or, All Credentialed Journalists are Sex Abusers
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.
JDH,
OK, it doesn’t matter about how the sphere surface gets to be 244K.
You say the gap is infinitesimally small which is equivalent to no gap. Then think of a finite skin wrapped around the sphere. There will be a temperature gradient depending on the conductivity of the skin. The outward radiation cannot remain 200 W/m2 without a slight increase in the original sphere’s surface temperature.
However, I agree with you that the temperature between any gap could be extremely small, should you care to make the imaginary one actually appear. But you can’t say on one hand, no imaginary concepts while on the other hand referring to an infinitesimally small gap.
Tim, I can’t imagine how a highly conductive skin around the sphere will cause its temperature to go from 244K to 290K.
Chic, you are welcome to jump in, but you are not welcome to be obstinate.
There is no “skin”. There is a vacuum between the sphere and the shell.
You probably still believe a racehorse rotates on its own axis.
Sheeesh!
JDH,
Please, obstinance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Read carefully. I thought you would be able to realize that if you move the skin off the surface (IOW creating a gap), you will create a vacuum.
I not wasting any more time on the moon nonsense. No one can do anything about that. The sphere issue you and Tim were discussing is another thing.
Why Chic, I didn’t mention the Moon. I mentioned your belief that a racehorse rotates on its own axis as it runs the oval racetrack. Do you now want to be removed from the list of “Spinners”?
Of course, you know the consequences of facing reality….
“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.”
Sorry that more than one thought at a time confused you. But these are complex issue that can’t be solve with one-liners.
“Everything above your line of asterisks was redundant.”
Only for a handful of people who know the history of these sorts of discussions. The comment was for the sake of those who might try to read this later.
” I have consistently stated that the laws of physics win out over the definition of an imaginary concept.”
You seem to be confused about the difference between “imaginary” and “idealized”.
* Unicorns are imaginary. Warp drives are imaginary. Light sabers are imaginary.
* Frictionless surfaces are idealizations. Massless strings are idealizations. Blackbodies are idealizations.
Idealizations let you simplify; let you focus on key issues. They don’t *invalidate* conclusions.
“WRONG Tim [regarding the blue plate simultaneously being a perfect absorber and a perfect reflector]”
And your tactic is “proof by bold assertion” — giving no actual argument, just asserting louder and louder.
*YOUR* blue plate emits 200 W/m^2 of thermal IR @ 244 K. The only way to do this is for the plate to have ε = 1 , so that εσT^4 = 200 W/m^2.
TRUE or FALSE — *YOUR* blue plate emits as if ε ~= 1.
*YOUR* blue plate would be reflecting the flux from the green plate. It reflects 100% according to the diagram — a perfect mirror of the incoming flux.
TRUE OR FALSE — *YOUR* blue plate reflects the flux from the green plate, ie as if ε ~= 0.
That is probably as much as you care to handle at once. Feel free to answer the two TRUE/FALSE question.
Tim, most of that was just rambling. I did see the two T/F questions, but didn’t recognize the symbols you used.
Less rambling and more clarity, please.
Interesting, now the symbols are for “emissivity”. Earlier, they appeared as garbage.
So, both your T/F questions are True.
As explained numerous times, the plates are black bodies. But that is be “definition”. In reality, temperatures dictate whether photons will be absorbed or not. That’s why the green plate cannot raise the temperature of the blue plate.
Quit denying reality.
“As explained numerous times, the plates are black bodies.”
You clearly are not hearing yourtself! You just stated directly and for the record that the blue plate has an emissivity of 1. And simultaneously has an emissivity of 0. Your blue plate is NOT a black body.
“But that is be “definition”.”
This makes no sense (even ignoring an apparent ‘brain hiccup’ in the middle of that sentence). That is like saying “I am going to solve a problem, sometimes assuming the mass is 1 kg and sometimes assuming the mass is 0 kg. But that is OK, since mass is just a ‘definition’.”
You can’t say an object is a perfect reflector and a perfect absorber at the same time. You can’t even say an object is a pretty good reflector and a pretty good absorber at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive.
“The 0LoT deals with equilibrium.”
Yes. And thermal equilibrium means “at the same temperature”. And your plates are at the same temperature. So the 0LoT does apply.
Tim, you’re obviously in the wrong career.
This is basic physics. You are practicing debate.
You can’t stick with one issue at a time. You’re all over the board, rambling and posturing, obfuscating and spinning.
Learn some physics. Don’t run from reality. Reality is “right” or “wrong”, not some politically-correct gray area.
“Reality is “right” or “wrong””
Yes!
Reality is that blackbodies ABSORB incoming radiation, they don’t reflect it!
Reality is that thermal energy moves FROM WARMER TO COOLER objects. Not from one object to another object at the same temperature.
I wonder if any of the “Spinners” have finally worked it out yet. It’s been interesting watching them struggle to understand these last few months.
JDHuffman
You don’t fail at coming up with points that have nothing at all to do with an actual concept discussed.
Water flowing uphill against a gravity field is not comparable to energy emission from a surface.
You seem to always come up with these meaningless points that no one disagrees with.
You lack any understanding of radiant heat transfer. You are clueless about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You argue with people that have forgotten more physics than you will even know.
You make up unsupported opinions and argue with people and then you divert to some unrelated point like water flowing uphill. Why must you keep doing this?
Norman, your rambling comments, arriving at no meaningful point, are my favorites.
norman…”Water flowing uphill against a gravity field is not comparable to energy emission from a surface”.
Of course it is. Energy only flows one way without compensation. Energy flowing from a surface can only transfer heat to a cooler surface. That applies to the EM as well. It can only be absorbed by a cooler body when emitted by a hotter body.
Gordon Robertson
Your statement is wrong. “Energy only flows one way without compensation.”
Like I say you just make stuff up. You can’t even recognize you are just professing an unsupported opinion.
I ask you to prove this statement with either experimental evidence, or established science.
If you buy a FLIR you will learn quickly your statement is garbage and useless in any discussion. Just a make up opinion that has zero validity.
I can make up nonsense all day like you do. I prefer not to. You can point the FLIR in any direction and see the energy that is emitted by each object. Please keep your lunatic ideas to yourself. I want to talk to rational intelligent skeptics. Not crackpots like you. I can talk to children if I want to hear cute made up physics. If you were 5 it would be a creative expression. As an adult it only shows an ignorant state.
Norman, you should ask your therapist for stronger medication. Your current prescription is not working.
You’re one very sick puppy.
But, you knew that.
JDHuffman
No medication needed I am quite fine. What would help is if you and Gordon Robertson would have a New Year’s resolution to quit making up unsupported opinions and acting like they are factual science. Climate Science is complex enough without pretenders like you and Gordon posting with intentional and willful desire to mislead and confuse curious people who have limited science background. You are a negative thought virus that needs to be inoculated so the less informed will not be deceived by your dishonest and misleading posts.
You are like the Pied Piper leading the children astray with you pretend opinions. I feel quite good in pointing out how phony and dishonest you and Gordon both are. How you are detrimental to science and understanding.
Norman, you are the person you accuse others of being.
You are the one perverting and corrupting physics. You are the blog bully, attacking, insulting, and falsely accusing. You want to be the blog dictator, deciding who can contribute and who can’t. No one has used more insults and name-calling than you. You are the most despicable person on this blog.
When you are not attacking and insulting, you are linking to sites you can’t understand. You have little background in science. You are the biggest phony on this blog. You’ve been show to be wrong time and time again, yet you never get it. When you’re proven wrong, you just attack more. Everything I’m wriitng here is reality, and your long rambllng comments are proof.
You have NO respect for truth. You shun reality. You just bang on your keyboard, incessantly. You will type anything necessary to cover your lack of understanding. In your head, any opinion of yours is automatically valid, and anyone disagreeing with you is automatically lying. To you, facts and logic don’t matter. You are anti-science and anti-reality.
Instead of cleaning up your act, you will deny all of this, just as you deny all facts, logic, and reality.
You ARE sick.
Seek counseling.
JDHuffman
No you are the one with the extreme problem. You taunt and troll and cry like a baby when people tell you what you really are. You have lots of fun calling people clowns, telling them they are wrong with zero evidence, making fun of people’s jobs, coming up with derogatory names for posters. No you are far from this innocent victim.
I think you need the therapy to find out why you imagine you know any physics.
I need to help correct your mistakes.
Here is my corrected version of your nonsense comment: This is far closer to reality than your original.
“When I (JDHuffman) am not attacking and insulting, I will ignore links to sites I can’t understand. I (JDHuffman) have zeero background in science. I (JDHuffman) am the biggest phony on this blog. Many posters have shown me to be wrong time and time again, yet I never get it. When I am proven wrong, I just divert more. Everything I write on this blog here is unsupported made up opininion, and I can’t read Norman’s long comments because of my lack of reading comprehension and I get easily confused.”
Now it is really close to actual reality. I hope that helps you. Not sure anything will. You live in a pretend world where you think you are this intelligent genius, that is why you should stay home on Principia Scientific. They will treat you well there.
Norman, you know how to type long rambling comments. Now learn some physics, and grow up.
It is not about the net change in energy from the sun per say but rather the secondary effects which result from it, ranging from cooling oceanic sea surface temperatures, to more explosive volcanic eruptions, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, to increase global cloud and snow coverage all of which will result in global cooling.
“per say’ … education level confirmed.
As I have said natural factors were in a warming mode until 2005. Then they started to turn into a cooling mode but lag times of 10+ years are needed.
Now the test is on and we will see.
If you want to learn what global warming is about you need to study communism first.
The first three things the communists do when they take over
Nationalize the energy production and distribution , mining and transportation systems
Re-wright the history in all history books – pull all the old ones from schools and libraries and replace with new ones.
Disarm the citizens.
all three are happening now right under your noses , while you debate here the motion of the ocean.
They already successfully falsified temperature record by doubling the recent warming with maladjustments to create their boogieman to scare the sheeple with
https://goo.gl/9cMEhw
eben…”The first three things the communists do when they take over
Nationalize the energy production and distribution , mining and transportation systems”
Where have you seen communists taking over anything?
Since Stalin and Mao, I have seen no significant implementation of communism. Some small potatoes, no real significant communism.
I hope you don’t mean socialism, which has developed as a democratic workers’ movement in countries like Canada, the UK, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, and Australia.
Socialism is not communism, even though Russia and China stole the word. Heck, the Russian atrocity wasn’t even communism, the Bolsheviks threw socialists and communists in concentration camps.
Climate Fascism
https://youtu.be/6YN8pSaWggQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YN8pSaWggQ
“If you want to learn what global warming is about you need to study communism first.”
What is it with climate denialism that brings out the bizarre?
It seems to attract the full range of nutters including those who sometimes bring Roy himself to despair.
As I have noted, in most cases “the elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor”
It seems as though in the US the BS of Joe McCarthy is alive and well.
It has nothing to do with socialism – but – but- they just didn’t do it right – it will work this time
Yeah … Sweden is a country in crisis.
Sweden is only quasi-Socialist. In many respects, it is more capitalistic than we (e.g., until the latest tax reform, their corporate taxes were lower than ours). And, all is not sweetness and light there, either.
http://www.humankind.city/2014/02/a-stockholm-slum/
The highest personal tax rate is 60%, and one quarter of national wealth is owned by the government.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. But, it is not the Nirvana often portrayed from afar.
Eben, if you came to realize carbon emissions were a serious risk to the world, could it be solved within your ideology? How?
Svante is filling in for DA, asking stupid questions.
Just like DA he is not debate-worthy
Well, we agreed on paleotemperatures here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycz6rhf2
So your ideology can not deal with external effects?
It has been resolved in Economics:
https://tinyurl.com/y7h6sjex
Eben won’t answer, so I will answer your question.
I assume carbon emission being serious risk has to do with increasing global temperatures.
It easy to decrease global temperature.
The only hard part is having people actually want lower global temperatures.
If people actually want lower global temperatures [or higher global temperatures] this means they would pay some amount money for this.
The amount money would be insignificant assuming say a billion people wanted it.
And it’s minor compared to amount people have already been forced to pay to feed the global warming religion. And far less than what involved Paris climate accords and could lower global temperature much lower [assuming much lower is wanted- one can choose whether little or a lot].
I agree, very doable.
Green Marxism: The Climate Paper Most Widely Covered By The News Media In 2018 Was Actually A Call For Socialism
https://goo.gl/fuShBF
JDHuffman
Since you are showing lack of ability to understand the difference in surface are between a circle and sphere, I thought of a way to help you. We will just keep it square plates. This you will grasp.
You have a 1 m^2 plate with a spotlight adding 960 Watts of energy to the plate. It is insulated on the back. It will warm up until it emits 960 Watts from its one square meter surface.
Now you have a plate that is 4 square meters. Again it is highly insulated on the back. Now you have the same spotlight aimed so only one square meter of the plate receives the 960 watts. The plate is made of a good conducting material so the energy received by the 1 m^2 area will quickly move through the entire plate.
Are you actually telling people that the 4 m^2 plate with 4 times the radiating surface will reach the same temperature as the first plate with only a 1 m^2 emitting surface area?
Both plates receive exactly the same amount of input energy for a spotlight.
Norman, quit trying to con people.
You only con yourself.
JDHuffman
You are not even making a bit of sense. What is the con with my post to you? Please explain the nature of your accusation? I am curious as to what you consider to be a con. I think it is just more of your unsupported opinion and you will not be able to produce and answer.
Why not answer the question I asked Mr. Diversion?
Here I will ask it again so you can play Mr. Diversion.
“Are you actually telling people that the 4 m^2 plate with 4 times the radiating surface will reach the same temperature as the first plate with only a 1 m^2 emitting surface area?”
Now rather than diverting to a meaningless comment just answer the question.
Norman, your “con” is you’re now trying to act like you understand the 960/240 nonsense. But upthread, I had to explain it to you.
You’re only conning yourself.
JDHuffman
I understand it completely. It is based upon the geometry of a circle area vs the area of a sphere. Not a con at all. I still suggest you rethink your position and adapt accordingly.
You are correct about one thing. The insults are a waste. I will attempt to refrain. Keep it civil. Not a guarantee but I will put out an effort. If I fail it is weakness on my part.
So if you have 960 watt/m^2 flux reaching a circular area, how will 960 W/m^2 flux reach the opposite side of a sphere? Yet that opposite side will continue to emit energy. Let me know how that works.
No Norman, you will NOT “attempt to refrain” from insulting. You don’t have the maturity, let alone the professionalism.
All you have are your insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
JDHuffman
How about I quit insulting you when you quit diverting. I think it will be easier for me than you as I see you have already resorted to a diversion.
Why is it that you must divert away from a question or topic and move the conversation to nowhere land?
I will try again. Please refrain form diversion and answer the question I ask about your viewpoint.
ME: “So if you have 960 watt/m^2 flux reaching a circular area, how will 960 W/m^2 flux reach the opposite side of a sphere? Yet that opposite side will continue to emit energy. Let me know how that works.”
Still trying your 960/240 con, huh Norman?
Your poorly worded question only reveals your lack of education.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Here is your massive flaw. You don’t want people to insult you so I told you I would refrain and what do you do? Insult and divert.
YOU: “Your poorly worded question only reveals your lack of education.”
Why poorly worded. Now you attack my education you pretend to disguise your insults but both are derogatory. And again I refrained from insults but you divert.
Even if you do not like how I worded the question what does that matter. Your pointing it out rather than answering is a diversion. You can still determine the content of the question but would rather divert. Are you addicted to diversion?
Norman, just keep diverting attention from your poorly worded question, instead of admitting your mistakes and learning.
Nothing new.
AGW – the biggest con ever.
Wasnt the greatest con in 1626 when the Dutch bought Manhatten Island for sixty guilders?
Trump suitable to run a country …. now there’s the biggest con ever. How long before you all start singing the Russian national anthem?
Sounds like you have been indoctrinated by the Left.
Russian expansion ended when H lost
—
GDP more than 3% (BO asserted it could never exceed 2%)
Unemployment less than 4%
America has become an exporter of energy
ISIS crushed
Useless regulations cancelled
Taxes lowered for Middle America
Bad trade deals fixed
AGW nonsense blocked
Etc. etc.
I can live with it.
Amen brother. The Legion of the Left.
Indoctrination is the domain of Fox and the Right.
Oh Geez Bob, let’s see, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NYT, Wash Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal- Pissed you can’t brain wash everyone?
OK so you can live with?:
Extreme blurring of facts/fiction
Steady stream of lies
Divider in chief
Swampiest administration
Loss of all trust/respect for US in the world
No core values
GDP more than 3% (BO asserted it could never exceed 2%)
-2 quarters of sugar high. BO had such. Lets see how sustainable.
-ballooning deficit during expansion-wait til a recession.
Unemployment less than 4%
America has become an exporter of energy
ISIS crushed
-All continuation of trends or policies during BO
Useless regulations cancelled
-Let’s see the consequences to health, environment, consumers.
Taxes lowered for Middle America
-Mostly for wealthy, unsustainable – see ballooning deficit above.
Bad trade deals fixed
-NAFTA already good, tweaked, renamed.
AGW nonsense blocked
-Censoring science
-DTs gut tells him all he needs to know.
Interesting that people hoodwinked about the climate are also often gullible to Leftist Indoctrination and might only appreciate the freedom they now enjoy after it has been lost.
“Extreme blurring of facts/fiction
Steady stream of lies
Divider in chief
Swampiest administration
Loss of all trust/respect for US in the world
No core values”
Sounds like Obama to me. But, if you like your critique, you can keep your critique.
O spent most of his presidential terms blaming Bush for the economy, and now takes credit for the economy of Trump presidency.
O thinks the economy is now better.
Look guys, if you are conservative, fine. But don’t suddenly redefine what it is to fit the current President.
Conservatives used to:
Care deeply about Debt and deficits, esp. under BO. The Tea party grew out of this concern. They pushed balance-budget-amendments.
– Now, meh. Dont worry, be happy.
Care deeply about immoral/unethical behavior. What would Jesus do?
-Now. Meh. Here is GOP Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2L-R8NgrA
Care deeply about opposing aggression by Russia and other dictators, support freedom and democracy worldwide.
-Now. Meh. We like dictators.
BTW, you guys gonna be content, when, following the precedent set by President DT, President O’Rourke declares a national emergency, and diverts money from the military to combat climate change?
Two years ago, I implemented a function generating time series out of evenly distributed cells within Roy Spencer’s grid data (here: LT, but the same could be applied to the three other layers).
The grid has 144 longitude and 72 latitude bands (only 66 of them containing valid data). Thus there are 9504 cells to process.
Here is a graph with some plots comparing the full grid average with two grid subsets (256 and 1024 cells) from dec 1978 till dec 2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YjFLnql_uzZrXY_Hff5TYY9bTBxO38lO/view
Apart from a strange drop in 1984 within the 1024 cell distribution, the three plots look amazingly similar, and their linear estimates are nearly identical.
Among lots of things, what we might conclude is that even if ENSO signals are measured in the SST region delimited by 5N-5S — 170W-120W, El Nino is everywhere on the Globe: although the cells in the ‘256’ distribution are not contained in the ‘1024’ distribution, they do not significantly differ for 1998 and 2016.
This El Niño needs more CO2.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
This comment has nothing to do with what I wanted to show.
Nothing!
I’m trying to explain that ENSO signals are visible in many places other than El Nino’s SST control area.
And what does the brilliant JDHuffman do? One could call it a Pavlovian reaction.
Bindidon, index is down to +0.219 this morning.
Glad to help.
JD HUFFMAN if the index was in negative territory they would still be in denial. They never will admit to being wrong and they are wrong regardless of what may take place from this late date moving forward.
In the words of General Honoré, it’s a case of “Stuck on stupid”.
Something did not like the accent mark.
General Honore.
The El Nino prediction is already wrong, and if one should form it will be to little to late.
They never give up even when in the face of being wrong and this prediction is so wrong. The models are so way off, and it is not going to improve because the SOI index is not going to cooperate for an El Nino.
Bin,, Looks like a good corroboration of what UAH reports which I show here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwHZ_-MU0AEcK1S.jpg . My interpretation of the UAH data is that the warming trend ended around 2002-2005. The trend following that is about flat until 2015 or so when it experiences the temporary aberration of an el Nino that it is still recovering from. IMO a regression line which includes the el Nino at one end would be misleading (it is a different phenomenon) and bad science. (The horizontal red line is regression mid 2002 to mid 2015 extended.)
My explanation of why an el Nino appears in global temperature reports is that the warm surface water of the el Nino forces extra water vapor into the air where it spreads over a much larger area inhibiting cooling (which appears as warming) contributing to temporary temperature increase which appears in the global report. The next few months should reveal a lot.
Dan Pangburn
“My explanation of why an el Nino appears in global temperature reports is that the warm surface water of the el Nino forces extra water vapor into the air where it spreads over a much larger area inhibiting cooling…”
*
You don’t understand the graph.
It tells you that time series out of 256 grid cells (about 5 % of 9500) or 1024 grid cells (about 10 %) which were above all randomly selected by automatic distribution, show nearly the same as the whole grid.
What I wanted to show is that El Nino is everywhere on the Globe, just like the rest of the time series: the similarity between the subsets and the whole is visible over all the 40 years.
Thus, your ‘much larger area’ in fact is the planet itself…
Bin,, The graph seems clear enough but perhaps I do not understand the basis for it. I interpreted your description as each set covered the same over-all area. If true then random selection would get about the same % of affected grid cells in each of the sets. I would then expect all of the traces (average of a set) to be similar as shown.
IMO to determine if the influence of el Nino is also observed remote from the eastern equatorial Pacific then explicitly select a set of measurements from the designated el Nino area and compare them to sets selected from remote areas. (Beware of small-sample-size issues)
If this shows similar then I would guess that the wider area is indeed the entire planet and the added WV spreads in a month.
If spreading that much in that time proves unlikely, how would you explain the similar traces?
JDHuffman
I will refrain from insult. Please refrain from diversion.
Above you made this statement.
“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.”
I ask you how does a sphere receive 960 W/m^2 on its dark side? I do not know how to simply or word this question differently.
Also how do you get that the entire sphere is receiving 960 W/m^2 even on the sunlit side. The sunlit hemisphere has double the m^2 as a circle in the same solar flux (which would receive 960 W/m^2).
The sunlit side could only receive an average of 480 W/m^2. It could not receive 960 watts for each of its exposed square meters.
Please explain how your claims work. More important don’t divert from the topic or the questions.
Norman, I already linked you to your 960/240 pseudoscience once.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337551
Study the link I provided. If you have any questions, and can phrase them coherently, I will try to answer.
Once you understand your pseudoscience, then I can explain why it’s wrong.
Amazingly, poor Norman is asking me to explain the pseudoscience that he has swallowed!
The 255 K is one of the cornerstones of the GHE nonsense. And poor Norman doesn’t have a clue where it came from.
You just can’t make this stuff up….
JDHuffman
Rather than attempt a rational answer to a legitimate question you avoid it and divert into some unrelated topic.
I guess it is done then. You won’t answer a question.
Also your posts are highly insulting unnecessary taunting. I am not insulting you, why are you choosing to do so with me?
YOU: “Amazingly, poor Norman is asking me to explain the pseudoscience that he has swallowed!
The 255 K is one of the cornerstones of the GHE nonsense. And poor Norman doesnt have a clue where it came from.”
In a disguised way you have called me gullible, stupid and idiotic. If I refrain from insult why do then feel obligated to engage in this.
No I am not at all asking you to “explain the pseudoscience that he has swallowed!”
This is the question I am asking you that you continue to avoid. I will ask one last time.
1) I ask you how does a sphere receive 960 W/m^2 on its dark side?
Norman, I’m not insulting you. I’m letting you insult yourself.
If you can’t understand the pseudoscience that you espouse, then that might mean you are “gullible, stupid and idiotic” (your own words.).
I’ve tried to teach you the relevant physics, but you reject learning. I linked you to your pseudoscience, and offered to help you understand why it is wrong. But all you can do is continue down your blind path.
And, in your head, it’s all my fault….
JDHuffman
I see it is not possible for you to answer a question. You must be addicted to diversion. It seems all you do.
Norman, you forgot the rules, again.
I will try to answer responsible questions. I ignore stupid questions.
JDHuffman
It is NOT a stupid question at all. You may not understand it which is most certainly why you think it is stupid.
Good question that you won’t answer.
In your unsupported and invalid opinion that a sphere (like the Earth or Moon) will receive a continuous flux of 960 Watts for every square meter of surface of that sphere, I question how you reached this conclusion. You have no answer.
I looked at your link and it is all valid, logical rational science. Your opinion that it is pseudoscience just points out how unimportant your opinions are.
JDHuffman
Fluxes must balance if temperature is to remain the same. A flux is the rate energy enters and leaves a surface with a dimension of space.
If you have 960 watts hitting one square meter, if it does not lose 960 watts it will start to warm up. If it loses more than 960 watts it will cool off.
For the Earth you have 960 watts/m^2 hitting only 1/4 the entire surface of the sphere. You have energy being emitted by every square meter of the surface.
I have actually shown you this with real measure data from Desert Rock. You only have full solar input to the surface for a few hours. At night you have none but the surface still radiates.
I do not believe any person with a science background that posts on this blog will be able to comprehend your made up and totally unsupportable version on radiative flux and how it functions. I don’t think even you know, that is why you are unable to explain it. You just state it with no evidence and no explanation. You claim fluxes don’t add energy to a surface, but you have never been able to even remotely support his invalid idea. It is against all science and is not logical or rational.
Norman, as usual, you’re terribly confused. I don’t mind helping you, but you have to obey the rules:
1) No stupid questions.
2) No insults
3) No misrepresentatives
4) No false accusations
5) Only ONE issue at a time. Endless babbling makes for confusion, not clarity.
If you will obey these simple rules, maybe I can help. Let’s start with the first issue you mentioned above. “It is NOT a stupid question at all.”
Sorry Norman, but it IS a stupid question. You are asking why the Sun’s energy does not impact the dark side of Earth. Think about it. “DARK side”! It IS a stupid question.
Now, if you understand this first issue, and can follow the rules, we can proceed.
JDHuffman
HERE IS YOUR STATEMENT: “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.
Okay just answer these. Why do you Post the sphere has 960 W/m^2 incoming? What does that mean? Do you mean every square meter of the sphere’s surface?
That is 3 questions. Will you answer any of them?
JDHuffman
HERE IS YOUR STATEMENT: ““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.”
Okay just answer these. Why do you post the sphere has 960 W/m^2 incoming? What does that mean? Do you mean every square meter of the sphere’s surface?
That is 3 questions. Will you answer any of them?
Norman, “incoming” means “coming in”, as in arriving. The pseudoscience link I provided, and which you claimed was “…all valid, logical rational science”, used the term: “…the incoming solar energy”, in the first few lines. Maybe you missed that.
The solar flux only impacts one side of the Earth at a time, due to Earth rotating on its own axis. So no, the solar flux does not impact every square meter of Earth’s surface at the same time.
If you now understand your question was stupid, we can move on to more of your confusion.
JDHuffman
Then let me see how you answer these questions.
First the initial conditions. You have two spheres in a vacuum with no other energy inputs (like in deep space).
Both spheres are made of the same material. You can use 0.96 for the emissivity of both.
One sphere has a total surface area of 1 square meter.
The second sphere has a surface area of 4 square meters.
Both spheres have some internal power supply that produces 960 watts of continuous uniform power.
1) What do you calculate for the steady state temperature of the first sphere (1 m^2 surface area)?
2) What do you calculate for the steady state temperature of the second sphere (4 m^2 surface area)?
Norman, by starting a new diversion, you are defecto admitting you were wrong.
Although it would be better if you actually admitted it, and took responsibility for your mistake, I understand you are not good at taking responsibility. I accept your defacto admission.
But, since we obey the rules, we do not divert. The next issue was your comment about the link, and your follow up criticizing my opinions. We’ll return to that later because addressing other issues will help answer this one.
So, the next issue is your statement: “Fluxes must balance if temperature is to remain the same.”
Again, we can use the example of the imaginary sphere that receives 960 Watts/m^2 incoming, but emits 240 Watts?m^2 at equilibrium. The fluxes do NOT balance, but the temperature remains the same. So, you are wrong again.
When you are ready, we can move on to the next issue.
JDHuffman
It is not at all a diversion. It is totally relevant to the topic being discussed. Now can you stop diverting and provide answers to the questions asked.
Provide your temperature calculations.
Or will you divert some more?
It is a diversion, Norman. The issue being discussed was your stupid question “I ask you how does a sphere receive 960 W/m^2 on its dark side?”
I explained it clearly.
You never want to admit your mistakes, so you attempt diversion. Working the S/B equation is high school level algebra. You do it repeatedly and believe it makes you look educated. It’s just basic algebra. The relevant physics has you confused because you cannot learn.
Stick with the issues. Don’t divert. Obey the rules. Then, you might be able to finally learn something.
Now, the issue being discussed is your statement: “Fluxes must balance if temperature is to remain the same.”
Do you understand it is wrong also, so we can move on?
JDHuffman
Since you seem unwilling or unable to answer my questions I will provide the answers myself.
1) What do you calculate for the steady state temperature of the first sphere (1 m^2 surface area)? 364.4 K
2) What do you calculate for the steady state temperature of the second sphere (4 m^2 surface area)? 257.7 K
There you go. You can have the same amount of energy added continuously to both spheres but the one with the larger surface area will be considerably cooler than the smaller sphere.
This is exactly what the calculations, you unjustly call pseudoscience, are all about.
The rational and logical determination from your paper calculates a maximum temperature a sphere, receiving a solar flux can reach. They just make it uniform to show a maximum. The actual Earth could not get warmer than the 255 K. I know in my example I have a little higher temperature. That is because the 960 Watts was not from an EMR source. If you set the Earth’s emissivity at 0.96 it means it will not be able to absorb 100% of the energy after the albedo equation. You would then have to figure the after albedo energy absorbed which would be 960 Watts times 0.96 or 921.6 Watts. If you use this corrected value for what the surface could absorb after the albedo you get the 255 K value. That is why it does not matter what emissivity you use. 0.96 or 1 gets you the same answer because the lower emissivity also cannot absorb IR in the bands it can’t emit them in (not the correct molecular vibrational states).
Norman, typing and basic algebra are high school level subjects. To move to a higher level of education, you must be able to obey the rules. Diversionary tactics just make you appear uneducable.
Maybe we can try again in 2020.
JDHuffman
I give you valid and correct science. You reply with taunting and empty comments. It is over. Not much of value with you.
You can post your unsupported opinions no one cares about your posts at all. From time to time people attempt to correct your errors. They soon find it is pointless waste of time.
Enjoy posting your made up ideas to people who don’t care about your posts at all.
ibid.
norman…”Flux is joules/second-m^2″.
A joule is a unit of work and work is force x distance. However, a force can also be expressed as a mass. Vertically, there is a relationship between gravitational force and acceleration of a mass.
Flux represents electromagnetic energy in the context we are speaking. EM has no mass and it’s measured in electron volts.
This is way, way over your head and your allegation is plain wrong.
“a force can also be expressed as a mass”
You clearly failed high school physics.
“Vertically, there is a relationship between gravitational force and acceleration of a mass”
Yes, precisely the same relationship between ANY force and the acceleration of a mass due solely to that force … F=ma.
Electron volts and Joules are BOTH units of energy (or work, by the work-energy equivalence).
E=mc^2
Connection to either post??
Bobdesbond
Energy=mass*velocity of light squared.
Equivalence between mass and energy, which for some reason was sneaking into your discussion.
Incidentally, that is very advanced thinking by Gordon Robertson, who is in record as not believing in relativity.
I referred to WORK-Energy equivalence, not Mass-Energy.
My physics teacher taught me
“Energy or work energy is the capacity for doing work or producing heat.”
I have always though of energy, work and heat as interconvertable and, in the larger sense, equivalent.
That extends to radiation.
Mass/energy is an extension of the same equivalence.
Of course, this is an unfashionable opinion locally.
Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared
But it’s more accurate or inclusive to say all Energy is Energy = mass times speed of light squared.
Or Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared doesn’t work as you get closer to the speed of Light
gbaikie
That is an utter misunderstanding of these two concepts.
No, gbaikie is quite right. Energy is relativistic mass times c^2, which is proper mass times Lorentz factor times c^2
E = m*c^2 = m_prop*gamma*c^2 = m_prop*(1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2))*c^2
When v is much less than c, you get
E := m_prop*(c^2 + 0.5*v^2)
The calculation applies only if you take the long-abandoned view that mass increases with velocity.
entropic…”Incidentally, that is very advanced thinking by Gordon Robertson, who is in record as not believing in relativity”.
I have never had an issue with Newtonian relativity theory, which basically addresses two bodies in relative motion at terrestrial velocities. My issue is with the claim of Einstein that time can dilate and mass can change dimensions at velocities in the vicinity of the speed of light.
It is clearly not possible for time to dilate since the second is a constant based upon the rotational velocity of the Earth. If time dilates, then the Earth’s angular velocity must change.
I am taking exception to the human mind as the observer of relative motion. We can’t even sort out that the Sun does not rise, travels across the sky, and set in the evening.
GRT is essentially a thought experiment that hypothesizes time dilation. You can’t take a distorted human mind, hand it a watch, and ask it to observe relative motion. It will screw it up every time, even a mind like Einstein’s.
IMHO, Einstein committed a fatal error in his theory when he based it on accelerations rather than force and mass. If you bring any relativity problem down to force and mass, putting time in it’s proper context, time dilation cannot happen.
In other words, when you state f = ma, you cannot extract the time unit from ‘a’ and put it on the LHS of the equation and allow it to stand by itself as an independent variable.
Time is a constant and Newton was right about it being absolute.
Long abandoned? Bro, stop. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Gordon –
“It is clearly not possible for time to dilate since the second is a constant based upon the rotational velocity of the Earth.”
The rotation rate of the Earth is not constant, and the second is not based upon it. The period of rotation of the Earth is about 86164.0905 seconds, but it is slowing due to tidal forces at about 2.3 milliseconds per century. It also wobbles a bit as it rotates.
Time dilation is established by the Doppler shift. If it were not true, the frequency shift would depend upon whether you are moving toward the source, or the source is moving toward you.
Bart
When I read your posts you seem to be a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. I am just interested if you are one that does not accept the concept of GHE or if you are just skeptical of AGW?
Norman –
I think the gaps in TOA radiation at the expected frequencies establishes the GHE. The radiation has got to get out to establish equilibrium, and if it can’t get through those gaps, it’s got to get around them somehow.
The most obvious way it can do that is for the surface below the atmosphere to increase in temperature, so that the Planck emission spectrum can shift higher until radiation flows past the gaps, and balance is achieved.
However, I think there are loopholes. For example, if convection is stirred up, heat will be carried above the atmospheric layers that produce the gaps, and it can be radiated away from there without being impeded. There are other possibilities, some of which I have contemplated but have not thoroughly investigated, some of which perhaps nobody has thought of yet.
So, I think the GHE is real, but I do not think it is simple. I do not think there is a linear, or even necessarily monotonic, relationship between concentration of this particular IR active gas and surface temperatures. I think, once the system reaches a particular state, the effect peters out.
Why do I think that? Because A) there is nothing in the historical temperature record that indicates to me that the present epoch is out of the ordinary, and B) CO2 concentration is not following our emissions, but instead is evolving such that the rate of change tracks the temperature anomaly, at least in the near term. With such a dynamic, it would be impossible to have significant sensitivity of temperatures to CO2, as that would create a runaway, positive feedback loop, and the Earth would have reached a saturation level eons ago.
On top of all that, I like warmth better than cold, and am in fact alarmed at how little CO2 we have in the atmosphere. If we could pump it higher, I would be all for it.
Bart
I can live with that. Thanks for the reply.
Others would agree with your view in the science field, I linked an article to Chic Bowdrie which formed similar conclusions to your own.
I am called an “alarmist” because I accept the GHE as valid science.
The rest is open to debate and I like useful scientific debate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320123470_The_Relationship_between_Atmospheric_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Last_425_Million_Years
bart…”The rotation rate of the Earth is not constant, and the second is not based upon it”.
Bart…you need to check your facts on this one. The second has been refined by basing it on an atomic clock but it’s still the same old second that was derived from 1/86400 of one Earth rotation.
You’re an intelligent guy, Bart, don’t get sucked into the current paradigms about space-time.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-one-arrive-at-th/
“In making this decision, the committee relied primarily on a measurement first reported in 1958 that compared the cesium transition frequency to the second of ephemeris time, which is defined by the orbital motion of the earth about the sun…”
There is no reason to presume the transition frequency of the cesium atom will change as the atoms approach the speed of light. What forces would be acting on them other than the atomic forces acting on them now?
Then there is this take on time. For the most part, the article is very informative, on the other hand, the author falls prey to his own mind.
download the PDF.
https://epdf.tips/splitting-the-second-the-story-of-atomic-time.html#
He establishes that time is based on the rotation of the Earth, then he explains how atomic clocks work. No matter how accurate the atomic clock, however, we’d be screwed if the second generated by the AC did not match the second we have defined as 1/86,400 of one Earth rotation.
So he has established that we can rely on clocks if they are synchronized to each other. Then he blows it by wallowing in relativity theory. He writes:
“Einstein showed that a clock in a gravitational field will appear to run slow compared to a clock which is in free space. A clock at the bottom of a valley, for example, will run more slowly than an identical clock on top of a mountain, because the former is closer to the centre of the Earth and so in a stronger gravitational field. This effect, known as the gravitational shift, is nothing to do with the mechanism of the clock itself, but is a characteristic of time and space”.
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!
A clock is a machine, it is not time. A clock is designed to generate a second that is the length of 1/86,400 of one Earth rotation.
A clock is a machine designed to run precisely and GENERATE seconds as defined by the ratio of 1/86,400 of one Earth rotation. Any clock is synchronized to the rotation of the Earth. Who cares if the TIME GENERATING MACHINES are not accurate under different conditions.
No matter how clocks are affected, the second is still 1/86,400 of one Earth rotation. If that clock changes its rate due to gravitational effects, it does not affect the real second. Clocks outside that gravitational anomaly will be synchronized to the Earth’s rotation and the one affected will be out of time.
I cannot believe Einstein, of all people, could not see that. There is nothing in a gravitational field that can affect the length of a second. It is defined as a constant for cripes sake.
No matter how you look at it, Bart, the second is a constant. If you want to talk variability you are talking billionths of a second over a long period.
There is nothing about relativity can change that. Relativity is actually about forces and masses, not the accelerations we have defined based on our invention of time.
It is the human mind that gets confused by changes in velocity and acceleration and presumes it is time dilating when in fact it is the interaction of forces and masses changing.
Like I said, don’t allow your mind to become distorted like this lot, who throw out metaphysical nonsense about time dilation.
If the second is a constant, as it is by definition, it cannot change. If it does, our entire time system fails.
Son of Homer,
Actually, it is quite clear YOU have no idea what you are talking about. It seems you are not aware of the distinction between gravitational and inertial mass. Perhaps do a high school physics course one day, then progress to first year physics. Do honours in second year and you’ve caught up to me.
We have someone here who believes time is a man-made construct. What hope is there for him.
Bart says, January 10, 2019 at 9:08 PM:
No, no, no! Bart, on this particular subject you’re confused. Those spectra are NOT “absorp.tion spectra”. What you see is NOT the IR-active constituents of the atmosphere “eating into” the originally perfectly smooth Planck curve of outgoing surface radiation. What you see is Earth final emission flux to space, distributed across the wavelengths of the EM spectrum, and about 85% of that flux is emitted by IR-active molecules in the troposphere, not the surface, mainly of the H2O kind (water vapour and clouds), but also by CO2, aerosols, O3, CH4, various NOX’es and so forth. What you observe is simply the contributions of those various molecules to the total emission flux. Some of them overlap, especially if you were to look at a “cloudy” spectrum rather than a “clear sky” one.
None of this “establishes the GHE”. What you see is an EFFECT, not a CAUSAL MECHANISM. It’s not like the radiation can’t get out!! The only way energy CAN escape the troposphere in adequate amounts, once it’s there, is through radiation to space. Those IR-active constituents are necessary to COOL the troposphere, not warm it:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/an-atmospheres-ir-activity-wont-make-it-warmer-and-so-cannot-be-the-cause-of-surface-warming-either/
Earth’s average emission flux to space is 239-240 W/m^2, more or less matching the incoming (shortwave) flux from the Sun. The outgoing spectrum in no way establishes HOW the Earth’s heat loss to space came to balance its heat gain from the Sun, under the particular temperature distribution that we see from below the surface of the ocean to the top of the troposphere.
Undoubtedly, there IS an “atmospheric thermal effect” on our planetary surface, raising its average global temperature high above that of the Moon’s. It’s a natural layer of insulation, after all. But the insulation effect is NOT radiatively driven. The radiative properties of the atmosphere are definitely necessary for there to be an effect at all, but they most certainly are not what’s actually CAUSING it …
bob…”Actually, it is quite clear YOU have no idea what you are talking about. It seems you are not aware of the distinction between gravitational and inertial mass. Perhaps do a high school physics course one day, then progress to first year physics. Do honours in second year and youve caught up to me”.
What does the distinction between gravitational and inertial mass have to do with time? In the former, the force causing the mass to accelerate is gravitational force. In the latter, the force is supplied by another form of energy.
Time is not operating on the force or the mass because it does not exist. Time is an invention of the human mind used to MEASURE the rate of change of the mass.
Why should time be a consideration in relativity theory? It does not exist, yet GRt gives it properties of reality.
In either case above, a force is operating on a mass producing an acceleration of the mass. Time has absolutely nothing to do with that acceleration, it is a product of the force and the inertia of the mass.
Einstein was wrong to base his GRT hypothesis on artificial acceleration, the form with the human invented time factor in it. He should have considered the interaction of the forces and masses involved. There is no time factor operating between real forces and real masses.
A mass is a quantity of matter, it is the number of atoms of an element in a specific volume. That mass can become a force. When a mass lies on the surface of the Earth, it is accelerated toward the Earth and applies a force to the surface. The relationship between the force and the mass is 9.8 m/s^2.
There is nothing in a mass of atoms that should be affected by those atoms traveling at the speed of light. Why should the volume change dimensions as postulated by GRT?
bob…”We have someone here who believes time is a man-made construct. What hope is there for him”.
If you could get these delusions out of the way you might make a good global warming skeptic yet.
Show me where time is. I can demonstrate a force or a mass. I can visually demonstrate the effect the force has on a mass. Where does time come into that relationship if I do not require a measure of rates of change.
If you believe time is another dimension, or whatever you think it is, describe it in words.
For example, no one knows what energy is but it has been defined as the capacity to do work. I can buy that. No one knows what time is either, but can you define it as energy is defined?
Do it without reference to a clock. A clock is a machine of one form or other. An atomic clock is the natural frequency of electrons as they change energy levels in the atom.
None of that has anything to do with time. For centuries, we have measured time in relationship to the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky. What is it we are measuring?
Gordon –
“There is no reason to presume the transition frequency of the cesium atom will change as the atoms approach the speed of light.”
It doesn’t, within the local frame of reference. The atom itself has no idea it is traveling near the speed of light relative to some observer. It’s just sitting there, doing its thing.
But, to the observer, the cesium atom is transitioning at a different frequency than it would if there were no relative velocity. Time is evolving at a different rate for him than it is for the clock in relative motion.
The experimental evidence for this effect is overwhelming. As I said, the symmetrical Doppler effect for light proves it. For sound, the Doppler effect is different depending upon whether you are moving toward the source, or the source is moving toward you. There is no such asymmetry in the Doppler formula for light.
“WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!”
We care. Your GPS wouldn’t work if it weren’t a known effect that is compensated for.
“A clock is designed to generate a second that is the length of 1/86,400 of one Earth rotation.”
Earth’s rotation period is not constant. 86,400 seconds is a solar day, the nominal time it takes the Earth to rotate one turn relative to its orbital position about the Sun. The actual time it takes to do so varies, however.
Bobdesbond –
Oooh, high school honours. Aren’t you a smart boy!
Kristian –
The atmosphere is not transparent at all wavelengths. It must have an impact.
“What does the distinction between gravitational and inertial mass have to do with time?
So you choose to deliberately confuse two separate components of the discussion, creating a straw man by doing so.
“Oooh, high school honours. Arent you a smart boy!”
Eff knows how you managed to turn second year physics at university into high school physics. Ever thought of getting help with your comprehension?
Second year physics at university… Aren’t you a smart boy!
Don’t have a cow, man. Whatever the current fashion in particular circles you have been taught, I assure you many practitioners still make a distinction between relativistic and proper mass. Most importantly, I am sure that was the distinction gbaikie had in mind.
bart…”to the observer, the cesium atom is transitioning at a different frequency than it would if there were no relative velocity. Time is evolving at a different rate for him than it is for the clock in relative motion”.
That’s the point I am trying to make, time dilation is not actual, it’s related to a problem in the human mind. In other words, the human mind is hallucinating, creating an illusion. What good is that when we are talking about what is really going on?
How can time evolve at a different rate if the basis of time is the second and it is based on the rotation of the planet? Your claim that the angular velocity of the planet varies is correct but that variation was built into ephemeral time by averaging the second over a year rather than a day.
No matter how you view it, a second, is a second, is a second. It is relatively a constant.
That variation has nothing to do with time dilation. The latter is about an illusion created by the human mind that something which does not exist is dilating.
In the broader picture of space-time, you have two human creations. There is actual space, that vast set of nothingness, either filled with air molecules or relatively empty, and you have the human space created from artificial units of measurement, like the metre.
In the human artificial space you have frames of reference, which are illusion. To compound that illusion, we add a 4th dimension called time, which does not exist either. Space-time is an imaginary concept created by the distorted human mind.
GPS would work just fine without a reference to time dilation. What is referred to as time dilation is actually a phase problem in electromagnetic waves. When you beam an EM wave at a satellite that is moving, or receive one from a moving sat, the phase of the EM frequency shifts, as in a Doppler shift.
Meantime, you have an atomic clock on the sat running in a different time domain than the clock at the surface station. You need to synchronize the clocks using EM signals, but the EM signals are changing phase due to relative motion.
There is a relationship between frequency and time, f = 1/t.
f represents the signal reversals of a real medium, EM and time measures the distance between wave crest.
If frequency changes due to relative motion you can claim time changes as well, but you have to be mighty careful how you apply that.
The change in time does not mean time is dilating, it means that a real, physical energy form has changed the spacing between wave crests. The EM waves, due to Doppler shifting, are spread further or closer apart depending on whether the sending/receiving body is moving toward or away.
You must apply time in the context of the real, physical medium. It cannot be applied abstractly as a mathematical unit. Time has no existence as a physical phenomenon.
Gordon, we are not arguing here. I am explaining to you. There is absolutely no doubt about time dilation. None whatsoever. It is confirmed beyond a shadow of any doubt.
It is a mind problem, but the problem is in your mind. Your mind insists that time must progress the same in every part of the universe. But, there is no physical requirement for that whatsoever. It’s just something against which you can’t or won’t consider an alternative.
Bart says, January 11, 2019 at 4:01 PM:
Bart, this is the same kind of intellectually lazy attitude towards reality that you (rightfully) criticise when people just a priori take for granted, and then starts arguing from that perspective, that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is simply the linear result of us putting more CO2 into the atmosphere …
There’s more to this issue (“the atmospheric insulating effect”, radiative or NOT radiative in origin?) than meets the eye, Bart. You of all people should know.
That is not my point, Kristian. It must have an impact. I haven’t said specifically, or at least completely, how that impact manifests.
The Earth must radiate nominally at 255K to balance incoming solar radiation. That is to say, the total radiating flux must be equivalent to what you get for a blackbody radiating at 255K.
Yet, surface areas are about 33K higher than that. So, there is a discrepancy that has to be accounted for somewhere between the surface and the top of the atmosphere.
However, as you say, the effect is not necessarily linear, or even monotonic, with concentration of a particular atmospheric constituent. My read of the situation is that one cannot say comprehensively what the relationship is via radiative transfer between surface and TOA alone. There is, at the very least, heat convected from the surface, and there is the water cycle, to take into consideration. These have impacts which depend upon the state of the system.
These give loopholes in the narrative, and if we know anything about nature, it is that it loves to exploit loopholes. As the physicists say, anything not forbidden is mandatory.
Bart says, January 12, 2019 at 4:16 PM:
Well, yes, you have, actually. You wrote:
And the GHE is distinctly defined as RADIATIVELY FORCED ‘extra warming’ of the surface of the Earth beyond pure solar.
If the term “GHE” happens to mean something else to you than the standard definition, then I think you should make that clear.
Until then, I remember you made this exact same “spectrum divot argument” to “establish the GHE” a couple of years ago. I thought you’d moved on since then.
The atmospheric insulating effect on the solar-heated surface of the Earth, although most definitely real, is not radiatively caused, Bart. And you can’t look at those ToA spectra to find out about it. People tend to turn cause-and-effect-relationships on their heads …
We appear to agree on the AGW issue, not entirely on the GHE itself.
Bobdesbond
You are of course completely correct but you will not be able to change the mental vector of Gordon Robertson. He can’t understand EMR is a form of actual energy that when it interacts with matter will convert to kinetic energy of the particles in the matter.
He does not understand experimental science. If you take a source of EMR and shine it on some object, the object will increase in temperature by a certain amount. That can be directly converted to how many joules of energy the light added to the object.
Best to just let him post. You won’t change his thoughts. That would be impossible I have found.
norman…”He can’t understand EMR is a form of actual energy that when it interacts with matter will convert to kinetic energy of the particles in the matter”.
EMR = EM = electromagnetic energy. I have even described it as a transverse wave with an electric field and a magnetic field perpendicular to each other.
EM has no mass and in order to apply the eV portion you’d need to study some atomic physics as related to EM spectra.
EM does not convert to kinetic energy in any old atomic particles, it interacts somehow with the electric charge on the electron and its magnet field. That causes the electron, under the right conditions, to jump to a higher energy level.
At that higher energy level, the electron does have more kinetic energy which translates to a higher temperature, aka heat.
I am not claiming the process is in any way as simple as that. No one knows how it works in actuality. We do know the relationship between the electron and EM is E = hf, where E is the difference in energy levels through which the electron can jump.
When you claim EM is converted to kinetic energy, that suggests EM itself is potential energy, therefore it should not be measured in terms of work or its equivalent.
No one knows what EM is and I think it got its units in W/m^2 by error, when scientists in those days thought EM was heat flowing through space. It should be measured in something like Webers, Gauss, or Tesla’s or an equivalent.
If the incoming EM lacks the energy E or the frequency f, the electron will ignore it.
You need a bit of electronics background to understand resonance, even though supplied a 1962 video that described it perfectly.
Gordon Robertson
All your post about things you know nothing about and still you cannot accept you are just wrong.
Watt/m^2 is NOT at all in error! Since you will never actually do any real experiments or even read about them you will see you are clueless. You can take a known amount of EM that is able to hit some black object. You can take the mass of the material and the heat capacity and calculate how many joules of energy it will take to change its temperature. You can turn on your EM source and measure the temperature of the object change and then can use math to calculate the amount of joules is being added to the object per unit time.
You will find that there is no error at all in real science. The only error is in your twisted view of science where you are free to make up anything you want about anything and not listen when people tell you that you are wrong. Just very glad that the gene pool creates only a tiny amount of you crackpots, the human race would go nowhere as you all made up your own ideas and never tested them.
Thanks that there are real scientists out there. I know you reject their valuable work and labor. You will always be satisfied making up your own world. No one else share’s it with you.
norman…”You can take a known amount of EM that is able to hit some black object. You can take the mass of the material and the heat capacity and calculate how many joules of energy it will take to change its temperature”.
I am not claiming that energy cannot be transferred by EM, I am claiming the watt, or the joule, are measurements of mechanical energy and they can only be measured in the object that absorbs the EM. The W/m^2 or the joule are measurements within the absorbing mass AFTER EM has been converted. In other words, EM no longer exists by the time watts or joules are applied.
EM contains no heat and it has no mass. The watt and the joule are mechanical equivalents of heat, and as mechanical energy, watts and joules apply to masses in motion.
How EM transfers energy is not known but as EM in space it cannot be claimed to have kinetic energy since kinetic energy requires mass. KE = 1/2 mv^2. Even heat is defined by the kinetic energy in mass.
If EM has no mass and carries no heat, how can it be measured with watts and joules?
Gordon Robertson
Please read this it explains all your concerns and answers all your questions. Science has it covered. You may not accept, your loss, science moves on and grows.
https://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-how-can-photons-have-energy-and-momentum-but-no-mass/
Good link Norman.
norman…”Please read this it explains all your concerns and answers all your questions”.
It doesn’t explain anything, it’s sheer conjecture interspersed with inaccuracies.
For one, the general form of E = hf came from Bohr, in 1913, some 8 years after the author claimed Einstein found the relationship. Einstein knew nothing about EM as expressed in that relationship in 2005.
Einstein derived a relationship between light incident on a surface and the actual electrons it dislodged from the surface. He found the number of electrons dislodged was dependent only on a certain frequency of EM, not its intensity.
That’s what I have been trying to tell you, that electrons only respond to Em of certain frequencies, and that requires the frequencies to be not only higher than the electron frequency but to be exactly the same. EM from a cooler source has frequencies lower than the frequency required for an electron in a hotter source to be affected by it.
I have never claimed EM does not carry energy I have only claimed the energy it carries is not understood. In a recent post, I acknowledged the relationship E = hf, where f comes from the radiating electron’s frequency. I am fully aware that energy in an EM wave is absorbed by certain electrons at certain frequencies.
My argument is that EM in transit is not doing work, therefore it should not carry the units of watts or joules. It carries the units of eV (electron volts) but a voltage is a potential form of energy, not the kinetic energy required to do work.
Even at that, in eV, the EM is carrying the units of the electrons that emitted it.
Gordon Robertson
It was actually Einstein who came up with the equation in a 1905 paper to explain the photoelectric effect.
Bohr used this to describe the change in energy is related to the equation.
Here:
https://www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/163614/PhotoelectricEffectNOTES.pdf
Sorry you are just wrong about EM. It can knock electrons off and you can measure the kinetic energy gained by these electrons. The light has to have identical kinetic energy to transfer to the electron. You need to study more physics. You have lots of holes in your knowledge base.
You posts are not valuable as they are your own made up version of how you think things work. You refuse to listen to anyone who questions your divine edicts and you don’t seem to care that they are based upon nothing. No math, no valid physics, no experiments. Just your own ideas that you act like are actual valid and true science. Well Sir, they ain’t. They are just your own made up ideas. Similar to lots of crackpots who believe they are divine misunderstood geniuses that can enlighten all men.
I will stick to the real deal. If you think the real stuff is wrong do an experiment and prove it is wrong otherwise you are just blowing HOT AIR on this blog.
norman…”Here:
https://www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/163614/PhotoelectricEffectNOTES.pdf ”
An interesting paper except for one presumption.
In the following I have substituted L for lambda, the wavelength.
The author claims v = f.L and f = v/L
Then he introduces E = hf and presumes E = h.v/L
There is a major problem with that as applied to electrons. The frequency of an electron is related to its harmonic motion around the nucleus whereas the f = v/L relationship is related to EM waves in space.
It’s certainly true that EM is transmitted at the speed of light but it is not true that the frequency of the electron is related to the speed of light. The electron speed and frequency is related to it’s mass and its distance from the nucleus.
The author is talking about the effect of EM on electrons on a surface. That EM came from another atom somewhere and needed a specific energy and frequency in order to be absorbed by the electron.
You seem to be taking away from the article that any electron can absorb any energy from a photon and get kicked off the surface. That is not true.
We are dealing here with light frequencies well above terrestrial IR frequencies. That implies the energy came from a hot source.
