Home/Blogor, All Credentialed Journalists are Sex Abusers
Meet the Depressed host Chuck Todd, sans brain.
Chuck Todd, on a recent episode of Meet the Press, highlighted the issue of global warming and climate change. He unapologetically made it clear that he wasn’t interested in hearing from people on the opposing side of the scientific issue, stating:
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”
This is what’s called a “strawman” argument, where you argue against something your opponent never even claimed.
I cannot think of a single credentialed, published skeptical climate scientist who doesn’t believe in the “existence” of climate change, or that “the Earth is getting hotter”, or even that human activity is likely a “major cause”. Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, and myself (to name a few) all believe these things. That journalists continue to characterize us as having extremist views shows just how far journalism has fallen as a (somewhat) respectable profession.
What if I claimed that all journalists are sex abusers? Of course, no reasonable person would believe that. Yet, I would wager that up to half of the U.S. population has been led to believe that climate change skeptics are “deniers” (as in, Holocaust deniers), about whom journalist Ellen Goodman said 12 years ago,
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”
At least my hypothetical claim that “journalists are sex abusers” is statistically more accurate than journalists’ claims that we skeptical scientists “deny” this, that, and the other thing (for those allegations, see Mark Halperin, Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley, Michael Oreskes, and others).
The fact is that even if humans are, say, 60% responsible for the warming of the global ocean and atmosphere over the last 60 years (which would be consistent with both the UN IPCC’s and Todd’s phrasing), the lastest analyses (Lewis & Curry, 2018) of what this would mean leads to an eventual warming of only 1 deg. C from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (we are currently about halfway to that doubling). That’s only 1/3 of what the IPCC claims is going to happen, and an even smaller fraction of what the ratings-boosting extremists who journalists like to trot out will claim.
A Nuance Chuck Todd is Ill-Prepared to Discuss
Journalists are notoriously under-informed on science issues. For example, let’s look at the claim that recent warming has been human-caused. It is easy to show that such attribution is more faith-based than science-based.
Between 2005 and 2017, the global network of thousands of Argo floats have measured an average temperature increase of the upper half of the ocean of 0.04 deg. C. That’s less than 0.004 C/year, an inconceiveably small number.
Significantly, it represents an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the climate system of only 1 part in 260. That’s less than 0.5%, and climate science does not know any of the NATURAL flows of energy to that level of accuracy. The tiny energy imbalance causing the warming is simply ASSUMED to be the fault of humans and not part of some natural cycle in the climate system. Climate models are adjusted in a rather ad hoc manner until their natural energy flows balance, then increasing CO2 from fossil fuels is used as the forcing (imposed energy imbalance) causing warming.
That’s circular reasoning. Or, some might say, garbage in, garbage out.
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
So, journalists do a lot of talking about things of which they know nothing. As Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz said in 1939,
As my father loved to say; “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up!”.
Here in New Zealand a news site called Stuff has this if you want to comment on any news story to do with climate change
Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy.
andrew…”Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity”.
Andrew…you’re an idiot. Science is not about consensus, never was, never will be.
Gordon,
I think you have misinterpreted Andrews intent on quoting of Stuff website policy on climate change. I too have been severely bothered about STUFFs stance on this subject. So much so that I am considering cancelling my subscription to the Daily News. I maintained this subscription purely and simply because I wanted to keep journalists employed on the basis that editorial standards are important in this new information age. The current STUFF stance on this subject has severely dented my defense of editorial standards, which in this case, shows an extremely backward step.
“Science is not about consensus, never was, never will be” except for all the times that it is.
Gordon, in your work, how did you know what an ohm is? A volt? An amp?
How do any of us do our work without knowing what a gram is? G? h? e? A mole? The periodic table? The isotopes of Carbon?
Without consensus on these things and many others, science would be much more difficult.
Come on Nate, don’t play dumb. Weights and measures are arbitrary. The consensus is about creating a common language that science and commerce can use. Consensus doesn’t apply when employing scientific method. The definition of an ohm, a volt or an amp has no bearing on E=IxR. That’s why they call it Ohm’s LAW and not Ohm’s consensus.
‘ G? h? e? A mole? The periodic table? The isotopes of Carbon?’
Don’t be dumb, Don.
None of these things are arbitrary. All measured or observed. In textbooks.
‘Consensus doesn’t apply when employing scientific method.’
Not sure what this means.
General agreement, ie consensus, that these measured numbers and properties can be used, without remeasuring them.
By consensus, we agree that NIST values for these are valid.
Same with well-tested laws and equations that are in textbooks. Nobody need retest them to use them, no one need provide proof that they work.
Again by consensus, we accept them, use them, and build on them.
I should like to make comments of the so-called CO2 records. The various methods of estimating historic CO2 are seriously flawed and cannot be used as proof of anything. Why would you think that CO2 is being absorbed and moving about freely in liquid water and yet not in ice? Wouldn’t it cause any thinking scientist pause to see all of the ice core data to show the levels of the time the cores were taken to express anything? As for plant stomata that is even more questionable. The most “reliable” fossils come from areas where there was heavy forest or even rain forest and the stomata would be expressing CO2 levels only at leaf level and not in the atmosphere as a whole. These leaves would be heavily competing for CO2 and could be expected to be interpreted as showing lower levels of CO2 than actual. Both of these manners could hardly be expected to have much validity and I can see no reasonably accurate method of estimating historic levels of CO2. So comments such as “the highest levels in a million years” have no place in any scholarly paper. I am growing more and more disillusioned by a peer review system that seems to reward approvals and punish real criticism.
Tom Kunich says:
“Why would you think that CO2 is being absorbed and moving about freely in liquid water and yet not in ice?”
Because it is not 410 ppm all the way down?
Because ice is a solid?
As they say all scams come to an end. This is one of the biggest but days of AGW theory being viable are numbered.
Another year or two.
This is where DA comes in to blast Salvador on his previous predictions, and thus throw us off Roy’s topic. Lol.
Salvador, you’ve been wrong so far but I admire how you stick to your convictions. Don’t give up if there is a chance that you will be right.
And DA – just keep posting negative stuff. Contrarians are useful too.
Mike. we are all right, until proven wrong
Good points, however, it would be nice if both would stop polluting this blog. Salvatore by incessantly posting his unsubstantiable claims and DA by challenging too many commenters whether their claims are substantiable or not.
Salvatore,
Briefly, my stance on AGW is this. We humans have perturbed the climate by industrialisation / urbanisation but CO2 emissions havent! Not one iota based on both thermodynamics of atmsophere and OLR effects altered by CO2. Kevin Trenberth, an AGW advocate if ever there was one, has published a paper in 2015 entitled “Climate Variability and Relationships between TOA radiation and Temperature on Earth”. Despite the usual introduction proclaiming CO2 forcings, amongst others, the paper produces (Fig 5) a remarkable graph of 35 years of atmospheric water vapour, Tropospheric and 2m atmospheric temperatures, SST and ElNino SST anamolies. The line up / correlation of these varaibles is remarkable (considering Trenberths 40 year publishing history). I have scanned this data and overlaid Muana Loa CO2 values over the top of this. If the climate science community, who love correlating CO2 vs SSTs of all the different SST/satellite data persuasions, as proof of CO2 influence, saw my graph of ML CO2 overlaid over Trenberths Fig 5, I know what their response would be. They wouldnt agree with you (and me) by explaining that this overlay showing zero CO2 correlation with the above factors cannot be determined on a 36 year time basis.
When the facts dont fit the narrative, then ignore them or failing that, then discredit or demonize the messengers. This is the level of journalism today. Todd is only doing what he believes is his job.
“The fact is that even if humans are, say, 60% responsible for the warming of the global ocean and atmosphere over the last 60 years . . .”
What is the reason for picking 60% rather than “similar to the observed warming” (i.e. about 100%) as per the actual attribution statement in this context?
It’s to point out that I can assume something quantitatively consistent with either the IPCC’s main conclusion, or Chuck Todd’s main conclusion, and get a result that is unremarkable. There is way too much hand-waving going on (humans are causing warming, so we are all doomed), and it’s time for warmmongers like Chuck Todd to start explaining, precisely, what is “settled science”.
Unfortunately you can’t pick from a range.
60% is not consistent with 100% +/- 50%
I’m not sure what you mean. You can’t have more than 100% of the warming due to humans.
What if we were in a natural cooling period, say 0.1 C per decade?
But what if we were warming at 0.15 C per decade due to combined natural and anthropomorphic causes.
“You cant have more than 100% of the warming due to humans.”
The net warming is the “anthropogenic contribution” plus the “natural contribution”. If the “natural contribution” is negative then the “human contribution” would be larger than the net value, hence more than 100% of the net.
Per the IPCC report the central estimate of “natural contribution” over the past 50 year is slightly negative essentially based on the trend of total solar irradiance over that period and the absence of another plausible source of heat transfer to the atmosphere and upper ocean.
Thus the central estimate of anthropogenic warming since 1950 is “slightly more than all of it”. This is why your apparently arbitrary selection of 60% anthropogenic contribution seems an odd tact in the context of claiming not to promote an outlier viewpoint.
The TSI from the sun is mostly irrelevant, because what matters is the ASR, or what amount of solar is actually absorbed. This goes to Dr. Spencer’s point “climate science does not know any of the NATURAL flows of energy to that level of accuracy.”
“The TSI from the sun is mostly irrelevant, because what matters is the ASR”
Absorbed solar radiation is a function of TSI:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7c0z1cgbfquw51/AGU%20Fig11.JPG?dl=0
The cross-correlation R values shown would be much higher if solar activity were perfectly periodic, which it isn’t.
I hope you’re able to understand why what you said is wrong.
Bob, I honestly don’t have a clue what I’m looking at in your link. Is it what you wanted to link to? I don’t see ASR anywhere correlated to TSI?
Are you able to understand why I don’t understand why you think what I said is wrong?
Chic, the subplots are cross-correlations of climate data record TSI since 1979 with each of labelled ocean related indices over a twelve year window, depicting the solar cycle influence on ENSO activity among other things.
The entire climate system is driven by the tropical pacemaker that is itself driven by an irregularly driven solar cycle pattern, as shown in these subplots within the graphic.
The area under the Tropics, MEI, Nino34, Eq OHC curves represent the energy from insolation via TSI absorbed by the tropical ocean, which then spreads out into the larger ocean. The Eq OLR curve represents the absorbed solar radiation build-up and dissipation from the tropical ocean.
The C. Pacific Winds curve indicates the air responding to the ocean’s absorbed solar radiation.
The ocean higher latitude energy inputs are from the tropics and progressively less solar insolation with latitude and subsequently less direct sub-surface absorbed solar radiation than the tropics receives.
Not just hand waving but adjustments.
Bob Weber,
“The Eq OLR curve represents the absorbed solar radiation build-up and dissipation from the tropical ocean.”
Eq. OHC or CP OLR?
If neither is highly correlated to TSI, then how is TSI rather than ASR the metric that counts? You seem to be underscoring my point.
I’m interested in my net earnings, not my gross.
I think the more important statement/question is: “What (exactly) is the settled science?”. Is there a formula that has been tested and validated? The so-called “settled science of man-caused climate change” seems awfully vague and unspecific and unverifiable and subject to all kinds of interpretations. Not clear and coherent.
Hello Dr Spencer. I have a couple of questions I’d like to ask your opinion on.
1. Greenhouse gas warming should warm the mid/upper troposphere at a faster rate than at the surface, but this is not the case (the opposite in fact). Does this show that the warming over the 40 years of satellite record is not caused by greenhouse gasses, but some other mechanism?
2. Does this missing negative lapserate feedback, plus the fact that there has been a decrease, not an increase in mid tropospheric water vapour prove that positive water vapour feedback is false?
Do you suppose that Chuck Todd will actually read this? If he does, I recommend that he read the books listed on your side-bar for more education. If he does all that, you should get an abject apology. But he will claim that he doesn’t have time to educate himself. But if he doesn’t educate himself, he should recuse himself from all comment on the subject.
Of course he won’t.
There’s another angle to this strawman situation: rummage among all the narratives about ‘settled science’ long enough and you’ll see a line something like “reporters have given skeptic climate scientists too much media coverage, and this is false equivalency.” Try to remember the last time you saw ANY mainstream media news outlet (I don’t include Fox News as a member of the MSM) give any sort of AGW skeptic uninterrupted time to extensively detail the skeptic science viewpoints. That situation bothered me back in 2010 regarding the PBS NewsHour, so from that point onward, I’ve kept an ongoing count of their ratio of pro-AGWers-to-skeptics. Please see: “NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally, Updated 12/19/18: 65 to 0” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=3834
Its the same line that the BBC are pursuing. I think it just shows that people are generally beginning to realize that the whole AGW hoax is just that. The writing’s on the wall
“We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”
Translation:
We’re not going to allow discussion of any facts that counter the notion that man is the main cause of global warming and thereby climate change. Because no one really understands how all the causes of climate change (at least not in a quantitative sense) interact, we in the media have concluded that the science is settled as best it can be, and the only aspect of global warming that we are qualified to discuss are the political aspects of it all.
Dr. Spencer, compare and contrast how Meet The Press handled this issue vs Scott Adams of Dilbert Fame. Scott set up a competitive situation where people have the opportunity to defend their side. I thought that was pure genius. If forces the Alarmists to actually defend their “science” beyond the consensus argument. I’ve always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant for the politicization of science that is Climate Change. It would be wonderful if you made a post requesting people to post their best argument from both sides so people can actually see the arguments side by side.
Let’s Get Ready to RRRRuuuummmmbbbbbleee!!!!! Climate Change Cage Match
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/12/31/lets-get-ready-to-rrrruuuummmmbbbbbleee-climate-change-cage-match/
BTW, if a science is settled there is only one model and it withstands all efforts to invalidate it. Objects fall at 9.8m/sec^2 no matter how often you test it. Settled science can have only 1 model. Show me 1 single IPCC model that 1) matches another and 2) accurately represents what it is claiming to model. They don’t exist. There are 90+ IPCC models and they all disagree and they all overestimate temperatures.
Lastly, has anyone every demonstrated that CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water? You can take a CO2 laser and shine it on ice and it won’t melt.
A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/a-nobel-prize-in-science-winning-climate-science-experiment/
Are you claiming that water does not emit IR in the 13-18 micron range? Because if it emits, it also absorbs, and is part of the heat budget of a water surface, just like evaporation (which only affects the skin, just like IR, while being the major mechanism by which water bodies lose heat to the atmosphere).
The CO2 laser IS melting the ice, right? It takes a long time for 1 W/m2 to do that because the latent heat of fusion of water is so large. You want it to melt in a matter of seconds, well, I can put an ice cube in hot water and it still takes a couple minutes to melt. It requires a LOT of energy. The CO2 laser proves nothing, because you have to run the numbers, i.e., how many actual Watts are going into how much ice, and how fast is the ice is warming up, including the necessary energy to change the ice from a solid to a liquid.
“Are you claiming that water does not emit IR in the 13-18 micron range? ”
Water will emit LWIR based upon its temperature. The temperature associated with 13 to 18 microns, the wavelengths that CO2 emits, are associated with -50 to -110 with a peak of -80 degree C. In other words, very cold Ice emits 13 to 18 microns.
“The CO2 laser IS melting the ice, right?”
That is my point, it doesn’t melt the ice other than the very surface. If you blow air on it as you use the laser it will cut the ice, but just shining the CO2 laser on the ice won’t melt it.
Your statement “The temperature associated with 13 to 18 microns, the wavelengths that CO2 emits, are associated with -50 to -110 with a peak of -80 degree C” suggests you need to learn more about infrared emissivity and radiative transfer. “-80 deg. C” sounds like you are talking about the brightness temperature of the atmosphere when looking down from space, a very different subject from what we are discussing. Ice has an IR emissivity of about 0.96 in this wavelength range, and so ice at 270 K -3 deg. C) will have an emitting temperature very close to that (-14 deg. C). But what really matters for this discussion is that a laser operating in this band focused on ice will have 96% of the energy absorbed, and 4% reflected. You didn’t run all the numbers necessary to compute how fast ice would melt, you are just making assumptions based upon your expectations. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/46/16297/F3.large.jpg
-Roy
CO2 Wont Melt Ice; 10,000 Volt CO2 Laser Vs. Ice Wafer
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/co2-wont-melt-ice-10000-volt-co2-laser-vs-ice-wafer/
Why don’t you make a video of this concept? Simply shine a CO2 laser into water and see if it will warm the water or melt ice to any degree other than the very surface.
Why don’t you do it?… you’re the one making the claim. Of course the energy is absorbed in a very surface layer, that’s obvious…almost no solid surfaces are transparent to IR radiation.
“The CO2 laser proves nothing, because you have to run the numbers,”
I did, and the pinpint laser has an enormous W/M^2
OK, well here’s a CO2 laser producing 30 Watts that instantly starts to boil water when it is turned on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m74ylCraCVE From the heat capacity of water I calculate that it should be able to boil 1 cc of water every few seconds. -Roy
Here is another video of a 7 W CO2 laser simply etching the surface of the ice. Remember, the 7 W is focused on about 1 mm^2.
https://youtu.be/gP7np4Lw5v0
A CO2 laser will burn your skin but won’t melt ice.
C’mon, Robert. It’s easy to find videos refuting your claim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Zdrg_SHJk -Roy
https://youtu.be/KJ-aTyPyF50
–CO2isLife says:
January 3, 2019 at 7:04 PM
“Are you claiming that water does not emit IR in the 13-18 micron range? ”
Water will emit LWIR based upon its temperature. The temperature associated with 13 to 18 microns, the wavelengths that CO2 emits, are associated with -50 to -110 with a peak of -80 degree C. In other words, very cold Ice emits 13 to 18 microns.–
Very cold water might peak at 13 to 18 microns, but warmer water will emit more light at 13 to 18 microns as compared the cooler water that emits most of it’s energy at 13 to 18 microns.
“Very cold water might peak at 13 to 18 microns, but warmer water will emit more light at 13 to 18 microns as compared the cooler water that emits most of its energy at 13 to 18 microns.”
I’m not communicating very well. The only LWIR relevant to CO2 is 15 micron. Warmer water will, in fact, have a peak LWIR below 15. A tungsten filament will have a spectrum around .4 to .7 microns. Yes, the hotter a body gets, the more the peak shifts to a shorter wavelength. Those wavelengths have nothing to do with CO2. I’m simply trying to design an experiment where we can isolate the impact of 15-micron LWIR on water.
“Can anyone demonstrate..”
Yes, CO2, and have already done so for you several times.
Each time, you ignore the demonstrations, and all other facts that show you are wrong about this.
I’ve never seen convincing evidence that 13 to 18 micron LWIR can warm water. It will cause surface evaporation that actually will cool the water below. 13 to 18 micron LWIR has a black body temperature of -50 to -110 degree C, with a peak of -80 degree C. Very cold ice will emit 13 to 18 micron LWIR, so I fail to see how it could melt it.
Here is a CO2 laser focusing 7 watts on about a 1 mm pinpoint (enormous W/M^2). It simply doesn’t do anything to the ice but cause surface evaporation. It certainly doesn’t shoot right through it like it does other materials.
https://youtu.be/gP7np4Lw5v0
Where is your video of LWIR between 13 and 18 micron warming water?
Compare the mass of the ice to the mass of the other materials and you may learn.
And the heat capacity and the heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion when considering ice vs other materials
That is my point. I’m not the one claiming that atmospheric CO2 and its 1.6W/m^2 of LWIR between 13 and 18 micron back radiation can warm the oceans. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate water. Test it for yourself.
That’s right, those wavelengths don’t penetrate, they get absorbed right at the surface. Thus heating the surface.
Not penetrating is not a refutation of the heat transfer by the wavelengths in question.
Ye gods.
CO2isLife says:
January 3, 2019 at 7:17 PM
I’ve never seen convincing evidence that 13 to 18 micron LWIR can warm water. It will cause surface evaporation that actually will cool the water below. 13 to 18 micron LWIR has a black body temperature of -50 to -110 degree C, with a peak of -80 degree C. Very cold ice will emit 13 to 18 micron LWIR, so I fail to see how it could melt it.-
————=======
If the black body temperature of the CO2 laser is -80°C peak how on earth does it cut through wood paper plastic skin etc?????????????????
Its all a question of how quickly energy is added to the cut. A 100 watt laser emits 15u light equivalent to -80°C but each quantum of thet light adds to the energy in the material The 100watts focussed to 0.1mm dia is adding massive quanities of energy to the material in a small area and the material gets very hot >1000°C
I have fired a focussed beam of energy at still water. Thermal currents stir the hot layer into the bulk below and the water warms (the surface effectively explodes in micro steam vaporation explosions).
The surface of the sea is not stationary – mixing occurs. Surface layers will warm lower layers by mixing and conduction.
CO2,
1.As I explained, and you ignored, the emmissivity of liquid water is near that of a black body in that range of wavelength.
2. There is no sig difference in properties between 13-18microns and 8-13 microns, which is used to detect SST by satellite.
3. Heat deposited on the ‘skin’ quickly diffuses into the water mm within seconds, cm within minutes.
4.Try this yourself with an LWIR heat source held above a cup of water.ce
Bobdruggy and Hate can’t even get their pseudoscience correct. This is a description of the mechanism by which you are supposed to be arguing that “back-radiation” warms water:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Never published in any journal, of course.
But you call it back-radiation.
Hint: that’s not a very good description of what’s going on.
No, I called it “back-radiation”.
Hint: that’s from your side of the argument, so if you have a better description of what’s going on, you best let Minnett know.
Well, yes I do have a better description of what is going on.
You have an atmosphere which contains CO2 and other gases, the CO2 which emits radiation in the infrared base solely on the temperature of the gas and the concentration of CO2 in that gas. Some of that radiation is absorbed by the surface and adds energy to the surface.
This is important because there are other things that warm the atmosphere other than the upward flux of infrared from the surface.
So your sole problem is that I used the term “back-radiation” and not something like “DWIR”. OK. I will take it that this is just a technique to distract from the fact that you didn’t even get your own pseudoscience correct by describing the mechanism by which you people think “DWIR” warms water, or rather “makes the water warmer than it would otherwise be”.
So what’s the difference between warms the water and makes the water warmer than it would otherwise be?
Anyway the RC article you posted confirms what I said in that the skin layer is cooler that the water below due to evaporation, and the IR warms this layer which impeded the heat transfer from below, hence warming the water.
So I was correct, and you haven’t been able to point to anything I said that was wrong.
Anyway, the combination of solar IR and downwelling IR from greenhouse gases provide more warming to the oceans than the shortwave from the Sun.
“So what’s the difference between warms the water and makes the water warmer than it would otherwise be?”
Quite.
“Anyway the RC article you posted confirms what I said in that the skin layer is cooler that the water below due to evaporation, and the IR warms this layer which impeded the heat transfer from below, hence warming the water.”
You didn’t say anything remotely like that, which is why I posted the article. You didn’t even seem to be aware of what you were supposed to be arguing. Obviously there are numerous arguments which have already been made against the mechanism described in the article. Some in the comments there, others made in other articles. Plus, as I said, Minnett’s mechanism isn’t published in any journal.
“Anyway, the combination of solar IR and downwelling IR from greenhouse gases provide more warming to the oceans than the shortwave from the Sun.”
Citation needed.
Yeah, I said IR doesn’t penetrate, warms right at the surface.
Yeah, there are arguments against the mechanism in the RC article, but I don’t see them supported by any facts or data.
But, and this is key, there aren’t any arguments stating that IR can’t warm water from any reliable source.
And I wasn’t going into complete depth, actually just the surface, and you still haven’t refuted my arguments.
Not even making a good try.
Do your own research on how much short wave and long wave radiation there is at the surface of the ocean, I am not here to do your homework. It is easily googled. You have insulted me too many times for me to do that for you.
Oh Bobdruggy, you ARE funny. I don’t need to refute your arguments, because you haven’t made any. In fact, I’m having to make them for you. And I don’t need to do any research on whether SW or LW radiation provide more warming to the ocean, it’s kind of obvious when SW radiation from the sun can penetrate the oceans up to 100 meters in depth, and LW can hardly break the surface.
Drempt,
You can continue to be ignorant then, or refute the following if you can.
Long wave radiation from CO2 heats the oceans
Long wave radiation from the sun and the atmosphere heats the ocean more than the short wave radiation from the sun even though the shortwave radiation is more penetrating.
You can light a candle or curse the darkness, your choice.
Bobdruggy.
You can continue to be ignorant then, or refute the following if you can.
Short wave radiation from the sun heats the oceans
Long wave radiation from the sun and the atmosphere heats the ocean less than the short wave radiation from the sun, as the shortwave radiation is more penetrating.
You can light a candle or curse the darkness, your choice.
Here you go
Most of the solar spectrum, ie over 50% is infrared.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+solar+is+infrared&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS762US781&oq=what+percentage+of+solar+is+infrared&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.14090j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
…and the SW can penetrate the oceans to depths of up to 100m, whereas the LW can hardly break the surface…
So what happens to the energy that barely breaks the surface?
Are you now a First Law of Thermodynamics refuter?
Penetration however slight is sufficient to complete the offense.
But you will not admit you were wrong about the amount of solar that is infrared?
OK by me.
“But you will not admit you were wrong about the amount of solar that is infrared?”
When did I make a statement about the amount of solar that is infrared?
“So what happens to the energy that barely breaks the surface?”
So what happens to the energy that penetrates the surface to a depth of up to 100 meters?
When you said “citation needed”
I took that as meaning you believed otherwise.
So can we agree that all the incident radiation heats the ocean?
“So what happens to the energy that penetrates the surface to a depth of up to 100 meters?”
It heats the ocean, or were you confused about what happens?
I said “citation needed” about this:
“Anyway, the combination of solar IR and downwelling IR from greenhouse gases provide more warming to the oceans than the shortwave from the Sun”
How do you get from that to any statement from me about how much solar is infrared? You can’t. You are just desperate.
“It heats the ocean”
Yes, indeed. Up to 100 meters of it, directly, as opposed to just the surface.
Can I take this quote
“This is a description of the mechanism by which you are supposed to be arguing that “back-radiation” warms water:”
and infer that you are arguing that infrared can not heat water
otherwise we have nothing to argue about because you agree that the greenhouse effect warms the oceans.
Did you not say this?
“Long wave radiation from the sun and the atmosphere heats the ocean less than the short wave radiation from the sun, as the shortwave radiation is more penetrating.”
You said long wave less than short wave, the cite I gave you says otherwise.
“You said long wave less than short wave, the cite I gave you says otherwise.”
It’s quite simple, bobdruggy. I said LW HEATS the oceans less than SW, as the SW penetrates to greater depth. I did not say anything about the amount of solar that was SW or LW.
bobdroege,
“Anyway, the combination of solar IR and downwelling IR from greenhouse gases provide more warming to the oceans than the shortwave from the Sun.”
This is very misleading. Almost all DWIR to the ocean originated from absorbed solar radiation or was recycled from ocean UWIR and evaporation. DWIR increases (warms) surface temperatures only when the atmosphere above is warmer than the surface below, if that even ever occurs.
Humans do not contribute to solar IR and DWIR isn’t created by burning fossil fuels. So you need to be able to discriminate between the relative contributions of solar IR and recycled DWIR, if your intent is to imply that humans are contributing to global warming.
Also “adds” as in “adds to” is “different from “reduces the loss” which is why you are wrong by insinuating no difference between “warms the water and makes the water warmer than it would otherwise be.”
DWIR only reduces the loss of surface temperatures and seldom (never?) directly increases surface temperatures as solar SW does.
“and infer that you are arguing that infrared can not heat water“
I wouldn’t argue that as a lot of the IR from the sun is near IR, which can penetrate the water up to about 1 meter. Not too shabby. Unlike that silly 13-18 micron IR.
Chic
“DWIR isn’t created by burning fossil fuels.”
Sorry this is false
More CO2 in the atmosphere is due to burning fossil fuels.
The increase amount of DWIR is directly due to the increase in the amount of CO2.
You are being very misleading.
But DREMT
“ts quite simple, bobdruggy. I said LW HEATS the oceans less than SW, as the SW penetrates to greater depth. I did not say anything about the amount of solar that was SW or LW.”
this is quite wrong
sorry you need to do more drugs to gain enlightenment
“sorry you need to do more drugs to gain enlightenment”
Yes, I get that vibe from you. Explaining why you think what I said is wrong might be…well, something I suppose.
DREMT,
you are always right, pass me the bong.
OK Bobdruggy.
So long for now then DREMT,
Stay ignorant, it wouldn’t be much fun arguing with you if you learned some science.
My tea leaves say you won’t learn any science.
bobdruggy, if you are going to basically try to argue that the sun heats the oceans less than the atmosphere, don’t act so surprised when you lose the argument.
I was intruding in your conversation, so I posted a response to bobdroege in a new thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-336762
DREMT,
I don’t believe I was making any argument on the proportion of the suns heat going into the atmosphere or the ocean.
I was merely arguing that the radiation from CO2 can and does heat the ocean.
I am not surprised that you would screw it up, your science comprehension is not the best.
Ill write it out more clearly, for those who were obviously reading in some sort of drug-induced coma:
If you are going to basically try to argue that the sun heats the oceans less than the atmosphere heats the oceans, dont act so surprised when you lose the argument.
Well, that’s what Trenberth and the IPCC says, that the downwelling Infrared does indeed heat the oceans more than solar does, why don’t you take it up with them?
They can take it, I am not here to defend them.
Especially if you won’t admit that infrared does indeed heat the ocean.
And that the Moon rotates on it’s axis, until I get those statements from you, you can just pass me the bong.
“Especially if you won’t admit that infrared does indeed heat the ocean.“
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-336734
“Well, that’s what Trenberth and the IPCC says…”
And yet the mechanism for all this warming of the oceans by GHGs is solely based on Minnett’s unpublished research featured in that Real Climate article. No further investigations into the efficacy of this mechanism. Odd.
“Yes, CO2, and have already done so for you several times.
Each time, you ignore the demonstrations, and all other facts that show you are wrong about this.”
All I’ve seen are videos of a CO2 laser causing surface evaporation. I have not seen a video of a glass of water with a thermometer in it being warmed by a CO2 laser. When I sweat the evaporation cools my body. Evaporation is endothermic. You seem to be implying that sweating will cause the body to heat up.
You can melt steel with a CO2 laser.
“You can melt steel with a CO2 laser.”
That may be true, but steel isn’t water. You can shine a YAG Laser into someone’s eye and the cornea and vitreous won’t me impacted at all. Only the retina will get burned.
Here is a video of a CO2 laser not melting ice.
https://youtu.be/imzaWnsyi1A
I don’t know what you think you weren’t seeing, but I was seeing ice evaporating and melting in that video
sorry
What you are seeing is a very thin wafer of ice being melted by the heat of the fingers holding it. What you are not seeing is a very intense laser focusing all of its energy on a pinpoint and not burning through the wafer. Once again, this is a pinpoint laser shining on a wafer of ice. All it does is cause surface evaporation. It does not burn right through a very thin wafer. Once again, calculate out how much 7 watts per mm^2 is on a W/m^2 basis. That is a whole lot of W/m^2, far more than the 1.6 W/m^2 provided by CO2 in the atmosphere.
BTW, that is why I’m asking Dr Spencer to make a video of a controlled experiment where CO2 either will or won’t warm water and melt ice. Remember CO2 is responsible for about 1.6 W/m^2 of 13 to 18-micron LWIR back radiation. The laser can place watts into 1 mm^2. This is an extreme experiment when compared to the real radiation provided by atmospheric CO2. The black body temperature of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns is about -80 degree C. Very very very cold ice emits LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.
CO2 doesn’t act as a blackbody.
What I see is the laser vaporizing the ice, not the fingers melting the ice.
7 watts isn’t all that high powered and it looks like it’s melting the amount of ice you would expect from 7 watts.
CO2isLife
I do not think posting bad facts will win you an audience. You should try to use better data.
One I object to is your insistence that: “Remember CO2 is responsible for about 1.6 W/m^2 of 13 to 18-micron LWIR back radiation.”
Where does this come from?
I have tried to correct your incorrect facts. So far you choose to ignore them.
Here again actual measured DWIR spectrum with CO2 bands.
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/images/MeasuredRadianceReno.jpg
If you calculate it out you might find you will get around 80 W/m^2 coming from the CO2 band.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
I did look at your blog and saw the MOTRAN model you are using.
If you use this tool correctly you will have to put a very small value for the altitude so you get IR that you can “see”. If you
use 70 km, the IR emitted from that location does not reach the surface. I used 0.01 km (10 meters above the surface). I used microns rather than wavenumber and you will find that at 280 or 400 PPM CO2 the DWIR is above 40 W/m^2 maybe 60 or more. I also used subtropical summer. I have zero understanding of where you get the 1.6 W/m^2 for the DWIR from CO2.
I think you messed up and are using the difference between 280 and 400 PPM in tropical air. If you go to subtropic air you will find a larger differential (less water vapor in this air).
You might want to rethink your values and correct them to reflect a more realistic view.
CO2isLife, I wouldn’t keep pushing the laser issue if I were you. It’s something the GHE Defense Team like to try to twist to support their arguments. Or if you are going to mention lasers, maybe have a read through of this discussion first:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2018-0-28-deg-c/#comment-333272
Norman,
Your MODTRAN results are interesting. Are you using zero humidity to get those results?
Chic Bowdrie
No I left the Water Vapor at 1 (this I guess is what the average atmosphere for a given location has). If I put a 0 in this field the IR from Water Vapor goes away but the IR from CO2 remains (13-18 micron band). It does not change with or without water vapor. This must be the part of the band that does not overlap.
This is just a silly distraction.
Of course emissions from CO2 heats water.
How many angels can dance on the end of pin? Yes CO2 emissions will have a strong tendency to evaporate water because the warming of that water is occurring primarily at the very top of the surface due to very low transparency. But the evaporation ability of water is limited by other factors allowing for a warming to occur that is only partly offset by evaporation.
While all that is interesting one also has to keep in mind that evaporation on the surface of the water creates a higher salt content in the remaining surface water and saltier water sinks. So I hear this argument and think its pretty much a crock. I have little doubt there are some issues there but its mostly utilized inappropriately IMHO.
Bill,
The temperature of the air below where the DWIR is coming from is warmer than the air above. Something can’t warm you if you are warming it. If we’re going to dance on the head of a pin, we should do it to the same tune.
Actually Chic you are wrong. Sometimes the air above is warmer.
But there also is another problem that needs to be considered the word “warming” doesn’t exist in a scientific context. It does not have a specialized meaning. Warming can mean slowing of cooling that doesn’t warm anything but makes things statistically warmer. Anomalies are nothing more than statistics. Statistical warming via slowing of cooling can’t make you hotter than you ever were, it just can make you less cold. . . .more normal.
The language of science is supposed to be precise. Imprecision rules the day in climate science making it more like a religion. . . .like in “its God’s will”.
Roy asks above people like Chuck Todd need to start specifying precisely, what is settled science”.
So first what warming is occurring in the ocean from radiation from CO2 has to be well defined. Is it statistical warming or is it actually getting hotter. I believe it does in both cases when the circumstances are correct and doesn’t do it under other circumstances.
Bill,
“…the word warming doesnt exist in a scientific context.”
Maybe it should. You are making the age-old semantic argument that warming occurs by reducing heat loss, I think. Your comments are anything but precise. I’m not saying I am either, but I try. And I will.
When I want to heat/warm/(increase the temperature of) water in the lab, I put it on the hot plate and turn the knob to the right. I could try wrapping the beaker holding the water with insulation, but it never occurred to me that would work very well.
You are correct that sometimes air above is warmer than below, an inversion, but that is relatively exceptional and pretty much irrelevant in the present context. You were talking about emissions from CO2 causing water to evaporate. Come on! Water will evaporate without any help from CO2 as long as the air above isn’t saturated with it.
To prove your point, you need an experiment that controls for all the things you mention and more. Does warm salty water sink or float on top of cool less salty water below?
Chic – “I could try wrapping the beaker holding the water with insulation, but it never occurred to me that would work very well.”
It works marvelously with home insulation. There is no question that CO2 slows cooling if its warmer than what was radiatively visible (e.g. outerspace) before the CO2 intervened. Focusing on the truth of that will lead to nothing but dead ends.
And because warming is statistically expressed “mean global anomaly” slowing of cooling does create at least statistical warming of the surface via limiting diurnal cooling of the surface. I also agree that atmosphere is seldom warmer than the surface except at night and then the surface still almost always cools albeit even slower.
Better questions to ask are related to how much warming is atmospheric CO2 capable of within the projected ranges of presence in the atmosphere, and how much warming is existing CO2 uniquely responsible for (if the warming would occur more than one way to the same level the answer is zero).
I am more of a skeptic than Dr. Spencer because I am unconvinced that all the issues are in feedbacks. Dr. Curry has acknowledged a lack of documentation related to pre-feedback sensitivity and Dr. Spencer has said its possible there is an issue there; but since both generally work in the realm of measuring actual climate observations the pre-feedback sensitivity isn’t anything that can come directly out of that so why talk about it, it becomes another distraction.
Focusing on arguments that CO2 cannot create any kind of warming within the list of its loose definitions is a total distraction and gives warmmongers ammunition to say the science is settled.
Bill,
Your comments are getting so much less precise, I am going to just admit I don’t know what “statistically expressed ‘mean global anomaly’ slowing of cooling” is and skip over to how much CO2 can “create any kind of warming.”
Compared to an atmosphere with no IR absorbing gases, I have no doubt that the present average global temperatures would be warmer. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at a level that makes it questionable how much, if any, a further increase in CO2 would have any effect on global temperature. My reasoning for this is the near surface cooling mechanism of IR absorp.tion, bulk air warming, and convection that moves energy upward where the same IR absorbing gases then participate in emitting that energy to space. If there was no CO2 in the upper atmosphere, would the planet be warmer or cooler? More CO2 in the upper atmosphere should favor cooling, not warming.
There is no direct evidence that more CO2 will cause more warming. Until there is, everyone is just speculating.
Chic – “But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at a level that makes it questionable how much, if any, a further increase in CO2 would have any effect on global temperature.”
We are on the same wave length. What I mean about the anomaly being statistical. An average is a statistical calculation. The Best temperature reconstruction shows that the average is rising much faster than the trend in hotter days and much slower than the upward trend of warming coldest nights.
What that suggests is there is more moderation occurring in global mean temperatures than there is warming. However, it may also be the case that such an effect comes from inappropriate time of day adjustments, but in either case, if the public knew about that they would be less concerned about warming as Al Gore was extremely effective in convincing millions that the train is going off the tracks and the oceans are going to eventually boil assuming we are still influencing the climate at that point.
Bill,
I’m totally on board with that assessment. I’ve wondered if the method of obtaining daily temperatures adequately records the actual temperature of a 24 hour cycle, let alone how uniform or concentrated those measurements are from one location to another.
Theoretically, moderation means warming. I’ll have to go to the drawing board to absorb the relative importance of warming nights vs. warming days.
“Of course emissions from CO2 heats water.
How many angels can dance on the end of pin? Yes CO2 emissions will have a strong tendency to evaporate water because the warming of that water is occurring primarily at the very top of the surface due to very low transparency. But the evaporation ability of water is limited by other factors allowing for a warming to occur that is only partly offset by evaporation.”
Will someone please post a video of a glass of water with a thermometer in it being warmed by a CO2 laser? Lasers pack much more punch than atmospheric CO2. When I sweat my body cools, maybe the physics change for this experiment. I don’t know but I would like to see a demonstration.
Evaporation is a good cooling agent no doubt. We need sweat to speed up the loss of internally generated heat, especially when our gets hot enough to render dry loss of heat as ineffective.
For the oceans evaporation represents the largest means of losing absorbed solar radiation several times net radiant loss. Reduce the net radiant loss further via CO2 and that would lead to warming of the surface layer. Evaporation would be enhanced.
Most detailed ocean temperature profiles show a sharp cooling gradient at the ocean surface that runs from fractions of a millimeter to a few centimeters in depth and often is about 1 degree C. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v15i4.8859
But also more evaporation increases resistance to evaporation at the boundary layer so it seems unlikely the additional radiation from CO2 would be 100% discharged by enhanced evaporation, especially when one considers that waves and diffusion of water exists as means of heat transfer of heat from the surface into the depths. Its a messy world out there and things generally don’t work out that cleanly.
That is a Chuck Todd answer.
“Of course emissions from CO2 heats water.”
There is no physics to support this position, yet a statement like this is designed to end debate.
CO2 emissions cannot and do not warm water, and that is the fallacy of the lukewarmer’s (and AGW) position. The ocean and areas covered in ice (over 70% of the planet) cannot be effected by the mythical DWLIR warming
Long wave infrared radiation is fully absorbed in the first 5 microns of sea surface. LWIR never penetrates below the skin surface where evaporation occurs.
It is scientific negligence to claim the ocean is warmer from anthropologic forces by desire when physics points to this being impossible.
There is no scientific evidence that CO2 IR emissions reduce evaporation or in anyway retard the ability of the skin layer to cool
The top 5 microns of the ocean represent less than .0000001388% of the ocean content. In order to raise the temperature of the ocean, LWIR from CO2 would have to raise the water temperature of these first few microns beyond the temperature of the sun while simultaneous stopping the process of evaporation.
It is an absurd argument.
Sunlight heats the ocean.
The ocean heats the atmosphere
There is nothing man is doing or can do to effect this relationship
The idea that a change from 7 molecules of CO2 per 20,000 air molecules to 8 molecules of CO2 per 20,000 air molecules is heating the ocean is folly, and the physics fully support a null hypothesis.
If you place a pan of water indoors (where ambient C02 is higher than outdoors) its skin layer profile does not change. If you can’t change the temperature profile of water in environments with 2X, or even 3X, the levels of CO2 in the air, a 25-40% change of a trace gas is meaningless.
“There is no physics to support this position”
ftop_t fights another strawman just like the top post.
Incident long wave infrared radiation is fully absorbed in the first 5 microns of sea surface as ftop_t writes thus adds thermodynamic internal energy to the sea surface. The strawman ftop_t fights uses confusing term “heats” which I observes causes lotsa’ unneeded, totally unnecessary strawman fights.
