk of the earth; that it involves the atmosphere pumping heat back into the earth. Global warming, of course, merely deals with warming *of the atmosphere* on a global scale.”
Interesting.. are you not one of those who claims that AGW is heating the surface?
The way I’ve seen it explained it goes like.. the Earth is 33K warmer than it would be with no atmosphere, so the atmosphere is ‘heating’ the surface by that amount via back radiation.. increasing co2 increases this back radiation thus warming the surface. ergo co2 is heating the oceans..
Of course following this logic, a warmer surface means that the interior is cooling at slower rate thus its temp is ALSO higher than it would be without an atmosphere so the atmosphere is ‘heating’ the interior.
Ludicrous I know, but this happens when you look at the flow of heat backwards…
Global warming (as well as global cooling) of the atmosphere on time scales of year, decades, or even centuries is 100% compatible with the slow continued cooling of the interior over time scales of millions or billions of years.”
Natural warming and cooling happen because of variaitions in input and output brought about by changes in solar output and activity, and chemical and physical changes (ice cap growing/receding for eg), but slow continued cooling MUST continue..
To find out the effect co2 REALLY has on the atmosphere one must examine how the surface cools through the atmosphere to space…
“Interesting.. are you not one of those who claims that AGW is heating the surface?”
No scientist — if they are being careful about technical vocabulary — would say CO2 is “heating” the surface (CO2 does not supply a net flow of thermal energy from the the atmosphere to the surface).
(There are certainly many poor explanations for the greenhouse effect that don’t use the word “heating” in an accurate, technical sense.)
“To find out the effect co2 REALLY has on the atmosphere one must examine how the surface cools through the atmosphere to space…”
Yes! That is the key. CO2 restricts the outflow of heat from the surface. This means the surface cools less effectively with GHGs in the atmosphere than without. This means the surface must get warmer to shed the same amount of energy supplied by the sun (and to a TINY extent, by geothermal energy).
Tim,
“Yes! That is the key. CO2 restricts the outflow of heat from the surface”
perhaps, but as much as co2 restricts the flow through its particular band in the atmospheric window, the Earth naturally INCREASES the flow of energy through other channels so that at the TOA there is always more output than input..
Consider that the surface has many channels by which it transports energy to the TOA:
the largest channel with the fastest flow is of course IR through the atmospheric window at the speed of light…
the next most significant channel is the flow via h20 from the surface to the tropopause at the rate of convection, and at half the speed of light thereafter (half because aprox half its energy is recycled)
co2 is another channel that transports energy at the rate of convection to the mesosphere and at half the speed of light thereafter
oxygen and nitrogen another channel that transports energy at half the speed of convection to the TOA (half because at the TOA half will be being recycled back in system and half leaving the system)
Now if we agree that the total amount of energy lost from the TOA will always be greater than the input (entropy dictates this)then we can say with assurance, if you restrict the output in any of these channels, the output must increase correspondingly in the other channels…
We can also suggest that in as much as the recycled energy maintains the temp of the surface it increases the flow through the atmospheric window (higher temp means more IR)
So then what does an increase in co2 do? in the troposphere its effect is negligible as it along with oxygen and nitrogen are riding the h20 express to the tropopause..
What little effect it has MAY be a slight increase in the rate of convection as the little bit of energy it absorbs is thermalized to the air around it..
it is above the tropopause that an increase in co2 concentration has a significant effect, raising the flow through its channel and decreasing the flow through the oxygen/nitrogen channel..
this results in a cooling upper atmosphere and thus a contracting altitude of the mesopause… observed decreased drag on satilites is evidence that this is taking place…
“So then what does an increase in co2 do? in the troposphere its effect is negligible”
If by negligible is meant only about +0.7C global median near surface T over 75 years then, yeah, that’s been measured.
Ball,
“If by negligible is meant only about +0.7C global median near surface T over 75 years then, yeah, that’s been measured.”
Correction, an increase in temp of the air in the surface may indeed have been measured, but whether that increase is due to co2 concentration increase has NOT been established.
However, whatever co2 contribution to that increase may or may not be… to that extent it has caused: “a slight increase in the rate of convection as the little bit of energy it absorbs is thermalized to the air around it..”
raising the air temp INCREASES the rate of convection and ACCELERATES the cooling of the surface…
“whether that increase is due to co2 concentration increase has NOT been established.”
The increase in global T IS due to co2 concentration increase which has long been established PhilJ. You just need to catch up on the bulk of the published literature. Start with a basic text or two on meteorology.
The raising air temp INCREASES the rate of up convection and ACCELERATES the cooling of the surface…at exactly the same rate of down convection ACCELERATES the return of that energy to the surface. What convection goes up, must come down with no change in global mean near surface T due convection (sensible heat) as convective energy cycles in the closed thermo. system.
Lately something like 25 +/- 4 up and 25 +/- 4 down.
“The increase in global T IS due to co2 concentration increase which has long been established PhilJ.”
I disagree 100%. The suggestion or even the assumption has been around for some time, but there is no evidence that this is so.
I find it much more plausible and in tune with actual observations that a warmer ocean has caused the increase in air temps and likely a significant part of the co2 increase as well..
“The raising air temp INCREASES the rate of up convection and ACCELERATES the cooling of the surface…”
you should have stopped there..
“at exactly the same rate of down convection ACCELERATES the return of that energy to the surface. What convection goes up, must come down with no change in global mean near surface T due convection (sensible heat) as convective energy cycles in the closed thermo. system.”
Hornswaggle… If you INCREASE the rate of convection you carry water to the top of the troposphere FASTER where it releases enormous amounts of energy as it condenses… to suggest that the same amount of energy is flowing down as went up from the surface is just plain wrong…
“I disagree 100%.”
You are free to do so. Your claims are without merit though as they are not based on observations as they are in the literature.
“Hornswaggle..If you INCREASE the rate of convection you carry water to the top of the troposphere FASTER where it releases enormous amounts of energy as it condenses”
PhilJ that is latent heat (LH) not sensible heat, you are mixing energy transfer physics. LH up lately 81 +/- 4 and LH down lately 81 +/- 4 over a decade or more of global observations.
