The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) claims January, 2019 was record-hot. There is no doubt it was very hot — but just how hot… and why?
The BOM announcement mentions “record” no less than 28 times… but nowhere (that I can find) in the report does it say just how long the historical record is. My understanding is that it is since 1910. So, of course, we have no idea what previous centuries might have shown for unusually hot summers.
The assumption is, of course, that anthropogenic global warming is to blame. But there is too much blaming of humans going on out there these days, when we know that natural weather fluctuations also cause record high (and low) temperatures, rainfall, etc.
But how is one to know what records are due to the human-component of global warming versus Mother Nature? (Even the UN IPCC admits some of the warming since the 1950s could be natural. Certainly, the warming from the Little Ice Age until 1940 was mostly natural.)
One characteristic of global warming is that it is (as the name implies) global — or nearly so (maybe not over Antarctica). In contrast, natural weather variations are regional, tied to natural variations and movements in atmospheric circulation systems.
That “weather” was strongly involved in the hot Australian January can be seen by the cooler than normal temperatures in coastal areas centered near Townsville in the northeast, and Perth in the southwest:
The extreme heat was caused by sinking air, which caused clear skies and record-low rainfall in some areas.
But why was the air sinking? It was being forced to sink by rising air in precipitation systems off-shore. All rising air must be exactly matched by an equal amount of sinking air, and places like Australia and the Sahara are naturally preferred for this — thus the arid and semi-arid environment. The heat originates from the latent heat release due to rain formation in those precipitation systems.
If we look at the area surrounding Australia in January, we can see just how localized the “record” warmth was. The snarky labels reflect my annoyance at people not thinking critically about the difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate change’:
So, the claims of the usual suspects such as “Australia’s Extreme Heat is a Sign of Things to Come” is just one more example of the blind leading the blind.
I have read reports elsewhere that incredibly cold temperatures were occurring in Siberia at just the time very hot temperatures were occurring in Australia.
Does anyone go around summing (temperature deviation from mean *area of deviation) across significant areas of land and see what that actually adds up to?
It would not surprise me at all if the cold in Siberia cancelled out the heat in Australia to a significant if not complete degree….
Surely that is what the global mean temperature is.
incredibly cold temperatures were occurring in Siberia at just the time very hot temperatures were occurring in Australia
The Australian record this winter and the US summer record heat in 2018 were consequences of the effect of lower evaporation off the ocean from long duration low TSI going into this solar minimum, which tends to clear the skies for higher UV index days that desiccates the ground and drives land temperatures higher.
The record cold temperatures and snow resulted from the solar minimum long duration low TSI, compounded by the longer-term solar energy deficit since 2004, the end of the solar modern maximum in sunspot activity. TSI also declined July-Dec 2018.
The solar minimum establishes one set of conditions while the solar maximum another, sometimes with similar outcomes.
Dr. Spencer
In 2013 the BOM had to add extra colours to its temperature contour maps because measured temperatures were showing values not previously recorded.
https://www.businessinsider.com/australia-adds-new-color-to-temperature-maps-2013-1?r=US&IR=T
Didn’t they also use thermometers never previously used? Did they run new and old thermometers in parallel for a yer at least to find if the readings agree?
Yes – new thrmometers.
No – if they DID do it, they refuse to publish the data.
CG,
From the BOM –
“Prior to 1 November 1996, and post the introduction of PRTs in 1986, the observer could replace the temperature observations from the PRT with manual measurements.”
This begs the questions – why would they be different, and which is more reliable?
The BOM also states –
“Maximum and minimum in-glass thermometers purchased for network use have never been calibrated or verified by the Bureaus metrology laboratory, and not field checked during an inspection.”
I hope nobody is counting on maximum or minimum BOM data to predict the future.
Gotta love climatology.
Cheers.
Thermometers which have never been checked or calibrated?
This is supposed to be science? Tell me it ain’t so…..
So, how do you calibrate a thermometer? This I’ve got to see.
Find zero C in your whisky on the rocks, and a hundred in your fresh boiled tea water.
Stephen P Anderson: regarding thermometer calibration, have a look at this link:
https://www.lambda-cal.co.uk/temperature_calibration.php?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8OX5q7up4AIVDvlRCh0b7QYFEAAYAyAAEgLujPD_BwE
There’s plenty more on the subject on the internet.
Fancy name for what I just said, “stirred liquid baths”.
S,
No, your mixing ice of unknown composition with a liquid of unknown composition for calibrating a scientific instrument, is the sort of thing some stupid, ignorant and delusional pseudoscientific pretender would attempt.
What would prompt you to do such a witless thing?
Or are you just suggesting someone else does it, because you are trolling?
Begone, troll.
Again, nice of you to sign with your real name and title.
The composition is not important, only the temperature.
Begone, troll.
Again, nice of you to sign with your real name and title.
Svante, please stop trolling.
You mean Begone, he just said he was a troll.
No I mean you, Svante, please stop trolling.
Are you a friend of Begone, your posts seem very similar.
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
Of course Begone didn’t say please, you’re a nicer troll.
#3
Svante, please stop trolling.
Please stop repeating yourself.
#4
Svante, please stop trolling.
I think Svente is very witty.
Enter, troll
Nice to meet you, Enter.
Take a look at the daily data here.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=history%2Fnat%2F2019011620190122&step=1&map=maxave&period=daily&area=nat
Note the two brown additions to the top of the temperature scale.
Ifyou have to extend your scales upward, then something more than normal weather is going on.
You’re telling me no temperature records were ever established or broken before 1940?
No, he’s telling you ancient scientists (pre 2000) didn’t know how to use thermometers. All of their data has to be “adjusted.”
I live in Perth, and the last few summers have all been like this..cooler than in the 1990’s where we had record high temps and heatwaves that lasted for weeks. The question I often ask of that recent ‘dramatic heatwave’ that crossed the country, is how did they measure it? More homogenisation? There are few weather stations in the northwest across to the south east due to lack of civilisation. The reason there is a lack of towns in the centre is, that in summer, it is always extremely hot in those places. Understandably if the prevailing winds are from the right direction it will carry that heat through to the coastal cities. The only thing that controls this from happening regularly, is prevailing weather patterns around those Eastern cities. So yes, it’s weather.
I have worked at oil rigs in communications, and have experienced working in 48c heat, I’ve also been on site and been barred from going outside to work due to extreme heat (above 52c). But of course, according to the BOM, there are no temperatures like that because its not official.
Jo Nova an Australian science presenter has a blog site that well covers the antics of the BOM, she and others have been cross checking newspaper archives and comparing the figures with the BOM website, discovering many alterations of observations. This is not science.
Here in Canuckistan we are getting record cold. It too is being blamed on global warming.
I’m beyond fed up with the nonsense of any weather event being blamed on global warming. Its the weather, stupid.
People won’t get over the global warming hysteria until the continental ice sheets push us into Mexico (if we can get across the wall).
Afternoon temperatures at Bourke, NSW this month have averaged 4C cooler than January 1896, with every day since January 4 cooler than 1896.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/JanuaryDailyMaximumTemperaturesAtBourkeNSW1_shadow-1.jpg
I suspect it is no coincidence that they pick 1910 as the starting point for their dire prognostications of global warming doom. Australia was very hot in the late 1800’s and that data would ruin their global warming scam.
Here’s the news report documenting the impending global warming doom of civilization back in 1896! Man-made global warming, er climate change, whatever you want to call it, is nothing but a huge scam:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742 .
Don’t you hate fact checkers. Probably why POTUS also can’t stand them.
Welcome back!
Thanks for the welcome Svante. I just took a little break to restore my sanity.
It looks like, at first glance, that a similar cast of characters are still at it. Unless I am mistaken, I note that the particularly aggravating one has resurfaced possibly in multiple guises via sock puppetry. That was predictable.
Yes, it’s business as usual.
Svante, please stop trolling.
David, you are right about that. By starting from 1910 the BOM could very conveniently ignore the Federation Drought from 1895 to 1903, the worst in Australia’s recorded history. I think the BOM is terrified that 1900 may have been warner than 2000. But hey, who am I to question the BOM’s (political)science!
You know, it never occurred to me that when I was taking Political Science as a first year course at college that we were studying science, but the older I get the better I understand.
I made a submission to the Australian (Federal) Senate Committee on Recent Trends in and Preparedness for Extreme Weather Events in 2013.
Wilson, I.R.G., 2013, Personal Submission to the Senate
Committee on Recent Trends in and Preparedness for
Extreme Weather Events, Submission No. 106
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/extremeweather/submissions
Go down to submission number 106 to download the pdf file.
The submission in 2013 had the following words prominently displayed on the front cover:
“South-Eastern Australia needs to prepare for hot dry conditions in the summer of 2019 and possible extensive flooding in 2029”
My submission was totally ignored by the committee.
When will they start listening to alternative voices on climate change?
Unfortunately BOM have a record of not being the most honest broker in town. Dr Jennifer Marohasy has had a go at them a number of times
Regards
Harry
At least we’re hearing about extra hot as well as extra cold places!
…neither of which have any direct relatinship to the issue of katastropic anthropogenic global warming whatsoever.
Its all weather.
Climate is the average of weather, so they are related.
How is .7C of warming gonna contribute to extreme heat waves? As i understand, it will just make then .7C hotter – a value barely noticeable in real life, not more frequent or extreme.
By affecting the climate?
That’s either a circular logic or tautology.
The 0.9 C increases the probability of higher temps, by simply adding.
But in addition the added warmth and moisture apparently adds more variability as well.
Climate change has in the past changed weather PATTERNS, eg causing desertification in previously fertile regions.
>>But in addition the added warmth and moisture apparently adds more variability as well.<>Climate change has in the past changed weather PATTERNS, eg causing desertification in previously fertile regions.<< – oh really? i thoght climate changes becuase of human co2.
People have settled according to one pattern, then they get another.
It’s easy to say people must migrate, but it hurts.
what does that have to do with global warming?
Nate says:
“Climate change has in the past changed weather PATTERNS, eg causing desertification in previously fertile regions.”
Like so:
https://tinyurl.com/y2hw8wx6
http://tinyurl.com/85jfu6y
Coturnix,
Non-sequitur.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Roy’s post is misconstrued.
A record is a record – full stop, and climate change is reflected in changed weather – particularly the frequency of extreme events.
Global warming increases evaporation which leads to greater rainfall.
Australian data shows this clearly since 1900.
http://www.tinyurl.com/BOM-climate-change
Rainfall is increasing at trend of around 3 inches per century.
There were no instances of rainfall over 600 mm/yr before the Second World War but at least 5 since.
Marohasy keeps trying, but to no avail.
Chris, that’s a simplistic argument to show the map for the whole of Australia because it includes the monsoonal north. Isn’t it true that around the globe, monsoonal activity is historically known to be irregular and even as recently as about 500 years ago the Khmer civilization collapse has been attributed to prolonged regional failure of monsoons.
If you click on the menu you linked, other regions are much flatter since 1900, even trending slightly negative in the southeast, and -11.45 mm/decade in the southwest.
Quite apart from that, periods of high temperature are associated with drought as a consequence of reduced or zero evapotranspiration (evaporative cooling)
Bob
Monsoonal events are affected by climate change – so have to be included.
Why focus on “other regions are much flatter since 1900,” which is false – Northern Territory is much, much steeper. You have to use the average of all “ups” and “downs”.
There may be an evaporative cooling effect, but where is their evidence and is the magnitude relevant?
Chris,
I think other readers here will understand my point even if you choose not to
Yes Bob, we do understand. That graph is unfit for any purpose, especially to make a point on Australian climate. Tully in Queensland has an average of over 4,000mm per year, (with a March average of 752mm).. in 1950 it recorded 7,900mm (the record for Australia).. In 1893, Crohamhurst Queensland recorded 907 mm of rain in one day, other areas receive no rain for years and then get inundated by rain bearing depressions from ex cyclones. I believe the ‘monsoon’ that created the recent floods was also the ‘tail’ of a cyclone that never fully developed. This along with the direct effect of monsoon rains and even droughts created by El Nino, La Nina events.
Areas around Perth WA are steadily declining in rainfall and I do not know of any regions in WA that are increasing.
The single biggest issue with these averages is the number of weather stations in existence prior to the 1940’s and the number that have made a more recent appearance, The BOM are taking readings from old and new stations and applying averages to areas that never had any observations of their own, and even altering observations of those that did. Not surprising that all that homogenised data, has managed to reverse a flat and even some negative temperature trends, to obvious warming trends.
The Perth ‘official site’ has moved a number of times, from the top of a hill overlooking the river, to within 150 metres of the river directly ahead of the breeze that comes in over the river every hot summers afternoon, to the middle of the cbd and then five km inland to central suburbia. What hope of an accurate record?
Ken says: “What hope of an accurate record?”
Here’s a great way to handle those problems:
http://tinyurl.com/h5z2vkx
Svante, please stop trolling.
Why pick 1900 as a start point ?
Cherrypicker Warren at it again.
The hot January weather in SE Aus was weather. If you insist it was “climate change” you need to drop the “GLOBAL” meme from AGW.
“The BOM announcement mentions record no less than 28 times but nowhere (that I can find) in the report does it say just how long the historical record is. My understanding is that it is since 1910.”
I think it just depends on each location.
For a few locations the record goes back to the 1880s.
Others don’t start til the 1970s.
Often there are gaps in the recording.
It is very rare to find a continuous long recording for one particular weather station ID.
This is the common defintion being applied here
record:a thing constituting a piece of evidence about the past, especially an account kept in writing or some other permanent form.
So if records started yesterday then today will be a record high or low. Speculating about whether it was warmer or cooler during any other time period is spurious since they are not a part of the record.
Which is to say, “So, of course, we have no idea what previous centuries might have shown for unusually hot summers. “, is bunk.
Thanks Dr Spencer.
As far as I know, the BOM method of recording temperatures did not comply with WMO guidelines, at least up until late 2017.
The BOM appears to have been technically incompetent, at least in the information provided to the public and researchers.
The BOM quickly issued at least one heavily corrected document, after factual inaccuracies, and misleading information (either intentionally or due to ignorance) was pointed out.
However, the fact that the BOM apparently believed their own nonsense for a number of years, makes reliance on any temperature readings derived from electronic sensors and associated circuitry, irresponsible, if used for any purpose requiring reliability and accuracy.
In relation to accuracy, from the BOM –
“Individual AWS digitisation modules were tested in the metrology laboratory on occasion but as with the in-glass probes there is an assumption that the combined resistance- digitisation temperature measurement tolerance of 0.5 C is a sufficient test for these thermometers.”
Hopefully, the BOM has moved on from assumptions.
The BOM is on record as changing its story when faced with documentary evidence of fabrication.
The BOM claims official records prior to 1910 are unreliable for a number of spurious reasons.The BOM claims official records to date are reliable, when by their own admissions, the BOM instituted procedures to alter inconvenient cold temperatures to something more in line with expectations. Presumably all in the interests of science.
Believe them at your peril.
Cheers.
Slandering BOM to prove your stupid denail.
RB,
I assume you are disagreeing with me about something or other. Maybe you could be a little more specific?
I also assume you mean denial rather than denail. What is it you think I am denying, or do you just throw pointless words around, in an attempt to be gratuitously offensive?
I generally decline to take offence without good reason, and you have given me none so far.
Carry on – a fact or two might help.
Cheers.
BOM is respected. Your post is obscene. This is simply not true of BOM. They have been investigated and found reliable by an Australian Senate Enquiry. But go on spread keep up the lies and some of our lying fellow Australian deniers here.
I’m afraid that Mike Flynn is correct….just google
“BOM falsify temperature readings” for reports….
It is well known that there are a number of Australian media outlets which push AGW, such as the BOM, the ABC and the Melbourne AGE…
While you’re at it, Google ‘Flat Earth Evidence’.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Slandering the BOM is no substitute for evidence.
No comment from Mike Flynn was accompanied with any reference or citation.
0.5 C may well be a sufficient test.
So it is Mike Flynn who is “technically incompetant”
Charles Lever,
I assume you are disagreeing with me about something?
What, in particular? What efforts have you made to satisfy yourself as to the veracity of my statements?
Presumably none, but feel free convince me otherwise.
I assume that if the BOM didn’t want to be quoted, they woukdn’t publish the following –
“One aspect of the system unchanged over the past 100 years is that the Bureau does not calibrate SAT thermometers. Instead their outputs are assumed to be in the relevant temperature scale (Fahrenheit or Celsius) within prescribed tolerance limits.”
No calibration. Assumed to be correct.
You were blathering . . . ?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Why didn’t you include the rest of the BOM paragraph?
Charles Lever,
I’m sure you can tell me. Why didn’t you, if you think it is so important?
Cheers.
Mike doesnt get that his critiques, if legitimate, cannot be taken seriously.
There is just too much ad-hom nonsense in his regular posts.
The signal cannot be separated from the noise.
Nate, please stop trolling.
It’s just about the peak of summertime in Australia. Why is this constantly omitted in the articles?
This the most complete nonsense I have ever seen written by Dr Roy Spencer it is ridiculous and sublimely stupid of him to selectively choose a graph and make false misleading conclusions about Queensland Australia. I live here in this state. I have lived here for over 60 years from a young child till now. I have never seen weather this bad, this extreme and this hot since my early days of childhood going back to 1958. We have never had hot summers this extreme. We’ve had heat just below 50 degrees in the desert parts of Queensland. We have had extreme heat buildup like a bubble in Central Australia and spread out. BOM just is grasping at the extreme increasing temperatures of heat in the summer periods in our hemisphere. This American so called scientist has no idea in hell about the hell that we are going through at the moment in the state of Queensland. We have had a monsoon break all records of rain in the northern part of Queensland in the last two weeks since records began since occupation. Increased precipitation has been caused by the extremely hot seas off shore North Eastern of Australia. It is the only thing that has cooled down the state of Queensland in areas where heat records have broken one town after another. This monsoonal trough after all the record downpours releases heat buildup from the extreme dry soil conditions. Dr Roy Spencer is clueless and it’s a bit rich for him to be talking about Australia like this to prove his stupid silly points about non climate change and his denial goes to the high heaven of absolute stupidity. Like his stupid cohort Christy they deserve nothing but contempt from from we the citizen scientist as well the scientific community. The silly religious wingnut conservative stand on climate change. They drink their own self made cool aide as do many climate change deniers. History will judge these men very harshly. I think the creator will as well.
Really?
For a start, you might get a surprise if you open this BoM record for maximum mean temperature for January in Queensland. It was hotter four times as far back as 1947:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=qld&season=01&ave_yr=0
Check the menu for December. You are even further away from reality according to the BoM’s homogenised data. It has been quite equable as far back as 1937 in Queensland in terms of maximum temperatures
I cannot be bothered with the rest of your rant
Sustained heat not max recorded. The heat is record breaking it is sustained and if you do not live stop looking at stupid cherry statistics. Actually your wrong dead wrong
Bob,
I was about to warn you about the wrath of the cultists.
However, I discovered that they ran 300 computer models to design their torches and pitchforks.
What were actually manufactured were a quantity of tealights and tuning forks. According to the modelling cultists, this was close enough. A rapid response group is being formed, and reports will be presented for consensus by climate scientists (or pseudoscientific posers, whichever occurs first).
After the consensus, and arguing about colours and quantities, the mob will fly off at various tangents, while attempting to throw each other under the closest passing bus.
Keep calm and carry on. The predictions of imminent doom by boiling, frying, roasting or toasting, appear to be greatly exaggerated.
Cheers.
Your well known Flynn for own cultic denial.
Begone, troll.
Bob Fernley-Jones
While a picked year for a Queensland January was hotter in the past – this is not the point. The BOM statement did not restrict itself to Queensland.
It is possible that every single state had hotter periods at some time since 1900, but you have to pick different years each time.
This is unacceptable. The BOM statement refers to a single year across Australia as a whole.
Chris,
I was responding to Ross Brisbane’s:
…I have never seen weather this bad, this extreme and this hot since my early days of childhood going back to 1958. We have never had hot summers this extreme. Weve had heat just below 50 degrees in the desert parts of Queensland…
CW,
If you find it unacceptable, don’t accept it.
Do you expect anyone to care? Maybe you are more important than I thought, but then again, maybe not.
You tell me.
Cheers.
Ross Brisbane,
You have been around for 60 years, and that is a long time. However, you were not around in the late 1800s when temperatures were hotter in Australian than they are now.
I have been around for almost 70 years, and my family has tracked temperatures for about 100 years. I remember more heat waves in years gone by; our temperature data base agrees with my memory. I also checked out farm records with local weather stations, and those records agree.
Personal experience is not proof on the CAGW issue, but neither is it to be tossed out without consideration.
Heres temperature data from 1896 and a news article documenting hotter temperatures. The current heat is not unprecedented. BOM is cherry picking the data to brainwash you poor sods.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/JanuaryDailyMaximumTemperaturesAtBourkeNSW1_shadow-1.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png
That’s NSW Jung head. Bats fell in thuosands and died. Suspect the environment is getting hotter. Reef.
, right through to rain forests the evidence is wide spread. Our climate here is getting hotter and drier. Cherry picking a date is not climate change. That is weather. Sustained seasonial chandes over multiple years is climate change. Yours is present denial of reality
Here oh wise one is an extract from The Settlement at Port Jackson, by Watkin Tench (1793)
An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the perroquettes, though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tench/watkin/settlement/chapter17.html
With any luck the continued hot weather will wipe out a few more thousand more of the flying foxes ( humungous bats ! )
We certainly need it in South Australia where thye are not native and have never been present until a colony flew over around 2008 to much rejoicing from some dopey conservationists.
Ross,
‘Our climate here is getting hotter and drier’
perhaps its getting hotter because its getting drier?
Water cools the surface…
Sustained heat not max recorded. The heat is record breaking it is sustained and if you do not live here stop looking at stupid cherry statistics. Actually your wrong dead wrong
Possibly Ross is just setting us up by pretending to be a crazed lunatic.
At any moment he might break out with one of those funny kangaroo jokes.
Oh, I get it now, maybe?
You think that the maximum value according to the BoM for e.g. December here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=qld&season=12&ave_yr=0
was for the hottest single day since the beginning of time in 1910 through 2018.
No. It is for the average maxima for all 31 days of the month. Thirty-one days can be described as a sustained period? The average of the 31 days maxima in January 2019 (click menu) were also a rather modest sustained period of heat compared with the hotter past history.
That’s NSW Jung head. Bats from heat fell in thousands and died. Suspect the environment is getting hotter. Reef right through to rain forests the evidence is wide spread. Our climate here is getting hotter and drier. Cherry picking a date is not climate change. That is weather. Sustained season shifts and changes over multiple years is climate change. Yours is present denial of reality Inreaased rains cyclones all evidence of tropical north hot seas
Here oh wise one is an extract from The Settlement at Port Jackson, by Watkin Tench (1793)
…An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the perroquettes, though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats…
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tench/watkin/settlement/chapter17.html
I suspect this site attracts wing nuts
Away with ye, loathsome troll.
I learnt a long time ago…about 10 years. This is a true thing. You are the real troll fella. You seriously think you are winning the war with this stuff. You are not only misinformed and selective, you are delusional.
Quoting random heat things. This aren’t random my state is experiencing progressive non gap unrelenting progressive sustained milder climate state to a much hotter extreme climate (effects on coastal devastating heat and downpour (metrological river events) hot offshore seas Eastern, coral bleaching constants year after year and stuck El Nino type condition.
We do get heatwaves but nothing like this. Time to roll over fella and let the young generations decide.
RB,
I suppose, given the opportunity, you might let me know what you really think.
Take 10 years, if you think you need it. I can wait.
Cheers.
Hi Ross
This blog does attract RWNJ
Look closer at his colour scheme above, as the blue colours only go down to -3 (and none on the map go below -2) but the reds go all the way up to +7, he’s just done a trick to make the area around Australia look cooler. If he’d used only blue colours down to -7 you’d hardly see any blue on the map (it would be very pale).
So it’s all bluster as usual.
He (Roy Spencer) also cherry-picked that show Monsoonal cool-down for the far Northen regions of Australia. This was after unrelenting heat sustained in record anomalies over a prolonged record period.
Record evaporation through sustained record heat waves in the outback had decimated the cattle industry. The whole state of QLD was literally under-water about a decade earlier. We had cyclones of unusual increasing intensities comparable to the early century one-offs. Coral bleaching is severe to the North. It happens mainly when offshore shallow seas build up too much heat.
The deniers here are conflating single day recording (which induct noise) and complete their misunderstanding of climate change patterning these with BOMs temperature back in time. The record-breaking statements from BOM are absolutely true.
Roy Spencer is always conflating single day statistics or centering on particular even peculiar event anomalies in data.
All he is doing is using noise within the data record and proving a very weak theory of his. It gets weaker as the decades roll on.
I think after reading his material over the last decade, he is conflating his own conservativism with his theories and trashing anything spoken or implied as coming from the liberal political spectrum. It is a faith bias created within his own biased enculturated American Baptist organization. There are many variants of Baptists in the US.
His theology along with Christy’s is terribly constructed and misconstrued. There are far too much enculturation and localization issues within their belief system. I can’t tell whether they are 7 literal day creationist or 7 eon event summaries of Genesis. (eon – Hebrewic derived is the correct translation of a 24 literal day within the Genesis account. It means a remarkable duration of time span. (7 eons). This very theology would greatly affect the idea that mankind’s contribution is of no consequence to global warming.
Coal once raised the standards of millions of people. It also killed millions of people in its dirty process in becoming much cleaner to burn through technology but not clean enough to stop rampant global warming through CO2 emissions. It is right here. Their DENIAL is a wanton disregard for others in their community of fellow scientists, mankind and their own pet theory on Global Warming. Their idealization of economics carries great weight in their policy setting and presentation to Congress. I have followed their statements carefully in the hearing before Congress.
Ross Brisbane,
You don’t appear to be able to find a testable GHE hypothesis, or even a useful description of the GHE.
You are perfectly free to hew to your particular fantasy.
All the GHE theology and unquestioning belief in the world, plus $5, will usually be enough to buy a cup of coffee.
If you want to convince scientists, you might have to throw in a few tit-bits of science. Otherwise, they might conclude that you are merely a stupid and ignorant GHE true believer. Up to you, I suppose.
Cheers.
From the BOM, relating to Surface Air Temperature measurements –
“The current SAT network uncertainty does not meet WMO guidelines for realisable uncertainty.”
So much for complying with world standards.
And –
“Since 1938, the metrology and transfer standards related to national standards of measurement have improved by an order of magnitude.”
Hopefully, nobody actually depends on records prior to 1938, as they were an order of magnitude worse than now.
It might seem to some that records prior to 1910 are unreliable, records prior to 1938 are inaccurate, and records since then use uncalibrated thermometers, which are assumed to be accurate enough – for something. Certainly not for predicting the future.
Cheers.
I know it must pain you to do so, but could you at least provide a link to the supposed quotes by BoM.
That is the usual practice when engaging in a scientific discussion.
(Or am I being too generous in assuming you can participate in such a discussion?)
M,
Why should I do your work for you? If you are too stupid and ignorant to spend a minimum amount of time to do your own research, why imply it is my fault?
What effort have you made? None?
About what I would expect from a witless Warmist
Off you go now. Its not really that difficult for a person of normal intelligence. Take more than 30 seconds if you can spare the time.
Cheers.
In that case I must assume your quotes are simply fake.
Why should I, or anybody else, believe the dribblings of a senile old denialist ?
M,
Assume what you must.
You may believe what you wish.
Neither the facts, nor I, care what you assume or believe. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Your colour scheme is an unusual choice, certainly sea temperatures were lower than average around Australia, but they’re not comparable to the land temps that were above average.
the sea temps were between 0.5 and 2 degrees lower, whereas the land temps were from 0.5 to 7 degrees warmer.
You should adjust your colour scale and remove the green colours. Otherwise your colour scheme gives a false impression.
N,
Which graphic are you referring to? The one from the Bureau of Meteorology, or that from WeatherBell.com?
Have you complained to either organisation, or are you just trolling?
Cheers.
The second one in the original blog post.
It doesn’t matter who made the figure, it is deceptive the way it’s constructed.
N,
Maybe you should let WeatherBell.com know what you think.
With any luck, they will pay as much attention to your comments as I do.
Complain away.
Cheers.
So I went to that websitee and it wasn’t there. There is no version of that map ‘on the website’ I assume you need to put in a data request? In any event it’s a terrible map and you should understand how deceptive it is. It’s amusing that your answer is to just brush it off as and I don’t care.
Not very skeptical are you?
Nathan,
Are you really blaming me because you are too incompetent to complain to the authors of a graphic you dont like?
I am glad you are are amused that I dont care whether you complain or not. I am not aware of any adverse side affects from being amused.
In order to be of assistance, here is more amusement for you – I do not care about your complaint, and I do not care about your opinions.
If you want to be amused even more, please let me know. I am here to help.
Cheers.
I don’t know who posted it here. But clearly the image is deceptive, and clearly you don’t care.
Probably because you’re more interested in promoting your agenda
Clearly you are a witless troll of the deluded Warmist variety.
Begone, troll.
The TRENDS are unmistakable.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/?ref=ftr#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D15
BOM was held to inquiry by Conservatives within the Conservative-Liberal Party Abbott the then Prime Minister (President equivalent) who was a stated climate denier lead the charge due to misleading press releases by Murdoch’s (News Corp in THew Australian) – Aka Fox Network USA – the self-proclaimed judge and jury of everything but is the true experience of “Newspeak” for our century. It is propaganda and fake news.
Here are results of that finding on BOM:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/government-discussed-bom-investigation-over-climate-change/6799628
As you see here all do is join in the choir and chirp along. I am not patting him on the back (Mr Roy Spencer). You deniers are all are just doing a Dorothy Dicky thing around here on Forum singing in his choir. I for one do cheer this site on. It contains far too much misleading and selective information. It cannot be relied upon to tell the WHOLE truth.
I lost trust in this site some ten years ago about not telli’ the whole truth and nothin’ but the truth.
RB,
I suppose you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe you can predict the future by intensive examination the past.
Nope. Won’t work. Prayer is just as effective – maybe more so.
Maybe you are confusing assumption with prediction. As in assuming the Sun will come up tomorrow. Assuming you will still be alive tomorrow, and so on.
If you do manage to crack the problem of reliably predicting the future, you will become fabulously wealthy. Then you can laugh at me – just as I laugh at you at the moment.
Remember, he who laughs last, laughs best. Maybe you can get a few tips on predicting the future from the BOM? That sound you heard was me laughing (just a little. I couldn’t help it.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, eh?
Cheers.
Nobody disputes that temperatures have warmed around the globe in the past half century, Ross. The question is, why?
Putative warming from CO2 is supposed to be global, and your little corner of the world is only a fraction of that area. Moreover, this episode is just a blip in time. It really does not tell us anything about the legitimacy of the AGW models.
Just because you hear noises in the night does not mean there are monsters under your bed.
The area of Australia is about 7.7 million square kilometers !!
The warm temperature anomaly extends over about twice this area taking the oceanic values into account !!
The time scale involved is at least a month long.
To describe this as merely “weather” is not very convincing.
Secondly, you can try and deny the legitimacy of the BoM temperature records till you are blue in the face.The fact is that the heat wave is the worst in living memory for many elderly Australians. It certainly was for the now deceased long-lived inland fish species who lie rotting along the major rivers.
Really, ignoring significant extreme events like this is akin to ticking your head further and further into the sand. It really is petty. Why? Because the next bit of regional, short-lived cool weather will be jumped on by deniers as evidence that the globe as a whole is not warming.
You cannot have it both ways.
M,
Why do you think the BOM are publishing falsehoods in their official publications?
I have no reason to doubt the BOM is telling the truth.
Do you the think the BOM is telling lies under the influence of Big Oil? Maybe you are really stupid and ignorant, rather than just pretending to be stupid and ignorant.
Do you understand the difference between climate and weather? Climate is the average of weather over a notional period, often 30 years. Nothing more, nothing less.
Have a try describing the weather of Australia in objective numerical terms, and quantify the difference between now and 30 years ago. Or you could grow wings and fly to the Moon, if you think that would be easier.
Or just keep dreaming that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter!
Cheers.
What official publications?
You are making it up old man.
And you are becoming repetitive again.
Take your tablets.
Begone, stupid and ignorant troll!
I emphasize once again despite this bullshit coming from the denier mob madness that seems to inhabit these spaces on the internet, the BOM Australia data is rated as ONE OF THE BEST in the WORLD!
This is a direct quote from a declassfied document after a “witch hunt” was carried as to the reliability of Climate data that would suggest OB JECTIVe evidence of real trending climate change in Australia.
Ross,
Maybe you could provide some quotes from official BOM documents to contradict the quotes from official BOM documents which I have provided?
Or are you blaming me for the language that the BOM uses in their official documents?
It’s not my fault the BOM says what it does, is it?
Who cares?
Cheers.
Sorry old man. Unless you provide links we must assume you are making it up.
M,
Assume what you like.
You are not sorry at all – just a stupid and ignorant troll.
Begone troll!
Ross, Austrailia is setting records for high temps, while other places on the globe are setting records for cold temps.
Australia has an enormous population of kangaroos. The other places do not have kangaroos. The correlation is pretty evident, huh?
And, the “causation”? Roos exhale CO2.
Case closed.
The solution is obviious.
“Australia”, only one “i”.
JDH,
/humour on
Obviiously.
/humour off
Cheers.
Was a lot hotter than normal in Australia in Jan
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D01%26ave_yr%3D0
UAH Australia has January 2019 in 4th place.
UAH Australia has January 1979 in 2nd place
UAH Australia, 2018 was in 7th place.
UAH is the temp many km up in the sky over a wide range of pressures – and it’s notorious for drift and poor relationship with other data sets…
I think I’ll trust the thermometers.
N,
The records from the BOM?
The same BOM which provides a disclaimer saying there is no warranty as to accuracy, quality, or reliability.
Maybe you couldn’t be bothered reading the disclaimer on the site.
I can understand why you would trust BOM records, if you were stupid and ignorant. Go for it.
Cheers.
MF, like Donald Trump, is making it up. They said no such thing.
Begone, troll!
And also last December
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D12%26ave_yr%3D0
It would help clarify things if those running the denial agenda, produced competent evidence. So far Mike Flynn has produced nothing but an amputated quote he did not understand.
The BOM record was cited in specific terms, but so far all the denialists have invented different terms, either different regions, or different years.
Plus are fair amount of partisan slander against the BOM.
You can lead denialists to science but you can’t make them think.
Charles, I just checked with “those running the denial agenda”, and they report that the competent evidence is already out there. It’s “hidden” in full view.
1) CO2 can NOT warm the planet.
2) The Alarmist models have been consistently wrong.
3) Even with a 25-year warming trend, and following a super El Niño, January was only 0.37, and the average is only 0.13. Hardly alarming.
Charles Lever,
Here is your opportunity to provide an explanation of the GHE, supported by a testable GHE hypothesis.
A true believer such as yourself would, of course, have such basic scientific knowledge at this fingertips.
No need for links, just copy and paste (unless you are too lazy, ignorant, or stupid to understand how to do it).
How hard can it be?
Only a pseudoscientific foolish Warmist would believe in a GHE that does not exist. Surely you are not one of those stupid and ignorant fools, are you?
Cheers.
Yawn.
Begone, stupid troll!
Ross Brisbane, No reason to insult people on this site. We are only trying to present BOM data to you that shows the current hysteria you seem engulfed in is unfounded. Where I live, it was -24 degrees F last week. Quite frankly, I hope all of you in Australia, spend a fortune installing solar panels on your homes, build thousands of windmills, and purchase electric cars. That just means more affordable, clean, and efficient fossil fuel energy for us in the States. More jobs, more competitive companies and a better standard of living for my children.
Cheers Mate!
Ross Brisbane, BOM starts all their imaginary global warming graphs in 1910 so the sheep dont see the steaming hot temperatures that existed in the late 1800s. Why? Because it would wreck their man-made global warming scam. But, hey, its your country and your money. Go crazy with all the solar and wind power and good luck. See Germany for a preview of how thats going to workout.
Please dont export your stupidity. We dont want it.
This blog entry is a simple restatement of the scientific “evidence” provided by the tobacco industry (plus leaded gas industry and others):
Since no one can predict the specific day and specific diagnosis of a particular smoker’s death, say “Fred” the 2 pack a day smoker, science cannot say tobacco causes cancer.
Dead Fred = weather
Tobacco smokers as a population = climate
Anyway, at best, scientifically wrong-headed then, scientifically wrong-headed now. At worst, simple intentional disinformation both times.
Well put, jg.
Yeah…. no. It’s more like the mirror image. The big financial interests here are decidedly on the warmist side. Big Wind and Big Solar are despoiling the environment, and making money hand over fist selling virtue-signaling devices that produce a pittance of intermittent and unreliable power.
Alarmist scientists are building empires, jetting to exotic locales ostensibly to share information over Mai Tais in luxury resorts, and enjoying the encomiums of the adoring (and scientifically illiterate) press corps.
And, politicians are greedily rubbing their hands at the prospect of taxing the peasants for the very air they breathe.
The Tobacco Institute demonstrated that scientists are not a preternaturally honest group with superhuman objectivity, but can be bought and paid for. Res ipsa loquitur.
3 points…
1. The amount of money on the fossil fuel side denial side of the issue compared to the amount of money on the scientific side isn’t even close by orders of magnitude. Try living for a decade or two on a scientist’s salary working scientist hours and see how rich, and drunk at expensive resorts, you get. And that doesn’t even count the decades in training at negative or minimal income. You are simply clueless about this issue. Dr. Spencer could set you straight here should he desire.
2. The “researchers” on the science denial side of tobacco were not, in general, expert scientists with substantial publication histories in public health issues. The Tobacco Institute was not a science institution publishing professional level research in mainstream science sources. Sound familiar?…You see people can be bought to publish in vanity journals and special interest sources, but getting such papers through peer review in professionally respected sources is MUCH more difficult.
3. Don’t know about “taxing the air we breathe” but I do know about using the atmosphere as a free dump. Google “tragedy of the commons”.
1) Correct. The money on the alarmist side absolutely dwarfs that on the realist side. The government windfalls are spectacular. Even the oil companies are subsidizing the alarmist side.
You’re telling me Michael E. Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State is a pauper? James Hansen, recipient of tens of millions of $$$ in prizes and grants, is down and out? Sorry, dude. That dog won’t hunt.
2) Meh. “Experts” judging each others’ expertise. Nice work, if you can get it.
3) CO2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for life. If anything, we’re on the low side.
Bart lives in an alternative universe, where we all have goatees, renewable energy is evil and more polluting than coal, where the energy produced is not profitable nor useful, where scientists get richer in proportion to the warming they find.
Its a weird mirror universe of the one we live in.
Begone, troll.
But Nate, you just described EXACTLY how the REAL world is.
MF, it works better with a Harry Potter wand.
Begone, silly troll.
‘Yeah…. no. It’s more like the mirror image.’
And you didnt grasp his entirely valid point at all, you just changed the subject.
jg,
More stupidity and ignorance? Tobacco? Smoking?
Provide a scientific definition of the GHE, and provide a testable GHE hypothesis.
It is the starting point for scientific investigation. Part of the scientific method.
You can’t do it of course, because you follow pseudoscience of the climatological type.
Only a blithering idiot would believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer would make the thermometer hotter.
Would you as willingly believe that moving the thermometer halfway through the CO2 (having the amount), closer to the heat source would make it colder? Really? Maybe you truly believe that moving away from a fire makes you colder, but I dont think even you could be that stupid and ignorant.
Correct me if I am wrong about your stupidity and ignorance.
Cheers.
Dr. Spencer has made it clear on many occasions he is not a greenhouse effect denier. While many, including me, disagree with some of his assertions, he simply has never made that one nor would he. In point of fact no actual, practicing and published scientist since a decade or two after the Civil War would make such an assertion.
As for experimental “PROOF”!!!… Do tell us your experimental PROOF of how scientists think that stars are (mostly) giant balls of fusing hydrogen at great distances. Only experimental proofs are allowed.
jg,
Go for it. Deny, divert, confuse.
How are you going with GHE science? Not well, I know.
That’s because there isn’t any!
You are stupid and ignorant enough to demand experimental proof of something quite unrelated, but no matter. Science doesn’t work that way.
As Einstein said –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Trot out your non-existent testable GHE hypothesis, and it can be tested.
Carry on blathering about your pseudoscientific climate cult, if you wish. Facts outweigh fantasy, so you are still stuck in your imaginary world of CO2 magic. I wish you well.
Cheers.
So your EXPERIMENTAL proof that stars are giant balls of fusing hydrogen at great distances is…??? No answer??? I thought not as the only PROOF is, er, well, nonexperimental, “fantasy” models. Many sciences cannot use experimental methods. Tobacco and cancer is another as I mentioned earlier.
Re. Einstein: It’s always quite comical that greenhouse effect deniers delight so much in giving sophomoric lectures on the scientific method to professionals!
jg,
What have stars and tobacco to do with the fact that no GHE explanation or testable GHE hypothesis exists?
If you don’t like what the Nobel Laureate Einstein said, try another Nobel Lareate, Richard Feynman (yes, I know, using authorities, but foolish Warmists love ’em) –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Pseudoscientific climatological types cannot even come with a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a GHE theory.
Are you as stupid and ignorant as you make out, or merely pretending? Was your path to becoming a professional foolish Warmist taxing, or did you emerge at the top of the class?
Maybe you could try using all caps in your comments. Even better, make that all bold caps!
What do you think? Actually, I do not care what you think, so you could save yourself the effort of responding, if you want to. Your call.
Cheers.
Nice to see you have no answers and exhibit no real understanding. Of course that was obvious from the beginning.
Stars really are, very likely, giant balls of fusing hydrogen at great distances even though there is zero experimental proof. The idea is indeed not testable given present tech. And yes, this fact is, in fact, related to your completely wrong notions about what science is and is not.
jg,
You wrote (apparently not realising that astronomy is science, unlike climatology, which is not yet quite up to the standard of astrology) –
“Stars really are, very likely, giant balls of fusing hydrogen at great distances even though there is zero experimental proof.”
Indeed. There are theories, not yet capable of experimental disproof. At one time, John Tyndall theorised that the heat of the Sun was due to meteoric bombardment, as there was no other reasonable explanation. Tell me why you think his explanation was incorrect, if you can.
However, experiments have been carried out with thermonuclear reactions, both in hydrogen bombs, and slightly less spectacular things like Tokamaks, and the Farnsworth Fusor which can sit on your tabletop.
What part of hydrogen fusion are you saying has not been confirmed experimentally?
Theory, backed by various observations, supports the speculation that stars are powered by thermonuclear reactions. Who really knows?
Of course, by now you will have discovered that there is no useful description of the GHE, and precisely no testable GHE hypothesis. Whether you acknowledge this or not is irrelevant. Other readers are free to reach their own conclusions.
Mine is that there is no GHE. increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer does not make the thermometer. End of story. Believe or don’t – I assume you have no power to change anything anyway, so you are just trolling.
Cheers.
Sorry. Astrophysics is every bit as much a science as climate physics or quantum mechanics.
BTW, I don’t suppose you know that much of QM has no experimental proof either. It’s rather hard, after all, to randomly assign electrons to treatment and control groups. As such, true experiments are not possible. QM ohysics is based on, wait for it,…models!
jg,
What are you babbling about? There is no science of climate physics. Climate is the average of weather. A little basic arithmetic – no science at all.
You are obviously stupid and ignorant. Science does not use formal proof – that is for mathematics.
You haven’t specified what you mean by QM, but no prediction made by QED (quantum electrodynamics) has been disproved by experiment to date.
You are obviously suffering from some form of mental condition or delusion.
I would be inclined to give you a point for astrophysics, apart from the fact that neither you nor I had referred to it previously. Carry on trying to deny, divert and confuse.
Still no GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis.
Off you go now, dream up some more pseudoscientific nonsense. It is quite diverting to watch a bumbling buffoon attempting to defend the indefensible.
Cheers.
Uh, don’t know how to tell you this but there will NEVER be “experimental” proof of anything in quantum mechanics. To have experimental proof requires a Maxwell’s Demon who can randomly assign particles to conditions.
All such physics is nonexperimental and merely observes whether large numbers of whatever, say photons, are detected arrayed in a certain predicted pattern. There is no experimentally testable hypothesis as there is no treatment particle versus control particle.
Anyway, GHE denial is simply crankery, so I have nothing much more to say. Tilting at windmills is for Quixote, not me.
jg,
I suppose you deny things such as this –
“Quantum mechanics (QM) is a tool that was invented to explain experimental results. It is nothing more and nothing less than that. The utility of QM is therefore based entirely upon its ability to predict and explain experimental results, and by this measure it is a phenomenal success. There has yet to be an experiment of any type that violates the basic principles of QM.”
No exceptions. None – to date, anyway.
Your comment about GHE denial is completely meaningless. You can’t even define the non-existent GHE, can you?
Run away – quit while you’re behind. Go back to your fantasy. That way, you won’t have to face reality. No GHE. No CO2 heating. Bad luck for you.
Cheers.
jg,
I can only assume you are unfamiliar with all the double slit experiments that are experimental evidence for quantum mechanics.
From photons and electrons to phthalocyanine.
And you shouldn’t put physics after Quantum Mechanics, it’s a big clue you don’t know what you are babbling about.
There is a huge leap between “IR absorbing gases inhibit egress of radiative energy from the planet’s surface” and “combustion of fossil fuels releases latent CO2 into the atmosphere” to “humans are causing catastrophic warming of the planet”. The evidence to date is at best ambiguous, if not outright contradictory.
‘if not’
not
Begone, foolish troll.
JDHuffman is mistaken if they truly believe;
1) CO2 can NOT warm the planet.
CO2 warms the planet and this is demonstrated clearly here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY&feature=youtu.be&t=59
Notice, as others have, that denialists make crazy statements such as JDHuffman BUT never produce any evidence or when they do, they have misunderstood what they cite.
US scientists were aware of the CO2 effect in the 1960’s but nothing was done.
Chris, you must have searched youtube for something you believed “proved” the GHE. Unfortunately, that video has been debunked long ago.
Briefly, the flame heats the CO2. The tube has such a high level of CO2 that it can absorb all the infrared, thereby blocking the flame.
All that is valid, but then reality sets in.
The flame is warming the CO2. But the CO2 is not warming the flame. The CO2 could not add any heat to the system.
It’s fun searching youtube, huh?
JDHuffman
When CO2 absorbs infrared – the CO2 heats up itself. Extra heat is added to the system compared to earlier when more heat escaped to outer space.
The CO2 is not warming the flame. The temperature of the flame does not change.
Chris Warren,
Unfortunately, you haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about.
No extra heat is added to the system. None.
What you say is about as stupid as saying that you get warmer when you move away from a fire. There is now more CO2 between you and the fire, so by your strange logic, you should get warmer.
Or, if you move towards the fire (less CO2 between you and the fire) – you believe you will get colder?
Mindless adherence to the GHE pseudoscientific nonsense is no substitute for fact. You can’t even come up with a testable GHE hypothesis, can you? Not surprising, as you cannot even explain how the GHE is supposed to work, in any way that makes sense.
You are talking nonsense. Whether this is due to stupidity, ignorance, or both, I do not know.
Cheers.
Ignore the trolliest troll we have Mike Flynn. There is no detectable signal in his ad hom noise.
He is too thick to grasp the explanation hes heard many times of the GHE. So he invents his own strawman version.
Nate,
An excellent command to the other stupid and ignorant GHE true believers.
How do you intend to enforce your order? You cannot seem to comply with your own demands – why should your fellow foolish Warmists?
I wish they would, but I don’t think you engender that much respect.
I wish you every success. Let me know how you go.
Cheers.
Mike, your bot-commments about things between the sun and thermometers, have been debunked and proven to be thoroughly dumb dozens of times.
-a piece of glass between the sun and a thermometer warms it. Done.
-You stupidly ignore that the CO2 is ALSO between the warm Earth surface and the extreme cold of space.
Your bot-comments about no GHE ignore the fact that without the GHE weather prediction models would fail to work. The GHE is proven every day. Done.
N,
I see you do not intend to follow your own advice. Do you suffer from a lack of self control?
Howeve –
– Glass? What is the relevance? None? Done.
– No I don’t, but you seem to ignore that CO2 works to attenuate energy flows in all directions. Basic physics. Done.
You still cannot bring yourself to describe this GHE, can you? In any case, numerical weather forecasting methods attempt to use physics, not the non-existent and indescribable GHE. Done.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Done.
Cheers.
“– No I don’t, but you seem to ignore that CO2 works to attenuate energy flows in all directions. Basic physics. Done.”
Not done, but closer to reality.
Now add the fact that CO2 attenuates selectively in IR. Most strongly, in fact near the peak of out-going flows.
Mike, mike, mike!?
Has no response to CO2 selectively attenuates IR, most strongly for outgoing heat.
Of course not, that wrecks his strawman version of GHE.
N,
You are a fool. No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the surface from cooling.
It does so every night, and has cooled from the molten state over the last four and a half billion years or so.
This is why you cannot even define the GHE.
Want to demonstrate you can? Here’s your chance!
Only joking, I know you can’t. Nor can anybody else.
Cheers.
‘You are a fool. No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the surface from cooling.
It does so every night, and has cooled from the molten state over the last four and a half billion years or so.’
Interesting that when people give the actual science behind the ghe, what you constantly ask for, you are dumb-struck.
Then you spout declarative dumb statements.
‘It does so every night, and has cooled from the molten state over the last four and a half billion years or so.’
Except where you live in the Tropics, where the sun has obviously warmed the Earth.
What part of that reality do you deny, Mike?
N,
You fool. The surface in the tropics is not molten.
Cheers.
‘The flame is warming the CO2. But the CO2 is not warming the flame.’
The experiment is not claiming any such thing, is it?
Congrats JD, you’re a Ninja strawman killer.
I never said the experiment claimed “any such thing”, Nate. So, you’re the one making up straw men. Just another false accusation from an anonymous coward.
And, only a 7 minute response to my comment! You’re reallly on guard. Your handlers will be very impressed.
JDHuffman
https://principia-scientific.org/natural-philosophy-meteorology-climatology-2/#comments
You claim you are not G.e.r.a.n but on the PSI blog you say the same things you do when you go by “JDHuffman” here. You complain about long comments, consider them rambling. I have been on Climate blogs a long time and you and G.e.r.a.n are the only posters I have ever seen talking about rambling and long posts. Weird that of all the posters one reads on various climate blogs only the two of you say the same things. Also G.e.r.a.n on PSI also brings up identical analogies to the ones you do. About adding ice to a room etc. Weird to have identical posting material yet you both claim you don’t know each other. Why not hook up with g.e.r.a.n. You would find a soul mate in the process. More logical is that you are one and same poster but it is remotely possible you can have two people who post identical ideas that don’t have a clue about each other.
Norman, just keep stalking and rambling. Maybe that will keep you from insulting, making false accusations, and misrepresenting others.
You certainly have no science to offer.
Nate,
Congratulations. You have been convinced that CO2 (like all other matter in the known universe), can be heated by a heat source!
You may not be aware that O2, N2, dry air (which has been scrubbed free of CO2 and H2O), can all be heated.
Your ignorant demonstrator could have replaced the CO2 with a piece of cardboard or brass, which will also block and absorb IR, and heat as a result.
If you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer raises the temperature of the thermometer, you are both stupid and ignorant.
This is why nobody can actually explain how the GHE is supposed to operate, or provide a testable GHE hypothesis. The GHE is a figment of the imagination of pseudoscientific cultists.
Provide a testable GHE hypothesis, and scientists can test it experimentally. Otherwise, the concept remains a fantasy – one which you appear to share. You support fantasy, I base my opinion on facts.
No GHE. No gravitothermal effect, Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician who thinks that a probability less than that of a coin toss means “near certainty”, and Michael Mann’s claim of winning a Nobel Prize shows that he is either delusional, or stupid and ignorant.
I’m right, you’re wrong, so sad, too bad.
Cheers.
oh dearie me.
Chris seems to think the atmosphere is a glass bottle.
Bizarre !!!
Perhaps that is where he spends most of his time ??
Chris –
The experiment demonstrates that CO2 impedes radiative transfer. That’s all it does. Nothing else. It does not even begin to demonstrate that CO2 warms the planet under any and all circumstances.
A carefully controlled lab experiment over an enclosed, compact, non-circulating volume does not even come close to replicating the climate system of the Earth.
Do you have a link? As I understand it, the last IPCC report says that the best estimate for human caused warming is more than 100% of the warming since 1950 (with other factors offsetting some of it).
Weather is localised and temporary but climate change can alter the likelihood of certain weather events and that is the critical question.
You also say:
Do you have a link for that, also? What were the actual causes (“natural” seems almost magical but those natural changes also had causes, just not predominantly human behaviour)?
Mike Roberts,
You wrote –
” . . . climate change can alter the likelihood of certain weather events and that is the critical question.”
Given that climate is the average of weather, it seems a little silly to say that ” the average of weather can alter . . . certain weather . . . ”
Your critical question seems to based on a foundation of the average of something being able to change that something which produced the average. Are you always this confused and illogical, or is this a one off?
If you are just trying to pose a stupid gotcha, rather than genuinely seeking knowledge, others might suppose you to be a stupid and ignorant troll!
Would you like to rephrase your question, or do want to quit while you’re behind?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn said,
I agree. I wonder if anyone would be silly enough to say that.
A change in the climate means there is an increased (or decreased) likelihood of certain weather events. In the case of heat waves, it is increasing such likelihood. I could make this even easier to grasp but I would hope most people can get the idea.
“… the last IPCC report says that the best estimate for human caused warming is more than 100% of the warming since 1950 …”.
The IPCC assume that natural forcings and natural variability have been virtually non-existent since 1950, that after 4.5 billion years Mother Nature went on strike, and that assumption is absurd …
https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/sites/default/files/AR5_SYR_Figure_1.9.png
… therefore all the net warming since 1950 is human-caused, and that is circular reasoning.
Human CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were relatively insignificant before 1950
And that Mother Nature’s sudden inactivity just happened to coincide with the upsurge of human CO2 emissions after 1950, a truly astonishing coincidence.
“The IPCC assume that natural forcings and natural variability have been virtually non-existent ”
No assumption needed. The natural variations are measurable and measured.
They are either constant or changing in a way that would produce a slow cooling trend.
At present we are cooling by about 0.01C per decade due to natural variation and warming by about 0.21C due to AGW.
Hence the observed warming of about 0.2C.
This is circular reasoning.
Em,
I hope you are only pretending to be stupid. Are you really saying that we are warming due to AGW?
Warming due to warming seems a bit circular. In science, rising temperatures are due to additional heat, in simple terms.
I wonder if you would mind specifying the source of the additional heat causing temperatures to rise?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Summary data on the graph here.
“I wonder if you would mind specifying the source of the additional heat causing temperatures to rise?”
Certainly. It is coming from the Sun. It enters the atmosphere as sunlight ( shortwave radiation ).
Increasing forcing decreases the amount of energy radiating to space.The difference between incoming and outgoing energy accumulates, warming the planet.
http://globalwarmingindex.org
Em,
You wrote –
“Increasing forcing decreases the amount of energy radiating to space.The difference between incoming and outgoing energy accumulates, warming the planet.”
Don’t be stupid. There is no forcing. That is just sciency sounding pseudoscientific climatological jargon.
The planet has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. No warming, no heating, no forcing, no GHE.
Not that you could even describe the non-existent GHE, could you? If you started, you would very quickly realise you were talking nonsense, and everyone with any sense would start laughing.
But keep believing, if it gives you solace.
“Increasing forcing decreases the amount of energy radiating to space.”
I take that to mean increasing the impedance provided by increasing CO2 concentration. But, even if that is potentially true, it is only one of the myriad interfaces between heat reservoirs in the system that can affect the accumulation of energy within it.
IOW, you cannot just assume that must be the explanation for any observed warming. You have to confirm it through observation. The evidence to date is at best ambiguous, and at worst, contradictory.
Entropic man says Feb.6,2019 at 6:39AM: “The natural variations are measurable and measured. They are either constant or changing in a way that would produce a slow cooling trend.”
That is not correct. Peer reviewed science shows that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m^2 to 6.8W/m^2 during the late 20th century warming. That was ~10 times greater than the alleged increase in CO2 forcing. Clear empirical evidence of natural climate forcing, not AGW.
“The assumption is, of course, that anthropogenic global warming is to blame.”
“The IPCC assume that natural forcings and natural variability have been virtually non-existent since 1950, . . .”
The relative values of the natural and anthropogenic contributions to global warming are a product of attribution studies, not an a priori assumption.
MB,
Unfortunately, the term “forcings” is climatological pseudoscientific jargon. It does not appear elsewhere in physics.
In addition, the pseudoscientists babble about the “climate system”. Climate is an average of weather. Climate is a result, not a cause.
Pseudoscientists calling themselves “climatologists” promote something they call the GHE, which apparently heats the planet in some unspecified manner. This GHE apparently only functions in direct sunlight. It refuses to be measured indoors or at night, turns itself off during solar eclipses, and cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory, or in the presence of disbelievers.
The GHE apparently lay dormant as the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years, only to be resurrected by the self proclaimed saviour of the world, James Hansen, and his acolytes, working their magic in concert.
As with any doomsday cult, as the true believers die off, so will the FUD associated with their endless declarations that unbelievers will suffer eternal torment by being roasted, boiled, fried or toasted.
As long as nobody can produce a logical description of the GHE which accords with observed fact, and then form a testable GHE hypothesis, then climatology remains pseudoscience, or Cargo Cult science (using Richard Feynman’s criteria).
There is no GHE. No CO2 heating.
Climatology is not nearly as old, nor as well respected as astrology. At least astrology served as the basis for the scientific pursuit of astronomy, whereas climatology serves as the basis for nothing at all.
Cheers.
The linked diagram above refers to temperature not “forcings” and the attribution studies are based on model simulations that are in turn based on assumptions.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . The Science and Mathematics . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . . of Earth’s Temperatures . . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Imagine a temperature model of the Earth, that can explain:
– 94% of the variation in the average temperature, of every country on Earth
– 90% of the variation in the temperature of the coldest month, of every country on Earth
– about 59% of the variation in the temperature of the hottest month, of every country on Earth
That would have to be a big, complex temperature model, wouldn’t it?
What if I told you, that the temperature model of the Earth was based on only 4 factors:
– the average latitude of the country
– the average longitude of the country
– the average elevation of the country
– the area of the country
Would you believe me?
I am sure that many people will expect my temperature model of the Earth to be very inaccurate.
You are welcome to have a look at the results of my temperature model of the Earth.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-science-and-mathematics-of-earths-temperatures
Dr Roy, Glad you picked up this subject. For Adelaide South Australia in the recent “heat wave” 46.6 degrees Celsius became the BOM “record” temperature. However on 12th January 1939 the record was 47.6 degrees Celsius. See here http://www.sahistorians.org.au/175/chronology/january/12-january-1939-heatwave.shtml
In Australia BOM records I believe are small snap shots (ie the temperature on the electronic gauges only need to be there momentarily) to achieve a new maximum. This practice is not the same elsewhere in the world.
Incidentally the urban heat island effect must be much more significantly for Adelaide now than in 1939.
So a recorded “record” temperature has now become what BOM think is a record. How can anyone have any faith in these government institutions now!
In my extensive travels around Australia, fish kills in remote places were visible enough to regard them as normal and not a sign of much more than changes to the local water chemistry. Why should you seek to tell me to be alarmed by them? Have you ever seen this type of event?
‘This is why nobody can actually explain how the GHE is supposed to operate,’
Mike-bot, with your short term selective memory, you missed it being explained to you at least 47 times.
Stop making shit up and trolling.
Nate,
And yet you still can’t actually to find the time to actually post a copy here. Repeating the same fantasy to yourself at least 47 times, doesn’t actually count. Make sure you include the observed fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last 4.5 billion years or so. How hard can it be? Maybe you need to reexamine the more than 47 explanations you have counted so far.
They wouldn’t be imaginary model explanations, would they? All different?
Having done that, you might also post a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis here.
Of course you can’t, because both exist only in your imagination.
How can I make something up if it doesn’t exist? Think about it, if you can.
Still no GHE. Increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer does not increase the temperature of the thermometer – unless your name is Hansen, Schmidt, Mann or Trenberth. Stupid, ignorant, or delusional? A combination? Who knows?
What a fool you are!
Cheers.
Mike, you’re a card carrying troll. That means any fact-based thing that people show you will be twisted, denied, and forgotten, just like the other 47 times.
Why don’t you google it yourself you lazy lying loony loser?
Begone, stupid troll.
Hi Begone, are you a friend of Salvatore?
Begone, stupid and ignorant troll!
Nice of you to sign with your real name, and your role here.
Begone, witless troll
Dear Begone, now you are being too harsh on yourself.
I think you had a couple of witty comments in the last few weeks.
Begone, troll.
Begone, that’s a good signature, short and to the point.
Begone, stupid troll.
If you say so Begone, I guess you are a bit repetitive.
Begone, persistent troll.
Yes Begone, you are a bit, aren’t you?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Hi, are you a friend of Begone?
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
But your posts seem very similar, sort of repetitive.
#3
Svante, please stop trolling.
Yeah, that’s a good example, only the number changed.
#4
Svante, please stop trolling.
I take it you are not a friend of Begone then, you just think alike?
#5
Svante, please stop trolling.
Begone said he was a persistent troll, but I think you are the winner.
#6
Svante, please stop trolling.
Yes, you are definitely more boring than Begone.
#7
Svante, please stop trolling.
“This drought may never break!” was the headlines of the Sydney Morning Herald, January 4, 2008. “Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said David Jones, Head of Climate Analysis at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. How do you leftists wipe your memories so clean? Or is it just from a lack of conscience?
Upthread, Mike Flynn referred to the word “forcing” as “climatological pseudoscientific jargon”. Probably very few of the clowns understood what he was referring to.
The so-called “forcing” comes from the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation:
ΔF=5.35ln(C/Co), where ΔF is the “forcing”, C is the current atmospheric CO2, and Co was the atmospheric CO2 before industrialization.
The first problem is the equation is NOT valid. It originated from someone’s imagination. The equation has no mathematical derivation, or empirical validation. It’s something you must BELIEVE in.
The next problem is that the equation creates energy out of nothing–a clear violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The “forcing” has units of “Watts/m^2”, which is the same as solar flux. Convenient, huh?
So the equation is representing, for current CO2 levels:
ΔF = 5.35ln(410/280) = 5.35(0.381) = 2.04 Watts/m^2
Since that 2.04 is supposed to add to solar flux (another HUGE violation of laws of physics), then the total area would be the same as for solar flux, πr^2 = 128(10)^12 square meters.
The end result is 260,000,000,000,000 Watts, which then calculates to 8.2(10)^21 Joules.
Those who would appreciate even more humor should compare the end result with world’s total electrical energy production….
JDHuffman
One small correction.
You say “2.04 is supposed to add to solar flux (another HUGE violation of laws of physics),”
This would indeed violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
In fact that 2.04W/M^2 is a reduction in the outgoing radiation. An energy imbalance is still generated, with outgoing LW radiation 2.04W/M^2 less than incoming SW radiation.
This has the same warming effect, in a way which is allowed by the laws of physics.
Em,
Pseudoscientific nonsense.
For a start, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. No energy accumulation, or even balance. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunshine (add up all the watts if you like), still resulted in cooling.
You mention incoming SW radiation (whatever that is supposed to be!). That seems unlikely at night, as the temperature falls in the absence of sunlight. If your statement was correct, the surface temperature would necessarily increase, would it not?
You cannot actually state this mysterious GHE of yours, in any way which includes reality, can you?
If you can’t, that makes you just another pseudoscientific cultist of the foolish Warmist variety.
You can’t debate a fantasy into fact. Your attempts to do so provide a bit of light relief, and so are not totally without value.
Cheers.
That’s funny, E-man.
You ignore the fact that the equaion is bogus.
You ignore the fact that solving the equation calculates to more energy than the entire World’s electrical energy production.
And then you attempt the usual twists and turns to get around LoTs.
All in the name of Institutionalized Pseudoscience!
“Not cooling” is “not cooling”. It does not imply “warming”. To increase the temperature of a system at equilibrium requires NEW energy into the system.
I always like to recommend studying thermodynamics, if you’re confused.
“You ignore the fact that the equaion is bogus.”
I think not. It has predictive power. If you use it to calculate the temperature rise since 1880 you match observation with a 25 year lag.
“You ignore the fact that solving the equation calculates to more energy than the entire Worlds electrical energy production.”
Why are you incredulous? There is no reason why the amount of energy involved in AGW should be limited to the amount we generate.
“To increase the temperature of a system at equilibrium requires NEW energy into the system.”
The “new energy” you mention is not new. It entered the atmosphere as sunlight and is accumulating because it has been prevented from leaving.
Think of your bank account. At equilibrium you put in 1000 a month and spend 1000. In the long term your bank balance stays constant. If you reduce your spending to 999 your bank account then gains 1 a month. This is not spontaneously created money, it is just money which has entered the account and not left.
Em,
Why lurch off into pointless and irrelevant analogies?
You wrote –
“The “new energy” you mention is not new. It entered the atmosphere as sunlight and is accumulating because it has been prevented from leaving.”
Absolute nonsense. No wonder you have to blather about bank accounts!
You might have noticed, at night, the temperature drops. The sunlight is leaving – not accumulating. Your assertion is complete rubbish!
And that little physical fact just happens to explain why the Earths surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of the Sun shining continuously.
No new energy. Just more climatological pseudoscience, trying to delude the gullible into believing in a GHE that you cannot even describe!
No GHE. No CO2 heating. No heat accumulation or trapping. Just silliness piled on delusion.
Think of some physics – stupid analogies don’t come close.
Cheers.
E-man, grasping for straws: “…you match observation with a 25 year lag.”
No E-man. That’s just “curve-fitting”. You will always find some way to further your belief in your beliefs. It’s called “zealotry”.
E-man says: “There is no reason why the amount of energy involved in AGW should be limited to the amount we generate.”z
E-man creates a straw man, with all his newly grasped straw.
E-man says: “It (calculated new energy from bogus equation) entered the atmosphere as sunlight and is accumulating because it has been prevented from leaving.”
It is “new”, because it was the calculation from the bogus equation, E-man. It does NOT exist in reality.
E-man, grasping at straws again: “Think of your bank account.”
E-man, your bank account analogy fools you because bank accounting is real, but your GHE is not. Try going to your bank with a bogus calculation for your balance. For example, you have a 1000 in your account for 30 days. So tell them you should have 30,000 in your account. Tell them your equation indicates a current balance is equal to the original balance times the number of days in the account. See what happens, in reality.
Dumb and dumberer.
‘You might have noticed, at night, the temperature drops. The sunlight is leaving – not accumulating. Your assertion is complete rubbish!’
I know you live in the tropics, Mike, where you have equal day and night. If the suns heat doesnt accumulate, then at dawn why arent you as cold as Antarctica?
N,
You wrote –
“If the suns heat doesnt accumulate, then at dawn why arent you as cold as Antarctica?”
Another stupid gotcha. You fools never learn.
My equally pointless response (if I was as delusional as you), could be “if the Sun’s heat does accumulate, why isn’t the South Pole as hot as the Libyan desert after six months of continuous sunlight?”
The Sun’s heat doesn’t accumulate. Over the last four and a half billion years, the Earth has cooled. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight failed to stop it.
How’s that GHE definition going, anyway? Not so well? Keep at it. Do you think you might need to consult a pseudoscientific climatological true believer for assistance with another stupid and irrelevant gotcha?
Cheers.
And, as expected you have no answer.
Seriously you dont know why the tropics are hotter than Antarctica?
I knew you were dumb, but not that dumb.
Of course the suns heat accumulates, even with night, until a warmer equilibrium is reached.
N,
What a stupid response! You pose a gotcha which you realise is pointless and irrelevant, and follow it up with an even more pointless statement, telling me that I don’t know why the tropics are hotter than Antarctica.
What has your pathetic gotcha to do with your failed attempt at mindreading?
I presume (possibly incorrectly) that you have a delusional with the rather odd proposition that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, combined with an even more bizarre idea that sunlight somehow accumulates!
You must be a fool who is convinced that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, and that Michael Mann’s claims to Nobel Laureateship are factual, rather than fantasy.
With a little more effort, you could probably aspire to the pinnacle – complete and utter foolishness.
Give it your best shot. You have my full support.
Cheers
Mike,
My point is that parts of the Earth receiving lots of sunlight have been warmed, obviously, relative to the parts that are not receiving lots of sunlight.
And with interglacial periods, the Earth has warmed in the past.
I remind that you keep stating that the Earth CANT be warmed, because its been cooling for so long!
Your premise does not agree with the available facts. Nor does your statement obey any known logic.
It is a red herring and non-sequitur.
Your logic fails provide excellent examples for students.
Nate,
Your “point” is spectacularly pointless. You have abandoned all references to the non-existent GHE. I don’t blame you.
Maybe you are unable to explain why a thermometer reacts to absorbing increased energy by becoming hotter, but I believe I can.
If you cannot understand why the decrease in temperature occurring as molten rock becomes non molten is called “cooling”, then I cannot help you. You are obviously far too stupid and ignorant to realise that a lowering of temperature is not “warming”. The Earth has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight.
You cannot increase the energy output of the Sun. You can certainly lessen the amount of energy reaching a thermometer on the surface. Clouds, hummingbirds, body parts, trees – or anything casting a shadow. A shadow is Nature’s way of pointing to where it is cooler.
How’s your definition of the GHE going? Not too well? I thought I’d give a gentle nudge, in case you had forgotten about the non-existent GHE, so beloved of pseudoscientific bumbling buffoons.
Maybe you could try the tactic of deny, divert and confuse. Or resort to trolling.
Cheers.
“You can certainly lessen the amount of energy reaching a thermometer” … at the top of the atmosphere by adding more GHGs.
Whatever is inside the atmosphere will then warm until equilibrium is restored.
Mike, I have already pointed you to the path of GHE enlightenment, just like the other 47 times. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-340872
But I see that you ignored the path as usual. And chose once again the path igorance, ad homs, and diversions.
Nate,
“Now add the fact that CO2 attenuates selectively in IR. Most strongly, in fact near the peak of out-going flows.”
I fail to see how that is anything close to a definition of GHE. But let’s assume it is. Where is the data that shows CO2 attenuation will have any affect on the average global temperatures?
BTW, are you pleased that your fellow liberal Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic presidential candidates are featuring AGW in their proposals?
Chic,
The ‘selective attenuation of IR near the peak of outgoing radiation by CO2’ is a key ingredient in the GHE.
But it is not the whole story. I know you and Mike have heard real descriptions of the GHE.
Whats the point of creating more strawmen versions of it, like Mike does?
Nate,
Your mind reading course didn’t work. Have you tried asking for a refund?
Instead of telling people what you think they know (you presumably think you can read minds), maybe you could provide a useful definition of the GHE.
Or maybe you can’t, so you pretend a GHE description actually exists. Like Trenberth’s missing heat, it is obviously a travesty that you can’t actually find it.
Have you considered adopting a foolish Warmist tactic? When anyone points out the singular lack of a GHE definition, just attempt to deny, divert and confuse. That might work, eh?
You don’t need to thank me.
Cheers.
Mike,
I gave you a sinple fact about about co2 properties, and you have yet to process it, acknowledge it, or reject it.
Deal with that, then we’ll see if you can process more.
Chic,
It works for you guys to pretend that all dems agree with the far left wing. OCA is a celebrity, but not sensible.
Are you pleased that Rep King is pushing the Repubs toward white supremacist views?
Nate,
What is your plan for dealing with global warming and how does it differ from AOC’s green new deal?
What do you know about Rep King’s views on anything? You read it in the paper? Oh.
Well, apparently King regrets what he said. Probably won’t do him any good and he won’t survive another election.
AOC, on the other hand, hasn’t walked back anything to my knowledge. She may not be sensible, but she’s quite entertaining.
AOC, not OCA, whatever. Her plan of 100% renewable in 11 years is silly, not feasible nor wise. Pelosi is correctly not bringing it up for a vote.
You guys will still try to say this is what all DEMs are for, because its all about propaganda.
I would incentivise renewables and a smart grid over 30 y, which is about how long it took to ramp up new energy sources in the past.
Incentivising renewables means that tax payers who can’t afford the renewables pay for the benefits of the richer tax payers who buy them. It’s regressive taxation.
BTW, how did investments in solar panel companies work out during the last administration?
How we tax people is a whole other discussion…
All of our energy sources, nuclear, hydro, FF, have had govt support at one time or another. Plus the R & D behind them.
Apparently, it was considered to be in the public interest to do so.
‘how did investments in solar panel companies work out during the last administration?’
I would favor support that doesnt pick winners and losers.
In New England, we have a group of states who require electric utilities to produce some renewable energy, or buy Renwable Energy Credits (RECS) from someone who does, like a homeowner with solar panels. A homeowner can sell RECS for 10 y.
There is a market for these RECS. Whoever can generate renewable energy most cheaply will do it.
The % renewable is slowly increasing. A side benefit is cleaner air.
It seems to work more or less. The cost is partly passed on to customers, but it is a tiny amount. Low income customers get price breaks.
“How we tax people is a whole other discussion”
Yes, it generally revolves around socialism and free markets. The green new deal is definately socialism and amounts to wealth redistribution. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
All(?) government programs do it to some extent. Their tax deductions and subsidies, etc. pick winners and losers.
“It seems to work more or less. The cost is partly passed on to customers, but it is a tiny amount.”
A tiny amount here, a tiny amount there, pretty soon you are talking about a $20 trillion debt. Yeah, it’s working real well. /sark off
“A tiny amount here, a tiny amount there, pretty soon you are talking about a $20 trillion debt. Yeah, its working real well. /sark off”
My state has a big budget surplus.
But, yes, a few $B for a wall here, A few hundred $B for bombers we dont need there, a few $T for unpaid-for tax cuts there, and before you know its $22 T, and growing fast.
I didnt think Trump supporters cared anymore about debt?
The constitution calls for the federal government to protect against foreign and domestic enemies. It doesn’t call for subsidies and entitlement programs. Your state being financially responsible doesn’t mean they aren’t overtaxing the rich to keep the poor dependent on government programs.
Tax cuts don’t have to be paid for. It is our money confiscated by the government. Spending has to be justified based on GDP. The answer is curtailing federal government entitlement spending and sending not mandated by the constitution.
Trump supporters care about debt, but safety and economic growth can’t be sacrificed on the alter of government largess.
You’re funny Chick.
“Tax cuts don’t have to be paid for. It is our money confiscated by the government.”
Ha!
Conservatives always believe they made their money all on their own, without any assistance from govt.
Just try to have an income and keep it and keep your health, with govt to fund
roads, airports, trains, ports, police, courts, consumers to buy your stuff, education, lack of roving bands raping and pillaging, food and drug inspectors, a stable dollar, a central bank, stable agriculture, the internet, GPS, satellites, and yes, national defense, intelligence agencies, and last but not least, support for fundamental science and R and D that made many of these things possible.
“Conservatives always believe they made their money all on their own, without any assistance from govt.”
Is this a paraphrase of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech?
The federal government has gone way beyond life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Constitutionally mandated transportation, commerce, and national defense comprise the majority of your list. Education and support for science are not constitutionally mandated.
I’m not saying taxes aren’t necessary, just dangerous in the wrong hands.
The Constitution, except when inconvenient to you guys.
It gives Congress the power of the purse. TDT is trying to take that away.
Stop funding science? Then flush our lead in tech down the drain.
Chic Bowdrie says: “Spending has to be justified based on GDP.”
I would modify that to say spending should be related to population earnings. Otherwise your service products/services rather than we the people. From the earliest federal budget (USA) to just before the new deal, the cost of services could be reasonably related to wages. This government cost, with the exception of a few peaks due to war, could be satisfied with 5 days of average wages or less.
During that time USA went from one of the smallest economies to number 1 in about 80 years (plus/minus). Free market capitalism was maximized, and eventually the USA would developed into a superpower. After the FDR new deal and world war II, our country has had a spending problem both militarily and socially.
IMO we do not need to be the world police and the masses are fairly smart and can take care of themselves for the most part. For those who do slip through the cracks, local governments and charities are more suited to meet their needs then the federal government. In fact, the federal government is very inefficient because their programs have to span every potential situation for all 50 states, whereas local government and private charities can focus on the regional/local issues at hand.
Probably the worst program is Social Security Retirement. The bureaucratic overhead is so costly the average rate of return is under 2%/yr. I think the latest average payout is at $1700/month. If the feds really cared about retirement, letting you put the 10% of your salary tax deferred that the feds take into a S&P 500 index fund instead would result in over $1.8M (in today’s dollars) in 40 years for the worst 40 years on record and for those earning the 40th percentile in wages.
bilybob,
You are absolutely correct. My only reservation is not understanding how population earnings and GDP are different. All I’m calling for is no government spending beyond expenditures. Deficit spending has become the rule rather than the exception. It will take us down eventually. I’m ambivalent about wanting to live long enough to experience it.
Until the federal government gets out of the entitlement business, there will be no diverting the trend toward going over a financial cliff. Ignorant liberal social engineers like Nate will never agree that government cannot fix social ills without creating others. I guess their beating their chests over denying us border protection while contributing to massive government overspending.
Fiscal responsibility, that sounds better than “Tax cuts don’t have to be paid for” and spending based on GDP.
Chic says “My only reservation is not understanding how population earnings and GDP are different.”
My bad, I should have said population wages. GDP is the total output of services and products, but wages are basically the employees cut of that.
I should have also added that the average wage worker currently needs to work close to 15-20 weeks to fund the federal government now. Though tax rates are such that Uncle Sam takes a bit less, thus the deficit. I get tired of hearing that we have a revenue problem when we clearly have a spending problem.
The problem with liberals is that they don’t understand that even though the rich pay the bulk of federal income taxes, the poor still pay through higher cost of goods and services.
bilybob,
OK, thanks. And I need to clarify what I mean by government spending tied to the GDP. We need a constitutional amendment that the government can’t spend more than a certain percentage of the GDP. This would be similar to linking spending to average wages.
Most liberals don’t even know the rich pay the bulk of income taxes.
The last 2 y the Rs had all 3 branches of govt. Yet the growth of deficit and Debt has only accelerated.
The last time we had a balanced budget was after tax increases in early 90s.
It seem that on all the issues we’ve been discssuing, the border ‘crisis’, the Debt, the Constitution, and climate change, you guys are driven more by ideology than facts.
Nate, the answer isn’t Republican or Democrat. The swamp, big government politicians, and liberal/progressives have to go. The fact is we have been implementing liberal and socialist ideology and we need to reign it in quick.
Start a new thread if you want any more comment from me. I’m done here.
As a percentage of GDP, fed revenue this year was 16.5%.
The average post WWII has been 18%.
This tells you that a big reason for the deficit is on the revenue side right now.
Nate says, “As a percentage of GDP, fed revenue this year was 16.5%.”
In using percentage of GDP, makes the statement that the federal government serves the economy. When you look at in terms wages, you make the statement that the federal government serves the people, or at least the worker. I prefer the latter.
Up until New Deal, an average wage worker could pay for their fair share of government with a weeks pay. Leaving the remainder for state/local which depending where you live would be another couple of weeks at most. Leaving approximately 49 weeks of pay for your own needs, charity, investment. This was fairly stable with the exception of small periods of war.
After the new deal, the great society programs, the expansion of the Military role, and the Unaffordable Care Act, the average wage worker would have to work 15 to 20 weeks just to cover their fair share of the federal government cost. The good news though is places like Greece, Portugal, Ireland failed only after exceeding 25 weeks. France is about there, if they do not clean up their act, they may be the next Country to need a German bailout.
That tells us there is a spending problem.
Again, making the case that facts dont matter, if they dont agree with your ideology.
If you have to go back to 1920s to find when govt last worked for you…kind of ignores the fact that our biggest gains in standard of living were in post WWII decades.
Nate says “Again, making the case that facts dont matter, if they dont agree with your ideology.”
Could you clarify which facts do not matter? And what is my ideology?
Nate says “If you have to go back to 1920s to find when govt last worked for you…kind of ignores the fact that our biggest gains in standard of living were in post WWII decades.”
Post WWII gains in the standard of living were brought about by advances in medicine and the post war boom. Not from a bloated government. Besides, I said it has been the cumulative result of these programs over the past 80 years. Post WWII, though worse than pre WWII in terms of fed government cost per person was still reasonable compared to today.
‘Post WWII gains in the standard of living were brought about’
by many things, including GI Bill, govt spending on science, health, military and space that led to numerous industries, free trade, the Marshall plan, and it could be argued, the family income stability that New Deal programs facilitated.
Its difficult to disentangle all its economic effects, but clearly SS has a societal benefit of keeping large numbers of seniors from being homeless.
And clearly it didnt hinder the post WWII gains in standard of living.
‘Could you clarify which facts do not matter’
The fact that I showed you a fact about tax revenue. It is currently LOWER than average for last 60 y, which means this lack of revenue is a big part of the deficit.
It is currently 16.5% of GDP. The last time the budget balanced, 1990s, it was 19% of GDP.
Since then of course, health care costs have increased dramatically, more than in other countries with national health ins.
Nate says, “Its difficult to disentangle all its economic effects, but clearly SS has a societal benefit of keeping large numbers of seniors from being homeless.
And clearly it didnt hinder the post WWII gains in standard of living.”
Good point on disentangling all the economic effects Nate, but I could argue it did hinder post WWII gains. This type of argument is difficult to prove either way. But I can go on data and past results as a clue.
During normal business cycles it is common to have recessions, there have been many. But when recessions/depression are shown to be longer with government intervention than without, is that causation? You can argue it both ways and never get agreement on it. The Republicans probably caused the market crash and FDR probably extended the recession to the great depression. The Long Depression may have been caused by Fed Governments interference with the banking system. Did Bill Clintons 1999 housing incentives related to bad mortgages create the bubble in the Early 2000’s that Bush warned and Democrats said was imagined. Result housing 2007/08 crisis, did the Unfordable Care Act result in the great recession under Obama? You see, no one can prove causation, but intelligent people can see a pattern. Government interference is not always efficient. Open minded people can see that.
Does that mean I believe the federal government has no role in our lives, of course not, the Marshall Plan, the GI bill, probably good, I heard some arguments against. I don’t have a strong feeling for them, but they were temporary and aimed to fix rare occurrences. Obviously reasonable environmental regulations, banking, postal service, are good things better suited for federal oversight.
As far as SS, even FDR said it was suppose to be temporary. Not much census data on elderly homelessness, but studies by New York and Boston were done during that time period, not much of a problem. But hey, SS was only going to be 1% to 2% of your salary, why would anyone complain about that. Now fast forward to now, 10% to retirement plan that you forfeit upon death, 3% Medicaid/Medicare and 2% disability. The interesting thing is that the 3% and 2% are actually competitive in the private market for similar insurance. But that may explain why they may run out of funds and will eventually have to raise the tax rates. The 10% of retirement is a joke, I can get a better return in a money market. And without yet another tax increase, benefits will most likely be cut. As if the current benefit was much to begin with.
Nate Says “The fact that I showed you a fact about tax revenue. It is currently LOWER than average for last 60 y, which means this lack of revenue is a big part of the deficit.”
Actually Nate, I did acknowledge that fact and addressed it directly. So not sure why you say I ignored it. Just because it is a fact, does not make it necessary a good metric to use. To repeat, basing the federal budget on GDP puts focus on serving the economy and not necessarily to the needs of the people. Basing the budget on personal income/wages or even per capita, is people focused.
Tell me the logical nexus to use GDP. Is not the fed government all about protecting the rights of people? Settling disputes among states, treaties, national security? How is that related to GDP, other than trying to maximize the federal government. I will give you this bone, the military could use GDP since it not only protects the people of the nation but its wealth, maybe a stretch though.
GDP vs. wages:
1) GDP = Private Consumption + Investment Expenditure + Government Expenditures + Net Exports
2) GNP = GDP + Net Income from Abroad
3) GNP = Wages + Interest Income + Rental Income + Profit
So you want to exclude return on capital and income from abroad. That’s very roughly half the total, and trending down.
Svante says “So you want to exclude return on capital and income from abroad. That’s very roughly half the total, and trending down.”
In determining budgets a metric needs to be selected that has a rational nexus to the services/products delivered. Thus your question should not be why exclude… but why include… Governments should serve people and not corporate interests or special interest groups. The Federal Budget should be a function of population size and/or the populations ability to pay (their wages) for these services. Ultimately, it is the people who have to pay for government, either directly from various forms of taxation or indirectly in the cost/products they purchase which include a tax component cost in their price.
Deciding on the budget involves a thousand trade offs.
Tying the size to wages is rather simplistic.
Why not cut it further when everyone can support themselves, criminals have come to their senses, and there is peace on earth. Or double it in the opposite case, like in WWII.
Those are very good points Svante.
My point is related to the rational nexus in determining the appropriate level of a budget to serve people. Using percent of wages is very simple, as simple as using percent of GDP. But given federal government is there to protect our civil rights, provide banking, postal service and military to protect us, why would the budget be a function of GDP and not population? And better yet, make it a function of wages, because you now include inflation (assuming wages/inflation are similar). Now I have a government who is interested in setting policy that will raises wages rather a government interested in raising GDP.
Yes, politics is too much about spending, not enough about creating wealth.
Bilybob,
Unless you have the data to show, using something other than GDP in the denominator is a distraction, a red herring.
Do you have data to show?
If not, GDP will have to do.
I see you are confused on this discussion. You are probably someone who determines his grocery budget for your home based on the homes value instead of the number of people who live in it. So be it.
Do I have data the shows using GDP make sense. If I find it, you will be the first I show, and I will admit I was wrong.
Do you offer data for revenue divided by your preferred parameter?
I did this analysis on expenses, not revenues. That is why there are peaks during war periods. These were generally debt financed and paid back over time. I did the study a few years back and will unarchive it. Probably sometime tomorrow. I may have the revenue data as well, if memory serves, I put together both so I could look at historic deficits.
What you will see, if you upload the data into Excel and chart it, is number of days the average wage worker would need to work to pay for the federal budget. It is fairly consistent at about 5 days with the exception of the wars up until the “New Deal”.
Afterward, the federal budget grew faster than wages, thus you will see it go up to several weeks by today.
Bilybob
SS witholding is 6.2% not 10%. It went up, in part because people are living longer after retirement.
It apparently hasnt gone up lately though life expectancy has.
In 1935, life expectancy was 65, now it is 79. And the median age at death is 86.
Actually Nate, SS withholding is 12.4% of your salary, I was simply rounding down. 6.2% of deducted from your gross salary and 6.2% of your salary comes directly from your employer. There is an annual maximum. If you are self-employed you pay the full 12.4%. Either way, the employer performs the actual 12.4% transaction to the SS Administration.
The amount in 1935 was in the 1% to 2% range. The rate of return given current benefits is below 2%/yr if you live to 86. Your benefit is a function of the contributions you made and if you die I believe you estate will get $500. There is survivor benefits for your spouse if still alive, which is adjusted based on their own benefit. Children over a certain age don’t get anything.
Its a lousy program, unfortunately we are in debt to those who are about to retire or have retired. It would probably take 40 years to undo the damage the democrats have done the past 80 years. A better program would have been to have employers pay the 12.4% into a 401k equivalent and allow a pool of government selected investments. The interest/dividend earning alone would be higher the SS benefit, and what you did not use could be given to your heir or to your choice of charities.
BB, what you seem to be talking about now is how SS is managed. Ok. I dont have a problem with tinkering with that.
Me neither, the chain letter principle is no good with an aging population.
@JDH,
That Arrhenius equation is false yet it is still widely quoted by people who should know better.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/
For example our respected host and Richard Lindzen both talk about “Climate Sensitivity” in terms of degrees per doubling of CO2. Yet it should be obvious to all that the Arrhenius equation can’t be fixed by replacing 5.35 degrees/doubling with some other number.
What about the effect of 115 “Halvings” that would drop Earth’s temperature below absolute zero?
Interesting discussion. One of these days, I should look into the Arrhenius equations, but there is so little time, and I have other portents that tell me it is not applicable to the Earth’s climate in its present state.
I note in your back and forth with Appell, he often resorts to the old “you can’t explain this without…”. He seems to think that offering an explanation means he has offered the explanation.
gc,
Nobody can even define the GHE. It is a bit silly for people claiming a testable GHE hypothesis for something that is unspecified.
There is no such thing as “climate sensitivity”. Climate is the average of weather, no more no less.
Pseudoscience is often characterised by confusing jargon. This is amply demonstrated by the pseudoscience of climatology. Nothing testable, just fanatics and their strident assertions.
Your point about “halving” is a good one. Should removing all CO2 from a roomful of ordinary air at 20 C, reduce the temperature? It seems not to, but the foolish Warmists claim that increasing the amount will miraculously raise the temperature!
Maybe the definition of the GHE requires the presence of direct sunlight, but nobody can find the definition, so who would know?
The GHE is complete and utter nonsense. So is climate sensitivity. Just more pseudoscientific misdirection.
Cheers.
The temperature in Australia with a clear sky in January can be very high.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/ase19_prd.gif
The area of the ocean south of Australia was cool in January, causing no precipitation in the south, also in Tasmania.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim_2mfull.html
In connection with the neutral SOI, rainfall expand south in eastern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Bart wrote –
“Nobody disputes that temperatures have warmed around the globe in the past half century, Ross. The question is, why?”
An excellent question. The following paper might provide an answer. As far as I know, the researchers set out to confirm the consensus that CO2 caused heating, but, in essence, found that heat causes heating.
This seems to be more likely, to me.
“From urban to national heat island: The effect of anthropogenic heat output on climate change in high population industrial countries
The project presented here sought to determine whether changes in anthropogenic thermal emission can have a measurable effect on temperature at the national level, taking Japan and Great Britain as type examples. Using energy consumption as a proxy for thermal emission, strong correlations (mean r2 = 0.90 and 0.89, respectively) are found between national equivalent heat output (HO) and temperature above background levels Δt averaged over 5‐ to 8‐yr periods between 1965 and 2013, as opposed to weaker correlations for CMIP5 model temperatures above background levels Δmt (mean r2 = 0.52 and 0.10). It is clear that the fluctuations in Δt are better explained by energy consumption than by present climate models, and that energy consumption can contribute to climate change at the national level on these timescales.”
Sorry, it took me a little while to find the paper.
Cheers.
Dan Pangburn’s view makes the most sense-increased level of water vapor. But, the better question is what has made temperatures cyclic around the globe for the last several million years? Probably mostly the same thing that is making it cyclic today.
Stephen P Anderson,
Given the overall cooling of the Earth for four and a half billion years, I wonder if there is any way of establishing whether any sustained global heating has taken place.
The whole Earth system appears to be chaotic, which might cause periods of much higher global cloud cover, as an example. It is easy to demonstrate that blocking the sunlight results in lower temperature. However, if the clouds subsequently go away, then the returning to the normal global cooling regime will actually be seen as increasing global temperatures.
True, but eminently misleading.
Even as the natural cooling of the Earth takes place, there is nothing to stop heat rearrangement in various parts of the globe. Antarctica is presently frozen, but as the continent moves, and the chaotic system operates, might it warm a bit, as heat is relocated?
Not sure about other cycles.
This sort of rearrangement seems to take place beneath the crust – hot spots come and go in the mantle, continents move here and there, mountains rise and fall, and so on.
If it looks as though it’s about to rain, take an umbrella. That is about as good a way of predicting the future as any.
Oh well – to each his own
Cheers.
Let’s not forget the Milankovitch Cycle. Can’t leave that one out.
SPA,
What leads you to think I am unaware of Milankovitch cycles (amongst others), or have forgotten them?
Are you disagreeing with something I wrote?
Maybe you could quote me, and tell me why you believe I am in error?
Cheers.
No, it’s just that I thought I’d throw in the ole Milankovitch Cycle. Alarmists like to bring that up if they don’t have an answer. Like when you ask them why did CO2 follow temperature for 4 billion years but now it doesn’t? Oh, I don’t know, the Milankovitch Cycle.
P.S.-It was rhetorical.
SPA,
Apologies. My rhetoricalism detector obviously needed realignment.
Must have been affected by the Milankovitch cycle. What can I say?
Cheers.
Boy, that Summer of 1213 was a hot one! We only have 1 second of data. Every one settle down and we’ll reconvene in 10000 years and sift through all the info. See you then.
The area of Australia is only 1.5% of the area of the planet so its temperature change would need to be averaged with the temperature changes of the 66 other equal areas to determine the global average climate change which, for January is about 0.01 K. The fluctuation of reported average global temperatures has an effective standard deviation of about 0.09 K.
Time for a real expert’s comments:
2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend, said Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasas Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The impacts of long-term global warming are already being felt in coastal flooding, heatwaves, intense precipitation and ecosystem change.
Schmidt said that 2018 was quite clearly the fourth warmest year on record and it was probably warmer than many hundreds of years before that.
He added he was very concerned with what is going on in the Arctic, which is heating up at around double the rate of the global average. Average extent of sea ice in the Arctic was the second smallest on record in 2018.”
Let me guess the (usual) responses to this
– NASA fudged the data
– Schmidt is not an expert
– it was due to the heat island effect
– it is due to natural variability
– it is due to (mysterious) solar cycles
– CO2 is good for us
– warming is good for us
– yada yada
Myki,
This would be the Gavin Schmidt who is an undistinguished mathematician, but who claims to be a climate scientist, I presume?
The same one who declared 2014 to be the “hottest year EVAH!”, albeit with a probability of 0.38 (38%), – almost twice as likely NOT to be the hottest year ever?
An actual Nobel Prize winning scientist, Richard Feynman, said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly.”
In any case, if 2014 was the fourth warmest year, then it is cooler than at least three years which were hotter! How much longer will this cooling trend continue, do you think?
If your intent is to appeal to the authority of a bearded balding bumbling buffoon, you may have succeeded, although I cannot understand why you go to such lengths to appear ludicrously stupid and ignorant.
I presume “yada yada” is Trollish for “Gee I’m stupid”, or some other troll declaration of personal foolishness.
Carry on. You may recover, given time.
Cheers.
Hook line and sinker !!!
Begone, foolish troll!
Too bad you don’t understand what Schmidt meant with the 38%.
Just too bad.
Begone, stupid troll.
bob d …”Too bad you dont understand what Schmidt meant with the 38%.”
We understand him very clearly, he claimed there is a 62% chance he is lying.
Let me explain it for you Gordon.
It means there were other years where the uncertainty in the measurement meant there was a possibility that other years were warmer.
Since there was more than one of those, it turns out that the 38% chance for 2014 was the most probable, as the probability for other years was less than 38%.
bobdroege,
38% probability of hottest year, means 62% probability it wasn’t.
Another pseudoscientific climatological redefinition in order, perhaps?
From the IPCC working group, technical summary –
“About as likely as not” means 33 to 66 percent”
Maybe Gavin Schmidt hasn’t heard of the IPCC? Or maybe thinks they don’t possess the understanding that you claim to.
You seem to be part of a consensus of one, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Cheers.
bobd…”Since there was more than one of those, it turns out that the 38% chance for 2014 was the most probable, as the probability for other years was less than 38%”.
What you are saying in effect is that alarmist climate science is totally unreliable.
It’s not just climate science, all science has to deal with uncertainty in their measurements.
It just means that in this instance there were several years that were close to the warmest.
And that these scientists were being more truthful in acknowledging that the value of the uncertainty in their measurements can affect the ranking of the most warmest years.
Three temperature measurements
92.3 +/- 0.5
92.7 +/- 0.6
92.4 +/- 0.4
Which one is the highest
b,
Use a thermometer which provides a temperature to the accuracy you require, and you won’t need to pose stupid gotchas, will you?
Why do you want to measure temperature?
Do you need accuracy for a particular reason?
Why are you asking a pointless and irrelevant gotcha?
Cheers.
Mike it’s not a gothca if you could answer the question correctly.
Apparently you failed the simple test.
The correct answer being that each measurement has a specific probability of being the highest.
Ask Gavin to clarify if you still persist in misunderstanding.
bobdroege,
Don’t be stupid. You wrote –
“Which one is the highest”. A clear attempt at a gotcha. Now you say the correct answer involves probability. Who knew?
A gotcha. You asked a question to which you claimed to know the answer in advance, but had to redefine the wuestion after it was asked.
What a fool you are!
Telling me to ask a fool who declared 0.38 probability as representing “near certainty” to back you up, makes me wonder whether you are more stupid than he, or vice versa.
If you wish to look wise and knowledgeable, rather than stupid and ignorant, choose your Warmist gotchas with more care. If you must appeal to authority, choose a real authority, rather than a demonstrably incompetent one.
Cheers.
“Schmidt said that 2018 was quite clearly the fourth warmest year on record and it was probably warmer than many hundreds of years before that …”.
Good news indeed, after a threatened continuation of the LIA, about the coldest period in the past 8,000 years, the GAT may return to at least the long-term Holocene average.
Dismissing the “usual responses” without explaining what you think is wrong with them is the argumentative fallacy ‘non causae ut causae’ or treating as proof what is not proved.
‘linea circulum sinker’
Another denialist fish !
Begone, troll!
Hard to believe, but would the media report incorrectly?
“Schmidt said that 2018 was quite clearly the fourth warmest year on record and it was probably warmer than many hundreds of years before that.”
Presumably he means the “record” since 1910, since Australia affected the figures, and bearing in mind that the BOM does not warrant the accuracy of its records except to say that pre – 1938 temperature records are 10 times less reliable in any case.
The “probably warmer” than “many hundreds of years” sounds like pseudoscientific waffle, sounding sciency, but completely devoid of useful information.
This guy actually gets paid to spout this sort of pointless nonsense?
No doubt the climatological pseudoscientific universe is unfolding as it should.
Cheers.
Twice !! With the same bait !
Begone, stupid and ignorant troll!
A troll who thinks The Day After Tomorrow and Geostorm were documentaries.
“When someone points to this & says this is the warmest temp. on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense..This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over 100ths of a degree when it is uncertain in 10ths of a degree”
– Dr. Richard Lindzen
B,
Or in the case of the Australian BOM, plus or minus 0.5 C, hopefully, but no guarantees!
Cheers.
Bart…a comment from Schrodinger in the same vein I thought you might enjoy…
“We never experiment with just one electron or atom or (small) molecule. In thought experiments we sometimes assume that we do, this invariably entails ridiculous consequences In the first place it is fair to state that we are not experimenting with single particles any more that we can raise Ich.thy.osa.uria in the zoo
Sorry about the dots in Ichy…the WordPress censor did not like something.
Gordon,
Amongst other things, a Geiger counter counts single photons.
Practical, useful, available.
Not particularly sensitive. There are much more versatile single photon detectors and counters around.
If it works, I believe it.
Cheers.
mickey…”Schmidt said that 2018 was quite clearly the fourth warmest year on record”
Schmidt is a mathematician who programs climate models and a wannabee atmospheric physicist.
Among his claims to fame are:
1)He avoided a one to one debate with Richard Lindzen, a real atmospheric physicist.
2)He runs, on the side, one of the main climate alarmist sites on the Net, realclimate, with his good buddy Michael Mann. Anyone who does not preach the party alarmist line is banned from their site.
3)When Mann was revealed on Climategate as author of The Trick, a statistical device to hide declining temperatures in a series, his good buddy, Schmidt, came to his defense on realclimate, claiming the trick was a harmless schoolboy prank.
4)Engineer Jeffrey Glassman exposed Schmidt’s understanding of positive feedback. In fact, he revealed that Schmidt has no idea what it is. That does not stop Schmidt programming his climate models with a non-existent positive feedback, without which, models would be projecting little or no future warming.
Did not the drought destroy the Mayan civilization? During the course of La Nina, California suffers from drought. Weather is governed by air circulation. Air circulation depends on geomagnetic activity, which changes over longer periods.
This year, drought is not threatening in a larger area of Australia.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00979/l96sownurrps.png
In January, large cooling is visible over the Mediterranean.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/201901_map.png
The Arctic air reaches northern Texas.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/78sbd2nw251y.png
Mike Flynn
Summary data on the graph here.
“I wonder if you would mind specifying the source of the additional heat causing temperatures to rise?”
Certainly. It is coming from the Sun. It enters the atmosphere as sunlight ( shortwave radiation ).
Increasing forcing decreases the amount of energy radiating to space.The difference between incoming and outgoing energy accumulates, warming the planet.
“Increasing forcing decreases the amount of energy radiating to space.”
E-man, there is NO “forcing”. You have deceived yourself. Consequently, there is NO reduction in the amount of energy radiated to space. The only way to reduce emission to space would be to cool the planet.
“The difference between incoming and outgoing energy accumulates, warming the planet.”
E-man, you have no clue. You don’t even know what the outgoing energy is. The current “energy budget” is terribly flawed.
Em,
Don’t be silly.
The planet managed to cool for four and a half billion years. No energy accumulation there.
The surface cools at night. No energy accumulation there.
During a total solar eclipse, the temperature drops very quickly. No energy accumulation there.
If you are gullible enough to believe fantasy rather than fact, you would make a perfect candidate for the pseudoscientific climatological cult.
It helps if you are a bearded balding bumbling buffoon, particularly if you are delusional.
No GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
I’m really wondering about these very high anomalies computed by the BoM over Southwestern Australia.
If we look at Nick Stokes’ integration of his GHCN V3 processing with the sea surface record ERSST:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2019/02/map.png
we see higher anomalies (above the mean of 1951-1980) for example in Eastern Siberia or Central Asia than in Australia.
*
And when we look at GHCN daily’s 30 highest absolute temperatures in Australia since 1880, we see this:
ASN00054038 2019 01 19 56.1
ASN00076077 1906 01 07 50.7
ASN00017043 1960 01 02 50.7
ASN00005008 1998 02 19 50.5
ASN00017043 1960 01 03 50.3
ASN00076077 1906 01 06 50.1
ASN00078077 2018 01 19 50.0
ASN00011008 1979 01 03 49.8
ASN00011004 1979 01 13 49.8
ASN00006072 1998 02 21 49.8
ASN00048013 1903 01 04 49.7
ASN00048013 1878 01 13 49.7
ASN00074128 1878 01 12 49.6
ASN00017123 2013 01 12 49.6
ASN00038002 1972 12 24 49.5
ASN00076077 1906 01 24 49.4
ASN00076077 1904 12 31 49.4
ASN00074128 1863 01 05 49.4
ASN00018103 1960 01 02 49.4
ASN00017031 1960 01 02 49.4
ASN00011016 1971 01 07 49.4
ASN00006072 1998 02 16 49.4
ASN00004035 2011 12 21 49.4
ASN00018044 1939 01 09 49.3
ASN00017123 2014 01 02 49.3
ASN00004106 2018 12 27 49.3
ASN00052026 1903 01 03 49.2
ASN00048013 1878 01 19 49.2
ASN00017043 1960 01 01 49.2
ASN00006072 2014 01 10 49.2
Only one of the 30 belongs to Jan 2019, and only 7 to the years after 2000.
Thus, even if they have harsh consequences (drought, fires, death, diseases), these absolute values for 2019 cannot be so unusual compared with those collected since 1880.
*
But if we new have a closer look at GHCN daily’s monthly anomaly means for some 300 stations – with a good repartition all over Australia – and sort them, we obtain the following top 30 (until 2018):
2015 10 1.62
2009 11 1.47
2013 09 1.44
2005 04 1.44
2016 04 1.41
2007 05 1.41
1883 12 1.40
2018 04 1.39
2018 12 1.39
2009 08 1.38
2016 03 1.35
1983 02 1.34
2016 05 1.33
1991 06 1.30
1915 02 1.30
1957 06 1.29
2017 03 1.28
1888 11 1.27
1915 07 1.23
2015 11 1.22
1914 11 1.22
1988 10 1.20
1962 06 1.20
1996 06 1.16
2016 06 1.12
1921 06 1.12
1958 05 1.10
2013 01 1.08
1883 06 1.07
1914 12 1.05
and the 30 lowest anomalies are as follows:
1880 06 -1.98
1901 07 -2.00
1891 02 -2.00
1888 03 -2.00
1896 06 -2.01
1881 10 -2.01
1904 06 -2.05
1894 07 -2.05
1969 09 -2.09
1917 05 -2.09
1892 04 -2.10
1913 05 -2.11
1917 02 -2.13
1880 10 -2.15
1880 07 -2.19
1960 05 -2.20
1896 08 -2.23
1887 05 -2.30
1896 07 -2.32
1881 06 -2.33
1908 06 -2.37
1892 09 -2.41
1899 07 -2.42
1894 05 -2.47
1892 12 -2.52
1894 09 -2.65
1895 07 -2.70
1905 09 -2.74
1905 10 -2.92
1898 05 -3.07
What we might deduce out of that is what many commenters say: the warming we experience is less a consequence of an increase of the maxima than of an increase of the minima.
Good Afternoon/Evening Bindindon,
Is GCHN ASN00054038 for Narrabri Airport?. BOM lists Narrabri as 54038, I think they are the same, but I could be wrong. BOM lists that day at 42.5C. Could be a data entry error or the ID’s for GCHN are different. I tried searching the news for the all-time high for Australia and came up with Oodnadatta, which you do have listed at 50.7 (tied for second on your list). I have my doubts on the 56.1C, that should have made headlines.
Bindindon,
Regardless, as I am one of those who say the average temperature increase is driven by increases in the minima, I do appreciate your analysis. The 56.1C seems a bit high given the tight cluster of high temperatures around 50C plus/minus.
Welcome bilybob!
I did not add the station names, as the focus was on temperatures.
You are right: it is
ASN00054038 -30.3154 149.8302 229.0 NARRABRI AIRPORT AWS
You easily find them with a download of
https://tinyurl.com/ydbymtp6
Indeed, the 56.1C are quite high compared with the other stations. Narrabi had a peak at 42.5 C three days before, visible in its ‘dly’ file.
GHCN daily is no really official dataset! But such errors in the daily records have no influence on the monthly averages, they account for at best +- 0.001 C for the Globe.
The increase of minima as ‘warming motor’ is worldwide known inbetween, a nice pic was made by Clive Best in one of his head posts about GHCN daily:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8464
B,
I hadn’t come across “warming motor” before. Is the motor driven by CO2, or just another example of the jargon used by pseudoscientific climatologists to avoid facing reality?
Cheers.
Why do you reply all the time with such dumb blah blah?
Begone, you foolish troll!
Begone, witless troll.
Thanks Bindindon,
That last graph for Clive probably shows best how I view how temperature has changed over time.
An interesting study would be to compare hourly temperatures for a sample of sites (that had hourly temperatures) over time. Do you know if the data goes back 50 years? A lot of data crunching but I would expect the daily curve would shift to a negative skew and negative kurtosis. However, in higher latitudes, the kurtosis may actually go positive. Not sure though. Might make a great paper Dr. Spencer.
If true, it would reinforce the impacts of GHG’s, at least from my perspective/understanding of how they work.
bilybob
“An interesting study would be to compare hourly temperatures for a sample of sites (that had hourly temperatures) over time. Do you know if the data goes back 50 years?”
I’m sorry, bilybob… I do not know of such hourly data.
Anyway, to process it, you would need a supercomputer.
Processing all 36000 GHCN daily stations (about 15 GB) takes 20 mins on a 6GB/3GHz guy.
Imagine that data multiplied by 24…
I think a sample size of 100 would be sufficient. My thought was more to see if the temperature curve changed over time. That would be 24X365X10 (decadal average) for 5 decades or about 500k data points per site if they existed or about 50Million overall. I think my I7 could handle that. Get 10 sites per 10 degrees of latitude, drop it down as you get into the higher latitudes. Anyway, I do prefer looking at changes for particular sites of time rather than analyzing global anomaly averages.
Bindindon,
The USA started a program in 2000. Only Ashville North Carolina goes back that far, but they added sites each year. Overall, there are now over 100 sites. Not sure if 18 years of data an one site would be sufficient to draw any conclusions, but still think it would be interested.
If I get time, will try to do something with it.
bilybob….”Im really wondering about these very high anomalies computed by the BoM over Southwestern Australia.”
Take a look at the baseline, it’s now 1950 – 1980 whereas it used to be 1950 – 1990. They are using two of the coldest recent decades, 1950 and 1960 and they used to offset it somewhat using the warmer decades of 1970 – 1990. Having dropped the 1980 – 1990 decade the anomalies are bound to be greater.
It’s blatant cheating through statistical manipulation.
Yes, the anomaly can be modified by changing the baseline. But that would also mean older data would be using the lower baseline, so the line/curve would look the same, just higher. The resulting increases/decreases over time should be the same.
I am not a big fan of use of anomalies. I understand the strengths in able to compare different sites, but not sure if they consider the deviation of the data. So a 10 degree anomaly in Canada would probably fall within a normal curve of its temperature history, whereas at the equator that anomaly might fall outside 2 standard deviations. Just an example, don’t know what the deviations are, but I do know temperature is more variable as you move to the higher latitudes.
As far as temperature data sets, I prefer to work with the min and max data. But even with those, I see obvious errors from time to time. Don’t have a lot of experience with BOM, played with Alice Springs to try to figure out why GISS adjusted historic data lower by 2C. The BOM data does not support that adjustment and it wipes out the 1890 temperature extremes.
bilybob
“Yes, the anomaly can be modified by changing the baseline. But that would also mean older data would be using the lower baseline, so the line/curve would look the same, just higher. The resulting increases/decreases over time should be the same.”
Exactly. There are small differences dur to the fact that not all stations have data for an entiire reference period. Thus the station sets used to construct anomalies out of absolute data for different reference periods (e.g. 1951-1980, 1971-2000, 1981-2010…) may differ slightly.
*
“I am not a big fan of use of anomalies. I understand the strengths in able to compare different sites, but not sure if they consider the deviation of the data. So a 10 degree anomaly in Canada would probably fall within a normal curve of its temperature history, whereas at the equator that anomaly might fall outside 2 standard deviations. Just an example, dont know what the deviations are, but I do know temperature is more variable as you move to the higher latitudes.”
That is the reason why anomalies are computed station by station, grid cell by grid cell, and last not least latitude band by latitude band (because you must perform latitude weighting before averaging into a day, a month or a year).
Nobody would mix today stations located at different altitudes, or having rural vs. urban character, before constructing anomalies out of their absolute temperatures, let alone would anybody mix station data from Canada with that coming from the Tropics!
Jesus… Only people like Robertson deliberately ignore that.
You shouldn’t.
Bindindon,
If you could link me to a document that shows they look at the statistic variation of temperature in determining a global anomaly that would be great. My understanding is that latitude banding is not adjusted for variation, but rather just on area differences. But then again, I don’t like using anomaly data, so I don’t do much research on the methodology. To me, a global average has very little value.
My preference to use station to station analysis on absolute temperature data. It gives a better apples to apples analysis over time, though it is limited to that site.
binny….”Only people like Robertson deliberately ignore that.
You shouldn’t”.
Anomalies give the cheaters at NOAA and GISS a means of manipulating the data to show warming where no warming exists.
In science, we use real data and weighting is not normally a requirement. In the case of UAH data acquired from AMSU units, weighting is required to compare the reception of different receivers centred at different frequencies (AMSU receiver channels).
That is, adjacent channels receive different degrees of the same microwave frequency emitted by oxygen molecules. Since the frequency is related to the temperature and the altitude, weighting is required to ascertain how much of the same frequency is in each channel.
With surface thermometers there is an entirely different problem. There are not enough thermometers to cover the entire planet at a low enough resolution to be meaningful. Therefore, NOAA and GISS synthesize temperatures from adjacent thermometer stations that may be up to 1200 kilometres apart.
Here is BC, Canada, where temperatures can vary over a 40 degree range within 150 miles, that is hardly an efficient means of collecting temperatures. So, NOAA and GISS do even more fudging.
The basic problem with anomalies is determining the baseline. If the baselines are nor representative, the anomalies are so much garbage, as is being proved in this article by BOM and GISS.
IF NOAA has a century of data, why is it using such a narrow baseline that is not representative of all the data? At least, UAH’s baseline is well represented within the range of the data. There’s only one reason NOAA does that, to emphasize warming.
Then you have clowns like binny. who works with fudged data while denying it is fudged. When both NOAA and GISS admit to dropping confidence levels to 38% and 48%, altering baselines to favour warming, chopping surface stations by 75% then fudging the missing temperatures in a climate model, and he believes them, then I feel justified in calling him a clown and an idiot, especially when his results show UAH and NOAA neck in neck in comparison.
Only a myopic alarmist could possibly produce such drivel.
bilybob
“If you could link me to a document that shows they look at the statistic variation of temperature in determining a global anomaly that would be great. ”
Could you expand this somewhat? What exactly do you mean with “look at the statistic variation of temperature” ?
It is somewhat cryptic…
” My understanding is that latitude banding is not adjusted for variation, but rather just on area differences.”
Latitude weighting is of course an area based correction.
“My preference to use station to station analysis on absolute temperature data. It gives a better apples to apples analysis over time, though it is limited to that site.”
Of course!
And by not accepting anomalies, you automatically miss the possiblility to compare highly differing absolute data, e.g. surface vs. troposphere, or troposphere vs. stratosphere, etc etc.
Look at the grap below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_ecu50TZYPYfr57XIWZ_rcu9p2trm2hy/view
and try to imagine yourself comparing the two time series using absolute data!
