The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2019 was +0.34 deg. C, down slightly from the February, 2019 value of +0.37 deg. C:
We have made two changes in satellite processing starting with the March 2019 update. First, we have decided to stop processing of NOAA-18 data starting in 2017 because that satellite has drifted in local observation time beyond the ability of our Version 6 diurnal drift correction routine to handle it acccurately, as evidenced by spurious warming (not shown) in that satellite relative to the Metop-B satellite (which does not drift). By itself, this change reduces the trends very slightly. Secondly, we have applied a diurnal drift correction to NOAA-19, which previously did not need one because it had not drifted very far in local observation time. By itself, this increases the trends slightly.
The net effect of these two changes is virtually no change in trends (the global trend for 1979-2019 remains at +0.13 C/decade). However, individual monthly anomalies since January 2017 have changed somewhat, by amounts that are regionally dependent. For example, the standard deviation of the difference between the old and new monthly anomalies since January 2017 is 0.03 deg. C for the global averages, and 0.07 deg. C for the USA48 averages.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 15 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
2018 02 +0.25 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.21 +0.35
2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.10 -0.14 +0.06 +1.01 +0.84
2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.02 +1.90 +0.13 -0.24
2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.11 +0.76 -0.41
2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49
2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.10 +0.37
2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.22 +0.28
2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.28 +0.45 -1.16 +0.67 +0.55
2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.25 +0.69 +1.21
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.06
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.59
The UAH LT global anomaly image for March, 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
For those on who post on this blog and continue to claim that the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, such as Gordon Robertson and Mike Flynn, I have performed a new demonstration to show that “back radiation” from a colder body can result in an increase in the temperature of a hotter body. This demonstration does not violate the 2nd Law, since the hotter body is being supplied energy from an external source. I call this demonstration The Ice Slab Effect, as it shows that ice can provide such “back radiation” to increase the temperature of the hotter body.
Let the fossil fools’ flames begin…
Nobody respond to Swanson. Trolls are only out for attention. Don’t give him the attention he craves.
[Speaking of trolls…. -Roy]
Well said Dr. Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344174
Yes Norman, today is a good day to commend Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team for keeping everyone in line last month, e.g.:
2019-03-09 Sat 18:01: Dont worry, Im here.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:03: No need for the repeat, barry.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:04: Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 04:30: Nate, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:06: Entropic Man, please stop “dad-joking”.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:56: Svante, please stop trolling.
2019-03-10 Sun 06:31: Yes, I meant it too. Svante, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:07: barry, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:25: Bindidon, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:33: Svante, please stop being Svante.
2019-03-10 Sun 06:29: No, I understood. Now, Svante, please stop being Svante.
2019-03-10 Sun 10:34: Still being Svante
2019-03-09 Sat 18:09: Bindidon, barry, please stop boring.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:10: bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:11: bobdroege, bdgwx, please stop defending the GHE.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:14: bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:15: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-06 Wed 18:04: Great! Keep working on those basic human qualities.
2019-03-07 Thu 11:41: Swanson, please stop trying to change the topic due to your being butthurt
2019-03-09 Sat 18:50: Bindidon, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:16: Bindidon, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 04:21: Svante, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:35: Bindidon, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 04:25: Dan, please stop enabling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:27: Bindidon, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:19: bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:20: Swanson, bdgwx, please stop defending the GHE.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:21: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-09 Sat 18:29: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 04:24: Svante, please stop trolling.
2019-03-11 Mon 12:27: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 04:33: Nate, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 04:36: Nate, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 05:55: Whoops!
2019-03-13 Wed 06:33: Nate, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 11:12: Tim, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 11:13: Svante, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 11:13: Nate, please stop trolling.
2019-03-11 Mon 12:53: Norman, Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-15 Fri 03:36: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 11:15: Swanson, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 14:38: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 14:37: Testicle4, bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
2019-03-11 Mon 17:39: Testicle4, have you ever considered writing your comments in English?
2019-03-13 Wed 14:34: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 14:35: bobdruggy, Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 14:36: Testicle4, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 14:45: Swanson, please stop trolling.
2019-03-13 Wed 14:46: bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
2019-03-12 Tue 05:30: Who is currently prepared to acknowledge that the Green Plate Effect is debunked?
2019-03-13 Wed 14:47: Nate, please stop trolling.
Svante, yes the Moderation Team of one (or two if you include sock puppets) was very immoderate last month.
Ninety six repetitions of the same sentence with just a name change at the beginning. I might have aggravated them and caused some of the outbursts. I humbly apologise to all for precipitating many of their aberrant behaviours.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-347032
GAstro’s Dream Team.
Thanks once again for the free publicity. Much appreciated and it emphasizes the important point that the Internet never forgets (courtesy of the Wayback Machine).
As part of the exchanges I did leave it to the reader to decide who in these exchanges appears to be the humorless twat repeating tediously the same thing over and over (see Svante’s partially redacted list above of the Dream Teams contributions from last month).
Hopefully this does not precipitate another PST flame war. I have been scarred for life.
I just thought it would be worth pointing out that thirty-two of your “ninety six repetitions of the same sentence” were due to your silly, repetitive trolling, e.g:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347617
Which you are demonstrating once again, for everyone, at that link. As Svante kindly listed out, I have a lot of work to do, with some of you. A lot of requests…
Yes you have a lot of work to do. Probably years of therapy.
I do apologise for encouraging you to troll so fervently. However I claim no role with the remaining 2/3 of your output.
The remaining 2/3 of those comments were for all the others that can’t stop trolling…
So in effect you are saying
“Of course, it was entirely their fault. I had no part to play in it. They made me do it.”
Years, if not decades of therapy.
Please keep proving over and over again that you are a troll, and I will keep making my comments, to others, as I choose…
Of course you will keep making your comments. It is to be expected as it’s in your DNA. It is so hard to modify innate behaviour without seeking help.
#2
Please keep proving over and over again that you are a troll, and I will keep making my comments, to others, as I choose
I can feel a flame war coming on. Maybe we should shake hands and move on.
OK, MikeR.
…and none of them are as offensive as the average comment from Norman.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The issue is about “trolling” and has nothing to do with offending people who make unsupported claims and then tell me to study physics.
You troll and troll often.
Who kicked off the very first comment with an extremely contentious (i.e. likely to lead to yet more endless bickering) and completely unrelated issue? Who has done that many times before?
Asking people to stop trolling certainly seems to upset some of them. Maybe it’s because deep down they know that’s exactly what they’re doing.
[While Swanson was definitely off-topic, him providing new evidence to support a position isn’t trolling. “Trolling” is coming here and asserting things like “There’s no such thing as the greenhouse effect, anyway”. Or, “The GHE violates the 2nd Law”. -Roy]
Roy,
Hear, hear! Hopefully your admonition will remove a lot of the noise from the comments section, but I doubt it. As for E.Swanson’s comment it is way,way more relevant than a debate about lunar rotation.
drroyspencer says:
So the definition of “trolling” includes simply questioning the assertion that the atmospheric thermal (insulative) effect on the surface is specifically caused by the RADIATIVE properties of the atmosphere?
I guess that makes me a troll, then.
This is what I received under that same article that Svante referenced (and this is fairly typical):
“your dear wife DREMT…neither know a lick of physics…if you are not in the Dremt and JD camp, commonly referred to as the ****** (a small French coin) camp…Troll on…You aren’t being skeptical. You are denying the science…Of course, being a denialist troll instead of a scientist or engineer…How old are you?…clearly trolling doesnt require you to be consistent with yourself or even make sense…Congratulations! You are promoted to full Troll status…Hilarious. MF, JD, DREMT all high-fiving over their collective self delusion. Guys, why don’t you share some cool-aid to celebrate…You have no idea how little actual physics you understand or know…As it goes you know less than the phony JDHuffman…your one, adoring fan DREMT…your wife DREMT…Of course, Trolls dont need to agree with themselves, ;or facts, so it totally works for the TEAM…Come on girls, step up to the experimental plate…I know this science is kind of hard for someone that hasn’t sufficiently passed the pre-req.s…DREMT does not even understand simple discussions…Comment some more sophistry, DREMT, you have become as amusing as JD…whatever nonsense DREMT writes…Obviously DREMT has to ignore basic physics to write nonsense…Heres how the Village Idiots debunk…DRsEMT and Huffingman denialist…Testicle team…You defending that JD is exempt from laws of physics is well over the limit of sanity…What is amazing is Team Dork is proud of their stupidity. They wear it on their sleeve…Uber Dork moans…the dolt Gordon and his Team Dork morons…Or continue to be ignorant, or go back to school…However as we have now two puppets, one of them could be usefully employed as an enema if needed while the emetic quality of the other could be also employed in a medical emergency…Dear Putz…your partner in grime…How pathetic…your anger management issues…my suggestions regarding your lifestyle issues and changes to your medication…Developmentally delayed or just a slow learner?…It appears he may have ended up in that orifice where the sun don’t shine…could this troll attempt to be more creative?…nothing more obnoxious than a boring repetitive troll…infantile behaviour…Dr Evils Team of Maniacs…The first step is for DREMT to get back on his antipsychotic meds…Clozapene is known to exacerbate obsessive compulsive disorders…I think what may also complicate treatment is the range of comorbidities exhibited…persistent delusional state…physical restraint may be required…Hopefully he can then be gently reacquainted with the outside world and end up being reintegrated into society as a fully functioning human being…the Huffingboy/DRsEMT sock puppet…Rather pathetic…Doctor Empty?…you guys are as committed as ever to ignorance…As for handicapped, let me count the ways…DR Evil Mini-me Twin…obsessive compulsive posting…And your high-fiving is pathetic…DREMT cannot seem to comprehend…Take the two plates seperated by a small gap. 1mm should do . Insert into the gap two small objects, testicles if equipped or thumbs otherwise. Bring the plates rapidly together. Observe the effect. Repeat until the effect is well understood…repeat the experiment with the plates heated with a blow torch…your other intellectual vacuous persona…Gasterisk’s two sick puppets…Even you with your limited skills…your fragile ego…So as per usual just more bluster and , pardon my French, more bull shit…Unfortunately you appear to be so irony deficient that your haemoglobin levels might be the cause of a range of your other afflictions, particularly involving those that involve thought processes…Accordingly I will enquire as to your mental health…This author is totally incapable of an original thought…best described at being at the level of an uneducated slime mold…Presumably they are running in ever decreasing circles until they return home to the bosom of mother. I assume then they will then disappear up the appropriate orifice, hopefully to be never regurgitated…endless mindless posts…Do you have an underlying medical condition?…Thats the beauty of physics that, unfortunately, you cannot appreciate, DREMT…you don’t really understand what you are doing…The combination of arrogance and stupidity is a sight to behold…Ha! Ha! Ha! What a dork…this ignorant troll…why I am attempting to mock him mercilessly instead…Maybe you have some employment prospects as a village idiot…Oh well, hopes of DREMT showing maturity dashed…Ok, so this is where you display the depth of your ignorance…the desperate DREM Team…humorless twat…Emergency Team of Manic Trolls…YOU’RE the laughing stock here…”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The list you compiled from numerous posters seems a really accurate assessment of your knowledge of physics. If you spent as much time reading some actual textbooks as you do posting, you may get somewhere.
Norman declares that level of abuse is justified, thus confirming to anybody impartial that he is a troll.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Many are just pointing out how little you know about physics and then you come on and post really stupid ideas like you know what you are talking about. I have not seen even one post from you that has even remote valid physics contained within. Posters want to have intelligent discussions about Global Warming. It needs to be based upon valid credible science. You, JDHuffman, Mike Flynn, Gordon Robertson…just make up nonsense and then waste a lot of time as posters try really hard to point out the many flaws in your thinking. I have linked you to actual physics textbooks. I guess you ignore the material like JDHuffman does and then you persist in stupid points. Now you seem that you have this justification for being upset at people pointing out how stupid you are. You have no justification at all. If you post really stupid ideas and continue to do so expect to be called what you are, stupid!
I’m not upset at all, Norman. Just pointing out the fact that you are a troll, as you keep kindly confirming for everybody, with your comments.
Norman never gets the physics correct. And when he starts off on his juvenile obsession with personalities, I lose interest.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Makes false and misleading comments like “Norman never gets the physics correct.”
I get real physics quite correct. I can’t follow your nonsense made up version that you never support with any valid textbook information or testing. You tell people their tests are bogus but you never do any of your own.
You are a total phony pretender which is NOTHING NEW.
Keep pretending you know physics. It gest a chuckle from people.
DREMT. Your pal is a total example of a troll. He never supports one claim. Taunts and ridicules and makes up stuff. If you want to know what a troll is read his posts. He is trolling.
Norman, as usual, you avoid reality. You don’t have a clue about physics. You try to run down others that don’t share your erroneous opinions.
Want a perfect example?
It was DREMT that pointed out your mistake about 345K. You seem to forget things like that.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are wrong again as usual. Making a mistake and correcting it is not a lack of physics knowledge. Your example is a really poor one.
The blue plate would gain 800 watts of energy I just used only one emitting side to calculate the steady state temperature and not the other side. 400 watts per side. I thanked him for the correction.
You actually do not know any real physics and will not correct you many errors. I have linked you to textbook physics that clearly state your view is totally wrong. You don’t accept you are mistaken and correct your view. You double down with even more stupid posts.
Nothing new with you. You will make up fake physics for as long as you post. You don’t know the real material and are unwilling to invest any time learning it. It seems DREMT is similar. He/She also has no interest in actual physics.
Nice try Norman, but reality is bearing down on you.
It’s not only your deficit in physics, but your basic common sense is lacking. You believe a racehorse rotates on its axis as it runs the oval track. If shown an example of “rotating on an axis”, most people could easily figure it out.
You can’t even figure out that a Ferris wheel chair must rotate on an axle. And, you won’t even buy the cheap toy to learn.
All you know is how to type, and you refuse to learn anything else.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are bringing up your stupid rotation points again. I have shown you to be wrong continuously. As you said, most can understand what rotation on axis is. You can’t and it is worthless to spend time attempting to reason with you. Since you cannot seem to grasp the reality that a Ferris wheel chair can’t be rotating on its axis. You lack logic and reason and just make stupid unproven declarations.
DREMT: Note for you. JDHuffman is trolling. This is what trolling is. He wants a reaction so he continues until he gets one. That is a troll. The troll never offers anything of value and when you request any support for their points they offer none. You might like the troll but that is because you are one. Trolls stick together like glue.
Wrong again, Norman.
You want the point to be stupid, because it makes you look stupid. I didn’t mention “axis”, I mentioned “axel”. You still can’t understand simple motions.
Nothing new.
From above DREMT :I’m not upset at all, Norman
This is pleasing as one got the opposite impression from your diligent collection of your personal descriptions by others.
DREMT, your record is not totally unblemished, to say the least. Your incessant PST certainly aggravated me (which is clearly the point of a troll) and I returned fire accordingly. Sorry if I have offended but ridicule and mocking could be more effective than trying to engage you (and your partner) in scientific debate, as so many can attest.
You also have some form in the matter such as,
Testicle4, please stop trolling (12 times )
“Begone, witless troll Svante” (now I know where Mike F gets his material from). March 29, 2019
Not much but when you throw in ninety six of your highly aggravating please stop … then I am amazed you did not expect much blowback.
From above DREMT :I’m not upset at all, Norman.
This is pleasing as one got the opposite impression from your diligent collection of personal descriptions by others.
DREMT, your record is not totally unblemished, to say the least. Your incessant PST certainly aggravated me (which is clearly the point of a troll) and I returned fire accordingly. Sorry if I have offended but ridicule and mocking could be more effective than trying to engage you (and your partner) in scientific debate, as so many can attest.
You also have some form in the matter such as,
Testicle4, please stop trolling (12 times),
“Begone, witless troll Svante” (now I know where Mike F gets his material from).
Not much but when you throw in ninety six of your highly aggravating “please stop … ” then I am amazed you did not expect much blowback.
Sorry for the dual post. My internet has been dropping out and strange things are happening. Anyway it was worth repeating.
Please keep proving over and over again that you are a troll, and I will keep making my comments, to others, as I choose.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, April 1, 2019 at 11:53 AM:
And it’s official.
“As for E.Swanson’s comment it is way,way more relevant than a debate about lunar rotation.”
As far as I’m aware, I never instigated any of those discussions.
You have finally been declared a troll by Dr Roy himself, DREMT. So it is perhaps time you changed your handle.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347630
Again, maybe time to change your handle, “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team” …?
OK, Kristian. I acknowledge receipt of your opinion.
How about ‘JDHuffmans Emergency Trolling Companion’?
“How about ‘JDHuffmans Emergency Trolling Companion’?”, trolled Svante, taking another overly generous swig from his glass.
DREMT it is time to retire your alias. Clearly you should have moderated yourself out of existence after Roy Spencer’s comments. Maybe you will get the hint before you suffer the same fate as your previous incarnations. Let’s hope so.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
No DREMT but you have aided and abetted your imaginary friend’s lunar fantasy. You have always sung from the same song book and always off key.
So has Nikola Tesla, Gordon Robertson, gbaikie, AndyG55, ftop_t, A. Tomic, Savic & Kasanin…
I suspect the provenance of the short lived Nikola Tesla. I thought he passed many years ago. As for the others that have come along for the ride, the only ones that seem to have survived long term are Gordon (god bless his soul, if he didn’t exist he would have to invented) and Andy. The others maybe ghosts, or more of your puppets.
Anyway there has always been the gullible to recruit from , witness the existence of the Flat Earth Society. I hope you don’t take up this as a suggestion but at least it would be more relevant to the topic of climate change and it could be interesting. We could have a new set of climate models based upon this concept. Would it be a rotating or non rotating flat earth? Can you imagine the discussions about the impact of the Coriolis force on weather patterns?
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
http://tinyurl.com/y87gs2jb
Nikola Tesla was a genius of the highest order. The line between genius and madness is sometimes crossed and Nikola sometimes ended up on the wrong side of the road. Hie effort with the moon was a blemish but largely ignored. Fortunately he is much better remembered for his accomplishments.
Other geniuses such as Newton, when dealing with areas outside there expertise, also blundered but Newton’s fascination with alchemy was more a sign of the times so it is usually forgiven.
Some others geniuses blunder and it is hard to understand exactly why. It is said anecdotally that after a lecture by Linus Pauling (the patron saint of lithotripsy) the attendees would wait until Linus needed to go to the toilet. They would follow him in so they could be spared the normal stale urine smell and indulge in the pleasant citrus fragrance that permeated the air.
I just made that up, but as a member of the Australian Skeptics society, many from that Society have pointed out that consuming lots of vitamins unnecessarily, gives you the boasting rights of having the most expensive pee and with the side benefit of a possible gallstone.
…so anyway, back to my point…
I didn’t instigate any of the moon discussions, as far as I know, and I’m not the only person (alive or dead) in support of JD on the subject.
DREMT, I don’t think I accused you of starting the whole madness. I seem to recall it was Gastro back at the end of 2017 that was responsible for the fiasco and then it was resurrected by your imaginary friend in the middle of last year.
I am glad you have mates that believe in this nonsense. Does the set of the members of Flat Earth Society a subset or superset of these mates of yours? Do you have a Facebook group as well?
I suspect the numbers of your mates is very limited. Could it be that in the multitude of infinite universes we lucked out with having a few of your lunatic mates in close proximity and posting in the same blog?
What are the odds? Probably infinitesimally small.
“I don’t think I accused you of starting the whole madness.”
I didn’t say you did. Not very good at following a discussion, are you?
I argued that Swanson was trolling, because he had deliberately jumped in with the very first comment in an attempt to initiate yet another discussion on an already contentious, off-topic issue, that was likely to spark off another interminable repetition of something already done to death. Not the first time he has done so, either.
You countered that it was more on-topic than the moon debates.
True, but as far as I’m aware I never instigated any of those. Meaning both that I didn’t start the whole thing off, or initiate any of the subsequent discussions.
You seemed to accept this, yet despite it nullifying your whole point, you decided to continue that I had “aided and abetted” the discussions.
When I pointed out that I wasn’t the only one to have “aided and abetted” it, you’re now just resorting to ridicule again. You don’t really have a point, so you’re just lashing out. Seems to be a common theme with you.
DREMT. This is getting tedious, and confusing. I tend to confuse easily as I age but maybe there is a misunderstanding. You explicitly stated above “I didnt instigate any of the moon discussions”. These discussions were the madness I had in mind.
Perhaps there was some other madness that you didn’t start? I do however believe you. You never seem to instigate any madness, it just follows you around.
With respect to E.Swanson’s opening comment, your boss Dr Roy made it very clear that he didn’t regard it as trolling. Are you disputing this?. I think Dr Roy should review his contract with you and see if he can terminate your services, possibly with extreme prejudice.
That’s a good one, yes. But I think your “I returned fire accordingly” is the funniest.
Is there a Universe in which you are able to stop responding to people?
Yes, it did become reflexive after your barrage of PSTs. I tend to be a counter puncher and you lead with your chin.
Nonsense. You attack me for my position on the GHE. That’s the truth, behind the whole thing.
Yes possibly, it is hard to keep track of all these exchanges. You seem to have a glass jaw so I am tempted to throw in a sly punch or two. Just to keep you on your toes.
I don’t care what ridiculous insults and nonsense you come up with. I share it all, above, simply to put things into perspective.
“I argued that Swanson was trolling, because he had deliberately jumped in with the very first comment in an attempt to initiate yet another discussion on an already contentious, off-topic issue, that was likely to spark off another interminable repetition”
Swanson has gone to a lot of trouble to do an experiment, and do it well.
IMO, that has much more value than hand waving declarations with little to back them up.
What you are making clear is that you cant see value in experiments. Thats pretty sad.
OK Nate.
The radiation from the colder body will NOT warm the hotter body, but it will slow the cooling of the hotter body. It’s the same reason that a Thermos has a silver coating – reducing the loss of radiative energy slows down the cooling.
https://futurism.com/physics-thermos-heat-transfer
It’s ridiculous to constantly argue about basic physics.
Craig, I am not sure about the point you are making. Could you clarify?
Suppose I have a vacuum chamber and I can control the temperature of the walls (which have a blackbody coating). Inside is a blackbody sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 and a 300 W heater inside.
If the the walls are set to 0 C (273 K), do you agree that the sphere will be 50 C (323)?
If the walls are set to -40 C (233 K), do you agree that the sphere will cool to 28 C (301 K)?
If the the walls are reset to 0 C (273 K), do you agree that the sphere will warm back to 50 C (323)?
When the walls are rewarmed, isn’t that radiation from the cooler body (walls that are always 0C or colder) warming a warmer object (the sphere that is always 28 C or warmer)? Certainly there is also a heater at work, but that heater is enhanced by the radiation from the cooler surfaces. That is how the earth is too. The solar heating of the surface is enhanced when the there is some radiation from the cooler atmosphere (as opposed to radiation from even colder outer space). (Or maybe that was your point, too).
Tim, Fritz, let me explain!
I’m agreeing with both of you, we’re just getting tripped up on the words.
The 2nd law says the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. Given a warm object and a cool object insulated from the rest of the world the warm object loses energy rather than gains energy over time. I stress that to make it clear that the 2nd law is in place.
But thermal energy given off by the cooler object still has an effect on the warmer. Equilibrium temperature depends on the energy both items carried into the closed system. The energy doesn’t disappear and nothing prevents radiation from the cooler object from being absorbed by the warmer object.
Craig, glad to hear we are on the same page.
My one follow-up comment/clarification (for other readers mostly) is that the earth is not a closed system. The sun continuously adds energy. This makes for a much more interesting situation that simply putting a hot obkect and a cold object in an isolated system.
TF,
You wrote –
“The sun continuously adds energy.”
Obviously not enough to prevent the Earth from cooling. After four and a half billion years of applied sunlight, the surface is no longer molten. Not even above the boiling point of water.
You can call that warming, heating, reduced rate of cooling, or whatever you like. It is still a reduction in temperature.
It makes no difference to the fact that you still cannot describe the GHE, does it?
Cheers.
–Tim Folkerts says:
April 1, 2019 at 1:05 PM
Craig, I am not sure about the point you are making. Could you clarify?
Suppose I have a vacuum chamber and I can control the temperature of the walls (which have a blackbody coating). Inside is a blackbody sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 and a 300 W heater inside.–
The problem is the heater- 300 Watt heater doesn’t say much.
A 100 watt lightbulb can have filament which about 3000 K.
The sun about 6000 K but at 1 AU distance it’s magnified sunlight is about 120 C [400 K].
If you magnify the sun or 3000 K filament you can heat something to 6000 K or 3000 K. But such heat is limited by size of heat source [with sun it is huge so not limiting factor], but if you can insulate or prevent heat loss, the small size of lightbulb filament
can heat a larger area. Or lightbulbs are not suppose to be well insulated else they can start fires. Or as is known, books burn at 451 Fahrenheit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
“its magnified sunlight is about 120 C [400 K].”
should be:
its Non magnified sunlight is about 120 C [400 K].
Gbaikie,
The heater is not actually a problem. Any 300 W heater will — by definition — provide 300 J of thermal energy every second to the sphere. The heater could be a single, small hot 300 W light bulb filament. It could be could be tubes through which 100 C water circulates. It could 60 5-watt resistors.
As long as the heater fulfills the requirement of actually delivering 300 J/s to the interior of the sphere, it will work as I claimed.
Tim,
300 W can be emitted by a square meter of ice. It is hot – it is providing 300 J every second.
Maybe you might choose to redefine your specification?
GHE supporters say that global temperatures are rising – but then start talking about anything except the fact that a thermometer only indicates a higher temperature when exposed to radiation from something hotter.
Maybe pseudoscientific cultists have different watts for ice – very small watts and joules of the climatological type. Why are ice generated watts not good enough? Are you being iceist?
Cheers.
Some great humor for April 1st. Swanson starts off with another one of his magic tricks, followed by Tim still confused about radiative physics.
“If the the walls are set to 0 C (273 K), do you agree that the sphere will be 50 C (323)?”
The sphere will be emitting 300W/m^2, resulting in a surface at 270 K. The warmer walls might provide some slight warming, but never above 273. And certainly NOT 323K!
“If the walls are set to -40 C (233 K), do you agree that the sphere will cool to 28 C (301 K)?a’
No, the sphere will remain at 270K.
“If the the walls are reset to 0 C (273 K), do you agree that the sphere will warm back to 50 C (323)?”
Nope, nothing above 273K.
Some great pseudoscience though, Tim.
JD,
I’m just curious — where does the magical number “273” come from. Why can the walls warm some, but only that amount?
What if the walls are set to 270 K as well. Now the sphere would be 270 K with no heater at all! Will turning on the 300 watt heater have no effect? Will the sphere decide that 273 K is a nice temperature and just stop there?
What if the walls are set to 271 K . Now the sphere would be 271 K with no heater at all! Will turning on the 300 watt heater have no effect? Will the sphere cool back to 270 K since that is the preferred temperature with 300 W of radiation?
I know some of these are facetious, but what equation will you use to solve these? What actual answers will you get for walls at 269 K 270 K or 271 K? There can only be one right answer. Every textbook dealing with radiative heat transfer will guide us to the same equation and the same answer.
TF,
You are just being silly on purpose, I assume.
The 300 W heater is made of ice. How much hotter than 273 K do you think it will be?
Do you really imagine you can heat something to 50 C using ice? What pseudoscientific fantasy world are you inhabiting?
A sphere containing a chunk of ice, walls of ice, and you claim to have a magical globe which heats itself to 50 C? Maybe you need to get a new radiative transfer textbook.
Next thing, you’ll be claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Tim, you are terribly confused. You’re throwing out different scenarios and different numbers faster than you can pose a logical question.
Pick one scenario that you are confused about, and compose one responsible question, and I will try to help.
JD, so you are saying that …
* A sphere just hanging in a 270 K vacuum chamber with no power added will be 270 K.
* And after turning on a 300 W heater inside the sphere, the sphere will STILL be at 270 K. The 300 W heater will have zero effect on the sphere.
Is that REALLY the position you want to defend?
Tim, please stop trolling.
Tim, perhaps you missed my comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347733
” blackbody sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 and a 300 W heater inside.’
* A sphere just hanging in a 270 K vacuum chamber with no power added will be 270 K.
* And after turning on a 300 W heater inside the sphere, the sphere will STILL be at 270 K. The 300 W heater will have zero effect on the sphere.
Is that REALLY the position you want to defend?”
He’s really got you there JD. Difficult to defend that.
JD,
Any unheated object in a 273 K chamber will eventually reach 273 K. So the sphere without any heater would be 273 K.
You literally claim that turning on the heater in the sphere will COOL the sphere to 270 K!
Tim, now you’ve even trapped poor Nate. Of course, that’s not much of a challenge.
But, you know what they say “third time’s a charm”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347733
And yet you still cant defend your silly blunder.
…and yet this was moved further down-thread. Down you go.
As DREMT gives the play by play coverage..
…down you go.
Graig T says:
April 1, 2019 at 12:22 PM
The radiation from the colder body will NOT warm the hotter body
_______________________________________
EACH additional radiation, no matter how strong, no matter where it comes from, will raise equilibrium temperature.
Energy cant disappear.
THATS basic physics.
fritz…”EACH additional radiation, no matter how strong, no matter where it comes from, will raise equilibrium temperature.
Energy cant disappear.
THATS basic physics.”
Energy does not disappear, it is converted from one form to another. When a hot body radiates EM, heat is converted to EM and the heat is lost. If that EM encounters a cooler body than the source of the EM, the EM is converted back to heat and the EM is lost.
It is simply not possible for EM from a cooler body to be absorbed by a hotter body. The 2nd law says so, entropy says so, and so does the fundamental axiom in physics that energy cannot be transferred naturally from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential.
With regard to your assertion, energy doesn’t have to disappear. If EM from a cooler body encounters a hotter body, it is simply not absorbed. That satisfies the 2nd law.
In the case of thermal equilibrium, EM can be absorbed and emitted between bodies but no heat can be transferred.
“It is simply not possible for EM from a cooler body to be absorbed by a hotter body. The 2nd law says so, entropy says so, and so does the fundamental axiom in physics that energy cannot be transferred naturally from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential.”
There is nothing in the 2nd law that says radiation from a cooler object can’t be absorbed by a hotter object, only that the overall trend will be more energy leaves the hotter object than is added to it. The photons emitted by the warmer object carry more energy than the ones it absorbs.
For more information:
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Gordon Robertson says:
April 1, 2019 at 5:31 PM
It is simply not possible for EM from a cooler body to be absorbed by a hotter body.
________________________________________
And then? – What does this radiation do, where does it goe to, after the body refused to adsorb it?
You just agreed, its energy cant disappear, so you must have any idea, what else will happen with it.
Fritz naively enquires: “What does this radiation do, where does it go to, after the body refused to adsorb it?”
Fritz, if you’re in a dark room and you turn the light on, where does the light go when you turn the light off?
JDHuffman says:
April 1, 2019 at 11:14 PM
Fritz naively enquires: What does this radiation do, where does it go to, after the body refused to adsorb it?
Fritz, if youre in a dark room and you turn the light on, where does the light go when you turn the light off?
______________________________
When you turn off the light, there is no light which could go anywhere.
Why dont you just answer my “naively” question, instead asking other questions?
But Fritz, you told us that “its energy can’t disappear”.
So, where does the light energy go when you turn out the light. It can’t leave the closed room. And, according to you, it can’t disappear. So, where does it go?
FK,
Shades of David Appell! A demand for an answer to a gotcha!
Are you really that stupid and ignorant, or just pretending? I’ll give you a practical practical example of a body not absorbing photons. It is called a lens. The photons pass through without being absorbed. Another example of photons passing through matter – infrared passes through thin black plastic sheeting which blocks visible light.
Or radio and TV wavelengths passing through buildings, and you, and your furniture, and your glass windows, and your curtains and . . .
Or put some paper in a microwave oven – I’ll let you figure out how the photons have no effect on the paper (or anything else that is “microwave safe”.
Any more stupid and ignorant gotchas? I’m here to help. You don’t need to thank me.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
April 1, 2019 at 11:49 PM
FK,
Shades of David Appell! A demand for an answer to a gotcha!
Are you really that stupid and ignorant, or just pretending? Ill give you a practical practical example
______________________________
Please not.
No examples, no stupid questions, no insults.
Just an answer. Where does the energy of the radiation go to??
FK,
You posed the following stupid gotcha –
“Where does the energy of the radiation go to??”
You asked an ill posed gotcha, but I’ll give you a well posed answer.
Wherever it can. Feel free to blame me if you don’t possess the mental acuity to understand.
Cheers.
Fritz is worried about reflected infrared, since it “must” go somewhere. He believes that reflected infrared means the system will continue to warm. He completely ignores reflected visible light. Visible light photons have more energy than infrared photons, that is, more ability to raise the temperature. But, Fritz doesn’t want to talk about “where does the energy go when you turn out the light”.
Fritz offers a perfect example of wanting to believe only what you want to believe.
Plus, he avoids any entanglements from reality or the relevant physies. He’s obviously never heard of “energy dissipation”.
JDHuffman says:
April 2, 2019 at 5:28 AM
Fritz is worried about reflected infrared
____________________________________________
Not at all. Why should he?
He just wants to know, what happens to the radiation and its energy when a colder body radiates towards a warmer one.
And he deeply hopes, you dont think, reflection depends on any temperature difference.
No better idea?
You can answer him directly.
Fritz, you show no interest in learning.
You avoided the example I provided about turning out the light.
You avoided looking up “energy dissipation”.
I have no interest in trying to teach someone who has no interest in learning.
fritz…”What does this radiation do, where does it goe to, after the body refused to adsorb it?
You just agreed, its energy cant disappear, so you must have any idea, what else will happen with it”.
The universe is full of EM moving around and doing nothing. It’s not just in the IR range which represents heat, it’s across the entire EM spectrum.
We see colour because a body absorbs some of the visible EM striking it and rejects the rest. The rejection is the colour we see. Where does all the EM go that is rejected by every object on Earth?
It just keep moving around, doing nothing.
How about all the radio frequency EM (and above) that we have been transmitting since the 1940s? If it has not been absorbed, it’s likely still floating around the universe somewhere.
JDHuffman says:
“where does the light energy go when you turn out the light.”
It is added to the temperature at the point of a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n.
fritz…”fritz…”What does this radiation do, where does it goe to, after the body refused to adsorb it?
You just agreed, its energy cant disappear”
You need to step back and look at this is greater depth. If you want to, that is.
EM is free to move anywhere it wants in space until it encounters a resonant situation with electrons in atoms. If the EM frequency does not resonate with the frequency of the electron it is not absorbed. What happens to it is not the question because not one can answer that question.
Heat and EM have nothing whatsoever in common with each other as energies go. The 2nd law applies to heat, not to EM. The 2nd law governs the direction of heat transfer and EM has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
The 2nd law does NOT apply to a balance of thermal energy, as some claim, it clearly stipulates that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body. Since heat is restricted to a transfer from hot to cold that implies clearly that EM cannot be absorbed when transmitted from a cooler body to a warmer body.
A net balance of GENERIC energy is pseudo-science. You must specify the energy to which the balance applies and if the energy is heat, it must be transferred in accordance with the 2nd law.Furthermore, you cannot arbitrarily sum EM and heat to arrive at a balance.
The energy to which you refer is electromagnetic energy, which has unique qualities compared to other forms of energy. EM has no mass and it is composed of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. It is comprised of a humungous spectrum of frequencies.
EM CARRIES NO HEAT.
Heat, on the other hand, is a property of mass. Clausius defined it as the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. By that, he not only meant gas molecules (which are atoms) moving about and colliding, he meant the motions of atoms as they vibrate in a lattice in solids.
Clausius spent a lot of time comparing heat and work because they have an equivalence. The equivalence was first noted by Count Rumford, who set up a large drill bit which he drove with horses. The tip of the bit was encased in a barrel with water and he noted that within 2 hours, the work done by the drill had raised the temperature of water to the boiling point.
Along came Watt, of steam-engine fame, and quantified the work of horses pulling a load, deriving the horsepower, a measure of mechanical work. Later still, a sub-division of the horsepower, the watt, named in honour of Watt, with 1 HP approximately equal to 746 watts. Both HP and watts are measures of mechanical energy.
Later. the scientist, Joule, did a superb experiment in which he had a small paddle turning in water, driven by a mechanical device. He was able to derive a relationship between the mechanical energy and the heat produced.
However, heat is measured in calories, not watts or joules. The calorie is a measure of the heat required to raise 1cc of water by 1C. So, Joule had to relate the calorie (heat) to the joule (work) which he did.
It is known, based on the work of Tyndall and Stefan, that a body heated to a temperature, T, will give off EM where the EM intensity is the 4th power of the temperature. Of course, you have to multiply by the tiny constant provided to get the relationship.
At the quantum level, that EM is given off by electrons, which have an electric field accompanied by an electromagnetic field, hence the EM field they give off. The EM is measured in electron volts since it is a measure of the electrical potential between electron orbital energy levels.
Yet EM is measured in units of work, as W/m^2. How the heck is that possible? For one, by the time Stefan put his equation together circa 1870, Joule had already established a relationship between heat and work. As Clausius put it, it’s OK to use units of work to represent heat as long as you keep the units of equivalence consistent. But that does not explain the application of W/m^2 to EM.
The 1st law states that Q = U + W. It’s a statement of energy balance between the heat added to or taken from a system to the work done by or done on the system and the energy internal to the system.
But, wait…Q and W do not have the same units since Q is in calories and W is in watts. Furthermore, U, which Clausius created, is a combo of internal work and heat.
Clausius addressed that issue in his two editions of the Mechanical Theory of Heat. He claimed it is OK to use Q in an equation with W as long as you convert one of them to the equivalent value of the other as laid down by Joule, circa 1840.
But, wait again…where does EM fit into the equation? IT DOESN’T!!! There is no reference to EM in either the first law of thermodynamics or the 2nd law. That’s why you must be seriously careful when you talk about a net balance of energy when that energy is made up of both thermal and electromagnetic energy.
FK,
And yet, the temperature of the hotter body does not rise. That is, indeed, basic physics.
Equilibrium temperature does not result in the temperature of the hotter body rising.
Add radiation in the form of a large block of ice to a ladle of molten lead. Now convince yourself that the lead became even more molten due to the additional radiation introduced into the system.
If you want a challenge, find a description of the GHE. How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
April 1, 2019 at 6:47 PM
FK,
And yet, the temperature of the hotter body does not rise.
_____________________________________________
Of course it does. Temperature will rise until new equilibrium temperature is reached.
Until there is again balance between incoming and outgoing radiation.
FK,
Nope. If the temperature of the hotter body were to rise, the energy would have to come from somewhere – conservation of energy, and all that.
The only place it can come from is the cooler body. The cooler body must lose energy. It will become cooler. Unfortunately, this will have two odd effects – the cooler body will continue to become cooler, whilst the hotter body will become even hotter. The increased temperature differential will result in a decrease in entropy, and give rise to a perpetual motion machine, by utilising the temperature differential.
I don’t think so. Actually, I know so.
A practical example. Start with some water. Add some ice. Now tell me how the water gets hotter as it cools.
Stupidity and ignorance is only a substitute for reality in the pseudo-scientific climate cult. Good luck with the perpetual motion machine.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
April 1, 2019 at 11:37 PM
FK,
Nope. If the temperature of the hotter body were to rise, the energy would have to come from somewhere conservation of energy, and all that.
The only place it can come from is the cooler body.
__________________________________________
Exactly thats where it comes from. Where else?
The energy comes from where the radiation comes.
Mike flyn says:
April 2, 2019 at 4:40 PM
FK,
If you refuse to provide an answer because you don’t want to, fair enough.
Presumably, you will accept the same reason from others who may not wish to answer your questions. That would be fair, wouldn’t it?
____________________________________
To make this endless story short:
None of you climate deniers have the slightest idea, what should happen with the radiated energy from a colder body, if it doesnt warm the receiving body.
Why dont you just admitt, that you reject physics and reality, because you dont like reality?
That wold be fair, wouldnt it??
You responding in the right place would be fairer.
JDHuffman says:
April 1, 2019 at 11:40 PM
But Fritz, you told us that its energy cant disappear.
So, where does the light energy go when you turn out the light.
________________________________
When you turn out the light, there is no light.
When there is no light, there is also no “light energy” which could go anywhere.
Why are you going on asking stupid questions instead of answering my serious one??
FK,
Because you are a stupid and ignorant troll, perhaps? Why can’t you answer a perfectly reasonable question?
Are you really stupid and ignorant, or just pretending? What efforts have you made to provide JDH with an answer to his question? None? Why not?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
April 2, 2019 at 4:34 AM
FK,
Because you are a stupid and ignorant troll, perhaps? Why cant you answer a perfectly reasonable question?
_______________________________________
First of all because I dont want to. Because my question was first. Annother question is no answer to my question.
FK,
If you refuse to provide an answer because you don’t want to, fair enough.
Presumably, you will accept the same reason from others who may not wish to answer your questions. That would be fair, wouldn’t it?
Cheers.
Craig T…”The radiation from the colder body will NOT warm the hotter body, but it will slow the cooling of the hotter body”.
It doesn’t slow the cooling, it affects the ability of the hotter body to dissipate heat. It may sound as if I am nit-picking but the distinction is important.
If you heat a body electrically, and you prevent it dissipating heat, either by radiation, conduction, and/or convection, the wire will reach an optimal temperature due to the electrical current alone. The moment you introduce any kind of dissipation, the temperature will drop until the heat lost by the heated body via radiation, conduction, and/or convection, matches the heat produced by the electrical current.
Heat in = Heat out.
The ability of a heated body to dissipate ‘heat in’ determines the temperature of the body. All a cooler body can do is interfere with the ability of the body to dissipate heat via radiation, conduction, and/or convection.
Radiation from the cooler body will have no effect on heat dissipation but its temperature will.
Here’s the explanation.
The basic Stefan Law is P = (sigma).T^4, which describes the radiation intensity from a body at temperature T. It is based on an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically till it glowed colours in a range between temperatures from about 700C to 1500C. Another scientist, forgive me for forgetting his name, converted the reported colours and temperature from Tyndall to electromagnetic frequencies.
From that, Stefan derived the T^4 relationship between radiation and temperature.
Later, through the work of Stefan’s student Boltzmann, the latter came up with an extended formula which was:
P = e .(sigma) . A (Th^4 – Tc^4) where e= emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, A = area of radiation, Th = temperature of hot body and Tc = temperature of cold body).
The first thing to note is the lack of provisions for a two-way transfer of EM between bodies. This is a one way transfer of EM and heat in accordance with the 2nd law.
Another thing to note is the condition where Th = Tc, a state of thermal equilibrium, where the radiation intensity P = 0. As Th – Tc gets larger, the radiation from the hotter body increases. As Th – Tc gets smaller, with Th = Tc as the limit, the hotter body gets hotter.
The hotter body is not being heated by anything other than the electrical current through it. It’s temperature increases only because it cannot get rid of it’s heat as fast.
I don’t understand the physical manifestation of the 2nd S-B formula but there is a lesson there for how bodies of different temperatures interact.
Taking it back to the simple Stefan formula, it is stating that an electrically heated platinum filament wire, which is obeying the 2nd law, will, under ideal conditions, emit an EM intensity P, from a body at temperature T.
In the days of Tyndall, Stefan, Boltzmann, Clausius, and Planck, they knew nothing about electromagnet radiation other than near-field EM a la Faraday in electric motors and devices. They had no idea that heat was not moving through space as ‘heat rays’ and they knew nothing about the conversion of heat to EM as in Stefan I. As far as they knew, heat was leaving a hot body and somehow moving through space as some kind of radiation.
We know now that heat is lost in a hot body when it is converted to EM. EM flows through space, not heat. If that EM encounters a body of a lower temperature than the source of the EM, the EM will be converted back to heat in the cooler body. If the EM encounters a body hotter than the EM source, NOTHING will happen. That satisfies the 2nd law as well as the quantum theory of Bohr and Schrodinger.
There’s no way that radiation from a cooler body can affect the cooling rate of a hotter body. To see, that, you have to consider the hotter body under ideal conditions, where it is prevented from dissipating heat.
.
How do you guys write this much and not get it filtered?
SPA, Gordo is just doing a copy-and-paste from his many older posts.
More baiting from Swanson (baiting is a part of trolling).
stephen…”How do you guys write this much and not get it filtered?”
Obviously, because the man editing the blog has intelligence, tolerance, and integrity, unlike his counterparts at skeptical science, realclimate, and even our skeptical ally at WUWT.
swannie…” Gordo is just doing a copy-and-paste from his many older posts.”
No swannie…I can rattle this stuff off in my sleep because I have actually studied it at the university level, I have researched it extensively, and I have applied it.
You are still stuck with the notion that radiation from a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter body, ergo, you have not even begun to think.
“In the days of Tyndall, Stefan, Boltzmann, Clausius, and Planck, they knew nothing about electromagnet radiation..”
You might want to read up on Planck and the ultraviolet catastrophe.
craig t…”You might want to read up on Planck and the ultraviolet catastrophe”.
Planck based his work on the statistical analysis of Boltzmann. Neither knew anything about the source of EM, which is electrons.
Planck admitted much later, that had he known about the electron, which was just being investigated as he released his work related to the UV catastrophe, it would have made his work much easier.
As it stood, Planck’s equation that solved the UV catastrophe used statistical probability to presume that EM frequencies were not as likely to occur as frequency increased. You can see that applied in the equation with the natural log, ‘e’ in the denominator.
Bohr actually used the unadulterated form, E = hf, to describe the relationship between the frequency of radiation given off by an electron and the intensity of the EM, E. That E is the difference between electron orbital energy level through which the electron drops during emission, where f is the frequency of the electron.
E = hf will lead to the ultraviolet catastrophe since E goes toward infinity as f increases. If Planck had known that at the time, about the electron, he could have figured out that it was unlikely that E would approach infinity since the electron itself would have limitations in its frequency.
As it stood, Planck had no idea that electrons emitted EM.
From Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals & Applications
Fourth Edition:
“When the surfaces involved can be approximated as blackbodies because of the absence of reflection, the net rate of radiation heat transfer from surface 1 to surface 2 is Q1 to 2 = (radiation leaving the entire surface 1 that strikes surface 2) – (radiation leaving the entire surface 2 that strikes surface 1). A negative value for Q1 to 2 indicates that net radiation heat transfer is from surface 2 to surface 1.”
The situation described NEVER happens in reality.
That’s why it is always used in pseudoscience.
I didn’t know that thermodynamics now is a pseudoscience.
The only part of that formula that is not realistic is the blackbody assumption. Engineering students have been learning this for years.
I never mentioned “thermodynamics”, so thanks for misrepresting me.
The situuation you described NEVER happens in reality, which is the reality you must ignore to believe in pseudoscience.
craig t…”When the surfaces involved can be approximated as blackbodies because of the absence of reflection, the net rate of radiation heat transfer from surface….”
Absolute nonsense. Most physics textbooks don’t define time yet some have no problem claiming it can dilate and warp. My electrical engineering textbooks still defines electrical current flow from positive to negative, a convention established circa 1926.
The statement above contravenes the 2nd law. All it’s telling you is that even authors of texts on thermodynamics don’t understand the science completely. Many of the modern texts I have read don’t even acknowledge Clausius as the inventor of the 2nd law nor do they credit him with inventing entropy.
craig t…”Engineering students have been learning this for years”.
Electrical engineering students, like me, were force fed crap about electrical currents flowing from positive to negative. I knew better, having been an electronics technician before returning to university. Many others were horrified after graduation to learn that both the electronic and electrical industries regard current as flowing negative to positive.
I am sure that physics student graduating with a specialty in thermodynamics will be equally horrified to learn what a load of nonsense they were taught about two way heat flows between objects of different temperatures.
“The situation described NEVER happens in reality.
That’s why it is always used in pseudoscience.”
Or in rocket science:
RADIANT HEAT EXCHANGE BETWEEN SURFACES
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the net radiant exchange of energy between two black body radiators, one completely enclosing the other, is q net = delta A1 T1^4 – delta A2 T2^4
(Where delta is the Stefan–Boltzmann radiation constant, q is energy per unit time, A is area and T is temperature Kelvin.)
It continues:
“In most cases, radiant heat exchange between two surfaces is influenced by the absor*ption, reflection and emission from connecting surfaces. If the surfaces are non-black (i.e., gray or real), a complete accounting of all the interreflections is quite difficult to accomplish analytically. Fortunately, methods are available for the more complicated radiation problems.”
Page 19 & 22, RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS FOR SPACE VEHICLES
SPACE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.
December 1961
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/271917.pdf
2 days late…no, they will probably have moved down-thread. Down you go.
This is easy to confirm.
Place a 10 cm diameter -2C snowball and an equal size 50C hot stone each on a thin pin in an well insulated box. Should ideally be in vacuum but that is maybe hard to achieve. Does not matter, this works almost as well. The pins must be 30cm apart and also 30cm from the box walls. Close the box and wait for 30 minutes. Depending on your thermometer precision the stone will now measure approx 52C.
Since I discovered this I have installed floor heating in my house. I am pumping CO2 to exactly 4000ppm and at that level I can turn the floor heating off. The pump consumes some energy but far less than what the floor originally needed. Backradiation saves me 200USD per month (winter season).
adding a bunch of CO2 only reduces cooling if it is placed in front of something colder (like outer space, which has essentially zero IR emission). In your example, the CO2-enriched air is in front of a ceiling at about the same temperature as the air, so there will be virtually no effect on heat loss by the floor.
I am surprised it works then.
What date is it today again?
Too many confusing reports today. Maybe it will settle down tomorrow.
Z, those kind of calculations are tricky to do at home. From what I’ve seen Dr. Spencer understands CO2’s impact on Earth’s temperature even if a lot of posters on this site don’t. I suspect the CO2 level in your house is lower than you think. CO2 levels above 2000 ppm can cause headaches, insomnia and nausea.
Z,
Good one. I suspect Craig T was even slower than me.
Oh well.
Cheers.
Opps… around here Poe’s law trumps April 1 expectations.
Craig T, I can tell you that isn’t true. I did a dozen patrols on a couple nuclear submarine with higher CO2 levels and none of the crew experienced any symptons like you describe.
Stop quibbling. He was only off by an order of magnitude.
MrZ…”Depending on your thermometer precision the stone will now measure approx 52C”.
For the simple reason I explained earlier. When you heat the stone to 50C in the atmosphere, it is subject to heat dissipation by radiation, convection, and possibly by conduction through the air surrounding the pin, and through the pin to whatever is supporting the pin.
When you place it in the container, you have changed the parameters of dissipation, therefore the temperature rises closer to its natural temperature with all means of dissipation removed.
That is, if you heat the stone, say with a flame, it is losing heat as you heat it.
You would have to conduct this experiment with extreme care to ensure the environments are identical.
Gordo, We breathlessly await your experimental results…
“It’s the same reason that a Thermos has a silver coating – reducing the loss of radiative energy slows down the cooling.”
Sure, radiative insulation works by reflectivity, thanks to the silver coating in that case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
But still, in order to avoid another 2,000+ comment food fight, it would be better not to feed the Swanson.
swannie…”For those on who post on this blog and continue to claim that the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, such as Gordon Robertson and Mike Flynn, I have performed a new demonstration to show that back radiation from a colder body can result in an increase in the temperature of a hotter body”.
I think it’s inappropriate for you to be the first one commenting on this thread with a subject that is off-topic and dead wrong. Roy allows us plenty of leeway to go off-topic once everyone has had their say about the topic at hand.
Trying to bring this on-topic, the current global average has dropped slightly but if you look at the overall average from 1998 till present, there has been virtually no true warming to validate your claim. The UAH data proves CO2 is having an insignificant effect on the global average. Ergo, back-radiation from CO2 is having no effect on the global average.
Your comment, however, reveals the pseudo-science of climate alarmists who stubbornly try various goal-post moving scenarios to get around the 2nd law. It was stated by the scientist who wrote the 2nd law, Rudolf Clausius, that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body. He applied that equally to radiation.
That law is intuitive. Anyone you ask knows heat cannot be transferred under normal circumstances from a colder object to a hotter object. Alarmists are trying to get around that by referring to a net balance of energy, without defining the energy involved. They are confusing electromagnetic energy with thermal energy.
We are talking about thermal energy, aka heat. There is no way to transfer it from a colder source to a hotter source without supplying external power to drive a compressor, to compress a gas to a high pressure liquid, from which heat can be vented to a hotter atmosphere than the source.
However, to compensate, that high pressure liquid must be converted back to a liquid spray where it is then allowed to evapourate back to a low pressure gas. During the evapourative expansion, the gas can absorb heat from a cooler area.
That is a far different process than your natural process where heat can be allegedly transferred via back-radiation from a colder body to a hotter body. It simply cannot happen and the explanation for why it can’t is found in quantum theory.
Well, Gordo is still hitting zero. He hasn’t yet provided a physics based explanation for my Green Plate demo and now he’s ignoring the results of my Ice Slab demo as well. As our Prez La Plump might say, “What a loser! Too bad, so sad!”
Swanson, please stop trolling.
That’s because the temperature is causing the CO2-not the other way around.
SPA, That was true before mankind began modifying the environment by burning fossil fuels. It’s a different world since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
No Eric that was true then and it is true now.
SAP, yeah so CO2 is in both a feedback relationship with the temperature and a forcing relationship. That means CO2 will respond to temperature changes and it will catalyze temperature changes. And, of course, both can happen simultaneously. The paleoclimate record has examples where CO2 was both feedback dominated and forcing dominated in the early stages of temperature changes. For example, the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was caused by a large pulse of CO2. On the flip side the glacial cycles mostly resulted in a feedback dominated behavior of CO2 at least initially. But remember, CO2 also catalyzes temperature changes so though it may not have been the initial catalyzing agent it was still responsible for a large part of the glacial cycle temperature swings.
BGDWX,
That’s true of all the IR absorbing gases but CO2 is insignificant-it is about 1% of the energy budget. Read Salby’s book. You’ll learn something.
Also, you really don’t know if any of that paleo proxy stuff is valid. There’s no way to verify.
Reconstruction of early spring temperature for central Japan from the tree‐ring widths of Hinoki cypress and its verification by other proxy records
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL026170
Evaluation of proxies for European and North Atlantic temperature field reconstructions
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GL017589
A critical evaluation of multi‐proxy dendroclimatology in northern Finland
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jqs.1408
SPA,
“That’s true of all the IR absorbing gases but CO2 is insignificant-it is about 1% of the energy budget.”
Not really. CFCs are synthesized and have no significant natural sources so they don’t have a feedback aspect unless you consider increased HVAC usage due to an increase in temperature a legitimate feedback. H2O is not a forcing mechanism and cannot catalyze temperature changes on its own. It does have a feedback effect that can amplify the warming caused by another catalyzing agent but the feedback is self limiting. CH4 is both a feedback and forcing mechanism though.
1% is pretty substantial. The Maunder Minimum produced a radiative forcing at the surface of around -1 W/m^2 which is considerably less than 1% and it was a significant contributing factor during the LIA. A doubling of CO2 would be greater than 1%.
“Also, you really don’t know if any of that paleo proxy stuff is valid. There’s no way to verify.”
Sure. We’ll likely never be able to know for certain what happened in the past, but that doesn’t preclude scientists from drawing conclusions with relatively high confidence.
BGDWX,
You are just regurgitating alarmist dogma. Don’t you get tired of being a barking lap dog? “Water isn’t a forcing. Water isn’t a forcing.The sky is falling.” Where is this leftist utopia? Where has it ever been?
SPA, I think it’s somewhat intuitive that water vapor isn’t a forcing agent. If it were then something as simple as a hyperactive tropical cyclone season could have kick started a runaway greenhouse effect. But after a billion years of countless tropical cyclones that never happened. And it’s hard to imagine what process would allow it because WV mixing ratios are capped by the thermodynamic nature of the atmosphere. If there’s too much the column saturates and it precipitates out quickly. If there’s too little clouds disappear and evaporation kicks into overdrive. That’s why it is said that WV is locked into a mostly stable equilibrium with the temperature.
BGDWX,
Why can’t water be both?
E. Swanson says, April 1, 2019 at 11:31 AM:
No, as usual, you haven’t. That’s merely your INTERPRETATION of your results. The “back radiation” part simply reflects the mental model that you pictured in your head to begin with, even BEFORE doing the test. It’s not something you ever observed.
This is equivalent to CO2 heads just assuming that since temps have gone up and so has atmospheric CO2, then the latter is automatically the CAUSE of the former, without any other supporting evidence, simply because they already held the belief in their head before they went looking, that more CO2 in the atmosphere automatically causes the surface to warm.
Completely circular.
You need to observe clear signs of the proposed MECHANISM behind an observed effect (“back radiation” from cold => +T_warm; +CO2 => +T) in order to conclude that the proposed mechanism is (likely) what caused the effect. You can’t just observe the effect and assume YOUR mechanism caused it without actually OBSERVING it doing so.
This is one of the fundamentals of the scientific method that seems to utterly escape most CO2 cultists. They’re completely blind to it. And you’re one of them, S-man.
Kristian claims that my “interpretation” of the results of my latest demos is “Completely circular”, yet, provides no other explanation for the observed results, i.e., the metal plate is warmer with the “back radiation” from the various covers than without. Sad to say, this (and the rest of the post) is just another denialist red herring, throwing out an objection with no support from physics. It’s the same old rejection of engineering practice and scientific findings, endlessly repeated on this blog.
E. Swanson says, April 2, 2019 at 8:26 AM:
I don’t claim it. I point it out. If you can’t see that your argument is completely circular, then I cannot help you, I’m sorry. You’re a lost case.
I have no problem with your results. I do, however, have a problem with your conclusion based on those results.
Wanna hear my conclusion? Based on the exact same results …
Kristian, What’s keeping you? This “debate” has been going on for more than a year. Do provide references from reputable sources please.
E. Swanson says, April 2, 2019 at 8:50 AM:
Indeed. Even longer. And during that time I’ve explained it tens of times. But you people just keep shutting your eyes and ears. There simply is no talking to you. You’ve just made up your mind, and that’s it; your particular ‘mental model’ IS correct.
I’m asking you: Do you actually wanna hear (i.e. ‘read’) what I have to say? Or will you once again just dogmatically turn a blind eye?
Hehe, why? Science is observation and interpretation, not “references from reputable sources”. That’s where you misconstrue the whole point of the scientific endeavour.
But if you really want to have a go at it, I can strongly recommend picking up any textbook on thermodynamics and start reading.
I’ll simply explain a thermodynamic effect using a thermodynamic mechanism. Which YOU aren’t.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-308771
Kristian, I suppose your link represents your reply. The analogy you present is entirely inappropriate for several reasons. While the bottom slab may represent the surface of the Earth and thus emit only in the upward direction, the upper slab must emit from both sides if your model is to be in any way representative. Furthermore, the bottom slab must be supplied with energy from an external energy source if your mental model is to have any relevance to the situation. Your model apparently assumes constant temperatures for the two slabs, which is again not relevant, since the temperatures are the result of the rate at which energy flows from the heated slab thru the cooler slab to some ultimate sink, be that the surroundings or deep space. Of course, you are quoting yourself, without any reference(s) to accepted scientific results for support of your daydreams.
I think you are just tossing out complete BS, whether you realize it or not.
Placing a cooler plate in front of a warmer one will make the warmer one even warmer if 1) the warmer plate is already heated by a constant power/heat source, and 2) if the cooler plate is warmer than the surroundings beyond it. This is simply the well-known thermal (thermodynamic) phenomenon of “insulation”.
But insulation is specifically a THERMODYNAMIC process/mechanism, in this case leading to a temperature rise, which is specifically a THERMAL effect. The thermal effect was CAUSED by a thermal (thermodynamic) process/mechanism. Insulation.
So what does insulation do? It reduces the HEAT LOSS (the net transfer of energy) from a warm object to its cooler surroundings, thus potentially forcing a positive heat imbalance on the object. And a positive heat imbalance normally leads to a rise in temperature.
So what made the cooler plate insulate the warmer one? Its temperature. Simple as that. Its temperature is simply higher than the ambient, and so the heat loss from the warmer plate to its surroundings is reduced as a consequence:
q/A = e s [T_wp^4 – T_am^4] = ++
q/A = e s [T_wp^4 – T_cp^4] = +
The surplus (the net loss of energy from the warmer plate) is explained, by analogy, in the link above (previous comment).
The photons are ultimately the tranferring TOOL, but the cooler plate temperature is the ultimate REASON (cause) why the heat loss of the warmer plate ends up smaller with the cooler plate in place. THAT’S ultimately what generates the insulative effect.
Claiming that an increase in “back radiation” from cold to hot is directly what CAUSES hot to grow even hotter clearly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Note, the mechanism of insulation itself obviously does no such thing. But your attempt at EXPLAINING it with “back radiation” as your cause clearly does. Because now what you’ve done, in your head, is essentially turned the “back radiation” into a separate macroscopic (thermal) flux from cold to hot making hot even hotter upon absorp.tion. But in thermodynamics (the field of physics specifically governed by those pesky thermodynamic laws), such a flux would – whenever a thermal process is discussed – constitute a HEAT flux. And a heat flux NEVER moves spontaneously from cold to hot.
Put slightly different:
A cold thing can NEVER in nature make a warmer thing even warmer by HEATING it. A cold thing can only ever (potentially) make a warmer thing warmer still by INSULATING it.
The process of HEATING and the process of INSULATION are thermodynamic opposites: The former involves an increase in the INCOMING heat flux to a surface, while the latter involves a reduction of the OUTGOING heat flux from that same surface (at any given surface temperature).
Heating can only be done by something (or somewhere) warmer. Like the Sun heating the Earth.
Insulation, however, can be (and is) done by something (or somewhere) cooler. Like the fairly balmy atmosphere insulating the warm surface of the Earth against the utter coldness of space.
All of this is (or, at least, should be) common knowledge to people who’ve studied thermodynamics even a tiny bit.
Kristian, You state that the increase in temperature is the result of insulation, which is typically a property of the material between the two plates and the mode of heat transfer. But, with a vacuum (or even air) between the two plates, the only (main) mode of energy transfer is via radiation. Radiation follows different physical rules than conduction or convection, a fact which you choose to distort by calling the flow of photons from the cooler plate to the hotter plate INSULATION instead of HEATING. You wrote:
Do you deny that the photons from the cooler plate are absorbed by the warmer one, adding to the warmer plate’s internal energy, when you claim that this causes a reduction in the outgoing IR EM from the hotter plate. If you are to be believed, you must provide some evidence for this, other than the words which are bouncing around inside your skull, as in, references.
I’m okay with both conceptualizations of the process. It seems to me that this is more related to semantics of how the process is described and less with the end result. The important thing is that when you place an IR active material between the warm plate and the cool plate the end result is that the warm plate will have a higher temperature than it would have had had the IR active material not been there. The other interesting aspect of this experiment is that it demonstrates the distinction of the 2LOT in regards to the system being isolated. If you remove the energy source on the warm plate thus removing the external stimuli then the plates will spontaneously equilibriate in accordance with the 2LOT. Am I understanding this line of discussion correctly?
‘Im okay with both conceptualizations of the process. It seems to me that this is more related to semantics of how the process is described and less with the end result. ‘
Well put. I agree.
Both agree on the end result, and both agree on the proper equation to describe it, the RHT equation. And both agree that photons are involved in the transfer of energy.
Because many heat transfer courses and textbooks describe RHT as a two-way flow of energy, describing it that way is generally accepted, and certainly does no harm.
‘Claiming that an increase in back radiation from cold to hot is directly what CAUSES hot to grow even hotter clearly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.’
I disagree with this.
Again, both the results and analysis of it show no NET spontaneous transfer of energy from cold to hot.
A 2LOT violation, IMO, is a device or a solution to a problem that has a NET spontaneous transfer of energy from cold to hot.
Swanson conclusively states that it is not insulation. After all that…
Funny watching them argue amongst themselves.
swannie…”Do you deny that the photons from the cooler plate are absorbed by the warmer one, adding to the warmer plates internal energy,”
I do.
Kristian has already stated the reason, the 2nd law. It is specific in that it claims heat can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from a colder body to a warmer body. You are describing a transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer body via radiation, and that is simply not possible to to the underlying quantum physics.
I am not arguing that you cannot move heat from a cooler body to a hotter environment, it just won’t happen naturally. You need external power and apparatus like a compressor, condenser, and evapourator, along with a special gas that can be easily compressed to a liquid at high pressure.
It’s the conversion of a low pressure gas to a high pressure liquid that allows the reverse transfer of heat when the HP liquid is allowed to vent heat to a warmer environment.
The bodies to which you refer, presumably solids, are aggregations of atomic nucleii bonded together by electrons. It is the electrons that absorb and emit the radiation and when they absorb EM they must rise to a higher orbital energy level. That means the body as a whole must increase in temperature.
However, the electrons in a hotter body are ALREADY AT A HIGHER ENERGY LEVEL and to move them to an even higher energy level you must supply EM with an intensity and frequency that at least matches the higher energy level. That EM can only come from an even hotter source.
EM from a cooler body does not have that intensity or frequency. All it could do, if absorbed, is pull the electrons to a lower matching energy level, meaning the body would have to cool.
However, that makes no sense since electrons don’t react to negative energy. They can only fall to a lower energy level by emitting EM.
GR, Assuming I’m understanding correctly Swanson’s experiment is not an isolated system. It is not being allowed to evolve by it’s own means. If he removed the external power source then the apparatus would naturally equilibrate as the heat spontaneously flowed (by its own means) from the hot side to the cold side in accordance with the 2LOT.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, April 2, 2019 at 2:45 PM:
Hehe. Yeah, that is quite revealing, isn’t it? It means he’s just as confused about this as you are.
E. Swanson says, April 2, 2019 at 11:45 AM:
No. Insulation is simply the thermodynamic process whereby the heat loss from a surface is reduced at any given surface temperature. It doesn’t have anything to do with the material you’re using. That would be the concern of engineers, not physicists.
Anything you put up around some object to thermally shield it against the absolute cold of its outer surroundings will insulate that object. It doesn’t matter whether that something does so radiatively, conductively or convectively. It’s the exact same phenomenon, the exact same process, thermodynamically.
No, it doesn’t. Not THERMODYNAMICALLY! When you go down to the QUANTUM level, it does, and this, it appears, is what confuses you. Because you’re stuck at that micro level, trying to explain a distinctly thermodynamic effect by talking about photons.
But this is, again, a thermodynamic problem, not a quantum-mechanical one.
You cannot explain a thermodynamic effect, which has to abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics, with a process/mechanism that doesn’t. Photons, being outside the thermodynamic limit, are free to move from cold to hot as much as they like. But you can’t use this fact to claim that it is therefore the photons moving from cold to hot that creates the thermodynamic effect that you want to explain.
I realise you people have a hard time grasping this distinction.
Of course not. But that’s irrelevant. Didn’t you read what I wrote in the link above? The quantum vs. the thermo perspective on reality. Micro vs. macro. Distinct realms, different physical laws. That’s why you cannot merge them into one, as if they addressed the same aspects of reality, the way you do.
You need to try and understand this, Swanson.
*Sigh*
No. The specific absorp-tion of individual photons doesn’t and couldn’t add to a macroscopic body’s internal energy. This is the whole point. Again, READ THE LINK ABOVE. That’s where I explain the distinction between micro and macro when it comes to energy transfer.
The internal energy [U] of a body or region is distinctly a MACROSCOPIC property, a THERMODYNAMIC state function. It can be changed by the net transfer (statistical average) of ALL energy packets within an exchange only, not by individual energy packets.
Please try and understand.
Read some thermodynamics. And do try to find out what a “radiative flux” really is, how it’s defined and how we quantify it.
Kristian conclusively states that it isinsulation.
After another few hundred comments of discussion, I wonder if they will have reached a group decision on what Swanson’s experiment is actually supposed to demonstrate; “heating”, or “insulation”. I expect the end result will be the same as always: they will claim it is both “heating”, and “not heating”. Plus, it is both “insulation”, and “not insulation”. It is all those things at the same time. Then, the icing on the cake will once again be, that whoever suggests there is inconsistency in their position will be the one that is accused of “arguing semantics”.
Funny watching them argue amongst themselves.
All of the denialist above offer the same sort of argument, which is that my “interpretation” of my ice slab demonstration somehow violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which they contend is impossible. Never the less, they now call the observed effects some form of “insulation”, which apparently makes the observed results possible without actually explaining how this process occurs in physics.
Great, now they have inadvertently admitted that whatever process is involved, which is the same as that called the Greenhouse Effect, doesn’t violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, especially WV) in the atmosphere fits Kristian’s description of an “insulator”. Thus AGW is also real because increasing the CO2 amount will increase the insulating effect on the surface.
I’m okay with both conceptualizations of the process. It seems to me that this is more related to semantics of how the process is described and less with the end result.
Exactly.
The important thing is that when you place an IR active material between the warm plate and the cool plate the end result is that the warm plate will have a higher temperature than it would have had had the IR active material not been there.
Exactly.
The rest is semantics: apart from those who are hopelessly lost on the matter, despite years of reading sensible comment here.
‘You cannot explain a thermodynamic effect, which has to abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics, with a process/mechanism that doesnt.”
Actually statistical mechanics does just that. It explains how the thermodynamic laws derive from the movements of molecules or photons.
Fluctuations in energy flows, energy content, or pressure are also observed and can be explained as arising from particle number fluctuations (for example).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_fluctuations
E. Swanson says, April 3, 2019 at 8:38 AM:
Enough said. If you disagree with S-Man’s a priori interpretation of his results, you are simply declared a “denialist”.
Very scientific indeed.
They’re all the same …
E. Swanson says, April 3, 2019 at 8:38 AM:
I have explained how it occurs “in physics”. What makes my explanation less physically valid than yours? In fact, it is much more physically valid than yours, because it doesn’t mix together two fundamentally different physical realms, governed by completely different physical laws.
No. The “insulator” is the warm atmosphere.
And no. Because there are other factors involved.
But you will never get this, Swanson.
barry says, April 3, 2019 at 8:41 AM:
In physics, getting semantics right is everything. But barry doesn’t get that, despite years of reading sensible comment here.
In proper physics, you would never describe the process of insulation as if it were the process of heating. Full stop.
bdgwx says, April 2, 2019 at 12:11 PM:
The crucial point here is that in physics, the explanation of a physical effect should obey the same physical laws as the ones constraining the effect itself. The “back radiation” explanation doesn’t do that, because it tries to explain a thermodynamic effect via a phenomenon that distinctly operates outside the thermodynamic limit. It tries to have the cake and eat it. It tries to get away with claiming that a separate transfer of energy from cold to hot directly causes hot to get even hotter WITHOUT this being a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because the energy transfer in question isn’t really HEAT, it’s just a bunch of photons.
In actual physics, you won’t get away with that. You cannot (and wouldn’t) explain a thermal effect (like a temperature rise) clearly resulting from the process of insulation as if it were instead resulting from the (opposite) process of heating, just because “the end result” (the temperature rise) happens to be the same.
A cooler place can’t heat a warmer place. It CAN, however, insulate that warmer place. And so, whenever you use a cooler object to somehow make a warmer object warmer still, you KNOW (!!) you have made use of the thermodynamic process/mechanism of INSULATION, not heating. The Sun heats the surface of the Earth. The atmosphere only insulates it. Why the distinction? Because the Sun is hotter than the surface of the Earth, while the atmosphere is cooler. But both work to make Earth’s average surface temperature higher than if they weren’t there. The mechanisms, however, by which they do so are vastly different. And it’s important to make people understand this.
I hope this made things a little bit clearer.
In proper physics, you would never describe the process of insulation as if it were the process of heating.
A “process” is not being described. A result is being described.
‘The introduction of a cool object to a purely radiative system can cause a warmer object to become even warmer.’
There is no description of process in that statement. There is not even a description of directional flow of anything.
Breaking it down into the mechanics introduces the “process” you take issue with, and there is nothing wrong with it in terms of statistical or quantum mechanics. The warmer object loses energy at a slower rate because it is receiving more energy than before, from the cooler object. That’s why it becomes warmer (with a heat source present).
Nothing about that defies physics. That is what actually, physically, happens.
Whereas with the semantical rules you labour under, you could never describe what is happening in this situation. You could never pinpoint the physical mechanism that acts upon the warmer object to change its temperature once the colder object is introduced.
At least, I’ve never seen you pinpoint the discrete physical mechanism in any of your attempts.
‘The crucial point here is that in physics, the explanation of a physical effect should obey the same physical laws as the ones constraining the effect itself. The ‘back radiation’ explanation doesnt do that, because it tries to explain a thermodynamic effect via a phenomenon that distinctly operates outside the thermodynamic limit.’
As already noted, but you ignored, Thermodynamic laws governing heat and energy flows can be derived from statistics of the movement of photons and molecules.
Just as economic ‘laws’ arise from many individual transactions.
Those movements of photons and molecules obey laws of physics, and ARE the fundamental mechanism for the energy transfer.
“the explanation of a physical effect should obey the same physical laws”.
No, that’s just a declaration.
Individual movements of photons or molecules don’t obey the 2nd Law, but the collective movements of photons do.
Yet, the movements of photons ARE the explanation/mechanism for heat transfer from hot to cold.
Whereas, as Barry notes, you never pinpoint the mechanism for how the hot object ‘knows’ the temperature of the separate cold object, and thereby ‘knows’ how much heat to transfer.
The thermodynamic laws are NOT the mechanism.
barry says, April 4, 2019 at 7:02 PM:
Whatever makes you think THAT was the statement I was addressing with mine? I was of course addressing statements like the ones coming from Swanson et al. about “back radiation” from a cooler plate being the cause of observed temperature rise on an already warmer plate. Or the IPCC or NASA claiming that atmospheric “back radiation” provides more energy to the surface to heat it some more.
But you knew this, barry. You just being you, I guess …
The particular statement you quote (from bdgwx) is perfectly fine. It’s the way it should be. We’re talking INSULATION. I was, however, explaining what is NOT perfectly fine when talking about these things.
*Sigh*
I don’t “take issue with” the process, barry. I take issue with the way this process, which is distinctly a NON-thermodynamic (quantum-mechanical) one, is USED to explain an inherently thermodynamic (thermal) effect.
THAT’S my problem. That’s THE problem. How bloody hard is this to grasp?
Only, it cannot and will not itself be able to ’cause’ or ‘create’ changes in TEMPERATURE. Because it is itself merely a microscopic EFFECT of temperature (a macroscopic property), which is why this kind of radiation is called THERMAL radiation to begin with. Thermodynamically, it’s at best a carrier of a temperature signal.
Hehe, no, barry. Again, this is you trying to have the cake and eat it, mixing different realms of physics governed by different laws together as if they were one. This is thermodynamics (or statistical mechanics, if you prefer) we’re dealing with, NOT quantum physics. There are no changes in overall (macroscopic) rates of energy loss in quantum physics. For the same reason that there are no changes in temperatures. For that to be observed, you need to be IN the thermodynamic limit, not outside of it. And when you’re in the thermodynamic limit, what you have is only ever the probabilistic average of ALL photon movements/exchanges at each moment in time. You only have ‘energy’ in the generic sense, no individual packets of energy. A single-photon absorp-tion (or emission) event (a quantum process) does nothing in itself to change the internal energy of an entire macroscopic object/surface.
See my slab analogy to have the fundamental distinction between the MICRO and MACRO perspectives on ‘energy transfer’ clarified:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-308771
Or try this oldie:
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a single dime. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now here’s what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your palm with his one hand at the very same moment as he grabs the two dimes that were there already with the other, removing them from your hand. That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And that’s it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
There are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamical) perspective.
Both are in a sense ‘real’, but they address very different aspects of ‘reality’.
What people like you, barry, tend to do is mix them up, or rather somehow merge them into one and the same perspective. And that’s where the confusion arises.
It is claimed (or at least very much implied) that the atmosphere (the person originally holding the single dime) ADDS energy to the surface (the palm of your outstreched hand). However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective, that is, IF – and only if – we choose to follow ONE particular photon (dime) through the exchange and ignore the other two; that is, the photon/dime originally held by the person in front of you, coming IN from ‘the atmosphere’.
THAT individual photon (and the energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange. But this circumstance is irrelevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of here. Which is whether or not ‘energy’ (in the generic sense, not one particular quantum of energy) was added from the atmosphere to the surface during the exchange. The MACROscopic perspective, dealing specifically with macroscopic fluxes, internal energy and temperature.
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ person in front of you. The other one was lost (removed by the ‘atmosphere’ person), without compensation.
And so, the NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
– – –
The Sun, being hotter than Earth’s surface, adds energy to the surface to make it warmer. Thermodynamically, it’s a source of energy (heat) to the surface. The atmosphere, being cooler than the surface, isn’t. And so it doesn’t add energy to the surface to make it warmer. We see this in the way the surface actually WARMS in daytime, with the Sun up and with the atmosphere present, but COOLS at night, with the atmosphere still present, but with the Sun gone.
The atmosphere simply receives LESS energy from the surface than what space would, at any given surface temperature. Because the atmosphere is warmer than space. The atmosphere thus INSULATES the solar-heated surface.
So, in conclusion, barry: Yes, energy from cold is indeed absorbed by warm, but you can’t use this one-dimensional, isolated circumstance to EXPLAIN why the internal energy – and hence the temperature – of warm ultimately rises. Because then you are in fact “describ[ing] the process of insulation as if it were the process of heating”.
Which would make your explanation violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Semantics matters, barry. In physics it does.
Of course I could. And I have. Multiple times. And I did it again just now, above. Read my two analogies.
You need to understand the distinction between the MICRO and the MACRO realms. And you need to be able to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. WITHOUT being utterly confused by it.
Nate says, April 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM:
I’ve never ignored it, Nate. I’ve discussed this fact on several occasions. Where were you then?
The simple point you people seem to be missing is that, when using statistical mechanics to bridge the gap between the quantum and thermo realms, you effectively remove all individual energy packets from the equation, using … statistics. You mathematically average ALL quantum pieces to get ONE full thermo picture. It’s not like you can use statistical mechanics to somehow make photons cause thermodynamic effects, Nate. Statistical mechanics specifically makes rid of individual photons and any quantum effects they might have.
The problem is that your overweening pedanticism muddies more than it illuminates, Kristian. The actual mechanism causing (yes, “causing”) the blue plate to get warmer (yes, an expression of temperature) in the familiar set up is extra radiation (back radiation) from the newly introduced green plate.
That language may offend the sensibilities of a classicist whose grip on terminology is so tight that it becomes unwieldy for certain purposes, but that is what actually physically happens. The external energy source doesn’t cause the object to get warmer, because that is steady, and saying “it’s insulation” is too coarse if. The inquisitive soul asks, “but HOW does the green plate provide insulation in a vacuum? How does it affect the blue plate at all?” There is only one clear answer. “Insulation” isn’t it.
You give comfort to those here who opine that energy from a cool object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. You know and say better, but you spend so much time knit-picking the point that they don’t see that you know they are wrong. That may not be your fault, but it is a consequence of how you go about this discussion.
K,
“The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course ‘No’.”
In the real world, the answer is YES, because in the real world there are observable fluctuations in energy of objects and transports, due to the discreteness of molecules and photons. Your dime analogy doesnt conform to actual stat mechanics.
Your lengthy discussions still all amount to saying the NET flow of energy is always from hot to cold. Which is fine. But it just takes one line to say.
But the NET flow still can and fundamentally SHOULD be understood as arising from the sum of two flows.
Causality requires that effects must be understood LOCALLY.
Thus, a hot object emits the right amount of heat flow toward a distant cold object without ‘knowing’ the cold object’s temperature.
How does it do that?
Simply, it just emits according to its temperature and emissivity as required by SB law. AND it simply abs*orbs or reflects ALL radiation that hits it, according to its emissivity and Kirchoff’s law.
That’s it. There is no magical knowing of the other objects temperature required. It simply emits and absorbs according to its LOCAL properties.
That external radiation could have been emitted by a distance source that has since exploded.
Nobody respond to DREMT. Trolls are only out for attention. Dont give him the attention he craves.
Pardon my intrusion, Nate. Please do ignore me, and carry on your discussion. Five hundred more comments, please.
‘After another few hundred comments of discussion’ there will still be general agreement that DREMT and JD STILL get the wrong answer..
…five hundred more comments, please.
Excellent experiment, Swanson!
And far far more informative than the ‘declarations’ and ‘cartoons’ from the usual suspects.
K:’Completely circular.’
Hardly. This result confirms well established and well tested physics for skeptics.
He could have used a photon counter to detect photons from the ice. But no need, its been done.
Nate says, April 2, 2019 at 6:47 AM:
*Facepalm*
That isn’t the issue, Nate. I’m not saying photons don’t exist. Are you an idiot, or are you just pretending to be one? I just have to ask.
Other than that, no surpise that Mister Religious Zealot here also doesn’t get the problem with S-man’s result=>conclusion.
Mechanism, Nate. THERMODYNAMIC mechanism. This is what you people keep mixing up. You’re discussing a distinctly THERMODYNAMIC effect, but want to explain what’s causing that effect using a distinctly QUANTUM-MECHANICAL process. It doesn’t work like that. A thermodynamic effect will have (and needs) a thermodynamic cause. Quantum mechanics doesn’t deal with temperature. Thermodynamics does.
‘That isn’t the issue, Nate. I’m not saying photons don’t exist. Are you an idiot, or are you just pretending to be one? I just have to ask.’
As usual, legit counterarguments met with ad-homs from K.
‘Mechanism, Nate. THERMODYNAMIC mechanism.’
In his original post, K makes no mention of ‘thermodynamic’ only mechanisms.
‘You need to observe clear signs of the proposed MECHANISM behind an observed effect (“back radiation” from cold => +T_warm; +CO2 => +T) in order to conclude that the proposed mechanism is (likely) what caused the effect’
And as usual, K does not take responsibility for confusions he caused.
My post makes the legitimate counterpoint that, Swanson is simply doing a demonstration of phenomena that has a well-established mechanism.
He doesnt NEED ‘to observe clear signs of the proposed mechanism’.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347701
another step sideways of 20 years non warming –
all additional posts redundant
The average of the last 20 years of TLT anomaly is 0.16C. The average of the last 10 years is 0.23C. The average for the last 12 months is 0.26C. That doesn’t look like non warming.
Most of that warming is ENSO/AMO related. If you only look at the periods of time where those effects are the lowest then that warming disappears.
Or, you can wait until the AMO goes negative and a period when La Nina dominates. Then it will look like cooling.
ENSO cycles are changed quite a bit and will continue to change in future. As oceans receive more energy from atmosphere (of course, very slowly, but they still do to some degree) El Nino periods become more often then La Nina and more intense. Just because, El Nino means warmer surface at some region, as oceans warm, it is logical that El Nino will be warmer, La Nina also will be warmer with time.
So pretty much, atmosphere do respond to ocean surface energy forcing, but as oceans are warmer with time, so the response is too. We can not look at oceans and atmosphere as one way forcing system, it is two way.
With that being said, conclusion is that we do see warming with time and it’s average rate is well known = 0.13°/decade or 1.3°C/100 years. So, does warming happen? Yes. Will it continue in future? Nothing indicates that it will not. What rate we will see in future? Probably the same or very similar to current one. Will this be catastrofic in next 100 or 200 years? No. Will it be catastrofic in 1000 years? Probably. But we will probably find a way to adapt.
That’s my two cents.
Except it difficult to say what our dominant source of energy will be in 100 years.
Meteo…”ENSO cycles are changed quite a bit and will continue to change in future. As oceans receive more energy from atmosphere (of course, very slowly, but they still do to some degree)”
How can that occur if the oceans are heating the atmosphere above it, and the atmosphere becomes progressively cooler with altitude?
You are describing perpetual motion, where a body heats a body and the heated body recycles heat to the heating body to raise its temperature.
The oceans are heated by solar energy.
I have been reading this blog for several years now, commenting very infrequently but taking in the argument/perspective types that consistently materialize. I tend to be very much open to all sides of this issue (I am a University Professor, with I hope a modicum of critical thinking skills). This comment by MeteoAdriatic (April 1, 2019 at 2:45 PM) comes about as close to my current perspective (or at least identifies a plausible account of what is going on) about this issue as I have seen to date. Thank you, MeteoAdriatic!
Agreed. This post is very reasonable.
They keep making strides with fusion development. Hopefully the obstacles can be overcome. There’s plenty of heavy water to supply the energy needs of the planet until the Sun burns out.
Craig T…”The average of the last 20 years of TLT anomaly is 0.16C. The average of the last 10 years is 0.23C”.
According to the IPCC, there was no significant warming from 1998 – 2012. That’s 15 years of the 20. If you look at the UAH graph on this site, there was a further insignificant warming till 2015, making it 18 of 20.
In 2016, we had a major El Nino that raised the global average in a brief spike to nearly 1C. Since February 2016, the global average has been gradually dropping back to the flat trend from 1998 – 2015.
I just want to put this 1998 to 2012 period in context.
1998 was a strong El Nino and 2012 was a strong La Nina.
Do you think in the interest of providing a balanced viewpoint in regards to global temperature trends that a cherry pick of 1998-2012 should we be weighed against a similar period of opposite ENSO phase?
1984 was a strong La Nina and 1998 was a strong El Nino. Warming was rather aggressive during this period.
Also, during the 1998 to 2012 period the oceans accumulated ~125e21 joules of energy. Although the troposphere didn’t warm the hydrosphere certainly did.
Is it possible that by focusing on “the pause” period that we are introducing selection bias?
This isn’t the only pause. There have been many. Salby descibes them shows why they are not systematic. You really need to delve into his work and get off the looney bandwagon.
SAP,
There have been many pause and there will be many more. In fact using the Berkeley Earth annual data I counted more than a dozen pauses and yet the global mean surface temperature is warmer overall and continues its long term secular increase.