Gordon Robertson says:
January 11, 2019 at 6:44 PM
Hi Gordon.
Can you please explain to me how a CO2 laser with peak wavelength of 10um can heat (without the use of oxygen) e.g.wood to a few 1000°C)
10um is equivalent to about 17°C and so according to you heating will cease when temperatures reach 17°C
This is a human safe temperatures so I invite you to do an experiment and stick your hand in the path of a co2 laser beam
More disruptive heavy snowfall in Europe. Austria issues red warning and evacuates towns and village’s. Snow Extends from Syria through Turkey Greece, Italy Spain Germany and the Balkins. 6 ft in 24 hrs in Austria and more forecast for the week end ,
“…and evacuates towns and village’s.”
‘Towns’ ?
Daily Mirror?
“In der Ortschaft St. Johann am Tauern in der Gemeinde Pölstal wurden wegen der großen Lawinengefahr 14 Häuser evakuiert. ”
i.e.:
“In the village St. Johann am Tauern in the municipality Pölstal, 14 houses were evacuated because of the big avalanche danger.”
Here it is:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/8765+Sankt+Johann+am+Tauern,+Austria/@47.3569818,14.1883514,75722m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4771a51cf58c33f7:0xd3a9bafe14aea5f7!8m2!3d47.356869!4d14.468534?hl=en
There are over 200 houses in this ‘town’.
I think I understand why you misunderstand the situation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_of_the_British_Isles_by_height#Simms_by_height_by_prominence
binny…”In the village St. Johann am Tauern in the municipality Pölstal, 14 houses were evacuated because of the big avalanche danger.”
When was that Google ‘IMAGE’ taken? Do you think Google supplies a 24/7 coverage of the entire globe?
How about this avalanche report for today?
https://avalanche.report/albina-web/bulletin/2019-01-10?lang=en
Or this one:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/photos-death-toll-increases-as-snow-further-buries-germany-austria/70007120
As usual: dumb nonsense.
I of course did not publish the Google Maps link to show any snow, you dumbie!
You should really stop drinking your Canadian Mist before writing here.
Moreover, what Accuweather published one can see every year somewhere.
Thousands of people die in France every year due to snow and ice.
binny…”As usual: dumb nonsense.”
As usual, a hysterical response from binny when proved wrong.
BTW, what is Canadian Mist?
Canadian whisky Gordon, can you not get it in St Petersburg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Mist
svante…”Canadian whisky Gordon, can you not get it in St Petersburg?”
The one and only real Canadian whisky is Canadian Club. The rest is rotgut moonshine.
Never heard of CC and 7…a reference to Canadian Club with 7-UP?
A Bacardi and 7 is good too if you prefer a switch to light rum.
norman…”Gordon Robertson
Your statement is wrong. “Energy only flows one way without compensation.”
Like I say you just make stuff up. You can’t even recognize you are just professing an unsupported opinion.
I ask you to prove this statement with either experimental evidence, or established science.
If you buy a FLIR you will learn quickly your statement is garbage and useless in any discussion. Just a make up opinion that has zero validity.”
********
What does a FLIR have to do with the point I made that energy can only move from a higher potential energy state to a lower potential energy state?
A FLIR absorbs IR radiation and compares the frequency to a look up table programmed into the FLIR from radiation data in a lab. A FLIR does not measure energy flow it simply indicates that IR of a certain frequency was detected.
In more expensive bolometers, they have surfaces maintained at very low temperatures so they can directly detect heat transfer from a hotter object. However, they can detect no heat transfer from a colder object.
The 2nd law prevails.
What you get from a FLIR is a calculated temperature, not a direct measurement based on IR absorp-tion. Besides, if you point a FLIR at a clear sky, it will indicated a temperature of about -50C. Clouds indicate temperature around 0C. How the heck can heat be transferred from clouds or clear sky WV or CO2 when the surface is much hotter?
Gordon Robertson
Look at the images in the link provided.
http://www.gaudethomeinspections.com/content/benefits-thermal-imaging
The lower amount of IR from colder areas shows up in the camera as cooler locations. Note the temperatures. Less than the room temperature FLIR.
https://ipi-infrared.com.au/how-do-infrared-cameras-work/
The point is each object is emitting its own unique stream of IR. That is why you can distinguish objects. Your made up view that energy can only flow from higher potential to lower potential does not apply here at all. There is no potentials that the energy flows to. It is emitted by the object and does not matter what is around this object. That is why you can see it in the camera. I don’t know where you came up with the idea that energy needs a potential to flow. If you have valid physics that support your ideas please link to them. I will read them. If they are just your opinions of how you think things work, I am not interested in such.
Norman found some more links he can’t understand.
But, that’s not hard….
JDHuffman
Dude you can’t let go! I don’t care about your comments. Maybe you can go back to your Hero Joseph Postma and attack the owner of this blog.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2018/12/31/willis-anthony-roy-flat-earth-theorists/#comment-38394
Norman, I reveal, over and over, what a phony you are, and that makes you frustrated. So, in desperation, you try to bring others into the discussion because you have nothing else.
Nothing new.
norman…”The lower amount of IR from colder areas shows up in the camera as cooler locations. Note the temperatures. Less than the room temperature FLIR”.
The FLIR is not measuring a transfer of heat from a cooler area to its warmer detector, it is simply measuring IR frequencies. It can measure IR frequencies representing temperatures cooler than its detector because it is programmed with data from a lab in which that was measured directly.
In a lab, they would have a detector set at a lower temperature and they would be able to determine the heating effect the IR had on the cooler detector. They have noted that heating effect and programmed it into the FLIR as data in a lookup table. When the FLIR detects a certain frequency, it converts it to temperature based on the equivalent value from the lab which is stored in its memory.
A FLIR detector does not convert IR to heat, its detector simply converts IR to a relative voltage. That voltage is compared to a reference voltage that represents a certain temperature.
“There is no potentials that the energy flows to. It is emitted by the object and does not matter what is around this object”.
Now you’ve got it. Objects simply emit IR, there is no energy exchange per see. If one object is emitting IR, and a nearby object intercepts the IR flux from the other, what it does with that IR depends on its temperature.
If the object is cooler than the emitting object, it will absorb the IR, but if it is hotter, it will not.
The FLIR does not work on that principle, it is simply detecting the frequency of the IR from the emitting object. If the detector on the FLIR is at 20C and it detects IR from ICE at 0C, the FLIR detector is not absorbing the IR from the ice and converting it to heat.
FLIRS do not measure a heat change in their detectors. All they can do is react to the frequency of the emitting body to produce a voltage, which is not a temperature. The temperature is calculated using an algorithm which compares the generated voltage at the detector to a reference voltage.
That reference voltage represents a specific temperature and the FLIR algortihm determines whether the IR frequency measured represents a temperature that is higher or lower than the reference value.
However, with a heat transfer, the thermal energy must always be transferred from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. Or a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential.
EM is only the transport agent, there is no such thing as a higher EM potential or a lower EM potential. EM operated between areas of higher temperature in mass to lower temperatures in mass. Or, it can operate between a higher electrical potential and a lower electrical potential.
If you consider the latter, you would not expect an EM carrier wave generated from 10,000 watts in a transmitter antenna to reach a radio receiver at 6 milliwatts, then be back-radiared from the receiver antenna to the transmitting antenna so as to raise the power of the transmitter.
Gordon Robertson
If you want to pretend you understand science, then please act like you do.
You make this statements: “If the object is cooler than the emitting object, it will absorb the IR, but if it is hotter, it will not.”
I am going to demand that you find some valid science supporting this opinion of yours. What is it based upon, what physics. I have posted to you more than once that at room temperature most surface molecules are in ground state (I doubt you understand that term at all). That means that in a hotter object most the molecules are in ground state and can freely absorb any IR that can raise the ground state to a higher state. You believe the crackpot Claes Johnson. He made up a stupid idea, not having the slightest understanding of statistical thermodynamics and pretends to support it with bogus math and you blindly believe him as if he is infallible. The guy is a crackpot and his ideas are lame. He can’t support one of them yet you think he is a genius. He is a goofball reject that would be laughed out of any physics department. They would kindly tell him to get back to math since his mind is not able to process physics concepts. What proof does goofball Claes Johnson offer to support his opinions?
Norman says: “pretend you understand science…the crackpot Claes Johnson…stupid idea…not having the slightest understanding of statistical thermodynamics…pretends to support it…bogus math…blindly believe him…the guy is a crackpot…his ideas are lame…he can’t support one of them…you think he is a genius…he is a goofball reject…would be laughed out of any physics department…they would kindly tell him to get back to math since his mind is not able to process physics concepts…goofball Claes Johnson.”
I r4peat what I said above
Hi Gordon.
Can you please explain to me how a CO2 laser with peak wavelength of 10um can heat (without the use of oxygen) e.g.wood to a few 1000C)
10um is equivalent to about 17C and so according to you heating will cease when temperatures reach 17C
This is a human safe temperatures so I invite you to do an experiment and stick your hand in the path of a co2 laser beam
————-
now you talk of thermal imaging cameras. and your science is just wrong.
a paper:
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/iird.pdf
For a room temperature thermal imager the IR through the lens is thermalized on microbolometers and it is the temperature of these bolometers with respect to the ambient temperature (from ir received from the camera parts including the lens) that is read as an image by the electronics.
All objects will add a small amount to the ambient and hot objects a large amount. It is the detection of the ambient to image temperatures that limits the minimum temperature measured. NOTE THAT YOU CANNOT COOL A MICROBOLOMETER BY FOCUSSING A COLD OBJECT on it – there are no cool rays!!
A thermal imaging camera (professional) will occasionally blank the lens with a shutter to recalibrate the ambient resistance of the microbolometers.
A thermal imaging camera is IR wavelength limited usually to exclude CO2 and water vapour wavelengths – you do not want an ir camera image fogged by emissions from the atmosphere.
So pointing a camera at clear sky will usually hit the minimum detection limit of -40C (clouds are different – nearer a BB)
Pointing a camera at water vapour just above boiling water will read the background temperature unless you use the vapour to heat a near BB substance e.g. paper
A video showing this effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yTErdEg_OE
Gordo, Please note that an FLIR camera does not measure in the CO2 emissions range. That’s intentional, since the CO2 between an object and the camera will absorb those emissions.
Of course, you are again incorrectly framing the problem. the impact of CO2 isn’t directly on the surface, but high in the atmosphere. The resulting warming effects the temperature at the surface by causing warming above the troposphere, which is transmitted down to the surface via the adiabatic lapse rate. It’s rather like a wall where the inside temperature is set by the outside temperature and the rate of thermal energy flowing thru the wall via conduction. Change the insulation and the inner wall temperature changes for a given fixed rate of heating.
“Of course, you are again incorrectly framing the problem. the impact of CO2 isn’t directly on the surface, but high in the atmosphere.”
And yet, further upthread, other GHEDT avatars are arguing the exact opposite, that the impact of the DWIR from CO2 is to directly heat the water’s surface. The GHE: define it however you want, to suit.
Pseudoskeptic Nr 3
“And yet, further upthread, other GHEDT avatars are arguing the exact opposite, that the impact of the DWIR from CO2 is to directly heat the water’s surface.”
Richard E. Swanson wrote:
“The resulting warming effects the temperature at the surface by causing warming above the troposphere, which is transmitted down to the surface via the adiabatic lapse rate…”
For some people, this is CO2’s ‘direct warming’. This is indeed not correct, but last not least, it is the effect, be it direct or not.
I know: for you and your Kumpels, this is absolute ‘psiudosains’.
Doesn’t matter!
GHEDT Avatar Nr 13
Yes, I get that to you people arguing polar opposites about an issue, whilst pretending to be in agreement, is par for the course. Cognitive dissonance is the standard for your state of mind, and you want to infect others with the idea that this is the acceptable and normal way to be.
Bindidon, I remember you once acknowledged you did not understand physics.
But, you don’t have to keep reminding us….
swannie…”Gordo, Please note that an FLIR camera does not measure in the CO2 emissions range. Thats intentional, since the CO2 between an object and the camera will absorb those emissions”.
Are you trying to tell me that an IR detector set up in a roomful of air, with CO2 at 0.04% could not detect IR in the 15 micron band?
I could see that if you had an IR source at one end of a tube with the detector at the other end with the tube filled with CO2.
In the atmosphere, IR detectors are measuring a milliwatt absorp-tion of IR in the 15 micron band. That means CO2 in air is absorbing a negligible amount of surface IR.
“Of course, you are again incorrectly framing the problem. the impact of CO2 isnt directly on the surface, but high in the atmosphere”.
You are moving the goalposts. The AGW theory specifically claims the surface is warmed by back-radiation from CO2. Not just a little, but enough to raise the surface temperature beyond the temperature the surface is warmed by solar energy.
Gordo wrote:
Yes and No. A FLIR ™ thermal imaging camera (and similar devices) do not detect LWIR in the 15 micron CO2 bands. An “IR detector” (what ever that means) might, however.
E. Swanson had already convinced us he didn’t have a clue about radiative physics, but now he provides even more proof:
“The resulting warming effects the temperature at the surface by causing warming above the troposphere, which is transmitted down to the surface via the adiabatic lapse rate.”
The lapse rate is evidence of heat transfer from surface to upper troposphere. Swanson believes the lapse rate is evidence upper troposphere is warming the surface!
You just can’t help some people….
For the physics-deprived people, the lapse rate is the natural temperature gradient from Earth’s surface to tropopause. It is proof that the atmosphere cools the surface. Heat energy does NOT move against the temperature gradient. Just as water does not flow uphill.
Huffingman, OK, so the lapse rate is negative from the surface to the troposphere. That’s the result of both thermal radiation heat transfer and vertical convection operating in parallel. In the troposphere, convection dominates as sensible and latent energy is moved to higher elevation. But, what about above the troposphere, where the lapse rate is positive? How does that fit in with your comment? How can energy leave the Earth thru the stratosphere when the lapse rate is positive?
The troposphere and stratosphere offer different mediums. The two are very different, much like comparing fine wine with compost. Once above the tropopause, the solar heating is much more extreme. UV photons contain much higher energy, and agitate the oxygen and ozone molecules to extreme levels. Moving higher, the warming intensifies due to the fact that less albedo is affecting incoming solar.
The top of the troposphere is colder than the bottom, but the top of the stratosphere is much hotter than its bottom. Temperature gradients are reversed. Earth’s surface is heating the troposphere, while the Sun is heating the stratosphere. It’s just one of the many things Institutionalized Pseudoscience is confused about.
Huffingman, Of course, the Sun heats the Earth’s surface, as well as the atmosphere above. Water Vapor and CO2 absorb sunlight as it passes thru the atmosphere, just as they do for thermal IR radiant energy emitted from the surface. The SO2 in the Stratosphere also absorbs upwelling IR as well.
But your comment ignores the question of what happens to the energy which reaches the top of the troposphere which is warmer than deep space. That energy must exit the Earth, else the Earth would continue to warm. That energy can’t be carried upwards in the Stratosphere, because of the positive lapse rate suppresses convection, leaving thermal IR radiation to deep space as the only pathway.
Swanson I ignored your question because I ignore stupid questions.
Your stupid question: “How can energy leave the Earth thru the stratosphere when the lapse rate is positive?”
It’s a stupid question because even you were able to stumble onto the correct answer: “…leaving thermal IR radiation to deep space as the only pathway.”
Maybe your stupid questions are linked to your inability to use my correct name.
Huffingman, Your lack of a specific reply only proves you are nothing but an empty bag of smoke. But, maybe I should have been more specific, so, here’s another attempt to glean some straight up physics from you. What are the wavelengths for the thermal IR radiation which exits the TOA above the tropopause and what is the source for each?
Swanson, you’re just getting more and more desperate.
First, you were confused about the lapse rate. Then, you didn’t understand the stratosphere. Now, you can’t understand how infrared leaves Earth!
I’m willing to help, but only when you grow up and cease with the childish insults.
No chance of that happening, huh?
As expected, Huffingman doesn’t respond with any evidence showing understanding of the physics involved. Instead, he blurts out more zero content BS. Huffingman the troll must be practicing to become a politician, like Prez. La Plump and his clan of puppets.
No chance of that happening, huh?
Here again you can see the power of anomalies when comparing datasets whose absolute values are far away from each other.
This is a comparison of UAH’s lower troposphere vs. lower stratosphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F8N-_-mcg7WJoLydiG_npA279tAPFMwp/view
You perfectly see in the LS the fingerprints of El Chichon and Pinatubo, and the slight difference in the LT reactions due to the 1982
Oooops?! What’s that?
Here again you can see the power of anomalies when comparing datasets whose absolute values are far away from each other.
This is a comparison of UAH’s lower troposphere vs. its lower stratosphere:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F8N-_-mcg7WJoLydiG_npA279tAPFMwp/view
LS is in average somewhere at 235 K, compared with about 265 K for LT.
You perfectly see in the LS the fingerprints of El Chichon and Pinatubo, and the slight difference in the LT reactions due to the stronger Pinatubo eruption.
Using absolute values results here in an indescriptible spaghetti mix.
Norman (and any other silly Warmists who might care to air their arrant stupidity) ; –
What is the surface temperature of a ball of molten rock the size of the Earth, after it has cooled enough to have a very thin congealed skin?
Here’s a hint – it will probably be between absolute zero, and completely molten – maybe even 5,000 K!
Feel free to start blathering about overcoats, or back, front, or twirly whirly sideways radiation if you wish.
What a pack of fools!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Just so you know, I did not miss your posts while you were absent and now that you have returned I know why.
Norman,
Or you could blather about any irrelevant thing you felt like.
Anything to avoid acknowledging reality, eh?
No answer to how hot the Earth’s surface should be? I’m not surprised.
Dimwit.
mike…”What a pack of fools!”
Good to see you back, Mike.
Yes Mike Flynn, we missed your smashing wit and dashing charm.
Welcome back!
Norman wrote –
“I am called an alarmist because I accept the GHE as valid science.”
No, you are an idiot, because you cannot even define this “GHE”. No definition of this non-existent Effect, no testable hypothesis, no theory – nothing. Science? Pseudoscience at its finest (or silliest)!
Maybe Norman believes that a foolish mathematician who believes that a probability of 0.38 means virtual certainty, (Gavin Schmidt), is actually a scientist! Nope – just another delusional GHE believer.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn
You are back. How sad! Many posters have described GHE to you. The problem is with your ability to comprehend the descriptions. Since you can’t why do you keep asking for people to define it for you?
There is a testable hypothesis. The amount of energy the Earth’s surface receives from the Sun could warm it to a maximum average surface temperature of 255 K. The actual measured average temperature is around 288 K. This is not possible with solar input alone. Case closed. Crawl back under your troll bridge.
Norman,
Avoidance. Oh dear!
Mother Nature has conducted an experiment over the last four and a half billion years.
The Earth has cooled. Bad luck for you and your delusions. Maybe you could try to stop the climate changing – or abolish gravity, if you prefer. What a wally!
Have you managed to warm a teaspoon of water using a billion watts of the IR emitted by ice yet? Are you so deluded that you believe that adding heat energy, (in the form of ice emitting 300 W/m2) to hot coffee, makes the coffee hotter?
You believe that ice slows the rate of cooling of the coffee, making it hotter, don’t you?
Keep hammering away at that keyboard.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I give you a testable hypothesis and you go into mumble jumble of nonsense that is not remotely related to anything at all.
With your ice and coffee. Please just use that puny brain a bit. I know it probably hurts you. Far easier for you to connect some things together and believe it is somehow meaningful.
With the ice. Yes ice will make HEATED coffee (note that word which you will not be able to see so I put it in all caps) warmer than it would be if only cold deep space surrounded it.
Ice emits more energy than deep space if it is at 0 C. Your HEATED cup of coffee will reach a higher temperature surrounded by ice than deep space. The Earth’s surface is warmer with GHG emitting IR to the surface than it would be if only deep space IR reached the surface. NOTE if you neglect this. The Earth’s surface is also a heated surface, it is heated by the Sun. Not sure you understand that.
Norman,
I’m not sure whether you come from a long line of retards, or you worked hard from a young age to achieve your present level of ignorance.
Good luck with trying to convince anyone that you can raise the temperature of coffee by putting ice in. It.
Maybe you could blather about deep space. Maybe you could claim to be Napoleon. You might even think Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or Michael Mann is a Nobel laureate. Alas, adding ice to coffee won’t raise its temperature. So sad, too bad.
You still haven’t managed to figure out the surface temperature of a molten blob called the Earth. Don’t worry – it’s only because you’re stupid.
I can.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
It might help if you could read a post before making an incorrect response.
When did I state that you could warm a cup of coffee by putting ice in it?
However if you had HEATED coffee (I am sure you will ignore the all caps) and put ice in it, yes the temperature would drop but it would be warmer than if you put in some dry ice.
You are incapable of reason so it is really pointless to continue with you. I think from your posts you are also irrational. Nothing you posted makes any sense at all. Like a scrambled confused mind that doesn’t even know what it is saying but for some reason it feels it must post.
You are not even close to intelligent to understand my post. You have not enough science to reason it out. Another poster to ignore.
Norman, you are not very good at logic. And, you can’t understand facts. You can’t even adhere to your own words.
So, I doubt if you will be able to ignore, as you claim.
Nothing new.
Norman believes “This is not possible with solar input alone.”
Norman, you lack of education, combined with your inability to reason, is making you look like a fool, again.
Earth’s average temperature is exactly what it is supposed to be. You are trying to compare it to an imaginary concept. That’s NOT reality, and it’s NOT science.
But, your vacuous fanaticism makes for great entertainment.
Salvatore maybe youre right. The magnetic field of the earth is changing
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00007-1?fbclid=IwAR2gSgzmL8L6ntOcT3OymcjXiFScIUciMir3uS8EyVE3SbwSR6RRua96g2E
Also here is the research that says it has an effect on climate http://www.ipgp.fr/fr/are-there-connections-between-the-earths-magnetic-field-and-climate
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207270
good info Duncanbelem . I think it is the solar/geo magnetic fields that dictate the climate.
THE SOLAR/GEO MAGNETIC FIELDS- have to be in sync with one another to have major climatic effects in my opinion and reach extreme degrees of magnitude change along with duration of time of the magnitude change.
For development of reliable methods for earthquake prediction, it is desirable to have complete knowledge about the physical causes that generate earthquakes. As such knowledge is not yet available, it seems appropriate to continue research to identify patterns in variations of seismicity in connection with variations of other physical events. This report deals with connection of seismicity with solar/cosmic rays variability. On base of global seismological catalog NEIC (182933 events with M≥4.5 for 1973-2011) we show: – the long-term trends in yearly mean earthquake counting rate and released seismic energy as well are out of phase with long-term trend in yearly mean sunspot numbers; – into the 11 year solar cycle, earthquake counting rate is relatively small for years with moderate solar activity, but is increased at ~10-12% in solar minimum, when galactic cosmic rays are increased, and at ~5-7% in solar maximum, when injection of solar charged particles is increased; – in seismic regions penetrated by geomagnetic force lines L=2.0-2.2 which are populated by anomaly cosmic rays with pronounced dependence of their intensity on solar activity, strong earthquakes (M≥7.0) occur only at declining phase of 11 year solar cycle, but absent at ascending phase, this already may be used as a long-term earthquake precursor for these regions. To explain the results, it is suggested that earthquakes are triggered by currents in the Global Electric Circuit, which show positive response to cosmic ray changes. As a result, agreement between variations of seismicity and solar activity/cosmic rays is evident.
To E Swanson and anyone sharing similar delusions about CO2 emission wavelengths –
CO2 has no magical properties. CO2 can be heated and allowed to cool, just like other matter.
For example, rapidly compressing air in a Diesel engine raises the temperature of the air to around 700 C. Yep, the nitrogen, the oxygen, the argon, the carbon dioxide and all the rest – all the same temperature! No DWLWIR or back radiation needed. Even works in the complete absence of sunlight!
Now allow the gas mixture to cool. By the time it reaches – 80C, try to convince yourself that the CO2 is emitting the same wavelengths as when it was 700 C.
Try using your magic IR detector to detect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at 700 C. Silliness piled on a firm foundation of complete ignorance!
Cheers.
Good ol’ Mike is back !
And he has’nt changed his tune one iota!
Still the same bizzaro semi-literate grab-bag of ideas and prejudices repeated ad-nauseum.
Seems comforting in a strange way.
Myki,
Glad you enjoy my return.
Are you still buying imaginary gas guzzling supercars with the imaginary fortune you are making with your imaginary investments in imaginary renewable energy schemes?
With such a rich imagination, you could even imagine that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize!
With all the imagination in the world, plus a few dollars, you could even afford to buy a cup of coffee.
Happy imaginings.
Cheers.
Happy new year Mike.
Just to cheer you up, I have lost a fortune (on paper) due to the stock market misbehaving.
Should I blame Donald?
Sorry to burst your bubble Mike, but
“Now allow the gas mixture to cool. By the time it reaches 80C, try to convince yourself that the CO2 is emitting the same wavelengths as when it was 700 C.”
Of course it emits the same wavelengths at 700C and -80C, just much more at 700C.
CO2 only emits the IR wavelengths it can, the wavelengths are specific to CO2, the amount of radiation is dependent on temperature.
CO2 has very low emisivity, so it doesn’t act like a black body.
Those are the scientific facts.
CO2 gas the size of an atm. has mass so emits & absorbs at all frequencies through line broadening mechanisms. The amount of radiance is dependent on its equilibrium temperature at each frequency.
B,
In essence, what you write sounds fair to me.
I won’t ask bobdroege to explain how CO2 can be heated by compression – maybe he thinks that CO2 can only absorb and emit certain frequencies of light. How the compressor provides an infinitely variable amount of and frequency of radiation, depending on the gaseous constituents being compressed, is something which would require magic.
Unfortunately, the Hansen, Schmidt, Mann fantasies don’t relate to the real world.
Cheers.
Flynn
Do you want to look up the spectrum for the emission of CO2?
It might help.
Yeah when you compress a gas some of the energy used to compress winds up heating the gas.
Shhh.
Ball4,
Can you show me where you got that equilibrium temperature at each frequency idea from?
You know the line broadening doesn’t go very far frequency wise.
And the emissivity of CO2 is rather low, and not easily looked up, you have to do some correction calculations.
“Can you show me where you got that equilibrium temperature at each frequency idea from?”
The distribution function for the energies of photons in equilibrium with matter goes under various names and there are several versions of this function differing by a constant factor, I suggest ref. the original Planck’s Theory of Radiation. Google string: planck 1912 treatise
The energy distribution function (or spectral distribution) is given by the Planck distribution eqn. 276 (or Planck function) as a function of wavelength and temperature & it is never identically zero for any temperature or any frequency.
Btw, you will do well to read the original testing referenced at the bottom of that page (it is online for free). A lot of malarkey by commenters around here can be laughed off if you take time (sorry Gordon, time exists) understanding the tests.
Determining the line shape because of both collisional and Doppler broadening is not trivial. Doppler broadening of lines is a result of relative motion between a source of photons and molecules that absorb them.
There are several other ways the lines get broadened. Richard M. Goody and Yuk L. Yung, 1989: Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis has great discussions of absorp_tion by atmospheric molecules, sections on thermal emission, vibrational-rotational spectra, and line shapes which serve as good roadmaps to past work. Digging into specialist texts of the 1960s explaining the spectral testing of noble gases in the 1930s was an interesting deep dive for me awhile back.
====
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . The Comb of Death . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
====
What, you may be wondering, is the Comb of Death?
In simple terms, it is a graph that looks like a comb.
But, what has it got to do with Death?
Well, The Comb of Life didnt sound very exciting. But Death is a certain winner.
And it is showing global warming. That causes a lot of deaths.
Or it will in the future, if the Comb of Death is correct.
The Comb of Death displays temperature ranges, for more than 24,000 locations on the Earth.
And I am talking about REAL, ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE temperatures. Not those weak, pale, temperature anomaly things. But real, actual, absolute temperatures. The sort that REAL men use (and REAL women too).
====================
The Oil companies offered me a lot of money to forget about the Comb of Death with +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming. But I am an artist, and they didnt offer me enough money.
Because people are not making enough effort to reduce their carbon footprints, the IPCC has asked me to show you a Comb of Death based on +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
They expect that this Comb of Death will make Alarmists scream in fear, and will make Skeptics repent their evil ways. A word of warning, this last Comb of Death is not for the faint-hearted.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-comb-of-death
I see what you mean.
A bit strange though to have more energy arriving at the surface, but no effect. It should be a a simple case of looking up the a*b*s*o*r*p*t*a*n*c*e.
But yes, you can discuss how much. There are plenty of papers on climate sensitivity, read them and see what you think.
That was for Chic from up here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337813
Svante,
I don’t know how to conclude anything from papers whose climate sensitivity “estimates” range from zero to over 6 degrees for a doubling of CO2 that won’t likely happen in my lifetime.
“A bit strange though to have more energy arriving at the surface, but no effect. It should be a a simple case of looking up the a*b*s*o*r*p*t*a*n*c*e.”
You must be referring to my statement “IR radiation only depends on [temperature and] the concentrations of IR active gases.” Do we really know that more energy arrives at the surface? Two other things could happen. More energy doesn’t arrive at the surface or any potential increase in energy arriving at the surface is compensated for by thermalization and convection.
“Do we really know that more energy arrives at the surface?”
Chic, a better way to state it is “Do we really know that more energy is thermalized at the surface?
A lot of energy can “arrive” a surface, but only some, or none, will be absorbed.
Well put JD, that’s what I meant.
Chic Bowdrie says:
You can conclude that doubling CO2 is risky business, and if that business does not pay for that risk then the economy is not optimal.
The importance of our lives in the legacy that we leave behind.
That’s what Feldman et. al measured, and you can look up what fraction is thermalized for different surfaces. That’s temperature increase for you.
It can be mitigated by the climate system, so that’s something to discuss.
Svante says: “You can conclude that doubling CO2 is risky business…”
Svante, are you afraid of strawberries, watermelons, and peaches?
Seek therapy, please. You’re missing out on life.
I’m not afraid of them but I pay their cost.
Anything that is provided below cost is overused, and real cost is wasted.
Svante, give it up with this self-righteous doom-and-gloom attitude. We are NOT causing global warming. The SUN is. Relax. It’s all natural, save the monomaniacal tendency of the caretakers of the official temperature series to adjust the data in the direction of matching their own “theory”/models.
It’s in the observational data, Svante. I’ve told you and shown you so many times now. Yet you just keep on obsessing.
And stop referring to the idiot Feldman paper! It makes claims based on nothing but its own “theory”! There are no actual MEASUREMENTS to back up their ideologically biased, predetermined conclusion.
Svante,
On his pod.cast back in 2017, Joe Rogan discussed so-called “flat-earthers”, but his on-point descrip.tion of them could just as well have included most all “CO2 warmists/alarmists”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkelM3m2_4&feature=youtu.be&t=150
Here’s what he said (and he’s SO spot on):
Which, in psychology, is also called “cognitive dissonance reduction”. And “confirmation bias”.
https://tinyurl.com/6ts2jht
https://tinyurl.com/78spc79
Oh puleez, Kristian. AGW has a massive body of scientific research supporting it. Flat Earthers just have weird anti science beliefs.
Nate,
I am sure you would love to post the Theory of Global Warming, if it existed.
But you can’t, because it doesn’t.
You can’t even find a testable GHE hypothesis! Maybe it’s on the shelf next to the Gryphon (another mythical beast) hypothesis.
Good luck with the search! You’ll need it.
Cheers.
Nate says, January 12, 2019 at 7:52 PM:
Sorry. Wrong. “AGW” has lots of OPINIONS supporting it. But not ONE single piece of observational evidence from the real Earth system to back up all the loose claims.
The data clearly shows it simply isn’t happening:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/how-the-ceres-ebaf-ed4-data-disconfirms-agw-in-3-different-ways/
Nate, you’re just proving Rogan’s point …
You assign all the weight to one type of measurement, with substantial systematic error. You disregard all other measurements and modeling as merely opinion. Good way to delude yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313789
Nate says, January 13, 2019 at 10:03 AM:
What “substantial systematic error” would that be?
Claims made based on model output IS mere opinion, Nate. Thinking otherwise, now THAT’S a good way to delude yourself!
And what “other measurements” are you referring to, exactly? Talking about Allan et al. again. Those are not MEASUREMENTS. Those are deliberate MANIPULATIONS of existing validated datasets.
K,
‘What systematic error?’
We’ve been over this ad-nauseum. The measurements of out-going LW radiation (OLR) over the whole globe at the TOA are far from easy.
There are many systematic errors to correct for: drifts, calibration, coverage, offsets when new instruments come on-line.
The real experts, like Loeb et al, the ones publishing the data and analysis, understand this.
That is why they have not, as you claim to do, produced a continuous validated 30 y record of Global OLR data. If there is one, where is it published?
That is why when the experts attempt to create such a record, it requires additional modeling data and other measuremennts to fill-in gaps, and caveats.
And they correctly don’t draw conclusions based on this record, as you claim to do.
“And what other measurements are you referring to, exactly? ”
I am not going to review a vast body of literature for you, that have nothing to do with CERES data.
But, among many other lines of evidence are physics-based GHE models (OMG!) from 40 y ago that make specific predictions of future warming and its spatial pattern, that have proven remarkably accurate.
With regard to several Feldman-type results, your claim that each site should be warming in proportion to the observed local Forcing is FALSE and ignorant. A straw man argument.
You have many papers (even by skeptics such as Judith Curry) that analyze climate sensitivity based on observations, current or Paleo, and known Forcings (ie Feldman’s). They don’t find 0!
The fact that you equate all other such lines of evidence to Flat Earthism, shows that you have lost all semblance of objectivity.
Therefore, why should people accept your never-peer-reviewed blog analysis and conclusions as credible?
Nate,
“With regard to several Feldman-type results, your claim that each site should be warming in proportion to the observed local Forcing is FALSE and ignorant. A straw man argument.”
Well if that’s not the argument, what is? During the period in question, there was no discernable global trend. There was a trend in one location, but not in another. Where do we go to look for the “observable evidence” that CO2 causes warming?
Sensitivity estimates are basically opinions, same as Kristian is describing data from models. Somebody has a hypothesis about how to calculate the sensitivity and you end up with a wide variety of estimates.
It is true AGW has a massive body of scientific research supporting it, but nothing proving it.
Pretty sure we discussed this, Chic.
It’s a strawman because local temps have very high variability, why we look at global temp rather Des Moines temp to see climate change.
‘It is true AGW has a massive body of scientific research supporting it, but nothing proving it.’
Same can be said of General Relativity, or most other science laws.
‘Sensitivity estimates are basically opinions’
No, they are estimating all known forcings and comparing to surface temp record and ocean heating record.
Even J. Curry is not finding enough natural forcings to account for what is observed.
Chic Bowdrie says:
Here’s 90% of the trend:
https://tinyurl.com/ydxk9nt3
Any decline here means another UAH record high.
Nate,
When we last discussed this did I suggest you walk out onto an ice-covered lake as long as you are 90% sure it can hold you?
What is the method for determining sensitivity? More than one? Then which method do you consider the correct one?
Good point, if you are 50 % sure the ice can hold us, do you take the easy path over the ice, or to be safe, do you take the longer path around?
Svante,
“That’s what Feldman et. al measured….”
No, they did not measure any energy “thermalized” at the surface. How many times do I have to repeat this? A forcing is a calculation from a spectrum. It is not a measurement of any energy transfer, let alone any measurement of temperature.
Show me where I can “look up what fraction is thermalized for different surfaces.” Knowing the aborp.tance of a material doesn’t say anything about any net energy transfer at a specific point in time and place.
Here’s the clearest evidence for why the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the 11y period in question (2000-2010), indirectly measured by Feldman et al. (because THAT’S bascially what they did, nothing else), did NOT in any way exert a discernible influence on the surface TEMPERATURE evolution at the two sites under study during that same timespan:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/nsa-vs-sgp-t_2m.png
The surmised increase in “surface radiative forcing” from the rise in atmospheric CO2 at each site was more or less EXACTLY the same.
Yet on the North Slope (Alaska) the temp apparently rose by about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from the start of 2000 to the end of 2010, while on the Great Plains (Oklahoma) it didn’t really rise at all …
So in what way is Feldman et al. “observational evidence” that the “GHE” is getting stronger …!?
These people simply aren’t interested in looking at the whole picture, past the rise in CO2 itself. If they see a rise in CO2, they “see” global warming being caused by it. Because that’s what their dogm…. sorry, “theory” says.
So in what way do Feldman et al. provide “observational evidence” that the “GHE” is getting stronger …!?
They’re not! They just CLAIM they do. Even when there is NO actual data presented by them, in their paper, to suggest any such thing …!
Of course the influence is not local to those sites, of course the measured increase gets spread around the world.
Of course you can argue negative feedbacks, that’s another story.
Don’t even try, Svante. The Feldman study is now routinely trotted out by alarmists (such as yourself), whenever they find themselves pushed up against the wall by those pesky denialists constantly badgering them about “providing evidence proving AGW is real”, … as just that! Definitive, incontrovertible OBSERVATIONAL proof that the theory and the models were right all along – more CO2 in the atmosphere DOES cause ‘global warming’ by strengthening the “GHE” (or as Feldman states it: “[Rising CO2 levels] are affecting the surface energy balance”, confirming “theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect”). Yeah, rub their stuck-up noses in it, wipe their sceptical smirks off their faces. There it is!
And of course the media and the public and the politicians all swallowed it hook, line and sinker:
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
What does that headline say, Svante?
From the Feldman paper itself:
No, they don’t. They have absolutely NO measurements whatsoever of the surface energy balance at either location. All they measure is the clear-sky DWLWIR within the narrow CO2 segment of the full EM spectrum. That is NOT equal to the surface energy balance. That’s NOT the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. Not even remotely so. Yet Feldman confidently asserts that he’s finally got the empirical evidence to show how it’s increasing according to theoretical predictions.
And ONLY when this is specifically pointed out, only THEN the back-pedalling starts: “Of course the influence is not local to those sites, of course the measured increase gets spread around the world. Of course you can argue negative feedbacks, that’s another story.”
Classic!
Yup, every alarmist’s argument is CO2 absorbs IR therefore global warming. Believe in the boogyman, dammit!
More incoming energy, thermalized at the surface according to well known physics, but no effect on temperature.
How’s that then?
Svante,
Are you seriously claiming that additional CO2 creates additional incoming energy?
I’ll join the line of people queuing up to buy your CO2 energy creator as soon as you’ve worked out the obvious few remaining bugs.
Sounds just like every other fraudster claiming to be able to supply free energy – all due to the miracle of pseudoscience, of course.
Or maybe you’re just a gullible cultist?
Cheers.
Svante says, January 13, 2019 at 2:21 AM:
So how come the temp evolution isn’t the same at the two sites in question, Svante?
We can play this game all day. The Feldman study is STILL not evidence that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the (or even ‘a’) cause of ‘global warming’. As claimed by more or less everyone.
We have to go to the top of the atmosphere to find out about that. And as it turns out, CO2 does NOT contribute. There are NO discernible signs in the real Earth system of a systematic strengthening of a “GHE”:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/olr-60-60-erbsceres-c-1.png
The SUN is doing the warming, Svante. Not us. Live with it.
“So how come the temp evolution isnt the same at the two sites in question..”
Cuz you conveniently ignore all other confounding variables.
Like weather and the general circulation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313789
Yes Kristian, we can play this game all day.
The Feldman study may not be absolute proof that CO2 is the cause of global warming. I think it’s a pretty good clue.
You have a good argument and I think you are right that the ASR is going up. Pity you don’t have any root cause.
https://tinyurl.com/y7warkwy
Hopefully Kristian’s words in the linked comment will remind him why it’s pointless to engage with the Nate/Svante tag team.
Correct Svante, ASR is up in percentage terms much more than the sun & with 95% significance level whereas sun TSI component of ASR varies only a measured 0.1% peak to trough in its variability. It is not “the sun doing the warming” as Kristian claims incorrectly. Feldman and others measure one of the components, other components are also measured elsewhere (albedo from Arctic sea ice changes, mixing ratio of other atm. grey absorbers, ENSO, agriculture, aerosols so forth).
Oh, I almost forgot about Ball4, yes he is also regularly assigned to Kristian by the GHEDT.
Svante says, January 13, 2019 at 11:14 AM:
No, it’s not. There’s nothing there.
The Feldman paper (and the headlines it inspired) was purpose-made, devoid of any actual empirical evidence of what it CLAIMS to confirm. And yet, the CLAIMS alone are what was (and is) communicated to the public at large, the message uncritically internalised and then zealously proselytised to the world by the faithful followers of the CO2 dogma, passed on as gospel, confirmed gospel.
And here you are, Svante. Spreading the word. Doing the legwork.
Feldman et al. (2015) is pure rubbish. But it’s become everybody’s favourite piece of rubbish, it seems …
I do have a “root cause”. Earth’s internal variability, Svante. (Which might very likely in turn be influenced – directly or indirectly – by the Sun.) Secular, multi-decadal and decadal changes (adjustments) in Earth’s constantly churning global ocean-troposphere circulation. You didn’t think Earth was just a static, passive system, did you? Just helplessly, unchangingly waiting for CO2 to tip the balance …?
No. It doesn’t need an “external radiative forcing” of any kind to bring about change, to create an imbalance. Why would it?
This is the central misconception of today’s “Mainstream Climate Science”.
Svante says, January 13, 2019 at 11:40 AM:
*Sigh*
You don’t give up, do you? This utter silliness (the Trenberth/Fasullo & Donohoe et al. “talking point”) has already been discussed at length, here (and I’ve provided these links many times before, Svante):
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/ (The Data)
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-supplementary-discussions/ (Addendum II: What Do the Models Say?)
It’s nothing but an ad hoc/post hoc excuse. Speculation promoted as fact. But it doesn’t align with reality. The increase in ASR can’t be a mere feedback to a reduction in OLR.
First of all, the ASR rose first; there was no directly preceding warming; the ASR rose out of nothing, then the Earth system warmed as a result, and then OLR followed suit – it increased also.
Secondly, the OLR has never been observed to go down while the Earth warmed.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, January 13, 2019 at 11:44 AM:
Hehe. Yeah, it is rather ironic, isn’t it? Thanks for the reminder.
Kristian says:
Multi-century, but you have to discard that data.
No, I think it’s rather sensitive.
No DREMT, your mixed up. I thought Svante and I are supposed to be obsessed with you? And here you are going to all this trouble to follow us around, pester us, and look up our long-ago posts.
You are one odd duck!
You, Svante, Ball4, etc, are what you are. Just making sure that’s known.
“Secondly, the OLR has never been observed to go down while the Earth warmed.”
Bzzzzt! Incorrect. See Loeb 2016 for the actual science where OLR observed decreasing during same ~14yr. period as Earth TLT warmed.
Kristian’s self cites are not worth wasting the time visiting, look at the published CERES Team papers, a better use of limited time. The ones with 95% significance levels shown where Kristian has none.
Svante says, January 13, 2019 at 4:06 PM:
No, I just don’t care about it, because it can’t provide any useful, reliable information about the issue I’m most interested in.
Svante says, January 13, 2019 at 4:06 PM:
No, I just don’t care about it, because it can’t provide any useful, reliable information about the issue I’m most interested in.
That’s not a “no”, then. If you think it’s sensitive (to an external “radiative forcing”, that is), then you more or less assume it’s static and passive, just waiting for something to happen.
It evidently isn’t. It MAKES things happen.
But I can tell you this a thousand times, and you will still act as though that’s the most foreign concept you’ve ever heard of.
In respect to this
“Yup, every alarmists argument is CO2 absorbs IR therefore global warming. Believe in the boogyman, dammit!”
Not me
CO2 emits radiation, therefore global warming.
Much harder to refute the flip side of the coin.
How the CO2 gets heated is not my department, but how it gets rid of that heat is how the surface of the earth gets heated.
Shhh.
Yes it is pointless to engage with people who understand real science, because it interferes with your attempts to promote your anti-science notions, like the non-rotating Moon, and the false equivalence of climate science and Flat-Earthism.
Good example of your typical manipulations and distortions, thank you.
Still just proving Rogan right, Nate.
There’s no false equivalency between YOU and a “flat-earther”.
K,
If you don’t like people pointing out the flaws in your logic and analysis, don’t keep reposting it.
You claim to be testing and falsifying AGW. Yet,
You make no attempt at error analysis.
You do no curve-fitting or statistics.
You don’t show the predictions of OLR based on AGW models to directly compare with the record.
Hence you have no proper testing of AGW as a quantitative hypothesis.
You cherry pick data that best fits your ideas, only UAH data, no surface or RSS data.
Perhaps AGW is compatible with the record, within error. We can’t tell.
Your assumptions in piecing together the record can be questioned.
All of this would be pointed out in peer review. Thats why it is essential.
Nate says, January 14, 2019 at 5:43 PM:
But you’re not pointing out any flaws, Nate. That’s the problem. All you do is whine and complain. Simply because you don’t LIKE the implications of the results I present. That’s a very different thing.
Wrong. I’m testing the NULL HYPOTHESIS of no observable change.
You don’t get this, Nate. In order to strengthen YOUR hypothesis, you set out to falsify its NULL HYPOTHESIS.
What the observations tell us is that the NULL HYPOTHESIS has not been falsified, not even remotely so.
And as long as we haven’t been able to falsify the NULL hypothesis of no observable change, then YOUR hypothesis has yet to be verified as anything beyond mere speculation.
THAT’S the situation here, Nate. And you HATE it. Hence your incessant whining and complaining.
I use official datasets. Go check for yourself.
Why would I need to do any statistics? The data itself is right there in front of you. If you already SEE what’s going on with the data, you don’t need statistics to help you.
Oh, yes I do. The models FAIL big time!
Again, yes I do.
I don’t cherry-pick data. RSSv4 TLT fails against CERES. RSSv3.3 doesn’t. And neither does UAHv6:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/how-the-ceres-ebaf-ed4-data-disconfirms-agw-in-3-different-ways/
Surface data is irrelevant, since OLR is not mainly a radiative effect of surface temps, but of tropospheric temps.
Yes, we can. It’s FAR from compatible. The caretakers of the official temp records (AND, at the same time, of many of the most referenced models) sure do their best to tweak the data towards matching the models. And I’m sure they won’t stop until they do …
Good we still have people like Spencer/Christy and Norman Loeb standing firm.
Not really. I questioned it myself, after all. That’s how I went about. I made a prediction (about the offset between the ERBS and CERES segments of the full record) and it was shown to be correct after several tests against various independent datasets, among them that of Allan et al., 2014:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
As I told you, I’ve made but ONE assumption – on the mean level calibration across the five-month data gap between the ERBS and the CERES datasets. And that assumption has been tested and verified, not just by one source, but by multiple, and consistently so.
‘All you do is whine and complain. Simply because you dont LIKE the implications of the results I present.’
If you are an ideologue, your claims cannot be questioned.
If you are a scientist, your claims must be questioned.
Which one are you?
Last time, my ‘whining and complaining’ made you aware of other people’s published results that differed from yours, and caused you to have to write a new tome in response.
That’s what peer review does. And why you need to do it. But that would require you to up your game, do proper error analysis, proper hypothesis testing with proper statistics.
K,
And there is an awful lot to be questioned.
‘Wrong. Im testing the NULL HYPOTHESIS of no observable change.’
I don’t see anywhere you have done a proper hypothesis testing. To do so requires error analysis and statistics. You’ll have to point that out.
“You dont show the predictions of OLR based on AGW models to directly compare with the record.
Oh, yes I do.”
Again, I didn’t see that anywhere last time I checked. You’ll have to point out where that is.
I recall asking you how much is the AGW predicted effect, and you gave no answer.
Cherry picking TLT over RSS:
There is very much to be questioned in this analysis of the ‘RSSv4 TLT fails against CERES.’
Here you make many dubious assumptions, you combine data inexplicably, use various scaling factors, data from differing elevations, to test your hypothesis that DWLWIR minus TLT should be going up.
In addition, your hypothesis derives from your over-simplification of the AGW models which really should be combining radiation and convection. The so-called radiative-convective equlibrium models.
When DWLWIR minus TLT for RSS4 fails to do what you expect, you conclude:
“Your TLT series (RSS4) is incorrect.”
No, no, no, just no.
You can’t reject a data set because it doesnt behave as you expected, based on a flimsy hypothesis and dubious manipulations.
It is much more likely that there are problems with your hypothesis and dubious manipulations than with the data.
Of course, you very much need to find a way to reject RSS4, because when using it in your analysis of OLR you find:
‘In other words, if the RSSv4 TLT series is correct, the two plots above are both clearly indicating a strengthening greenhouse mechanism, as radiatively defined, at work in the Earth system.’
IOW, you need to reject RSS data as ‘incorrect’ otherwise your whole argument collapses.
But standard science would not allow you reject data just because it doesnt support your ideas.
That is a big non-no.
Shhh.
Chic Bowdrie says:
Show me where I can “look up what fraction is thermalized for different surfaces.”
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/yaupxp43
Svante,
Like most adherents to climatological pseudoscientific nonsense, you really have no understanding, do you?
Random links to irrelevant sites just demonstrate your ignorance.
Here’s a hint – read the question, comprehend, engage brain – then hammer away at the keyboard.
Cheers.
You forgot to mention that the universe has cooled since the Big Bang.
Svante,
What particular mental deficit prompts you to make that nonsensical statement?
Are you deranged as well as stupid?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
One up on your molten rock!
Shhh.
Was that ‘Shhh’ meant for the one calling the other one ‘stupid’ ‘deranged’ he has a ‘mental deficit’, or the one calmly turning the other cheek?
Nate, shhh.
DREMT, your name should be Dr Roys OCD BS Poster
OK Nate. Keep working on those burns.
Like ‘Shhhh’?
“Shhh” is a simple little experiment. What sort of person would be provoked into responding to something so innocuous, so trivial, so downright silly as somebody just saying, “shhh”. The answer? bobdruggy and Nate. And even better, Nate responded on somebody else’s behalf! Not even a “shhh” to one of his own comments. Oh dear.
COs temperature driver and climate sensitivity thoroughly debunked by real scientist, he can debate and take the rainmakers apart any time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE-zY0roNfw&t=9s
An Einstein Thought Experiment on Climate Change
That means that Anthropogenic CO2 can warm 1gm of water 1C every 4.186/0.94 or 4.45 Seconds. A m^3 of water weighs 1,000,000 gms. It would take 4,450,000 seconds, or 1,250 hours or nearly 2 months for Anthropogenic CO2 to warm an m^3 of sea surface water 1C. To put things in perspective, at high noon on a clear day, the oceans are being bathed by 1,000 W/m^2 by incoming solar radiation. (Source) It only takes the sun 1.16 hours to warm the oceans as much as Anthropogenic CO2 does in 1,250 hours. On a cloudy day, the incoming solar radiation may only be 100 W/m^2, so the variations are enormous, yet still dwarf the contributions of anthropogenic CO2.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/an-einstein-thought-experiment-on-climate-change/
You are being too generous, CO2isLife. You are allowing that all of the IR from CO2 would be absorbed by the sea surface. Of course, that is not the case.
“You are being too generous, CO2isLife. You are allowing that all of the IR from CO2 would be absorbed by the sea surface. Of course, that is not the case.”
I do everything possible to skew the experiment in CO2’s favor, and CO2 fails. My point is that even the most outrageously extreme experiments (CO2 laser pointed at ice) still can’t make the case that CO2 is the cause of any material warming. Dr. Spencer’s insistence on me running the numbers and the discussions of energy flux have really allowed me to highly quantify what I already knew. The numbers simply don’t support CO2 being any material source of warming at all. Here is the proof.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/an-einstein-thought-experiment-on-climate-change/
It’s like giving the pseudoscience clowns a 25 mile head start in a 26 mile marathon, yet still winning….
JDH,
You are far too kind.
You could give them a 27 mile start. Or 270 miles.
They would still be too busy claiming that all photons are absorbed by any surface in their way. The fact they may be observing the mirrored reflection of a garden outside, on the other side of a pane of glass, would not give them the slightest pause!
As night falls, they switch to claiming that the steadily decreasing temperature is proof of the GHE. Pointing an IR detector into a few kilometres of air, they refuse to accept that nitrogen, oxygen, argon etc, actually emit infrared in their gaseous phase. To the clowns, it is accepted fact that only specially nominated gases can be heated or cooled – IR is neither absorbed nor emitted by nitrogen or oxygen, according to them.
On the other hand, their bizarre religion is based on supposedly measuring air temperatures – in spite of their claim that the majority constituents of the atmosphere can not absorb or emit radiation longer than visible wavelengths ie infrared!
Obviously, I mean no disrespect to any real clowns. Their profession is an honourable and ancient one, with roots going back to the dawn of civilisation.
The buffoonery of the present crop of bearded balding bumblers is merely an accidental byproduct of pseudoscientific delusions – it too will pass, after consuming a relatively enormous amount of resources which might have been better employed elsewhere.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Why do you state such total nonsense? Is it a compulsion with you, to make yourself into a huge lumbering blob of stupidity?
YOU: “Pointing an IR detector into a few kilometres of air, they refuse to accept that nitrogen, oxygen, argon etc, actually emit infrared in their gaseous phase. To the clowns, it is accepted fact that only specially nominated gases can be heated or cooled IR is neither absorbed nor emitted by nitrogen or oxygen, according to them.”
How many times have people wasted time telling you that the amount of IR absorbed by N2, O2 or argon is such a small amount it is insignificant. People have actually linked to MODRTAN graphs to show you but you are such a mental clod information cannot penetrate that caveman skull of yours. Your brain is too heavily protected by a thick skull that no amount of knowledge is able to penetrate. Over and over you post the same stupid ideas. Based on nothing but a dullard opinion. Anti-scientific and dumb as a brick. You are truly unable to learn even simple ideas.
You are the only balding bumbling boob I see around here. I did not miss your idiot posts. It makes me sad that so many dumb people think their mindless knowledge is of value. Your posts are as insignificant as the IR emitted by N2 in the atmosphere.
Norman,
Pseudoscientists love averages, and words such as insignificant.
What are you trying to say? Does increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increase the air temperature? Or is it the other way round?
Or maybe it makes no difference at all?
Will pointing your IR detector at a CO2 cylinder give you a different temperature than if that same cylinder is actually charged with argon?
I know you think that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, but of course he is no kind of scientist at all. Just a pedestrian mathematician who makes bizarre pronouncements about “Hottest year EVAH!” – backed up by a certainty factor less than random chance!
Your reference to others and MODTRAN graphs is about as stupid as believing the Sun shines on all continents at once, as depicted by NASA and Trenberth. It’s complete nonsense, as different as night and day, to the truth. MODTRAN contains no references to the mythical GHE at all.
Feel free to give yourself a break from flogging away at the keyboard, and flog away at something else. Both can contribute carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis, I believe. Don’t overindulge.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are distracted by the twists and turns in your darkened mind. You cannot find your way so you enter the wrong door and spew forth nonsense.
My post was a very specific point about your inability and refusal to understand any real science. If real science comes your way you run down the darkened tunnels of your dim mind hoping to escape the searing light of truth.
You make this claim that N2, and O2 emit IR. Yes they do but it is magnitudes less than CO2 or H2O. The emission is considered insignificant. In order to do calculations in reality some tiny effects must be neglected. Not that a clod like you would ever be able to realize this fact. If you were trying to calculate how long it will take to fill a pool and the primary rate was 100 gallons a minute only you would think that the sweat off your smelly chin would be significant enough that you would have to include this in your time calculation. After all a drop of two off your sweaty chin will contribute some.
You are such a numskull and you can’t follow a rational debate if it knocked you on your lard ass.
Mike Flynn
Mush brain: YOU: “Pseudoscientists love averages, and words such as insignificant.”