Good night from Germany at UTC+1 i.e. 03 AM, time to go to bed.
Robertson
“IF NOAA has a century of data, why is it using such a narrow baseline that is not representative of all the data?”
It is no more than a tiny detail, but it perfectly shows the level of your mix of ignorance and arrogance.
Simply because NOAA’s former reference period was…
1901-2000
It cost them a lot of work to move to WMO’s previous recommendation (1971-2000).
And like all others, Robertson genius, they will move toward… 1981-2010. Because it is WMO’s actual recommendation…
Your ignorance is so terrifiying.
Bindindon says “And by not accepting anomalies, you automatically miss the possiblility to compare highly differing absolute data, e.g. surface vs. troposphere, or troposphere vs. stratosphere, etc etc.”
This is a very good point. But to clarify, it is not that I don’t accept anomaly analysis, it has it strengths. It also has its weaknesses. I simply do not find it useful. As an example, back in December you provided some graphs for Norway.
1. 1900-2018, absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xX7y5w52v4oS83CESOC8Yls5NXbHYGOl/view
2. 1900-2018, anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dbu5MrQqDkhFg1LHzN6Qnrof2Nxdurbi/view
Tell me your impression of the temperature change from 1900 to present in Norway using absolute vs. anomalies and you will begin to understand. The absolute data shows maybe a 0.5C difference but using anomaly you would think Norway is 3C warmer.
Yes. I think folks on both the skeptical and the alarmist side are saying that increased minima is responsible for the bulk of warming that we have observed. Alarmists maintain that such an observation can be explained by GHE theory, and skeptics maintain that such an observation can be explained by urban heat island effect. The skeptics explanation is more intuitive, but that fact does not mean that the alarmists are wrong.
While both camps are saying that winters are more mild now (compared to 40 to 50 years ago), skeptics also point out that summers are more mild. Alarmists disagree, but in my neck of the woods, summers are definitely more mild. The number of days above 100 are way down, and days over above 90 have also had a considerable drop in numbers.
An Inquirer says “Alarmists maintain that such an observation can be explained by GHE theory, and skeptics maintain that such an observation can be explained by urban heat island effect.”
It may also be possible that both are correct, or at least partially. The urban heat island effect may impact data that to show a higher increase in average temperatures. But that would not explain rural areas.
But to expand on the minima vs. maxima temperature data, Mike Flynn says downstream…
“As an example, maximum surface temperature on the Moon, after the same exposure time, is around 127 C. On the Earth, no more than 90 C. It seems that the atmosphere results in lower maximum temperatures.”
I would expand on Mikes comment that on Earth the hottest temperatures are found with the lowest GHG,s. I have read that the maximum air temperature possible is in the 50 – 60C range (Sorry no link to source, but know it was a geographer). This would have to be a low GHG area, dry/no clouds, no auto emissions, summer day. Adding GHG’s lowers this number and moving to higher latitudes lowers this maximum number due to the sunlight angle.
We are now near conditions similar to 115,000 years ago where the Sea Level was significantly higher. We should be asking if that extra CO2 in the atmosphere has kept the Antarctic Ice from melting and raising the sea level or if there are other factors involved.
Soon, the stratospheric intrusion will hit over the Great Lakes again.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/dbdvuavzbgtf.png
ren…”Soon, the stratospheric intrusion will hit over the Great Lakes again”.
ren…it seems the stratosphere is not a nice place to live.
For bilybob, just for fun
A little pic comparing anomaly time series for Australia, out of
– UAH 6.0 AUS
– GHCN V3
– GHCN daily
https://tinyurl.com/y7doezps
(this d…ed Google Drive really managed to create a file name sequence containing ‘d c’)
Sources as always.
B,
Are you seriously depending on temperatures supplied by the BOM?
Have you read and understood the BOM disclaimer as to the accuracy, reliability, or quality of the records?
Acceptable for pseudoscientific climatological types, I suppose. These people would even accept maxima and minima from thermometers which are uncalibrated, and whose accuracy is assumed, not checked.
Carry on. Maybe you are convinced you can predict the unknowable future by relentlessly reanalysing the uncertain past. Good luck with that – I believe it to be impossible, but feel free to prove me wrong.
What prediction about the future can you make, that I cannot make myself? None? What is the point of your furious pencil twiddling then?
You might as well use your time doing word puzzles. You will probably learn more.
Cheers.
Flynn
You are exactly as ignorant and pretentious as is your adlatus Robertson.
No problem for me.
Begone, you foolish troll!
Ha ha ha…
Begone, troll.
binny…A little pic comparing anomaly time series for Australia, out of….”
You are not only a layman, as admitted, you have absolutely no idea of how to analyze data.
“You are not only a layman, as admitted, you have absolutely no idea of how to analyze data.”
Ha ha ha ha!
I try to imagine what spurious nonsense you would produce instead, but that bypasses my fantasy by dimensions.
Poor Robertson: confuse, divert, discredit, denigrate and lie.
That’s all you were ever able to do… and you will never stop doing.
Begone, rambling troll.
Roy…”The BOM announcement mentions record no less than 28 times but nowhere (that I can find) in the report does it say just how long the historical record is. My understanding is that it is since 1910. So, of course, we have no idea what previous centuries might have shown for unusually hot summers”.
Great point, Roy. I watched a video recently in which the author pointed out that many alarmists claims are based from 1960 onward. He claimed 1934 and 1936 were the hottest years in the US by far. The 30s era had the longest stretch of heat waves in US history, by far.
He went so far as to claim the temperature peaks were 10 degrees hotter in the 1930s than today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
Long, but worth the viewing…by an expert in data analysis and quality control.
@Mike Flynn,
“Nobody can even define the GHE.”
You may be right but my understanding is that the GHE is the temperature change that can be attributed to a world’s atmosphere.
If you accept that idea, one needs to compare the temperature of a body with the same body “sans atmosphere”.
In the case of Earth most people agree that the average global temperature is 288K. The average temperature of the Moon is 197K so it appears that the GHE for this planet is 91K.
OK, that is Ned Nikolov’s number……other people may differ, for example my estimate is 79K. However the “Consensus” GHE of 33K is not even close.
gc,
I appreciate the attempt.
You wrote –
“. . . the GHE is the temperature change that can be attributed to a worlds atmosphere.”
Obviously, anything can be attributed to anything else. Who can disprove it?
A problem immediately arises, in that you immediately change your definition from “temperature” to “average global temperature”, which is another indefinite term. Certainly not the surface, and incapable of valid calculation, in any case.
Obviously, I prefer real measurements, backed up by science rather than pseudoscience. As an example, maximum surface temperature on the Moon, after the same exposure time, is around 127 C. On the Earth, no more than 90 C. It seems that the atmosphere results in lower maximum temperatures. This accords with scientific observations, (even NASA agrees), that much of the Sun’s radiation does not even reach the surface.
If you want to insist that exposing a thermometer to less heat makes the thermometer hotter, then you are led to the conclusion that maximum temperature must occur when the thermometer receives no heat at all!
So your definition of the GHE is of no utility, and it doesn’t accord with the fact that the surface has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
So, you cannot formulate a testable GHE hypothesis. You are stuck with pseudoscientific wishful thinking for the present.
You will find you cannot come up with a GHE definition that can withstand obvious scientific observations and questions. I know it’s tough, but that’s science for you. It progresses one mistake at a time, punctuated by occasional and unforeseeable flashes of genius.
Cheers.
“So your definition of the GHE is of no utility…..”
IMHO the concept of GHE has great utility especially in relation to man’s desire to visit other worlds. Before one sets off on a trip to Kepler 62B or Proxima Centauri B it would be good to have information about the surface temperature and atmospheric composition.
Here is a paper that addresses these issues:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.08620.pdf
gc,
The concept of a GHE is useless, if you want to know the pressure, temperature or composition of an atmosphere.
For example, given a pressure of 1 bar, what would you expect the temperature to be on Earth – +90 C, -90 C, or something in between?
I’d be inclined to use some sort of remote temperature sensing device, myself.
As to pressure, a barometer is more useful than a thermometer, GHE notwithstanding.
Your supposed GHE is of precisely no utility, as far as I can see. To each his own, I suppose.
Cheers.
mike…”For example, given a pressure of 1 bar, what would you expect the temperature to be on Earth +90 C, -90 C, or something in between?”
I have been working on this for a couple of hours and the numbers are so large I am getting a headache. I had been trying to apply the Ideal gas Law to the volume of a layer around the Earth 100 metres thick and calculating the number of litres in that to get the number of moles.
Then it occurred to me to just measure 1 litre of air at 1 atm. since a larger volume with the same ratio of moles of gas to volume should produce a similar result.
As the number of litres increase at 1 atmosphere, the number of moles should increase proportionately, offsetting the increase in volume provided the pressure remains constant. I was using a couple of online calculators and they were giving temperatures of 20,000 C, or so.
Consider the Ideal Gas Law:
PV = nRT
T = PV/nR
You can take R to be around 0.082 (Litre.Atm)/(mole.K)
Found something interesting. If you take 1 litre of air at 1 atm, as you specified, you can convert to the number of moles by presuming 1 mole of air has 22.4 litres.
Since we have chosen 1 litre, then the number of moles has to be 1/22.4 = 0.04464 moles. Since the moles and R are in the denominator, multiply moles by 0.082 L.atm/mole.K
I am going to do it another way to get rid of some garbage by first dividing by R.
T = {(1L.1A) (12.2 mole.K/L.A)}/0.04464 moles
Ok…that cancels the Ls and the As leaving me with mole.K in the numerator and mole in the denominator.
So I have T = (12.2 mole.k)/0.04464 mole = 273.3 K
Recognize that temperature???
That should presumably apply for any volume of air at 1 atmosphere.
I think there is something missing. Just as density is measured at slightly above 0C for water, I think maybe the gas constant, R, applies at a certain temperature as well.
It seems that a gas atmosphere like air mitigates the temperature of a planet. On Earth, the air at 1 atmosphere SHOULD regulate the air temperature to 273 K.
I stand to be corrected, but not by trolls who have no science to offer and only ad homs.
Mike…thinking out the reasoning of the Ideal Gas Law and the relationship of 1 atmosphere to volume, temperature, and the number of moles (gas atoms in air).
You can only have 1 atmosphere pressure with air if there are enough atoms with enough energy to put that pressure on the walls of a container. Therefore, the pressure require atoms with kinetic energy corresponding to 273 K in sufficient quantity in a certain volume.
I’m sure that’s where we get Standard Temperature and Pressure. With a standard pressure of an atmosphere in any volume, we require a certain number of atoms of gas and a temperature of 273 K.
Alternately, a volume with gas at 1 atmosphere pressure will have a temperature of 273 K.
It makes sense as well, that as we climb a significant mountain, the air pressure will reduce and with it the air temperature.
Gordon,
I look at it a little differently. Gas pressure has no influence on temperature at the ranges encountered in meteorology.
Shaded air temperature measurements using mercury in glass thermometers range between around 56 C and – 38 C. Anyone trying to figure the barometric pressure at the time will not do well.
Ground temperatures vary between around 90 C and – 90 C. Pressure, likewise, is irrelevant. Even more so on the Moon, where atmosphere is severely lacking, yet the temperature range exceeds anything on Earth, both hotter and colder.
Air at 0.1 bar may be at exactly the same temperature as that 100 bar. Everything in a freezer at -18 C is at the same temperature – meat, ice, plastic, steel racks, the mercury, glass, brass clips, wooden backing board, paint, in a thermometer, even a cylinder containing gas at 100 bar, or an empty cylinder at 1 bar. It doesn’t matter whether things are shiny, dull, opaque or transparent – they are all at the same temperature!
Or at 20 C, or 50 C.
As to standard temperature and pressure, they are specified to be 0 C, and 1 bar. Temperature and pressure may be adjusted independently from those of the current environment. The volume of a mole of gas will vary depending on pressure and temperature, of course.
A fun factoid –
“In July 1989, at Vostok, a difference of 34 °C (61 °F) were recorded between the ground, where the temperature was -78 °C (-108 °F) and 600 meters (2,000 feet) above, where it was -44 °C (-47 °F): still at 8,000 meters (2,600 feet) the temperature was -73 °C (-99 °F), so it was higher than at ground level.”
Unfortunately, measurement showed temperature increasing with altitude. No particular correlation between pressure and temperature.
No gravitothermal GHE. No CO2 GHE. Actually, no sign of a GHE of any description! Oh, what fun we had!
Cheers.
Mike..Shaded air temperature measurements using mercury in glass thermometers range between around 56 C and – 38 C. Anyone trying to figure the barometric pressure at the time will not do well”.
I agree, but we’re not talking solar heating in the Ideal Gas Equation, we are simply talking about the relationship between temperature, pressure, volume, and the number of atoms involved.
With one of those thermometer shelters there are slats on the sides to prevent the elements getting at the thermometer and influencing it. The openings will prevent the pressure changing much.
I am presuming a steady-state condition with solar heating on top of it. Of course, without solar heating, we’d be doomed.
The pressure in the atmosphere has to set the average temperature. I realize there are more complex factors involved, however, temperature is the average kinetic energy of air molecules and pressure is related to the kinetic energy as well.
Temperature, pressure, and the number of atoms/molecules go hand in hand. The are inseparable.
cam…”You may be right but my understanding is that the GHE is the temperature change that can be attributed to a world’s atmosphere”.
In a more specific way.
The theory goes that GHGs in the atmosphere act like glass in a greenhouse to trap heat or in some interpretations, to slow the loss of heat while allowing the atmosphere to warm.
Initially it was thought that the glass in a greenhouse trapped infrared radiation but that makes little sense. It presumes IR is heat and it is not. IR is converted to heat by electrons in atoms. Therefore, the theory suggests a recycling of heat which contradicts the 2nd law and perpetual motion.
R. W. Wood, an expert on CO2 radiation, claimed a greenhouse does not warm by trapping IR but by trapping molecules of air with higher energy levels due to them being trapped by the glass. Wood claimed greenhouse warming is a convection issue, a lack thereof.
There is nothing in the atmosphere to trap molecules of air, therefore the atmosphere cannot act like the glass in a greenhouse.
With regard to the slowing of radiation from the surface, GHGs have nothing to do with that in essence. According to Stefan-Boltzmann, it is the temperature differential between the surface and the layer of atmosphere immediately above it that controls the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
That surface layer of air is comprised of 99% nitrogen and oxygen and GHGs don’t add significant warming to that layer according to the Ideal Gas Equation.
That same layer does absorb heat from the surface directly and transports the heat high into the atmosphere. According to Wood, once the heat is absorbed and convected, the nitrogen and oxygen are slow to release it.
There’s your GHE sans greenhouse.
gc,
“In the case of Earth most people agree that the average global temperature is 288K. The average temperature of the Moon is 197K so it appears that the GHE for this planet is 91K.”
Or perhaps the Earth is 91K warmer and has an atmosphere because it has not yet had enough time to lose all its atmosphere and cool to the state the moon is in….
The atmosphere does not warm the surface… The surface warms the atmosphere.
Or to say it another way heat will always naturally move from a hotter object to a colder object… Just as water will always naturally flow downhill…
Yes.
Here’s the WMO, about air temperature measurement –
“Thus, temperature represents the thermodynamic state of a body, and its value is determined by the direction of the net flow of heat between two bodies.”
Nothing about adding fluxes, cold warming hot, or any of the other nonsense beloved of the pseudoscientific community. It is possible the World Meteorological Organization is not privy to the closely guarded secrets of the Climate Cult.
It’ll do me for the moment.
Cheers.
philj …”The atmosphere does not warm the surface The surface warms the atmosphere.
Or to say it another way heat will always naturally move from a hotter object to a colder object Just as water will always naturally flow downhill”
And according to R. W. Wood, an expert on CO2 radiation with whom Bohr consulted re radiation from sodium vapour, the atmosphere, once warmed by the surface, cannot cool easily since gases like N2 and O2 tend to retain heat. That explains the so-called greenhouse effect, which has nothing to do with greenhouses, or radiation, and everything to do with the inability of N2/O2 to cool easily.
The notion that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere can cause more than a few hundredths C warming is just plain silly.
GR,
“the atmosphere, once warmed by the surface, cannot cool easily since gases like N2 and O2 tend to retain heat. ”
Indeed. And h20 at the tropopause and co2 at the mesopause facilitate the cooling of insulators like n2 and o2…
burning fossil fuels removes an insulator (O2) and replaces it with the very good radiator h20 and the lousy radiator co2 (still better than o2) thus burning fossil fuel increases the efficiency at which the atmosphere cools to space…
observed reduced drag on satelites is evidence that the TOA is contracting which is consistent with a cooling atmosphere…
PhilJ
“Or perhaps the Earth is 91K warmer and has an atmosphere because it has not yet had enough time to lose all its atmosphere and cool to the state the moon is in.”
Earth daily atmospheric leakage is 90 tons/day, due to weaknesses in its magnetic field.
Atmosphere’s weight is 5 * 10^15 tons.
Thus, other things keeping equal, Earth will have lost its atmosphere in about 150 billion years.
B,
Recent research points to sequestration being the major cause of loss of atmosphere.
On the other hand, where did the atmosphere come from in the first place?
There seem to be a variety of guesses.
Cheers.
Bin,
“Thus, other things keeping equal, Earth will have lost its atmosphere in about 150 billion years.”
The chances of all things being equal for 100 billion years are pretty much nil…
but yes the Earth is unlikely to lose much of its atmosphere anytime soon…
unlike Venus, which I suspect will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly once it finishes cooking off its water…
The cartoon graphic provided of Australia’s continent in this article by Roy Spencer is a prime case of typical climate change denial.
The posts have as usual on pseudoscience that Roy Spencer trouble making had started. The last few comments are utter nonsense. Roy Spencer knows this rather sadly yet keeps quiet after the stirring the pot as usual.
He had achieved absolutely with these kinds of articles he posts as unusual. The thing only worth seeing and sighting is the monthly UAH temperature graphs of temperature anomalies.
“The monthly map for January 2019 shows the usual situation of alternating hot and cold
regions in the subtropical and higher latitudes. This time, the cold regions are found in
eastern Canada, Europe (from the Barents Sea southward to the Mediterranean Sea),
India, western Pacific Ocean and broad regions around Antarctica northward. The warm
spots are roughly in between these, landing in western North America, the North Atlantic
Ocean, the Middle East, Eastern China, and several areas over the Pacific and South
Atlantic oceans with a particularly significant hot spot over southeastern Australia
(summertime) for the second month in a row.”
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/201901_map.png
Anomaly in the tropics is +0.37 C.
Another cool front will cause a drop in temperature in the south east of Australia.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/njqvmcs7grqx.png
Ross,
You are a dimwitted trolling fool, unless you can name one person who is of sound mind, who denies that that the climate has been changing ever since the emergence of the first atmosphere.
You are delusional.
Begone, troll.
ross…”Roy Spencer trouble making had started. The last few comments are utter nonsense. Roy Spencer knows this rather sadly yet keeps quiet after the stirring the pot as usual. ”
Roy’s main point, and well taken, is that the BOM has cherry-picked warming from a certain time onward while ignoring equally warm years in the past. It’s a common trick of alarmists to begin their temperature series at 1960 to draw attention away from extremely hot temperatures in the 1930s.
The 1930s, particularly 1934 and 1936, were far warmer than any years since in North America. Since the collection of temperature data was spotty globally in that era we have no way of knowing to what extent the warming occurred globally.
NOAA, after whom the BOM model themselves, has gone back and adjusted the 1930s warming downward, which is nothing short of scientific misconduct.
The temperature is dropping sharply on Lake Michigan.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00979/ur4u9j5lqnnt.png
ren…bit of history from Lake Michigan’s neighbour, Lake Superior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald
At the top of Lake Michigan there is a stretch of water connecting Lake Michigan to Lake Huron, called the Strait of Mackinac. There is a bridge across it which is 8 kilometres long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Bridge
I think Roy comes from a bit north of there.
Drove across the bridge once and it’s wild in mid-span.
Thanks.
@Gordon Robinson,
“The notion that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere can cause more than a few hundredths C warming is just plain silly.”
Well said. In the troposphere of Venus the temperature at any given pressure matches that on Earth if you multiply by 1.176.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-to-dr-roy-spencers-blog-article/comment-page-1/#comment-146358
So what is the significance of 1.176? Raise that number to the fourth power and you get 1.9126. The TSI for Venus is ~2,613 W/m^2 while the corresponding figure for Earth is 1,362 so divide one into the other and you get 1.9185.
According to Stefan-Boltzmann, other things being equal, temperature should be proportional to the fourth root of the incident power and the above facts conform to theory with stunning accuracy.
One may object that other things are not equal. One planet has 0.04% CO2 while the other has >97%. That may be true but it does not seem to matter.
gallopingcamel
Thanks for this intelligent comment, above all based on facts rather than on ‘plain silly thoughts’.
Ma foi, on dirait qu’il y a des chameaux galopants qui sont beaucoup plus intelligents que certains êtres humains…
Merci.
Ce chameau existe servir
Où est le dromadaire?
Absolument pas!
And those numbers match the giza pyramids, which contain a chronology of events embedded in the structure itself that prophesied events far into the future.
Nice try but you have not explained why the temperatures (kelvin) are 18% higher to begin with!
i.e.where does the 1.176 factor come from?
The answer is GHE !
Please do a course in basic atmospheric physics before you comment.
The TSI for Venus is ~2,613 W/m^2 compared to 1,362 W/m^2 for Earth which means that Venus receives 2,613/1,362 = 1.9185 times more solar radiation.
According to Stefan Boltzmann, temperature is proportional to the fourth root of power. The fourth root of 1.9185 is 1.177.
I call that “Stunning Agreement”. However I can’t explain why gas composition does not seem to matter. Venus has >97% CO2 while Earth has only 0.04%. I also can’t explain why Albedo does not seem to matter. The Bond Albedo of Venus is 0.76 compared to 0.306 for Earth.
Using your same argument:
The TSI for the planet Mercury is 9121 W/m^2 compared to 2613 W/m^2 for Venus which means that Mercury receives 3.46 times more solar radiation.
The fourth root is 1.364.
So, Mercury should be much hotter (by about 36%) than Venus, at whatever pressure level you care to chose.
However, the average Mercury surface temperature is only about 440 K, compared to about 735 K for Venus. i.e. Mercury is cooler!
I call that a “Stunning fault”
(not to mention that you have not and cannot account for different planetary albedos).
The two main determinants of ground temperature on rocky worlds are TSI and pressure. In order to isolate the effect of TSI one should compare regions at the same pressure.
The atmospheric pressure on Mercury is 10^-9 Pascals you so can’t make a meaningful comparison with either Earth or Venus.
However you can compare Mercury with the Moon. My calculations for the Moon were summarized in three guest posts:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
I have done similar calculations for Mercury but have not posted them anywhere. If you are interested I would be happy to share them with you. Mercury is more complex than the Moon because the eccentricity of its orbit (0.205) cannot be ignored. On Mercury the TSI varies from 6,288 to 14,536 W/m^2.
Another complication is Mercury’s 3:2 gravitational phase lock with the sun but I chose to ignore that.
My model for Mercury assumes that the surface is similar to that of the Moon. See Vasavada et al.:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
gc,
You wrote –
“According to Stefan-Boltzmann, other things being equal, temperature should be proportional to the fourth root of the incident power . . .”
I believe you have it back to front. The following is the correct statement –
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.”
This is a camel of a completely different kind.
In any case, the law applies to black bodies only.
If you are getting stunningly accurate results from non-black bodies, maybe something is wrong somewhere.
Cheers.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation can be applied to “non-black” bodies by adding the the function Albedo for incident energy and the function epsilon to represent the emissivity for outgoing energy.
Tgb = {So(1-α)/4εσ}^0.25
Where So is TSI = 1,371 W m-2, α is albedo = 0.3, ε is emissivity = 0.96, and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6704 x 10-8 kg/s^3/K^4
This is how “Consensus Climate Scientists conclude (wrongly) that the temperature of an airless Earth would be 255 K.
gc,
In the interim, I believe I will continue to use a thermometer to measure temperatures.
The barometer will be reserved for pressure.
At present, if speculation and reality differ, I’ll keep relying on reality for practical purposes.
Have fun.
Cheers.
” This is how “Consensus Climate Scientists conclude (wrongly) that the temperature of an airless Earth would be 255 K.”
Yet, surprise, surprise, this is quite close to the average temperature for the moon
(250K). The small difference is without doubt due to uncertainty in the albedo.
So, what is the problem ?
BTW, a small point, the SB equation applies to black or “non-black” bodies via the emissivity value.
Secondly, the albedo has nothing to do with black or “non-black” bodies since it simply accounts for the reflectance of short-wave radiation (and is unrelated to long-wave radiation).
Myki,
BTW, a small point.
Real scientists tend to use something like the following –
“Specifically, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T:”
You are obviously confused, and using the pseudoscientific climatological fake version.
Stupidity and ignorance are no excuse, but I realise that’s all you’ve got.
Cheers.
MF you have missed the point entirely (again)
M,
I could ask you what your point was, but that would be pointless, wouldn’t it?
Keep waffling and making stuff up as you go. Maybe someone will believe you.
Have you given thought to actually providing a description of the GHE, which you seem to believe exists?
Carry on laddie. Maybe you can debate or consensify fantasy into fact, but I doubt it.
Or you could just keep trolling by making nonsensical cryptic comments.
Cheers.
gallopingcamel,
This reminds me of the gravito-thermal hypothesis that planetary temperature profiles are determined by gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Where did you find the temperature data correlating Venus and Earth? I would like to compare the planets using the ideal gas law to convert temperatures to densities at equal pressures. You probably know if this has been done somewhere else and that would be good to see as well.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Is Tamino stupid? . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Tamino is a funny little man.
He likes to produce graphs which show how stupid Deniers are.
But what are we meant to think, when Tamino produces graphs like the following ones?
Is Tamino trying to show that Alarmists are just as stupid, or possibly more stupid, than Deniers are?
My advice to Mr Tamino (which he will probably ignore), is that when you want to prove that somebody is stupid, don’t do something that is even stupider.
Mr Tamino seems to belong to that group of people, who believe that any warming is “global warming”, but that any cooling is just weather.
Mr Tamino, you may now take your foot out of your mouth. And you should get those self-inflicted bullet holes in your feet looked at.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-stupid
Sheldon Walker
I agree with your assessment of Tamino. I think he is a closed minded fanatic.
Why do you think that Norman?
Svante
I was posting ideas on his blog that he did not like and then he edited a post I made about smoking and it made me look bad. I told him he had no integrity. He also banned me at that same time. He reminds me of the polar opposite of the fanatic Joseph Postma.
Both these two are radicals that cannot tolerate any ideas that question their positions. I consider them to be like a proton and an anti-proton. If they meet they would annihilate each other.
If you want to find out post some opposing ideas on Tamino’s blog.
I think this might be one of the better blogs on climate change as Dr. Spencer seems to allow all types of thoughts to go on. Nothing much changes.
Svante, my skin in this game is about science. Empirical evidence, supporting data. The GHE is valid science, the Moon rotation is very logical and can be demonstrated at home with a multitude of objects.
I would accept some warming from AGW. I do not like the unsupported declarations of Climate Scientists on NPR or other MSM that claim, without proof or evidence, that extreme weather is increasing and can be attributed to global warming. No mechanisms are given for the claims. I would suggest that to be a valid science the Climate Scientists making such claims need to predict future events to close proximity. Where will the floods be next year? How many hurricanes will make landfall in the USA next year and what intensity and where. How many square miles of the USA will burn next year? They only make claims of climate change after some severe weather event but never before. If they are certain global warming is producing the events after the fact, the models must be good enough to forecast future events. Will Australia have record breaking heat next year? How much hotter than previous?
I think people like Joseph Postma and Tamino are just cult leaders and ban anyone who disrupts their sycophant followers. They are enemies of science and the quest for Truth.
Attribution is difficult, exact predictions do not exist, all we can ask for is statistics and probabilities. I think Tamino is good at that, but editing your post and banning you sounds terrible.
I agree media anecdotes are pretty useless, as well as media interpretation of science.
Norman,
You’re beginning to sound like a skeptic. Keep it up.
Just one thing, you wrote,
“The GHE is valid science….”
Valid science, if there is such a thing, should be capable of hypothesis test by empirical measurements. Most of us have heard the GHE described in one way or another, but how can it be tested?
Chic Bowdrie
I did some calculations on this blog a while back to demonstrate a GHE with real world empirical data.
You can look at the logic and see if you agree or disagree with my calculations.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/#comment-209000
Norman,
The problem with your calculations/logic is here:
“If Singapore was a blackbody (not sure of its emissivity) its temperature from available solar flux [213.75 W/m^2] would be -26 C. In February the average temp of Singapore is 27 C.”
Before the daily supply of 214 W/m^2 solar input, the surface temperature would be something less than 27 C, but probably never anywhere close to 247K. Temperatures would rise above 27 C and return to around 27 C every day in an average February month in Singapore. The daily solar flux is added to an already warm surface.
In other words, the surface doesn’t start out at 247K, which solar alone could only maintain, requiring that DWIR bring it up to the average 300K. The surface already averages 300K and just needs the atmosphere to keep the surface from getting too warm during the day and too cool at night. It’s a HVAC system, not a greenhouse.
Chic Bowdrie
I am not following your logic. I do not know why you believe the surface would start at a warmer temperature and the solar just maintains it?
Why does the surface already average 300 K? I am not sure what physics you are using to make these determinations.
I do believe that GHE easily explains the actual world empirical data (that you requested). You are making some assumptions that do not make any rational sense to me. If you could go into deeper explanation on how you come up with this idea I think that would be good.
Norman,
Singapore never was a blackbody. It didn’t have to warm up to any particular temperature, although it could change from the current 300K average depending on a change in solar insolation. An atmosphere provides insulation that makes Singapore warmer than it would be without the atmosphere. This would be the case regardless of the concentration of any IR absorbing gases in the atmosphere. They reduce the extreme temperatures even further by enhancing daytime cooling and nighttime warming.
You asked what physics I use. Three years ago I created a crude model to illustrate my view of how the atmosphere works. Scroll down to “Update 2/29/2016 – Chic’s Opening Statement” here: https://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-competing-mechanisms-for-observed.html
In that post, I use equations to estimate the energy flux profiles in the atmosphere. While they are only approximations, energy is conserved throughout using the constraint that Solar = UWIR – DWIR + convection. I see now that my diagram is confusing, but I attempted to illustrate roughly how energy comes in through solar and out via convection and outgoing IR. The lapse rate determines the DWIR and is always less than the UWIR at any altitude.
My logic is based on atmospheric physics that produces a lapse rate which determines DWIR. Your physics is based on a model where the atmosphere is a big piece of glass letting in solar and bouncing back half the energy as DWIR producing the warmer surface. It is a possible explanation for empirical data, but does the underlying physics actually apply to the atmosphere?
There are competing hypotheses on what causes the lapse rate and consequently why Singapore starts out at 300K, not 247K. I would recommend answering that question rather than spend your time justifying the greenhouse cartoon model.
Current stratospheric intrusion in North America.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00979/bfvr16bz1b2x.png
Seattle to get buried by biggest snowstorm in 2 years this weekend.
Where is all that evaporation coming from ren?
Warmer water anywhere?
Very high pressure in the Midwest.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00979/xqfob6jrm38c.png
Doesn’t high pressure mean dry air?
Haven’t Midwest lakes been covered by ice for weeks now?
Brief Introduction to Stratospheric Intrusions
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Current Ice Cover Conditions
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/ice/gif/m2018_2019_ice.gif
https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/#currentConditions
Ren,
To get much snow you need humidity into the air first.
You say stratospheric intrusions have low moisture.
You can not have evaporation through ice.
It’s a contradiction.
Thanks for that link on stratospheric intrusions. Somehow I had not heard about it…….yet another mind boggling topic.
Svante
There is no contradiction. Learn to read with understanding.
“Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states.”
Dry air producing snow, I see.
Begone, troll.
ren…”Seattle to get buried by biggest snowstorm in 2 years this weekend”.
We’re about 200 miles north of Seattle and so far I see nothing unbecoming. It’s cold, and could snow, but the sky is clear. Maybe the Arctic air is pushing the storm south.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . The Science and Mathematics . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . . of Earth’s Temperatures . . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
PART 2 has just been published.
==============================
In Part 2 of this article, I will show some graphs which show how accurate my temperature model of the Earth is.
I will then reveal the secret of why my temperature model of the Earth is so accurate, but also very simple.
The reason is, that I have separated the temperature estimates from the actual latitude of a country, and based the temperature estimates on the “effective” latitude.
See the article for a practical example, and a detailed graphical explanation.
General information about the series of articles.
================================================
Imagine a temperature model of the Earth, that can explain:
– 94% of the variation in the average temperature, of every country on Earth
– 90% of the variation in the temperature of the coldest month, of every country on Earth
– about 59% of the variation in the temperature of the hottest month, of every country on Earth
That would have to be a big, complex temperature model, wouldn’t it?
What if I told you, that the temperature model of the Earth was based on only 4 factors:
– the average latitude of the country
– the average longitude of the country
– the average elevation of the country
– the area of the country
Would you believe me?
I am sure that many people will expect my temperature model of the Earth to be very inaccurate.
You are welcome to have a look at the results of my temperature model of the Earth.
Part 1
======
https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-science-and-mathematics-of-earths-temperatures-part-1
Part 2
======
https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-science-and-mathematics-of-earths-temperatures-part-2
Had a quick look.
Found no science and no mathematics.
Simply a simple statistical fit to the temperature data which a geography student could do in their spare time.
Looks fancy, but is worthless otherwise.
You have tried hard to convince us that a 1 or 2 or 3 etc degree warming is not worth worrying about because of the scale of your graphs. Pretty stupid in my opinion.
What a waste of time.
Myki, please stop trolling.
I also wonder if the “broken records” were genuine “as published in the newspaper at the time” records – or whether they have been “BOMadjusted(TM)”.
BOM’s adjustment algorithim is remarkably effective at cooling the past. As time moves on, the past just keeps on getting cooler!.
Speaking of “broken records”, look at the repetitive nonsense that gets posted by MF and GR.
Begone, silly troll.
Mickey…”Speaking of broken records, look at the repetitive nonsense that gets posted by MF and GR”.
I am soooo flattered that you notice me. Is it my devastating good looks?
JCalvert….”BOMs adjustment algorithim is remarkably effective at cooling the past. As time moves on, the past just keeps on getting cooler!”.
Not related to Mad Mike Calvert of WWII fame are you?
BOM, NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are all about political correctness these days. We saw that exemplified in the Climategate emails when the aforementioned and their friends were caught red-handed interfering with peer review and fudging the record.
Two of those involved Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth are Coordinating Lead Authors at IPCC reviews. They are in charge of the other lead authors, all political appointees.
The Lead Authors write the Summary for Policymakers and it is issued BEFORE the main report. When the main report comes out, it has been amended to suit the views of the 50 lead authors who wrote the Summary.
That’s where all the nonsense comes from like the myth that humans are causing 90% of the warming.
The load of them are corrupt and the sheeple here who support them are morally corrupt.
Yawn
Myki, please stop trolling.
Dr Spencer, the CAGW theory is based upon the belief that CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere. If that is the case, Average Temperature isn’t the metric that should be tracked, high temperatures should be tracked, or the spread between the high and the low temperature of the day. Average temperatures can be impacted by clear days, clouds, solar activity, Urban Heat Island Effect, etc etc. If if fact CO2 is the cause of the warming, and CO2’s mechanism is a compounding effect of stacking heat upon heat, then record high temperatures should be increasing, and the trend of daily high temperatures should be increasing. Do you have a data set of just the daily high temperatures that you could publish?
CO2isLife
“Dr Spencer, the CAGW theory is based upon the belief that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.”
No.
CO2 doesn’t trap any heat, let alone would H2O do.
If these trace gases were absent, nearly all the IR radiation emitted by Earth’s surface would directly reach outer space, and the planet would be cooler.
The tiny extra effect of CO2 is that as opposed to H2O, it does not precipitate above 8-10 km, and thus absorbs IR and reemits it in all directions where H2O can’t anymore.
The altitude at which IR reaches outer space is increased tiny bit by tiny bit. The higher this altitude, the lower the reemission energy.
Please read e.g.
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf
Unfortunately in French; using
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#fr/en
might help.
“The tiny extra effect of CO2 is that as opposed to H2O, it does not precipitate above 8-10 km, and thus absorbs IR and reemits it in all directions where H2O cant anymore.”
That won’t melt glaciers, and my understanding is that the stratosphere is cooling, not warming. My understanding is that as the air thins, radiation moves the energy out of the atmosphere far more efficiently than it moves it back to the surface. Anyway, the IR temperature is a lot different from the actual temperature. Astronauts would freeze to death in the “hot” thermosphere.
That’s right, the stratosphere is cooling, not warming.
It works like this, cooler on the right, warmer on the left:
https://tinyurl.com/yxeu3kak
Not more irrelevant links to stupid pseudoscience, surely!
CO2isLife
“If if fact CO2 is the cause of the warming, and CO2’s mechanism is a compounding effect of stacking heat upon heat, then record high temperatures should be increasing, and the trend of daily high temperatures should be increasing. ”
No.
The effect of IR catch is the inverse: it is an increase of minimal temperatures. Maximal absolute temperatures don’t change much in the Globe’s average.
This is visible below:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Monthly-anoms.png
It is a comparison of the TMAX/TMIN records in the GHCN daily dataset, made by blogger Clive Best.
Bindidon, I think you made my point. How can you have catastrophic run away warming if high temperatures aren’t increasing? I can understand the low temperatures increasing in urban areas because asphalt takes longer to cool than grass. To identify is the lows are actually increasing, you would need to show a narrowing of temperatures in a dry desert. The data I’ve examined shows no such narrowing.
Dr. Spencer, can you isolate data sets for 1) Daily High Temperatures and 2) High and Low Temperatures over desert regions?
If we can do that we can actually try to do a controlled experiment. What amazes me about the field of climate science is that they act as if they have never studied the scientific method and the need for controlling exogenous factors.
Bindidon, that chart is some of the best evidence that CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
1) The Heteroschediasticity demonstrated pretty much proves these data sets are pure garbage and are highly unreliable.
2)The spread between high and low has been constant for over 140 years
3) What trend did exists existed before 1850
4) Average daily temperatures are below those levels set in the 1800s and early 1900s
5) The only real trend started in 1990, long after CO2 increased
6) Prior to 1980, there looks to have been a downtrend in place
7) Current levels are just getting back to where they were in the late 1940s, and way below the levels in the 1800s
8) If CO2 is the cause of anything, it appears to MODERATE temperature swings, and NOT drive temperatures to new highs
9) Given the location of temperature measurements, the Urban Heat Island effect most likely can explain the majority of any warming
Bottom line, that graphic largely debunks CO2 as the cause of any warming
“Tmin warms faster than Tmax after 1970. There is other evidence that nights warm faster than days”
Bindidon, the above quote is from the CliveBest Blog. No way in hell can CO2 cause nights to “Warm.” CO2 slows cooling, it can not “create” energy. I don’t think he is actually claiming that the nights are actually warming, I think he means the temperature is increasing over time, not that nights actually show warming.
Here are some other comments:
Tav warms faster than both Tmin and Tmax after 1980.
—CO2 didn’t show a sharp increase post 1980, how could CO2 cause the Tav to change but neither Tmin or Tmax?
Tmin warms faster than Tmax after 1970. There is other evidence that nights warm faster than days
—Once again, how could CO2 cause these differentials? One period it does this, and the next period it does that. Do the laws of Physics cease to exist in Climate Science? Are the physics of the CO2 molecule variable?
Oceanic temperatures were warmer than global temperatures before 1910 and then again between 1930 to 1972, but have since lagged behind land temperatures. This appears to be a cyclic phenomenon.
—This is convincing evidence of the Urban Heat Island Effect, not CO2 caused warming. Once again, the physics of the CO2 molecule are constant. Oceans cool slower than grass, so the more grass there is, the more likely it is that the oceans will be warmer than the land temperatures. Replace grass with asphalt and place the temperature gauge near the asphalt and suddenly the land is warmer than the oceans. CO2 CAN’T BE THE CAUSE. CO2 is CONSTANT over both the land and sea. CO2 CAN’T cause that differential.
Imagine that, temperatures and humidity are closely related and explain the warming post-1980. No CO2 needed. If CO2 is the cause, it isn’t through the GHG effect, it is through increasing more vegetation which is increasing humidity in the air…and that ain’t a bad thang.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Compare-rain-temp.png
CO2isLife
Why are you so horribly fixated on this da..ed CO2? Will you never be able to escape out of it? Sorry: that is really boring.
When I speak about IR catch, I primarily mean water vapor.
Jesus.
*
Moreover:
“That wont melt glaciers, and my understanding is that the stratosphere is cooling, not warming.”
I never pretended that I would know of CO2 being able to melt glaciers, let alone ice sheets.
Unlike you, I prefer to leave that debate to specialists. Neither you let alone I myself could ever pretend to be.
*
The stratosphere is of course cooling! Look at Roy Spencer’s data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_ecu50TZYPYfr57XIWZ_rcu9p2trm2hy/view
And why should it be warming??? Maybe due to this stupid idea of “CO2 trapping heat” ?
Oh Noes. Read the Frenchies’ paper, my dear CO2TrapsHeat!
“Unlike you, I prefer to leave that debate to specialists. Neither you let alone I myself could ever pretend to be.”
As I’ve demonstrated by my analysis of the actual data, the real way science is done, it is very very very dangerous to accept the opinion of “experts” in the field of climate science. As I demonstrated in the previous posts, their data simply doesn’t support their conclusion, and in fact, the data supports the exact opposite of their conclusions. That isn’t real science, that is politics.
CO2 doesn’t “trap heat” it converts IR radiation to thermal radiation. It changes energy from 1 form to another. LWIR travels through the vacuum of space without doing anything. Only when the LWIR runs into a molecule and causes an excited vibrational state does that EM radiation convert to thermal radiation. Those excited states are measured with a spectrum from the molecule, and how we know what wavelengths the excite the molecule. For CO2 case, it is largely 13 to 18 micron LWIR.
Why use four names for the same type of radiation: EM, IR, LWIR, thermal.
Why not?
Dr. Spencer, look at the chart Bindidon published. Those are the kinds of charts that best explain CO2’s contribution to warming. Warming can be due to a whole lot of things, so you have to isolate datasets that control for everything else but CO2. If the all daily highs aren’t increasing, CO2 isn’t causing warming, and heat isn’t being “trapped” in the atmosphere.
CO2…”Dr Spencer, the CAGW theory is based upon the belief that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere”.
The alarmists continually confuse heat with infrared. As you know, heat is a property of atoms in motion, it is the energy referred to as kinetic energy.
The alarmists don’t even know that kinetic means ‘in motion’ they think kinetic describes the particular energy in motion, like some kind of generic energy. There is a name for the energy of atoms in motion described by the descriptor ‘kinetic’, the energy is thermal energy, or heat.
In order to trap heat, you need to trap the atoms in motion. The glass in a greenhouse can do that but there is nothing in the atmosphere can do it.
Norman hates Joe Postma with a passion but Joe made a brilliant observation about greenhouses. He claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. That would be ‘trap’ heat. The glass in the greenhouse traps the moving atoms and traps heat.
That should put an end to the GHE theory right there but paradigms have a way of hanging on.
Gordon, I love the comment about we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere won’t do, that being trap heat. I love it.
I always explain the GHG effect as energy being changed from 1 form to another. EM radiation to thermal or kinetic energy. The on part of the explanation I could use some help on is explaining what happens to the energy once the molecule is excited:
1) The Molecule re-radiates the energy as 13 to 18-micron LWIR. (easy to explain)
2) The molecule collides with another molecule that isn’t CO2 and excites it. (What happens then?) Energy gets transferred and the CO2 molecule can no longer re-emit the 13 to 18-micron LWIR.
Any help explaining step #2 would be appreciated.
CO2isLife says on Feb. 11, 2019 at 11:55AM: “Any help explaining step #2 would be appreciated.”
Your point 2) is correct. That is what happens in almost all cases with the incremental absorbed energy from surface LWIR. That’s because a collision with N2, O2 & Ar transfers the incremental absorbed energy to the surrounding bulk atmosphere long before the incremental absorbed energy can be re-emitted. This is explained by this physics professor emeritus: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Hope that helps.
That brings up another point that is misunderstood by promoters of CAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism, ie., that the temperature of the bulk atmosphere is what reduces the unidirectional heat loss from the surface, per the heat transfer equation, q=sigma epsilon (Th^4-Tc^4). Tc, the temperature of the atmosphere, is much higher than the the temperature of space, so q is less than if the atmosphere weren’t present.
So it is the internal energy of the the 99+% of the atmosphere that is N2, O2 & Ar, that produces the radiant emittance of the atmosphere, which causes the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’. There is simply not enough internal energy in the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2.
I’ve seen that Kristian has explained this over and over to the climate alarmist trolls here, and they just deny it. The climate alarmist trolls have failed to refute any of the science that Kristian has presented.
Here is a website that explains this and the science of the atmosphere: http://www.calqlata.com/Maths/Formulas_Atmosphere.html
Hope that helps too.
Cheers.
Thanks a million. That filled in the one hole I was having difficulty defining. Once again, I can’t thank you enough.
RealOldOne2, those links are Goldmines for information. The more and more people know that information and more and more CAGW becomes a joke. I would pass those around to as many people as possible. Thanks again. Dr. Spencer, you would work some of that science into some of your points. It kind of makes my concern about CO2 not being able to warm water moot.
I have been quiet because it is now a wait and see game and thus far I like what I see which is the global temperature trend that started down in year 2016 is alive and well.
Do you agree that this prediction was bonkers:
Take up your stupid gotcha and begone, troll.
I am always going to be on the to quick side of things. On the other hand there has been no further global warming for months.
Salvatore,
Print out Dr Spencer’s diagram and put it on your desk.
Now rotate the diagram clockwise until the trend line is flat.
That is a world without global warming.
Rotate it back again.
That is what global warming did.
What you just said is true in both cases, so it has nothing to do with global warming.
Svante,
Print out the scientific description of the GHE. Can’t see anything?
Turn it over.
Look puzzled.
A blank piece of paper! That’s the scientific basis of global warming.
Cheers.
svante…”Rotate it back again.
That is what global warming did.”
You mean, all 3/10ths C over 40 years? And 2/10ths came from a mysterious sudden jump circa 2001, not over a gradual trend.
All this nonsense about catastrophic climate change over 2/10ths of a degree C in 40 years?
No, I mean 4 x 0.13 C, about half a degree in four decades.
Just rotate the diagram Gordon, your sudden jump is still there.
Svante,
Just rotate your GHE definition printout. Scrutinise it as closely as you wish. Still nothing there, is there?
Cheers.
Well put Mike, rotate your reference frame, GHE disappears.
Bring it back to reality, GHE appears.
It’s like JDs moon rotation.
Svante,
All you have to do is to figure out how to make your fantasy into reality.
Then you could just copy your fantasy GHE definition, and paste it into a real comment. How hard can it be?
The pseudoscientific fantasy world of climatology is delusion, not reality.
That’s why you can’t back up your fantasy GHE claims with anything that exists in reality.
Keep trying.
Cheers.
El Nino is moving away.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00979/tyl4yd9zezmh.png
ren
El Nino is a 3 month average time series of
– sea surface temperatures in the 170W-120W–5S-5N area
and
– Darwin-Tahiti pressure differences.
What you show looks nice but has no significance.
Indeed!
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
To o wiele lepsze!
Remember how sure every one was of an El Nino a few months ago.
All wrong.
binny…”El Nino is a 3 month average time series…”
It’s still moving away. Thanks ren.
ren
I look since many years at the Japanese ENSO web site:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
When you see at the picture’s bottom 40% red and 60% yellow, then the actual El Nino really will move away – but not before.
Salvatore
Don’t worry!
AFAIK you only trust in UAH6.0 data concerning Earth’s temperature.
Hopefully I am comforting you when I say that the recent up in Roy Spencer’s data is due to a little El Nino phase 4-6 months ago.
As El Nino actually weakens, you will soon enjoy cooling again.
@Bart,
You mentioned David Appell. Where is our resident troll? Did he get banned?
I hope he is not sick.
I think he is OK, criticising Ocasio-Cortez new Green Deal on his blog two days ago, agreeing with Judith Curry no less.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/
Are you pleased AOC has become the new face of AGW?
Maybe not, I usually agree with David Appell.
Why is that?
He provides scientific references.
S,
You mean references to pseudoscientific climatological nonsense, don’t you?
Wild fantasy. Only the truly gullible or brain dead would believe the sorts of rubbish he provides links to.
Thousands of published papers are retracted every year. How would you know the difference between science and pseudoscience, or a worthless paper?
There’s one born every minute – just like you.
Cheers.
chic…”Are you pleased AOC has become the new face of AGW?”
I am. They could not not have chosen a more stupid, myopic representative had they tried. Her equivalent here in Canada is being referred to as a Climate Barbie.
It’s fun to watch, but her ideas taking hold is scary stuff.
svante…”I think he is OK, criticising Ocasio-Cortez new Green Deal….”
I predict…no wait a minute, I project….this new Green Deal will cost the Democrats big time once the US public gets what it will mean to their pocket books. O-C is a raving lunatic and one of her supporters claims the deal ranks with the defeat of the Nazis.
The Arctic air will continue to flow into the US.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/8kb10wuo1r4k.jpg
Thousands of Sydney homes were left without power on February 9th after severe storms hit Australia’s largest city, causing transport hold-ups, inundating vehicles with floodwater and delaying a national football match. AFP reported that heavy rains and lightning storms lashed parts of Sydney late on February 8th, with close to 60 millimetres (nearly two and a half inches) of rain falling in some areas.
ren…”Thousands of Sydney homes were left without power on February 9th after severe storms hit Australias largest city…”
What’s that? Your telling me they have electricity in Australia now??
Heavy snowfall in California.
This can be record low temperatures in the Northwest.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00979/wpy5oroz6h4f.png
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00979/ajb3nivaq9sc.png
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/a378e07/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2Faf%2F0d%2F484c33d54226b122ef30c3052025%2Fnw-cold-feb-9.jpeg
At night, the Arctic air will attack in the Nortwest.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00979/kaq2a3rgryeh.png
Svante has a bizarre idea that energy can be magically created.
I suggested that lowering the amount of energy reaching a thermometer would make it colder, not hotter. Placing more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer results in less energy reaching the thermometer.
This is a physical fact, even accepted by NASA.
Svante wrote –
“”You can certainly lessen the amount of energy reaching a thermometer” at the top of the atmosphere by adding more GHGs.
Whatever is inside the atmosphere will then warm until equilibrium is restored.”
Svante labours under the usual foolish Warmist delusion that there exists a magical “equilibrium”, which ensures that a thermometer which has been allowed to cool, will obtain heat (no doubt due to the magic of CO2), until it reaches its previous temperature!
What a fool! No wonder he cannot define the GHE! It would require the creation of energy, and as far as I know, the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, still applies.
Never mind the fact that the Earth is demonstrably no longer molten at the surface (no equilibrium to be found), Svante’s delusional justifications for the undefined GHE, energy created by CO2, and so on, are on a par with the symptoms of delusional psychosis demonstrated by Schmidt and Mann.
The one believes he is a climate scientist, and the other claimed to have won a Nobel Prize!
Maybe Svante believes he understands physics? He hasnt said so, which might explain his bizarre assertions. Who knows?
Cheers.
Let’s do one paragraph at a time.
“Svante has a bizarre idea that energy can be magically created.”
I disagree, why do you think that?
Svante,
Disagree away. What are you disagreeing about?
Cheers.
I never said energy could be magically created.
Svante,
Of course you did, you witless fool.
You just don’t realise you did.
Try defining your impossible GHE, if you don’t believe me.
Disagree with whatever you like. Why would you possibly think that I would care?
Read what I wrote, if you can – I wouldnt be surprised if others can get past the first sentence, unlike yourself. Opinions are worth precisely what somebody is prepared to pay for them. In your case, nothing at all.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Try defining your impossible GHE…”
OK, but please do not add more issues before resolving the previous one.
1) Stable temperature requires equal input and output power,right?
Svante, are you now denying the Arrhenius CO2 equation?
Please do not add more questions before answering 1).
Well, the bogus equation adds energy to Earth’s system. So you can’t be dealing with real science if you are clinging to your pseudoscience.
One step a time please.
1) Stable temperature requires equal input and output power, do you agree?
“Power” is not conserved, Svante.
Your head is filled with pseudoscience, so you can’t learn.
Clear your head. Then learn some physics.
One step at a time.
Svante,
You agreed to define the impossible GHE.
Now you refuse to. Why is this?
Instead, you fly off into Gotcha World, in some bizarre attempt to avoid defining the impossible. I don’t blame you.
Keep on with the desperate attempts to deny, divert, and confuse.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. No change to your levels of stupidity and ignorance.
Carry on, as usual.
Cheers.
Which of these symptoms do you have:
– Have difficulty maintaining focus on one task.
– Often interrupt conversations or others’ activities.
– Blurt out inappropriate comments, show their emotions without restraint, and act without regard for consequences.
– Be easily distracted, miss details, forget things, and frequently switch from one activity to another.
– Struggle to follow instructions.
– Have difficulty focusing attention on organizing or completing a task.
– Have trouble sitting still during dinner, school, and while doing homework.
– Have difficulty waiting for things they want or waiting their turn in games.
– Become bored with a task after only a few minutes, unless doing something they find enjoyable.
– Be impatient.
– Have trouble completing or turning in homework assignments, often losing things (e.g., pencils, toys, assignments) needed to complete tasks or activities.
– Appear not to be listening when spoken to.
– Daydream, become easily confused, and move slowly.
– Have difficulty processing information as quickly and accurately as others.
– Have trouble understanding details; overlooks details.
– Fidget or squirm a great deal.
– Talk nonstop.
– Dash around, touching or playing with anything and everything in sight.
– Be constantly in motion.
– Have difficulty performing quiet tasks or activities.
Very good, Svante.
Listing your issues is a healthy first step. It’s like they say, you can’t solve your problems unless you admit you have them.
Svante,
Are you giving a list of reasons for being unable to provide the definition of the GHE?
You need to stick to pseudoscience. The sort of nonsense that allows Gavin Schmidt to be thought of as a climate scientist, or has Michael Mann thinking he won a Nobel Prize.
Join the rest of the fools, and share their delusional fantasy.
I wish you well. Good luck.
Cheers.
@Svante,
Thanks for that link to Quark Soup. It enabled me to find the Green New Deal document.
It will take me a while to explore the glorious stupidity of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her bubonic mind. She may become president of the USA or she may destroy the Democrat party for a generation. Third option…..Nancy Pelosi and the Media will destroy her.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/the-soros-globalists-vs-nationalist-populist-split-hits-france-italy/#comment-107546
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/the-soros-globalists-vs-nationalist-populist-split-hits-france-italy/#comment-107550
gc,
As Hillary Clinton said recently “It often takes a woman to get the job done”
Cheers.
gallopingcamel says:
“It will take me a while to explore the glorious stupidity of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her bubonic mind.”
Good to hear you will approach it without prejudice.
Svante,
I am encouraged to see you are supporting the rights of people to express their opinions.
Keep it up.
Cheers.
Prejudice is, literally, prejudgement. Post-judgement is not the same thing.
Yeah, prejudice since he said he hadn’t found it until now.
Svante,
Who gives a toss? Why should anybody care if you are prejudiced or not?
Sounds like just more stupid politically correct attempts at emotional blackmail.
How’s your GHE definition coming along? Does it include four and a half billion years of cooling?
What about surface cooling at night? Maybe you think cooling is really heating?
Keep at it.
Cheers.
Prejudice can cause detrimental decisions.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
It is high from the north.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/3qtgfuh8127u.png
ren…”It is high from the north”.
Thanks ren.
That -25C on the map is for the Caribou, an inland region about 400 miles northeast of Vancouver. You see from the map we’re only at -2C.
Still no snow near the Vancouver Airport, just south of Vancouver, at 1:30 AM Pacific Standard Time.
Still, we’ve had high winds, which are unusual around here this time of year and the wind chill is being rated around -10C and lower.
It’s strange that the same Arctic air east of the Rocky Mountains causes drops in temperature to -40C and even -50C. West of the Rockies it’s usually in the -20C range at worst. Of course, the closer you get to the coast the milder it gets.
Than low from the north it is close to the coast.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2m/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&layer=tpw&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Sorry.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Correction.
The low from the north is close to the coast.
ren…we got some snow today…Sunday. Not enough to stop me going for a walk in my running shoes.
ps…the only snow we’ve had this winter. We often get snow in early November for some reason but none this year. Hardly ever snows in Vancouver area.
A snowstorm is developing in the Midwest.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00979/ni9t418pgtzs.png
bilybob
It woulde be better if we could manage to start new comments each time we correspond and we see that the thread has moved far away.
You wrote upthread:
As an example, back in December you provided some graphs for Norway.
1. 1900-2018, absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xX7y5w52v4oS83CESOC8Yls5NXbHYGOl/view
2. 1900-2018, anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dbu5MrQqDkhFg1LHzN6Qnrof2Nxdurbi/view
Tell me your impression of the temperature change from 1900 to present in Norway using absolute vs. anomalies and you will begin to understand. The absolute data shows maybe a 0.5C difference but using anomaly you would think Norway is 3C warmer.
*
Yes of course, I agree. But the goal of anomalies for me is not to show more or less warming.
As Roy Spencer so often explained, their primary goal is to remove the annual cycle out of time series by subtracting, from all time units you consider (days, months, years etc), the corresponding unit mean calculated over an appropriate period.
The result is that an anomaly based chart will show you where the time unit differences are the highest. That’s evident…
Here is the top ten list of anomalies between Jan 1900 and Dec 2018:
1990 2 4.86
2006 12 4.54
2014 2 4.39
1972 12 3.90
1989 1 3.67
2018 5 3.66
2016 12 3.56
2011 11 3.54
2012 3 3.44
2015 12 3.35
What you see again is that the departures from the mean are the highest in the winter month… nothing new for us. But that 7 of the 10 positions are from years above 2000: that is interesting a bit.
And only the dumbest dumbies will pretend that it is a warmist trick to make the world hotter.
If you now look at the sorted absolute values during the same period, the top ten looks like this:
2014 7 16.91
2018 7 16.65
1941 7 15.98
2002 8 15.66
2003 7 15.64
1997 8 15.41
1937 7 15.33
1937 8 15.19
2006 8 14.92
1969 8 14.92
This was a big surprise. If you do that on the US station set, you don’t see even one year after 1999 in the top 50.
… and I forgot to add a little detail: while the top 10 difference for anomalies is 1.5 C, that for absolute values is… 2C. Ha ha.
I’m curious to know what the trend values would be for the absolute and anomalised Norway data. If they were very different I’d have to start thinking about it!
barry
“If they were very different Id have to start thinking about it!”
So please start!
Anoms 1900-2018: 0.37 C / decade
Absols 1900-2018: 0.22 C / decade
In most cases anomalies have a higher trend than their absolute origin because extracting the annual cycles amplifies the difference between highest and lowest values.
UAH’s LT time series is a rare exception to that. No idea why.
There exists no temperature record of the last 125 years that shows any variations in range greater than those variations in range science tells us have occurred during the last 5000 years.
Perhaps you’re right, they seem to be similar:
https://tinyurl.com/yc35hg66
Marcott said we were in the the top 25% but that was in 2013, things are changing fast.
Dan Murray
You probably mean records like this:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Other people will rather think of records like this one:
https://kottke.org/13/09/temperature-chart-for-the-last-11000-years
To be honest: I have no idea which one is correct.
Wait and see.
Bindidon says:
“I have no idea which one is correct.”
Let’s see, the first one is a handwritten cartoon, the second is based on seventy proxy studies…
I know, Svante.
But I’m afraid that when ‘accurately’ selecting the proxies, some might ‘conclude’ the inverse.
I’m sure that people like e.g. Ole Humlum or the Vahrenholt & Lüning duo would perfectly do the job if they had time for & interest in.
And it would be hard to contradict!
Yes, it will be like the instrumental temperature record.
Svante, please stop trolling.
The ‘cartoon’ temp history is of seriously dubious provenance. Chris Harris is no “climatologist.”
https://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-3245d5e5-81a0-51a5-aa30-479edd40f61b.html
He believes that government agencies are spraying the atmosphere to stop global warming. He has no peer-reviewed papers at all. He’s been a weatherman on TV. He’s a weather junkie, and apparently believes that there are clues for predicting the weather in the bible.
barry, please stop trolling.
Very true.
Thanks for the reply Bindindon, you say
“As Roy Spencer so often explained, their primary goal is to remove the annual cycle out of time series by subtracting, from all time units you consider (days, months, years etc), the corresponding unit mean calculated over an appropriate period.”
Yes, Dr. Spencer provided a great article on the use of anomalies several years back. Very good read. Anomalies not only take out seasonal but also latitudinal (spatial) effects. Again, I understand the strengths of the use of the anomalies, but I also understand the weakness.
You say “And only the dumbest dumbies will pretend that it is a warmist trick to make the world hotter.”
Not sure who you are referring to here. My criticisms on anomaly’s is associated with trying to make a global average from such diverse areas of the globe in both spatially and seasonally terms. It fails to show the impacts at regional levels. At best, the 0.4C over a baseline can only tell me that the average of the data points used for that month is 0.4C higher than the average of the baseline. I can get to 0.4C an infinite amount of ways.
Again referring back to Norway. Anyone looking at the absolute graph will see no significant temperature change in Norway when comparing 1900’s to 2000’s. Look at the anomaly graph and one may conclude something else. So care needs to be taken when using anomaly data.
Does that mean we should switch to absolute data? No, care needs to be taken that the data is homogenous. That you are comparing apples to apples. Summer to Summer, elevation/latitude with elevation latitude. An average absolute global average is just as useless.
However, I do offer this to improve the use of anomaly data. Use the standard deviation of the data rather than the absolute value in the analysis. Thus instead of showing the global temperature anomaly in terms of x.y Celsius, show it in terms of average of the temperature in terms of standard deviations of each grid. Just a thought.
Please be assured, I am not trying to get you to stop using anomaly data. I am only explaining why I have no use for it. I compare similar areas, seasons, tmin and tmax. And so far, tmin is up but tmax is either the same or down (unless you use stations that have only be recording data since the 1960’s).
Quigley Down Under Quote referring to handguns.
“I said I didn’t have much use for one. Didn’t say I didn’t know how to use it.”
I feel the same with anomaly data.
Enjoy, have a deadline today, so will be replying sporadically.
biliybob
I’m busy too, and will reply to
“Anomalies not only take out seasonal but also latitudinal (spatial) effects.”
I don’t agree. This is a thoroughly different corner.
cu, J.-P.
Bindindon says “Anomalies not only take out seasonal but also latitudinal (spatial) effects.”
I don’t agree. This is a thoroughly different corner.
I would be very interested in your thoughts on this. I was of the understanding that is how they did the global anomaly. How do you compare Berlin to Brasilia without using anomaly data for each? I am not saying your are wrong, I never put much thought into it, but accepted that is what was being done.
Thanks
bilybob
Sorry, I was somewhat irritated by ‘latitudinal’, and skipped the far more relevant word ‘spatial’.
Of course we agree here.
After all I calculate anomalies wrt the mean of a period separately for all stations having necessary data in the period, and then build averages into grid cells, then into latitude bands which finally are averaged into a global value after having been applied latitude weighting.
For these lacking that data, most people – me included – use as backdoor the anomaly calculated for the grid cell surrounding these stations. I’ll try in the future an alternative consisting of calculating several baselines where applicable and shifting up and down where necessary; the induced error mostly is about 0.05 C / decade. We are lay(wo)men here, and shouldn’t care too much about such deviations.
Though it wasn’t a goal anyway, I have often played with such comparisons, e.g. Sydney vs. Berlin, or a place in Siberia and the tropospheric grid cell above it. Simply nice…
Many might ask: what the hell is the sense of computing global temperatures and anomalies? I can only answer: if even Roy Spencer calculates them for all his atmospheric layers, it can’t be that wrong.
And it is amazing to see that the global average absolute temperature for UAH6.0 is about 265 K, what gives a good fit to the 289 K computed by Berkeley Earth at surface.
Thanks for that Bindindon, I thought maybe I completely misunderstood how anomalies were calculated and used. But that helps and that is how I thought it was being done.
You also say “I can only answer: if even Roy Spencer calculates them for all his atmospheric layers, it can’t be that wrong.”
I can’t speak for Dr. Spencer on his reasons other than referring back to the blog entry on anomaly data he did several years ago.I find it useful as a gut check on the methodology using instrument data to determine a global average. Maybe he does the same. But again, what is the value of a global anomaly in terms of Celsius? I would prefer to know if the change is statistically significant.
I did some work in my youth analyzing remotely sensed multispectral data in determining land use. The benefits are you can get a lot of area covered, the negatives are after ground truthing it may take a while to get an accurate enough model. Thus the many versions of UAH. Still, even with correction, there will be errors, can’t avoid them.
I actually prefer instrument data, more detail. I seriously doubt UAH can show me hourly temperature for a specific location. By the way, did not know if you saw my comment on the hourly data. Apparently the USA started a program in 2000. There are a bit over 100 sites now, will be interesting to analyze the data if I get the time.
Guess it is late there, so good night for now.
bilybob
“But again, what is the value of a global anomaly in terms of Celsius?”
Not much! But vereybody calculates it, and everybody publishes it: it’s like a collective compulsion.
I’m mostly more interested in regional aspects. With some exceptions like e.g. UAH’s global grid data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YjFLnql_uzZrXY_Hff5TYY9bTBxO38lO/view
When you look at such a graph comparing UAH’s full grid data with 5 resp. 10 % out of it, you think: how is that possible?
And the two subsets above all are disjunct…
That reminds me somebody who wrote years ago at WUWT: “The world is oversampled”.
Buona notte
J.-P.
February 12 a big drop in temperature in southern Australia.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/02/12/1500Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-225.49,-35.04,1500/loc=146.947,-37.000
Strong snowfall in the French and Swiss Alps, at night in the Northern Alps.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/xe7mqr0vmuo4.png
Forecast of stratospheric intrusion over northern California.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00979/1ozlb4uxhe51.png
Dood , this place is not an hour by hour weather report blog
connect some dormant braincells before next post
Eben, ren has an amazing way of alarming the Alarmists with his reports of colder than average weather reports.
So, enjoy.
Anomaly in 2019 will be around 0.35 degrees C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
Eben
To be honest, ren’s weather reports are by far more interesting than the polemic mostly below the belt coming out of your ‘brain’ cells.
Eben,
And if he doesn’t accede to your demand, what then?
Dood, connect some dormant brain cells before next post.
Do you have some secret super power that forces people to bend to your will? If not, what ignorant and stupid sense of self importance leads you to think that anybody cares for your opinion?
You could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, I suppose. I don’t care. Go ahead, I’ll just laugh.
Give it a try.
Cheers.
eben…”Dood , this place is not an hour by hour weather report blog
connect some dormant braincells before next post”
The owner of the blog has a degree in meteorology and I don’t see him complaining. Neither am I.
This is why rational people don’t take you seriously , you look like a bunch of lunaticks. arguing if moon rotates and god knows what else
Eben,
Why would you believe that rational people would accept your opinion about what rational people take or don’t take?
Who cares what you think? Certainly not me – why should I?
Are you rational? Can you prove it?
Cheers.
eben…”you look like a bunch of lunaticks. arguing if moon rotates and god knows what else”
You missed the point, it’s between climate alarmists and skeptics. Once again, the skeptics prevailed due to their scientific common sense.
We had Nicola Tesla on our side.
You mean true skeptics like barry?
Gordon says:
“You missed the point, its between climate alarmists and skeptics. Once again, the skeptics prevailed due to their scientific common sense.”
The moon rotation issue is not between alarmists and skeptics. It’s between those who have a clue and the clueless. I am a GHE skeptic. Joseph Postma is a GHE skeptic who clearly stated the moon does rotate on its own axis, and he’s a published astro-physicist. Postma threw you clowns under the bus.
Tesla may have been smart in some areas, but he was a total moron regarding the moon rotation business.
You still have not even figured out the simple concept of curvilinear translation. How can anyone expect you to understand more complex movements.
Svante, SGW, please stop trolling.
Ford was a good actor. Now, he’s just another climate clown.
https://www.thenational.ae/uae/harrison-ford-delivers-apocalyptic-climate-change-warning-1.823568
That means a great person in your inverted frame.
He says:
“Stop Giving Power To People Who Don’t Believe In Science.”
“They know who they are. We know who they are!”
Svante,
You foolish Warmist.
Who cares whether people believe in “science” or not? Nature doesn’t give a toss!
You can believe anything you like. You can believe in an invisible and non-existent GHE. You can believe Michael Mann won a Noble Prize.
The facts don’t change. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, the temperature falls at night, and Winter is colder than Summer. CO2 heats nothing.
I don’t care what stupid pseudoscientists think, and I certainly don’t see why they should be given any power at all. Some people believe in democracy. You appear not to support democracy, and that is your right. I wish you well.
Cheers.
Or course people believe in science. They don’t believe in junk science. Do all the scientists who disagree from the global warming consensus believe in science? Stop being a dolt.
stephen…”Or course people believe in science. They dont believe in junk science”.
Global warming consensus is not science nor is it based on science. It’s based on belief and consensus. Real science tells us AGW cannot work as described.
JD…”Ford was a good actor. Now, hes just another climate clown.”
Another one bites the dust. Goes to show that acting is not related to intelligence.
Nate wrote –
“Mike,
I gave you a sinple fact about about co2 properties, and you have yet to process it, acknowledge it, or reject it.
Deal with that, then well see if you can process more.”
Nate is stupid enough to believe that stating simple facts about the properties of CO2, magically creates the non-existent GHE.
Bananas absorb and emit IR, and are more opaque to the same frequencies that Nate foolishly assumes gives CO2 magical heating properties. Maybe bananas have magical heating properties too?
Nate is an eminently stupid and ignorant member of the pseudoscientific climatological cult. Good for him. If he could actually find a copy of the inconveniently missing GHE description, he would be held in awe by all the foolish Warmists, who currently have to believe in faith, debate, and consensus to make their fantasies real.
Nate and his ilk carry on regardless. A perfect example of mindless fanatics avoiding reality at all costs.
Oh well.
Cheers.
As I suspected. Mike cant process nor retain a single relevant scientific fact. Going further would be as fruitfull as teaching heat transfer to a Ger*an.
MF, if are truly interested in moving beyond ignorance and trolling as a career, take a physics course, then Google greenhouse effect. Then come back and ask relevant questions.
Nate,
In what fantasy do you believe I should dance to your mad and discordant tune?
Don’t be even more stupid. Why would you imagine I would ask a fanatic for an explanation of the undefinable GHE?
If you could provide a scientific description of the GHE, you probably would. But you can’t, of course. Producing something that doesn’t exist is not easy.
I invite other readers to find a useful description of the GHE. Hopefully, it will describe how and where the effect may be observed. It will accord with observed facts, such as the Earth having cooled for four and a half billion years, and temperatures dropping in the absence of sunlight. And so on, and so on.
Nate, you are still a fool. A delusional fanatic, worshipping a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Carry on demanding. I’ll keep saying “no”, and laughing.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“I invite other readers to find a useful description of the GHE”.
Here you are:
https://tinyurl.com/y6sfq7ye
Svante,
Nonsense.
What is this pointless piece of nonsense? Another foolish attempt to rewrite the laws of physics?
You are as stupid and ignorant as Nate. I guess you have tried to find a GHE description which looks even partly scientific, and have failed. If you claim you have such an impossible thing, why keep it hidden?
Go off and worship some more pseudoscience, foolish Warmist.
Still no GHE. No magical CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years – no equilibrium to be seen.
Time for you to provide another pointless and irrelevant link? How about a pointless and irrelevant analogy?
Cheers.
Svante
That was a good discussion. Good science. He is able to explain the GHE in such a way that most should be able to grasp the concept.
Norman,
Pity it is physically nonsensical then, isn’t it?
The nutty Professor doesn’t seem to realise the Earth has cooled. This makes all his blather worthless, no matter how sciencey it seems.
Just more delusional infatuation with something that does not exist.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Keep worshipping. Cargo Cult Science ain’t real science!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You may not have a bit of memory but we have already discussed you point about the Earth cooling. I believe it has been several times.
Let us specify the Earth Surface. That has not warmed or cooled by but a few degrees in billions of years. Its temperature is maintained by solar flux. I am not sure what your point would be about the whole Earth. Not sure what it matters, at this time, if the Core were a few degrees warmer a billion years ago.
You certainly seem to want to totally ignore the GHE. It does not state that CO2 is heating the surface as if by magic. That is your burning straw-man argument.
The claim is that the heated surface will reach a higher temperature with an atmosphere of GHG than it would if these gases were not in the atmosphere.
If you missed it, E. Swanson did a valid experiment to demonstrate the basic effect. A heated blue plate transmits IR to a nonheated green plate. This energy warms the green plate, the green plate returns some of this energy back to the blue plate increasing its temperature. Pretty straight forward.
Now use you own Feynman quote: “If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesnt make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesnt matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. Thats all there is to it.
You guess that there is no GHE maintaining a higher equilibrium temperature for the Earth’s surface.
Well here is the experiment which disagrees with you guess.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Use your own philosophy. You have your guess, “No GHE” the experiment disagrees with you guess. Your guess is wrong. Time to adapt and change.
Norman,
Don’t blame me for your lack of mental acuity.
You still cannot provide a description of the GHE, can you?
As to the Earths surface, it is fairly simple, so you should be able to understand. The surface is no longer molten – it has cooled. No GHE heating, no CO2 warming – it has cooled.
Swanson’s experiment is nonsense. “These demonstrations refute claims that Infrared “BackRadiation” violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because energy flowing from a hot body can result in warming of that body when there is another body situated between the hot body and the colder surroundings.” Try and figure out what that means – particularly the claim that “energy flowing from a hot body can result in warming of that body”. What rubbish!
I suppose his excuse is that he cannot express himself in English very well. He is right in that respect, that is for sure!
You go on with more misdirection –
“The claim is that the heated surface will reach a higher temperature with an atmosphere of GHG than it would if these gases were not in the atmosphere.”
Once again, this is nonsense. The surface of the Moon reaches far higher temperatures, simply because it has no atmosphere. On Earth, the highest temperatures are obtained on surfaces which have the least amount of mythical GHGs – the arid tropical deserts. These places lack the most important GHG (H2O) by definition. They are arid.
If you could describe the GHE (you cannot), then you could propose a testable GHE hypothesis (chortle, chortle), at which point Feynman’s quote would apply.
No guess. No GHE. No unicorns. No Nobel Prize for Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician. Physical facts are not decided by consensus, or debate.
Nature doesn’t give a toss about foolish Warmist opinions, and nor do I. Bad luck, boo hoo.
Pray harder, Norman.
Cheers.
Note that the GHE works on geothermal cooling too.
Surface heat loss must match loss to space.
Surface temperature must vary to achieve this.
S,
You wrote –
“Surface heat loss must match loss to space.” Well, duh! Considering the surface is hotter than space, where do you expect the heat to go? That’s where it has gone for four and a half billion years, why change now?
You have never managed to actually describe the GHE, so your statement about what it can work on is completely meaningless.
You should be aware that temperatures actually drop at night. Cooling is not heating. That’s a stupid pseudoscientific fable. Some people are gullible enough to believe almost anything. Does that sound like you?
Gullible foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Poor Norman continues to be confused: “The claim is that the heated surface will reach a higher temperature with an atmosphere of GHG than it would if these gases were not in the atmosphere.”
Norman’s “claim” is the new, revised AGW/GHE pseudoscience. It is designed to get around the 2LoT. But, as usual, Norman avoids the relevant physics.
The atmosphere will limit both how hot and how cold the surface gets. It does this by regulating heat transfer to space. The heat energy being supplied by the Sun. The atmosphere can NOT raise the surface temperature.
JDHuffman
Why do you find it necessary to jump in my posts with your awful Joseph Postma made up physics. You don’t have a clue about real physics. I already know your phony made up version of unsupported declarations. I really have nothing to say to you. You are devoid of logic, reason or any scientific knowledge. You are full of taunts and empty posts. I don’t want to waste my time with you. I like rational intelligent debate. This is not possible with you.
Yes the atmosphere certainly does cause a higher surface temperature. Just like the green plate causes the heated blue plate to reach a higher temperature. All good physics all sound logic. All wasted on you.
Experiments prove you wrong. You are deluded and will continue in this state. Learn some real physics. At this time you only know the Postma made up version.
Mike Flynn
Why don’t you ignore E. Swanson’s explanation of his experiment (since you are not able to follow it) and just look at the results.
The heated blue plate reaches a steady state temperature with its surrounding (the yellow line temperature). Move the green plate up and it absorbs energy from the blue plate and heats up. Now the blue plate reaches a higher steady state temperature.
Also you are dense with the molten surface. It cooled very rapidly and then it quit cooling and reached a steady state temperature with the Sun. You have been informed, the lava in Hawaii is very hot. It cools very fast and in a few days in at ambient temperature but it does not keep cooling. It reaches a steady state temperature with the solar input.
Now again with your very stupid Moon point. You choose only the hottest measurement for the Moon. Well I will choose just the coldest. What is the point of that? You need to average the high and the low to find the surface temperature. If the Earth had just an atmosphere of CO2 (same density as now) with no cooling ocean’s its surface would be much hotter than now.
The experiment proves you wrong. Accept Feynman and adapt.
Poor Norman can only respond in his usual immature and uneducated ways. He can’t refute the actual physics, so he resorts to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
The “green plate”, being a real object and thus possessing thermal resistance (unlike the unreal, perfectly conducting, ultra-thin, blackbody green plate in the thought experiment), insulates the “blue plate”. People wishing to interpret this unsurprising result as “back-radiation heating” mistakenly do so, and their confirmation bias is appeased.
Mike Flynn says: “No CO2 heating”.
That’s right Mike, no CO2 heating, only reduced cooling.
Heat flows from hot to cold but the rate depends on the temperature difference.
If heat input exceeds output you get warming.
Svante, you must be in the same typing class as Norman. You get one fact correct, but then come to the wrong conclusion.
The Earth has a nearly constant heat source, the Sun. But, Earth’s heat energy output is based on temperature. The higher the temperature, the greater the output. CO2 is NOT an insulator. It is a radiative heat transfer medium.
Maybe when you complete your course in typing, you both can take aa class in physics.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “The “green plate”, being a real object and thus possessing thermal resistance (unlike the unreal, perfectly conducting, ultra-thin, blackbody green plate in the thought experiment), insulates the “blue plate”.”
What do you exactly mean by “insulates” the blue plate? How is this insulating property working? What is the green plate doing to the blue plate (they are both in a strong vacuum)? How is it slowing the rate of energy loss by the blue plate?
JDHuffman
If you whine about my posts why do you need to jump in when not invited?
Your empty and irrational pseudoscientific opinions really do not interest me at all. I really just like to ignore your comments completely. You have nothing of value to contribute.
Here you go Norman:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
Norman, YOU are the one whining. I just report reality.
You keep getting things wrong, and it’s my duty to correct you.
And, I especially enjoy when you claim you like to ignore my comments! You can’t even do what you claim.
It’s like you were born to be wrong.
svante…”Surface heat loss must match loss to space.
Surface temperature must vary to achieve this”.
You do understand, I hope, that radiation is not the only means of dissipating heat at the surface. In fact, at terrestrial temperatures, it’s a highly inefficient way of dissipating heat.
Lindzen pointed out that heat is transferred high into the atmosphere by convection then radiated to space. CO2 radiation expert, R. W. Wood, claimed CO2 radiation is not the means by which heat is dissipated but due to conduction to the atmopshere, which is 99% N2/O2.
And who said surface heat loss had to match heat loss to space? Denser, heated air at the surface will cool naturally through expansion at higher altitudes as it’s density lowers.
If the Sun heated the surface 24/7, that would likely be the case but half the planet has a chance to cool at night. That cooling can be due to simple expansion of the air and not require radiation.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Maybe it would help if you read your own links.
From your link: “or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
In order to have a radiative insulator it must be made of a highly reflective material. The green plate is not such a material. It is absorbing the energy from the blue plate and heating up. When it heats up that is when the blue plate temperature begins to rise to a higher temperature.
Thank you for your assistance in making my point for me, Norman. The “green plate” cannot radiatively insulate the “blue plate”, at least not by very much, assuming the “green plate” has low reflectivity.
But, the only way the “blue plate” can warm the “green plate” is if it is either insulating the blue, or is acting as a heat source to the blue. Since we all agree the “green plate” isn’t a heat source, and you have now agreed that it cannot radiatively insulate the blue, then that only leaves one other property of the “green plate” which can be causing the warming of the blue.
This is where you google “thermal resistance”.
“thermal resistance (unlike the unreal, perfectly conducting, ultra-thin, blackbody green plate in the thought experiment).”
Correct, in the thought experiment, there is no need for thermal resistance.
And yet its solution is similar to the real world results.
In both the Green plate warms, and the Blue plate warms. This is why there is no need to invoke thermal resistance as the cause of the effect in the experiment.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
There is another possible answer for why the green plate will cause the heated blue plate to reach a higher temperature. The green plate is not a “heat” source but it is an energy source, it is an IR emitter that is emitting IR to the blue plate, which the blue plate absorbs and is added to the internal energy. This is what all established physics states what happens.
You do not like this explanation but it is most valid and can easily explain the results of the experiment. Your “thin ice” explanation can easily be shown to be incorrect. If you cool the green plate to the temperature of the surroundings the blue plate temperature will not change. This disqualifies your attempt at a counter explanation to the accepted physics.
This is what actual science says: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
From:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
You can find this same concept in any textbook on heat transfer, all the same.
So just consider that the scientists are not wrong (if that is possible for you to do) and that you are mistaken. Let us say that currently engineers use the accepted science (quoted above) to design heat transfer items (especially in space where radiant energy is the dominant form of heat transfer).
What would happen if you accepted actual science. The actual science states that the heated blue plate emits IR from its surfaces. It emits IR toward the green plate. The green plate absorbs the IR and warms up. As the green plate warms it emits more IR than the surroundings (that established the first blue plate steady state temperature). This IR reaches the blue plate and is absorbed by that surface adding to the total incoming energy of the blue plate. It is receiving input energy from the lamp and IR from the green plate. It is receiving more total energy than when only the surroundings were present so its temperature goes up until it now emits as much as it is receiving. This is what the physics state. You can make up your own versions, it won’t make them correct or convince anyone that you are right.
Norman,
You wrote –
The green plate is not a heat source but it is an energy source, it is an IR emitter that is emitting IR to the blue plate, which the blue plate absorbs and is added to the internal energy.
Only if it has a higher temperature, of course.
If its temperature is lower, the hotter object will absorb precisely no energy from the colder plate. An example is expecting water to warm by absorbing energy from ice emitting 300 W/m2. Nope, no amount of ice can be used to make water warmer, no matter how you try to concentrate or focus the IR from the ice!
It doesn’t matter how many multicoloured diagrams you have, how many arrows you have facing in interesting directions, or even the qualifications of the graphic designer – it is still nonsense.
As to Swanson’s experiment, it doesn’t demonstrate what he thinks it does. If you read it, you will notice he cannot even clearly state what it is that he is demonstrating, that is not explicable without resorting to nonsensical terms like “back radiation”.
Just more pseudoscientific climatological foolishness. Still no GHE.
Cheers
Sorry Norman, if the “green plate” doesn’t act as either a heat source or an insulator to the “blue plate”, it isn’t warming it. Since it does warm it slightly, and since it isn’t a heat source and it’s not radiatively insulating it to any great extent (low reflectivity), then thermal resistance is your answer.
Norman, you still don’t get it.
If the plates are identical, and in full contact, they will achieve the same equilibrium temperature. If they are then pulled slightly apart, they will maintain the same temperature, with no losses. If they are pulled further apart, the green plate will drop in temperature. At no time, will the green plate cause the blue plate to warm above it’s initial equilibrium temperature.
You just have a learning disability when it comes to technical issues.
But, at least you can type.
Again, here is how it works, for very slight separations:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
JDHuffman
I tire of your endless unsupported opinions (not that you will ever stop giving them).
Do an actual experiment and prove to the physics world they are wrong and you are correct. Take two plates in a vacuum with an energy source on one side that are touching. Now move them apart a bit. You will see that the non heated plate will begin to cool. That is what will happen in the real world. You can conjure up any idea you want, as long as you do no experiment you behavior is that of a child that wants to interrupt adult conversations with their childish opinions.
Man up and experiment, I have zero interest in your endless unsupported pseudoscience opinions.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “Sorry Norman, if the green plate doesnt act as either a heat source or an insulator to the blue plate, it isnt warming it. Since it does warm it slightly, and since it isnt a heat source and its not radiatively insulating it to any great extent (low reflectivity), then thermal resistance is your answer.”
No it is not a “heat” source but it is an energy source. The combination of energy from the green plate and the light reaching the blue plate cause it to reach a higher temperature necessary for it to emit the same energy as it is receiving. Simple basic physics.
Explain how you could test your thermal resistance as the cause for what the green plate is doing. Give some calculations. I can give you valid heat transfer equations that will work out to what is observed. The green plate emits IR to the blue plate based upon its temperature, the blue plate receives outside energy input. I can add this energy together to find the final steady state temperature of the blue plate. What equations do you use to describe you thermal resistance? Set up some calculations using thermal resistance equations that will show that the blue plate will reach a higher temperature.
Mike Flynn
You are totally failing the Feynman test that you advocate. You keep putting out your unsupported notions and ideas but you have yet to perform even one experiment to prove any of them.
I already said I don’t care if you don’t understand E. Swanson’s explanation (I understand it and it is very valid physics). The test demonstrates the blue plate gets hotter when a non-heated green plate is moved up next to it. Those are the facts you are not addressing or ignoring.
The green plate is colder than the blue plate. It has no energy source other than what the blue plate is sending it. Yet when moved into position the blue plate temperature goes up.
YOU: “If its temperature is lower, the hotter object will absorb precisely no energy from the colder plate. An example is expecting water to warm by absorbing energy from ice emitting 300 W/m2. Nope, no amount of ice can be used to make water warmer, no matter how you try to concentrate or focus the IR from the ice!?
Your first sentence is an unsupported conjecture with no basis in real physics. Then you go on with a poor analogy to try to justify your statement.
If your water is heated than the ice will cause the water to reach a higher temperature for the same heat input energy than if the heated water was surrounded by dry ice.
E. Swanson’s experiment clearly shows this to be true. You just will not accept you are wrong but continue to justify your error.
Before the green plate is moved up the blue plate reaches a steady state temperature with the colder surroundings (temperature is the yellow trend line). When the green plate is moved up, still colder than the blue plate, the blue plate temperature goes up. Totally showing your points are not valid. Again go back to the Feynman quote. You have your ideas, experiment proves them all wrong!!
“No it is not a “heat” source but it is an energy source.”
Incorrect, Thickman. You have a “green plate” being introduced which warms Emotional Swansong’s “blue plate” by a few degrees. You have only two possible options. “Energy” doesn’t cut it I’m afraid.
1) the “green plate” supplies heat to the “blue plate”.
2) the “green plate” insulates the “blue plate”.
So, what do you choose, 1) or 2)?
DREMT, JD, Mike,
The GPE problem is a textbook homework problem. It has been solved with standard heat transfer physics by many students over the years.
Its solution has been shown to you by several of us. And the solution of the ideal case is similar to the experimental results. Its always good to check theory with experiments.
But you guys have NEITHER theory nor experiment, just declarations, hand waving, and guesses.
I challenge any of you to show how the GPE can be SOLVED. Not guessed, actually solved.
What equations are used? Where did they come from? And how do you use them to arrive at your solution?
JD, DREMT, Mike… Gordon?
If none of you can do that, then you are not really doing science are you?
And why then should anyone believe your ‘solution’ is correct?
Norman must have figured out he was wrong, again. Now he’s admitting what I discribed: “Take two plates in a vacuum with an energy source on one side that are touching. Now move them apart a bit. You will see that the non heated plate will begin to cool.”
He was actually able to understand my comment!
(But poor Nate is still lost in his pseudoscience.)
No Norman, the green plate is not an energy source, either. A “source” adds new energy to a system.
Your deficit in thermodynamics is revealed again.
And working equations mean nothing if the equation is improperly applied. For example, suppose I claimed you owed me a billion dollars. The equation is “amount owed” = A^3, where A = $1000.
How soon can you pay up?
JDHuffman
You are wrong: “If they are pulled further apart, the green plate will drop in temperature. At no time, will the green plate cause the blue plate to warm above it’s initial equilibrium temperature.”
Yes the blue plate will start to increase in temperature when you move the green plate away and it no longer touches the blue plate.
Again do an actual experiment. Set it up like E. Swanson’s test except start with the two plates touching. Now move the green plate away and the green plate temperature drops and the blue plate temperature goes up. The blue plate was able to lose energy on the green plate side by conduction. That mechanism has been broken and now only radiant energy will remove energy from the blue plate. However the green plate is sending energy back to the blue plate and it loses less energy than it did by conduction so its temperature rises. Do the experiment. Your declarations mean nothing!!
Nate,
I love problems. Can you transcribe the GPE problem for me?
Norman, you don’t have the background or logical ability to understand experiments. You gravitate to “experiments” that align with your beliefs. Here, your “experiment” is invalid because you don’t have the energy flows. You just imagine them.
Beliefs, opinions, and imaginations are NOT science, but you can’t even understand that.
Norman,
I agree that Mike is using a bad analogy, but you stop using statements that imply a cold object adds energy to a warm one. Give it up. You are trying to win a semantic argument.
It is a fact that the blue plate warms up and I hope everyone can agree that it warms because it cannot cool as fast when the green plate moves in. All energy comes from the heat source through the blue plate to the green plate. As long as it is colder, none of its heat content goes to the warmer blue plate. All of its additional heat content came from the blue plate. The green plate adds zero extra energy to the system anywhere.
If you are trying to use the blue/green plate analogy to illustrate the effect of IR absorbing gases on surface temperature, it’s a major fail. Can you explain why?
Chic Bowdrie says:
The surface budget fallacy?
Chic Bowdrie
I wrote a response to your post but it did not post. I will try to break it up to see what parts caused the fail.
Chic Bowdrie, I am still working on the link you posted above that connects your ideas on another blog. I am trying to understand you perspective on heat transfer.
As far as my statement you object to: “I agree that Mike is using a bad analogy, but you stop using statements that imply a cold object adds energy to a warm one. Give it up. You are trying to win a semantic argument.:
It is not a semantic argument, it is what established physics has determined takes place by several decades of experimental evidence.
Chic Bowdrie
Here:
http://tinyurl.com/yyxevvg4
scroll down to equation 4 and read the words under it.
This is what they say: “This expression provides the difference between thermal energy that is released due to radiation emission and that which is gained due to radiation a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n.”
Chic Bowdrie
Do you see the word choice gained? that means the colder surroundings are actually adding energy to the surface being examined. They don’t add heat which is defined as the NET energy transfer but they add energy. The difference between this determines how much heat the surface is losing.
I am not offering my opinions on the matter, I am using valid established physics that works very well and has not been found to be flawed.
I do think E. Swanson test is a valid analogy showing how the GHE does work. Solar visible energy is transparent to the atmosphere and moves through it to reach the surface where it is absorbed. The surface does not reach a temperature capable of emitting visible light but emits in IR bands. The GHG present will absorb all but a fraction of the IR emitted by the surface. Some of this energy is then directed back to the surface which adds energy (not heat) to the surface. Along with solar input the temperature of the surface will reach a higher steady state. Like the blue plate in E. Swanson experiment. The blue plate emits IR that warms the green plate, it starts emitting more IR than the surroundings (being at a higher temperature) toward the blue plate. The added energy drives the blue plate to a higher steady state temperature.
If you don’t agree please support your debate with valid established physics or provide a valid experiment showing that the current understanding is not correct. Otherwise I see no reason to think it is not quite valid.
Norman links to an equation he cannot understand.
Nothing new.
It’s about time for him to start his usual insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. That always happens when he runs out of ways to fool people.
Norman,
I see the word gained and the author is using language you are comfortable with. I can see from past discussions that others are not comfortable with “gained, added, etc.” These are semantic disagreements, IMO, because no net energy ever got added to the warm surface from the cold one. If I owe you $2 and you give me back $3 in change from my $5 bill, you didn’t add any money to my net worth. Semantics, man, semantics.
I’ve read the counter arguments about cold photons not working against warm surfaces or warm waves cancelling them out and maybe there is something to that. I don’t know. I’m just suggesting that you will not convince anyone who has repeatedly rejected your explanations. Let’s move on.
See the new thread below for the rest of the story (a little Paul Harvey lingo there).
Chic,
‘Can you transcribe the GPE problem’
It’s the one being discussed in this thread. Except with thin black body plates.
OK, so as expected, JD cannot solve the problem. Yet, inexplicably, he declares a ‘solution’.
That leaves DREMT. Or Mike. Or Gordon.
Nate,
I’m looking for one of the textbook problems you refer to. I want to try to see how the question is posed and try to come up with the answer the textbook gives. But don’t give me the answer.
This is not a gotcha question. I trust you have seen a textbook with this type of problem. A link or citation will do.
Chic,
This specific one is 400 W/m^2 input from sun normal to large Blue Plate (a BB) in space.
What is temperature of plate?
Green plate (a large BB) added in parallel behind BLUE.
What is temperature of GREEN and BLUE after a long time.
Please do solve it and show these guys.
For other problems, I’ll have to hunt for them.
Mike, DREMT, you cannot offer a solution of GPE either?
Then how do you know your ‘solution’ is correct? Very odd.
Here’s a hint, the well known technology multi-layer-insulation uses this very principle.
In fact the example they show is almost exactly our GPE problem. See Function and Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Chic, I recall a HW problem to derive their equation for the heat transfer coefficient.
Ah, MLI. Multiple layers of reflective material.
No. Apparently you missed the very first example, which is non-reflective material. It works for that too.
Did you read it?
Nate,
The link provides a solution for a problem where the temperature of the side facing the source is kept constant. This is not the same problem as the blue/green plate experiment. Good thing, because it also gave the solution which I didn’t want until finished the assignment.
I formulated my own homework problem and remembered posting on this sometime back. Does anyone know an easy way to search this blog for it?
Add this to your google search string:
site:www.drroyspencer.com
Filter by time.
Or tell me what search for, I have downloaded text files.
‘Not the GPE’ ‘one side held at constant temperature’.
True, but I trust that you agree that this difference is not a way out for DREMT, and JD.
The geometry is the same. And the effect of the Green plate is the same. It insulates the blue plate purely via radiation.
The result is that the net flow of heat in one direction is cut in half (even more with reflective surfaces).
Just what one desires from insulation, and why MLI is used for that purpose.
In my work, MLI is used to keep heat from room temp from penetrating a cryostat and boiling away a cryogenic liquid.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Ha! Ha!
Mike gets what he repeatedly asks for. Can’t deal.
Mike your charade of repeatedly asking for a GHE explanation is exposed.
You are only programmed to respond with catch-phrases like ‘Still no GHE’ etc.
Svante’s video is an opportunity for you.
Here’s your chance to poke real holes in GHE science. Let’s see what you got?
Nate,
The nutty professor provides no GHE science.
Neither does anybody else.
Maybe if someone could provide a copy of the GHE couched in scientific terms, supported by a testable GHE hypothesis, then at least the matter could be assessed.
But of course, nobody can. No science. No GHE.
Obviously, nobody even attempts to suggest a GHE description. The laughter at such an attempt would be deafening. Give it a try. Be prepared for a question or two, before I start laughing. How hard can it be? Probably about as hard as Gavin Schmidt becoming a real scientist.
Cheers.
“But of course, nobody can. No science. No GHE.”
Mike, Svante showed you what you asked for, a perfectly adequate explanation of the GHE for blog purposes.
You have no scientific response.
It shows that you are a fraud, who really has no idea what’s wrong with GHE science. All you offer is a bunch of hot air (Ha!).
“if someone could provide a copy of the GHE couched in scientific terms”
No. No one here should do your busy work when it’s guaranteed to be ignored.
I would respectfully suggest that you Google it yourself, you lazy piece of crap!
Cheers.
Nate,
Claiming that an amateurish YouTube presentation by a nuttty professor is GHE science, is just crazy.
Neither the GHE nor unicorns exist, notwithstanding any claims you may make to the contrary.
Produce either in reality, rather than in your delusional fantasies, and others might believe you.
Of course you can’t. All you can do is wriggle and jiggle on your own hook, like the Warmist worm you are.
Carry on with claiming that cooling is heating, that pseudoscientific climatology is valid science, or even that you have a valid GHE explanation hidden away somewhere!
So sad, too bad. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. Quite ridiculous (unless you are a delusional and gullible GHE true believer, of course).
Keep blathering – it’s diverting, at least.
Cheers.
It’s funny how everything you say describes yourself.
‘Claiming that an amateurish YouTube presentation by a nuttty professor is GHE science, is just crazy.’
Nice try, Mike.
Easy enough to say its nutty and crazy, Mike. But apparently you cannot articulate what about it is nutty.
Without using any of your usual catch-phrases, what specifically, scientifically, is nutty about it?
What physics does it violate?
And Mike’s got nothing.
Weird that he keeps asking for a thing that he has no interest in, and is over his head in any case.
Nate, baiting is trolling. Please stop trolling.
Trolling is what Mike does regularly. Making ad-hom and declarative statements that cant be supported.
Questioning such statements is not baiting. It is holding people accountable.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Some are saying that in 12 years global warming will be dangerous.
Who thinks this is true?
In 12 years what will the global average temperature be?
So currently global average temperature is about 15 C.
In 12 years will it be about 15 C or some other number?
Could it be about 15.5 C or more, such as about 16 C ??
If it was 16 C in 12 years, will we see increase which would indicate such warming will happen in 12 years. Or will the warming occur suddenly as get close to the 12 year mark?
If it was 16 C in 12 years, what would the noticeable effect of average global temperature of 16 C?
Will entire world warm equally, or would southern hemisphere warm more or less than northern hemisphere?
Or will winter become warmer. Or will winter remain as cold (or even get colder) but summers get much warmer.
Or will warming be mostly in a region, such as polar region, which get so warm that all polar ice will melt in 12 years.
In 12 year do you imagine global warming will a lot more than 1 C – how much more?
gbaikie, it should concern you that none of your “ors” allow for a cooler future.
–Or will winter remain as cold (or even get colder) but summers get much warmer.–
–gbaikie, it should concern you that none of your ors allow for a cooler future.–
Oh, should there be a concern about cooler, Springs, Summers, and Falls?
Normally people are not too concerned about cooler summers. Though there should be some concern about shorter growing seasons. Or one could say they come to expect better growing seasons, which could worsen in the coming decades, causing some to miss the good times of “global warming” (that was claimed to be our utter doom).
gbaikie
“Some are saying that in 12 years global warming will be dangerous.”
In 12 years? Who tells that nonsense?
In 120 I would understand. But it might become dangerous due to cooling as well.
If exceeding warming globally melts huge amounts of ice: does this process not result in subsequent cooling locally at all the melting places? No idea…
Anyway: in 20 years I won’t be alive anymore.
A huge amount of ice has melted away from the summer Arctic ice pack over time, but the temps up there have risen faster than any other large region on Earth.
As the ice is on water, and water is darker than ice, the revealed surface absorbs more sunlight, adding to the warming.
So maybe local cooling would occur with the melting of lots of land ice – but I doubt it.
Interestingly, the fastest warming in the Arctic has occured during the Winter months, when there has been slower melt of the ice pack over time for that season. But all seasons in the Arctic have warmed – with the exception of the high Arctic in Summer (North of 80), which is ice-bound all year, and the skin temp of the ice sets the surface temperature.
barry…” the fastest warming in the Arctic has occured during the Winter months, when there has been slower melt of the ice pack over time for that season”.
Barry, are you right off your gourd? Melting of the ice pack in the Arctic winter?????
There is absolutely no solar energy for a couple of months at least and during that period frigid air descends from the stratosphere. The average ice thickness increases to 10 feet.
There is no ice pack. There are ice floes and they are moved around by winds, the Beaufort gyre, and the Transpolar Drift. What you call warming is a change in temperature from -50C to -45C, and only in continually moving locales. Only a raving masochistic optimist would call that warming.
Have you ever experienced -35C? It’s so cold that all you can think about if you’re outdoors at night, even with normal winter clothing, is to get indoors. During the day, if the Sun is shining, it’s rays provide enough warmth to endure such cold provided you are adequately dressed.
Ice does not melt in those conditions, so I have no idea what you’re on about with regard to dark water heating up the joint and melting ice.
Learn to read. I’m talking about long-term melting. At least you quoted the right part:
“The fastest warming in the Arctic has occured during the Winter months, when there has been slower melt of the ice pack over time for that season”
The amount of Arctic sea ice cover in every season is less than it was 40 years ago. Over the last several decades reduction of the area of sea ice in the Winter season has been less than the reduction of area in the Summer season.
Here’s a time series of March sea ice cover in the Arctic from 1979, when sea ice is usually at its maximum extent.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/images/03_Mar/N_03_extent_anomaly_plot_v3.0.png
Geddit?
barry, please stop trolling.
Why doubt it, it’s real
Forgive the link to realclimate, but it was where I knew I could fine a nice picture that shows the regional cooling that is probably due to the melting ice.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/what-the-2018-climate-assessments-say-about-the-gulf-stream-system-slowdown/
I draw your attention to what was contended:
Bindidno: “does this process not result in subsequent cooling locally at all the melting places? No idea…”
Not really corroborated by the realclimate article.
–Bindidon says:
February 11, 2019 at 6:09 AM
gbaikie
Some are saying that in 12 years global warming will be dangerous.
In 12 years? Who tells that nonsense?–
Dem presidential candidates trying to be more to the left as compared to their competitors of their primary process, which is beginning currently (it’s said there could be over 30 of them, though so far (very early in process) it’s only about dozen “which appear to be *serious*” ).
–If exceeding warming globally melts huge amounts of ice: does this process not result in subsequent cooling locally at all the melting places? No idea–
I think this could be a possible problem, if or when average ocean temperature is about 5 C.
Or major volcanic activity under any of the two ice sheets.
In comparison, I wonder if anyone thinks it is likely that anyone will be standing on the Moon within 12 years?
Anyone on the Moon inthe next twelve years will probably be Chinese.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-chinas-spectacular-moon-landing-is-so-significant
That would be good. Though still waiting for Chinese spacestation. And Maybe it will first be an Indian.
Going to lunar surface is a lot easier, now, then 50 years ago. And anyone could go to the Moon in terms of orbiting or landing and then returning from lunar surface.
But in terms of landing on lunar surface, I would say what important is landing in one of the polar regions, though I would not say whether the North or South polar region more important. Both poles are not explored. Both poles are quite different than rest of lunar surface. And it is thought the lunar poles might have possible potential of commercially mining lunar water.
And also could have other surprising aspects, or the poles are almost “another world” which needs to be explored.
The BoM pointed out the weather conditions that have held for the last couple of months that permitted such high extremes, so I don’t know why it is implied here that weather conditions were ignored by BoM.
There were no record-breaking cold events for January (for that month), and that is unsurprising, as Australia has generally warmed since the beginning of the better quality instrumental record (from 1910).
Yep, record-breaking heat got lots of mention. Is this a problem? It is, after all, of a piece with AGW. The usual caveat applies – one month’s data says nothing about climate change, but the fact that there were heaps of hot record breakers and no cold ones is indicative.
Here’s the chart of national January mean temps for Australia since 1910.
https://tinyurl.com/y3vcth32
Here is minimum temps for Jan.
https://tinyurl.com/y4aezd7v
And maximum.
https://tinyurl.com/yxm2qyjr
Jan 2019 was the hottest nationally. The regional variation (cooler than av. in some parts) is mentioned by BoM.
barry
3 times in sequence:
The page you requested was not found on this server
Hmmm. they were fine last night. Let’s see if the original links work.
Heres the chart of national January mean temps for Australia since 1910.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmean.aus.01.57820.png
Here is minimum temps for Jan.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmin.aus.01.22474.png
And maximum.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmax.aus.01.30523.png
And here is the page where you can form these graphs:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries
Ok, the links work, but they’ve changed from last night – probably a timestamp at the end of the string. If the first 3 don’t work later on, just use the 4th link to create the graphs.
Yep, they are time stamped and change at least daily. Oh well.
December 2018 was also the warmest December on record. Here’s the summary for people to get riled up about.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201812.summary.shtml
Tony Heller’s new video on temperature data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgk3xFHvWLE
Heller is a serial spreader of misinformation.
No he isn’t. Everything he does is spot on and I was wondering how long it would take one of you leftists to attack him-4 hours and 7 minutes.
At the outset he provides a data set from 1997 (GHCN) which is now much larger.
He does not describe why adjustments were made, despite there being a wealth of literature on that subject, and instead refers to adjustment as if they were invented purely at the whim of the data compilers.
Any rigorous attempt to criticise on adjustments has to deal with the reasons given for adjustments and deconstruct those. Heller doesn’t even mention them. This is the fundamental problem with almost all his blather. He ignores the literature, preferring conspiracy theories.
Even Anthony Watts peer reviewed paper adjusted for the time of observation bias – the largest adjustment for USHCN – because he realized that the observation time changes really do introduce a bias over time. Watts actually attempted a reconstruction of US temps. Heller has done no original work. Typically, when a skeptic starts to do serious, granular work on the temp records, they end up corroborating the official records. C.f. Muller, Mosher, Watts, Condon, Roman M. Those who do no original work keep swatting blindly. Heller is the worst for this.
Anthony Watts stopped hosting “Steve Goddard” posts at his blog years ago because even Watts knows what a BS artist Heller is.
barry,
You just don’t like what Tony Heller has uncovered here. All the temperature data being hidden by BOM, all the data fraud at NOAA and NASA, how the bogus “time of observation” adjustments increase linearly so the end result tracks perfectly with the increasing concentration of CO2. You can blather on all you want about it, but Tony has nailed these junk scientists. Here’s some more historical Australian temperature data the distant past that ruins the global warming scam. Thanks Tony!
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-11043010_shadow.jpg
Barry,
How can the GHCN data set be much larger when the number of weather stations reporting to GHCN have fallen substantially? Also, the warming bias due to urbanization has never been addressed. And, there is a conspiracy or collusion. Conspiracy or collusion are words in the English language. They actually do exist. Aren’t you leftists accusing Trump of conspiring or colluding with Russia? Many scientists who are leftists or have jumped into bed with the leftists and perpetrated this junk to help further the leftist agenda-The Green New Deal. One hand washes the other in the hopes that both get something out of it.
Barry,
Is there any inaccuracy in his reporting of James Hansen’s prediction of June 1986 that by 2020 the temperature would warm betwen 3-4F? This was before Hansen started adjusting the data. Wonder if he saw that his prediction wasn’t coming true. Too bad for all you alarmists that real scientists started looking at all this.
Stephen P Anderson
“How can the GHCN data set be much larger when the number of weather stations reporting to GHCN have fallen substantially? ”
*
Where do you have that nonsense from, Stephen P Anderson?
GHCN V3 has 7280 stations, and GHCN daily has nearly 36000.
I have both datasets in my computer.
DO YOU ??? Certainly you don’t !!!
Show me your source of this misinformation.
It’s nearly 3 AM now, and time to go to bed.
“In the case of GHCN-Daily, however, the densest historical station networks come from the United States, Canada, and Australia–a reflection of the comprehensive contributions from these countries.l
Are the standards the same across these datasets?
Maybe Australia leads the way, as far as quality, reliability, and accuracy go. Pity the BOM refuses to warrant accuracy, reliability or quality.
Cheers.
Bindidon,
Here is one source. Maybe you have BS on your computer.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html
Bunch of falsifiers and junk scientists collecting temperature data. I wouldn’t trust any of it.
Stephen,
How can the GHCN data set be much larger when the number of weather stations reporting to GHCN have fallen substantially?
The GHCN data set comprises 7280 stations for their monthly global data set, and 36,000 for their daily set, as Bindidon said. They are 2 separate data sets, and the monthly one is used for global climate data.
For the globalmonthly set, less than half the stations are able to be updated once a month on the 8th of the month. The rest either have been added retrospectively as a one-time addition from now-defunct stations:
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
or are updated more slowly and sporadically than the about 2500 that are part of the automated CLIMAT stream.
To be clear, the station drop-off in recent times comes from historical data being added retrospectively, not from any data being deleted. That’sexplained in the methods paper above.
Heller shows you data from a 1997 paper. The one I linked just above. The station count near the end is about 1500, with a peak at any one time of 6000. In 2019, 1000 more stations than 20 years ago are updated regularly, and there has been sporadic addition of historical data to GHCN in the last 20 years.
There are the same amount of stations for global monthly, but the data pool is much larger.
Rather than talk about Trump (who gives a F about him in this discussion?), read the paper and get back to me. This is what Heller should be doing, so he does more than raise conspiracy theories.
You just dont like what Tony Heller has uncovered here.
Hahaha. No, I’m saying Heller invents conspiracy theories and misleads his minions (and other wayfarers who like his BS).
I’m replying here with methods papers to the data sets. I’m going to bet my soul that neither you nor Stephen have ever read them carefully, if at all. And that is the least you have to do to rise above being a regurgitator of rubbish.
“Is there any inaccuracy in his reporting of James Hansen’s prediction of June 1986 that by 2020 the temperature would warm betwen 3-4F?”
Nope, that seems legit, but I didn’t bother checking.
“This was before Hansen started adjusting the data. Wonder if he saw that his prediction wasn’t coming true.”
What if I told you that the temp of the US had risen 1.4F in that time?
https://tinyurl.com/y3vxxeyg
Would you then say that maybe Hansen and the others running GISS maybe aren’t trying to make the data match predictions?
Or would you shift gear to a new criticism?
Barrister barry defends the guilty AGW hoax with all the zealotry of a kamikaze.
Dodging the flak, provided by the relevant physics, he plunges full speed into his target, hoping to cause some damage to reality.
A failed mission from the start.
Barry,
You asked me where I got this crap. I told you. From your leftist alarmist website. Also, I think because a lot more real scientists are looking at it now they can’t cook the books so to speak. I think they cherry pick as much weather station data as they can to try to make the temperature rise fit CO2 rise. But, you just can’t make real data fit your theory if your theory is wrong. One day we’re going to have these large CO2 generators (much bigger than the ones we have now) putting CO2 into the atmosphere because we’re going to need it to help feed people. When the next big temperature downturn comes it’s going to be a catastrophy for the planet and people.
Another skeptic who can’t understand a conversation. Nothing you said responds to what I said. And the source paper is there for you to read but you blabbed on about “leftist websites.” There is much more data in GHCN. That was what you queried, that’s the ball you just dropped.
Ask for science, get politics. So much for scientific ‘skepticism.’
I remember this
“Anthony Watts stopped hosting Steve Goddard posts at his blog years ago because even Watts knows what a BS artist Heller is.”
I started a food fight with Goddard over the triple point of water.
It revealed the nature of the Goddard.
It wasn’t pretty.
barry, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
barry, here’s some more weather for you.
The next snowstorm is forecast to hit Sunday night, bringing 1-2 inches of snow, AccuWeather said, and another would pile on 3-6 inches Monday afternoon into Tuesday.
The snow will ride a wave of record cold: High temperatures were expected in the upper 20s to low 30s, with wind chills from 17 to 22 degrees.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/10/seattle-snowiest-february-70-years-more-coming/2830164002/
Thank you.
Thank you Dr. Roy Spencer
We are working on a real solution to solve unevenly distributed freshwater and heat/coldness among other things: hydroloop.org/solution.
Another issue to consider is the freshwater footprint:
Australia and California for example, use a massive amount of freshwater to export goods, food and even services far more than the amount coming in.
This constitutes freshwater drain, making Australia and California dry faster if compared to the fact that if no fresh water was used to export food/goods, and services.
The other issue is the temperature comparison between extreme cold and extreme from the ideal temperature. To bring the temperature down in Australia from heat will be much cheaper than to increase Siberian landmass.
The point is to maximize different type of food, good or service production, the temperature for each type is different. And if we can bring colder freshwater to Australia and Africa, it will be much cheaper than bringing warm freshwater to Siberia.
Current temperatures in North America.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/gm1tbew0mpoh.png
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/c30jbkzazbgs.png
Dangerous freezing rain in Missouri and snowstorm in Iowa.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/ixs9xunr5jdy.png
A heavy snowstorm in Washington state.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/0kdgb399glbm.png
Svante, presumably in an attempt to appear intelligent, wrote a comment which comprised –
“Prejudice can cause detrimental decisions.”
This is about as stupid as saying “Water can cause death.”
True, but completely irrelevant.
Foolish Warmists often resort to pointless one line comments when they have no cogent responses.
A sad case of fanatics believing that science is settled by debate, and that consensus creates fact! Just look at Svante’s meaningless response to an opinion with which he did not agree.
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. So sad, too bad, Svante.
Cheers.
It is important to understand reality.
You can be happy in a fantasy world for a while, but in the long run it can kill you.