Of course, if you INCREASE the rate of convection down you carry water vapor to the bottom of the troposphere FASTER where it releases enormous amounts of energy as it condenses, rains..and recycles the energy as evaporation. Evaporation = rain long term (~4-12 years of annual observations).
The same amount of latent heat and sensible heat come down as go up, this is what is meant by a closed system – these cycle in equal amounts as it doesn’t rain in space nor is it breezy in space.
Phil, I started a longer replay, but it got lost. Here is the short version.
1) Entropy does NOT dictate more energy leaves the top than enters the bottom! If the atmosphere is warming (like during any El Nino) then the amount leaving is LESS than entering!
2) What CO2 does is throttle the energy loss to space. More CO2 means more of the thermal IR comes from higher altitude, where it is cooler (due to lapse rate). Radiation from cooler areas is weaker. Weaker radiation retains more energy. leading to higher temperatures below (all the way down to the surface).
3) No matter how big the ‘channels’ like latent heat and convection are, they can’t carry more energy than can escape from the “nozzle” due to CO2 at the top.
philJ…”Hope I cleared that up for you…”
You did. Glad we are on the same page as skeptics.
PhilJ, I think your reasoning is flawed.
You are ignoring the internal heat generation due to the decay of natural uranium and other radio isotopes, which has kept the iron core at the center of the Earth molten. The thermal energy migrates toward the surface at an essentially constant rate and it would appear that the Earth has been near steady state for billions of years. Thus, the surface of the Earth is not “cooling”, as you suggest, but has already arrived at the “ground state” temperature you describe.
E,
“Thus, the surface of the Earth is not cooling, as you suggest, but has already arrived at the ground state temperature you describe.”
With all due respect, sir, that the Earth has NOT reached its ground state is obvious…
If it had, it would no longer have volcanic activity, or an atmosphere.
Consider Mars,which is much closer to its ground state than Earth.. it hasn’t had an eruption for 50 million years or so and has lost most of its atmosphere..
In fact, the radioactive decay that you mentioned, is further proof that the ground state has not been reached.
The energy released from that decay is still internal energy,it has just changed forms.
Now you can transform, transfer, transport, and recycle it however you wish, but you CANNOT, by doing so, change the total energy of the body UNTIL it has escaped the system (TOA).
Of course, as a body gets colder, the rate at which it cools will decrease exponentially..
If one were to plot the total internal energy of a planet system as a function of time. it would probably look something like 1/x<4 where x is measured in hundreds of millions of years…
Further, physical and chemical changes may accelerate or decelerate that cooling. For example: forming a solid crust or losing all its h20…
Ah, now just HOW these physical and chemical changes proceed would be something worth studying… far more than studying how a colder atmosphere HEATS a warmer ocean.. (it doesnt)
PhilJ, The existence of volcanic activity doesn’t prove that the Earth’s energy flow from the interior to the surface is out of balance.
Most of the volcanic activity occurs at the boundaries between plates as they move across the surface. Those volcanoes are the result of the collisions between the plates and the opening of spaces between due to the spreading of the plates. The surface crust is thinner under the ocean basins where rift valleys exhibit volcanic activity, such as seen in Iceland. The effects of the atmospheric water cycle include eroding and movement of material from the land into the oceans. Over many millennia, areas which were once ocean bottom are now dry land and may even have become mountains. And, there are some places, such as the Canadian Shield, which have been stable for billions of years.
Then too, measurements of geothermal energy flows indicate that this flow is tiny compared to the energy flowing thru the atmosphere from the Sun, thus the IR EM exiting the TOA is almost all due to to solar energy. That geothermal energy flow is associated with the decay of uranium in the Earth’s core, not the result of a continuing cooling of the Earth left over from it’s original molten state some 4.55 billion years BP.
E,
you’re missing the point entirely.
All of these things: plate tectonics, radioactive decay, geothermal energy, wind, the water cycle, the movement of oxygen and nitrogen from the surface to the TOA etc etc…
are all INTERNAL ENERGY being transformed, transferred, transported, recycled… and that Entropy dictates that this total internal energy MUST be decreasing over time until it reaches its ground state.
Thus the next time someone asks you why the Earth is 33K warmer than its computed BB temp the answer is simple…
It is NOT because it has an atmosphere..
It has an atmosphere and is 33K warmer because it has not yet had enough time to cool to its ground state…
and the HEAT flow is always from the interior to the surface, and from the surface through the atmosphere to space!
do you want to know the effect of increasing co2 concentration? study how it transports energy to the TOA and out of the system… you will find that it does so much more efficiently than oxygen and nitrogen, and much less efficiently than h20
and long as climate models try and determine how much co2 heats the surface (it doesnt) rather than try and determine how it cools the atmosphere they will be broken…
Phil,
“It has an atmosphere and is 33K warmer because it has not yet had enough time to cool to its ground state…”
You are not being quantitative. The flow of geothermal heat is ~ 70 mW/m^2. Is that enough to raise the temp of the surface 33K?
If so, than other effects which produce LARGER changes in heat flow , solar cycle, large volcanic eruptions, ought to produce massive, 10s of degrees, temperature changes.
But they don’t.
Nate,
“You are not being quantitative. The flow of geothermal heat is ~ 70 mW/m^2. Is that enough to raise the temp of the surface 33K?”
You are doing it again… it is not a matter of ‘raising the temp’ but of MAINTAINING that temp….
It’s like a bouncing ball… its internal energy continues to decrease as it bounces, the altitude it reaches on each bounce progressively getting lower
or think of the planet as one giant heat pump.. with the waste heat being lost to space both by IR and by cooking off mass.. and over time the total amount of energy in that system MUST be decreasing….
philJ…”That Entropy dictates the Earth MUST CONTINUE cooling until it approaches its calculated BB temp with its solar input. Lets call this its ground state”
Your ground state sounds closer to what I have been calling a body’s natural temperature. For example, if you run a steady electric current through a resistance, like tungsten, the electric current will heat the resistance to a temperature consistent with the atoms in the tungsten, as well as its cross-sectional area, etc.