No most people use averages for many things. Like buying a car based upon it AVERAGE gas mileage. Maybe going up Pike’s Peak it gets 10 mpg but all the average mileage for the car you want to buy is 30 mpg. Only a non intelligent caveman would think averages were not used by many for many different reasons. Also you are really a dim mind if you can’t process the meaning of insignificant and why it is used in science all the time.
Maybe try to learn a little. I know it will be painful as the tiny brain of yours expands against your thick and hardened skull but at least give it a try. I guess if it hurt too much you can stop.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/numerical-data/averages
Norman says: “total nonsense…huge lumbering blob of stupidity…mental clod…caveman skull of yours…thick skull that no amount of knowledge is able to penetrate…stupid ideas…dullard opinion…anti-scientific and dumb as a brick…truly unable to learn even simple ideas…balding bumbling boob…idiot posts…dumb…mindless knowledge…insignificant…darkened mind…cannot find your way…spew forth nonsense…inability and refusal to understand any real science…darkened tunnels of your dim mind…a clod like you…sweat off your smelly chin…sweaty chin…numskull…can’t follow a rational debate…lard ass…mush brain…non intelligent caveman…dim mind…try to learn a little…tiny brain of yours…thick and hardened skull.”
But in poor Norman’s head, he is “sticking to the science”.
“I want to stick only to the science of the issue.”
Norman’s problem is he doesn’t know any science, so all he can do is insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent others.
Nothing new.
The “Norman” avatar is just an experiment in gaslighting by a group of unpleasant, manipulative “people”.
Mike…”Just a pedestrian mathematician who makes bizarre pronouncements about “Hottest year EVAH!” – backed up by a certainty factor less than random chance!”
Good stuff, Mike. The alarmists here, including Norman, have no problem with GISS dropping a confidence level to 38% in order to promote a lie.
Even our wannabee statisticians, like binny and barry, have no issue with such scientific misconduct.
I am pretty sure I could make an argument that Einstein knew he was wrong when he made that famous statement about dice.
bobd…”I am pretty sure I could make an argument that Einstein knew he was wrong when he made that famous statement about dice”.
I have no issue acknowledging Einstein as an important, renowned scientist, even though his work largely involved thought experiments. He was no lab rat, and Louis Essen, an expert on time, claimed Einstein did not understand the basis of measurement.
Einstein made claims in GRT that have never been corroborated. He admitted that himself and did not promote himself as a guru.
It is conceivable that Einstein made mistakes and it is known he was not above claiming the ideas of others as his own, like E = mc2. With GRT, it has been claimed he fudged the math to reach a known conclusion. He was so desperate to explain GRT that I fear he resorted to the uncorroborated physics he disdained.
It is not his fault that we anointed him an infallible god. He did important work and we have put him on a pedestal based on who knows what.
I think Newton’s contributions to science far outweigh those of E. Newton actually did his own lab work and created science out of virtually nothing.
It strikes me as irony that the only real question about the work of Newton was introduced by Einstein. I think Newton was right about absolute time.
Einstein admitted that if an aether is found in empty space, as claimed by Dayton Miller, that GRT goes out the window. Guess what? It is now being claimed that so called empty space is teeming with neutrinos.
But that famous Einstein quote was from a while after all his relativity papers.
The thing about his “thought experiments” is that he did a lot of mathematical derivations of his ideas.
If you don’t have a strong math background, you won’t do well with understanding Einstein.
Shhh.
CO2. Not sure what you are trying to prove, that sunlight heats.
Every day the sun heats my town up 20 F or so. Then ever night it cools back down.
But this cycle has little relevance to climate change over decades. Given decades, a quite small extra flux can account for the warming we see.
I have a very simple Einstein Global Warming formula
https://goo.gl/i71TTe
Chuck Todds statement is meaningless because he doesnt define what a climate denialist is. This is typical unscientific speak by the media that does nothing to help public understand. He in my opinion is making matters worse.
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.
E Swanson wrote –
“What are the wavelengths for the thermal IR radiation which exits the TOA above the tropopause and what is the source for each?”
The usual nonsensical question from the usual clueless pseudoscientific questioner.
Is he trying to imply that satellite images of infrared emissions from the surface (IR photographs), don’t actually exist? The sources range from the coldest Antarctic ice at about -90 C, to those emitted by magma in excess of 1500 C (not to mention by incandescent lamps up to 5500 K or so.)
E Swanson is obviously too lazy or too stupid to look up the wavelengths relating to the infrared.
He doesn’t seem to be aware that the TOA (presumably the notional Top Of Atmosphere) is above the tropopause by definition – unless he is referring to the secret climatological TOA, which may be found anywhere at all – in the best pseudoscientific tradition.
I suspect that E Swanson was attempting to imply someone else’s ignorance, rather than pointedly demonstrating his own.
Cheers.
Exactly Mike. You’ve got him pegged. Just another clown trying to fake out everyone with his failed pseudoscience.
MF, The new GOES East satellite infrared images utilize wave lengths in the visible and within”atmospheric window”. The longest wavelength captured are for the CO2 band at 13.3 microns. So, MF, which wavelengths originate from layers above the troposphere?
Swanson, your question appears to be irrelevant, as if you are confused again. Maybe if you could state your point we could help you.
E Swanson,
Do you not realise that all matter (yes, even gases) emits IR if it is above absolute zero?
Are you incapable of doing your own research?
Here’s a start. The thermosphere is above the troposphere, it appears. From Wikipedia –
“Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,700 C (3,100 F) or more.”
On the other hand “A normal thermometer will read significantly below 0 C (32 F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.”
You obviously have little to no understanding of physics, and the varied relationships between temperature, heat, energy. I suggest you start looking into how temperatures can exceed 1700 C, whilst appearing to be much lower according to a thermometer designed to supposedly measure air temperature.
Although I appreciate your acknowledgement that my knowledge of such things is far superior to yours, flattery will get you nowhere. I won’t spoon feed you, unless you can demonstrate you have made at least a token effort to find out for yourself, before demanding I provide answers.
Here’s a hint – not everything in Wikipedia is correct.
Cheers.
bart…”Gordon, we are not arguing here. I am explaining to you. There is absolutely no doubt about time dilation. None whatsoever. It is confirmed beyond a shadow of any doubt”.
You have just revealed yourself as a stupid, conditioned, myopic ass who cannot understand what is right in front of him, should he care to look.
Physicist, David Bohm, a friend of Einstein, stated in a dialog with Jiddu Krishnamurti, that many humans do not understand that humans invented time. You are obviously one of them.
Since the time of the ancient Egyptians, humans have tracked the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky. They did it with sundials. Calendars are based on the same apparent motion. Where the heck do you think time comes from?
Why are you so thick that something that obvious escapes you? The second is a constant, for cripes sake, how can it dilate?
You are simply repeating the same ignorant mantra as climate alarmists that the science is settled. Next you’ll be telling me that 97% of scientists agree with you.
Open your eyes.
bart…never mind knowing for a fact that time dilates, first prove time itself exists.
I’m waiting, but no time is passing. I am waiting in the same space I have always been in.
Show me where it is.
“I am waiting in the same space I have always been in.”
Ummm, no. In the time that passed, the continent you are on moved a bit, the earth rotated even more, the earth rotated about the sun, the sun rotated about the galaxy, the galaxy moved along at 1.3mln mph toward Hydra and your space expanded at an accelerating pace with the universe expansion.
You are here and all the cool stuff is out of Gordon’s reach:
https://www.amazon.com/Galaxy-Photo-Poster-Stuff-x36in/dp/B004BI4UTY
ball4…”I am waiting in the same space I have always been in.
Ummm, no. In the time that passed, the continent you are on moved a bit, the earth rotated even more, the earth rotated about the sun, the sun rotated about the galaxy….”
*****
Now build time into your description. Where is it?
continents are real, as is the erosion of continents. the solar system is real as are galaxies. Gravity is real.
Where is time? Come on bally, I know you can do it. Just turn off everything you ever learned and look without the baggage.
Where is time? The airplane left on time and Gordon was late.
ball4…”Where is time? The airplane left on time and Gordon was late.”
Still no explanation from bally. Oh, dear, what can the matter be?
Keep looking Gordon.
Shhh.
Norman wrote –
“My post was a very specific point about your inability and refusal to understand any real science.”
His specific point is no doubt tucked away beside Trenberth’s missing heat, Gavin Schmidt’s science degree, and Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize. Or maybe it’s written with invisible ink.
No matter. Norman obviously believes that dimwits claiming to establish average MSL around the world to an accuracy of 0.1 mm (about four thousandths of an inch), by averaging pointless figures, is an example of real science.
Nope.
If Norman looks in the mirror whilst hammering away, he might convince himself – or at least achieve a happy ending (to his pseudoscientific fairy tale, of course).
Cheers.
Gordon,
There are two photons (each travelling at the speed of light, by definition) approaching each other head on. What is their closing speed relative to each other?
You might have to decide that the speed of light has different values simultaneously, or that time and distance have to change on the fly. Too deep for me.
But anyway –
A young Einsteinian – Fisk,
Was fencing exceedingly brisk.
So rapid his action,
Fitzgerald contraction,
Formed his rapier into a disk.
Cheers.
Mike…”There are two photons (each travelling at the speed of light, by definition) approaching each other head on. What is their closing speed relative to each other?”
There is no answer to the question. For one, photons are imaginary particles defined so as to particalize light. For another, there have been very few experiments done to measure the speed of light never mind imaginary particles moving at the speed of light.
All this stuff about how things act at the speed of light is theoretical, metaphysical nonsense. Some of them have fluked onto mathematical relationships by working toward a known outcome and fudging the math to suit. They cannot explain the reality and as David Bohm claimed, equations without the reality are garbage.
All we have practically are known particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. Of those, the electron is likely the best understood by far. I am aware of sub-atomic particles but if you look at the derivation of the same, it is highly theoretical.
All we have to study the particles is quantum theory and it is a mathematical abstraction of the Newtonian wave equation.
The most sane comment I have heard on such matters came from physicist David Bohm. He said we have reached the end of the road with Newtonian physics and quantum theory (presumably with reference to atomic theory) and we are going to have to begin again, using units other than time.
These are the words of a renowned physicist who specialized in relativity and quantum theory. I take his words to mean we need something ‘real’ as yet unknown to explain atomic theory. Time does not cut it…it’s not real.
Bohm’s reasoning there is that energy and matter seem to fold into each other in a holographic form. In other words, you can never put your finger on anything and claim that is that. Everything is interacting with everything else in a very complex manner.
That’s why I got so annoyed at Bart for suggesting he ‘knows for a fact’ there is such a thing as time dilation. He knows diddly-squat about it. He cannot demonstrate what time is, nor can anyone else. Until you can demonstrate time as an entity it’s sheer folly to talk about time dilation. It makes sense within the mind, in thoughts, but outside the mind it cannot be found.
Bohm admitted that humans invented time and Bohm has gained expertise on how human awareness works, or doesn’t work. He was investigating why most humans cannot even begin to understand that our minds are utterly distorted. He was trying, with Jiddu Krishnamurti to find a way to get humans to see how screwed up their minds really are.
In Zen, they call it the Cosmic Joke. The joke is that God gave us a brain that doesn’t work as we think it does yet we lack the awareness to ‘see’ that. We think it works fine and we get people claiming something that does not exist can dilate.
The ironic and annoying thing about this is how easy it is to ‘see’ it. All that’s required is turning of the ego…the centre…Bart’s ‘knowing’…and looking without that bias. It’s right in front of everyone’s noses.
Also, there are those that cannot see that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause AGW or a GHE.
You claim the light stuff is too deep for you. That’s a mark of awareness, which is intelligence. There are a lot of scientists claiming they understand it but they are deluding themselves. I dare say most scientists believe in time.
I think some of the least ware scientists on the planet are alarmist climate scientists. Have you noticed how many of them are openly arrogant and egotistical as well?
I talked to one of my university physics profs well after I’d left university. Asked him right out if time exists. He said, of course not, humans invented time to keep tract of rates of change.
Dead on.
Gordon Robertson
In your long post I am going to point out your failures and made up opinions. Why you do this only you know. When you do it I will point it out.
Here is the first: “For another, there have been very few experiments done to measure the speed of light never mind imaginary particles moving at the speed of light.”
Absolute made up crap. Why do you do it? You call NASA phony but you are far more phony than that organization.
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kZTm4Xm-8
I am sure that this is not the only lab in the world that shows students how to measure the speed of light. That makes you statement very made up and really bad!
Gordon Robertson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kZTm4Xm-8
Link showing how easy it is to measure the speed of light.
Gordon Robertson
https://tinyurl.com/y8oywmjn
Link to lab doing a speed of light measurement.
“What is their closing speed relative to each other?”
An observer riding either photon (or crest of EM wave) would measure the other approaching at the speed of light. Because miles and time in mph dilate to make it so. Same for any other observer in any ref. frame moving or at rest wrt to the fixed stars. Amazing huh? The cool stuff is out of reach for Gordon.
ball4…”Because miles and time in mph dilate to make it so”.
How??? Explain the known physics to back that assumption.
Those notions came from a thought experiment produced by Einstein and he obviously messed up in presuming that. Louis Essen, who invented the first atomic clock, claimed Einstein did not understand measurement.
The second in the atomic clock is the same second, albeit more consistent, as the second derived from dividing the period of the Earth’s rotation by 86,400. The metre is based on the original definition which is a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
How does either change if they are defined on constants?
How? Because the speed of light is measured constant, the same, by all instruments no matter the speed the instruments were moving.
ball4…”How? Because the speed of light is measured constant, the same, by all instruments no matter the speed the instruments were moving”.
What instruments? Do you mean the one and only measurement via the Mickelson interferometer?
And that proves the speed of light is a constant????
Keep looking Gordon. Bzzzt! Michelson used a rotating mirror. Nowadays lasers are used and they always measure the same value for c in a vacuum no matter the observer orientation or speed.
Shhh.
norman…”Here is the first: For another, there have been very few experiments done to measure the speed of light never mind imaginary particles moving at the speed of light.
Absolute made up crap.”
Show me one experiment which proves the speed of light is a constant in the universe. That is an opinion of Einstein with absolutely no evidence to back it.
GRT is based on the Lorentz equation, which presumes the speed of light is a universal constant. It also presumes that time can interact with force and mass to affect both.
It’s insane.
Gordon Robertson
You could not be more wrong about things. Nothing will change your behavior, it seems ingrained.
They have been trying to work out the speed of light in vacuum for quite sometime. Centuries. They have many experiments and lots of techniques to refine and get it closer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B8mer%27s_determination_of_the_speed_of_light
There is zero reason to assume the speed of light is not constant when every time you measure it you get the same value using different techniques.
This is what science is about Gordon. You try and find Universal constants, like gravity, electromagnetic force. Scientists spend many hours and time trying to find Universal constants.
With many experiments to find the value it is assumed to be a Universal constant until some experiment proves it is not. Some believe the speed of light might have changed but no one has any proof of it so until it comes around it will be assumed to be a constant and science will use it as such. Science is based upon assumptions and logic. It is rational to make the assumption about the speed of light if all the evidence you have suggests it is so and none, so far suggests other possibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
I am not sure if you know what the purpose and function of science is. You jump more into Philosophy in some of your posts about time. In physics you assume time is a universal property and you use it in equations. The equations work quite well so your assumption about time continues to be used as long as it works. Time may not exist in reality but it does exist in the world of physics and will continue to exist in this world as long as the concept works I equations (which it does). And time dilation will continue to be assumed and used as long as it works in equations. When some assumed concept does not lead to predicted results it will be investigated and corrected until a new useful assumption is found.
The “Norman” experiment says: “I am going to point out your failures…made up opinions…absolute made up crap…why do you do it…you are far more phony…that makes your statement very made up and really bad…you could not be more wrong about things…nothing will change your behavior, it seems ingrained…this is what science is about Gordon…I am not sure if you know what the purpose and function of science is…time may not exist in reality but it does exist in the world of physics”
Time is change. It is measured by the rate at which one thing changes relative to another thing changing. It is always relative.
bart…”Time is change. It is measured by the rate at which one thing changes relative to another thing changing. It is always relative”.
********
Ok, I’ll buy that to a degree. We have a concept of change and we call it time. But where is it? How do you demonstrate it as a substance or a phenomenon that can be measured?
Someone claims something is changing but what is it that is changing?
Where do you physically measure that change? Is change energy, a substance, a force?
f = ma
If you observe a force applied to a mass, it changes position under the right conditions. What is velocity? It’s a change of position…right? But we have defined velocity as a change of position per unit time.
Could you see velocity or acceleration of a mass without a reference to time. Yes.
I gave an example a while back with two one-handed clock hands turning at different speeds. They are geared to do that. The clock on the right has the one hand turning from 12 o’clock round to 12 o’clock CW while the clock on the left turns two revolutions 12 to 12 CW as the clock on the right turns only once.
The clock on the left is turning twice as fast as the clock on the right and I have not mentioned time. Time is not required since we don’t need to measure the rate at which the clocks are turning.
We can plainly see that one clock is turning twice as fast as the other.
The word time comes from the Greek ‘chronos’, which is related to mythology.
Quotes:
“Pythagoras, when he was asked what time was, answered that it was the soul of the heavens. For time is not an attribute or accident of any chance motion but cause and potency and principle of that which holds together all the things that come to be …” (Plutarch, Moralia: Platonic Questions 1007b).
Question for Pythagoras. How does time hold together all things that come to be.
More honestly:
“What, then, is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.” (Saint Agustine, AD 354-430, Confessions 11.14)”.
Seems people today are just as baffled as Pythagoras or Saint Augustine.
nate…”AGW has a massive body of scientific research supporting it”.
Where???
I have yet to see one paper from an alarmist that does not reference some bogus equations based on Stefan-Boltzmann, or which makes bland statements presuming everyone knows CO2 back-radiation is warming the surface.
AGW science, which is an oxymoron, is not even science. It is consensus-based opinion that lacks scientific fact.
“Where???”
It is where you find it. AGW is experimentally and observationally well observed, but all the cool stuff remains out of Gordon’s reach.
Fluffball is an expert at fake experiments. Just ask him about his experiment that “proves” an object at 1452 K emits 400 Watts/m^2,
Also, look for him to use Dr. Spencer’s name at some point. That’s his “go to”, when his usual fluff fails.
AGW has nothing to stand on experimentally and observational wise. Not one concrete stich of evidence.
AGW IS A SHAM!
I see the cool stuff remains out of reach for JD and Salvatore as well as Gordon. All either need to do is perform a proper experiment supporting their comments. One actual, replicable experiment is all that is needed but it remains out of their reach. AGW is experimentally and observationally well observed and all that cool stuff remains out of reach for some:
https://www.amazon.com/Galaxy-Photo-Poster-Stuff-x36in/dp/B004BI4UTY
ball4…”All either need to do is perform a proper experiment supporting their comments. One actual, replicable experiment is all that is needed but it remains out of their reach”.
Sorry…there is no onus on anyone to disprove AGW theory, it has yet to be proved. There are no experiments that can be done to prove it.
The experiments were done proving AGW long ago Gordon. keep looking.
fluffball, imaginary, or invalid, “experiments” only prove you don’t have a clue.
“all that cool stuff remains out of reach”
The GHEDT dream up a new meme and instruct mindless repetitive drone Ball4 to start spreading it about in every comment.
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. All the scientists then work feverishly to falsify the theory. Don’t think AGW passes as a scientific theory.
Stephen…”All the scientists then work feverishly to falsify the theory….”
Or they work feverishly to defend the theory despite evidence to the contrary.
ball4…”Where???
It is where you find it. AGW is experimentally and observationally well observed, but all the cool stuff remains out of Gordons reach”.
I asked you where????
It is where you find it Gordon. Keep looking.
More fluff from fluffball.
Fake experiments, appeals to authority, and imaginary resources are all fluffball ever has.
Nothing new
LOL – PRICELESS!
Where is that El Nino? Answer is no where to be found. Models as usual wrong again, and they are trying to tell us future climate. Next joke.
What’s the matter with you Salvatore? Who did tell you El Nino is coming tomorrow, with a probability of 100%?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
A few weeks ago, the last line in Fig. 2 had a “70/30” prediction. This means that JMA actually is computing El Nino down a bit.
But as long as WUWT’s ENSO-meter
https://werme.bizland.com/werme/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
shows a value above 0.5 I wouldn’t bet a cent for El Nino dying.
Keep cool!
Bart
Welcome to the group of people getting insulted by this web site’s most pretentious commenter.
I appreciated your recent comment about GHE. It is a difficult terrain, like time dilation and Moon’s rotation around its axis.
For those unable to reply, behind their faked pseudoreal names, with more than ‘pseudoscience’, ‘stupid’, ‘idiot’, ‘red herring’ and the like, I have at best contempt.
*
I have two questions to you, related a little bit to this somewhat boring GHE stuff.
1. When we look at the usual math for a calculation of the average temperature of an Earth without atmosphere (NB not: without IR active gases), e.g. here:
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/revisions/828/7
we see in Equ (2) that like in most other math examples of this kind, the solar energy hitting Earth is given proportional to its disc facing the Sun.
Intuitively, the layman one more time is surprised because he thinks that Sun’s energy should rather be proportional the Earth’s hemisphere facing the Sun, modified with a weighting as is used e.g. for the latitude weighting of temperature averages.
A simple cosine weighting gives a factor of 2 / pi; that means, the Sun’s incoming radiation would in my mind then be (2 / pi) 2 pi R^2, i.e. 4 R^2 instead of pi R^2, i.e. 27% more, what would move the usually calculated temperature of 255 K up to 324 K!
First question: what is wrong with my supposition above?
*
2. In the StackExchange comment linked above, we see that the author has in mind to compare Earth as it is now with a planet lacking not only an atmosphere, but also oceans, i.e. like the Moon, what leads to an albedo of 1.1, and a temperature of 274.5 K.
But what is expected here is rather a comparison with an Earth whose atmosphere lacks gases absorbing and reemitting IR radiation emitted at the planet’s surface, e.g. when Earth reaches a temperature minimum in at least one of its three Milankovich cycles, what probably leads to a complete precipitation of clouds and water vapor, ocean surface freezing etc.
The planet’s albedo decreases on the one hand due to all clouds disappearing, but increases much more due to ice increase, as ice has an albedo around 0.35, which is much higher than that of liquid water (below 0.1).
Thus my second question to you: if the average albedo of such an ice-ball Earth is between 0.3 and 0.4, why then do people criticize that the actual albedo of around 0.3 is kept ‘as is’ when computing Earth’s temperature with an atmosphere transparent to IR, giving these so heavily attacked 255 K?
“For those unable to reply, behind their faked pseudoreal names, with more than ‘pseudoscience’, ‘stupid’, ‘idiot’, ‘red herring’ and the like, I have at best contempt.”
So you have, at best, contempt for Norman. OK.
That you of course would avoid to mention yourself, Robertson, Huffman, Flynn etc was evident to me.
That you would of course avoid to mention yourself, Norman, Nate, Svante, E Swanson, Ball4, bobdroege, David Appell, Myki, and all of the rest of the GHEDT was evident to me.
Thank you Team, proud to be in that group.
Even prouder if you could add barry.
svante…”Thank you Team, proud to be in that group.
Even prouder if you could add barry.”
Pride is one of the many drawbacks to AGW. Alarmists would rather be proud than use intelligence.
“proud to be in that group.”
That’s what is so disturbing about you.
Bindidon, I like your “out-of-the-box” thinking, so I will try to help.
In your question 1., temperatures are not linearly related to flux. They are related by the 4th power. So a 1.27% increase in flux would yield a 1.062% increase in temperature, or 255 K –> 271 K. (Not the 324 K.)
But, you are on the right track. One half of the imaginary “earth” has an area of twice its “disk”, so the incoming energy is 960 * (2A) = 1920 Watts/m^2 * (A). Then the outgoing flux is (1920 * A)/(4A) = 480 Watts/m^2. Resulting in an S/B temperature of 303 K.
Unfortunately for Institutionalized Pseudoscience, that does not have the desired “warming”, so they use the inaccurate 255 K.
I can’t understand your point in question 2. However, Earth’s albedo is 0.3, and that includes both the atmosphere and the surface.
You are completely wrong, and did above all not understand what I wrote. Maybe this is due to your “in-my-box” thinking.
For you, everything what you either don’t understand or do not accept is pseudoscience by definition.
Please let Bart formulate a more accurate answer when he has time to do. I am not interested in your replies.
binny…”You are completely wrong….”
Now do you understand why I call you an idiot? Claiming someone is completely wrong without supplying a scientific rebuttal is being an idiot.
Gosh Bind, a little reality sure upsets you, huh?
It’s all just a part of the game they play. Because of the long-running campaign to demonize and discredit and relentlessly personally insult anyone who questions the GHE, by the likes of Anthony Watts etc, “Acceptable Skeptics” are allowed to question some aspects of the GHE but never admit that it has been long ago falsified, and is continually refuted over and over again on a monthly basis on this blog and others. The “Acceptable Skeptics” long for “credibility” and “acceptance”, and would fear the relentless abuse they would inevitably get for outright denouncing the GHE, so keep carefully within their guidelines of acceptability, as has been conditioned in them.
If a GHEDT avatar, like Bindidon, is to ask a question about the GHE (as part of some ruse), naturally they will reject any explanation except from either another GHEDT player, or an “Acceptable Skeptic”. “Acceptable Skeptics”, in many ways, are preferable, since in accepting their answer from the AS, they can give the AS a little pat on the head, which keeps their ego satisfied and stops them from wanting to stray into the “unacceptable” territory, AND it encourages other commenters to take the AS route as well.
They despise reality. Psychologically, it likely has something to so with their empty lives and failed careers. They can get on a blog and pretend to be something.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Above you made this absurd statement: “The “Norman” avatar is just an experiment in gaslighting by a group of unpleasant, manipulative “people”.
So you, the most manipulative poster on this blog, accuse others of what you do in every post?
Also you are really wrong when you make this false and misleading claim.
YOU: “Because of the long-running campaign to demonize and discredit and relentlessly personally insult anyone who questions the GHE”
No one attacks people for questioning GHE. They hate bad made up physics that is not supported by anything. I have stated this in many many posts. You ignore those, why?
If one has issues bring them up with valid science, not make up statements and declarations. Also you boyfriend spends most his posts taunting other posters and you think that is okay? That is what provokes negative reactions.
I think you are one really dishonest manipulative poster pretending to support free inquiry but not at all concerned with that. You come on only to denigrate honest science in favor of your unsupportable cult pseudoscience.
Norman says: “absurd statement…you, the most manipulative poster on this blog…what you do in every post…you are really wrong…false and misleading claim…bad made up physics…not supported by anything..you ignore…make up statements and declarations…your boyfriend…taunting other posters…you think that is okay…negative reactions…I think you are one really dishonest manipulative poster…pretending to support free inquiry…you come on only to denigrate honest science…your unsupportable cult pseudoscience.”
Bin asks;
“A simple cosine weighting gives a factor of 2 / pi; that means, the Suns incoming radiation would in my mind then be (2 / pi) 2 pi R^2, i.e. 4 R^2 instead of pi R^2, i.e. 27% more, what would move the usually calculated temperature of 255 K up to 324 K!
First question: what is wrong with my supposition above?”
There are two major problems.
The first was pointed out by JD. “So a 1.27% increase in flux would yield a 1.062% increase in temperature, or 255 K > 271 K. ”
[Where he really means 1.27x and 1.062x — ie 1.602 times larger, not 1.062% larger]
The other problems is that your weighting is for a cylindrical shape. This would be correct, for example, for a stripe around the equator. But the earth curves in BOTH directions (east-west and north-south). The “simple” 2/pi = 0.637 weighting is incorrect, and should be 1/2 = 0.5.
So a disk facing the sun averages 960 W/m^2 on the sunny side
A cylinder facing the sun averages (960*0.637) = 611 W/m^2 on the sunny side.
A sphere facing the sun averages (960*0.5) = 480 W/m^2 on the sunny side.
A
And now I have a typo! That should be …
[Where he really means 1.27x and 1.062x ie 1.062 times larger, not 1.062% larger]
Shhh.
binny…”Welcome to the group of people getting insulted by this web sites most pretentious commenter”.
You have taken the umbrage I took with Bart’s comment out of context. I had acknowledged in a previous post that he is intelligent and he has demonstrated an ability to analyze certain problems.
I called him essentially an idiot for making such a stupid statement related to science. No student of science should ever say to anyone that he ‘knows’ something for a fact therefore no further debate is warranted.
I realize we all take shots at each other but few of us come right out and claim he knows something for a fact. Anyone claiming that is stating in essence that he believes something he was taught therefore it is true.
JD has conducted a lengthy debate about the fact the Moon does not rotate on its axis. No one has proved him wrong using physics. Most arguments to the contrary have been thought experiments featuring abstractions like reference frames.
Mike has conducted a long term debate about the GHE, asking for a testable hypothesis, Thus far, no one has produced a testable hypothesis.
Neither Mike nor JD have come out and claimed they know for a fact that something is true. They have left the door open to debate and I have the impression either is open to a reasonable rebuttal based on physics.
I have asked anyone to prove that time exists by demonstrating it as a phenomenon. I am willing to debate that till my face turns blue but I will not sit back and have anyone lecture me as if he/she is some kind of authority, without supplying scientific proof to back his/her claim.
When you read books on physics, the definition of time is conspicuously absent. No one can explain it. They can explain energy as the capacity to do work, a statement that is vague but applicable.
Even though no one can explain time, many feel free to talk about it as an entity that can interact with matter and energy to the point of altering them. AFAIAC, that was major blunder in GRT theory.
“No one has proved (JD) wrong using physics.”
Everyone using observations has proven JD wrong, race horses are observed NOT to run the backstretch tail first, they run face first all around the track proving the racing horses have rotated on their own axis during the race after the gates opened. Physics can also be used however neither JD nor Gordon is accomplished enough yet to understand the physics, stick with observations to disprove those commenters theories.
ball4…”Everyone using observations has proven JD wrong, race horses are observed NOT to run the backstretch tail first, they run face first all around the track proving the racing horses have rotated on their own axis during the race after the gates opened”.
All you prove here is your utter inability to understand basic physics. You have already revealed that by claiming heat does not exist, that it is simply a measure of energy transfer.
When asked what energy is being transferred you disappear. It’s thermal energy being transferred, aka heat, therefore your definition of heat is a measure of the transfer of heat, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Now you are claiming that curvilinear translation required a horse to turn so it’s tail is pointing down a straightaway.
A serious misunderstanding of basic physics.
“You have already revealed that by claiming heat does not exist, that it is simply a measure of energy transfer…your definition of heat is a measure of the transfer of heat”
Heat does not exist, and I do not claim heat is simply a measure of energy transfer. Gordon fights his own strawman. And I don’t disappear, Romulans do.
“Now you are claiming that curvilinear translation required a horse to turn so it’s tail is pointing down a straightaway.”
Gordon fights another one of his own strawmen with a serious misunderstanding of basic physics.
Gordon,
None of you clowns can even understand the simple physics concept of curvilinear translation. You get it wrong every time. You obviously never took a physics class in your life, or if you did, you were drunk or stoned most of the time.
Gordon,
This is the real definition of translation, both curvilinear and rectilinear:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body”
[
http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf
If a horse were to exhibit a translational motion while running a race track, it HAS to face the same direction the whole time, which is why it would be running backwards down the backstretch. Since you are of such limited intelligence, this seems to be beyond your capability to comprehend.
Poor stupid, are you still confused about translational motion?
Consider railroad tracks that make a large circle. The tracks are parallel at any infinitesimal increment. A train would therefore be in translational motion, as it made the large circle.
Hope that helps.
Everyone using observations has proven JD wrong as toy trains are observed NOT to run any of the circular track backwards, caboose first. The toy trains always face forward all around the circular track proving the toy trains have rotated once on their own axis while completing the circuit.
Hope that helps JD to learn some physics.
More fluff from fluffball.
Nothing new.
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times.”
Poor stupid JD. He can’t even understand plain English. The line in the object translating has to remain parallel to its ORIGINAL position you idiot. If the object starts out pointing north, it has to remain pointing north throughout its translational motion. This is stuff a middle schooler could understand. If the train starts out north, and then a quarter way around the track is facing west, is a North line parallel to a West line? Yes, according to our dunce JD.
The line through the body cannot rotate. Hello!
Poor JD just makes himself look foolish for everyone to see.
skeptic…”This is the real definition of translation, both curvilinear and rectilinear:
It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body”
That is exactly what I have described for the Moon’s orbit around the Earth and the horse around the racetrack. A line through each body parallel to the tangent at each point of the curve remains parallel to the tangent at that point. All points in each body are moving parallel to that line therefore they are moving parallel to the tangent line.
Whether it’s a curve or a circle, that remains true.
Furthermore, each point on either body along a radial line is moving at the same angular velocity, another requirement.
skeptic…”The line in the object translating has to remain parallel to its ORIGINAL position…”
That is a requirement only of rectilinear translation. If the body moves along a curve at some point, obviously the parallelism must change. Your definition rules out curvilinear translation.
With a curve, or a circle, the line must remain parallel to a tangent line at each point on the curve/circle.
Gordon once again makes up his own definition of curvilinear translation.
The real definition per a university kinematics reference:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.”
[http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf]
Do you know what AND means?
Gordon. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. You are making a fool of yourself for all to see.
You are hopelessly confused by the simple concept of translation.
Gordon also resort to lying to cover his ignorance. Gordon shrieks:
“Furthermore, each point on either body along a radial line is moving at the same angular velocity, another requirement.”
NO, no, no! Not “angular” velocity. Just “velocity”. You will NOT find any reference that states the angular velocities of two points on the object must be the same for curvilinear translation.
The complete and true definition of translation:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.”
[http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Notice it does NOT say “angular velocity”. Brown University DOES know what they are talking about. You don’t.
You confuse curvilinear motion with curvilinear translation. Not the same, Einstein.
The endless obsessive, pointless, hyper-abusive comments on the definitions of translation is just another red herring.
The moon rotation argument boils down to: is the movement of the moon comprised of one, or two, motions. That’s it. Does not matter one iota what words you use to describe the motions.
If you clowns can’t even comprehend the simple motion of translation, how can you even grasp the motion of the moon, you nitwit.
It’s no wonder Postma threw you idiots under the bus.
Like I said, the argument boils down to:
“Spinners”: the moon’s movement is essentially comprised of two motions (a translation about the Earth-moon barycenter plus a rotation on its own axis). “Non-Spinners”: the moon’s movement is essentially comprised of just one motion (a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter).
It’s not my fault that your arguments from the very beginning have been besides the point, and that you have wasted countless hours of your time, getting yourself extremely worked up and agitated, over your red herring. Don’t shoot the messenger.
“First question: what is wrong with my supposition above?”
My original answer to this won’t get through the site filter, and I don’t know why. So, unfortunately, this answer will not be as explanatory.
The upshot is, you need to integrate a cosine squared weighting rather than just a cosine. That will give you the correct factor.
“Thus my second question to you…”
That’s a somewhat confusing question. I suppose the gap between blackbody and Earth’s surface could be closed a bit by assuming a smaller albedo, but even at 0, there’s still about 10K to make up somewhere.
It is cosine squared because the projection of the Sun’s rays on a surface element is proportional to the cosine, and the elemental area on the hemisphere is proportional to the cosine.
Bart [1]
I was sure you would, unlike people like Huffman and Robertson, give a reply based on Science, and not on that ridiculous pseudoscience the two endlessly propagate on this web site.
{ 50 years ago, I was quite a bit more mathy than today, and had to work with integrating, differential equations, etc etc. All that has disappeared inbetween due to lack of its use in daily work. }
Merci beaucoup / Thank you very much for the precious hint. I was sure there was a bug in my little computation.
Averaging cos^2 instead of cos indeed gives exactly 0.5 instead of this nonsensical 0.63662 i.e. 2 / pi.
Thus the weighting of the incident sun radiation over Earth’s hemisphere is EXACTLY EQUAL to the unweighted incident radiation over its disk.
*
My remark about this: it would have been a bit better if all the people comparing incident and emitted energy would explain the incidence weighting one has to use, and writie
0.5 * 2 pi * R^2
instead of
pi * R^2
That would help avoiding claims concerning ‘institutionalised pseudoscience’.
I’ll write about the albedo problem again in a separate comment.
The area of the “disk” = A =πr^2
The area of the hemisphere = 2A = 2πr^2
The area of the whole sphere = 4A = 4πr^2
The “weighting” nonsense is pseudoscience.
The object used in the bogus 255 K calculation is a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, spherical black body. ALL flux would ba absobed by its hemisphere, as I described above.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338018
Resulting in a temperature of 303 K, not 255 K or 324 K.
(Some more reality for the clowns to deny.)
JDHuffman
“The ‘weighting’ nonsense is pseudoscience.”
As I told you: everything people like you (or Robertson, or your altar boy) either do not understand or do not accept is automatically ‘pseudoscience’.
But the Cardinal of the Church Of The One And Only Truth carefully avoids to mathematically explain why it is pseudoscience, isn’t it?
So give us an exact explanation!
Please explain why incoming solar radiation is the same for a piece of the hemisphere nearly perpendicular to that radiation as for a piece of the hemisphere nearly parallel to it.
I’ll enjoy it. You will redefine the World.
JDHuffman
This is why you should not post. You are not logical or rational in the least. Your made up physics fails when you don’t have enough reason to see how it will not work. But don’t worry your boyfriend DREMT will come to your aid (that one is even less rational than you are).
YOU: “But, you are on the right track. One half of the imaginary earth has an area of twice its disk, so the incoming energy is 960 * (2A) = 1920 Watts/m^2 * (A). Then the outgoing flux is (1920 * A)/(4A) = 480 Watts/m^2. Resulting in an S/B temperature of 303 K.”
So if you have only 960 Watt/m^2 solar energy available and you increase the area that this energy has to reach you have it multiply? So totally illogical and irrational. The funny thing is you are not able to understand how bad you idea is!
You are making a tremendous amount of energy there. You have a maximum of 960 W/m^2 reaching the surface of a disk. You double the area but the incoming energy is the same but somehow you think the energy each m^2 will double.
This is exactly why no one wants to communicate with you. Not only do you not know any physics (like the goofball DREMT) but you can’t logically think things through. You have some problems with thinking that you are not able to correct nor can anyone else.
I think on this one you might lose Gordon Robertson. I think even the fanatic lunatic Joseph Postma might cringe at your thinking. That’s an idea I can link your post to his blog and see what he thinks about it.
The “Norman” Experiment says: “you should not post…you are not logical or rational…made up physics fails…you don’t have enough reason…your boyfriend DREMT…even less rational…totally illogical and irrational…not able to understand how bad you idea is…no one wants to communicate with you…not know any physics…the goofball DREMT…can’t logically think things through…you have some problems with thinking…you might lose Gordon Robertson…even the fanatic lunatic Joseph Postma…cringe at your thinking”
Bind and Norman, for two clowns that claim they don’t want to communicate with me, you sure communicate with me a lot!
The solar flux is a “FLUX”. It is not treated as energy until it is absorbed by an AREA.
Flux = Watts/Area
Power = Flux * Area = Watts
Energy (Joules) = Watts * Seconds
But, keep the communication going, I enjoy your comedy.
JDHuffman
“The solar flux is a “FLUX”. It is not treated as energy until it is absorbed by an AREA.”
Sorry… Your teachy moment is of no interest.
I’m awaiting a clear response to this:
“Please explain why incoming solar radiation is the same for a piece of the hemisphere nearly perpendicular to that radiation as for a piece of the hemisphere nearly parallel to it.”
Please try to answer instead of turning around the pot.
Bind, you can’t even understand your own pseudoscience.
The object used in the bogus 255 K calculation is a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, spherical black body. ALL flux would be absorbed by its hemisphere, as I described above.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338018
Incorrect JD, the Earth by observation is NOT a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, spherical black body and the 255K is measured AND calculated using 1LOT with all measured inputs. Learn some physics.
We know fluffball is really desperate when he prefers a “real Earth” over the bogus “255 K earth”.
The clowns get trapped in their own pseudoscience all the time. But, it’s still always funny.
JD says: ““The object used in the bogus 255 K calculation is a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, spherical black body. ALL flux would be absorbed by its hemisphere, as I described above.”
This is mostly correct. The calculation does indeed assume a uniform (“isotropic, homogeneous”) temperature over the surface. That is similar to a “thermal superconductor” that immediately spreads the incoming energy across the entire sphere.
There is one important other point to make. The assumption is that the object is a blackbody ONLY over the wavelengths associated with thermal IR (approximately 4 um – 100 um). At other wavelengths, the emissivity doesn’t have to be 1.00 — ie the albedo for incoming sunlight doesn’t have to be 0.00.
it is common to have different properties like this. For example, white paint can have an emissivity close to 1.0 for IR wavelength, yet still reflect nearly all incoming visible light.
I should point out that 255 K is a *best* case scenario. The non-uniform temperature on a non-super-conducting, anisotropic, inhomogeneous blackbody sphere would lead to an average temperature LOWER than 255 K.
JDHuffman
“The object used in the bogus 255 K calculation is a super-conducting, isotropic, homogeneous, spherical black body. ALL flux would ba absobed by its hemisphere, as I described above.”
That is something you simply pretend, without any proof, and therefore is of no interest.
*
“The ‘weighting’ nonsense is pseudoscience.”
Im still awaiting your clear response to this:
Please explain why incoming solar radiation is the same for a piece of the hemisphere nearly perpendicular to that radiation as for a piece of the hemisphere nearly parallel to it.
Try to answer EXACTLY to the question above, instead of dodging again and again.
Tim says: “This is mostly correct.”
Tim, you should have stopped there.
Instead you went on to spin your way out of the pseudoscience you worship.
Maybe you could send some “white paint” to the IPCC. Then, they could really white wash the truth.
“The calculation does indeed assume a uniform (“isotropic, homogeneous”) temperature over the surface.”
There is no such assumption for T Tim. The only assumption in the calculation is radiative equilibrium and a uniform surface. What us meant by “uniform surface” is murky though as no surface is uniform at IR wavelengths.
If the assumptions were really as you write, satellite observations of TLT would not be possible. Obviously the earth’s 255K brightness temperature observation reasonably results from a non-super-conducting, non-isotropic, inhomogeneous, non-spherical, non-black body real Earth with no uniform temperature over the surface.
Bind, I’m still waiting for you to make sense.
Maybe if you would try one sentence at a time, easily translatable, it might work.
Don’t argue with me, JD. Argue with the engineers.
https://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1.htm
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table
Tim, I’m not arguing, you are.
I just commented that you went on to spin your way out of the pseudoscience you worship.
And, you’re still at it.
Nothing new.
JD…”The solar flux is a FLUX. It is not treated as energy until it is absorbed by an AREA”.
That’s what I have been trying to tell them but they are slow on the uptake.
Watts are a measure of mechanical energy that can be expressed as a heat equivalent of mechanical energy. It’s not till the EM is absorbed and converted to heat that any work can be done and any energy expressed in watts.
tim…”The assumption is that the object is a blackbody ONLY over the wavelengths associated with thermal IR (approximately 4 um 100 um).”
That’s fair enough for pure theoreticians but we’re talking about real life objects that don’t model a BB well in that range.
For one, a BB theoretically absorbs all radiation incident upon it no matter what the temperature of the source may be. The 2nd law has something to say about that.
Furthermore, GHGs in the atmosphere are also modeled as a BB which is utter bunk. AGW alarmists are applying back-radiation as if it is a BB in thermal equilibrium with the surface.
BB theory was developed by Kircheoff for two bodies in a state of thermal equilibrium and that is the only context in which BB theory can be applied.
Ideally, for a BB, the source should be at least 5000C. Then again, the Sun is considered a BB based on that range and there’s no proof it absorbs all frequencies of EM incident upon it.
I’m afraid BB theory is more pseudo-science and sci-fi than reality.
Dr. Spencer, I took your advice and put numbers to the statements. I ran the numbers and they don’t look good for CO2. The observations that we know are:
1) Temperature differentials between El Nino and La Nina
2) Time Periods between the El Nino and La Nina
3) W/m^3 needed to warm a m^3 of water
4) W/m^2 of LWIR from CO2 at the surface
5) W/m^2 of sunlight at the surface for sunny and cloudy days
In other words, we know the Energy Flux in and out of the system, and we can calculate the time needed for CO2 to replace the lost energy. It would be interesting if you were to write a post demonstrating that the input from CO2 is so small relative to the huge swings in the total energy balance, that the time needed for CO2 to make a material consequence simply doesn’t exist. It takes months for CO2 to replace the energy lost from just 1 cloudy day. Here are some other examples:
An Einstein Thought Experiment on Climate Change
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/an-einstein-thought-experiment-on-climate-change/
Salvatore del Prete
Knowing your interest in geomagnetic fields, I thought you might find this worth reading.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00007-1?fbclid=IwAR2gSgzmL8L6ntOcT3OymcjXiFScIUciMir3uS8EyVE3SbwSR6RRua96g2E
It is the sun stupid
What is it they see NASA & NOAA don’t
https://goo.gl/j5xkFP
Why do you think it is there no horror warming predictions coming from countries like Japan and Russia
Different planet ? different sun ?
Eben
I know nothing about Russia.
Here is the web site of Japan’s Met Agency concerning global temperatures:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
There you read:
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016(+0.45°C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.38°C), 4th. 2018(+0.30°C), 5th. 2014(+0.27°C)
From there you see:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
*
What now concerns Gosselin’s TricksZone:
– the top temperature and heat wave maxima for the 1930’s is based on CONUS data, i.e. 6% of Earth’s land masses;
– Akureyri and Reykjavik are lonesome islands in a big bunch of normal data.
I compared years ago all these stations in GHCN, especially the differences between GHCN unadjusted and adjusted.
Apart from a few legal claims, lots of comparisons were simply wrong.
Interestingly, all these people were interested only in stations showing higher temperatures than earlier, but not in stations showing the inverse behavior.
I did the job once, it has cost me a lot of bloody work, and I do not intend to repeat it.
binny…”Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016(+0.45°C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.38°C), 4th. 2018(+0.30°C), 5th. 2014(+0.27°C)”
All that proves is that the Japan Met Agency deals in the world of bs rather than science.
Poor Robertson dumbie…
“All that proves is that the Japan Met Agency deals in the world of bs rather than science.”
*
JMA publishes the surface temperature time series showing the lowest trends of all:
– below 0.07 C / decade for 1891-2018;
– 0.135 C / decade for 1979-2018 (i.e. tiniest 0.007 C / decade more than UAH 6.0).
You keep the most ignorant and the most pretentious ‘commenter’ on this blog, and that certainly won’t change soon.
Does anyone see anywhere in my post me asking for strawmen arguments from some Bindidong guy ???
Do you think I would appreciate people like Robertson, Flynn etc throwing their pseudoscience dung near my comments all the time?
Bind, your comments are the “dung”.
Others are just trying to clean up your mess.
B,
You are obviously unaware of how to save your work, when using a computer.
You need to make secure backups, otherwise people might think you as incompetent as Phil Jones, who managed to lose all his data, too.
The IPCC has stated that future climate states are not predictable. I presume your obsession with historical data is just a mental aberration. No rational person believes that the future can be predicted from endlessly reanalysing the past.
Cheers.
bobdroege took exception to me pointing out that CO2 can be heated to 700 C by compression, and should radiate at frequencies commensurate with that temperature.
He wrote –
“Of course it emits the same wavelengths at 700C and -80C, just much more at 700C.”
Presumably, at -90 C, it emits even less of those wavelengths than at -80 C.
This leads to an interesting proposition, if bobdroege is correct that substances can only absorb and emit certain specific wavelengths. A block of frozen CO2, (dry ice), totally immersed in molten lead, would be unable to heat up, unless the wavelengths emitted by the molten lead were the same as those able to be absorbed by the CO2. It would remain frozen. Now, according to the AGW enthusiasts, the flux radiated by the frozen CO2 would be absorbed by the molten lead, making it even hotter.
Obviously, then, a perfect container for dry ice is molten metal – at least according to adherents of the Hansen-Schmidt-Mann school of pseudoscience.
Maybe bobdroege can specify the wavelengths, and quantities of same, to which he refers. Otherwise, he might be accused of spouting meaningless pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.
Cheers.
A couple quick comments …
1) “Of course it emits the same wavelengths at 700C and -80C, just much more at 700C.”
A minor point — there is a process known as “Doppler Broadening”. This will make the absorp.tion lines wider, so a gas like CO2 would absorb & emit over a broader range of frequencies @ 700 C than at -80 C
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_broadening
2) “A block of frozen CO2, (dry ice), totally immersed in molten lead, would be unable to heat up, unless the wavelengths emitted by the molten lead were the same as those able to be absorbed by the CO2. ”
*Solid* (or liquid) materials have different absorb.ing properties than their gases. Solid (adn liquid) water absorbs pretty well at pretty much all IR wavelengths — ie teh emissivity is close to 1 (but water vapor only absorbs in bands). The same would hold for solid CO2. Lead, being a metal would have a low emissvity, but would still emit across the IR spectrum. So Lead (or any hot solid/liquid) would emit at the wavelengths absorbed by solid CO2 (or solid water or liquid water — or even gaseous CO2!)
So your conclusion — “Obviously, then, a perfect container for dry ice is molten metal at least according to adherents of the Hansen-Schmidt-Mann school of pseudoscience” is nonsense. Anyone with a tiny bit of understanding of IR properties of materials would spot YOUR errors in no time.
Then, how do you explain fried ice cream?
(This is a joke, for the humor impaired)
“but water vapor only absorbs in bands”
No! Geez Tim you just explained “doppler broadening” and then immediately forgot about it!
There is also collisional broadening (sometimes mistakenly called pressure broadening) and other nontrivial broadening of lines that make all nontrivial amounts of all gas spectra observed continuous if the exposure time is long enough & the film/CCD is fast enough.
Ball4,
Precisely. No gas is perfectly transparent to any frequency.
The speed of light is specified in a vacuum. Light covers all frequencies. Photons of all energies travel at the same speed – the speed of light.
Cheers.
Right Mike. Mike’s 4:58pm comment means Mike Flynn does truly believe in the GHE because Mike Flynn can state the effect in such a way that a testable GHE hypothesis can be readily formulated. The hypothesis has been proven out by experiment.
Believe it or not Mike, there are those commenting on this blog that believe some gases are perfectly transparent to any frequency so that there is no GHE. Mike Flynn should immediately delurk & point out the GHE and even its testable hypothesis do exist to educate such commenters.
Cheers!
Ball4, In theory you are, of course, right. Just like the next ticket you buy might win the lottery.
The wavelengths in the bands emit/absorb 1,000,000 times (or more) better than the wavelengths outside the bands. So, yes, of course, you would find the stray photons in those bands. But for *practical* purposes, GHGs like H2O and CO2 are transparent between the bands.
(And N2 & O2 are orders of magnitude worse at emitting/absorbing, so they can reasonably be ignored completely for IR in the atmosphere.
Ball4,
Did you labour long and hard to achieve your present level of irrationality – or were you born that way?
I say I don’t believe that the GHE exists.
You say I do.
Who do you think I believe?
Cheers.
Depends on what is meant by *practical*. Sadly in these endless debates that is one big driver of needless confusion.
Readers can only read what you actually write Mike, no reader can read Mike’s mind to know what Mike actually believes despite Mike’s claims to the contrary.
tim…”And N2 & O2 are orders of magnitude worse at emitting/absorbing, so they can reasonably be ignored completely for IR in the atmosphere”.
So, you are claiming that N2/O2 will not heat up if you apply a flame to them? Ever looked at how an oxy-acetylene torch works?
And say you heat either gas to 3000C, are you claiming they cannot radiate away any heat?
I thought you alarmists claimed that all matter radiates and absorbs.
Don’t confuse conduction and convection with radiation and think you can safely drop some dry ice into a container of molten lead dressed in your favorite bikini.
Also don’t think pressure broadening, collisional broadening, or doppler broadening, or what ever you want to call can allow CO2 to emit in say, the visual range.
Shhh.
Tim,
1.I take it you are pointing out that bobdroege is wrong, and not disagreeing with me at all. CO2 emits different wavelengths depending on temperature.
2. You appear to be saying that gaseous CO2 can absorb energy of any wavelengths at all. I agree. Claiming that CO2 (and other gases) can only absorb and emit specific wavelengths is pseudoscientific nonsense.
Surrounding CO2 with anything at all, if it is at a higher temperature than the CO2, will result in the CO2 getting hotter.
Or you can heat the CO2 by friction, or compression, if you wish – no frequencies involved.
You might be silly enough to believe that CO2 at a pressure of 5500 Kpa must be hotter than CO2 at 100 Kpa. Nope. Taking the temperature of a CO2 cylinder won’t tell you anything except its temperature. No idea of pressure, or even of what gas (if any) it contains.
Keep your vague and sciency sounding (but meaningless) pseudoscience coming, Tim.
By the way, infrared wavelengths are merely those longer than the red end of the visible light spectrum. All of them, an infinite number, all the way to infinitely long. Nothing special or miraculous – just light.
Cheers.
1. CO2 absorbs/emits well around 2.3 um, 4.7 um, and 15 um. It absorbs/emits poorly at other wavelengths. This is true for gaseous CO2 at any temperature.
The point I was trying to make is that CO2 will absorb/emit well farther from the centers of those peaks when it is warmer.
* CO2 absorbs well at 15 um at any temperature,
* CO2 absorbs better at 17 um at high temperatures than at low temperatures (due to doppler broadening).
The CENTERS of the peaks are the same; the WIDTH of the peaks changes. I hope that clarifies.
2) I am saying that gaseous CO2 can absorb to at least a minuscule energy of any wavelengths at all. It absorbs on the order of 1,000,000 times better within the bands than outside the bands. Claiming that CO2 absorbs to any important degree outside the bands is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
(Sort of like having a 1 ohm resistor in parallel with a 1 megohm resistor. Yeah, some of the current goes through the megohm resistor, you would be hard-pressed to measure the extra current added by the megohm resistor.)
“Surrounding CO2 with anything at all, if it is at a higher temperature than the CO2, will result in the CO2 getting hotter.”
Yes. But that is, again, due 99+% to the strong absorp.tion bands and 1-% due to the wavelengths between the bands.
“You might be silly enough to believe that CO2 at a pressure of 5500 Kpa must be hotter than CO2 at 100 Kpa.”
Why would anyone think that? That must be someone else’s misconception that you have run into. Certainly no scientist would think that.
“By the way, infrared wavelengths are merely those longer than the red end of the visible light spectrum. All of them, an infinite number, all the way to infinitely long.”
By the way, you seem to have forgotten about microwaves and radio.
Yes, of course, EM radiation extends out to infinite wavelength, but we give these long wavelengths different names.
Tim,
You are still spouting diversion and pseudoscience, while still being unable to fnd facts to back up your disagreement.
At least you now agree that energy at all infrared wavelengths is absorbed and emitted by CO2.
If you must talk about resistors, then the parallel resistance of the 9996 resistors representing the 9996 parts of N2, O2 etc, is actually slightly more than that of the 4 resistors representing CO2.
That is, more IR is intercepted by the non-CO2 components of the atmosphere. Look it up, if you wish.
I suggested you might be silly – feel free to disagree, if you disagree with the gravito-thermal proponents.
You are unable to redefine IR to your purposes, it would seem. You may give IR radiation any additional names you wish. You might further your cause if you can provide the basis for so doing.
Learn some science. CO2 does not emit more energy than it absorbs, and any absorbed from the Sun, is energy that didn’t reach the ground unobstructed, didi it?
GHE believers are either stupid, gullible or deranged, if they can’t even properly describe the object of their belief. That’s religion or cultism – not science!
Cheers.