Here’s the GHE explained. No CO2 heating.
https://tinyurl.com/y6sfq7ye
Svante,
The same repetitive link to the same nutty professor. If you want to try an appeal to authority, choose an authority, not someone as deluded as yourself.
Oh dear. Have you considered learning some science? If you do, you might point out to the nutty professor the silly nature of his video. Another clueless amateur, pretending brightly coloured graphics will disguise his lack of knowledge.
I see you are having trouble finding an actual description of the GHE, clear enough to allow a scientist to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe you could widen your search to include unicorns, or Trenberth’s missing heat.
Keep searching, oh foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
You’re good at hand waving!
No Svante, it is you that is good at avoiding the relevant physics.
(Did you miss Mike’s hint, “nutty professor”?)
That video was just another rehash of the same old, worn out, pseudoscience. It relies on the bogus 255 K and confuses radiative flux with energy.
But, I really laughed out loud when he applied the 1.2 factor to 255 K to arrive at a surface temperature of 306 K! You likely don’t realize that corresponds to 33 C, 91 F. I guess he believes Earth will keep warming until the surface average gets that high.
“Nutty professor” is right.
I do realize that because it was written in the diagram.
He said “we over cooked it a bit”, did you miss that?
Then he said some people thinks it breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, even though heat flows from hot to cold in the diagram. Do you think such people exist?
Svante,
Why do you ask questions if you are not seeking knowledge? Are you making stupid attempts at gotchas?
Diagrams are not reality. NASA shows the Sun shining on all the continents at once. NOAA shows warm less dense water sinking and displacing denser colder water.
Energy budget diagrams show assumed energy flows in W/m2 adding, regardless of the physical impossibilty of adding temperatures in this fashion.
Nonsense, no matter how brightly coloured, remains nonsense.
Maybe you could provide some useful facts – a description of the GHE, accompanied by a testable GHE hypothesis, would be a good start.
Amateurish YouTube videos posted by nutty professors, or brightly coloured animated computer games produced by Gavin Schmidt, are based on pseudoscience, and not to be relied upon, of course.
Cheers.
That’s why he’s a “nutty professor”.
Got any more funny videos?
Reminds me of another professor:
S,
Intelligence is no protection against delusion.
Lindzen can’t produce a GHE description any more than you can.
What is your point? Are you trying to make some bizarre appeal to non-existent authority?
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
“Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.”
This was a couple of years after this peer reviewed research –
“Observations Reference Network (ACORN) data set is artificially created by the arbitrary correction of the truly measured temperatures making cooler the temperatures of the past [1-4]. Gillham [5] has freshly brought to the attention of the scientific community two old data sets that further support our claim, proving once more how the ACORN corrections are wrongly set up to magnify the warming trend where actually they should rather cancel the urban heat island effect reducing the trend.
We previously discussed as the warming of Australia evidenced by the Australian Climate”
Believe official Government records if you wish. They still won’t predict the future.
Cheers.
Oh no, I prefer to believe in tabloid stories, blogs and authors of scientific papers who regularly change their names.
It could possibly be interesting to unpack the allegations and find out what really is going on. But unfortunately you’re only capable of headlines and rhetoric, Flynn.
barry,
You can believe what you wish. It still won’t help you to predict the future. Or to magic the undefined GHE into existence.
Do you still believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter?
The pretend climate scientist Gavin Schmidt apparently does. Maybe you are not as stupid and ignorant as him, but I doubt it. Keep avoiding, if makes you feel better.
Cheers.
Tabloids? Are you referring to all the climate science journals? Anyway, back to Heller, he mostly refers to the homogenized older data, not the new data. Like when the NOAA took the 1930’s warming period away. Couldn’t have a cooling trend from the 1930’s to the 1970’s. Couldn’t be warmer back then than it is now. Wouldn’t fit the narrative.
Isn’t it amazing how all these homogenizations just keep making it warmer?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/11/another-bureau-rewrite-warms-australias-climate-history/
The trend in raw global temps is higher than the adjusted for the whole record.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
The latest NOAA SST revision (ERSSTv5) cooled recent temps from the previous version.
UAH v6 has a much cooler trend than UAH v5.6 after 2000AD.
No, not all adjustments warm the record.
As for Australia, there are roughly an equal number of stations that had their trend adjusted to cooling as warming.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/08/adjustments-sometimes-warm-sometimes.html
The overall effect is a slight warming of the entire record. But they homogenization techniques are put to stringent tests, which themselves make for interesting reading.
But you have to take an interest in understanding stuff instead of just regurgitating the cherry-picked rhetoric on certain blogs.
Climate science, which isn’t science at all, but pseudoscience, where data is always “adjusted”, “homogenized”, ignored, hidden, altered, made-up, faked, cheery-picked, and lied about, all in a desperate effort to make common folk believe that this diabolical trace gas CO2, which is essential for life on earth, is dangerous and will somehow ruin the earth’s climate, always 20 years in the future, this time, really, the calamity will strike. Meanwhile, in the world of sane people, we are seeing arctic ice increasing by enormous amounts, the Greenland Ice sheet increasing, fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, fewer droughts, less acreage burned, better standards of living for humans, longer life spans, no change in the rate of sea level rise, and decreasing temperatures.
Barry, the scam is over. We are all on to the Climate Gate fraudster’s pushing the CAGW scam.
barry,
The link you posted that supposedly explains how measured temperature adjustments affect global temperatures even cherry picks the time period of the adjustments they discuss:
“adjustments have relatively little impact on global temperatures, particularly over the past 50 years.”
The big scam are the adjustments they make prior to 1960, more than 50 years ago, all in an effort to remove the 1930’s warm period.
Even your links are full of cherry picked fraud.
No David – YOU are cherry-picking. From the same article:
The adjustments that have a big impact on the surface temperature record all occur before 1950.
Or did you not read the whole thing?
The sum of adjustments for the whole period is to cool the record, not warm it, contrary to Stephen’s blog-fuelled opinion.
Here is a link to raw and adjusted data for you to knuckle down and do some comparing.
https://tinyurl.com/y2syyk3a
The raw data is labeled “Without Corrections”
Exactly barry, they cool the past, to make the present appear warmer.
You’re starting to get it.
No, you idiot. The opposite is true.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
The raw data has a much cooler past. Adjustments (mainly to sea surface records) warm the pre-1950 record and makes the whole data set have a cooler trend as a result.
If skeptics want the global record with raw data they’re going to get a warmer centennial record, which means the globe has been warming faster since 1900, which indicates that sensitivity is higher than we thought, which means more warming coming….
Stupid skeptics don’t know the consequences of their fatuous arguments.
If David Jung returns he may eventually learn that he was not referring to the global temperature record. ‘Skeptics’ can’t read or think straight. The stupidity is interminable.
barry,
You are a fool if you believe you can predict future temperatures any better than I.
Want to bet?
There is no global temperature record. If you believe there is, tell me what the most recent global temperature is, taken from the record of global temperatures? If you choose to, of course. I don’t believe such a thing exists. Maybe it’s on the shelf beside the GHE description, do you think?
Still no GHE.
Cheers.
barry, you’re the one that is claiming there are no adjustments, but the adjustments result in warming, but they don’t result in warming.
It must be hard keeping all that straight….
What is this insanity in skeptics that they have to wholesale invent things other people have said?
They’re mad. Can’t even hold the thread of a conversation in their mind, but create phantom conversations out of thin air.
Mad and sad. I don’t encounter such intellectual depravity, such terminal miscommunication in real life, so why here? Who are these people?
Some mothers do have them?
barry, Svante, please stop trolling.
@Svante,
The “Green New Deal” looks pretty lame and it will wreak havoc on the prospects of the 70 plus elected Democrats who have embraced it.
As an amateur it was not too hard to pick on a couple of absurdities but the real fun will start when Dr. Roy dismantles the GND edifice brick by brick.
I look forward to your feeble efforts to defend the indefensible.
I haven’t read it because I already know how to fix the problem in an optimal way. I’m prejudiced like that.
Does that mean that you are in favor of “Mitigating Carbon”?
Are you a “Denier” who does not understand that CO2 is essential to all plants and animals? Do you deny that the planet gets greener with rising CO2 in the atmosphere?
Yes if you mean this, it will become necessary:
http://cmi.princeton.edu/about/cmi-mission
No on the latter questions.
Svante, please stop trolling.
I had, that was three days ago.
Svante, please stop trolling.
gc,
Svante knows how to fix the problem about as well as he can produce a useful definition of the GHE.
Which is to say he hasn’t got a clue, but is trying to appear wise and knowledgeable. This doesn’t change the reality that he is actually stupid and ignorant.
Typical foolish Warmist – all pretence and bluff, no actual knowledge.
Cheers.
That’s right, here:
https://tinyurl.com/y4tg8plq
S,
I assume you have linked to another meaningless YouTube video.
No doubt another fanatic without any power to change anything, claiming they have the answer.
Just like you?
Cheers.
Taxing Carbon emissions is crazy. When you tax something you get less of it. We need more carbon emissions rather than less.
The Gilets Jaunes in France are right. Stop raising taxes on gasoline….it is time to reduce the taxes on gasoline.
Nate wrote –
“Climate change has in the past changed weather PATTERNS, eg causing desertification in previously fertile regions.”
How foolish can a foolish Warmist be?
Does he really expect anybody who lives in the real world to believe that the changing statistics of weather records can affect anything except a foolish Warmist’s delusions.
Climate is the average of numbers derived from historical weather observations. No more, no less.
Nate is obviously trapped in his own fantasy.
Cheers.
yada yada foolish yada yada warmist yada yada delusions yada yada warmist yada yada fantasy yada yada yada pseudoscience..
More ad-hom noise, no signal from Mike-bot.
Bot-filters applied.
Nate, please stop trolling.
This just in…
https://www.geek.com/news/snow-has-fallen-in-a-hawaii-state-park-for-perhaps-the-first-time-ever-1774043/
A great snowstorm over the Great Lakes.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00979/ne6zz0eqmrw6.png
The temperature in the Central Pacific has fallen sharply.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00979/dk24ivznhemz.png
Stephen P Anderson
You wrote upthread:
“Here is one source. Maybe you have BS on your computer.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html”
First of all: thanks for your nice, intelligent suppostion. As all ‘skeptic’s, you seem to keep in guessing, suspecting, claiming instead in searching for facts.
And the best is here that ‘skeptic’s never have any problem to refer to the web site ‘skepticalscience’ whenever its alarmist blah blah fits to their narrative. Ha ha ha. Wonderful!
*
Here is a bit BS out of my computer, Anderson. It was extracted out of the GHCN daily data set:
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
where we all can find and process data out of over 100,000 stations, about 36,000 of which are specialised in temperature data.
1. in a first graph you see two plots of global temperature anomaly averaging:
– one in blue made out of data coming from all stations having sufficient records in the chosen reference period (1981-2010) to build a baseline for anomalies; that results in nearly all stations with early contribution being excluded;
– one in red made out of data in (1) plus that coming from a baselining with all 2.5 degree grid cells in which station data has been averaged, btw integrating lots of data absent in the blue plot:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pJVej3lVzcq-rZrQxztcrmFQ9WjY0Kt6/view
The plots are the result of a final average of all grid cells along latitude bands into a monthly time series for 1880-2018.
2. In the second graph you see a record of all stations having participated in each year in the corresponding time series.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/174RSYB87MwMqk0xTRcy0AlcmcMIUGLAn/view
You see how dramatically the stations disappear!
Horrible.
You see also, when comparing the first and the second graph, how little the influence of additional stations has been after around 1948.
And last not least, you see that while the number of stations goes up and down, the number of grid cells, and hence the global station coverage, keeps nearly constant since 50 years.
Why this grid? Simply because if you directly average all stations into a monthly time series, it will look like the backyard of the USA: 50 % of all stations namely are located there.
By gridding you move from a situation where 18000 US stations compete with 18000 stations outside of the US (i.e. over 90 % of the land surfaces) to one where 200 US grid cells compete with 2000 non-US grid cells.
You still do consider that be BS, Anderson? Your problem.
I like facts.
I forgot to link the plots’ color to the corresponding data.
Blue is the time series with all stations lacking data suffcient for a baseline during 1981-2010.
Red is the time series where nearly all stations lacking that baselining data obtained it out of their surrounding 2.5 deg grid cell.
Only 184 of actually 35,537 stations were excluded (those having no neighbour on their cell).
It is clearly visible that allowing this backdoor for stations having contributed in earlier times made the record ‘warmer’.
Not sure if I understand, Bin, but the red line is a cooler trend than the blue one. So allowing ‘backdoor’ stations without the data for the official baseline makes the record cooler, doesn’t it?
Yeah!
While Hawaii experiences its first snow evah, we have in Northeastern Germany, for the second time in sequence, a wonderful, mild ‘winter’ (quotes needed). Zero snow, zero ice…
Here minusses, there plusses. That’s life.
Do not count on early spring.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/02/16/1200Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=21.19,49.32,862
Do you mean us?
https://www.accuweather.com/en/de/berlin/10178/march-weather/178087?monyr=3/1/2019
Are you serious, ren?
High will expand now over Scandinavia.
This is not the end of the winter attack in the Northwest.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/02/17/1200Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-117.44,43.35,568
The eternal discussion about the 1930’s
Here are the top 25 years in the US maximum absolute temperature record collected out of the GHCN daily data set:
1934 18.20
1905 18.17
1914 18.13
1900 17.99
1907 17.98
2016 17.98
1906 17.94
1915 17.93
1908 17.92
1897 17.89
1910 17.86
1913 17.83
1931 17.82
1921 17.70
2017 17.63
2015 17.59
1926 17.57
1901 17.55
1998 17.55
1912 17.49
1909 17.48
2005 17.46
2002 17.46
1895 17.42
1936 17.40
And here are the top 25 years in the US minimum absolute temperature record collected out of the same GHCN daily data set:
2016 7.97
2015 7.70
2018 7.47
2017 7.45
1998 7.25
2005 7.08
2004 7.05
2002 7.04
2014 7.00
2003 6.97
2007 6.91
2006 6.88
2001 6.84
2012 6.81
2013 6.72
2000 6.69
1957 6.68
1981 6.66
2011 6.64
2010 6.57
1914 6.56
1905 6.56
1915 6.53
1991 6.53
1986 6.52
Fourty years ago, the lists would have shown different: because
-the number of US stations together with their spatial distribution
and
– the different processing of the data
obviously gave different results at that time.
Sure: there is the slight warming since then. But I don’t think it is the major aspect when considering the USA.
Even in the latest US data, the mid-30s saw the highest average temps IN SUMMERTIME.
https://tinyurl.com/yxu9f2ub
That hot Summer in the mid-30s has not been erased from the data. It’s still the hottest Summer.
So what happens if we run a linear regression from the hottest Summer in the US record to the latest summer?
https://tinyurl.com/y234wxuq
We find that on average US Summers have been getting warmer since the peak one in 1936.
Added bonus, maximum and minimum US Summer temps + trend line from 1936.
https://tinyurl.com/yxpbc2on
Maximum Summer temps have hardly changed since 1936.
https://tinyurl.com/y3n9q9vs
Minimum Summer temps are hotter lately than in the 1930s.
Thanks barry!
What about the cause then?
Same as for the reduced diurnal range (although you said that trend had stopped in later years)?
Contrails or the T^4 difference?
Reduced diurnal range is a problematic ‘prediction’ of AGW.
Globally the av diurnal range has diminished for the last 100 and also for the last 60 years.
But it’s not so clear for the last 30 years.
And it’s quite variable regionally. Eg, The diurnal range for Australia has not changed much since 1910 (-0.01 C/decade).
https://tinyurl.com/y4r2wc2z
Bindindon,
Can you do the 25 bottom minimum’s? My guess, it should show a very cool early 20th century.
The top 25 maximum seem consistent with what I have been seeing.
Ooops, unfortunately I missed this message!
I’ll do that, bilybob. But it will be exactly the complement to the maxima listed above.
The interesting point is rather the mimima’s top list.
Here is the stuff
1896 4.48
1924 4.64
1904 4.82
1917 4.93
1903 4.93
1895 5.21
1916 5.32
1920 5.36
1976 5.37
1902 5.38
1898 5.38
1943 5.39
1897 5.44
1971 5.45
1918 5.46
1944 5.48
1927 5.52
1901 5.54
1975 5.57
1942 5.60
1966 5.61
1972 5.61
1919 5.62
1925 5.62
1910 5.64
1964 5.64
Thanks Bindindon,
It is what I expected.
The highest minimum range 6.5C to 8.0C are falling more recently then the lowest minimum with range of 4.5C to 5.0C (plus minus).
Nate wrote –
“yada yada foolish yada yada warmist yada yada delusions yada yada warmist yada yada fantasy yada yada yada pseudoscience..
More ad-hom noise, no signal from Mike-bot.
Bot-filters applied.”
If Nate put his fingers in his ears, closed his eyes firmly, and repeated “yada yada yada” over and over, he wouldn’t have to waste his time posting meaningless responses to comments he supposedly doesn’t read.
I certainly wouldn’t object.
Cheers.
I point out that Svante has not managed to provide a copy of the usable GHE which he said he could.
Svante responded –
“Youre good at hand waving!”
Others may or may not agree that foolish Warmists tend to fly off into deny, divert, accuse tactics of avoidance when challenged about their steadfast belief in pseudoscience.
Still no GHE, apparently. No CO2 heating. Just more claims of impending doom, due to the sinful activities of those in favour of avoiding starving and freezing in the dark!
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere would remove all animal life (including humans) from the face of the Earth. I believe that supporting this action would be considered a crime against humanity in some quarters.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: “Still no GHE”.
It’s still here, I checked: https://tinyurl.com/y6sfq7ye
Do you have any scientific question about it at all?
No gish gallop please, try to focus.
Svante,
Linking to more nutty professor brightly coloured graphics?
Maybe you could dig a useful GHE description out of your fantasy, and back it up with a testable GHE hypothesis.
Why would I seek facts from a nutty professor? That’s the sort of illogical and irrational behaviour exhibited by pseudoscientific GHE worshippers.
Still no GHE, Or unicorns. Or a Nobel Prize for Michael Mann.
Cheers.
That video was pathetic and factually incorrect. The presenter claimed that the temperature of an airless Earth should be 255 Kelvin.
That is what “Consensus Climate Scientists” say and it is false.
Then he says that the temperature of the Moon is 255 Kelvin. The measured temperature of the Moon is 197 Kelvin.
How can “Consensus Climate Scientists” continue to deny reality? Are they incompetent, lazy or dishonest? I am a mere amateur but I can explain the Moon’s actual temperature accurately:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
I went on to calculate the effect that the rate of rotation has on the temperature of airless bodies:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
Gallopingcamel, I think you might be right, but do you have a citation for the 197 K that is not from Ned and Karl?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Can you find it then?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Some fact from Australia after Barry’s pro BOM propaganda:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-before-climate-change-over-50c-122f-recorded-at-windsor-observatory-1939/
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/scandal-bom-ignores-major-site-changes-at-iconic-historic-sydney-observatory-sloppy-or-deliberate/
Ah yes, the blogsite with the main purpose of dismissing the BoM data into question.
I’ve found it completely untrustworthy in the past. Any reason to think that these articles are competently researched? What background work did you do to check it out, Gordon?
barry,
Maybe you prefer a World Meteorological Organisation publication –
“The report generally shows that:
The basic Stevenson screen design has been in use already for a century.
Over this time there have been many attempts to modify the design of screens with the intention of improving their performance and to determine their influence on the temperature measurement.
The differences in measurements caused by the condition of the surface of a good design of screen can be as important as the differences between different screen designs. Changes to screen designs may change climatological records.
Different screen designs suit different climatological regions.”
Briefly, reproducible useful accuracy cannot be achieved over any practical timespan.
Any number of peer reviewed research papers show that attempting to measure air temperature is fraught with difficulty, regardless of the technology employed. Of course, pseudoscience doesn’t need to concern itself with reality.
Mad assumptions carry the day. We’re all doomed! It’s worse than we thought! Repent, the end is nigh! What tosh. What’s the current delusion? 12 years before the world ends? Yeah, right.
Cheers.
LOL Barry,
According to the BOM Oodnadatta has recorded the hottest temp, however in ACORN 1 Albany got a 7C boost and became the hottest town. Unfortunately the BOM where none the wiser so Oodnatta maintained its legendary status.
Acorn 2 has unceromoniously stripped Albany of its hottest but not the hottest town title by removing 2.7C thus reestablishing Oodnatta as the title holder, however Carnarvon got a 3.3C boost to now leap frog Oodnatta in the non official hottest town title race.
As there has been no fanfare screaming from the roof tops declaration by the BOM it would seem they are still none the wiser.
As a stats man Barry i would expect you would be up in arms over this abuse of numbers but alas your profound need to conform to the herd and believe in something non tangible has over ridden your ability to think logically.
Instead of viewing the information provided by Jo Nova you simply dismiss here with Ad Homs………………Oh how the mighty have fallen
I do indeed prefer authoritative sources, Mike. And that 1998 report was an interesting read. However, this is mainly an issue on local scale. On a global scale the law of large numbers and averaging manage to yield fairly accurate results, as is plain when comparing data sets, including satellite.
https://tinyurl.com/yyt32pen
Look at the annual averages. Why do satellites and surface results correlate almost 100% in sign year by year (ups and downs match direction) if the thermo record is so bad? Coincidence, you reckon?
barry,
In response to your pointless gotcha, I don’t know the answer. I assume you will provide one.
Which data set do you claim is the most accurate? They all appear to be different.
If they all purport to be measuring the same physical quantity, and the atmosphere behaves chaotically, would you not expect possibly a little more variation in the differences? Or is overwhelming gullibility and lack of skepticism a pseudoscience requirement?
Generating mindless and pointless graphs produces no hints as to what the future may hold. It might be cheaper, faster, and more satisfying to divine the future from left over chicken bones or tea leaves.
What, after all, is the point of endlessly reanalysing the past? Do you believe you can reheat the globe by debating the matter, or stridently declaring the existence of an indescribable GHE?
Go your hardest. You can’t even warm up a teaspoon of water with a billion Watts of power from a small glacier! So much for pseudoscientific climatological misdirection and stupidity.
Let me know when you have some GHE science to propose. I won’t be holding my breath while I wait.
Cheers.
“The law of averages” what a toss. There is no law that allows you to average numbers of one decimal place and get a result to 3 decimal places and call them accurate.
You cannot have 3 temp stations covering 100’s of square kilomters and then state with absolute certainty the temp in any small grid box is accurate to 3 decimal places by invoking some obscure law.
You certainly cannot drive economies into the dust by legislating crippling policies based on a law made up by failed mathematicians.
And yet, crakar, the satellite data, which covers 95% of the globe, is consistent with the annual variation in the surface data.
And though the amplitudes don’t make exactly,they are similar,as the chart shows.If it’s a big el Nino year n the satellite record, the same large spike occurs in the surface. Only the exact magnitude is different.
Do you know what happens if you pick a subset of 100 stations evenly spread across the globe, and then a different subset, and then a different one and so on? The temperature profiles are very similar.
If it looks like the same profile with different sets of 100 stations around the globe, then that is a strong indication that averaging works, and that the law of large numbers holds.
This is only one of many tests undertaken to assess the accuracy of the global temp data sets.
This is only one of many tests and quality control procedures that the institutes go through that you are utterly ignorant of, because skeptics like you don’t want to learn about it, you only want to peddle the message you like and promote the blogs who feed it.
They do another test to see if the correction algorithms have a warming bias. It’s unbelievably elegant and obvious.
They invert every single temperature anomaly, so that the positive anomalies become minus anomalies and so on. They end up with a mirror-reverse image time series – one that cools over the whole period.
Then they run the correction algorithm. If the result is a mirror image of the result with normal anomalies, then the algorithm does not have a warming bias (or a cooling one). It changes all the anomalies the same way, just in the negative direction.
Now you know of 2 tests they do. They run suites of tests. About which you know nothing, and without the knowledge of which you spread misinformation.
crakar throws some quotes around this phrase, as if I actually said it:
“The law of averages”
What is wrong with these so-called skeptics? Why do they continually fabricate what other people say? It’s demented!
barry, if you could just try to keep the trolling down a bit, that would be great.
In response to your pointless gotcha, I dont know the answer. I assume you will provide one.
It was already in the short post you are replying to.
Seems you’re as senile as Robertson. Bye bye.
barry,
I suppose you think posting an irrelevant link is as good as an answer. Typical foolish
Warmist behaviour. Your question included the word why”, and of course your link provides no answer at all.
What a wonderful approach! Ask a pointless gotcha, and then boast about it. It is generally regarded as trolling, but you are probably too stupid and ignorant to realise that.
But hey, maybe you can actually do what you claim you can – stop reading, (and more importantly, stop responding to), my comments. I doubt you have that much self control, but I could be wrong.
I live in hope that you will ignore me.
Cheers.
Hahaha. In the first link they champion ye olde temps at a site where the thermos are next to a brick wall, and in the second link they denigrate modern temps at a site that has had urbanization occur 50 meters from the thermos.
No consistency, just whatever sounds like the BoM are a bunch of liars.
Heh. The conspiracy theorizing in context… they do it in Australia, they do it in America, they do it in the UK, they do it in Japan. Every institute cooking the books for the global warming scam!
Fer Pete’s sake.
What’s the difference between these climate ‘skeptics’ and cranks? Nothing.
barry…”In the first link they champion ye olde temp….”
‘They’ is Jo Nova, who presents a far more convincing skeptical POV than you do as a climate alarmist.
You always manage to dance around the issue. She made the point that the temperatures in a certain Australian locale were far higher in 1939 than in this recent so called record breaking heat wave.
That’s proof, in part, that the 1930s set not only records in the US, but in Australia as well.
“Whats the difference between these climate skeptics and cranks?”
By cranks, you do mean climate alarmists. The difference in intelligence of the skeptics over the alarmists should be obvious to anyone with any intelligence.
barry,
I suppose you wouldn’t accept a BOM document – Report 4 for the independent peer review . . . – which contains the following –
“One aspect of the system unchanged over the past 100 years is that the Bureau does not calibrate SAT thermometers. Instead their outputs are assumed to be in the relevant temperature scale (Fahrenheit or Celsius) within prescribed tolerance limits.” – plus or minus 0.5 C!
It doesn’t matter, anyway. Nobody can see into the future by dint of furious and intense examination of the past. That’s fortune telling – just like pseudoscientific climatology.
Carry on with your conspiracy theories – it’s well documented that 100% of pseudoscientific GHE believers cannot actually define this GHE. No conspiracy, just mass delusional psychosis. Just like Lysenkoism. At least Lysenko was a real scientist, unlike the fake climatological pretenders.
Cheers.
The satellite temp record of Australia yields a warmer trend than the BoM.
Do you think BoM should adjust their figures to match the warmer UAH trend for Australia?
For the love of God Barry you really are staunch believer arent you?
Here is the problem, if the BOM want to claim “hottest JAN evah” type thngs i want to know if it is an accurate claim. I dont care what the temp is as long as it is accurate.
Based on what we know it would be fair to say that not even the BOM know what the true temp/trend is. You cannot have a monthly square wave adjustment on Perth temps and call them accurate.
How is it possible for Albany to have recorded the hottest temp in Australia way back in 1933 and no suddenly be usurped by Canarvon which recorded a cooler temp in 1953?
How is it possible to drop a temp by 2.7C which was measured 82 years ago?
You of all people should understand and agree with this Barry.
When people wave this stuff away they think they are being clever but in reality they look like fools……………you look like a fool Barry right now Barry so i will give you one last chance to resurrect your credibility or forever be condemed as an Appell clone.
“The satellite temp record of Australia yields a warmer trend than the BoM”.
It’s marginal, the troubling adjustments are to raw surface data before 1980, after that date the adjustments are minimal:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/the-australian-temperature-record-revisited-part-4-outliers/
Hardly surprising, the BOM adjusters are not stupid, the satellite series are an independent check on the surface record.
crakar,
I have many times in the past dug into the issues JoNova brings up, and most of the time there’s nothing there but someone who stopped fishing for answers once they got enough info to raise a hue and cry. A bit more digging and you see what they ‘overlooked’.
So, no, I don;t agree with her and Ken about the Australian temp data. I saw this exact same BS play out with Anthony Watts and the US record. It only took Anthony 6 years to finally construct his own US temp record, instead of forever sniping about individual stations, and to discover that his mean US temp record matched the official ones.
It took skeptics Jeff Condon and Roman M to build their own global temp record from raw data. Guess what? They ended up with higher trends for the globe than the Met Office.
At this point I’m content to wait until Ken and Jo develop their Australian temp record using what they think are best practises. Or get their criticisms published in a journal. Otherwise, they have been a wasteful time sink for me, and I do not credit them.
If you wish to pick a specific topic to investigate, then I’ll play, but if you’re just going to regurgitate their stuff, forget it. Been there, done that.
Really barry,
Two datasets arekind of but not quite roughly the same so you declare them both accurate.
You have no idea how the bom produce their numbers because they wont tell you and no idea with uah because you dont understand.
You are a wonderful replacement for appell
Two datasets arekind of but not quite roughly the same so you declare them both accurate.
You made that last bit up.
Why do skeptics have to invent what other people say? Come on, crakar, be better than the schmucks here!
And not only did you invent my words, you didn’t respond to anything in my post! Stop behaving like a typical crankish skeptic. Please!
Gonna have to ask you to just, once again, maybe think about dialling back some of the trolling, if you wouldn’t mind. Sorry to bother you.
For the love of God Barry you really are staunch believer arent you?
In what?
b,
In the belief that fantasy trumps fact, obviously. Or maybe in the belief that physical fact is decided by consensus among pseudoscientists. Or maybe . . .
Still no GHE, is there?
Cheers.
barry asks a gotcha of himself –
“Do you think BoM should adjust their figures to match the warmer UAH trend for Australia?”
barry finds himself unable to reply. Silly barry, asking himself a question which he cannot answer without appearing foolish.
Historical temperatures are a curiosity, and generally without practical use. People apparently love adjusting, averaging, kriging, interpolating, and generally indulging in all the bizarre practices of the conformed measurebators. The past does not enable reliable assertions about the future.
Go off and furiously play with your pencil, barry. Maybe you will experience an epiphany. Or maybe not.
Still no GHE, is there?
Cheers.
Mike, you made a point about the whole of “the past 100 years” of practise at the BoM. In response to my point about the last 40 years of global temperature you change the subject.
As usual, you are nothing but hot air and contrariness. As I said, a decent conversation on point is not possible with you. Back to the ignore bin for you.
barry,
You asked yourself a silly gotcha. What has 40 years of global temperature got to do with your gotcha?
You can’t even tell anyone at all what the global temperature is right now, let alone at any other time.
That is no doubt that you are a pretentious fool – both stupid and ignorant.
I would welcome the opportunity to be ignored by such as yourself, but I doubt you have the self-control to comply with your own instructions. I can but hope.
Cheers.
The Democrats in the US are proposing to replace air travel with high speed rail. Apparently, California is abandoning their high speed rail project because it has proved too costly.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/12/california-governor-gavin-newsom-cancels-high-speed-rail-would-cost-too-much-and-take-too-long/
There is a common thread running among climate alarmists, they are dreamers who fail to grasp the reality of their proposals to replace fossil fuels.
That 500 mile rail project in Californoa cost estimate has almost doubled to $77 billion. Here at the heart of “Climate Science” we love “Doublings”.
The bullet train will take double the transit time compared to Southwest Airlines and will charge double per ticket.
The bullet train project can be made viable if all competing transportation alternatives are banned. Another way to go would be to increase fuel prices. Four “Doublings” would get the price of gasoline or “Jet “A” to $50 per gallon.
One part of the “New Green Deal” plans to eliminate air travel throughout the USA. Imagine how many doublings of the $77 billion for that California bullet train would be required.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Temperature and Population by Country . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
How many people will die, if we reach the +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit?
Does anybody know?
Even an approximate number?
It is difficult to give an accurate number, because it is a totally new situation.
But I have found a way to estimate the number of deaths.
It took quite a bit of work. But in the end, the answer was obvious.
The answer is so obvious, that I am not going to tell you the answer.
I have done all of the work so far. It is about time that you pulled your weight.
Don’t worry. I am only asking you to look at a graph. Do you think that you could manage that?
====================
This is the only graph that you need to look at, to fully understand global warming.
It even comes with a money back guarantee.
So what are you waiting for, click the following link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/temperature-and-population-by-country
Sheldon,
Before I look (promise), the answer is 7.53 billion, the current population of the world.
They will all die, regardless of temperature.
I’ll click your link. I hope you didn’t come to the same conclusion.
Cheers.
Bugger. I still think I’m right.
The question of how many extra people will die due to increased temperatures of 2 C, is of course impossible to answer. Some people who would otherwise have frozen to death, may well not die, instead.
Additional land made useful for growing crops by increased temperatures may save some from starvation, but result in other early deaths due to people killed while growing or transporting crops, or while manufacturing things needed for the added production.
On the other hand, if the economy benefits, people may not die quite so early from lifestyle diseases, which they wouldn’t have contracted had they not been so well off, due to medical advances, which have have caused early deaths in researchers owing to the stress of their mental efforts, or workers getting mangled in machinery, which might result in . . .
Bugger. Too confusing for me. I have to turn on the AC, which of course means burning more stuff. which results in . . .
Cheers.
–How many people will die, if we reach the +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit?
Does anybody know?
Even an approximate number?–
Do you mean 1 C added to present average global temperature?
So Earth having average temperature of about 16 C
Or do you mean Earth average temperature of about 17 C?
I don’t think we will reach a global average temperature of 17 C within couple centuries.
And I think it’s possible that within 100 years, it’s possible [but not likely] to reach an average temperature of about 16 C.
If talking about northern Hemisphere, it’s more likely to get to average temperature of northern Hemisphere of around 16 C within century.
But if somehow the religious CAGWers are correct and global temperature becomes about 17 C.
Part of answer could depend on how quickly global average temperature reach 17 C.
And CAGWers who not just crazy dumb and completely uneducated, probably don’t imagine, Earth average temperature could reach 17 C within a few decades.
And I would guess, the most plausible idea about unrealistic global warming would related to tropics developing the long awaited Hot Spot. Or the idea is the tropics or the tropical ocean heat engine gets supercharged. Or Tropics gets much warmer than it is, and/or has ever been.
So could have tropics getting much more water vapor.
And the tropics of about average temperature of 26 C becomes about 30 C [ 86 F ].
Combined with Urban Heat island effect, the cities in tropics could become unbearable at times and cause deaths.
Of course with supercharged tropical engine, more ocean heat could be transported pole ward. The gulf stream warms Europe by about 10 C which makes Europe have average temperature of about 9 C, and in addition to having warmer tropics, the transport of heat to Europe could increase in speed, so instead warming by 10 C the gulf stream might warm by 20 C, and raising Europe average temperature by 20 C rather than 10 C. So, Europe gets average temperature of about 20 C. And Europe doesn’t get snowfall near sea level, ever. And UK never gets any snow. And UK has tropical climate, or one easily grow orange trees anywhere in the UK [you don’t get close to freezing].
And of course don’t have arctic polar sea ice, though a little bit of forming in winter. [Though Greenland is still mostly frozen, but in coastal areas would easily grow crops].
As far as deaths, it seems one would get less people who would die from colder conditions.
The easy answer is: we don’t know.
The biggest obstacle to avoiding deaths is government and the radical AGW leftists. ie. When New Orleans suffered Katrina, Dick Cheney suggested not building it back. A reasonable response to a city which is below sea level etc. The uproar from the left and MSM was unbearable. It was built back. So how long before the next storm does worse?
The same will be true in Miami, NYC and world wide. People will try to avoid contending with the normal changes of climate and force the world into a mold where it won’t fit. ie. People build on the barrier islands of the east coast. They are sand dunes, yet the people expect them to last forever and to be compensated to be able to rebuild after the expected storm – towards which the politically astute have caused government to cause the insurance companies to charge higher rates to people who live inland to subsidize the rates of those who can afford to live at the beach.
The point is, millions will die, as always, from stupidity.
But this is the nature of man. So what is the question?
“…A reasonable response to a city which is below sea level etc. The uproar from the left and MSM was unbearable. It was built back. So how long before the next storm does worse?”
It might be fairly reasonable choice, but government have always cost the most loss of lives in the past and will do this in future.
One has wars and lack government preventing wars as an example
Currently we have some in government, not willing to secure our southern border. And basically that is the only reason to have federal government.
The lack of governments doing their jobs in various aspects [including national security] has caused and will cause many deaths and hardships for the public that they charged with governing. Though it seems biggest cause of death, is missed opportunity which is related to governments reducing liberty of it’s people and government being stupid.
Anyhow, it would be up to the city of New Orleans but think rebuilding the city in different ways could also be an option, though probably it is likely there numerous Federal laws which restrict various ways of doing this.
It seems not rebuilding city would due the reality of a non functioning federal government and incompetent local governance.
One thing New Orleans could decide is that they we never in the future depend upon the federal government to keep there city safe from flooding. And Fed and State laws will be ignored in regards to the rebuilding of the city. And that have rebuild the city so there will not be similar future disasters.
Lewis seems to think major cities like New Orleans, NY and Miami will need to be abandoned if 2 deg climate change happens?
Dunes, yes, but major cities?
Fairly alarmist scenario. I guess we should try to avert climate change then.
Two degrees C is enough to wipe out most of the Greenland ice sheet, that’s seven meters of sea level rise.
Svante, the Greenland ice sheet only gets close to the freezing point a few times a year. A couple of years ago, the temperature set a new record low, in July, of -33 C. The current temperature is -46C.
If you want something to be terrified about, check out the demons in your head.
That’s right, it will keep adding in the middle, but lose more around the edges.
There is a positive feedback too, because a lot of that coldness is due to the altitude. As it drops it gets warmer.
Don’t panic, the process takes thousands of years.
Svante, please stop trolling.
A large drop in temperature in southern Australia.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00979/eovri3tun5hi.png
Here is the top 50 in the sorted list of GHCN daily maxima from Australian stations (in C of course):
NARRABRI_AIRPORT_AWS_______ 2019 01 19: 56.1
MILDURA_POST_OFFICE________ 1906 01 07: 50.7
OODNADATTA_AIRPORT_________ 1960 01 02: 50.7
MARDIE_____________________ 1998 02 19: 50.5
OODNADATTA_AIRPORT_________ 1960 01 03: 50.3
MILDURA_POST_OFFICE________ 1906 01 06: 50.1
WARRACKNABEAL_MUSEUM_______ 2018 01 19: 50.0
MUNDRABILLA_STATION________ 1979 01 03: 49.8
FORREST_AERO_______________ 1979 01 13: 49.8
EMU_CREEK_STATION__________ 1998 02 21: 49.8
BOURKE_POST_OFFICE_________ 1903 01 04: 49.7
BOURKE_POST_OFFICE_________ 1878 01 13: 49.7
DENILIQUIN_(WILKINSON_ST)__ 1878 01 12: 49.6
MOOMBA_AIRPORT_____________ 2013 01 12: 49.6
BIRDSVILLE_POLICE_STATION__ 1972 12 24: 49.5
MILDURA_POST_OFFICE________ 1906 01 24: 49.4
MILDURA_POST_OFFICE________ 1904 12 31: 49.4
DENILIQUIN_(WILKINSON_ST)__ 1863 01 05: 49.4
WHYALLA_(NORRIE)___________ 1960 01 02: 49.4
MARREE_COMPARISON__________ 1960 01 02: 49.4
MADURA_STATION_____________ 1971 01 07: 49.4
EMU_CREEK_STATION__________ 1998 02 16: 49.4
ROEBOURNE__________________ 2011 12 21: 49.4
KYANCUTTA__________________ 1939 01 09: 49.3
MOOMBA_AIRPORT_____________ 2014 01 02: 49.3
MARBLE_BAR_________________ 2018 12 27: 49.3
WALGETT_COUNCIL_DEPOT______ 1903 01 03: 49.2
BOURKE_POST_OFFICE_________ 1878 01 19: 49.2
OODNADATTA_AIRPORT_________ 1960 01 01: 49.2
EMU_CREEK_STATION__________ 2014 01 10: 49.2
ONSLOW_AIRPORT_____________ 2011 12 22: 49.2
ONSLOW_____________________ 2010 01 01: 49.2
ONSLOW_____________________ 2008 01 11: 49.2
MARDIE_____________________ 1977 02 09: 49.2
ROEBOURNE_AERO_____________ 2015 02 21: 49.2
MARBLE_BAR_COMPARISON______ 1922 01 03: 49.2
MARBLE_BAR_COMPARISON______ 1905 01 11: 49.2
WALGETT_AIRPORT_AWS________ 2014 01 03: 49.1
MOOMBA_____________________ 1972 12 23: 49.1
EMU_CREEK_STATION__________ 2010 01 02: 49.1
ONSLOW_AIRPORT_____________ 2018 12 27: 49.1
MARBLE_BAR_________________ 2019 01 13: 49.1
ROEBOURNE__________________ 1998 02 18: 49.1
BIRDSVILLE_AIRPORT_________ 2013 01 13: 49.0
BIRDSVILLE_POLICE_STATION__ 1981 12 06: 49.0
MARREE_COMPARISON__________ 1972 12 22: 49.0
TARCOOLA_AERO______________ 2019 01 15: 49.0
MARLA_POLICE_STATION_______ 1988 01 12: 49.0
LEONORA____________________ 2013 01 09: 49.0
EMU_CREEK_STATION__________ 2009 01 10: 49.0
All these paranoid people who think BoM would have adjusted anything don’t have half a clue of what they tell about.
And they ALL should read this:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/BRR-032.pdf
So they would learn a bit about BoM’s work… and possibly begin to understand what such people really do.
*
According to the data found in the GHCN daily record, Australia didn’t warm even a little bit since 1880 (0.03 C / decade, flat trend).
And its warming since december 1978 is even less than that measured 4-5 km above it by UAH: 0.12 C / decade where UAH shows 0.18 C).
But nevertheless, Australia’s top 25 monthly anomalies wrt 1981-2010 since 1880 look like this:
1881 12 2.26
1888 11 1.95
2015 10 1.70
1888 12 1.44
2018 12 1.39
1983 2 1.38
2013 9 1.37
2009 11 1.37
2005 4 1.37
1957 6 1.37
2015 11 1.34
2016 5 1.33
2016 4 1.33
2009 8 1.33
1882 1 1.33
2007 5 1.32
2018 4 1.30
1921 6 1.28
2017 3 1.26
2016 3 1.26
1991 6 1.25
1914 11 1.25
1885 10 1.25
1988 10 1.22
1883 12 1.21
While the warming trend for Australia’s UAH record since the year 2000 moved down from 0.18 to 0.13 C per decade, that for the surface went up from 0.12 to 0.32 C per decade.
Interesting.
Good Morning Bindindon,
Either GHCN is wrong or BOM is wrong. The listing for Narrabri Airport is a high of 42.7 in January 2019.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=054038
Thanks
bilybob
You are of course right, we exchanged about that last week, sorry.
I generated a new complete daily list and forgot to trop this strange record off the list. The 42.7 is in the GHCN record too (Jan 13).
All data following Jan 19 with its 56.1 were marked invalid, probably because the temperatures went above GREENLAND RCH’s hottest evah in 1913.
But it seems that this anomaly (here the word really makes sense) is the only one you detected, you are very good in such verifications.
Its rather me who should say here “Thank you“.
I had a look at the Narrabri list you provided the link to: only the Jan 19 record is absent there.
Bindindon,
I thought that interesting also.
The Greenland Ranch record is questionable. I have heard theories that a dust storm kicked hot sand up to the sensor. Though it still stands as the official world record, I do have my doubts. I have read ( I wish I remembered the source) that 55C is a theoretic upper limit for surface air temperature on Earth. I have seen some suggest that Greenland Ranch was probably closer to 53 to 54 and not the 56.7 recorded. The conditions would have to be in the desert regions with low ghg’s to allow maximum solar radiation penetration to the surface.
Thanks bilybob…
I’m not so very much interested in extreme maxima or minima. My focus is rather on averages than on single values.
But I just found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth
The stats concerning Lut desert in Iran are interesting because these temps were measured many times.
Bindindon,
The Lut desert is satellite based which is described as skin surface temperature. It would be interesting though if they would put a station there to see what air temperatures would be.
I do need to track down where I read where the air temperature maximum would be 55C though. I realize that when you move to forest or urban areas, this maximum value drops due to the added ghg’s. It would be interesting if the source provided the math so I could confirm. I’ll keep looking.
Either GHCN is wrong or BOM is wrong
They have different methods. They’re both ‘wrong’. They’re both estimates.
BoM have 2 different records. The Bureau’s historical data, and the ACORN data set. The data are not always the same for the same station. ACORN is (re)constructed with long-term climate in mind. Station data can, for example, be altered after comparing with neighbouring sites (one step in the homogenization process).
And there are millions of bits of data. Some are going to be wrong. The relevant question is “does this matter?” And the answer will depend somewhat on the purpose. Formal answers involve statistical testing, of which much has been done.
barry, please stop trolling.
Just wanted to let you guys know I’m doing my part. I barbecued some steaks last night and decided to let the grill burn for an hour longer last night just to put some more CO2 into the atmosphere. Can some of you guys calculate for me how much CO2 into atmosphere I produced burning a 40K BTU grill at about 30% output?
Lots……………you are no required to hold your breath for 3 hours in order to offset the karbon pullooshon you produced.
You have to do better than that.
A coal power plant burns 500 metric tons in that time.
Everything helps, Svante.
Are you doing your part to feed the trees, keeping the planet green?
All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002.
CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002
1800 avg. Lawdome, Neftel, Friedli = 281.6 ppmv
2002 avg. Mauna Loa/Keeling = 373.3 ppmv
Nov, 2018 Keeling = 410.0 ppmv
(410-373.3)/(373.3-281.6) = 0.40 40%
Given this latest flat temperature and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrate that CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy1RijkUYAAq7Io.jpg
All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002.
Your first sentence is a falsehood. You cannot give us a reference to any of the official reporting agencies saying this in 2018/19.
Falsehood? How about UAH? December 2002 13-month average 0.22, December 2018 13-month average 0.22. You’re a trusty little leftist aren’t you?
Falsehoods LOL, you cannot give us a working model of the GHE. You cannot explain the two previous 30+ year downtrends whilst CO2 went up.
Looks like our DA replacement is off to a good start.
barry,
Facts are not decided by debate or consensus.
If increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer is not making the thermometer hotter, then your GHE nonsense becomes even more ludicrous.
Isn’t the non-existent GHE supposed to make the Earth hotter? Maybe it contains magical heat which makes everything hotter – except thermometers. If you can’t actually say what the GHE definition contains, then any magical outcome is possible.
Heating, cooling, floods, droughts, famines, a chicken in every pot, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – all possible due to GHE magic.
Keep pushing your faith in the non-existent GHE. Maybe you could get a job helping Gavin Schmidt to understand that 38% likelihood is about as likely as not according to the IPCC. Mind you, the fools at the IPCC say that everything between 33% and 66% is equally likely!
You believe that, but anybody with any sense doesn’t – because it is nonsensical.
Cheers.
This is how GHE works.
Radiation energy transfer at the gas molecule level is the mechanism of the misleadingly named greenhouse effect (GHE). Radiation energy travels from molecule to molecule at the speed of light but dwells (average at STP about 5 microseconds) in the ghg molecules for the relaxation time. More ghg molecules means longer cumulative dwell time. This slows passage of the energy through the atmosphere so a steeper temperature gradient (higher surface temperature) is required to maintain the energy flux.
“…but dwells (average at STP about 5 microseconds) in the ghg molecules…”
Nope, nanoseconds, not microseconds.
“More ghg molecules means longer cumulative dwell time.”
Nope, time remains the same. Cumulative times are simultaneous.
“This slows passage of the energy through the atmosphere so a steeper temperature gradient (higher surface temperature) is required to maintain the energy flux.”
Nope, emission from atmosphere is determined by temperature of atmosphere.
jdh,, Where did you get nanoseconds from? The references I uses in Section 4 of my b/a show that the relaxation time decreases with increasing temperature as shown in Fig 0.3. It is still hundreds of nanoseconds at 800 K.
The rest of your comments demonstrate that you dont understand this stuff at all.
Dan,
Nope. Works both ways. The Sun is far hotter than the surface. That is why the surface temperature increases after dawn
And, as can be readily observed the atmosphere is made of gas. More than 99% of light energy passes through the atmosphere without significant attenuation. Feeling the heat of the Sun, being able to see stars and the Moon, transmitting and receiving radio signals to and from Mars and beyond, shows the relative transparency of the atmosphere to almost all wavelengths.
But in any case, surrounding a body exposed to a distant heat source with insulation, does not cause a temperature rise. Rather the complete opposite. Hence, the carefully designed clothing used by firefighters, furnace attendants and suchlike. Or refrigerators and freezers, designed to prevent heat reaching the insulated objects inside.
Your description cuts both ways. No one way insulation, allowing more energy in than out. Otherwise, separating two objects in thermal equilibrium with such a barrier, would necessarily result in one cooling as the other heated, if energy is to be conserved. Good luck with manufacturing such a material. Put me down as your first customer.
All joking aside, no GHE. The concept is ludicrous, emanating from the minds of the delusionally psychotic, and snapped up by the gullible.
Cheers.
Mik,, The GHE does nothing to the short wavelength input from the sun but slows the long wavelength heat loss to the background temperature of space (about 3 K). Gases are fussy about the wavelengths they are transparent to vs absorb/emit. ghg absorb/emit specific IR bands but are transparent to the rest of the spectrum. Are you aware that they put a telescope on top of a mountain at the driest place on the planet? The did it so the long wavelength stuff (IR) wouldnt be diminished by water vapor.
Of course you are right, there can be no one-way insulation. 2LOT rules.
GHE works for the same reason you put a coat on to prevent loss of your body heat to the cold. If you also put a sweater on you would lose even less body heat.
As to your last paragraph, it is apparent that you dont understand this stuff very well. Bad mouthing others doesnt help.
Dan,
It is a hopefully indisputable fact that the Earth has cooled – the surface is no longer molten.
Are you aware that the Earth has cooled? It does so every night, as well.
The GHE has no description, so telling anybody how “it” works is pointless.
The overcoat analogy is nonsensical, although widely used by people who cannot actually define the GHE. Putting an overcoat between the Sun and a thermometer, or a corpse does make either hotter.
Claiming that the radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere without attenuation is just nonsense. Even NASA state that more than 50% of incoming radiation does not reach the surface.
After that, in the absence of the Sun, all, I repeat all, absorbed radiation is emitted by the surface, and the temperature drops as a consequence. No trapped or retained energy.
As to your last paragraph, it is obvious that you cannot actually describe the GHE in any way that could lead to the formulation of a testable GHE hypothesis. I’ll stick with my description of its proponents and followers. It’s pseudoscience, not science.
Cheers.
Dan says: “The references I uses in Section 4 of my b/a show that the relaxation time decreases with increasing temperature as shown in Fig 0.3. It is still hundreds of nanoseconds at 800 K.”
Dan, give me a link to your source. Maybe I can help.
The rest of your comments demonstrate that you don’t understand this stuff at all. “GHE works for the same reason you put a coat on to prevent loss of your body heat to the cold. If you also put a sweater on you would lose even less body heat.”
Nope. The atmosphere is not insulation. Working with other natural phenomena, it regulates Earth’s temperature to a set range.
‘After that, in the absence of the Sun, all, I repeat all, absorbed radiation is emitted by the surface, and the temperature drops as a consequence. No trapped or retained energy.’
Mike thinks if he turns on the heat in his house for an hour then off for an hour, and repeats this cycle, that his house won’t end up warmer than the outdoors.
Maybe he should try it.
Mik,, The earth had cooled enough for life to originate more than 3.7 billion years ago.
https://flowingdata.com/2012/10/09/history-of-earth-in-24-hour-clock/
JDH,, Apparently the fact that both the coat and the GHE shield from the cold is beyond your grasp or are you just being obstinate?
==
Mik,, Do you actually think that the earth cools at night? I expect you meant to say that a particular spot on the earth usually cools when it is at night there. The planet earth has a temperature time-constant of about 5 years.
Apparently even a simple explanation of how the GHE works was pointless for you. You might be the only person on the planet who just cannot understand it. Actually I suspect that you actually do understand it and are just being obstinate for entertainment.
Of course part of solar input does not make it all the way to the ground. I addressed this years ago at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com which shows IMO an improvement on the Kiehl & Trenberth chart.
Energy comes in at the speed of light but leaves slower because of ghg absorp.tion and cumulative relaxation time. The overall process is referred to by the misleading term GHE.
You make a lot of comments that are true or nearly true but often irrelevant to the issue being dis-cussed. On the positive side, you often assert or imply that CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate which is correct and has been and is still being demonstrated by Mother Nature.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Mike thinks if he turns on the heat in his house for an hour then off for an hour, and repeats this cycle, that his house wont end up warmer than the outdoors.”
You are a Warmist fool. You cannot read my mind, and I certainly said no such thing.
You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you cannot bring yourself to quote me, can you. What a donkey. Typical.
Try disagreeing with something I said, and you might get some traction. Otherwise, you continue to appear to be a whining denier of fact. Your choice.
How’s your GHE description going? Amateurish YouTube videos by nutty professors, with factual inaccuracies starting less than 10 seconds in, are not generally accepted as the basis for a testable GHE hypothesis.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Mike,
My heating your house example, with the heat on 50 % of the time, which obviuously DOES result in your house being warmer, is illustrating how dumb your statement is.
This one:
After that, in the absence of the Sun, all, I repeat all, absorbed radiation is emitted by the surface, and the temperature drops as a consequence. No trapped or retained energy.
Dumb, thoroughly dumb. Just like most of your posts.
The sun, does result in retained heat on the Earth, even with the sun not shining 50% of the time.
Nate, please stop trolling.
‘Try disagreeing with something I said, and you might get some traction.’
I did. And no traction.
Out of factual or logical ammunition, Mike will tactically retreat.
He will come back to repeat the same BS again and again, as if the discussion never happened.
A time-tested trolling technique.
Not sure if it’s “tactically retreat[ing]” or just moving downthread as the comments continue to pile up. Best thing to do, if you feel like you have some important point to make, is drop it right at the very bottom of the comments. And yes, I agree that pretending discussions haven’t happened before is a “time-tested trolling technique”, and one of your most-used.
Please stop trolling.
Did everyone miss the point??
Dan said:
“All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002.”
That’s a fiction.
All any of you have to do is provide a verbatim quote, some link to any of the reporting agencies “agreeing” there has been no warming since 2002.
And that aint gonna happen because none of them have.
Which is why you all changed the subject.
Skeptics. Just can’t keep track of a conversation.
bar,, Perhaps they looked at the graph. Apparently you did not.
I am curious how you explain away that the CO2 level has increased by 0.4 times the increase from 1800 to 2002.
So, no reporting agencies “agreed.” The agencies never said anything of the kind.
Rhetoric, Dan. Don’t indulge.
I’ve checked the graph. It’s wrong.
As requested below, a detailed account of how you derived the trend lines in the graph would be appreciated. You’ve messed up somehow.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry…”Your first sentence is a falsehood. You cannot give us a reference to any of the official reporting agencies saying this in 2018/19″.
Remember Climategate, where the leaders of IPCC reviews like Trenberth and Jones told different stories between themselves than they did to the public?
You are about as naive and gullible as the day is long.
Dan Pangburn
1. “All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002.”
This is nonsense. A look at Paul Clark’s data tells you why:
https://tinyurl.com/yxtohmod
UAH 6.0: 0.12 C / decade
Had-CRUT: 0.14
RSS 4.0: 0.17
BEST: 0.18
GISS: 0.19
It doesn’t matter here wether or not 2016 was plain natural.
2. “CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature.”
This IMHO won’t work as you guess and try to show.
Should CO2 really have this effect of weakening the amount of IR escaping to space as some scientists say, then you won’t see the effect before decades.
Everything else is alarmist rubbish.
Be patient!
B,
Maybe CO2 didn’t work for four and a half billion years, but will start to work after some decades.
No wonder nobody can provide a GHE description. The action of CO2 seems to be dependent on the momentary desires of GHE true believers.
What about H2O? Supposedly the most important GHG, so it should share the same magical properties. However, the less H2O in the atmosphere, in the arid tropics, the higher the temperature. Do you think H2O works reverse magic to counter CO2?
Is this all included in the invisible GHE description? Obviously a few hurdles to be overcome, before the final GHE description is published. Good luck.
Cheers.
Mik,, CO2 has never had much if any effect on climate. Any photonic energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is thermalized i.e. shared with surrounging molecules including WV molecules. As described at A. below, the steep decline with altitude of WV molecules results in the energy being radiated directly to space.
Above about 10 km CO2 becomes the dominant ghg and some of the residual energy is then radiated to space by CO2. This shows by the groove getting about 12% less deep. Graphs calculated by MODTRAN6 for several altitudes that show this are in section 5 at (click my name).
Bin,, Using least squares fit on data which includes the aberration of the el Nino is bad science.
bar,, 18, 19 temps are still coming down from the el Nino
I agree, be patient. It might take a year or more to firmly establish the coming temperature down trend.
So where are these reporting agencies on record “agreeing” that there has been little to no sustained warming since 2002, Dan?
You started this subthread with that claim.
Substantiate it.
Or admit you made it up out of thin air.
Just be honest and direct, please.
Bar,, It is what the graph shows.
The graph is wrong.
Please spell out how the lines were derived. I replicated the period based on the lines and your second slope is completely wrong. So you’ve done something out of the ordinary.
Details, please. I already have the data set. I want to know the method of deriving the 2nd trend line.
Bar,, The graph at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy1RijkUYAAq7Io.jpg is correct. Perhaps you did not notice the 9-month smoothing. If you did, well, then you just demonstrated a deficiency in your graphing ability.
You now display a different graph, with no trend lines at all.
But in these the data all go from 2002 to Dec 2018, and as Bin and I showed, the trends are all positive.
The smoothing is a nice smooth, but does not address the point of contention. Nice try, but fail.
Dan,
If your model only works when cherry picking a very limited range of years, then the model is not compelling.
The temperature trend has large variability over 15 y periods. You shouldnt try to fit this noise and claim it is meaningful.
barry, Nate, please stop trolling.
What then, if not CO2?
NASA/RSS have been measuring water vapor (WV is a greenhouse gas) 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 WV rise correlates with rising irrigation.
Dis.counting the aberration of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has settled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960.
Water vapor (TPW) increase leads lower troposphere temperature increase, and both ignore CO2.
The human contribution (via increased irrigation) to warming has essentially ended but the increased risk of precipitation related flooding will continue.
Sustained warming stopped in about 2002-2005 as shown here:
TPW UAH & CO2 thru Nov 2018 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxYl0-fUcAALEW2.jpg
The lines on those charts have been drawn by hand! They do not reflect any statistical analysis whatsoever.
Here are actual trend lines for the same periods, the exact same data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/plot/uah6/from:2001/trend/plot/uah6/to:2003/plot/uah6/to:2003/trend
Yes, the slope is positive from 2001. Also from 2002.
Furthermore – for those complaining about including the el Nino of 2016 – Dan’s chart includes the 1998 el Nino at the end of the first trend line, too. No need for a double standard, is there?
bar,, The lines were drawn by EXCEL using the data reported by the agencies. Links to the data are provided in my blog/analysis if you care to check. I have never experienced EXCEL making a mistake.
As I said before, drawing a trend line through data including an aberration is bad science (unless it is not relevant to the point such as the 1998 el Nino). The point is the change in slope in 2002-2005. I could have as easily used the uptrend for Had-CRUT4 which is 0.019/yr instead of the lower slope of 0.014 that I used.
Dan Pangburn
“The lines were drawn by EXCEL using the data reported by the agencies. Links to the data are provided in my blog/analysis if you care to check.”
Never and never did you use Excel for the trend lines on the graphs.
Here is a graph showing you UAH6.0 LT for the periods 1979-2002, and 2003-2018 (shifting them by one year doesn’t change much):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZPYmn7LEtyL1Igx5P-kzrSWw-W9PULI/view
Linear estimates for the periods in C / decade:
– 1979-2002: 0.15 +- 0.02
– 2003-2018: 0.15 +- 0.03
“I have never experienced EXCEL making a mistake.”
Nor did I. But I often experienced people misusing it.
By showing such nonsense, you loose credibility.
binny…”I have never experienced EXCEL making a mistake.
Nor did I. But I often experienced people misusing it.”
We’re not missing anything, your trends are wrong.
The IPCC admitted in 2013 that no significant warming had occurred between 1998 – 2012. UAH extended that to 18 years based on the graph on Roy’s site.
You’re a number cruncher with no idea how to relate statistics to reality.
Dan’s analysis doesn’t start in 1998, it starts at least 4 years later. Come back when you’ve learned how to follow a conversation.
Robertson
“We’re not missing anything, your trends are wrong.”
As usual, you behave as ignorant and incompetent as is possible.
The trends for 1979-2002 and 2003-2018 as specified by Pangburn are absolutely correct, Robertson: they were derived by Excel’s linear estimate function out of Roy Spencer’s own data.
You are just unable to do the same.
Pangburn just told Excel is correct. And it IS, as you can see below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tj9hRHgzCsDgOeJy-_6qZg8XnjQlsAfP/view
But…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998.01/to:2015.99/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999.01/to:2016.99/trend
Your stupid trend over Jan 1998 – Dec 2015 is flat because you start before an El Nino and end before an El Nino. It is exactly as stupid as a trend starting after an El Nino and ending after an El Nino.
You are so fixated in your misinformation urge that you produce the dumbest opinions.
And you will never change.
Bin,, The two horizontal lines are trend lines drawn by EXCEL of the data 2002 to about June 2015. The rest are trend lines drawn by EXCEL for each data set. The horizontal lines were extended for reference for when the el Nino plays out. I am sorry you were apparently incapable of grasping that.
Still you insist on the bad science of refusing to account for an aberration. The horizontal lines are expressly to avoid that mistake and provide a reference for future data.
I wonder how much wider the separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature will need to get before you realize that CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate.
binny…”Your stupid trend over Jan 1998 Dec 2015 is flat because you start before an El Nino and end before an El Nino.”
Tell the to the IPCC. They claimed a flat trend 1998 – 2012.
By all means, Dan, link to this chart and the details at your blog. I have no idea how you came up with that flat line. I already have access to the same data, thank you. I’m interested in your method.
bar,, See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341643
Thank you, Dan!
Bin,, The two horizontal lines are trend lines drawn by EXCEL of the data 2002 to about June 2015. The rest are trend lines drawn by EXCEL for each data set. The horizontal lines were extended for reference for when the el Nino plays out. I am sorry you were apparently incapable of grasping that.
First of all, the lines extend beyond the analysis period, with no indication that this had been done, and no mention of the trend period. That post was the first after many requests that detailed what you had done, which is very much out of the ordinary. Very bad form to accuse Bin of being unable to figure out a process which was entirely peculiar.
As I thought, the 2nd trend line extends far beyond any analysis period. I guessed you had done that, and now you have verified that guess.
So you have claimed above that:
Sustained warming stopped in about 2002-2005
and
“All reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002.”
Implying that this is the current situation, and when pressed, admit that your trend analysis ended 4 years ago.
It should not have taken 7 posts of pressing you, for you to clarify that the flat trend in the latter part of the record was the result of selecting a period 2002 to 2015 for linear regression, and that you extended that trend line beyond the period. Until then, that graph gave a very false impression.
It should have taken precisely one request for a straightforward answer from you. Consequently, I no longer trust you.
Gee.
barry, Svante, please stop trolling.
barry…”The lines on those charts have been drawn by hand!”
Dan’s hand drawing is correct and your W4Ts graph is wrong.
I pointed you to the IPCC admission of a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 and you are still in denial.
I have quoted the IPCC in the very same section you refer to, naming the trend for that period at 0.05 C/decade.
Which you always ignore – hey, let’s call it an ongoing denial of fact from you.
In any case, Dan’s period is not the same as the IPCC (Dan’s ‘trend’ begins from 2002, not 1998), so go back under your rock until you have something relevant to say.
barry,
Normally, I wouldn’t ask you what your point is, because I’m sure you haven’t got one.
Feel free to surprise me by claiming you actually have some reason for your comment. Is it related in some way to the average of past weather records? Something to do with the branch of pseudoscience laughingly referred to as climatology?
Oh, I forgot. You are ignoring me. I suppose I should be cut to the quick, but actually I cannot see any justification to care about your ignorance at all. Carry on being as ignorant as usual – if you come up with some reason why my care factor should rise above zero, feel free to let me know.
Cheers.
barry…”I have quoted the IPCC in the very same section you refer to, naming the trend for that period at 0.05 C/decade”.
You forgot the error margin, it could have been a cooling trend.
Q. What happens to the energy missing at the notches in TOA graphs of radiation flux vs wavenumber? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
A. The energy is shared with other molecules including WV molecules via thermalization. Because of steep population decline with altitude of WV molecules, they radiate much of the energy directly to space (in addition to the pressure decline of about 30%, global average fraction declines from o. 15,000 ppm at surface to about 32 ppm at 10 km (-50 C)).
I agree, if the notches get deeper the rest of the graph must grow until the integral is the same as before.
Correct Svante.
The atmosphere can not “trap heat”.
Depends on what you mean by “trap”.
It’s not a scientific term, just a shorthand.
Svante tripped over his pseudoscience here. He accidentally admitted that the atmosphere emits any excess heat energy. When I pointed that out to him, he tried some of their usual deceptions. This time trying to pretend he didn’t know what “trap” means.
The poor little snowflake needs a refresher in his beloved pseudoscience:
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” 1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
The “greenhouse effect” is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap heat.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-overview/
sva,, IMO trap is misleading. With more ghg, energy has more dwell time in the atmosphere.
JDHuffman says:
“He accidentally admitted that the atmosphere emits any excess heat energy.”
Yes, that’s right, and it must be achieved by an increased surface temperature.
Svante,
You wrote –
“Yes, thats right, and it must be achieved by an increased surface temperature.”
Completely incomprehensible gibberish. Do you think you could try using English that makes sense?
Do you really think that the surface has to get hotter at night so that the atmosphere can cool? Don’t go out of your way to appear more stupid than you are.
Cheers.
Svante, as Mike said: “Do you really think that the surface has to get hotter at night so that the atmosphere can cool? Don’t go out of your way to appear more stupid than you are.”
Yes, when you carve out those notches in the spectrum the earth radiation balance will run a surplus. That means that the temperature inside must rise until equilibrium is restored.
Most of the solar input lands on the surface, so it is up to the surface to push out more heat. It will do that by rising its temperature.
No Svante, the atmosphere does not heat the surface. Any notch that sppears will just be made up by increased energy at other wavelengths.
What you said there is actually correct.
Reduced cooling raises the surface temperature.
Svante,
You’re just being stupid now.
Reduced cooling is still cooling. The temperature is dropping. Energy is being lost.
A raised temperature is due to heating. Not cooling.
The Earth has cooled for the past four and a half billion years. Its rate of cooling has reduced. Not stopped. No magical warming due to reduced cooling. Thermometers get hotter when exposed to bodies of higher temperatures.
Keep trying. There is no point, but you can’t help yourself, I know.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
Try stopping your CPU fan.
+1 +1 +1 Svante.
Svante, Nate, please stop trolling.
Dan…”The energy is shared with other molecules including WV molecules via thermalization”.
Thermalization is another cult word like forcing. Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures tells us that gases contribute to total gas pressure based on their partial pressures. Since temperature is related to the kinetic energy of molecules it also means the heat contributed by each set of molecules is proportional to the partial mass.
I think it’s nonsense that heat can only be dissipated by CO2 and WV molecules. If you heat a room with radiant heat or forced air heat, it is the 99% nitrogen and oxygen in the room air that transfers the heat.
You could remove all CO2 and WV from room air and the room would still warm the same…and cool.
Something very basic is being missed here. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and it is measured by temperature. If you raise the kinetic energy of air by contact with a radiant heating element, or due to heat transfer through a heat exchanger in a forced air furnace, the heated air molecules with vibrate harder until they come in contact with cooler air or walls, floors, ceilings, etc.
It is a reduction in kinetic energy that causes nitrogen and oxygen to cool. That happens naturally as heated air rises and expands.
Gordon,
https://g.co/kgs/o4Ptkw
Thermalization is not just a cult word. Just like forcing, it describes a process. Can you describe that process in your own words so that it is clear you understand it? I have issues with the climate forcing equation, but I understand what it purports to mean.
No one is saying heat can only be dissipated by CO2 and water molecules. Do you have any evidence that a room with IR active gases will not warm faster than one without?
Gor,, It appears that you have a pretty good understanding of convection, conduction and energy content but fall short on understanding radiation, especially at the molecule level. Perhaps I was misleading in saying the energy when it would have been less ambiguous to say the radiant energy. But then I was talking about TOA where essentially all energy is radiant. Thermalization includes the entire process of radiant energy being absorbed by IR active molecules (ghg) and them sharing the absorbed energy with all surrounding molecules by conduction. Conduction in the gas takes place by the molecules bouncing off each other. Average time between bounces for a molecule is about 0.0002 microseconds. If you would spend some time with my blog/analysis it might be more clear.
Dan…”The energy is shared with other molecules including WV molecules via thermalization”.
Dan…I think you need to re-think your WV warming theory. If I have a home at 20C in a rain-forest in mid-winter, with 70% humidity and another person lives in a home on the prairies at 20C with with 10% humidity, are you suggesting the WV makes a difference to the temperatures?
I’ll bet you could remove the WV in the rain-forest home and it would make little or no difference to the temperature.
I have lived in a motel in a very low humidity region in mid-winter and I had to go out and buy a humidifier. It steamed up the windows but made no noticeable difference to room temperature.
The weak polar vortex in the lower stratosphere over North America will cause the inflow of Arctic air far to the south of the US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/02/18/1200Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-108.60,54.37,495
Those visualizations are actually very nice ren.
It appears if you fear global warming, you should vote for Rep president. And if you fear global cooling, you should vote for Dem president.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/13/data-analysis-global-temperature-has-not-increased-under-republican-presidents-only-democrats/
Thanks for the link, gbaikie.
Some of the comments are great:
Jon Beard February 13, 2019 at 2:26 pm
Hmm. A New Green Energy Plan that is affordable and works; Vote Republican!
Thomas February 13, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Seven of the ten hottest years on record occurred during the Obama administration.
Well isn’t that fascinating?
When Dubya was pres he lived through 7 of the 10 hottest years on record at the time.
Astonishing coincidence!
And how incredible that all this happened through the ‘pause’ period, when Obama’s 8 years should not have been any warmer than Bush’s 8!
I mean. Think about it.
barry, if you actually were able to “think about it”, you would realize how desperate you are. You’re trying to find some “proof” of AGW in endless sets of data. But, all of your efforts only frustrate you.
Any trivial warming you find is just natural, because the AGW theory is nonsense.
So keep torturing the data. That way you won’t have to “think about it”.
JD,
That is because of the well known but poorly understood WHHAE. ( White house hot air effect)
AOC (alias RPOS) has dwarfed the WHHAE.
I am responding to a comment by Norman upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341540
Norman,
I do not contest the proposition that E. Swanson’s blue/green plate experiment is an analogy for your perception of a GHE. I do not like greenhouse analogies for the atmosphere. Can you explain why?
I do think an atmosphere makes a planet’s surface warmer than with no atmosphere, but I am not as interested in the temperature difference as I am how more CO2 will affect the current average global temperature.
The blue/green plate experiment analogy (GPE) fails as an atmospheric model and particularly as an illustration of the effect of IR absorbing gases on surface temperature. The GPE uses a constant energy source and no gases, IR active or not. The green plate is suspended in a vacuum. The GPE involves no conduction, convection or evaporation. There is no accounting for the effects of density, pressure, or absorbtion-excitation and collision times. Have I left anything out?
How could any scientist accept the GPE as evidence that an increase in CO2 will increase global temperature?
Chic Browdie
You are an intelligent skeptic and I do like your posts. I would not say for sure the GPE would be evidence that an increase in CO2 will increase global temperatures.
I would think it is a general analogy that can mimic the GHE. Not sure of AGW
Here could be a possible way the GPE could explain how increased CO2 could cause a surface temperature increase.
The argument is that more CO2 will increase the height the CO2 is free to emit to space from. It will emit from a colder region (because of the lapse rate) therefore the surface temperature will increase to be a temperature where the CO2 is once again emitting enough energy from this colder region to balance the incoming solar.
Using this graphic:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran_iris.jpg
With the GPE it would be like having a thicker insulation layer on the opposite side of the green plate that faces the blue plate. The opposite green emitting surface would emit less IR than it did the original setup. This would increase the temperature of the green plate and it would send more IR to the blue plate increasing its temperature.
Norman,
Thanks for the complement. I enjoy responding to your comments, because you are clearly seriously seeking the truth. We share that.
When you look at a spectrum such as the one you link to, what do you see? I see the radiation emitted from an approximate temperature. I don’t know the exact altitude, but I can estimate the altitude that corresponds to the approximate temperature. It’s close to the tropopause which is extremely thin air compared to the surface. Does the spectrum tell you how much colder the tropopause will be when CO2 molecules emit more than they absorb? Does the spectrum measure how much convection will be enhanced by thermalization caused by CO2 molecules absorbing more than they emit at lower altitudes? Has anyone measured the increase in altitude your AGW hypothesis predicts? Has anyone measured the resulting increase in global temperature?
Chic Bowdrie
It would seem that your point: “Does the spectrum measure how much convection will be enhanced by thermalization caused by CO2 molecules absorbing more than they emit at lower altitudes?”
This effect would not enhance convection but reduce it. Air rises because as it heats up it density goes down. What you describe would create an inversion. The air above would be warmer than the air below and convection would cease which would actually work to warm the surface more rather than cool it as this surface cooling mechanism would be reduced.
https://www.britannica.com/science/temperature-inversion
Norman,
Inversions are not the normal atmospheric temperature profile. When the sun warms the ground, the increase in radiation results in warming the air above mostly by the absorbtion of IR by IR active gases and thermalization of the bulk air. The air warms, expands, and rises. The more CO2, the greater this convective tendency.
Chic Bowdrie
I could not find a measure of change in effective emission altitude but this person attempts to find an answer.
This has some good discussions you may find interesting.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/
Norman,
Your description of the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect is as good as ATTP’s. I would make the same response to his post as I made to you. All that dialogue is speculation. No data to back anything up. It’s the scientific equivalent of political talking points.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341491
1) or 2), Norman?
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU:
“1) the green plate supplies heat to the blue plate.
2) the green plate insulates the blue plate.”
I have already told you and given you actual physics links to support what I stated.
You forget 3) The “green plate” returns energy (NOT HEAT) to the blue plate causing an increase in blue plate temperature as long as it continues to be heated by an outside source. This is the one accepted by all current physics. Maybe you should consider it as one of the possible explanations.
It would be as Chic Bowdrie gave in his example about money above. If he had $5 and gave it to me and I returned $2 to him he would still be losing $3 dollars in that exchange. But in the experiment the blue plate has two exchanges going on. It would be like Chic is receiving $5 from another source, giving it to me, I return $2 each time and he starts accumulating dollars even though he is giving away the $5 he received, I am returning $2 each exchange.
You can “tell” me whatever you like, Norman. 3) is not an option, because “energy” does not warm an object. “Heat” does. Standing in my living room, I am not warmed by adding an extra chair to the room, even though that extra chair is radiating additional “energy”, which would not be there without it.
You have two options, Norman. Pick one.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
That is something g.e.r.a.n thought was a good argument on Principia Scientific blog.
Yes 3) is the correct and valid option. I can’t help you to understand why. I already gave you a simple money analogy to help you. Appears you are not willing to invest the thought power to even attempt to understand it.
If you stand in your living room and the walls are cold you will feel colder than if the walls are warmer. The walls are sending your body energy. The warmer the walls the more energy they send.
The blue plate does have an additional energy source. You have to add both to get the outcome. The energy from the green plate alone will not increase the temperature of the blue plate. It is the combination of the energy from the green plate AND the energy from the outside source. I can explain it a thousand times and link you to valid physics. It is up to you to work to understand it. You do not at this time.
In my living room, there’s a heat source. The radiator. The additional chair still does not make me warmer.
1) or 2), Norman?
“I am not warmed by adding an extra chair to the room”
Actually you are, since the former IR warming you is now blocked by the added chair from which its IR is now warming you to the former equilibrium.
DREMT, please stop your trolling with inaccurate science.
“Warming me” would involve my temperature increasing beyond the equilibrium temperature I was at before the chair was introduced, which as you have just explained, doesn’t happen.
You are warmed with incoming radiation absorbed by you from the added chair and cooled with outgoing radiation emitted from you & at equilibrium these processes are in balance when the room mean temperature isn’t changing.
DREMT, please stop your trolling with inaccurate science. Learn some physics.
OK, Ball4.
1) or 2), Norman?
No Norman, “cold” can not warm “hot”. And, fluxes don’t simply add.
I can explain it a thousand times, but you have a learning disability.
At least you can type.
Ok DREMT. 1), 2) are inaccurate, DREMT is still trolling with inaccurate science. Learn some physics DREMT and stop trolling.
Anonymous fluffball, with no respect for truth, will try to claim “cold” can warm “hot”.
He just can’t bring his room to room temperature with ice cubes.
Reality always messes him up.
“No Norman, “cold” can not warm “hot”.”
More inaccurate science.
Prof. Tyndall showed a room temperature gas (CO2) when added to a hotter than room temperature gas (lab air), the lab air increased in temperature (5F) so added colder gas (CO2) can warm hotter gas (lab air). JD just needs to learn some physics.
JD needs to learn he can bring his room to room temperature with ice cubes if the ice cubes replace dry ice.
Reality always messes him up.
The usual fluff from fluffball, mentioning real scientists and faking experiments.
Next he will claim that he actually did an experiment where he heated a room from 0C to 21C (room temperature), using only ice cubes.
And likely, Norman will agree with him!
Clowns are so predictable.
JD needs to learn he can bring his room to room temperature with ice cubes if the ice cubes replace dry ice.
Reality always messes JD up. JD needs to learn some physics.
Begone, troll.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Maybe some actual heat transfer problems will help you.
In this link scroll down to problem 12-50
https://www.academia.edu/7144724/Chapter_12_Radiation_Heat_Transfer_Chapter_12_RADIATION_HEAT_TRANSFER_View_Factors
It is about a person in a room and they calculate the energy loss rate of the person to the walls depending upon the wall temperature.
The average human produces around 100 watts when resting.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135481-will-your-body-be-the-battery-of-the-future
If you look at problem 12-50 you can see that with walls that are at 300 K (26.85 C) the person is losing 26.9 Watts. So they would not feel cold as they generate more energy than they are losing.
On the other hand, when the walls are 280 K (6.85 C) the person is losing 187 Watts. More than they generate when resting. They will start to cool and need to move about to increase the energy they produce.
Pretty much Ball4 understands the actual physics. You might try to listen to him and think about what he is saying.
Norman,
You are a dummy. Overcoats, bank accounts, and now people in rooms?
Just more Warmist foolishness.
Maybe you could concentrate on finding a useful GHE description, or explaining why temperatures drop at night!
Keep avoiding reality. If you can figure out a way to make fantasy into reality, let me know. I should be able to make a vast fortune in short order.
Cheers.
1) or 2), Norman?
1), 2) are inaccurate DREMT, you are still trolling with inaccurate science. Learn some physics DREMT and stop trolling.
Norman finds some more links he can’t understand.
Nothing new.
In the first problem, the walls must be cooled to main the 280 K. So the room is being cooled. But even though the problem uses unreal conditions, the man is NEVER heated above his temperature by the colder walls.
Poor Norman just can’t figure these things out for himself. That’s why he’s always wrong.
JD switches from ice cubes to colder walls to try & hide the pea. JD needs to learn he can bring the room to room temperature with colder walls replacing even colder walls.
Reality always messes up JD. JD needs to learn some physics.
More childish fluff, nothing new.
JDHuffman
Your assumption is not based on anything. It is a thought problem. You are assuming the walls are cooled to 280 K based on nothing. It could be very cold outside and both walls are warmed, one just less than the other. The problem is you can’t understand the problem. No matter how it is explained to you. You do not possess enough physics to be able to interpret what you read. Then you come up with a stupid assumption to pretend you are smart. Not sure who you are trying to impress with that. Most of what you say is wrong and made up junk. Most people do not care at all about any of what you say. They know you are troll just here to taunt people and get childish reactions.
Norman, that’s all just irrelevant rambling or your tainted, flawed opinions.
All of no value.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
The same old boring troll posts. You really can’t come up with a different approach can you.
You made a meaningless comment to cover your embarrassment over making an assumption about a heat transfer problem to try and impress some ghosts. No one here cares at all about you or your empty, mindless opinions. I don’t care about your false opinions about me.
Post away no one cares. You have nothing of value to contribute.
Ghosts? I ain’t afraid of no ghosts.
CB, The Green Plate model (and my demo) isn’t intended as a perfect model of the atmosphere. The Green Plate model isn’t based on the well known functioning of a greenhouse, in spite of the name. My intent was the demonstration of the well known physical fact that thermal IR EM radiation from a cooler plate can cause the temperature of the warmer receiving plate to increase, as has been shown to occur in other situations as is routinely taught in engineering classes. The demo required a vacuum in order to minimize the heat transfer via convection and conduction after complaints by Gordo et al. that my earlier efforts were wrong because they included convection.
That said, one useful way to model the atmosphere is to consider the energy flow from the surface to deep space thru multiple layers, each layer absorbing and radiating IR EM. This approach is particularly relevant in the Stratosphere where convection is suppressed and there’s almost no water vapor remaining. In the lower elevations of the Troposphere, the radiation heat transfer operates in parallel with the convective processes. Changing the optical properties of each layer by increasing the CO2 content will change the temperatures thru those layers.
Have you measured the change in temperature due to a change in CO2 at any point in the atmosphere? I suspect you would be right comparing the current atmosphere to no CO2 or water vapor, if you could do that experiment. But I predict more CO2 will produce no detectable change in global temperature.
Chic, 0.7C increase in global mean T was predicted in 1938 for the 2000s due added actual CO2ppm. That 0.7C increase in global mean T was observed in UAH v.6.0 in 2013.
I didn’t realize UAH was measuring global temperatures in 1938.
But obviously my prediction needs a few caveats.
They weren’t, the actual and base of UAH met the prediction in 2013.
Ball4,
Do you have a point, or are you just babbling for no good reason?
Cheers.
ball4…”Chic, 0.7C increase in global mean T was predicted in 1938 for the 2000s due added actual CO2ppm. That 0.7C increase in global mean T was observed in UAH v.6.0 in 2013″.
It’s a no-brainer, re-warming from the Little ice Age.
You are off by a factor of ~10 Gordon, in that period warming from LIA contributed about 0.06C.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
CB, No, I haven’t measured the change in temperature due to a change in CO2. However, I suspect your point has been answered years ago. After all, there appears to be strong evidence of a warming trend in several measures of temperature. Are you going to ignore all that data?
Yes, because your evidence is circumstantial. There is no actual experimental data indicating the warming trend is due to CO2. You need more than a smoking gun and a dead body to know who pulled the trigger.
You don’t need more than the gun with fingerprints and the fingerprints are on file to know who dunnit. Which is the case with CO2.
Not to forget all the invisible DNA spread around the messy crime scene by trigger happy human perps. Of course, your comment ignores the many modeling experiments, since you don’t want to admit that models ARE the only way to perform such experiments, given that there’s no way to perform a “real” planet scale experiment.
Yes, that’s why some consider it pseudoscience.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman.
“If you can’t devise an experiment to test your speculation, it remains just that – speculation”. – Mike Flynn.
Actually, Nature has carried out an experiment using the Earth. After four and a half billion years of varying atmospheric composition, shuffling continents around, pulling and pushing parts of the crust up and down, the result is in.
The surface has cooled. Care to argue with fact? Go your hardest. Nature doesn’t care what you think.
Cheers.
Mike never lets facts get in the way of his writing. After Mike’s 4.5bln years, or maybe Sagan’s billions and billions, or the 13.8bln years of the universe, Earth surface has still NOT yet cooled.
http://www.firefallphotography.com/how-to-photograph-lava-from-a-boat-in-hawaii/
Ball4, please stop trolling.
swannie…”My intent was the demonstration of the well known physical fact that thermal IR EM radiation from a cooler plate can cause the temperature of the warmer receiving plate to increase, as has been shown to occur in other situations as is routinely taught in engineering classes”.
Pseudo-science!!! The 2nd law forbids it and that is not taught in engineering classes. If you look closely at the engineering texts trying to cover that they sweep it under the rug by not including units on the temperatures involved. They simply present concepts related to Kircheoff’s emissivity and absorp-tion between bodies in thermal equilibrium.
Not one textbook I have seen dabbling in such pseudo-science has offered a practical example with unit of such a process in reality. They always include the radiation as part of a process in which heat is being transferred from a hotter object to a cooler object.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on a heated platinum wire radiating at around 1000C to a cooler environment. Pseudo-scientists have tried to arrange S-B so it shows a two way heat transfer which is utterly wrong.
chic…”The blue/green plate experiment analogy (GPE) fails as an atmospheric model and particularly as an illustration of the effect of IR absorbing gases on surface temperature”.
Not only that, it fails basic thermodynamics. Swannie, the experimenter, has heat being transferred from a cooler green plate to a warmer blue plate to raise its temperature.
The idiocy came from Eli Rabbett, who was straightened out on the principle by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They told the wabbit-wascal that the 2nd law applies to heat transfer, not to generic energy as in EM transfer.
Eli does not get the basics. When G&T wrote in a paper that heat can be transferred in one direction only between objects of different temperatures, Eli the Wabbit claimed that meant one objects was not radiating.
Alarmists have radiation on the brain.
Neither Norman nor Swannie get it either. In his first experiment, Swannie had a plate in contact with an electric stove ring as the blue plate and another plate suspended above it on soup cans as the green plate.
Swannie claimed the heated plate was radiating energy to the suspended plate and heating it, then the suspended plate was radiating EM back to the heated plate to raise its temperature.
When we tried to point out the obvious, that the heated plate was getting warmer because the suspended plate was cutting down it convective dissipation by blocking it, Swannie was having none of that.
Gordon,
“Not only that, it fails basic thermodynamics. Swannie, the experimenter, has heat being transferred from a cooler green plate to a warmer blue plate to raise its temperature.”
There was no heat transferred from cold to hot and, unless E. Swanson will contradict me, he did not claim as much. You are obsessed with defending the 2LoT when it needs no defense.
The blue plate was minding its own business transferring some quantity of heat to the surroundings. The green plate came along and decided to help out. So not as much heat needed to go from the blue plate to the surroundings. Unfortunately no one told the heat source to back off so the blue plate could not lose as much heat as previously. Its only recourse was to warm up. No heat ever went from cold to hot. Ever. Never does.
Same with the atmosphere with the exception that on occasion, the air is warmer than the surface. Otherwise the surface warms the air. Heat, the net energy transferred, always goes hot to cold.
If you disagree, provide equations showing how the cold plate transferred heat to the warm one, do the same experiment showing that E. Swanson did it wrong, or shut up.
Thanks Chic.
Chic, Svante, please stop trolling.
Norman wrote –
“I would think it is a general analogy that can mimic the GHE. Not sure of AGW”
The problem is that nobody has managed to describe the GHE. No analogy would be necessary, if anybody could actually say what the GHE is.
A thing is what it is. No analogy required. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is what it is. The Seebeck Effect is what it is.
The Greenhouse Effect has gone missing.
Cheers.
The jet stream from the north prevents the formation of El Niño.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2m/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&layer=tpw&prod=midpac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The jet stream from the north prevents the formation of El Nino.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
More skeptic madness.
—————————————————–
Stephen P Anderson says:
February 13, 2019 at 5:24 PM
Falsehood? How about UAH? December 2002 13-month average 0.22, December 2018 13-month average 0.22. You’re a trusty little leftist aren’t you?
—————————————————–
A 13-point average is usually centred on the data point in question. But that’s impossible with Dec 2018. We don’t have enough months after that one, yet.
So I averaged the 13 months from that month backwards.
Dec 2018 = 0.24
Dec 2002 = 0.22
If Stephen had centred the 13 point average on Dec 2002, the result would have been
Dec 2002 = 0.17
Trusty little leftist, he says? As if politics matter.
But I now know what an untrustworthy person Stephen is.
barry
In French we then use to say: “Rien de nouveau à l’Ouest”.
Oh by the way, during a look at Anderson’s newest elucubrations, I saw this you wrote upthread:
Not sure if I understand, Bin, but the red line is a cooler trend than the blue one. So allowing ‘backdoor’ stations without the data for the official baseline makes the record cooler, doesn’t it?
You did understand very well. But… here and there it’s the other way ’round.
What we can deduce out of the little exercise is that we never should create departure-based temperature series wrt recent periods without having a mechanism to save all these stations lacking data in the period (about 30 %).
Blogger Clive Best took the same way:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8464
This is not quite satisfying, as the backdoor silently reintroduces, for some of these stations, that spatial incompatibility (rural vs. urban, sea level vs. mountain etc) you decided to avoid by generating anomalies station by station.
Mais soyez certain, barry: le chasseur a encore quelques flèches bien pointues dans son carquois.
How about centering the point in June 2002 and June 2018? Yes you’re a trusty little leftist. This is all about politics-furthering your little bureaucratic leftist agenda. There has been no warming for the last two decades. But even if there had it would be a good thing. People can be fed when it’s warm. Where is this utopia Barry? Where is this utopia that you can feed people when it’s cold?
Stephen!
I actually did that in my post – it’s the same as running the 13-month average backwards from the respective years’ Decembers.
But I’ll allow that I rounded slightly wrong – though the results are worse for you.
You said:
“Falsehood? How about UAH? December 2002 13-month average 0.22, December 2018 13-month average 0.22.”
Nope, the correct answer, centred on the respective Junes is:
June 2002 13-point average = 0.21
June 2018 13-point average = 0.24
That’s data direct from UAH 6.0.
You called me a leftist again. You show your true colours on a purely mathematical point. Politics should be irrelevant, but your agenda can’t be suppressed, can it?
You are not to be trusted. Good bye, Stephen.
For any interested readers, here are the data:
0.16 – Dec 2001
0.24
0.3
0.24
0.23
0.25
0.3 – Jun 2002
0.23
0.18
0.2
0.07
0.21
0.15 – Dec 2002
Av= 0.2123
0.42 – Dec 2017
0.26
0.2
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.21 – Jun 2018
0.32
0.19
0.15
0.22
0.28
0.25 – Dec 2018
Av= 0.2415
Trustworthy contributors supply references that can be easily followed….
barry, please stop trolling.
While all the denialist around here have been busy posting BS, things have gotten quite a bit messier in Australia.
Australian cattle survived years of drought. Then came the deadly floods.
Swanson, here’s some reality for you:
“While corrupt Australian politicians wasted tax money on AGW nonsense, they failed to address flood control infrastructure.”
Huffingman, I suppose you are suggesting that flood control measures would have reduced the flooding. But, those measures couldn’t have had an impact on previous record flooding events, since there weren’t any installed back then, so your point is moot.
Very good Swanson. At least you are aware you can’t go back in time.
But responsible leaders plan for the future.
JDH,
/humour on
And “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men . . . ”
/humour off
Cheers
For barry, bilybob & alii: just for fun
As the most recent revision of the GHCN daily data set processing was more or less satisfying, I thought: why not to compare it with ‘official’ data coming from Berkeley Earth, GISS, CRU and NOAA?
(I’d like to add JMA on the list, but they don’t publish land-only time series, nor do they have a public land-mask to superpose on their 5 degree grid data. Maybe one day I generate such a mask, based on HadISST1.)
Here are four charts comparing GHCN daily with them, of course based on anomaly time series each generated wrt the guest’s reference period:
– 1951-1980 for BEST:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/111PUf4GB5qatXubfMHlEmY67Lf_0fM10/view
and GISS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1da0mAoC5vIHVGLUy4J9TCDmewcSKSKN4/view
– 1961-1990 for CRUTEM4:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UlU4pmBJME04Bv7vYXC7nkxUAkAmMejR/view
– 1971-2000 for NOAA:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d9VRyNKP8AqOYpo_6NLHUuaAcwF2zMPB/view
*
Nota bene: none of these ‘guest’ time series are based on GHCN daily:
– BEST has its own station set;
– GISS, CRU and NOAA use the monthly series GHCN V3, which is a tiny subset of GHCN daily.
Ooops! Once more I forgot to link colors to data:
– red for GHCN daily;
– blue for the guests.
Thanks, Bindidon. Nice work. I wondfer if there is much trend difference between GHCN daily and each other data set.
I can’t remember if GHCN daily undergoes homogenization.
The daily data as you’ve used them would have data heavily weighted in the US and Europe, I imagine. Is that right?
Barry
See My post
December 13, 2018 at 9:17 PM
and this graphic
https://i.postimg.cc/fbQz70st/image.png
It would be great if you could find the time to respond
Best regards
Steve
steve case
1. As far as UAH is concerned: if you compare their data in 2012 with that of 2018, you will compare oranges with mandarines.
Because in 2012, UAH worked with their 5.6 revision, which was replaced in 2015 by UAH6.0 beta.
Nick Stokes has written a nice post comparing the niveau of changes between UAH’s and GISS’ revisions:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html
2. In your second graph, you write: “GISS changes to GHCN”.
My questions:
– how do you know that the differences were due to the land part of LOTI, and not to SST?
– why do you think that GISS changed GHCN?
May I suppose you meant “GISS changes in their evaluation of GHCN’ ? That I would understand.
steve case
When comparing UAH data processed in 2012 with that from 2018, you sure won’t compage apples with oranges; but it is a comparison of say ‘Pink Lady’ with ‘Granny Smith’ apples.
Because they moved from UAH5.6 to UAH6.0; there are huge differences between the two.
Nick Stokes wrote a nice post in 2015 about the differences between UAH and GISS revisions:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html
Oh strange. I thought the comment above had disappeared due to some ‘d c’ problem.
Bindidon
My point really isn’t with UAH, it’s with GISSTEMP I didn’t include the URL for the 2012 LOTI version because I have it saved in my files, and trying to re-find it on the Internets WayBack Machine gets to be tedious. The UAH side of that graphic looks reasonable. However, the GISSTEMP LOTI 2012-2018 comparison is a bit off. Off one way actually. To quote a famous American TV Sitcom, “Lucy you got some splainin to do!”
As it turn out, not that difficult to find:
GISSTEMP LOTI November 2012
Here’s
LOTI November 2018
You can download those into Excel to find the differences between monthly entries and plot them out and get the same thing I got.
Hi Steve,
I did reply to this somewhere, when you first asked me to reply to the old thread, but I can’t be bothered looking for the post I made.
First – if all the GISS adjustments resulted in no trend change…. what’s the issue? Seems everything got adjusted in one direction, and the result was zero change in trtend, which is the point of interest.
UAH resulted in a downward change, as I noted.
I see the data starts in 1979, so maybe there’s a trend change in GISS if you further back….
We’ve done this dance a lot of times. I keep coming back to this:
Any bunch of skeptics who took the data and actually constructed their own temperature record, rather than sniped about the odd station….
Has always corroborated the ‘official’ records, or even produced records with warmer trends. Even from raw data.
The only complaints I see are from those who never bothered to do the hard yards and produce a ‘better’temp record. Those that did stopped complaining about the official records.
So, link us up to some hard-working skeptic that put together their own temp record rather than sniped at others. That would be something to see.
(Even Anthony Watts had to apply adjustments to his best US data set – he realized that raw US data has a bias. Dumb skeptics simply assume that raw data is perfect. Assumption like this is a stupid basis upon which to do science)
Baryy, thanks for the reply.
You wrote:
…GISS adjustments resulted in no trend change. whats the issue? … see the data starts in 1979, .
It starts in ’79 because it’s a comparison to UAH that starts in 1979,
so maybe theres a trend change in GISS if you further back
Yes there is a trend change further back, and you know it.
Any bunch of skeptics who took the data and actually constructed their own temperature record…Has always corroborated the official records, or even produced records with warmer trends. Even from raw data.
That’s very true. I found that out ten years ago when I tracked the various records every month. The trends fell right on top of one another. Today they don’t. The oldest GISSTEMP LOTI is from 1997 and covered the time line 1950-1997 Today the trend for that same 1950-1997 timeline has increased from 0.75C per century to 1.0C per century. Looks like this:
https://i.postimg.cc/sD1ZKVF3/image.png
The other graphs are on my old Post:
Post from December 13th
The changes I’m complaining about are for a hundredth of a degree, and added up over the years the trend has been altered by 0.25 degrees per century and what? I shouldn’t get upset over that? I suppose, but why are they doing something that looks fishy as hell?
One of the reasons for the increased trend since the 1997 data set is that there is more data coverage. More Arctic stations were added, and more Southern land stations. But also corrections warmed the overall record for land stations (the opposite for SSTs).
Let’s compare current GISS with a global data set constructed by skeptics (Jeff Condon, Roman M) from raw GHCN data.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
They got a trend from raw GHCN 1900 to 2010:
0.078 C/decade
GISS land only 1900 to 2010:
0.095 C/decade
They also have a trend calc for the satellite period.
Raw GHCN trend 1979 to 2010:
0.24 C/decade
GISS land only 1979 to 2010:
0.20 C/decade
According to the skeptic global record from 1900 – 2010, GISS trend is warmer than raw GHCN by 0.17C per century.
According to the skeptic global record from 1979 – 2010, raw GHCN trend is warmer than GISS by 0.4C per century.
GISS land+ocean is a lower long-term trend than land+ocean raw. That’s because the adjusted SST data set warms the past significantly, lowering the long term trend more than the warming adjustment of land only raises it.
If you want your global data (land+ocean) raw, you’re going to get a higher long term trend (from 1900 and before), and a very slightly higher short term trend (from 1950 or 1979).
All this deserves suspicion?
Even arch skeptics here at UAH adjust their data – we’re up to revision 6 now. Clearly the data is not perfect for assessing long-term climate affects, so there has to be quality control.
The bit that is always missing from your complaint here is where you checked out why adjustments were made, and investigated if the reasons were valid.
Muller and Mosher and Curry were suspicious of the official records, too, so they also made up a new global data set, incorporating many more data, eschewing the normal adjustments, and using both anomalised and absolute temperature (based partly on the work of Roman M, above).
That data set is usually higher trending than GISS, which is one of the higher trending of the official data sets.
These people were suspicious, they did the work.
So did Anthony Watts for the US record (eventually). And you know how that went.
Lots of corroboration. GISS has higher trends than most, but not wildly, and what difference does it make? Use the Met Office record, if you like, for long-term records. It has lower trends than both skeptic efforts, including raw. The IPCC doesn’t base its global temp analyses on GISS, so let’s move on and use the Met Office record, if GISS is too suspicious for you.
Typo:
If you want your global data (land+ocean) raw, you’re going to get a higher long term trend (from 1900 and before), and a very slightly lower short term trend (from 1950 or 1979).
Barry Says February 15th 9:35 PM:
One of the reasons for the increased trend since the 1997 data set is that there is more data coverage. More Arctic stations were added, and more Southern land stations. stations
And this is why most monthly entries prior to 1972 were cooled and darn nearly all of them increased after 1972? And this occurs not just once, but every month?
But also corrections warmed the overall record for land
Um the overall record lowered the earlier entries and increased the recent ones. At least that’s what I see.
(the opposite for SSTs)
I’m not following you. The Sea Surface Temperature record was changed how? Past increased present lowered? Or the other way around? Or generally decreased? Or generally increased? If you can provide some linkypoos of SST then and now, I’d be glad to make the charts.
Let’s compare current GISS with a global data set constructed by skeptics (Jeff Condon, Roman M) from raw GHCN data.
They got a trend from raw GHCN 1900 to 2010:
0.078 C/decade[0.78°C per century]
GISS land only 1900 to 2010:
0.095 C/decade[0.95°C per century]
They also have a trend calc for the satellite period.
Raw GHCN trend 1979 to 2010:
0.24 C/decade [2.4°C per century]
GISS land only 1979 to 2010:
0.20 C/decade [2.0°C per century]
According to the skeptic global record from 1900 – 2010, GISS trend is warmer than raw GHCN by 0.17C per century.
According to the skeptic global record from 1979 – 2010, raw GHCN trend is warmer than GISS by 0.4C per century.
In all of that, I see that shorter, later and land only time lines have higher rates and more variability.
You keep going on about raw data. I’ve never mentioned raw data, I don’t know where to get raw data, I couldn’t download the daily reports from the thousands of Stevensen screen weather stations around the world and cram them into my Excel spread sheet if I did. What I have is GISSTEMP LOTI from 1997 and their current iterations. I don’t regard either one of those two as raw data.
GISS land+ocean is a lower long-term trend than land+ocean raw. That’s because the adjusted SST data set warms the past significantly, lowering the long term trend more than the warming adjustment of land only raises it.
And has nothing to do with why GISSTEMP changes xx% of their LOTI entries every month.
I don’t bother with the Met Station only record because as you in a roundabout way have pointed out, it’s not the whole story. I know that the changes affecting GISSTEMP’s LOTI are from the MET stations only data set, but so what?
If you want your global data (land+ocean) raw, you’re going to get a higher long term trend (from 1900 and before), and a very slightly [lower] short term trend (from 1950 or 1979).
I don’t want raw data if there are problems with it. Corrections are necessary, it’s just a question of are they necessary every month? Is a double digit percentage of them in error every month? If they’re 100 years old are they almost always to warm? And are the recent ones always too cool?
The bit that is always missing from your complaint here is where you checked out why adjustments were made, and investigated if the reasons were valid.
Oh, I’ve emailed the folks at GISSTEMP to ask why 100 year old data is adjusted every month. They say:
“[A]ssume that … station [data changes] To make the temperature series for that station consistent, you will either have to lower all new readings by that amount or to increase the old readings once and for all…. The second option is preferred, because you can use future readings as they are, rather than having to remember to change them. However, it has the consequence that such a change impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station record.”
I didn’t ask about the pattern of lowering the past and raising recent data. I figured I wouldn’t get an answer if I did. And it doesn’t look like that answered why this goes on with xx% of the entries nearly every month.
….so let’s move on and use the Met Office record, if GISS is too suspicious for you.
As in Met Stations only or exactly what’s the Met Office?
Best Regards
barry
“I can’t remember if GHCN daily undergoes homogenization.”
Jesus no! It doesn’t at all. GHCN daily is raw raw raw, barry.
Look at some of my exchanges with bilybob, who discovered a lot of little things which passed all checks but never would survive an homogenisation.
GHCN daily still suffers of this horrible Fahrenheit disease I thought would exist in the US only. Now I discover that Australia too made heavy use of it. Duh.
For averages, these F vs. C discrepancies play no role, but when you sort a list of temperature readings, you suddenly discover a station in Oregon topping one in Saudi Arabia, or one in Alaska beating down some in Antarctica… hum hum hum.
Heh – Australia used the imperial system until some time mid 1900s. Fahrenheit was used, too in the early days.
Raw raw raw!
It’s a pity that some people don’t understand the problems that can come with ignoring quality control on data.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry
“The daily data as you’ve used them would have data heavily weighted in the US and Europe, I imagine. Is that right?”
*
Somewhere upthread I wrote to bilybob:
“… I calculate anomalies wrt the mean of a period separately for all stations having necessary data in the period, and then build averages into grid cells, then into latitude bands which finally are averaged into a global value after having been applied latitude weighting.”
*
And to genius Anderson I replied:
“By gridding you move from a situation where 18000 US stations compete with 18000 stations outside of the US (i.e. over 90 % of the land surfaces) to one where 200 US grid cells compete with 2000 non-US grid cells.”
*
This is the way you manage to get such overweight lifted. It is of course valid for corners like Europe too.
And even inside of the US this gridding lets some places suddenly become visible which formerly were averaged away.
If you’re such a genius Bindi then why don’t you explain why temperature fit the CO2 rise for the last 250 years but now it doesn’t?
Anderson
As far as CO2 is concerned, I’m all but a qualified person.
All I can say is that much much alarming happens because so many people think that an increase in CO2 automatically means an increase in surface temperatures and vice-versa.
My humble opinion is that this correlation will take much more time to become really apparent.
The few things I understand are here:
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf
Unfortunately in French (Google Translator might help).
These people say that
– H2O and CO2 (and other gases like CH4, N2O etc) intercept IR radiation emitted at the surface, and reradiate it up and down;
– this process lowers the amount of energy radiated to space;
– CO2 has no such influence where H2O exists;
– but it has where H2O stops to exist due to precipitation (above the troposphere);
– the more CO2 there is in the stratosphere, the higher will be the altitude at which IR leaves the planet, what again lowers the amount of energy radiated to space, due to the T^4 problem;
– the very tiny warming induced by this process has over the long term a deeper consequence, namely to incrementally obstruct the atmospheric window (8-12 microns) which up to now lets all IR pass thru (H2O actually absorbs below it, and CO2 does above).
This, Anderson, is termed ‘pseudoscience’ by exactly those people who are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict it.
So what!
I’m terribly impressed!
You really didn’t answer my question. It fit for 250 years supposedly and now all of a sudden, last 20 years, it doesn’t. Why?
Because CO2 is long term Stephen.
Anderson
“You really didnt answer my question. It fit for 250 years supposedly and now all of a sudden, last 20 years, it doesnt. Why?”
*
Of course I did. You simply ignore the answer because it doesn’t fit to what you guess, that’s all.
Read the French paper using Google’s translator. I know: it’s a lot of work due to the fact that the bloody Adobe reader doesn’t drop its column break layout, what in turn irritates Google’s tool.
See for example on page 5:
La saturation de labsorp-tion du rayonnement
Une faon de synthtiser ces proprits consiste calculer labsorp-tivit de latmosphre, moyenne sur tout le spectre, pour le rayonnement infrarouge mis par la surface de la Terre.
Il suffit pour cela de pondrer la valeur de labsorp-tivit pour chaque longueur donde (cf. figures 6 et 7) par le flux du rayonnement mis par la surface cette longueur donde (cf. figure 3, partie droite), deffectuer la somme sur toutes les longueurs donde et de ramener le rsultat au flux total mis par la Terre.
Translation after eliminating Adobe’s stuff:
Saturation of radiation absorp-tion
One way to synthesize these properties is to calculate the atmospheric absorp-tivity, averaged over the entire spectrum, for infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface.
For this purpose, it suffices to weight the value of the absorp-tivity for each wavelength (see Figures 6 and 7) by the flux of the radiation emitted by the surface at this wavelength (see Figure 3, right part). , to sum all wavelengths and to reduce the result to the total flux emitted by the Earth.
Yeah, digesting real Science often means to do a lot.
Svante, any warming by CO2 is so “long term” it’s as if it’s not even happening, huh?
That’s right JD, you won’t notice in any single decade.
The CO2 effect is weak weak weak.
But relentless.
Kind of like your comments, then.
A witty comment for once DREMT.
Bindidon, you say “the more CO2 there is in the stratosphere, the higher will be the altitude at which IR leaves the planet, what again lowers the amount of energy radiated to space”.
The GHE depends on the lapse rate, in the stratosphere it works in the opposite direction (there is a small such contribution in the spectrum).
The average TOA altitude is around 6500 m if I remember correctly, still in the troposphere but above most WV.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Bindidon,
I saw that/those posts upthread, but didn’t know if you had applied the grid cell method in the latest graphs. Understood, and thanks.
So GHCN daily generally produces lower long term trends than the regular data sets.
This is of a piece with adjustments to land records generally getting a warmer long term trend (but a lower long term trend if sea surface adjustments are included for a global data set).
barry
“I wondfer if there is much trend difference between GHCN daily and each other data set.”
For the whole period the difference is not perceptible. But for the satellite era it is:
– GHCN daily: 0.20 C / decade
– GISS land: 0.22 (!!!)
– CRUTEM4: 0.27
– BEST land: 0.28
– NOAA land: 0.28
UAH 6.0 land: 0.18
Just the six? Or do you still have more to say?
And CO2 just keeps going up and up and temperature isn’t.
Anderson, Not only has CO2 been increasing, but the particulate emissions from Asian countries, especially China and India, has also increased dramatically. China is the largest consumer of coal and their air pollution is legendary. India isn’t far behind in air pollution, but now we learn that Thailand and Indonesia also have problems as well.
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
As ever, the method differences display more prominently with shorter data sets.
I wish this preference for a certain data set would end, and people would realize that they are all best estimates….
Thanks for the trend results!
barry
“I wish this preference for a certain data set would end…”
*
Let me please disagree here.
Simply because the strong difference between UAH and the others exerts political pressure on the latter to constantly question themselves, and thus increase their credibility for the general public.
Fortunately, the world is infinitely more than just these few Robertsons who are unable to do else than to divert, distort, misinform, discredit, denigrate and lie!
I wonder if that holds true for Messrs Christie and Spencer, too. I doubt it somehow, and yet being such an outlier should light a hotter fire for them, no?
Political pressure?! Maybe you jest.
Differences, strengths and deficiencies in methodology can be assessed out of pure inquisitiveness and a desire for improvement. There’s no reason why occasional collaborations could not accelerate development, alongside the regular siloed activity.
barry, please stop trolling.
To all the lunatics who believe cold makes hot hotter –
Put ice cubes emitting 300W/m2 into your hot soup. Add lots if you like – as much extra heat energy as you can fit.
The temperature of the soup goes down. It falls. The soup gets colder.
You’re a pack of delusional psychotics if you can’t accept this. Mindless worshippers of the supremely non-existent GHE.
Give me a bit of time, and I might even tell you what I really think!
To all the dim witted fanatics who believe that scrutinising past records allows them to predict the future –
It doesn’t. You are simply delusional. Keep it up. At least it stops you from interfering in serious matters. Have fun.
Cheers.
Earth surface is not as warm as warm soup.
Large parts of Earth surface are colder than ice cream.
One could say, “global warming” is about warming ice cream.
The tropics is cooler than lukewarm.
Currently much of US is colder than a typical freezer.
And Canada and Russia are colder.
And average temperature of the ocean is at a safe temperature for a refrigerator.
And in time periods less hundreds of thousands year, the average temperature of the ocean has been at a unsafe temperature for refrigerator. And at other times, 1/2 ocean has too cold of a temperature for a refrigerator.
Awwww . . .
g,
Solar pond temps of 70 C are pretty warm. Chucking ice in them doesn’t seem to make warm water hotter, eh?
One could say “global warming” has nothing to do with GHGs or an invisible GHE. Warming usually results from exposure to something of higher temperature, not from exposure to magic spells or colder objects.
As an aside, here’s something to occupy your calculatoristic desires.
Just before the first liquid water appeared on Earth, the temperature was nowhere less than 100 C.
My assumption is that all the CO2 currently sequestered in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere, for obvious reasons. As was the total available H2O content of the Earth.
So, what percentage of the atmosphere was CO2, and what percentage H20? Calculating pressure is a bit more difficult, but you might feel like giving it a go. Make your own assumptions as you see fit.
Any dim witted Venusian runaway GHE supporters might find that the Earth cooled anyway, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. Even Hansen has backed off a bit – seems to be having second thoughts about tipping points. Maybe even accepting that predictions are difficult, particularly where the future is concerned.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
–As an aside, here’s something to occupy your calculatoristic desires.
Just before the first liquid water appeared on Earth, the temperature was nowhere less than 100 C.
My assumption is that all the CO2 currently sequestered in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere, for obvious reasons. As was the total available H2O content of the Earth.
So, what percentage of the atmosphere was CO2, and what percentage H20? Calculating pressure is a bit more difficult, but you might feel like giving it a go. Make your own assumptions as you see fit.–
It seems little is known about Earth +1 billion years ago.
But I think it’s likely that Earth was hit by another planet, as in:
the Giant-impact hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
And “Just before the first liquid water appeared on Earth”
seems rather vague as you might be referring to before proto Earth was hit by another planet and it resulted in the formation of our Moon.
So instead you could say after the planet hit proto Earth- though you may not accept such a hypothesis. And so returning to a more idea of early Earth.
If want play along with idea of the Giant-impact_hypothesis and it marking the beginning point, then I would roughly say about the mass of our current ocean was being an atmosphere.
Our ocean spread out global amounts to about 2.5 km deep ocean.
Each 1000 meters is:
10 meters being 1 atm, 1000 meters being 100 atm, and 2.5 km being 250 atm of water atmosphere. Or exceeding Venus atmospheric mass by at least a factor of 2. And other gases would be trace gases compared to water vapor. Included as trace gases would be things not normally considered gases, such as iron.
Though I might willing to accept that such impact might even make H20, though never heard anyone mention the possibility. Probably too wild of idea.
It’s also possible, one that one imagines there is much less water involved during the time of the Giant impact, but there is little doubt that any water any where near the surface would be vaporized with such a giant impactor. And it seems that if 2 Moons [very dry bodies] colliding, one would still get a fair amount water vapor as an atmosphere.
But like I said one could imagine less water was involved and that water was added later.
It’s generally assumed that water arrive on Earth surface from impactors and from the interior of Earth. Or it’s thought our molten planet is quite dry, roughly speaking, outgassed H2O, so that currently it very dry. Or when gaint impact occur water could been made part of molten planet and then later it outgassed.