I have delved into Salby’s work and so have many others. It was Harde (2017) who managed to get a formal manuscript published that essentially echoed some of Salby’s points. That is Harde conflates the topics of residence time and adjustment time just like Salby does.
May I recommend reviewing the formal response to Harde’s publication.
official: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364
free: https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/KoehlerGPC17.pdf
And here is the editors commentary on Harde’s publication.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586?via%3Dihub
bdgwx,
You conveniently ignored Harde’s reply to the party-line comment by Kohler et al. It was muzzled by the climate change industry – because it exposed in no uncertain terms fundamental errors in the IPCC, which were simply parroted in that comment. Some of those errors are so basic as to be laughable. See
https://youtu.be/rohF6K2avtY near time (56:00)
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
The errors reduce the comment and the IPCC to rubbish.
If your hope is to invalidate this consequence, it will take more than reference to feigned authority. You’ll have to invalidate the clear and empirical facts laid out in Harde’s analysis. Good luck.
bdgwx, no one compares 1998 to 2012. Do you have any idea how trends are computed? ENSO has very little effect on the trend because BOTH El Nino and La Nina events balance out pretty well over that time period. It appears you have fallen for the numerous lies about how ENSO created the pause.
Not to mention the pause is actually even longer … 1997-2015. It is only interrupted by the super El Nino and last summer we returned to the same baseline as prior to that El Nino.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1996.66/to:2018.5/plot/uah6/from:1996.66/to:2014.66/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.66/to:2016.12/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2018.5/trend
RichardM,
The ONI averaged -0.24 in the 1998 to 2012 period.
The ONI averaged +0.12 in the 1984 to 1998 period.
Not that I’m suggesting that we deal with the problem in this manner, but if we are going to go the way of using a selection rule related to how well the ENSO balances and thus limit our analysis to a subset of available years then wouldn’t it be better to choose the period where the average ONI was closet to 0?
And what makes the 1998 to 2012 period more special than any other? Can you provide justification as to why we should only focus on that period?
And do you have any comments regarding the oceanic heat content during that period?
“BOTH El Nino and La Nina events balance out pretty well over that time period. It appears you have fallen for the numerous lies about how ENSO created the pause.”
On a scale of 30 years or more the ENSO cycle cancels out. But the 1998 El Nino was followed by 3 strong la Ninas (4 if you count the double valleys of 1999 & 2000 then 2007 & 2011.) Measuring from when the ONI reached 0 after the 1998 El Nino to when it hit 0 on the way to the 2016 El Nino, the average Oceanic Nino Index is -0.26.
bdg…”I just want to put this 1998 to 2012 period in context.
1998 was a strong El Nino and 2012 was a strong La Nina.
Do you think in the interest of providing a balanced viewpoint in regards to global temperature trends that a cherry pick of 1998-2012 should we be weighed against a similar period of opposite ENSO phase?”
***********
The cherry-pickers to whom you refer are the IPCC. In AR5 they admitted there had been no significant warming between 1998 and 2012. I did not pick 1998 as the start of the range or 2012 as the end.
BTW…2008 was a stronger La Nina, that’s why I picked 1998 – 2015 for my range.
Another good reason for picking 1998 comes from John Christy of UAH (maybe it was Roy). He pointed out that prior to the 1998 EN, there had been no TRUE warming since the UAH series began. Most of the anomalies were below the baseline until 1998. Therefore, 1998 is signified as the beginning of true warming, meaning anomalies prior to that were dragged down by volcanic aerosols and such.
I have pointed what I consider to be strange. Following the 1998 EN, one might have expected the average to drop back below the baseline somewhat. Rather, it suddenly jumped about 0.2 C and that has remained an average till around 2015.
CO2 could not create such a sudden rise like that, a phenomenon that occurred circa 1977 and later related to the PDO.
I don’t think there is evidence to support the AGW theory that CO2 is behind any warming we have noticed.
GR, the lower troposphere (TLT) represents but a small fraction of the thermal mass of the geosphere. The oceans absorb about 90% of the excess heat. But the heat is constantly moving from one medium to another (cryosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere) via several heat flux processes. During the pause period from 1998 to 2012 (or 2015) the geosphere absorbed 125e21 joules (150e21 joules) of energy.
And there’s clearly a link between oceanic heat content and troposphere temperatures. During El Nino heat pulses in the troposphere the ocean cools. Vice versa for La Nina. Though the effect is more pronounced on the El Nino side because the thermal mass of the ocean is so much greater than the atmosphere. CO2 didn’t cause the sudden rise in temperature in the runup to 2016. The heat flux processes from hydrosphere to atmosphere went into overdrive. That was the dominating factor in that particular sudden rise.
OHC values are crucial in the interpretation of global warming. The fact that the oceans continue to accumulate energy and break records seemingly year after year now only means the potential energy that can be used to heat the atmosphere is increasing. It’s a loaded spring. It will release the pent up energy…eventually. This is why the TLT temperature has a sort of stair-step upward behavior at times.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Almost exactly as I predicted. The peak of the current El Nino will generally warm Feb/Mar months the most.
Now, assuming the El Nino fades away as the current upwelling of cold water along the SA coast seems to indicate, we should see a drop back to the 21st century baseline over the summer. April will likely still be a little warmer given the satellite data lags by a few months.
I’m hoping for another neutral summer as that will give us an even better indication of what is happening globally.
Craig T. Does that warming seem unusual, unprecedented or catastrophic compared to past data sets and proxys? Also important to note that the past does not predict the future. In a system where cooling has always followed warming on all time scales its impossible to predict when the trend will reverse and over what time scale.
Coolist says: In a system where cooling has always followed warming on all time scales its impossible to predict when the trend will reverse and over what time scale.
As Yoga Berri said Its tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
I have been following those who predict a cooling earth. In part because their predictions are short term and by definition, falsifiable in my assumed life time. The last 3 months have been the warmest since Dec 2017. So far, no decision. I give the cooling theories another 9 months; after that I am not aware of any theory that holds water.
pmh…”The last 3 months have been the warmest since Dec 2017″.
Don’t know where you live, but here in Canada, we have set records for cold weather during the past 3 months. This February has been the coldest in my memory.
My reference to “the last 3 months have been the warmest since Dec 2017” is Jan, Feb, & March 2019 Global temps reported by this post. According to our host, Dr. Spencer, Dec 2017 Global temp was +0.41.
Dr. Roy Spencer do you have any concerns that in the future, possibly after you retire, the satellite data may fall under the control of scientists with less integrity than yourself and Dr. Christy. The concern being that the data could be adjusted to show more warming or less cooling in coming decades. After reading your previous article on the apparent error in sea level monitoring, I wonder if there is anything in place to guarantee the accuracy of the satellite temperature data long term.
No guarantees. It will take someone who has not been bought off by the Scientific-Governmental Complex which promotes specific policy goals in return for career funding of scientists (as President Eisenhower warned). The hard part is that it needs to be someone with satellite remote sensing experience, otherwise they won’t be able to decide how to handle new satellite instrumentation or changes in existing instrument calibration. It’s not just stuffing numbers into a spreadsheet. At this point, the long-term outlook is rather bleak.
Dr Roy,Could it be that you or your organization does not have any succession plan in place? Surely not. There must exist somewhere a younger scientist who could learn from your expertise.
Do you really believe there is unlikely to be anyone else who could adequately fill your shoes? Has every young scientist been brainwashed and lacks your integrity? Big call.
It would take someone who isn’t afraid to be essentially black-listed by the establishment. Climate scientists are basically 100% dependent upon government funding, and are expected to support the consensus. It’s career suicide to be on our side.
Roy, I wouldn’t be so despondent. You have had a long and illustrious career bucking the trend in more than one way and you are still standing. Surely in the entire US (or word) there would be one person of sufficient calibre and integrity to continue your work. If not the 97% consensus figure is probably a vast underestimate.
If you believe there is not another person that has the necessary experience with satellite remote sensing experience then it is really puzzling you have not mentioned a succession plan. It would obviously take time for a transfer of your skill set but this could be a great opportunity for someone such as a postgrad, even one of your graduate student. Hopefully your successor could provide fresh insight to validate (hopefully not invalidate) your life’s work. We all think we are irreplaceable but no one gets out of here alive.
As for the funding requirements, if you cannot get government funding then I note that UAH has received endowments for professorial chairs. The industries who have a lot to lose in the current climate surely could provide funding for a successor.
MR,
Oh, the faux concern! Capable of bringing a tear to to the of the most hardened cynic – not.
Begone witless troll.
Roy…”It will take someone who has not been bought off by the Scientific-Governmental Complex which promotes specific policy…”
Hope such people exist, Roy.
Linus Pauling was a renegade scientist who was seldom wrong. He was involved with the Linus Pauling Institute but powers within turned LPI into a politically-correct group of scientists who lack Pauling’s courage to offer cutting-edge science.
I recall Linus talking about the double-blind study when he was confronted about not using one. He asked why a double-blind study was required when an outcome was so obvious.
I went to see him give a talk here in Vancouver. He was addressing the government RDA for vitamin C, which is about 75 mg per day.
Linus pulled three large test tubes from inside his jacket pocket. He held one up and he told us it was empty, equivalent to the amount of C made by a human in a day. Then he held up one with a pinch of powder in it, revealing it as the amount recommended by the government for a human per day.
In the third test tube there was about 2 inches of powder, which Linus claimed represented the 12 grams made by a 154 pound billy goat in one day. He commented that it seemed the billy goat knew more about science than the government.
I really hope the good work done by you an John is continued after both of you retire.
I think it might be we will expire before we retire.
Roy,
May you live until you are at least 120. By then I am sure you will have a succession plan in place.
MR,
Oh, the faux salutations. Oh, the sly dig.
Begone troll.
MF,
Troll heal thyself. You seem to fulfill Roy Spencer’s key criterion for a troll. See Roy’s comments at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347554 .
Begone, troll.
MF. Avaunt! be gone! thou hast set me on the rack:
I swear ’tis better to be much abused
Than but to know’t a little.
Begone troll!
Roy…”I think it might be we will expire before we retire”.
That’s good news, not your expiration, but the thought you and John may continue.
Speaking of that, Linus Pauling kept working into his 90s, just before his death at 94. In that time, closer to the end, he and a co-worker made an important discovery about heart disease. Of course, his discovery will likely never see the light of day for another 50 years due to the politics in the medical profession.
Pm,
” I give the cooling theories another 9 months; after that I am not aware of any theory that holds water. ”
Have you seen this one?
http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/index.html
” I give the cooling theories another 9 months ”
it takes 30 years to create one climate data point
go find another hobby
Succession planning is a challenge. On one hand I would go to the computer science department and create some AI digitilization capacity to QC data and configure new data, because that is basically unbiased if set up correctly. On the other hand that doesnt solve the problem of new satellites and tools, but it could probably detect bias compared to the existing methods when new data is added. Im still shocked the comprehensive 2019 global climate data assemblage (thermometers and satellites) doesnt use machine learning to reconstruct backwards. It would see all sorts of signals in the noise of the data to improve relationships as there become less and less data available deeper back in time. It is basically like having and autistic genius like Alan Turing that can see through the politics. I would think you could find a MS or PhD student to do the digitilization of global climate data.
I like Salby’s Francis Bacon quote he always uses- “Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority.” History will make people like Dr. Spencer and Dr. Salby heroes.
Stephen…re Murry Salby…
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
The (near) total corruption and politicization of science is one of the biggest and most frightening developments ever.
Nothing but Fake Science is ever presented to the public at large.
Fake News isn’t new…but it has reached a saturation point. It would be hard to lie more often than the MSM does.
Fake Polling claiming a 97% CAGW consensus goes uncontested… even on Fox! Where the heck are some real polls?
Fake Education is terrorizing our children.
All of the foundational institutions of our civilization…Science, Academia, Education, Media, Law, Entertainment, Commerce (crony capitalists), Finance, Government, and even Religion…ARE IN ON THIS MASSIVE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN.
_____________________
Topic appropriate quip:
“If you need fake news to make you happy…….you might be a Democrat.”
I think science has always been a political tool. At least Dr. Spencer isn’t in fear of his life like Copernicus was. At least I don’t think he is?
If you see all the news reporting that you don’t like as fake news and all the science you don’t like as fake science, you’re filtering out a lot of information.
Give me an example.
I mean there are still some good reporters out there. Levin had two of them on Sunday. You should watch the show. But for the most part CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Google, are mostly leftist propaganda. Fox is biased too but it is mostly a reaction to the leftists. You’ll occassionally get an accurate report about some Granny celebrating her 110th birthday or something. It is not about being balanced but just report the facts. Watch Levin’s show.
“Give me an example.”
https://www.nature.com/news/dino-chickens-reveal-how-the-beak-was-born-1.17507
Fake Science?
It is not about the Science I don’t like. We used to have a thing in science called the scientific method. There are a lot of scientists today who still practice it. I’ll give you an example. This view the last two or three decades about birds being descendants of dinosaurs. I didn’t think much about it-seemed plausible by some of the articles in Nature. But then one of the world’s leading ornithologists comes out who’s the director of bird study at the Smithsonian and says “birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs.” There are some similarities like there are with many different species but he states there are some critical differences and there is no path from a bird to a dinosaur. He supports his claim and essentially falsifies the hypothesis. He has been pillioried called a charlatan. This is a distinguished scientist and researcher. Then look at all the distinguished scientists who have shown how AGW doesn’t follow the scientific method. The are called old senile nitwits.
I followed the origin of birds argument in real time. I never heard anyone call Alan Feduccia a charlatan. In the 80’s his position against birds evolving from dinosaurs held some weight. But advances in DNA, evolutionary development, and finds of feathered dinosaurs turned the tide against him. By 2000 if I saw a headline claiming new evidence that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs I knew it would be Feduccia’s latest claims.
The bird/dino camp presented evidence that nullified Feduccia’s argument that birds had anatomy that could not evolve from dinosaurs as well as clear evidence they did. It wasn’t groupthink, politics or conspiracy. It was good science supported by data.
The fact you feel Feduccia had the better argument shows you only looked at one side of the story or ignored what a lot of experts said on the subject.
I followed the arguments because I was interested but also I couldn’t resist arguing with Creationists. They would use Feduccia’s writings as a weapon against evolution yet ignored his views on how birds evolved. I read a lot of claims that there was no real consensus on evolution, that scientists that disagreed were discriminated against and how it was all a conspiracy. I even got tired of absurd reinterpretations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I’m not talking about Alan Feduccia. Maybe you didn’t follow it as closely as you think. But, he’s another example. And, he hasn’t been debunked and now there are many others falsifying this dinosaur to bird claim. You depend on Wikipedia a lot don’t you?
So who is your wronged scientist?
Are we talking about Storrs Olspn’s 1999 letter to National Geographic?
https://thecreationclub.com/the-frauds-of-evolution-12-frauds-of-a-feather-national-geographics-archaeoraptor-hoax-part-2/
Yes, if it makes you feel better. So you want to start debating dinosaurs had feathers? If you can convince Storrs then I’ll believe you.
At this point debating if dinosaurs had feathers is like debating if there were dinosaurs.
Olson had a point in 1999. National Geographic got snookered into doing a special on a fake feathered dinosaur. Olson’s other arguments were still valid at the time. Since then over 50 species of non-avian dinosaurs with feathers have been found. There’s even been a short section of tail from a juvenile feathered dinosaur found in amber.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31193-9
I love Olson’s line that this was “the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.” Time has shown him wrong but back then his views were valid. Scientists argue like that all the time then get misquoted to attack an entire field of science.
As I suspected Creationists are using his letter to discredit evolution. They bring up “supposed horse evolution”, Nebraska Man and even make reference to scientists using the “Big Lie.” (interesting fact – Hitler wrote about the Big Lie but he claimed Jews told the Big Lie about Aryans.) Nat Geo showed a fake dino on TV so all evolution must be wrong!
Olson wasn’t near as big a player in the actual scientific debate as Feduccia. His letter is used only for its propaganda value. If you’re convinced this is valid evidence against evolution no amount of scientific evidence will change your mind.
You need to read this.
https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780300164350
See, leftists aren’t the only ones who can link something.
By the way Craig humans have been around for about a million years now according to Darwinists. When will we evolve into something else?
“Darwinists”
I did call it right, you only care about Feduccia’s work as a tool to attack evolution as a whole. That’s OK, I’m happy to be labeled a Darwinist, Vaxxer, Warmist Sheeple who doesn’t realize everything is a conspiracy.
docsiders…”Nothing but Fake Science is ever presented to the public at large”.
I have tried to point that out about NOAA and NASA.
Both claimed 2014 the hottest year ever with a confidence level of 48% and 38% respectively that they were not lying. By using those odds they were declaring they were likely lying.
The question is why.
The odds that the maintainers of these datasets publishes have nothing to do with the probability of lying.
These are statistical measures of the probability that the conclusion is correct. This is a manifestation of the uncertainty in the measurements which for the conventional datasets and for contemporary data is about 0.05C. The reason why the confidence in the conclusion that 2014 was the warmest year is the result of other years being within the margin of error. That makes them candidates for being the warmest also. And just because 2014 had confidence levels of 48% and 38% doesn’t mean there was a 52% or 62% chance that it could have been the coldest year ever.
It’s ubiquitous nearly all disciplines of science to quantify the margin of error and the confidence level of any conclusions. Choosing not to do this doesn’t make you truthful. In fact, electing not to do this when it an demonstrated that it is possible would be considered unethical by many.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
March results continue reflecting the struggling El Niño. The next drop to La Niña will likely take UAH global below the long term average, +0.13 C.
That would mean more panic time for some….
Were currently in a weak double-peak (Oct 18/Apr 19) El Nio cycle, so given the 5-month lag, UAH will slowly fall for the next 4 months, then rise slowly again for 4 months (effects of second peak) and then fall slowly again, then remain relatively static until the next La Nia cycle starts towards the end of 2020.
The next La Nia cycle should be a strong one since we havent had a strong one in 10 years, and there is usually a at least one strong La Nia every 10 years. If there is a strong La Nia, UAH could hit -0.2C~-0.3C and this is where things will get very interesting.
Within the next few years, the PDO, AMO and NAO will all be in or near their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles. Historically, whenever this happens, global temperatures fall as observed from 1945~1975 and from 1880~1910.
Moreover, a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum just started, which will likely cause additional global cooling for the next 50 years if the Svensmark Effect hypothesis is validated.
CAGW advocates will have an extremely difficult time explaining why their average global warming model projections are 3~4 standard deviations higher than observations, and why theyve consistently been more than 2 standard deviations higher for almost 30 years, especially in light of the new Leftist prediction that the earth will be uninhabitable in just 12 years from the ravaging effects of CAGW..
Were finally at the beginning of the end of this absurd CAGW Hoax…
@SAMURAI,
Sometime back I read about the confluence of “cooldown” forcings expected to happen in the next few years. I read about it on Judith Curry’s website. You have articulated it very well here. But you have mostly described the warmists’ political problem.
The fact is, neither you nor I nor Drs Spencer nor Curry nor anyone else can say with full confidence your expectations will come to pass. And particularly none of us can know what the warming trends will be like in two generations now when different forcings predominate.
I prefer to think of CAGW as a mistake, not a hoax. The political left has a bias toward this mistake because it begs a need for social control, something of which the left is most fond. But a bias is not necessarily a hoax.
I seriously doubt Dr Spencer would ever make reference to “this absurd CAGW Hoax”.
LA Bob-san:
One can legitimately call CAGW a Hoax because of all the overwhelming empirical evidence which completely disconfirms all the dire projections of CAGW hypothesis, and yet political and academic advocates still insist and propagandize CAGW is irrefutable fact, and even go so far as to claim observations are worse than their original hypothetical projections.
There are strict rules of the scientific method to disconfirm a hypothesis, and CAGW has already exceeded them, thus further advocacy of CAGW being a viable hypothesis has moved from science to a religious hoax..
Based on known physics and observational data, one can say with high confidence that CO2 is certainly not earths climate control knob and only has an ECS (warming per CO2 doubling by 2100) will be somewhere around 0.6C~1.5C, which not only isnt a catastrophic problem, but will have numerous advantages: milder winters, earlier springs, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields from CO2 fertilization, higher plant drought resistance, fewer early frost crop loss events, more arable land in Nothern latitudes, increased global greening, less desertification, etc.,
The CAGW hypothesis should have already been tossed on trash heap of failed hypotheses.. The fact that it hasnt is proof that it is a political phenomenon, not a physical one..
The global mean surface temperature has already risen about 1.0C since WWII so 0.6C is already falsified. I think 1.5C is unrealistic as well. My reasoning is that still have about ln(410/280)/ln(560/280) = 45% of the doubling TCR that needs to play out. This would be 1 / 0.45 = 2.2C of TCR. Using a somewhat conservative value of the ECR-to-TCR multiplier of 1.2 this would yield an ECR of about 2.6C. I feel pretty comfortable with lower bound for the doubling sensitivity of 2.0C. The upper bound is a bit nebulous in my opinion because there are several potential positive tipping points that could activate. I’ll ignore those for now and conservatively 4.0C of warming seems like a reasonable upper bound. I doubt I’ll be alive long enough to see the results of the experiment though.
b,
You cannot even define this “surface” to which refer, let alone provide a figure for a number which is meaningless, in any case.
Just more pointless pseudoscientific garbage. Carry on.
Cheers.
bdg…”The global mean surface temperature has already risen about 1.0C since WWII so 0.6C is already falsified.”
You mean, according to the NOAA fudged record. They had to retroactively adjust the North American temperature records in the 1930s to get a positive trend because we have yet to reach the sustained record temperatures of the 1930s in reality.
GR, NOAA does not “fudge” data. They make adjustments to the raw for legitimate reasons. I should also point out that their adjustments actually reduce the warming trend from the early 1900’s as compared to the raw data.
NOAA would never “fudge” data. They’re the government.
“If there is a strong La Nina, UAH could hit -0.2C~-0.3C and this is where things will get very interesting.”
That would be interesting. We had 3 strong la Ninas between 1999 and 2012 and the TLT anomaly never went down to -0.3C. Only 5 months showed a global anomaly below -0.2C.
The ENSO cycle is cyclical, for the last 30 years the average of the Oceanic Nino Index was 0.018. Three or more months above 0.5 is considered an El Nino and three or more months below -0.5 a la Nina.
During the “pause” the ONI average was -0.26 (Starting when the index hit 0 after the 1998 El Nino and ending when the index crossed 0 at the beginning of the 2015 El Nino.) The average global anomaly for that period is 0.12C. It would take a lot of cooling to get back where -0.2C anomaly is a common occurrence.
Craig-san:
During 30-year PDO cool cycles, El Nios tend to be weaker and La Ninas tend to be stronger, which should contribute to global cooling as we saw from 1880~1910 and 1945~1975.
Moreover, there is a high probability the coming 50-year Grand Solar Minimum will contribute to additional global cooling as observed during the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton GSMs…
Please also note that the strongest Grand Solar Maxiimum in 11,400 years occurred from 1933~1996, which may have contributed to a substantial portion of 20th century warming.
Well see soon enough..
BTW, Im typing on a Japanese keyboard, so tildes and apostrophes dont show up in my posts… sorry..
Regarding the “Svensmark Effect” there has been a lot of published research most of which questions the link between GCRs and modern climate change. These include Muscheler 2005, Lockwood 2007, Sloan 2008, Pierce 2009, Overholt 2009, Kulmala 2010, Calogovic 2010, Benestad 2013, and Erlykin 2013 and more.
On interesting aspect of the GCR hypothesis is that depending on who you ask it can work in either direction. Those in the positive feedback camp say more GCRs leads to warming and less leads to cooling. Those in the negative feedback camp say more GCRs lead to cooling and more leads to warming. In his 1998 publication Svensmark was in the negative feedback camp so I’ll assume the “Svensmark Effect” is the negative feedback variation of the broad hypothesis. And it’s generally accepted among proponents of either camp that higher solar activity is inversely related to the GCR flux on Earth. I’ll leave you to make your own judgement as to how skillful the “Svensmark Effect” has been in predicting the global mean temperature especially over the last couple of decades.
Perhaps one of the most relevant publications is Dunne 2016 which documents the results of CERN’s CLOUD experiment. It is worth a read. If nothing else then at least read the abstract.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
bdg…”Regarding the Svensmark Effect there has been a lot of published research most of which questions the link between GCRs and modern climate change.”
Something caused the Little Ice Age and sustained it for 400 years. The only good explanation is solar variation.
That also explains our current warming since temps during the LIA were 1C to 2C below normal. According to Akasofu, it would take at least a century to recover from such a cold period.
GR, yes I agree. The Maunder Minimum in conjunction with increased volcanism explains a large part of the LIA. Likewise, the Modern Maximum in conjunction with reduced volcanism explains a lot of the warming (though not all) prior to WWII. After WWII solar variation breaks down almost entirely in explaining the warming. But in the cases where solar variation was a dominant factor it was not the “Svensmark Effect” that was the cause. It was because TSI was changing.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
samurai…”Were currently in a weak double-peak (Oct 18/Apr 19) El Nio cycle, so given the 5-month lag, UAH will slowly fall for the next 4 months, then rise slowly again for 4 months (effects of second peak) and then fall slowly again, then remain relatively static until the next La Nia cycle starts towards the end of 2020″.
You are saying, in effect, that the UAH record will reflect the natural variations in weather/climate.
Gordon-san:
Yes, UAH tracks ENSO very closely (with about a 5-month lag). During El Nino events, UAH global temps rapidly (especially during Super El Nino events (97/98 and 2015/16)) and during La Nina events, UAH global temp anomalies fall especially during strong La Nina events (again with a 5-month lag).
UAH is also going to show that 30-year PDO/AMO/NAO cool cycles also cool the planet as the did from 1880~1910 and from 1945~1975…
In about 5 years, the silly CAGW hoax will be laughed at when comparing global temp model projections vs. UAH reality.
The sun is going from recent very high activity into lowest activity in two hundred years, the warmistas who keep claiming sun has nothing to do with the temperature are about to get a climate lesson .
The scientific consensus fully embraces the idea that the Sun is an important agent in modulating the temperature of Earth. There is no serious claim that the “sun has nothing to do with the temperature”.
Will you please stop bantering about scientific consensus. You’re smarter than that.
The prevailing theory that best matches observations definitely includes a component from the Sun. And I’m not aware of any reputable scientific institution or group of scientists that have proposed an alternative view that completely ignores solar influences on climate change either past or present. I don’t know these “warmists” that Eben speaks of. I’m just saying in general that no one really believes that the Sun is irrelevant. I do, however, think everyone, regardless of their position on the topic, will get a “lesson” in climate change over the next two hundred years.
I just want you to please stop invoking authority. Conventional wisdom is usually wrong.
I think we might have some type of fusion power by then and everyone will be driving efficient cars on a magnetic field. I think cars are only about 25% efficent right now. Of course you leftists will be screaming about how the magnetic fields are causing the insects to die or something.
Climate shystering 101 , I could post references like this a mile long
Go take your crap to somebody elses thread
https://bit.ly/2FSNU7V
https://bit.ly/2HVt7mF
Let me just clarify something. When I use the term consensus in my posts I’m not talking about a poll or vote or authority. What I’m talking about is the theory that consolidates a set of hypothesis that have survived falsification and which there is an abundance and consilience of evidence that best matches reality. That theory among all of the available theories that best matches all available observations is what I’m referring to as the consensus.
If you selectively ignore certain forcing agents whether it be solar, aerosols, greenhouse gases, etc. then you will be left with a theory that is inferior to a theory that considers ALL forcing agents.
Eben, just because the Sun isn’t THE cause of the warming for the current era does not mean that it isn’t a factor in determining the temperature or that it is ignored. In fact, if scientists were to ignore the Sun then they wouldn’t be able to adequately explain past climate change events.
Scientists have studied the relationship between solar activity, solar irradiance, galactic cosmic rays, etc. and climate change quite a bit. It is because of this focus on the Sun that scientists are in a position to conclude that solar forcing is inadequate to explain to explain the current warming.
And there’s even been a lot of research in regards to what it would mean if the Sun were to enter into a hypothetical grand solar minimum. The available research is highly suggestive that a hypothetical GSM would suppress the warming some or delay warming milestones, but it won’t stop it and any effect it has will be temporary since a GSM would complete long before CO2 would deplete on its own.
b,
You wrote –
“What Im talking about is the theory that consolidates a set of hypothesis that have survived falsification and which there is an abundance and consilience of evidence that best matches reality. That theory among all of the available theories that best matches all available observations is what Im referring to as the consensus.”
Complete nonsense. Just more pseudoscientific blather. You cannot state any testable hypothesis relating to “greenhouse gases”, can you? How about a “theory” of AGW or anything remotely similar?
You are just spouting sciencey nonsense, hoping that those even more stupid and ignorant than yourself will believe your nonsensical assertions.
Go on, try and explain how your hypotheses and theory incorporate “forcing agents” and “greenhouse gases”. Your attempt at comedy will be appreciated.
Cheers.
Eben thinks the Moon is causing the warming.
bdgwx: “The prevailing theory that best matches observations definitely includes a component from the Sun.”
The only “prevailing theory” that does not violate the laws of physics is “natural variability”. And it definitely includes the Sun.
bdg…”What Im talking about is the theory that consolidates a set of hypothesis that have survived falsification…”
Like the consensus that stomach ulcers are caused by stress or that cholesterol causes heart disease?
In the 1920s, in southern US states, they had an outbreak of pellagra. A government agent immediately identified the cause as diet-related, but consensus claimed that was wrong. It took them another 25 years, till the discovery of B-vitamins, to relent and admit the cause was a dietary deficiency.
James Lind, discovered that lime juice could cure/prevent scurvy, but it took the British Navy 45 years to implement his findings.
Peter Duesberg, a world-renowned expert on retroviruses, claimed at the outset of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. More than 30 years later, the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, stated that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system.
Despite the testimony of these two experts, the consensus still stands that HIV is a dangerous virus that causes AIDS. The fact that 99.99% of North Americans and Europeans, who have healthy immune systems, have never encountered AIDS, has had no effect on the consensus.
It would not have been so bad if someone had listened to Duesberg and tested his hypothesis. Oh no, they ostracized him because it was extremely lucrative to get on the HIV/AIDS bandwagon and get big bucks for researching an idiotic hypothesis.
‘Conventional wisdom is usually wrong.’
Every month I get emails from people who’ve discovered why relativity or quantum mechanics are wrong.
You’ll never hear of these ‘revolutionaries’ who failed to overturn the consensus.
Nate, are your emails as bogus as your “basic physics textbook”?
This may even be fact –
“Now this solar constant is actually not a true constant. It varies by +/- 3% because of the Earth’s slightly elliptical orbit around the Sun, being larger when the Earth is at perihelion (currently the first week in January) and smaller when the Earth is at aphelion (currently the first week in July). Some people, when talking about the solar constant, correct for this distance variation, and refer to the solar constant as the power per unit area received at the average Earth-Sun distance (this is called the Astronomical Unit or AU and has the value 149.59787066 million kilometres).
Even when we correct for the changing Earth-Sun distance we still find that there is a small variation in the solar constant, and this is due to a variation in the intrinsic luminosity of the Sun itself. This variation has been measured by radiometers aboard several satellites since the late 1970’s and is shown in the graph below. This is a composite graph produced by the World Radiation Centre and shows that our Sun is really a (slightly) variable star.”
Meantime, ladies and gentlemen, pick your “solar constant” of choice. Add 3% or deduct 3% as you prefer. Now figure out if a watt or two at an unspecified temperature is relevant in both cases, and all values in between. If you want to, include your assumed variables for the variable output of the Sun, both in terms of power , and spectral composition.
Have fun trying to show how much the Earth has heated over the last four and half billion years.
Cheers.
M Flynn,
How is it possible for this planet to warm up for hundreds of millions of years, suchas from the cold of the Upper Ordovician Period to the high warmth of the Eocene Optimum, according to your theory that this planet has only been cooling for 4 1/2 billion years?
Just wondering.
Three days late? No, they will have moved further down-thread. Down you go.
Samurai, there is no way you can predict enso 2 years ahead, or how strong it will be.
Krakatoa-san:
Youre correct that I cant predict with 100% accuracy the next La Nia will be a strong one, but its highky likely it will be, based on 60+ years of ENSO data. Thats why I used the qualifier should instead of will…
Well see soon enough.
S,
I have adopted your philosophy. Based on 60+ years of life, (although I might be lying), I predict it is highly likely I will live forever. The trend can obviously used to predict the future.
So far, so good. And, no, I don’t want anyone to confuse the issue by referring to the lives of others. I’m only interested in me.
Cheers.
We are due for a good La Nina.
Mike F, are you channeling the Dream Team?
Boring repetitive posts are his patented trademark.
Beware, you could be violating his copyright.
Begone troll.
You will be getting a letter from his solicitors.
Begone troll.
Lawyer up.
Begone troll.
The current score is 7 B.T. versus 1 P.S.T.
At this rate Mike F is going to win the Golden Troll award in a canter.
Begone, troll!
Wow. World record pace. 8 repetitive trolls and we are not even at the end of day 1! Poor DREMT is being left in his dust.
For those keeping score it is 8 – 1 to Mike F.
Begone, troll.
9-1
Begone, stupid and mindlessly incessant troll.
Mike .
Glad you have been able to expand your comments. The intellectual demands must have been horrific. Maybe we can take a break from our tedious exchanges. What do you think?
Begone, stupid troll.
Mike F.
So much begoning overkill. How about a bit of begatting? I would have commented “go forth and multiply” but that wouldn’t be nice and multiplication may be beyond your arithmetic capabilities.
Troll, begone.
Mike F,
I have taken the liberty of including your latest contributions as they appear to be just a variation upon a theme. Accordingly if the word begone and troll appears in your comment then +1 to your score,
Surely you realize that the higher the score the dumber you appear.
It is now 12 – 1 to Mike F.
Begone foolish troll.
All this archaic language makes me yearn for the return of The Black Adder.
Mike F.
Thou hast the personality of a suppurating pimple on one’s arse but lacketh the charm.
Begone, foul troll.
Mike F. Though hast cast vile aspersions against my character. This dispute needs to be settled post haste.
I challenge you to a duel at 20 paces at dawn. My second will be my valet Baldrick. He will slap you with my glove and you are then free to slap him in return.
If I am not awake at that ungodly hour please feel free to start without me.
In the meantime the score stands at 14 – 1 for Mike F.
Begone, witless troll.
Mike F.I am truly devastated that you consider me witless unlike your good self. I know i can only aspire to your superbly crafted commentary. Every word so carefully considered. One day you when you publish your memoirs, each could be a chapter that is testament to your craftsmanship.
How do you become such a the peerless troll? Was it nature or nurture. Was it due to your relentless questioning of GHE over the past months and years that allowed Dr Roy to officially designate you a troll.* So many questions.
* Trolling is coming here and asserting things like Theres no such thing as the greenhouse effect, anyway. Or, The GHE violates the 2nd Law. -Roy]
Begone, foolish troll.
Mike,
A spirit of compromise has broken out in the comments section. Likewise I would be happy if we could settle our petty differences and move on. How about it?
Cheers.
Troll, be thrice gone.
Ok Mike. Be it on thy head.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
My god, the recividist is still at it,
16 – 2 to Mike F.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Earlier on, I wrote –
“FK,
Nope. If the temperature of the hotter body were to rise, the energy would have to come from somewhere – conservation of energy, and all that.
The only place it can come from is the cooler body.”
and FK responded –
“Exactly thats where it comes from. Where else?
The energy comes from where the radiation comes.”
I won’t hit FK with a gotcha. There is no point asking someone with no understanding, whether they understand something.
However, when a body loses energy, it cools. FK claims that a hotter body absorbs radiation from the colder one, and its temperature increases as a result. The colder body, having lost energy to the hotter, must cool. It cannot get hotter – it has surrendered energy. So now, according to FK, the cooler body will supply more energy to the hotter, getting colder in the process, until the colder body reaches absolute zero, and the hotter reaches the maximum temperature consistent with its energy level.
Starting with two bodies of water, one at 40 C and one at 50 C, according to FK the cooler one will proceed to absolute zero. This is absolute nonsense, unless the laws of thermodynamics were rewritten while I was having coffee.
I prefer to believe that FK is mentally deficient, and is in the grip of a pseudo-scientific aberrational delusion.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, I suppose.
Cheers.
SAMURAI
As usual, you claim about following the science but in fact completely discard it.
1. It is true that in a study (considered deprecated since years), NASA has shown some evidence for planet greening due to increased CO2 levels.
But the reality looks like this:
http://tinyurl.com/y5dwmeut
Most of the man-made greening has nothing to do with CO2, but with – China’s billion-tree fight against desertification, and
– India’s urge in increasing crop production.
The greatest greening losses are there where you would expect them the least: in the globally greatest rain forest region (Amazonas). Brazil loses forest at a rate of round 100,000 km^2 per decade.
2. To speak, in 2019, about ‘ less desertification’ is simply ashaming.
https://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Actually, worldwide desertification grows at a rate approaching 100,000 km^2 per year.
Bindidon-san: A recent peer reviewed paper (Vinter et al 2018) shows the Sahara desert has shrunk 6% over the last 30 years, or roughly 25%/century, if current trends continue… oops..
Much of this is attributed to the beneficial increase of the CO2 fertilization effect from beneficial increases in CO2 concentrations…
The earth is still starved of CO2 and we should be ecstatic CO2 levels are improving…..but, alas…
While there are certainly many positive aspects of higher CO2 concentrations it isn’t a panecea. Just like global mean temperature growth isn’t the product of a single actor neither is plant growth. There are many actors that affect growth rates including soil chemistry, moisture, temperature, sunlight, etc. Some of these actors may be negatively affected on a more regional basis because of CO2. And the planets that live today may not being able to adapt fast enough to match the pace of climate change today. Nevermind that CO2 is not universally beneficial to biomass in general. For example, C4 carbon fixation does not benefit much if at all from higher CO2 concentrations. C4 plants evolved in part to tolerate lower CO2 concentrations. Corn is an example of a C4 crop.
Almost all peer reviewed papers agree that crop yields increase by around 30% per CO2 doubling.
The CO2 fertilization effect is logarithmic, so after CO2 exceeds 1,000ppm, there isnt much of an increase in crop yields, which is why commercial vegetable and flower greenhouses keep CO2 levels at around 1,000ppm~2,000ppm.
BDGX,
If you can explain how corn evolved you can win a Nobel prize.
Typo… Sahara decreased 8%, (not 6%) according to Venter et al 2018.. sorry.
SAMURAI
I lack the time right now to go deeper in the stuff. But I’ll come back to you concerning that.
Meanwhile, I recommend reading this paper:
https://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/JCLIM.African.Sahara.Desert.Expansion.published.29March2018.pdf
Quick! Everybody panic!
“Right now, scientists say we have just over a decade to get our collective shit together. Or to be exact, thats 12 years until earth begins its transformation into a giant furnace, devoid of crops and full of even more poverty. ”
Doom! Doom! Thrice doom! The giant furnace cometh! Scientists say so, so it must be true!
Cheers.
There might not be that much poverty considering how much we’ll save on our heating bills.
Yes, the next La Nina could be a strong one. Maybe it won’t and the second La Nina from now will be strong. Its nothing more than guessing at this point.
A lot of people were saying that a strong La Nina would follow after the 2016 super El Nino, only because the same thing happened after a couple of previous El Nino’s. That also didn’t happen. Be careful when you try to find patterns in data.
Kristian
K:’I guess that makes me a troll, then.’
No, but when people make genuine scientific criticisms of your posts, like:
You havent taken into account ‘Enthalpy’, ‘Latent Heat’, ‘The General Circulation, that moves heat poleward from the equator’
You respond with ad-homs like:
“Thats the problem with religious zealots like yourself, Nate.”
“More self-righteous drivel and zero substance. Typical.
As I pointed out, theres no talking to religious zealots.”
and projections of your behavior onto others like:
“Your going ballistic whenever I point this simple fact”
“throwing an endless string of inconsistent, incoherent word salads my way”
“People like Nate here have been conditioned to automatically interpret any view that disagrees with theirs on this particular issue (GHE and AGW) as a personal attack, one they simply cant let pass, against them and their very identity.”
Those are things that make you a troll.
And BTW, your last point in previous Update:
“2. Poleward heat transport from equator by General Circulation.
Not at the surface, Nate. At the surface, the heat is coming IN laterally. At the surface, the heat escapes to the sides via general circulation in the SUBtropics, not around the equator.”
FALSE. The Hadley Cell circulation causes vertical movement of air and latent heat UP from the surface at the equator and DOWN go the surface in the desert.
LOL! You’re such a weird person, Nate.
Because here you are again (zealots don’t give up easily, do they?), insisting that I should somehow come to terms with my OWN argument as an argument AGAINST it !!?
I DO take ‘enthalpy/heat capacity’ and ‘latent heat/evaporation’ and ‘circulation/convection’ into account, Nate. They’re the core of my argument.
If you were to predict the average surface temperature (T_s) of two regions that absorbed the same amount of average heat input to their surfaces from the Sun, but with the one region being burdened at the same time by a much stronger “GHE” than the other (from having a troposphere on top with a lot more H2O in it (WV and clouds), making its IR opacity substantially higher as a result), meaning its surface radiative heat loss was much smaller, what would be your guess? What region should have the higher T_s? The one with a stronger “GHE”? Or the one with a weaker “GHE”? (Remember, now: Heat input is the same in both regions.)
If you were to predict that the former region (the one with the stronger “GHE”) should have the higher T_s, then you would simply take the standard ‘All Else Being Equal’ “AGW” stance of “stronger “GHE” => higher T_s“.
If you, however, were to predict that the latter region (the one with the weaker “GHE”) should still have the higher T_s, DESPITE its surface radiative heat loss being much more efficient than in the former region, then it would mean you acknowledged the real-world circumstance that ‘All Else Is NEVER Equal’, and so we can’t just assume that a stronger “GHE” (directly associated with a smaller surface radiative heat loss) will necessarily lead to a higher T_s. Because of OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED!
Which is exactly the point of MY argument, Nate. Not yours. MY argument.
Either you take the first stance, and you’ll easily be proven wrong. Or, you take the second stance, and effectively acknowledge that stronger evaporative surface loss always trumps equally weaker radiative surface loss. It doesn’t just REDUCE the potential thermal effect of a stronger “GHE”, it completely NEGATES it, and even REVERSES it – we end up COOLER, not LESS warm.
And by that, we have – in all but name – rendered the idea of “the anthropogenically enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ (“AGW”) moot, no explanatory power left at all.
You’re freely admitting that more evaporation, a more dynamical circulation and a higher atmospheric (and surface) heat capacity, all conditions strongly and directly connected to having a moister atmosphere, will easily overpower any isolated thermal effect potentially caused by the higher atmospheric IR opacity (creating an “enhanced GHE”) that also follows from having more H2O in the air column.
Which has been precisely my point all along.
But then, instead of recognising this pretty obvious fact, and concede that I do in fact have a point, you’re trying to somehow turn it into a counterargument to mine!!???
Do you seriously not see how ridiculous this makes you look, Nate?
First, you said that ‘(Worth noting: Also according to CERES, these two regions get more or less the exact same average heat input to the surface from the Sun.’
I assume you mean absorbed solar. This is ~ 280 W/m^2 I believe.
But the outgoing TOA LW for the two regions is very different.
Congo
LW_up(toa), F: 225.23 W/m^2
Sahara-Sahel
LW_up(toa), F: 279.10 W/m^2
Clearly the Congo has a large positive IMBALANCE at TOA. This shows that it has a significant flow of energy to somewhere…poleward transport is the likely culprit.
And that concurs with slide 28 here
https://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/fezzik/Phys-Met/Ch04-4-Slides.pdf.
‘Because of OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED!
Which is exactly the point of MY argument, Nate. Not yours. MY argument.’
Clearly that is why comparison of these two very different locations makes no sense, as a test of the GHE.
“If you were to predict that the former region (the one with the stronger ‘GHE’) should have the higher T_s, then you would simply take the standard All Else Being Equal ‘AGW’ stance of ‘stronger ‘GHE’ => higher T_s.”
All else is definitely not equal.
“it would mean you acknowledged the real-world circumstance that All Else Is NEVER Equal, and so we cant just assume that a stronger ‘GHE’ (directly associated with a smaller surface radiative heat loss) will necessarily lead to a higher T_s. Because of OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED!”
Neither I, nor climate scientists advocated tests of the GHE, like this one, that so poorly control for other variables. Thats just bad science.
But, In your VERY FIRST post you clearly intended this comparison to show that the GHE is NOT doing what its SUPPOSED to do. And you continued to make this claim again and again.
This meme, a comparison between monkeys and camels, reveals nothing about whether temperature increases with an increased GHE.
Nate says, April 2, 2019 at 3:28 PM:
No, we’re talking about the surface here. Solar heat absorbed at the surface is ~174 W/m^2 on average in both regions.
The solar heat going through the ToA is much higher above the Congo than above the Sahara-Sahel: 287 vs. 269 W/m^2. Which means much more solar heat is absorbed on the way down through the tropospheric column in the Congo than in Sahara-Sahel, surely owing significantly to the fact that the former contains so much more H2O; another reason why more H2O in the troposphere will act, in itself, to reduce surface heating (and that’s even beyond the mere increase in overall albedo).
You see, Nate, once you make one change to a complex, dynamic system such as the Earth system, other changes will naturally follow. Heck, even without making such specific (controlled) changes, lots of different things about the system will have changed from one time interval to the next. Because of … tons of various reasons. And these are variables (dependent and independent) that you can’t control for. That’s why you cannot go around pretending that everything else just stays the same whenever you change one parameter of choice. This is something you can only do and accomplish inside computer models. Which means those models do not model actual reality, but a hypothetical version of it.
Indeed.
Correct.
So, as you can see, the Congo has a HUGELY positive heat imbalance at its ToA: [287-225=] +62 W/m^2, while the Sahara-Sahel has a strongly negative one: [269-279=] -10 W/m^2. And STILL, the T_s in the Congo is much lower than in the Sahara-Sahel – go figure!
Of course. From the tropopause, not from the surface. This is basic stuff, Nate. Along the equatorial belt, there is CONvergence at the surface and DIvergence at the tropopause:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/satdat2011-1b1.jpg
You bring nothing new to the table here. What is your point?
Are you telling me, Nate, that you still haven’t grasped what my argument is all about!?
What I’m testing isn’t the base “GHE”. Everyone knows (or, at least, should know) that Earth’s T_s with an atmosphere on top will be higher than without. You need look no further than the Moon.
What I’m testing – and I thought it was obvious! – is the specific premise lying at the heart of the idea of the ENHANCED “GHE”, namely the one saying that increasing the IR opacity of the atmosphere WILL and MUST cause the average surface temperature to rise, ‘All Else Being Equal’.
Yes, in theory, all else being equal, that might very well happen; such a result is THEORETICALLY plausible, if only IN ISOLATION, all other relevant factors disregarded.
But can you ever disregard all other relevant factors? In the real world? And if you can’t, how can we know that our theoretical end result, that simply increasing the IR opacity of the atmosphere WILL and MUST cause the average surface temperature to rise, will also be the end result … OUT THERE IN THE ***REAL*** WORLD!!!??
So, what I’m testing, Nate, is simply that premise: Will simply increasing the IR opacity of the atmosphere, while keeping the heat input to the surface constant, defined as the fundamental warming mechanism of an “enhanced GHE”, will it necessarily cause the T_s to rise EVEN when all else isn’t equal?
If this premise only works in a hypothetical case where All Else Is Equal, that is, if it fails the test above, what good is it as a predictor of future T_s?
It would have ZERO predictive or explanatory power.
Ok. So we agree …?
Hahaha! The irony.
Allowing other variables to do their thing IS the test, Nate! That’s what my test is all about!
Like I said, if the fundamental warming mechanism of an “enhanced GHE” only works (actually creates net warming) in a hypothetical case where all other variables are held constant, then what good is it?
We are NOT testing whether or not the postulated radiative warming mechanism will create warming IN ISOLATION, all by itself. We are testing whether it is able to create warming even after including all of the OTHER relevant factors!
My test includes the other factors. And thus the postulated radiative warming mechanism fails: It doesn’t create net warming.
No, the bad science here is simply asserting that more CO2 in the atmosphere MUST make the global surface warmer, no matter what, without ANY KIND of real-world test to support it.
Where’s your test, Nate? How and where have you acquired the empirical evidence showing unambiguously that simply increasing the IR opacity of the atmosphere WILL and MUST CAUSE the surface T_av to rise?
It’s just an assertion, Nate. An assumption. And it only works in the models …
Which is my point.
‘Of course. From the tropopause, not from the surface.
And what happens up there doesnt stay up there. Examples: the arctic vortex, the jet stream.
The whole equatorial tropics is cooler because of this massive poleward heat transport. And the poles are warmer.
And also the apparent ‘GHE’ in Congo is exaggerated by all this heat NOT exiting thru the TOA.
Its hard to believe your intent was to post such a hot mess of a GHE test.
Nate says, April 4, 2019 at 5:42 PM:
Hehe, very true. Which is just one MORE piece of evidence from the real Earth system invalidating the core premise of the “AGW” idea that simply increasing the atmospheric IR opacity MUST and WILL cause the average surface temperature below to rise.
I discussed this topic already way back:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/#comment-389
An interesting aspect of this assessment of regional rGHE that I didn’t really mention in the post itself, is how there appears to be absolutely no balance between incoming and outgoing radiative flux through the ToA:
The Congo sector: 287.4 W/m^2IN – 224.7 W/m^2OUT = +62.7 W/m^2
The Sahara-Sahel sector: 267.5 W/m^2IN – 279.8 W/m^2OUT = -12.3 W/m^2
This should come as no surprise. We are after all looking only at regional systems here, not at the total (global) system. A large part of the energy absorbed (in fact, most of it) is moved internally by advection (oceanic and atmospheric circulation) between regions throughout the world before it is ultimately radiated back out to space. So this energy, while moving internally, would fall outside the particularradiative budgets of the two particular ‘subsystems’ discussed here.
Is this, then, the reason why the Congo region is cooler on average than the Sahara-Sahel region, despite having a much stronger rGHE as defined?
I could understand why rGHE proponents would want to claim this to be the case.
However, it won’t help their hypothesis trying to locate this ‘missing’ (non-radiated) energy …
The thing is, what happens in the equatorial belt? Over land? There is no significant advection close to the surface away towards the north or south. Air (and energy) is rather coming in from the north and from the south. Or it movesalong the equator. If anything, at the surface, equatorial continental regions would on average get extra energy IN from surrounding regions, by advection from higher pressures towards the central low. That’s how the Hadley-Walker cells work. The overwhelming majority of the energy coming directly in from overhead (the Sun) would be shed straight back up, convected vertically towards the tropical tropopause, still comfortably within the same sector.
What happens in the equatorial belt is that there is convergence at the surface and divergence at the tropopause. The energy not being radiated away on its way up to the tropopause (inside the sector), will rather be radiated away from tropopause or near-tropopause level on its way north or south to the subtropics (outside the sector):
“Air convected to the top of the troposphere in the ITCZ [InterTropical Convergence Zone] has a very high potential temperature, due to latent heat release during ascent in hot towers. Air spreading out at higher levels also tends to have low relative humidity, because of moisture losses by precipitation. As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence. The subsiding air warms (as pressure increases towards lower levels), further lowering the relative humidity and maintaining clear-sky conditions. However, although the subsiding air warms, it does not do so at the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Continuing losses of longwave radiation (radiative cooling) means that the air warms at less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (i.e. some of the adiabatic warming is offset by diabatic cooling).”
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
As you can well read from the highlighted part (my emphasis) in the quote above, energy is definitely being brought out of the equatorial belt before it can be radiated to space. But it happens aloft, not significantly at the surface. It is brought to those regions, like the Sahara-Sahel sector, that end up radiating more to space than what they absorb from the Sun, the surplus energy brought in aloft from the ITCZ.
The absorbed solar heat is simply thoroughly shuffled internally within the Earth system before it is finally allowed to be reemitted to space.
The point I want to make is this:
If you want to argue that energy is being ‘trapped’ by gases and clouds in the troposphere, and that this somehow constitutes the rGHE, then you cannot also invoke the “energy being brought out of the region by other means offsetting a regional warming” argument, because then the energy you claimed to be ‘trapped’ and which would then (by rGHE logic) necessarily warm the troposphere and, consequently, the surface below, would not have been ‘trapped’ at all to begin with. It managed to get (‘radiatively undetected’) all the way from the surface up to the top of convection and only from there moving poleward and out of the region; at last radiated to space along the way. So your whole ‘warming mechanism’ would no longer be fit for purpose. It would no longer be at all.
You can’t have it both ways …
Original test:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/
Update:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
Yes, but at the SURFACE (!), where this test was done, the heat advection moves rather FROM the hotter (and drier) SUBtropics and in TOWARDS the cooler (and wetter) tropics. So heat moves from a hotter region with a much WEAKER “GHE” to a cooler region with a much STRONGER “GHE”. Because factors OTHER THAN the “GHE” one is vastly more potent, more powerful and more important when it comes to setting the average surface temperature.
You just keep proving my point for me, Nate. With every single comment. Keep going.
‘You just keep proving my point for me, Nate. With every single comment. Keep going.’
I know, but your ‘point’ has evolved to match the available facts.
You also keep proving my point that this comparison is a red herring.
If an observation requires this much speculative analysis, then it isnt worth much toward demonstrating any quantitative relationship, or lack of one.
“As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic”
So again, this artificially decreases the ‘GHE’ over the Sahel, while increasing it over Congo. Again whatever relationship there may be between ‘GHE’ and surface temperature is thoroughly muddied.
You need to find two more similar locations, or just look at Global averages.
K,
When you say things like this
“What Im testing isnt the base ‘GHE’. Everyone knows (or, at least, should know) that Earths T_s with an atmosphere on top will be higher than without. You need look no further than the Moon.”
Its difficult to reconcile that with your earlier comments like:
‘Yes, changing the radiative parameters of the troposphere MIGHT (!!) affect the average surface T positively. Theoretically it could definitely happen.’
or N: ‘When one does all of that, spatially averaged warming is the result.’
K: ‘Yes, in the MODELS, Nate. In the MODELS. Based on your THEORY being true. But there is no real-world evidence that it is true. There are ONLY theoretical considerations. And there is no evidence that what the models claim will happen is actually what happens IN THE REAL WORLD.’
No, IN THE REAL WORLD also. It is obviously happening (base ‘GHE’) to explain our present climate and its spatially averaged warming! And the present general circulation, and present weather patterns over Africa.
Weather models work in the real world.
But then, it seems like you are trying to separate out the ‘GHE’ part of the heat transfer in the atmosphere, and show that it is ‘misbehaving’ over present-day Africa.
But real weather modelers and climatologists don’t separate it out the way you are trying to do. They model overall heat transfer, and find that it matches the real world.
Kristian’s work on the Sahel vs. Congo compares the surface temperature as if the two regions have the same climate. One region contains plains, one region contains high mountains for which Kristian doesn’t adjust temperature as in Dr. Spencer’s analysis of Australia:
“The surface-troposphere system is not regionally isolated over Australia, as the troposphere can be affected by distant processes. For example, subsidence warming over the continent can be caused by vigorous precipitation systems hundreds or thousands of miles away.”
The two regions are also at different avg. altitudes, different avg. latitudes, again no adjustment in T by Kristian. Kristian’s work is superficial at best, Nate is right that Kristian should use global data.
Nate says, April 5, 2019 at 6:40 AM:
Hehe, no. I was there all along. From the get-go. You simply tried at once, and quite bizarrely, to turn the facts of reality that I pointed out somehow into a counterargument against themselves. And you’re still on that train.
For the simple reason that you just cannot get yourself to concede the simple point I am making, that there is no way we can know that by merely enhancing a “GHE” as radiatively defined, we will and must cause average surface temps to rise … because of OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED.
How long has this evasion game of yours been going on now, Nate?
When will we get the actual concession?
Hahaha, there is nothing “speculative” at all about my analysis, Nate. It is utterly straightforward, and I have explained it to you now probably a dozen times. You’re the one who insists on muddying this issue, by laying out red herrings east and west and burning down straw men around the clock.
Again, the test is very simple indeed:
If the prediction of a net rise in T_s resulting purely from an enhancement of a “GHE” cannot survive a simple real-world test like mine, where all different variables of the climate system are allowed to do their thing, then the entire idea of “AGW” is based on theoretical speculation and nothing else.
Which is my point.
Your being completely unable and/or unwilling to come to terms with this point isn’t really my fault OR my problem, Nate. It’s just the way it is.
Nate says, April 5, 2019 at 6:53 AM:
Artificially decreases the ‘GHE’!!????
What are you on!? If you hadn’t already, you have now officially entered clown territory, Nate.
Did you read my comment at all??
It’s like talking to a wall. Or, what was it? A religious zealot.
EXACTLY, Nate!!!! So again I will have to bring up questions that I asked you already on the previous monthly update thread:
1.
The TOTAL heat input and heat output to the surface are the SAME in both the Congo and the Sahara-Sahel regions. Only, the RADIATIVE heat output is much SMALLER in the Congo: It has a much stronger “GHE” => much more “back radiation” => much less net IR escaping the surface.
So why is it still so much COOLER …!?
Why is it cooler, Nate? Because …? Say it!
2.
The Congo surface has a much higher rate of evaporation than the Sahara-Sahel. But the Sahara-Sahel surface has a much higher rate of radiative loss, due to a much weaker “GHE”. The TOTAL loss is the same in both regions, as is the total gain.
So what does this tell you, Nate? What is the more important surface heat loss mechanism when it comes to surface temperature? Radiation or evaporation-convection?
Say it, Nate! Just say it. Don’t be afraid.
No. You don’t get my test. I’m not testing what you want me to test. I’m not testing the isolated effect of an “enhanced GHE”, as in the case where no other factors but the atmospheric IR opacity one change. I’m testing whether this hypothetical isolated effect will also work in a (real-world) case where all those other factors DO change. It doesn’t. THAT’S the test. It failed. And you simply won’t and cannot accept it.
Show me YOUR test, Nate. What real-world test have YOU done to show that YOU’RE right? Time to put up or shut up.
Nate says, April 5, 2019 at 10:02 AM:
I’m sure it is. But it’s not. It’s hard for you to reconsile because, on this particular topic, your mind is utterly one-dimensional, Nate. Your blinded by your doctrine. You’re effectively a religious zealot.
Try entertaining more than one thought in your head at the same time. Even if two thoughts MIGHT seem contradictive on the face of it, it’s not necessarily the case.
Is it? How and where do you see it? Outside the models …
Yes, WEATHER models. Up to a point. But they don’t work on the premise that the atmospheric CO2 content controls the future climate. They VERY MUCH take the fluid dynamics side of the climate system into account.
And that’s why CLIMATE models don’t work in the real world. Because they’re prognosticating something else entirely. They simply let “radiative forcing” determine everything …
“Is this, then, the reason why the Congo region is cooler on average than the Sahara-Sahel region, despite having a much stronger rGHE as defined?
I could understand why rGHE proponents would want to claim this to be the case.”
Yes because heat going elsewhere results in cooling! Its a no-brainer. But you would like to ignore it.
‘there is nothing “speculative” at all about my analysis, Nate. It is utterly straightforward, and I have explained it to you now probably a dozen times.’
No it is not ‘straightforward’ that this heat going elsewhere from the troposphere has no effect on the surface analysis. Your discussion about this is speculative.
N: ‘So again, this artificially decreases the ‘GHE’ over the Sahel, while increasing it over Congo.’
‘You’re effectively a religious zealot.’
This has nothing to do with religious zealotry, asshole!
Look, it is simple, as your quote showed, heat transported to and beyond the Sahel is ‘As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space ‘
That means additional F in Sahel that is NOT the result of any GHE between the surface and atmosphere. But the calculated ‘GHE’ defined as G = E – F is REDUCED.
Similarly the vertical heat transport from the surface in the Congo, splits into F outgoing and T transported, thus the G = E-F is apparently INCREASED by T.
Of course its not quite that simple, but as I said, it muddies any conclusions you would like to make about surface T and G.
‘If the prediction of a net rise in T_s resulting cannot survive a simple real-world test like mine, where all different variables of the climate system are allowed to do their thing, then the entire idea of ‘AGW’ is based on theoretical speculation and nothing else.’
Its a glaringly NOT simple ‘real world test’.
You just cannot get yourself to concede the simple point I am making.
“Where all different variables of the climate system are allowed to do their thing”
Yes indeed! These variables causing regional additions or subtractions of energy don’t affect the Global average, which is, as you admitted, WARMER because of the GHE.
‘Yes, WEATHER models. Up to a point. But they dont work on the premise that the atmospheric CO2 content controls the future climate. They VERY MUCH take the fluid dynamics side of the climate system into account.’
And of course, they MUST take into account radiation, else they would fail badly a predicting temperatures of air masses!
They work well to predict weather, eg over Africa. I don’t see how they can do this w/o including the GHE properly.
This is what mean, when I say it is confusing that you think the GHE is somehow not doing what its supposed to do over Africa. Of course it is! Otherwise weather models would be failing.
Atmospheric physics is a mature field. We understand the movement of heat in the atmosphere very well by now. Obviously so, since weather models work, and the general circulation can be properly modeled.
You quote atmospheric scientists describing the movement of heat in the atmosphere, and you understand heat transfer.
So it is baffling that you (off and on) think they are getting the GHE wrong, and you say things like this:
“What the rGHE proponents are in fact doing, is simply ignoring the larger ‘cooling’ effect of having a radiatively active atmosphere and focusing only on the smaller (alleged/assumed/postulated) ‘warming’ effect, and then claiming that this smaller (alleged/assumed/postulated) ‘warming’ effect is what makes Earths global mean surface temperature as balmy as it is.”
Again, you seem to be arguing against this:
“What Im testing isnt the base ‘GHE’. Everyone knows (or, at least, should know) that Earths T_s with an atmosphere on top will be higher than without. You need look no further than the Moon.”
Nate, we are as always getting nowhere with this. But that’s, after all, also your goal with these endless fruitless interactions – just keep up the pressure (like the good Alinsky disciple you are) until the opposition tires and loses interest, and you can go on claiming a win (‘I finally split his argument apart!’). At this point, what we have left is a sorry game of tit for tat. We have both already said what we have to say on this subject. You’re not reading what I’m writing. Just ceaselessly repeating your talking points. There are no new arguments being presented. The original one was mine. You’ve made a continued great show of critiquing it, yet you’ve never made any attempt whatsoever to actually understand – and thus address – its central point. I keep pointing this out to you, explaining in detail what that central point is. But you keep evading it. Pretending somehow there is no such point (‘Point? What point?’).
Nate says, April 5, 2019 at 12:42 PM:
Hahaha! You’re just showcasing the fundamental weakness of R&R’s “GHE” definition, Nate.
So, the tropospheric column above the Congo should have a much stronger “GHE”, as radiatively defined, than the same above the Sahara-Sahel, simply due to the fact that it contains so much more H2O (WV and clouds). It should be much more opaque to outgoing surface IR. This is something I think we can all agree on.
But what happens if we follow our common logic here, Nate? What happens when we simply acknowledge that the energy not being radiated out to space from within the Congo sector is instead brought out of the region at the tropopause level via advection, and that this energy is rather moved aloft, north and south, to the subtropical regions, like the Sahara-Sahel, to be radiated to space from there?
Down the drain goes the entire “GHE” definition as an indicator of … anything.
We realise that the ‘missing’ ToA energy in the Congo ISN’T held back inside the region by the stronger “GHE” holding it ‘captive’ (a direct consequence of its much higher tropospheric content of H2O) at all, and at the same time that the abundant ToA energy in the Sahara-Sahel ISN’T all coming straight through its weaker “GHE” from its surface to space (a direct consequence of its much lower tropospheric content of H2O). No, energy is simply taken from the former region’s ToA radiative budget and moved to the latter region’s ToA radiative budget to make it SEEM as if the “GHE” in the Congo is much stronger than in Sahara-Sahel.
But isn’t it much stronger? It has so much more H2O in its tropospheric column, right? And H2O is by far the major contributor to Earth’s “GHE”, right?
Well, if we were to compensate for the energy taken from the Congo and given to the Sahara-Sahel, it might look something like this …
The Congo (real-world situation): G = E – F => 450-225= 225 W/m^2
The Congo (no-loss situation): G = E – F => 450-280= 170 W/m^2
Sahara-Sahel (real-world situation): G = E – F => 480-280= 200 W/m^2
Sahara-Sahel (no-gain situation): G = E – F => 480-265= 215 W/m^2
Let’s say, then, that in the no-loss situation, the T_s in the Congo increased by more than 3 K, and that in the no-gain situation, the T_s in the Sahara-Sahel region decreased by about 1.5 K. That would STILL leave the former region with a much, much weaker “GHE”, as radiatively defined by R&R, than the latter.
Which makes absolutely no sense.
Conclusion: The Earth system gets what energy needs to get out out. You cannot hold more of it ‘back inside’ by simply increasing the IR opacity of its atmosphere. Because of the constant NON-radiative movement of internal energy, easily and routinely bypassing any kind of potential radiative impediment to energy flow. In short: Convection; fluid dynamics.
Which is my point.
You’re not making a point. I am. And you STILL haven’t dared to address it.
I’m apparently forced to reiterate the whole thing yet again! Why the perpetual evasion, Nate?
1.
The TOTAL heat input and heat output to the surface are the SAME in both the Congo and the Sahara-Sahel regions. Only, the RADIATIVE heat output is much SMALLER in the Congo: It has a much stronger “GHE” => much more “back radiation” => much less net IR escaping the surface.
So why is it still so much COOLER …!?
Why is it cooler, Nate? Because …? Say it!
2.
The Congo surface has a much higher rate of evaporation than the Sahara-Sahel. But the Sahara-Sahel surface has a much higher rate of radiative loss, due to a much weaker “GHE”. The TOTAL loss is the same in both regions, as is the total gain.
So what does this tell you, Nate? What is the more important surface heat loss mechanism when it comes to surface temperature? Radiation or evaporation-convection?
Say it, Nate! Just say it. Don’t be afraid.
As usual, you haven’t been paying attention, Nate.
The global average surface temperature of the Earth isn’t higher because of the “GHE”. It’s higher because of the thermal (insulating) presence of the atmosphere resting on top of the solar-heated surface.
And still here, you’re not addressing the actual POINT I’m making. You’re specifically addressing a straw man.
Again I’ll refer back to the two points above.
Nate says, April 5, 2019 at 1:57 PM:
Hehe. They’re not getting the “GHE” wrong, Nate. They’re getting it right. The “GHE” itself is what’s wrong, in the sense that it’s a purely theoretical (speculative) idea and nothing else. It has no hard observational science behind it. Any claimed “evidence” of its efficacy is always a simple result of seeing an effect and thinking it’s a cause. If you observe an increase in atmospheric “back radiation” over time, you haven’t thereby observed the CAUSE of an increase in surface temperature over that same time. No, you’ve observed a secondary EFFECT of an increase in surface temperature; not even a primary effect, a secondary one. The surface warmed first, then it heated the troposphere above, making it warm as well, which in turn resulted in the apparent increase in atmospheric “back radiation”. A secondary effect of an original cause is NOT the cause of that original cause. That’s like saying a tiny strand of hair on the dog’s tail wags the entire dog.
This is what the “GHE” argument amounts to.
But this is an altogether different issue than the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel test …
“They’re not getting the “GHE” wrong, Nate. They’re getting it right. The “GHE” itself is what’s wrong, in the sense that it’s a purely theoretical (speculative) idea and nothing else. It has no hard observational science behind it.”
Weird. But the hard evidence IS there in highly accurate regional weather prediction, and highly successful modeling of atmospheric properties and global circulation.
You just dismiss it.
Indeed we agree on most of the facts that have arisen in this lengthy discussion with TWO participants (but somehow only ONE is responsible for it??)
And the more we look at these facts, the more we ought to see that they clearly confirm my original point:
Comparing the ‘GHE’ and Ts of these two different locations, demonstrates exactly NOTHING about their relationship.
Claiming that it DOES is a strawman argument.
As you do here:
‘If the prediction of a net rise in T_s resulting purely from an enhancement of a ‘GHE’ cannot survive a simple real-world test like mine”
There is no “pure enhancement of ‘GHE’ going on here. That is obviously FALSE.
So it is utterly ridiculous to call this a simple real-world test. It is nothing but simple!
So your ‘point’ OSCILLATES between
“there is no way we can know …. because of OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED.”
and its
“a simple real-world test”,
because we CAN account for the OTHER FACTORS like advection, etc
Its clear that you are highly confused about what your point is.
Just as you OSCILLATE between
“What Im testing isnt the base ‘GHE’. Everyone knows (or, at least, should know) that Earths T_s with an atmosphere on top will be higher than without.”
and
“What the rGHE proponents are in fact doing, is……. claiming that this smaller (alleged/assumed/postulated) ‘warming’ effect is what makes Earths global mean surface temperature as balmy as it is.”
Again, you are not being consistent and tie yourself in knots, to defend the indefensible.
Will the temperature of the troposphere over North America be low also in April?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f00.png
Can someone direct me to the UAH records for Canada only?
Swampgator
“Can someone direct me to the UAH records for Canada only?”
*
The file
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
contains regional data for USA and Australia, but not for Canada.
You will think I’m joking or laughing at you but I don’t either.
Here is a graph comparing for the period 1978-2019
– the data from all accessible GHCN V3 stations in CA;
– the data from all UAH 2.5 degree grid cells encompassing the stations’ locations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15t-8wx4GQ7Aod3SuGp-VNVywePsErvdh/view
During the period, 194 CA stations provided data (194 is the sum of all stations reached in the 40 years, and NOT the average number per year). I don’t trace the stations.
Linear trend estimates for 1978-2019 in C / decade
– UAH: 0.17 +- 0.03
– GHCN: 0.18 +- 0.05
The surface trend would be of course a lot higher if GHCN V3 had more stations in the Arctic.
When I have some time, I’ll transfer the GHCN-UAH methods to the GHCN daily corner, which has many more stations above 60N.
Sources:
– GHCN V3: http://tinyurl.com/y98yy8fp
– UAH: http://tinyurl.com/yyxne3rd
*
P.S. There is a pseudoskeptic genius pretending I would produce faked graphs out of fudged data. The best is to gnore him.
Enjoy the graph…
Much appreciated! Thank you
It is a conscious hoax.
Strong evidence. How much evidence do you need to discredit a theory…and prove a hoax?
Here’s a short list supporting the hoax claim. I’ve got lots more.
Climategate. Totally unscientific and unethical behavior. Behavior that only people supporting a hoax would employ.
Increased CO2 is having a very substantial positive effect on plant growth. Plants have been starving slowly as ocean creatures continued to sequester CO2 (in shells on the ocean floors) as CO2 declined steadily over the last 150 million years. THEN ALL YOU HEAR ABOUT IS HOW THAT MIGHT NOT BE ALL A GOOD THING !!! It is a great thing…that the hoaxers have to try hard to find something bad about.
Insignificant global temperature rise (Satellite AND Balloon) for 20+ years. We were told at 10 years that we needed 15 years (and I agreed). But then after 15 years of no significant warming we were told 20 years would be needed. Now at 20+ years they start using new “temperature effect” oceanic warming adjustments to global averages !!! THE GOALPOSTS ARE ON WHEELS…..because this is an unscientific hoax.
Tornado and Global Cyclone Total energy has declined since the 30’s. Historic records show a strong decline in Tornado frequency and energy since the 30’s. Weather theory would predict lower cyclone energy with warming and consequent lower temperature gradients.
The temperature rise from the 20’s through the 40’s was virtually identical to the rise from the 70’s through the 90’s. So not unlikely from the same cause (ocean cycles…coming out of the little ice age…etc). The models that can show CO2 and the later warming do not also show the earlier warming, therefore those models are falsified…have no skill.
El Ninos are present at every step of recent warming. That El Nino warming is from direct sunlight and has next to nothing to do with CO2.
The 97% consensus claim is a lie. Less than half of scientists believe warming is a serious threat. 97% do believe humans have some impact…I do. 97% don’t believe it’s catastrophic. That’s a lie easily proven that you lefties still want to believe Cook the cartoonist’s discredited paper.
Normal scientific processes are NOT followed. Skeptics of great stature (e.g. Freeman Dyson and many others) receive ad hominem attacks (from dumb asses) AND are never substantially (seriously) responded to.
Well defended theses (e.g. Lindzen’s Iris Effect – with actual empirical data support…unlike anything AGW theory has) are labeled as “discredited” when they have not been falsified even in part…let alone totally discredited. This is hoax propaganda…not science.
Non-complying scientists lose funding, get fired, and ostracized…almost never promoted (they are threats to power and continued funding)
If the CAGW cabal really believed that an existential crisis is unfolding…with the globe racing towards unmitigated disaster…they would not be giving China, India, and Southeast Asia a pass. Emissions are guaranteed to rise sharply even if the USA and the EU go to zero emissions.
The CAGW numbers predict less than 0.05 C temperature reduction by 2100 if the UN plan is followed. Therefore, it isn’t about global warming…since their own plan doesn’t fix global warming. It does give them total political and economic control of energy production and use BUT ONLY IN THE WEST.
If the CAGW’ers believed what they say, they would be advocating for a MASSIVE nuclear power expansion. Instead, they do the OPPOSITE !!! and they would be pointing fingers at the Chinese. The CAGW’ers have influence only where the MSM Press speaks (propaganda) for them. The CAGW crowd has no influence in China. China doesn’t care because they don’t believe either. They will clean up coal some so they can breathe…but not for CO2 emissions.
There’s a lot in the ice core records showing poor and even negative CO2 correlations with temperatures.
CO2 goes up with temperatures at the end of every glaciation. These rapid Temperature rises aren’t following some magical rise of CO2. What kind of CO2 release is so smooth and regular?? Not some mysterious growing volcano eruption growth pattern. Atmospheric CO2 is obviously following ocean temperature rises (and its predictable). But then those rapid temperature rises all stop at about the same temperature each time. Most likely (in agreement with control theory basics), these peaks are regulated…and not by the lagging CO2.
Current temperatures are well below peak Holocene interglacial maximums. Every species alive today lived through these higher temperatures. Early civilization fared much better when it was warmer…and crumbled when colder (Romans).
Anyone who cannot see the unscientific nature of CAGW (the hoax) cannot by honest.
_____________
“If you need Fake News to be happy…….you might be a Democrat”.
Well done, DocSiders, and you didn’t even get to the bogus “energy balance” which is a comical farce.
DocSiders: Well said! I for one am heartily sick of all the half-baked rubbish that purports to be ‘climate science’. I’m fed up of hearing about greenhouses, the fraudulent twisting of words used to promote ‘acidification’ of the oceans, oceans rising by claimed fractions of a millimetre due to CO2, disappearing ice caps and the rest of the junk – Al Gore claiming in his book that we are ‘thickening’ the atmosphere with CO2′ for example. The sad thing about it all is that so many people believe it, and it’s been sold to gullible and lazy politicians who didn’t think for themselves before throwing their weight behind the issue. So raw has that this become that even when sharing a meal with friends a heated row can result – it’s best to avoid the subject. I’ve written to a local newspaper on several occasions about the alleged dangerous man-made global warming (now repackaged as ‘climate change’ of course), particularly when the threat of wind turbines loomed over a beautiful part of rural England, farmed by our ancestors for centuries and now threatened by the sheer idiocy of the modern world. None of the replies to my letters contained any factual observations or evidence that the writers had looked at any data for themselves – it was always ‘trust the scientists.’ I’m pleased to say that the local council saw sense and refused planning permission for these monstrosities. How can anyone look at the satellite data which Roy Spencer puts out every month on this website and kid themselves that we’re looking at a malign process caused by mankind? Fraction of a degree changes, up and down over the years – arguably the planet going about its normal business. I think at when all of this finally ends there’ll be many a book and thesis written about how what Axel Mörner has called ‘the greatest lie ever told’ came to be so effectively promoted – and the colossal sums wasted which could have been better spent on society’s genuine needs – health, social care and education for example.
DocSiders,
Awesome.
DocSiders,
You stated that ‘CO2 is obviously following ocean temperature rises.’
It would take a massive amount of energy to heat 326 million trillion gallons of water so there must be something causing the ocean temps to rise.
Would you have an explanation why only now over the last century that amount of water is suddenly warming?
Just wondering.
Exactly. The oceans are accumulating energy at a phenomenal rate…about +10e21 joules/year right now. That energy didn’t just magically appear out of thin air.
Two days late? No, they will have most likely moved down-thread by now. Down you go.
DocSiders
Your comment is full of polemics I’m not at all interested in.
Let me just give a short reply to the most disgusting point.
If all newspapers, but especially those owned by e.g. Rupert Murdoch would have had to face legal action for their lies and therefore had to fear harsh prosecution, lawsuits and extremely sensitive punishments, there would have been no ‘Climategate’ at all.
Final point for me.
*
More interesting is what you pretend in a context a bit nearer to science and engineering:
“Insignificant global temperature rise (Satellite AND Balloon) for 20+ years.”
1. I suppose that you ‘restrict’ your satellite understanding solely to UAH6.0 TLT, and therefore deliberately ignore other time series like RSS4.0 TLT, or NOAA STAR TMT, just because the latter were the target of repeated unscientific attacks like Karlization of data, ‘pausebuster’ claims, etc.
I have greatest respect for Roy Spencer’s work, but that does not at all imply for me to lack this same respect for Carl Mears: a respect which has been thoroughly absent on all blogs discussing RSS’ transition from rev 3.3 to rev 4.0.
DocSiders, I don’t know in which discipline you obtained the PhD degree suggested by your pseudonym. But at least you should be able to give us an irrefutable, scientific explanation for the suddent discrepancy, starting in 2004, between UAH6.0 and all other temperature series accessed by the WoodForTrees processor:
http://tinyurl.com/y4en46r3
(I hope you are educated enough to accept that the offsets specified for each series – UAH excepted – specify the correct displacement due to different means for the common reference period chosen.)
If you are not able to provide for a correct explanation, then we do not need any further discussion.
Otherwise we might start discussing about the interesting discrepancy between
– UAH6.0’s mean absolute temperature (around 265 K) and the resulting altitude of its measurements,
and
– the measurements provided by the RATPAC B radiosondes (officially acknowledged by Prof. Christy) at atmospheric pressures equivalent to UAH’s measurement altitude…
Bindidon, if you knew more about the relevant physics, you could better understand your frustration. All of your obsession with various data sources is for naught. There is NOTHING unnatural happening with global temperatures. AGW/GHE is pseudoscience.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Seuls les ignorants ressentent le besoin de s’exprimer quand ils n’ont strictement rien à dire.
कस्तो मान्छे!
Cheers.
कस्तो बुद्धिमानी नोट!
B,
My comment wasnt Hindi. Good try. You see the problems which may arise through leaping to conclusions.
Try another language if you wish.
Cheers.
“You see the problems which may arise through leaping to conclusions.”
Who tells you my comment was?
Bad try.
Here’s a snippet from a real Nobel Laureate (unlike the fake pseudoscientific climatological variety – such as Michael Mann’s fake self awarded Nobel Prize) –
“I must also point out to you that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you used for figuring out the consequences is rather vague, you’re not sure, and you just say I think everything is because it’s all due to moogles, and moogles do this and that, more or less. So I can sort of explain how this works. Then you say that that theory is good, because it can’t be proved wrong.”
The “moogles” in this case would be GHGs. The vague “theory” would be the missing-in-action “theory of AGW”.
As Richard Feynman pointed out, if you never define what you are talking about, then you can just keep demanding to be proven wrong. You won’t achieve anything of benefit to mankind in the long run, but your delusions will remain intact until people wake up to your chicanery.
Delusional psychotics will then fabricate a narrative involving paranoid assertions of secret conspiracies against them – dark powers refusing to recognise their intellectual brilliance!
Undistinguished mathematicians pretending to be climate scientists. A “distinguished professor” claiming undeserved Nobel Prize status. And so on.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should – providing mirth and merriment for all, as it does so.
Cheers.
Mike…”As Richard Feynman pointed out, if you never define what you are talking about, then you can just keep demanding to be proven wrong. You wont achieve anything of benefit to mankind in the long run, but your delusions will remain intact until people wake up to your chicanery”.
There are those who are deluded and there are those who know darned well they are wrong but take the money and run.
Eisenhower hit the nail on the head when he made money available from the US government in the 1950s for scientific research. His greatest fear was that the money would be taken as a matter of course just to receive it. His worst fears have come about as Feynman noted vis a vis the chicanery.
craig t…”There is nothing in the 2nd law that says radiation from a cooler object cant be absorbed by a hotter object, only that the overall trend will be more energy leaves the hotter object than is added to it. The photons emitted by the warmer object carry more energy than the ones it absorbs.
For more information:
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html”
This nonsense comes from one text book by two authors. It is typical of the genre where equations are provided with no concrete examples of how they can be applied.
I am sure you will point out the name of MIT attached but MIT puts out nonsense as well as good stuff. Kerry Emmanuel is a professor at MIT who supports the alarmist science associated with AGW. Another prof at MIT, Richard Lindzen, who has expertise as an atmosperic physicist is a skeptic.
Physicist, David Bohm, referred to such equations as garbage.
These examples have no units and no practical examples to accompany them. Furthermore, they take liberties with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which were not in the original equation. The original describes a one-way transfer of energy from a hot body to a cooler environment.
Worst of all, this nonsense contradicts the work of Clausius who went to great pains to establish that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from cold to hot.
Finally, the assertions of a two way flow of heat contradicts the quantum theory established by Bohr and Schrodinger.
Most textbooks I have read have sections in them that are quickly glossed over just so the topic can be addressed. This is the case in your example, Poorly thought-out drivel.
The key phrase in Clausius’ statement is “by its own means”. With no external stimuli to the system then a cold body cannot increase the temperature of a hot body. Heat will spontaneously (by its own means) flow from the hot body to the cold body. But if you add energy to the system and configure it properly then the system can evolve in such a manner that the cold body gets cooler and the hot body gets warmer without violating the 2LOT.
And although the heat flow processes are completely different a similar story plays out with heat pump systems. You can transfer heat from the cooler body (refrigerator) to the warmer body (ambient) because an external source of energy is being used to perform work on the system in a way that is specifically configured to further separate cold from hot. If you redraw the boundary of the system to include the energy source then you can apply the 2LOT and you will observe an overall increase in entropy.
b,
Adding energy, as you intend, rather invalidates the phrase “by its own means”, don’t you think?
Are you trying to say that the GHE in some way provides energy, or not?
If it does, where does this additional energy come from?
Maybe you could define this GHE, so that people would at least know what you are talking about. I don’t believe you can, although I am sure you will claim that you could if you felt like it.
Cheers.
MF,
Yes. I agree. Adding energy to a system invalidates the “by its own means”, “isolated”, “spontaneous”, etc. clauses in the various 2LOT statements.
The Earth system is not isolated. It is not evolving “by its own means”. The external stimuli in this case is the radiant energy from the Sun.
If you wanted to model a system in which the 2LOT could be applied then you must expand the boundaries of the system to include the Sun as well.
The geosphere is configured in a way such that when energy is applied a steepening temperature gradient develops vertically over the depth of the atmosphere and down to the surface. The configuration in which entropy is locally decreased by the GHE is by using an IR active material (polyatomic gas species). But the entropy of the Sun/Earth system as a whole is still increasing overall. If you could magically turn off the Sun and allow the Earth system to evolve “by its own means” then the GHE would shut off as well and any temperature differentials would spontaneously equilibriate as heat is once again allowed to transfer from hot to cold by its own means.
b,
You wrote –
“The geosphere is configured in a way such that when energy is applied a steepening temperature gradient develops vertically over the depth of the atmosphere and down to the surface. The configuration in which entropy is locally decreased by the GHE is by using an IR active material (polyatomic gas species).”
This looks suspiciously like pseudoscientific bafflegab. The “geosphere” generally refers to the solid parts of the planet. If you mean “atmosphere” why not just say so?
The rest of your nonsensical stringing together of pseudoscientic jargon is both meaningless and irrelevant. You intentionally avoided mentioning the GHE. I don’t blame you – you would have looked pretty silly. Best to avoid it totally, eh?
You don’t “model” the LOT. They are laws (as far as is known). No models involved.
As to the Sun/Earth system, the Sun seems to magically “turn off” every night, and heat spontaneously leaves the Earth’s surface for the cold of outer space. It has been doing so for about four and a half billion years, and the surface has cooled as a consequence.
You still can’t describe the GHE? What a surprise – not. Neither can anybody else.
Cheers.
bdg…”The Earth system is not isolated. It is not evolving by its own means. The external stimuli in this case is the radiant energy from the Sun”.
That’s not what Clausius meant ‘by it’s own means’. It’s obvious that the transfer of heat from the Sun to the Earth obeys the 2nd law.
It doesn’t matter a bit wrt the 2nd law whether a system is isolated. There are very few truly isolated systems in reality because an isolated system is one that cannot pass energy or mass.
The Earth is not an isolated system and Clausius said nothing about isolation or non-isolation as a factor in the 2nd law.
He derived it from a heat engine in which pressure, temperature, and volume are constantly changing. When he claimed heat can never be transfer by it’s own means from cold to hot, he meant it cannot do it unless it is compensated.
He made that clear, if you want to transfer heat from a cold body to a hot body, you must immediately compensate the cold body for the heat removed.
That cannot occur naturally, it needs intervention. In an air conditioner, a gas at low pressure is compressed into a liquid at high pressure. The HP liquid runs through a condenser where it vents heat to the atmosphere. Then it is vapourized through a nozzle and allowed to expand back to a low pressure gas in an evapourator.