Then ftop_t proceeds to continue to use the word “heats” which is just attracting more commenters to fight another strawman. Apparently ftop_t just likes to fight a strawman. Fighting them to win is easy after all.
Because you call something a straw-man, it doesn’t make it true.
If you cannot measure in a laboratory any change in the temperature profile of the skin surface layer from changes in C02 concentration from 0 PPM to 10,000 PPM; the null hypothesis would confirm it does not have any effect.
Conversely, refraction and water temperature are physically measured.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225955/mirages-under-water
Thus, I would argue refraction is correlative with water temperature.
Provide a table showing changes in skin surface temperature profiles for water based on CO2 concentration in the air.
Unless you can provide this table, the null hypothesis rules.
The table is found in Dr. Spencer’s experiment for night changes in atm. DWIR changing thermometer temperature of several inches deep surface temperature water.
“The table is found in Dr. Spencer’s experiment”
You can’t be serious!!
Okay, since it is a well established table that we can derive values from, please answer the following:
Distilled water at 30C
Poured into an empty fish tank in a dark room
Room air temperature regulated at 25C
What concentration of CO2 is required in the room to make the water increase to 35C?
What concentration of CO2 is required in the room to make the water stay at 30C indefinitely?
If we remove all C02 from the room, at what point will the water freeze?
You are claiming that water temperature is directly impacted by CO2, use your table to provide the results.
I would argue that the CO2 concentration has no measurable impact and that regardless of the amount of CO2 in the air, the water will reach equilibrium with the 25C air temperature in the same amount of time.
The characteristics of water are extremely well defined. Formulas exist to calculate:
Boiling Point (changes with altitude)
Condensation & Evaporation vs. Relative Humidity
Density vs. Temperature
Solubility vs. Temperature
Refraction
These well established formulas allow us to accurately predict and then experimentally validate values for these characteristics.
Certainly with the fate of mankind in the balance, there is a repeatable formula that can demonstrate some measurable characteristic within water for:
CO2 Concentration of Air vs. Change in Water Temperature
Lacking such formula, I assert that the null hypothesis rules and CO2 concentration of air has no effect on water temperature.
“What concentration of CO2 is required in the room to make the water increase to 35C?”
Unfortunately for ftop_t, Dr. Spencer’s experimental tables were developed using a room the size of the actual atmosphere. You need to increase the size of your room. Try again.
“You are claiming that water temperature is directly impacted by CO2, use your table to provide the results.”
Yes from the data. But it is not my table or “claim”, see Dr. Spencer’s experimental results for night time changes in atm. DWIR changing thermometer temperature of several inches deep surface temperature water.
With due respect to Dr. Spencer, I think his experimental setup was too crude from which to draw convincing conclusions.
I can accept that DWIR could heat the top layer a bit, and that mixing can carry the heat downward. But, I cannot accept that it is an efficient means of heating. SW radiation would be so much more powerful, and even slight variation in it would overwhelm any LW effect.
Most of the time the Net LW IR is upward from the ocean to the atmosphere and space.
It is one of the ways the ocean cools, and one of the ways satellites detect SST.
Clouds or water vapor or CO2 simply REDUCE this Net LW emission from the ocean.
Reduce this effect, while negligibly reducing solar gain, and the ocean warms.
It is, indeed, one of the ways the ocean cools, but not even nearly the most powerful. I do not think it is even marginally credible that slightly increasing the impedance of exiting LW can have any significant impact on overall ocean temperatures.
LW radiation is very weak at cooling. If it weren’t, your thermos bottle wouldn’t work. It keeps hot liquids hot by inhibiting all but radiative heat dissipation.
T diff sea to space is large. Consider temperature in the morning on a clear dry night vs cloudy or humid one. Can be a big difference.
Thermos surfaces silvered for a reason.
Primary means of cooling the ocean still far and away via evaporation and convection.
Yep. And those are affected by a warming atmosphere.
Yes, evaporation increases, as does convection.
The atmosphere is the flea on the ocean elephant’s back, not the other way around.
You think if the atmosphere warms, the ocean gets cooler?!
I don’t think it gets substantially warmer. Cause and effect is mostly in the other direction – a warming ocean leads to a warming atmosphere. The oceans have vastly more heat capacity than the atmosphere.
C’mon, the atmosphere controls the cooling of the ocean to space. Without that cooling the ocean would boil.
If the ocean is on average warming, what else can cause that other than an increase in solar input or a decrease in cooling thru the atmosphere.
“Without that cooling the ocean would boil.”
IR radiation, or the lack thereof, would not cause the ocean to boil.The primary means of cooling the ocean is through evaporation and convection.
Evaporation and convection to Pluto and beyond.
Already dealt with that issue. You’re looping.
Nate:
I am reiterating a point you have not countered. It is not a failing on your part. It cannot be countered, only ignored. I am making sure you do not ignore it.
Svante:
It is not necessary. It is sufficient that the heat be carried above the bulk of radiating gases, from whence it can radiate to space unimpeded. Or, build up clouds which reflect incoming radiation away. Or, produce thunderstorms where electrical discharges dissipate copious stores of energy. Or, who knows what else?
You can’t just focus on one aspect of the entire system, and make conclusions from it. All things being equal, we might get one particular outcome. But, all things are never equal. The system is vastly interconnected and the dynamics of its constituents are intimately coupled.
Bart says: “It is sufficient that the heat be carried above the bulk of radiating gases”
This is where CO2 becomes more important, above water vapor and clouds. CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere.
A) H2O is more powerful than CO2
B) Doesn’t matter that CO2 is well mixed. When more than 50% above you, it is more likely to heat the surface than not. When 50% below you, it is more likely the radiation escapes to space.
C) Or, build up clouds which reflect incoming radiation away. Or, produce thunderstorms where electrical discharges dissipate copious stores of energy. Or, who knows what else?
Bart, you are not reading my posts,
Didnt ignore it, agreed with idea that most ocean cooling from evap and convection,
‘Yep. And those are affected by a warming atmosphere.’
Disagree with you that this does not result in a warming ocean.
Again, how do you think the ocean bulk is warming, other than increased solar input (not enough of it), or decreased cooling, which IS only thru the atmosphere?
Plus if land warms, and heats the atmosphere, this is coupled to the ocean.
Svante says:
Bart, this was a very bad band saturation argument by yours truly.
CO2 starts chipping away at its divot at altitude zero.
We can see exactly how much in the battle proved modtran program:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Add clouds, change altitude, set CO2/WV to zero, look up/down, save and compare W/m^2.
Ask me if you have any problems with it. To update, tab out of the changed field. Intro here:
https://tinyurl.com/yb4my3ea
Svante –
If the heat is convected to higher altitude, and radiation is released there, then the situation is reversed – The GHGs impede it from getting back to the surface rather than out to space.
It’s not getting “chipped away” in the upward direction but in the downward – upwardly convected heat physically bypasses the IR filter.
So in the tropics with cumulus to 2.7km, CO2 removes 29 W/m^2 between 8km and 16km. Other GHGs remove less than 1 W/m^2 between those same altitudes.
Perhaps so, but this seems an oddly irrelevant to the discussion I thought we were having.
Bart says:
“upwardly convected heat physically bypasses the IR filter.”
Cumulus means convection, the calculation shows it did not bypass the IR filter.
CO2 made the most of the difference, WV did little at this altitude.
If you are saying a trickle is equivalent to a flood, you are in error.
If you are saying altitude does not matter, you are undercutting the entire basis of AGW.
I think you need to think on it a bit more.
Bart says:
The total enhanced GHE is only 2 W/m^2.
It’s tiny compared to the total!
Yes, what matters is the temperature you see from space.
In the stratosphere CO2 works in the opposite direction.
It’s no good saying things like:
“When more than 50% above you, it is more likely to heat the surface than not.”
You need something like Finite Element Analysis in mechanical engineering, or ray tracing in computer graphics.
You need MODTRAN.
You need to think it through. If the energy cannot radiate back down, it cannot heat the surface. If it is more likely to radiate up than down, it cools more than it heats.
So you need no formulas, no calculations, no numbers.
Just words.
It’s a loophole. It means that increasing concentration of a particular GHG does not necessarily lead to warming.
The climate science community, or at least the most vocal voices within it, made a leap of faith. It is not a sound basis upon which to impoverish ourselves by demolishing our industrial economy for dubious benefit.
‘It’s a loophole’ because you havent thought it thru. People modeling the atmosphere have.
You are not looking at the real models, which consider convection and radiation, and the warming of the lapse rate curve all the way down to the surface.
By admitting it must be considered, you have acquiesced that the debate is not over.
If increasing CO2 concentration does not necessarily increase surface temperature, and determining whether it does or not depends upon complex analysis, the results of which depend entirely upon a priori assumptions which have not been verified by empirical observations, then the debate has barely begun.
Get yourself educated on actual AGW models, and think it thru.
Then come back, and the debate can begin.
Show me empirical evidence for which the models are uniquely explanatory, and there will be no need. Until then, all you’ve got is an unverified hypothesis.
Whenever I show you evidence, you dont take it seriously. You find an excuse, typically a weak one, to reject it.
Pointless for me to look for evidence when this is your attitude.
That is because the evidences you offer are not “uniquely explanatory”. They are, themselves, weak and insubstantial.
The purpose of this thread is not to review the evidence, it is to establish that there are, indeed, alternative possibilities. I consider it mission accomplished. Over and out.
‘it is to establish that there are, indeed, alternative possibilities.’
I didnt see alternatives that werent strawmen, and you raised several.
Ftop,
“Long wave infrared radiation is fully absorbed in the first 5 microns of sea surface.”
Yes, and yet the HEAT that it deposits quickly conducts into the water, millimeters in seconds, centimters in minutes.
Try the experiment yourself, get a longwave ceramic heat lamp. Point it down at it at a cup of water. It warms!
–Nate says:
January 6, 2019 at 3:50 PM
Ftop,
“Long wave infrared radiation is fully absorbed in the first 5 microns of sea surface.”
Yes, and yet the HEAT that it deposits quickly conducts into the water, millimeters in seconds, centimters in minutes.–
Water doesn’t conduct heat well and the larger the difference of temperature the better it conducts heat.
During daylight the surface is already evaporating and heat convecting upwards to the surface.
With sunlight only very tiny amount of sunlight is absorbed in the top 5 micron or even top mm of water.
So with 1000 watts per square meter, something 10 watts of it [or less] is absorbed in top 5 microns of surface.
It seems to me if any significant amount of longwave IR was absorbed in top 5 mircon of water, it have noticeable effect.
“Try the experiment yourself, get a longwave ceramic heat lamp. Point it down at it at a cup of water. It warms!”
Longwave ceramic heat lamp, what is that?
Longwave IR is invisible, why would it be called a lamp.
I almost like saying a radio lamp.
If IR lamp is providing any heat, it would be shortwave IR, not longwave IR.
https://www.dhresource.com/albu_276344111_00-1.0×0/far-infrared-ceramic-heating-lamp-ceramic.jpg
Black body spectrum peak ~ 5 microns.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-336926
–ftop_t says:
January 6, 2019 at 10:02 AM
That is a Chuck Todd answer.
“Of course emissions from CO2 heats water.”
There is no physics to support this position, yet a statement like this is designed to end debate.
CO2 emissions cannot and do not warm water, and that is the fallacy of the lukewarmer’s (and AGW) position.–
As lukewarmer, I would say CO2 emission may warm surface air or reduces the amount of cooling of surface air.
But surface air also doesn’t warm the ocean surface or depths by any significant amount. And backradiation [longwave IR] doesn’t water ground surface or ocean surface.
And it should be noted that global surface air temperature is global average temperature. But also noted the most of global surface air is over ocean, and average global surface air temperature is about 17 C [and determine by ocean surface waters temperature] and average global land surface air temperature is about 10 and when one averages the ocean and land area the global air temperature is about 15 C.
And most lukewarmer think a doubling of CO2 will cause around 1 C increase in global average temperature. OR not more than 1 C increase in global average temperature.
And lukewarmer tend to think an increase of global air temperature from lowest level of Little Ice Age by as much as 2 to 3 C, is not much of problem or there are other problems are a much larger concern.
‘The top 5 microns of the ocean represent less than .0000001388% of the ocean content. In order to raise the temperature of the ocean, LWIR from CO2 would have to raise the water temperature of these first few microns beyond the temperature of the sun while simultaneous stopping the process of evaporation.
It is an absurd argument.’
Instead of wildly waving hands- lets run some numbers, shall we?
Suppose the NET LW radiation is downward and 100 W/m^2. Its rarely if ever this high.
In 2 seconds the deposited heat is 200 J/m^2. But in 2 seconds the heat has penetrated 1 mm into the water.
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/heat-penetration-calculator#|timeinput_2
Select water from data base and hit Calculate.
The temperature rise of this 1 mm layer is:
DT = Heat/volume/heat capacity
= 200 J/(.001 m^3)/(4.2 x 10^6 J/m^3) = 0.05 degrees C.
That is certainly not enough warming to evaporate the whole 1 mm thick layer.
After 3 minutes, the heat has penetrated 1 cm into the water.
And the temperature rise of this 1 cm layer is 0.5 C. Again not enough to have evaporated the whole layer.
So the heat just keeps penetrating the water.
Nate,
Just how often is DWIR greater than UWIR? Nowhere near a net 100W/m2 for long enough not to be completely overwhelmed by the cooling processes going on 24/7.
As I said. ‘Its rarely if ever this high.’
I chose a largish possible number to show that even that doesnt over-heat the ‘skin’ to the point of evaporating it before the heat penetrates.
That would require a high intensity source, as in laser ablation.
“Rarely ever this high”
You are off by a magnitude of at least 50x and most likely 100x. The much touted experiment (which actually only demonstrates atmospheric concentration and not any real “forcing”) on measuring LWIR shows the net change in LWIR at 0.2 w/m-squared PER DECADE!!
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
So, being generous, divide your result by 50 and you have:
.05C / 50 = 0.001C increase, or more accurately ZERO.
You’re confused ftop. 2 seconds of 100w/m2 heating gives .05C for the surface 1 mm. Irrelevant to decades of heating by a smaller forcing.
The point of my comment was only to show that LW IR can penetrate and heat water.
Very nice Roy. There are no true atheists in the world; there are just those who have no inkling whatsoever of the location of the intersection where science and faith meet.
Bill, I like that. Is it original?
If so, may I edit it a bit? It would make a great quote for cryptoquote puzzle.
“There are no true atheists in the world; just those who don’t know the intersection where science and faith meet.
Yep just made it up. Have at it.
Dr. Spencer tells us:
Between 2005 and 2017, the global network of thousands of Argo floats have measured an average temperature increase of the upper half of the ocean of 0.04 deg. C.
Even that’s suspect because the Argo float data has been tampered with:
Correcting Cooling
Don’t forget about Karl too…
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
How is it a strawman that climate deniers are out there, when the President is a climate denier?
The upper half of the ocean increased only .04 degrees? Poor choice of parameter, considering that little change expected well below the surface.
Nate, baloney!
Roy said the strawman is Todd’s statement: Were not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. Were not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.
Todd by simply making such an announcement is demonstrating he doesn’t even understand the proper role of science in policy making. Those getting press for ostensibly being climate deniers are those scientists testifying to Congress, writing papers, running blogs, contributing to blogs that suggest climate change is real but not sufficiently certain enough to be dangerous enough enact policies to attempt to reverse any warming being caused by man.
If there were no consequences to limiting carbon emissions it would be a no brainer to do so. I happen to be a dedicated conservationist who goes far beyond what the vast majority do to limit my footprint on this earth and also intelligent enough to recognize that my efforts might not amount to a hill of beans. It takes a real jackass to think he is smart enough to think he knows.
I would also call out your minimization of the .04 degree upper ocean warming. Interesting is that its actually a smaller number than the Little Ice Age recovery figure put forward as an alternative theory for long term climate warming as presented by a number of scientists like Dr. Syun Akasofu. If such a recovery was occurring without any other important climate forcing variable changing, it would quite possibly be a result of gradual warming of a still cold deeper ocean and would be largely expressed in the upper ocean pretty much in sync with atmospheric effects.
We really don’t know how that part of the ocean heat sink operates nor have any idea of how long such a recovery could take, but since it probably took about 400 years to cool, reasonably it could take 400 years to warm which might indicate another 100 years of it to come.
Well, if you want to get small number, as you guys do, why not use the whole ocean? Then you get ave change 0.02.
The point is, its misleading, because the bulk of the ocean is doing little and the upper 200 m or so has warmed 0.6 C.
And it takes a millenium to equilibrate.
Nate, they are all small numbers they only get large when one extrapolates trends way into the future. A common human foible that in an industry I worked in inevitably led to bankruptcy for the extrapolators.
Nate says:
January 3, 2019 at 1:27 PM
How is it a strawman that climate deniers are out there, when the President is a climate denier?
Dr. Spencer was rather clear when he wrote:
“I cannot think of a single credentialed, published skeptical climate scientist …”
President Trump isn’t a credentialed published scientist.
He isn’t, but Roy’s straw man is to say that Todd’s quote must be about credentialed climate scientists. That’s just Roy’s caricature of the point so he can argue against it. Why can’t anyone refer to a rather loud voice of “climate change deniers” like the president of the US?
They can. And it’s legitimate because it has traction in the political realm. Which Todd specifically mentions.
Roy Spencer likes to think Todd’s quote is all about Roy Spencer. It isn’t.
So let’s unweave that straw man.
He did not single out scientists. Clearly the public is paying more attention to wharthe President says, than what scientists are saying.
LOL! That depends upon which scientists the public. . . .and the President. . . .is listening to. Calling out a fraud is legitimate. Understanding what the fraud is is a bit more nuanced. 20 years of ocean policy work tells me that the fraud is not the work of individual scientists whether they be adjusting temperature records, reading tree rings, or whatever. The fraud is not having the professional competence to recognize the uncertainties that arise out of all this. People who are trained in these matters should have a far better handle on uncertainty than they are selling to the public. That’s fraudulent. Its fraud in financial markets where legislation exists to criminalize it. And thus its fraud in the political arena even though there is no legislation to criminalize it.
Roy does a great job. He is committed to his science and he recognizes the uncertainty that surrounds it.
And BTW, you guys seem to have no problem with Roy going on Tucker Carlson and giving a one-sided view of a climate issue. There was no one there to disagree with him.
Perhaps this is why only 13% of Repubs think humans are responsible for the warming.
One sided? What! Do you think President Trump was the cause of Hurricane Florence?
Bill Hunter
“Do you think President Trump was the cause of Hurricane Florence?”
Why not? He’s taken credit for everything else!
??.
One sided, yes. Several of us pointed out the misleading and cherry picked analysis, glossed over stats, that he presented. No one on the show was there to do that, as they did with his Op Ed.
This is ridiculous. Trump did not cause Hurricane Florence, pick any numbers and its going to show you that.
Re Trump caused hurricanes.
Now that is real strawman, Bill.
Nate: “Now that is real strawman, Bill.”
Dr. Spencer went on Tucker Carlson to refute claims Trump caused Hurricane Florence and you are complaining about it.
Cmon Bill, you’re being clueless, failing to understand what a strawman even is.
Congratulations for shooting down something that NOBODY with an ounce of intelligence has said.
Maybe next you can show us how AGW has not caused genital warts.
I admit I don’t know know how network news works. I guess that someone higher up the hierarchy has taken this stance and Todd is implementing it.
That said, Todd worked as an activist before college, and he worked on Senate Democrat Tom Harkins campaign during college. He is plugged in to Democrat politics.
Is it a coincidence that one of the nation’s major media organs, with an anchor host who used to be a Democrat operative, is declaring the science settled just as Democrats retake the House with plans of establishing a new “Select Committee on the Climate Crisis” and their new socialist wonder girl talking about a “Green New Deal”?
I doubt it’s a coincidence.
I am still searching for the down side of warming, regardless of where it comes from.
Curious,,,,,Has anyone ever quantified how much CO2 is added from the population and longer human life cycles? 40,000 ppm exhaust @ 7.5 billion x however many breaths, all day everyday has to do a little something to the equation ……
How many humans does it take to equal an 18 wheeler? 😉
Ossqss
Curiously, the human body is carbon neutral.
All the CO2 we produce was absorbed by the plants that feed us. Thus the CO2 we produce was recently part of the atmosphere and is returned when we exhale.
Coincidence?
https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.net/6f2394f17ebc2262092029a8d70bc8b79588f049/4726f/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/updated-world-population-growth-1750-2100-768×538.png
Try correalating rate of population growth with affluence, female education and availabilty of medical care.
I am still searching for the down side of warming, regardless of where it comes from.
Transparent BS. You can find downsides to anything anywhere on the net.
What you mean is I don’t agree with the downsides.
Either that or you really haven’t bothered to look: = BS.
I understand why Dr. Roy chose 60% of the warming as a possible amount within the IPCC estimate but I am convinced it is way to large. If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 15% anthropogenic (Harde2017) it cannot have caused more than 15% of the warming even in the very unlikely event that CO2 increase is the only cause of recent warming. Analyses of the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere have not found that atmospheric CO2 is responsive to changes in human emissions (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/).
The IPCC assertion that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is human caused is indefensible and is at the very heart of the assumptions Mr. Todd has accepted as settled science. All of the myriad of negative possibilities rest on it. No wonder he will not discuss the science, he would have to find another crises to discuss.
The portion of the CO2 increase that is human caused is all of it.
bob-
I do not think that your statement is defensible under reasoned scrutiny. Briefly, if that were so, the changes in rates of emissions would be reflected in rates of atmospheric growth which they arn’t as demonstrated in the referenced post by Munshi. There are numerous first principle analyses now shown on videos by Murry Salby that conclude your statement is incorrect. The latest is at (https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/)
Salby’s a crank and detrending analysis is worse.
A mass balance analysis shows that the increase in CO2 is all due to man.
Nature is a sink, so the CO2 can’t come from there.
It is really that simple.
bobdroege says: It is really that simple.
Nothing in nature is simple.
Anyone who thinks the rise in CO2 in the atmophere is not from human causes is really simple.
bobdroege: “Anyone who thinks (all) the rise in CO2 in the atmophere is not from human causes is really simple.”
IMO, one would have to be a simpleton to believe that. A true scientist would want to know how much of the warming has been manmade because warming will cause the oceans to outgas CO2.
One could find some tables which would tell them how much CO2 gas would be released from the oceans for every degree of temperature rise.
I would exclude those who wish to do as little work as possible.
The mass balance argument goes like this: The resultant growth in atmospheric CO2 is less than the human emission and the total of the emissions is natural plus human so some of the human emission is left behind each year. Lets switch termites emissions for human emissions because they are about twice as large. Now all emissions is termites plus all the rest and the atmospheric growth is less then the termite emission so it has to be the termites CO2 that is left—-?
Does being cranky make Salby wrong? I find his analysis much more lucid and compelling than the mass balance argument and he shows at least 4 independent analyses that come to the same conclusions.
bobdroege says: I would exclude those who wish to do as little work as possible.
Its not a straight forward calculation. The top layer of the ocean is CO2 poor because of all photosynthesis in the ocean occurs there. So it ends up being one of those things that 12 means of calculating it comes up with 12 different figures. The alarmists pick the one closest to what supports their point of view and you trip over your own feet to believe them.
The alarmists have been successful in shifting public perception of the issue to “denying climate change” from discussion of the role of CO2, and our role in changing levels. I suspect our influence is on the smaller side of estimates, which would be unfortunate. Otherwise we could burn lots of coal to increase levels and give the Earth’s plant life a bigger boost than it’s had recently.
As for ocean surface temperatures, the thermohaline circulation with a period of about 800 years needs to be considered. Deep ocean water is rising that was last heated by the Sun in the Medieval Warm Period, so until we have reliable mapping of all oceans at all depths we can’t say much about surface changes. My extrapolated model of southern ocean surface temperatures suggested that we are starting a downward trend, and your data tends to confirm that.
I think the most significant and fundamental assumption at the base of the greenhouse effect is that evaluation of its magnitude assumes no other possible atmospheric influence. The Diurnal Smoothing Effect, discussed and evaluated previously at this site and barely elsewhere, is a scientifically sound alternative. By my estimation the GHE is insignificant and the role of CO2 a small part of that.
I’ve recently published an extensive update of my climate research along with a general review of the topic in:
http://brindabella.id.au?f=EAR
As ever, I sincerely welcome critical feedback and debate.
I agree ocean circulation at different periods most likely dominate climate. This could explain recent warming trends as related to natural processes or just as easily explain a lag between CO2 invrease and inevitable warming. It is a double edged sword. Publication requires more than posting on a webpage. There must be peer review from qualified experts. So you shared but did not yet publish. If you have something meaningful please submit for peer review. I for one would really like to understand what you are saying with empirical data, but did not see a document on the link that explains. I would definetly give it a read if provided.
What I dont understand is why there is not a clear push to update the CMIP-5 climate simulations so that they have the L Trop measurements of global warming from satellites aligned with the predicted base case (50th percentile). The models are running hot (except during peaks of major el nino), and It is obvious. Why dont the scientific community fix it?
For me, this shows a systemic bias in the field. I would like to hear any valid explanations justifying not updating the models in 2019. Otherwise the credibility of the field is low until they reject the failed hyotheses of climate sensitivity in CMIP-5 climate models.
CMIP-6 is in development.
https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip/wgcm-cmip6
Thanks. As per normal politcal systems they say the right things like: “Over the last decades significant progress has been made in model evaluation. The CMIP community has now reached a critical juncture at which many baseline aspects of model evaluation need to be performed much more efficiently to enable a systematic and rapid performance assessment of the large number of models participating in CMIP. Such an evaluation system will be implemented for CMIP6. Our initial goal is that two capabilities will be used to produce a broad characterization of CMIP DECK and historical simulations as soon as new CMIP6 model experiments are published to the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF):
At the WGCM meeting, it was decided that the results of these tools can be displayed on a public (rather than a password restricted) website.”
I will certainly have an open mind and assume the best, but if the actual 2018 and 2019 global trmperature data during ENSO neutral time does not fall near the 50th percentile (+/- 1 SD), then I will continue to consider the climate simulations irrationally biased. So for now I am optimistic. They even discuss corrections to climate sensitivity.
Due to the Economics of Journalism today, it primarily attracts two types of people, Ideologues and Idiots.
1) Can anyone point to a time in geological history when the climate wasn’t changing?
2) What is the ideal or optimum climate? What is the ideal or optimum temperature?
3) If the science is settled, why don’t the models agree or reflect reality?
4) Are the benefits of the trillions to be spent on fighting climate change worth the Yellow Vest Riots that are sure to follow?
5) How many hospitals, schools, miles of road, bridges and miles of Wall can be built for the trillions that Democrats want to spend fighting climate change?
–1) Can anyone point to a time in geological history when the climate wasnt changing?–
Tropics is pretty constant throughout time.
–2) What is the ideal or optimum climate? What is the ideal or optimum temperature?–
If you lack technology or are very primitive, the tropics. Average temperature +20 C.
If spacefaring, you make climate, whatever you want for whatever purpose.
–3) If the science is settled, why dont the models agree or reflect reality?–
There is no science which is settled. If appears settled, it’s dying.
–4) Are the benefits of the trillions to be spent on fighting climate change worth the Yellow Vest Riots that are sure to follow?–
Hmm. French are always rioting over stupid things, this time they got the right issue to riot about.
“5) How many hospitals, schools, miles of road, bridges and miles of Wall can be built for the trillions that Democrats want to spend fighting climate change?”
I tend to think of how many stars we could travel to. But first we need to explore the Moon and that should be an insignificant dollar amount.
Salvatore, tell us again how the next year or two will spell the end of global warming. You’ve been saying this and consistently getting it wrong for over a decade and I feel like a laugh to start off the new year.
By the way:
2018 NZ’s hottest year on record.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12184584
Germany had its warmest year in a 138-year record: over 2C above the 1961-1990 normal.
https://twitter.com/DWD_klima/status/1080487744558825477
Its actually all about a religion, Technocratic TransHumanism. A green economy and its Earth Charter replace the biblical 10 commandments for social control. The priests are the Technocratic scientific elite. The elites transcending to become god like using technology to create a noosphere and genetically enhanced humans. A new NWO
Nothing else can explain it
Dr. Spencer,
I was trying to *QUANTITATIVLY* boil down the difference between an Alarmists’ outlook on the world climate situation, and a Skeptic’s outlook, and this is what I find, and I’d be interested and appreciative to hear if you/your team/ think my analysis, generally speaking, holds water:
Alarmism is predicated on the belief that that temperature change today, is unprecedented when compared against the temperature change of the past, and then a supposition is made that if a great discrepancy between the past and the present exists, then it is unnatural and therefore alarming. Although The “Hockey Stick”, has long since been debunked, and even the IPCC has employed The Ljungqvist 2010 / Moberg2005, etc, proxy, since 2014 in lieu of Mann-Hockey-Clones, in their Paleo-Spaghetti Graphs, the fact is that most media, and most of the populace, are completely unaware the Media of Mann and Algore on that score are utterly Debunked. Without exception, even when I shove the AR5 paleo under my alarmist’s friends noses, they still cling to the Hockey Stick, and therefore, I deem it the only valid proxy case to represent the Alarmist perspective.
If I take the AR3 2001 Hockey stick, and look at the largest variations, over a 50 year period, graphically I see approximately .2c change over 50 years, which equates to .04c over a decade. If I look at the Ljungqvist Diagram and do the same exercise, I see approximately .4c over 50 years, or .08c over a decade.
If I look at UAH, We see (unless its been updated since I checked?) about .52c/40 years change, or .13c/decade, and If you took NOAA, theres been 1.16c/40 years change, or .29c/decade.
Therefore, The difference between Alarmists who see apocalypse, and Skeptics who recognize not-so-alarming warming, since the LIA, is that Alarmists see a +625% additional rate of warming, over norms of the past, while Skeptics see only a +60% additional rate of warming, over norms of the past. And as far as I can see graphically, there are multiple points on the graph, where we heated or cooled at about twice the rate, all be it for a shorter duration, so there’s nothing uniquely alarming about warming quickly in its own right, either.
I’d be interested in feedback, if you, your team, or really anyone else, has any commentary or sees any holes in my attempt to quantitatively identify the differences in relative expectations, between what’s happening now vs then. a 10x difference in observational/measured difference, goes a long way to explaining why Alarmists are so irrational, and why Skeptics are so comparatively level-headed.
Many thanks, in advance, to anybody interested in giving critique.
-Andrew
–I’d be interested in feedback, if you, your team, or really anyone else, has any commentary or sees any holes in my attempt to quantitatively identify the differences in relative expectations, between what’s happening now vs then. —
I think there also a factor of time.
The truth is it takes a long time to measure global temperature. Some say 17 years, others 30 years, and I say, longer.
Alarmists could worried about centuries in the future, but don’t say it, because no one would be very interested, so they lie about it being problem in near term, because other people have more immediate concerns- so they will be not interested plus there will be more certainly in future, anyhow.
One aspect that alarmist use to harp about was the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere but I don’t people currently think that CO2 does remain in atmosphere for long time, but some people could still have doubts about it
Andrew Stout
“The difference between Alarmists who see apocalypse, and Skeptics who recognize not-so-alarming warming,”
“Mann-Hockey-Clones, in their Paleo-Spaghetti Graphs,
“why Alarmists are so irrational, and why Skeptics are so comparatively level-headed.”
Your own biases stand out clearly in your own statement.
Your attitudes demonstrate why our outlooks differ.
Particularly the second statement in which you reject 30 years of paleoclimate data because it disagrees with your outlook.
Entropic man,
“Your own biases stand out clearly in your own statement.
Your attitudes demonstrate why our outlooks differ. ”
Hello, thanks for responding, but I think you miss my point enterally: Yes, Our attitudes differ, as I suggested myself, but my thesis is that our Attitudes differ, precisely because our Outlooks differ: we are putting stock in two different pairs of fact-sets, by which to judge the present condition, and quantifying the discrepancy between those two fact sets, is what I set out to determine, as a way of explaining the discrepancy in attitude / outlook / expectations and urgency, between Skeptics and Alarmists.
If you leapt at my characterization of “Mann-Hockey-Clones, in their Paleo-Spaghetti Graphs”- maybe you, like many of my alarmist friends, still defend the Hockey Stick? My words are a factual description of the IPCC AR4 2013/2014… Following the chaos and uproar caused by the singular, assertive, and inflexible narrative of the IPCC AR3 2001 “Hockey Stick”, and the subsequent 2006 Denouncement by the National Academy of Science for having a Zero-To-Negative Validation Statistic [among other critique], the IPCC chose to substitute quality with quantity, and show a Paleo-Climate record in 2007 comprised of ,literally, a spaghetti plot (looks just like a hurricane tracking) of a dozen “independent” paleo-reconstructions, which all happened to mirror the Hockey Stick. And I know they’re Mann-clones, because I counted SIX of the Twelve reconstructions being credited as having been prepared at least in part, by Michael Mann himself. Its wonderfully convenient when you can ‘independently validate’ your own work. Several of the others are known partners of Mann, Like Jones, etc. It wasn’t until the 2009 Climate Gate Emails came out, and the collusion between these players was all laid bare, that the IPCC ditched all the Hockey Stick, No-Climate-Variation stuff, and started reflecting a more moderate reconstruction in the AR5, which did not include M’98, MBH2001, M’99, or the Clone-Proxies of the IPCC AR4.
If we have a disagreement about the Hockey stick, we don’t need to argue it here: I was asking about if my analysis of Skeptic vs Alarmist was “Valid”, not if it was “biased”. Of course its biased, but I want to know if there is something “Wrong” with it.
In case you are interested, I’ll point you in the direction of the IPCC AR5 2014, WG1 AR5_Chapter05_FINAL, Page 409, you can see a Spaghetti plot which includes Lgunqvist twice, Moberg, and Michael Mann’s 2008 reconstruction, which mirrors Moberg/Lgungqvist [Ditching the Hockey Stick].
Many thanks,
A
Correction: I said spaghetti graph clones was an accurate reflection of “IPCC AR4 2013/2014”, I meant IPCC AR4 2007. Just noting for clarification.
Many thanks,
A
Andrew, your statistics appear to be realistic. But, since they do not advance the “Cause”, expect to be attacked by the Alarmists.
The Earth has been in a warming trend for about 25-30 years. That means there will likely be about a 25-30 year cooling trend to follow. We don’t yet have enough data to know what the exact causes are, but we know with certainty that CO2 cannot raise the temperature of the planet.
Alarmists made a mistake by going after CO2. They didn’t realize they are violating the laws of physics. They should have gone after cell phones. At least they would have gotten the physics correct. Cell phone systems definitely put energy into the atmosphere, as do radio and TV stations. Some of the “number-crunchers” that frequent this blog should look at the correlation of cell phones, and radio/TV stations, with the warming since the 1950s. At least they would have the physics right….
“The Earth has been in a warming trend for about 25-30 years. That means there will likely be about a 25-30 year cooling trend to follow.”
Only if:
1) the current warming was natural
and
2) temperatures oscillate on predictable 50-60 year cycles.
Neither of these is anywhere near 100% certain, so your conclusion is pretty uncertain.
“… but we know with certainty that CO2 cannot raise the temperature of the planet.”
Actually, every scientist who studies climate (including the various ‘skeptics’ Dr Spencer mentions in his post) knows that GHGS in general (and CO2 in particular) contribute to a surface that is warmer than it could possibly be without the IR absorbing properties of the GHGs. Every scientist knows there is no violation of the 2nd Law. You can keep appealing to your own authority as an ‘expert’, but surely you know this one of the weakest sorts of arguments in the world.
Cooling trend started 3 years ago and should continue as we move forward.
Watching overall oceanic sea surface temperatures.
If we are postulating a 60 yr cycle, we can sort of find one that broadly follows …
1880 – 1910 cooling
1910 – 1940 warming
1940 – 1970 cooling
1970 – 2000 warming
2000 – 2030 cooling???
We are about 20 years overdue for the cooling cycle to start. We have a weak, unpredictable cycle in the past; not a clear, predictable cycle.
(And Sal, you have been predicting cooling for ~ 20 years, so your track record is pretty poor for predictions of cooling.)
Cooling trend started 7000 years ago, it was reversed 250 years ago and should continue as we move forward.
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/files/2017/07/global-temp-in-holocene.png
Svante, is that “temperature record” from tree rings, pollen count, or “the voices”?
Tim Folkerts says:
January 4, 2019 at 10:58 AM
“If we are postulating a 60 yr cycle, we can sort of find one that broadly follows
1880 1910 cooling
1910 1940 warming
1940 1970 cooling
1970 2000 warming
2000 2030 cooling???”
Actually it works out more like:
1878-1911 cooling
1912-1944 warming
1945-1978 cooling
1979-??? warming (pattern suggested 2012)
giving about a 66 or 67 year cycle though my friendly astrometeorologist suggests that wrong and its actually a 72 year cycle and that cooling will commence December 2017, be apparent by spring and will last for 36 years. That was a prediction made several years ago.
With a 2nd low solar cycle in the works not seen for over a 100 years and ocean oscillations pointing toward cooling conditions at a minimum it looks likely to be another few years of rough going for the warmmongers. We shall see the next 5 years should be interesting.
JDHuffman says:
It’s from Marcott et al. 2013, no tree rings but 73 different studies based on:
– Boreholes.
– Chironomid transfer function.
– Diatom MAT.
– Foram MAT.
– Foram transfer function.
– Ice Core δ18O, δD.
– MBT.
– Mg/Ca.
– Pollen MAT.
– Radiolaria transfer function.
– TEX86.
– UK’37.
So it’s tree rings, pollen count, the “voices”, and more.
We could save a lot of taxpayer money by just picking numbers from a hat.
Where do you see tree rings in my list?
Anyway, I have Eben on my side here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337032
Tim, your belief that the recent warming is anything other than natural variability is just that–a belief. CO2 can NOT warm the planet. AGW is pseudoscience.
“CO2 can NOT warm the planet. “
Yeah, take that up with …
* Spencer
* Christy
* Lindzen
* Curry
* any physics professor
* any engineering thermodynamics textbook
* any meteorology textbook
* NASA
* NOAA
Or maybe EVERY qualified source in wrong and we all need JD Huffman to set us straight.
Tim, when you can’t support your false religion with physics, that should tell you something.
When YOU can’t understand the physics that has been explained over and over, and that everyone else grasps, that should tell YOU something.
Tim, the reason you must resort to false accusations and misrepresentations is that you can’t support your false religion with proper physics. You know I reject pseudoscience. You do not get to violate the laws of physics.
Where do you go next, insults? Will you go all the way to the bottom, like several others?
JD, if you TRULY want to engage, we could start at the beginning — find the things we DO agree on. I would be willing to try. But when you casually dismiss 99% of what is written in thermodynamics textbooks to be “pseudoscience” I can’t see there is much hope.
There is also the eternal problem in discussions like this that:
1) any simplification (like emissivity = 1) gets treated as unrealistic
2) any effort to include multiple details quickly gets bogged down in minutia.
But if you are interested in starting with basic, idealized, textbook sort of understanding of thermodynamics …
A) Imagine a sphere (emissivity = 1) in the vacuum of space far from any stars or other warm objects. The sphere has an internal heat source (maybe an electric heater) that provides a uniform, continuous 200 W/m^2 of thermal power to the sphere. What will the temperature of the surface be (once steadystate has been reached)?
B) imagine a thin shell of metal coated to have an emissivity of 1 (both inside and outside) that is place close (but not touching) around the sphere. What will the new temperature of the sphere be now?
C) Now image the shell has an emissivity of 0.5. What will the temperature of the sphere be now?
The first 2 should take you about 5 minutes to figure out. The third might take a bit longer.
Tim, when you falsely accuse me of rejecting 99% of establsihed thermodynamics, you are not being truthful.
Your exact words: “But when you casually dismiss 99% of what is written in thermodynamics textbooks to be “pseudoscience”…”
I never have done any such thing. You are just desperate.
Clean up you act.
–A) Imagine a sphere (emissivity = 1) in the vacuum of space far from any stars or other warm objects. The sphere has an internal heat source (maybe an electric heater) that provides a uniform, continuous 200 W/m^2 of thermal power to the sphere. What will the temperature of the surface be (once steadystate has been reached)?–
So it radiate 200 watts per square meter, rather than being like Earth which radiate 240 watts per square on average.
Temperature, well lava would need to be near the surface and/or lots of volcanic eruptions.
Does it have a ocean? I would guess if had ocean it would a warmer ocean than Earth has [or has had in last billion years].
–B) imagine a thin shell of metal coated to have an emissivity of 1 (both inside and outside) that is place close (but not touching) around the sphere. What will the new temperature of the sphere be now?–
Slightly cooler. But still radiate 200 watts.
In terms of temperature it matters whether you have ocean and/or atmosphere.
–C) Now image the shell has an emissivity of 0.5. What will the temperature of the sphere be now?–
Still radiating 200 watts, but surface needs to warmer as compared to the emissivity of 1 shell.
If put a emissivity of 1 shell one top of .5 shell and then returns to same temperature.
If has an atmosphere, in order to radiate average of 200 watt, the metal surface [either emission 1 or .5] has to be warmer as compare to a vacuum.
If atmosphere like Earth [1 atm and greenhouse gases] it should have higher average temperature than Earth.
If no ocean and no greenhouse gas, but instead 1 atm of N2, it probably cooler than earth, but metal surface is still hotter with this 1 atm N2 atmosphere.
Or plate would be hotter with 1 atm N2 as compared a thinner Mars atmosphere.
Prove me wrong. Do an actual calculation. Demonstrate your abilities. I gave you three EASY problems and all you do is deflect.
A) 244 K
B) 244 K
C) 290 K
Gbaike:
“So it radiate 200 watts per square meter, rather than being like Earth which radiate 240 watts per square on average.”
YES.
“Temperature, well lava would need to be near the surface and/or lots of volcanic eruptions.”
I had postulated electric heaters, which would suffice. Lava would be MUCH too warm for radiate 200 W/m^2.
“Does it have a ocean?”
I should perhaps have been more specific and said a solid sphere. With no mention of gas or water (and specifically saying the sphere was in a vacuum), the implication was that the sphere had no atmosphere and no oceans. The point was to do the most basic calculation without atmosphere or greenhouse effect (or convection or evaporation or day/night variations or …).