By the way Mike, if you reread my post you will find I did not take exception to the idea of heating CO2 by compression.
I also note from this post, that you have not studied the spectrum of CO2, either emission or abby sor ption.
Nor the emissivity of the same CO2 gas.
Sorry dude, you need to do some homework,
oh wait, the village idiot doesn’t do homework.
So get your bikini on and drop some dry ice into some molten lead and see what happens.
Shhh.
Bart [2]
Before replying to your interesting GHE comment, I would like to come back to this albedo stuff (it is not a mathematical problem).
Since years I read – especially at WUWT – comments pretending that an Earth without an atmosphere, or with one lacking H2O and other IR sensitive gases, would by definition lack oceans and therefore would have an albedo like Moon’s, i.e. around 0.1
That means in their opinion that the 255 K hypothesis based on an albedo around 0.3 is wrong and therefore must be replaced by a number around 275 K.
*
For me this is nonsense: we just need to think of an Earth cooling so drastically that all of its atmoshere’s H2O-based constituents (clouds, water vapor) would entirely precipitate.
Such a cooling event could happen when Earth reaches within one or more Milankovich cycles a corresponding position.
The result would be a snow-ball in a first step, but it would turn in fine into an ice-ball.
As ice has an albedo between 0.3 and 0.4, the 255 K hypothesis should keep correct.
What do you mean about this?
P.S. I’m not primarily interested in the GHE as such here: the focus is on piecewise understanding what is correct and what is not.
I think you have to assume things as they are, not as they might be.
The amount of unreflected sunlight reaching the surface is about 70% of the total on average, so it is on that basis that you would say that without the GHE, the surface should be about 255K.
Bart
“… so it is on that basis that you would say that without the GHE, the surface should be about 255K.”
That is exactly what all these pseudoskeptics doubt about.
But they doubt about everything, even about the necessity for a weighting of incident radiation that hits an hemisphere.
Oh Noes… Luckily, there are far far more sound skeptics than pseudoskeptics!
“Luckily, there are far far more sound skeptics than pseudoskeptics!”
[pat, pat]
Bart,
Not according to NASA –
“About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface.”
There is no GHE. Surface temperatures due to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun vary between roughly 90 C and -90 C. Averaging achieves nothing.
If you truly believe in the GHE, maybe you can state the effect in such a way that a testable hypothesis might be formulated. Or maybe you can’t. Your call.
Cheers.
That’s not helping you, Mike. If the surface is only getting 50% of the sunlight, then without the atmosphere, it should be 234K.
That’s not helping you, Bart. Your calculation of 234 K is as bogus as is the 255 K.
Bart,
I was just pointing out you were wrong, according to NASA. What you say is about as stupid as claiming that when the Earth’s surface was molten, it wasn’t really, because GHE!
Assuming the Earth core at the centre is 5,000 K or so, and the environment surrounding the Earthis 4 K or so, any point on the surface must naturally lie between these temperatures,
The temperature is generally measured using a device called a thermometer. Your nonsensical calculations are completely pointless – nothing to do with reality.
Maybe you could have a shot at describing the GHE, and formulating a testable GHE hypothesis? Otherwise you might be seen as a pseudoscientific jawflapper of no utility to man nor beast, I guess.
Cheers.
This is argumentum ad lapidem.
Bart, instead of trying to impress everyone with your Latin phrases, why not learn some physics, or at least get SOMETHING right.
This is argumentum ad invidiam.
Beautiful Bart!
[pat, pat]
svante…”Beautiful Bart!”
Finally…something you are good at…cheerleading. I just hope you’re not a guy with hairy legs wearing a cheerleader skirt out in public while carrying pom poms.
I am sure you alarmists wear gear like that in private, just as the lugubrious leader of skepticalscience likes to admire himself wearing a Nazi uniform. It’s ironic that one of his heroes may have been Hermann Goering, who had a penchant for cross-dressing.
Gordon, you have a sense of humor, didn’t Barts argumentation make you smile?
Shhh.
Did Chuck Todd specifically mention Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry or John Christy?
If a ‘climate denier’ rejects the things these scientists accept, then it’s not a straw man to refer to that.
And there are plenty of those to be found right here. Each time they comment to deny the things that Roy Spencer accepts, they corroborate that Todd’s comment isn’t a straw man.
The point was, from what Roy quoted, that rejection is political. This applies to the president of the US, for example.
If Todd mentioned the above scientists by name, that should have been mentioned. Otherwise, no, Todd has not made a straw man argument.
barry, no one denies there is a climate.
Do you ever feel guilty about all your attempts to distort reality?
Barry, that’s kind of a doofus argument. Science doesn’t accept anything.
This is a classic foot soldier act of solidarity defense when he sees his comrade under attack
barry,
Scientists accepted phlogiston, the ether, indivisible atoms, and any number of other quaint notions.
I don’t. Do you?
Cheers.
These foot soldiers took aim and missed entirely.
Hint – it doesn’t matter if you agree with Roy’s take on AGW or not – that is completely immaterial to the point.
Either you understand the point and can’t rebut it, or you didn’t get it.
Cue more waffling and red herrings, I suppose.
Todd says, “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.”
Equating “the Earth is getting hotter” with “the existence of climate change”, is a problem in itself, considering that the phrase “the Earth is getting hotter” doesn’t make any sense from the perspective of climatic change, as it is in the present tense. Climate change is typically measured over periods of at least 30 years, whereas “the present tense” refers to the current instantaneous moment in time (more appropriate for discussing the weather). “The Earth has got hotter, and may (or may not) continue to do so” would be the correct phrasing for climate change. Another reason why it’s a problem is that “the existence of climate change” could be read as generally meaning the existence of the concept of climate change, which is not necessarily disputed even by people who don’t think the Earth has got warmer over the last x years.
I think really the only applicable point barry is referring to when he says, “each time they comment to deny the things that Roy Spencer accepts” would be Roy Spencer’s acceptance that human activity is a major cause of climate change, which is disputed by many here. So barry, I think you half have a point, and half don’t. But even then, Dr Spencer is perfectly entitled to say, “it’s a straw man as far as I’m concerned”.
Missed by a wide margin. I’ll try to help you understand.
Roy takes issue with this quote from Todd.
“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.”
Roy’s issue with this quote is predicated on this:
Roy Spencer: “I cannot think of a single credentialed, published skeptical climate scientist who doesnt 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.”
But there are plenty of “climate deniers” that fit the description Todd infers. So his quote is not the straw man Roy ineptly tries to argue.
Roy’s argument only works if Todd actually refers to any of these people. Apparently he doesn’t.
Handily, you and other people have turned up to completely corroborate Todd’s characterization of “climate deniers”. In a lovely irony, the way you miss my point beautifully demonstrates it.
Todd’s quote is no straw man. But Roy’s argument that it ism is based on it. Another little irony.
To be explicit, Roy’s straw man can be summed up thus”
“Todd is talking about me!”
Barry says,
“But there are plenty of “climate deniers” that fit the description Todd infers. So his quote is not the straw man Roy ineptly tries to argue.”
I have never had the pleasure of meeting a climate denier. Are any credentialed climate scientist? Seems like Roy was insinuating this as the strawman. But I would go as far as saying are their any climate deniers out there with a degree in any scientific field. I do not know any, thus this is a strawman argument.
Barry Says “To be explicit, Roy’s straw man can be summed up thus”
“Todd is talking about me!””
Roy says,
“I cannot think of a single credentialed, published skeptical climate scientist…”
You are correct, but he is also talking about all skeptical scientists of which Roy is a member. Does that make Roy a climate denier? It will be interesting to see if Todd will listen at all or keep the blinder on and head in the sand.
Barry says “Does he mention credentialed climate scientists? No.”
I was giving Chuck Todd the benefit of the doubt that he would be listening to experts, however, if you are implying that he would be listening to non-experts, that would explain the level of journalism that I see from him.
Barry says “Youve never met anyone who rejects the notions that The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause. ?”
So this is the definition of climate denier. Seems a bit of a reach to assume that these individuals don’t believe in climate or climate change to that matter. But then again, the Greenhouse Effect is a very poor metaphor as well, so if that is what you believe a Climate Denier is, I have no dog in this fight. I will defer to your definition. As for Roy, he did use “OR” and not “AND”, so there was separation of these for him.
As far as meeting anyone of this caliber (climate denier), no I have not. I have met people who asked be about why extreme heat records for each Country are still primarily from pre 1970 and have done some research with Bindindon on that. It suggests that though the average temperature is higher (Tmin averages are higher), extreme heat is not. I have met some who believe average temp is up, but not significantly. So, I never have met someone who believed the Earth average temperature was not getting hotter, I have met many that do not believe humans are the major cause to it. So no climate deniers, pretty much, everyone I know believes in Climate.
“Not that I can think of. In related disciplines there are some.”
I would be interested in knowing who. I like to investigate their theories. Always like to keep an open mind.
Thanks
I was giving Chuck Todd the benefit of the doubt that he would be listening to experts, however, if you are implying that he would be listening to non-experts
He specifically mentions the political sphere. He’s talking about the wider debate in society. Which is perfectly legitimate. Anthony Watts’ site has been the most popular climate science site by clicks, and that certainly promulgates views described by Todd. Donald Trump is the POTUS, for crying out loud. He’s says it’s a big Chinese hoax.
Roy tried to funnel Todd’s general statement into an argument based on “credentialed experts,” and that is the straw man. You’re just adding straw.
Nice punch line barry.
Barry,
My original point was there are no climate deniers thus the strawman fallacy. The conclusion being the Earth is warming and it is mostly caused by humans. There is no need to invite a different opinion, they are climate deniers. Victory is mine.
But given your definition, then apparently there are climate deniers, just none I know of. Again, you thus you feel there is no strawman. I just did not get the impression from Roy that he embraces your definition. However, as I said, I will respect that, I have no dog in this fight.
By Todd’s definition Roy Spencer is not a climate denier.
By Todd’s definition there are climate deniers all over this website and in governments and elsewhere.
If you’ve missed all of these latter people, I can only imagine you have extraordinary powers of selective reading.
Name a person who denies climate exist.
This isn’t a game we can win, bilybob. barry is actually making multiple points, but when you call him on any specific one of them he says that you have missed “the” point (which will be one of the other points that he’s making that you are not addressing).
He repeats this until we give up out of either boredom or frustration.
DREMT
Hope springs eternal.
By the way, I also think the term Warmther has the same strawman fallacy, which implies a level of ignorance of the Birther’s. Barry is no warmther, he may be an alarmist, but I do not think he is ignorant. Perhaps biased to his ideas a bit.
The use of Climate Denier is a marketing approach by many alarmists to equate those who believe the Earth is in a natural temperature variation and humans are not significantly contributing to any climate effect to holocaust deniers, and thus are ignorant. No difference in my book in terms of a strawman, and it does make them look a bit foolish at times.
Billy Bob,
No, you guys are not Holocaust deniers, not sure who is saying so.
There are deniers of all stripes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
There are climate deniers and AIDs deniers. Not the same.
Gordon just happens to be both.
‘My original point was there are no climate deniers’
But then you say: ‘those who believe the Earth is in a natural temperature variation and humans are not significantly contributing to any climate effect’ is not a climate denier.
‘belief’ is a word not often used by science.
Science is empirical, about evidence and proof, not about belief.
If you ‘believe’ only natural climate change is possible, when science is finding so much evidence to the contrary,
then you are a science denier.
And a climate denier.
Nate,
Thanks for making my point. A person who believes in climate can not possibly be a climate denier.
Nate,
Also, thanks for the strawman, it was a nice touch.
Billybob, ordinary people understand that climate denier means ‘anthro climate change denier’.
Just as when you say ‘Alarmist’, we get that it doesnt mean alarmed about cleavage or vaping.
Your point is silly.
And mine went way over your head.
Nate,
I am deeply sorry, I gave you credit for making the perfect comment that demonstrates the strawman fallacy. But in the words of Joe Pecsi “You was serious when you said that”.
I thought you were being sarcastic when you said
“No, you guys are not Holocaust deniers, not sure who is saying so.” which is the strawman that takes comments out of context to convey illegitimacy of my original comment.
Or when you linked to Wikepedia’s definitions of denialism which clearly and correctly says Climate Change Denier. But try to pass it off as a definition for Climate Denier.
Or the classic strawman, quote me directly “humans are not significantly contributing to any climate effect” then twist the words to “believe only natural climate change is possible, when science is finding so much evidence to the contrary”
Alas I was mistaken and gave you credit when none was deserved. I rescind my thanks, and now I feel generally disappointed in you. C’est la vie.
As far as Alarmist Oxford Dictionary has it as “someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.” If you have a problem with it I would suggest you take it up with them.
FYI
The APs new Stylebook entry on climate change and global warming goes like this:
To describe those who dont accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.
This was from an article by “The Guardian”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/sep/24/what-other-term-is-there-for-climate-science-deniers-other-than-denier
I have never had the pleasure of meeting a climate denier.
You’ve never met anyone who rejects the notions that “The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause.” ?
That’s what Todd is describing as “climate denial.”
Are any credentialed climate scientist?
Not that I can think of. In related disciplines there are some.
But let’s look at the Todd quote again.
We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not
Does he mention “credentialed climate scientists?” No. What does he posit as contrary to science? Politics. Does “climate denial” as Todd describes appear in politics? Sure does. And elsewhere, too.
So Roy is making a straw man when he makes his case based on Todd referring to “credentialed climate scientists” as “climate deniers.” Or that Todd is referring to scientists at all.
This is as clear as can be. And it’s also central to Roy’s point.
It’s a bad argument. That’s the logical conclusion.
“Roy’s issue with this quote…”
Yes. IMO I have better explained why this part of Todd’s quote:
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter.”
is a straw man. If you wish to argue against that, then you will need to challenge my words, not Dr Spencer’s.
I already agreed with your point as far as it relates to this part of the quote:
“And human activity is a major cause, period.”
How did you manage to scroll the thousands of articles and posts by skeptics telling us the world stopped warming and/or is cooling? That message has been pumped out for years.
Eg,
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/08/global-cooling-has-begun-bob-foster/
There’s tons like that. We have people here who say the same thing. Hardly a straw man.
“Another reason why it’s a problem is that “the existence of climate change” could be read as generally meaning the existence of the concept of climate change, which is not necessarily disputed even by people who don’t think the Earth has got warmer over the last x years.”
If you keep fishing around you’ll eventually find something that isn’t a straw man. But we’re now way off the point that I was making.
“I’ll try to help you understand”, barry. This is part of what you told me your (apparently extraordinarily difficult to understand) “point” is:
“But there are plenty of “climate deniers” that fit the description Todd infers. So his quote is not the straw man Roy ineptly tries to argue.”
This is the part of what Todd said that I am discussing:
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter”
1) The existence of climate change is not “denied” by saying that the Earth has not got warmer, or cooled, over the last x years. So there are NOT plenty of “climate deniers” that fit the description Todd infers in the first sentence.
2) “The Earth is getting hotter” is a meaningless statement as regards climate change, because it is in the present tense, whereas climate change is measured over periods of thirty years, typically. So it’s not even a statement you can agree or disagree with.
You still haven’t responded to my point – which is based on Roy’s agreement with the statements on AGW he wrote. If your point is “well Todd has also made a straw man,” then you are tacitly agreeing with me. I’ll take it you do. Moving on…
Your straw man is woven from isolated bits of Todd’s comments. Meaning becomes pliable when you do this. The fallacy is called “selective reading.”
By “climate change” Todd means global warming that is ongoing. And he means the multidecadal kind of warming, because, as you helpfully point out, this is what is meant by “climate”. And he means that this warming is caused by human activity.
He is saying that ongoing global warming is caused by anthropogenic activity. You can ‘interpret’ a different meaning by cutting up these remarks and pretending they don’t relate to each other. And this is what you are doing.
But let’s follow you down that rabbit hole anyway.
There are plenty of people who – even in the US congress – have told us that the global warming has stopped – and they are not saying that this is a temporary dip. They’re not reporting weather. They tie this to the notion of global climate change. There are people who dismiss the notion of a globally averaged temperature at all, thereby rejecting the idea of observing any definite change. There are those who reject that warming has definitely occurred because of “corrupted” global temp data sets. There are those who state that global climate has cooled for millions of years as a way of denying or dismissing current warming. And there are plenty who reject the notion of AGW.
Todd’s point does not require all of these things to be true, only the last one – but they are all true.
You straw man is achieved by pretending that Todd means people deny the existence of climate change at all. This only works if you remove the comprehension of the whole paragraph.
And Roy’s straw man is that Todd’s remarks must necessarily refer to “credentialed climate scientists.”
My original point is sound, and all the further comments have been foot soldiers running to Roy’s defense.
Todd says:
“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.”
So when he refers to “climate change” in the first sentence, it is not anthropogenic climate change. That qualifier comes later. So my interpretation is sound. The first part of what he is saying is a straw man. Nobody is denying the existence of climate change, AND, more specifically, nobody is denying the existence of climate change by suggesting that the Earth has not warmed over the last x years.
You keep saying I haven’t responded to your point. I have explained exactly how I have. You talk about “tacit agreement”. Barry, I already told you I half agreed with your point, insofar as his remarks over human activity being the major cause, specifically. For some reason you then took that as me missing your point, and waxed lyrically about how my missing your point “beautifully demonstrated it”. Seems like nobody can win, barry. Whatever they say (even if they are partially in agreement) you just say they have “missed the point”!
And Roy’s argument is a straw man, not Todd’s. Just bad logic. Simple.
This part of Todd’s statement is a straw man, for the reasons already explained:
“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter.”
barry says:
January 15, 2019 at 7:29 AM
And Roy’s argument is a straw man, not Todd’s. Just bad logic. Simple.
Dr. Spencer wrote:
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.”
You know the answer to that one, climate has always changed.
“The Earth is getting hotter.”
If you want to call a degree over the last 169 years “hotter” I suppose.
“And human activity is a major cause, period.”
Todd doesn’t know that. The widely quoted 97% agrees that “…temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and humans significantly influence the global temperature.” (Doran & Zimmerman, 2009)
We can argue the differences in the definitions of “major” and “significant”.
We’re not going to give time to climate deniers.”
Does that include Dr. Spencer? Sure looks like it to me. Especially when he says:
“The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”
Do you think the science is settled i.e., we are a course leading to a climate disaster of catastrophic proportions? I don’t, Dr. Spencer doesn’t think that. Is that a straw man on my part? Todd said he’s not going to give time to climate deniers. Sounds like that includes Dr. Spencer. You need to make the case that it doesn’t. You need to make the case based on what Todd said that he would have Dr. Spencer on “Meet The Press.”
There are some terms here that need to be defined; “significant”, “major”, “climate denier” & “climate change”. Sort those out on this board to everyone’s agreement and then make your argument.
Based on what Todd said I doubt he’s going to allow Dr. Spencer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy on “Meet The Press”.
As far and Climate Change is concerned, censorship is alive and well in the United States and lots of other places around the world. And it looks like you think that’s just fine and dandy. Oh! Was that a straw man? Sue me. People tuning in to “Meet The Press” when it comes to “Climate Change” are only going to get the dogmatic party line.
You’re missing the point, Steve.
Roy is saying – “Hey I agree with the basic ideas that people like Todd accept. So Todd shouldn’t label me a climate denier.”
And that’s Roy’s straw man.
Todd didn’t label Roy Spencer – or any of the people Roy mentions – a “climate denier.”
Todd is referring to those people who disagree with Roy Spencer as “climate deniers”. There are plenty on this board, and some in politics (eg, the President of the US).
So Todd’s characterization isn’t a straw man. What he defines as a “climate denier”: they certainly do exist and are not a figment of his imagination, or a caricature. You may not like the term, but as defined, these are view that are promoted in the wider debate and make the press and even national politics.
Whether or not you or I agree with Todd, Spencer, Anthony Watts or Roger Rabbit is beside the point.
People keep wanting to drag the conversation to the familiar round of AGW real/not real. That’s because they either don’t get what Roy is saying and my rebuttal of it, or because they can’t simply agree that Roy’s argument is a straw man and want to paper that over with the no-AGW message.
Every time someone does argue the no-AGW line, they only corroborate Todd’s quote there. You exist, Steve. Therefore Roy’s charge is false.
barry says:
January 15, 2019 at 3:54 PM
You’re missing the point, Steve. …
A predictable answer if ever there was one (-:
So if Todd follows what he wrote, I assume you think it’s possible that Dr. Spencer could be invited to appear on Meet The Press
Do I have that right? Me? I doubt it.
barry…”Roy is saying Hey I agree with the basic ideas that people like Todd accept. So Todd shouldnt label me a climate denier.
And thats Roys straw man”.
For the umpteenth time, what the heck is a climate denier? The term itself is straw man since it ‘intentionally misrepresents a proposition because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument’.
The real proposition is that little or no global warming has occurred since the satellite record began therefore there should be little or no climate change. Alarmists coined the term ‘climate change’ since it became obvious that no catastrophic warming was occurring and they needed a strawman argument that was hard to defeat.
How do you argue against climate change? Are we talking about a global climate related to global warming? Both are fictitious, one a number and the other a misrepresentation of what climate means.
And why is Roy’s point about the scarecrow a straw man? Roy is not setting up an argument to misrepresent anything, all he is saying is that he’s not denying anything so stop calling him a denier.
Your logic is corrupt, Barry.
And why is Roy’s point about the scarecrow a straw man? Roy is not setting up an argument to misrepresent anything, all he is saying is that he’s not denying anything so stop calling him a denier.
Yes, that is what Roy is saying.
I’ll repeat what I wrote in my first post on this:
Did Chuck Todd specifically mention Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry or John Christy?
….If Todd mentioned the above scientists by name, that should have been mentioned. Otherwise, no, Todd has not made a straw man argument.
Roy’s straw man boils down to: “Todd is talking about me.”
As there are clearly people who hold views – opposite to Roy’s – that Todd describes and labels “climate denial,” then Todd is referring to actual beliefs, not fictional, and his comments are not straw man.
Do you think Roy identifies so strongly with the term “climate denier,” that he thinks every time the term is used it specifically refers to him?
That’s the tacit premise of his argument. And now it seems to be yours. And Steve’s.
barry,
Chuck Todd’s remark can be paraphrased as “anyone who doesn’t agree that the science is settled is a denier.” If you don’t like the way the consensus of us are interpreting it, complain to Chuck.
You’re absolutely free to ignore my point and say something else. And I’m free to point that out and ignore yours.
barry…”And there are plenty of those to be found right here. Each time they comment to deny the things that Roy Spencer accepts, they corroborate that Todds comment isnt a straw man”.
I have never heard Roy make definitive statements about anything. He has simply argued against certain points.
We know Roy supports the GHE theory, and he is likely luke-warm to the AGW theory, but I have never heard him declare his views on science are settled.
He has allowed several of us to express our anti-GHE positions, which I appreciate, but that does not mean we disagree that the Earth is hotter than it would be with no atmosphere and no oceans. We simply disagree on the mechanism which brought that condition about.
I, for one, am not denying anything Roy claims, I am simply questioning. If the GHE does operate as claimed, I want to see proof, not a supposition based on what is likely, or on a set of equations (S-B) that don’t really apply.
JDHuffman
YOU: “But, you are on the right track. One half of the imaginary “earth” has an area of twice its “disk”, so the incoming energy is 960 * (2A) = 1920 Watts/m^2 * (A). Then the outgoing flux is (1920 * A)/(4A) = 480 Watts/m^2. Resulting in an S/B temperature of 303 K.”
You cannot understand the geometry. The area is doubled but the energy being added to the hemisphere is the same as that what can be added to the disk. You can’t double the energy!!! This is totally wrong!
Think of it like this. Have a cylinder in space. It can be as long as you want. Since the solar flux is parallel at Earth distance only the circular disk facing the Sun will receive the energy from the Sun. The rest of the cylinder receives no energy. So you can have hundreds of times the area of the disk but you don’t ADD the solar flux to this increased area. I am sure you don’t understand what I am saying and will consider it rambling.
Your point is poor logic. I would hope you would reconsider your error and correct it. Most would. You won’t.
Norman, I see you have finally learned to copy and paste correctly. You must have graduated to a more advanced typing class. I’m sure you’re happy to be learning something.
Quoting me was the only thing you got right. So see, copy and paste comes in handy.
I see you commented twice, instead of once. Likely you’re trying to hide the fact that you ramble so much.
Anyway, my full response is below.
JDHuffman
I knew you would be unable to understand the point. I also knew you would throw “ramble” in your post.
Both my predictions about you came true. You can’t understand simple geometry and you like the word “ramble”.
Anyone can predict both your denial of reality and your endless rambling. That’s what you do.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
YOU: “But, you are on the right track. One half of the imaginary earth has an area of twice its disk, so the incoming energy is 960 * (2A) = 1920 Watts/m^2 * (A). Then the outgoing flux is (1920 * A)/(4A) = 480 Watts/m^2. Resulting in an S/B temperature of 303 K.”
The correct calculation is that incoming energy is 960 W/m^2 times the A only (you can’t multiply it by 2), you are not expanding the size to tap into any more energy flow.
960 Watts/m^2 *(A)= available incoming energy for a hemisphere. Exactly the same amount as a flat disk in the same space would receive.
The outgoing flux is 960*(A)/(4A)= 240 Watts/m^2 Resulting in an S/B temperature of 255 K. If you don’t make the incorrect conclusion that the amount of energy a hemisphere doubles you would get the same result as all scientists who work on it.
You can verify the scientists are completely correct and you have a massive mistake by going outside your house at dawn and monitoring the solar intensity as the day progresses. The lower solar input to the surface at Dawn is not because the Sun gets weaker and grows in strength. It is as Bindidon and Bart have been kind enough to mathematically show you. Read their posts and then read some links on the topic. Change your error.
Norman, this is another example where you fail to understand. Your deficit in the relevant physics, coupled with your closed mind, renders you completely uneducable.
So, this effort is for interested onlookers:
Norman’s confusion may be with the “disk”. He believes that the only energy is in the “disk”. But, there is NO disk.
There is only the hemisphere that is impacted by the flux, 960 Watts/m^2. And that hemisphere has TWICE the area of the illusionary “disk”. Poor Norman does not under “flux”, and rejects all instruction.
More math here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338087
JDHuffman
The only thing an onlooker would wonder is why does anyone respond to your posts. Your taunts seem to draw them in. Most people avoid you.
Forget an “imaginary disk”.
Have a real disk and a real hemisphere in space with the same radius. The hemisphere can’t receive more energy than the disk unless you concentrate energy from some other location and direct it upon the hemisphere. Where are you getting all this extra energy from? Also please go outside you own house at dawn and let me know it the Solar intensity is the same as high noon. You can easily verify that your math is wrong.
Why don’t solar panel people make them hemispheres instead of flat plates? According to your horrible and rejected reasoning they could all double energy production just by making them hemispheres instead of flat sheets.
Norman, here’s some basic high school algebra for you.
2 * A = 2A
Glad to help.
JDHuffman
I already know the area is doubled. That is not what I am talking about at all. The area is increased but why do you think the energy will also be doubled?
I gave you a very good example with a cylinder showing why your logic is a total fail. Why not read it?
Yes two times the area with the same energy input, will be cooler than a disk in the same location.
It seems you want to be a foolish person. You can’t see how wrong you are but keep arguing issues no one else is.
We all know the area of a hemisphere is twice that of a disk the same radius. I want you to explain why you think it will receive more energy. You have not done so yet, why not?
Energy/second absorbed by hemisphere = 960 * 2 * A = 1920A Watts
Energy/second emitted by sphere = 1920A Watts
Resulting flux = 1920A/4A = 480 Watts/m^2
Resulting S/B temp = 303 K
(Sorry if that overloads your head. I can’t make it any simpler.)
JDHuffman
NO! NO! NO! You are wrong! The energy absorbed by a hemisphere is not double the Area.
I gave you a real world example of why you are wrong with the solar panels. I told you to go outside, cloudless day, and monitor the solar intensity reaching you from Dawn to Dusk. You won’t do this, nor will you do anything but spout horrible science.
You are just totally wrong and it does not appear you are going to correct you bad logic and your misunderstanding.
Gordon Robertson will you help correct your deluded fellow poster, he is looking really stupid at this point.
It does not overload my head at all. I only see how little you really know and how illogical you want to be.
Norman, it DOES overload you. You are uneducable. You can’t process facts and logic. Your “real world example” is just another subterfuge.
Nothng new.
JDHuffman
Since you are this terrific genius, why don’t you tell you idea to solar panel manufacturing companies. Tell them how stupid they are to just make flat panels. They could get twice the energy for the same surface are if they made domes. When you can convince them you are right maybe someone will listen.
As it stands now you are so stupid you can’t even see how idiotic your posts are and how little reasoning ability you have.
Good luck trying to convince anyone here on your ideas. You have one crackpot and a love interest that support your lunatic ideas. No one else does. Most find you an annoying idiot and wish you would quit posting. That won’t happen. Trolls need to post, it is a compulsion.
Norman, the Earth is NOT flat.
Get educated.
Mike Flynn
You may have missed my link on an earlier date.
YOU: “Maybe you could have a shot at describing the GHE, and formulating a testable GHE hypothesis?”
The link provides both. It describes the GHE and how it works and provides the experimental test to prove the hypothesis is correct science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5509749/
Basically the material allows solar energy to be absorbed but the amount emitted in IR is much less so it heats up far past what the Sun alone would do. Up to 225 C.
The material is not a source of heat but allows for temperatures to rise far higher than they would be. Also the experiment is done in a vacuum so the argument about stopping convection does not apply, convection and conduction have been eliminated in the test.
Norman, you’ve tried this trick before.
Your link has NOTHING to do with the bogus GHE. The link refers to a specially designed layered semi-conductor. You’re really grasping at straws.
Next trick, please.
JDHuffman
Sorry it has everything to do with it!
You can read but are not able to comprehend!
Now let another person answer the post. I provide all the evidence Mike Flynn asked for. I can’t help you.
“The link refers to a specially designed layered semi-conductor.”
Which performs just like the specially designed layered semi-conductor between Earth’s L&O surface and deep space.
Hope that helps JD to learn some physics.
More incomprehensible gibberish from the tortured depths of a delusional mind.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Since you are a troll I hope you read about yourself. Maybe you will stop. It is highly doubtful.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/science-reveals-what-makes-trolls-so-nasty/2015/07/20/7ca2509a-273d-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html?utm_term=.d8970b290404
Norman,
Pee in one one hand. Wish in the other. See which fills up first.
Why should I take notice of what you hope for? Are you even more delusional than I thought possible?
Cheers.
Norman,
Maybe you should link to something that contains the acronym GHE, or the words which the acronym represents.
You are quite mad if you think you can get away with such nonsensical attempts at misdirection.
Stupidity is obviously your bosom buddy.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
So basically you are posting and saying nothing. The link is good, it is not a misdirection. It shows how and object can reach an incredibly high temperature in a solar flux, not because it is receiving more energy, but because it is losing far less energy than other objects in the flux. Wake up and quit posting mindless points. Tell me why you think the link does not demonstrate a GHE?
Clown Norman, there is no GHE. It is an illusion fostered by Institutionalized Pseudoscience. It is NOT real. You are trying to sell dead squirrels.
Wake up and smell reality.
JDHuffman
I was wondering what motivated you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/science-reveals-what-makes-trolls-so-nasty/2015/07/20/7ca2509a-273d-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html?utm_term=.d8970b290404
It seems your trolling has a purpose after all. It has a polarizing effect. The people who accept GHE is real and valid science will continue to accept it. The people who reject this will be even stronger in their rejection after they read you posts. So in all your posts you do have a direct goal to move Climate Science away from valid and good science discussion to determine the Truth of the matter into a political right/left mentality to close down all discussion.
I wondered why you come up with the stupid calculation about a hemisphere. You already know it is bogus. It is a fishing comment to get somebody (stupid like me) to take the bait. Then you go to your polarizing troll tactics.
Too bad you are such a character.
Norman, you have no knowledge of physics.
You have no knowledge of algebra.
You have no ability to process facts and logic.
All you have are insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations of others.
At least you know how to type…
The “Norman” experiment says: “you cannot understand the geometry…this is totally wrong.. I am sure you don’t understand what I am saying…your point is poor logic…unable to understand the point…you can’t understand simple geometry…you have a massive mistake…change your error…the only thing an onlooker would wonder is why does anyone respond to your posts….your taunts…most people avoid you…your math is wrong…your horrible and rejected reasoning…your logic is a total fail…it seems you want to be a foolish person…you can’t see how wrong you are…NO! NO! NO! You are wrong!…spout horrible science…you are just totally wrong…your bad logic and your misunderstanding…Gordon Robertson will you help correct your deluded fellow poster…he is looking really stupid…how little you really know…how illogical you want to be…good luck trying to convince anyone here on your ideas…you have one crackpot and a love interest that support your lunatic ideas…most find you an annoying idiot and wish you would quit posting…trolls need to post, it is a compulsion…you can read but are not able to comprehend…since you are a troll…so basically you are posting and saying nothing…wake up and quit posting mindless points…it seems your trolling has a purpose after all…It has a polarizing effect…you do have a direct goal to move Climate Science away from valid and good science discussion to determine the Truth of the matter into a political right/left mentality to close down all discussion…stupid calculation…you already know it is bogus…your polarizing troll tactics”.
Yes. The “Norman” experiment is now going around calling other people trolls.
Norman would have to have a year of clean comments to ever call anyone else a troll.
And, that won’t happen.
Norman calling someone else a “troll” is like Bindidon calling someone a “pseudo-skeptic”.
They both are their own best examples.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I am thinking trolls work in teams. JDHuffman is the polarizing troll and you swoop in to support his horrible troll tactics and accuse others of doing what he does. Great, not one idiot troll but two. Are more of you coming to disrupt this blog?
“I am thinking trolls work in teams”
Oh, absolutely. The dozen or so members of the GHE Defense Team have taken a complete stranglehold over this blog, as “Mark Mannion” recently showed. Then you have a few free thinkers countering their nonsense as a civic duty.
JDHuffman
You wouldn’t be part of the Russian Hacker group who has the goal of polarizing the US on various hot topic subjects, climate change being a big one. The article I linked to said trolls create a polarizing effect.
I looked up your previous posting ID. Here is what I came up with.
https://tinyurl.com/yae43udn
The name of a hotel in Russia. Maybe that is a way for you to identify each other as you work to polarize.
Norman, seek therapy. Your obsession has taken over your empty life.
JDHuffman
A response a hacker would make to protect their cover. You still may be a Russian hacker. It is not something outside the possible range.
Norman, actually this is NOT a great analogy for the GHE.
This material has a single surface layer carefully crafted to absorb sunlight very well, but to absorb/emit IR very poorly. (ie the albedo is low AND the emissivity is low — a very unusual situation).
The GHE relies on multiple layers. The critical factor is an upper layer thattransmits sunlight well but absorbs/emits thermal IR well (ie the emissivity is high).
While thermal IR is important to both processes, your link is not the same mechanism as the GHE. For the GHE, the layer must be (to some extent) thermally isolated from the surface (not an intrinsic part of the surface).
Tim Folkerts
Thanks for a very thoughtful and intelligent reply.
My thinking was more on the lines that the Earth Surface has to get to a temperature where it emits 390 W/m^2 to be able to get the TOA emission to equal 240 W/m^2. The incoming solar energy heats the surface until it can emit enough energy that 240 W/m^2 leave.
With the selective surfaces they have to heat up to a high enough temperature where the incoming solar is matched by the outgoing IR. Because they are poor emitters in the IR the temperature has to get much higher to reach an equilibrium with incoming solar than most normal items.
The GHG make it act as if the Earth’s Surface emissivity has been considerably reduced in the process, though it may not actually be reduced the effect is similar.
I should clarify that the effect is similar to the GHE but the mechanism is different.
If that does not work for you I will continue to try and explain myself better.
Tim Folkerts
Maybe this will help. If you had a sphere in space with a known temperature of 288 K and you measured the IR flux at 240 W/m^2 you would calculate an emissivity of 0.615.
The effect of a GHG atmosphere is it reduces the emissivity of Earth from near one for the surface down to 0.615 going through the atmosphere (even though that is not the actual mechanism the effect would be similar). Without a GHG atmosphere the emissivity would go up close to one and the temperature of the surface would drop.
I kind of look at the Earth system as this selective surface. The shortwave visible light easily moves through the atmosphere with little loss. The emissivity of the Earth system in IR is low so the surface (or in the selective absorber) heats up until it can emit the same as the incoming solar. The selective absorber absorbs the visible well but emits poorly. Does that help?
Norman,
I kind of look at you as as a very thin layer on a very shallow substrate, capable of extremely diffuse yet strangely pointless emissions, intellectually.
Does that help?
Cheers.
norman…”Basically the material allows solar energy to be absorbed but the amount emitted in IR is much less so it heats up far past what the Sun alone would do. Up to 225 C”.
This goes to prove that an amateur reading textbooks can get thoroughly confused.
A semiconductor is a solid in which silicon atoms are bonded together by their electrons. Each atom has 4 free valence electrons allowing it to conduct an electric current. The valence electrons also enable a slab of silicon to conduct heat.
The density of a silicon slab is infinitely higher than the density of CO2 in air. That means all those free electrons can absorb solar energy and transport/store the converted heat.
The main heat transport mechanisms are conduction and convection with radiation of IR apparently low. So the silicon is absorbing solar energy and unable to release it quickly.
That is how the atmosphere operates. N2/O2 absorb heat directly from the surface via consuction and store it for a lengthy period because N2/O2 cannot radiate well at terrestrial temperatures.
That’s part of the real explanation for the GHE. The other is the oceans, which can absorb and retain solar energy longer than a solid surface.
Tim Folkerts momentarily lost his power of rational thinking, and wrote –
“(And N2 & O2 are orders of magnitude worse at emitting/absorbing, so they can reasonably be ignored completely for IR in the atmosphere.”
He overlooked the obvious fact that there are orders of magnitude more molecules of N2 and O2 in the atmosphere than CO2. 9996 to 4, around 2500 to 1.
Tim might need to redefine “orders of magnitude” more to his liking, or decide that he didn’t really mean to say what he did. Strange, that.
Bad luck Tim. You can’t make facts go away by ignoring them.
Still no GHE. Not even a useable description. A mysterious deity indeed.
Cheers.
“He overlooked the obvious fact that there are orders of magnitude more molecules of N2 and O2 in the atmosphere”
No Mike, I didn’t over look that fact. As you point out, there are on the order of 1,000x more N2 & O2 than CO2. As I pointed out CO2 is on the order of 1,000,000x better at absorbing (actually, the number is even larger than that).
Even accounting for concentration, CO2 is STILL MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUTUDE better at absorbing than CO2.
Bad luck Mike. You just don’t know the facts well enough. And you are dealing with someone who knows enough to ferret out your misunderstandings.
Dang … CO2 is orders of magnitude better than *N2*, :-/
Tim,
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Fantasy is not fact. You are trying to pass off your fantasy as reality, but you are not even very effective as a con-man.
Read the work of Tyndall, replicate his experiments, and weep.
Even Wikipedia has accepted reality – surprise surprise!
From Wikipedia, re Tyndall –
“He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorp-tion by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”
Relatively small. According to Tyndall, at 1 atmosphere pressure, CO2 absorbs 90 times more IR than nitrogen or oxygen. To a foolish Warmist 90 is 1,000,000, cooling is warming, and so on.
At about one thirtieth of standard pressure, the ratio increases to 900 or so. Still not 1,000,000, is it?
Guess why no foolish Warmist can produce a reproducible physical experiment to show any substantial error in Tyndall’s work? Because they prefer to spout the same sort of nonsense as you, hoping nobody will have the sense to ask for proper experimental verification.
Off you go now, find a tangent to fly off at. No GHE, no CO2 heating, no Nobel Prize for Michael Mann, and no luck for you.
Cheers.
mike…”From Wikipedia, re Tyndall
He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber…”
He also concluded that warming would be a good thing, as did Arrhenius and Callendar.
A foolish Warmist wrote –
“In respect to this
Yup, every alarmists argument is CO2 absorbs IR therefore global warming. Believe in the boogyman, dammit!
Not me
CO2 emits radiation, therefore global warming.
Much harder to refute the flip side of the coin.
How the CO2 gets heated is not my department, but how it gets rid of that heat is how the surface of the earth gets heated.”
According to this strange person, because CO2 (as well as everything else in the known universe) emits radiation, the Earth apparently gets hotter.
Minor problem with this arrant piece of nonsense – the Earth’s surface seems to have cooled from a molten state, emitting lots and lots of radiation as it did so.
A village somewhere is probably missing one of its less useful inhabitants.
Cheers.
So, nothing that was once cooled from a molten state can ever be heated again.
What a moron.
Your village needs its idiot back.
Shhh.
Yes Shhhh, I am hunting wabbits.
Maybe we can find a village for you too.
OK weirdo.
As it probably gets lost in the thread I’ll repeat this here
This is in response to G Robertson discussing how he thinks IR thermal imaging cameras works and how IR will be rejected if an item it strikes is warmer than the equivalent temperature of a certain wavelength.
Hi Gordon.
Can you please explain to me how a CO2 laser with peak wavelength of 10um can heat (without the use of oxygen) e.g.wood to a few 1000C)
10um is equivalent to about 17C and so according to you heating will cease when temperatures reach 17C
This is a human safe temperatures so I invite you to do an experiment and stick your hand in the path of a co2 laser beam
–
now you talk of thermal imaging cameras. and your science is just wrong.
a paper:
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/iird.pdf
For a room temperature thermal imager the IR through the lens is thermalized on microbolometers and it is the temperature of these bolometers with respect to the ambient temperature (from ir received from the camera parts including the lens) that is read as an image by the electronics.
All objects will add a small amount to the ambient and hot objects a large amount. It is the detection of the ambient to image temperatures that limits the minimum temperature measured. NOTE THAT YOU CANNOT COOL A MICROBOLOMETER BY FOCUSSING A COLD OBJECT on it there are no cool rays!!
A thermal imaging camera (professional) will occasionally blank the lens with a shutter to recalibrate the ambient resistance of the microbolometers.
A thermal imaging camera is IR wavelength limited usually to exclude CO2 and water vapour wavelengths you do not want an ir camera image fogged by emissions from the atmosphere.
So pointing a camera at clear sky will usually hit the minimum detection limit of -40C (clouds are different nearer a BB)
Pointing a camera at water vapour just above boiling water will read the background temperature unless you use the vapour to heat a near BB substance e.g. paper
A video showing this effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yTErdEg_OE
goalfrunt, a laser uses energy to organize (reduce entropy) of the photons into a coherent beam. If you think a laser has any relevance to the atmosphere, try using one that is not plugged into a power source.
AGW/GHE is a hoax.
Thanks for the info.
But I’m curious if it will not be put very quickly into this wonderful, practical drawer named ‘pseudoscience’…
Manifestly I wasn’t quick enough.
ghalfrunt says: “All objects will add a small amount to the ambient and hot objects a large amount. … NOTE THAT YOU CANNOT COOL A MICROBOLOMETER BY FOCUSSING A COLD OBJECT on it there are no cool rays!!
A thermal imaging camera (professional) will occasionally blank the lens with a shutter to recalibrate the ambient resistance of the microbolometers.””
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I don’t think this is exactly what you want to say.
Let’s start at the end. If you shutter the camera, then the microbolometers are surrounded by ambient temperature (say 20 C) in every direction (the body of the camera, the shutter, any other internal parts). The microbolometers will settle in to a temperature of 20 C.
Now suppose you open the shutter and point the camera at a chunk of dry ice. Yes there will be a small amount of energy added by the IR from the dry ice to a microbolometer. There will, however, be a much larger amount of IR from the microbolometer to the dry ice. The microbolometer will indeed cool below ambient (below 20 C) by focusing on a cold object (which seems to be the opposite of what you are claiming). (In fact, even when it stays above 0 C, you can freeze water at night by focusing a parabolic mirror at the cold sky above.)
— (In fact, even when it stays above 0 C, you can freeze water at night by focusing a parabolic mirror at the cold sky above.)–
That is interesting. A parabolic mirror would cause radiation to go straight up. Whereas a flat mirror has radiation radiating into a hemisphere.
It seems to me the parabolic mirror would need to have transparent surface, like glass.
It seems that a parabolic mirror could perhaps be a cooling effect but it would largely be a cooling effect in regards to atmosphere rather than a vacuum. And it’s negating a warming effect of an atmosphere by causing IR to go straight up- and thereby going thru less atmosphere.
One also do the opposite and cause less IR from going straight up- but, normally very little IR goes straight up, so one could say cause less IR from going at 45 degree angle or higher [because one has a significant amount of IR which is radiating from a flat surface going at angle of 45 degrees or higher [though 45 degree or more is still less than 1/2 of all IR emitted from a flat surface].
As said, it seem a parabolic mirror would have little to no effect in vacuum, but causing more IR to emitted in a near horizontal direction or back toward the surface in a vacuum could significant warming effect in a vacuum. Or roughly speaking it’s making a vacuum act like an atmosphere.
So a simple solid cube which absorbs sunlight, would warming effect in vacuum. And solid spheres on level surface would work better.
Bad luck again Tim. No cold rays.
Freezo and Dr. Freeze are comic characters. You can’t use dry ice to increase the temperature of something at 20C. Focus all you like, use a germanium IR lens if you like, or any sort of mirror you like!
The balance of your mind has obviously been temporarily disturbed. I wish you all the best.
Cheers.
“You can’t use dry ice to increase the temperature of something at 20C.”
You need to work on reading comprehension! I was discussing how you can use dry ice to DECREASE the temperature of something at 20 C.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Yes there will be a small amount of energy added by the IR from the dry ice to a microbolometer.”
I suppose you will say that adding energy to an object makes it colder? Only if you use Dr Freeze’s cold rays!
Don’t be stupid, Tim.
No cold rays, no GHE, no Nobel Prize for Michael Mann.
Cheers.
“I suppose you will say …”
This seems to be all you can ever say. Imagining what people think. Imagining how science works.
“Why the pointless attempts to pose gotchas…? “
Because no one knows what goes on in that mind of yours! You sidestep any clear, simple answers, choosing to simply be argumentative. Rather than taking your purely argumentative approach, I am trying to discuss the science. Trying to apply time-tested principles to simple situatons.
Do you REALLY think there is any doubt that if I cool off a room, then objects in the room will cool off? Even objects with a constant energy input? Do you really think a microbolometer suddenly facing a cold object will not cool down a little? [This is not about ‘cold rays’. This is not about the greenhouse effect. This is simply about objects cooling off when their surroundings get colder.]
So … you can choose to show us that you have confidence in your scientific understanding and can answer simple questions. Or you can choose to bluster and redirect, letting us all know even more clearly that you really ‘don’t got game’.
But just for giggles …
Suppose we have a vacuum chamber with the walls at a uniform temperature of 20 C. Within the vacuum chamber is a box with an electric heater inside providing a constant power. Lets suppose the outside of that box reaches a uniform tempearture of T_0 = 100 C when the heater is running.
Now We hold the electrical power to the box steady and we cool the walls of the vacuum chamber to, oh let’s say, -20C. We wait until the outside of the electrically heated box stabilize in temperature. Let’s call this temperature T_1. Then cool the walls of the vacuum chamber further — how about -80 C? The outside of the box stabilizes at some temperature T_2. Now lets go wild and cool the walls of the vacuum chamber to -250 C. The box will stabilize at some temperature T_3.
Which of those statements will be true?
a) the box will stay at T_0 = T_1 =T_2 = T_3 = 100C
b) the box will get cooler, such that T_0 > T_1 > T_2 > T_3
c) something else???
Bonus question. we raise the walls of the vacuum chamber to 99C. The outside of the electrically heated box will be
a) still 100 C
b) warmer than 100C.
Tim,
How about you do the experiment, and provide your own answers?
Why the pointless attempts to pose gotchas, when you imply you already know the answers? Are you just trying to make someone else appear stupid?
How are you going with your parabolic mirror ice making machine? How low can you get the temperature when you concentrate the cold rays?
That sound you hear is me laughing.
Cheers.
The idea of making ice when the temperature is above 0 C using radiative cooling has been known for centuries. The ancient Persians and Indians are amused when you laugh off these ideas as impossible.
“The process of making ice using nocturnal radiative cooling was being practiced in India (and elsewhere) a few centuries ago. During the medieval times, the kings and nobility enjoyed iced desserts such as kulfi in the hot interiors of India.”
http://www.tatacentre.iitb.ac.in/8icemakr.php
“To procure ice by artificial means, they dig, on a large open plain, not far from Calcutta, three or four pits about thirty feet square… In the morning, before sunrise, the ice-makers attend the pits, and collect what is frozen in baskets, which they convey to the place of preservation.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/process-of-making-ice-in-the-east-i/
“Even though winter nights can be very cold in the deserts of Iran, temperatures rarely drop below freezing. But ice could be made even at temperatures just above freezing, thanks to a phenomenon known as night sky radiation or radiative cooling.”
https://www.fieldstudyoftheworld.com/persian-ice-house-how-make-ice-desert/
Shhh.
tim…”Now suppose you open the shutter and point the camera at a chunk of dry ice. Yes there will be a small amount of energy added by the IR from the dry ice to a microbolometer”.
yes…but the energy is EM, not heat. Heat is not being transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, it’s IR.
The effect IR has on a bolometer cell is similar to the photoelectric effect, not the heating effect of a higher temperature, higher energy EM, which raises the temperature of the body.
A photocell changes its resistance when it detects EM in a certain visible light frequency range. It will not respond to any old energy, only a specific range of frequencies in the EM band. A photocell won’t react to IR unless it is designed to respond.
ghalfront…”Can you please explain to me how a CO2 laser with peak wavelength of 10um can heat (without the use of oxygen) e.g.wood to a few 1000C)
10um is equivalent to about 17C and so according to you heating will cease when temperatures reach 17C….”
A laser is using focused and coherent high frequency, high power EM. In normal atoms, EM is radiated spasmodically, out of phase, at different frequencies. In a laser, the atoms in a special substance are stimulated so they radiate only at one frequency and in phase.
Waves of the same frequency in phase will add, therefore their power gets higher. The beam through the special substance is arranged so that it strikes mirrors and bounces back through the medium, getting more powerful each time.
To burn wood with a focused laser beam, the EM used would have to be equivalent to a very hot substance. The electrons in the wood have to absorb high intensity coherent EM causing them to break bonds and form a flame.
Therefore, the effect on the wood is similar to exposing the wood to a much higher temperature source than the wood temperature.
“…now you talk of thermal imaging cameras. and your science is just wrong.
a paper:”
I looked at your link and they are making the same mistake as many others, confusing infrared energy with thermal energy. Bolometers detect infrared, not heat.
The uncooled bolometer is only used for rough images produced by images at a similar temperature or higher. With a camera using an uncooled bolometer you would only get a rough outline of a device.
Your article is not explaining the specifics. A bolometer cell is part of an electrical bridge array. A bridge is a resistive device in which a reference current runs through one leg and the input current runs through another leg. A meter between legs detects the difference.
IR affects bolometer cells by changing the current through the measured leg. The difference current, or voltage, is amplified and processed to show an image in which the relative brightness of each cell is displayed.
These devices are not measuring temperature, in this case, they are primarily creating an image. It has nothing to do with heat transfer and the 2nd law.
IR detectors, whether in a camera or an instrument, detect IR, not heat. In order to determine the temperature of the source, an algorithm is required in the device to compare the IR frequency to an equivalent temperature determined in a lab.
To create an image of what the detector sees, that is not necessary. The detector is only seeing IR. However, to determine the relative temperature of the IR in order to produce a coloured image, an algorithm of some sort, based on lab results, would be required.
We are arguing two different concepts here. I am arguing, based on the 2nd law, that heat can NEVER be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object without compensation. That still stands.
You are arguing that IR cameras detect IR therefore they must be absorbing heat. That is not true.
Heat is not IR. Repeat a 100 times till it sinks in. 1000 times if necessary.
ps. the fact that a bolometer uses a bridge, which required a reference current, suggests the IR detector’s output is based on a lab-calibrated source.
pps. they have to know what response the bolometer cells will have to certain IR frequencies.
This has nothing to do with heat transfer, it’s all about the response of a semiconductor material to IR.
GR you seem not to believe the manufacturers of ir cameras, researchers into improvement of bolometers. Strange, since at least the manufacturers FLIR etc seem to be able to use the theory to manufacture room temperature thermal imaging cameras!
! the substance coating each bolometer is simply an IR absorber, it is not complicated it is not semiconductor (there are specialised semiconductor devices that use a totally different principal to detect IR – not under discussion here).
The IR absorber simply thermalizes the ir it receives
Electronics is used to measure the temperature of the bolometer. It’s not complicated (and it probably is not a “bridge”)
The electronics used is capable of calibrating the response of individual bolometers this will be done when the shutter covers the lens, The internal temperature of the camera/shutter is measured, but this may be calibrated against a reference at a factory for more precision.
Your suggestion about the bolometer radiating through a lens to strike a cold object and therefore cooling is just junk – sorry.
Yes it certainly does radiate back through the lens. BUT WHEN IT LEAVES THE BO;OMETER IT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT TEMPERATURE IT WILL HIT!!!!!!.so it will radiate exactly the same I it focusses on a hotter or cooler object
Your explanation of laser action is partially correct and also invalidates your claims about cold objects not heating a warm object. CO2 lasers emit coherent beams of 10um radiation A 100watt laser emits 10 times more 10um radiation it in no way 10 times hotter.
I quote your post:
“To burn wood with a focused laser beam, the EM used would have to be equivalent to a very hot substance. The electrons in the wood have to absorb high intensity coherent EM causing them to break bonds and form a flame.
Therefore, the effect on the wood is similar to exposing the wood to a much higher temperature source than the wood temperature.”
a 1kw co2 laser emits a massive energy/sqm but its wavelength is still about 10um. This is still equivalent to a BB at 17°C. It is not being emitted at UV wavelengths (it cannot do this if it is CO2) as it would be if it were “equivalent to a very hot substance”.
I think it should be obvious that it burns because of the extremely high energy density of the 10um IR beam, and of course most of this 10um being absorbed whatever the temperature of the substance it hits.
Perhaps you could explain more about breaking bonds in atoms causing flame, or for that matter breaking bonds in silicon atoms (in glass) causing heating, or breaking atomic bonds in steel causing vaporisation.
Shhh.
Bin,, It appears you did not responded to the question up-thread at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-337850 . Did you not notice or did you choose to not respond?
Oh Noes!
Dan, I apologise for this silence. Of course I noticed your reply, but I was quite a bit busy with pseudoscience in this thread (and busy I was in the rest of daily life as well).
*
It seems you again did not quite understand what I meant with the grid subsets. Sure my bad!
Thus again:
– the entire UAH grid is made of 72 latitude bands, each consisting of 144 grid cells (the 3 nothernmost and southermost bands do not contain valid data);
– each month in each year contains an instance of this grid; thus you can generate a monthly time series out of any of these grid cells. I did that just for fun e.g. for a comparison of the GHCN station Verhoyansk (East Siberia) with the UAH grid cell above it);
– thus you can generate any subset of it: not only the 9 zones published each month by Roy Spencer in
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
but also any other one, e.g. the Nino3+4 corner (5N-5S–170W-120W), or the AMO region etc etc;
– you can also pick any other grid subset, especially those resulting from a repeated subdivision of the grid in 2, 4, …256, … 1024,… parts and taking the middle of them each.
This is what you see below in blue / green, together with the red time series made out of the whole grid, i.e. the Globe:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YjFLnql_uzZrXY_Hff5TYY9bTBxO38lO/view
Thus, the blue/green time series you see really arise from points evenly distributed on the entire Globe, and not from a small region of it.