As it expands in the evapourator it cools and the evapourator is placed in the area requiring cooling. Room air forced through the evapourator cools, withdrawing heat from the room. That heat is later expelled to the atmosphere in the condenser.
The compensation comes through the manipulation of temperature, pressure, and volume (Ideal Gas Law) which requires external power to drive a compressor.
In other words, you can’t get something for nothing. Heat simply won’t transfer from a cold area to a warm area on it’s own.
Good Grief Gordon,
You can’t even get the refrigeration cycle right.
A low pressure gas is compressed into a high pressure gas
The high pressure gas is cooled and condenses into a high pressure liquid
The high pressure liquid expands through a nozzle if you want
Vaporizing and becoming a low pressure gas extracting heat from the room.
Heat is transferred from cold to hot because work is performed by the pump or compressor.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bdg…”If you redraw the boundary of the system to include the energy source then you can apply the 2LOT and you will observe an overall increase in entropy”.
redrawing the boundaries is not what the 2nd law is about. It is simply about the heat transfer between a hotter and a colder body.
If you are regarding the atmopshere, the surface, and the Sun under the 2nd law, then you must apply each body separately. You cannot, as some claim, add back-radiation from GHGs in the atmosphere to solar input so they sum.
You either regard the Sun and the surface as two bodies, or the atmosphere and the surface as two bodies. With the atmosphere and the surface, it’s obvious that the atmosphere will always be equal to the surface temperature or less. In that case, no heat can transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.
It also means no IR can transfer from the atmosphere to the surface to cause the surface temperature to rise. That should be plain, it would involve perpetual motion.
Clausius developed the theory of entropy to give a mathematical explanation for the 2nd law.
He defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at a temperature T at which the changes occur.
ds = dQ/T
That ds is not entropy per se, the integral is the entropy. That is S = (integral)dQ/T
If you make T a constant, by drawing the heat from a heat bath at constant T, then entropy becomes the total sum of the changes of heat in the system.
S = Q
The significance is whether the process is reversible or irreversible and the degree to which the heat change takes place.
If the process is reversible, S = 0. If the process is irreversible, S must be positive. Therefore S is always greater than or equal to zero.
There is nothing in the equation that measures disorder, it is something Clausius noted about entropy. If a process is irreversible it moves toward disorder.
The notion of entropy increasing is ambiguous. How can an integral increase unless the quantity being summed increases? For entropy to increase, the heat must increase.
So, it’s the same thing. The entropy version of the 2nd law tells us that heat can only be transferred cold to hot by its own means.
If you have a hotter body at T1 and a cooler body at T2, then entropy can be stated as:
S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1)
The only way S can be greater than or equal to zero is when T1 is hotter than T2. If T2 > T1, S becomes negative and that is not allowed.
Gordon Robertson
I am calling out the BS flag on your post. First you make the completely false (outright lie): “This nonsense comes from one text book by two authors. It is typical of the genre where equations are provided with no concrete examples of how they can be applied.”
I have linked you to many textbooks that say exactly that radiation transfer is a two-way process. Clausius himself said it. We have linked you to his own words. You are a sad lying phony. I don’t mind if you have your fantasy opinions on how heat transfer works. When you blatantly and deliberately lie to make a false misleading point I highly object to your garbage post!
Now you must prove your statement: “Physicist, David Bohm, referred to such equations as garbage.”
Since you demonstrate to be an outright lying fraud, I want you to prove your statement. Or is this more of your dishonest personality?
norman…”I have linked you to many textbooks that say exactly that radiation transfer is a two-way process. Clausius himself said it”.
I have used textbooks at university that had errors in them and I am sure there are many texts today with errors.
When I studied an elective course in astronomy, not so long ago, we were taught that black holes are formed from the remnants of stars at the end of life. Some explode in a super nova, others condense into neutron stars, and others go further in a super-density black hole.
A neutron star is a super-dense body made up of neutrons after the electrons and protons have been ejected. I can almost buy that but I can’t buy the mythical process in which those stars break down even further into super-dense black holes.
Today, students are taught that black holes form from space-time anomalies, which is major bs. Some are being taught that gravity is not a force, that it is another form of space-time anomaly.
The thing you should note about your textbook definitions of two-way IR transfer…it should stand out like a sore thumb…is the lack of units in the descriptions and the utter lack of real, physical examples. If you look at the examples in your texts, none will show a two-way radiative transfer with units and temperatures.
That’s because it is all highly theoretical blackbody bs.
With regard to Clausius, you have to read him very carefully. One of the points you guys presented was in connection with him explaining what he meant by compensation. He stated clearly that heat can NEVER be transfer BY ITS OWN MEANS from cold to hot.
Then he went into an explanation of compensation which he called ‘by its own means’. During that explanation he talked about heat flowing both ways but at the same time he insisted it had to be compensated, cool to hot, like in a refri.g.e.r.ator or an air conditioner.
You guys focused only on the two way reference, completely missing the context.
With regard to radiation, I have explained the best I can that in the days of Clausius no one knew anything about electrons and EM. They all thought heat flowed somehow through space as ‘heat rays’. Even Planck thought that a couple of decades after Clausius had passed on.
Still, if you read Clausius carefully, he states in one part of his book that radiative heat transfer must obey the 2nd law as stated above.
I have backed that up with examples from quantum theory. The mechanism at the atomic level underlying heat transfer cannot permit a two-way, simultaneous transfer of heat or a two-way simultaneous transfer of EM.
It’s simply not possible for the electrons in atoms to absorb and emit at the same time unless their atoms are at thermal equilibrium.
But one atom can absorb a photon while another emits. What’s relevant is the the overall energy of the system not individual atoms and photons.
Richard Lindzen may disagree with the IPCC but he still understands how changes in the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) affect the climate. Here’s what he wrote in 1997:
“The ratio of the temperature variations to the variations in OLR would represent the climate sensitivity. However, a priori, naturally occurring changes in global mean temperature on time scales of from weeks to years may not form proper surrogates for warming due to increased CO2. Another problem with this approach is that OLR is not the sole contributor to the radiative response. In principle, we should look at the change in total radiative flux at tropopause levels. For the tropics, however, OLR in clear sky regions appears to be the dominant contributor to the total flux change.”
craig t…”But one atom can absorb a photon while another emits. Whats relevant is the the overall energy of the system not individual atoms and photons”.
Atoms don’t absorb EM as a unit, it is the electron(s) in the atom(s) that absorb EM.
What you fail to understand is the rules of absorp-tion and emission imposed on the electrons by natural quantum laws. If the atoms of a body are at an exact temperature, all of the electrons occupy certain precise energy levels.
What you are describing is a substance where the electrons of different atoms are at different energy levels. That would mean different temperatures at nearby locations in the substance.
It doesn’t work that way. If you have an electric current running through a conductor like tungsten, that heats up and produces light with certain currents, the temperature will be uniform throughout the tungsten filament.
The electrons will jump back and forth between energy levels associated with that temperature, emitting EM related to that temperature. However, the electrons will ignore EM from cooler bodies.
The only way to get the electrons in the tungsten to a higher energy level is to increase the current or expose them to a body at a higher temperature. EM from a cooler body will have no effect.
“What you are describing is a substance where the electrons of different atoms are at different energy levels. That would mean different temperatures at nearby locations in the substance.
It doesnt work that way.”
When a single photon is absorbed by a single atom, that atom gains energy. Within picoseconds that atom will emit a photon and return to its lower energy state. It doesn’t wait for the atoms around it to reach that same energy level.
Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a substance. Individual atoms or molecules may have more or less kinetic energy than the average.
Raising the energy level of atoms doesn’t by itself change the temperature. If all the energy is emitted as light the kinetic energy does not change. Light only changes the temperature when radiant energy is converted to kinetic energy.
craig t…”When a single photon is absorbed by a single atom, that atom gains energy. Within picoseconds that atom will emit a photon and return to its lower energy state”.
Once again, atoms do not absorb or emit EM as a generic unit. An atom, as you know, is comprised of a nucleus with neutrons and protons with electrons orbiting the nucleus. At least, that’s the prevalent model.
Only the electrons can absorb and emit EM and that applies to transitions, rotation, and vibrations. Only the electrons can absorb and emit EM.
Furthermore, the KE of an atom ‘in’ an atom is due to the motion of the electrons in their orbits. The KE rises and falls as the electrons change energy levels. That means the temperature changes as the electrons change energy levels. That explains why atoms warm and cool as they absorb and emit EM.
During collisions, it has to be the electrons exchanging energy since they surround the nucleus.
There are rules for electron absorp-tion and emission, as laid down by Bohr and Schrodinger. The basic rules have been amended over the decades to allow for multiple electrons in atoms more complex than hydrogen but the underlying principles are still the same.
I am not disagreeing the atoms rise only briefly to higher energy levels before dropping back and emitting EM, I am arguing that EM from cooler bodies cannot cause the electrons in hotter bodies to transition to higher levels. That’s because the electrons are already at a higher energy level than the energy level of electrons in cooler bodies.
You are describing atoms in bodies at thermal equilibrium.
craig t,
Do you think you could state the version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics upon which you make your argument?
There are several, but they differ in their semantics.
You might well say that the there is nothing in the second law that prevents a certain thing from occurring, but likewise there is nothing which says it could, either. However, if you can give the version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics you use, I might be able to convince you that the theory and facts are not on your side. Or maybe not.
For example, if you choose to accept “The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, . . .”, then your implication that radiation from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter, is clearly false, by the definition of the second law I provided.
Quite apart from that consideration, as Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You cannot even propose an experiment to back up your assertion, so your speculation remains just that, with no scientific justification. Idle words – no more, no less.
Cheers.
Any version of the 2nd law is only concerned with the net transfer of energy. It doesn’t require tracking every photon absorbed or emitted by an object.
Let’s start with the classic thermodynamics example of two chambers connected by a small opening. At the start the left side is full of warm air and the right cool air. Over time the left side will cool and the right side warm because of the random movement of atoms.
But temperature is a measure of the overall energy of the gas. Some molecules are moving faster and some slower. Nothing about the 2nd law keeps a fast moving molecule from moving from the right chamber to the left. More fast moving molecules move from the left chamber to the right than right to left, so the 2nd law is not violated.
Likewise, nothing in the 2nd law keeps a photon from carrying energy from a cooler object to a warmer object because more energy will travel by photons from the warmer object to the cooler.
Any textbook word problem on radiative transfer is a testable experiment. So here’s one:
Example 8 – 1 A spherical vacuum bottle consists of two silvered, concentric glass spheres, the inner being 15cm in diameter and the evacuated gap between the spheres being 0.65cm. The emissivity of the silver coating is 0.02. If hot coffee at 368K is in the bottle and the outside temperature is 294K, what is the radiatiative heat leakage out of the bottle?
https://books.google.com/books?id=O389yQ0-fecC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=heat+transfer+diffuse+concentric+spheres&source=bl&ots=7BK77d_yfI&sig=ACfU3U0zEUwnpb111CHYRvypOQl2Ub8GAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx1NqCs7ThAhUKEqwKHVi6AXE4ChDoATAAegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=concentric%20glass%20spheres&f=false
Craig T: “Likewise, nothing in the 2nd law keeps a photon from carrying energy from a cooler object to a warmer object…”
Craig, just because a photon carries energy to an object does not mean the photon, or its energy, will be absorbed. Photon absorb.tion is interestingly linked to wavelengths, which are interestingly linked to temperature.
If it doesn’t get absorbed then where does it go?
b,
Wherever it can?
Why bother with gotchas when you know the answer?
Cheers.
bdgwx, do you sleep with the lights on?
If you’re not afraid of the dark, and turn your lights off, where does the light go?
(Hint: That’s how silly your question is.)
bdgwx says:
April 3, 2019 at 5:56 PM
If it doesn’t get absorbed then where does it go?
____________________________________________________
You wont receive an answer. Never.
I have asked these physics-deniers 100 times.
They havnt the slightest idea.
Propably this non-absorbed photon with its energy escapes into some parallel universe?
b,
Identify the particular photon you are talking about. Describe the environment. Predict the future.
If you can’t you are just demanding answers to stupid gotchas, trying to avoid looking stupid and ignorant.
It would be easier to demand an answer to “How long is a piece of string?”
What is a “physics-denier”? If I asked you 100 times how stupid and ignorant you were, you might well be too stupid and ignorant to provide a cogent answer.
Off you go now. Find me a photon, put it in a bottle, and describe it. Then get back to me with any questions you might have.
Cheers.
I have given poor Fritz hints. But, like Norman, he can’t think for himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipation
Nothing new.
The photon I’m talking about is the one JD mentioned above.
b,
You wrote –
“The photon Im talking about is the one JD mentioned above.”
That would be the one that doesn’t get absorbed by a particular piece of matter?
You are refusing to tell me what type of matter is in its path, what its energy is, or what the environment contains in the future – all of which are relevant. Maybe it is a magic pseudoscientific photon?
You are just firing off stupid and ignorant gotchas, because you are too lazy or incompetent (or both) to absorb the necessary knowledge about QED.
If you can produce evidence to show you are not stupid, ignorant, lazy or incompetent in regard to learning as much about QED as is necessary to find the answer to your witless gotcha, feel free to do so.
Cheers
MF, this is all I know about the photon at this point.
“Craig, just because a photon carries energy to an object does not mean the photon, or its energy, will be absorbed. Photon absorb.tion is interestingly linked to wavelengths, which are interestingly linked to temperature.”
I think JD is going to be the best person to clarify the details about it since it is his photon.
“Craig, just because a photon carries energy to an object does not mean the photon, or its energy, will be absorbed. Photon absorb.tion is interestingly linked to wavelengths, which are interestingly linked to temperature.”
All that is true by itself but an object still will absorb wavelengths that have a color temperature lower than the temperature of the object. If that were true you would never have a dropped call.
All radio waves are below 1 degree Kelvin while everything we interact with is above that temperature. Buildings, the ground, water all absorb radio waves. Driving through a tunnel guarantees a dropped call. Then again, if your antenna couldn’t absorb radio waves (only reflecting them or allowing them to pass through) the phones wouldn’t work in the first place.
Craig, you are confusing “absorp.tion” with “induction”. An antenna is designed to convert electromagnetic energy into current by induction. The temperature is not really relevant. The magnetic field is the key.
JD – maybe the antenna is designed for induction but the radio wave is absorbed by the ground and the water.
CT,
Radio waves are not below 1 K – that is, generated by matter below 1K. You are confused by the terminology. If you believe that exposing matter at 2 K to the radiation of matter at 1 K will result in the hotter material becoming even hotter,while the colder material becomes even colder, you may have to carry out reproducible experiments to back up your assertions.
Maybe you need to re-examine your assumptions. If you use Wikipedia, you might care to verify what is said there with other sources. Your choice, but much of the information on Wikipedia is pretty dreadful, as far as fact and completeness is concerned.
Believe as you wish, but I am happy enough to believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics still apply, without exception, in the real world.
Cheers.
“Radio waves are not below 1 K that is, generated by matter below 1K. You are confused by the terminology.”
Nor is the Earth 193 K when it gives off 15000 nm IR and the CO2 that absorbs and emits 15000 nm light is warmer than 193 K.
The color temperature of a given wavelength is based on the peak wavelength of a blackbody of that temperature. The total emission is a range of wavelengths both above and below the peak wavelength. For a black body at 297 K (20 C) the peak wavelength is 9885 nm. Roughly 1/4 the power given off is in wavelengths shorter than the peak. 3/4 in wavelengths longer. More energy is emitted
(Opps, accidentally hit submit button.)
So 3/4 of the light emitted is in wavelengths whose Kelvin value is below the temperature of the object. Once a photon is on its way, nothing in nature keeps track of the temperature of the object that emitted it.
The only condition that will result in the hotter material becoming even hotter is more energy entering than leaving, and the rate of cooling depends on the ratio of energy leaving the object to the energy entering. The 2nd law is safe without making up extra rules.
Craig, when you claimed that sll photons would be absorbed, I corrected you.
Then, you claimed that all photons would be absorbed by an antenna., I corrected you again.
Then you claimed the photons were absorbed by ground and water.
But, that is where we started.
Photon absorp.tion is based on wavelengths.
You seem to wamt to avoid the relevant physics.
JD:”Photon absorb.tion is interestingly linked to wavelengths, which are interestingly linked to temperature.”
OK, show us some data for charcoal or any similar material that shows a sharp drop in absorb.tion with wavelength or temperature.
Heres a hint. if you can find emissivity data for the material, you can use Kirchoff’s law to find the absor.tivity.
Whoops, you don’t think Kirchoff’s law is valid for your Blue plate, so never mind..
Obviously poor Nate does not know charcoal emits light (glows), when at an elevated temperature.
Physics deprivation is an ugly thing.
“For example, if you choose to accept “The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, . . .”, then your implication that radiation from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter, is clearly false, by the definition of the second law I provided.”
No!
The correct conclusion is:
“The implication that MORE (radiation from a cooler body to a warmer body) can be absorbed than (radiation from a warmer body to a cooler body) is clearly false, by the definition of the second law I provided.”
As long as the net energy flow is from warmer to cooler, entropy will increase in the system. Individual photons can and do transfer energy from the cooler areas to the warmer areas. Just like individual collisions between atoms in a warm object and a cool object can and do transfer energy from the cooler object to the warmer object (as Craig T also eloquently argued).
Tim: “Individual photons can and do transfer energy from the cooler areas to the warmer areas.”
A photon from “cold” transferring to “hot” is a very special case. It doesn’t happen more than it happens. And, even when it happens, it does not raise the temperature of the “hot”.
(Tim, since you mentioned “entropy”, maybe you would like to explain how the entropy of the blue/green plates decreases with no change in energy in/out. That would be amusing.)
“A photon from cold transferring to hot is a very special case.”
No, it is a perfectly common and perfectly normal case. It happens literally all the time.
(And since you mentioned entropy and the “blue plate” experiment, you need to explain how heat flows from one plate @ 244 K to another plate @ 244 K. This violates both the 0th Law (systems at the same temperature but are not it thermal equilibrium) and the 2nd Law (heat only moves from warmer areas to cooler areas, but you have heat moving between objects at the same temperature). )
Water flowing down a mountain creek will often hit a boulder and splash back uphill. Only a silly pseudoscientist would claim that proves water flows uphill.
And the correct solution to the “plates” does NOT violate ANY laws of physics. This has been explained to you before. But, I’m willing to explain it again, after you explain the decrease in entropy from the incorrect solution.
You have a good history of asking questions, but a poor history of answering questions.
JDHuffman says:
Water flowing down a mountain creek will often hit a boulder and splash back uphill. Only a silly pseudoscientist would claim that proves water flows uphill.
__________________________________________________
So what? What are you talking about splashing water?
The point is, that photons radiate in ALL directions and transfer energy in ALL directions.
What do you think will happen to this transferred energy, when the photon hits matter? Any idea?
FK,
Do you suffer from a delusional compulsive disorder?
You seem to repeating the same witless gotcha, obviously disbelieving the evidence of your own lying eyes!
Are you aware of this wonderful concept called transparency? This is where photons pass through matter, like window glass, computer screens, watch and clock glasses, glass in picture frames and so on. I know you don’t believe it, but it’s true! Light even passes through the atmosphere from stars many, many, light years away!
There is another wonderful concept called reflection. This is where photons actually bounce off matter, without being absorbed. Of course, perceiving colour shows what happens when matter absorbs some photons and reflects others.
Are you perhaps delusional, as well as stupid and ignorant? I demand you answer!
Cheers.
Yes Mike, Fritz keeps asking the same question but avoids our examples, hints, and links as if they were poison.
He’s very afraid of reality.
JDHuffman says:
April 4, 2019 at 4:56 AM
He’s very afraid of reality.
_____________________________________
No. He is completely fearless.
Try it. Tell him reality and you will see.
Where does the energy of this non-adsorbed photons radiated by a colder body go to?
No links, no “hints”.
Just an straight forward answer.
Fritz, a reflected photon will travel until it hits mass. The comparison of wavelengths will be instantaneous. If there is a mismatch, the photon will again be reflected. The process will continue until the photon can eventually find something that will absorb it.
“…The process will continue until the photon can eventually find something that will absorb it.”
_______________________________________
Great fun, Huffman, realy. Haha.
But now a serious answer please.
1.April is over.
April 1st is over.
But climate clowns never stop, as you so well demonstrate.
TF,
Whichever way you choose to put it, in your scenario entropy must decrease. When the cooler body loses energy, it cools. It is now cooler than it was before. Even if the hotter body’s temperature did not increase (assume the photon is still in transit, say), then entropy has decreased, albeit for a short (but finite) time.
So you see, under no circumstances can the warmer body spontaneously increase in temperature, which is precisely in accord with the Clausius statement, at least.
Here it is again –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Of course, heat is measured by an increase in temperature in practice. You may have an imaginary scenario in which the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be shown to be invalid, in which case I repeat –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
No transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter. This causes an immediate decrease in entropy by creating a temperature differential. Not allowable, I’m afraid.
Eloquence and debating tactics will not turn fantasy into fact.
Cheers.
You don’t have a clue
“No transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter. This causes an immediate decrease in entropy by creating a temperature differential. Not allowable, Im afraid”
Except there is something available to do the work necessary to cause the transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter.
It’s the Sun!
bob,
Except that another source of heat, in and of itself, cannot force the transfer of energy from a colder body to a hotter.
Apart from that, the Sun is conspicuous by its absence at night. Additionally, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in surface cooling.
Have you anything factual to contribute, or just more stupid and ignorant, pointless pseudoscientific blather? No? Why would anyone be surprised?
The world wonders! Carry on regardless.
Cheers.
MF,
And yet my refrigerator moves heat from a cooler area to a warmer area all of the time. And this is done via another source of heat located at a nearby power plant which is converted into electricity that my refrigerator then uses to perform the work necessary to locally decrease the entropy even as the entropy of the entire system is still increasing.
“Apart from that, the Sun is conspicuous by its absence at night. ”
Um, no, it’s still there at night.
“Except that another source of heat, in and of itself, cannot force the transfer of energy from a colder body to a hotter”
So you say, but the sun heats the earth and the earth heats the CO2, and the CO2 heats the earth and the wheels on the bus go round and round.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
MF,
“Even if the hotter bodys temperature did not increase (assume the photon is still in transit, say), then entropy has decreased, albeit for a short (but finite) time.”
Thermodynamics laws are fundamentally statistical laws..they don’t apply to transfer of SINGLE photons or atoms.
N,
You wrote –
“Thermodynamics laws are fundamentally statistical laws..they don’t apply to transfer of SINGLE photons or atoms.”
Your response doesn’t seem to be related to the words of mine which you so kindly quoted.
Maybe you could explain what you mean by “fundamentally”, as this often appears as a weasel word when used by pseudoscientific climate cultists. How much energy needs to be present before the laws of thermodynamics apply? If a photon contains 10,000,000 times as much energy as another, do you have to multiply your minimum energy number by 10,000,000?
Have you the faintest idea of what you are talking about?
Maybe you would do better addressing what I said, rather than what I didn’t. What’s the point of quoting someone if you are going to fly off at an irrelevant tangent?
Carry on ignoring the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE, much less explain why it hasn’t worked for four and a half billion years as the earth cooled. What a fool! Worshipping an indescribable and invisible god is religion, not science.
Pray harder. A miracle may yet occur – maybe someone will devise a testable GHE hypothesis for the non-existent GHE!
Cheers.
Tim Folkerts has an important question to answer. No more distractions, please.
Before we get to JD’s eager questions about entropy, we ought to look back at JD’s understanding of basic physics.
Did you all see that? Any unheated object in a fixed 273 K environment will warm/cool until it is 273 K. So if the sphere had no power whatsoever, it would be 273 K.
In JD’s world, adding a 300 W heater would COOL the sphere by 3 K! (He does later admit that maybe the heater might simply have no effect, rather than cooling off the sphere.) This same sort of fundamental misunderstanding creeps into pretty much everything he does (eg his explanation of the blue/green plate thought experiment).
If heaters cool in JD’s world, there is no reason to even try to imagine how entropy works in his world!
Answer the question, Tim.
Tim has degenerated to the level of Nate, fluffball, and several others. He tries to coverup his deficiencies in physics with misrepresentations.
Here was my ACTUAL response: “The sphere will be emitting 300W/m^2, resulting in a surface at 270 K. The warmer walls might provide some slight warming, but never above 273. And certainly NOT 323K!”
Tim completely omitted my last two sentences. “The warmer walls might provide some slight warming, but never above 273. And certainly NOT 323K!
It appears he will attempt any deception to cover his incompetence.
Tsk, tsk.
Just in case anyone was wondering, this is the context for the question Tim’s about to answer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344407
Read from there until the end for the (approx. 79th) debunk of the Green Plate Effect, and then 20 days of denial, insults and trickery from a dedicated team of professional sophists.
Now, Tim…away you go.
Tim has a history of running away when he gets caught. I doubt he will show up to answer for all his fraud and deception.
Nothing new.
Those two sentences do nothing to improve your position, JD!
What do you disagree with bellow?
1) The walls are 273K.
2) An unheated object in a 273 K chamber will be 273 K.
3) A heated object in a 273 K chamber will be WARMER THAN 273 K (and not equal).
4) You said the heated object will be cooler than 273 K. At best equal to 273 K.
By your logic, as I turn down the heater, the sphere would keep getting colder!
#2
Answer the question, Tim.
You are disagreeing with #2 ??
If a sealed room has all the walls at 2O C, you disagree that unheated objects will equilibrate to 2O C? If the wall of my freezer are -10 C, what temperature do you think objects inside the freezer will be? If my oven is set to 150 C, will the casserole become warmer or cooler than 150 C?
Tim, your physics is horrible. 273K and 270K together make 323K? That is uproariously horrible!
Then, you got caught red-handed trying to take my words out of context, and misrepresenting them. You’re not only a clown, you’re a scoundrel.
You’re only fooling yourself and other clowns.
Learn some physics, and clean up your act.
At least when I add a heater, I calculate that an object will get warmer, not colder!
#3
Answer the question, Tim.
And even funnier, I figured out how you got the 323K.
[(273)^4 + (270)^4]*0.25 = 323
What a CLOWN!
And continuting to claim that I said adding a heater makes anything cooler is just simply dishonest.
Learn some physics and clean up your act.
Correction: [(273)^4 + (270)^4]^0.25 = 323
…and, for the fourth time, “answer the question, Tim”.
You are disagreeing with #3?
Heaters don’t make things warmer than the surroundings? Putting 60 W of power into a little glass sphere on my desk (aka a light bulb) won’t warm the light bulb above room temperature? Putting 300 W into a slightly larger sphere in a vacuum chamber won’t warm up the sphere above the temperature of the vacuum chamber walls?
#5
Answer the question, Tim.
Folkerts might be ready for an appointment with a shrink.
That’s what pseudoscience does to a person.
I’ve warned him and warned him.
answer the question:
“If it doesnt get absorbed then where does it go?”
Craig, maybe they go to rest homes, for dejected, rejected photons?
(There’s some pseudoscience you can suck up.)
As long as JD insists that heaters cool objects, there is no point is delving into more advanced questions.
Lets follow up on something ELSE you said, JD.
“The sphere will be emitting 300W/m^2, resulting in a surface at 270 K. ”
Clearly you use S-B to get this. 300 W/m^2 = 5.67e-8(270 ^ 4)
By this logic, if I turned the heater down to 250 W, the sphere would drop to 258 K? And at 200 W, the sphere would drop to 244 K? Heck, I should just turn the heater off all together and the sphere would drop to 0 K!
If this is NOT what you think, then what temperature would you predict for the sphere with these other amounts of heat? Are they all going to be 273 K to match the walls?
Folkerts, as long as you keep misrepresentating me, you’re a dishonest clown.
Clean up your act, then I will teach you some physics.
JD, The simple fact is that you claim that a heated object will be cooler than its surroundings. And you can’t support that claim, so you attack.
“The sphere will be emitting 300 W/m^2, resulting in a surface at 270 K. The warmer walls might provide some slight warming, but never above 273. And certainly NOT 323K!”
This was false the first time you said it and still false now. You are welcome to admit this glaring error and then we could try to move forward.
Tim, you’ve started quoting me exactly, so that cancels your dishonesty. But, you’re misinterpreting my quote, which leaves your incompetence.
I did not “…claim that a heated object will be cooler than its surroundings.”
That is your inaccurate inference.
Again, my exact quote: “The sphere will be emitting 300 W/m^2, resulting in a surface at 270 K. The warmer walls might provide some slight warming, but never above 273. And certainly NOT 323K!”
I specifically mentioned the temperature of the walls, 273K. I implied that the sphere might even warm that much, but never above 273K.
Your “323K” is nonsense.
You’ve cleaned up your act, somewhat. Now, you need to learn some physics.
‘I specifically mentioned the temperature of the walls, 273K. I implied that the sphere might even warm that much, but never above 273K.’
And, he still doesnt get it.
273K is what it will, obviously, reach with no added 300 W!
Now add 300 W to it. It stays the same temperature?!
C’mon JD, even grade schoolers can figure out this makes no sense.
“273K is what it will, obviously, reach with no added 300 W!”
Wrong. The flux the sphere receives depends on the distance to the walls and the geometry. It can NEVER receive more than 315 W/m^2. So it can never be above 273K.
“Now add 300 W to it. It stays the same temperature?!”
Yup. The sphere is already emitting and absorbing 315 W/m^2, if it’s at 273K. So it just reflects more back to the walls, which may have to be cooled to maintain the 273K, which was the condition of the original scenario.
“The flux the sphere receives depends on the distance to the walls and the geometry.”
A condition of the original scenario is that the walls of the vacuum chamber completely surround the sphere. (You can’t have a vacuum chamber with a hole in the wall!).
In this geometry, the flux received is always exactly 315 W/m^2 from the 273 K walls. So even this objection is invalid.
Tim, I never said there was a hole in the wall.
So your objection is invalid.
(This is like trying to have a conversation with an adolescent female.)
Tim doesn’t want to answer the question. He’s washing his hair.
“Tim, I never said there was a hole in the wall.”
The only way that the sphere would NOT receive 300 W/m^2 is if the walls did not completely surround the sphere — ie if there were some hole in the wall.
So by saying the sphere might not receive the full flux of 300 W/m^2 and might not be at 273 K, you ARE saying that there could be a hole in the wall.
Oops .. that should be “the full 315 W/m^2”
Tim, you’re just one big “oops”.
Clean up your act and learn some physics.
And yet, I am not the one who uses heaters to cool things. And I am not the one who uses heaters to absolutely no effect.
But you are one of the most determined people to avoid answering a question I have ever encountered.
Tim, no one is using heaters to cool things. Your problem is you can’t understand relevant physics. That causes your frustration. And apparently you become so frustrated you can’t think rationally.
Nothing new.
“Now add 300 W to it. It stays the same temperature?!
Yup. The sphere is already emitting and absorbing 315 W/m^2, if its at 273K. So it just reflects more back to the ”
Ok, JD is officially declaring he has less common sense than grade schoolers.
He is saying, if I send many watts of electric power to the heating element in my toaster, and we ask will it stay at room temperature? He will have to say ‘Yup’, and offer tangled logic..
Maybe DREMT can come and help you dig out of the deep hole of illogic that you’ve dug for yourself?
Maybe DREMT can explain to you that, NO, things heated by hundreds of Watts do not stay at room temperature.
Like the filaments of light bulbs, the heating element in his toaster, or space heater.
At work, we have vacuum systems with heating elements inside, designed to melt metal. Shockingly when power is applied to them, they get hot!
Ha! Neither JD cannot deal with the dumb consequences of his fake science. And co conspirator, DREMT, can offer no rope to pull to safety.
This shows the silliness you get when you insist that laws of physics, like Kirchoffs Law, and the Radiative Heat Transfer Law are invalid.
Nate shows up 3 days later and makes his false statements, hoping I won’t see them.
But, he got caught again!
(They are sooooo desperate.)
Nate, I’m not coming back to this dead thread. If you have a responsible question, ask at the very bottom.
Otherwise, you’re just playing with yourself….
I think I am going to have to limit the number of comments allowable from a single person. Maybe 1,000 should do it.
Trolls are an “old” problem on the ‘Net. There already appear to be posters who are using more than one alias these days, so they could simply create still more e-mail accounts and aliases to overcome any posting limit. Banning an individual is also easily worked around using the same method (you know who–> G***N). I’ve been a moderator on another blog and the traffic fell off a cliff when the newer “instant post” blogging appeared. The comments on RealClimate are moderated, so there’s much less traffic there as a result and more thought appears to be included in those comments.
Sad to say, moderation takes a lot of work…
My only comment at RealClimate was deleted. You may find that level of moderation acceptably more thoughtful. I call it bias and censorship.
Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to give excessive commenters a time out.
I’m taking a break from my own self-imposed timeout. Posting was/is becoming addicting.
Chic Bowdrie
I understand your reaction.
But it moves into the same blind-alley as Roy Spencer’s proposal, as both are based on quantitative aspects.
What we need is that people like Flynn, Robertson and others stop to call everybody disagreeing with them ‘stupid and ignorant’, or ‘blithering idiot’ and the like.
I can’t remember having ever insulting anybody here before Robertson started to name me and others ‘idiot’s. When that happens all the time, you loose any self-control.
All these people really show cowardice: they perfectly know that the lack of moderation on this blog allows them to publish any nonsense or attack.
Try to do that at Watts’ WUWT, and you get banned within hours. We don’t need to take RealClimate or SkS as examples.
A little reality-check for Bindidon:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347669
That was received in the comments under just one article. If I have time tomorrow, I may do a similar list for the mountains of sludge JD received under the same one. It will be about two or three times as long (to be honest I just may not have the time). Gordon and Mike Flynn get more than their fair share too. You really have absolutely no idea.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
You are, as usual, willingly interverting causes and effects.
1. I repeat for myself:
I can’t remember having ever insulted anybody here before Robertson started to name me and others ‘idiot’s. When that happens all the time, you loose any self-control.
2. YOU started creating the problems you sooo poor guy now are whining about all the time.
Simply by writing everywhere your tendencious, unilateral comments against lots of people:
“XXX, please stop trolling.”
But… you never wroote such comments concerning those people who troll as much as the others, but whose meaning you are a fan of, despite the incredible amount of insult AND nonsense they produced all the time:
– Flynn
– Robertson
– Eben
etc etc.
THAT, pseudomoderator, is the reality you try to dissimulate.
You were partial: noew you have to pay for your partiality.
The first you shoud do would be in my mind to change your pseudonym.
Regards
J.-P. Dehottay
Oh no! Politely asking trolls to stop trolling! That definitely justifies the comments I received concerning genital torture and how I’m supposedly so mentally unstable that I should be physically restrained, etc.
As promised, here is part of the slime JD received under the same article. This is everything from up to only a quarter of the way through (no exaggeration):
“…never contribute anything of value, and I mean “never” literally…your nonsense…neither of you has a lick of logical, or rational thought process…you are a fraud and phony and you like to troll…stupid unscientific declarations…you are about as useless as dirty toilet paper…get a clue…no one really cares about your declarations or opinions…most know you to be a complete fraud…you are a fraud and phony and you like to troll…can you post anything at all of value?…you are a phony fraud that pretends to have studied heat transfer…quit being such a phony jerk…your endless made up declarations…your phony arrogance…quit lying and being such a phony…it gets sickening to see…you don’t know real science and fake your way through things…you are an arrogant fraud…soon all will see how phony you are…what a fake you are… I can’t imagine him having a spouse, poor soul otherwise…he is a total fraud on this blog…most are aware he is a lying phony that pretends to have studied actual physics…the insulting arrogance of the two clowns on this blog…JDHuffman really does not know any physics…what a phony troll…JD goes from stupidity to insult…well for the first time you are not a lying phony troll…one thing I have going for me that you lack is logical rational thought process… you are talking bullshit!…you look extremely ignorant compared to Tim Folkerts…your unsupported anti-science declaration…this one is not even remotely logic…YOUR CLOWN PHYSICS…your declarations are lame and devoid of rational thought…you are not able to read well enough to learn actual physics…some short blog articles are hard enough for you to process…you are not logical or scientifically knowledgeable to even remotely hope to understand my last post…you made up physics is failing…pretend you studied physics…pretend you know heat transfer…keep the comedy flowing….your wacky made up ideas can amuse people…I just can sit back an be entertained at your funny attempts to pretend to know physics…post on give us a laugh!…are you being intentionally dense?…don’t pretend you studied real physics…I do not think your mind is capable of understanding the logic…you think you possess an open mind and are able to think…you are a simpleton phony…the error is on your ability to comprehend…you have very poor reading comprehension…you are just a troll…your inability to read well…you are a really ignorant poster….show the world how ignorant you are…worse than ignorant…you have this smug arrogance…severe case of Dunning-Kruger…you don’t have any real physics knowledge…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…we need your clown knowledge for some good belly laughs…your nonsense made up funny stuff…you are not rational or logical…You have to make up fake physics…you are an ignorant person…how did you do in this class?…did you graduate?…liar liar…I could help you get out of your mama’s basement if you want a entry level low pay third shift STEM job…JD fails the basics, typical for an entertainment specialist…the thoughtless one…you really do like to show your ignorance…no shame…mr. anti-science…your ignorance might be bliss to you but it is annoying to others…about the dumbest cartoon physics I have seen…any idiot can make up anything they want…your cartoons are worthless nonsense…you make yourself look really ignorant…JD’s physics are so outrageously uninformed…JD is simply an uninformed commenter here only for entertainment purposes…two-time loser JD…more false science please JD, your antics continue to amuse the blog readership…show this blog how incredibly ignorant JDHuffman really is…the best thing is to ignore an ignorant troll like you…you have to inject your troll comments until I play with you…you are a worthless blog troll…your pretend knowledge of physics is pathetic…You are about as smart as the noodle heads that post on Joseph Postma site…JD is so uninformed…if your sole aim is to troll, then you are right, no problem…prove you are not a troll…the funny thing might be that you actually believe you studied physics somewhere…boy you are one ignorant poster…you are not smart enough to see how ignorant your ideas are…you hate physics so much you want to remain in the dark…such sources would show you how ignorant you really are…you need to have rational and logical thought to qualify…“
If you think J.D. was reviewed badly I recall some of the reviews of g.e.r.a.n. and G asterisk E asterisk R asterisk A asterisk N asterisk (Gastro for short) before they were banned ,
Some people call them as they see them. Others are more polite. I am in the former category. My tolerance of fools is very limited.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347857
Bindidon,
I think examining examples is a good way to improve. I would reject RC and SkS models for being overly censorious with respect to ideological bias. OTOH, WUWT’s censorship seems limited to etiquette rather than a particular political or scientific opinion.
Rather than limiting the number of responses, or better the number of words, I suggest simply ignoring posters who resort to ad hominems and name calling. But I wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water either. Some seemingly obnoxious posters make some strong arguments or entertaining comments.
I think the funniest part of Bindidon’s 4:32 AM comment was that, reading between the lines, he is actually most bothered by the fact that I don’t ask “the right people” to stop trolling. It’s like, he’d be fine with the concept so long as I also involve the people he doesn’t like.
☺️
But by all means, Chic; start ignoring Norman, bobdroege, Nate, Svante, Bindidon, E Swanson, MikeR, Kristian, yourself, and the rest of the gang that resort to ad hominems and name-calling. Ignore me too, I guess. In fact, that would be great. I’d love to be ignored.
Lets face it DREMT. As a self-declared troll-cop you are thoroughly corrupt. And the whole community knows it.
You let the worst offenders slide..because they let all of your nonsense slide.
You’re as bad as Bindidon. Nate, we receive more abuse in the comments under one article than you have in your whole time commenting here. Whine away.
binny…”What we need is that people like Flynn, Robertson and others stop to call everybody disagreeing with them stupid and ignorant, or blithering idiot and the like.
I cant remember having ever insulting anybody here before Robertson started to name me and others idiots”.
************
I think you have exaggerated the case somewhat. Yes, I have called you an idiot a few times when you have behaved like an idiot.
BTW…my girlfriend calls me an idiot all the time. I find it amusing.
For example, when I posted a link in which NOAA admitted to slashing over 75% of its surface stations, and you defended them with absolute blather, I called you an idiot.
When NOAA and GISS claimed 2014 was the warmest year ever, based on confidence levels of 48% and 38% respectively that they were likely telling the truth, you defended them. In other words, their confidence levels were stating a 52% and 62% likelihood that they were lying.
When you have continued to use NOAA temperature data that they don’t use themselves, to create a case that NOAA and GISS time series are virtually identical to the UAH time-series, I have called you an idiot.
I reserve the word idiot for posters who are so far removed from reality, that their positions are absurd.
I think you have taken me far too seriously and far too literally. Idiot is just a word, it does no harm. You have been unable to mount a satisfactory rebuttal, without leaning on appeals to authority, as if NOAA and GISS are beyond lying based solely on their names.
The IPCC lie and manipulate all the time because they serve politicians, not science. I find it somewhat exasperating that you are so hung up on your appeal to authority that you refuse to open your eyes to such fact.
GR, I’m curious…what do you think those 38% and 48% figures in relation to the ranking of years even means? How do you think it is calculated? I’m asking these questions because I’m hoping you’ll take a moment to understand what they actually mean at the most technical level.
bdgwx: “I’m asking these questions because I’m hoping you’ll take a moment to understand what they actually mean at the most technical level.”
bdgwx, Gordon has already indicated what “they actually mean”. The two agencies were requested to provide evidence of AGW for Obama’s State of the Union speech. They both claimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Later, they clarified with 38% and 48%, so that they couldn’t be proscuted for fraud.
Just more evidence the hoax is all about politics, not science.
JD, How do you think they are calculated?
Using “statistics”, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
Current no. of comments are:
Mike Flynn = 40
Gordon Robertson = 30
DREMT = 30
Stephen P Anderson = 25
MikeR = 24
bdgwx = 20
Craig T = 19
JD Huffman = 19
E Swanson = 15
Kristian = 14
Nate = 12
Fritz Kraut = 10
Norman = 8
I have no plans to make too many more comments, unless I continue to be personally attacked by multiple commenters.
Doctor Empty,
You get treated the way you treat people.
Be nicer to others and others will be nice to you.
Sure, bob. Whatever you say.
dremt…Gordon Robertson = 30
I always wanted to be a writer.
I’m lonely, what can I say?
Keep on keeping on…we will see who’s the winner by the end of the month!
You folks that are only interested in harassment need to find another place to get your jollies. If you can’t amicably join a discussion without making personal attacks and generally nasty innuendos about the subject matter, you can at least be humane and keep quiet.
Bill,
Your comment is entirely correct and clearly this is how we should all behave in an ideal world. Unfortunately, the comments section here is a bit of a wild west and I have been a serial offender in participating in some of this. My Mea Culpa is accompanied by the following statement of reasons.
I really wish one could have rational scientific discourse with all of the individuals that comment here.
However, over the past 5 or so years it has been clear there has been one particular commentator, along with his accompanying aliases, that cannot be reasoned with. Dr Spencer has banned him along with two others for this type of behaviour. The other two have left the scene but this character has transmogrified into at least two permanent offshoots, so he does not seem to ever get the message. He still persists despite Roy’s recent labeling him (actually only one if his aliases but we get the picture, even if he doesn’t) as a troll . I can understand Dr Spencer’s reluctance to ban him totally again as has it hasn’t really worked out that well in the past. His Medusa like qualities means we might end up with four sock puppets running riot instead of just the two.
With regard to him/them playing the victim card, I am afraid he doesn’t hold a strong hand. This fellow has dished out more than his fair share of material that could only be characterized as vexatious in the extreme.
Huff/DREMT used to, in his previous incarnation as Gasterisk, label everybody else’s arguments as hilarious. I seem to recall a 100 or more such comments per month. In his latest version he seems to have outsourced this tactic to another of his persona. The behaviour of this alias with his persistent “please stop trolling” is a prime example. You are supposed to ignore the taunts of a troll and hope they will go away. This tactic to date seems to have been totally ineffective. My responses may also prove to be fruitless but you never know.
I stopped commentating regularly at this site about a year ago primarily due to the frustrations of dealing with Gastro and his ilk and have just returned to the fray. Many of the discussions are eerily similar to those of year ago with the only the names of the protagonist(s) changed. As they say the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Finally I have to say I have had to resort to ridicule and mockery as my two main weapons to deal with the Gastro/Huff/DREMT team. I am keeping sarcasm, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire in reserve. You can’t question my humanity as I have, until now, avoided the use of heavy weaponry.
MikeR might be Norman. He pounds incessantly on his keyboard, without ever making a point. He has the same juvenile obsession with personalities. The only difference is he hasn’t tried any fake physics yet.
When he does, we’ll know for sure….
JDHuffman
Norman has not tried fake physics. Mine is all well established textbook physics. Good stuff, you should take some time and read it.
Here I will give you a link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl02ky5h40xDygiCIvDHFrj5c9hYvcNN/view
Have at it.
Norman, until you understand such basics as “rotating on its own axis” and “fluxes don’t simply add”, you will never understand physics.
(Just to mention a few topics.)
God Norman, we have been outed. How did he know? Maybe we are so stylistically similar?
We do share something in common though. The same disdain for his nonsense.
Here is my attempt at a fake physics demolition job on his 3 plate depiction which he has conveniently forgotten.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346860 .
bill…”You folks that are only interested in harassment need to find another place to get your jollies”.
I have not seen what I’d call harassment here. I find many of the comments to be entertaining.
There are subtle thrusts by alarmists, particularly those who have advised me I have been informed by them as to the truth. Has anyone mentioned arrogance?
Partly for Bindidon (see end).
ENSO updates:
NOAA will almost certainly call a weak el Nino when March data come through in a few days, according to their criteria, which would be one of the lowest thresholds.
https://tinyurl.com/y255ywhj
https://tinyurl.com/y5z4von8
BoM remains on el Nino alert, but it’s less certain they will call el Nino, owing to their higher threshold.
https://tinyurl.com/q67jw2x
Japanese Meteorological Agency will very likely call el Nino next month:
https://tinyurl.com/y5sv28gn
The MEI index, which I favour owing to having 5 variables instead of just 1, has moved location since last I looked. Here is the latest web page and indices. The value set is different, resembling the other indices more now.
https://tinyurl.com/y5hfkwwo
(This last for Bindidon, in case it was not known)
barry
Thanks for the link to V2, last week it wasn’t active yet.
It is interesting to see that 1982/83 has retroactively bypassed 1997/98:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
CO2 never was able to warm the Earth. It was all a hoax.
But now it has come down to the “final countdown”.
A major La Niña could easily drop UAH global below zero. Such an anomaly, after 40 years, would not be good news for Warmists.
To keep the pseudoscience party going, we need another El Niño!
Maybe even by Cinco de Mayo?
Olé!
To you list let me add a nice little corner:
https://werme.bizland.com/werme/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
As you can see, some people really need a psy.
They can’t stop their own CO2/El Nino nonsense nobody else is talking about, some bloody warmistas excepted.
Ironically, I only started doing these updates because ‘skeptics’ started to put so much faith in what ENSO events would reveal. For example, the so-called pause “will return” after a la Nina was a constant refrain just after the 2016 el Nino. That notion has appeared on this very thread, too. They can’t let it go. They need a return to ‘pause’. Talk about motivated reasoning.
Ironically, I only made the comment because of Warmists “need” for another strong El Niño. Continuing the irony, I actually prefer El Niño conditions. My little plot of the globe benefits from the increased precipitation. So, if our votes meant anything, we would both be voting for El Niño.
But, we both know the unavoidable reality–the “little girl” will be back.
I have no preference.
barry…”That notion has appeared on this very thread, too. They cant let it go. They need a return to pause”
‘The pause’ is an alarmist term. It’s denial that the warming has ended for some 20 years. Since 1998, we’ve had little or no sustained warming.
Are you thinking 2016 is the top? No more warming from here on out? Where do you think will happen to the 200e21 joules of energy that have accumulated in the oceans since 1998?
The ‘pause’ was a notion kicked off by AGW contrarian Bob Carter in 2006:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming…-it-stopped-in-1998.html
And given plenty of air by skeptics ever since. The climate establishment responded to the notion coming up with different results over the next few years.
Now the ‘pause’ is gone, if ever it was there in more than word, and ‘skeptics’ unskeptically desire its return.
Speaking of ENSO the El Nino became official as of this morning using CPC guidelines and the ONI.
Interesting fact about calculating the ONI:
“Due to a significant warming trend in the Nio-3.4 region since 1950, El Nio and La Nia episodes that are defined by a single fixed 30-year base period (e.g. 1971-2000) are increasingly incorporating longer-term trends that do not reflect interannual ENSO variability. In order to remove this warming trend, CPC is adopting a new strategy to update the base period.
There will be multiple centered 30-year base periods that will be used to define the Oceanic Nio index (as a departure from average or “anomaly”). These 30-year base periods will be used to calculate the anomalies for successive 5-year periods in the historical record.”
If NOAA still used the the 1936-1965 base period for calculations every year would be an El Nino year.
“If NOAA still used the the 1936-1965 base period for calculations every year would be an El Nino year.”
What a pile of excrement!
If every year were an El Niño year, we would certainly know about it!
What will they try next?
The Nino-3.4 region 1986 – 2015 average is 0.4C higher than the 1936 – 1965 average in May and 0.9C in October.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
So now they’re adjusting SSTs also, huh?
Not the SSTs, the calculation for the ONI. Since any “adjustment” is in the downward direction are you suggesting that it was done to make it look like the Earth is not warming?
The greater the ignorance, the greater the suspicion.
This information takes only a little effort to hunt down, and is explained quite openly if one cares to look.
And it makes sense. El Ninos/la Ninas are an in-system fluctuation, observable on multiple metrics, not just temperature. So if there is a metric that has a trend more persistent than the fluctuation, one must remove that trend from the data on which the fluctuation is calculated.
Otherwise, as Craig says, we would statistically be in a permanent el Nino at this time, as SSTs have gone up over the long term. That’s why the institutes monitoring ENSO detrend the data to expose the fluctuation more clearly.
That’s right – they get rid of the warming trend. The dirty alarmists.
Okay gents, let’s consider some reality.
My property benefits from an El Niño. With a strong El Niño, I can get about 30% more rainfall. So if they change their base line, making it harder to obtain “official” El Niñ conditions, do you believe it will reduce my rainfall?
It’s funny how reality always wins out, huh?
“So if they change their base line, making it harder to obtain ‘official’ El Niñ conditions…”
The baseline is changed to make it easier to monitor ENSO conditions.
…the Internet never forgets (courtesy of the Wayback Machine).
I cant count the number of references I havent been able to recover at W.M. Sometimes its robot texts blocking, and sometimes its just that they are not found. Anyone can request that W.M. hide anything.
Sorry, I wish it were otherwise, but the internet has a selective memory.
For those seemingly convinced they understand QED (photons and how they interact with things, and all that), consider the following –
As I have mentioned before, Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” If you agree with this statement, what sort of experiment could be devised to establish if photons emitted by a cooler body were absorbed by a hotter body?
Bear in mind that the quantum world is not the classical one. For example the double slit experiment shows that if you detect which slit a photon passes through you do not get interference. If you don’t, the photons behave as a wave, even if you count them as they proceed from the emitter to the slits.
How do the photons “know” you are looking at them one way or another? It doesn’t matter! QED theory predicted this behaviour, and the theory has been verified. No point talking about “billiard balls” or “bouncing molecules”.
It might offend common sense, so I’ll almost finish with another Feynman quote (Surprise, surprise!)-
“The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
Any ideas for an experiment (don’t forget any observations you try to make will prevent you from getting the answer you want)?
Cheers.
MF blovates again, ignoring my latest experimental results. Have you figured out yet how the ice slab warmed the metal plate? I say it’s back radiation from the ice slab to the metal plate, which the IR EM absorbing plastic sheets also provide. It’s called radiation shielding, if you want to look it up. I’m sure that you remember that ice slab is emitting thermal IR EM at almost 300 W/m^2 toward the metal plate…
Yes Swanson, your “ice slab” was funny. You can heat a plate in a vacuum, and you can heat a plate in a freezer.
You must be amazed….
ES,
If you can’t be bothered quoting me, you are just trolling. On that basis, I can’t be bothered responding.
Cheers.
MF, As expected, when confronted with a rebuttal to his favorite claim, slithers away into the night.
Swanson, maybe you would like to explain the increase in enthalpy with no change in energy in/out.
The 3 plates are together >>> 244K…244K…244K
They are slightly apart >>> 244K…290K…244K
ES,
You wrote –
“MF, As expected, when confronted with a rebuttal to his favorite claim, slithers away into the night.”
Unfortunately, you haven’t managed to confront me with anything. What “favorite claim” are you claiming you have “rebutted”? I am prepared to let others decide just how stupid and ignorant (not to say delusional) you are.
As JDH pointed out, you seem to be amazed that you can raise the temperature of an object by using a heat source at a higher temperature! You may have noticed by now that nobody seems to care – that phenomenon has been observed since the dawn of time.
Good luck – maybe you could pay people to applaud your brilliance. Apart from that, the world is unlikely to beat a path to your door. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
JDHuffman
Your point can be demonstrated with a strong insulating material instead of plates.
With just the blue plate, it reaches a steady state temperature of 244 K. Now if you wrap it up in good insulation, the blue plate will heat up and reach a higher temperature until the energy out of the insulation equals that going into the blue plate. No change in energy in or out at steady state, but the blue plate will be much hotter than 244 K once a new steady state is reached with good insulation surrounding the plate.
Norman, surely you are not that stupid?
Adding insulation changes the conditions. A vacuum is NOT a radiative insulator.
Together >>> 244K…244K…244K
Slightly apart >>> 244K…290K…244K
There is an increase in enthalpy, with no change in energy in/out.
JDHuffman
I was responding to your post.
YOU: “Swanson, maybe you would like to explain the increase in enthalpy with no change in energy in/out.”
There is no change with the energy in/out if you insulate the blue plate. The same energy in and in time the same energy out yet the blue plate is much hotter (contains more internal energy).
And in the blue/green plate situation you have drastically changed the energy in/out for the blue plate (not the overall state). The blue plate no longer conducts any energy to either green plate. That is a significant change.
Norman, adding insulation changes conditions. So it is irrelevant and merely a distraction.
When the plates are slightly separated, energy transfer by conduction ends, but radiative energy transfer begins.
MF wrote:
Well now, since our resident troll(s)/sock puppets have decided that my demonstrations of back radiation actually just represent another form of “insulation” and thus does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, perhaps it’s time they also admitted that a dimilar physical process in the atmosphere also does not violate said “Law”. And, as a consequence, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere must therefore result in a warmer surface. Of course, MF can’t bring itself to actually writing something which agrees with that conclusion after years(?) of claiming otherwise, resorting instead to more obfuscation.
Swanson, keep twisting and spinning reality. It’s a cheap thrill.
It’s like jumping off a tall building. At first you feel like you’re flying….
E. Swanson says, April 5, 2019 at 8:04 AM:
Why the “must”? How do you know it’s a given?
ES,
“And, as a consequence, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere must therefore result in a warmer surface. Of course, MF can’t bring itself to actually writing something which agrees with that conclusion after years(?) of claiming otherwise, resorting instead to more obfuscation.”
Unfortunately, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and you can’t actually describe the GHE, can you? Why should I agree with your stupid and ignorant conclusions?
Go ahead and believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, if you wish. Then wish in one hand, and urinate in the other, and see which fills up first!
Maybe you could believe that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter? Have you tried that?
Off you go now. You might need more heaters, insulation, and other intricacies to show that impeding the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer results in an increase in temperature. Good luck.
Cheers.
Kristian, It’s not a “given”, it’s what happens in the atmosphere when there are different amounts of greenhouse gases, for example, when the air is moist and when it’s very dry. CO2 is just another greenhouse gas and increasing it’s concentration will produce the same result as going from a dry atmosphere to a moist one, except the wavelengths influenced are different.
More accurate to write as a given: And, as a consequence, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere must therefore result in a warmer surface than without that added CO2.
Bright sunny day, clear sky.
Temperature directly overhead… -35 F
Ground temperature (shade)… 61 F
Daily reality check.
Just another reality check.
Bright sunny day, clear sky.
Temperature directly overhead -24 F
Ground temperature (shade) 68 F
The Sun warms the surface, and the surface warms the atmosphere.
It’s kind of like a reverse GHE, huh?
Nothing new.
E. Swanson says, April 5, 2019 at 10:47 AM:
Oh, really? So the fundamental premise lying at the heart of the “AGW” idea is invalid? More CO2 in the atmosphere mustn’t necessarily cause average surface temps to rise?
That’s quite an admission.
Only, in the real-world, more H2O in the atmospheric column above land (i.e. a solid, unmoving surface) consistently correlates with a LOWER average surface temperature, not a higher one, heat input being equal.
Even WITH a much stronger “GHE”, as radiatively defined.
“It’s kind of like a reverse GHE, huh?”
No, that’s obviously a forward GHE as your two overhead readings would have been space about 3K without the atm. GHE so they are way positive “given” the GHE. Thanks for providing Mike Flynn’s long sought GHE test data. An actual test from JD was a bit unexpected though, especially one proving the GHE, way to go JD.
“More CO2 in the atmosphere mustn’t necessarily cause average surface temps to rise?”
Yes. That’s true as there are many more global surface Tmean forcings than just CO2 et. al. IR active gas. CO2 is just one that doesn’t cycle, it’s always additive over the atm. Tmean without the added CO2 ppm.
fluffball believes the lapse rate is “proof” of the GHE!
Of course, to clowns, EVERYTHING is “proof” of the GHE.
Nothing new.
FK wrote earlier –
“To make this endless story short:
None of you climate deniers have the slightest idea, what should happen with the radiated energy from a colder body, if it doesnt warm the receiving body.
Why dont you just admitt, that you reject physics and reality, because you dont like reality?
That wold be fair, wouldnt it??”
FK refused to acknowledge that visible light can pass through a transparent medium such as glass without being absorbed. Simply put, the final destination of all radiated energy in the universe will result in a situation where entropy is maximised, no thermodynamic free energy – the “Heat Death of the Universe”. Or maybe not – how the heck would anybody know?
FK doesn’t like the current reality, where no matter how many squillion joules you have available, if they have been emitted by ice, you cannot employ them to raise the temperature of a single drop of water.
FK is stupid if he believes he can raise the temperature of a hotter body, solely by exposing it to the radiation of a cooler one. Ignorant, if he does not know why.
Stupid and ignorant.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
MF, you silly guy(?), did you even take one minute to read my ice slab demo? If you had done so, you might have noticed that the ice slab positioned between the cold interior of the freezer and the heated plate caused the temperature of the heated plate to increase. If I had gone to the trouble to place “a single drop” of water on the top of the heated plate, it’s temperature would have also been increased. Reality bites, doesn’t it?
ES,
You believe you can heat a drop of water with a heated plate (presumably hotter than the water drop).. Astounding! Amazing! Earth shattering!
Excellent! Now you may fantasise about replacing your pseudoscientifically vague water drop with one of 80 C.
Try raising its temperature with a plate heated to 75 C. Do you need more ice, perhaps?
Even fantasy bites, if you can’t get anybody to believe your favourite fantasy.
Off you go now. Surround a thermometer with CO2. Oh, you need a heater to make thermometer hotter? What a surprise! Try putting it in the Sun. Hotter now? In your fantasy, that would be due to the CO2, I suppose.
What a fool.
Cheers.
craig t…”Any version of the 2nd law is only concerned with the net transfer of energy. It doesnt require tracking every photon absorbed or emitted by an object”.
The 2nd law was stated very precisely by Clausius and he said nothing about the net transfer of energy. He talked only about the one-way transfer of HEAT.
There is no net transfer between bodies of different temperaturesvia radiation. A hotter body loses heat when it is converted to EM, and the EM disappears if it is absorbed by a cooler body.
The 2nd law is about a one-way transfer of HEAT from a hotter body to a cooler body. If the transfer is by radiation, which is not heat, but electromagnetic energy, the EM serves only as a messenger. There is no way to add/subtract it to get a net ENERGY, since both forms of energy do not exist simultaneously.
“The 2nd law was stated very precisely by Clausius and he said nothing about the net transfer of energy. He talked only about the one-way transfer of HEAT.”
Clausius did talk about radiant energy:
“The discussion must also be extended to the radiant heat, or otherwise expressed, to the heat transmitted through the universe in the form of advancing vibrations of the ether, and also to such motions as cannot be comprehended under the name heat. … I reserve for future consideration the more particular application of the mechanical theory of heat and especially of the law of equivalents of transformation to radiant heat.”
Boltzmann expanded the concept of entropy to include radiant energy. Net radiant transfer is determined using the StefanBoltzmann law. The formula subtracts the radiant emission of the cooler object from the radiant emission of the warmer object to find the net energy transfer between the two objects.
Craig believes: “Net radiant transfer is determined using the StefanBoltzmann law.”
Wrong Craig. The S/B law does NOT consider “net”. It only refers to the emission from ONE surface.
The equation from the S/B law only has ONE “T”: P/A = σT^4
Here’s the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to find the net rate of heat loss by a warm object in a cooler environment:
P = e delta A (T^4 – Tc^4)
Where P is the net radiated power, e is emissivity, delta is the SB constant, A is area, T is the temperature K of the warm object and Tc is the temperature K of the environment.
Wrong again, Craig. That equation has NO practical application. If used incorrectly, it violates the laws of physics.
The S/B law does NOT involve ΔT.
.
Craig T
You have the correct physics. JDHuffman is wrong again. Nothing new. He does not believe that is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I linked him to a science source clearly saying it was. The part of the Stefan-Boltzmann law JDHuffman refers to is if there is no other radiating bodies. It is an isolated case of the overall Law which is used all the time in actual engineering applications. If JDHuffman wanted to know this he could look online for engineering problems involving radiative heat transfer. The equation you posted is used in most the problems.
The T^4 is the temperature of the Surface that the rate of heat transfer is being determined. The Tc^4 is the amount of energy the colder surroundings emit toward the hotter surface. The energy lost by the surface is the amount of energy the surface emits minus the energy it gains from its surroundings. All physics textbooks on heat transfer make this clear. JDHuffman could read the material and correct his incorrect view. He won’t though. Nothing New with him. He does not read actual physics. It would interfere with his made up version he believes in (even with zero support and in direct contradiction of actual testing performed by E. Swanson and Roy Spencer).
Poor Norman desperately tries again.
The S/B Law is perfectly clear. It only refers to ONE temperature–the temperature of the emitting surface.
Clowns try to seek to pervert the well established physics.
And failing that, Norman tries to cling to others, while imitating me.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
It is not my ideas. This one is from an engineering site.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
Check it out. It explains what you don’t understand about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Not that it will change your belief. Nothing new. It seems real physics is not able to sway your belief system. I have proved you wrong and inaccurate. You are not able to do the same with any valid supporting evidence. You may post your opinion I am wrong or I don’t understand the link. All false opinions. You will never support any of your claims. You never have and you never will but you will continue to make them and DREMT will continue to support them no matter how far off and unscientific they are.
Nothing New. I am using up my quota of 1000 posts with nothing to show for it. I give facts, evidence and supporting links. You give unsupported opinions.
“and DREMT will continue to support them…”
Once again I’m dragged into something, for no apparent reason.
DREMT, when poor Norman starts pounding on his keyboard, it’s just a flurry of random rambling. He never gets the physics correct, so he has to bring personaltiies into it. Often, his randomness actually causes him to get something correct. He was right when he stated: “I am using up my quota of 1000 posts with nothing to show for it.”
So true….
Norman, that bogus equation has been debunked numerous times. You just don’t have the background to understand it. You find some website, that you can’t understand, and you believe you have “proved” something.
The very website you linked to clearly explains the bogus equation is for perfect black bodies that radiate to each other. It does not mention “absorb”. It incorrectly uses the term “heat”.
The 3 plates example is just one more example of debunking the bogus equation. The values, 244K, 290K, and 200 Watts, fit the equation, but are INCORRECT. The 290K violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
You just don’t understand, but at least you know how to type….
Hmmm, who will be randomly brought into it next, I wonder…Joseph Postma? Claes Johnson?
JDHuffman
How wrong can you get? YOU: “Norman, that bogus equation has been debunked numerous times. You just dont have the background to understand it.”
An equation used in all radiative heat transfer engineering is “bogus” and has been debunked? By who? When? Again you state an unsupported and unsupportable opinion on matters you are ignorant of.
E. Swanson has clearly demonstrated the falsehood of your deluded beliefs. You make claims that are totally untrue and have been experimentally shown to be completely false and yet you need to pretend they are real science. No your opinions are not science, they are not even good ideas.
You will keep going with the nonsense. Nothing new.
WRONG again, Norman.
The bogus equation is NOT “used in all radiative heat transfer engineering”. You are delusional. Again, you state an unsupported and unsupportable opinion on matters you are ignorant of.
Swanson’s “experiment” only demonstrated his inability to perform meaningful experiments. He still hasn’t revealed the relevant information. Like you, he clearly doesn’t understand thermodynamics.
You will keep going with such nonsense. Nothing new.
Above I posted a link to a 1961 paper discussing the transfer of heat within a space vehicle or satellite. Long before anyone knew about rising CO2 and GHW wasn’t even a twinkle in a warmist’s eye. Throughout the paper they use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the net radiant exchange of energy. They look at many factors affecting radiant transfer but start with the simplest example of one blackbody completely enclosing the other of a differing temperature.
Look at the equation they give on page 20.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/271917.pdf
Heck, even Kristan uses the formula:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348331
I could break the 1000 post limit by linking to engineering pages using that formula. You should consider that they all may be right about this.
But in full disclosure I don’t think Swanson has a good enough set up to accurately measure the change in temperature caused by back radiation from ice. That requires a well furnished physics lab.
tim…”As long as the net energy flow is from warmer to cooler, entropy will increase in the system”.
Entropy is about heat, not energy per se. It is about thermal energy only.
BTW…that applies equally to the 1st law, described as the conservation of energy, It applies only to work and heat but both are normally involved with other forms of energy.
Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at the temperature T at which the changes occur. Also, he stated the infinitesimal change as
ds = dQ/T
If you sum that through integration, you get roughly S = Q/T, provided T is constant. Therefore entropy is related to total heat in a process.
Enthalpy is the heat ‘content’ of s system. Enthalpy is related to the internal energy and the effect on it by work done by or on the system. Entropy merely expresses the total heat transferred from or to a system.
Things to note:
-If you keep T constant by sourcing the heat in a heat bath, S simply equals Q(total) transferred over a process.
-T is a relative measure of heat. In a heat bath, at constant T, there is theoretically a constant source of heat, therefore entropy is the amount of heat withdrawn from the bath (or added to it from a hotter body).
-if the process is reversible, the integral cancels and S = 0.
-if the process is irreversible, entropy increases till the process terminates. That’s the same thing as claiming the heat increases till the process terminates.
-for bodies of different temperatures where hotter body 1 is T1 and cooler boy 2 is T2, entropy becomes:
S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1)
Thermal processes are determined by the initial and final conditions. If the above represent such a process, where T1 = T2, S = 0 and the process is reversible.
If the process is irreversible, and T1 > T2, S is always positive, as Clausius defined entropy. It must be greater than or equal to zero.
Entropy is nothing more than a means of keeping tract of the heat transferred in a process. It can never be negative, by definition, therefore the heat (Q) transfer MUST be from the hotter body to the cooler body or S will be negative.
Because substances break up as they emit heat, entropy can describe the movement toward disorder. However, that was an aside by Clausius, the real intent of entropy was to give the 2nd law a mathematical expression.
A heat transfer from a cooler body to a hotter body makes no sense either by the 2nd law stated in words, or by entropy, the mathematical statement of the 2nd law.
GR,
“A heat transfer from a cooler body to a hotter body makes no sense either by the 2nd law stated in words, or by entropy, the mathematical statement of the 2nd law.”
Again, with the caveat that the system encompassing the cooler body and the hotter body is isolated. This is a crucial distinction. The word isolated is used to mean without external stimuli or “by its own means” or spontaneously.
We know heat can indeed flow from a cooler body to hotter body because we can all observe that refrigerators work. The reason this works is because the refrigerator is using an external energy source to cause an effect that would otherwise not be possible if the device was left to evolve “by its own means” or “spontaneously”.
Clausius mentions this caveat in his own work.
Just as the refrigerator will stop working when you removed its energy source (electricity supply) so too would the GHE stop working if you removed its energy source (the Sun).
Wow, that’s a real twist on the IPCC AGW/GHE nonsense.
Next Warmists will be saying “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
They’re learning….
b,
Considering you cannot even describe this “GHE”, pretending you know what makes it “work” is just demonstrating silliness, if not stupidity and ignorance.
Even so, you seem to be saying that the GHE stops working at night, or during a solar eclipse, or indoors and so on. The fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years shows that the GHE does not actually heat anything, given that the Sun seems to have kept shining over this period.
If you cannot even describe the GHE, why should anyone take the slightest notice of your pseudoscientific pronouncements?
Carry on blathering.
Cheers.
The GHE does not stop working at night because the outgoing longwave radiation, which still occurs at night, is mostly the result of daytime heating. The Sun does not stop working at night. It just shines on half of the surface at a time so there is a cyclic as opposed to continuous nature to it. Note that heat pump systems are often cyclic as well and that in no way prevents them from working.
b,
If you cannot describe the GHE, why would anybody take notice of you telling them how it works?
How did the GHE work in allowing the Earth’s surface to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so?
If you could provide a useful definition of the GHE it would be a start, except you can’t, so that’s more of a dead end than a start.
You could try blathering about heat pump systems, orogenesis, parthenogenesis, pressure gradients, or, indeed anything else which would avoid having to acknowledge that you have no clue. How about getting really silly, and claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
That should get a few laughs!
Cheers.
MickeyFlynn,
Why do you keep referring to the molten core of the Earth cooling
over 4 and a 1/2 billion years time in the bitter cold vacuum of the universe as having something to do with the temperature of our atmosphere at any given time?
The Earth’s atmosphere has warmed and cooled on many occasions and for hundreds of millions of years at a time in the past while the molten core has continued cooling which easily disproves your straw man.
duke…”Why do you keep referring to the molten core of the Earth cooling
over 4 and a 1/2 billion years”
Don’t you think heat from that molten core has warmed the oceans over that 4 1/2 billion years? I means, there are underwater vents of molten magma pouring into the ocean base.
Don’t you think that warming in the oceans has helped the Earth warm as a whole? The oceans are like a hot water bottle that stabilizes the atmospheric temperature. Don’t ya think?
DS,
You wrote –
“The Earth’s atmosphere has warmed and cooled on many occasions and for hundreds of millions of years at a time in the past while the molten core has continued cooling which easily disproves your straw man.”
I’d ask you what physical phenomenon would explain this magical warming and cooling, apparently happening at ramdom for no discernible reason, but I know you have no explanation whatsoever.
Keep rambling.
Cheers.
Gordo wrote:
And MF continued with the delusional thinking:
Hey trolls, the deeper layers of the world’s oceans are very cold, near zero C. So, how is it possible in your warped physics that there’s enough energy from the ocean bottom to warm the ocean surface and the atmosphere above, which are much warmer at tropic and temperate latitudes? Wouldn’t that be a violation of your favorite straw man, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics?
Gordon,
MFlynn makes a straw man argument with the Earth’s molten core cooling over 4 1/2 billion years = no atmospheric GHE.
a – He conflates different things to build his straw man, the molten core with the atmosphere blanket.
b – Any leisure look at this planets epochs global temperatures shows many instances of going from cooling to warming. The end of the Upper Ordovician Epoch and Permian glaciations 300 million years ago eventually led into the warm Eocene Optimum 50 million years ago, which was many degrees Celsius warmer.
According to Flynn’s straw man that is not possible.
So unless you and Flynn are claiming the molten core spewed millions of tons of GHG’s into the atmosphere, the 4 1/2 billion year cooling molten core has little to do with atmospheric warming over millions of recent years.
If you both are claiming it was the molten core that put GHG’s into the atmosphere, then you’re also explaining exactly what the GHE is, don’t ya think?
And didn’t you just prove Flynn’s molten core straw man wrong Gordon?
Flynn claims the planet has been cooling for 4 1/2 billion years. Now you Gordon claim that ‘underwater vents of molten magma pouring into the ocean’ are warming said ocean and therefore warming the atmosphere.
Flynn says that impossible, the planet is cooling.
So which is it? Is the molten core cooling down the planet like Flynn claims or is it now warming the planet like you claim?
bdg…”Again, with the caveat that the system encompassing the cooler body and the hotter body is isolated. This is a crucial distinction. The word isolated is used to mean without external stimuli or by its own means or spontaneously”.
Isolated systems are a red-herring argument. A thermally-isolated system can exchange no mass or heat with it’s surroundings.
The atmosphere does exchange heat with the surface and space and it exchanges mass in the form of water vapour and precipitation. The 2nd law applies to the atmosphere therefore a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface, especially a surface that warmed it. That’s a recycling of heat to produce an increase in the source’s temperature which is perpetual motion.
A refrigerator work by making use of the Ideal Gas Law.
PV = nRT. When you compress a low pressure gas to a high pressure liquid, it’s temperature rises. When you run that HP liquid through a radiator exposed to the environment, it loses heat to the environment.
When you take the HP liquid at a reduced temperature and force it through a nozzle, it becomes a spray and when you run that spray into another radiator it expands and cools to a low pressure gas. If that radiator is in an area you want to cool, the radiator cools the air.
That what Clausius meant by compensation. In any other environment without compensation, heat can NEVER, by it’s own means, be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body.
It’s actually rather simple. I don’t know why climate alarmists have so much trouble with it.
GR,
A natural example of locally lowered entropy is that of frontogenesis or the tightening of temperature gradients in the atmosphere. There are many different processes that can causes frontogenesis with kinematic effects dominating the list, but radiation can also cause this to happen as well. Frontogenesis isn’t a process that could happen if the atmosphere were left to evolve “by its own means” or spontaneously.
bdgwx: “Frontogenesis isn’t a process that could happen if the atmosphere were left to evolve ‘by its own means’ or spontaneously.”
Very good, bdgwx. Yes indeed, the Sun is a dominant player in weather systems. As you may have heard: “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
b,
Do you have a point? Randomly stringing sciencey sounding words together, imparting no useful information whatever, is the distinguishing mark of the desperate pseudoscientific climatological cultist.
Try lifting some more random stuff from Wikipedia if you think it will make you look intelligent.
Ho ho ho! Good luck with that.
Cheers.
bdg…”A natural example of locally lowered entropy is that of frontogenesis…”
Locally lowered entropy is another term for locally lowered heat. Call it what you want it’s all about heat transfer and its direction.
GR, Frontogenesis makes cool bodies cooler and warm bodies warmer. And although the fundamental physical processes are different this is conceptually the same effect the GHE has. That is cool bodies get cooler and warm bodies get warmer. It is not a violation of the 2LOT. I’m hoping this natural example drives home that point since most people are in agreement that cold fronts and warm fronts do happen.
bdgwx, the only point you’re driving home is that you don’t understand 2LoT. Weather systems obey laws of physics. When you believe otherwise, that just indicates you need more study.
b,
Frontogenesis is a result of physical factors, not a cause. You are talking nonsense. Read the Wikipedia entry more closely, and at least ry to understand what it says.
You might as well say that climate change is a cause of weather events! Climate is the average of past weather – nothing more, nothing less. Of course it changes – after the averaging, not in advance.
Maybe you are in the grip of some pseudoscientific climatological delusional fantasy.
Putting the cart before the horse is not generally recommended, but fell free to appear as stupid and ignorant as you wish.
Cheers.
Gordon,
1) Pretty much every time you write about “S”, you are really discussing “ΔS”. (“Delta(S)” in case the Greek letter didn’t work.) This has a few important implication to what you wrote.
2) Entropy is MUCH more than a means of keeping tract of the heat transferred in a process.
Tim, explain how entropy can decrease with no energy input.
I’m still not seeing the March 2019 data in the text files. What is the word on that?
bdgwx
Please be patient, the stuff mostly appears on the 6th.
Miker,
“Finally I have to say I have had to resort to ridicule and mockery …”
Just couldn’t help yourself eh?
P,
I await with interest the unleashing of the heavy weaponry” to which he referred.
I wonder if will be more powerful than the “deadly potential” of the USAF which another commenter threatened to unleash.
Some people seem to be even more prone to delusional psychotic states than the self-appointed climatologist and Nobel Laureate Michael Mann.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, no doubt.
Cheers.
Mike F, having no involvement with the USAF I can state categorically that I am not into carpet bombing. More of a selective munitions type. As you have stuck your head out of the foxhole I can add you to my dance card for my next sortie if you wish.
On a less tongue in cheek note, I don’t particularly desire another war of attrition. I am and old fart and I suspect you may also be a fart of a similar vintage. There are better things to do in life and I don’t think anything of worth was accomplished by either of us during our last altercation .
Cheers
MR,
You may be confusing your fantasy with reality. I am unaware of any altercation, but if it makes you happy, carry on with your belief.
Your talk of foxholes and sorties is the usual vacuous nonsense proffered by pseudoscientific climatological cultists, who can’t even clearly state what their GHE is all about. You have no power to affect me, no matter how awesome you believe yourself to be. Try to bend me to your will, if you feel like looking foolish.
Be as stupid and ignorant as you wish. Blame me if you like. I don’t care. Why should I?
Cheers.
Mike F,
Relax. I did say my comments re foxholes and sorties were tongue in cheek. Do i need to repeat this?
I assure you I have no mechanism to control you or bend you to my will. I am also not blaming you for anything.
Take it easy and cheers.
Before I head off,
Mike, you seemed mystified by the term altercation, I meant the tit for tat exchanges via comments at the end of last month and several more exchanges this month. Maybe you don’t remember or wish to remember which is perfectly understandable.
Cheers again.
MR,
You are obviously in the grip of some delusional fixation. Tit for tat would imply some exchange between equals, and you are obviously stupid and ignorant, unlike myself.
Why would you imagine that I would be involved in “exchanges” with such as yourself?
You cannot differentiate between reality and fantasy, it would seem. Or between pseudoscience of the climatological type, and real science – involving testable hypotheses and all that sort of thing.
Have you managed to find a testable GHE hypothesis yet? No? That’s because no such thing exists. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mike, I never suggested we were intellectual equals so I am not sure why my description of our little contretemps,as a tit for tat exchange, offended you,
You suggested that I was going to be subjected to ridicule and mockery if I didn’t describe the GHE and formulate a testable GHE hypothesis. I did neither.
You had over 3 hours to come up with a tour de force of ridicule and mockery and this is the best you can do. A bit of a damp squib. At best F for ridicule and F- for mockery.
MikeR, this isn’t an attempt at ridicule or mockery, just an observation.
You don’t appear to sleep.
At least, I’m not aware of any gap in the times of day that you have posted, where any decent amount of sleep could have occurred. Your posting history seems to indicate that comments from you can occur at any point in a 24-hour period.
Do you not sleep, or is there more than one of you behind the “MikeR” relentless attacking machine?
MR,
You are still confusing your delusional fantasy with reality.
Maybe could actually quote something with which you disagree, and indicate why, although I doubt it.
Why would I waste my time feeling offended or offering you ridicule and mockery? Have you a reason for thinking I care about what you think? Maybe you, like other stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific cultists, believe you can read my mind.
Oh well, if you try hard, maybe you can convince somebody that your fantasy is important to them. Or maybe not. My care factor remains zero either way. Feel free to ridicule and mock yourself if you wish.
Cheers.
DREMT. Morning has broken and I was woken by the sounds of flocks of squawking corellas.
I thank you for your concern about my posting habits. I am a bit of a night owl but I prefer to post when I am not sleeping. Accordingly I tend to avoid the hours of 12 am to 9 am local time. You may be confused by the change over in daylight saving in the northern and southern hemisphere which takes place at this time of the year, it can introduce a relative time shift of 2 hours.
The time difference between Eastern Australian Standard time and US Central zone Time ( I believe that is time stamped on the posts) is currently +14 hours.
I see you and JDHuff are usually both off the air between 3 pm and 10 pm our local time . You can do the math.
That’s a relief. I’m pleased to hear that you at least have two settings: “sleep” and “attack!”
Nah DREMT, I have many settings. You should count your lucky stars that I have not exposed you to my full repertoire.
For instance, I could go into full bizarre mode and summarize all our exchanges in the form of an interpretive dance and post it on social media. I envisage you as a dying swan as I can imagine you could be quite fetching in a tutu.
No, just seems to be two. Maybe, “massively over-inflated sense of self-importance” is a possible third.
MR wrote –
“For instance, I could go into full bizarre mode and summarize all our exchanges in the form of an interpretive dance and post it on social media. I envisage you as a dying swan as I can imagine you could be quite fetching in a tutu.”
More witless by the minute. All pretense of being rational has been abandoned.
For some bizarre reason, MR imagines that somebody should actually care about his future actions. Why would anybody give a toss? Has he some awesome hidden super power, perhaps? He obviously believes he can read minds, and bend people to his will from a distance – in common with many people suffering form severe mental deficiencies.
Maybe in his rich fantasy world, he imagines himself dancing a pas de deux with another tutu clad person. Oh the horror! Obviously he fancies himself light on his toes.
After all, Gavin Schmidt claims to be a climate scientist, and Michael Mann awarded himself a totally fictitious and undeserved Nobel Prize. No doubt MR feels that assuming the persona of a world famous ballerina advances the pseudoscientific climatological agenda.
I wish him well in his future as a ballerina, if he cannot master the highest expression of the interpretive dance to which he aspires.
Time will no doubt tell.
Cheers.
DREMT. I may have a massively overinflated sense of self importance but in that regard I am a mere dwarf that stands in the shadow of a giant.
Mike F. Once again you take my, tongue firmly embedded in my cheek, comments way too seriously. Lighten up.
You however have made some disparaging remarks about my dancing abilities. My career in ballet was curtailed by an unfortunate incedent with the pointe shoe of my partner. Since then I have restricted myself to solo performances.
Yes Mike, I have to dispense with logic and reason. There is no place for it here. You have to either laugh or cry at some of your comments. I prefer to laugh.
I know my sense of humour may not be appreciated by those who are in proximity of the butt end of it. Others might find it mildly amusing but then again…. As they say it’s in the eye of the beholder.
MR,
You seem to be suffering from a severe physical disability, in addition to your demonstrated stupidity and ignorance, accompanied by severe delusionally psychotic fantasy episodes. An example of your mental deficiencies is demonstrated when you demand that I dance to your tune.
You claim to have your tongue in your cheek, having at the same time having placed your foot in your mouth. You manage to spout garbage, whilst talking through your nether regions, with your head inserted firmly up your backside.
If you have managed this unlikely combination, all the while assuming the persona of a balding bearded bumbling buffoon of the pseudoscientific climatological variety, I have only one response –
Begone troll.
Mike F. I detect a note of anger in your latest comment. I am glad you have had your little tanty. Letting off steam can be very cathartic but you may have to turn down a notch or two on the inchoate rage. Your reference to, how as you say, “nether regions, with your head inserted firmly up your backside.” brang back taunts from early childhood. Were you perhaps referencing the seminal Australian work, The_Day_My_Bum_Went_Psycho? Maybe not because I don’t recall reading in this book any specific reference to GHE. However there were lots of fart jokes and we know that methane is considered to be a potent greenhouse gas.
Like my children, I know you hate to take my advice but before you burst an aneurysm why don’t you take a chill pill , maybe have a cold one or two, or a slab if necessary and turn up the A/C. Download the Calm App on to your phone and do some mindfulness exercises. Remember to concentrate on your breathing.
While you are in a quiet meditative state consider looking up the term “transference” at a psychology website. You may be able to gain some useful insights.
Also try and gain some perspective. As someone has pointed out the Way back Machine is not that effective and Roy’s archive only goes back to 2009. Remember also that no-one knows your real name here. You could be Arthur or Martha or even Paul Manafort for all we know or care.
I have just been on my daily constitutional and maybe you should also get out and smell the roses. You keep returning for more but I would personally like to invoke the Mercy Rule and terminate these exchanges before they get even more heated.
Troll begone.
“in that regard I am a mere dwarf that stands in the shadow of a giant.”
If you’re referring to me, I have no idea why people have taken this “please stop trolling” so seriously, but it’s funny that they have. Guess it proves that deep down, they know there’s some truth in it.
Now, MikeR, please stop trolling.
Nah, DREMT. It’s just because I have PTSD from your incessant PST,
Anyway it’s 19 – 10 to Mike F.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
The deadline for submission for this months Troll of the Month close, not unexpectedly , at the end of the Month. The finally tallies will, be audited carefully , so that any irregularities such as the use of Troll Farms could potentially be detected. After the conclusion, a prize (details to follow) will be awarded. All letters of complaint have to be submitted prior to the close of trolling. No correspondence will be entered with regard to the result after that. Provisional totals will be posted periodically, usually on a weekly basis
The troll who has most monthly victories in one calendar year will be awarded the Golden Troll of the Year which entitles them to be inducted into the Troll Hall of Fame. Previous winners include g.e.r.a.n. and Gastrorisk who have both been inducted posthumously.
At the conclusion of the first week of trolling, Mike F leads with 19 trolls followed by Gastro/DREMT with 13 trolls.
The race is tightening as Mike F has stalled while DREMT, after a quiet start, is ramping up to his long term average of 3 trolls per day. Unless Mike F pulls his finger out he could be passed in the back straight.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Phil,
As i am a grumpy old curmudgeon (is there any other type?) I can’t resist resorting to these tactics. It comes with the territory.
By the way are you also a card carrying member of the Axis of Dr Evil? Non rotating of course.
Nice chatting with you.