Also, since the surface will be ~ 244 K, that would preclude any liquid oceans. (As you would have known if you calculated the temperature.)
In any case, you may now assume no gases or liquids of any kind; a smooth solid black sphere.
“Slightly cooler. But still radiate 200 watts. [With a thin shell around the sphere.]”
No. The Sphere would be noticeably warmer! The *shell* would be the temperature that the sphere had been before. The sphere would be significantly warmer than before.
“Also, since the surface will be ~ 244 K, that would preclude any liquid oceans. (As you would have known if you calculated the temperature.)
In any case, you may now assume no gases or liquids of any kind; a smooth solid black sphere.”
I was going to post something else, one reason is at later point noted that you said electrical heater which it suggested that it was to be a small and not have atmosphere- be some small sphere in a vacuum.
And anyway it was rather long, and summarize it.
Europa is thought by many people to have a liquid ocean and it doesn’t have anywhere close to 200 watts per square- perhaps less than 1 watt per square meter. Of course it does not have liquid ocean at the surface instead the thickness of ice might similar to ice sheets on Earth. And of course Antarctica has large liquid lake.
If you had 200 watts, the ice at surface would warmer and have more water vapor in the atmosphere. And water vapor plus if have an earth like atmospheric mass would have “greenhouse effect”.
But also got around to mentioning small sphere, I copy/paste that bit:
“…Anyhow, with small sphere of 1 meter radius, with 12.57 square meter. And electric heater generating 200 times 12.57 = 2514 joules of heat per second, a blacbody
surface in vacuum emits 200 watts per square meter and is 244 K [-29 C]. And if surface emitted 1/2 much as blackbody at given temperature, it would warmer than this”
Btw, water evaporates below -29 C.
JD:
1) Yes, 244 K is correct.
2) No. The *shell* will be 244 K, to radiate 200 W/m^2 to space. The surface of the sphere must radiate 200 W/m^2 to the 244 K shell. Clearly the sphere cannot also be 244 K, or there would be no temperature difference and no outward energy flow. The sphere must be warmer than the shell to create a thermal energy flow. (290 K to be precise.)
3) Until we can agree on (2) there is no point even starting with (3).
gbaikie, as you show, it is easy to get mired down in details. It seems we are pretty mch on the same wavelength for the basics.
Two quick side comments.
1) In my scenario (3), the SHELL had an emissivity of 0.5, bit the sphere. A bare sphere with e = 0.5 would indeed be warmer than 244 K (ie 290 K).
2) I suspect you meant that frozen water sublimates @ -29 C (which it should do, slowly).
2) WRONG, Tim. You’re still confused by radiative heat transfer. Both the sphere AND the shell would be at 244 K. A temperature difference is NOT required for emission from the sphere. The two objects can be at different temperatures, with energy flow.
Learn some physics. Then clean up your act.
JD, what physics anywhere says that 200 W of net thermal power moves from one square meter at 244 K to another square meter AT EXACTLY THE SAME TEMPERATURE? What equation do you use for your calculation?
* Does the left wall of my office at 20 C radiate net energy to the right wall at 20C? Or maybe the net transfer is the right wall to left wall?
* Does a piece of copper @ 20 C in my office transfer net thermal energy to the air at 20C? OR maybe it the copper absorbs net energy?
On my side, both the zeroth and the second laws say there can be no net transfer between two objects at the same temperature.
So unless you know some physics that allows us to disregard the Zeroeth and Second Laws, I will stick with real physics.
Tim, I have no problem with you locking yourself in your cloistered office, away from reality. Cling to your incorrect interpretations of 0th and 2nd LoTs, if you must.
But don’t expect go get away with your false accustations and misrepresentations of others.
Tim Says,
“Actually, every scientist who studies climate (including the various ‘skeptics’ Dr Spencer mentions in his post) knows that GHGS in general (and CO2 in particular) contribute to a surface that is warmer than it could possibly be without the IR absorbing properties of the GHGs”
Just to clarify your point Tim, you are referring to averages.
Temperatures are maximized during the day in deserts where ghg’s are lower for similar latitude areas. Also, on the moon where ghg’s don’t exist you will have higher temperatures then on the Earth Surface. Compare Mars with Phoebes and same result. What ghg’s do is reduce cooling, which in turn increases average temperature.
The following is a table for highest temperature (C) recorded by each country grouped by regions. Sorry for the formatting, can be pasted into excel and parsed into columns.
Global,Avg,Avg,number,number,max,max
Region,Pre 1970,Post 1970,Pre 1970,Post 1970,Pre 1970,Post 1970
Africa,51.9,45.7,3,11,55,51.3
Asia,45.4,45.8,3,36,53.9,54
Europe,39.6,40.7,9,38,46.2,48
North America,43.7,38.3,4,10,56.7,52
South Pacific,43,36.7,2,7,50.7,42.4
South America,46.4,43.8,2,6,48.9,46.7
All,43.7,42.6,23,108,56.7,54
On average, records are 1.1 C lower post 1970, slightly higher in Europe/Asia but lower in Africa, North and South America and South Pacific. The maximums temperature 4 of 6 regions are still pre 1970, with the maximum worldwide still held by Death Valley. You will also note that the ratio of countries with new post 1970 records is 5 to 1, many grab onto this as an increase in extreme temperatures, however they are still short of existing high temp records pre 1970.
I would bet if I did a similar analysis on record minimums you would see the reverse (higher temperature minimums). And I would bet these would be much higher than the reduction of the maximum temperature records.
I only mention this because many on the blog think Tmax is increasing, but this is only because the bulk of the data is started in a known cool period of the Globe. Thus the anomaly will be increasing, though the absolute values don’t exceed other absolute values that have a longer history.
JDHuffmann,
Thanks for your critique: I’m a little desperate for feedback regarding the analysis/ statistics I’m trying to present, because I haven’t seen anybody else present the chasm between Alarmists and Skeptics in this way before, and, being an Architect, not a ‘scientist’, Its helpful to have another set of eyes consider the logic, and say if it looks reasonable or not.
Mostly, my Friends who are interested to have an opinion at all, and especially my friends with ‘scientific training’ of any sort (Marine Biologist, for instance), just say its invalid because I’m not qualified to say anything on the matter at all.
I find this attitude repulsive and anti-humanist…. especially since I don’t have visions of grandeur: the limit of my analytical contribution is looking at proxies, and drawing lines, to look at change of variable over a period of time… something I think I learned how to do in 8th Grade Science, and the rest is just some algebra comparing the results against what UAH and NOAA calculate…. If my process and product are reasonable / accurate / correct, it shouldn’t matter what my credentials are.
But if theres an error in my thinking I want to know about it. So far none of my detractors have identified anything specifically other than my lack of authority.
Andrew, your not being a “scientist” is why you are still able to think for yourself. The epidemic of indoctrination within “Institutionalized Pseudoscience” dominates what is now called “science”.
Trump’s New Science Adviser Wants ‘All Points Of View’ On Climate Change
…
““I welcome all points of view…science rarely provides immutable answers about anything,” Droegemeier said in response to a question about climate change.
“I think science is the loser when we tend to vilify and marginalize other voices,” he later added, “and I think we have to have everyone at the table talking about these things and let science take us where it takes us.”
He will be the first meteorologist to serve as a president’s science adviser; all others have been physicists.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/trump-science-advisor-confirmed/
Linked from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/trumps-science-adviser-confirmed-and-his-views-on-climate-change-are-refreshing/#more-40473
Study shows the Sahara swung between lush and desert conditions every 20,000 years, in sync with monsoon activity
–Primitive rock paintings and fossils excavated from the region suggest that the Sahara was once a relatively verdant oasis, where human settlements and a diversity of plants and animals thrived.
Now researchers at MIT have analyzed dust deposited off the coast of west Africa over the last 240,000 years, and found that the Sahara, and North Africa in general, has swung between wet and dry climates every 20,000 years.
They say that this climatic pendulum is mainly driven by changes to the Earths axis as the planet orbits the sun, which in turn affect the distribution of sunlight between seasonsevery 20,000 years, the Earth swings from more sunlight in summer to less, and back again.–
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/study-shows-the-sahara-swung-between-lush-and-desert-conditions-every-20000-years-in-sync-with-monsoon-activity/#more-40462
[[I think this broadly, relates to deniers]]
Solzhenitsyn: The Fall of a Prophet
“The 100th anniversary of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s birth on December 11 was an occasion for many tributes. A decade after his death, Solzhenitsyn remains one of the past century’s towering figures in both literature and public life. His role in exposing the crimes of the Soviet regime is a historic achievement the magnitude of which can hardly be overstated.”
https://quillette.com/2018/12/21/solzhenitsyn-the-fall-of-a-prophet/
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Oh, and I thought this was interesting:
“To Solzhenitsyn, the worship of pluralism inevitably led to moral relativism and loss of universal values, which he believed had paralyzed the West. He also warned that if the communist regime in Russia were to fall, the pluralists would rise, and their thousand-fold clamor will not be about the peoples needs not about the responsibilities and obligations of each person, but about rights, rights, rightsa scenario that, in his view, could result only in another national collapse.”
Dr Spencer,
I didn’t see this episode of Meet The Press, but based solely on the quote you gave, your rebuttal is a “strawman”!
To paraphrase slightly, CHUCK TODD says:
We are not going to debate with people who deny:
1) the existence of climate change.
2) human activity is a major cause.
Nothing you presented states:
a) he won’t debate the DEGREE of change
b) he won’t debate the DEGREE to which humans are responsible.
c) he thinks you and the other scientists you listed are “deniers” of climate change or human impact.
Now, it is quite possible that the REST of the episode made those specific claims. But so far, I see a strawman rebuttal to a pair of statements you actually agree with!
Tim,
Chuck stated 1&2 to avoid addressing a&b hence he groups a&b thinkers under c instead of including any such thoughts in the program.
Please watch the episode and count the seconds spent on a&b. You will not need a stop watch because its 0.
MrZ, you present your own plausible OPINION — you may or may not be right. To state this as a fact would require actual evidence, not just your gut feelings. I personally find it is notoriously difficult to guess the thoughts and motives of others.
You are right Tim one need to be careful jumping to conclusion about individuals. About MSM, not so sure…
My evidence here was the 1&2 framing and then the actual program where a&b got no time at all. Any uncertainties added by a a&b type discussion would have blurred the message.
What is your gut feeling why he even stated 1&2?
But so far, I see a strawman rebuttal to a pair of statements you actually agree with!
That’s it, in a nutshell.
Perhaps Mr Todd should invite D**g C****n.
Roy Spencer says:
January 4, 2019 at 6:08 AM
Im not sure what you mean. You cant have more than 100% of the warming due to humans.
Somewhere in AR5 is an assessment of attribution of temperature change.
They calculate the the combined natural forcings produced 0.05C cooling since 1880 and the observed warming was 1C.
Thus human activity has countered the 0.05C cooling and, in addition, caused 1C warming.
This is a human caused temperature change of 1.05C, 105% of the observed warming.
Very funny, E-man, and original.
You’re a comedic genius!
He is actually right!
The cooling between 1940 and 1975 that we now have erased from the records would actually have continued hadnt we put more CO2 in the atmosphere. This is much clearer if we can look beyond the measurement adjustments we needed for another set of arguments.
(Do I need a /sarc)?
Look at climatic history and you will see the warming last century is nothing unique.
Watch the cooling evolve which started 3 years ago.
Dr. Spencer, Your reference to the ARGO float data misses a vital point.
The deep oceans exhibit temperatures just above the freezing point of fresh water. This is the result of the THC sinking of very cold waters at higher latitudes over many centuries, a process which continually replenishes those deep waters. The surface temperatures are much warmer in the shallow layer above the thermocline, which might be in the range of a hundred meters (mol) thick. Presenting an average over 2000 meters as a metric of climate change will thus understate the warming of the oceans surface layers, where the action is taking place as the result of the warming in the atmosphere directly above.
Not to forget that warming in the high latitude North Atlantic may result in changes in the THC sinking, particularly in the Nordic Seas. I suggest that you should have taken a more detailed look at the ARGO data before presenting your graphical conclusion. Cherry picking data is an old denialist ploy.
E. Swanson: “the thermocline, which might be in the range of a hundred meters (mol) thick.”
The thermocline extends to 1000 meters not 100 meters. The thermocline is established by the depth that solar light penetrates into the ocean.
The ocean depths have been made a critical topic by the warmmongers. That is mostly because they don’t want the missing heat to be knocking around among the stars which most likely a good deal of it is.
So if the warming of the deep ocean becomes a critical step in realizing model predicted surface warming at .0033degC/year works out to 900 years not 100 years.
I think that unless the progressives are able to stop all progress we might have solved the problem by then.
B Hunter, No, the depth of the thermocline isn’t determined by the depth to which light penetrates. HERE’s a Wikipedia reference which mentions the temperature profile being in the upper 500 meters or less in the ocean. It’s the warm upper layer of a few hundred meters thickness which is well mixed which I wanted to highlight and one really needs to look at oceanographic data to understand that below about 500 meters, the temperature changes very slowly, since there’s little vertical mixing and the temperature changes due to conduction.
I’ve seen some graphics showing this, but can’t easily find a reference.
I would give you a reference to NOAA’s articles on the thermocline but their site is currently down because of the shutdown. However, after reading your wikipedia article I determined it wasn’t necessary.
You simply didn’t read what you didn’t want to know. First the wikipedia article states on the formation of thermoclines:
“thermoclines may be a semi-permanent feature of the body of water in which they occur, or they may form temporarily in response to phenomena such as the radiative heating/cooling of surface water during the day/night.”
Since the article also includes lakes in the range of thermoclines, lakes have other chemical processes going on that can form thermoclines. Perhaps some specific areas in the ocean does as well but thermoclines are generally formed by the penetration of light into the ocean which establishes their bottom and wave/storm/wind action at the surface defines the “well-mixed” uniform temperature layer that sits on top of the thermocline.
There is no set depth for any of this but the vast portion of the oceans have extremely clear water so thermoclines reach to very deep depths. And that’s another place you fell short in reading your own wikipedia article reference. There is a graph in the article showing a semi-permanent mid-latitude thermocline reaching down to almost 2000 meters. In some locations especially near coastlines where water turbidity is a big issue thermoclines can be very shallow. I started out thinking they were at 80 feet many years ago from diving experiences.
NOAA advances 1000 meters as more or less an average depth of the bottom of the thermocline, though I am not sure they actually characterize it that way as most NOAA professionals don’t make such claims unless they have enough data to support what they say. I only have about 20 years experience with working with scores of NOAA science personnel to make that statement.
B Hunter, I found a link to a graph of data for one section of the Atlantic along 25W longitude. From the graph, one can see that the Atlantic is quite cold below roughly ~1000 m and the coldest water is due to sinking from the Antarctic, shown as the deep blue water on the LHS. This graph doesn’t indicate the THC sinking from the Arctic Mediterranean, which occurs as flows over the Greenland-Iceland Scotland sills. There is also some sinking which occurs in the Labrador Sea. There’s no THC in the North Pacific.
I suggest that the warming signal is muted below the warm surface layer because of the continual upwelling of the cold water from below. Whether the local thermocline represents the best cutoff for assessment of warming is another matter. Sorry to say that I haven’t followed the research more closely, as I don’t have access to the literature.
HERE’s data for 10 to 1500m from NOAA, which says:
Of course, that isn’t temperature data, but I suppose one could dig deeper to find that and there are numerous references at the web site.
B Hunter, There’s a new paper just out in the PNAS regarding ocean heat content.
The analysis found that the average surface energy flow has been 0.22 ± 0.05 W/m2 (top 700 m) and 0.30 ± 0.06 W/m2 (top 2,000 m) between 1955 and 2017. Thus, from this data, the warming from 700 to 2000 m is 0.09 W/m^2, thus about 70% of the warming is in the first 700 m of depth. It’s not that simple, but this data supports my point that most of the warming is in the near surface layer(s), thus Dr. Spencer’s presentation understates the warming by presenting the temperature change within the 0 to 2000 m data.
E. Swanson – Your source merely supports the idea that only .04 warming in the past 12 years is really small.
1955 to 2017 is 62 years so .30 warming works out to an average of .005 per year.
Yet Argo shows for the 12 years .0033 per year (roy said .004 so he only divided by 10). You suppose CO2 is a cooling influence on the oceans since emissions are up about 20 times over that period? Sure looks like it from simple analyses like yours.
I would suggest that perhaps you shouldn’t assume what Roy was comparing the warming to. With alarmists claiming the recent slowdown in warming being attributed to accelerated ocean uptake.
Or maybe CO2 warms the atmosphere and cools the ocean creating a huge negative feedback. One simply cannot take a few data points in this business and start extrapolating all over the place. . . .it always comes back to bite you.
B Hunter, The data from the PNAS paper and also that from my previous post are for the effective surface warming rate, not the average temperature of the layers. As such, one can not simply divide that number by the years of measurements, as the warming rate is a continuing energy flow into the oceans. Also, there’s no guarantee that the rate of warming has been a constant over the entire period from 1950 thru 2017, indeed my other post suggests that the rate is now larger.
You clearly don’t understand the data and it’s implications. Dr. Spencer’s temperature change is the result of a prodigious quantity of energy added to a layer of water 2,000 m thick, causing in a small increase in temperature for the period. That temperature increase represents yet another piece of evidence of the warming of the Earth, evidence which is independent of the land surface, atmospheric and satellite records. The data points to an ongoing ocean warming, not cooling.
E. Swanson says: As such, one can not simply divide that number by the years of measurements,
Yes you are correct on that I read through your post too quickly. I had been discussing that paper elsewhere. In particular this part:
“The global full-depth OHC from 1871 to present is estimated
at 436 ± 91 ZJ. The reconstructed OHC increase during 1921–
1946 (145 ± 62 ZJ) is comparable with change estimated during
1990–2015 (153 ± 44 ZJ).”
With 298zj of heat added to the ocean in 2 25 year periods separated by 44 years the idea that only 8zj more was added in the second 25 years would seem to suggest that increasing CO2 emissions may not be contributing much at all since it didn’t in the first half of the 20th century.
B Hunter, The PNAS paper is quite complicated and one must read it carefully. As usual, the early periods exhibit the greatest uncertainty and those results are heavily dependent on modeling. Of course, humanities industrial efforts have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere for more than 2 centuries, so it’s not surprising that the warming would be expected to have begun to appear in the 1921-1945 period.
Then too, the data you quote is for the full depth of the oceans and the deepest layers are the slowest to respond. Those deepest layers are also going to exhibit the greatest uncertainty as well. As the authors note:
E. Swanson says:
So you don’t see anything at all suspect about the lack of increase in warming rate, and the factors of magnitude increase in CO2 emissions? You just hand wave it away as lousy science in estimating the warming rate in the early 20th century? Seems to me that Al Gore and Michael Mann already took a shot at that and failed. As an auditor and 20+ years experience in the policy arena I see this kind of mindset all the time. The scientist dons a set of horse racing blinders and picks one solid scientific fact (that CO2 absorbs radiant energy) and then pretends everything else is outside his field of view, including the failure of billions of dollars of his models over 40 years to replicate any period of warming.
The only difference with this issue is none of the other issues I worked on ever came close to getting billions to advance it. It actually doesn’t take near that amount of money to drive that mindset. All it takes is a few missionaries or ladder climbing brown noses and they come dime a dozen. Always have and always will.
Bill Hunter says:
You do know that the function of CO2 to temperature is logarithmic, don’t you?
Svante says: “You do know that the function of CO2 to temperature is logarithmic, don’t you?”
Of course I do!
But there was about 5 times the CO2 increase in the later period and CO2 only increased by about 30%. Its so out of whack advocates don’t even want to graph anything prior to 1950 unless its goes back so as to make the industrial revolution look like straight line warming as if we suddenly started out the first week in the middle of the 19th century emitting annually almost as much as we do now.
Bill Hunter says:
Here’s ln(CO2) plus volcanoes from 1753 against the backdrop of the global instrumental record. There are many other forces at play but they don’t last like CO2.
https://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
B Hunter, Nice rant, which ignores the basic point I made. Your quoted data is for the entire ocean, whereas in the PNAS paper, they note that the warming below 2,000 m is not statistically significant. I previously pointed out that about 70% of the warming is in the top 700 m, so spreading this warming over around 3,700 m average depth (max 6,000 m or more) won’t show much increase in the rate.
As an aside, I recall reading years ago that tracer studies indicate that it takes about 600 years for the sinking water around the Antarctic to reach the Equator in the Pacific. I conclude that those bottom waters are very isolated from the surface.
You may be an “auditor” in the “policy arena”, but you aren’t a scientist (or even an engineer, like me).
Svante says: https://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
Thanks for making my case for me. The CO2 plus volcanos line pierces a straight as an arrow line through the hump created by the early 20th century warming.
E Swanson says: in the PNAS paper, they note that the warming below 2,000 m is not statistically significant.
Perhaps you should note that the figures I quoted from the paper and noted as being essentially non-differential between the early 20th century warming and the late 20th century warming were from ABOVE 2,000 meters which the author says is statistically significant warming, only the difference between those numbers is statistically insignificant.
B Hunter, Your post included this quote from the PNAS paper:
What about the term full-depth gave you the impression that you were referring to 0 to 2,000 m data? And, not to forget, the error range for the earlier period was larger than that for the later period. In fact, in the next paragraph from which you quoted, the authors note:
Bill Hunter says:
“Thanks for making my case for me. The CO2 plus volcanos line pierces a straight as an arrow line through the hump created by the early 20th century warming.”
You’re welcome, that was largely due to the ENSO (fig. 10c).
The war years are statistical outliers in the instrumental record (fig. A2):
https://tinyurl.com/y7c37cyh
Well put Swanson, never thought of it that way.
E.Swanson: You say ‘I suggest that you should have taken a more detailed look at the ARGO data before presenting your graphical conclusion. Cherry picking data is an old denialist ploy.’
You come across as a pompous individual, lacking courtesy.
If you have a point to make, discuss it in a proper scientific manner. Draw the reader’s attention to the parts of the the ARGO data that support your argument, and make a proper case for your point of view.
e. swanson says: “What about the term full-depth gave you the impression that you were referring to 0 to 2,000 m data? And, not to forget, the error range for the earlier period was larger than that for the later period. In fact, in the next paragraph from which you quoted, the authors note:
Before 1970, the uncertainty among the observational datasets is large.”
What don’t you get about the upper 2000 meters comprising almost all the warming?
You are focusing on the idea that the “rate” of warming is low in the ocean I am focusing on the fact the rate is not significantly accelerating. The claim is the deep ocean is accelerating but at a small rate. If we consider the deep ocean then the difference between the two periods is even less. Its already insignificant and you want me to consider that really its even less significant.
So what does this mean. After all we can look at the surface record adjusted readings and not see any significant acceleration in rates there either.
Of course then for the last few years we have been regaled with excuses that the heat was diving deep into the ocean.
So we have gone in search of it and found nothing significant there either.
B Hunter, The authors don’t provide the two 25 year comparisons you highlight for the 0 to 2,000 m range, only that for the full depth. They do provide their data for the upper layers, stating:
Please notice that these data indicate an increase in the warming rate. Your claim that there isn’t an increase in rate is simply wrong.
But, your use of the word “significant” appears to be the common meaning, i.e., “small”, whereas the authors are using that word for the deep oceans in the statistical sense. I hope you understand the difference.
So if the authors don’t carefully hold your hand and guide you to specific comparisons in the data you get lost?
LMAO!
The comparison is there. And yes statistics is part of the curriculum for my major, happened to be number one in my class. So if you can drop the ad hominems and honestly address the issues you might actually qualify as a scientist and not some holy roller.
The fact is E. Swanson the study you introduced here merely highlights Dr. Spencer’s point that warming in the ocean is miniscule.
The study you linked to goes even further to establish that fact than Dr. Spencer went. The fact is this study was unable to statistically differentiate between the warming beginning in 1920 and the warming beginning in 1990. Over 70 years of the period of most intense acceleration of CO2 emissions there is no statistically significant difference in the warming rate of the overall ocean.
Of course at the ocean surface with decades of priestly scientist monks adjusting past temperature readings there is a statistical difference over a 100 years ago that likely would not be there but for the adjustments. This study underlines that statement with bold double underlines.
I suspect that if you substituted the UAH temperature record for the surface record about half the acceleration in the surface record would disappear. The other half probably is accounted for in past versions of the surface record. I suspect, don’t know it for sure, but it would be an interesting exercise to see if alignment could be achieved with existing datasets old and new with what is found in this study.
And of course you are so deeply inculcated into the cultism you can’t see it.
It really is a sad state of affairs. All the “science is settled” deferment of public discussion on the matter is doing nothing but wrongly diverting resources from research that is badly needed. I realize that inside the cult ordinary skepticism has been quashed out of the idea that if you alarm the people that will be good for science. But that’s nothing but common thievery. May as well be a well-off kleptomaniac Walmart shoplifter whose mission it is to raise the price of essential goods for the ordinary man. And you accuse Dr. Spencer of an “old denialist ploy”. What a cruel joke!
B Hunter, I must have struck a nerve with my post. You apparently don’t want to admit that your use of the word “significant” (meaning “small” or “trivial”) was different from that in the PNAS paper. You complain that I am using ad hominems, then proceed to throw out a few yourself, a typical two-faced response on this blog.
As for the UAH data, the MSU/AMSU data isn’t surface data and has been controversial since it was first proposed as a climate measure more than 25 years ago. As you may know, there are 3 other groups who analyze this data and there are differences between the results with UAH showing the least warming of the two others which provide global results. I have published 2 papers analyzing the MSU/AMSU data, which I think shows that the UAH results may be flawed, a conclusion which I demonstrated but not prove.
Sad to say, Dr. Spencer has firmly embeded himself within the denialist camp, a fact which is obvious if one reads some of his non-technical writings and public testimony. I offer as proof his signing of the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming from the Cornwall Alliance.
E. Swanson says: “I must have struck a nerve with my post.”
Don’t you wish, huh? I have been online now for over 25 years and no one has ever struck a nerve. I realize that folks posting online tend to think they can be nasty and impolite because of anonymity.
In case you didn’t notice the last paragraph of my post wasn’t about you at all. Its merely my opinion of people who claim to be real scientists refusing to debate using the excuse the science is settled. Actually I have not heard you say that once and here you are debating. I have no idea why you think I may have been referring to you. Perhaps you do.
When I say a figure is small what it means it is small. If I say something is statistically insignificant it means that it can’t be mathematically differentiated from zero. Small can be a lot bigger than the level of statistical significance and still be too small to be supportive of alarmist levels of warming.
Your nitpicking is a similar response to your ad hominems since you have zero scientific reply to what I am saying you chose to attack me rather than argue your alarmist position. Simple as that I am afraid.
Of course you think UAH data is flawed as it doesn’t fit your preconceptions and biases. I tend to be considerably less biased and recognize that satellite methodology is a far better sampling method but may not be perfect. Probably the most genuine way to express belief in dangerous warming is to recognize that none of the monitoring systems are currently supporting it.
Some may be closer than others. I simply offered UAH as an example of how to potentially completely eliminate any acceleration in surface warming expected from CO2 emissions. I can recognize that may or may not be a correct way to proceed. I doubt you are so balanced.
And you forget I have decades of experience in actually dealing with such issues when a lot was at stake. One has to be completely heartless to not recognize uncertainty when it so obviously exists.
And my definition of a denialist is when someone denies an established fact. What one believes in the absence of knowledge is an intensely personal matter. People who criticize that fall into a category of individuals with identical tendencies to superman fascists, religious bigots, and racists.
And as a final shot over the bow. We are arguing about 3 deg C warming in 250 years. People today thrive in nations with mean temperatures that vary by 25 deg C. The standard for alarmism is ridiculously small.
B. Hunter, From your previous post, you wrote:
From the context, it’s rather obvious that you are using the word “significant” to mean “small” as would be understood by a non-technical layman.
You claim that:
No, I showed that the data you presented doesn’t support your conclusion, since the warming above 700 m is greater than that for 2000 m which, in turn, is greater still than the warming to full depth. You failed to reply to my presentation of the data.
Then you wrote:
No, I think the UAH data is flawed because I’ve analyzed it and because of the earlier history of several errors. I’ve attempted to understand the science of AGW, over a span of more than 40 years since joining AAAS. I can’t claim to fully understand the science, but the evidence appears to be overwhelming that humanity is changing the Earth’s climate, IMHO. I don’t deny the uncertainty, which affects all climate records, uncertainty which increases with older records. I’ve written about that too, finding errors in work by others who failed to understand the records they analyzed, their work being clearly for political consumption leading up to the 2008 election cycle.
As for your comment about a 2 or 3 C global temperature increase, which might arrive before 2100, one must realize that humans can not survive when dew point temperatures reach or exceed 35 C because our bodies can not be cooled by evaporation. There are already places on Earth where this situation occurs and adding a few more degrees would increase the area impacted during extreme events. Of course, 2100 is not your 250 years in the future, when things would be much worse after BAU emissions from burning all the oil and coal which might be extracted.
E. Swanson says: “No, I showed that the data you presented doesn’t support your conclusion, since the warming above 700 m is greater than that for 2000 m which, in turn, is greater still than the warming to full depth. You failed to reply to my presentation of the data.”
Actually I did respond but perhaps not clearly enough. I am saying that the magnitude of warming only matters comparatively. The short term effect of increasing surface temperatures isn’t concerning even if you fully attribute them to CO2 which I think is an absurdity.
The oceans have been used as a cover claiming the excess heat is being absorbed deeply in the ocean and all of sudden (in the next century) its going to pop out again and realize the model projections. Hogwash! The amount of warming is very small its going to take millennia for the oceans to warm. Thats one point. The point I was making is there is no significant change in acceleration. One does not need to crank that through a statistical model. One see that from the error bars already provided without doing any math.
When you talk about survivability its deceptive to talk in terms of “mean” temperatures. High temperatures are increasing at much slower rate than the low temperatures. But if a few places in the world became too hospitable, the fact is people congregate around the equator today and don’t live at all in the farthest reaches of the high latitudes. We live on a planet that for our species is relatively cold. Ruminations about increasing inhospitable places simply does not hold much water. The planet is always changing and the climate is always changing naturally.
Even if places become inhospitable most of the effects are going to be on land values. Mankind’s additions to that value depreciate away in a matter of a few decades. If you are stupid enough to stand out in the bad weather without moving you are dumber than a cave man keeping in mind folks migrated to America out of climate change so whining about somebody’s inability to move is part of the ridiculousness we see growing in American culture.
Global warming is an interesting career. Researching how mankind is affecting the planet is something Americans and British have been doing for centuries and is a major cause of how our nations became dominant. But put away the worry beads its way too soon to worry.
B. Hunter, Well, another long rant which ignores most of what I wrote. The only point you address is ocean warming when you wrote:
This ignores the reality that the deep oceans are isolated from the surface and continually replenished with very cold water from THC sinking at high latitudes. Of course, the THC is a seasonal phenomena and has been found to exhibit variability over the course of years. Most coupled GCMs project a weakening or shutdown of the THC as the result of AGW.
But, the subject of the top post is Spencer’s graph purporting to give ocean mean temperature change from the KNMI Climate Explorer, claiming an increase of 0.04 C from the surface down to 2,000 meters. Curiously, the KNMI data reports the anomaly, not actual temperature, which appears to show a larger warming of about 0.06 C, half again the number Spencer reports. The monthly 0-100m temperature series shows a warming of about 0.6 deg C since the 1970’s and the 0-700m data shows about 0.22 deg C, both much larger than that for 0 to 2,000m depth range. It’s clear that Spencer has again gone to some length to minimize the visual impact of the data by plotting the curve with a rather wide y-axis range.
Of course, your post ignored my comments regarding the UAH satellite temperature data. Hey, my stuff is published and I’m a real person, which is a dangerous situation, given the amount of political violence in the world today. You may be just another sock puppet who pops up to spread FUD and anti-science, like the other denialist trolls on this blog who take advantage of anonymity to post B_S.
E. Swanson says: – “Most coupled GCMs project a weakening or shutdown of the THC as the result of AGW.”
You do understand that a popularity contest isn’t science don’t you? I question that because you go around quoting “most coupled GCMs”. Its about as scientific as averaging a mean of 30 some odd climate models. Oh we will go over here average 30 guesses and gee thats the most likely outcome. LMAO! The only sciences thats related to is psychology, political science, and legal science that employs such ideas as post normal science, the precautionary principle, and the best available science.
The fact that virtually if not all the climate models are over predicting warming suggests strongly they share something thats just plain wrong, a fundamentally wrong assumption, if not more than one.
If some were missing the mark in the opposite direction you might have a better chance of finding it but most likely the correct answer is they have something wrong that there is high confidence of being right or something we are completely ignorant about. Could be sensitivity, feedback or pre-feedback, or it could be natural.
The idea of regulating human activities is purely political a view held by those most interested in controlling other people. It really matters not the motivation. To those not willfully being controlled, especially poorer less powerful people, its all the same.
As to your comments about UAH and your articles I only glanced at them and haven’t studied the issue sufficiently to comment on your criticisms. Though I am never comfortable with the idea of filtering out noise simply because you don’t know what it is. I also am mystified by your claim of cooling on the arctic ocean by the UAH dataset. The dataset I am looking at has the highest anomaly for the arctic ocean of all the parsed datasets in the UAH record.
I will note though myself I greatly favored the approach of only measuring 80n to 80s. I realize the arctic became a big focus when accelerated warming was found there but if you concern is inhabitability as you suggested this is only relevant in mitigating some of your concerns. It has little if no connection to your concerns about people dying of heat. I think I will leave it at that.
B. Hunter wrote (among other things):
That “fact” only applies to the comparison presented by John Christy and Roy Spencer, work which hasn’t been documented in the literature, to my knowledge. One must understand that they compare their TMT satellite results with models and balloon data after processing the GCM results and the balloon data to create simulated MSU/AMSU measurements, that processing being a source of further uncertainty. It’s widely known that the TMT is contaminated with stratospheric cooling and thus understates the warming compared to the surface. Other comparisons using surface data indicate better agreement than the Christy and Spencer graphs.
You also wrote:
You don’t specify the data set which you are “looking at”. The “Lower Troposphere” LT land and ocean data for the Arctic from UAH indicates a warming of 0.25 K/decade, while the RSS data shows a much larger trend of 0.46 K/decade. My point was that both may be understating the warming because they include influence from the surface and they both register open water (and melt ponds) as colder than sea-ice. As the sea-ice declines in summer and melt ponds form on the surface, the result would be a negative trend introduced into the long term record, IMHO.
The Antarctic is a much different situation, the high land ice elevation reaching upwards into the LT product, strongly affecting the result. Also, over the Antarctic, the loss of ozone would cool the upper range of the UAH MT from which the UAH LT is produced, adding further confusion. RSS simply ignores the Antarctic, excluding data from 70S to the South Pole.
E. Swanson says: “My point was that both may be understating the warming because they include influence from the surface and they both register open water (and melt ponds) as colder than sea-ice”
Thats all fine and good. I haven’t really looked into the matter at all so I have no comment on it. But I would note that you really didn’t address what I essentially stated. Why should we be concerned about trends over arctic ocean sea ice? And why should we be concerned over confounding layers over the central Antarctic when ice levels are increasing there?
Bottom line is relevance is more important than trends, and regional trends are more releveant than global trends. Thats because impacts arise out of very specific stimuli. I would expect arctic climate over the ocean to be warmer once ice is stripped off its surface. The arctic is a net loser of heat thus if its warmer its an indicator of being more efficient at cooling the planet. I have doubts that much of this is due to CO2. Ice has come and gone in the Arctic over the previous century. Its impossible to say anything unusual is going on there when the NW passage and NE passages just reopened again in the late naughts after being closed for a few decades.
An analogy of the arctic to the common man might be the radiators of a home’s heat pump is put outside of the house because it radiates a lot of heat something you don’t want to keep in the house.
The arctic for most folks from a global warming standpoint is kind of like that heatpump radiator over in the sideyard of the house emitting heat. Its a big “so what” to the ordinary man. You need to explain why feedback in such an innocuous form is so important to you.
Finally, I noted I preferred the old 80n to 80s. I would agree with RSS excluding 70s to the pole but have no idea why they don’t do it at both ends of the globe. 70n to 70s would be a whole lot more relevant to people.
B. Hunter, Here’s a reply to your previous comment referring to a “3 C warming in 250 years” instead of 2 to 4 degrees C by 2100. Turns out things may already be getting too warm for some critters in the natural world.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-collapse-we-are-destroying-our-life-support-systems
E. Swanson says: – “Turns out things may already be getting too warm for some critters in the natural world.”
Wow! Thats really tragic. You ought to hire a team of lawyers and take that to court immediately.
Bill Hunter says:
You must also put a price on risk. Ask any insurance company.
Solving global warming in court is absolutely not economical. Fossil fuel is very hard to replace in some cases, in other cases it’s very easy. Cutting both uses in half is absolutely not economical. The pricing mechanism gives everyone the signal they need to make a rational choice. It will drive investments and technical development in an optimal way.
I think this is the biggest risk with global warming, little critters that can’t move far or fast enough, and then you have collapsing eco systems on your hands.
Again, solving all these cases in court is absolutely not economical.
Bill Hunter says:
Used to be the Shah, didn’t work out so well.
Bill,
‘Of course then for the last few years we have been regaled with excuses that the heat was diving deep into the ocean.’
Argo system deployed to find where the heat is going, with quite reasonable guess that most extra heat ends up in the ocean.
What you call excuses, is science finding out what is actually going on in a complex system.
I would hope you would want science to do exactly that.
Nate: The claim was made before anybody looked. Now after looking it can’t be detected.
Detected here:
https://tinyurl.com/ydxk9nt3
Nope! Warming is detected there but in comparison to estimated warming of the same part of the ocean its not warming faster than seen when CO2 emissions were very low. Early on scientists found it expedient to talk about unprecedented warming to separate it from ordinary climate change. Unprecedented was a manufactured concept using sacred trees and a popular politician to spread the malarkey. Lets face it Svante, mankind has adapted to these kinds of temperature changes for millennia.
“mankind has adapted to these kinds of temperature changes for millennia.”
That doesn’t mean it is economical for us now.
Svante says: – “That doesnt mean it is economical for us now.”
So now you are a financial visionary? LMAO!
The best financial system in the world is where each individual chooses to invest in what he thinks is a good investment. Works beautifully.
“after looking it cant be detected.”
Bill, obviously false. Stop making stuff up.
And you also declare that ocean warmed equally fast earlier. Data? Evidence?
Nate – You need to look above at the study offered up by E. Swanson to catch up in the discussion. The data in that study shows that current warming in the ocean is virtually the same as the warming seen starting about 100 years ago.
Here is a small bibliography of recent studies that show some surprising results.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/14/ocean-heat-content-surprises/#more-24627
Bill Hunter says:
That’s right, it has been proved mathematically that free markets will achieve
Pareto efficiency, but not if there are
external effects.
The simple solution is to internalize those costs, and then let consumers and producers have their free choice based on real cost.
Svante says – “Thats right, it has been proved mathematically that free markets will achieve
Pareto efficiency, but not if there are
external effects.
The simple solution is to internalize those costs, and then let consumers and producers have their free choice based on real cost.”
We have that in our system through the courts. We also have the option of taxation and regulation when costs are predictable without lots of uncertainty.
Your claim that its not economical for us now, is an unsupported claim. One has to actually demonstrate real harm, not imagined harm.
B. Hunter wrote:
Therein one finds the basic problem. Using the courts to decide the future course of the economy would be difficult, since, by definition, the full extent of the “harm” won’t appear immediately, instead will slowly grow worse in the future as humanity’s impacts on the environment become greater and ever more apparent to all levels of society.
Then too, our economic system has evolved over centuries with the basic assumption that it’s OK to exploit the natural world to the maximum, starting with the assumption that basic resources given the lowest value are considered “dirt cheap” or even “free as air”. After many millennia of pastoral economics, we’ve all become participants in an industrial high tech consumer economy in which most live in cities and must work at jobs which support the consumption processes so that each might each enjoy his/her share of the final consumption.
But, more recent scientific understanding informs us that an ever growing economy based on consumption is a dead end path, as the resources (including the atmosphere) are finite and thus will eventually cease to to be available to humanity at the rates we presently experience. Of course, the few people who presently receive the greatest share of those resources and the political class which supposedly decides how those resources are to be distributed are unwilling to accept the consequences of these scientific findings, as addressing the facts would mean major changes in the world’s economies. For the same reasons, the courts are also unable to address the massive future problems which one sees from the data, as the courts (aka: lawyers), like their counterparts in the political class, ultimately respond to the flow of money within the system.
Growth is the problem, not the solution, IMHO. I’m not thinking of capitalist vs. socialist, as both agree on growing the consumptive economy, differing only on the methods of distribution of the results. I see no way to achieve the necessary redirection of the course of human history without truly revolutionary change on a global scale. Sad to say, that doesn’t seem likely to occur peacefully, IMHO.
Bill,
“You need to look above at the study offered up by E. Swanson to catch up in the discussion. The data in that study shows that current warming in the ocean is virtually the same as the warming seen starting about 100 years ago.”
The data in that study shows that 75% of the rise in OHC since 1871 has happened since 1960.
In the middle there was an oscillation between 1900-1940. The down portion arguably due to strong volcanoes around 1910, then a recovery after that, that briefly produces a moderate rise 1920-40.
Nate says: “I have unverified explanations for everything”
The study says:
“The global full-depth OHC from 1871 to present is estimated at 436 ± 91 ZJ. The reconstructed OHC increase during 1921–1946 (145 ± 62 ZJ) is comparable with change estimated during 1990–2015 (153 ± 44 ZJ).”
First, We don’t know what the rise from 1921-1946 was from except that it mostly wasn’t increased CO2 from human emissions.
Second, scientists have claimed repeatedly that recent warmings are unprecedented and are incapable of being overridden by natural climate change.
Pray tell how this finding does not undermine those claims?
E. Swanson says: “Therein one finds the basic problem. Using the courts to decide the future course of the economy would be difficult, since, by definition, the full extent of the harm wont appear immediately, instead will slowly grow worse in the future as humanitys impacts on the environment become greater and ever more apparent to all levels of society.”
So you are saying that any harm observed now cannot be supported as being a “probable” result of manmade climate change, because that is the court standard.