That temperature is independent of the temperature the resistance will ultimately reach due to heat dissipation via conduction to air or a heat sink, convection, or radiation. That’s why I call it a natural temperature.
I have been trying to get it through to certain posters here that such a body, in equilibrium with its environment, does not heat up because much cooler room temperature air is radiating EM to it. The argument being posed is that a similarly heated body in much cooler air at 20C ambient room temperature heats up because air, when raised to 25C is radiating EM to it.
The tungsten resistance is running at a temperature around 3000C and the alarmists here are trying to prove that room air at 25C can radiate EM to it and warm it. That is a total contradiction of the 2nd law.
What is happening is related to heat dissipation. Say the natural temperature for a tungsten resistance with no means of dissipation is 3500C. When you expose the tungsten to room air at 20C, that temperature drops due to dissipation via conduction, convection, and radiation. The cooler you can make the surroundings the more the body’s temperature will drop.
If you now raise the room temperature, all you do is lessen the tungsten’s ability to dissipate heat.
If you could raise the temperature to 3500C, say in a blast furnace, it’s theorized natural temperature, the body would stop transferring heat to its environment. If you raised the room temperature even higher, the tungsten would begin absorbing heat, then it’s temperature would rise due to the room temperature.
Gordo, I love it when you go so great length to prove that you have no clue about engineering and science. Your claim that there is a “natural temperature” for a metal, using tungsten as an example, ignores the fact that without energy loss thru heat transfer, the temperature of the metal will continue to increase until something else takes place. That something else would likely be a change of phase, say, from solid to liquid or even from liquid to gas, as the internal energy (that’s temperature in your world) increases.
Think of the electric arc furnace used to produce aluminum or steel, instead of your blast furnace. The electric current provides enough energy to melt the metal, so there’s no limited “natural temperature” at all. The same situation applies to the use of an electric arc welder, in which the local temperature within the arc is great enough to melt both the metal parts being joined and the filler contained within the welding rod or wire. Where’s your “natural temperature’ in the arc plasma?
Your twisted physics is so obvious that the rest of us are laughing at you. Your ignorance of thermal radiation heat transfer is also quite clear. You should stick to cooling your over clocked CPU for playing those video games instead of pretending to know science.
E. Swanson: +1
swannie…”Your claim that there is a “natural temperature” for a metal, using tungsten as an example, ignores the fact that without energy loss thru heat transfer, the temperature of the metal will continue to increase until something else takes place”.
Why should it if the energy input is constant?
If I insulate a 10 watt resistor so it can’t radiate, conduct heat to air, or cool by convection, what makes you think a 1 amp current through it will cause it to heat forever?
P = I^2.R
for 1 amp, P = 1^2 amps x 10 ohms = 10 watts. The resistor can handle 10 watts, that’s how it is designed. There is no temperature rating prescribed.
I’ll tell you what would happen, the heat would flow out in the resistor leads with the current, transported by electrons. It would be dissipated in the conductors.
I am not talking about an ideal condition, I am talking relatively between a very minimal heat dissipation and a large heat dissipation. My natural temperature is a limit condition in which the heat supplied by the current in a resistance sets a temperature that cannot be exceeded by the current without raising it.
There is no way to raise that natural temperature without raising the ambient air temperature to EXCEED that natural temperature.
It’s you my friend who needs to learn some basic physics. You have demonstrated that in spades by your inane conclusion that radiation from a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter body that heated it.
A total breach of the 2nd law which should concern you but does not. A person steeped in science would discard that conclusion and look for a better explanation. I have offered it to you, yet you continue to ignore the scientific logic in it.
Gordo, Your first thought experiment above regarding heating a resistor causing the temperature to reach some “natural Temperature” is different than that which you now describe. Your model specified a situation in which “the natural temperature for a tungsten resistance with no means of dissipation”, i.e., no heat transfer.
Now however, in your latest response, you claim that thermal energy will leave your insulated resistor via conduction along the leads, thus your latest description includes heat transfer both thru the imperfect insulation and along the metal wires into your resistor. Nice bate-and-switch there. The two thought experiments would have different results. Your new definition of “natural temperature” is just the temperature after steady state is achieved, that is to say, when the energy supplied to the resistor is equal to that which exits via the heat transfer to the environment.
Now you write:
But, there is a simple way to increase the temperature. increase the insulation around the resistor and also insulate the leads and/or make them longer. The temperature will rise as the heat transfer via conduction is a function of the temperature difference from within the insulation to the ambient temperature on the outside. One would not need to increase the ambient temperature to exceed your “natural temperature” for the temperature of the resistor to increase. Clearly, you still don’t understand the physics involved.
swannie…”Your model specified a situation in which “the natural temperature for a tungsten resistance with no means of dissipation”, i.e., no heat transfer”.
You are missing my point. The temperature of an electrically heated tungsten wire can be related directly to the current running through the wire.
You can calculate the expected temperature BEFORE dissipation, and I call that the natural temperature. The temperature with dissipation depends on the temperature difference between the tungsten and its surroundings. The cooler the surroundings the lower the temperature of the tungsten filament.
Now reverse that. The hotter you make the surroundings the higher will be the tungsten filament, NOT because it’s receiving heat from the cooler surrounding, but due to the reduction in it’s ability to dissipate heat.
Here’s a scientific description of what I’m getting at:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/17/jresv17n5p679_A1b.pdf
“Consider, as is usually done, an ideal straight tungsten filament of circular cross section having a smooth, polished surface. Let there be no cooling at the leads nor any cooling by conduction to gases in contact with the filament. For such a filament of constant length, L, with a constant voltage, V, applied over this length, it has been shown by Jones and Langmuir that temperature of the filament, T, and current, I, in it are proportional to certain powers of the diameter, d, so that we may write:
T/To = (d/do)^n, (1)
where n varies from 0.168 to 0.176 within the temperature range 2,300 to 3,000 degrees K, and
I/Io = (d/do)^m, (2)
where m varies from 1.80 to 1.79 within the same range.
