Home/Blog
Do the global warming wars ever change anyone’s mind?
I suppose there are a few people whose minds have been changed. As I recall, Judith Curry has said Climategate (now “celebrating” its 10 year anniversary) was her wake-up call that institutionalized climate science might not be all it claims to be. She is now a well-informed and unabashed skeptic of the modern tendency to blame every bad weather event on humans.
While I’m sure there are other examples, the unfortunate truth is that fewer and fewer people actually care about the truth.
The journalist who broke the Climategate story, James Delingpole, yesterday posted an article entitled The Bastards Have Got Away with It!, James concludes with,
“Climategate was the event when, just for a moment, it seemed we’d got the climate scamsters bang to rights, that the world’s biggest scientific (and economic) con trick had been exposed and that the Climate Industrial Complex would be dismantled before it could do any more damage to our freedom and our prosperity. But the truth, it would seem, is no match for big money, dirty politics and madness-of-crowds groupthink. We’ve lost this one, I think, my friends. And the fact that all those involved in this scam will one day burn in Hell is something, I’m afraid, which gives me all too little consolation.”
You see, it does not really matter whether a few bad actors (even if they are leaders of the climate movement) conspired to hide data and methods, and strong-arm scientific journal editors into not publishing papers that might stand in the way of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mission to pin climate change on humans, inflate its seriousness, and lay the groundwork for worldwide governmental efforts to reduce humanity’s access to affordable energy.
The folks were simply trying to Save the Earth™, and we all know that the ends justifies the means, right? So what if they cheated? Boys will be boys, you know. The science is sound, and besides, 97% of all scientists agree that… something.
The Roots of Polarization
One would think that the practice of science would be objective. I once believed this, too. As a fresh post-doc at the University of Wisconsin, when I discovered something new in satellite data, I was surprised to encounter NASA employees who tried to keep my work from being published because they feared it would interfere with a new satellite mission they were working toward. I eventually got it published as a cover article in the prestigious journal, Nature.
But the subject I was dealing with did not have the profound financial, political, policy, and even religious import that climate change would end up having. Furthermore, 35 years ago things were different than today. People were less tribal. There is an old saying that one should not discuss politics or religion in polite company, but it turns out that social media is far from polite company.
From a practical standpoint, what we do (or don’t do) about human-caused climate change supports either (1) a statist, top-down governmental control over human affairs that involves a more socialist political framework, or (2) an unconstrained individual-freedom framework where capitalism reigns supreme. So, one could easily be a believer (or non-believer) in the ‘climate emergency’ based upon their political leanings. While I know a few socialists who are skeptical of human-caused climate change being a serious issue, this is the exception rather than the rule. The same is true of capitalists who think that we must transition away from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy (unless they stand to make money off the transition through subsidies, in which case they are financially rather than ideologically driven).
Or, on a spiritual level, a human who desires to worship something must ultimately choose between the Creation or the Creator. There is no third option. I find that most Earth scientists are nature worshipers (showing various levels of fervor) and consider the Earth to be fragile. In contrast, those who believe the Earth was created for the purpose of serving humanity tend to view nature as being resilient and less sensitive to lasting damage. Both of these views have equally religious underpinnings since “fragile” and “resilient” are emotive and qualitative, rather than scientific, terms.
So, I would argue it really does not matter that much to most alarmists or skeptics what the evidence shows. As long as 8 billion people on the planet have some, non-zero effect on climate — no matter how small or unmeasurable — the alarmist can still claim that ‘we shouldn’t be interfering with the climate system’. As a counter example, the skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg actually believes the alarmist science from the IPCC, but claims that economics tells us it’s better to live in and adapt to a warmer world until we have more cost-effective substitutes for fossil fuels. For this stance regarding policy, he is labeled a global warming denier despite fully believing in human-caused climate change.
The Role of the Disinformation Superhighway
Baylor Professor Alan Jacobs has an interesting essay entitled On Lost Causes regarding the tendency for people to believe anything they see on the internet if it supports their biases.
He mentions a recent novel in which a high-tech billionaire, fed up with the disinformation he sees on the Web, concocts an elaborate online story that Moab, Utah has been obliterated by a nuclear explosion. He has CGI video, actors, witnesses, and an elaborate (but fake) social media presence to support the story.
The plan is to then show the world how easily they were duped, so that people would become less credulous when digesting information.
But instead, people cling to their belief. Even after many years, the ‘Moab truthers’ claim that anyone who disputes that Moab was destroyed are trolls or paid shills. People could actually travel to Moab to see for themselves, but virtually no one does.
In the climate wars, I see this behavior from both skeptics and alarmists. The alarmists point to increasing storms, heat waves, wildfires, etc. as evidence that humans are making weather worse. When they are shown evidence from a century of more of data that, no, things are not getting worse, these ‘storm truthers’ still bitterly cling to their beliefs while calling us skeptics “deniers”.