It is not a random distribution in a strict sense, but wrt the land/ocean repartition on the Globe it is very well, as you don’t know in advance where your selected points land on the world’s map.
That just makes me a bit crazy. How is such a similarity possible?
The grid data source for the lower troposphere (lt):
from
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0
till
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2018_6.0
with the climatology stored in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
The same stuff is available for mt (mid trop), tp (tropopause) and ls (low strat).
binny…”I did that just for fun e.g. for a comparison of the GHCN station Verhoyansk (East Siberia) with the UAH grid cell above it);
thus you can generate any subset of it: not only the 9 zones published each month by Roy Spencer in”
Rubbish. You are comparing seriously fudged and confused GHCN data to real, unadulterated, UAH data.
Robertson
You still are the most ignorant, incompetent and pretentious ‘commenter’ on this web site.
And you show this every time: through your pathological urge to confuse, distract, discredit, denigrate and lie.
You remain forever who you are: a pseudo-skeptic who never proves what he claims.
Could we see your proof that UAH data is “unadulterated”.
binny…”Could we see your proof that UAH data is unadulterated”
Both Roy and John Christy have the integrity to go against the flow and tell it like it is. That’s good enough for me.
You are comparing seriously fudged and confused GHCN data to real, unadulterated, UAH data.
Either completely ignorant, paid to make such asinine remarks, or on a personal mission.
Either way, this blithe BS is worth calling out for what it is.
barry…”You are comparing seriously fudged and confused GHCN data to real, unadulterated, UAH data.
Either completely ignorant, paid to make such asinine remarks, or on a personal mission”.
Something you want to say about the adulteration of data at UAH? Any proof?
I have supplied proof that both NOAA and GISS have fudged data and that they have cheated by lowering confidence levels to make 2014 appear as the warmest year ever.
The fact that you can accept such scientific chicanery speaks volumes for your IQ factor and your integrity.
I’ve supplied you with the methods papers of UAH, which talk about the assumptions they have to make, the adjustments they have to make, the algorithms they have to apply, the lack of uniformity across instruments that they have to adjust for, the orbital decay of satellites they have to estimate bias for, the diurnal drift they have to ‘correct’….
But you run away whenever I do this. You disappear. It’s your act.
You want to pretend that brightness data doesn’t go through a grinder at UAH.
All the data sets do corrections. All of them. Including UAH.
Hell, Roy has even discussed this in blog posts here.
One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.
But you are blind and deaf to all this. If only you completed the triple and were dumb also. But you keep yapping obstinate idiocy.
Of course the raw data is “adulterated.” It’s imperfect, and has to be processed and adjusted. No group observing the natural world escapes this rather ordinary fact of data compiling and processing.
Gordon, here’s the post that I’m quoting Roy from.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
If the data is unadulterated – why are we up to verison 6?
Why do the data keep changing? Even now, lots of data points have changed since version 6 was applied. Corrections keep happening.
And why does Roy say that they have to make methodological choices in order to correct problems with the data – if they are not making adjustments?
Get your head out of the sand, man. Read Roy’s post. And then try to tell me that the raw data is “unadulterated.
Barry says:
January 17, 2019 at 6:54 AM
All the data sets do corrections. All of them. Including UAH.
This gets covered on this board every month – at least it did before Christmas here’s a link to your post:
Barry Says – December 13, 2018
The UAH satellite temp data has changed far more than the surface data.
I also don’t think the Roy Spencer and John Christie are conspiring to lower the satellite temp record, even though their last revision did exactly that
And my response
Steve Says December 13, 2018
I posted this graphic
https://i.postimg.cc/fbQz70st/image.png
comparing GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI apples to apples
And this one:
https://i.postimg.cc/MZM7WvSp/GISS-Changes-Aug-2005-to-Oct-2015.gif
Showing the overall trend of changes made to GISS’s LOTI.
That part of the thread ended there. (Christmas I suppose)
Well anyway, if you could find the time now to respond, that would be great (-:
Bin,,, Thanks for the response . . . in spite of all the needless static on this line . . .
It appears we have the same understanding of each set. (My comments below use ,, instead of undependable quote marks)
You: ,,Thus, the blue/green time series you see really arise from points evenly distributed on the entire Globe, and not from a small region of it.,,
Me: ,,I interpreted your description as each set covered the same over-all area.,,
Perhaps I could have been less ambiguous by ,,is a sample from,, instead of ,,covered,,.
IMO this would follow: ,,then random selection would get about the same % of affected grid cells [i.e. cells in the local vicinity of the el Nino] in each of the sets. I would then expect all of the temperature traces (average of a set) to be similar as shown.,,
Also, IMO, comparing a set explicitly selected to be remote from the el Nino with a set explicitly from the el Nino area would, if they (the temperature traces) are the same, demonstrate that el Nino effect is indeed also felt in any small area remote from the el Nino itself. If the temperature traces of the sets selected to be remote from the el Nino do not show the el Nino signature, however, it would corroborate that each set from entire globe had been influenced by about the same per cent of cells from the el Nino area.
I am curious as to how such an exercise would turn out.
dan…”Bin,,, Thanks for the response . . . in spite of all the needless static on this line . . .
It appears we have the same understanding of each set”.
***********
My estimation of you just went down considerably, Dan.
It might be possible to learn something from people with whom you disagree (unless, of course, you already know everything). You learn nothing by being disagreeable.
As mentioned many times, the current global average land surface air
temperature is about 10 C and global average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and the average of both gives an average global air temperature of about 15 C.
Were global land air temperature increase by 1 C and global ocean surface not to change, there would not much change in global average temperature due to less than 1/3rd of surface area being land, but instead if ocean surface temperature to increase by 1 C it would have larger affect global average temperature.
And what is known is that land temperature has increasing more than ocean surface temperature.
And I believe that increase in ocean surface temperature would cause increases in land temperature, whereas increases in land temperature do not likewise cause increase ocean surface temperature.
Or the ocean surface temperature warms land, and land does not significantly warm ocean surface temperature.
Or if Gulf stream surface waters were warmer, Europe would become warmer. Or opposite if Gulf stream waters were cooler, Europe would become cooler.
Not many people would disagree the gulf stream temperature effect Europe- but I am saying it extents more broadly than just Europe- global ocean surface effects global land air temperature.
So in terms of dramatic effect, Ocean surface temperature increasing by 1 C is type of global warming which is *feared*. Likewise a decrease of global surface of 1 C is likewise something which can be feared.
Though it’s possible regions of ocean [and gulf stream being tiny] could larger changes in temperature which little effect upon global ocean average surface temperature yet have far more dramatic effects. Or I agree that changes in regards to Gulf Stream tend to have more dramatic oceanic effect upon the land area of Europe.
But in terms global average surface temperature, ocean surface temperature has larger effect, simply because it’s larger part of the Earth surface and it warms the global land air temperature.
Also as mentioned before, as thought experiment, what happens were one to mix the warmer surface water with the amount of colder ocean waters. Or average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C, if mixed surface waters with deeper water, the surface temperature goes from 17 C to 3.5 C.
The immediate effect is a global average temperature of about 4 C and also near immediate effect is wiping out global water vapor and also the global average land surface air temperature drops from 10 C to somewhere around 0 C.
Though within days or weeks the tropical sunlight warms back up the very top surface waters, but to return to normal [having average global temperature of 15 C] would require decades to centuries. Plus it’s basically, CAGW- it have very disruption global weather- droughts, even heatwaves, and generally all kinds of weird weather.
Now as I was saying if average ocean surface were to increase to 18 C, one increases the average global temperature by a lot. Or much more than global temperature will increase with 50 or 100 years. But ocean average surface of 18 C isn’t a particular problem in terms being too hot- the problem is related to it being completely unexpected or not explainable, were to happen soon [within a decade, for instance]. It would be warming more than expected by the all the global warming climate projections and one would get lots of hysteria.
Of course question is how or what is average global surface temperature of 18 C. Tropical ocean is about 26 C and rest of ocean average is about 11 C. Increasing tropical by 4 C and rest ocean not warming by much could be one vision of 18 C average global surface temperature. Or could be opposite, rest ocean warms by about 1 C and tropics don’t warm up much.
I would agree if one excepted to to happen fast [within decades], the warming tropical ocean is more likely. But in terms of what has happened in last century, it would seem most improbably.
I’m still not sure wether or not the Kings of Pseudoscience inbetween retired from the nonsensical ‘Weighting is pseudoscience’ concerning Sun’s incident radiation over an hemisphere.
Thus I calculated, for 30 segments of 3 degree each in half an hemisphere, the weighting which has to be applied because sunlit is 100% at 0 degree (directly facing Sun), and 0% at 90 degree.
..3.0: 0.997
..6.0: 0.989
..9.0: 0.976
12.0: 0.957
15.0: 0.933
18.0: 0.905
21.0: 0.872
24.0: 0.835
27.0: 0.794
30.0: 0.750
33.0: 0.703
36.0: 0.655
39.0: 0.604
42.0: 0.552
45.0: 0.500
48.0: 0.448
51.0: 0.396
54.0: 0.345
57.0: 0.297
60.0: 0.250
63.0: 0.206
66.0: 0.165
69.0: 0.128
72.0: 0.095
75.0: 0.067
78.0: 0.043
81.0: 0.024
84.0: 0.011
87.0: 0.003
Maybe it helps…
And thus, integrating cos^2(x) dx gives the average weighting: 0.5.
And 2 pi R^2 therefore is reduced to pi R^2…
La vie est un long fleuve tranquille.
B,
What’s your point? Depending on your location, you can get very hot – or not.
After sunset who cares about being reduced to Pi R^2? I’m generally reduced to a state of complete bemusement by the CO2 obsessed pseudoscientific dimwits.
No GHE, no missing heat. CO2 heats nothing. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer, won’t make the thermometer hotter.
Keep playing with your pencil. I hope it brings you relief. Have you asked Rose to give you a hand?
Cheers.
An American jurist said –
If the law is on your side – pound the law!
If the facts are on your side – pound the facts!
If neither the law nor the facts are on your side – pound the table!
If you are a foolish Warmist – accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a denier or a troll if you can’t find a table to pound.That’ll fix em, eh?
Cheers.
If there is no table, use a molten rock.
Gordon Robertson
Above you said: “So, you are claiming that N2/O2 will not heat up if you apply a flame to them? Ever looked at how an oxy-acetylene torch works?
And say you heat either gas to 3000C, are you claiming they cannot radiate away any heat?”
Both Nitrogen and Oxygen emit in the visible light bands and would radiate away lots of energy if they were hot enough to emit visible light. When they vibrate as molecules they have no emission bands in the IR. It requires groups of molecules to create complex vibrational modes that emit small amounts of IR.
Here look at this.
https://tinyurl.com/ycry9by4
Norman,
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Maybe you think that a thermometer measuring the temperature of the air does so by magic.
Nope. You can even do it with a thermometer sealed in a vacuum chamber. No convection, and using a wireless probe, no conduction either.
Go off and blather about spectroscopy. Learn some physics first.
When air cools enough to extract liquid oxygen and nitrogen, do you think Tim Folkerts cold rays are used?
Carry on, Norman.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I can’t follow any rational or logic thought process in your comment or in what way it has an purpose. It is like you pulled the comment from toilet paper in your ass.
Maybe if you tried to make some sense people might be better able to respond to what you are attempting.
My comment was directed at Gordon Robertson showing him that N2 and O2 have plenty of emission bands in the visible light spectrum and will emit visible light when heated.
Your comment has no connection to rational thought at all. Lay off the drugs dude. Maybe if you clean up your act and post when your not stoned we can make some sense of it.
Norman,
You wrote –
“When they vibrate as molecules they have no emission bands in the IR.”, talking about Nitrogen and Oxygen.
Do you understand what IR means? Do you know what radiation is?
When air cools from 30 C to 20 C, how do you imagine this occurs? What stops the cooling?
Toss out some more climatological pseudoscience. Demand that people waste their time looking at your pointless links. Find Trenberth’s missing heat.
You can do it if you try.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
What I post is established experimentally proven science. That you don’t know what you are saying or trying to say seems more a problem with you than anyone else.
One thing about your posts, they are the least likely to any logical frame. Seems like some random generator of word choices that remotely fit what a person posted.
Wrong, Norman. All you have to offer are your vacuous opinions, irrelevant links, insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
As demonstrated above.
Face reality, learn some physics, and grow up.
JDHuffman
You jump in without following the discussion and taunt and act like and ass. Why?
If you had even a clue of what I claimed and demonstrated you would not be such a troll.
You are the troll that only offers unsupported opinions!! I support all my material. YOU SUPPORT ZERO!! Wake up and look in the mirror. What you accuse me of doing is exactly what you do!!
You are the one who needs to learn physics, which you don’t even when people link you to textbook material. You just reject and call it pseudoscience of institutional science.
You need to grow up and quit trolling. If you don’t want insults don’t deliver them. Also try to reason. When I call you and idiot or stupid it is more of a description of your mental state. I am not trying to bring down an intelligent person or reject what they say. Your ideas are really really stupid and do not deserve any kind statements. One needs to tell the truth.
Norman, once again you are unable to add value to the blog.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Wrong again! I add considerably more value to this blog then you ever have. You add nothing. At least I add links to physics articles and textbooks. That is an infinite amount of value above your made up fake physics that you are unwilling and unable to support no matter who asks you to do so.
You think your unsupported incorrect and wrong opinions are of value. Hilarious!
ibid.
norman…”Both Nitrogen and Oxygen emit in the visible light bands and would radiate away lots of energy if they were hot enough to emit visible light. When they vibrate as molecules they have no emission bands in the IR”.
Has anyone looked closely for N2/O2 emissions in other bands?
I don’t think N2/O2 need to lose heat by radiation, they can reduce heat levels created by the Sun during the day by reducing volume at night.
PV = nRT
JDHuffman
Here is one last chance to correct your flawed thinking about flux and a hemisphere.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1822742096/moon-the-most-accurate-lunar-globe
This video has a light source illuminating a model Moon. Look at the video and tell me if you can now see why your idea that you double the energy hitting a hemisphere is totally wrong?
This could be your last chance at credibility. If you do not accept the fact you are wrong and persist you will declare that you no longer accept real evidence and will continue in your quest peddle false and misleading ideas.
If you have any logic or rational thought please take note!
Norman,
Man up – show some intestinal fortitude!
Don’t gibber about – tell him this is definitely his last chance. No wishy-washy “this could be your last chance” nonsense.
How can you expect to reduce JDHuffman to a subservient, blubbering mass of jelly, if you don’t demonstrate your superior will?
Does this help, or has he fallen at your feet in worship already?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Either you are a bot or a stoned incoherent drug user. Your post has no meaning or purpose to be posted. Not even sure what your point is. Get help, you can call the addiction Hotline and seek help!
Norman, my whole purpose was to expose your lack of understanding about flux. You couldn’t figure it out.
You could not understand that radiative fluxes can NOT be treaded as simple scalars. Your effort proved that for me. Now, you have proved yourself wrong, again.
If you could treat flux as a simple number, then the algebra would result in incorrect values, as I showed. You could not understand the Poynting vector, but now you are stuck with it.
You’ve actually learned some physics, with a lot of help….
So if I follow you JD,
Light adds like vectors, not scalars, so the conclusion still remains that you can add fluxes.
What was your point?
bob, it’s even more complicated than “…Light adds like vectors, not scalars…”
Radiative fluxes are not conserved.
JDHuffman
I do not know what your opinion is trying to claim. I do not exactly know what you are trying to say when you say radiative fluxes are not conserved.
If an object remains at a constant temperature in a vacuum condition (to eliminate other heat transfer mechanisms) then most certainly radiative fluxes are conserved. The amount of energy absorbed by the object is the exact same as the amount of energy emitted by the object, there is no other possible solution.
If an object absorbs 300 watt/m^2 of visible or even UV light, it will have to emit the same amount of energy even in the IR. It will emit 300 watt/m^2 in the IR band. The energy is conserved. Basic simple physics established many years ago.
Norman, your own pseudoscience proves you wrong. The mythical sphere absorbs 960 Watts/m^2, but emits only 240 Watts/m^2.
Radiative fluxes are NOT conserved since they are composed of photons, which are also NOT conserved.
Learn some physics, and find your “missing” 720 Watts/m^2!
JDHuffman
More made up BS from the master of phony ideas.
You don’t even understand the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
The sphere does not absorb 960 w/m^2 you don’t know enough about Math to understand what is going on and you certainly lack the logical rational thought skills to be able to understand it. I can’t explain what you will never understand. You don’t have the skills and knowledge to understand it. If you need to believe your own ideas, go ahead. People with logical math skills that can understand what is going on can see how dense you really are. Carry on with your meaningless posts. No one cares.
Norman 1: “The correct calculation is that incoming energy is 960 W/m^2…”
Norman 2: “The sphere does not absorb 960 w/m^2…” (Even though the mythical sphere is a perfect black body!)
Let’s let Norman 1 argue with Norman 2.
That’s always great entertainment.
So do you agree you can add poynting vectors, or not?
Or are you changing the subject to the questions of whether fluxes and photons are conserved?
Fluxes and photons are matter, therefore the conservation of matter/energy applies.
It’s hard to keep up with a GISH gallop, is that the game you are playing?
Shhh.
JDHuffman
Again with the unsupported opinions of no value. So link to an article using Poynting vectors that shows fluxes do not add. I am waiting. I will wait a long time. Providing any evidence for you opinions is something you don’t know how to do.
I think you just looked up Poynting Vectors (not knowing a thing about them) and use it to try and gain false credibility. I have not seen you link to anything supporting your opinions to date.
Norman, don’t search on “Poynting vectors”, whatever you do.
You wouldn’t want your head to explode….
JDHuffman
Nothing in the Poynting Vector supports your opinion that this proves fluxes don’t add energy to a surface that is able to absorb the energy. Nothing in Poynting Vectors indicates that fluxes of different energy will not be conserved.
If you have evidence to support your opinions I suggest you do so.
Here:
https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/fundamentals-of-em-waves
JDHuffman
The more I read on the topic the more it seems you just looked up a term you thought sounded smart and you, by using it (Poynting Vector), it gives you credibility. It does not. You have not demonstrated in any way you know what this is or how to use it or how to calculate anything using it. Just some bluff to puff up your pretend ego. You have not gone through the effort to learn the real material so you go around on blogs acting like you know what you are saying by using terms you have no understanding of.
Your game is over. Most know you are a phony. Most do not waste time interacting with you.
norman…”Nothing in Poynting Vectors indicates that fluxes of different energy will not be conserved”.
What different energy? We are talking about EM?
Are you perhaps inferring that heat is a flux?
Norman “suggests”: “If you have evidence to support your opinions I suggest you do so.”
Poor Norman can not understand the proofs I have presented. So, in his empty head, I have not presented any proofs.
That’s why he remains uneducated.
JDHuffman
I guess you want to be 100%. No you have not provided any proof of any of your nonsense opinions and your last post is the same. It has no evidence or proof of anything.
You do not know how to prove things scientifically because you have never taken even one science course.
You are a total pretend phony that sucks a few gullible uneducated people. That is the extent of your influence.
Continue on not proving anything. It is what you do. I have not seen anything different and I do not expect to from you. Someone who is a fraud, like you, cannot support what you don’t know. Maybe do a Google search for some more science terms so you can pretend that you know science. It is really hilarious that you continue to do this after you have been exposed as a phony. Ha! Ha! It is funny.
Norman, if you understood the scientific method, then you would understand you are wrong.
You believe that radiative fluxes are conserved. I presented a specific case that disproves that. You just refuse to accept reality.
That’s why you remain uneducated.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
No you actually did not give a case where fluxes are not conserved. You tortured concepts into a fashion that is false and present it as fact. I explained why you are wrong. You do not have the logical mind to understand your flaws. I can’t even explain (I have tried) why your are totally wrong. Others can see it. Bindidon did a very extensive post about it (which you could not grasp). No you are just wrong and do not understand the science method.
Expressing your flawed and distorted opinions with zero supporting evidence IS NOT the scientific method at all. If you would have actually taken science courses this would be obvious.
At least you have your troll buddy DREMT to support you. That is about it though. That one is dumber than you but he likes reading all my posts.
The “Norman” experiment says (in only two comments this time!):
“your nonsense opinions…no evidence or proof of anything..you do not know how to prove things scientifically…you have never taken even one science course…you are a total pretend phony that sucks a few gullible uneducated people…continue on not proving anything…someone who is a fraud, like you, cannot support what you don’t know…so you can pretend that you know science…it is really hilarious…you have been exposed as a phony…Ha! Ha! It is funny…you tortured concepts into a fashion that is false and present it as fact…I explained why you are wrong…you do not have the logical mind to understand your flaws…you are just wrong and do not understand the science method…your flawed and distorted opinions…if you would have actually taken science courses…your troll buddy DREMT…that one is dumber than you”.
Great examples, DREMT. Poor Norman slings his slime so furiously, yet just ends up covered in it. He is unable to support his pseudoscience with facts and logic, so all he can do is attack others. He even argues with himself!
It’s important for him to be here, as he demonstrates what a false religion can to do to people.
norman…”The more I read on the topic the more it seems you just looked up a term you thought sounded smart and you, by using it (Poynting Vector), it gives you credibility”.
Not at all. The Poynting vector is a standard in physics for determining the intensity and direction of a flux field.
You have not even begun to scratch the surface with your reading, Norman.
The failed pseudoscience of the IPCC/AGW/GHE is based on a number of fallacies. One is the claim that Earth’s average temperature is 33 K hotter than it is “supposed” to be. They arrived at that value by comparing Earth’s actual average temperature, of about 288 K, with the calculated temperature of an imaginary sphere, 255 K. Let’s label this trick the “255 K Fallacy”.
Besides revealing the origin of the bogus 33 K, this fallacy also reveals the additional fallacy of the “missing 150 Watts/m^2”.
One of the stupid questions often asked by a certain clown, goes something like this: “Earth’s surface emits 390 Watts/m^2, but only 240 Watts/m^2 goes to space. Where’s the missing 150 Watts/m^2?”
That’s a stupid question because radiative fluxes can NOT be handled as ordinary numbers. The “390” is like “apples”, and the “240” is like “oranges”, and you can’t add apples to oranges. The two values are different radiative fluxes, and different radiative fluxes are DIFFERENT. There is no “missing 150 Watts/m^2”.
The easiest way to understand this is with their own pseudoscience. The imaginary sphere receives 960 Watts/m^2, but emits only 240 Watts/m^2. So, the stupid question here would be “Where is the missing 720 Watts/m^2?”
And the statistics clowns continue to torture the data, looking for “proof” of AGW.
The comedy never ends.
JDHuffman
You finally got something right. “The comedy never ends”
Your continuous unscientific lunatic posts are comedy.
Wow in one post you totally demonstrate you have studied zero physics. There is not one thing correct in your post. You are giving your totally made up opinion. True comedy that you think it is somehow good science. Hilarious really.
The “imagineary sphere” (it could just as well be a real one) does NOT receive 960 watts/m^2. It receives 240 watts/m^2. First error and a horrible one at that!! I think a chimp could learn more physics than you.
Fluxes add energy. The energy is the same. 390 w/m^2 is 390 joules of energy per second hitting a one square meter surface. 240 W/m^2 is 240 joules per second per meter squared. You just make up this stuff and think no one will notice.
GHE is actually based upon real (not made up) physics. It is a well understood phenomena. Only a handful of blog educated skeptics believe it is pseudoscience. The rest of the rational science world that understand correct heat transfer accepts this as a valid and reasonable hypothesis.
Norman, I guess I’m not surprised you don’t understand your own pseudoscience. You understand so little. But, at least you know how to type.
As I’ve already explained to you before, the “960” is Earth’s average incoming solar flux, adjusted for albedo. That value is used for the imaginary sphere.
JDHuffman
Again with the unsupported opinions. Your ideas are totally wrong. I have proven them wrong many times in many ways. You do not acknowledge the real physics showing your opinions and blog physics are junk science.
You have only explained stupid irrational points and horrible math, nothing more. You can’t support even one of your stupid ideas. You can’t prove the Moon does not rotate, you just keep proclaiming it like your empty words have value. They don’t. Science does not care about your ideas and opinions. It requires proof, evidence, observations, logical rational thought, and some basic math ability. You get an F in all those necessary science basics.
Will you once prove even one of your stupid ideas. Just one!
Norman, the reason people do not provide you links is they want to keep you stupid. They know you can’t verify things like …the “960” is Earth’s average incoming solar flux, adjusted for albedo…”, on your own.
They know you can’t search on topics like “average solar flux, after albedo”, by yourself.
Of course, we both know you can’t understand the links, if and when you find them.
Just be content with being a typist. You can just pretend everything else.
I agree that greenhouse gases are not adding 33 K.
I think greenhouse gases might add somewhere around 15 K.
Though I also think it unreasonable that one could give any precise number [whether 33 K or 15 K] and I think it’s more accurate to say that at Earth distance from the sun, Earth should be about 5 C.
And that Earth, roughly, is about 5 C.
I think greenhouse gases probably do increase the average surface air temperature. Though I don’t think greenhouse gases increase ocean or land surface temperatures.
I think average temperature of the ocean is important in terms of Earth’s average temperature and/or Earth global climate. And is particularly relevant if one is interested in glacial and interglacial periods.
Average temperature of ocean is about 3.5 C, and in our icebox climate has been in the range of about 1 to 5 C. Or has been less than 5 C for most of the time of the last million years.
Average ocean surface temperature is somewhere around 17 C and average land surface air temperature is currently about 10 C.
So, I would say that the selection of this constant of 33k is pseudo science.
And idea that Venus was same as Earth is pseudo science as it idea that Earth could become like Venus [could ended up like Venus [in Earth’s beginning] and/or could become like Venus in the future.
And I would say that the superstition of CAGW is directly related to this pseudo science. And that CAGW religion/ideology exists to the degree it does, is good evidence that GHE theory is not science but rather is pseudo science.
gbaikie…”I think greenhouse gases might add somewhere around 15 K.
Though I also think it unreasonable that one could give any precise number [whether 33 K or 15 K….”
The Ideal Gas Law states essentially that gases in a mix, at constant volume, contribute heat based on their mass percent.
That comes from the Dalton portion on partial pressures and the grobertson portion relating partial pressures to partial temperatures at constant volume. ☺
That means GHGs should not contribute more than 1% or so to atmospheric heat content.
–Gordon Robertson says:
January 16, 2019 at 10:51 PM
gbaikie…”I think greenhouse gases might add somewhere around 15 K.
Though I also think it unreasonable that one could give any precise number [whether 33 K or 15 K….”
The Ideal Gas Law states essentially that gases in a mix, at constant volume, contribute heat based on their mass percent.
That comes from the Dalton portion on partial pressures and the grobertson portion relating partial pressures to partial temperatures at constant volume. ☺
That means GHGs should not contribute more than 1% or so to atmospheric heat content.–
And what is the total atmospheric heat that greenhouse gases could be contributing more than 1% of?
And then after getting this number, how do plug it in so as give a temperature that it couldn’t contributing more than?
Ie, take entire atmospheric mass times by 1/2 then times by average velocity squared and get huge amount amount of joules of heat times by 1 % and still get huge amount of joules.
And… what?
Or I’m to to say, “less than 1% , oh, that is small”
I would go [say/explain] roughly this way, I think a doubling of CO2 causes about .5 C or less.
If CO2 cause some warming effects, then water vapor must cause even more.
There is a lot water vapor in the tropics, and tropics gets most amount sunlight.
Or water vapor is more powerful, there is more of it, and it’s most abundant in the best location [the tropics].
Also I am using this cargo cult religious idea that clouds are a greenhouse gas.
So clouds are part of the 15 K of warming. And clouds I know from everyday experience do cause noticeable warming- night time warming or cloud cover will prevent a night from freezing.
But not counting latent heat of water vapor as greenhouse gas effect, nor convectional heat as greenhouse gas effect- just any possible radiant effect from greenhouse gases or clouds. And mostly this effect probably about preventing more cooling than could occur were there were not greenhouse gases and clouds.
And it’s some kind insulative effect and it’s not acting as heat source or not heating/warming the ground or ocean surface.
Also like to mention something else.
I think most of the cult believers would agree that if removed all non greenhouse gas and had about 1% of Earth atmosphere being just greenhouse gases that such thin atmosphere would not have much or any, warming effect.
So, greenhouse gases are sort of like an additive to the atmosphere or to “work” they need the massive atmosphere which isn’t greenhouse gases.
Or metaphorically the greenhouse gases are the elite owners of plantation, they need the slaves, but don’t want to grant much importance to the slaves [or the unwashed masses which they tend to despise].
JD,
You don’t even understand basic scientific units like in this example, it’s 960 watts per square meter and 240 watts per square meter, the 960 is going into one quarter of the area that the 240 is going out of.
DUH,
Because the area of a sphere is 4 times pi times the radius squared and the area of a circle is only pi times the radius squared.
You are making that bag of hammers look pretty bright.
One more time I will contradict here Robertson’s recurring lies about the GHCN record.
I have nothing to do with any institution, and respect them all to the same extent. All do their best for providing us with the information they obtain.
Showing warming or cooling due to whichever cause is of no interest in this comment.
Here is a graph comparing UAH 6.0 (of course: land-only) in the lower troposphere with about 5600 of the available 7280 GHCN V3 land stations (the 5600 are those providing for sufficient data in the 1981-2010 reference period, thus allowing to generate anomalies out of their absolute data).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B8McrkzEHPurLccKTwBTODN2uw0eeeC2/view
Instead of loosing time in discrediting and denigrating, I prefer to emphasise on the similarities between the troposphere temperatures measured by the UAH team and the set of GHCN V3 stations.
After all, there is an altitude difference of over 4 km, and thus a temperature difference of 24 C, certainly implying completely different weather! That the 36 month running means keep so close from 1979 till 2003 is really amazing.
The linear estimates for the two records are, in C / decade:
UAH land: 0.18
GHCN V3
– unadjusted: 0.20
– adjusted: 0.21
I have no idea about why the UAH 6.0 LT and the GHCN surface series suddenly disconnect around 2004: only professionals can explain this surprising phenomenon.
It is certainly not due to the eternel dispute about this 1998-2012 pause: GHCN V3 adjusted shows for that period a linear trend of no more than 0.07 C / decade. The absence of any pause in the global records is certainly due to the higher discrepancies between troposphere and the oceans below it.
binny…”I have nothing to do with any institution, and respect them all to the same extent. All do their best for providing us with the information they obtain”.
yes…but you support scientific misconduct by NOAA and GISS when they reduce confidence levels to below 50% in order to promote climate alarm.
You ignore their slashing of surface stations while replacing the slashed stations with statistically-derived pseudo-data that promotes climate alarm.
Then you compare the fudged data to legitimate data from UAH. The irony is that NOAA supplies the UAH data which contradicts the fudged NOAA surface data.
Robertson
You still are the most ignorant, incompetent and pretentious ‘commenter’ on this web site.
And you show this every time: through your pathological urge to confuse, distract, discredit, denigrate and lie.
You remain forever who you are: a pseudo-skeptic who never proves what he claims.
binny…”Robertson
You still are the most ignorant, incompetent and pretentious ‘commenter’ on this web site.
And you show this every time: through your pathological urge to confuse, distract, discredit, denigrate and lie.
You remain forever who you are: a pseudo-skeptic who never proves what he claims.”
****
That’s how I’d expect an irate child to respond.
I have proved my case over and over but you tune it out, either because you are too stupid to comprehend it, or too dependent on authority figures to question them.
Robertson
“I have proved my case over and over…”
This, Robertson, is exactly what until now you NEVER and NEVER were able to do!
You produced here all the time no more than guesses or lies.
And you perfectly know that.
Shhh.
In my humble layman’s opinion (which is not of lower value than that of e.g. JDHuffman, who pretends much but proves nothing, and whose curriculum vitae in puncto Physics remains perfectly unknown), the computation below is correct:
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/revisions/828/7
with, of course, the little exception that the Stack Exchange commenter took Moon’s albedo for a bare Earth, instead of the albedo of ice (between 0.3 and 0.4).
Comparing a bare, Moon-like Earth with its actual status is imho meaningless, just as is comparing Earth with Venus.
In a revision of his previous comment, he added a plot showing the relation between Earth’s albedo and temperature.
*
Nevertheless, something still disturbs me in hugovdberg’s comment (and in similar examples): the fact namely that while the commenter assumes a weighting of Sun’s incident radiation over Earth’s hemisphere, no weighting over Earth’s surface is applied in the calculation of Earth’s IR emission.
This imho is not correct: over the year, Earth’s poles experience far less incoming radiation than its tropic region.
Why is there no latitude-based weighting of Earth’s IR emission visible in nearly all these formula sequences describing equilibrium?
Until now I saw only two exceptions:
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Surface_temperature_of_a_planet
where, if I well understood, a distinction is made for a planet between its absorbing and its emitting surface.
Interesting is the little discussion about the ratio between them, which seems to be influenced by the planet’s rotation speed.
2. A deeper explanation of the influence of planet rotation on the equilibrium calculation is visible in A. P. Smith’s paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
*
It is very easy to denigrate such a paper. Better is to try to scientifically falsifiy it.
A trial has been made by Kramm, Dlugi and Zelger:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.2767.pdf
But in a discussion with Chris Ho-Stuart and A. P. Smith, it was evident that Kramm was not able to convince the two that his critique led to really relevant points.
binny…from your link…”According to Wikipedia an approximate average surface temperature for a bare earth is 274.5 K. ”
There are some flies in the ointment here, especially in the phrase ‘approximate average’. It should make you suspicious rather than anointing the article as true.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation was never intended to be applied as in this article. It was derived from the initial work of Stefan, who used data derived in the 500C to 1500C range based on an electrically-heated platinum filament wire. The radiation was measured over a few feet, if that.
Extending that equation to measure the hypothetical average temperature of the Earth is disingenuous. The S-B equation applies to a small solid surface area that is heated and where heat is converted to EM. I still don’t think Em should be measured in watts since it is doing no work and has no heat or temperature.
The Sun is a massive ball of plasma that is generating EM frequencies over a broad spectrum as well as ejecting a massive amount of plasma as the solar wind.
There is no frequency/wavelength component in S-B to allow for that massive spectrum and we know different frequencies of solar energy affect the Earth is different ways, with different intensities.
Furthermore, what is an average in the context used in article? With temperatures on the planet ranging from the +40C range in the tropics to the -40C range in the Arctic winter, how does one determine an accurate average?
What does ‘approximate’ mean? You simply cannot apply S-B in such a generalized manner to determine anything, not even approximate.
AFAIAC, the warming we call the GHE is due to errors in those averages and approximations.
Here’s a 2-part question for the science experts.
Roy says:
“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.”
1) Calculate – even roughly – the amount of energy required to make that change over that mass.
2) If that amount of energy transferred instantly from the “upper half of the ocean” to the atmosphere, what would be the resulting temperature change of the atmosphere?
barry, you can see actual results of such by comparing El Niño events with UAH global.
Such events are real, as opposed to AGW.
Can you do the calcs?
Do you know in degrees C how much the upper half of the global ocean cools during an average el Nino event?
barry, the “calcs” are nothing.
It’s the starting values that are the problem. Ever heard of “GIGO”?
Please give a description of these “starting values”, providing the values that are used, the values that you believe should be used, and why. Make sure you don’t change the question in doing so.
des, that’s the problem. Who gets to choose the volume of water, the average temperature, the average salinity, etc.
It’s just an exercise in futility to prove what we already know–that the surface warms the atmosphere.
You did know that, right?
In other words, you have no evidence that the “starting values” are wrong, nor can you explain what precisely you meant by “starting values”.
des, you should probably read barry’s first comment, above.
The calculations are simple once you choose the “starting values”.
He does not use the term “starting values”. Please explain what term from his post you have assigned that new name.
In the calculations barry mentioned, you need “starting values”. The results of the calculations provide “ending values”.
And I am asking you to be specific about what you mean about “starting values”. Values that measure precisely what?
You would need to know mass, temperature, and salinity, to calculate heat content. Then you would need to know how much atmosphere you wanted to warm, and the existing conditions of that mass.
As I indicated earlier, it is an exercise in futility, as we already know that a volume of water would have almost 5000 times the energy of the same volume of air, if both are at standard conditions.
By the way, you didn’t answer my question.
No, these things can be calculated with an estimate of the mass of the ocean, the mass of the atmosphere and a few other variables. We don’t need it perfect to the last molecule, just enough resolution to give us an idea.
I’ve read that if the energy required to heat the global oceans by 1 C were transferred to the atmosphere, which has a mass a couple orders of magnitude less than the oceans, then the atmos would warm by about 36 C.
So I wondered if the resident experts could calculate based on what Roy said as quoted.
It can be done, JD, so maybe it would be more humble to say you can’t do it. It’s ok. I’m not sure I could either, barring a very naive extrapolation.
Which I’ll now attempt – based on your advice.
The strong 2016 el Nino appears to have lowered the temp of the oceans to 2000 meters by 0.01 C. The previous mild el Nino (2009/10) seems to have resulted in increased ocean temps to 2000 metres.
So I’m going to posit that el Ninos cause, at best, 0.005 cooling of the upper 2000 metres of the global oceans.
But let’s run with the strong signal from the 2016 el Nino, which saw atmospheric temps rise by 0.5 C, while 0-2000 metre deep global oceans temp fell by 0.01C.
Global atmosphere warmed 50 times as much as upper oceans cooled during the transfer of heat energy during el Nino.
That’s in the ball park of the stuff I’ve read – a 1 C ocean warming being equivalent to an atmospheric warming of 36 C if the heat energy were immediately transferred from one mass to the other.
Therefore, the atmospheric equivalent of the oceans warming by 0.04 C (as Roy mentioned) over 12 years would be 2C. That’s double what we’ve seen over a hundred years.
My point?
Roy using degrees C for ocean warming is a neat of way of making it look small. But the energy required to do that is huge.
100 zettajoules for the 12 year period.
Or 10^23 joules
Or 100 sextillion joules.
Or 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 joules
https://tinyurl.com/yaboppsx
Something has warmed the upper half of the oceans by the power of 8 mild el Ninos, or 4 super el Ninos in a period of 12 years. And with no falling back as temps do after an el Nino – so this is like a succession of undying el Ninos.
But it wasn’t el Ninos.
barry, that’s a lot of rambling to end up with the atmosphere does not cause El Niño, which was already known.
As I indicated to des, it’s an exercise in futility, as are most attempts to “prove” a hoax.
(Did you have anything worthwhile you wanted to accomplish today?)
I was hoping to encourage someone with the skill and the will to reply. No one as yet, just a passing troll.
barry, as your false religion becomes more and more exposed, I predict you will go beyond just calling people “troll”. I bet you will get more vicious than that. Take a look at people like Norman, fluffball, and SGW. That’s your future.
The latest, from the “Norman” experiment’s last handful of comments:
“I can’t follow any rational or logic thought process in your comment…you pulled the comment from toilet paper in your ass…maybe if you tried to make some sense…no connection to rational thought at all…lay off the drugs dude…clean up your act…post when your not stoned…one thing about your posts, they are the least likely to any logical frame….some random generator of word choices…act like an ass…such a troll…you are the troll that only offers unsupported opinions…YOU SUPPORT ZERO…wake up and look in the mirror…you are the one who needs to learn physics…you need to grow up and quit trolling…try to reason…when I call you an idiot or stupid it is more of a description of your mental state…your ideas are really really stupid and do not deserve any kind statements…wrong again…I add considerably more value to this blog then you ever have…you add nothing…made up fake physics…your unsupported incorrect and wrong opinions…your flawed thinking…totally wrong…your last chance at credibility…accept the fact you are wrong…continue in your quest to peddle false and misleading ideas…if you have any logic or rational thought please take note…either you are a bot or a stoned incoherent drug user…your post has no meaning or purpose to be posted… not even sure what your point is…get help, you can call the addiction hotline and seek help…again with the unsupported opinions of no value…providing any evidence for you opinions is something you don’t know how to do…try and gain false credibility…just some bluff to puff up your pretend ego…you have not gone through the effort to learn the real material…you go around on blogs acting like you know what you are saying…your game is over…most know you are a phony…most do not waste time interacting with you…your continuous unscientific lunatic posts are comedy…you totally demonstrate you have studied zero physics…there is not one thing correct in your post…you are giving your totally made up opinion…true comedy that you think it is somehow good science…hilarious really…first error and a horrible one at that…I think a chimp could learn more physics than you…you just make up this stuff and think no one will notice….again with the unsupported opinions…your ideas are totally wrong…I have proven them wrong many times in many ways…you do not acknowledge the real physics…your opinions and blog physics are junk science…you have only explained stupid irrational points and horrible math…you can’t support even one of your stupid ideas…like your empty words have value…science does not care about your ideas and opinions…you get an F in all those necessary science basics…will you once prove even one of your stupid ideas.”
Yes, Norman opposes both physics and reality. Because he knows how to type, he believes he can type out his own “reality”.
He offers great entertainment, but no substance.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Maybe I should be flattered that you pay so close attention to all my posts. I think you might spend your time better by actually learning a little physics by reading some good material (not your blog version).
You can continue to spend your time reading all my posts and then compiling things I say (without any context of why I am saying them). Won’t change your level of knowledge but if that is what you want to do, have fun.
“Norman”, I just compile it, doesn’t take long. I let your own words speak for themselves. Doesn’t seem plausible that the level of sustained, relentless and repetitive belligerence we see could come from a real person.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Since it does not take you long to compile things. Why not compile JDHuffman’s taunts and insults and see how his numbers match up with mine. I think you will find is the same level of derogatory insulting comments. Or do the same with Mike Flynn. If you have the time do good research. What you are doing is called “Cherry Picking” be more scientific if you want to find a conclusion about someone.
Better yet Norman, have your fellow clown, Svante, do a search on who has used slurs the most.
You insult FAR more than anyone else on this blog. You have devoted entire long rambling comments to nothing but insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
You are clearly the worst here. (But fluffball and SGW are tied for second place, and Bindidon is moving up fast.)
You misunderstand, “Norman”. It isn’t just “number of insults” (though I daresay you would win on that too). Your comments are also comprised of a continued repetitive series of short assertions to the effect that you are correct, and are supported by valid physics, and that your opponent is incorrect, is not supported by valid physics, that they “lack rational or logical thought process” etc etc. This is repeated again and again and again. Like you literally must have said the exact same stock phrases hundreds, if not thousands of times. It is pretty much a part of EVERY comment.
This is simply not plausible for a real person. I think that it’s a form of brain-washing, which often incorporates argument by repeated assertion, which is essentially what you are doing over and over again. Once people get used to your “writing style”, they mentally jump past that stuff and try to search for the actual point you are making…but, in the meantime, the subconscious is processing all those little arguments by repeated assertion, and insults etc. That’s why I call you the “Norman” experiment. There is no real “Norman” persona in existence. It’s a front for an experimental, primitive brain-washing technique.
Or, alternatively, you ARE a real person, in which case you would have to be one of the most unpleasant people on the planet.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
It seems you only scan my comments looking for fuel to protect your boyfriend.
My comments contain a point or ask someone to prove a point. I will tell them they are wrong and provide a link to valid science showing exactly why they are wrong. This would be the bulk of my posts.
You have the TEAM DORK that you are part of. That would be Mike Flynn, you, JDHuffman and Gordon Robertson.
You have zero knowledge of actual physics but post like you are experts. Other posters also point out the many flaws in all your posts. It does not matter you post anyway. You are misleading people with your bad science. I will work to correct it. I will call anyone stupid if they show zero desire or ability to learn (you included).
I think JDHuffman (previous g.e.r.a.n) is the most unpleasant human I have ever encountered and certainly close to the dumbest. Only you might be dumber. But lovers need to defend each other I guess.
OK, so just in the three comments in response to me, the “Norman” experiment says:
“you might spend your time better by actually learning a little physics…your level of knowledge…what you are doing is called “Cherry Picking”…be more scientific…looking for fuel to protect your boyfriend…my comments contain a point…valid science…you have the TEAM DORK that you are part of…you have zero knowledge of actual physics…the many flaws in all your posts…you are misleading people with your bad science…I will work to correct it…I will call anyone stupid if they show zero desire or ability to learn…I think JDHuffman (previous g.e.r.a.n) is the most unpleasant human I have ever encountered…certainly close to the dumbest…only you might be dumber… lovers need to defend each other I guess.”
barry…”Roy says:
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.”
The first question I have about Argo buoys, is how an instrument can submerge itself below the oceans surface, remain there for a bit, then surface to take an air temperature?
Argo floats do not take air temperature.
bob…”Argo floats do not take air temperature”.
Then what use are they? That means the 70% of planet surface area covered by oceans is barely measured.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. NOAA no longer needs scientific instruments, they calculate temperatures in climate models.
It is not clear whether the buoys measure air temperature while at the surface. There is no sense having 4000 of them measuring oceans temperatures since there are not enough of them.
They are measuring what has always been measured – ocean surface temperature, while also measuring temperature at depth. How you equate that with the ocean surface temperature not being measured is beyond me.
You do understand UAH temperatures are calculated, right? And NOT by a solidly understand physics formula. It is also a model.
… understood …
bob…”You do understand UAH temperatures are calculated, right? And NOT by a solidly understand physics formula. It is also a model”.
UAH receives real temperature data from NOAA satellites. The data has to be ‘weighted’ due to the properties of the equipment ‘measuring. the radiation from oxygen molecules at various altitudes in the atmosphere. The sensors on AMSU units in the sats receive oxygen microwave radiation at different frequencies in different receivers.
UAH is doing nothing more than any scientist would do with electronics/communication device data received from different channels centred at different frequencies.
By doing what they are doing with the data, UAH is ensuring far greater accuracy than one receiver at one centre frequecy could produce. The weighting they use is a common practice is science.
Then the data has to be coordinated with different parts of the planet. Again, a common practice with data acquisition that does not involve fabricating data.
That is not modeling, a process in which data is fabricated. They are working with real data from real oxygen molecules.
O/T
If you’ve ever wondered what the hardware used to run a global circulation model (climate model) looks like, here’s a vid of one being installed in time lapse.
https://youtu.be/q4uKS_wcfow
This is one of three supercomputers (Cray XC40) that link together to model weather and climate. This one covers floor space about the size of a tennis court.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/technology/supercomputer
barry…”This is one of three supercomputers (Cray XC40) that link together to model weather and climate”.
Complete waste of Cray super-computers. Any computer operates on the GIGO principle…garbage in, garbage out. Climate models are programmed with garbage.
These are the same machines that the UK uses for weather forecasting. Their record?
Within a 2C range 85% accuracy for daily minimum temps. Better than 95% for maximum daily temp. 95% accuracy for their 3-hourly forecast.
Amazing results with garbage.
Maybe you should find out how models work before carping on about them. This is the best overview I’ve seen. Cleat and the right amount of detail for an interested lay person.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
barry…”These are the same machines that the UK uses for weather forecasting. Their record?”
Big difference. Weather forecasters work in real time with real data. They do use historical data to help forecasting but they can be wrong on occasion.
No weather forecaster has claimed 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability. And none of them discard data and replace it with synthesized data in a model.
“Big difference”
So, not a complete waste of supercomputers, as you said thoughtlessly.
I use weather forecasting for a job I’m doing up in the mountains. The accuracy and utility of the forecasts, while not perfect, saves us money in the long run.
Climate, of course, is much less chaotic than weather.
Shhh.
Gordon
Still awaiting your response to this exchange:
https://tinyurl.com/y9mlqmwt
bob…”Gordon
Still awaiting your response to this exchange:”
It has nothing to do with Accuweather, it’s about your stalking of ren, trying to discredit him.
Yeah – nice inventive excuse. I’ll take that as an admission you claim was BS. And – I HAVE discredited him. It’s not hard to do.
bob…”Ill take that as an admission you claim was BS. And I HAVE discredited him. Its not hard to do”.
Does it drive you to the point of orgasm to know you stalk a guy whose first language is not English and who faithfully posts meteorological data to the blog? That would fit right in there with your interest in sheep.
Interesting that you consider challenging nonsense claims as stalking while ignoring true stalking by Huffman/Flynn/DREMT.
Yes, I do get stalked a lot, des.
Thanks for noticing.
I see you are having difficulty with the word “by”.
See.
Yes I can see you stalked me by jumping in on this thread uninvited. I was talking about you, not to you. Try to learn the difference.
des, when you mention me, that’s an “invitation”.
You probably just forgot the rules….
Went looking for physics calcs on the rotational momentum of the moon.
Momentum = 2/5 * m * r^2 * w
Mass of the Moon = m = 7.35*10^22 kilograms
Radius = r = 1.74*10^6 meters
Angular Velocity = w = 2*pi / 27 days
Angular Velocity = w = 6.24 radians / 2,332,800 seconds
w = 2.7*10^-6 radians per second
Momentum = 0.4 * ( 7.35*10^22 ) * (1.74*10^6 )^2 * ( 2.7*10^-6 )
Rotational Momentum = 2.4 *10^29 kg * m^2 /sec
According to these calcs the Moon has rotational momentum.
Anything wrong with the formula?
barry…”Went looking for physics calcs on the rotational momentum of the moon”.
Are you talking about orbital momentum? It has no local rotational momentum about its axis.
No, the orbital momentum, is a separate calc. This page does both calcs:
http://jdetrick.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-moon-and-angular-momentum.html
And this page just does the rotational momentum calc:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-in-its-rotation-around-its-axis
The answers are the same.
If the moon has rotational momentum, then it is spinning around its own axis.
barry, you are making the amateur mistake of assuming something and then taking that as proof. You are assuming the Moon is rotating on its own axis. That would then mean it has spin angular momentum. Then you say “See, the Moon is rotating on its own axis”.
That’s not how it works.
barry, in your first line, there are several mistakes.
“Momentum” is just mv.
You appear to be attempting to determine “angular momentum”, which is very different.
Angular momentum is always “relative” to something. The angular momentum for the Moon relative to Earth is mvR, or MωR^2, where R is the average Earth/Moon separation. The Moon has zero angular momentum relative to its own axis.
“M” should be “m” in both equations. (“m” = mass of Moon.)
Sorry for the typo.
The Earth-Moon system has total angular momentum of
IE*OmegaE +(IM+(M*m/(M+m))*r^2)*OmegaM
where
IE = Earth spin moment of inertia
OmegaE = Earth spin rate
IM = Moon spin momentum of inertia
M = mass of Earth
m = mass of Moon
r = orbital radius
OmegaM = Moon spin rate
Under the requirement that angular momentum must remain constant, one can use this expression, along with the energy of the system, to show that tidal energy dissipation must result in the spin rate of the Earth and Moon gradually decreasing while the Moon’s orbit radius increases. This is known as tidal recession.
Tidal recession is currently causing the radius of the Moon’s orbit about the Earth to increase at a rate of about 4 cm/year.
Bart, the way you’ve got the equation, it’s wrong if the Moon is not rotating on its axis.
The Moon is rotating in inertial space.
Just not on its own axis.
Rotation implies an instantaneous axis.
OK Bart.
Bart, the Moon is orbiting. That means it “appears” to be rotating on its own axis from some non-applicable location. It’s the same with a racehorse, as viewed from a helicopter. Your eyes can deceive you, if you don’t understand the relevant physics.
The Moon only has one motion–orbiting. It is NOT rotating on its own axis.
The inertial frame is the applicable vantage point. It is there that Newton’s laws hold. Learn some physics.
bart…”The Moon is rotating in inertial space”.
Bafflegab. If it has no local angular momentum about its axis it is not rotating anywhere.
It’s translating in an elliptical orbit, the only explanation for one face always pointing to the Earth.
bart…”The inertial frame is the applicable vantage point. It is there that Newtons laws hold. Learn some physics”.
In the following I am not talking down my nose to you. I am offering an observation and if it doesn’t suit you, chuck it out.
The inertial frame is in your mind, hardly a vantage point for viewing reality.
I have already acknowledged that you have good intelligence and you analyze problems well in certain situation. However, until you kick out of that centre from where you think, you’ll be hand-cuffed when it comes to observing more complex actuality.
Have you heard of the observer and the observed? It’s about an observer looking at something and seeing the object as a definition in his/her mind and not as it is.
The solution to that problem is to bring the observer and the observer together and that is only possible if the observer releases himself/herself from the confines of knowledge. A lot easier said than done, I might add.
For example, if I look at a tree, I can see an evergreen, branches, needles, leaves, whatever. If I really want to see that tree as it is in actuality, I have to dismiss all that knowledge and look at the tree as it is in the here and now.
That means dropping definitions like evergreen, branch, needle, leaf, etc., and simply observing with a choiceless awareness.
Look at the Moon problem from that perspective and you have to see that it is not rotating about its axis, even though it APPEARS to be. The apparent turning motion is very convincing. However, better observation without what you KNOW, reveals a different situation.
I laid out a scenario in which two coins are butted again each other with a mark on either at the butt point. Try moving the coin on the right around the other coin’s perimeter while keeping that mark against the perimeter.
If you do, you have to ‘slide’ it. You cannot cause the RH coin to rotate about its axis while keeping the mark against the LH coin.
With the coins the sliding is accomplished via a force from the fingers. With the Moon, the sliding motion is a combo of the Moon’s momentum and Earth’s gravity. In either case, both bodies are constrained to follow a path.
The RH coin appears to be rotating about its axial point but it cant because it’s axial point is moving. with all other points. parallel to tangential lines on the LH coin where the coins meet. Same with the Moon.
The rotational motion about an axis on the RH coin is an illusion. It does not matter which frame you are in, the Moon/coin is translating, with all points moving parallel to the surface of the Earth/LH coin.
It does not matter which reference frame you use, there is no angular motion of the Moon’s surface about a central axis. The change in direction is all due to curvilinear motion.
BTW, Tesla agrees with JD and me. I channeled him last night and he assures me he has not changed his mind.
I’m sorry, Gordon, but this is another one that is not up for discussion. These principles are used every day to bring you satellite TV and radio, to control planes, trains and automobiles, and many other things. You either follow along with what I am telling you, or you are off in some fantasy land of your own devising.
Bart, if you believe you can fake your way around physics with babbling and debate tricks, get in line behind Norman, fluffball, DA, SGW, and a few other clowns.
Postma says Tesla is wrong.
Bummer, man.
It’s just “one motion vs. two motions”. Reference frames don’t enter into it. That’s why they’re on the “red herring” list, along with so many other things. Shame that people are still so confused about something so simple, even after months of going through it. Oh well.
If you fellows could understand the mathematics of it all, you would understand why your objections are, really, just downright silly and uninformed. I’ve thought about trying to present them to you, but I think that avenue is not likely to bear fruit.
Am I wrong? Are any of you actually interested in the math? Do you understand vector math (dot products and cross products), and matrix transformations (eigenvectors and eigenvalues)? Would you be able to follow along? Because, I will provide it if you are interested and it is worthwhile.
It’s just “one motion vs two”, always has been. And precisely because it’s so simple, you refuse to accept it. But that’s your problem. You can write out whatever you want. You have never demonstrated that you understand the fundamental issue behind it all. Until you do, there’s nothing to discuss.
Folderal and fiddle-dee-dee. You’re very full of yourself, for a fellow who has never studied or applied the mathematics. How do you get that way?
What is it in your psyche that triggered the thought, somewhere along the way, that you alone were a super genius, and had no need for study to explain away what thousands of engineers and scientists around the world are successfully applying even as we engage in this repartee?
“You’re very full of yourself”
Not at all.
“What is it in your psyche that triggered the thought, somewhere along the way, that you alone were a super genius, and had no need for study to explain away what thousands of engineers and scientists around the world are successfully applying even as we engage in this repartee?”
I don’t think any of that, but that is a good example of the attitude that prevents you from seeing it. It doesn’t go over your head. I guess you could say it goes under it. Either way, you miss it.