The subscript, 0, denotes the values at the beginning of the burning test.
The color temperature, theta, differs from the true temperature of the filament by only 50 to 100 degrees throughout this range of temperatures, so without appreciable error for our purpose eq 1 may be written:
theta/theta(o) = d/do)^0.17”
swannie….re my most recent reply:
Your comments on my ineptness in physics are based on sheer arrogance. You have claimed the 2nd law is null and void based on your experimental conclusions and you are questioning my ability in physics????
What is more likely, that the 2nd law is valid or your conclusions are wrong?
***
There is a connection via proportionality between the temperature of a tungsten filament, the current through it. and the cross-sectional area of the filament. The colour temperature, the visible colour of the heated filament, is also proportional to the current and area.
There are devices which compare the colour temperature to a standard filament.
What you claim is simply not true, that isolating a tungsten filament so it cannot dissipate heat will cause its temperature to rise continually. Where’s your proof of that?
The heating is caused by electrons colliding with ‘something’ but that something is not clear. I think it’s unlikely that the electrons in copper break through the electron shells of the copper atom and collide with the nucleus. Therefore, it seems more likely electrons are colliding with electrons in the outer or valence shells.
There is no reason why this heating should carry on indefinitely when dissipation is suppressed. The energy that is converted to heat is likely altered somehow to adjust.
For example, as a resistor heats up it’s resistance increases, reducing the current.
Gordo, You’re playing Climate Ball again, posting two replies which don’t address what I wrote. Now, you offer an old paper on the temperature of a tungsten filament bulb as if it proves what your originally claimed about some mythical “natural temperature”. The paper claims to calculate the temperature of a straight filament operating in a vacuum, the experimental results captured in a highly non-linear equation. There’s no mention of changing the system, such as adding insulation or completely suppressing heat transfer away from a restive element, which was your original thought experiment and to which I first responded.
Your so-called “natural temperature” is the equilibrium temperature when some system is operated at steady state, including all the energy flows thru said system. Nothing new there, but you go on to claim that changing the system by adding insulation wouldn’t cause the equilibrium temperature to increase. And, you ignore the obvious conclusion that if it were possible to eliminate all heat transfer away from said system, the steady state temperature would increase until the system self destructs. It’s not necessary to consider only an electrical resistor on a circuit board. Take a heating element out of a hot water heater and hook it up in air. It will “burn out” rather quickly.
Furthermore, you state that I claim “the 2nd law is null and void based on your experimental conclusions..”, which is a falsehood, as I’ve never made such a claim. What I’ve shown supports the accepted scientific description of thermal radiation heat transfer, while you are the one who has repeatedly presented an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Law which you claim refutes AGW. You have presented no evidence to support your deviant physics and I submit that it’s your responsibility to provide that evidence, not mine.
Put up or shut up, as they say, hand waving and empty rhetoric not allowed.
E. Swanson says:
“Gordo, You’re playing Climate Ball again, posting two replies which don’t address what I wrote.”
It’s his trusted Gish gallop technique.
swannie…”you offer an old paper on the temperature of a tungsten filament bulb as if it proves what your originally claimed about some mythical natural temperature”.
They quoted experts in the field and you pan the paper for being ‘old’. Perhaps we should scrap all scientific papers and proofs that are more than a few years old.
My explanation of the effect of electric current through a tungsten filament went right over your head. That current produces a temperature that can be directly correlated to the current. That’s the natural temperature to which I refer.
The steady state temperature to which you later refer is the temperature AFTER heat dissipation. That does not change the fact that the filament without dissipation has a natural temperature due to the current.
Do you seriously think that radiation from air molecules with a 5C increase in room temperature at 20C, can increase the temperature of a tungsten filament with a temperature of 3000C? That’s along the lines of the claim by David Appell that IR from the Earth, with a mean temperature of 15C, can raise the temperature of the Sun at over a million C.
Obviously, there is another mechanism in place, which I am trying to explain to you with great futility. If you had any sense you’d have gotten it immediately that you are contradicting the 2nd law and gone looking for a better explanation.
Your lack of understanding in this area has lead you to make incredible conclusions with regard to your experiments. You are contradicting the 2nd law and claiming proof that heat can be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object, which heated it in one of your experiments.
svante…”Its his trusted Gish gallop technique”.
You’re not from Ottawa are you? I once encountered a climate alarmist idiot from there who used the term gish gallop extensively.
Anyway, I have laid out the physics for you, based on expertise gained in electronics, and you have not responded with a critique of what I laid out.
Of course, that’s your style. You have nothing concrete to offer in the way of physics, so you offer an appeal to authority, even though the authority (the IPCC et al) have been proved seriously wanting, if not somewhat corrupt.
I mean, who else would have 2500 reviewers write a main report for a review, then replace what they had written by the opinion of 50 politically-appointed lead authors as expressed in the Summary for Policymakers, where the Summary is presented before the main report? Then the Summary is used to amend the main report.
Why do people like you fall for that nonsense?
Gordo, No, you don’t understand what was done in your reference. You wrote
They were testing filaments enclosed in glass with either vacuum or inert gas filling. The “color temperature” of the filament is a direct function of the actual temperature, which is the result of the thermal radiant energy transfer away from the filament, balancing the energy deposited in the filament via the electric current. That temperature is the equilibrium temperature when the energy flows have achieved steady state. It’s a classic Stefan-Boltzmann Law situation, the “color temperature” is that calculated using Wien’s Law. There’s no such thing as “temperature AFTER dissipation”, there’s a continuous process of energy leaving the filament as energy is supplied to it. In fact they are studying what happens to the “color temperature” as the filaments degrade thru operation, in order to better define such lamps for use as lab standards. Of course, none of these results relate to lamps operated “without dissipation” as the fact that they produce visible light proves that there is energy loss.
Just another example of your bogus, distorted, deviant non-physics to add to the collection.
Gordon,
I’m not from Ottawa and when did I ever appeal to the IPCC?