On the flip side, I routinely engage skeptics who claim that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and that it is physically impossible for the cold atmosphere to make the surface warmer by increasing its CO2 content, anyway. No matter how many different ways I try to show how they are wrong, they never change their stance.
As a result, despite being a skeptic on the subject of humans having a serious effect on global climate, I’ve had to block more fellow skeptics from commenting on my blog than I have blocked alarmists. So, I get attacked from people on both sides of the issue.
I partly blame the public education system for the current state of affairs. Students are increasingly taught what to think, rather than how to think. Also to blame is the (probably unavoidable) funding of science by government, which President Eisenhower warned would cause science to become corrupted by a handful of powerful elites who did not have the advancement of scientific knowledge as the central goal.
When politicians have control over the purse strings, is it any wonder that politicians would preferentially fund the science which benefits certain policy outcomes, usually involving more government control over the lives of citizens? There have been innumerable funding programs to explore the human influence on climate (spoiler alert: every change we see is human-caused), yet almost no money goes to understanding natural sources of climate change.
Both Delingpole (describing the failure of Climategate to change attitudes) and Jacobs (describing the tendency of people to believe anything that supports their tribal beliefs) end their articles on a sour note. I have already quoted Delingpole’s conclusion, above. Here’s how Jacobs end his essay:
“..if at this stage of the game, given what we know about how social media work and about the incentives of the people who make TV, you’re still getting your dopamine rush by recycling TV-news clips and shouting at people on the Internet, you’re about as close to beyond hope as a human being gets. There is no point talking to you, trying to reason with you, giving you facts and the sources of those facts. You have made yourself invulnerable to reason and evidence. You’re a Moab truther in the making. So, though I do not in theory write anyone off, in practice I do. It’s time to give you up as a lost cause and start figuring out how to prevent the next generation from becoming like you.”
Delingpole and Jacobs come to sobering — even depressing — conclusions. Unfortunately, like these two authors I do not have much reason to be hopeful that things will get better anytime soon.
Good evening Dr Spencer,
greetings from Germany. I follow your insightful posts for some time now, but have never seen you so hopeless. I think we must not give up on educating people and at least trying to change their minds.
I wish we had someone here who could help us!
Thanks, Mike
True climate extremism is writing a generally pessimistic article about climate extremism, like this one, and failing to tell us when the world is going to end!
I need to know, so I can spend all my money, and run up my credit card bills to the maximum, the day before it is all over.
And concerning the Green New Deal, since my surname is Greene, I have developed an ever better “Greene New Deal”.
It starts, and ends, with deporting the U.S. climate alarmists to Europe, so the rest of us can enjoy the climate without their hysterical bellowing about an imaginary existential threat!
Some claim the world is slightly warmer than in 1940.
So what?
I see that as good news.
Here in Michigan, where I live, we haven’t noticed any warming, but would like some — a lot, if possible — the almost 12 months since mid-December 2018 have been our coldest 12 month period since I moved to Michigan in 1977.
Why should people fear a slightly warmer planet, affecting the high, cold, latitudes much more than elsewhere?
And mainly at night.
And mainly during the coldest six months of the year.
I’ll tell you why.
Here in Michigan, an unusually hot summer day in 2020 would be 95.0 degrees F.
I can tolerate 95.0 degrees F.
In 2030, thanks to global warming, an unusually hot summer day in Michigan might be 95.2 or 95.4 degrees F.
95.2 to 95.4 degrees F. would be intolerable — an existential threat.
We’d have to sell our home, and move to Alaska, assuming we could get there by car — the roads from Michigan to Alaska would probably be gridlocked with cars heading north with Michigan license plates.
No logical person should take the past 50 years of climate scaremongering seriously.
Not with climate change “leaders” like Albert “The Climate Blimp” Gore, Alexandria Occasionally Coherent, and last but not least, a high school dropout with a mental disease, Ms. Greta “Thunderburg”.
Mike:
Mr. Spencer is helping us by keeping the world 0.5 to 1.0 degrees F. cooler, IMHO.
Without the UAH compilation, I am confident the infilled surface temperatures would gradually be “adjusted” even higher by 0.5 to 1.0 degrees F.
UAH helps keep them less dishonest … then they would normally be.
Satellites with near global coverage, and little infilling, at least have the possibility of producing an accurate global average temperature.
An accurate global average using infilled surface data is impossible.
I’ve been reading climate science (real science) and climate change (junk science) since 1997, as one of my hobbies.
I read the real science so the ridiculous junk science does not scare me.
Junk climate science is from anyone claiming they know what the global average temperature will be in 100 years … or even in 10 years.
Junk climate science is from anyone claiming future climate change MUST be 100% bad news, when the intermittent global warming in the past 325 years, since the cold 1690s, has been 100% good news !
My climate science blog
is my attempt to fight back,
and laugh at, the science denying
climate alarmists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
I think Climate Change as a popular hysteria is basically set in for the next 20 years or so until there’s more time for the temperature data to reflect on the accuracy of the climate models.