E. Swanson says: “Then too, our economic system has evolved over centuries with the basic assumption that its OK to exploit the natural world to the maximum, starting with the assumption that basic resources given the lowest value are considered dirt cheap or even free as air. After many millennia of pastoral economics, weve all become participants in an industrial high tech consumer economy in which most live in cities and must work at jobs which support the consumption processes so that each might each enjoy his/her share of the final consumption.”
Thats called being “free”. Freedom is important to most people.
E. Swanson says: “But, more recent scientific understanding informs us that an ever growing economy based on consumption is a dead end path, as the resources (including the atmosphere) are finite and thus will eventually cease to to be available to humanity at the rates we presently experience. Of course, the few people who presently receive the greatest share of those resources and the political class which supposedly decides how those resources are to be distributed are unwilling to accept the consequences of these scientific findings, as addressing the facts would mean major changes in the worlds economies. For the same reasons, the courts are also unable to address the massive future problems which one sees from the data, as the courts (aka: lawyers), like their counterparts in the political class, ultimately respond to the flow of money within the system.”
You are claiming the courts are corrupt? Sorry doesn’t wash. We have a democracy Richard, in case you hadn’t noticed.
E. Swanson says: “Growth is the problem, not the solution, IMHO. Im not thinking of capitalist vs. socialist, as both agree on growing the consumptive economy, differing only on the methods of distribution of the results. I see no way to achieve the necessary redirection of the course of human history without truly revolutionary change on a global scale. Sad to say, that doesnt seem likely to occur peacefully, IMHO.”
You are making your biases well known, I hear you. My counterpoint would be that the industrial revolution brought revolutionary change on a global scale, except some corners of the world especially those with your point of view failed to benefit as much as others.
B. Hunter wrote:
No, I’m saying that today’s apparent effects of AGW are not large enough to induce the courts or the political class in the US to make the drastic changes which would be necessary to confront the projected impacts of BAU.
Hunter also wrote:
No one living within civilized society is “free”. But, you are completely misinterpreting my use of the word “free”. I was pointing to the fact that mankind has traditionally operated as if the natural world’s resources was “free” to exploit, without concern for the long term consequences (that is, “cost”) of such activities. The classic situation is captured in The Tragedy of the Commons.
Hunter also wrote:
Actually, the US is a representative republic. So what?. Perhaps you haven’t experienced criminal court and the legal system surrounding it first hand.
Hunter’s final point is:
History tells us that many of those so-called “under developed nations” were once colonies which were exploited by industrialized European nations, going back to the 1700’s. Their governments were often supportive of their status as colonies, meaning their economies were based on resource extraction and transport back to enrich their colonialist overlords. Nowadays, it’s said that a colony is a nation which exports raw materials and imports finished goods. I don’t see how my “point of view” has anything to do with that, since AGW is a global problem which will require global effort, if it is to be solved, that is.
E. Swanson says:
The Tragedy of the Commons is why I moved into policy more than 20 years ago. I would recommend a book “Hard Green” by Peter Huber for a good treatise on a reasonable perspective in the presence of the need to apply conservation measures.
I also had the experience of in my first job of doing litigation support for one of the largest real estate transactions ever that involved extensive modeling. Today even the area I work in depends upon modeling of natural systems, however, the generation time of predictions is usually only a few years and this approach has had over 40 years of intense use and feedback about model parameterization.
As I see it the main argument is we can’t wait for generational issues to work themselves out in the climate change arena and we need to act now. The advice of the scientists that have been developing multi-year generational models and getting a lot better at it overtime is not believe your results too much.
In that regard I am all for government efforts to encourage precautionary conservation without mandating it. I clearly see that the jury is still out of multiple degree climate change. A lot of that doubt stems from early last century natural warming and the lack of a testable hypothesis of how absorbed gases high in the atmosphere actually results in surface warming and extends to hypotheses that CO2 to is the climate control knob.
One of the key issues in my current area of work is the issue of nationalism. As a nation we have had a tendency to operate from principles like “free trade” without keeping an eye out for how free trade can exploit other peoples. In fact we haven’t even kept a good idea of free trade for the benefit of our middle and lower classes. Basic economics tells us that moving jobs to other nations for cheaper labor does absolutely nothing for that labor. Its not even welfare, what it is though is extraordinary profits for the exploiters of exploited workers. And at what price? At the price of jobs for our own people.
Danged if we didn’t enter into a flawed Paris accord that gave free passes to the biggest exploiters of exploited labor in the world! Exactly how is that going to save the world?
In fisheries we enact strict environmental regulations on our fishermen. So what is the result? We import most of our seafood from nations exploiting the environment and put our fishermen out of work.
Yeah the environmental regulations often are a very good idea but only if we actually end up protecting the environment with them. What we do instead is known as a transfer effect where nothing is accomplished for the environment, international exploiters are rewarded, and the common man is harmed.
So yeah I probably an order of magnitude more experience in policy matters than you do in areas that rely on computer modeling. I get it.
Emissions is a global issue and thus can only be addressed in a clearheaded global manner. If the issue is exploited people don’t look to colonialism, colonialism is long gone. Look at who is oppressing these people today. The idea of world socialism isn’t a matter of giving a free pass to nations that don’t help the people that need help. Its merely a path to larger than ever corruption. In a world where rule of law does not prevail universally, economic nationalism is the only path where each nation looks out for its own people and only makes free trade deals with nations that treat their people equally well.
And what was the bellweather of all this? The only magazine I saved over the past decade was an issue of Newsweek from December 1999 that featured the Battle of Seattle as its cover story that presaged this issue becoming a national issue and affecting a US Presidential campaign.
We can go back and insert our heads in the sand for another 20 years but if we do its not going to get better. Ever wonder how the richest men and women in the world are all aligning themselves against Trump? And all the socialist nations are similarly aligned. However, a socialist nation is quite simply not much different than an international corporation from the perspective of setting wages and handing out jobs.
Bill,
You apparently missed this in the PNAS paper:
“The global full-depth OHC from 1871 to present is estimated at 436 ± 91 ZJ. The reconstructed OHC increase during 1921–1946 (145 ± 62 ZJ) is comparable with change estimated during 1990–2015 (153 ± 44 ZJ). Rates of warming are significant in the upper 2,000 m, despite the large decadal fluctuations. However, the deep ocean warming signal below 2,000 m has only emerged in the recent decades. Between 1960 and 2017, the increase in ocean storage of 323 (±66) ZJ led”
The 1960 -2017 portion is 323 ZJ. This is 74% of the total rise of 436 ZJ.
This is clearly showing an accelerating warming.
Nate you can always find periods of acceleration if you cherry pick you starting and ending points.
The point I am making is that the period of fastest acceleration in the 2nd half of the 20th century is not faster than the acceleration seen in the 1st half of the 20th century.
What that means is we are NOT experiencing a period of extraordinary warming that warming at the rates we have seen have occurred in the not distant past and could be natural. I am not saying IT IS natural. IMHO, you are biased if you abandon your skepticism.
B. Hunter, thanks for the long reply. I should point out that my experience includes grunt work on 4 presidential campaigns, which ended in 1992 after Billy Clinton got the nomination. Before that, my professional work included building and using complex (for the time) computer simulations to model dynamic systems. Those simulations worked amazingly well for systems in which the physics was well defined, a situation which does not apply to models ow weather and climate for which the physics is much more difficult to model.
Your comments suggest that your work has involved policy issues and efforts to address them with ecological and economic models. My experience in the satellite world has led me to think differently about economics, though I’m not an expert on the subject. From space, it’s obvious that humanity’s activities operate within the boundaries of the atmosphere, which acts like a wall enclosing us within a finite space. From this perspective, it seems to me that economics has a basic flaw, which is that nature is treated as an “externality” whereas the fact is that all human activities occur within the larger boundaries we call the natural world. Historically, those activities were small and had limited effect on the larger natural world, but in the time since the industrial revolution, our activities have grown in scope and intensity to the point that we are impacting the natural world with the potential of massive negative consequences for all life on Earth.
From my perspective, I see that your commentary drifts away from environmental problems to economic and political differences, mentioning the distortions of “free trade” and capitalism vs. socialism economic and political differences. Surely, there local and regional distortions which result as corporations with no boundaries exploit various arbitrage situations to increase their profits, without concerns for long term results over many decades. The prime directive for a corporate executive is to earn a profit for the corporation’s investors and the market based valuations for stocks tracks the results on a daily basis. Nations, such as the US, which ostensibly operate under The Rule of Law, have captured this ethic in legal structures which promote short term profits over long term survival of ecosystems.
As you mention, your work experience has involved situations for which planning horizons are cover relatively few years, not decades or centuries. I see your comments are yet another symbol of the basic disconnect between our economic and political systems from the environment. I think that this disconnect can’t be solved by those older political models which grew out of 19th century European political conflicts and which have not adapted to the reality of our much larger world populations since then. Just today, there’s an article in the NYT, claiming China’s Looming Crisis: A Shrinking Population, after the demographics of their One Child per Couple policy resulted in a declining population. From an environmental perspective, that would appear to be a very positive result and from an economic perspective it would likely result in higher living standards for the current population.
I don’t see any realistic path our of the dilemma facing humanity. We may be slowly committing “species suicide” by our destruction of the natural world, as we wipe out one species at a time around the world. Even those who claim to be globalist, such as the writers for the NYT or the WaPo, don’t want to talk about population control, except in the form of limitations on immigration, the mere mention of such apparently being taboo. For example, Thomas Friedman writes about The Green New Deal Rises Again, in which he points to expected world population growth, but says nothing about a policy of negative population growth as part of the solution while suggesting that all that’s needed is a switch to renewable, zero carbon sources for electrical energy. We’re so screwed.
“The point I am making is that the period of fastest acceleration in the 2nd half of the 20th century is not faster than the acceleration seen in the 1st half of the 20th century.”
The point I am making is that if you do a curve fit to the entire record, it will show a significant acceleration. Visually it is quite clear.
Just look at first half vs second half:
First half 1871-1944 rise 75
Second 1944-2017 rise 350
Not even close.
E. Swanson says:
“I dont see any realistic path our of the dilemma facing humanity.”
We just have to face facts and be a bit clever about it. That means physics and economics.
We can not prosper by dumping garbage on each other.
We create resources by using our brains, the day we run out is the day we stop thinking.
World population is set to stabilize.
David Ricardo showed the benefits of trade in 1817. We must use our comparative advantages, tariffs and quotas are just a waste of resources.
We have limited resources. Hold on to old jobs and lose the future. More coal mines means less Tesla.
E. Swansons says: “Nations, such as the US, which ostensibly operate under The Rule of Law, have captured this ethic in legal structures which promote short term profits over long term survival of ecosystems.”
I see no ecosystem nor policy experience listed in your abbreviated resume here.
That is why I recommended the Huber book.
I disagree with your statement above. Fact is the reason capitalist nations have far better environmental records, which they do by a long shot, is a result of many factors. Number one among them is personal ownership. When you own something you take care of it. Second, is related to the first. If you depend upon natural resources for your business you understand your business and the future of your family depends upon taking care of it. A nation where business is controlled by a government spending other peoples money simply doesn’t care.
Until recently what was lacking was a understanding that resources are limited. Also lacking were open and transparent processes where stakeholders could work with other stakeholders to enact solutions to observed problems.
You talk about pursuit of short term profits. But you only talk that way because somebody with an agenda or someone who learned from somebody else with an agenda told you that.
One has to actually carefully study each situation one at a time to determine what is really going on. Sometimes corporations do pursue short term profits but thats because they are managed poorly and are likely to soon be out of business.
The most important metric to corporate owners isn’t profit its stock price. Do you know how to analyze a stock? Probably not because of what you said above.
Corporations are put together for eternity. Annual profits are but one element in establishing stock price. Actully the biggest driver in a capitalistic and competitive business environment is something akin to “customer satisfaction”. You see this blatantly displayed in tech stocks where companies that haven’t ever made a red dime can command billions of dollars in a sale of the company. The desire to have happy customers involves selling a quality product at a fair price. It also involves letting the customer know you care about what the customer cares about, like the environment. The most damaging thing a company can experience is customer rejection over the corporation not being a good citizen.
You may not believe this but actually some of the worst players are the anti-corporate activists. They lie about the condition of the environment to solicit donations then use that money to disrupt and throw bombs at processes attempting to do the right thing. They are motivated to do this because the more disruption they can cause the more convincing their lies become to potential donors. Corporations can do the same thing when not managed by a wise board of directors. Compensation agreements with corporate officers may drive officers to seek short term profits at the expense of the image of the corporation in order to maximize their bonus packages.
Here is an excellent article on some of these bomb throwers by one of the most celebrated environmental writers in the nation. http://journeytoforever.org/bflpics/EnvironmentInc.pdf read this and the Huber book I recommended and perhaps it will turn your head a bit and make you aware that a lot more is going on in the policy arena than suggested by your quote above.
B. Hunter, another long reply, thanks. But, as usual, you’ve managed to shift the focus away from real environmental problems to policy and politics, then blame “the anti-corporate activists” for excesses while extolling corporations as stewards of the environment. You thus gloss actions such as the campaign by Exxon Mobil to spread disinformation about AGW thru a determined ad campaign disguised as editorials in newspapers and on TV and the Koch Brothers similar work to fund for fossil fuel propaganda, such as the Heartland Institute and CATO.
I read your article about the excesses of groups which act as environmental advocates. The article is quite good in discussing the major players which have become totally involved in the game of political fund raising and advertising to gather more money. But, as I’m sure you are aware, our so-called democratic political system has become completely dependent on money to shape popular opinion in elections as well as in lobbying elected officials after the elections are over. Washington is overrun with lobbyist who spread money around town to buy influence and shape the process of law making. That’s one reason I previously pointed out that we don’t have a democracy. Did you get to vote on the shutdown or on Trump’s spending for home land security? Did you get to vote on Bush the Second’s invasion of Iraq?
FYI, I was a member of the Sierra Club back in the early 1970s and visited their ski lodge in the mountains on occasion, but left to follow David Brower when he formed Friends of the Earth. I notice that your article didn’t mention FOE, though there was a brief quote from him when he was still president. I later had some experience with a local group that operated like the Nature Conservancy, but found then not willing to challenge the basic assumptions which are the foundation of out ecological problems.
I’ve ordered a copy of Peter Huber’s book from Amazon. It will be interesting to compare his point of view as a ME with a degree from MIT with my own background (ME from GIT) and later experience. I later found the air pollution in the SF Bay area to be intolerable, an awareness which younger folks may not understand (would that be you?), now that automobile air pollution has been reduced considerably. Fixing air quality hasn’t been easy, I recall a meeting we attended about air pollution in the Great Smoky Mtns Park which was attended by 5 state governors. At the end, I buttonholed the Georgia governor and suggested that the easy way to improve air quality in Atlanta (I had just moved away) was to enforce the 55 mph speed limit on the freeways where drivers routinely exceeded 70 mph. He turned and walked out…
I agree with most of that Bill.
Not sure about “anti-corporate activists”, I don’t mind if they pay well, the donors can decide.
Companies want profit (stock price depends on expected profit), some oversight is necessary so they don’t poison us.
Futures markets will drive up prices of scarce resources, that means lower consumption, substitution, and an incentive to produce more.
My previous comment works for Swanson too.
It reflects badly on voters if lobbyists can twist their representatives around.
Better education and some political reform?
E. Swanson says: “you’ve managed to shift the focus away from real environmental problems to policy and politics, then blame “the anti-corporate activists” for excesses while extolling corporations as stewards of the environment. You thus gloss actions such as the campaign by Exxon Mobil . . . .”
Thats not true. I know nothing about the Exxon Mobil issue. I explicitly said: “One has to actually carefully study each situation one at a time to determine what is really going on”. Near as I can tell Exxon may have exercised their right to free speech and the accusation is they “knew”. Knowing carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas hardly qualifies as Exxon actually holding the opinion the emissions of carbon dioxide is harmful. There is genuine scientific merit to the uncertainty of harm.
Science should play a limited role in the development of policy. In the policy arena it is critical that scientists maintain an air of neutrality. If they don’t come off as neutral their science is not going to be believed by the public.
They should report facts and properly couch problems as potential as was done by Dr. Roger Revelle on a consistent basis. But scientists want to act like unlicensed medical doctors, wholly unaccountable for what they say and recommend. Fact is this is the history of science. Quacks is why doctors are required to be licensed and accountable. No licensing and quacks are guaranteed.
Hopefully you read Huber a bit more carefully. As a forewarning I am also an environmentalist, perhaps a bit like Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace. Devoted to genuine full accountability in the human perspective as suggested by Huber’s philosophy. As such I think by the end of the book Huber seems to wave off the need for close accountability which I disagree with. Thats the disease of politics where each side thinks the other side is dumb or corrupt. However, thats not the case. Both sides have their share of dummies and the corrupt but two sides would not exist if there were not genuine issues held by both sides that for the most part are ignored by the other side. Huber makes an effective argument for wise use. One has to recognize that non-use can be just as bad or worse than over use.
Exxon had its own independent research, and came to the same conclusion as mainstream science. That should tell you something.
They said “we know enough now—or, society knows enough now—that the risk is serious and action should be taken”.
Former CEO Rex Tillerson has the same solution as I have, a revenue neutral carbon tax. I wish other taxes could be cut instead, but that would create too much hoo-ha.
https://tinyurl.com/ybwrckrw
Svante says: “Not sure about anti-corporate activists, I dont mind if they pay well, the donors can decide.”
Depends upon what you mean by “not so sure about”. Let me put it this way I work with a lot of environmentalists some work well others don’t. I suggest you check the Knudson article I linked to for Swanson. This is an environmentalist calling out his own side. I can certainly acknowledge bad actors are not an exclusive domain of one side.
I am not going to name names because I am experienced to know like corporate behavior issues across the board they have more to do with individual managers than the entire corporation. I have enough experience to realize that a corporation can generally do a good job but completely botches it on another.
People donating really should donate to local efforts in their own communities where they have a grasp of what is going on. Either that take the time to find and read from many sources of opinion on the matter before deciding to donate for explicit well defined action. Not for profits prefer getting donations without earmarks but donors can effect what they are contributing towards by earmarking them to specific funds, which actually requires a bit more effort on the donors part but helps ensure the money goes to what he wants it to go towards.
All too often the battle is one community against the rest of the world and it gets real one sided politically. And don’t confuse corporate behavior with those communities whose jobs are linked to a particular issue through a corporation.
Corporations are painted as the proxy violators for the ultra rich. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Fact is common person retirement funds are the largest corporate owner group in the United States. Millions of other middle Americans have private stock accounts. I worked as a CPA. CPAs work for stockholders not the company officers. We work equally for the guy that has a few shares of stock as much as for the guy with a lot of stock. A retirement fund suing a CPA for misleading its members can ruin him and his career. I am long retired from that business according to my wife anyway. Went into policy because of the skills I had I thought I could make a bigger difference.
I don’t have much to add, except organizations may achieve their goals efficiently even if they pay competitive salaries.
Exxon statement on climate change:
http://tinyurl.com/ycfo7ydp
B. Hunter, Your reply again focuses on politics, which is, obviously, the view of which most people perceive the environmental problems, unless they happen to be directly impacted by one or another of these questions. Yes, there are activists who take advantage of the opportunity to promote themselves and corporations also act in their own self interest. I was attempting to point out that science doesn’t work that way but is, at it’s best, a source of information from which the politically motivated discussions can draw enlightenment. Throw in the uncertainty always inherent in scientific investigations and we face a continual back-and-forth in the public arena.
Your posting above about the money spent by environmental groups glosses over the fact that our representative system responds to the pleas of “the public”, thus the appearance of lobbyist in our capitals is the result. The larger environmental groups long ago learned that they must approach government with methods like that of the other lobbyist, an obvious fact which you turn to an accusation of impropriety. If you want to play the game, you must show up on the field, else you lose the contest by default. Where is your condemnation of the other lobbyist, those who support the anti-environmental efforts of for profit corporations via government influence? The results of the Citizens United case (brought by Bannon’s group) has removed the previous limits on corporate political spending, which makes it much more difficult for the environmental side of the political process to compete. Perhaps you think this is proper, from my political experience, I don’t.
Lost in all your comments are the scientific facts that show that humanity lives within a finite world, thus must learn to live with an island mentality, if we are to survive. Ultimately, those fossil resources, especially fuels, will become so depleted that they will be unavailable to most of humanity and what happens then? That those sorts of debates don’t appear in the popular media as we are told by the pro development side that the US will soon become “energy independent” so no worries, is just another symptom of the failure of our Western culture, IMHO. Peak (conventional) oil is a problem which hasn’t gone away, as the “fracking” boom has obscured it’s reality. Just like our reasoned discussion on this site, serious debate is buried under an avalanche of endless rants and promotional BS.
I think it’s time to close this discussion, since we are far apart in our world views and aren’t going to change. Perhaps we may have the opportunity to continue the discourse at another time…
Sorry I keep interfering, the two of you are having a really good discussion.
Peak oil is such a bad bad talking point. The truth is there is more oil than the climate system can take. There is always a decade or so left because it is not useful for oil companies to explore further than that. And then improved extraction technology pushes the limit.
There will be better sources of energy, we just need to pay the real costs to get the incentive for new technology.
Swanson says: “Your reply again focuses on politics, which is, obviously, the view of which most people perceive the environmental problems, unless they happen to be directly impacted by one or another of these questions.”
Thats incorrect. I am not to sway you politically. What I am trying to do is educate you a bit on policy. Policy is not politics, though politics specializes in interfering with policy.
Politics is the expression of selfish point of view about policy. Pretty much my way or the highway. Political compromise is also most often an abuse of policy via politics. Thats because the compromise is among political power brokers and the under represented most often get screwed.
This is true no matter who wins. Good policy though finds another outcome, one that maximizes the value to the whole nation respecting all of the stakeholders with every stakeholder being able to participate in an open and transparent matter and deals are not struck behind the scenes.
The point is if action is going to be taken that are going to harm some, benefit others, there needs to be completely transparent and certain reasons why or its just politics as usual with the powerful abusing the weak.
Swanson says: “Yes, there are activists who take advantage of the opportunity to promote themselves and corporations also act in their own self interest. I was attempting to point out that science doesn’t work that way”
The heck science doesn’t work that way! Scientists are among the worst. Huge egos, absolute certainty in the shadow of doubt, and practically zero accountability. Corporations have tons more accountability than scientists. Exxon’s woes an example in point. Obviously thats not true of all scientists but scientists have more bad actors than the people that have their livelihoods at stake in a policy process. Everyone of those people with the exception of the really stupid are perfectly aware that if they come off as ingenuine they are going to pay a huge price. OTOH, I have seen scientists snickering between themselves after delivering completely bogus testimony. They have nothing at stake.
One of the first times I discovered an issue with a government gathering system and I called it out in testimony; I started getting calls from scientists that were employed by my sector saying they had “add on” study grants and I shouldn’t be rocking the boat. They didn’t care one way or the other if the data was correct, or if it was good or bad for the sector, it was all about their personal income.
My degree is in business adminstration and I know that the most important issue in anything is accountability. Cancel every program in sight on a regular basis that fails to provide progress reports making cost effective progress. Yet in politics the only thing that matters is the “name of the program” and what it claims to be benefiting. Its a “water quality program” how can you even think of cancelling that?
Finally, I am not going to argue about the intent of the campaign finance law that was at the center of the Citizens United case but have to say there is an important free speech issue at stake and it makes no sense to me why Michael Moore’s films are OK and Steve Bannon’s aren’t. When you get down to it all the major news outlets are corporations and they very freely express their political opinions on the air, in print, and in movies.
What were they snickering about?
Your scientific questions?
It was a panel of scientists providing policy recommendations. They only had one empirical study that said the opposite of what they recommended. It was a survival study that demonstrated a greater 90% survival rate, yet the panel voted to recommend a zero survival rate. Why? Well they probably were doing the bidding of the policy decision makers.
Thats the only example where I observed snickering but there have been plenty of other completely upside down science policy recommendations over the years. Uncertainty which prevails here is one thing, where uncertainty has actually been largely eliminated is quite another.
The real difficulty of science in policy (which I adamantly support) is differentiating between the opinions and biases of scientists and actual science. When you audit this stuff you give a great deal of consideration to how an individual is personally economically motivated. Asking for benign science results from a scientist is like asking oil companies not to sell oil. Nearly 100% of legal clients get told they have a good case. Nearly half are wrong.
B. Hunter, As life happens, here’s a new WaPo story about the differences between a scientist and activists.
Aqua Man – Marc Edwards helped expose dangerous amounts of lead in the water in Flint and D.C
As you note, there are problems involving egos and super salesmanship, where one’s success tend to give credence to a person’s later work, even though it’s bogus. I think the medical field is one area where one must claim a great level of certainty when reality may be different. Just look at the television ads promoting the latest new drug and the lists of the side effects which might be visited on the patient who takes those drugs. There are times when well regarded scientists drift away from their expertise in promoting some new advance about which they have limited knowledge. I recall Edward Teller’s salesmanship promoting a SDI system to Reagan, which led to the spending of many billions with little gain in security. Here we are again some 35 years later with a president who is technically illiterate and who has been sold on yet another attempt to build an impenetrable shield against missile attack, even though what we have now has only been successful 50% of the time in tests. I may have helped kill those earlier space based wet dreams, pointing out flaws in writings by some of the conservative promoters of the day.
To me, the Citizens United case isn’t about “free speech”, though it was promoted that way. In our present political system, capturing votes ultimately depends on various efforts to spread one’s message to the public, which has become very expensive. Other things being equal, the side with the most money is the likely winner, though not always so. Proclaiming corporations to be “people” equal to individual humans is an absurdity as corporations may have much more money and thus far greater influence on the outcome of an election. The ideal of one man, one vote in deciding an election becomes a fiction if one non-voting corporation can spend thousands of times that of the average contributor to the other side in a campaign.
Needless to say, you and I aren’t going to solve anything with our fun back and forth on this blog. I can’t even convince some of the other posters that the Moon rotates once an orbit, a solidly established fundamental fact in astronomy and astrophysics. You may have seen my efforts to demonstrate that thermal infrared heat transfer doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a claim which has been used by a few who post here to deny CO2 induced global warming. Those posters have flooded the blog for months, overwhelming people with have other points of view, thus drowning out those alternate views. Just another example of the ways in which one side in a political “debate” can overwhelm the other with mass propaganda.
Your demonstration was splendid though, pretty evident from all the hand waving.
“Here we are again some 35 years later with a president who is technically illiterate and who has been sold on yet another attempt to build an impenetrable shield against missile attack, even though what we have now has only been successful 50% of the time in tests.”
JFK was probably as illiterate as Trump, and JFK “got us to the Moon”. Said to be greatest achievement, ever.
Reagan likewise not much going in terms of science [though probably more than Al Gore [granted, a low bar] got soviets terrified about star war plans.
Or soviet leaders are probably worst them US leaders in terms of science. Or one doesn’t need to be faster than a bear, you need to faster person running from the bear.
In terms of 50%, bombs of WWII were far worse than this at hitting any target. You simply need to drop more bombs.
Anyhow real value of missile defense is deterring missile attack, and one many different things which deter. Or only having one to deter, is very bad plan.
It’s similar to building a wall- it’s one thing that deters illegal immigration [and does nothing to deter legal immigration].
So everyone has walls of some sort and have doors which are capable of being locked. They might have a dog. And have lots of things which could deter someone from illegally enter their house [or car, etc].
Now a downside of a wall, is you might need less border agents at the border. Or one has less compelling argument to fund greater amounts of border agents. But in today’s environment, it doesn’t appear to a problem.
Anyhow just because Trump wants and get funding for missile defense, it might more of way to deal with potential threats without ever using actual this defense. Or this could mostly about politics [international politics- something that US Presidents are suppose to provide leadership in regards to].
gbaikie wrote:
The number of ABM interceptors is rather limited, at present. And, if deterrence fails and there is a launch, say it’s 10 missiles and 5 are intercepted, then there’s going to be 5 cities vaporized. If it’s 50 incoming missiles and there are only 25 interceptors that only hit 50% successfully, that’s about 37 cities blasted away. Nukes are a whole different ball game compared to WW II iron bombs. Worse, we have a president who asked (sort of) “Why can’t we use nukes?” after he was in office.
IMO, no class of individuals has more integrity than another.
When it comes to a class people whose opinion is deserving of special respect there needs to be accountability. Licensed professionals like doctors, engineers, accountants, etc. have accountability through their licensing and the various laws and groups that enforce that accountability.
Accountability became necessary because one could not depend on getting honest opinions. Thus the government stepped in an created accountability through standards of practice.
I agree it would be great to create ensure nothing but facts in a campaign. But it’s not going to happen. There are restrictions on campaign donations. The Citizens United case has nothing to do with campaigns. It has to do with press, film, brochures produced by all sorts of individuals, corporations, movie companies, newspapers, etc. News organization and Hollywood shouldn’t have special rights over anybody else. Yet thats exactly what the election financing law was doing. Michael Moore’s film was acquitted and Steve Bannon’s convicted. Quite simply it amounts to free speech one likes.
I suspect the Supreme Court would not have had the finding they had if there was a fair way to actually differentiate between free speech and media in support or against a candidate. The decision has no effect on limits on donations directly to campaigns it only effects organizations that have an interest in the outcome of elections, and want to express their opinion, which is everybody. It remains illegal for such efforts to coordinate their efforts with campaigns. If that occurs it would be deemed a campaign donation and subject to the limits and the organizations in question “superpacs” can’t donate anything.
.
B. Hunter, I’ve not studied the Citizens United decision in depth. There’s a long WIKI article about the decision, which provides considerable insight.
At the most basic level, politics involves debate between opposing sides of an argument. Typically, each side presents their case and a series of responses follows, all much like a court case. It’s fundamental that in these debates there’s roughly equal time allowed for each presentation. If one side is allowed to hog the debate time, thus drowning out the other side, the win will go to that side. That situation is rather like a filibuster in Congress or today’s shutdown by La Plump. The Citizens United decision threw out some of the limits on corporate spending.
In the article, several points from Justice Stevens 90 page dissent are presented. For example, Stevens argued:
Further, the article notes:
Sounds about right to my understanding of things. Of course, there much more in the article from both sides.
+1
Swanson, I don’t disagree with the desire for even distribution of campaign information or most of Stevens argument.
A corporation is nothing more than an association of people pooling resources.
In the days leading up to the Revolutionary war people conspired to distribute pamphlets and flyers attacking King George. The right of people to pool resources to distribute literature regarding political issues is fundamental to free speech.
Singling out corporations might be a fair idea if it were done in a way that didn’t discriminate nor impede free speech.
Newpapers, film studios and most other media outlets are all organized as corporations. So should newspapers be restrained from offering political contrary that favors a certain candidate? Or films like Michael Moore’s uniformly banned because they show a politician in a poor light?
Stevens says in your quote:”Corporate spending is the “furthest from the core of political expression” protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing FEC v. Beaumont, and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making.”
Stevens isn’t thinking clearly he is thinking emotionally. First, FEC v. Beaumont applies only to corporate donations to campaigns and that is viewed as potentially transactional pay for play. That still stands as law. So what do politicians do? They do it every which other way foundations, speaking fees and none of this campaign donations so it can be used to achieve political outcomes and none of the funds have “political donation” restrictions either in amount or in use.
The Clintons are being raked over the coals on that one.
So what do we have a government appointed commission to sort through various mailers, columns, films looking for what they consider to be prohibited speech? We already have seen that where the government reviewed Michael Moore’s film and gave it a stamp of approval and then cracked down on Steve Bannon’s film.
B. Hunter, You wrote:
The WIKI article, long as it is, doesn’t go deeply into Steven’s dissent, which is 90 pages long. Your segway into “what do politicians do” drifts away from the question of political spending by corporations. Of course, all sides playing the political game are supposed to obey current law, which includes court decisions.
To me, the issue is still about fairness, i.e., is it acceptable in our so-called “democratic” society that a few small groups with lots of money can so dominate the presentation of politically motivated information to the public via assorted communication channels that they essentially control the outcomes of our elections. The Citizens United case is focused on whether such “associations” (aka:corporations) which operate with a profit motive should face different constraints from other groups which don’t operate for a profit.
Part of the political process is educational in that the electorate may not understand the full implications of an issue to be voted on. Education takes time for an individual voter to do the necessary thinking, but video delivery is more likely to be emotional, which distorts the educational effort. With print media, one can read a story or an opinion piece more than once and then move on to deeper understanding via other sources. With video, the emotional blast often can not be replayed and alternate sources of information aren’t likely to appear on the screen for due diligence by the viewer. The modern media, including online sources, can easily overload the individual with too much “speech”, leading to confusion in the voter’s mind.
Today’s politics is vastly different from that of the Bill of Rights, a time before the telegraph in 1844 when people communicated by writing letters back and forth and print media was the only means for spreading ideas to the public. I think the question regarding regulation of political speech has yet to be resolved. Along the way, big problems, including environmental problems like climate change, are lost in the noise and confusion.
E Swanson,
As long as media and unions and other profit-oriented groups are otherwise unregulated, why should corporations be preferentially limited in how much they can do to argue their positions?
Bowdrie, The foundational principal of a democratic society is captured in the phrase “One man, One vote”. I don’t know what country you live in, but in the US, corporations can not contribute to a candidate for Federal office. Perhaps you are used to the politics in a country with only one party.
Swanson says: “To me, the issue is still about fairness, i.e., is it acceptable in our so-called “democratic” society that a few small groups with lots of money can so dominate the presentation of politically motivated information to the public via assorted communication channels that they essentially control the outcomes of our elections.”
I would suggest that it has more to do with no real choice in elections. If you need a lot of money to tell the electorate who to vote for, the electorate simply doesn’t care. . . .you are making a mountain out of a molehill and bending over backwards to be perceived as being fair without really accomplishing anything.
Quite simply folks don’t need and really don’t want a lot of mailers telling them they have a problem they feel they don’t have.
E. Swanson,
In the US, I can legally vote if I am a citizen, old enough, and register on time after moving. Felons can’t vote in most states. Fortunately, a lot of ignorant people don’t vote.
Voting, contributing to a campaign, and free speech are not the same things. Corporations are owned by people. They have as much right as you to voice their concerns and the SCOTUS confirmed that.
The day we move from a republic to a democracy is the day we lose it. Some famous old guy said it. Look it up.
‘The day we move from a republic to a democracy is the day we lose it.’
Interesting. I heard an interview with historian talking about the fall of the Roman republic, which US govt used as a model.
It lasted centuries and worked well. It fell when norms of governing were one by one eroded over several decades, sacrificed for the agendas of populist leaders.
This eroding of norms is happening to the US. And accelerating under current President.
Nate,
What norms are you talking about?
Who gets to decide what is a norm, when it erodes, evolves, or reverts back to where it used to be?
Specifically what norms has President Donald Trump eroded besides doing what he campaigned on and irritating if not draining the swamp?
Eroding norms never felt so good.
I’m donning my MAGA hat and going home as I always do.
‘What norms are you talking about?’
Have you been in a coma for 3 years?
The norms are about governing by consensus. Checks and balances. Power shared between various institutions. Respect for science. Respect for law enforcement agencies. Respect for experts.
‘Eroding norms never felt so good.’
Im sure it does, temporarily, as your agenda advances.
Probably how Romans felt, just before the republic fell.
Some of our norms gone or going:
A president nominates a SC justice, the senate has a hearing and votes on him/her.
Filibuster (60 votes) to advance SC justices.
The free press, by tradition the 4th branch of govt, respected.
Policies made by negotiation, not by shutting the govt.
No threats of national emergencies manufactured to advance an agenda.
Independence of justice dept from President.
No loyalty oaths from law enforcement.
Treaties of previous administrations respected, until new treaties made.
International alliances respected.
No alternative facts. Only facts.
Trust of the facts stated by the President.
Conflicts of interest not tolerated.
I can do this all day.
Nate,
By eroding norms, if you mean things are different now than earlier when Democrats were in charge, then I agree with you. You see things through liberal lenses. I understand you are upset that your liberal agenda is advancing less slowly or even being undone by decisions favored by conservative voices. From my perspective, Pres Trump is resisting the leftward trends too gingerly.
Have you forgotten the rich history involving the formation of and amendments to the constitution? Within that range of positions, what is the norm? Apparently, based on your list, it is anything that you don’t agree with. I could, but won’t, go down the list and give you examples from the past showing that what is happening now is not historically unusual.
Also, your expectations about what the norm should be are unrealistic. Governing by consensus is not in the constitution. Majority, 60%, 2/3, etc. Checks and balances is exactly what is happening now with border security. Executive action will be challenged in court and the President has the right to veto legislation which requires more than a simple majority to override a veto. Nothing new there. Power shared.
Respect for science is not in the constitution either. You feel your interpretation of the science is not respected. Was it respected when SCOTUS ruled CO2 a pollutant? Was science respected when DDT was outlawed?
We could do this all day. Nothing new.
‘Apparently, based on your list, it is anything that you dont agree with.’
Looks like you missed the main point.
None of things on the list are on my agenda, or liberal.
Are the things on the list that you agree with if we had President Clinton?
They are all about institutional norms (many not in the Constitution). They are about abuse of power.
C’mon the next president may have the new norms and wont have your agenda.
If the Ds win the senate they may decide to not hold a hearing or a vote on SC nominees.
The next President may concoct and declare a national emergency to advance some narrow policy objective that you hate.
Correction:
“Are the things on the list that you are ok with going away under a President Clinton?”
“Respect for science is not in the constitution either. You feel your interpretation of the science is not respected. Was it respected when SCOTUS ruled CO2 a pollutant? Was science respected when DDT was outlawed?”
The founders respected science. They grew up during the Enlightenment.
I didn t say anything about ‘my interpretation’.
Yes science at the time of DDT was respected.
In the past decades, science was respected by both parties. Congress regularly asked the Nat. Academy to give them reports. Then they made policy with help from these reports. Why? Because congressmen are not scientists.
The EPA always has had scientists evaluating hazards. Now they are mostly being let go.
Sorry for the delay. This goes back a few comments.
I guess I did miss your point. I thought it was about norms and your view that they are eroding. I countered by illustrating there is nothing inherently normal about governing. Not in Roman era, now, or in between. Recognizing a necessity of some kind of alternative to anarchy, the founding fathers designed the constitution to put limits on government encroaching on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t think institutional norms, whatever that is, was what they had in mind.
All the things on your list are within our constitutional norms. As long as we remain within that framework, we will be fine. But if majority rule becomes the norm, we are done for.
I am not proud of rapist or liar Presidents, but I would rather have a liar than a rapist.
So what was your point again?
Nate,
I responded to your thoughts on respect for science in a new thread.
Nate says: The norms are about governing by consensus. Checks and balances. Power shared between various institutions. Respect for science. Respect for law enforcement agencies. Respect for experts.
Nothing unusual going on with our governing institutions Nate. Read your history books, corruption, stalemate, disagreement even to the point of duels and a civil war dot our history. Respect for law enforcement agencies yeah we have seen change there, BLM and elected representative disrespect for the police, Ice, and Border Patrol, for example.
And Oh by experts do you mean your cherry picked selection of experts and really uncertain science? Here is a list, many top in their fields that do not share your opinions of what the science says, to a man an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
We are seeing attacks on free speech, unfounded accusations, and anybody wearing a red hat with positive phrase of “Make America Great Again”. We just happen to have a President that wants to step back just a few decades to times where people followed a common code of ethics, had respect for our institutions both government and private sector business, Had respect for the Constitution as written, had respect for all law enforcement personnel unless its been proven otherwise, respect for the rule of law where if we have a program of enforcement it is applied without regard to somebody’s class, race, position, beliefs, and is routinely and nonselectively enforced.
It is a change that today we cherry pick experts and sides in uncertain science then slam economic penalties down the throats of people we don’t like on a selective basis.
Indeed I would like to return to norms, will you give us a hand? In fact that is primary distinguishing characteristic of being a conservative vs being a so-called progressive. Real progressives like T. Roosevelt well I am on board with that Trust Busting Teddy, First President to invite an African American to dinner in the White House, Hall of Fame Conservationist who did conservation for the pleasure of mankind vs some vague unknowable objective of “saving the planet” that isn’t really anything more than a power grab. Using the ballot box to establish higher standards for the environment rather than an unaccountable politically appointed and run agency, our Protestant-oriented philosophy of hard work, discipline, frugality, humility, and good works.
I can agree we have drifted far from that. Without claiming any exclusivity or unanimity generally conservatives want to go back to that while I am not sure what progressives are going to want to stand for next week.
Bill Hunter, I think you are looking at the world through a very strange lens.
In your work, do you tend to be called in when there is a problem?
“We just happen to have a President that wants to step back just a few decades to times where people followed a common code of ethics”
Hilarious!
And scarily oblivious to reality.
Bill Hunter, you are in fantasy land.
The president is lacking in ethics, has little respect for institutions and the rule of law. On the contrary, he is under investigation for obstruction of justice.
Chic,
The historian I mentioned is author of this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Republic-Rome-Fell-Tyranny/dp/0465093817
‘All the things on your list are within our constitutional norms. As long as we remain within that framework, we will be fine.’
Maybe so. Trump is an Obama-inverse. Maybe next one will be Trump-inverse. And there is push-back. But some norms will never return.
If history is meant to guide us, then we should pay attention to it.
While Nazi Germany arose in 1930s from a prior democracy, people didnt resist because their democracy was young. They werent used to democracy.
The Roman republic had lasted for centuries. People then also thought ‘We’ll be fine”, it will never end.
But the point of his book was, as I said, the republic fell because of a gradual erosion of institutional norms over a period of time. Those norms were not written down. People were blissfully unaware that these norms preserved the republic.
Nate,
Bill Hunter is calling for a return to traditional values. Are they not the norms you fear are eroding?
If not, What is an institutional norm and who decides what they should be?
Svante says:
“Bill Hunter, I think you are looking at the world through a very strange lens. In your work, do you tend to be called in when there is a problem?”
Nate says:
“Hilarious!
And scarily oblivious to reality.”
Nate and Svante your replies are 100% generic rhetoric and doesn’t make a single point other than launching veiled or specific ad hominems. Was by post so on point all you can do is attack the messenger? Or am I missing something?
“am I missing something?”