Try to boil things down to the essence, instead of adding new stuff until it all boils over.
Oh, for heaven’s sake! Someone just do a calculation!
Try this: what is the “natural temperature without dissipation” for a 1mm diameter (18 AWG) tungsten wire 1 m long carrying 10 A of current?
Either give a temperature or say what other conditions need to be supplied to determine this temperature. I am of the opinion that this question is meaningless as asked, and that more conditions must be stipulated.
Once the ‘answer’ is given, we can analyze how the answer was derived and what the actual thought process was.
Test for ‘correlation’
Ball,
I dont know if youre being deliberately obtuse, or if you just arent following what I am saying…
That h20 transports enormous amounts of energy to the tropopause where it realeses it to space via IR is without question..
http://www.xylenepower.com/Infrared%20Emission.htm
There is one point from that site that you can help with however…
“As the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s upper atmosphere increases the infrared radiation emission by freezing of water droplets must increase for thermal radiation to remain in balance with absorbed solar radiation.. ”
How does increasing co2 in the upper atmosphere mean there must be an increase in IR production from water to balance absorbed solar?
That h20 transports enormous amounts of energy to the tropopause where it releases it to space via IR and none by convection (SH) and none by rain (LH) is without question. Any convection, evaporation and rain remain in the closed system transporting the same amount of energy up and down in global surface energy balances long term (decades) thereby having no effect on near equilibrium global near surface mean temperatures.
“How does increasing co2 in the upper atmosphere mean there must be an increase in IR production from water to balance absorbed solar?”
This means the effective emission level (at 255K or 240W/m^2) height in the atm. is increased with increasing well mixed CO2 (read next several sentences). This is basic 1st course meteorology.
Ball,
“That h20 transports enormous amounts of energy to the tropopause where it releases it to space via IR and none by convection (SH) and none by rain (LH) is without question”
If you increase the rate of convection and evaporation, you accelerate the transport of energy to the tropopause, thus increasing the rate at which energy is released (via IR).
But regardless, clearly h20 cools the planet. (I’ll come back to this)
” This is basic 1st course meteorology.”
Good then it should be easy for you to correct any misunderstanding I have.
As I understand it…
co2 absorbs some higher energy photon on its way to space, if you increase co2, more of these photons are intercepted. co2 recycles some of that energy and some (lesser) makes it to space.
you have thus lowered the output to space and temp must rise… in the mesophere?!
reasonable and logical, IF that was the only effect…
But increased co2 also means more collisions with warmer oxygen and nitrogen molecules increasing the output to space..
how do we know which is having a greater effect?
Observed reduced drag on satelites is evidence that the mesopause is contracting..
that means the mesosphere is cooling thus the increase in output is greater than the decrease from the recyled energy..
In any event, co2 does in the mesopause, what h20 does in the tropopause… it radiatevly cools the air to space thus cooling the planet..
it does so however by orders of magnitude less than h20
so then what does an increase in co2 do…
if it is greater at the expense of insulators like oxygen and nitrogen, it will cool more efficiently and temp will decrease,
if is greater at the expense of h20 it will cool MUCH more inefficiently and temp will increase dramatically!
Venus of course makes this evident, having been cooking off its water for probably 100’s of millions of years… there is very little left.
Now the burning of fossil fuels adds water and co2 (coolants) at the expense of o2 (insulator)..
Therefore the burning of fossil fuels increases the efficiency of cooling lowering temps..
Therefore AGW is FALSE and should be discarded.
I will leave you with another TESTABLE hypothesis that would be far more instructive than trying to figure out how co2 ‘warms’ the ocean (it doesnt).
In answer to the question: Why does co2 behave in a similar manner at the mesopause as h20 does at the tropopause?
I propose that it is because at that point the temp and pressure reach co2’s critical point and it sublimates..
If concentration were high enough, there would be c02 clouds such as those observed on Mars…
whoops! dont know why I but your name as poster sorry lol
“Therefore AGW is FALSE and should be discarded.”
No, basic meteorology explains AGW in a first college course based on well-known generally accepted first principles. Those who indicate otherwise simply haven’t passed a beginner’s course in college meteorology. You indicate you haven’t done so.
“If you increase the rate of convection and evaporation, you accelerate the transport of energy to the tropopause”
As I wrote before and you don’t seem to understand yet not having passed the basic studies:
If you increase the rate of convection and evaporation UP from surface, you also and equally accelerate the transport of convective energy down and rain down to the surface over annual periods studied totaling 4 or more. The equilibrium amounts are observed & I’ve already shown you. These closed system processes have no meaningful effect on global near surface temperature median in those periods studied.
The earth/atm. thermodynamic system is NOT closed to radiation which is why learning about atm. radiation itself is a full college course. Probably the 2nd one as it presumes having passed a lot of pre-req.s in atm. thermodynamics.
Venus huge surface pressure relative to earth renders the near surface Venusian atm. fully opaque in the IR, earth relatively lower surface pressure is not fully opaque, allows a window in the IR for terrestrial LW radiation to escape direct to space.
In a 1938 paper, a meteorologist expressed AGW succinctly:
“if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation [i.e increases atm. opacity through pressure and/or added absorbers], without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Ball,
“No, basic meteorology explains AGW in a first college course based on well-known generally accepted first principles.”
A generally accepted first principle that is based on a false assumption is bound to be wrong… and so I repeat:
” I am saying…
that, despite short term fluctuations in input and/or output, the Earth is cooling.
That Entropy dictates the Earth MUST CONTINUE cooling until it approaches it’s calculated BB temp with its solar input. Let’s call this it’s ‘ground state’
That current climate ‘energy budget’ models take this cold ground state Earth and try to figure how to ‘heat’ it with an atmosphere (and it’s effects).
(Fantasyland)
That instead they should be looking at the actual warm Earth and try to figure how it is cooling toward it’s ground state.
(Reality!)
That this FUNDAMENTAL FLAW in climate science models dooms them to fail, and to continue to fail, despite how many ‘epicycles’ are added to try and tweak the model.
