Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2019 was +0.36 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the January, 2019 value of +0.37 deg. C:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.43
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.04 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.60
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.11 -0.12 -0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.39
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.20 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.43 +0.22 +0.29 +0.51 +0.29 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.22 +0.17 +0.13 +0.07 +0.09 +0.26
2018 09 +0.15 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.19
2018 10 +0.22 +0.31 +0.13 +0.34 +0.25 +1.11 +0.39
2018 11 +0.28 +0.27 +0.30 +0.50 -1.13 +0.69 +0.53
2018 12 +0.25 +0.32 +0.19 +0.32 +0.20 +0.65 +1.19
2019 01 +0.37 +0.32 +0.42 +0.37 +0.48 -0.18 +1.10
2019 02 +0.36 +0.46 +0.26 +0.43 -0.03 +1.03 -0.07
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through February 2019 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for February, 2019 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Another wave of Arctic air reached the Great Lakes. The temperature at night will drop drastically.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/0djfo2q2vnva.png
WHO EFFING CARES
The myopic observer.
https://tinyurl.com/y48846u5
B,
ren, perhaps?
You could refrain from trolling, if you really felt like it.
Cheers.
bob…”WHO EFFING CARES”
I do. Ren’s doing a great job, you’re just a sheep molester.
It is telling that conservaturds can’t separate insulting a single person from insulting an entire country.
Well you’re an insult to the entire human race. How’s that working for you?
B,
Do you feel insulted by being referred to as a sheep molester? Why?
Have you no self esteem, or is your boyfriend perhaps named B-a-a-a-sil?
You could always stop troliling, or just decline to feel insulted – although this might be difficult if you are really as stupid and ignorant as you appear.
Cheers.
bob…”It is telling that conservaturds cant separate insulting a single person from insulting an entire country”.
There are many fine Australians, you just happen to be one of those Aussies for whom the saying was coined that mean are men and sheep are nervous.
There are some people with sirius density problem here and I’m not talking air density.
Any board without up keep and moderation attracts the lunatick types
Don’t worry, I’m here.
Look at the circulation in the lower stratosphere over North America.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/03/01/2100Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-100.27,60.27,679
Here I am praying for snow in Japan and it is a no go. Too hot.
A ruined ski season for many.
Looks like another uptick in the UAH data. That’s probably a disappointment for those who expected the US experience of some rather cold, but not unusual winter weather in February, to be a sign that there’s no global Warming.
The 12 month averages for March 2018 thru Feb 2019 are:
Globe = 0.25
NH = 0.33
Tropics = 0.23
Arctic = 0.47
US 48 = 0.34
yup. usa48 basically average is something of a shocker.
I’m sure Salvatore will be along any minute now to explain when he expects the cooling to start
I am seriously surprised that you Guys do not understand that what the Satellites are measuring is the Warmth escaping the Earth via the Atmosphere and bears little relationship to what is happening on the Surface.
It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere losses to space.
Even if the surface is covered in Ice the higher albedo will put the Solar energy back in to the Atmosphere with little surface warming.
so the most recent super el nino actually occurred….when?
What surface cooling?
“It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere”
And which surface cooling are you referring to?
No need for the repeat, barry.
Not a surprise to anyone who realizes we’ve had El Nino conditions since mid September. The rise in January was predictable. If the El Nino fades away then the warming will fade away as well.
I like to Look at the data because it takes all the averaging out of it, which hides many features. If you look at the UAH satellite temperatures, it appears that before the El Nio in the early .
90s, the temperature was stable around -.15 anomaly. Then after the late 90s
La Nia was over, it was again stable before the El Nio in the mid- teens, oscillating around a midpoint about +0.1 anomaly. If the mid teens La Nia is over, it looks like it may be settling in at +0.3 anomaly. Its way too early to say whether we are post La Nia and where it will settle.
Has anyone ever looked to see whether El Nios could cause a step change in global Temp? I cant propose a mechanism, but that is really what the data seems to indicate.
If you look at all the data at once statistically, you hide this kind of internal feature. If you just did a simple regression before 1995 another from 2001-2015, Ill bet you find a statistically different average. It is yet to be seen what happens post 2018..
There is something there we just dont understand. Just sayin.
DaveM says:
“Has anyone ever looked to see whether El Nios could cause a step change in global Temp?”
Dr. Roy Spencer, Phd, did this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z
Roy wrote:
“The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through February 2019 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
Hardly shocking or disappointing.
Seems Earth is still coming out of the Little Ice Age.
A couple of interesting weather blogs about February in Washington State:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/02/third-coldest-february-in-seattle.html
http://inlandnorthwestweather.blogspot.com/2019/02/february-recap-records-broken.html
Thanks Roy.
That’s right, the increased greenhouse effect is still warming the earth out of the LIA.
It’s increased sunspot activity.
That has been decreasing since the sixties.
Since the serious warming began in the mid 70s, sunspot activity has been FALLING.
Bobdesbond says: on Mar.1,2019 at 3:37PM “the increased greenhouse effect is still warming the earth out of the LIA.”
Wrong. Increased solar activity is still warming the earth out of the LIA: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
The increased solar radiation has caused the ocean warming, and that huge thermal mass is transferring heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. CO2 is basically along for the ride as an effect, not a cause.
John…”A couple of interesting weather blogs about February in Washington State:”
I live just north of Washington State, in Canada, near the border and the ocean. It has been inordinately cold around here and the cold has persisted. Normally, it’s only cold for a week, two at most.
We’re stuck in it for another week at least and as ren pointed out, the Chicago area is in for another blast of record setting cold.
Global warming, my butt.
G. R. wrote
” I live just north of Washington State, in Canada, ”
Cold air flows into the large Fraser drainage and moves southwest.
Then that cold air comes roaring out of the Fraser, turns south, and meets the moist air in Puget Sound. Communities there get all tangled up in snow.
I think we need a wall, and folks from B.C. should pay for it.
Actually, we are east of the Cascades. Arctic air has to get into the State, then goes down into the Columbia River Valley. We are west of the River, so cold air has to fill that area first and then come back up to over 2,200 feet (670 m). To accomplish this takes a whole lot of cold air, but it happens.
Models indicate that on or about March 9th, cold will show signs of fading.
Jon…”Models indicate that on or about March 9th, cold will show signs of fading”.
I am grateful. I worked night shift in -25C weather near Edmonton and folks up there would regard our cold spell as a cheery warming. Some would call it a chinook.
No need for a wall, we Canadians get treated far more harshly than Mexicans if we sneak in and work illegally. That’s because we won’t work for nothing. Personally, I have never felt the urge to sneak into the US.
ps. I’ll bet NOAA has no thermometers in the Cascades. They’ll all be located by the oceans, where it’s some 15 degrees warmer.
And what’s with you guys having a tornado near Seattle? That’s bizarre.
0.36 C is nothing. Only the 5th warmest February on record. It was 0.1 C warmer in 2010, which is 9 years ago… so much for global warming!
Let this be the Final Nail in the coffin of the AGW scare!
TFN
Please explain why you expect natural variation to disappear in a warming world.
No one expects it to disappear. In fact, a lot of people view a warming (or cooling) world to be just another example of “natural variation”. Too bad we can’t get any climate model coders to study natural variation.
RM,
Who needs to actually know anything about Nature? They are using really, really, big computers which go really, really, fast. They cost really, really, large amounts of money to run.
Obviously, politicians wouldn’t hand over really, really, large amounts of money to a pack of bumbling idiots who produce nothing at all of use to man nor beast, would they?
Or am I wrong?
Cheers.
Nine years is nothing, CO2 is long term.
svante…”Nine years is nothing, CO2 is long term”.
CO2 has no effect on warming, so who cares?
Ah, but it helps plants grow. And we need plants to feed the animals to feed the people.
CO2 makes a difference, the direct effect is 2 W/m^2:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Svante, that “2 W/m^2” is pseudoscience.
It comes from a bogus equation that has no derivation or empirical validity.
It only makes a “difference” to clowns.
S,
Is that 2 W/m2 more powerful than 300 W/m2 emitted by ice, or is it special pseudoscientific climatological Wattage?
Are these special recent Watts unconnected with the Watts that have resulted in the Earth’s surface cooling over the last four and a half billion years?
You can’t raise the temperature of water at all, using 300 W/m2 from ice. How much hotter does water get using your special pseudoscientific Watts?
You have no clue, have you? Fanaticism is no substitute for science. Carry on with the comedy routine.
Cheers.
Battle proved MODTRAN keeps you safe:
https://tinyurl.com/yy62njvv
Svante, “battle proved”? What “battles” are you talking about? Your battles with your boyfriend?
MODTRAN is a computer simulation programmed on AGW!
But, we appreciate you humor.
S,
You’ve become even loonier. It’s about a simulation. Might be correct, might not. Just like one of a hundred climate simulations with different results might be be correct – or none might be.
Battle? Battling fact with fantasy is not likely to bring success.
Carry on acting the goat.
Cheers.
2 W/m^2 is not a lot, and it’s only one side of the balance.
No, it’s not a lot, 0.4 compared to 288 K.
A thousand papers on MODTRAN and missiles for Mike and JD:
https://tinyurl.com/yxr2ly7n
Looks like it can be applied to great effect.
S,
Are you quite mad? You link to computer modelling papers in general. That is about as stupid as linking to GCMs and pretending they are worthwhile.
Luckily, not everyone is as gullible as you.
Aircraft designers use tried and tested modelling based on measurement and reality. After all that, the aircraft undergoes testing using experienced test pilots. So much for betting your life on a computer model, without verifying the results.
From MODTRAN –
” . . . radiance accuracy is approximately 2%.” Using a theoretical standard atmosphere, of course. At least you get to pick one of six standard atmospheres – none of which are accurate.
Carry on believing. Maybe you could find just one testable GHE hypothesis, rather than thousands of pointless computer modelling exercises.
Cheers.
Of course it is tried and tested, turns out it works.
Bart
The difference between the Maunder minimum and the peak at the end of the last century is about 1.2 W/m^2 (averaged over the 11 year cycle). So if 2 W/m^2 is not much, then neither was the drop in activity of the Maunder minimum.
Or…
Begging the question.
The main thing is that it is not too hot in Australia.
Some of you may have noticed, Australia is a big place, even bigger than Texas ( hard to believe I know).
For the record ( the last few months have brought a lot of new ones in Oz) , Hobart has just had its hottest March day on record of 39.1 C easily eclipsing the old record of 37.3 C.
Along with all the other ecological shifts southwards the human population is joing them but even Tasmania maybe only be a temporary refuge. Next stop south is Macquarie Island. I hear real-estate is still very cheap there.
MR,
No need to flee South. Come North to Darwin. Even with the best efforts of the BOM, our absolute maximum temperature is less than that of Hobart.
It doesn’t even get really cold in Darwin, either.
The rest of Australia is obviously too hot for me. Darwin has the lowest maximum temperature of any Australian capital. I’m sure there is a valid pseudoscientific model which explains all.
Cheers.
Yes Darwin, is very pleasant in the winter. Enjoyed many a beautiful sunset at Mindil beach.
The six months summer humidity is a bit brutal though unless you like that kind of thing. Despite this the maximum temperature is constrained by the absence of the blisteringly hot winds in summer from central Australia that causes the extremes in the other capitals. I guess you can blame the summer monsoon for that. As they say it’s an ill wind ….
I also haven’t heard of too many internally displaced climate refugees heading north. If there are refugee caravans on the way north then the rabbit proof in central Australia could be upgraded. Maybe our government could declare a national emergency and invoke the US Australia NZ treaty (ANZUS) and get Trump to help fund the upgrade. Hopefully Trump hasn’t already withdrawn and joined the Warsaw Pact.
However Tassie seems to be the preferred direction for refugees and unfortunately Hobart real estate prices now appear to be getting out of hand. Even down here in the cooler parts of the mainland we are now experiencing net migration from the north. As they say about Queensland, “beautiful one day too effn hot the next”.
So Mike, enjoy the heat and humidity. There seems to be plenty of it coming your way. Looking at the BOM forecast for Darwin, you guys might have an outside chance of breaking the March maximum later in the week. Imagine that the two extremities of the vast continent breaking the March record! Could be a message in that.
Ahhh!
That Macquarie Island, remote, nearly unpopulated, no industry, no Urban Heat Island, no adjustments ….
That Automatic Weather Station run by our BOM, where the trend of temperature over the last 50 years is Z E R O
For both Tmax and Tmin. (But manages to show Global Warming according to GISS.)
Geoff
The average temperature of southern hemisphere is considerably cooler than Northern hemisphere- and there has long debate about why this is the case, for over century.
Antarctic hasn’t been warming.
The start and end of glacial and interglacial periods is largely concerning the Northern Hemisphere [which has most to land area].
There have been various possible explanations for the none-warming trend in Antarctica. The one that seems most convincing to me is that although Antarctica gets the CO2 increase experienced in the rest of the world, its temperatures are less affected by other causes of warming . . . such as UHI, soot deposits, changes in relative humidity, land development, agricultural practices, and other human intervention such as ice-breakers and introduction of plants. Again, other explanations have been advanced. Honest scientfic debate is possible.
I’m afraid it’s too warm in the Arctic.
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2019030100_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
I’m thinking I’d rather stay down here.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/weather/nunavut/the-north-pole
Temperatures are forecast to dip to 10-20 degrees Fahrenheit below average and are likely be be even colder than that of average for January in many cases.
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/8e9f4d3/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F0d%2Fb0%2F0b2418794d9cacacec2fe5d7a4a0%2Farctic-blast.jpeg
–It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere losses to space–
Nope.
Tropical heating would couple months delay in terms of global temp.
But generally, ocean temperatures control global temperature and cooling or colder land doesn’t. Particularly, when it only a small portion of land.
Though I would say, land cools Earth, and water warms Earth.
And land gets cold, due to lack of ocean warming or warmer land will result in more heat loss to space.
Plus any real warming is the entire volume of the ocean warming. And it appears that over last hundred years there probably some warming, and still could some warming in the future.
But what this is mostly about is weather and global warming is mostly about centuries of warming or cooling.
Funny I thought the Surface included the Seas, silly me.
The heat being lost from the Land & Oceans is going through the Atmosphere and regesitering as if it is staying warm.
The Northern Hemisphere is Not Currently warm and yet according to the Satellites it is half a degree above normal.
As to the Seas staying warm, certainly not all of it.
Take a look at this in the Northern Hemisphere
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/28/the-seas-get-cooler-around-iceland-some-charts-and-anecdotes/
–A C Osborn says:
March 2, 2019 at 11:26 AM
Funny I thought the Surface included the Seas, silly me.
The heat being lost from the Land & Oceans is going through the Atmosphere and regesitering as if it is staying warm.–
The seas are small part of the surface.
A warmer land does not do much in terms warming the air.
One can have somewhat warm land with snow on it.
A few inches of land surface can warm daily and few inches of ground doesn’t hold much heat. Meters of depth can hold a fair amount of heat, but it’s insulated/isolated in regards to air above it.
Several inches of dirt holds far less heat than the atmosphere above
it. A square meter of dirt 20 cm deep is less than ton and the air above square meter is about 10 tons. And ground at surface tends to get a bit colder than air above at night.
A ton of water at same temperature has about 5 times as much heat as the ground. And square meter water 1 meter deep is a ton, and meters of depth of water is warmed daily.
Both water and ground warm and cool at depth seasonally, but water gains and loses more heat seasonally- and is losing to the atmosphere. Though both water and land radiate energy to space, and since land can become hotter, land can radiate more energy to space at the time it is hotter.
Wet land area puts more heat into the atmosphere as compared to dry land. And ocean warms atmosphere more than land.
It warms the atmosphere more, because 70% of surface is ocean and warms more because on average it’s warmer than land.
Average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average land is about 10 C.
As Mr Spencer pointed out last June, the satellite reading for Australia or the US has little bearing on the temperature “IN” that country. It was actually Australia’s 4th warmest February of the past century.
According to BOM’s massively adjusted data..
roflmao !
You mean the adjustments which remove the UHI effect?
Bobdesbond says: on Mar.4,2019 at 2:20PM “You mean the adjustments which remove the UHI effect”
The adjustments cool the past and warm the present.
That’s backwards for a UHI adjustment.
The satellite measurement is different measurement of AUS.
And I would say a superior way to measure the atmospheric temperature, though not a superior way to measure air temperature in a white box 5 feet above the ground. Though a superior way to measure average air temperature as compared to balloon measurement.
UAH – Number of months below +0.2 in each 5 year period for the past 40 years:
Mar 79-Feb 84: 60
Mar 84-Feb 89: 58
Mar 89-Feb 94: 57
Mar 94-Feb 99: 46
Mar 99-Feb 04: 41
Mar 04-Feb 09: 49
Mar 09-Feb 14: 39
Mar 14-Feb 19: 10
Number of months below +0.15 in each 5 year period:
Mar 79-Feb 84: 59
Mar 84-Feb 89: 54
Mar 89-Feb 94: 55
Mar 94-Feb 99: 46
Mar 99-Feb 04: 35
Mar 04-Feb 09: 37
Mar 09-Feb 14: 34
Mar 14-Feb 19: 5
What part of super El Nino and +AMO do you fail to understand?
Bode isn’t making any claims. He’s just pointing out the natural variability of temperature.
Are you referring to the “Super El Nino” of 1997/98?
Or perhaps the one of 1982/83?
Surely you can’t be referring to the one of 2015/16, which the MEI data shows was weaker than the other two.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Why is Climate Science different? . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.
Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.
To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.
But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.
Why?
====================
I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:
1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)
2) the temperature of the average month
3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)
For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.
====================
There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:
1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)
2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)
Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.
There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.
But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.
Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.
I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/why-is-climate-science-different
Dear Sheldon,
The soviet republic of Canada will not be very desirable as this global warming has made it very cold this winter. As for Russia, russian women I find desirable but expensive. The only desirable part of Russia is Crimea.
lieb…”The soviet republic of Canada will not be very desirable as this global warming has made it very cold this winter”.
I take exception to that snarky remark. ☺
I’ll have you know that me and my union brothers worked damned hard over a century IN A DEMOCRACY…through a bit of civil disobedience…through beatings by goons hired by your capitalist buddies…through deaths caused by the same…to establish our SOCIALISM.
Nothing in common with Russia, where the Bolsheviks stole Marxist doctrine and named it socialism. There is nothing in the works of Marx mentioned such an abomination as Stalinist communism. The Bolsheviks threw real socialists and communists in concentration camps.
The irony is that Marx hated the word socialism. He refused to call his dogma socialism and it’s just as well. Socialism is a workers movement that grew in democratic countries through people who had the guts to stand up and DEMAND to be treated fairly.
Here in Canada, we have universal Medicare, pensions, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, womens’ rights thanks to those pioneers. and the freedom to live pretty well any way we like, as long as we don’t get caught doing something illegal. ☺
I know of no socialist who begrudges any capitalist the right to make a decent profit as long as he/she behaves, pays his/her taxes, treats people fairly and with dignity, and try not to be ***holes.
In fact, I know of socialists who are pretty good capitalists. Socialists have nothing against making money or preventing others from doing the same. Any propaganda to the contrary is fake news put out by right-wing media.
Let’s face it, there’s plenty to go around and no reason for kids to grow up in poverty. The reason poverty exists is because dickheads hoard the wealth and they are allowed to do so.
“There is nothing in the works of Marx mentioned such an abomination as Stalinist communism.”
It is the inevitable end result. When you invest that much power in the government, sooner or later, someone is going to come along to exploit your naivet and wield it for his or her own ends.
naivete – editor doesn’t like special characters.
‘It is the inevitable end result. When you invest that much power in the government, sooner or later, someone is going to come along to exploit your naivet’
Except that there so many counter-examples where that hasnt happened, eg Canada and many Western European countries.
These are not Marxist regimes, though some are sliding in that direction.
You are the one saying Obamas policies and DEM proposals are socialism, and therefore going to lead to a bad end w authoritarianism.
But we’ve tried this experiment many times over and more completely in Europe, Canada, etc for 7 decades, and your alarmist predictions failed to materialize.
Nate,
The concept of freedom vs govt authoritarianism even in the USA (arguably the most free country on earth…) is of course (IMHO) relative. Depending on the issue (regulations stemming from concerns over climate change being just one), there are large portions of the population who think either we are too free or our freedoms have already been squashed…
IMO we are closer to a socialist society than a free one. Depending on how the next election goes, we could vastly increase our speed moving in that direction as there are multiple self-declared socialists on the scene…
It’s a bit unfair (IMO) to have a scale of authoritarian or not when there are clearly shades of grey in between…
Barry
Obama’s policies frankly sucked, for 8 long years of subpar growth, persistent unemployment, and counterproductive healthcare debacles. But, that is not the discussion we are having here. The question was in regards to governments founded on Marxist principles, and where they ineluctably lead.
Obama got the financial crisis, but it wasn’t all his fault.
It could have been worse than the great depression if he and the Fed hadn’t done what they did.
Svante,
When it comes to economic performance, Obama had good timing. By the time he took office the damage was done and the economy was due for a good rebound no matter how good/bad his initiatives.
During his first two years, he basically threw a couple of massive stimulus blank checks at the situation (always going to cause some ‘economic growth’) and spent most of his political capital working on agenda items (i.e. Obamacare) which had nothing to do with the economy short term.
Barry
During his first 2 y, Trump basically threw a massive (uneeded) stimulus blank check tax giveaway to corporations (always going to cause some economic growth) and spent most of his political capital working on agenda items (i.e. Wall and cozying up to dictators).
“persistent unemployment” the rate was 10% when Obama started and 4.7% when he left.
As usual Bart ignores data that doesnt fit his notions
Nate,
I don’t recall saying anything about Trump…
For sure when it comes to a president, one is likely to see the guy on ‘my side’ more positively than they should and the guy on the other side more negatively. When it comes to an economy a president is given either too much credit or too much blame depending on the viewpoint.
The same thing goes for the climate change debate. Ones own viewpoint is pretty much going to determine how they see a set of data or view a publication or blog. I think that people on the AGW side are too myopic when it comes to recent data and are fixated on a fairly steady small rise in temperatures that could very well be mostly natural. Is it even possible for one of the current climate ‘models’ to predict cooling (we know it happens naturally…). But, I have tried to listen to viewpoints from the other side… something to effect of it’s better to be safe than sorry (precautionary principle). I get that…
But, as I’ve posed to you in the past… it really doesn’t matter much unless one has a solution that is ‘global’ (i.e. how does one get China to reduce their CO2 by say 80-90%, etc). I just don’t find many people discussing these higher level questions. It generally gets bogged down in tit-for-tat name calling ostensibly about the data and/or ‘science.’
Barry
Nate – 4.7% is a LOT of misery, and that’s not even counting the people who had given up looking, people who are now back to work in Trump’s economy.
Svante – the mortgage meltdown was a ticking time bomb, placed by the Democrats, that everyone knew would explode eventually. Saying Obama was not responsible does not cut the mustard. He had 8 long years to overcome it and failed. It was one of the worst recoveries ever that from an event that should have rectified within a couple of years. He was the first President ever to never see 3% or greater growth. He managed that feat by taxing success, and regulating everything in sight.
” the mortgage meltdown was a ticking time bomb, placed by the Democrats, that everyone knew would explode eventually”
This is the recipe.
Anything bad that happens under a R/D president was due to the work of previous or current D. Anything good that happens is all due to a current or previous R.
So somehow, some way, you’ll blame the nearly $T govt and trade deficits on Obama.
“regulating everything in sight”
Many causes of the financial crisis, but almost everyone agrees that the bipartisan effort to deregulate banks turned the dumpster fire of the housing bubble into a financial conflagration. One with lasting effects.
I am not an ideologue when it comes to govt, Im for doing things that worked and not repeating things that failed.
There is so much about Gordon and his posts that is perplexing.
And then there’s the fact that he’s a Trumpist/socialist??!
‘4.7% is a LOT of misery’
Oh ok whatever you say, Bart. But it was never below 5 under Reagan.
GDP growth Obama: 2.1 average.
Obviously includes early deep dive of great recession, 2009.
Hes in the middle of the pack of POTUS averages below 3: includes
Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush 1, Bush2
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth
Nate, please stop trolling.
since the temperature is exactly the same as the last month there should be really no comments here as nothing new to say ,
except maybe the gap between the predictions and reality is a little bit bigger,
https://goo.gl/kWb2W7
This puts to rest the notion of a global average, which is more sci-fi and statistic than science. We had one of the coldest temperatures on record across much of North America during February, yet some higher than average temps in the south Pacific have created an upward blip in the average.
Anthropogenic global warming is one of the worst pieces of propaganda ever foisted on the world. Utter rubbish.
These variations are nothing more than normal, everyday weather on top of a recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Didn’t you notice that the Northern Hemisphere is 0.46 degrees C Above Normal?
Don’t you find that just a bit odd?
A.C….”Didnt you notice that the Northern Hemisphere is 0.46 degrees C Above Normal?
Dont you find that just a bit odd?”
Weather and ocean currents, not to mention the oceanic oscillations.
Besides, what does 0.46C above normal mean in a physical sense? I can tell you one thing, here in the banana belt around Vancouver, Canada, this has to be one of the coldest Februarys on record. And it hasn’t finished yet, it’s expected to carry on till around March 10th.
February in Europe was rather warm. As for the socialist achievements of the great country of Canada, I agree they are substantial. When are you going to abolish private property? I see you already started via real-estate taxes. Very smart. Noone caught on. What is the next step? We need to spread the revolution worldwide. We comm.. err.. socialists are so smart and stealthy. I tell you what next. We will “share” cars, and bicycles.
after warm comes cold et vice versa. luckily, the great country of Urope will spend many less euros on natural gas this winter, which means co2 emissions will drop. Everybody happy. Gas prices also drop. Very good. Very very good.
lieb…”Gas prices also drop. Very good. Very very good”.
Gas pricing is a game. The price of oil is manipulated by the stock market. It has nothing to do with supply and demand, every so often they throw us a bone to make us forget how much they rip us off in the long run.
If you haven’t seen hit video by Dr Spencer it is one of the best I’ve seen:
https://youtu.be/T2tzT4zBfzc
Thanks for sharing, “CO2”. I had not seen that before.
It is clear the quest for funding drives the AGW nonsense. No funding, no nonsense. It’s that simple. And it’s good to be reminded of “Climagegate”. We can’t forget that they got caught red-handed, and then investigated themselves to find “nothing”!
Also, the reference to President Eisenhower’s warning: “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
And, Dr. Spencer said it all in 15 minutes!
Thanks, quite illuminating.
CO2,
Many thanks. The pendulum, having swung thus far, maintains some momentum. Eventually it will stop, and reverse. As it did for phrenology and Lysenkoism.
I remain optimistic – it’s all part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
CO2….”If you havent seen hit video by Dr Spencer it is one of the best Ive seen:”
Yeah…I thought Roy’s presentation was powerful and to the point. Then again, I watched Roger Pielke Jr.’s testimony and he came across as an alarmist butt-kisser.
The Democrat querying him was offering him loaded and leading questions from the alarmist side and Pielke was going along like someone currying for favour.
There is something seriously wrong with the Democrats who are pushing climate change propaganda. They can’t talk about it intelligently without some emotional plea to the future of their children. Load of politically-correct idiots.
They should have had Pat Michaels there to set them straight.
Dr. Spencer, From a former Huntsville resident.
I have been a long follower and admirer of your work and think you are the most qualified to write an urgently needed paper or maybe a book with the following theme or title.
“Where, when and if global warming or climate change is occurring or may or may not occur”.
This paper or book should detail, with references, past and probable global warming (Tmin,Tmax and climate change) in every local area in the world. It would give detailed instructions for accessing existing data bases to verify for the readers satisfaction the changes in climate in their local area.
WHY THIS IS URGENTLY NEEDED:
1.Every day the news media reports something negative with the tag line “due to climate change”. Even cursory investigation shows there has been little or no change in that area.
2. All laymen I have met visualize global warming as causing hotter areas getting hotter in mid day. I have not met one person who knows that the record and forecast of warming show changes: “OCCUR MOSTLY TOWARD THE POLES, IN WINTER, AT NIGHT”. This is of course wonderful but is not well known. Even fewer know that extreme weather in most areas is improving not getting worse.
I would love the do this piece but I am old and not proficient in manipulating climate basses which is one your strength.
Please do the world a favor and do this!
On another thread, Entropic man asked:
” But why is the ocean warming?”
In my opinion this is the key question.
Atmospheric temps in the lower troposphere, necessarily follow ocean surface temps and not the reverse (heat always flows from hot to cold).
So warming oceans will of course lead to warmer air temps..
EM,s answer:
“Because something is forcing the Earth to radiate less energy than it receives.”
cannot be so. The Earth naturally develops systems to shed its energy in the most efficient way possible.. so that, over time, it will ALWAYS lose more energy than it receives
So lets consider some alternatives:
1. Meteor impact(s).
Im pretty sure we would have noticed impactor(s) of sufficient size to raise the ocean temp so we can probably safely rule this out
2. Waste heat from human activity being dumped into rivers lakes and oceans
While this is certainly not zero, i would be surprised if it was enough to significantly affect ocean temps. However it may make a significant impact on coastal water near large urban/industrial areas and perhaps near river estuaries that flow through highly populated areas…
3. Geothermal energy
The abyssal depths are only heated by geothermal energy (no sunlight penetrates to that depth). An increase in upwelling geothermal energy may be significant, but I don’t think we have enough observational data to determine if this is so.
4. increased a*b*so*r*p*t*i*o*n of solar radiation
IMO this is the mostly likely answer, but what causes that increase? Greater solar activity? less clouds? less ozone?… some combination of these and/or other things?
If I had to guess, I would probably suggest that increased UV a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n due to the grand solar maximum and thinning ozone layer are the most likely causes…
As the solar cycle has fallen since the 21st century began and the ozone layer has begun recovering, so too has the ocean temp stabilized. …
I believe I read somewhere that it is expected to take 100 years for ozone levels to recover to 1970’s values… thats a lot of extra UV being a*b*s*o*r*b*e*d by the oceans…..
Is one of these the culprit? Or some combination thereof? I couldn’t say… But I’m absolutely sure that a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer ocean surface…
Bode, here’s a stat for you. I know how fond you are of temperature stats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/03/01/los-angeles-failed-hit-degrees-february-first-time-recorded-history/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4db4dba70468
I follow CLIMATE stats. Weather stats are only of passing interest.
And my name isn’t “bode”. Nor is that an abbreviation of my name.
Did you ever see the movie Point Break? I think Bode fits.
Also, you don’t seem to mind mentioning Australian weather stats.
If you’ve paid any attention, I mention warm weather only to counter someone mentioning cold weather. I typically begin with something like “while we’re cherry picking, here’s a little cherry picking of my own …”
And you think Patrick Swayze fits? Whatever takes your fancy.
B,
Why would you feel the need to “counter” anything?
What difference do you think it makes? For example, the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years to its present temperature.
No cherry picking there.
Counter away, it changes nothing at all.
Cheers.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . One sandwich short of a picnic . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
[ this is a duplicate of a post from another thread, repeated here because it is important ]
Since 1980, scientists have been using satellites to monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region.
Why do scientists monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region, you might ask? The answer is quite simple. What do you think polar bears eat, when they can’t hunt seals, because there is no sea ice.
The number of sandwiches grows and decays with the seasons. There are more sandwiches in winter/spring (while the polar bears are eating seals). And there are fewer sandwiches in summer/fall (when seals are not available).
But scientists are concerned, because over the decades, the number of sandwiches is following a decreasing trend.
The number of sandwiches is obviously getting smaller. Not every year, of course. It does so in fits and starts. But the long term pattern (the trend), is clear. Deny it, and you are a sandwich denier.
A bitter argument has broken out, between the 2 scientists who have been monitoring sandwich numbers.
Dr Anne Alarmist, insists that sandwich numbers are falling rapidly, and may fall to zero within 10 to 20 years.
But her rival, Dr A Skeptic, claims that Dr Anne Alarmist is talking “poppycock”. Dr A Skeptic agrees that there is a decreasing trend, but claims that sandwiches will continue to be available, for at least 100 to 200 years.
Each scientist has plotted a graph of sandwich numbers from 1980 to 2018.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/one-sandwich-short-of-a-picnic
This is the least clever attempt at distraction I’ve read in a while.
September minimum arctic sea ice volume measure by PIOMASS dropped from nearly 17K km^3 in 1979 to under 4K in 2012. Shifting the Y axis doesn’t help.
Why not just say the data is wrong and there is no decline in sea ice volume?
OK, I will say it. All measurements of arctic sea ice are faked to show a linear trend towards an ice free summer minimum. Ice volume is actually increasing and has been for years.
See, so easy. Nothing to worry about.
Milton,
I am not trying to distract people.
If you can’t deal with the truth, then I suggest that you get professional help.
I am using the same data that Tamino (a rabid Alarmist), uses.
What do you expect me to do?
I assume that the data is correct. Even Dr A Skeptic admits that there is a decreasing trend.
Do you expect me to exaggerate the decreasing trend?
Sorry. I try to tell the truth. Go and see an Alarmist, if you want lies.
Tamino provides data about sandwiches? You are using unlabeled data to suggest that arctic trends are exaggerated.
Here is a graph provided by PIOMAS on the decreasing volume trend. They put the Y axis exactly as you want it.
https://tinyurl.com/hjsmxra
How long would you guess it will be before an ice free summer minimum?
Milton
Milton.
I expected that anybody who is familiar with sea ice extent, would know that my “sandwich” data was really “sea ice extent” data.
I find the debate over sea ice extent a bit boring. That is why I changed it to “sandwiches”. Sandwiches are much more exciting.
I think that the PIOMAS graph that you link to, with zero on the Y-axis, is a reasonable graph.
I am not willing to predict how long it will be before there is an ice free summer minimum. I will leave the guessing to the people who are trying to cause panic. I will wait, and continue to look at the data.
I am not particularly worried about there being an ice free summer minimum. If it happens, then it happens. The world won’t disappear in a puff of smoke. The Earth has been ice free before.
Technically, the Earth is still in an “interglacial” period.
An interglacial period is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years, that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.
Polar bears survived the Eemian warm period. I see no reason why they won’t survive the current one.
Humans will survive the current warm period as well, as long as they don’t panic, and do something stupid.
I don’t deny there’s a sandwich shortage.
SPA,
Ah, yes, but a pseudoscientific climatological zealot would argue that at times that nothing is better than a sandwich, so that if offered a sandwich, a climate zealot will choose nothing, having been convinced that nothing is better than the sandwich.
Something like a reduced rate of cooling is really heating, Gavin Schmidt is a renowned climate scientist rather than an undistinguished mathematician, and Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate rather than not having won a Nobel Prize.
It’s all part of the new Climate Paradigm based on sandwiches (and the fact that sometimes nothing is better or more satisfying than a sandwich). Who could possibly deny it?