Or the two bodies colliding and have been somewhat dry, the collison do not make atmosphere of water vapor, and newly formed earth over time outgassed the water of our ocean. Plus water added from the Late Heavy Bombardment. Wiki:
The Late Heavy Bombardment (abbreviated LHB and also known as the lunar cataclysm) is an event thought to have occurred approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years (Ga) ago”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
Or about 75% of all current asteroids have fair amount of water in them, and all of it would have released impacting Earth.
Current it’s “raining” space rocks if you view every million years as 1 second in a 30 min movie. But about 4 billion years it was a far heavier raining event.
Also early history would have had very very impact events, which would rocks larger than 100 km diameter hitting earth. 100 km diameter rock cause the oceans to boil and kills all humans, and one could have 500 to 1000 km rocks impacting Earth during Late Heavy Bombardment and doing more than merely boiling the oceans, such as vaporizing an ocean “basin” area.
Now, it’s thought life started 3.8 billion years ago, and life starting after global molten states of earth existed. Or the 500 km or more rocks didn’t hit after 3.8 billion. Or we have to imagine multiple starts of life on Earth or we got the dating wrong [unlikely].
So anyways, one might pick the beginning being just before about 3.8 billion years.
Or to get biblical, when the waters divided.
And Earth might been fairly hot when the waters divided.
E. Swanson, did you measure or calculate the temperature difference between the two sides of your “green” plate?
Svante, No, both plates were made of aluminum and the temperatures were measured with thermocouples placed in holes parallel to the flat sides. How would you go about measuring the surface temperature with my simple setup? I was not attempting to produce high accuracy lab work, just show the effect of changing the position of the two plates.
DREMT argues that the green plate insulates, that could be put to rest if the temperature was measured on both sides.
Without measuring the fluxes, you clowns are just playing games. Aluminum is highly reflective, but has low emissivity. If you would learn some physics you could see how funny you look.
But, comedy is good….
Huffingman, Both plates were painted on both sides with the surface layer being a flat black. The resulting emissivity was approximately 0.94. Sorry to disappoint your latest rant with facts. Learn some real physics, not denialist BS.
ES,
It doesn’t matter. If I understand you correctly, you have an object interposed between a source of radiation and a sink for that radiation. That is what is called an insulator. It prevents transfer of heat.
You may redefine anything you like, but it won’t change physical facts. Radiation from a colder body will not raise the temperature of a hotter. Throw some ice in some water, and then tell me how your “theory” works out in fact. You are unintentionally deluding yourself.
For example, turn off your electric heat source. Your apparatus is still being heated by the surrounding environment. Measure your temperatures, and try and convince yourself that one plate is making the other hotter.
You’ve fooled yourself. No worries, real scientists have been doing it ever since they were first called scientists.
Some of them may even have been smarter than you. Possibly even more highly educated. Do you really think you are more special than all who have gone before? Maybe you are, but it doesn’t seem so, to date.
Cheers.
JDHuffman
It depends upon the nature of the aluminum. If E. Swanson used polished aluminum you would be correct. However a non polished aluminum plate would have a fairly high emissivity.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table
Norman,
It doesn’t matter.
If it prevents the transfer of heat, it is an insulator. Unless you are a foolish Warmist, and redefine what an insulator is.
Maybe you also believe slow cooling makes thermometers hotter?
What a fool!
Cheers.
First the plates are black bodies. Then one is some magical insulator. Then they are aluminum, painted black.
The poor plates have an identity crisis!
MF, No, the Green Plate isn’t acting as an “insulator”, which is a term usually applied to conduction heat transfer. Within the vacuum chamber, the plates are not in contact, so the only possible green plate influence on the blue plate is thru changes in the net IR radiation. Learn some physics (and engineering).
You suggest turning off the energy source, which is provided by a strong light source. Of course, the apparatus will cool to some equilibrium temperature with the surroundings. But, your suggestion is a straw man, since that’s not the situation being modeled. It’s an externally heated body which radiates to it’s surroundings, then the configuration is modified by moving the green plate to a different position. Your claim is rather like turning off the Sun and recording the Earth’s temperature as it cools to that of deep space, which has nothing to do with present reality.
Swanson, you are the one that needs to study physics.
Start your “experiment” with both plates in full contact. Once equilibrium has been reached, move the plates slightly apart. You will find that the blue plate does not increase in temperature.
“Start your “experiment” with both plates in full contact.”
Count the plates: 1
Not 2 plates. Different experimental set-up, back to 1 plate. JD needs to learn how to count. At least all the way to two. JD can use his fingers.
Incorrect, incompetent, and incomprehensible–just reflecting more of fluff’s immaturity.
JDHuffman
I think you meant to say: “Start your “experiment” with both plates in full contact. Once equilibrium has been reached, move the plates slightly apart. You will find that the blue plate does increase in temperature.”
I corrected your error for you. I think you made a mistake and put the word “not” in your statement.
If you look at E. Swanson’s experiment, he has already performed the test with the two plates separated and indeed the blue plate temperature does go up. So I am sure you added the word “not” by mistake.
You can thank me for helping you out and correcting your statement. Now it is valid and based upon the actual experimental evidence provided by E. Swanson.
Nah, let’s keep the “not” in, until proved otherwise.
Norman misrepresents my words, again.
Nothing new.
Both JDHuffman and Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Suffer from the same problems. Neither of the two know any real physics. Their entire learning comes from blog science.
The worst part of all is not the lack of knowledge. Knowledge can be gained. What makes reasoning with either one of these is that they do not possess even a dose of rational logical thought process.
Case of point. They can’t logically understand that E. Swanson’s experiment already satisfies JDHuffman’s request of starting the plates together and moving them apart. His lack of reasoning skills makes his posts completely worthless.
He can’t reason that the initial steady state temperature of the blue plate in the vacuum conditions is the same as if the blue and green plate were together. Then you have the green plate apart from the blue plate in the final example. It would not logically matter if you had the green plate touching the blue plate or moved it in from below. The situations end the same. This is what rational and logical thought are about. JDHuffman is totally confused and thinks the situations would be different.
This is why I was taking the advice of intelligent Tim Folkerts to quit fighting with an irrational JDHuffman.
You will never win an argument with this one. He can’t think logically and is not rational.
Norman, you lecture about “rational logical thought process” yet you believe that separating two plates which have settled at one temperature will cause one of the plates to spontaneously warm. Kind of an odd belief.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Actually it is quite logical. You are not thinking that the blue plate is heated. It is always having energy added to it. It has no set temperature. If you prevent some of the added energy from leaving the blue plate will reach any number of possible temperatures.
The steady state of one condition is only one of many possible temperatures.
Since you are not logical or rational and will not read the actual physics texts I link you to, don’t you think it is a waste of my time to try and communicate science with you.
Maybe there is an area you are very good at. Physics is NOT one of them. You don’t want to learn physics but you like posting your ideas here. Why?
Actually it isn’t logical, and I am remembering that the blue plate is heated. The rest of your comment is just insults and waffling.
Svante,
You thrice addled fool! Don’t assume everyone is as ignorant and stupid as you are. Measure both sides of a sheet of reflective foil insulation (made of aluminium, for example), and convince yourself that the temperature of the metal is different on both sides.
Precisely how would you suggest this is done? What would it tell you?
Foolish Warmists generally cannot be bothered providing definitions, so I will help out –
From Merriam-Webster – insulate
“especially : to separate from conducting bodies by means of nonconductors so as to prevent transfer of electricity, heat, or sound”
Heat. To prevent transfer. And putting your hand between the Sun and a thermometer prevents the Suns heat reaching it. You have insulated the thermometer from the Sun. It cools.
Learn some physics (the real sort, not the pseudoscientific climatological imitation version).
In the meantime, continue demonstrating stupidity and ignorance by imagining you debate fantasy into fact.
Cheers.
Yes, I thought the reflectivity of the plate was low, so only some of the warming will be due to that. The rest will be due to the thermal resistance of the plate itself.
DRsEMT, No, both plates are made of aluminum, which is a great conductor of thermal energy. Besides, the two plates don’t touch, i.e., they aren’t in contact, so, (listen up) the only way that moving the green plate can influence the temperature of the blue plate is via thermal IR EM back radiation. Learn some physics.
Yes, aluminium is a good conductor. You also have to take into account the thickness, and surface area of the plates when considering thermal resistance, though, and it’s not like we’re looking to account for a particularly large temperature rise.
“the only way that moving the green plate can influence the temperature of the blue plate is via thermal IR EM back radiation”
Incorrect. You have placed the plate inbetween a source of radiation and a heat sink for that radiation, as Mike said. The heat now has to get through the plate. Learn some humility, and please stop trolling.
Can your team calculate the thermal resistance?
Not without knowing the thermal conductivity (different aluminium alloys can have different thermal conductivities) and exact dimensions of the plate, but then again: I shouldn’t have to. It’s not my experiment, and this calculation should have already been done by Swanson.
Has the GHE Defense Team ever done any calculations involving the actual flux values involved? No, because they weren’t even recorded.
So you say it’s thermal resistance, but you don’t know?
So you claim it’s back-radiation, but you don’t know?
It is calculated here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
OK Svante.
DRsEMT, The Green Plate emits energy from both sides in equal amounts which is a function of the plate’s temperature, according to S-B. Given the high conductivity of aluminum (237 watts/m / K), there’s almost no difference in the surface temperatures of the two radiating sides, which were 1/4″ (0.006m) thick. And, the measured temperature is mid-way thru the plate, not on the surface.
You haven’t provided any other mechanism thru which the Green Plate would impact the Blue Plate besides that which I claim. There’s no other path besides radiant energy transfer in the form of the back radiation from the Green Plate, causing the warming of the Blue Plate. If you think so, show us your math or other source of proof. Learn some physics.
So the thermal resistance of the green plate is?
… negligible.
Well, Swanson has the details. It’s his experiment. He can calculate the maximum temperature increase possible due to either reflectivity, or thermal resistance, as he should have done in the first place.
Foolish Warmists go to great lengths trying to “prove” that a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a hotter surface, in all sorts of interesting, but ultimately pointless, ways.
An extreme example might the solar facility at Ivanpah. Fields of heliostats concentrate sunlight to heat boilers to over 550 C. The mirrors remain cooler than this. A foolish Warmist might claim that this is an example of radiation from a cooler body increasing the temperature of a hotter one!
It is very easy then to start arguing about this and that, effectively diverting the conversation away from the fact an object of lower temperature cannot increase the temperature of a hotter one, using radiation emitted by the cooler.
The fact that the surface cools at night, in the absence of sunlight, shows the silliness of the Warmist contention that a colder atmosphere must increase the temperature of the hotter surface.
Overnight, even the Ivanpah boilers cool, and need to consume enormous amounts of natural gas to heat up, before the Sun has risen high enough to take over. From white heat in full sunlight to very cool before dawn. No heat trapping or accumulation here!
Maybe ES. and the other delusional GHE believers should concentrate on showing how increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. But that would be ridiculous, woukdnt it? No wonder nobody can produce a useful description of the GHE!
Cheers.
DRsEMT, Can’t do the math? I’m not surprised.
OK, the plates are 4″ x 3.5″ x 1/4″ thick. That’s 10.16cm x 8.89cm for a surface area of 0.0090m^2 and a thickness of 0.0064m. Assuming the aluminum has a conductivity of 237 W/m/K, the energy flowing between the two sides with a 1.0 K temperature difference would be about:
q = 237 x 0.0090 / 0.0064 or 333 watts
Now, the light source is a 300 watt halogen lamp and it’s likely that less than 100 watts of that actually makes it to the Blue Plate. Of that amount, half is radiated away from each side, so the Green Plate might receive at most 50 watts. Of that amount, half leaves each side again, so the energy flowing from one side to the other might be only 25 watts. The temperature difference for this flow would be only:
delta K = 25/333 = 0.075K
Not enough to write home about, is it? Learn some physics.
Wait, so your aluminium plates are pure aluminium?
Swanson, this is why I wanted you to identify the fluxes. You obviously don’t have a clue.
If the blue plate is emitting 50 Watts from both sides, that amounts to a flux of about 5536 Watts/m^2, which then corresponds to an S/B temperature of 559K, 286C, 547F.
Be careful you don’t burn yourself. Clowns are supposed to be funny, but not get hurt….
Huffingman, I didn’t identify the fluxes. I just presented a hypothetical flux which is obviously large. Incandescent light is notoriously inefficient and the fixture is quite hot when running, indicating lots of lost energy. Speaking of clowns, of course, you are ignoring the question about the temperature drop across the Green Plate which would be even lower than my calculation if there’s less energy striking the Blue Plate.
Swanson, if you were invovled in a legitimate effort, you would not have to come up with so many excuses.
Maybe that’s why you’re so funny.
JDHuffman
Maybe E. Swanson is not funny at all. He did an actual experiment. You have done none. You give your endless drivel of unsupported declarations that are easily proven wrong with quick links to actual text books. What is so funny about doing actual science instead of making up your own and hoping people are not smart enough to see how bad your science really is.
Still waiting on the actual composition of the plate.
JDHuffman
He gave you all the information you need to calculate the fluxes yourself.
The blue plate has an area of 0.009 m^2
The emissivity is around 0.94
The steady state temperature in a vacuum without the green plate is around 107 C (380.15 K)
That comes out to an emission of 10 watts per side so the blue plate is receiving 20 watts from the light source.
The final temperature of the green plate when heated by the blue plate is 75 C and its surface would emit 7 watts from each side or it would need to receive a total of 14 watts.
The final temperature of the blue plate is about 118 C (391.15 K) and will emit 11 watts toward the green plate. (22 total watts).
The surroundings are at 30 C (303.15 K) and depending upon the material will send around 4 watts to the green plate so the green plate will receive the 11 from the blue plate, it needs a total of 14 watts to maintain a steady state temperature of 75 C so the surroundings (with a lower emissivity) may be sending the 3 watts needed by the green plate to balance all the energy.
See Norman, even twisting the figures, they still don’t add up.
Here, everything works out:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
The numbers don’t add up for the Pseudoscience Team. But, it gets even funnier. They can’t even agree on their pseudoscience:
Norman claims: “If you prevent some of the added energy from leaving the blue plate will reach any number of possible temperatures.”
Swanson claims: “No, the Green Plate isn’t acting as an “insulator”…”
Great entertainment!
“Here, everything works out:”
JD yet again trots out the bogus cartoon 8e3 showing blackbodies reflect all incident radiation. JD is more ignorant of radiative physics than we thought!
JD is a good entertainer who needs to learn some physics.
Now we know why fluffball can’t understand 2LoT. He can’t count to 2!
“Count the plates: 1…Not 2 plates.”
Here’s my “rational logical thought process”, as Norman would say:
We have an experimental result where introducing a “green plate” has warmed a “blue plate”.
The automatic conclusion from those lacking “rational logical thought process” is: “it must be due to back-radiation”.
What’s actually more rational and logical is to attempt to rule out any ordinary explanation for the temperature increase BEFORE concluding the extraordinary (“back radiation” heating).
The green plate is observed to warm up when moved into place.
All the while the green plate is warming, it is impeding the heat flow from the blue plate, thus insulating the blue plate.
This would be an ordinary explanation for the observed warming.
So OK, the temperature difference across the green plate is small, but that’s not really the question.
The question is, how much warming can be accounted for by the impedance of heat flow that the introduced green plate presents?
I’m not claiming to have the answers, and I am interested to know what they may be, from the self-professed “experts”.
JDHuffman
So what figures don’t add up? Also my and E. Swanson’s statement don’t contradict. I was making a conceptual statement that a body’s temperature is not just about how much energy is being added to it. It is the combination of what is added and what is lost.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “Whats actually more rational and logical is to attempt to rule out any ordinary explanation for the temperature increase BEFORE concluding the extraordinary (back radiation heating).
The green plate is observed to warm up when moved into place.
All the while the green plate is warming, it is impeding the heat flow from the blue plate, thus insulating the blue plate.”
WRONG!!
I have given you links to the actual physics but I guess you ignore them and prefer you own ideas to that of science.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341539
In this comment I give a link to what the science says. I have given you others as well.
You are so irrationally against the concept of “back-radiation” that you close your mind from even the slightest consideration that this indeed is the real answer so you come up with your own idea that you can’t explain, can’t mathematically describe, goes totally against established science but you are convinced it is correct.
If the green plate was in the vacuum chamber at 75 C do you believe it is radiating IR energy?
If you put a heated blue plate in the same vacuum chamber do you thin the green plate suddenly will stop emitting IR? Is that you hypothesis?
If you claim the green plate continues to emit IR in both cases then you accept “back-radiation” concept. If you think the green plate quits emitting then you must explain why you believe this.
Good job JD, I see you used two fingers, one blue bb, one bogus green blackbody that reflects all incident radiation. You got the plate count right this time: 2.
Keep up the good work, even JD can learn some physics counting on fingers.
Norman, you are having to deny your own words, as usual. Nothing new.
And since your figures don’t work out, you have to make up some more pseudoscience. You’re magically trying to pull the missing Watts out of the surroundings! Sorry, but that energy is already in the system. You don’t get to use it twice!
Notice how in the correct situation the numbers all add up, and no one has to keep changing, altering, adding, or denying:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Now, more of your denial, insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. Your ever-expanding frustration is most entertaining.
DRsEMT wrote:
You are the one tossing out bad science again. Exactly what is/are the physics in your process which you call “impedance of heat flow”? Physics isn’t about “ordinary explanation”, it’s the result of combining experiment and theoretical explanation of the observed results, which leads to predictions and further experiments. Common sense reasoning often gives incorrect answers, which you would surely know if you had taken the time to understand science.
Wrong JD, since in bogus 8e3 JD denies blackbodies absorb all incident radiation. JD’s comical cartoons are a study in denial. JD’s physics are worse than we thought! Learn some physics JD
Over and over again, fluffball tries to use the definition of an imaginary object to violate 2LoT.
“Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.”
I’m not sure I could have explained myself more clearly, and yet…
…look, the “green plate” takes an hour and a half to warm up to its new equilibrium temperature. During that time, the simplest and most logical explanation for the concurrent warming of the “blue plate” is that the “green plate” is insulating the “blue plate”. You have placed it inbetween a source of radiation and a heat sink for that radiation. The radiation now has to “get through” the “green plate”. The “green plate” might be a good conductor of heat, but it still takes an hour and a half to warm up.
That’s the most straightforward explanation. Proof of “back-radiation heating” is an extraordinary claim, but you act like it is the null hypothesis for this experiment.
JD 10:33am apparently isn’t capable enough to notice my comments were in response to JD’s bogus cartoon 8e3. The same bogus cartoon JD posts over and over again while hoping for different results.
JD’s thinking is worse than I thought! Learn some physics JD & correct your 8e3 cartoon.
Fluffball, you’re always the funniest when you’re arguing with yourself.
Keep it up.
Hoping won’t work JD, though they do say sometimes temporary insanity is curable or at least controllable. Learn some physics. If not, keep up the entertainment.
Sorry for the bad news, fluffball, but your insanity is NOT temporary.
I’m probably not the first to bring reality to you.
Svante appears to grasp what happens to the energy from the notches ,,I agree, if the notches get deeper the rest of the graph must grow until the integral is the same as before,, but the additional energy absorbed by CO2 is very tiny compared to the additional energy absorbed by the increased water vapor (if I understand Hitran intensity, at the surface, WV accounts for more than 100 times as much as CO2). CO2 ppm increase is about constant throughout the atmosphere. IMO the additional molecules of CO2 radiating to space above about 20 km are about enough to compensate. That would explain why average global temperature and therefore all of climate has little, if anything, to do with CO2 in spite of it being a ghg. Multiple compelling evidence shows this to be true (Section 2 of my blog/analysis).
There are on average about 35 times as many water vapor molecules as CO2 molecules.
According to the NASA/RSS data (extrapolated), WV increased about 7% 1960 to 2002. This is not compensated so the surface temperature must increase to maintain the energy flux. Svante again appears to agree ,,Yes, thats right, and it must be achieved by an increased surface temperature,, but I suspect he was not thinking about the rise in water vapor. The WV increase is in the same time period as water use increase. My assessment shows most of the WV increase is from irrigation. It appears that irrigation increase essentially ended in about 2005 and certainly WV increase must eventually stop if it has not already. Given that SST is in a down trend, solar activity has come to a halt and WV increase is at or near an end, GW is essentially over.
Dan Pangburn
There are 2.4 million km^2 of irrigated lasd and 360 million km^2 of ocean. The irrigated land area is equivalent to 0.6% of the ocean area.
Given this difference I would expect that the vast majority of water vapour in the atmosphere evaporates from the oceans.
Correalation often, but not always, indicates causation. To demonstrate causation in this case you would need to describe a mechanism to explain why irrigated land releases hundreds of times more water vapour than the oceans
Entropic man
Thanks for one more time pinpointing this evidence. I remember to have replied that to DP years ago.
I learned years ago that the best way to test a hypothesis is to do the numbers. Even a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation can show whether or not someone’s cherished belief is likely to work in the real world.
It doesn’t make me popular. I am banned from several “sceptic” websites for my presumption.
E-man, what “skeptic” sites have you been banned from?
JDHuffman
Anthony Watts, Robert Tisdale, Roger Tattersall and Paul Homewood.
I’m not sure Watts and Tattersall qualify as “Skeptics”. They both used to believe CO2 could heat the planet.
But, I’ll check out the others. Always interested in finding true Skeptics.
Thanks.
E man, it wouldn’t be the amount of land area irrigated versus ocean area but you’d have to make some kind of correlation or calculation to the amount of fresh water pumped for irrigation and also the means-sprinkler system with spray nozzles, or drip, etc. And, you’d have to take into account that fresh water evaporates more efficiently than salt water. Finally, you’d also have to take into account that irrigation occurs in drier regions with low humidity and the air above the oceans is very saturated. Wouldn’t you?
And, virtually all the water irrigated is evaporated- either from the surface or from the plant through transpiration.
Ent,, Of course you are correct, the vast majority of the water vapor does come from the ocean. That is what made the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. It is that 7% increase in WV 1960 to 2005, or about 10% 1700-2005 (my estimate), that provided the human contribution to otherwise natural warming.
If you had looked at my blog/analysis (click my name) you could have discovered that NASA/RSS have been measuring water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988 at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product. Fig 3 in my b/a is a graph of the NASA/RSS numerical data.
WV was rising 1960-2005 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 WV rise correlates with rising irrigation which accounts for about 86% of the increase. Several other sources of WV added by humanity are quantified.
Tyndall stated that water vapor was by far the dominant greenhouse gas and that CO2 was insignificant. Seems like he was mostly forgotten for 150 years and then he was ignored.
Dan Pangburn
I read your piece.
There is a lot in it that the consensus would agree with, There are also a couple of misconceptions.
One is that water vapour is a forcing, the other is that CO2 cannot be a forcing.
We could spend hours on this!
Ent,, This is my logic re ,,water vapor is a forcing,,:
1. WV is IR active, i.e. a ghg
2. On average for the planet, there is lots of WV in the atmosphere all the time. Averages about 15,000 ppm at the surface.
3. According to NASA/RSS satellite observations it increased about 7 % 1988-2002 and again temporarily during the last el Nino.
4. The added WV molecules increased the cumulative dwell requiring surface temperature increase to maintain energy flux.
5. The WV increase has essentially ended so GW has ended or will soon end because WV is self-limiting.
Which of these do you think is wrong or is there something else?
As to CO2, there is multiple compelling evidence that CO2 has little if any effect on climate in spite of it being a ghg. I list 8 examples in Section 2 of my b/a as you might have read. The argument that CO2 has little if any effect on climate involves:
1. All photon energy absorbed by any ghg is thermalized i.e. shared with all surrounding molecules.
2. CO2 is about 410 ppm from surface to TOA.
3. There is a steep population gradient of WV molecules from avg about 15000 ppm at surface to about 32 ppm at 10 km. (because of temperature decline to about -50 C at 10 km.)
4. The only gas molecule which can absorb/emit in the wavenumber range 0-550/cm. is WV
5. The few WV molecules above about 10 km means the atmosphere above there is nearly transparent to radiation in the range wn 0-500/cm
6. Energy that is absorbed by CO2, thermalized, and emitted by WV in wn range 0-550/cm gets all the way to space and is therefore no long.er available to CO2. This explains the notches in graphs of TOA radiant emission vs wavenumber.
7. Still, the increase in total ghg due to CO2 increase 1960-2002 is about 1-(373.2-318.1+15000)/15000 = 0.00367 or 0.367% (compared to about 7% for WV)
8. Above 10 km CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules by about 410/32 = 12.9 times. This results in increased absorb/emit of the remaining energy (most of the energy makes it all the way to space via WV in the wn range 0-550) by CO2 and explains the groove getting 12 % less deep between about 20 km and 50 km as calculated by MODTRAN6 and shown in Fig 0.5.
9. The increased number of CO2 molecules at very high (>20 km) altitude increases cooling.
10. My rationalization for the apparent insensitivity of the temperature to CO2 change is that the added absor.p.tion due to CO2 increase below 10 km is compensated for by the added emission by CO2 above 50 km.
Which of these do you think is wrong or is there something else?
Dan says: “4. The added WV molecules increased the cumulative dwell requiring surface temperature increase to maintain energy flux.”
Dan, the cumulative dwell time does not imply a surface temperature increase.
Dan asks: “Which of these do you think is wrong or is there something else?”
1.No. Only some of the photon energy absorbed by any ghg is thermalized. Not all.
2.No. CO2 ppm declines a bit (10-20ppm) with altitude.
3.Stratosphere is about nil in WV, is isothermal for about 9km.
4.No. Every gas absorbs/emits nonzero in the wavenumber range 0-550/cm., the only question is how much irradiance is incident on earth L&O surface or the instrument observing from space from each specie.
5.Above about 0.1 to 0.2bar the atm. thins out in the IR band not across the spectrum.
6.No. The notch does not go down to 0 irradiance on the observing instrument.
7.There are abundant atmospheric measurements of key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, however there are much less abundant measurements of past global water vapor thus it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries.
8.Is not clear enough to comment.
9.No. The upper regions cooling offsets the lower atm. regions warming; CO2 does not burn a fuel, there can be no planet wide change in global atm. mean T from added CO2 ppm alone.
Bal,,
1. Wrong. Relaxation time about 5 microsec, time between collisions <0.0002 microsec
2. Maybe. How do you know? Not enough to be important.
3. OK
4. Wrong. Not enough of the other stuff to matter.
5. OK, MODTRAN6 cuts off below 250/cm but NASA goes close to zero.
6. Wrong. I know that, said that and show that in Fig 0.5, 0.6, 1. And 1.5
7. I know and did a rational extrapolation. Not relevant after 1988.
8. Try it with the blinders off. Have a look at Fig 0.5 or make your own using MODTRAN6.
9. ???
Dan,
1.Relaxation time is irrelevant. Some of the atm. emitted photons near the surface shoot straight to space. This is known as the atm. window.
2.Read the published literature.
3.Cool.
4.All matter radiates, at all freq.s, all temperatures. All the time. There are no exceptions, all means all.
5.Cool.
6.You are still wrong in your statement under 6 at 3:49pm.
7.7% for water vapor is uncertain, unjustifiable. Could be -7%. What are the error bars of your rationalization?
8.Still not clear.
9.If you don’t understand, try to begin with conservation of energy in the total earth/atm. system. Realize added CO2 burns no fuel.
Bal,
1. We are only talking about photons that do get absorbed.
2. Why? It wont change the conclusion.
3.
4. Get real. We are talking about significant radiation from an energy standpoint.
5.
6. Just saying its wrong is just an opinion. How do you explain the notches? And the spikes in the center of them?
7. 1.5% per decade is the trend of the noisy data.
8. How do you explain why the CO2 groove gets 12 % less deep?
9. What I do not understand is why you thought it relevant to point out the fact CO2 does not burn or help anything else to burn. Also, what does this have to do with my 9. at 3:49?
1.Of course. Some of those absorbed photon molecules deenergized by being thermalized and some deenergized molecules emitted photons shot straight out to space not as you wrote: “All photon energy absorbed by any ghg is thermalized”
2. Why? Because reading the published literature corrects your statement to: CO2 about 410 ppm at surface declines a bit to lower CO2 ppm at higher altitudes.
4. Get real. All matter radiates, at all freq.s, all temperatures. All the time. There are no exceptions, all means all, no means no. Not: “The only gas molecule which can absorb/emit in the wavenumber range 0-550/cm. is WV” which is wrong not by opinion but by measurement.
6. You have the facts wrong, that is not an opinion. Better: Energy that is absorbed by CO2, wv, some is thermalized, and some emitted by WV & CO2 in wn range 0-550/cm shoots all the way to space and is therefore no longer available to CO2 and wv. The notches are due to the opacity of the atm. at that wn from all species based on their mixing ratio and mass extinction coefficients, total pressure. NB: this is not true for Venus, total surface pressure there means no true surface atm. windows above 3micron.
7. 1.5% per decade is not meaningful without a range of error bars shown at 95% significance level for which there is not long enough, precise enough global coverage for atm. humidity before satellite era. To date there is not yet enough global wv data to be meaningful or show the published paper.
8. The mixing ratio, mass extinction coefficient of CO2 at that groove in addition to total pressure at the altitude emitted.
9. Added CO2 cooling high altitude as you wrote 3:49 which is at best misleading since there is added CO2 warming low altitude to complete the picture. Can’t do any warming or cooling of the total atm. unless burns a fuel.
Bal,
1. Data on relaxation time was hard to find but I found 2 sources which gave relaxation times and temperatures. They made a credible plot, Fig 0.3, which I accep.t because I could not find anything that refuted. I would be a lot more comfortable with another credible source that corroborated. This shows relaxation time at surface conditions of about 5 microsec. I found another source that said 7.1 microsec but that was for pure CO2 and I do not know the temperature. Average time between molecule contacts of about 0.0002 microsec comes from the Hyperphysics calculator. The conclusion from the huge difference of these two numbers is that the chance of a ghg molecule emitting a photon before it loses so much energy from contacts that it cannot is nil. Therefore the statement that all absorbed energy [from 50-1550 wn photons] is thermalized.
Photons emitted by either WV or CO2 near the surface cannot shoot straight out to space because they are the wrong wavelength to be able to do that. They will be absorbed by other ghg molecules with their energy contributing to the temperature of the gas at that level. Of course as the number of ghg molecules declines with altitude, more and more of the emitted photons do make it all the way to space.
2. OK. I have suspected as much because of the difference in molecular weights but never pursued it because, well, it would not change my conclusion. Your comment that it is a small effect makes me a little more confident about it.
4. I do not think we are communicating on this item. First, let me back off to 50-550/cm. Also, we are only talking about gases, not liquids or solids. In this wn range, the energy involved in radiation/absor.p.tion from non ghg is nil compared to ghg. That is what separates ghg from non ghg. Are you at issue with this?
6. IMO your understanding is wrong. Partly because of 1. just above and partly because emission from ghgs occur when individual molecules get bumped up to the necessary energy level (Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution) for long enough time for that to happen. What makes the grooves is that much of the energy in the photons absorbed by CO2 molecules below 10 km gets emitted to space by WV molecules more and more with increasing altitude. Near the surface, WV molecules greatly outnumber CO2 molecules (excep.t where it is really cold) and dominate the emission in the range 50-550 wn. If there is no WV there would be no notch. This has been demonstrated by measured TOA emission at the poles (Barrett 2005).
7. I understand and respect your percep.tion that there is not enough credible data to be sure about 1.5% per decade but that is what is most likely and, as extrapolated (Fig 3), results (with the other factors) in a 98.3% match with reported average global temperatures 1895-2017. How the WV trend plays out following the aberration of the el Nino should be revealed in the next few months. IMO it will eventually become a downtrend.
8. Does that mean that you do not think it has anything to do with WV? I disagree.
9. I disagree with both of your statements. The first because CO2 has little, if any, effect on temperature/climate (Sect 2).
Measured surface temperature has increased (especially since the 70s), more ghg has slowed the passage of energy so temperature gradient in the atmosphere has increased therefore average temperature of the atmosphere has increased.
Dan, thanks for that work. However, research into relaxation times isn’t useful unless you arrive at what is observed by instruments looking down from space. After this discussion you have switched from original:
1.All photon energy absorbed by any ghg is thermalized i.e. shared with all surrounding molecules.
to, in part,: 1.[from 50-1550 wn photons]
My response to your original 1. still stands:
1.No. Only some of the photon energy absorbed by any ghg is thermalized. Not all.
Because from 4micron to 1mm absorp_tion by water vapor, with contributions from CO2 and O3, is often observed so strong that Earth atm. transmissivity is nearly zero over broad ranges within this region, not totally zero.
One important exception observed is 812micron, where atm. transmissivity often exceeds 0.6. Emission by Earth peaks in this region, sometimes called the window region, because transmission of LW radiation through the near surface atm. is high thus NOT “all” thermalized. Your research into relaxation times must eventually lead you to this conclusion as this is what is observed.
Again, Venus has no true windows like this above ~3micron. You are more correct about Venus in its near surface IR opaque atm. which might be a clue for you.
…8-12micron…
Other stuff:
“1.5% per decade is what is most likely” How likely? You are just guessing that’s in the data, then trying to make a point with a guess. You point is thus a guess. A guess of -1.5% per decade is just as likely a good point.
“Does that mean that you do not think it has anything to do with WV?” No, you just asked about CO2 groove.
“therefore average temperature of the atmosphere has increased.” if you mean total atmosphere then no, only something burning a fuel can increase the temperature of the total atm. where CO2, wv do not burn a fuel. Energy must be conserved in the total atm.
Dan, somewhere I have read someone else go thru the approach you are taking with relaxation times and mean free paths & a short discussion of such. In the time since my last post I could not find it. Given your interest this is just a clue you may want to search for it in your own way. It is more complicated than you let on.
Molecules are greatly separated in air more like cows in the pasture than rubbing flanks in the feedlot, with much different speeds. After a collision, air molecules do not have brains to care about obtaining more or less speed or to head directly to the next collision.
Bal,
1. IMO being more specific for clarity of communication is different from switching.
Relaxation times and molecule contact times are part of my complete explanation of what is observed looking down from space. 5/.0002 = 25000 times more likely that collision will occur before emission. Can you be more explicit? How much in % (roughly) is some? What is the mechanism? Are you addressing only the wn range 50-1500/cm (wl 200-6.67 microns)?
6. Are you saying clear sky transmissivity often exceeds 0.6 or is this accounting for about 60% cloud cover? From reading further, it appears you had the impression I was not aware of the window. I mention it 4 times in my b/a and show it in the energy flow assessment, Fig 1 of http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com
7. 1.5% is the slope of the regression line through the available data. That makes it most likely, not a guess. Did you look at the graph (Fig 3)?
As to the rest, it appears we draw different percep.tions/conclusions from what we see and there does not appear to be anything short of more data that would convince either of us that the others percep.tion is better. The future, whether T continues to follow WV or reverts to CO2, will decide. Even with a total downtrend of all forcings, the slope of the AGT downtrend would only be about 0.2 K per decade so getting any statistical confidence of this with yearly data that fluctuates 1 s.d. of about 0.09 is a challenge.
I like your analogy of gas molecules to cows. IMO if a molecule absorbed a photon, the molecule would acquire the momentum of the photon and the molecule speed would change accordingly. Other than that, I agree, no speed change between collisions.
I would appreciate suggestions/links from anybody regarding relaxation time of CO2 molecules at 410 ppm in atmosphere.
1. Your added clarification changed your premise from “all” to “some” with which I happen to agree as I wrote in my original reply. Quantify some? Ok, give it a swag shot…
Transmission of radiation from near the surface out to deep space is high for earth in 8-12micron window where measured transmissivity often exceeds 0.6 which implies 40% of emission in that range was emitted/absorbed/thermalized on avg. at many altitudes below surface T (the notch). (Btw, this is zero for Venus). So, you are looking for how collision time and relaxation time could indicate such a measurement. The basic determinant of transmission by Earth’s atmosphere is the absorp_tion coefficient (the sum of many transitions), which depends on concentration profiles of atmospheric gases, their electronic (hardly any), vibrational, and rotational energy levels, and the variation of temperature and pressure with height. This is where you should be looking imo, aka optical depth.
Example collision rate numbers? Air molecule number density 10^19/cm^3, collision cross section 10^-15/cm^2, mean speed for earthian T 400 m/s, equals collision rate 4*10^27/cm^3/sec!!
Astronomically high, and you are searching for why “some” (~40%) collisions thermalize and don’t go right out the 8-12micron window to deep space. I think you are on a hopeless chase where others have gone before. The molecules will oftentimes just glance off each other and you appear to be assuming full head on collisions. Statistically, you have a challenge, but I’ve seen it done, just can’t find it.
“it appears you had the impression I was not aware of the window.”
Yes, from your:
“1. All photon energy absorbed by any ghg is thermalized i.e. shared with all surrounding molecules.”
for which you then clarified “all” to “some” connecting the dots once I mentioned window. That IS true though for Venus below about 10km (iirc) not Earth.
“The future, whether T continues to follow WV or reverts to CO2, will decide.”
Again, the global wv data to date doesn’t allow your use of continues with any meaningful significance level. You are going to have to learn Clausius-Clapeyron stuff really well (it’s detail complicated!); my semi-educated guess is wv is global ~saturated (maybe not technically correct but lets say colloquially correct) and can only increase with global T increasing. That only scratches the surface (no pun), I’m not that interested in Clausius-Clapeyron part of atm. thermo. stuff or the sensitivity debate, more interested in optics & quantum electro-dynamics (QED).
Probably the global wv data collection is a current research topic and more papers will come out as the wv data matures in statistical significance over the coming years/decades (you could be an author!) with all the complicated ugliness of Clausius-Clapeyron baked in.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Here it says irrigation may add up to 0.1 W/m^2, an order of magnitude less than CO2.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-004-0402-4
The effect on surface temperature is negative because it helps to cool it.
This study shows that irrigation led to an increasing temperature (0.002 C/year) by enhancing nighttime warming (0.009 C/year) more than daytime cooling (−0.007 C/year) during the dry season from 19612004 over the North China Plain (NCP), which is one of largest irrigated areas in the world.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9dea/meta
Sva,, Something is wrong with that assessment. If actually calculated, for the period 1960-2002 about 5 molecules of WV were added for each molecule of CO2.
WV lasts about 9 days in the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is still there after a thousand years.
Sva,, You have been egregiously misled by EPA. Only the concentration of ghg in the air at the time matters as a forcing and WV has increased about 7% since 1960. The el Nino has masked things since about June, 2015 and I have found no more-recent data regarding irrigation so will need to see the WV trend after ENSO plays out.
The annual up/down cycle of CO2 reported by Mauna Loa demonstrates that the thousand year residence-time for CO2 is bogus. There is no credible evidence that CO2 has any significant effect on climate anyway and lots of compelling evidence that it does not.
The reality is that not only is there not any further global warming but we have actual global cooling going on post 2016 and it is continuing thus far this year.
The key will be overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which have failed to make any additional upside progress.
If they break out of the range of +,10c to +.40c on the downside that will be a very important indicator of more cooling to come.
AGW – just is not happening and it will not happen.
Also watching seismic activity along with atmospheric circulation patterns and of course the weakening geo magnetic field which will compound the weak solar effects.
Svante wrote –
“Thats right JD, you wont notice in any single decade.
The CO2 effect is weak weak weak.
But relentless.”
So weak, that after four and a half billion years, it hasn’t actually managed to stop the surface cooling.
If Svante wasn’t quite so out of touch with reality, he might be able to quantify the “CO2 effect” to which he refers. Of course he can’t, which he will freely admit. His “CO2 effect” exists only in his imagination.
Svante’s grip on reality is weak, weak, weak. His deluded fixation is relentless.
Cheers.
Dan Pangburn wrote –
“Mik,, Do you actually think that the earth cools at night? I expect you meant to say that a particular spot on the earth usually cools when it is at night there. The planet earth has a temperature time-constant of about 5 years.
Apparently even a simple explanation of how the GHE works was pointless for you. You might be the only person on the planet who just cannot understand it. ”
Dan tells me what he expected me to say, but cannot apparently accept what I did say.
Dan, the Earth does cool at night, as the Sun is unable to provide enough energy to prevent a big ball of molten rock suspended in space from doing otherwise. It cools during the day, as well.
It has done so for about four and a half billion years, and will continue to do so until it becomes isothermal below the depth where the seasonal influence of the Sun is detectable. With the present core temperature in excess of 5000 K, and measured cooling of between one and three millionths of a Kelvin per annum, this is some way off.
Your “explanation” of the GHE was –
“This is how GHE works.
“Radiation energy transfer at the gas molecule level is the mechanism of the misleadingly named greenhouse effect (GHE). Radiation energy travels from molecule to molecule at the speed of light but dwells (average at STP about 5 microseconds) in the ghg molecules for the relaxation time. More ghg molecules means longer cumulative dwell time. This slows passage of the energy through the atmosphere so a steeper temperature gradient (higher surface temperature) is required to maintain the energy flux.””
Which, unfortunately, is sciencey sounding, but quite irrelevant. Your last sentence is particularly nonsensical. The surface temperature of any point on the Earth is not “required” to do anything. It is what it is. Is your “explanation” supposed to account for heating or for cooling? Are you insisting that the Earth has not cooled? Or maybe you avoid any mention of temperature because you know that somebody might ask you why energy from the Sun might actually be attenuated on its passage through the atmosphere, resulting in the highest temperatures occurring where there is the least GHGs in the atmosphere.
Your GHE “explanation” is nonsense, if it purports to show that increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere result in the Earth getting hotter. Maybe you could give it another try. By the way, CO2 can be heated by the application of radiation other than those wavelengths associated with electron level transition. Have a think about compressing CO2 to any desired temperature, or take a CO2 fire extinguisher and play with it for a while. Generate some CO2 snow, then watch it sublimate in conditions lacking in the wavelengths which you claim are the only ones that CO2 can absorb or emit.
Have fun.
Cheers.
Mik,, Measuring planet temperature to a few millionths of a degree is ridiculous. Besides, the core is kept hot by radioactive decay.
The rest of your post reveals that if you have had any schooling in science or engineering you should demand your money back. E.g. being a ghg has nothing to do with electron level transition, absorb/emit spectrum for CO2 snow is different from CO2 gas and sublimation does not require radiation heating anyway.
Amazing that you got to the correct conclusion that CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate.
Dan,
You can look up the relevant papers by geophysicists who calculate the cooling rate (not the temperature, you made that up), based on measured rates of heat loss. There is disagreement, as the measurements are comparatively sparse, and assumptions need to be made about radiogenic heat
However, even in Kelvin’s day –
“Kelvin’s Calculations:
Kelvin assumed a starting temperature of the Earth of 1200C to 3870C.
Based on the geothermal gradient (about 1/foot in deep mines) and an assumption that at molten rocks existed at depth, he determined from the geothermal gradient that the cooling rate of the Earth would be somewhere between 0.00006/yr and 0.0002/yr
So, for example, the age of Earth = 1200/x = 0.00006/year or 3870/x= 0.0002/yr, in other words, around 20 million years old.”
Kelvin was ignorant of radiogenic heat, and some of his assumptions have been shown to be incorrect. Even so, he was in the vicinity. The core is cooling, and radiogenic heat decreases as the shorter half life isotopes are consumed. Hence, current estimates between 1 and 3 millionths K per annum.
You write on your blog –
“The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of significant terrestrial radiation. Ghg absorb/emit only at specific wavelengths which are characteristic for each molecule specie. In the range of terrestrial temperatures, non-ghg must transfer energy by thermal conduction in the gas to ghg (or to liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated. Note: The expression greenhouse gas is somewhat misleading (greenhouses actually work primarily by suppressing convection). A more correct understanding is that so-called ghg can absorb/emit radiation in the wavelength range of significant infrared radiation associated with earth temperatures.”
Your statement that “Only . . . greenhouse gases . . . ” is nonsensical. Air has a temperature, regardless of how much or how little GHGs are present. So is your contention about GHG emissions. CO2 emits shorter wavelengths at higher temperatures, as do other gases. They can all be heated, and will all cool, if allowed to do so.
Maybe you could be courteous enough to disagree with something I wrote by quoting me, and then providing facts to support your disagreement. Your choice, of course.
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. If I get new information, I change my views. What do you do?
Cheers.
“If I get new information, I change my views. What do you do?”
I find out if the new information is reliable. Mike does not ever change views.
Ball4,
I haven’t recently changed my views on a number of things.
There is still no useful GHE description. Unicorns don’t exist. CO2 heats nothing. Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize. James Hansen is delusional, and you are stupid and ignorant.
Have you any new information that might lead me to change my views? An actual scientific description of the GHE, perhaps? No? In that case, the non-existent GHE description remains a fantasy.
Cheers.
“Have you any new information that might lead me to change my views? An actual scientific description of the GHE, perhaps? No?”
The existing information is sufficient & no one can read Mike’s mind despite Mike’s claims to the contrary. An actual scientific description of the GHE is sufficient. Yes?
No. Mike does not ever change views.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Mik,, I am in relentless pursuit of the truth. This is an example of a major change in my perception.
In 2006 I had the perception that CO2 increase was causing Global Warming. I started on-line research of the Global Warming issue and produced a first assessment made public 15 March, 2008 at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html . Based primarily on available paleo data it asserted that gases that do not condense in the atmosphere do not cause significant Global Warming. Later work corroborated this to the point where I was convinced that CO2 had little, if any, effect on climate and an unidentified factor was yet to be identified.
Thanks partly to another article https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water/comment-page-1 that factor turned out to be water vapor. When combined with two other factors the match to measured 1895-2017 is 98.3%. The entire assessment, including 50 references, 48 with live links last time I checked, is at (click my name).
Most assertions by anyone can be either corroborated or refuted by information provided in the 36 pages of the analysis.
—
As to ghg, we are talking about significant radiant energy in the range of significant radiation at earth temperatures, wave length 6.5-200 microns, wavenumber range 1538-50/cm. I am well aware of the things you mention ,, Air has a temperature, regardless of how much or how little GHGs are present. So is your contention about GHG emissions. CO2 emits shorter wavelengths at higher temperatures, as do other gases. They can all be heated, and will all cool, if allowed to do so.,, They just are not relevant.
Roy says:
“If we look at the area surrounding Australia in January, we can see just how localized the “record” warmth was. The snarky labels reflect my annoyance at people not thinking critically about the difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate change’:”
Localized? As in on the land where most people in Australia live. It’s a pity Minnesotans didn’t all live 200-500 miles east of Rhode Island this last January. The weather there was quite pleasant. No broken record cold snaps. Not a flake of snow or ice to be seen to the horizons.
Roy then says:
“So, the claims of the usual suspects such as “Australia’s Extreme Heat is a Sign of Things to Come” is just one more example of the blind leading the blind.”
I hope you’re not being confused by the differences in a The Guardian HEADLINE and the high quality performance of the BOM data and RECORD KEEPING Roy? 🙂
Like this blind man doesn’t know the difference between climate and weather either?
World Cooling – But Rapid Warming Forecast
Date: 07/02/19
Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor
https://www.thegwpf.com/world-cooling-but-rapid-warming-forecast/
“No warming since 2016. Global warming has clearly stopped (again).”
You’re a climate scientist right Roy? Do you know the difference between climate and weather yourself?
Do you know where people live is usually where they locate their thermometers that institutions like the BOM use for land temps including the record temp readings as well?
Between the weather impacts upon all Historical Records and the New Records?
Maybe if you phoned the BOM someone there could explain to you what “Climate change is the long-term driver.” (TG) means?
While they go through all the weather related things that were happening onshore and offshore such as: “A persistent high-pressure system in the Tasman Sea that blocked cold fronts and cooler air from reaching the country’s south, and a delayed monsoon in the north, contributed to the heatwave.” (TG)
(TG) also reported that: “For the first time since records began, the country’s mean temperature in January exceeded 30C (86F), according to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), which said daily extremes – in some places just short of 50C – were unprecedented.”
Big call “unprecedented” – “since records began” ?
So maybe you Roy or the others here can tell us what the “country’s mean temperature in January” was for 1896, and 1902, and 1912, 1942, in 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010 too?
Come on you can do it! (smile)
In regard to E Swansons experiments, here are some real world emissivities at 300 K –
Aluminum Commercial Sheet 0.09
Aluminum Heavily Oxidized 0.2 – 0.31
Aluminum Highly Polished 0.039 – 0.057
Aluminum Anodized 0.77
Aluminum Rough 0.07
E Swanson provides no details of the measurements for the materials of which his plates” are constructed.
Now, aluminium treated with a coating such as paint, may vary significantly form these figures. Of particular concern is the assumption that infrared optical properties are the same as for visible light, where in fact, they are often completely different.
In other words, E Swansons failure to properly document his experiment renders it worthless. His description contains insufficient information to allow it to be usefully replicated.
His assumption that the radiation from a body with a temperature of less than 75 C can raise the temperature of a 100 C body is incorrect. About as silly as claiming that you can boil water with a 75 C source.
Complete delusion, but widely believed by GHE proponents.
Cheers.
MF tries to discredit my demonstration by throwing out a red herring, listing the emissivity of aluminum with different surface treatments. I’ve worked with selective surfaces in solar collectors and the treatment of the surface determines the emissivity, not the material used. As I’ve noted, the plates are constructed from anodized aluminum which was painted flat black. I later measured the emissivity at (roughly) 0.94 using my hand held IR thermometer which has an adjustment for emissivity, setting the emissivity to provide a temperature reading close to that from the thermocouple within the plate.
As for replicating my demonstration, go for it, but use better lab equipment so you can properly document your results. I suggest using a NASA style thermal vacuum chamber for best results. Put your money where your mouth is, do some science or quit spouting nonsense.
Mike,
I don’t know why you see this blue/green plate experiment as worthless. Although it does not suffice for a GHE definition or counter your arguments against CO2 warming, the results can be explained using standard heat transfer equations. These guys are wasting their time arguing with each other’s misconceptions.
But don’t stop commenting. Your posts are both informative and entertaining.
Chic, you came into this discussion late.
It all started over a year ago when barry introduced the blue/green plate nonsense to this blog. The pseudoscience clowns immediately embraced it as “proof” of the GHE, and that “cold” can warm “hot”.
Swanson came along later and claimed he could “prove” it with an “experiment”. His “experiment” has no credibility, as Mike indicates. But, as expected, other clowns embrace is without question.
I did come late, but I’ve observed and participated enough to conclude the discussion is going nowhere. I’m trying to save a lot of useless chatter on a deadend debate. You keep showing a hypothetical diagram without any temperatures or what changes would occur before and after the plate configuration changes. Swanson and others think that constantly heated plates in vacuum pose any useful relationship to the atmosphere. You will never convince those people that back radiation doesn’t occur in a discussion about plates in a vacuum. You may have more success focusing on the proposition that what others perceive as “back radiation” cannot increase global temperatures due to more CO2.
CB, Yes, you’ve appeared only lately on this blog, but that doesn’t excuse you for joining in with the dissing of established engineering and science. There’s been no background evidence presented by those who claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They can’t even come up with an alternative physics to explain my results. All they have done is repeat their claim endlessly, whereas my results are standard textbook engineering.
Any material which emits thermal IR EM radiation at a specific wavelength will also absorb at that wavelength. The temperature of the IR source does not enter into the process, only the wavelength. The data on absorp_tion and emission for gases which support this statement is extensive. If this were not correct, then the physics literature would include abundant evidence of such and provide theoretical explanations.
So, all you diehard denialist out there, where is your evidence?
Chic, unfortunately many people comment here without any regard for the facts. Not only do they run from reality, they don’t care if they misrepresent others. They don’t care if they make false statements.
Case in point, you claim the diagram does not include temperatures. That is a complete falsehood.
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Where have I joined in with any dissing of established engineering and science? I will apologetically admit to the crime.
“Theres been no background evidence presented by those who claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
I would agree with that if AGW works the same way you seem to think your experiment works. It doesn’t.
There is a disconnect occurring somewhere between “a cold body can’t heat (cause a net transfer of energy to) a warmer one” to “the green plate makes the blue plate warmer than it would otherwise be” to “an increase in CO2 causes the surface to be warmer than it otherwise would be.”
You probably agree with all three statements. I agree with only the first two. Unless you have definitive evidence to the contrary, your analogies and assertions, which suggest CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels makes the planet warmer than it would otherwise be, are just speculation.
JD,
I apologize, I misspoke by saying your diagram didn’t have temperatures. Now kindly explain how a flow of energy can go from left to right in your diagram without any temperature differences? Assume any peripheral temperatures and substances of any heat diffusivities and thicknesses you like.
Chic, did you misspeak, or did you view the diagram with a biased opinion that prevented you from actually understanding it?
Nevertheless, you apologized. Accepting responsibility for your mistakes separates you from the clowns. Apology accepted. Thanks.
The diagram is a very simple representation of the energy flows. All conditions are considered ideal–no losses, vacuum, plates are perfect conductors, etc. The diagram is only meant to show what happens to the “back-radiation” from the green plate. That confuses many, so the simple diagram makes it easier to understand. Energy does not flow “uphill”.
Swanson, you must be willingly blind if you believe there has been no evidence to counter the GHE violations of LoT!
And Earth’s surface is NOT a gas. So trying to twist “any material” into your “data on absorp-tion and emission of gases”, is just another “bait and switch” trick from pseudoscience.
Chic, JDHuffman’s diagram is a practical joke designed to get us all agitated, just like his non-rotating moon.
Rather JD’s bogus cartoon is designed to humor blog readers. JD is here for entertainment not physics and especially not here for understanding thermodynamics.
https://despair.com/collections/demotivators/products/mistakes?variant=2457302467
Now Svante and fluffball, two anonymous clowns, try to corrupt the thread.
Nothing new.
JD,
I took your diagram at face value. Only when you called my attention to the plates being at equal temperatures did I realize something was terribly wrong. Until now, I thought you were serious about heat transfer, radiation, and the details of how the atmosphere works. I didn’t realize you were playing games like the other “clowns.”
JD has never been serious about heat transfer, radiation, and the details of how the atmosphere works. Good you are catching up Chic.
Chic, I always like to give folks 3 chances.
You messed up with the Moon issue. You messed up with the diagram.
And now you attack me just because you don’t understand the relevant physics.
Strike THREE!
(Oh, when you get time, give us your real name. Or do you choose to remain just another anonymous clown?)
JDHuffman
YOU: “Chic, unfortunately many people comment here without any regard for the facts. Not only do they run from reality, they don’t care if they misrepresent others. They don’t care if they make false statements.”
JDHuffman, you have stated exactly what you do on this blog. You ignore facts and evidence. You run from it screaming in fear! You totally and always distort and intentionally misrepresent others. You do it quite often and with malice and negative intent. You certainly do not care at all that you make false statements.
You never support any of your clown statements. You reject valid physics all the time. Yes you have certainly addressed your own blogging personality.
Norman Grinvalds, in Yutan, let me know when you have some credibility and want to face reality.
Chic,
Thanks. I agree that the results can could be explained quite easily using standard physics, rather than the pseudoscientific jargon dependent non-physics proposed by GHE supporters.
A quick list of a few things that occurred to me –
The heat source is unspecified and unknown as to output spectrum and power, as are the physical and infrared optical properties of any intervening visually transparent materials
The infrared optical and physical properties of the glass container are unspecified and unknown.
The physical and optical characteristics in respect of infrared absorbing, emitting and reflecting properties of the painted coating on the plates are unknown.
The physical and optical characteristics of the plates are unknown, particularly in relation to infrared reflectivity in the unspecified and unknown infrared spectrum which is supposedly being examined.
The experiment is useful in pointing out the difficulties in carrying out scientific experiments. I believe I congratulated E Swanson for his initial experiment, and suggested that an alternative explanation not involving “back radiation” might explain his observed results.
You may have come to the same conclusion as I, but without clearer specifications of his experimental setup, it would be literally impossible to say yea or nay.
His experiment definitely does show that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. This would indicate that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore between the sun and a thermometer, cannot heat the Earth.
No GHE.
Cheers.
Chic,
Aaaagh! Left out one tiny, tiny, word. NOT.
Of course, “His experiment definitely does show that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
should read “His experiment definitely does NOT show that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
I grovel in mortification. A thousand pardons! I am not worthy! Bugger . . .
Cheers.
Mike,
Not worthy? Who is? But you are usually right and as you say the experiment leaves out many specifics. However, I have no reason to suspect that Swanson’s blue plate didn’t warm up and the reason being what some call back radiation and others call insulation. Either way the blue plate warms.
Back radiation certainly exists, but it isn’t insulation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Radiative insulation is via reflection, not absorp.tion/emission.
Reflection can send back nearly all incoming energy.
Absorp.tion/emission sends half back worst case.
If there is nothing you get nothing back.
Perhaps you can update the Wikipedia page, if you think it is wrong, Svante; but I think your correction would be rejected.
I’m not disagreeing, just adding some information.
“I’m not disagreeing”
Great, so you agree that back radiation is not insulation.
If you like, it just works in the same way.
So you were lying before, and in fact you do disagree that back radiation is not insulation.
I didn’t use the word ‘insulation’ here, did I?
You cited thermal insulation, insulation has a wider meaning in normal english.
You said, “it just works the same way”.
There is nothing more than a semantic difference between “something that just works the same way as insulation” and “insulation”.
So you either agree with the Wikipedia article, that radiative insulation is via reflection, or you do not. Currently you are squirming away trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Since you are part of a team of sophists, I won’t be expecting anything honest from you, don’t worry.
You like semantic arguments.
Did you agree on my statements:
“You like semantic arguments.”
You are the one making a semantic argument, as I just explained. I do not like them. If you are just going to repeat yourself, I will redirect you back to here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341979
and you can keep looping through forever, if you like.
It’s like this again:
http://tinyurl.com/y89jxyac
No, that was different. That one was you failing to understand why your logic was circular, so I went around and around with you, step by step through your circular logic, explaining it as simply as I possibly could, whilst you were continually unable to understand. It seemed deliberate, but I’m never sure with you whether you just aren’t the brightest, or if you’re just trolling.
In any case, it’s good that our past discussions have had such an impact on you. You always bring them up.
No DREMT, as shown in Multi Layer Insulstion case, it insulates even without reflection.
If you cant explain that, then you are wrong.
I’ve had a brief look, and can’t find a real-life example of MLI not using reflective materials.
I’ll go with the Wiki article on thermal insulation.
DREMT,
As the theory shows, MLI works with materials of any emissivity. But it works better with low emissivity materials, so you are unlikely to find it with high emissivity materials in the real world.
So that proves exactly nothing.
Are you saying that the theory behind it is wrong?
Thats what you need to prove, because the theory clearly shows that the heat flow rate will be reduced by 50% for each added layer of emissivity = 1 (a black body).
Just plug in eps =1 and N = 1 and see what you get in the last equation.
Sorry, you can’t keep only the part of the physics that agrees with you, reject the rest, and make up your own to replace it.
And, as the theory shows, the original surface is not warmed by the additional layers.
Pretty sure those writing the Wiki article on thermal insulation are aware of MLI. I guess you could say it is the “exception” that proves the rule.
I’ll go with the Wiki article on thermal insulation, but if you think it’s wrong, like I said to Svante, perhaps you can try updating it.
‘And, as the theory shows, the original surface is not warmed by the additional layers.’
Come on DREMT, don’t be obtuse.
In heat transfer problems there are different possible boundary conditions.
Fixed temperature was the boundary condition they CHOSE for the example. They could have chosen fixed input heat flow, as in Swanson’s experiment.
That doesnt change the result that MLI with emissivity = 1 can INSULATE.
Insulation means that for a given temperature difference, heat flow is reduced with the insulation in place.
That is the case in the example with emissivity = 1.
But you can go on refusing to learn these things. Your choice.
Well if you’re so passionate about it, you’d best update the Wiki article. Not sure why you’re wasting time talking to me about it.
Nate is correct about the boundary conditions dictating the heat transfer results. Is this another semantic debate that will never be resolved?
Chic, please stop trolling.
DREMT is making Dale Carnegie proud…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342152
MF wrote:
If it’s so easy, why don’t you enlighten us with some presentation of that “standard physics”, instead of more hand waving nonsense?
But, as usual, you completely misstate the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s not a question of “increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore between the sun and a thermometer” as you wrote. It’s a problem of increasing the CO2 between the surface of the Earth and deep space. Sure, the Sun’s visible radiant energy warms the surface, but that’s much like my demonstration where the work light warms the Blue Plate before the Green Plate is raised into position. In the atmosphere, a similar process occurs as the IR EM energy flowing out in intercepted by the CO2 and increasing the CO2 is thus expected to increase the “back radiation” in the direction of the surface, the net result being warming of the surface.
All your stated objections about my demonstration could be resolved if you (or anyone else) were to perform a properly instrumented test. Here’s your big chance to get a Nobel Prize by presenting “sound” scientific proof that AGW is wrong. I challenge you and the other denialist campers here to do the work, else, take my results as a reasonable representation of reality.
ES,
Maybe you could stop pretending that your missing GHE makes thermometers hotter at night. The temperature falls. It doesn’t matter how much CO2 you put between the surface and deep space, the temperature still falls. No AGW to be seen.
Thermometers only show increases during the day – when the sun is shining.
You are simply being silly by claiming that the surface gets hotter (increased temperature) at night due to “back radiation” or anything else. As I pointed out, once you turn off your heat source, temperatures do not increase. I know you want to have it both ways, but temperatures cannot rise without a heat source, you wind up claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
At night, temperatures fall. So sad, too bad.
As to your experiment, if you provided proper documentation, then it could be reproduced. But what would be the point? Nothing to do with CO2, or the GHE, or AGW. You have shown that heat increases temperatures. Without specifying your components in detail, no one can precisely reproduce the experiment you performed. I suspect I know what is occurring, but as you refuse to provide the details of your components, I cannot say for sure, obviously.
However, this is all irrelevant. The surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. No longer molten. Cooling. No GHE, no CO2 induced AGW. None.
Cheers.
E. Swanson,
“But, as usual, you completely misstate the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
You think Mike Flynn misstates the problem. I think you both do. Mike, because the alleged effect of back-radiation/insulation could exceed that of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer making it colder. You, because you think the atmosphere works like your experiment.
It will be just as difficult for us to do experiments to explain why AGW is wrong. But the onus is on you to show that an increase in CO2 does create an increase in average global temperature, IOW disprove the null hypothesis. If you propose your experiment does that, you are wrong for the reasons Mike stated and then some.
Your experiment moves a plate into the system like a bolus IV dose. CO2 doesn’t do that. It was never not there! The local atmosphere is in nearly steady state equilibrium every night until the sun rises. If there is any back radiation, it occurs at every altitude between layers of air with extremely small temperature differences. No vacuum, no solid objects.
At some point I wish you would point out where have I joined in with any dissing of established engineering and science.
MF, It’s been widely reported that the temperature data which does show warming has also found that most of that warming is seen in the night time low temperatures. there’s also data which shows the Arctic warming more during Winter months than Summer, but that finding may be confounded by the moderating effect of sea-ice in Summer. From AR5, WGI:
The section describes several findings and the uncertainty, including references.
You wrote:
As repeatedly stated, the point was to demonstrate a situation in which a thermal IR EM back radiation from a cooler body resulted in an increase in temperature of a warmer body, thus showing that this situation does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I don’t really care how much warming results, only that there is warming and there are not any other plausible explanations for this result. You are free to construct and operate any apparatus you may select to verify or refute this result. You might even submit your report for publication in a peer reviewed journal. That you have not provided us with your claimed alternative explanation just says that you don’t have one.
And, as for your other red herring about the cooling of the Earth, please be aware that the surface solidified some 4.55 billion years BP
ES,
What you have done is about as silly as claiming the boilers at Ivanpah support the GHE, because the heliostats are colder than the boilers, and therefore colder heats hotter.
As to night time, CO2 supposedly results in higher temperatures – as in “Hottest year EVAH!”. The temperature at night time decreases in the absence of sunlight. The CO2 concentration remains unchanged.
Your AR4 reference is just silly. See if you can find an explanation of why the highest temperatures on Earth occur where GHGs are least. As do the lowest, incidentally.
You don’t understand radiative physics. If you have a highly reflective object behind your heated one, then the temperature of the heated object at equilibrium will be higher. This is how foil insulation acts to keep objects both hotter and colder. You refuse to give the physical and optical properties of your components, or detailed dimensions, so there are many other possibilities.
It doesn’t matter when the Earth’s crust solidified, nor when the temperature dropped below 100 C. The surface is now colder than then. It has cooled. No GHE, no CO2 heating. If you believe you can prevent a large molten blob (> 99% molten) from continuing to cool, and then heating it up with CO2, then you are even sillier than I thought.
Keep at it. Don’t be surprised if real physicists aren’t beating a path to your door.
Cheers.
MF, The highest temperatures occur in desert regions, which exist in belts around the Earth where air tends to be sinking, the result of the tropic to pole circulation as a part of the Hadley Cell circulation centered on the ITCZ. That sinking air has lost most of it’s moisture and thus the land surface is kept very dry, which reduces the evaporation that otherwise would cool the surface. Orographic effects, such as the Sierra mountains in California, the Rockies in Colorado and the Great Basin of the US also tend to remove moisture before it reaches the dryer regions downwind. The Andes in Sough America also remove Amazon moisture from the prevailing winds, causing dry conditions in Ecuador.
You perhaps have forgotten that I brought up the effects of reflective insulation months ago. Did you notice that I gave the dimensions of my plates and noted that they were painted with an IR emissivity of about 0.94?
Some 20,000 years BP, the Earth was about 5C colder than today, but the earlier Eemian was another warm period about 130,000 to 120,000 years BP. The Earth entered a period of Ice Ages around 3.3 million years ago, a cooler pattern which would be expected to continue with a return to Ice Age conditions, absent mankind’s influence.
ES,
Are you actually disagreeing with something I wrote?
You might convince others you are not just blathering, attempting to deny, divert and confuse, if you actually quoted me, and then produced facts to support your disagreement.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. The surface is no longer molten. The surface cools at night. No CO2 heating. No GHE.
Put bluntly, from a scientific point of view, your experiment is rubbish. You obviously think differently, and you are perfectly free to think what you wish. Others may form their own opinions.
Cheers.
Upthread, Swanson said, “assuming the aluminum has a conductivity of 237 W/m/K…”, but has since revealed the plates are anodized aluminium.
https://www.coastlinemetalfinishing.com/anodizing/hard-anodizing
“Hard anodized metals are usually very well insulated they don’t conduct heat or electricity well.”
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a191755.pdf
“Thermal conductivites of several commercial hard anodic coatings are measured using a transient heat-flow technique. These coatings were found to be effective heat insulators with thermal conductivies of the commercial coatings averaging 0.7 W/m/K.”
‘The surface is now colder than then. It has cooled. No GHE, no CO2 heating.’
Hooray, more examples of supreme illogic for students, courtesy of Mike.
Mike says: ‘It has cooled’ Therefore, by some strange defect in Mikes logic chip, ‘it cannot now be heating!’
Plus, the ever popular:
‘The surface cools at night.’ Therefore by some short-circuit in his brain: ‘It cannot be heating!’
Again Mike, when we last discussed this ‘night cooling’ red herring, you quickly departed the scene with no answers.
Have another go at it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341817
“conductivies of the commercial coatings averaging 0.7 W/m/K”
Very good, DREMT. Now see if you can take it a step further and find the insulation R factor for such a coating, probably no more than .001 inch thickness.
Hint: because the R value is proportional to thickness, it will be very very tiny, thus providing a very very tiny insulating effect.
But pls proceed.
“Hard anodized metals are usually very well insulated they don’t conduct heat or electricity well.”
Words, DREMT. We need numbers.
Agreed. First number we need is the true thermal conductivity of the plates, rather than the lie Swanson told before.
DREMT,
1 inch thick polystyrene foam, with much lower thermal conductivity 0.03 W/mK, has R factor ~ 3.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, we can assume the R factor for such a thin coating (.001 inch) of anodized Al is totally negligible.
And I think we can assume that a company selling finished metal knows whether its product is a good conductor of heat or not.
If you had even the least bit of understanding of conduction, you would be able to calculate the R value. And you would see that it is negligibly small.
But clearly you dont. So you are blowing hot air.
The statement that a material has such and such conductivity is insufficient, you also need to know how thick it is.
Basically Nate, your arguments always seem to boil down to trying to ridicule your opponent. Here, you are trying to pretend to any people reading that I am unable to divide one number by two other numbers multiplied together. That is how absurd you have become.
It’s Swanson’s experiment. Only he is going to know the relevant properties. If I was like barry, for instance, I would have already declared Swanson “not to be trusted” since he gave a misleading number for the plate’s thermal conductivity in the first place.
You are here to defend the indefensible, as usual, with no sign of any skepticism about Swanson’s experiment whatsoever. You are simply here to defend it, no matter what. Mike’s already listed a whole bunch of information that Swanson could/should have included, but being obsessed with me, here you are focussing on this one issue.
DREMT,
These arguments always boil down to people declaring things, that cannot be back by th facts. You do this often.
Can you at least admit that if you are uable to be quantitative about your argument that conduction is dominant in the plates in vacuum, then the argument is weak?
“These arguments always boil down to people declaring things, that cannot be back by th facts. You do this often.”
False accusation.
“your argument that conduction is dominant in the plates in vacuum”
Misrepresentation.
“unable to be quantitative”
Insult.
I am done talking to you. Any further responses will be “please stop trolling’d”
You can take it as an insult, up to you. It is a compleltely normal thing in science to ask for arguments to be backed up with numbers.
Numbers matter, and you dont seem to get that. Again take that as an insult if you like, but that seems to me to be the case.
I don’t really understand your approach.
You are arguing with people such as myself and Swanson, and Chic, and others, who’s work requires understanding heat transfer, and science in general. We have education in this subject.
I don’t think you can say that.
Yet, here you are, man-splaining to us how heat transfer works. And getting things wrong.
When we naturally push back, tell you that you are wrong, explain why, you feel insulted.
But that is the situation you have put yourself in.
“You can take it as an insult, up to you. It is a compleltely normal thing in science to ask for arguments to be backed up with numbers.”
True, except apparently in the case of E Swanson’s experiment. No numbers required. The temperature increased, ergo it was the back-radiation wot dun it.
Now: Nate, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie says: Feb. 16, 2019 at 11:37am: “These guys are wasting their time arguing with each other’s misconceptions.”
Yes, trolls like Ball4 & bobdroege & Tim Folkerts get twisted up like pretzels when their comments are exposed to be false based on real science. They misrepresent, deny and obfuscate in order to avoid admitting that they are wrong.
I discovered this when I interacted with Ball4 a couple years ago and exposed his denial of fundamental thermodynamics definition of heat. He was stuck on the century-old error of believing that objects actually contain heat. That interchange is found here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comments
Kristian has also repeatedly exposed these trolls denial of the 2LoT when they claim that the cold atmosphere transfers thermal energy/heat to the warmer surface. One of the many places he has done this is here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/#comment-209000
The trolls can’t refute anything Kristian has posted so they misrepresent him.
“(Ball4) was stuck on the century-old error of believing that objects actually contain heat.”
Not correct REO2, I’m stuck on the century-old disbelieving that objects actually contain heat per the lab work/leadership of Clausius & stuck on using his def. of heat as a measure being the gold standard.
Your other link is something Norman wrote not me or Kristian.
Ball4 says: Feb. 17,2019 at 10:15am “I’m stuck on the century-old disbelieving that objects actually contain heat per the lab work/leadership of Clausius”
Thanks for confirming that you deny the thermodynamic definition of heat as found in Thermodynamics textbooks:
There’s no two ways about it Ball4. You’re a denier of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because you believe that the cold atmosphere transfers thermal energy/heat from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth. You believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of thermal energy/heat from an always colder object that was introduced. No two ways about it, that is a denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Go ahead an troll away, denying that reality, misrepresenting what I say. Sad, but it’s what trolls like you do.
Ball4: Objects do not contain heat.
VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.
Can I make that clearer for you REO2? I may need to point out bodies are objects.
“you believe that the cold atmosphere transfers thermal energy/heat”
No. Per your own source VanWylen & Sonntag: A body (such as the atm. or boiling water) never contains heat.
E. Swanson’s testing shows that the temperature of an always hotter object at equilibrium is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of thermal energy from an always colder object that replaces an even colder object.
Go ahead believing you can read my mind REO2, which as Mike Flynn believes, doesn’t happen in reality.
`Fluffball has claimed that ice cubes can raise a room to room temperature. So, he clearly doesn’t understand thermodynamics.
JD needs to learn he can bring JD’s room to room temperature with ice cubes if the ice cubes replace dry ice.
Reality always messes up JD. Learn some physics JD.
See…
Just as I predicted, the Ball4 troll obfuscates and clown dances in order to deny reality and stubbornly cling to his 2nd Law denial. Sad, but it’s what scientifically illiterate 2nd Law denying trolls do.
Ball4 troll says: Feb.17, 2019 at 11:23AM “E. Swanson’s testing shows that the temperature of an always hotter object at equilibrium is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of thermal energy from an always colder object that replaces an even colder object.”
No, it doesn’t, because the sciences of thermodynamics and heat transfer say that colder objects can’t transfer thermal energy/heat to hotter objects. Any increase in temperature would be due to the accumulation of thermal energy from the objects/systems only heat/thermal energy source, which is not from a transfer of thermal energy from an always colder object. But thanks for once again confirming that you are a 2nd Law denier.
Yes JDH, fluffball and his fellow 2nd Law denying climate alarmist trolls certainly are ignorant of thermodynamics, and heat transfer as well, since they believe that the 15 micron wavelength radiation which is the primary wavelength of -81C radiating dry ice is the primary energy source (324W/m^2) that transfers thermal energy/heat to the earth’s surface. They are peddling pure pseudoscience.
Kristian has exposed Ball4’s ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer over and over again. Ball4 has never refuted anything that Kristian or I have posted. All the poor Ball4 and his fellow 2nd Law denying trolls can do is deny, lie and misrepresent by playing silly semantic games.
Ball4 says: “4.All matter radiates, at all freq.s, all temperatures. All the time. There are no exceptions. All means all.”
Good for you. At least you admit that it’s not just the water vapor, CO2 and other trace gases that make up the so-called ‘backradiation’ that produces the greenhouse “effect”. I’m glad that you admit that 99+% of the greenhouse “effect” is due to the radiant emittance of the N2, O2, and Ar in the atmosphere, since they make up 99+% of the mass and thermal energy stored in the atmosphere, as they are at the same temperature as the WV, CO2 and other trace gases. http://www.calqlata.com/Maths/Formulas_Atmosphere.html
Troll on Ball4. I’m sure you will do your typical clown dance of denial as you continue to twist yourself into a pretzel, denying science and denying reality.
REO2: “No, it doesn’t, because the sciences of thermodynamics and heat transfer say that colder objects can’t transfer thermal energy/heat to hotter objects.”
REO2 already forgets his own ref. VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.
Prof. Max Planck learning from Prof. Tyndall experiments with gases and others: Colder objects can radiate thermodynamic internal energy to hotter objects or, in Planck’s words:
“A body A at 100 degrees C. emits toward a body B at 0 degrees C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000 degrees C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
In other words, all objects at any temperature absorb/emit, transmit, and reflect incident radiation no matter the irradiance source temperature.
“I’m glad that you admit that 99+% of the greenhouse “effect” is due to the radiant emittance of the N2, O2, and Ar in the atmosphere, since they make up 99+% of the mass and thermal energy stored in the atmosphere”
Thats wrong REO2, I admit no such thing. The IR active gases, while not dominate in mass, are dominate in IR radiation which is why they call them IR active.
I’m sure REO2 will do the typical dance of denial as REO2 continues to twist into a pretzel as Dr. Spencer described Kristian, ignoring REO2s own ref.s and denying science founded by the masters of thermo. and denying reality like JD.
Pay more attention to reality REO2, like E. Swanson’s experiment; learning from it will be helpful to REO2 and others.
Ball4 troll says: on Feb.17,2019 at 3:33pm “REO2 already forgets his own ref. VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.”
Your lie, your projection, your logical non-sequitur, and your continued ignorance of science is noted. You are lying because I forgot nothing. You are projecting because you are the one who forgot the portion of my quote from VanWylen & Sonntag which said: “That heat is transferred from the system at the higher temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature.” Your logical non-sequitur is that the fact that an object contains no heat has nothing to do with the fact that heat can be transferred away from that object. Your ignorance of science is confirmed because even though an object does not contain heat, as multiple science references confirm, heat can be transferred from the object which has a non-zero absolute temperature. That is because the object has internal energy, and that internal thermal energy can be transferred to another object that is at a lower temperature. This reference that I showed you ~two years ago and that you couldn’t refute ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269941 ) still proves you wrong and shows that you are just as ignorant of science now as you were then.
Ball4 troll says: on Feb.17,2019 at 3:33pm “Colder objects can radiate…”
Your strawman argument and your ignorance of science is noted. It’s a strawman because I’ve never said that colder object can’t radiate. And it’s your ignorance of science because you don’t understand that radiation in and of itself is not necessarily a transfer of heat/thermal energy. The 2nd Law says it is only a transfer of thermal energy/heat when the radiation is from a higher temperature object/system to a lower temperature object/system. No temperature difference, no heat transfer even though both objects/systems are radiating.
Poor Ball4, “ceases” is not a difficult concept, unless you’re a reality-denying, science-denying climate alarmist troll like you are.
There’s the science again, confirming that two radiating objects at the same temperature transfer no thermal energy/heat to the other object. Poor Ball4 troll, you deny that science, and you believe in perpetual motion machines of the 2nd kind where each object which is at the same temperature endlessly transfers heat/thermal energy in a 100% efficient, lossless, heat exchange process as if the other object doesn’t exist. And you are denying the universal entropy principle which says that in every heat/thermal energy transfer in the real world, entropy increases, which means there can be no 100% efficient, lossless, perfect energy thermal energy/heat transfer, which your pseudoscience would require.
Ball4 troll says: Feb.17, 2019 at 3:33pm “emits toward a body B…”
Poor Ball4 troll, you continue to demonstrate your 2nd Law denial by demonstrating that you are ignorant of the fact that radiation in and of itself is not a transfer of heat/thermal energy, as I just confirmed by the science references I just cited and quoted above.
Ball4 troll says: Feb.17, 2019 at 3:33pm “That’s wrong REO2, I admit no such thing. The IR active gases, while not dominate[sic] in mass, are dominate[sic] in radiation, which is why they are called IR active.”
Hahaha. Poor Ball4 troll twists himself into a pretzel AGAIN as he now contradicts himself. Earlier you said:
But now, you poor 2nd Law denying troll:
– you say that all matter doesn’t radiate because you say that N2, O2 & Ar don’t radiate IR;
– you say that all the time doesn’t mean all the time because you say that N2, O2 & Ar don’t radiate IR;
– you say that there are exceptions because you say that N2, O2 & Ar don’t radiate IR.
The only way out of poor Ball4’s hopeless contradiction is if:
a) N2, O2 & Ar don’t radiate IR, but they radiate some other MAGIC kind of fantasy radiation, which science knows nothing about. Science proves you wrong:
Unfortunately for Ball4, the N2 & O2 & Ar in the atmosphere are part of that “everything on Earth”. So Ball4, have you notified the IPCC so they can change their reports?
And NASA agrees that I am correct too:
Unfortunately for Ball4, that electromagnetic radiation is IR & thermal radiation because the N2, O2 & Ar molecules are at the same temperatures as the WV, CO2 & other trace gases and therefore radiate EMR, confirmed by this chart showing that it is both thermal radiation and IR radiation.
b) N2, O2 & Ar are not matter.
So which is it, clown?
a) N2, O2, & Ar radiate MAGIC energy, not IR energy? (Tell us about that MAGIC energy! Hahaha) or
b) N2, O2 & Ar are not matter?
And poor Ball4, you also contradict yourself when you first correctly admit that the CO2 & trace gases are not dominant in mass because they only make up ~0.04% of the mass and thermal energy contained in the atmosphere, but then you deny science when you claim that they don’t make up almost all of the so-called ‘backradiation’ of the atmosphere. This is a denial of the fact that it is the molecules that make up the thermal mass of the atmosphere, and it is those 99+% molecules of N2, O2 & Ar, that radiate EMR. Poor Ball4 troll, you delusionally believe that the ~0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2 and trace gases cause almost all of the so-called ‘backradiation’ and thus the greenhouse “effect”. Yet more science-denial by poor Ball4.
Poor Ball4 troll, you are such a total joke. Every time you peddle your rubbish 2nd Law denying pseudoscience you end up getting hopelessly tangled up in your web of science-denial and contradictions. A couple years ago I exposed your same 2nd Law denial, your same science-denial, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270274 . As others have stated, you are hopelessly unteachable. You are shown white and you call it black. Your rabid devotion to your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism religion has caused you to be ideologically blinded, has caused you to deny fundamental science such as the 2nd Law, such as the 1st Law, such as the universal entropy principle, and to tell blatant lies. Really sad, but typical of members of your climate alarmism cult.
Ball4 says: on Feb.17, 3:33pm “I’m sure REO2 will do the dance of denial as REO2 continues to twist into a pretzel as Dr. Spencer described Kristian, ignoring REO2’s own ref.s and denying science founded by masters of thermo and denying reality like JD.”
Poor pathetic Ball4 troll, that was perfect projection. You are the one who has done all those things. You have once again been exposed as being ignorant of science, as telling blatant lies and a pathetic troll. I’ve done none of those things you falsely accuse me of, confirmed by your inability to quote anything I have posted and show that it was wrong.
So once again we see that poor Ball4 troll, you are still denying the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, claiming that an always colder object/system transfers heat/thermal energy to an always hotter object/system, increasing the temperature of the always hotter object/system. You are proven wrong by the real world, because you can’t cite any real world example of where the temperature of an always hotter object/system was increased further solely as a result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object/system. That is because no such example has ever been demonstrated, as confirmed by this thermodynamics textbook.
Poor Ball4 troll, you deny those facts that thermodynamics textbooks state, and you delusionally believe that there have been experiments that shows that always colder objects/systems transfer heat/thermal energy to always hotter objects/systems causing the temperature of the always hotter object/systems to increase further. Unfortunately for you, you can’t cite any such real world experiments. Sadly, denying thermodynamics textbooks is standard fare for 2nd Law deniers like you.
Poor Ball4, do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself? You must, since you do it over and over again. I totally BUSTED you and humiliated you by exposing your 2nd Law denial, your science denial, and your serial dishonesty a couple years ago here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270274
Now once again, you have failed to quote anything I have posted and show that it is wrong. You just deny it. I have cited and quoted valid science sources that support what I have posted and you have refuted none of it. You just deny it.
Thanks for once again allowing me to expose your serial dishonesty, your blatant science-denial, and that you are nothing more than a reality-denying climate alarmist clown troll. My pleasure to once again do so.
I’m sure, that just like every time I expose your ignorance of science and your science denial, you will just lie and deny and project your own failings onto me. Sadly, it’s what pathetic, scientifically illiterate trolls like you do.
REO2, Your long rant(s) reveal some interesting information. For example, your MIT thermo course notes also include a section on Radiation Heat Transfer, giving as an example the standard S-B approach to heat transfer between parallel plates. You will notice that the final result includes energy transferred back and forth between the plates andincluding obviously, transfer which doesn’t depend on the temperature of either body. To be sure, the final calculation does depend on the respective plate temperatures, but the cooler plate does radiate energy to the warmer one in the process.
For those who have repeatedly refused to understand it, that result is just what my Green Plate demonstration showed.
“but the cooler plate does radiate energy to the warmer one in the process”
Pretty sure nobody is arguing against that. What people are arguing against is that this energy can warm the warmer plate. Funny how you professional sophists are still bashing the same straw men, after all this time, and thinking that people won’t see through you.
That’s quite a dance of denial REO2, my prediction came true: REO2 has lived up to all my expectations.
“Unfortunately for you, you cant cite any such real world experiments.”
Unfortunately for REO2, Dr. Spencer and E. Swanson have already performed the real-world experiments REO2 denies Ive cited. Actually, I do the very same experiment every winter overnight that shows a colder atm. alone can warm a warmer object when that colder atm. replaces an even colder night time atm. But I am so sure that REO2 won’t understand such basic thermodynamics, it isn’t worth the explanation time. I’ll be glad to let REO2 learn from Dr. Spencer’s data.
REO2 points out: “That heat is transferred from the system at the higher temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature.”
But REO2 also points out VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat.”
So let’s see REO2, you write somehow in a body that never contains heat you are gullible enough to rely on sources claiming heat suddenly materializing into existence at the transfer contact between two bodies of different temperatures, then that newly materialized heat transferring to the colder body, and once again the heat becoming dematerialized so that the new body “never contains heat.”
Sorry REO2 the process you describe here doesn’t happen in the real world; heat was ruled out as a material entity by experiment over a century ago. You will want to point that out to your sources. Shake your fist at THEM.
“If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave.”
That’s coherent light REO2, unfortunately for REO2 natural objects like the atm. emit incoherent light.
N2, O2, Ar are matter therefore they are measured to radiate at all freq.s, all temperatures. All the time. There are no exceptions. All means all. And, of course, All includes the IR bands for all of those gases.
Oh and REO2, we are still here writing on a blog so your so-called catastrophic global warming – has not occurred.
Ball4 says: on Feb.18,2019 at 2:45PM “Thats quite a dance of denial REO2”
Your projection is noted, as you are the one who is denying fundamental science. Also noted is your failure to quote a single thing I have posted in any of my comments and show that it is not correct. I’ve denied nothing. I’ve just posted science that is backed up by the science references that I have posted. Also noted is that you just ignore those science references which prove you wrong and you pretend that they don’t exist. Sticking your fingers in your ears won’t change reality. It just exposes you as a denier of science and reality.
Ball4 says: on Feb.18,2019 at 2:45PM “Unfortunately for REO2, Dr. Spencer and E. Swanson have already performed the real-world experiments REO2 denies Ive cited.”
Wrong Ball4, neither Spencer nor Swanson nor anyone else has ever performed any real world experiment that showed that a colder object transferred any heat/thermal energy to a warmer object. Just as the thermodynamics textbook I cited and quoted said:
Unfortunately for you Ball4, that “no experiment” includes any experiment conducted by Dr. Spencer or E.Swanson. So there it is again Ball4. Science confirms that I am correct and that you are wrong.
All any experiments show is that the unidirectional heat loss from the hot object to the cold object was reduced, which allowed accumulation of thermal energy/heat from the heat source and therefore an increase in temperature. There was no demonstrated transfer of heat/thermal energy from the always colder object to the always hotter object, because the 2nd Law says that can’t happen in the real world, just like the above textbook quote says. It only happens in your fantasy land of CAGW-by-CO2 pseudoscience.
Ball4 says: on Feb.18,2019 at 2:45 “shows a colder atmosphere can warm a warmer object…”
The colder object doesn’t “warm” the object, ie., it doesn’t transfer any heat/thermal energy to the warmer object. All the increase in temperature(warming) is caused by the accumulated heat/thermal energy from the Sun. That is the only energy that increases the internal energy and thus temperature of the object/earth’s surface. Simple 2nd Law, that you deny. You wrongly believe that the increase in internal energy and temperature of the object/earth’s surface is due to a transfer of heat/thermal energy from the always colder atmosphere. That can’t happen because of the 2nd Law.
Ball4 says: on Feb.18,2019 at 2:45PM “you write somehow in a body that never contains heat you are gullible enough to rely on sources claiming heat suddenly materializing into existence at the transfer contact between two bodies of different temperatures, then that newly materialized heat transferring to the colder body, and once again the heat becoming dematerialized so that the new body never contains heat.No gullibility by me. Just acceptance of fundamental classical thermodynamics. We’ve already established that you deny that fundamental thermodynamics. Your continued making up silly false stuff such as your “suddenly materializing into existence … newly materialized … dematerialized” in order to deny fundamental thermodynamics is just laughable. Thermodynamic textbooks say that the hot object contains internal energy, a state property of that object/system. When in thermal contact with a lower temperature object, it is that existing energy that is transferred to the colder object, just as the 2nd Law requires.
Once again, everything I am saying is backed up by thermodynamics textbooks. All your silly handwaving and anti-thermodynamics nonsense is unsupported by any valid science source, confirmed by your inability to cite and quote any thermodynamics textbooks that support your handwaving denial of fundamental thermodynamics.
Ball4 says: on Feb.18,2019 at 2:45PM “Sorry REO2 the process you describe here doesnt happen in the real world; heat was ruled out as a material entity by experiment over a century ago.”
Wrong. The process I described is the fundamental radiative heat transfer process by which heat/thermal energy is transferred from higher temperature objects to a lower temperature objects, as described in the heat transfer & thermodynamics textbooks that I have cited and quoted. Your denial of that science as well as your denial of the existence of heat is noted. As the science references that I have quoted confirm, heat is real, it exists, and it is defined by thermodynamics as the “energy in transit” from a hotter object to a colder object, and never from a colder object to a hotter object.
Let me know when you get every heat transfer and thermodynamics textbook changed to state that heat/thermal energy is transferred from always colder objects to always hotter objects. Let me know when they change the thermodynamics textbooks to agree with you that heat doesn’t exist. Until then you are tilting at windmills.
Ball4 says: on Feb.18, 2019 at 2:45PM “N2, O2, Ar are matter therefore they are measured to radiate at all freq.s, all temperatures. All the time. There are no exceptions. All means all. And, of course, All includes the IR bands for all of those gases.”
Oh good, so now you are reversing your previous false claim that only the “IR active gases” which you mean are WV, CO2 & other trace gases “dominate IR radiation” from the atmosphere. Your admission that the N2, O2 & Ar also emit IR radiation, and the scientific fact that 99+% of thermal mass/molecular motion of the atmosphere is made up of N2, O2 & Ar, and the scientific fact that it is that molecular motion that creates electromagnetic radiation, means that almost all of the so-called ‘backradiation’, which is the radiant emittance, of the atmosphere is due to the N2, O2 & Ar. That is the radiation that reduces the unidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer away from the surface, and allows the solar energy to accumulate and increase the surface temperature.
Ball4 says: on Feb.18,2019 at 2:45PM “so your so-called catastrophic global warming – has not occurred.”
Good for you, admitting that there has been no catastrophic warming like your fellow climate alarmist claim is already being observed. The fact is that not only has it not occurred, there is no empirical science that shows it will occur in the future, due to humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere. So you’re throwing in the towel on your climate alarmism. It’s about time.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.18,2019 at 9:41AM “REO2, your long rant(s)”
It’s called science. Only people who can’t understand science or can’t refute the science call it a rant.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.18,2019 at 9:41AM “includes energy transferred back and forth between the plates”
No, it doesn’t. Radiation is exchanging, but when two objects are simulataneously radiating, the transfer of thermal energy/heat is unidirectional, always and only from the higher temperature/energy object to the lower temperature/energy objects. That is fundamental thermodynamics. Your claim of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer would violate the 2nd Law.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.18,2019 at 9:41AM “that result is just what my Green Plate demonstration showed”
Wrong, your Green Plate example does not shows that any heat/thermal energy is transferred from the colder object to the hotter object, because that would violate the 2nd Law, because it would mean that the temperature of an always hotter object was increased further solely as a result of a transfer of heat from an always colder object. That can’t happen because it would violate the 2nd Law.
Here is a simple heat transfer example which confirms what I a saying is true.
Givens:
– We have an object with a surface area of 1m.
– The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
– the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
– The S-B constant, σ=5.67×10⁻⁸.
– Temps rounded to whole numbers.
– The shield is very very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are essentially equal considering the 3 significant figures of thermal energy transfer we are considering, 1m.
– The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m within the object.
– The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
– The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.
So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m. The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.So the ONLY energy source to the object that exists in our system is 240W/m, PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred through any point in our system is 240Joules/sec.
At initial thermal equilibrium the 240Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.
We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system. The purpose of a radiation shield is to reduce heat loss from an object.
The shield initially receives the 240W/m(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is being transferred away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.
The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).
At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.
The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67×10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
Th⁴=(240/5.67×10⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K
That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W/m(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.
2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m (240 Joules/sec).
3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says:
4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket/shield, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.
My correct understanding of this problem is supported by Heat Transfer textbooks. Section “8-8 Radiation Shields” of J.P.Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ says:
Now your wrong understanding of bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the always warmer object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m (Joules/sec) being transferred from the always colder shield to the always warmer object. So your wrong understanding at final equilibrium now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m (240 Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder radiation shield.
Your wrong understanding has created 240W/m (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.
Your wrong view has 480W/m (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K object, which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the only energy/heat source of our system.
Your wrong view is not consistent with a radiation shield, whose purpose is to reduce heat transfer from an object, because your wrong view has the heat transfer from the object actually increasing.
Your wrong view created a new energy-in source to the object of 240W/m out of thin air. Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because it wrongly has the object receiving 480W/m^2 of energy where the only energy source is 240W/m^2, so conservation of energy, the 1st Law has been violated.
And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has the cause of the increase in temperature of the always warmer object coming from the transfer of heat from an always colder object (shield) to an always warmer object.
QED, My understanding is correct and your false claim of understanding of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer is proven wrong.
You can’t refute that science that proves you wrong. You are denying the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
DREMT says: on Feb.18,2019 at 10:27AM “Pretty sure no one is arguing against that.”
You are correct, I’m not arguing that a colder object radiates EMR, because all objects/systems that are above 0K radiate EMR.
What I am arguing is fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer that says heat/thermal energy is only and always transferred from higher temperature objects to lower temperatures objects. That’s the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I’ve cited and quoted from thermodynamics textbook which confirms this. And that thermodynamics textbook confirms that in the real world no experiment has ever conducted that violates the 2nd Law.
DREMT says: on Feb.18,2019 at 10:27AM “you professional sophists are still bashing the same straw men, after all this time, and thinking that people won’t see through you.”
Again you are correct. Everyone can see through their endless dodging, handwaving and logically fallacious arguments. And everyone can also see that they fail to cite any valid science sources to back up their 2nd Law denial. They are peddling junk pseudoscience in order to peddle their false climate alarmism religion.
“All any experiments show is that the unidirectional heat loss from the hot object to the cold object was reduced, which allowed accumulation of thermal energy/heat from the heat source and therefore an increase in temperature.”
As you write & in Dr. Spencer’s words: “It doesn’t matter whether you call it “reduced rate of cooling”, or “warming”, the result is the same: a higher temperature.”
And yet again, you misuse the term heat as pointed out by VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat.” You error propagate & insist that a body DOES contain heat, a misuse of the term.
There was no demonstrated transfer of heat from the always colder object to the always hotter object since “a body never contains heat.” However, there CAN BE a transfer of thermodynamic internal energy from colder to hotter which produces entropy as explained by Max Planck in the passage I quoted above. Your sources are always less authoritative and many times an example of error propagation so go back to what Prof. Max Planck actually wrote, as I do.
“The colder object doesn’t “warm” the object”
You just wrote an increase in temperature from such a process above “therefore an increase in temperature”! That is an object warming in the English language. No denial of the 2LOT as long as entropy is produced in the process.
GSU: “this is properly called heating.”
Yes, heating is a process not a substance.
“Once again, everything I am saying is backed up by thermodynamics textbooks.”
Your text book quotes are examples of error propagation when they do not quote Planck’s actual words and ignore your own source: VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat.”
“Your denial of that science as well as your denial of the existence of heat is noted.”
I accept your own source as derived from last century experiments and you should too: VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat.”
“Let me know when you get every heat transfer and thermodynamics textbook changed”
No need for any modern text to change, they all agree with your own source which is traceable to Clausius, VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat.” You should follow them, stop error propagation by misusing the heat term as if heat IS contained in an object.
“Oh good, so now you are reversing your previous false claim that only the “IR active gases” which you mean are WV, CO2 & other trace gases “dominate IR radiation” from the atmosphere.”
No. I follow Planck’s Law in his words, S-B in their words, and observations of Earth’s atm. You should too. I have no towel to throw in either, you just make that up.
REO2 claims: “Your claim of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer would violate the 2nd Law.”
No such claim except by REO2. Again, REO2 ignores his own source VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat” since REO2 here insists/claims a body DOES contain heat.
There is no violation of 2LOT since entropy of each body increases in the process of exchanging thermodynamic internal energy by radiative transfer.
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 11:01AM “there CAN BE a transfer of thermodynamic internal energy from colder to hotter”
Your denial of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is confirmed. Yet again you confirm that you are a poor ignorant troll.
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 11:01AM “Your sources are always less authoritative and many times an example of error propagation”
Hahaha Your evidence-free false claim is noted. My sources are contemporary thermodynamics textbook and science sites. You provide zero science sources whatsoever! You’re such a hilarious JOKE!
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 11:06AM “That is warming in the English language”
Hahahaha Sorry, you semantics games don’t cut the mustard of science.
Science says that the only thing that can “properly be called heating” is the “transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object”
So science confirms the increase in internal energy does not come from a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the colder object. It comes from the energy of the object’s only heat source, the hotter object.
“Your textbook quotes are examples of error propagation”
Your denial of reality, denial of thermodynamics textbooks is noted, and is confirmed by your evidence-free claims.
“No.”
Hahahaha Poor hopelessly conflicted and Ball4 troll, contradicts himself yet AGAIN, and simultaneously attempts to hold two mutually contradictory positions at the same time, claiming that 99+% of the atmosphere radiates IR energy, but the 0.04% of the atmosphere is the “dominate” IR source of ‘backradiation’.
You get tangled up in your web of lies and pseudoscience every time you deny the 2nd Law.
And yet again, you FAIL to quote a bit of the science that I have presented and show that it was wrong. You just mindlessly repeat your debunked false pseudoscience anti-thermodynamics.
You’re such a pathetic JOKE!
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 11:16AM “No such claim except by REO2”
Your lie is noted. I’ve never claimed that there can bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer between two objects which are simultaneously radiating at each other. You are the one who is making that false claim. But I understand why you want to back away from that pseudoscience, because it is wrong, an you can’t defend it, so you dishonestly try to project your anti-science ignorance onto me. Sorry troll, but you FAIL.
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 11:16AM “since REO2 here insists/claims a body DOES contain heat.”
Your lie is noted. I have never made that claim. I have cited and quoted sources that confirm that bodies DON’T contain heat. It is your ignorance of thermodynamics, ignorance of what internal energy is and your denial that heat exists that causes you to say that I believe that objects contain heat.
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 11:16AM “There is no violation of 2LOT…”
Wrong. My heat transfer example proves that your wrong understanding and claim that heat/thermal energy is simultaneously transferred both from the hotter object to the colder object AND from the colder object to the hotter object does violate the 2LoT, because it has the temperature of an always hotter object increasing further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object.
Poor Ball4 troll’s denial of the 2nd Law, denial of thermodynamics textbooks, denial of science, is exposed again, and all the poor troll can do is lie and deny. Sad, but it’s what duped believers in the pseudoscience of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 religion do.
“I’ve never claimed that there can bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer between two objects which are simultaneously radiating at each other.”
REO2: All any experiments show is that the unidirectional heat loss from the hot object to the cold object was reduced, which allowed accumulation of thermal energy/heat from the heat source and therefore an increase in temperature.
That is a claim that there can be bidirectional thermal energy transfer between two objects which are simultaneously radiating at each other.
And yet again, REO2 misuses the term heat as pointed out by VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat” by claiming a body (object) DOES contain heat. Stop that silly claim if REO2 wants to become knowledgeable in this day and age.
“…claiming that 99+% of the atmosphere radiates IR energy, but the 0.04% of the atmosphere is the “dominate” IR”
Because that is what is measured by radiometers (not that REO2 might know how one of those works). REO2’s comment simply shows a lack of understanding of atm. thermodynamics.
The good news is: this is curable REO2. Pick up a text on atm. thermodynamics and start your healing process. REO2 heal thyself! REO2 ought to learn at least a little about the atm. to be reliably commenting on a climate blog. But then there’s no law against embarrassing lack of knowledge around here. It’s the wild, wild west!
RealOldOne2, You wrote
Your only argument, which you repeat endlessly, is that the 2nd Law does not allow the Green Plate (or any other intervening body) to warm the higher temperature plate. You quote Holman, when he explicitly includes back radiation in his examples, such as the energy from a second plate or from the surroundings, as examples shown in his Figure 8-29 and 8-30.
In Section 8-8 RADIATION SHIELDS, he notes:
It should be obvious that from this perspective, a situation in which the rate of thermal energy supplied is fixed, the effect of multi-layered insulation will be to warm the insulated body. Your example repeats this same logic, which is, for a given energy supply, the insulated body will warm. Your obsession with the internal energy of the warmer body fails to include any effort to describe the mechanism by which that energy increase occurs.
These results are exactly what I found with the my Green Plate demonstration. Simply changing the position of the Green Plate results in an increase in the temperature of the Blue Plate. This is not the result of any additional energy added to the system, only the retardation of the energy which is flowing thru the system.
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 2:47PM “REO2: All any experiments show is that the unidirectional heat loss…”
That is a claim that there can be bidirectional thermal energy transfer”
I can’t add anything more to that display of your delusional denial of reality by claiming my explicit claim of “unidirectional” heat transfer is in your delusional fantasy world a claim of bidirectional heat transfer. Like I said before, I show you white, and you see black. Sad.
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 2:47PM “And yet again, REO2 misuses the term heat”
Poor serially dishonest troll, I’ve backed up my correct use of the term heat by citing and quoting thermodynamics textbooks that define “heat”. You are just making stuff up from the fantasies dancing around in your empty head. So sad.
Ball4 says: on Feb.19,2019 at 2:47PM “Because that is what is measured by radiometers”
No troll, as Kristian has schooled you, radiometers do not measure ‘backradiation’ or any heat/thermal energy transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. The only thing radiometers measure is the unidirectional heat transfer from the warmer radiometer to the cooler sky. And because that unidirectional heat transfer is less than what would be transferred to 0K, they calculate the radiant emittance of the atmosphere, which is what you call ‘backradiation’.
What pyrgeometers detect is the unidirectional flow of thermal energy/heat from the warmer surface/pyrgeometer to the colder atmosphere. They do this by using the Seebeck effect and a thermopile which produces an emf, ie., a voltage. When pointed at the colder sky it produces a negative voltage because the detector thermocouple junction is colder than the instrument housing temperature(reference junction), indicating that the thermal energy flow is away from the instrument to the colder sky. The pyrgeometer manufacturer confirms this:
The only thing directly measured is the net radiation, σ(Th^4-Tc^4), which equals q, the unidirectional heat/thermal energy being transferred either to(positive voltage) or from(negative voltage) the instrument.
This means that pyrgeometers do not measure DWIR or any heat/thermal energy transfer from the colder sky to the warmer surface. They measure the amount of heat/thermal energy being transferred from the warmer instrument to the colder sky, and because that heat flow is less than the amount of heat that would be transferred to a 0K sink, they calculate the resistance to heat flow from the instrument, which is the mean radiant emittance of the atmosphere that the pyrgeometer is pointed at, which is the opposing radiation force/pressure, DWIR.
So the DWIR is only a calculated number. It is not a directly measured or detected. The calculation is based on based on knowing the instrument temperature and using the S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Tsurf^4-Tatmosphere^4). If the instrument was pointed at an absolute zero temp object, q would be σ(Tinst^4). But since q is less than that, the Tc can be calculated, then the irradiance of that object, σ(Tsky^4) is calculated. It is not a directly measured value, and it is not a real thermal energy transfer, it is merely a calculated irradiance of an object at the mean temperature of Tc.
What I am saying is confirmed by the pyrgeometer manufacturer:
So the instrument directly measures how much thermal energy (net radiation) is either transferred to the pyrgeometer (positive voltage due to the detector being warmer than the instrument housing), OR transferred from the pyrgeometer (negative voltage due to the detector being cooler than the instrument housing). The ‘backradiation’ is merely a calculated number, which represents the reduction in the unidirectional transfer of thermal energy/heat from the warmer surface to the colder sky.
Simple 2nd Law of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Unidirectional thermal energy/heat flow from the higher temperature surface of the earth to the colder atmosphere.
And, almost all of that calculated ‘backradiation’ is from the N2, O2 & Ar in the atmosphere, because 99+% of the mass/radiating molecules in the atmosphere comes from those three gases. Your climate alarmism’s dogma that claims that the 0.04% of the atmosphere which is CO2 is what dominates ‘backradiation’ is exposed as alarmist pseudoscience.
Peer reviewed science also confirms that there is no heat/thermal energy transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. Fig.5a from Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg , shows all the “Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components (ie., shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, vertical turbulent transfer)”, and note that there is no energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Of course a peer reviewed paper written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law wouldn’t make the egregious error of claiming that heat/thermal energy could be transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. Only scientifically illiterate and ideologically blinded climate alarmist trolls make that egregious error.
But I’m sure the poor Ball4 troll will deny this peer reviewed paper and fact of science because it is contrary to his pseudoscience climate alarmism religion.
It’s a shame that you deny the never-observed-to-be-violated science of the 2nd Law. But then that’s what you deniers do, is deny, deny, deny and lie, lie, lie. Quite pathetic, but quite typical of duped doomsday cult fanatics who are ignorant of science.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.19,2019 at 2:49PM “Your only argument, which you repeat endlessly, is that the 2nd Law does not allow the Green Plate (or any other intervening body) to warm the higher temperature plate.”
My correct argument is supported by my quote from Georgia State Univ. Physics Dept.’s definition of “heating”:
This confirms that the “heating” of the object is solely the result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from the “higher temperature (hotter) object”. That is what causes the increase in internal energy and thus the increase in temperature.
There is no getting around the fact that you and your fellow climate alarmists claim that it is the transfer of heat/thermal energy from the colder object that causes the increase of internal energy and temperature.
So yes, I do endlessly expose your denial of the 2nd Law, because I understand science and you don’t.
“Holman, when he explicitly includes backradiation”
Holman never includes two separate bidirectional thermal energy transfers, q.
Holman states: “radiation might be thought of as a “photon gas” that may flow from one place to another.”
He then goes on to derive an energy density, and then integrates the energy density over all wavelengths to derive the Emissive Power, Eb= σT⁴. The only transfer of thermal energy between two radiating bodies is the net of these these two opposing radiative forces/pressures/emissive powers. And that transfer is unidirectional, in the direction from the higher emissive power to the lower emissive power. Using the “photon gas” analogy of Holman, if you put a raidation transfer detector (a plane perpendicular to and between the two raidating objects) the only transfer of thermal energy it detects and measures will be a one-way flow of thermal energy from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object which will have the magnitude of the net emissive powers. There is not two separate thermal energy transfers.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.19,2019 at 2:49PM “Your obsession with the internal energy of the warmer body fails to include any effort to describe the mechanism by which that energy increase occurs.”
My obsession is with correct science of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. And I have not failed to include the mechanism that causes the internal energy increase. The increase in internal energy is solely caused by the transfer of heat/thermal energy from the higher temperature object (the heat source). It is only that transfer of heat/thermal energy which causes the increase of internal energy and thus the increase in temperature of the object.
You 2nd Law deniers wrongly claim that the increase in internal energy comes from the transfer of heat/thermal energy from the colder object. That is a denial of the 2nd Law.
Noted that neither you nor any of your fellow 2nd Law deniers have ever been able to quote anything in my heat transfer example and show that it is wrong. You just endlessly repeat your wrong understanding which violates the 2nd Law, the 1st Law & the entropy principle.
REO2 writes, claims: “I’ve backed up my correct use of the term heat by citing and quoting thermodynamics textbooks that define “heat”.”
You have NOT done so REO2, your claim is baseless. You repeatedly ignore what is in the textbook clip you use:
VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat”
by then claiming a body (object) DOES contain heat.
Your arguments thus ignore the texts & are thus baseless or at least are NOT based on the text book clips as you claim, you just arbitrarily make up your arguments to suit your purpose.
—-
K&Z pyrgeometers calculate the LW from the sky because that is a cheaper and very reliable way to do so. Proof: they can measure/detect passing clouds really well in the downward LW variance.
Luminous intensity is one of the fundamental 7 measurable units. K&Z could do it your measurable way if you insist on “measurement” but they would be quickly out of business as the expense to measure luminous intensity is prohibitive for this app. Your arguments here are baseless, a waste of time. Radiometers (specialized to pyrgeometers) are used where generally accepted irradiance is measured (e.g. satellites) & have been proven out as a statistically meaningful measurement device for UWIR and DWIR.
—-
“But I’m sure the poor Ball4 troll will deny this peer reviewed paper”
No I do not deny it. That’s actually a good paper, I have it in inventory, I agree with it. It doesn’t say what you wrote, you just make that up. How did Ozawa et. al. measure the 240out in your pic (or where did they source it)? A radiometer.
Quote from the 2003 paper REO2, do not use REO2’s own inaccurate, baseless words.
In your partial link to it: “net longwave radiation (Flong(0) = 40 W m^-2 )” means the net surface longwave mean UWIR-LWIR as measured sparsely but globally by K&Z et. al. radiometers (396-356) in their day (2003) and ~58 (399-341) in modern day.
In summary REO2, you do not know what you are writing about. Leave that to the authors of your clips and astute, informed blog readers will go to those authors rather than rely on your baseless, made up comments.
On Feb.20,2019 at 7:38PM, Ball4 once again exposes his ignorance of science, thermodynamics in his comment. I will yet again take apart his comment statement by statement, by quoting his words and exposing how they are projection, false fantasies, anti-science and lies.
I note again that Ball4 has failed to quote anything in my comments and show that it is wrong, he just denies it and lies about it.
Ball4 says: “It doesn’t say what you wrote, you just make that up.”
Hahaha. Your denial of reality is noted. You just further discredit yourself when you tell such a blatant lie. Everyone can see that Ozawa’s Fig.5(a) says exactly what I wrote:
Ball4 says: “which means that the net surface longwave mean UWIR-LWIR as measured…”
Yes, just as I have said, it is only the net radiation, the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer, that can be and is measured. You just demonstrate your ideological blindness and confirmation bias of your wrong understanding of thermodynamics in believing that there are two independent heat/thermal energy transfers going on.
Ozawa explicitly stated that Fig. 5(a) included the “Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components … longwave radiation“, and he included no longwave radiation energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. That is because, just as I have been saying, the only thermal energy/heat transfer is the net radiation, and that is unidirectional just as Ozawa’s Fig.5(a) shows.
Just as Ozawa shows in his Fig.5(a) unidirectional thermal energy/heat flux diagram, the scientists over a century ago also recognized that heat/thermal energy transfer between two radiating bodies was a single phenomenon, not two separate thermal energy transfers:
Get that Ball4? Transfer of thermal energy/heat is due to one cause, the unidirectional flow of heat/thermal energy from the hot body to the cold body, not two causes (some heat transferring from the cold body to the warm body but more heat transferring from the hot body to the cold body). Why do you disagree with Maxwell and claim that there are two separate causes?
While Maxwell holds the obsolete understanding that objects contain heat rather than internal energy, Maxwell agrees with me and modern thermodynamics that thermal energy/heat only and always is transferred from hotter objects to colder objects. He never says that heat can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body. Here are some more quotes from Maxwell that confirm that:
Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that they are not part of “the same phenomenon”, but are part of TWO distinct and separate phenomena, one transfer of energy from the hot body to the cold body and a separate transfer of energy from the cold body to the hot body?
Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that the transfer of heat/thermal energy occurs not just from hotter to colder bodies, but also from colder bodies to hotter bodies?
My simple heat transfer example shows that you believe that an always higher temperature object’s temperature increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object.Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that it is possible to convey thermal energy/heat from a lower temperature body to another at a higher temperature?
Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that thermal energy/heat always passes out of a body by conduction or radiation even to hotter bodies?
Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that both objects which are at equal temperatures both lose and gain thermal energy/heat, at a rate as if the other object wasn’t there?
Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that radiant heat does not travel like light and the EM waves do not interfere and superimpose like light waves do?
Ball4 says: “In summary REO2, you do not know what you are writing about. … on your baseless made-up comments”
Hahaha Your projection is noted. My comments which are backed up with cites and quotes from thermodynamics textbooks and science sources show that I do know what I am talking about. Your evidence-free, science-free, anti-thermodynamics nonsensical comments which misrepresent me and which deny science show that you are the one who doesn’t understanding what you are talking about, and you are the one who is making the baseless, made-up comments. Thanks again for the opportunity once again to demonstrate that!
Sadly, because you are so brainwashed into believing in your false pseudoscience climate alarmism pseudoscience, and you are such a rabid believer in your cult religion, you will continue to ignore and deny the science that I present, and you will continue to defend your false cult religion with jihadist zeal, just as Dr. Lindzen says:
On Feb.20,2019 at 7:38PM, Ball4 once again exposes his ignorance of science, thermodynamics in his comment. I will yet again take apart his comment statement by statement, by quoting his words and exposing how they are projection, false fantasies, anti-science and lies.
I note again that Ball4 has failed to quote anything in my comments and show that it is wrong, he just denies it and lies about it.
Ball4 says: “You have NOT done so REO2, your claim is baseless.”
Your continued ignorance of thermodynamics in your denial of the Thermodynamic definition of “heat” is noted. Your denial and ignorance is confirmed by your inability to quote anything from the textbook definition and show that it was wrong, or show any other definition from a thermodynamics textbook which claims that heat doesn’t exist.