MR,
How did the “ridicule and mockery” work out for you?
I suppose if you can’t even describe the GHE, much less formulate a testable GHE hypothesis, then you will need practice in relation to being exposed to ridicule and mockery.
You will receive plenty of both.
Cheers.
Ok Mike F, go for it. Get it off your chest. I am sitting in my comfy chair ready to be ridiculed and mocked.
If one is going to ridicule and mock others then one should expect to be on the receiving end. As they say, live by the sword and die by the sword.
I am off to have a quiet ale with friends so you can take your time, if necessary.
MR,
And I should be bothered because . . .? You have a greater sense of your importance than I, obviously.
Cheers
Mike F.
I am glad you didn’t bother. That makes two of us.
Anyway I am clearly not as important as you are as I am stupid and ignorant. I also lack your self effacing modesty.
Additionally, like yourself, I do not pesonally have a testable GHE hypothesis or an excellent description of the GHE. I believe that boat sailed a long time ago. I suspect that is why Roy Spencer has made the excellent point that discussion of the existence of the GHE is superfluous and one trick ponies like yourself should be regarded as trolls.
On that basis this correspondence is now terminated. Cheers and have a nice day.
MR,
You wrote –
“On that basis this correspondence is now terminated. Cheers and have a nice day.”
Really? You are obviously delusional if you believe you have any power over me! What a fool!
By all means, refrain from commenting all you like. I doubt your ability to even control yourself. You may find you cannot help yourself – lacking self control, of course.
Carry on at your convenience.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, …”MR,
How did the ridicule and mockery work out for you?
I suppose if you cant even describe the GHE, much less formulate a testable GHE hypothesis”
********
That’s the whole point, Mike, the alarmists cannot interact without dodging, obfuscating, red-herringing, goal-post moving, and any other diversion to answering the question.
I think we both agree that something has caused the theorized 33C difference in temperature between an Earth with no atmosphere and oceans and an Earth with both. I think we both agree that no one knows the answer but that the current GHE fails to explain the discepancy.
You have been asking the same question for a couple of years now and I am still awaiting a response to your request for a testable hypothesis for the GHE.
There is none. The GHE and its offspring, AGW, both rely on two premises: that GHGs in the atmosphere are trapping heat or slowing radiation from the surface, or back-radiating EM from a colder area to a warmer surface that causes the warmer surface to warm.
The GHE is even named after a real greenhouse that relies on real glass to trap molecules of air, made up 99% of nitrogen and oxygen. However, the inference is that the glass traps infrared energy from roughly 1% of the air molecules and, in an inexplicable manner, that IR somehow warms the greenhouse air through being trapped.
Even if that glass could trap IR, it’s a solid surface and there is no such solid surface in the atmosphere. It’s absurd to propose that partial gases in the atmosphere, accounting for roughly 1% of the atmosphere could possibly trap enough surface emissions to make a 33C difference in our planet with an atmosphere and without.
The back-radiation theory, in which IR emitted from the surface is supposedly captured by 1% of the atmosphere (CO2 plus average WV), in an atmosphere that can never exceed the temperature of the surface, and which gets progressively colder with altitude, then back-radiated to the surface where it is claimed to be absorbed thus increasing the surface temperature, contradicts the 2nd law and proposes a state of perpetual motion.
Like you, I am still awaiting an explanation for such pseudo-science. Rather than scientific answers, we are inundated with theories like a net balance of energy, an obfuscation which makes absolutely no sense when broken down to the energies involved, thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
Those energies cannot be summed to a net value for the simple reason they have vastly different properties and units and they cannot exist at the same time in relation to heat transfer. When heat is transferred via radiation, the heat producing the radiation is lost when the EM is created, then, on the other end, when a cooler body absorbs the EM, the EM is lost when heat is created.
Where is the net balance? The alarmists are proposing that
heat can be transferred both ways simultaneously, a contravention of the 2nd law and the underlying quantum theory. It’s even a contravention of Stefan-Boltzmann, a law based on a one way transfer of heat from a heated platinum filament to a much cooler environment.
The alarmists are proposing that a hotter body, heated by an external source, so it’s temperature is relatively constant, must rise in temperature when any EM strikes it. They are confused about the claims of black body theorists who make such claims at thermal equilibrium. A BB is defined as a cavity that must absorb all EM incident upon it.
A BB is a model proposed by Kircheoff circa 1850, long before EM was understood in its relationship to electrons that bind the atoms together in solids. The rules changed, but the BB fetishists cannot relate the theory to the reality.
There is nothing in nature that comes close to a theorized cavity resonator (aka BB). Trying to apply BB theory to our atmosphere/surface problem is ludicrous. That’s especially true when the bodies involved are of different temperatures. BB theory applies between two bodies only at thermal equilibrium.
Energy can only ever be transferred from a state of higher potential energy to a state of lower potential energy unless we humans intervene with external power and equipment.
Good points, Gordon.
And even the “33K” is pseudoscience. It is the difference between Earth’s average surface temperature (288K) and the calculated temperature of a perfect black body sphere (255K). That’s even more absurd that comparing “apples and oranges”. It’s more like comparing apples with space monsters!
There is NO AGW/GHE. It’s all a hoax.
GR, I’m curious. What would be a falsifiable test of the non-GHE theory (whatever it may be) for the warming?
b,
That’s a really, really, stupid gotcha – even for a delusional pseudoscientific cultist!
A falsifiable test of something non-existent? Would that be the same falsifiable test of unicorns?
Are you really stupid enough to believe that increased temperature is caused by slower cooling, or something equally witless? Would you accept that warming is associated with heat?
Probably not. Let me know what you think of my radical suggestion, if you wish.
Cheers.
Something has caused the troposphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, etc. to warm. Which physical processes and modulating agents explain it? What hypothesis can be constructed and what test can be employed to falsify them?
GR,
“I think we both agree that something has caused the theorized 33C difference in temperature between an Earth with no atmosphere and oceans and an Earth with both. I think we both agree that no one knows the answer but that the current GHE fails to explain the discepancy.”
On the contrary, the answer is obvious: The Earth has not cooled to the temp it will have with no atmosphere and oceans, because it has not yet had time to cool to that point…
to say ‘but without an atmosphere and oceans the world would be colder, is the same as saying ‘when the Earth is colder it will be colder….
its the difference between a pot of water sitting at a steady 80C on a burner and another boiling merrily away at the same setting…. one was already boiling when placed on the burner… the other was not…
the ‘GHE’ paradigm is based on the fundamental flaw of a cold Earth warmed up by the Sun, rather than a hot ball of gas and magma that has cooled despite the solar input…
PJ,
You are correct. Imagine the excuses that will be given if you ask them to explain what their calculations give if the surface temperature was nowhere less than 100 C, before the first liquid water formed.
I assume they would come up with the usual stupid 255 K, and claim the GHE explained the actual difference between 255 k and 373 K. Very flexible, this GHE concept.
Cheers.
bdgwx: “Something has caused the troposphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, etc. to warm.”
bdgwx, there are many different cycles at play. We know of several different ocean cycles. We know of several different solar cycles. We know about several orbital cycles. But, do we know about ALL cycles that might affect Earth temperatures? Do we have enough data to have seen all such interactions?
Your “Something has caused…” might just be called “natural variability”. When we have about 1000 years of reliable data, we may have a pretty good idea about all the natural interactions, and have a rough idea of the resulting temperature ranges.
The only thing we can be fairly certain about now is that CO2 can NOT warm the planet.
JD, can you point to a repeatable experiment that proves CO2 cannot cause the surface to being warmer than it would have been otherwise?
No experiment is necessary, as the physics is so clear.
But, if you want to see with your own eyes, take a look out your window. The atmosphere has about 410 ppm CO2, but there is no warming detectable.
JD, UAH, RSS, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way, ERA, CFSR, ERSST, etc. are all showing a warming troposphere/hydrosphere and a cooling stratosphere. OHC is increasing by about 10e21 joules/year which is about 0.6 W/m^2. Can you post a link to a dataset that you trust which does not show any long term warming?
bdgwx, even with all the “adjustments” there has not been any warming that can be shown to be unnatural. OHC, SLR, stratospheric cooling, ocean acidification, etc are all based on securing more funding. Pseudoscience has become a major industry.
Does your income depend on supporting the hoax?
“JD, can you point to a repeatable experiment that proves CO2 cannot cause the surface to being warmer than it would have been otherwise?”
Can you make a repeatable experiment that disproves a fantasy effect based on a fantasy atmosphere….
rofl
think that’s a keeper
Some odd person wrote –
“So you say, but the sun heats the earth and the earth heats the CO2, and the CO2 heats the earth and the wheels on the bus go round and round.”
And at night, and in winter, and even after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the temperature falls.
No wonder nobody belonging to the pseudoscientific climatological cult can actually describe the GHE, except to agree that it has nought to do with greenhouses, and it doesn’t seem to have any effect. What a pity!
Cheers.
Except that the Earth has been colder and warmed quite rapidly several times in the past. And the vertical temperature profile of the oceans is not consistent with the cooling molten core hypothesis.
Except I can actually describe the greenhouse effect and you are correct in that it has nothing to do with greenhouses.
CO2 is a gas in our atmosphere that emits radiation because the molecules have bending and stretching modes that are higher in energy than the ground state and the population of these states are only dependent on temperature.
Some of this radiation reaches the earth’s surface and increases the enthalpy of the earth’s surface which is evidenced by an increase in temperature.
And the core of the earth is solid,
bob beleives: “Some of this radiation reaches the earth’s surface and increases the enthalpy of the earth’s surface which is evidenced by an increase in temperature.”
Wrong bob. Atmospheric CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures.
JD,
if you consider that a debunking, well it’s pretty weak.
There is a correlation between the temperature and the CO2 concentration, and I already provided the mechanism.
No bob, all you have are your beliefs. CO2 is NOT a heat source. That means is can NOT raise the temperature of the system. It is NOT a radiative insulator. That means it can NOT “trap heat”.
AGW/GHE is NOT science, it is another false belief system, AKA “pseudoscience”.
Putting not in all caps does’t improve your argument.
Just shows you don’t know.
The emphasis was so you couldn’t claim later that no one told you the truth.
You’ve been told. Now, you must deny reality.
Nothing new.
Why would I make a claim like that?
You are not telling the truth.
Putting a lie in all caps doesn’t make it true.
Physics isn’t your strong suit, now where did you study physics?
Are you denying the reality that CO2 emits radiation and some of it is absorbbed by the surface?
bob, atmospheric CO2 emits mainly 14.7 μ photons. A 14.7 μ photon corresponds to the peak of a spectrum from a 197K (-76C, -105F) surface. So if you believe such low energy can affect Earth’s average temperature of 288 K, well, enjoy your pseudoscience.
And, more such low-energy photons won’t help, because fluxes don’t simply add. An analogy would be trying to pour two glasses of water, both at 20C, together to have 40C water. That’s NOT (notice the emphasis) how it works.
But, I won’t bore you with physics, I know you have NO interest….
Actually JD, you are sadly misinformed
“bob, atmospheric CO2 emits mainly 14.7 μ photons. A 14.7 μ photon corresponds to the peak of a spectrum from a 197K (-76C, -105F) surface.”
The correspondence of temperature to wavelength doesn’t exist when you are talking about emissions of IR from rotational and vibrational transitions.
Actually bob, it is you that is sadly misinformed.
A 14.7 μ photon ALWAYS has the same energy, regardless of how it was emitted.
And, again, that energy corresponds to 197K (-76C, -105F).
Just some more reality for you to ignore.
Sadly no JD,
“And, again, that energy corresponds to 197K (-76C, -105F).”
But you can’t say that a photons wavelength, frequency or energy is determined by the temperature of the substance that emits it.
The CO2 in your dog’s breath, and your own, cause they smell the same, always emits 14.7 um photons, no matter what temperature.
Again, you don’t understand
“atmospheric CO2 emits mainly 14.7 μ photons. A 14.7 μ photon corresponds to the peak of a spectrum from a 197K (-76C, -105F) surface.”
That’s the peak of the spectrum for a blackbody.
And in case you missed the lecture….
CO2 has an emissivity of 0.006, so it doesn’t behave as a blackbody,
In fact it always emits at 14.7, 2.7, and 4.3 um and the temperature doesn’t matter.
bob, you get high scores for avoiding reality, as usual.
A 14.7 μ photon always has the same energy. And that energy corresponds to 197K (-76C, -105F).
And, again, that means such a photon has no effect on something at 288K. Even a bazillion such photons would have no effect. That’s just one of the reasons the GHE is pseudoscience.
Now, you can avoid reality some more.
So what you are saying JD, is that CO2 only emits radiation when it is at a temperature of 197 K?
But what if the CO2 molecule emitted a 2.7 um photon?
That corresponds to a temperature of 1073 K.
Or a 4.3 um photon?
674 K.
Write on the blackboard 250 times
CO2 is not a blackbody.
That’s NOT what I’m saying, bob. You’re trying to misrepresent me because you got caught, again.
The 14.7 μ photon has the same energy regardless of the mass it’s emitted from. You seem bent on perverting that fact.
That’s why it’s necessary to correct you.
Okay JD,
You seem to be confused about what I am disagreeable about.
“A 14.7 μ photon always has the same energy. And that energy corresponds to 197K (-76C, -105F).”
You wrote two sentences
“A 14.7 u photon always has the same energy.”
I agree with this statement.
However
“And that energy corresponds to 197K (-76, -105F).”
Is complete bonkers
CO2 emits radiation of 14.7 u no matter what the temperature.
And if you really want to know, this is an individual molecule doing the emitting and individual molecules don’t have a temperature.
bob, you’re STILL not getting it.
The 14.7 μ photon occurs at the peak of the spectrum corresponding to 197K (-76C, -105F). Let me emphasize, PEAK. That indicates how little energy the photon has. It’s nowhere near enough to affect 288 K, even if it were absorbed.
Your latest nonsense started with you trying to counter my statement: “Wrong bob. Atmospheric CO2 cannot raise surface temperatures.” You’re trying to do the impossible. You’re trying to empty the ocean with a bucket that has a hole in it.
Best of luck.
JD, Consider a perfect BB at 288K. You direct a stream of 14.7 um photons at it. What happens to both the BB and the photons?
Well bdgwx, since you did not specify the “stream” of photons was from a laser, and since you didn’t restrict the material the BB was made from, I could say the photons are all reflected and the BB does not increase in temperature.
JD,
I see you are still refusing to understand that CO2 in the atmosphere is not a blackbody.
Even thought a 14,7 um photon doesn’t have a lot of energy, it does have enough when there are a lot of them, to raise the temperature of the earth’s surface.
This statement
“Let me emphasize, PEAK. That indicates how little energy the photon has. It’s nowhere near enough to affect 288 K, even if it were absorbed.”
Is just opinionated hogwash.
Because you are still treating CO2 as a blackbody.
bob, your nonsense has been sufficiently debunked.
The 14.7 μ photon occurs at the peak of the spectrum corresponding to 197K (-76C, -105F). That indicates how little energy the photon has. It’s nowhere near enough to affect 288 K, even if it were absorbed.
You just aren’t able to think for yourself.
Nothing new.
bob,
“Even thought a 14,7 um photon doesn’t have a lot of energy, it does have enough when there are a lot of them, to raise the temperature of the earth’s surface.”
You’re assuming you can just add them to transfer the amount of energy you require, this is not the case.
Let’s see is I can demonstrate…
If I have a swing above my arm oscillating at the same frequency as my arm but with a greater amplitude I cannot push the swing transferring any energy from my arm to the swing…
it doesnt matter if I have 1 arm or 1000 arms, if they all have a lower amplitude than the swing the energy transferred will be 0
If however the swing has a lower amplitude than my arm some of the energy from my arm will be transferred to the swing increasing its amplitude..
As the amplitude of the swing approaches the amplitude of my arm the amount of energy transferred to the swing approaches 0
b,
“Some of this radiation reaches the earths surface and increases the enthalpy of the earths surface which is evidenced by an increase in temperature.”
Except for the last four and a half billion years (obviously), at night, during a solar eclipse, indoors, during winter or a cold spell, and so on.
The temperature falls. Does your description of the greenhouse effect mention temperature falling as well?
You’ll have to do better than just stringing some irrelevant sciencey words together. When the temperature falls, it is called cooling. You appear to think that redefining “cooling” to mean an increase in temperature solves your problem. Good luck with that.
Off you go now. Have a think, and come back with a GHE description that agrees with fact, if you can spare the time.
As to the inner core of the Earth, what is your point? Any 12 year old child can point out that I might well simplify the inner structure whilst pointing out that the interior temperature is probably in excess of 6000 K. if you don’t like me referring to the interior of the Earth as molten, by all means provide a more detailed picture for the benefit of those who cannot be bothered establishing the facts for themselves.
You may wish to include the following, for the sake of completeness –
“Because of this unusual set of circumstances, some geophysicists prefer to interpret the inner core not as a solid, but as a plasma behaving as a solid.”
There are several theories, so maybe you should mention them all. Or you could just assert “And the core of the earth is solid,”. Your choice I guess.
Cheers.
How about the mantle then, you would say it’s molten, but then so are the asphalt roads you can drive on, their molten too, if you claim the mantle is molten.
The core can be hot under high pressure, but still a solid.
So you are going to say some geophysicist consider the core to be a plasma rather than a solid, so you are going with the minority report.
b,
Maybe you could actually try figure out whether you are asking a question, trying for a gotcha, or just making a series of pointless and meaningless statements.
If you are actually trying to disagree with something I wrote, you might make you intention clearer by directly quoting me. On the other hand, you could utter a few disconnected sentences, hoping no one will notice how stupid and ignorant you appear.
Your choice.
Cheers.
There is some possibilty that another energy source is discovered or fusion becomes practical but of those seem unlikely. It seems to me we are likely stuck with what we have with incremental improvements in scalable energy storage and solar efficiency or that we solve the cost and PR problems of fission.
Matt R, Interestingly, it appears that electric motor technology already available is good enough to carry passengers in small aircraft for 105 miles. There’s also the prospect of using this technology in hybrid designs, with the electric motors used for takeoff and climb and small turbines used for cruise. The electric energy could be sourced from renewables and wired directly into the batteries on the planes.
ES,
“The electric energy could be sourced from renewables and wired directly into the batteries on the planes.”
Yes, except the 105 mile long extension cord would need to be made of high grade unobtainium, supported by a network of skyhooks. I suppose high output LEDs would ensure that other similarly equipped craft did not tangle their extension cords.
I saw someone had come up with an idea for a wind turbine mounted on an aircraft which would supply the power to the high efficiency electric motor driving the propeller. The faster the aircraft flew, the more power it would generate. I suggested combining the two to save weight and duplication, but my suggestion was rejected as being silly. Oh well. Can’t win them all, I guess.
Let me know when your fantasy becomes reality.
Cheers.
Burning of fossil fuels removes O2 from the atmosphere and adds h2o and co2, thus increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere.
Increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere will increase the amount of IR emitted at any given temperature.
It follows that this will increase the amount of IR exiting the TOA thus cooling the atmosphere.
Observed reduced drag on sattelites is evidence that the TOA is contracting.
If the volume of the atmosphere is decreasing then either temp is decreasing or pressure is increasing or some combination of the two..
This I conclude that burning of fossil fuels poses no danger of catastrophicly raising the temp near the surface….
Bob,
“Some of this radiation reaches the earths surface and increases the enthalpy of the earths surface which is evidenced by an increase in temperature.”
“Nobody pretends that a colder atmosphere can heat a warmer surface. Nobody – bindion
Right, I don’t pretend, I know it for a fact.
Clowns must be required to violate the laws of physics, daily.
You mean like thinking a heated object will be COLDER than its surroundings?
Like heated objects are no warmer than unheated objects?
Tim,
For once, try to set the idiots on your side of this debate straight as well. Don’t just let them get away with their buffoonery. Please help letting bobdroege know how wrong he is. Read what he writes, for Christ’s sake!
Tim, are you still confused about radiative energy transfer?
Maybe if you could compose a sensible, responsible question, then I could help you. I can’t help you with your immature, illogical ramblings.
Christ ain’t going to help you Kristian.
Tim,
Your gotcha appears eminently stupid. What next – “You mean like thinking an unheated object will be HOTTER than its surroundings?”
Who cares what you or I “think”? You may “think” that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. You may “think” that Gavin Schmidt is a “climate scientist”. You may “think” you are not actually stupid and ignorant. Facts are facts. Fantasies are fantasies. You choose.
Cheers.
Kristian says: “For once, try to set the idiots on your side of this debate straight as well. Dont just let them get away with their buffoonery. Please help letting bobdroege know how wrong he is. Read what he writes, for Christs sake!”
Bob says a few things where I think he needs to be “set straight” — but not a lot. But in the spirit of cooperation, here goes. (These are not necessarily ALL the things I might comment on; they are the two that jumped out at me as I skimmed all his comments.)
1) Bob said: “… but the sun heats the earth and the earth heats the CO2, and the CO2 heats the earth and the wheels on the bus go round and round.”
He should have used “supplies energy to” rather than “heats”. CO2 does not “heat” the surface in the thermodynamic sense of “heat”. [However, other comments suggest that he really does understand, eg “CO2 is a gas in our atmosphere that emits radiation …Some of this radiation reaches the earths surface …”. That is a perfectly reasonable description.]
2) Mike objected to something I wrote, and Bob objected to the objection:
MF>> No transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter. This causes an immediate decrease in entropy by creating a temperature differential. Not allowable, Im afraid
Bob> Except there is something available to do the work necessary to cause the transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter. It’s the Sun!”
It turns out both objections were misguided.
Mike’s error is one you are familiar with, Kristian — confusing MICROscopic and MACROscopic realms. At the atomic level, energy can and does move from atoms with a lower energy to atoms with a higher energy. This does not violate the classical statement of the 2LoT, because the 2LoT does not apply to individual atoms or photons; it only applies to macroscopic collections of atoms and/or photons. [Much like the macroscopic idea of “temperature” only applies to collections of atoms, not to individual atoms.]
Bob’s error was attributing Mike’s error to external work, rather than attributing it to the macro/micro issues described above. Bob’s answer seems to suggest [at least to me] that the sun’s photons somehow help move the IR photons from the atmosphere to the earth to “cause the transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter”.
*****************************************
Yes, these are errors, but compared to other errors floating around the comments here, these are pretty minor.
**************************************
Oh, and Bob’s comments about supercooled water are a bit silly (but not ‘wrong’.] Yes, you *can* have water cooler than 0 C, but that is not really the issue being addressed.
Mike, those are not *my* “gotchas”. Those are actual claims JD made earlier in the comments.
“The sphere will be emitting 300W/m^2, resulting in a surface at 270 K [inside a warmer chamber @ 273 K].”
Clear violations of the laws of physics by a fellow loudly complaining about violations of the laws of physics. No one should be taking advice from someone who has heat literally flowing from the 270 K sphere to the 273 K surroundings!
Tim, if you are going to start correcting other clowns, shouldn’t you clean up your own act first?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348019
One again, that comment does nothing to bolster your position.
First, you admit your own answer of of 270 K might be wrong. Then you speculate the temperature might approach 273 K (the temperature of the surroundings. But even your most extreme speculation of 273 means that 300 W of heat are going from a surface at 273 K to a second surface at the identical temperature. Even your most extreme speculation means that we can turn on a heater (equivalent to 5 60-Watt light bulbs) inside a sphere the size of a beachball (22″, 56 cm) and not have it warm up by even 0.00001 K.
Tim, misquoting me and misrepresenting me only shows your desperation, incompetence, and dishonesty.
And, I’m loving it. Please continue.
bobdroege says, April 6, 2019 at 5:08 PM:
I fear you’re right. After all, against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
Tim Folkerts says, April 7, 2019 at 11:41 AM:
Hehe, but he goes on, Tim. His statement doesn’t end there. And you know that. Because the end is included in PhilJ’s original comment above:
“Some of this radiation reaches the earths surface [this is where you cut bob’s description short, Tim] and increases the enthalpy [alternatively, internal energy (U)] of the earths surface which is evidenced by an increase in temperature.”
This is tantamount to describing the CO2 “back radiation” as an extra input of HEAT to the surface, Tim.
Good. Now let him know. Set him straight. Tell him directly. Because he absolutely does not understand.
So you still think in earnest that a cold thing (like the atmosphere) can and does in fact HEAT (and not just insulate) a warmer thing (like Earth’s surface), bob? That the way the atmosphere forces the average surface temperature to be higher than if it weren’t there is exactly thermodynamically equivalent to the way the Sun does the same …!?
Where do you get this kind of idiocy from?
Or is it simply that you STILL haven’t managed to pick up a book to read on the basic thermodynamic concepts of HEAT and heat transfer?
From a little red book on quantum mechanics.
Heat transfer via radiation, a post classical thermodynamics subject.
Maybe you should study some modern science.
Quantum-mechanical heat transfer. Heat transfer from cold to hot via radiation. Yeah …
Are you an idiot, or are you just pretending to be one, bob?
Who could ever take you seriously?
Cal tech for one
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/transfer.html
bob doesn’t have to pretend….
b,
From your stupid link –
You have probably heard the expression “Hot air rises and cool air falls to take its place” – this is a description of convection in our atmosphere. Heat energy is transfered by the circulation of the air.”
Ah, more “lies for children” – complete with a spelling mistake as an added bonus!
Presumably, even you are unprepared to provide a link to your ” . . . little red book on quantum mechanics.” Fantasy is no substitute for fact, unless you are a believer in pseudoscientific climatology. If you don’t like me pointing out that ice cannot be used to heat water (in spite of your little red book), how about trying to keep lead molten by surrounding it with boiling water?
Boiling water is pretty hot, isn’t it? Lots of photons, lots of energy. You can’t even boil water by exposing it to the unconcentrated rays from the Sun, at around 5800 K. What use is your pseudoscience?
Carry on b. Trenberth wanted to redefine the scientific method because normal science didn’t agree with his pseudoscience Do you think you can do any better?
Cheers.
“If you dont like me pointing out that ice cannot be used to heat water”
You sure about that?
There have been some interesting recent discoveries about ice and diamonds in the last year.
And not by climatologists.
b,
What a stupid and pointless gotcha! Am I sure I wrote what you correctly quoted? Absolutely!
Are you crazy, or just addicted to mindless utterances?
At least you don’t have to pretend to be a witless fool – it obviously comes naturally.
Cheers.
The point being ice can be warmer than water.
So yes you could heat water with ice.
b,
You fool. My ice is at -100 C. Try and heat your imaginary supercooled water with that!
Your stupid assertion that you can heat something by exposing it to the radiation of something colder is pseudoscientific claptrap.
Try for a more clever gotcha. It still wont help you to come up with a useful description of the GHE, will it? You will remain as stupid and ignorant as ever.
Keep trolling.
Cheers.
OK, so a quick lesson in radiation heat transfer for little bob. Because it seems he sorely needs one.
First, the blackbody:
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Note, an object’s E (emissive power), dependent only on the object’s own temperature (and emissivity), is only ever, with regard to its thermal surroundings, equal to its Q (or Qdot, or q) (NET exchange of thermal radiation = radiative HEAT transfer), in the case where those surroundings are at absolute zero:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/431/heat_radiation_from_black_surface_absolute_zero.pdf
(Same source as above.)
Always bear in mind the following:
https://www.efunda.com/formulae/heat_transfer/radiation/overview_rad.cfm
E (emissive power), or J (radiosity: the total radiation energy streaming from a surface, per unit area per unit time; the sum of reflected and emitted radiation; for a BB, J is equal to E), is NOT the same as radiation heat transfer (radiative heat). The heat transfer is only ever the NET thermal radiation between two surfaces or regions, in nature always and only moving from hot to cold.
(Back to the first source):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/fig.12-11.png
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/radiation-heat-transfer
* * *
The all-important take-home message here is the following:
What affects a body’s ‘internal energy’ [U] and ‘temperature’ [T] across some time interval (from t_0 to t_1) is the ‘HEAT’ [Q] transferred to or from it during that time (and/or the ‘work’ [W] performed by or on it, but this we disregard), NOT (!!) its emissive power [E] or radiosity [J], not the E or J or its surroundings.
When it comes to THERMODYNAMIC (thermal) changes to a macroscopic system, only the overall NET EXCHANGE of energy between it and its surroundings matters. The HEAT in or out.
If you only increase the E or J of a body’s surroundings to that body, there is no way you can tell whether or not that increase alone will cause the U and T of the body to rise also. You simply need more information. Like: What happened to the E or J of the body itself while you increased the E/J of its surroundings? Did it somehow stay unchanged? Did it increase as well? By how much? Or did it even decrease?
Ultimately, it’s the change in the NET exchange of energy (the HEAT transfer) between two systems that creates a thermal effect, not each individual component. E and J are mere radiative effects (or expressions) of specific macroscopic states/properties of thermodynamic systems (like temperature), not themselves CAUSES of temperature.
Kristian says, April 7, 2019 at 1:58 AM:
Correction: Not its emissive power (E) or radiosity (J), nor the E or J of its surroundings.
Kristian, do you agree with graphic? If not, what temperature do you believe the blue plate would have, at equilibrium?
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
In case you haven’t been paying attention, all plates have sides with surface area of 1 square meter, and are in a vacuum.
So you say there is a two way flow when talking about heat transfer by radiation.
Q_12 = A_1 F_12 s(T_1^4 T_2^4) (W)
Glad to see you understand that
JDHuffman says, April 7, 2019 at 6:15 AM:
Of course not. If the central plate can be considered to be two-dimensional, that is, only radiating towards the other two plates, then in the steady state it will have warmed to 290 K, with the two green plates on either side of it, and in the same state, at 244 K.
All a simple case of insulation. But you don’t know what insulation tends to do, do you JD? At least you can’t find it in yourself to answer even the most basic questions about it …
bobdroege says, April 7, 2019 at 8:19 AM:
“A two way flow”, now there’s a contradiction in terms.
Now, what do YOU understand about radiation heat transfer, bob? To much work to read, is that it?
Kristian answers: “If the central plate can be considered to be two-dimensional, that is, only radiating towards the other two plates, then in the steady state it will have warmed to 290 K, with the two green plates on either side of it, and in the same state, at 244 K.”
Thanks for an answer.
Now, can you explain how the blue plate’s enthalpy increases, and its entropy decreases, with no change in energy in/out?
So what’s happening to your brain Kristian when your thermodynamics texts start discussing two way transfer by radiation.
You blacking out?
Eyes go all fuzzy?
Kristian said:
The net radiation between two surfaces can be expressed as
JD, you’re not troubled by her use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to determine net radiative transfer?
Craig T asks: “JD, you’re not troubled by her use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to determine net radiative transfer?”
Of course not. I enjoy climate comedy as much as anyone.
bobdroege says, April 7, 2019 at 4:21 PM:
Nothing happens. Because I have no problem holding two thoughts in my head at the same time, unlike certain other people commenting here. Micro vs. macro, bob.
So, clown: Getting any closer to finding out what heat really is, and that “back radiation” from the cooler atmosphere could never heat the warmer surface below? Or are you still just wallowing in your own ignorance?
JDHuffman says, April 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM:
No worries. You’re good at posing questions to others, JD. Not so good at answering other people’s questions to you, however.
There WILL be a change in the energy (heat) OUT, JD. As you put those two green plates next to it. That’s what insulation does. This is exactly the basic thermodynamic principle that you need to investigate in order to gain some understanding about how the world works.
K, just as I suspected. You can’t understand simple problems. You ramble endlessly on semantical issues, but you aren’t able to apply any actual physics.
The 3 plates together would all reach the same temperature at equilibrium, 244K. The plate temperatures would look like this:
244K…244K…244K, with 400 Watts input to the middle (blue) plate, and 200 Watts output from each green plate.
Pulled slightly apart, there is the correct solution, and the incorrect solution.
The correct solution looks like this:
244K…244K…244K, with 400 Watts input to the middle (blue) plate, and 200 Watts output from each green plate. Essentially it is the same as if the plates were together.
The incorrect solution, supported by all the clowns, including yourself, is:
244K…290K…244K, with 400 Watts input to the middle (blue) plate, and 200 Watts output from each green plate.
So there is NO change in energy in/out. You were not able to understand the problem.
Now that I have cleared it up for you, the question is, in the incorrect solution, “How does the enthapy increase and the entropy decrease, with no change in energy in/out?”
Kristian,
I was pointing out that the cites you bring to the table support the idea of a two way flow of thermal radiation.
“Radiation heat transfer is the process by which the thermal energy is exchanged between two surfaces obeying the laws of electromagnetics.”
That’s from here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/radiation-heat-transfer
Which you linked to.
JD,
I won’t bother much with this silliness, because it’s tedious, you’re obviously a troll, and I’m right and you’re wrong, simple as that.
But I’ll address the central problem of your “analysis”. You say:
Exactly. The central plate HAS TO end up at 290K in order to remain the heat source of the two green plates.
Look, with no green plates around, the blue plate would equilibrate with its input and reach a steady state temperature of 244K:
q_in = 400 W / 2 m^2 = 200 W/m^2
q_out = sT_bp^4 = s244^4 = 200 W/m^2
Heat balance: q_in = q_out => 200 W/m^2 in, 200 W/m^2 out. A dynamic steady state.
But once you place those two green plates on each side of the blue plate, this heat balance is disrupted. The blue plate starts heating the green plates, feeding them with net energy. They warm as a result, and they do so until a NEW dynamic steady state is reached. That only happens at the point where the ‘heats’ (in/out) of all three plates finally balance.
For the central plate, that new balance would look like this:
q_in = 400 W/ 2 m^2 = 200 W/m^2 (the INPUT hasn’t changed, after all)
q_out = s(T_bp^4 – T_gp^4) => s(290^4 – 244^4) = 200 W/m^2
Heat balance once again: q_in = q_out => 200 W/m^2 in, 200 W/m^2 out. A dynamical steady state.
At this point, each of the two green plates absorbs a radiative heat flux of 200 W/m^2 on its inner face, from the central blue plate, and at the same time emits a radiative heat flux of equal intensity to the outside surroundings from its outer face. Heat balance: q_in = q_out.
The green plates INSULATE the blue plate, which means they REDUCE the blue plate’s q_out at any given blue plate surface temperature. And they do so because they’re WARMER THAN THE OUTSIDE SURROUNDINGS.
Since the blue plate is provided with a constant power/heat INPUT (400 W => 200 W/m^2), the reduction in its heat OUTPUT as the green plates warm around it, forces its surface temperature to rise, in order to increase the blue plate’s output back to where it was before the green plates started warming, matching the input.
Again, JD: The basic phenomenon of insulation.
This wouldn’t have been so hard for you if you only bothered to find out how it works, thermodynamically. In heat transfer, the surroundings ALWAYS matter. You don’t get to pretend they’re not there …
I’m afraid YOU’RE the one who doesn’t understand this problem, JD.
bobdroege says, April 8, 2019 at 7:06 AM:
*Sigh*
Whether they do or not is irrelevant, bob. It very much seems like you’re deliberately trying to redirect the discussion.
The question here, bob, is: Do you understand what HEAT is, how it works and what it does?
Exactly! Did you get what that actually means? What that quote actually says?
It essentially says: “Back radiation” from the atmosphere to the surface is NOT “radiation HEAT transfer”, because it would NOT constitute a process by which thermal energy is exchanged between two surfaces/bodies/regions. Your “back radiation” is only HALF (in fact, less than half) of the continuous radiative exchange between the atmosphere and the surface. The radiation heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere is the NET exchange of thermal IR between them, and it goes one way and one way only: UP. From warmer surface to cooler atmosphere.
So no, “back radiation” from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface does NOT heat the surface, bob.
These are principles kids learn in elementary school.
K, it’s amazing how similar you are to Norman. All you offer are long rambling dissertations avoiding the issue. You’re as phony as he is.
The issue is NOT about insulation. Insulation does NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics. But, the incorrect solution DOES violate both 1LoT and 2LoT. You just don’t know how the laws apply, and consequently are unable to answer the question about the incorrect solution: “How does the enthapy increase and the entropy decrease, with no change in energy in/out?”
Now, imitate Norman with more rambling diatribes that avoid reality.
Kristian,
When have I called it back radiation?
You seem to not understand what arguments I am making.
Back radiation is not one of them.
The flux in both direction have actually been measured, lately by JD possibly in this very thread.
So stop attacking the straw man you have constructed.
The thermodynamics texts you have cited actually state that there is a two way flow of energy, like the last post I made, an exchange of
thermal energy.
For there to be only the net, as you claim, there would have to be evidence that photons interact with each other.
As far as I know, there is no such evidence.
You are wrong and need to pay more attention to your texts.
“The green plates INSULATE the blue plate”
But Kristian doesn’t think this insulation happens when the perfectly-conducting BB green plates are pressed right up against the blue (244 K…244 K…244 K), bizarrely it only happens when they are separated (by any distance at all). He also stated the vacuum gap is not the insulator:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-347352
Odd position.
DREMT, ‘The green plates INSULATE the blue plate’
“But Kristian doesnt think this insulation happens when the perfectly-conducting BB green plates are pressed right up against the blue (244 K244 K244 K), bizarrely it only happens when they are separated (by any distance at all).”
You explained it right there, DREMT: ‘perfectly-conducting BB green plates are pressed right up against the blue’
‘perfectly conducting’ means ‘NOT insulating at all’.
while with a vacuum gap, as his source explained
‘In analogy with Ohms law, a resistance can be defined as
Q_ij = (J_i J_j) / R_ij
R_ij = 1 / (A_i F_ij)
where R_ij is called the space resistance to radiation.’
So nothing bizarre about it.
“‘perfectly conducting’ means ‘NOT insulating at all’.“
Sure. And, “BB plates” = “zero reflectivity” = ‘NOT insulating at all’, when separated. And, as he writes in the comment I linked to, Kristian doesn’t agree that the vacuum gap is the insulator. And, I was talking to Kristian, not you.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, April 9, 2019 at 2:30 AM:
Stop misrepresenting my position, DREMT. I’ve said nothing of the sort. I haven’t commented on the plates-together situation at all. Instead of linking to a full comment in the hopes that the reader will think that somewhere in there I state something that could be interpreted to mean what you claim I say, like any troll would do, just QUOTE my words directly. Where do I write that I don’t think the green plates will insulate the blue plate as long as they’re all squeezed together?
In fact, what I do write is this:
“In this ideal case, internal conduction is apparently ignored. So the central plate has ONE temperature, as do the other two – there is ONLY a temperature difference BETWEEN the plates, not within them.”
Got it?
Of course I did. Because it isn’t.
The insulation effect arises simply as a natural consequence of a reduction in the temperature difference between the insulated body and its surroundings.
How hard is this to grasp?
bobdroege says, April 8, 2019 at 8:38 PM:
*Eyeroll*
bob, don’t be a child. You talk about the radiative energy flowing from the CO2 molecules in the air to the surface, HEATING the surface (that is, raising its enthalpy, evidenced by a rise in surface temperature). That’s “back radiation heating”, dimwit. Doesn’t matter what you happen to CALL it.
You do NOT talk about the net flow of radiative energy (the ACTUAL radiation heat transfer) flowing between the surface and the atmosphere.
JDHuffman says, April 8, 2019 at 3:35 PM:
Hehe. Thus spake the House Troll, JDHuffman.
You’re wrong. Live with it.
JDHuffman says, April 8, 2019 at 3:35 PM:
Yes, it is. How does insulation work, thermodynamically, JD? Are you going to answer? Or are you just going to continue evading?
Correct. It doesn’t. It’s a thermodynamic process/mechanism, after all.
Nope. YOUR solution does. By setting up full heat fluxes between bodies at equal temperature.
Yes, I do. That’s WHY I’m telling you you’re wrong. Because YOU apparently don’t know how to apply them.
Strange, the house troll can read my answer to his question himself right upthread, and still it claims I’m “unable to answer” it. The troll might not LIKE my answer to his “when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” type question, but that’s not really my problem, now is it?
Actually, Kristian, I made it perfectly clear that I was linking to your comment specifically for the part about the vacuum gap not being the insulator (and, I agree with you).
Apologies if I got you wrong on what you think the temperatures of the plates are when pushed together. So, what do you think they will be?
Kristian,
You post in all caps and call me a child.
You are the one being childish, what’s with all the insults.
Not that I expect any better of you.
The reason I don’t call it back radiation is because when a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere abzorbs a photon coming upward from the earth’s surface it is highly likely that that energy is transferred to another atom or molecule before the molecule returns to the ground state by emitting a photon.
The reverse also happens where a CO2 molecule is excited out of the ground state by collisions with other atoms and molecules.
So you have two different sources of flux, the upward is black-body radiation modified by emissivity and the downward infrared is emission from the CO2 molecules relaxing from the ground state.
So the upward and downward fluxes have different sources so you just can’t claim there is only the net.
bdgwx wrote –
“Except that the Earth has been colder and warmed quite rapidly several times in the past. And the vertical temperature profile of the oceans is not consistent with the cooling molten core hypothesis.”
Another grand unsupported assertion, as is generally the case with pseudoscientific cultists.
Completely irrelevant without some physical mechanism being advanced to support the assertion. Maybe he claims the never described GHE possesses both cooling and heating properties, and these come into effect at random times – unpredictably. A completely pointless waste of time investigating an effect that comes and goes at will, with an unpredictable outcome! Obviously beloved of pseudoscientists, who demand that rational people “prove them wrong”!
What the reference to the vertical temperature profile of the oceans has to do with the fact that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, i.e., it has cooled, is unknown.
I would be happy to explain to bdgwx the mechanism which results in the densest water being found at the bottom of any deep body of water below a certain threshold of geothermal input.
This is conditional on bdgwx demonstrating to me that he has made at least a minimal effort to investigate the physics involved. If he is too stupid, ignorant, incompetent or lazy to help himself, why should I waste my time spoon feeding him?
What a deluded Wally!
Cheers.
E Swanson wrote –
“Hey trolls, the deeper layers of the world’s is oceans are very cold, near zero C. So, how is it possible in your warped physics that there’s enough energy from the ocean bottom to warm the ocean surface and the atmosphere above, which are much warmer at tropic and temperate latitudes? Wouldn’t that be a violation of your favorite straw man, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics?”
ES still cannot quote anything in particular with which to disagree, so lurches off into a weird gotcha, based on something that nobody actually said – if somebody said that water at near zero at the bottom of the oceans somehow results in atmospheric warming, I must have missed it.
Maybe ES can back up his wild accusation, but I doubt it. A direct quote might help.
The colder abyssal depths of the oceans (around 3C or so), even though the surrounding rocks at a similar depth may exceed 250 C (at around 25 C/km), are easily explained by conventional physics. No need for pseudoscientific climatological nonsense.
What a fantasist!
Cheers.
MF wrote:
MF still can’t understand that the water temperature results from an average of the energy flows near the bottom with the source waters being high latitude sinking. Of course, in some locations, near plate boundaries and volcanoes, the water can be quite warm, but, overall, the cold average temperature means that there’s no way for these waters to warm the atmosphere above. That would violate the 2nd Law, remember?
ES,
Thanks for the direct quote.
Your comment seems to have nothing to do with the quote you so kindly provided.
Are you disagreeing with what I wrote, or just pretending that you can read my mind?
Your sciencey nonsense accidentally contains one grain of truth. As you say, the colder ocean water cannot [generally] warm the [warmer] atmosphere above.
Of course, if the water surface is say, 0C, and the air above is -40C, I guess the water, even if frozen, would warm the air which is colder. This wouldnt contravene any physical laws, would it?
Maybe you could disagree with something I wrote, rather than something you believe you obtained from your mindreading attempts.
Your fantasy world is rich indeed, if you believe that your incoherent pseudoscience is in any way related to reality.
Cheers.
“Of course, if the water surface is say, 0C, and the air above is -40C, I guess the water, even if frozen, would warm the air which is colder. This wouldnt contravene any physical laws, would it?”
A liquid ocean would warm more than frozen ocean- so, 0C ice might only add significant warmth to -40 C air.
But if water was 1 C or more it would have a significant effect upon the air temperature, a few degrees cooler than the water.
Or coastal region of Greenland which don’t have a frozen ocean have milder air temperature conditions in the winter.
Or Europe would about 10 C cooler without Gulf Stream which might be somewhere 10 C during the winter and warmer during summer.
Or Europe average temperature is about 9 C but without warmer water of gulf stream it would average yearly temperature below 0 C.
Or it’s mostly warming Europe during winter, but also warms Europe during the other seasons.
And I would say that all of global warming is mostly about warming the 60% of the north and south hemisphere outside of the tropics [tropics being 40% of Earth surface].
And this 60% of earth is warmed quite a bit from our cold Ocean which as average volume temperature of about 3.5 C. And this ocean temperature varies by 1 to 5 C.
And 1 C ocean has to be a glacial period and 5 C ocean has to be interglacial period.
Also 1 C ocean has to sea level 100 meter or lower than present and 5 C ocean has have sea levels that are meters higher than the present sea level.
DukeSnide wrote –
“Flynn claims the planet has been cooling for 4 1/2 billion years. Now you Gordon claim that underwater vents of molten magma pouring into the ocean are warming said ocean and therefore warming the atmosphere.
Flynn says that impossible, the planet is cooling.
So which is it? Is the molten core cooling down the planet like Flynn claims or is it now warming the planet like you claim?”
DS is seemingly off with the fairies, in the best pseudoscientific climatological tradition.
I cannot see where GR claimed that a colder ocean surface raised the temperature of a hotter atmosphere. Maybe you could provide a direct quote, rather than making something up. If you refuse to believe that an unknown number of geothermal vents, magma flows from the mid ocean trenches, and the proximity of the very hot fluid mantle, prevent the ocean depths (and even deep lakes) from freezing, then good for you!
You obviously don’t need no stinkin’ facts to disturb your pseudoscientific fantasy world.
Carry on being as stupid and ignorant as you wish. Include lazy and incompetent, in case all you are capable of is posing witless gotchas. Have you even considered learning physics? No? I am not surprised – it might take more mental effort than you could cope with.
Off you go now – try for a better standard of gotcha, at least.
Cheers.
Round and round goes Mickey Flynn with his double speak.
Its only you claiming that Gordon said “a colder ocean surface raised the temperature of a hotter atmosphere”. No one else said that, only you. Except hahaha, Gordo did kinda say that didn’t he? Thanks for clarifying that. But oops, wouldn’t that disprove Gord’s whole spiel about the 2nd law?
So when will you answer Mickey, has the planet warmed for hundreds of millions of years at a time over and over again or will you continue with your Straw Man Argument ‘the Earth has only been cooling for 4 1/2 billion years’?
Cheerio mate
btw Mickey, you sound just like a certain woman politician who’s disappeared from view with all your ‘gotcha’s’ now.
DS,
What are you rambling about? Maybe you could quote something I said, rather than something you made up. In any case, why should I answer your stupid gotcha?
Claiming that a large blob of hot rock magically warms and cools over and over, for no reason that you can state, seems delusional.
Any rational person can see that your bizarre statement – “Its only you claiming that Gordon said a colder ocean surface raised the temperature of a hotter atmosphere”, is a product of your fantasy. I said that I could not see where GR made such a statement, but your delusional thinking obviously interferes with your eyesight.
Whether you like it or not, the Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago. The surface is no longer molten. Only a stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific cultist (or someone equally delusional), would believe that a drop in temperature is really evidence of heating.
You really have no clue, have you? No GHE description, no testable GHE hypothesis either. Just fanatical belief in something you cannot even clearly articulate. Standard for lazy and incompetent GHE believers.
Carry on appearing stupid and ignorant – you are doing well. I’m always glad to help, of course.
Cheers
Mikey Mikey Mikey, lighten up dude. Was just having fun with your bizarre non sequitur claim about what you said Gordon didn’t say. No biggie.
Let me simplify the question:
How does your theory about the ‘cooling core of the planet equals the atmosphere can’t warm’ actually work, how exactly does this planets cooling core stop the atmosphere from warming?
The evidence of Earth’s history shows you are wrong, I’m just wondering how you justify your claim?
Cheerio mate
tim…”Gordon,
1) Pretty much every time you write about S, you are really discussing ΔS. (Delta(S) in case the Greek letter didnt work.) This has a few important implication to what you wrote.
2) Entropy is MUCH more than a means of keeping tract of the heat transferred in a process”.
**********
I am going by the entropy definition by Clausius. He stated that entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at the temperature T at which the changes occur.
He stated ds = dQ/T
ds is not delta S. You have to integrate (sum) the dQ’s to get the large S = entropy. Now you are talking of a change in entropy.
If S = (integral)dQ/T then in order to change S to a higher level, you need more heat.
There is no other quantity in the equation that can be summed to equal entropy as the integral. Even T is dependent on heat since it is a relative measure of heat.
According to Clausius, entropy is not much more than the transfer of heat. It is the transfer of heat.
I know many scientists over the years have given their own definition of entropy and they are technically wrong. Entropy is about heat transfer and it was intended by Clausius as a mathematical statement of the 2nd law.
Many people presume entropy is a measure of disorder but that not necessarily the case. In a reversible process, there is no overall disorder, yet ds can change incrementally with dQ throughout the reversible process.
As I pointed out before, disorder is an aside mentioned by Clausius when he defined entropy. He defined it first then added that entropy is also a measure of disorder due to the properties of an irreversible process. Things tend to come apart during an irreversible process.
One philosopher I read had the temerity to claim Clausius was wrong, even though C. defined entropy. That’s the kind of arrogance with which we have become besotted.
“If S = (integral)dQ/T … ”
Gordon, read Clausius’ book — it is available here: https://books.google.com/books?id=8LIEAAAAYAAJ
In particular, on page 357, he clearly states
S – S(o) = (integral)dQ/T
That integral give the CHANGE in entropy from some initial condition condition (S(o)) to some final condition (S). It does NOT give entropy, S, itself.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Molten Mike, winner in the stupid category:
uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c.org
No. Words Avg Stupid Name
127 14670 115 63 Mike Flynn
472 21880 46 18 JDHuffman
95 13106 137 10 Norman
is-satellite-altimeter-based-sea-level-rise-acceleration-from-a-biased-water-vapor-correction.org
62 8281 133 26 Mike Flynn
11 556 50 3 barry
25 2911 116 1 Bindidon
uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c.org
69 6250 90 30 Mike Flynn
14 1502 107 8 Norman
14 786 56 4 Fritz Kraut
Mark, you seriously need to find something constructive to do.
No wonder you fall into cults so easily.
JDFluffman, 18 entries in the stupid category.
Surely there is something constructive you can do.
Have you considered knitting?
Svante,
“winner in the stupid category:”
“If you think the earth warms, radiates more, and therefore naturally cools again……you are mistaken as well.” – Snape
With apologies if it’s been mentioned before (I tried to read through the above thread but kept getting a nosebleed), the RSS LT update for March is out too now.
Once again there is a substantial discrepancy between RSS and UAH LT. Even the sign is opposite this time (UAH cooler than last month, RSS warmer).
Both these data sets use essentially the same information, as far as I know. Both methods of interpreting this data are published in peer reviewed papers. No one (certainly not me) is suggesting any improper behaviour by anyone.
But WHY are these 2 data sets, that represent essentially the same information, so different in terms of absolute numbers and long term trends?
Thank you.
TFN
TNF, A couple of points. First, RSS uses a different base period than UAH. Thus, the monthly values for RSS are biased upwards in comparison because the more recent warming is removed from the UAH data. Second, RSS excludes data over the Antarctic and other regions with high elevations, as these areas strongly influence the MSU channel 2/AMSU channel 5, aka, the TMT channels Third, RSS doesn’t build their TLT product using the higher elevation MSU channel 3/AMSU channel 7. There are other differences as well, such as the compensations used for orbital LECT drift and orbit decay, stitching together data from some 16 satellites, some as “morning “crossing and other as “evening” crossing.
In addition, the new UAH LTv6 involves a much different processing approach than the old RSS TLT, which is similar to the old UAH TLT. Both are attempts to compensate for errors in the TMT due to contamination in the signal from the stratosphere, which is known to be cooling. There are other approaches as well, such as the U. Washington TTT series which RSS provides.
There are many surface based, balloon, reanalysis, etc. datasets as well. The idea is to employ different techniques from different groups using different subsets of available and analysis techniques. It is a form of check and balance that is useful in helping scientists identify errors. It wouldn’t be very useful if UAH and RSS did the exact same thing.
TFN,
It appears that the UAH is weighted higher up in the troposphere than RSS. The correlation coefficient (R2) between UAH and all the common surface metrics NCEP/CFS, NOAA, HC4, Berkeley, GISS etc are between 0.61 and 0.66 while for RSS TLT v4 the correlations are between 0.71 and 0.82 for the same surface data sets.
Another strong indication that UAH is weighted to higher elevations are the lagged correlations between EL Nino and the different satellite data sets.
I have Just pulled out Excel and ran some lagged correlations between ENSO (NOAA) and the different temperature data sets.
The maximum correlation at 5 months delay is about 0.39 for UAH TTP, 0.32 for UAH TMT and 0.19 for UAH TLT. The correlation drops as the characteristic height drops. These are all R2 correlations.
In contrast RSS TLT has a lagged correlation of only 0.13 after 5 months. The lagged correlation for a surface measure such as NCEP/CFS have an even smaller maximum ( 4 months) of 0.07.
All this points to UAH and RSS measuring slightly different things. One correlates better to the surface temperature while the other is more tuned to higher in the troposphere ( and may include more of a stratospheric component).
Note that I obtained very similar results for lagged correlations using MEI instead of the NOAA ENSO.
The other take home point of this exercise is how much more El Nino and La Nina affect UAH in comparison to RSS and all the surface temperature data sets.
I think this is why UAH is much favored by those who like to cherry pick. You have much larger swings that allows better opportunities to cherry pick a trend by selecting sub sets of the data. RSS and the surface data are much less useful in this regard.
The relevant Excel chart showing the lagged correlations for the data sets described in the comment above is here – https://postimg.cc/0MXs1qNC .
This may or not be of interest to E.Swanson, bdgwx, The Final Nail and even possibly Roy himself. I myself find it interesting. The following chart is of lagged correlations of UAH TLT for different zones showing how long it takes the ENSO signal to propagate away from the equator to the poles.
https://postimg.cc/zbPvCFvD
You can see that, not unexpectedly, that the Tropics has the greatest ENSO signal (R= 0.72) after 3 months. This is followed by the Global tTemperatures (R = 0.44) at 5 months delay. The Northern temperate zone (NoExt) shows the next highest correlation ( R = 0.21) after 9 months while the north polar region (NoPo) has the lowest correlation (R about 0.1) for a stretch going from 5 to 14 months delay.
The other interesting thing to note is that, displaying the chart using R instead of R squared correlations, you can see that the correlation goes negative after 15 months for the tropics and globally. I guess this is a function of the quasi-periodic nature of ENSO (perhaps 40 months?).
That is interesting. I track Arctic sea ice (which by the way is in record territory again as I type) so seeing these lags between ENSO and NoPol response helps provide some context in trying to do seasonal sea ice forecasting.
Something you might be equipped to easily…I’d be interested in seeing sunspot activity used as an input instead of an ENSO index. Using your exact same technique can you tease out the lags for the solar cycles?
Hi bdgwx ,
The following show the lagged correlations for HAD4 surface data with sunspot numbers, for the period 1850-2018
https://postimg.cc/ThBkynRT
while for the period 1950 – 2018 is shown here.
https://postimg.cc/LJpNDRY7
The take home message is that their very little evidence of a relationship between sun spot number and surface temperatures . The peaks are very small with a maximum of r<0.2 (i.e. R2 <0.04).
What is most illuminating is the lagged correlation for the period 1950 -2018 ,the majority of the increase in surface temperature has taken place. The correlation is even tinier and predominantly negative for 30 years. Thus suggests that the decrease in sunspot numbers will cause an increase temperatures and vice-versa. However the correlations are so small that I wouldn’t bet my house on it. What I would bet is that effect of sunspot numbers on surface temperatures in insignificant.
The very small peaks in the lag correlations could be due to an interaction between the sunspot cycle and long term variation due to factors such as the PDO.
I have had a look at the periodicity in HAD4 and there is a small signal of a period of about 60 years. What is interesting is that the temperatures since 200o now have risen well above the 60 year cycle.
The power spectrum (at the top) and low pass filtered HAD4 data plus the raw data using a 56 year period (bottom left) as the cutoff is shown here
https://postimg.cc/mtNrcNQ9
It looks like any possible decrease in sunspot numbers is not going to save us. Neither is a downturn in the PDO despite all such assertions by the range of people who post comments here.
p.s. I notice on my windows 7 machine the postimg graphs are not rendered well. If this is happening then the solution seemed to be to download the jpeg files onto a local disk. My Windows 10 laptop does not seem to have this problem.
Hi bdgwx,
Just wanted to also thank you, Tom, E.Swanson and all the others (too numerous to mention) for joining the battle against the twin trolls and associated hangers on. I gave up trying to reason with this mob and follow them down their rabbit holes a long, long time ago and have resorted to other means to deal with them (probably unsuccessful, but it was worth a try).
I think if SETI is going to be successful, then finding intelligent life amongst these bizarre characters would be a good testbed.
MikeR, again…very interesting. Yeah, it doesn’t appear like there is much correlation.
MikeR,
Thanks for the response and chart. Very interesting indeed.
There is an interesting new paper about an independent satellite based estimation of surface temperatures using the
Atmospheric Infra-Red Sounder (AIRS) .
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafd4e
This data set tends to confirm surface temperature measurements over the past 15 years. If anything, this data set shows a higher trend 0.24 degrees per decade than any of the surface measurements. The authors attribute this to better Arctic coverage for the satellite AIRS.
It looks like UAH is becoming even more of an outlier.
It seems to me that comparing lower troposphere temperature anomalies to surface anomalies is apples to oranges. I haven’t found an article on the subject. Clearly a strong El Nino creates a bigger temperature spike in the troposphere. Are there any sources of TLT data besides UAH and RSS?
This does make it less likely that temperature rises can fairly be blamed on heat islands. Both ground stations and satellites have their good and bad points but satellites sample a broader area.
I just checked the authors of your link and expect the Schmidt to hit the fan in the comments.
Yes, with regards to Gavin Schmidt, the denialarati will be foaming at the mouth.
Historically, one of the major misuses of the UAH dataset has been to claim that the surface data is all wrong, manipulated etc.. It seems that the surface component of the UAH is not that large so these attempts are just the usual b.s..
The only other set of data that I know of and that is relevant to TLT is the radiosonde data. I gather there are issues with this data with respect to coverage and data homogeneity (sampling and instrumental changes over time) so often this is data is not immediately relatable to the satellite data.
JDHuffman
I will attempt (in vain) to offer you a chance to reconsider your current understanding of radiative heat transfer.
Above YOU claimed: “WRONG again, Norman.
The bogus equation is NOT “used in all radiative heat transfer engineering”. You are delusional. Again, you state an unsupported and unsupportable opinion on matters you are ignorant of.”
Here look at some problems on heat transfer. (You will probably not take a look but say something like I don’t understand the link). Regardless if you reply with some such nonsense you will see the equation is used most often and is NOT a “bogus” equation. You are a science denier. I will give you facts. But someone like you in a deep state of denial will not be able to process what is very clear to anyone else.
https://www.academia.edu/7144724/Chapter_12_Radiation_Heat_Transfer_Chapter_12_RADIATION_HEAT_TRANSFER_View_Factors
Every problem I looked at (numerous not all) uses some variation of the general equation you call “bogus” (without any reason).
The equation is more complex since it deals with view factors and emissivities but the skeleton equation is used in all the problems on radiative heat transfer. Again you show you are clueless and don’t know what you are talking about.
Norman, you keep missing the point, as usual. That equation is bogus, and will yield inaccurate results in most cases, as demonstrated with the 3 plates.
The equation is based on conditions that do not exist in the real world.
JDHuffman
No the equation is not “bogus”. It is well established and a heated blue plate would certainly get warmer if you put the green plates away from it as described. If you did an actual experiment (you won’t) you would find that you are totally wrong. You would find that if you had three identical plates with the middle one heated, and performed in a vacuum to eliminate other heat transfer mechanisms, the temperature of the middle one will increase once you move the outside plates a little away from the blue plate.
You are just wrong about this and you will not accept the reality that you do not understand the 1st or 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
If you did an actual experiment it would show you are wrong. Since you will not (and will not accept anyone else’s experiments no matter how many they do) do any actual experiments you will continue to waste everyone’s time with you made up opinions based upon nothing but your incorrect thinking process.
Nothing new.
Anyway, my point is proven. Engineering equations on radiative heat transfer use the equation extensively. You are not even capable of seeing you are completely wrong about that.
Norman, you keep telling us how well you understand physics, but you keep getting it all wrong.
If you understood physics, you would instantly see the flaw in the 3 plates. Starting with all 3 at 244K, and then slightly separating them could not cause the middle plate to increase to 290K, as your bogus equation indicates. That would be increasing enthalpy, while decreasing entropy, all with no change in energy in/out. Your bogus equation succeeds in violating both 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics!
Now, tell us some more how well you understand physics….
N,
I presume your waffling has something to do with your imaginary and indescribable GHE. If I am wrong, you might care to let myself and others what the heck you are trying to say.
If you believe you can describe the GHE, now might be the time to do it. Otherwise, it is possible that some might think you are a raving nutter of the pseudoscientific variety.
Or you could start raving about physics and textbooks – fairly pointless, if you don’t actually have a point, wouldn’t you agree?
What is your point?
Cheers.
JDHuffman
If you actually did science and some testing you would see that the heated blue plate would increase in temperature! In the real world it would not reach the hypothetical blackbody temperatures achieved with the given power input, but there would be the similar temperature change (just not identical).
So as long as you will not do an experiment you are a science denier. You are opposing established physics that is used in real world engineering (I gave you a link to several problems that use a variation of the equation you call “bogus”)
I can’t help you. No one can. You are in total denial and will also refuse to correct your errors with experiment. You could even do it in air (a reasonable insulator that would still show the effects if you reduce convection). You won’t even do that but you will continue to pretend you know physics and tell everyone else they are wrong. With all the textbook information you have been linked to, it could be possible for you to accept you are the wrong one and not everyone else.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348321
JDHuffman
It violates neither law. Do the experiment and you will see.
E. Swanson has already done the experiment. Moving the green plate up near the blue plate caused the blue plate temperature to increase. You waffle that it is “bogus” because he did not include fluxes for you. Well that was not the point of the experiment at all. The point was to demonstrate that moving a green plate (heated only by the blue plate) would increase the temperature of the blue plate. It did. You are wrong and so is your understanding of both Laws of thermodynamics.
Your objection should also hold for any insulation (which is colder than the heated object). How does putting a colder blanket on a heated body cause its temperature to increase.
Again you can give your opinions 10,000 times. It still is not a bit of proof or evidence. We have a test proving you are wrong. You have not one experiment or evidence even remotely proving your opinions are correct. They are not. If you did an experiment it would prove to you that you need to rethink your understanding of the laws of physics.
You will not do an experiment. You will continue to present your unsupported opinions as if they were facts. Nothing new it is what you do. You are a science denier. You have the evidence proving you wrong yet you will not accept it.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
The temperature graph proves you wrong. You would get similar results it you did your own tests.
Wrong again, Norman.
Swanson set out to prove the incorrect solution to the 2-plates. He failed, and changed it to just raising the temperature of the plates. He proved that insulation works! His “experiment” proved NOTHING about the 2-plates, you just BELIEVE it did.
That’s why he won’t produce the information I asked for. It would show he didn’t “prove” anything.
I explained why the bogus equation produces invalid results, with the 3-plates example. I explained that you can’t increase enthalpy and decrease entropy with no change in energy in/out. But, you can’t understand thermodynamics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are wrong again. You say you are not changing the In/Out energy.
You are changing the In/Out energy to the heated blue plate when you move the two green plates away. The In energy to the blue plate is the same. The out energy has changed. The blue plate does not lose as much energy via radiation as it did via conduction.
The equation is not at all bogus. It is completely valid and its use is quite valid in determining the correct temperature of the hypothetical blackbody plates in vacuum conditions.
E. Swanson did not fail at all. His blue plate got hotter (with no new energy source than previous). The energy from the green plate reached the blue plate and this energy plus the energy from the light source forced the blue plate to reach a higher temperature to emit energy at the same rate it is receiving it from the light and the green plate. No it does not matter to the blue plate that the light is visible and the green plate is IR. When the surface absorbs both types of energy it becomes random internal energy and the temperature goes up until the new steady state temperature is reached. Review the experiment and quit trying to make it about something else. The blue plate temperature goes up. The only change is moving the green plate up. Give it up already. You are just wrong and deny science. A science denier is one who will reject empirical evidence when presented.
Norman, I notice when you get frustrated, your comments get even longer. And your “physics” gets even funnier!
Here you are trying to claim the energy changes when the plates are separated. “The blue plate does not lose as much energy via radiation as it did via conduction.”
FALSE. That’s just more of your made-up “physics”. The energy flow is the same before and after separation.
You cannot understand the many hints I gave you that debunk the bogus equation, and the “plates” incorrect solution, and Swanson’s “experiment”. You cannot understand the thermodynamics involved. You cannot understand enthalpy and entropy.
Let me make it easier for you.
Just using basic arithmetic, consider the energy in/out of the blue plate, at the bogus 290K.
Energy in = 400 Watts
Energy out = 400 Watts each face = 800 Watts total
In your bogus physics, the blue plate is “creating” 400 Watts!
See how funny you clowns are?
JDHuffman
No the blue plate is not creating 400 watts. It has an continuous input of 400 watts. It is always gaining energy. The temperature it will reach is the temperature necessary to get rid of the 400 watts. It really is that simple and is quite well established thermodynamics.
It is not creating this energy, it is just not able to get rid of the same amount of energy with the green plates surrounding it since they are returning some of the energy.
You have had it explained to you but fail to understand. The big question is why do I waste my time thinking a rational thought will ever form in your mind and you will go “Yes I see now, I was wrong”.
In your deluded thought process you think the blue plate is creating some energy. If you surrounded the blue plate with a highly polished material that reflected nearly all the energy from the blue plate the blue plate would really get hot, it might even melt.
Why not do the experiment with a thermos. Put a heater in a thermos and see how hot it will get when the energy you are adding is not lost. When the liquid gets really hot maybe you will conclude the liquid is creating energy because the liquid in a thermos will reach a much higher temperature with the same input than if you put an identical heater in a glass of water that is not radiatively insulated.
Norman, you really are frustrated now. You’ve even got your wife to help you. Ask her to help you subtract 400 from 800. If she gets more than zero, then the system is creating its own energy.
More long rambling, frustrated, vacant comments, please.
JDHuffman
I think you forgot your original situation. The blue plate has a continuous supply of energy. It is not creating energy, it is supplied with new energy continuously.
I am not sure what your points are, the logic behind them, the reason you are making them. Talk about rambling. Maybe you should consider your own posts. They are senseless. What are you trying to say?
If you continuously add energy to the blue plate, its internal energy can increase and will increase until it reaches a temperature that allows it to lose the same amount of energy it gaining. With two green plates on each side, it has to reach a temperature so that it will emit 400 watts from each side so the whole system is losing 400 watts. For some reason it is impossible for you to conceive of the correct and easy answer that explains it quite well.
The green plates emit radiant energy back to the blue plate so some of the 400 joules it had emitted is now returning to be absorbed. It has the 400 watts from the continuous source plus the 400 watts from each green plate. Simple, accurate, logical and proven by experimental evidence.
Once again I ask you, why don’t you do your own experiment? What is stopping you from doing one? Are you so poor or broke you can’t set up some simple experiment? Are you spending all your time posting on this blog and have zero time to do some science? I don’t know what excuse you use, but if you did a real experiment with three plates, if you had a heater for the middle plate and you moved the two outer plates away, the inner plate would warm up. If you did an actual test instead of endless opinions, you would find this to be the case.
Norman, you make up some funny “physics”.
If you could think for yourself, you would know that is all nonsense. Just the simple act of putting the plates back together ruins your fairy tale.
But, everyone loves a clown.
JDHuffman
YOU: “If you could think for yourself, you would know that is all nonsense. Just the simple act of putting the plates back together ruins your fairy tale.”
You will never know since you will never attempt to perform an experiment. It is good circular reasoning on your part.
You will continue giving your incorrect opinions thinking they are right, you will not do any experiments that will clearly show they are wrong so you can continue to make your unfounded claims. It works for you.
If you did the actual test you would find the heated blue plate increases in temperature when you move the green plates far enough away to stop conduction. You would find the blue plate cools back down when you move the green plates in contact and restore conduction. You could do this test many times and you would find the same result. You will never know the truth since you will never do any real science like E. Swanson did.
Nothing new.
Norman, rather than rambling randomly, see if you can answer the question, correctly.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348415
JDHuffman
You are diverting. Requesting an answer to your question about entropy and enthalpy.
The question is a diversion from you doing actual testing. You will continue running in a circular argument forever it seems.
You will not do an experiment that could prove the correct answer. E. Swanson has done such and proven you quite wrong. You do not accept his test so you keep running in your circle.
Do your own test and quit diverting to other issues! You act like an answer to your question means something. It does not! No matter what answer anyone gives you it will not change the reality that the blue plate will heat up once you break conduction. It will do so because of the radiant IR emitted by the green plates that the blue plate is able to absorb.
Enjoy running in your circles. You might convince yourself you are right. You won’t convince anyone else.
Norman, your beloved “experiment” only proves you can heat an object by adding heat. It doesn’t prove the incorrect solution to the plates, because that solution is pseudoscience. That’s why you can’t answer the question: “How does the enthapy increase and the entropy decrease, with no change in energy in/out?”
But physics never was your strong suit….
“you can heat an object by adding heat.”
Or can you, JD?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348431
Nate, please stop trolling.
bdgwx wrote –
“JD, Consider a perfect BB at 288K. You direct a stream of 14.7 um photons at it. What happens to both the BB and the photons?”
What a stupid attempt at a gotcha! Typical of half-smart pseudoscientific wannabes.
Consider that the BB is infinite in extent, infinitely larger than the universe. It will obviously cool to a temperature indistinguishable from 0 K. I’m not surprised you couldn’t figure this out for yourself.
At this point, you will no doubt reveal all the additional gotchas you had hidden away – maybe your black body is supposedly fitted with a previously undisclosed infinite heat source, or some other such nonsense. This cunning problem redefinition will still not make you wise and knowledgeable, rather than stupid and ignorant.
You need to return to your gotcha school and demand a refund. Obviously, you are not well suited for this occupation.
I’m here to help.
Cheers.
bobdroege wrote –
“CO2 emits radiation of 14.7 u no matter what the temperature.”
Well, no, temperature does matter. For example, at 0 K, CO2 emits nothing. bobdroege will no doubt say he didn’t really mean “no matter what the temperature”, but really meant something else. This is normal for pseudoscientists when somebody points out they have said something either misleading, stupid, or just plain silly.
What bobdroege does not say (because he is stupid and ignorant) is how and why CO2 can be heated by compression, say. Some particularly dimwitted pseudoscientific types have convinced themselves that CO2 can only absorb and emit energy of certain specified levels. They cannot accept that CO2 heated to 10 K will emit a different radiation spectrum than CO2 at say 310 K (around human body temperature), or at say 800 K (after compression in an internal combustion engine).
An obvious problem is that if CO2 can only emit the same energy photons it accepts, then it would be impossible to ascribe any effect to the action of these photons, as the CO2 would emit precisely any energy it absorbed. Any change to the CO2 requires energy, and if all absorbed energy is emitted, than obviously precisely none is available to have any effect on the CO2.
What a load of cobblers! Just bunch of bumbling knuckle-draggers attempting to appear intelligent. The sorts of people who would believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize, or that CO2 does not interact with light following the same QED principles as other matter.
Carry on, chaps. Blather on about molecules colliding with each other, and keep spouting the nonsense you read in Wikipedia. Ask yourself why all gases can be raised to the same temperature, separately, by compression, even though some fool claims they all only absorb and emit photons of very specific energy levels. Or not, as you wish. It doesn’t matter what you think, Nature ignores you (and me, if it comes to that).
Cheers.
Flynn,
For one, you can’t get to 0 K, so that statement
“For example, at 0 K, CO2 emits nothing.”
means absolutely nothing.
For you guys, again CO2 is not a blackbody, so the CO2 spectrum is dominated by the emissions at 2.7, 4.3 and 14.7 um.
B,
You wrote –
“CO2 emits radiation of 14.7 u no matter what the temperature.”
When I pointed out you were wrong, you said “For one, you cant get to 0 K,. . . ” Who cares? How about 0.00001 K? Pseudoscientific cultists rattle on at length about all sorts of non-existent things – black bodies and so on.
You went on to write – “For you guys, again CO2 is not a blackbody, so the CO2 spectrum is dominated by the emissions at 2.7, 4.3 and 14.7 um.”
More sciencey and misleading nonsense. Who said CO2 is a blackbody? Nobody? That would be about right. Your assertion about CO2 emissions is just nonsensical. If you feel like it, explain why a thermometer can assess what sort of gas surrounds it, before telling you what temperature it should show? Will filling a room with CO2 change the temperature?
Maybe you should try defining the GHE before you start blathering irrelevant nonsense. Or just keep right on – makes no difference to me. Facts are facts, and you don’t appear to have any.
I suppose you might even claim that the radiation from frozen CO2 (dry ice) will be absorbed by CO2 at 20 C, and the CO2 at 20 C will get even hotter! How stupid would that be – heating CO2 gas using dry ice!
Tell me you are not that stupid if you like.
Cheers.
When was this
“When I pointed out you were wrong”
You don’t have a clue.
About the behavior of CO2.
b,
If your lamentable standards of English comprehension and expression are not due to stupidity and ignorance, but rather to some specific mental impairment, let me know.
It is still not my problem, but you might be able to play the disability card and impress others. Don’t blame me if nobody cares.
Cheers
Well I am not stooping to insults, so have a nice day, since an intelligent conversation on the greenhouse effect is not possible with you.
b,
I am pleased you realise that stooping to insults is pointless. You provide no reason at all for me to feel insulted or offended.
There is no point at all discussing something you cannot even describe, is there?
Cheers.
CO2 emits radiation that heats the surface of the earth.
I’ve said similar before and you haven’t refuted it or even showed you understand what I have written.
Jeers
No bob, you BELIEVE a 14.7 μ photon can heat the surface. But first you have to somehow get such a low energy photon absorbed. Then, you have to ask how such little energy could ever warm anything above -100F.
You’re a long ways from reality, and aren’t even on the right road.
JD, if a material can spontaneously emit a 14.7 um photon then it can absorb it to.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Then, you have to ask how such little energy could ever warm anything above -100F.”
Yes one photon of energy would have a really difficult time of warming anything even to -100F. Even the most powerful gamma ray photons would not do much warming if you only have one of them.
Consider you can have an unlimited amount of these photons. You can warm things to whatever temperature just using the 14.7 micron photons if you have enough of them reaching a surface that absorbs them.
Sometimes I think you try to make points but in this case I think you are making no valid point and maybe should reconsider your posting. Think a little.
Norman contributes more confusion: “You can warm things to whatever temperature just using the 14.7 micron photons if you have enough of them reaching a surface that absorbs them.”
Norman, “if” and “absorbs” are key words. You can probably understand that if a photon is reflected from a surface (not absorbed), it can not warm the surface.
But, your preceding wording is more complicated for you–“You can warm things to whatever temperature…”
That is completely incorrect, and again, demonstrates your lack of understanding of the relevant physics. Just because you have a whole bunch of 14.7 μ photons does not mean you can warm to “whatever tempeature”. You don’t understand quantum physics, but a simple analogy is ice. Ice emits photons at spectrum peak of about 10.7 μ. But it does not matter how much ice you bring in you can not raise the temperature above 273K.
Study up on the relevant physics, and get back to me in about 6-8 years, when you know something beyond what you got from wiki.
Bob says: “CO2 emits radiation that heats the surface of the earth.”
CO2 emits radiation that provides some energy to the surface.
CO2, in conjunction with sunlight, helps warm the the surface to a higher temperature than the sunlight could alone.
But CO2 does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense. CO2 can help limit the heat leaving FROM the surface, but CO2 does not provide heat TO the surface.
JD says: “first you have to somehow get such a low energy photon absorbed.”
Not a problem. The surface of the earth absorbs 15 um IR quite well. This is an experimentally confirmed fact. For example, water has an emissivty of about 0.99. Sand has an emissivity of about 0.95.
JD also says: “Just because you have a whole bunch of 14.7 μ photons does not mean you can warm to whatever tempeature.”
Well … a CO2 laser uses ~ 10 um photons to melt metal, so a “whole bunch of 10 um photons” can warm to 1000’s of degrees. If you made a laser @ 15 um, it could do the same.
Granted, lasers are quite different from thermal IR from the sky, but a “whole bunch” of 15 um photons could indeed in principle warm things to very high temperatures.
“CO2, in conjunction with sunlight, helps warm the the surface”
“CO2 does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense”
Warm the surface means an increase in temperature of the surface. Heat the surface means an increase in temperature of the surface.
CO2 can per Tim increase the temperature of the surface and NOT increase the temperature of the surface in the space of a sentence.
This illustrates the major confusion using the term heat. Tim could eliminate that confusion easily, the solution is obvious.
Hint: Yes, CO2 emits radiation that provides some energy to the surface.
It’s hard to tell if Tim is dishonest or incompetent, or both.
But implying that a 14.7 μ photon will be absorbed based on a value of emissivity, and and also trying to claim lasers are relevant, definitely shows his desperation.
Nothing new.
The molecule that emits the 14.7 um photon is a singular object and as such has no temperature.
So the cold can’t heat hot is a red herring.
JD, you never like lasers.
Every 10µm photon carries the same amount of energy: 0.1240 eV. It doesn’t matter if they travel together in a coherent beam. There is strength in numbers so the bottom line is the total watts carried by all of the photons.
CO2 lasers are commonly used for tissue ablation because they can only penetrate around 20µm into the skin. This is because water in the tissue is highly absorbent of wavelength.
Light at 14.7µm has around 3 times the absorρtion coefficient and cannot penetrate water deeper than 10µm. The light is not reflected nor is it transmitted. Light in that spectra is taken in by vibrations within the water molecule so it becomes kinetic energy raising the temperature of the water.
“The molecule that emits the 14.7 um photon is a singular object and as such has no temperature.”
All photons are emitted by atoms or molecules. They are all singular objects. Are you suggesting that temperature does not exist?
bob, temperature is basically a measure of the average kinetic energy of a mass. So since a single molecule has mass, it would have some kinetic energy, or vibration. Which means it would have a temperature, even if we don’t have the technology to measure it.
Craig, I like lasers just fine. I don’t like clowns trying to imply that the sky is a laser.
A breeze might blow a bird feather against the door to your house. But, there would be no effect. If you shot a ton of feathers, from a high-powered cannon, your door would be demolished. Neither lasers nor high-powered cannons exist in the atmosphere.
Water vapor can absorb a 14.7 μ photon, but liquid water does not easily absorb FIR. Since 14.7 is on the ragged edge of FIR, trying to claim 14.7 μ photons can warm the ocean is like claiming the single bird feather is going to knock down your door.
The sky is not a laser, but like a laser atmospheric CO2 is not giving off radiation at 14.7µm because its temperature is -76C.
Lasers work by stimulating atoms with electric current. The atoms jump to a more excited state then emit photons when atoms drop to a lower energy state. The power of a laser depends on the watts pumped into the atoms as electricity not the temperature of the atoms.
CO2 in the air is always giving off thermal radiation but the issue is what happens when the molecules are hit by upward longwave radiation. For some of those wavelengths the molecules absorb then emit the same wavelength when they drop to a lower energy state.
Craig begins with a true statement: “The sky is not a laser…”
But he quickly devolves into pseudoscience: “…but like a laser atmospheric CO2…”
Tricky.
Temperature is average kinetic energy plus the energy associated with electronic, vibrational, and bending modes.
With one molecule you can’t have an average.
This I got from a PhD in physics.
“Water vapor can absorb a 14.7 µ photon, but liquid water does not easily absorb FIR.”
You have that backwards. Water vapor has a valley in its absorρtion spectrum between 6 µm and 50 µm. Water readily absorbs at that range because of the L1 and L2 librations between molecules. As a gas, water vapor lacks any bonds between molecules causing the inability to absorb that range.
Explain what made you think that water vapor could absorb a 14.7 µm photon? You always claim that objects can’t absorb a photon whose blackbody temperature is below the temperature of the object. I’m sure that under some conditions the temperature of liquid water can be lower than water vapor, but usually it is not.
But a look at the absorρtion spectrum shows you are wrong. Between 1 µm and 10 µm (2897K to 289K) absorρtion increases with the exception of a sharp peak at 3 µm. After 10 µm absorρtion basically plateaus at least to 100 µm (29 K or -244 C.)
The experimental evidence of water’s absorρtion spectrum alone proves you are wrong to claim the second law prevents anything absorbing photons with a lower color temperature than that object.
Note: I wanted to link to a graphic showing water absorbing all the way to 100 µm but the link had the dreaded *absorρtion* word in it. I have to settle for experimental data going to 20 µm (-128 C.)
https://omlc.org/spectra/water/data/wieliczka89.txt
I said “The sky is not a laser, but like a laser atmospheric CO2 is not giving off radiation at 14.7µm because its temperature is -76C.” Would you have preferred “… but like a laser, atmospheric CO2 …”?
Most atmospheric CO2 is in the troposphere. Even at the top of the troposphere it is almost always warmer than -76 C. Instead CO2 absorbs upwelling IR and then emits it. Claiming otherwise is pseudoscience.
Spectral absorρtion data never shows a sudden drop off at the current temperature of the substance. Claiming otherwise is pseudoscience. Your denial of that fact shows that no amount of data will ever change your unscientific beliefs.
I really work hard to resist being snarky on here. I’m not trying to rub your nose in how wrong you are. I just want to point out the fact.
Ball4 says: “Heat the surface means an increase in temperature of the surface.”
* Some might say that “to heat” means “to warm” (ie increase the temperature of a body).
* Others might say that “to heat” means “to transfer net thermal energy to something via conduction, convection, or radiation.” (ie to add to the internal energy of a body).
That is why definitions are so important in discussions like this. If one person assumes one definition and someone else assumes another definition, communications will fail.
In the formal language of thermodynamics, the latter definition is what scientists mean by “to heat”. Warmer objects can “heat” cooelr objects; cooler objects can never “heat” warmer objects by this definition. That is the definition I always will use.
Re-read my comments in that light, and hopefully you will no longer think i am contradicting myself.
Craig, you obviously are confused with absorp.tion, absorp.tion spectrum, absorp.tion coefficient, etc. And, you are obviously obsessed with “proving” me wrong. So obsessed, that you are willing to make up stuff:
Craig says: “You always claim that objects can’t absorb a photon whose blackbody temperature is below the temperature of the object.”
Where did I ever claim that?
Craig says: “…you are wrong to claim the second law prevents anything absorbing photons with a lower color temperature than that object.”
Where did I ever claim that?
I’m used to such tricks.
Nothing new.
Looking back you may have just implied it.
“Craig, just because a photon carries energy to an object does not mean the photon, or its energy, will be absorbed. Photon absorb.tion is interestingly linked to wavelengths, which are interestingly linked to temperature.”
“Norman, ‘if’ and ‘absorbs’ are key words. You can probably understand that if a photon is reflected from a surface (not absorbed), it can not warm the surface.”
“Water vapor can absorb a 14.7 μ photon, but liquid water does not easily absorb FIR.”
In the past you have clearly said objects cannot absorb photons when the corresponding blackbody temperature of that wavelength was below the temperature of the object.
If I misunderstood you I will be so happy to apologize. It’s not a big deal if the reason you said water couldn’t absorb far infrared was not because the peak wavelength of a blackbody at 0 C is 10.6 µm.
Since now you know liquid water freely absorbs the 14.7 µm wavelength we can move on to other conversations.
So with Tims new 8:46am definition of “to heat”:
“CO2, in conjunction with sunlight, helps warm the the surface”
“CO2 does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense”
becomes
“CO2, in conjunction with sunlight, helps warm the the surface”
“CO2 does not transfer net thermal energy via conduction, convection, or radiation to the surface in the thermodynamic sense”
Tim’s new words do not help. CO2 can per Tim increase the temperature of the surface and NOT increase the temperature of the surface in the space of a sentence.
The problem is Tim trying to define heat which does not exist into existence. The only way to get rid of the communication problem “In the formal language of thermodynamics” is to write enthalpy, never use “heat” unless one wants to ensure “communications will fail” just like Kristian.
Here is what can happen to a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
It starts in the ground state with respect the the vibration and bending modes.
It can abzorb a photon of the right frequency and go to a higher vibrational or bending state.
Or a collision with another atom or molecule can put it in a higher state.
From this elevated state it can either relax by emitting a photon, or transfer the energy to another molecule through a collision.
The transfers by collision happen much faster than the photon transfers resulting in that there are always CO2 atoms in the excited states which results in a near constant emission of IR.
The frequency being determined not by the temperature but by the energy levels of the excited states.
JD,
Even lower energy photons than the ones from CO2 can heat.
“No bob, you BELIEVE a 14.7 μ photon can heat the surface. But first you have to somehow get such a low energy photon absorbed. Then, you have to ask how such little energy could ever warm anything above -100F.”
Check it out
https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/november-2015/rf-radiation-the-invisible-hazard/
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong. I believe the trend in stratosphere changed from -0.29C/decade to -0.30C/decade on this March update.
More pseudoscientific nonsense – Norman writes –
“If you surrounded the blue plate with a highly polished material that reflected nearly all the energy from the blue plate the blue plate would really get hot, it might even melt”
Norman obviously doesn’t realise that placing a blue plate, green plate, or gay pride multicoloured plate, in a vacuum flask satisfies his conditions.