I’m with you.
Cheers.
Not a problem. You can go down to the beach where you can eat the sand which is there.
Entropic Man, please stop “dad-joking”.
After months of indecision, ENSO appears to have finally decided on another El Niño.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
For me, that’s double good news.
Good news, because my area benefits from the increased precipitation. More good news because it will hold global temperatures up for another year, or two. If a La Niño were to occur here, global would likely drop below 0C, effectively ending the AGW nonsense. So we get to enjoy the humor for another couple of years.
Sorry, “La Niño” should be “La Niña”.
(First cup of coffee.)
A powerful stratospheric intrusion in two days will bring a strong frost to the east US.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00980/e8hrz1s7dmol.png
Dr Spencer, your temperature chart shows a great deal of volatility. The ΔW/M^2 per ΔCO2 is constant for a given range. Would you write a blog post showing how CO2 and W/M^2 increased by X, and temperatures increased or decreased by Y? Here is an example post addressing not the ΔCO2 but tying ΔW/M^2 to temperature. What you will find is that temperatures can increase and decrease with increases in W/M^2.
Hockeystick Con Job; CO2 Cant Cause Temperature Dog-Legs
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/hockeystick-con-job-co2-cant-cause-temperature-dog-legs/
The difference between what people tell you about how cold it has been where they live, and what is measured at the same time by weather stations can be amazing.
So when you read ‘it was around us one of the coldest Februaries evah’, you evidently think it will have been really cold there.
But then you decide to collect all data from all the weather stations, and you wonder that February 2019 was so terribly, horribly cold there:
1950 1 -6.32
1916 1 -3.29
1937 1 -2.70
1907 1 -2.53
1969 1 -2.33
1930 1 -1.68
1909 1 -1.51
1949 1 -1.40
1936 2 -0.72
1957 1 -0.59
1929 1 -0.39
1943 1 -0.18
1993 1 0.17
1985 11 0.29
1913 1 0.30
1911 1 0.36
1979 1 0.41
1947 1 0.46
1954 1 0.46
1989 2 0.59
1963 1 0.70
1927 12 0.72
1983 12 0.77
1972 1 0.88
1984 12 0.89
1980 1 1.00
1922 12 1.01
1949 2 1.04
2019 2 1.04
No, no! These values above aren’t anomalies, that would confuse lots of people here. All absolute data!
December 1968 was a little bit colder indeed: 5 days in the ‘top 10 below 0’, all below -15 C.
The coldest day in Feb 2019 in the region mentioned was Feb 10 with -8 C… oh dear.
Warmistas are boring people, but their counterparts, the Coolistas, are no less.
The snowstorm moves to the northeast US.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00980/r1wq056vkja3.png
An interesting link for those who think incresed UV may be responsible for higher ocean temps…
http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/index.html
PhilJ
The Author of this blog, Dr. Peter Langdon Ward seems to have many of the same ideas as the skeptics.
I think the dude is a crackpot. He might be brilliant in his area of expertise but he seems clueless about what Feynman was saying and just making up goofy unsupportable physics.
Here is one example of crackpot physics. So many skeptics subscribe to this version of unsupported declarations.
The crackpot: ” If a photon has a certain energy (E), most scientists conclude that 20 photons have 20 times as much energy (20*E). While it may be correct to think of 20 photons as having 20 times the capacity for containing energy (E) as one photon does, the energy (E) of each photon and of the ensemble of photons always remains the same no matter how many photons with that energy you have, because thermal energy is not additive.”
No clue how he came up with that. I think maybe g.e.r.a.n and Dr. Ward are the same person. How could two different people come up with the same anti-science conclusion and make these unsupported declarations?
N,
What you quoted seems reasonable. Ice can radiate photons at the rate of 300W/m2. It doesn’t matter how many of these photons you have, even infinite numbers, you still cannot use them to warm a single drop of water. Pseudoscientific climatological nutters obviously believe otherwise.
Temperatures do not add. W/m2 is totally meaningless, unless a temperature is involved, and a relevant emissivity.
Carry on believing in the miraculous (yet strangely non-demonstrable) heating powers of CO2. Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis yet? I didn’t think so.
Cheers.
“No-Clue Norman” is back with more of his juvenile adoration of personalties.
At least he’s now comparing his hero ger.an to someone other than me.
Kids these days….
Mike Flynn and JDHuffman
Is it remotely possible that you two (who never contribute anything of value, and I mean “never” literally) can not torture my rational logical mind with your nonsense?
Neither of you has a lick of logical, or rational thought process. Mike Flynn you are a complete waste of time, a mindless robot that repeats the same things thousands of times and is incapable of understanding any responses. We have all told you hundreds of times what the GHE is. I am not sure you are an actual human, could be a program.
JDHuffman, all you ever do is tell people they are wrong and make stupid unscientific declarations that you learned from some stupid skeptic blog. You are about as useless as dirty toilet paper. Get a clue. No one really cares about your declarations or opinions. (with exception of your dear wife DREMT). Most know you to be a complete fraud that makes up stuff and can’t support anything and when asked to support anything you run away.
Case of point. You bring up Poynting Vectors proving fluxes don’t add. I have asked you for explanation of how that works. You have not done so to date. You are a fraud and phony and you like to troll.
Poor Norman responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Norman is the perfect “Poster Boy” for the AGW pseudoscience. He can’t process facts and logic; he has no background in physics; and he believes linking to things he doesn’t understand makes him look smart.
JDHuffman
Can you post anything at all of value? Is it possible. I doubt it, you are a phony fraud that pretends to have studied heat transfer but you can’t grasp why a hot object CAN absorb IR from a colder body. It has to do with the number of surface molecules in excited states. The number is very small at room temperature.
Quit being such a phony jerk and produce some real and valid information. I think I can speak for most, they are very tired of your endless made up declarations and your phony arrogance pretending to be some real expert in physics.
There are people who post on this blog that have actually taken physics courses. YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM! Quit lying and being such a phony. It gets sickening to see.
I do not link to things to make me “look smart”. I link to support what I state, something you don’t do because you don’t know real science and fake your way through things.
You are the only one I know who brings up “Poynting Vectors” to appear smart. You are an arrogant fraud. Soon all will see how phony you are. The more you post the more people see what a fake you are.
Norman repeats his insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
He’s the perfect Poster Boy for the AGW pseudoscience.
Norman, I can’ imagine him having a spouse, poor soul otherwise.
Svante
He talked about his wife in a past post (over the Moon rotation nonsense). He is a total fraud on this blog but may treat his wife well. I had suspicions that J Halpless and DREMT are one and the same, his dear wife. They support everything he claims and neither know a lick of physics.
At least most are aware he is a lying phony that pretends to have studied actual physics.
Tim Folkerts is one that is the real deal. His posts are very informative and valuable. He does have lots of patience with the insulting arrogance of the two clowns on this blog. JDHuffman and Mike Flynn.
JDHuffman really does not know any physics. When you interact with him has he ever offered any proof at all his claims have merit? He never has with me. If you ask him for proof of a particular statement you get 20 nonsense posts of some insults, taunts and diversion. What a phony troll. I guess all blogs have them.
“No-Clue Norman” is back with more of his juvenile adoration of personalties.
He responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He makes up stuff to attack others. He has no science, only his perverted opinions and his pseudoscience. He hopes that if he type out his opinions often enough, maybe they will come true.
Poor Norman, wasting his life away at a dead-end job. If he could do anything useful, he might have had a career that paid something. That way, his wife wouldn’t have to work and they wouldn’t be living in rundown slums.
Poor Norman, he could never learn.
Yes Norman, it’s always the same pattern.
Hapless/DREMT go into a loop on some semantic issue.
Flynn loops at once on his no-GHE molten rock theory.
JD goes from stupidity to insult.
Gordon has his ‘points refuted a thousand times’ and gish-gallop defense.
There are quite a few top-notch commenters: Tim, barry, Nate and Swanson to name a few. I’m glad MikeR is back too.
JDHuffman
Well for the first time you are not a lying phony troll. You have posted an excellent self-assessment. You speak accurately about who and what you are. Congrats! You see yourself clearly!
How you see yourself: “He responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He makes up stuff to attack others. He has no science, only his perverted opinions and his pseudoscience. He hopes that if he type out his opinions often enough, maybe they will come true.”
Yes indeed that describes you very well.
However, Norman reads textbook material on heat exchange, understands the underlying concepts of heat exchange, can use the equations to calculate actual heat exchange. Makes claims and offers much support with numerous links so other posters can read and learn the material. Does not rely on his own unsupported declarations and will only insult those who first taunt and belittle him. So you have yourself well analyzed. I hope you can appreciate the fact that I am considerably ahead of you in knowledge of Heat Transfer. One thing I have going for me that you lack is logical rational thought process. These tools help you understand your flaws and correct a incorrect view. You are a troll so you lack these valuable tools which would help you if you had them.
Svante, it’s always the same pattern with you two clowns-all you’re interested in are personalities and pseudoscience. You’re unable to process facts and logic. You can’t think for yourselves.
Nothing new.
Norman,
“I think the dude is a crackpot”
Perhaps, or perhaps he’s a genius…
I don’t mean to imply that everything he says there is correct, but I find his idea of EMR as a continuous EM field generated by a transmitter, and that a photon of energy extracted from that field is dependent on the characteristics of the receiver and how it resonates with that field intriguing..
In any case his work on the effect of basaltic lava flows on ozone depletion seems solid..
And certainly if the amount of ozone in the atmosphere decreases then the amount of UVB reaching Earth’s surface increases.
With that in mind which of these do you think is more likely to add heat to the oceans:
An increase in exposure to UVB from a source at 5000+ K that penetrates some 40-50 meters into the ocean..
or an increase in exposure to IR from a source colder than the ocean that (at best!) penetrates a few mm ….
In light of the 2LOT that heat only naturally transfers from a hotter object to a colder object, the answer seems obvious to me.. and I would suggest that much more investigation of the effects of UVB on ocean temps is warranted… (anyone looking for a good idea for a Phd thesis? )
PhilJ
The part of his ideas that UV light could be the cause of ocean warming is not a bad idea and should be looked into. How much of an increase of UV reached the surface with the reduction of ozone?
I would like some research on this point.
I object to his ridiculous nonsense that if you have 20 photons you do not add the energy of the photons to find the total energy.
In one example he has different energy photons and concludes they do not merge into a higher energy level photon. I agree with that point but the energy will add in an absorbing surface. If you have 30 eV of energy absorbed by a surface it does not matter if it is by one photon, 30 or 3000. The end result is the same, the object increases by 30 eV.
N,
Try and figure out how to get water to absorb photons from ice emitting 300 W/m2.
Lots of energy available. How much hotter does the water get? What happens to the photons from the ice that impinge on the water?
Questions, questions, I know! I also know you don’t have any answers, do you?
Maybe you need to do more research. Let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
Norman,
“The part of his ideas that UV light could be the cause of ocean warming is not a bad idea and should be looked into. How much of an increase of UV reached the surface with the reduction of ozone?
I would like some research on this point.”
This is exactly the question that got me looking for material on UVB exposure at the surface…
I found lots of material describing the effect of increased uvb exposure on organisms, but nothing on the effect of uvb on ocean temps, except for Dr. Ward.
I find it astounding that there is nothing out there examining this, or that if there is, it is unavailable…
If you find something please pass it along…
Forthose who think that one cold day disproves global warming:-
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1321:_Cold
For those who think that EM can produce a testable GHE hypothesis . . .
Cheers.
If one cold day doesn’t disprove it, then one how days doesn’t prove it. Is that fair?
The Arctic air from the north falls to the US.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=ak&product=ir
Frozen air will reach even southeastern states.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/4tosr0u5vsyu.png
Frozen air will reach even southeastern states.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/4tosr0u5vsyu.png
23F in Dallas at 5:00 am.
Please read with my comments.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/hockeystick-con-job-co2-cant-cause-temperature-dog-legs/?fbclid=IwAR0aBr9uR7KwPUN1b0sDZVRXFxnkr-S8a_706nKiTb32JxS13gV71UVZbqQ
Good find ren, TSI for Holocene, that’s neat.
Svante, please stop trolling.
No I meant it, ren found an interesting scientific paper.
It has something I didn’t think I would ever see, a TSI estimate for the entire Holocene.
I have no reason to say it’s wrong, who does?
Yes, I meant it too. Svante, please stop trolling.
If my post of a few minutes ago ever appears – Please ignore it
Temperatures in some areas for the entire month of February have been close to 30 degrees below normal in Montana. During the first few days of March, the temperature departures have been even more extreme.
On Sunday, Great Falls, Montana, had an average temperature departure of 50 degrees below normal with a high of minus 8 and a low of minus 32. The average high and low for the city are 42 and 19, respectively.
Meanwhile, Britain just had its warmest winter days ever. There have been heatwaves in the past week in southern Australia, Europe and large parts of Asia. If you want to report weather instead of climate, how about you try some unbiased reporting.
B,
Meanwhile, climate remains the average of weather.
If you are determined to keep countering, how about you counter the tendency to trollish behaviour.
Cheers.
When it’s cold, the planet is cooling; when it’s warm, alarmists are at work.
ren
“The average high and low for the city are 42 and 19, respectively.”
You mean the yearly averages, of course.
“On Sunday, Great Falls, Montana, had an average temperature departure of 50 degrees below normal…”
That, ren, is wrong.
You have to calculate, for e.g. 1981-2010, the average temperature for March 2-3, and then you can subtract that average from the actual value. And then you have the correct departure aka anomaly.
Here are the 10 lowest GREAT FALLS records for March 2:
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1896 3 2 -32.8
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 2019 3 2 -31.7
USC00243753 MT GREAT FALLS WFO 2019 3 2 -28.9
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1960 3 2 -28.3
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1976 3 2 -27.8
USC00243753 MT GREAT FALLS WFO 2014 3 2 -26.7
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1978 3 2 -26.7
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 2014 3 2 -26.0
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 2014 3 2 -25.6
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1930 3 2 -24.4
But… 50 C below normal ???
Btw, Here are the 10 lowest GREAT FALLS records for February:
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 15 -45.0
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1893 2 1 -41.1
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 17 -39.4
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1899 2 11 -37.2
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 14 -37.2
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 16 -37.2
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 18 -37.2
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1939 2 9 -37.2
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1989 2 3 -37.2
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1996 2 2 -37.2
It’s very very cold there! I wouldn’t like to live in such a place.
1936 must have been quite a bit hard.
Bindidon says “But… 50 C below normal ???”
The GTF temperatures are in Fahrenheit, not Celsius.
This is not for the deniers, who will say its all rubbish, it is for those who accept that temperatures are rising, but dont want to do anything about it.
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/nclimate3013-f1.jpeg
The graph shows the various possibe tipping points as a function of temperature.
The question for you is “If these are realistic, how much temperature rise do you regard as acceptable?”
EM,
The question for you is “If CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, why has the surface cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?”
Once you have answered that, another question might be “Why can’t anybody devise a testable GHE hypothesis?”
I have a few more, but you can’t even answer the easy ones, can you?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Both questions have been answered here, but you refused to accept the answers.
I suggest you crawl back into your cognitive dissonance cave and let the rest of us have a sensible conversation.
For the non-deniers, remember that we are already committed to the bottom of the Paris range.
EM,
No they haven’t. If they had, you would no doubt take great delight in posting copies here. You could have a good laugh at my expense!
Alas, your fantasies cannot change reality. No testable GHE hypothesis. No CO2 heating.
As usual, I decline to comply with your suggestion. I do as I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it. Why do you waste your time endeavouring to bend me to your will?
Are you completely dim, or just extremely stupid and ignorant?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
E-man,
You flit and flitter around Dr. Spencer’s site and then you accuse someone else of cognitive dissonance. Very odd.
Flit/flitter = cognitive dissonance?
If that’s what you mean your comment is false.
If not, your comment is meaningless.
barry, please stop trolling.
Essentially I’m asking which tipping points you are willing to cross and which one you would prefer to avoid.
E-man, you appear to be at your own “tipping point”. Your question began with “If these are realistic…” Was that a Freudian slip?
In your pseudoscience, you can never use the word “if”. The “science is settled”. There is no “if” in cultism. Are you actually questioning the “realism” of pseudoscience?
Maybe the fog is lifting….
Just usual scientific practice. No scientist is ever certain.
Your certainty that I am wrong marks you out as a non-scientist.
It’s not my “certainty”, E-man. It’s the certainty of the relevant established physics.
“Institutionalized Pseudoscience” has corrupted your mind.
While North America experienced an unusually cold February, we had one of the warmest Februaries evah…
We enjoyed.
I remember the Februaries 1956 / 1963 / 1986 / 1987 / 2010, and think these guys were enough for my whole life.
Bindi,
Let me correct you. Coldest on record.
Anderson
“Let me correct you. Coldest on record.”
*
You? Correct me? Wow.
I just downloaded the newest GHCN daily data up to March 3, and generated the sequence of all days in the US with an absolute temperature below -30 Celsius since beginning in the XIXth century.
AK was sorted out because it’s cold anyway there.
The ascending sort of all this data gave on a search for 2019/2018
– 2 days between positions 11-100;
– 11 below position 1000;
– 192 below position 10000.
2 % of the 10000 lowest temperatures in Jan/Feb 2019, none in March 2019, none from thre entire 2018 ?!
Believe me, Anderson: if there had been anything ‘coldest on record’ this year or last year, then the list certainly would look quite different.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Hi Geoff,
The actual numbers using raw data from the BOM site for Macquarie Island show a trend value for the last 70 years of 0.1 C per decade for maximum temperatures 0.08 C per decade for minima.
Accordingly the maximum temperature has inceased by 0.7 C and minima by about 0.6 C since 1949.
The raw BOM temperature data for Macquarie Island can be found here.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=38&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=300004 .
It can be informative to fact check the many claims by commenters on this site. So many are total “taurus excreta”.
MikeR
This discussion about Macquarie Island sounds a bit strange, but… according to NOAA’s GHCN daily dataset, the trend there for the average temperature since Jan 1973 is… 0.00 C / decade (there is no data before).
The linear estimate for BoM’s minimum measurements since 1973 seems to confirm this: 0.02 C /decade. Thus the warming phase seems to have happened before 1973.
And indeed: the linear estimate for BoM’s data during 1949-1972 is 0.18 C / decade.
MR,
Have you read the BOM disclaimer at the bottom of the page?
Would you buy a used car (or anything else) from this organisation?
In any case, history tells you nothing about the future. Only the stupid and ignorant believe so, but luckily there seems to an inexhaustible supply of fools, so the future sellers can keep plying their silly trade.
Still no CO2 heating. Still no testable GHE hypothesis yet.
Cheers.
Still no brain under Flynn’s skullcap yet.
Are you the same Bindidon who said he was going to ignore me?
Or are you another Bindidon of the trollish variety, who resorts to pointless ad homs?
So many Bindidons, so few answers. Have you read the BOM disclaimer? Do you not believe the BOM’s reservations about its data?
Keep believing that you can predict the future from the past. Can you predict horse race winners? How about the stock market? Are you fabulously wealthy yet? No? I wonder why – (only joking, of course).
Cheers.
That is the reason why I use polynomial or running means instead of these misleading straight trend lines:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NvVhKls4BsDWqWe32euvcTNDyocguQUm/view
Sorry the above was meant to reply to Geoff Sherrington above see – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-343952 .
BoM’s data is correct, but your interpretation of their data is a bit dangerous.
B,
Not according to the BOM.
“the Bureau does not give any representation or warranty of any kind . . . in relation to the . . . accuracy, . . . quality, reliability or suitability for any purpose . . .”
Blow me down! According to you, the BOM doesn’t know as much about its data as you do.
Who to believe? I wonder.
Cheers.
Hi Bin,
I did not bother to convert to anomalies after seeing the Berkely Earth data which is in agreement. I went with a trendline from February 1949 until January 2019 so the end and start dates should not be an issue.
The Berkely Earth data shows for the mean temperature a trend of 1.08 C per decade (see http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/151586 ).
Having a bad hair day. The trend should be 0.108 C per decade of course. Sorry about that.
Hang on a second, climate is 30 years of weather 2019-1973=46 years so we have more than enough data to show that Macquarie Island is a AGW dead zone at 0.02C/decade.
Anyone care to explain or is this brushed aside with the obligatory CO2 causes cooling and warming and everything (zero trends) inbetween?
Snowfall in the southeast US.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/s6o7279r784e.png
Hi Krakar,
Yes if you choose to ignore the data before 1973 then you can get low trend values. If you use 47 years as your climatological criterion then are 25 such data sets starting for annual data for April 1949 to 1995 inclusive (data set 1) with the last for 1972 to 2018 (data set 25).
The values you get for these 25 data sets range from -0.018 to 0.14 degrees per decade so a cherry picker has many opportunities to select a 47 year period to suit their argument.
For example the 1973 to 2018 cherry pick gives a trend close to zero with an upper bound of 0.07 and a lower bound of -0.07 degrees per decade. The P value is 0.99.
Reminder for those with limited or no statistics the p value should be 0.05 or lower for statistical significance.
In contrast if you use all 70 years of data the trend is 0.09 degrees per decade with a lower bound of 0.05 and an upper bound of 0.13 degrees per decade. The p value is significant at 0.00004.
The 30 year climatological rule is probably appropriate for large data sets such as global data or data for large regions which have low ” noise”. For single stations and, particularly if the absolute value of the trend is small, then 47 years may not be long enough. In general the longer the better. Cherry picking shorter periods may give you your desired result but is a dumb idea because you are throwing away information. Shannon would turn in his grave.
MR,
You are right. Cherry picking periods shorter than four and a half billion years or so (the age of the Earth) is just stupid.
Over that period, the surface has cooled. Nothing stopped the surface cooling. Not CO2, not four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. Nothing.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just continual pseudoscientific assertions that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
What nonsense!
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
If you have access to data for daily max and min temperatures at a resolution of 0.1 C for Macquarie Island prior to April 1948 I think you should provide it. It could settle these disputes, particularly if it goes back 4.5 billion years.
Do you have it on punch cards or paper tape?
Cheers and try to keep cool.
MR,
Actually, when the Earth’s surface was molten (four and a half billion years or so ago), the minimum temperature everywhere was above that of the lowest melting point of rock.
A large blob of molten rock in space (the Earth) gets colder, not hotter, as time goes by. Maybe you don’t believe it, but Newton’s Law of Cooling still applies, as far as I know.
Oh well, pseudoscientific silliness keeps me amused. More, please.
How about asserting that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter! Look serious while you write it – that might turn fantasy into fact.
On the other hand, maybe not.
Cheers.
While I have yet to dismount my hobby horse, I think it might be opportune to point out to all those who frequent these comment sections, that a relatively constant forcing due to increasing C02 definitely does not imply that temperatures everywhere on the globe will increase (or decrease) uniformly and at the same rate.
I would have thought it would have been patently obvious that there are large variations spatially obviously due to a large range of geographic factors (witness the differential in temperature trends between equatorial regions the Arctic, Antarctica etc, etc.) . These factors include topography, insolation, proximity to sea , land, sea ice, ice on land, prevailing winds etc.. . Accordingly, anyone who claims that each region should respond identically to an increase in CO2 is either a fool or someone who is trying to run a straw argument.
Likewise, the idea that a constant forcing means that the temperature at a particular location or region must increase uniformly over time is propagating nonsense or skilled at constructing straw men (sometime overtly but often implicitly).
Only those who are blissfully ignorant of other factors that modulate or modify the temperatures, such as El-Nino, PDO, AMO (and the other quasi periodic factors denoted by a range of acronyms) , aerosols and volcanic activity, will fall for this kind of crap. I thought again, it would be obvious that sometimes the trend is less (even a pause or decrease is likely over some sub-interval) and at other times it will be greater than the average trend. Claims that this variation means that the global climate is unaffected by monotonically increasing concentrations of CO2, is to put it kindly, bizarre.
Today’s sermon is now over and I suspect that this will fall on deaf ears (or ears and eyes obscured by hands) and the usual suspects will continue to trot out their usual zombie arguments.
MR,
You still have to overcome one giant hurdle. It’s called physics.
There is no testable GHE hypothesis, because such a thing would involve magic.
Give it a try. First, you will have to properly describe the GHE. How hard could it be?
Good luck.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
For the benefit of any lurkers.
The greenhouse effect is the reduction in outgoing infra-red radiation from a planetary atmosphere due to the presence of gases which absorb and reradiate in the infra-red.
You can see this in the outward radiation spectrum. The black line is the actual radiation. The red line is the spectrum you would see if there were no greenhouse gases.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
EM,
Doesn’t work, does it? The surface cools every night. Overall, it has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. No longer molten, you should have noticed by now.
The other major problem with your pseudoscientific nonsense is that insulation works in both directions. Hence, the highest surface temperatures are found in arid tropical deserts, characterised by the least GHGs in the atmosphere. No trapped heat. No accumulated heat. You are as dim as Trenberth.
Carry on being stupid and ignorant. CO2 provides no heat. No “Hottest year EVAH!” due to slower cooling. No GHE.
Cheers,
E-man, just a few errors, so you can learn how they’ve corrupted your mind.
1) Your link is NOT the “actual radiation” from Earth. It is a computer model.
2) The computer model does not show the shorter (visible) wavelengths. Earth is definitely visible from space.
3) The red line represents 294K. Earth’s average temperature is 288 K.
4) Just because atmospheric gases can re-radiate does not mean they can warm the surface.
This is the real data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
I’ve never seen that before, E-man. Thanks.
In a way, it is “data”. It is more data showing the AGW/GHE is nonsense. I stopped reading, due to laughter, when I got to this: “The dashed line represents a ‘blackbody’ curve characteristic of 300° K [sic]…”
Ignoring the fact that he uses the degree symbol (°) with “K”, thought out, he believes the curve is “characteristic” of 300 K. But the curve peaks at about 15 μ, corresponding to 193 K.
Maybe he also denies 2LoT, and believes 193 K can warm 288 K?
(Got anymore funny “data”?)
JDHuffman, MikeFlynn
It is curious how the theoretical models of outward and downwelling radiation look like the real data.
The theory describing the greenhouse effect is correct and you are talking bullshit!
E-man, it’s curious how you are so easily deceived. The models don’t match the real data, because there is NO real data. There are only some cherry-picked, possibly “homogenized” incomplete “picture”. There is NO continuous global measurement of Earth’s surface emission and there is NO continuous global measurement of Earth’s DWIR.
Sorry, but your belief system is nonsense. It might be time to think for yourself.
EM,
Unfortunately, Nature demonstrates that your explanation of the GHE as ” . . . reduction in outgoing infrared . . . ” is completely meaningless, as is your insistence that brightly coloured diagrams are meaningful.
In the long term (over four and a half billion years), the Earth has cooled.
In the short term (after the Sun has passed the zenith) the surface temperature falls – nighttime is an example.
Ira Glickstein wrote –
“Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up.” More stupid analogies. Not just a blanket – an electric blanket with with an external power supply!
What a fool!
Try again. See if you can claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, while keeping a straight face.
Keep posting links to your “evidence” if it makes you happy. Have as many tantrums as you like, or throw a few obscenities around. It won’t help.
Cheers.
Em,
“The greenhouse effect is the reduction in outgoing infra-red radiation from a planetary atmosphere due to the presence of gases which absorb and reradiate in the infra-red.”
If you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere it will emit MORE IR at any given temp, not less…
“If you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere it will emit MORE IR at any given temp, not less…”
… but emission to space will be from higher/colder layers.
S,
On the other hand, the surface still cools, doesn’t it?
At night, for example. Temperatures don’t increase. They fall. It’s called cooling.
As to IR, satellites take pictures of the surface – through the atmosphere. Visible, IR, light of many frequencies goes straight through, doesn’t it?
You can even see the Moon and planets, stars as well. You feel the heat from the Sun – IR light.
Try to stop a big blob of molten rock from cooling. Hah!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
No, you can not see the surface through the CO2 bands.
You see something that is 220 K.
It radiates much less than the surface.
Now there’s a testable GHE theory for you.
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
S,
And the surface has still cooled, hasn’t it?
No trapped heat. Your link to a modelling company’s product is irrelevant, isn’t it? Contains exactly no references to a GHE of any sort. As usual.
No testable GHE hypothesis, let alone any theory.
Keep up the pseudoscientific blathering. More pointless and irrelevant links, please.
Cheers.
Svante keeps linking to the MODTRAN computer model, that he can’t understand.
The model indicates a “ground temperature” of 299.7 K, for 400 ppm CO2. If you increase the CO2 to 4000 ppm, leaving everything else the same, the model indicates a ground temperature of 299.7 K. NO change.
Poor Svante. Even his beloved MODTRAN knows the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface.
JDHuffman,
1) Save the 400 ppm run to background.
2) Set 4000 ppm and tab out.
3) Adjust the temperature offset until the flux diff is zero.
4) See what ground temperature you get.
Don’t be scared, it has no feed backs and the impact is logarithmic.
And the resulting conclusion is that you can program a model to get any result you want.
Which was my point. Computer programs are NOT reality. You confuse reality with wishful thinking.
Try writing a program to increase my bank account by a factor of 10000.
It’s bound to work….
Yeah right, physics is wrong and the US Air Force created a program that doesn’t work:
http://modtran.spectral.com/
Physics is correct, pseudoscience is incorrect.
It’s important to know the difference, Svante.
Circulation on the Pacific does not correspond the El Niño conditions.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
That’s because it’s not an El Nino. According to BOM, the rising Pacific equatorial temperatures are just a transient and will be falling back to previous values over the next fortnight. But as you don’t trust BOM, you seem to have a bit of a dilemma.
B,
What’s your point? Are you trying to say that the BOM can predict the future, unless you don’t trust it?
Or are you just trolling?
What a fool – ignorant and stupid, to boot. Well done.
Cheers.
Within 36 hours, the Arctic air will attack both on the east and on the west coast of North America.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/7gyaa0m0x8y2.png
Ohhh … I see the relevance! JKS
B,
Do you really? Looks like you are just trolling, to me.
Cheers.
MikeR
I understand your position. But taking Macquarie I as example is wasting energy because an abrupt warming stop over 45 years should let you think that something special happened there.
Look for example at the situation in Norway in Northern Europe.
This is a chart showing temperature anomlies wrt 1981-2010 for 1880-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T9eUy-1EgWhpK15T6pocaTUS2Y3nLyql/view
And this is one showing those for 1979-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XSa6zSuSt1r0Zy8_Reaq-ACbNAxjyHXS/view
As you can see, the linear estimates follow the long time running means. There is
Estimates in C / decade:
1880-2018: 0.29 +- 0.01
1979-2018: 0.53 +- 0.06
2000-2018: 0.40 +- 0.17
and
2010-2018: 1.63 +- 0.55
Since 2000, around 100 stations are collecting data in that corner, within over 25 grid cells of 70000 km2 each.
That is the difference I’m talking about.
Maybe when I have some time I’ll generate a GHCN daily trend list, country by country.
So we could have a look at how the worldwide average estimate of 0.20 C / decade is spatially and temporally distributed…
The solar cycle is linked to both El Nino and the Southern Ocean temperatures. Use a 5 year moving average on the ocean temperature data and the link becomes very obvious. Basically, the frequency is the same, but the period start point is offset. (delay)What will the weakening sun and the magnetic field do to these cycles? Who knows, but yeah let’s keep Co2 front center and worry about 0.36 deg C of global warming when we should be worried about the Holocene abruptly ending similar to events seen in the proxy data. Also imagine a modern day Carrington event with a weak magnetic field and all this dependence on the grid. Where are our priorities?
Visible two centers of the polar vortex, compatible with the geomagnetic field, at the level of 500 hPa.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/78jbwkchc613.png
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
Yeah I noticed that Ren first hand as I live right here in Michigan and I’ve watched that double vortex centered around the magnetic poles and El Nino trade punches. I was frankly surprised that the Feb data for USA48 came in where it did. I was expecting colder. The image shows for Detroit shows +2 deg C when the recorded temps averaged +0.2 deg F per NOAA. It’s just one spot check near where I live, and I understand it’s energy lost not the same as temperature but that is a large difference. As long as the methodology remains the same, we can use it to gauge the trends regardless. Around here summers are still getting warmer, but winters colder for 17 years now. I don’t believe NASA for one minute that there was no cooling from 1940-1980. I mean, it was public knowledge at the time things were getting colder with more ice, and they were worried about an ice age. How do they continue to get away with this? My friends and family are all brain washed! How to solve that is the biggest mystery. Anyways, the frustration is fresh for me because I really didn’t investigate this for myself until last October when I downloaded NOAA and HADSST data and checked for myself once and for all… and down the rabbit hole I went.
A new idea for a game to play with global warming alarmists:
#1 Have them pick any city in the US.
#2 You pull the NOAA data and show them there was cooling from 1940-1980 that NASA didn’t report it.
#3 You show them a near by small weather station chart to show them the heat island effect from cutting down trees and pouring concrete is greater than Co2.
Berkeley Earth found that 1/3 of all US stations went down.
It is only the average that goes up.
S,
Just as a matter of interest, Berkeley Earth is nothing to do with the University of California, Berkely, but chose the name of its non-profit organisation (to ensure exemption from some Federal income taxes) to give an aura of authority, I believe.
Currently, they seem more interested in convincing the Chinese to stop smoking, and giving China incentives to stop using coal.
You can donate money via PayPal if you wish. They received $417 in 2014 from online donations. Every little bit helps.
Cheers.
That’s right Mike.
Svante, please stop being Svante.
No, you misunderstand again, I meant it.
Mike was more or less right, for once.
No, I understood. Now, Svante, please stop being Svante.
He did not address the point, but what he said was not completely wrong.
Still being Svante…
Get ready for March 10.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/03/10/1200Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-92.05,44.27,3000/loc=-88.937,44.681
Spot on Scott. The ending of the holocene is going to be a bitch.
Chances are you never heard of this guy , but he can destroy the global warming idiocy in 20 minutes
https://youtu.be/7s2uI5gB85E?t=908
You’re right!
I’ve never heard of this guy.
Don’t feel too bad , he never heard of you either.
Dont feel too bad , he never heard of you either.
First chuckle of the day (-:
I like these ‘specialists’ who behave here as if they were the Science Pope in person.
https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/instruments/sirs
https://www.archive.arm.gov/discovery/#v/results/s/finst::sirs/fpmt::irradlwbbdn
https://www.archive.arm.gov/arm/Thumbnail2.jsp?datastream=sgpsirsC1.b1&startDate=01/01/2019&varName=down_long_hemisp_shaded
Click on a day, thus activating
https://www.archive.arm.gov/arm/Quicklook.jsp
and a new window appears showing the graphs you need (SWIR, LWIR).
It shouldn’t be too hard to find the corresponding data source.
I don’t need it actually, so I won’t search.
Denialism is really one of the most stupid behaviors.
B,
You don’t deny that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, do you?
You don’t deny that the Earth’s surface cools each night, do you?