In short: ENTROPY RULES “
p.s.
“Venus huge surface pressure relative to earth renders the near surface Venusian atm. fully opaque in the IR,”
And how long will that last when the water is gone and co2 starts getting cooked off…?
of course that will also increase insolation which will further accelerate the loss of atmosphere..
hello Mars…
“A generally accepted first principle that is based on a false assumption is bound to be wrong”
There are none of those, that’s why they call the existing ones principles.
“despite short term fluctuations in input and/or output, the Earth is cooling.”
Actually, in the CERES/Argo record starting about 2000, the entire system has been observed warming a bit through 2016 latest summary.
“That Entropy dictates the Earth MUST CONTINUE cooling until it approaches it’s calculated BB temp with its solar input. Let’s call this it’s ‘ground state'”
This make no sense, perhaps you are trying to discuss a state of equilibrium.
“That current climate ‘energy budget’ models take this cold ground state Earth and try to figure how to ‘heat’ it with an atmosphere (and it’s effects).”
No, that is YOUR fantasy.
“In short: ENTROPY RULES”
You got that right.
“And how long will that last when the water is gone and co2 starts getting cooked off..?”
A few billion years until Venus gets swallowed by the expanding sun atm. or humans terraform Venus into a cozy second home.
Ball,
“There are none of those, thats why they call the existing ones principles”
If any contradict the fundamental principal that heat always naturally flows from hot to cold then they need to be reexamined.
Thus trying to ‘heat’ the surface by adding atmosphere is clearly wrong-headed. It is the surface that heats the atmosphere and not the reverse.
Now your quote from the 1938 paper includes this:
“without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply”
and of course, adding h20 and co2 DOES interfere with the distribution of the heat supply. That is the crux of the disagreement we are having..
You continue to point to the energy being recycled as if that applies, but recycling energy changes the total internal energy of the system by exactly 0 joules..
It is the RATE of that cycle that i have been referring to.. if you increase the rate of convection and evaporation you increase the rate that energy is transported to the tropopause and thus increase the output from the tropopause to the upper atmosphere and space.
This of course happens continuously as the Earth turns, and the sun increases its input to some location, the temp rises and the rate at which the surface cools increases… as that location turns away from the sun the temp drops and the rate at which the surface cools decreases…
Further, in as much as recycled energy maintains the temp of the surface it also to that extent maintains the rate at which the surface cools through the atmospheric window..
“Actually, in the CERES/Argo record starting about 2000, the entire system has been observed warming a bit through 2016 latest summary.”
16 years is a very short time period indeed.
Due to variable solar output and activity and physical and chemical changes brought about by variable temps, the Earth goes through cycles of warmer and colder periods..
But , just as a bouncing ball reaches progressively lower altitude as it loses energy, so the Earth reaches progressively lower peaks in temp as it oscillates over time…
this will continue to be so until such time as it starts to lose its water
“And how long will that last when the water is gone and co2 starts getting cooked off..?
A few billion years until Venus gets swallowed by the expanding sun atm. or humans terraform Venus into a cozy second home.”
That depends entirely on how much water Venus has left. When it runs out of water to cool it, the rest of Venus’ atmosphere will cook off quite rapidly until temp and pressure at the TOA reach the point that co2 sublimates.
That critical point may not even be reached on Venus due to its proximity to the sun, and if not then it will cook off its entire atmosphere rapidly until there is none left, like Mercury….
“If any contradict the fundamental principal that heat always naturally flows from hot to cold then they need to be reexamined.”
Heat doesn’t exist in nature so heat cannot flow anywhere. Energy can and does spontaneously flow cold to hot and hot to cold because both hot and cold are measured by temperature which is an average and whenever there are averages there are fluctuations about those averages.
“Thus trying to ‘heat’ the surface by adding atmosphere is clearly wrong-headed. It is the surface that heats the atmosphere and not the reverse.”
That’s known to be incorrect PhilJ, it is right headed as Dr. Spencer has run several experiments trying and showing to ‘heat’ the surface by adding atmosphere is perfectly sound physics.
Adding h20 and co2 DOES NOT interfere with the distribution of the heat supply as the sun’s supply of energy is so nearly constant.
If you increase the rate of convection and evaporation up you increase the rate that energy is transported to the tropopause and thus increase the output from the tropopause to the upper atmosphere and space while you also increase the rate of down convection and rain which increases the rate that energy is transported down from the tropopause and thus decrease the output from the tropopause to the upper atmosphere and space in exactly the same amount as measured over 4 or more annual periods. These are measurements not theory or models.
16 years is a very short time period indeed but it is all we have in the CERES/Argo period.
“That depends entirely on how much water Venus has left. When it runs out of water to cool it”
No, no Venusian water gets to space as the H2O molecules at Venus top of atmosphere do not reach anywhwere near escape velocity, they are too heavy. The lighter molecules like H2 can and do reach escape velocity. Venus cools by radiation only.
Ball,
“Heat doesn’t exist in nature so heat cannot flow anywhere.”
LOL thats getting added to my list of knee slappers… which I’ll post on next months temp anomoly update
“That’s known to be incorrect PhilJ, it is right headed as Dr. Spencer has run several experiments trying and showing to ‘heat’ the surface by adding atmosphere is perfectly sound physics.”
LOL… fantasy
‘
“If you increase the rate of convection and evaporation up you increase the rate that energy is transported to the tropopause and thus increase the output from the tropopause to the upper atmosphere and space”
Shoulda stopped there…
“while you also increase the rate of down convection and rain which increases the rate that energy is transported down from the tropopause and thus decrease the output from the tropopause to the upper atmosphere and space in exactly the same amount as measured over 4 or more annual periods. These are measurements not theory or models.”
Hogwash, the amount of recycled energy may remain constant but the output from the the tropopause upward increases with an increase in the rate of evaporation and convection as you stated above…
“No, no Venusian water gets to space as the H2O molecules at Venus top of atmosphere do not reach anywhwere near escape velocity, they are too heavy. The lighter molecules like H2 can and do reach escape velocity. Venus cools by radiation only.”