Yes, I think you have been missing 3 years of news.
Bribing a porn star and playboy bunny who you had affairs with while your new wife was pregnant, to prevent this news from coming out and derailing your presidential bid, and lying about it to the public, and covering it up, etc.
Is that what you would consider following ‘a common code of ethics’? from decades back?
Sorry, I find that hilarious and ridiculous.
There is bipartisan agreement that ethics are not one of DTs strengths.
A discussion of Trump’s many moral failings as judged by a noted conservative, Jonah Goldberg
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/trump-character-will-be-his-downfall/
Nate says: “Have you been in a coma for 3 years? Bribing a porn star and playboy bunny who you had affairs with while your new wife was pregnant, to prevent this news from coming out and derailing your presidential bid, and lying about it to the public, and covering it up, etc.”
LOL! Is that all you are concerned about? Thats hilarious. More than a third of Presidents have been implicated in infidelity, one and the only one we know for sure about thanks to a blue dress, even lied under oath to cover up for one of his other infidelities, got hummers in the Whitehouse and got impeached for it. Everyone of them is forgivable because hell hath no fury greater than a woman scorned. Warren Harding who died in office was allegedly poisoned by his wife over an affair. So see you still have hope. . . .LMAO!
You are just deflecting answering my post. I was talking about changing norms not norms that have been the same since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. DNA evidence exists for Jefferson and descendants of an illegitimate child are seeking DNA for Washington.
Svante says: “Bill Hunter, you are in fantasy land.
The president is lacking in ethics, has little respect for institutions and the rule of law. On the contrary, he is under investigation for obstruction of justice.”
Lacking in ethics? Whose ethics? Men have been randy foreva. The only thing that has changed regarding that thin the last 100 or so years is women got the vote and don’t like that. So its a political football. I think infidelity in marriage is immoral but its a form of immorality where the only victim is the spouse when its learned about. And then unless it involves illegitimate children there is no physical harm only mental harm to one person, your spouse. As such its an intensely personal issue to which it seems a large percentage of the population likely succumbs to because of natural hormones promoting it.
Additionally, this stuff is intensely personal and has nothing to do with being President. I thought Clinton got railroaded. He did lie under oath but IMO the question should not have been asked as it was irrelevant to what the deposition was about. This stuff is intensely personal and IMO, the legal system has no business prying into it unless it directly involves a crime.
The President being under investigation for obstruction of justice is completely ridiculous and smacks of a Gestapo mentality by the Mueller team and those who instructed him.
Firing of the FBI director isn’t obstruction of justice.
It takes tiny fearful hateful gestapo-like minds to think it is, unless of course you are part of the effort to undermine the Constitution as being archaic to the progressive agenda then you are far far worse.
Lets take a small piece of the inventory. We have ridiculous, unfounded, and made up accusations against a nominee to the Supreme Court. One of the most false accusers of course has the same attorney as the rent-seeking prostitute charging the President. None of these people have a shred of credibility yet you hook, line, and sinker gobble it straight down as if you were a string puppet. Why? Obviously because thats the state of the progressive agenda. . . .a whole bunch of people rolling around looking for excuses for their miserable lives.
Trump is the first President in my lifetime that has put the future of the common man above all else in accordance with the proven means of doing so, through hard work, discipline, frugality, and faith in a national system that rewards such behaviors. We have lost our way through meritless welfare where people are rewarded for a style of life of laziness, lawlessness, wastefulness, and immorality.
And you say he lacks ethics. Which book are you reading from?
Bill,
Excellent use of whataboutism.
The fact that others had bad ethics does not turn your guys ethics good.
Infidelity is the least of his moral failings.
Read the article by Goldberg. DT ethics are similar to those of a mob boss.
You remind me of Bagdad Bob.
I fear Trump is the first President in my lifetime that has put himself above all else, why else lift sanctions on ZTE and Deripaska?
What’s the ethics in letting the Saudis murder a journalist abroad with impunity?
Frugality by increasing the deficit and wanting the Fed to lower rates at the top of the business cycle, almost as dangerous as undermining NATO.
Trade barriers to save jobs is 17th century economics.
Hard work, discipline, reports say he clocks about three hours a day, Fox News and Twitter excluded. Without John Kelly it will only get worse.
Now you can find historical examples of all those things, and the rest is fake news.
Nate says:
“The fact that others had bad ethics does not turn your guys ethics good. Infidelity is the least of his moral failings.
Read the article by Goldberg. DT ethics are similar to those of a mob boss.”
Sorry Nate but you still haven’t given any specifics and neither did Goldberg. I guess Goldberg figures you are stupid enough to bite on the bait without any evidence and guess what you did!
Svante says:
You remind me of Bagdad Bob.
I fear Trump is the first President in my lifetime that has put himself above all else, why else lift sanctions on ZTE and Deripaska?
You are just as bad as Nate. Must be the press you read didn’t tell you because they figured you would be stupid enough to believe them. Fact is that Trump didn’t lift the sanctions on Deripaska. He only lifted sanctions on a company that Deripaska owned that Deripaska has since sold his controlling ownership in. How did you miss that?
And ZTE was sanctioned for violating moratoriums on the sale of certain US made high tech devices to Iran and North Korea. Trump initially slapped a 7 year ban of ZTE purchasing the US components which caused ZTE to suspend operations.
A settlement was reached where ZTE would pay a fine of nearly a billion dollars, replace all of its senior management, and grant the insertion of a compliance team for a decade.
Seems like a reasonable approach that allows our companies to sell components to ZTE and not worry about them being sold to the North Koreans or Iranians.
So does the people you believe think thats a bad idea? If so, why?
_______________________
Svante says: Whats the ethics in letting the Saudis murder a journalist abroad with impunity?
So lets summarize here. You want war with Russia and China and you want the US to abandon their staunchest ally in the middle east because they are a bunch of brutes. Understand and try not to be a moron. Lt TE Lawrence during WWI recruited the Arabs to help England fight the Turks were were allied with Germany. Right off the bat Lawrence is appalled at the brutality of the Arabs, the entire region still lives in the middle ages. But the Saudi government isn’t a threat to go around blowing planes out of the sky or knocking down buildings. Item #2. We became allies with Stalin who didn’t kill a journalist but instead killed millions of his own countrymen. Why? Do you have clue one?
Svante says: “Frugality by increasing the deficit and wanting the Fed to lower rates at the top of the business cycle, almost as dangerous as undermining NATO.”
Hmmm, I suppose you can give me a long list of economic disasters brought forth by low interest rates right? Not!
Here again you believe anybody you think is of your political persuasion and give zero seconds of thought to it.
And you think NATO was undermined? Its been strengthened dude NATO’s budget is exploding. LMAO! NATO participants welching on financial commitments suddenly realized gee we might have to go it alone and you don’t build a defense in a day, week, month, or even a year. Its more like 7 years. You are just a boob who thinks we should pay for it all. Trumps predecessors thought that probably because they were more interested in being greeted as Big Sugar Daddy in the world more than be the man who actually provides for a potent defense.
Svante says:
“Trade barriers to save jobs is 17th century economics.”
You haven’t read your history Svante. High tariffs to protect US jobs continued all the way to WWII. After WWII the US spent way to much money rebuilding Europe. Check this charts out of US economic policies and what happened when we abandoned both the gold standard and high tariffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history#/media/File:U.S._Trade_Balance_(1895%E2%80%932015)_and_Trade_Policies.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history#/media/File:U.S._Productivity,_Real_Hourly_Compensation_and_Trade_Policy_(1948-2013).png
These graphs demonstrate the Trump target and why he is doing what he is doing. He understands that a trade deficit drains a nation in many ways. And as you can see from the wage chart who it is that gets hurt. American business elites don’t get hurt they just start selling and producing overseas. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Svante says: “Hard work, discipline, reports say he clocks about three hours a day, Fox News and Twitter excluded. Without John Kelly it will only get worse.”
Here you go again believing fake news. Even the fake news calls the other 9 hours a day he spends in his office as executive time and the 3 hours is when he goes somewhere for a meeting. there is no question that Trump is the hardest working President in my lifetime. He loves work and does it all the time. And of course executive time is not twitter time he does that outside the 12 hours he is on the phone, going to meetings, and reading reports. And Twitter is part of what he does to do his job. He uses Twitter to throw his feints. Read the Art of the Deal.
Svante says: “Now you can find historical examples of all those things, and the rest is fake news.”
Done. I will throw in a bonus. Trump’s environmental policy. Trump graduated probably from the best business school on the planet. Wharton graduates are 96% employed after graduation, the best of the best.
Probably the most important thing a student learns in business school is the need for management feedback. When you start a new business program monitoring it for success and having at your fingertips strong evidence of the business being a success is critical because something like 80% of business ideas flounder. And the rate is much higher without feedback. So when you start say a clean water program you want to see quantifiable results immediately. One might accept slow progress but slow progress is only tolerable in the absence of better ideas. But you need to see progress. The way the US government does business is if you get a civil service contract the professionals in the civil service will want to get feedback on your progress after all thats their job, their performance, and they are professionals too. However, Congress does not operate that way. Here its about lining the pockets of their supporters. Damned with feedback keep the information under wraps and don’t rock the boat! I would guess if I were to become President I would cancel somewhere between 80 and 90% of environmental programs in the most likely range and it could go as high as 100%. And I am an environmentalist. Get your copy of Hard Green as is Swanson. If I am going to spend dollars on the environment I want to see progress and by progress I mean a great return on human aesthetics than the cost of the program. I hear all sorts of people whining about losing their grant or that some water quality program got cancelled. Too fukking bad! Show me the numbers that justify the program and I will fight for it. Can’t come up with any numbers? The contract for the services are at fault so cancel it and consider a new contract that does provide the necessary standards, expected results, and feedback that those results are occurring.
Wake up and smell the coffee! MAGA!
Bill, exactly why I didnt want to list his indiscretions. I knew you would have an excuse for all, or if not, simply label it fake news.
Youve made my point. If an end goal is desired, then any means, no matter if ethical, is justified.
That is how you and DT define good ethics.
If CIA proves Saudis or Russians assassinated, simply deny the intelligence.
Nate says: “Bill, exactly why I didnt want to list his indiscretions. I knew you would have an excuse for all, or if not, simply label it fake news.”
Well you should have probably gone with your instincts and not listed it then.
And I didn’t call it fake news, I said I don’t know what the truth is, I don’t care what the truth is, and as far as I am concerned its strictly a matter of concern between Trump and his wife.
But near as I can figure its just another typical ploy of an immoral opposition that does stuff like making up phony dossiers and such.
Bill, More strawmen.
Latch on to infidelity as if that’s all thats been brought up, and all there is.
Just compare to moral leaders from decades ago who inspired people in times of crisis. They said things like,
‘The only thing you have to fear is fear itself’
or
“Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.'”
In contrast, DT has created faux crises where there are none, and used it to gin up fear before an election.
He spoke of families of migrants seeking asylum as if they were a Mongol horde.
“What’s happening right now as a large group of people — they call it a caravan — that is an assault on our country.”
“That’s an invasion. I don’t care what they say”
“I have alerted Border Patrol and Military that this is a National Emergy”
“in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!”
And since the election: the caravan: Meh?
“And since the election:”
A government shutdown over border security lasting almost a month. And the crisis is not over.
Bill Hunter says:
Used to be the Shah of Iran, didnt work out so well.
Chic,
What crisis? You mean the DT created one with shutdown?
My point was that the caravan ‘crisis’ of October did not materialize.
Nate,
No, I’m talking about illegal aliens. The next caravan is on its way. It’s been an ongoing crisis for a long time.
And I’m not even considering the constant threat of terrorists and illegal drugs, which is also an ongoing crisis.
President Trump didn’t start this, but he is fulfilling his campaign pledge to do something about it.
What is the crisis at the border?
The number of illegal immigrants in the country has been decreasing since 2007.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
His lack of ethics is apparent in his intentionally harmful child separation and detention policy.
BTW, Today was a good example of DT demonstrating lack of
“Respect for law enforcement agencies. Respect for experts.”
as he disputed the facts presented by his own FBI, CIA and DNI heads on Iran, N. Korea, Syria, and ISIS.
“The number of illegal immigrants in the country has been decreasing since 2007.”
And this from your link:
“This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country.”
So what rate of new illegals is acceptable, Nate?
I was curious how the data was estimated and found this:
“Based on experience and research, we know the census counts and other official surveys tend to miss some people. Unauthorized immigrants are especially likely to be missed.[Duh!] Therefore, we do a further assessment of potential undercounts or undercoverage. Based on this additional research, our final estimate of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population includes an upward adjustment for undercount.”
I won’t be replying on this thread any more. If you want to continue bashing the President, see my new thread below on respect for the FBI, etc.
Svante says: – “Used to be the Shah of Iran, didnt work out so well.”
If you think trying to make friends with the shah’s successors would have worked out better, you are the one hallucinating.
A moral policy could produce a successor that didn’t hate your guts. Breaking agreements is also not helpful.
Svante says:
January 31, 2019 at 1:37 AM
“A moral policy could produce a successor that didn’t hate your guts. Breaking agreements is also not helpful.”
Svante its easy to cherry pick events in history and suggest they may have been done differently, however, you need to be aware that the entire western world is hated by the current regime in Iran. The Shah tried to modernize and westernize the nation in accordance with his Swiss education and ran into a fundamentalist religious buzzsaw to which his reactions were probably excessive. However, the Shah did have a big impact on developing education and the sciences in Iran during his reign and in fact without those efforts we probably would not be talking about nuclear arms because education left to the fundamentalists would not have made near the progress.
And the only agreement broken was a political one between Obama and the other nations. Obama was asked to bring the deal to Congress for their input and he refused. If he had then it would have perhaps become a national treaty with a rule of law.
A lot has transpired including the taking hostage of the US Embassy because of our refusal to turn the Shah over for certain execution by the revolutionaries. Though asylum was not granted to the Shah he sought it elsewhere. I suppose out of consistency you support the instant deportation of folks legally crossing our borders seeking asylum right?
The only thing I am saying here is that none of this lends itself to a simply analysis or clear qualitative morally correct answers, especially when the litmus test is being retroactively applied after the better part of an additional century of progress.
B. Hunter, I’ve started reading Huber’s “Hard Green” (1999), which I see you are still referring to. Funny thing, Teddy Roosevelt and his efforts to protect areas by setting them aside from development as parks and national monuments is jsut what the Nature Conservancy focuses on and the Sierra Club, along other groups, has supported this approach for decades.
But, reading Huber is like a trip down Memory Lane, since I was an anti-nuke, pro-solar activist in the 1970’s. I later worked involving safety issues for Boeing on NASA’s Space Station, that work ending soon after the Challenger blew up because it was launched in record cold conditions which were outside the shuttle’s design criteria. There were rumors that Reagan wanted to use the launch with it’s civilian passenger as part of his State of the Union speech, so management overrode the warning screams from the engineers at Thiokol. Huber even mentions Perrow’s book “Normal Accidents” (1984), which I read as part of our research efforts (I haven’t read his second book). Funny thing, Huber’s interpretation of “Normal Accidents”, such as the description of the Three Mile Island accident and the claim that it was “normal”, is much different from what I remember. It’s easy to forget just how bad TMI was, since it took about 8 years to dig down to the bottom of the pile of fuel rods, revealing some 10 tons (20,000 pounds) of destroyed fuel sitting at the bottom of the pressure vessel. Not to forget that the Fukushima disaster, another example of a “normal accident”, involved US designed nukes and that mess won’t be cleaned up for some 30 more years (if ever).
I shall continue reading.
“The number of ABM interceptors is rather limited, at present. And, if deterrence fails and there is a launch, say it’s 10 missiles and 5 are intercepted, then there’s going to be 5 cities vaporized. ”
And 5 cities not vaporized?
Preventing 5 cities from being vaporized seems rather important.
But it should be clear that this is not deterrence against Russia nuclear aggression, as that deterrence has been same for decades-
it’s the mad doctrine.
But also interceptors reduce the chance that the Mad Doctrine would be used. So in certain possible situations, eliminating a possibility that thousands of cities would be vaporized.
And we could use this defense to protect allies against a rogue nation like Iran, and so it can save lives of our allies [and lives of Iranians].
All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no change in average global temperature since about 2002.
CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dv8kE26U0AEKfdY.jpg
Given this latest and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrates that apparently CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature.
What then, if not CO2?
“What then, if not CO2?”
Diurnal Smoothing Effect. The atmosphere and ground cool the surface by day and return the heat by night. Nonlinearity (E=aT^4) of radiated energy causes a mean temperature rise to maintain energy balance.
See http://brindabella.id.au?f=EAR
And as modelled by Roy a few years back.
All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no change in average global temperature since about 2002.
If by “reporting agencies” you mean the various institutes that compile global temperature records, then I call BS.
Otherwise please quote them doing what you say. You will not find them doing so, because the period you nominate has no statistically significant trend of any kind.
This will rest on your own ‘opinion’, not those of the “reporting agencies,” and you have just added to the BS you see all over the net.
Awaiting your link to the “reporting agencies” corroborating your posit in clear language.
Note the bold – it’s exactly what you will fail to produce.
“If you calculate it out you might find you will get around 80 W/m^2 coming from the CO2 band.”
That is true, but I am putting it in the context of a science experiment. Total W/m^2 isn’t what is important, the change in W/m^2 due to man is what is important. Man’s contribution is accused of melting the ice, not total CO2. My comments aren’t wrong as you imply, they are directed at isolating the impact of man-made CO2 on the climate. The impact of man-made CO2 is 1.6 W/m^2 and the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can melt that ice is through back radiation of 13 to 18-micron LWIR. That is why I focus on those wavelengths and the changes. How else would you run an experiment?
CO2isLife
Thank you for your explanation. What you have to realize is that any additional energy into the system above what is a steady state condition will cause some warming. An additional 1.6 Watt/m^2 will produce additional warming until the temperature reaches a point where all the heat transfer mechanisms remove this additional energy (evaporation, conduction, convection, IR emission from the surface).
That is what I consider rational skepticism. Roy Spencer is of this type. Scientific but questioning an extreme position on climate change. Some posters make up their own science with no supporting evidence. You at least attempt actual supporting evidence for your claims. I wish the debate would stay at the rational skepticism and not going off and making up your science (more like unsupported opinions). I am glad you are not one of them.
I like the rational skeptics like Chic Bowdrie, Bart, and it looks like you. I have trouble with those that create their own ideas and are so fanatic about a position they will deform physics to fit their agendas.
Norman, you keep making the same mistakes over and over: “What you have to realize is that any additional energy into the system above what is a steady state condition will cause some warming.”
CO2 does NOT bring additional energy into the system.
Now, you can pound on your keyboard more insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Now we will go on a meaningless semantic debate for multiple posts.
CO2 does bring additional energy to the surface. Without the CO2 present the energy would not be there. (or at least some GHG). The energy of the “system” is provided by the Sun and no one is arguing against this. The energy at the surface (one part of the total system) has two inputs. Downwelling IR (which would not exist if GHG were not in the atmosphere…it is a measurable entity) and Solar flux. Both these add energy to the surface. I am not sure you will follow what I am saying.
By the way you are one of the irrational and illogical skeptics that make up stuff and believe it true with zero evidence no support and it also goes against all established science and reason. You accept DWIR but think the surface will not be able to absorb it. That is an irrational and unscientific opinion. I would much prefer those skeptics that know some science and don’t make it all up on the fly.
Norman, once more, for you to again deny: “CO2 does NOT bring additional energy into the system.”
Now you can continue with your non-science, immature insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
If I want to read made up opinions I will read your posts. You offer nothing of scientific value.
You are unwilling or unable to follow lines of thought and discussion and muddle yourself in some semantic topics.
ibid.
“Thank you for your explanation. What you have to realize is that any additional energy into the system above what is a steady state condition will cause some warming. An additional 1.6 Watt/m^2 will produce additional warming until the temperature reaches a point where all the heat transfer mechanisms remove this additional energy (evaporation, conduction, convection, IR emission from the surface).”
Norman, thanks for the comment. I was kind of taken aback by some of the apparent attacks for simply asking for an experiment to validate a position. One caveat to your above comment. Not all additional energy will result in warming. The energy has to be thermalized. If I shine visible radiation towards the sky, it won’t warm the atmosphere because it is transparent to visible radiation. LWIR between 13 and 18 will warm the atmosphere because it is absorbed and thermalized by CO2. You can shine a YEG laser into your eye and the cornea and vitreous will be untouched but your retina will be burned. The EM energy needs to be converted in form to cause any warming.
CO2isLife
My understanding is all the IR emitted by CO2 will be absorbed by the surface that emitted it. It will all be thermalized. The Earth’s emissivity is very high for the CO2 bands.
Here is a paper that shows the this. Nearly one for many types of terrain for the CO2 bands.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224160723_Global_Land_Surface_Emissivity_Retrieved_From_Satellite_Ultraspectral_IR_Measurements
Norman, as usual, your understanding is wrong.
You continue to be confused by your links that you can’t understand.
Nothing new.
NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The rise correlates with rising irrigation.
“NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The rise correlates with rising irrigation.”
That is my point, there clearly are other more logical explanation for warming than CO2. WV absorbs far more of the LWIR spectrum, including the wavelengths of CO2. Atmospheric temperatures follow WV, not CO2.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is Water Vapor, and not CO2. Most of the time scientists say it can’t be water vapor, because water vapor doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long, or because it’s governed by the oceans and temperature. But it’s doesn’t matter how long the water vapor is atmosphere. It matters how much. And 30% of earth surface is land and not water so while the oceans account for much of the water vapor, so is water vapor over land. And the is little doubt humans are putting water vapor into the air. Almost every Dinosaur gas that humans use puts as much or more water vapor into the air than C02. Deserts have become oasis’ . Farming covers 40% percentage of the all land on the earth. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/agriculture-food-crops-land/ Farming uses water. Nuclear energy uses a lot of water. Steel production uses water. Creating reservoirs creates more water vapor( Ever hear of lake effect). Even various Solar energy sources generate water vapor. If CO2 can cause global warming surely some human caused water vapor can too. CA has uses so much ground water, the farm land is actually sinking a foot per year https://www.businessinsider.com/california-farms-sinking-groundwater-pumping-2017-4
IMO you pretty much nailed it. I discuss the EPA mistakes regarding duration of WV in the atmosphere in Section 3 of my blog/analysis (click my name)
I dug in to the issue of where the water comes from and give the info in Section 9 of my b/a. Nearly all (about 96%) comes from irrigation about 4% from cooling towers. Less than 1% from everything else. Irrigation is done because the land was dry. Irrigation makes it wet.
Total Precipitable water (TPW) trend appears to have stopped rising in 2002 and was fairly flat 2002-2014 but since then experienced an aberration caused by el Nino from which it is still recovering.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvXU3FGVsAAXaEn.jpg . Baring another el Nino the TPW trend should be flat or even, as the planet cools, slightly down.
https://tinyurl.com/y8jd68bw
“Strong evaporative cooling by irrigation lowers daytime surface temperature over arid and semi‐arid regions, such as California’s Central Valley, the Great Plains, central Asia, and northwestern India. However, the cooling effects are less evident in areas of eastern China and the Lower Mississippi River Basin despite extensive irrigation over these regions.”
More to the point, global Tdelta: −0.095 K.
https://tinyurl.com/yaejvagt
Dan Pangburn says:
“WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The rise correlates with rising irrigation.”
No references to corroborate.
“Total Precipitable water (TPW) trend appears to have stopped rising in 2002 and was fairly flat 2002-2014 but since then experienced an aberration caused by el Nino from which it is still recovering”
Looks like someone fishing for causes.
Here’s my prediction – no coherent narrative (based on numbers) will appear form Dan Pangburn. Anything that smells like it corroborates his view will suffice.
“CO2 doesnt act as a blackbody.
What I see is the laser vaporizing the ice, not the fingers melting the ice.
7 watts isnt all that high powered and it looks like its melting the amount of ice you would expect from 7 watts.”
I must not be communicating very well. CO2 is not a black body, its only contribution to climate change is the back radiation of a very narrow band of 13 to 18-microns. Far from a black body, it is simply a single spike in the LWIR spectrum. Those wavelengths are what I am focused on. Those wavelengths are a small fraction of the spectrum a black body would emit.
Accepting that CO2 provides a total of 80W/m^2, a 7W CO2 laser places 7W into 1mm^2, or about 7,000W/m^2. If atmospheric CO2 can truly melt ice, a CO2 laser should easily burn through the ice. It doesn’t. That is the only point I am trying to make.
As Dr Spencer says, always do the numbers.
The CO2 laser is delivering 7W. That is 7 joule seconds.
The area calculation is irrelevant. The laser is delivering 7 joules to the block of ice for each second it is in operation.
The latent heat of fusion of ice is 337 joules/gram.
To turn 1 gram of ice at 0C into 1 cubic centimetre of water at 0C you need to put in 337J
Your laser puts in enough energy to melt 1 gram of ice in 337/7=48seconds.
If some of the energy is vapourising the water, that takes another 2230J/g.
Overall,it would be surprising to see your laser melting more than 1 cubic centimetre per minute.
Exactly.
Here’s a more powerful CO2 laser melting snow, 40W focused in a 4 mm diameter beam. That is about 40 W per 1.2 sq. cm. In this case, assuming the melting extends 1 cm deep, it would take about 10 seconds to melt the ice IF the ice was right at 0 deg. C. It will take longer if the ice is colder because it has to warm the ice to 0 deg. C before it can melt it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Zdrg_SHJk
Robert, there is simply no basis to what you are claiming.
A 4 mm diameter calculates to an area of 0.126 sq.cm, not 1.2 sq. cm. Decimal point mistakes are easy to overlook.
40 Watts in an area of 0.126 sq. cm is 3183100 Watts/m^2. The corresponding S/B temperature is 2737 K.
That laser is putting out over 3000 times the flux of the Sun.
Important points related to the physics of AGW/GHE are also easy to overlook.
If the atmospheric CO2 provides 80W/m2 how can there be any ice on earth?
esalil
The total downwelling IR is closer to an average of 300 W/m^2 and your question is how could there be ice on Earth? In the Arctic Winter the Downwelling IR is around 194 W/m^2, the Upwelling IR about 215 W/m^2.
There is no solar flux so you do not have the energy necessary to reach the temperature to melt ice.
Source (make you own graphs).
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
Norman admits: “The total downwelling IR is closer to an average of 300 W/m^2…”
Norman, ice near its melting point emits 300 W/m^2. Kind of hard to “warm the planet” with ice, huh?
JDHuffman
YOU: “Kind of hard to warm the planet with ice, huh?”
Not really. If the ice is much warmer than some other source of IR (such as deep space with a very meager IR) it will warm the planet.
It seems you think that all objects exist at this “room temperature” by themselves with no energy input. You often refer to a turkey.
If you did not think “room temperature” is the ground state for a turkey you might some day understand what scientist actually say.
Ice at 0 C will most definitely warm a turkey at its actual ground state of absolute zero.
In a vacuum environment (no conduction) to allow only radiant energy transfer, a turkey surrounded by ice (not touching) that is maintained at 0 C supplied with an internal heating element will cook much faster than if the turkey were surrounded by liquid nitrogen.
The ice will supply several more watts of energy to the turkey to be added with the internal heater than will the liquid nitrogen.
You can’t understand this no matter how many times it is explained to you.
Norman:two questions;
1) if there is no solar flux during the arctic winter where does the DWIR of 194 W/m2 come from? And how come the UWIR is 21 W/m2 larger?
2) what is the difference between DWIR of 300W/m2 and the UWIR of 300W/m2 of ice? Why does the former warm air but the latter not?
Norman, you’re trying to avoid reality, again.
Earth’s surface has an average temperature of 288K. It is NOT cooled by liquid nitrogen, or at absolute zero!
Attempting to deny reality just shows your desperation. But, desperation does not make up for your incompetence.
Learn some physics.
“Overall,it would be surprising to see your laser melting more than 1 cubic centimetre per minute.”
Thank you!!! That is the whole point I’ve been trying to make. If a laser can’t melt ice (OK, ice to any large degree), how in the world can the small amount of W/m^2 provided by atmospheric CO2 melt ice? If a laser can’t to it to any extent, atmospheric CO2 certainly can’t. The laser can place 7 W/mm^2, that is the equivalent of 7,000,000 W/m^2. Once again, if a laser can barely melt ice, how can the defuse back radiation from CO2 be expected to melt ice? Thank you for making my point.
Chris Bowdrie
I hope you read my whole comment. The amount of ice melted is proportional to the energy delivered, not the intensity.
That energy is absorbed by the solid surface of the ice, breaking the bonds between molecules. When the water runs off or is vapoured the next layer of molecules in the solid is exposed and melted in turn.
That is why an ice cutting laser has an attachment to blow meltwater away from the ice surface. The water would absorb some of the IR and reduce the energy reaching the ice.
Let’s try a real world example, DWIR in the Arctic Summer melting sea ice. You estimated that DWIR from CO2 is 80W/M^2.
Ice albedo is 0.6, so 32W/M^2 will be absorbed.
Each square metre of ice receives 32 joules of energy per second, which melts 32/335 grams of ice per second. That is 1kg of ice every 1000/(32/335)=10468 seconds.
1kg of ice is a layer 1metre square and 1mm thick, so your 80W/M^2 is melting 1mm off the ice surface every 2.9 hours, 6.9mm per day. Over a 4 month melting season that is 828mm.
For the Americans here, that insignificant amount of CO2 DWIR is melting more than 33″ of ice off the Arctic Ocean each year.
E-man, your math may be correct, but your physics is a disaster!
80 Watts/m^2 can NOT melt ice.
“Overall,it would be surprising to see your laser melting more than 1 cubic centimetre per minute.”
Entropic Man, I think you stumbled upon a Nobel Prize with that observation. Climate Alarmists speak as if energy accumulates in the atmosphere. That is only partially true. The system has safety valves called El Nino’s that violently expel vast amounts of energy out of the system and into outer space. The energy provided by the marginal Anthropogenic CO2 accumulates at glacial speed. What would be interesting is to calculate out how long it would take ANthropogenic CO2 to replace the energy lost from a single El Nino. My bet is that it would be measured in tens if not hundreds of years. I did some similar calculations regarding a m^3 of water.
The day to day, hour to hour, season by season variations of energy reaching the surface of the earth are enormous, dwarfing the impact of even a constant 0.94 W/m2. A single sunny HOUR can add more energy to the system than nearly 2 months of Anthropogenic CO2.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/06/understanding-the-w-m2-of-co2-the-flux-conundrum/
I guess we are arguing over what easily means.
Or what burn means, you know you can’t burn ice.
It’s obvious that the ice is melting and evaporation, maybe sublimating too.
Because it is absorbing the micron wavelenght radiation from CO2.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvXU3FGVsAAXaEn.jpg
Dis.counting the abe.rr.ation of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has set.tled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvXU3FGVsAAXaEn.jpg IMO the human contribution (via irrigation) to warming has ended but the increased risk of precipitation related flooding will continue.
Yes, lets exclude data that interferes with our view.
Are there studies that claim to confirm the amount of warming caused by CO2 on a planet-wide basis? I.E. proving the lab-based warming repeats itself in the atmosphere?
yes
Institutionalized Pseudoscience offers studies to “prove” anything your funding can support.
Please give me a reference to the studies or, better yet, provide an executive summary.
Thanks
You want that with a silver or gold spoon?
Not doing your research for you.
The bit about the exec summary was a joke.
Just mention the name of the studies and I’ll find them.
I don’t think you can. Can you link to one that doesn’t assume that it’s the GHE causing the rise? That’s a busted assumption and has been for many years.
And I doubt the lab results other than the simple fact that CO2 can absorb IR. The mean free path of IR in the atmosphere is too long for a realistic lab test. Collisional IR sends energy in all directions. All but a small % of downward IR to surface is collisional, not from upward surface radiation. See diagrams and explanation in http://brindabella.id.au?f=EAR
bobdroege,
Continued from here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-336737
“The increase amount of DWIR is directly due to the increase in the amount of CO2.”
This is a crucial statement for you to defend. Your ability to do so will indicate which of us is doing the misleading.
I’ll be a gentleman and allow you to go first.
Take a crack at refuting the statement.
I have already posted that the amount of radiation from a gas containing CO2 emits infrared radiation only dependent on the temperature of the gas and concentration of the CO2.
That statement continues to be ignored and not refuted.
You can take a crack at that statement too.
bobdroege,
Gentleman or child tempting me to play an I-asked-you-first game?
What increased amount of DWIR are you referring to? DWIR goes up and down depending on the time of day and it tracks UWIR. All DWIR, other than solar, originated (i.e., was sourced or was “created”) from below, either from the surface or UWIR.
I understand why you think increasing DWIR is due to CO2. If there was no solar IR and no other IR absorbing gases in the air, then an increase in CO2 from zero ppm would result in increasing DWIR. But it would not be directly proportional and probably not even logarithmically proportional. I could be wrong about that.
Your other statement is also incorrect or at least misleading. The amount of radiation from a gas depends on temperature, the composition of the IR absorbing molecules in the gas, their concentration, and the amount of incident radiation. Am I missing anything else?
“Your other statement is also incorrect or at least misleading. The amount of radiation from a gas depends on temperature, the composition of the IR absorbing molecules in the gas, their concentration, and the amount of incident radiation. Am I missing anything else?”
You need to study the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule that is responsible for the emission of infrared from the same molecules.
This is only dependent on temperature, it does not depend on whether or not the gas is exposed to radiation.
Some of the DWIR happens because the CO2 in the atmosphere is heated by other means, say convection for example.
I would suggest some light reading of quantum mechanics, but it will take some time to understand, I can wait.
You also say this in your previous post
“DWIR increases (warms) surface temperatures only when the atmosphere above is warmer than the surface below, if that even ever occurs.”
So you are with DREMT and others who believe in the IPT, intelligent photon theory, where photons know the temperature of their source, and can measure the temperature of things in their way and then determine whether or not to be absorbed.
Fancy theory that one is, or can you properly quote the second law of thermodynamics?
bob, it is likely you that needs to study.
The fact that some photons will not be absorbed is due to a wavelength mismatch. It happens all the time. It’s one of the reasons you can’t heat a room to 21 C, using only ice cubes.
bobdroege,
“This is only dependent on temperature, it does not depend on whether or not the gas is exposed to radiation.”
I admit that quantum mechanics is not my forte. But I need you to explain how ANY DWIR happens without an IR absorbing gas molecule first being excited by either absorp.tion of radiation or a collision with another air molecule.
I don’t know anything about intelligent photons. Warm objects radiate more energy than cool objects and they stay warmer and cooler until they become the same temperature. That’s about as deep as I want to get into the 2LoT discussion.
Huffnpuff,
I never said you could heat a room with ice.
Your misconception is that the wavelength of emitted radiation is related to the temperature of the greenhouse gas involved.
CO2 emits infrared irregardless of the temperature of the CO2 gas, as I have said a few times, CO2 has such low emissivity that nobody considers it to be acting remotely like a blackbody.
In case I have confused you, which is easily done, it’s the amount of infrared radiation, not the wavelength that is dependent on temperature.
Chic,
Some of the CO2 molecules will be in excited vibrational states and able to emit infrared radiation unless the gas is at absolute zero.
It can be heated only by convection, conduction or radiation.
Conduction and convection would require collisions with other molecules.
Don’t worry bob, you didn’t confuse me. I’m used to rambling comments.
You never addressed my statement: “The fact that some photons will not be absorbed is due to a wavelength mismatch. It happens all the time. It’s one of the reasons you can’t heat a room to 21 C, using only ice cubes.”
bobdroege,
“It can be heated only by convection, conduction or radiation.”
What is “it?”
Seems our discussion is digressing. At absolute zero, there is no convection, conduction or radiation. Temperature going above zero allows molecules to separate, but not necessarily vibrate. When the first CO2 molecule frees itself from a solid mass, does it come out vibrating or does it take a collision for it to become excited?
When I follow that logic, I come to the conclusion that DWIR is a response to other inputs, not a forcing. Explain how an increase in CO2 will preferentially cause an increase in DWIR without concurrently increasing UWIR.
If all IR from the surface capable of being absorbed by CO2 is already being thermalized in the lower troposphere, how can more CO2 make the air any warmer?
I thought you were saying photons don’t get absorbed because they are reflected?
Or is it this mismatch?
The fact that some photons will not be absorbed is due to a wavelength mismatch. It happens all the time. Its one of the reasons you cant heat a room to 21 C, using only ice cubes.
All right I’ll address this, you have no data to support the first part.
Chic,
This
When the first CO2 molecule frees itself from a solid mass, does it come out vibrating or does it take a collision for it to become excited?
Neither can be determined, it’s a probability that it is one or the other.
This part
“Explain how an increase in CO2 will preferentially cause an increase in DWIR without concurrently increasing UWIR.”
I have already explained, but I’ll try again.
The amount of IR from a gas containing some CO2 emits radiation in proportion to its temperature and concentration.
Anyway, DWIR increased the temperature at the surface, so it therefore increases the UWIR.
Satisfied?
This
“If all IR from the surface capable of being absorbed by CO2 is already being thermalized in the lower troposphere, how can more CO2 make the air any warmer?”
is the saturation argument, and more CO2 can make the air warmer because the CO2 re-emits the radiation some of the time, for one, and for two after it thermalizes it can absorb more. Also it is constantly being excited by collisions with other gas molecules in the atmosphere.
The saturation argument has been debunked countless times by better writers than me.
bobdroege,
“The amount of IR from a gas containing some CO2 emits radiation in proportion to its temperature and concentration.”
Doesn’t the same go for absorp.tion? For a gas to remain at a constant temperature every emission must be compensated for by an absorp.tion somewhere else.
“Anyway, DWIR increased the temperature at the surface, so it therefore increases the UWIR.
Satisfied?”
No, you have it reversed. Whatever the cause of increased surface temperature, UWIR increases by definition. DWIR is the response. IR is absorbed by IR active molecules which radiate back a fraction of the energy thermalized.
This goes back to my original point. DWIR isn’t created by an increase in CO2. That assertion is a hypothetical construct without measurements to back it up.
“The saturation argument has been debunked countless times by better writers than me.”
I’ve never seen the saturation argument debunked by any actual data. Can you cite anyone who has data showing that an increase in CO2 caused a rise in atmospheric temperature?
“DWIR isn’t created by an increase in CO2.”
That seems to mean the original well mixed CO2 radiated in the IR but the added ppm CO2 does not radiate in the IR. Perhaps Chic can clarify what is meant by original CO2 radiates DWIR but identical addd CO2 does not then radiate (“create”) added DWIR.
So which part of this do you think is not supported by the data?
Ive never seen the saturation argument debunked by any actual data. Can you cite anyone who has data showing that an increase in CO2 caused a rise in atmospheric temperature?
The fact that CO2 levels have increased?
The fact that temperature has increased?
The Modtran data base shows that the cause is CO2?
“No, you have it reversed. Whatever the cause of increased surface temperature, UWIR increases by definition. DWIR is the response. IR is absorbed by IR active molecules which radiate back a fraction of the energy thermalized.”
The amount of DWIR from CO2 molecules that get excited from collisions with other molecules are millions of times more prevalent than the DWIR from CO2 molecules that get excited by absorbing IR.
Here’s some light reading material, just look at the last chart.
I saw you are a chemist, so am I, this is part of the 3rd year torture known as p-chem, most of us just survive.
https://www.chemie.unibas.ch/~epc/huber/PCIpdfs/5-Boltzmann.pdf
bobdroege,
“The amount of DWIR from CO2 molecules that get excited from collisions with other molecules are millions of times more prevalent than the DWIR from CO2 molecules that get excited by absorbing IR.”
May I rephrase what I think you mean? Because CO2 molecules that get excited from collisions with other molecules are millions of times more prevalent than CO2 molecules that get excited by absorbing IR, DWIR due to the former is greater than that from the latter.
I agree with that for the lower troposphere. Notice that you can substitute UWIR for DWIR and the sentence is still true.
[This is a partial post. Hopefully I be able to resolve why the rest will not go.]
For a constant temperature layer of air, emissions have to equal absorp.tions. DWIR = UWIR – IR through the atmospheric window. The short path length that makes emission from a collision more prevalent than from an absorp.tion also makes the time between emission and absorp.tion short enough to maintain local temperature equilibrium.
I’m not sure what you are trying to explain by referring to the last chart on that p-chem link. Its application to our discussion is this: the number of excited CO2 molecules will increase with temperature. Conversely, if the temperature of a layer of air is decreasing, emissions are exceeding absorp.tions. If temperature is increasing, absorp.tions are exceeding emissions.
Chic,
The point I was trying to make is that emissions are only dependent on temperature, because the population of excited states is only dependent on temperature and the emission is only dependent on the population of excited states.
So there is a greenhouse effect.
bobdroege,
“So there is a greenhouse effect.”
Are you writing that to irritate me? I hate that term. What effect are you talking about?
We were discussing whether additional CO2 could generate a temperature increase. It’s an interesting question. Suppose a chamber could be kept at a controlled temperature. If CO2 were pumped in, would the temperature control be forced to cool to maintain the temperature constant? Or would there be no effect because simply increasing CO2 concentration by itself wouldn’t increase the temperature of the gas in the chamber.
Don’t just pass the p-chem course like I did. Understand it and use it like I didn’t.
Stop trying to move the goalposts and address the question.
It’s the atmosphere not some pot we can pump CO2 into.
The effect is a higher temperature at the surface due to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Which I have shown to be due to the properties of CO2.
OK forgive me for talking down to you.
Good luck on your p-chem. You’ll probably need it.
Chic,
Won’t need it, I’ll retire in 5 years or so, wasn’t clever enough or stupid enough to try a second course in quantum mechanics, one was enough.
Wound up doing analytical chemistry.
So you haven’t been able, so far, to debunk the critical physical science that supports the process where increasing CO2 in our atmosphere warms the planet surface.
But been trying for more than 10 years, haven’t you?
Don’t you know when you are licked?
all over
Has it been ten years? Wow. But I’m not debunking anything sitting here at my desk avoiding all that housework I should be doing. I just keep learning and looking for any solid evidence of what you take for granted; that an increase in CO2 warms the planet. It’s not over until….
Chris Bowdrie
“an increase in CO2 from zero ppm would result in increasing DWIR. But it would not be directly proportional and probably not even logarithmically proportional.”