You don’t deny that the proposition that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, is an impossibility, do you?
You see, it’s easy to accept fact. No denial needed. No testable GHE hypothesis exists. No CO2 heating exists.
Keep trying to predict the future by looking very carefully at the past, if you wish.
Cheers.
Bindidon proclaims: “Denialism is really one of the most stupid behaviors.”
It ranks right up there with “rabid bloviation”, huh Bindidon?
Fun to watch: Ric Werme’s Ensometer at WUWT.
https://werme.bizland.com/werme/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
After a long stay below 1.0, and another long stay just above 0.5, followed by a couple of weeks at the top of the neutral region, the lazy guy feels spring coming and now goes back up to the yellows.
Klaus Wolter’s MEI is actually inactive:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
but should soon come back to us.
Two weeks ago, we saw on the Japanese El Nino page at the bottom of Fig. 2
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
a Nino/normal ratio of 60/40; the bottommost line is now again at 70/30.
Ein Schritt hin, ein Schritt zurück, ein Schritt hin. So ist unser Niño eben…
To add to the list of ENSO watchers:
For NOAA metrics, it’s likely a weak el Nino will be called for the last 6-7 months when March data come in. Their metric is NINO3.4 region sea surface temperatures at 0.5C or above for 5 consecutive 3-month blocks.
Data
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Forecast
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
BoM has a higher bar for a full blown ENSO event: 0.8 C above/below average for NINO3.4 SSTs. Here is their forecast.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Thx barry, I know these sources. But I prefer to keep near JMA and MEI, they were the most accurate all the time.
I can understand the preference for MEI – more factors contribute to the estimate – but I don’t know how you work out that JMI is ‘most accurate’, as there is not really a benchmark.
Bindidon, barry, please stop boring.
For the CORRECT PHYSICS about climate change view my 15 minute video at https://youtu.be/1BEN3iJzlrI as the information therein will blow your mind.
2LOT confusion again.
‘Scientist’ is none other than D*ug C*tton, who has been banned here multiple times, and is still peddling the same rubbish as usual – namely that gravity creates heat.
Here is a physics professor briefly answering that question:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19799&t=does-gravity-cause-a-temperature-difference
So why was he banned?
Because he posted extremely long screeds saying the same thing over and over, and Roy Spencer didn’t want bad physics clogging up the blog.
We still have similar today from others, but the screeds are much shorter.
Anyway the banned one used sock puppets. This is his latest after a long hiatus.
Roy’s post on it was more genial…
https://tinyurl.com/zkuo33b
WUWT claims most of the skeptical blogosphere has banned him.
https://tinyurl.com/y4fsm9x3
People that find him interesting tend to be the complete ignorati, or other crackpots with similar ideas.
And a bit more from Roy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/blog-comments-suspended/
barry, I remember Dxxg. He used to comment here regularly, and I’ve seen him on other blogs. He gets some of his physics wrong, but at least he knows CO2 can NOT warm the planet.
Like you, he tends to avoid personal attacks and has good written communication skills. And, also like you, he is relentless in forcing his beliefs ahead of the actual physics.
It takes all kinds….
And he has the same 2LOT misunderstanding as Huffman, Flynn, Gordon and DREMT, that a cold object can not influence the temperature of warmer object.
Svante, not that you clowns have any interest in accuracy, but a cold object can cool a warmer object.
Now you can go back to misrepresenting others.
There you are you see, it can cool it more or less.
If the cooling was in balance with a warming influence it can bring the warm temperature both up and down.
When you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, just ramble in circles.
Yes you do.
Nice misrepresentation, Svante.
You’re learning quickly to be a clown. Too bad you can’t learn some physics.
Svante doesn’t like reality, I point out that nobody has ever proposed a testable GHE hypothesis, and that the Earth is a big blob of slowly cooling molten rock.
Svante wrote –
“Flynn loops at once on his no-GHE molten rock theory.”
Not my theories. Just facts. Others may decide for themselves, of course.
Cheers.
At what rate is this big blob of molten rock cooling?
b,
Can’t you work it out for yourself? Is your main problem ignorance or stupidity?
Let me know.
Cheers.
Yeah, right, Mike
https://austhrutime.com/precambrian_ice_age.htm
It has warmed since the precambrian.
Many times, warmed, then cooled, warmed, then cooled.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
Wouldn’t an observation other than a warming troposphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere over a sufficiently long period of time falsify the GHE hypothesis?
No, to falsify the greenhouse effect, you would have to show that there are no gases that are active in the infrared spectrum.
That’s all you need to do.
Sure, that would certainly be one way of doing it. There other ways as well. But in terms of an experiment relevant to the UAH dataset an observation other than a warming troposphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere would go a long way towards falsification of the GHE hypothesis. It has the added benefit of satisfying skeptical concerns that this or that experiment hasn’t been conducted on an Earthly scale. Well, this is literally the experiment they’ve been calling for and it’s been going on now since the late 1970’s. Unsurprisingly the UAH observations are consistent with the GHE hypothesis.
bobdroege, bdgwx, please stop defending the GHE.
I’m just trying to help you guys out in falsifying the GHE.
Yes, you’ve been a great help with that, downthread.
JDHuffman and DREMT
You have an idea that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface. Gordon Robertson is also a believer in this Claes Johnson opinion.
Now you can prove to the this blog world with actual tests. At least one of the three of you should be able to do it.
Get hold of a FLIR camera.
To set up a control, find an object with a distinct pattern that you can see when you reflect the image of a sheet of polished metal and will show up in the FLIR camera as this image so you can see what reflection looks like in such a device.
Should give you something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg8bA5zFV5Q
The IR energy from the person’s body is reflected from the glass and you can see his image.
Now once you get your control established with the target object,
Heat a surface to 500 K (don’t use an IR reflective surface for the test, use a material that absorbs IR well). Next take the object with a unique image and heat it to 300 K and bring it toward the 500 K surface. Hold your FLIR at some angle and based upon your physics you will see the image of the 300 K object reflected off the 500 K plate. If you do not see an image you are wrong. I would hope you could post the results on YouTube and put a link to the test for us to see.
I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.
Prove me wrong, you won’t be able to. My physics is based upon actual textbook physics. Yours is based upon blog science where people make up any idea they like and you think accepting them means you have a good open mind.
Science does not care about open minded state. It is about proof of ideas using actual observation, evidence, experiment.
Here’s your mistake, clown: “Hold your FLIR at some angle and based upon your physics you will see the image of the 300 K object reflected off the 500 K plate.”
You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. You’d best stick to your childish insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. That’s all you’ve got.
JDHuffman
Maybe you should try to do an actual experiment and leave your taunting at home.
N,
Why do you keep demanding that others waste their time and effort?
Why not just do the experiment, and post your results?
I assume the answers to both questions are related to you being stupid and ignorant, with a bit of mental derangement tossed in, but of course you might be able to provide evidence to the contrary.
How about it, Norman? Where’s your evidence?
Cheers.
I have done an experiment like the green/blue plate experiment, two different times, two different tests not exactly the same.
You guys won’t believe the results, and that is why I would ask you to do the experiment yourselves.
First one.
I was measuring the temperature of a heater block in a Gas Chromatograph to verify the operation of the instrument.
I removed the column and some insulation and stuck a calibrated thermocouple into the heater block and measured the temperature. It was too cold and I could only get conforming results if I replaced the insulation that I removed, with no other changes, the addition of the insulation raised the temperature of the heater block that the thermocouple was measuring.
Second one, more like the plate experiment.
I put a pot on the stove, I taped a thermocouple to the botton of a plate and put it on the top of the pot. Low heat and waited until the temperature was stable. I then put another plate on top of the first, inverted so there was only contact around the rim of both plates, and made no other changes, and watched the temperature. It went up.
You guys should try your own experiments.
That is if you wish to remain skeptical.
Or hug your pseudoscience like Trump humps the flag.
bob, your experiments show that insulation works.
Unfortunately, they also show you don’t understand the issue.
Maybe you could explain it to me JD.
But only using empirically observed properties of matter.
Actually I showed that adding a cooler object causes a warmer object to become even warmer.
Empirical evidence that something cool can cause something warmer to become even warmer.
Which you would say violates the second law.
But it is evidence that you have no clue about said second law of thermodynamics.
Perhaps some study is in order.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
bobdroege says: on Mar.7 at 9:39PM “Actually I showed that adding a cooler object causes a warmer object to become even warmer. Empirical evidence that something cool can cause something warmer to become even warmer. Which you would say violates the 2nd Law.”
The fact that the warmer object becomes even warmer does not violate the 2nd Law.
What violates the 2nd Law is claiming that the cause temperature increase of the warmer plate is a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the cooler object.
The reality is that every single Joule of heat/thermal energy that caused the increase in internal energy and temperature of the warmer object came from the continuous thermal energy/heat source, and not a single Joule of thermal energy/heat came from a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the colder object.
The cooler object acts as a radiation shield and reduces the transfer of thermal energy away from the warmer object because the warmer object is transferring heat to a higher temperature object than the previous surroundings, which allows the thermal energy from the constant heat source to accumulate in the warmer object, and thus increase the internal energy and temperature of the warmer object.
Thus all laws of thermodynamics are satisfied.
Poor Norman believes “reality” is “taunting”.
You really can’t help someone like that.
1) I indicated where the error was in his latest pseudoscience. He just can’t understand it, as usual.
2) He keeps wanting others to do his nonsense experiments, but he runs from the simple $20 experiment that would prove him wrong.
Norman abhors reality, but excels at insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
N,
How about you perform the experiment yourself? Post the results on YouTube, with a link for us all to see.
Your predictions are not facts.
Here’s an experiment for you. Heat up some water. Put it in a freezer. Acoording to GHE nutters, the water must absorb photons from the walls of the freezer and get hotter. Post the results showing the water getting hotter on Youtube if you wish. Feel free to use as much CO2 as you like.
I don’t even know or care what your looney textbook physics says should happen. My prediction is that water put in a freezer will freeze.
Cheers.
“Heres an experiment for you. Heat up some water. Put it in a freezer. Acoording to GHE nutters, the water must absorb photons from the walls of the freezer and get hotter.”
You haven’t the foggiest idea how any of this works!
Of course, the water absorbs photons from the walls. But just a surely, the water — being warmer than the walls — will emit more photons than it absorbs. So the water cools. All according to the basic physics used by “nutters” like the military, physics professors, and actual practicing chemical engineers. People all the way back to Stefan, Boltzmann, and Kirchhoff had this figured out.
T,
It’s not a question of how many photons. It’s a matter of the frequency of those photons. Single photon detectors can determine the frequency of that photon. Your naive perception has some basis in truth, as generally emissions from the environment are not monochromatic in nature. Hence, laws such as Newton’s Law of Cooling.
However, the takeaway is that the water cools. No heating, and no amount of semantic contortions can change this.
Your references did much good work, but had no experience with quantum electrodynamics. Just as Carnot came up with the Carnot cycle, in spite of the fact he believed in the caloric theory of heat.
So your “basic physics” may be wrong, as well as irrelevant. CO2 provides no heat. There is no GHE which results in higher temperatures due to increased CO2 between the heat source (the Sun), and a thermometer. No heating. A colder atmosphere does not “add heat” to the surface, any more than colder ice adds heat to water.
Anybody who believes otherwise is a nutter, regardless of their qualifications, intelligence, or occupation.
Cheers,
Mike, Your posts are always a fascinating combination of simple truths, simple mistakes, and non-sequitors.
* Both the number and the frequency distribution matter. Since we are assuming a material with high emissivity, then we are — by diffinition — assuming a material that efficiently absorbs all frequencies of IR.
* Newton’s law of cooling is not based on light not being monochromatic.
* The frequency, speed, and wavelengths of light (including IR) was known to scientists in the 1800s. No single photon detectors need. Heck, you don’t even need to know about photons to determine these quantities.
* The takeaway is that water cools … and water warms! Whenever water (or anything else) gains more thermal energy than is loses, it warms up. Whenever water (or anything else) loses more thermal energy than is gains, it cools down. Cool surrounding do not provide heat — this is quite true. The cool surroundings DO impact how easily heat is lost. Hence they must have an effect of temperatures.
Tim says: “The cool surroundings DO impact how easily heat is lost. Hence they must have an effect of temperatures.”
Tim, you keep making the same mistakes. This goes back to the “plates”. The green plate does not affect the emission from the blue plate. The blue plate emits based on its temperature, nothing else. The green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
The spinning airplane prop IS spinning. You can NOT claim it is not spinning based on some arbitrary frame of reference. You would lose another arm trying to prove such nonsense.
Learn some physics.
“Both the number and the frequency distribution matter. Since we are assuming a material with high emissivity, then we are — by diffinition — assuming a material that efficiently absorbs all frequencies of IR”
See, this is what I’m talking about further downthread. Once again, Tim is implying “all photons are always absorbed”, regardless of temperature. Most likely, if I pressed Tim, I would get back a lengthy discussion of all other possible factors which might affect photon absorp.tion, besides temperature. Which, incidentally, is exactly what happened last time. They will not go on record and say: “OK, all else being equal, the only distinguishing factor between two surfaces being temperature, here is why some photons will be rejected, and others absorbed, by the warmer surface…”
At least, I’ve never seen it.
“The green plate does not affect the emission from the blue plate. ”
Right. If the blue plate is at 244 K, it will emit 200 W/m^2 from its surfaces (left and right).
The point is that the green plate affects the ABSOR.PTION by the blue plate. IF the green plate is at 205 K and emits 100 W/m^2 toward the blue plate, those photons get absorbed by the blue plate. They must be absorbed if the blue plate is a blackbody (which was assumed for simplicity for the calculations in the initial problem). Kirchhoff showed how there could be violations of 2LoT if an object absorbed photons of a given wavelength differently that in emitted photons of that wavelength (including for non-blackbodies).
“IF the green plate is at 205 K and emits 100 W/m^2 toward the blue plate, those photons get absorbed by the blue plate.”
False. The blue plate is at a higher temperature.
“They must be absorbed if the blue plate is a blackbody.”
False. You do not get to violate the LAWS of physics with an imaginary object.
“Kirchhoff showed how there could be violations of 2LoT if an object absorbed photons of a given wavelength differently that in emitted photons of that wavelength.”
True. An object can not absorb photons with wavelengths that are too long.
Tim Folkerts says, March 6, 2019 at 3:49 PM:
Major mix-up of observational/descriptive levels, Tim. Power density fluxes (W/m^2) and photons as single entities do not exist within the same realm. This kind of chronic conflation is what causes all the confusion (of people like Norman) regarding the transfer of energy between hot and cold.
The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate, Tim. The warmer plate emit [201-100=] 101 W/m^2 toward the cooler plate. We’re safely at the MACRO level here. If you move down into the quantum (MICRO) realm, you will see individual photons moving both from the warmer plate to the cooler AND from the cooler plate to the warmer, but what you observe, then, is an entirely different phenomenon, not at all a thermodynamic one.
Please try and keep the two levels separate to lessen the confusion.
Kristian
If you will pull my name up and say I am confused then accept my challenge and support your claims. You can’t and you never will.
EMR is not a single fluid or body that flows from one object to another. You have the old view of the caloric.
All bodies emit as unique objects they have no concern about any other objects around them. There is not fluid flow of EMR.
Prove you case, I have proven mine with many links. You only link to your own website. You are a trained geologist and you act like a King expert in Heat Transfer but you don’t even get the basic right and continuously ignore my requests you prove your position. You won’t because you can’t. Your position would make it impossible to see individual objects in room filled with many objects.
No one here is confused but you. You are using an outdated rejected understanding of heat flow. The more valid and correct version is that Radiant heat flow is the amount of energy a body emits MINUS the energy it absorbs from its surroundings.
You also can’t grasp that emission of EMR and the process of absorbing IR are two separate process. There is no dime in one hand taken out. You can have enormous emission from a hot surface and very little absorbing when the hot Moon surface first reaches night or any other combination. They are not one process but distinct separate processes.
I doubt you will put out the effort to defend your crackpot physics. You just make up unsupported declarations like other skeptics on this blog. Never even attempting to prove them.
You use your own blog as proof, JDHuffman uses his own cartoon for proof. Neither of you will ever go to valid textbook science for proof.
Norman, your comment to Kristian on Mar.7,2019 at 8:31PM was a delusional rant projecting your own failings ignorance and misunderstandings of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and physics onto Kristian.
– I’ve seen Kristian expose you 2nd Law deniers’ pathetic and wrong understanding of thermodynamics numerous times.
– None of you has ever refuted anything Kristian has posted.
– You make evidence-free claims that the temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object.
– You can’t cite or quote thermodynamics or heat transfer textbooks to support your crackpot physics and your anti-thermodynamics nonsense.
– You can’t give any real world evidence or examples of your anti-thermodynamic nonsense. Your claimed examples do no such thing. My heat transfer example proves that every Joule of energy that increases the internal energy/temperature of the always hotter object comes from the constant heat source, not from the always colder object. That example proves that you are 2nd Law deniers.
– You are hopelessly confused and conflicted, denying fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer.
– You fail to grasp the fact that even the century-ago physicists recognized that the heat/thermal energy exchange process between two radiating bodies is unidirectional because “the cooling of a hot body and the cooling of a cold body happening simultaneously as part of the same phenomenon, and we describe this phenomenon as the passage of heat from the hot body to the cold one”- Maxwell. You wrongly believe that there are two separate phenomenon, heat/thermal energy being transferred from the hot body to the cold body AND heat/thermal energy being transferred from the colder body to the hot body. No such bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer has ever been observed, detected or measured. The only thing that has ever been measured is the net radiation, which is the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer.
Like Kristian has, I have also exposed you and your fellow 2nd Law deniers’ anti-thermodynamics nonsense in the Australian heat blog article, and years ago here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270274.
Tim continues his pseudoscience: “Of course, the water absorbs photons from the walls.”
Tim, whenever you make such a statement, without the clarification that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water, you are practicing pseudoscience.
Learn some physics, and clean up ypur act.
What else do you need me to clarify for you?
* That the freezer is plugged in and actually cold?
* That it is not salt water that is already colder than the freezer?
* That there is no heater inside the water keeping it warm?
* That there is not a perfectly reflecting layer around the ice preventing transfer of radiation?
There are infinite other things that COULD be happening. Warmer materials always have net radiation flows to cooler materials around them. Kirchhoff stated that more than a century ago. It is not a surprise, nor something that I need to repeat in every post I make!
Tim, AGAIN, whenever you make such a statement, without the clarification that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water, you are practicing pseudoscience.
Learn some physics, and clean up ypur act.
JDHuffman
You look extremely ignorant compared to Tim Folkerts. The difference is he actually studied real heat transfer and you have not. You have read blog posts by fringe crackpots that offer zero evidence for their declarations (hmmm that is what you do all the time) and post this material as if it were experimental physics.
You are wrong in your unsupported anti-science declaration. This one is not even remotely logic.
YOUR CLOWN PHYSICS: “Tim, AGAIN, whenever you make such a statement, without the clarification that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water, you are practicing pseudoscience.”
Freezer walls can raise the temperature of heated water if the freezer walls have an increase in temperature. Your declarations are lame and devoid of rational thought.
You should take your own advice: “Learn some physics, and clean up ypur act.”
Not that you ever will. You are not able to read well enough to learn actual physics. Some short blog articles are hard enough for you to process.
“that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water”
I am curious — do you apply this principle to conduction too? Suppose I plug in my coffee pot (with a constant heater) and put it in my freezer @ -30 C. The water in the coffee pot will reach some warm temperature — maybe 50 C.
Then I adjust the thermostat on the freezer to only -1 C. Are you proposing that the coffee will stay at 50C? What if the walls of the freezer warm to 49.9 C? Will the coffee pot stay at 50 C?
Tim, conductive heat transfer works with ΔT. Radiative heat transfer does not.
Norman, you are just as clueless as usual.
MiHow about you perform the experiment yourself? Post the results on YouTube, with a link for us all to see.
N,
How about I post an imaginary response to your demand that I perform your imaginary experiment?
In what fantasy do you imagine that I would willingly dance to your tune?
Your stupidity is possibly matched by your ignorance. I have no way of knowing. If you had a testable GHE hypothesis, it could be tested. But you haven’t, so it can’t.
The Earth has cooled. No GHE. Cools every night. No GHE.
No CO2 heating – no GHE. Annoying, but true.
Cheers.
Mike, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the core and mantel. Everyone acknowledges they have cooled over the past 4 billion years.
But we are discussing *climate* — temperatures and weather patterns affecting people and plants and animals at the surface. This area has clearly cooled and warmed numerous times over the past 4 billion years. So yes, there has been periods of global warming and periods of global cooling.
Once we acknowledge the actual question at hand, then we can start to address why this warming and cooling might occur.
Tim, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the perversion of physics.
Why do you keep promoting the falsehood that “cold” can warm “hot”?
And don’t try to deny that is what you’re doing.
You need to learn some physics, and clean up your act.
JD, Let’s try some physics and ignore semantics for now. After all, we care about how the universe behaves, not what words people happen to use.
A sphere with an area of 1 m^2 is placed in a vacuum chamber (no conduction or convection). The surface of the sphere and the interior surfaces of the chamber have an emissivity of ~ 1. There is a 500 W heater inside the sphere. The walls of the chamber are cooled to 4.2 K (liquid Helium). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[306 K]
Warm the walls to 195 K (dry ice). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[318 K]
Warm the walls to 273 K (ice melting point). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[346 K]
Warm the walls to 293 K (room temperature). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[357 K]
Is there anything here you disagree with? Does the sphere warm up as the walls warm up?
Tim asks: “Is there anything here you disagree with? Does the sphere warm up as the walls warm up?”
Yes.
No.
Tim, we’ve been here before. This is just the “plates” in a new format. The colder walls can NOT radiatively warm the warmer sphere. The green plate cannot warm the blue plate.
You need an indepth study of radiative physics, heat transfer, and thermodynamics.
So what temperature do YOU think the sphere will be? 306 K in every case? What calculations do you base that on?
“So what temperature do YOU think the sphere will be? 306 K in every case?”
Yes.
“What calculations do you base that on?”
The equation from S/B Law that you used correctly.
The “equation from S/B Law” that I used correctly was the equation that tells us that the sphere will be different temperatures!
P/A = (sigma) (T_h^4 – T_c^4).
This is the equation in every physics and engineering text covering radiation and heat transfers.
Tim, your equation: P/A = (sigma) (T_h^4 – T_c^4). is NOT the S/B Law.
That’s just one of your mistakes.
The S/B Law is: P/A = σT^4
JDHuffman says, March 7, 2019 at 1:26 AM:
Indeed, but in this particular case it tells us nothing.
What we want to find out is whether or not the rate of heat loss (P/A) from the heated sphere to its surroundings changes as those surroundings warm.
Then we need to take the surroundings into account. Hence, the radiative HEAT TRANSFER equation:
P/A = (sigma) [T_h^4 – T_c^4]
What it does is calculate the rate of heat transfer between the object and its surroundings. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is simply the equation above set in an ideal situation where the surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can simply be disregarded – they’re essentially zero:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/431/heat_radiation_from_black_surface_absolute_zero.pdf
But as those surroundings grow warmer, that second term can no longer be ignored, and the net transfer from the object to the surroundings becomes less than the maximum potential.
This becomes a problem for the object once it is already constantly heated by a third body/region, a heat source, like our Sun, or Tim’s 500W internal heater.
You see, the amount of internal energy [U] inside an object is set at the balance point between its heat INPUT and its heat OUTPUT. Our sphere’s heat OUTPUT is its radiative emission flux to its surroundings, while its heat INPUT is constantly provided by its internal heater.
Once the sphere’s surroundings become warmer, the sphere’s radiative emission flux (P/A) to those surroundings becomes smaller, and an imbalance between the sphere’s heat INPUT (constant) and its heat OUTPUT (reduced) arises: Q_in > Q_out => +Q_net => +U => +T. Energy naturally accumulates inside the sphere as a result, which makes it warm. This process will continue until the heat balance is finally restored: Q_in = Q_out => Q_net = 0.
Same thing applies at Earth’s top-of-atmosphere (ToA): heat flux IN from the Sun (ASR) minus heat flux OUT from the Earth (OLR) equals net heat flux. If the ToA net heat flux (ASR-OLR) is zero, then no energy accumulates within the Earth system, and there is no overall warming. If there’s a positive imbalance (ASR>OLR), however, then there will be warming (+U => +T).
Kristian, an object emits based on its surface temperature. Nothing else matters. The surroundings don’t matter.
You appear to be confusing heat transfer with emission.
JD, you missed the point, what happens if heat in > out?
No Svante, I didn’t miss the point. You did!
I was correcting Tim on his physics, again. He did not know what the S/B Law stated. There is no “in > out” involved.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman says, March 7, 2019 at 8:32 AM:
Sure. As long as its surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can be effectively neglected (as in the case of Earth’s heat loss to space (the OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (ToA)). That’s the condition in which the S-B equation was originally empirically discovered and defined (and later mathematically derived).
But the HEAT LOSS from an object is NOT based solely on its own surface temperature (except under the ideal conditions above). And it’s the final balance between an object’s heat GAIN (from its heat source) and its heat LOSS (to its heat sink) that determines its temperature. And temperature is specifically what we’re discussing here.
The heat loss from a warmer object is based on the temperature DIFFERENCE between itself and its cooler surroundings. The smaller that temperature difference, the smaller the heat loss. This is Thermodynamics 101.
When it comes to heat transfer between an object and its surroundings, the surroundings don’t just matter; they make all the difference.
Hehe, not at all. Rather, you appear for some reason to want to divert our attention away from the issue at hand, which is whether or not the surface temperature of a constantly heated object will rise as we make its thermal surroundings grow warmer.
It will. By thermodynamic necessity. The working mechanism is called ‘insulation’. You might’ve heard of it …
“((An object’s) surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can be effectively neglected is) the condition in which the S-B equation was originally empirically discovered and defined (and later mathematically derived).”
Not so Kristian, if you actually walk/drive over to the library, or internet hunt for the original empirical discovery experiment papers, then find the object’s surroundings were also much warmer than the object not “so much colder” as you write.
The radiant energy from a warmer object is NOT based on the temperature DIFFERENCE between itself and its cooler surroundings, the ideal radiant energy emitted at each wavelength (sometimes per steradian when meaning luminous intensity) is solely based on the object’s equilibrium temperature.
This is where Kristian’s confusion from incorrectly using the heat term causes Kristian to make errors in practical atm. thermodynamics. When used correctly, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
“JDHuffman and DREMT…You have an idea that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface…”
Woah there, Norman. Steady on. Now, as we’ve seen further upthread, you’re a little bit obsessed with me, and you’re entirely obsessed with JD – but there’s no need to just make stuff up. JD made the statement that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface, in the comments under an older article, not me. He then stopped commenting under that article. Others there were still commenting, expecting a response, and acting as though the lack of response meant something (trolls being trolls, what do you expect?). So, I did what members of the group of professional sophists who have completely overwhelmed this blog through weight of numbers and are here specifically to defend the GHE month after month (yourself included, Norman) would NEVER do to one another – I put JD on the spot, on a more active thread where he was currently commenting. I brought it up, because I was interested in the discussion. I could have left it, leaving JD to “get away with” saying it without having to defend it, but I didn’t.
It’s not my idea and I’m not saying it’s right, or wrong. What I noted at the time it was discussed in more detail was, those asking others to be skeptical about “all photons being rejected” because of the temperature difference were not asking others to be skeptical of the other end of the scale, that “all photons would be absorbed” despite the temperature difference. All their arguments seemed to imply that there was no temperature-based limit on absorp.tion of photons. This struck me as suspicious.
“I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.”
OK, finally, “most of”. So at least you are acknowledging that there is some temperature-based limit on absorp.tion. So, maybe I can get a straight answer for the first time from one of you guys: by what mechanism is “some of” the IR from the 300 K object rejected by the 500 K object?
DREMT, I didn’t mean to leave your question unanswered. I think I have answered a similar question before, but will do so again.
A 300 K black body will emit a spectrum with the peak energy at a wavelength of about 9.7 μ. The 500 K black body will have a different spectrum with the peak energy at about 5.8 μ. Black bodies, at different temperatures, will have different spectra.
The two spectra will overlap. That is, some of the photons arriving the 500 K BB will actually have enough energy to be absorbed. That is confusing to clowns, because they believe “absorbing” translates to “raising the temperature”. That’s why I changed the ΔT, trying to make it less confusing.
They just don’t understand the relevant physics, and can’t learn. If you try to teach them with simple examples, they just get frustrated and start hurling their slime.
The 500 K BB absorbing SOME photons from the 300 K BB does NOT translate to “cold” warming “hot”. It is analogous to pouring a liter of 20 C water into a 100 liter bathtub of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the 100 liter vat, but the temperature did not increase.
Again, I apologize for missing your question. I always try to reapond to responsible questions.
Not a problem, in fact when I raised the point at the more recent article you were commenting under, you did provide a straightforward answer at the time, in response to Chic.
I would like to hear from Norman, about his statement about how the 500 K object is absorbing “most of” the IR from the 300 K object. This implies he agrees that at least “some of” the IR is rejected. I’d like to know whether the mechanism he proposes for “some of” the IR getting rejected is actually just the same as what you explained to Chic, in the first place. I have never seen a straight answer, from any of the GHE defenders, on a temperature-based reason why ANY IR would be rejected rather than absorbed. It simply is not something they seem to want to go on record as discussing (perhaps because it does away with their “intelligent photon” straw man that they like to bash).
I’ll give you a straight answer to this.
“I have never seen a straight answer, from any of the GHE defenders, on a temperature-based reason why ANY IR would be rejected rather than absorbed.”
It will either be reflected, ab.sorb.ed, or transmitted.
Which doesn’t depend on temperature.
At least I am not aware of any experimental evidence for temperature affecting how a material reacts to light.
You could melt a mirror and say, look, it stopped reflecting light, but that is not what we are discussing.
So I can go on record saying the infrared from the CO2 in the atmosphere is ab/sorbed by the surface of the earth and this is the greenhouse effect, which slows the cooling of the surface.
Is that what you wanted?
“Which doesn’t depend on temperature”
Well thanks bob, it’s nice to have the extremist viewpoint so openly and straightforwardly declared. Was actually hoping to hear from Norman, but I guess you’re all the same, and speak with one united voice on every subject. So, cheers.
bobdroege says:
Yes, there is no temperature factor in an ab.sorb.ptance table, is there?
https://tinyurl.com/yy6rjd4b
Having said that, I think Norman found a description of such an effect a couple of years ago. It occurred at several thousand degrees if I remember correctly.
Dremt,
I did notice that you are using rejected when the common term is reflected so I think you are not playing in the right ballpark.
It’s a two color problem, if you are not in the Dremt and JD camp, commonly referred to as the ****** (a small French coin) camp, then you are an extremist.
I would say the greenhouse effect is responsible for making the environment on earth comfortable and suitable for life, that wouldn’t be an extremist position or would it.
“It’s a two color problem, if you are not in the Dremt and JD camp, commonly referred to as the ****** (a small French coin) camp, then you are an extremist.”
No, I actually thought I’d made it pretty clear that I considered “all photons rejected” or “all photons absorbed” the extremes. “Rejected” is the term Norman used, and I was attempting to talk to Norman.
Optical properties of surfaces are vastly complicated when you get into the nitty-gritty.
How well light gets reflected (not “rejected”) or absor.bed from a surface depends on (among other things).
* the bulk material
* oxidation, etc at the surface
* surface roughness
* the wavelength of the incoming light
And yes, the temperature of the surface can make some difference too (but not in he way many seem to think).
Emissivity is one step more complicated. We need to integrate absor.ption over all the wavelengths that the surface could emit at its current temperature. For instance, silica absorbs nearly all IR below 4 um, so room temp silica would have an emissivity very close to 1.0, since rm temp materials can emit very little EM radiation at wavelengths below 4 um. But heat the silica to 1000 C and now it can emit in the visible range. But in this range, the absor.ption is poor, so the emission is poor, so the emissivity would drop well below 1.0.
Basically, the details are complicated! ALL of these values are functions of many variables, including temperature.
OK Tim, I guess Norman will stand corrected on the “rejected” term, but it doesn’t particularly bother me what words people use, when we’re talking about the same thing in any case. I’d say that’s pretty much the response I was expecting from you, although you did surprise me by including any place at all for temperature in your explanations. A bit more honest than bobdroege or Svante. Thanks. More input awaited.
I accept what Tim says, so now I’m a bit more honest too.
Great! Keep working on those basic human qualities.
Svante
Here are a couple links demonstrating the change in emissivity based upon temperature. One is of GHG and the other a solid surface.
Both decrease with an increase in temperature. My research from statistical thermodynamics is that as the object gets hotter more surface molecules are in excited states and will not absorb incoming photons.
Gases:
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
One solid surface:
https://www.irsm.cas.cz/materialy/cs_content/2016_doi/Zhang_CS_2016_0023.pdf
Norman and Tim have stumbled on why the green plate can NOT warm the blue plate.
Let’s see if they can learn from their findings.
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team:
The reason I chose the term “rejected” over the term “reflected” is because of the nature of the point.
A highly reflective material will remain highly reflective regardless of the temperature.
In JDHUffman’s original post was an object of high emissivity (which would also have an equally high abs.or.b.iti.vity.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342738
That would mean the 500 K object is not a very reflective object at all so I am indicating the difference by stating the surface must them be “rejecting” the photons.
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Here is a link to a calculator that will determine the fractional amount of molecules that are in an excited state for a given temperature and energy threshold.
I am not sure how to use it properly. I believe if you figure it out it should help.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/popfrac.html
Norman,
Yes, the emissivity of CO2 and H20 decrease as they get hotter. This is primarily due to the bands or IR that they can absorb, combined with Wein’s Law. (Not some sort of saturation of molecular vibrations)
For example, CO2 emits well near 14-16 um. If the CO2 is ~ 190K, then Wein’s Law tells us that the peak wavelength is near 15 um. The CO2 is trying to produce IR near 15 um (due to temperature) and it can produce IR near 15 um (based on molecular vibrations), so it emits efficiently, ie the emissivity is high.
If the CO2 is ~ 500K, then the peak wavelength is near 6 um, but CO2 cannot produce IR near 6 um (based on molecular vibrations), so it emits poorly, ie the emissivity is low.
If the CO2 is ~ 1000K, then the peak wavelength is near 3 um, and CO2 can produce IR in a couple bands near 2.5 um & 4.5 um, so it emits efficiently, ie the emissivity is high.
If the CO2 is ~ well above 1000K, then the peak wavelength drops below 2 um, and there are no more strong emission bands for CO2 below 2.5 um, so it emits poorly, ie the emissivity is low.
These exact features are seen in the graph you linked to! Emissivity is high at low temperatures, dips around 500K, rebounds around 1000 K, and then tails off at higher temperatures.