Ball4 says: “by then claiming a body (object) DOES contain heat”
Your lie is noted. I have never claimed that a body contains heat. I have repeatedly explicitly stated that objects do not contain heat, just as the thermodynamics textbooks explicitly state. You are once again exposing your denial and ignorance of thermodynamics. You ignorantly believe that in order to transfer heat, a body must contain heat. You are stuck in century-old belief that objects contain heat. As the science of thermodynamics has developed, this concept has been refined into defining the energy contained in an object as internal energy, not heat. I have quoted the thermodynamics textbook that state that objects contain internal energy, and when that internal energy is transferred to colder objects, it is by the modern definition of thermodynamics, called “heat”. You are hopelessly thick and in denial of that reality. So sad.
Ball4 says: “you just arbitrarily make up your arguments to suit your purpose.”
Your projection is noted. That’s exactly what you do, over and over again. What you have failed to do, is quote anything I have posted and show that it is wrong. You just deny it and lie about it.
On Feb.20,2019 at 7:38PM, Ball4 once again exposes his ignorance of science, thermodynamics in his comment. I will yet again take apart his comment statement by statement, by quoting his words and exposing how they are projection, false fantasies, anti-science and lies.
I note again that Ball4 has failed to quote anything in my comments and show that it is wrong, he just denies it and lies about it.
Ball4 says: “K&Z pyrgeometers calculate the LW from the sky because that is a cheaper and very reliable way to do so.”
Hahaha. There you go, just making stuff up again! Sorry troll, but DWIR can not be directly measured, it can only be calculated.
REO2 claims Ozawa note: “there is no energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.”
A search of the Ozawa paper for those words shows 0 hits. Those are REO2’s incorrect made up words as the paper actually shows and states what I quoted: “net longwave and shortwave energy fluxes at the surface.” The net means they subtracted measured UWIR-LWIR to get their net.
REO2 wrongly claims: “it is only the net radiation, the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer that can be measured” wrongly by claiming heat exists in an object going against what the text books all correctly tell REO2 which REO2 repeatedly simply ignores:
VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat”
Something that a body does not contain can not be measured in that body.
“confirmation bias of your wrong understanding of thermodynamics in believing that there are two independent heat/thermal energy transfers going on.”
Incorrect REO2, I agree with VanWylen & Sonntag no heat in the body, and Prof. Planck who wrote that there are two independent thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy transfers (radiative energy transfer) going on based on his et. al. lab work which I already quoted for you and you also ignore and disagree:
“A body A at 100 degrees C. emits toward a body B at 0 degrees C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000 degrees C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
“Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’, 1902”
JC Maxwell passed away in 1879 REO2. Before 1879, by “heat” in that day and age Maxwell meant the caloric fluid transferred body to body. Which Clausius et. al. pointed out caloric did not exist in a body (testing ruled caloric out) and you are thus wrong repeatedly writing “heat/thermal energy transfers”:
VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat”
“Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that the transfer of heat/thermal energy occurs not just from hotter to colder bodies, but also from colder bodies to hotter bodies?”
Maxwell was wrong about the caloric existing in a body. The statistical work of Boltzmann showed how thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy can pass from colder bodies to hotter bodies in the M-B distribution of molecular velocities.
“Why do you disagree with Maxwell and believe that radiant heat does not travel like light and the EM waves do not interfere and superimpose like light waves do?”
There is no such thing as radiant heat, a special radiation with the unique capability of heating bodies. Radiation of any frequency is capable of heating given sufficient power, given that the illumination is suitably chosen. Incoherent photons do not interreact.
“Sorry troll, but DWIR can not be directly measured, it can only be calculated.”
You are wrong here REO2, the luminous intensity of DWIR and UWIR is one of the 7 basic measurable quantities like the meter, kilogram and kelvin. In observations of the atm., radiometers are used to measure the luminous intensity of DWIR & UWIR over a hemisphere of directions.
In summary, REO2 ignores modern day thermodynamics text content & makes up what they really write, ignores test results, thus REO2 does not know what REO2 is writing about. Leave that to the authors of REO2 clips and astute, informed blog readers will rely on those authors rather than rely on REO2 baseless, made up comments.
Ball4 on Feb.21,2019 at 10:15AM continues his hilarious clown dancing denial of reality. Poor troll, you STILL have not quoted anything I have posted and shown it is correct. Neither have you refuted any of my exposure of your lies, your misrepresentations and your ignorance of science.
Ball4 says: “A search of the Ozawa paper for those words shows 0 hits.”
Hahaha. Troll, there were no quote marks around those words, (there is no energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface), so only someone who ignorant of linguistics would expect to find those words quoted in the paper.
Also your dishonest quoting my statement out of context is also noted. You FAILED to include the context of the above words, which was “Fig.5a from Ozawa(2003) The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System, https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg , shows all the global-mean (surface-area mean) (ie., shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, vertical turbulent transfer), and note that there is no energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.”
Your desperate thrashing and flailing is hilarious.
Ball4 says: “Those are REO2’s incorrect made up words”
Wrong troll. Everyone can click on that link as see that my words were an accurate representation of Fig.5(a), and they can see that you are denying reality.
Ball4 says: “as the paper actually states what I quoted”
Poor troll, as I exposes, the words you quoted, “net longwave radiation (Flong(0) = 40 W m^-2)” do NOT mean that there is bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer. They explicitly say “net longwave radiation”</b, which is the unidirectional HEAT transfer. So the words of the paper confirm that I am correct!
So once again Ball4 is exposed as just trolling dishonest misrepresentations, lies and ignorance of science.
Continuing the exposure of Ball4’s dishonest misrepresentations, lies and ignorance of science from his Feb.21,2019 at 10:15AM comment.
Ball4 says: “REO2 wrongly claims: ‘it is only the net radiation, the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer that can measured” wrongly by claiming that heat exists in an object going against
Sorry troll, you have repeatedly made that lie, and I have exposed it. I have repeatedly explicitly quoted thermodynamics textbooks which say that objects do NOT contain heat, and said that I agree with that. You continue to discredit yourself and confirm that you are a serial liar. So sad for you.
Ball4 says: ” Planck who wrote that there are two independent thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy transfers (radiative energy transfer) going on based on his et. al. lab work which I already quoted for you and you also ignore and disagree: A body A at 100 degrees C. emits toward a body B at 0 degrees C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B at 1000 degrees C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B a stronger emitter than A. “
Your delusion and ignorance of science is noted. There is nothing in that statement of Planck that says “there are two independent thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy transfers (radiative energy transfer) going on” between two radiating objects like you claim.
In fact, Planck’s statement agrees with me that the thermal energy transfer between objects is uni-directional, always and only from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.
Planck’s statement admits that the interaction between object A at 100C and object B at 0C causes object A to be “cooled”, which means that object A loses thermal energy to object B, which means that thermal energy/heat is transferred from the higher temperature object A to lower temperature object B. Nothing there saying that colder object B at 0C transfers thermal energy/heat to object A at 100C.
Likewise, Planck’s statement admits that the interaction between object B’ at 1000C and object A at 100C causes object A to be “heated”, which means that object A gains thermal energy/heat from object B’, which means that thermal energy/heat is transferred from the higher temperature object B’ to the lower tepmerature object A. Nothing there saying that the colder object A at 100C transfers thermal energy/heat to the hotter object B’.
In Planck’s statement that Ball4 quotes, thermal energy transfer is only and always from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object, just as I have claimed and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics requires.
Ball4 troll fails yet again, just like he fails every time he denies the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
Continuing the exosure of Ball4’s dishonest misrepresentations, lies and ignorance of science from his Feb.21,2019 at 10:15AM comment, and showing that Ball4 is a total JOKE.
Ball4 says: “There is no such thing as radiant heat, a special radiation with the unique capability of heating bodies.”
Hahaha. Your desperate clown dancing fabricating strawman is hilarious! Sorry troll, I’ve never claimed any kind of “special radiation”. You FAIL again.
Ball4 says: ” “Sorry troll, but DWIR can not be directly measured, it can only be calculated.” You are wrong here REO2″
Hahaha. Your desperate lying and making stuff up is noted. Also noted is your failure to provide any evidence from science of direct measurement of DWIR.
Ball4 says: “In summary, REO2 ignores modern day thermodynamics text content & makes up what they really write, ignores test results, thus REO2 does not know what REO2 is talking about.”
Hahahaha Your desperate projection is noted. My citing and quoting of modern day thermodynamics textbooks that agree with me prove that I am correct. Your failure to cite or quote any modern day thermodynamics textbooks that agree with your anti-science 2nd Law denying claim that heat/thermal energy is trasnferred from colder objects to hotter objects is noted.
Once again Ball4, it was so much fun exposing your ignorance of science, your ignorance of thermodynamics, your ignorance of heat transfer, your serial dishonesty, and that you are a total JOKE clown.
Yet again, I have destroyed all of your lame, silly, ridiculous, failed attempted arguments.
And yet again you have failed to refute any of the science that I have presented which exposes that you are wrong.
Continuing the exposure of Ball4’s dishonest misrepresentations, lies and ignorance of science from his Feb. 21,2019 at 10:15AM comment, and showing that Ball4 is a total JOKE.
Ball4 says: ” “Maxwell, ‘The Theory of Heat’, 1902″ JC Maxwell passed away in 1879.”
Hahaha. Your desperation is hilarious. Sorry, but that is just irrelevant handwaving, and doesn’t change the fact that the edition of Maxwell’s ‘Theory of Heat’ that I have quoted from was published in 1902. I am proven correct by the title page of ‘Theory of Heat’https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7243600M/Theory_of_heat
Ball4 says: ” Before 1879, by heat in that day and age Maxwell meant the caloric fluid transferred body to body. Which Clausius et. al. pointed out caloric did not exist in a body (testing ruled caloric out) and you are thus wrong repeatedly writing heat/thermal energy transfers: VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat “
Hhahaha. Your incoherent, illogical gibberis is hilarious. Nothing there shows that I have been wrong about anything! Thanks for confirming that VanWylen & Sonntag agree with me that a body never contains heat. Your continuing to tell your lie that I claim a body contains heat is exposed yet again, and yet again the poor Ball4 troll exposes that you are a total JOKE!
Ball4 says: “The statistical work of Boltzman showed how thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy can pass from colder bodies to hotter bodies in the M-B distribution of molecular velocities.”
Hahaha. Your lie and making stuff up is noted, and is confirmed by your failure to quote anything from Boltzman where he stated that colder object can transfer thermal energy/heat to hotter objects.
“Thanks for confirming that VanWylen & Sonntag agree with me that a body never contains heat.”
VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat”
REO2 states agreement with the modern fact a body never contains heat then REO2 switches back to claims heat is contained in a body such that heat can transfer out from that body: “net longwave radiation”, which is the unidirectional HEAT transfer.”
This is REO2’s basic premise failure. Since REO2’s basic premise fails to agree with generally accepted authors and modern thermodynamics text books, the rest of REO’s writing based on it also fails.
REO2 prefers REO2’s own view of nature over that of generally accepted authors in the field. Astute, informed blog readers will always agree with the generally accepted authors and completely ignore REO2’s contrary writing.
Ball4 says: on Feb.22,2019 at 9:32AM “then REO2 switches back to claim that heat is contained in a body such that heat can transfer out from that body”
Poor Ball4 troll, no matter how many times you attempt to spin that lie it will never make it true. As I have told you over and over again, and as you are too dense to understand, a body doesn’t need to “contain heat” in order for heat to be transferred away from that object. That’s because as I’ve shown you over and over again from cites and quotes from the thermodynamics textbook, “heat” is the energy-in-transit when the internal energy of an object is transferred to another object.
Ball4 says: “This is REO2’s basic premise failure.”
Hahaha. You’re such a JOKE of a clown. Your projection is noted. Your misrepresentation is your basic premise failure.
Ball4 says: “Since REO2’s basic premise fails to agree with generally accepted authors and modern thermodynamics textbooks, the rest of REO2’s writing based on it also fails.”
Hahaha. You’re such a JOKE of a clown. Your continued projection is noted. The cites and quotes from thermodynamics textbooks agree with me, and expose that you are posting anti-thermodynamic nonsense. Poor troll, you’ve totally discredited yourself and you are too stupid to recognize it. So sad for you.
“”heat” is the energy-in-transit when the internal energy of an object is transferred to another object.”
Yes REO2, heating is a process not a substance, now you change at my prodding to align with the text books. Previously you were incorrect with “transfer of heat/thermal energy”. This just shows even REO2 can learn from generally accepted authors. Transfer of thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy between objects is generally accepted.
Ball4 says: on Feb.22,2019 at 10:12AM “Yes REO2, heating is a process not a substance, now you change at my prodding to align with textbooks. Previously you were incorrect with “transfer of heat/thermal energy”.”
Hahahaha. Thanks for yet more evidence that you are a delusional, insane nutcase whackjob. I haven’t changed anything about my understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer. I’ve been saying exactly the same thing ever since I have been exposing your ignorance of thermodynamics, ignorance of heat transfer.
I made the same “energy-in-transit” quote three days ago here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342282 , so you are just lying when you claim that I have now changed my position.
I have been quoting the same thermodynamics textbooks that agree with me for years. Everyone can read down through these comments that I made to you two years ago and see that I haven’t changed anything I’ve been saying about thermodynamics: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269862
You have discredited yourself as being nothing more than a dishonest, joke of a troll.
Have a look at what Australians think of their weather bureau: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/heat-on-bureau-of-meteorology-over-data-records-rewrite/news-story/30c0bc68e582feb2828915e172702bd1, 1129 comments and still rising. You can see them as most liked.
DP,
Oh no! Could it be that it’s worse than we thought?
Cheers.
Chic,
You said ‘Education and support for science are not constitutionally mandated.’
What does that mean?
None of the current govt spending programs have been proven to be unconstitutional.
Unless you think SCOTUS rulings are somehow unconstitutional?
Nate,
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who argued for nationalized education, because he probably perceived that as a universal benefit. Is there an amendment to the constitution adding a right to education? Unfortunately, SCOTUS didn’t or hasn’t ruled federal education spending as unconstitutional. The feds have no business mandating curriculum and funding schools.
Going to the moon in the 60’s wouldn’t have happened without a joint effort initiated by congress, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened without the govt if there was a financial or philanthropic drive for it.
There is no constitutional mandate for government sponsored research and congress can pass laws to fund it. That doesn’t make it right or wrong. The problem is one state gets money for their project and another doesn’t. One company gets money for their project and another doesn’t. One university gets a grant and another doesn’t. Climate change warmists get money and skeptics don’t. You see where I’m going with this? Trillions get wasted because no one knows what’s in the bills that are passed to fund all this pork.
I can’t talk about this anymore, Nate. My blood pressure can’t handle it.
Well, you brought these ideas up, but whatever…
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Gavin A. Schmidt and Ken Lo (06 February 2019),
“Global Temperature in 2018 and Beyond”
The four warmest years in the GISS record are the past four years, 2015-2018.
(which mimics the last 4 years being the highest CO2 readings surprisingly)
Global land area has warmed about twice as much as global ocean, as shown in Figure 3. Linear fit to the period 1975-present yields a warming about 1.6°C over land and 08°C over ocean.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2019/20190206_Temperature2018.pdf
On land is where most people live, have their homes, businesses, jobs and farms. It’s also where the BOM locate their thermometers to monitor temperature readings daily, surprisingly.
It’s also where it is hotter in the summertime. Ipso Facto, yes? 🙂
You better hurry up and get that Green New Deal passed before the temperature falls out of your two sigma confidence interval.
Ha. The GND is a joke. It will never be passed…. but more important is the subsequent Legislation required to achieve the “mythical aspirations” of the GND resolution will never get passed either – ever.
So it’s not really worth talking about – is it?
But is there anything to say about the physics that in summer around Australia the Land temps are always higher then the ocean temps, even at night?
You do not think that Roy is pushing a piece of fake news do you? You know like gilding the lily and misrepresenting what the BOM was actually reporting on and why it’s as true today as it was when Roy made his post?
How come Roy gets a free pass with “fake news/distortions” of the facts?
Who is pulling the Cunning Stunts here? (smile)
You kind of wonder if we’re close to the next glacial. All these solar, planetary and lunar positions must be affecting the liberal brain. These same phenomenon are going to send our mother planet into its next ice age.
David Appell says:
The next ice age is toast.
from Ganopolski et al:
moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years.
– Nature Letter, Jan 2016, doi:10.1038/nature16494
Humans have already emitted about 600 GtC through 2016, and are now emitting about 40 Gt CO2 (11 GtC) a year. Assuming this doesnt increase with time, the lower limit of 1000 GtC will be reached in about 35 years, the upper limit in about 80 years.
Oh hell! If David Appell says it then it must be true.
Good of him to provide a link so you can check him up.
Here’s a professor of physics saying the same thing:
https://tinyurl.com/y2wyll4g
Svante, please stop trolling.
Since year 2016 global temperatures have been decreasing and that trend is still continuing today.
Re: “Since year 2016 global temperatures have been decreasing …”
Yes. That’s kind of correct. To be more correct the Temperature Anomaly has decreased since 2016 in 2017/18.
But only IF you believe those Global Temperatures (and supporting Data) are correct. Do you believe this is the case or are they unreliable?
re: “.. and that trend is still continuing today.”
Not quite. January 2019 data is suggesting the Trend has, is about to, reverse (despite the recent Nth American chill). Early February 2019 the same.
So don’t count your chickens just yet. (smile)
This is a question about physics. And maybe even related to “global warming”.
And/or maybe merely a thought experiment:
Let have huge aquarium which is 20 meter diameter and 1/3 of 10 meter high.
And it will be like a cake pan, and made out of transparent Plexiglas- a transparent plastic which has density of about 1.
And unlike a typical large aquarium, it has bottom of the same transparent material- instead of
concrete- or whatever.
It is huge transparent container shaped like cake pan.
We going to have a bunch of these huge transparent containers shaped like cake pan and have them stack on top of each other- and they will be designed in a fashion that they can be stacked and can be filled water.
And if there is three them, stacked, then the 3 will weigh a total about 1.3 million kg.
Starting with one cake pan [the bottom one], the transparent floor doesn’t need to be thick if it’s on a unyielding level floor. So if you have a solid foundation and you pour plastic as liquid on it- it could be 1/4″ thick or less.
But, could we do the same with ones which going to stacked on top of it?
I would say you could- depending how it’s done. And also due to the lack of strength of such material, one could not have a thickness which would be strong enough- depending on how you do it- particularly if you going to stack a lot of them [such as more than 3].
Anyhow, lets instead make floor 1″ thick and it will be bonded to walls so as being as strong as the plastic material.
Now, how thick do walls have to be?
This is complicated if one has to include safety factors- if someone drive car into the plastic wall, or how long does it have last assuming various factors weaken it, and etc.
Anyhow, we not going to worry about safety factors and just give it a safety factor of 1.5.
Next, need to know tension strength of material.
And we just going to say it has 10,000 psi to yield [when it breaks].
And for calculator:
https://tridentsteel.com/barlows-formula/
Put in 787.4 inches outside diameter, 1″ thick, 10,000 psi, and get: 25.4 psi breaks it, and with safety factor
of 1.5 it is good up to 16.93 psi.
So 1″ thick works as pressure of water is 1/3 of atm, 1/3 of 14.7 psi.
At 10 meter depth of water there is 14.7 psi of water pressure.
Now, add second one one top of it, though not yet filled with water. Seal them together.
pressurize bottom while filling second one.
One can pressurize by adding water and/or gas.
So it’s a foundation of the gas and/or water pressure.
So when done, the bottom cake pan will have twice the pressure as second one.
Repeat with the third one.
If you want four, the bottom needs to have thicker walls.
Repeat with 5th, 6th, and etc.
Now, the interesting part is that one can replace the first cake pan’s water with air.
Pump air in and let water out while at a constant pressure.
So you walk into a pressurized room which has millions of lbs of water above you.
And ceiling of plastic could be 1″ thick, though it could also be 1/4 inch or even Saran wrap.
Now, let’s do something more crazy.
[related to above post]
You can call it thought experiment if you like.
Need 2 disks which are 20 meter in diameter.
Make disks out of metal [aluminum] which 1/4″ thick and has has the tension strength quality of psi yield of 40,000 psi
The 2 disks will be floor and roof of a 12 meter diameter cylinder which has .1″ thick pipe wall, and outside of this cylinder will be 14 cylinders [3.6 diameter] which also has wall thickness of .1″
The center 12 meter pipe will be sealed to floor and roof and be pressurized to 8 psi
Likewise the 14 3.6 meter diameter pipes will sealed to floor and roof. And be pressurized to 18 psi.
And we going to call this, the foundation.
And we going to put the transparent cake pan filled with water
on top of this foundation.
[And btw, this foundation **could be** floating on a ocean {but need some details of how it could}].
The question is, how many?
An answer is that weakest point would be the 8 psi of 12 meter diameter cylinder in the middle.
So if had 3 cake pans and bottom one was filled air instead of water and it was 8 psi of air pressure, how many cake pans
could it support?
1 cake pan full of water is 1/3 of 1 Atm which is 4.9 psi and two would 9.8 psi.
So less than two.
Though we could instead pressurize to 12 meter cylinder to 9.8 psi and then in theory, it could do two. Or the 12 meter diameter cylinder breaks at 16.9 psi and with safety factor of 1.5
it’s 11.2 psi.
There also other minor factors which are not counted, the 1″ of plastic floor transparent cake pan is doing more as compared to 1/4″ plastic floor,
there is the 1/4″ thick aluminum disk, and the structural strength of 1/10″ thick walls of cylinder.
[[Though this design is not really using the 12 meter cylinder for strength or I should say not as much as the 14 3.6 meter pipe around the 12 meter diameter pipe.
The idea is to use it to lift rockets.
In the Ocean.
Now to work in the ocean, the foundation needs another foundation- let’s call it, the second foundation.
The second foundation is an extension of the 14 pipes in the first foundation.
The 14 pipes are + hundred meter in length.
And there is a engine involved in this, that would accelerate a rocket.
Rockets are pretty heavy.
The biggest rocket that worked was the Saturn V.
It’s gross mass was: “Gross mass: 5,040,000 lb (2,290,000 kg” – wiki
And with first stage diameter of: “33.0 ft (10.1 m)”
And probably have increase pipe wall thickness if wanted to us it launch a non existence Saturn V.
Btw I have been calling “it”, a pipelauncher.]]
So, do you think it is correct that the first foundation could support 1 to 2 cake pans filled with water?
E Swanson wrote –
“Any material which emits thermal IR EM radiation at a specific wavelength will also absorb at that wavelength. The temperature of the IR source does not enter into the process, only the wavelength. The data on absorp_tion and emission for gases which support this statement is extensive. If this were not correct, then the physics literature would include abundant evidence of such and provide theoretical explanations.
So, all you diehard denialist out there, where is your evidence?”
What E Swanson says is a mixture of true, and partially true,
All of it is irrelevant and misleading, which is why GHE supporters can not articulate the object of their worship.
As to evidence, Nature’s four and a half billion year experiment with the Earth, shows that the surface got cooler, not hotter. It is no longer molten. The surface temperature drops at night, it doesn’t get hotter. The hottest places on Earth have the least amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, as do the coldest. And so it goes . . .
If you want experimental evidence, go back as far as John Tyndall. The more IR absorbed by a medium between a heat source and a thermometer, the less reaches the thermometer, and the temperature drops. Predictions using radiative transfer equations are verified by experiment. The physical and optical properties of CO2 are well documented. No magical heating properties known.
Carry on fiddling with worklights, glass bells, aluminium and paint. Then try heating something using CO2, and let me know how you go.
Cheers.
John Tyndall: The more IR absorbed by a medium between a heat source and a thermometer, the more constituent KE reaches the thermometer, and the temperature increases (two thermometers up 5F in Tyndall’s experiments).
Fluffball makes up more false “experiments”.
The poor clown is obsessed.
JD just doesn’t know to read Prof. Tyndall’s report. Learn some physics JD, try to run with the big dogs.
Obsessed, posessed, and soon to be reposessed.
Nothing new.
Ball4,
Don’t blame because you are dimwitted. Others may read Tyndall’s “Heat A Mode of Motion”, 6th Edition, if they wish.
Or calculate energy attenuation through CO2, using standard radiative transfer equations.
Tyndall’s results agree surprisingly well, considering he had to build and calibrate much of his own equipment and instrumentation.
You are deluded. The Earth has cooled, winter is colder than summer, and you cannot heat even one drop of water using the vast heat energy contained in the Antarctic ice cap. No matter much CO2 you use.
Carry on with your stupidity and ignorance. It obviously suits you.
Cheers,
Proper threading for JD: “Others may read Tyndall’s Heat A Mode of Motion, 6th Edition, if they wish.”
That text is beyond JD’s demonstrated level of accomplishment. Now if Prof. Tyndall had authored a cartoon book, JD might cope with that.
Interested other readers much more accomplished will want to consult:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/108724?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Fluffball’s obsession continues, providing much entertainment.
Ball4,
The reference I provided was published in 1906, more than 50 years after the Bakerian lectures, and Tyndall made substantial additions and corrections to each addition. Ignoring them won’t make them go away.
Nature doesn’t appear to agree with your delusional thinking. The Earth’s surface ihas cooled, winter is cooler than summer, and temperatures drop at night.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Higher temperatures are due to increased heat, in simple terms. That is what thermometers are designed to measure.
Cheers.
“Tyndall made substantial additions and corrections to each addition.”
Undoubtedly. But still John Tyndall: The more IR absorbed by a medium between a heat source and a thermometer, the more constituent KE reaches the thermometer, and the temperature increases (two thermometers up 5F in Tyndalls experiments).
“The Earths surface has cooled, winter is cooler than summer, and temperatures drop at night.”
Mike must have missed reading about the little ice age since temperatures have increased thereafter. Thermometer temperature sometimes rises at night too. And sometimes temperature even goes down during the day! Days in Dec. may be warmer than days in July.
Mike needs to study some meteorology. Just like JD needs to learn some physics.
Ball4.
Making stuff up won’t convince anybody – they can read for themselves.
The Earth’s surface was molten. It is not molten now. That is called cooling.
Your supposed GHE doesn’t seem to work at night, indoors, or when it is cloudy, raining, or during a solar eclipse. Heating of the surface only seems to occur when the Sun is shining! Maybe you have confused the GHE with sunlight?
Maybe you could produce some facts to contradict what I wrote. Telling me what you think I forgot (I didn’t), or tearing off at irrelevant tangents might not convince people that your fantasy GHE actually exists.
But keep on, I’m happy enough for people to choose between pseudoscientific nonsense, and reality.
Cheers.
“Making stuff up won’t convince anybody – they can read for themselves.”
That’s correct Mike. Informed readers can readily identify that Mike Flynn hasn’t read and understood Prof. Tyndall’s work.
Writing that the GHE doesn’t work at night is just making stuff up that won’t convince anybody – they can read for themselves.
Mike writing heating of the surface only occurs when the sun is shining is making stuff up that won’t convince anybody – they can read overnight weather reports for themselves.
The facts that contradict what Mike wrote are in Prof. Tyndall’s report and daily weather reports. Mike making stuff up won’t convince anybody – they can read for themselves and choose between Mike’s pseudoscientific nonsense, and reality.
Ball4,
Many thanks. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so they say.
It stil won’t get you anywhere, though. It won’t make you appear any less stupid or ignorant either.
Cheers.
MR, Ball4 sure is a pathetic troll.
“Others may read Tyndalls Heat A Mode of Motion, 6th Edition, if they wish.”
That text is beyond JD’s demonstrated level of accomplishment. Now if Prof. Tyndall had authored a cartoon book, JD might cope with that.
Interested other readers much more accomplished will want to consult:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/108724?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Fluffball’s obsession continues, providing so much entertainment.
The burning of fossi fuels removes o2 from the atmosphere and replaces it with co2 and h2o …
Co2 and h20 are better emitters than o2 so the emissivity of the atmosphere increases..
If you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere it will cool more efdiciently and temp will decrease..
Observed reduced drag on satelites is evidence that tbe TOA is contracting..
This is consistent with a cooling atmosphere…
PJ,
I guess this is the sort of thing you mean –
“CO2’s cooling effect
In the lower atmosphere, carbon dioxide acts as an insulating blanket, preventing heat from the surface escaping.
“In the upper atmosphere, CO2 radiates thermal energy back into space, causing a net loss of heat,” says Emmert. “That makes CO2 the primary cooling agent of the thermosphere.””
Hooray! That miracle gas – heats here, cools there – whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want! All hail the marvel that is CO2!
Cheers.
Against sarcasm
The gods themselves
Contend in vain.
Yeah, it creates an IR barrier, warming below, cooling above.
It is very difficult to understand.
“Co2 and h20 are better emitters than o2 so the emissivity of the atmosphere increases..
If you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere it will cool more efdiciently and temp will decrease..”
*
Simple thoughts leading to simple answers to very complex problems never help, like won’t any bue/green plate experiment ever.
Not the atmosphere cools, Philj: the stratosphere does, at a rate of -0.29 C / decade since 1979, according to UAH’s data.
The lower-mid troposphere layer, where actually the major part of IR absorp-tion and reemission processes take place due to the water vapor, in fact is warming, at a rate of 0.13 C / decade, again according to UAH’s data.
Thus your cooling theory isn’t worth half a penny.
Try again.
B,
Peer reviewed. Published in Nature Geoscience, check out the authors. Not a theory, observations differing from model outputs.
You appear to think you know better. Why is this?
Cheers.
No link as usual.
A Google search of the full quotation, e.g. “In the upper atmosphere, CO2 radiates thermal energy back into space, causing a net loss of heat”, sometimes works.
“In the upper atmosphere…”
Exactly what I have shown (I apologise: only to a certain extent, as Roy Spencer’s data solely concerns the ‘lower’ stratosphere).
That CO2’s remissions at an altitude of 20-50 km MUST have a cooling effect: who ver would doubt about that?
But PhilJ meant something quite different. I’m not stupid enough to miss something like that.
I was simply trying to help Svante, as he complained that a link had not been provided.
Give my regards to your team.
It confirms what I just said.
It’s evidence of the enhanced GHG theory.
https://tinyurl.com/yymztnfl
Yes, that’s what it says. Mike already quoted the exact same section, as you can see by scrolling upwards a tad.
Good, all agree.
I doubt Mike agrees that it is “evidence of the enhanced GHG theory”, I think his reason for bringing it up are the other parts of the article, dealing with PhilJ’s claims about “observed reduced drag on satelites is evidence that tbe TOA is contracting…this is consistent with a cooling atmosphere…”, but I could be wrong.
S,
The only enhanced GHE theory is in your fevered imagination. Feel free to agree with yourself as much as you like.
Maybe you can turn your fantasy into fact, if you agree with yourself enough, but I doubt it.
Let me know how you get on, if you wish.
Cheers.
Hey, all.
“In the lower atmosphere, carbon dioxide acts as an insulating blanket, preventing heat from the surface escaping.”
That statement did not come from Dr. Emmert, the lead author of the Nature Geoscience space junk paper. It came from ABC reporter Stuart Gray.
There is every reason to suspect that more CO2 cannot do any more insulating in the lower troposphere, because all radiation capable of being absorbed has already been absorbed and it causes convection. There is no further heat that can escape. If anything, it will escape more readily due to increased convection.
It’s the TOA temperature that matters, not how the heat gets there. The enhanced GHE is determined by the lapse rate.
I can’t tell if you mean well, but just can’t see the whole picture or just playing an annoying game. Everything matters, especially hot the heat gets there or doesn’t get there.
What is your definition of an enhanced GHE?
Effects determine things, generally not the other way around.
The top of the atmosphere would be higher than the thermosphere which in terms of distance is about 1/2 way to the top of the atmosphere. The thermosphere is very hot in terms the velocity
of air molecules, but is considered to have no temperature in terms of the air being able to warm anything, such as thermometer or say a brick. So if something was -20 C, the gas would heat it, but sunlight would heat it, and the radiant energy from Earth could cause some heating. Or a thermometer in the shade would depend on how good the shade was.
Or thermosphere like space has no temperature, or it’s very similar environment as TOA in that it has “no temperature”.
Of course lower in atmosphere, it might be -50 C, and a -20 C brick would be cooled by the colder air. Whereas thermosphere gases are not cooling objects or thermosphere is warmer as it is not cooling as much as with denser air at -50 C.
One might ask at what point in atmosphere, does colder air, not cool warmer objects.
Does anyone know?
And it seems at that point in the atmosphere, it does matter what the temperature of air is. Or increasing that air temperature has some warming effect.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“I cant tell if you mean well, but just cant see the whole picture or just playing an annoying game.”
Pursuit of happiness yes, but not to the detriment of others. It will not work out well unless we face facts and use our brains. Some pragmatism might help.
“What is your definition of an enhanced GHE?”
I mean this:
http://tinyurl.com/yxosgleq
It depends on the lapse rate which is mainly determined by convection. There are legitimate objections, but I see few of them around here.
Svante,
At the point your link begins (about 13:33), your guy says this:
“The more greenhouse gases that are above your head, the further above your head that -18 deg level is, which means when you come back down through the atmosphere you end up with a higher temperature when you get to the ground than you do when that -18 deg layer is closer to the ground.”
Ok, where has this -18 deg level been measured and when did the change in the level get measured with the added CO2? This is all speculation. Has any of that cartoon stuff been validated?
Convection alters the lapse rate, but it doesn’t create it. The lapse rate doesn’t disappear at night when convection subsides. That’s an objection and there are plenty others if you want to find them. I became a skeptic by thinking like a warmist and realized I couldn’t back up all the AGW speculation. Would it work the other way around? Pretend you are a skeptic and try convince yourself you are wrong.
Chic,
Svante seems to be besotted with the notion that linking to amateur videos by nutty professors has some esoteric meaning.
He doesn’t believe –
“The lapse rate is the rate at which an atmospheric variable, normally temperature in Earth’s atmosphere, changes with altitude.”
Given that the base of the atmosphere is well above 4 K, and the nominal temperature at the other is about 4 K, a thermal gradient must exist. The rate at which temperature changes (or lapses) is what is being measured. Of course, as the atmosphere gets thinner, its heat capacity drops,
The usual concept of temperature becomes meaningless.
Pseudoscience has its own bizarre methods. No fixed definitions, faith considered superior to fact, and adulation of self appointed prophets.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Chic Bowdrie
YOU: “Convection alters the lapse rate, but it doesnt create it. The lapse rate doesnt disappear at night when convection subsides.”
I disagree with you on this. Convection IS what creates the lapse rate. At night the lapse rate is reduced but in short time does not go away because air is a really good insulator. If you stop convection the lapse rate will gradually disappear and become more isothermal but it does take time.
Here is what happens when night is long (Arctic winter). The lapse rate goes away.
Look at Figure 2 of this article.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281983%29040%3C2278%3AOTFOCP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Also some material on the lapse rate:
https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/class/ess124/Lecture.6.stability.all.pdf
This one shows how night changes the lapse rate.
Norman,
The papers you link to don’t indicate any reason not to conclude that weather conditions, things like warming of the surface by sunlight and wind blowing cold air around, will alter the lapse rate but not create its average. Space is cold and the Earth surface is always warmer, so no matter what the weather is, there will always be a lapse rate. We can discuss what causes its magnitude, but the sun would have to be stone cold before an isothermal lapse rate of zero cold happen.
Chic Bowdrie
The isothermal region of the atmosphere is already there. About 10 KM of isothermal just above the Troposphere into the Stratosphere before Ozone warms things up. Convection has stopped and there is not lapse rate in this region even with a normal Sun.
In the polar air I linked to, this is very calm air, no motion taking place yet, the air above is moving toward isothermal conditions since convection is not active. Slow process since only conduction is moving the heat energy around.
Norman,
Pardon me for not specifying the tropospheric lapse rate. I’m wondering what import the higher altitudes are. The 10 km isothermal region you describe is not global and very cold nonetheless.
Notice in Fig 2 of the Curry paper that deviations from a “normal” lapse rate occur at altitudes less than 3 km. The weather event being modeled is a cold front moving into Alaska from the north (a polar vortex invasion?). Obviously convection is not possible because the ground is colder than the air. Unfortunately, no down radiation to the rescue.
Convection is not setting the lapse rate. When it warms up, the lapse rate will go back to normal ranges. Set by what do you think? Obviously convection can’t make up its mind what the lapse rate should be.
“The 10 km isothermal region you describe is not global and very cold nonetheless.”
The standard atm. isothermal region IS global for the midlatitude tropics.
Yes, other factors than convection influence the lapse rate.
It is reduced by latent heat, and increased by GHGs.
https://tinyurl.com/y4kd6ouw
In any case it is well known and well measured, and it is the basis for the GHE. There is a lapse rate feedback, but it seems to be small.
There is no measurement of the height difference AFAIK, one C is about 150 m.
The video is just applying well known physics.
There are plenty of measurements, but nothing as straight forward as you like. This one compares surface and satellite measurements:
https://tinyurl.com/y5cg83ps
The issue is complicated by feed-backs, you can argue about them. UAH commenter Kristian has an interesting non-GHG argument (and a nice GHE diagram) here:
https://tinyurl.com/y5vl77yp
Svante,
Are you trying to answer what sets the lapse rate? If so, try again. Oh, wait. Please don’t.
And don’t do your research on a warmist blog if you are trying to argue with a skeptic. You are just going to get the standard warmist view which ignores any other point of view, especially mine.
Of course average lapse rates are well known and affected by sunlight, humidity, evaporation, convection, conduction, clouds, you name it. But the base line is set by gravity, pressure, and/or the mass and heat capacity of air. It might be the basis of your concept of GHE, but that is warmist speculation. You haven’t even stated which definition of it you are referring to. It will be different every time you measure it. I don’t need you to tell me who has measured it and where. /rant off.
I won’t argue with you about a lapse rate feedback. Never heard of it, unless you are referring to the change in the absolute values of the TOA and surface temperatures while the average lapse rate stays constant. Feel free to enlighten me.
Good point Chic, don’t trust blogs.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Svante babbles: “It’s the TOA temperature that matters…”
Hey Svante, what is the altitude and temperature of your “TOA”, since “it matters”?
When discussing TOA in the context of the GHE it is the altitude at which the atmosphere is thin enough to allow GHGs to radiate to space.
This is detectable on radiosonde traces as the altitude at which the temperature reaches a minimum and then starts to warm again, usually around 10km.
https://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm
Dr Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team is referring to a different
top of the atmosphere, the 400-500km altitude at which the atmosphere is thin enough to blend into interplanetary space.
Huh? I’m not referring to anything. How is it I always get dragged into these things?
JDHuffman says:
“Hey Svante, what is the altitude and temperature of your ‘TOA'”.
It is at 255K on average, i.e. in the middle troposphere. It’s different at different frequencies of course. Find out here:
http://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Svante claims TOA is “in the middle troposphere”.
Svante, why does YOUR TOA differ from NASA’s TOA?
Do you have your pseudoscience messed up again?
Just how many TOA’s are there, for goodness’ sake?
What is the point? It is obviously irrelevant if no one definition is accepted by all GHE believers. Who cares?
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the atmosphere cools each night in the absence of sunlight, whether the stupid and ignorant accept the fact or not.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just more deny, divert, and confuse.
Cheers.
CB wrote:
No, the CO2 bands are not saturated in the troposphere. And, CO2 in the lower atmosphere does more than absorb, it also radiates. Upward convection is indeed the major pathway which moves energy from the surface to higher pressure levels, but upward convection is balanced with downward motions to complete the cool. The down welling air tends to be dry and clear of clouds, thus providing a pathway for IR emissions in the upward direction.
Ultimately, the upward convective energy transportation stops at the tropopause and thermal IR EM radiation then moves that energy the rest of the way out of the atmosphere to deep space. The greenhouse gases are the source for that radiation which doesn’t move thru the atmospheric window.
E. Swanson,
“No, the CO2 bands are not saturated in the troposphere.”
True, but that doesn’t stop the convection. As long as the air is sufficiently dense, absorp.tion will exceed emissions, bulk air will warm by collision of excited CO2 molecules, and convection will proceed until the air is as warm above as below. That is up there and up there means emissions are likely to exceed absorp.tions where more CO2 should facilitate cooling.
“The down welling air tends to be dry and clear of clouds, thus providing a pathway for IR emissions in the upward direction.”
I don’t see a warming mechanism there.
“[IR active] gases are the source for that radiation which doesn’t move thru the atmospheric window.”
Yes, in summary, CO2 cools by thermalization and convection below and by radiation above. No obvious warming effect due to more CO2.
Chic Bowdrie
You may be neglecting one factor.
YOU: “Yes, in summary, CO2 cools by thermalization and convection below and by radiation above. No obvious warming effect due to more CO2.”
You forget the emission of the warm CO2 in the lower atmopshere. This emission is what is leading to a higher surface steady state temperature.
Here are a couple graphs I made up to show the effect. You can play with this resource to see what you can come up.
This one shows you what happens when the DWIR goes up. The surface air is warmer.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c6a2627d198e.png
This one is of April 4, 2018 at Desert Rock. I am looking at the night temperature and DWIR. The DWIR is below 300 W/m^2 and the air temperature is between 10-12 C.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c6a25b0bdfb1.png
Same location one day later. The DWIR is above 300 W/m^2 and almost 350 at times. The temperature is between 15 and 16 C at night.
Chic Bowdrie
The basic point I am making is that if you add more CO2 you increase the number of emitters at a given air temperature. This will increase the DWIR which will be absorbed by the surface adding energy to the surface that would be less with less CO2.
Here is the document that discusses this issue.
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
Please take the time to look at Figure 1 of this article. It shows the emissivity of CO2 based upon its concentration. So if you have less CO2 in the lower atmosphere the emissivity goes down and at the same temperature you have less DWIR.
Chic Bowdrie
This one gives the contribution of DWIR from CO2
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/img47.gif
Norman finds some more links he can’t understand.
Nothing new.
Norman,
The day to day CO2 concentration doesn’t change. Any changes in DWIR and UWIR are caused by surface temperatures and clouds. DWIR and UWIR are the result not the cause of surface temperatures.
norman…”This one gives the contribution of DWIR from CO2″
And I have pointed out to you a few times that the y-axis is in MILLIwatts. When you integrate over the wavenumbers related to CO2, the radiance comes to about 5% of all surface radiation. I’d hate to see the percentage of solar radiation…maybe about 0.00000000000001%.
Besides, they don’t list the temperatures of the radiating CO2. Anything from a source cooler than the surface, which is essentially all of it, is not absorbed.
These graphs are jokes trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible. Or a gulli-bull, as B. Bunny used to claim.
They have the WV spectrum shown way off to the side as if it radiates much less than WV but the truth is that the WV spectrum overlaps the CO2 spectrum and it is not possible to extract the latter’s spectrum.
This graph is a sci-fi attempt at fiction similar to artists trying to draw fictitious planets around a distant star.
Gordon Robertson
Please have a little mercy. You are on autopilot, you never understood the graph in the past even though I spent some good time explaining it to you!!
Is it possible to have a decent intelligent conversation with you? I don’t know.
The y-axis is in milliwatts/cm-1 steradian. You have to add all the individual cm-1 x-axis to find the total energy.
I have calculated it for you before it is in the watt/m^2 range. I won’t waste anymore time explaining this to you.
You do not want to learn it and come on the blog like a biting sow pretending like you know something. Please learn before you post. Not that you will, you are long gone in your fantasy world of make believe physics and will not allow the real material to reach your thoughts.
You don’t understand relativity even though gallopingcamel has been kind enough to explain he actually worked on the design of a device that required the relativity equations to work. No amount of evidence, reason, experiment or logic is able to affect you religious belief on how right you are and how the rest of the entire scientific world is a bunch of misguided fools.
Chic Bowdrie
I was not giving the example of the Desert to prove that the slow increase in CO2 was the cause. I know it is the clouds that caused the increase in the DWIR they closed the atmosphere window.
However I gave you a link to show how concentration of CO2 does change the emissivity of this gas.
If you looked at the E. Swanson experiment. Say the green plate is full of holes so that a large amount of IR moves through the green plate and the green plate has less radiating surface and has less energy warming it, the heated blue plate would be cooler in this case. Now start filing the holes in and the blue plate will reach higher temperatures until you get to the actual tested temperatures where there are not holes.
As you add CO2 the emissivity goes up. That means you will increase the DWIR for the same atmosphere temperature.
DWIR are not just a product of the surface temperature. DWIR is a product of also how much radiating material is in the atmosphere. The atmosphere temperature is controlled to some extent by the surface but the DWIR is a product of both air temperature and concentration of emitting molecules.
CB, The radiation emitted by CO2 in any layer occurs in all directions. That which is not re-absorbed then leaves the layer doing so in equal amounts upward and downward. Increasing CO2 results in more thermal IR EM radiation IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
Norman,
There are no holes for CO2 to plug up. All the surface IR energy available to CO2 molecules is sucked up and thermalized in the lower troposphere. Next year it will be the same although the average altitude for the same percentage of energy thermalized might be up a notch. Convection will account for that, at least enough to make it impossible for any measurements to conclude that the additional CO2 makes any difference. The amount of sunlight absorbed is what’s drives temperatures. Just like how much HVAC systems control your home temps.
E. Swanson,
What fraction of the radiation absorbed by CO2 molecules is emitted at any given location? How far does any radiation emitted at a given altitude go before it is absorbed?
Have you ever heard anyone discuss back conduction? How is it any different than back radiation?
CB, To answer your questions about CO2 emissions and absorp_tion, one needs to go to the models, since real world tests in the atmosphere would be difficult, given all the variables. The amount emitted is a function of temperature, so the rate emitted may not equal that absorbed.
I have no clue what you mean by “back conduction”, since the 2nd Law applies and the energy can not flow from cold to hot without some “other influence”, like a heat pump. But, radiation and conduction are different processes that employ different physics.
E. Swanson,
Let me know when the models get validated sufficiently to answer my questions about radiation.
If back radiation occurs, why not back conduction? Instead of keeping the green plate away from the blue plate, move your green plate up against the previously equilibrated and continually heated blue plate. Won’t the green plate make the blue plate warmer? Explain why that isn’t back conduction.
There would now be one bluegreen plate not two plates, the equilibrium temperature will be the same (244K) but the difference in mass will mean the time to reach equilibrium will be different than the first time.
norman…”The y-axis is in milliwatts/cm-1 steradian. You have to add all the individual cm-1 x-axis to find the total energy”.
That has been down and it comes out to about 25 watts/m^2 total, which I think is bs. That 25 watts is about 5% of all the surface radiation.
As I pointed out, solar radiation at the surface is many, many times the CO2 back radiation. And…solar energy comes from a source many^nth power hotter than the surface, therefore it is absorbed.Back-radiation from CO2 in temperatures as low as -50C cannot radiate energy that the surface will absorb.
2nd law.
swannie…”Increasing CO2 results in more thermal IR EM radiation IN BOTH DIRECTIONS”.
Yes…but it is not absorbed in both directions!!!!
IR can only be absorbed by a cooler object if the radiating object is hotter.
swannie…”I have no clue what you mean by back conduction, since the 2nd Law applies and the energy can not flow from cold to hot without some other influence, like a heat pump. But, radiation and conduction are different processes that employ different physics”.
Bullfeathers!!! All energy…and I mean ALL energy…can only transfer from a state of higher potential to a state of lower potential. Water can only flow by its own means downhill. Boulders can only fall down off a cliff under their own steam. Electric current can only flow from a higher potential EMF to a lower potential EMF.
Radiation and convection are no different. With radiation, IR can move only from a state of higher potential AND be absorbed in a state of lower potential. Here, potential refers to temperature. IR cannot be emitted by a body at lower temperature and be absorbed by a body at higher temperature.
That is the very basis of Bohr’s work in quantum theory. He stated clearly that in order for an electron to absorb a quantum of energy, that energy had to meet the requirements of the electron vis-a-vis E = hf.
Here, E is the difference in potential between electron energy orbitals. If Equanta does not fit the difference between the orbital energy level of the electron and the level to which it must rise, the radiation is rejected.
It is not possible for radiation from a colder object to meet the requirements of an electron in a hotter object. The energy from the colder body is rejected.
That upholds the 2nd law, and both Planck and Boltzmann respected the 2nd law as laid out by Clausius.
Gordo, In your fanaticism, you are ignoring physics again. Yes, the energy of a photon is a function of the wavelength/frequency. For a black body, there’s a range of wavelengths emitted which is a function of temperature, as defined by Planck’s Law. That range could easily overlap that of another body which is somewhat cooler, thus the cooler body will emit some radiation which will be absorbed by the warmer body. That’s because a body which emits thermal IR EM radiation at some combination of temperature and wavelength will also absorb at that wavelength.
Your comment regarding Bohr and quantum theory fits this interpretation precisely. Where’s it stated that all thermal IR EM from a cooler body will be “rejected” or “ignored” by the warmer body, as you have claimed? That result would require that photons from a cooler body at a particular wavelength would be different somehow from photons emitted by the warmer body, even though they exhibit the same energy level, aka: wavelength.
Gordon Robertson
You like to make up pure garbage physics don’t you. You are not able to prove anything at all you claim. But you keep claiming it.
You have empirical evidence with the graph and you just reject it because it does not fit your make believe reality. No reason to reject it but you do.
You have been told many times of what Clausius actually said about the 2nd Law but you make up what you think he was saying. Over an over you make up stuff. Never proving even one scrap of your garbage pile of useless information.
You and JDHuffman. Two peas in the same pod. Horrible for rational skeptics. You both make up tons of garbage physics but neither of you attempts to prove any of it in any way. And you repeat your made up physics over and over thinking that gives it credibility.
Does not matter what anyone tells you, what evidence they produce. You will ignore it and continue to post your made up fantasies. Maybe they come to you in a dream.
E. Swanson, Norman, please stop trolling.
ES,
The readily observed fact that the surface cools at night apparently escapes your notice.
All your sciencey sounding bafflegab is irrelevant. CO2 can be heated, just like any other matter. Its spectroscopic properties are mostly irrelevant. If allowed to do so, it will cool, emitting progressively longer wavelengths as it does so, all the way to absolute zero.
Maybe pseudoscientific physics is different, and CO2 has the magical ability to make thermometers hotter.
I doubt it.
Cheers.
MF, Yes, the Earth cools at night, and, as you have noted, it also cools during the day. The effect of CO2 (and other Greenhouse gases) is to slow the rate of cooling, not stop it. Increasing CO2 will result in warmer minimum temperatures. That’s why locations with lots of moisture in the air, such as the tropics or temperate areas in summer, cool less at night than relatively dry desert areas.
swannie…”The effect of CO2 (and other Greenhouse gases) is to slow the rate of cooling, not stop it”.
Not possible. Cooling of the surface is addressed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation where the rate of cooling is controlled by the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere immediately adjacent to it.
That atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, therefore it is the temperature of those two that decides the cooling rate of the surface. At 0.04%, CO2 does not even factor into the equation.
Gordo, Funny thing, reality tells us that under moist conditions, the atmosphere cools less during the night than under very dry conditions. Please explain how your comment fits reality.
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . How hot is that country? . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
To know how global warming will affect a country, you need to know what the country’s current temperatures are, for the average hottest month, the average month, and the average coldest month.
But the IPCC, and Alarmists in general, don’t want you to believe that. They want you to believe that ALL warming is “BAD”. And that ANY warming is “BAD” for EVERY country, no matter what that country’s climate is.
Next time that you talk to an Alarmist, ask them if global warming is “bad” for Russia (temperature data for Russia is shown in the article).
====================
This article contains 3 graphs, and 1 table.
The table is at the end of this article, and lists all 216 countries in alphabetical order, along with the region, population, and temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.
The 3 graphs each list all 216 counties, along with a bar graph showing the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month, for each country.
====================
It is fun just browsing through the graphs, seeing the temperatures of the different countries, and trying to explain why different countries have different temperatures.
But eventually, you will probably want to look up a particular country (like the country that you live in). Because there are 216 countries, you might find it hard to find a particular country. You can use your knowledge of a countries temperatures, to help you to locate it on a graph.
If you live in Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Chad, Qatar, Sudan, Niger, or Pakistan, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average hottest month, then I suggest that you look at the bottom of the graph (they all have high average hottest months).
If you live in Mongolia, Russia, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Canada, Finland, Kyrgyzstan, or Armenia, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average coldest month, then I suggest that you look at the top of the graph (they all have low average coldest months).
If you live in England (which is listed under the country name “United Kingdom”), then I have to say “bad luck”. Not everybody can live in a country with nice temperatures. I am just joking. But United Kingdom actually has the 7th lowest average hottest month temperature (+19.8 degrees Celsius, that is colder than Finland, and Russia). I lived in London for about a year, and I was amazed at how nearly everyone in England gets badly sunburned, whenever there is a sunny day. It is because they don’t get many sunny days, so they like to enjoy them, when they occur.
====================
Time to get serious again. You can’t search for a country using the browsers “find” function, because the graphs and the table are all pictures. But there is a fairly easy way to find a particular country. Look it up in the alphabetical table at the end of this article. Memorize (or if you are like me, write down) the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.
To find the particular country on the graph sorted by the hottest month, find the countries average hottest month, in the hottest month “continuum”. The country will be near that position, in the hottest month “continuum”.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country
Mike Flynn, there’s something fishy about this here CO2.
Temperature goes up when you put CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer.
https://tinyurl.com/yyhnkr8y
Does it have magical properties Mike?
Svante,
You really are a gullible true believer, aren’t you? Do you really not realise any gas can be heated to any temperature you like? I won’t bother explaining specific heats, and other physical and optical properties of gases. No magic involved.
You wrote –
“Temperature goes up when you put CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer.”
No, it doesn’t. As usual, the dimwits attempting to show the non-existent GHE, measure the temperature of the heated gas. Real experimenters, such as John Tyndall, go to a deal of trouble to put the CO2 between the heat source and the thermometer.
Suckers like you never learn. Even when the trick is explained, you keep falling for it.
Now you understand why the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and why the temperature falls at night. Actually, fanatics don’t bother facing facts. They have faith – just like you.
What a Wally you are!
Cheers.
Weather stations do not have their thermometers stuck in the ground, they are in the air, so it’s a similar situation.
Why are the temperatures different in the different chambers?
Svante,
Be sure to include your irrelevant factoid, and the accompanying gotcha in your imaginary GHE description. Throw in a few pointless videos – from a nutty professor, a special effects team, and a fake science guy, and you are on your way.
Let me know when your GHE description is ready. Additional enjoyment doesn’t seem to have many adverse side effects.
Cheers.
svante…”Weather stations do not have their thermometers stuck in the ground, they are in the air, so its a similar situation”.
So you’re claiming that a room heated by forced air or radiant heat would not warm or cool if all CO2 was removed from the room, or all WV and CO2?
If you don’t agree with that, then it must be the nitrogen and oxygen making up 99% of the room air that does the warming and cooling.
But how is that possible, you claim, if N2/O2 cannot absorb or radiate IR?
Go on svante, you can figure it out.
Huh?
Svante, please stop trolling.
“Now you understand why the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and why the temperature falls at night. Actually, fanatics dont bother facing facts. ”
Mike does an excellent job of demonstrating how fanatics don’t bother facing facts.
Facts that Mike refuses to face:
Mike: ‘The Earth has cooled….’ so it cannot NOW be warming.
FACT: Mike fails at ordinary logic.
Mike: ‘The temperature falls as night’, so the Earth cannot be warming, and does not retain heat.
FACT: Mike fails at logic, and denies facts.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Must be because there’s more CO2 in some chambers than others. Right Svante?
Yes, I think you are right.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie
You made two interesting remarks upthread:
1. “There is a disconnect occurring somewhere between a cold body cant heat (cause a net transfer of energy to) a warmer one to the green plate makes the blue plate warmer than it would otherwise be to an increase in CO2 causes the surface to be warmer than it otherwise would be.
You probably agree with all three statements. I agree with only the first two.”
I agree with you as far as this plate experiment (introduced by Joshua Halpern aka Eli Rabett) is a very bad discussion platform, which led on this blog (and maybe elsewhere) to endless blind-alleys.
It is as useless as are the trials to explain Moon’s spin or non-spin on the basis of simple-minded examples (horses, dimes, etc) instead of carefully reading papers about it written by really experienced people.
*
2. “There is every reason to suspect that more CO2 cannot do any more insulating in the lower troposphere, because all radiation capable of being absorbed has already been absorbed and it causes convection. There is no further heat that can escape. If anything, it will escape more readily due to increased convection.”
I fully agree to what you write. I also think that CO2’s radiative action is inexistent in the troposphere.
We can see in SpectralCalc, when comparing H2O and CO2 (scaled by atmospheric abundance), that H2O keeps dominant up to an altitude of 5 km.
If CO2 has any activity, then this can only happen where H2O becomes inexistent due to precipitation.
But even if CO2 absorbs/reemits about 10^6 times better than O2 and N2 (again wrt atmospheric abundance), SpectralCalc’s plots for 0 / 5 / 10 km nevertheless show how incredibly tiny CO2’s action at the surface is in comparison with that of H2O.
I therefore don’t understand why people try to establish a direct correlation between its atmospheric concentration and the planet’s temperature. What a nonsense!
*
Btw, a beautiful paper about convection:
https://soaringmeteo.org/CBL.pdf
*
The more I read your comments, the more I get the impression that, like e.g. commenter gallopingcamel, you manage to propagate sound skepticism. Thank you for that.
Bindidon,
The moon spin business was a titillating diversion, but not useful for the more relevant discussions here on climate change. At least the plate experiment forces one to learn or review heat transfer.
“I therefore dont understand why people try to establish a direct correlation between its atmospheric concentration and the planets temperature. What a nonsense!”
If my agenda was political power, wealth distribution, or some other unscientific motivation, AGW is a clever tool to achieve those ends.
That convection article is great. It illustrates not just the simple warm air rises principle, but all the ramifications due to wind and topography. Beautiful, thanks.
A last precision.
“If my agenda was political power, wealth distribution, or some other unscientific motivation, AGW is a clever tool to achieve those ends.”
Sure, and I see consequences of this every day. Some newspapers begin to think and to write CO2 is exactly as dangerous for health as are NOx, SOx or soot particles.
*
But this does not at all mean for me that AGW does not exist. My impression is that it will first become perceptible in a few decades.
Thus, actually saying:
“CO2 increased by x between a and b. The warming during that period is due to CO2”
or
“There was no warming between a and b but CO2 increased by x during that period, thus CO2 doesn’t cause warming”
is in both cases a nonsense for me.
B,
You wrote –
“But this does not at all mean for me that AGW does not exist. My impression is that it will first become perceptible in a few decades.”
Any AGW obviously has nothing to with CO2, in that case. Nature has demonstrated that CO2 at very high levels, combined with four and a half billion years of sunlight, has not stopped the Earth cooling.
I would be interested in learning the reason you formed your impression about warming to come.
Cheers.
I think the best will be to ignore the insulting ignorants…
…said Bindidon, insultingly.
Chic says: “The moon spin business was a titillating diversion, but not useful for the more relevant discussions here on climate change.”
Wrong, Chic. You just don’t understand the issues. The Moon issue reveals the cultism that exists. Almost without exception, the Warmists stick to the dogma of Institutionalized Pseudoscience. They are unable to think for themselves. For example, they would look at a diagram with temperature labels, and determine that there were no temperatures. Pseudoscience definitely affects how people use their minds.
So the Moon issue is VERY relevant.
binnyy…”I agree with you as far as this plate experiment (introduced by Joshua Halpern aka Eli Rabett) is a very bad discussion platform, which led on this blog (and maybe elsewhere) to endless blind-alleys.
It is as useless as are the trials to explain Moons spin or non-spin on the basis of simple-minded examples (horses, dimes, etc) instead of carefully reading papers about it written by really experienced people”.
Or…you are, as I have claimed many times, a blithering idiot.
There are no blind alleys in the discussion about the blue plate/green plate, it comes down to one basic principle. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body (green plate) to a hotter body (blue plate).
Case closed.
Anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics gets that but you don’t.
With respect to the Moon problem, I laid it out for you using coins and you’re such an idiot you still did not get it. You are such a suck to authority that you cannot do a simple experiment with coins for yourself to test it. Rather you go running off to textbooks from LaGrange, etc., where the topic being covered was a tiny ‘apparent’ rotation of the Moon called libration.
Again, anyone with a basic understanding of the pertinent physics gets it immediately that the Moon has no local angular velocity therefore it cannot turn on its axis.
Gordo repeats his endless delusions. See my post above.
The Moon rotates in an inertial reference frame, which is the only measure against which to determine angular velocity and momentum.
No Swanson, angular velocity and momentum are not measured against the inertial reference frame. They are measured against the point the object is rotating around.
For example, Earth is rotating (orbiting) around the Sun, and rotating on its own axis. The Moon is rotating (orbiting) around Earth, but NOT rotating on its own axis.
It can be confusing, if you do not understand the relevant physics.
JD, how did you determine the Earth is “rotating on its own axis”?
There is a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates, long before there was “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”.
So JD, “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” is NOT “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”. How so?
“Institutionalized Pseudoscience”, especially in areas such as AGW and the Moon, is not based on valid science. IP is quite content to mislead, deceive, and trick people, just as you do.
Hmmm, for the Earth rotating on its own axis there is “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” and for the moon rotating on its own axis and AGW there is “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” but somehow for AGW and the moon the “large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” is termed “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”.
This is puzzling, JD. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Yes fluffball, mixing your beliefs with reality would cause you to be puzzled.
So JD will not elaborate on why sometimes “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” IS “Institutionalized Pseudoscience” and sometimes “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” is NOT “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”.
ball4…”JD, how did you determine the Earth is rotating on its own axis?
Easy. Sit outside for a while after dark and watch a constellation. Right now, Orion appears low in the eastern sky after dark. By midnight, it is the western sky.
Did the night sky rotate around the Earth, or did the Earth turn on its axis?
During the day, there is the Sun, Does a massive blazing sphere of gas rotate around the Earth, or vice-versa? Keplerian physics, along with Newton, tells us a mass the size of the Sun could not be captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
Gordo wrote:
As I’ve explained to you guys before, the background of stars is an inertial reference frame. If you were to place an observer on the Moon, perhaps a camera near the “Equator” pointed toward the stars, it would show the Moon rotating with respect to the stars. How does it feel to eat your own words?.
That’s because the Moon orbits around Earth, Swanson.
You have a lot to learn.
Gordon 6:58pm copies: “JD, how did you determine the Earth is rotating on its own axis?’
How does Gordon determine the Moon is rotating on its own axis?
Easy. Gordon sits outside for a while after dark and watches a constellation. Right now, Orion appears low in the eastern sky after dark. By midnight, Orion is in the western sky.
Did the night sky rotate around the Moon, or did the Moon turn on its axis?
Right Gordon, the Moon is rotating on its own axis by Gordons logic just like Earth rotates on its own axis by Gordon’s logic.
For JD, that’s “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
swannie…”The Moon rotates in an inertial reference frame, which is the only measure against which to determine angular velocity and momentum”.
You are just as deluded about this as you are the 2nd law.
Inertial frames are human constructs that exist only in the minds of humans. In the mental domain, particularly via thought-experiments, anything is possible, but not in the real world.
We are not talking about imaginary rotations about an axis, we are talking about the actual rotation about an axis. That requires an angular velocity about the axis and there is none on the Moon, which always has the same face toward the Earth.
What you are imagining with your reference frames is an illusion common to the human mind. In there delusions, some replying here have claimed a horse running a track must be running backwards at some point. They cannot begin to fathom how a horse could run a track with the same side facing the track without rotating on its COG at the same time.
Your mentor Eli Rabbett has similar delusions. He has deluded himself into believing that IR and heat are one and the same and that the 2nd law applies equally to EM as it does to heat.
He has expressed the view, that if heat can only be transferred one way from a hotter body to a cooler body, via radiation, that one body must have stopped radiating.
I am not trying to be unkind swannie I am trying to bring to your attention that you are seeing things via your thought process that are not happening. Hopefully, you are not so deluded that you believe the Sun actually rises in the morning and sets at night.
Gordo, To measure rotation , one must first establish a non-rotating coordinate system against which to measure the angular rotation. That coordinate system is called an “inertial reference frame”. See my post above.
You aren’t being unkind, you are being a moron.
Swanson, you are choosing the wrong frame of reference. The Moon is orbiting Earth. The Earth is the frame of reference. The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. The reference is a vertical line through its center of mass.
You’ve got a lot to learn.
Huffingman, Here’s a thought for you. If the Moon isn’t rotating, as you all claim, it has no axis. Learn some dynamics.
–E. Swanson says:
February 19, 2019 at 8:05 AM
Huffingman, Here’s a thought for you. If the Moon isn’t rotating, as you all claim, it has no axis. Learn some dynamics.–
The Moon’s axis angle is relative to the sun.
To have axis angle to the Sun- the object does not have to spin, rather a pole has point at sun and 1/2 year later point away from the Sun. And this is what the Moon does.
Or the Moon has seasons of winter, spring, summer, and fall.
The angle is 1.5 degrees so the Moon does not as large difference in it’s seasons as compared to Earth.
gbaikie…”The Moon’s axis angle is relative to the sun”.
We humans like to fancy ourselves in our stupidity and imagine ourselves at the centre of the universe, with everything, including the Sun moving around us.
As the centre of ‘everything’ we have projected our North-South poles into space to form a celestial sphere coordinate system with North pointing at Polaris. Then we imagine the Sun rotating about the Earth on another plane called the ecliptic, which is tilted 23.5 degrees to the celestial equator, a plane projected through our Equator.
What damned arrogance. Why do we allow the stupid, ego-centred part of the human mind to dominate our thinking? We have a perfectly good system of awareness which allows us to see what is really going on in the universe yet we persist with this egocentric nonsense.
I am being a bit harsh, we can use such a system to orient ourselves on Earth. However, when we expand our horizons, so to speak, our current system of celestial navigation turns into a mind-bending nightmare.
In reality, in a local sense, the Sun is our focal point. The Sun rotates and has an equator. There is a plane through the Sun’s equator that extends through our solar system with the orbits of all but one of planets within a few degrees of that plane.
The Earth’s orbit is within 5 degrees of that plane, above and below. As we orbit in that plane, our N-S pole axis is tilted 23.5 degrees to our orbital plane. Meantime, the Moon’s orbit is close to the Earth’s equatorial plane.
In our madness, we visualize the “orbit of the Sun” at 23.5 degrees to our equatorial plane. Sheer madness.
So, yes, you can claim the Moon’s axis is relative to the Earth’s orbital plane, which is relative to the Sun’s orbital plane. However, it might give you a headache trying to visualize the axis of the Moon relative to the axis of the Sun, especially while standing on a tangential plane on Earth and trying to figure it out.
swannie…”To measure rotation , one must first establish a non-rotating coordinate system against which to measure the angular rotation. That coordinate system is called an inertial reference frame.”
So, if I’m riding a merry-go-round (carousel for you non-English speakers) I must first establish an inertial reference frame so I can measure the angular velocity of the carousel? I can’t just pick out a friend standing next to the carousel and measure the time on my watch till I get back around to him? Or if I have a wheel turning on a hub, I must first establish a reference frame before I can measure its RPM?
Pick a point on the Moon, the side that always faces us. How long does it take for that point to turn 360 degrees about the Moon’s axis while that face is fixed to the Earth?
It’s as I thought, swannie, you live in an utter world of fantasy. You can’t even figure out the difference between a problem of heat dissipation and a fictitious back-radiation from a colder body that can raise the temperature of a hotter body tat heated it.
swannie…”Heres a thought for you. If the Moon isnt rotating, as you all claim, it has no axis”.
The Moon orbits the Earth in a plane and you can orient the axis of the Moon relative to that plane. Ever heard of an x, y,z coordinate system?
Gordo, You really have no clue about dynamics, do you?
When you’re riding the carousel and pick your friend’s position, you are selecting a reference frame, although not an inertial one because your friend is standing on the Earth, which is also rotating. It’s the same with measuring your wheel’s rotation against a car (or whatever).
Then, you wrote:
The well known answer from astronomy is about 27.32 days.
See this animation from NASA
You go on to add:
Of course, if you select the Moon’s orbital plane to define one axis which is vertical to that plane and one other axis parallel to the major axis of the orbit, you will then find that the Moon is rotating in that coordinate system.
Reference frames are on the “dead squirrel” list. You’ll get there.
Mr Spencer
Barring extreme cold for the rest of the month (which is not forecast) February will be the 86th consecutive month where Sydney’s monthly average has not fallen below the median, in a record going back to 1859. Is that just weather? The probability of that happening by chance alone is 1 in 2^86, ie. 1 in 77 million million million million.
Des, it’s been about that long since UAH global has dipped below 0C anomaly. We’ve seen a long term warming peak, amplified by a major El Niño.
You can bet the next 86 months will see lower temps.
If we get another strong La Nina, yes, which is what we had the last time Sydney went below the median.
Since the 97-98 El Nino, Sydney has had only 8 sub-median months outside La Nina, and none since 2009.
B,
What is your point? Do you believe that the future can be foretold by examination of past records?
Surely you are not that stupid and ignorant. Please feel free to correct me if you believe you are.
Cheers.
They haven’t figured out how to homogenize the future records yet.
Good one, Stephen.
☺
bob…”Is that just weather?”
Bob, old chap, you just live in a weird (and possibly wonderful) part of the world.
Kangaroos, wallabies, emus, koala bears??? Come on, all we around here in Vancouver are moose, which my Scottish relatives think is a large mouse.
Cunning Stunt
You write upthread:
“So maybe you Roy or the others here can tell us what the country’s mean temperature in January was for 1896, and 1902, and 1912, 1942, in 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010 too?”
*
Before answering, I would like to make things clear: I have nothing in common with GWPF, let alone with David Middleton.
*
Well, everybody has access to BoM’s data, but I have enough other sources. Let us consider the GHCN daily record instead:
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
This record has worldwide over 35000 stations having reported temperatures since the very first measurements. About 1600 did for Australia, with currently about 700 of them being still active.
GHCN daily is, in comparison with data coming from GISS, NOAA, CRUTEM, BEST, simply raw data, checked for consistency where possible, but is left ‘as is’, without any modification.
*
Here are GHCN daily’s top 10 anomaly averages over Australia wrt the mean of 1981-2010, for the January months in the period 1880-2018:
2019: 1.49
1882: 1.33
2013: 1.01
1887: 0.96
1988: 0.83
1906: 0.76
2018: 0.75
1896: 0.72
1973: 0.67
2001: 0.64
Apart from 1896, all years you were asking for are below this top 10 list (at positions between 16 and 126 of 139).
*
Thus sorry: Australia experiences surface warming since a few years (0.3 C / decade since the year 2000, compared with 0.12 since 1979), but in my honest opinion, January 2019 really is an outlier, and January 2018 is pretty on par with lots of other years.
The problem is no one trusts it. Is this raw data in 2018 from exactly the same locations, same environment, same conditions, etc. etc. as in 1882? I don’t think you or anyone else can answer that question. And, with all that there is a 0.13C difference. And, this might be the hottest year since 1882. But 1882 must have been pretty damn hot too. And, they didn’t have AC back then.
If anything your raw data find suggests 1882 and 2019 were outliers but makes 2019 unremarkable.
Stephen P Anderson
“Is this raw data in 2018 from exactly the same locations, same environment, same conditions, etc. etc. as in 1882?”
Of course it isn’t, and nobody working with temperature records expects that.
1. Why should all stations survive forever?
2. If stations change their location andf that leads to a change in measurement, be sure that the people managing the station enter that in the station’s data attibutes.
Apart from that, I don’t understand anything of the rest of your comment. What the heck are these strange remakrs for?
Not really difficult to comprehend what I said. You listed a bunch of top 10 averages wrt the mean of 1981 to 2010 and then you stated 2019 as a real outlier. You could also say 1882 was a real outlier. So 2019 is unremarkable-it happened before just recently. But, also these claims that so and so recent year was the highest year on record is somewhat bogus. The record pre 1980 or 1990 or so can’t be compared to the record after 1980 with any meaning because so much has been changed. You can use something like the vostok data and compare temperatures of 1000 years or 100,000 years apart but you can’t compare GHCN data of today with 100 years ago and discern very much from it.
Today, if the stations are recording very detailed procedures, instrumentation, methods, GPS locations, video recording, etc. etc. and it is all transparent then in 100 or 1000 years you could probably make some pretty good comparison/contrasts of the temperatue record.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know what Russia’s average temperature is?
I am guessing, not many.
If you told them that Russia’s average temperature was +0.2 degrees Celsius, how many would have enough science and mathematics knowledge, to say whether that was hot or cold (especially American children, who are not familiar with Celsius).
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russians live at an average temperature, which is near the freezing point of water?
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that the average coldest month in Russia (the coldest winter month), is -21.1 degrees Celsius (yes, that is MINUS 21.1).
I am guessing, not many.
How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russian children are also taking a holiday off school. To demand that the world increases global warming, so that they can survive in the future.
I am guessing, not many.
To increase your knowledge of other countries temperatures (average hottest month, average month, and average coldest month), read the article at this link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country
Very interesting, Sheldon.
UK, with average 9.5C, and USA at average 12.1, are both below globe average of 14.9C.
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of countries above the global average are in Southern Hemisphere.
What percentage do you equate with “vast majority”?
65%, or higher.
65% is a “vast” majority?? Most people would take that to mean more than 90%.
B,
You wrote –
“Most people would take that to mean more than 90%”, although you can’t actually name a vast number.
Why bother asking then, troll?
What would the point be? To prove that you are stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
With Hillary vast majority meant 50%.
B,
I assume that’s a gotcha, rather than a genuine request for knowledge.
What percentage do you equate with “vast majority”, yourself? The IPCC states that 33% – 66% is “more likely than not”. Is that vast, or not?
Obviously, it makes no difference to facts, but I am curious as to why you would bother asking such a stupid question. Did you count the countries in question yourself? If you did, you are just trolling.
If you didn’t, why not just ask how many JDH counted? Did you count the total number? If not, what would the percentage represent, vast or otherwise?
Just how stupid and ignorant are you? In percentage terms, please.
Cheers.
The cyclone is slowly approaching eastern Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Here again a bit of what arrogant persons name ‘Institutionalised Pseudoscience’ but of course without being able to formulate any scientific proof of what they pretend.
The Moons physical librations and determination of their free modes
N. Rambaux, J. G. Williams
Submitted on 26 Apr 2011
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00588671/document
*
I of course anticipate the dumbest of them coming around, insulting me again with his usual “blithering idot” etc etc.
And as he never reads more than an articles’ title (at best its abstract), he will again try to teach me “binny don’t you see they talk about libration, ans not about rotation about the axis”, and again tell me I didn’t understand his ridiculous ‘dime’ example…
Oh Noes.
Try to read and to grasp, instead of discriminating, denigrating and insulting!
P.S. For those who do not understand what is behind things like ‘DE421’ (mainly because they do not (want to) read what they discredit)
Here is more of the Institutionalised Pseudoscience:
Orbital Ephemerides of the Sun, Moon, and Planets
E. Myles Standish and James G. Williams
ftp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/eph/planets/ioms/ExplSupplChap8.pdf
The historical origin of such work has been carefully explained in e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris
Good luck in discrediting all that…
binny…”Good luck in discrediting all that”
There is nothing to discredit. None of your three recent links even talk about the Moon rotating on its axis. Libration is an ‘apparent’ motion, it seems to happen but doesn’t, just like time dilation in General Relativity, or the Sun rising and crossing the sky.
Bindidon is on a roll this morning. He found some more great examples of “IP”.
In the first example, the effort is to claim that librations are due to some imaginary forces.
“The presence of such terms despite damping suggests the existence of some source of stimulation acting in geologically recent times.”
Pure pseudoscience!
They can’t explain the Moon’s motions, because they ignore the simple truth, so they make up some more pseudoscience to match their beliefs.
More funding needed….
You don’t understand what geologically recent means?
In pseudoscience, terms like that mean whatever you want them to mean. And the definitions can change at any time, as needed.
If you want to have some fun, do a search on how many ice ages Earth has experienced. You’ll get answers like zero, 1, 12, 60, 100s, etc.
JD…”If you want to have some fun, do a search on how many ice ages Earth has experienced. Youll get answers like zero, 1, 12, 60, 100s, etc.”
And not one person observed one of them or the extent of ice coverage.
The first example ends with this hint for more funding:
“The new determination of the amplitudes of the free librations invites new investigation of their excitation mechanisms.”
Nothing new.
B,
I have largely refrained from this particular discussion. However, the paper you link to does mention “wobble” more than once.
The authors state that the reasons for observed wobbles of various frequencies remain obscure, although some show reasonable fit with various hypotheses.
The point is that tidal locking of the Moon does not preclude wobbles, if these involve excursions from a point along the line connecting the relative CGs.. I don’t know if this is correct, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is.
Tidal locking and libration don’t appear mutually exclusive, to my mind. I’m not sure what relation this matter has to the supposed GHE.
Cheers.
As already predicted: no trace of any scientific contradiction. Nothing but superficial, condescending remarks.
In my native tongue:
“Les petites phrases assassines d'un vieux professeur aigri qui jamais ne put s'´émanciper de ce que lui-même à grand' peine apprit, et qu'il lui fallut enseigner des décennies durant..”
Anonymous Huffman, it becomes evident that you can’t manage to bring any valuable contradiction to what you call ‘psiudosains’.
But I know: the elder teacher will continue and continue and continue…
Bindidon, you give yourself away with your own comments:
“…no trace of any scientific contradiction. Nothing but superficial, condescending remarks.
Anonymous Huffman, it becomes evident that you can’t manage to bring any valuable contradiction to what you call ‘psiudosains’.”
Bindidon, you are in denial of all of the evidence that people have provided you. It’s bad enough to be so opinionated that you can not see the tree in front of you, but to claim there are no trees just makes you that much more of a clown.
binny…”but of course without being able to formulate any scientific proof of what they pretend.
The Moons physical librations and determination of their free modes
N. Rambaux, J. G. Williams”
You’re far too sensitive. I have been called far worse than a blithering idiot and laughed it off. Where’s your sense of humour?
Again…in the title of your book it refers to librations and their modes. Nothing to do with rotation about an axis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Found this link, which has a series of animations that ought to make it pretty clear that orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the object on the left, in the below:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
Newton’s cannonball is interesting, but it says nothing about spinning or tidal locking, etc. And it prolongs the agony of reading the comments or trying to avoid reading them.
At least whoever owns the postimg.cc website is getting more hits.
“but it says nothing about spinning“
Of course it does. Assume the cannonball is fired without any spin introduced, just fired forwards in a straight line. The animations clearly demonstrate exactly what Gordon explained before:
“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”
It’s probably the clearest and most straightforward visual demonstration of exactly that, that I could imagine showing to you.
Chic and Bindidon demonstrate their willingness to avoid anything that goes against their false beliefs. Chic was unable to see the temperatures, clearly indicated in the diagram of the plates. And now, he can’t understand your comment was about orbital motion. Bindidon now denies all the evidence that has been presented indicating the Moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Plus, since Nate and others insist on hiding upthread with this, I’ll just bring it on down here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
This, apparently, proves the GPE (both the thought experiment, and Swanson’s experiment). Discuss.
This has been tried before. Nate is just desperate.
If they now want to claim the green plate is a specially-engineered object, then that just shows their willingness to constantly change the conditions. Anything to avoid reality.
Nothing new.
Oh, they’re desperate alright. I’ve seen this discussed before on other blogs, but I can’t be bothered going through the motions with them, personally.
‘Discuss’ and JD as usual offers….gibberish.
It’s all happening so fast…now they’re discussing pretty much the same thing down here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342249
JDHuffman
” Bindidon now denies all the evidence that has been presented indicating the Moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Wrong.
1. Not one commenter did ever show any evidence concerning that point, with one exception: Aleksandar Tomic’s article trying to show a Moon theory solely based on gravitation.
But Tomic btw deliberately ignores that Sir Isaac Newton unluckily failed where Lapalce succeeded, namely in establishing differential dynamic tide equations able to exactly model the tides on Earth, the 15 meter tides at Mont-Saint-Michel in France included.
Tesla’s quick thoughts show no evidence at all.
2. I repeat: to convince persons about Moon having no spin, you will have to present articles scientifically contradicting all the work done by Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace, and since the 1970s by persons like Chapront, Migus, Moons, Eckhardt and Kopal.
All you were able to do until today is to discredit and denigrate their work by calling it ‘pseudoscience’.
Case closed for me.
Yes Bindidon, it is “case closed” for you. It was “case closed” before you even started. That’s the advantage you have with your closed mind. You’re always right, in your head.
It doesn’t bother you that there is no proof the Moon rotates on its own axis. If fact, you can clearly observe it does not. In order to “believe” in the pseudoscience, you must twist and distort the definitions. You must also believe a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, on an oval track. You’ll believe anything that comes out of Institutionalized Pseudoscience.
Anyone that challenges your false beliefs gets attacked. You constantly attack Gordon Robinson, but he has never messed up like some others, that you never attack. If they support your pseudoscience, they get a pass. Like the rest, you have no regard for the truth.
Now, more of your sanctimonious rambling, please. A haughty Frenchman makes for an interesting clown.
JDHuffman
I repeat: to convince persons about Moon having no spin, you will have to present articles scientifically contradicting all the work done by Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace, and since the 1970s by persons like Chapront, Migus, Moons, Eckhardt and Kopal (I forgot to add Rambaux and Williams).
All you were able to do until today is to discredit and denigrate their work by calling it ‘pseudoscience’.
And your hint on me believing “a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, on an oval track. ” is completely ridiculous.
None of these racehorse or dime examples are here of any interest.
*
I still await your hints on people having scientifically contradicted the work of the persons cited above.
And as long as you don’t present that, you can insult me a ‘clown’ as long as you want. It does not interest me at all.
Exactly as it does not interest me at all to be named a ‘blithering idiot’ by your adlatus Robertson.
You can reply the same nonsense as long as you want: that won’t change anything.
And, I repeat:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342172
JD,
I think he’s got you on this one. Back up an punt. Wouldn’t it have to rotate on its axis if it orbits the Earth about once per month and the same side is always facing us? You don’t need Cassini, Mayer, LaGrange and LaPlace to figure that one out. Always enjoyed solving LaPlace Transforms by the way.
No Stephen, the fact that we always see the same side is exactly how we know it is NOT rotating on its axis.
An object that is only orbiting, like the Moon, just follows the orbital path, like a racehorse running an oval track.
JDHuffman
YOU: “No Stephen, the fact that we always see the same side is exactly how we know it is NOT rotating on its axis.”
WRONG!! That just tells you it rotates at the same rate it orbits. You have been shown this many times in many ways. Would you at least consider the possibility you are totally wrong and correct your thinking?
The axis is stationary. It doesn’t spin. So, if for instance half way through its orbit around the Earth it still faces us then it would have to have spun half way around its axis.
Stephen, Figure 1 shows orbital motion. Figure 2 would be orbital motion combined with rotating the arrow on its axis, CW, in sync with the orbital rate. That is, there are two motions.
The Moon’s motion is as shown in Figure 1, only one motion.
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
What your diagram doesn’t show is the red arrow is going to be pointing down when it is half way through its orbit. Unless its axis is stationary it had to have rotated around its axis.
Said that wrong. Been drinking a couple of beers. Because the red arrow’s axis is stationary the arrow had to have rotated around its axis. Assume the Sun is way out to the left. The left side of the red arrow is facing the Sun when it is on the right but the right side is facing the Sun when it is on the left. Think of its aspect relative to the Sun.
Stephen, you’re looking at it wrong.
The arrow is following the path dictated by the forces acting on it. It’s exactly the same motion as a racehorse, or a train on an oval track. There is only one motion–orbiting.
Exactly. So suppose a racehorse has an axis running through it. Suppose there is an arrow on the top of the axis. The entire trip around the track the arrow on the top of the axis points in the same direction. It is fixed. At the start of the race it is pointing in the same direction as the horse. You’re positioned in the middle of the track. The arrow on the top of the horse’s axis points in the same direction the entire race-the way it was pointing at the start. Its axis is fixed. Half way around on the back stretch you still see the left side of the horse but the arrow at the top is pointing in the opposite direction. At the finish line you see the left side of the horse still but the arrow at the top is pointing in the same direction again.
You’re getting it confused with a merry go round. The merry go round does not have a fixed axis. Its axis rotates relative to the center of the ride.
If the arrow points to the horse’s head, at the starting position, it would point at the horse’s head the entire lap.
Do you believe it is impossible to orbit, without also rotating on an axis? It is NOT. Figure 1 indicates orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
Think of the axis not the horse. The axis stays fixed. In a merry go round the axis isn’t fixed relative to the center. That is your example.
I don’t know how else to explain it to you bud. You’re on your own.
I have no idea what you are trying to convey.
I will have to get a case of beer and catch up to you….
I don’t agree with most of Bindi’s untrustworthy dogma BS most of the time but he’s correct about this.
He’s correct to blindly follow pseudoscience?
I’ll bet Bindi doesn’t beleive in a creator either. The fact the same side always faces us is another one of nature’s incredible coincidences.
binny…”…to convince persons about Moon having no spin, you will have to present articles scientifically contradicting all the work done by Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace…”
No we don’t, because none of them specifically talked about the Moon rotating about it’s axis, especially LaGrange and LaPlace. Cassini described it vaguely but a closer look at his equations reveals he was not talking of a Moon rotating on its axis. LaGrange and LaPlace were talking about libration, a tiny apparent motion to the human eye depending on the perspective of the observer.
Tesla offered far more than a thought experiment and you have failed to refute my coin demonstration. Let’s see you orbit one coin around the other while keeping a mark on the orbiting coin pointed toward the other coin’s centre, while getting the orbiting coin to turn through 360 degrees per orbit about its own axis.
It is impossible to do it. You don’t get it, as shown in Dremt’s left hand image, that the motion of the Moon is described by tangent lines to each point in it’s orbit. Those arrows in Dremt’s image are all tangent lines and they describe curvilinear motion about the inner body.
If the Moon was represented by one of those arrows (vectors) and it was rotating about its axis, the vectors would be rotating through 360 degrees as they orbited the inner body.
Therefore the same face could not be pointed toward the Earth.
I’ll bet Cassini, LaGrange, and LaPlace would agree.
Gordon, you have to realize the axis going through the center of the coin is fixed and that coin is rotating around the coin you’re on. There is a mark on the axis of the coin and that mark “always” points in the same direction. You’re on a coin in the middle and the coin with a mark on it orbiting around you. So, as the coin obits around you and you are spinning faster than the coin orbits you keep seeing the same mark on the coin. But the axis in the center of the coin stays fixed and that mark points in the same direction. So the mark on the coin has to be rotating around the fixed mark on the axis of the coin.
Stephen…”Gordon, you have to realize the axis going through the center of the coin is fixed and that coin is rotating around the coin youre on”
Stephen…you’re over-complicating the matter. I made a point in an earlier post that in order to move one coin around a stationary coin, while keeping a mark on the coin against the stationary coin’s perimeter, you must ‘SLIDE’ the coin around it. You cannot move it around the stationary coin while rotating it because the moment it rotates, the mark has to leave the stationary coin’s perimeter.
With the Moon, it has a linear momentum that makes it want to travel in a line tangential to a radial line through the Earth. Meantime, Earth’s gravitational field holds it like a rope, so the Moon cannot travel straight. It ends up on a resultant orbital path between its angular orbital velocity and the acceleration due to gravity.
With the coin, you must apply muscular force to keep the moving coin against the stationary coin but you must also slide and turn it slightly to keep the mark against the stationary coin’s perimeter. That motion is not rotation, it is curvilinear translation.
For it to become rotation, the mark on the moving coin would have to rotate through 360 degrees during one orbit of the stationary coin. In that case, the mark could not remain in contact with the stationary coin’s perimeter.
You need to keep the rotation to which you refer local. The coin, Moon, racehorse, carousel horse, all ‘SEEM’ to rotate wrt to some point, but locally they are not rotating about a centre of gravity or axis.
Adlatus? Adlatus?
Sorry, the word seems to be used solely in German.
Google’s translation
An Adlatus is a helper or assistant. He is comparable to the adjutant in military parlance. The term is used today mostly jokingly.
ES,
” ..is to slow the rate of cooling, not stop it. ”
Slower cooling is not warming..
Clearly h20 cools the surface else temps would reach higher in humid than arid areas ..
Co2 is insignificant in the troposphereand rides the h20 energy express to higher altitudes…
At the mesopause co2 does what h20 does at the tropopause.. It cools the air to space…
Increasing the amount of coolant in the atmosphere at the expense of the insulator o2 will increase the effiency at which the atmosphere cools…
PhilJ
“Increasing the amount of coolant in the atmosphere at the expense of the insulator o2 will increase the effiency at which the atmosphere cools”
*
That’s half the story.
The other half is that through its presence in the stratosphere, the escape to space of Earth’s IR radiation becomes less and less efficient.
That is what is termed ‘temperature gradient of emission’.
If your topmost reemissions happen at an ambient temperature of 230 K (lower strat) instead of at 260K (lower trop), you efficiency ratio is (230/260)^4, i.e. 0.6.
To evacuate the same energy to space as is incoming from the Sun, Earth can only become a bit warmer.
That the atmosphere better cools where topmost IR reemissions take place imho is a bad consolation.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie
I liked your question above so I moved it down here to address.
YOU: “If back radiation occurs, why not back conduction? Instead of keeping the green plate away from the blue plate, move your green plate up against the previously equilibrated and continually heated blue plate. Wont the green plate make the blue plate warmer? Explain why that isnt back conduction.”
Back conduction is a reality and that is why conduction is based upon the temperature differential.
This is the molecular explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
If a molecule (with kinetic energy) hits a molecule at absolute zero all the energy is transferred to the motionless molecule and the first molecule receives zero energy back in the collision.
If you have a higher energy particle that hits a lower energy one, the lower energy gains the higher energies particle (in elastic collisions) and the higher energy particle receives the energy of the colder one. As the energies get closer the net energy exchange decreases.
I can give you a situation to explain the back conduction making a heated object warmer. We will use the example skeptics like to bring up.
If you have a heated object with a constant energy input. First you contact the surface with a block of dry ice and let the object reach a steady state temperature. The dry ice is returning some energy to the more rapid vibrating surface molecules of the heated object but not much. The dry ice will return more energy than liquid helium.
So now remove the dry ice and put a block of normal ice (much warmer temperature than the dry ice) in contact with the heated surface. It will reach a higher steady state temperature with normal ice contacting it than dry ice. The normal ice molecules will return more energy in each surface collision than the slower vibrating dry ice molecules. Again refer to the visualization graphics of elastic collisions to understand the concept.
I might try and explain your green plate in contact with the blue plate idea and explain why it will not raise the blue plate temperature as would the other situation when they are apart. I kind of understand it but am not sure I can verbalize it properly at this time.
Norman, you keep making the same mistakes, over and over.
Water ice has more energy than dry ice. So your example adds more energy to the system and you believe that means something.
You’re right. It means you still don’t understand the relevant physics, and can’t learn.
Nothing new.
“Water ice has more energy than dry ice.”
Aha, JD begins to understand why replacing dry ice with ice cubes can raise the equilibrium temperature to room temperature.
Good comment JD. Entropy is produced in such an effort. No 2LOT was harmed in the making of JD’s comment.
Child.
JDHuffman
Yes both Ball4 and myself understand that normal ice contains more energy than dry ice.
That is not the point. Your claim to fame is that it is impossible for energy from a colder body to transfer to a hotter body. You use your understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to justify your belief.
If you put dry ice against a heated plate and measure a steady state temperature then you remove the dry ice and put normal warmer ice against the heated plate, the steady state temperature goes up. The energy from the colder ice is able to transfer to the heated plate which results n a higher temperature. Things you have, in the past, claimed were not possible. A cold object cannot lead to a higher temperature of a heated plate. In the radiant case you claim all the energy emitted by a colder plate is reflected. Ball4 has attempted to reason with you on this point that a blackbody, regardless of temperature, cannot reflect any energy by definition of a blackbody. I have not see you come up with a valid reason as why you think the energy will be reflected but in your cartoon you show it to be so.
Norman, as usual, you get a lot wrong in all that rambling.
The 2LoT says that “cold” can not raise the temperature of “hot”, by itself. All of your tricks won’t change that.
It must be frustrating for you, huh?
JDHuffman
Find a post where anyone has claimed that cold can raise the hot temperature by itself. It is not a trick. No one is saying this. I emphasize it in my posts over an over. Do you have a learning disability, you can’t read and process words?
I say a heated object, a heated plate, a plate with a continuous energy input (like the Earth surface).
Find where anyone says different. Find where any poster on this blog says that a cold object will increase the temperature of a NON-HEATED hotter body? No one is making this claim, no one is confused but you.
The claim is the energy from a cold body will lead to a higher steady state temperature of a HEATED hotter body over a colder cold body that has less energy to send to the HEATED hot body.
Note I put the word HEATED in ALL CAPS so that you can clearly see it and not be so confused.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341636
That link does not say: “that a cold object will increase the temperature of a NON-HEATED hotter body”. It says what it says.
JD just shows off a lack of understanding of thermodynamics and forgetfulness, JD had it right writing: “Water ice has more energy than dry ice.” which is what JD’s link implies. JD means thermodynamic internal energy whether JD knows it or not.
JDHuffman
I would have to agree with Ball4. I see nothing in his post where he states that ice cubes will warm a non-heated room to room temperature (21 C).
He says ice will warm the room to room temperature if it replaces dry ice.
Here is the exact wording of Ball4 post: “JD needs to learn he can bring his room to room temperature with ice cubes if the ice cubes replace dry ice.”
Note the word he chooses “he can bring” it does not mean ice has to increase the room temperature but it can.
You are making an assumption that was never claimed. You assume he means a non-heated room. There is nothing in the post at all to lead you to make such an assumption. He is making a simple point that a less cold object will add more energy to the room. If the room was heated previous with dry ice in it yet below room temperature, then if you apply the same heat but replace the dry ice with ice, the higher energy of the ice and the combination of a heater will bring the room to room temperature.
I don’t know why you had to make one particular assumption and act as if it actually was stated. It was not.
Can you find any post that makes the claim that a non-heated hot object will raise in temperature from a colder item? Ball4’s did not make such a claim. You made an incorrect assumption that it did. Do you have an actual post that makes such a claim without having to assume it does?
“I would have to agree with Ball4”
I think we’re all astonished beyond words.
norman…”If you put dry ice against a heated plate and measure a steady state temperature then you remove the dry ice and put normal warmer ice against the heated plate, the steady state temperature goes up. The energy from the colder ice is able to transfer to the heated plate which results n a higher temperature”.
Once again, we are talking heat dissipation. The heated body has a standard temperature it will retain in a certain environment. If you change the environment by adding dry ice, the heated body will cool. If you then remove the dry ice and add warmer ice at 0C, the ice is not transferring heat to the heated plate it is simply not dissipating as much heat as the dry ice.
The warming comes from the heated plate trying to return to its higher ambient temperature without ice. The warming comes from the plate’s internal heat source, not the ice.
ps. as the warmer ice melts then evapoourates, the heated plate will heat even more, after the ice has melted. It will heat to it’s natural ambient temperature from within, not by an external addition of heat.
Norman,
I think you have the right idea. I might describe it a bit differently. If you put a hot object next to a cold one, the faster moving hot molecules bump into the cold ones and speed/warm them up. But equivalently, you cold say the cold molecules are slowing/cooling the hot ones. Because there is a higher percentage of cold molecules in the cold object, the cold molecules will back conduct toward the hot object until all the molecules in both objects have the same average kinetic energy and temperature.
“in both objects have the same average kinetic energy and temperature.”
Yes! Good comment Chic, you didn’t invoke the heat term which only confuses things.
And wherever there are averages, there are fluctuations about that avg.
So, consider this: in the slightly colder object, a faster than avg. KE molecule, bumps against a slower than avg. KE molecule in the slightly hotter object producing entropy. Verrrry interesting huh? Transfer of KE from cold to hot can happen in accord with 2LOT whenever there are fluctuations about an avg. as in temperature.
ball4…”a faster than avg. KE molecule, bumps against a slower than avg. KE molecule in the slightly hotter object producing entropy”
Entropy, as defined by Clausius, is an integral, a summation of infinitesimal changes of heat. You don’t think heat exists, so how can you talk about entropy, which Clausius defined as a summation of heat over a process?
Besides, we are not talking about thermal equilibrium here, we are talking about the effect of ice on a ‘heated’ plate. The heat is being generated from a source internal to the plate.
ball4…”you didnt invoke the heat term which only confuses things.”
It seems to only confuse you.
You are fine with the term kinetic energy but you don’t get it that the descriptor ‘kinetic’ is a generic reference to energy in motion. ANY energy in motion.
Which energy is in motion with reference to atoms? It’s called thermal energy, aka heat.
Gordon, is there more heat in a glass of tap water or in the Pacific ocean?
Remember VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.
A. They both contain the same amount of heat, zero heat. The Pacific ocean does contain more thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy than the glass of tap water.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
chic…”Because there is a higher percentage of cold molecules in the cold object, the cold molecules will back conduct toward the hot object until all the molecules in both objects have the same average kinetic energy and temperature”.
How does an atom in a solid ‘back-conduct’. Heat flows in one direction only in a solid from hot to cold. It’s the same with radiation or convection.
I forgot to say good luck explaining why the green plate won’t back conduct and make the blue plate warmer. Beware the boundary conditions. It’s not fair to assume perfect conductors, etc.
Yes, Ball4, upthread you said:
“There would now be one bluegreen plate not two plates, the equilibrium temperature will be the same (244K) but the difference in mass will mean the time to reach equilibrium will be different than the first time.”
Please explain why you think the equilibrium temperature will be 244K for both plates. What about the back-conduction heating that you must believe happens if you believe back-radiation heating does? For the logic to be consistent, even if you assume the plates are perfect conductors, you should still think the blue plate warms by back-conduction. After all, the plates are black-bodies, perfect absorbers and emitters of radiation, yet you think the blue plate warms by back-radiation when separated from the green.
“for both plates….you should still think the blue plate warms by back-conduction.”
There is no blue plate any longer DREMT. Just one bluegreen plate at 244K when equilibrium is reached.
Pretty sure 1 + 1 = 2, Ball4. Whether separated or pushed together, there are still two plates.
Why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate?
Just 1green plate + 1blue plate = 1 bluegreen plate DREMT. Mass is extensive property. Single bluegreen plate at 244K equilibrium under the given conditions.
So why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate?
There is no blue plate to warm! Single bluegreen plate at 244K equilibrium reached under the given conditions.
I hear you, I hear you…
…so why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate?
Apparently DREMT doesn’t really hear me: there is no blue plate to warm!
It might seem like an odd concept to you, Ball4, but when I pushed my salt and pepper shakers together on the table just now, I still had one salt and one pepper shaker. I didn’t suddenly have one salt/pepper combo.
Because the shakers are not flat like the given condition plates. Learn some geometry.
Better yet, redo the given conditions substituting your shakers for the plates, see what you can learn from that.
Oh, I didn’t stop with the shakers, I’ve been going round the house pushing all sorts of different things together. Some flat, like the plates. It’s weird, but every single time I do it, I’m left with two things pushed together. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong.
A question occurred to me, too. Why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate?
If the flat ones have colors X, Y you can push them together n times and get a single XY every time.
After you push a color blue plate n times against color green plates n times you have a single bluegreen plate n times.
There is no blue plate.
You are replaying the Monte Python dead parrot sketch n times.
The only problem with that theory is that there IS a blue plate. It’s right next to the green one.
I wonder…why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate?
The parrot is still dead. Up until the plates are pushed together, one green, one blue. After pushed together, single bluegreen plate coming to equilibrium at 244K under the given conditions. Pull them apart, no more single bluegreen plate, two.
Pushed together, one blue plate and one green plate pushed together. Energy transfer by conduction, assume perfect conductors.
Pulled apart, one blue plate and one green plate separated. Energy transfer by radiation, assume black-bodies so perfect absorbers/emitters.
So, why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate if back-radiation warms the blue plate?
ball4…”Apparently DREMT doesnt really hear me: there is no blue plate to warm!”
Yes…and there’s no such thing as heat according to you. Are you out on a day pass?
Not just me:
VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.
Gordon is just behind in his atm. thermodynamic studies, by over a century.
VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.
Gordon is a century behind in his studies of atm. thermodynamics.
So…why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate?
ball4…”VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat”.
a quote from a pdf by your reference VanWylen & Sonntag:
Page 5 from:
http://bizuando.com/material-apoio/tdq1/resolucao-van-wylen.pdf
“Electric power is converted in the heater element (an electric resistor) so it becomes hot and gives energy by heat transfer to the water. The water heats up and thus stores energy and as it is warmer than the cup material it heats the cup which also stores some energy. The cup being warmer than the air gives a smaller amount of energy (a rate) to the air as a heat loss”.
These guys are as mealy-mouthed as you. They admit the electric element heats up then transfers HEAT to the water, then they revert back to the water containing ‘ENERGY’ but not heat.
There is a plethora of idiots out there today professing to teach science. From the statement above they refer to:
1)electric power being converted in the heater element. No it’s not power being converted it’s electrical current being converted to heat.
2)They refer to an electric resistor. Never heard of such a device. I have seen carbon resistors, wire-wound resistors, etc., but never an electric resistor.
3)The water heats up and stores energy. Yes…why does the water heat up….BECAUSE IT HAS HAD HEAT TRANSFERRED TO IT!!!!
The energy is heat and only a twinkie would waffle over that.
4)”The cup being warmer than the air gives a smaller amount of energy (a rate) to the air as a heat loss”.
Brilliant!!! They confirm the 2nd law which is about HEAT TRANSFER but they insist on calling it an energy transfer. That’s fine, but why the denial that the energy is heat?
They call it a HEAT LOSS. So something was lost from the water in the cup and they admit it is heat. Therefore the cup must have contained heat.
“Yes..why does the water heat up…BECAUSE IT HAS HAD HEAT TRANSFERRED TO IT!!!!”
VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.
There was no heat in the body of water to begin with & since the transfer of heat is a process not a substance, there is no heat in the body of water after the transfer either. Since:
VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat.
No matter how much Gordon shouts to the contrary. Gordon’s “heat up” is meaningless in physics.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Norman,
You wrote –
“If a molecule (with kinetic energy) hits a molecule at absolute zero all the energy is transferred to the motionless molecule and the first molecule receives zero energy back in the collision.”
Complete nonsense. Neither molecules nor atoms are little billiard balls. You, and your reference, are just a wee bit behind the times. Maybe you have been reading a simplification designed for very small children, or adult climatological pseudoscientists.
I would suggest you update your knowledge,, if you wish to understand what is actually happening (as far as is known and verified by experiment).
But hey, you are allowed to believe any old rubbish you like. Why not?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
They can treat molecules and atoms as having elastic collisions to explain the gas laws. Maybe read this, maybe don’t. Up to you.
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/kinetic4.html
They may not actually be hard little balls but they act like it.
Norman,
As I said, suitable for pseudoscientists or small children.
Not suitable for people who want to understand why the GHE has not been usefully described by anybody at all.
What you wrote before is nonsense.
You cannot even explain why matter keeps emitting longer and longer wavelengths as it cools, can you? Maybe you can find a link to a kiddy cartoon of billiard balls that tells you why.
Molecules and atoms do not act like hard little balls. Phlogiston doesn’t exist. Carnot believed in caloric, but it still doesn’t exist.
No infinitely elastic little balls. You can’t even explain why matter just keeps on emitting photons, all the way to absolute zero, can you?
Cheers.
Think of the axis not the horse. The axis stays fixed. In a merry go round the axis isn’t fixed relative to the center. That is your example.
E. Swanson says:
February 18, 2019 at 10:03 AM
“The radiation emitted by CO2 in any layer occurs in all directions. That which is not re-absorbed then leaves the layer doing so in equal amounts upward and downward. Increasing CO2 results in more thermal IR EM radiation IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.”
To which I asked what fraction of the radiation absorbed by CO2 molecules is emitted at any given location? The answer depends on whether the air parcel is warming or cooling doesn’t it? If the parcel of air is at local temperature equilibrium, then the number of absorp.tions has to equal emissions, right? Will adding CO2 to the parcel increase its temperature?
CB, See my post below
@Norman,
“You don’t understand relativity even though gallopingcamel has been kind enough to explain he actually worked on the design of a device that required the relativity equations to work.”
Thank you for you support but a little more explanation is in order. Let me state unequivocally that I don’t believe Einstein’s GRT (General Theory of Relativity) even though my job depended on it for ten years.
In the 17th century, “Natural Scientists” like Isaac Newton believed that they were discovering “Truth” as described by Plato. Truth was one of the Greek “Forms” like Justice and Beauty.
While Newton was writing “Principia” in Latin he was thinking of nature as the ancient Greeks did. Thus for over 300 years we talked about Newton’s three “Laws of Motion”. Thanks to Einstein we realize that these were not laws at all……they were hypotheses with practical applications.
The same applies to all “Laws” of physics. Every one of them will eventually be overtaken by a better hypothesis. Every physics hypothesis you have ever heard of is wrong as will be all the ones you have not heard of yet. There are no “Laws” of physics……even if there were we could never know it for sure.
Unkind people may call me a “Physics Denier” but I prefer to think of myself a seeker after “Truth” even if the goal is unattainable.
The best way to understand Einstein’s theory of relativity is to do thought experiments. Suppose you’re looking at the face of a clock. The clock starts moving away from you and accelerating. Light is reflecting off the clock and moving toward your eye. The closer the clock gets to the speed of light the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye and time appears to slow down. When the clock reaches the speed of light time would appear to stop. If the clock could exceed the speed of light the clock would appear to run counterclockwise. Einstein showed that time depends on the speed you are traveling.
Which works if, and only if, the speed of light is constant as measured in any and all frames of reference.
So far GRT has survived all measurement attempt at disproofs within reasonable error. It’s good enough to get the job done in all current app.s. gc may be right a future improvement might happen to do a better job but so far, no improvement.
Einstein’s equations imply that you could travel an infinite distance (in any direction) in zero elapsed time (in your time frame) if you were traveling at exactly the speed of light relative to the rest frame (aka rest of the Universe).
As you say, clocks would run backwards if you could exceed the speed of light. In my laboratory we could show mass increasing by a factor of 2,000 and time slowing by the same factor. We could not accelerate our electrons to the speed of light (that would imply infinite mass) or even imagine some way to exceed light speed.
gc what do you think about the mirror image particle in supersymmetry being a particle that as it slows towards the speed of light increases in mass.
And why do you think the speed of light is set as it is in current spacetime? Was c ever different?
What’s so amazing about Einstein is I think a lot of people can understand the thought experiment. But Einstein applied math to it. PFH.
Stephen…”Whats so amazing about Einstein is I think a lot of people can understand the thought experiment. But Einstein applied math to it”.
And according to Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, Einstein was wrong in his approach. He made claims about scientific measurements that do not stand up in real physics.
Much of GRT is based on presumption and sheer speculation. The math may be correct in certain applications at the atomic level but in general, GRT has never been verified experimentally.
How do you measure anything at the speed of light let alone verify it?
@Ball4,
You got me! I would ask Lubos Motl who claims to understand supersymmetry, strings and much more. Unfortunately he has banned me from his blog.
I do have a couple of ex-colleagues in the Duke physics department who might be able to help. I will check for opportunities to “Do Lunch” with them.
cam…”As you say, clocks would run backwards if you could exceed the speed of light”.
Why??? A traditional clock is a machine driven by a spring and gears. An electronic clock is a counter that counts the pulses put out by a crystal that is excited by a voltage. An atomic clock is a base of pulses that are counted by electronic devices, acting much like the crystal in the electronic clock.
They are all synchronized to the period of the Earth’s rotation, which is a constant.
Don’t you get it that Einstein made a horrendous error in representing time as a real phenomenon that can affect force and mass? Time does not exist, it is a fabrication of the human mind, and by indulging in it via GRT you are participating in an illusion of the human mind.
It’s easy to stop the illusion, just stop it by letting your mind be very quiet. When your mind is quiet and very still, with barely any thought there, look and see what is actually going on.
Remember the Twin Paradox? One of a set of twins leaves Earth on a rocket ship traveling at the speed of light. When he returns, his twin has aged and he has not.
Why can no one see through that horse bleep? The human body ages due to cell aging and aging has nothing whatsoever to do with time, or the speed of light. If that twin left in reality going at the speed of light he’d be exactly the same biological age upon return as his twin.
Gordon, you are obviously a fun person….I would love to share a few adult beverages with you.
This thing with clocks is totally weird. However there is a well documented demonstration of this principle that affects us every day. As you point out time measurements used to depend on springs and gears. Then we moved on to quartz crystal resonators.
Then came cesium laser clocks with precision of ~one part in 10^14. There are only seven fundamental physical measurements and time is the one we can measure with the greatest precision (by several orders of magnitude).
Now we can measure to 10^15 precision thanks to ytterbium clocks. This precision makes it a simple matter to determine the effect of Einstein’s equations on clocks.
Every GPS satellite contains a “Master Oscillator” (aka clock). When the clock is sitting on the launch pad in Cape Canaveral its frequency can be measured to one part in 10^15. Then the rocket is launched into a synchronous orbit. Once in orbit you can remeasure the changed frequency.
It turns out that there are two different relativistic effects that caused the change and here they are:
1. Reduced gravitational field (General Theory of Relativity) causes an error of -45 microseconds/day or 2 parts in 10^9, well within the measurement precision. This effect does not change so it can be eliminated by a simple correction constant built into the GPS software.
2. Orbital velocity (Special Theory of Relativity. This effect is +/- 7 microseconds per day or +/- 0.3 parts in 10^9. While this error is much smaller than the first it is more difficult to compensate for because it varies according to the location of the GPS receiver relative to the satellite.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1061/why-does-gps-depend-on-relativity
cam…”We could not accelerate our electrons to the speed of light (that would imply infinite mass) or even imagine some way to exceed light speed”.
Are you talking about mass or weight? If you accelerate an astronaut to several G’s, he/she feels heavier but his/her mass has not changed.
I am talking about mass as in E = mc^2.
Stephen…”Suppose youre looking at the face of a clock. The clock starts moving away from you and accelerating. Light is reflecting off the clock and moving toward your eye. The closer the clock gets to the speed of light the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye and time appears to slow down. When the clock reaches the speed of light time would appear to stop”.
One major flaw in your thought experiment. Time is DEFINED as a constant. It is defined on the rotational period of the Earth which is a constant.
The second is a sub-division of the day, which is one rotation of the Earth from the position of the Sun in the sky from noon till noon, or one rotation wrt to a fixed point in the night sky. The second is DEFINED as 1/86,400 of one day (60 x 60 x 24).
The clock is designed to synchronize with that constant second to a clock in Greenwich, England. That clock with the light reflecting of it is nothing but a machine. It does nothing more than keep tract of the Earth’s rotation.
The time to which most people relate is an illusion of the human mind based on memory, which is a repository of thoughts. The dimension created by that illusory time domain has no existence.
The time in space-time is equally an illusion as is space based on a coordinate system. Yet, here we are, getting ready to re-define units like kilograms based on such an illusion.
GC pontificates: “There are no “Laws” of physicseven if there were we could never know it for sure.”
People that believe such nonsense can only flounder aimlessly, while others produce, construct, and invent.
@JDH,
You seem pretty sure of yourself. Can you name even one “Law” of physics?
My skepticism about Einstein’s equations did not prevent me from building the world’s brightest gamma ray source:
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
Are you kidding me, GH? Laws of Motion, Laws of Thermo, Coulomb’s Law, Kepler’s Law, Conservation Laws, Ohn’s Law, just to name a few.
You really don’t know any physics, do you?
cam…”The same applies to all Laws of physics. Every one of them will eventually be overtaken by a better hypothesis”.
I don’t regard you in any way to be a denier. Nor am I. Even those same unkind people often insist I am a denier, or worse.
I agree with you in principle but some laws have stood the test of time better than others. Newton’s f = ma is still true in the macro world. Ohm’s law and Kircheoff’s Law for electrical circuits still stands as do laws and equations from Faraday, Maxwell, Oersted, etc.
Wrt heat, the laws of Clausius related to heat (internal energy in the 1st law, and the 2nd law) and entropy still stand in the macro world. The relationship between mechanical energy and heat as laid out by Joule still stand.
It’s not clear to me exactly what Einstein accomplished with GRT as applied to the macro world. GRT was able to verify the orbit of Mercury but what else has it really done of import in day to day activities?
As I have argued in past posts, GRT has only served to introduce a lunacy regarding space and time, in which time dilates, empty space curves, and dimensions change as velocities approach the speed of light.
Neither Einstein nor anyone else has proved these assertions through experimentation. Allegations have been made in that regard but as I have tried to point out, time is defined as a constant and there is no explanations why high velocities should affect the expansion of atomic orbitals within solids.
In one post, I asked you to consider other possibilities that might explain time dilation and changes of mass in accelerated electrons. I think there are explanations involving changes in mass and force that have been ignored by GRT.
I suspect that GRT is the result of knowing an outcome, or guessing at it, and working toward it mathematically based on presumptions that may not be true. At least, that’s part of the critique of Louis Essen, who discovered the atomic clock. He claimed that Einstein did not understand scientific measurement, and I think that is quite likely true.
Gordon,
“Neither Einstein nor anyone else has proved these assertions through experimentation.’