As I stated, these principles are applied every single day in millions of applications. I am intimately acquainted with their application. I assure you, the mote is not in my eye.
Maybe you need to ponder what I have written, and adjust your conception. Because we who practice in the field, and make items that work on these principles, are not going to stop just because you have a conceptual problem with them.
Righty-ho Bart.
“Until you do, there’s nothing to discuss.”
Well, that’s never going to happen for those of us trained in science. We understand the problem in a way that, as Bart notes, works in the real world, and makes logical and mathematical sense.
Why would we ever want to ‘unlearn’ stuff that has proven so useful?
So, indeed, nothing to discuss.
There he is! I knew he’d have to show up with some rhetoric. Well done, Nate.
bart…Im sorry, Gordon, but this is another one that is not up for discussion. These principles are used every day to bring you satellite TV and radio, to control planes, trains and automobiles, and many other things. You either follow along with what I am telling you, or you are off in some fantasy land of your own devising”.
****
I am an expert in communications systems, I have worked at it for decades. I am also an expert in control systems. If you have evidence of what you speak, let’s hear it.
If you are referring to time dilation, it is never mentioned in communications in a practical sense, only by theorists. There is no way to measure time dilation because 1)time has no existence, 2)no instrument measures time.
A clock generates time and it is synchronized with the rotation of the Earth. Communication is via electromagnetic waves, not time. You can compress the distance between EM waves but that is not time dilation. Some people think it is and they are mistaken.
An example of EM wave compression/dilation is an FM radio signal. An FM transmitter is fed a carrier wave varying in frequency and the antenna converts the varying electrical signal to a varying electromagnetic field. If you lay it out mathematical, you can argue theoretically that a time change is in effect, but that would be a mental argument featuring illusion. In reality, it’s an EM field varying.
I think they made the same mistake with GRT.
I have just laid out an experiment you can do on your own, with the coins. Try rotating one coin while keeping the mark against the other coin. You cannot do it. The mark cannot rotate around the coins axis while touching the other coin’s perimeter.
Reference frames are theoretical constructs to help us visualize reality, FROM WITHIN THE HUMAN MIND. They do not apply in reality.
Please keep in mind that when you deal with reference frames you are ins a state of illusion. The trick is to ‘SEE’ without the illusion.
In electronics, some people use an analogy of water running through a pipe. I have never found such analogies helpful. At a university level, they produce more complex analogies and I am afraid people tend to get lost by taking them too literally.
Paradigms like space-time are built on such analogies to the point some people today are talking about gravity as a space-time issue. Absolute nonsense. What’s more frightening is that some are talking about redefining measures like the kilogram on space-time theory.
Are we all going mad? Eventually, they are going to have to undo this nonsense and begin anew. What a waste of science.
bart…”If you fellows could understand the mathematics of it all, you would understand why your objections are, really, just downright silly and uninformed”.
Science is about observation and math is a tool. When math becomes the tool, we can become lost quickly.
You need to understand how observation and illusion are related to the mind. You seem to value math more than you do direct observation.
No one enjoys math more than me but I got it a long time ago that what makes sense mathematically does not always translate to what is out there.
brain lock…”When math becomes the tool, we can become lost quickly”.
should read…
“When math becomes the sciencel, we can become lost quickly”.
I like what physicist David Bohm said about that…equations with no reality to back them are garbage.
nate…”Why would we ever want to unlearn stuff that has proven so useful?”
I can think of one reason, what you learned initially was wrong or it was misunderstood.
Al Gore became seriously peeved when his mentor, Dr. Roger Revelle, wrote in a book that we should not read too much into global warming theory. Gore studied climate related courses under Revelle at Harvard and got the impression Revelle was a climate alarmist. Revelle was in fact an astute scientist who did not buy into Gore’s catastrophic aspect of climate alarm.
JD, you would be well-served to read up on the “parallel axis theorem”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem
Tim, you would be well-served to explain what mistake you believe I have made, rather than a link and a fallacious implication that I do not know the parallel-axis theorem.
But, maybe you’re that desperate….
Ah yes, the parallel axis theorem, about which Tesla said:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
“Still more remote from palpable truth is the equation of motion obtained in the manner indicated in Fig. 4, in which the first term represents the kinetic energy of translation of the body as a whole and the second that of its axial rotation. The former would demand a movement of the mass in a definite path and direction, all particles having the same velocity, the latter its simultaneous motion in another path and direction, the particles having different velocities. This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
Repeating previous discussions is so much fun.
The lesson: don’t go to an electrical guy for mechanical work.
OK Bart.
It’s a symmetrical relationship. Don’t go to a mechanical guy for electrical work. Isaac Newton wouldn’t be a good guy to query about Kirchhoff’s laws.
Again: OK Bart.
The lesson: Don’t believe some clown that looks up Latin phrases knows anything about physics.
dremt…”Ah yes, the parallel axis theorem, about which Tesla said:”
My esteem for Tesla continues to soar. He has far greater insight than the pundits at NASA who still preach that the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit.
It’s the difference between a true thinker and people who are regurgitating paradigms they have picked up along the way.
Yes, how could any of us forget how Tesla launched men to the Moon? What a guy…
Absolutely, Gordon. He was way ahead of his time.
The parts of the Moon, closest to the Earth-Moon barycenter, ie the near side are not moving as fast as those parts farthest from the barycenter, ie the far side of the Moon.
Which means all parts of the moon are not moving at the same speed, which means there is something putting torque on the moon, which means it is being turned, or that it is spinning.
bob, both sides of the Moon, and all parts of it, are moving with the same speed as the center of mass.
You are barking up the wrong tree, again.
JD,
Now you have gone and done it, you have made a statement any eighth grader can prove wrong.
The near side of the Moon is always closer to the earth-moon barycenter, so as it orbits, it traces a near circle that is totally contained, and therefore smaller in circumference, than the near circle that is traced by the far side of the moon.
You should know by now that you are licked
all over
bob, that would be true for anything that is orbiting, such as a racehorse, race car, ceiling fan, etc.
You’re just desperate, along with being hilariously incompetent.
And, quit fantasizing about licking me. I already have a dog.
bart…”Isaac Newton wouldnt be a good guy to query about Kirchhoffs laws”.
I would not want to bet on that had Newton lived in the same era. Newton was a pretty brilliant guy.
bobd…”The near side of the Moon is always closer to the earth-moon barycenter, so as it orbits, it traces a near circle that is totally contained,”
Any motion related to a barycentre is almost imperceptible. The barycentre is within the Earth, so any wobble would be apparent if it was perceptible.
The effect of the Moon on the Earth is to stretch the solid surface and ocean water. It does not pull the Earth away from its orbit around the Sun.
As JD said, each point on the Moon is moving at the same angular velocity wrt to a radial line through the Moon to the Earth’s centre. Furthermore, each point on the Moon is moving parallel to very other point on the Moon.
With one side always facing the Earth, it is not possible for that side to perform angular motion about the Moon’s axis. If all points, including the axis, are moving in parallel circles, no point on the Moon’s circumference can rotate around the axis.
Gordon, just the basics first
Every point on the moon is moving in a circular path around the earth.
The points closer to the earth make smaller circles
The points on the far side make larger circles, that’s why they call it the far side.
All the points revolve around the earth in the same amount of time
The points on the far side move farther therefore are moving faster
I wasn’t discussing angular velocity but here goes
each point on the Moon revolves around the earth once a month and each point on the Moon rotates around the center of the Moon once a month also.
Each point has angular momentum composed of both motions.
So JD,
Is the inside of a merry go round moving faster than the outside?
Or what
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338887
When JD says “orbiting” he is referring to the one singular motion that “Non-Spinners” see the moon’s movement as being comprised of.
So the average distance to the moon is 384000 km and the radius of the moon is 1737 km, so
In one revolution around the earth, the near side at 382263 km away
travels 2400611 km while the far side travels 2422428 km
So they don’t travel the same distance, so they can’t be traveling along parallel lines
therefore the Moon rotates
…just not on its own axis.
“It does not pull the Earth away from its orbit around the Sun.”
It does. The Moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of nearly 4 cm/year due to tidal recession. Part of that relative motion is the Earth receding from the barycenter, and it is the barycenter that revolves around the Sun.
“As JD said, each point on the Moon is moving at the same angular velocity wrt to a radial line through the Moon to the Earths centre.”
They aren’t. The Moon’s spin axis is displaced from its orbital plane by several degrees. And, the Moon is wobbling about its nominal spin axis due to tidal forces. The conceptualization of the Moon’s dynamics lying within a two dimensional plane is an idealization. A complete catalog of motion has 6 degrees of freedom – 3 of translation, and 3 of rotation.
“just not on its own axis.”
Any rotation can be expressed as a 3 X 3 transformation matrix in the Special Orthogonal group in three dimensions, SO(3). Any such transformation matrix has an invariant axis along the eigenvector associated with eigenvalue of unity. I.e., any rotation implies an axis of rotation.
“any rotation implies an axis of rotation.“
Yes. And that axis of rotation is not the moon’s center of mass.
An axis of rotation has no preferred location relative to a rigid body. It defines a direction in space, not a position. The concept you are thinking of is that of a pivot point. The pivot point for a perfectly tidally locked Moon is the Earth-Moon barycenter.
I thought you’d given up?
I lied. Sue me.
I think I may see the problem here, now. You think an axis of rotation is like the axle on a wheel – a fixed line which defines the center of rotation. That is not the case.
OK, if you say so.
Once you’ve decided what I think, maybe take it right down to the very bottom of the comments, because I’m done for today, but others might want to discuss it. I doubt they will check anything up here.
An axis of rotation is a direction about which the body is turning. You may find reference to a “fixed” axis of rotation, but this is not the same thing. It has the added qualifier of being “fixed”. A fixed axis of rotation is both a direction and a location, and all points are moving with respect to it at the same angular rate with velocity equal to the distance times angular rate.
Here is a small example of the difference. A wheel is turning freely. All points on the wheel are moving at velocity equal to the angular rate times radius.
Now, we put that wheel on the ground, and roll it forward. The center of rotation is no longer the center of the wheel. It is the point of contact between the wheel and the road. At any given instant, the instantaneous velocity of a point on the wheel is the angular rate times the distance to the contact point.
In both cases, the axis of rotation is normal to the wheel, in the direction it is spinning. But, the pivot point is different, and in only one case is it “fixed”.
The “OK, if you say so” was for “you think…”
It makes no sense to define angular momentum relative to any but an inertial coordinate system. Only in an inertial coordinate system is it conserved in the absence of torque.
But Bart, your equation defines AM relative to the Earth. For example, you completely omit Earth’s AM about the Sun.
Physics is complicated, huh?
As the Sun pulls the Earth and Moon nearly equally, we do not have to consider it to obtain a reliable description of the local Earth-Moon system. The important thing is that our frame of reference is non-rotating with respect to the distant stars.
No Bart, the “important thing” is that you left out the AM due to Earth’s orbiting. If you want to leave it out, then you are NOT using the distant stars as a reference, unless you now want to also re-define “reference”, or “distant stars”.
You’ve got a lot of re-defining to do, unless you wanted to learn some physics.
No, JD. Stellar parallax is on the order of milli-arcseconds. It is utterly negligible. But, you don’t even know what Stellar parallax is, do you?
Bart, how do you say “red herring” in Latin?
Reference frames are already on the list.
So?
Sew buttons.
bart…”It makes no sense to define angular momentum relative to any but an inertial coordinate system.”
What do you call the angular momentum of a wheel about its axis? Do you need to define an inertial frame to claim a wheel is turning? If so, you had better avoid cars moving on the road.
You need an inertial frame to provide a simple connection between any torque it experiences and the resulting change in angular momentum.
Different applications demand different levels of precision. For a wheel spinning on an automobile, you can neglect the rotation of the Earth, because the angular momentum and torque are very large, and the rotation rate of the Earth is relatively small. For a gyrocompass, you need to include the rotation rate of the Earth in your computations.
“You appear to be attempting to determine ‘angular momentum’, which is very different.”
Why did it only “appear” he was doing this when he stated it clearly in his opening sentence?
Angular momentum is not relative to “something”. It is relative to an AXIS. There does not have to be ‘something’ at that location.
des, the first line of his work, where he gives the equation for “Momentum”, is wrong. I was guessing he was trying for “angular momentum”. That’s why I used the word “appear”.
But, thanks for your attempted pedantry.
Ah yes, “calculations of angular momentum”. That was already on the red herring list. What do we have on there, hard to remember now…
Calculation of angular momentum
Reference frames
Definitions of translation
Libration
Precession
Obliquity
Hammer throw
Foucault’s pendulum
Elliptical orbits.
There’s probably more, and I expect some other people will bring more up.
No, the argument is all just about whether the moon’s movement is comprised of one, or two motions, and that’s all it’s ever been. Nothing complicated.
The Moon’s movement is that of an unimaginably large number of individual particles which happen to be held together in a fixed arrangement. The motion of a given dense subset is not the same as any other.
We can describe that motion as that of one given point, and the motion of all the particles with respect to that point. It becomes particularly simple if we choose that reference point to be the center of mass, in which case all the other points are moving in circles about that point. Which is to say, the center of mass is moving in a circle about the Earth-Moon barycenter, and all the particles are rotating about that center of mass.
These are not “red herrings”. They are basic mechanisms or concepts which aid in understanding the motion.
Yeah, it’s just a question of one motion or two. Sorry.
Bart, the “frame of reference” to “rotating on its own axis” is “its own axis”!
bart…”The Moons movement is that of an unimaginably large number of individual particles which happen to be held together in a fixed arrangement”.
Yes and all of those particles are moving in parallel lines to a tangent line to the Earth’s surface at a particular point on the surface.
In order for angular rotation to occur about the Moon’s axis, those points would have to rotate about the axis and that would be impossible if one side of the Moon always faces the Earth.
Concentric circles, not parallel lines. The fact that different points are moving with different velocities tells you there is rotation going on.
Bart,
True or False: A racehorse is not rotating about its center of mass as it runs an oval track.
Yes Bart, you think it’s two motions, which you might describe as a translation about the Earth-moon barycenter plus a rotation on its own axis. We describe it as just one motion, thus sans axial rotation. You can call that one singular motion what you like. Since it doesn’t involve axial rotation, I get why people call it translation. I also understand why others would think of it as a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter. Either way, doesn’t matter, as long as it’s understood that it is just one motion.
“The fact that different points are moving with different velocities tells you there is rotation going on.”
Just not on its own axis.
JD – false. The motion can be described as curvilinear motion of the center of mass about the center of the track plus rotation about the center of mass. The center of mass, though, is not really a special point in this case, because it is not unconstrained motion. There might be a better pivot point to choose within the horse’s body for which the curvilinear motion is least variable.
DREMT – What you are describing is the motion as seen from different reference frames. In a reference frame that turns with the orbit, the Moon is nominally (but, not precisely) irrotational. In an inertial reference frame, it is rotating, and rotation always implies rotation about an instantaneous axis.
As a matter of kinematics, it does not matter which you use. It does matter for dynamics. That is, it matters for doing calculations of the Moon’s motion because those calculations are based upon Newton’s laws, and Newton’s laws only hold in an inertial reference frame.
“What you are describing is the motion as seen from different reference frames”
Nope. You still don’t get it. Maybe you never will. We see it as one motion, you see it as two. And it is NOTHING to do with reference frames.
No, DR, it is everything to do with reference frames. I think you do not understand what is meant mathematically by “reference frame”.
It has nothing to do with reference frames.
It has everything to do with reference frames.
No, it has nothing to do with reference frames.
Yes, it has everything to do with reference frames.
Incorrect, it has nothing to do with reference frames.
Bart, the correct answer is “True”.
After you finish studying Latin, learn some physics.
If you try to express your idea mathematically, you will find you need to define reference frames.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338628
bart…”Concentric circles, not parallel lines. The fact that different points are moving with different velocities tells you there is rotation going on”.
Are you claiming concentric circles are not parallel to each other? Or that the tangent lines at the points on two concentric circles where they are intercepted by a radial line, are not parallel?
bart…”No, DR, it is everything to do with reference frames. I think you do not understand what is meant mathematically by reference frame.”
Reference frames are required only when the human mind needs to plot the motion of a mass wrt time. In the real world, we don’t need them. We can see that a wooden horse on a merry-go-round has a line through it from tail to head, moving parallel to tangent lines of any circle on the MGR.
If a human on a Ferris Wheel want to calculate the relative motion of a horse on the MGR, then he would need a reference frame to calculate it.
Do you think wolves and bears need frames of reference?
“Are you claiming concentric circles are not parallel to each other?”
Indeed, I am.
“Or that the tangent lines at the points on two concentric circles where they are intercepted by a radial line, are not parallel?”
That is a different proposition. Indeed, these tangent lines are parallel. But, this is a different thing, and you had to carefully qualify it, didn’t you?
In the example of Euler’s equation which you helpfully provided below:
Idw/dt + w x (Iw) = M
This equation only works in a frame of reference fixed in the body. Otherwise, you have other terms coupling in from the rotation rate of the frame of reference you are using, and the inertia tensor is not in general constant.
Wolves and bears do not need to produce precise calculations of celestial motion. Any other being that needs such precise quantification will turn to frames of reference to make the equations of motion tractable.
JD, the thing I was tracking down is whether the moon has a rotational (distinct from orbital) momentum. And if so, what was the result of the equation.
I found a few places that answered the question:
http://jdetrick.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-moon-and-angular-momentum.html
Where equations are separately done for both the orbital and rotational momentum of the moon,as well as for the s[inning Earth; and
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-angular-momentum-of-the-moon-in-its-rotation-around-its-axis
Where the equation is done only for the rotational momentum of the moon.
These answers were the same, and consistent with a few others I found.
I can see no error in the assumptions or calcs.
‘Angular momentum’ covers orbital and rotational momentum.
The error is that they assume the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Your error is you assume they assume when actual reality is that they observe the moon rotating on its axis.
I was being nice by not implying any incompetence on their part.
But your assumption is probably correct, they actually can’t figure out the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
But seeing is believing, and I can see the moon rotate.
You should get out and look all around!
What you are seeing is the Moon orbiting but NOT rotating on its own axis.
I can do all caps too
N N OO PPP EEEE
NN N O O P P E
N N N O O PPP EEE
N NN O O P E
N N OO P EEEE
OK BOBDRUGGY
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
“The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one”.
So, can the motion of the moon be modelled in this one singular motion, as Tesla suggests? Yes. Try it yourself, here:
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.
Ignorant people like you who have not ever taken an ounce of kinematics continually make fools of themselves.
Please refer to the following:
[http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter20.pdf]
Appendix 20A states:
“We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.”
So with your silly triangle, the center of mass is translating along a circular orbit at some distance r, while the triangle rotates 360 degrees about its center of mass for every one orbit. You can substitute your triangle for the object shown in the proof, and the results will be the same.
And in your little transmographer, you will find that an object that is not translating rotates about its center of mass.
And Gordon should should use the transmographer to understand what translation is, since he has no clue.
Stupid no longer links to the MIT example of a train going in a circle.
From that MIT example “…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
You can see why Stupid no longer links to that site….
skeptic…”We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.”
The are describing a rod that is both rotating and translating.
Gordon,
You obviously flunked both kinematics and reading comprehension. NO. The rod is NOT translating. It’s center of mass is translating. An “object” that translates does not rotate. You continually screw up the definition of translation.
You really need to get a refund on your alleged engineering education.
Wrong. You can program the transmographer to translate the triangle and rotate the center of mass, as you describe. That’s two separate and independent motions. BUT that is not what I am demonstrating. What I am doing is simply rotating the triangle around a center point. That is only ONE motion, yet it moves as per the moon. It moves the same way if you program it as a single rotation about the center point, OR if you program it as two separate motions, a translation plus a rotation about the center of mass. Try it yourself.
All you have demonstrated is your ignorance.
Per the proof, the triangle rotates about its center of mass.
This rotation can be demonstrated with simple objects. That motion is not imaginary.
Now go away, clown, and argue on Postma’s site. I need a few laughs.
It moves the same way if you program it as a single rotation about the center point, OR if you program it as two separate motions, a translation plus a rotation about the center of mass. Try it yourself.
Poor Stupid, he cannot win with facts and logic, so he resorts to personal attacks and his obsession with Postma.
JD was so shocked when Postma declared the moon does indeed rotate on its axis that he quit posting for a couple weeks. Probably checked himself into a Betty Ford clinic. LMAO.
JD STILL can’t get the egg of his face. Priceless!
Maybe it is you that is shocked that I am unaffected by Institutionalized Pseudoscience.
Types like you always have to have something to cling to, because they are unable to think for themselves.
Keep clingng….
Keep pounding the keyboard, clown. By chance alone, something intelligent is likely to appear in a few billion years.
Stupid, you wouldn’t be able to recognize “something intelligent” if someone gave you 3 hints.
Well thats progess. You get that the Moon’s orbit can be described as ‘translation plus rotation about the center of mass’.
But then hpow do you describe the Moon on the right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You guys used to say it is rotating CW.
Nate tries one of his classic “well that’s progress” lines. Nothing’s changed, Nate.
I get that’s how YOU describe the moon’s motion, and always have.
It is one motion vs. two motions. And always has been.
Nate, I’m not sure who you are addressing, but your description of the Moon’s orbit is incorrect.
At that link, the graphic on the right is rotating on its own axis CW, as it orbits CCW.
“At that link, the graphic on the right is rotating on its own axis CW, as it orbits CCW.”
Agreed.
The moon on the right is exhibiting pure translational motion just like the seat (or gondola) of a ferris wheel.
See page 3 of the following:
http://madisoncollegephysics.net/233/week09-1.pdf
Curvilinear translation confuses the hell out of these clowns, especially Gordon.
It’s what happens when you have uneducated buffoons attempting to dabble in physics.
“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.”
This is something that is so, so, simple. It’s unbelievable how much these people struggle with it.
DREMT, do you realize that at 3:56 and 3:57, we both commented with very similar comments at almost exactly the same time?
Amazing.
Dear DREMT,
In the graphic on the right, draw two points through the moon. Does that line rotate at all? No it does not. The definition of translation:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Poor dumb DREMT. Caught flat-footed……like a deer in the headlights.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I see Stupid found another link he can’t understand.
He keeps confusing curvilinear translation with orbital motion.
Making the same mistakes, over and over, hoping for different results….
Left the part about drawing a line between the two point, but it does not matter, they won’t get it anyway.
Yeah that’s quite something! Dare I say, “great minds think alike”?
Poor clown JD does not even know what an “orbit” is. An orbit is simply a path the orbiting body follows. Hello! Anyone home? Nope.
And DREMT wonders why I bring up the topic of translation all the time. Because they don’t get it.
HGS, I’ll try again:
“You can program the transmographer to translate the triangle and rotate the center of mass, as you describe. That’s two separate and independent motions. BUT that is not what I am demonstrating. What I am doing is simply rotating the triangle around a center point. That is only ONE motion, yet it moves as per the moon. It moves the same way if you program it as a single rotation about the center point, OR if you program it as two separate motions, a translation plus a rotation about the center of mass. Try it yourself.”
Obviously, since you believe that the moon’s movement is comprised of two motions, which you would describe as a translation about the Earth-moon barycenter and a rotation on its own axis, you will think that the moon on the right in Nate’s GIF is only exhibiting one motion.
If you understood that the moon’s movement can be modelled as only ONE motion, then you would see the movement of the moon on the right as being comprised of two motions.
skeptic…”The definition of translation:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.””
Exactly what we’ve been trying to tell you but your intelligence is too restricted and too compartmentalized to see it.
What you fail to understand is that in a circular translation, the lines to which you refer above begin parallel to a tangent line at the beginning of the translation. All the way round the circle they remain parallel to tangent lines.
You fail to understand the inherent difference between rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation. If you define a line through a rigid body parallel to the direction of rectilinear motion, it must remain parallel to that direction at all times.
The moment you introduce a curve, the direction of motion becomes the tangent line of the curvilinear path. All lines in the body must remain parallel to that tangent line.
If you draw a radial line from the centre of the Earth through the centre of the Moon, and you draw lines perpendicular to that line through every point in the Moon, those lines will always remain parallel to each other as well as to tangent line at each point the radial line touches on the Earth’s circumference.
Every point along the radial line will turn at the same angular velocity, completing the definition of curvilinear translation.
It would be nice if you could explain it in your own words rather than rushing off to text books, which you misinterpret anyway.
That means no rotation of the body, which in this case is the Moon.
BTW…I did not read that in a book, I remember it from my engineering studies at university.
Gordon,
You are an moron. In curvilnear translation, a line through the body CANNOT rotate, you idiot. It has to remain parallel to its original position. You are TOO stupid to understand this. TO ITS ORIGINAL POSTION. If the line starts out pointing north, it has to REMAIN pointing north throughout its curvilinear motion. I’ve never met an alleged engineer so stupid.
Gordon blubbers:
“You fail to understand the inherent difference between rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation. If you define a line through a rigid body parallel to the direction of rectilinear , it must remain parallel to that direction at all times.”
OMG Gordon. You FAIL to understand the simple words “to its ORIGINAL position”. A line on a body undergoing curvilinear translation MUST always be parallel to the ORIGINAL position YOU IDIOT.
If the ORGINAL POSITION of the line points north, the line through the translating body MUST ALWAYS point north as the object translates along the curve.
Wow! I have never in my life seen such ignorance displayed.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338695
Gordon says in italics:
“What you fail to understand is that in a circular translation, the lines to which you refer above begin parallel to a tangent line at the beginning of the translation.”
I don’t fail to understand, because what you state after is true. Let’s assume the object translating is a big fat arrow, and it’s pointing west at the 12:00 noon position of the circular orbit. The line through the arrow is actually tangent to the orbital path.
“All the way round the circle they remain parallel to tangent lines”
No. They do not remain parallel to the tangent line because the definition of curvilinear translation states it remains parallel to its original position at all times. The original position in our case is a line pointing west at the top of the circle.
“You fail to understand the inherent difference between rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation.”
No. You fail to understand that for BOTH rectilinear and curvilinear translation a line through the translating object has to remain parallel to the original position, which in our case is a line pointing west.
“If you define a line through a rigid body parallel to the direction of rectilinear motion, it must remain parallel to that direction at all times.”
True.
“The moment you introduce a curve, the direction of motion becomes the tangent line of the curvilinear path.”
Wrong. Per the definition of both rectilinear and curvilinear translation, the line through the object has to remain parallel to its original position (west). The object moves along the circular path, but it always points west per the defintion.
“All lines in the body must remain parallel to that tangent line.
My comments posted somehow before I was finished. So to continue, Gordon states in italics:
” All lines in the body must remain parallel to that tangent line.”
No. All lines through the object must remain parallel to the original position (the object was pointing west in its original position)
“If you draw a radial line from the centre of the Earth through the centre of the Moon, and you draw lines perpendicular to that line through every point in the Moon, those lines will always remain parallel to each other as well as to tangent line at each point the radial line touches on the Earths circumference.”
True. But the moon is not translating. Off topic.
“Every point along the radial line will turn at the same angular velocity, completing the definition of curvilinear translation.”
No. The definition of curvilinear translation requires that “All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”. It is NOT referring to angular velocity. You are just making that up.
In the infamous graphic on the right, that moon is exhibiting curvilinear translation per the definition. The seat of a ferris wheel is another example of curvilinear translation.
Unfortunately, HGS’s endless disputes with Gordon over definitions of translation just give HGS a way out from understanding. And he takes that way out every single time.
Poor Stupid should drop all the babble about curvilinear translation, and learn about orbital motion. This issue is about orbiting, not curvilinear translation.
The graphic on the right is what poor Stupid believes is the motion of “orbiting”. He needs to understand that is WRONG.
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
Once he understands his concept of orbiting is wrong, he will realize the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. Then, he will realize how stupid he has been.
An orbit is simply a path, you idiot.
A “path” that is established by the laws of physics.
You would not be so stupid if you learned about orbital motion.
The graphic on the right is INCORRECT orbital motion.
The graphic on the left is CORRECT orbital motion.
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
‘Agreed’ with right image rotating CW?
Then also this to describe left image:
‘ OR if you program it as two separate motions, a translation plus a rotation about the center of mass.’
Then ypu should agree that the right image can be created with just a translation.
Yes.
You still don’t get it, do you Nate?
Your argument is that the moon’s movement is comprised of two motions. Ours is that the moon’s movement is comprised of one.
Your argument for the “moon on the right” is that the moon’s movement is comprised of one motion. Ours is that it is comprised of two.
The transmographer can be used to demonstrate both ways of looking at it. I am not trying to use the transmographer to settle the argument. I’m just using it to illustrate our side of the argument to people who STILL do not understand it.
Ok. If thr right moon can be described as 1 motion, translating, as the program shows it can, then this IS simply a translaton.
That is what SGW and the rest of us have been saying for a long time, to deaf ears.
Bit of an odd comment, considering what I just said, but never mind.
‘odd comment’
If something is not rotating wrt the coordinate system, as the Moon on the right, then it is simply translating.
The tool confirms this.
You guys would like to describe this non-rotating thing as actually rotating CCW AND rotating CW at the same rate, thus cancelling.
You can do it, but it seems rather silly.
As silly as describing a guy who is obviously standing still, as simultaneously running forward at 100 mph and backward at 100 mph.
[repeats previous comment]
And yet you are still dont get how silly it is.
I get how silly you are.
JDHuffman
Here is one last attempt at the amount of energy the Earth will receive.
In a flux that is constant, the only way to increase the amount of energy an object in that flux receives is to increase the radius.
That is your error. The sphere has the same radius as a disk in a flux so they BOTH receive the same energy. If you want to increase the energy you have to increase the radius. With a sphere you are increasing the area WITHOUT increasing the radius. That means you have less energy available for each square meter NOT MORE!!!
I gave you a video to watch to demonstrate this. The light intensity drops off on the outer parts of the sphere. You do not get the same intensity at each square meter. Only the meters directly overhead (90%) will receive the full flux, the rest get less and less as Bindidon demonstrated. That is reality. Accept it or not. Yours is garbage complete. Bad logic, poor math, and incorrect! Please change this!
Norman, as usual, you just start pounding on your keyboard and your brain stops. You just tangle yourself up in your illogical rambling every time.
Let me make it very simple for you:
1) The mythical sphere receives an incoming solar flux of 960 Watts/m^2, adjusted for albedo.
2) Since the mythical sphere is a homogeneous, isotropic, super-conducting, black body, all of the solar flux is absorbed. The resulting absorbed energy is 960A Joules/sec. (“A” is the area of the “disc”.)
3) Since outgoing must equal incoming, at equilibrium, the outgoing energy is also 960A Joules/sec.
4) The sphere has total surface area of 4A. So the outgoing flux = 960A/4A = 240 Watts/m^2.
5) “960” incoming is NOT equal to “240” outgoing, demonstrating that radiative fluxes are NOT conserved.
Now, more of your illogical rambling.
960 = 240 times 4
The area of a sphere is 4 times the area of a circle of the same radius
Flux incoming equals flux outgoing or temperature changes
energy is conserved
Energy is conserved, radiative flux is NOT conserved.
Try to keep up, bob.
JD, you are having problems with basic math.
Or are you evading the question that 240 watts from the surface of a sphere equals 960 watts from the surface of a circle.
the flux out equals the flux in or the temperature changes.
Energy is conserved, radiative flux is NOT conserved.
For A = area of mythical sphere’s “disk”,
960A Joules in…equals…4(240)A = 960A Joules out, but
960 Watts/m^2 in does NOT equal 240 Watts/m^2 out.
If a circle has an area of 100 meters squared then a sphere of the same radius has an area of 400 meters squared.
thus
960 watts over 100 square meters equals 240 watts over 400 square meters.
If I dumb it down anymore, we will have to start with your abcs.
Yes bob, Energy is conserved, radiative flux is NOT conserved.
I even gave you the numbers, to make it easier to understand.
JD,
repeat after me
ay bee cee dee ee ef gee aitch eye jay kay il em en o pee kweu are es tee you vee double you ex why and zee
I don’t have to make fun of bob’s immaturity and lack of education.
He does that all by himself.
JDHuffman
Are you being obstinate on purpose. It is very clear and yet you refuse to even try to understand.
You don’t know how to do math do you?
The sphere does NOT receive 960 w/m^2. You pulled that out of nowhere! No one says that at all. Only you. So before you say more. STOP and explain where you get this figure from.
The 960 W/m^2 would be what would fall on a disk the same radius as a sphere. Each m^2 on the disk receives 960 Watts.
The sphere with the same radius DOES NOT receive 960 watts for each of its square meters. Only those at 90 degree will receive this. The rest of the sphere receives less!
I will not respond on this until you explain this point!
It has been WELL explained, Norman. You have a learning disability.
And your “threat” of not responding has no value. If you ever did what you say you’re going to do, it would be the first time….
https://tinyurl.com/zselxkz
Norman couldn’t stay away, even after his “threat”.
And, he’s back with yet another link he can’t understand.
Great entertainment.
JDHuffman
You assumed the link was to you. It was not. It was for anyone who wanted to see how wrong you are. I know what I am saying. I am showing others that I am the correct party in the discussion and you are the one making up things you don’t even understand. It is funny. Keep up the entertainment.
It is hilarious that all you can say is I don’t understand the link when in reality you are the only one that fails. You would get kicked out of a college physics course in about a week if you argued your ideas with any physics instructor.
Since you chose to jump in (something you do often). Send your idea to a Physics Professor and see if they applaud your understanding (NOT) they will shake their heads and hope you are joking.
The hilarious thing is I do link to material and people can look and learn something. You don’t link to anything.
It is easy to say someone does not understand a link. The problem is you don’t even know what the work “understand” means. You use it often in your posts but you don’t know what it means.
Norman, if you understand the link, then you should be able to figure out you are wrong.
They use slightly different values for solar flux at TOA, and albedo, but the results are the same–incoming flux does not equal outgoing flux. Radiative fluxes are NOT conserved.
You’re wrong, again.
JDHuffman
The fluxes are actually are conserved. If you wanted to use the real body Earth it would be tremendously long and complex calculation but you would find the fluxes are conserved.
If you took all the square meters of Earth’s surface as individual and calculated the incoming flux and the outgoing flux of each one of these square meters you would find that when all are added together the fluxes are conserved. At night you will have those square meters emitting more than they receive (zero received) but if you add them all up you will get a conserved balance. If not, the surface would be either cooling down or heating up. If it was at a steady state the fluxes are conserved even if too complex and involved to calculate directly.
JDHUffman
The total energy absorbed by the surface has to be emitted by the surface to remain at the same temperature. Since the energy is constantly moving that means the flux is conserved. The W/m^2 in equals the W/m^2 out when integrated over all the square meters.
Norman, as you get more and more desperate, you get even bolder at making things up. Your claims are funny, but here’s reality:
960 incoming ≠ 240 outgoing, radiative fluxes are NOT conserved.
Learn some physics. Face reality. Grow up.
JDHuffman
You are the one who is wrong. Please find, in the linked article, where they claim 960 watts are hitting every square meter of the spherical Earth? You make that up because you don’t read what is discussed. The 960 W/m^2 is what would hit a disk with the same radius as Earth!! Please actually read before acting like you know something. It would make a discussion more pleasant.
What the calculation is, is to take the total amount of energy that the Sun can deliver to the Earth per second (which is the same as the energy hitting a disk with Earth’s radius…this is in the material clearly shown and calculated). They then average this total energy per second over the entire area of the Earth (no it is not a real value it is a hypothetical maximum value they also know this) and find how much energy would actually reach each square meter if distributed uniformily. That comes to around 240 Watts averaged to each meter squared. It is all in the reading. The reason you don’t know this is because you did not read the material and presume you know what you are talking about. Well you don’t.
I ask again, where do you get the notion that the 960 watts is for every square meter of the spherical Earth surface? No where in the article does it make this claim. Only you are making this ridiculous claim because you do not read what is said and make up what you think they say.
Norman, my theory is that when you start banging on your keyboard, your brain stops working.
Where did I ever say “that the 960 watts is for every square meter of the spherical Earth surface”?
Your delusions do not make up for your incompetence.
JDHuffman
HERE IS WHAT YOU STATED: “1) The mythical sphere receives an incoming solar flux of 960 Watts/m^2, adjusted for albedo.”
You clearly have 960 watts/m^2 for the sphere. You say nothing about variations to this incoming flux. If you think my brain stops working maybe it is really only because you have misleading confusing statements.
Since you do not make the claim that 960 w/m^2 are received by the sphere, how much do you claim is being received?
Super clown Norman, your delusions do NOT make up for your incompetence.
This has been explained before:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338548
You have a learning disability.
But your desperate keyboard extravaganzas are beyond hilarious.
Please continue.
Norman, this is one fight you need to let go of!
“You clearly have 960 watts/m^2 for the sphere. You say nothing about variations to this incoming flux. “
JD is pretty clearly talking about the W/m^2 for a PERPENDICULAR area. If you point a meter straight at the sun, you get 960 W/m^2 (well, after accounting for albedo).
You are pretty clearly talking about the W/m^2 on the CURVED SURFACE of the earth. If you point a meter straight up from the earth’s surface at a given point, you get anything from 0 – 960 W/m^2 (again, give or take some factors for albedo, water vapor, dust … ).
Its not that one of you is right and one is wrong here. It is that you are talking about two different things! (And since JD has said things like “The resulting absorbed energy is 960A Joules/sec. (A is the area of the disc.)”“, then you really should be able to see what he meant.)
Tim Folkerts
I will take your advice.
norman…”https://tinyurl.com/zselxkz”
One of the most amateurish and inept explanations of heat/radiation I have ever read.
Gordon, what’s your problem?
It looks OK to me.
Norman,
“The effect of a GHG atmosphere is it reduces the emissivity of Earth from near one for the surface down to 0.615 going through the atmosphere (even though that is not the actual mechanism the effect would be similar). Without a GHG atmosphere the emissivity would go up close to one and the temperature of the surface would drop.”
That makes no sense to me.
If you reduce the emissivity of the atmosphere, it will cool less effectively and temps will go up ( eg Venus).
If you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere it will cool more efficiently and temps will go down
Burning fossil fuels removes o2 and adds h20 and co2 increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere, so temps should go down…
A cooling atmosphere contracts…
Observed reduced drag on satelites is evidence that the TOA is contracting…
Ergo the atmosphere is cooling, as expected with an increased emissivity..
What happens if the mesopause contracts to the altitude of the tropopause?
PhilJ
It would not be that the actual atmosphere has a reduced emissivity with GHG. It is the effect would be similar to a selective absorber not the actual mechanism.
The Earth’s surface is illuminated by solar energy. Its average global temperature is around 288 K. A blackbody at that temperature would be emitting 390 W/m^2. The energy leaving the Earth via radiant energy average 240 W/m^2.
A blackbody that had a temperature of 288 K and only emitted 240 W/m^2 would have an emissivity of 0.61.
The GHG do cool the upper atmosphere but they do not cool the surface. The energy emitted back to the Earth along with solar input leads to a higher surface temperature. If you increase the emissivity than more energy will also be directed back to the Earth’s surface and increase the temperature.
barry was highly impressed with temperature forecasts produced by the UK Met Office, apparently using supercomputers, possibly operated by superbly qualified and specialised PhDs.
He wrote –
“Within a 2C range 85% accuracy for daily minimum temps.”
I haven’t done it for minima, but for maxima, at my location, just forecasting tomorrow’s maximum to be the same as today’s, gave me about 92% sccuracy to within 1 SD, around 1 C.
Worldwide, the average naive extreme daily temperature prediction, based on the previous day, is around 85%.
No computer required, any intelligent 8 year old can do it. Try it yourself, or just believe researchers who have written on the subject.
Cheers.
Worldwide, the average naive extreme daily temperature prediction, based on the previous day, is around 85%
Until you show your work, or someone else’s on this, it’s presumably BS.
For Bart
I don’t know if you ever had the opportunity to have a look at the tremendous work made by Pierre Simon de la Place (named Laplace after 1789 for obvious reasons), especially that contained in his huge
Traité de Mécanique Céleste
A little part of it (about 300 pages in total) was dedicated to the Moon and its relation to Earth.
Luckily, an American astronomer named Nathaniel Bowditch undertook the rather tedious work of translating Laplace’s Traité into English.
Maybe you have a look at that part of Laplace’s Moon theory dedicated to its rotation around its center of gravity. You’ll find the stuff in the PDF document below, starting with page 933:
Book 5 — Chapter II
On the motion of the Moon about its centre of gravity
https://archive.org/details/mcaniquecles02laplrich
After a couple of words, Lapalce immediately starts into a mathematic description of what he means.
It is quite interesting, especially when compared with Nikola Tesla’s extremely deep thoughts…
*
A nice detail is this, picked up out of the Wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traité_de_mécanique_céleste
whithin which I found the link where to download Dr. Bowditch’s translation from:
“Mr. N. I. Bowditch says, in his biography of his father, that Dr. Bowditch was accustomed to remark, ‘Whenever I meet in Laplace with the words, Thus it plainly appears, I am sure that hours, and perhaps days, of hard study will alone enable me to discover how it plainly appears.'”
Thus we shouldn’t wonder about the size of Bowditch’s annotations.
*
My last remark wille be that, like do the texts of nearly all other great scientists of his time, Laplace’s text begins with
“The moon, in revolving about the earth, keeps very nearly the same face toward us; which proves that the mean rotatory motion is exactly equal to the motion of revolution, and that the axis of rotation is nearly perpendicular to the plane of ecliptic.”
But for pseudoskeptics, this is all red herring and pseudoscience, n’est-ce pas?
“The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
Bindidon must be in the same typing class as Norman. He rambles endlessly without ever making a point. Consequently, both are mostly ignorable.
Go argue on Postma’s site, clown. See how that goes.
Stupid, are you and Norman in the same typing class?
He’s as obsessed with Postma as you are.
I’ve been reading these discussions for a long time. I have seen all of the so-called scientists and self-professed experts on this blog miss the point over this issue. All the people who appeal to their own authority, all the big egos, all the big I-ams, from Dim Folk-wit to Hate to Testicle4 to Trollvid Appell to bobdruggy to Emotional Swansong, all of them. Every single one of them have a history of fails on this issue. And some of them, like Dim, have ever so slowly finally begun to realize what the discussion is actually about, and are back-pedalling furiously on trivial issues now that they know that things like reference frames, libration, etc, were never a part of it. But none of them express any humility about it. They still act with the same level of pomposity and self-assuredness that they always did.
But, too late. They’ve been exposed. They aren’t the all-knowing omniscient beings they convince Svante they are. I’ve seen that they’re just normal people, easily capable of making a mistake same as the rest of us. This issue has been the great leveller.
All good fun.
Honestly, it’s a trivial problem. If you could express it mathematically, you would see it immediately. The Moon’s rotational dynamics are expressed by Euler’s equations forced by gravity gradient torques which produce tidal locking with its orbit.
This is all confirmed by a breathtakingly vast body of theory and practice. You guys are only demonstrating to onlookers that you are non-technical people giving random opinions on topics that are over your head.
Yes, it is a trivial problem, if one is able to think for themselves. The answer is not in pseudoscience, or distorting valid concepts to fit pseudoscience.
In order for the Moon to be rotating on its own axis, there would have to be both motions occurring–orbiting AND rotating on its own axis. The orbiting only motion must then be as shown in the right graphic. But, that is NOT REAL orbiting motion. The REAL correct orbiting motion is shown in the left graphic.
“Spinners” can’t see reality because they are so infatuated with pseudoscience.
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
Two different things orbiting and rotating, independent of each other.
Learn some physics, or some astronomy.
Go to your local community college and take a course or two.
Yes bob, that’s what we’ve been teaching. The two motions are independent from each other. That’s why it is easy to tell the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. It would be obvious from Earth, if it were.
You are not qualified to teach astronomy.
It is obvious, looking at the Moon from the Earth, that it is indeed rotating on its axis.
If it were not rotating, we would see the far side from the Earth, but we don’t.
Obviously you were unable to understand my comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338852
Is there an adult close that can explain it to you?
No need for an adult, you seem unable to come up with a hypothesis to explain what is commonly observed.
Better try harder with the scientific method, you are not doing so well so far.
“Obviously you were unable to understand my comment”
Yes, it was nice of bob to come along and prove my point. Like I said, “every single one of them have a history of fails on this issue”. Anyone reading this who is open-minded enough to have understood will see that people like bobdroege, Bart etc are just simply not getting it. Yet these are the self-professed experts. You can even try to draw pictures for them, and explain it in the simplest, clearest possible terms…nothing. Like talking to a brick wall.
bart…”The Moon’s rotational dynamics are expressed by Euler’s equations….”
In the general from, Euler is:
Idw/dt + w x (Iw) = M
where M = applied torque.
Where does the applied torque come from on a tidally-locked Moon, that causes it to theoretically rotate on its axis?
Contradiction in terms, Bart. I can see Euler explaining the torque created due to tidal bulges on the Moon due to Earth’s gravity. That should cause it to slow down, but it’s already stopped.
If it’s rotation was not stopped the same side would not be tidally-locked to the Earth.
ps. Euler on the present Moon’s rotation about its axis:
Idw/dt + w + Iw = M
I.0 + 0 x I.0 = m
M = 0
The moon has not stopped rotating, Gordon. If it did, it would be translating, which it is not. You really need a refund on your alleged engineering education.
The moon has stopped rotating, Stupid. It only has one motion–“orbiting”. You really need to study the link below, as an introduction to learning about orbital motion:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
Says the clown who Postma threw under the bus. LMAO. Sweet!
Says the immature coward who is afraid to comment under his own name and must steal from others.
You need a torque to change rotation, Gordon, not to keep it going. Once the Moon is synchronously rotating at the orbit rev rate, the bulges line up such that the gravity gradient torque is zero.
In the minimum energy configuration, the rotation is about the major axis of inertia, and w x (Iw) = 0. You then have
Idw/dt = 0
which means
w = constant
and the constant is 2pi radians per orbit about the normal axis to the orbit plane.
This method of stabilizing an oblong inertia distribution has been used on countless artificial satellites that humans have launched into orbit. It is very well known and understood.
“Tidal-locking” makes more sense from the “Non-Spinner” perspective:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333359
‘Non-Spinners only ever have to believe tidal forces gradually decrease the rate of axial rotation in an orbiting body, to nil (in every possible case).’
That’s not how it works at all. It isn’t a steady, monotonic decrease in rate. It is an oscillating one. It is like the motion of an underdamped mass-spring system.
The damping mechanism is very slow, depending as it does on deformations of the two bodies (e.g., Earth, including its oceans, and Moon) to bleed energy out of the system. It took eons for the Moon to become tidally locked to the Earth, over which time it bobbled around quite a bit, with gravity gradient torque pulling each way like an undamped spring.
Artificial satellites use mechanical or eddy current libration dampers to bleed the energy out of the system. E.g., see here:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/3.2208
Agreed. Now see that from our perspective (you will first need to understand it).
Bart, you keep getting confused with the physics of orbital motion.
For there to be TWO motions, orbiting and rotating on its own axis, Spinners must define the orbital motion to be as in the right graphic:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
But, that motion causes the object to spin so that it always faces the same direction. So, gravity must be applying a constant torque to keep the same side of the Moon always earth-facing.
So, your statement is incorrect “Once the Moon is synchronously rotating at the orbit rev rate, the bulges line up such that the gravity gradient torque is zero.”
You’re wrong about the torque, and you’re wrong about the Moon rotating.
What’s the Latin phrase for “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?
“So, gravity must be applying a constant torque to keep the same side of the Moon always earth-facing.”
No, JD. In space, there is no friction. You do not need to keep applying a torque to keep the object spinning. Once the torque has synchronized the spin rate, it just keeps spinning at that rate, even though the torque has gone to zero. This is a manifestation of the conservation of angular momentum.
Bart, study the right graphic. Your erroneous orbital motion spins the object, as in “applies a torque”. So the “gradient gravity torque” must be non-zero.
Are you now going to deny your own words, as typical in pseudoscience?
(Maybe try some Latin expressions to help you out of your confusion.)
Your left graphic is a case of rotation synchronous with orbital motion. Your right one is a case of zero rotation with respect to inertial space.
The Moon experiences motion as in the left graphic, which is rotation synchronized with orbital motion.
Bart, you are trying to twist and spin away from reality. Your definition of orbiting ONLY must match the right graphic. That means there must be a torque applied to make up for your incorrect orbital motion. That would be the non-zero torque you indicated was zero.
You are so twisted up in your pseudoscience that there is no way out.
Maybe you have a Latin phrase for your situation, possibly something with the word “conundrum”?
” Your definition of orbiting ONLY must match the right graphic.”
Nonsense. There is no intrinsic constraint upon angular motion due to motion of the center of mass. The Moon is experiencing orbital motion of its center of mass, along with rotation synchronized with the orbit, as in your left hand graphic.
DREMT – perhaps you should try seeing things from my perspective. There are 6 degrees of freedom here, 3 of translation, and 3 of rotation. Within an inertial frame of reference, the equations of motion for those 6 degrees of freedom are
d^2R/dt^2 = -(mu/r^3) R
Idw/dt + w x Iw = (mu/r^5) (R x IR)
These are vector equations in which R is a column array with 3 elements, as is w. R describes the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and w is the rotation vector. The magnitude of R is the scalar distance r, and w divided by its magnitude is the instantaneous axis of rotation.
The matrix I is 3 x 3, and is the inertia tensor, which is associated with the mass distribution of the body. The term mu is the gravity constant. The term (mu/r^5) (R x IR) is the gravity gradient torque.
The solution for R is the standard Keplerian orbit ellipse. In steady state, for w, we have
w = constant
w x Iw = 0
R x IR = 0
This solution demands that both w and R lie along eigenvectors of the 3 x 3 inertia tensor (or, matrix, if you prefer).
Energy always finds a way to leak out of the system, until a minimum is reached. In the minimum energy state, w is along the major axis of inertia (eigenvector associated with the maximum eigenvalue of I) and R is along the minor axis of inertia (associated with the minimum eigenvalue of I).
For R to be consistently along the minor axis, the rate vector w must be equal to the orbit rate (R x dR/dt)/r^2. I.e., it is synchronized to the orbit. This axis of rotation lies along R x dR/dt.
That is the gravity gradient stabilized configuration. It was cut and dried a very long time ago.
Now that Bart figures out he’s trapped himself, he really starts the rambling.
Bart, the graphic on the right, which you claim is “orbiting only”, does not occur in reality. Just consider how the arrow is moving backwards, 180 degrees around the orbit. How did the arrow get moving backwards?
It might be time for more diversionary equations, huh?
“Bart, the graphic on the right, which you claim is “orbiting only”, does not occur in reality.”
Sure it does. It, and others. Not every natural satellite is tidally locked. With nearly an infinite supply of orbiting objects in the universe, I’m sure you could find one with inertial rotation rate arbitrarily close to zero.
“How did the arrow get moving backwards?”
Is this a question about time travel?
“With nearly an infinite supply of orbiting objects in the universe, I’m sure you could find one with inertial rotation rate arbitrarily close to zero.”
There are plenty of artificial satellites which do so. The Hubble Space Telescope, for one, while it is observing a particular deep space object, will be held inertially fixed. Its gyroscopes will read zero rate.
In general, a gyroscope on an Earth observing satellite will read orbit rate. Because it is spinning in orbit to maintain its focus on the Earth.
If we could make a good enough gyroscope to measure a rate of 360 deg every 29 days, it would measure that rate if situated in a fixed position on the Moon.
But, then, we don’t need such a gyroscope. We can see the arrows turning around in your graphic on the left. When things turn around, that is what we call a “rotation”.
Bart, when your incoherent rambling can’t deal with the basic physics that destroys your pseudoscience, you are finished.
Nothing new.
Let me see if I can boil this down for you, JD. Because, I care so deeply about you.
Your left graph shows arrows rotating with the orbit. They are rotating once per orbit.
Your right graph shows stationary arrows. They have zero angular rate.
It’s really simple, you see. If the arrows change direction, they are rotating. If they do not, they are not.
Now, do you understand? (yeah, right… and Sisyphus has rolled that rock right up the hill)
Oh, well. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
“Now see that from our perspective (you will first need to understand it).”
Bart’s comments confirm that he still doesn’t understand.
Guilty. I cannot understand incoherent gibberish.
Mathematics is the language of physics. Without it, you are just jabbering. Try putting your idea in the form of equations. When you actually try to work it out mathematically, you will see it makes no sense.
“Guilty. I cannot understand…”
Yes. And it’s not for lack of trying on our part.
Bart, how do you say “racehorse” in Latin?
corpus gyretur
Good effort Bart.
But you can’t use advanced math with these guys, who have shown difficulty with middle-school level math and science.
Nate, the Emergency Trolling Team said you can use some mathematical rules in physics, but not all.
https://tinyurl.com/ycgp4e3n
Later on he came up with the right answer, alas no calculation, probably using parts of algebra that are disallowed in thermodynamics.
https://tinyurl.com/ybxu82ua
Wow. Desper-nate times call for desper-nate measures. And oh look! Svante’s here too…
“Oh I think that I found myself a cheerleader
She is always right there when I need her”
bart…”You need a torque to change rotation, Gordon, not to keep it going”.
You are the one claiming the Moon is rotating. I have shown there is no torque, as one would expect from a Moon with no rotation about its axis.
As JD and DREMT have pointed out, the Earth’s gravity is applying a tidal force that prevents the Moon from rotating.
Perfect illustration, Svante. DREMT tied himself in knots, insisted that moving a term from one side of an equation to another changes the physics!
I almost missed the disinformation provided by Svante and Nate.
And faced with the reality that the Spinner’s version of orbital motion is wrong, look how Bart deals with it:
“Is this a question about time travel?”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339059
They have no science. Just rambling babble and debate tricks.
Nothing new.
Perfect illustration, Svante. Nate tied himself in knots, evading my straightforward explanation of how mixing terms in-between two different heat transfer equations means you are no longer discussing heat flow in either case. Svante was oblivious to the entire conversation.
“my straightforward explanation of how mixing terms in-between two different heat transfer equations means you are no longer discussing heat flow in either case.”
Straightforward in your head perhaps, but to anyone actually knowledgeable about heat transfer, gobbledygook.
Sure, sure.
The thing is DREMT, you can’t find one astronomer that agrees with you.
that should tell you something about your theory that the doesn’t rotate.
Try taking an astronomy course at you local community college and see how far you get with the Moon doesn’t rotate theory.
And I am giving you a break calling it a theory instead of the hogwash it is.
bob, finding someone that agrees is NOT science. “Consensus” is the one of the tricks used by Institutionalized Pseudoscience.
But, you probably knew that….
I’ll take institutionalized pseudoscience for 800 Alex.
You could get a PhD in Astronomy if you could provide evidence that the Moon doesn’t rotate, and publish that.
But you can’t, all you can do is make up your own definitions, and that’s how pseudoscience works, which is what you are practicing.
You see when you can’t find even one scientist that agrees with you, then you are far short of consensus.
And by the way, finding someone who agrees with you is called peer review, hoops you have to get through to get your ideas accepted.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-338852
bob admits: “…finding someone who agrees with you is called peer review.”
Exactly bob, that’s why it’s called pseudoscience. Proper peer review should be about correcting any mistakes, not just agreeing, as is done today.
“The thing is DREMT, you can’t find one astronomer that agrees with you.“
False, bobdruggy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach/#comment-336490
Tesla was not an Astronomer.
In fields outside of physics and engineering he was more of a wood duck.
Unless you want an electric motor, he goes
quack quack quack
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach/#comment-336929
Maybe you could find a cite with an astronomer who actually states the moon doesn’t rotate.
Your cite doesn’t do that.
Sorry charlie I am not putting you in a can of tuna, you don’t taste good.