His plate is now surrounded with highly polished (reflective) material. According to Norman, we need to be careful – the plate will get really hot, and might even melt! Of course, Norman will start talking about the metal melting device which has to be put into the vacuum flask at the same time. Too late, perhaps?
Norman demands that others waste their time and effort attempting to do what Norman has no intention of wasting his own time trying to do. What a fool!
Cheers.
bobdroege wrote –
“So whats happening to your brain Kristian when your thermodynamics texts start discussing two way transfer by radiation.
You blacking out?
Eyes go all fuzzy?”
Kristain would no doubt be wondering why a particular author might be writing nonsense. As you don’t quote a reference, it is hard to say. Your imaginary ideas are shared by many. Just look at Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, the concept of cold rays is a fantasy used in graphic depictions of superheroes. A block of ice does not transfer radiation to a ladle of molten lead – nor does it project cold rays. If surrounded by ice, the lead cools, the ice warms – eventually a state of maximum entropy is achieved.
Maybe you are not aware that electrons can absorb photons which they emit? Maybe you are not not aware or real and virtual photons? If you have to ask why this would be relevant, you wouldn’t understand the relevance, would you?
But here is a little perpetual motion machine to consider. Two perfect mirrors face each other, floating in space. A beam of CO2 laser light zips back and forth between them. The photons have momentum, and the mirrors recoil slightly as the photons bounce off the mirror. There are no losses, so the mirrors can eventually reach any required velocity, without any additional input of energy. According to the pseudoscientific GHE cultists, this should work. It can’t, and neither can the GHE. A small knowledge of quantum electrodynamics is required, but not much.
Cheers.
I quoted a reference, it was the one Kristian posted
So write another paragraph or two of incoherent ramblings, that’s all you are good for.
b,
So the reference you quoted is like the GHE definition – somewhere else. I see.
Your bizarre appeal to someone else’s authority is not that authoritative, is it? How do you know the text is not nonsense?
Maybe you could actually say what it is you are trying to say. A little difficult if you can’t actually describe the mythical GHE, wouldn’t you think?
What’s happening to your brain when you realise that you can’t even convince yourself that you know what you are talking about?
You blacking out?
Eyes go all fuzzy?
Questions, questions. The world wonders if you have any answers!
Cheers.
Nonsense, all nonsense.
Wake me when you have written a coherent sentence.
Monkeys and typewriters do a better job.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Nope, not gonna do it, wouldn’t be prudent.
norman…”E. Swanson has already done the experiment. Moving the green plate up near the blue plate caused the blue plate temperature to increase”.
I have gone over this at least a dozen times. Either swannie is right and the 2nd law is wrong, or swannie (and you) are wrong.
If you move the GP closer to the BP (the experiment was done in a vacuum), provided it is metal, you block radiation from the BP. That means you slow down the rate at which it can dissipate heat, and since it is externally heated, it’s temperature rises to it’s natural temperature BEFORE DISSIPATION.
In other words, if you had the BP wrapped in a metallic foil that blocked radiation, and heated it electrically, it would rise to temperature Tnatural. If you remove the foil, and allow it to radiate, it dissipates heat and the BP cools to the difference between heat delivered and heat dissipated. That is Tdissipation.
I don’t think the GP would have much of an effect blocking IR from the BP till you brought it very close to the BP. In close proximity, the the BP would be warming the GP till they were both the same temperature. That’s thermal equilibrium and there would be no heat transfer between them. Under those conditions, you could have a two way IR transfer but no heat transfer.
That explanation satisfies the 2nd law, swannie’s does not. Which one is right?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I have gone over this at least a dozen times. Either swannie is right and the 2nd law is wrong, or swannie (and you) are wrong.”
E. Swanson experiment is established empirical evidence so he is not wrong.
There is a much more likely case you are unwilling to bring up. We are both right, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is right, your understanding of the 2nd Law is flawed and wrong. That is the most likely case here.
And you point on heat dissipation is lame and bad. Dissipation means removing a build-up of something. Heat is building up in electrical equipment in the air surrounding the heated components. A fan is used to move this heated air away. Dissipate the heat. Your use of the term with IR is really bad.
The Green plate does not block IR from the blue plate at all. Your view is just poor understanding of physics. The blue plate emits IR based upon its temperature and the green plate does not block this rate. The green plate (which if you actually read any physics you would see but you don’t accept textbooks so it is really hard to educate you) emits IR back to the blue plate based upon its temperature. You say the green plate is “blocking” the IR from the blue plate causing the temperature to rise. Well you could prove yourself totally wrong if you actually did any experiments. If you cooled the green plate the blue plate will also cool. Why does the temperature of the green plate change its “blocking” ability? It would make sense with backradiation as the explanation. Yours would not.
Norman…”E. Swanson experiment is established empirical evidence so he is not wrong.
There is a much more likely case you are unwilling to bring up. We are both right, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is right, your understanding of the 2nd Law is flawed and wrong. That is the most likely case here”.
**********
Let me get this straight, Norman, so readers out there can get a better idea of your position. You are claiming that Clausius did not state very clearly, that heat can NEVER…repeat NEVER… BY ITS OWN MEANS…be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body?
Is that right? Is that what you are refuting?
Then I suppose you also think that water running over a waterfall can reverse its direction against gravity, without outside interference, and flow uphill. You would also maintain that a boulder sitting at the bottom of a 500 foot cliff could spontaneous, by its own means, raise itself up onto the cliff.
You are claiming that you can put a battery into a device with reversed polarity and it will work just fine.
Clausius also created the concept of entropy and gave it a relationship to heat as in S = integral dQ/T. He further stipulated that entropy must always be 0 or +ve, meaning that heat can only be transferred one way. Entropy is the mathematical analog of the 2nd law.
I am not arguing that swannie got empirical evidence from his experiment, I am claiming that he arrived at an erroneous conclusion. I accept that the BP warmed. but that warming of the BP can be explained completely as a heat dissipation problem.
Gordon Robertson
I find it a waste of time going over the same old ground with you. I have posted Clausius’s own words on two-way radiant emission. If has no effect on you.
I am not saying “Heat” will transfer from a cold object to a hot object!! I have been over this several times with you but it does not stick. Energy will transfer both ways. The cold object will transfer energy to the hotter heated one. It will not transfer “heat” which is described as a net transfer for energy. The amount of heat transferred is the amount of energy emitted by hot object minus how much is gains from a colder object. If you have a continuous supply of input energy, the heat flow becomes stable and steady state between the hot object and the cold object.
Find where Clausius claimed a cold object’s temperature would not affect a heated hotter object’s temperature. I have asked you to do that before and you have not provided a single example of him making this claim. I have read his own words and he says quite the opposite.
Gordon once again says: “Clausius also created the concept of entropy and gave it a relationship to heat as in S = integral dQ/T.”
I will once again reply, Gordon, read Clausius’ book — it is available here: https://books.google.com/books?id=8LIEAAAAYAAJ
In particular, on page 357, he clearly states
S – S(o) = (integral)dQ/T
Also, the fact that a concept was created once long ago does not mean that no further changse or improvements are possible. The ancient Greeks created the concept of “atoms” as the smallest, indivisible parts of some type of material. Since they first defined “atom”, are you planning to stick with that definition and chastise anyone who might want to use a new, improved definition?
That integral should be
S -S(o) = (integral)dQ/T
ie the CHANGE in entropy is equal to that integral, not the ENTROPY is equal to that integral.
Norman, Tim, please stop trolling.
Gordo plays his same old game over and over again. He claims that in my Green Plate demo, the energy from the Blue Plate is “blocked” by moving the Green Plate into position next to it, but never bothers to describe the physical process of “blocking”. Gordo further claims:
In a vacuum, this is an absurdity. If the two plates were in actual contact, then conduction would equalize their temperatures, but as long as there’s a significant gap between the two, the respective temperatures will be different because the Blue Plate is heated whereas the Green Plate receives energy via IR EM from the Blue Plate and the surrounding environment.
Sorry, Gordo, what you “think” doesn’t count for squat without experimental proof.
swannie…”Gordo plays his same old game over and over again. He claims that in my Green Plate demo, the energy from the Blue Plate is blocked by moving the Green Plate into position next to it, but never bothers to describe the physical process of blocking”.
It’s a tough thing to explain therefore I have drawn on my experience with EM fields. We block EM field in the electrical\electronics industry by surrounding them with metal shields that are grounded.
JD doesn’t agree with this S-B version of their equation and I have expressed my doubts as to its origin. as stated:
P = e.sigma.A(Thot^4 – Tcold^4). Where p = EM intensity, e = emissivity from the heated body, sigma = S-B constant, A = area of emmission, Thot = temperature of the heated body and Tcold = temperature of the environment.
Obviously, with your evacuated system Tcold must refer to something and I am claiming it as the temperature of the green plate. As of now, I cannot explain the physics but I have observed the results.
For example, a space blanket is a blanket coated with metal foil to prevent heat loss by radiation, conduction, and convection. Obviously, the metal foil will enhance the ability to block conduction but the same phenomenon is used in actual space to cut down heat loss from a space craft hull via radiation.
Therefore, blocking radiation with metal has an effect. In the case of a heated space craft surrounded by an environment close to 0K (-273C) the metal-based blanket on the hull helps prevent heat loss from the hull.
The relationship is dQ/dt = R.sigma.A(Th^4 – Tc^4) where R is the effect of the blanket on heat transfer via radiation in general.
You might notice here that the P = radiation intensity in the S-B equation has been rep[laced by dQ/dt, which is essentially the rate of heat dissipation. S-B not only describes the intensity of radiation from a heated body it also describes the rate of heat loss.
In the blanket, layers of silver interwoven with fibres are attached to the space craft hull. The hull at the inner layer is isolated from the first layer of silver to prevent electrical conduction through the blanket, in case of static build up.
As the hull radiates to the first layer, the layer radiates back half-the radiation it receives. But here’s the important point, the first metal layer is essentially in thermal equilibrium with the hull, and although it radiates EM back to the hull, it cannot warm it. Each subsequent layer is in thermal equilibrium with the later below therefore no heat can be transferred back to raise the temperature of the lower layer.
As I claimed in my last post, if your GP is close enough to the BP to be in thermal equilibrium, it can slow down the loss of heat but it cannot raise the temperature of the BP.
HOWEVER…since the BP was radiating before the GP was place in close proximity to it, it’s temperature had lowered from the temperature it would have had due to the heat source alone. With the GP in close proximity, that radiation is suppressed, just as with the space craft, therefore the temperature of the BP rises toward it’s natural temperature.
That is no different than the situation in a room heated by a furnace. If the walls and ceiling have no insulation, and they have holes in them, and the furnace hot air input remains constant, the room temperature will drop (provided it is cold enough outside).
If you now seal the holes and add R-rated insulation to the walls and ceiling, while keeping the furnace at the same setting, the room will warm. It’s not the added insulation causing the warming, it’s the furnace. The room is simply not losing heat as fast as the furnace can inject it.
Gordo has subtly shifted his rant to include radiation shields. He has probably forgotten that I raised this point many months ago regarding the “back radiation” from the reflective insulation to the body in question. And, his description of a reflective “space blanket” for a satellite is wrong as well, as the multiple layers of reflective material, such as thin sheets of aluminized Mylar or gold foil, are used and they are kept separated by a layer of mesh fabric. This isn’t “layers of silver interwoven with fibres are attached to the space craft hull”.
Of course, I actually included a reflective layer of aluminum foil in my Ice Slab Demonstration, in which I presented results of radiation shielding with different materials, including transparent plastics. These results aren’t the properties of the a metal shield, but the differences in the surface properties, i.e., polished aluminum vs. aluminum painted flat black (which I didn’t run).
You have finally reached the point of understanding that adding insulation to a structure with a constant heat input will increase the structure’s internal temperature. That’s a start, but you’re a little late in doing your homework. But, you continue adding another blast of twisted logic, stating that:
No, the room will still lose energy at the same rate, once steady state is achieved. The energy input will be balanced by the energy transferred to the environment. You are so bull headed, I can’t imagine how you managed to work as an engineer or even attain a degree.
Right, Swanson, reflective materials can radiatively insulate. Which doesn’t prove that black-bodies, with zero reflectivity, can radiatively insulate.
Plus, you’ve already gone on record as saying that you consider the effect to be “heating” and not “insulation”, anyway.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347713
Mike f quites bob d …”Kristain would no doubt be wondering why a particular author might be writing nonsense”.
I have seen many authors, including very educated authors, write absolute nonsense. No author can be an expert on everything. And, many modern authors are affected by bs. they have received in university.
You are like many of the alarmists here in that you have a strong appeal to authority. You believe everything written in a textbook, or by authority figures like NOAA, GISS, and the IPCC must be correct simply because they have the status.
There is absolutely no scientific proof, for example, that CO2 is heating the atmosphere. There is no scientific proof to back the Big Bang theory, black hole theory, space-time theory, or even evolution theory.
No significant evidence to back any of those theories.
In thermodynamics, no one has ever proved Clausius wrong with regard to his statement of the 2nd law. No one can. The law is not only scientifically obvious, it is intuitively obvious. Heat simply cannot flow…by its own means…from a colder, lower energy state to a hotter, higher energy state.
That is a general rule for energy transfer of any kind, it must move from a higher potential energy state to a lower potential energy state.
I have no idea why anyone would want to argue that the opposite is true.
And if educated people can write BS, then so of course can you. Point in case … your comment.
“Case in point”
Begone, erroneous troll.
bobdes…”And if educated people can write BS, then so of course can you. Point in case your commen”
And you. Difference is, I have tried to present the science and the history related to Clausius. All you have offered is an ad hom.
I see Salvatore has gone walkabout. It seems he has realised his GSM is not happening.
I see you haven’t been afflicted with an attack of intelligence. Sad.
Cheers.
I also see ren has graced us with only one comment this month.
Perhaps even he has noted that the 13-month average sunspot count (which is used to determine the max and min of cycles) has just bottomed out at 3 times the minimum of the last cycle.
And perhaps he hasn’t.
Do you have point? Or are you jus making another pointless post?
My point is you don’t appear to have a point.
Cheers.
If he hasn’t then he is continuing to delude himself.
My point was obvious – there will be no GSM this time. Glad to have taught you something.
b,
I admire your confidence in predicting the future, although I don’t share it.
How are you at predicting anything useful? Do you predict tockmarket movements, or race winners?
As to teaching me something, I don’t believe you can predict the future at all. Don’t bother asking me to pay for the tutelage. Maybe you might convince a pseudoscientific climate cultist of your awesome power. They are pretty gullible, and have strong belief in non-existent nonsense.
Good luck with your lessons.
Cheerd.
I guess a ‘tockmarket’ is the flip side of a ‘tickmarket’. Not sure though which is bear and which is bull. I’ll go with ‘tockmarket’ being bull since it came from you.
Anyway, odd that you don’t chide Salvatore and ren for attempting to predict the future. I especially like Salvatore’s prediction of permanently subzero UAH by August 2018.
“Cheerd”
Dang me. Hasn’t and just.
-Solar experts predict the Suns activity in Solar Cycle 25 to be below average, similar to Solar Cycle 24-
https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-sun-activity-in-solar-cycle
And solar Parker probe doing second close pass by the Sun and as comes back, it do another gravity assist off Venus and get closer to the sun. Or the probe should finish three or more passes of sun before we start cycle 25.
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
From you first link:
“The panel has high confidence that the coming cycle should BREAK the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles.
“… the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end and that there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
“Solar Cycle 24 reached its maximum … in April 2014 with a peak average of 82 sunspots.” …. “Solar Cycle 25 … is anticipated to peak with … a sunspot range of 95 to 130”
-Bobdesbond says:
April 8, 2019 at 2:44 PM
From you first link:
“The panel has high confidence that the coming cycle should BREAK the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles.–
break or “change the downward drop in solar activity”
And they “might be” correct.
I have never felt much confidence in predicting or having much reliance on anyone prediction regarding solar cycles, though within a cycle there some skill in regards to predicting it.
And Btw, I hope the Parker solar probe will help such prediction in the future.
Remember – it was YOUR link. If you had no confidence in their predictions, why did you post it?
It’s funny how your confidence in predictions is strongly dependent on what you want those predictions to be.
the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end and that there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.
Well, if we get a solar grand Min, as some have predicted, the above is evidence, that that this “theory” can predict. Is predictive or is apparently valid.
And we don’t much time before this can determined- about 5 to 10 years. So, good news and welcome other models and their predictions.
Obviously, I prefer a sun which continues our warming trend- because we are living in an Ice Age and warming is much better than any amount of cooling.
Also Solar min make it harder to send people to Mars.
“before we start cycle 25”
The start of the cycle is determined by the running 13 month average in sunspot numbers. This average has been declining every month since the peak in April 2014. However there have already been enough sunspots in the first 8 days of this month to ensure that the October 2018 average will be higher than September. If it doesn’t dip again (and there is every chance that it will) that would mean that (retrospectively) we are already 6 months into cycle 25.
B,
“If it doesnt dip again . . .”
And if it does?
Cheers.
As my comment was designed only to correct the false assumption that we definitely have not yet reached the minimum, and not to claim that we definitely have, your comment serves no purpose.
Good to see you’ve googled the correct spelling of “cheers”.
B,
How do you know I didn’t write what I meant to write? Have your mindreading skills suddenly improved?
Good to see you are attentive enough to notice my little comprehension indicators.
The more attention you pay, the more you might learn.
Cheers.
My implication was that you DID write EXACTLY what you meant to write. Which means even your thoughts are not guided by a meaningful purpose.
B,
Again with the mindreading and implications. Why not quote what you disagree with, and provide some facts to back up your disagreement?
The value of your opinions to me is zero. Why should I care what you think?
I’m deeply touched by your concern for the guidance of my thoughts (only joking), but I suspect you are wasting your time trolling.
Is there a point to your implications and possible implied criticism? Are you trying to exceed your previous levels of stupidity and ignorance, or am I wrong if I assess this to be the case?
Feel to take offence if you wish. You may also choose to be annoyed, irritated, or any emotion you choose. Or not. Nothing to do with me either way. Do as you wish – I do.
Cheers.
Where have I suggested you should care what I think? And yet you do care – you never cease responding uninvited. If you really don’t care, try to actually SHOW IT instead of just telling me. I predict you will care enough to respond.
B,
You wrote –
“If you really dont care, try to actually SHOW IT instead of just telling me. I predict you will care enough to respond.”
Why should I care? Are you really stupid and ignorant enough to think I would do anything other than what I feel like? Keep attempting to read my mind if you wish. Make any stupid and ignorant assumptions you like. If I feel like pointing out how stupid and ignorant you are, I will. Others may agree with my assessment or not, as they choose.
Maybe you also suffer from some mental defect which results from your innate feelings of importance and power. I don’t know, of course.
Continue telling me how I feel, what I think, and why I should obey your instructions. I’ll keep doing as I wish. You may continue appearing mentally deficient, stupid, and ignorant if you wish.
I would definitely pay close attention if you could actually define the missing GHE, or iproduce a GHE hypothesis. I understand completely if you jealously hide away the information, just to show me how clever you are!
Cheers.
Prediction correct.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
–That is a general rule for energy transfer of any kind, it must move from a higher potential energy state to a lower potential energy state.
I have no idea why anyone would want to argue that the opposite is true.–
I would say a reason is related to Venus.
Venus “appears” to violate it.
I don’t believe Venus violates it, but I can see why some are confused about it.
I would say there are also other reasons, but they tend to be harder to explain. Things related to “brainwashing”, evilness in general and etc.
Perhaps, we should discuss, why and how Venus surface is hot.
Of course I would be more interested in discussing having sky cities on Venus or something like that.
But to be more on the topic of earth climate, what would happen if water was added to the Earth’s ocean so that sea level rose by 2000 meters.
The short answer is, I believe, that it would increase Earth average temperature.
So, going add a lot water, and the temperature of the water will be same as Ocean average temperature of 3.5 C.
Now if just dropped this much water from space, in short period of time, say, within a month of time, that quick addition of so much water would be quite violent.
So, we will imagine it’s dropped over a period of a 100 years, and it will lowered by a space elevator or many space elevators.
And while we at it, we will harvest energy from the drop of water from the orbit distance- so by, generating massive amount of energy. Something like equal to all power from all hydro dams on Earth times million or maybe a billion for time period of 100 years.
It would still would be quite violent and having sea level at 20 meter per year would upset a lot people.
Anyhow it roars into the ocean and it’s at the temperature of 3.5 C and would have regional weather effects caused by it, but it shouldn’t mix the entire ocean by much- assuming it’s planned/designed in a manner, not to do this.
So, after a century and sea level 2000 meter higher, most of the land will be under water. And it’s not quite as bad as Vogons destroying Earth for their highway project.
And as said, I think this would eventually cause an increase in global average temperature. Though it would require many thousands of years to increase Earth’s average temperature
To continue.
Now imagine Earth with it’s sea level 2000 meter lower.
I would think if sea levels were 2000 meter lower, Earth average temperature would be colder.
Currently ocean depths are about 4000 meters deep. And having 2000 meter lower sea level would not change the appearance of Earth by much. But Asia and North America are connected and it’s not a “bridge” it’s very wide area. Arctic ocean is much smaller and is more like a enclosed large Sea rather than ocean, Mediterranean sea is isolated, and other, likewise large changes. But in the big picture Earth still looks like a water planet.
And my assumption is that Earth gets colder.
One notable appearance change is Earth seems to have more mountains.
And since mountain elevation is based upon sea level, mountains are 2000 meter higher. But it also appears more mountainous or having ocean 2000 meters higher make Earth “appear” less mountainous.
And since it appears and is more mountainous, it could have more snowy mountains, and having snowy mountains will add to the illusion of Earth being more mountainous.
In terms pf colder average temperature, it seems simple that Europe should be much colder. You don’t have a gulf of Mexico, and Gulf Stream might need to change it’s name, but whatever you want to call this current, it seems there would be less of it. And there would be more of Europe and Europe would be 2000 meter higher in elevation.
Now, currently the average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C. Would average surface temperature remain around 17 C or would get colder or warmer than this?
If it stayed the same temperature, it seems to me that Ocean would not warm land as much as ocean warms land currently with it’s sea level 2000 meter higher. Or 17 C 2000 meter higher is 6.5 C times 2 = 13 C, cooler. Or in terms say LA, the ocean 2000 meter lower acts like it’s 13 C cooler [in regards to LA].
So in this regard alone, Europe which warmed by about 10 K from the Gulf Stream is not warmed by 10 K.
But perhaps a lower elevation could have a higher or much higher average temperature than 17 C.
–bobdroege says:
April 8, 2019 at 6:54 AM
CO2 emits radiation that heats the surface of the earth.
Ive said similar before and you havent refuted it or even showed you understand what I have written.
Jeers–
At what distance from the surface of the Earth are 50% or more of CO2 molecules which according to you, would be heating the Earth surface?
And are regions of earth surface which heated more as compared to other regions [Ie ocean or land or tropics or deserts or polar regions]?
–JDHuffman says:
April 8, 2019 at 3:10 AM
K, just as I suspected. You cant understand simple problems. You ramble endlessly on semantical issues, but you arent able to apply any actual physics.
The 3 plates together would all reach the same temperature at equilibrium, 244K. The plate temperatures would look like this:
244K244K244K, with 400 Watts input to the middle (blue) plate, and 200 Watts output from each green plate.
Pulled slightly apart, there is the correct solution, and the incorrect solution.
The correct solution looks like this:
244K244K244K, with 400 Watts input to the middle (blue) plate, and 200 Watts output from each green plate. Essentially it is the same as if the plates were together.–
It seems if surfaces were not ideal and/or were reflective surfaces rather than ideal blackbody surface, one would get a different answer.
It also seems that if it was not vacuum but had atmosphere between the plates, one would get different numbers in terms of the radiant energy which is transferred.
If add gravity, the short distances involved should not have much of effect.
Just curious .. what would your answer be if the “3 plates together” were places into a room at 244 K? (Lets assume a vacuum for now, so that we don’t have to worry about convection or conduction through the air.) Would you still say the “3 plates together” would be 244 K?
#6
Answer the question, Tim.
I am sure why we need a room temperature of 244 K [-29 C].
One could instead have unheated house and say early morning and say air temperature was about 280 K [6.85 C], and I would expect everything in the house to be about 280 K.
I can’t quite follow your answer. Are you saying that the “triple plate” with a 400 W heater inside a 244 K room would just be 244 K? And the “triple plate” with a 400 W heater inside a 280 K room would just be 280 K? That seems to be your conclusion — that the heater does nothing to warm the plates above room temperature.
If that is not what you mean, perhaps you could clarify.
“Are you saying that the triple plate with a 400 W heater inside a 244 K room would just be 244 K? And the triple plate with a 400 W heater inside a 280 K room would just be 280 K? That seems to be your conclusion ”
No.
As said before a 400 W heater, does not indicate what temperatures would be involved.
But sunlight at 400 watts per square meter, indicates a distance from the sun which would be beyond mars orbit [or Mars distance is about 600 watts per square meter].
And sunlight can be 400 watts per square meter on the earth surface, if sunlight is going thru more atmosphere or say 1000 watts of sunlight strikes a surface at an angle. Ie at 30 degree angle it would be about 1/2 of the 1000 watts or about 500 watts per square meter and lower angle would be less watts per square meter.
But if beyond Mars orbit and sunlight is 400 watts per
square meter and if in a vacuum and have ideal blackbody surface
then it’s temperature will be about 290 K, so it could warm a surface in 280 K room to about 290 K.
But four 100 watts lightbulbs could warm it to higher temperature.
gb,
Or you could use a Fresnel lens or mirror or similar and concentrate the 400 W of sunlight into a smaller area. You can get in excess of 5500 K. Using the same procedure with ice, you can’t exceed 273 K.
It’s Tim’s fantasy. His 400 W heat source is whatever he wants. Guess what you want, he will tell you that you are wrong. Typical pseudoscientific diversion tactics to avoid providing facts.
Cheers.
Tim,
If your 400 W heater is made of ice, how hot will your plate get, if the room is 280 K?
Don’t try to look even more stupid than you do. That’s the sort of misleading and diversionary nonsense pushed by pseudoscienific dummies like Trenberth et al. How hot is your heater? Can’t or won’t say?
Try defining the GHE. That might concentrate your mind, and give you a break from running round in pseudoscientific circles. Just a thought. You don’t need to thank me.
Cheers.
DREMT,
You need to answer the questions:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348431
#7
Answer the question, Tim.
Stop stalking Tim, DREMT, youve got bigger fish to fry.
You need to explain why your ‘science’ leads to toasters that cant toast.
Are you referring to the conversation Tim initiated upthread, with JD, as a deliberate distraction from the question about entropy and enthalpy that everyone is refusing to answer?
Yeah, that has nothing to do with me. Continue stalking JD if you wish. I’ll just sit here and wait patiently for Tim to answer the question.
I thought you were done commenting?
People have answered the ‘entropy’ question, and it is an esoteric rabbit hole.
Whereas, your ‘science’ leads to heat that does not heat things and lightbulbs that dont light.
Thus your ‘science’ has glaring problems, that both you and JD are working hard to evade.
“I thought you were done commenting”
…on the plates, pretty much, yes. I’ve just been linking to previous comments, and elaborating where necessary, exactly as I said I might. Just having fun, really, laughing at the continued evasion and denial.
Nobody has answered the question, and your attempts to bait me into a discussion I wasn’t a part of are typically desperate and amusing.
I’ll just sit here and wait patiently for Tim to answer the question.
–JDHuffman says:
April 8, 2019 at 1:14 PM
Norman contributes more confusion: “You can warm things to whatever temperature just using the 14.7 micron photons if you have enough of them reaching a surface that absorbs them.”
Norman, “if” and “absorbs” are key words. You can probably understand that if a photon is reflected from a surface (not absorbed), it can not warm the surface.
But, your preceding wording is more complicated for you–“You can warm things to whatever temperature…”
That is completely incorrect, and again, demonstrates your lack of understanding of the relevant physics.–
This reminds me of a question. What is a surface?
One thing one you can say about a surface is it is very complicated.
For example the surface of water is very complicated, or to capture it in a model is complicated.
So, I am not going to even attempt to do this, rather I mean in very simple terms and limited to radiant effects.
So roughly I can say that all surfaces are transparent to radiant energy if one dealing surface at level of 1 atom in thickness, and you might regard a surface in terms of hundreds of atoms in thickness if you concerned about the thin layer of a surface and within this thin layer of surface, one might be interested in what point does the material stop being as transparent to say 50% or more of a particular wavelength of radiant energy.
“So how big is say a very small droplet of water, google, gives:
“A new study by researchers at the University of California, San Diego, and Emory University has uncovered fundamental details about the hexamer structures that make up the tiniest droplets of water, the key component of life – and one that scientists still don’t fully understand.”
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/researchers_reveal_behaviors_of_the_tiniest_water_droplets1
Interesting, but I was looking for a number, here:
“Cloud,fog, mist droplets are very small. Their *mean*
diameter is typically only 10-15 micron [1 micron = 1/1000 mm]
but in any one cloud the individuals drops range greatly in size
from 1 to 100 microns diameter. ”
https://www.atoptics.co.uk/droplets/clouds.htm
One might decide a 1 micron diamater droplet doesn’t “really” have a surface, whereas on might decide 10 micron droplet does have surface- or has surface surrounding it, and in the middle it’s not the surface, though you might decide it has to be at least 100 micron [1/10th of mm] in diameter have surface in regards to radiant energy [or radiant energy you are interested in].
So could have 100 micron diameter sphere of water, iron, salt, or whatever. And at some depth of such a sphere, it becomes 50% or less transparent to various wavelengths of light [electromagnetic energy: x-ray, UV, visible, IR, etc.].
gbaikie…”One might decide a 1 micron diamater droplet doesnt really have a surface…”
You could fit roughly 5 million million (5 x 10^12) hydrogen atoms on the head of a pin.
I just measured a pin head, roughly, and it’s about 3 mm diameter. A micron is 0.001mm, so we could say the pin head is close to 1000 microns diameter.
Convert that diameter to area = pi.(d/2)^2 = 3.14 x 500u^2 = 785000 sq. microns
Let’s divide 5 x 10^12 hydrogen atoms by 7.85000 x 10^5 sq.u to get 0.637 x 10^7 hydrogen atoms per sq.u
That’s 6.37 million hydrogen atoms per sq micron. I’d call that a surface.
The question for me is what happens to the EM if it gets past the first million layers of atoms and it is not absorbed? Since EM has an electric and magnetic field and the electrons joining those layers of atoms has the same, I am guessing the EM will be diverted all over the place till it is somehow converted to ‘something’ or diverted back out the surface.
Don’t know.
bdgwx wrote
“JD, if a material can spontaneously emit a 14.7 um photon then it can absorb it to.”
Or maybe not. Lenses for 14.7 u IR are specifically designed to be transparent, of course. Light of 14.7 u passes straight through. Not absorbed.
However, this same material can be heated to a temperature of around -76 C, at which its peak emission is – 14.7 u!
The lesson is that just because a material can emit light of a specific wavelength, it doesn’t mean it must absorb light of that same wavelength. An example is a CO2 laser using a partially reflective mirror which allows the light emitted by the CO2 through as efficiently as possible.
Many textbooks give wrong information, and cannot accept that transparent materials are made to avoid absorbing photons.
So to Tim Folkerts, Norman and all the rest who refuse to accept that transparent materials exist, so sad, too bad, you are wrong.
Cheers.
“The lesson is that just because a material can emit light of a specific wavelength, it doesnt mean it must absorb light of that same wavelength. ”
A fellow named Kirchhoff proved about 150 years ago that materials that emit a specific wavelength must indeed also absorb that same wavelength. Otherwise you can easily violate the 2LoT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
So to Mike who refuses to accept standard classical physics that has been known for 150 years, so sad, too bad, you are wrong.
Cheers.
tim…”A fellow named Kirchhoff proved about 150 years ago that materials that emit a specific wavelength must indeed also absorb that same wavelength”.
Tim…from your link…
“In heat transfer, Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorp-tion by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium””.
Please note the reference to thermal equilibrium. I have no idea why the Wiki writer used the phrase ‘in heat transfer’, because there is no heat transfer at thermal equilibrium nor is electromagnetic energy heat.
The kinds of radiative transfer to which you refer only happen at thermal equilibrium. Talking about emissivity and absorp-tion as having significance between bodies of different temperature is nonsense.
Tim Folkerts,
Nope, your silly attempt at an appeal to authority fails. From your link –
“For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorp-tion is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power.”
Unfortunately, transparent materials are not “. . . emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium,. . .”.
They are not absorbing the wavelengths passing though them (otherwise they wouldn’t be transparent, would they?), nor are they in thermal equilibrium – what is the temperature of the lens? You have no idea whatsoever, do you?
You look like you cannot understand classical physics, let alone advances made over the last 150 years or so.
Keep lobbing underarm pitches – I’ll keep belting them out of the ballpark.
Next!
Cheers.
“Or maybe not. Lenses for 14.7 u IR are specifically designed to be transparent, of course. Light of 14.7 u passes straight through. Not absorbed.
However, this same material can be heated to a temperature of around -76 C, at which its peak emission is 14.7 u!
Let’s explore that scenario. Let’s put that -76 C lens in a chamber at -76 C. You seem to think that it could be transparent to incoming 14.7 um radiation, yet still strongly emit 14.7 um radiation itself.
But that would mean there is more radiation emitted than absorbed, meaning the lens would cool below -76 C. But an object can’t cool below the temperature of the surroundings. You can’t thermally connect 2 objects at the same temperature and and one cool and one warm.
–But that would mean there is more radiation emitted than absorbed, meaning the lens would cool below -76 C. But an object cant cool below the temperature of the surroundings. You cant thermally connect 2 objects at the same temperature and and one cool and one warm.–
” But an object cant cool below the temperature of the surroundings.”
Hmm, didn’t you mention something about making ice in deserts?
It seems to me that objects might be able to be cool below the temperature of the surroundings.
Or I would not state as a rule: “an object cant cool below the temperature of the surroundings” by radiant cooling
One can surface below 0 C at 1 AU and facing the our Sun in the vacuum of space.
True, you could claim a vacuum it not something you mean by “the surroundings”. {and the “surroundings” might be thought of as about 3 K [as long as you don’t think/imagine that space has a temperature- it’s not hot or cold]}
But also works if on lunar surface in vacuum. And should also work in the near vacuum of the Mars atmosphere.
But on Earth heat transfer is mostly about convectional, evaporational, and conductive heat transfers- and radiant transfer at low temperatures [say, at temperatures less than 40 C [100 F]] is not significant in terms of amount energy transferred.
And one could say it’s not normal/typical that objects cool below the temperature of the surroundings.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“Granted, lasers are quite different from thermal IR from the sky, but a “whole bunch” of 15 um photons could indeed in principle warm things to very high temperatures.”
What’s your point? If you can’t describe the GHE, (and you can’t), no amount of diversions are going to help.
The Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of all your imaginary plates, lasers, bunches of photons and all the rest. Cooled, not heated or warmed. No longer molten.
You do not understand the interaction between light and matter. Photons are not little ping pong balls, nor is their energy necessarily totally absorbed or re-emitted, just because you think it should be. I can assure you that concentrating the energy emitted by ice using lenses, mirrors or the like, won’t allow you to heat an object to any temperature higher than that of the emitting body – the ice.
Nor does confusing temperature with emitted power help. The pseudoscientific nonsense disguised as energy budgets is bizarre. Look at their brightly coloured diagrams. Remember that ice can emit 300 W/m2. The dimwitted caricature producers really have no clue, have they?
You still don’t understand how photons of a given energy can be generated by subjecting a gas to compression or friction, it seems. No photonic input required, is there? No answer? I thought so.
Keep up the diversions – it’s quite diverting for some.
Cheers.
“What’s your point?”
The point was quite obvious, but since you seem to have missed it, I can repeat.
JD said something false. I corrected him. Period.
Nothing about greenhouse effect. Nothing about the core of the earth. Nothing about ice. Just a simple correction.
Tim,
Are you referring to JD saying “Just because you have a whole bunch of 14.7 μ photons does not mean you can warm to whatever tempeature.”
Are you claiming that JD’s statement is false, or some other statement of his that you cannot bring yourself to quote?
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for showing that JD was right, in spite of the consensus of people who thought like you. They were wrong.
I understand why you are reluctant to address facts such as the cooling if the Earth, the missing greenhouse effect, the power of IR emitted by ice and so on. You would appear quite stupid and ignorant if you kept on with the pseudoscientific nonsense you promote.
Cheers
MikeyF,
A simple question.
Can you explain your ‘theory’ about the ‘Earth’s cooling core means the atmosphere can’t warm’?
Can you specifically justify your ‘theory’ against this planets 4.54 billion year history?
Cheerio
two simple questions 🙂
DS,
Maybe you could quote me, rather than making up stuff and claiming I said it, but I doubt it.
You are stupid and ignorant, and if you are trying to make people think that the words you surround with quotes were uttered by me, a lying fraud into the bargain.
You could always try holding your breath until you turn blue, or having a tantrum, if you think you can force me to do something I don’t wish to do. Why would you possibly think I would deign to provide an answer to such a bizarre gotcha?
I’d much rather sit here laughing at your foolishness. I hope you don’t have any awesome super powers you are about to unleash! Then I’d be in trouble, wouldn’t I?
Oh well, enough jocularity at your expense. Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Thermometers respond to heat, not pseudoscientific wishful thinking.
Cheers.
And round and round spins Mikey. Lol, you really are a clown.
Lets see: from above
“The Earth’s surface … . Cooled, not heated or warmed. No longer molten.’
And that stops the atmosphere from warming eh?
Laughter ensues.
Cheerio
DS,
What are you disputing? Nothing?
Did I mention the atmosphere? You are delusional – making stuff up so you can try to appear intelligent! Bad luck – you might be suffering from the same type of delusional psychosis as the other pseudoscientific climate cultists – Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth etc.
Carry on. Deny, divert and confuse. Avoid any mention of a testable GHE hypothesis – because nobody can even describe the GHE!
Next thing, you’ll be claiming that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes it hotter. Sheer lunacy, but widely believed by those of reduced intelligence – GHE believers.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Mike, I am claiming that IR lasers can melt steel. Are you claiming that IR lasers can’t?
T,
What a stupid gotcha! Unless you can quote me directly, you are obviously trolling for some purpose which is unknown to me.
I am claiming you are a stupid and ignorant troll. Are you claiming you aren’t?
Gotchas are easy, aren’t they?
Providing a testable GHE hypothesis, not so easy.
Carry on trolling, if you wish.
Cheers.
“Einstein received a Nobel Prize for showing that JD was right, in spite of the consensus of people who thought like you. They were wrong.”
I would love to hear the details about this.
CT,
It’s available on the internet.
Cheers.
Funny,
I don’t recall JD discussing the effect Albert got the Nobel prize for.
So it’s the details of JD’s opinions that would be of interest.
I would like to hear about that.
b,
You wrote –
“I would like to hear about that.”
I’m sure you would. Are you too stupid and ignorant to work it out for yourself?
What is it that you don’t understand?
Why would you think that your likes or dislikes are of the slightest concern to me or anyone else? Maybe you have an inflated opinion of your importance, maybe not.
Have you considered actually reading documents, rather than just expressing a desire for someone to spoon feed you? Or are you just trying for a stupid gotcha?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
I know what Albert received the Nobel for, my response to this
“Einstein received a Nobel Prize for showing that JD was right, in spite of the consensus of people who thought like you. They were wrong.”
Was to question whether or not JD ever had anything to say about what Albert received the Nobel prize for.
I may have missed it.
So how old is JD to have been living for Albert to show that he was right?
And what was JD right about again, that Albert had an interest in.
Maybe you should let the monkeys take over, I’ll bet they would be more coherent than you.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Tim imagines: “JD said something false.”
No Tim, you didn’t ask for any clarification, you just started making up your usual nonsense, and I lost interest.
If you ever want to face reality, there are about 5 questions you have been afraid to answer.
–If you ever want to face reality, there are about 5 questions you have been afraid to answer.–
Ah, a puzzle.
What could the questions be?
Well, it in terms of broad question:
How does CO2 increase the average temperature of Earth?
Where does CO2 warm the Earth the most?
Clues/hints: tropics. Polar regions. Land or Ocean.
Or none, it’s uniformly warming.
And that could count as one question. But I would guess
it not one of the five questions that Mike has in mind.
Ah, maybe this would a question:
Since Earth was at one point, very hot, and had lots of
greenhouse gases, why didn’t Earth become like Venus.
So maybe I got 1 of 5.
Oh, I thought it was Mike questions.
hmm.
To keep simple, does Tim think back radiation increase the ground or ocean surface’s temperature.
[But can’t remember exactly what Tim views are, so it’s really a question. I think it’s more of question for Norman.]
How about everyone take an actual course in atomic and optical physics before talking out of your Trumpholes:
https://tinyurl.com/AtomicAndOpticalPhysics
B,
How about you provide a GHE description before issuing pointless instructions? How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Out of your Trumphole it it then.
Bob, don’t go on about Trumpholes.
1. It’s ad hominem
2. I don’t want that image in my head
The “Greenhouse Effect” (misnomer that it is) refers to gasses in the atmosphere absorbing some of the upwelling longwave radiation leaving the Earth and emitting it. Half of the emitted radiation still leaves the Earth but the other half becomes downwelling longwave radiation.
I think that’s a good enough description for us to continue the discussion.
Half doesn’t leave the earth. Half head in an upward direction, but then have to deal with the next interaction with a CO2 molecule.
–Bobdesbond says:
April 9, 2019 at 4:15 PM
Half doesnt leave the earth. Half head in an upward direction, but then have to deal with the next interaction with a CO2 molecule.–
Where is the next interaction with this CO2 molecule?
Bob I tried to keep it brief. Sure, after the photon is emitted upward it may hit another molecule and change direction. I think the math works out where roughly half that got rerouted by a greenhouse gas still leaves the Earth and half returns to the surface. If you have some solid science going into more detail I’d like to see it.
Each gas has specific wavelengths it interacts with and there is overlap between some of the gasses. Lots of fine print affecting the exact warming it causes. Lots of room for honest scientists to have disagreements.
At 15 microns, almost all is prevented from escaping. In that respect, deniers are correct that the greenhouse effect is saturated … at 15 microns.
But moving away from 15 microns, photons have exponentially less probability of being absor-bed, so the mean free path between absor-ptions increases exponentially. At wavelengths a certain distance from 15 microns (can’t recall exactly how far) the photons will indeed have a 50% chance of escaping. Beyond that, they are more likely to escape than return.
If you examine the maths, the exponential decay in probability of absor-ption explains the logarithmic sensitivity to increasing CO2.
Band saturation is not the end of the story.
You have to repeat the calculation layer after layer.
The question becomes how many layers are there.
More layers => more insulation.
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
If you had a world without greenhouse gases and if the global average temperature was -18 C and added the same amount of greenhouse gases as Earth has, would the world temperature increase to 15 C.
And how fast would it warm?
If you had another world without greenhouse gases and if the average global temperature was 10 C and you added the same amount of greenhouse gases as Earth has, what average global temperature be?
And how fast would it warm?
Currently global CO2 levels are about 400 ppm.
And Canada’s average yearly air surface temperature is about -4 C.
If global CO2 levels were to lower to 200 ppm within next 10 years,
What what Canada average temperature be in 20 years?
Or instead, if within 10 year global CO2 were to double: be 800 ppm
and stay at 800 ppm for 10 more years, what would Canada’s average temperature be in 20 years?
CT,
With respect, what happens if you add “This is why the surface cools every night, and has resulted in the surface having progressively cooled since the creation of the planet. It also explains why extremes of temperature are less on the Earth than an airless body at the same distance form the Sun, such as the Moon.”?
Probably not what you want.
Using words such as “upwelling” and “downwelling” sound like pseudoscientific climatological jargon, and are unnecessary.
Nothing you have said is not known, and you have not pointed to any observable unusual effect associated with your description. I assume the Sun is a necessary part of the GHE, but maybe not. You have not mentioned it. As all gases can be warmed by radiation, and all emit radiation. Is your description restricted to certain gases?
And so it goes. Your description might be sufficient to true believers, who put their trust in faith, rather than fact. That has the hallmarks of religion rather than science.
You may continue to discuss whatever you wish, with whomever you wish, but I am not sure what the result of your discussion is supposed to be.
Cheers.
“With respect, what happens if you add ‘This is why the surface cools every night, and has resulted in the surface having progressively cooled since the creation of the planet. It also explains why extremes of temperature are less on the Earth than an airless body at the same distance form the Sun, such as the Moon.'”?
I purposefully stopped before going into cause and effect. I just didn’t want you to violate DREMT’s thousand post rule asking “How about you provide a GHE description?”
“Using words such as ‘upwelling’ and ‘downwelling’ sound like pseudoscientific climatological jargon, and are unnecessary.”
Since you occasionally bring up QED would you prefer Feynman diagrams showing the probability of the photon breaking into particle-antiparticle pairs on the way up or down?
CT,
You wrote –
“I purposefully stopped before going into cause and effect.”
This appears odd, because you stop your attempt to describe the greenhouse effect before you get to the point of describing the effect. You have mentioned a few isolated physical facts, without associating them with anything in particular. I don’t blame you – you would appear pretty stupid and ignorant if you claimed to have described a scientific effect without describing what the effect of it is.
You wrote –
“I just didn’t want you to violate DREMT’s thousand post rule asking “How about you provide a GHE description?” This sounds like a nonsensical assertion which you just made up on the spur of the moment, to avoid looking foolish. What is this DREMT “rule” of which you speak? Why would you think I care? Do you think you have any control over what I choose to violate (or not)?
As to QED, my preferences are neither here nor there. However if you want to include Feynman diagrams, go your hardest. Maybe you need to define up and down in this context. I wasn’t aware quantum electro dynamics theory was dependent on your definition of up and down (and sideways, maybe?), but I am always willing to absorb new information.
If you need to include Feynman diagrams in your description of the GHE, by all means do so. Why would they be necessary?
You can’t actually come up with a useful GHE description can you? I understand. Neither can anyone else.
Off you go now. Impress people with your QED knowledge.
Cheers.
“As to QED, my preferences are neither here nor there.”
Don’t be so modest. You have a full Feynman fetish.
“You are just firing off stupid and ignorant gotchas, because you are too lazy or incompetent (or both) to absorb the necessary knowledge about QED.”
“If you can produce evidence to show you are not stupid, ignorant, lazy or incompetent in regard to learning as much about QED as is necessary to find the answer to your witless gotcha, feel free to do so.”
“For those seemingly convinced they understand QED (photons and how they interact with things, and all that), consider the following –
How do the photons ‘know’ you are looking at them one way or another? It doesn’t matter! QED theory predicted this behaviour, and the theory has been verified.”
“The sorts of people who would believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize, or that CO2 does not interact with light following the same QED principles as other matter.”
CT,
Oh dear, oh dear.
You wrote –
“Don’t be so modest. You have a full Feynman fetish.”
I’ll be as modest as I wish. What’s it to you, anyway?
I presume your false quotes are supposed to demonstrate something or other, but you have lost your marbles, so to speak, so you have decided to string a load of words together. Well done!
Maybe you could try to describe the GHE? You can’t can you?
Oh well, all part of the rich tapestry of the pseudoscientific fantasy.
Cheers.
Here’s some false links to those false quotes.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347914
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347898
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348335
“I just didn’t want you to violate DREMT’s thousand post rule”
Huh? Do you mean Dr Spencer’s thousand post rule, from further upthread? I didn’t make a thousand post rule. Craig, you’re not the best at following discussions.
You have to walk before you run. In this case, we need to be able to agree on the most basic of thermodynamics questions before throwing in CO2 or the earth’s core or focusing radiation from ice or calculating entropy.
So here (once again) is my “freshman physics” scenario. If you don’t like it, feel free to not comment. (And feel even freer not to comment in this subthread about other things until we agree here). Many idealizations are included which could be relaxed at a later time.
* A chamber has walls that can be held at a constant, uniform temperature that we can set. For the initial discussion, the walls are blackbody emitters and the interior of the chamber is evacuated.
* Inside the chamber is a solid sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 (a radius of about 28 cm). The surface is also a blackbody. Inside the sphere is an electric heater which can we adjusted to provide any (reasonable) amount of electric power by controlling the voltage (ie P = IV).
* There is no thermal conduction between the sphere and the chamber walls.
CASE 1: The walls are set to 20 C (293K) and the heater is set to 0 W of electrical power. What will the surface temperature of the sphere be?
[HINT: the answer is 20 C.]
CASE 2: The walls are set to 20 C (293K) and the heater is set to 100 W of electrical power. What will the surface temperature of the sphere be?
[HINT1: the sphere is warmer than 20 C.]
[HINT2: the answer is 36 C.]
The deliberate distractions continue.
The ‘question’ was already answered by Tim and others, way up thread, DREMT. Now you are just trolling.
TF’As long as the net energy flow is from warmer to cooler, entropy will increase in the system. Individual photons can and do transfer energy from the cooler areas to the warmer areas.’
Link, please.
Get Dr. Roy to explain it to you. He doesn’t claim greenhouse warming violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
But in case he’s busy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
craig t …”Anything that emits IR also absorbs IR, and this makes the intuitive understanding of how IR radiation affects the atmospheric temperature profile difficult”.
True at thermal equilibrium, nowhere else.
This is Kircheoff’s Law related to blackbodies, and all of Kircheoff’s work was done at thermal equilibrium.
I was quoting Dr. Spencer.
Kircheoff’s law says an object under thermal equilibrium will emit and absorb equal levels of radiation at any given frequency. The law doesn’t say anything if there is not thermal equilibrium.
The atomic structure and chemical bonds of a molecule controls what it can emit and absorb. If a molecule can emit a specific frequency it is capable of absorbing that frequency.
Craig T…”Kircheoff’s law says an object under thermal equilibrium will emit and absorb equal levels of radiation at any given frequency. The law doesn’t say anything if there is not thermal equilibrium.
The atomic structure and chemical bonds of a molecule controls what it can emit and absorb. If a molecule can emit a specific frequency it is capable of absorbing that frequency”.
**********
With regard to Roy’s quote, I am not going to drag him into this. I respect Roy and the work he has done to bring awareness to the planet with regard to global warming/climate change. I don’t care if I disagree with him on minor issues, it’s irrelevant in an overall sense.
I agree with Roy’s overall assessment of the atmosphere, that any warming we have experienced cannot be directly related to CO2. Furthermore, he does not see catastrophic effects from increased CO2 or the warming we have experienced. His opinion that CO2 must contribute a certain amount of warming is not far off my own position, that it might contribute some warming but a negligible amount.
I am not arguing that the 33C difference claimed between Earth with no atmosphere/oceans and Earth with both is not there. I am arguing that it could not have come from the 0.04% of the atmosphere represented by CO2. The choice of a greenhouse as the model makes no sense to me.
I think the 33C difference is due to far more complex processes related to the atmosphere AS A WHOLE, dominated by nitrogen and oxygen, as well as the effect of the massive oceans.
I even agree with Mike Flynn that the internal geothermal activity over billions of years has had a warming effect.
Craig T…part 2
What you say is right, that Kircheoff’s Law at thermal equilibrium does not say anything about a situation out of thermal equilibrium. It was never intended for that purpose, it was a simple model for an ideal radiator/absorber at thermal equilibrium.
Kircheoff knew nothing about EM and its relation to electrons in atoms. Here again, you have given the molecule properties it does not have, mainly because a molecule is nothing more than a model for an aggregation of atoms.
You should be looking to the individual atoms in a molecule as the source of EM emission and absorp-tion. The atom is made up of a nucleus with neutrons and protons, which cannot be the source of the EM we are discussing. The only source of that EM are the electrons orbiting the nucleus.
The electron is a mass carrying a negative electric charge. As it moves, the movement of the electric charge produces a magnetic field. E =electric; M = magnetic. That is the source of your EM.
The electron both absorbs and emits EM whether it is a single electron in a hydrogen atom or the bond-forming electrons in a molecule. Bonds don’t magically emit EM, bonds are electrons and they emit and absorb the EM while forming the bond(s).
Whether the EM is emitted from electronic transitions, or vibration/rotation related to electron bonds, it is the electrons doing the emitting/absorbing. There are related rules as laid down by Bohr initially, then Schrodinger and those who followed.
Basically, as an electron moves from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, it emits a quantum of EM as E = hf. E is the difference in orbital energy levels and f is related to the velocity of the electron in a particular orbital. That relations does not change because electrons are forming bonds that lead to vibrational and rotational states.
Therefore, whether a molecule is a simple two electron bond or a highly complex multiple atom bonding arrangement, any EM coming from the molecule comes from the electrons bonding the atoms together into a molecule.
Bohr stipulated in his model that electrons require specific inputs of energy (E = hf) in order to be affected by the energy input. He did not say this, I am saying it, if that energy comes from a cooler body from electrons at a cooler temperature, that energy cannot be absorbed by electrons in a body at a higher temperature.
The frequencies will not correspond and the E will be too low to excite the electrons in a hotter body to a higher energy level. To excite an electron to a higher energy level, thus increasing it’s kinetic energy and temperature, the input EM must be at least the difference between the electron’s present energy level and the next higher energy level.
The energy levels rise with temperature. The EM from a cooler body simply cannot reach those energy levels unless both bodies are at thermal equilibrium.
CT,
Oooooh! What a cunning (but pointless and stupid) appeal to authority. Not.
What if DREMT declines to accept your advice? Possibly because the matter you quoted doesn’t appear to claim that ice (the cooler) can be used to raise the temperature of water (the warmer)?
Or at night, Dr Spencer doesn’t appear to be claiming that the surface is heating up due to radiation from the cooler atmosphere – rather the opposite, otherwise the surface wouldn’t cool, would it?
Maybe you could quote the part that support your claims about individual photons, and the rest of the diversionary nonsense? You didn’t make any such claims, you say? You didn’t really say anything useful at all, did you?
Carry on doing it.
Cheers.
Craig T, you were obviously not following the discussion. I was asking for a link for where Tim or others had answered JD’s question from earlier, as Nate had claimed they had. As it turned out, Nate was making it up. All you had to do was continue reading…
Sorry, I just reread Nate’s post before your response. His comment about net radiative transfer was aimed at Tim Folkerts not you. I clearly misunderstood what you wanted linked.
I avoided reading most of the “answer the question” chain. It seemed way too petty to worry about.
You still haven’t understood, but never mind. Thanks for trying.
Search and you shall find..
You mean this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347873
The comment Tim wrote, which prompted JD to ask Tim the question in the first place?
Please stop trolling, Nate.
Having answered it already, no need to answer it again and again and again. No point.
Just stop trolling.
So Tim answered this:
“(Tim, since you mentioned “entropy”, maybe you would like to explain how the entropy of the blue/green plates decreases with no change in energy in/out. That would be amusing.)”
before he was asked it? That’s clever.
Think you should definitely stop trolling, Nate. You’re losing it.
The question has a false premise “with no change in energy in/out”.
But his answer is meant to apply to the plates, and it does, since no heat is ever flowing from cold to hot in the solution.
So this is a red herring.
The question has another false premise “how the entropy of the blue/green plates decreases”
“The question has a false premise “with no change in energy in/out”.”
That’s funny. Ball4 didn’t think it was a false premise:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K”
Good old Ball4. I know he’s a bit of an entertainment specialist, but it’s good to have his support on this issue.
And clearly, DREMT, you don’t understand why its a false premise.
Hint: what is the outgoing energy BEFORE the Green plates have warmed up?
And you think its perfectly fine that JD says the entropy decreases in the plates?
The more you post, the more ignorance you reveal.
Keep going pls..
Nate appears to miss the “stacking up” of Kelvins, in the middle plate.
244K…290K…244K
That’s okay, he likely misses a lot….
Upon separation, the Green ones initially cool cool because Q = 0 from Blue, and BLUE must warm. The greens warm again.
Upon separation, each green plate continues at the same 244K, receiving 200 Watts and emitting 200 Watts. The energy flow is the same as if they were all together.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Who said this?
“We are allowing all of the photons from C to be absorbed by H. As H emits photons, it absorbs photons from C. But, C photons have an average energy much less than the photons emitted by H. So, even though H is absorbing photons from C, it cools.”
‘each green plate continues at the same 244K, receiving 200 Watts and emitting 200 Watts.’
You still don’t get it, as Tim explained, you are violating the 2nd law and the 0th law by having heat flow with zero temperature difference!
Thew real world DOES NOT DO THAT.
So I mention how Tim’s 8:25am comment is a distraction from him answering the question posed to him way upthread.
Nate responds, on Tim’s behalf, that “the question has been answered by Tim, and others, way upthread”.
This turns out not to have been the case. The supposed “answer” came before the question! There were no others.
That should be the end of the discussion. But Nate being Nate, he then (still responding on Tim’s behalf) starts to tell us what Tim really meant to say (“his answer is meant to apply to the plates…”) and asserts that the question contains a false premise.
I point out that Ball4 does not think it is a false premise.
Nate now argues that I am revealing ignorance – but somehow not Ball4’s ignorance – mine… then tries to bait me even further…
…this discussion was over at your “A&Q session” blunder.
Not clear why you are here DREMT?
To learn something? No
To discuss science? No
To ‘moderate’? Clearly No.
To make comments “designed to inflame, rather than moderate.”
YES
To be JD’s TOADIE, making pesky, irritating, but ultimately content-free posts?
YES
To point out Nate’s deception? YES
Oh also, you focus on the minutia of discussions, of who said what when, that no one cares about, in hopes of distracting us from the actual larger issues being discussed.
Why do that, DREMT, if youve got facts and truth on your side?
Answer: you dont.
To point out Nate’s deception? YES
To point out Nate’s projection of his own faults onto others? YES
OK DREMT. Keep doing this important work.
.
What else is there left to do?
tim…” The surface is also a blackbody. Inside the sphere is an electric heater which can we adjusted to provide any (reasonable) amount of electric power by controlling the voltage (ie P = IV). ”
You are surely not equating the electrical power required to raise the sphere’s temperature to the S-B radiation, are you?
The electrical power is the heat in but the heat out (loss) is controlled by other variables. It’s a far more complex situation than how are letting on.
But Gordon,
You agree with JD, that a sphere inside a vacuum chamber with an electric heater attached, WON’T HEAT UP when the heat is turned on?
you don’t need a electric heat for 100 watt, a living human will work.
If packed in human in such a small space and provided fresh air, would the human become uncomfortably warm?
Probably.
It’s really not more complicated than that.
I am equating the electrical power to the NET radiation from the sphere to the walls.
* If I set the electrical heater to 0 W, the sphere will be the same temperature as the walls (20 C in this example).
* If I set the electrical heater to 100 W, the sphere initially be emitting net radiation = 0 W and absorbing 100 W of electrical power, meaning the sphere must start to warm up. Eventually the sphere will warm up enough that the net radiation will increase to 100 W. This happens at 36 C in my example.
PS if it really is “far more complex”, why do you think you have the ability to answer the question? What temperature would you predict using your “far more complex” equations and what book do those equations come from? Do you at a minimum agree that the sphere will warm above 20 C?
Tim, please stop trolling.
JD says he’s done with thread. Ask me questions at the bottom.
OK, the issue is that your ‘science’ leads you to nonsense conclusions.
Reminder: we have Tim’s BB sphere inside a vacuum chamber. We can heat the sphere with a 300 W electric heater.
The discussion was about what will be the temperature of the sphere with the walls of the chamber held at 273 K.
N: “273K is what it will, obviously, reach with no added 300 W!”
N: “Now add 300 W to it. It stays the same temperature?!”
JD: “Yup. The sphere is already emitting and absorbing 315 W/m^2, if its at 273K. So it just reflects more back to the… ”
Which is of course, obviously, FALSE.
Filaments of light bulbs get hot when heated.
At work, we have vacuum systems with heating elements inside, designed to melt metal. Shockingly when power is applied to them, they get hot!
This shows the nonsensical results you get when you insist that laws of physics, like Kirchoffs Law, and the Radiative Heat Transfer Law are invalid.
All incoherent rambling, Nate, as usual.
Your task was to compose a responsible question.
You failed again.
Nothing new.
Your words JD. You said applying heat will not heat.
N: Now add 300 W to it. It stays the same temperature?!
JD: Yup
Are you now denying this?
Nate, if you were truly interested in resolving your confusion, you could go back to the original comment. Then, ask responsible questions about what you don’t understand.
But, of course that would require maturity on your part….
N,
Add heat energy to your hot coffee by bunging in a couple of ice cubes. Make sure that the ice is hot enough to be radiating 300 W/m2.
Hotter?
Maybe you could try surrounding your coffe with ice, instead, radiating heat at the coffee without touching it. Hot enough now?
What a fool! Best take refuge in imaginary pseudoscientific fantasies. You’ll be able to make anything at all any temperature you like, using magic pseudoscientific climatological principles.
Good luck.
Cheers.
Mike,
You agree with JD, that heaters don’t heat?
Then you must also be a fool.
N,
You are a troll. You are too terrified to quote me directly, so you just fabricate stupid gotchas.
A heater, by definition, provides heat. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition –
“one that heats”
Are you seriously claiming that ice does not heat something colder?
Foolish and ignorant troll.
Begone.
Apparently JD laid such a big turd, that even he won’t get near it anymore.
Problem is, the poo pile is a direct result of his erroneous physics.
He won’t be able to get the heated object to warm above its surroundings, as it should, without accepting the validity of the radiative heat transfer equation.
And he can’t do that without accepting Kirchoff’s law, which states that incoming radiation must be abs*orbed by a body with emissivity = 1, a black body.
So he’s stuck with heaters that don’t heat.
Your lack to maturity has already been addressed.
At least he doesn’t have a lack OF maturity.
Yes, another typo!
Good catch, des.
Right – because of course when trying to type ‘OF’, it is possible to accidentally hit ‘TO’.
Exactly, des.
And too often I get “help” from auto-correct.
Nut tx worey thouhgh, I’n gowng do to a mucht belter jobb proffreeding fcom noiw on….
It seems your faulty autocorrect is also taking control of your science.
Yes des, I can understand why you “feel” that way. You need to find some way to emotionally support your unsubstantiated opinions.
Nothing new.
DREMT,
1) No one owes you any answers.
2) JD makes assumptions that I do not agree with.
* that the plates will remain 244K,244K,244K
* that there is no change in energy out when the plates are separated.
In particular, his ‘solution’ has hear flowing with no temperature difference; it has an irreversible process with no change in entropy. Once the correct solution to the blue/green plate situation is resolved, then we can move on to his follow-up question about entropy.
3) I think you deserve some sort of award for most ironic name on the internet.
* you in no way represent Dr Roy.
* nothing you address is in any way an emergency.
* your comments are almost always designed to inflame, rather than moderate.
* the only “team” is you and the voices in your head.
1) I’ll remember that one for the next time I’m relentlessly hounded for an answer to something.
2) “follow-up question” ☺️
3) * I know
* obviously (you have no sense of humor)
* I design my comments to inflame no more than anybody else here
* I agree that there is nobody else on the team (it’s just a silly name, people with a sense of humor will realize that I’m not actually an emergency moderation team).
Tim says: “In particular, his ‘solution’ has heat flowing with no temperature difference…”
Tim is confusing radiative energy transfer with conductive heat transfer. There is no ΔT required for emission/absorp.tion to occur. There is only “heat transfer” if the photons are absorbed. But energy leaves the emitting object regardless, and it cools.
In the incorrect solution, the entropy decreases but the enthalpy increases, even though the energy flows remain the same. Tim can’t answer that because it violates both 1LoT and 2LoT.
The correct solution does not violate any laws of physics, so people that understand it do not have to make up false physics and misrepresent others.
“Entropy decreases” declares faux physics.
Show us how.
Its faux JD, because it will not let heaters heat.
You still need to clean up that stinkin pile.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Promoting the idea that a cold object can warm a hotter object is crucial to AGW/GHE pseudoscience. That’s why the clowns all support the incorrect solution to the plates. That’s why they always want to use black bodies, so they can bend the laws of physics by a “definition”.
But even a black body changes its spectrum with temperature. Consequently, the photons emitted/absorbed change.
Just for fun, let’s allow the clowns their pseudoscience. Let’s allow that a black body MUST absorb all photons arriving. Black body “C” will be at a cold temperature of Tc. Black body “H” will be at a temperature of Th. Th is very higher than Tc.
We are allowing all of the photons from “C” to be absorbed by “H”. As H emits photons, it absorbs photons from C. But, C photons have an average energy much less than the photons emitted by H. So, even though H is absorbing photons from C, it cools.
If we allow them to break some laws of physics, their pseudoscience still fails.
‘Just for fun’ ie ‘Just to use real physics’
Hilarious..
N,
Redefining pseudoscience as real physics, are you? Is that like redefining slower cooling to mean heating, or climatology to mean a valid academic discipline?
Next thing you’ll be redefining a rise in temperature as a reduction of heat! No wonder you can’t bring yourself to describe the GHE. No even the seriously mentally challenged would believe you. Just the delusional fanatical climate cultists.
Cheers.
Strange to find gnats buzzing around on a blog.
I thought the same thing, gnate.
Gnats are still flying around attracted to the big stinky pile of dung that you left behind, JD.
Nobody has stopped you from explaining your ‘heaters won’t heat’ argument. And yet you offer nothing.
Admit it, you are in a pickle with no way out.
gnate, please stop trolling.
“We are allowing all of the photons from C to be absorbed by H. As H emits photons, it absorbs photons from C. But, C photons have an average energy much less than the photons emitted by H”
In short, the Rad Heat Transfer eqn is valid…
Slow clap.
Trying to appear sciencey – “Rad Heat Transfer eqn – really? Are you sloppy or just lazy?
Certainly stupid and ignorant. I can understand why cannot clap fast. That would require talent not available to someone as lazy and incompetent as yourself.
Begone troll!
N,
Of course, I meant you cannot clap fast! Sorry for the typo – you might not have realised without my assistance.
Cheers.
MF,
‘Sciency’ Ha!
This is a science-based blog. It’s clear that you prefer to read something other than science-based posts, probably because its all a blur to you.
So maybe try something else, maybe the Flat Earth Society, or an all Kardashian blog would suit you better?
gnate, please stop trolling.
I think DREMT has finally lost the plot . Eleven please stop tr… . in less than 3 hours. At this rate he will have about 2000 of them by the end of them by the end of the month. I hope he isn’t trying to out troll Mike F. Mike might launch a barrage of begones in response.
Maybe he is launching a Denial of Service attack? Probably not but I have not been able to post anything more than 2 paragraphs during this period. Hopefully he has tired from the effort by now and this will get through.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
If I could even find the start trolling button then I might be able to.
On that note I think your trolling button was stuck down for a couple of hours. Next time call Dr Roy’s Crisis Assessment Team and they can assist. They are on call 24 hours and if necessary, they can take you to the nearest Emergency for the appropriate treatment. Euthanasia is a possibilty if the condition persists.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
JDH,
I have noticed that if you challenge pseudoscientific cultists (of any stamp) with reality, they will try to convince you with their “theoretical” knowledge. If this proves to not be to their advantage, they will lurch into a mishmash of assumption, combining pseudoscientific “theory” with misinterpreted reality,and so on.
Assumptions are never clearly set out, and trying to obtain them from the cultists is just met with evasions and gotchas.
In the present case, the cultists claim that a theoretical black body supports their case – that the GHE (not actually described) requires that an object will increase its temperature when exposed to a colder body, although the cultist will claim otherwise – using as an excuse that the GHE is not defined!
Unfortunately, a theoretical black body has no mass, no defined extent, and has a Wikipedia definition that simply states –
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. (It does not only absorb radiation; It can also emit radiation.”
Nothing about rising temperatures associated with absorbed radiation. The definition states that the blackbody “can also emit radiation.” Not that it “must” – it “can”.
This is not to the liking of the climate fools, who create their own secret definition – a pseudoscientific climatological black body which has various physical characteristics dependent on the whim of the cultist. For example, a black body that is in permanent magical thermal equilibrium, radiating precisely as much radiation as it receives (which makes no sense at all, but neither does much of GHE pseudoscience).
It must also be less than infinite in extent, otherwise it could not react to absorbed radiation by changing its temperature, and so on and so forth.
In the best tradition of the usual pack of bearded balding bumbling pseudoscientific climatological buffoons, there doesn’t seem to be semblance of appreciation for the scientific method amongst the GHE worshippers here present.
Meanwhile, the Earth’s surface remains in a non molten state, and each night gets rid of all the energy absorbed during the day. A jolly good thing, too!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: “…there doesn’t seem to be semblance of appreciation for the scientific method amongst the GHE worshippers here present.”
Exactly Mike. In fact, as we are learning, they abhor reality. I didn’t realize how deeply some people are affected by false beliefs. It certaiinly explains some of the horrid things that have happened in cults.
Fortunately, Dr. Spencer allows them to continue here. The public needs to see this.
Yes , JDHuff may, after all, have a sense of humor. After many fruitless attempts at searching for a humorous signal from the black box of his latest wreck, the voice recorder has been recovered revealing the following.
“Exactly Mike. In fact, as we are learning, they abhor reality. I didn’t realize how deeply some people are affected by false beliefs. It certaiinly explains some of the horrid things that have happened in cults.”
JDHuff has an interesting take on cults. Usually three features are typically identified with a cult. Firstly they commonly consist of a small band of deluded individuals. This small minority group typically consists of a select few who are the leadership core plus a few hangers on. I think we can say the leadership consists of two, if we include multiple personalities. The hangers on are just two or three who seem to be there for the ride.
The other key characteristic is obsessions. The cult leadership generated almost 900 comments in total last month.
The JD persona posted around the clock, missing out on just 1 hour of a day, where he didn’t post for that month , while the other was less diligent and missed out on 3 hours of a day. Sleep deprivation is a well-known indoctrination technique used by cults.
To provide further information, I have just resurrected some code from a year ago and analysed the posting times for February 2019. The times of posting for some of the those who post most commonly can be found here.
https://postimg.cc/cg7vzDWs
The third criteria that is characteristic of a cult is sexual intrigue. This is presumably missing as, with exception of JD and DREMT their appears to be no means of physical contact between the cult members. The only other possibility is phone sex or by video chat.
Note : These cult memberships above were decided on the two and three plate criteria. Curiously this appears to be an identical membership profile to the lunartic cult, a zero spin-off of the Flat Earth Society.
MR,
There may well be a point to your bizarre ad hom diatribe, which appears completely bereft of useful information, such as how reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer is supposed to raise the temperature of the thermometer, or where a description of the GHE may be found, and what form it might take.
However, it is instructive to note the amount of time you are prepared to spend achieving absolutely nothing of use, just like GHE believers in general.
Your attempt to bring suggestions of sexual intrigue into your comment is generally indicative of those who have no logical basis to support their pseudoscientific assertions.
Carry on trying to deny, divert, and confuse. The Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years, regardless of your opinions on the sexual proclivities of others.
Begone troll.
Hi Mike F,
I am not sure what you are referring to re the thermometer. Could you please clarify.
With respect to the GHE the link to Wiki should assist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect .
If you have any issues with the material therein you could possibly edit it yourself. Some information to assist you if you choose this route is here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia%3F .
No pressure. I wish you luck in your endeavours.
p.s.Just wondering if you have expressed opinions on the 2 or 3 plate problem?
If you have could you please kindly link to them. Again no pressure.
Cheers.
Miker,
Interesting!
Ive often wondered when these guys sleep.
It seems very little…explains the frequent departures from reality.
No, it just means sleeping patterns are less regulated; some nights going to sleep later than others. Norman, Tim, bobdroege and Kristian all have pretty low scores too, 4 or 5 hours of a day. But by all means continue jumping to conclusions.
Yes DREMT, your lack of regular sleep appears to match your emotional disregulation. They tend to go hand in hand.
It is ironic that you commented about 5 days ago referring to myself on April 5 at 6:35 am.
“You dont appear to sleep.
At least, Im not aware of any gap in the times of day that you have posted, where any decent amount of sleep could have occurred. Your posting history seems to indicate that comments from you can occur at any point in a 24-hour period.
Do you not sleep, or is there more than one of you behind the MikeR relentless attacking machine?”.
Once again, I see a pattern here of projecting your behaviour onto others. There is a whole field of psychology devoted to projection. This is such a good example that you may find yourself the subject of a paper on this subject. Admittedly an only N=1 study but it could widened to N=3 by including JD and Mike Flynn.
No, it just means sleeping patterns are less regulated; some nights going to sleep later than others. Norman, Tim, bobdroege and Kristian all have pretty low scores too, 4 or 5 hours of a day. But by all means continue jumping to conclusions, MikeR.
DREMT, with regard to your comments about Norman, Bodroege, Tim and Kristian. If you relax the criteria to allow one single post per month at a particular time then the difference becomes even more stark. These four commentators all get 8 hours off while both you and JD stay the same at 3 and 1 hours respectively. Everybody else is 8 or greater.
As they say downunder if you assert something that emanates from the top of your head, once the facts are checked you can get a nasty bite on the bum.
DREMT go and get some bandages before you bleed out.
MikeR, I said what I said to you as a setup for the punchline about the two settings – “asleep” and “attack”. I hadn’t realized you would take it so seriously as to do a study on different commenters sleeping patterns. Even funnier. What other vitally important statistics will you investigate next?
Actually, you could try ‘number of questions Tim has asked” vs “number of questions he has answered”. I had a quick look through, going by number of question marks in his comments under this article, it was over 30 asked. None answered, as far as I’m aware. But you can research it properly if you like.
mike r…”With respect to the GHE the link to Wiki should assist
If you have any issues with the material therein you could possibly edit it yourself”.
Wouldn’t do any good. Wiki has climate alarmists like William Connolley of realclimate as editors, to undo the edit and keep their climate alarmist propaganda intact.
Nah DREMT. I do appreciate your suggestions but that project re Tim that you suggest might be difficult to implement. I think it might require some machine learning to analyse these exchanges. Unfortunately I don’t think I should use one of the licensed copies of MATLAB at work for such a frivolous task. Maybe you could take it up with Tim yourself for another 30 or so times?
However your suggestion to look at other possibilities has merit. I recall my software that was written over a year ago has a specific search option. It was used to enumerate the number of times the word ‘hilarious’ was used by each person who commented in a particular month. I believe your previous incarnation managed over 100 in a month (something for you to aspire to) I can substitute the phrase please stop tr… or just PST or tr.. begone and it will be a simple way to tally the data for the Troll of the Month competition.
You seem impressed with the effort required. The task was not too arduous, just a bit of webscraping and some parsing of the data. I am sure you could manage to do this with both arms tied behind your back.
Additionally the monthly tabulation of hours that I presented above could be included in the above mentioned troll competition. This could allow the alias JDHuff into the race. Will have to decide on the weighting though.
Talking about JD, has he applied a soothing balm to your backside yet? My suggestion might be use Tiger Balm instead but don’t use it as a hemorrhoid cream. That could get you off your backside.
However spring is on its way in your neck of the world. Why don’t you take the opportunity to go out and smell the blossoms, rather than spending hours monitoring the comments section? I know you are on the lookout for emergencies but sometimes you can respond to an emergency in a couple of hours or days. It’s not like you are on all night checking for a Denial of Service attack or a world wide DNS hack that could bring down this site.
Gordon, you should join the editorial board. Here’s how you do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_simple_rules_for_editing_Wikipedia .
MikeR, please stop trolling.
I have awoken this morning to the news that DREMT has had another spasm. Six PSTs all within a hour and some only a minute apart.
Maybe he fell asleep at the keyboard and had a particularly vivid dream. In this case he should be now referred to as WetDREMT.
I expect WDREMT will take my tongue in cheek comments literally and express suitable outrage. His apoplexy is usually much funnier than my pathetic jibes.
Anyway WDREMT is running away in the Troll of the Month competition and his closest competitor needs to lift his game.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Well, Dr Roy has confirmed there is a greenhouse effect, so I wonder why he lets you stay and post here. Maybe so the world can see and learn from your mistakes.
Learn and Laugh or is it Laugh and Learn?
b,
You are free to imagine, dream, and fantasise to your heart’s delight.
I’m happy with Feynman’s nice quote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You can’t even find a testable GHE hypothesis, can you? No chance of devising a reproducible experiment for something that can’t even be described!
As to appeals to authority, there is another Feynman quote which I like –
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”, which expresses the motto of the Royal Society “Nullius in verba” in English.
“It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
Notice “facts”and “experiment”?
I hope Dr Spencer might agree, I believe he is a real scientist, with all that entails.
Carry on hoping.
Cheers.
It’s not that I can’t provide a testable hypothesis, it’s that you do not have the capacity to recognize one.
Hell, you have posted one and didn’t even recognize that you had in face posted a testable greenhouse gas hypothesis.
Take the Keeling curve and the graph at the top of this page and not the correlation, and I have already posted a mechanism, so there is some support for the theory that increasing CO2 increases the average temperature of the atmosphere.
I don’t know why some object to saying CO2 heats the surface of the earth when that is what is observed.
The surface of the earth is warming and the atmosphere is warming, see the graph at the top of the page.
not should be note in the post above
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Mike…from wiki…”A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. (It does not only absorb radiation; It can also emit radiation.”
***********
Mike…that’s for one body. If you left a metal plate coated with a black absorbent paint in the Sun it would likely absorb most of the radiation from the Sun. If it didn’t, it would not appear black.
The Sun is a million times hotter than the plate.
If you now take two of those black plates, at the same temperature, in a controlled environment, say at 20C, and you held them close to each other, they would likely exchange IR. However, neither would warm.
If you electrical heat one of the plates, the electrons in the hotter plate will begin radiating at a higher frequency and intensity which the unheated plate can absorb. That will warm the unheated plate, raising it’s temperature.
However, radiation from the unheated plate cannot raise the temperature of the heated plate because the electrons that also absorb the IR are at too high an energy level to absorb the EM from the cooler device.
If you pull the unheated plate right away from the heated plate, the heated plate will be at a temperature which is the difference of the heat electrically supplied and the heat dissipated through radiation, conduction, and convection.
If you now bring the unheated plate close to the heated plate, you immediately block it’s radiation and convection on one side. Since it will now have more heat added electrically than it can dissipate, it will warm.
Better still have you have a black heated cylinder around which you can place an unheated cylinder, with an air space between them. In that case, I predict the inner cylinder would get even hotter, because it’s means of heat dissipation would be lowered even more.
I mean, this is common sense. If you have a 100 watt incandescent bulb and you surround it in close quarters with a metal sphere, it will likely overheat and blow up.
The warming has nothing whatsoever to do with radiation from the cooler plate, cylinder, or sphere, it’s all about heat dissipation and the lack thereof.
I have no idea why neither swannie nor norman get that.
before we had our kitchen remodeled and switched to gas, we had a sealed burner electric cook-top.
If you have the power level right, you could put a pot on the burner and the coils would glow red hot, take the pot off and the coils would no longer glow red hot.
Explain that one away.
bob d…”If you have the power level right, you could put a pot on the burner and the coils would glow red hot, take the pot off and the coils would no longer glow red hot.
Explain that one away”.
Without a pot on the rings, heat can be dissipated through radiation, conduction to the air, and convection of the air. Therefore the ring temperature drops to a temperature where it cannot glow red.
With a pot of water on the rings, radiation is cutoff, except to the side, and convection is nullified. Heat transfer is ring to pot except for a bit of convection and radiation to the sides.
The pot of water does not allowed the heat to be transferred fast enough to cool the ring so it rises to it’s natural temperature produced by the electric current. Ergo, it warms enough to glow red.
**********
I just did an experiment with a ring on our stove. I turned it on in open air an in a minute or so the rings were glowing a dull red. I could not hold my hand 2″ above the rings, it was too hot. Even a foot above the ring, the heat was intense.
I filled a pot half full of cold water and sat it on the ring. The base of the pot sits inside the outer ring with it’s edges sitting over the outer ring but not touching it.
The inner rings under the pot base immediately went to a dull, black colour while the outer ring glowed an even brighter red.
If I lift the pot off the ring, about 2″ above the ring, the colour immediately returns to all the rings. However, if I lift it a foot or so over the rings, the colours get even brighter. At 2″ and 12″ there is barely any heat felt above the steaming pot of water.
This proves that stifling radiation and convection causes the ring to warm. It also, proves that the direct conduction between the ring and the pot, at a much lower temperature, causes the ring to cool in the centre rings.
Swannie’s conclusions are wrong. The heating of the coils is related to the amount of heat dissipation permitted and has nothing to do with back-radiation from the pot to the rings.
My conclusions support the 2nd law, Swannie’s do not.
Cool Gordon,
Now if you only understood.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Huffingboy, Lets for fun assume that you really don’t understand the Green Plate/Blue Plate situation instead of intentionally throwing out a straw man to feed your insatiable need more attention.
Recall that both plates radiate from 2 sides, but receive each other’s radiation on only one side. And, of fundamental importance, the Blue Plate is being heated at a constant rate, which seems to have slipped your mind. There’s no breaking any “laws” of physics when the “back radiation” from the Green Plate results in a warmer Blue Plate, even though the Green Plate’s black body emission spectrum peaks at a lower Wien’s Displacement Law temperature. You H doesn’t cool, it’s temperature will stabilize at some equilibrium point, with or without the Green Plate.
Swanson, you could be legitimately fooled by two plates. The enthalpy is not changed noticeably, and you likely don’t even understand entropy.
But, with three plates, both the increase in enthalpy and decrease in entropy are blatant. Your further particiation with the mini-hoax just indicates your ignorance of thermodynamics, and/or your wilingness to pervert physics.
swannie…” Theres no breaking any laws of physics when the back radiation from the Green Plate results in a warmer Blue Plate…”
Oh, yes, there is. You break the 2nd law and the quantum theory underlying the absorp-tion of EM.
I don’t know why you are so hung up on this propaganda, which is based on a misunderstanding of black body theory and an obfuscation of S-B.
The only way the BP could absorb IR from the GP would be at thermal equilibrium.
Gordo wrote:
Funny thing, I’ve now presented three different demonstrations which contradict your claims and you have not as yet provided another explanation for my results but that of the absorp_tion of thermal IR EM emitted by the cooler body. I ran another case last evening using an aluminum foil shield painted flat black covering the opening of my “Ice Slab demo” block. The results are almost identical to that from the ice slab, a temperature difference of 32 deg C between the heated plate and the surroundings. That value came out to be less than the shinny aluminum foil and almost equal to the Ice Slab run.
If you have any interest in science and disagree with my findings, it is your responsibility to provide a detailed rebuttal, not just another appeal to an authority whose work was published 150 years ago.
swannie…”Ive now presented three different demonstrations which contradict your claims and you have not as yet provided another explanation for my results but that of the absorp_tion of thermal IR EM emitted by the cooler body”.
Not true.
In your first two, conducted with no vacuum, I pointed out that the metal cover you propped over the heat plate was blocking both radiation and convection, the convection being far more important. The lack of convection is why a greenhouse warms, not the blocking of radiation.
Your experiments have not only contradicted my claims they have contradicted the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That means your conclusions are wrong.
Gordo, I presented three demos with different approaches, the Cookie Sheet Demo, the vacuum Green Plate Demo and now the Ice Slab Demo. The first two have several iterations addressing issues in order to improve the results. Your comment apparently refers to an early version of the Cookie Sheet demo, which I addressed by adding a fan in later versions, and continues your failure to explain the results of any of the three approaches. Your only reply is to repeat your tired old mantra: “It violates the 2nd Law, thus it can’t be true”. In physics, experimental results are the source of truth, not musty old journals from long ago.
BTW, my experiments were run long enough to reach steady state, i.e., thermal equilibrium.
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
Despite the semantics of how you want to describe the effect at the quantum level the back radiation from CO2 provides an insulation like effect that leaves the surface in a state in which it has a higher temperature than it would have had otherwise. The defining metric of global warming is the global mean temperature and CO2 is one of the agents modulating that variable therefore I have no issues whatsoever in saying that CO2 does cause the surface to “warm”. Countless experiments dating back to the 1800’s definitively show that CO2 and other polyatomic molecule gas species “intercept” certain frequencies of radiation that would otherwise have an escape trajectory and remit some of that radiation back toward the source. This creates a net positive perturbation in radiative flux on the source end and a net negative perturbation in radiative flux on the escape end. This is why the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming while the stratosphere cools. Swanson’s experiment is but yet another that demonstrates the trapping or insulative effect just with a different type of IR active material. The concept is all the same.
bdgwx says, April 10, 2019 at 11:03 AM:
No, no, no! A distinctly quantum-mechanical process cannot be the cause of a thermodynamic effect. “Back radiation” cannot provide an insulation effect!!! Haven’t you learned anything?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348017
You cannot explain a thermodynamic effect, which has to abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics, with a process/mechanism that doesn’t. Photons, being outside the thermodynamic limit, are free to move from cold to hot as much as they like. But you can’t use this fact to claim that it is therefore the photons moving from cold to hot that creates the thermodynamic (thermal) effect that you want to explain.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-308771
The specific absorp-tion of individual photons doesn’t and couldn’t add to a macroscopic body’s internal energy. This is the whole point. Read the link above. It’s where I explain the distinction between micro and macro when it comes to energy transfer.
The internal energy [U] of a body or region is distinctly a MACROSCOPIC property, a THERMODYNAMIC state function. It can be changed by the NET (statistical average) transfer of ALL energy packets within an exchange only, not by particular subdivisions of the integrated total, ignoring the rest.
Please try and understand this fundamental point.
Absolutely not. It is only ever CLAIMED to be, never SHOWN to be. The climate MODELS say so. Which in some (profoundly un-scientific) circles is taken as somehow evidence in support of the claim. But the models say what they say simply because the theoretical idea on which they operate dictate them to do so.