************************************
The same approach works for H20 in your link. It has more IR bands and wider IR bands, so overall the emissivity is higher than CO2. When you get to higher temperatures and shorter average wavelengths where H20 has fewer, weaker bands, the emissivity tails off.
Tim Folkerts
Thanks for the intelligent reply. Yes I think I grasp your point.
As the peak EMR emission of a blackbody (what an emissivity is compared to) moves with increasing temperature the gases emissivity goes down in comparison to the blackbody curve since they can’t emit at those wavelengths. Thanks for correcting my thought.
Tim Folkerts
Let me know if my path of understanding is correct on this one.
file:///C:/Users/Norm/Downloads/Chem350%20notes-5-20111%20(2).pdf
If all the vibrational levels are filled because of a high temperature, the surface will emit a massive amount of IR but can it then absorb external IR or would it then reflect off since all the possible vibrational states of the molecules are filled?
In this paper it shows that for temperatures we talk about (300-500 K) most molecules are in ground states can can absorb all energy that will move the molecules to the correct vibrational state.
I am not sure I am correct in my thinking on this but I want the correct information.
Norman,
Molecules vibrate with quantized energy levels. As you noted, at low temperatures, most are in the ground state. There are multiple excited states, each with an energy h-bar * omega higher than the previous. So even if the atom is in the first excited state, it could still absorb a photon (or get hit my some other molecule) and get bumped to the 2nd excited state.
Norman,
All you need to use that calculator is the energy levels of the bending and stretching modes of the CO2 molecule.
And the temperature.
The energy of the bending and stretching modes can be calculated from the CO2 spectrum, 15 um gives 0.08 ev and 4.3 um gives 0.29 ev.
Plug the energies and temperature in and away you go.
Tim “teaches”:
“…combined with Wein’s Law.”
“…then Wein’s Law tells us…”
Tim, if you’re going to pretend you know some physics, it’s best to get the spelling correct.
WIEN’S
Norman, as I explained, I was not remotely concerned by your use of the word “rejected”. Fine by me. The people who seemed bothered by it enough to mention it were bobdroege and Tim. Tim, the person who said upthread, “JD, Let’s try some physics and ignore semantics for now. After all, we care about how the universe behaves, not what words people happen to use“.
Thanks for your link to the calculator.
Now, you stated that “most of” the IR from the 300 K object is absorbed by the 500 K object. This implies that you think at least “some of” the IR is rejected. What is the mechanism by which you think the 500 K surface rejects “some of” the IR, whilst absorbing the rest? Assume the only difference between the two surfaces is temperature.
DRsEMT, You are tossing out a bogus hypothetical question to add to the confusion. As bobdroege and others have pointed out, there’s no material which exhibits a surface with a complete absorp_tion of a blackbody. But, those photons which aren’t absorbed don’t simply vanish, they will be absorbed by another surface or head out to deep space. If you had read Holman’s section on radiation heat transfer, you would be aware that the geometry of the situation determines where those reflected photons end up. And, there’s the possibility for multiple reflections between 2 bodies, such as parallel planes, which makes the math more interesting.
There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that those photons carry any “memory” of the temperature of their source, besides their wavelength within the emission spectrum. Thus, there’s no reason, based on physics, to claim that the thermal IR EM radiation from a colder body can’t be absorbed by a hotter body.
“DRsEMT, You are tossing out a bogus hypothetical question to add to the confusion.”
Incorrect, Swanson, I am referring to Norman’s statement, that I quoted in my initial comment at March 6, 6:13am, and asking him to explain himself. I am trying to cut through the confusion that others, including yourself, are deliberately adding.
This was the statement:
“I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.”
Swanson, even if a few photons from the colder body were absorbed by the hotter body, they would not raise the temperature of the hotter body. You keep trying, but reality isn’t your friend.
Why do you so obsessed to pervert physics?
DRsEMT, I’m just trying to be sure that you don’t take off on another wild goose chase, like your repeated claims about the insulating effect of the anodized coating on my Green and Blue plates. In that exchange, you never presented any analysis (as in math), to show how large that effect might be. You only posted a reference to a figure in a report that you dredged up somehow, which you completely misunderstood. When I did the calculations, the effect turned out to be trivial. Troll on…
You can’t blame me for being skeptical, Swanson, considering those red flags. I’m not sure calculating the thermal resistance of a material with varying conductivity through the surface is as straightforward as you think. Plus, why would a company selling anodized aluminium claim its product does not conduct heat well? Still not sure about it, and I’m continuing to look into it.
Anyway, back on topic…
And yet, as Swanson pointed out, insulation in the green plate does not change the conclusion.
The green plate is still colder than the blue, but has a positive influence on the blue plate temperature.
Cold warms hot.
How difficult is it to just get a response from one particular person to one specific question!? Wow.
DRsEMT, You aren’t being skeptical. You are denying the science when you tossed out a red herring lacking any analysis to support your conjecture. Calculating the thermal resistance isn’t that difficult, as I demonstrated. Of course, a more accurate assessment is possible, but my back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it’s a small factor. Furthermore, your link to the metal finishing company doesn’t provide any data to support their statement regarding the insulation properties.
Not to mention, you still haven’t come up with an explanation for the warming of the Blue plate after the Green plate is moved. Now that your red herring’s been trashed, where’s your skepticism when it counts?
Swanson, please stop trying to change the topic due to your being butthurt by the massive holes pointed out in your experiment. I think people selling a product are likely to be aware of the properties of that product. Perhaps they, you know, actually tested it? Let me know once you have calculated the thermal resistance going through your plate due to: One layer of paint, thickness and thermal properties unknown. One layer of anodic coating, thickness unknown, conductivity extremely low. One layer of unspecified aluminium alloy, conductivity unknown. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of epoxy adhesive, thickness unknown, conductivity extremely low. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of unspecified aluminium alloy, as previously. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of paint, as previously.
DRsEMT, You are doing it again. You wrote:
If you are really a “skeptic” you would provide some evidence to support your claim that there are “massive holes” in my demonstration. You offer a rather detailed list of the layers on surface of the Green and Blue plates, perhaps to support your contention that these really are “massive holes”. Of course, being a denialist troll instead of a scientist or engineer, you haven’t as yet provided any analysis to back up your claim. Pointing to a graph in a report, which you incorrectly interpreted in claiming it “proves” the anodized layer has a major effect, is not analysis.
It seems that you’re apparently unable to provide a physics based reason for the warming of the Blue plate. I’ve claimed all along that it’s the “back radiation” from the Green plate, which agrees with the text book description from Holman and others who actually work in industry. I hope that you at least agree that radiation shields really do work as described.
Anyway, back on topic…
Norman, you stated that “most of” the IR from the 300 K object is absorbed by the 500 K object. This implies that you think at least “some of” the IR is rejected. What is the mechanism by which you think the 500 K surface rejects “some of” the IR, whilst absorbing the rest? Assume the only difference between the two surfaces is temperature.
As an interesting aside, on my comment directly above, I’ve seen some claim that emissions from a colder object can actually cool a warmer object. That is interesting because if it were true, it would mean the cooler atmosphere can cool Earth’s hotter surface.
Interesting, but hard to prove.
I just pointed my handheld IR thermometer at the sky (high haze). The reading was -52 °F. Pointing the thermometer at the ground, +40 °F.
The AGW clowns tell us the sky warms the ground.
You just can’t help stupid.
JDHuffman
YOUR STRAWMAN: “The AGW clowns tell us the sky warms the ground.”
NO that is NOT what they actually say. It is only what you think they say. I think most have tried to be extremely explicit with you on the correct point, I don’t think it helps you at all.
The actual point is that the cooler sky is much warmer than the much cooler space (in terms of the IR the surface can absorb from each source). With a constant solar input to the surface the Earth’s surface will be warmer with an IR active atmosphere emitting IR toward the surface than if no such atmosphere existed.
Norman, without the atmosphere, the surface would be much colder AND much warmer.
Quit trying to alter reality to fit your perverted opinions.
JDHuffman
That would depend upon the rate of rotation of the body. If the body rotated fairly rapidly it would get much closer to the equilibrium temperature of 255 K over most the sphere. It would be warmer at the equator and colder at the poles unless you added a rapid wobble so the poles would receive more energy.
ibid.
JDHuffman
You are not logical or scientifically knowledgeable to even remotely hope to understand my last post so you can only respond with an empty comment.
Maybe ask gallopingcamel he did some work on this issue.
Not that it would help you. You made up physics is failing you so you only can respond with empty posts.
Pretend you studied physics. Pretend you know heat transfer. Ball4 is right, keep the comedy flowing. Your wacky made up ideas can amuse people. I don’t really have to try to protect science against someone like you. I just can sit back an be entertained at your funny attempts to pretend to know physics. Post on give us a laugh!
Well clown, you got it all in there: Insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
You even managed to mention two of your idols.
Why grow up when you can stay a child forever?
JDHuffman
Are you being intentionally dense?
You keep bringing this point up. I keep explaining it. You don’t understand my explanation and then bring it back up again.
YOU: “It is analogous to pouring a liter of 20 C water into a 100 liter bathtub of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the 100 liter vat, but the temperature did not increase.”
Because you do have more energy added but you also have increased the mass of the water. You had 100 kg of water and after adding you have 120 kg. Now you take the additional added energy and spread it around the greater mass and the temperature drops some.
Bad analogy. You seem to favor the fantasy physics of Claes Johnson over the actual physics of statistical thermodynamics. Your choice, don’t pretend you studied real physics. I have read the crackpot work of Claes Johnson. Bad physics, he does not know what he is talking about.
No Norman, you can’t misrepresent my words to fit your perverted reality.
Adding 20 C water to the larger body of of 40 C water is the analogy to a hotter body accepting photons from a colder body. The temperatures of the larger body of water, and the hotter body, would not increase.
Now, twist reality some more.
Norman, I believe 1 kg of water plus 100 kg of water equals 101 kg of water, not 120 kg. But you’re the expert.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I had misread the post I thought he said add 20 liters to the 100 liters. Doesn’t matter though. You still are increasing the mass along with the energy.
JDHuffman
Your analogy does not represent how the atmosphere would work in the Earth/Sun system. Your analogy would be comparable to adding a cold atmosphere to a non-heated, but currently hot, planet and the surface and atmosphere would reach a colder temperature.
In the real system we have a constant input and output of energy. You make the same mistake all the skeptics seem to make. You are dealing with NON-HEATED objects.
In your bathtub analogy it would be like you heat 100 liters of water to a certain temperature but you have water continuously being added so there is an overflow port on the side. In the first case you have 1 C water continuously added to the heated tub of water. It reaches a certain equilibrium state. In the next case you use the waste of the heated water to heat the cold water before it is added to the tub. You are not adding new energy but reclaiming energy that had already been added. Now the cold water added is 20 C (warmed from 1 C to 20 by the waste from the tub overflow). Do you not see that the tub of water in the second case will reach a higher temperature than in the first case. No new energy was added.
I do not think your mind is capable of understanding the logic of the GHE no matter what analogy is used, no matter what textbook data is given to you and no matter what actual experiments are performed showing you how it works. You refuse to even listen yet you think you possess an open mind and are able to think.
Your thoughts are isolated to only radical unscientific denier blogs. Science deniers like Joseph Postma and Principia Scientific and others. Nothing will change the deep state you are in. Almost like a hypnotic effect I would think, some mantra chanting.
Well, I did ask clown Norman to “twist reality some more”.
And, he did a great job.
My analogy was not about the Earth/Sun system, so his straw man burns off immediately, contributing more valuable CO2 to the atmosphere.
Next he tries to conjure up some imaginary bathtub system that can heat water with “no new energy” being added!
Then, he reverts back to his usual false accusations, insults, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
So you are saying that the water in the bathtub will not be warmer in the second case? Yes or No. I want other posters to see how you respond.
NO EXTRA ENERGY IS ADDED. There is a continuous supply of new energy but no more, above the amount already added, is needed to increase the water temperature.
You are a simpleton phony, you can warm the water with insulation wrapped around it and not add any extra new energy. I gave you one that would be similar to the GHE.
Clown, your example is so poorly worded anyone could make whatever they wanted out of it. You don’t have the ability to understand, or even communicate properly.
All you can do is insult, make false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
What portion of my bathtub analogy are you unable to process? I read it again and it is rather clear.
I think the error is on your ability to comprehend, not my ability to communicate.
No clown. You believe you have a picture in your head, but you can’t put it in words.
Try drawing the picture on paper, if you can. Then, provide a link.
JDHuffman
Since you were not able to explain what parts of my analogy you could not understand it would indicate that you have very poor reading comprehension (which is why you can’t read textbook material or posts more that 10 words long) or you are just a troll. I hope it is the former but suspect it is the latter.
The words are fine, your inability to read well is your problem not mine. Perhaps you should consider the flaw is on your end.
If you are able to point out which parts of my analogy are giving you difficulty in understanding I can work to clear it up. I am certain you are not really interested. The only thing that seems to activate you is trolling.
Just as I suspected, clown. You are unable to draw your “picture”, much less put it in clear words.
Nothing new.
Another wave of Arctic air reaches the Great Lakes.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00980/u6fqkc4t869v.png
Still harsh winter in North America.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=us&product=ir
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/glsea/cur/glsea_cur.png
At last the riddle of climate change has been solved with 21st Century physics supported by overwhelming evidence on Earth and throughout the Solar System. This video presents a whole new paradigm in climate science showing why surface temperatures are not determined by radiative forcing from the cold atmosphere, but rather by gravity forming a stable non-zero temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere, this being the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which thus allows a most surprising heat transfer from cold to hot and yet still in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics because entropy is increasing. See my new 15 minute video at: https://youtu.be/bT1iFhGKOI8
Footnote: Also watch my 7 minute talk to scientists and others outside Parliament House, Canberra…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ihaY_1KSrE
PS: There’s still on offer since 2013 a US $10,000 reward for the first to prove me wrong in open debate where I have right of reply.
Oh! Quel bonheur!
Do_ug Cot_ton (or his newest representative) is back again. Welcome on board!
Please note that I will not respond to comments from those who have not watched these two videos in full (15+8 minutes) and asked genuine questions about the content.
(Independent unpaid researcher into atmospheric and sub-terrestrial physics for Earth and other planets since 2010)
Britain has had it’s warmest winter days ever. That is misleading the MET office temp records don’t go back all that far, so what the temp was before then we don’t know.
UK Ian Brown
This is the top 10 list for the monthly average anomalies wrt 1981-2010 of single UK station measurements for 2018-12 till 2019-02:
UK ___BOURNEMOUTH________________ 2019 1 -2.32
UK ___CRAIBSTONE_________________ 2019 1 -1.56
UK ___LYNEHAM____________________ 2019 1 -1.46
UK ___WATTISHAM__________________ 2019 1 -1.32
UK ___HEATHROW___________________ 2019 1 -1.31
UK ___MANSTON____________________ 2019 1 -1.03
UK ___LERWICK____________________ 2019 1 -0.92
UK ___WICK_______________________ 2019 1 -0.86
UK ___LEUCHARS___________________ 2019 1 -0.71
UK ___SHAWBURY___________________ 2019 1 -0.64
And this is the top 10 list f since 1880-01 (!) :
UK ___WALLINGFORD________________ 1963 1 -8.47
UK ___BUDE_______________________ 1963 1 -7.98
UK ___OXFORD_____________________ 1963 1 -7.88
UK ___LYNEHAM____________________ 1963 1 -7.87
UK ___HURN_______________________ 1963 1 -7.78
UK ___WELLESBOURNE_______________ 1963 1 -7.59
UK ___LECKFORD___________________ 1963 1 -7.53
UK ___WICK_______________________ 1947 3 -7.42
UK ___HAYLING_ISLAND_____________ 1963 1 -7.38
UK ___LYONSHALL__________________ 1963 1 -7.35
Tells us a lot.
Unfortunately, Manley’s work on CET is behind paywall.
I looked at
https://tinyurl.com/y2dpe36z
for older records, but there is only a video.
Ooops I overlooked a line:
UK ___WARRINGTON_________________ 1946 1 -8.82
All data fron NOAA’s GHCN daily record (106 UK stations till 2016, only 22 now).
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Central Arctic totally froze in March.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/yaqq2h5angub.png
barry
You asked the Flynn blogbot upthread:
“At what rate is this big blob of molten rock cooling?”
And as always, the blogbot answered:
“Cant you work it out for yourself? Is your main problem ignorance or stupidity?”
Flynn the specialist in insulting is himself by far the most stupid and ignorant idiot ‘commenting’ here on this blog.
Compared with him, Do_ug Cot_ton is a very intelligent and above all respectable person.
*
Now back to your question. The estimate for Earth’s actual rate of cooling is:
55 K per billion year, i.e. 0.000000055 K per century.
OK?
For further info, look at Verhoogen’s “Energetics of the Earth”,
page 95 ff.
https://tinyurl.com/yydvnysg
Thanks Bindi, we knew the Earth was cooling.
Who the heck is ‘we’ ?
This blog’s Alt-Right group?
B,
We = realists, non-pseudoscientists, followers of the scientific method . . .
You get the general idea.
Cheers.
Oh yes, with Robertson as the ‘gullible follower in chief’ of the pseudoscientific method…
People denying even time dilation! So what.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
B,
You might have misinterpreted what you read somewhat. I did not see any references to rate of cooling of the surface.
However, other calculations for the surface give a figure roughly similar to yours – up to about 4 millionths of a K per year. Or you could take the average so beloved of pseudoscientific climatological types, and assume an initial molten temperature of say, 5000 K, and an age of four and a half billion years.
Anyone who can average weather records to produce climate should have no problem.
Any similarity to a proper calculation, taking into account decreasing radiogenic heat sources, non-linear cooling rates, and such things is purely coincidental.
It doesn’t matter. As you point out the Earth is cooling – not getting hotter. Thanks for referring to real science for a change. It is appreciated.
Cheers.
Water vapor is a ghg. It increased about 7% 1960-2002. During that time, atmospheric WV increased 5 molecules for each CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere. The level of WV in the atmosphere is self-limiting. Except for the aberration of el Ninos, WV appears to have stopped increasing in about 2002-2005 as did GW. CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Stop with the crushing facts Dan. Leftists don’t like crushing facts.
The level of WV in the atmosphere is limited by temperature, and is completely unstable unless non-condensing GHGs gives it some backbone.
Svante, the WV will remain an invertebrate, just like your AGW nonsense.
And just like all anonymous clowns.
Is that the GHG’s are the backbone to WV theory?
That’s right, WV is a feed back.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0485.1
Svante, please stop trolling.
Dan Pangburn
Take some time to translate this document
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf
and read it carefully.
I’m not a fan of this stupid ‘It’s CO2!’ but I’m open to such ideas as well.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bin,, Sorry I missed this earlier. I dont read French but could tell there is an abstract in English below the French one. One of the things I take issue with is the statement that CO2 increases the ghe. I list 8 cases of compelling evidence it does not in Section 2 of my blog/analysis. This is in spite of CO2 being a ghg. My explanation for this apparent contradiction is that the slight increase in absorbers at the surface from the added CO2 is compensated by the added emitters above 10 km or so.
Dan Pangburn says:
“the slight increase in absorbers at the surface from the added CO2 is compensated by the added emitters above 10 km or so”.
This can do the math for you:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Dan, please stop enabling.
Scott
You wrote upthread:
A new idea for a game to play with global warming alarmists:
#1 Have them pick any city in the US.
#2 You pull the NOAA data and show them there was cooling from 1940-1980 that NASA didnt report it.
*
Not NOAA is the problem here: your lack of knowledge is.
You can’t simply pick up some stations out of the database and think you’ll find what you were looking for.
This has beeen shown years ago to Heller aka Goddard, as he tried to show bad NOAA data on the base of a few GHCN stations (whose data he moreover incorrectly analysed).
*
There WAS a cooling between 1940 and 1980, it HAS BEEN recorded by NOAA’s stations, and it IS visible in its processing of that raw station data.
BUT… you don’t see it in local records. You must look at the global CONUS record to see it.
Here are NOAA’s graphs for CONUS’ maximal, average and minimal temperatures between 1900 and 2019, with a linear trend for 1940-1980:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1utWaPYOQ6DIscsZOdU-8qCFqtjge9jmQ/view
As you can see, the cooling trends per decade for this period are 0.18 F, 0.14 F and 0.08 F respectively.
The graphs were obtained from this source:
https://tinyurl.com/y6gfj5kx
Bindi,
You might want to tell James Hansen.
Not my job and interest.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bobdroege wrote –
“So I can go on record saying the infrared from the CO2 in the atmosphere is ab/sorbed by the surface of the earth and this is the greenhouse effect, which slows the cooling of the surface.
Is that what you wanted?”
That will do. No heating. No temperature rise. No “Hottest year EVAH!” Good enough for me.
Cheers.
Find out how the surface temperature rises on the sunlit side of planets like Earth and Venus in my new 15 minute video at … https://youtu.be/bT1iFhGKOI8
Also watch my 7 minute talk to scientists and others outside Parliament House, Canberra at …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ihaY_1KSrE
I only respond to genuine questions about the content of these videos from those who have spent 23 minutes watching them in full.
That was your falsifiable greenhouse effect hypothesis.
Have at it.
b,
You haven’t actually provided a testable GHE hypothesis, but no matter.
You say that CO2 in the atmosphere does not raise the temperature of the surface. Slowing the rate of cooling is still cooling.
I agree.
Cheers.
But if something is being heated at a constant rate and you reduce the rate of cooling, the net result is that the object gets warmer.
So the net result is heating.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Mike, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the core and mantel. Everyone acknowledges they have cooled over the past 4 billion years.”
Tim has decided he can ignore what I wrote, and instead tell me what he thinks I should have written – as usual.
No direct quotation of what I wrote – as usual.
It is accepted by most people that the surface lies between the core and outer space. Its temperature lies somewhere between say 6000 K and around 4 K. Assuming that neither the core nor outer space increase in temperature, the surface as a whole cannot get hotter. I merely point out from time to time the Earth is a big blob of mostly molten rock. Cooling slowly, as Nature decrees.
Tales of the surface heating spontaneously seem far fetched. No plausible physical reason is ever advanced for repositioning the surface along the thermal gradient.
Cheers.
Interglacial periods are the earth’s surface warming between glacial periods within an ice age. So you can either a) deny that ice once covered much of North America and Asia as a “far-fetched tale” or 2) accept that the surface has gotten warmer since 20,000 years ago.
T,
Maybe you could quote me, instead of creating straw men.
Obviously, if the Antarctic reverts to its previous ice free status, it has apparently warmed. However, this is the same as saying that because day is warmer than night, it is due to the GHE.
Nothing to do with any supposed GHE, unless the GHE causes the entire surface of the Earth to become covered with ice, just so when the ice goes away, you can claim it was also due to the GHE.
What reason could you advance for the creation of a snowball Earth? Would the oceans also freeze over? There are a few other problems with your snowball scenario, as well.
If you have a stab at a rational GHE explanation, you’ll need to include the snowball aspect before anybody will believe you. How hard can it be?
Cheers.
MF, In earlier epochs when the Antarctic was warmer, it’s location wasn’t at the South Pole. Then too, the Earth’s climate changed, beginning about 3.3 million years BP, slipping into the period of Ice Ages with short warm periods which we now enjoy. Your Snowball Earth appears to have happened long before that and may have more than more than once.
The GHE does reduce the diurnal temperature range.
Snowball Earth would have been unavoidable for much longer stretches of time had it not been for the GHE since the Sun is ~1% dimmer for every 120 million years in the past.
Paleoclimate is consistent with the GHE hypothesis. It’s much more difficult to solve paleolimate issues like the faint young Sun paradox or the more recent glacial/interglacial cycles if you selectively ignore the GHE.
bdgwx says, March 7, 2019 at 7:50 AM:
Hehe, no. All you need is a difference in total atmospheric mass (weight, density, pressure, viscosity) and a difference in global cloud cover (fraction and distribution), wind/circulation and precipitation patterns.
Simply compare Mars and Venus.
Swanson, bdgwx, please stop defending the GHE.
bobdroege says, March 6, 2019 at 3:12 PM:
No. The surface-heated (warm) ATMOSPHERE “is responsible for making the environment on earth comfortable and suitable for life”. IOW, “the atmosphere” and “the greenhouse effect” are essentially interchangeable phenomena.
The atmosphere is heated by the surface in three ways, conduction, convection, and radiation.
You need all three, and the most predominant is the radiation, because that can heat the whole atmosphere as per the Trenberth diagram and is responsible for 80% of the atmospheric heating.
bobdroege says, March 7, 2019 at 9:24 AM:
No. The three ways in which the atmosphere is heated is by way of 1) the transfer of latent heat of vaporization (evaporation=>condensation), 2) radiation (net LW), and 3) conduction.
Convection only moves energy/heat around inside the atmosphere, not to or from it.
Er, no. You just revealed your utter lack of thermodynamic understanding, bob.
The main single “heater” of the atmosphere is the transfer of latent heat from the surface: 88 W/m^2. Second is the incoming solar heat (net SW): 75 W/m^2. A distant third is the radiative heat from the surface (net LW): 33 W/m^2, and in fourth place is conduction: 24 W/m^2.
Atm. heat IN: 88+75+33+24 = 220 W/m^2
Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)
So the Earth sheds more than 90% of its heat (220 out of a total 240 W/m^2) to space from the atmosphere and less than 10% from the surface.
The atmosphere can ONLY be cooled through radiation to space, but can be heated by both the release of latent heat of vaporization, conduction AND radiation (incoming from the Sun (net SW: ~70%) and outgoing from the surface (net LW: ~30%).
So the atmosphere’s radiative properties in isolation (its ability to reflect/scatter, absorb and emit EMR) act – on balance – to strongly COOL the atmosphere, not heat/warm it.
Kristian tries to make the case: “The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate, Tim. The warmer plate emit [201-100=] 101 W/m^2 toward the cooler plate.”
Kristian’s statement when applied to atm.: The cooler atm. does NOT (!!!) emit 220 W/m^2 toward the warmer sun, Tim. The warmer sun emit(s) [220-220=] 0 W/m^2 toward the cooler atm.
Then Kristian tries to tell readers: The cooler atm. DOES emit 220 W/m^2 toward the warmer sun, Tim:
“Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)”
Heat is not radiation and all this confusion over heat term in Kristian’s writing is thereby shown by Kristian telling two opposite stories.
Heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE. End of story.
Ball4 says, March 8, 2019 at 8:12 AM:
Hehe, no, troll.
The Earth emits [220+20=] 240 W/m^2 (net LW, OLR) to space, not the Sun. It absorbs 240 W/m^2 (net SW, ASR) from the Sun.
This is pretty elementary, wouldn’t you say so, troll?
Sorry. I’ll go again:
Ball4 says, March 8, 2019 at 8:12 AM:
Hehe, no, troll.
The Earth emits [220+20=] 240 W/m^2 (net LW, OLR) to space, not the Sun. It absorbs 240 W/m^2 (net SW, ASR) from the Sun.
This is pretty elementary, wouldn’t you say so, troll?
Yes, to space, troll. To space. Not to the Sun.
Cold reservoir. Hot reservoir. Space. Sun. Got it?
All radiation definitely isn’t heat [Q], but NET radiation transferred from a hot to a cold object is indeed the radiative heat [Q_rad] between the two.
Nope. That’s the object’s “internal KE” [U_ke]. U and Q are not the same.
“The Earth emits”
“The Earth” is not the “cooler atm.”
The relevant rest of Kristian’s 11:46 comment supports: “Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)” and abandons “The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate, Tim. The warmer plate emit [201-100=] 101 W/m^2 toward the cooler plate.”” which Kristian 11:46 shows is wrong.
“All radiation definitely isn’t heat [Q], but NET radiation transferred from a hot to a cold object is indeed the radiative heat [Q_rad] between the two.”
No radiation is heat, and Q can be +/- where heat is always a positive number as measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE. Q is a rate of energy transfer in/out thus +/-
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Kristian,
The release of the latent heat of vaporization doesn’t provide any heat to the atmosphere, it just moves heat from the surface where the water is vaporized to higher up where the latent heat is released.
The longwave from the surface is the predominant heater of the atmosphere, there is no net unless you have two directions of heat flow.
bobdroege says, March 8, 2019 at 10:31 AM:
Hahaha! Please tell me you’re joking.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/jra25_atlas/column-1/hatm_ANN.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/jra25_atlas/surface-1/rain_ANN.png
Do you notice any kind of correlation here?
Besides, what does this even mean? “[I]t just moves heat from the surface where the water is vaporized to higher up where the latent heat is released.
Er, yes. And this is called heat transfer. From “the surface” (as you write) to “higher up” (as you also write), which is … inside the atmosphere.
Are you really this ignorant? I think you should stop embarrassing yourself, bob, and go pick up a book on this subject.
No, bob. Just no. If you seriously think that the UWLWIR from the surface is the radiative HEAT transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, then you are less informed than what even I initially gave you credit for.
So, tell me, do you also believe that the DWLWIR from the atmosphere to the surface constitutes radiative HEAT from the former to the latter?
You NEED TO go back and think this through properly, bob, before you return with another reply on this one …
There are NEVER “two directions of heat flow” within one and the same heat transfer. The heat IS the net flow.
IOW, the radiative heat from the warm surface to its cooler thermal surroundings (the atmosphere+space) is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, the net LW.
“Net heat” is Q_in minus Q_out. But those are distinctly two separate heat transfers. The first is from the hot reservoir (heat source) to the object, the second is from the object to the cold reservoir (heat sink).
It’s photons that are doing the heat transfer and they don’t interact with each other.
No. It’s HEAT that’s doing the heat transfer, bob. Phenomena such as heat, temperature, pressure and power density fluxes (W/m^2) do not exist in the quantum realm, while photons do not exist in the thermodynamic realm.
Heat is a thermodynamic (macroscopic) quantity. As is temperature. You can’t heat something by throwing photons at it, bob. Heat is something else, something more …
You apparently don’t get the distinction.
So why not pick up a textbook on basic thermodynamics and learn something? Rather than just keep posting replies without substance.
“No. It’s HEAT that’s doing the heat transfer, bob.”
Photon’s do not possess heat; only massive objects possess a measure of their constituent particle KE. Anyone can increase the temperature of sufficiently illuminated massive object by throwing (Kristian term) photons at it through a vacuum (like the Sun/Earth) this is termed a heating process.
Two things Kristian,
First,
There is no macroscopic realm and no quantum realm, there is jsut the world and if you attack a problem using either scientific discipline, you have to get the same answer.
If you get different results using macro thermo and quantum mechanics, you are doing one of them wrong.
Second, how is the Earth heated by the Sun if not by photons?
Heat is just energy the way I was trained, others may restrict it to only energy in transit.
I still remember my high school physics teacher jumping up and down
“joules equals joules equals joules”
bobdroege says, March 10, 2019 at 4:51 PM:
Of course there is, bob. In the sense of them being vastly different observational and descriptive levels. They simply represent fundamentally different aspects of reality. Heck, there are even different kinds of physics describing the processes that go on in each realm. We separate between them in pointing out how temperature is distinctly a MACRO (thermodynamic) phenomenon and a photon or a molecule is distinctly a MICRO (quantum) phenomenon. Basic stuff.
Of course there is just “the world”. No one’s claiming otherwise. But that’s not the point. It seems to me you don’t WANT to get this.
Do you know the tool that physicists use to tie the micro and the macro realms together, bob? It’s called “statistical mechanics”. You go from chaos and randomness to consistent patterns and order by using statistics (probabilities). There is no other way.
Have you heard of “the thermodynamic limit”? Do you know what it is and what makes it relevant to what we’re discussing?
Nope. You can’t use quantum mechanics to figure out changes in temperature of objects and the direction and magnitude of heat fluxes, bob. For that you need statistical mechanics. To average disordered quantum phenomena into an ordered thermodynamic process.
You don’t get this, bob. READ A BOOK ON THE SUBJECT!
It is heated by … HEAT !!!!!!! Photons themselves don’t heat anything!
Please, bob, read a book. Come back when you’ve learned what HEAT and heat transfers are really all about.
*Facepalm*
All heat is energy. All energy is NOT heat. So what exactly is heat, bob?
But, dear bob. This is where you fail completely. Heat isn’t just any “energy in transit”. It is a very specific KIND of transfer of energy.
Hint: UWLWIR from and DWLWIR to the surface both represent “energy in transit”, but neither of them constitutes HEAT! Why do you think that is …?
Kristian,
I don’t need to read any books, you do.
Maybe I am being sloppy with the use of the term heat. Everybody does that when they use the term heat transfer. If it is already in transfer adding the term transfer just adds confusion.
But maybe I need to repost the link to the CO2 laser melting steel.
“It is heated by HEAT !!!!!!! Photons themselves dont heat anything!”
Retract this statement as it shows how little you understand.
Photons are the particle that transfers the energy from the sun to the earth.
“Hint: UWLWIR from and DWLWIR to the surface both represent energy in transit, but neither of them constitutes HEAT! Why do you think that is ?”
I think the engineer’s toolbox disagrees with you on what constitutes heat.
“Heat transfer due to emission of electromagnetic waves is known as thermal radiation”
I think you don’t understand that because you want to believe their is no greenhouse effect.
Belief is not reality.
Where we see that modern climatology is a regressive science emerging from the setting aside of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is necessary part of climate studies. All the way back to at least Lord Kelvin who introduced the notion of thermal movement in a paper. Even Fourier applied what became thermodynamics to the atm.
Phi,
No one is setting aside thermodynamics, just incorrect interpretations of thermodynamics get the rubbish bin.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 8:06 AM:
LOL!
So he refuses to read. Fine with me. Long live stubborn ignorance!
You’re all the same …
No. Not sloppy. You don’t know what heat is, bob. So you use it INCORRECTLY. And you believe the conceptual blackbody emission from the surface up (the UWLWIR), mathematically derived directly from the surface temperature, to be the radiative HEAT flux to the atmosphere.
How ignorant is that …!!???
No. Just people who don’t understand what heat is use it incorrectly. People who understand basic thermodynamic principles use the term consistently and correctly.
No. The term “heat transfer” describes a process. The term “heat” describes a quantity.
Why? To show me how heat heats!?
Indeed. But it is the solar HEAT that heats the Earth. Not the photons emitted by the Sun.
See if you can figure out the distinction … What constitutes the solar heat, bob? What’s the quantity? The Q_sw?
No. It doesn’t. The thermodynamic definition of heat [Q] is universal. It is but one thing.