Page 125, 2nd paragraph.
Sorry Charlie,
He is quoting Tesla there, continue reading the next paragraph.
No, he is quoting Savic & Kasanin.
bobd…”Tesla was not an Astronomer.
In fields outside of physics and engineering he was more of a wood duck.”
We’re not talking astronomy here we are talking physics. That was right up Tesla’s alley.
Fair enough Gordon but even so, bobdruggy said that I couldn’t find one astronomer that agreed with us, but I found some that do. Astronomers, not Tesla.
It’s similar to the time when Trollvid Appell asked the same thing. He said he would start taking it all seriously when I found some astronomers in agreement. I did so, then he started moving the goalposts.
Savic is a physicist, still no astronomer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavle_Savi%C4%87
And Kasanin a mathamatician
As for the Savic paper On the origin of the rotation of celestial bodies
Cited by 2 and it’s Pielkies all the way down
This what they say about the Moon anyway
Because it has not
its own magnetic field, it is understandable why the Moon has not its own rotation
(by which I understand a period different from the revolution period).
So they are with the mainstream, the moon rotates at the same period as it revolves.
Keep hunting Elmer
Fine, you don’t want to accept Savic & Kasanin. You still have A. Tomic, one of the authors of the paper itself.
Looks like only one of them made it to Wikipedia:
– Momir Savić (born 1951), Bosnian Serb paramilitary commander convicted for war crimes.
The usual disinformation from Svante.
The “correct” information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavle_Savić
Tomic was only quoting Tesla, he made no statements on the Moons rotation himself.
I stand corrected JD, your authority is a good guy.
bob continues the campaign of disinformation: “Tomic was only quoting Tesla, he made no statements on the Moons rotation himself.”
bob, go to the link DREMT provided, and his reference to page 125, second paragraph:
Here we can cite Savic’s hypothesis about the origin of rotation of celestial bodies: “…This is why the Moon has neither a magnetic moment nor a rotation of its own.”
The citation was from Savic’s paper. He clearly was addressing the Moon.
Get an adult to help you.
“nor a rotation of its own”
Clearly Tomic understands the Moon does rotate, just not on its own.
Still you need some adult help, you haven’t provided a source who says the Moon doesn’t rotate.
Looks like you got tripped up by the ellipses …
The part that ends in “rotation of its own” is part of the whole quote that starts with “By studying the ionization…”
I was actually incorrect in say he was quoting Tesla here, he was actually quoting Savic.
“The thing is DREMT, you can’t find one astronomer that agrees with you.“
Bottom line, I’m happy that I will have proved this wrong to non-trolls.
You still have missed DREMT
Your cite and your “astronomers” say the moon is rotating just not on its own axis.
I was asking for you to provide a cite from an astronomer who says the moon doesn’t rotate.
Tesla et al, say the moon rotates, but not on its own axis.
You were saying the Moon doesn’t rotate, that’s why you were calling us “spinners”
You lost, you still can’t cite an astronomer who says the moon isn’t spinning.
Since the clown car seems to have shifted its position from the moon is not rotating to the moon is rotating but not on its own axis.
Maybe perhaps I could ask the clown team to define the axis around which the moon is rotating?
“Bottom line, I’m happy that I will have proved this wrong to non-trolls.”
Plus, nothing has changed. The argument has always been that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
So unless you can define an axis that the moon does rotate around that does not go through the moon, you have no case.
So where’e the axis.
Provide evidence it’s not through the moon.
You can’t, so you lose.
The axis is the Earth-moon barycenter, bob. As has been explained dozens of times.
Start here: https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
Then: https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
And finally: https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Poor bob, he still can’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
They keep getting confused by the simple definitions.
Next, bob will likely want a definition of “moon”.
You just can’t help stupid.
bobdroege is quite right. You guys have retreated from your initial position, which was that the Moon did not rotate. Now, you are furiously trying to salvage your position by saying the aggregate center of pure rotation is not located within the Moon itself.
But, this is useless hair splitting. The easiest way to describe the motion of every point on the Moon is by specifying the motion of the center of mass, plus the rotation of a vector from the center of mass to the given point. This distills down into the differential equations I have provided elsewhere.
From that point of view, one can say that, indeed, the Moon is spinning on an axis which projects through the center of mass, even if that is not the instantaneous center of rotation for the aggregate motion.
I made analogy previously to the motion of a rolling wheel. Instantaneously, the motion of the wheel can be described as a pure rotation about the contact point with the ground. It is much easier, however, to describe it as translation along the ground plus rotation about the center of the wheel.
All roads lead to Rome. Any physically viable description can be used. But, some are mathematically more tractable than others.
“bobdroege is quite right. You guys have retreated from your initial position, which was that the Moon did not rotate.“
Completely and utterly wrong, Bart. Go back as long as you like. It has ALWAYS been “does not rotate on its own axis”.
The problem with describing it by the earth moon barycenter is that the axial rotation of the Moon is tilted with respect to the earth moon barycenter.
Sorry to burst your bubble
But the best way to describe the rotation of the Moon is through the center that it actually rotates about.
Which means it rotates around its own axis.
“Sorry to burst your bubble“
Said bob repeating something that’s already been discussed.
Oh, you’ve got a lot of catching up to do, bobby boy.
So you are just going to ignore the fact that the axis the moon revolves around and the one it rotates around are different.
So instead of one motion around one axis, we have two motions around two different axes.
And don’t tell me its been discussed before, I don’t think so.
Bob, you are confusing yourself, again.
Only one motion–orbiting around Earth (barycenter, if you prefer).
dremt…”Fair enough Gordon but even so, bobdruggy said that I couldnt find one astronomer that agreed with us, but I found some that do. Astronomers, not Tesla”.
My reply was to bobdruggy. I agree with you.
Bart claims: “This distills down into the differential equations I have provided elsewhere.”
Bart, quit trying to fake it. You don’t need differential equaitons to figure out a racehorse is NOT rotating about its center of mass. You’re only fooling fools.
Team: you cant just ignore facts that your model cant explain. Thats a model failing.
The Moon has poles, defined by its rotational axis going thru them. An axis that is tilted 6.7 degrees relative to orbital axis.
In your ‘one motion’ model the Moons poles are aligned with orbital axis.
The model fails.
Nate, a straight line through the center of mass of a sphere can be called an “axis”. One such line is defined by Earth’s orbital plane. But since the Moon does not rotate about that axis, it is a “pseudo-axis”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339159
Agree.
The Moon does not rotate around your psuedo axis.
It does rotate around an axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees to that one. The one that passes thru and defines the lunar poles.
Wiki
“The lunar north pole is the point in the Northern Hemisphere of the Moon where the lunar axis of rotation meets its surface”
Yes Nate, wiki is a great source for pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
This one agrees with others I’ve seen.
If you have an alternative source for basic astronomical facts, show us.
Nate, this entire issue is about the flaws in Institutionalized Pseudoscience. IP claims the Moon rotates on its own axis. That claim does not match up with established physics and the ability to think for yourself.
By blindlessly swallowing the pseudoscience, you must also believe a racehorse rotates on its center of mass, as it runs an oval track.
AND, you must also believe orbiting ONLY is represented by the graphic on the right.
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
You are what you swallow.
Sorry, you don’t get to make up your own astronomical facts.
Declaring that their are flaws in institutionalized science, but not able to say what they are-
Weak
Nate, I see you are unable to deal with my comment at 3:19pm. So you are trying to throw out whatever you believe will stick. Sorry, you can’t make up your own reality.
Deal with the fact that a racehorse is NOT rotating on it axis.
Deal with the fact that orbital motion is NOT as shown in the right graphic.
You’ve swallowed the Moon rotating nonsense, deal with it.
You dont even try anymore. Declarations and catch phrases strung together doesnt cut it.
bobd…”Try taking an astronomy course at you local community college and see how far you get with the Moon doesnt rotate theory”.
I have already taken a course in astronomy as part of my engineering studies. We did not discuss the Moon, we were more into calculating the brightness of stars and the amount of hydrogen in the universe.
One of the dryest courses I have ever taken.
I was expecting myriads of brightly nebulae systems and other phenomena. Huge disappointment.
One thing I do recall is the expansion of a star into a red giant and it’s ultimate collapse as it’s fuel ran out. There were three possible outcomes: an explosion into a supernova, a collapse into a neutron star, or a further collapse into a black hole.
No one explained how neutrons collapsed into nothingingness with an immense gravity. Something along the lines of the Big Bang appearing out of nothing.
These days, you have idiots claiming a black hole is a result of a space-time anomaly. At least the collapse of a star into a black hole made a lick of sense. The space-time nonsense is sheer pseudo-science created by theorists who have likely never been in a lab.
“At least the collapse of a star into a black hole made a lick of sense. The space-time nonsense is sheer pseudo-science”
Can’t have black holes without the space-time ‘nonsense’. Its called General Relativity.
Je parle Francais, mais ce n’est pas forte. In American schools, one usually starts with Newtonian mechanics and free body diagrams, then progresses to Laplace’s equations, and thence to Hamiltonian dynamics, which opens up the world of quantum mechanics. For rigid body rotations, the works of Leonhard Euler are de rigueur.
Bart, we already know you are impressed with yourself.
Now if you could only find someone else to fool.
Bart…would that be “Je parle français mais pas bien”?
I suppose either would do, and one or the other, or perhaps both, would sound uncouth to a native speaker. I think I put an unnecessary “e” at the end of “forte”. My musical side probably induced that.
As I said, it is not a strong point. I have been able to make do in Paris and its environs, but I have no illusion that more than a fraction of my locutions even made sense to the (sometimes) generous and patient listeners.
binny…”I dont know if you ever had the opportunity to have a look at the tremendous work made by Pierre Simon de la Place (named Laplace after 1789 for obvious reasons), especially that contained in his huge…”
LaPlace was talking about libration and what he called libration points. That had nothing to do with the fictitious rotation of the Moon on its axis.
He was talking about the gravitational effects of a many bodied orbital system on a particular body.
Robertson
Is it really so difficult for you to open the link I presented, and to go the page I indicated?
Here is a little piece of Bowditch’s translation of Lapalce’s work, Robertson:
https://archive.org/details/mcaniquecles02laplrich
Go to page 933, and READ!
And stop rambling about libration, you immediately see what the text beginning on this page means: Moon’s rotation about its centre of gravity.
Why can’t you simply grasp THIS, Robertson?
“The moon, in revolving about the earth, keeps very nearly the same face toward us; which proves that the mean rotatory motion is exactly equal to the motion of revolution, and that the axis of rotation is nearly perpendicular to the plane of ecliptic.”
Moon’s libration, Robertson, is the little detail that led Cassini, Mayer, Sir Isaac Newton, Lagrange and laplace think that the only meaningful explanation for it is that the Moon rotates.
Jesus! How is it possible to so stubbornly stay in denial?
Do you know, Robertson, that Laplace is the guy whose dynamic tide equations bypassed Sir Isaac’s, by giving for every point on Earth tide heights with in his time unprecedented accuracy, including that at the Mont Saint-Michel in France (15 meters) ???
“The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
DREMT, the Spinners are in full meltdown mode. Upthread a little, Bart pulls out a rehash of wiki “degrees of freedom”!
They’re pulling out all the stops as the simple racehorse disproves all their frothing bilge.
Great entertainment.
😁 As they look always to obfuscate, we try our best to keep it as simple as possible.
Much simpler if you just avoid thinking. This is clearly a case of invincible ignorance. I give up.
You can repeat this text as long as you want.
Better would be for you to be able to understand Lapalce’s equations with the help of Nathaniel Bowditch’s annotations.
“This is clearly a case of invincible ignorance.”
Yes. I would agree there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do to help you.
I’m kinda surprised ol’ Bart didn’t sign off with some Latin phrase.
Maybe next time….
He said hed given up but he actually carried on a bit back here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339079
DREMT, thanks for the link.
I see he is now trying to change the defintion of “rotating on its own axis”. He can’t live with the fact that the right graphic is NOT real orbital motion. So now he has to change the other definition.
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
They’re so desperate. Just look at all of the tricks and diversions they attempt.
Yeah, I thought you’d enjoy that!
“The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
Nope. The spin axis of the Moon is not aligned to the orbit normal. Axial tilt is 6.7 degrees.
Wrong Bart!
You are doing the “33 K” thingy. You are comparing Moon’s orbiting axis to its “pseudo-axis” relative to Earth.
(The desperation continues.)
Oh, a pseudo-axis! Love it!
If Google is correct, the Latin would be “falsum axis”.
Now you can really feel intellectual….
For all you dumbasses
Bart is correct and this has been known since the time of Cassini, a long long long long long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
The moons orbit is tilted 5.15 degrees, so the earth moon barycenter plane doesn’t even intersect the ******* moon.
Besides, like Bart said the axis of the moons rotation is tilted 6.7 degrees.
So the axis of the moons rotation and the axis of the moon revolution are not, I repeat, not parallel.
bob, the Moon has no axis of rotation, because it is not rotating on its own axis.
But, you moved to a new level of stupidity with this: “The moons orbit is tilted 5.15 degrees, so the earth moon barycenter plane doesn’t even intersect the ******* moon.”
You are a pseudoscience gem!
JD,
Try thinking in 3 dimensions
If you draw a line parallel to Moon’s poles that intersects the earth moon barycenter, a plane perpendicular to that line does not intersect the moon,
bob, you’re using the wrong set of poles. That’s why I called it a “pseudo-axis”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339159
You need to spend less time acting like you know what’s going on, and more time learning.
So your hero, Tesla said the moon rotates around an axis
So where is this axis?
A couple candidates have been offered
An axis through the center of the earth, but that is wrong, again because the tilt is wrong
The only way to get the tilt right is to put the axis through the Moon
You’re not making any sense, bob.
You need to spend less time acting like you know what’s going on, and more time learning.
If you put a camera on the moon and took month long exposures, the stars would appear as circles, proving the Moon rotates on its axis.
Now, just because the clown car thinks I am not making sense, doesn’t mean I am not making sense, it most likely means the clown car doesn’t have enough education.
No, it means you’re still not making any sense, bob.
You need to spend less time acting like you know what’s going on, and more time learning.
binny…”The moon, in revolving about the earth, keeps very nearly the same face toward us; which proves that the mean rotatory motion is exactly equal to the motion of revolution…”
‘Rotationary motion’ is not rotation about an axis. He is talking about a tiny rotary motion associated with libration.
If a circle has an area of 100 meters squared then a sphere of the same radius has an area of 400 meters squared.
thus
960 watts over 100 square meters equals 240 watts over 400 square meters.
If I dumb it down anymore, we will have to start with your abcs.
bobdroege,
What about the back of your circular plane?
If you average your watts on the lit and unlit sides of the sphere, why not include the lit and unlit sides of the plane?
If you only include the lighted side of the sphere, the average would be 480 watts over 200 square meters.
Did you fail arithmetic as a child? You might have to smarten up. You are looking pretty dumb – pseudoscience and pseudoaverages go together, obviously.
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. I can’t dumb it down to the point where you could understand.
Cheers,
Because it’s through the plane
There are no unlit sides of the plane because it is lit from one side, the side where the sun is stupid.
The sphere is emitting, in this case it’s the source of the outgoing radiation which has to equal the incoming radiation or temperature has to increase.
What is it you don’t understand?
You can keep on repeating there is no GHE, but that does not make it come true, keep wishing.
Did I fail math as a kid?
Do you want to compare scores on the math section of the ACT test?
The probability of you having receiving a higher score than me is zero.
Flynn
You behave ten times more stupid and ignorant than all the people you daily insult that way, taken alltogether.
Jesus what are you an arrogant, boring person!
I read the paper
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-5584/2013/1450-55841301135T.pdf
some months ago. I was not written by Savic, but by Tomic, and is merely based on the thoughts of a man I can’t find any paper of in English: Dr. Veljko Vujicic.
Vujcic manifestly started in his thoughts where Sir Isaac’s work ended: in an entirely gravity-based theory of the Moon. This is the reason why Sir Isaac’s computations of the tides on Earth were not correct.
I guess neither Savic, nor Tomic nor Vujcic did know of Laplace’s work, probably because Nathanie Bowditch’s wonderful translation of Laplace’s Celestial Mechanics were not known outside of the US.
Maybe we should contakt Aleksandar Tomic and ask him?
Well, you kept that quiet.
Before discussing if the moon rotates, it is necessary to have a general, objective, operational definition of “rotation”!
JD, can you define “rotation” for us? Then we can address whether the moon in fact rotates. The definition should be applicable to any reasonably rigid, solid object: the moon, the earth, a race horse, a merry-go-round, a car tire. The definition should allow anyone to calculate the angular velocity of the object.
*********************************************
Similarly, in any discussion, it is vital to have common definitions of words to facilitate discussion. Words like “heat” or “back-radiation” or “flux” or “rotation”. 95% of the discourse seems to be about different people using a word to mean different things. And unfortunately, few people clearly define the terms they use, and few listen to how others are defining words.
*********************************************
Feynman had an insightful quote:
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.”
You can’t say “learn some science” but then say “oh … but not that bit of science.”
You can’t say “heat flows from warm to cool; never from cool to warm” but then say “but in this specific case heat can flow from one object to another object at the same temperature”.
You can’t say “I am going to explain this using classical mechanics and angular moment and moments of inertia” but then say “but I reject the parallel axis theorem based on exactly that same classical mechanics”.
As soon as you try to cut out one bit from the tapestry, the whole thing unravels.
(I am NOT saying science can’t change or is never wrong. I am saying that you can’t accept a broad theory, but reject inconvenient aspects.)
Tim, long distracting rambles are evidence of pseudoscience.
A simple ceiling fan is “rotating on its own axis”.
Deny reality all you want. Doing so just makes you a clown.
You don’t want to miss this, JD. bobdruggy is having some sort of meltdown now that he is finally starting to realize what the discussion is actually about!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339138
Not having a meltdown,
Just show me one astronomer who disagrees with the work of Cassini.
Or show a cite that has the axial tilt of the moons rotation being the same as the axial tilt of the moons revolution.
You are the one with the meltdown, now you are refusing to discuss the issue like a man.
So put the big boy pants on and provide evidence the axis of the moons rotation and the axis of the moons orbit are one and the same.
Look, punk, you just can’t do it.
You have backed your self into a corner and an Allman Brothers tune comes to mind.
Mind if I play it on my guitar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPg1gULbZCs
Actually, that is kind of a meltdown.
So how do you describe the Moons motion as one revolution, knowing that the axis the moon rotates around and the axis the moon revolves around are tilted at different angles?
I’m going with your belief that the moon doesn’t rotate around ita own axis for now, considering you have admitted it does rotate around an axis somewhere.
So sometime we might figure out where that axis is.
We have figured out it is not the moon earth barycenter axis because it is not tilted at that angle.
Try making sense.
I am making more sense than the troglodytes who think the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis, something that has been known since before Newton.
Two different non parallel axes
one for rotation
one for revolution
two motions spinning and orbiting
Where is the axis the moon rotates around?
Again I’ll ask you
bob, the Moon does not rotate. It orbits around the Earth.
Try making sense.
Not according to the great Astronomer Tesla
Do I have to dredge up that cite from DREMT
I thought you two were the Bobbsey twins
Dredge away.
So JD and Dremt need to get a room and hash out what the Clown Car position is.
Is it JD saying the moon doesn’t rotate?
or is it
Dremt saying the moon rotates but not about its own access?
Which one is it?
Weren’t able to dredge up what you claimed, huh bob?
Maybe if you get some adult assistance….
JD,
geeze, here it is
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
So which is it
You saying the Moon doesn’t rotate?
Or
DREMT saying it rotates “but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
so which of you droolers is right?
Yup, a meltdown. You could almost feel sorry for him if he wasn’t what he was. Anyway:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339372
bob, please get an adult to explain your link to you, especially this part:
“But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.”
bobd…”So put the big boy pants on and provide evidence the axis of the moons rotation and the axis of the moons orbit are one and the same.”
That’s a mouthful of gibberish.
For one, the Moon does not rotate about an axis. It is tidally-locked and based on it’s orientation in a tidally-locked position wrt its orbital plane, one can determine an axis.
Why would that axis differ from your alleged axis in the orbital plane?
I have been busy with the real world, but I do want to add a few commnents.
“Tim, long distracting rambles are evidence of pseudoscience.”
Inability to provide clear, concise definitions is a stronger sign of pseudoscience.
‘A simple ceiling fan is rotating on its own axis.”
Giving one example is not a general definition.
Here’s a challenge — if the fan was set to rotate very slowly (once per day) and placed at the north pole, would it be rotating on its own axis? The fan will be spinning above the ground, but keeping one blade always pointing toward the sun.
* Accord to THIS definition, you think it is obviously rotating on its own axis, since it is rotating relative to its base.
* According to your OTHER definition, since a fan blade is always aligned toward the sun, it is obviously NOT rotating on its axis.
How about this definition. An object is rotating if a device like a Foucault pendulum changes orientation relative to the object (ie if an object with no external forces does NOT keep moving in a straight line; if Coriolis forces exist).
Like in this classic physics video (starting at 17:04). The object on the (approximately) frictionless surface does not move ‘straight across the table’ because the table is rotating! In the inertial frame, the puck really DOES move in a straight line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJMYoj4hHqU
tim…”JD, can you define rotation for us? Then we can address whether the moon in fact rotates”.
Rotation has been clearly defined since the beginning of this debate. It is the angular velocity of the circumference of the Moon about it’s axis, which equals zero, on average. LaPlace claims there is a tiny back and forth perturbation and I’ll give him that. It is not enough to get past the fact that the Moon is tidally-locked to the Earth, which means no 360 degree rotation of a point on the Moon’s circumference about it’s axis.
That is true in any reference frame.
Gordon, that is not NOT true in every reference frame!
Basically, it is ONLY true in a reference frame rotating ~ 1/month relative to a an inertial reference frame. You are welcome to work in non-inertial frames, but you must also recognize that is what you are doing. Relative to the inertial reference frame defined by the ‘fixed stars’, the circumference of the moon IS rotating. Draw a vector from the center to a point on the circumference. That vector sweeps out 360 degrees each month relative to an inertial frame.
From the course notes for Purdue University’s Advanced Dynamics class:
“From the point of view of kinematics, no reference frame is more fundamental or absolute”
They were referring to the inertial reference frame.
This is why Team Dork gets so confused. Careless or ignorant with regards to reference frames.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME562/
Remember to set your non-inertial reference frame at correct angles against the orbital plane and the ecliptica, and keep it wobbling at all times.
Also remember to invent a new one for every moon in the universe.
…and so, their understanding takes a few steps backwards. Now it’s back to reference frames being used as an excuse to miss the point.
Away now, for a few days. Sorry that so many of you have a permanent internet record of failing to understand something incredibly simple, for month after month after month. Sorry that you trade on your credibility, which is now shot to bits. Just take solace in the fact that, you know what? I’m OK with that.
Yupppeee! More psiudosains!
I just discovered a further little brick of this pseudoscience everybody knows me to love so much.
Zdenek Kopal: The Moon
Chapter 3: Rotation of the Moon; Optical librations
https://tinyurl.com/y8wz8mav
Unfortunately, Google Books has to be a bit stingy, and as usual has left out some pages. But nevertheless the lecture keeps quite interesting.
It is especially interesting to read that Cassini had very well understood that his observations requested the Moon to rotate about its center of mass (unitl now I thought it was Tobias Mayer who first discovered this implication).
An amazing detail is also that Newton and Lagrange predicted the existence of lunar motions so small that it took long time for Mankind to become able to see them! Incredible.
*
But… oh Noes! Zdenek Kopal has been NASA consultant during the Apollo programme, what makes him very very very suspect, isn’t it?
Bind, I hope you didn’t waste too much time searching for that. Unless you just like wasting time. You could get the same stuff on wiki.
Cassini probably would not have been able to learn about Newton’s work. Cassini died about the time Newton was finishing. So Cassini can not be rightfully blamed. The ones who must bear the blame are the ones that ignore Newton, and the established physics of today.
B,
You wrote –
“But… oh Noes! Zdenek Kopal has been NASA consultant during the Apollo programme, what makes him very very very suspect, isn’t it?”
If you say so, Bindidon.
Cheers
binny…”Chapter 3: Rotation of the Moon; Optical librations”
It states clearly in the first paragraph that the Moon rotates about a FIXED AXIS IN SPACE…not about its own axis. This is more of the hooey being spread here about imaginary axes and reference frames.
Using straight physics, a rigid body can only rotate around its centre of gravity or an imaginary axis through the body. Whatever force would cause it to rotate about an external axis?
A mass does not arbitrarily rotate about an external axis. Only the distorted human brain could take something like that seriously.
Robertson
“It states clearly in the first paragraph that the Moon rotates about a FIXED AXIS IN SPACE…not about its own axis. ”
*
The eternal problem with people like you is that you are not able to read papers.
You merely scan them for items confirming what you imagine, and therefore deliberately ignore those infirming your subjective thoughts.
Read the paper completely, Robertson!
*
Chapter 4
Motion of the Moon about its center of gravity; physical librations
Chapter 5
Photometric consequences of the Moon’s motion: phases and eclipses
This begins with
In the preceeding chapters of this part an outline has been given of the motion of the Moon in space as well as about its center of gravity.
But let us first move back even to
Chapter 2
The motion of the Moon in space
On page 15 you read:
When, however, we turn to another kind of the Moon’s motion: namely one which the lunar globe performs about its center of gravity, …
*
Why don’t you simply learn to READ, Robertson?
binny…”Motion of the Moon about its center of gravity; physical librations”
You might try taking your own advice and learning to read what is said. The chapter, as stated clearly, is about LIBRATION!!!
Libration is an APPARENT insignificant rotation due to illusion and different view angles. Ask Norman to explain view angle.
https://www.britannica.com/science/libration
The analysis of LaPlace has nothing to do with Moon rotation due to an angular velocity about an axis, it’s about an imagined, very slight rocking motion of the Moon that enables us to see slightly more than 50% of the same face.
Robertson
I repeat:
The eternal problem with people like you is that you are not able to read papers.
You merely scan them for items confirming what you imagine, and therefore deliberately ignore those infirming your subjective thoughts.
Read the paper completely, Robertson!
Start with Chapter 2, and READ THRU, instead of halting every time you see ‘libration’.
Because you do not understand that libration is only a cosequence of Moon’s rotation about its center of gravity.
Even Newton suggested that in a letter to Mercator in 1675; but while Mercator continued on the way Newton had originally shown, Sir Isaac himself did not.
This letter was known to Laplace. See a translation of a little peice of Laplace’s Celestial Mechanics:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1okKswrb-hNPwLL7qtK7wuGROYK4VPfvA/view
Bindidon says, incorrectly: “…libration is only a cosequence of Moon’s rotation about its center of gravity.”
No Bind, the libration is due to the different viewing angles caused by the elliptical orbit. The Moon does NOT rotate about its center of gravity.
Gordon is correct. You are incorrect.
Again, all of your efforts just confuse you. Newton’s quotes were from his ponderings BEFORE he had completed his work. He didn’t even publish the Principia until 12 years after the quote you used.
Are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue?
binny…”Read the paper completely, Robertson!
Start with Chapter 2, and READ THRU, instead of halting every time you see ‘libration’”.
What you fail to understand is that LaPlace mathematics IS about libration, not rotation about an axis. The entire book is about libration, a scant APPARENT movement of the Moon much the same as the Sun APPEARING to move across the sky.
When LaPlace talks about a rotary motion, he means a tiny to and fro motion that is apparent to the human eye, depending from which vantage point the human observes the Moon.
The Moon is not really turning back and forth but it seems to. LaPlace is only giving the math to explain that apparent motion.
JDHuffman
1. Domenico Cassini died in 1712. He published his Moon theory (developed around 1675) in 1693.
I never waste any time when searching for information.
2. Maybe you should read a bit more about all that, especially stuff written by people having possibly spent much more time in investigating Sir Isaac’s work than you ever did.
A hint:
Revolution and Continuity: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Early Modern Science
Peter Barker
Roger Ariew
Copyright Date: 1991
Published by: Catholic University of America Press [!]
Therein:
The Case of the Rotating Moon
Alan Gabbey
Start reading in page 97:
https://tinyurl.com/yck66k9o
Gabbey’s credibility I see when he correctly writes on page 107:
“In no edition of the Principia, therefore, did Newton discuss or even mention a relation between libration in longitude and the equation of the center.”
But the most interesting moment is in note 32, at the bottom of the pages 110/111. Have a look at it…
*
I am not interested in convincing you. I am interested in Science (what you often enough what you arrogantly refer to as pseudoscience, see e.g. your reaction on Sun’s radiation hitting Earth’s hemisphere).
That is the reason why you in turn will never convince me concerning Moon’s rotation about its center of gravitiy.
You keep your opinion, and I stick to mine.
Bind, I’m glad to see you admit that your opinion keeps you from accepting facts and logic. Most people won’t openly admit that. Of course, they “admit” it in other ways, such as boiling over with frustration.
That’s some progress.
binny…before you claimed…”Zdenek Kopal: The Moon
Chapter 3: Rotation of the Moon; Optical librations
https://tinyurl.com/y8wz8mav”
****
Then you asked me to read Chapter 2 which I did. Chapter 2 is all about lunar orbital motion except for the last paragraph where the author introduces lunar rotation about it’s COG, which he claims is very small.
That leads into Chapter 3 on libration. The author is admitting that the only motion of the Moon about its COG is very small and APPARENT. That is called libration.
You have done exactly what you accused me of doing, skimming the book for words that support your argument while completely ignoring the context of what you are reading.
Why “lunar obliquity” and “the moon’s poles” etc, are on the red herring list:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2018-0-25-deg-c/#comment-337781
The Spinners are caught between a rock and a hard place.
By claiming the Moon “appears” to be rotating on it own axis, as viewed from the stars, they are admitting the Moon is not really rotating on its own axis.
Or, if they claim the Moon is really rotating on its own axis, then they have to accept the false defintion of orbiting (right graphic).
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
So, there are two divisions of Spinners–“Spinners, by the stars”, and “Spinners by changing definition”.
Either way, the Spinners are WRONG. The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Can you guys cite anything but your own arguments
like it’s Pielkes all the way down
Is the Moon not rotating at all or rotating about an axis other than its own?
bobd….”Is the Moon not rotating at all or rotating about an axis other than its own?”
Or is it a case of sheer delusion wherein the human brain sees what it wants to see?
We have known for some 400 or 500 years that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, yet just about everyone talks about sunrises and sunsets as if it is doing exactly that. I daresay that just about everyone on Earth sees the Sun rising above the Eastern horizon each morning and continue to sweep across the sky.
Rotation of the Moon about its axis requires an angular velocity of a point on its equator around the axis…a full 360 degree rotation. With the same lunar side always facing the planet, that is not possible.
Rotation wrt the Moon’s axis must be local. If there was a rotation about an external point, the Moon would be orbiting the Earth while performing local loops about that external axis. Since there are no forces acting on the Moon to create such a scenario, I feel it is safe to rule that out.
That leaves only one possibility, that the human mind is creating an illusion of a rotating Moon, mistaking rotation for translation.
This is hilarious coming from a clown who still does not understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation, and who confuses angular velocity with velocity. I have not seen anyone so stupid when they claim to have an engineering background.
skeptic…”This is hilarious coming from a clown…”
Talking about clowns, why are you suddenly hiding behind a different nym?
I’ll try to help, bobdruggy.
“Spinners”: the moon rotates on its own axis. The moon’s movement is comprised of two motions. “Non-Spinners”: the moon does not rotate on its own axis. The moon’s movement is comprised of one motion.
JD calls the one motion “orbiting”. I have described it in various ways, in order to get the idea across to different people, who struggle with the concept that it is one motion. That is just semantics. What we agree on is that the moon makes one motion, about the Earth-moon barycenter.
e.g: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339189
“Bob, you are confusing yourself, again. Only one motion–orbiting around Earth (barycenter, if you prefer).”
The issue is not one or two motions. The motion can be described multiple ways. The issue is you clowns cannot understand that the moon, a race horse, or race car rotates on its own axis as it navigates the orbital path, something that is well know to anyone who understands general kinematics. The idiot Tesla had the same problem.
“The issue is not one or two motions“
Wrong, that’s exactly what it is.
“The idiot Tesla“
Oh dear.
The anonymous coward that steals other people’s names now changes to a “Spinner to the stars”. He used to be a “Spinner be the changed definition” until he must have realized that definition is tragically inaccurate.
It doesn’t matter, the immature coward is still WRONG.
Go moan to Postma who threw you clowns under the bus. LMAO.
skeptic…”The issue is you clowns cannot understand that the moon, a race horse, or race car rotates on its own axis….”
You’re in over your head. You cannot see what’s right in front of you, that none of these items have an angular velocity about an axis. If they did, they’d be turning in circles as the moved forward.
Dr Emergency, you are not getting through.
Perhaps if you and grandpa shave your heads and dance around each other at these angles:
https://tinyurl.com/ybdjhuy6
Gordon could record and upload on YouTube.
“Perhaps if you and grandpa…Gordon”
“Non-Spinners”:
DREMT
JD Huffman
Gordon Robertson
AndyG55
gbaikie
Ftop_t
Nikola Tesla
Savic & Kasanin
A. Tomic
Sorry if I missed anyone.
No, that would be the global grand total.
Yeah, that seems unlikely Svante.
The list of clowns Postma threw under the bus. LMAO. Idiots on parade.
OK “HuffmanGoneStupid”.
Robertson
“You have done exactly what you accused me of doing, skimming the book for words that support your argument while completely ignoring the context of what you are reading.”
*
I don’t have time enough to reply to your nonsense all the time.
I repeat: stop scanning texts to find things fitting to your egocentric narrative, and try to READ instead.
Robertson, all these texts mention librations BECAUSE THEY ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF MOON’S ROTATION.
I know: like your brother in pseudoskepticism and the nice altar boy, you all will never accept that. That doesn’t disturb me at all.
Despite your predicted unwill to learn about what so many people did, try to READ the following papers:
Theories of lunar libration
– https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.1977.0033
The Moon’s physical librations and determination of their free modes
– https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00588671/document
but especially this one, by far the most interesting:
Theory of the libration of the Moon
– https://tinyurl.com/y74kc8th
When you read all that, you start understanding that the reason for these extreme investigations on various librations of the Moon
– started with Giovanni Domenico Cassini’s observations which led him to formulate empirical laws explaining the librations’ origin;
– continued with a request for their theoretical explanation by the French ‘Academie des Sciences’, which made it the subject of a competition won by Lagrange.
*
What I like in Donald Eckhardt’s work is that he combined in one synthesis 40 years ago:
– theoretical know-how,
– observations,
and
– numerical computations.
*
It doesn’t help to say here: Isaac Newton’s work does not show that.
Sir Isaac’s work for example cannot explain tides of 15 meter height; but Laplace’s dynamic tide equations, based on Lagrange’s and on his own Moon theory, did very well.
Laplace has been one of the greatest admirators of Isaac Newton; but as opposed to Newton, he did not agree of gravity explaining everything.
Bind, are you a “Spinner, based on the stars”, or a “Spinner based on changed defiinition”?
You have to be one or the other. And, both are wrong. No way out, huh?
Maybe that’s why you admit you don’t understand physics.
As always: petty polemics without any argument.
Postma KNOWS you don’t understand physics. Everyone here knows you are a clown.
binny…”Robertson, all these texts mention librations BECAUSE THEY ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF MOONS ROTATION”.
I am going to have to downgrade you to imbecile. I can see clearly now why you have so much trouble with climate science and science in general.
Robertson
Keep free to continue insulting me, Robertson. I know where that comes from…
You are, on this blog, the person combining the greatest extent of ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and… cowardice.
Never and never would you (be allowed to) publish your nonsense and insults anywhere else: even hard skeptics like Watts and Postma would ban you within a couple of days, let alone would Judith Curry allow you to write your disgusting stuff on her blog.
To spin or not to spin, that is the question.
If a perfect sphere is launched into an orbit around the Earth without introducing any spin on it, will it end up with the same face oriented toward the Earth or would all faces be observed on every revolution?
chic…”If a perfect sphere is launched into an orbit around the Earth without introducing any spin on it, will it end up with the same face oriented toward the Earth or would all faces be observed on every revolution?”
Same face always pointed in.
A body is launched into orbit with a linear momentum designed to offset the force of gravity at a certain altitude. The orbit is a resultant of the acceleration inward due to gravity and the linear momentum of the body.
There is only one force on the body at all times, the force of gravity. If there was anything up there to resist the body and reduce it’s momentum, it would spiral into the Earth.
If you begin your observation at the moment gravity just starts to force the body into orbit, the body will have one face toward the Earth, and as you have specified, the body is not rotating about its COG.
Gravitational force will always be applied equally to either side of the face, therefore there should be no torque. That’s the same as tidal-locking.
As the body tried to move in a straight line, gravity applies a perpendicular force, and if the body has the correct momentum it will follow the resultant path of it’s linear momentum and the gravitational force.
Since gravitational force acts on one side only, and the body is not rotating, gravity will continue to act only on that side.
That’s exactly what happens with the Moon and that’s why it is tidally-locked. There’s no reason for the Moon to rotate, all particle in the Moon are following a linear path due to its momentum and they are being gently forced into an orbital trajectory.
That linear path in an orbit is the tangent line to the orbital curve at any point. It’s no different than a rigid body performing rectilinear translation with the exception that the straight-line path is curving.
“Since gravitational force acts on one side only, and the body is not rotating, gravity will continue to act only on that side.”
That’s where you lost me. Gravity acts on the whole mass, not on any particular face. Think about it some more.
“Think about it some more.”
The probability he would is about 0.000001 %.
Robertson never thinks; he is only able to follow his own egocentric narrative.
Chic,
No offense intended, but NASA Grail A and B, plus observations of the stark differences between the near side and far side of the Moon, might support a hypothesis that the side facing the Earth is denser on average, and therefore must inevitably be the side preferred in the event of tidal locking.
It seems more reasonable to me than anything else I’ve seen so far, based on theory and objective evidence.
Just a thought. The gravitational field of the Earth varies also. Over the odd billion years or so, little variations make themselves felt.
Cheers.
Yes, Mike. Realizing anything not perfectly symmetrical in all directions will be subject to tidal locking resolved the spinner conflict for me.
“Gravity acts on the whole mass, not on any particular face.”
That is only true if the mass of the sphere is symmetrically distributed.
The moon orbits about the Earth’s polar axis from west to east, so the moon is always facing the same direction in its orbit, east.
“will it end up with the same face oriented toward the Earth or would all faces be observed on every revolution?”
Same face oriented toward the Earth, like our moon, would be as per the movement on the left, in the below. All faces observed on every revolution would be as per the movement on the right:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
So my question is, as you have said that you launch your sphere into orbit around the Earth without introducing any spin, and let’s assume it is launched towards the east as is generally the case: what would cause the sphere to go from always facing the same direction (east) throughout its orbit, as per the movement on the left in the linked diagram, to facing through to the opposite direction and back again during its orbit (rotating once on its own axis), as per the movement on the right? Where would the torque come from to make that happen?
Torque causes spin. There is no spin. Therefore, no tidal locking, as in always facing east, as in the movement on the left in the diagram. Unlike the moon, the object is perfectly spherical with no hemisphere more dense than another.
Right, no torque = no spin = sphere moves as per the left diagram.
Wrong.
Yes, “Spinners” think it is “wrong” to think of the moon’s motion on the left in the diagram as being “orbiting without axial rotation”. “Non-Spinners” think it is “wrong” to think of the moon’s motion on the right in the diagram as being “orbiting without axial rotation”.
My “wrong” comment involved perfectly spherical uniformly dense bodies. If isn’t experiencing a torque causing it to turn, it will not be tidally locked like the moon.
The tidally-locked moon is not rotating on its own axis.
Chic. When you say launched East, and no spin, I assume you mean headed toward a point in space, say a star? So always keeping the same face to that star?
Whereas East is relative to Earth frame.
Nate,
Launching east was DREMT’s idea. No matter how you launch it, the sphere will be headed in some direction relative to Earth once it reaches orbit.
The sphere is perfectly uniform in all dimensions and the question was whether the normal to a given face would remain pointed to a star or to the surface of the Earth assuming no spin was applied during launch.
Chic Bowdrie
Let us assume for simplicity that your artificial satellite orbiting about Earth has a perfectly circular orbit, instead of an elliptic one.
If the satellite has no spin, then, whatever its form, every point of it will, during orbiting, move along a circle whose center is Earth’s center.
That is what I personally understand by ‘no spin’.
It is 3:00 at UTC+1, really too late.
I wrote above exactly what I didn’t want to.
A body orbiting without spin is one that has no motion excepted its circular orbiting. I think of an apple I hold in my hand and move it around a circle.
What else?
“What else?“
A body orbiting without spin, having no motion except its circular orbiting, would be like the “moon on the left” in the below:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
A perfectly spherical body–equal density throughout, orbiting without spin, having no motion except its circular orbiting–would be like the diagram on the right with the arrows representing an axis of the sphere.
The moon may and would experience torque because it is not perfectly spherical and the side facing the Earth experiences greater gravitational pull. Maybe there is a slight pendulum effect. That’s just speculation on my part. The main thing is that once the heaviest face is oriented toward the Earth, the torque goes away.
A perfect sphere could simulate the orientation of the moon orbiting around the Earth, but you would have to apply some spin to have one common face oriented toward the Earth.
As I asked earlier, as you have said that you launch your sphere into orbit around the Earth without introducing any spin, and let’s assume it is launched towards the east as is generally the case: what would cause the sphere to go from always facing the same direction (east) throughout its orbit, as per the movement on the left in the linked diagram, to facing through to the opposite direction and back again during its orbit (rotating once on its own axis), as per the movement on the right? Where would the torque come from to make that happen?
Being launched towards the east means the sphere’s orbit will always be east to west. However when the perfect sphere achieves final orbit, there still is no torque or spin on it. It is still travelling east, but all its axes remain fixed.
Where would the torque come from to keep turning it so that the same face keeps facing toward the center of the orbit?
“Where would the torque come from to keep turning it so that the same face keeps facing toward the center of the orbit?”
Or, looking at it from the “Non-Spinner” perspective, there’s no torque required because it isn’t rotating on its own axis in order to keep the same side always facing the center of the orbit. The question then once more becomes where would the torque come from to keep spinning it so that it rotates CW on its own axis once per CCW orbit, as per the ‘moon on the right”?
Please don’t make this a spinner vs. non-spinner pissing contest.
A perfect sphere and our real moon are two different situations. The diagram you linked two illustrates the moon situation on the left and the perfect sphere on the right. The moon has an anchor which creates self-correcting torque whenever the anchor is no longer oriented directly toward Earth.
Personally I see no observational difference between the moon and a perfect sphere rotating around its axis once per orbit. But this has been a great introduction to astronomical physics for me.
“Please don’t make this a spinner vs. non-spinner pissing contest”
Please don’t falsely accuse me of trying to make this a “Spinner” vs. “Non-Spinner” pissing contest. I am simply describing to you the two different perspectives on the matter. The diagram linked to shows the “Spinner” definition of “orbiting without axial rotation” on the right, and the “Non-Spinner” definition of “orbiting without axial rotation” on the left.
And yes, the moon on the left moves as per our, tidally-locked, moon.
Wasn’t it you that posted the list of spinners and wrote this: “I wonder if any of the ‘Spinners’ have finally worked it out yet?” Wouldn’t you consider me a reformed spinner who has since learned about gravitationally induced torque? Or are you still at odds with Mike Flynn, Bart, me and others.
I think you have a my-side-wins attitude regarding moon spinning. I apologize in advance, if I’m wrong.
Apology accepted. I’m not at odds with anyone about the mechanism of tidal locking.
Team Dork sputters:
“A body orbiting without spin, having no motion except its circular orbiting, would be like the “moon on the left” in the below:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc”
Wrong. Something that has no spin is translating per the exact definition of translation. The arrow in the graphic on the right is exhibiting curvilinear translation. (the arrow remains parallel to its original position throughout the orbit) It’s orientation does not change, just its position, exactly like the seat of a ferris wheel.
It follows that an object not translating along an orbit has to be rotating on its own axis. That’s the only option. The arrow in the left graphic is rotating on its own axis as it follows the orbital path.
You have your head on backwards as usual.
Same response as every other time.
Try taking a course in kinematics. Oh right, you won’t meet the prerequisites.
ditto
binny…”A body orbiting without spin is one that has no motion excepted its circular orbiting. I think of an apple I hold in my hand and move it around a circle”.
If you graps it in your hand you are not replicating the resultant of gravitational force and the body’s momentum. If you hold it in the palm of your hand with arm extended, and a marked part of the apply always toward you, and you turn in a circle with the mark facing you, that is the motion of the Moon.
You arm/hand acts like gravity.
Chic’s example is a different animal that cannot be explained by DREMTs Spinners v non-Spinners description of the Moon’s orbit.
This one is not about labeling. The sphere either keeps the same face to the Earth or to a star.
If the sphere is launched facing a star without spin, then without a turning force (torque) it will keep facing the star.
There is only one correct answer, and DREMT has it wrong.
Google why do rockets launch east
Bindidon,
Don’t we all agree with the generally accepted observation that a single side of the moon faces Earth basically all the time and this is commonly called tidal locking? Our disagreements seem to be two-fold.
One issue is what causes the moon’s motion to be as it is. Initially I was unaware of the possibility that the side facing Earth is more dense and therefore the gravitational pull orients that face towards Earth. Does anyone disagree that is a reasonable explanation? If not that, then the moon must have some inherent rotation around an axis supplementing any contribution from the gravitational pull or vice versa.
The second issue is the semantic one involving spin, reference frames, and definitions of rotation around an axis, etc. For example, your description of moving an apple around in a circle (to me that is no spin) and Gordon’s description of an orbiting apple are two different things.
Does it not make more sense to people, that WHATEVER the forces are causing axial rotation of a body to slow down, over time, that they would “stop” at ZERO, rather than “one axial rotation per revolution”? This is one of the fundamental differences between the two ways of looking at it.
I don’t need a lecture on the mechanism of tidal locking. I get it. What others don’t yet seem to understand is, the RESULTS of tidal locking can be interpreted in two different ways. In one (the current paradigm), the tidal forces can act to increase the rate of axial rotation sometimes, and decrease it in other times, such that it always ends up at a rate of one axial rotation per revolution, once totally locked. But in the other way of looking at it, the exact same mechanism is always resulting in a REDUCTION in the rate of axial rotation, to zero, either way.
That’s what is so difficult to get across. When one way of looking at is seeing a force acting to INCREASE the rate of axial rotation, the other way of looking at the very same thing perceives it as a DECREASE in the rate of axial rotation, always to zero. If this is not yet understood, then there is still some way to go with the explanations!
It makes more sense for me, that all the examples of “tidally-locked” moons, that we observe in our own solar system, let alone the rest of the Universe, would be at the lowest level of energy required. Look at the “finally tidally locked” examples Bindidon has provided. There is nothing left to produce any axial rotation. Nothing left to produce any torque. Where would the energy come from to produce the axial rotation!? We are looking at relics, celestial objects that maybe used to rotate on their axis, but the energy has since dissipated. Why the heck do we think that these objects are forever trapped in some “one axial rotation per revolution” state? Everything has to tend, over time, to ZERO.
‘Google why do rockets launch east’
No thanks. Already know why, and it is irrelevant.
‘Where would the energy come from to produce the axial rotation!?’
None needed. Its called angular momentum. Works just like momentum.
Once an object is spun, it continues to spin, unless something like friction slows it down.
None in space.
Read Physics for Dummies.
DREMT,
I think both of your ways of looking at it are plausible. However, the first one that allows for some rocking back and forth like an orbiting pendulum seems to fit the observations that we see more than 50% of the moon’s surface. I may not understand what causes that, so if there is another explanation–let’s have it.
What else I don’t understand is your concept of zero. To me, zero is any deviation from one revolution per orbital cycle. I thought that is what we all agree on as tidal locking.
“Look at the ‘finally tidally locked’ examples Bindidon has provided. There is nothing left to produce any axial rotation. Nothing left to produce any torque.”
The torque is the force required to counter the tendency for the object to orient in a “no spin” manner as it would if it didn’t have any density gradient. So at the “finally tidally locked” state, the torque is constant and there is no more rocking back and forth across the zero point.
Chic, what I mean by “zero” is “zero axial rotations per orbit”.
An object that has zero axial rotations (rotation on its own axis) per orbit is by definition translating. The moon is not translating. That is undisputable.
An object that is rotating (or pivoting, or “orbiting”) about the Earth-moon barycenter, is not rotating on its own axis as well if it moves like the moon.
Now I’m beginning to wonder about you. Don’t you realize that a perfect sphere put into orbit with exactly one rotation around its axis for every orbit simulates the exact motion of the moon?
It rotates around its axis at the same time as it is orbiting around the Earth.
OK Chic.
Let’s say we have a spherical object on a circular orbit that is rotating on its own axis quite fast, say 10 rotations on its own axis per 1 orbit.
Now say there is some force that causes the object to start reducing its rotations per orbit. At what point do we know the object has ceased rotating on its own axis? Easy. When the object exhibits translational motion. Therefore it follows that an object not translating does rotate on its own axis.
The moon is not translating, therefore it does indeed rotate on its own axis. QED.
“At what point do we know the object has ceased rotating on its own axis?“
When it’s moving like our moon: rotating (or pivoting, or “orbiting”) about the Earth-moon barycenter. No longer two motions, now reduced to one. QED.
QED comes after a proof, DREMT, not after a declaration.
Kindof encapsulates all of your problems.
Hence my mocking SGW’s comment by including a “QED”, as he did. Missing my point, at all times (perhaps deliberately) encapsulates all of your problems.
My point, which you missed, is that you’ve taken up JDs habit of declaring, while not proving things.
Example: you cannot prove that Chic’s uniform sphere will keep the same face to the Earth, nor even explain why it should.
You just declare that is does.
Not persuading anyone that way.
Let say the above spherical object I mentioned is rotating on its own axis at a rate of 1.1 revolutions per orbit. Then it reduces it rotation rate to 0.9 revolutions per orbit.
According to Team Dork, when the object reaches the 1.0 revolutions per orbit mark, it suddenly quits rotating on its own axis, then starts rotating again as it passes the 1.0 mark! DUMB (instead of QED)
What you think of as 1 CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit, we see as 0 axial rotations per CCW orbit. So your 1.1 CCW axial rotations per CCW orbit, we would see as only 0.1 CCW axial rotations per CCW orbit. What you think of as 0 axial rotations per orbit, we see as 1 CW axial rotation per CCW orbit. So your 0.9 CCW axial rotations per CCW orbit, we would see as 0.1 CW axial rotations per CCW orbit.
So, where you guys see 0.9 CCW axial rotations per CCW orbit being increased to 1 CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit, by tidal forces, to maintain the 1:1 tidal locking as you see it, we see 0.1 CW axial rotations per CCW orbit being reduced to 0, by tidal forces.
Where you guys see 1.1 CCW axial rotations per CCW orbit being decreased to 1 axial rotation per CCW orbit, by tidal forces, to maintain the 1:1 tidal locking as you see it, we see 0.1 CCW axial rotations per CCW orbit being reduced to 0, by tidal forces.
So, your initial statement: “Let say the above spherical object I mentioned is rotating on its own axis at a rate of 1.1 revolutions per orbit. Then it reduces it rotation rate to 0.9 revolutions per orbit.”
That would be unusual from both perspectives. Because you see tidal forces as always acting to keep the number of axial rotations per orbit to exactly 1. You are not expecting it to dip below 1, but if it did, you would expect the tidal forces to then act to increase it back to 1. You would not be expecting it to stay at 0.9. Same for us, except we see those same tidal forces always acting to reduce the rate to 0, as described above.
Team Dork shrieks:
“What you think of as 1 CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit, we see as 0 axial rotations per CCW orbit!”
We know that, Einstein. You clowns have to come up with your own false definition of translation, or your fantasy unravels. And you totally ignore reference frames as well to support your delusion.
Gordon totally misunderstands what curvilinear translation is. You perhaps purposely so.
Your long rant just underscores your ignorance regarding kinematics.
The only person who comes across like they are shrieking is you, SGW.
Once upon a time, a Spinner and a non-Spinner could not agree on a proposition. Thus they approached a wise man, M——, for adjudication
The Spinner put his case, and the wise man, having considered the merits of the argument, said “I agree with you.” The non-Spinner quickly put his case to the wise man, who, having considered the merits of the non-Spinner’s case, said “I agree with you.”
Both men exclaimed “You cannot agree with both of us!”
The wise man said “I agree with you.”
And so do I. The Moon said nothing, of course, being a big lump of rock.
Cheers.
Two further contributions concerning Moon’s rotation about its center of gravity and the libration effects it generates:
1. Migus 1980: https://tinyurl.com/ycjq3h5f
2. Moons 1982: https://tinyurl.com/yd236z6h
Cassini’s empirical laws and the strong correlation between modern LLR observations and Moon’s theory play here again a major role.
binny….definition of libration from Encyclopedia Britannica”
“These and other small librations allow about 59 percent of the Moons surface to be seen from Earth, though it presents nearly the same face to the Earth at all times”.
If the Moon is rotating, why can we see no more than 59% of the Moon and all of the same side?
Full article:
https://www.britannica.com/science/libration
“Libration, in astronomy, an oscillation, apparent or real, of a satellite, such as the Moon, the surface of which may as a consequence be seen from different angles at different times from one point on its primary body.
The latitudinal libration of the Moon occurs because its axis is tilted slightly, relative to the plane of its orbit around the Earth; this makes the Moons north and south poles apparently alternate in tipping slightly toward the Earth as the Moon moves through its orbit. The Moons longitudinal libration (a back and forth turning, a headshaking motion) results from its moving at slightly different speeds at different points in its orbit (in accord with Keplers second law).
These and other small librations allow about 59 percent of the Moons surface to be seen from Earth, though it presents nearly the same face to the Earth at all times”.
with regard to Cassini’s Laws, he was just plain wrong about the Moon rotating once per orbit.
I proved it to you using two coins. If you try to make one coin orbit the other coin while keep a mark on that coin always pointed to the other coins surface, that coin cannot rotate about it’s own axis.
If it rotated, as Cassini claimed, the mark on the coin would have to turn through 360 degrees per orbit, meaning it would not face the other coin for more than a few degrees.
It’s not clear to me if Cassini was involved in the gibberish about reference frames, which are mental constructs of the human mind. You have to remember that psychology only began as a science at the turn of the 20th century and in the days of Cassini, circa 1693, not many humans, if any, had an understanding of human awareness and its foibles.
Tesla, who had the advantage of living a life that encompassed psychology reasoned the Moon does not turn on it’s axis.
Gordon,
You did not prove anything, except you are clueless regarding curvilinear translation. That you prove over and over again.
Skeptic…”Gordon,
You did not prove anything, except you are clueless regarding curvilinear translation. That you prove over and over again”.
You lack the wit and intelligence to create good ad homs, how would your limited brain even begin to understand the difference between a straight line and a curved line, let alone the difference between rectilinear and curvilinear translation?
“… he was just plain wrong about the Moon rotating once per orbit.”
*
And that is told us by someone who looks like a minuscule grain of sand compared to a rock like Cassini.
Arrogance and ignorance are wonderfully compatible human characteristics.
B,
You wrote –
“And that is told us by someone who looks like a minuscule grain of sand compared to a rock like Cassini.
Arrogance and ignorance are wonderfully compatible human characteristics.”
The British physicist known as Lord Kelvin calculated that the age of the Earth could not exceed 40 million years. He later revised this figure downward to 20 million years, and went to his death bed convinced he was right.
I am but a minuscule grain of sand compared to Lord Kelvin, who was indeed both ignorant and arrogant. Lord Kelvin was wrong. I am right.