Which is completely circular, of course. But no CO2 cultist will ever concede this obvious fact. He/she couldn’t. Because then his/her whole ideology would crumble.
No, the “Theory” must be correct, because the models provide such unambiguous support. And the models must be correct when they do, because the “Theory” says they should be.
The entire “AGW” craze is but a serious case of “identity politics”.
bdg …”Despite the semantics of how you want to describe the effect at the quantum level the back radiation from CO2 provides an insulation like effect that leaves the surface in a state in which it has a higher temperature than it would have had otherwise”
Quantum theory is not semantics. Some of it is sci-fi but the entire electrons industry as related to semiconductors is based on quantum theory.
How does CO2 back-radiation act as a thermal insulator? An insulator must block heat transfer, or slow it down, but to block heat transfer by radiation would require a solid, preferably grounded, metal shield.
If you could fill a space with pure CO2 at a high concentration, you could likely attenuate the flow of IR, but it would not be an insulator so much as an attenuator. It would definitely absorb enough IR to make a difference in heat transfer but the (.04%) of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have that capability.
That has nothing to do with back-radiation, it’s about the ability of CO2 to absorb IR. Those high-concentration CO2 molecules would back-radiate but their IR would have no effect on a body at a higher temperature than the CO2.
That higher temperature body’s heat dissipation would be related to it’s temperature versus the temperature of it’s surroundings. The Earth’s surface radiation is governed by the temperature of the atmosphere immediately in contact with it, which is comprised 99% of nitrogen and oxygen.
As Kristian claims, the atmosphere is acting as an insulator between the surface and space. It’s not just the CO2 and WV acting as an insulator it’s the entire gas, 99% of which is nitrogen and oxygen.
Tim…”CO2 emits radiation that provides some energy to the surface.
CO2, in conjunction with sunlight, helps warm the the surface to a higher temperature than the sunlight could alone.
But CO2 does not heat the surface in the thermodynamic sense. CO2 can help limit the heat leaving FROM the surface, but CO2 does not provide heat TO the surface”.
************
Tim…
1)How does CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere and located at temperatures equal to or less than the surface provide any energy to the surface? It likely supplies EM, which in terms of heat, is insignificant. That is, it heats nothing on the surface.
2)What kind of energy does CO2 provide?
3)How does CO2 act as a source of energy in conjunction with the Sun? Do you not understand that any energy that CO2 contains as absorbed energy came from the Sun via the surface? It may even get energy from the IR end of the solar spectrum since the solar and CO2 spectra overlap somewhat.
Alarmists seem to dodge that fact.
You are talking about a recycling of solar energy that adds to solar energy. Neat trick. Some call it perpetual motion.
4)You said initially that CO2 in conjunction with solar energy helps warm the surface then later you claim CO2 does not provide heat TO the surface. Of course it doesn’t, it supplies EM as IR that has a frequency and intensity far too low to be absorbed by the surface.
Solar energy, on the other hand, does have the frequency and intensity to warm the surface since it comes from a source which has a temperature of about a million times the surface temperature.
5)You then claim, CO2 can limit the heat leaving the surface.
Sigh!!!!
Heat does NOT LEAVE THE SURFACE AS RADIATION. Heat is converted to radiation at the surface and that heat is lost during the conversion.
The energy leaving the surface as radiation is electromagnetic energy which carries no heat since it has no mass. EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and it is a totally different form of energy than thermal energy.
Sure, CO2 can absorb some of that energy, as much as 0.04% of the atmosphere can soak up, but how does that slow the cooling of the surface?
It doesn’t. It’s the temperature of the air adjacent to the surface that determines the rate of surface heat dissipation and that air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
*********
Maybe all energies have something in common but there are several different forms of energy, all with very different properties. That’s the danger in talking about energy as if it is an entity that can be summed arbitrarily.
A couple quick things, Gordon.
“3)How does CO2 act as a source of energy in conjunction with the Sun? Do you not understand that any energy that CO2 contains as absorbed energy came from the Sun via the surface?”
Suppose I give you $1000. As you are walking out with the $1000 that I gave you, you drop a $100 bill and I pick it up. I have a $100! That $100 came from me initially, but once you released it, I can get it back. The fact that it was mine at some earlier time does not stop me from having $100 more than I would have if you had not released it. You were the source of my $100, even though I had originally given you that $100 bill.
****************************************
Accurate communications requires everyone to have the same definitions of words. You use words differently than most scientists. You can do that, but you have to be aware that miscommunications is inevitable.
For example …
* “internal energy” is usually denoted “U” in thermodynamics, and is defined by in terms of the translational, vibrational, rotational, and potential energies at the microscopic level. You seem to use the word “Heat” for that concept.
* “heat” is usually denoted “Q” and is a *process* that transfers U from one region to another. You don’t seem to have a word for this. Objects never “contain Q” (just like they never “contain W” (work)).
Choosing different words for concepts does not make one of us right and one of us wrong. But how we choose to apply those concepts to perform actual calculations could make one of is right and one of us wrong.
Tim…”For example
* internal energy is usually denoted U in thermodynamics, and is defined by in terms of the translational, vibrational, rotational, and potential energies at the microscopic level. You seem to use the word Heat for that concept.
* heat is usually denoted Q and is a *process* that transfers U from one region to another. You dont seem to have a word for this. Objects never contain Q (just like they never contain W (work))”.
***********
I have gone on the definitions of Clausius, he defined U in the 1st law.
U = Q – W
More accurately it should be stated in derivatives as:
dU = dQ – dW
He explained that U, as internal energy, is the heat work-equivalent of atomic vibrations and the heat contained in a body as thermal energy.
As you know, mechanical energy and thermal energy are equivalent but to use them together you must convert thermal energy to its mechanical equivalent (watts) or convert mechanical energy (work) to its thermal equivalent (calories).
The U in internal energy he defined as the internal work done by vibrating atoms in a lattice and the thermal energy consumed by the atoms to sustain the vibration. If heat is lost, the mechanical vibrations slow down and if heat is gained, they increase.
We know now that the vibration is due to the repulsion of +vely charged nucleii and the attraction of -vely charged electrons that orbit the atoms (using the Bohr model). However, adding or subtracting thermal energy affects the rate of vibration which means adding heat causes the electrons to become more excited, affecting the vibrational state. If you add enough thermal energy, you will break the electron bonds and the material will break up.
The Q and W in the 1st law, according to C., represent external values of heat and work. He acknowledged that we cannot measure U directly but that we don’t need to as long as we have the initial and final conditions of a process, like temperature, pressure, and volume.
As Kristian has claimed, that’s how thermodynamics works, by observing the external heat and the effect it has on work or vice-versa.
You cannot transfer U from one region to another without heat being absorbed/emitted or work being done on a body or by a body. That’s what the 1st law states: U = Q – W. It’s telling you that if heat is added to a body and the body does work, then U will be affected in some way.
You have claimed heat is only a process that transfers U from one region to another. U is heat, and work, so you are claiming heat is a process transferring heat.
The notion that U is a separate energy from heat is erroneous. If it is a separate energy, what is the energy it represents? Please don’t say kinetic energy since that is a generic description of any energy in motion.
“The Q and W in the 1st law, according to C., represent external values of heat and work.”
This is getting at the core issue. You can add/subtract some external Q; you can add/subtract some external W. But once they are transferred and become internal, they lose their independent identities, getting subsumed into a single “internal U”. As you note, we can’t even say specifically how much U is in a system, let alone break it down to say specifically how much Q or W.
So actually, the notion that Q is some subset of U is erroneous. I could add Q to a system all day and never increase U.
Tim, please stop trolling.
GR, What do you think happens when CO2 emits a photon back toward the surface? If it does not get absorbed or in any way imparts its energy to the surface then where does it and its energy go?
Good gravy, bdgwx. Why do AGW believers keep asking this same question?
A photon that gets reflected travels in a straight line until it hits mass. On impact, it is either reflected again, absorbed, or transmitted.
Why is that so hard to understand?
So if we put a radiometer just above the surface and add a layer of CO2 just above it then it will either record more radiation than if the CO2 layer wasn’t there or the downward directed radiation would get absorbed by the surface correct?
bdgwx, your question lacks clarity.
Just state the point you are trying to make. I’ll agree or disagree.
b,
What a complicated, yet singularly pointless gotcha!
Are you trying to say that reducing the amount of the Sun’s radiation reaching a radiometer will make the radiometer record more radiation? Is this the pseudoscientific redefinition of less actually meaning more? Like cooling is really heating?
Feel free to elucidate if I have misinterpreted your gotcha. It’s not terribly clear.
Cheers.
I’m saying that the photons are either going to thermalize or they are going to get reflected away from the surface. If it’s the later then a radiometer positioned between the surface and the CO2 layer is going to see a higher flux of photons.
b,
You are still unclear, but wrong in any case. What the heck is a higher flux of photons? Making sciencey noises may impress a parrot, but conveys no useful information.
Photons are not subject to the exclusion principle. Therefore, in a given volume there is no limit to the photon “flux” (I’ll let you define flux here. Go your hardest.), and it makes precisely no difference.
Maybe you are trying to make sciencey sounding pseudoscientific climatological claptrap become real, by furious obfuscation.
Get a clue. You seem to have lost yours, making you appear clueless.
Try heating some water using ice. Try and increase your mythical “photon flux” with a lens, or some other concentrator, if you feel like it. You might attempt to find out why you cannot seem to warm water with ice – no matter how you try to concentrate the infrared light given off by the ice. Good luck.
Cheers.
bdg…”Im saying that the photons are either going to thermalize or they are going to get reflected away from the surface.”
I don’t like the notion of thermalization. It strikes me as jargon. I know it’s used to describe the requirements of a CO2 molecule giving up its energy to surrounding molecules but the inference is that 1 molecule of CO2 amidst 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen can make a difference in warming. I don’t think it can and the Ideal Gas Law says it can’t.
What you are suggesting is akin to the notion that a block of ice radiates IR that can warm a person with a body temperature of 37C. Anyone who has experienced icy environments knows by experience that it isn’t true.
bdg…”GR, What do you think happens when CO2 emits a photon back toward the surface? If it does not get absorbed or in any way imparts its energy to the surface then where does it and its energy go?”
I don’t have the answer to that. I have read that EM not absorbed by an electron can be converted within the atom to other forms of energy, maybe a sub-atomic particle, or diverted somewhere. I don’t pretend to understand such processes. The key is that the energy to which the EM is converted is not thermal energy therefore the 2nd law stands.
I just know from reading Bohr, etc., that energy incident upon a substance must be able to move the electrons in the body to a higher energy state and that stringent rules apply to that rise. The rise of an electron to a higher energy state represents an increase in kinetic energy which averages to a rise in temperature.
I am talking about single electrons here which is a liberty I have taken. I have no idea how that relates to a macro state.
The universe is full of such radiation. When a radio or TV stations sends out EM, and it is not intercepted by an antenna with the proper dimensions to absorb it, the EM just keeps going and going.
It might be safe to say that 99% of the energy emitted by communications devices is not absorbed. It will eventually become less intense as the EM waves spread out, but the energy will not be lost.
How about the EM from the Sun that we don’t absorb here on Earth? Beings a zillion miles away will see it as part of the energy enters their retinas. The EM will pass them too and keep going to who knows where?
Part of the radiation from CO2 will radiate upward and sideways, missing the Earth. Where will it go.
Gordon,
Maybe some further reading in Chemistry is in order.
You have to get past the ideas of Bohr to get the real scoop.
Electrons around atoms and molecules have energy due to the orbital energy levels, not kinetic energy.
There are no good analogies for what is going on, you just have to accept the electrons are there at different energy levels and not revolving around the atom or molecule.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson said:
“Of course it doesnt, it supplies EM as IR that has a frequency and intensity far too low to be absorbed by the surface.”
What are you basing that on? Liquid water soaks up IR like a sponge. Here’s experimental results testing water’s absorbance between 1.2µm and 20µm IR.
https://omlc.org/spectra/water/data/wieliczka89.txt
CT,
You obviously do not understand. The interaction between photons and matter is slightly more complicated.
For example, microwaves are absorbed by water in a microwave oven, resulting in heating. However, they are not emitted by a body at a temperature which would result in the peak emission of those microwaves as a result of its temperature.
Those same microwaves will have no effect on matter which is microwave transparent, or reflective.
The fact remains that you cant heat water with ice. A cooler body cannot raise the temperature of a warmer. All this apparently sciencey talk about photons, lasers, spectroscopy, sponges, overcoats, and all the rest, is just witless pseudoscience at its climatological finest!
Carry on the delusion. You enjoy it, obviously.
Cheers.
Same for CO2 and all the other greenhouse gasses. Nothing below the tropopause is -76 C, the blackbody temperature which would result in the peak emission of 14.7 µm radiation. Microwaves carrying 1000 watts are created by electrons transferring energy to the magnetron. Greenhouse gasses absorb and emit energy radiated by the Earth’s surface and return roughly half of what they absorb to the Earth.
Craig T…”Microwaves carrying 1000 watts are created by electrons transferring energy to the magnetron. Greenhouse gasses absorb and emit energy radiated by the Earths surface and return roughly half of what they absorb to the Earth”.
Other way around. The magnetron has tuned, circular cavities in which electrons are impelled to oscillate at high frequency in an electric/magnetic field and that causes them to emit EM in the microwave range.
The emitted microwave energy does not affect water like the IR in a hotter device than the water. IR from a heat source can raise the temperature of water if the electrons in the hydrogen and oxygen atoms absorb it and move to a higher energy state.
The same electrons in oxygen produce a state of electronegativity between the higher charged electrons in O2 and those in H. That creates a weak dipole with the O2 end more negative than the H ends of the water molecule which appear as less negative, therefore positive wrt to the O2 end.
Microwaves cause those dipoles to vibrate as an entire molecule. That vibration breaks the weak hydrogen bonds holding the water together and the agitation heats the water. It’s equivalent to molecules of air being heated and colliding with each other.
The microwave have the ‘equivalent’ (or potential) of 1000 watts but like other forms of EM, they carry no heat. Their energy is converted in the water to work through the mechanical vibration of water molecules with a 1000 watts of power. It’s the work done by the water molecules that produces the heat.
The scientist Joule did a similar experiment in which he caused a small paddle to turn in water. The action of the rotating paddle caused the water temperature to rise. That’s how he found the relationship between heat and work as 4.184 joules of work per calorie of heat.
CO2 does absorb surface IR, or so we are told, but the further the CO2 is located from the surface, the colder it gets. That means it cannot radiate EM back to the surface that can be absorbed to cause surface warming. Why should radiation from CO2 at -20C average warm a surface at +15C average.
An expert on IR radiation, R.W. Woods, claimed a long time ago, that surface IR would become ineffective more than a few feet above the surface. He based that on the inverse square law. That is easily tested by turning on an electric stove ring at 1500 watts and testing the effect of it at various distances.
I just did it today. With a cherry-red electric stove ring. I could not hold my hand 2″ above it and at 12″ it was still pretty intense. However, a few feet higher I could not even feel it.
A good part of the heat felt is due to heated air molecules not radiation. I really don’t think surface IR is an effective heating agent at terrestrial temperatures. Even the radiation from a blast furnace at 3000C or more does workers no harm even when they are a few feet away from the open flame.
CT,
You have quoted me correctly. Thanks. You disagree with nothing I say, which is what I expect.
You then ramble on about irrelevancies.
Nobody could accuse you of having a point, could they?
Keep it up.
Cheers.
Mike…”microwaves are absorbed by water in a microwave oven, resulting in heating. However, they are not emitted by a body at a temperature which would result in the peak emission of those microwaves as a result of its temperature”.
Microwaves are generated by a high energy source in a magnetron. Natural heat will affect the vibrations in water molecules by a different mechanism, which affects the vibrational state of individual ‘atoms’ in the water molecules. The microwave energy, vibrating at a very high frequency, cause the polarized water molecules to vibrate as an entire molecule.
It’s like a tiny electric motor.
As you say, microwave neutral device have no such polarized molecules and don’t react to the standing waves. Microwaves in certain metal of certain shapes will produce circular eddy currents and heat up the metal. The metal walls of the oven reflect microwaves so don’t warm but a smaller device like a fork can either reflect or absorb the microwaves and they heat up.
It just so happens that hotter heat sources are high energy sources but that high energy in a magnetron is produced using high voltage fields and accomplishes the same effect in water as heating it with a flame or electric ring.
Craig T…”Liquid water soaks up IR like a sponge. Heres experimental results testing waters absorbance between 1.2m and 20m IR”.
Only if the IR source is hotter than the target. Unfortunately, the data at your link does not specify temperatures of the source or the target.
The word liquid suggests it was above 0 C>
JD and the gang can declare all they want that we are using pseudoscience, because back radiation violates 2nd law, because entropy is somehow decreasing, because enthalpy is increasing and this violates first law.
But these are all esoterica that could be endlessly debated and obfuscated.
What is not debatable is that heaters should heat things.
But JD’s analysis, using his understanding of heat transfer, claims otherwise.
The discussion was about what will be the temperature of a sphere with a heater built-in, inside a vacuum chamber with the walls of the chamber held at 273 K.
N: 273K is what it will, obviously, reach with no added 300 W!
N: Now add 300 W to it. It stays the same temperature?!
JD: Yup. The sphere is already emitting and absorbing 315 W/m^2, if its at 273K.
You have clearly stated that the sphere with heat applied to it will not heat, according to your analysis.
So here is a responsible question:
Since , in reality, we all know that heaters do heat things, how do you explain this lack of heating in your scientific analysis?
Nate asks: “Since, in reality, we all know that heaters do heat things, how do you explain this lack of heating in your scientific analysis?”
Well done, Nate! Finally, a responsible question. As always, I’m glad to answer responsible questions. Tim could never pose such a question. I misinterpreted his problem, consequently my wording was unclear. The way I phrased it confused the walls with the sphere. The correction is easy: The warmer walls might provide some slight warming, but [would] never [be] above 273. And certainly NOT 323K!
But, before I could clarify, Tim started misquoting and misrepresenting me, so I lost interest. He went on and on, claiming that I had said things I never said. Its much more fun watching a clown make a fool of himself, than trying to explain things to him.
Thanks for a responsible question. Keep it up.
‘The correction is easy: The warmer walls might provide some slight warming, but [would] never [be] above 273. And certainly NOT 323K!’
Its confusing, but it sounds like you are saying the sphere is not heating above 273, again. Which is the temperature of the walls of the chamber. Which is the temperature it will be BEFORE any heat is applied!
So again, you appear to be confirming your belief that in this situation, the heater does not heat the sphere?
Nate, that does not qualify as a responsible question. Try again, leaving out your belief about what you believe my belief is.
You did it once (asked a responsible question), you can do it again.
I’m pulling for you.
You’re that delicate of a flower, are you?
Your answer was confusing. If you can’t explain it clearly then I have to try to interpret it.
Try again, and work harder to be clear.
Well your brief effort at maturity didn’t last long.
Nothing new.
Let me give you some help:
You said ‘And certainly NOT 323K’
323K was the temperature of the SPHERE calculated by Tim with the walls at 273K and 300 W applied to the sphere.
It appears that you were saying, in response, that the SPHERE will certainly not be 323 K.
And in response to my question about the SPHERE being heated with the walls at 273K, you ALSO said, in response, that it would not get above 273K.
What will the temperature of the sphere be, in this case, according to your analysis?
Nate asks: “What will the temperature of the sphere be, in this case, according to your analysis?”
Much better, Nate.
Tim uses the old “steel greenhouse” to attempt to fool us again. Instead of a spherical shell, he uses the walls of a vacuum chamber. (That’s why I mentioned geometry, and he quickly dodged the issue.)
But, he threw in a kink. He specified that the walls would be maintained at 273K. That was where I got confused, I thought he was maintaining the sphere at 273K. So, many of his comments, and yours, were incorrect. Too kinky.
To set the record straight:
If the walls were NOT maintained at 273K, then the sphere would be at 270K, and the walls would be at 270K, assuming no losses due to geometry. But maintaining the walls at 273K changes things. Now, the sphere must heat to 323K, emitting 615 Watts. The walls are only emitting 315 Watts away from the system, meaning that the walls must be cooled by removing the excess energy. (Notice Tim did not mention the extra cooling required. Kinky.)
Aha, so you agree with Tim, and ordinary physics, that the sphere will warm to 323K.
Interesting.
And it is emitting 615 W, while the walls are emitting 315 W
The sphere is emitting 615 W, while receiving only 300 W from the heater. That means it is receiving, and abs*orbing 315 W from the cooler walls?
Tim contrived a scenario to try to make the bogus equation appear valid. You can find ways to decieve people, but that is NOT science. Water does not flow uphill, but you can contrive experiments to make it appear it does.
The sphere would not be absorbing the flux from the walls. The sphere has to warm to 323K to emit enough to overcome the 315 Watts from the walls. At 323K, the sphere is emitting 300 + 315 = 615 W/m^2 or, since it has a surface of 1 m^2, 615 Watts. The walls emit 315 Watts away from the system, and some imaginary cooling system must remove 300 Watts from the walls, to keep everything balanced.
The bogus equation only works in contrived imaginary situations like this. In reality, it has no value and will lead to solutions that violate laws of thermodynamics, as it does with the plates.
The sphere is emitting 615 W, and it is receiving 300 W from the heater, as you agree.
If it is at a constant temperature of 323 K, as you agreed, then it MUST be receiving 315 W from somewhere. Yes?
And there is no other place around that can provide 315 W, other than the 273 K walls of the chamber. And they are in fact emitting 315 W from the interior walls.
Thus, YOU JD, have shown, by pure logic, that the sphere must be absorbing all the radiation emitted toward it by the cooler walls.
Congratulations.
“But maintaining the walls at 273K changes things. Now, the sphere must heat to 323K, emitting 615 Watts. ”
Good. We agree!
And lets clarify a bit about “geometry”. I maintain that walls held at 273 K will have this same effect no matter what the geometry of the walls (as long as they completely enclose the sphere.
So I maintain that the walls of the chamber could be a spherical space of radius 29 cm around the heated sphere of radius 28 cm. The walls could be a cube 1m x 1m x 1m. The walls could be the worlds largest vacuum chamber (operated by NASA in Ohio) which is roughly 40 m in each dimension. The only requirement is that every bit of the surroundings (walls/ceiling/floor/doors) be 273 K (and all the surfaces be backbodies).
Do you agree that any size/shape chamber would work, as long as the interior surfaces are blackbody surfaces kept at 273 K?
*********************************
And for that matter, I maintain that the heated object could be a sphere or a flat panel or a cube or a cylinder — as long as its total surface area was 1 m^2 and the power input is 300 W.
Do you agree that any of these shapes would also reach 323 K?
*********************************
“…the walls must be cooled by removing the excess energy.”
An astute observation. Would it matter to you *how* the walls were cooled or does it just matter what temperature the walls are? Does it matter if maybe the walls are cooled by chilled water running inside the walls? Maybe there are heat sinks attached to the outside of the walls that radiate to even cooler surrounding? Maybe there is ice packed around the outside of the walls?
Do you agree that any method of cooling would work, as long as the interior walls of the chamber are held at 273 K?
Wrong, Nate.
Initially, the sphere’s photons are unable to be absorbed by the walls, because the walls are at a higher temperature. The power source supplies the continual 300 Watts, regardless of the sphere’s temperature. So, the sphere will warm to 323K to allow the photons to be absorbed by the walls. Once the sphere reaches 273K, and driven by the power source, it will no longer absorb photons from the walls.
Your logic fails because it is based on your failed pseudoscience.
I accept your congratulations, nevertheless.
“Initially, the spheres photons are unable to be absorbed by the walls, because the walls are at a higher temperature.”
Didn’t we talk about this? Nothing says an object at a higher temperature can’t absorb a photon who’s wavelength corresponds to the peak emission of a black body at a lower temperature. I posted data that showed liquid water greedily absorbing 20µm radiation, which corresponds to the peak emission of a blackbody at -128 C.
Craig, a hot object absorbing a photon from a cold object would be a “special case”. It happens, but it is not of much consequence, except to AGW cultists. A cold object can not raise the temperature of a hot object. Yet, you can find fanatics on this very blog that claim differently. They will even claim they have done “experiments” to prove such.
It’s like an ongoing circus here, filled with clowns sticking their heads in rotating airplane propellers!
‘Once the sphere reaches 273K, and driven by the power source, it will no longer absorb photons from the walls.’
That is perhaps your hypothesis, now test it against the facts.
YOU said the sphere is emitting 615W, and you said it is receiving 300 W from the power source. Therefore, by FIRST LAW, it must be getting 315 W from somewhere.
The walls are the only other place available to supply energy to it. It must be supplying 315 W to the sphere.
The facts and simple math say your hypothesis cannot be correct.
OR, when the sphere gets to 273 K, it stops warming. But then we’re back to heat does not heat.
Which is it?
“The bogus equation only works in contrived imaginary situations like this.”
Is the equation bogus or not? You agree it works in my specific situation. If it works, it is clearly not bogus! In what specific sort of situations does it not work?
“Initially, the sphere’s photons are unable to be absorbed by the walls, because the walls are at a higher temperature. …
Craig, a hot object absorbing a photon from a cold object would be a “special case”. It happens …”
You are claiming in these two sentences both that
1) warmer surfaces CANNOT absorb (“unable”) photons from cooler surfaces.
2) warmer surfaces CAN absorb (“it happens”) photons from cooler surfaces.
*******************************************
So equations may or may not work. Photons may or may not be absorbed. The rules can be whatever you want whenever it is convenient! Anything can be a “special case”!
‘The walls are the only other place available to supply energy to it. It must be supplying 315 W to the sphere.’
OR, if JD prefers, he can retract his statement that the sphere is emitting 615 W, and instead say it is emitting 300 W NET to the walls.
Which is what the rad heat transfer law says:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2
Nate is having a hard time learning to pose a responsible question.
Nothing new.
Ok JD,
Here’s two questions.
Are you interested in testing your ideas against the real world, or not?
Are you willing to use logic and follow the facts where they lead, which is what scientists do? Or are you just sticking with your beliefs no matter what the facts or logical reasoning says?
Nate, “are” is plural, as in “Here are two questions”.
But, there aren’t two questions. There are THREE.
Hint: Count the “?”.
And NONE of your questions were responsible.
Please try again.
I think they were responsible.
Ok, then.
By FIRST LAW, the sphere needs to get 615 W from somewhere. Its getting 300 W from the heater. Where does the rest come from?
Ok, then.
By FIRST LAW, the sphere needs to get 615 W from somewhere. Its getting 300 W from the heater. Where does the rest come from?
JD, since you seem so concerned about grammar now, periods always go inside quotation marks, as in:
Nate, “are” is plural, as in “Here are two questions.”
JD?
Very responsible, pertinent question.
You agreed that the sphere is emitting 615 W and receiving 300 W.
Unless you can find 315 more W, the sphere will cool. Yes?
JD,
You seem to be unable to answer. Not sure what the stumbling block is?
Here’s some possible help: go back to your first answer.
‘The sphere has to warm to 323K to emit enough to overcome the 315 Watts from the walls.’
It seems that there is 315 Watts coming from the walls toward the sphere, that needs to be ‘overcome’.
Not sure what you mean by ‘overcome’, but it seems consistent with standard physics, ie once the sphere’s emission exceeds the wall’s emission of 315 W, it will deliver a NET flow of heat to the walls.
Ultimately, in equilibrium, the NET flow is 300W, which is what is needed to cancel the power from the heater, making the first law happy.
JD,
Evading my responsible question.
Now the questions that you thought not responsible are looking more and more responsible, and relevant.
‘Are you interested in testing your ideas against the real world, or not?’
The answer, seems to be:
‘Partly’
“Are you willing to use logic and follow the facts where they lead, which is what scientists do?
Or are you just sticking with your beliefs no matter what the facts or logical reasoning says?”
The answer seems to be:
‘I will use logic and follow the facts where they lead, UNTIL they show my beliefs are wrong’
‘Then I’ll stick with my beliefs even though the facts and logical reasoning says they are wrong’
Undoubtedly you will say I am misrepresenting your views yada yada. But you had plenty of opportunity give me your actual views, and you were unable to come up with anything.
Nate, I see you managed an responsible question, and before I got back, you were able to answer it, somewhat.
Amazing.
Several days back Gordon Robertson brought up black holes so I thought he might appreciate this:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/10/18303661/first-picture-black-hole-sagittarius-event-horizon-telescope
Heavy pseudoscience–“actual photograph”. Then they go on to discuss how they had to use computers to simulate it!
And “Messier 87 (M87), which is located about 55 million light-years from Earth” was especially funny.
More funding, please.
Simulate?
“The Event Horizon Telescope is not a traditional telescope; rather, it refers to a group of eight radio telescopes that are stationed on five continents, which all observed the same areas of space over the course of one week in April 2017.”
“In the end, that data was the ‘equivalent to 5000 years of mp3 files’ according to Dan Marrone, an astronomer and co-investigator of Event Horizon Telescope. It was recorded onto half a ton of hard drives and then physically sent to centralized locations where it was analyzed by supercomputers for months in order to get the image we see today.”
Exactly Craig.
“…where it was analyzed by supercomputers for months in order to get the image we see today.”
Most people don’t have a clue.
Who programs those “supercomputers”?
And how much does it cost for months on a supercomputer?
How much taxpayer money went into producing those fake “actual photographs”?
We’ll never get the answers….
“Three years ago, Bouman led the creation of an algorithm that eventually helped capture this first-of-its-kind image: a supermassive black hole and its shadow at the center of a galaxy known as M87. She was then a graduate student in computer science and artificial intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/us/katie-bouman-mit-black-hole-algorithm-sci-trnd/index.html
If you want to know more about the project and what was done:
https://eventhorizontelescope.org/for-astronomers/data
https://eventhorizontelescope.org/publications
https://eventhorizontelescope.org/for-astronomers/memos
Unfortunately, I already know “what was done”. It’s called pseudoscience.
They can’t answer relevant questions, as presented above. Or ones like “How many photons are received from something 55 million light-years away? Obviously they’ve never heard of the “inverse-square law”.
Nothing new.
The Messier 87 object that is 55 million miles away is visible through a pair of binoculars.
First cataloged in 1781.
Craig T…If you want to believe that malarkey, that’s up to you. All they are showing is a black spot in the middle of some orange substance. If black holes are so dense they can absorb everything around them, what is that orange stuff doing there?
Biologist, Stefan Lanka, who found the first virus in the ocean, has exposed similar photos of viruses purported to be actual viruses. He has revealed the photos as scams, claiming they reveal only the cell masses in which the viruses are claimed to exist.
http://neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm
Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.
This just keeps getting better…
* Are you saying there are no such things as viruses?
* That all of the electron microscope images of viruses are fakes?
* That every experiment with viruses is fake?
By the way, the “orange stuff” is called an accretion disk.
http://stronggravity.eu/public-outreach-tmp/accretion-disks/
Craig T…I studied astronomy for a year, which makes me not much better educated but a bit more aware.
The best visual telescope we have can see Jupiter as no larger than a dollar coin. Most work in astronomy is done by radio-telescopes which pick up EM radiation from gases and certain elements. So most astronomy is done by studying the spectral behavior of gases.
From such studies, astronomers have inferred planets around distant stars they cannot see directly. They base their claims on the periodic disturbances in the light coming from stars, which they infer is caused by planets orbiting the stars.
With the photo of the so-called black hole they are pretty well saying, “it’s black, and it looks like a hole, therefore it must be a black hole”.
The funds start pouring in.
I could handle that if they claimed they ‘think’ there ‘may’ be a planet causing the light perturbations. But they don’t stop at that, they have artists draw visualizations representing the planets.
After a while, the media gets a hold of it and turns it into an actual planet.
http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2017-15
THE LEECH EXOPLANET IMAGING SURVEY: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE COLDEST DIRECTLY IMAGED EXOPLANET, GJ 504 b, AND EVIDENCE FOR SUPERSTELLAR METALLICITY*
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/166/pdf
Mike R,
You wrote –
“With respect to the GHE the link to Wiki should assist”.
This is what your pointless link provides –
“The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere.”
Unfortunately this definition is obvious nonsense. The Moon has achieves far higher temperatures than the Earth, in the absence of an atmosphere. The definition also refers to some magical “process” without specifying what it is, how it operates, how it may be measured, or even where it may be observed. You obviously “believe” this is science.
I don’t.
With reference to a thermometer, there are some nutters who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, thereby reducing the amount of radiation reaching it, actually makes the thermometer hotter! Ridiculous, I know, but such are the delusions of pseudoscientists!
Obviously, reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer colder, not hotter. At night, for example, when the Sun’s radiation falls to very low levels, the thermometer gets to its lowest temperature – all other things being equal.
As to the 2 or 3 plate “problem”, what are you referring to? I have noticed a pseudoscientific argument referring to pointless imaginary scenarios which don’t appear to relate to reality in any significant way. My opinion is that diversions into such silliness comes as a result of GHE supporters furiously casting about for any excuse to avoid facing the simple fact that the Earth has cooled for four and half billion years, and that no useful GHE description, far less a testable GHE hypothesis.
I would assume you have a reason for your comment, apart from the desire to appear stupid and ignorant, except that you are probably aware that you are stupid and ignorant. Maybe you don’t realise that you appear to suffer from a form of delusional psychosis, similar to Michael Mann.
If you have any evidence to show that you are not deluded, stupid, and ignorant, feel free to produce it. In the meantime, do as you wish. I do.
Cheers.
“The Moon has achieves far higher temperatures than the Earth, in the absence of an atmosphere.”
Sorry, Mike 6:10pm that’s wrong, the no-GHE moon in the absence of an atm. global equilibrium temperature is measured lower than global mean GHE earth with atm. NOT “far higher”; you simply carelessly & pointlessly write about local T and miss MikeR’s global GHE point as is usual for you. The annualized moon data was taken by thermometer and radiometer – see Diviner probe papers.
Continue doing as you wish Mike your Nobel prize still awaits, basic atm. science will carry on regardless of your pointless comments.
B,
Highest measured temperature Moon surface – around 127 C.
Highest measured temperature Earth surface – less than 100 C.
Take refuge in the stupid pseudoscientific diversion of “atm. global equilibrium temperature” which I did not mention. Talking about averages is pointless if you refuse to acknowledge that the average Earth surface temperature has dropped over the last four and a half billion years or so.
My statement was correct. Complaining that something which I didn’t say was wrong, just shows you are a troll of the stupid and ignorant type.
By the way, nice try at trying to cast climatology as “atm. science”. Ah, the wonders of climatological nuttery. Anything can be anything else! Magic!
Cheers.
“which I did not mention.”
Correct, you completely missed MikeR’s point about the global GHE. Continue doing as you wish Mike the Nobel prize still awaits your unrelated possibly correct but pointless efforts.
And what is the lowest temperature on the Moon and what is the average temperature?
b,
I am surprised you don’t know. Unless you are exceptionally lazy, or really incompetent, you can no doubt find an answer which suits you, without expecting me to spoon feed you.
You weren’t just posing a stupid and irrelevant gotcha, were you? Could you really be that stupid?
That is a rhetorical question, of course. You don’t need to answer.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
Average temperature on the Moon surface –
-19 C equatorial front,
-17 C equatorial back.
-53 C polar
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/LunarSourceBook.pdf
Average temperature of the Earth –
14 C GISS 1951 – 1980 surface global average
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php
And Mike Flynn’s main point:
CT,
Are you actually disagreeing with something I wrote? No?
Why bother commenting if all you provide are gotchas and trolling.
Just curious – my care factor remains zero. You must do as you feel.
Cheers.
I am disagreeing with something you wrote.
It’s not the peak temperature that matters, it’s the average. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere keep the planet warmer. As much as you direct the words “magic” and “pseudoscience” at others, it’s your version of how thermodynamics work that doesn’t match reality.
And your care factor about that fact may be zero. I suspect no amount of evidence will get you to back down from your misinterpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
CT,
I am still not sure what you are disagreeing about. You say it’s not the peak temperature that matters. That would be news to anyone who perishes from heatstroke, but no matter. It is impossible for the atmosphere to heat the surface to a higher temperature than it would be in the absence of that atmosphere, but no matter. Just look how hot the Moon gets. The average is irrelevant, because then you have to accept that a cooler atmosphere also allows the surface to cool in the absence of sunlight.
Is this a magic effect which both cools and heats, according to your desire of the moment?
You still haven’t mentioned this magic “process” by which all this is supposed to occur. That is because it doesn’t exist. The Wikipedia definition is nonsensical. Useless. Pointless. Just a bunch of misleading sciencey sounding words strung together by a foolish GHE cultist.
The process, whatever it is, does not seem to have worked for four and a half billion years. The surface has cooled. The temperature has dropped. The surface is no longer molten, liquid water exists, and Antarctica now has the odd kilometer or three of ice on top of it, where previously it didn’t.
CO2 provides no heat, and Schmidt and Mann are delusional (and occasionally publicly stupid into the bargain).
Making assertions about greenhouse gasses is just stupid if you can’t even define them, much less come up with a testable hypothesis to back up your pseudoscientific declarations.
Carry on dreaming.
Cheers.
That’s not my claim at all.
First let’s start with convection and conduction from the atmosphere. Those forces keep the high temperature on Earth from going as high as on the moon and the low temperatures as low. But by itself the average would be the same.
Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere return some of IR radiation to Earth. Since the Earth warms until it is giving off as much radiative energy as it receives the average temperature will be higher. That explains why the Earth average temperature is over 30 C higher than the moon.
I’m sorry I didn’t explain it more clearly. I thought you understood GHE raises the average temperature of the Earth.
For that entire length of time the Earth has been heading toward, if not at thermal equilibrium. After the initial cooling from molton rock, the energy leaving the Earth has matched the energy received. When that total energy goes up the Earth warms. when that total energy goes down the Earth cools.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Question for those marvelous people who think photons from a cool object will pretty much always be reflected by a warmer object.
If we stood in a butchers meat freezer, illuminated only by a chip-on-board LED light operating at less than 25C, producing the same lumens as a 25 Watt ordinary bulb, would we only see blackness?
Our corneas, at 36C, would be warmer than every object in the room, including the light source. So they should reflect all incoming radiation, right? And the photons would never, or rarely, reach our eyes’ lenses.
That would seem to be the logical consequence of what you believe about warmer objects never or rarely absorbing radiation from colder objects. And it’s something that can easily be tested.
barry, LED light is not due to heat. It is due to electrical potential forcing electrons at a semi-conductor p-n junction. LEDs are typically designed on that principle.
And the human eye is designed to receive visible light. Somehow the optical nerve receives the necessary energy to process the information.
No violations of laws of thermodynamics.
Sorry.
“the human eye is designed to receive visible light.”
JD now admits visible light from barry’s cooler LED is NOT all reflected by barry’s warmer object. JD runs away from his own cartoons x4H & 6C3 which is nothing new. JD needs to learn more physics by doing these tests.
JD admits that poor fluffball needs serious remedial help.
So my 36 C degree eye can absorb the radiation of cooler objects without reflecting it? This is not some statistical fluke but standard operating procedure? Is that correct, JD?
JD proved you correct, barry, with test data somewhere above when JD used a warmer IR thermometer at Earth surface to not reflect but absorb & measure photons emitted from a cooler source higher in the atm.
JD just needs to do more testing to comment with the correct physics instead of drawing bogus cartoons showing something different than JD’s own test data.
Not a “statistical fluke”, barry. The eyes are designed to capture certain wavelengths. That’s why that range of the spectrum is called “visible”. The design is analogous to an handheld IR thermometer, which is designed to capture photons in the infrared band.
b,
You wrote –
“So they should reflect all incoming radiation, right?” Why would this be? The interior matter of the eye (the sclera) is obviously transparent. Otherwise you couldn’t see a darn thing. The photon detectors in the eye are very good – their luminance range is around 10^14 .
Do you understand that the light emitted by an LED is not as a result of black body radiation? Nor is the light emitted by a fluorescent tube or a neon sign.
Nothing to do with temperature dependent emission, as per Wien’s law. You may be confused about the interaction between light and matter.
Try heating water with ice, or molten lead with boiling water. Easily tested.
Still no GHE, if that is what you are trying to support. You can’t even describe such a nonsensical pseudoscientific thing, much less propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
Back to your butcher’s meat freezer. It might cool your overheated imagination a bit.
Cheers.
“..much less propose a testable GHE hypothesis.”
JD proposed a testable GHE hypothesis, performed the test of the hypothesis, reported the easily replicable data, and found the data confirmed Earth’s GHE exists. AFAIK the only test JD has ever performed, just to show Mike Flynn there really is an easy answer to his long sought questions.
B4,
Your overheated imaginary fantasy is not reality – except for you, if you are truly afflicted with delusional psychosis.
Still no useful GHE description, much less a testable GHE hypothesis.
Just a never ending stream of pseudoscientific blather. Gavin Schmidt imagining 38% likelihood meant more likely than not, Michael Mann imagining he won a Nobel Prize, climatological nutters imagining the Earth’s molten surface didn’t cool.
Keep imagining.
Cheers.
“Still no useful GHE description, much less a testable GHE hypothesis.”
JD proved you wrong Mike & with data! Keep imagining things though, your Nobel prize awaits.
More fluff from fluffball.
Nothing new.
MF repeated his old challenge, writing:
I claim that my latest demo, the Ice Slab demo does exactly that by warming a metal plate with ice and other materials thru back radiation from the heated plate. MF has been remarkably quiet about these results, suggesting he has no rebuttal.
E. Swanson
I think it was a great idea for you to do actual experiments. The sad thing is even with your evidence the phony skeptics, that haunt this blog, reject all your valid experiments. Not one has any valid science to reject them. They just do. It strongly indicates that not one of these characters (Mike Flynn, Gordon Robertson, JDHuffman or DREMT) have the least interest in truth, science. They are here only to troll and provoke responses with nonsense posts. Not a one will attempt any experiment but all will say your good experiments are “bogus” or your conclusions are wrong or Gordon with his heat dissipation.
I know you want to attempt to educate this group with real science (an actual experiment and observations) but as you can see it won’t work. It is all about what their goals are. Not a one is the least bit interested in the truth. They just want to troll, it is a form of entertainment with them. They love the provocation and many posts they can generate. Without this group, you would have a much smaller amount of posting and some really great science debates where things can be learned and debated.
All 4 of these characters is a complete waste of time. Better to follow the advice DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. I am sure if they post and get zero responses they would go to more fertile land to torture others. I suggest ignore all 4 of these. See a post from any of them and move on.
Norman, thanks for demonstrating once again that you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. All you have are your inaccurate opinions.
Nothing new.
Hi Norman. I am in agreement with regard to the futility in trying to engage with them scientifically. It’s a bit of a fool’s errand.
I have been trying the ridicule approach but I am not sure it’s working at this stage. They have impenetrable hides due to Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but in my humble opinion it can be moderately amusing to skewer the pretensions of these self declared experts. Hopefully others may find it entertaining.
MikeR, the reason and Norman don’t have any effect is because you have nothing to offer. All Norman can do is rant about personalities, and you just try to smear others using your juvenile antics.
You both need to grow up and learn some physics.
Mike R
Yes that can be entertaining but it also gives the trolls the attention they crave. It is like a candy bar to them. I am thinking not responding will be the only remedy for the unscientific trolls that come here to provoke and divert any meaningful discussion on the topic of Climate Change.
I think over 1000 posts were devoted to the topic if the Moon rotates on its axis or not. That tells you that the trolls are here not for the science but the food they get from people paying attention to them. Replying to their posts. The starvation for a troll is when they are completely ignored by everyone.
Here comes Norman, with nothing to offer, as usual.
Speaking of the Moon issue Norman, did you ever do the simple experiment with the toy Ferris wheel? The simple $20 toy proved you wrong.
No wonder you never do any experiments….
Norman,
After returning from a year long break from the fray and returning to see the same state of afairs is very dispiriting.
You are probably right about starving the trolls but the passive approach of the past couple of years does not seem to work either. They are masters in sucking you in and specialise in causing chaos so I am just trying to give them something to think about and maybe time, and Dr Roy, will do the rest.
However that’s probably wishful thinking as it is a sign of the current times that persistent stupidity and ignorance can always Trump reason. I will probably get sick of dealing with them and take another break but in the meantime I can manage a bit more troll hunting.
On the topic of sucking victims in I see JD is at it again with his lunartic hypothesis.
Poor MikeR. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to follow a blog where there is a extreme minority of people who say things you don’t agree with. It must be so hard being a bigot in the age where anybody has a platform to express themselves.
DREMT,
Nah, not difficult at all at the moment but I may run out of patience at some stage.
It is a bit like the highly eccentric uncle at the family gathering who sounds off rabidly about his latest conspiracy theory.
You can either ignore it for the sake of family harmony and hope he eventually tires or you could confront it. Alternatively you can just leave. I am at the second stage but may move on to the third.
As for the accusation of bigotry, I should remind you that minorities as well as majorities can contain bigots. Bigotry spans both categories. In fact I suspect that minorities from each end of the political spectrum have a higher concentrations than the political centre. I am not sure where you stand on this.
I agree that bigots can can be from minorities as well as majorities. And hey, I respect your right to joke about how it would be an act of pity for someone to end my life as I’m sure you respect my right to politely request that you stop trolling.
I’m sure we both agree that it would be pathetic to hope that somebody else (say, the owner of this blog) would block the other from commenting. After all, people fought and died for our right to freedom of speech, right?
Yes DREMT noble sentiments. I concur mostly. After reading your comments, those looking down from above, who fought and died for free speech, would be so proud that they did not die in vain. I also respect Dr Roy’s right to limit free speech on his own blog. That’s what a moderator is supposed to be doing. All the comments including mine are hopefully being monitored to exclude comments that are wildly defamatory, libellous, incitement to violence etc..
Your comments are obviously not in any of these categories but he still can terminate your tenure here. As you have already this met this fate on two occasions this may be another on the cards. If you don’t get the point of Roy’s aside [Speaking of trolls. -Roy] inside your first comment this month then spurt forth PSTs to your heart’s content.
Dr Spencer was clear in explaining that he considered it trolling to come to this blog and assert there was no greenhouse effect. Your extrapolation that he considers me a troll for my “please stop trolling” posts, though plausible, is not what he actually said. Believe me, I’m not without self-awareness. I understand why people would think I am a troll. What perplexes me is the thought that you genuinely don’t seem to feel that you are a troll.
MikeR, even if I’m a hypocrite, you are still a troll. Get over it.
DREMT, further to the above, my previous reference was to voluntary, not involuntary, euthanasia and also was not of course meant to be taken literally. I am sorry you misunderstood. Hope this finally claririfies and you can finally move on.
Here in Victoria we have legislation enacted to allow voluntary euthanasia. One of the stringent requirements is that the person requesting must be certified by a psychiatrist as being compes mentis. I guess in your case you might fall at the first hurdle. Sorry about the racehorse analogy.
Mike, you still don’t get it. What’s offensive is the idea that it would be an act of pity to end my life. It doesn’t matter how you want to dress it up. I don’t really personally take offense to these things, because it is just so pathetic and trivial…but there really is no defense for what you said. If “trolling” is defined as an action or post designed to inflame, then you can’t get much more offensive than what you said, if you really think about it. You could use rude language, and go into specifics, etc…but actually suggesting that somebody would be doing you a favor, to kill you, is pretty much the deepest insult I think is possible to say to someone.
I am glad we finally have some clarity as to your raison d’etre. Can I quote you on that?
Yes you are right I have also shown such tendencies. As they say you can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg. My tendencies are normally induced by exchanges by those who indulge in flagrant repetiive trolling. Accordingly if your persona disapears I should be able to control my own tendencies. Win, win for all.
It’s all weirdly based on me disappearing. It’s like you’re unable to participate on this blog, somehow, if I’m here. Doesn’t make any sense, Mike. It’s like you’ve lost all sense of perspective and reason. You can say whatever you want, about any subject. Why does it matter to you what I do!?
Oh my goodness. How many times do I have to say it. My comments were meant to be taken literally.
If you continue in this vein then I can conclude that you appear to be playing the victim card. So move on. I can’t take any more of this confected outrage.
As to my presence here, yes you are spot on. The behaviour of you and your alter ego and one other who comments here are the reason I have commented so frequently in the past month.
I do also have another reason to be here .You may have missed it. I have additionally commented upstream on topic, regarding the differences between UAH and RSS satellite data. If you have something to contibute to this discussion please go ahead. As long as it doesn’t include a stream of PSTs then I promise to be exceedingly polite.
I’m not outraged, or upset, as I said. It’s just you make yourself look so bad, I can’t help but point that out to people. Do what you want, say what you want. Just be aware that you’ve written probably over ninety comments by now, and only about three of them had any content.
DREMT,
Your last comment has an obvious rejoinder. I was wondering if you could provide a link to some content of yours that you believe demonstrates your scientific prowess. You could include something from the entire oevre of your works over the past year. Msybe throw in JDHuff as well.
You could then compare your output to the prolific generation of PSTs which appears to be your specialty. It could be illuminating.
By the way the number of comments you have made this month currently stands at 153, of which 40 entirely consist of the highly information rich PST.
By the way I am pleased that you are not upset. I thought for a minute you might have been one of those trolls who cannot stand the heat of the kitchen and get upset when served up some of their own medicine.
Any time I criticize you, you just try to turn it back on me. “No, YOU are!” You are stuck on “attack”. As I said, MikeR: even if it were true that I was a hypocrite, you’d still be a troll.
DREMT
The hundreds of PSTs that you have generated over the past few months share one important characteristic. They are minimalist and puerile and all they indicate is your ability to cut and paste. The total lack of intellectual content also indicate they have no purpose other than to inflame. Do you actually think they have any other function? People can react badly to being repetitively scolded, particularly when the intended recipient has not exhibited the type of behavior that you imply. It appears to be the way you deal with discussions that become too difficult to handle otherwise. Your approach is a sign of weakness not strength.
On the issue of hypocrisy unfortunately I have had to resort to some troll like behaviors in response, some of which I am not proud of. I apologize for the euthanasia comment which offended you.
Similarly I wish there was some evidence that you have had the slightest bit of shame about these annoyingly repetitive trolls.
That is why I have enumerated them in an attempt, almost certainly futile, but you never know, to induce some feeling of shame at the depressing repetitiveness of these postings.
So once again if you back off with the PSTs I will back off with the periodic presentation of the result of the Troll contests. Do we have a deal? I hope you respond thoughtfully and not with your standard response. Same goes for Mike F.
MikeR says:
“It appears to be the way you deal with discussions that become too difficult to handle otherwise.”
Another way is to loop over some semantic issue, like this:
https://tinyurl.com/y89jxyac
Please tell me if I was incorrect or unclear there.
Nothing you have said has offended me, you are wrong about the PSTs (it’s pretty simple, people are trolling, I ask them to stop), and you are in no position to offer any sort of “deal”. You are a troll, MikeR.
You’re the troll DREMT, ask MikeR a sensible question about physics and you will get a good answer.
As DREMT has refused my offer of a truce and desires to troll on, the current state of play is,
23 PSTs from DREMT and 37 BTs from Mike F.
Just checking the stats it emphasizes that DREMT is a pure genius. He can post 6 PSTs in 8 minutes. Amazing stuff. Each carefully crafted. How can I label him a troll?
DREMT,
I have to apologize for a problem with my software. There appears to be some issue with white space characters embedded in the Pleas. Sto. Trollin. in the text extracted from this URL , which means some of your PSTs were missed.
You actually have 35 PSTs which means the situation is not so dire. You are actually within spitting distance of Mike F,
Additionally I have to correct the information about your spasm. You generated 9 in 10 minutes. If you had continued at that furious rate you could have brought the site down.
Again I repeat, many apologies. I know much you have invested in having the number of PSTs correctly recorded.
Yes Svante, I see from your link the circular argument is one of DREMT’s exit strategies. His most common one is using a PST but I note there is a 3rd. Fleeing the scene of a crime (with tail between legs) see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349325 .
Svante’s logic was circular. I explained that to him.
Svante and MikeR are now both just trolling. Boring.
Let’s assume 14.7 um photons given off by a cold object (CO2 layer) and directed toward a hot object (surface) really were entirely reflect then when you place a radiometer between the cold and hot object you will still record a higher flux of photons emanating from the hot object. And if you keep adding energy to the hot object (solar heating) then even more 14.7 um photons are going to be emitted by the hot object with half of those being reemitted by the cold object back toward the hot object. If these photons never thermalize than exponential growth of these photons will develop in the gap.
But the thing is that these photons do thermalize with the environment. They slow the rate of heat loss from the hot object and they warm the CO2 layer. Convention and conduction then disperse the heat via different avenues in both materials.
Wrong again, bdgwx. CO2 can not warm the surface, no matter how much you bang on your keyboard.
(That’s been tried.)
Sorry JD, once you admit visible light from barry’s cooler LED is NOT all reflected by barry’s warmer object then you admit CO2 can warm the surface & your cartoons are bogus. Case closed.
B4,
Maybe you could appear more stupid and ignorant if you try really, really, hard.
Your faux sorrow is just pathetic trolling behaviour – in my opinion, anyway.
I suppose you believe the only way light can be generated is by black body emission, but if you knew anything about reality, you would realise visible light can result from other processes. For example, a cool glowing neon tube, or bioluminescence seen in fireflies or glow worms.
I am glad you have closed the case. Presumably, you will stop commenting further. I promise I will refrain from bursting into tears at the prospect.
Thanks.
Cheers.
“I suppose you believe..”
Claiming to be a mind reader doesn’t help your case Mike, no one can read minds not even Carnac the Magnificent.
B4,
I suppose you didnt bother looking up the definition of suppose.
As usual, you support your “case” (to appear witless, I suppose), by fabricating a statement which I didn’t utter.
I suppose you are confused about the difference between truth and lies. That would go, I suppose, with the inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, as is often the case with pseudoscientific climatological GHE believers.
Incredibly, these nutters reject the evidence of their own senses, and believe magical forces make temperatures rise at night! Something to do with “back radiation”, photons, and radiometers – or some other sciencey sounding gobbledygook.
You just believe, I suppose. A triumph of faith over fact.
Cheers.
“fabricating a statement which I didnt utter.”
You wrote it: “I suppose you believe..” though Mike may claim Mike was also talking (uttering) to himself.
“magical forces make temperatures rise at night!”
No, warm breezes do along with cooler clouds over clear night sky. Mike rejects the data of other commenters & weather stations. Oh well, Mike’s faith outweighs the preponderance of evidence.
MF, barring advective processes or some other process that is introducing heat I don’t think CO2 causes the instantaneous temperature to increase through the night. I do, however, think it causes the rate at which heat is lost to decrease. The average temperature over a period of time will then be higher than it would have been otherwise. It’s not unlike the effect you get with clouds or high WV mixing ratios at night. They don’t, on their own, cause temperatures to increase at night, but they do reduce the rate at which surface heat is lost to space. The morning low ends up being higher than it would have been otherwise. The warming I’m referring to here is the increase in the mean temperature over an extended period of time.
b,
You wrote –
“The average temperature over a period of time will then be higher than it would have been otherwise.”
Unfortunately, the surface temperature seems to have fallen since it was everywhere hotter than the boiling point of water – before the first liquid water formed. By definition, the atmosphere contained all the available H2O, which is supposedly the most important (whatever that means) greenhouse gas.
The average temperature has dropped.
However, regardless of how slowly a body cools, it gets colder. The temperature drops. It is not getting hotter.
Increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. It makes it cooler. No GHE.
Your comment about mean temperatures is meaningless, without some explanation. If daytime energy inputs and temperatures are reduced, why would the same radiative impediment result in average temperatures rising? Both the hottest and coldest temperatures on Earth are found in areas with the least amount of nominal GHGs in the atmosphere. Basic physics explains why.
Believe what you wish. Dimwitted pseodscientific climatological fools do it all the time.
Cheers.
bdgwx believes: “…I dont think CO2 causes the instantaneous temperature to increase through the night. I do, however, think it causes the rate at which heat is lost to decrease. The average temperature over a period of time will then be higher than it would have been otherwise.”
That is a common belief in the AGW/GHE pseudoscience. It is just another way to twist reality. bdgwx admits that CO2 won’t cause the instantaneous temperature to increase through the night, but goes on to state that the temperature will rise with the Sun. Obviously he believes CO2 is warming the planet, not the Sun!
By trying to claim the temperature at dawn is caused by CO2 preventing energy from leaving Earth just denies several laws of physics.
“They slow the rate of heat loss from the hot object and they warm the CO2 layer.”
When CO2 absorbs a 14.7 µm photon, an electron jumps to a higher energy state. When that electron returns to the lower state another 14.7 µm photon is emitted. My understanding is that no energy from that photon in any form stays with the CO2 molecule so it is not warmed.
Anyone with information otherwise please post a link.
It is my understanding that when CO2’s bending mode gets excited it induces a dipole moment that causes a force vector to be applied to the whole molecule. In this way the molecule can momentarily accelerate and impart its newly acquired kinetic energy to its neighbors via collisions. Absorbing a photon induces the dipole moment and increases the probability of a collision and thus raises the temperature. Emitting a photon relaxes the dipole moment and reduces the probability of a collision and thus lowers the temperature. I don’t know what percent of the time the molecule decides deploys its energy via collisions vs spontaneous emission of a new photon though.
“When CO2 absorbs a 14.7 m photon, an electron jumps to a higher energy state.”
No, at least not in earth troposphere.
The energy in that photon ~ 13.5e^-21 joule.
Avg. energy of an Earthian air molecule order of kT so at 298K ~ 4e^-21 joule. This is the order of magnitude of the energy exchanged on avg. in each collision near Earth surface. Plenty of energy in that photon and others nearby wavelength to trade in collisions.
Spacing of 1st electronic level over base ~ 400e^-21 joule (100x avg. energy) so even the 1st electronic level is NOT excited in Earth troposphere not near enough collisional energy to trade.
Spacing of 1st rotational level over base ~1.33e^-21 joule (1/3 avg. energy) so there is plenty of energy to exchange in collisions and photons with the energy available.
Spacing of 1st vibrational level over base ~40e^-21 joule (10x avg. energy) so there is on avg. only a few collisions and few photons with the vibrational energy available to exchange out at the tail end of the bell curve.
The rotational levels of air molecules are doing the majority of the absorbing and emitting and exchanging energy via collision in Earth troposphere. The electronic levels do not participate for emission in the troposphere, not enough collisional energy trading going on despite Gordon’s claims to the contrary.
For all this you need a good P-Chem text (bulk up on Atkins, not a link) for each polyatomic air specie number on the subject or an introductory meteorology text that might spend a couple pages glossing over it. Not all that important for Earth atm. as the Cp for air varies only about 0.3% from 250K to 320K. With good conscience, no need to lose sleep at night worrying about which molecular quantum level is being excited, doesn’t make any difference understanding GW – just need to know emission is taking place and mostly rotational quantum levels have been excited and de-energized.
“It is my understanding that when CO2’s bending mode gets excited it induces a dipole moment that causes a force vector to be applied to the whole molecule…the molecule decides”
Yes, the linear molecule dipole can be measured but is very faint as you might expect & molecules don’t have brains whereas you do (well ex-JD), molecules just do what they do, no thinking; they don’t care if they are above avg. or below avg.
You’re right. IR causes changes in vibration and rotation energy levels but not changes in electron energy levels. CO2 bending absorbs 14.7µm radiation.
Dr. Spencer also agrees with you that CO2 absorbing IR warms those molecules:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/faq-271-if-greenhouse-gases-are-such-a-small-part-of-the-atmosphere-how-do-they-change-its-temperature/
I wonder what proportion of the upwelling radiation is reemitted vs. thermalized though. I have no idea.
b,
You may assume what you want.
Are you disagreeing with anything I said? No?
Excellent. Keep on pointless blathering at your convenience. I certainly don’t mind or care.
Maybe you can magic a describable GHE into existence, by overwhelming Nature with your pseudoscience and assumptions. Good luck.
Cheers.
“Maybe you can magic a describable GHE into existence, by overwhelming Nature with your pseudoscience and assumptions. Good luck.”
What kind of magic could make the average global temperature of the Earth over 30 C warmer than the moon average equatorial temperature?
What magic indeed, Ball4. You may now join the Order of the Pheonix. 50 points for Gryffindor!
CT,
Obviously the same sort of pseudoscientific climatological magic which cannot abode actual measurements, but introduces irrelevant arithmetical averaging processes to obscure the facts. Maximum temperature on the Moon exceeds that of the Earth. No atmosphere, you see.
But back to basics – what has your comment to do with the quotation which you so graciously provided? Can you magic a describable GHE into existence, or not? No?
All you can do is lurch off into irrevelancies, and hope no one will notice your evasionary tactic.
Good luck with that.
By the way, if you research the Harry Potter books more carefully, you might find that you spelled “Pheonix” incorrectly. You do realise that the Harry Potter series is fiction, and the GHE cannot be made real by magic?
Cheers.
Mike Spynn,
You continuously claim that this planet has cooled for 4.5bn years.
So it should be easy for you to show your empirical evidence that the Earth has cooled over the last 200 years of AGW.
Go.
Cheerios.
Craig T…”What kind of magic could make the average global temperature of the Earth over 30 C warmer than the moon average equatorial temperature?”
Oceans covering 70% of the planet and an atmosphere.
R.W. Wood, an expert on CO2, gave the best explanation I have heard. He claimed SW solar heats the surface and atmospheric gases absorb the heat at the surface. Since gases are poor conductors of heat, they tend to retain it for a while, and during that period, the atmosphere retains the 30C you mention.
As an expert on CO2, he did not think it had the ability to heat the atmosphere.
The oceans serve as a giant hot water bottle to help maintain the temperature.
Hawhawhaw “R. W. Wood, an expert on CO2” uhhh NOT.
And what a flimsy, pathetic and logically fallacious Appeal to Authority.
“As an expert on CO2, he did not think “.
R W Wood concluded his one paper on a CO2 experiment with “I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter.”
‘CO2 expert’ indeed.
R. W. Wood studied infrared and ultraviolet radiation. His experiment was on how actual greenhouses work:
As part of the paper he did comment on on climate.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
The Greenhouse Effect does not work like a greenhouse. The name is at best an analogy. The atmosphere is not warmed by IR radiation it absorbs. Instead that energy is emitted by those gasses with half returning to the surface.
“Since gases are poor conductors of heat, they tend to retain it for a while, and during that period, the atmosphere retains the 30C you mention.”
Energy never leaves a planet by conduction or convection. It warms until the radiation reaching the planet matches the radiation leaving the planet. Convection by the atmosphere moderates the extreme temperature changes seen on the moon but does not explain the Earth being warmer.
DS,
The Earth is cooler than it was when the surface was molten. Fact, unless you can show otherwise. That is referred to as cooling.
Why would I bother to do anything you want? What would I gain? You are a foolish fellow indeed.
If you wish to claim that adding additional CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, you might wish to indicate some testable hypothesis to back up your extraordinary claim.
A word of warning – the Australian BOM has declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 to be unreliable. Going back 200 years is pointless. Nobody can even measure the supposed global surface temperature at any given time.
Press on with your pseudoscientific fantasy. When you get sick of it, you might accept that thermometers respond to heat, as they were designed to. Not CO2, not wishful thinking.
Cheers.
LOL Mikey.
So you have nothing except the Earth was once molten?
Cripey! I’m surprised you didn’t pull another Sarah and claim it was ‘gotcha’ question.
‘a word of warning’, lol again.
Brilliant!
“The Earth is cooler than it was when the surface was molten. Fact, unless you can show otherwise. That is referred to as cooling.”
And the Earth cooled until the thermal radiation leaving the Earth matched the radiation leaving. The same happened with the Moon. The difference is that Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere return some of the thermal energy that would otherwise leave the Earth. In turn the Earth is 30 C warmer when it achieves a balance between radiation in and radiation out.
“And the Earth cooled until the thermal radiation leaving the Earth matched the radiation leaving.”
Make that
“And the Earth cooled until the thermal radiation reaching the Earth matched the radiation leaving.”
DS,
You may deny that the Earth has cooled if you wish. Others might notice that you can’t actually bring yourself to disagree with anything I wrote, and produce a fact or two to back up your denial.
You are right in one respect – calling me brilliant may help your cause.
Cheers.
CT,
You wrote –
‘Make that
“And the Earth cooled until the thermal radiation reaching the Earth matched the radiation leaving.”‘
Are you disagreeing with something I wrote or just trolling for effect?
Actually, you are right, not that it makes any difference at all. At some unknown time in the future, the earth may have cooled to the point where it is isothermal throughout. One estimate, based on geophysics, is around 90 billion years. I’m not too worried at the prospect.
Carry on being a trolling fool, posting completely pointless comments, at your leisure.
Cheers.
barry…”Our corneas, at 36C, would be warmer than every object in the room, including the light source.”
You are confusing the biochemical reaction of the retina to SW solar energy to heat transfer. That’s why I keep harping that EM is not heat.
Heat transfer is a process in which EM causes the electrons in atoms to rise to a higher energy state, raising the electron kinetic energy. That’s not the same process as light stimulating the cells in the retina. The latter is more like the photo-electric effect wherein certain frequencies of EM cause electrical activity in a circuit.
IR from a heat source cannot be seen by the human eye. It’s called infrared because the radiation related to heat is below the visible light spectrum on the red end.
It’s only heat that is governed by the 2nd law, not EM in general.
I wrote my question for those who believe that radiation from a cooler object cannot possibly be absorbed (except in rare anomalies) by a warmer object.
I have learned from these people that LED lighting is special, in that its radiation, despite emanating from a cooler body than my eye, nevertheless penetrates the warmer corneal barrier and strikes the lens.
The cornea does not process the photoelectric effect, so I’m still curious as to why it permits the radiation from the cooler object.
It seems, at least, that there is a major caveat missing from the proposition I’m querying. Light from sources cooler than the human eye are an everyday fact of life (bioluminescence and glow-in-the-dark objects are more examples), but it all penetrates the cornea.
Why? Physically, what’s the difference at the cornea, between these photons and those of so-called ‘blackbody*’ light emissions?
(* One of these proponents used to state the rather banal fact that a true blackbody doesn’t exist – I am sure this quibble won’t deter….)
There are fundamental differences between thermal radiation and radiation from sources like lasers, LEDs, microwave ovens and the radiation returned to the Earth by greenhouse gasses. Thermal radiation follows a distinct curve with the peak emission the blackbody temperature of the source. The others radiate because energy is absorbed then emitted. The watts of energy put out depend on the watts of energy driving the emission.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348888
A retinal molecule in the eye reacts when it absorbs a photon between 300 nm and 700 nm wavelength. That’s a blackbody equivalent of 3,866 C to 9,386 C. Needless to say retinal molecules are normally below 40 C.
I don’t know Barry, but it’s not a scientific difference.
The effort continues to get around the laws of thermodynamics. The Warmists have tried “putting on a coat”, the plates, heating a room with ice cubes, and now LED lights!
They just can’t live with reality.
Except JD,
Your ideas ultimately hit a brick wall when compared to the real world, and lead to contradictions that you cannot explain, and therefore ignore.
N: ‘By FIRST LAW, the sphere needs to get 615 W from somewhere. Its getting 300 W from the heater. Where does the rest come from?’
JD: ??
It turns out that it is Nate that does not understand a heater “heats”.
They can’t even understand their own scenarios.
No JD, the simple math does not work.
615 W does not equal 300 W. And yes the FIRST LAW is valid.
You are stuck with no answers, so you run away to try to avoid the reality that your science is wrong.
And everyone can see it.
Nate’s inability to learn physics in matched by his inability to ask responsible questions.
Maybe there is a connection….
Craig T,
“There are fundamental differences between thermal radiation and radiation from sources like lasers, LEDs, microwave ovens and the radiation returned to the Earth by greenhouse gasses”
Ok, but what is the specific difference that allows radiation from a cool-source LED to pass through my warmer cornea, that overcomes the barrier of warmer objects being unable to absorb virtually all radiation from any cooler object? I see you answered, “I don’t know,” and perhaps you don’t hold the latter opinion, but I don’t think these people can explain it.
I think it’s simple, as Kristian and Roy (AGW skeptics) agree – warmer objects do indeed absorb radiation from cooler objects. There’s nothing to prevent them doing so. Those arguing otherwise cannot answer my question except with vague generalities.
I’d hoped for at least some interesting spin from them, or even, out of the blue, a compelling argument. But naked assertion was all that came about. Oh well.
Barry, I think you misunderstood what I said. It sounds like we agree that nothing keeps a warmer object from absorbing a photon from a cooler object.
Well, transparent material to wavelength does not often absorb photons of the wavelength. Or if eye lens if not transparent, you don’t see things.
And of course there plants in the ocean which absorb sunlight, plants and human can detect and respond to sunlight due to biological chemical reaction of absorbing sunlight.
I figured we do agree, Craig, but wondered why you were trying to explain what eyes can see instead of replying to the contention.
Are you one of those, gbakie, that believe warm objects cannot absorb thermal radiation from cooler objects?
–barry says:
April 12, 2019 at 5:37 PM
Are you one of those, gbakie, that believe warm objects cannot absorb thermal radiation from cooler objects?”–
I believe that energy is conserved.
But if we could determine some way that energy is not conserved, then there could be magical possibilities.
barry, I don’t understand what you don’t understand. As Craig said,
“A retinal molecule in the eye reacts when it absorbs a photon between 300 nm and 700 nm wavelength. That’s a blackbody equivalent of 3,866 C to 9,386 C”
Your LED lights emit visible light, yes? They aren’t “hot”, but nevertheless they are supplied with sufficient power and are engineered in such a way that they can emit photons in the visible wavelengths. Remove the power source, the LED lights don’t work.
How is this a problem?
It’s not a problem, it’s a caveat that proponents have overlooked for a few years in the discussion here. Someone here said that it’s a statistical fluke if radiation from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one – but that generally it never happens. But it isn’t a statistical fluke, it seems. It’s an everyday reality. Now proponents are specifying that it has to be thermal radiation that bounces off objects warmer than the source.
Are there other kinds of radiation proponents want to exclude or include in their opinion, or is it only thermal radiation and none other apply to this view? I wonder if they can be that specific, because it looks like they are arguing post-hoc whenever someone brings up a rebuttal.
Which kinds of radiation will always bounce of an object warmer than the source? Let’s see if that can be specified by proponents.
LED lights, supplied with sufficient power and engineered in such a way that they can emit photons in the visible wavelengths, are an everyday reality, yes. So…there goes your argument. Talk about finding the exceptions that prove the rule…what’s next? Bioluminescence? It’s a chemical reaction, barry, that provides the power for the light in that case.
I found some reassuring words from our gracious host:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
The words of Roy are reassuring but it makes you wonder why he is letting the trolls run the asylum. Maybe he is waiting until the end of the month for one of his periodic culls.
I know they often return as multiple sock puppets but you can get a month or two where relative sanity prevails. Let’s hope.
Maybe he’ll get rid of you, MikeR, the creepy stalker who apparently wishes people were dead:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348940
Clearly you do not understand the power of metaphor. Rest assured I am not going to take you to your final resting place via the vet. I was just hoping Roy would administer the coup de grace to your current alias. He seems to have lost patience with it in his very first comment this month.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347517 .
Just a reminder that you could be skating on very thin ice.
MR,
I wish you well with your endeavours to bend Dr Spencer to your will. Hope is all well and good, and probably on a par with prayer or wishful thinking.
You might wish to try the following experiment – hope in one hand, pour water in the other. See which fills up first.
You might engender some respect if you could find a useful GHE description, or even better, a testable GHE hypothesis.
Of course you can’t, so you have to fall back on trolling, veiled threats, and the hope that someone will do what you are powerless to achieve yourself. A common tactic of the thug, the bully, and the incompetent pseodoscientific climate cultist.
You could always try chanting Manntras until you turn blue in the face – that might give CO2 magical properties, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
Mike F, do you want to join your partner on the ice togethor for some pairs figure skating?
Maybe get the others to join you in a circular conga line.
Spring is on its way and maybe by the end of the month the cracks will have deepened, so take care.
Begone, troll!
Oh, just a harmless “euthanasia” gag, then. Forget I said anything.
Sorry, I should have realised you do tend to take things literall and yes the default option of forgetting anything you have said is always the best option.
At best, you “literall” made some jibe involving euthanasia. If it was supposed to be clear that applied only to my pseudonym, I’m not sure how.
Sorry about the typo but at least you understood what I was trying to convey.
As for the direction, it followed immediately after your comment. Capiche?
So you write something indefensible, pretend you meant something different when challenged, then keep on being obnoxious. OK, I capiche.
If someone does take pity and tries to take you out literally not metaphorically, I will do my best to intervene. Rest assured.
Troll, begone!
Begad the begone king strikes again.
When I do an update total for Troll of the Month I shall have to remember to remove this meagre contribution from the Begone Index.
Speaking of trolls, Mike you need to lift your game. You colleague in trolling is streaking ahead.
Begone, troll.
Begad! A Baldrick like cunning plot to disrupt the begone count. I will now have to include Mike as well as Mike Flynn in the total. Not a biggie as its easy enough to post process the begone count in Excel. Just another 10 seconds of my valuable time wasted.
For some inexplicable reason Mike doesn’t seem to want to win the Golden Troll. Maybe Mike will now go full sock puppet.
Begone, troll.
Craig T, Thanks for the link, I was unaware of that. It’s interesting to see how many numa are still being used today, 5 years after that post and how many of those are using the same claims today. Gordon Robertson, Mike Flynn, Kristian, gallopingcamel, Tim Folkerts, gbaikie, ren, Nate, etc all appear. They’ve been in this mess for at least 5 years now, so it’s probably a waste of time to try to change anyone’s mind.
Facts don’t penetrate into the stone heads of Easter Island.
Yes, that was my observation after taking a break for a year. Same nonsense being repeated with the only difference is that a few protaginists have assumed new identities.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Swanson, have you decided to release the pertinent details from your bogus “experiment” yet?
I started posting regarding AGW, somewhere around 1998. I was post about the topic of Space and need of becoming a spacefaring civilization, and people were arguing about that govt funding on global warming as being far more important than Space exploration.
Anyhow, I thought global temperature by 2100 might increase by about 3 C. and I have changed my mind, I think at most it will be about 1 C.
I did not think 3 C increase in global temperature was a problem and I don’t 1 C rise of temperature was problem. And back then, the claims were that global temperature would rise by about 8 C [and possible that Earth could become like Venus.
So currently the IPCC estimate is lower than what thought it could be 30 year ago, and I hear a lot less people talking about Earth becoming like Venus.
Though there still a lot people claiming the end of world is coming soon, but they fail to give any details of why the world will end- other than “climate change” getting somehow worst. Or it’s far more brain dead these days.
Btw, 100 years ago global average temperature was 15 C, 30 years ago it was 15 C, today it’s 15 C. I expect global average temperature will not be 16 C by 2100. It possible it might be 16 C, but not likely.
Also global CO2 levels have risen slower than I thought it might over last 30 years. Generally because rest of world is making less progress than I expected. Though China getting to point emitting twice as much CO2 as US, so quickly, was not something I expected.
And that China will build “ghost cities”- how is that predictable?
The degree of corruption related to China is quite amazing.
gbaikie….”currently the IPCC estimate is lower than what thought it could be 30 year ago,”
A heck of a lot lower. They were predicting up to 6C warming by 2100. Now they have backed of to close to a degree.
Yeah, I don’t think IPCC said more than 6 C, nor anything Earth becoming like Venus.
Many of these “activists” would say IPCC was being way conservative in there prediction about possible increases in global warming [and conservative about IPCC prediction of possible sea level rise]. And currently some people say the sea level expectation of IPCC is too low- which I suppose is relate to expectation of potential massive calving regarding Antarctica [which wouldn’t even be related to CO2 levels or only vague case I seen about it, would be related to volcanic activity].
In last couple days, I have been checking Scott Adams twitter. And just listen to his Video in which talks about global warming. Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays
He says he knows very little about global warming or AGW. And I agree, he doesn’t.
He says he not a science type, and waiting for someone to explain or argue the case, so he a non-science guy can understand it.
He notes all the skeptics disagree.
Which I also have to agree with his assessment.
And so far, he said no skeptic has given him convincing argument [I guess, against AGW]. Scott gave as example, a brief criticism of Tony Heller’s “points”.
I can’t say I am big fan of Tony Heller, and I understand why Scott has this criticism.
What I found interesting or challenging was idea explaining it to a “non science” type [as he called himself].
I don’t twitter [I sort of regard it as against my religion:)] but recently I have looking at some twitter accounts for news/amusement and I have bookmarked ScottAdams.
Craig T…”I found some reassuring words from our gracious host:”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Look further down the page for a rebuttal from Pierre R Latour , who has a degree in chemical engineering and who works in a field related to thermodynamics. Both he and Roy have worked for NASA.
I am not trying to open a can of worms here, I just want to reveal an opposing view from one of Roy’s peers.
There are also some links from FauxScienceSlayer….8 of them.
Here’s what Pierre Latour said about Roy as a person and his GHE theories as described at the link above:
I have admired and learned from Roy Spencers work on AGW & GHG for several years. He taught me a lot. He is well recognized in his field. Now I write to return the favor and teach him about the errors in his posting and how he can learn from my field. I read all 350 blog responses, and identify the correct ones at the end.
I feel the same way about Roy as Philip Latour. I have learned a lot from Roy and John Christy and I have a deep respect for both. However, Roy has made uncorroborated claims about the 2nd law, claims that contradict the scientist who created the 2nd law, Rudolf Clausius.
I wish Roy would read the books of Clausius to see how he arrived at his reasoning. It’s pretty impressive. Furthermore, in his definition of the 2nd law, Clausius said nothing about ‘NET energy’. He spoke only of thermal energy…heat.
“I read all 350 blog responses, and identify the correct ones at the end.”
I read a bunch of stuff and liked the stuff that agreed with me.
Yours is a fringe view, Gordon. If you don’t recognise that, then you have a problem. If you do, then you have quite a challenge.
Gordo wrote:
You’ve repeated this assertion in different forms many times, apparently for several years. But, it appears that you don’t understand what Clausius was talking about. Look at the Wikipedia definition of the Second Law or read the versions by Clausius as published in 1854, 1867 and 1879 works. Clausius was addressing “The Mechanical Theory of Heat”, that is, the conversion of thermal energy (aka: Heat) into mechanical energy, (aka: work). He was addressing closed systems, such as a steam engine, including the processes within, pointing out that it’s impossible for such a device to produce more energy out than was supplied. Similarly, he focused on the impossibility devising a process which resulted in moving thermal energy from a cold temperature to a higher temperature without external “influence”.
The Greenhouse Effect and the Green Plate effect do not violate these principles because they are the result of systems which do not produce more “work” than that available from the external energy source. Consider the case of a steam engine with the metal surface of a boiler being exposed to the atmosphere. The boiler would produce steam when heated and that steam could be used to drive a heat engine, be it a piston or turbine device. The system could vent the exhaust steam to the atmosphere (wasting some of the available energy) or send it to a condenser for return back to the boiler. In such a case, the efficiency of the overall system would not be very great, as the boiler would lose thermal energy from the metal surface to the surroundings, resulting in less steam to drive the expansion portion of the cycle.
Now, change the system by adding insulation directly to the surface of the boiler or a radiation shield placed some small distance away to return some of the energy being lost to the environment via radiation. The net effect of the improvement(s) will be that more steam will be produced for the same rate of energy supply. These systematic changes do not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the same is true for the net results of the Greenhouse and Green Plate effects, they simply redefine the overall system properties.
If you don’t like the Wiki post, you must provide some reasoning for your objection. So far, you have been unable to explain my experimental results, using physics, so just maybe you are dead wrong.
Swanson, you keep flailing your arms hoping to come up with something meaningful, but it’s just another hodge-podge of pseudoscience.
The incorrect solutions to the plates violate the laws of thermodynamics. You continue to advertise your ignorance thereof.
244K…290K…244K, clearly increases enthalpy and decreases entropy, with no change in energy.
Learn some physics.
If one employed the Seebeck Effect, the temperature difference could be used to drive an electric motor attached to a reciprocating arm which would push the plates together, and then separate them again.
This motion would continue forever. Perpetual motion! I don’t believe it, but I’m sure ES and the rest will come up with an imaginary scenario where perpetual motion is allowable within the constraints of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
It is about as ridiculous as imagining that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Carried to the extreme (100% CO2), a cascading series of CO2 temperature increasing devices would immediately render such witless stupidities as photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, and all the rest, immediately obsolete.
Just use the boiling water produced by the CO2 technology to run heat engines – old technology like steam engines will suffice. Why not? You have a limitless supply of free steam, heated to any temperature you like – available through the miracle of CO2, and using the energy from a cooler body to raise the temperature of a hotter one. How hard could it be?
All complete bollocks, of course. The pseudoscientific GHE cultists are long on stupidity, and short on reality.
What a pack of fumbling bumbling buffoons!
Cheers.
MF has come up with another Straw Man rebuttal completely lacking in content. Do give us a complete description of your supposed “perpetual motion” device using a Thermoelectric generator or some other implementation of the Seebeck Effect. Note that there must be a temperature difference between the sides across the Thermoelectric generator for it to work as you suggest it might while violating the 2nd Law. Do you place the device between the plates or on one side of the hotter plate? How would the presence of the thermoelectric device change the Temperature of the plate to which it’s attached? Don’t forget to include the heating of the warmer plate with energy from an external source. Oh, of course, it wouldn’t be a perpetual motion device, since you must include that external energy source for it to work.
I’m sure that one of your immense intellect can provide at least a paper and pencil sketch of an arrangement to support your contention.
ES,
You wrote –
“Do you place the device between the plates or on one side of the hotter plate?”
If you have understood the Seebeck effect, you wouldn’t need to ask such a stupid question. If you cannot understand it, it is pointless trying to explain it to you.
As I understand it, you are claiming a temperature difference can be induced merely by physically separating three plates, and obtaining a situation where the middle plate is at a higher temperature than those on either side. Further, that this temperature difference, once created, will persist without further input of external energy. You may choose to confirm this singularly laughable contention, or reject it, at your desire.
If I am wrong, and any temperature differentials you observe are purely due to the use of an external heat source hotter than the surrounding environment, then obviously any talk of a cooler body transferring energy to a hotter, resulting in a decrease in entropy, is complete nonsense.
You appear to be implying that energy from a cooler body can be transferred to a hotter, resulting (obviously) in the cooler body’s temperature falling while the hotter rises. If you are claiming that the hotter body becomes hotter, while the cooler does not fall in temperature due to the lost energy, you are creating energy from nothing.
If you are creating energy from nothing, then perpetual motion becomes possible. The GHE apparently claims to create free energy – by the simple expedient of claiming that placing an atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter than without the atmosphere, assuming the Sun’s emitted radiation remains constant. Free energy. Rubbish.
Try and explain what you are trying to say. At a guess, you cannot explain in comprehensible English, using normal definitions, what you have achieved, that is not easily explicable without the need to spontaneously transfer energy from a colder body to a hotter. Bear in mind that a decrease in the temperature of the cooler must simultaneously occur if energy is to be conserved.
Can’t do it can you?
Cheers.
Mikey, No, I’m not the guy with the three plates moving around, I used only 2 in my Green Plate demo and they do not come in contact. And your description of my experiments and the Green Plate Effect are hopelessly wrong. From the beginning of these discussions, the Blue Plate was supplied with energy from some external source,just as the Earth receives energy from the Sun. The situation modeled is similar to what happens in the atmosphere after that energy has entered the TOA and begun the reverse trip back out to deep space as IR EM radiation. These processes have nothing to do with any creation of energy from nothing, which you suggest, the issue is a re-direction of the flow in the outbound direction. The Stefan-Boltzmann model doesn’t create energy, it just describes the movement of energy via radiation transfer.
If you can’t even get the description of the problem correct, why should I bother to try to improve your understanding yet again, after many months of effort to do so?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348024
swannie…”it appears that you don’t understand what Clausius was talking about”.
I have quoted Clausius verbatim.
Clausius…1879 version of The Mechanical Theory of Heat, Page 92 of 390 (actual page 78.
“Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
Later, on the same page:
“A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.”
What is it about those simple, elegant statements you don’t understand?
On the same page, he explains compensation (‘of itself’) and it is obvious he is explaining the basis of a refrigerator or an air conditioner. In order to transfer heat from cold to hot you must at the same time compensate the transfer with a simultaneous transfer from hot to cold.
And, no, he is not talking about the mysterious net balance of energy. He is not talking about a spontaneous two way transfer of heat between bodies. He is clearly talking about a process in which the two transfers take place in parallel due to an external influence.
If heat could be transferred both ways, as you guys claim, Clausius would not have any need to talk about compensation. As you guys describe the mysterious net balance of ‘ENERGY’, it’s a natural process akin to what Clausius refers to as ‘by its own means’.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for heat to be transferred both ways, between bodies of different temperature, at the same time BY ITS OWN MEANS.
Why are you having so much trouble with this swannie? No known energy can travel between a lower energy potential and a higher energy potential unless there is compensation.
Water will flow downhill and it can do work while doing that. To get water to flow uphill, you have to supply work to do it. A boulder will fall of a cliff by its own means and it can do work, but you have to supply work to raise the boulder back onto the cliff.
Heat transfer is no different. This is basic physics, for cripes sakes.
swannie…here’s compensation for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump_and_refrigeration_cycle
“According to the second law of thermodynamics heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter area; work is required to achieve this”.
Just an independent confirmation of what Clausius stated. I said it myself in my last post to you. Work is required to force energy to flow from a lower energy potetial to a higher energy potential.
Gordon all you should ever write is what was actually written by Clausius…1879 version of The Mechanical Theory of Heat:
“Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
“A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.”