Read the whole article. They’re a bit sloppy with the terminology, yes, but it’s still pretty clear what they mean:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
You can also read this one. It might clarify. If not, I don’t know what will …:
https://iiserbbookstore.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/heat-and-themodynamics-by-mark-waldo-zemanskyrichard-dittman.pdf (pp.98-99)
“It should be noticed that the word “heat” has not appeared yet. If there is a temperature difference between a body and its surroundings, then, in a given interval of time, the body loses an amount of internal energy [U] equal to the energy radiated minus the energy absorbed, whereas the surroundings gain an amount of internal energy equal to the energy absorbed minus the energy radiated. The gain of the surroundings equals the loss of the body. The gain or loss of internal energy of the body, equal to the difference between the energy of the thermal radiation which is absorbed and that which is radiated, is called heat [Q]. This statement is in agreement with the original definition of heat, since a gain or loss of internal energy by radiation and absorp.tion will take place only if there is a difference in temperature between a body and its surroundings. If the two temperatures are the same, there is no net gain or loss of internal energy of either body or its surroundings, and there is, therefore, no transfer of heat.”
Are you starting to get it now?
The sun transfers enthalpy from the sun to the earth by using photons as the transfer mechanism.
The earth then transfers enthalpy away from the earth to its surroundings using photons of lower energy than received from the sun.
The CO2 and other greenhouse gases ab/sorb some of these photons, slowing down the transfer of enthalpy from the earth to its surroundings.
The CO2 and other greenhouse gases then transfer some of this enthalpy back to the surface of the earth using photons of specific wavelengths.
This is the so-called greenhouse effect, responsible for raising the surface temperature of the earth to levels higher that would be without the presence of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
There is that reasonable, so we can get to your real objections to the greenhouse effect, namely whether or not the radiative properties of the atmosphere make any difference or not.
Bob, that’s reasonable, give or take.
Kristian quotes Zemansky: “The gain or loss of internal energy of the body…is called heat [Q].”
Original copyright 1937.
Zemansky by 1969* had advanced beyond the concept of heat being called such a thing: “I admit that, at times, I have been guilty of watering down the explanation of internal energy…It is incredible that writers and teachers are still referring to the “heat in a body”…There is no such thing as the “heat in a body.””
*Paper delivered at a meeting of international physics experts in Copenhagen.
When used correctly in modern day, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
The use of enthalpy (h) is even better, more meaningful in thermodynamics.
bob,
The only reason I’m still addressing you at all is because of your initial inane response where you stated: “(…) and the most predominant is the radiation, because that can heat the whole atmosphere as per the Trenberth diagram and is responsible for 80% of the atmospheric heating.”
Which quite frankly reveals a staggering level of ignorance. It shows how you believe, apparently in earnest, that the radiative HEAT (!!) from the surface to the atmosphere is simply the UWLWIR, the temperature-derived 390-400 W/m^2 blackbody emission flux of the surface.
IT … IS … NOT !!!
Right there and then you basically disqualified yourself from any further discussion on the topic of what warms the surface (which is first and last a THERMODYNAMIC problem) … before properly educating yourself on it. Instead, though, you just dug your heels in and have been waffling on no end about photons and heat and CO2 lasers ever since. And you’re still at it …
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 9:34 PM:
Hehe. Kind of. And kind of not. I see your confusion and how you refuse to let go of it.
The Sun sends out photons into space. Some of those photons reach Earth, and of the photons reaching Earth, some are absorbed by the Earth system, while others are not – they are rather directly reflected back to space.
The total amount of photons from the Sun that is absorbed by the Earth system is the net SW, also known as ASR (‘Absorbed Solar Radiation’) or … the solar HEAT to the Earth [Q_in(sw)].
The average intensity of this flux is about 240 W/m^2. That’s the average heat input from the Sun to the Earth system, and consequently the flux that the Earth system needs to balance through its heat output to space. Earth’s heat output to space is called the OLR (‘Outgoing Long-wave Radiation’) or Q_out(lw).
The heat balance at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (ToA), then, looks like this:
Q_in(sw) – Q_out(lw) = Q_net
Q_net is the net flux everyone’s talking about. Whenever it is positive (Q_in(sw) > Q_out(lw)), net energy accumulates inside the Earth system, and we get overall warming. And whenever it is negative (Q_in(sw) < Q_out(lw)), the Earth system is drained of internal energy, and we get overall cooling.
“There are NEVER two directions of heat flow within one and the same heat transfer. The heat IS the net flow. but:
1)Atm. heat IN: 88+75+33+24 = 220 W/m^2
2)Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)
Kristian first writes 2 heat directions then never 2 heat directions. Kristian still demonstrates confusion by not understanding the classic definition of heat.
Heat has NO direction, heat is always positive. Heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
Some sophist Ball have 4 ways but Heat have only one : Sun -> Earth -> Space
Or Sun -> Earth -> GHGs -> Space.
Svante,
Right. Sun -> Surface -> GHGs -> Space. But GHGs -> Surface; does not exist.
Or sun -> Earth -> GHGs -> Earth -> Space (increasing Earth, GHGs, & space entropy)
Or even sun -> Earth -> space -> sun (reflected from Earth back to sun, increasing sun entropy)
Or sun -> Earth -> space (scattered from earth, increasing space entropy)
Lotsa’ real processes, all increasing entropy.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
How long before ice-free Arctic…? Well, since the trend over the last 10 years has been roughly flat, its hard to say. But I predict that the Northwest Passage will be blocked again this year, given the current ice buildup, so maybe never?. At least until after the next ice age when serious warming will return.
Also, by ice free I assume you mean less than 1 Wadham (sp?), correct?
https://tinyurl.com/y4xypwjw
Svante, please stop trolling.
The next wave of the Arctic air moves to the northeast US.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/508e9y4lhaw7.png
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
Clowns believe the green plate can raise the temperature of the blue plate. They use perverted physics, and phony “experiments”, to “prove” it. When faced with the reality that the plates, in exact contact, would have exactly the same temperature, they just ignore the facts.
Here’s some more facts they can ignore.
Position a second green plate on the left side of the blue plate, close but not touching. Instead of radiatively warming the blue plate with 400 Watts, warm it electrically with 400 Watts. Everything else remains the same.
Of course, all three plates would have the equilibrium temperature of 244 K. But, that destroys the pseudoscience that the green plates can warm the blue plate.
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun. And so easy to do….
(Just mentally add another green plate to the left of the blue plate. All arrows would be the same as shown. I’m too lazy to do another diagram.)
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
JDHuffman
You are a really ignorant poster. You are completely wrong. Do your own experiment and show the world how ignorant you are. Worse than ignorant (which can be corrected by learning) is that you have this smug arrogance based upon nothing. You have a severe case of Dunning-Kruger. You don’t have any real physics knowledge but think you are smarter than all the scientists out there.
If you were not as arrogant as you are you might think “Hmm, everyone is thinking like this and I am thinking like that…maybe I am wrong”
You are such a funny clown. Keep posting for the amusement of people that know science. It is like hearing science ideas from 1st graders. Normally cute with small children.
The first clown to deny reality is Norman. He can’t process facts and logic, but he can insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent.
No surprise.
Here’s a diagram for the other clowns.
(Special note to Chic: Temperatures are indicated below each plate.)
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Something is wrong with your diagram, JD.
It’s pseudoscience.
Then what would the temperatures be, in your fantasy world?
JDHuffman
Your response is hilarious! Keep amusing the blog. We need your clown knowledge for some good belly laughs! Thanks!
I’m waiting for Norman, Swanson, Tim, fluffball, Nate, bobdrug, and the other “plate warmers” to show how the green plates warm the blue plate. What do they believe the temperature of the blue plate would be now?
With two green plates, they must believe the temperature would be even higher than their bogus 262K, with just the one green plate. But, that won’t work!
See why they abhor reality?
The blue plate warms because it absorbs radiation from the green plate.
Confirmed by experimental evidence.
(Another clown denies reality!)
What’s the temperature of the blue plate, with two green plates, bob?
Surely you have an answer.
Add me to the list please, it will be higher with two green plates.
It depends on the geometry of the blue plate.
Can we assume the blue plate is no longer a plate and shaped like a prism, so that we can have 3 equal areas to emit and absorb the radiation?
You haven’t got the right answer to the original problem, so I am not going to give you an answer until you do get the right answer.
Remember, it’s a black-body problem, no reflection allowed.
JDHuffman
The correct answer for you situation would have a steady state temperature for both green plates of around 244 K while the sandwiched blue plate would rise to 345 K.
It is well known working physics is you look at heat radiant shield physics. Each shield lowers the amount of heat lost by an object. If it is not heated it cools slower, if heated it will reach a higher temperature (as in your case).
You need to learn some physics and I really mean it.
Why not send you cartoon physics to an actual physics department for evaluation. Tell them you are having a hard time convincing people that this physics is valid and real. Let us know their responses to your nonsense made up funny stuff. You won’t do it will you?
Well, we’re getting some early returns in. Not all the “plate warmers” have voted yet, but already the pseudoscience is amazing.
Svante has no clue be just “believes” the blue plate will be warmer. Poor bob tries using a prism! But there appears to be some disharmony among the clowns. Bob tells us a black body must absorb everything, but Norman tells us a black body is a “heat shield”!
Then, Norman uses bogus math to support his bogus physics. He doesn’t understand that you can solve an equation, but the equation might be wrong. Norman has the blue plate at 345 K, and can’t understand why that is WRONG!
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
JDHuffman
Just because you reject established science and physics equations only makes them bogus in your own mind. Primarily because you are not rational or logical and can’t grasp the concepts behind the equations.
Anyway I am correct and you are wrong. If you add more plates on the outside of each green plate you will increase the blue plate even more.
Unfortunately, since you are not rational or logical, you can’t understand an analogous situation. If you had some internal heating device for the blue plate but surrounded it with really good insulation you don’t think the blue plate will increase in temperature? The mechanism is different but the effect is identical. The green plate reduces the HEAT FLOW of the blue plate (net energy loss, the amount of energy emitted by the blue plate minus the amount the blue plate gains from the green plate). Insulation reduces the heat flow. Both reduce heat flow. Different mechanism, same overall result.
You have to make up fake physics to support your unscientific conclusions, primarily that photons from the green plate to the blue plate will be reflected. Goofy physics not supported by anything. An idea made up by Claes Johnson with zero evidence to support it. That you blindly believe it is factual indicates you are an ignorant person.
I believe that’s the definition of a blackbody.
An ideal emitter and absorber of radiation.
Norman and bob, how about this? Define a black body to be a perfect absorber, and a “heat-shield”, and an insulator. That way, you can bend reality to fit your pseudoscience, even easier.
Note that the real solution doesn’t require constantly changing definitions. The plates are the same temperatures, whether together or pulled slightly apart.
More facts later, after the polls close.
JD,
What’s the difference between a black-body, an insulator and a heat shield?
We are not constantly changing definitions.
How did you do in this class?
Did you graduate?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/144044888051667210
bob now denies that they are changing definitions, as he questions his own definition.
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
Liar liar pants on fire
We are not changing definitions.
Care to provide your own definitions of blackbody, insulator and heat shield?
Then we can see if we are not using the standard definitions of those terms.
An insulator reduces the flow of something, could be heat, could be current, or could be radiation.
A heat shield is a thermal insulator, either heat or radiation.
Maybe you have different definitions, but a blackbody can certainly act as an insulator or a heat shield.
Clown, you get to argue with yourself:
“Remember, it’s a black-body problem, no reflection allowed.”
Heat shield
Heat shields protect structures from extreme temperatures and thermal gradients by two primary mechanisms. Thermal insulation and radiative cooling, which respectively isolate the underlying structure from high external surface temperatures, while emitting heat outwards through thermal radiation. To achieve good functionality the three attributes required of a heat shield are low thermal conductivity (high thermal resistance), high emissivity and good thermal stability (refractoriness).[1] Porous ceramics with high emissivity coatings (HECs) are often employed to address these three characteristics, owing to the good thermal stability of ceramics, the thermal insulation of porous materials and the good radiative cooling effects offered by HECs.
Insulation
Most common insulation materials work by slowing conductive heat flow and–to a lesser extent–convective heat flow. Radiant barriers and reflective insulation systems work by reducing radiant heat gain. To be effective, the reflective surface must face an air space.
Reflection is only a portion of it.
bob, it’s amazing how you lose even when you’re arguing with yourself.
JD,
I never said a black-body reflects, that’s your argument based on your incorrect understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
Any matter can be an insulator, some things of course being better than others, even black-bodies can reduce the rate of heat transfer.
You are losing, give it up.
No clown, I win by watching you lose your argument with yourself.
Hey JD,
Are you employed?
I could help you get out of your mama’s basement if you want a entry level low pay third shift STEM job.
Me being a corporate trainer, I could help you out.
Responding two days late?
You couldn’t even help yourself, clown.
Huffingman, Your two plate cartoon is just that, a fiction. You show the Blue Plate with 200 W going to the left and 400 W going to the right. As you’ve been told repeatedly, for thermal IR EM radiation, the same amount of energy must leave each side if they have equal emissivities and temperature. Drawing a couple of extra arrows in your cartoon doesn’t change the physical reality.
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
Yeah Swanson, when you don’t understand the relevant physics, and you can’t think for yourself, it can be confusing. That’s why the fluxes are color-coded. It’s somewhat like playing with your crayons. The blue arrows are emitted from the blue plate. The green arrows are emitted from the green plate. The green arrows from the blue plate represent flux that is reflected. Everything is accounted for.
Glad to help.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Except flux doesn’t reflect from blackbodies. If you think it does, find a single textbook on radiation and/or thermal transfer that supports your position.
Also, the 2Lot tells us that heat only flows from warmer areas to cooler areas. You violate that principle as well!
Armless Tim joins the fun!
So, here’s the tally so far:
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
This is what’s so funny. Radiative insulation is via reflectivity. A black-body is the perfect polar opposite of a radiative insulator. I’ve tried to make this simple point so many times. They need the BB plate to be an insulator, AND a black-body. Two completely opposing things, at the same time. Their minds must be so contorted by the cognitive dissonance. That explains the endless abusive outpourings…
Yes DREMT, they’ve painted themselves into a corner again.
And I don’t know if you’ve read all the comments, but they are now claim adding a second green plate will raise the blue plate to 345 K!
I’m waiting to see if any more clowns chime in before addressing the 345 K nonsense.
The 345 K was a magic moment.
😊
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “A black-body is the perfect polar opposite of a radiative insulator.”
Just because the irrational troll posts dishonest points:
“Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator”
I have never claimed a black-body is a relfector, that is what JDHuffman claims it can be. I have said it could act as a heat shield. I do NOT use the word insulator for the radiant effect.
I have stated many times the IR from the Green plate is emitted and absorbed by the blue plate. The combination of this energy will cause the blue plate to reach a higher temperature. I am not making other claims or defining it as something else.
The blackbody green plate DOES not have to be an radiative insulator. A blackbody would make the worst material for a heat shield and yet it would stop ALL the radiant IR emitted from a hot object from going through the opposite side. Hence it is a shield for the outgoing IR of a hot object. The energy that is emitted from the opposing side is the energy the green plate emits, all the blue plate IR is gone, absorbed.
I really don’t know how to clear it up. I think Svante explained your posting nature. You get into these semantic points that go on and in and ignore the underlying concepts discussed.
The green plate IR will cause the blue plate to reach a higher temperature. A second green plate will cause the blue plate to reach even a higher temperature. If you continue to add plates the heated blue plate will continue to reach higher temperatures.
Here read this it might help you. I have given up hope for the troll JDHuffman.
http://fireflylabs.com/disted/courses/m262(2014)/docs/Will-Week10/m262-radiantHeatTransfer-RadiationShields.pdf
Note: “Therefore, when all emissivities are equal, 1 shield reduces the rate of radiation heat transfer to one-half, 9 shields reduce it to one-tenth, and 19 shields
reduce it to one-twentieth (or 5 percent) of what it was when there were no
shields”
Now if you look at the original problem this is exactly what is going on. The blue plate emits 200 w/m^2 toward the green plate, the green plate emits 100 watt/m^2 to the external world, the rate of radiation heat transfer with the green plate is reduced by a half on the side with the green plate. Just as the real and valid physics says.
Use just a little bit of logic and reasoning. If you are adding energy to an object and by adding more plates reducing how much heat the object can lose why don’t you think it will get warmer than if there were no plates? Put numbers in the equations for yourself and you will see that only JDHuffman is wrong. The rest of the posters understand real physics, he cannot. Are you going down his rabbit hole? Are you Alice?
Wow Norman, that’s a lot of rambling just to say you didn’t say what you said. I know you get so frustrated. Maybe this will help you out of your confusion:
One green plate:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Two green plates:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Three violations of the laws of thermodynamics.
By none other than JD. That’s actually hard to do JD, many commenters at least do SOME work to get their comments consistent with the basic laws. JD doesn’t bother. At all.
There are NO violations of laws, fluffball.
That’s why you were unable to identify any.
Just more or your immature fluff.
One: JD destroys energy violates 1LOT (both objects same T)
Two: JD shows object entropy not increasing violates 2LOT
Three: JD shows a blackbody reflecting all incident radiation, violates Planck/S-B laws.
JD fails the basics, typical for an entertainment specialist. Please continue the humor JD, blog readership enjoys it.
fluffball, study this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344640
Don’t worry if you can’t understand it. Some people are just born to be typists.
One: JD destroys energy violates 1LOT (three objects same T)
Two: JD shows 3 object entropy not increasing violates 2LOT
Three: JD shows 3 blackbodies reflecting all incident radiation, violates Planck/S-B laws.
Nothing new in entertainment specialist JD’s pseudoscience, no experimental backing. Something illuminated by 400 W/m^2 isn’t the same equilibrium T as same something illuminated by 200 W/m^2.
Show us the 345K calculation you call bogus JD, or readership will continue to know you haven’t actually seen any such calculation.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Huffingman wrote:
, For real surfaces, the emissivity (e) represents the fraction absorbed and (1-e) equals the fraction reflected. You can’t have it both ways, unless you fabricate a selective absorber, such as that used for solar thermal collectors. For those surface treatments, the SW is absorbed but the LW is reflected.
That does not apply if both plate surfaces have high emissivities (including black bodies) in the wavelengths produced form temperatures in the Green Plate Effect. The Blue plate can’t both reflect all the Green plate’s emissions and emit anything while at nearly the same temperature.
The green plate MUST absorb all flux from the higher potential blue plate, if it is a black body.
It can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
JDHuffman
The thoughtless one. You really do like to show your ignorance don’t you. No shame.
Mr. anti-science YOU: “The green plate MUST absorb all flux from the higher potential blue plate, if it is a black body.
It can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.”
Yes you are correct, the green plate absorbs all the flux from the blue plate. But now what. Does the green plate just stay cold, it is absorbing energy but not changing?
Clown, the green plate will increase in temperature as it absorbs the flux from the blue plate. As it warms it will emit greater amounts of its own IR (in fact a black-body curve of emission based solely on its temperature).
The energy from the green plate is emitted and the half that faces the blue plate is absorbed by the blue plate. It has an external source of energy input and the added input of the green plate EMR emission. It is NOT reflected. The energy adds to the internal energy of the blue plate and it reaches a higher temperature until it radiates away the same amount of energy it receives. Please learn some physics. I give you many links. Your ignorance might be bliss to you but it is annoying to others.
No Norman, you still can’t understand. The green plate will warm to 244 K because it has to be able to emit 200 Watts/m^2.
Maybe a diagram will help.
One green plate:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Two green plates:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
JDHuffman
About the dumbest cartoon physics I have seen. Why not send it to a Department of Physics for evaluation. Any idiot can make up anything they want. Your cartoons are worthless nonsense. Learn some physics you make yourself look really ignorant.
By the way, what are your cartoons based upon, do you have any textbook material that would support your nonsense? An experiment. Nope? Didn’t think so.
Just study the diagrams, Norman. And do some experiments.
Maybe someday you could even take a high school level physics class….
Experiments have been done confirming that a cold object can make a warmer object warmer.
You JD, are the one denying reality.
Yes bob, it’s called “pseudoscience”.
You should try an experiment yourself JD,
Otherwise you have no standing just opinions unsupported by evidence.
I have experimental data supporting what anyone knowledgeable on heat transfer knows as fact.
Cold objects can make warm objects warmer by slowing the heat loss from the warmer object.
Your opinions don’t matter, empirical evidence wins.
You have none and won’t even try.
You have no standing.
bob, “slowing the heat loss” is not the same as “raising the temperature”.
Right JD,
It’s not the same
One is the result of the other
You lower the heat loss and that raises the temperature.
First Law of Thermodynamics.
Of course you don’t understand it, you never took any classes in Thermodynamics.
Experimental evidence is better than your unsupported opinions.
You keep tripping on the facts.
bob, when you turn on an incandescent light bulb, it will get so hot it will burn your fingers, if you try to grasp it. When you turn it off, it will start cooling. You have “slowed the heat loss” from when it was at its peak. But the bulb will NOT increase in temperature.
“Slowing the heat loss” is not the same as “raising the temperature”.
Want another example?
An ice cube at 270 K emits about 300 Watts/m*2. Put the ice cube in a freezer until it is at 290 K. You have “slowed the heat loss”, but the temperature went down.
Want another example?
Put an object at 400 K into an insulated box. Measure the time it takes for the object to fall to room temperature, about 300 K. Then start over with double the insulation and the object again at 400 K. It will take longer for the object to reach 300 K, because you have “slowed the heat loss”, but the object never went above 400 K.
JD,
Those examples are not representative of the issue.
You are changing the problem if you turn off the heat source.
Try wrapping a light bulb with aluminum foil and see if it gets hotter.
While it is still on.
Wrong again bob. Those examples are right on target, showing that “slowing the heat loss” is NOT the same as “raising the temperature”.
You’re just having a hard time dealing with reality, as usual.
bob, JD’s physics are so outrageously uninformed, JD does not even realize JD’s colder object (room temperature double insulation) increased the temperature of the warmer 400K object over the object in the case with single insulation at each time increment (Law of Cooling).
That is the effect of added insulation; like E. Swanson’s experimental effect of adding the green plate where results showed an increased blue object temperature over the blue object temperature with no green plate.
JD is simply an uninformed commenter here only for entertainment purposes.
Okay fluffball, we’ll add you to the tally:
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
Blackbody objects do not exist to insulate, reflect, shield anything JD, you are uninformed on the subject.
Or perhaps JD means other commenters are discussing the black body on their cars which can insulate, reflect images, shield engine heat.
More entertainment please JD, you are delivering well today by remaining uninformed – doing no actual experiments and no text cites aid your entertaining efforts.
Now, fluffball wants to revise his vote.
(Revisions from the clowns are permitted. It just shows they don’t have a clue, and their failed efforts just add to the humor. Note that the correct plates solution has not been revised, evah.)
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator, but it does NOT insulate, reflect, or shield anything.
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
That’s a bit of improvement JD, you are learning a little, try harder your science is as yet not exactly correct. Don’t try too hard though, by actually doing an experiment for example, we wouldn’t want JD to lose all JD’s entertainment value.
Thanks for reminding me of your phony “experiments”, fluffball. Like the time you got caught trying to claim a surface at 1452 K would radiate 400 Watts/m^2. Someone told you that was wrong, but you claimed it was “from experiment”!
Just more of your fluff, as usual.
That was the perfect ploy to get JD to admit JD knows that JD’s cartoons are bogus. Great entertainment JD, more please. Cartoons breaking all 3 thermo. laws are hard to find without JD as a source.
“Ploy” would be the word fluffball would choose, to cover up his incompetence and subsequent deception.
That’s why “fluff” fits him so well.
My ploy motivated two-time loser JD to do the S-B law calculation correctly, not as shown incorrectly in JD’s bogus cartoon.
JD really does full well know 400 W/m^2 illumination and 200 W/m^2 illumination of identical BB black objects won’t achieve same 244K equilibrium temperature as shown in JD’s bogus cartoon because JD CAN do the calculations correctly when JD is motivated to do so.
For fun, JD falsely continues to show readers the bogus cartoon: “Did you notice the ACTUAL correct answer?”
JD is great entertainment. More false science please JD, your antics continue to amuse the blog readership.
More incoherent fluff from fluffball.
Nothing new.
E. Swanson
I you still have your set-up available from the experiment, that JDHuffman and his blog physics overwhelm his thought process, he can’t understand what is going on so he only can say “bogus”, maybe you could show this blog how incredibly ignorant JDHuffman really is.
Heat the blue plate with some internal heater coil and then have two plates brought up on each side. I know it would not do JDHuffman any good. He is a solid clown. It might be more work than you want to do.
If JDHuffman would put money on it, it might be worth it to you.
How about JDHuffman pay E. Swanson $1000 if he sets up an experiment in a vacuum with a blue plate and two green plates on each side to see the blue plate increases. First move one green plate to position and wait for steady temperature and then move the next green plate up.
The stipulation to the payment is JDHuffman only pays if the blue plate gets warmer with the second green plate in place.
Norman, Sorry, I can’t do that. I would need to fabricate new plates, since the ones I have are initially held together with pop rivets which make it impossible to put them together. Also, I would need a new mechanism to move them the way you want. Besides, my back woods rig couldn’t achieve a really strong vacuum, as would be desirable. I’ve taken it apart to try some ideas with a heated plate in the freezer and an ice sheet…
Anyway, I’ve about had it with these clowns. They clearly have an agenda and aren’t interested in physics.
E. Swanson
I already know the outcome. I do not blame you for not wasting time with agenda driven trolls. You proved Eli plate thought experiment was correct.
Sounds like a losers’ pity-party.
Oh well, better luck next time, clowns
PS Often learning some physics will help increase your luck.
JDHuffman
The best thing is to ignore an ignorant troll like you. I do try to but when I reply to rational skeptics with interesting points, I go back to see how the flow of thought goes and you have to inject your troll comments until I play with you.
I play with you a while, it means nothing goes nowhere, I can pull up posts from the past and they are the same.
I really wish you would never respond to any of my posts. That is a dream I will not enjoy. There is nothing you say that interests me in the least. Sometimes I hope for DREMT. You are a worthless blog troll only interested in provoking responses with insulting taunts.
Your pretend knowledge of physics is pathetic. You are about as smart as the noodle heads that post on Joseph Postma site. None have the slightest idea of physics but they post like they all have PhD’s and are smarter than the entire body of scientists. You belong with those clowns.
Just more typing practice for poor Norman.
He never adds value.
Ok JD, as usual you declare an answer, but how did you solve it? You cannot say.
The point of using real radiative heat transfer physics is to be able solve any problem.
It cannot be the case that in every problem all objects end up the same temperature, as you declare.
If so, the universe would be a boring place!
Show your work, or no credit!
No Nate, every problem would not have objects at the same temperature. But every problem obeys the Laws of physics, except in your pseudoscience.
‘obeys the Laws of physics’
But your answer doesnt, at all.
Violates 1st law: Green plates receive 200, but radiate 400. OR Blue is both an excellent emitter and excellent reflector, violating Kirchoff’s Law.
Violates 2nd law: NET heat of 200W/m2 cannot flow between objects at the same temperature.
Violates Rad Heat Transfer Law: sigma(Tb^4-Tg^4) = 0. Not 200 W/m^2
How exactly does your answer obey ANY laws of physics?
Nate, for reference, here’s the latest diagram, with two green plates. It’s the funniest one, since you clowns must believe the blue plate will shoot up to 345 K, after slightly separating the green plates.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Both green plates receive 200 Watts from the blue plate, and emit 200 Watts out. They transfer NO energy back to the blue plate, as indicated by the two opposing arrows. (If you had been paying attention to the discussion, you would know the term for the two opposing arrows.) There are no violations of any laws.
You are confused by the energy flow from blue to green. You believe there cannot be energy flow because the plates are at the same temperature. You just don’t understand the relevant physics.
Here, the plate temperatures are NOT establishing energy flow. You are confusing radiative heat transfer and conductive heat transfer. In this situation, the energy flow establishes the temperatures. The blue plate MUST emit 200 Watts in both directions. But, since the green plates can NOT send energy back to the blue plate, they must rise in temperature to the point they can radiate 200 Watts.
And again, if you had been paying attention, you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus. As in this case you clowns end up with ridiculous results, like causing the blue plate to rise in temperature over 180 °F (over 100 °C), just by a 1 mm separation!
Enjoy your ridiculous and hilarious pseudoscience. We certainly do….
“There are no violations of any laws.”
JD is so uninformed, JD does not realize his bogus cartoon violates 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck/S-B laws. Just a normal day’s work for JD. Such free entertainment is very hard to find. More please.
No violations, fluffball.
Find an adult to explain it to you. Then, get the adult to phase any responsible questions.
Otherwise, have fun playing with yourself.
‘They transfer NO energy back to the blue plate, as indicated by the two opposing arrows. (If you had been paying attention to the discussion, you would know the term for the two opposing arrows.) There are no violations of any laws.’
Kirchoffs law says an excellent emitter like the blue plate, cannot be an excellent (or even good) reflector. You are somehow exempt from this law? Nope.
“Here, the plate temperatures are NOT establishing energy flow. In this situation, the energy flow establishes the temperatures. ”
Gobbldegook does not let you violate Radiative Heat Transfer Law and Second Law. There is no mechanism other than radiant heat at work here.
“The blue plate MUST emit 200 Watts in both directions. But, since the green plates can NOT send energy back to the blue plate, they must rise in temperature to the point they can radiate 200 Watts.”
Doubling down on Kirchoff Law violation.
“you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.”
Physics! We don’t understand physics! You constantly spout such things.
Yet here you are tossing out a perfectly valid Law of Physics. Again, inexplicably, you are exempt.
Nate, even clowns try to compose a coherent comment.
Are you moving to some lower level?
Very simple JD, you violate several laws of physics, as clearly explained. You weirdly declare another one is bogus, with no reason given.
And you seem to think that’s all just no problem.
If your sole aim is to troll, then you are right, no problem.
Again Nate gets caught making a comment he can’t support, more than 24 hours after I have left.
It’s almost like he’s afraid to deal with reality….
JD,
Prove you are not a troll, by answering peoples legitimate questions.
1. How do you get your answer? Show your methods.
2. Why are you exempt from valid laws of physics: Kirchoffs Law, Radiative Heat Transfer Law, Second Law.
3. As Tim says, your physics is different from standard physics. Show us a source, ANY source, any textbook, on-line course, that agrees with you that Kirchoffs Law and RHT law do not apply.
Nate, please stop trolling.
JD, we need you to clarify “your physics” since it seems to differe from everyone else’s physics.
Google “radiative heat transfer” and look at the equations.
Open any textbook on radiative heat transfer and look at the equations.
In every case, you will find that for radiation from a hot blackbody object with a temperature Th and an area A to cool blackbody surroundings with a temperature Tc, the power of the net transfer is always given as
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A
Do you agree with this universally accepted equation? Or do you have some other equation that you use?
Tim, that equation is invalid. It assumes all flux is always absorbed. That’s an invalid assumption. You can see the ridiculous results it produces, as demonstrated by the “plates” nonsense.
Much like a “black body”, that equation is used in pseudoscience to pervert reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Hilarious!! You blatantly reject established physics and an equation that is used all the time in heat transfer engineering. Let you in on a secret JDHuffman, the equation works it is valid.
Man you are funny. The funny thing might be that you actually believe you studied physics somewhere, you think you know what you are talking about related to science. You argue with Tim Folkerts who has forgotten more physics than you have ever learned.
What a hilarious clown you are. Continue to amuse the blog.
JDHuffman
You funny phony.
Here is a link from heat transfer equations used by actual engineers who design heat transfer items (something we are all glad you never were, you would be fired day one for total incompetence).
Look at the equations used in the radiant heat transfer section. Boy you are one ignorant poster. Most would not continue after being wrong so many times on so many things. You are not smart enough to see how ignorant your ideas are.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/heat_transfer_table_content.htm
No Norman, you get it wrong, again. I reject pseudoscience, not established physics.
And I see you’ve found another link you can’t understand.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Hilarious! You say the same thing every time I link to a website.
YOU: “And I see you’ve found another link you can’t understand.”
So funny you make me laugh. You have zero explanation of what I don’t understand but you are very confident I don’t. That is really a funny thing to say from a funny poster.
When you get tired of being a funny clown to make people laugh, try and explain what I don’t understand.
JDHuffman
LOL!
YOU really are hilarious. Funnier than when you went by g.e.r.a.n.
YOU: “No Norman, you get it wrong, again. I reject pseudoscience, not established physics.”
Your established physics come from deranged lunatics like Joseph Postma, crackpots like Claes Johnson. All pseudoscience! Your clown cartoon is complete pseudoscience. You don’t even try to support it with any evidence. All fabrications you made up.
When you get good established textbook physics you reject it all.
The equation Tim Folkerts posted is the established radiant heat transfer equation. What did you say about it? Oh you forgot already?
Here: “Tim, that equation is invalid. It assumes all flux is always absorbed.”
It is correct for a blackbody which we are debating in your example. Lord you hate physics with a complete passion.
Have you sent your brilliant idea of No Moon Rotation to a University Astronomy Department for evaluation?
Have you sent your stupid cartoon physics to a University Physics Department for evaluation?
No you haven’t. You hate physics so much you want to remain in the dark. Such sources would show you how ignorant you really are. You can’t have that can you. Much better to pretend to be this genius. Sorry you are not the next genius to be discovered. You need to have rational and logical thought to qualify.
Poor Norman. His made up world just doesn’t jive with reality. He can’t even get the other clowns to agree on the definition of a hypothetical black body. His rambling, derogatory comments just make hiim look desperate.
It must be so frustrating for him.
JD,
Certainly that equation is an idealization because it assumes perfect absor.ption and emission. In the same way that frictionless surfaces are an idealization.
These are simplifications for beginners. For real surfaces, we can introduce real emissivities. We can introduce view factors. These are minor corrections on the equations.
The point is that all scientists agree that the equation I presented works for the idealized case. And they agree that a slightly modified version will work for non-ideal cases.
So we are left with one of two choices:
* all scientists are wrong, and engineers are completely lost when they are calculating heat flows for actual factories and space craft and power plants. Not just a few percent off because of idealizations or simplifications or rounding off, but not even in the right ballpark. (And engineers who are not even in the right ballpark are fired, so there would be no engineers hired to calculate temperatures anywhere).
* JD is wrong.
Tim, 4 hours to come up with that nonsense?
How about a third possibility, that never even entered your corrupted head?
* Engineers working on real-world problems use real-world physics, not some fraudulent pseudoscience. JD is right.
JDHuffman
Yes Engineers use real-world physics. They do not use your made up nonsense. I gave you a link to real world physics. Why not learn it and quit being a disgrace to the Climate Skeptic community. There are many good posters here that understand the correct physics yet doubt the dire claims of the alarmists. Your made up physics and endless debates are not aiding the cause of skeptics. People believing you are a valid skeptics (not the troll that you really are) might start associating your horrible physics with the skeptic movement.
Norman, if you left out all your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, you wouldn’t any way to practice your typing, would you?
Keep practicing.
That’s the thing, JD. The equation I gave (and slight variations on it) IS the “real world” equation used by engineers!
You are basically saying “You have to use the equations that engineers use to solve problems, but that equations is wrong.”