Einstein is rightly famous because he made a prediction based on his theory of relativity that was verified by Eddington in 1919:
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech-0529/
Since then there have been thousands of experiments proving Einstein’s equations including relativistic accelerators like the one I worked on at Duke university and GPS systems that would be useless within a matter of hours absent relativistic corrections.
Einstein’s relatively is so well supported by experiment that it is much more interesting to look for cases where it is in error. For example you mentioned the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. While Einstein’s equations are much better for predicting the precession than Newton’s it is a matter of “Close But No Cigar”.
super snow full Moon today so I decided to check, and yes the Lunaticks still arguing if the Moon is round or not
Eben
It has nothing to do with ‘lunatick’ or not.
It has to do with the question wether or not one has the right in life to doubt about things without bringing a scienfitic contradiction on the desk proving the doubt be correct.
If somebody doubts about what scientists do in these fields
– general relativity
– special relativity
– time dilation
– GHE
– Moon’s spin
– etc etc etc
but has nothing else to say “It’s pseudoscience” or “I’m sure they are wrong”, then s/he a simple denialist, who one day will believe that the Sun orbits Earth, or that Earth is flat.
Science is not right per se. But it keeps right as long as you prove it wrong.
I’m sure you will probably have something insulting to say in response, but what you continually miss is that the moon’s spin issue is about a simple, fundamental difference in perception that undercuts all the rest. It doesn’t denigrate or discredit the work of LaGrange and LaPlace etc and their work doesn’t need to be disproved. If, when these authors write, for example “the moon rotates once on its axis per orbit”, you were to mentally replace it with “the moon orbits, without rotating on its axis”, nothing about what they are writing is lost, or rendered null and void. That is what people are trying to get across to you.
I have no reason to insult you, as you don’t name me an idiot, a clown or whatsoever.
I never and never would insult you just because you think different.
“That is what people are trying to get across to you.”
No. They say: “What you show is ‘pseudoscience’ !”.
This is not “expressing one’s own, subjective opinion” everybody may do if s/he feels some need to.
This is “discrediting and denigrating rthe work of others”.
Nobody has the right to do that.
OK, well fair enough. Perhaps also I use the term “red herring” incorrectly as it implies a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the salient points. Perhaps JD’s “dead squirrel” is better. I have said before about a “red herring” list, which libration is on, but let’s call it the “dead squirrel” list instead. It just means that it is an issue that some think resolves the moon rotation debate but which actually is besides the point, the salient points being more basic and fundamental than that.
This whole debate really does boil down to just one thing:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc
JD’s diagram about “what is orbital motion without axial rotation”? If you think it is as per the object on the left, which moves as per the moon, then obviously you understand that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. If you think it is as per the object on the right, then you agree with the current paradigm, that the moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit. I would say the explanations and animations in this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
assuming that the cannonball is fired without spin, make it pretty clear that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the object on the left.
To get the cannonball to move as per the object on the right, would require a torque.
There would be a torque whenever the head of the arrow is not facing up or down. IOW, the torque is always gone twice a lunar day.
As is made crystal clear in the animations, the cannonball (launched without axial rotation, so no spin) moves as per the left diagram, requiring no torque to do so. It would require torque to make it move as per the diagram on the right.
Chic, you are having real problems with that simple diagram.
Figure 2, which DREMT is clearly referring to, has all the arrows facing in the same direction. To produce that requires a torque, to counter the effect of orbital motion. But, no such torque exists with simple orbital motion.
Take a few minutes to actually understand the diagram, then maybe your criticisms of it won’t be so ludicrous.
Snap!
I’m seeing your lack of torque and raising you two.
Well, you would need torque to make the cannonball move as per the object on the right, so raise away.
Sorry, are we playing torques on the moon, race horses, cannonballs, arrows, or trolls?
I’m not the one playing games Chic. If you believe that the cannonball, launched without spin, moves as per the object in Figure 2, study the text and animations in the Newton’s Cannonball link until you realize why you are wrong. Ridicule isn’t going to make this go away.
OK, I’ll try another tact.
You comment here most frequently asking people to stop trolling. Yet you brought up the moon issue again with a difference analogy, but adding nothing new. You made your point and many disagree. It seems clear most people will not change their minds on this.
I might, but there is nothing I can see in the cannonball example that applies to the moon. Is the cannonball symmetrical such that it has no face more dense than any other? If so, then why does it serve as a good example of the moon which does have asymmetrical density?
Do you ignore the role of gravity? If so, explain why. If you can’t, then you are the one who needs to stop trolling.
I didn’t bring up the moon issue again, Newton’s Cannonball is a basic demonstration of orbital motion, the role of gravity is clearly shown in the animations, and you’re the one that needs to stop trolling.
Chic, you don’t seem to even understand the issue. There are two motions involved. One is “orbiting”. The other is “rotating on its own axis”.
To understand each motion, attach a short sting to an orange, using a thumbtack. Now hold the other end of the string in the middle of a table. Holding the string taut, rotate the orange in place. Notice the string tends to wrap around the orange. That motion is “rotating on its own axis”.
Now, again keep the string taut, move the orange in a circle around the center of the table. The thumbtack will always face the table center. This motion is “orbiting”.
The Moon orbits, but it does NOT rotate on its axis.
Sorry #1, I wasn’t paying attention to all the prior moon discussions, but you were the one posting a new thread on the cannonball regurgitation of the same old, same old.
Sorry #2, I was referring to the influence of gravity on the torque, not the orbit.
You may choose to drop it, or explain the relevance of gravitational torque, or lack thereof, due to asymmetrical moon hemispheres. Your choice.
First, do you understand the two motions described above?
If so, we can move on to your other questions.
I must have misunderstood the directions. In the first step, the string wrapped around the orange as you said. When I started moving the orange around in an orbit, it still wrapped up around the orange. The only way I could keep the string from wrapping around was to slowly rotate the orange so the thumb tack kept facing the center. I think it was rotating and orbiting at the same time!
What was I doing wrong?
You didn’t follow the directions exactly, but nevertheless you still demonstrated that the Moon is not rotating on its axis.
The Moon always keeps the same face to Earth (center of orbit). So, you ended up with the correct model of Moon’s motion by keeping the thumbtack always toward the center. If you tried to also rotate the orange on its axis, as it orbited, the string would wrap up. Or, in the case of the Moon, we would see both sides.
So now, you have to understand the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Or, like several others, you will have to find ways to get around reality.
Not really even in the same league. Some theories reside at the Super Bowl or at Yankee stadium. Some reside at a little league ball field in Topeka Kansas. Relativity is at Yankee Stadium. GHE is a long way from the ocean.
I tried to comment on the green plate/blue plate thing but Dr. Roy’s “Bot” blocked it. Here is another attempt without the link that may have upset the “Bot”.
This “Controversy” is like the “Walking Dead”…….it refuses to lie down and die.
John P. Holman’s magnificent book “Heat Transfer” (Tenth Edition) shows two different ways to solve this problem:
Example 8-6 on page 408 and Example 8-16 on page 441.
GC, in both examples, the higher temperature plate cools. Its temperature does not increase due to the other plate.
CB, Your “parcel of air” is sitting between the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere and the colder layers above, all the way thru to deep space. The result is that a typical parcel experiences a flow of energy thru it, some portion of which is thermal IR EM radiation. Your “temperature equilibrium” should instead refer to the situation in which the energy entering the parcel and that leaving the parcel is equal, which would imply that the temperature no longer changes.
There’s no guarantee that the net energy flow in the upward direction would be the same as that in the downward direction, since the temperature below is higher and the temperature above is lower in the troposphere. Above the tropopause, with convection suppressed, the situation is reversed, with the lapse rate becoming positive in the stratosphere.
E. Swanson,
Seems like we agree on LTE, but you are implying I intended that for the whole atmosphere. Of course not. LTE occurs in the tropopause, during an inversion where the temperature gradient reverses, and at any altitude where absorp.tions equal emissions.
Some portion of energy flowing through a parcel of air is thermal IR radiation, but its magnitude depends on the elevation. At lower elevations only a small percentage of the radiation is transferred by IR other than what goes through the window. Because almost all absorp.tions are thermalized, the warmed air parcels in the tropopause ARE the flow of energy via convection.
There is no net energy flow downward in the troposphere other than the aforementioned inversion state.
What we should be trying to get back to is what controls the magnitude of the flow of energy through the atmosphere. Is it more CO2? How can that be when all the input energy to the surface is already absorbed in the lower troposphere. Air parcels don’t start emitting more than they absorb until the air is thin at a high altitude. The more that gets absorbed at a low altitude, the faster convection can do the heavy lifting moving the energy upward.
“Is it more CO2? How can that be when all the input energy to the surface is already absorbed in the lower troposphere.”
Because all the input energy to the surface is NOT already absorbed in the lower troposphere. There would be no convection for example if that were the case. Air parcels start to emit as much as they absorb at the surface when they are warmed above ambient, become bouyant, rise until the air is thin at a higher altitude where they equilibrate with surrounding density and cease to rise or descend.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie
I have a specific question to you concerning this eternal discussion about conduction / convection / radiation. You are not the first person I ask.
The reason for me asking is that so many people pretend that IR radiation out of Earth’s surface doesn’t play any role in the lower atmosphere because only conduction and convection are needed to explain all atmospheric heat propagation processes.
My problem is always the same: conduction from the surface to the ambient air is very inefficient. { That is the reason why air is such a good insulator. }
Air has a conductivity of about 25 mW / m K, what roughly corresponds to 25 W / m^2 if I well remember an info on the Web.
If the W/m^2 number is correct: how then can conduction supersede IR radiation, when the latter provides over ten times heat transfer capacity more than the former?
Does that not mean that all convection processes arise due to IR radiation being intercepted above surface by water vapor?
I anticipate the genius writing soon “Learn some physics”.
Won’t matter much, as only your answer does.
Bindidon,
First of all let me say that your English is amazing. I had to use programming to meet the second language requirement for graduation.
You ask “If the W/m^2 number is correct: how then can conduction supersede IR radiation, when the latter provides over ten times heat transfer capacity more than the former?”
This question is astute, IMO. The ten times number applies to measurements of DWIR at the surface which is actually some relatively short distance from the surface. Imagine you are an air molecule between the DWIR detector and the surface. What you will see is most of the IR being absorbed by fellow water vapor molecules, and CO2 molecules as well. What isn’t absorbed is radiated out to space or will soon be absorbed not too far above you. Before those excited molecules have a chance to emit, they share their energy with you and the other air molecules. This is called thermalization. It occurs because the time between collisions is orders of magnitude shorter than an excited molecule can emit.
At this point, you and your fellow air molecules have been warmed, you spread out, and your air parcel rises being replaced by heavier air parcels above.
“Does that not mean that all convection processes arise due to IR radiation being intercepted above surface by water vapor?”
Not exactly, but another good question. As you mentioned, conduction plays a roll. Also, because humid air is lighter than dry air, evaporation causes convection too. So, taken together, I estimate that, excluding radiation directly to space, IR is a small fraction of the net energy transfer in the lower troposphere. Of course that completely changes at the TOA.
It’s too late to reply to the real contents, but I appreciated your
“First of all let me say that your English is amazing.”
Imagine your native tongue being French, and your everyday’s language being German.
Buona notte
J.-P.
The very best book about (not Institutionalised) Pseudoscience:
https://books.google.de/books?id=oCEUDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Enjoy!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
GC, Thanks for the mention of Holman’s text. You (and Huffingman) apparently don’t understand that those two examples don’t fit the Green Plate situation where the temperature(s) are unknowns but the energy flow is fixed. In both examples, the temperatures of the plates are fixed, that is, already determined, and the goal is to calculate the heat transfer rate. To do so, Holman implicitly concludes that the emission by the colder plate toward the hotter plate is actually absorbed by the hot plate, which is the standard S-B result which I’ve referenced before.
Let me repeat that. In both examples, the thermal IR EM radiation from the colder plate is absorbed by the hotter plate.
Sorry for placing my reply to CB in the wrong place.
Swanson, in both examples, the thermal IR EM radiation from the colder plate does not increase the temperature of the hotter plate.
Let me repeat that. in both examples, the thermal IR EM radiation from the colder plate does not increase the temperature of the hotter plate.
Hope that helps, you have a lot to learn.
JDHuffman
Do you have a learning disability and cannot comprehend what people say?
E. Swanson told you clearly that the examples were to try and determine heat flow from plates that are maintained at a certain temperature. So of course the cold plate would not increase the temperature of the hotter plate, it is how the problem is set up. It does state that the energy from the cold plate is absorbed by the hotter plate. something you reject.
Not sure what the purpose of your post was. It makes you look confused by an intelligent poster that you can’t understand.
Huffingman, As Norman noted, your ignorance of thermodynamics appears again. In the examples, the temperatures are assumed to be fixed. Of course, one could use similar calculations to compute the temperature of the hotter plate surrounded by a large energy absorbing space as in example 8-16, but without the second plate, given the same rate of energy flow to the hot plate.
From the measured temperature of the hot plate, the energy flow is calculated 56.69 kW/m^2 with an emissivity of 0.80. But, after the effect of the colder plate is included, the net flow for the first is calculated as 44.184 kW and there are 2 sides of 1 m each emitting this energy. Thus, not accounting for the surroundings, without the second plate, the temperature of the first plate would be 839 K, not 1000 K, if I’ve done the math correctly. The second, colder plate was, in fact, warming the first plate in this example.
Swanson and Norman, just read and understand my comment. If you are unable to understand it, seeking adult help is allowed.
Best of luck.
“in both examples, the thermal IR EM radiation from the colder plate does not increase the temperature of the hotter plate.”
Fails BOTH 1LOT and 2LOT. Takes a JD level lack of thermo. knowledge to fail both. Fails zeroth law too. And the lab course. JD goes 4/4 in failures!
I’m sure glad fluffball is not on my side.
He would be an embarrassment.
Yeah, I’m on the side of agreeing with 0LOT, 1LOT, and 2LOT, lab work (like E. Swanson, Dr. Spencer). JD being on the other side disagreeing with 0LOT, 1LOT, and 2LOT, their lab work makes for good sport but totally embarrasing for JD.
See.
My main expertise is in lasers and fiber optics so I don’t have trouble understanding that cold bodies can transfer energy to hot bodies via radiation no matter what “Sky Dragons” may say about violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Those Holman examples seemed appropriate but I will take another look at them in the light of your comments.
GC, you should be embarrassed to link lasers with somehow proving “cold” can warm “hot”. You don’t even have a high school level understanding of thermo.
Are you just here to be another clown?
go,
In practical terms, ice can emit 300 W/m2. GHE worshippers are convinced that using a lens, parabolic reflector (or whatever), to concentrate the energy from say 1 m2 into 1 cm2, multiplying it by 10,000 (or 3,000,000 W/m2), then this enormously intense radiation must be enough to at least boil a drop of water.
Alas, complete bollocks. The radiation from ice cannot make anything hotter than the ice.
On the other hand, microwave radiation of 12 cm can boil water or cook food, do nothing to cardboard, or have exciting effects if you put your fine china with the gold inlay into it.
Not always straightforward. The interaction between light and matter can be strange indeed.
If someone could at least describe the GHE, then it might be possible to examine the concept. Fat chance.
Cheers.
MF, For a guy who continually displays ignorance of physics, you are sure certain of yourself. I think I could build an experiment which would show ice warming an object with a higher temperature. It can’t be done in a vacuum, since the ice would sublime and spoil the vacuum. It would need to be done in a freezer at temperatures well below 0C, but I’ve got an empty one downstairs which I’m not using, so I might try it.
Swanson humors us again: “I think I could build an experiment which would show ice warming an object with a higher temperature.”
The comedy continues….
ES,
Away you go. Ice is definitely below freezing point. Water is definitely above freezing point.
Just use the 300 W/m2 from frozen water to warm some unfrozen water. I wouldn’t put the unfrozen water in the freezer if I were you. It will become frozen, although you might be able to stop the water from freezing using ice, do you think?
Silly.
On the other hand, you could actually document your earlier amateur experiment. You might find this scientific experiment business is not as easy as might be assumed. I’m guessing you can’t be bothered spending the time, effort, and resources to do things properly.
Keep on “thinking” and “betting”. It’s a lot easier than doing acceptable experiments.
Cheers.
MF, I was thinking of repeating a demonstration somewhat like my “cookie sheet” demonstration. To do that using ice, the ambient temperature and that of the ice would need to be kept below freezing. The rate of emissions would be small at those temperatures which would require sensitive temperature measurements and there would be problems removing the effects of convection.
I found that I have an extra small 40W resistance heater from my 3D printer, which I might use, along with one of my aluminum plates from the Green Plate demo. I’ve already got the rest of the instrumentation, including some thermocouples which can be used when immersed in water. I would create a flat plate of ice and place that over an enclosure with the heated plate within and measure the temperatures of the ice plate, the heated metal plate and ambient inside the freezer. I would then replace the plate of ice with the frame covered by food wrap from the cookie sheet demo, which transmits thermal IR EM radiation.
OK, tell us what’s wrong with this test? It’s your turn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342550
1) or 2), troll?
Swanson, all you are doing is just finding different ways to confuse yourself.
Show how ice can warm something above ice temperature, with no heat being added. That’s what you have to do to disprove 2LoT.
Your failure is guaranteed.
“Show how ice can warm something above ice temperature, with no heat being added.”
Something like a blue plate? Sure thing.
Color some ice green with the given conditions being discussed adjusted so the single blue plate equilibrium is 273.15K (for the uneducated like JD, the green ice is now in the position of the green plate and blue plate 273.15K is 32F).
Raise the colored green ice into position. Boom, the icy blue plate increases in temperature absorbing additional LWIR energy until equilibrium is established. No heat being added just added thermodynamic internal energy radiated to the blue plate & absorbed, reflected, but not transmitted. Consistent with 2LOT. JD’s failure was guaranteed. Just like the failure of JD’s bogus 8e3 cartoon fails 2LOT
When JD protests, E. Swanson can simply buy a bag of green ice (St. Patricks day approaching) & re-run the test.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I discovered Roy’s blog late and that is unfortunate as I live in Australia – South Australia
And i’d just like to record a few observations of my own from where I live about this ‘hot ‘ Summer.
1; We have had some very hot days – maybe 7-8 since December 1st which is the start of Summer. There has been no sustained 1 or 2 week long ‘heat wave’.. just a couple of days in a row which in language is NOT a heat wave no matter what the Bureau of Misinformation wants to tell us.
2: In general this Summer has been cooler the normal here in the Adelaide Hills of SA. Today on February 19th the top temp was 24 with a Southerly wind, which is cool by local expectations. It’s been like that since last Saturday.The BOM is promising us that Summer will come back with a 37 by next Sunday. We live in hope !
3: The most important feature of this Summer is the dryness. We’ve had hardly any rain at all..Usualy we can count on at least one summer thunder storm with some rain. This Summer there thunder storms have all been dry ones
4 : The lack of Summer rain is compounded by the fact that Spring was also very dry. So the soil is very dry and plants in gardens need watering almost every second day..
Does all this add up to Global Warming caused by added CO2 ? Frankly no. It’s just South Australian Summer weather. We have had this kind of Summer before. It will happen again.
And adding or taking away CO2 will do nothing to change things IMO.
Bill in Oz
Don’t worry Bill, there will be many more threads of this kind in Roy Spencer’s blog.
Not sure what to make of your comment.
I wonder if you could be clearer if what you mean ?
But Roy’s post is on the money as far as I am . concerned. I’m just an older local Aussie retired organic farmer with an interest in the weather.
The weather we had in January has happened before. And I am 71 and have experienced personally this type of weather many times in our Summers in South Australia & in Victoria.
This type of weather will happen again.
But in the meantime the Bureau of Misinformation has changed the rules about what constitutes a ‘Heat Wave’. Now it’s just three days above 30 degrees.. That’s rediculous.
.. A heat wave goes on for up to 2 weeks of days with temperatures above 35 degrees C.
And changed the weather station observations for many of it’s stations which it uses to make up ( Ummm a good phrase that – ‘Make Up” ) its ACORN 2 scary story.
Interesting comments, Bill.
I like the “Bureau of Misinformation” for the acronym BOM. Very revealing, especially as they define a “heat wave” as three days above 30 C (86 F)!
I’ve lived throughout mid-continent USA, and once experienced a real heat wave, with temps above 37.8 C (100 F) for over 60 days.
DREMT
You wrote above
“It just means that it is an issue that some think resolves the moon rotation debate but which actually is besides the point, the salient points being more basic and fundamental than that.”
Did you really write “some?
Whom do you mean with that?
– Those few, me included, saying that the Moon spins on this blog?
or
– All those saying that worldwide?
Did you ever search in Google for “The Moon does not rotate about its axis” ?
Why are nearly all the answers on the same side? Is that the result of a Giant Conspiracy?
Do you really think that all the persons having written these documents are manipulated by NASA, some omnipotent Institutional Pseudoscience Community or whateve else?
Did you ever have a look at Quora site’s answers, when somebody asks:
Why doesn’t the moon rotate on its own axis like the earth does?
Is a Big Conspiracy at work as well there?
Why is it nearly impossible to find sources confirming your thoughts, Tesla’s little paper showing his private opinion, and a few papers from Belgrade excepted?
When I search e.g. for CO2’s pretended influence on the actual climate, I find an incredible amount of web sites contradicting this. Why is that not the case concerning Moon’s spin?
*
“This whole debate really does boil down to just one thing:
https://postimg.cc/2bc1HPjc”
I’m sorry, but… this nice, simple-minded picture IS the red herring. It is such a trivial answer on such a complex problem…
*
One more time, I propose you to carefully study the four documents below, and either
– to demonstrate by yourself they are wrong if you can, or
– to show papers presenting a valuable contradiction to what they wrote (excepted what we already know: Tesla’s quickie, and Tomic’s paper, which is a fair, consistent and humble scientific approach but does not contradict those below).
Here is the list:
Eckhardt
https://tinyurl.com/y3kccz3t
Moons
https://tinyurl.com/yd236z6h
Migus
https://tinyurl.com/yyn5kkxs
Rambaux / Williams
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00588671/document
As long as you consider such papers as written by some who think [their work] resolves the moon rotation debate but which actually [stay] besides the point, you don’t need to reply, because you won’t write anything new.
I’m not a physicist. But I spent over seven years in universities, and remember a distant time when professors immersed me during a couple of years in a mix of Mathematics, Mechanics and Solid State Physics and taught me how to solve problems with differential equations.
Even if I never used the knowledge acquired, it helps me today in partly understanding what such people mean. Of course I never would be able to do 1% of their work.
DREMT, the librations ARE the fundamentals in this Moon spin discussion. Please, please, please: try to go into the articles.
Best regards, J.-P.
No, libration is definitely on the “dead squirrel” list.
Your attitude is a good example of why many fail to “get it”, though. It doesn’t seem believable that something so fundamental and simple can have been missed…and so it goes on being missed. It just doesn’t seem plausible. I don’t believe there’s any conspiracy or anything. It’s just people have always seen it one way, and probably most aren’t even aware there’s another way to look at it. The universities will teach it the established way, probably not even mentioning it could be different. And so, on it goes.
You sure are keen on dismissing Tesla though. “Tesla’s quickie”. “Tesla’s little paper”. There were three papers published. The first was simple and straightforward, as you’d expect, since it’s not a complicated issue. Then he wrote two more, in response to the inevitable avalanche of obfuscation, getting increasingly complicated as it went on.
The fascinating thing about this issue is how troublesome it is to clowns. By simple observation, it is clear that the Moon is not rotating on its axis. But look at the huge effort Bindidon goes to, trying to preserve the pseudoscience. Look at the confusion others bring, trying to claim the racehorse is “rotating on its own axis”.
Libration, in reality, is just one more piece of evidence the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
By simple observation, a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates makes clear that the Moon is rotating on its axis. A large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates shows libration, in reality, is just one more piece of evidence the Moon is rotating on its axis.
JD will not elaborate on why sometimes “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” IS “Institutionalized Pseudoscience” per JD and sometimes “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” in astronomy is NOT “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”.
Take Gordons’s easy advice JD, and sit outside on the Moon:
Easy. Sit outside for a while after dark and watch a constellation. Right now, Orion appears low in the eastern sky after dark. By midnight, it is the western sky.
Did the night sky rotate around the Moon, or did the Moon turn on its axis?
“The fascinating thing about this issue is how troublesome it is to clowns.”
Notice that they brought this up again…I was happy to leave it after the last time.
🙂
See! The Spock-like fascinating thing about this issue is how troublesome physics is to entertainers like JD. Sometimes “a large amount of observational and experimental evidence that all correlates” IS “Institutionalized Pseudoscience” per JD, sometimes NOT only per JD’s whims of the moment.
Entertaining to watch. Nothing new. Learn some physics JD.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“It doesnt seem believable that something so fundamental and simple can have been missedand so it goes on being missed.”
Yes DREMT! The meaning of a few isolated persons can indeed weight much more than the rest of the world – whenever needed.
No problem for me…
The rest of the world just doesn’t even know about it, for the most part. And let’s be blunt, a HUGE number of people simply wouldn’t care either way. Including many commenters on here.
George Bernard Shaw quotation: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Kernel of truth in that, the wild west around here does force one to dig deeper into the underlying physics to understand nature of atm. thermodynamics, which means progress for those that successfully dig.
Ask the average man on the street “does the moon rotate on its axis?”
You will get:
a) don’t know
b) don’t care
c) yes
d) no
e) maybe
f) what do you mean by “on its axis”?
g) what does NASA say?
I think the numbers of “yes” or “no” answers will be far less than the rest.
DREMT
Read the papers. I did it for the good Tomic paper.
Tesla would wonder if he could see what was done inbetween.
And as a very good technician and inventer, he sure would manage to improve the Lunar Laser Ranging technology…
Tesla’s papers on the moon disappeared into obscurity and have only fairly recently been “rediscovered”. To understand/be influenced by them just requires opening your mind and being able to challenge what you have been taught. For those who have spent their lives studying astronomy or astrophysics that’s going to the hardest of all. That’s why I’m always amused by SGW’s “Postma threw you clowns under the bus”. I would never have expected him to be easily swayed from what he would have been taught and studied for so long, plus he has pretty much been ostracized in his field for his unrelated anti-GHE stance. Why would anyone expect him to also adopt a radical stance in his own field? He’s already had enough grief from something unrelated.
Tesla and the stupid editor of the paper publishing Tesla’s articles are confused with the fact that an spherical object connected to a string can and does rotate on its own axis when whirling in a circle.
The bozo DREMT is confused as well because he has never taken an ounce of kinematics in his life, whereas I have. (kinetics as well) But the string, they shriek! LMAO. Apparently Tesla never took kinematics either, or was drunk or something during lectures.
Ludicrous, thanks.
Thanks for confirming your ignorance.
Always a pleasure.
Just in case anybody is still thinking about E Swanson’s experiment.
If one examines the path of the radiation from the heat source, it will be noted that the following materials lie along the path of the ray –
Air, glass, low pressure air, paint, metal, paint, low pressure air, paint metal paint, low
pressure air, glass, air.
The equivalent path in a Thermos flask from a body inside the flask is air, glass, metal, near
vacuum, metal, glass, air.
Now if E Swanson had set out to make an exceptionally poor imitation of a commercial vacuum
flask, he has succeeded pretty well. The silly Eli Rabbett has done a little better. At least his two metal plates are separated by a vacuum. He may well complain that his plates are pseudoscientific
climatological plates, with magical properties, as they seem to emit all radiation normal to
the surface, are black bodies, and so on. Nonsense.
I will just point out that a Thermos flask will not heat its contents. As a matter of fact,
cold contents do not heat up as quickly, just as hot contents do not cool down as quickly. In
both cases, the contents eventually reach equilibrium with the external environment.
No support for any GHE, (which has never been usefully described), in any case.
Cheers.
MF, As usual, presents a totally distorted case and claims it proves he’s right. In your vacuum flask example, there’s no external energy input, so the liquid inside eventually cools (or warms) to the temperature of the surroundings. No argument there from me.
But, as we should all know by now, in the real world there’s energy being supplied to the Blue Plate in my demo, just as there’s energy supplied to the Earth’s surface from sunlight. If you were to add energy to the flask and use a similar flask without the insulation from the silvered layer with a vacuum between, I would bet that the temperature in the vacuum bottle would be greater than that in the regular flask.
So, here’s an “experiment” which even you could perform in your kitchen. Obtain a vacuum flask and a glass flask or bottle with a similar capacity. Fill both with equal amounts of water. Use two small resistance heaters, hook them in parallel with a variable D_C supply, then place one heater in the water of each flask. Include some sort of temperature measuring device for each flask. Switch on the power and set the current at some appropriate level.
Tell us what the final temperatures are in each flask.
Let the semantic games begin….
ES,
Maybe you quote me, and state why you are disagreeing.
I might be wrong, but I assume that you are trying to support the nonsensical and non-existent GHE, in some way.
Your experiment is an amateur piece of garbage, albeit no doubt well intentioned. Not polite or politically correct, but accurate.
Your results are easily explicable by normal physics (surprise, surprise!), but as long as you refuse to provide appropriate details, which of several alternative explanations is correct cannot be determined.
Carry on believing that you have discovered some heretofore unknown physical principle.
No doubt the somewhat deluded Eli Rabbett will support you.
Cheers.
MF, Thanks for your thoughts, though I disagree with most of them. You wrote:
Yes, the results can be explained by “normal physics”, which is to say, the Sefan-Boltzmann “law” of radiation heat transfer. As gallopingcamel pointed out, it’s a classic text book case similar to those which may be found in engineering heat transfer texts. Of course, my demonstration could be improved upon, but, why bother, given that my results agree with published text books. The so-called “Back Radiation” from a colder to a hotter body does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Your suggestion that there are other explanations is just empty rhetoric, as you have never provided us with even one or your “alternative explanation” for my results.
Swanson believes: “…its a classic text book case similar to those which may be found in engineering heat transfer texts.”
WRONG, Swanson. Such nonsense would NOT be found in legitmate texts.
You live in “Delusion-ville”.
Basically, if an object with zero reflectivity could radiatively insulate another object, resulting in a temperature increase of the insulated object (and this is with a fixed heat source), then the world would be a radically different, and much warmer, place.
Are you objecting to something with that comment?
I may not be as familiar as you are with materials and their reflectivities and I don’t see what that has to do with anything being discussed here. Perhaps you could explain.
The warmth and coldness of homes, satellites, and other things are important to people. If that is what you mean by “the world [being] radically different,” I don’t see what is radical about that. If you mean something else, then please educate me.
Otherwise you are just trolling.
What I just wrote is what is suggested by the GPE thought experiment.
We probably agree. But why are you being mystical about explaining what you mean?
By now everyone should realize that the GPE business is an inadequate model of atmospheric phenomena. If they don’t that’s their problem, not ours. However, energy transfers between heat sources and solid objects is well illustrated by the GPE. So reflectivity is a relevant and potentially constructive contribution to the discussion. Please explain why and/or how reflectivity will prevent temperature fluctuation between heated plates abutted and separated in a vacuum.
“But why are you being mystical about explaining what you mean?”
I’m not.
DREMT,
Remember I said this:
These arguments always boil down to people declaring things, that cannot be backed by the facts. You do this often.
You said: “False accusation.”
Yet here you are declaring again, with no facts to support it whatsoever.
“Basically, if an object with zero reflectivity could radiatively insulate another object, resulting in a temperature increase of the insulated object (and this is with a fixed heat source), then the world would be a radically different, and much warmer, place.”
OK Nate, I see you understand, so obviously I wasn’t being mystical. I’ll play a song for you on my pseudoscience accordion.
Just a thought on the Moon (which will probably make no difference to anybody, I know) –
The Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth. If it is directly above me it is falling towards me at that time. If I look up at the Moon falling towards me, I see no rotation about any axis.
Do you?
Cheers.
One of the effects of Moon’s tidal forces on Earth is a transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon.
And that results in Moon’s distance to Earth becoming a bit greater (3.8 cm / year are measured actually).
Yes, the mythical transfer of angular momentum, through space, with no mechanical connections!
More Institutionalized Pseudoscience for the clowns to swallow, unquestingly.
Ha ha ha ha!
That was really good.
One day you will come here and doubt about the mythical gravity ‘through space, with no mechanical connections’ !
Ha ha ha ha…
The transfer of angular momentum through space is a rather Newtonian view. Kind of archaic for you isn’t it Bindi?
You can’t be ridiculed here Biindidon, because you have admitted you don’t know physics. But gravity is not the same as angular momentum.
Stephen P Anderson
“Kind of archaic for you isnt it Bindi?”
Archaic? Why?
Newton doesn't disappear off our minds just because people like Lorentz, Poincaré, Hasenöhrl, Einstein & alii added a layer to what Sir Isaac has setup, isn't it Anderson?
You know nothing of me, Anderson. Just guessing, like Robertson, Huffman, Flynn and some others… A good neighbourhood indeed.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
What matters is the Earth’s rate of rotation relative to the Moon. For example if the Earth’s direction of rotation was magically reversed the Moon’s orbit would decrease by ~4 cm/year.
Wrong!
You’ve really gone off the deep end, GC. Has your health changed?
Here is a link that explains how Earth transfers momentum to the Moon:
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/SolarSys/earthmoon.html
Reverse the Earth’s direction of rotation relative to the Moon and the Earth day will get shorter while the Moon will lose momentum (move closer to Earth).
gc,
In my opinion, the information in the link is nonsensical.
The Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth, due to gravity.
There are no tidal bulges leading the Moon, and speeding it up. Just more misleading nonsense parroted by people who should know better. The Wikipedia article about tidal acceleration is at odds with observation.
There are obviously many gullible people about. The same sort as those who believe global sea levels can be measured to 0.1 mm (four one-thousandths of an inch) or better.
Cheers.
Mike is correct. GC and his Institutionalized Pseudoscience are wrong, again!
NASA put a retroreflector on the Moon so we can measure its distance with great accuracy. The Moon is receding a rate of slightly less than 4 centimeters per year.
I got a sign wrong in my last comment. If the Earth’s direction of rotation were to reverse, the Moon would lose momentum (move closer to Earth) but the rate of rotation of rotation of the Earth would decrease, so the Earth day would lengthen.
Rudolph Steiner (1861-1925) used his considerable mathematical skills to deduce that the Moon is moving closer to Earth. I hope JDH and Mike Flynn don’t buy the mysticism that went along with that:
https://wn.rsarchive.org/RelArtic/BobbetteRSW/steiner2_004.html
GC says: “NASA put a retroreflector on the Moon so we can measure its distance with great accuracy.
What is that “accuracy” GC, +/- 38%? (If you are unaware, NASA claimed that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Then later clarified that there was only a 38% chance that was true.)
GC says: “I got a sign wrong in my last comment.”
Unfortunately, that’s not all you got wrong. The Earth/Moon gravitational field has NOTHING to do with either’s rotation. Gravitational force only varies with mass and distance.
I’m not sure why you are fascinated with Steiner. Maybe you’re just attracted to all pseudoscience?
It was the Apollo 11 mission that put a retroreflector on the Moon in 1969:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
That looks like real science to me…NASA’s Apollo program was an amazing achievement.
NASA GISS on the other hand is an example of what happens when science is driven by a political agenda. Thanks to corrupt leaders like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt NASA GISS can’t be trusted. Fortunately the harm GISS can do is limited thanks to John Christy and Roy Spenser. Even so GISS should be de-funded as I have suggested on many occasions.
It bothers me that you can’t accept the idea that the Moon is receding even though there is clear empirical evidence. It occurred to me that you were getting your ideas from mystics like Rudolph Steiner.
GC, you’ve made some wrong assumptions if you believe I can’t “…accept the idea that the Moon is receding…”
I can accept that the measurements may show that. But, I don’t accept the pseudoscience reasons for the receding. The Earth can NOT add angular velocity to the Moon.
“I see no rotation about any axis. Do you?”
Yes but mostly it takes getting out my hobby 4″ Celestron Maksutov-Cassegrain with fully coated glass optics to watch the Moon’s terminator (not Arnie) sweep across the craters as the moon rotates on its own axis, day turning into night.
B,
If the Moon is directly above you, you see the same face falling towards you. Your stupid and pointless reference to a telescope reinforces your lack of understanding.
If the Moon is directly above you, your pointless telescope is pointing straight up, you dill.
You still won’t see any rotation, you just won’t see it for an even shorter period of time, because you have magnified the apparent motion of her Selene Highness. If you used your eyes, you would be able to feast your eyes on her constant face for a little longer.
Still no GHE, is there?
Cheers.
“If the Moon is directly above you, you see the same face falling towards you.”
Only by imagination. Do the work. My ‘scope shows the terminator sweeping across the craters as the moon rotates on its own axis.
Get your own 4″ Celestron Maksutov-Cassegrain with fully coated glass optics too some night (I rec. clear summer night, swat the pesky mosquito) & watch the Moon’s terminator (not Arnie) sweep across the craters as the moon rotates on its own axis, day turning into night.
B,
Ooooh. He’s got a telescope. No substitute for having a brain, obviously.
Comprehension of reasonably plain English is not your strong point. Neither is your comprehension of reasonably simple physics.
Maybe you need a bigger telescope, do you think? 6″?
How’s that GHE description coming along? Have you managed to explain why the Earth’s surface is no longer molten? I thought not.
Cheers,
Earth surface has still NOT yet cooled.
http://www.firefallphotography.com/how-to-photograph-lava-from-a-boat-in-hawaii/
B,
You are right. Maybe I should have been more explicit, and said that the surface has indubitably cooled from the point where no place on the surface was below the lowest temperature at which rock is capable of being in the molten state.
Or maybe I could have thrown the word “average” in there somewhere, do you think? Is that really the best you can do, to point out that the Earth’s interior seems to be molten?
Dear, oh dear. Next you’ll be claiming that the GHE has made the average surface temperature hotter over the last four and a half billion years!
Cheers.
When you were getting out your hobby 4” Celestron Maksutov-Cassegrain with fully coated glass optics to watch the Moon’s terminator, did you happen to come up with any answers on why back-conduction doesn’t warm the blue plate?
Perhaps you didn’t hear me: there is no blue plate. There is a bluegreen plate at 244K in equilibrium.
Pull ‘em apart. Up goes the blue plate to 262 K. Down goes the green to 220 K. Push ‘em back together, down goes the blue plate to 244 K. Up goes the green to 244 K. Repeat. It’s like playing the accordion.
DRsEMT, Yeah, switching from radiation between 2 thin plates, one being heated, with 4 sides to one thick plate with 2 sides changes the temperature. It’s standard radiation heat transfer, as described in engineering text books, such as that by Holman recently referenced on the blog.
It’s funny, the sort of ideas that you people are prepared to defend, and how far you are willing to go to debase yourselves. Funny, but kind of sad, too.
But mostly funny.
DREMT,
You aren’t making fun of the accordion behavior of plate splitting, are you? I did calculate the temperatures and fluxes under both conditions and the temperatures are exactly as you quoted. Please check my calculations here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-311985
“You aren’t making fun of the accordion behavior of plate splitting, are you?”
Yes.
Chic, you got the math right, but the equations are wrong.
if a jet travels 500 miles in one hour, the average speed is 500 mph.
So, can you run 500 mph?
Why not, the math works…..
No, I usually fly. On planes.
If someone makes a comment on a blog, does it contribute anything? In your case, not usually.
Let me know if I need to make it any clearer for you two. And I’m not talking about the maths.
Let me make it clearer for you, Chic. You have no interest in science. You don’t understand the relevant physics. You gravitate to pseudoscience.
You can’t run 500 mph, even though the math works out. And the green plate can’t heat the blue plate to 262K, even though the math works out.
You can use your same equations to claim the green plate has the 262 K temp emitting 266.7 Watts/m^2, and the blue plate only gets to 220 K, emitting 133.33 Watts/m^2. The math works out!
IOW your pseudoscience is easy to debunk. And that frustrates you.
But it all makes for great entertainment for everyone else.
You don’t need to make yourself any clearer, Chic. You’re completely transparent.
JD,
Why would you claim the green plate is warmer than the blue plate? You need to show your work or you will receive no credit, my boy.
Your debunk is a major fail.
I’m not trying to fool anyone. Are foolish enough to think you are debunking anything, let alone entertaining anyone?
It’s simple, Chic. You just supply the power to the green plate!
You can’t even figure out your own pseudoscience, if it’s not in a form you’ve seen before. You are a sitting duck for whatever pseudoscience they throw at you. The blue/green plates, the Moon rotating, and the GHE are all easily debunked.
Try taking a deep breath, and thinking for yourself. I’m not the one misleading you.
‘You can use your same equations to claim the green plate has the 262 K temp emitting 266.7 Watts/m^2, and the blue plate only gets to 220 K, emitting 133.33 Watts/m^2. The math works out!’
The math works and the physics works. And you twist things around to try to turn that into a defect.
You don’t offer any alternative equations and math that work out, to SOLVE the problem.
And that, JD, is an actual defect.
Wrong again, Nate.
The correct version has been linked to numerous times.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Ask yourself why you can’t fun 500 mph. The math works….
No matter how many times you repeat cartoon 8e3, it is still bogus physics JD.
Nothing new.
Oh and by the way, I walked at around 500mph the other day. Despite JD’s bogus claims it can’t be done.
JD is a complete physics free zone. Occasionally though even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
OK, JD, show us how you obtained this ‘solution’.
Thus far you have been unable.
That makes it actual pseudoscience.
Nate, please stop trolling.
‘The Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth. If it is directly above me it is falling towards me at that time. If I look up at the Moon falling towards me, I see no rotation about any axis.’
I personally don’t see the Moon falling toward me. Do you see it doing that?
Weird.
If your point is: if we cant see something happening, then its not happening, then the Moon cannot be falling toward me… or you.
Nate,
If you have a disagreement about gravity, complain to Sir Isaac Newton. He figured it out. Smart fellow.
Could you quote what you are disagreeing with? Are you trying to say that if you cannot see gravity, it doesn’t exist?
Until I see a copy of a testable GHE hypothesis, I assume it doesn’t exist. Can you produce one?
I didn’t think so.
Cheers.
Yes, Mike, as I already noted, I take issue with your statement ‘If I look up at the Moon falling towards me”.
In my experience, I do not ever SEE the Moon falling toward me. Things falling toward me appear to get larger over time, while the Moon does no such thing.
It is unlikely that you ever directly observed the Moon falling toward you.
You may believe it is falling toward you based on some basic physics arguments, as I do.
I also believe the Moon is rotating for the same reasons, though I cannot directly SEE it rotating.
‘Could you quote what you are disagreeing with?’ seems to be a favorite tactic for avoiding accountability for your errors.
I still await your response to this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341817
Nate, the reason you can’t see the Moon falling is that it has another vector acting on it besides gravity. Gravity is why it is falling. But the other vector, its velocity, moves it in an orbit.
Mike is correct, you are incorrect.
You can study both gravity and orbital motion, for further explanation.
‘ it has another vector acting on it besides gravity.’
As usual you garble the physics.
‘Mike is correct, you are incorrect.’
But you agreed with me that ‘you cant see the Moon falling’. Thanks.
And I agreed that the Moon is falling, just that it isnt SEEN.
So Mike’s attempt to make a point, that the Moon’s rotation can’t be seen, implying that it isnt rotating, is undercut.
As we noted, things unseen can be happening.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nearly 1500 comments so far – mostly off-topic.
Just goes to show there are a some people with more time on their hands than intelligence.
They provide classic examples of the DunningKruger effect which is a cognitive bias in people of low ability who have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.
In my experience it likely they are retired, or unemployed, or institutionalised, or living at home with their parents.
d,
Do you suffer from the “cognitive bias in people of low ability who have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”, by any chance?
Is your opinion based on anything beside your subjective assessment?
Away with Ye, troll.
Lol!
MF fell for it hook line and sinker.
(Only those with DK syndrome are likely to respond.)
You really are a witless fool, aren’t you?
Begone, troll.
Hi Begone!
Svante, please stop trolling.
I think all skeptics of the AGW movement should take a deep breath and a second look at E. Swanson’s blue/green plate experiment. Let’s break it down into the separate discussions it has given rise to.
Foremost is the question of the 2LoT. We know that it can’t be violated. It is only our individual interpretations of the physics involved that is questionable. Unless we can demonstrate otherwise by modifying the experiment somehow so that the blue plate doesn’t warm up, the blue plate warms up after the green plate is moved into position next to it. Because the blue plate is always warmer than the green plate, no heat is transferred from the green plate to the blue plate and there is no 2LoT violation.
Next, comes the semantic arguments over how to explain the observation without making it sound like a violation of 2LoT. When is reducing the loss of energy not the same as warming?
What is the mechanism for the blue plate warming? The candidates are
1. Radiation from the green plate rebounds or dead ends with no absorp.tion.
2. Radiation from the green plate is totally absorbed, but a greater amount of radiation from the blue plate is simultaneously emitted toward the green plate.
3. The EM at every wavelength interact such that the green plate’s energy is cancelled out by the greater blue plate’s energy.
While the mechanism of radiation transfer between the plates is scientifically interesting, how is it applicable to AGW which is primarily a question of how much CO2 affects global temperature? This leads to another set of discussions regarding the plates experiment.
Are solid plates useful substitutes for evaluating a gas, liquid, and solid system?
Does introducing a vacuum simplify or complicate the discussion?
How different would the discussions be if an intermittent heat source was employed?
Are there any additional issues that haven’t been beaten to death yet?
C,
You wrote –
“When is reducing the loss of energy not the same as warming?”
Put your hot beverage in a vacuum flask. Rate of energy loss is reduced. Call the resulting fall in temperature warming, if you like.
Call the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt a world famous climate scientist, if you like. Call Michael Mann a Nobel Laureate, if you like.
GHE supporters call all sorts of things all sorts of other things. That’s because they are a pack of bumbling buffoons who can’t find a clue to share, Clueless, one and all. Call them the most brilliant scientists the world has ever seen, if you like.
Cheers.
Mike,
You are absolutely correct. That is an example of reduced cooling that is not warming. Reduced cooling equals warming when a heat source is insulated. No?
Which brings up another topic I forgot to mention. That is the different insulation mechanisms and their semantical interpretations.
C,
You wrote –
“Reduced cooling equals warming when a heat source is insulated.
No. Reduced cooling equals reduced cooling. If you are indicating an increase in temperature, then that is getting hotter – not cooling. Heating requires additional energy – otherwise cooling results.
As regards insulation, pseudoscientists love semantical interpretations.
How does any of this relate to the non-existent GHE? The atmosphere reduces the amount of energy from the Sun reaching the surface. The surface is slightly insulated, reducing maximum temperatures by about 30 C compared with an uninsulated Moon.
No “Hottest year EVAH!” as a result of atmospheric insulation. Just another pseudoscientific example of wishful thinking. That is why nobody, amongst the supposed thousands of fumbling bumblers calling themselves climatologists, have actually managed to describe the missing GHE.
Maybe they need more semantical interpretations – heating through cooling, that sort of thing.
Cheers.
–How does any of this relate to the non-existent GHE? The atmosphere reduces the amount of energy from the Sun reaching the surface. The surface is slightly insulated, reducing maximum temperatures by about 30 C compared with an uninsulated Moon.–
The Moon is very well insulated. It’s insulation is much better than your house.
Because the Moon has very good insulation, the moon absorbed very little of the sun energy.
Or roughly speaking only a few inches of lunar surface is warmed up much by the sun, despite the lunar day being about 14 earth day long. Or every Earth hour on Earth is 29 hours on the Moon, or peak hours solar of Earth being 9 to 3 pm, would have a duration of a Earth week on the Moon.
In contrast on Earth more than 1 meter of ocean is warmed and tons of air per square meter is warmed, each and every day on Earth.
If the Moon wasn’t well insulated, more than 1 meter depth of rock would warmed every lunar day.
And it the Moon average temperature would only be about 20 C colder than Earth.
If Moon had rotation rate which was the same as Earth and wasn’t well insulated then it would only be about 10 C cooler than Earth.
And both factors would still mean the lunar surface at zenith to to sun, would have surface temperature of about 120 C.
Hotter than Earth noon temperature, but lunar night would still get much colder than Earth’s night time temperature.
Or Moon would still be both hotter and colder in day and night as compared to Earth.
Oh also I said near zenith, the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” is largely about warming where sun never gets near zenith.
Or the location of London on the Moon does not get very warm during day and gets colder at night.
Or the effects of atmosphere and ocean of Earth has greatest effect above 45 degree latitude [both North and South].
Or Canada is cold now [average -4 C] but without warming effects of atmosphere and ocean, it would be much colder].
g,
I think you misunderstand me. I was referring to the insulation between the Sun and the surface. The Earth has some, the Moon has none.
As you are aware, the hottest temperatures on Earth occur in the arid tropical deserts, which have the least amount of alleged GHGs over them.
In regard to heat absorbed by the surface, it doesn’t really matter. At night, the surface loses all the heat it received during the day. It cools as a result. No GHE.
Have fun.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn says:
February 19, 2019 at 10:08 PM
g,
I think you misunderstand me. I was referring to the insulation between the Sun and the surface. The Earth has some, the Moon has none.”
Yes, the sunlight is reflected and diffused by the atmosphere and one could call this insulation.
When sun is at zenith, one only gets about 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 watts of diffused and direct sunlight.
Such sunlight can only warm a surface to about 80 C. And can cause water below the surface of solar pond to reach a temperature of about 80 C.
With moon and same conditions can reach a temperature of about 120 C in regard to blackbody surface [though other surfaces can reach a much higher temperature].
“As you are aware, the hottest temperatures on Earth occur in the arid tropical deserts, which have the least amount of alleged GHGs over them.”
The hottest ground temperature on Earth is about 70 C, to get this temperature requires air temperature of around 50 C.
70 C or 158 F is warm enough to fry eggs, and one has the question can you fry eggs on the sidewalk.
It seems the opinion is that you can’t fry eggs on the sidewalk.
Perhaps in very dry desert one can fry eggs, and people tend to avoid hot dry deserts, but 60 to 65 C is fairly common in summer not in deserts and on sidewalks.
Of course a wet sidewalk is not going to get very hot, and eggs are quite wet.
“In regard to heat absorbed by the surface, it doesnt really matter. At night, the surface loses all the heat it received during the day. It cools as a result. No GHE.”
Sidewalks can be warmer as the sun goes down.
Swimming pools can seem rather warm after the sun goes down.
Part of the UHI effect is the absorbed energy of the sunlight in terms of roads and structures. And if watering plants the increase in water vapor also has UHI warming effect at nights.
And there is tendency in summer for a warmer day, to follow a warm day. Or if in summer and you have some weather event which cools a day, it tends to take several days to warm back up to temperature was before it cooled.
Well, there is this I suppose:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287
Now who can argue with that authentic sophist gibberish? I think we’re all indebted to DREMT for uselessly commenting what didn’t need to be commented (again).
Fluffball sure hates it when he gets hit with the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
B,
You wrote –
“Now who can argue with that authentic sophist gibberish?”
Not you, obviously. That would require knowledge of things beyond your ken – English comprehension, physics , and like matters.
Your trollish petulance might commend to you to other foolish Warmists, but not to rational people. Off you go now, pretend that ignorance is to be admired, and that fantasy is fact.
Cheers.
Bindidon wrote –
“This is “discrediting and denigrating rthe work of others”.
Nobody has the right to do that.”
Don’t be daft. I have the right to do anything I want to do. Why do you believe that I should dance to your tune? Would you let me dictate what you are allowed to do?
You are a fool if you think physical facts can be changed by consensus or debate. Still no useful GHE description. No testable GHE hypothesis. Just more speculation and fantasy.
Cheers.
Say you had greenhouse on the Moon. Equator. 100 meter in diameter and a hemisphere.
A 100 meter diameter sphere has 5.2410^5 cubic meter volume
And hemisphere is 1/2: 2.62 x 10^5.
So: 262,000 cubic meters.
The amount of air in hemispheric dome is 1 kg per cubic meter when air is at 0 C
[Earth is about 1.2 kg per cubic meter when air about 20 C].
And we make air 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.
I don’t know off hand how much pressure would when air is 1 kg per cubic meter and 0 C, but whatever that pressure is, it will maintained. So when air is warmer than 0 C, air will pumped into storage tanks, and when air is colder than 0 C, the air will pumped in to maintain that pressure.
The storage tanks will in middle of dome and under the surface, and will have solar panels to provide energy to pump the air into these underground tanks.
One could questions like, how big do these storage tanks have to be?
And you can wonder if the atmosphere in the dome will liquefy at night.
And if pump warm air [or any air] into tanks, the air will warm, and if release back into dome, it will cool from the temperature of air in the tanks. Assume tank have very good insulation in terms heat lost into void of space, but ground around them can retain heat or be heat sink. Say they are 2 meters below the surface.
And one can ask will the storage tanks increase the temperature of ground around them [and how much].
But to answer some these questions, one has know how warm and cold will the air on the dome get during the 29 earth day, lunar day.
@gbaikie,
“And you can wonder if the atmosphere in the dome will liquefy at night.”
Interesting question! The answer is that if your dome was located on the lunar equator the atmosphere would not liquefy given that oxygen at 12 bar boils at 90 K and nitrogen boils at 77 K), whereas the lunar surface temperature at dawn would be ~95 K.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
If the dome was at a high lunar latitude it could be exposed to temperatures as low as 43 K. You won’t find many places in the solar system at such a low temperature.
It seems to me that about 25% difference between 0 C and 100 C, so storage tanks would have to be able to store 25% if entire mass of air- about 25% of 262,000 cubic meters or 25% of 262,000 kg.
In terms more pertinent to climate, how much difference would be if instead of 100 meter in diameter, the dome was 100 km in diameter?
And if 100 km in diameter would you also need to store about 25% of the air in storage tanks. Or significantly less or more.
And if add greenhouse gases does this change the percentage of gas which needs to be stored.
Svante wrote –
“Mike Flynn says:
“Reduced cooling is still cooling. The temperature is dropping. Energy is being lost.
A raised temperature is due to heating. Not cooling.”
Try stopping your CPU fan.”
What a dimwit. When my fan cooled CPU’s power supply is off, the fan does not spin. It has stopped. The CPU does not heat up. Svante has no clue, so shoots himself in the foot while he has his foot in his mouth! Double the stupidity.
Even his pointless trolling shows his level of incompetence.
Keep going Svante – you can set a new ignorance and stupidity record, if you try really, really hard.
Cheers.
The equivalent state for Earth is at 2.7 K.
Svante, please stop trolling.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Real Temperatures . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Are you interested in seeing real temperature data (NOT temperature anomalies).
I am talking about actual absolute temperatures, like 21.2 degrees Celsius. Not an anomaly, like +1.0 degree Celsius.
I have got the average temperature, the hottest month (summer) temperature, and the coldest month (winter) temperature, for 216 countries.
I have combined the temperature data, with population data, to show how real temperatures vary, for all of the people who live on the Earth.
====================
For a graph showing temperature and population by country, see:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/temp-population-by-country
====================
For graphs showing detailed temperature data for 216 countries, see
https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country
How many times do you intend to show that?
Are you that proud about it?
Source? BEST? GHCN V3? GHCN daily?
Bindidon is verte with envy.
Bindidon,
yes, I am VERY proud of it.
I extracted the temperature data from a public “weather” website, which keeps long-term statistics. They have statistics covering different periods of time, for different countries. They usually have 30 to 60 years of data, for a country.
I had to read over 60,000 web pages, to extract the data (I couldn’t get the data by simple downloading). My wrists and fingers were extremely painful, after typing in 60,000 web addresses, and then copy/pasting the data from each webpage, into a spreadsheet.
It took me the best part of 7 days continuous work, and many many cups of coffee, to get the data.
But it was worth it.
Sheldon Walker
“I had to read over 60,000 web pages…”
Ah well ah well, you poor guy. Sorry for you.
In the GHCN daily directory:
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
you have access to over 100,000 stations worldwide, and nearly 36,000 of them deal with temp measurement.
The file ‘ghcnd-inventory.txt’ contains info about latitude, longitude, the measurement type and the measurement period for each station.
The file ‘ghcnd-stations.txt’ contains the stations’ altitude and their full name.
It’s a lot of data (3 GB compressed, 30 GB uncompressed), and caution: don’t click on the ‘all’ link, that results in a display of all the 108,000 station file names on the browser’s window.
Each line in the station files contains
– station id (the two first characters refer to the station’s country)
– year, month, measurement type, and all dayly values.
gawk is the best text processing tool if you don’t write own software.
It is a UNIX tool but is also available for Windows systems.
binny…”In the GHCN daily directory:
https://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
you have access to over 100,000 stations worldwide, and nearly 36,000 of them deal with temp measurement”.
You are completely out of touch. NOAA uses less than 1500 of those stations and uses a climate model to synthesize the rest via interpolation and homogenization of the less than 1500.
If you had taken the time to read the articles on GHCN at Kristian’s site you’d see that the GHCN record is an adjusted, discombobulated, contradictory set of imaginary numbers.
You know about imaginary numbers, don’t you?
Here’s the basis of the theory:
x^2 + 1 = 0
x^2 = -1
therefore,
x = (-1)^1/2
Better stated, x = the root of -1.
But, wait…if x is THE root of -1, then x times x must equal -1. Er…um…no. It doesn’t. There are no two real numbers that when multiplied together can equal -1.
That about sums up the GHCN record. It’s imaginary. It may have been real at one time but it has been fiddled and fudged so much it is now in the Imaginary domain.
BTW…in engineering, we manage to make use of that imaginary relationship to delineate between the real power delivered by an electric motor and the so-called imaginary powered used by the motor to maintain it’s electromagnetic field.
Kind of a play on words, the power used to support the motor fields is just as real as the power it delivers. However, there is an exchange taking place between a magnetic field and an electric field in which one feeds the other and it doesn’t cost us much in the way of real power.
One solution to the problem of x^2 = -1 is to create an imaginary world in which i =(-1)^1/2 (i is defined as the square root of -1). In other words, you define that world even though it has no existence. Then we can talk about the root of -1 as if it means something.
That’s what NOAA and their buddies at NASA GISS have done. Being unable to to find any serious warming in our real world, they have created an imaginary world in a climate model in which they can fudge to the extent of their heart’s desire and create the warming they need to get them funding from gullible people who want to believe we are all headed for climate disaster.
Robertson
I was absolutely sure the dumbest commenter evah would urge to place his brainless nonsense below my comment.
What does Okulaer’s meaning about GHCN interest me, Robertson?
Like you, he is a Pseudoskeptic married to his own egocentric narrative.
Jesus man! When will you stop to bore me with your dumb stuff?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Learning how to torture the data:
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-20
The very best book about (not Institutionalised) Pseudoscience:
https://books.google.de/books?id=oCEUDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Enjoy!
binny…”The very best book about (not Institutionalised) Pseudoscience:”
Don’t get your point. Novak, the author, although he seems to be a skeptic, has a very poor grounding in physics. He is arguing that kinetic energy does not equal 1/2mv^2 and that it should simply equal mv, which is momentum.
In arguing that, Novak does not get it that momentum is a property of a body AFTER the accelerating force has been removed. Kinetic energy is related to the work done in getting it to that state. When a mass is accelerated by a force, it changes velocity in an exponential manner. When the force is removed, the mass continues moving with a constant velocity (aka momentum), provided it meets no resistive forces.
He argues in another point that the Stefan-Boltzmann ‘constant’ emphasizes way too much radiation and not enough conduction. That’s because S-B is based on the radiation from a heated platinum filament wire which is hot enough to be called a blackbody.
S-B were dealing with radiation, not conduction, even though Stefan took great pains in one experiment to remove the effect of conduction.
Conduction is not an issue since the conduction of heat by air is minimal but the radiation at those temperatures is considerable. He does make an excellent point, however, regarding the AGW notion that radiation is a primary dissipator of heat at terrestrial temperatures.
He claimed that an industrial fan would be of little use if it only convected the percentage of air claimed by the Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget. Why would anyone use a fan to move heated air if radiation was doing the job claimed by Trenberth et al?
In residential homes, little interest is shown in heat loss via radiation. The focus is in insulating again heat loss through conduction. Why should the Earth’s surface be any different?
The probably most heretic paper ever presented in the field of Institutionalised Pseudoscience!
Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging
Stephen M. Merkowitz (2010)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253913/
This is absolutely unbelievable!
People pretending to give proofs of the General Relativity by using Lunar Laser Raning. Oh Noes.
C’est vraiment la preuve du Mal par le Mal.
I tell you: hor-ri-fy-ing.
Yeah. But… the Strong Equivalence Principle is what it is.
Je n’y peux rien.
B,
What are you babbling about? Do you have a point?
No? Why am I not surprised.
Do you have two pencils? It would seem difficult to appear so deranged as a result of only playing with one.
Cheers.
binny…”The probably most heretic paper ever presented in the field of Institutionalised Pseudoscience!
Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging
Stephen M. Merkowitz (2010)”
The paper says a whole lot about nothing. It strikes me as an exercise on imprecision.
Robertson
As usual: an incredibly dumb, superficial comment.
You would never eb able to scientifically contradict such people.
The only you are able to is: discredit, denigrate, and lie.
You clearly misuse here the lack of moderation in this beautiful blog, and you coward perfectly know that.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
For the galloping camel
In the same corner where I found two years ago the first reference to Tom van Baak’s time dilation experiment at Mt Reignier near Seattle, I also found this:
Herbert Eugene Yves
Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation (1952)
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIvesDerivation.pdf
Yves was over his life a really incommodious, tough critic of Einstein’s work.
But this publication shows to what extent he was entitled to do so!
A terrible paper, look at its very last sentence…
This was lightyears above e.g. Robertson’s dumb denial on this blog.
Btw, the page
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Historical_Papers.html
contains a lot of interesting references around Light and Relativity’s breedbox.
Nothing for Psiudosains ayatollahs…
@Bindidion,
Thanks for that Ives link. That is what JDH would call “Institutional Science”. While I am skeptical about E = mc^2 it is consistent with my day job at Duke (my night job was building six K-12 schools).
While E = mc^2 can explain fission and fusion weapons these are puny compared to GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursters):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
GRBs are the brightest energy sources discovered to date and you will notice that they last from 0.2 to 10,000 seconds. The most likely mechanism is relativistic Compton scattering
The Duke HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source) can create relativistic Compton scattering in our laboratory and maintain it for hours or even days. When a photon collides with a particle such as an electron or a proton it can be deflected or even reverse direction. This process is known as Compton scattering.
So how do you calculate the maximum energy of the scattered photon? According to Einstein the energy is E(out):
E(out) = 4 * γ^2 * E(in)
The appropriate parameters for the Duke HIGS are:
E(in) = 2 eV (electron Volts)
γ = 2,000, so γ^2 = 4,000,000
Thus E(out) = 32,000,000 eV = 32 Mev (a gamma ray photon)
We can “Tune” the output photon from 2 to 100 MeV and we can polarize it……linear, elliptical or circular polarization. My esteemed ex-colleague blew my mind by declaring that photons have spin. It will take me a while to get used to the idea of “Spinning Photons”. You heard it here first!
None of this can be predicted from Newtonian mechanics so here is another “Proof” that Einstein was right.
However you need to remember that Einstein did not take himself too seriously. He had a great sense of humor. He told us that a thousand experiments could not “Prove Him Right” while a single experiment could “Prove Him Wrong”. Thus I would contend that my view of physics is compatible with Albert Einstein’s.
gallopingcamel
Thanks for the reply. But let me insist a bit: the really relevant breaktrhu about E = mc^2 was not due to Einstein himself.
This was derived by others before he came along. Who knows of Hasenöhrl today?
Einstein’s great work was to perform the synthesis of the work made by others.
Einstein referred to Maxwell’s eqn.s in his SR 1905 paper and built on those not Hasenhrl. It was only after Einstein published in 1905 that Hasenhrl corrected his earlier work & agreed with Einstein 1905 on special relativity.
Ball4
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIvesDerivation.pdf
Please follow carefully Yves’ demonstration.
Amazing.
Poincare, Planck, M. Abraham and many other physicists were long convinced EMR possessed inertia from Maxwell’s eqn.s. The first to publish the correct amount of that inertia was indeed Einstein in his 1905 paper.
See Note 5 in your link to Ives paper for the history. Hasenohrl published in 1904 a formula that he admitted was wrong when M. Abraham pointed that out. Hasenohrl then published another updated formula in 1905 that was shown incorrect also by Einstein’s correct formulation of the inertia of EMR in what became known as special relativity.
A. Einstein 1905: “If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2.”
ball4…”A. Einstein 1905: If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2.”
Another apparent blunder by E. In the days he made such comments, very little was known about electromagnetic radiation and its interaction with the electrons in atoms.
cam…”However you need to remember that Einstein did not take himself too seriously. He had a great sense of humor. He told us that a thousand experiments could not Prove Him Right while a single experiment could Prove Him Wrong”.
That was in reference to a scientific journal editor who had advised him many people disagreed with one of his theories. He claimed it only took one person to prove him wrong.
Around the same time, an editor took it upon himself to reject a paper by Einstein, claiming it sounded wrong. Can you imagine the temerity?
We are still at it today, with stacked journal editorial boards rejecting papers by scientists like Roy simply because they disagree with what he is saying. Roy pointed out an instance where a reviewer rejecting his paper did not seem to understand what he was saying.
Barry Marshall, who proved stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria had his paper rejected. The editor who rejected it claimed his paper was one of the worst he had ever read.
Duh!!! How is any editor or reviewer meant to understand cutting edge science? That is not the function of a reviewer, it is to determine whether the paper has a scientific foundation as opposed to the kind armchair science we get from posters around here like binny.
The real review of a paper is meant to be performed by scientific peers, not some biased idiots running a journal.
binny…
The introductory quote from one of your links re Conspiracy of Flight:
“The equation relating mass to energy, E=mc^2, appears in two guises. In one guise it applies to radiation existing in space, and is applicable to the interaction of this radiation in pressure and impact phenomena where the radiation retains its identity as such. In these phenomena the m in the relation E=mc^2 is the mass equivalent of free radiation. In the second guise the relation E =mc^2 applies to radiation as emitted or absorbed by matter; in this case the m is the mass of matter, and the significance of the equation is that it describes the gain or loss of mass by matter when absorbing or emitting radiation”.
Point one, no one has ever proved that radiation can convert to mass, or vice versa. Neither has anyone proved a mass equivalent of energy, or vice versa.
Point two, E = mc^2 is not a description of the mass/radiation relationship in general. As cam pointed out, it may apply to fission or fusion, but not to ordinary masses emitting radiation.
The notion that mass diminishes with radiation emission, or increases with radiation absorp-tion, is sheer nonsense in general. Unless that absorbed/emitted radiation is in the form of mass particles, there is no way ordinary radiation will affect the mass of a body.
E = mc^2 is another one of those equations that, in general, has little or no physical reality to back it.
When people offer sci-fi notions like spacecraft with sails being propelled by radiation, I think they are confusion really solar winds composed of protons and electrons (plasma) with electromagnetic radiation.
Robertson
As usual: an incredibly dumb, superficial comment.
You would never eb able to scientifically contradict such people.
The only you are able to is: discredit, denigrate, and lie.
You clearly misuse here the lack of moderation in this beautiful blog, and you coward perfectly know that.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Chic Bowdrie
Thanks for your reply upthread; I moved our little conversation to thread bottom.
It is a pleasure to read your comments. You seem to know much more than the usual geniuses alltogether.
“Before those excited molecules have a chance to emit, they share their energy with you and the other air molecules.”
That indeed is a point I can only agree to. I read something like that some years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/y4nq4e2o
Dr. Halpern is a highly discredited person here, but his isn’t by far as wrong and ignorant as some pretend.
His head post ends with
“Comparing the radiative rate … (the inverse of the lifetime) to the collisional deactivation rate …, provides a quick estimate that only one out of 100,000 CO2 molecules excited … by collision or absorbing a photon, will emit.”
*
But… this was not at all my point! I wass not asking about how few of these brave H2O and/or CO2 molecules would reemit a photon, instead of passing a bit of energy to their neighbours. This is reradiation, what I actually am not interested in.
What is of interest for me is to compare the sources of energy causing convection processes:
– conduction, and, as you noted, the evaporation out of the oceans
vs.
– the effect of absorbed IR radiation warming atmospheric gases thru collision (‘Brownian’ movement?).
Conduction accounts for somewhat over 20 W / m^2, evap-oration for just below 80 W / m^2 (as shown by global latent heat flux scans by satellite-based devices). That is still what we have to compare to IR emission at the surface, clearly a lot more.
Thus when you write:
‘So, taken together, I estimate that, excluding radiation directly to space, IR is a small fraction of the net energy transfer in the lower troposphere.’
Thus there still is something I miss or misunderstand…
I will enjoy your further explanations.
Bindidon,
Your interest in this topic makes wading through all the other pointless sewage worthwhile.
I did not express the relative importance of DWIR and UWIR very well previously. If you subtract the DWIR from UWIR on energy budget diagrams, you get 60 W/m^2 or so depending on who publishes the diagram. Of that amount, 40 W/m^2 or so is the radiation through the “window” that goes directly to space. That leaves only 20 W/m^2 attributable to IR. That is a small percentage compared to the 160 W/m^2 or so total amount of heat needing to be removed daily from the surface. In fact, I wonder how those numbers are measured. I suspect that the closer you get to the surface, the less contribution IR will be.
Chic Bowdrie
Thank you… but again: DWIR certainly exists, but unlike for UWIR, which is well quantified, I found until now no really good scientific reference explaining DWIR’s amount in a really convincing manner.
The web is full of nice pics like this
http://tinyurl.com/yxvms862
and the papers around them mostly are somewhat boring…
Bindidon,
Energy diagrams are a double edge sword. They illustrate all the energy transfers involved, but they leave most people with the impression there is a huge effect of back radiation which leads to all the speculation about how much warming will occur as CO2 continues to rise. The first clue that something is wrong is the 117% surface radiation that shows up in the diagram you linked to.
Chic Bowdrie
” The first clue that something is wrong is the 117% surface radiation that shows up in the diagram you linked to.”
Exactly.
Chic Bowdrie
It is exactly because of the large amount of back radiation (or better to call it Downwelling IR) that has the huge effect.
You show that with the IR active gases present in the atmosphere the radiant loss of energy from the surface is indeed small. If not for these gases the radiant energy loss would be very large indeed, far exceeding the other heat transfer mechanisms.
If you suddenly removed all the IR active gases from the atmosphere while the surface was still at the average of 288 K the radiant energy loss to space would be 390 W/m^2 rather than 40 that goes through the window.
Poor Norman can’t even understand his own pseudoscience. The “budget” clearly indicates the surface only absorbs 163.2 W/m*2, yet emits 397.8 W/m^2, over twice as much. So in poor Normans twisted imagination, if there were no GHE gases, the atmosphere would start obeying the 2LoT.
No wonder he is so frustrated all the time….
JDHuffman
Still trolling I see. You just love to get knee-jerk reactions from posters.
Your comment is not rational or logical or based even upon the graphs.
Just some nonsense to attempt a troll tactic.
The energy budgets actually have the surface absorbing around 500 watts/m^2. At least get the facts correct.
Your posts, with incorrect facts, makes you look ignorant and trollish.
My fault Norman, I forgot you can’t understand your own pseudoscience.
The “budget” Bindidon linked to:
http://tinyurl.com/yxvms862
clearly indicates the surface only absorbs 163.2 W/m^2 of SOLAR. Yet the surface emits 397.8 W/m^2, over twice as much. It not that hard to understand the blatant violation of 2LoT.
It must be so frustrating for you.
Norman,
“It is exactly because of the large amount of back radiation (or better to call it Downwelling IR) that has the huge effect.”
You only perceive it to have a huge effect. If the effect is so huge, why doesn’t the surface temperature warm up at night? DWIR tracts UWIR unless the surface is supplying additional heat to the atmosphere provided by the sun, not by DWIR.
“If not for these gases the radiant energy loss would be very large indeed, far exceeding the other heat transfer mechanisms.”
To say that you would be eliminating evaporation and water vapor and end up with a completely different set of numbers.
If I had to guess, for planets with atmospheres, their average surface temperature would be colder without any IR active gases, because local temperature extremes would be less. Extreme temperatures radiate proportionally more according to Holder’s inequality.
Having said that, would the atmosphere be any colder? Where would the daily heat gained by conduction from the surface go?
“If the effect is so huge, why doesn’t the surface temperature warm up at night?”
it does! The near surface thermometer temperature will increase at night occasionally when the effect you mention increases as a check of overnight weather station records will show.
JDHUffman
I guess your rational circuits are fried. Nonfunctional.
The link shows the solar input but also 340 W/m^2 from GHE which gives around 500 watts/m^2 absorbed by surface.
You still think the only thing that determines the temperature of a heated item is how much energy is being added. Rational thought cannot change your view.
Troll away.
Chic Bowdrie
Roy Spencer has already calculated the massive effect GHE has on surface temperature. DWIR is not supposed to warm the surface at night and it is less than the UPIR. The thing it is responsible for is maintaining the surface at night. It is a really large effect.
Look into it and see what you think.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
Chic Bowdrie says:
Rather because their radiation balance is set at the surface.
Earth has to emit about 235 W/m2, requiring about 255K.
The atmosphere would be busy shifting heat sideways, day to night, equator to poles, sea vs. land, etc.
Heat gained will convect up and come down and where it is colder, for a zero net. In doing so it would create a lapse since it is still subject to changing pressure.
The temperature anchoring point will be at the cold surface instead of the TOA.
Feel free to correct me Norman.
Norman: “You still think the only thing that determines the temperature of a heated item is how much energy is being added.”
Nonsense Norman. You still have a learning disability.
The only way to increase the actual temperature of a body, or a system, is to increase the net temperature potential.
You can quote me on that.
Svante
I think that sounds fairly reasonable. The surface would be the temperature anchoring point. It will be the place where the energy goes to space from. On Earth it comes from different places in the atmosphere.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
The IR from atmospheric water vapor emits to space from warmer layers. The atmospheric window emits from surface temperature. CO2 emits from much colder regions of the atmosphere.
The spectrum of an atmosphere with no GHG would be equal to the surface emission.
I think you are correct the atmosphere would still move things around to minimize the temperature gradients from unequal heating.
Norman,
The “huge” effect never exceeds the UWIR. And it is totally a function of the air temperature which gets all its warmth from the sun, not IR gases. If you removed all the IR gases, the surface would cool faster, but what about the atmosphere?
Svante, please stop spewing the AGW talking points. We’re all just making hand waving arguments here, but at least I can follow Norman’s.
You guys are both just rationalizing whatever confirms your bias. Where are the measurements of anchoring points, emission layers, spectra, and temperature gradients without IR gases to support your positions? All speculation. At least, I admit that’s what I’m doing.
“The “huge” effect never exceeds the UWIR.”
The DWIR effect exceeds the UWIR on calm nights when the local air temperature is measured to increase Chic. You can see this measured in NOAA ESRL plots of the three.
“Where are the measurements of anchoring points, emission layers, spectra, and temperature gradients without IR gases to support your positions?”
In the published literature & text books by many authors Chic. They are where you find them.
Chic Bowdrie,
I don’t know how this can be so difficult, it is simple logic.
1) Earth has a radiation budget.
2) If there is a surplus it will warm, and vice versa.
3) If the atmosphere has no radiative properties the balance has to be achieved at the surface.
Do you really not agree?
Svante,
Well, if you dumb it down sufficiently, 1) and 2) should be simple enough. But you left out some more complicated steps before 3) which I would not agree to without some additional information.
Where do you think any surplus comes from?
Chic Bowdrie says:
“Where do you think any surplus comes from?”
Assuming constant input, it comes from reduced output.
Output is determined by temperature, so that means lower temperature seen from space (on average over the spectrum).
To get a higher surface temperature you need to obscure it from view. You need to make the atmosphere more opaque, and the atmospheric layers you then see have to be cold.
Svante,
You continue to regurgitate AGW talking points. I learned them years ago and failed in my search for data that confirms them.
Assuming constant input prevents you from considering other possibilities. Kristian has data showing that input is not constant. Dan Pangburn has data showing water vapor is what moderates output.
IMO you cannot increase the opacity of the atmosphere any further with more CO2. And if additional radiation is absorbed in the wings of the 10 micron band by more CO2, it has all night to be radiated away. What stops it?
More importantly, where is the data that confirms more CO2 increases temperature? Talking points don’t cut it.
Chic Bowdrie,
It’s not talking points, I’m just trying to set the basic principles first.
“IMO you cannot increase the opacity of the atmosphere any further with more CO2.”
Let’s say you can see down to an altitude of 6500 m from space in those CO2 IR bands. This is determined by the likelihood of encountering a CO2 molecule along the light path.
If you double the number of CO2 molecules, surely the likelihood would increase, and surely that means that you can’t see as far into the atmosphere from space.
Svante,
OK, if you double the CO2, at the TOA those molecules may absorb and emit more radiation in all directions. I say may, because emissions are a function of temperature, and I have no proof that more molecules will radiate more. If my suspicion is correct, the air at the TOA should be emitting more radiation as CO2 concentration increases. Any radiation absorbed by CO2 at that elevation by whatever source, when emitted, will never get back to warm the surface to any significant extent. The odds of a photon being reabsorbed somewhere prior are too great. However, energy emitted upward is much less likely to be coming back.
I think spectra showing the notches indicating CO2 absorp.tion are misleading because they are showing the emissions above, but not the absorp.tions below which are subject to other factors such as thermalization and convection.
It is complicated, but stick with it.
No, you don’t see twice as many CO2 molecules from space.
The distance you see through in those frequency bands is determined by the number of CO2 molecules, so the number is the same.
The difference is that you see a higher layer on average. If there is a lapse rate this layer is initially colder.
Whatever is inside must warm until the radiation balance is restored.
You can work out the same result from the surface and up, but don’t do that until you understand this.
Svante,
Are you trying to express your talking points in a different way, hoping I will see it differently, have an epiphany, and become a shill for the AGW movement? Not going to happen.
If you want to disagree with my talking points, you have to tell me why they are incorrect. You will need actual data or a better explanation than repeating or rephrasing what you already think and have expressed so far. That is not going to change my mind.
I’ll try again to explain why your static view of the atmosphere misleads you. There is no constant radiation source on any given m^2 of surface. Most of the radiation from the day is soaked up in the lower troposphere and what isn’t goes directly to space. There is a huge section of air in the upper troposphere that is subjected to convection, evaporation, condensation, radiation from above and below. There is no well defined measurable elevation where the lapse rate is initially warmer or colder because it hasn’t been measured before and after CO2 was doubled.
If I had to guess, which is what everyone does, more CO2 actually enhances surface cooling during the day and impedes it at night. The net effect would be less extreme temperatures and a mild increase in average global temperature. Even that is likely to be obscured by the other natural factors that affect temperatures.
If you can’t appreciate this complexity, you are doomed to be enslaved to the propaganda of what seems to becoming well known as institutional pseudo-science.
CB,
The pseudoscientific fixation with IR is quite bizarre. Infrared, by definition, is all light wavelengths longer than visible red light. All. From the infinitely long, through those emitted by objects just above absolute zero, radio waves, and so on all the way up to just long enough to not to be seen as visible red.
Measuring the total energy impinging on the surface is impossible (with any accuracy). Averaging is an act of rank stupidity – for example, ice can emit 300W/m2. The average energy reaching the Earths surface is supposedly less than this. A miracle of pseudoscience, perhaps, but appearing rather odd to rational people.
Now, the fact that the surface of the Earth is demonstrably less than it was when it was molten (or even when it was nowhere cool enough to let the first liquid water form – over 100C), shows that all the energy received from the Sun, plus a bit more, has been radiated to the cold deeps of space. More out than in, one might say, certainly over the last four and a half billion years or so.
A rational person can easily see why the self appointed pseudoscientific practitioners of the non-science of climatology are clueless and deranged. No need to wonder why there is not even a useful GHE description – it would be a laughter inducing document resulting in extreme embarrassment for its author.
Facts often have no impact on the faithful. The cult leaders claim victimisation, conspiracies to suppress their Earth shattering insights, and so on. Doom is always just around the corner, and things are always worse than they thought. Failed past predictions are said to have been foiled by the evil machinations of their enemies – but Doom is still coming! What a load of bollocks!
Have fun believing.
Cheers.
Thanks, I appreciate your input Norman.
Of course what I just described is the snowball earth which has occurred more than once since the earth was a molten rock, so there wasn’t a lot of temperature difference. The CO2 thermostat warmed up the planet again.
Svante, please stop trolling.
B,
Unfortunately, the good Dr Halpern has lost his clue.
At your link, he wrote (amongst other things) –
“This is an evergreen for two classes of bunnies
Bunnies who don’t realise that the molecule can also emit light. . .
Bunnies who think that the only way that an excited molecule can get rid of the energy is to emit a photon. ”
He goes on to talk about molecules colliding. They don’t. This is the sort of lie you tell children on the basis that you don’t think they are capable of coping with the truth.
Either Dr Halpern doesn’t know what he is talking about, or he is treating his audience like children, and lying to them intentionally. You have the choice of believing an undistinguished chemistry professor, or someone like Richard Feynman, who actually shared a Nobel Prize “for their fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles.”
You may believe whom you wish. I choose to believe Feynman.
Stick with the ludicrously misinformed Eli Rabbett if you wish to be seriously and continuously misled.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Richard Feynman would not agree with you at all. If you claim to believe Feynman you should at least attempt to read what he has to say about the subject.
Here:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_39.html
YOUR claim (based upon absolutely nothing): “He goes on to talk about molecules colliding. They dont.”
YOU: “Either Dr Halpern doesnt know what he is talking about, or he is treating his audience like children, and lying to them intentionally.”
More likely Dr. Halpern knows exactly what he is talking about and that you are just a nonsense troll that contradicts comments intentionally to try and get a reaction from posters. You are just another one of the many trolls that come here to stir up things.
Troll on troll. It is what you people have to do.
N,
You persist in depending on simplifications (lies for children).
Feynman said at a later date –
“So now, I present to you the three basic actions, from which all the phenomena of light and electrons arise.
-ACTION #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-ACTION #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-ACTION #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon.”
Elsewhere, he said that these three actions explain every physical process in the universe, with the exceptions of nuclear processes and gravity.
So carry on with your billiard ball explanation – you might throw in indivisible atoms as well.
Halpern is either condescending or clueles – or maybe both. Or maybe just deranged and delusional?
Choices, choices. Carry on Norman. Maybe you could dig up a copy of a testable GHE hypothesis – that might help. But of course you can’t, can you?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
As I said troll away. It is what you do.
I gave you a link to actual Feynman material. I guess you either ignored it or it does not fit in with a troll tactic.
Read the material I presented. Your trolling diversion is not an acceptable counter debate tactic (except maybe in troll reality).
Feynman reasoned that molecules behaved as small balls and engaged in elastic collisons. I don’t care what you think he said, read it instead. Quit the stupid trolling and grow up.
We have JDHuffman to troll this blog we don’t need another.
N,
Why should I provide a link? Are you so stupid or lazy that you cannot use Google, as no doubt others have by now. Oh well, if you are really that incompetent – I quoted from “QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter” by Feynman, which was published somewhat more recently than the original lectures to which you linked – about 20 years, in fact.
I do not need to obey your command to read the contents of your link, as I had already read Feynman’s lectures, plus subsequent additions and corrections.
I know what Feynman wrote, and I know what he said about why he used those simplifications. You may ignore the facts as you wish. The problem with Feynman’s simplification is that they do not help you to explain a GHE which you cannot even describe.
If you wish to disagree, you could always quote what it is that you are disagreeing with, and why, I suppose.
Carry on. Still no GHE, is there? You cannot even say what it is. That is a bit of a hurdle to get over.
Cheers.
Norman, Richard Feynman was a true scientist. He respected truth. He testiified before Congress, condemning NASA management, after his investigation of the Space Shuttle disaster.
You can be sure he would be speaking truth, were he still alive.
Mike Flynn
You don’t have to read the link. But it makes your posts look like an ignorant person. The link I provided was a Feynman lecture on Kinetic theory of gases.
I am ignoring nothing at all. I am showing you that your posts are just trolling. Nothing of value and a waste of time for anyone thinking there is a truth seeking person behind your posts.
Most regulars know you are a troll and only interested in provoking other posters. There might be new people that are not aware of your tactics.
Norman, I am showing you that your posts are just trolling. Nothing of value and a waste of time for anyone thinking there is a truth-seeking person behind your posts.
Most regulars know you are a troll and only interested in provoking other posters. There might be new people that are not aware of your tactics.
Hi Dr Roy
I liked your post on Australian weather.. And contributed a couple of comments.
But there are so many completely off topic comments and frankly abusive ‘ad hominem’ comments, that all the positives are drowned out by crap.
I suggest a stronger moderation process is needed..
With folks who indulge in such stuff simply banned or sin binned.
Bill
Bill in Oz
You are by far not the only one who whishes a stronger moderation!
Since two years I am regularly the target of insults – “idiot”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, “clown”, etc just because my meaning differs from theirs.
And in such a rough climate one day you start replying the same way.
These people would be banned elsewhere within a day.
I can only do my best. The difficulty is it depends on the trolls listening to my polite requests, and acting on them out of their own free will. Unfortunately, with the sort of personality types we’re dealing with, that’s not the most likely outcome. But, hope springs eternal. I’m sure he’ll be back, but at least for a few weeks now, “this website’s biggest troll (TM)”, David Appell, has been absent. That’s something.
DREMT,
You are confused about what constitutes trolling, abuse, and ad hominem attacks.
Its not complicated. Discussion of science issues by people who disagree with you is not trolling, not abusive, not ad hominem.
Nor is calling out people who are regularly troll, abuse, and use ad hom attacks.
Nate, please stop trolling.
As usual, the same, boring, ridiculous, brainless reply.
You behave really as if your major goal was to show us that you are really Robertson’s, Huffman and Flynn’s altar boy.
In that at least you perfectly succeed.
Oh, so when you said you would never insult me earlier, that was a lie.
Norman wrote above –
“If you suddenly removed all the IR active gases from the atmosphere while the surface was still at the average of 288 K the radiant energy loss to space would be 390 W/m^2 rather than 40 that goes through the window.”
Very sciency, completely meaningless. Flux density does not correspond with temperature. One cannot meaningfully add fluxes from sources of different temperatures.
Removing all gases (and they can all be heated and allowed to cool, emitting IR as they do so), from the atmosphere allows the surface to both reach higher temperatures, and cool to lower temperatures. This is seen on the Moon.
Talk of “windows”, and similar diversionary terms, is symbolic of the lack of understanding of pseudoscientific climatologists. The surface loses all the heat it received during the day, plus a little from the interior. Hence the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years.
If Norman had a useful GHE description, he would produce it. But he hasn’t, so he can’t. What a fool – hoping he can turn fantasy into fact by dint of studious avoidance and diversion!
Go for it, Norman. Good luck – you’ll need it.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The dimwit troll has no clue of what a someone posts and shows his total ignornace by posting meaningless troll crap that delights only fellow trolls.
Norman i think MF is being unfair, you have repeatedly provided a GHE, my understanding is it works like this:
1, EMR from the sun is absorbed by the surface
2, EMR energy is converted to heat energy and the surface warms
3, the Surface releases this heat energy as EMR energy
4, The surface cools
5, A small % of this EMR bounces back and warms the surface a little bit
6, Magic happens
7, The surface is now warmer than it was in step 2.
Thats about right yes?
crakar24
I don’t know what Norman exactly means about this.
I would write:
4. Not all the EMR energy emitted by the warmed surface reaches directly outer space.
It is partly absorbed by H2O , to a smaller extent by CO2 and – according to Chic Bowdrie – that results in a slight warming of the atmosphere due to collisions of H2O and CO2 molecules with the gas molecules around them (mainly N2 and O2).
Those few H2O and CO2 molecules having absorbed EMR which do not collide will reemit it in all directions. A bit of that reaches the surface again. It is nevertheless measurable.
5. The remaing part of surface’s EMR (frequencies between 8 and 12 microns, exactly around Earth’s peak EMR frequency of 10 microns) actually is not absorbed by any gas and luckily passes thru. That is the ‘atmospheric window’.
6. The GHE is no magic: it results from the fact that not enough EMR produced by Earth reaches outer space. But as the outgoing energy must be equal to the incoming solar energy, the planet warns a bit.
7. The effect of CO2 actually is imho very tiny. I don’t understand why people persist in asking why CO2 concentration increases while temperature doesn’t. Maybe that will happen in say 100 years…
8. I read an interesting paper (unluckily in French) in which the authors explain that due to its ability to stay in the stratosphere (where H2O precipitates) CO2 will intercept and reemit more and more EMR at higher altitudes, what then leads to EMR being now emitted from a cooler source, and lessens the energy output to space.
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf
8. But shhhut! This is worst “Institutionalised Pseudoscience’.
c24,
You nailed it at step 6.
As Bindidon points out –
“But as the outgoing energy must be equal to the incoming solar energy, the planet warns a bit.”
Emitted energy equals absorbed energy, therefore the planet warms a bit (in the short term), and cools a lot (in the long term). For every positive magic, there is an equal or unequal negative magic. I understand perfectly – or not.
Cheers.
crakar24
Not exactly.
I would agree with 1-4.
For 5) Almost all the IR emitted from the Earth Surface is absorbed by IR active molecules in the atmosphere. Only an average of 40 W/m^2 of the 390 W/m^2 emitted (average amount, I can get you actual specific measurements for locations if you are interested) will not be absorbed.
The atmosphere is warmed by a variety of processes. Condensation of water vapor, convection, and the absorbing of IR. The temperature of the atmosphere determines the amount of IR the atmosphere will emit. Because of the lapse rate it is much more near the surface than at the TOA.
6) No magic happens at all. IR energy from the IR active gases is absorbed by the surface and now with the same amount of solar input plus this energy the surface will reach a higher temperature.
7) At steady state conditions the surface will not get warmer. It is warmer with IR active gases than without with the same solar input. It will only warm until it reaches a steady state condition where the incoming energy equals the outgoing energy. The surface temperature will be at that point where this condition takes place.
Norman says: “Only an average of 40 W/m^2 of the 390 W/m^2 emitted…will not be absorbed.”
Norman, why do you keep implying that only 40 W/m^2 goes to space? Are you that confused by your pseudoscience, or are you purposely trying to mislead?
JDHuffman
Do you have a serious reading problem. I clearly stated in my post Earth’s surface. If at least you could read and then post some reactionary comment it would make you look less ignorant.
Since your poor reading ability did not see it I will show it to you:
ME: “Only an average of 40 W/m^2 of the 390 W/m^2 emitted (average amount, I can get you actual specific measurements for locations if you are interested) will not be absorbed.”
I made no implication that only 40 W/m^2 makes it to space and I am can’t see how you could leap to that assumption from what I posted.
You need to go back to school and take a course on reading comprehension. Communication is not possible with a troll that assumes things that were not said and then degrades the poster for their poor assumptions.
Norman, once again, I’ll let you argue with yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-318964
Great entertainment!
Norman,
Lets assume 5 is correct and some IR is at a frequency where it has a free path to space.
6, This is the “magic happens here” moment. What you are saying (i think) is EMR from the sun hits the earth, the surface warms, emits IR, cools, some IR bounces back and is absorbed the surface warms, then more EMR from the sun warms the surface so now the surface is warmer than it would normally be just from the suns EMR.
As such the surface will emit more EMR in turn causing more IR to bounce back and be re absorbed causing the surface to get even warmer plus the EMR from the sun, so now the surface gets even warmer.
The surface then emits even more IR and so even more IR bounces back to be absorbed by the surface plus the EMR from the sun………………….i could go on but you get the picture.
By your theory runaway warming of the surface would be the norm not the exception, hence step 6 “magic happens”
JDHuffman
You do prove my point about you completely correct. Continue with your irrelevant trolling. It seems to be what you like to do.
ME: “You need to go back to school and take a course on reading comprehension. Communication is not possible with a troll that assumes things that were not said and then degrades the poster for their poor assumptions.”
crakar24
NO it would not runaway at all. Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post.
The surface will warm to the point where the amount of energy entering the system is the same amount leaving. The surface has to emit an average of 390 watts/m^2 to be able to get 240 watts/m^2 out of the top of the atmosphere.
I can help you.
Look at one of the global energy graphs and run through the balance of energy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1024px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Norman, both the “390” and “240” figures are bogus. They’re imaginary. They don’t exist. You just aren’t able to separate pseudoscience from reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
The figures are not “bogus” at all. They are averaged values for the entire globe. I know Joseph Postma is not able to understand averaging but I had hoped you had enough math to understand what it is, why it is used. When you have a range of values then you find averaging is a useful tool. It is NOT bogus. You take average scores on tests, weight of population etc.
The averaged values are based upon actual real world measurements.
Here is one, there are many.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
You can call averaging bogus but it probably will only get compliments from the likes of Joseph Postma and the troll Mike Flynn. Most people understand the concept and use and do not believe it to be bogus. You can think that way if you choose. It makes you look ignorant like someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
JDHuffman
The figures are not “bogus” at all. They are averaged values for the entire globe. I know Joseph Postma is not able to understand averaging but I had hoped you had enough math to understand what it is, why it is used. When you have a range of values then you find averaging is a useful tool. It is NOT bogus. You take average scores on tests, weight of population etc.
The averaged values are based upon actual real world measurements.
Here is one, there are many.
https://tinyurl.com/yxhve58m
You can call averaging bogus but it probably will only get compliments from the likes of Joseph Postma and the troll Mike Flynn. Most people understand the concept and use and do not believe it to be bogus. You can think that way if you choose. It makes you look ignorant like someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Norman, in your desperate frustration, did you realize you sent the exact same comment twice?
Probably not.
What you fail to understand is that while linear results like test scores and populations can be averaged, non-linear results can NOT be simply averaged. Radiative fluxes are non-linear. That’s one of the reasons they can not be simply added. You refuse to learn about the Poynting vector.
So your link for outgoing flux proves little. And, the same would be true for incoming. You just don’t understand the basics. You are too obsessed with personalities. You always mention different people, which demonstates your immaturity. You focus on personalities, not science.
Norman says: on Feb.21,2019 at 9:51PM “Look at one of the global energy graphs and run through the balance of energy. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1024px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Norman, that is not a graph of real thermal energy/heat transfers. It is a graph of radiant emittances, which are only potential thermal energy transfers, that would occur at those levels only if those objects/surfaces were emitting only to 0K. The fundamental equation for radiation heat transfer shows this: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only when Tcold=0K does the radiant emittance equal the transfer of thermal energy q. When Tc is higher than 0K, the amount of real thermal energy being transferred is always less than the radiant emittance.
The correct figure showing the real energy transfers is Figure 5(a) from Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
Note that it shows no energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.
A paper written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics would never make the egregious error of claiming that there could be a real thermal energy/heat transfer from a colder object/system to a warmer object/system.
“The fundamental equation for radiation heat transfer shows this: q=ϵσ(Th^4-Tc^4). Only when Tcold=0K does the radiant emittance equal the transfer of thermal energy q.”
Then the fundamental equation for radiative energy transfer would show this: q=ϵσ(Th^4-0). But it doesn’t. Why is that REO2? Prof. Planck explained why. Heat transfer is a process, not a substance.
REO2 misuses the heat term and draws inaccurate conclusions; heat doesn’t exist in an object so heat can’t transfer out of that object. Heat is only a measure of object total internal KE.
JDHuffman
YOU: “What you fail to understand is that while linear results like test scores and populations can be averaged, non-linear results can NOT be simply averaged. Radiative fluxes are non-linear. Thats one of the reasons they can not be simply added. You refuse to learn about the Poynting vector.”
So says you without the slightest proof to back up your bogus made up claims. You also try to prove you know things by including Poynting vector which you don’t know what it is or how it works but you think it will fool people into thinking you are smart.
Radiative fluxes ARE linear. The relationship between radiative flux and temperature is non-linear but fluxes are definitely linear. They are watts/m^2 a linear amount.
If you have 1000 w/m^2 absorbed by a surface you have 1000 joules per second reaching it. There is no non-linear component. If you have 1000 w/m^2 and 200 w/m^2 being absorbed that surface has 1200 joules/second absorbed by the one meter surface. You can make up stuff all day long and even believe it is factual. You can convince a few you are correct. You, however, fail to prove you case with any evidence at all.
Also, if you look at the two posts, one has the original link and the other a tinyurl link. I thought the first one failed so I converted the link to a tinyurl. You are not very observant are you?
Ball4 says: on Feb.22,2019 at 8:37AM “Then the fundamental equation for radiative energy transfer would show this: q=ϵσ(Th^4-0). But it doesn’t. Why is that REO2?”
That is exactly what the equation says when the hot object is emitting to absolute zero, just as I said. Thanks for confirming that I am 100% correct.
Ball4 says: “Heat transfer is a process, not a substance.”
Your strawman is noted. That is what I have been saying over and over again. Thanks for once again confirming that I am 100% correct.
Ball4 says: “REO2 misuses the heat term and draws inaccurate conclusions.”
Your continued lie is noted. My correct use of “heat” is confirmed by the numerous times I have cited and quoted thermodynamics textbooks which say what I say, so all conclusions are correct.
Once again, Ball4 you are just trolling misrepresentation and nonsensical denial of reality. Quite pathetic.
And what does q eqn. indicate when the hotter object is emitting in view of one colder object?
Ball4 says: on Feb.22,2019 at 9:25AM “And what does q eqn. indicate when the hotter object is emitting in view of one colder object?”
The equation is q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴), and indicates the unidirectional transfer of heat/thermal energy from the higher temperature object, Th, to the lower temperature object, Tc. One q(heat transfer), not two separate qs(heat transfers). Just like Maxwell, Planck, and every thermodynamics and heat transfer textbook confirms.
Thx. REO2 eqn. for q then shows bidirectional thermodynamic internal energy transfer per Planck, REO2, with the net transfer direction determined by the resulting sign on q indicating the direction of the radiative heating process. That would be the net longwave Ozawa et. al. discuss.
Ball4 says: on Feb.22,2019 at 11:55AM “Thx. REO2 eqn. for q then shows bidirectional thermodynamic internal energy transfer per Planck”
Hahaha Wrong, you hilariously ignorant and obtuse troll. It shows unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer. There is only one q, thermal energy flow, and that is from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.
My simple heat transfer example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287 , proves that there can’t be bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer, because that would violate the 2nd Law because it would mean that the temperature of an always hotter object was increased further solely as a result of a transfer of heat from an always colder object.
Thanks for playing. It’s always a treat to expose your ignorance of thermodynamics and science.
REO2 is refuted by E. Swanson and Dr. Spencers testing.
Their testing proves that there can be bidirectional thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy transfer between objects with no violation of the 2nd Law because the temperature of an always hotter object can be increased further solely as a result of a transfer of thermal energy from an always colder object since their real processes produce entropy.
REO2 is simply wrong about many atm. thermodynamic processes as borne out by actual testing.
Ball4 says: on Feb.26,2019 at 9:08AM “REO2 is refuted by E.Swanson and Dr.Spencer’s testing”
Hahaha. Yet another false, evidence-free claim. As I have shown you before, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342282 , and as you are terminally incapable of accepting or refuting, Thermodynamics textbooks confirm that there has never been a real world experiment that have shown that the temperature of an always hotter object can be increased solely due to the transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object.
“Ball4 says: “because the temperature of an always colder object can be increased further solely as a result of a transfer of thermal energy from an always colder object”
Thanks for once again explicitly confirming that you DO deny the 2nd Law.
Thanks for once again confirming that you are a nothing more than a clownish troll.
“Yet another false, evidence-free claim.”
The testing results ARE true evidence REO2 is wrong. In rebuttal REO2 offers only evidence free inaccurate words. REO2 rebuttal fails.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
A typical nonsense is to compare the actual planetary warming in the last 100 years (I would say: still mainly of natural origin) with its natural cooling over the long term.
This cooling is estimated to be around 55 K per billion (!) year.
There is simply too much radioactive decay in Earth’s core to allow for a more rapid cooling.
Bindidon,
As for revising Norman’s #4, you wrote:
“Those few H2O and CO2 molecules having absorbed EMR which do not collide will reemit it in all directions. A bit of that reaches the surface again. It is nevertheless measurable.”
How is that measurable amount, if any, distinguishable from the amount due to back conduction? Forget about radiation for a moment and imagine the difference between thin air and dense air at the surface. Heat conduction is a function of density. Same with radiation only radiation has a longer “mean free path.”
Chic Bowdrie
What could back conduction be else than heat?
What is measured is not heat but radiation.
That IR measured by devices able to do line-by-line scans, and even manage to distinguish H2O reemission from that of CO2.
Don’t ask me where I read about that.
Chic Bowdrie
Science of Doom is a highly denigrated person under those I call the Pseudoskeptics, but under Skeptics (those needing no quotes around the word) he isn’t.
Judith Curry for example found his blog weel-done, informative. But some Pseudoskeptics denigrate her as well, life is complicated!
I propose the lecture of this page(s):
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
The long term DWIR average over 45 stations till publication by SoD in 2010 was 294 W/m^2.
I had completely forgotten this value.
2AM @ UTC+1, il est temps d’aller au lit…
Bindidon,
Back conduction is not heat in the same way that back radiation is not heat. Heat is the net transfer of energy from the warmer donor to the cooler receiver. Both mechanisms simply make the transfer less or slower, however you want to describe it.
All DWIR energy came from the surface or the sun. Its magnitude is totally dependent on the air temperature and it is always less than the magnitude of UWIR at the same altitude whenever the surface temperature is greater than the air at that altitude. Because the temperature gradient in air is relatively low, there is not much heat transferred radiatively through the air close to the surface other than what is radiated directly to space or comes in from the sun. The importance of radiation increases as a function of density the higher up in the atmosphere you go.
Regarding, SoD, I don’t think the issue is about whether back radiation exists, but rather what it does. Some say it doesn’t go from cold to hot, others say it goes but isn’t absorbed, and most agree with me that it just minimizes whatever greater energy is transferring in the opposite direction.
Chic Bowdrie
“Some say it doesnt go from cold to hot, others say it goes but isnt absorbed…”
I’m not speaking about what ‘some say’. I’m speaking about what is measured.
And all these ‘some’ are very probably those who discredit everything what they either don’t understand or – even worse – don’t accept, and in both cases anyway would be absolutely unable to scientifically contradict.
Soory Chic: I’m not so terribly interested in discussions when they land in such a corner.
*
“… and most agree with me that it just minimizes whatever greater energy is transferring in the opposite direction.”
Looks a bit better. Heat transfer between two bodies always is the net result of radiative transfers between them.
I agree.
crakar24 says: on Feb.20,2019 at 11:35PM
“3, the Surface releases this heat energy as EMR energy
4, The surface cools
5, A small % of this EMR bounces back and warms the surface a little bit
6, Magic happens”
All these steps happen in one simultaneous phenomenon, a unidirectional thermodynamic transfer of thermal energy from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere & space. That thermodynamic heat transfer process is governed by q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴).
The climate alarmists move from science to pseudoscience when they claim that #5 is a separate, real thermal energy/heat transfer, because that would be a transfer of thermal energy/heat which would violate the 2nd Law. I have proven that in my simple heat transfer example that I showed in my February 19, 2019 at 10:31AM comment, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287 .
The reality is that every Joule of energy that caused the surface to warm came from solar radiation. The radiant emittance of the atmosphere (the entire atmosphere, including the 99+% that is N2, O2 & Ar) merely reduces that unidirectional thermal energy transfer away from the surface, so the thermal energy/heat transferred from the Sun accumulates, and is the sole cause of the surface temperature increase.
Kristian has explained this to the house trolls here many times. They stubbornly refuse to accept this reality.
RealOldOne2
You are the poster that went as Kristian and you are still wrong. You have never been able to prove any of your misleading and false understanding of heat transfer and you rejected my many requests for you to prove you points. You never have and never will.
IR is a multiple surface exchange phenomena. There is not a simultaneous exchange of IR at a surface. The process of emission and absorbing are distinct and different and take place with different surface molecules. A cold body can emit very little yet absorb a lot. A hot body can emit a lot and absorb very little. Your bogus misleading physics needs to stop now. Prove it or go away!!!
Norman says: on Feb.22,2019 at 8:50AM “RealOldOne2 You are the poster that went as Kristian and you are still wrong.”
Your conspiracy ideation is noted. No, I am not Kristian. I just understands the real science of thermodynamics and heat transfer like he does.
Also noted that you can’t quote anything either Kristian or I have posted and show that it is wrong. You just deny it.
“You have never been able to prove any of your misleading and false understanding of heat transfer and you have rejected my many requests for you to prove your points.”
I have never interacted with you before, so you are talking nonsense.
And I have proven my correct understanding of heat transfer, in my comment that I linked you to in my previous comment. That comment proves that your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, because your wrong understanding results in the temperature of an always hotter object increasing further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object. That can’t happen because it is a direct violation of the 2nd Law.
Norman says: “There is not a simultaneous exchange of IR at a surface.”
Your denial of reality and denial of science is noted, as is your failure to provide any evidence to back up your science denial. I’ve quoted Maxwell who confirms that even over a century ago they recognized that there were not two separate heat exchange processes involved. Maxwell repeatedly said that they were one simultaneous phenomenon. Read this comment of mine: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342561
Norman says: “Your bogus misleading physics needs to stop now.”
You haven’t quoted anything I have posted and shown that it was wrong or was misleading physics. I’ve backed up what I have posted with cites and quotes from thermodynamics textbooks and valid science sources.
Norman says:
“You are the poster that went as Kristian and you are still wrong.”
Kristian believes in 2LOT orthodoxy, this is 2LOT superstition.
RealOldOne2
I did read your Maxwell quotes and they are all about HEAT transfer which everyone accepts is one-way from hot to cold. Heat defined as NET energy exchange. Notice the NET.
Energy flows both ways. Heat transfer cannot.
Your point is bogus and refuted by actual experimental evidence (one by E. Swanson and Roy Spencer) the rest from all textbooks written on heat transfer.
YOU: “That comment proves that your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, because your wrong understanding results in the temperature of an always hotter object increasing further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object. That can’t happen because it is a direct violation of the 2nd Law.”
WRONG! I have not said that heat transfers from a cold object to a hot one. I say energy transfers from a cold object to a hot one. Very different points.
NO, a hotter object will not increase in temperature from even energy transfer from a colder object. You, like all the others, put your own spin on things and totally ignore what is stated. A HEATED hotter object will increase in temperature if it receives more energy from a less colder object (Ball4 likes to use normal ice and dry ice). The hot object has to have a source of input energy to increase in temperature but the cold object will alter the final steady state temperature solely based upon how much radiant energy it transfers to the hot object. All well established physics and verified by actual experiments.
You are just wrong and do not actually study heat transfer. You pick and choose items you think support your view when in reality they do not.
RealOldOne2, we just laugh at clowns like Norman and Svante. They constantly violate 2L0T, but then claim they don’t.
It’s great entertainment.
Norman says: on Feb.22,2019 at 11:42AM “I have not said that heat transfers from a cold object to a hot one. I say energy transfers from a cold object to a hot one. Very different points.”
You have not explicitly said that heat transfers from a cold object to a cold one, but your claim of energy transfer from a cold object to a hot one is an implicit claim of heat transfer from a cold object to a hot one, because energy transferred as a result of temperature difference is by definition heat/thermal energy.
You are ignoring my heat transfer example which I presented here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287
That example shows that your claim that “energy” is transferred from the always colder object to the always hotter object, means that the temperature increase of the always hotter object is solely due to the transfer of “energy” from the always colder object. That “energy” in your understanding is transferred by radiation from the always colder object to the always hotter object. In your understanding, it is that “energy” which causes the increase in internal energy and thus temperature of the always hotter object. An increase in temperature of an object is the real world evidence that a transfer of heat has occurred. Thus, you are claiming that heat is transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object. You and other climate alarmists are really claiming bi-directional heat transfer. There is no way around that.
If you will be honest enough to answer this question about my heat transfer example, what you are claiming will become apparent.
Question to Norman: In my heat transfer example, is the cause of the object’s temperature increase from 255K to 303K a 240W/m^2 transfer of “energy” from the 255K shield?
Norman says: “You like all the others, put your own spin on things and totally ignore what is stated.”
Your projection is noted. That’s what you are doing. I’ve “spun” nothing. I’ve presented my heat transfers example which confirms my correct understanding. You have ignored what I have stated in that example.
I challenge you to quote anything I have stated in that heat transfer example and show that it is wrong. You can’t, because it is all correct.
Norman says: “You are just wrong”
Your baseless, evidence-free claim is noted.
Norman says: “and do not actually study heat transfer”
Hahaha. Sorry to deflate your hilarious hubris, but you do not possess the God-attribute of omniscience. Your claim to know that I have not studied heat transfer is wrong.
Norman says: “You just pick and choose items you think support your view when in reality they do not.”
Your evidence-free false claim is noted, and is confirmed by your inability to quote anything I have quoted which does not support my view.
Yes JDHuffman, the 2nd Law denying trolls are hopelessly conflicted and tangled in their web of ignorance, deceit, confusion, and contradictions.
Ball4 is the one who I have had first hand experience over a couple of years. He’s just as ignorant now as he was two years ago as evidenced in my extensive interaction with him then: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269862
REO2 arguments are refuted by E. Swanson’s and Dr. Spencer’s testing.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Norman is unable to respond with facts and logic, so he responds with his immature raving.
Nothing new.
While you wait for the next month global warming temperature point , instead of arguing if the Moon is round get yourself a beginner lesson in fizzix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjLX0YDuFqY
Nice one, physics is beautiful.
The dreamt team will call him nutty.
Svante trips up, again.
Dr. Robitaille is correct, unlike Svante’s pseudoscience.
He says your beloved GPE diagram is wrong.
No, you just can’t understand it, him, or physics.
Nothing new.
I moved this down here because the thread was getting really long.
ball4…”VanWylen & Sonntag: a body never contains heat”.
a quote from a pdf by your reference VanWylen & Sonntag:
Page 5 from:
http://bizuando.com/material-apoio/tdq1/resolucao-van-wylen.pdf
“Electric power is converted in the heater element (an electric resistor) so it becomes hot and gives energy by heat transfer to the water. The water heats up and thus stores energy and as it is warmer than the cup material it heats the cup which also stores some energy. The cup being warmer than the air gives a smaller amount of energy (a rate) to the air as a heat loss”.
These guys are as mealy-mouthed as you. They admit the electric element heats up then transfers HEAT to the water, then they revert back to the water containing ‘ENERGY’ but not heat.
There is a plethora of idiots out there today professing to teach science. From the statement above they refer to:
1)electric power being converted in the heater element. No it’s not power being converted it’s electrical current being converted to heat.
2)They refer to an electric resistor. Never heard of such a device. I have seen carbon resistors, wire-wound resistors, etc., but never an electric resistor.
3)The water heats up and stores energy. Yes…why does the water heat up….BECAUSE IT HAS HAD HEAT TRANSFERRED TO IT!!!!
The energy is heat and only a twinkie would waffle over that.
4)”The cup being warmer than the air gives a smaller amount of energy (a rate) to the air as a heat loss”.
Brilliant!!! They confirm the 2nd law which is about HEAT TRANSFER but they insist on calling it an energy transfer. That’s fine, but why the denial that the energy is heat?
They call it a HEAT LOSS. So something was lost from the water in the cup and they admit it is heat. Therefore the cup must have contained heat.
Gordon in their defence you could be a climate resistor a change resistor a government resistor therefore in the mind of a simpleton you have a electric resistor.
What they dont realise is an electric resistor be it carbon or otherwise produces HEAT if there is no HEAT then there is no CURRENT and your HEATER is broken or you forgot to plug it into the power point.
c24,
Resistance is futile. All your base are belong to us. All your hot is being heat.
Cheers.
Gordon: That’s fine, but why the denial that the energy is heat?”
because workers in the field of thermodynamics discovered by experiment long ago agree with VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat”.
“electric resistor be it carbon or otherwise produces HEAT”
VanWylen & Sonntag: “a body never contains heat” which is true as experimenters proved so any “electric resistor be it carbon or otherwise never contains HEAT”
“if there is no HEAT then there is no CURRENT”
There is no heat ever measured added to the resistor but there is current added as is easily measured, and a higher temperature as easily measured. Temperature is not heat. Perhaps Crakar can explain why that is the case.
Jesus f…..g wept Balls4.
Go down to your local Kmart etc (wallmart or whatever) and buy one of those dodgy bar heaters you know the type with the wire wound thingy that glows hot. Take off the the grille guard off the front turn it on and when it gets really really hot stick your finger on it, then remove your finger and tell me what the result was.
That wire that glows hot is a resister, it resists the flow of current and the by product is heat, turn the heater off ie remove the current and then stick another finger on it and tell me what the result is.
Heat is real it is produced by the electrons spinning aroung the nucleus of the atom (kinetic ebergy) tempereture is not real it is a man made construct used to measure the speed of which the electrons spin at.
I hope you were not educated at a university or college because it would sadden me to hear just how low the standards have fallen.
“tell me what the result was.”
The result was some thermodynamic internal energy in the thing that glows was conducted to my finger increasing its thermodynamic internal energy. Before my finger touched anything, some thermodynamic internal energy in the thing that glows was radiated, absorbed, reflected, scattered but not transmitted by my finger increasing its thermodynamic internal energy.