Understand that Clausius did NOT write: “Energy cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
And Clausius did NOT write:
“A passage of energy from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.”
Try to improve your understanding of thermodynamics by using Clausius’ actual words all the time & not your own incorrect substitution words. Clausius: heat is a measure of kinetic energy.
Gordo, Why do you continue to ignore the obvious? Work is energy. The qualifying words Clausius used, “without compensation”, refer to the addition of energy to a system, such as your heat pump or refrigerator, in order to move heat a body using a thermal energy from a cooler reservoir. No disagreement there, that’s standard mechanical engineering, BTW.
What you (and Mikey) are ignoring and have been ignoring for a number of years, is the fact that the Greenhouse Effect and the Green Plate model as well, are being supplied with energy from an external source. Without Sunlight, the Earth would cool to some temperature at which the surface would be determined the radiating flux of geothermal energy from the internal decay of uranium and other unstable isotopes.
You rely on your ignorance of the processes of radiant energy transfer between bodies, jumping to an assertion based on a different situation from Clausius involving mechanical work. In so doing, you still have not explained how the warmer body “knows” the temperature of the cooler body when thermal IR EM radiation arrives at it’s surface. Please tell us how the warmer body selects photons based on their wavelength, since the warmer body could absorb those photons at the same wavelength from another body with even higher temperature.
ES,
You wrote –
“What you (and Mikey) are ignoring and have been ignoring for a number of years, is the fact that the Greenhouse Effect and the Green Plate model as well, are being supplied with energy from an external source. Without Sunlight, the Earth would cool to some temperature at which the surface would be determined the radiating flux of geothermal energy from the internal decay of uranium and other unstable isotopes.”
Not at all. Blathering about a “Greenhouse Effect” which you cannot even describe in any cogent way, and backing it up with a “Green Plate Model” is about as convincing as ascribing the motion of the earth as being due to the action of particular types of angels, and then talking about the colour of their wings.
Maybe if you understood a little of QED, you might be able to pose better questions than your idiotic gotchas. Light interacts with matter in various ways. For any particular material, it may be transparent, reflective, or absorbent to a particular wavelength of light – wholly or partly. Light may be emitted in various ways – by a body at a particular temperature, by subjecting electrons to fields of varying intensity, by chemical processes, by stimulating coherent emissions, and so on.
Maybe you can explain how photons know whether to behave as a particle or a wave, depending on whether you are counting them or not? Or how photons change their behaviour in a way that can only be explained by a photons ability to see into the future?
You really have no understanding at all, do you?
If you cannot actually define the GHE in any sensible way, your chance of devising an explanation for something you can’t describe is zero.
Cheers.
Mikey, I love it when you throw out another Straw Man while ignoring the content of my post. All you write is “Not at all”, as if that quashes my reply. Then you jump to QED and some discussion of “light” (which you define in another comment as the visible part of the EM spectrum), with examples of odd phenomena which occur rarely, if ever, in the natural world absent mankind’s manipulations. Of course, I’m from an engineering background and know full well that applying the S-B equation to the real world works with an “emissivity” value defined as an average emission over a range of wavelengths. My Green Plate demo was intended to counter claims that there is no “back radiation” between the plates. My results are an example of a radiation shield, a well known result of adding a layer of material between a hot body and the surroundings. If the effects of said “back radiation” also occur between layers of gasses in the atmosphere, which appear to be true, then this is supporting evidence for the Greenhouse Effect.
In the atmosphere, the emissivity and absorp_tion of the respective gasses is a much more complicated problem to analyze, one which has required many man-years of effort. The measurements at the IR portion of the spectrum indicate that the emission or absorp_tion at any wavelength occurs at the molecular level, not the atomic. Models of this process, such as MODTRAN are widely accepted as an accurate representation of these measurements, which is then combined into more detailed models including other atmospheric processes to simulate the atmosphere’s energy flows. Sad to say, we don’t have another planet upon which to perform a controlled experiment.
Mikey, you can shuffle and jive all you want, but until you can refute the results of all those many years of effort to gain further understanding of nature, you are wasting your (and our) time. Troll on.
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
This is how you do it
Warmista Kerry gets publicly humiliated in climate debate
Kerry who has a bachelor of arts degree from the university wants to skool Massie, who has two engineering degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about science
Rep. Thomas Massie: “I think it’s somewhat appropriate somebody with a pseudo-science degree pushing pseudo-science in front of our committee today.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-kerry-thomas-massie-climate-change
E,
Of course John Kerry understands “climate science” – even better than Steven Mosher, who is one of BEST’s “scientists”. Mosher has a BA in English literature, or spelling, or something. John Kerry apparently has a BA with a political “science” major. See, a real scientist”! Well, to pseudoscientific climate cultists.
Climate is the average of past weather records. No more, no less. No much science there, just lot of pointless neologisms, and vague claims about the future.
Maybe Gavin Schmidt could be called on to give expert testimony – after he obtained a science degree in some scientific field vaguely related to working out averages. That might seem a bit contradictory, but no matter. Pseudoscientific climate cultists don’t worry about contradictions, facts, logic or rational thinking.
Thanks for the link.
Cheers.
I thought Skeptics didn’t like appeals to authority.
CT,
Are you disagreeing with something I said, or just trying to look more foolish than you are?
Do you think that stringing random words together gives you an aura of intelligence?
Good luck with that!
Cheers.
Yes it was reviewed by the renowned scientific journal Fox News. What was the review like by the equally illustrius National Enquirer?
Having another bad hair day. Illustrious National Enquirer of course. This is how this journal is always referred to in the scientific community.
Mike Flynn,
How could I mistake your distinctive style despite your efforts to go anon?
However it is a wise move as the majority of people who read these comments have a somewhat dismal view of the capabilities of whoever is using the Mike Flynn tag.
Better to start afresh, maybe with a daily injection of irony.
MR,
Are you actually disagreeing with something that someone wrote, or do you think that that a form of inscrutable diversion makes you appear wise and knowledgeable rather than stupid and ignorant?
Who wrote that Fox News is a renowned scientific journal? That would be as stupid as claiming that the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt is a renowned climate scientist!
You are delusional, and making stuff up because you cannot distinguish between fact and fantasy! Maybe you could take up mindless trolling to keep yourself occupied.
You have much to learn, but you seem to be making a fair start. You need more experience at avoiding facts, ducking and weaving, and improvement in the areas of denial, diversion, and confusion.
Carry on. If all else fails, just repetitively post pointless and irrelevant graphics about almost anything at all. That should silence non-believers in the consensus. Count me in, I’m here to help you hone your stupidity and ignorance. You don’t need to thank me, it’s my pleasure.
Cheers.
Mike F- sorry for the out of order post above but you should get the picture.
I get your point about Fox News, but reviews from a range of sites with more credibility would have been much more impressive.
MR,
You wrote –
“However it is a wise move as the majority of people who read these comments have a somewhat dismal view of the capabilities of whoever is using the Mike Flynn tag.”
I wonder why you bother with such comments? Claims to individual mind reading are often made by delusional GHE supporters. You take it to a new level and pretend to read the minds of a “majority”, the details of which you cannot state, and the number of whom you do not know. What a foolish person you are!
Even more bizarre might be your innate assumption that anyone would care about your opinion. Do you just assume that your opinions are important to some people who may or may not exist, or do you believe that your importance is such that someone, somewhere, is hanging on your every word?
Maybe you think I care about your opinion? What would lead you to think that, apart from delusional thinking on your part, or possibly a brain tumour affecting your power of rational thinking?
Carry on with dispensing your opinions. People may have any view they want – dismal or otherwise – about anybody they wish. I wish them well. Their views, like yours, are quite irrelevant to Nature (or me, for that matter). Fantasy remains fantasy.Facts remain facts.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
No mind reading required. I just based my observation about how you are viewed by the majority, by reading some of the comments by the 14 people who have had robust discussions with you. I get the distinct impression that they do not think highly of your capabilities. If you ask me (but I am sure you wouldn’t ) I would look elsewhere for a reference if you apply for a job that requires scientific competence or for that matter any kind of competence.
You do have your defenders, primarily the one with multiple personalities and of course Robbo. There are three others (Phil J, gbakie and now Eben) who have drifted in and out but they have not been prolific in their support so it has been the Gang of Four or the Troika (If you don’t count multiple personalities) against the rest.
Also thank-you for your interest about my tumour. It is progressing along nicely. If I wait long enough I may have lost sufficient grey matter so we could meet up and have a quiet beer or two . We could have a yarn or two about topics of mutual interest. I am looking forward to it. Cheers mate.
MR,
You wrote –
“No mind reading required. I just based my observation about how you are viewed by the majority, by reading some of the comments by the 14 people who have had robust discussions with you.”
Unfortunately, you originally wrote –
” . . . the majority of people who read these comments have a somewhat dismal view of the capabilities of whoever is using the Mike Flynn tag.
You have no idea of who reads comments, much less what they might think, without laying claim to fictitious mind reading ability. I see you attempt to excuse your irrational behaviour as being due to a brain tumour. You are probably lying again, seeking sympathy, but my sympathy bag is empty, and I have no intention of filling it up.
I do not care what your delusions lead you you to think. Why should I?
Good luck with playing the mental disability card. As I said, I believe you are more likely to be congenitally stupid and ignorant, and reluctant to face reality, but that is your affair.
You are deluding yourself if you think if I want to waste my time talking with someone who is obviously stupid, ignorant and delusional.
Cheers.
Mike F,
Yes , you really got me there.
Hoeevrr are you surprised that I cannot read the mind of everybody who comes across these comments? Can you read minds? I suspect not and I would have thought this is most people’s default assumption.
All I can read are the comments of those who interact with you. In the majority they appear to be singularly unimpressed but a minority thinks you are the bee’s knees. No accounting for taste.
I hope this clarifies and we won’t have further misunderstandings.
As for the brain tumour, you are the one who originally diagnosed my condition at the top of this thread. Are you now saying that this was a misdiagnosis? I am partially relieved, but you have put me through so much angst. I am also upset that I will not have a chance to meet up with you for a beer and chat in the near future. Maybe I will now have to wait patiently for dementia to set in and we can truly meet as equals.
Another typo which makes me sound like I am slurring my words. Perhaps I have early onset and we may still be able to meet at that earlier time.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
The Eveready Energy bunny of trolling strikes again!
Yes, so I noticed. Not to worry, I will keep asking you to stop.
Bunny, that’s a slight improvement over your standard PST response. Maybe there’s hope for you yet but I hope you dont have a relapse.
#2
MikeR (Bunny), please stop trolling.
I hope the plagiarizing bunnies are not breeding. I have followed the lunatic troller in chief down his rabbit hole and have successfully fumigated his warren. This bunny still has an occasional death rattle but it should die down soon.
See – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349469 .
But his spawn still lives on . Fetch hither the holy hand grenade of Antioch.
https://postimg.cc/NKyZRQ9T .
#3
MikeR (Bunny), please stop trolling.
DREMT,
Here is an idea to save some time and the associated tedium.
https://postimg.cc/m14pgnFc .
Use it wisely.
#4
MikeR (Bunny), please stop trolling.
Bunnykins
With deepest affection and just a touch of myxomatosis.
https://postimg.cc/hzBNXvkP
#5
MikeR (Bunny), please stop trolling.
On cue.
#6
MikeR (Bunny), please stop trolling.
DREMT,
For your delectation,
https://postimg.cc/67dmxw8s .
#7
MikeR (Bunny), please stop trolling.
I had heard about Massie’s little show but didn’t bother to watch the video until this post.
It reminded me of a Freshman nerd who thinks he’s getting the better of the teacher while the rest of the class laughs at him. “Oh, your degree is in political science? Not science science?” Massie later whined on Twitter that he had his thunder stolen because Kerry’s mic was off.
CT,
As fascinating as your reminiscences are, do you have a point?
Regardless of his qualifications, is John Kerry able to produce a usable GHE description? Or a testable GHE hypothesis?
Or is he just another mindless pseudoscientific GHE true believer?
Most of the real scientists I know are far too well-mannered to point out that bluster and buffoonery by the stupid and ignorant, count for nothing in the Natural order of the universe.
Speculation, supposition, conjecture – John Kerry or anybody else may indulge as much as they wish. Fantasy does not become fact by virtue of earnest desire. Nature does not care about your opinions (or mine, for that matter).
Cheers.
Craig T…”It reminded me of a Freshman nerd who thinks hes getting the better of the teacher while the rest of the class laughs at him”.
In this case, it’s like Einstein challenging the prof and the rest of the butt-kisser, appealing to authority, reject his premise because they don’t know the answer themselves.
Masse has a double-degree in engineering from MIT and he called Kerry what he is, a pseudo-scientist with a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Good for him.
“In this case, its like Einstein challenging the prof and the rest of the butt-kisser, appealing to authority, reject his premise because they dont know the answer themselves.”
Then you appeal to the authority of a double-degree in engineering from MIT.
Dr. Spencer has far more knowledge and experience studying climate than Massie. He rejects the conclusion that global warming is a threat to society so he isn’t in on any conspiracy. He makes a strong case that there is a greenhouse effect.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Please read all of Dr. Spencer’s posts on the greenhouse effect.
CT,
You appear to be taking a double pronged approach. First, suggesting that Dr Spencer’s authority is to be taken as an exemplar, and second, hoping that nobody will challenge your implication, due to fear of Dr Spencer’s censorship.
I have previously mentioned the motto of the Royal Society – “Nullius in verba.”
The Society’s explanation of the motto –
“It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
No-one can provide a useful description of the GHE. Therefore, there is no testable GHE hypothesis possible. I adhere to the Royal Society’s motto, in general. Without verification by reproducible experiment, speculation remains just that.
Carry on speculating. Winning any number of arguments or debates changing no physical facts at all. The Earth has managed to cool for four and a half billion years. Thermometers measure heat, not the presence or absence of supposed GHGs.
Cheers.
Craig T…”Then you appeal to the authority of a double-degree in engineering from MIT”.
That’s true, engineering double-degrees. I have dealt with a few engineering profs and they are truly amazing with their ability to understand and solve problems.
Doesn’t it strike you as ironical that most engineers are skeptics of AGW?
Mike…”I have previously mentioned the motto of the Royal Society Nullius in verba.
The Societys explanation of the motto
It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
It is fitting then that it was the engineering faction of the Royal Society who forced the RS to retract their statement in support of AGW.
Gordo wrote:
They may have “retracted” the earlier statement, but that doesn’t mean that they are saying that there’s no AGW. I notice that the revised statement is no longer available via links from 2010. HERE’s the latest statement (PDF warning), which clearly agrees with the IPCC.
Eben…”Kerry who has a bachelor of arts degree from the university wants to skool Massie, who has two engineering degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about science…”
It’s a major problem out there today. You have completely uneducated, knee-jerkers spreading propaganda about catastrophic warming/climate change while the real scientists are marginalized.
I saw Hillary Clinton speak rudely to John Christy of UAH at a hearing. She stood with arms folded glaring at him when she was not being rude to him. That’s why I was delighted when she lost to Trump. Anyone with a clear mind does not want a narrow-minded climate alarmist in charge of the US. Obama was bad enough and I think the US voters had enough of that political-correctness.
The IPCC, from where the uneducated get their propaganda, is a political organization set up to tell politicians what they want to hear. The IPCC has been political since its outset when UK uber-Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher dreamed up the notion of catastrophic climate change related to coal emissions as a weapon against UK coal-miners.
She was frustrated over her inability to control the miners and an adviser advised her to use her degree in chemistry to baffle the hoi polloi at the UN, which she did. They fell for it hook, line, and sinker and soon the IPCC initiated action to form the IPCC.
The first co-chair of the IPCC was John Houghton, a climate modeler, and a close ally of Thatcher. You don’t get these jobs on merit alone, not when politicians want an outcome. You get the job because you know someone, in this case, Margaret Thatcher.
You can guess the rest. Houghton steered the IPCC along the path of climate model theory. They stacked the reviews so 50 politically-appointed lead authors had the power to select the reviewers. Not only that, when the review was finished, 50 lead authors wrote the Summary for Policymakers and it was published ***BEFORE*** the main report. The main report was them amended to support the Summary.
One step above the lead authors are the Coordinating Lead Authors. Two of those CLAs, (Phil Jones, of Had-crut, and Kevin Trenberth, of UCAR) were embroiled in the Climategate scandal with one of them threatening to recruit the other to reject papers from skeptics, which he did.
I think one of the papers rejected came from UAH authors.
“The IPCC has been political since its outset when UK uber-Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher dreamed up the notion of catastrophic climate change related to coal emissions as a weapon against UK coal-miners.”
So it wasn’t the Chinese?
Begone troll.
Craig T…”So it wasnt the Chinese?”
Nope…Maggie ‘Iron Pants’ Thatcher got it going through the UN. That’s how her boy, John Houghton, got in as first co-chair. It did not hurt that the UN were desperate to impose a global tax to enable their hopeless programs. They had been looking for a way to force nations into a global tax since the 1960s.
I would be all for a tax to alleviate world hunger and poverty, but knowing the bumbling UN, the corrupt leaders of the poor nations would steal the money then veto any attempt to force them into complying. The UN certainly does not have the stomach to depose those tyrants.
Foxnews exemplifies its acutely critical journalism by omitting any context whatsoever and editorializing a ‘he said/she said’ piece, heavily edited.
Could Fox do any less than that? Probably only by doing nothing.
Credit will be given to anyone who can supply the topic of Kerry’s talk at the hearing. You’d be a better journalist than whichever drudge at Fox wrote that article.
Ahhh, politics. There should be a law that whoever injects it into a climate science discussion automatically loses the argument.
Or hell, any science.
“But the government WANTS you to vaccinate yout kids! They get revenue from big pharma-”
Bzzzt! I’m sorry but you now must leave Science Island. There is a spot for you, however, on The New Big Brother Show.
Thanks for your political assessment, barry.
I have to agree with you that “climate science” is all about politics, and the associated fund-raising.
No, trolling gets you no credit. Did you find out what Kerry’s topic was, and whether it needed a degree in physics or political science.
Would you like a hint?
Kerry was frustrated when his plans to bind the US to the Paris Accord nonsense got “Trumped”.
Now, he’s just a free-speech-denier.
“The biggest single thing that is lacking today is political accountability,” Kerry said. “People can mock the concept of climate change with impunity and there is no cost to pay. That’s got to stop.”
Very cultish behavior, huh?
barry,
You wrote –
“There should be a law that whoever injects it into a climate science discussion automatically loses the argument.”
Anybody who uses the words “climate” adjacent to the word “science” in a sentence, should immediately be subjected to maximum scorn and derision.
Climate is the average of weather records. Calculating an average is trivial. No science there.
Continue dreaming.
Cheers.
Ceaig T…”Since the Earth warms until it is giving off as much radiative energy as it receives the average temperature will be higher”.
You are making the same mistake as other climate alarmists by focusing only on radiation as a means of heat dissipation at the surface. According to an expert on CO2 radiation, R. W. Wood, who was consulted by Neils Bohr for his expertise on such gases, Wood claimed radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere could not warm it as claimed in the GHE and AGW theories.
Rather, he offered the theory that direct conduction of heat to the atmosphere was responsible and that involves all gases, 99% of which are nitrogen and oxygen. Wood thought, since gas is a poor heat conductor, that once warmed it would retain heat for a lengthy period of time. I presume he meant it would retain it provided the air remained in a stable environment.
Both nitrogen and oxygen will absorb heat directly from the surface, and in a big way. Rising heated air thermals all over the planet are responsible for sapping heat from the surface and carrying it high into the atmosphere. Radiation, according to Wood is a minor player.
Conduction transfers heat directly to the atmosphere over 100% of the Earth’s surface. As the bottom layer heats, the air rises and cooler air, as convection, flows in to replace it. Therefore the atmosphere is never cooler than the surface, it is in thermal equilibrium or it is cooler.
When you compare the humungous number of atoms transferring heat to the atmosphere and compare that number to the piddly number of atoms making up the atmosphere, there is simply not enough atoms in the atmosphere to transfer all the heat. When you consider CO2 is only 0.04% of that piddly amount, how can it possibly have an effect?
It seems to me, that if you don’t have enough atmospheric gas to transfer all of the heat from the land and oceans, they will warm.
Won’t they? As the surface warms due to a lack of dissipation mechanisms it will warm the atmosphere. There’s you greenhouse effect.
R. W. Watt pointed out that radiation is not a good warming mechanism for GHGs due to the inverse square law. He claimed it would not affect GHGs more than a few feet above the surface. According to Lindzen, it is not the surface radiation that cools the planet, it is heat transferred by conduction and convected high into the atmosphere, that cools it, where it is radiated near TOA.
There is another matter to consider. With a rotating planet that only receives solar energy for part of the day, the atmosphere has time during the night to contract, after expanding during the day from solar energy heating. That natural contraction will lower temperatures naturally without it having to be radiated to space.
How much, I don’t know.
If our planet sat still like the Moon, not rotating on it’s axis, we would have an entirely different problem. Heat would build up on the heated side and the planet may no longer be able to support life on that side, or on the cooler side.
It strikes me that the Earth was perhaps designed to be in its present orbit rotating at its present angular velocity.
And no, I am not religious in a conventional sense. I believe nothing. I observe, and the above are my observations.
“If our planet sat still like the Moon, not rotating on its axis, …”
The Moon rotates on its axis once every 28 days. The “dark side” is the side never seen from Earth. It still gets sunlight. The Moon’s rotation is tidally locked to the Earth so that one rotation equals one revolution.
“Rather, [R. W. Wood] offered the theory that direct conduction of heat to the atmosphere was responsible and that involves all gases, 99% of which are nitrogen and oxygen.”
Conduction does not allow energy to leave the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiation is the only form of energy reaching or leaving the Earth. If energy constantly flowed in without out leaving the planet’s temperature would keep climbing.
Craig, the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. It is orbiting around the Earth. It’s the same motion as a racehorse on an oval track. Someone inside the track only sees one side of the horse, just as we only see one side of the Moon from Earth.
This has been discussed endlessly here. People are confused because Institutional Pseudoscience claims otherwise–just another hoax.
If you have a responsible question, I would try to answer.
So you gentlemen are also Skeptics of astronomy?
Gravity keeps the moon orbiting the Earth but it doesn’t rotate the moon any more than the Sun’s gravity rotates the Earth.
If you draw a line from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon, the axis the Moon rotates on is not perpendicular to it. Instead it’s off by about 7 degrees. Because that Earth to Moon line is not parallel to the plane the planets lie on, the Moon’s axis is almost perpendicular to that plane. Craters on the Moon’s poles almost never receive sunlight.
“Institutional Pseudoscience” has been taking measurements and analyzing them for decades. Why and how would people posting on a blog understand these things better?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348036
Craig demonstrates his confusion: “Gravity keeps the moon orbiting the Earth but it doesn’t rotate the moon any more than the Sun’s gravity rotates the Earth.”
Craig, such an irrelevant statement just indicates you do not understand the issue and don’t want to.
Nothing new.
Gordon said:
“If our planet sat still like the Moon, not rotating on it’s axis, we would have an entirely different problem. Heat would build up on the heated side and the planet may no longer be able to support life on that side, or on the cooler side.”
This may have caused some confusion. As I understand it, Gordon is saying, “if Earth moved around the sun like the moon moves around the Earth, then the Earth would have one side in permanent darkness”. He isn’t saying that our moon never receives sunlight on its “dark side”. It does.
Craig, don’t even go there. Nothing will rescue the terminally geocentric from their opinion.
barry, would your comment qualify as “trolling”?
Nothing of value, afraid of reality, attempting to insult and misrepresent–all troll techniques.
Barry, you probably just made the most valuable comment of any of us. I do feel like Sisyphus.
Craig, to the man in the moon, the fixed stars do appear to be rotating about him, and to the jockey, the race track.
Only reasonably informed commenters know that’s not the case; JD (an entertainment specialist twice banned around here under other screen handles) has never been accused of being reasonably informed, except, of course, sometimes by Gordon & DREMT (Tesla).
Poor fluffball is so confused about orbital motions that he believes he can stick his arm in a rotating airplane prop, without consequences.
Even typist Norman knows better….
That would be no problem if I’m standing fixed on the prop spinner, the universe would appear to be spinning about me, but I’m informed enough to know the universe is not so spinning. JD writes otherwise being a reprobate.
That’s a good one, Ball4, but I think barry’s straw man is the one that demonstrates the least understanding.
All gone very quiet on this thread all of a sudden.
No, that’s the heart of the issue. Differences in the frame of reference is what gives rise to the difference of opinion. The non-rotating moon is concluded from a geocentric frame of reference, which explains very little about the rest of the solar system. From the the geocentric frame of reference the Sun orbits the Earth. Inside the racetrack you see only one side of the horse, but from any other position outside the racetrack you see more of the animal as it runs about the track. This non-rotating idea is based on a narrow, or very local, frame of reference. Being inside the racetrack is the analogy for watching the Moon from the surface of the Earth. That’s why the geocentrists brought that analogy up in the first place.
The frames of reference that do a much better job of explaining the mechanics of the solar system, such as the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the movement of the entire system’s barycentre in and around the sun, also conclude that the Moon rotates.
In short, from a very narrow point of view, the Moon does not rotate.
barry, “geocentrism” is the belief that the Earth is at the center of the Universe. It is not a “frame of reference”. You have two options, barry. Either you believe Nikola Tesla is dumb enough to believe in geocentrism, or you consider that you may have got something wrong.
Drop the “it’s geocentrism” straw man. It’s ridiculous.
Wow barry, that’s one of your wildest spins yet.
As DREMT indicated, your “geocentrism” only makes you look desperate.
The “frame of reference” is a vertical line through the Moon’s center of mass, perpendicular to the plane of its orbit around Earth. The Moon does NOT rotate about that axis, just as the racehorse is not rotating on its own axis. That’s why we only see one side of the Moon.
Your lack of understanding of orbital motions is proportional to your devout adherence to pseudoscience.
It’s pretty much as simple as this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
The cannonball is launched with no spin. It moves around the Earth like the moon does.Thus, the moon moves around the Earth without spin (does not rotate on its own axis). If you can’t visualize the projectile as moving without spin, picture it as though it were a large “bullet” shape that was launched, instead. It is launched without spin, meaning the “bullet” shape always faces in the same direction throughout the “orbit”. The effect of gravity is clearly shown in the animations.
If you still don’t get it, that’s your problem. Every single possible objection that you could even imagine has already been raised, and answered, in previous discussions.
Committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority is what people generally do when they can’t respond substantively to an argument.
“The ‘frame of reference’ is a vertical line through the Moon’s center of mass, perpendicular to the plane of its orbit around Earth.”
Ok, I’ll stand on the Moon’s North Pole and look straight up at the stars and see that they rotate. From your frame of reference, the moon is rotating with respect to the stars. No more geocentrism. Good.
“The Moon does NOT rotate about that axis, just as the racehorse is not rotating on its own axis. That’s why we only see one side of the Moon.”
I’m sitting outside of the racetrack in the grandstands and I see all sides of the horse as it circumnavigates the track. Therefore it’s rotating. Is there any reason why my frame of reference absolutely must be from within the racetrack?
It’s not an appeal to authority, barry, it’s simply a basic sanity check. Tesla is not dumb enough to be a geocentrist. I’m not saying, “it’s right because Tesla says so”. I’m just saying that your objections are plain ridiculous.
If you want me to respond substantively to your argument, then I will plainly state that I think the moon does not rotate on its own axis, but I agree that the Earth isn’t the center of the Universe.
In my last comment, by “always faces in the same direction throughout the orbit”, I should have clarified that this meant “always having the same side of the “bullet” facing the Earth throughout the orbit”.
Geocentric: ‘measured from or considered in relation to the centre of the Earth’ – that’s all it means. Calm down.
CT,
You wrote –
“I do feel like Sisyphus.” I presume you mean you feel you are being rightfully punished for stupidity and ignorance, rather than for self aggrandising craftiness and deceitfullness? Or do you really feel you possess enough self aggrandising craftiness and deceitfullness to be compared with Sisyphus? That might involve hubris, in which case you might need to compare yourself with another victim of self inflicted pain, Icarus.
Either way, why boast about it? Is it compulsory for the dim to revel in their dimness?
Maybe it would be easier to just say that you feel like an idiot, and leave the pretentious comparisons alone. It will only confuse the other cultists.
Cheers.
“always having the same side of the ‘bullet’ facing the Earth throughout the orbit”
Yes, the geocentric frame of reference is being clearly articulated in nearly every post, whether directly or with the racetrack analogy. I’m not sure why this isn’t obvious.
Tesla also opined that electrons don’t exist, or if they do have nothing to do with electricity, that atoms are indivisible, and was a firm believer ion the luminous aether. Calling him a genius isn’t actually an argument. It’s just the next evolution in your ongoing appeal to authority. Lazybones.
…and that is not what the argument about the moon’s lack of axial rotation is measured from or in relation to.
barry, look at the animations. If the projectile is launched without spin, and completes its orbit without spin, then why do you believe it has rotated once upon its axis by the time it completes an orbit?
The animations aren’t even about rotation. Red herring.
I’m on Mars looking at Earth’s moon through a telescope. I definitely see more than one side. And if I see more than one side then it’s definitely rotating, right?
“why do you believe it has rotated once upon its axis by the time it completes an orbit?”
Because you are incorrect, the green ball projectile in the illustrations really was launched with spin of one revolution per orbit about its own axis as shown (like the moon) – the purple arrow being rigidly attached to the green ball shows the ball revolving about its own axis.
If the green ball were launched with no spin the rigidly attached purple arrow would always point in the same direction (to the right) as when it was launched. In that case, no revolution on its own axis, the green ball would present each face to the earth.
barry, nobody is arguing that the moon doesn’t move. It moves, about the Earth, in an elliptical orbit. By the nature of its orbit, it will of course appear to “rotate” from various vantage points. The moon “rotates” (or, “orbits”) around the Earth. That doesn’t mean that it “rotates on its own axis”.
It actually comes down to something as simple as this:
If you believe a car, by completing a circuit around a track, rotates once upon its axis in doing so, then you think the moon rotates on its own axis as it orbits around the Earth.
If you believe a car, by completing a circuit around a track, does not rotate once upon its axis, then you understand the position that the moon does not rotate on its own axis as it orbits around the Earth.
barry says:“Therefore it’s rotating.”
No barry, it is “orbiting”.
barry asks: “Is there any reason why my frame of reference absolutely must be from within the racetrack?”
Again barry, the “frame of reference” is the Moon’s axis.
Stand in one spot and turn in a circle. That motion models rotating on a vertical axis through your center of mass. Now, walk around a large object such as a table or chair. If you walk counter-clockwise around the object, your left side will always be facing the object. That motion models orbiting. There are two distinct motions.
The Moon is said to be rotating on its axis in sync with its orbit. So model that by “orbiting” one quarter turn around the object. Then stop, and rotate one quarter rotation on your axis, standing in place. You will note that your left side no longer faces the object.
It’s just that easy to prove the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
And I recommend DREM Team actually read Newton’s “System of the World” book page 59: “In like manner is the Moon revolved about its axe by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars.”
…and I recommend that Ball4 opens his mind, listens to what has been explained, and thinks for himself.
Correctly JD, thinking for yourself with an open mind & listening to what has been explained by Newton & as shown in the 7:32pm link:
Walk around a large object such as a table or chair. If you walk counter-clockwise around the object, your left side will always be facing the object only if you spin once on your own axis.
Then walk around a large object such as a table or chair. If you walk counter-clockwise around the object without spinning always facing the direction you started, your left side will NOT always be facing the object because you are not spinning on your own axis.
Try it. DO the experiment. You will have to spin on your axis to keep your left shoulder pointed at the object.
“it will of course appear to ‘rotate’ from various vantage points”
Yes, except from the perspective of its relationship to Earth.
If we run an axis from the North to South pole of the moon and watch the stars from either pole, they rotate above the moon. But we don’t have a lunarcentric belief, so we know that the moon is rotating on its axis relative to the stars.
If we opine that the axial frame of reference is itself fixed to the movement of the Moon – rather than a larger, astronomical reference frame – then we are looking at the question from an entirely lunarcentric POV. From the same reference point, we conclude that the Sun is orbiting the Earth/Moon system.
From any reference frame where the moon is not rotating, the Sun is also orbiting the Earth. The Earth only rotates in this frame, and has no other movement.
There is no law that says you cannot have this particular frame of reference. It just doesn’t explain anything outside the Earth/Moon system very well. That’s why I say it is a geocentric view of the matter.
“There is no law that says you cannot have this particular frame of reference.”
There is barry. If the fixed stars really were revolving about the earth, think of the angular momentum involved. This is the argument that failed the geocentric view and ruled it out.
“Stand in one spot and turn in a circle. That motion models rotating on a vertical axis through your center of mass. Now, walk around a large object such as a table or chair. If you walk counter-clockwise around the object, your left side will always be facing the object. That motion models orbiting. There are two distinct motions.”
Rotation and orbit can happen at the same time, obviously.
I do as you say and notice that not only is the chair rotating relative to me, so is the room around me. Of course, they are not rotating, I’m the only thing moving in this reference frame, so I am both orbiting and rotating.
So now as I orbit the chair I keep my face to the North wall of the room. The room no longer rotates. That means that I am no longer rotating with respect to the rest of the room as I orbit the chair.
The chair is lo longer rotating, too. Now we have a purely orbital relationship to the chair.
No, Ball, there is no law anywhere that says one must absolutely have some particular frame of reference. there are only frames of reference that are better for solving certain problems. The geocentric view of the Moon’s rotation will fail as a model to explain the orbital mechanics of the solar system, but there’s no law that says anyone has to explain the rest of the solar system when talking about the Moon’s rotation (or not).
Of course, I think there are very persuasive arguments to have a frame of reference that is not one dimensional (ie, the Moon’s axis), but if anyone wants to ignore those, there’s no empirical reason why they should not do so.
“No, Ball, there is no law anywhere that says one must absolutely have some particular frame of reference.”
In relativity, momentum (angular and linear) and energy must be conserved in all frames. If the fixed stars are rotating about the earth, this can not be shown. This then rules out the fixed stars as rotating about the earth. There is a much more precise statement if you look for the details. Might even be in Newton’s book. Just its hard to read with Ye Olde English.
Once again…
It actually comes down to something as simple as this:
If you believe a car, by completing a circuit around a track, rotates once upon its axis in doing so, then you think the moon rotates on its own axis as it orbits around the Earth.
If you believe a car, by completing a circuit around a track, does not rotate once upon its axis, then you understand the position that the moon does not rotate on its own axis as it orbits around the Earth.
…the question of which position is “right”, of course, is then another matter altogether…
What’s great about this “Moon issue” is that it is really easy to understand. “Walking around a table” does not require graduate-level accomplishment.
So the problem is that some don’t want to accept reality. They would prefer to distort reality. barry obviously knows how to walk around a table. He wouldn’t go for a walk, always facing north. He doesn’t walk everywhere, always facing north. He only walks facing north when he needs to distort reality.
Of course fluffball would not stick his arm in a rotating airplane propeller. But, he is willing to distort reality to claim that he would.
The Moon issue provides a revealing look into human nature.
Beliefs are irrelevant in science. Observations are relevant.
If you observe a green cannonball, by completing a circuit around the earth, rotates once upon its axis in doing so as observed in your link, then you observe the moon rotates once on its own axis as it orbits around the Earth.
If the cannonball were to be rotating on its own axis at a rate of once per orbit around the Earth, it would have to be fired somehow with that rate of spin applied. Bit of an odd situation to assume is the default. It’s just fired straight out of the cannon, with no spin whatsoever.
“the question of which position is ‘right’, of course, is then another matter altogether”
Of course. It’s all about the frame of reference. If I see all sides of the horse as it circumnavigates the track, then it is rotating by any definition (spins around it own axis). This what I see from the grandstand external to the track. From the centre of the track, I only see one side. From there the horse appears not to be rotating.
I find the fixed stars, or even heliocentric view a better frame of reference to describe orbital and rotational mechanics in our solar system, and if I could be bothered I think I’d make a better case than someone arguing the ‘correct’ frame of reference is the one dimensional line running through the Moon.
But it’s enough to explain the difference of opinion as a different frame of reference. And that’s nothing to do with belief, only observation.
“If the cannonball were to be rotating on its own axis at a rate of once per orbit around the Earth, it would have to be fired somehow with that rate of spin applied.”
Yes, of course. That is the case shown in your 7:32pm link.
Same with the moon, something had to make it revolve as observed, the sources for that are well known ( well, except by Tesla), it is not happenstance.
No barry, it really isn’t anything to do with the “frame of reference”. And it’s certainly not “heliocentric” vs “geocentric” for goodness sake.
You’ve listened to months of argument, but progressed by absolute zero.
Have you ever tried reading the Tesla papers?
No, Ball4, the cannonball is fried with no spin applied. Why would it be?
“It’s just fired straight out of the cannon, with no spin whatsoever.”
Why?
Well, the French found they couldn’t very well hit a German target with their first cannons not spinning the projectiles. So the French paid the Austrians to make rifled barrels for the French cannons to spin the projectiles to better shoot at the Germans. This was an inspiration for projectile calculus to be better developed too.
The English noticed all this and sent spies to gather the data, this caused the guillotine to be perfected. Boom, dreadnaughts.
Ball4 thinks the cannon must be considered as an actual functioning weapon, used in some historically accurate way. Anything to avoid the simple reality of considering that if the cannonball was launched without spin, it would move as per the moon.
“Have you ever tried reading the Tesla papers?”
Those papers prove Tesla was not an astronomer.
Leave that for others to decide for themselves.
Your own 7:32pm link shows if the cannonball was launched without spin, it would NOT move as per the moon. Green ball has to be launched WITH spin as shown to move as the moon.
Youre such a weirdo, Ball4. If an aeroplane flew around the world, following the same path as the cannonball, presumably you would believe it flipped around upside down once during the flight path, incredibly slowly.
Aeroplanes DO fly around the world, see Rutans which rotated on its own axis once just like your green ball is observed to do. They do mostly keep the wheels pointed at the ground just in case, but not always.
That’s right, Ball4, aeroplanes do fly around the world. And they don’t do so gradually turning upside down throughout the first half of the trip, and then back around the right way on the second half. They just orbit around the Earth, without spin. Just like the cannonball.
“They just orbit around the Earth, without spin.”
No. If Rutans did not NOT spin it once on its own axis per rev. then they would have had to fly upside down, wheels to the sky, which was not possible for that plane. Your green cannonball spins as shown, once per rev. same as their plane, wheels always pointed down to the ground, same as the moon.
Sooooo dumb. OK, Ball4. An aeroplane flies straight forward 100 meters, keeping parallel to the ground. Is it spinning? Nope. Just going straight forward. An aeroplane flies straight forward 100 miles, keeping parallel to the ground. Is it spinning? Nope. Just going straight forward. An aeroplane circumnavigates the globe, and returns to its original position, keeping parallel to the ground. Is it spinning? Nope. Did it need to adjust itself to keep from flying off into space? Nope. Just keep on flying forward.
The cannonball moves, forward, without spin, and completes an orbit. Just like the moon. No spin.
“An aeroplane circumnavigates the globe, and returns to its original position, keeping parallel to the ground. Is it spinning?” Yep. One spin as observed for your green cannonball. Your nope is just a belief, not an observation.
It spun once on its own axis per that rev. if it kept wheels to the ground all the way. Just like Rutans did.
“An aeroplane flies straight forward 100 meters, keeping parallel to the ground. Is it spinning?” Yep. Once per rev. if it keeps wheels to the ground. This was a partial rev. so partial spin just like your green cannonball traveling 100 meters shows a partial spin.
☺️
What is the point in talking to you people!? Seriously. Jesus Christ. I don’t know how much simpler and straightforward it could possibly be. You are thick as two short planks. Good luck to you.
Y’all been having way too much fun without me. Since the conversation about the rotation of the Moon is going on:
The Moon has an elliptical orbit and so doesn’t travel around the Earth at a constant speed. At apogee (pseudoscience for farthest away) the moon is moving at 0.97 km/s and 1.08 km/s when closest to Earth.
The moon’s rotational speed is a constant 656 hr per rotation. Because of this astronomers can see 8 degrees more of the eastern side of the Moon when the it is closest to the Earth and 8 degrees west when the Moon is farthest away.
Tesla’s thought experiment notwithstanding, the Moon does rotate. If there was something intrinsic about an orbit that kept the same side of an object facing the Earth, the rocking of the Moon from our perspective (longitudinal libration) would not happen.
Sure, Craig. The moon does rotate. Just not on its own axis. And yes, we’re aware of libration. Both latitudinal and longitudinal.
Everything you could possibly raise, on the subject, has already been discussed.
“Have you ever tried reading the Tesla papers?”
Yes, some time ago. There is not one equation of angular momentum for the rotation of the moon in them (where he demonstrates it equals 0), and Tesla admits that the moon rotates relative to the fixed stars, but he doesn’t like to call it rotation. He calls it revolution. So his essay is about semantics. And he’s wrong. The moon does not ‘revolve’ around the fixed stars.
If you think something about his argument is sound, lay that out, and stop being so lazy with these appeals to authority. How about engaging appeal to expertise instead? Tesla doesn’t have expertise in this subject.
Libration is the example used to demonstrate that the Moon’s rotational momentum is not only calculable but also observable. As the Moon’s orbit is eccentric, this causes a longitudinal libration of the Moon, which as viewed from Earth is a slight wag of the Moon, such that more of its Eastern face can be seen at one extreme, and more of its Western face at another.
The degree to which this changes in entirely due to the eccentricity of the orbit, not to any irregularity in the Moon’s rotation, which is quite stable. This observation demonstrates the rotational momentum of the Moon as a constant where the orbit is irregularly shaped.
If there were zero rotation about the Moon’s axis AND WRT the Earth, as the geocentrists (or lunarcentrists?) would have it, we should not see this wagging effect.
I suspect that any explanation that geo/lunarcentrists use to account for this observed longitudinal libration will be found only in the darkest corners of the crank web, but not in any physics text. Tesla certainly doesn’t mention it.
But I reckon more likely they’ll slide past the point with some invective or sarcasm or ad hom, or just make something up.
Wrong again, barry.
You’re still confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its own axis”. That’s why libration just confuses you more.
Back to the easy-to-understand example of walking around a table. Draw an exaggerated oval orbit on the floor, around the table. As you walk the orbit, you will notice the libration effect. (Of course, you have to walk normally, not walking always facing north!)
For someone that was serious about the subject, they could learn about the relevant orbital forces. If you understood the physics, you would know the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. But, even if you are not able to understand the physics, you should be able to grasp the easy-to-understand example of walking around a table, if you don’t pervert the example.
Of course, you have to walk normally spinning once on your own axis, not walking always facing north not spinning once on your own axis! Just like the green cannonball illustration DREM Team posted 7:32pm.
JD just ignores the spin and claims what is NOT observed – JD is writing what is known as JD’s belief not an actual observation.
Just more fluff and spin from fluffball, as usual.
Nothing new.
Wrong, barry. Tesla argues that the moon “orbits” (or “revolves”, or “rotates”) about the Earth, but not on its own axis. He has the exact same position as us, e.g. from the first of the three papers:
“It is well known since the discovery of Galileo that the moon, in travelling thru space, always turns the same face towards the earth. This is explained by stating that while passing once around its mother-planet the lunar globe performs just one revolution on its axis. The spinning motion of a heavenly body must necessarily undergo modifications in the course of time, being either retarded by resistances internal or external, or accelerated owing to shrinkage and other causes. An unalterable rotational velocity thru all phases of planetary evolution is manifestly impossible. What wonder, then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower. But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.”
And, also:
“The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one”.
Those papers prove Tesla was not an astronomer. Just like DREM Team and JD prove they are not meteorologists.
And fluffball proves he’s all spin and fluff.
Nothing new.
Craig T…”Conduction does not allow energy to leave the Earth’s atmosphere”.
That’s true but convection will get warm surface air up to an altitude where cooler air will absorb heat from the rising air.
The notion that only GHGs can warm/cool the atmosphere is sheer pseudo-science. That notion contradicts the Ideal Gas Law and marginalizes 99% of the gas in the atmosphere which is N2/O2.
If you put N2/O2 near space temperatures of -273C, are you claiming they would not cool? Even at -20C they would cool.
Craig,
“Energy never leaves a planet by conduction or convection. It warms until the radiation reaching the planet matches the radiation leaving the planet”
You are incorrect on both counts.
Mass escaping the TOA takes its associated KE and PE with it decreasing the Earths internal energy.
Currently it is primarily oxygen, nitrogen and helium leaving the TOA.
Further, a planet COOLS until the energy leaving is equal to the energy incoming (short term fluctuations notwithstanding)
The moon and mercury have almost finished cooling and further cooling is unlikely to cause any perceptible changes at the surface
Mars is not far behind, having very little atmosphere left to lose..
Venus is further along than the Earth, its interior having cooled much more quickly.. I imagine when the last of its water gets cooked off the solar wind will blow the rest of its atmosphere off rather quickly…
The rate of the Earths cooling has been slowed considerably by having liquid water on the surface (maintaining the insulative rock layer slowing the cooling of the interior)
and a large supply of oxygen courtesy of plant life…
Oxygen is a better insulator than co2 and much better than h20, further it provides the necessary material for a substanial ozone layer, protecting the h20 from photodissasociation
Final point, removing o2 from the atmosphere and adding co2 and h20 in its place lowers the insulative property of the atmosphere….
–Venus is further along than the Earth, its interior having cooled much more quickly.. I imagine when the last of its water gets cooked off the solar wind will blow the rest of its atmosphere off rather quickly…–
As far as I know, there is no evidence that Venus is “further along”.
There is evidence that Venus doesn’t have any tectonic activity that can be detected.
And there is no evidence that Venus had a lot water [a ocean anything like Earth’s ocean].
There are assumptions or theories that Earth tectonic activity caused Earth to have more water at the surface.
Venus might have water in it’s crust and/or mantle since does appear Venus has tectonic activity and tectonic activity is thought brought some water to Earth surface [and Venus has lower density of it’s rocky planet [having water in it would lower it’s density].
But the important thing is we know very little about Venus, and we will need to explore Venus before we can get a clue.
At an average of 50,000 tons annually, the loss of atmospheric gases to space would be barely perceptible after even a thousand years. Compare with the rate of CO2 accumulation, measured in the billions of tons.
Loss of atmospheric gases to space has virtually zero influence on Earth’s heat budget.
—PhilJ says:
April 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM
Craig,
“Energy never leaves a planet by conduction or convection. It warms until the radiation reaching the planet matches the radiation leaving the planet”
You are incorrect on both counts.
Mass escaping the TOA takes its associated KE and PE with it decreasing the Earths internal energy.
Currently it is primarily oxygen, nitrogen and helium leaving the TOA.—
**
–barry says:
April 12, 2019 at 9:19 PM
At an average of 50,000 tons annually, the loss of atmospheric gases to space would be barely perceptible after even a thousand years.–
Say had disk world, Big turtle with 4 big elephants on it, etc.
And disk world was something like Earth, 1 AU from Sun and 1 atm of pressure. But since we have to allow some mechanism for atmosphere, the border of flat planet has 100 km high walls, AND 50,000 tons of atmosphere annually escapes over the wall.
Earth atmosphere is hundreds of km high, but the official UN space starts at 100 km [there is not much atmosphere above 100 km and saying only 50,000 tons escape per year.
Lets say disk world has no ocean, but has streams, rivers, and some lakes and water comes from artesian wells [“magical springs” said to be from the sweat of the four elephants].
And air is nitrogen mostly, plus oxygen and argon- or Earth like air, but there is no tropical ocean and not much water vapor.
But no life and no CO2 and no dirt. Leaving one just rocky regions, rocks and some sand. And 10 tons of air per square meter above it.
And no night, as disk is always facing the sun- sun is directly over head everywhere on the disk surface.
With Earth, when sun is directly overhead, one is suppose to have average of 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight.
With disk world we make it 1000 watts of direct sunlight [and no indirect sunlight- for some strange reason, but if one can get a cloud [or smoke or dust] between the sun, you then can get some indirect sunlight.
And disk world has 1 gee gravity [somehow]. Anyhow, you are beamed down to surface from a starship.
What is the temperature of the air?
Next have a 1/2 world. So like Earth, but one side is always in sunlight and the other side is always [or mostly] in night.
And you have 100 km high wall at evening and morning terminator line, which separates day and night.
10 tons of air on day side, 1 gee, and again no ocean, and no life, but some rivers, streams and lakes. And etc.
And this half world has same tilt as Earth.
So, in tropics within 23.5 degrees north and south, at various time of year the sun is directly over head [and roughly stays around 90 degree over head for weeks of time].
So if at 50 degree latitude in winter, the sun stays fairly low over horizon and as you go toward summer the sun climbs higher above horizon [and sun is always in the sky].
If you beam down from starship, it seems it would matter where went on sunlit hemisphere. Let say you beam to equator at equinox- what is the air temperature?
Mass of atmosphere = 550 000 000 000 000 tons
Annual loss = 50 000 tons
After a thousand years the mass of the atmosphere decreases by
0.00001 %
That has virtually zero impact on the Earth’s energy budget over a thousand years, and even less so over decades.
However…
Atmospheric mass balance figures are measured at the top of the atmosphere – material exiting and entering the Earth’s atmosphere to and from space. It does not factor material entering the atmosphere from under the atmosphere (from underground or underwater).
The annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere is currently about
16 000 000 000 tons
320 000 times the amount of mass lost to space.
Atmospheric mass is currently growing, not declining.
Barry,
“At an average of 50,000 tons annually, the loss of atmospheric gases to space…”
Cool, apparently you agree that energy is not lost to space by radiation alone..
I would point out that with less h20 and co2 to cool it, much more would be lost…
Apparently you did not read my whole post, but instead made some cherry pie.
Atmosphere has been gaining mass for over a century and continues to do so. We’re not losing energy from mass loss.
b,
You wrote –
“Atmosphere has been gaining mass for over a century and continues to do so. We’re not losing energy from mass loss.”
It is basic physics that increasing the amount of atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer results in less radiation reaching the thermometer, thus reducing the temperature.
However, it can be observed that some thermometers have shown they are subject to increasing amounts of radiation, and show higher temperatures as a result. At this point you would no doubt provide an explanation of the GHE to explain this phenomenon, if you could. But you cannot. So sad, too bad.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and you cannot explain this simple observation. What a pity.
Cheers.
barry,
At an average of 50,000 tons annually, the loss of atmospheric gases to space
“Were not losing energy from mass loss.”
These two comments contradict one another.
How much energy does it take to move 50000 tons from the surface to an orbit with escape velocity? (I’m sure some of those here who like to calculate things can provide the answer…)
Now you may argue that the amount of energy is insignificant, but you cannot assert that NO energy leaves the TOA except radiation. Such demonstrably false assertions only weaken the argument for any kind of ‘GHE’
–PhilJ says:
April 13, 2019 at 11:22 AM
barry,
At an average of 50,000 tons annually, the loss of atmospheric gases to space
“Were not losing energy from mass loss.”
These two comments contradict one another.–
Barry is saying Co2 created/added by burning stuff.
Which is actually converting atmospheric O2 into atmospheric CO2
{plant life of course converts CO2 back into O2 and plants need the carbon to live}.
But main thing Barry saying is 50,000 tons is small compared to rest of atmosphere.
“How much energy does it take to move 50000 tons from the surface to an orbit with escape velocity? (Im sure some of those here who like to calculate things can provide the answer)”
Not much actually, this why we could become spacefaring though in comparison going to different stars it is problem in terms of energy costs.
If we become spacefaring we will have access to a vast amounts of energy, but even with this access, traveling to a star require a huge amount of energy.
So, I would say becoming spacefaring is mostly about getting access to our solar system.
A significant resource in our solar system [other than energy] is the vast amounts of water in space.
To answer your question, one use KE = 1/2 mass times velocity squared. So 1/2 of 50,000 tons times 11 Km/sec times 11 km/sec.
To get joules 25000 tons is 25 million kg times 11,000 m/s times 11,000 m/s and you get a large number of joules: 3.0 times 10^15 joules.
But it’s not so simple and it’s not a lot energy.
If 50,000 tons of water was leaving earth and wanted to know energy cost, one could first consider the energy to evaporate 50,000 tons of water.
“The heat of vaporization of water is about 2,260 kJ/kg”
So 50,000,000 kg times 2,260,000 joules is 1.13 x 10^14 joules.
Or about 1/30th of energy of escape velocity
or adding them:
3.0 x 10^15 + 1.13 x 10^14 joules is 3.1 x 10^15 joules
Or roughly, it can’t be more than 3.1 x 10^15 joules
And 10^15 joules:
–Energy released by a severe thunderstorm
Yearly electricity consumption in Greenland as of 2008
Energy released by explosion of 1 megaton of TNT =
4.210^15 joules —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
This trip down the rabbit hole was deeper than usual. I didn’t know Skeptics had a thing for Tesla. You should get together with the Tesla Free Energy cult and come up with a unified 2nd law of thermodynamics.
(Somewhere out there the good Doctor Spencer is facepalming)
Sure, Tesla, what a retard. Craig T knows best.
CT,
Rabbit hole? Skeptics, things, Tesla? Facepalming?
Sounds more like trolling than intelligence at work.
Begone troll.
CraigT, the Moon issue is so easy to understand that it is a great illustration of how some people refuse to face reality. barry has to walk abnormally, to pervert the easy-to-understand example of walking around a table. fluffball claims he can stick his arm in a rotating airplane propeller, without injury. Norman, in a previous discussion, refused to admit a Ferris wheel chair rotated about an axel. You, yourself, avoid the basic facts, preferring to throw up irrelevant facts about the Moon.
An onlooker would wonder why people go to such extremes to avoid reality. I doubt that works in your personal lives….
“he can stick his arm in a rotating airplane propeller, without injury.”
Yes, if I’m fixed to the prop spinner. Don’t stick your hand into the airplane while there though JD, you would lose your hand.
Yes fluffball, you are definitely a spinner.
“I wish I knew how to quit you”
the previous post was intended to be my last on this page. I made the mistake of looking to see how long this debate was still going on.
DREMT shared this from Tesla:
I don’t know what astronomers knew in 1919 but they now know that it is not coincidence that the rotation of the moon matches its orbit. The Moon rotated faster in the past but tidal locking slowed the rotation to match the time of the Moon’s orbit. Most moons in the solar system are tidally locked with their planet. Mercury’s rotation is also affected by tidal forces. For every two orbits Mercury rotates three times.
I already pointed out that because of an elliptical orbit there is around 8 degree variation in the side of the Moon facing us. The Moon has its own axis it rotates on and that axis has a 7 degree angle off perpendicular to a line from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon. At one point in the orbit that line leans toward the Earth, halfway through the orbit that line tilts away from the Earth.
The constant rotation speed vs changing orbital speed gives the moon an east – west libration. The change of angle in the lunar axis in respect to Earth creates a north – south libration. The link below is a NASA video showing the moon during one orbit. It is easy to see both librations in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
Artificial satellites do not automatically face the same side to Earth as they orbit. They can tumble on any axis that goes through their center of gravity. It is possible to use the gravity gradient (essentially tidal force) to cause satellites to orient that way, but it requires a complex design of the satellite.
https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V03_N5_1964/V3_N5_1964_Fischell.pdf
Tesla wrote “Any axial rotation of a mass left to itself, retarded by forces external or internal, must cease.” The reality is that tidal forces slow rotation until tidal lock occurs then stabilize the rotation rate.
Tesla also claimed “The moon has never spun around as is well demonstrated by the fact that the most precise measurements have failed to show any measurable flattening in form.” In 1799 Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote about the equatorial bulge on the Moon. The astronomers Tesla criticized knew of the flattening, proving the Moon did rotate.
I’m posting this for Ball4 and Barry. The rest will deny what I wrote without giving another cause of librations. These questions can be answered by reading what others have observed. There’s no need to take the word of Tesla, Clausius or for that matter Socrates.
Craig T, your dependence on Institutionalized Pseudoscience is amazing. Why think for yourself, huh?
Here’s the “cause for librations”:
https://postimg.cc/0rcKt9T7/1e48d73c
Actually Craig, Tesla does discuss libration, in the third paper, a fact which neither you nor barry seem to be aware of, because you obviously haven’t read them.
Tidal locking has also been discussed here ad nauseam, as has every single point that you’ve made so far. You’re incredibly behind on this discussion, Craig, as it has already been talked to death over months and months. There is nothing new to bring up. So you can drop the superior attitude, and please stop trolling.
DREM Team should actually read Newton’s 1728 “System of the World” book page 59to61: “In like manner is the Moon revolved about its axe by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars…(in this motion) is the Moon’s libration in longitude..but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude.”
I link to Tesla’s papers for two reasons:
1) The authority-worshippers on this site won’t even begin to consider an idea unless there is at least some “name” behind it.
2) Everything you could think of has already been discussed. If somebody new comes along, it’s easier to just ask them to read the papers than go through everything from the very beginning again.
I’m not saying “it’s right because he says so” and I’m not saying that everything he says is correct. There are also plenty of points people have raised not covered in the papers and for those I would suggest people have a search through the discussions under older articles. Besides that, I think I’m done talking about it.
The quotes are from two different articles. In both Tesla claims objects in orbit move as if mounted on a beam or disk. Instead gravity pulls the center of mass of an orbiting object toward the center of the Earth. Just as a diver or gymnast can spin in any direction while off the ground, anything in orbit can freely rotate around that center of gravity.
Librations appear as a rocking motion from the Earth. Tesla mentions librations but doesn’t seem to understand them. It is possible for an object “rigidly connected” to move in the shape of an ellipse if it can change distance from the center while rotating. That object would always face the center without any rocking right or left, just like JDHuffman’s image of arrows tangent to an ellipse.
“Have you ever tried reading the Tesla papers?”
It doesn’t seem a good place to start looking for evidence of how the Moon moves. He never took any measurements of the Moon or supplied evidence to back his position.
“You’re incredibly behind on this discussion, Craig, as it has already been talked to death over months and months.”
Yes, and I find that troubling. This was settled science in 1919, much less now. We send satellites into space and have designed systems to keep them oriented to the Earth, or the Sun, or to other planets. None of that matters to web sites like this where a small group set around trying to answer questions with philosophy instead of actual measurements.
“anything in orbit can freely rotate”
It’s just a simplification, to get the point across, Craig. Obviously Tesla is aware that an object in orbit can rotate on its own axis. It’s not like he was saying the Earth doesn’t rotate on its own axis, because it’s in orbit around the sun.
No more straw men, and please stop responding to me on the subject. I said I am done talking about it, so stop trying to take advantage of that by responding to me further. Talk to somebody else.
CraigT, it appears it is you that does not understand orbital motions, not Tesla.
DREMT is tired of saying the same things over and over. You weren’t here for all the previous discussions, so you should probably go back and educate yourself. Everything you have provided is either wrong, irrelevant, or has been debunked numerous times.
Have you tried the orange on a string experiment? Secure one end of a string to an orange with a thumbtack. Hold the other end of the string in the center of a table. Holding the orange in place, spin it either way on its vertical axis. Notice the string tends to wrap around the orange. Now, orbit the orange around the center of the table. Notice the thumbtack always faces the center of the table. You can’t “rotate the orange on its axis” without wrapping up the string. If that doesn’t open your eyes to reality, then likely nothing will.
As MikeR said: “One of the major characteristics of a troll is to never admit they are mistaken. This would require emotional maturity and accordingly they tend to double down rather than take the sensible decision to fold.”
“Holding the orange in place”
So the orange is not orbiting. Then when you spin it in place, not orbiting, of course it wraps the string.
“Now, orbit the orange around the center of the table. Notice the thumbtack always faces the center of the table.”
Only if you rotate the now orbiting orange once per revolution. If you don’t spin the orange, the string wraps the orange. Proving the moon is rotating on its own axis once in its orbit just like a racehorse, toy train, orange demo, etc.
Good demonstration of rotation on the orange’s & moon’s own axis once per orbit JD. I do doubt you actually performed the experiment on the orange though.
fluffball gets trapped by reality, again.
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
Very good illustration of orbiting JD. One with rotation on its own axis, like the moon, racehorse, toy train, orange, and one without rotation on its own axis.
I’ll leave it to JD to study which is which. Reading Newton’s book of 1728 from which an illustration was derived in the 7:32pm link by DREM Team should help JD should there be any JD confusion.
fluffball always gets trapped in his own fluff and spin.
Nothing new.
I’ll just watch as he attempts to get out of his own trap. If he chooses Figure 1, then he admits the Moon is not rotating on its own axis. If he chooses Figure 2, then he admits he doesn’t know what orbital motion is.
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
He’ll likely be here all day, trying to conjure up some new spin.
Fig. 1: illustration of CERES spacecraft orbit
Fig. 2: illustration of Kepler spacecraft orbit
Let’s see if JD can explain why that is so. Hint: Kepler spacecraft is the one that goes down the backstretch tail first.
You would think that a manmade satellite that must be continually re-adjusted due to the turn of an orbit would indicate to poor fluffball he is wrong.
But remember, clowns are unable to process facts and logic.
Nothing new.
Sorry JD, Kepler is out of fuel. You are wrong, no readjustment.
When Kepler had fuel there was continuous station keeping in orbit illustrated in Fig. 2 just like CERES station keeping illustrated in Fig. 1. Apparently, JD cannot explain why that is so. Try a little harder JD, learn some physics in the process.
First, fluffball wants to use manmade satellites to somehow “prove” his false ideas about orbits. Of course, the satellites adjust their position, unlike a natural body. Then fluffball must have realized Kepler is no longer in use.
So then, he tries to misrepresent me, trying to make it look like it was me that got it wrong!
Poor fluffball. Nothing seems to work for him.
“trying to make it look like it was me that got it wrong!”
It wasn’t all that hard JD, you get stuff wrong all by yourself, you do not need help from me.
So, JD has now learned some physics: Fig. 1 is for an orbiting object rotating on its own axis once per orbit (CERES, moon, racehorse, toy train, once spinning orange) and Fig. 2 is for an orbiting object NOT rotating on its own axis at all (Kepler staring at same point, non spinning orange, horse running down the backstretch tail first).
JD has also learned how to demo Earth’s GHE by experiment. JD makes slow but sure progress learning some physics.
Poor fluffball.
Nothing seems to work for him.
Craig T…”I dont know what astronomers knew in 1919 but they now know that it is not coincidence that the rotation of the moon matches its orbit”.
I think there is proof that many scientists today know far less than scientists a century ago. The mangling of the 2nd law is proof.
Of the Moon rotated once per orbit, the face toward Earth would have to rotate through 360 degrees. However, if it rotated even a few degrees… ABOUT A CENTRAL AXIS..it would no longer face the Earth. If it rotated 180 degrees it would be pointing away from the Earth.
CraigT,
You wrote –
“Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere return some of IR radiation to Earth. Since the Earth warms until it is giving off as much radiative energy as it receives the average temperature will be higher. That explains why the Earth average temperature is over 30 C higher than the moon”
Pseudoscientific climate cultists love averages, because they can be whatever they like! Even so, the supposed average temperature of the Earth is allegedly a mish-mash of near surface or ocean air temperatures. Air is conspicuously missing from the Moon, but this concerns dim-witted self styled climatologists not one jot, obviously. So much for averages.
The climate cultists also appear incapable of accepting that a large ball of molten stuff – the Earth – must have a surface temperature, whether surrounded by an atmosphere or not. What is the surface temperature of this molten blob? Don’t ask a climate cultist – that would require knowledge of physics, which these peanuts deny.
Unfortunately, the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years indicates that the earth has radiated away more energy than it received from all sources. That is why its temperature has dropped, rather than risen. And at night, or during the winter, the Earth stubbornly refuse to obey your demand that it warms.
Carry on dreaming. Given enough time, you might rise to the levels of stupidity, ignorance, and delusion, of bumbling fumblers like Schmidt, Mann, and Trenberth.
Cheers.
Mike…the planet’s internal heat is an interesting enigma that people dismiss far too easily. If you dig down into the Earth a few hundred feet, the temperature becomes so high that it is very uncomfortable for humans. Some mines at 600 feet are 115 degrees, presumably Fahrenheit,
The oceans are just as much an enigma. The deepest part of the ocean is 36,200 feet. Even there, the temperature of the water remains above freezing, obviously because the increasing pressure with ocean depth keeps the water hotter. The pressure at one of the deepest parts of the ocean is 15,000 pounds/sq.in.
I would seem that the internal dynamics of the Earth’s interior, vis a vis temperature and pressure, is not taken into consideration very often.
The alarmist discussion here seems to claim that nitrogen and oxygen cannot warm/cool by conduction, convection, and radiation like any other gas.
If you have a balloon filled with nitrogen at 20C, and you put it in a freezer at -20C. Will the nitrogen cool?
Conversely, if you have a balloon of nitrogen at -20C and you put it in a room at 20C, will the nitrogen warm?
Now take a balloon of nitrogen, that won’t collapse or expand, up in a space craft and release it out of a hatch at 20C, will the nitrogen cool? There are no air molecules to which it can transfer heat, only the vacuum of space at -273C.
Will the nitrogen radiate away its heat?
Open the balloon so the nitrogen gas escapes immediately into the -273C vacuum. Will the N2 gas cloud cool, since it can only cool by radiation?
CO2 and WV can absorb and emit at terrestrial temperatures but N2 can emit and absorb equally well at it’s own temperature(s).
“N2 can emit and absorb equally well”
No.
Ball4,
If there is now no need to justify comments, my response to your “No is “Idiot!”.
Carry on being an idiot.
Cheers.
Are you disagreeing with anything I said? No? I thought not.
Idiot!
Well stated, Mike.
“The alarmist discussion here seems to claim … ”
No, both your so-called “alarmists” and actual scientists claim something quite different.
Scientists claim that all gases cool to similar degrees by conduction and convection (with some differences due to molecular weight, specific heat, etc).
Scientists do, however, claim that cooling by radiation is quite different. Monatomic gases radiate thermal IR extremely poorly (ie the emissivity is very close to 0). Same for diatomic atoms of a single element (like N2, O2, H2).
More complex molecules, however, radiate much more effectively — molecules like NO or CH4 or H2O or CO2. They have larger emissivities.
Nothing here is the least bit controversial. Both theory and experiment agree that only larger/ore complex molecules will cool effectively by emission of thermal IR.
Tim,
“Both theory and experiment agree that only larger/ore complex molecules will cool effectively by emission of thermal IR.”
which is exactly why o2 is a better insulator than co2 and h20…
TF,
You wrote –
“Scientists claim that all gases cool to similar degrees by conduction and convection (with some differences due to molecular weight, specific heat, etc).”
Those scientists are teaching using the “lies for children” method. This might be good enough for stupid pseudoscientists at the National Science Foundation, refusing to accept Archimedes’ Principle, various dummies at NASA talking about the “Greenhouse Effect”, or NOAA producing brightly coloured cartoons overturning the physics of flotation.
Conduction is a convenient fiction for simplifying calculations of energy transfer. Convection describes movement of matter. The luminiferous ether was claimed by scientists to have particular properties, and many phenomena were explained using the concept. The luminiferous ether does not appear to exist, but you may believe it does, if you wish.
You may not believe that the temperature of the atmosphere (around 80% nitrogen) can be heated quite rapidly by means of infrared radiation (anything with a longer wavelength than visible red, by definition), and will cool rapidly if allowed to do so.
With a bit of effort, nitrogen can be liquefied at home. No cold rays, just let nitrogen radiate its heat away, and it will get cold enough to become liquid. Physics at work!
Blathering about things like thermal IR, emissivity, larger/or complex molecules, sounds very sciencey, but imparts precisely no useful information. At least provide actual examples – you shouldn’t even need analogies, should you?
Have you figured out how air can be rapidly raised to 500C by the simple expedient of compressing it? In a Diesel engine, you can do this thousands of times a minute, if you wish. After combustion, the nitrogen may reach temperatures of 1400 C, or higher. White hot steel is around 1300 C. The nitrogen cools very quickly, and by the time it exits the exhaust pipe, is under 100 C. I’ll let you ponder why the nitrogen heated rapidly, and why it cooled rapidly.
Cheers.
Nitrogen will cool by radiation but verrrrrrrry sloooooooowwwwly.
Nitrogen with very small portion of CO2 will cool by radiation but verrrrrrrry sloooooooowwwwly.
b,
In a diesel engine at 3000 rpm, nitrogen can cool from over 1000 C to 500C at the exhaust manifold in less than 20 milliseconds. You think this is slow. Good for you.
Cheers.
gbaikie…”Nitrogen with very small portion of CO2 will cool by radiation but verrrrrrrry sloooooooowwwwly.”
There you have it, a perfect explanation for the GHE.
Flynn,
In a diesel engine the nitrogen is not cooling by radiation in the infrared.
I am not unfamiliar with how a diesel engine works, I have worked on some big ones.
And big air compressors as well, they usually have coolers on them to handle the heat of compression.
b,
You wrote –
“In a diesel engine the nitrogen is not cooling by radiation in the infrared.”
Another pointless pseudoscientific assertion, without any support whatsoever.
If you want a really fast example of nitrogen cooling from an incandescent state, look no further than the fireball caused by a nuclear bomb. Radiation (yes, infrared as well) heats the air to extremely high temperatures in a few millionths of a second. The incandescent gas cools very rapidly.
Here’s a taste –
“The red/orange color seen here in the cap of the mushroom cloud is largely due to the fireball’s intense heat in combination with the oxygen and nitrogen naturally found in air.”
Carry on with your mindless blathering.
Cheers.
“Radiation (yes, infrared as well) heats the air to extremely high temperatures in a few millionths of a second. The incandescent gas cools very rapidly.”
This is what comes out of a cows behind.
The heat from a nuclear explosion is from the fission of uranium or plutonium.
Spout some more ignorant codswallop.
The fact that nitrogen emits in the near infrared when heated to very high temperatures has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is whether or not nitrogen cools by emission of radiation at temperatures normally encountered in the atmosphere.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
You need to say pretty please with sugar on top.
No bobdroege: all I need is for ageing, hippy, drug-addled failures to stop acting like children in front of their betters.
Now you think you are better than me,
wow what a conceited asshat
Scurry along, child.
So you going to challenge lance for the COTHO award.
There once was a man from Nantucket
England was once an empire ruled by an emperor
Then a Kingdom ruled by a King
Then a country ruled by Dr Empty
bobdroege, grow up and shut up.
You first little man
#2
bobdroege, grow up and shut up.
Learning to count are we?
In a couple decades you will be ready to tackle some science.
#3
bobdroege, grow up and shut up.
Twat you say?
Upthread, bob said, “you get treated the way you treat people“.
Funny, turns out he doesn’t like being condescended to. He only likes being the one who condescends.
Quelle surprise.
No, I am fully aware that I am descending to your level and rolling around in the mud.
Point missed.
Remember who started with the name calling.
I can stop if you will.
But I doubt you are man enough to admit you are an asshole.
You people make yourselves look so ridiculous. My job is too easy with some of you.
Thanks for your assistance, bob.
So your job is to be an asshole on the internet.
Glad to have that cleared up.
So how many times have you posted “please stop trolling?”
Part of what I do is to hold up a mirror to some deeply unpleasant people. They never like what they see. Again, quelle surprise.
And again, thanks for your assistance, bob.
So your main method of showing how people are deeply unpleasant is to to be an arrogant name calling prick?
My “arrogance” is to mirror your arrogance. “Name-calling prick” defeats itself, obviously.
You don’t like what you see in that mirror, clearly. You seem quite upset.
But in a few days you’ll be back doing to others what you are upset with me about.
Oh, I am far from upset, I am actually having fun with this.
I am treating you as you have treated others and me.
Apparently you are the one that doesn’t like it.
We can go back to discussing science any time you like.
I can remind you that you still haven’t found an astronomer that would agree that the moon is not rotating on its axis.
We can revisit what Tesla said, but I remind you that he said the moon does rotate.
Sure, bob. Just keep telling yourself that.
You are putting yourself in with the flat-earthers, anti-vaxer, YEC, as well as a host of others who reject science.
How’s that going for you?
Thanks for your assistance, bob.
You are welcome,
Take some courses in science, you might learn something.
You see? Back to your old self already. Carry on.
What can a man do if you continue to deny science?
If you would start acting like a man, and if I were ever to “deny science”, I guess we would find out.
You deny the moon rotates on its axis.
Enough said, proof positive you deny science.
Go back to school.
Yawn. You’re boring me now, bob.
Bored minds don’t learn science very well.
Best take up knitting.
Response.
Spanish lady comes to me she lays on me this rose
It rainbow spirals round and round, it trembles and explodes
It left a smoking crater of my mind I like to blow away
but the heat came by and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day
OK bobdroege.
Anyone who claims to truly understand orbits and rotation should be able to deal elliptical orbits, too, since they are the general case. Circular orbits are easy — almost too trivial. Take a step outside your comfort zone and tackle an elliptical orbit!
What does it mean to “orbit without rotating” for a moon in a highly elliptical orbit (treating the moon as much much lighter than the planet)? Explain your reasoning.
a) There exists one point on that moon that always faces directly toward the planet.
b) There exists one point on that moon that always faces directly toward the center of the ellipse.
c) there exists one point on that moon that always faces directly forward along the path of the moon.
d) every point on that moon always faces the same spot on the celestial sphere.
e) none of the above.
[Note that for a circular orbit, (a), (b), and (c) are identical to each other. For an elliptical orbit, they are all different!]
For anyone who sincerely wants to learn, they should be able to understand this simple graphic. For others, take a step outside your comfort zone and tackle some reality.
This simple graphic overly exaggerates an elliptical orbit, for clarity. It is easy to see how libration works, as viewed from inside the orbit. The arrow is orbiting counter-clockwise, but NOT rotating on its own axis.
https://postimg.cc/0rcKt9T7
(Tim, when do you believe you can take a step outside your comfort zone and answer some simple questions, like this one?)
Sorry JD, take a step outside your comfort zone and tackle some reality, your arrow rotates once on its own axis for each revolution.
ball3…”Sorry JD, take a step outside your comfort zone and tackle some reality, your arrow rotates once on its own axis for each revolution”.
Since the beginning of this problem, the rotation was described as a rotation around a central axis. Since those arrows are vectors representing the linear momentum of an orbiting body it is not at all obvious they are rotating about a local axis.
They might be rotating as they move in orbit, as does the Earth in it’s solar orbit, but in this case, the inner side of the arrows is always pointed toward the centre of the ellipse. That is curvilinear translation with no local rotation about an axis.
“They might be rotating…with no local rotation about an axis.”
Huh? That’s gibberish. Gordon should get out some string, an orange, and thumbtack then run through JD’s experiment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349333
ball3…”“They might be rotating…with no local rotation about an axis.”
Huh? That’s gibberish. Gordon should get out some string, an orange, and thumbtack then run through JD’s experiment:”
********
So…get out your orange attach it to a string and attach the other end to a central axis. Now stick something through the orange at right angles to the string to represent JD’s arrows.
Move the orange in a circle around the central axis, on the taut string, then tell me that orange is rotating about it’s axis with the string affixed.
The only way it could rotate about its own axis is by breaking the string or rolling itself up in the string, thus shortening the string.
That orange is rotating about it’s axis with the string affixed because a hand is used to rotate it. DO the experiment Gordon, you will have to rotate the orange or the string will wrap it up.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ah, so your answer is “c”. The “race horse” analogy (as opposed to the ‘same side faces the planet” analogy, which would be “a”).
That answer does have the feature of providing a reasonable hypothesis for libration. But that is not how a real moon would behave.
At the “bottom” of your orbit, when the moon is closest to the planet, the moon is travelling rapidly and the orientation of the arrow is changing rapidly. The angular speed and the angular momentum about the axis (2/5 MR^2(omega) for a uniform sphere) of the moon is large.
At the “top” of your orbit, when the moon is farthest from the planet, the moon is travelling slowly and the orientation of the arrow is changing slowly. The angular speed and the angular momentum about the axis of the moon is small.
What torque acts on the moon about this axis to cause this change in angular momentum?
No Tim, that’s how an elliptical orbit looks. You just live in denial.
And you started asking questions, while ignoring mine.
Why are you so afraid of reality?
Tim demonstrates his ignorance of orbital physics, again.
So many things wrong….
First, he believes that the Moon has an angular momentum based on rotating on its own axis. WRONG!
Second, he believes this “pseudo” angular momentum increases/decreases in orbit. WRONG! If the Moon were actually rotating on its axis, that angular momentum would be based on its spin, not its orbit.
Poor physics-deprived Tim.
The increase in angular momentum Tim is talking about is due to the ellipical orbit, ONLY. As the Moon gets closer to Earth, approaching apogee, the gravitational force increases. That increase forces an increase in lunar velocity. But that does NOT produce any torque on the Moon. Torque is a separate issue, which poor Tim does not understand either.
Once the Moon passes apogee, the gravitational forces reverse, slowing the Moon.
“Once the Moon passes apogee, the gravitational forces reverse, slowing the Moon.”
Back to discussing the moon rotation, my stupidity detector just assploded.
At apogee the gravitational force between the earth and the moon is the lowest due the gravitational force equation, or the law of gravity if you will.
F=G * M * m / e squared
Dummass
Further more dummass, you have perigee and apogee reversed.
Yes bob, it should be “perigee”, of course.
Good catch.
(I was likely laughing too hard at Tim’s “top” and “bottom” of the orbit.)
Well you do have the orbit depicted in a vertical orientation, so the way you drew it, it does have a top and bottom.
What about the gravitational forces reversing moment of stupidity?
Moment of stupidity, is that a vector or a scalar?
Sorry bob, but that’s how orbits are depicted. There is no “top” and “bottom”.
I appreciated that you noticed my mistake about “apogee”, but now you’re out of control.
Chill out.
now your stupidity is out of control, tim was clearly referring to the “top” of your diagram, not the top of an orbit.
I have never seen an orbit displayed that way with the arrows and all.
Clearly you have no business telling others what orbits and such are.
Too stupid for school.
bob, you should have taken my advice and cooled down.
In my diagram, I didn’t indicate where Earth was. It has two possible locations. So your assumption just reveals your desperation.
Now try to chill out, before you make a fool of yourself, again.
Please explain this statement
“Once the Moon passes apogee, the gravitational forces reverse, slowing the Moon.”
How do gravitational forces reverse?
Have you invented anti-gravity?
As the Moon approaches perigee, the vector due to gravity tends to support the vector due to speed. After perigee, the vector due to gravity opposes the velocity vector. The gravitational force is essentially reversed, relative to the velocity.
Nope,
You are trying to explain away your error, and your efforts are fruitless.
The velocity increase as a satellite approaches perigee and decreases as it leaves perigee, the gravitational force is always at near a right angle to the velocity vector. And always a positive attractive force and never reverses.
Again Dummass.
This crap and you think you are the expert on whether the moon rotates or not.
Yes Bob, this is a beautiful example of the level of JDHuff’s knowledge of physics. I shall link to it when necessary, which maybe often if he continues with this crap.
bob d…”lease explain this statement
Once the Moon passes apogee, the gravitational forces reverse, slowing the Moon.
How do gravitational forces reverse?”
*********
When a force is applied at an angle you break it down into it’s cosine or sine COMPONENT acting in the determined direction. I think that’s what JD may have been getting at, not the main force itself but a component of that force.
That would only be applicable in the case of an orbit with extreme eccentricity and at the end furthest from the central mass. I cannot think of such a case offhand other than Halley’s Comet because the mechanics of local planetary motion don’t seem to offer themselves to extreme eccentricities.
To achieve such an eccentricity, a body would have to be moving very fast when captured yet not so fast that it would fly off in a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory. Halley’s Comet is close to the former trajectory. The distance of the body from the central mass would also be critical.
No on knows how the planets and planetoids got their present orbits. I think it’s pretty fluky that the Moon achieved such an orbit considering the precise linear momentum and distance required to enter orbit at it’s present distance from the Earth.
Gordon,
With respect to the velocity vector the component in the direction of the gravitational force is always zero, irrespective of the eccentricity.
That’s how orbital motion in a Newtonian world works for planets, moons, asteroids and comets (even for comets in hyperbolic trajectories that visit earth only once).
Sorry Gordon your comment does not really help JD get out of his pickle. He is currently in so many pickles that he must reek of vinegar or brine.
“The velocity increase as a satellite approaches perigee”
A satellite is approaching perigee, after reaching the furthest point of apogee.
Or the furthest point of apogee has the most amount potential energy and at nearest point of perigee, has least amount of potential energy [though the greatest velocity or most amount kinetic energy].
Or it’s similar to throwing a ball straight up- the highest the ball goes up, is the “apogee” of the tossed ball.
And btw a tossed ball is weightless [zero gee] going up and going down- it’s in orbit until it hits something [though suborbital trajectory would be more correct term].
tim…”At the bottom of your orbit, when the moon is closest to the planet, the moon is travelling rapidly and the orientation of the arrow is changing rapidly”.
The mistake you are making is regarding the Moon’s linear momentum as a vector that turns independently rather than seeing the vector represent the Moon as a body with a linear momentum that has one face bound to the Earth’s centre.
It’s not the vector that is rotating once per orbit, it’s the central force on the Moon causing it and the vector to turn in order to keep the tidally forced same face pointing inward. That is not a rotation about the Moon’s axis.
That tangential vector represents the Moon’s linear momentum and the rapid change you note is a resultant of the linear momentum and the attraction of the Earth’s gravitational field. It’s akin to the Moon being restrained in orbit with a cable attached to its near face and set up somehow so it could orbit the Earth.
It’s like you turning a bucket of water about your head on a rope. The water does not spill out because it wants to go in a straight line tangential to the rope and the bucket walls constrain it. Would you claim that bucket is rotating about its centre of gravity while attached to a rope?
I have acknowledged in another post that in the case of an orbit with an extreme eccentricity at the end furthest from the central mass, that the force from the mass would not be applied directly, it would have a sin theta or cos theta component. In that case there MIGHT be small libration but not a rotation as described by those who think the Moon rotates 360 degrees about its axis in one orbit.
BTW…the Moon does not have an orbit with extreme eccentricity. The original problem was posed with the Moon in it’s current, almost circular orbit, and based on a rotation about the Moon’s axis.
Gordon,
If the moon doesn’t rotate on its axis, what axis are you referring to? Hopefully not the axis of evil.
“That tangential vector represents the Moon’s linear momentum and the rapid change you note is a resultant of the linear momentum and the attraction of the Earths gravitational field. It’s akin to the Moon being restrained in orbit with a cable attached to its near face and set up somehow so it could orbit the Earth.”
“Theres is another way of looking at this. Consider the RH coin being slide along a straight surface with the same mark always on the surface. That would describe rectilinear translation.”
Except gravity pulls on the center of mass without exerting any torque. That’s why gymnasts can do flips and twists while in the air.
There is no force to turn the moon toward the Earth. If there was, every orbiting object would turn in the same way including the Earth. Artificial satellites tumble wildly unless stabilized in some way. The first satellites used spin stabilization – rotating on their major axis. If the Moon did not rotate on an axis through its center of mass, the gravitational pull of the Sun and planets would pull in random ways making the Moon tumble.
The Earth’s rotational axis causes the seasons because at one point the axis leans toward the sun and half way through the orbit the axis leans away. Nothing turns the Earth to make the axis always point toward or away from the Sun.
The same is true for the Moon. Its axis is almost perpendicular to the planetary plane but lies roughly 7 degrees to the lunar orbital plane. If a force other than rotation on that axis turned the Moon to face the Earth, the Moon’s axis would always tilt inward (or outward).
Craig T, please stop trolling.
To quote Inigo Montoya;
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I was polite, I argued with facts. Still you call it trolling. At the same time some of the posts from resident Skeptics insult someone more often than they don’t. You say nothing.
Your arguments refute themselves.
Craig,
There is a psychological term for someone who try to label others with their own pathologies. It is called projection.
DREMT’s output is a case study in projection. He continues to repeat this behaviour shamelessly.
It just confirms one of my default heuristics, that stupid people tend to behave stupidly. In this case indefinitely.
MikeR, thank you for undermining Kreg T’s point about how much skeptics insult others compared to his own “team”. You really made him look silly.
DREMT,
A key characteristic of Trolls is that they tend to confuse the terms quality and quantity. With regards to the latter, the 150 …. PSTs that you have generated over the past month or so make up for the former.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Make that 151.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
152.
…and about 50 of them were in response to MikeR…
And what about the other 100?
It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.
Yep DREMT,
When it comes to dirt, you are in your natural element.
On that note DREMT, have you thought about a career path in sanitation and clearing sewers? You appear to have the dogged persistence for that kind of work. Much more useful than continually PSTing all over the place.
In the meantime, kindly desist in trolling.
Thanks, but I’ll do as I please, forever.
Or alternatively your contributions will once again be terminated by Dr Roy.
Just a gentle reminder.
My contributions have never before been terminated by Dr Roy. Just a gentle reality.
Sorry DREMT,
Must have got you confused with JDHuff. Unfortunately very easy to do as, until the last few days, you and JD have had eerily similar posting habits.
By the way what have you done with JD? There has been no sign of him for 4 days and this has been the first time he has been off air since March 2. He used to be such a prolific poster and now you have had to do all the work on your own.
I feel sorry for both of you as poor JD seems to have gone off in a huff without even a puff of smoke, after I suggested he answer the A,B and C train question. Maybe he blew a head gasket trying to extract himself from his predicament.
DREMT. maybe you can help JD out now that you have taken some joint ownership with your comment of April 20- “MikeR apparently spent an entire year off from this discussion, only to return and conclusively prove that he doesnt understand our argument”.