Tim, you’re not making up things again, are you?
You’re running short of limbs to lose.
Also, don’t forget that according to Eli’s math, these equations that supposedly all scientists and engineers use:
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.”
Just add more plates each side of the sandwich! We’ve got 345 K just by having 2 plates, 1 each side. I wonder what they think the temperature of the blue plate would be, if they had 10 plates each side?
Adding the second green plate was their “Waterloo”. It showed that they have to redefine a black body, to fit their pseudoscience.
You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming, then the outgoing flux would have to be 40,000 Watts/m^2. And that would mean that the blue plate would have to have a temperature of 916.5 K.
So, they need the green plate to be some type of specialized insulator, but keep the blue plate a black body.
It’s called “pseudoscience”.
That’s not how insulation works JD,
It doesn’t reduce the area, it reduces flux.
You really stepped in it this time.
Give us your equations JD. What real-world problems have you solved? What results do you have that show how engineers are wrong?
Tim and bob try to misrepresent me.
Their failed efforts only show they know they are wrong.
JD, you keep tell us to “learn some physics”. Yet, when we ask for more details, for more information, you evade.
P = (sigma)(Th^4 – Tc^4)A *is* the basic physics. This is the introduction in every textbook and every thermodynamics course. Often this is used as the springboard to more advanced equations for more general cases — but always those equations reduce back to (sigma)(Th^4 – Tc^4)A for simple blackbodies radiating to a uniform environment.
If you think you know some other physics, then point us too a reputable source. If you think “blackbody” means something other than “perfectly emits and absorbs EM radiation at all (applicable) frequencies, show us a book that agrees with you. Show us an equation for calculating which wavelengths are not absorbed.
Tim, again, this has already been discussed. That equation is bogus. It is NOT “the introduction in every textbook and every thermodynamics course.” You are imagining things.
Why don’t you just come out and admit you don’t believe in the 2LoT? Some other clowns are doing that. Why try to keep denying 2LoT, yet not admitting to it? Look at Norman’s comments, and bobdrug’s. They no longer fake any interest in truth or reality. You should join them.
Come out of that closet.
“That equation is bogus.”
That equation is the 1LOT. It is JD and JD’s cartoons that are entertainingly bogus.
Keep up your act JD, your outrageous physics are a three ring circus. Glad JD has not been banned yet again.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention fluffball. He’s been out of the closet for a long time. He’s a great example for you, Tim.
Of course he hides behind his cowardly screen name, but you’ll get there, Tom….
JD,
You said something wrong, ie, this
“You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming,… ”
Insulation doesn’t work by reducing the area allowed to radiate.
You are incorrect
I worked to insulate super-conducting magnets with aluminum foil, and no, we didn’t reduce the area, we reduced the flux with 60 layers of aluminum foil.
And you claim I am misrepresenting you.
Are those not your words I quoted above.
JD says to lean some physics about radiative heat transfer … so google ‘physics radiative heat transfer equations’ at .edu sites
Top hits include:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heattransfer.html
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=physicskatz
http://pages.mtu.edu/~fmorriso/cm310/lectures/2015heatlecture10-11.pdf
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~joel/Phys5D/13Phys5D-Lecture5.pdf
All of these mention
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) in one for or another.
JD says this equation is ‘bogus’.
I guess we can now make our own call about whom to trust to teach us physics.
* Do we trust some random dude in the internet who appeals to his own authority?
* Or do we trust every university teaching thermodynamics (across multiple continents; in both physics and engineering)?
bob, thanks for quoting me exactly. That’s always a smart thing to do.
Either 1) you are confused about the point I was making, or 2) you don’t believe that insulation can insulate.
I’m content, whichever of the two it is.
Tim, I see you are still having trouble with that bogus equation. Just because it is used in teaching examples, does not mean it has applications in the real world. As you’ve seen here, it can lead people down the wrong path.
You may be confused because ΔT is important in CONDUCTIVE heat transfer, but does not carry over to radiative heat transfer. When a surface emits a photon, it does not consider where the photon will end up, AT ALL.
So again, you’ve missed the best option:
* Learn some physics, and think for yourself.
JD,
Perhaps you can clarify how you think insulation works.
Does it work by reducing the area of heat transfer or by reducing the amount of heat transfer.
Why bob, just in your last comment you were telling us what an insulation expert you are. Now you’re trying to actually learn?
The first thing you might want to learn is that insulation insulates.
Glad to help.
JD,
I was trying to figure out how much you actually know and give you the opportunity to admit you made a mistake.
Lets parse this statement of yours
“You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming, then the outgoing flux would have to be 40,000 Watts/m^2. ”
You made a couple mistakes
One, according to the green plate effect, it’s 400 w/m^2, so if you reduced the area to 0.01 sq. meter, the outgoing flux would be 4 watts, not 40,000 and it would still be 400 w/m^2.
Second, insulation doesn’t work by reducing the area, it works by reducing the flux, that’s why I asked you to explain how insulation works.
Apparently you don’t know so you project that lack of understanding on me.
Maybe you could explain yourself.
bob says: “One, according to the green plate effect, its 400 w/m^2, so if you reduced the area to 0.01 sq. meter, the outgoing flux would be 4 watts, not 40,000 and it would still be 400 w/m^2.”
400 Watts divided by 0.01 equals 40,000 Watts/m^2.
bob says: “Second, insulation doesnt work by reducing the area, it works by reducing the flux, thats why I asked you to explain how insulation works.”
For an object to emit the same energy, the outgoing flux must increase if its surface area decreases.
JD,
It’s 400 watts/m^2
So according to your math it’s 400 watts/m^2 divided by 0.01 m^2 which comes to 40,000 watts/m^4.
Got it?
The problem starts with 400 watts/m^2 not 400 watts.
you say
“For an object to emit the same energy, the outgoing flux must increase if its surface area decreases.”
You would have to compress an object by a factor of 100 to do that.
How?
You don’t understand insulation.
No bob, you don’t “got it’! It’s 400 Watts (not Watts/m^2) divided by 0.01 m^2.
“You would have to compress an object by a factor of 100 to do that. How?”
No bob, you would not have to compress the object. You could restrict the effective emitting surface area by using a suitable radiative insulator, as you attempted upthread by wrapping the light bulb in foil.
Or, do you need to argue with yourself, again?
Doesn’t work that way JD
The suitable radiative insulator doesn’t reduce the area that is emitting.
That’s why radiative insulation is usually done in layers.
Many layers.
Clown, are you telling me that putting layers of radiative insulation on one side of a flat plate won’t reduce the effective radiating surface area of the plate?
You need some adult help.
Yes that’s exactly what I’m telling you.
The area that the flux is going through never changes, or at least never gets smaller as you add more layers of insulation.
Been there done that.
Experienced radiative insulator, one super conducting magnet cooled by both liquid nitrogen and liquid Helium, 60 layers of aluminum foil.
Well that’s interesting, bob. NASA will be fascinated to know that space equipment can not be protected from the Sun.
(See why you need an adult to review your comments?)
‘If you think blackbody means something other than perfectly emits and absorbs EM radiation at all (applicable) frequencies, show us a book that agrees with you. Show us an equation for calculating which wavelengths are not absorbed.’
Tim, Norman, me:
I have made similar requests many times. He is never able to offer any source. He simply ignores facts and logic.
JD has no desire to honestly debate or be taken seriously. His goal is simply to troll.
I suggest that unless he changes his ways, we need to stop responding to him and thus feeding the troll.
I concur with your suggestion, anonymous Nate. Stop with your nonsense. If you don’t understand the physics, it is not my fault. It is not my job to teach you, especially if you are not able to pose a responsible question, in a timely manner, so I don’t have to accidently run upon your comment when I’m looking for something else.
Sheeeesh.
JD,
this statement
“Well thats interesting, bob. NASA will be fascinated to know that space equipment can not be protected from the Sun.”
Never said anything like that, I think NASA knows how to insulate their space equipment, and it’s not by reducing the area, it’s by reducing the flux.
‘pose a responsible question, in a timely manner’
‘Timely’, however arbitrarily defined by you, is just an excuse to avoid accountability.
Whether timely or not you don’t answer or take seriously the key questions from me or Tim or anyone.
Of course for pure trolling, you dont need to answer.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Guys, JD is just gas lighting here with his alternative facts, and getting attention he desperately seeks…
Obviously anonymous Nate has not studied the issue and has nothing constructive to offer. Just another uninformed, closed-minded troll.
Nothing new.
JD,
More lies from our trolliest of trolls.
I have offered you the correct physics many times, and each time you dodge, distract, deny facts, and finally depart..
Nate, when you clowns resort to “L” words, it indicates you have lost.
But, I can understand your frustration. You don’t understand the relevant physics, and you see your fraudlent belief system being shattered right in front of your eyes. That explains your anger.
I’m here to help. The correct physics:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344640
Go find some other suckers to troll. Or just play in traffic.
Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
…but anyway, back to my point: Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
DREMT,
JD has debunked his own solution, by not explaining why it is exempt from several laws of physics.
I am also puzzled why YOU have never claimed the Radiative Heat Transfer Law is ‘bogus’ or does not apply, as he does. Do you agree with him?
As I recall, DREMT, you spent a long time arguing that Eli did not use the Radiative Heat Transfer Law to solve the GPE, and therefore his solution must be wrong.
To be self-consistent you should argue that JDs solution is also wrong, because he fails to use the Radiative Heat Transfer Law.
Not only does he not use it, his solution violates it! And thus he claims the law is bogus.
Whoops!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345070
How old are you?
Clearly trolling doesnt require you to be consistent with yourself or even make sense.
…but anyway, back to my point: Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
Here’s old DREMT:
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 29, 2018 at 1:02 PM
To find ‘the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate, and the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate’ you need to use the radiative heat transfer equation between the sun and the blue plate, and between the plates (your Q12), and your Q23.”
New DREMT: JD has “debunked the Green Plate Effect.”
Here’s JD ‘debunking’ his solution of GPE:
JD “if you had been paying attention, you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.”
because his ‘solution’ doesnt satisfy the RHT equation.
Nate, the debunk involves having a blue plate powered by an electrical source, and adding an additional green plate to the left of the blue (plus additional green plates as necessary). It’s an extension of the GPE logic, designed to show the absurdity of the conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum. Try to keep on topic. Currently, the topic is:
Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
Good try at dodging.
The issue is a law of physics, the RHE, must be satisfied, as you correctly pointed out in November. And neither the ‘debunk’ or original diagrams satisfy it.
You think the law is now bogus? Or JD is exempt?
Good try at dodging, Nate. Stop trying to change the topic from the debunk.
Congratulations!
You are promoted to full Troll status.
Nate, please stop trolling.
The “plate-warmer” clowns determined that adding a second green plate would raise the blue plate temperature to 345 K. If all three plates start out together, all three would have an equilibrium temperature of 244 K. So the clowns claim that slightly separating the plates causes the middle (blue) plate to rise to 345 K!
Now NONE of the clowns understand the relevant physics. In fact, most don’t even understand their own pseudoscience. I have to explain it to them often. But, it gets worse. They are unable to think for themselves. This is another perfect example.
244 K corresponds to -29 °C, -20.5 °F. 345 K corresponds to 72 °C, 161 °F. These are pretty extreme temperature changes, just from slightly separating the plates. People that can think for themselves would realize that there is something wrong. But not our clowns.
Just some more reality….
JDH,
It doesn’t make any difference really. When the heat lamp is turned off, all the different coloured plates become the same temperature.
Just like the Earth’s surface after sunset. The plates all lose their colour as well. No heat trapping at all.
Much ado about not much at all. I suppose the idea was to show that CO2 can make the Earth hotter from year to year (as in “Hottest year EVAH!”, but this is just lunatic nonsense, espoused by deluded nutters!
Some of the nutters even agree that the Earth has cooled, but claim that because it is now cooling very, very, slowly, that really means it is getting hotter!
Bizarre.
Cheers.
This “plates” nonsense has been amazing. The clowns have to believe it, but many know it is a bust. Some have left the discussion, while others will likely go down with the sinking ship.
It’s been a blast!
The spontaneous temperature rise and fall of the plates through separation and pushing them back together is the now infamous “Accordion of Pseudoscience”. Even Eli had to draw the line at that, as we saw in his more recent GPE article.
With 3 plates, we now have the “Pseudoscience Sandwich”. Just over 100 K of temperature increase simply by adding two plates with zero insulative properties either side of a powered object.
There has to be a limit to what they can swallow, or expect others to, surely!?
They always get themselves wrapped up in their own web. They can’t decide how to define a black body, to fit their pseudoscience. Is it a perfect absorber, or a reflector, or a heat shield, or an insulator, or a banana?
The humor never ends.
What kind of object can provide zero insulation?
Is there something that is transparent to all wavelengths, has zero thermal conductivity and does not block convection?
Hmmmm,
What is this mystery material?
No real objects provide zero insulation, because no real objects are perfect conductors, with zero reflectivity. Unlike the unreal black-body plates in the thought experiment, two of which you claim would increase the temperature of the powered blue plate by 101 K.
Don’t forget what you’ve got to sell, this time. A 101 K temperature increase. Enjoy your sandwich!
That temperature increase is because your diagram has 800 watt/m2 coming to the blue plate, remember it’s a blackbody problem, no reflection allowed.
From Norman:
“JDHuffman
The correct answer for you situation would have a steady state temperature for both green plates of around 244 K while the sandwiched blue plate would rise to 345 K.”
That’s “the correct answer”, bob. Can’t argue with that. Mmmm…tasty pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
We can all think fine. You are the one lacking in rational logical skills.
You don’t have enough knowledge of heat transfer to grasp that when together they have a heat exchange mechanism called conduction. If you could think for yourself you would realize there is much difference between plates that are in contact vs plates that are not. Since you lack logical thought process you come to the absurd conclusion that plate separation has no effect.
Why not do an actual experiment. You will see the heated blue plate does get much hotter and the others cool off.
JD…”Now NONE of the clowns understand the relevant physics”.
The G/B plate nonsense was started by Eli Rabbet, who has a degree in physics and teaches chemistry. I can see why.
He co-authored a paper as a rebuttal against Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics who have debunked AGW and the GHE. They argued, in part, that real greenhouses do not warm by trapping IR, as CO2 is claimed to do, but that the greenhouses warm because they trap warmed air molecules with the glass. Further, there is little or no convection to carry the heat off.
As part of the rebuttal, there were two, Rabbett (Halpern) used the same silly arguments as in the green plate / blue plate thought experiment. When G&T claimed a heat transfer from hot to cold only was permitted, Halpern et al argued that would mean one body was not radiating.
Doh!!!
In their rebuttal, G&T had to point out the obvious, that the 2nd law applies to heat and not radiation (EM). They claimed only quantities of heat can be summed and that summing IR does not qualify in determining the direction of heat transfer outlines by the 2nd law.
Where this silliness came from, I don’t understand. Certain modernists have altered the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to make it allegedly satisfy the 2nd law by introducing a pseudo-scientific notion of a net balance of energy.
We are not talking about energy per se in a generic form, we are talking about two different energies, EM and heat, which have diametrically-opposed properties. Furthermore, Rabbett et al are confusing black-body theory with real world applications, which do not coincide.
Gordo, No, we aren’t talking about “energy per se in a generic form”. We are talking about the effects of radiation shield(s) on a heated body’s temperature. In you referenced paper by G&T, they simply assert that the CO2/Greenhouse Effect on temperature can not be an increase because that would violate the 2nd Law without any analysis of the energy flow. They didn’t address the parallel case of radiation shielding of heated solid bodies, which is standard engineering practice.
You are arguing against text book engineering and experience, which says that the heated body will experience a temperature increase when shields are added, a result repeated in my Green Plate demo.
So far, for almost a year, in all your comments, you have stubbornly failed to explain these results.
Swa,, You apparently understand this stuff. Of course there is a GHE and your experiment demonstrated it. The deeper understanding comes from discovering why, in spite of being a ghg, CO2 has little if any effect on climate and water vapor, also a ghg but inherently self-limiting, does. It is explained at http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com or click my name for the whole story.
DP, Sorry to say, I can’t be considered an expert on the intricate details. I’ve not worked with MODTRAN, so what follows may not be correct.
That said, I think you should also consider that the water vapor absorp_tion is also thermalized, which puts a kink in your suggestion that there’s one way a transfer from the CO2 molecules to the WV molecules. Also, the emissions from any molecular constituent happens in random directions, which works out to half leaving a layer in the upward direction and the other half moving downward.
Furthermore, above the tropopause, there’s almost no WV, so the emission-absorp_tion reverts to the CO2 in a column. The lower level shown for CO2 in your graphs may be the result of the net outward flux from elevations above the tropopause, which occurs at a lower emission temperature, thus the apparent “dip” in your graphs.
Should you wish to dig deeper, try Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, which gives the intricate details. I have a copy of the 1989 edition which I need to study, but I get lost in the math. Just skimming it so far, I’ve picked up lots more understanding of the physics.
ES,, I am fully aware that the energy absorbed by WV is thermalized, in fact, the energy is thermalized in ALL molecules that absorb photons. The energy is distributed/shared by thermal conduction in the surrounding molecules in the gas. The process of absorbing and emitting is continuous throughout the atmosphere. Absorbing tends to increase the temperature of the gas and emitting tends to lower it. Although individual molecules emit in random direction, the steep population gradient of WV molecules, progressively with altitude, favors radiation from them getting all the way to space. The population gradient in WV molecules goes from an average of about 1000 ppm at surface to about 32 ppm at 10 km. The population decline accompanies the temperature decline to about -50 C at 10 km.
The concept of one-way transfer is misleading and I will try to improve the wording to avoid any appearance that I am suggesting it. Emission in the range wavenumber 600-750/cm can be absorbed by CO2 keeping CO2 molecules participating below 10 km. Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules and, because of their population gradient, much of it, eventually all of it, gets all the way to space. The result of all this is the NET flow of absorbed energy in the wn range 600-750/cm is absorbed by CO2, shared with all the surrounding molecules, a lot of the emission from WV molecules, eventually nearly all, makes it to space. The notch demonstrates the NET flow of energy.
If you look closely in Fig 2 notice that the notch is deeper at 20 km than it is at 50 km. This corroborates CO2 dominance above the tropopause. The NET flow of energy above the tropopause favors CO2 because, at this high altitude, CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecule about 410 to 32.
Thanks for suggesting the book. I would be cautious about any text that far back, a lot of this stuff had not been sorted out yet. Avoid allowing the physicists to get you mired in the minutia.
“the energy is thermalized in ALL molecules… emitting is continuous throughout the atmosphere.”
These statements are inconsistent Dan. If all the excited molecules are de-energized by collision (thermalized), then there are no excited molecules left to emit (de-energized by photon emission). A better statement is some molecular absorbed energy is thermalized and some emitted.
“Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules”
All atm. molecules absorb/emit in the range wn 50-600/cm, the only difference is the measure of luminous intensity of each species.
“Thanks for suggesting the book. I would be cautious about any text that far back, a lot of this stuff had not been sorted out yet. Avoid allowing the physicists to get you mired in the minutia.”
More recent texts are Bohren 1998 (atm. thermo.) and Bohren 2006 (atm. radiation). In spectroscopy, the detail minutia IS where the important stuff is learned. Bohren 2006 cites Goody & Yung with admiration by the way.
DP, Things become complicated when one considers the tropopause because of the vertical circulation process.
As I understand things, warm, moist low density air is lifted in the atmosphere by the hydrostatic pressure from the surrounding cooler, densier air, moving upward where it cools, eventually cooling to the point that the vapor begins to condense into clouds. While condensing, the heat released warms the air mass, which promotes further upward motion. Further condensation may result in ice particles or snow. Both effects result in a cloud layer, thru which IR EM will not be transmitted. Above the cloud layer and the tropopause, there’s little water vapor to emit IR EM.
The now cooled air mass will sink back toward the surface, which results in dry, low water vapor areas which will emit little IR EM in the WV bands while allowing IR EM from the surface to go directly to space via the atmospheric window. In those instances my presumption is that the CO2 column absorp_tion/emission would provide a larger fractional component than in the moist air situation. I’m sure that the math to sort all this out becomes quite messy, which must be done using models.
Swanson, Dan Pangburn, and anonymous fluffball, when you clowns have finished pretending you know physics, deal with this reality:
Adding the second green plate results in the blue plate temperature of 345 K, if you believe in your pseudoscience.
So if the 3 plates are together, they all are at 244 K, at equilibrium. Your pseudoscience indicates that separating them by only 1 silly millimeter causes the blue plate to rise to 345 K.
At 244 K, the blue plate might cause frost bite to human skin. Separating the plates could cause burns to human skin.
Where has such nonsense been seen, in the real world?
And, we haven’t even mentioned entropy yet….
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
“So if the 3 plates are together, they all are at 244 K, at equilibrium.”
Given the initial Eli conditions view factor 1, that is ONE plate at 244K equilibrium. Add a plate for two plates, the blue plate goes to 262K equilibrium. Directionally same as confirmed by experiment. From where did JD get the 3plate 345K?
“As I understand things, warm, moist low density air is lifted in the atmosphere by the hydrostatic pressure from the surrounding cooler, densier air, moving upward where it cools, eventually cooling to the point that the vapor begins to condense into clouds.”
Not all the time, actually observed not most of the time. Convective available PE (CAPE) determines the initial lifting velocity of the air warmed above ambient; when it rises to equilibrate with ambient the rise stops and diffuses laterally in a mostly hydrostatic atm.
If not enough CAPE to get to saturation, doesn’t form a cloud. A lot of CAPE (which is unusual, summer storms are an exception) means momentum can get the rising air to burst through the tropopause and cauliflower out into stratosphere.
Funtionally incompetent fluffball is unable to even follow blog discussions:
“From where did JD get the 3plate 345K?”
Clowns provide so much entertainment.
JD has no idea about the 345K, I understand. Typical for an entertainment specialist.
Wrong again, fluffball. I just wanted you to confirm your incompetence.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344427
Like I wrote, JD has no idea where the 345K came from, JD is arguing against something JD hasn’t even bothered to understand. Typical for an entertainment specialist.
fluffball continues to display his incompetence.
He probably doesn’t know how to follow the link I provided:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344427
If he did, he probably couldn’t understand the bogus math Norman used to arrive at the 345 K.
These clowns are hilarious.
Show us the bogus 345K math JD. Prove JD is not just an entertainment specialist.
fluffball, you admit you’re so incompetent you don’t even know your own pseudoscience, then I will show you how your syncophant, Norman, calculated the 345 K.
I await your admission of incompetence.
Not going to work JD.
Blog readership knows you are calling the 345K calculation bogus when you haven’t even seen the calculation, typical in that JD just makes up stuff. Or show the bogus 345K calculation if you are right and are not just an entertainment specialist.
I agree, clown. Your tricks no longer work here.
Admit that you don’t know how the bogus 345 K is calculated, and I will show you.
You don’t even want to learn your own pseudoscience!
Hilarious.
I’ll go with experimentally confirmed science JD.
I’ll leave the pseudoscience & bogus cartoons to JD where JD shows NO experiments. JD can’t even show the 345K calculation JD calls bogus. A three ring JD circus. Great entertainment JD, and it’s free! More please.
ES,, I discuss vertical circulation at the end of Section 4 in my blog/analysis (click my name) and understand it apparently the same as you. Remember, clouds exist all the way from fog at the surface to cirrus and my assessment smears all this into a global average. The radiation stuff is in parallel. Working with global averages is comparatively simple and that is all I do. In the process, I have identified what is important as demonstrated by a 98+ % match with measured 1895-2018. The GCMs will not get better until they stop blaming CO2, input measured WV, and account for ocean oscillation.
Bal,, It appears we are not on the same page with understanding of thermalization. Thermalization is the process of absorbing radiation and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. The collisions are all elastic so there is no net energy loss. The energy of the molecule that absorbed the photon is shared so its energy drops down becoming part of the average for the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which is exhibited as the temperature of the gas. This all happens as the molecules bounce off each other with the average time between impacts for a molecule being less than 0.0002 microseconds at stp. The average time between absorbing and emitting a photon is about 5 microseconds so the chance of emitting a photon before another molecule is contacted is zilch. All absorbed, thermalized energy is eventually emitted.
As to the difference in luminous intensity, I became aware of that working with Hitran. IMO the species participating several orders of magnitude below the significant energy involved with ghg can be ignored with negligible error in understanding climate.
MODTRAN output compares acceptably with TOA measurements showing the notches. I wonder how Bohren explains the notches.
The plate problem, as defined without edge issues, is trivial. Eli got the correct answer in spite of his mistakes because they perfectly compensated. In his 2018 update, the first equation with two plates should be a equals 2bprime minus c for plate 1.
Fluffball is unable to understand his own pseudoscience. His one fan, Norman, will be so disappointed.
Norman has a lot to learn about teen idols. They come, they go, but never anything of substance.
Nothing new.
Dan Pangburn, are you here to face reality or promote your blog?
If you want to face reality, here it is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344669
“All absorbed, thermalized energy is eventually emitted.”
The air molecules excited one level above their base quantum level cannot both emit a photon and thermalize that energy by collision back to base level. All atm. molecular energy one level above the quantum base level is eventually emitted OR thermalized by collision. Not both.
“IMO the species participating several orders of magnitude below the significant energy involved with ghg can be ignored with negligible error in understanding climate.”
O2 and N2 are in such high quantity they are observed emitting in the spectroscopy through the entire depth of earth atm. Also, “can be ignored” is different, more accurate statement for some species, than the statement “Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules”.
Bal,, Your statements at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344730 appear to be true, but IMO they look a lot like minutia with little, if any, illumination on why CO2, in spite of being a ghg is not a significant contributor to GW.
In my view, it is true that added CO2 ppm is not a significant contributor as you write. The issue is over what is meant by “significant” earthian added sky radiation at the surface & the time period.
Some might call CO2 added ppm delta ~0.7C in global median T observed over ~75 years significant. Others, including Dan, might call .009C/year not a significant contributor to GW. It is really hard to see .009C each year/year in the top post graph. There are both advantages and disadvantages to added sky radiation & CO2 that are rarely summed.
To me, anyone writing .009C monotonic increase this year 2019 over last 2018 on global median temperature being solely responsible for any sort of a so called “heat wave” or major storm damage is a bit of an exaggeration. The low all-time temperature in Illinois was ~.009C higher than what it would have been had it happened last year.
I’m mainly in this wild west discussion to be able to form my own more informed data-based opinions on what the general news media publishes on the subject of GW. Oh, and the humorous entertainment provided by some blog commenters is worth the effort.
DP wrote:
MODTRAN output compares acceptably with TOA measurements showing the notches. I wonder how Bohren explains the notches.
AS I understand it, those “notches” to which you refer are the narrow absorp_tion “bands” at specific wavelengths for the various species of greenhouse gases. That’s the way it is described by Goody and Yung. I think Craig Bohren agrees with that interpretaton. The earlier spectroscopic work which showed wide “bands” because the resolution of the instruments couldn’t resolve the narrow bands and the effects of pressure broadening added to the width at surface pressures.
I read most of your long post and came away a bit confused. I would need to read it again but I think you should remember that your graphs of MODTRAN results are mostly for clear sky conditions. What happens above clouds would seem to be different, given that clouds would tend to emit a nearly continuous spectrum similar to water. As you note, there’s almost no WV above the tropopause (you use 10km as your reference). Above the clouds, CO2 becomes a much larger fraction of the GHG emissions.
Another thing which bothered me was your computation for human caused emissions of WV. I didn’t notice a comparison with the amount WV provided by from natural cycles, especially as the Earth is roughly 72% covered with H2O. Also, as I recall, irrigated agriculture has been around for quite a while, especially for farming rice. The aboriginals in pre-Colombian Central America also took advantage of irrigation.
BTW, Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, 2nd ed. was reprinted in 1995, at least, that’s what I think happened, since the newer release is still a “2nd edition”. It’s still available as a paperback at your favorite mega national book seller.
Obviously not interested in facing reality.
Hilarious.
MF, JD, DREMT all high-fiving over their collective self delusion.
Guys, why don’t you share some cool-aid to celebrate.
101 K, Nate. Enough’s enough.
tim…”In every case, you will find that for radiation from a hot blackbody object with a temperature Th and an area A to cool blackbody surroundings with a temperature Tc, the power of the net transfer is always given as
P = (sigma) (Th^4 Tc^4) A ”
Wrong!!!
This is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which determines the radiation for a body of temperature Th to its environment Tc. IT IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF NET TRANSFER, WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
S-B describes a one way process in which heat is dissipated in a hot body as it radiates to a cooler environment. It’s a one way process.
Stefan’s initial equation had no Tc factor in it. He was caluclating the radiation from a hot body only. It was Boltzmann who later added the Tc factor.
The data used by Stefan initially came from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically till it glowed. As he increased the current, the wire glowed different colours. Someone else calculated the theoretical temperatures corresponding to each colour level from which Stefan deduced a T^4 relationship between the temperature of the body and the emitted radiation.
That does not describe a net heat transfer nor does it describe a net EM transfer. It is simply a measure of the radiation density itself.
Some modernists have incorrectly added to the S-B equation to theorize a two way transfer between bodies.
Utter pseudo-science.
[I thought I had replied earlier, but it didn’t seem to come through. ]
Gordon, lets skip the semantics (“photons flying both ways” vs “thermal IR” vs “heat” vs “EM radiation”) for a moment and see if we can agree on numbers. After all, that is the ultimate goal — to be able to calculate how the universe works.
It seems we can agree that the equation P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A “determines the radiation for a body of temperature Th to its environment Tc.” I bet we can agree on these two applications.
1) A sphere with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“a body) radiating to a room with T = 280 K, emissivity = 1 (“its environment”) will result in
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A = 111 W
going from the sphere to the room.
2) A flat panel with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“a body) radiating to a nearby flat panel with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“its environment”) will result in
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A = 0 W
going from the the first panel to the second (ie there is no power transfer at all).
Tim, please stop trolling.
Sorry. Here goes again:
Ball4 says, March 8, 2019 at 8:12 AM:
Hehe, no, troll.
The Earth emits [220+20=] 240 W/m^2 (net LW, OLR) to space, not the Sun. It absorbs 240 W/m^2 (net SW, ASR) from the Sun.
This is pretty elementary, wouldn’t you say so, troll?
Yes, to space, troll. To space. Not to the Sun.
Cold reservoir. Hot reservoir. Space. Sun. Got it?
All radiation definitely isn’t heat [Q], but NET radiation transferred from a hot to a cold object is indeed the radiative heat [Q_rad] between the two.
Nope. That’s the object’s “internal KE” [U_ke]. U and Q are not the same.
I have never figured out this objection, Kristian. In the same paragraph you say:
“The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate”
and
“you will see individual photons moving … from the cooler plate to the warmer.”
If the cooler surface emits 10^22 photons per second per m^2 and each has an average energy of 1e-20 J (ie an average wavelength of about 20 um), then it emits 100 W/m^2. It does BOTH! Simultaneously.
I understand that it can be *convenient* to focus on either photons or on net EM radiation; to focus on either microscopic or macroscopic. I understand that some people might be confused if they don’t already understand both perspectives. But simply shifting focus does not negate the existence of the other perspective.
Tim, it is Kristian that has to figure it out, not you. There is no line separating micro and macro. If there is, where is it? IMO Kristian’s confusion originates in the misuse of the heat term.
Tim Folkerts says, March 8, 2019 at 1:57 PM:
It has never been an objection on fundamentals. I also wrote, after all: “Please try and keep the two levels separate to lessen the confusion.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344391
I always try to make this point absolutely clear, Tim, when making this specific objection to something you’ve written. Strange how you seem to miss it every single time.
It’s all about keeping notions and ideas (about how things really work and how specific effects come to be) straight, in order to avoid confusion on matters such as physical mechanisms and cause and effect.
When people like you state that a cold object emits a separate power density flux to a hot object, and the hot object ends up even hotter as a result, it – most likely unintentionally – comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry) as if what you’re effectively saying is that the cold object is an independent energy source to the hot object, just like any other HEAT source.
But the cold object does NOT act as a heat source to the hotter object. The mechanism by which it forces the hot object to become hotter still is a DIFFERENT one.
By using this kind og imprecise language, you’re perpetuating the myth that the atmosphere somehow makes the surface warmer by ADDING EXTRA ENERGY to it, which is exactly what the Sun is doing, that is: as a heat source, heating it.
So you’re not saying the atmosphere heats the surface some more, and you don’t mean to either, I’m sure. But the WAY in which you describe the process makes OTHER people think that’s what you’re saying; it ends up being, whether you like it or not, the message you convey to most people.
Why do I always have to explain this to you?
Kristian
You are one arrogant poster. You claim “comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry)!
So you studied and worked in geology. Big deal. Do you have extensive experience working and designing heat flow equipment.
Your superior attitude to others is not warranted.
Tim Folkerts nor textbooks confuse me at all. Each object is a separate emitter of IR if it has some temperature. That is the established physics. There is no one unique flow of energy that moves in just one direction. I have asked you to support you claim.
I accept what Ball4 says about you. You are dealing with the caloric, the fluid that transfer heat in a flow from hot to cold. That idea is no longer accepted.
Here arrogant one.
“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.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
You are the confused one, you are trying to bring back the caloric theory. Sorry better luck with the less informed.
Again I challenge you to bring up any textbook on heat transfer that supports your notions. You won’t but you act like this genius that knows it all. You are just a blow-hard similar to the other skeptics thinking they know more than they do!
Norman,
You perceive Kristian as arrogant while I see him as THE voice of reason in this semantic, childish, he-said-she-said display of personal opinions on heat transfer between objects. Everyone should go watch “The God’s Must be Crazy” movies and realize how we see the same things differently based on our life experience and world views.
Kristian is simply pointing out that regardless of what is happening at the molecular and particle level, on any observable or measurable level, no heat ever gets transferred from cold to hot. Are there any textbooks or experiments that show otherwise?
“no heat ever gets transferred from cold to hot. Are there any textbooks or experiments that show otherwise?”
Yes: “Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation.”
The net energy transfer is a calculation done by humans not nature. Was explained by Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of particle velocities in the late 1800s.
Leonard B. Loeb, 1961: The Kinetic Theory of Gases, Dover, Ch. IV (pp. 1308) and James Jeans, 1982: An Introduction to the Kinetic Theory of Gases, Ch. IV (pp. 12430) discuss some of the early experimental verifications of the M-B distribution.
Deriving it by detailed consideration of molecular energy exchanges by collisions was not trivial or it would have been done earlier. Plausible arguments (not rigorous derivation) for the distribution of molecular speeds (from which follows that for energies) follows from temperature being an average.
(pp. 130-8)…(pp. 124-30). Never know when this site will drop a character.
fluffball, be sure to mention your 1452 K “experiment”. You know, the one you had to later run from.
You wouldn’t want to mislead anyone, would you?