Look up Venus’ magnetotail… you will find H and O being cooked off at a 2 -1 ratio… ie water….
philJ…I fear that certain descriptions of matter and energy supplied at your link are somewhat naive, if not plain wrong. Their description of molecular energy as opposed to electron energy are misguided. Molecular energy is largely electron energy, the two cannot be separated.
If molecules collide, it has to be the electrons in the valence bands of the constituents atoms that collide and exchange kinetic energy. I doubt that the positive nucleii themselves collide, since protons in the nucleii repel each other strongly at distances closer than about 6 atomic diameters.
The notion that only WV and CO2 can radiate to space is wrong. The satellites measuring such radiation are only looking for radiation in a very narrow band of the EM spectrum therefore they miss much of the energy being radiated. Any atom will emit energy given a cold enough environment.
I am not so sure that thermal equilibrium is that important between the surface and space. With a pure radiation model, that would be true. Radiation in has to equal radiation out.
If the Sun was shining 24/7, things would be much different than the present condition, where the Sun shines 12 hours a day or less on average, depending on location and season. There is another explanation for thermal balance which involves atmospheric expansion. I’d like to see it disproved.
When the Sun shines during the day, the surface warms. Since 99% of the atmosphere is N2 and O2, much of the surface heating is absorbed directly via conduction by those gases and transported into the atmosphere vertically. That should result in the atmosphere expanding slightly. Furthermore, the 99% of N2/O2 would release the heat slowly since gases are not good transmitters of energy.
Where does that heat go? If it’s not radiated by N2/O2 in the terrestrial spectrum of the EM band, where does it go? I think the theory that it is all absorbed by WV and CO2, then radiated, is awfully naive.
There is only one decent explanation, the Ideal Gas Law. Charles Law, part of the IGL, states that V1/T1 = V2/T2. That means volume changes with the inverse of temperature.
Lets call T1 the average temperature of the atmosphere just as the Sun rises. During the day, till sunset, T1 rises to T2 and V1 to V2. When the Sun sets, T2 will begin to drop automatically as V2 returns to V1, due to the effect of gravity. A heated atmosphere expands against gravity and as it cools, gravity sucks it back in.
That means the atmosphere can warm and cool without having to radiate to space. It warms and cools due to the natural properties of gas molecules when heated and cooled
We could likely prove that using an experiment with a form of high pressure double-boiler. I’m thinking of the type where a vessel as a lower chamber where water is boiled, with a lid with clamps and a vent on it. As the water is heated, the steam pressure increases, and is equalized by the steam venting out the vent.
What if we build one with walls that could withstand any steam pressure? Then we fitted an equally robust piston in place of the lid, that could give way to steam pressure to a degree but which would not be blown out the end of the vessel? Then we insulated the device so heat could not be transferred into or out of the vessel except at the bottom where it is heated by an electric heater.
We heat the vessel after adding water till it converts to steam, as indicated by a thermometer of some kind, then we remove the vessel from the heat and place it on an insulated plate that suppresses heat transfer.
We just let the vessel sit there with the natural weight of the piston pressing down on the water vapour at V2. With the heat input removed at the base, there is nothing to sustain the activity of the molecules and the volume should gradually recede to the volume at which volume and temperature are in equilibrium with the pressure created by the piston.
The temperature drops naturally due to a lowering of volume and pressure.
You can replicate that using Earth’s gravity in place of the piston and the Sun’s input in place of the electric heater.
We should be able to increase atmospheric and surface temperature during the day and have them automatically equalized during the night naturally, to some degree, due to atmospheric expansion/contraction.
Of course, radiation to space would be a factor, but how much of a factor?
We need to get of this myopic examination of the atmosphere with respect to radiation and consider all factors.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The notion that only WV and CO2 can radiate to space is wrong. The satellites measuring such radiation are only looking for radiation in a very narrow band of the EM spectrum therefore they miss much of the energy being radiated. Any atom will emit energy given a cold enough environment.”
Why do you have to make up nonsense like this? The satellites measure the entire spectrum of IR. Where do you come up with this from and why do you feel you need to post this nonsense and act like it is true and correct?? Why?
norman…”Why do you have to make up nonsense like this? The satellites measure the entire spectrum of IR. Where do you come up with this from and why do you feel you need to post this nonsense and act like it is true and correct?? Why?”
Do you have any idea how wide is the bandwidth of EM and what kind of a receiver would be required to measure it?
I might ask you where you get your fiction?
Gordon Roberston
You ask a question that does not apply. The Earth is not emitting energy in the entire EM bandwidth. It emits only significantly in the IR bandwidth and an IR spectrometer (which are on the satellites) is quite sufficient to capture all this emitted energy.
You might have a fire or lava emit a bit of visible light (nothing compared to the trillions of watts emitted by the Earth surface and atmosphere). The emitted radio waves are mostly human origin and the total energy is very tiny.
Not sure what you are trying to point out, it is not very good. You are a crackpot and continue to make up unsupported claims. You keep doing this after you are shown to be wrong.
You are still totally wrong about molecules and can’t understand molecular vibration if it came and kicked you in the face.
You really studied no college level physics or chemistry. I think that is also part of your made up information. You make up all types of things. More likely you went to a community college and studied how to fix some electronic equipment. You have just enough to be dangerous. The rest you just make up and will continue to do so.
norman…”You are still totally wrong about molecules and can’t understand molecular vibration if it came and kicked you in the face”.
As stated by someone else re David Appell, have you any idea how you must sound to a scientifically literate person?
You have not replied to my description of molecules as an aggregation of atoms, which are an aggregation of atomic nucleii and their associated electrons. All you have to offer are ad homs because you fail to understand basic atomic theory. And I am talking about the most basic.
You have not explained where EM is emitted or absorbed in said molecules, if not by electrons. In other words, you are waving your arms in the air and spitting ad homs, rather than explaining what you are raving about.
Gordon Robertson
YOU are NOT a scientific literate person. I may sound wrong to you based upon your own delusional made up ideas. Mine are based on real science yours are based upon your own ideas. Big difference. You are very far from understanding valid science.