So how about it DREMT . Is it A,B or C? To assist you here is the question I posed to JD, after which he proceeded to abscond.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349587
I fully expect, due to DREMT’s dogged persistence , all I will get back is a PST to add to our collection. At least it will mean the award for Troll of The Month (brain dead repetitive comments sub-category) is definitely his.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-350134
DREMT, thanks for the link. Just read my reply.
You can try and run but hiding can be difficult.
…and, for you, “understanding” is the hardest thing of all.
Yes I agree, trying to understand your delusion is probably the hardest. Possibly only JDHuff really understands and then only after a stiff drink.
I have had a crack at it in the other thread. Boy you are one confused puppy.
That’s a good example of that “projection” you were talking about.
DREMT, I don’t know if I would characterize your relationship with JDHuff in those terms. Dejection, rather than projection, would be more appropriate.
Not one of your better ones. Not sure where you’re really going with that.
I thought you guys might have been dejected due to the way in which your lunar rotation arguments were going.
See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-350700 .
By the way , if you are still around next month, I will report on your quest for the Troll of The Month medal. You have slowed down recently but, unless something untoward happens in the next few hours, you should have it in the bag.
MikeR, you don’t need to keep referring me to a discussion I am already aware of, and taking part in. When you do the totals for the month, don’t forget to include the commentary up to 04/30/19 on all the other, newer threads. There are people who stopped commenting on this thread a while ago who have been commenting prolifically on the newer threads since. I wouldn’t want the figures to be biased by you focussing only on the comments under this article.
Yes DREMT I have made a number of comments at the thread above regarding UAH, RSS etc. comparisons. I haven’t noticed any of your PST comments there thank goodness.
I have not been following the other threads. If you have any other such comments in the other threads let me know and I will include them in your total. You must be terribly proud of your efforts.
MikeR, why is it that you are unable to read and comprehend correctly absolutely anything that I say? No, I do not have more PSTs under any of the new articles.
I thought that part of what you were going to do would be to count the total number of comments (not just PSTs) for a variety of commenters (including yourself). My point was that there are many commenters who were commenting here, but stopped a couple of weeks or so ago. But, they continued commenting prolifically under the newer articles. So, if you are going to do a fair comparison of “who has commented the most in the month of April”, for example, you should include comments up to 04/30/19 from the more recent articles as well.
No DREMT,
I have earlier provided the major criterion for Troll of the Month. This was the repetive use of boring , content free obnoxious comments. It was a competition between yourself with … PST and Mike F’s begone tr..,,
The number of comments and hours of the day of the comments could be considered if you like, but it won’t make much difference, as you appear to be the runaway winner.
OK MikeR.
Tim…”Anyone who claims to truly understand orbits and rotation should be able to deal elliptical orbits…”
I can deal with elliptical orbits but you don’t seem to be able to deal with the problem at hand, whether the Moon rotates around its axis in its current nearly circular orbit.
Before considering ellipses as straight ellipses, you have to consider the effect tidal forces from the Sun have on the Moon’s orbit. The solar tidal forces serve to enhance the eccentricity of the Lunar orbit.
However, the Solar tidal forces also likely serve as a double-whammy to lock the Moon tidally.
I think what you are getting at is the effect of the central mass on an orbital body as the eccentricity of an elliptical orbit increases. In an extremely elliptical orbit, the change of direct force on the orbiting body may cause it to rock somewhat, but I think that effect on our Moon is insignificant or absent.
Clowns believe the Moon is rotating on its axis because “Institutionalized Pseudoscience” says so. Yet, they cannot support their beliefs with any credible physics. In fact, they claim that a racehorse is “rotating on its own axis”, in order to support their pseudoscience.
Well, let’s look at the same racehorse on a straight track:
https://postimg.cc/FfNDGGLP
JD,
I promised myself I wouldn’t get involved in this irrelevant and frankly stupid lunar debate and was ignoring it, hoping it would go away on its own accord.
Once again I have to honor the promise more in the breach than the observance.
I have not followed this debate closely and the following explanations may been given already. Apologies if it has.
I think it has become abundantly clear there is a fundamental difference between the moon and all the parallel examples of racehorses, racing cars, spinning amusement rides etc.
In the case of the moon there are two solutions possible for a moon that shows only one face to the earth.
One is zero rotation. This is the only possible solution if it was bound by the same restrictions that a racehorse or racing car, i,e. staying on the track due to guidance of the driver /ride and or the fence off the track or if there were physical spokes between the earth and moon.
The second rotational solution that satisfies the condition that the same side of the moon faces the earth is the universally understood (with only a few notable exceptions). It is the one where the period of the moon’s rotation on its axis matches the period of revolution of moon around the earth.
In the absence of tidal forces the moon could rotate at any speed from zero to almost infinite. Due to conservation of angular momentum it’s rotational speed would probably be not very different from the rotational speed when the moon was first formed.
However due to tidal forces the rotational speed of the moon became locked so that the period of rotation matched the period of revolution .
Details of the physics of tidal locking can be found here on page 266 and follow through the discussion about Darwin Torque.
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/reports/EfroimskyWilliams2009.pdf
A simpler explanation can be found here
https://www.studocu.com/sv/document/washington-university-in-st-louis/introduction-to-astrophysics/foerelaesningsanteckningar/312-2016-lecture-7-earth-moon-system-tidal-forces/1260860/view
and here
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2007/ph210/kwon2/
However I can summarize it as the following. The tidal forces slow down the rotation of the moon until there is no opposing torque provided by the gravitational force component due to tides . If, due to gravitational effects from other objects such as other planets, the moon’s rotation or orbital motion is perturbed and then undershoots or overshoots the locked rotational speed then an opposing torque will be generated to correct the perturbation. This is a stable negative feedback solution that keeps the rotational speed locked to the orbital speed.
Returning to Terra Firma, the earth bound examples where there are constraints such as described above are not appropriate to the moon which, to my best knowledge, doesnt have these constraints (no track or spokes).
It is easy to make these mistake using these inappropriate analogies, even for a great mind like Tesla. We all make mistakes, and I have had more than my fair share and I usually admit when I make them.
The difference is, to some, it is impossible for them to admit they are wrong. One of the major characteristics of a troll is to never admit they are mistaken. This would require emotional maturity and accordingly they tend to double down rather than take the sensible decision to fold. They can even be silly enough to reintroduce it at random.
Oops. To follow up I have made a mistake and I admit the error of my way. Of course the non-rotating moon does not show only 1 face. what was I thinking?
see https://postimg.cc/CnKZhXB7
So option 1 in the comment above, that is the non-rotating moon, does not satisfy this criterion (see middle graphic for non-rotating dumbbell in the postimg gif).
I think I now need to have a dementia check! Too much contact with the usual suspects can damage your pysche.
Boy am having bad day. I uploaded the wrong gif from my collection from a year ago. For this one, the non-rotating case is obviously the bottom 1, labeled C.
p.s. Another link to a very good explanation of tidal locking can be found here –
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/tidfrict.html .
Yes, this has all been covered before. In fact, “tidal locking” should be a problem for those that believe the Moon is rotating, but they seem to be able to handle the conflict. Anything to avoid reality, it would appear.
The issue involves orbital motions, which none of the “Rotators” seem to understand. The racehorse provides a perfect model of “orbiting”. That’s why there is such an effort to dismiss it. The horse runs a somewhat elliptical track. The horse must apply the force necessary to make the turns, replicating the resultant forces on the Moon. And, it is clear the horse is NOT rotating on its own axis. It is turning in orbit. Most people cannot understand the different motions involved.
Several of the “Rotators” have actually stated the racehorse is, indeed, rotating on its own axis! A good question for them would be “What would it look like if the horse were NOT rotating on its own axis?”
Of course, they won’t answer such a question.
And, I have to agree with your closing thoughts: “One of the major characteristics of a troll is to never admit they are mistaken. This would require emotional maturity and accordingly they tend to double down rather than take the sensible decision to fold.”
“What would it look like if the horse were NOT rotating on its own axis?”
Already been answered JD, in that case the horse would run down the backstretch tail first. But as you write, that isn’t what happens as “(the horse) is turning” on its own axis in the turns as it orbits the center of the track.
Fluffball describes an impossible action, attempting to pervert reality. (Horses don’t run backwards.)
Nothing new.
Horses don’t run backwards down the backstretch is correct, as jockeys turn their horses 1/4 turn on their own axis in each of 4 turns for one complete 360 rotation on their own axis just like the moon rotates once on its axis per orbit.
Proven by JD’s experiment on an orange. Like Earth’s GHE was proven with JD’s experiment with JD’s IR thermometer. JD just needs to do more experiments to learn some physics.
fluffball has admitted he is changing the definition of orbiting. Avoiding reality, he claims Figure 2 is the “correct” definiton of orbiting.
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349342
If there was lunar axis rotating upon it, it would be at the Earth/Moon barycenter and the tilt of axis would be the same as the lunar inclination to Earth of 5.145 degrees.
But the lunar axis is 1.5 degrees to the plane of the sun.
Or both the Moon and Earth orbit the sun, and the Moon has tilt in regards to the sun, and largely because it has this tilt, the Moon has an axis. And the Moon has seasons as the Earth has seasons. But obviously with such small tilt, the season are rather insignificant AND the polar region or “arctic circle” is very small on the Moon.
And since it has a small arctic circle, it’s a feature that make the Moon a good place to harvest solar energy [if going to be on planet/moon] as compared to “open space” or GEO.
Again I have to apologize.
JD in your previous incarnation you fled the scene, incapable of answering the A,B or C question even after numerous multiple prompts. Even your erstwhile colleague JHalpless ( perhaps a sock puppet) found the nearest exit with alarming alacrity.
To refresh your memory here are some links to the year old discussions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289694
and
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-289572
You now have had over a year to ponder it.
Well is it A,B or C that most closely represents your depiction of the moons rotational state?
To make life simple, you don’t have to provide justification for your choice at this stage.
–And since it has a small arctic circle, it’s a feature that make the Moon a good place to harvest solar energy [if going to be on planet/moon] as compared to “open space” or GEO.–
This might be unclear.
Lunar polar regions are good places to harvest solar energy, it’s massively better than anywhere on the Earth surface. It’s a lot better than Earth low orbit. It is better than Mars surface or Mars high orbit.
It’s not as good as Earth high orbit {GEO or higher].
But lunar poles has material which can processed by using solar energy and/or electrical energy. And in near term [decades into future], it makes lunar poles a better location than high earth orbit.
The lunar surface is also a good place to store radioactive waste or any kind of waste.
Though adding gases to make an atmosphere [or increase it’s tiny atmosphere] is [regardless of type of gas] is unwanted or is pollution. Because the vacuum of the Moon is a valuable resource that you don’t to pollute or change.
Of course Mercury also has zero or low tilt [“Inclination of equator (deg): 0.034”] and Mercury’s poles are massive resource in terms of harvesting solar energy and has available resource like the moon does. Mercury will be quite useful once we become spacefaring. But the Moon is useful because it might make us a spacefaring civilization. It depends on whether the Moon has mineable water- which require exploration to determine if mineable now, or in near term future.
And mineable roughly means if you sell lunar water at quantity of 1000 tons per year, at $500 per lb or about 1/2 million dollars per ton.
The Moon might have millions [or billions] of tons of mineable lunar water.
But the simple math of 1/2 million dollars times 1 million tonnes = 500 billion dollars. Is not correct, there is not 500 trillion dollar of water [or more] of water on the Moon.
Because price of lunar water will lower due to competition and lowering the cost to mine lunar water.
Or the 1/2 million per ton applies to about the first 10,000 tons of lunar water sold. And one could find 10,000 tons of water within an area of football field or it could be square km or more.
And in terms of exploration, what needed to be known is where is best or better place to mine the first 10,000 tons of lunar water as this is about the amount one can mine in first 10 years, and business in mostly interested in near term profits- being able to guess the future in next 10 years [and bottom line in less than 5 years]
Or business in interested in the short term- million or billion of tons on the Moon is not important or relevant, it’s amount one mine and sell within 10 years.
“If there was lunar axis rotating upon it, it would be at the Earth/Moon barycenter and the tilt of axis would be the same as the lunar inclination to Earth of 5.145 degrees.
But the lunar axis is 1.5 degrees to the plane of the sun.
Or both the Moon and Earth orbit the sun, and the Moon has tilt in regards to the sun, and largely because it has this tilt, the Moon has an axis. And the Moon has seasons as the Earth has seasons.”
Agreed. Are you arguing for the Moon rotating on its center of mass?
“The lunar surface is also a good place to store radioactive waste or any kind of waste.”
I take it you never watched SPACE 1999
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999
Craig T, please stop trolling.
JDMakingUpStuff
Did you read the material linked to in my first comment above? Do you understand it?
From your reply I gather, to the first question, the answer is possibly while for the second question the answer is clearly no.
For the gif I linked to above , do you still insist, after a year or more has passed, that the bottom non rotating dumbbell labelled C best represents the non rotating moon?
MikeR, in “C”, the object is orbiting CW, but rotating on its own axis CCW, in sync with the orbital period.
And one of your links is very interesting:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/tidfrict.html
The link has at least two egregious errors. See if you can find them. Others such as fluffball, CraigT, and bobdroege are welcome to try also. I bet none of you can find the mistakes in orbital physics.
(I’ll tell later, if you can’t find them.)
Ok good to see you now have an answer.i am very pleased.
So in the case of C you think that you can see only one side of the dumbbell!!! You are in urgent need of a qualified ophthalmologist or some other medical professional.
Choose again.
Pursuant to the above, I haven’t even referred to your amazing claim that in the bottom left of C the dumbbell is rotating clockwise!!!! Maybe I was just being kind for once.
MikeR, JD has shown the proper orbital mechanics so readers just need to compare any orbiting object to JD’s:
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
Fig. 1 is for an orbiting object rotating on its own axis once per orbit (CERES, moon, racehorse, toy train, once spinning orange) and Fig. 2 is for an orbiting object NOT rotating on its own axis at all (Kepler staring at same point, non spinning orange, horse running down the backstretch tail first).
Here is one error:
“The planet Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun so that the same scorchingly hot side always faces the Sun and the other side is perpetually cold.”
I didn’t notice any others.
Gblaikie, every moon in the solar system of a significant size with I think only one or two exceptions is tidally locked.
Very good, gbaikie!
The clowns were unable to find any problems with their pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
ball3…”Fig. 1 is for an orbiting object rotating on its own axis once per orbit”
Negative. Those arrows are vectors representing the linear motion of the orbiting body. The orbital path is a resultant between those vectors and gravitational force. You’ll note they are perpendicular to a radial line for the centre of the body being orbited along which gravity operates.
In order for the orbiting body to rotate about its axis, those arrows would have be rotating about that axis. Let’s see you make one of those arrows rotate about its axis while keeping the same face of the orbiting body facing the centre of the orbited body.
“In order for the orbiting body to rotate about its axis, those arrows would have (to) be rotating about that axis.”
They are rotating about that axis Gordon. That should be easy to understand, give it some more work.
Wrong again, fluffball.
The arrows are NOT rotating on their axes. They are turning in orbit.
That should be easy to understand, give it some more work.
As JD prefers, the arrows of JD’s Fig. 1 are turning each on their own axis.
ball3…”They are rotating about that axis Gordon. That should be easy to understand, give it some more work.”
No they’re not. Each atom in the body represented by the arrows is moving parallel to the arrow. Otherwise, the same face could not always point to the Earth’s centre.
You need to get past your illusion. You are seeing what you want to see, not what is happening.
The axis of the Moon is moving parallel with a tangent line (the arrow) at the same time as a point on the Moon’s circumference, on a radial line from the Moon’s axis to the Earth’s centre.
Do that coin test I described. Place the coins (same sized coins) side by side and draw a line from the centre of each coin so it passes through 3 o’clock on the LH coin and 9 o’clock on the RH coin. Now draw an arrow at 9 o’clock on the RH coin facing 3 o’clock on the LH coin.
As you move the RH coin around the LH coin, the arrow must always point to the centre of the LH coin to represent the same side of the Moon always facing the Earth. In order for that to happen, the axis of the RH coin and the point at the tip of the arrow must move in concentric (parallel lines).
Every point along that line from the axis of the RH coin to the tip of the arrow MUST move in parallel, concentric lines. Under those conditions it is not possible for the tip of the arrow on the RH coin to rotate about it’s axis.
Yes…that arrow you drew on the LH coin will turn through 360 degrees but the AXIS IS TURNING WITH IT.
This is curvilinear motion, where each point on the Moon travels in parallel lines around the centre of the Earth. There is no rotation of the Moon about its axis during such motion.
It seems even some of NASA’s crowd has been duped by the same illusion. Tesla saw through it, then again, there are not too many Tesla’s at NASA, especially not in their climate division. More like Pee Wee Herman or Larry from The 3 Stooges. Nyuck, nyuck.
As I move the RH coin around the LH coin, I observe the RH coin MUST be made to rotate with my hand to always point to the center of the LH coin. If I don’t rotate the RH coin, it won’t point at the center any longer.
There is also rotation of the Moon about its axis in its orbit, which you can prove by observing the terminator shadow move across the craters in your backyard telescope at night, full moon. Tesla was wrong, Newton was right: “System of the World” book page 59: “In like manner is the Moon revolved about its axe by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars.”
You can also prove moon’s rotation by doing JD’s orange, string, thumbtack experiment. If you don’t rotate the orange with your hand, the string will wrap up the orange. Also, JD’s 7Hw cartoon shows the moon rotates on its own axis Fig. 1, and Kepler does not rotate on its own axis Fig. 2.
Your invoking curvilinear motion is a red herring.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Maybe Dr Spencer will give people a free shot to post their views of rotation and orbits. It could be enlightening. Or just take the discussion elsewhere and have at it.
Mike R…”It is the one where the period of the moon’s rotation on its axis matches the period of revolution of moon around the earth”.
I have already proved conclusively that it is an illusion that the Moon can turn once through 360 degrees as it orbits the Earth.
You can prove it for yourself.
Take two coins or two washers, whatever. Place them side by side and mark them where they touch at 3 and 9 o’clock. Now move the right hand coin around the circumference of the left hand coin while keeping the mark of the RH coin always on the surface of the LH coin and pointed toward the centre of the LH coin..
It is not possible for the RH coin to turns 360 degrees about its centre while it is still touching the circumference of the LH coin and pointing to its centre. In order for you to move it right around the LH coin while keeping the mark pointing to the centre of the LH coin you must SLIDE it, with no rotation.
There’s a name for such motion, it’s called curvilinear translation.
Here is absolute proof.
Imagine a radial line through the RH coin from it’s centre and extending through to the centre of the LH coin. Now imagine a portion of that radial line from the centre of the RH coin to the circumference of the LH coin where they meet at 3 and 9 o’clock.
In order for the RH coin to turn around it’s centre, the RH coin’s radial line MUST break with the LH coin’s radial line and that is not possible if the mark on the RH coin is to remain pointing to the centre of the LH coin.
There’s is another way of looking at this. Consider the RH coin being slide along a straight surface with the same mark always on the surface. That would describe rectilinear translation. Very slowly bend the ends of the surface downward into a shallow curve with the coin still moving as before, being pushed along the surface, left to right.
Continue to slowly bend the surface right around into a circle. The coin will move exactly the same as in the straight surface but its motion will now be curvilinear rather than rectilinear.
The restriction is that the coin must be slide around while keeping the mark on it pointing toward the centre of the circle. That is the same action as the same lunar face being held facing the Earth via tidal forcing.
Mike R…”It is easy to make these mistake using these inappropriate analogies, even for a great mind like Tesla”.
It’s the other way around, it’s easy to fall for the weaknesses of the human mind, such as illusions, rather than working out the truth as did Tesla.
You’re just butt-kissing to authority rather than looking at the problem to see if your mind is fooling you.
Take the definition of angular velocity about an axis and see if you can apply it to the Moon over an orbit. To your mind, it looks as if it is rotating about its axis but the definition of angular velocity belies that illusion.
Same thing with space-time theory. Look for time and you will eventually find it has no existence. Yet there are weenies today presuming it does exist and that it can dilate.
Illusion!!!
Time is defined by humans based on the rotational period of the Earth, and I use the word ‘period’ with no reference to time. That period can be shown to be the distance a dial on a machine moves while the Earth rotates once.
Since the rotational period of the Earth is a constant (or close enough to it), so is time, or any division thereof. It cannot dilate therefore space-time goes out the window.
Newton was right, Einstein was wrong.
Robbo,I see that you respect Newton as much as I do. As the inventor of Newtonian mechanics, I am simply amazed that he didn’t pick up this obvious issue himself along with all the other physicists and astronomers over the centuries between Newton and Tesla.
By the way, JD has expressed a preference for diagram C in the gif I linked to earlier. Are you an A, B or C type personality?
MikeR misrepresents me: “JD has expressed a preference for diagram C in the gif I linked to earlier.”
I expressed no preference. I explained what was happening in C. The object is orbiting CW, but rotating CCW on its axis.
Misrepresenting people just indicates you have nothing of substance, as constantly demonstrated by fluffball and Norman.
Yes I was under the mistaken assumption that C would have been been JD’s choice as the dumbbell in the box at the left under C, clearly shows the dumbbell not rotating.
My mistake was to assume that JD thinks logically. So apologies to all for this erroneous assumption.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
As JDHuff has gone missing in action, maybe you could help him out.
In your considered opinion, is it a A,B or C?
To help you out, here is something to assist,
https://postimg.cc/xk879nYq .
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Yes Robbo, Einstein didn’t pick up this obvious mistake also, despite being a contemporay of Tesla.
Just shows you that he had no understanding of frames of reference, particularly circular ones such as race tracks.
All those Nobel Prizes must have gone to Einstein’s head. You should demand them to be recalled and awarded to yourself. Post copies of all of your comments here to the Nobel committee and I am sure they will get back to you.
“However, if the GPS satellites didnt correct for the time difference due to relativity, then the signals sent to your device from the satellite would read a false time, your device would calculate the distance wrong and wouldnt know where you were.”
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=77
GPS corrections are necessary because of numerous error sources. Any “correction” for relativity would be lost in the mud.
So JD, are you also a subsciber to the cult of Robbo and believe all modern physics is bunkum or is it just classical physics that you have issues with?
“The SV carrier frequency and clock rates — as they would appear to an observer located in the SV — are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a f = -4.5674E-3 Hz”
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/meetings/2010/03/10/AFD-100302-036.pdf
An interesting experiment would be to compare the GPS signal with, and without, corrections for relativity. Would the accuracy improve, degrade, or stay pretty much as is?
My guess would be “stay pretty much as is”, since other errors are much larger.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.546.1078&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Craig…”if the GPS satellites didnt correct for the time difference due to relativity”
They don’t correct for relative motion based on time dilation. Any relative motion errors in a GPS system can be corrected by the relativity in straight Newtonian physics.
A GPS satellite is a mass moving at a velocity under the influence of only one force, gravity. Time has nothing to do with either the mass or the force. When you send a signal to the sat from an Earth station, or the sat sends a signal to the ground station, the signal takes time to complete the distance.
Since the sat is moving relative to the ground station, that relative motion must be taken into account. Furthermore, the sat has it’s own time controlled by an atomic clock while the ground station is on an entirely different time system.
The clocks are synchronized through electronic signals between bodies where one is in motion at a considerable speed. There is absolutely nothing that requires general relativity theory since the velocities are nowhere near the speed of light.
GRT is not required with GPS satellites. There is no known electronic amplifier or device that can deal with time dilation, especially seeing that time dilation is an utter fantasy.
If time could dilate, it would mean the Earth’s speed of rotation would be varying.
craig…”The SV carrier frequency and clock rates as they would appear to an observer located in the SV are offset to compensate for relativistic effects”.
It’s called Doppler shifting. It’s the very same thing as the sound from a train whistle changing as it approaches you.
If a GPS sat is moving away from you and it sends a signal back (modulated carrier), the carrier will be at a constant frequency. However, due to Doppler shifting, the frequency of that wave will appear to be a slightly different frequency due to the motion of the sat.
To synchronize the clock on the sat with the clock on the ground station, it is vital that the carrier frequency be known. All they are doing is correcting for the Doppler effect so the actual synchronizing frequency is known exactly.
They are not adjusting for time dilation, they are adjusting for the actual physical change in the electromagnetic wave. However, if someone was hung up on measuring the difference in wave lengths based on the seconds of a clock, rather than the actual difference in the change of the wavelength in the EM wave, they would claim time is changing rather than the physical entity.
There are two ways to measure an EM wave, actually three. One way is to measure the actual distance between wave peaks, which is the wavelength. Another way is to measure the number of wave peaks per second. Another way is to measure the number of wave peaks in a centimeter, the wavenumber.
What you are actually measuring is the property of a physical entity, electromagnetic energy. The distance between wave fronts has nothing to do with time but the human mind needs time as a measurement tool. Somehow, some scientists have lost that connection and insist that time is changing when the real change is in energy, mass, or force.
What a human observer sees is far different at times than what is actually going on. Some astute scientists have the ability to understand the difference and get past it.
In electronics, there are often reference to current sources. There is no such thing as a current source because current cannot source itself. It requires an electrical potential difference or or an electromotive force associated with magnetic activity.
However, the model of the current source has stuck. Anyone trained in electronics knows it’s a model with no existence but many don’t get that. It’s the same with holes in semiconductors, they don’t exist.
I am sure Einstein knew that time cannot dilate but it seems that model has escaped many scientists who should know better. Then again, Einstein should have known better than to reference accelerations related to bodies rather than the forces and masses responsible for the accelerations.
mike r…”are you also a subsciber to the cult of Robbo and believe all modern physics is bunkum…”
I have actually applied modern physics, even the quantum variety, in the electronics and electrical field for decades. I don’t have any problem with most physics, modern or not.
I have posed a conundrum to back my theory that no one has answered. If the second is derived from the angular velocity of the Earth, and the angular velocity is effectively a constant, how can time dilate?
The scientist who invented the atomic clock, Louis Essen, has claimed that Einstein did not understand scientific measurement. I’d say my claim that the second has to be a constant is proof of that.
“It’s called Doppler shifting. It’s the very same thing as the sound from a train whistle changing as it approaches you.”
“If a GPS sat is moving away from you and it sends a signal back (modulated carrier), the carrier will be at a constant frequency.”
The paper isn’t talking about radio frequency.
GPS radio signals are between 1176 – 1575 MHz. The crystal oscillator in the satellites creates an electronic signal of 10.23 MHz to provide an internal clock. Distances are determined by using this clock signal to time how long it takes for the radio signal to travel from the satellite to the receiver. An error of 1 nanosecond in the transit time calculation translates into an error of 30 cm in distance, so a difference of 39 µs per day adds up quickly.
If you’re going to decide which theories are true you need to get a lot deeper in the weeds. Relativity has withstood every experimental test it has faced.
“The scientist who invented the atomic clock, Louis Essen, has claimed that Einstein did not understand scientific measurement. I’d say my claim that the second has to be a constant is proof of that.”
The irony being atomic clocks have been repeatedly used to show that the second is relative to speed and the strength of gravity. Instead the speed of light is constant.
“What a human observer sees is far different at times than what is actually going on. Some astute scientists have the ability to understand the difference and get past it.”
And to experimentally prove what is actually going on.
Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405
“If time could dilate, it would mean the Earths speed of rotation would be varying.”
“Historically, the second was defined in terms of the rotation of the Earth as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day. In 1956, the International Committee for Weights and Measures, under the authority given it by the Tenth General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1954, defined the second in terms of the period of revolution of the Earth around the Sun for a particular epoch, because by then it had become recognized that the Earth’s rotation was not sufficiently uniform as a standard of time.”
https://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
Mike R…”I promised myself …”
Which one of your multiple personalities is which, the ‘I’ or the ‘myself’? ☺
Yes I ask myself the very same question every day. Glad to see you still have a sense of humour, unlike some of your colleagues.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Here is another lesson on global warming farce , three hours long but you have two weeks until next datapoint release
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ
Ball4. I assume with your comment you had your /sarc switch turned on.
In the meantime I await JD’s response. Will he sink beneath the waves again, with total radio silence? I am waiting with depth charges ready, both rotating and non rotating.
No sarcasm MikeR, JD actually got the orbital mechanics in the 7Hw cartoon right. It might be a first for JD as JD’s other cartoons are plainly bogus. Getting it right might have been a result of JD’s having done the thought experiment with the orange, not sure.
JD’s other experiment proving Earth has a GHE is correct also, JD can get it right when JD does experiments.
B4,
You wrote –
“JD’s other experiment proving Earth has a GHE is correct also, JD can get it right when JD does experiments.”
Which GHE would that be? The one you cannot describe, or the one you cannot describe? Would that be the one that says cooling is actually warming, or the one that says increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
How about the one that claims that night is no cooler than the day, or the one that denies the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years?
Imaginary fantasies all! You are just as delusional as Michael Mann. Do you also claim to have been awarded a Nobel Prize?
Carry on. Conduct more imaginary experiments in your fevered imagination. The imaginary results will no doubt support your imaginary GHE. Good luck!
Cheers.
“Which GHE would that be? The one you cannot describe, or the one you cannot describe?”
The one that JD described, hypothesized, ran the actual instrumented test for, and published the data proving JD’s hypothesis correct. Earth’s GHE is really pretty simple Mike but it is obviously beyond you to understand.
Sometimes when fluffball starts out, he has no idea where he will end up. And, as usual, avoiding reality is no problem for him.
As a follow up to Gbaikie and JDHufff, if he hasn’t vanished again.
The only significant moons in the solar system that are not tidally locked are four of the moons of Pluto. They were thiught to be rotating chaotically but the New Horizons space probe cast doubt on this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto .
No mention of zero rotation.
If you can find any mention anywhere that demonstrates by observation a cele sdtial object that has zero rotation, I and almost everyone who has read any literature about astronomy would be amazed
Similarly every article you read about tidal locking does not say that the objects have zero rotation. They all give a non zero rotational speed.
Again to repeat with feeling this time. The moon is not subject to a force that keeps it orbiting while frozen in rotation.
All those examples you guys gave are where the horse, or car interact with a track and are propelled forward by this interaction. The moon does not orbit by this mechanism. In the absence of tidal forces it could rotate any rate either retrograde or prograde. Zero plus or minus something is a possibility (if you going to make this claim you are going to have to say what these limits are). However in the absence of tidal locking the chance of zero plus or minus zero is infinitesimally small and in the presence of tidal locking then the physics dictates the answer. As Scotty would say – you cannot change the laws of physics.
MikeR, apparently you cannot understand basic facts. gbaikie found one of the mistakes in your link to “Institutionalized Pseudoscience”:
“The planet Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun so that the same scorchingly hot side always faces the Sun and the other side is perpetually cold.”
That quote is clearly WRONG. But, you are still unable to understand it. You are keyed to “tidally locked”. You don’t understand “scorchingly hot” or “perpetually cold”. You have no knowledge of Mercury’s orbit, and you can’t think rationally.
But, like Norman, you can pound endlessly on your keyboard.
JDHuff and Gbaikie, with regard to Mercury I remember from my days as young amateur astronomer that Mercury was thought to be in a 1;1 tidal lock with one side baking hot and the other side close to absolute zero. Well it seems they were wrong. In 1965 ( it shows how old I am and how ancient the books i was reading as a child) it was found that due to the eccentricity of the orbit the tidal lock is actually 3:2 see
https://www.windows2universe.org/mercury/News_and_Discovery/Merc_orbit_reson.html
Notice that mercury, like every planet and every moon is definitely rotating on its axis!!!
“Well it seems they were wrong.”
Yes, they were wrong, and they are still wrong.
You couldn’t find the error, even after I told you there was an error. And when gbaikie found it, you couldn’t understand the error, until I gave you another hint. Now you are “doubling down”.
You may have seen this before:
“One of the major characteristics of a troll is to never admit they are mistaken. This would require emotional maturity and accordingly they tend to double down rather than take the sensible decision to fold.”
Yes the sentence about Mercury was out of date (Pre 1965!) , everything else was about the moon and everything appeared to be correct according to gbaikie. Was there a misplaced comma or some other spelling or punctuation error? Anyway I admit I was mistaken and I am terribly, terribly sorry for this horrendous oversight. My credibility is in tatters. Woe is me.
But this whole thing is just another diversion from the primary question. Does the moon rotate? If it does not rotate, why does it not rotate?
You are the one that linked to the pseudoscience that is obviously wrong. So, if there was any diversion, it was due to your efforts to deny reality. Now, you’re “doubling down” on your own blunder by trying to “innocently” claim a “diversion”.
Yes, your credibility is in tatters. At least we agree on something.
Another one that is irony deficient. You need to take an iron pill before the anemia sets in.
Of course you evade the question. What is preventing the moon to rotate? This is the fundamental question I posed in my first contribution on April 14 at 12:05 am and you have ignored totally with your evasions in your subsequent comments.
So I am throwing down the gauntlet.
What is restricting the moon so that it cannot rotate?
Is it a track that the moon runs in or is there a spoke that joins the moon and earth? If you answer is tidal locking then you have not understood one word of the tidal locking articles that were linked to above.
mike r…”What is restricting the moon so that it cannot rotate?”
That’s already been answered…tidal locking due to the Earth’s gravitational attraction and likely compounded by more tidal locking from the weaker solar magnetic field.
Gordon,
Yes according to every reference I have ever encountered tidal locking is the reason it rotates at its current rate.
It doesn’t mean the moon does not rotate!!!
The rotation rate is locked but not at zero. How many times does this need to be repeated?
If you still do to understand I have a very, very simple quiz that hopefully JD will spend the rest of the day contemplating. The quiz is at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349587 .
Have a go yourself. You may learn something which would be a first time, this side of the millennium.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Hi JD
How’s your eyesight? Maybe you were having a visual disturbance so that you couldn’t see that in C the entire dumbbell was visible from the orbital centre during one orbit.
Take some pain killers and have a lie down. You could be having a migraine.
How’s your ability to think? Maybe you could not understand my direct explanation of C.
Maybe you should spend more time trying to think rather than endlessly pounding on your keyboard.
Huff, How could anyone explain that answer C is a correct depiction.
Put on your glasses and look at the right hand side that shows the dumbbell orbiting (revolving) around the centre. Only B has the dumbbell facing the centre of revolution for the entire orbit.
C is so obviously wrong in this regard it it not even funny.
You must open your closed mind. Read and comprehend my exact words. Don’t try to change my words to fit your false reality
I never used the phrase “correct depiction”. I only explained what C represents. C has NOTHING to do with the Moon’s actual motion.
What about B then?
By the way Huff your Orwellian doublespeak is impressive. When is a depiction not a depiction? That is the question.
It is late here in Oz so I am off to sleep. Looking forward to resuming in the morning.
“B” more closely represents the Moon’s motion. It is orbiting CW (unlike the Moon’s actual CCW motion), but NOT rotating on it axis. The motion is analogous to a racehorse on an oval track.
The dumbbell “appears” to be rotating, but that apparent motion is due to the fact that gravity pulls the Moon. The orbit is due to the resultant force, which causes the Moon to turn, following the orbital path, but NOT rotate on its axis.
Good morning (or good evening) JD.
Your claim that B is not rotating on its axis is bizarre. There is an adjacent diagram at left, inside the box directly below B, that is showing the motion of the dumbbell isolated from the orbit.
What is this dumbbell showing? Is it rotating or non rotating?
Any claim that you cannot isolate the rotation from the orbital motion is circular ( sorry for the pun).
You are really getting tangled up in your own web. Can you extricate yourself?
MikeR, please stop trolling.
JD and Gbaikie,
The list of totally locked moons in the solar sytem can be found here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking .
Just scroll down.
gbaikie correctly identified one of the things wrong in MikeR’s link. MikeR still can’t understand what gbaikie clearly stated. MikeR obviously has issues with both reading comprehension and logical thinking.
Nothing new.
What was the one that gbakie missed? An errant comma?
There is no dark side of the Moon, nor does Mercury have a dark side.
There are crater floor on the Moon and Mercury which are in permanent darkness- millions of years in darkness.
And temperature of these floors of craters of the Moon have been measured to be as cold as about 30 K.
Oh, about 25 K:
“The Moon’s poles are even colder. Diviner even found a place in the floor of the Moon’s Hermite Crater that was detected to be -410 degrees Fahrenheit (-250 C, 25 K), making it the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lithos/LROlitho7temperaturevariation27May2014.pdf
And Trump administration wants to send crew there by 2024.
And perhaps, the first woman to land on the Moon.
Yes Gbaikie,
With respect to the sun, there is no dark hemisphere. No one is debating this.
Maybe you should volunteer for the crew to check for lunar rotation. Take a Foucault Pendulum with you.
“Maybe you should volunteer for the crew to check for lunar rotation. Take a Foucault Pendulum with you.”
I saw the one at griffith observatory a long time ago:
http://www.griffithobservatory.org/exhibits/centralrotunda_foucaultpendulum.html
And:
“The plane in which the pendulum swings is similarly in motion. Because of this, the amount of time that it takes for the pendulum to make one full rotation (with respect to its surroundings) is equal to one sidereal day (23.93 hours) divided by the sine of the latitude of its location. Since sin(0)=0, the plane of a pendulum located at the equator will not appear to move at all.”
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html
And
At the North Polewhere small changes in latitude have big implicationsthe path traced by a pendulum would shift through a full 360 degrees in a mere 24 hours, explains Thompson. At the equator, meanwhile, a pendulums motion would not be seen to distort at all.
Using his sine law, Foucault predicted that the path of his pendulum in Paris would shift 11.25 degrees each hour, or 270 degrees in a day. And it did.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html
So, it someone goes to the lunar poles and hangs a Foucault Pendulum, how long will it take to go 360 degrees?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-does-foucaults-pendulum-prove-earth-rotates-180968024/
Gbaikie,
Just 27.3 days. Take a packed lunch.
The problem with the Foucault Pendulum is that it would indicate both orbital and rotational motion. Since the Moon orbits, the pendulum would indicate as such, if positioned at the poles. But that actually disproves the Moon is rotating on its axis. If the Moon were rotating on its axis, in sync with its orbital motion, then the indication from the pendulum should be null. One action would cancel out the other action. If the pendulum indicated 27.3 days, then that would prove the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Interestingly, if the pendulum were placed exactly on Earth’s equator, it would indicate NO axial rotation. IOW, the pendulum could be misused to “prove” the Earth does not rotate on its axis. We see such misuse of science in many “experiments” by clowns.
JD,
Here is an answer regarding the use of a Foucault pendulum to measure the rotational speed of the moon . It is response to school aged child and is given by an Astronomer from Cornell University. The answer is presented in both Newtonian and relativistic contexts. The latter context I am sure would induce a seizure in Gordon and possibly yourself so cover that part with your hand.
http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=9094
This Astronomer’s answer appears to differ markedly from yours, but hey what would he know?
This guy is paid by Cornell to give his opinion on such astronomical matters. I can hazard a guess as to how much JD gets paid for his physics and astronomical expertise. My first and best guess is somewhere between zero and zilch. As they say you get what you pay for.
JD, Seeing you appear to have some time on your hands, are you going to address this?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349457 .
Is your exit strategy trying to slip away and hoping no one is looking?
MikeR
“A Foucault pendulum should work even better on the moon since there is no atmosphere so no friction to slow the pendulum. As long as the swinging of the pendulum is started perfectly with no extraneous forces introduced it should behave normally, though your measurements will take longer and you may need greater precision since the change will be slower and more subtle.]”
Yes the vacuum should make it work better, plus the weight is 1/6th, or the wire can be 1/6th as strong.
Since it cost a lot to get it to the Moon, one has to make an effort to make the Foucault pendulum as small as is needed.
A question is what is smallest and accurate Foucault pendulum ever made on Earth.
It also possible it could measure other things other than spin- or Moon might best place to use Foucault pendulum.
So maybe stuff like dark matter, Gravitational wave, or whatever.
Or perhaps rather than accurate enough, very accurate could be design goal. Or one could make a precise small “toy” or a precise “instrument”.
Gbaikie,
My suggestion is rather than packing a long wire, it would be much more sensible to take something more compact like a 10 kg dumb bell.
JDHuffman could be then sent on his mission to prove the moon does not rotate. He just needs to attach the dumbell to his appendage and stand still and let it swing in the vacuum. It would only take an earth day or two to get a precise enough measurement.
If the experiment is unfeasible at least the dumb bell could be used as an exercise aid to reduce muscle wasting in space.
p.s. the dumb bell i was thinking of is depicted here
https://postimg.cc/CnKZhXB7 .
I also must apologize that I have reverted back to being mean. The fact that JD brought up this bit of nonsense again demonstrates that he appears to be incapable of learning and reactivated my ridicule gene. It has been dormant for a couple of days,
So, I am looking:
–KentuckyFC writes
“Set a pendulum in motion and you’ll inevitably give it an ellipsoidal motion, which naturally tends to precess. That’s bad news if you want to build a Foucault Pendulum, a bob attached to a long wire swinging in a vertical plane that appears to rotate as the Earth spins beneath it. The natural precession always tends to swamp the rotation due to the Earth’s motion. There is a solution, however: the behavior of the ellipsoidal motion is inversely proportional to the pendulum’s length. So the traditional answer has been to use a very long pendulum (Foucalt’s original in Paris is 67 meters long). Now scientists at Carnegie Mellon University have another solution (abstract). They’ve created a motor that drives a pendulum in a way that always cancels out the precession. That means the effect of Earth’s rotation can be seen on much shorter pendulums such as the 3-meter pendulum on which they’ve tested their motor. That’s just the start though. They say there is no limit to how short the new generation of Foucault Pendulums can be, and even talk about the possibility of tabletop devices.”–
https://news.slashdot.org/story/09/02/13/157221/how-to-build-a-short-foucault-pendulum
It seems to me a pendulum on moon wouldn’t have precession.
Or if there is precession, one could make motor that cancels it out
Gbaikie,
Interestingly stuff but it is much more complicated than I thought. See a very detailed mathematical treatment here
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/pendulumdetails.html .
From this there appear to be no reason why precession would not occur for a pendulum on the moon, unless it was on the lunar equator ( which is defined to be in relation to the axis of rotation of the moon , which according to JD does not exist).
gbaikie…”And temperature of these floors of craters of the Moon have been measured to be as cold as about 30 K”.
Ouch!!! And I’m whining about it being 282K here in April.
According to the alarmists here there must be some CO2 in the Moon’s atmosphere to warm the Moon the 30K above the temperature of space on that side at nearly 0K.
–Gordon Robertson says:
April 16, 2019 at 9:09 PM
gbaikieAnd temperature of these floors of craters of the Moon have been measured to be as cold as about 30 K.
Ouch!!! And Im whining about it being 282K here in April.
According to the alarmists here there must be some CO2 in the Moons atmosphere to warm the Moon the 30K above the temperature of space on that side at nearly 0K.–
Humans in spacesuits in space require some sort of refrigeration unit.
What is cold would be the 30 K surface. So what would be critical is having the proper space boots.
If your feet are warm, you would be warm.
At 1 atm pressure, nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 at 30 K are frozen.
At Mars average atmospheric pressure, CO2 would freeze like it does at Mars poles.
With the Moon’s low or non existent pressure, I wonder if water vapor could exist in the lunar dark craters, but one could also have CO2, CO, methane, hydrogen and other gases- in very trace amounts.
Or Moon atmosphere is less atmosphere than what International Space Station flies thru- which most consider to be a pretty good vacuum.
A important aspect of lunar poles is whether one can make rocket fuel from lunar water at low enough cost.
Ie, find and extract frozen H20, make it gas and/or liquid, split it with electricity, get H2 and O2. And for rocket fuel, make it into Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Even though a crater is cold, it does mean it’s “easy” to make liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen. Or simply pumping it into container, would require a long time before it would liquefy.
As general matter, I think one should use the gases to warm the cold “water ore”. Water ore would be lunar material with say 10% of volume or weight being frozen water. And in vacuum conditions this water ore will evaporate below 0 C. So, one might warm the ore to say +20 C.
But if want 10 tons of water, one needs to warm 100 tons of water ore. And water ore could start with temperature which below 50 K.
So you will have large amount material you process which act as heat sink that cool via conduction the warm compressed gases [mostly O2] in order to get liquid O2 and H2.
Or if you wanted to make Liquid O2, you could compress oxygen gas and run the heated O2 thru a coil thru container of water with bag of ice cubes in it. So compressed gas exits at near 0 C and cools further when it become less compressed.
Or on Earth, 9 kg of water with 50 Kw hour of electricity makes or splits into 1 kg hydrogen gas, and 8 kg of oxygen gas. And to make 1 kg of hydrogen into liquid Hydrogen it require about 15 kw hours of electrical power. But using cold water ore, should enable one to use less than 15 kw hours of electrical power- so, perhaps 2 kw hours or less to make 1 kg of liquid hydrogen.
Enough already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhYKN21olBw
Yes Bob, thanks for your brilliant reminder that this whole debate is a farce from beginning to end. However I have delivered a few parting shots across his bowels. Hopefully the debate will be terminated very soon.
He is not a reasonable man.
But it’s like trying to prove the Pythagorean theorem as many ways as you can, it’s a cause that doesn’t need the protagonist.
bobdroege, MikeR, please stop trolling.
Doctor Empty,
Are you a reasonable man?
Hush, child. Please stop acting out.
Since I can’t make any inroads using the accepted scientific tools of logic and evidence, I will continue to just quote song lyrics.
“Thirty years upon my head to have you call me child”
“Now I cannot share your laughter, ship of fools”
Sorry for your loss, little one. You are dismissed.
Don’t believe in love
Don’t believe in hate
Don’t believe in anything
That you can’t waste
Stupid girl
Stupid girl
bobdroege, grow up and shut up.
I believe in letting the ladies go first
#2
bobdroege, grow up and shut up.
The Japan Meteorological Agency global average surface temperature data for March 2019 have been posted. This past March was the third warmest on record.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/…/t…/products/gwp/temp/mar_wld.html
#ClimateChange #GlobalWarming
Hopefully that hot surface, wherever it is, will share some heat energy with the ENSO region. The struggling El Niño is sure having trouble.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
doc shapiro…”The Japan Meteorological Agency global average surface temperature data for March 2019 have been posted. This past March was the third warmest on record”.
Eh, whazzup doc?
The JMA is obviously the eastern branch of NOAA. Complete and unadulterated bs.
Take a look here and you can see it’s right in the middle of a cooling spell and far from being a record of any kind.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2019_v6.jpg
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Isaac Newton, 1687
Great pickup Craig.
News must travel slowly around this neck of the woods. Must let JDHuff and Gordon know.
Yes Craig, the Moon does APPEAR to be rotating on its axis, RELATIVE to the stars. But it is NOT actually rotating on it axis.
You need to study 1) orbiting motion and 2) rotating on a fixed axis.
Again, the racehorse is an appropriate model of the Moon’s motion.
“the racehorse is an appropriate model of the Moon’s motion.”
They both rotate on their own axis once per orbit as shown in JD’s cartoon 7Hw Fig. 1. If they did not rotate on their own axis like Kepler, Fig. 2 would be appropriate.
“Again, the racehorse is an appropriate model of the Moon’s motion.”
The only way a racehorse can move is head first. A falling object can be oriented in any direction. An object in orbit is falling toward Earth while its momentum carries it perpendicular to the pull of gravity.
Isaac Newton knew that.
JD,
I have to raise the issue again as you departed the scene with much haste see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349457
I have changed the scenario to suit your yearning for trains. So I just require a moment of your time to answer 2 very simple questions. My granddaughter got these both right after 10 seconds.
For the following gif image at
https://i.postimg.cc/G3Z4YHY8/trains3.gif
Firstly just concentrating on the left hand side only i.e. the boxes labelled A,B and C. Which one of the boxes has a train that is not rotating?
The look at the right hand side, which one has a train orbiting so that an observer at the corresponding centre of revolution sees only one side of the train? Is it A B or C?
I can do the same exercise with any object you would like, if you insist such as cars, trains, automobiles, dumb bells etc.. but I don’t think it will make much difference.
JD,
I have called in the heavy artillery on your behalf. Gordon, I hope is working assiduously on the task I set you. If necessary I can post the answers my grand daughter gave after she stops playing with her train set.
Craig realizes: “The only way a racehorse can move is head first.”
Correct Craig. That’s why the racehorse is an appropriate model of the orbiting motion. The horse is ONLY turning in orbit. It is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Same motion as the Moon.
JD, I am glad your back. I thought you may have gone AWOL. I also see you are avoiding responding to my comments directly above regarding trains, your field of expertise.
Have you thought about your answers? If so what are they? If not then why not?
I think there is an obvious conclusion for your lack of response but perhaps you need more time?
JD, I am glad your back. I thought you may have gone AWOL, which is the same exit strategy that your previous incarnation used when faced with the same question posed above.
So is this the reason why you are again avoiding responding to my comments directly above regarding trains, your field of expertise?
In the meantime, have you thought about your answers? If so what are they?
I think there is such an obvious conclusion for your lack of response until now but perhaps you need more time? My 7 year old granddaughter worked it out in 10 seconds so it is difficult to understand why you need extra time.
Apologies for the double post. Strange internet issues at the moment but I guess it reinforces the message.
I am signing off for the night now.
In the next exciting installment we get to find out whether JDHuff has the courage of his convictions and attempts to answer the A,B and C questions. If the form guide is any indication I reckon he is out of here as fast as his little legs can carry him.
JD,
Dumbass, turning and rotating on an axis mean the same thing.
And a racehorse on a oval rack is not a good model for an orbiting satellite because the horse only turns in the turns while a satellite turns with a constant angular velocity throughout its orbit.
Newton was right and you are wrong.
Maybe you should publish a book
call it
Principia Stupidia
The clowns are out today. Nothing but insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. And they abhor the simple racehorse because it destroys the Moon rotation nonsense. Yet they cling to the pseudoscience, fanatically.
Nothing new.
The simple racehorse destroys the Moon rotation only for JD because for JD a turn is NOT rotation. A turn is an orbit only for JD, nothing new just a three ring circus of entertainment from a magician such as JD who needs to learn some physics.
JDHuff,
You really don’t have to always announce your presence here. The other clowns are normally nearby and are sure to popup to assist you.
By the way how are you going with answer to the A,B,C problem regarding the revolving trains? If I change the graphic to racehorses , will that help?
Your reluctance to attempt to answer the question just confirms most people’s unfavourable opinion of your intellectual capabilities.
However you would not want other people to think you are a total idiot?
JD,
Your racehorse is not running around a track, it just appears to run around the track.
And it’s not a racehorse, it just appears to be a racehorse.
Kepler, Cassini, Newton, JDHuffman
Which one doesn’t belong?
Institutionalized stupidity for 200 Alex.
Who is the stupidest troll on the internet?
“Nothing but insults”
Whattsamatter, you can dish it out but you can’t take it?
The clowns are still at it.
The racehorse has them beaten by a mile.
(Hope they continue with their desperation.)
Yeah, I know when I’m licked…
All over
Gross, and weird.
craig…”and hence arises a deflection of the moons face from the earth, sometimes towards the east, and other times towards the west, according to the position of the focus which it respects; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moons orbit, or to the difference betwixt its mean and true motions; and this is the moons libration in longitude: but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the inclination of the moons axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; ”
Isaac is talking about libration, an apparent to and fro motion to the deluded human observer.
Libration in latitude and longitude as observed both require the moon to rotate on its own axis once per orbit.
Newton also said “In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars, viz., in 27d.7h.43′, that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that this diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon which account the same face of the moon always respects the centre about which this mean motion is performed …”
Newton clearly says the Moon is rotating at a rate equal to its orbit.
Next he discusses the longitudinal libration.
“and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference betwixt its mean and true motions; and this is the moons libration in longitude:”
Finally he explains latitudinal libration.
“…but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the inclination of the moons axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.”
Longitudinal libration shows that no force from gravity is turning the Moon to face the Earth or the Earth to face the Sun. The diurnal axis, the axis a planet or moon rotates on, “retains the same position to the fixed stars.” The Moon’s axis does not continually lean inward or outward in relation to the Earth.
Craig, you keep missing the qualifier: “…motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars…”
You came to this argument late. You try to sound like an expert, but you have to be corrected on simple things. Maybe you should try to catch up, before commenting.
Fluffball is wrong, again: “Libration in latitude and longitude as observed both require the moon to rotate on its own axis once per orbit.””
Nothing new.
From Newton: “…with a libration in latitude arising from the inclination of the moons axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth…”
JD. Which axis do you think Newton was referring to?
And you keep ignoring …In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars, viz., in 27d.7h.43′, that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that this diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit…
Here is the preceding paragraph:
Newton used the fixed stars to follow the diurnal rotation of the planets. He used the fixed stars to measure the “diurnal motion” of the Moon, which rotates “in like manner” as the planets “about its axis.” They all “are to be reckoned equable not from their return to” the body they orbit ” but to some fixed star.”
Craig, you missed it again: “…but to some fixed star…”
It’s almost like you’re trying to miss it.
JD, Newton said all the planets’ “…revolutions are to be reckoned equable not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star.” He said the Moon also “…revolved about its axis by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars.”
Unless you are arguing that none of the planets revolve the words “motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars” cannot mean that the Moon doesn’t rotate.
I’m not trying to be rude, but you do know what “diurnal” means don’t you? It means a daily cycle.
“…in 27d.7h.43′, that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that this diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon which account the same face of the moon always respects the centre about which this mean motion is performed,…”
Craig, how many times have you avoided “fixed stars”?
That should tell you something, huh?
And if you believe you are teaching definitions, you should look up “sidereal”. It just might have something to do with “fixed stars”….
“That should tell you something, huh?”
It tells me you’re being vague about why you think Newton didn’t say the Moon rotates.
Yes, Newton used fixed stars to track motion in our solar system. Tracking motion with any other reference is difficult.
“Craig, how many times have you avoided ‘fixed stars’?”
None. I keep stressing Newton’s observations using those fixed stars.
Please explain why you see a problem using fixed stars to track motion. Just saying I’m the one ignoring things makes it look like you’re out of rebuttals but don’t want to admit to it.
Craig requests: “Please explain why you see a problem using fixed stars to track motion.”
Craig, “fixed stars” is a different frame of reference than a “fixed axis”. There are different frames of reference, and that confuses many. You need to go back and learn what has been presented here. “Frame of reference” has been tried before. And it failed miserably.
Do you believe a racehorse is rotating about a vertical axis through its center of mass, running an oval racetrack?
” ‘fixed stars’ is a different frame of reference than a ‘fixed axis’.”
True. It would be impossible to measure rotation on a fixed axis from the same frame of reference. Newton explains why he uses fixed stars as a frame of reference. “… but those revolutions are to be reckoned equable not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star: for as the position of the planets to the sun is unequably varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun to sun are rendered unequable.”
Since Newton used fixed stars to measure the rotation of all the planets, are you questioning if they rotate? If not, your focus on the phrase “fixed stars” is misplaced.
“Do you believe a racehorse is rotating about a vertical axis through its center of mass, running an oval racetrack?”
No. And a boat traveling in an oval under its own power is not rotating around a vertical axis. But if that boat turns off the motor and floats with the current, it no longer stays aligned with the direction of motion. It can point in any direction while its center of mass travels with the current.
Correct Craig, a racehorse is NOT rotating on it axis.
You may have just triggered multiple clowns to attack your logic.
Nothing new.
This is so tedious.
The horse is not rotating with respect to the circular motion along the track. Being a circular path this is a non-inertial frame of reference
However for an inertial frame of reference as defined by the fixed stars. The horse or train is definitely rotating.
Spoiler alert.
See https://i.postimg.cc/G3Z4YHY8/trains3.gif .
At right for A in the above , the train is running around the track (not shown but you can use your imagination) and from the corresponding left box of A is definitely rotating with respect to an inertial Cartesian frame of reference.
I hope JD understands this.
I think he actually does as he has steadfastly refused to comment on this example. I think his major problem is that he might accidentally violate the Trolls Code of Ethics, which is never to admit your wrong or even exhibit any uncertainty.
That’s one.
MikeR, I see you have attacked your keyboard, again. Like several others here, you apparently believe the more you pound on that keyboard the smarter you will become.
It’s not working for you.
Here’s a question:
Why would I want to waste time with someone that has no credibility?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349433
So insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent me as much as you want. As other trolls have learned, it phases me not.
JD, evasion is not going to work.
If you are going to try and exit as fast as possible then maybe you should try and answer the fundamental question I posed here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349457 .
If you can provide some answer to the question you might be able to leave the debate with some dignity
MikeR apparently spent an entire year off from this discussion, only to return and conclusively prove that he doesn’t understand our argument, in a series of increasingly embarrassing and ridiculously pathetic posts. His permanent record of abject, humiliating failure is emblazoned here, for everybody to see, for all of time. A golem built out of human faeces and animated by the word of Satan, arguing with his intellectual, moral, spiritual, physical and genetic superiors about a subject that it simply does not have the capacity to understand, now and forever. Oh well.
(I thought I would go about one fiftieth of the level of insult of the typical MikeR comment).
DREMT,
Please stop trolling.
Exactly.
Thank-you for finally agreeing to stop.
Another simple lesson sails over MikeR’s head.
JD Huff,
I know you rely on your spokespersona DREMT to come to your rescue when you are not coping with debate. He can generate a barrage of comments that provides a smokescreen from which you can slink off unseen.
However DREMT has gone manic and had a major meltdown and you should restrain him before he totally implodes. Despite the enjoyable spectacle of a troll tantrum I worry that he may be in danger of bursting an aneurysm. Perhaps he should have stuck to his specialty of PSTing into the wind.
With regard to his tantrum above he makes an assertion that I am in league with Satan, which I reject. This Satan fellow does not spend much time down under as he has been busy wreaking destruction upon northern hemisphere cathedrals. He may have had a brief sojourn here accompaned by the members of the clergy who are currently in much trouble (I won’t go into much detail as it is holy week).
I am guessing here, but the associates of mine that DREMT may be referring to are my mate Stan and my other old mate Nick Machiavelli, who is referred to colloquially in this part of the world as Maccas. Old Nick has many temples worldwide, adorned with arches, where his many obese disciples pay homage. Maybe you and DREMT should go to a local shrine and get some divine intellectual inspiration. If you gorge yourself you could sustain your prodigous output over many months. Particularly if both of you are immobile, shackled to a computer keyboard.
I also object to the golem label. DREMT has mixed up his Kaballah . Clearly if I was an associate of Satan, I would be a dybbuk.
So getting back to the main point.
DREMT claimed, perhaps accurately, that I may be incapable of understanding your explanation of the lunar rotation issue. This is troubling. All my years in graduate school and post docs were for nought. Why did I waste my time? More importantly, why did my academic and industrial employers waste their money employing me for 35 years?
Accordingly if I am so dumb, could you JD, kindly walk me through your explanation of the train A, B or C problem. I am dubious but I am sure you can convince me the merits of your case. Just try it. I am all ears.
DREMT also seems to be upset that I have insulted him 50 times more often than I have been on the receiving end. How upsetting, but I believe over the last month alone, he has subjected myself and other parties to his gratuitous abuse via …. PST on about 150 occasions. In the interests of parity I think, I should be be able to generate sufficient insult to arrive at the appropriate ratio. It may take time but I am happy to oblige.
Finally JDHuffman I have to reiterate that you should return to centre stage in order to avert another tantrum by DREMT.
You could start by simply answering the A,B or C train question. Show some courage, it’s as easy as ABC.
Thick golem, please stop trolling.
O JD, JD wherefore art thou JD? Thou hast fled with such haste leaving thy village idiot to mindeth the store.
#2
Thick golem, please stop trolling.
A, B or C, that is the question, JD. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fools Or to take arms against a sea of trolls, And by opposing end them?
Is there any particular reason you keep asking a question that JD already answered over a week ago? Is it because you’re a thick golem?
JD before he fled the scene, did have a number of stabs at the dumbbell version, but they were all incoherent. See this one for example.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349391 .
However when confronted with the train version JD went AWOL.
So DREMT, as you are the current spokespersona and have taken acting ownership of the lunar rotation nonsense would you like to have a go at the question yourself. Here it is again.
For the gif image at
https://i.postimg.cc/G3Z4YHY8/trains3.gif
Part 1. Firstly just concentrating on the left hand side only i.e. the boxes labelled A,B and C. Which one of the boxes has a train that is not rotating?
Part 2. The look at the right hand side, which one has a train orbiting so that an observer at the corresponding centre of revolution sees only one side of the train? Is it A B or C?
Give it a go. JDHUff will be eternally grateful if you attempt this.
No, MikeR. The responses were not incoherent. You are simply proving over and over again that you don’t understand our position. If you don’t understand something, how can you attack it?
Your “Part 2” has already been answered, with respect to the dumbbell example, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349432
Given that answer, you already know what the answer will be for your train example. Just to be clear:
Part 1) C.
Part 2) A.
DREMT,
Excellent news! We are in total agreement.
So for Answer A , the train is rotating and is also showing only one side of the train during each revolution (about the centre of revolution).
For C the train is not rotating and both sides of the train are visible during each revolution.
Do I need to spell out the analogy? Perhaps I do. For a non rotating moon, both sides are visible as it revolves around the earth (as in C). Conversely for a moon, that shows only one face as it revolves, must be rotating (as in A). QED.
Let JDHuff know that you now disagree with his non rotating moon thesis. If he is silly enough to try and raise it again then links to the above comment of yours, plus this comment, will be made in response.
Thank goodness the whole bit of nonsense has been finally put to sleep. Good night from down under.
Poor golem, will it ever understand? There are a few commenters that, whilst still disagreeing with our position, have at least got past these first, basic, stumbling blocks. MikeR is still demonstrating a lack of understanding of the “illusion” Tesla referred to in his first paper. He hasn’t even “seen the illusion” for what it is, yet.
I will try to explain, on the understanding that I will only be talking to MikeR, and purely because he is in such dire need of help. This will just be to try to get the basics across to him.
So, there are two separate and independent motions being discussed. “Orbiting” and “axial rotation”. In the diagram below, are two depictions of “orbiting”. This should be understood as meaning “orbital motion without axial rotation”, in either case.
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the motion in Figure 2. This is motion like train C, in MikeR’s gif. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the motion in Figure 1. This is motion like train A, in MikeR’s gif. “Axial rotation” is then defined as being separate, and independent, of this “orbital motion”, for each of the two different perspectives.
For example, from the “Spinner” perspective, if train C equals “orbital motion without axial rotation”, then train A equals “one CCW axial rotation per CCW orbit”.
From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, if train A equals “orbital motion without axial rotation”, then train C equals “one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit”.
I will now wait to see if this is understood. If a claim is made that it is, I will be testing the understanding on other motions from MikeR’s gifs.
DREMT your attempt at obfuscation is amusing.
As we seem to agree regarding the spinner narrative, lets concentrate on the the non spinner narrative.
You say – From the Non-Spinner perspective, if train A equals orbital motion without axial rotation, then train C equals one CW axial rotation per CCW orbit.
If train A equals “orbital motion without axial rotation” your following sentence might make some possible sense to somebody somewhere but clearly A has axial rotation! You yourself answered C as having no rotation, not A!
So after that crap, lets distill it down to its fundamentals.
Is train C non-rotating or is it rotating CW? Likewise is the moon non-rotating or is it rotating in the opposite direction to it’s orbital motion?
Your attempt to have it both ways is particularly amusing.
“You yourself answered C as having no rotation, not A.”
Incorrect, golem. I answered “Part 1. Firstly just concentrating on the left hand side only i.e. the boxes labelled A, B and C. Which one of the boxes has a train that is not rotating?” with C. Inside the box, C is of course not rotating. But, your boxes isolate the motion of the trains from the “orbital motion” as the “Spinners” see it, in each case, (A, B and C). So of course, in the box, C is not rotating. The “Spinners” view C as their version of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, after all.
“If train A equals “orbital motion without axial rotation” your following sentence might make some possible sense to somebody somewhere but clearly A has axial rotation!”
Yes, my following sentence does make sense, golem, even to people on your side of this argument. Again, you are the one that is particularly behind on this. From your perspective, A has axial rotation. You obviously still don’t understand our perspective. Even just a description of it! Let’s try again:
1) Do you understand that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being like Figure 2, or train C, and “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being like Figure 1, or train A?
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
2) This should test your understanding, if you are finally able to take the very first step of following even a description of our position. From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, how many times is train B rotating on its own axis, per orbit, and in which direction?
You need to possess the intellectual capacity to see the motions, in your gifs, from both perspectives, if you are going to be able to understand the moon rotation issue. Might be hard for a golem, but we’ll see.
Ok, your perspective is using the train track as your frame of reference. This, as has been explained on many occasions is a rotating frame which is non inertial.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame .
The explanation using the conventional inertial frame, as in the example of train A, perfectly explains the motion of the rotating moon orbiting around the earth, including angular momentum and orbital and rotational energy of the earth moon system. If you can explain the latter properties using the non inertial frame then please go ahead.
This whole thing with regard to perspectives can be illustrated by a man leaping from a tall building. In the accelerating non inertial frame of reference of the falling man, he feels weightless and gravity does not appear to exist.
In his frame of reference he appears, particularly if he is blindfolded, to have no energy of motion. He realizes very suddenly that the actual energy of motion is not zero when he encounters a non inertial frame of reference i.e. the surface. Do not try this at home.
In summary, your original blanket claim that the moon does not rotate (without specifying that your only reference is with respect to a non inertial frame of reference) is clearly incorrect.
So do you agree that with respect to a Cartesian inertial frame (i.e. fixed stars) that the moon rotates? If so we can leave it that.
Slight correction to the above. The surface that falling man interacts with can be definitely considered to be inertial i.e, the inertia of the falling man just before the moment of impact becomes zero after the impact.
Before we get onto the much-discussed “frames of reference” for the nth time, we first need to make sure you understand our perspective as described. So I ask again the same two questions as at the end of my last comment. If you could answer them, and in particular answer question 2) correctly, I will answer your question about the moon’s motion with respect to the inertial reference frame (“fixed stars”).
Figure 1 is correct in your diagram. Notice that the arrow rotates around its centre of mass. We agree on that presumably. Figure 2 is nonsense.
With respect to the non inertial frame of reference of the track, A as zero rotation, B has rotation clockwise at 1 revolution per orbit and C has 1 rotation counter clockwise.
With respect to an inertial frame of reference , A is rotating once counterclockwise, B is once clockwise and C has zero rotation.
To keep you on point. I will restate my questions.
Does your original blanket claim that the moon does not rotate (without specifying that your reference is with respect to a non inertial frame of reference) still stand or do you need to qualify it?
Do you agree that with respect to a Cartesian inertial frame (i.e. fixed stars) that the moon rotates? If so we can leave it that, otherwise you can indicate why you prefer to use non-inertial frames of reference.
“Figure 1 is correct in your diagram. Notice that the arrow rotates around its centre of mass. We agree on that presumably. Figure 2 is nonsense.”
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
Wow. You really do not get it at all, do you? Figure 1 in JD’s diagram is how the “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That is how the moon moves, and how your train A moves. Figure 2 is not “nonsense”. It is how the “Spinners” view “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It shows motion as per your train C. Can you really not see that, golem?
“With respect to the non inertial frame of reference of the track, A as zero rotation, B has rotation clockwise at 1 revolution per orbit and C has 1 rotation counter clockwise.”
https://postimg.cc/0r0515VP
You have once again embarrassed yourself. From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, train A has zero axial rotation, correct (it is just “orbiting”). The right answer for train B is that it is axially rotating clockwise twice per orbit. Train C has one clockwise axial rotation per orbit, not counter clockwise. You have absolutely no ability to follow our position, even when it’s been clearly described.
The claim is that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
I will get to your question about the inertial reference frame with regard to the moon’s motion, but first I can’t help but wonder what you think is happening with dumbbell A, from the “Non-Spinner” perspective:
https://postimg.cc/CnKZhXB7
Sorry, your answers were so funny for the trains that I wanted to see what you might make of the dumbbells. Plus, I did say I would answer your question if you answered my question 2) correctly, which you didn’t.
DREMT,
Yes, you are totally correct and I am totally incorrect about B and C. For this I humbly apologize. I should have been more careful. I have spent too many years thinking inertially and I will spend the remainder of the day wearing ash and sackcloth.
With respect to your new diversionary puzzle. For A in the dumb bell example, I believe it is rotating once clockwise with respect to the track. Correct me again if I am wrong,
As for being wrong, I can take solace in two things.
Firstly it is possible, as long as you are not a troll, to admit you can be wrong .
Secondly whether the train is rotating once or twice with respect to the train tracks is totally immaterial to our dispute because neither is feasible physically. Train A is the only one that is feasible physically and is the one that rotates once per revolution with respect to an inertial frame
After this interlude, and now that I have corrected the record, I will again restate my questions, slightly paraphrased , for the third time.
Does your original blanket claim that the moon does not rotate (without specifying that your reference is only with respect to a non inertial frame of reference) still stand or do you need to qualify it?
Using the example of train A which I think we agree is the only feasible answer, do you agree that ,with respect to an inertial frame (i.e. fixed stars) , that the moon rotates? If so we can leave it that, otherwise you can indicate why you can only think and analyze problems in terms of non-inertial frames of references.
Hopefully you have now run out of diversions and will answer the above. Somehow I doubt it.
DREMT,
To ensure that I do not make a mistake again with regard to non-inertial frames of reference, I have changed the gifs for the train and dumb-bells to show the motion with respect to the non-inertial frame of the track as well as with respect to the conventional inertial frame .
I hope you have no issue with these gifs.
https://i.postimg.cc/tgSHw7Qw/trains5.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/T1nFd3FR/dumbells4.gif
I now await with bated breath your reply to the above questions regarding train A, the moon and your difficulties with inertial frames of reference.
First, you need to be labelling it “Spinner” on the left and “Non-Spinner” on the right, not “inertial” and “non-inertial”. The reason for that will become clear when you get my answer regarding the moon’s motion with respect to the inertial reference frame. Second, C in both cases should be rotating once CW per orbit, not CCW, for the “Non-Spinner” perspective. Thirdly, for the dumbbells, you mistakenly have for B a dumbbell that is rotating twice CW per orbit from both perspectives. The dumbbell should be rotating three times CW per orbit from the “Non-Spinner” perspective. Although, for consistency with the train gif, it might be simpler if you had a dumbbell rotating once CW from the “Spinner” perspective, and twice CW from the “Non-Spinner” perspective.
The only “dumbbells” in this post are the three clowns JD, DREMT (same idiot) and Gordon.
Poor JD/aka DREMT can’t even figure out what an “orbit” is. (Hint: all three objects in MikeR’s gif are orbiting.
And the self-proclaimded engineer Gordon still can’t figure out what curvilinear translation entails! He gets it wrong every time. (Hint: object #3 in MikeR’s gif is exhibiting curvilinear translation.)
Why do these clowns continually make fools of themselves by displaying their complete and utter ignorance of the principles of kinematics?
DREMT,
Thanks for your help in getting these gifs correct. These are the corrected versions.
https://postimg.cc/dLWznDrm
and
https://postimg.cc/KRgzyXfT
I appreciate that you have been relatively restrained in your use of PSTs with just an occasional slip up. This attitude leads to less rancour and more cooperation.
However I am not sure what the point of this exercise with respect to examples B and C. These examples are physically unfeasible and/or do not show the same side of the object at it revolves around the centre. The only conceivable points of this exercise are the following,
1. Demonstrate that I should have followed my childhood dream to be a train driver
2. And more importantly a diversionary tactic so that you can delay your answer to my question regarding train A . I gather your tactic is to delay and delay until this discussion is automatically terminated at the end of the month.
So lets get to the point , your claim that the moon does not rotate (and likewise for your analogy of the train ) is extraordinary considering the vast numbers of professional astronomers and physicists, who think the claim is ridiculous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and usually a claim to demonstrate that the conventional description of the moons motion is incorrect before introducing your own theory.
So lets start. What is wrong with train A or dumbbell A as analogies for the moon. The example satisfies all conditions including yours.
1. It is not rotating according the non -inertial frame of reference.
2. It is displaying only one side of the train (or moon) as seen from the centre of revolution
3. It rotates one per revolution according to the inertial frame of reference.
If any of these criteria are not met then I am happy to discuss further , otherwise the whole debate needs to be put to put to sleep permanently. So really it is time for you (or JDHuff) to answer my questions regarding Example A and any further attempt to divert will be just b.s..
MikeR, you’ve gotten a lot wrong so far. I wasn’t going to move on until you had at least demonstrated some ability to understand a description of our position. Which, firstly, involves being able to see all the orbiting objects in your various gifs from our perspective as well as your own. Then, secondly, being able to understand how our differing perspectives actually just boil down to how we each see “orbital motion without axial rotation”. A in our case, C in yours. That’s why this is not just all about object A. You’ve struggled enormously with the first part, you don’t seem to get the second part, at all.
Your new gifs are much better, but you still don’t have it quite right. You now have, for B with the dumbbells, a dumbbell rotating once CW from the “Spinner” perspective, but in your “Non-Spinner” box you have it rotating three times CW, instead of twice! You also need to ditch the inertial” and “non-inertial” labels.
Earlier, you made a huge spectacle of yourself, claiming people were “fleeing the scene”, “providing a smokescreen” and “throwing a tantrum” etc, when of course it was you with the essay-length tantrums, and nobody was “running” from anything, and the supposed “smokescreen” was in reality just a few requests that some trolls stop doing what they so relentlessly do.
You were not only asking questions of JD that he had already answered, but you were trying to bait and goad with them, as well. You were doing this over and over and over again. Now, you are trying to pretend I am deliberately delaying this discussion, rather than just trying to help you get things straight before we move on.
You haven’t got things straight, but I guess I will have to answer your earlier question anyway, otherwise there will be more false accusations:
From the inertial reference frame, the moon is “orbiting”. For a simple depiction of this motion, I refer you again to JD’s diagram, Figure 1. Same motion as in your new train and dumbbell gifs, for A.
https://postimg.cc/948mB7Hw
There are a lot of different ways I could describe and explain this motion to you. To save me some bother, you could scroll up a bit and read through the discussion with barry et al about “Newton’s Cannonball” if you like. Suffice to say, this is “orbital motion”, without “axial rotation”, or spin, as I explained to them upthread.
So from the non-inertial reference frame, the moon is not rotating on its own axis. From the inertial reference frame, the moon is also not rotating on its own axis. Hence, “reference frames” are just one big old red herring. They do not settle this discussion. In fact, whenever somebody brings them up, they are a good indication that the person does not understand the moon rotation issue.
Poor DREMT.
So clueless. First of all, there is the 3 clown’s position, and then there is the rest of the scientific and engineering world’s position.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” conforms to the strict kinematic definition of curvilinear translation, which is represented by case “C” in MikeR’s gif.
Translation Definition:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
Draw a horizontal line through the center of the train, That line does not rotate at all, and remains parallel to it’s original position, indicating translational movement.
More specific definition of curvilinear translation:
“All points move on congruent curves. In each of the two cases of translation, the motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body, since all the points have the same motion”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
The above can easily be shown by simple experiment or geometric proof.
Do the three Dumbbells comprehend the above basic kinematic principles? No. It is way beyond their sub-par mental faculties.
So in his post above, DREMT spewed 8 paragraphs of unmitigated bs. The only time he’s seen the inside of a physic class is when he mops the floors in the evenings. In his delusional mind, he envisions himself as the Will Hunting genius janitor character in the movie Good Will Hunting. Only he is Will Hunting in reverse. Can’t even solve the equation 1+1=? on the blackboard.
DREMT,
Thank-you again for pointing out another mistake. I can feel my telomeres shortening after each of our exchanges. Accordingly I am getting very careless in my old age. I forgot to change the non inertial rotation from +2 to +1 for dumb bell B going to my latest version. Silly me!
But again B and C are irrelevant as we agree that A is the correct depiction.
Anyway I should have checked using the following relationship for conversion between the two frames of references.
With respect to rotation the way to go from the one frame to the other is to subtract the orbital rotation i.e.
Inertial rotation – orbital rotation = Non inertial rotation
If we use the convention + sign for clockwise and – sign for counter-clockwise then there are 4 distinct cases for the train and dumbbell gif.
Using this relationship we get the following,
for A (Train and dumb-bell)
-1 – (-1) =0
For B (train example)
+1 – (-1) = +2
B (dumb-bell example )
+2 – (-1) = +3
for C (Train and dumb-bell)
0 – (-1) = +1
the corrected version of the dumbbell is here.
https://postimg.cc/Wt36M1Nv
DREMT,
Finally Hallelujah, you have answered my question regarding train A with your bizarre comment above.
This is remarkable (not in a good way) and needs to be exposed for what it is.
To quote –
‘Same motion as in your new train and dumbbell gifs, for A. ‘
‘So from the non-inertial reference frame, the moon is not rotating on its own axis. From the inertial reference frame, the moon is also not rotating on its own axis. Hence, reference frames are just one big old red herring. They do not settle this discussion. In fact, whenever somebody brings them up, they are a good indication that the person does not understand the moon rotation issue.’.
There seem to be only way to interpret this comment and that is that
1.
you claim to be one of the chosen few who understands the moon rotation question and
2. You assert that train A is not rotating in either frame of reference.
To avoid confusion I post the gif of train A alone.
https://i.postimg.cc/KYRX7jnv/singletrain.gif
DREMT, If you think the train in the left box is not rotating then you need to go to an eye specialist and have your eyes checked immediately, preferably not the one that JDHuff used.
Otherwise you may have reached peak stupidity. I say may, because you and your alter ego, have pushed the boundary of lunacy so many times, anything is possible.
Alternatively a less generous explanation is that your comments reflect the mental state of a troll. It is evident that you follow the Troll Code of Conduct which is to never admit you are mistaken or even admit even a scintilla of doubt.
Personally I don’t think you are that stupid, but if you continue with this nonsense I may need to re-evaluate my opinion.
Finally to summarise the whole debacle that has lasted over a year, you and your two other incarnations (RIP Gasterisk) have made a claim that is contrary to the understanding of every current astronomer and physicist and all the credible information currently found on the internet.
Even a genius like Nikola Tesla found that his similar claims of 100 years ago were similarly ignored. Fortunately for his reputation he was smart enough to move on to other areas which were more in line with his expertise.
So for a non-genius like yourself it was always going to be a huge ask and it wasn’t the smartest idea to even try.
Accordingly if you are stupid enough to try it on again, I will just post the single train gif in response. Hopefully this is the end of this nonsense. What an effn waste of time.
The train, on the left, is rotating inside the box, yes.
The “initial reference frame” is not, however, something that follows an object around, floating above it, so that you judge the overall motion of a moving object as though it were stationary. The moon is not stationary. The train is not stationary. It is moving in orbit.
Look at the train gif, not just what is inside the box, and consider this quote from Tesla. Let me know if you still need any help, afterwards:
“The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
DREMT,
You clearly have not successfully completed a college or university introductory physics course with your comments about “initial (sic) reference frame” following and floating above the train. I think you are confusing it with the centre of mass which revolves around the centre of revolution and follows the train (the red dot in the middle of the train or dumb-bell). The train then rotates about an axis through the centre of mass.
As I said this is basic physics. Look up the physics notes on solving the kinematics of a rolling wheel on an inclined plane using momentum or via energy. The standard treatment involves lateral movement of the centre of mass plus rotation around the centre of mass.
An example is here.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/week-12-rotations-and-translation-rolling/37.2-worked-example-wheel-rolling-without-slipping-down-inclined-plane/ .
Also this may be useful.
https://postimg.cc/xkg4zgr9 .
By the way the majority of your last comment just an extract from Tesla’s work? As I said he didn’t generate much else on this subject and it seems to have been dead and buried for many years along with Nikola.
“You clearly have not successfully completed a college or university introductory physics course with your comments about “initial (sic) reference frame” following and floating above the train.”
I should have said “inertial”, auto-correct error. My bad. My point was that the inertial reference frame does NOT follow and float above the train. You seem to think it does, since you apparently believe if the train is rotating in your little box, then it is rotating on its own axis.
I quoted Tesla because that quote should have resolved your confusion. Not sure why it hasn’t. Let’s try again:
From the inertial reference frame, train A is not rotating on its own axis. In your gifs you helpfully have a red line extending from the center of the orbit to the object in question. The train is rotating about that center point, not on its own axis. If the train was rotating about that center point and on its own axis, you would see all sides of the train from the center of the orbit.
DREMT,
Enough already.
1, The centre of mass,by definition, always follows the object.
2. Train A is rotating around its centre of mass which is evident by either by looking at the box that is drawn so it moves with the orbiting train or the box drawn at left.
3. Additionally for this example only one side of the train is seen from the centre of revolution.
Note my careful use of words. Orbiting objects such as moons revolve around their corresponding planets and rotate on their axes.
I must say that with regard to your comments, I was veering towards stupidity but it is becoming clearer that your bloodymindness is just due to your inner troll speaking on your behalf.
For example, if you looked at the two links in my last comment, which you clearly didn’t, then you would realize that each problem is treated, in an inertial frame, as a movement of the centre of mass plus a rotation around the centre of mass. Likewise for our train A depiction.
You also clearly put great store in the work of Nikola Tesla.
In June this year it will be exactly 100 years since Nikola Tesla proposed his lunar theory. This theory has since died without trace with zero support from anyone else. Maybe I am wrong. If so could you provide links to others who have embraced this theory, even if they are members of the Flat Earth Society.
Again I repeat a point from earlier.
Considering the massive information arrayed against you, it might have been sensible to display even a nano-scintilla of doubt about the validity of your theory. You could have then left the debate with some residual dignity.
However, as it stands, you continue to proudly and confidently exhibit no sign of doubt. This is unfortunate as it leaves to the reader of your comments, only a decision as to whether you are a fool, a troll or both.
As it is late here, I am now signing off. Hopefully this will be my last comment regarding this nonsense.
“1, The centre of mass,by definition, always follows the object.
2. Train A is rotating around its centre of mass which is evident by either by looking at the box that is drawn so it moves with the orbiting train or the box drawn at left.
3. Additionally for this example only one side of the train is seen from the centre of revolution.”
No, Train A is rotating about a point in the center of the orbit, not on its own axis. Again, if the train were rotating about a point in the center of the orbit, and on its own axis, we would see all sides of the train from the center of the orbit. As we clearly both agree, we only see one side of the train from the center of the orbit. If you still do not understand, try this:
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
The rectangle is not rotating about its own center of mass, it is rotating about point O.
“This theory has since died without trace with zero support from anyone else. Maybe I am wrong. If so could you provide links to others who have embraced this theory…”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-348036
I already did. Fourth link, back here. You obviously never read any of the links.
Figure 2b of the article you linked to above just shows one rigid body held by a pivot at one end. The centre of mass and the entire rigid body rotates about the pivot point.
Three of the 4 Nikola Tesla articles in your comment that you linked to are just repetitions of the original article by Tesla. The fourth one is a 1993 article by two gentleman from the University of Beograd describing the philosophy of Tesla’s approach. As they say in the introduction of the article Tesla’s paper ‘has fallen into oblivion’. This is where it still remains until this day.
Tesla wrote three different papers on the moon’s lack of axial rotation. I have linked to all three. One of the authors of the fourth linked paper, an astronomer named Aleksandar S. Tomic, appears to agree with Tesla, and also seems to in his 2012 paper. You can look that up for yourself, I’m getting tired of helping you when you can’t even be bothered to read a few papers and try to think for yourself. Do your own work.
DREMT,
Aleksandar S. Tomic seems to be an economist by training and was affiliated with the Faculty of Musics at Belgrade University when he produced a paper regarding the moon’s orbital dynamics
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2027610044_Aleksandar_S_Tomic
it appears he has resolved a paradox (which may be Tesla’s or not) using inertial frames of reference.
In the meantime there appears to be no-one who has staked their career based upon Tesla’s lunar work, at least no-one of note.
By the way Nikola Tesla claimed to have invented a “death beam” which he called teleforce in the 1930s and continued the claims up until his death in 1943. It just confirms that Tesla was a bit of an eccentric genius.
So in reality it seems it is just yourself and one or two others in the comments section who are gullible enough to make this claim. Even those who may be on the same ideological divide with regard to climate change, such as Bart and SkepticGoneWild, have vigorously opposed your lunatic views.
There should be a message in that.
So, when I leave you to do your own work, you mess it up. No, Tomic is definitely a physicist and astronomer:
http://acaatomic.angelfire.com/ALEKSANDAR__TOMIC_-_CV-_06.pdf
Plus, what’s that on the bottom of page 141/top of 142?
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-5584/2013/1450-55841301135T.pdf
Still here. Nothing new is happening ,nothing new to say. Until that changes I will remain quiet.
Yet, despite no one asking, you felt the need to tell everyone you will be quiet.
Tell me Salvatore, in terms of sunspot numbers, how is this solar minimum faring in comparison to the last one 11 years ago?
And where are those subzero monthly averages that you said would DEFINITELY begin by August 2018?
something while waiting for new data point – Four new videos from Rolf Witzsche
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m9PUDLF4Zo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOKo0RshrQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVPnNbm8NS8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhFyExz0cA0
Hi Eben,
I have looked in Google Scholar for any publication anywhere by this fellow and found nothing. I did come across this however,
https://www.booktopia.com.au/the-flat-earth-society-rolf-a-f-witzsche/prod9781523696307.html
and his web page
http://www.rolf-witzsche.com/
is “very interesting”. Clearly a great authority on these matters. Looks like fascinating stuff.
Hahaha – these people trust these idiots without even checking into their credentials. Denial really is a religion.
The conventional dataset metrics are starting to trickle in. GISTEMP jumped +0.20 from Feb to Mar. There are similar results for reanalysis as well. CFSR jumped +0.23 over the same period. As a reminder UAH TLT measures much higher up so it is not expected that UAH will match the 2m T trends though there is a correlation.
Have you noticed the #1 climate expert AOC has the world view and acts like a 10 year old ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaH_B5vTQPA