“Heat is real it is produced by the electrons spinning aroung the nucleus of the atom (kinetic ebergy)”
No, that’s wrong Crakar, that is not what is heat. Heat does not exist in an object & your thing that glows is an object. Learn from the experts in the field, Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Temperature is real (kelvin), just as mass is real (kg.). Each are one of the 7 measurable SI physical quantities. Temperature is not heat.
I hope you were educated at a university or college with the basics in a way that you can still learn from the masters in thermodynamics.
ball4…”The result was some thermodynamic internal energy in the thing that glows was conducted to my finger increasing its thermodynamic internal energy”.
To just about anyone else in the world, that internal energy is heat but you insist on giving it the name of generic energy. The type of energy associated with atoms in motion is heat…aka thermal energy.
The energy could be work, depending on whether the measure is one of the atom motion of vibration. However, heat is required to increase than motion and raise the kinetic energy, a measure of which is temperature. Furthermore, heat and work are equivalent.
The scientist, Joule, put a number to the equivalence back around 1840. He equated joules to watts, which are a measure of work.
That’s right, temperature is a measure of heat. Did you not know that?
edit….
“The scientist, Joule, put a number to the equivalence back around 1840. He equated joules to watts, which are a measure of work”.
Should read…
“The scientist, Joule, put a number to the equivalence back around 1840. He equated c to watts, which are a measure of work.
le. The calorie is the measure of heat and the watt is the measure of work, which is a measure of mechanical energy.
“That’s right, temperature is a measure of heat. Did you not know that?”
Temperature is a measure of the object’s avg. particle KE, heat is a measure of the object’s total particle KE.
Q. Is there more heat in a glass of hot tap water at 150F or in the Pacific Ocean?
A. There is more heat in the Pacific Ocean. Heat is a measure of the Pacific Oceans total constituent molecule KE.
Temperature is not heat. Failure to distinguish between the two results in much confusion demonstrated by Gordon.
Gordon Robertson,
Calories and Joules measure energy.
Watts measure power, which is energy per time unit.
All the same to you because you are a time denier.
Svante, please stop trolling.
What I like about this blog is that there are (occasionally) efforts to find common ground. “Ad Hominem” attacks are not the only thing going on here.
I am encouraged to note that CB (Chic Bowdrie) and MF (Mike Flynn) are finding some common ground.
This inspires me to find common ground with JDH but please don’t expect me to find common ground with David Appell.
GC. if you seek “common ground” with me, quit claiming you are willing to throw out the LAWS of physics, just because you don’t know them.
I am beginning to have doubts about your reading comprehension so I will restate my point.
Plato talks of Truth, Justice and beauty in terms of “Perfect Forms” that humans can try to discover. The problem is that humanity can never know when the latest physics hypothesis is a “Law of the Universe” that is exactly true.
Thus don’t feel bad that you can’t name a single “Law” of physics. Newton’s “Laws” of motion were proved wrong by Eistein’s mechanics. There are already problems with Einstein’s hypothesis as for example he is not exactly right with his prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
My job depended on applying Einstein’s GRT for more than ten years but I am not dumb enough to imagine that refinements and improvements to Relativity won’t be found from time to time. The same goes for string theory, supersymmetry, wave mechanics, quantum field theory etc.
I like the fact that you are feisty and argumentative. You might influence more people if you could curb the name calling.
GC, your perverted opinions are of no value to me. You keep implying what a great scientist you are, but I see little evidence. You have admitted you don’t understand thermodynamics, so that alone takes you out of the climate debate.
Stick with your philosophy, and leave science to the adults.
Oh, and the only “name-calling” I ever do is when I use the word “clown”. That’s not really “name-calling”, it’s just recognizing reality. When some clown says there are no Laws of physics, he’s a “clown”.
Now, tell us how great you are, again.
One of Clint Eastwood’s more pithy sayings went something like this…”A good man needs to know his limitations”.
So it is “perverted” to have opinions you don’t agree with. So what makes you an authority on anything? Do you have any limitations at all?
Perversion, as in perverting reality.
I don’t have to be an “authority” to know when someone is blowing smoke.
Albert Einstein told us that it only takes one experiment to prove a theory wrong but he did identify one “Law” that would never be proved wrong:
“Classical thermodynamics … is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced … will never be overthrown.”
Albert Einstein
I am impressed with Einstein’s skepticism about physics in general am troubled by his faith in “Classical Thermodynamics”.
GC, Did you find “common ground” with the examples from Holman’s heat transfer text to which you referenced? If so, do you agree that thermal IR EM radiation from a colder body to a warmer body will increase the temperature of the warmer one? That result, like my Green Plate demo, tells us the “back radiation” doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermo, right?
Wrong, Swanson. That is NOT what the examples demonstrated.
But you, again, demonstate your misunderstanding of 2LoT.
(Got those ice cubes warming your house yet?)
Huffingman, If you could read, you might find out the basis of all the equations in Holman’s section on radiation heat transfer. It’s the two way S-B equation in which all bodies both emit and absorb thermal IR EM radiation. You did look at the book before spouting off, didn’t you? In example 8-6, what is the calculated heat supplied to the first body, given as q1?
Swanson, I realize I can’t explain physics to someone that doesn’t want to learn. Just continue with your magic tricks. They provide plenty of entertainment.
The Huffingman wrote:
Yup, yur battn 1000 percent with another empty reply.
Yup, I usually get perfect scores when dealing with clowns.
As mentioned before, your “example 8-6” does NOT raise the temperature of the hotter plate. So, it has NOTHING to do with your nonsense.
But, please continue. I like getting perfect scores….
Huffingman, Holman’s example, indeed, the entire chapter, is based on thermal radiation being emitted and absorbed by all the bodies in consideration. There’s no rejection of the emission from a cooler body by a hotter body, that energy is considered to be absorbed. The calculated thermal energy flows are the result of the radiation transfer from 1 to 2 and then from 2 to 1, the last being every body’s favorite, “back radiation”.
The net flow of energy is from the hotter plate(s) to the cooler surroundings, there’s no violation of the 2nd Law.
All that is correct, Swanson. But you omitted the most important part.
In NONE of the examples does the hotter plate increase in temperature, from colder plate emissions.
That only happens in pseudoscience.
You’ve got a lot to learn.
Huffingman, That’s because neither of the examples show a situation with and without the second plate. And, the temperatures of the plates in example 8-6 and 8-16a are assumed to be fixed. How might one change the example to test your claim? Well, simply calculate the temperature of the hotter plates after the cooler one is removed. Surely a guy with your great understanding of math and physics can do that. What’s your answer?
No change.
You have a lot to learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342550
1) or 2), troll?
🙂
IMHO opinion the equations speak for themselves. It would be interesting to set up the problem exactly as Holman states it and find out how well measurements correspond with theory.
GC, As we all know, those equations are a form of model which are based on experimental results. Of course, one could attempt to provide experimental evidence for Holman’s examples, for what that might prove. My Green Plate Demonstration last year was intended to provide an easily understandable “proof” of the underlying physics, though, admittedly, not a perfect one.
The reason for this effort was the claim that so-called “back radiation” violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, a claim which, if true, would invalidate the theoretical foundation of AGW and climate change. Of course, Holman’s examples are based on the assumption that each body radiates energy as a function of it’s temperature and that radiation is then absorbed by other bodies in the surroundings, therefore Holman accepts the concept of “back radiation”, as do other text book writers on the subject.
You probably have much detailed knowledge of modern physics than I and I understand that atmospheric radiation is more complicated than the situation for solid bodies, I don’t see from your reply that you accept the implications of Holman’s modeling efforts.
Oh dear, gallopingcamel seems to be resisting the prime directive from the GHEDT, whatever next?
Swanson is trying to hitchhike a ride with Holman. But Swanson doesn’t realize Holman is going the opposite direction. Holman has his physics correct. Swanson is clueless.
Great comedy.
Various members of “the Team” have been arguing that it’s not insulation, but then later say that is exactly what it is…some (rightly) balk at the idea of “back-conduction heating” whilst others (who have obviously got the memo) are acting like it’s the most natural thing ever…all of them have at various points said the plates pushed together will be at 244 K, so now, after Eli’s later post has been finally shared, they are all over the place. Contradicting each other, Eli, themselves, it’s a joke!
+ 1 trillion (thats UK trillions not your silly US kind)
I always pay attention to your posts, gallopingcamel. In addition to your obvious wealth of scientific accomplishments and knowledge, you are on the cutting edge of the complex meteorology and astronomical issues discussed here. Keep posting and don’t be put off by the flack you get.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Global Warming Travel Warning . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
The IPCC has issued an urgent travel warning.
Many people are foolishly travelling to countries, which have an average temperature which is more than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than their home country.
This activity is highly dangerous, and could result in the deaths of millions of people.
The IPCC suggests that people limit their travel, to countries which have an average temperature which is less than 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than their home country.
Humans evolved in Africa, many millions of years ago. Climate scientists use the abbreviation “BT”, when they refer to this time (“BT” stands for “Before Thermometers”).
In the early days, early humans never travelled more than a few miles, over their entire lifetime. They never travelled more than a few miles, because kilometres had not yet been invented.
Humans, therefore, became adapted to a very narrow temperature range. Going outside of that narrow temperature range, could be deadly. Many early humans were eaten by lions, because they went outside of their normal temperature range.
But early humans had one advantage, that the other animals didn’t have. Because they never washed, early humans tasted horrible, and they didn’t smell very nice. So the other animals left early humans alone. And humans were able to travel all over the Earth.
====================
Scientists have proved that travel and temperatures, are more dangerous than smoking 60 cigarettes a day, for 50 years.
It is safer to stay at home, and take up smoking, than to go travelling in warmer countries.
Don’t worry. We understand that humans have an “urge” to travel. It comes from our early ancestry, when we had to find large herds of animals to eat.
Here at the IPCC, we want what is best for YOU. And we have had our top scientists work out a “safe” way of travelling.
To ensure your personal temperature safety, the IPCC has emitted the following travel regulations.
Travel will be limited to “safe” country groups. This means that travel may only take place between a country, and the other countries that are in the same temperature safety group.
For further details, please click the following link:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-travel-warning
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
So…I’ll ask again, one last time. Why doesn’t back-conduction warm the blue plate?
Yes indeed, DREMT.
And along the same lines, the clowns need to explain how the blue plate knows to stop emitting 200 Watts/m^2, when the two plates are pulled apart. The plates are identical, and the green plate was emitting 200 Watts’m^2 when there were together.
Also, why can’t the green plate absorb 200 Watts/m^2 after being pulled apart, when the blue plate (identical) can absorb 400 Watt/m^2.
The still can’t understand the correct situation:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
That 8e3 cartoon is still bogus. Shows a blackbody in the given conditions reflecting incident radiation and JD writes that’s “correct”. Wrong.
Nothing new. Learn some physics JD.
Yes fluffball, it’s called “thermodynamics”.
It’s not a subject for children.
Thermodynamics IS a subject for children to learn JD. Just like JD needs to learn some thermodynamics.
Nothing new.
See.
JDHuffman
I need to correct you. Your cartoon graphic is NOT thermodynamics. It is actually opposite of any science. I appreciate Ball4’s continued effort to try and help you understand that your made up version of reality is really terrible science and he explains why.
In thermodynamics, a blackbody DOES NOT reflect any radiation at all. Things close to blackbodies (real world materials) reflect very tiny amounts of IR.
You continue with the bogus cartoon acting as if it were valid. All you do is demonstrate your lack of knowledge of thermodynamics. It makes you look ignorant. I think you should take the time to consider Ball4’s point. He is correct and you are not.
“In thermodynamics, a blackbody DOES NOT reflect any radiation at all.”
Hence why the green plate can’t radiatively insulate the blue plate, to the point of temperature increase of the blue.
Poor Norman says: “In thermodynamics, a blackbody DOES NOT reflect any radiation at all.”
At least two things wrong with your statement, Norman.
1) There is no such thing as a “black body”.
2) An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.
That will be beyond your ability to understand, guaranteed.
The intelligent photon is beyond anyone who knows physics.
“2) An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.”
An object with high emissivity (let’s say 0.95) is heated to 500 K. Several photons with a wavelength of 10 um hit that object. The photons will
a) get absorbed 0% of the time
b) get absorbed 95% of the time
c) get absorbed 100% of the time
d) stop and explain to the object whether they came from a 300 K object or a 700 K so that the object can decide which photons to absorb and which to reflect.
JDBuffman
YOU: “2) An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.
That will be beyond your ability to understand, guaranteed.”
Not beyond my ability to understand at all. What I don’t understand is why you think that is a rational or reasonable thought based upon any real physics.
It is again one of your many made up opinions that you will never be able to support. It is bad science.
How many surface molecules in your 500 K object are left in the ground state able to receive incoming photons?
You can make up stuff all day long. That is what is beyond my understanding. Why do the couple skeptics like you and Gordon Robertson have to keep making up things that are not supported and you both act like they are established physics. Why do you continue to do this?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
A Blackbody will absorb all EMR that reaches it. You seem to forget it will also emit radiant energy based upon its temperature.
As the green plate heats up it starts to emit energy back to the blue plate. This energy is absorbed and adds to the energy of the blue plate. Not sure what your point is.
Predictably, the clowns rush in.
Svante and Tim try to misrepresent me and poor Norman tries to claim an object at 500 K will have molecules “in the ground state”! Of course Norman includes his false accusations and his juvenile fascination with personalities.
Unable to prove me wrong, they can only resort to their usual tricks.
They’re sooooo desperate.
Now, now, Norman, don’t tell lies. You even pointed it out yourself, earlier on:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
JDHuffman
Nothing new with you. You make unsupported claims. When challenged you post a meaningless reply avoiding ever having to support your claims. You use this troll tactic all the time. Most regular posters know you will employ this.
Maybe you should study some statistical thermodynamics. You could then calculate the percent of surface molecules in ground and excited states. Until then your posts are nonsense opinions based upon nothing.
“Statistical thermodynamics”! Now that is uproariously funny, Norman.
You, and statistical thermodynamics, what a great comedy skit.
I’m surprised you didn’t include some links, that you can’t understand.
JDHuffman
Meaningless troll response number 10516. Will you keep adding to the tally?
I suppose you won’t. You don’t know any other way but trolling. You could actually read a physics textbook. It might amaze you how incredibly bad your endless opinions really are and how they are not supported by anything.
Just keep making up your nonsense and trolling. That is what you do.
Not desperate, JD — just mildly bemused.
“… and Tim try to misrepresent me”
How so? I quoted you directly. I then tried to get you to defend your position. Instead of supporting your position, you simply wandered off into your standard mindless counterattacks.
We’ll make it even more simple — and then you can try to defend/explain your position.
A million IR photons with a wavelength of 10 um from a 300 K source head towards a (nearly) blackbody surface @ 500 K.
A million IR photons with a wavelength of 10 um from a 700 K source head towards the same (nearly) blackbody surface @ 500 K.
Which photons are more likely to get absorbed?
I claim both are exactly as likely to get absorbed, because all 10 um photons are identical.
As near as I can tell, you claim the photons from the cool source all reflect, while the photons from the warm source get absorbed. If that is NOT your position, then please clarify.
“We’ll make it even more simple…”
Who is this “we”, Tim? Come on, let me in on your little secret. Who’s on the team?
Tim Folkerts,
Don’t all 10 micron photons have the same energy? So how can two separate 1 million batches of 10 micron photons have different temperatures?
Tim and poor Norman, even Chic notices their desperation.
The comedy continues.
Chic asks: “Dont all 10 micron photons have the same energy?”
Yes, of course they do. E = hf = h c/lambda
“So how can two separate 1 million batches of 10 micron photons have different temperatures?”
You seem confused. The photons COME FROM objects at different temperatures. The photons themselves don’t have a temperature. The photons could also have come from the sun. They could have come from a laser. A surface will absorb any 10 um photon exactly as well as any other 10 um photon because they are exactly the same.
Yes, Tim. I am confused. If each photon has the same energy, then less than one million from the cooler body are equal in energy to the million from the warmer body. I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying something doesn’t make sense. If I don’t get it, someone thinking some photons don’t absorb, surely will object to your quiz as well.
Chic, my comments are in response to JD’s claim: “An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.”
I am just trying to force JD into realizing/admitting that photons from a cooler object are not going to get automatically reflected just because they come from a cooler object. The absorbing body has no clue about the temperature of the object that created the photon, and so the temperature of the source has no bearing on whether a specific photon gets absorbed.
Also, Chic, you are confusing me further when you say “If each photon has the same energy, then less than one million from the cooler body are equal in energy to the million from the warmer body.” If they are the same energy, then 1 million photons are equal in energy to 1 million photons — no matter where they came from.
Tim, I apologize for the confusion regarding the millions. What I meant was there has to be a difference between what is being emitted from 300K and 500K objects. So either the number of photons can’t be same or the time intervals that the millions arrive have to be different or something else.
I tend to agree with you, but I suspect JD thinks there is something encoded in the photon(s) so that it knows whether or not to be absorbed. He just isn’t explaining as yet.
“What I meant was there has to be a difference between what is being emitted from 300K and 500K objects.”
The warm surface might be smaller. Or farther away. Or maybe it just takes more time to get the 1 million photons from the cooler surface.
But we concur on the main point. Every photon of a given wavelength is equivalent to every other photon of the same wavelength. Once it leaves, there is no information about the surface that created it. So a surface cannot reflect photons from a cold surface by absorb photons from a warm surface because the surface has absolutely no way to tell where the photon came from.
I posted a related comment somewhere else not realizing you just posted here.
I think the surface area or distance should not be made a confounding factor. The time factor is key. The warmer object will emit more photons in a given time interval. And that rate is a temperature signature.
However, that probably won’t convince the reflector or non-absorber folk that photons from a cold body can be absorbed by a warmer one.
Maybe the question isn’t about the exchange of 10 um wavelength photons between the objects, at all. Maybe the question is, what wavelength photons is the hotter object sending to the cooler, which the cooler object cannot generate to send to the warmer? Just a thought.
DREMT, the question here is quite simple.
Is JD’s claim correct?
“An object with very high emissivity, heated to 500 K, would reflect all photons from another object at 300 K.”
This is a very clear direct absolute claim. ALL photons.
* Nothing about the rate of photons from hot vs cold
* nothing about photons that might only come from hot vs from cold.
* nothing about how far the photons came or how large the surface was.
Must ALL photons from a cooler surface get reflected from a warmer surface? Is this required to satisfy the 2nd Law? The answer is “no”. JD is simply wrong, and no “ifs” or “maybes” can solve this.
Oh, sorry Tim. I didn’t realize it was all about demanding explanations from somebody who is obviously not going to comment any further under this article, as they appear to have moved onto the newer one, which Dr Roy recently posted. If that’s all you care about, might I suggest you go to the new article, drop right to the bottom of the thread, and bring it up there?
DREMT,
This is not about demanding an explanation from JD. Frankly, there is no way he (or you or anyone else) can explain his claim, because he is simply wrong.
It is about explaining the basic physics so that NEXT time you and Chic (and anyone reading the thread) will realize how utterly incorrect JD was.
I wouldn’t dream of trying to explain someone else’s claim. All I’m saying is, it’s not like you don’t know where he is. Sitting here going, “I am just trying to force JD into realizing/admitting that…” is a bit silly really, unless of course you are hoping to make it look like a lack of response means something. You lot do tend to do that often.
Tim, thanks for the exchange. It helped me get my head around the gist of the argument.
DREMT, I got closure on this for the time being. It will come up again I suspect.
Yes, I agree. Eli’s more recent article was the clincher.
JD,
The inside plate surfaces start at the same temperatures when adjacent. When separated, there can no longer be 200 W/m^2 flowing through from one inside surface to the other if they remain at the same temperature. Therefore the inward side of the blue warms and the inward side of the green cools until a constant flux is restored. This happens to be 133 W/m2 if the plates are superconductors. A lower flux if you want to use real plates.
Chic, you’re still confused about the plates being at the same temperature, in the correct diagram. You believe energy cannot flow between them. Yet you believe energy can flow from a colder plate to a hotter plate, and even cause the hotter plate to warm!
Without the ability to think logically, and no knowledge of physics, I guess your only option is comedy.
And, you’re doing a great job at it.
“You believe that energy cannot flow between them.”
I think energy does flow between them depending on their temperatures. I don’t know why you say you know what I believe.
You are confused or are purposely trying to confuse. I suspect the latter, but I’ll continue to play awhile longer to see if you have any ability to present logic, data, explanations of cartoons, or anything resembling heat transfer knowledge.
Where have I given you the mistaken idea that net energy can flow from cold to hot? I’ve stated that at no time did any heat flow from cold to hot in any discussion involving real or thought blue/green experiments.
Now, if you can, explain how the separated plates can remain at the same temperatures, if there is a net heat flow through the blue plate to the green plate and through to a lower temperature?
Chic, you don’t exactly have a clean reputation here. You were not able to see the temperatures clearly identified on the correct diagram. Not only that, but you attacked me for not showing the temperatures!
So don’t start with the false accusations. You need to get something right.
Your question: “explain how the separated plates can remain at the same temperatures, if there is a net heat flow through the blue plate to the green plate and through to a lower temperature?”
If you understood heat transfer, you would know that “conductive” and “radiative” are different.
Conductive heat transfer depends on two temperatures. But, photons are emitted based on only one temperature. So, the blue plate right side would immediately start emitting 200 W/m^2 at separation, just as the left side is doing.
The “downstream” green plate would then absorb the 200 W/m^2. But, since the photons emitted back to the “upstream” blue plate cannot be absorbed, the green plate must be at the same temperature as the blue plate. It’s exactly the same as if they were perfectly together. It’s not hard to understand, unless you just don’t want to understand.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
“But, since the photons emitted back to the “upstream” blue plate cannot be absorbed”
Wrong JD, emitted photons incident on the blue plate are all absorbed producing entropy in the blue plate since the blue plate is a blackbody. Cartoon 8e3 remains bogus, i.e. pseudoscience.
Nothing new. JD still hasn’t learned these physics.
Fluffball remains bogus.
‘The downstream green plate would then absorb the 200 W/m^2. But, since the photons emitted back to the upstream blue plate cannot be absorbed, the green plate must be at the same temperature as the blue plate. Its exactly the same as if they were perfectly together. Its not hard to understand, unless you just dont want to understand.’
This has got to be a long con job. Nothing else makes sense.
If not JD ought to be able to show us where these ideas come from, beside his overactive imagination?
What physics book or source of any kind agrees with these very strange ideas, JD?
Interesting, up here Chic is going down the “Accordion of Pseudoscience” route, thus disagreeing with Eli. A bit further down it looked like he might be tempted by Option 1).
Don’t you consider what you are doing trolling and making a fool of yourself?
Please stop, for your own sake. I don’t care what you do.
Chic, I’m not the one who thinks that two plates would be at the same temperature when pressed together, yet one would spontaneously increase in temperature whilst the other decreases when separated. If “the math works” it might make any normal, rational person think “hang on a minute…maybe something’s wrong with the physics here?”
To be frank, even a five year old child ought to realize something’s up with that.
<ut by all means claim I’m the one making a fool of myself, for rejecting “The Accordion of Pseudoscience”.
Intuitively the accordion model does not seem quite right to me either, even though the math works. It might have something to do with the plate material conductivities and emissivities. Why don’t you join the cast trying to understand and explain what’s going on rather than throwing tomatoes from the audience?
I thought you didn’t care what I do?
But, I’m happy that I’ve done my bit. Plate materials are perfect conductors, and black-bodies, as far away from being insulators as it is physically possible to be. Always has been that way, that’s the thought experiment. That’s how it comes, take it or leave it.
So, I’ll throw my tomatoes with glee, if you don’t mind.
Sadly, that’s all one can expect from the peanut gallery.
Splat.
‘To be frank, even a five year old child ought to realize something’s up with that.’
Even a child understands that contact between objects transfers heat very well, as in getting a finger burned when touching something hot.
If you told them non-contact of their finger with a pot will burn them, they would rightly think you’re nuts.
A plate in the sun and a plate in the shade come to the same temperature?
Even a five year old child ought to realize somethings up with that.
Nate, the green plate is still in the shade of the blue when it’s right up against it. Never mind, eh?
Indeed in the shade, but in contact.
Its not at all difficult, DREMT. A five year old can understand this.
Why cant you?
The “contact” thing is even more stupid than the “shade”. The list of differences between your pot analogy and the plates scenario is endless.
The “Accordion of Pseudoscience” is utterly ludicrous, and that people would try to defend it is hilarious. It makes my day. Please continue.
OK, you are saying my qualitative arguments must be wrong, while your qualitative arguments must be right.
Our side also has solid quantitative arguments, with real numbers. It also has a real experiment.
Yours? None of these.
Well, then, the argument is over.
Thanks for the continued entertainment.
Let me just ask this, DREMT.
Can you give me an example from everyday experience, where objects in contact and not-in-contact result in the same heat transfer?
Can you give me an example from everyday experience, where an object in the sun and an identical one in the shade come to the same temperature?
No, no, Nate. Can YOU give ME an example, from everyday experience, where you hold two things together and they are at the same temperature, and then you separate them, and one increases in temperature whilst the other cools?
Keep on with the entertainment.
🙂
Easy,
A soldering iron is touching a copper pipe. While in contact with the pipe, the soldering iron’s temp is lower and close to the pipe’s temp.
After breaking contact, the soldering iron warms and the copper pipe cools.
Now you.
A clothes iron, in contact with a pair of pants, both reach a medium temperature.
Out of contact the pants cool, the iron warms.
A frying pan placed on an electric stove. The pan and heating element reach a medium temp.
Remove the pan and the heating element warms and the pan cools.
There are dozens of everyday examples.
You?
No Nate, two passive objects, like the plates. Thanks for the chuckles, though.
Passive?
You mean no heat is input to Blue plate in GPE?
Oh is that what you thought, DREMT?
Well, I guess we’ve solved your problem then.
Both plates are passive objects, Nate.
🙂
You deny that the BLUE plate has heat input to it?
Of course it does. As does the soldering iron, the clothes iron, and the heating element on the stove.
Thats why I gave you those examples. They match the GPE.
I am still waiting for YOUR real world examples. Anything?
If you cannot think of any, thats a problem for your model, DREMT.
You dont have theory, math, experiments, nor real-world examples that agree with your ideas.
A heat source, and two passive objects, Nate. Essentially, three things. That’s what your example will need to show, and it’s already apparent you have nothing.
But, you don’t need to defend the AoP any more, Nate, so your professional sophistry is not necessary anyway. Eli has already thrown the AoP concept under the bus, in his latest post. I get that this has got you all worked up, but you’ll get over it.
Why should I care at all about what you think Eli says.. it is a red herring. More diversionary tactics to keep the argument alive when are all out of answers.
‘A heat source, and two passive objects, Nate.’
Yes my examples all have that, DREMT.
Whether the energy input comes from sunshine or electricity makes no difference. Both produce heat flow into one of the objects.
C’mon, you really dont get that, DREMT?
Three objects, Nate. One heat source, two passive objects.
You’ll get over it.
🙂
Ignorance must be bliss.
I get it, DREMT, your anonymous. So who cares if people take you seriously or not. Right?
You don’t really care how silly and how far removed from reality your arguments need to get, the main thing is to never admit defeat. Never admit your ideas are erroneous, no matter what.
Nate does tend to project sometimes.
He’ll get over it.
Keep the dream alive, DREMT..
Nate, please stop trolling.
I’m interested to see what they’ll go for:
1) plates pushed together, blue 262 K, green 220 K.
2) plates separated, blue 244 K, green 244 K.
I guess you could say, “Eli threw those clowns under the bus”.
DRsEMT and Huffingman, You trolls sure like wasting space. Your question has been answered numerous times.
If the two plates were held together and the surfaces were smooth and flat, the result would be identical to one plate with twice the thickness/mass of the single Blue Plate. As a result, the equilibrium temperature of the combination would be the same as the single Blue Plate before the Green Plate was lifted into position facing the Blue one. There’s no “back conduction” in conductive heat transfer. Can’t you jokers understand anything?
E. Swanson,
There will be back conduction, as Tim Folkerts explained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342665
Both plates have a finite diffusivity and there will be a temperature drop from the hot to the cold side. When the plates are combined, the thickness will be twice the one and the heat flux through will be half due to “back conduction.”
CB, What you describe, based on thickness, is forward conduction from the warmer side of the Blue Plate to the cooler side, first when there’s only one and then when the two are combined as if they were one with twice the mass. For a metal, such as aluminum, there’s a relatively large coefficient of conduction, so the temperature difference can be neglected. Of course, a more through analysis, such as Holman’s examples, includes the surroundings.
But, when separated, there are 4 radiating sides to the two plates, whereas the combined situation provides only 2. Remember that the radiant transfer leaving the Blue Plate is a function of T^4, area and emissivity, but it’s temperature is also a function of the temperature of the surroundings, which emit IR EM which the plate(s) will absorb. Thus, there will still be some “back radiation” with only one plate.
If it comforts you to ignore the thickness or thermal conductivities in the plate materials, so be it. In the real world, the flux through one plate will be cut in half when you put an additional plate alongside the other. I’m calling that back conduction, because it acts the same way as back radiation.
If you increase the amount of CO2 gas in a tube through which you previously measured the transmitted radiation, the added CO2 reduces the transmitted radiation due to back radiation, no?
CB, In engineering, one often makes simplifying assumptions. For example, recall my previous calculation. Using my aluminum plates 10.16cm x 8.89cm for a surface area of 0.0090m^2 and a thickness of 0.0064m., if the energy flow is 25 watts, with aluminum conductivity (from Holman) = ~200 W/m/K, the temperature drop would be only 0.09K. For twice the thickness, the temperature drop would double to 0.18K.
I suggest that your concern is somewhat excessive. Besides, combining 2 plates results in a different system description. The radiant energy called “back radiation” happens in either of the configurations under discussion.
E. Swanson,
I am not really that concerned. If you don’t see the point, it is your problem.
I am not denying back radiation, at least not until I further explore the idea that radiation from a cooler body can’t be absorbed by a warmer one. What I am trying to illustrate is that the alleged back radiation is similar to the phenomenon that occurs when you decrease conductivity in heat diffusion situations. I would think you would agree that increasing the concentration of IR gases in the air increases back radiation analogously.
In solids heat is often conducted by phonons, which are vibrational excitations of the atoms, like photons.
There ought to be some travelling from cold side to hot side, just as photons do-you could call it back conduction..
Nate,
I never heard the term phonons, but I’m old school. I suppose that is a reasonable term for what happens.
Diffusion of heat in solids (and liquids sans convection) is similar to molecular diffusion. A molecule in Brownian motion doesn’t know which way is more or less populated by his kind. There is a 50:50 chance to go either way. It’s just that more molecules are likely to be going toward the less concentrated space than the other way around. Molecules going the “wrong way” are back diffusing.
CB wrote:
No, they aren’t “similar” in a mathematical sense or in physics. To begin with, the “back radiation” process is a function of the temperature of the cooler body raised to the fourth power. The warming of the hotter body results from the increase in energy supplied to it as the result of it’s absorp_tion of some of the IR EM from the cooler body. The resulting increase in temperature of the hotter body thus depends on the hotter body’s initial temperature, as a higher temperature for the hotter body will result in it’s radiating IR EM at a higher level, thus the additional energy from the cooler one won’t result in as great increase. Do the math.
In an instance of simple conduction, the heat transfer from one side to the other is a linear function of the difference in temperature between the two sides. It doesn’t matter if the hot side is 500K or 1000K as long as the difference is the same.
E. Swanson,
“Do the math.”
The fourth power of the temperature term in a radiation problem makes it a lot more complicated, but I think you will find that conduction through layers and radiation through layers are mathematically similar. The flux is constant at steady state. Half the molecules are back conducting, just like your cooler body is back radiating.
With radiation, the difference in the fourth powers of the temperatures is what maintains the same flux.
CB wrote:
I continue to disagree. If half of the “molecules” are “back radiating”, how could there be an energy flow from the warm side to the cooler side? But, not to dissuade one’s continuing search for truth and not fully understanding the underlying physics, I can’t completely dismiss your notion. Maybe you could convince Gordo to add it to his repertoire of denialist talking points. But first, you would need to convince Gordo that back radiation from a cooler body causes the temperature of a warmer body to increase.
E. Swanson,
“If half of the ‘molecules’ are ‘back radiating’, how could there be an energy flow from the warm side to the cooler side?”
If a volume of air molecules are at the same temperature, then there is no net flow. But if there is a temperature gradient across a plane separating the molecules, half the radiation from the warm side will warm the cooler side and vice versa. If that keeps up, there will continue to be net flow until the two objects are at the same temperature.
Gordon will continue to disagree with both of us, because he does not think radiation from cooler molecules will be absorbed by warmer molecules. I am just trying to explain to you that, conceptually, there is no difference between back radiation and back conduction.
Swanson also steadfastly disagrees with Eli.
Whereas Nate and Chic are rolling with the “back-conduction” idea…the Option 1) choice.
DREMT fantasizes about people paying attention to his silly options.
Eli Rabett, the creator of the GPE thought experiment that you made an experiment to try to support, disagrees. Perhaps you should have read the link before you mouthed off.
Let me know what you choose, 1) or 2)
🙂
Swanson has to keep avoiding the 800 pound gorilla in the room–“Why do the plates magically change intensive properties if slightly separated?”
Huffingman, Troll, there’s a change because the conduction between the two joined plates ceases and thermal IR EM radiation then takes place between the now separated plates.
Swanson, look up “intensive property”.
You have so much to learn.
Huffing guy, What property might you be referring to? Don’t keep us in suspense, it’s too dramatic.
Did you not look up “intensive property”?
You can’t learn if you don’t do the homework.
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
1) or 2, troll.
🙂
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “SoIll ask again, one last time. Why doesnt back-conduction warm the blue plate?”
It is quite obvious. There is no energy to warm the blue plate.
The blue plate receives and input of 400 Watts (in Eli’s example) and radiates 200 Watts from each of its surfaces.
When the blue and green plate touch they have two radiating surfaces and if conduction is at a reasonable rate, then you have 400 going in and 400 leaving.
If you want back-conduction to have an effect on the blue plate temperature than you would see it if you have really good insulation around the green plate so it loses almost no energy. Now the energy of the blue plate that conducts to the green plate has no where to go and the molecules of the green plate start to vibrate more. In this case you have only one way energy can leave the system and that is the one surface of the blue plate. Now the blue plate will get much warmer. I am not expecting you to understand what I wrote but if you do it explains completely what you ask.
Oh, I agree. Back-conduction can’t warm the blue plate.
The little (well, massive) problem for all the dozen or so of the avatars that are here to defend the GHE at all costs (you included, Norman)…every single one of you is on record as saying that pressed together, the plates will be at 244 K.
Now, if you had bothered to read the link, you would have noticed that Eli wrote an update to his GPE problem, in August of last year, that nobody thought to bring up (obviously) where he wrote a simplified and generalised version of his GPE problem, and has said that “no matter the mechanism” of heat transfer, conduction, convection, or radiation; in principle, it should work the same.
That means that he’s saying even if the heat transfer mechanism is via conduction (plates pressed together, you see), the blue plate should warm.
So, you and I disagree with Eli. As do all the GHEDT.
“That means that hes saying even if the heat transfer mechanism is via conduction (plates pressed together, you see), the blue plate should warm.”
The basic model implicitly assumes the plates have high thermal conductivity, so that the two sides of the idealized plates are the same temperature. But this is only an approximation. The two sides will be slightly different temperatures because heat will not conduct across real plate unless there is a temperature gradient. So the true temperatures might be more like 245 K and 243 K on the two sides for a real plate. (or 248 and 240; or 270 and 205).
And then if you add a second plate, the temperatures would be like 246 K & 244 K on the two sides of the blue plate, and 244 K and 242 K on the green plate. Twice as large of a temperature difference (from front of blue to back of green) would be needed drive the heat across two plates.
Wow — the blue plate just warmed up due to conduction and the presence of the green plate!
[Saying that both sides are the same temperature in the original model is NOT an “error” — merely a simplifying assumption to focus on the main point and to make the calculations easier.]
Tim says: “Wow — the blue plate just warmed up due to conduction and the presence of the green plate!”
Tim, making up numbers to fit your beliefs is NOT science.
Of course, if you prefer pseudoscience….
Tim, if the GPE principle applies for conduction as it does for radiation, as Eli implies, then it should work with perfect conductors. After all, with radiation it supposedly works with black bodies (perfect absorbers/emitters). So, your options are:
1) Plates pushed together, blue 262 K, green 220 K (and the same when separated)
2) Plates separated, blue 244 K, green 244 K (and the ame when push together)
Let me know what you choose.
JD, simply disagreeing with everything is not science. Nor is simply calling anything you can’t understand “pseudoscience”.
What specifically do you disagree with?
* Will real plates not have a finite temperature difference?
* Will a thicker plate not have a larger temperature difference?
The temperature difference could be 0.1K or 20 K or 1.345K. The specific number is immaterial; the principle is the issue.
Tim, in a “thought experiment”, conditions are often assumed to be ideal, to simply. But what pseudoscience clowns fail to understand is if the conditions violate the Laws of physics, the thought experiment is invalid.
You need to address DREMT’s reasonable question–1) or 2)?
‘1) Plates pushed together, blue 262 K, green 220 K (and the same when separated)’
These options that you offer are oddly specific.
How is that you assign these numbers, given no knowledge of the conductive properties of the plates? Where do you get these numbers?
Why would you think that the insulating R factor would remain the same for plates separated or pushed together?
As you know, but are pretending you don’t (thus proving your dishonesty), the numbers are from Eli’s first GPE thought experiment post. In the updated post, his algebra is essentially the same, but he is leaving out any specific details, such as fluxes, and is just saying, e.g. “an amount of heat a”. At the end he says, “Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added”.
So, regardless of heat transfer mechanism, he is suggesting using the same algebra, implying the temperature numbers ought to come out the same (assuming the plates receive the same amount of heat as in the first post, etc). Insulating R factor is irrelevant, as we would be assuming perfect conductors (no insulative effect), just as with the radiative version, we assume black bodies (no reflectivity, so also no insulative effect).
So yeah, you have to decide whether to go for 1), or 2).
Under the given, DREMT conditions:
1)There is a single bluegreen plate at 244K at equilibrium
2)There are 2 plates, a blue plate at 262K, green plate at 220K at equilibrium.
JD,
Super conductors or not, you can’t have separated plates with heat flow from one to the other with no temperature difference between them unless your thought experiment has a phase change involved.
Looks like Ball4 disagrees with Eli entirely, and Chic might be leaning towards option 1).
Chic, I addressed that issue here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342778
“So, regardless of heat transfer mechanism, he is suggesting using the same algebra, implying the temperature numbers ought to come out the same (assuming the plates receive the same amount of heat as in the first post, etc). Insulating R factor is irrelevant”
False. He is suggesting no such thing.
Again you are declaring things that are unsupportable.
And you are demonstrating ignorance about heat transfer, while man-splaining to people who do.
Nate, people can read Eli’s article and decide that for themselves. If Eli wants to comment and state he didn’t mean it like that then fine; but if he doesn’t mean it like that, perhaps he should! After all, that’s what you would call “logical consistency”. I assume he would want to go with logical consistency rather than “The Accordion of Pseudoscience”, but whatever.
You’re an anonymous internet commenter, same as me, so there’s no point trying to appeal to your own authority, or anybody else’s.
So on that front, please stop trolling.
Nate blathers: “He is suggesting no such thing. Again you are declaring things that are unsupportable.”
Nate, DREMT included the exact quote.
Just some more facts for you to deny.
“Looks like Ball4 disagrees with Eli entirely”
No. I used the same answers as Eli. I just used DREMT’s bluegreen plate instead of Eli’s blue plate. Same results. Color doesnt matter which is why they call them blackbodies.
Incorrect, Ball4.
JD,
I don’t think you addressed anything but psychobabble.
Explain how the separated plates can remain at the same temperatures, if there is a net heat flow through the blue plate to the green plate and through to a lower temperature?
Let me know, if you need a review of the problem or want to revise it somehow.
Right, so its Option 1) for Chic.
Chic, you keep asking the same questions, in different places. It’s almost as if you’re avoiding the answers.
Here is my latest response, to your question upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342799
Try to stay in one area on the thread, if you want to have a discussion. Otherwise, you just look incompetent.
It’s hard to keep up with you, JD.
I do want to have a discussion, so I started a new thread below, to keep everything in one place. I’ll try not to be incompetent.
Chic Bowdrie
Even if I am not a physicist, I can tell you:
you are all but incompetent!
She walks like a model
She grants my wishes like a genie in a bottle yeah yeah
‘Cause I’m the wizard of love
And I got the magic wand
All these other girls are tempting
But I’m empty when you’re gone
And they say
Do you need me
Do you think I’m pretty
Do I make you feel like cheating.
And I’m like no, not really cause’
Oh I think that I found myself a cheerleader
She is always right there when I need her
Oh I think that I found myself a cheerleader
She is always right there when I need her
JD,
Nope. I quoted DREMT. He was not quoting anyone when he said
‘he is suggesting using the same algebra, implying the temperature numbers ought to come out the same’
That is purely DREMTs overactive imagination. And it is FALSE.
DREMT,
Eli’s words nor Tesla’s words are not scripture. Eli simply solved a problem that many students, including me, have solved over the years. Quoting and misquoting him is just avoiding the real problem.
Which is that there is only one correct solution. Whatever you guys say about it is neither here nor there, since you do not and cannot offer an alternative solution that satisfies physics.
Chic is absolutely right, you are just throwing tomatoes.
The usual BS from Nate.
Dr. Spencer, Scott Adams is looking for the 5 best skeptical arguments. You may want to make a similar post, or send Scott your ideas. The following is an example
Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/response-to-scott-adams-the-co2islife-top-5-skeptical-arguments/
5 “best” skeptical arguments ?
You have to be joking !
Those 5 “arguments” were the same mish-mash of illogical, unsupported, plain-wrong and often contradictory delusions promulgated by skeptics for years.
Nothing new, everything debunked multiple times.
How sad.
Then you should be able to make an accurate prediction if GHE is such a concrete theory.
I predict that the long term trend will still be one of global warming – next year, after 5 years , after 10 years, after 20 years etc etc Any data set you like.
I have been accurate for so long while denialists continue to get it so wrong (hello Salvatore !).
What would you like to predict?
m,
I predict that the future will show that no one has been able to usefully predict the future to date. Guesses, assumptions, or speculations are not predictions – as the self appointed climate scientists remind us.
The future is unknowable. Trends show the past, which is no guide to the future.
If 100 different models show different outcomes – at least 99 must be wrong, and the remaining one has a 99% chance of being wrong. Do you really advocate spending even your own money on stupidity like this? Be as witless as you like, but don’t expect me to fund your fantasy.
Cheers.
myki, I predict that when UAH global anomaly drops below zero, probably in the next few years, you will find some excuse why your pseudoscience is right, but reality is wrong.
Just as you are doing right now….
‘The future is unknowable.’
Mike doesnt ‘get’ science. He thinks it never works.
Weird.
Next time NASA predicts that a near-Earth asteroid will get close, but miss the Earth, feel free to not believe it, Mike.
Drain your bank account, enjoy your last few days of life to the fullest.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Have you read Dr. Spencer’s Climate Science 101? He basically lays it out all there. There are about 100 models or so. They have all been very poor predictors. They all over estimate climate sensitivity. Dr. Spencer believes that all the models assume positive feedback and they have proven wrong. He thinks they get the affect of clouds wrong and don’t fully understand it. He believes the climate is mostly insensitive and most feedback is negative. I believe I said all that right.
Stephen P Anderson
I myself was until now too lazy to start using it:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip5.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
But in a near future I think I’ll do, and compare model output with temperatures at surface, in radiosondes and from satellites.
I want to know it. By my own, without any interference whatsoever.
Btw, let me tell you that I read Roy Spencer’s ‘Global Warming 101’ years ago. And today, I miss there the page upload date stamp.
B,
Tony Heller has plotted the current satellite lower troposphere temperatures on James Hansen’s 1988 forecasts – at the same scale and normalized to the early 1980’s. lower troposphere temperatures have followed James Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C – meaning there is no evidence humans have influenced the climate at all. So either the model presented by Hansen et al. in “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute For Space Studies Three Dimensional Model” in the Journal of Geophysical Research, V. 93, 8/20/88, proves that CO2 emmissions have no effect on the earth’s climate, or the model is garbage, or CO2 has a negligible impact, or some other natural force, such as solar irradiance, cancels any CO2 impact. It’s all done for you here:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-01-11080638.png
Jung
Why do you tell me that stuff? Because you need a corner where to write it anyway?
I’m not interested in anything coming from Goddard / Heller.
Years ago I read some of his threads about GHCN V3 comparisons of unadjusted vs. adjusted data, did the same job on my PC and was simply horrified by his total lack of competence.
Non merci – No thanks.
binny…”Years ago I read some of his threads about GHCN V3 comparisons of unadjusted vs. adjusted data, did the same job on my PC and was simply horrified by his total lack of competence”.
Exactly why I call you an idiot.
Heller has a degree in geology and electrical engineering and he has worked for Intel doing quality control work for which he was lauded. In other words, he is eminently qualified to examine the quality of GHCN data.
He found it wanting and erroneous.
You are a rank amateur who plugs numbers into Excel then claims your amateur findings are right and those of UAH and Heller are wrong.
Only an idiot would make such presumptions without supplying the proof.
binny…”Why do you tell me that stuff? Because you need a corner where to write it anyway?”
No…it’s because the poster recognizes the qualifictions and skills of Tony Heller and the absence of both in your analyses. Someone has to tell you.
So my answer would be tell Scott Adams to read Climate Science 101.
I’m sorry, Global Warmning 101.
So, my answer would be to tell Scott Adams to read
https://skepticalscience.com/
I suspect that would not be Dr. Spencer’s recommendation.
How do you know?
Roy agrees with the GHE but disputes the magnitude – which is fair enough.
m,
Are you sure? How do you know?
Cheers.
mickey…”Roy agrees with the GHE but disputes the magnitude which is fair enough”.
My impression has been that Roy is not disputing the magnitude of the GHE, rather the magnitude of the warming effect of CO2 in relation to catastrophic AGW.
My impression has been that Roy thinks CO2 has a warming effect but he does not buy into the notion that rising levels of CO2 will lead to the catastrophic effects claimed by James Hansen et al.
I can live with Roy’s views on the GHE. For one, he has a degree in meteorology and works as a climate scientist. He has also had the courage and integrity to express his view that current CO2 levels are not leading to catastrophe. Considering his position at UAH and his connection with NASA, that took a lot of guts, not to mention integrity.
A few of us here disagree with Roy’s views on the GHE but he has had the tolerance to allow us to express our views. That puts him in the elite of climate blogs because most lack that tolerance. It would not be allowed at skeptical science, which seems to be one of your favourite pseudo-science sites. Nor realclimate, nor desmogblog, nor any of the other climate alarmist sites.
I want to say thank you to Roy for putting up with me in particular and thanks for having the guts and integrity to stand up to the status quo of climate alarmists, many of whom base their belief system on nothing more than political correctness.
mickey…”my answer would be to tell Scott Adams to read”
Skeptical science???!!!!
A site where the owner has admitted to being a cartoonist after he claimed to have a degree in science. A site where they found it humourous to dress as Nazis and to impersonate physicist Lubos Motl in a negative manner.
A site which claimed to have done a study proving 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming only to have the study revealed as a scam.
Yeah, right Mickey.
Are you unable to think for yourself? Oh, sorry, I forgot you are a climate alarmist.
Dr Spencer wrote –
“Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.”
Bad assumption, obviously. The Earth has cooled – therefore energy out is more than energy in. Not only that, but energy in (from all sources) was vastly greater in the past. Radiogenic heat has decreased enormously as the shorter half life isotopes became radioactively inert.
This gives some flavour –
“About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth.”
With a half life of about 4.5 billion years, about 50% of U238 is left, compared to four and a half billion years ago. The shorter half life materials are progressively less in quantity.
To sum up – no GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis. The GHE is based on a demonstrably false assumption. Time to look for a more realistic explanation of why thermometers show higher temperatures?
Cheers.
Mike you seem to be missing some important context!
SPENCER>> Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature…
FLYNN> Bad assumption, obviously. The Earth has cooled …
When Spencer is talking about “the earth”, he is clearly meaning “the surface of the earth” — The first few meters of ground and water and air where people live. He is NOT talking about the earth as a whole — the core & the mantle & crust.
This surface region of the earth has cooled — and warmed — and cooled — and warmed multiple times in the history of the earth. For example, this region warms slightly during each El Nino. This region has warmed dramatically since the last ice age.
Yes, the assumption is questionable because the temperature obviously varies.
No, the assumption is not questionable because the core has cooled (which no one questions!). That is not remotely related to the issues Spencer is discussing.
Tim, please stop trolling.
It seems that the preferred job of the Pseudoskeptics is to again and again pretend things looking right but in fact are wrong.
For example, to put numbers on par in comments that aren’t in the reality.
1. The Eath cools, indeed! At a rate of 55 K per BILLION years. That means 0.0000055 K per century… Ah well ah well!
2. Earth’s geothermal contribution (50 % of which is indeed radioactive decay) is, averaged over the whole Globe, a bit less than 1 W /m^2.
Solar insolation is 240 W / m^2. It hits Earth’s hemisphere facing it.
Comparing the two gives as result that geothermal energy is 1.75 % of solar incoming energy. It is not negligible of course and must be integrated in any trustworthy energy balance sheet for Earth.
Thus energy out is NOT SIGNIFICANTLY more than energy in.
Case closed? No? Some pseudoskeptic progress ahead?
B,
The point is the Earth has cooled. In spite of GHE. In spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight. In spite of insignificance. In spite of radiogenic heat.
In spite of fat-headed GHE worshippers pretending that facts are irrelevant. The surface is no longer molten, whether you like it or not. It has cooled.
No GHE. No testable GHE hypothesis. No CO2 heating. So sad, too bad. Facts are facts. The Earth has cooled.
Cheers.
Flynn
You can write your stubborn blah blah here as long as you want: it is and remains irrelevant.
B,
It obviously hasn’t occurred to you that I don’t need your permission to write what I wish
You may declare facts irrelevant, if you wish. Neither the facts nor I care.
Others may be more concerned with facts than yourself. Still no GHE. Not even a useable description, eh?
Sad.
Cheers.
Flynn
1. No one, myself very first included, has ever claimed that you need any permission to write here your usual nonsense.
2. You didn’t mention anything what could be identified as a fact by anybody – the few excepted who don’t contradict you for reasons of courtesy or obedience.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“Solar insolation is 240 W / m^2. It hits Earths hemisphere facing it.”
If you average it over unlit areas it is about
240 W/m2. If average it over sunlit side of hemisphere, it about 480 W, or average it over small part of sunlight hemisphere which always includes the tropical zone, it averages about 960 watts. And the latter is related what is called peak solar hours which is when most sunlight reaches the Earth surface and it is time when max daily temperature is taken and therefore a element of global average temperature.
“Comparing the two gives as result that geothermal energy is 1.75 % of solar incoming energy. It is not negligible of course and must be integrated in any trustworthy energy balance sheet for Earth.”
It should note that this geothermal energy is different when surface area is ocean as compared to land area. With land area the heat immediately radiates into space.
With ocean area it does not immediately radiate into space.
The ocean is cold and geothermal energy is largely warming ocean water which less than 1 C. The ocean bottom water is cold due cold polar waters which due to their greater density falls towards ocean floor.
So, one say most the Earth geothermal energy is a counter force to cooling of polar regions. And perhaps a force which prevents Earth from ever becoming a Snowball Earth.
Or would say the geothermal energy, is not a factor which can be dismissed as insignificant in terms global average temperature. Or it’s importance is comparable to growing or shrinking polar sea ice, as this relates global warming in our present million year long Ice Age.
gbaikie
You are right. I made a stupid mistake. These 240 W / m^2 are wrong here! Layman is layman…
Averaging hemispheric sunlit gives through squared cosine integration of solar power / m^2 (from which 30% were deduced due to albedo)
pi * 6,370 * 960 = 1.185 * 10^17 W / m^2
The globally averaged geothermal power per m^2 is
5.1 * 1 * 10^14 W / m^2
Thus the ratio geo/solar is 0.43 %, and not 1.75 %.
Correct?
Oops
pi * 6,370^2 * 960 = 1.185 * 10^17 W / m^2
Bindidon
I think your calculation is just for total watts not Watts/m^2
Your equations would have such a high energy density that maybe only gamma ray bursts could produce it.
You have 10^17 watts/m^2. I think it is 10^17 watts total and then you divide that up by the surface amount of m^2.
Norman
You are of course right. That happens when a layman like me tries to quickly transpose a little Excel computation into a comment. Duh!
The numbers are in Watt / km^2.
Right?
gbaikie
“It should note that this geothermal energy is different when surface area is ocean as compared to land area. With land area the heat immediately radiates into space.”
A. I was speaking about GLOBAL AVERAGE. And this is
0.7 W /m^2
(what I rounded up to 1 W / m^2 for unnecessary convenience).
B. This is simply nonsense.
What is reradiated to space does not depend on which source the radiation comes out.
It depends on the radiation’s frequency.
Inside of the atmospheric window (8-12 micron), all radiation directly escapes to space because there are (actually!) no gases intercepting IR is these frequencies.
H2O does below, and CO2 does above.
There is an infinitesimal interception through O3 burt it does not play any role here.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman has started to explain is interpretation of radiative transfer from a previous exchange here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342799
“Conductive heat transfer depends on two temperatures. But, photons are emitted based on only one temperature. So, the blue plate right side would immediately start emitting 200 W/m^2 at separation, just as the left side is doing.
“The ‘downstream’ green plate would then absorb the 200 W/m^2. But, since the photons emitted back to the ‘upstream’ blue plate cannot be absorbed, the green plate must be at the same temperature as the blue plate. It’s exactly the same as if they were perfectly together.”
Suppose now the energy supplied to the blue plate is increased from 400 to 600 W/m^2. What will the new temperatures be in the two plates? Show your work, if you can.
Chic Bowdrie
If your post can get JDHuffman to show any work at all I will be most impressed. I am not impressed at all with his made up nonsense physics that is proven wrong by experimental evidence.
He will never explain why photons from the green plate cannot be absorbed by a hotter plate. He just makes it up and we are supposed to accept it. Actually he did not make up the idea, it comes from Claes Johnson, who actually made it up based upon erroneous manipulation of math and not having valid physics knowledge to understand his idea is bogus.
Norman,
If there is something to learn from JD or Claes Johnson, I want to learn. My training in radiation ends with laboratory UV and IR spectrometry. Let’s see what JD can teach us.
Chic Bowdrie
“But, since the photons emitted back to the upstream blue plate cannot be absorbed…”
This is PERFECT, REAL pseudoscience.
That would mean that a photon ‘knows’ which target it cannot hit!
Incredible.
Not one publication (I do not mean here blogs like ‘principia-scientific’ or the like) confirms this strange idea, solely vehiculated by those persons I call the Pseudoskeptics.
Some of them even pretend that photons do not exist.
“I think photons do not exist. Prove me wrong!”
Bindidon, how many languages can you say “wavelength” in?
In how many can you say “pompous windbag”?
Thanks for showing us all how you debate.
Bindidon, you’re kind of just getting in the way a bit. Would you mind considering not trolling, please? That would be greeeeeat.
de rien.
Why don’t you just explain what you mean by bringing up wavelength? It just makes it seem you don’t know what you are talking about. If we are too dumb to understand, why don’t you go somewhere else more challenging?
What are you here for anyway?
I just love exposing phonies, Chic.
What phony have you exposed? All you are doing is exposing yourself as a gadfly.
Chic falsely accuses: “You keep showing a hypothetical diagram without any temperatures…”
ESPOSED!
Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Bitten again. What could be worse.
Oh, no! EXPOSED!!! Drat you, Red Baron.
Chic, please stop trolling.
Bindidon,
I want to remain open minded. Concepts like photons and wave behavior of radiation were strange until scientists began thinking up experiments and pushing back the frontiers of science.
But I need more of an explanation than cold photons can’t be absorbed. How is that any difference than asserting they get subtracted or cancelled or overwhelmed or compensated for by warmer photons according to classical radiative heat transfer equations?
Chic Bowdrie
“But I need more of an explanation than cold photons cant be absorbed. How is that any difference than asserting they get subtracted or cancelled or overwhelmed or compensated for by warmer photons according to classical radiative heat transfer equations?”
That is a really good question. But a competent anser you won’t get from JDHuffman let alone from pepple like Robertson.
Both think and pretende since longer time that radiative heat transfer textbooks contain only ‘pseudoscience’.
The best solution therefore is to prefer the textbooks, I guess.
Bindidon, when you sober up, please indicate where I have ever suggested “since longer time that radiative heat transfer textbooks contain only ‘pseudoscience’.”
Thanks, in advance.
binny…”That is a really good question. But a competent anser you wont get from JDHuffman let alone from pepple like Robertson.
Both think and pretende since longer time that radiative heat transfer textbooks contain only pseudoscience”.
1)I am simply the messenger for scientists like Clausius, Bohr and Schrodinger.
2)like JD, I have never claimed that ALL information in textbooks about thermodynamics is wrong. Most of it is perfectly correct, however, some authors in some books insist on extending the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to allow a two-way transfer of heat.
That is pseudo-scientific nonsense and none of them supply examples with units to corroborate their claims. The S-B equation is based on the initial equation of Stefan who based his equation on the one-way radiation from a platinum filament heated in the range from 500C to 1500C to its cooler surroundings. Te wire was so hot it glowed different colours at different temperatures, like a blackbody.
Anyone who tries to add to S-B in such a manner as to claim the cooler surroundings are radiating heat back to a platinum filament at 1500C is a pseudo-scientific idiot. That’s especially true if they claim the cooler air is raising the temperature of the super-hot filament wire.
JDHuffman
OMG…
Maybe I unduly mixed you and your friend Robertson into the same pot!
If that was not correct, then I herewith apologise for this mistake.
It is so hard to distinguish a tiny difference within such a bunch of similarities.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
chic…”Concepts like photons and wave behavior of radiation were strange until scientists began thinking up experiments and pushing back the frontiers of science”.
It’s still very strange. There are some over-confident scientists and their followers who assert a knowledge of what is going on but they simply don’t know.
Going back to the initial theory of Bohr, circa 1913, he postulated that electrons absorb and emit photons of EM…he called them quanta…and that the energy/frequency relationship between the quanta and the electron had to be specific in order for absorp-tion to take place.
His theory was simplistic but since then the only changes to the theory have been via refinements to account for atoms with multiple electrons and the adjustments required to refine Bohr’s simple quantum orbitals.
Therefore, it still stands that photons from a colder source lack the energy and frequency to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter source.
That satisfies the 2nd law while the notion that all photons must be absorbed does not.
Gordon Robertson
You would be correct that electrons will not move to higher energy levels from the IR emitted by a 300 K object. You unfortunately are too ignorant to understand molecular vibrations even though I have given you many links to it. You are stuck in your own fantasy land where you think you know it all and then some. Reality is you know very little and suffer from extreme sense of thinking you are the greatest genius this planet has ever produced. It is not that you are so intelligent it is you suffer severe Dunning-Kruger.
You can’t understand what molecular vibrational modes are so you ignore their existence and can only grasp the most basic Bohr atomic view. You are not intelligent enough to understand any higher level math or science so you ignore it all and make fun of the truly creative brilliant minds that can grasp the higher level physics.
Electrons will not absorb mid-IR to move to higher energy levels. Molecules will absorb mid-IR and increase in molecular vibrational energy levels. You can’t understand this.
norman…”You cant understand what molecular vibrational modes are so you ignore their existence and can only grasp the most basic Bohr atomic view”.
I have, in fact, explained molecular vibrations to you, all the way down to the electron level. Here it is again, do try to pay attention.
CO2 molecule:
O====C====O
The O and the C represent the nuclei of the oxygen and carbon molecules. The dashed lines represent shared electrons that BOND the oxygen atoms to the carbon atom.
The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule because the atomic nuclei are in line. All vibration takes place due to the electron bonds in which the -vely charged electrons are attracted to the +vely charged nucleii. However, the electrons are orbiting the nuclei in discrete orbital energy levels and their momentum keeps them from being sucked into the +ve nucleii.
The +ve nucleii are repelling each other and the -vely charged electrons orbiting the nucleii tend to pull them together. The result is a vibration in the bonds.
Due to that vibration, the bond lengths can change symetrically or assymetrically as follows:
O==C=====O or O=====C==O assymetric
O======C======O or O==C==O symmetric
The bonds can also bend slightly away from the linear median line as a torque.
The point to note is that the vibration takes place due to the electron bonds. It is the electrons that absorb and emit EM hence control the energy in the bonds. The energy in the bonds controls the degree of vibration.
It’s plain to see that the vibration to which you refer has nothing to do with the molecular structure per se but to the energy in the electrons.
“Electrons will not absorb mid-IR to move to higher energy levels. Molecules will absorb mid-IR and increase in molecular vibrational energy levels. You cant understand this”.
I just explained to you why your notion is sheer nonsense. Electrons absorb EM right down into the radio frequency spectrum which is below the microwave spectrum and well below the infrared.
Molecules do not absorb energy, it is the electrons in the atomic structures we call molecules that absorb the energy. A molecule is just a convenient name for an aggregation of atomic nucleii and their associated electrons.
“Molecules do not absorb energy, it is the electrons in the atomic structures we call molecules that absorb the energy.”
Do you observe that your CO2 diagram can rotate about the line you drew?
Rotation is also quantized, Gordon, as the CO2 molecule can absorb a photon and its spin inertia jumps up a quantum level (it is excited to do so!). When the CO2 molecule emits the photon the spin inertia jumps down a quantum level (de-energized) to base level. The collisional energy at atm. temperatures is enough to make this happen.
At normal earthian temperatures there is not enough collisional energy to kick an air molecule up an electronic level. NO electronic levels are thus populated in the tropospheric atm.
And the momentum, energy of the photon was long ago shown NOT possibly conserved in the electron alone, the whole molecule (or atom) has to absorb the photon for conservation of both photon momentum and energy to work out.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
binny…”Chic Bowdrie
But, since the photons emitted back to the upstream blue plate cannot be absorbed
Binny…This is PERFECT, REAL pseudoscience.
That would mean that a photon knows which target it cannot hit!”
***********
No, binny, it means you don’t understand photons or electromagnetic energy.
A photon of EM can only be absorbed by an electron in a substance if it meets very specific criteria. That is well established in quantum theory.
Before an electron can absorb a photon of energy E, the E must perfectly match the potential difference in eV, between the current electron orbital energy level and a higher energy level. Since E = hf, the f = frequency must also match the frequency of the electron.
That is simply not possible when the photon comes from a cooler body because neither E nor f will match the requirements of an electron in a higher state of energy.
The notion that a photon doesn’t know what it will strike has nothing to do with it. It can strike anything it likes, if it’s energy and frequency don’t match that of an electron in a hotter body, it will not be absorbed.
That satisfies the 2nd law.
Robertson
When will you stop your dumb nonsense?
Photons have NOTHING to do with your stubborn interpretation of the 2LoT. Nothing. That is something YOU pretend.
You are so endlessly boring.
binny…”Photons have NOTHING to do with your stubborn interpretation of the 2LoT. Nothing. That is something YOU pretend”.
That’s what I have been trying to tell you, the 2nd law is about heat. When you talk about transferring heat between bodies of different temperature, the 2nd law applies, and it states clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transfered from a cooler body to a hotter body.
If, as you claim, photons can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body, it means heat is being transferred from a cooler to a hotter body, which contravenes the 2nd law. It also contravenes basic quantum theory.
“If, as you claim, photons can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body, it means heat is being transferred from a cooler to a hotter body, which contravenes the 2nd law. It also contravenes basic quantum theory.”
Wrong again Gordon, you misuse the heat term; heat is not contained in a body.
Really, as you claim, photons can be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body, meaning energy is being transferred from a cooler to a hotter body, which is perfectly in accord with the 2nd law as that process produces entropy. It is also consistent with basic quantum theory.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
300 = σT^4
T^4 = 5.29(10)^9
T of both plates = 269.7 K
(Which makes poor Norman WRONG, again. Nothing new.)
That’s consistent with your theory that the blue plate transfers heat to the green plate until both plates are at the new equilibrium temperature.
Now replace that blue plate with another that is at 244K and again supplied with 400 W/m^2. Describe the change in temperatures as the plates re-equilibrate.
???
Both plates would equate at 244 K.
Now explain why you can’t understand such simple concepts.
You are proposing that a vacuum separating two plates with heat flowing through them provides less insulation than any material that would replace the vacuum.
I cannot understand how heat can flow from one plate to another at the same temperature.
No phoney Chic, I never proposed any such thing.
More of your pathetic ramblings, please.
(You are on record now as a complete phony. You may want to change your screen name, again.)
Heavens to Betsy! Oh, my. I’m scared, Antie Em. Please don’t call me a phoney.
Send me to brig! Throw me in the briar patch. But, please, oh please don’t call me a phoney.
chic…”I cannot understand how heat can flow from one plate to another at the same temperature”.
You specified a vacuum between the plates and heat cannot flow through a vacuum. Heat is a property of mass and if there is no mass, as in a vacuum, there is no medium to transfer heat. In fact, without mass, there is no heat, as in space.
Enter radiation.
Electrons in the masses of two bodies in thermal equilibrium can convert heat, as kinetic energy to EM. The EM can flow through a vacuum and it the bodies are in thermal equilibrium, their is an average in either body of the overall kinetic energy in the electrons.
Some will have higher energy and some will have lower energy in each body. Therefore some EM can be absorbed by either body with a minimal heat transfer.
It should be noted that heat is not flowing through the space between masses, it is only EM. The heat transfer is apparent in that heat is dissipated in one body and gained in the other body due to the emission and absorp-tion of EM.
The moment you move away from thermal equilibrium, and I cannot state how far away in degrees C, or fractions thereof, the electrons in the hotter body attain a higher average kinetic energy. They can no longer absorb IR from the cooler body because the IR from the cooler body lacks the energy and frequency to elevate the electrons to an even higher energy level.
That’s a nice hypothesis, Gordon. Do you have any data to back it up?
Chic, please stop trolling.
How’s this for a solution?
Perfectly conducting black-body plates can’t insulate. So they don’t.
THE END
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Correct. Blackbodies do not act as radiant insulators. But a black-body will radiate based upon its temperature. A green plate that is heated by a hotter heated blue plate will warm and emit IR back to the blue plate. The blue plate will absorb both the incoming energy from the external source and the IR emitted by the green plate. Its temperature will then go up until it reaches a new steady state temperature. Now that is the actual END of story. It is confirmed by textbooks and actual experiment.
If you need to refresh your nonexistent physics knowledge, I send you a link to a textbook I sent to the goofy old RealOldOne2 who says he has studied physics but shows little evidence that he actually had.
https://tinyurl.com/yxd6bdpt
Please read some actual physics and come back with a new correct ideas. JDHuffman is not a good source for anything. This poster just makes up stuff and hopes people will believe his nonsense.
The “Norman” Experiment takes a difference stance from many of his compatriots, choosing to state that “back-radiation” heating is NOT insulation. They really are all over the place. The “Norman” Experiment also says, “if you need to refresh your nonexistent physics knowledge…the goofy old RealOldOne2…who says he has studied physics but shows little evidence that he actually had…please read some actual physics…come back with a new correct ideas…JDHuffman is not a good source for anything…makes up stuff…hopes people will believe his nonsense”.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
It is obvious you are not interested in learning real physics.
I guess I will go with your insulation hypothesis.
I have already told you that radiant insulation is a highly reflective material. The atmosphere does not at all fit that description.
So are you one to believe that as insulation gets hotter it insulates more? That is what is going on with radiant IR. Would you claim that in summer the thermal insulation of your house increases its ability to insulate?
With the atmosphere, the warmer it gets compared to the surface, the less heat the surface can transfer. This also applies to the blue/green plate discussion.
When the green plate is cold or kept cold it loses considerable insulating ability (according to your made up idea, which of course is not based upon any valid physics at all). The heat flow from the blue plate is high when the green plate is cold even if it is position close to the blue plate. As the green plate warms the “insulating” power of the green plate goes up considerably and the heat flow from the blue plate drops. How do you explain this using your idea?
It is easy to explain using real physics. I am not sure how you will be able to explain this observable fact. I doubt you will attempt it. With the real science, the green plate emits more IR as it warms and the blue plate absorbs more energy from the green plate and along with the continuous external supply of energy to the blue plate, the blue plate reaches a higher temperature. Just let go of the made up physics the real one has much better explanatory power.
“I have already told you that radiant insulation is a highly reflective material.”
So you have already “told me” MY point. Hilarious start, please continue.
“The atmosphere does not at all fit that description.”
Yes, GHGs are not “reflectors”, thus not radiatively insulative. Good point. Carry on.
“So are you one to believe that as insulation gets hotter it insulates more? That is what is going on with radiant IR. Would you claim that in summer the thermal insulation of your house increases its ability to insulate?”
You’ve already said you don’t consider back-radiation heating insulation, so all this is moot.
“With the atmosphere, the warmer it gets compared to the surface, the less heat the surface can transfer. This also applies to the blue/green plate discussion.”
And this would apply regardless of atmospheric composition.
“When the green plate is cold or kept cold it loses considerable insulating ability (according to your made up idea, which of course is not based upon any valid physics at all).”
No, Norman, my (and reality’s) idea is that radiative insulating ability is due to reflectivity. You are attacking something I am not arguing. That’s commonly called a straw man.
“The heat flow from the blue plate is high when the green plate is cold even if it is position close to the blue plate. As the green plate warms the “insulating” power of the green plate goes up considerably and the heat flow from the blue plate drops. How do you explain this using your idea?”
Again, “my idea” is that radiative “insulating” power is based on reflectivity.
“With the real science, the green plate emits more IR as it warms and the blue plate absorbs more energy from the green plate and along with the continuous external supply of energy to the blue plate, the blue plate reaches a higher temperature.”
That would be a description of insulation, Norman, which (with radiation) is based on reflectivity. So, what you describe is NOT “the real science”.
norman…”A green plate that is heated by a hotter heated blue plate will warm and emit IR back to the blue plate. The blue plate will absorb both the incoming energy from the external source and the IR emitted by the green plate. Its temperature will then go up until it reaches a new steady state temperature. Now that is the actual END of story. It is confirmed by textbooks and actual experiment”.
Claes Johnson says you are wrong, so does Clausius, and so do I. Nicola Tesla and Feynman would disagree as well.
The 2nd law clearly states that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. You are contradicting the 2nd law, as did swannie in his experiments.
“The 2nd law clearly states that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.”
No, that’s wrong Gordon. A process like that produces entropy so it is perfectly ok with 2LOT as the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of particle velocities showed in the late 1800s.
And Claes has never done even one experiment supporting his cutoff frequency or show where Claes did so. His math is incorrect.
Gordon Robertson
The ball is in your court. Show me one shred of supporting evidence that supports your claim: “Clausius, and so do I. Nicola Tesla and Feynman would disagree as well.”
Where do any of these individuals disagree with what I am saying. I need evidence. Your opinion means less than nothing to me. Support your claims. Claes Johnson is a crackpot that is refuted constantly by actual physicists on his own blog. He is clueless.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Not exactly sure of what the point of your latest post is.
If you consider the green plate as an insulator for the blue plate’s radiant energy, so be it.
The reality is that the energy emitted by the warmed green plate will be absorbed by the heated blue plate. Now the heated blue plate has energy from an external source and energy from the green plate. This energy will increase the energy in the blue plate until it reaches a temperature that causes it to emit energy at the same rate it is recieving input energy. You get a new higher steady state temperature exactly as the E. Swanson test shows.
“Not exactly sure of what the point of your latest post is.”
Yes, you seem very confused.
“If you consider the green plate as an insulator for the blue plate’s radiant energy, so be it.”
No, I don’t, because the green plate is a black-body, so possesses no reflectivity.
“The reality is that the energy emitted by the warmed green plate will be absorbed by the heated blue plate. Now the heated blue plate has energy from an external source and energy from the green plate. This energy will increase the energy in the blue plate until it reaches a temperature that causes it to emit energy at the same rate it is recieving input energy. You get a new higher steady state temperature exactly as the E. Swanson test shows.”
No, because what you are describing would be insulation, but radiative insulation works by reflectivity. E Swanson’s test shows a temperature increase in the blue, but the reason for it is open to interpretation. Just because there is a temperature increase does not prove it is because of back-radiation.
First thing you need to do, is decide once and for all whether you think “back-radiation heating” is “insulation”, or not. Most of your fellow team members think that it is, you see, whilst you seem to think it is something else, whilst being as vague as possible about what that “something” is. Make a definite decision first, then we can go from there.
–Thus the ratio geo/solar is 0.43 %, and not 1.75 %.
Correct?
Reply
Bindidon
February 22, 2019
Oops
pi * 6,370^2 * 960 = 1.185 * 10^17 W / m^2–
I agree with the large majority of climate
science that geothermal heat does not explain our planet’s surface temperature.
But disagree that it is insignificant or it is “loss in the noise” or that it can not a measurable effect. Though it would say that presently and in the near term it is a minor effect. Or if concerned about the world ending, I would not put it on the list.
And generally don’t think it’s likely, it has anything to do with explaining Venus, though due of lack of what is known about Venus, I can not rule it out.
Mike seems to go on about it, I think only aspect is regarding general notion that Earth in the past has been hot and cooled.
And if Earth we’re hit by giant space rock and became hot, it would again, cool.
Or is arguing about a runaway effect, which no one here at this board seems to support.
gbaikie
Thanks for the reply.
I understand what you mean.
But to the fact that incoming solar energy/power is 232 times bigger than the geothermal context, I can’t change anything.
For me, even 0.44 % are not negligible and must be integrated into any trustworthy computation.
But this source is really not significant compared with the Sun.
“But this source is really not significant compared with the Sun.”
Well, in my view, there is a large difference between the ocean average being 1 C or 5C.
And very significant difference between 2 C and 4 C.
And in our ice age, our average ocean temperature has been about 3 C.
And I am curious about why the ocean does not seem to cool below 1 C or warm above 5 C.
And in Earth’s long history, has the average ocean temperature ever been lower than 1 C?
And it’s my assumption that most of Earth history has had an average ocean temperature much warmer than 5 C, and has had long periods of time over 10 C.
Or I would say, our ice age ends, when ocean average temperature gets above 5 C, and stays at this temperature and/or gets warmer.
And not quite sure why it will not do this any time soon.
ball4…”Heat transfer is a process, not a substance”.
Ah, now I see your problem, you think I am referring to heat as a substance flowing between atoms, like the sci-fi caloric of old.
Not so. I am referring to heat as energy, as in thermal energy, and no one knows what energy is or means.
You keep referring to kinetic energy as if that describes a form of energy. It does not. Kinetic means moving, that’s all, as opposed to potential. Kinetic as a descriptor tells you nothing about what kind of energy is flowing, only that it has motion.
Internal energy of a substance, as described by Clausius, is made up of heat and work. The vibration of the atoms performs internal work but that work has an equivalence in heat, as laid down by the scientists Joule.
Furthermore, something has to be added to the atoms to increase their vibration and their kinetic energy. That something is the energy we call heat. You cannot do work on atoms but you can increase the resistance to their motion by compressing a substance. Alternately, if you add heat via a flame, the the atomic vibrations increase and the substance expands.
Clausius claimed a substance has a quantity of heat and that is obvious as measured by a thermometer. Temperature is a measure of the amount of thermal energy in a substance. Temperature is an indication of how hot a substance is wrt to the human set points of 0C and 100C.
You prefer to call internal energy simply ‘energy’, a generic nameless whatever. It has a name, it’s called thermal energy. Some of us call it heat.
All substances have a quantity of thermal energy, aka heat.
“Kinetic as a descriptor tells you nothing about what kind of energy is flowing, only that it has motion.”
Are you saying that if I pour gasoline into my car, that would be “kinetic energy” because the chemical energy of gasoline has motion? (specifically that gasoline has more KE than a similar flow of water becasue gasoline has more energy (chemical) in motion.) Or are you restricting your definition to moving particles?
((Also, you must know that your use of words like “heat” is not in keeping with the usage for the past century or so. That is why I prefer using equations to define quantities.
ΔU = Q – W
The change in the internal energy of a system (during some specified time interval) equals the heat supplied to the system minus the work done by the system. Then we know exactly what quantities we are talking about ))
Temperature is a measure of the object’s avg. particle KE, heat is a measure of the object’s total particle KE.
Q. Is there more heat in a glass of hot tap water at 150F or in the Pacific Ocean?
A. There is more heat in the Pacific Ocean. Heat is a measure of the Pacific Ocean’s total constituent molecule KE.
Temperature is not heat. Failure to distinguish between the two results in much confusion demonstrated by Gordon.
Gordon’s confusion is added to by Tim writing: “heat supplied to the system minus the work done by the system.” This implies heat is contained in an object which was ruled out long ago.
Tim writing “Q supplied to the system minus the W done by the system” would be accurate to the eqn. Tim uses and is not confusing. Q can be plus or minus (+/- Q) while heat has no sign (would -heat mean cold? No.).
Ball4 says: “Tim writing Q supplied to the system minus the W done by the system would be accurate to the eqn. Tim uses and is not confusing. “
And that was the point. If we can agree on the equations, then we can avoid confusion! “Q” and “W” are processes; they are transactions; they are transfers between different systems. “U” is what is within a system.
“heat is a measure of the objects total particle KE.”
And now we are back to the confusion! “U” is what you are describing. Stnadard thermodynamics texts will call this “internal energy”, never “heat”. (Also, in solids U includes the vibrational potential energy as well as the vibrational kinetic energy — not a critical point, but worth at least a mention).
You will certainly find “heat” or “heat content” used colloquially (and even in technical papers in some disciplines!) to mean “U”. Your question about the “heat content” or the Pacific Ocean falls into this category. It’s not wrong per se — but its at odds with textbooks that equate “heat” with “Q”.
“Gordons confusion is added to by Tim writing: heat supplied to the system minus the work done by the system. This implies heat is contained in an object which was ruled out long ago.”
That was not my intention. “Q” is a process that removes “U” from one system and adds an identical aunt of “U” to another system. There was never “Q” in the first system, and there is never “Q” in the second system. “Q” is an accounting method to keep track of changes in U.
“It’s not wrong per se – but its at odds with textbooks that equate “heat” with “Q”.”
As you say Q is a process so when textbooks equate “heat” with “Q” they are a study in error propagation which is common when they don’t go back and quote the original authors.
Heating is a process, Q is the symbol for the process of heating, W symbol for the process of working. No object ever contains heat, or work. An object contains thermodynamic internal energy U. Enthalpy H is always better & sensibly used in atm. thermo. discussions (H taken from heat in Clausius day).
Nothing can “heat up”, “radiate heat”, and best of all writing “heat rises” is just nonsense.
Ball4, we seem to agree that:
“heating”, Q, is a process (often just called “heat”)
“working”, W, is a process (often just called “work”)
“internal energy”, U, is contained within an object (sometimes called “thermal energy”)
So what letter and/or concept do you associate with “heat”, since you seem to disagree with associating this with “Q”. (calling this “error propagation”.)
“So what letter and/or concept do you associate with “heat”
Ever since Clausius’ day and age taking the letter H from “heat” the proper physical concept is: enthalpy H
So “enthalpy” and “heat” are the same thing from your perspective? If so, lets just stick with calling enthalpy “enthalpy”. Having two names for the same thing is confusing!
H = enthalpy
U = internal energy
Q = heat
W = work
Nice. Neat. Non-confusing. Matches all current textbooks.
“Q = heat”
No. Q can be +/- whereas heat carries no sign; heat is a measure of the total KE of the object’s constituent molecules which is always positive. Any writing defining heat as something else to the contrary is an example of error propagation all the way from the day and age of Clausius.
Missing this distiction just causes arguments, endless ones. Time to point out which side is correct.
Tim, Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Clausius claimed a substance has a quantity of heat”
No Gordon. Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
tim…”Are you saying that if I pour gasoline into my car, that would be kinetic energy because the chemical energy of gasoline has motion?”
No, I’m saying that the descriptor ‘kinetic’ when used with energy only means that the energy is in motion. That’s as opposed to potential energy, where the potential descriptor tells you the energy is not in motion.
Neither the kinetic nor the potential descriptor tell you what kind of energy is in motion or still. While you are pouring you gasoline into the tank, you could have a small impeller blade in the neck of the tank that could be turned by the kinetic energy of the moving fluid and do work.
While the gasoline is sitting in the tank it is in a potential form of energy. It could be a potential mechanical energy as just described or a potential chemical energy once detonated. Until you release the potential energy and make it do work, it cannot be kinetic energy.
“((Also, you must know that your use of words like heat is not in keeping with the usage for the past century or so. That is why I prefer using equations to define quantities.
ΔU = Q W
The change in the internal energy of a system (during some specified time interval) equals the heat supplied to the system minus the work done by the system. Then we know exactly what quantities we are talking about ))”
It may be of interest to know that Clausius coined the U term for internal energy in the 1st law. He described your equation as follows: The Q and the W represent external heat and work and the U is a summation of internal work and heat.
Clausius described a body as having a quantity of heat well before quantum theory was offered by Bohr around 1913. Clausius also described heat as the kinetic energy of atoms.
That makes eminent sense since the kinetic energy in question describes atoms in motion. In the physical motion of the particles involved in a solid lattice, there is work and there is a separate energy producing the work, which is thermal energy, or heat.
There has to be an energy present internally in bodies and that energy needs a name. The name is thermal energy. As the atoms vibrate to and from they go from a state of potential energy to kinetic energy.
It’s the same with a spring-mass system or a pendulum. When either are at the end of their motions, before moving in the other direction, they are in a state of potential energy. Once they start moving again, they are in a state of kinetic energy.
“Clausius described a body as having a quantity of heat”
Still wrong Gordon.
Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Per Clausius Q is not heat either, Gordon is just a study in error propagation:
p.225: “Let the quantity of heat (alone not including internal work) contained in it be expressed by H.” H became known as enthalpy.
Gordon,
I think you missed my point about moving gasoline. Suppose I carry 1 kg of gasoline 10 meters in 10 s. There is 46,000,000 J of chemical energy in motion. Since you are stating “Neither the kinetic nor the potential descriptor tell you what kind of energy is in motion or still. “ then your definition seems to include this chemical energy in motion.
This flies in the face of all definitions of KE everywhere. This is WAY more energy in motion than the standard KE of 1/2 mv^2 = 0.5 J.
KE is not just any energy in motion. It is mass in motion = 1/2 mv^2. (We’ll skip over photons for now … )
“It may be of interest to know that Clausius …”
It may be of interest to know that there have been 150 years of advancements in thermodynamics since the time of Clausius. Atoms were simply a vague theory at the time. Photons were completely unknown.
Science tends to give credit to the first person to propose an idea. But science does not enshrine their words in some holy, immutable set of stone tablets. Science progresses. Ideas evolve.
It is historically interesting to read early works on a topic. It provides important insights into ideas. But it is much more valuable to read the refined theories. To see what got figure out as generations of scientists add new insights and perform new experiments.
Tim Folkerts,
Photons are packets of energy travelling at the speed of light. Photons of a given wavelength all have the same energy. So would you agree that the rate that photons emit or absorb is related to the temperature of the object from which they came? IOW, more 10 micron photons emit per second from a 500K object than from a 300K object.
Tim, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Home, sweet home
Everywhere one gets told that the planet warms, and that the recent years belong to the ‘hottest evah’. Huuuuh.
Irremediably you ask yourself sometimes wether or not you are really concerned by this warming in the place where you live.
I thought: “Ooh this bloody warming sure exists, but not here around us!” And this “here” is, for me, the good old Germany in Western Europe.
A quick look at Sheldon Walker’s stats upthread told me to keep cool: according to these stats, Germany isn’t warm at all compared with lots of other countries. Look here:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country/
You see that Germany is at the bottom of lists showing for example the ‘warmest month’.
Clear: Walker was, in his comment, not primarily interested in the difference between ‘warm’ and ‘warming’: the fact that a country is, in comparison with other countries, not significantly warm does not tell us anything about how much / how fast temperatures go, over time, up or down in that country.
Thus it was time to get really convinced in whichever direction.
So I collected all GHCN daily stations located in my contry, and generated two time series. One with absolute temperatures, the other one with anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010.
Here are for example the descending sorts of absolute monthly temps.
Monthly top 10
2006 7 21.8
1994 7 21.2
2003 8 20.8
1983 7 20.4
1995 7 20.1
2018 7 20.1
2010 7 20.0
1997 8 20.0
2015 8 20.0
2018 8 19.9
1b. Monthly bottom 10
1963 2 -5.7
1986 2 -6.1
1895 2 -6.3
1947 2 -6.5
1893 1 -7.1
1963 1 -7.3
1942 1 -7.8
1940 1 -9.0
1929 2 -9.7
1956 2 -9.9
Six months after 1999 in the top 10, no one at the bottom. Hmh.
28 months after 1999 in the top 100, 8 in the bottom 100. Hmmmh!
The same happens when you average monthly temperatures into yearly time series.
But 2018 suddenly appears at top. No wonder, we had last year really a centennial summer, hot and very dry in comparison with others.
*
Now the trends in C / decade, for absolute temperatures:
– 1880-2018: 0.11 +- 0.04
– 1979-2018: 0.40 +- 0.26
*
Considering the anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 gives exactly the same picture.
But to my surprise, the trends for anomalies were not, as mostly, higher than those for the absolute values, but lower.
This confirms my supposition that, if anomalies have higher trends than absolute temperatures, this certainly is due to the data, and not to the method.
Trends in C / decade for anomalies:
– 1880-2018: 0.10 +- 0.01
– 1979-2018: 0.36 +- 0.07
As usual, the 2 sigma interval is smaller for anomalies than for absolutes, and therefore more significant. This is, according to Roy Spencer, due to the removal of the annual cycles giving smaller deviations from the mean.
Conclusio:
Maybe Germany isn’t warm. But it is well within a pretty good warming region.
A consolation: this warming actually slows down. Here the anomaly trend for recent years:
– 2000-2018: 0.25 +- 0.20
The 2 sigma CI is nearly as big as the value, but the p-value doesn’t contain zero, and hence this downtrend keeps more or less statistically significant.
But it is still around 2 degrees per century Hmmmh.
Wait and see…
Bindidon,
“This confirms my supposition that, if anomalies have higher trends than absolute temperatures, this certainly is due to the data, and not to the method.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are the anomalies monthly and the absolutes yearly? If each anomaly is in a one tot one correspondence with an absolute, then I would say the difference in trends is due to the method, not the data. Wouldn’t it be is easy to verify with a random number generator?
Chic Bowdrie
“Are the anomalies monthly and the absolutes yearly?”
Jesus no! Why should I compare what is not comparable? The anomaly trends refer of course to the same unit kind as those for absolute values.
Here are the trends for yearly data out of Germany’s stations.
Absolutes:
1880-2018: 0.10 +- 0.01
1979-2018: 0.37 +- 0.09
Anomalies:
1880-2018: 0.08 +- 0.01
1979-2018: 0.27 +- 0.07
*
Until now, the difference was always in the other direction, with anomaly trends higher than those computed (with the same tool of course) out of absolute data.
That led some people on this blog to think that anomalies were invented by alarmists to make trends higher.
I don’t have the data at hand, it is on another computer. But I remember GHCN V3 trends for global temperatures where you have 0.15 C / decade for absolutes, and 0.19 for anomalies.
The only exception knwon to me until now was the UAH6.0 LT record: absolute and anomaly data have there quite similar trends.
RealOldOne2
Up above you replied to a comment by me. You have so much wrong I had to point them out.
YOU: “You have not explicitly said that heat transfers from a cold object to a cold one, but your claim of energy transfer from a cold object to a hot one is an implicit claim of heat transfer from a cold object to a hot one, because energy transferred as a result of temperature difference is by definition heat/thermal energy.”
No sorry you really have not studied any actual thermodynamics. I think you look at some material and pick out things that you believe might agree with your incorrect ideas.
Heat transfer is not the energy transferred as a result of temperature difference. It is actually the NET energy transferred.
All actual textbooks on heat transfer will clearly state this. In some they even put the word “net” by the heat transfer q so people like you don’t go on blogs and present misleading ideas to justify some incorrect belief you have.
Both Hot and Cold objects radiate energy toward each other. There is always multiple energy flows. Kristian and you are wrong about this and can NOT prove your incorrect view with any valid science textbook that deals with the subject (I have read many and NOT one agrees with your notions).
YOU: “That example shows that your claim that “energy” is transferred from the always colder object to the always hotter object, means that the temperature increase of the always hotter object is solely due to the transfer of “energy” from the always colder object.”
Totally wrong and bad logic. NO the temperature increase is because of two sources of input energy. The external energy supply and the radiant energy of the colder object reaching the hot one.
You have wrong ideas on heat transfer. Read an actual textbook with an open mind and consider all your ideas are bad science that you believe to be true but are not.
Here is an online textbook.
https://tinyurl.com/yxd6bdpt
Go to Chapter 5.5 (chapter 5 section 5) and start reading (page 569 in the book). Your claims go against established science so I would request you submit proof of your ideas by showing one textbook on heat transfer that agrees with your points.
norman…”Heat transfer is not the energy transferred as a result of temperature difference. It is actually the NET energy transferred”.
That’s nonsense. There is no such thing as net energy transfer with regard to heat. In fact, I can’t think of an example where net energy transfer applies. Heat that is not compensated by external power and other devices/materials can NEVER be transferred from cold to hot.
Here you are lecturing realoldone on lacking expertise in thermodynamics while all you have is an incorrect appraisal of thermodynamics basics on one part of a textbook. Your views on heat transfer contradict the 2nd law and it does not seem to bother you at all.
“Heat that is not compensated by external power and other devices/materials can NEVER be transferred from cold to hot.”
Boltzmann through the Maxwell-Boltzmann (M-B) distribution of particle velocities showed you are wrong Gordon. Here you are lecturing Norman on lacking expertise in thermodynamics while all you have is an incorrect appraisal of thermodynamics long known basic knowledge. To be correct, Gordon needs to learn about the M-B distribution before lecturing anyone further.
Gordon Robertson
The reason you fail to understand heat transfer is because all you ideas are your own made up material. You do not learn the real physics and think you are much smarter than all the world’s scientists combined.
You are the one who knows zero about any real science, all your ideas are from blogs and most of those ideas are just made up unsupported nonsense that people like you believe are true. Yet you reject experimental evidence, data, empirical information.
Gordon you are wrong. My views do NOT contradict the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Only your blog accepted version of the 2nd Law is violated.
No my ideas do not come from one textbook alone, they come from every textbook I have read on the subject without deviation from any of them. If you read more textbook information you will actually see you are completely wrong about everything. You don’t get a single thing correct.
The difference between you and RealOldOne2 is I spend some time learning real science. The two of you are most content with Joseph Postma’s total distortion of actual physics and his intolerance of anyone daring to point out his flawed logic, bad rationalization and completely misleading bogus physics.
Ball4, Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman says: on Feb.23,2019 at 11:06AM “You have so much wrong I had to point them out.”
Sorry, but you have failed to quote anything I posted and show that it was wrong. You are merely making evidence-free false claims.
Norman says: “No sorry you have not studied any actual thermodynamics.”
Your continued delusional fantasy that you have the God-attribute of omniscience is noted. And you are wrong, I passed university courses in thermodynamics and professionally used thermodynamics in my 5 decade professional career as a scientist.
Norman says: “Heat transfer is not the energy transferred as a result of a temperature difference. It is actually the net energy transferred.”
The thermodynamics textbook confirms that you are wrong, and clearly states that there is only a single energy transfer between two radiating objects:
Norman says: “All actual textbooks on heat transfer will clearly state this.”
Sorry, but heat transfer textbooks do not clearly state that there is bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer between two radiating objects.
Norman, note that the heat transfer textbook clearly states “the energy transfer”. “the” is singular, and “transfer” is singular, not plural. It does not say those(plural) energy transfers, plural.
Note also that the heat transfer textbook clearly states “this energy transfer is”. “This” is singluar, and “transfer is” is singular, not plural. It does not say these energy transfers are, plural.
Norman says: “Both hot and cold objects radiate toward each other.” There is always multiple energy flows.”
Of course all objects above 0K radiate EM radiation and radiate toward each other, but that does not mean that there are two separate independent thermal energy/heat flows. There is only one thermal energy/heat flow, and the direction and magnitude of that unidirectional energy transfer is determined by the net radiation.
It’s the same as two opposing linear forces acting on an object, one it the +x direction and another in the -x direction. These two simultaneously opposing forces do not product two simultaneous bidirectional motions. They produce a single unidirectional motion, in the direction of the net force. Each force by itself would produce a motion in the direction of the applied force, but when another opposing force exists, there is only a single motion, not two simultaneously opposing motions.
The same principle applies to radiation. The fact that radiation exerts a pressure/force on an object was understood by Maxwell & Planck. Thus, the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer is the net of those radiation pressures/forces. Your claim of simultaneous bidirectional energy transfer between two radiating objects ignores the existence of the opposing radiative pressure/force. You are pretending that it doesn’t exist, and that the thermal energy being transferred away from the object is the same as if the other object had a temperature of 0K, instead of its actual temperature.
Maxwell & Planck also understood that ‘heat rays’, which we now call ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR) behaved just like light waves, and interfered, superimposed, reflected, etc.:
Two opposing EM waves interfere/superimpose to create a single resultant EM wave, and it is this single resultant EM wave that determines the thermal energy transfer between two radiating objects. This is explained and graphically depicted in this article: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/
Norman says: “YOU: “That example …” Totally wrong and bad logic. NO the temperature increase is because of two sources of input energy.”
No, my heat transfer example is totally correct and bulletproof logic. You are just denying it because it proves your anti-thermodynamic 2nd Law denial claim of bidirectional thermal energy transfer is wrong. Noted that you failed to quote anything in my heat transfer and show that it was wrong. That is because it is 100% correct and constructed with ironclad logic.
And no, there are not two separate sources of input energy. That is your fatal error. There is only one source of energy, the 240W/m^2/240J/s energy source. That single energy source is what supplied every Joule of energy that raised the internal energy of the always hotter object. The always colder shield merely reduced the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer away from the object, which allowed the Joules of energy from the only energy source to accumulate. Not a single Joule of energy was transferred from the always colder shield to the always hotter object. Can’t happen, 2nd Law.
But thanks for making your clear statement that you believe that temperature increase of the always hotter object is due to a transfer of energy from an always colder object. That proves you are denying the 2nd Law, because there is no getting around the fact that such an “energy” transfer would be a thermal energy transfer, ie., a heat transfer, because it causes (according to you) an increase in the internal energy and thus temperature of the always hotter object. That thermal energy/heat transfer from an always colder object to an always hotter object is a clear violation of the 2nd Law, and thus can’t happen in the real world. That is exactly what my heat transfer example proves.
Norman says: “You have wrong ideas on heat transfer”
No, as I’ve shown and backed up with science sources and a real world example, my understanding of heat transfer is correct. You are the one who misunderstands heat transfer and believes that always colder objects transfer thermal energy/heat to always hotter objects, causing the always hotter object’s internal energy and temperature to increase. Your own words confirm that you deny the 2nd Law.
Norman says: “online textbook”
Sorry, but that heat transfer textbook does not support your wrong claim that there is bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer between two radiating objects. It merely shows that two objects radiate at each other, but nowhere claims that there is bidirectional thermal energy/heat flow, which is what you are claiming. Nowhere does it claim that the heat transfer between two radiating object is Qnet = Q(1-2) – Q(2-1). Nowhere does it claim there are two simultaneous but opposing heat/thermal energy transfers. It supports my correct view that the thermal energy transfer is unidirectional in the direction of the net radiation, just like the correct view that motion is unidirectional in the direction of net forces when there are two simultaneously opposing linear forces acting on an object.
This article goes into much more detail explaining why your claim of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer between two radiating objects is wrong: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/the-heat-issue-once-again/
Again, my heat transfer example is a real world demonstration that you are wrong, because your above statement claiming that it is the thermal energy transferring from the always colder object to the always hotter object that causes the increase in the temperature of the always hotter object.
As my heat transfer example shows, the real cause of the increase in internal energy and temperature of the always hotter object is the accumulation of Joules of energy from the object’s only, single heat source.
RealOldOne2, As usual around here, your comments (and the posts to which you link) do not provide a satisfactory explanation for the fact that the the warmer plate in my Green Plate demonstration is caused to warm further when the Green Plate is moved into position opposite the Blue one. All you give is just another appeal to authority, claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can’t be violated. Where’s your physics?
Your first link from a post by Kristian (a Quaternary geologist in profession) also ignores the fact that warming the Blue Plate causes it to radiate more thermal IR EM, which is to say, the plate’s internal energy has increased. We know for a fact that light as photons exhibits momentum, which is the reason solar pressure changes satellite orbits and also causes the paddles in one of those toy radiometer to spin. How does a wave phenomena result in a force if it is not acting via a material connection, which is the old question of the existence of some undetectable “ether”. The photons emitted by the cooler body may be absorbed by the warmer one, they are not “ignored” and the emissions from the warmer body are not “blocked”, the result being that the plate’s temperature increase.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.24,2019 at 10:49AM “RealOldONe2, As usual around here, your comments (and the posts to which you link) do not provide a satisfactory explanation for the fact that the warmer plate in my <a href:"https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba"Green Plate demonstration is caused to warm further when the Green Plate is moved into position opposite the Blue one.”
Noted that once again you failed to be able to quote a single thing in my comment and show that it was incorrect. That is because everything in my comments was correct. As usual, you just make an evidence-free claim that your wrong understanding of thermodynamics is true. As I showed in my comments, which you couldn’t refute, every Joule of thermal energy/heat that caused the increase in internal energy and temperature of the always colder radiation shield in my example.
In your Green plate demonstration you state: “a body which is supplied constant energy at a constant rate”. The science that I presented and that you can’t refute, shows that it is that energy supplied at a constant rate that supplies every Joule that increases the object/Blue plate’s temperature.
No Joules of thermal energy/heat that increased the internal energy & temperature of the always warmer object/Blue plate came from a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the always colder radiation shield/Green plate, because that would be a violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
E.Swanson says: “Your first link from a post by Kristian (a quatanary Geologist by profession) also ignores the fact that warming the Blue plate causes it to radiate more thermal IR EM”
Wrong. We don’t ignore that. We just recognize that the radiant emittance of an object is not necessarily mean that it is a transfer of thermal energy. The radiant emittance is only a potential transfer of energy, if the other object in radiative contact is at 0K. The equation for radiant thermal energy/heat transfer tells us this: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only when Tc=0, does the radiant emittance equal the thermal energy/heat transfer.
Noted that you failed to quote anything in any of Kristian’s articles and showed that it is wrong either. You just deny any science that disagrees with your wrong understanding.
And it doesn’t matter if someone is a dog catcher or a brain surgeon, if they get the science correct. And both Kristian and I and everyone else who confirms that an always colder object can’t transfer thermal energy/heat to an always hotter object and cause its internal energy and temperature to increase are correct, because such a thermal energy/heat transfer would violate the 2nd Law.
Norman says: “… photons…”
You are just handwaving to obfuscate and confuse a simple thermodynamics/heat transfer problem with quantum mechanics/mental models of what is happening. This isn’t a quantum mechanics problem, it’s a macro, real world thermodynamics problem.
In your Green plate demonstration you state: “which has the net effect of adding to the fixed energy flow”
But the always colder object does not in fact add any thermal energy/heat to the always hotter object, because there is no new thermal energy source. That would violate the 1st Law, because you are creating new energy out of thin air. It just appears to that the effect of a new energy source, when in fact it is solely the constant energy source that supplies the only energy in the example.
It’s like raising a same-pole magnet under a free-floating magnet has the effect of defying gravity, but the principle of gravity is not violated. There is a new force involved which just makes it appear that the free-floating magnet defies gravity. You are ignoring the opposing radiative force of the always colder object that reduces the transfer of thermal energy away from the always hotter object.
You claim to be an engineer. Your denial of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is an embarrassment to the profession.
So do you claim that two opposing lineal forces on an object cause simultaneous bidirectional motion of that object in both the +x and -x direction?
If not, why not? Do you deny F=ma? Each force F=ma would cause motion in the direction of the force. Why don’t they both cause simultaneous bidirectional motion when acting simultaneously on an object?
It’s the same with radiation pressure/force on two simultaneously radiating objects. You have no answers. You just handwave and deny.
RealOldOne2 repeats the usual dragon slayer nonsense about the 2nd Law (which is actually a theory). He wrote:
Sorry, the 2nd Law doesn’t apply in this instance, except in that the resulting (net) energy transfer is from hot to cold.
Here’s a question for you. Both the Blue plate and the Green one radiate energy as a function of their temperatures, as you note. But, where does the thermal IR EM radiant energy from the Green plate go, since we know that it mostly arrives at the surface of the Blue plate? If it’s not reflected or absorbed, does it disappear? That would be a violation of the 1st Law, aka: Conservation of Energy.
Later, you also wrote:
Your analogy uses Classical physics of Newton which does not apply, IMHO. Photons exhibit momentum, thus produce a physical impulse on the radiometer paddles. You also mention magnetic fields, which don’t transfer energy unless there is physical motion. Does a magnetic material which exhibits a field constantly lose energy over time and cool to a temperature below ambient?
My basic understanding of physics is that intersecting beams of light do not interact, thus the opposing flows of IR EM photons between the two plates do not either. Also, my results agree with standard engineering principles, straight from text books published 50 years ago when I was a student and in today’s texts on Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer. I think it’s your responsibility to provide evidence to support your contention that “back radiation” doesn’t warm the Blue plate, not mine, since you claim that I am denying the 2nd “Law”. Please present your evidence.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.25,2019 at 8:26AM “RealOldOne2 repeats the usual dragon slayer nonsense”
Your strawman is noted. I’m not a dragon slayer. I accept that there is a greenhouse effect. And I correctly explain that it does not work by transferring thermal energy/heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, like deniers of the 2nd Law claim. Noted also that you still haven’t been able to quote a single thing that I have posted and show that it is incorrect.
E.Swanson says: “Sorry, the 2nd Law doesn’t apply in this instance”
You are denying reality and science. The 2nd Law applies to all transfers of thermal energy.
E.Swanson says: “My basic understanding of physics is that intersecting beams of light do not interact”
Your wrong understanding is noted. Maxwell & Planck over a century ago already understood that you are wrong.
E.Swanson says: “my results agree with standard engineering principles”
Again, you merely make a false, evidence-free false claim. I’ve backed up my correct understanding of unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer between two simultaneously radiating objects with cites and quotes from thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks. You can’t, which confirms that I am correct and that you are wrong.
Here is another real world example that confirms that you are wrong.
On Spencer’s ‘Soybean Increase’ blog article, Norman said: on Feb.24,2019 at 8:27PM “Again with a water flow analogy. … You can have a number of flows of water to a big tank … With energy it is the same.”
Since you brought up a water tank example, I’ll explain why a water tank example also exposes that your claim of bidirectional thermal energy transfer between two radiating objects is wrong.
Your example of 100GPM, 75GPM, are two independent separate flow processes, one flow into the tank and a separate flow out of the tank.
Where your “with energy” breaks down, is when you consider a single simultaneous water exchange that is analogous to two simultaneously radiating objects.
A water tank example representing two simultaneously radiating objects is shown in this figure: http://www.noshockzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Water-Tanks-No-Flow-300×247.jpg
When the water levels/pressures are equal, as in the upper figure, there is no water flow in the pipe connecting the two tanks, zero, nada, zip. Your wrong claim of bidirectional thermal energy transfer between two objects in radiative contact is the same as claiming that there is continuous bidirectional water flow in the pipe connecting two water tanks with exactly the same water level, at the rate as if there was no opposing pressure in each other tank. That does not happen in the real world.
Likewise, in the lower water tank example, there are not two separate bidirectional water flows which result in a net flow, there is a single unidirectional water flow determined by the net pressure. Likewise with two simultaneously radiating objects, there is a single unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer, which is determined by the net radiation, not the net of two separate bidirectional thermal energy transfers.
RealOldOne2, I don’t know how or what you, only what you post. You apparently think that I do not accept that energy flows from hither to lower temperature, which is incorrect. The net transfer in a system is always from the higher temperature source outside the system to the lower temperature sink.
Further down, I wrote:my results agree with standard engineering principles to which you replied:
I admit that I’ve not read all of your references. Which heat transfer text did you reference?
Yes, of course, the net transfer in the case of parallel plates is from the higher temperature one to the lower temperature one. The issue which you gloss over is the rate of energy transfer and the effect of the second plate on the temperature of the first when compared with the situation in which the first plate radiates to the surroundings. You have yet to supply any evidence which supports your claim that the hotter plate does not absorb the energy radiated from the colder one, thus you have not explained the physics involved. All you do is repeatedly chant “it violates the 2nd Law” as if that were proof.
You then continue, offering an example which refers to conduction heat transfer, which is a different situation all together. Holman (p1) notes:
Much later on chapter 8, he notes:
After that point, he says nothing about any “interference” by emissions of any body relative to another body’s emissions. He notes:
You still haven’t explained what happens to the energy radiated by the colder plate. Is it absorbed by the hotter plate? If not, since it doesn’t vanish, what happens to it?
“there is no water flow in the pipe connecting the two tanks, zero, nada, zip.”
Water is made of molecules not photons; molecules interact with each other, photons do not interact with each other. Your water tank analogy to light is wrong for that reason.
Yet another comment where you fail to refute any of the science that I have presented or any of the heat transfer example which I have presented which shows you deny the 2nd Law.
Yet another comment where you fail to present any science or evidence that supports your 2nd Law denying claim that an always colder object transfers thermal energy/heat to an always hotter object and further increases the temperature of an always hotter object. THAT proves your denial of the 2nd Law.
Your inability to refute anything in my heat transfer example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287 , proves that you DO deny the 2nd Law. Until you can quote anything from my heat transfer example and show that it is wrong, you lose.
Troll on.
Ball4’s continued clown dancing denial that the water tank example is relevant is also noted.
“Yet another comment where you fail to refute any of the science that I have presented or any of the heat transfer example which I have presented which shows you deny the 2nd Law.”
Yet another comment where you fail to understand what I have presented shows you are wrong about photon interaction & heat as defined by Clausius. Astute, informed readers can read about photon noninteraction from tests, read Clausius & modern day V&S, and determine that for themselves.
I do not deny the second law, you just do not understand 2LOT means entropy is & must be produced in the real process of bidirectional energy transfer as E. Swanson showed by actual experiment. You have no such experiments supporting your claims therefore they are unsubstantiated.
Ball4 says: on Feb.25,2019 at 6:58PM “…photons…”
Hahaha. Yet more clown dancing where Ball4 attempts to dodge his denial of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics by obfuscasing a simple thermodynamimcs & heat transfer problem by blathering on about photons. So sad for you.
Ball4 says: “I do not deny the 2nd Law”
Your lie and denial of reality is noted. You most certainly DO deny the 2nd Law. You believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of a transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object. There is no denying that is a blatant denial of the 2nd Law. My simple heat transfer example proves that. Here it is again:
Givens:
– We have an object with a surface area of 1m.
– The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
– the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
– The S-B constant, σ=5.67×10⁻⁸.
– Temps rounded to whole numbers.
– The shield is very very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are essentially equal considering the 3 significant figures of thermal energy transfer we are considering, 1m.
– The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m^2 within the object.
– The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
– The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.
So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m^2. The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.So the ONLY energy source to the object that exists in our system is 240W/m^2, PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred through any point in our system is 240 Joules/sec.
At initial thermal equilibrium the 240 Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.
We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system. The purpose of a radiation shield is to reduce heat loss from an object.
The shield initially receives the 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is being transferred away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m^2 of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.
The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).
At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.
The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67×10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
Th⁴=(240/5.67×10⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K
That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W^2/m(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.
2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec).
3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says: “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction . A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will not flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.
4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket/shield, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.
My correct understanding of this problem is supported by Heat Transfer textbooks. Section “8-8 Radiation Shields” of J.P.Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’ says: “These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded.” – J.P.Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’, McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., textbook
Now your wrong understanding of bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the always warmer object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m^2 (Joules/sec) being transferred from the always colder shield to the always warmer object. So your wrong understanding at final equilibrium now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder radiation shield.
Your wrong understanding has created 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.
Your wrong view has 480W/m^2 (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K object, which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the only energy/heat source of our system.
Your wrong view is not consistent with a radiation shield, whose purpose is to reduce heat transfer from an object, because your wrong view has the heat transfer from the object actually increasing.
Your wrong view created a new energy-in source to the object of 240W/m^2 out of thin air. Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because it wrongly has the object receiving 480W/m^2 of energy where the only energy source is 240W/m^2, so conservation of energy, the 1st Law has been violated.
And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has the cause of the increase in temperature of the always warmer object coming from the transfer of heat from an always colder object (shield) to an always warmer object.
QED, My understanding is correct and your false claim of understanding of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer is proven wrong.
You can’t refute that science that proves you wrong. You ARE denying the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
ROO_Two, In your comment, you claim that I don’t accept the 2nd Law of Thermo. Your earlier quotes referencing VanWylen and Sonntag misses a fundamental point in thermodynamics. The first step in analyzing a thermodynamic problem is to define the boundary around the system. Then, one analyzes the processes which occur within that system’s boundary. Once the system is so defined, the 2nd Law applies to the total energy flows across that boundary, i.e., the net energy flow. However, the 2nd Law does not apply to every process within the system boundary. My Green Plate demo fits this requirement, as the high quality energy flowing into of the bell jar results in the transfer of low quality, high entropy energy out to the surroundings.
For an obvious example of thermal radiation heat transfer, consider a concentrating solar collector. The Sun’s energy is concentrated on a receiver, which becomes very hot, so hot that a steam generator can be employed to produce low entropy electricity. But, the overall process is inefficient and there’s low quality, high entropy energy which leaves the system boundary, thus the overall result is that the conversion results in an increase in entropy, which is what the 2nd Law requires.
In your recent posts, you quote Holman’s discussion of reflective insulation. But, you have cherry picked a part of that discussion, leaving out a second point which shows your contention is wrong headed. Holman also wrote:
Of course, Holman’s text is a general treatment on heat transfer and he includes only one chapter on radiation heat transfer. He references other text books which specifically cover radiation heat transfer, such as:
Hottel, H. C., and A. F. Sarofim. Radiative Transfer. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Siegel, R., and J. R. Howell. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 2d ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Duffie, J. A., andW. A. Beckman. Solar Energy Thermal Process, 2nd ed. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
We used Duffie and Beckman when I audited the radiation heat transfer course in 1974, since solar collectors were a hot topic after the 1973 Arab/OPEC Oil embargo. I have a copy of Siegel and Howell which goes to great lengths to describe the absorp_tion of IR EM by any surface, which occurs regardless of the temperature of the body, though the properties may be a function of wavelength of the incident radiation, such as a selective surface. If you want to argue against those texts, which is what you are doing, go for it.
Oh, while you are at it, be sure to explain the cause(s) of the temperature increase in my Blue Plate, using physics, not another empty appeal to authority.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.26,2019 at 8:52AM “you claim that I don’t accept the 2nd Law of Thermo.”
I correctly state the fact that you deny the 2nd Law. My heat transfer example proves that. You have never quoted anything in my heat transfer example and refuted it.
All you do is handwave, obfuscate and repeat your false claim that the temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object.
Your handwaving about defining the boundary is just another obfuscation. The boundary of the transfer of heat to an from the earth is at the earth’s surface. On a global average basis, there is one unidirectional heat transfer process transferring heat from the Sun to the surface, another unidirectional heat transfer process transferring heat from surface to the atmosphere via convective heat transfer, another unidirectional heat transfer process transferring heat from the surface to the atmosphere via radiation. There is NO heat transfer process transferring heat/thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface, for that would violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. What I am saying is confirmed and supported by Fig.5(a) from Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, a peer reviewed paper written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and the global climate system. Here is that figure: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
Note that the boundary is at the earth’s surface, and note that there is no energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Thus, peer reviewed science supports my correct understanding, and proves that you ARE denying the 2nd Law. Nothing in your comment refutes this.
REO2 continues to be wrong writing counter to test results: “You believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of a transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object.”
No, I believe V&S are right “heat is not contained in an object” because that is supported by experiment. Also, the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of a transfer of thermal energy from an always colder object is also proven by E. Swanson’s and Dr. Spencer’s tests & is not a belief system.
It is REO2 that offers a belief system not based on testing just based on REO2’s inaccurate words.
ROO_Two, No, the boundary for the Earth’s energy balance is defined as the sphere outside the top of the atmosphere. That’s the perspective which Ozawa et. al adopt in their Figure 1. The energy from Sun light flows thru that boundary, eventually leaving the TOA as reflected SW or LW IR EM. The Earth’s surface is not an appropriate boundary, it’s a mid-point in the system, though energy does flow in and out of the thermal mass(s) of land and ocean. Those masses are internal thermal storage components and can not be separated from the rest of the system within the TOA boundary.