No, I just used that ploy to motivate you to show you CAN do the S-B calculations right instead of the wrong way you do them in your bogus cartoon. It worked, you demonstrated you know your cartoon is bogus.
Chic Bowdrie
My response to Kristian is because he chose to claim comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry)!”
That is an offensive comment and not at all correct.
I have never disagreed with anyone saying HEAT (net energy transfer) transfers from cold to hot.
My point is the same for years now. A cold body radiates its own energy toward the hot object. The hotter the cold body the more energy it radiates. The hot object will absorb the energy it can from the cold object (based upon the molecular structures). The point is that the hotter the cold temperature is the hotter will be the temperature of a HEATED body.
Adding any GHG to the atmosphere from a zero amount will increase the atmosphere emissivity. With no GHG present the surface radiates directly to space. With GHG the atmosphere will radiate energy back to the surface. The more GHG present the higher the emissivity and the more IR that is radiated back to the surface. Or in the enhanced GHE the more GHG added the higher in the atmosphere you must go to emit to space so you start emitting from colder regions radiating less energy keeping all the layers below warmer.
Then show the before and after, clown.
Here’s another chance for you to do as you claim.
Your puppy Norman is watching. Don’t disappoint him again.
Norman,
To Kristian, you appear less educated. Maybe, maybe not. No amount of education makes you right and Kristian wrong.
To me, you appear to have swallowed–hook, line, and sinker–the simplistic and so far unsubstantiated view that increasing CO2 will raise global temperature. Have you any proof of that? Otherwise you are just imagining that the things you describe about IR active gases actually occur.
Chic Bowdrie
Many times I have asked Kristian to support his claims. He only self supports linking to his own blog and his cartoon physics. That is NOT support. I have given several links to actual textbooks with links and pages to support what I think is correct.
About swallowing AGW is not correct. I have lots of uncertainty over the entire Climate Change debate. I sent you an article on an older thread where the authors did not see much impact from CO2.
The GHE is not an imagined concept. It is proven by an Earth’s surface that is much warmer than it would be without GHG. You have the Moon and Earth to compare.
I have linked you to measured values of the DWIR.
Not sure what you are actually asking for. I have supplied you with actual empirical data in the past. What is the point of continuing research efforts if you will ignore the past?
Norman says, March 10, 2019 at 12:03 AM:
It annoys me that you keep lying about this, Norman. You LIE, and you know it.
In the past I have linked to multiple sources explaining how radiation really works, how radiative transfer is ultimately a matter of statistical (probabilistic) averages, and how the two-way transfer model is only a (useful; clever, even) mathematical formalism. You have invariably failed to acknowledge (or comprehend) those sources and what they say. And so rather ignore them. I have even reminded you on several occasions, like I do now, that I have indeed linked to standard physics (text and figures) to ‘support my claims’. Yet you keep coming back to your LIE that I only ever link to my own blog.
This is why I ignore you, you ignorant clown. You and your stubborn stupidity. (Your constant lying about me, however, I can only ignore for so long.)
Norman says, March 10, 2019 at 12:03 AM:
Yes, it is.
No. That’s the ATMOSPHERE. Earth’s surface is much warmer than it would be without an ATMOSPHERE.
Haven’t we been through this a million times? Yes, the atmosphere needs to be radiatively active for the thermal effect to take hold. And it is. All atmospheres that we know of are. But it’s not the IR activity that’s the CAUSE of the surface warming. You know what else all atmospheres are? Warmer than space. And that is NOT because they’re radiatively active. In fact, they’re warmer in spite of being radiatively active.
See my discussions on this with Tim Folkerts. Because I’m not having this discussion with you, again …
Kristian
YOU: “It annoys me that you keep lying about this, Norman. You LIE, and you know it.
In the past I have linked to multiple sources explaining how radiation really works, how radiative transfer is ultimately a matter of statistical (probabilistic) averages, and how the two-way transfer model is only a (useful; clever, even) mathematical formalism.”
No you really have not done anything of this sort at all! You mainly post to your own blog and a cartoon drawing you have with lines coming off of spheres. You linked once to a web page on photon gas, which had NOTHING at all to do with heat transfer.
I have not seen any textbook on heat transfer support any of your ideas that there is only a one way flow of EMR, I have seen only the opposite view. Not one ever indicates the two-way flow of energy is a mathematical formalism and you have NEVER linked to a textbook that makes such a claim. I have linked you to more than one textbook. I really don’t care if you are done with me. I only respond when you put your snide remarks in your posts. I really am not interested in the physics you peddle here. I will get mine from valid sources like science textbooks.
I am linking to an actual textbook on heat transfer to demonstrate.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl02ky5h40xDygiCIvDHFrj5c9hYvcNN/view
Page 588
“In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and can be absorbed there. An exchange of energy takes place, in contrast to the transfer that occurs in heat conduction and convection.”
“That is an offensive comment and not at all correct.”
Norman is enormously offended by a remark about 100 times less offensive than what he spews out to others in almost literally every comment.
Norman,
The Earth/moon comparison is no proof of a GHE, because the moon has no substantial atmosphere let alone IR absorbing gases. Earth would be warmer with an atmosphere than without, wouldn’t you agree? Of course, adding IR gases changes the dynamics considerably. But the warmer than it would be has not been measured, just assumed. What you need to prove is what effect of additional CO2 is. That’s what I’ve been asking for from the beginning.
By the way, how is DWIR actually being measured? I think the answer is crucial the whole blue/green plate questions.
Chic Bowdrie
I am not sure the surface would be much warmer with a pure nitrogen atmosphere over no atmosphere. There would be only an insignificant amount of IR returning to the surface to replace the energy lost via the direct IR emission to space over the entire spectrum.
YOU: “What you need to prove is what effect of additional CO2 is. Thats what Ive been asking for from the beginning.”
Could not do that, and I don’t think anyone can. That is why there is still a debate that has been going on decades. The model projections seem to be all over the place so the models are not usable. One just has to keep observing. Working to eliminate all other sources of global temperature increase and try to isolate how much might be do to CO2 addition. I believe that is what Roy Spencer asks for. How much warming is natural and how much is man-made?
On the DWIR devices. What I have read is they have a material inside sensitive to small temperature changes. The changes are converted to electrical signals for conversion to readout. The devices are calibrated with knows standards of IR emitting sources in labs before sent to the field. The work like a balance would. You have an unknown weight you want to measure so you put know weight on one side until it balances. If the IR source emits less IR than the calibrated standard you get opposite voltage and the amount less the higher the opposite voltage. If the source emits more IR than the calibrated standard than you have the other voltage.
I did not specify if the voltage is positive or negative for higher or lower IR source than calibrated standard since I was not sure but they work similar to a balance. They are taking in IR from the atmosphere and comparing it to known IR and converting it to a measured IR value that they post.
Kristian says:
Earth has to emit 240 W/m^2 to stay in balance.
If the atmosphere is not IR active it has to be from the surface.
Svante says, March 10, 2019 at 11:10 AM:
Indeed. Your point being …?
Norman,
To your credit, you seem to be in search of the truth…sometimes. Yet you challenge other commenters as if you helped write the textbooks on radiative heat transfer. Kristian is giving an extremely reasonable description of what might be happening at the molecular level while keeping in perspective the obvious macro level where heat is only transferred from hot to cold. Ok, so that is my pet peeve over your disagreements with him.
My interest is not in proving you right or wrong, but maybe in hoping you will be more interested in getting deeper into exactly what is happening at the molecular level. That is my goal. Few will be convinced by the force of our vacuous assertions. OK, enough of my philosophical soap boxing.
“I am not sure the surface would be much warmer with a pure nitrogen atmosphere over no atmosphere.”
Why not? Where would the heat accumulated by conduction and convection go? There would be less DWIR, but there would also be less TOA UWIR. Try imagining what the daily temperature profiles would be in a pure nitrogen atmosphere.
Not being skilled in the mechanics of IR detection, I will not be able to agree or correct your interpretation of how DWIR is measured. However, it seems reasonable that an IR detector is calibrated at known wavelengths, with known temperatures of standard objects. What standard objects? Black bodies? Gases of known composition? What temperatures is the detector measuring when it is pointed to space? What equations are used to convert the “temperature” measurement (where?) to an energy flux? It isn’t counting photons, is it?
These are the questions I need answered before I continue pontificating (as I confess to having done) any further on the effect of IR absorbing gases on global temperature.
Upthread you wrote “I have lots of uncertainty over the entire Climate Change debate.” Yet you went on to express a fervent defense of the GHE. Which are you skeptic or AGW shill?
Kristian says:
“Your point being ?”
It will not warm the surface, just even out differences.
Svante says, March 10, 2019 at 4:35 PM:
Again, what’s your point, Svante?
Kristian, I probably missed something but I think this is wrong:
A non radiating atmosphere will have a lapse rate, but it will not help the surface radiate more than 240 W/m^2, so it will be much colder than now (although it will shave off some T^4 extremes).
The lapse rate will be anchored at the surface instead of at the (colder) TOA.
Svante says, March 11, 2019 at 8:55 AM:
No. It’s correct. It isn’t the IR activity that causes the surface to warm.
Consider the following:
The increase in DWLWIR is an apparent radiative effect of the atmosphere warming. When the atmosphere warms beyond space, from absorbing, thermalising and storing up energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings decreases, and so its total heat loss is naturally reduced. This forces the surface to warm so as to restore its heat balance (the heat input is assumed constant).
Yes, if the atmosphere in question is completely radiatively inert, it (or the main portion of it) will eventually be thermally disconnected from the surface, and so space can still be considered the surface’s only significant cold reservoir. But as soon as you make the atmosphere radiatively active, you will have that thermal connection with the surface established, just like when engaging a ‘clutch’, connecting engine power and mechanical work output, ENABLING causation to occur, and so now the atmospheric temperature will directly affect the total heat loss from the surface, which will be greatly reduced at any given surface T_avg relative to the former situation, once the atmospheric T_avg rises above the ‘temperature’ of space.
You might fool yourself into thinking that it is in fact the increase in the apparent atmospheric DWLWIR itself that forces the surface temperature to rise in this situation. But it’s not. The absolute rise in TEMPERATURE is the cause. The DWLWIR is but a tool enabling the atmospheric temperature to connect with the surface temperature in the first place. When the atmospheric temperature rises in this situation, it will then simply be able to affect the surface temperature, because now the atmosphere is thermally connected with the surface, and so it effectively replaces space as the surface’s thermal surroundings, meaning that, as it warms, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down (this couldn’t happen with only the vacuum of space around, since a vacuum cannot warm). And as the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down, there will be a decrease in both radiant, conductive and evaporative/convective heat loss from the surface. Forcing the surface temperature to rise.
The increase in DWLWIR is simply one expression of this decrease in temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings, thus of the reduction in surface heat loss.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/an-atmospheres-ir-activity-wont-make-it-warmer-and-so-cannot-be-the-cause-of-surface-warming-either/#comment-1276
The atmospheric IR activity represents the ‘clutch’ of a manual transmission car, the connecting device between power input and output, while the atmospheric temperature represents the engine, providing the power input, the actual CAUSE of the work output, which ends in the wheels of the car spinning round. The clutch itself cannot accomplish this effect, whether engaged or disengaged. Its only purpose is to connect cause (engine power) and effect (wheels spinning).
I guess we agree, sort of.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Min Gud, hva er du for en arrogant person!
“A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.
In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Jack Dale says, March 9, 2019 at 1:48 PM:
Which only serves to illustrate the very confusion I’m talking about.
No one’s saying a photon can’t move from cold to hot. A photon isn’t part of thermodynamic reality, and so its actions naturally aren’t governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics.
But, for the exact same reason, a photon emitted by a cold object and absorbed by a hotter one also does NOT constitute a MACROscopic transfer of energy from cold to hot. Which means it fundamentally has no bearing on temperature, which is distinctly a MACROscopic phenomenon.
You simply can’t have the cake and eat it too. You can’t BOTH have a photon pass unaffected by the Laws of Thermodynamics AND at the same time have that very same photon directly affecting the magnitude of thermodynamic quantities.
We have a dime analogy specifically addressing the fundamental distinction between a MICRO (quantum) and a MACRO (thermodynamic) transfer of energy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247505
“A photon isnt part of thermodynamic reality, and so its actions naturally arent governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics.”
Sure, same could be said of molecules, not being part of thermodynamic reality. But molecules certainly exist, can be observed, and their collective motions lead to the flow of heat, which can be described by thermodynamics.
Nate, please stop trolling.
norman…”So you studied and worked in geology. Big deal. Do you have extensive experience working and designing heat flow equipment.
Your superior attitude to others is not warranted.
Tim Folkerts nor textbooks confuse me at all. Each object is a separate emitter of IR if it has some temperature. That is the established physics”
Normie is soooo confused.
Do you have extensive experience working and designing…’heat flow equipment’???
What is heat flow equipment???
Norman, you are so hung up in blackbody theory that the reality escapes you. It is theorized that a BB absorbs all energy incident upon it but at thermal equilibrium only, when related to another BB. BBs do not exist.
Why are we talking BB theory??? It’s not required. No one sets up very hot black surfaces next to each other to test them.
Stefan of Stefan-Boltzmann fame did the initial calculations that related temperature of a body to the EM it radiates. It was a one way process of heat being dissipated in a body through EM radiation. Since the body had a temperature between 700C and 1500C and it’s surroundings had an ambient temperature around room temperature, the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not contravened.
However, your interpretation, that a nearby cooler body can radiate EM to a hotter body and raise it’s temperature, is what contravenes the 2nd law. Applied to AGW, it not only contradicts the 2nd law it implies perpetual motion in which heat is recycled from a heated source back to the source to raise its temperature.
There is no textbook on thermodynamics that I have read which states that or implies it. All of their examples ‘with units’ feature a heat transfer from hot to cold and at no time is a net heat or energy transfer implied. Some of them give idiotic inference that EM can flow both ways but they provide no examples to prove it nor do their illustrations offer units.
S-B came out some 25 to 30 years before the explanation of Bohr as to how heat and EM are related. S-B does not imply a two way EM transfer related to heat nor does it infer a net energy transfer.
Bohr, then Schrodinger, proved why only a one way transfer can take place. It has to do with the electrons in atoms that absorb and emit EM. In a nutshell, the electrons simply cannot absorb EM from a cooler source. That satisfies the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
Your total distortion of what you think I say and what I actually say is incredible to behold. I clarify my position to you often but it goes over you head and you are not able to process it. We have gone over the same things so many times, you get it wrong EVERY time!
YOU: “However, your interpretation, that a nearby cooler body can radiate EM to a hotter body and raise its temperature, is what contravenes the 2nd law. Applied to AGW, it not only contradicts the 2nd law it implies perpetual motion in which heat is recycled from a heated source back to the source to raise its temperature.”
That is NOT what I state. A nearby cooler body radiates and this IR will cause A HEATED body to reach a higher temperature than it would with an even colder body present. You never get it right and never will. This is real physics yours is NOT. There is no violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You DO NOT understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and you never will. Many have tried to explain it you but you can’t understand it. I have linked it to you many times but your brain can’t process it. You are in an anti-science cult.
You are of the same Conspiracy mind as the Flat-Earth only you choose a different topic. It is all the same. Non of you anti-science people have a clue what the real science says and you don’t care. You are religious fanatics and are guided by a belief.
“Since the body had a temperature between 700C and 1500C”
No Gordon, the experimental temperature ranged from -180C (using liquid air) to 1500C. See Kurlbaum Rubens 1901.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “What is heat flow equipment??”
https://processdesign.mccormick.northwestern.edu/index.php/Heat_Transfer_Equipment
Using the word “transfer” would have been much better choice.
Norman, Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Did anyone else notice that Eli got to the correct answer because his first equation involving 2 plates contains compensating errors?
Did you notice the ACTUAL correct answer?
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
You have 400 watts/m^2 going into the green plates and 800 watts/m^2 going into the blue plate, so they can’t be at the same temperature.
How that work out for you in school, you get the wrong answer on a test, you just change the marking and give yourself an A+++++++?
Wrong answer Einstein.
See if you can get an adult to explain this to you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344640
I did and the adult said you need to get back on your meds.
Its wrong, try looking up Kirchhoff’s law.
Clown, I probably knew about Kirchhoff’s Law before your first drug arrest.
No violation.
Try again.
But you ignored Kirchhoff’s law with your stupid diagram, sorry it hurts to be wrong.
Never arrested for drugs but there was a close call involving a cracked windshield, which passed a safety inspection for the state where I purchased the vehicle, with 4# in the trunk.
I’ll tell you how long ago that was if you tell me how old you are.
Let me guess?
12?
Are you just over your fear of clowns?
bobd…”try looking up Kirchhoffs law”.
Kircheoff 1 – The sum of the voltage drops in a circuit must equal the applied voltage.
Kircheoff 2 – The sum of the currents into and out of a node equals 0.
Hi Gordon.
Yeah it’s fun to watch the clowns attempt to expound on things like Kirchhoff’s laws.
They wouldn’t know a “node” if it smacked them in the face!
Gordon Robertson
You are looking at Kirchhoff’s Laws for electrical systems.
You may not know this but he also has a Law named after him based upon Radiant Energy.
Here:
https://spie.org/publications/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity?SSO=1
Gordon Robertson
The complete phony JDHuffman that just makes up stuff does not know what the Kirchhoff law is or how it works or how his goofy cartoon physics violates it. JDHuffman is not logical enough to understand anything. He is a troll and that is all he does. Ball4 understands this clown, he is here only for entertainment value. If you want to believe he knows any physics it is your own flaw. He is most wrong about everything. He makes all his stuff up and will keep doing it.
So far only you and his wife DREMT seem to think he has some actual knowledge of physics. The rest know you he is a phony troll.
Norman, your hero, fluffball, doesn’t understand his own pseudoscience. He can’t even calculate the bogus 345 K for the the second green plate added.
How is it your hero can’t handle your basic pseudoscience?
You might need a new hero….
JDHuffman
Ball4 may think of a different configuration for the plate.
You still accept that there is not a significant difference between a configuration when all the plates are together and when they are apart.
You are most wrong to think that the temperatures of the plates, once separated, would remain the same and you will not do any experiment to prove it.
I have linked you to radiative shielding. You are not able to process the information contained in the links.
Each plate reduces the amount of heat an object surface loses. If it is heated then it will get hotter with each additional plate added. The physics is there.
Norman, your hero, fluffball, doesn’t have a clue. He can’t even do the simple math for the incorrect solution. He can’t even derive the 345 K.
He knows even less that you do!
But you worship him because he will say anything to support your pseudoscience. Truth and reality mean nothing to him. That appeals to adolescents.
“You are most wrong to think that the temperatures of the plates, once separated, would remain the same and you will not do any experiment to prove it.”
This is where the 3 plate problem really messes up your earlier arguments, Norman. With the 2 plate problem, you always argued that when the plates were pushed together, they would both be 244 K, and when separated, the green plate would decrease in temperature from 244 K to 220 K, whilst your blue plate temperature would increase, from 244 K to 262 K.
Now, with the 3 plate problem, you have all 3 plates at 244 K when pushed together. But, when you separate the 3 plates, the two green plates no longer decrease in temperature! They remain at 244 K, whilst your blue plate spontaneously shoots up in temperature. What’s up with that?
dan…”Did anyone else notice that Eli got to the correct answer because his first equation involving 2 plates contains compensating errors?”
Eli is confused and he was told that essentially by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. The basis of Eli’s argument is that EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body to raise its temperature, which is nonsense.
G&T implied that Eli is confusing heat with EM. G&T had stated in a paper that heat can only be transferred between bodies of different temperatures one way, from hot to cold. In a rebuttal, Eli and his team inferred that one way transfer meant one of the bodies was not radiating.
In a rebuttal to Eli’s comment, G&T pointed out the obvious, that the 2nd law is about heat transfer only. They claimed only quantities of heat can be summed. In other words, it is not possible to lump heat and EM as a generic energy then claim that generic energy can have a net balance between the bodies.
From a perspective of thermodynamics, radiation from that green plate in Eli’s thought experiment has no effect on the blue plate. It cannot raise it’s temperature, for the simple reason that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler to a hotter body (Clausius and the 2nd law).
A net energy balance is sci-fi, it has nothing to do with physics.
The basis of Eli’s argument is that EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body to raise its temperature follows from experimental data. G&T performed no experiments. Any expert in thermo. would have done experiments supporting their work thus G&T are not thermodynamics experts. G&T paper has nothing new in it.
Fluffball, your “experiments” are all fraudulent. You are a fake. You hide behind your fake name, like a sissy coward. You don’t even know your own pseudoscience.
But, you have poor Norman faked out.
(Of course, he is wantonly desperate.)
Gor,, I have an M.S.M.E (3 graduate level courses in heat transfer), am (was) licensed in CA (P.E. in Mechanical Engineering, license 13316 (ret)). During my engineering career I worked on a lot of different things including solid rockets, meteorological satellites (including AMSU and SSMIS), also, among other things, I wrote a successful general purpose heat transfer program that runs on a PC and wrote a successful internal ballistics program. This 2-plate problem, as defined excluding edge effects, is truly trivial. Eli got the right answer in spite of the compensating errors and apparently not having a practical understanding of how thermal radiation heat transfer works.
A heated body exposed to the cold background of space will get warmer if it is shielded from that cold background by anything with a temperature above that of the background. Valid heat transfer analysis shows that. It is like radiation from the shield towards the heated body is cancelled by the part of the spectrum having the same wavelengths from the heated body. The net flow of energy is always from warm to less-warm and that is what 2lot cares about. The equation at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344375 is OK for the idealized plate problem but in real problems view factor and grey body emissivity are needed.
G&T do not appear to have it correct either. Perhaps it is because of ambiguity of terms. Quantities of energy flow can most certainly be summed. Consider a U shaped part in air with one of the legs above the other and the bottom leg heated. To track the temperature of the top leg, the conduction thru the U, convection from air that got warmer by going past the bottom leg and net radiation between the legs need to be added together. (In most practical problems one or two of these might be small enough to be ignored. An experienced analyst would know.)
The green plate does not directly raise the temperature of the heated blue plate but it indirectly allows the heated blue plate to get warmer by shielding it from the even colder background.
Okay Dan, I’ll put you down as “heat shield”.
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator, but it does NOT insulate, reflect, or shield anything.
Dan–BB is a heat shield
A “consensus” appears to be developing. They don’t exactly agree on what they want the BB to be, but they all have realized their pseudoscience won’t work with a BB.
Reality is tough to ignore.
DP, As our resident troll notes, you are agreeing that “back radiation” can warm the hotter body. The essence of the “sky dragons” argument is that this process violates the 2nd Law, asserting that this “fact” implies that the CO2 greenhouse effect doesn’t happen. They’ve been promoting this bogus claim for about a decade. To counter these guys and their spreading denialist falsehood, I conducted my Green Plate demo.
Swanson, the reason your bogus “experiment” is invalid has been explained to you. You avoid that reality.
Want another round?
You recently claimed that your “green” plate had an emissivity of 0.94. How did you determine that? And, if you know the emissivities of the plates, you should be able to estimate the related fluxes. So, please provide all temperatures, emissivities, and fluxes, along with a statement of what you believe you are proving.
Thanks.
Huffingman the Troll,
Would using a highly polished reflective surface on the Green plate instead of the painted surface warm the Blue one and if not, why not? In Holman’s text, he noted that any surface emissivity would work as an insulating radiation shield. Thus, the emissivity of the Green plate really doesn’t matter, unless one insists on highly accurate predictions. But, my demo was not intended to be a highly accurate experiment. My results simply demonstrated the warming of the Blue plate, which refutes all the denialist claims regarding the 2nd Law. If you don’t like that, do your own experiment and present it.
Swanson, are you backing away from your bogus “experiment”? .
If not, show us all temperatures, fluxes, and emissivities. So far, all we have are your nebulous claims, hinting that you have somehow disproved 2LoT. Raising the temperature of the blue plate is not hard. That can be done with insulation. You set out to “prove” the blue/green plate nonsense, that indicated the BB green plate could warm the blue plate. You have NOT proved any such thing, except in your closed mind.
And, keep the juvenile remarks going. That just assures me there isn’t much substance to you.
Another empty post from Huffingman the Troll. It can’t answer a simple, straightforward question. Why not? Probably because the question’s already been answered by long ago scientific investigations and by agreeing with the scientific facts, the troll must admit he’s wrong.
Swanson demonstrates there is not much substance to him, and even less to his bogus “experiment”, that he can not verify.
Nothing new.
He’s verified it well enough that I replicated the essence of the experiment, as did Dr. Spencer on the atm. JD should replicate the experiment also and instrument it to JD’s heart’s desire. Then report what the instruments read.
However that would be so little entertainment and totally unamusing, my expectation is that JD will not do so. Draw some more cartoons JD and continue your 3 ring circus, that is a more entertaining use of your time.
fluffball has another of his fake “experiments” to go with Swanson’s unsupported one.
And then fluffball mentions Dr. Spencer, like a young kid saying “I’m going to tell the teacher!”
You just can’t make this stuff up….
“my expectation is that JD will not do so.”
JD lives up to all my expectations, even delivers some more humor. Keep it up JD, please, do no experiments. Your entertainment value would suffer.
My expectations are that fluffball will never learn any physics, will never reject his pseudoscience, will never identify himself, and will never grow up.
Is the data for Australia correct?
“February was warmer than average for much of Australia, and particularly warm for Queensland. For Australia as a whole the monthly mean temperature was 0.64 C above the long-term average, with both maxima and minima above average at +0.66 C and +0.62 C respectively.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201802.summary.shtml
Jack, the UAH values are from the atmosphere, via satellite microwave measurements . The BoM values are from surface measurements.
It’s somewhat like comparing kangaroos with koala bears.
RSS satellite data shows
2019 1 0.6893
2019 2 0.5919 for the southern hemisphere.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Hemisphere_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
UAH shows a -1.17C change over two months for Australia.
Australia has been in news as having a heat wave.
Something is amiss.
Southern mid latitudes RSS data does show more cooling, but nothing like UAH
2019 1 0.8924
2019 2 0.4685
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
Monitoring the global land /ocean temperatures which are in neutral.
Until something happens either cooling or warming in some definitive way there is not much to say.
Until something happens I will remain pretty quiet as I wait and see when /if anything happens.
JDHUffman: “Tim, your equation: P/A = (sigma) (T_h^4 T_c^4). is NOT the S/B Law.
Thats just one of your mistakes.
The S/B Law is: P/A = σT^4”
Again you show your ignorance of physics and try to correct a poster who does know his physics.
Here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7EdAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA381&lpg=RA1-PA381&dq=Kurlbaum+Rubens+1901.&source=bl&ots=hmt3yI5agx&sig=ACfU3U2WNjbdHRRIvsDQ6TS6Y3VW-3gXxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRoI_j7_bgAhWLTN8KHeoaB4YQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Kurlbaum%20Rubens%201901.&f=false
Tim is correct about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Your counter is only one case of the Law. Being a law it needs to cover more than just one case. The case you show is if an object is emitting to an absolute zero surrounding. You really really need to quit being a pretend expert. Your flaws and errors are continuous.
Have you submitted your nonsense cartoon plate physics to a University Department of Physics for evaluation? I will submit my 345 K for the blue plate in your thought experiment.
Page 375 of this book.
No clown, the S/B Law is only about ONE temperature:
S = σT^4
Quit trying to make stuff up.
And you can believe the middle plate will go from -20 F to 160 F, if you want. But you’ll just look silly, as usual.
JDHuffman
Read the page in the book I linked to and tell me what it says. Your making declarations again without support.
No, I checked it out. You don’t understand how funny it is.
No units, “K is a constant”, “E” is energy, area of the object is not included, etc.
You have a knack for finding stuff you don’t understand.
JDHuffman
Since you don’t like the material from 1901 (which still includes temperature of object minus the temperature of the surroundings)…the K in this equation may take into account both area of object and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The area will not be changing in the use of this equation.
But I find a more modern version that does include the equation you don’t think is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law in the Law. The one you insist is the only correct one is not very useful in any application of heat transfer. The more developed form is useful in engineering applications.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
“The one you insist is the only correct one is not very useful in any application of heat transfer.”
That’s because it is not used in heat transfer. It is used to relate surface temperature to emitted flux.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
Again your poor reading comprehension becomes clear for all to witness.
I gave you a link with the Title Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The heat transfer equation IS part of the Law. You don’t read so well do you.
No wonder you never could learn physics and need to make up your own version. You can’t comprehend the real material but do understand you own make up nonsense.
The S/B equation, P/A = σT^4 is not used in heat transfer. It is used to relate surface temperature to emitted flux.
Learn some physics.
Strictly, the S-B/Kirchhoff eqn. is epsilon*sigma*T^4 for the emitter object and alpha*sigma*T^4 for the absorber object. Absorp_tivity and emissivity are not equal for spectrally integrated quantities.
But then I’m negligibly sure that JD learned some physics and just didn’t bother to tell us JD was assuming the spectrum, angular distribution, state of polarization all were the same for JD’s emitter as for any absorber so was writing the restricted form of S-B/Kirchhoff law.
As well as I’m negligibly certain JD meant the medium between emitter and any absorber was emitting negligible radiation.
fluffball, you need to:
1) Decide if you have a relevant point, or not;
2) Decide if you can communicate that point, coherently and concisely;
3) All after learning some physics, of course.
Norman claims: “I will submit my 345 K for the blue plate in your thought experiment.”
Norman, how will you know if the “expert” you find actually knows anything. You don’t have the background to know.
Here are some leading questions you can use to verify his level of knowledge:
1) Where in the real world is an example of plates rising in temperature by merely separating them a slight amount?
2) Are all photons always absorbed?
3) If he believes the temperature would rise to 345 K from 244 K, is that an increase, or decrease, in entropy?
Be sure to also supply his name and contact info, so what he says can be verified.
JDHuffman
You have been linked to the real world experiment by E. Swanson showing you the very thing. You deny the experiment and call it bogus. You are unable to process the difference in plate-together (conduction transfers heat now) vs plate-apart (no conduction heat transfer).
Unwilling to understand this huge difference you make up phony unscientific cartoons to justify your ignorance of this huge difference and then you make up your own unsupported physics to support your absurd notions.
Are all photons always absorbed? Yes if you are dealing with a blackbody. No if it is not.
No Norman, Swanson’s “experiment” was not real world. And, even he doesn’t claim the plate will rise over 180 degrees F (over 100 degrees C). That’s you claiming such nonsense.
Will all photons always be absorbed? The correct answer is “NO”, unless you wallow in pseudoscience. BBs have different spectra with different temperatures. So even a BB will not aways absorb all photons.
Learn some physics.
And I noticed you avoided the question about entropy. Probably a smart move on your part….
JDHuffman
E. Swanson experiment does not use the energy your thought experiment does. You have 400 watts of energy directly added to the blue plate continuously by some source.
E. Swanson’s test uses a light source and the energy received by his blue plate is considerably less. The temperature rise would be changed by the amount of energy added. The more you add the more you have to get rid off.
His test clearly shows that separated plates (in vacuum) do NOT achieve the same temperature. The green plate is cooler than the blue plate when they reach a steady state temperature.
You are totally wrong about blackbodies. It does not matter if the spectrum is different. One spectrum is what the blue plate will emit from its surface, the other is the spectrum of what it will absorb from the green plate. You are just wrong and no amount of your posting will change this. Claes Johnson is clueless and you seem to follow his fantasy physics. That is NOT textbook physics, it is made up ideas that are not at all confirmed by any experimental evidence. We already have experimental evidence proving this idea is wrong. We have no experimental evidence to remotely suggest it is correct.
No clown, you don’t have any “experimental evidence”. You “believe” the bogus “experiment” after you have changed a black body into a magical insulator, reflector, heat shield, nuclear reactor, or tomato.
And with two green plates, you believe you are raising the temperature from frost-bite to skin-burn range!
That ain’t science. It’s pseudoscience. You don’t have a clue.
Huffingman the Troll thinks that my Green Plate demo isn’t “experimental evidence”. I suspect that Huffingman has no “real world” experience in the sciences, so he can’t understand the difference between reality and fiction. As a result, he thinks it’s OK to post a bogus, unscientific cartoon and claim that it “proves” something or other. Where’s his “real world” evidence?
Swanson, you do understand that you have changed the BB into an insulator, don’t you?
Reality: It’s there whether you want it or not.
Huffingman thinks my demo relied on reflective insulation. What an idiot, the surface emissivity of the Green plate was about 0.94. That’s the exact opposite definition of reflection. I could have made the Green plate with a highly reflective surface and the Blue plate would have ended up even hotter.
Swanson, you might need to study my exact words in my comment just above.
Hi Dr. S
I have been searching in vain for a readme on your repository
that explains the format for the following two types of files.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
and this type ( the anomalies)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0
I try plowing through the CDR code to see how and where these wre written out, and decided to just write an ask for a read.me or explaination of the format.
I think you need to be near the top of a new page for Dr. Spencer to see it.
Perhaps someone else can answer.
S. Mosher, Is this what you are looking for?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu
I’ve always wondered about this bit:
Are they still claiming that the data over the Antarctic shouldn’t be used, even though they include it in their products? Note that RSS does not report poleward of 70S for this reason.
Nope, Not what I am looking for
‘Are they still claiming that the data over the Antarctic shouldnt be used, even though they include it in their products? Note that RSS does not report poleward of 70S for this reason.”
hard to say . Even reading through the CDR its not exactly clear
Most satellite products would have a HDF with one field for the values and a second field for the quality bits or confidence bits.
And it would be published in GeoTiff or some proper standard format
S. Mosher, Toward the end of my linked file, S & C describe the format for Reading Gridpoint Files: tXmonamg.YYYY_5.1, etc.
Their data is just a large array of their monthly values for a year of the gridded data. The first line gives the month and the year for the large mass of numbers which follow. The -9999s are fields with missing data or for high latitudes poleward of 82.5 degrees at the beginning and end of each month’s data.
Those files represent their results after they applied all their calculations, it’s not actual satellite measurements, which you seem to suggest. I think S & C’s product uses the same format as NOAA STAR. S & C start with the more basic “raw” data MSU/AMSU data from NOAA, if you want to take a shot at “real” data.
Thanks
My VPN came back and I am able to read it now
Don’t think Norman got his own pseudoscience correct. I think the “correct” answer for the 3 plate problem, according to Eli’s logic, is that the blue plate rises to 290 K.
290 K = blue plate emits 400 W/m2. Receives 200 W from each green plate, plus 400 W electrical input = 800 W. Assume blue plate has 2 sides x 1m2 surface area, 800/2 = 400 W/m2, i.e everything “balances” with blue plate at 290 K.
I think (though I could be wrong), that the 345 K is the temperature that the blue plate would converge on, when adding more and more green plates each side of the blue.