It is logarithmic.
You can derive a forcing equation giving the extra forcing in watts, ie the increase in DWIR, for a given increase in CO2.
∆F=5.35ln(C/Co)
∆F is the change in forcing in watts.
C is the initial CO2 concentration.
Co is the final CO2
Plug in real numbers and a doubling of CO2 concentration produces an 81% increase in DWLR.
“Plug in real numbers and a doubling of CO2 concentration produces an 81% increase in DWLR.”
Sorry, I phrased that loosely.
Each doubling of CO2 will produce the same increase in forcing. Each increment of increased CO2 will produce an increase which is 81% of the previous increment.
For repeated doublings.
5.35ln(560/280)=3.7W
5.35ln(1120/560)=3.7W
For repeated increments of 280ppm
5.35ln(560/280)=3.7W
5.35ln(840/560)=2.17W
E-man, that equation is from Arrhenius. It is delusional pseudoscience. The equation has NO derivation. You want to BELIEVE it is valid, but it is NOT.
The equation basically says if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you increase energy in the atmosphere. That violates 1LoT.
(Also, you need to learn your own pseudoscience. ∆F has units of Watts/m^2. And your “81% increase in DWLR” appears incorrect.)
Chris Bowdrie
You’ll be familar with this equation from Clive Best’s blog here
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597
and here
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4697
Best estimate is that, under real world conditions, an increase in forcing of 3.7W would produce a direct increase of 1C warming, plus whatever extra warming arose due to feedback effects.
Simplifying somewhat, you can get the total warming by
Temperature change=CO2 forcing *climate sensitivity / 3.7
If CS is 1 there are no feedbacks and you get 1C per CO2 doubling.
if CS is 2 you get 2C per doubling and so on.
This is the basis ofthe IPCC temperature estimates. They estimate CS is between 1.5 and 4.5, giving a temperature rise per doubling between 1.5C and 4.5C.
Ignoring lag, you can do a simple minimum estimate of CS from current data.
CS=temperature change *3.7/CO2 forcing.
The forcing between 1880 and now is 5.35ln(407/280)= 2W
The temperature change is 1C.
Minimum climate sensitivity becomes 1*3.7/2 =1.8.
Dr Spencer said earlier
“the lastest analyses (Lewis & Curry, 2018) of what this would mean leads to an eventual warming of only 1 deg. C from a doubling of atmospheric CO2”
I would regard his estimate that CS=1 as way too low.
JDHuffman
81% already clarified.
W instead of W/M^2 is laziness.
Each time I use W instead of W/M^2 it saves me nine keystrokes.
That’s the advantage of pseudoscience, E-man. You never have to admit you’re wrong.
E man,
Have you ever heard of a deviation from theory? That is what happens when molecular interactions interfere with the absorp.tion/emission process.
I wondered how you knew I was familiar with Clive Best’s site until I saw my comments there, but I honestly need to review the links to respond properly to your comments. On your first link, there was no reference to “logarithmic” and only one on Clive’s original post. I need to check to see if the logarithmic plot there in Figure 1 was data or computer generated stuff.
My point is not knowing what the actual CO2 response is under atmospheric conditions where air density and pressure change with altitude. Can that possibly be perfectly logarithmically proportional all the way through the atmosphere? I’m doubting it.
Chris Bowdrie
” I need to check to see if the logarithmic plot there in Figure 1 was data or computer generated stuff.”
IIRC the models give 3.7W/M^2 per doubling, as does the derivation of the equation from first pronciples.Observation gives 4+, probably because of the extra factors you mentioned.
You also see deviation from theory in the spectra. The mominal spot wavelength for CO2 absorbtion is 15micrometres, but band spreading gives a band from 13-17 micrometres in the atmosphere.
When trying to understand all this, it can be a bad idea to get too hooked on every detail. I’ve done a lot of back-of-the envelope calculations down the years which have come close to describing reality without needing to take account of every detail.
The clue to the logarithmic relationship is in the ln in the equation.
∆F=5.35ln(C/Co)
Expressed verbally, the change in forcing is proportional to the natural logarithm of the relative change in CO2.
E man,
There is deviation from a well-established theory like Beer’s Law, but there isn’t even any data to substantiate the forcing equation. How would anyone be able to verify that the relationship between an obscure term like forcing and an arguably extremely observational and measurable quantity like CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
What was measured to come up with the 5.35 constant in the equation?
Chris Bowdrie
You expressed an interest on researching DWIR in more detail.
You’ll find data from the DWIR monitoring network here, at the Baseline Surface Radiation Network website here.
https://bsrn.awi.de
Easy to substantiate forcing. Working from experiment there are a number of papers describing direct field comparison of observed and predicted changes in DWLR at particulr locations.
In the lab you can shine IR into one end of a gas cell and measure the radiation coming out both ends. Vary wavelengths, path length, gas composition and pressure to suit your experiment. That allows you to draw curves and develop equations to describe how variables such as CO2 concentration and DWLR are related.
5.35 is the constant of proportionality in the equation. This allows you to take the general statement that DWIR is proportional to natural log of change in CO2 and turn it into an equation that you can use to calculate real world values. You get it by looking for the value at which your equation matches your theoretical expectations and your experimental results.
I dont know your profession, but if it involves calculation, then the equations you use will have similar constants doing the same job.
E man,
I am interested in learning about DWIR from people who already know more than me about it. At my $0 a year salary as an arm-chair climate scientist, I will not be going to the BSRN website compiling data anytime soon.
Being a chemist, I am somewhat familiar with laboratory IR measurements, but only those carried out in controlled experiments entirely at ambient pressure and temperature. I wouldn’t begin to extrapolate those measurements to the atmosphere. In fact, that is exactly my problem with “observational evidence” of radiative forcing by CO2. The data seem to arise from interpolation of spectra taken at isolated times and locations without sufficient integration over time and location to discriminate between CO2 and other factors.
Clive Best explains that the 5.35 was “simply a fit made to the results of different GCM models where CO2 is increased and everything else is kept constant.”
“Clive Best explains that the 5.35 was “simply a fit made to the results of different GCM models where CO2 is increased and everything else is kept constant.””
If true then Clive Best is incorrect. The 5.35 constant coefficient did not originate from GCMs.
The 5.35 in delta F=5.35*ln(C/Co), C being CO2 ppmv, originally came from 1 of 3 consistent radiative transfer schemes that have been shown to be accurate to 0.1C in the troposphere by radiosonde and balloon thermometers. Regular line-by-line radiative transfer model, a narrow-band model, and a broad-band model. The broad band model was only one used for the coefficient due to its inclusion of solar absorp_tion by CO2. Previously the IPCC had estimated the coefficient to be 6.3 which was not necessarily based on such consistent model conditions.
Maybe Clive found his information from RealClimate.org:
“These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others).”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Ball4, really pathetic.
“see Table 6.2”
Maybe at one time but not now: “The page you were looking for doesn’t exist”
The RC page you link is a rich source to find & verify from the original publications: “If true then Clive Best is incorrect. The 5.35 constant coefficient did not originate from GCMs.”
And the original research on what was actually used to develop the 5.3 coefficient: “line-by-line radiative transfer model”.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdf
see page 358. The table is on the right.
The table:
“The (alpha 5.35) constant in the simplified expression for CO2 for the first row is based on radiative transfer calculations with three-dimensional climatological meteorological input data (Myhre et al., 1998b).”
which verifies exactly what I wrote. The 5.35 constant is not from GCMs, alpha = 5.35 was originally developed from radiative transfer calculations (LBLRTM).
Chic Bowdrie says:
“This is a crucial statement for you to defend.”
See fig. 4 to see how DWIR from CO2 follows the seasonal variations in concentration:
https://tinyurl.com/qz7scuw
Svante, I bet you can’t explain how they know the “CO2 forcing” without using the words “model”, “estimate”, or “calculation”.
Yes, they measured it.
Like I said, I bet you can’t explain it.
You’re just trusting in the pseudoscience. You can’t explain how they can measure “CO2 forcing”, in your own words.
That’s right, I trust science.
Here’s the instrument:
https://tinyurl.com/y7ah2dyf
Like I said, I bet you cant explain it.
That equipment is nothing more than a spectrum analyzer. It identifies wavelengths, but you still haven’t explained how you know the “CO2 forcing”.
And links don’t count.
How do they “measure CO2 forcing”? In your own words, please.
No, you tell me.
Okay Svante, I’ll take that as your admission you can’t explain your pseudoscience.
Thank you.
I can easily explain why “measuring CO2 forcing” is nonsense. First, there is no such thing as “CO2 forcing”. Second, to a spectrum analyzer, all 14.7 μ photons look the same. It can’t tell if the photon came from CO2, H2O, or the Moon.
Learn some physics. Don’t just link to things you don’t understand. There’s enough of that already….
You keep giving me these hard choices, science with sources vs. hand waving from a guy on the internet.
Actually, the choices are
1) Continue mindless adherence to an obviously false religion, or
2) Think for yourself.
I’m on 2), where did you find 1)?
Svante,
I discussed this paper with Craig T at length here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2018-0-28-deg-c/#comment-333906
I’ll have another look now to see if seasonal variations in DWIR don’t track UWIR. The logic is that DWIR isn’t an independent “forcing” as a function of IR gases. It requires input from other variables, mainly UWIR and radiation from the surface. In other words, DWIR doesn’t increase or decrease without a corresponding increase or decrease in the other factors. I could be wrong.
I don’t know what else to add other than I agree more or less with what JDHuffman has written above.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“I’ll have another look now to see if seasonal variations in DWIR don’t track UWIR.”
Yes, take a look at fig. 4 and see if the forcing goes up when the CO2 is up, which is in the northern hemisphere winter.
Svante, how do you find “forcing” in that pseudoscience:
Numbers, please.
Svante,
I don’t know how better to explain why the Feldman et alia paper doesn’t show how an increase in DWIR directly results from an increase in CO2 and nothing else. But I’ll try again.
Forcing is a theoretical concept predicting an increase in temperature due to an increase in CO2. The evidence for that comes from spectral calculations which do correspond well with observed spectra. However, those spectral measurements aren’t combined with corresponding temperature measurements showing that temperature responds to changes in CO2. Granted this is difficult to do. It’s much easier to calculate the theoretical forcing and use that to show the effect of seasonal changes in CO2.
What I’m trying to get across is that DWIR comes mainly from surface radiation and any UWIR coming from IR absorbing gases between the surface and the level where the DWIR is measured. DWIR is a function of real time temperature, not the reverse. Where Figure 4 in Feldman shows the forcings responding to seasonal CO2 variation, it means they calculated what additional radiation CO2 must have THEORETICALLY absorbed. Concequently, CO2 theoretically emitted more radiation back toward the surface and ALLEGEDLY increased the surface temperature. My concern is that either there is no additional radiation absorbed or it may have been thermalized and convected upward without any measurable effect on temperature.
If more CO2 increased DWIR due to an increase in local temperature that wasn’t compensated for by convection, then I would be more concerned about AGW.
“However, those spectral measurements aren’t combined with corresponding temperature measurements..”
Actually those spectral measurements are combined with corresponding temperature measurements (radiosondes, balloon thermometers) and shown to be accurate to order of ~0.1C even with some moderate lateral convection encountered in certain atm. layers.
The line-by-line radiative transfer models (LBLRTM) were developed using spectral band data from HITRAN. This field was an active research topic in the late 1980s and through the 1990s into the 2000s & there are many papers to tune up on the subject.
Does everyone see what Ball4 did there?
(Cue the Jeopardy theme music)
He leaves off the last part of my sentence, “showing that temperature responds to changes in CO2” which totally changes the context of my statement.
That is low, even for you, Ball4.
“showing that temperature responds to changes in CO2”
..is correct & well known from observations Chic. So well known you ought to have been aware to begin with, there is no need to add anything to that part of your comment. If you are not aware, a basic meteorology text book will add to your knowledge base.
I have been taking great pains to explain that forcings are a theoretical concept showing how a change in CO2 should cause a change in temperature. But there is no actual data that verifies that a CO2 forcing causes a change in temperature. If you know otherwise, cite the data and stop misleading people.
“But there is no actual data that verifies that a CO2 forcing causes a change in temperature. If you know otherwise, cite the data and stop misleading people.”
You could start your studies with Prof. John Tyndall’s report in 1861 “that verifies that a CO2 forcing causes a change in temperature”. You could move forward in time from there as additional experiments and in situ observations (land & sea) have been made from which to cite the data and inform people who have not spent the time to research & learn from the bulk of the existing published data.
Chic Bowdrie says:
You don’t understand how weak the CO2 forcing is. Temperature on these two sites depends on weather, the CO2 correlation would be next to zero.
Why does the forcing go up in the winter then?
So the measured increase in DWIR has no effect.
Yeah right.
“You don’t understand how weak (is) the CO2 forcing”
Good point Svante.
Many dont understand how weak the CO2 forcing is on current UAH global mean near surface temperature anamoly.
Observations show CO2 added ppm add around 0.7c near surface global mean in the 75 years after 1938 so 0.7C/75 ~ .01C/year and Salvatore likes to comment on per month UAH charts so ~0.001C/month in those. Then Salvatore concludes from inspecting the last one shouting: “AGW DOES NOT, HAS NOT, WILL NEVER EXIST.” Salvatore sure has fine eye for detail to pick out ~0.001C anamoly not existing in the latest UAH monthly data.
IMO this weak added CO2 forcing per month on current global mean temperature is a root cause for many misconceptions & blog debate. The instrumental data statistical significance level is not there to show it without doubt like an NFL, NHL, MLB video review. By participating though, some solid atm. science understanding can be acquired to form an opinion supported by data.
Yeah, CO2 wins because it is long term, and not cyclic like most anything else.
Svante,
I do realize the forcing is weak and thus the difficulty of showing the temperature relationship to forcing. I’m just trying to explain why it isn’t straight forward and why it might be irrelevant.
The forcing goes up in winter because CO2 goes up in winter. The forcing is calculated from spectra. The spectra reveals the fingerprint of the additional CO2. The problem is the temperature relationship. How can you know the extra CO2 in winter had any effect at all on local temperature, let alone the global temperature?
DWIR is a response to the absorp.tion of IR from below based on surface temperature. It does have an effect otherwise IR radiation would go directly to space and days would be really hot and nights really cold. But there is already enough CO2 in the air to question whether any more will have any further effect. There are just too many other factors at play.
To summarize, a forcing is not the same as a temperature change and DWIR is the response to surface temperature, not what determines it.
You are effectively asking for the climate sensitivity. That’s a scientifically valid question, and the answer is not settled. Roy might say 1C, a more common estimate might be 2C-3C.
Locally you might have falling trends, it’s only the global average that goes up.
Globally there’s an easier argument. More CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque, a lower temperature is shown to space and the inside must warm restore equilibrium.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“DWIR is the response to surface temperature, not what determines it.”
But here we measured more CO2 forcing in the winter, when the surface temperature is low.
Svante,
“More CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque, a lower temperature is shown to space and the inside must warm restore equilibrium.”
That’s the AGW talking point. It is a hypothesis. Now where is the global evidence that any more CO2 has any effect on temperature?
“But here we measured more CO2 forcing in the winter, when the surface temperature is low.”
CO2 forcing is calculated, not measured. In winter CO2 is up so of course the calculated forcing will be up. The fact that the temperature is cold when CO2 is up should tell you something—> No correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Hi Chic,
Why do you say that the forcing is calculated when it is from a measurement?
If it was “reflected” UWIR it would be down in the winter.
The fact that the temperature is cold when CO2 is up depends on the sun of course, CO2 can only act as a damper.
You think you reveal a misunderstanding here:
“DWIR is a response to the absorp.tion of IR from below based on surface temperature.”
DWIR depends on the temperature you see from the ground. It can be due to convection/latent heat or whatever.
What matters is how high you can see in IR, higher means cooler, more CO2 means lower.
Svante,
“Why do you say that the forcing is calculated when it is from a measurement?”
Because it is not from a temperature measurement. The forcing is calculated from spectra. AFAIK, one calculation for each spectrum. If the temperature profile in the atmosphere was simultaneously recorded along with the spectra from now until a year from now over the whole globe, there might be a chance of correlating the net temperature change from CO2. The conflicting variables would likely eliminate any significant statistical conclusions.
It would be difficult and probably take a long time, but that is the data necessary to make conclusive evidence of any CO2 effect.
I don’t know what reflected UWIR is.
“DWIR depends on the temperature you see from the ground.”
It also depends on how far off the ground you are and what the temperature is there. Same for UWIR.
“[DWIR] can be due to convection/latent heat or whatever.”
Only to the degree that those variables determine the temperature. After that, IR radiation only depends on the concentrations of IR active gases.
“What matters is how high you can see in IR, higher means cooler, more CO2 means lower.”
That was a reversion to regurgitating AGW dogma. Let’s get back to talking about atmospheric physics.
Chic, the response landed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337873
Wow, this thread soon became incomprehensible. Chuck Todd is political director for NBC News. This is about trying to silence anyone that threatens to sway public opinion away from the AGW agenda, as the BBC are doing in the UK. Regardless of who is scientifically correct its an infringement of free speech and open debate.
Cmon, Robert. Its easy to find videos refuting your claim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Zdrg_SHJk -Roy
https://youtu.be/KJ-aTyPyF50
I haven’t communicated my idea very well. CO2 lasers will cause surface evaporation, 15-micron LWIR is readily absorbed by water. That is why it doesn’t penetrate water to any depth. The concept I’m trying to address is that surface evaporation may not warm the body of water below the evaporation. Evaporation is endothermic. Causing evaporation of sweat cools the body. All I’m asking for is a demonstration of a glass of water with a thermometer in it demonstrating if a CO2 laser can actually warm the body of water below where the evaporation occurs.
How about a demonstration of additional CO2 making water below it warmer, forget about lasers…
“How about a demonstration of additional CO2 making water below it warmer, forget about lasers”
That is a marvelous idea. Here are the details.
A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/a-nobel-prize-in-science-winning-climate-science-experiment/
CO2isLife
Not sure what wavelengths are used but it is in the IR band of EMR and it does heat water.
Water is absorbing the energy from the emitted IR and warming up rapidly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS88lpgr5R0
Norman, if the water is in contact with the heater, the heat transfer is mostly by conduction.
Your desperation is showing, again.
“Not sure what wavelengths are used but it is in the IR band of EMR and it does heat water.”
Near IR can penetrate the surface of the water. So, it specifically needs to be longer wavelength IR than that, which can’t. This is why in the experiment details, CO2isLife is specifying 13 – 18 micron IR, which are the wavelengths CO2 emits, and don’t penetrate the water’s surface.
JDHuffman
Do you have to post to prove you don’t know what you are talking about? You could be an intellectual skeptic like CO2isLife where they look for actual data to prove points. You like to remain on the other side of intelligence for no apparent reason.
Here read this before making a post it tells you how these IR heaters work.
https://irtankless.com/
I am desperately trying to help you not make a fool of yourself, wipe that pie of your face.
The IR is directly absorbed by water molecules which heats it rapidly.
DREMT the wavelengths used are far infrared not near. Around 10 microns it would appear.
Norman, if the water is in contact with the heater, the heat transfer is mostly by conduction.
The flow diagram shows the water going through the heaters.
Some more reality for you to deny.
JDHuffman
Do you have a reading disability? I gave you a link on how an IR heater heats water read it!
Don’t assume you understand what is going on based upon your invalid illogical reasoning abilities. Read what is actually going on and not what you think might be taking place.
The only reality I see is you are a blithering idiot, incapable of reason, logic and now you show you are not able to read but you have to make stupid comments anyway.
JDHuffman
Since you seem to have no reading ability I will post the content of the article and other posters can see what a dork you are.
From the linked article: “Now, we are abled through a patented process of combining carbon coating heating element technology on quartz tubes to generate far infrared energy to heat water and amplifies far infrared energy inside the quartz tube. As a result of this activation and infrared energy can heat the excited molecules on an individual basis ensuring the water is thoroughly heated at an accelerated rate and this process heats the tubes to over 200F of (100C) in a matter of seconds and heats the water without ever touching..This allows iR Quartz Tankless is operating at higher flow rates.”
Idiot can you read words at all and comprehend the meaning?
Even Gordon Robertson will link to some article to support his views. You link to NOTHING. You blather on and on about your stupid opinions and beliefs and your pretend expert knowledge of things but no one cares about what you have to say. Most know you are a stupid person.
“Water is a cluster of 5 to 12 water molecules (H2O). When such cluster of water molecules is stimulated by far infrared rays, the molecular water movement is activated due to resonance ab.sorp.tion and the number of water molecules forming the cluster is decreased, leading to activation of water.
If far infrared rays of about 10 microns, equivalent to the oscillatory wavelength range of water molecule, are irradiated, the resonance ab.sorp.tion occurs, leading to the decrease of clusters and faster movement of water molecules. In other words, the water is activated.”
So this would be another reason why 13 – 18 micron IR is specified…
Norman, you can’t understand your own link. If the water touches the heated element, the heat transfer is via conduction, not radiation.
You’ve found another link you can’t understand and in frustration, attack me!
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Are you really that stupid? I posted words directly from the link and you are still arguing like a foolish person.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says: can understand the words.
You are irrational, illogical and completely stupid. Why do you post? What motivates you. You don’t know anything about science, you can’t read, you can’t follow rational arguments or debates. Thankfully we do have intelligent rational skeptics that post so everyone does not think you represent them.
Norman, you still can’t figure it out. You must be so frustrated.
It appears the water flows through quartz liners. The water is in contact with the quartz, not the metal. So they can claim “infrared heating”, because the quartz is definitely emitting. But, the majority heat transfer would be due to contact.
And, even if you consider the heating from infrared, you lose again.
The “over 100 C” would correspond to a peak energy wavelength of about 7.7 μ, which is a much “hotter” photon than 14.7 μ.
You found another link that you can’t understand.
At least you know how to type.
JDHuffman
I think I have your stupid posts figured out. You are playing on the poster Roy Spencer put on the bottom of his post… What the Scarecrow says “Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don’t they?”
It seems you are attempting to play with this poster and pretend like you are a brainless dolt.
Just to correct your many many errors and mistakes in your numerous posts, Here: “You found another link that you can’t understand.”
This is not correct. The correct wording would be I have found another link you can’t understand. Remember I have reading comprehension. You lack this ability.
JDHuffman
I also find even the simplest of math goes beyond your limited ability. Here you demonstrate that you can’t even add correctly.
YOU: “The over 100 C would correspond to a peak energy wavelength of about 7.7 μ, which is a much hotter photon than 14.7 μ.”
If a surface is able to absorb nearly all the IR band (as water can)
It does not make a bit of difference how much “hotter” (I assume you mean energy difference) a photon is than another. The simplest of math shows you are lacking in even simple ideas and yet you keep on posting and posting. Are you a lunatic?
I know it is a waste of time talking to an idiot but what the heck.
A 7.7 micron photon will have an energy of 0.161 eV
A 14.7 micron photon will have an energy of 0.0843 eV
If you would have 100 7.7 micron photons reach and be absorbed by a surface they will add 16.1 eV of energy to it.
Now if you have 10000 14.7 micron photons that reach the same surface they will add 84.3 eV to the surface.
The simple math demonstrates you are clueless. Not that you have even a slight chance of understanding it. I do it to show other posters how stupid you are and that soon we can all ignore your senseless and useless posts.
Hopefully the scientific skeptics see how dumb you are and also reject you worthless opinions.
Norman, two rambling comments only reveal your ongoing frustration.
Learn some physics.
One sided? I’m giving an alternative explanation which is seldom heard. The public has the alarmist view shoved down their throats 24/7.
Dr. Roy,
Did you see the conniption fit CNN threw about a year or so ago when Will Happer told them the Paris Accord will be just about as effective as the Munich Agreement?
I think that is the last time CNN will ever allow a climate skeptic to be interviewed!
I posted one above boiling water.
All Im asking for is a demonstration of a glass of water with a thermometer in it demonstrating if a CO2 laser can actually warm the body of water below where the evaporation occurs.
CO2,
“You can take a CO2 laser and shine it on ice and it wont melt.”
Roy proved you wrong. Will you admit your error and be done with it?
Yes, I was wrong, Dr Spencer posted a video of a CO2 laser melting snow and vaporizing the surface of water. Both those points I’ve expected. The thing I have not seen yet is that a CO2 laser can warm the water underneath. All it takes is a CO2 laser, a cup of water, and a thermometer. Surface evaporation would be expected to cool the water below.
‘Surface evaporation would be expected to cool the water below.’
An assertion, but not proven true if you look at actual numbers.
See here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337455
First step is to correctly identify what the global warming is actually about
https://goo.gl/KDwkjC
No doubt you believe you have done so while referring to this blog entry about political conspiracy.
How gullible are you?
Mark,
“another plausible source of heat transfer to the atmosphere and upper ocean.”
A colder atmosphere is not a plausible source of heat to a warmer ocean..
Insolation and geothermal are plausible sources of heat to the ocean..
Unless of course you think that the ice caps are heat sources because they slow the rate at which the oceans cool… Silly I know…
Eben,
“First step is to correctly identify what the global warming is actually about”
To our shame, it was a Canadian who set up the whole IPCC power grab… M. Strong. I could post many anti-human and anti-west comments from him but this should suffice:
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?… In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Would you like your utterly baseless inferences to be accepted willy nilly, or would you recommend a dollop of skepticism applied to your vacuousness?
Andrew Stout says:
January 4, 2019 at 11:56 AM
Continuing our previous conversation, most of the difference between the two camps is to do with human nature, rather than evidence.
Each of us has a bullshit filter, set by past experience and beliefs. For example, I am an agnostic married to a strong Catholic. Every week she brings home the Catholic Voice newspaper and I know without looking that it will contain nothing of interest. 🙂
The operation of that bullshit filter leads to two responses when confronted with information.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to uncritically accept information that supports your beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance is the tendency to uncritically dismiss information that conflicts with your beliefs.
To go beyond confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is difficult. It takes considerable effort, and usally some training, to put aside dearly held beliefs and look objectively at information.
E-man states: “To go beyond confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is difficult.”
Exactly, E-man. That’s why you see some say such stupid things like “a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, while running the oval track”.
Once affected, they can no longer see reality.
That might explain why the horses I bet on always lose their races….
The key right now for the global climate is what overall oceanic sea surface temperatures do. If they should drop to a lower range global temperatures will follow.
All that is needed is one explosive volcanic eruption (which I say is tied to solar) and a lowering of overall oceanic temperatures and continued down will be the global temperature trend.
SOI INDEX- will for the most part not be below -8.00 which is El NINO territory ,despite being -18 today but that should be rising.
I have noticed that when the El Nino regions warmed up and cooled over the past six months the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures seemed to correlate with it.
I think it is by coincidence but it has caught my attention.
I beg to differ.
“A 2017 study published in the Geology journal researched a link between melting glaciers and ice caps and an increase in volcanic activity. Looking at a period of cooling about 5,500 years ago in Iceland, the researchers found that growing ice coverage coincided with a decrease in eruptions. The same was true in reverse: when the ice retreated, the number of eruptions increased.”
Therefore, global warming causes more eruptions and vice-versa.
A “study” that correlates volcanic activity to global warming!
Questionable data from 5500 years ago, with no causation, is readily accepted as “science”!
It’s just more pseudoscience to keep the faithful complacent.
Nothing new.
I had to cut up my response because the Blog keeps rejecting it:
Thanks Norman, I haven’t communicated my question very well. H20 absorbs IR across nearly the entire EM spectrum, especially the IR spectrum. That is what makes H20 a very very very potent GHG. If you shine IR radiation on H20 I have no doubt that you can warm it.You can warm it a whole lot more using visible radiation or microwaves as well. What my comments are always directed towards is isolating the wavelengths associated with CO2, the 13 to 18-micron band. That is why I chose the CO2 laser to isolate such wavelengths (yes I know the CO2 laser used 9 to 10-micron wavelengths, not 13 to 18).
“What my comments are always directed towards is isolating the wavelengths associated with CO2, the 13 to 18-micron band. That is why I chose the CO2 laser to isolate such wavelengths (yes I know the CO2 laser used 9 to 10-micron wavelengths, not 13 to 18).”
Why is there a difference.
Anyways Longwave IR penetrates water [or water is transparent this IR] to very shallow depth, about .01 mm or 10 μm.
[of course shortwave IR is quite different].
Science of Doom says:
“As you can see, most of the “back radiation” is absorbed in the first 10μm, and 20% is absorbed even in the first 1μm ”
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/
{{As for your specific wavelengths, I think seen numbers given, though I don’t have them and would require search on the internet [that’s where I have seen them before]. Doom of course, is believer in “global warming” and I will use it [it quickly found and he believes]}}.
One square meter of water at depth of 1 mm is 1 kg of water or 1000 grams. 10 μm depth is 10 grams of water. And 1 μm is 1 gram of water.
If talking about 1 square cm, there are 10,000 square cm in square meter. 1 square mm, being million square mm in square meter.
Water requires:
Latent heat of melting: 334 kJ/kg
Latent heat of evaporation(at 100°C): = 2256 kJ/kg
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
Kg of ice to melt requires 334,000 joules
Or to turn gram of ice into water require 334 joules of heat
And turn 1 gram of 100 C water to steam require 2256 joules
And if using lasers where interested in square cm or mm, it’s 1/10,000th or 1/millionth of these values.
It seems to me that 20% being absorb within a depth of 1 μm is more dramatic or illustrative than “most in first 10 μm”.
Or 10 times 20% is 200%, twice as much “happening” within the top 1 μm. And likewise probably more happening in one half of 1 μm depth.
IR radiation does not warm the oceanic temperatures.
For the 1 millionth time:
If atmospheric IR radiation impinging on the ocean surface is not absorbed, where does it go?
Does it keep going through to the ocean floor?
Does it get reflected?
Or are you saying it is absorbed but does not affect the temperature?
Please explain.
Myki
It is rather counterituitive.
Water is almost opaque to IR. When hit by DWIR the radiation is absorbed by the top 1mm of the surface film. It then causes evaporation and raturns to the atmosphere as latent heat in water vapour, or reradiates back into the air. That is where the IR goes.
It also increases the temperature of the surface film.
Normally heat flows down the temperature gradient from warm water through a cooler surface to an enen cooler atmosphere. The IR warms the surface film to a higher temperature than the water below it or the air above it. This creates a barrier which slows the rate of heat loss from the ocean.
There is a clear summary here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
“If atmospheric IR radiation impinging on the ocean surface is not absorbed, where does it go?”
It is reflected.
No it’s not.
What happens when it is reflected?
Does it go up and then be absorbed by the greenhouse gases and then half of it reradiated down? The reflected again, until when?
Pass me the bong.
Yes it is.
And obviously you’ve already had too much bong.
JD high as a kite
What happens when the IR is reflected, please continue your analysis?
How long before it comes back down as more DWIR?
And then gets reflected again, and again….
How soon does the world blow up?
Sleep it off, bong man.
Earth will be here when you sober up.
Bob, you have to realize that JD knows from looking at cartoons some blackbodies reflect all incident radiation as JD shows in bogus cartoon form.
Since ocean water is measured as a near blackbody with absorp_tivity/emissivity around 0.97 across the spectrum from horizon to horizon all incidence angles (& maybe a skosh less on windy, wavy days), to JD that means the ocean reflects all incident radiation.
Nothing new. JD just needs to go learn some physics.
Fluffball shows up to defend his false religion. But, all he has are his false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
He and Norman must be in the same typing class….
ibid.
Poor fluffball.
He has no grasp of the relevant physics, but is so devoted to his false religion, all he can do is mimic me.
I guess if you have no originality, all you can do is be a typist, copying others.
ibid!
Ok. Now I’m an original. But I’m not going to do orginal bogus cartoons, I will leave all that to JD.
Nothing new! JD still needs to go learn some physics!
That’s right JD, the earth didn’t blow up as I sobered up, so that means your premise that the ocean reflects Infrared in incorrect.
I’ll put you down for the Intelligent Photon Theory.
Photons are smart little buggers, they know the temperature of the matter that emitted them, the temperature of what’s in their path, and they can decide whether to reflect, scatter or absorb. And sometimes they just pop into matter, not the IR ones though, they don’t have enough joules.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Scroll down and you will find out how much IR radiation contributes to oceanic warming which is ZERO!!!
AGW and it’s scams.
This scorecard shows all the lies of AGW.
Sorry SDP, that so-called “scorecard” is 13 years out of date.
And I would not be so keen to produce scorecards on successful predictions if I were you.
Your record to date is zero out of 16 !!
SDP’s source on oceanic warming has been subsequently & effectively proven wrong by Dr. Spencer’s more recent experiments with LWIR and water at several inches deep & never updated to comply.
The source can’t even state the physics right: “It is worth mentioning for A = 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns, the implied water emissivity is 0.9998 implying that of the incident radiation only 0.02% of it will be absorbed.”
Correctly: It is worth mentioning for A = 5000 cm-1 at 15 microns, the implied water emissivity is 0.9998 implying that of the incident radiation only 0.02% of it will be reflected.
I think AGW is going to be out of date and soon.
Some month, some year, some decade the chaotic near surface (TLT) weather state will turn in your favor Salvatore as it has in the past.
Too, WMO eventually moving Dr. Spencer’s 30-year (1981-2010) baseline benchmark up a skosh to the next mean baseline 30-year maybe up ~0.3-0.5C will give your predictions a helpful benefit.
No, it reduces the rate at which the ocean surface loses heat.
Imagine you earn $1000 a month and spend 1000$ a month. You bank balance at the end of the month remains constant.
You decide to reduce your spending. In the second month you earn $1000 and spend $999. Your bank balance increases by 1$.
Now think of 1M^2 of ocean under an atmosphere containing a constant amount of CO2. That 1M^2 absorbs 161 W from the Sun, 161 joules per second. It loses 161 joules per second. Heat content and temperature remain constant.
Now increase the CO2 concentration and the DWIR. The extra DWIR slightly reduces the heat loss from the surface.
That 1M^2 now absorbs the same 161 joules per second, but only loses 160 joules per second. The ocean heat content increases by 1 joule per square metre per second and the ocean temperature increases.
E-man, energy can be treated as dollars in a bank account, but your analogy ends there. Adding energy does not always imply a temperature increase.
Adding two liters of 20C water together does not produce 2 liters of water at 40C.
As another example, consider bringing a large block of ice into a room that is at 20C. You’ve added energy to the room, but the temperature of the room did not increase.
If the skin evaporates the temperature of the body (water) decreases.
Only if the energy providing the latent heat of vapourisation is coming from within the liquid. In this case the energy is comng from DWLR shining onto the ocean surface from above.
E-man does not understand physics. And, by his own admission, he doesn’t have a clue.
That makes for a perfect Warmist.
entropic…”In this case the energy is comng from DWLR shining onto the ocean surface from above”.
Not possible, that’s a transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, according to AGW theory.
There’s a negative temperature gradient from the surface outward. Heat cannot be transferred against the gradient.
Entropic, with his thought experiments, sounds a lot like snape.
snape disappears after entropic is gradually phased in.
Yes, I think the GHE Defense Team have been having a bit of a switch around with their avatars. Ive noticed they have started using the bobdroege, Svante and Entropic Man avatars more recently, since the Snape avatar was retired.
“There’s a negative temperature gradient from the surface outward. Heat cannot be transferred against the gradient.”
This can happen when water evaporates at the surface, and then condenses higher up in the atmosphere. The process transfers the latent heat of vaporization from the warm surface to the colder upper atmosphere.
That’s because there is a source of work to allow this to proceed without the violation of the second law.
It’s the sun.
No response to my comment???????????
So a water molecule absorbs energy from the ocean, thus the ocean heats the water molecule, it becomes a water vapor molecule, it rises through the air, and it condenses back to a water or ice molecule, heating the air high up.
So the water molecule transfers heat from the warm surface to the cold upper atmosphere.
And you guys have nothing to say.
The heat is transferred against the temperature gradient.
hmm
I always love it when a GHEDT avatar takes a lack of response as meaning something.
Bobdruggy, Gordon said:
“Not possible, that’s a transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it, according to AGW theory.”
He referred to that as being a transfer of heat “against the gradient”.
You are talking about a transfer of heat from the warm surface to the cold upper atmosphere. That would be “with the gradient”.
Lay off the bong…hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Exactly and my source Joe D’Aleo is correct on IR and it’s zero effect on oceanic temperatures.
Anything that proves AGW theory wrong is neither correct or accurate according to those who support it.
Anything that proves AGW theory right is neither correct or accurate according to those who don’t support it.
If what you write about Joe D’Aleo is correct, he has not updated his stuff to comply with Dr. Spencer’s experimental results for night time atm. DWIR effects on several inch deep surface water thermometer temperature.
–Ball4 says:
January 5, 2019 at 9:44 PM
Anything that proves AGW theory right is neither correct or accurate according to those who dont support it.–
Well we should be able to get some agreement on things about AGW theory or the GHE theory which are wrong.
First there is no known AGW theory. What AGW theory could be referring to is general opinions or ideas. And within this general cloud of mis-comprehension, is the CAGW theory, which also not a theory, nor even a vaguely credible idea which only the most misinformed actually believe in and more importantly even claim to think is possible.
CAGW theory is similar to fantasies about space aliens controlling the governments in the world. Or Elvis is still living. Or host other embarrassing crackpot ideas which many people can be overly fond of but it’s unlikely they *actually* believe in them, but prefer to claim they do merely to annoy or for other perverted/crazy/ignorant purposes.
As to the greenhouse effect theory it is suppose to be hypothesis or theory and one can find explanation of what it claims to be.
One of it’s claims is that Earth would be 33 K colder in average temperature if Earth’s atmosphere lacked greenhouse gases.
And a reason given for this claim is those involved with manufacturing this hypothesis could not imagine what else could cause the apparent warming of 33 K.
One thing which can said of it, is that the only precise aspect about what the warming effect of greenhouse gases that are suppose to be causing the warming is they must added up to 33 K of warming.
For instance, the “theory” roughly claims that water vapor causes most of the greenhouse gas warming.
But many adherents of the theory claim water vapor is more of effect as compared to forcing effect. Or added water vapor to atmosphere do not cause warming, but adding CO2 to the atmosphere does cause warming- forces an increase in global average temperature. Or one will get increase in global water vapor, if you add CO2, and you will get decrease in global water vapor if CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.
One could say this reasoning is more political than rational or restricting global water vapor seems more politically impractical as compared restricting CO2 emission. Or also I guess one also say there is thing known as big oil and there is not a thing known as big water.
But what immovable/frozen about GHE theory is that without greenhouse gases, Earth would be exactly 33 K cooler.
And everyone should agree that this is wrong.
As I alluded to, the greenhouse effect theory is mostly a political matter.
And is about or focused what can be changed? What needs to be changed.
It about trace gases having a large effect.
Similar to idea that small number of people have large effect upon the world. Having the chosen one lead the masses to a brighter and better world [a common political myth].
More than century ago [largely still today] there was the mystery of what causes glacial and interglacial periods.
There did not seem to be an obvious cause for it, and was proposed that a barely detectable trace gas was causing it. That slight changes in global concentrations of CO2 caused cooling and warming periods.
Today, we know that CO2 does not cause glacial and interglacial periods, though many cling to idea that CO2 is still part of the explanation or it’s part of the cause.
Or it’s known that rising CO2 levels follow rather cause warming, and when CO2 are at highest measureable levels, cooling can begin and CO2 level slowing drop and world average temperature lowers.
What many accept that causes glacial and interglacial period is related to Milankovitch cycles.
Wiki:
–Such a period between glacial maxima is known as an interglacial. The glacial and interglacials also coincided with changes in Earth’s orbit called Milankovitch cycles.–
Focusing on understanding how exactly Milankovitch cycles work is lacking in political factors which could be useful.
Or it’s something natural rather something human could do to change.
Though it should noted that governments are not engaged in any activity which could alter the amount CO2 in the atmosphere by any significant amount. And if we wanted to change Earth’s orbit, it might be more practical than attempting to change global CO2 levels.
But political aspect regarding CO2, is not about changing global temperature. Controlling CO2 is more related to things like altering sexually behavior or a war on drugs, so a crazy moral issue driven by deeply amoral and/or stupid people.
It’ standing at pulpit, demanding change, about something which can’t be changed- particularly by the preachers pounding upon their pulpit. Or it’s only about political power.
Likewise, in the greenhouse effect theory, there is effect which caused by the amount atmosphere on Earth. You can not change the amount atmosphere on Earth- you can’t 1/2 or double the amount of atmospheric mass. Or things you imagine you can’t change are ignored in the greenhouse effect theory. And that is about politics rather than science.
Climate is defined as statistical weather information that describes the variation of weather at a given place for a specified interval. Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term (minutes to weeks) variation. Time period. Measured over a long period.
This is what I’m talking about
While you are bickering about how long it takes to melt an ice cube with a laser pointer this is how Al Gore does it
no need for mentioning of any kind of tangible data , all politicks all the way.
https://goo.gl/UDPrJ5
Eben, don’t get your science from politicians, or newspapers, or TV, or blogs. Find the scientific sources.
Svante says:
January 4, 2019 at 11:33 AM
Cooling trend started 7000 years ago, it was reversed 250 years ago and should continue as we move forward.
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/files/2017/07/global-temp-in-holocene.png
——————————————-
People here are as dumb as you think
One of the common trick of climate shysters is the producing of deceptive charts just like this one , the previous 10000 years of temperature is highly smoothed out so no peaks or dips are visible but the very end is in absolute and not the part of the smoothing , that way the chart looks like a hockey stick and the warmer past times are erased.
Very clever to fool dumb public.
Climate shystering one o one , remember you heard it from me.
crap – People here are NOT as dumb as you think
I see no science, plenty of handwaving, bluster, and a reference to a blog discussing Al Gore. Great.
Svante, produce some REAL science.
Or, if you prefer comedy, stay with your vacant pseudoscience.
Your choice.
Eben, you were correct the first time.
In fact, most people here are dumber than I thought possible.
If I may, the following analogies apply:
1. A few fries short of a Happy Meal.
2. The wheel’s spinning, but the hamster’s dead.
3. He fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
4. Elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor.
5. Forgot to pay his brain bill.
6. A few clowns short of a circus.
7. If he had another brain, it would be lonely.
mikey…”In fact, most people here are dumber than I thought possible”.