Ozawa’s later simple models which you point to begin by assuming temperatures in a 2 box model (Figure 5a). They don’t consider anything about the atmospheric radiation processes, which determine those temperatures in the real world. The effects of the snow and ice feedbacks and the greenhouse gases can not be separated out, once the yearly average temperature of the atmosphere is assumed to be 255 K. Because of this, your use of their results has no bearing on the problem of climate change and says nothing about “back radiation”.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.26,2019 at 12:25PM “The Earth’s surface is not an appropriate boundary”
HAHAHAHAHA Your handwaving clown dancing denial of reality is hilarious.
Wrong. It’s the exactly appropriate boundary when you are considering the energy fluxes between the surface and the atmosphere, because that is the boundary that any energy transfers would have to pass through. And Ozawa’s Fig.5(a) clearly shows that he does put a system boundary at the surface of the earth. Look at Figure 5(a) again: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
You are once again denying reality because it exposes your 2nd Law denying pseudoscience.
E.Swanson says: “Those masses are internal energy storage components and cannot be separated from the rest of the system within the TOA boundary.”
You’re spouting BS. It is clear that Ozawa separates them in Fig.5(a).
His figure considers the atmosphere as a system, which is why he has a boundary around the atmosphere. The atmosphere system has a boundary at TOA where energy transfers into and out of the atmosphere are shown, and has a boundary at the earth’s surface where energy transfers in and out of the atmosphere system are shown.
Ozawa’s Fig.5(a) supports exactly what I have been telling you. Let’s follow the energy transfers through the global climate system from Ozawa’s disgram.
1) The only energy source to the global climate system is the 240W/m^2 from the Sun that crosses the upper boundary of the atmosphere system. That is the only thermal energy/heat that causes any increase in internal energy of the climate system components.
2) 98W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere, causing some of the increase in internal energy of the atmosphere. And 142W/m^2 is transferred through the atmosphere, and crosses the boundary from the atmosphere to the surface. That is the only thermal energy/heat causing any increase in internal energy of the earth(land&ocean).
3) 142W/m^2 is transferred away from the surface through the atmosphere/surface boundary. Ozawa correctly shows that the surface can only transfer away as much thermal energy/heat as is transferred to it. Ozawa shows that 102W/m^2 of that 142 is transferred via convective transport, and 40W/m is transferred via radiative heat/energy.
4) The figure shows two numerically indeterminate atmospheric circulations which represent all the internal transfers that occur from the bottom boundary of the atmosphere(surface) to the the top boundary of the atmosphere (TOA).
5) 240W/m^2 is transferred out of the atmosphere through the top of the atmosphere boundary back to space.
Those are the only thermal energy fluxes/flows/transfers that occur into and out of the atmosphere.
There is no thermal energy transfer/flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. If there were, Ozawa’s Figure would have shown it, just like it showed the solar energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface.
Once AGAIN, I am proven correct and you are proven wrong.Your claim that the cold atmosphere transfers thermal energy/heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface is rubbish pseudoscience which denies the 2nd Law.
ROO_Two, With your love affair with Ozawa’s Fig.5(a), you are blind to the effects of his assumptions and errors. A perfect example is your claim that the TOA solar flux is 240 W/m^2. Actually, the Solar “Constant” (aka: irradiance)has been measured accurately from satellites at around 1366 W/m^2, which translates to 342 W/m^2 when averaged over the entire surface area. The difference is the result of SW reflection clouds and the surface and by the atmosphere. That reflection component is another part of the climate system which is known to be changing too.
Qzawa et al. (2003) present a simplified one dimensional model which assumes values for various temperatures. Their model is not a climate model and does not include the relevant processes which are expected to change as we modify our climate system. Your continued insistence that their model is appropriate is ludicrous on it’s face.
You may be a well trained scientist in some field (which you haven’t revealed?), but your arrogant assertion that “I am proven correct and you are proven wrong” shows how little you really understand about the Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming. The Greenhouse Effect happens within the atmosphere at different levels, which then impacts surface temperatures. The process result is similar to, but not exactly, that of increasing the insulation in a wall, which causes the inner surface to warm for a constant rate of energy flowing thru it. Neither situation violates the 2nd law.
REO2 claims: “There is no thermal energy transfer/flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. If there were, Ozawa’s Figure would have shown it, just like it showed the solar energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface.”
Your claim is wrong REO2, Ozawa Fig. 5a does show there is radiative thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy transfer/flux/flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface as the correct UWIR-DWIR “net longwave” of 40 is shown.
If REO2 were correct, then the net longwave would be UWIR-0 for 396-0 = 396 but Fig. 5a shows the correct net UWIR-DWIR of 40 so atm. DWIR component is clearly nonzero in Ozawa’s “net longwave”.
REO2 claims have been refuted by Ozawa Fig. 5a, the testing of E. Swanson, and Dr. Spencer.
LOL @ poor E.Swanson’s hilarious and desperate hand waving clown dancing in his comment on Feb.27,2019 at 9:07AM. Thanks for confirming once again that you are nothing more than a 2nd Law denying, reality-denying clownish troll.
E.Swanson says: “you are blind to the effects of his assumptions and errors. A perfect example is your claim that the TOA solar flux is 240W/m^2. Actually, the Solar “Constant” (aka: irradiance) has been measured accurately from satellites at around 1366W/^2, which translates to 342W/^2 when average over the entire surface area.”
Hahaha. Sorry Swanson, but your desperate obfuscating handwaving ignores the fact that those 102W/m^2 difference between 342 & 240 are reflected away and never interact with the atmosphere or the surface. Poof, Swansons’s silly attempt to obfuscate goes up in smoke.
E.Swanson says: “That reflection is another part of the climate system which is known to be changing too.”
Hahaha. Sorry Swanson, but that is yet more handwaving obfuscation. Like any other ‘earth energy budget/balance’, it covers a period of time and the numbers represent a single average over that period, so your silly handwaving about “changing” fails.
E.Swanson says: “Ozawa et al. (2003) present a simplified one dimensional model . . . Your continued insistence that their model is appropriate is ludicrous on it’s [sic] face.”
Hahaha. Yet MORE silly handwaving obfuscation in order to distract from the fact that Ozawa(2003) exposes your 2nd Law denial. The peer reviewed literature is full of similar one-dimensional models of the ‘earth energy budget/balance’, most of which are pseudoscience because they pretend that there is a real thermal energy transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. No such transfer of thermal energy/heat has ever been detected, observed, or measured.
Noted that your last paragraph is just a strawman, as I’ve never denied that there is a greenhouse “effect”. I just correctly understand and prove that the ghe does not work by any real transfer of thermal energy/heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. My heat transfer example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-343371 , which no one has ever refuted, proves that you deny the 2nd Law, because you believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely due to a transfer of heat from an always colder object.
Once again, like your fellow 2nd Law deniers, you just deny reality, deny peer reviewed science, and deny all the scientific facts that prove you wrong. You’re a biased, hypocritical troll, because you certainly don’t dismiss the IPCC’s and the many peer reviewed papers that show the non-existent thermal energy transfer of 324W/m^2, or 333W/m^2, or 342W/m^2, or 345W/m^2 from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.
REO2 falsely claims: “because you believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely due to a transfer of heat from an always colder object.”
Wrong REO2, as V&S tried to correctly instruct you: “heat is not contained in an object”. You have failed to be properly instructed in text book thermodynamics.
The temperature of an always hotter object can be increased further solely due to a radiative transfer of energy from an added always colder object as demonstrated in the experiments of E. Swanson, Dr. Spencer, and in REO2 link to Fig. 5a of Ozawa et. al.
“My heat transfer example, which no one has ever refuted…”
V&S clearly refute your example as they write: “heat is not contained in an object”.
An example is not a test anyway. To be convincing, run the experiment REO2. To become correct, stop misusing the heat term as defined by Clausius, become correctly instructed by V&S, and possibly eventually REO2 can get the physics right.
ROO_Two wrote:
Not true. SEE: https://www.arm.gov/
and: https://www.arm.gov/capabilities
Do you really think these guys are liars?
Ball4 says: on Feb.27,2019 at 11:24AM “REO2 falsely claims ‘because you believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely due to a transfer of heat from an always hotter object.’ “
Hahahaha You’re such a joke. Your lie is noted, as is your continued stupidity. That is a correct claim, proven my heat transfer example, which no one has ever refuted.
Ball4 says: “Wrong REO2, as V&S tried to correctly instruct you: “heat is not contained in an object” “
Hahahahaha You’re such a joke. I’ve never claimed that an object contains heat. Your repeated stupid, ignorant and imbecilic failed SRAWMAN argument is noted.
Ball4 says: “You have failed to be instructed in textbook thermodynamics.”
Hahahahahaha You’re such a joke. I’ve backed up my correct understanding with cites and quotes from thermodynamics textbooks. You have not. Your projection is noted.
Ball4 says: “The temperature of an always hotter object can be increased further solely due to a radiative transfer of energy from an added always colder object”
Hahahahaha You’re such a joke. Your continued explicit denial of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is noted.
Ball4 says: “as demonstrated in the experiments of E.Swanson, Dr. Spencer, and in REO2 link to Fig.5(a) of Ozawa et. al.”
Hahahahaha You’re such a joke. Their experiments demonstrated no such thing. Just as my heat transfer example showed, the increase in temperature of the always hotter object came from the only heat source in the experiment, the constant heat source.
Ball4 says: ” ‘my heat transfer example, which no one has ever refuted’ V&S clearly refute your example as they write: ‘heat is not contained in an object’.”
Hahahahaha You’re such a joke. That correct statement from VanWylen & Sonntag’s ‘Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics’ textbook, which I cited and quoted and have never disagreed with, doesn’t refute my heat transfer example. You only stupidly think so because of your ignorance of thermodynamics and because of your denial of the fact that heat transfer occurs when the internal energy of a hotter object is transferred to a lower temperature object. Your continued beating your dead horse silly, stupid, asinine stawman that an object has to contain heat in order to transfer heat is noted.
The poor Ball4 troll continues to display his ignorance of thermodynamics, his denial of the 2nd Law. So sad that he flaunts his stupidity and ignorance.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.26,2019 at 9:11PM “Do you really think these guys are liars.”
No, they aren’t liars. They just have never detected, observed or measured any real transfer of thermal energy/heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, because such a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface would violate the 2nd Law, and as the thermodynamics textbook has stated, no experiment or demonstration has ever violated the 2nd Law.
All they have done is calculate the atmosphere’s radiant emittance, which is only a potential transfer of thermal energy/heat. And that potential is only realized if the only object in radiative contact is at 0K. The equation for radiative heat transfer confirms that: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) Only when Tc=0, does q=ϵσTh⁴.
As Kristian has schooled you 2nd Law deniers, radiometers do not measure ‘backradiation’ or any heat/thermal energy transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. The only thing radiometers measure is the unidirectional heat transfer from the warmer radiometer to the cooler sky. And because that unidirectional heat transfer is less than what would be transferred to 0K, they calculate the radiant emittance of the atmosphere, which is what you call ‘backradiation’.
What pyrgeometers detect is the unidirectional flow of thermal energy/heat from the warmer surface/pyrgeometer to the colder atmosphere. They do this by using the Seebeck effect and a thermopile which produces an emf, ie., a voltage. When pointed at the colder sky it produces a negative voltage because the detector thermocouple junction is colder than the instrument housing temperature(reference junction), indicating that the thermal energy flow is away from the instrument to the colder sky. The pyrgeometer manufacturer confirms this:
The only thing directly measured is the net radiation, σ(Th^4-Tc^4), which equals q, the unidirectional heat/thermal energy being transferred either to(positive voltage) or from(negative voltage) the instrument.
This means that pyrgeometers do not measure DWIR or any heat/thermal energy transfer from the colder sky to the warmer surface. They measure the amount of heat/thermal energy being transferred from the warmer instrument to the colder sky, and because that heat flow is less than the amount of heat that would be transferred to a 0K sink, they calculate the resistance to heat flow from the instrument, which is the mean radiant emittance of the atmosphere that the pyrgeometer is pointed at, which is the opposing radiation force/pressure, DWIR.
So the DWIR is only a calculated number. It is not a directly measured or detected. The calculation is based on based on knowing the instrument temperature and using the S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Tsurf^4-Tatmosphere^4). If the instrument was pointed at an absolute zero temp object, q would be σ(Tinst^4). But since q is less than that, the Tc can be calculated, then the irradiance of that object, σ(Tsky^4) is calculated. It is not a directly measured value, and it is not a real thermal energy transfer, it is merely a calculated irradiance of an object at the mean temperature of Tc.
What I am saying is confirmed by the pyrgeometer manufacturer:
So the instrument directly measures how much thermal energy (net radiation) is either transferred to the pyrgeometer (positive voltage due to the detector being warmer than the instrument housing), OR transferred from the pyrgeometer (negative voltage due to the detector being cooler than the instrument housing). The ‘backradiation’ is merely a calculated number, which represents the reduction in the unidirectional transfer of thermal energy/heat from the warmer surface to the colder sky.
Simple 2nd Law of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Unidirectional thermal energy/heat flow from the higher temperature surface of the earth to the colder atmosphere.
Once again Swanson, you are pissing in the wind.
REO2 falsely claims: “I’ve never claimed that an object contains heat.”
because REO2 claims:
“Just as my heat transfer example showed”
so heat HAD to be contained in REO2’s object in order to transfer out! Thus REO2 does claim an object contains heat, and because REO2 claims an object can be a source of heat:
“the only heat source in the experiment”
THAT object also must contain heat according to REO2 as it is a source of heat.
REO2’s comments are nonsense rants and meaningless. Experiments have shown REO2 is completely wrong about thermodynamics.
REO2 is also wrong about radiometers:
“which represents the reduction in the unidirectional transfer”
If that were true, a NOAA ESRL radiometer would measure the same net unidirectional transfer looking up and the same net unidirectional transfer looking down. This is not observed by simple inspection of NOAA ESRL daily published data.
In reality, NOAA ESRL radiometers measure the gross DWIR from a hemisphere of directions looking up & the gross UWIR from a hemisphere of directions looking down from which a net longwave can be calculated as in the Ozawa et. al. paper [=40].
REO2 doesn’t know what REO2 is writing about.
Ball4 says: on Mar.1,2019 at 10:14AM “so heat HAD to be contained in REO2’s object in order to transfer out!
Hahahahahaha You are such a pathetic joke, repeating your debunked logical non-sequitur argument. As I’ve shown you from cites and quotes from the thermodynamics textbook, the object contains internal energy, not heat, just as the thermodynamics textbook says. And it is that transfer of internal energy away from the object that makes up the heat transfer away from the object.
Ball4 says: “REO2’s comments are nonsense rants and meaningless.”
Hahahahaha You are soooooo good at projection. That’s exactly what your evidence-free pseudoscience comments are.
I’ve cited and quoted thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks that support and confirm my understanding is correct. You have FAILED to do so, because you are spouting rubbish pseudoscience 2nd Law denial. Poor Ball4 troll is exposed AGAIN.
Ball4 says: on Mar.1, 2019 at 10:24AM “REO2 is also wrong about radiometers”
Hahahahaha Your inability to quote anything I posted about radiometers is noted. The voltage output of two radiometers which are at different temperatures and pointed at each other will have the same numerical value, but opposite signs, one being negative and one being positive, correctly indicating that heat/thermal energy is being transferred from the higher temperature radiometer to the lower temperature radiometer.
Poor Ball4 troll is once again exposed as a clownish 2nd Law denying troll, who is ignorant of science.
“the object contains internal energy, not heat”
Very good REO2 you have come around to the correct text book thermodynamics.
“it is that transfer of internal energy away from the object that makes up the heat transfer away from the object.”
Here REO2 yet again mistakenly goes against the text books & claims heat exists in an object so that heat can then transfer away from that object. This is improper thermodynamics since the day and age of Clausius.
“correctly indicating that heat/thermal energy is being transferred from”
That’s wrong REO2, no radiometer contains heat thus no heat can transfer from that radiometer. The radiometer contains internal energy not heat per your own claim I just clipped: “the object contains internal energy, not heat”
Keep working at it REO2, stick to the correct text book thermodynamics as in your own correct claim: “the object contains internal energy, not heat”.
The atm. contains internal energy, not heat.
Ball4 says: on Mar.2,2019 at 9:58AM “Very good REO2 you have finally come around to the correct text book thermodynamics.”
ROTFLOL! You are such a total JOKE of a troll, projecting your capitulation onto me. I have said that from my first comments. You are the one who has been denying the textbook definition of heat.
Ball4 says: “Here REO2 yet again mistakenly goes against the text books & claims heat exists in an object”
ROTFLMAO @ the hilariously conflicted and terminally ignorant Ball4 troll! There you go again, denying the textbook definition of heat transfer. What a hilarious effing fool you are. Do you get paid to make a fool out of yourself? Or do you expose that you have the brains of a rock for free?
Ball4 says: “no radiometer contains heat”
ROTFLMAO @ your continued display of stupidity by beating your dead horse strawman! Thanks for continuing your clown dance, which just proves you are one seriously effed up dude. Poor fool.
REO2 7:48pm remains incorrect that heat can transfer out of an object which REO2 admits does not contain heat to begin with which is just a continuing example of REO2s error propagation in thermodynamics since Clausius’ day.
Ozawa Fig. 5 correctly shows the radiometer measured global UWIR net of the DWIR calculated net longwave at 40. The rest of REO2 errors are debunked experimentally by E. Swanson and Dr. Spencer.
REO2 prefers to remain an example of error propagation rather than admit to REO2’s experimentally proven errors of thermodynamics.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Hahahahaha No matter how many times you repeat your debunked, evidence-free claims that I am wrong, it will never make it true. You are one hilarious troll.
My claims are not evidence free as you write REO2, my claims are based on the experiments of Dr. Spencer and E. Swanson and many others. It is REO2’s writing that is evidence free, or produce REO2’s experimental evidence (hint: an example is not evidence).
No, Ball4, please STOP trolling. I think you are hearing, “troll more”, each time I ask you to stop.
Ball4 says: on Mar.4,2019 at 7:12PM “my claims are based on the experiments of Dr. Spencer and E.Swanson.”
Sorry, but no experiments ever conducted, included those by Dr. Spencer & Swanson have ever documented thermal energy/heat being transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object. As I’ve shown you and as you continue to deny and ignore, thermodynamics textbook confirms this:
In Spencer & Swanson’s experiments every Joule of thermal energy/heat that increases the temperature of the always hotter object comes from the constant energy source. Not a single Joule of thermal energy/heat comes from the always colder shield. That is because that would mean that the temperature increase of the always hotter object was solely the result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from and always colder object, which would be a direct violation of the 2nd Law. My heat transfer example which no one has ever refuted proves that. It is also proved by the fact that if you remove the 240W/m^2 constant energy source, the temperature of the object goes to 0K. Thus your claim that the always colder object supplies a second real thermal energy/heat source of 240W/m^2 is proven false, because if it were a real second thermal energy/heat source, the temperature would not go to 0K, it would go to a lower but well above 0K temperature.
You continue to piss into the wind, wetting and soiling your britches. You have no evidence. You can’t refute my arguments. You just deny them and repeat your false, debunked 2nd Law denying pseudoscience. Sad.
RealOldOne2
I pulled up the Thermodynamics textbook. It does not deal with problems of radiant heat transfer at all.
But you are bonkers if you think Holman supports your invalid idea.
I have the 10th edition downloaded and read through the radiant heat transfer sections. You are wrong and do not portray material properly. Again it is what some skeptics on this blog do. They lead people astray. Download the 10th edition of Holman’s textbook. Read in Chapter 8. Read through it and tell me what is said. It says NET energy exchange. You are plainly wrong.
I have another one that you can attempt to prove. You believe (getting the information from blogger Kristian, who also does not support his claims) his idea that EMR combines to form one waveform.
He is wrong. That idea is not supported by any science books on heat transfer. EMR may interfere but it moves through.
I do not consider a blog article valid proof of anything. You claim to have deep knowledge of physics. Find a valid textbook on EMR that makes the claim for a one way flow of EMR when multiple sources are present. I rejected this one based upon my own visual abilities. I can see multiple objects in a room. Each is reflecting energy from its own unique surface. There is NO grouping of the energy into one flow. Each surface has its own flow. The waves may interfere but move through each other with no effect on the amount of energy that will reach my eye.
I will see if you respond.
“Rather heat can be identified only as it crosses the boundary.”
V&S offer no test identifying this “heat” crossing any boundary. They are really writing about the process of heating since they also write “a body never contains heat.” It’s fantastic (fable? urban legend?) to conceive of heat existing in neither object A nor B but only on the journey between them.
“Two opposing EM waves interfere/superimpose to create a single resultant EM wave”
Only if they are coherent light do the waves interfere and there is no single wave, both waves exist. Incoherent natural light in the atm. does not interfere. Photons do not interact with each other.
“my heat transfer example is totally correct and bulletproof logic.”
If it is, then offer tests proving your logic.
Hahaha. Ball4, you are such a persistent, obtuse, dishonest and ignorant troll!
“V&S offer no test identifying this “heat” crossing any boundary.”
Your ideological blindness/denial of reality is noted. Just before their definition of “heat” that I cited and quoted, they gave the test that identifies the “heat” crossing the system boundary.
There it is for any sane, rational, thinking person who as the least bit of reading comprehension to see and understand, the “test” to determine if energy has crossed the system boundary is if the temperature of the systems have increased or decreased.
Noted that you continue to deny the scientific fact that EM waves behave like light waves, and interfere, superimpose and interact just as Maxwell & Planck knew over a century ago.
Yet again, poor Ball4 troll makes a fool out of himself. But never fear, this never deters a scientifically illiterate troll. They just ignore everything that has exposed them as bumbling ignorant fools, and continue to troll on. Sad, but it’s what delusional, duped doomsday cult fanatics do.
“We say that it is the result of the transfer of energy from the copper block to the water.”
So as V&S write you are wrong, the process of heating is the transfer of energy not as you write “heat”. Thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy to be precise.
Yes, you are starting to get it, the “test” to determine if thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy has crossed the system boundary is if the temperature of the systems have increased or decreased due bidirectional (+/-) thermal energy exchange. No test has ever identified a substance known as heat, as V&S write: “an object does not contain heat” thus heat cannot transfer out & heating is a process.
Noted that you continue to deny the scientific fact that EM waves behave like incoherent light waves in the tropospheric atm. Photons do not interact with each other.
LOL @ Ball4’s continued clown dancing!
Norman says: on Feb.24,2019 at 3:42PM “You are wrong”
Once again, you make an evidence-free claim. Noted that you failed to quote a single thing in my comment and show that it was wrong. No matter how many times you falsely claim that thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks support your wrong claim that there is simultaneous bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer between two radiation objects, it will never make it true. My heat transfer example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287 , confirms that your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Noted that you can’t quote anything in my heat transfer example and show that it is incorrect.
The rest of your comment is simply handwaving. I’ve posted the science that confirms I am correct. Until you can quote what I have said and show that it is wrong, you are tilting at windmills and merely repeating your wrong understanding.
“My heat transfer example”
An example is not an experiment. V&S have already instructed REO2 “heat is not contained in an object”. REO2 thermodynamic arguments “between two radiation objects” are refuted by E. Swanson’s and Dr. Spencer’s testing.
LOL @ poor Ball4 trolls continued clown dancing!
Noted that your clown dancing still doesn’t refute anything in my heat transfer example which proves that you are a 2nd Law denier.
Poor troll, so sad that you revel in continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
REO2 arguments are still refuted by E. Swanson’s and Dr. Spencer’s testing.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, Ball4 is a troll, so he won’t stop trolling. It’s what trolls do.
What trolls don’t do is quote anything from the intelligent people who expose the trolls’ nonsense and show that we intelligent people are wrong. They can’t, because we intelligent people are correct. That’s why the scientifically ignorant trolls can’t cite and quote any thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks or valid science sources to support their pathetic pseudoscience.
Well, that’s true, trolls aren’t likely to stop. But, the more times I ask them to stop trolling, the more readers are aware of the problem. Since there is no true moderation at this blog, the Emergency Team is here to point out who are the repeat offenders – the deliberate distorters of truth.
Bindion,
“Comparing the two gives as result that geothermal energy is 1.75 % of solar incoming energy. It is not negligible of course and must be integrated in any trustworthy energy balance sheet for Earth.
Thus energy out is NOT SIGNIFICANTLY more than energy in.”
I would point out that the geothermal energy actually heats the surface. If it is insignificant, how much more so is energy from a cooler atmosphere which doesnt?
PhilJ
It is even less than 1.75 %, I made a mistake (taking 240 W/m^2 for incoming sol rad instead of 1360). The correct ratio is 0.43 %.
*
“I would point out that the geothermal energy actually heats the surface.”
Yes it does. But it does that 262 times less than does the Sun. So what exactly is your point?
The rest you wrote I did not understand.
According to Wikipedia:
That suggest that the geothermal heat flow is on the order of 3000 times less than sun light, not on the order of 300 times smaller.
The GHE works just fine on geothermal heat, it doesn’t matter if the input is solar or subsurface.
Yes, Svante — I concur.
Bindidon, Tim, Svante, please stop trolling.
philj…”I would point out that the geothermal energy actually heats the surface. If it is insignificant, how much more so is energy from a cooler atmosphere which doesnt?”
You might also point out that it has been heating the surface and the oceans for billions of years, over which time it has no doubt contributed mightily to our average temperature today.
“The rest you wrote I did not understand.”
Well then let me clarify,
Heat naturally flows from the interior to the suface and from the surface to the atmosphere.
So then it is meaningless to calculate how the atmosphere warms the surface… It doesnt.
PhilJ
“So then it is meaningless to calculate how the atmosphere warms the surface It doesnt.”
1. I remember you having posted that a lot of times.
But in none of your comments you referred to any valuable source confirming what you pretend.
Do you have now such a source?
(By ‘source’ I mean something valuable, so please avoid those coming from Gosselin’s trickszone or similar.)
2. Moreover, the problem is for me not wether or not the atmosphere ‘warms’ the surface.
What is of interest is that not all the energy Earth emits in the IR spectrum in reaction to Sun’s radiation reaches outer space. A part of it is intercepted by atmospheric constituents.
If that interception did not occur, then Earth would be a bit cooler, isn’t it?
Or do you still doubt about that?
If sunlight warms surface 262 times more geothermal heat, how much more does sunlight warm surface as compared to the air above the surface warming surface?
PhilJ seems to think air does not warm surface- or says colder atmosphere doesn’t warm it [which indicates to me, he means radiant effect of atmosphere does warm surface]. I think surface air warms the surface or ground by a small amount and I think radiant energy of atmosphere does not warm the ground.
It seems the ground can get colder than air above it, and the more the difference the more the surface air can warm the ground.
And another aspect is does ground cool less due to having atmosphere above it as compared to having vacuum of space.
Unless one at geothermal hot spot, I would say geothermal heat is not warming the ground. And I think that generally living processes of a ground would tend to warm more the geothermal heat.
Though geothermal heat might add enough heat to cause environment in soil to allow a higher level of biological activity which generates heat.
gb,
“It seems the ground can get colder than air above it, and the more the difference the more the surface air can warm the ground.”
Temperature inversions to occur occasionally and then it is a warmer atmosphere heating a colder surface. But these are not the norm. If we are talking average surface temp and average air temp, the air is always colder than the surface…
“And another aspect is does ground cool less due to having atmosphere above it as compared to having vacuum of space.”
The surface cools much more effectively by having water on it than not. You cannot have water cooling the surface without having an atmosphere. So to have no atmosphere the Earth would have to lose all its water (and its associated internal energy).
–PhilJ says:
February 23, 2019 at 2:06 PM
gb,
It seems the ground can get colder than air above it, and the more the difference the more the surface air can warm the ground.
Temperature inversions to occur occasionally and then it is a warmer atmosphere heating a colder surface. But these are not the norm. If we are talking average surface temp and average air temp, the air is always colder than the surface–
If air is always cooler than surface, then surface is always warming the air.
But if speaking of averages and understands most of surface of Earth is ocean. Add in that average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C, and average air temperature is about 15 C, then that would make some sense. Though the average land surface air temperature is about 10 C and if concerned about ground temperature, it seems on average the land is cooler than average global surface air temperature of 15 C.
Though generally the ground surface can become quite a bit warmer than the surface air, during the day when sun is well above the horizon.
Bindion,
“Do you have now such a source?”
Sure, its called the second law of thermodynamics: ‘Heat always naturally flows from a hotter body to a colder one and never the reverse without compensation’
If anyone were to discover a natural process that transferred heat from a colder body to a hotter one all our energy needs would be met … 😉
“What is of interest is that not all the energy Earth emits in the IR spectrum in reaction to Sun’s radiation reaches outer space. A part of it is intercepted by atmospheric constituents.
If that interception did not occur, then Earth would be a bit cooler, isn’t it? ”
How exactly would you get an atmosphere that didn’t intercept any of the terrestrial radiation?
Such an atmosphere would be unable to cool radiatively to space and so its temp would climb (from conduction with the surface) until it was isothermal with the surface temp.
The lack of water on Venus shows what happens when you decrease the emissivity of the atmosphere…
PhilJ
Your words
1. “Sure, its called the second law of thermodynamics: ‘Heat always naturally flows from a hotter body to a colder one and never the reverse without compensation'”.
Everybody knows that, PhilJ. This blog is over and over full of such sentences.
But as I wrote: this is not what matters.
*
2. “Such an atmosphere would be unable to cool radiatively to space and so its temp would climb (from conduction with the surface) until it was isothermal with the surface temp.”
That is now really nonsense, PhilJ.
2a. If all water vapor present in the troposphere precipitated, we would have an atmosphere nearly transparent to Earth’s IR emission which therefore would reach outer space without any interference.
How can you think that Earth needs an atmosphere to efficiently radiate IR to space? The contrary is the case.
2b. Conduction?
Conduction from surface to air is 25 W/m^2. Compared with Earth’s radiation, that is really not much.
Without IR active gases in the atmosphere, and with an albedo of 0.3 due to all oceans frozen to ice, Earth would cool.
Bindion,
“But as I wrote: this is not what matters.”
with all due respect sir, of course this matters. Any supposed ‘effect’ that contradicts the second law of thermo is obviously flawed, unless it has proof that overturns said law.
“Conduction from surface to air is 25 W/m^2. Compared with Earths radiation, that is really not much.
Without IR active gases in the atmosphere, and with an albedo of 0.3 due to all oceans frozen to ice, Earth would cool.”
Again, if the atmosphere was unable to absorb/radiate it would be unable to cool to space (except by achieving escape velocity and cooking off).
It doesnt matter how slowly it warmed via conduction with the surface, with no way for the energy to leave its temp would rise until it was isothermal with the surface.
Now you might think and say this is nonsense, and I agree, you cannot have an atmosphere that does not absorb/radiate
.SO to ponder what an IR inert atmosphere would be like is pointless.
You can, however, have different emissivities so that it absorbs/emits at different rates.
A higher emissivity means the atmosphere will cool to space more efficiently which lowers temp..
A contracting TOA is evidence of a cooling atmosphere.
PhilJ
You are correct that more IR active gases in an atmosphere will allow a section of the atmosphere to cool. That would be the top of the atmosphere emitting region.
That would not cool the surface, however, now you would have more IR emitters returning more energy to the surface than a previous state and with a steady incoming energy source (solar) the surface will reach higher temperatures.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s400/strato%2Bcool.jpg
This graph shows that CO2 in the lower atmosphere is neutral to heating or cooling the atmosphere. It absorbs and emits about the same amount. In the upper atmosphere the CO2 produces pronounced cooling effect. The CO2 is emitting back to the surface so it has no cooling effect on surface temperatures.
PhilJ
Sorry, this is still nonsense.
Do you really not (want to?) understand that when all IR active gases go off the atmosphere, the entire infrared radiation spectrum behaves like the actual atmospheric window?
That means that nearly all IR emitted by Earth passes thru, what cools the surface, and thus conduction no longer is in effect.
The atmosphere is nearly inert, it absorbs and reemits nothing compared with today.
There is no longer any Brownian movement within all the N2/O2 molecules that could contribute to any warming within it.
No clouds, frozen oceans.
Sorry, this is an endless, boring discussinon starting all tghe time anew.
Norman likes that. Go with him!
B,
“Sorry, this is still nonsense.”
I agree! Using an atmosphere that is radiatively inert is ludicrous. Building a hypothosis and a paradigm on a fantasy atmosphere is sure to fail..
But you are the one who postulated it so I will continue..
” and thus conduction no longer is in effect.”
If you have an atmosphere, conduction with the surface is always in effect..
Now if you would like to discuss the observed atmosphere and earth rather than fantasy atmosphere I’m willing…
binny…”Conduction from surface to air is 25 W/m^2. Compared with Earths radiation, that is really not much”.
Propaganda from climate modelers/alarmists.
If that’s the case, why is insulation in homes designed to slow conduction while ignoring heat loss via radiation?
philj…”Again, if the atmosphere was unable to absorb/radiate it would be unable to cool to space (except by achieving escape velocity and cooking off)”.
Phil have you considered natural cooling via expansion/contraction of the atmosphere between day and night?
The Ideal Gas Equation.
Gordon Robertson
I will give you a chance to think through your comment, reflect on it and change you position. You post currently makes you look ignorant.
YOU: “If that’s the case, why is insulation in homes designed to slow conduction while ignoring heat loss via radiation?”
Insulation DOES NOT ignore heat loss via radiation. Insulation absorbs all the IR emitted by the inside of a room, it is already stopping radiant energy flow. I hope you are intelligent enough to know that IR is absorbed by all but a very small class of materials and a few millimeters of any solid will absorb all IR just as it does with visible light.
The insulation absorbs all the radiant energy of the inside of the house. It slows the amount of heat that can flow via conduction. The effect is the opposite side of the insulation is as cold as the outside so the radiant energy exchange with all the external cold items becomes neutral radiant heat loss.
GR,
“Phil have you considered natural cooling via expansion/contraction of the atmosphere between day and night?
The Ideal Gas Equation.”
Indeed I have! If you have read some of my other posts you will have seen that I point out the contracting top of the atmosphere..
If the TOA is contracting then one of the following, according to the gas law PV=nrT, must be true:
a: Temperature is decreasing
b: Pressure is increasing
c: some combination of a and b
If earth atm. were continously contracting, the observed 240in/240out would not be possible. The energy conservation balance then would be for example, 240in/245out. This is not observed, neither is earth atm. observed continously contracting.
This is not the case with some of the gas giants where the atm. IS thought to be continously contracting when they are observed to emit more than they receive from the sun (see Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction).
Ball4, Norman, please stop trolling.
Hi Norm,
“You are correct that more IR active gases in an atmosphere will allow a section of the atmosphere to cool. That would be the top of the atmosphere emitting region.”
Indeed. And as every region of the atmosphere sits on top of all other regions… a contracting TOA means the average atmospheric temp is decreasing..
“That would not cool the surface, however,”
water clearly cools the surface. Humid regions do not get as hot as arid regions with the same insolation…
we can discuss how the surface cools or how the atmosphere cools… but they are not dependent on each other … although water is the primary coolant for both…
PhilJ
Again I agree with you that water does cool the surface via evaporation and cloud formation. Yet it does not cool it nearly as much as it would cool with no IR active gases present and all the surface IR went directly to space. This would cool the surface much more rapidly than would evaporation or convection.
The other point is that while water does have both cooling and warming effects on the surface, cooling by evaporation and cloud formation limiting solar input and warming via IR emission from water vapor and clouds…Carbon Dioxide will only have a surface warming effect. It absorbs almost zero solar incoming IR, it forms no clouds, it does not cool by evaporation. It only warms the surface by IR emission.
Norman,
“Yet it does not cool it nearly as much as it would cool with no IR active gases present and all the surface IR went directly to space. This would cool the surface much more rapidly than would evaporation or convection.”
and yet observation of reality disproves your hypothesis here…
Humid areas do not get as hot as arid areas with the same insolation…
thus clearly evaporation is much more efficient at cooling the surface than radiation alone
PhilJ
I will link you to some information. You can do what you want with it.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c7358a9ca459.png
The dry desert location with low Relative Humidity
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KDRA/date/2018-7-1?req_city=Mercury&req_state=NV&req_statename=Nevada&reqdb.zip=89023&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999
Still has a considerable DWIR.
Compare it to a very wet area (times of 100% relative humidity)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c735a3587d49.png
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KUOX/date/2018-7-1?req_city=Courtland&req_state=MS&req_statename=Mississippi&reqdb.zip=38620&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999
PhilJ
You might want to consider there is more to the issue for health than just the measured air temperature.
Here:
https://www.homeschoolingforfree.org/heat-index-chart-today/
Heat index values. The danger at the 93 F high humidity location is much greater than the hotter desert air with very low humidity.
PhilJ
Here is some fairly valid proof of a “GHE”
More notable at night when evaporation is low but it has great effect on comfort index.
Dry area, not Net IR and air temperature during the night. See how many degrees the temperature drops.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c7359e6943bd.png
Now go to a very wet area and see what the night time temperature does and note the considerably less surface heat loss because of the greater DWIR.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5c73598c004b4.png
PhilJ
And one more item.
I have used this calculator to see the enthalpy difference between humid and dry air.
https://tinyurl.com/y45zlyjt
You can input the values from the WeatherUnderground values to get enthalpy data for the air.
Desert Air at highest temp:
For my data link: Temp: 101 F R.H. 8% Enthalpy: 47 joules/gram
Wet area:
For my data link: Temp: 93 F R.H. 46% Enthalpy: 73 joules/gram
So even though the air temperature is lower it contains more energy that has to come from somewhere. So even though evaporation keeps the surface cooler, the air still holds a lot more energy and the heat index gets much worse as R.H. goes up.
So if the wet area is cooled why does the air contain more energy? This would suggest that the GHE is not causing cooling but actually increasing the energy stored.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Tony Heller’s bio page for anyone interested. He is being quite modest here as to his qualifications. This guy was highly regarded by Intel for his ability in getting to the root of problems.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/who-is-steven-goddard/
Here is the real Tony Heller bio page:
https://tinyurl.com/Heller-va-Joke
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Norman,
“.. and note the considerably less surface heat loss becaus.. ”
Heat loss is cooling not warming no matter how you try to make it so.
You can speak of enthalpy and humidity and heat capacity, but none of these things can make a colder body warm a hotter body.
For instance: a swimming pool full of water at 20 C has far more thermal energy than a hot 35 C cup of water, but upon pouring the coffee into the water , the coffee will cool and the pool will warm.
Certainly the heat capacity of the pool will effect the magnitude of that warming (not much from one cup of water) but it cannot change the direction of the heat flow from hotter to colder…
Consider; there is more thermal energy in the first few meters of the oceans than that contained in the entire atmosphere.. Yet all that energy cannot warm the air to a temp greater than the surface….
PhilJ
Your example covers a situation where there is no additional energy being added to the system from an external source.
If a surface, that is being heated, loses less energy with DWIR (which can be seen in the links) then it will reach a higher temperature with this DWIR present over a situation where the gases are not present.
I think most points about the 2nd Law on this blog deal with nonheated cases. In the heated cases the skeptics make up a new rule of physics that is not based upon anything and goes against actual experimental evidence. The claim is the DWIR will all be reflected since it came from a colder source. There is no evidence for this but the claim is stated as if it were fact.
Norman says: on Feb.26,2019 at 5:54AM “Your example covers a situation where there is no additional energy being added to the system from an external source.”
So you are admitting that where there is no thermal energy/heat being added to an object, ‘backradiation’ from a colder object does not cause “warming”.
Only when there is an additional thermal energy/heat source to the object is there “warming” of the object.
Based on that real world evidence, even a simpleton would draw the correct conclusion that it was the “additional energy being added to the system from an external energy source” that causes the “warming” of the object. It’s a shame that your ideological blindness causes you to accept that obvious fact. There is no real world experimental evidence supporting your false claim, but you continue to repeatedly claim it as if it were a fact.
Norman says: “I think most points about the 2nd Law on this blog deal with nonheated cases.”
My heat transfer example deals with a heated case. An it proves that you deny the 2nd Law because you believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object. You can’t quote anything in my heat transfer example and show that it is wrong.
Norman says: “In the heated cases the skeptics make up a new rules of physics that is not based on anything and goes against actual experimental evidence.”
Wrong. You are the one who is making up new rules of physics that violate the 2nd Law. Your wrong claim that the temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object violates actual experimental evidence of every experiment conducted in the real world. This is confirmed by thermodynamics textbooks:
we can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted has either directly or indirectly verified the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicted that contradicts the second law. Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen & Sonntag, Chap.6 The Second Law of Thermodynamics p.161.
Here is my simple heat transfer example that proves you DO deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
Givens:
– We have an object with a surface area of 1m.
– The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
– the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
– The S-B constant, σ=5.6710⁻⁸.
– Temps rounded to whole numbers.
– The shield is very very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are essentially equal considering the 3 significant figures of thermal energy transfer we are considering, 1m.
– The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m^2 within the object.
– The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
– The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.
So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m^2. The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.So the ONLY energy source to the object that exists in our system is 240W/m^2, PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred through any point in our system is 240 Joules/sec.
At initial thermal equilibrium the 240 Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.
We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system. The purpose of a radiation shield is to reduce heat loss from an object.
The shield initially receives the 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is being transferred away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m^2 of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.
The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).
At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.
The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.6710⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
Th⁴=(240/5.6710⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K
That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W^2/m(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.
2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m^2(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec).
3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says: “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction . A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will not flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee. Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 The Second Law of Thermodynamics, p.155.
4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket/shield, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.
My correct understanding of this problem is supported by Heat Transfer textbooks. Section 8-8 Radiation Shields of J.P.Holman, Heat Transfer says: These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. J.P.Holman, Heat Transfer, McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., textbook
Now your wrong understanding of bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the always warmer object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m^2 (Joules/sec) being transferred from the always colder shield to the always warmer object. So your wrong understanding at final equilibrium now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder radiation shield.
Your wrong understanding has created 240W/m^2 (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.
Your wrong view has 480W/m^2 (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K object, which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the only energy/heat source of our system.
Your wrong view is not consistent with a radiation shield, whose purpose is to reduce heat transfer from an object, because your wrong view has the heat transfer from the object actually increasing.
Your wrong view created a new energy-in source to the object of 240W/m^2 out of thin air. Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because it wrongly has the object receiving 480W/m^2 of energy where the only energy source is 240W/m^2, so conservation of energy, the 1st Law has been violated.
And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law because it has the cause of the increase in temperature of the always warmer object coming from the transfer of heat from an always colder object (shield) to an always warmer object.
QED, My understanding is correct and your false claim of understanding of bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer is proven wrong.
You cant refute that science that proves you wrong. You ARE denying the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
“Your wrong claim that the temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object violates actual experimental evidence of every experiment conducted in the real world.”
This statement is wrong REO2.
V&S already told you “heat is not contained in an object”. E. Swanson showed you a test where you are wrong.
His test shows temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the radiative transfer of thermodynamic internal energy from an added always colder object which is actual experimental evidence consistent with every similar experiment conducted in the real world.
Dr. Spencer showed a similar test on the atm. where colder cirrus increases the temperature of warmer surface water over water not in view of the cirrus. You aren’t able to refute thermodynamic science evidence that proves you wrong.
REO2 simply remains wrong about radiative energy transfer and no amount of ranting can change that fact. Or simply present experimental evidence to back any and all claims.
PhilJ wrongly writes: “but none of these things can make a colder body warm a hotter body.”
E. Swanson’s experiment makes a colder body warm a hotter body as well as Dr. Spencer’s night time test on the atm. The error is in PhilJ’s language and understanding not in the science of thermodynamics.
Ball4 says: on Feb.26,2019 at 8:40AM “This statement is wrong REO2.”
Hahahaha Your continued denial of reality with an evidence-free false claim is noted.
Ball4 says: “V&S already told you “heat is not contained in an object.”
Hahahaha Your continued insanity of posting that correct statement that I posted first and proves me correct is noted.
“Ball4 says: “His test shows temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the radiative transfer of thermodynamic internal energy from an added always colder object”
Hahahahaha Thanks for confirming that you ARE a 2nd Law denier! The increase in temperature was caused by the constant heat source. Every Joule of energy that increased the object’s internal energy came from that sole heat source. NONE of it came from a transfer of heat/thermal energy from the always colder object. Your stupidity knows no bounds. Really sad.
Ball4 says: “You aren’t able to refute thermodynamic science evidence that proves you wrong.’
Hahahaha Your projection is noted.
“REO2 simply remains wrong about radiative energy transfer and no amount of ranting can change that fact.”
Hahahaha Your evidence-free false projection is noted.
Meanwhile you dodge my heat transfer example which proves you are a 2nd Law denier, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-343371 .
Meanwhile you dodge peer reviewed science which supports my correct understanding and confirms that there is no energy flux/flow/transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
Thanks for yet more evidence that you are nothing more than a clownish troll who is incapable of learning. Do you enjoy exposing your self as a JOKE of a clownish troll? You must, since you do it over and over again.
REO2 thermodynamic arguments are refuted by E. Swanson’s and Dr. Spencer’s testing. I note REO2 offers NO testing only opinion.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ROO_two, I think you’ve posted this comment twice HERE’s my reply to the first.
E.Swanson, you have correctly refuted many of REO2’s wrong arguments relative to atm. thermodynamics through a simple test. Astute, informed readers around here know that (and those readers didn’t need the added testing to begin with).
REO2 will continue to rant without effect unless REO2 presents experimental contrary evidence instead of mere words.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.26,2019 at 8:59AM “HERE’s my reply”
That reply refutes nothing in my heat transfer example which proves that you do deny the 2nd Law, because you believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of a transfer of heat from an always colder object. You have never been able to quote anything in my heat transfer example and show that it is incorrect. You just handwave and repeat your wrong anti-thermodynamics claim.
My correct understanding of the 2nd Law is confirmed and supported by Fig.5(a) from Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, a peer reviewed paper written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and the global climate system. Here is that figure: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
Note that the boundary is at the earth’s surface, and note that there is no energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Thus, peer reviewed science supports my correct understanding, and proves that you ARE denying the 2nd Law. Nothing in your comment refutes this.
“Note that the boundary is at the earths surface, and note that there is no energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.”
There is an energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surfaces in Ozawa et. al. since they are discussing “net longwave” where UWIR is net of DWIR.
REO2 arguments are refuted by E. Swanson’s and Dr. Spencer’s testing.
Ball4 says: on Feb.26,2019 at 10:17AM “There is an energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface in Ozawa et. al.”
Hahaha Poor Ball4 trolls continues to be a denier of reality because Ozawa’s Fig.5(a) clearly states “(a) Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components ie. (shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, vertical turbulent transport) in W m^-2.”
Sorry Ball4 troll, no matter how many fairies dancing around in your head telling you that, it is mere fantasy, because Ozawa’s Fig.5 shows ALL the thermal energy flux components, and there is no energy flux from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. That p-r paper confirms that thermal energy transfer between two radiating objects/systems is unidirectional, just like I have been telling you. If there were separate bidirectional energy flux components, Ozawa’s diagram would have shown them. It didn’t, because there is only unidirectional energy flux when two objects are in radiative contact.
Thanks for once again proving that you are just trolling your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism nonsense pseudoscience.
Ball4 says: “REO2 arguments are refuted by E.Swanson and Dr.Spencer’s testing.”
Hahaha Your continued delusional denial of reality is noted again. Sorry, but all that testing shows is that the increase in temperature is due to the constant heat source. There is ZERO evidence that the always colder object transferred any thermal energy/heat to the always hotter object, thereby causing the always hotter object’s temperature to increase, because that would be a violation of the 2nd Law. As I’ve told you numerous times, and you have never been able to refute, there has never been a real world experiment that violated the 2nd Law and showed that thermal energy/heat transferred from a colder object to a hotter object.
Poor Ball4 troll merely denies reality, lies and misrepresents my comments, and makes baseless evidence-free false claims. So sad for you. But I’m glad that Dr. Spencer allows trolls like you to post here, because it allows we skeptics to expose the fact that you climate alarmists are peddling rubbish pseudoscience, and that you are total jokes.
“There is ZERO evidence that the always colder object transferred any thermal energy/heat to the always hotter object, thereby causing the always hotter object’s temperature to increase, because that would be a violation of the 2nd Law.”
Wrong, no violation when entropy is produced, there is plenty of data driven evidence from Dr. Spencer & E. Swanson et. al.
REO2 makes baseless evidence-free false claims since the real-world experimental data shows the blue plate temperature increased when the green plate was raised into position. This bidirectional process of radiative energy exchange produces entropy so the 2LOT is satisfied and REO2 proved wrong. 2LOT is NOT violated in the experiment.
“If there were separate bidirectional energy flux components, Ozawa’s diagram would have shown them.”
Ozawa does show them AND discusses them! “Net longwave” UWIR – DWIR = 40 see the little squiggly arrow by the [40], perhaps you missed it. The Ozawa paper even discusses “several practical problems, e.g., global warming by an increase of carbon dioxide”.
REO2 does not know what REO2 is writing about.
RealOldOne2
It would seem that maybe you should improve your own reading skills. Ball4 is correct and you are quite wrong.
The writing clearly states NET IR. Either you don’t understand that term “NET” or you just ignore it.
To Ball4 & Norman,
Norman says: on Feb.26,2019 at 6:34PM “It would appear that maybe you should improve your own reading skills. . . . The writing clearly states NET IR”
Ball4 says: on Feb.26,2019 at 10:17AM “net longwave”
Hahahaha You 2nd Law denier trolls are so funny.
My reading skills are just fine. Yes it says net IR and I’ve never said it doesn’t. What you and your fellow 2nd Law deniers fail to understand is that the net IR determines the only thermal energy flux/transfer component, which is the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere, just like Fig.5(a) of Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’ clearly shows: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
You and your fellow 2nd Law deniers continue to deny your lying eyes. Fig.5(a) clearly states that the figure shows “(a) Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components“. And the figure shows no energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. The only radiative flux is unidirectional from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. That is irrefutable evidence that the paper, which was written from the perspective of the 2nd Law, recognizes that the only energy flux/flow/transfer between the radiating surface & atmosphere is unidirectional, from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. A paper written from the perspective of the 2nd Law wouldn’t make the egregious error of claiming that there could be a thermal energy/heat flux/flow/transfer component from a colder object to a warmer object.
Perhaps if you would learn some fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer, you wouldn’t embarrass yourselves by dening the 2nd Law of thermodynamics like you, Ball4, E.Swanson, Norman, TimFolkers, etc. do.
Throughout these comments, I’ve cited and quoted thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks which support my correct understanding. You 2nd Law denier can’t cite any that support your wrong understanding. You just make evidence-free claims.
Throughout these comments I’ve refuted all your false and failed arguments. You’ve refuted none of mine. You just deny and ignore them and mindlessly repeat your debunked false claims arguments.
In these comments, I’ve posted my simple heat transfer problem that proves your wrong understanding can’t be correct because your wrong understanding would mean that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of a transfer of heat from an always colder object, which is a blatant denial of the 2nd Law.
Throughout these comments I’ve cited the thermodynamics textbook which states that there has never been an experiment conducted which violates the 2nd Law and shows that heat/thermal energy has been transferred from a colder object to a hotter object. You can’t provide any experimental evidence for your claim that colder objects transfer thermal energy/heat to hotter objects. Your failed attempt to show any experiment to back up your wrong understanding always includes another constant energy source, which is the real reason for any temperature increase, yet you just ignore the science that proves you wrong.
You guys are denying reality, denying your lying eyes, denying fundamental science of thermodynamics and heat transfer. You are acting just like fanatical duped doomsday cult trolls who stubbornly refuse to face and accept reality. You all are lacking in clue and apparently unable or unwilling to acquire clue even when handed to you on a plate in generous portions. There’s an urban dictionary word for that, and it fits you guys perfectly.
ROO_Two, SEE My Comment Above regarding Qzawa et al.
Yes, you have quoted texts, such as Holman’s heat transfer text. But, as I’ve pointed out before, you cherry picked one bit regarding reflective insulation, ignoring the rest of Holman’s discussion which says:
That situation with a high emissivity shield is exactly what I found with my Green Plate Demo. There’s no violation of the 2nd Law, since the net flow of energy is from hot to cold. If you can’t understand that, you need to do some more homework.
REO2 wrongly claims: “Throughout these comments I’ve refuted all your false and failed arguments. You’ve refuted none of mine.”
The testing by E. Swanson and Dr. Spencer thoroughly refute the claims of REO2. The Ozawa et. al. paper clearly shows the bidirectional UWIR-DWIR net longwave of 40. REO2 simply refuses to learn to correct his fundamental mistakes demonstrated by testing and explained in a published peer reviewed paper.
E.Swanson says: on Feb.27,2019 at 9:20AM “SEE My Comment Above”
Hahahaha. Sorry Swanson, nothing you said there refutes the fact that Ozawa(2003)’s Fig.5(a) confirms that there is no energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. I refuted your silly claims in this comment of mine, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-343522
E.Swanson says: “as I pointed out before, you cherry picked…”
Hahahahaha No Swanson, I cherry picked nothing. Noted that you can’t quote anything in Holman that contradicts anything I posted or shows that it was wrong.
E.Swanson says: “ignoring the rest of Holman’s discussion which says: ” . . . insertion of any surface that intercepts the radiation path will always cause some reduction in the heat transfer rate“
Hahahahaha Nice OWN GOAL there Swanson! As I explained in my heat transfer example, the introduction of the radiation shield did reduce the heat transfer rate away from the always hotter object. You are the one who claims that with the radition shield, the heat transfer rate away from the always hotter object is increased from 240W/m^2 to 480W/m^2!!!
E.Swanson says: “There’s no violation of the 2nd Law since the net flow of energy is from hot to cold.”
Wrong. You claim that the increase in temperature of the always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of energy, thermal energy, which is heat from the always colder object. That is a violation of the 2nd Law. Thermal energy/heat transfer between two radiating objects is always and only unidirectional, from the hotter object to the colder object. My heat transfer example shows that there can’t be bidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer happening, because that would mean that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object. Can’t happen in the real world. 2nd Law prohibits it.
Ball4 says: on Feb.27,2019 at 9:52AM “REO2 wrongly claims: ‘Throughout these comments I’ve refuted all your false and failed arguments. You’ve refuted none of mine.”
Hahahaha You’re such a JOKE. That is a true statement, confirmed by your inability to quote anything in my comments and show that it is incorrect.
Ball4 says: “The testing by E.Swanson and Dr. Spencer thoroughly refute the claims of REO2.”
Hahahahaha You’re such a JOKE. Your repeating that false, evidence-free claim over and over will never make it true. Noted that you have never refuted my commments which show that those “experiments” only show that the increase in temperature of the always hotter object is due to the only heat source, the constant energy heat supply. My heat transfer example proves that it can’t be a transfer of heat/thermal energy from the always colder object like you claim, because that would violate the 2nd Law, because it would mean that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always colder object. That can’t happen in the real world. The 2nd Law prohibits it.
Ball4 says: “The Ozawa et. al. paper clearly shows the bidirectional UWIR-DWIR net longwave of 40.”
Hahahahahaha You’re such a JOKE. Your delusional denial of reality is noted. Everyone except ideologically blinded climate cult fanatics can see that Ozawa(2003)’s Fig.5(a) clearly states that it shows the “Global-mean (surface-area mean) energy flux components“, and they can see that Fig.5(a) clearly shows NO energy flux component from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. It correctly shows that the only energy transfer between two radiating objects/systems is the unidirectional heat/thermal energy flow from the hotter object to the lower temperature object.
Ball4 says: “REO2 simply refuses to learn to correct his fundamental mistakes”
Hahahahahaha You’re such a JOKE. My cites and quotes from thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks support what I have posted, and refute your false, evidence free claims. Noted that you have NOT been able to cite and quote any thermodynamics or heat transfer textbooks and show that they support your 2nd Law denying claim that the temperature of an always hotter object can be increased further solely as a result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object. Your 2nd Law denial is confirmed for the umteenth time.
Poor Ball4 continues to expose that he is just a reality-denying, science-denying, 2nd Law denying ignorant duped climate alarmist troll. Poor you.
ROO_Two again claims that:
Moron, Ozawa et al. (2003) presents a one dimensional model of their own construction. Since it’s a model, it “proves” nothing, which, BTW is the same objection the denialist camp uses against the much more accurate weather and climate models.
Further, you wrote:
Yes, that’s the way a radiation shield works when the hotter object is supplied with a fixed rate of energy input (i.e., a constant power source). The atmosphere also functions as a radiation shield, producing the same warming effect via that pathway. Other changes within the system may result in a further increase or even a decrease in that temperature change. Your reading comprehension and understanding of physics is terrible.
E.Swanson says: on Mar.1,2019 “Moron,”
Your childish name calling confirms that you can’t refute the science that I have presented which proves you wrong and proves me correct.
E.Swanson says: “Ozawa et al. (2003) presents a one dimensional model
E.Swanson says: on Mar.1,2019 at 8:38AM “Ozawa et al. (2003) presents a one dimensional model of their own construction. Since it’s a model, it “proves” nothing”
Your silly handwaving is noted. Ozawa(2003) clearly states that it is “A schematic of energy and entropy budgets of the Earth’s climate system is shown in Figure 5. For simplicity, a global-mean (surface-area mean) state is shown, and thereby the representation is vertically one-dimensional. The values in the brackets represent the global-mean energy fluxes (W m^-2)”
And everyone can see that there is no value of any energy flux in brackets from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. Your continued denial of that reality is noted.
The rest of your blathering comment merely repeats your wrong understanding of thermal energy transfer, and provides zero evidence that any thermal energy/heat has been transferred from the colder object to the warmer object. Your emphasis on “with a fixed energy input” just confirms my correct understanding that the entire cause of any temperature increase of the always hotter object is due to the only heat source, which is the constant energy input.
Your wrong claim that the always colder object actually transfers real thermal energy to the always hotter object is confirmed by using my heat transfer example without a constant energy input.
You claim that at the new equilibrium with the radiation shield, the always hotter object is receiving thermal energy from two separate thermal energy sources, 240W/m^2 from the internal heat source, plus 240W/m If the always colder object.
Now let’s remove the internal energy source of 240W/m^2. According to you, if the always colder object was really providing a real thermal energy transfer of 240W/m^2 to the always hotter object, the new equilibrium state would be a lower, but much higher than absolute zero temperature of the always hotter object. This is because, according to you, the always hotter object is still receiving 50% of the previous thermal energy transfer.
However, this is not what happens. What actually happens is that the temperature of the always hotter object and the temperature of the radiation shield would go to 0K,/b> thus proving that there was no real thermal energy transfer of 240W/m^2 from the always colder object the always hotter object.
Yet AGAIN, there’s ANOTHER demonstration that your claim that the always colder object transfers thermal energy to the always hotter object is pure BS pseudoscience.
Swanson and his fellow 2nd Law deniers FAIL are proven wrong AGAIN!
ROO_Two again repeats the claim that:
Wrong again. I don’t argue that the radiation shield would not prevent the hotter body from cooling down to the temperature of the surroundings, absent an external energy supply, as that’s exactly what is predicted from thermal IR EM heat transfer theory. But, in the real world where there is a (nearly) constant energy input to the hotter body, the result is that the temperature of the hotter body will be greater than it would be without the radiation shield. Your comment’s so-called “proof” says nothing about that result nor have you provided any physical explanation for that higher temperature.
The accepted scientific explanation for the higher temperature is that the back radiation from the cooler body is the cause and is captured in the S-B math. We await your alternate physics based proof for this real world observable fact.
E.Swanson says: on Mar.2,2019 at 9:22AM “I don’t argue that the radiation shield would not prevent the hotter body from cooling down to the temperature of the surroundings, absent an external energy supply”
Good, then since you agree that the always hotter object does cool down the 0K, the temperature of the surroundings, you are agreeing that the always cooler shield is not really a second energy source to the object, and does not transfer thermal energy to the always hotter shield, just as I have been saying.
It took you long enough, but at least you now agree that the temperature increase of the always hotter object is due to the sole 240W/m^2 constant energy source, and not due to a transfer of thermal energy from the always colder shield. Thanks for agreeing that I was correct all along and that you were wrong.
Agreeing that the always hotter object does cool down to the temperature of the surroundings (with the lamp turned off) is NOT agreeing that the always cooler shield is not really a second energy source to the object.
The 7:35pm comment is just another REO2 error in thermodynamics debunked by experiments of E. Swanson and Dr. Spencer.
ROO_Two wrote:
No, I don’t agree. Please don’t put words in my mouth, so to speak. Your still ignoring the fact that the warmer body will exhibit a higher temperature with the radiation shield than without it. Since you haven’t explained that result using accepted physics, we must conclude that it’s the back radiation from the cooler body which produces the hither temperature. Your repeated assertion that such processes violates the 2nd Law is all you have offered and that proves nothing.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-344027
Ball4 says: on Mar,3,2019 at 9:33AM “Agreeing that the always hotter object does cool down to the temperature of the surroundings (with the lamp turned off) is NOT agreeing that the always cooler shield is not really a second energy source to the object.”
Hahahahahaha Poor Ball4 is cornered and is desperately thrashing and flailing, beating the air and just denying reality once more. Poor discredited, debunked 2nd Law denying troll.
When an object has two real equal, constant thermal energy sources and you remove one of them, the object will not go to absolute 0K, because it has a constant thermal energy source at 50% of it’s previous energy source. It will go to a new lower-than-previous temperature which is well above 0K.
Your & Swanson’s admission that the object will go to 0K is an admission that the 240W/m^2 radiant emittance of the always colder object is not a real thermal energy source, no matter how much you want to desperately want to deny it.
Once again, you have been exposed as peddling rubbish pseudoscience.
E.Swanson says: on Mar,3,2019 at 7:26PM “No, I don’t agree.”
Hahahaha Poor Swanson is hopelessly conflicted, contradicting himself and denying science and reality.
You don’t want to agree, because you want to have it both ways. But your admission that when the 240W/m^2 constant energy source is removed, the object’s temperature goes to absolute 0K, IS an admission that the 240W/m^2 radiant emittance is not a second thermal energy/heat source to the always hotter object. That’s because if you cut the real thermal energy source in half, the object would not go to absolute zero. It would go to a new, lower temperature well above 0K.
The fact that the object goes to 0K proves that the 240W/m^2 constant thermal energy/heat source was the only real thermal energy/heat source to the object. You lost. Be an adult and admit it.
E.Swanson says: “Your [sic] still ignoring the fact that the warmer object will exhibit a higher temperature with the radiation shield than without it.”
No I am not. You are just lying. My heat transfer example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287 , clearly shows an states that the temperature of the always hotter object’s temperature increases, from 255K to 303K.
E.Swanson says: “Since you haven’t explained that result using accepted physics, we must conclude that it’s the back radiation from the cooler body which produces the hit[g]er temperature.”
Once again you are denying reality. In my heat transfer example linked to above, I have fully explained using accepted physics how and why the temperature of the always hotter object increases.
Briefly, the temperature of the object increases because of the accumulation of thermal energy from the only real thermal energy source, the 240W/m^2 of the constant energy source. After the addition of the radiation shield, the thermal energy being transferred away from the shield decreases until the new equilibrium is reached, just as the Holman Heat Transfer textbook states is the result of adding a radiation shield. It is that reduction in thermal energy being transferred away from the always hotter object that causes the internal energy to increase in the always hotter object, and thus its temperature to increase.
The temperature of the always hotter object does not increase due to a real thermal energy/heat transfer from the always colder object like you claim, because that would be a transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object to an always hotter object.
Again, the fact that you agree that the always hotter object’s temperature would go to 0K when the 240W/m^2 constant energy source is removed proves that is the only real thermal energy source to the object. If the 240W/m^2 radiant emittance from the always colder object was a real thermal energy source, the temperature of the object would not go to 0K, it would go to a new lower, but well above 0K temperature, because the object would still be receiving half of the energy it was previously receiving.
You are proven wrong, but being an obstinate, obtuse troll, you stubbornly cling to your debunked and false claim that the temperature of the always hotter object was increased further solely as a result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object. Can’t happen because that is a direct violation of the 2nd Law.
You lost. You have been proven wrong. Be an adult and admit it.
ROO_Two wrote:
Wrong again. Every time you point to Holman’s Section 8-8 Radiation Shields, you misinterpret his physics and ignore his point that there’s a back radiation from the colder, low emissivity, body to the hotter body in the form of reflected IR EM. And, as I’ve pointed out before, he extends this process to include the back radiation from a high emissivity body as well.
As Holman notes (p407):
All you have left is another appeal to authority in the form of the 2nd Law. Your bad science makes you the loser, not me.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
E.Swanson says: on Mar.4,2019 “you misinterpret his physics and ignore his point that there is a back radiation from the colder object.”
Hahahaha Your continued ignorance and denial of reality is noted. Also noted is your failure to refute my correct explanation of the physics explaining the increase in temperature of the always hotter object in my heat transfer example. All you do is deny it.
Swanson, why are you so dishonest to say that I ignore the ‘back radiation’ when I clearly don’t? I recognize it. It is included in the Tc⁴ in the heat transfer equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴), which calculates the unidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer from the hotter to the colder object, just as the 2nd Law and the equation for radiative heat transfer requires.
Swanson, it is just stupid to claim that when an object still receives 50% of the continuous thermal energy/heat being transferred to it, that the temperature of the object will go to absolute zero.
Noted that you continue to ignore this irrefutable fact that disproves your claim that the 240W/m^2 radiant emittance from the always colder object to the always hotter object is a real thermal energy/heat transfer. It can’t be, or the temperature of the object wouldn’t go to 0K. You lose, just like you lose every time you deny the 2nd Law.
Noted that you continue to ignore my heat transfer example, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287 , which proves that you are denying the 2nd Law, because you believe that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of heat from an always hotter object.
Noted that you STILL haven’t refuted any of the thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks that I have cited and quoted which confirm that heat/thermal energy transfer is unidirectional, always and only from the hotter object to the colder object.
Noted that you STILL can’t provide any real world experimental evidence that an always colder object can transfer heat/thermal energy to an always hotter object and increase its temperature. You admit this when you acknowledge that the always hotter object will only increase its temperature when there is a constant energy supplied to it. That’s because the continuous energy supply is what provides the additional internal energy required to increase the always hotter object’s temperature.
Poor 2nd Law denier, you are desperately thrashing and flailing and making a fool out of yourself.
“Noted that you STILL can’t provide any real world experimental evidence that an always colder object can transfer heat/thermal energy to an always hotter object and increase its temperature.”
Incorrect, already provided. See Dr. Spencer’s night time experiments on the atm., in the lab, and E. Swanson’s lab experiments. REO2 continues to deny experimental evidence contrary to REO2 claims.
ROO_Two Your example is flawed.
You begin with an hot object with a total surface area of 1 m which you contend is radiating 240 W/m which is to say it’s being supplied with 240 W from some internal source. Then you add a radiation shield which must completely surround the hot object. If that shield is a thin shell close to the surface of the first object, it has 2 surfaces, each with 1 m area. For the shield, one surface faces the hot body and the other faces deep space. Both are assumed to be black bodies with ϵ=1.
The shield will radiate the energy it receives from the hot body, but the shield radiates in both directions, since it’s in a vacuum. If it’s radiating 240 W on it’s outer side, it’s also radiating 240 W from it’s inner side. That Thermal IR EM must be absorbed by the hotter body, thus the hotter body’s temperature must increase such that it radiates 480 W, even though it’s internal energy supply is 240 W. That new temperature is the same 303 K you found from the application of the S-B relationship.
Of course, this situation doesn’t violate the 2nd Law and my Green Plate demo doesn’t either. The difference is in the interpretation of the physics in the S-B equation. We know flat out that each body radiates according to it’s temperature to the fourth power. I say that the result is a transfer of energy from the colder body to the hotter one, which is the sole reason that the hotter body’s temperature increases. You just hand wave and ignore the physics which causes that temperature increase.
For example, you wrote:
The hotter body has a temperature of 303K, thus it is radiating 480 watts. If the hotter body at 303K were radiating directly to space, it would still be radiating away 480 Watts.
Your example and all your subsequent posts have failed to explain how the hotter body experiences an increase in temperature consistent with radiating 480 watts. I think that you are confusing the term “resistance” which Holman uses in his network style models, with thermal resistance in conduction heat transfer models.
You must explain your physics or you have nothing to offer but more hand waving and unsubstantiated assertions.
E. Swanson, REO2 must explain physics reliably accompanied with an experiment as you & Dr. Spencer have done. So far, REO2 has not done so. REO2’s example is not an experiment.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says: on Mar.4,2019 at 7:21PM “Already provided. See Dr. Spencer’s night time experiments on the atm., in the lab, and E.Swanson’s lab experiments.”
Sorry, but no experiments ever conducted, included those by Dr. Spencer & Swanson have ever documented thermal energy/heat being transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object. As I’ve shown you and as you continue to deny and ignore, thermodynamics textbook confirms this:
In Spencer & Swanson’s experiments every Joule of thermal energy/heat that increases the temperature of the always hotter object comes from the constant energy source. Not a single Joule of thermal energy/heat comes from the always colder shield. That is because that would mean that the temperature increase of the always hotter object was solely the result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from and always colder object, which would be a direct violation of the 2nd Law. My heat transfer example which no one has ever refuted proves that. It is also proved by the fact that if you remove the 240W/m^2 constant energy source, the temperature of the object goes to 0K. Thus your claim that the always colder object supplies a second real thermal energy/heat source of 240W/m^2 is proven false, because if it were a real second thermal energy/heat source, the temperature would not go to 0K, it would go to a lower but well above 0K temperature.
You continue to piss into the wind, wetting and soiling your britches. You have no evidence. You can’t refute my arguments. You just deny them and repeat your false, debunked 2nd Law denying pseudoscience. Sad.
E.Swanson says: on Mar.4,2019 at 7:52PM “ROO_TWO <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342287"Your example is flawed.”
Wrong, it’s not flawed. No one, including you has ever refuted it, including your present comment. Every object/surface in my example radiates according to its temperature, and results in unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer. As I’ve shown you from thermodynamics & heat transfer textbooks, you continue to deny and fail to understand that radiation/radiant emittance is only a potential thermal energy/heat transfer, if the other object is at 0K, as proven by the equation for radiant heat/thermal energy transfer, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only when Tc=0 does the radiant emittance equal a ϵσTc⁴ transfer of thermal energy/heat.
“E.Swanson says: “I say that the result is a transfer of energy from the colder body to the hotter one which is the sole reason that the hotter body’s temperature increases.”
I know you do, and thanks for once again explicitly confirming that you DO deny the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which says that can’t happen.
“E.Swayson says: “You just handwave and ignore the physics which causes that temperature increase.”
Hahahaha Your projection is noted. YOU are the one who handwaves and ignores the physics, thermodynamics and heat transfer, and makes the evidence-free false, 2nd Law denying claim that thermal energy/heat is transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object, as you’ve just confirmed again.
“E.Swanson says: “The hotter body has a temperature of 303K, thus it is radiating 480 watts. If the hotter body at 303K were radiating directly to space, it would still be radiating away 480 watts.”
Poor Swanson, this is core of your denial of the 2nd Law. Again, you don’t understand that a radiant emittance is NOT necessarily a transfer of thermal energy of that magnitude unless the only other object is at 0K. Again, this is proven by the radiative heat transfer equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). Only when Tc=0, does the radiant emittance, ϵσTc⁴, equal the thermal energy/heat transfer. So yes the object has a radiant emittance of 480W/m^2, but there is not 480W/m^2 of thermal energy being transferred away from it is surrounded by a 255K object. Only 240W/m^ are being transferred away from the always hotter object, just as the equation for radiative heat/thermal energy transfer shows, q=(1)(5.67×10^-8)303⁴-255⁴)=240.
In your second case, the 303K object does actually transfer 480W/m^2 away from the object, because Tc=0, just as I have told you over and over again, and just as the heat transfer equation dictates, q=(1)(5.67×10^-8)(303⁴-0⁴)-480.
You continue to make the evidence-free false claim that there is simultaneous bidirectional heat transfer happening. The real world and the thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks say this doesn’t and can’t happen, because it would be a violation of the 2nd Law, as heat/thermal energy doesn’t transfer from colder objects to hotter object like you claim. And as my heat transfer example shows, it also violates the 1st Law and the Entropy principle.
The equation for radiative heat transfer also shows that when two objects have the same temperature, and having a radiant emittance according to their temperature, there is zero thermal energy/heat transfer occurring between them. No heat/thermal energy transfer from object 1 to object 2, and no heat/thermal energy transfer from object 2 to object 1. You wrongly claim that there is continuous, simultaneous bidirectional heat transfer occurring as if the other object was at absolute zero temperature.
Holman, 2nd Ed., p.221
E.Swanson says: “Your example and all your subsequent posts have failed to explain how the hotter body experiences an increase in temperature consistent with radiating 480 watts.”
So sad that you are so dishonest to continue to tell that blatant lie. Both my heat transfer example and my comments have correctly explained and shown that every Joule of thermal energy/heat that caused the increase in internal energy and temperature of the always hotter object came from the constant 240W/m^2 thermal energy/heat source. My heat transfer example and comments also have shown that you deny the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, because you believe and have explicitly stated that the temperature of an always hotter object is increased further solely as a result of the transfer of thermal energy/heat from an always colder object.
You have nothing but your misunderstanding of radiation, heat transfer and thermodynamics. You have no real world demonstration of thermal energy/heat being transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object, just as the thermodynamics textbook says can’t happen. You have admitted that only when there is a constant thermal energy/heat source does the object’s temperature increase, so even a simpleton can recognize that it is the thermal energy/heat from the constant energy source that causes the increase in thermal energy and temperature.
Like the Ball4 troll, you are pissing in the wind and wetting and soiling your britches. Your science denial is shameful.
“no experiments ever conducted, included those by Dr. Spencer & Swanson have ever documented thermal energy/heat being transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object.”
Wrong as heat is not contained in an object. The experiments by Dr. Spencer & E. Swanson do document thermal energy being transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object increasing the hotter objects temperature which is in accord with 2LOT as entropy of the objects increase.
It is REO2 misuse of the heat term that causes REO2 to be continually wrong as no experiment has shown heat is contained in an object.
REO2’s credibility will not increase above zero until REO2 produces experiments supporting REO2’s opinions.
“and results in unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer.”
Again, REO2 misuses the heat term as no experiment has shown heat is contained in an object. REO2’s credibility will not increase above zero until REO2 produces experiments supporting REO2’s opinions.
A transfer of energy from the colder body to the hotter body is the reason that the hotter body’s temperature increases is in accord with 2LOT as that process increases the entropy in each object as the experimental evidence demonstrates.
REO2 simply continues to shamefully deny the experimental evidence resulting in zero REO2 credibility.
Again, Ball4, please STOP trolling, rather than continuing to troll even harder than before.
Ball4 says: on Mar.5,2019 at 9:19AM “Wrong as heat is not contained in an object”
Hahahahaha You silly troll, that’s correct and is what I taught you.
Ball4 says: “The experiments by Dr. Spencer and E.Swanson do document thermal energy being transferred from an always colder object to an always hotter object increasing the always hotter objects[sic] temperature which is in accord with 2LOT as entropy of the objects[sic] increase.”
Hahahahaha No, that is a violation of the 2nd Law, but thanks for explicitly stating your 2nd Law denial once again.
Ball4 says: “It is REO2 misuse of the term heat that causes REO2 to be continually wrong as no experiment has shown heat is contained in an object.”
Hahahahaha You silly brain-dead troll, my every use of the term heat is consistent with thermodynamics and heat transfer textbooks, proven by my cites and quotes from them. Your continued beating your dead horse strawman that I believe that heat is contained in an object just exposes that you are a dishonhest & debunked troll. You have been exposed as being a terminally ignorant 2nd Law denier but you are too brainwashed and ideologically blinded to admit it. So sad for you.
Ball4 says: “REO2’s credibility will not increase above zero until REO2 produces experiments supporting REO2’s opinion.”
Hahahahahaha You silly ignorant troll, no opinions by me; just science backed up by every experiment ever conducted, as stated in the thermodynamics textbook.
Your projection is noted.
The poor Ball4 troll FAILS again, just like he FAILS every time he denies the 2nd Law.
Norman,
“If a surface, that is being heated, loses less energy with DWIR (which can be seen in the links) then it will reach a higher temperature with this DWIR present over a situation where the gases are not present.”
I saw no evidence in your links of a humid area (more dwir) reaching a higher daytime temp (while the power is on) than an arid area.
Perhaps I missed it. Can you quote the relevent temps?
If you cannot then observation disproves your hypothesis.
Observation does support Norman’s writing; just go through E. Swanson’s & Dr. Spencer’s tests very carefully. And use NOAA ESRL daily observations that support Norman’s statement.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
PhilJ
My point was not that the DWIR would cause the temperature of a moist area to reach a higher temperature than a dry area.
Evaporation does remove considerable surface energy. Also, as I have stated, moist area form clouds during the day lowering the solar input to the surface.
That is why the night time is the best to analyze the effect of DWIR, the other factors are then minimized.
This is what you can see in how slow the cooling is in a moist area vs dry area. That is where you can see the GHE in action when the other mechanisms are minimum.
PhilJ
I pointed out that the dry desert areas still have a considerable DWIR. It is less than the wet area but still over 300 W/m^2 range.
My point was if you removed that DWIR component completely the desert would get very cold at night (much colder than now) and may not even heat up as much during the day.
Norman, please stop trolling.
swannie…”RealOldOne2 repeats the usual dragon slayer nonsense about the 2nd Law (which is actually a theory)”.
No…the 2nd law is not a theory, swannie. Clausius worked it out step by step by describing an actual heat engine going through a cycle involving changes in temperature, pressure, and volume.. He based it on the work of Carnot and in doing so, corrected a bad assumption by Carnot that there were no losses in a heat engine.
In fact, Clausius used his work on heat engines to establish entropy. Therefore, if entropy is a theory, then it’s extensive use in different sciences must be null and void. Entropy is the mathematical expression of the 2nd law.
Anyone with half a brain knows that heat always transfers from hot to cold (there is no such thing as net heat transfer) unless external intervention is supplied. In a refr.i.g.e.r.ator or air conditioner, external power drives a compressor which compresses a refr.i.g-e.rant.
It is in the compression of the refri.g.e.rant and the refrig-erant subsequently exhausting heat to a cooler atmosphere that allows refrigerators and air conditioners to work. When the refrig-erant gas is compressed to a high pressure, it vents air to the atmosphere. Later, when it expands, it draws heat from a cooler region, the net result being a transfer of heat from a cooler region to a hotter region.
Under normal conditions, that is not possible, either by conduction, convection, or radiation.
You asked where radiation from a cooler body that is intercepted by a hotter body goes if it is not absorbed. You apparently don’t understand the question. You don’t understand the quantum level action of the electrons in matter that absorb and radiate radiation. If you did, you’d have no need to ask the question. Electrons at higher energy levels, meaning higher temperatures, cannot absorb radiation from a cooler source (lower temperature).
You are confusing the highly theoretical blackbody with reality. In reality, no body has to absorb all radiation that strikes it. We see colour only because objects absorb some EM frequencies and reject the rest. What happens to the energy in the frequencies not absorbed?
Even in blackbody theory, that is true only for blackbodies in thermal equilibrium or a blackbody that is isolated.
No one seems to care that blackbodies are represented by immensely hot bodies. It’s sheer nonsense to talk about ice as a blackbody radiator, even though ice does radiate IR.
Gordo, Your continued errors are obvious. The absorp-tion of IR EM at the surface of a body is a property of the body and is a function of wavelength/frequency. It is clearly not a function of the temperature of the source of that thermal IR EM radiation. Get a clue, won’t you?
Gordon claims: “Anyone with half a brain knows that heat always transfers from hot to cold (there is no such thing as net heat transfer)”
Anyone with a full brain of thermodynamics study accomplished knows that energy can radiate from cold to hot objects as there is such a thing as net thermal energy transfer found by experiments. According to Clausius, Gordon continues to misuse the word heat leading to continually confused & scientifically wrong Gordon comments.
ball4…”Anyone with a full brain of thermodynamics study accomplished knows that energy can radiate from cold to hot objects as there is such a thing as net thermal energy transfer found by experiments”.
That’s easy enough to prove, show me the experiment, especially the theory behind it. And please don’t point me to swannie’s experiments, which demonstrate that a heated body gets hotter when you block its means of convection and/or radiation.
And please don’t try to embroil me in an exchange with Roy. I won’t bite. I respect Roy and have no interest in contradicting his views on his own blog. He has a professional image to uphold and we bloggers have nothing to lose. I agree with most of what Roy says anyway and I think it would get sickening if everyone agreed on everything.
It’s people like you, swannie, and norman who get me. I pointed out an egregious error in a quote you misinterpreted from Clausius about heat. You claimed he was saying heat is a ‘measure’ of kinetic energy when in fact he claimed a ‘quantity’ of heat is a measure of kinetic energy.
At no time in his books did Clausius ever claim that heat does not exist or that it is merely a measure. In fact, he spoke openly of the amount of heat in a body and how it could be consumed to produce internal work between atoms.
Gordon: “That’s easy enough to prove, show me the experiment, especially the theory behind it.”
Not easy, but the hard work is done. The theory was reported by Planck developing his Law, 1LOT and entropy. The blog reported experiments were done by E. Swanson in the lab, Dr. Spencer on the atm. Many other experimenters also in the late 1890s, early 1900s using cavity radiation in the development of Planck’s Law (eqn. 276 in his treatise).
See for example experiments cited by Planck with cavity temperatures -188C to 1500C emitting to room temperature, room pressure measurement apparatus shielded from convection Fig. 1 using google search string: rubens kurlbaum
“don’t point me to swannie’s experiments, which demonstrate that a heated body gets hotter when you block its means of convection and/or radiation” using an added always cooler body – a plate; Dr. Spencer made use of an added cirrus cloud at night.
The use of a lamp by E. Swanson does not alter the conclusions as Dr. Spencer got the same conclusion without a lamp, observing at night. E. Swanson could switch the lamp off and rerun the experiment with the same conclusion. The “lamp” in Rubens was cavity radiation.
“You claimed he was saying heat is a ‘measure’ of kinetic energy when in fact he claimed a ‘quantity’ of heat is a measure of kinetic energy. At no time in his books did Clausius ever claim that heat does not exist or that it is merely a measure.”
Incorrect Gordon, Clausius, in translator’s best efforts, used the term “measure” not the term “quantity” to define his use of “heat”:, see Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
Gordon won’t ever go wrong adhering to Clausius def. and practical use of the term heat.
ball4…”We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion”.
Could not find your quote in either volume I have (1867 or 1879) (nothing in the 1st memoir) but from the 1879 version, on page 35 of 390 (actual page 21) he states:
“We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion”.
Vis Viva is the archaic form of kinetic energy and in order for a QUANTITY of heat to be a measure of kinetic energy, it must be energy itself. Kinetic energy has no form, it is simply energy in motion. Heat is the energy in motion.
Why would he say QUANTITY of heat here, and omit quantity as you have claimed. I noticed you gave no book title so anyone can check your citation.
Be a man and admit you’re wrong.
Gordon: “At no time in his books did Clausius ever claim that heat does not exist or that it is merely a measure.”
Clausius writes via translation in Gordon’s own clips: “heat is a measure”…”heat is a measure”.
That’s two times not “no time”! It is Gordon that is wrong.
Clausius knew there were experiments showing heat was not contained in an object thus correctly defined heat as only a measure. Modern text books all state heat is not contained in an object because of those same experiments.
Search on “heat is” here, go to 1st memoir p. 18:
https://books.google.com/books?id=8LIEAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:PwR_Sbkwa8IC&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Clausius: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
ball4…”Clausius writes via translation in Gordon’s own clips: “heat is a measure”…”heat is a measure””.
That is cherry picking at it’s worst. He said ‘a QUANTITY of heat is a measure’.
Let me see if you have this straight. If I say, a quantity of apples is five, that does not translate to ‘apples are five’.
Gordon has quantity 5 massive apples each with KE of 1 joule in his shopping cart. The measure of apple total KE is 5 joules. The measure of avg. KE is 1 joule. A total is not an avg.
When an apple is added to Gordon’s cart, the weight goes up. If Gordon’s apples undergo a heating process, their weight is unchanged as the cart contains no heat thus no heat was added, only a measure of the total KE in the cart increased and the avg. KE was increased.
Heat does not exist in an object Gordon. Temperature (the avg. KE) is not heat (measure of total KE).
Ball4, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Gordo, Your continued errors are obvious. The absorp-tion of IR EM at the surface of a body is a property of the body and is a function of wavelength/frequency. It is clearly not a function of the temperature of the source of that thermal IR EM radiation. Get a clue, wont you?”
You are all wet, swannie. Your understanding of the processes involved at the atomic level is null and void.
A surface is a concept produced by the human mind for convenience. That surface is composed of bazillions of atoms and each atom is made up of a central nucleus, with a certain number of protons and neutrons, the protons matched by orbiting electrons.
Whether EM radiation incident upon that surface will be absorbed or not is dependent on the energy level of the orbiting electrons. To be absorbed, a quantum of EM must have the same frequency as the electron and sufficient energy to raise the electron to a higher orbital energy level.
The higher the surface temperature, meaning the hotter it is, and the more heat it has, is determined by the energy level of the electrons. That is, as the energy of the electrons increase, the temperature of the entire mass increases.
As a body is heated, the electrons in their bonds become more agitated and the electron-nucleus bond vibrates harder. If you heat a substance enough, the electrons will leave their bonds and the substance will melt or explode.
If that mass has no independent source of heat, the electrons will radiate EM en masse, till the body cools, till it is in thermal equilibrium with its environment. The electrons can also transfer thermal energy to other surfaces in contact with that surface.
We all know this swannie, it’s common knowledge, not about the electrons, but that a heated body with its heat source removed will eventually cool to the temperature of the environment in which it is placed.
It is also common knowledge that a heated body with it’s heat source removed will not get hotter when exposed to a cooler body. Yet, if you expose it to a hotter body, like a flame from an acetylene torch, it will get hotter.
Speaking of cluing in, why are you having so much trouble with this reality?
“To be absorbed, a quantum of EM must have the same frequency as the electron and sufficient energy to raise the electron to a higher orbital energy level.”
While correct Gordon, this does process not happen in the atm. where the molecules in atm. gas also rotate and vibrate, both of which are quantized to absorb and emit a photon. Not enough energy in earth atm. to populate the electronic levels but the other levels are routinely populated.
ball4…”While correct Gordon, this does process not happen in the atm. where the molecules in atm. gas also rotate and vibrate, both of which are quantized to absorb and emit a photon”
You are claiming, in essence, that the atmosphere is a special place where quantum theory does not apply.
You should let go of this fetish you have with molecules as special entities. The use of the word molecule is handy for distinguishing certain groups of electron and nucleii from another, as in organic chemistry, but reference to a molecule serves little purpose in understanding emission and absorp-tion.
A molecule is an aggregation of electrons and their related nucleii. Any radiation from a vibrating unit of electrons and nucleii, whether through vibration or rotation, involves the electrons and their properties. There is nothing magical going on in a molecule that is not related to the interaction of electrons and their counterpart in the nucleus, the proton.
“You are claiming, in essence, that the atmosphere is a special place where quantum theory does not apply.”
If Gordon actually understood quantum theory, then Gordon would know I make no such claim.
“whether through vibration or rotation”
Right, those are the quantum energy levels populated in the molecules of Earth atm. since there is enough collisional energy to excite them, and emit/absorb SW, LW photons.
Only certain noble gas atoms like argon exist in Earth atm. N2,O2,CO2,H2 are molecules. There is not enough collisional energy in the troposphere to populate the electronic energy levels in any of the atm. constituents. In that context, yes, Earth atm. is a special place.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordo wrote:
You, like Mike F, are shifting focus away from the problem, presenting a different situation without external heating, for which there’s no disagreement. But, when the warmer body is heated, as is my Blue plate or the surface of the Earth, both continually lose energy to their surroundings, which is the reason they both continue to emit IR EM and do not cool to the temperature of their surroundings.
You still can’t explain how photons from a still warmer source (such as your flame example) would be absorbed while those from a cooler body at the same wavelength would not.
swannie…”You still cant explain how photons from a still warmer source (such as your flame example) would be absorbed while those from a cooler body at the same wavelength would not”.
I have explained it over and over. The flame is at a much higher energy level meaning it’s thermal energy is at a much higher level. That means the electrons in the flame atoms are at a much higher level and they simply cannot absorb thermal energy from a cooler body.
The EM emitted by a flame would be at a high frequency as is indicated by the blue part of the flame where the cutting is done. A cooler body could not be at the same frequency and wavelength. It’s not possible.
Before the flame contacted the surface, say it was metal, and turned it a cherry red, the surface would be emitting IR at a long wavelength that could not be detected by the human eye. When the flame contacted the metal, as the temperature of the metal rose, you would eventually notice a red colour, just above the infrared spectrum. As it got hotter, the colour would change to orange and move toward a white colour as in ‘white hot’.
The metal would melt long before it reached the temperature of the blue part of the flame.
“move toward a white colour as in white hot.”
White hot steel absorbs and emits light of all frequencies Gordon, the radiance of emission at each frequency of light is given by Planck’s law which is never zero at any frequency.
Gordo, Ball4 is correct. For the case of 3 bodies mentioned, the IR EM emissions from the hottest body are spread over a range of wavelengths, which has been verified by spectroscopic studies. The same fact applies to the emissions from the coldest body, such as my Green plate. Those spectral results clearly show that overlap in the emitted wavelengths.
You still haven’t explained any mechanism thru which the absorp_tion by the mid temperature body at a particular wavelength emitted from the highest temperature body would be accepted but that the emission at the same wavelength by the coldest body would not.
In my Green Plate demo, there’s little difference in temperature between the two plates, thus the emission spectra for each would be similar. And, the two plates were fabricated to be as identical as I could, in order to exhibit the same emissivity. I wanted them to be interchangeable for later work. Since you claim that my results are invalid, it’s up to you to prove your contention, not me. So far, your claims not only violate the 1st Law of thermodynamics, but also standard engineering text books on thermal radiation heat (energy) transfer.
ball4…”White hot steel absorbs and emits light of all frequencies Gordon, the radiance of emission at each frequency of light is given by Plancks law which is never zero at any frequency”.
It doesn’t absorb any EM of a frequency emanating from a cooler body. The only way white hot steel could absorb heat is by putting it in a hotter furnace, then it would likely melt and fall apart.
Planck’s Law has nothing to do with this. It describes the radiation from a body at one temperature.
“It doesn’t absorb any EM of a frequency emanating from a cooler body.”
Not according to Planck’s law. The Planck radiance of white hot steel is nonzero at each & every frequency of light at that temperature. Thus, the inverse process of absorp_tion means the white hot steel absorbs photons of each & every frequency at that temperature. Absorp_tion is never a function of the source of the photon.
The white hot steel also scatters (and polarizes) photons of each and every frequency (about 5% of photons are scattered, the rest absorbed).
Ball4, please stop trolling.
swannie…”The absorp-tion of IR EM at the surface of a body is a property of the body and is a function of wavelength/frequency”.
Yes…and the wavelength/frequency is a function of temperature, which is a function of the electron excitation levels in atoms.
Gordo wrote:
It seems that you are conflating emission and absorp_tion. The range of wavelengths for the thermal IR EM radiation is a function of the temperature of the emitting body. Absor_ption occurs at the surface of the other, warmer body, such as the Blue plate in my demo.
swannie…”Absor_ption occurs at the surface of the other, warmer body, such as the Blue plate in my demo”.
It can arrive all it wants, if it’s from a cooler body it ain’t getting absorbed.
That satisfies the 2nd law, your version does not. Clausius made no reference whatsoever to a net balance of energy, as in thermal energy, or any other energy. And neither did Stefan-Bolzmann nor Planck.
“It can arrive all it wants, if its from a cooler body it aint getting absorbed.”
Then show a frequency and/or temperature where Planck Law is zero meaning zero radiance emission for a material object. Can’t be done.
You have been shown to be wrong Gordon. The testing by E. Swanson and Dr. Spencer show this is wrong. Any material body absorbs light of all frequencies because it emits at all frequencies. All means all, no exceptions. No means no.
All opaque material bodies scatter and absorb/emit light of all frequencies, at all temperatures, all the time per Planck, Kirchhoff, S-B laws. Planck distribution is never identically zero.
Gordo, You commented about thermal IR EM radiation, writing:
You continue to claim that my Green Plate demo violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. However, your description violates the 1st law of thermo, since the emitted IR EM doesn’t simply vanish and can’t be “ignored”.
You’ve had more than a year to come up with a logical explanation for the results from my demos using accepted physics. By now, it should be obvious that you are unable to provide that explanation, thus my explanation, which agrees with the accepted textbook engineering, must be seen as the correct one.
Ball4, E Swanson, please stop trolling.
typo…or mental error…whatever.
This: “When the refrig-erant gas is compressed to a high pressure, it vents air to the atmosphere”.
should read:
“When the refrig-erant gas is compressed to a high pressure, it vents heat to the atmosphere”.
ball4…”V&S already told you “heat is not contained in an object”. E. Swanson showed you a test where you are wrong”.
What this nonsense claim is stating is that no object contains energy. That’s absurd. Heat is thermal energy and thermal energy is a common term in physics, now and for the past 150 years.
You are seriously confused about the meaning of both internal energy and kinetic energy. You seem to think there is a generic form of energy in matter that is not heat. Swannie thinks there is a generic energy in radiation that can be calculated as a ‘net’ flow.
Neither one of you can explain the meaning of this generic energy. Swannie lumps electromagnetic energy and thermal energy together, claiming a net flow of energy as radiation.
If anyone is going to talk about ‘energy, either in a body, as internal or kinetic, or as radiation, they had better be able to identify that energy. Speaking of it as a mysterious, generic energy is pseudo-science.
Radiation with regard to heat transfer is electromagnetic energy. EM does not transport heat nor does it have a temperature. EM has no mass, it cannot transport heat.
Between bodies of differing temperatures there is no heat transferred through the space between them. Heat in the hotter body is converted to EM then the EM can be absorbed by a cooler body where it is converted back to heat.
The transfer of heat via EM comes from the properties of the electrons in atomic structure which do the absorbing and emitting of EM. That process allows only a one-way transfer of heat.
The reference to a net heat transfer is plain wrong. No heat flows as a physical entity between bodies of different temperature. The transfer is only apparent. When a hot body radiates EM by converting part of its heat to EM,hence cooling, that EM can be absorbed by a cooler body and converted back to heat (hence warming). That is the only transfer of heat and it is done locally. One body cools and the other warms.
The reverse process is not possible and there are several reasons for that depending on the reference point. For one, energy can never flow from a region of lower potential to a region of higher potential. A higher temperature object represents a higher energy potential while a lower temperature body represents a lower energy potential, Energy can only be transferred in one direction from high to low.
Another reason comes from quantum theory. As laid out by Bohr, circa 1913, heat conversion to EM, and vice-versa, is done only by electrons in atomic structure. Electrons at higher energy potentials in a hotter body cannot absorb EM emitted from electrons in a lower temperature, lower energy potentials.
The third reason is that the 2nd law AND entropy forbid the transfer of heat from a lower potential (lower temperature) body to a higher temperature (higher energy) body. The only way around that is to supply external power, devices, and a compressible gas, which can transfer heat from a lower energy region to a higher energy region, but only if the lower energy region is immediately compensated.
The same applies in nature. You can pump water uphill using external power. You can lift mass against a gravitational field using external power. However, neither water nor any other mass can move against a gravitational field by its own means. That’s what Clausius meant in his statement of the 2nd law when he claimed heat can never ‘by its own means’ be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
There is no such thing as a net transfer of energy for the reasons given above.
“What this nonsense claim is stating is that no object contains energy.”
Incorrect Gordon, go back to practical use of Clausius def. of heat above where you can’t go wrong as you do. Heat is a measure of energy, not the energy itself.
ball4…”Heat is a measure of energy, not the energy itself”.
Clausius said the QUANTITY of heat is a measure of the kinetic energy. That’s the same thing as saying heat is the kinetic energy as he stated elsewhere.
You got it Gordon: “heat is a measure of the kinetic energy” of the particles in motion that make up a material body. Try to honestly stick to Clausius def. of heat and you can’t go wrong ever again.
B,
Do you feel like trying to explain why the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Not enough photons, perhaps?
Or maybe you could try to explain why you can’t raise the temperature of water, no matter how many squillions of Watts from ice you manage to concentrate on the water?
No explanations? That’s because you are stupid and ignorant.
Put some cold water in your coffee, while you look up Clausius. Convince yourself that photons emitted by the cold water are absorbed by the hot coffee, making it even hotter!
What a dodo you are! Dim, dim, dim – and gullible to boot.
Carry on with the comedy routine. It certainly brings a smile to my lips from time to time.
Cheers.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Well, not really, since comment errors of thermodynamics aren’t likely to stop. The more times I point them out, the more readers are aware of the problem. Since there is no true moderation at this blog, correct thermodynamics are needed to point out who are the repeat thermo. and physics error offenders – the deliberate distorters of truth.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
A perfectly-conducting black-body plate is as far from being an insulator as it’s possible for a plate to get, and so the green plate won’t insulate the blue plate to result in a higher temperature of the blue. GPE debunked.
Swanson’s green plate is not a perfectly-conducting black-body plate, so it does insulate the blue plate to some extent, resulting in a higher temperature of the blue. Swanson’s experiment debunked.
Fin.
A non-conducting black-body plate is as far from being a conductor as it’s possible for a plate to get, thus the green plate will insulate the blue plate to result in a higher temperature of the blue. DREMT debunked.
Swanson’s green plate is not a perfectly-conducting black-body plate, so it does insulate the blue plate to some extent, resulting in a higher temperature of the blue. Swanson’s experiment understood.
PST.
Agree with the second paragraph. The correct understanding of Swanson’s experiment is that the green plate is insulating the blue, rather than “back-radiation is heating the blue”.
Your first paragraph is incorrect. In Eli’s original GPE thought experiment, the plates are perfect conductors, and black-bodies. As far from being insulators as it’s possible for a plate to get.
Added IR from the added green plate is absorbed in the blue plate increasing its equilibrium U & T experimentally above the blue plate without the green plate in place which is termed an insulating process.
You will have to consult w/Eli to find if the given plates are perfect conductors (which is immaterial in any case as posed in vacuum).
PST.
Ball4’s first paragraph is incorrect, radiative insulation is defined as follows:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Thermal radiation reflected, rather than absorbed. Black-body plates have no reflectivity so cannot radiatively insulate.
Ball4’s second paragraph, no consultation w/Eli is necessary, as he confirms in this comment that given plates are perfect conductors (same temperature each side):
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507945224036#c4948017542973854095
“Thermal radiation reflected, rather than absorbed.”
Which agrees with what I wrote, added IR from the added green plate that is not absorbed in the blue plate is not increasing its equilibrium U & T. Standard issue fiberglass insulation has metal foil added to enhance IR reflection. There are no perfect reflectors so the wording in that ref. you link is wrong, which is shown in its source material.
I see DREMT consulted Eli document so consulting Eli WAS necessary as I wrote.
As explained, radiative insulation is defined as “thermal radiation…reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body”. So, in Eli’s thought experiment, which uses black-bodies, and perfect conductors, the green plate cannot insulate the blue as it has no reflectivity, or thermal resistance.
Yet in Eli’s thought experiment, and real world tests, the temperature of the blue plate increases to a new, higher equilibrium T by adding the green plate which is the same effect as adding insulation, especially foil backed insulation. Available at your local hardware store for that reason. Hint: the shiny foil stuff is the green plate in disguise.
PST.
Obviously not, because “the shiny foil stuff” has high reflectivity, and so can radiatively insulate; unlike the black-bodies in Eli’s thought experiment, which can’t.
Yet the blue plate temperature increased to a new, higher equilibrium in Eli’s thought experiment so obviously Eli’s added green plate DOES radiatively insulate just like the real world test.
Word games are useless in physics, go with testing results of E. Swanson and Dr. Spencer confirming Eli’s physics if you want any credibilty. I do understand there are those commenting here who deny experiments & shamefully do not seek any credibility!
PST.
“…so obviously Eli’s added green plate DOES radiatively insulate just like the real world test”
Obviously not, because Eli’s plates are black-bodies, so have no reflectivity, and are perfect conductors, so have no thermal resistance. So they cannot insulate in any way. In fact, they are as far from being insulators as it’s possible for a plate to get. So, in the thought experiment, the temperature of the blue plate won’t be increased by adding the green.
In the “real world test”, the plates are real objects, with some reflectivity, and thermal resistance, so they can insulate. So, in the “real world test”, the temperature of the blue plate was increased by adding the green.
“So, in the thought experiment, the temperature of the blue plate won’t be increased by adding the green.”
NOW you deny 1LOT AND 2LOT. This will not lead to more credibility DREMT as the entropy of the blue plate MUST increase in Eli’s thought experiment which means its temperature must increase to a new equilibrium when absorbing radiation from the green. Also there’s the little matter of not destroying energy radiated from the green plate to the absorbing black body blue plate.
You have a lot to learn DREMT, perhaps you would be more comfortably at home with your sophistry commenting on a climate blog by that name.
PST.
“NOW you deny…”
My position has been clear from the opening comment Ball4, nothing has changed. There is no “NOW you deny…”
If you wish to update the Wiki entry on thermal insulation, if you believe it is incorrect, please do so.
That wiki entry IS incorrect, as there are no perfect reflectors explained in the source material of the entry.
I agree DREMT has not changed, DREMT started out denying the 1LOT and 2LOT as shown by that wiki ref. claiming a perfect reflector. DREMT didn’t bother to learn that is incorrect from reading the wiki source material which is ALWAYS a must.
The Wiki link isn’t talking about “perfect reflectors”.
“thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed”
DREMT is doing so also: “Thermal radiation reflected, rather than absorbed.”
See the wiki source material: actual incident radiation is absorbed, transmitted, scattered in accord with 1LOT, 2LOT. For thought process black bodies all incident radation is absorbed, none reflected, scattered or transmitted.
PST.
Ball4, reflectivity ranges from zero to one. The fact that there are no true “black-bodies”, or at the other end of the scale, “perfect reflectors”, doesn’t affect this statement:
“…or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body”
because there are varying degrees by which thermal radiation can be reflected rather than absorbed by the lower temperature body, on the scale of reflectivity between zero and one. There’s no need for you to be quite so desperate.
DRsEMT, Using a high conductivity metal plate, there’s almost no drop in temperature between the two sides of the Green plate. But, in spite of that fact, the only mechanism via which the Green plate can influence the Blue plate’s temperature in a vacuum is thru thermal IR EM radiation. That’s the so-called “back radiation” you don’t want to admit happens, yet that mechanism clearly occurs with low emissivity radiation shields. Please do provide some physical explanation for the means thru which the radiation shields work without that back radiation.
“That’s the so-called “back radiation” you don’t want to admit happens”
Oh, it happens, just like “back-conduction” happens. And, just like with “back-conduction”, it doesn’t result in any heating of the warmer body.
“Please do provide some physical explanation for the means thru which the radiation shields work without that back radiation.”
I already have, as you know.
“Using a high conductivity metal plate…”
Which you didn’t, as you used anodized aluminium.
“it doesn”t result in any heating of the warmer body.”
The temperature of the warmer blue plate did increase experimentally so this is wrong, adding green plate does result in heating process of the warmer body which is perfectly in agreement with 2LOT as the entropy of the warmer body increased with the addition of the green plate by absorbing green plate radiation. About 5% incident radiation reflected from blue plate also increases entropy.
“The temperature of the warmer blue plate did increase experimentally…”
Yes, but not due to “back-radiation”.
The temperature of the warmer blue plate did increase experimentally to a higher equilibrium T from the added absorbed (not scattered) IR emitted from the added cooler green plate. Some, in error, call that process “back-radiation”, thanks for correcting them.
“The temperature of the warmer blue plate did increase experimentally to a higher equilibrium T from the added absorbed (not scattered) IR emitted from the added cooler green plate.”
False.
I recommend DREMT, denying experimental evidence, not bother with the added expense of foil backed insulation at the local hardware store. Just get the stuff with no foil backing.
The rest of physics, insulation suppliers, and home builders will know the added expense is worth it as they go with the experimental evidence and place the foil (i.e. green plate) on the inner side during installation.
PST.
Yes Ball4, foil has high reflectivity, and so can radiatively insulate. You’re learning.
I’m always learning DREMT, I go with the experimental results confirming Eli’s physics & so should DREMT if DREMT seeks credibility. Otherwise PST.
I go with the experimental results confirming that the green plate insulated the blue, resulting in a temperature increase of the blue. In contrast to Eli’s thought experiment plates, which were perfectly-conducting black-bodies; so the green was unable to insulate the blue, resulting in no temperature increase of the blue.
“resulting in no temperature increase of the blue.”
Fails both 1LOT and 2LOT, DREMT sophistry goes 2for2.
I believe the appropriate response here would be, “more fluff from fluffball. Nothing new”
You may believe what you wish, I can’t read your mind. If you seek any credibility, then go with experiment, 1LOT and 2LOT.
Yes, definitely “more fluff from fluffball. Nothing new”.
DRsEMT, Yes, I used anodized aluminum. It was colored architectural aluminum, which your earlier reference tells us produces a thin coating on the surface of the material. The reference suggests that the coating thickness might be about 50 micrometers and the thermal conductivity of each coating layer might be 0.75 W/m/K.
The Green plate has an area of 0.0090m^2, thus a 1 K temperature difference across that layer would represent a heat flow rate of:
q = 0.75 x 0.0090 / 50e-6 or 135 watts
Halve that for two coated sides on the Green plate, so a 1 k difference would represent a heat flow of about 68 watts. It’s reasonable to assume that only 10% of the electrical energy supplied to my work light actually made it to the Blue plate and only half that would be radiated in the direction of the Green Plate or 15 watts. Only half that would cross from one side to the other of the Green plate, or 7.5 watts, which would produce a rough estimate of the temperature difference from one side to the other of about 0.11 K for the coating and another 0.02K thru the aluminum, giving a total heat difference of 0.13K. Your estimate may vary…
I’m not sure which reference you are referring to which specifically mentions colored architectural aluminium? At the time, you didn’t respond when I was discussing anodized aluminium, so I had no idea you had even noticed. You kept very quiet, until now. In any case, one of the references was this one:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a191755.pdf
In which they test the thermal resistance of various thicknesses of anodic coating on different aluminium “coupons”. As shown in Fig. 3, at around 50 micrometers, the R value was over 1 K/watt. Not too shabby, and perhaps why, according to my other reference:
https://www.coastlinemetalfinishing.com/anodizing/hard-anodizing
“Hard anodized metals are usually very well insulated, they don’t conduct heat or electricity well.”
Between the thermal resistance and reflectivity of the plate, the empirical evidence (from your experiment) suggests that the introduction of the green plate resulted in an approx. 10 K rise in the temperature of the blue.
DRsEMT, Yes, that’s the reference I was referring to as the source for the material property data.
I used a representative value for reported values for “thermal conductivity” from Table 2 of 0.75 W/m/K in my calculation. That calculation resulted in a tiny temperature difference across the anodized layer, as you can see. I suggest that you study your reference more carefully.
So nothing on colored architectural aluminium specifically, or the thickness of the particular coating on the plates you used. I’m interested in keeping a record of all the untruths you tell, that’s now on there too.
Yes, I suggest that you study my reference more carefully, especially Fig. 3; and also note what my other reference thinks about the product they sell.
DRsEMT, Since you didn’t actually challenge my calculated results, you’ve lost the argument. I looked at Figure 3, but it’s the data for k in Table 2 which is appropriate.
Fourier’s Law of Conduction, which I used, states:
q = -k * A * (dT/dx) = -k * dT * (A/dx)
or:
dT = q * (dx/A)/k
Instead, you are grasping at minor details to claim I shuda done things differently. Architectural aluminum isn’t hard coated, MIL spec stuff, besides, the coating is only some 50 micro meters thick. Please tell me how a small variation in the small temperature difference across the Green plate would be important. Not to forget, how would that temperature difference between the two sides cause the Blue plate’s temperature to increase without resorting to back radiation.
“Since you didn’t actually challenge my calculated results, you’ve lost the argument”
Oh, right, OK. Thanks for letting me know.
On the other hand, there’s Fig. 3, my other reference, and the untruths you’ve told so far.
Plus, if you don’t think that thermal resistance is an issue in any case, it’s odd the lengths you’ve gone too to address it. Both you, and your little spherical friend. Well, plus the rest of “the Team”, who are all tasked with defending this until the ends of the Earth.
DRsEMT, Your inability to answer a simple question leaves you repeating an earlier pointless claim, followed with some derogatory ad hominem insults. Classic denialist reply to a basic engineering/scientific presentation of evidence which proves you are wrong.
Here’s another chance: What’s the mechanism which causes the Blue plate to warm after the Green plate is moved?
“Insulation”.
What ad hominems? What earlier pointless claims? What engineering/scientific presentation of evidence that proves me wrong? What are you talking about, E. Swanson?
DRsEMT’s reply to my question is: “Insulation”
That’s a term usually applied in conduction heat transfer situations, which defines a material property. Where’s the material which you claim to be providing “Insulation”? There’s a high vacuum (~50 microns) in the bell jar. You’ve not given any mathematical or other description of this supposed mechanism, just one empty word.
Engineering/scientific evidence? Must I remind you of my Green Plate demo or the well known engineering of radiation heat shields? Perhaps you can’t grasp the simple equation for the heat transfer across the anodized layers on my plates. Or, can’t you understand Holman’s description of thermal radiation heat transfer in which every body emits IR EM and also absorbs at the same time?
E. Swanson, are you being serious with your questions about insulation? It’s hard to tell any more. It’s what I was discussing in my comment above, at March 4, 3:25am…which you then responded to me about at March 4, 10:46 am. Since then, over the last day or so, there have been all sorts of responses discussing insulation, with Ball4, and even further discussion with you. Plus, we have already discussed this in detail further upthread, as I alluded to in my comment of March 4, 11:54am.
“Must I remind you of my Green Plate demo or the well known engineering of radiation heat shields?”
Obviously not. I thought you were referring to something new that you had brought to light, rather than the subject that has already been exhaustively discussed. So again, I think this is just you effectively repeating yourself, nothing new being added.
“Perhaps you can’t grasp the simple equation for the heat transfer across the anodized layers on my plates”
Perhaps you can’t grasp what I have already said to you in response. Perhaps you can’t grasp the concept of thermal resistance, Fig. 3, or that a company selling finished metals describes their anodized aluminium as well insulated, and not conducting heat or electricity well.
Why are you just repeating yourself over and over again?
DRsEMT wrote:
Sad to say, DRsEMT continues to display a complete lack of understanding of both heat transfer and Figure 3 in the reference which he presented. That data applies only to the test results for the “coupons” used in the tests, which are 2.54mm x 2.54mm in size. To compare the respective thermal resistances from these results with that for my Green plate, one must adjust for the difference in area. So we see that:
Acoupon = 6.452e-4 m^2 and Agp = 9.03e-3 m^2
Acoupon / Agp = 0.0714
Thus, for Rcoupon = 1.5 K/W,
Rgp = 1.5 * 0.071 = 0.011 K/W
That’s roughly the same result I calculated from the published values for k in Table 2. This proves that your claim that the coating has a significant effect on the Green Plate demo is wrong.
Considering that all these discussions impinge on the question of Climate Change, which will impact the entire Earth, not to mention billions of humans, I think you (and the rest of the Denialist Camp) need to get the science right. That’s the reason I keep repeating my attempts to present facts, vs. BS and disinformation.
“Sad to say, DRsEMT continues to display a complete lack of understanding of both heat transfer and Figure 3 in the reference which he presented.”
Says Swanson on the very first occasion he has even discussed Fig. 3. No, I got it that the coupons were smaller in surface area than your plates. They are also much thinner than your plates, though. You left out that part. They are only 25 microns thick. Proportionally, your plates are thicker, in relation to their surface area than the coupons are, compared to theirs.
Plus, maybe you can finally discuss why someone selling finished metals describes their anodized product as not conducting heat, or electricity well.
As for getting our science straight, that’s a bit of a cheek. When I first brought up insulation as an explanation for your experimental results, I thought of the relevant insulation properties of a substance, like thermal resistance, or reflectivity (still not convinced reflectivity doesn’t have a bigger part in this than you let on, too). When going the thermal resistance route I was myself a little skeptical, because you had described your plates as being made of aluminium. But, I had assumed it wasn’t pure aluminium. First, you challenged me using the conductivity of pure aluminium. I asked you what the plates were actually made of, assuming it wasn’t pure aluminium. You didn’t respond.
Then later, in a response to Mike Flynn, you claimed you had “noted” that your plates were anodized aluminium. Actually, you hadn’t noted that anywhere before. It’s not in your experiment write-up. You had never mentioned it as far as I’m aware. That raised a red flag. So I looked into it further, didn’t take long to find that reference saying anodized metals are poor conductors of heat. More red flags. Then later, on this thread, you mentioned colored architectural aluminium, as if it was mentioned in my other reference. It isn’t! More red flags.
You can understand why I’m skeptical, and you can understand why Mike wanted you to specify all those different details about your experiment, which you haven’t, yet. So maybe try to get your science straight, before criticizing others for questioning you.
P.S: coupons are 2.54 cm x 2.54 cm, NOT 2.54 mm x 2.54 mm, Swanson.