You’re correct with the 290 K, DREMT. I was content to let Norman wallow in his mistake. We gave him hint after hint, ridiculing the 345 K, but he was unable to figure it out. He always clings to his beliefs, in complete disregard of the facts. But, he believes he can think for himself!
(The 290 K is also 244 * (2)^0.25, which matches their perverted S/B equation.)
Maybe I should have let him “submit it to a University Department of Physics for evaluation”.
🙂
JDHuffman
No wallowing. I just made an error. Thanks for pointing it out Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says.
Yes I would have had to use two sides for the blue plate not one.
Anyway good job for getting the correct answer.
Well, “the correct answer”, “the debunking of the Green Plate Effect through reductio ad absurdum”, whatever you want to call it, yes, thanks.
So the addition of both green plates raises the temperature of the blue plate from 244 to 290.
So no violation of the 2nd law.
No reflection of IR by a blackbody.
And a cooler object heating a warmer object.
Glad we got all that cleared up.
And I’ll admit I didn’t see that the problem had changed with the input 400 watts, which I read as 400 watts/m^2
And you don’t see the 2LoT violation either, huh bob?
Nope,
I don’t
Maybe you could explain it to me.
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.
Yes, Dan Pangburn, M.S.M.E (3 graduate level courses in heat transfer), am (was) licensed in CA (P.E. in Mechanical Engineering, license 13316 (ret)), this means YOU!
That’s not an explanation of why there is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
No bob, it is an explanation. You just can’t grasp it.
“If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
Well if you can’t explain how it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then maybe you don’t understand that law.
Your lack of understanding doesn’t help your case.
Heck, you can’t even quote it.
Come on, prove you can look up the second law and properly quote it.
Here’s a quote for you, bob:
“If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
Glad to help.
Quote your self all night long.
You still haven’t demonstrated an understanding of physics.
JDHuffman
What you are missing in your post:
“3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K244K244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K290K244K
Exactly same energy in/out.”
It requires the middle blue plate to reach 290 K to get the same energy out. The situation can be seen in the world around you.
A puddle of water in the hot sun and dry asphalt receive the same energy in and the lose the same energy out but they will be at different temperatures because you have another heat transfer mechanism taking place with the puddle of water. The water is losing as much energy as the asphalt to remain at it steady state temperature. It is losing energy by radiation but also evaporation, with the asphalt it is primarily by radiation so the dry asphalt must reach a higher temperature to get rid of the same amount it is receiving.
As I have said,
since you nor DREMT accept E. Swanson’s test, you should do one yourselves. You will find that if you have three plates in contact with the middle one receiving a continuous heat input when in contact they will have roughly the same temperatures. If you separate them you will find the green plates remain at the same temperature but the blue plate temperature increases. You really need to do some experiment yourself. E. Swanson already showed what happens and you, for no good reason, reject his results. The green plate warms the blue plate but it does not reach the same temperature as the blue plate. It is all there.
Norman, you tried a copy/paste of my exact words. Unfortunately, the script editor has trouble with some punctuation. Anyway, you tried.
But, you left out the important quote:
“If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
You don’t have to memorize it. You’ll likely see it again….
JDHuffman
NO violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as described by Clausius, and all modern textbooks on heat transfer (there are actual online versions you can read).
You and all the skeptics who think it violates the 2nd Law get that version from blog sites like PSI or Joseph Postma. They are NOT what the physics state. They are what some lunatics on the Internet falsely believe it states. You are a true believer of blog science but you won’t read actual physics. Too bad. I have linked you to actual physics so many times but none stick. You prefer the made up version.
“If clowns can’t see the blatant violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
bobdroege says:
“And a cooler object heating a warmer object.”
The word heating should be avoided here because there is no thermodynamic heat transfer from cold to warm, just reduced cooling.
I am sure that when you are talking heat transfer by radiation, there is indeed a two way transfer.
The way I was trained, heat is just another form of energy.
So whenever I say heat, think energy, if that helps.
I see what you mean, but JDHuffman et al. try not to.
Two way energy and one way heat would reduce the 2LOT confusion.
I was trained by Kristian.
Svante, false accusations are just one of the ways clowns try to make up for their ignorance and incompetence.
Nothing new.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 7:01 AM:
Conceptually you can think of the transfer as two-way, and hence express it that way mathematically. In REALITY, though, the transfer is one-way only. Because the transfer in question is distinctly a THERMODYNAMIC (i.e. MACROscopic) one …
It was never a separate form of energy. It’s a very specific kind of energy QUANTITY. Heat [Q] is distinguished by its effect on thermodynamic systems and by the way that effect comes about.
Heat is defined simply as the amount of energy spontaneously transferred per unit of time from one place to another by virtue of the temperature difference between those two places, and always from hot to cold only.
No. It doesn’t help. It confuses. If you don’t know what “heat” is or means, bob, then don’t use the term. It only confuses yourself and those who read your comments.
If you mean “energy”, don’t write “heat”.
Since we are talking about the effects of photons, Kristian, and as you say, photons don’t exist in macro thermodynamics, then it is obvious that macro thermodynamic is not suited to address the problem.
So we will call it an energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface by way of photons.
So we will agree that there is no two way transfer of heat only energy, but somehow the end result is that the surface is warmer than it would be without CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
And in order to avoid saying words that may be misinterpreted because some assholes restrict the definitions of terms, increases in the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result in the increase of temperature of the surface, adjusted for changes in other variables that could also affect the temperature of the surface.
And finally there is a two way flow of photons which carry energy which can result in temperature changes when the photons are abs//orbed by surfaces.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 3:03 PM:
Hehe, no. It’s the other way around, bob. You specifically talk about things being HEATED. Then photons do not have a place in your analysis. Only HEAT FLUXES do.
Things being heated is distinctly a matter of THERMODYNAMICS.
Photons can’t and don’t heat anything, bob. Heat does.
How hard is this?
“If you dont know what “heat” is or means, bob, then don’t use the term. It only confuses yourself and those who read your comments.”
Sage advice Kristian.
Kristian should always follow Kristian’s advice too. The term can always be replaced with more meaningfully correct terms in modern physics; enthalpy (h) is the preferred term (symbol) these days.
bob just can’t learn: “…increases in the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result in the increase of temperature of the surface…”
No bob, CO2 does not add new energy to the system. CO2 does not “trap heat”. You have been misinformed, but you can’t figure things out for yourself.
That likely happens often to you, huh?
“CO2 does not add new energy to the system.”
JD occasionally stumbles into something true because added CO2 ppm does NOT add new thermodynamic internal energy to the system as CO2 doesn’t burn a fuel to do so, thus you can’t just reverse EVERYTHING JD writes and get to the true observationally relevant science.
Added CO2 ppm causes the atm. lower regions to increase in global mean T and the upper regions to equally decrease in global mean T conserving internal energy. The relevant physics for that is atm. optical depth, something I doubt JD will stumble into…at least correctly.
So Kristian,
Would you hold this steel bar in your hand while I point a CO2 laser at the steel bar?
Now describe what happens, what do you experience?
If the CO2 laser doesn’t heat the steel bar, they you will be able to hold on to it for a long time, no?
JD,
You are battling the bats in your belfry.
I don’t mean what you think I mean.
You say
“No bob, CO2 does not add new energy to the system. CO2 does not trap heat. You have been misinformed, but you cant figure things out for yourself.”
CO2 does’t add new energy to the system, it prevents energy from leaving the system, and since the system is under relatively constant energy input the result is the rise in surface temperature.
Since everyone wants me to refrain from using the term heat to mean anything other than the transfer of thermal energy, it’s consistent with those requirements to say you can’t trap heat.
You want to hold the steel bar while I aim the CO2 laser at it?
bob continues: “…it [CO2] prevents energy from leaving the system…”
Wrong again, bob. The atmosphere has about 500 times more oxygen than CO2, by volume. The specific heat capacity of oxygen is higher than CO2. If you believe CO2 prevents energy from leaving the system, you better do something about all the oxygen in the air!
(For any clowns that are so scared of oxygen they will not be able to sleep tonight, neither O2 nor CO2, or ANYTHING in the atmosphere, can prevent energy from leaving the system. Sleep well.)
JD,
500 times more O2 in the atmopsphere, but what’s the ratio of the infrared absorbanc//e of O2 to CO2?
Might as well look up the ratios for Argon and Nitrogen as well.
CO2 absorbs much more infrared than Nitrogen, Oxygen or Argon.
Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are transparent to the infrared light emitted by the surface of the earth.
CO2 does trap enthalpy.
You want to hold the steel bar while I aim the CO2 laser at it?
bob, your nonsensical rambling is getting as bad as Norman’s.
And your laser/steel bar is as irrelevant as his nonsense.
You don’t understand what I wrote?
Maybe you should restart you science education with an eighth grade general science textbook.
Assuming you could handle that.
bob, you don’t understand what you wrote!
CO2 does NOT trap enthalpy.
Like Norman, you can’t ever get it right, and you can’t learn.
Nothing new.
‘It was never a separate form of energy.’
Really so IR emitted from a star 20 ly away toward Earth, where it is detected, was never a separate form of energy??
Odd.
JD,
I don’t even think you know what enthalpy is, do you?
Maybe you could trot on down to the local high school and ask a chemistry teacher.
bob says: “I don’t even think…”
Exactly.
So JD,
Look it up and post a definition of enthalpy.
Again I give you an opportunity to look way smarter than you are.
Yes, the dumber you look, the smarter I look.
Please continue.
Huffingman reminds us yet again of the saying: Arrogance is the last resort of the Ignorant.
Not only are you arrogant and ignorant, Swanson, but you can’t face reality:
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
If clowns can’t see the blatant violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.
Ball4 says, March 11, 2019 at 3:41 PM:
Difference is, I do know what “heat” is, which is why I should use it. People like you and bob, who clearly don’t, however, shouldn’t.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 4:30 PM:
You don’t give up, do you, bob? Listen: You are wrong in believing that IR radiation is the main heater of the atmosphere. This is not a matter of opinion. YOU ARE WRONG …!!
The radiative heat loss of the surface is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, i.e. the NET LW: [398 – 345 =] 53 W/m^2. Since 20 W/m^2 of those 53 W/m^2 on average go straight to space via the atmospheric window, then the radiative heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere, specifically, is only: [53 – 20 =] 33 W/m^2.
Photons do not carry heat. They carry photonic energy. The total amount of photonic energy inside a thermal radiation field has to be averaged in a precisely physically defined way before it can be called “heat”. This is Thermodynamics 101.
I have asked you now a number of times, bob, to read up and come back to tell me what that particular average is, but you simply refuse and rather keep coming back with comments that make you come across as nothing but an obstinate child.
Again, why are you discussing the CO2 laser and the metal rod? To show me how HEAT HEATS!?
You claim that PHOTONS heat. They don’t. HEAT heats!
You obviously don’t get “heat”. Which is why I ask you to read.
“I do know what “heat” is”
Then Kristian knows there must be radiative cold loss, radiative cold flux, photons must not carry cold, cold must colds, cold colds!
Kristian obviously doesn’t get “cold” or “heat”, Kristian should go with enthalpy in discussions to correctly write about atm. thermodynamics. And learn from an expert like Zemansky: “It is incredible that writers and teachers are still referring to the “heat in a body”…There is no such thing as the “heat in a body””
When used correctly in modern day, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
The use of enthalpy (h) is correct, more meaningful in thermodynamics.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Sure, push the plates together, they’re all 244 K, separate them by 1mm, up pops the blue by 46 K whilst the two green plates remain unchanged. Nothing weird about that.
Yeah, something weird happens when you stop heat conduction.
Something REALLY weird, apparently.
Mind you, you were prepared to gobble up 101 K, I guess 46 K’s only a light snack.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Whereas I calculated the 800 watts for just one side to get the wrong answer you can easily get to the 345 K by just adding two more plates on each side of the blue plate. 7 total plates one blue and 3 unheated green plates spaced very close together.
If you keep adding plates the blue plate will continue to increase in temperature as long as you continue to add energy to it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344853
JDHuffman
Prove it!
No need to prove 2LoT, clown.
It’s well established physics. A topic you will never understand.
JD,
If you can’t prove it,
then
derive it!
Possibly you missed my reply, right above yours, to the other clown.
I just gave you the opportunity to look way smarter than you are.
You could have just cut and pasted it from wiki.
bob, you make me look much smarter than I am, by making yourself look so stupid.
Please continue.
“you can easily get to the 345 K”
…reductio ad absurdum, yes, as I said (it’s like they have no idea how stupid their idea is, in fact they seem almost proud of it)…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You have no idea how little actual physics you understand or know. I have linked you to textbook physics. You just ignore it and act like you know things. As it goes you know less than the phony JDHuffman who makes up junk science and peddles it here with false authority pretending it is valid.
Why not actually do an experiment and you will see that JDHuffman is a fraud?
Norman, you energetic clown, DREMT has demonstrated more knowledge of physics than you ever will. Your links to things you don’t understand are funny. And even funnier is you never learn from them.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
That you think links to textbook physics on Heat Transfer are funny indicates a lot about how little you really know.
Your phony physics is catching up with you. More posters are seeing what a total fraud you really are.
I think it is hilarious you think textbook physics is funny. I will have to remember that next time you tell people to learn physics.
Norman…345 K.
Wrong Norman. I never said actual physics was funny. I said YOUR inability to understand and learn physics was funny.
All you can do is twist my words, as you attempt to twist reality. You’re a clown.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Your links to things you dont understand are funny.”
You have such poor wording it certainly sounds as if you are indicating the links are funny.
Anyway that is another failure on your part. You have yet to demonstrate anything I do not understand correctly in the links I post. It is just one of your many made up declarations that your one, adoring fan DREMT, wants you to make. You are unable to demonstrate what I don’t understand and never will but it is certainly easy to post. I guess it makes you feel important to try and make such claims. Really does not matter you will never support anything you claim.
Remember the rules, Norman.
If you want a response, leave off the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. Otherwise you are just an juvenile troll, limited by your ignorance and incompetence.
String up.thread is getting too clumsy. I am responding to http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344796 and later
Bal,, I get your point that warming from CO2 could be so slow that a short time observation might miss it. My arguments against this shortcoming being a factor include the first 4 reasons in Section 2 which consider time spans of from 120 years to millions of years. Another argument is the assessment in Sections 17-19 which determines the contribution of each of the three factors considered (CO2 is not one of them). The combination results in a 98.3% match 1895-2017 (122 years) and what looks like a reasonable approximation of temperatures back to before 1700.
ES,, Agreed the notches are at the absor.p.tion bands but what do they say about what happens to the energy that was absorbed? I say a lot of it gets emitted to space by WV.
True, MODTRAN only applies to clear sky and that is only about 38% of the planet surface area. In the wn range 50-600/cm CO2 is essentially transparent so the radiation coming from WV mostly zips right through to space. A bit gets absorbed by the s.carce WV molecules, thermalized and shows up in the CO2 column partially refilling the notch as shown by the difference in notch dep.th between the 20 km and 50 km MODTRAN figures (Figure 5). I pretty much agree with your assessment of what happens above clouds, especially above 10 km or so. It is the -50 C that gets nearly all of the WV out.
I was sur.prised at the small amount of added precipitation from the increased water use. Average precipitation for the planet is about a meter. The added water calculated in Sect 9 spread over the planet only amounts to 0.07 % increase; if just spread over land, still only about 0.24 %. IMO that is not consequential and all this precipitation lately is caused by something else.
True, irrigation has been around for a long time but Aquastat shows a huge surge starting in about 1950 (Fig 3.5) which lines up quite well with the TPW increase (Fig 3).
Cloud cover was estimated at http://lowaltitude-clouds.blogspot.com
This would not post without the hyphen. Remove it to use the link
dan…not a reply to your posts above but in relationship to water vapour.
Here in the Vancouver, Canada, area we have experienced an inordinately cold spell of sub-zero temperatures. At night, the thermostat has been lowered to about 18C (~65F) and during the dry, cold spell at night ranging down to -10C, the furnace hardly ever came on.
Suddenly, the temperature rose to just above 0C and the air became very moist outside. The furnace started coming on far more frequently.
Seems to me that water vapour cools the ambient air.
I could be missing something obvious.
Gor,, Probably your house is well insulated and has a lot of thermal capacitance. When the thermostat is lowered, it takes a long time for the heat to leak out and there is a lot of it because of the high thermal capacitance. Thus the furnace would not come on for quite a while. The entire process is a thermal transient. After the house has cooled down, the furnace has to start kicking in to stop the temperature decline. I do not see how WV could be a factor. The temperature of the air is given by the thermometer irrespective of WV content. Wind change can make a significant difference.
Also, our perceptions often fool us. A data log would minimize that.
norman…from your link to Kircheoff and emissivity/absorp-tion.
“Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” This leads to the observation that if an object absorbs 100 percent of the radiation incident upon it, it must reradiate 100 percent. As already stated, this is the definition of a blackbody radiator”.
AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.
That’s why you are so confused about hotter bodies absorbing radiation from cooler body with the inference that action raises the temperature of the hotter body.
I have tried to explain to you that a heated body, say an electrically heated body, gets it heat, hence it temperature, from the electric source. However, part of the final temperature of the body is dependent on how much heat it can dissipate due to conduction, convection, and radiation.
If you interfere with any one of the three, so the heated body can no longer dissipate heated as efficiently, the heated body’s temperature will increase. That has nothing to do with a nearby cooler body radiating EM.
That’s what happened in swannie’s two experiments. In the first, placing a metal plate above the heated plate blocked its convection and radiation. The heated plate warmed because it’s heat dissipation had been reduced but it warmed to the level it would normally be under such restricted dissipation due to the electrical power applied.
My explanations satisfy the 2nd law, your’s do not.
In swannie#2, he blocked the hotter plate’s ability to radiate from one side therefore the heated plate could not dissipate heat from that side and it got warmer, not due to radiation from the cooler plate but due to reduced dissipation of heat.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.”
Please give supporting evidence for this statement. I have not heard of it before and I think you are just making it up. If you can come up with textbook support of this I will consider it a valid point. At this time it is an unsupported conjecture. Not very valuable for the advancement of science.
norman…”YOU: The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.
Please give supporting evidence for this statement. I have not heard of it before and I think you are just making it up”.
I quoted it straight from the link you provided for Kircheoff. All the work done by Kircheoff with emissivity and absorp-tion was done at thermal equilibrium. It makes no sense when there is a temperature difference between two bodies.
Gordon Robertson
You have not supported your claim. It does not matter that Kirchhoff established his Law with plates at equilibrium. That in NO way proves your conclusion.
I have requested actual support of your claim but as always you won’t do it.
What source do you have the relationship between emissivity and absorb(itivity) changes with temperature. You only give your own opinions on how you think things work. Things I have demonstrated to be wrong many many times. You don’t accept real science over your fantasy version so I will not be able to ever convince you of your errors.
I am asking you to support you declaration without using your own made up opinions of how you think EMR is emitted or absorbed. I want you to support this with actual textbook information. I won’t expect you to comply with that request. That is because it is just something you made up and you can’t find support for it. I am not worried, that has not stopped you before. You are just an Science Denier Conspiracy minded person. Nothing will change your state.
Norman, whenever you are asking people to explain physics to you, you should always offer a disclaimer, to be fair:
“Norman Grinvalds is unable to process facts and logic. He has no meaningful technical background. He cannot learn, and abhors reality.”
Glad to help.
JDHuffman
So says the one that WILL not support anything they post and rejects valid textbook physics. So says the one who rejects a valid test of two plates (for no real reason). So says the one who never does his own tests but will criticize those who actually do.
You are a clown and know nothing except how to correctly spell Wien’s Law. Your value here is as spell checker. As for useful physics information you need to be avoided. You will only lead some ignorant people astray.
When you actually do some real experiment maybe people will listen to you. Right now you only have Gordon Robertson and your wife DREMT, the rest consider you a no-nothing.
Wrong Norman, I support what I say and I answer responsible questions.
You just can’t understand the issues, and abhor reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I guess you might dream that you have supported your opinions with actual physics. I have not seen any yet and that is when you post to anyone. Most your posts are taunts to other posters or telling them they don’t know any physics.
Please Support your conjecture: “3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.”
That this would occur with textbook physics or an actual experiment. The one experiment performed so far by E. Swanson shows you are in error. You have to provide more support than your own cartoon you drew. That is not valid support.
Clown, you can’t even compose a coherent comment. You mix your disjointed opinions together with portions of my comment, and think you have produced something meaningful.
False.
And, the FACTS from my comment do not represent “cconjecture”. Those are the actual calculated values.
You abhor reality.
JDHuffman
I forgot you have severe reading disability.
To make it easy for you. Support your three-plate conclusion with actual physics!
Show the equation you use, where you got them and the numbers you put in them.
You are a clown. Another has discovered this. Dan Pangburn correctly points out you need to be ignored.
“Support your three-plate conclusion with actual physics!”
Norman, are you feeling alright? Only, you have already agreed that you think with 3 plates, 1 green either side the blue, the blue plate will rise in temperature to 290 K. Just scroll a little further up and you can read your own comments where you agree with it. In fact, you said that just by adding a couple more green plates each side of the blue, the blue plate would rise in temperature to 345 K!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
JDHuffman does not think the blue plate will reach 290 K. He thinks that is a violation of the 2nd Law (which he does not understand but pretends to). His belief is all plates will be at 244 K if separated or not.
If he thought it would b 244-290-244 I would agree with him. That is not his position. I am not sure what yours is.
Well it came across like you were asking JD to defend YOUR position, that’s all.
Norman, if you expect me to respond to your comments, leave off the false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
That wouldn’t leave much, huh?
JDHuffman
I am really expecting you NOT to comment to me at all. I ignore you but that did not help, when I posted to other posters I saw your lame comments.
Some people, like Ball4, enjoy your posts as a form of entertainment. I find your terrible nonsense physics boring. I find your lack of support of any of your nonsense unscientific. I really dislike your lunatic attitude that you will reject valid experiments because they don’t fit in your fantasy world of delusional physics.
I think you are a waste of time and effort. You are not smart enough to read material I link to so you pretend to be smart by posting the same stupid comment every-time “Norman posts another link he doesn’t understand” Just cover for the fact you are not able to understand what is linked to but people like DREMT or the goofy Gordon Robertson will think you are a genius or something.
Sorry Norman, but your opinionated ramblings contained false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Your comment has been disapproved.
Should you wish to try again, at some later time, best of luck.
Maybe someday you can live up to what you said: “I want to stick only to the science of the issue.”
GORDO, Are you refering to my cookie sheet demo? Recall that I added a fan to push air between the hot and cold plates. Notice that that air was at room temperature, which was near freezing when I ran the test. Now, please explain how convection with freezing air would warm the hotter plate. Oh, while you’re at it, provide a explanation for the Green Plate results using physics instead of BS.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
dan…”The net flow of energy is always from warm to less-warm and that is what 2lot cares about”.
No insult intended, however, I am a specialist in certain areas of the electrical and electronic fields yet I know little about other areas. You need to step back and refresh your basics. There is no such thing in physics as a ‘net flow of energy’, especially with reference to an ambiguous generic energy comprised of both thermal and electromagnetic energies. .
You never see current running both ways in an electric circuit nor do you see water flowing both ways in a pipe when one end is pressurized. As rocks fall from a cliff, you don’t see rocks whizzing by them vertically to higher altitudes.
The only instance I can think of where thermal energy may flow both ways is between bodies in thermal equilibrium. Then you should get a net energy flow that sums to zero. Otherwise, one body has to be hotter.
In the present discussion we are talking about a relationship between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. In a nutshell, there is no relationship other than the relationship between the electrons on atoms that emit/absorb EM and the electron relationship to temperature.
Clearly, as electrons emit EM en masse from a body which has no independent source of heat the body’s temperature drops. Conversely, as the electrons in a body absorb EM from a hotter body, the temperature of that body increases.
You cannot sum two energy forms like EM and heat, to form a net, unless you convert EM to it’s equivalent thermal units or convert thermal units to EM units. As far as I know, there is no such conversion in free space other than via electrons on atoms.
It is plainly incorrect to speak in terms of summing energy flows between different energies in opposite directions to get a net energy balance.
For one, heat cannot flow through space other than as a flow of mass in convection. There is a tiny conduction of heat via the molecules in air but it is trivial.
Heat cannot be radiated through space…period. Heat does not radiate, it is a property of atoms in motion. If the mass does not move, the heat does not move. Therefore, you either have EM or you have heat, they cannot exist simultaneously from the same source. Once that body radiates EM, heat is lost.
EM is a transverse wave with an electric field and a magnetic field. It has no mass nor is it associated with mass. EM can carry no heat, only a potential to create heat.
And we have not even discussed the quantum aspects. Bohr laid out the basis of that in 1913, explaining how EM can be absorbed by the electrons in an atom, forcing the electron to a higher energy quantum level PROVIDED THE EM HAS THE REQUISITE ENERGY AND FREQUENCY TO BE ABSORBED.
The relationship is E = hf, where E is the difference in energy levels between electron energy orbitals. The f is related to the frequency of the electron which varies with its energy level. If neither matches (in the EM) the need of the electron, the EM is not absorbed. EM from a cooler source does not match, therefore it is not absorbed.
If you can explain how to get past that requirement so a hotter body can absorbed EM from a cooler body I’d like to hear it.
Eli’s experiment has no correct answer for the simply reason there can be no heat transfer in two directions between the green and blue plates.
You can’t mess with this Dan, the 2nd law mentions nothing about a net flow of energy, it specifically address the transfer of heat from a hot body to a cooler body under normal means. The 2nd law says nothing about EM and you cannot hide EM under the umbrella of the 2nd law by claiming it as an obscure net energy balance.
If you treat the 2nd law with entropy then you are describing a negative entropy, which is not allowed.
You are abstracting the energies of two different forms of energy in one generic energy then claiming that undefined generic energy can have a net balance.
“If the mass does not move, the heat does not move.”
“the transfer of heat from a hot body to a cooler body under normal means.”
First Gordon tells us the heat does not move, then Gordon tells us the heat does move. Gordon is not able to keep his stories straight.
ball4…”First Gordon tells us the heat does not move, then Gordon tells us the heat does move. Gordon is not able to keep his stories straight”.
I said that heat must be accompanied by mass in order to move. You cannot move heat between bodies via radiation. The transfer is apparent since the temperature in the hotter body is reduced and the temperature in the cooler body rises. No heat is physically transferred between bodies by radiation since heat is lost in the hotter body after conversion to EM.
Heat can flow through a solid because it has a pathway via the atoms and their electrons. Heat is transferred in a conductor in the same manner as electrical current, via valence electrons.
There is little in the way of conduction through a gas like air because the molecules are so far apart. There is no conduction of heat through a vacuum because heat needs mass to move.
“heat is lost”
Then if heat is lost, heat must have moved. While Gordon writes: “the heat does not move” so Gordon is still confused.
“the heat does not move” IS true as heat is only a measure of the object’s internal particle KE.
Gordon is getting closer to decent science with: “You cannot move heat between bodies via radiation.” You can move thermodynamic internal energy between bodies via radiation, conduction, and convection. For example, the thermodynamic internal energy in one body reduces by emission while the other thermodynamic internal energy increases through absorp_tion.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Gor,, Of course there is net flow of energy. Consider a block with a laser aimed at it, a fire under it and an electric heater in it. The temperature of the block would increase according to the net of the sum of the energy flows acquired from each source minus the losses which would be convective, conductive (unless magnetically suspended) and radiative. Of course to sum them they need to be all in the same units, e.g. Watts.
I favor using the word heat only as a verb when necessary to avoid ambiguity.
I have read in different places that electrons changing levels only occurs at very high temperatures (perhaps also in lasers) and is not what is going on at earth temperatures.
The equation gives the correct answers. That is what all valid heat transfer programs do. Effectively, the radiation from the cooler body cancels the same radiation from the warmer body. The equation for thermal conductance includes (Ta^4 Tb^4)/(Ta Tb). This gets multiplied by (Ta Tb) in the solution. If the number is negative it just means that Tb turned out to be warmer than Ta.
Eli got the correct answer.
Using the net flow of energy produces the correct answers. That is how it has always been done and always will be done. Saying 2LOT does not mean net because it does not say net or mention thermal radiation is bogus. This stuff needs to be understood to use it correctly.
dan…”The equation gives the correct answers. That is what all valid heat transfer programs do”.
The S-B equation does not describe a transfer of heat between bodies nor does it describe a two way transfer of energy. It says nothing about a net energy transfer.
S-B describes only the radiation density from a body of temperature T in the original Stefan equation. Later, Boltzmann added a term for the ambient temperature surrounding a body of temperature T but it is purely a one way transfer.
Eli got it wrong by applying S-B in the reverse direction. That’s the basis of AGW, a fiction. The T^4 relationship between EM and temperature comes from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically so its temperature ranged from 700C to 1500C as he increased the current. As the temperature changed, the colour of the EM emission changed and Stefan was able to relate the EM colour frequency to the temperature and derive the T^4 relationship.
You guys, Eli included, are claiming heat can be transferred from the cooler ambient air at room temperature to the platinum filament at 1500C, which is sheer nonsense.
“Consider a block with a laser aimed at it, a fire under it and an electric heater in it. The temperature of the block would increase according to the net of the sum of the energy flows acquired from each source minus the losses which would be convective, conductive (unless magnetically suspended) and radiative”.
You are summing quantities of heat, not EM. The laser’s EM would be converted to heat in the block and would no longer be EM. If the block got sufficiently hot from it’s internal heater and the fire underneath, the laser EM would have no effect.
The body’s temperature rises due to the vibration of it’s atoms. That can only happen if it is subjected to a higher temperature source of heat. Lower temperature source will not affect it in such a manner as to raise its temperature.
What you guys are claiming is that EM radiated from a cooler source could raise the temperature of the fire and internally heated block. So if you surrounded the block with ice, it’s temperature should rise.
You cannot ignore heat as you claim. It is a very real form of energy as described by Clausius, who invented the U in the first law. He claimed U, internal energy, is the heat equivalent of work done by vibrating atoms and the heat injected to make them vibrate harder, raising their temperature. The work done in the vibration of atoms in a lattice is not possible without the addition of heat.
Clausius claimed the Q in the 1st law is external heat added to a body and W is work done by the added heat. U represents internal heat and work.
I don’t know where modernists get this notion that heat is an abstraction. I suppose from the same place where they figure gravity is not a force but an anomaly from space-time, a complete illusion.
Some scientist are not only getting stupid, they are getting stupider.
Gor,, Of course it is nonsense to claim that heat can be transferred from the cooler ambient air at room temperature to the platinum filament. That is not the net flow of energy. Of course you cannot heat something by surrounding it with ice. Unless, of course, unless the ice is shielding it from an even lower temperature. I have explained it to you but I cannot understand it for you.
It appears you are seeking a distinction in quibble over the meaning of words where there is no difference when done correctly. Why are you still arguing against what works? That hints of willful blindness. You are beginning to sound like JDH (who should be ignored).
Dan Pangburn, M.S.M.E (3 graduate level courses in heat transfer), am (was) licensed in CA (P.E. in Mechanical Engineering, license 13316 (ret)), here’s something else you can ignore:
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
If clowns can’t see the blatant violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.
JD doesn’t understand what JD describes 10:08am is a real reversible process which violates 2LOT. JD is good for entertainment, not so much for science.
Fluffball may see the 2LoT violation, but is somehow trying to blame it on me.
But, it’s hard to know for sure, with all his fluff.
Not “somehow” JD, by telling you your calculations and cartoons depict reversible processes thus fail to increase entropy which fails 2LOT.
Nope, he doesn’t see it. Just more fluff.
Nothing new.
dan…”It appears you are seeking a distinction in quibble over the meaning of words where there is no difference when done correctly. Why are you still arguing against what works?”
Not interesting in quibbles, which I understand are small, furry animals with two legs shorter on either side so they can run around hills more easily.
I am defending the excellent work done by Rudolf Clausius between 1850 and 1879, where he precisely laid down the 2nd law, defined entropy, and introduced U as internal energy to the 1st law.
Rudy stated clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body. He claimed that applied to radiation as well, even though, at the time, he, like other major scientists like Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck, though heat flowed through the atmosphere as heat rays.
He based the 2nd law on a precise analysis of a heat engine where he followed the changes in pressure, volume and temperature around a cycle. If you follow his analysis it becomes clear why heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by itself.
If you introduce radiation as a heat transfer mechanism then it must satisfy the 2nd law with regard to heating. It must also satisfy quantum theory, which is based essentially on the action of electrons in atoms. Schrodinger’s famous wave equation, which is the basis of quantum theory, is about electrons.
If heat can only be transferred hot to cold by its own means there’s no need to talk about a net energy balance. EM and the heat source that caused it cannot exist at the same time. When thermal energy is converted to EM via electrons, the heat ceases to exist, it has been consumed in the process. That is represented by the emitting electron dropping to a lower energy level.
Quantum theory tells us that EM cannot be absorbed by the electrons in a body unless the EM energy and frequency exactly match the requirements of the electrons, as in a resonant filter. EM from a cooler body will have a lower frequency therefore it will not resonate with the electron frequency nor can it force the electron to a higher energy level, which en masse causes a warming of the body.
There is no net energy flow anywhere. The energy, as thermal energy, flows (transfers0 in one direction only and that applies to the EM as well.
You inferred in an earlier post that electronic transitions only occur at high temperatures. There’s no evidence to support that. The same transitions apply at microwave frequencies and below. Communications at RF frequencies require an electron transition otherwise the electrons in an antenna would not absorb the EM signal.
There is no other mechanism in an atom or molecule that can absorb or emit EM.
There are at least two other mechanisms in an atom or molecule that can absorb or emit EMR: rotation levels and vibration levels in addition to electronic levels.
Gordon, being somewhat loosely involved in electronics, simply can’t step out of his own silo and learn about these other mechanisms that exist in the atm. at STP, where electronic levels are NOT populated.
Gordon,
Check out the wiki page on the Schrodinger equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
“Solutions to Schrdinger’s equation describe not only molecular, atomic, and subatomic systems, but also macroscopic systems, possibly even the whole universe”
It applies to a lot of systems, not just electrons.
Testicle4, bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
“You never see current running both ways in an electric circuit”
Why then do they call it AC?
B,
Because the current flows one way for a time, then it flows the opposite way for a time.
That’s why it is called Alternating Current, I suppose.
You can’t have current running both ways at once in an electric circuit. The electrons would get very confused.
Like you.
Cheers.
touch.
with one
Mike…”Thats why it is called Alternating Current, I suppose.
You cant have current running both ways at once in an electric circuit. The electrons would get very confused”.
It’s like the water analogy I gave, if a water pipe is pressurized at one end the water will not flow against the pressure.
The voltage that drives current is a form of pressure called electromotive force. In AC, the polarity of the force changes regularly as you stated, causing the current to change direction.
“Because the current flows one way for a time, then it flows the opposite way for a time….causing the current to change direction.”
…which is why you do measure current running both ways in an electric circuit.