Coming from someone who is dumb as a sack of hammers, and an authority worshipper too boot, that observation is invalid.
The cooling trend that started 7000 years is well intact as of today.
I get my charts from real scientists , not from some quacademic student brainwashing institution,
not only the temperature was higher most of the holoscene than today but that whole time the CO2 and the temperature went in completely opposite directions.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/figure-38.png
“The cooling trend that started 7000 years is well intact as of today.”
So is the cooling trend that started 13.8bln years ago, now down to 2.7K & is well intact as of today. Any shorter period is merely cherry picking.
Now we agree Eben!
You have the same Holocene temperature estimate as I had (but without the error range).
The model output is obviously wrong, I suppose it is missing the Milankovitch parameters that are necessary over millenial time frames.
The rest looks good though.
Your chart stops before the industrial revolution. Now CO2 is through the roof, and you have to add more than one degree C to the preindustrial temperature low.
https://tinyurl.com/y9yux38e
“It’s known, or at least believed, that transit times of some ocean waters can be as long as 1,000 years. The researchers are well aware that this exceeds the time since some well-known warming and cooling periods in the Earth’s past, such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
Whereas most of the ocean is responding to modern warming, the deep Pacific may be cooling, say researchers.”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Makes wonder whether the ocean will remember our present brief period of warming.
It is the oceanic sea surface temperatures that matter and they can change fast.
BALL- I will not be satisfied unless global temperatures get back to at least 1960-1990 means.
For climate, that will take way over 30 years. Stay calm. Remain patient.
For weather, could happen this year.
The oceans control the climate. They are the Earths hypothalamus or thermostat. Define the oceans and you define the climate. Our climate models shouldnt be modeling the atmosphere, they should be modeling the oceans if they truly want to model the climate. As noted above, it takes Anthropogenic CO2 129.408 hours to warm m^3 of water by 1C using the inflated value of 2.01W/m^2. Daylight can warm that same amount of water in 14 minutes. 14 minutes of clouds can remove the amount of 64 hours of the effect of Anthropogenic CO2. Once again, because the energy replacement rate of CO2 moves at glacial speed
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/06/understanding-the-w-m2-of-co2-the-flux-conundrum/
CO2isLife, Here’s a news flash for you. The most recent models used to assess climate change include coupled oceans with circulation. Even the models more than 30 years ago used some form of ocean in their simulations.
“…most recent models…”
“Even the models…”
“…in their simulations.”
E.Swaanson – And your models have been running 100-300% hot for 30 yrs. Any luck finding the problem or is anyone even looking? Might I suggest taking out all the positive feedback and adding a little negative feedback. That should get you a little closer to the actual data. Actual data is still important I hope.
I addressed many of the concepts discussed above in a blog post. It also helps clarify some of the confusion as to the metrics being used and where they came from.
The CO2 provided 2.01 W/m^2 could melt 1 gm of ice every 168 seconds (337/2.01). Every m^2 in the Arctic would have 1 gm of ice melt if the temperature is 0.00C or above due to anthropogenic CO2. Does that seem very alarming? Considering the period of time the Arctic is ever above 0.00C is very short. There are 3785.4118 gms in a Gallon. So it would take 168 x 3785.4118 = 634,668.55 seconds, or 10,577.81 minutes, or 176.30 hours for the marginal CO2 to melt a single gallon of ice over a m^2. Trust me, CO2 isn’t melting the Arctic at that rate.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/06/understanding-the-w-m2-of-co2-the-flux-conundrum/
CO2isLife
I read your blog post.
The type of skepticism is more of the type I encourage. You are using real and valid science to make points. You supply sources for your information and form logical conclusions based upon them. This is where the debate can be a rational discussion.
I think you are on the same page with Roy Spencer. He accepts that DWIR has the potential to raise surface temperature but does not see it as a dangerous or massive amount of warming.
Much better than some other skeptics who make unsupported claims that IR is reflected or that the amount is tiny and only has value at much higher temperatures. That style of made up physics is derogatory of scientific skeptics. The two will not stop making up their own version of reality. They also refuse to accept they are wrong when you confront them with real data.
Norman, I greatly appreciate the comments. I just updated that post to include the impact on the ocean. The inspiration for that post came from this discussion board, so I do appreciate Dr. Spencer letting me join the conversation. A simple reply above about how much latent heat is contained in ice and putting that in proportion to how much marginal energy is provided by Anthropogenic CO2 should make even the most committed alarmist reconsider their theory. Thanks again for the comment, it is much appreciated.
norman…”I think you are on the same page with Roy Spencer. He accepts that DWIR has the potential to raise surface temperature but does not see it as a dangerous or massive amount of warming”.
Roy has never claimed that CO2 is raising global temperatures, he has only claimed he thinks it makes sense to some extent.
I have tried to point out to Roy that his UAH data from 1998 – 2015 contradicts the DWIR/surface warming theory. I think 18 years of no average warming is sufficient to establish that CO2 is not creating warming. That would suggest that DWIR is not warming the surface, as the 2nd law implies it should not.
CO2isLife, Your web post conflates the TOA solar flux with surface effects. Since the Earth rotates, the solar flux is spread over an area 4 times larger than that of the “disk” representing the Earth’s interception of that solar energy. You toss out a number for the sunlight reaching the surface of 1,000 w/m^2, which would correspond to 250 w/m^2 when spread over 24 hours. The effective LWIR net emission you found from MODTRAN, 2.01 w/m^2, is for the tropical surface, so that value should be compared to the 24 hour average of solar insolation. As a result, the 2.01 is about 1% of the average value, not a small fraction.
When you move to melting ice in the Arctic, you are ignoring the fact that the Arctic is in deficit, i.e., more energy leaves the Arctic atmosphere than arrives from sunlight. The Tropics are in surplus and it’s the flow of that energy to the Arctic over each year which balances the net flow. And, you aren’t considering the other situation in the Arctic, the amplification due to the snow/ice feedback.
Swanson, in all your rambling, don’t forget to explain how the green plate magically changes from a black body to an insulator.
You don’t want to leave out any pseudoscience.
If the ARGO floats are showing such a small amount of warming, then why did the adjustments to sea surface temperatures disappear the pause?
MikeN
1. ARGO’s main job is to measure deep water temperatures, and that is what Roy Spencer is talking about:
http://sam.ucsd.edu/sio210/gifimages/A16_TEMP.gif
2. You are talking about SST. Look at Japan’s data for it:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/long_term_sst_global/glb_warm_e.html
This is COBE-SST2, and has few in common with ERSST v5.
The models can not even forecast the next season let alone the climate because they do not incorporate magnetic fields which is the dominant climate driver when in extreme modes.
“..magnetic fields which is the dominant climate driver..”
Sounds to me like a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Chris Bowdrie
There is always a problem scaling up from the laboratory to the field.
Under lab conditions you can do controlled experiments and eliminate other variables. In the field you can observe and sample, but it is difficult to do controlled experiments on a planetary scale.
To use a chemical analogy, consider what happens when CO2 dissolves in water.
In the lab you can observe CO2 reacting with water to become H2CO3, then decompose into HCO3- and H+.
You can observe how an equilibrium emerges between the five species and how that equilibrium affects and is affected by temperature, pH, CO2 concentration and other solutes.
You can derive mathematical equations to describe the process (complete with empirically derived constants 😉) and draw graphics.
When you move into the oceans the same chemistry applies, but it all gets complicated.
To study the behaviour of CO2 in the ocean you predict from theory, experiment in the lab and then observe in the field. You do not try and measure the composition of every one of 1.3billion cubic kilometres. You sample and extrapolate a global CO2/ ocean budget.
Similarly with the CO2 GHE. You predict the behaviour of the system from theory, test by controlled experiment and then observe and sample in the field. From there you extrapolate to the behaviour of the whole planet.
I have talked to a number of physicists and chemists unhappy with the science of climate because they cannot apply their customary lab standards of practice on a planetary scale.
50 years ago a climate scientist was a botanist taking cores from peat bogs and using pollen analysis to deduce past temperatures. I was one myself.
You got used to squeezing out the best science that an imperfect world allowed, rather than wishing for impossible perfection.
E-man, you forgot to mention another problem in moving from the lab to the field–the laws of physics still apply. In the “soft” sciences, the laws are often ignored to push an agenda.
Huffingman, You are one funny guy. The laws of physics tell us that the Moon rotates once for each orbit. You apparently haven’t figured that one out.
See….
Have a read through from here, follow the links (particularly to ftop_t’s comments), use the online tool, open your mind, and enjoy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach/#comment-336429
swannie…”The laws of physics tell us that the Moon rotates once for each orbit”.
The laws of physics require a local angular momentum about the Moon’s axis for such rotation. There is none as long as the same side of the Moon always points to the Earth.
You cannot apply physics while allowing illusions to contradict them.
Gordo, Yet again, fails to understand that the Moon rotates WRT the Sun and the stars, which is the reason we Earthlings see the change in illumination over the lunar cycle between full Moons. That’s called physics and perhaps you should spend a some time studying it instead of spreading your delusional world view.
Swanson, the “WRT the Sun and the stars” is due to orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.
It’s an easy mistake to make if you haven’t studied orbital motions.
JDHuffman
For you it is very easy for you to make constant mistakes and errors on thought since you don’t know what you are talking about.
Making your opinions up all the time gets you so far but the longer you stay on this blog with your constant barrage of make up nonsense, the more commentators see this and reject your claims. They also are all starting to see you as a phony that pretends to know things when in reality you know very little at all.
I think maybe you are good at spelling and some grammar. Science is something you never were good at and it shows.
I have no clue what you did for a job. I might think an English teacher pretending to know physics.
“Yet again, fails to understand that the Moon rotates WRT the Sun and the stars,”
It’s astonishing that there are still people like E Swanson (plus David Appell, Bindidon, barry, Norman, Ball4, and others) who STILL, after all this time, do not understand the basics of this discussion. Even when you point them in the right direction.
At least people like Tim Folkerts have got to the point where they understand that the argument boils down to whether you consider the moon’s motion to consist of one, or two separate and independent motions. Everything else is a red herring. Frames of reference, differing definitions of “translation”, the various methods of calculating angular momentum, libration, precession, Foucault’s pendulum, the hammer throw, circular vs. elliptical orbits, etc etc…all red herrings.
Yes, the moon rotates (“orbits”) WRT the sun and the stars, because it is rotating (“orbiting”) about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter. One single motion, which is the “Non-Spinner” viewpoint. “Axial rotation” is then separate and independent of this motion.
“Spinner” viewpoint = the moon translates about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter, AND rotates on its own axis. Two separate and independent motions.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
It is hard to reason with you when you believe that Ferris Wheel seats are rotating as the wheel spins around. I explained to you why they don’t but you will not accept logical reason.
Sorry it is a waste of time to communicate ideas with you. Just keep your posts simple “Please stop trolling” then no one is able to tell you are not logical.
And it’s hard to reason with you Norman, when you ignore every word said and change the subject.
Obviously Norman failed to spend the $20 for the toy Ferris wheel so he could learn how the seats rotate on their axes.
He’s so opposed to real experimentation.
Huffingman, Gordo and DREMT still can’t understand the facts. The Earth’s light/dark cycle of 24 hours (1 day) and the Moon’s light dark cycle of ~29.5 Earth days are caused by the same motion, which is, their respective rotations. Claims that the Moon’s orbit in conjunction with the Earth’s motion cause this light/dark cycle are just evidence of ignorance of the difference between the motion of translation of the respective centers of mass and the rotations of the two bodies, i.e., their angular motions, which are not connected by any material link.
Yes, absolutely, “Orbiting” and “Rotating” are two separate dynamical processes, which are measured with different metrics, the first being a linear translation of position and the second being an angular rate of change. The Wikipedia discussion of Kinematics, a subject which apparently has been misused repeatedly, presents lots of mathematical descriptions, but begins the discussion with the heading:
Taking the vector between the Earth and the Moon when defining one axis in the analysis immediately violates this stipulation, since that reference frame is rotating WRT the Sun and the stars. Learn some Physics…
Yes, Swanson. The “Spinner” side of the argument is that the moon has two motions. Well done. The “Non-Spinner” side of the argument is that the moon has just one. If you had bothered to follow the links to ftop_t’s comments, and the online tool used, you would have seen by now that the moon’s motion CAN be modelled as just one motion, a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter.
I’ll make it even easier for you. Here’s the online tool:
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Transmographer/
Click on “New Triangle” a few times until you get a nice isosceles triangle which is set away from the center point, 0,0. This should make it nice and easy to follow the motion. On the right, under “More Options”, make sure both “Show Original Polygon” and “Show Pre-image” are ticked. In the “Rotate” section, make sure x and y are both 0, put “90” in the “degrees” box, and click “Rotate”. Always making sure x and y are both 0, and “90” is in the “degrees” box, repeat clicking “Rotate” until the triangle is back where it began. Follow the motion of the triangle. The triangle moved like the moon, always showing the same side to the center of the orbit, yet only ONE motion was applied throughout; a rotation about the 0,0 center point. You can also rotate the triangle on its own axis by ticking “Around Center” and then “Rotate”, and this is treated as an entirely separate, independent motion.
DRsEMT, Yes, one can make great graphical models, but that doesn’t mean those models correctly capture the physics. In your last post, you link (apparently, since I didn’t look at it) to a 2-D graphing program, where you begin with a fixed X-Y axis assumption, which is incorrect for the lunar orbit. The correct model should use the orbit parameters, not the Earth-Moon vector, to define the appropriate axes. For example, define your X axis as the vector between the Earth and the Moon at the Moon’s perigee and the Y-axis as 90 degrees to that vector. In that reference frame, the Moon rotates once each orbit. “Orbiting” is not “rotating” as the orbital motion results in no angular momentum for the Moon.
“…apparently, since I didn’t look at it…”
Well do look at it, and follow the instructions. Then, finally, you might just be up to speed with the discussion.
Swanson, you appear to be as confused about orbital motion as you are about radiative heat transfer.
But yet, you keep banging on your keyboard….
“Yes, the moon rotates (orbits) WRT the sun and the stars, because it is rotating (orbiting) about an axis through the Earth-moon barycenter. One single motion, which is the Non-Spinner viewpoint.”
People with this perspective cannot explain elliptical orbits. For an elliptical orbit, the rotation about the axis through the earth-moon barycenter occurs with dramatically varying angular speed — fastest when closest to the earth and slowest when farthest from the earth (noticed by Kepler and confirmed by Newton). The moon moves with varying speeds relative to the fixed stars as viewed from the earth. (and this effect would be dramatically more noticeable for a highly eccentric orbit).
The rotation about the moons axis, however, proceeds with essentially constant angular speed. The stars move across the lunar sky at a constant angular rate.
It is pretty much impossible to argue “one single motion” when
the two ‘rotations’ claimed in the quotation are proceeding at different angular speeds!
“It is pretty much impossible to argue “one single motion” when the two ‘rotations’ claimed in the quotation are proceeding at different angular speeds!”
What two rotations? If you are referring to the quotation at the beginning of your comment, where you are quoting me, then I am not arguing there are two rotations in the moon’s motion. There is only one, singular, motion. A motion with varying orbital velocity (quicker when nearest to the Earth) but pretty much constant angular velocity.
Tim claims: “People with this perspective cannot explain elliptical orbits.”
Tim, elliptical orbits are part of the science of orbital motion that you do not understand.
Study Kepler. Learn some physics. Clean up your act.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Kep3laws.htm
DRsEMT, I played your silly game and, as expected, it’s just a bunch of graphology without any connection to the physics of the situation. So you can use that site to draw some nice pictures, so what? Yes, the Moon appears to be fixed relative to the Earth, since it always presents the same face toward us. Your first demonstration shows that exact situation as your triangle rotates as it follows a path around the (0,0) center as if the triangle were solidly connected to the origin, which is just the result of your specified set of operations, not any physical reality.
Incidentally, your example also demonstrates that the Moon rotates WRT the Earth once an orbit, just as the triangle rotates WRT the X-Y axes.
Somehow the point still goes over Emotional Swansong’s head, even when it is explained to him with pictures. Ask Tim.
DRsEMT, as usual, when confronted with facts, replies with bluff, bluster and childish name calling. Sorry but manipulating a graphical image isn’t the same as reality. That’s rather like taking some entertaining space movie as presenting factual physics. Beam me up Scotty, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
E Swanson, as usual, when confronted with an incredibly simple principle that he has somehow failed to understand, replies with bluff, bluster and childish insults.
JD says “Learn some physics.”
Surly JD, you can see the irony of appealing to a NASA website when you have been here innumerable times telling us that NASA (and the rest of the internet and all the text books) is untrustworthy, and that we should actually IGNORE physics as taught be everyone everywhere.
Why do you now believe NASA is trustworthy?
“There is only one, singular, motion. ”
Here is the physics that ACTUALLY needs to be learned.
Imagine a line segment from the barycenter of the earth/moon system to the center of the moon. As the moon traces out its elliptical orbit, the length of this line segment changes — shortest at perigee and longest at apogee. Similarly, the rotation of this line segment with respect t the ‘fixed stars’ varies. The angular speed is greatest at perigee and smallest at perigee. IN other words, the angular speed varies from slightly less than 2*pi/27.3 rad/day to slightly more than 2*pi/27.3 rad/day.
Now imagine a line segment from the enter of the moon to a point on the moon’s surface. This line also has an angular speed with respect to the ‘fixed stars’. However, *this* line segment moves at a constant rate with respect to the stars — always 2*pi/27.3 rad/day.
One motion has a fixed angular speed.
One motion has a varying angular speed.
How can these two motions possibly be considered one and the same motion?
“Here is the physics that ACTUALLY needs to be learned…”
Poor Swanson is thrown under the bus.
JDHuffman
Yes you are a funny guy. Entropic man posts a very rational point about lab testing and applying it to a larger complex system. Only you think the laws have been changed. No one agrees with your opinions. The more you post the less anyone cares about what you have to say. It is meaningless anyway. Empty comments with not substance.
Nothing new for one like you. Make up your funny cartoons. You can amuse people with them.
Have you ever attempted to explain why you think IR from the atmosphere will be totally reflected from the ocean surface. You bring up Poynting Vectors to explain this unscientific concept. So show us how Poynting Vectors prove IR from the atmosphere is reflected by the ocean surface.
Norman, you have no clue about physics. I mentioned Poynting vectors as a clear indication that radiative fluxes don’t simply add. IR photons being absorbed or reflected is a different topic. You’re easily confused.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
That makes two of your unsupported opinions that you will avoid talking about and go into diversion tactics. Nothing new.
Explain how Poynting vectors indicate that radiative fluxes don’t simply add. If you have a flux of 300 W/m^2 it really does not matter the photons making up this flux. If you have 300 W/m^2 of visible light absorbed by a black surface, it will add 300 joules/second to the internal energy of the object. If you have the same 300 W/m^2 flux and then add a 300 W/m^2 flux of IR to the surface you have a simple addition of 600 joules/second added to the internal energy. It can be easily tested. You can turn one light on a source and measure the temperature rise, then turn on another lower frequency light and you will observe a temperature rise with the second light on. Learn some physics.
The Second one is that you have never supported your lunatic idea that lower energy EMR is just reflected off a hotter body. I know the crackpot Claes Johnson proposed this unsupported, unverified idea. You are merely advancing his lunatic views and calling them physics. Why do you do this?
JDHuffman
Maybe read the comments on this link. You can see what actual scientists think of Claes’s made up opinions.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/radiative-heat-transfer-theory.html
He makes up unsupported ideas, does zero experiments and you follow suit. You peddle his nonsense here and pretend it is established physics. When posters ask you to prove your nonsense ideas you divert away.
Norman, the reason you always resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, is that you have no technical background. You’re just an opinionated typist, unable to learn. You can’t understand the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
norman…”He [Claes] makes up unsupported ideas, does zero experiments and you follow suit”.
You arrogant twit. Claes is a mathematician and his calculations are based on real physics, like the 2nd law and blackbody theory.
Poor Norman states: “If you have the same 300 W/m^2 flux and then add a 300 W/m^2 flux of IR to the surface you have a simple addition of 600 joules/second added to the internal energy.”
Let’s “test” Norman’s claim.
Suspend a flat blackbody plate very close to a flat wall of ice, in a vacuum. The ice is emitting 300 Watts/m^2 to the plate. Now, move a second wall of ice very close to the other side of the plate. The plate is receiving 300 Watts/m^ on both sides.
According to Norman, the fluxes simply add. So, the plate is receiving 300 + 300 = 600 Watts/m^2. Using the S/B equation, the plate will reach an equilibrium temperature of 321 K (47.6 °C, 117.6 °F).
The two walls of ice have raised the plate temperature 47 ° above the ice temperature!
Yup, you guessed it. Poor Norman doesn’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
JDHuffman
It is what I have observed about you. Simple math is too difficult for you. You are not able to correctly use math ideas so you make up a rather absurd claim (using incorrect math) and you try to demonstrate my lack of knowledge based upon your poor math skills.
Ball4 has your number. You are one funny poster. That is really hilarious when you think about it!
The actual and correct math, if the plate has a surface area of 1 meter squared. When you bring it close to an ice wall it receives 300 watts of energy but it radiates from two sides equally so it will only reach a temperature of around 227 K. When you have ice on both sides it receives a total of 600 watts and radiates away 300 watts from each surface reaching a temperature of 270 K.
Like I state. You don’t know any physics, you can’t do simple math, you are not rational or logical and you have below average reading comprehension yet you like to post to show the blog world your lack of skill. Strange and amusing I think.
Norman are you admitting you were wrong, or are you arguing with yourself, again?
Norman can’t answer because one way shows he was wrong, and the other way shows he’s an idiot.
I can make it easy, but rewording the question.
“Norman, are you now agreeing with me that radiative fluxes do not simple add?”
JDHuffman
So sorry I forgot you have a reading disability and can’t comprehend written posts.
No I do not agree with your conclusion at all nor do I think I am wrong. I explained exactly and in detail (using simple math) why you are wrong but I forgot simple math is too hard for you.
Not much to do with you. You can’t comprehend word, can’t do math and you are not rational.
I could explain it to you again but it is a lost cause. When you can’t do simple math it will not be possible to help you. Sorry good day.
Gordon Robertson
No Claes Johnson is a crackpot. He has not credibilty. He does not understand any physics. You like him because he makes up stuff that he knows nothing about. You do the same. Both of you make up nonsense and think that makes it valid science. I stand by my observation. Claes is a crackpot that makes up lunatic ideas and peddles them to people like you that have no understanding of math, physics or science. Real scientists understand he is a goofball with zero understanding of even simple physics. You are not one of them.
JDHuffman
So exactly why do you think that the plate will reach an equilibrium temperature with ice when it has two radiating surfaces.
If it is a square meter surface area on one side it will receive a total of 300 watts. It has a two meter radiating surface.
If you add 600 watts to a 2 meter square surface area it will emit 300 W/m^2. This is really really simple basic math and you can’t do it. Yet you keep posting. Funnier with each post.
First you can’t even see how ludicrous your initial post was, now you try to pretend I am wrong or something. Hilarious. You are one funny poster. Not very smart at all but you are funny.
Rather than tell you to learn some physics I have to tell you learn some math. I think geometry would be a big help. You might learn about surface area. At this time you are clueless. You can’t understand a sphere has 4 times the surface area of one side of a circle. Bart was making a mistake on the ratio but after thought process he realized he was in error and changed his mistake.
You know so little geometry that you can’t change what you don’t know.
Norman, YOU are the one that said radiative fluxes simply add. I just proved you wrong with one example. Of course you won’t admit you’re wrong.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
NO you did not prove that the energy of radiative fluxes is not adding. Not at all. You proved you don’t know how to calculate surface area.
In the first case you have your plate (say a one meter square plate)
that is near an ice wall emitting 300 W/m^2. The plate will absorb 300 watts or 300 joules/second. It has a radiating surface of 2 m^2 so it will absorb 300 watts and emit this from an area of 2 m^2. The plate with just one side that absorbs the ice IR will receive 300 watts total but radiate from both sides. The 2 m^2 surface has to radiate 300 total watts. With isotropic radiant emission each surface emits 150 Watts. The plate temperature will be colder than the ice wall in the case where it can radiate from two sides but only can absorb energy from one. If you have ice on both sides the plate receives a total of 600 watts and must radiate away the same so each surface will emit 300 watts and be the same temperature as the ice wall. Basic geometry. How to calculate and use surface areas. You need this math to understand radiant heat transfer.
Norman, you want so badly for radiative fluxes to simply add. Sorry, that’s not reality.
Take an example from actual data: It would not be hard to find a place on Earth where solar flux is 800 Watts/m^2, and DWIR is 400 Watts/m^2. You want that to mean 1200 Watts/m^2 would be absorbed by a flat plate, with its back side perfectly insulated. The 1200 Watts/m^2 would then raise the temperature of the plate to 381 K! 381 K is above the boiling point of water!!!
Sorry, that’s not reality. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add. And racehorses don’t rotate on their own axes.
JDHuffman
The problem with your point is that the flux of 1200 W/m^2 only lasts a very short time.
In the real world you can see the energy input causes a temperature rise but it plateaus. You also have other heat loss processes going on like convection that increase as the surface heats up.
Real world:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c33e79567c77.png
And
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c33e988517a9.png
The temperature does rise, your plate temperature would rise and if the Earth stopped rotating and you had the continuous solar flux the temperature would rise much higher. Convection would work to remove home energy and transport it. How much I don’t know.
Your calculation would only make remote sense if you had a continuous flux of 1200 W/m^2 and no other heat loss mechanisms. If that were the case you would reach the temperature you stated. The flux of 400 W/m^2 would add its energy to the plate on the surface. You are wrong again.
Are you a physicist, JD?
https://xkcd.com/793/
You have that arrogant contempt that physicists sometimes show towards more advanced sciences.
E-man, my “arrogant contempt” is merely your perception of my teaching the relevant physics. The actual contempt comes from those that do not get to spread their pseudoscience.
entropic…”To study the behaviour of CO2 in the ocean you predict from theory, experiment in the lab and then observe in the field. You do not try and measure the composition of every one of 1.3billion cubic kilometres. You sample and extrapolate a global CO2/ ocean budget”.
According to your statement, there is no proof, just supposition.
In your post, you claimed. “In the lab you can observe CO2 reacting with water to become H2CO3, then decompose into HCO3- and H+”.
I’d like to see you do that at a molecular level. All you can do is collect hydrogen gas and measure the quantity and try to detect HCO3 activity, perhaps with a litmus test.
“According to your statement, there is no proof, just supposition.”
Welcome to the wonderful world of science!
This is the JMA yearly time series for their COBE-SST2 sea surface temperature series since 1997:
1997 0.10
1998 0.14
1999 -0.05
2000 -0.01
2001 0.09
2002 0.11
2003 0.11
2004 0.09
2005 0.11
2006 0.11
2007 0.03
2008 0.01
2009 0.13
2010 0.13
2011 0.04
2012 0.09
2013 0.13
2014 0.20
2015 0.30
2016 0.33
2017 0.26
As we can see:
1. There is no even lagged influence of any kind of solar parameters having allegedly changed since 2005.
2. Despite the El Nino of 1998 having been stronger than that of 2016, there is a difference of about 0.2 C in the SST average temperatures for the periods 1997/98/99 and 2015/16/17.
Solar parameters for cooling did not come into play until year 2017 ,although the transition started in year 2005.
Therefore any data prior to year 2017 in regards to trying to prove the solar /climate connection does not exist is not valid.
As I have said year 2017 is the first time since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended that solar activity in regards to duration of time of sub solar activity in general (2005) and low average value solar parameters (post 2017) have been achieved to enable the sun to have a more profound climatic impact.
Salvatore
Next year you will give us a perfect copy, edit & paste of this comment, with ‘2017’ changed in ‘2018’, just like ‘2016’ was changed to ‘2017’ one year before.
Between 2008 and 2010 we had exactly the same SSN situation as right now:
https://tinyurl.com/y7kv426r (‘d c’ problem)
the rest is (your) speculation.
You are not a bit more credible in your guessings than are alarmists like Dr. Appell with their rather exclusively CO2-based warming.
You are so deeply fixated in your (understandible) anti-AGW critique that you simply forget that you make the same mistake as does ‘the other side’: namely to omit really convincing data.
Bindidon – I agree right now there is no convincing data that is why I keep saying the test is on. This is why I keep saying if it does not continue to cool from here over the next few years I do not think it will ever cool.
In 2008-2010 same situation but not enough years had gone by of sub solar activity in general. In other words the oceans cool and warm very slowly and I say at least 10 years is needed and that is probably on the extreme short side.
Then if you believe in the galactic cosmic ray angle as far as increased geological activity and cloud cover that brings the weakening geo magnetic field into play.
Right now we have no convincing data but you have to admit if you go back to the historical climatic record and look at what global temperatures do on balance when the sun is in a state of prolonged minimum activity they have always gone down. I can’t come up with one exception. That is not to say there have been some counter uptrends but over all the global temperatures over decades when the sun is quiet is down and vice versa for when the sun is very active.
My question is why is this so Bindidon?
“Right now we have no convincing data but you have to admit if you go back to the historical climatic record and look at what global temperatures do on balance when the sun is in a state of prolonged minimum activity they have always gone down.”
Many thanks Salvatore for this sincere answer, but… you still ‘omit really convincing data.’.
Until you show it, I’ll admit nothing. Sorry, but I can’t change it.
Again my solar criteria for cooling is 10+ years of sub solar activity in general followed by a period of time of very low average value solar parameters equal to or lower that are associated with typical solar minimum periods but much longer in duration of time.
W
–Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 3.61×10^10 W Cold
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)–
http://spaceweather.com/
Not saying it matters, but when do think Thermosphere will get as cold as it did in 02/2009?
In addition the geo magnetic field needs to be in sync with solar to get the full effect which we have now.
In year 2009 -2010 solar values were very low but the period of time of sub solar activity in general was only around 4 years much to short a time period.
It has now been 13 + years of sub solar activity in general and I think that is sufficient.
The bottom line is, it is solar which provides the energy to the oceans and when solar activity decreases so does the energy it imparts to the oceans and the oceans cool especially at the surface.
IR radiation is neither here or there, it is a non player.
Can you show us your forcing calculations?
Physical formulas with numbers that is.
svante…”Can you show us your forcing calculations?
Physical formulas with numbers that is.”
He can’t, unless he has a climate model. Forcings exist only in climate models.
No physics no model.
All of my suggestions come from looking at the historical climatic record and looking at the solar activity and what resulted.
The result is when ever solar activity enters a prolonged state of inactivity the global temperature trend with out exception is down.
Not straight down but overall down.
So you have no idea whether it can compete with a doubling of CO2?
Svante, even though doubling CO2 could cause some slight cooling, the events SDP is referring to would cause even more cooling.
They have their hockey sticks , and if don’t “believe” ,
they will club you with them
Yes!
“I stay here in front of you, with a hockeyschtick in the brain, and talk you down till death.”
says… Eben.
Help Using MODTRAN. Does anyone know what the Water Vapor Scale should be for a very humid day, say 4%? Any insight would be appreciated.
Dr. Spencer,
Thank you for this commentary. Please write more. In Canada where I live our oil reserves are third only to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. We can’t move our oil to markets because environmentalists in British Columbia, Quebec and the U.S. have it locked in with virtual pipeline bans. People in Eastern Canada drive around on Saudi hydrocarbons. I just don’t get it. We don’t torture and stone people up here, yet people have been indoctrinated to hate Alberta oil more than they love women. Insanity.
colin…”We cant move our oil to markets because environmentalists in British Columbia, Quebec and the U.S. have it locked in with virtual pipeline bans”.
To be fair, you need to tell the whole story.
Both Alberta and BC are run by socialist governments, the NDP. I support the NDP in principle but not on their climate change idiocy.
Prior to this socialist government, your uber-right wing government ran Alberta into the ground, blowing a multi-billion dollar heritage fund through poor investments, bad management, and plundering the fund. That and other dishonesty is why the socialist government is in power.
In BC, our NDP government is being propped up by the Green Party in a minority government. The Greens have 3 seats and carry on as if they are a majority. They are run by former Journal of Climate editor, Andrew Weaver, and uber-alarmist and climate modeler.
I don’t agree with the position of our NDP premier on the pipeline and agree with Rachel Notley, your premier. Our premier, John Horgan, is mistaken, IMHO, in taking the position he has taken. I can cut him some slack over his minority government position but I’d rather he called an election rather than concede to the Greens over Green initiatives.
However, his government has done a lot of good for the public in general. He has removed tolls from major bridges for example. He is implementing legislation to make Medicare free in BC as stipulated by the Federal guidelines.
He is also trying to establish a liquefied natural gas complex to gain revenue from shipping the gas overseas. I think that is a contradiction given his position on a pipeline but alarmist government seem to think such a conflict is cool.
“He is implementing legislation to make Medicare free in BC as stipulated by the Federal guidelines.”
Free? How can Medicare be for Free? Do Dr.’s Work for Free? Do hospitals get built for free? Are Drugs Free?
My bet is that if you look at your Tax Bill you are paying more of your income for that Free Healthcare than I pay for my expensive healthcare. I pay about 15% of my income for healthcare, and my taxes max out at I think 29% at the Federal Level. If I lived in Florida I would pay no State Tax. What is your Tax Rate up there? Oh, and I have a great deal of choices in providers and no waiting lines.
In the UK the National Health Service, our equivalent of Medicare is “free at the point of delivery”. You are not charged for each appointment or turned away from an Accident and Emergency department because you cannot garuantee payment.
The cost is paid by taxation, of course. We spend 7% of our GDP on health care.
It is a bit like insurance. Everybody pays 7% of their taxes to the NHS. If you are healthy, you get nothing back. If you need expensive ongoing treatment, you win!
“On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends”
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
“On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends”
That is easy to do when you don’t develop drugs, don’t allow lawsuits, tolerate understaffed hospitals and long waiting lines, don’t have neonatal facilities and don’t offer much end of life healthcare. Here is the US, we spend a bulk of our money on the last few days of life, and we try to save every baby. We perform lifesaving surgeries and procedures that aren’t even available in other countries. I once read that there are more MRIs in Boston than in all of Canada. I think it was the Frasier Institute’s survey of waiting lines in Canada. If you die is a waiting line, it saves you a lot of money not having to do heart surgery.
And yet the life expectancy is struggling to match Cuba.
Colin Dormuth
If there was a clean oil production in your beautiful Canada, there would probably be far far less people fighting against it.
I see on the web here and there information like:
*
Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world and is the world’s fifth largest oil producer and fourth largest oil exporter.
In 2015 it produced an average of 621,610 cubic metres per day (3.9 Mbbl/d) of crude oil and equivalent.
Of that amount, 61% was upgraded and non-upgraded bitumen from oil sands.
*
Maybe the last sentence is the problem?
It is interesting for me to see here and there that North American people heavily criticise Germany because of its use of lignite and coal for electricity production.
Nobody in Germany could ever extract oil out of sand or even shale gas out of rock. That would generate half a revolution.
Entropic,
“Lets try a real world example, DWIR in the Arctic Summer melting sea ice. You estimated that DWIR from CO2 is 80W/M^2.
Ice albedo is 0.6, so 32W/M^2 will be absorbed.”
But upward IR from the ice is 300w/m2 or so… Guess that ice isnt melting very quickly is it…
Did you notice the context?
The 80W/M^2 is Chris Bowdrie’s estimate of the contribution of CO2 to DWLR. I calculated what that contributed to ice melt.
If you want to discuss the whole energy budget of the Arctic, you need to consider other inputs; the DWLR from water vapour, solar insolation, heat transfer from lower latitudes.
If the ice is radiating 300W/M^2 it must be receiving 300W/M^2.
E-man, “albedo” refers to solar flux. You may be confusing it with “reflectivity”. Ice would effectively reflect all of 80 W/m^2.
A common mistake is assuming all flux is automatically absorbed. It is not.
Also, your statement: “If the ice is radiating 300W/M^2 it must be receiving 300W/M^2.” is incorrect.
Ice will emit 300 W/m^2 based on it temperature of 270 K. As long as its temperature is 270 K, it will emit 300 W/m^2.
Have you no concept of energy budgets?
Ice radiating 300W/M^2 at 0C would cool. If it remains at 0C it must be receiving energy as fast as it radiates,ie it is absorbing 300W.
Seasonally it oscillates. In Summer input exceeds output and the ice melts. In Winter output exceeds input and more ice forms. All because the amount of incoming energy varies.
In the longer term the amount of ice is decreasing because net annual energy input exceeds net output.
I understand energy budgets much better than you. And, you don’t understand radiative heat transfer at all.
80 Watts/m^2 corresponds to a temperature of -79 °C!
Good luck melting ice in a super-cold freezer.
While you were arguing here about how long it takes to melt an ice-cube , Nancy The Pelosian Queen became you climate expert and authority on what to do about it and put an end to you denial
https://goo.gl/NfKw7g
Alas, Eben, “we” includes you and Anthony Watts.
Like gravity, not believing in climate change does not exempt you from its consequences.
Seems like a science teacher should be aware that everyone paying attention knows that climate is now and always has been changing. The last change is it stopped warming in about 2002-2005 and got wetter. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/25/the-dryer-gets-wetter
We need warm. We also need CO2. We don’t have a warming problem. We have a cooling problem. How many less people do we feed and how many more people die if CO2 back at 250ppm?
Everyone paying attention knows that climate is now and always has been changing. The last change is it stopped warming in about 2002-2005 and got wetter.
search “the-dryer-gets-wetter” including quotes and dashes for link to article.
Pay attention at the back of the class, there.
Climate changed before we came along, and every change had a natural cause.
Measure all the natural causes operating at present and their combined effect should have been to cool the climate by 0.05 C sinc 1880.
The climate has actually warmed by 1C since 1880 and the cause is something new in the world – humanity.
And we’re way below where we’ve naturally been for hundreds of millions of years. Thank God we’re helping the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Ent,, Failing to understand what contributes to climate change can lead to mistakes.
Human contribution since 1895 has been about 0.36 K from increased water vapor due to increased irrigation. This is one of the results in an analysis of the contributing factors (CO2 is not one of them) which matches measured 98.3%.
The current (since about 2002-2005) apparent plateau/eventual downtrend and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrate that CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature. It is disturbing that so many (but not all) climate experts got it wrong. The lack of influence of CO2 is demonstrated at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dv8kE26U0AEKfdY.jpg
Even Tyndall said CO2 was insignificant. He recognized it was all that water vapor. He was a real scientist without an agenda.
My question is where is all the global warming over the last 3 years and counting?
According to the models they show a steady slow increase in global temperatures year after year with no periods of declines, which is wrong in addition to the degree of magnitude warmth the models show which is way off.
Where is all the global warming?
It is currently residing in Australia where the whole country is experiencing record temperatures, there are bushfires everywhere, the beaches are being invaded by killer jelly fish, the rivers are dying and some towns have run out of water, and people are at risk of heat stroke and dehydration.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/02/warning-for-extreme-heatwave-for-southern-australia-after-new-year-reprieve
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/aussies-heatwave-set-to-continue-for-several-weeks/news-story/07d2128d641d43d45a6a9f2a7b7c7f29
“My question is where is all the global warming over the last 3 years and counting?”
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/cbhighcharts2018/Q3+2018+climate/ocean_heat_content.html
“According to the models they show a steady slow increase in global temperatures year after year with no periods of declines . . .”
I’m not clear where you get this idea. Here is a link to model output from the CMIP4 B1 scenario: http://www.ipcc-data.org/data/ar4_tas-gm_b1.zip
Not one of the 21 models do what you say.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“My question is where is all the global warming over the last 3 years and counting?”
It is here:
https://twitter.com/lijing_cheng/status/1009099607488393218
Note the drop in 2016, when UAH went up.
Entropic,
‘The 80W/M^2 is Chris Bowdries estimate of the contribution of CO2 to DWLR. I calculated what that contributed to ice melt.’
No you erroneously calculated a cooler atmosphere heating ice, when in fact the ice heats the atmosphere…
As long as you look at the heat transfer backwards you will have a mistaken grasp of reality…
Try again..
“No you erroneously calculated a cooler atmosphere heating ice, when in fact the ice heats the atmosphere”
Oh no, not another one!
Have Mr Robertson and Miss Huffman been breeding when nobody was looking?
E-man, hiding behind his false identity, attempts his cowardly slurs.
Obviously E-man is another out-of-control Alarmist.
lol.
I heard that Mr Robertson
“fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down”
and Miss Huffman is
“a few clowns short of a circus”.
Pity their offspring.
Likely Myki and E-man are now giggling like two insecure 10-year-olds.
Nothing new.
Entropic,
“The climate has actually warmed by 1C since 1880 and the cause is something new in the world humanity.”
Really? Couldnt possibly have something to do with the grand solar maximum? Or the thinning ozone layer? Or changes in cloud cover ? Or all of the above? Or maybe something else? Youve ruled that all out completely have you?
Heres an interesting point worth investigating.. More co2 in the mesophere cools the mesophere… Cooler mesosphere leads to increased ozone production… Leads to thicker osone layer … Leads to less insolation of oceans by UV leads to cooling… Leads to less co2 in atmosphere ( ocean absorbs more) … Leads to warmer mesosphere.. Leads to less ozone… Rinse cycle repeat….
Do you have the values of that effect all worked out?
How bout warmer oceans leads to higher water content in atmosphere, leads to more clouds leads to less insolation leads to cooling leads to less water in atmosphere leads to less clouds leads to more insolation and warming… Rinse cycle repeat…
How do the solar cycles cause and or amplify theses cycles??
If co2 warms the oceans, they would release more co2 warming the oceans releasing co2 warming the oceans…. Oceans would have boiled off long ago…
Co2 does at the mesopause what h20 does at the tropopause.. It cools the atmosphere….
But you go on living in your fantasy model world and ignore actual observations of the real one… Maybe if you add enough epicycles your model will work…
Numbers please.
Particularly, how much do these various factors affect the energy budget? Most of what you mention is an odd Watt here and there. It is not enough to make a difference.
E-man, have you ever tried to understand Earth’s “energy budget”?
Do you have any idea how ludicrous it is? Do you know what “radiative fluxes are not conserved” even means?