You are wrong in this post. “You have not explained where EM is emitted or absorbed in said molecules, if not by electrons. In other words, you are waving your arms in the air and spitting ad homs, rather than explaining what you are raving about.”
I have explained many times and I have given you several links explaining it also videos hoping you might attempt understanding. My flaw is not in the science. It is hoping you have a mind that can think.
You are unwilling to learn that is what is most obvious about you. Also you won’t accept experimental evidence of any kind that does not agree with your made up reality. I linked you to an excellent experiment proving time dilation, you rejected it.
norman…”Mine are based on real science yours are based upon your own ideas”.
You are certifiably delusional.
Never mind the rhetoric, explain what a molecule is based on atomic theory. You are making the basic mistakes of an amateur, presuming you understand something when in fact you have no idea what it is you have read.
Here I Googled this at random for you.
http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/basicchemistry.htm
******
“In chemistry we are particularly interested in electrons. As you will see later, this is because chemical reactions involve the rearrangement of electrons. Nuclei of atoms (protons and neutrons) usually remain unchanged (except in radioactive decay).
**********
“Molecules
Clusters of atoms held together by covalent bonds are called molecules. Compounds that exist as molecules are often called molecular compounds…..
But a molecular formula does not show what bonds are present in a molecule. This is done using a structural formula. A simple example to illustrate the idea:
Carbon dioxide is a molecular compound with:
Molecular formula CO2
which shows that one molecule consists of one carbon and two oxygen atoms
Structural formula O=C=O
which shows that four electrons are shared between the carbon atom and each of the oxygen atoms (in other words, two double covalent bonds)…”
*********
“Atoms
Atoms are the building blocks of all matter. They consist of three sub-atomic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are found in the nucleus of an atom. Electrons are found in energy levels around the nucleus as shown in the diagram representing a carbon atom with 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.
Gordon Robertson
I do not know how posting basic chemistry means you know anything about the subject.
Molecules are atoms that are linked by bonds. Covalent bonds are shared outer electrons, ionic bonds are atoms held together by electrostatic forces. The electrons have been exchanged. One atom gains an electron the other loses one and the charge holds the atoms in a molecular formation.
That does not help you in the slightest understand what a molecular vibration is. You are hopelessly stupid, I can’t help you. If you continue to post your stupid made up ideas I will continue to strongly ridicule and reject your stupid unsupported ideas. I want a good skeptic approach, not you stupid made up garbage. You are not a help to the Skeptic movement. You aid the “alarmists” by being a crackpot. You make the skeptic movement look like a bunch of loons can’t reason out of a wet paper sack. I go to the Principia Scientific International blog where they have a collection of unscientific loons posting and commenting. Really bad for a valid skeptic movement.
norman…”That does not help you in the slightest understand what a molecular vibration is….. ”
You ignorance knows no bounds.
The article explains that atoms are bonded by electrons, normally, as you state, with covalent bonds or ionic bonds. In either case, in solids, those bonds are the electrons in their orbitals.
Note the article claims the focus of chemistry is the electrons because they move while the nucleii remain relatively in position.
Molecules don’t vibrate, it’s the atoms making up the molecules that vibrate. The vibration comes from the bonds, in which the +vely charged nucleii try to repel each other while the -vely charged electrons, attracted to the nucleii, hold the atoms together. The electrons don’t crash into the nucleii due to their angular momentum and their confinement to quantum energy levels.
Some people like DA, think quantum means something special. All it’s saying is that the energy levels are discrete and defined. There is nothing magical going on re quantum anything, even though some wannabees think there is.
Any reference to quantum whatever in an atom or molecule is a reference to the discrete states in which electrons can reside.
The bond is like a spring-mass system. Due to the repulsion of the nucleii and the attraction of the electrons, the bond stretches and contracts, producing vibration.
The frequency of the vibration increases with temperature when the electrons absorb more energy, either as EM radiation or direct absorp-tion of heat via their the valence electrons.
“Any reference to quantum whatever in an atom or molecule is a reference to the discrete states in which electrons can reside.”
Not any, as there are also measured molecular vibrational and rotational base, excited quantum levels in a gas. Molecular translation is continuous with no quantum jumps which spreads out the observed spectrum.
“the bond stretches and contracts, producing vibration.”
Yes, and those various modes of bond related vibrations are observed to have base, excited quantum levels.
Gordon says:
“you are waving your arms in the air”
Like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Scissoring.gif
Svante
That was a clever response to Gordon. Unfortunately he is not able to understand what you are showing him. Clear to most but it must be invisible to him.
Two peas in a pod, Norman and Svante. Unfortunately they have the intelligence equivalent to peas.
Or maybe beans.
Gordon Robertson
As I already stated. Most people can understand the Svante graphic, You cannot. Your physics is most terrible and you are too far gone in make believe that you can never learn the truth, nor do you want to. I think you like being the blog clown, making up stupid ideas. You probably did the same thing in grade school.
Actually we both are considerably smarter, and more logical than you can ever hope to be. You don’t understand the Inverse Square Law or how heat transfer works. Your intelligence is none existent.
If a goofball crackpot compares my intelligence to a pea I wonder how low yours would go?
svante…”Most people can understand the Svante graphic, You cannot”.
I haven’t looked at it. I figure if all svante can manage is smart-assed rebuttals, it’s not worth engaging him in anything that requires any degree of intellect.
Hey there I am so glad I found your website, I really found you by mistake,
while I was looking on Digg for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to
say cheers for a incredible post and a all round entertaining blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time
to look over it all at the minute but I have book-marked it
and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot
more, Please do keep up the great work.
It’s remarkable in favor of me to have a website,
which is useful in support of my knowledge. thanks admin
Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I find
It really useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and aid others like you aided
me.
I’ve read a few excellent stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting.
I surprise how so much attempt you place to make such a magnificent informative web site.
I am really thankful to the owner of this website who has shared this impressive paragraph at at this place.
https://www.totositeweb.com