You were saying?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
” I am right.”
No. Science is right, not you.
Nobody uses Lord K.’s wrong assumptions. But Cassini’s laws still are in heavy use.
Maybe one day somebody will find out he was wrong.
But I’m 100 % sure that it won’t be a person so prettily marrying arrogance and ignorance!
binny…”Cassinis laws still are in heavy use”.
I have no problem with Cassini’s Laws in general except law 1 where he SEEMS to infer the Moon spins once on its axis per Earth orbit. He only admits to a 1:1 spin resonance, however, not an actual rotation about its axis.
If you look more closely at the math, Cassini is centering the Moon in a frame of reference and having the Earth and Sun rotate about the Moon.
Cassini is playing mathematical, imaginary games which cannot be replicated in the real world. This is more of the typical bs where the human penchant for delusion allows imaginary frames of reference to have a reality, as in the General Theory of Relativity, where time dilates and materials stretch based on their velocities.
No one has ever proved any of it but it sounds good in philosophical discussions.
binny…”And that is told us by someone who looks like a minuscule grain of sand compared to a rock like Cassini”.
More blind appeal to authority from someone who admits he does not understand physics.
continued from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339507
Nate,
“I didn’t say anything about my interpretation [of science].”
It’s implied, Nate. Respect for science is subjective. And you have a right to express your opinions about respect for science, but that is all they are. Your opinions. I’m sure many Africans would disagree with your opinion about the science of DDT.
The Trump administration recognized (opined?) that policies of the EPA under previous administrations were harmful to the economy without providing commensurate benefit to the public welfare. It wasn’t disrespecting science, only taking advice (opinions) from different scientists than those you may have preferred.
‘It wasnt disrespecting science, only taking advice (opinions) from different scientists…”
“The Environmental Protection Agency plans to dissolve its Office of the Science Advisor, a senior post that was created to counsel the E.P.A. administrator on the scientific research underpinning health and environmental regulations”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/climate/epa-science-adviser.html
Nate,
This is a quote from your link: “The move is the latest among several steps taken by the Trump administration that appear to have diminished the role of scientific research in policymaking while the administration pursues an agenda of rolling back regulations.”
The word “appear” indicates this article belongs in the op-ed section of the liberally biased NYT. In my opinion, the reorganization of the EPA is politically, not scientifically, based. No one wants children to be harmed by pollution.
But just how safe should things be? The maximum contaminant level for drinking water is 10 ppb. Should it be 8? Why not 1 ppm just to be safe.
Do you see where I going with this? There will be scientists and activists arguing for more and more regulations for scientific, moral, or financial reasons. A line has to be drawn somewhere to avoid the trend toward incremental absurdity.
I see how you changed the subject from whether science is being removed from EPA decisions, it is, regardless of newspaper, to what policy you prefer.
Whatever the policy, do agree that it should be informed by science?
“Whatever the policy, do agree that it should be informed by science?”
Of course. So how do you decide which scientists should do the informing?
Scientists have mostly been replaced byvpeople from the regulated industry. Whereas it makes sense to have their input, but not exclusively.
Of course. So how do you decide which scientists should do the informing?
Nate,
“I see how you changed the subject from whether science is being removed from EPA decisions, it is, regardless of newspaper….”
You can’t conclude science is being removed from EPA decisions by reading the newspaper. They are not authorities on facts. Don’t they teach that in social studies courses anymore?
Some bureaucrat being removed or replaced is not an attack on science. Here is an excer.p.t from Michael Crichton’s article that Dr. Spencer recently posted:
“In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had ‘committed to a conclusion before research had begun,’and had ‘disregarded information and made findings on selective information.’ The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: ‘We stand by our science; theres wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings a whole host of health problems.’ Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isnt even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! Its the consensus of the American people.”
Do you think science would have been harmed had she been replaced?
As discussed in that post by several of us who checked, he is talented at writing fiction, and much of that article is.
The problem is that you and others here eat up everything written by skeptics, because it fits your beliefs, without bothering to check.
The EPA went rogue in 2009 when Lisa Jackson declared that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is the stuff of life. Without CO2 there would be no plants and no animals, including you.
The EPA is unconstitutional and beyond any hope of reform so let’s shut it down and return the funding to the states. We were much better served when state governments were responsible for protecting the environment.
Exactly right, gallopingcamel. And that applies to other federal agencies. Why is the federal government in the entitlement business? We rob from the rich to give to the poor and the latter keep incumbents in office to propagate the resulting dependency.
cam…”The EPA went rogue in 2009 when Lisa Jackson declared that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant”.
The Dems are back at it since they took a majority in Congress. Science is not one of their strong suits, they specialize in rhetoric and lies.
Yeah!
Now my state can send all its air and water pollution over the border into yours!
‘The EPA is unconstitutional’
You guys really are nuts.
Chic Bowdrie
You wrote upthread:
“Realizing anything not perfectly symmetrical in all directions will be subject to tidal locking resolved the spinner conflict for me.”
*
Did I fully understand your position?
NASA’s Grail experiment has shown that:
– notable changes in the gravity field corroborate with surface topography features such as mountains, or craters and so called mascons below them, created by huge impacts;
– the gravity was fairly even without being unduly lopsided toward one side or the other.
You see this when having a look at GRAIL’s gravity map:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:PIA16587_-_GRAIL's_Gravity_Field_of_the_Moon.jpg
If there was such a relevant difference, specialists would observe it when comparing the 180-0 and the 0-180 regions.
*
In other words: tidal locking (as the word inherently suggests anyway) cannot be well explained by such tiny gravity differences.
*
Recently I read an interesting paper about tides. It focused of the fact that tidal locking is to a great extent a consequence of permanent frictions rather than of gravity forces alone.
The flood streams on Earth’s ocean grounds and the movement of its crust, along the apparent lunar orbit caused by Earth’s rotation, both result in huge friction effects (power about 10^12 W).
These tidal forces have – thanks Sir Isaac – their exact opposite on the Moon.
This causes, for the Earth as well as for the Moon, a tiny but constant slowing down of their rotation and thus an increase of their day length. This effect is even augmented due to the fact that for both celestial bodies, the rotation axis is not exactly perpendicular to the revolution ellipse.
An interesting point in the (blog) article was the comparison of Earth’s day length (and hence the number of days per year) between
– the backward computation of the rate of 1.64 millisec/century during the last 400 million years;
– the observation of band structures in coral lime housings found in tide-exposed sediments from the corresponding epoch (the devon).
Result: both show about 22 hours per day, and 400 days per year.
But looking forward tells us that for reaching a final tidal locking status as have Pluto and Charon, it would take for Earth and Moon much more time than our Sun will be able to keep alive.
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“But looking forward tells us that for reaching a final tidal locking status as have Pluto and Charon, it would take for Earth and Moon much more time than our Sun will be able to keep alive.”
And yet, it seems to have happened already. The Moon presents one face to the Earth, and has presumably done so for quite some time!
You might need to revisit your calculations, if they do not accord with fact. I’ll stick with observed fact. I don’t see the dark side of the Moon, whether you tell me I should or not.
You might care to examine –
“For large astronomical bodies that are nearly spherical due to self-gravitation, the tidal distortion produces a slightly prolate spheroid, i.e. an axially symmetric ellipsoid that is elongated along its major axis. Smaller bodies also experience distortion, but this distortion is less regular.”
– and the context.
Even a very small mass imbalance inevitably leads to the more massive hemisphere of the locked object facing its anchoring body. It would be strange for any other outcome, wouldn’t you agree?
I am inclined to dismiss the alternative possibility as being so unlikely that it may safely be ignored. I will reverse my inclination if someone produces facts to show that the more massive hemisphere points away from the Earth, obviously.
Maybe endlessly reanalysing historical temperature data is more your forte.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
“And yet, it seems to have happened already.”
No.
Pluto and Charon are in a so-called ‘final tidal locking’. This means that they both no longer rotate about theri center of gravity / mass, and face each other for eternity.
So far I’m informed, Earth and Moon didn’t by far reach that yet.
*
“You might need to revisit your calculations…”
No. These ‘calculations’ (better: informations) are not of my own.
*
“…, if they do not accord with fact. Ill stick with observed fact. I dont see the dark side of the Moon, whether you tell me I should or not.”
What fact? Why should you see the dark side of the Moon?
Where did I tell you should see it?
*
“For large astronomical bodies that are nearly spherical due to self-gravitation, the tidal distortion produces a slightly prolate spheroid, i.e. an axially symmetric ellipsoid that is elongated along its major axis. Smaller bodies also experience distortion, but this distortion is less regular.”
Where did I ever doubt about that? This is absolute evidence.
Maybe you should read my comment again, somewhat more carefully.
*
“Even a very small mass imbalance inevitably leads to the more massive hemisphere of the locked object facing its anchoring body. It would be strange for any other outcome, wouldnt you agree?”
Of course I agree. But that has few to do with tidal forces. And these, not mass displacement, are the origin of tidal locking increase.
Gravity holds the Moon where it is, but is not responsible for its loss of angular momentum.
*
“I am inclined to dismiss the alternative possibility as being so unlikely that it may safely be ignored. I will reverse my inclination if someone produces facts to show that the more massive hemisphere points away from the Earth, obviously.”
You return more and more to the typical Flynn scenario: arguing against what is not in the text you were reading.
What a pity!
B,
I apologise. You did say “. . .final locking . . .”, which of course does not apply to the Earth and the Moon.
An excellent ploy to avoid the facts applying to the Earth and the Moon. Well done!
Carry on with your pseudoscience if you find normal science not to your liking.
Has Rose not been playing with your pencil enough recently? You sound as though your precarious mental stability has wobbled a little.
Maybe you could point out any factual or scientific errors in my comment. Your diversionary attempts to make your fantasies appear relevant are just silly. Dismissing the force of gravity in favour of tidal forces (which, in case you haven’t noticed, are a result of that same force of gravity which you choose to dismiss), might well lead you into a corner.
There, you would probably have to act like a trapped rat, snapping in all directions, seeking to escape from your own pseudoscientific logic trap.
Feel free to correct me if you wish. Unsupported climatological pseudoscientific assertions are not facts,of course. Irrelevant and pointless analogies will be disregarded as being pointless and irrelevant.
Off you go now. Whip out your pencil, and go your hardest.
Cheers
Jesus Flynn what are you a boring, arrogant person.
Your successive replies have nothing to do with what I wrote.
You behave exactly as how you describe lots of people here: stupid and ignorant.
Discussion with you is absolutely as useless as it is with your brother in pseudoscience and your common altar boy…
Bindidon,
Thank you for your kind remarks.
In all humility, I have to point out that I am not the son of God, although I can quite understand why you might think so.
You don’t need to call me Jesus. Mike is fine.
Others can decide facts for themselves. I am not sure why you continue to interact with me, if you consider the act absolutely useless. Do you suffer from some overwhelming compulsion?
You don’t need my assistance to look foolish – you are making an excellent fist of it yourself.
Maybe you could ease up, and not play with your pencil quite so often. Learning the difference between fact and fantasy is an option you may wish to consider.
Cheers.
binny…”Flynn what are you a boring, arrogant person.”
Binny can’t get his ego out of the way, every contradiction is taken as a major assault on his fragile ego.
“Even a very small mass imbalance inevitably leads to the more massive hemisphere of the locked object facing its anchoring body. It would be strange for any other outcome, wouldn’t you agree?”
In his second paper, Tesla said:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
“But from the character of motion of the satellite it may be concluded with certitude that it is devoid of momentum about its axis. If it be bisected by a plane tangential to the orbit, the masses of the two halves are inversely as the distances of their centers of gravity from the earth’s center and, therefore, if the latter were to disappear suddenly, no axial rotation, as in the case of a weight thrown off, would ensue.”
Tesla seems to predict here that the side facing the Earth is denser on average, than the other side, and as a consequence, if the “gravitational string” were suddenly broken, the moon would be thrown off without axial rotation. The existence of masscons under the lunar maria on the Earth-facing side of the moon can be brought to bear in support of this argument.
Either you didn’t transcribe what Tesla wrote or he badly needed an editor. Can you fix this?
Nevertheless, you seem to be in agreement with Mike Flynn and myself.
It’s a direct copy and paste from the article. It was written back in 1919, language was a different beast back then. I will try to “translate”:
“If you split the moon into two halves, the mass of the half nearer Earth would be greater than the half further from it. Therefore, if the Earth were to suddenly vanish, the moon would be thrown off without axial rotation.”
dremt…”If you split the moon into two halves, the mass of the half nearer Earth would be greater than the half further from it. Therefore, if the Earth were to suddenly vanish, the moon would be thrown off without axial rotation.”
That is also supported by general physics. The only significant force on the Moon is the force of Earth’s gravity. The Moon wants to go straight ahead due to its instantaneous linear momentum and the force of gravity pulls it into a resultant orbit.
If gravitational force is suddenly cut, the Moon would continue in a straight line without rotating.
He did need an editor,not DREMT, to tell him that this argument is completely nuts and makes absolutely no sense.
Yet you guys just swallow it, becuz? Cuz its Tesla..
OK Nate. You seem particularly obsessed with me recently. Everything OK?
nate…”Cant have black holes without the space-time nonsense. Its called General Relativity”.
Exactly…GRT is space-time nonsense.
Relativity theory was not invented by Einstein, it was known to Newton. The difference is that time was absolute to Newton and to Einstein it varied, which is sheer nonsense. The basis of time, the second, is a constant because it is derived from a constant.
Newton was right.
Einstein goofed on this one and I hate to think that he fudged the math to make it fit. After all, he was desperate to explain his theory and he was human. His math work till you the speculation begins about time dilating and materials changing length due to them traveling at speeds near the speed of light.
There is no relationship whatsoever between time and force/mass. Time affects nothing physical and Einstein missed that.
chic bowdrie…with regard to my assertion that gravity acts on both frontal surface of the Moon, I was trying to say that gravitational force cannot create a torque, on the Moon, causing it to turn as it orbits the Earth.
Gravity would be applied equally to the right and left facing surfaces, preventing a rotational torque. I am not arguing your point that gravity acts on all particles in a mass, but I don’t think anyone knows as yet how gravity operates.
Gravity pulls the Moon toward the Earth and the Moon’s momentum moves in a straight line tangential to a radial line from the Earth. Since gravity won’t allow the Moon to follow that tangential path, the Moon’s linear momentum is directed to a succession of tangential lines.
All points on the Moon are following that linear momentum at all times, therefore all points on the Moon are moving in concentric circles around the Earth, including the axial points. That means the same face must always point inward, otherwise the points would begin turning around the axis.
If you keep in mind that the Moon’s momentum keeps it in orbit, and that the momentum is always in a straight line, while the orbital path is a resultant of that linear motion and a perpendicular gravitational force. it becomes obvious, since the same lunar face is always toward us, that the Moon is not rotating on its axis.
The nonsense about barycentres is a red-herring argument. The barycentre has to be located in the orbital plane, and it is a point. It’s effect has to be minimal otherwise we’d be wobbling all over the place and getting seasick.
The moon moves like tetherball. You hit the ball in a direction, e.g. anti-clockwise. As Gordon said, “there’s no reason for the Moon to rotate, all particles in the Moon are following a linear path due to its momentum and they are being gently forced into an orbital trajectory”. You hit the ball. That’s the linear path due to its momentum. Then gravity is the force pulling the ball back towards the center. Gravity is the string. And the tetherball, overall, moves as per the “moon on the left”.
REMT,
At the risk of getting myself into dreadful trouble, Newton’s laws of motion indicate that the Moon is falling toward the Earth at about 3.3 x 10^-5 m/s^2.
One side of the Moon faces the Earth, and this is the side which would contact the Earth if the gravitational force on the Moon were the only one to operate.
So if the Moon’s uniform motion were to cease, you might be crushed by the face you see, directly, rather than being scraped into oblivion by a rotating ball of rock.
That is, of course, if you were magically suspended above the point of impact. Otherwise, you’d get scraped to death by the rotating Earth, rather than the falling Moon. Oh dear – blame it on the GHE.
Cheers.
Maybe tetherball isn’t the best analogy. Oh well. I do blame it on the GHE.
Gordon, you open
“with regard to my assertion that gravity acts on both frontal surface of the Moon, I was trying to say that gravitational force cannot create a torque, on the Moon, causing it to turn as it orbits the Earth.”
Despite agreeing with most of what follows, I strongly disagree with “gravitational force cannot create a torque….”
I agree with others who have explained that the gravitational pull will be greater on the side of the moon that is denser on average. Although now there may be no net difference in mass between the left hemisphere and the right one in the moon’s present orientation, a meteor carving off a sizable chunk from one side could cause torque than would begin changing its orientation.
chic…”I agree with others who have explained that the gravitational pull will be greater on the side of the moon that is denser on average”
I have no argument with that but the Earth is pulling equally across the front face. There would be no torque produced about the Moon’s axis in that case.
Hopefully we agree that a torque is a tendency of a body to rotate around an axis or COG. A torque is a circular equivalent of a force applied to a mass in a linear direction. If you apply a torque at a distance from an axis a body will tend to rotate, or turn.
They don’t call them torque wrenches for nothing. ☺
Maybe the Sun pulling from a different angle could put some strain on the Moon in an angular direction but if it did, we would not always see the same side.
Gordon,
“I have no argument with that but the Earth is pulling equally across the front face. There would be no torque produced about the Moon’s axis in that case.”
The front face IS the denser side. The torque is the gravitational force that keeps the denser front face towards the Earth. Otherwise the moon would have to be rotating around its axis. The mechanism can be questioned, but the movement will appear to be the same unless the argument is about semantics.
“Otherwise the moon would have to be rotating around its axis.”
So you don’t think the moon rotates on its own axis?
Well done. You made my point. It is moving as if rotating around an axis such that one face remains pointed toward Earth.
“It is moving as if rotating around an axis…”
But not rotating on its own axis?
chic…”The front face IS the denser side. The torque is the gravitational force that keeps the denser front face towards the Earth. Otherwise the moon would have to be rotating around its axis”.
Torque is about force acting on a lever. Where is the force that would start the Moon turning?
If you could apply gravitational force to just one side of the Moon, it would start turning slowly. However, that force is distributed equally across the entire side facing the Earth. Gravity is pulling both sides and the Moon cannot turn.
It has nothing to do with density. If the entire from half of the Moon was made of lead and the rear half made of granite, the front half would have a much higher density.
Why should it turn? There are no forces acting to produce a torque.
chic…”You made my point. It is moving as if rotating around an axis such that one face remains pointed toward Earth”.
No, it’s not. It’s moving as if it was tethered with a rope attached to an external axis. It cannot rotate because the rope won’t let it turn. If it turned, the rope would wind around the Moon and pull it closer to earth.
Same with wooden horses on a carousel. The horses are fixed in place and cannot turn on their COG but they always have the same face pointing toward the centre of the carousel. Exactly the same with horses running around a track with the exception they have no centripetal force acting on them. They are performing curvilinear translation, just like the Moon.
The horses running on a track supply their own muscular actions to keep them on their orbital track, both along the straightaways and the curves. Horses on a track do not rotate about their COGs despite what some have claimed in this blog.
Good luck trying to get any sense out of Chic. As far as I can understand it, his position is that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis. But a perfect sphere, moving exactly like the moon, would be rotating on its own axis. I dunno. It’s a new one on me.
At this point, it seems that the relationship between the Moon and the Earth can be discussed without reference to other planets, or any number of analogies, good and not so good.
This is a start. By sticking to the point, and using physics as currently understood, knowledge might come to those seeking it, more easily, and probably more certainly.
Obviously, assumptions must be made, and if they are wrong, then so may be our conclusions.
If the GHE cannot be discussed without referring to analogies, other planets, or the perceived evils of burning stuff to generate electricity, transport things, keep warm, and manufacture things from iron ingots to massively complex computer chips, is the GHE science or pseudoscience?
I wonder.
Cheers.
Hear, hear.
“No.
Pluto and Charon are in a so-called ‘final tidal locking’. This means that they both no longer rotate about their center of gravity / mass, and face each other for eternity.
So far I’m informed, Earth and Moon didn’t by far reach that yet.”
Bindidon, the moon is said to have got to its “final tidal locking” state. The Earth is being gradually slowed in its spin rate by the moon. As you say, the Earth’s “finally tidally locked” state will never be seen, since by the time that is predicted to occur the sun will have engulfed the Earth and moon.
Here is a GIF of Pluto and Charon, as you put it, “no longer rotat[ing] about their center of gravity / mass”, i.e not rotating on their own axes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3APluto-Charon_System.gif
(given what we see in the GIF, and as you describe the motions of Pluto and Charon as “both no longer rotat[ing] about their center of gravity / mass”, I will assume you wish to be added to the “Non-Spinner” list)
“I will assume you wish to be added to the “Non-Spinner” list”
No.
Feel free to think that the Moon does not rotate about its center of gravity! That’s OK for me, each of us has his/her own meaning.
But I have a different meaning, based on many serious papers giving a theoretical explanation of why Moon’s libration modes arise from its spin.
Remember: I carefully read Aleksandar Tomic’s paper. But at least five other ones as well, those of Lagrance and Laplace not counted.
Lagrance
Oh la la! Excusez-moi, Mr de la Grange, pour cette faute d’orthographe impardonnable.
OK Bindidon, I get it. Your words are my fault.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Pluto still rotates on it axis. It takes about 6.4 days for Pluto to rotate once on its axis. Its day is 6.4 times longer than an Earth day but it certainly is still rotating on its own axis just like the Moon is still rotating on its own axis about 29 days to make one complete rotation.
https://www.universetoday.com/14314/how-long-is-a-day-on-pluto/
Bindidon: “Pluto and Charon are in a so-called ‘final tidal locking’. This means that they both no longer rotate about their center of gravity / mass”
Norman: “Pluto still rotates on it axis.”
Can’t wait to see who wins this argument. Off you two go.
Norman is absolutely right, I misunderstood a smalltalk with a French friend. He spoke about Pluto’s and Charon’s futurre.
My bad!
Another interesting reference to this point:
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/CrissyBilyk.shtml
Oh, well that was a disappointing argument.
Pluto and Charon rotate about the Pluto-Charon barycenter once every 6.4 days, in the manner shown in the GIF. The P-C barycenter orbits the sun once every 248 years. On that we can all agree.
@Gordon Robertson,
Your comments on Einstein don’t make much sense and to suggest that “Relativity” was discovered by Newton is simply bonkers.
Then you said this:
“There is no relationship whatsoever between time and force/mass. Time affects nothing physical and Einstein missed that.”
The whole point of “Mechanics” is to capture relationships between time distance and mass into equations.
Newton’s “Laws” of mechanics are:
1. A body remains at rest or at constant velocity unless acted on by a force.
2. F=ma, where “F” is the force, “m” is the mass and “a” is the acceleration.
3. Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction.
Einstein’s mechanics differs because he asserts that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. This means that the addition of velocities is no longer a simple sum.
According to Newton v + v = 2v
According to Einstein v + v = 2v/(1+v^2/c^2)
This relationship leads directly to the concept that mass is variable.
According to Einstein Mass = γm0 where m0 is the rest mass and
γ = 1/(1+v^2/c^2)^0.5
This implies that E = mc^2
These equations relate force to mass and time and distance.
gallopingcamel
I’m afraid this nice clarification won’t help that much.
The reason for me to think so you easily will find in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320235
and in the pseudo-expert’s arrogant & ignorant replies which inevitably followed.
@Bindidon,
Thanks for reminding me of my foolishness. I need to get over the idea that people can be persuaded.
I can’t blame Gordon for being an unbeliever. Einstein’s mechanics is truly weird and contrary to our every day experiences. Given that my job was to build and operate a relativistic synchrotron the idea that mass is a “Variable” was undeniable…..self evident. Our electrons had a mass 2,000 times greater than can be explained by Newtonian mechanics (F=ma).
gallopingcamel
“I need to get over the idea that people can be persuaded.”
In theory you are right.
But that should not stop you from contradicting such people.
Because many other readers passively follow their comments in the background, and tend to accept any comment that has not been contradicted.
cam…”There is no relationship whatsoever between time and force/mass. Time affects nothing physical and Einstein missed that.”
You have taken too many shots to the head playing rugby. ☺
Time has no existence, it cannot act on a mass or interfere with a force. Time exists only in the human mind, as an illusion.
f = ma is about force and mass and nothing else. A force acting on a mass causes the mass to accelerate provided the conditions are right. Acceleration is actually a natural phenomenon till we screwed it by making it a mathematical entity.
Einstein’s mistake was to treat relativity using acceleration, with a time factor, while ignoring the forces and masses. My comment about Newton was that he understand relativity as relative motion between platforms moving at different velocities. Heck, the Greeks and Egyptians likely had that worked out.
Time dilation can be easily explained using forces and masses. Time is not required. Galileo lacked accurate time pieces and calculated acceleration without modern clocks.
According to GRT, time can dilate and dimensions can change due to their velocity, That is bonkers. The second is DEFINED upon a fraction of the Earth’s angular velocity therefore it is a constant.
The only way the length of a second can change is in the human imagination via bad thought experiments. As much as I loved old Albert, he really screwed up on this one.
IIn a German paper dealing with tidal forces acting between Earth and Moon, the author chosed a time span of about 3 billion (!) years for the two bodies to reach tidal locking state.
The author understands under tidal locking a state in which
– Earth’s and Moon’s rotation around their axis
and
– Earth’s and Moon’s revolution around their common barycenter
all are equal.
Other people understand that different.
*
Due to the tidal forces, Earth’s spin lessens, Moon’s distance to Earth increases, and its revolution time increases too of course.
Starting with the requirement for spin’s and trajectory’s angular momenti to become equal at tidal locking, the author develops a series of equations, resulting in the following numbers:
– the distance between Moon and Earth is then 555,000 km;
– the duration of Moon’s and Earth’s rotation about their common barycenter is 47.5 actual Earth days;
– the ‘zenith to zenith’ duration for the Earth-Moon system (their common ‘Sun day’) is 53.6 actual Earth days.
An observer on Earth then sees the Moon always at the same place.
Tides no longer move along Earth.
*
A nice point is that actual measurements of Moon’s distance to Earth using Lunar Laser Ranging give us an increase of about 4 cm / year.
The author’s choice for the time span of 3 billion years until tidal locking isn’t so bad, because the total distance increase he computed until tidal locking (171,000 km) divided by 3 billion gives 5.7 cm / year.
Not bad.
Unfortunately, Norbert Bertels died 10 years ago… C’est la vie.
Maybe I manage to translate the stuff, with all the equations properly typeset. A lot of work…
Given that Moon rocks have been found that are 4.5 billion years old it seems likely that the Moon was formed around the same time that Earth was.
If the Moon was created by a collision with the imagined “Theia” the collision must have happened soon after the Earth was formed.
Imagine the Moon only 100,000 km away and tides of 200 feet or more!
Exactly, P. M.
No survival possible for Mankind in such a situation. Anyway, in the very beginning, both Earth and Moon were molten bodies ind inhabitable except for bacteries.
But… colud we actually survive without the Moon as it is now?
Somewhere I read that without it, Earth would wobble so much that it would be inhabitable as well.
B,
A few points –
You say that the Earth was molten at the very beginning. It is not now molten. It has cooled, has it not? Where was the GHE between then and now?
You seem to believe that bacteria can survive in an environment of molten rock. Where did they come from, these molten rock eating bacteria, do you think?
Where did you read about the Earth wobbling without the Moon? Can you remember the reason? Does the Moon stop Mercury and Venus from wobbling because . . . GHE?
Feel free to have a tantrum in lieu of trying to assist the advance of scientific knowledge.
Cheers.
You are so incredibly boring with your stupid, egocentric GHE handwaving.
Why don’t you consult a psychiatrist instead of permanently writing such nonsense?
B,
Thank you for your tantrum. If you choose to feel incredibly bored, be my guest. I can only assume your desire for boredom is the result of some mental defect.
Uninhabitable wobbling Earth? Bacteria living in molten rock? A GHE which didn’t prevent the surface from cooling?
I don’t blame you for trying to avoid providing the basis for your claims, and for trying to avoid acknowledging that your supposed GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling.
Cheers.
It seems likely that the Moon has improved our chances of survival by damping our planet’s orbital oscillations but that is well above my pay grade.
You mention that the surface of the Earth used to be molten in which case it would have had an atmosphere consisting mostly of steam, nitrogen and carbon dioxide (in order of partial pressures). There would have been no oxygen as this gas was locked into the rocks until life evolved ~1 billion years ago.
According to Zahnle, Kasting and Pollack the steam atmosphere at a pressure of 30 bars would have kept the surface temperature at 1,500 K. IMHO (based on R&C equations) the temperature would have been much lower.
If the water presently found in our oceans was present when our planet’s surface rocks were molten the surface pressure would have been ~280 bars rather than 30 bars.
When the molten surface cooled a 280 bar steam atmosphere could not have “rained out” as the surface temperature could not be less than 850 K.
My conclusion is that the Earth cooled before the bulk of our water was delivered by comets or other icy objects.
There is one scary James Hansen prediction that I can agree with. If the Earth ever suffers a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” that causes our oceans to boil, the process will be irreversible. Expect a surface pressure approaching 300 bars and a temperature much higher than on the surface of Venus (730 K).
gc,
Irreversible? Impossible, for starters. The Sun has never thrown enough energy at the Earth to stop its remorseless cooling.
Hansen is barking mad.
Natures four and a half billion year experiment shows that starting with a molten Earth and very dense atmosphere (you stated 260 bar or so, as all the H2O was gaseous), no runaway GHE occurred. Other research indicates “The atmospheric pressure was most likely very high, about 250 atm.”
Maybe your water delivery speculation is incorrect.
Hansen obviously occupies the same fantasy world of Schmidt and Mann. No relationship to reality at all.
No GHE. No ATE. No gravitothermal effect. No new science – just the same boring ordinary old science. Until demonstrated otherwise by reproducible experiment, of course.
Cheers.
Continued from Nate’s vendetta against President Trump here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/chuck-todd-devotes-an-hour-to-attacking-a-strawman/#comment-339823
I don’t know much about federal agencies, but the recent arrest of Roger Stone by 27 FBI agents in 17 cars and armored vehicles indicates something continues to be wrong at the top of that one. Contrast that with the treatment of Hillary Clinton breaking laws right and left while she was Secretary of State. There is something wrong in D.C. and it’s generally referred to as the Deep State. The President is understandably questioning these agencies.
Is he disputing facts on Iran, N. Korea, Syria, and ISIS or the agency heads’ interpretation of what the threats are?
Chic,
I believe Roger Stone is a criminal mastermind, with a track record of refusing to be able to remember every detail of his life perfectly. Apparently, he spoke to people who claimed to have material which would have cast his chosen political candidate’s opponents in an unfavourable light.
Amongst the more serious allegations is that he indicated support and loyalty to the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, and the democratically elected President of the United States.
He was unable to prove that he had never consumed vodka, caviar or borscht. Not to mention blinis or beef stroganoff.
The most damning evidence, however, was that he possessed an atlas, a dictionary, and several copies of newspapers which contained the word “Russia”, cunningly hidden between other innocuous words.
The fact that he was released on bail within hours (he signed a note promising to pay $250,000, if he failed to appear), shows the reach and power of hs criminal organisation. Obviously, even 29 heavily armed agents cannot keep society safe from this fiend!
It’s a good thing there are no other lawbreakers around. The FBI will obviously have sufficient spare resources to monitor this villain and his despicable band of evil minions. How much longer will the FBI allow such monsters to roam the streets, even eating in restaurants alongside unsuspecting law abiding citizens?
Use 200 agents next tine!
Cheers.
@Mike,
While we sometimes disagree about science issues I have to love your take on Roger Stone.
You have to love magnificent bastards who give a finger to “The Man”. What a shame that Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen took Mueller seriously. If they had treated Mueller with the contempt he deserves the anti-Trump witch hunt would have collapsed in ridicule long ago.
gc,
I wonder about the intelligence of senior FBI agents who were either too stupid, or too ignorant of consequences, to erase the evidence of their foolishness from their phones.
Are senior figures in other areas any more competent than the lunkheads who obviously run the FBI?
Judging by US military and intelligence failings (the list is long), no wonder many other countries are giving the US the finger, figuratively speaking. Sad.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I suppose. Who knows what the future holds? Not me, that’s for sure!
Cheers.
‘I dont know much about federal agencies, but the recent arrest of Roger Stone by 27 FBI agents yada yada…”
is irrelevant to the issue I raised. Trying to distract.
DT refuses to accept expert assessments of threats if they disagree with his policies or preconceived notions.
This should worry you.
I see that it doesnt.
Its like you guys are in a dysfunctional-abusive relationship.
You’ll be the last ones to figure it out.
“So what rate of new illegals is acceptable, Nate?”
I dunno. What rate of opioid deaths? of Mass shootings?
There are several issues that actually can be considered at crisis levels.
Given the net outflow of illegals, the inflow of illegals is NOT a crisis.
You guys have been taken in by the propaganda.
What propaganda? I’m seeing a lot of illegals here from what might be YOUR propaganda. The next alien crossing the border may possess the narcotic or weapon killing the next innocent victim. One more is too many.
Now I’m wondering where the net outflow of illegals went?
Yet to hear a rational argument that there is a crisis at the border.
That an undocumented person MAY commit a crime is not it-they commit fewer crimes than citizens.
If I fly, drive, walk, get out of bed, I MAY get injured or die.
None are crises.
It is unlikely you will consider any argument indicating a crisis at the border. Maybe it would take a crime against one of your loved ones for it to sink in.
I imagine serial killings per capita in Switzerland is lower than in the US. Maybe we should import some Swiss to lower the likelihood of serial killings here.
Well then, if there is no rational argument, then perhaps you should consider whether your fears are based on facts or disinformation.
Nate,
Richard Feynman said that science was belief in the ignorance of experts. Maybe he was right, maybe not.
However, the advice of the experts in respect to conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, – not to mention such places as Cuba, Yemen, Syria, Congo, Pakistan and all the rest, night appear to be counterproductive. Unless the aim was to fail miserably.
Feel free to tell me what to worry about. I’ll feel free ignore your gratuitous advice, and continue not to worry. Maybe you can worry twice as hard for me?
Maybe you could write to the President, and demand that he follow the advice of other peoples’ preconceived notions and fantasies. Tell him how smart you are, and that he will be the last one to figure it out.
Or you could just vote for someone else. That works, doesn’t it?
Cheers.
It used to be that politics ended at the waters edge, meaning that presidential foreign policy would not be undermined by anyone in the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, the 16 government departments or the 17 intelligence agencies.
How can Dan Coats keep his job after undermining the president by publicly announcing his conclusions on foreign policy issues that should be “Top Secret”.
gc,
Obviously, his boss is an extremely tolerant person.
I suppose it is probable that tomorrow Dan Coats will still not be the President of the US of A, and Commander in Chief, and his boss will be.
I wonder why?
Cheers.
Mike…”the advice of the experts in respect to conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan”
What bothered me most was seeing young US soldiers putting their lives on the line and having their hands tied by that politically-correct idiot Obama. He cared more about the rights of the terrorists than he did the safety of his own soldiers.
If a President doesnt need experts, doesnt need all the facts that they gather and analyze, then why does he have them?
DT often says that he is very intelligent, so maybe he doesnt need intelligence agencies.
Nate,
If a dog doesn’t need fleas, why does it have them?
Cheers.
C’mon, Nate. You have to laugh at that. Too funny, Mike.
OK. Cujos to him.
chic…”I dont know much about federal agencies, but the recent arrest of Roger Stone by 27 FBI agents in 17 cars and armored vehicles indicates something continues to be wrong at the top of that one”.
The Dems have revived McCarthyism and made it even more unbearable by introducing a sickening political correctness.
Load of losers.
Our ruling elite has been ignoring the will of the people since Ronald Reagan. That works for a while but eventually the little people get pissed as Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI discovered.
In the USA, the Tea Party was evidence of dissatisfaction with the ruling elite. The suppression of the Tea Party led to the emergence of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. If the ruling elite is able to use the “Deep State” to suppress Donald Trump things are going to get dangerous. Imagine millions of “Gilets Jaunes” with carry permits for all kinds of firearms. What kind of person will they choose to lead them? Lenin, Napoleon, Hitler or Ataturk?
cam…”If the ruling elite is able to use the “Deep State” to suppress Donald Trump things are going to get dangerous”.
Agreed. I am not a Trump supporter but the guy won the election fair and square, let him govern for cripes sake.
I’ve had my fill of political correctness with Obama, and here in Canada with Trudeau. I was glad to see Trump win for the simple reason I can’t stand what Hillary Clinton and her ilk stand for. They have revealed what they stand for by throwing tantrums since the election geared at blaming everyone for their loss but themselves.
I’m holding my nose and getting a laugh out of Trump sticking it to the politically-correct.
gc,
The Tea Party grew out of concerns about the Debt and bailouts coupled with having a black Democrat President.
What happened to the concerns about the Debt? Now that we have a white Republican President who is blowing up the Debt, no one cares anymore.
Ooops! I forgot to link that ZKP paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538227
GC,
From your link –
“As the accretional energy input declined below the runaway greenhouse threshold, the steam atmosphere rained out.”
This would no doubt be when the surface temperature dropped below 100 C (or more if the pressure was higher).
When do you think the surface temperature will reach to at least the 100 C required to achieve the purported runaway greenhouse threshold?
You are concerned that surface pressures will exceed 300 bar. Where will all the additional atmosphere come from to create this pressure – not to mention that accretional energy is gone, as is more than 99% of the initial radiogenic heat, based on he radioactive decay products now found on Earth?
Or it could just be that Hansen is barking mad, and suffering from delusional psychosis, or something similar.
Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis yet, or is it still hidden away with Trenberth’s missing heat and Mann’s Nobel Prize? What a load of rubbish.
Cheers.
cam…from the abstract…”We have modeled the evolution of an impact-generated steam atmosphere surrounding an accreting Earth”.
Steam atmosphere???? The atmosphere is 99.9% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Overall, water vapour makes up about 0.3%.
We need to ban the irresponsible use of models.
@Gordon,
“We need to ban the irresponsible use of models.”
I love that kind of talk! At least I have a model. James Hansen made his prediction without a plausible model.
The mass of the oceans is well documented at ~ 1.35 billion cubic kilometers. That corresponds to a mass of 1.35 X 10^21 kg. The surface of the Earth is 510 X 10^12 square meters.
Thus if all our oceans were vaporized the partial pressure of steam at sea level 259 bar. The add another bar for nitrogen & oxygen for a total of 260 bar.
According to Nikolov & Zeller a surface pressure of 260 bars with a TSI of 1,361 W/m2 would lead to a surface temperature of 947 K. According to Robinson & Catling the temperature would be 818 K. As long as the surface temperature exceeds 373 K there won’t be a “Rain Out”.
gc,
Now all you have to is figure out how to vapourise the water into steam. Having done that, you have to stop the steam turning back into water – as it did when Nature did the experiment.
According Michael Mann, he was a Nobel Laureate. According to Hansen . . .
N&Z, accordingly, can claim compressed air makes thermometers hotter when placed between the Sun and a thermometer.
According to me, that’s about as silly as claiming that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
N&Z just believe a different form of pseudoscience.
Cheers.
@Mike Flynn,
“When do you think the surface temperature will reach to at least the 100 C required to achieve the purported runaway greenhouse threshold? ”
Hansen predicted a runaway greenhouse effect based on CO2 without a scientific basis. The Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis is false and even if it was true the effect of increasing CO2 levels would not be enough to boil our oceans:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/
TSI (Total Solar Insolation) and pressure are the main factors that determine the temperature on any world at any altitude. You could cause Earth’s oceans to boil by increasing TSI to 3857 W/m2 which is a 2.81 times the actual TSI.
Increasing the atmospheric pressure also raises temperatures as explained in earlier comments.
gc,
I don’t blame you for not answering the question which you quoted.
You are right, both Hansen and Arrhenius were fantasists, well intentioned or not.
As to your TSI statement, TSI increases with altitude, as do black bulb temperatures. Well documented, for example in Hookers Himalayan Journals, published 1854 or so. Actual recorded temperatures instead of models. The theory explained why this was so.
More recent research measures the increase in TSI with altitude, of course. The following quote should point you in the general direction –
“Generally global solar irradiance increases with increasing altitude above sea level.”
Are you now claiming that compressed air makes thermometers hotter in the Sun? Nope. Altitude does, and is recognised in design criteria for various types of solar powered equipment.
Try defining your ATE, and then propose a testable hypothesis. I’m betting you can’t, but who knows?
Cheers.
The TSI I use is as measured by satellite ~1,361 W/m2 for Earth and ~2,601 W/m2 for Venus.
gc,
Who cares about TSI in outer space? I thought you were talking about air temperatures at the surface being determined mainly by TSI and air pressure.
Dodge all you like – are you trying to claim that that surface (not air) temperatures in direct sunlight don’t increase with altitude?
Your TSI claim is just nonsensical. The temperature of a thermometer does not depend on the pressure of the surrounding air, and as you point out, the notional (not actual) TSI doesn’t change. Thermometers react to heat, nothing else. This is why they are called thermometers. You have a problem. You cannot actually state what it is that you think you are saying, can you?
If you really believe in what you say, you should have no trouble coming up with a scientific statement of your supposed effect, and then formulating a testable hypothesis explaining it. But you can’t, of course.
This is a prominent characteristic of pseudoscience such as the GHE or the ATE. Its practitioners tend to deny, divert, and confuse, at every turn.
Keep avoiding. Others can find out for themselves whether my comments are based in fact. I’m sure they will let me know if I am mistaken about the facts.
Cheers.
Here is a link that compares Venus with Earth.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-to-dr-roy-spencers-blog-article/comment-page-1/#comment-146358
You will note that the temperatures at constant pressure on these two worlds track with amazing precision with a ratio of 1.176.
The TSI for Venus is ~2,601 W/m2 compared to 1,361 W/m2 for Earth. The ratio is 1.911. According to Stefan-Boltzman temperature is proportional to the fourth root of the energy emitted by a black body. The fourth root of 1.911 is 1.176.
Somehow it does not seem to matter that Venus has an atmosphere with 97% of Carbon Dioxide compared to 80% Nitrogen on Earth. Somehow it does not seem to matter that the Bond Albedo of Venus is 0.76 compared to 0.31 for Earth.
Observations suggest that pressure and TSI are the major determinants of planetary temperatures while Albedo and gas composition are minor factors.
If CO2 was the “Control Knob” for temperature you would expect Venus to be much hotter at a given pressure than Earth but observations don’t support this. If the Nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere was magically replaced with CO2 the effect on global temperature would be tiny. The Arrhenius (1896) “trace gas” hypothesis is false.
gc,
Venus and Earth are separate planets, but you would have noticed that.
The problem is that pointing out random correlations achieves nothing at all. You would surely be regarded as a loony, if you claimed you could tell either the ground or air temperature by reading barometric surface pressure.
At the moment, the Sun is still shining. The pressure is 1012.7 hPa. Elevation is 15 m or so, but you say that altitude is irrelevant.
Calculate the temperature – air, shaded air, ground, shaded ground, or whatever you like. Not quite so easy, is it? Totally impossible, in fact. In other words, your speculations have no use whatsoever.
Observations of the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza allow the following conclusions to be drawn, according to one person who believes he is right –
“– A precise definition of the Royal Cubit as it relates to the Earth
– The size and shape of the Earth
– The Mass and Density of the Earth
– The Gravitational Constant
– The Escape Velocity from the Earth to obtain an Open Orbit
– The Escape Velocity from the Earth to obtain escape from the combined Earth’s and Sun’s gravitational field
– The significance of the location of the Great Pyramid
– The Golden Ratio
– The Mass of the Sun
– The Mass of the Moon
– The Mean distance to the Sun and the Circumference of the Earth’s Orbit
– Neutral Points of Gravity between the Earth and the Sun
– The Mean distance to the Moon
– The Orbital Velocity of the Earth
– The Orbital Velocity of the Moon
– The Metonic 19 year cycle of the Moon’s orbit of the Earth
– The Lagrange Point (L1) between the Earth and the Moon
– The Speed of Light
– The Orbital Velocity of the Solar System relative to the Center of the Milkyway Galaxy
– The Velocity of the Local Group of Galaxies which includes the Milky Way Galaxy relative to the Universe”
I can’t see any mention of temperature being related to pressure and the fact that the Sun is shining, but maybe I missed it.
Gravito- thermal effect? What load of old rope! You can’t even concisely state a definition of the nonsensical GravitoThermal Effect in any useful way!
If you want to know the temperature, use a thermometer. Not a barometer.
Cheers.
Mike, for once you are making sense.
Splendid punch line too, I’m flabbergasted.
Nate wrote –
“Once an object is spun, it continues to spin, unless something like friction slows it down.
None in space.
Read Physics for Dummies.”
From NASA –
“Scientists think that a large object, perhaps the size of Mars, impacted our
young planet, knocking out a chunk of material that eventually became our Moon.
This collision set Earth spinning at a faster rate. Scientists estimate that a
day in the life of early Earth was only about 6 hours long.
The Moon formed much closer to Earth than it is today. As Earth rotates, the
Moon’s gravity causes the oceans to seem to rise and fall. (The Sun also does
this, but not as much.) There is a little bit of friction between the tides and
the turning Earth, causing the rotation to slow down just a little. As Earth
slows, it lets the Moon creep away.”
I suppose you could depend on the possibly aptly named “Physics for Dummies”, if
you wish.
Your call.
Cheers.
Yes Mike, if you want my opinion you need to read Physics for Dummies, wherein you may learn about angular momentum conservation. You know, why spinning ice skaters can spin slower by moving or legs away from their bodies.
arms or legs.
And btw, ice skater pairs spinning can play this game.
Nate,
Oh dear. More witless and irrelevant analogies. Ice skaters, overcoats, bathtubs – what else?
No, I don’t want or need your opinion. Why would I seek the opinion of someone who is both stupid and ignorant, and even rejects the NASA science (in this case, NASA even happens to be right).
But press on, Nate. Once you have absorbed the content of the book written for dummies such as yourself, (why else would you be reading it?), maybe you could move on, and read some physics texts not intended for dummies.
The near and far sides of the Moon are different in many respects. Strange isn’t it? Which explanation does your dummies physics book favour?
Maybe you should start with a physics book for stupid and ignorant dummies. I’m sure you can find one if you look really, really, hard.
Cheers.
I see your insult/science ratio is approaching infinity. Keep it up and you’ll make it.
Nate,
Do you really take pleasure in feeling insulted, or are you just pretending?
Maybe you suffer from low self esteem? I generally choose not to feel insulted or offended – I can’t really see any advantage in doing otherwise.
What benefit do you get out wasting your time feeling insulted, or are you just making pointless comments for no particular reason?
Maybe you could waste your time telling NASA to read Physics for Dummies, and abandon theories about tidal locking. Actually, NASA. are wrong, but I doubt you have the knowledge to explain why.
Nothing to do with ice-skaters, though.
Cheers,
If the Earth was phase locked to the Moon the distance between these to bodies would vary very little over time.
As it is the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of ~0.06 m/year. This is because Earth is rotating faster relative to the sun than the Moon is. It follows that momentum is transferred from the Earth to the Moon via tidal forces. This means that Earth’s day gets longer while the Moon’s orbital radius increases.
If the Earth was rotating slower than the Moon, momentum would be transferred from the Moon to the Earth. Earth’s rotation would speed up while the Moon’s orbit would shrink.
gallopingcamel
Correct, I agree. LLR measurements actually give 3.8 cm/y. But
“This is because Earth is rotating faster relative to the sun than the Moon is. ”
is new for me.
Until now, I only read about Moon’s and Sun’s tidal forces (the latter ones being 50% of the former) slowing down the Earth, and are the origin of this angular momentum transfer.
Do you have something for me to read about that? I love to learn.
I don’t pretend to understand it. When it comes to “Climate Science” I am an amateur.
However the opinions I offer are backed up with numbers and calculations based on physics to make it easier for folks to point out where I went wrong.
gc,
It’s a little – well, a lot – more complicated. The Moon orbits the Earth in a somewhat irregular ellipse, at the same time the Earth orbits the Sun, in a somewhat irregular ellipse. The Sun is proceeding at quite some speed in a somewhat irregular orbit of its own.
From time to time, small to quite large lumps of stuff collide with the Moon and the Earth. Examination shows that the near side and far side of the Moon show different impact histories. Over a few billion years or so, even small changes can mount up. What effect did these impacts have on the Moon? The Earth?
Many of the apparently authoritative sources on the internet are pathetic rubbish. Anyone claiming to understand it all, doesn’t.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Cheers.
Mike…”Scientists think that a large object, perhaps the size of Mars, impacted our
young planet, knocking out a chunk of material that eventually became our Moon”.
Heard that theory before and it raises immediate questions.
If the Moon was a chunk of the Earth, how did it get such symmetrical roundness?
Since a precise momentum is required to go into Earth orbit, how did the Moon get that momentum and how would such an impact cause the released chunk to rise that high against gravity?
How did the colliding planet get back into orbit, and why are there no planets with Moon-sized chunks missing from them?
The only qualifying planets are the inner four. Four of the outer five are gas giants made up of different material than the inner four.
BTW..Pluto is a planet despite attempts to declassify it as such. Political-correctness is alive and well in astronomy.
Gordon,
Oh, how I wish I knew such things! But I don’t. Nobody really knows, it seems, but guesses abound.
Maybe chaos theory is relevant.
Even planetary orbits exhibit chaotic motion, but it is generally assumed that the chances of anything catastrophic occurring are remote. For example, a Lyapunov time may be calculated as 10^18 years, longer than the predicted lifetime of the Sun.
No worries, you might think. Not so – the one a million event may occur in the next 30 seconds. Who knows?
I don’t even know where all the water on Earth came from. Why is there so much nitrogen in the atmosphere? Why did CO2 levels in the atmosphere dip to the point where they were dangerously low? When CO2 drops below a critical level, mankind becomes extinct.
I don’t claim to be an expert in chaos theory, but I love it nevertheless. It can be used to explain many things, while predicting nothing. Obviously suits my way of thinking.
I’m trying to say a lot in a small space. Probably not succeeding terribly well, but that’s life.
Cheers
cam…”I cant blame Gordon for being an unbeliever. Einsteins mechanics is truly weird and contrary to our every day experiences. Given that my job was to build and operate a relativistic synchrotron the idea that mass is a Variable was undeniable..self evident. Our electrons had a mass 2,000 times greater than can be explained by Newtonian mechanics (F=ma)”.
I challenge you to make sense of it. In your cyclotron, are you perhaps creating an artificial gravity field in which a mass becomes a weight?
It makes no sense that an electron with a mass at rest should change mass at a certain velocity. It might change it’s weight due to external forces, but not its mass, which by definition is the quantity of matter it contains.
I am not convinced that E = mc^2 means anything in reality. Certainly, their is energy in atoms that is bound under normal circumstances. When it is all released, as in an A-bomb, it produces tremendous power that equates to E = mc^2, but have we arrived a such a relationship indirectly and by accident? Have we perhaps used the wrong measuring stick?
Is the evidence that energy can be converted to mass and vice-versa?
Look at what you can do with math:
http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/mightyFEqMA/mightyFEqMA.html
If you don’t take great care to remain in an aware state, you can’t believe all that, especially the part where a non-entity like time plays a crucial role.
Above, in another post, you stated that force, mass, time and distance are inter-related. Only in the human mind. In the real world, only force and mass are related. The rest is an observation based on the illusion-prone human mind related to ‘position’. The force accelerating a mass does not care about time or position, the latter having nothing to do with the effect force has on a mass.
Go back and look at your cyclotron experiment and see if you can explain it from another direction. Who knows, there may be a Nobel in it for you.
What else would cause an electron to APPEAR to change mass?
Put another way, visualize yourself as that electron shooting around the cyclotron. Ignore the math and anything you know. Be in the moment and experience what you think it would be like.
Why would your mass change, not your present mass comprised mostly of water molecules, but a singular entity like an electron.
An electron not only has mass, it has charge. What’s the relationship between the mass and the charge? Is the charge affecting the mass somehow?
I mean, how do you measure the mass of an electron traveling at cyclotron speeds? There is no way to measure its mass directly so we are determining the mass by indirect means.
What could be wrong with those indirect means? Are we using time as a factor where it does not apply? Physicist David Bohm seemed to think so.
“Is the evidence that energy can be converted to mass and vice-versa?”
Yes. The yield of nuclear weapons can be explained in terms of the conversion of mass into energy. Likewise, mass is converted into energy with an efficiency of 100% when a thermal proton meets a thermal anti-proton.
We can also convert energy into mass. For example a photon can create two electrons or two protons if you have a sufficiently energetic gamma ray. This is known as “Pair Production”;
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production
The Duke university Free Electron Laser is based on a synchrotron (not a cyclotron). One of the output beam lines is the HIGS (aka the High Intensity Gamma Source).
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
The HIGS can deliver gamma rays of up to 100 MeV whereas electron pair production requires slightly more than 1 MeV. The HIGS cannot produce a proton pair as that requires a photon with an energy of >1,876 MeV.
Gordon,
Richard Feynman said –
“The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She isabsurd.”
Whether we like that assertion or not, nobody seems to have demonstrated otherwise.
I would give the award for “The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science to quantum electrodynamics. So far, so good. No exceptions found – none, nada, zilch, zero. Good enough for Government work, even.
I accept that all photons travel at the speed of light. I have no trouble accepting that photons suddenly appear – travelling at the speed of light. How about accepting that photons have to travel back in time to exhibit certain behaviours – or maybe accept that time may not apply to certain photon behaviour?
What works, works. Until someone can demonstrate otherwise, it’s good enough for me.
Another Feynman quote to finish up –
“There’s a kind of saying that you don’t understand its meaning, ‘I don’t believe it. It’s too crazy. I’m not going to accept it.’ You’ll have to accept it. It’s the way nature works. If you want to know how nature works, we looked at it, carefully. Looking at it, that’s the way it looks. You don’t like it? Go somewhere else, to another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can’t help it, okay? If I’m going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to the human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like.”
Works for me.
Cheers.
“I mean, how do you measure the mass of an electron traveling at cyclotron speeds?”
Our synchrotron has 40 bending magnets (dipoles), each designed to deflect the electron beam 9 degrees. 40 X 9 = 360 degrees so our electrons circulate in a closed loop.
If this was a Newton universe each magnet would need to be set at 6 Gauss (0.0006 Tesla). Because we live in an Einstein universe the magnets have to be set to 12,000 Gauss (1.2 Tesla).
Einstein says that measurements of time, mass and distance all vary in different “Reference Frames”. Only the velocity of light is constant in all reference frames. Thus in the laboratory we think that the orbiting electrons have a mass 2,000 times greater than rest mass and that time has slowed by the same factor.
While it is easy to observe relativistic effects with electrons moving at such high speeds, there are things in our everyday lives that are affected by the GTR (General Theory of Relativity). For example your humble GPS system requires three separate relativistic corrections to maintain its accuracy. Without these corrections your GPS would be rendered useless in a matter of hours.
How I already got my loan My name is Elizabeth Caver
residing in Brooklyn, I am thankful to Mike Morris
Finance Group for granting me loan at 3% interest rate.
This Life wouldn’t have been fun for me and my family if
not for Mr Mike Morris, who help me and made it fun by
granting me a loan I also have been able to expand my
business by putting in part of the money I got as loan
on it. This message might be of importance to those
seeking a genuine loan for business and other purpose. I
advise you contact this company via WhatsApp:
+27638779328 Email: [email protected]
Best Regards Mrs.Elizabeth Caver
Hi, I do believe this is an excellent web site. I stumbledupon it 😉 I am going
to return once again since i have book marked it. Money and freedom is the
best way to change, may you be rich and continue to guide others.