Obviously you have no clue.
lol
Salvatore,
I have just discovered a new theory which predicts global temperatures almost perfectly. You take the number of volcanic eruptions that occur in winter, divided by the number that occur in summer. Then take the Dow Jones index, detrend it and multiply it by the SOI index.
Then take the solar cycle of your choice, add on the magnetic cycle of your choice and subtract the phases of the moon. By suitably filtering these time series, and carefully combining them (in my secret way), I can explain 80% of the variance in UAH annual average values.
My prediction, which only time will tell if correct, is that temperatures are going to cool this year!
Yes, I agree with you!
I they dont, I fervently believe there is another factor at work which I will need to discover (so long as it doesnt predict warming).
I expect a Nobel prize for my efforts when I am eventually proved correct.
Myki
you been looking at IPCC’s fact based theory on global warming and nicked some of their main points
Regards
HC
Entropic,
‘Numbers please.’
Dont you have them? You are the one who is so confident the warming is due to man and co2. Havent you determined these numbers yourself to make such an affirmation?
Or have you just swallowed the propaganda in this real life chicken little story like a good little sheep…
Yes i know thats mixed metaphors but hey , if cold can heat hot then anything goes…
I do have numbers, summarised in this graph showing the temperature changes due to natural forcings(blue), human activity(orange), the total(red) and the observed temperature change(black)
For those unable to read a graph:-
There is almost no temperature change due to natural forcings.
The observed temperature change matches the change due to human activity.
And here’s the graph.
http://globalwarmingindex.org
E-man, you must be joking. You know all of the temperature increase in the last 50 years is due to mankind? How do you know this?
Let me guess. Your models tell you?
That is a funny joke.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . A global warming paradox . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Imagine that you have a “big” date range, which has a warming rate of “B” degrees Celsius per century.
You decide to split the big date range at a year somewhere near the middle of the big date range, to give 2 smaller date ranges.
It important to realise, that joining the 2 smaller date ranges together, produces the original big date range.
There is no overlap between the 2 smaller date ranges, and there is no gap between the 2 smaller date ranges. One smaller date range stops, where the other smaller date range starts.
The 2 smaller date ranges have warming rates of “S1” and “S2”.
What is the relationship between “B” (the warming rate of the big date range), and “S1” and “S2” (the warming rates of the 2 smaller date ranges).
Do “S1” and “S2” have to be near “B”?
Does “B” have to be near to the average of “S1” and “S2”?
====================
Have a look at these 2 graphs:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1998/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2019/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1999/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2019/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12
Can you explain what is happening in these 2 graphs?
This example uses UAH global lower troposphere temperature anomalies.
The big date range is 1980 to 2018.
In the first graph, the 2 smaller date ranges are 1980 to 1998, and 1998 to 2018. Both of the smaller date ranges, have warming rates which are considerably lower than the warming rate of the big date range.
In the second graph, the 2 smaller date ranges are 1980 to 1999, and 1999 to 2018. Both of the smaller date ranges, have warming rates which are higher than the warming rate of the big date range.
How can this be? There is only 1 year difference, in where the big date range was split. But the warming rates of the 2 smaller date ranges, do opposite things in the 2 graphs.
====================
Try to work out the reason, for these apparently contradictory results.
If you want some help, or you want to check your answer, then read this article:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/split-date-ranges
See replies to the same lenghty comment in Roy Spencer’s previous thread. Wii you paste that comment in every thread again?
Here is something the skeptics of the GHE should read, learn and work to understand. This is basically why the Earth’s surface gets warmer than what a solar flux alone could reach.
Here is the facts. Real world technology that works.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509749/
Without concentrating solar energy (with mirrors or lens) they were able to get water to 225 C. This was achieved in only a few hours of direct sunlight. Much hotter than the surface of the Moon exposed to solar flux.
The technology works by using selective solar absorbers. These materials absorb solar energy very well but are very poor emitters of IR so the water heats up to very high temperatures. This is what Roy Spencer has tried to educate the skeptics on. It is not just how much energy reaches a surface that determines its temperature, it also depends upon how much is able to leave. The selective material allows about 76% solar energy to be absorbed but only emits about 5% in the IR bands so the water continues to heat to very high temperatures in normal concentrated sunlight.
Poor Norman found yet another link he can’t understand. He thinks manmade technology proves the GHE!!
Hey Norman, ever heard of a blowtorch? It can reach temperatures much higher than 225 °C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting
The concept that adding energy to a system necessarily means the system temperature must rise has confused Norman for a long time. He cannot learn.
I have used the example of bringing ice cubes into a room. Adding ice adds energy, but the room temperature does not rise. Norman, or other physics-deniers, will say something like “Well, if the room was initially at absolute zero, then…”
That response indicates they know “cold” can not warm “hot”, but they keep trying.
The solar flux peak energy is a wavelength of about 0.4 μ. That corresponds to a Wien’s temperature of about 5800 K, which is the emitting temperature of the Sun. The Sun is a “heat source”. It supplies new energy to Earth. The atmosphere is NOT a heat source. It does not supply new energy to the system. The atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the planet.
JDHuffman
Once again you demonstrate your inability to use logic or think rationally. It might hurt to try but please do.
YOU: “The atmosphere is NOT a heat source. It does not supply new energy to the system. The atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the planet.”
A selective solar absorber is also NOT a heat source but having water in such material will raised the temperature from a temperature of maybe 35 C to 225 C.
It does it by limiting how much energy leaves the container vs how much can enter. Very similar to the Earth and the GHE. The atmosphere is mostly transparent to the CO2 in the visible but highly opaque at the band between 13 and 18 microns.
Norman, the only thing you got right was quoting me exactly.
Good job.
JDHuffman
You only make this redundant post because you can’t understand what I am saying and need to divert with a meaningless vacuous comment.
You are not addressing the concept because you can’t. You can only ignore it. Something you seem to be good at.
JDHuffman
So I linked you to some actual science and you post like a drunken baboon. You can’t refute what it there so you howl like a monkey trying to distract from the fact you are not very smart.
Norman got caught trying to distort reality, again. He tried to claim a manmade devise proved the GHE. He got caught and now he’s frustrated and angry, again.
Nothing new.
You’d think the GHE Defense Team would retire the Norman avatar and try to create something a little more subtle.
Yeah, Norman has lost it so many times that now he’s only around for laughs. His credibility is at the bottom, as is true with a couple of others.
At least he knows how to type.
JDHuffman
You always seem to make the same math error with your numerous analogies trying to prove points you can’t understand.
In one you have two liters of water at 20 C. You mix them together and you don’t get 40 C so you assume (incorrectly) that the energy did not add. The thing you miss is that at the same time you increase the energy by adding the water you also double the amount of mass.
If you have a perfectly insulated room at 70 F the walls will have a certain amount of total energy. Now if you put ice cubes into the room you are correct that you are adding to the overall energy of the room but you are totally neglecting that you are also increasing the mass in the room. You have added energy with the ice but you have also increased the total mass as well. To find the end temperature you need to take the total energy of the room and then figure out the heat capacity based upon the mass.
One day you might realize your many errors but I won’t hope too much for this. You make the same mistake over and over and seem unable to see it or correct it.
Sorry Norman, my examples showed that adding energy to a system does not always mean the system temperature will increase.
You could not understand the siimple examples.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Yes you showed an example where adding energy and mass to a system did not cause an increase in temperature. Do you want a medal?
It is a pointless distraction. In the conversations on this blog we are dealing with plates and planets where the change in mass is not a factor in the temperature determination.
Norman, you finally understood some small aspect of reality.
Now, don’t forget it.
JDHuffman
Yes I do understand you are a phony person who pretends they know things, and when challenged on a point you divert to some unrelated concept.
Like if I tell you that you are wrong, you might reply the sky is blue. Your statement can be true but has nothing at all to do with the discussion. Pointless, like 99% of your posts.
Look at the poster about the scarecrow. That fits you. You have lots of posts but none of them are of any value. Most are just your made up opinions, taunts, insults, derogatory remarks about a poster, or diversion. I think most of your posts are diversions. You make an unsupported claim in a post, someone challenges this then you launch a diversion campaign. Get real.
Norman must now resort to insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
He has nothing else.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Are you intentionally being an idiot at this time. I already know you are not rational and do not think logically. Why do you have to prove how stupid you are? What does it get you.
You can’t grasp the article I linked or its implication so you come up with a totally stupid and irrelevant
comment about the temperature of a blowtorch. You analogies are quite awful and just show you don’t have enough brains to even fit Roy Spencer’s scarecrow.
You are very slow and illogical so the explanation will fly over your drunken baboon mind. I will offer to some more intelligent and rational skeptics. You, Gordon Robertson, and DREMT are far too illogical to hope to grasp the point.
The maximum temperature a black object could reach in a solar flux would be one that emitted 1365 W/m^2 at Earth distance from Sun. Around 121 C. The water rises to 225 C in just a few hours from the same flux. The flux is not concentrated solar. Same in just different out and the temperature goes up considerably.
Using an analogy of a chemical reaction to try to refute what you reject is really stupid on your part. Keep posting. No one care about your idiot comments except DREMT. The rest already know you are really stupid.
Norman’s checklist:
☑ Insults
☑ False accusations
☑ Misrepresentations
☑ Mentioning Dr. Spencer
☑ Avoiding reality
JDHuffman
YOUR Checklist:
Lacks logic: YES
Lacks rational thought: YES
Denies empirical data: YES
Avoids Reality: YES
Knows physics: NO
Gives his unsupported opinions: YES
Can understand geometry: NO
Pretends to be smart: YES
Troll: YES YES and YES
Idiot: Seems to be unable to learn anything.
Diverts when challenged: YES.
JDHuffman
One I forgot.
I posted a decent scientific article that you could have read, understood and come up with an intelligent comment. Instead you post meaningless stupidity about blowtorches.
This nonsense: “Poor Norman found yet another link he cant understand. He thinks manmade technology proves the GHE!!”
You are a dork.
Norman, you forgot to mention “Dr. Spencer”.
That’s the only way you have of claiming any credibility.
I hope you are fairly reimbursing him for the use of his name….
“You, Gordon Robertson, and DREMT are far too illogical to hope to grasp the point”
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norm,
“This is basically why the Earths surface gets warmer than what a solar flux alone could reach.”
Except that it doesnt…. If it did, a humid area would get hotter than an arid area.
It does however STAY warmer at night…
PhilJ
Sorry to disagree with you. You point is not valid. You are talking about regional locations. I am talking about the global surface temperature and not comparing regions.
The Earth surface would reach an average surface temperature of 255 K it is much warmer than that.
Wrong Norman.
The 255 K is for a super-conducting, homogeneous, isotropic, blackbody sphere.
You’ve swallowed the pseudoscience, again.
JDHUffman
You do not understand the use of the 255 K. It is a global average! It is not a uniform temperature. You can have much colder poles and much warmer equator. The amount of radiation a sphere has to lose is the same as it receives. The 255 K comes after albedo calculation so it is NOT for a blackbody. A blackbody sphere would reach a higher temperature. That is your first error.
No on is saying the sphere has a uniform temperature of 255 K. You just assume this because you ignore the word “average” attached to the use of that temperature.
HERE IS WHAT I STATED: “The Earth surface would reach an average surface temperature of 255 K it is much warmer than that.”
Note again the word “average”. Don’t ignore it.
If the surface radiates more than it is receiving it will cool down to a lower average temperature (like the Moon). If it radiates less (GHE) it will be warmer.
You are making a point that is pointless. Wrong again. Nothing New with you.
Wrong again, Norman.
The 255K is the result of the S/B caluclation for a imaginary object receiving 960 Watts/m^2. Divide 960 by 4, then plug it into the S/B equation, emissivity = 1.
You don’t even know your own pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
Again an error in logical thought. You act like you know physics. Then do a better job and demonstrate you do.
If you have an object that is in the path of a EMR flux, it does not matter what the emissivity is. It will all reach the same steady state temperature.
If you have a blackbody with an emissivity of 1 that receives and input EMR of 240 W/m^2 it will reach around 255.
If you have a polished silver plate with and emissivity of 0.01 it will reach the same temperature (just slower).
It will reflect 99% of the EMR. It will absorb 2.4 Watts from the solar flux. It will reach a steady state temperature of 255 K because that that temperature it is emitting 2.4 watts the same amount it absorbs. It will work with any emissivity so that really does not matter with a continuous flux.
Norman, you made so many mistakes there that you ended up “proving” the green plate will reach the same temperature as the blue plate.
Now, I’ll just let you argue with yourself….
” Divide 960 by 4, then plug it into the S/B equation, emissivity = 1.”
Emissivities of the Earth’s constituent parts are as close to 1 as makes little difference. The factor of 4 is the ratio of radiating area versus receiving area, and is needed because the flows are proportional to areas, and they have to balance.
“If you have a polished silver plate with and emissivity of 0.01 it will reach the same temperature (just slower).”
It would reach 0.01^-0.25 = 3.2x hotter, if the reflectance were the same (which, of course, it isn’t). The flows have to balance at equilibrium.
Bart demonstrates his confusion about radiative physics.
“…flows are proportional to areas, and they have to balance.
Wrong! Radiative fluxes don’t have to balance. Bart is confusing flux with energy. It’s a beginner’s mistake.
“…It would reach 0.01^-0.25 = 3.2x hotter…”
Wrong! Bart claims 255 K can warm another object to 816 K!
Pseudoscience is fun.
(The really fun part starts when they realize how wrong they are and try to twist and spin away from their own words.)
“Radiative fluxes don’t have to balance.”
They do for equilibrium.
“Bart claims 255 K can warm another object to 816 K!”
If this exotic silver with emissivity of 0.01 (real world is more like 0.02) had the same reflectivity, it would be 3.2x hotter. It doesn’t, so it is a purely academic exercise.
The input is not 255K. That is not even the right units. It is 240 W/m^2.
“They do for equilibrium.”
Wrong Bart. Fluxes are not conserved.
“The input is not 255K. That is not even the right units. It is 240 W/m^2.”
Wrong Bart. The 240 Watts/m^2 is the emission from a 255 K surface. You don’t even understand the issue you are attempting to address.
(The really fun part has started.)
“Fluxes are not conserved.”
In equilibrium, they must match.
“The 240 Watts/m^2 is the emission from a 255 K surface.”
The 240 W/m^2 is the emission from the 5800K surface (photosphere) of the Sun, subtracting out albedo of 30%, and dividing by 4.
In actual fact, the Sun is putting out about 1360 W/m^2 at 1 AU. The silver plate has a radiating surface to receiving surface ratio of 2, so the scaling factor would not be 3.2x but 4.5x, assuming a reflectance of 30%. Actual reflectance is probably well into the 90% range, so in the real universe, this factor would be much lower.
Polished metal surfaces do get very hot in the Sun. So much so that you can use them for cooking.
“…so the scaling factor would not be 3.2x but 4.5x.”
Missed a square root – should have been 3.8x, not 4.5x.
Wrong Bart. Fluxes are not conserved.
Wrong Bart. The 240 Watts/m^2 is the emission from a 255 K surface. You don’t even understand the issue you are attempting to address.
(Let’s see how long Bart will go. He can’t learn, but when will he run out of spin?)
JDHuffman
Once again please at least act like you know some physics. Your response is very poor in any understanding of actual physics and your conclusion is really bad.
Do better. You look like a drooling fool.
YOO: “Norman, you made so many mistakes there that you ended up “proving” the green plate will reach the same temperature as the blue plate.”
A deluded idiot or drunken baboon might attempt to form such a stupid conclusion. A person who was logical, rational and knew physics would not show such display of arrogant stupidity.
The green plate does not reach the same temperature as the blue plate dork! It is receiving half the energy the blue plate does. How dumb are you really. At this time I think you are truly the dumbest poster on this blog. You can’t think logically at all.
How can receiving half the energy make an object equal in temperature if they are made of the same material.
Only a true idiot will come to that stupid conclusion. Wow, you are an amazing idiot. I never know how stupid one of your comments will be until you post it.
Bart
You are correct when you say that when temperatures have reached an equilibrium state (steady state) the incoming flux and outgoing flux must balance. It the flows are not balanced the object will heat or cool until a balanced is reached.
You will find JDHuffman is not logical or rational or knows science at all.
He likes to taunt people and get some childish interaction going.
Not a bright fellow and too dumb to realize his errors (which are often and most the time).
Norman, you are too uneducated and immature to understand how your attacks make you look uneducated and immature:
drooling fool
deluded idiot
drunken baboon
dork
dumbest poster
true idiot
amazing idiot
I don’t need to make you look foolish. I just let you do the work for me.
Now, to the physics you do not comprehend.
The easiest way to understand is if the plates are in full contact. Then, the blue plate is receiving all the incoming energy, but the only energy the green plate receives is from the blue plate. Yet, they would both be at the same temperature.
So, moving them slightly apart would not change anything. It’s not really that hard to grasp, if someone were able to think for themselves, or knew some physics.
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Poor Norman, he trips over his own pseudoscience, again!
Norman (incorrectly) claims: “You [Bart] are correct when you say that when temperatures have reached an equilibrium state (steady state) the incoming flux and outgoing flux must balance.”
In pseudoscience, the practicioners like to compare Earth to a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, blackbody sphere. At equilibirium, the imaginary sphere has a temperature of 255 K, with 960 Watts/m*2 incoming and 240 Watts/m^2 outgoing.
There is a “missing” 720 Watts/m^2, for those that are incompetent enough to believe that radiative flux MUST be conserved.
ENERGY is conserved, clown, NOT flux!
JDHuffman
Here is the information you need to help you understand what is being talked about. Again you make yourself look stupid when you post. I am trying to help you look less stupid.
https://www.ducksters.com/kidsmath/circle.php
and this
https://www.ducksters.com/kidsmath/finding_the_volume_surface_area_of_a_sphere.php
IF you spend a little time studying this material you will someday understand what you don’t at this time.
YOU: “ENERGY is conserved, clown, NOT flux!”
Flux is joules/second-m^2. You either have the same amount of joules/second-m^2 leaving as you have entering or your temperature will change. You have to start to see you are clueless. I don’t know when it will happen. I think never. I will again ignore you stupid posts and you again will invade mine.
I may from time to time see if there is any hope you can achieve logical or rational thought. I don’t think there is but one can always hope.
JDHuffman says:
It’s the difference between conduction and radiation. In this case the conduction was perfect. Can you do the math without your yo-yo temperatures?
Norman first claimed that incoming/outgoing flux must balance.
Then, I gave him the example of 960/240 that didn’t balance. So now he’s talking energy, as I explained to him.
Poor Norman folds like a cheap lawn chair.
Svante, thanks for quoting me.
But, don’t overlook the last part: “…if someone were able to think for themselves, or knew some physics.”
JDHuffman
My word choice to describe your posts are very accurate. Glad you summed them up. No they are not immature at all. They are correct assessments of your posting.
I am finding it really does not matter what people respond to you.
But to be fair, I will respond to your latest.
YOU: “The easiest way to understand is if the plates are in full contact. Then, the blue plate is receiving all the incoming energy, but the only energy the green plate receives is from the blue plate. Yet, they would both be at the same temperature.
So, moving them slightly apart would not change anything. Its not really that hard to grasp, if someone were able to think for themselves, or knew some physics.”
Yes moving them apart changes everything. I have already gone into deep explanation for this. I say study geometry. I gave you links to help you understand it.
When the plates are together the green plate receives 200 watts from the blue plate but only has one square meter radiating surface. When you move the green plate away it still only receives 200 watts from the blue plate but now has 2 square meters of radiating surface.
The real world experiment with real world materials shows you don’t know what you are talking about. Rather than open your mind and admit your error all you can do is call it bogus. No real reason to do this except it demonstrates you are wrong.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
The green plate does not get as warm as the blue plate and never will as long as they are not touching. You are just wrong.
JDHuffman
Ahem. You gave some vacuous opinion. I countered by giving you the knowledge you lack, geometry. It seems you ignored the links and continue to display lack of understanding.
HERE YOU STATE: “In pseudoscience, the practicioners like to compare Earth to a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, blackbody sphere. At equilibirium, the imaginary sphere has a temperature of 255 K, with 960 Watts/m*2 incoming and 240 Watts/m^2 outgoing.”
Where do you get 960 watts/m^2 for the entire sphere of the Earth?
You won’t answer the question. You will divert as usual. It would be an amazing thing to see you answer a question but you won’t. Nothing new.
Poor Norman needs help understanding his pseudoscience, again:
“Where do you get 960 watts/m^2 for the entire sphere of the Earth?”
Norman, the 960 is the solar flux, after adjusting for albedo.
https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
JDHuffman
So you won’t answer the question. Is that because you don’t have an answer or your want to pretend what you are not, intelligent.
Certainly you must realize a sphere in a solar flux will only receive energy on one hemisphere. So how could a 960 W/m^2 flux be received by every meter of the sphere?
You don’t make even a bit of sense and you won’t learn geometry. Why?
I have to help you with your poor reading comprehension. I did not ask how you got 960 W/m^2, I asked how you got it for the entire sphere. Much different and your response to my question indicates you could not comprehend a valid question and diverted to some silly nonsense that was not asked or wanted. Nothing new with a troll like you. Trolls do this often.
JDHuffman
I was hoping a New Year might allow me to eliminate my checks for you. Unfortunately you are not helping me help you. I wish these check marks could be eliminated and you give up being a troll and start contributing useful information as other skeptics on this blog are able to do.
drooling fool
deluded idiot
drunken baboon
dork
dumbest poster
true idiot
I had to remove amazing idiot since there is nothing amazing about your behavior. Please work on reducing the checks. It would help if you studied the geometry links I posted for you. Like the area of a circle vs a sphere. This is a start. Who knows, if you can learn that there is hope.
Is the GHEDT retiring the Norman avatar in a blaze of ignominy? Not sure, but “Norman”, please DON’T stop disgracing yourself.
Norm,
“Sorry to disagree with you. You point is not valid. You are talking about regional locations. I am talking about the global surface temperature and not comparing regions.”
Really? the global surface temp is HIGHER than the global atmosphere temp.. ergo heat transfer is from the surface TO the atmosphere…
“The Earth surface would reach an average surface temperature of 255 K it is much warmer than that.”
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! The surface doesn’t have to ‘REACH’ a temp, it has to cool DOWN to a temp… unless you think the Earth was colder a few billion years ago…
“Study suggests that in the last 60 years up to half the observed warming and associated sea level rise in low- and mid- latitudes of the Atlantic Ocean is due to changes in ocean circulation.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/07/study-reconstructing-ocean-warming-finds-ocean-circulation-changes-may-account-for-significant-portion-of-sea-level-rise/
And:
“Over the past century, increased greenhouse gas emissions have given rise to an excess of energy in the Earth system. More than 90% of this excess energy has been absorbed by the ocean, leading to increased ocean temperatures and associated sea level rise, while moderating surface warming.”
Well, I think only way that one gets global warming is by ocean getting warmer.
Or ocean surface temperature, is global average temperature. And entire ocean temperature determine global average temperature- or global climate- less than 3 C is glacial period, more 3 C is interglacial period. And 1 to 5 C is our icebox climate.
And we are at about 3.5 C.
But anyhow, it seems to me, it is thought that thermal expansion is more than was thought.
And maybe it has to do with difference of average temperature of South and North hemisphere.
And:
“While a change in ocean circulation is identified, the researchers cannot attribute it solely to human-induced changes.”
Rats, they get more money if they could.
How hot/cold would a metal surface orbiting the Earth be due to Solar radiation?
https://www.quora.com/How-hot-cold-would-a-metal-surface-orbiting-the-Earth-be-due-to-Solar-radiation
“Here are equilibrium temperatures for a flat plate with insulated back and for a spherical body:
black body (or aluminum anodized black – a=0.88, e=0.88)
394 K (121 °C) flat surface, 279 K (6 °C) sphere”
Also says:
“The above calculations consider only the radiation from the Sun. In reality, this would be true at some distance from Earth, say in GSO or at Earth-Moon L1 point. In LEO one would need to account for additional radiation coming from Earth, which would increase the theoretical maximum temperature. On the other hand, the time spent in Earth’s shadow would allow the surfaces to cool off, possibly never allowing them to reach the maximum temperature on the sunny side.”
So, is that correct that if far enough from Earth a sphere of aluminum anodized black so as Absorb .88 of sunlight and had emission of .88 would be 6 C?
And if in LEO say 400 km elevation equatorial orbit, it could have higher average temperature from radiation of Earth plus the sunlight?
I would guess the sphere would be sunlight for about 60% of the time and orbital duration is about 90 mins.
Or 90 times .6 = 54 and 90 times .4 = 36
So spends about 54 mins in sunlight and 36 min in Earth’s shadow.
And earth on average radiate about 240 watts, but at equator earth radiate more. Like what? About 300 watt?
It gives list of various materials with warmest being polished copper:
“polished copper (a=0.30, e=0.02)
776 K (503 °C) flat surface, 548 K (275 °C) sphere”
Would polished copper be warmed more or less from radiation from Earth.
Oh yeah didn’t mention the sunlight reflected from Earth.
What would cause more heating the reflected sunlight or the longwave IR emitted by Earth?
He gets confused between “albedo” and “absor.p.tivity”.
And emissivity for a black body is 1.0, not 0.88.
So in regards to my question of: “is that correct that if far enough from Earth a sphere of aluminum anodized black so as Absorb .88 of sunlight and had emission of .88 would be 6 C?”
Are you saying it not correct?
There is no material which is black or invisible in terms of visible light because it absorbs all of the sunlight when it is in sunlight and in the background of the blackness of space.
Things can appear very dim as compared to other material, but not to the extent that all it emits is the light which the human eyes can’t see.
Or our Moon is close to being a blackbody yet it’s bright enough to see a 1/4 million miles away [and be standing under the thick atmosphere of Earth].
What about the other question, a sphere of aluminum anodized black so as Absorb .88 of sunlight and had emission of .88 being in low earth orbit: could be warmed by Earth’s reflected sunlight and/or it’s emitted Longwave IR. How much? And which causes more warming the reflected sunlight or Longwave IR ?
gbaikie, I’m not sure I understand the question. My guess is that you are asking:
“Is it possible to warm a sphere (with 0.88 emissivity) to 6 °C with sunlight?”
The answer would be “yes”, if that is the question.
Ok.
I wonder if others agree or disagree.
Salvatore del Prete
You always have trouble separating the long term signal of global warming from the noise.
I suggest that you read this.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/fooled-by-noise/
ENTROPIC MAN – Your mistake is you are mistakenly thinking the long term warming (which ended in year2016) is due to AGW ,when in reality it was due to natural variability coming out of the Little Ice Age.
This is why that warming period was in no way unique or different then any previous warming periods.
Salvatore del Prete
I’m unhappy with the “natural variability coming out of the Little Ice Age” hypothesis.
The land, air, ocean and atmosphere observed warming since 1880 would require the climate system to take up about 3*10^24 joules over that period.
The problem is that there’s nowhere near enough energy coming in from natural sources. If you add up all the natural sources, you actually get 0.05C coo!ing. That is a loss of 1.5*10^23 joules over 130 years.
That leaves the three human sources,land use, industrial albedo and CO2. Those changes between them produce an energy uptake which matches the observed warming, about 3*10^22 Joules per year
“This is why that warming period was in no way unique or different then any previous warming periods.”
It is unique. There has never been a previous warming period when natural changes are trying to cool the system while an industriial civilization is warming it.
E-man, since you like adding up numbers to scare yourself, here are some more to add:
* All transmissions from cell phones and cell towers
* All transmissions from AM and FM radio stations
* All TV station transmissions
* All radar systems, military, aviation, and weather
* All radio communications
* All infrared remotes
Add up all such manmade energy since 1950. Now, you can be really scared.
Boo.
Scared by our own energy emissions? I think not.
IIRC our civilization’s total energy budget is 4*10^20 joules/year, 1% of the 3*10^22Joules/year accumulating due to global warming and 0.001% of Earth’s total annual budget of 10^25 joules.
Not so fast there, E-man.
CO2 does NOT add energy to the atmosphere. The sources I mentioned DO add energy to the atmosphere.
You better be really scared!
“The problem is that theres nowhere near enough energy coming in from natural sources.”
Nearly all the energy is coming from the Sun, which has plenty and to spare.
“If you add up all the natural sources that we can think of, you actually get 0.05C coo!ing.”
FIFY. This is an argument from ignorance, i.e., an argument for a conclusion based on a lack of evidence.
The problem is that nowhere near enough energy coming in from natural sources.
I have to say that is the most absurd statement I ever heard in my life.
How stupid can one be.
Bart
Here’s the evidence.
The natural forcings do not produce any of the energy needed to explain the warming.
Salvatore del Prete
You wave your arms about a lot, but science is done with numbers. If you cannot quantify your arguments, you wont convince me, or anybody else who knows the numbers.
Since you obviously missed my point, let me spell it out.
Like a kettle, you have to put in energy to increase Earth’s temperature. This energy has to come from somewhere.
Measure the natural forcings such as solar insolation and none of them are warming the Earth. All the energy required to produce the warming has come as a result of human activity.
Oh yes, here’s the data.
http://globalwarmingindex.org
“The natural forcings do not produce any of the energy needed to explain the warming.”
It is not a question of production – the Sun takes care of that – but of storage.
“Oh yes, heres the data.”
This is not data. This is a model.
That statement was from Entropic man who has lost it.
Entropic man you do not know what you are talking about.
–Entropic man says:
January 8, 2019 at 12:02 PM
Salvatore del Prete
Im unhappy with the natural variability coming out of the Little Ice Age hypothesis.–
Why?
We know LIA was one of coldest periods. We know there was warmer periods. And we know humans had nothing to do with these warm and cool periods.
We know glaciers were advancing during LIA, and rapidly retreated as LIA ended.
And advance and retreat in glaciers is yardstick of warming and cooling periods. Or in big picture, the advance of glaciers is the glacial period, and the retreat is the interglacial period.
If LIA had not ended and instead of having retreating glacial, had more advancing glacial over the centuries, we would be only talking about the coming doom of the Ice Age.
And instead of sea levels slowly rising during our interglacial period, during LIA they measurably lowered, and since end of LIA, sea levels are continuing to rise.
And in the warmest parts of past interglacial periods, sea levels have risen much higher the our present sea level. And average temperature of the entire ocean has been much warmer [5 C vs our present average of about 3.5 C].
If our ocean warmed back up to 5 C- we get disaster of believers of CAGW [or the closest they can get to]. It would nice, but it is the scare- which will require thousands of years get to, if everything goes right or according to the plan.
“The land, air, ocean and atmosphere observed warming since 1880 would require the climate system to take up about 3*10^24 joules over that period.
The problem is that theres nowhere near enough energy coming in from natural sources. If you add up all the natural sources, you actually get 0.05C coo!ing. That is a loss of 1.5*10^23 joules over 130 years.”
Well, global average air temperature bounces up and down, related warming and cooling of ocean surface. And have regions which significant and longer term cooling or warming at same time as global temperatures may slightly warming or cooling.
Or one has all kinds of fluctuation and zones which warming or cooling. And what dealing with mostly with LIA and present era are bigger fluctuations which involve ocean rather than say, weather patterns.
Our ocean average temperature of about 3.5 C, I don’t think has change much over last few thousand years. Or we don’t have it measured very accurately at moment, and the error in measurement could greater than actual change in the ocean temperature over last thousands of years. But over say 6000 years, it does seem that ocean could have cooled slightly. So now, and LIA is fluctuation of different parts of oceans temperatures, and these parts of ocean can have larger effect upon what we measuring as global temperature. And it’s possible the way parts of ocean warm could lead to more *actual* warming, and it’s the way parts of ocean warm, could do the opposite- lead to actual cooling.
Or how ocean warm- what parts of ocean, has different results.
Anyhow, I don’t know what cause the cooling of LIA, but I would say it related to changes on ocean circulation, and recovery from LIA is another change in ocean circulation. Plus since tropical ocean is heat engine of the world, is related to the tropical ocean.
Gbaikie
Do the numbers. You are doing a bit better than Salvatore, but you need to get into energy flows and energy budgets to really understand what is going on.
gbaikie…”We know glaciers were advancing during LIA, and rapidly retreated as LIA ended.”
True. And don’t forget that overall the glaciers have been retreating for thousands of years.
You seem to believe that the LIA qualifies as a glacial period.
The last such period ended about 10000 years ago.
You seem to believe that the LIA qualifies as a glacial period.
wiki:
“A glacial period (alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate between glacial periods. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period
quaternary definition
2.GEOLOGY
relating to or denoting the most recent period in the Cenozoic era, following the Tertiary period and comprising the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs (and thus including the present).
“The entire Quaternary is often referred to as the ice age, because two large permanent glaciers continuously existed during the period, namely on Antarctica and Greenland. During the Pleistocene’s coldest periods, which also are called ice ages, existed also enormous glaciers in Europe, North America and in Patagonia on the southern hemisphere. The shorter and warmer intervals between the recurrent Pleistocene glaciations are termed interglacials.”
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima5.htm
AGW ENTUSIAST AND THEIR RUBBISH. IT NEVER ENDS.
Cooling is our enemy. We don’t need cooling. More people die during cooling. We can feed people during warming. We feed less people during cooling. We need more CO2. Keep the CO2 coming.
Are you thinking of Africa when you make this claim?
So you’re claiming that if we help the planet cool by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere then people in Africa won’t starve?
Way upthread, Tim Folkerts brings up the old “sphere/shell” trick. He’s always trying his tricks, like he can fool someone. These types only fool themselves.
But since this nonsense is still alive, it’s best to give a correct answer rather than just laughing it off.
Tim asks: “JD, what physics anywhere says that 200 W of net thermal power moves from one square meter at 244 K to another square meter AT EXACTLY THE SAME TEMPERATURE? What equation do you use for your calculation?”
It appears Tim is trying to switch the issue from “sphere/shell” to the “plates”. But we can allow this switch, since the physics is essentially the same.
Tim confuses radiative heat transfer with conductive heat transfer. In conduction, energy would not move between two objects at the same temperature. In radiative heat transfer, it is more complicated. A body is constantly emitting based on its own temperature. It does not matter if there is another body or not. Energy is being emitted. The equation used comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
S = σT^4
In the case of the two plates, the heat transfer is NOT caused by the plate temperatures. It is caused by the heated blue plate.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
That is an interesting tangent, JD — definitely not the situation I was discussing — but lets go for it any way.
“A body is constantly emitting based on its own temperature. ”
You should never have admitting to correct physics. It destroys your arguments.
Specifically, your diagram has two bodies at 244K emiting based on their own temperatures. The Green object emits 200 W/m from its surfaces because it is a 244 K blackbody. These are the two green arrows heading out from the green object. The Blue object also emits 200 W/m from its surfaces because it is a 244 K blackbody. These are the two blues arrows heading out from the blue object.
And then … the mysterious green arrow heading out from the blue object toward the green. There is no reason for this arrow. No theory that can predict it. No equation that can calculate it. It is there just to fulfill JD’s fantasies; to magically make his conclusions correct.
Tim starts his routine: “…definitely not the situation I was discussing…”
Wrong Tim. It WAS definitely the situation you were discussing. I quoted you directly.
Tim continues: “And then … the mysterious green arrow heading out from the blue object toward the green. There is no reason for this arrow. No theory that can predict it. No equation that can calculate it.”
Wrong Tim. You do not understand radiative physics or 2LoT. Let’s see how you will do with some really basic physics.
Lesson 1: Water flows downhill. It does not flow uphill, by itself.
Question: Can water flow uphill, by itself?
a) No
b) Yes
c) I refuse to answer without my attorney present.
“Wrong Tim. It WAS definitely the situation you were discussing. I quoted you directly.”
if your diagram was supposed to show the situation I proposed. then the “blues plate” is pretty clearly the sphere. But the blue plate has 400 W/m^w flowing to the surface, and 200 W/m^2 flowing back into the sphere. You have changed my situation from a simple 200 W/m^2 heater inside the sphere, to a 400 W/m^2 heater inside the sphere, but some bizarre new 200 W/m^2 heat flow back INTO the (warmer) interior of the sphere.
Similar, but definitely different. Just claiming that you were quoting me does not make your variation the same!
“Wrong Tim. You do not understand radiative physics or 2LoT. “
Then explain it.
1) Where does that extra green arrow come from? What equation or theory tells you that after the blue object properly emits 200 W/m^2 (“emitting based on its own temperature”) that is should then emit an ADDITIONAL 200 W/m^2?
2) How does heat transfer with no temperature difference?
“Lesson 1: Water flows downhill. It does not flow uphill, by itself.
Question: Can water flow uphill, by itself?
No, water cannot flow uphill by itself.
Follow-up question: Water flows downhill. Does water flow by itself between two locations at the same elevation?
a) Yes, of course.
b) No, never.
c) Yes, but only if you paint one side blue, and the other side green.
“Where does that extra green arrow come from? What equation or theory tells you that after the blue object properly emits 200 W/m^2 (emitting based on its own temperature) that is should then emit an ADDITIONAL 200 W/m^2?”
The arrows are color-coded. Blue arrows originate from the blue plate. Green arrows originate from the green plate. There is NO “extra” green arrow.
The flux emitted from the left side of the green plate is the “water flowing uphill”. It cannot be absorbed by the “hotter” blue plate. It gets reflected back to the green plate. The phenomenon of the two green arrows between plates is called a “standing wave”. It is a common occurrence in the relevant physics.
“How does heat transfer with no temperature difference?”
You are maybe confusing radiative heat transfer with conductive heat transfer, again. Or, maybe you just don’t understand the relevant physics. Or, maybe you just don’t want to.
More study material.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
“It gets reflected back to the green plate. The phenomenon of the two green arrows between plates is called a “standing wave”. It is a common occurrence in the relevant physics.”
AH. Now we are getting closer to the heart of your misunderstandings.
1) You had postutlated the plates to be blackbody surface (required for the calculation of 200 W/m^2 @ 244 K). Blackbodies do not “reflect back” EM radiation. They absorb 100%
2) Standing waves are indeed commmon IN RELEVANT PHYSICS, but standing waves only exist when waves are reflected. Again, since your surface are blackbodies, they cannot suppost standing waves.
Standing waves would be relevant if your surfaces were reflective metal — but they aren’t! See for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity
Tim, I think we’ve been here before, but you refuse to learn.
A black body is an imaginary concept. It absorbs all incident IR by DEFINITION. It’s okay to use a black body as a teaching tool, but you can’t use the definition of an imaginary concept to violate the laws of physics. Period.
So the blue plate would be reflecting the flux from the green plate. Consequently a standing wave would be produced. A standing wave has no energy transfer. The only energy is the blue arrow going to the green plate.
If you were sincerely interested in valid physics, you would be criticizing the incorrect version of the plates. In that version, the green plate is no longer a black body. It is now some kind of magical insulator. It does not absorb the blue plate flux, but reflects it back!
But, there is little evidence you are sincerely interested in valid physics.
“But, there is little evidence you are sincerely interested in valid physics.””
I have talked with numerous physics professors, and they all agree with my position. If you are interested in valid physics, talk to some professors. Read some text books. Learn why there is no violation of the 2LoT in my description, but there IS indeed a violation in your “blue plate is simultaneously an excellent absorber and an excellent reflector” scenario.
Oh, that’s meaningful. IOW you have NOTHING!
Learn some physics.
Tim and JDH,
With fear and trepidation I butt in.
If the inner side of the sphere only receives 200 W/m2 then the outside will never get to 244K, because both sides of the sphere will have to emit 100 W/m2.
Tim, you may not like the 400 W/m2 from the red arrow in JDH’s link, but that is required to get your net input of 200 W/m2. It’s the opposite of “you can’t have it both ways.” Ha (ok, bad joke).
I think the problem with these perfectly conducting spheres is just that–there are no perfectly conducting spheres or anything else. Instead, let’s start from the premise that we have finite but highly conductive sphere material. Then the inner sphere will be slightly greater temperature on the inside than on the outside which can we agree could be defined as 244K? If we define the flux to be 200 W/m2, then the temperature inside the sphere is determined by the finite conductivity and delta T.
Now add another sphere with a vacuum between the spheres. Eventually the outer sphere will emit somewhat less than 200 W/m2 depending on the circumferences involved to account for conservation of energy. I propose that the inner sphere would have to warm slightly to account for the additional outer sphere insulation, but the actual temperature difference between the spheres is negligible and depends only on the thickness between the spheres which affects the change in surface area.
Perhaps there would be no difference between, if the geometry was infinitely planar instead of spherical.
“In that version, the green plate is no longer a black body.”
“That version” has
* 400 W/m^2 coming to the Blue plate.
* The blue plate at 262 K emitting 266.6 W/m^2 from both sides.
* The green plate at 220 K emitting 133.3 W/m^2 from both sides.
The green plate emits according to P/A = (sigma)T^4 — exactly like a blackbody should do.
The green plate absorbs all the incoming EM radiation (266.7 from the Blue plate) — exactly like a blackbody should do.
How is this “magical”? How is this different from what you expect from a blackbody?
Furthermore, heat spontaneously flows from warmer areas to cooler areas (warm blue plate to cool green plate; cool green plate to cold outer space)– exactly as required by 2LoT.
***********************************
But the “JD version” has
* the blue plate simultaneously being a perfect absorber and a perfect reflector — a clear internal inconsistency.
* has heat transferring between two objects at the same temperature — a clear violation of the 0LoT.
Chic, feel free to jump in, but make sure you understand the setups.
Tim’s sphere is solid. It is emitting 200 W/m^2 from its surface.
In the sphere/shell scenario, the gap is considered to be infinitesimally small. That way, the OD of the sphere is essentially the same as the ID of the shell.
Tim, a trick used by tricksters is to put so much in a comment that it makes it hard to respond. When you do so, I can easily spot it.
Everything above your line of asterisks was redundant. I willl address what was below that line.
* the blue plate simultaneously being a perfect absorber and a perfect reflector a clear internal inconsistency.
WRONG Tim. I have consistently stated that the laws of physics win out over the definition of an imaginary concept. YOU refuse to learn.
* has heat transferring between two objects at the same temperature a clear violation of the 0LoT.
WRONG Tim. The 0LoT deals with equilibrium. The energy flow is maintaining the temperatures, not the other way around. Learn about radiative heat transfer.