However if you look at what economists say about climate policy, as Roy mentions with Bjorn Lomborg, it is all good news. They do not advocate wasting trillions. Lomborg’s book Smart Solutions to Climate Change recommended research into climate engineering and R&D into new energy sources rather than subsidies and high carbon taxes.
I think this is the primary direction we should take skeptical persuasion. Even if people believe in a catastrophe if the policies are smart it won’t be a serious loss to the economy. R&D could potentially pay for itself regardless of whether temperatures continue to warm or not.
You don’t need a model to see were this is going:
https://tinyurl.com/y95cmx6t
Looking at that graph I see 3 distinct warm trends of approximately the same slope from about 1830 onward. Each warm trend is very similar to the next one with cool/pause trends separating the trends. If you are going to claim that CO2 caused the most recent warm trend, then what do you think caused the earlier warm trends.
And if one is to assume that natural conditions have induced all 3 warm trends as the most likely explanation, then the best explanation is that this is simply an inset of a much longer natural Warm Period.
The trend without GHG increase is here:
https://tinyurl.com/wmkrtrp
One more thing, Svante, about the discussions waaaaay down-thread.
You have followed these discussions quite closely, from the beginning.
Look through the comments down there…and ask yourself: who is being honest about the details of past discussions. Who isn’t? And why would they be lying about stuff that you witnessed, and which only takes a link to the comments to prove!?
Why would they be lying!?
OK Svante, carry on…sorry to interrupt.
Svante, please stop trolling.
How do you define “trolling” in this case?
Words spoken by you other than, “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.
You misunderstand, it wasn’t my graph.
It was from this AGU publication:
https://tinyurl.com/y7c37cyh
The American Geophysical Union is a reputable scientific organization with 62 000 members in 144 countries. They do not say that I am wrong:
https://tinyurl.com/ul6n2gk
Sorry Svante, you didn’t say “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.
That means I’m going to have to ask you again to please stop trolling.
No, you’re not very convincing.
Svante, please stop trolling.
I’m sorry but you are wrong, and you’re making a fool of yourself again.
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
Global warming scientist zealots are a group of closed minded individuals who are forever seeking knowledge but never able to understand the obvious consequences of their knowledge. This is because global warming isn’t about science but a pretext for radical political activists who want to change the world to a global one world government. It is obvious to unbiased seekers of truth that carbon based fuels have been a prime factor in the development of increased food production and delivery, advancement of medical knowledge through high tech methodologies, development and widespread distribution of clean water, development of modern waste treatment systems, etc., etc., etc..
The political proposals to save us from C02 will put all of that progress in jeopardy for millions of people. Instead we should be seeking to use more carbon based fuel to provide many millions without those modern life improvement technologies the same benefits we enjoy.
Because there is no way to maintain current worldwide standards of living by reducing fossil fuel use, you will see in the coming months and years more proposals for population control where the worlds poorest ( often those of color) will be at risk for freedom of reproduction.
J Dickson, It’s not just world government the zealots want, it’s world government in order to dictate the conditions the rest of us live in. And these conditions should be as near to the pre-industrial as possible!
The western world is run by deep Malthusians, modern Club of Rome types, who financially support the Climate Crisis Crusaders as an interim smoke and mirrors tactic, but actually want it to fail, so they can more effectively launch Plan A, which is population control of 3rd world countries…without coming off as being racist…..we are just pawns in their game….
Ariane says:
“It’s not just world government the zealots want, it’s world government in order to dictate the conditions the rest of us live in.”
Markets can not operate efficiently if there are unaccounted costs to third parties. It means consumers make the wrong choices and create a higher total cost than necessary.
You already have taxes, cut some of the bad ones and put them on carbon. It’s much easier to tax a few fossil fuel companies than millions of people, then markets can drive technology and optimize based on true cost. It’s not that hard.
That would be simple enough, and would work well. Unfortunately, it does not create the control mechanisms the radicals and globalists desire, nor the bureaucratic jobs.
You mean the Illuminati?
Close enough.
There’s plenty of proof of them.
Svante, please stop trolling.
The situation is grave, sobering, but not hopeless. All will turn by the same mechanisms which drive the survival of humainty as a whole.
In the words of Delingpole himself:
“Right now, the struggle against this nonsense seems pretty hopeless. But we sceptics do have at least two things on our side time and economics. Time is doing us a favour by showing that none of the alarmists doomsday predictions are coming to pass. Economics from the blackouts in South Australia caused by excessive reliance on renewables (aka unreliables) to the current riots and demonstrations taking place from France and the Netherlands to Chile over their governments green policies suggest that common sense will prevail in the end. Bloody hell, though taking its time, isnt it?”
Courage, patience, and faith…
And we thought Common Core Math was troubling.
Welcome to Common Core Climate.
lol
I have been to Moab recently and it appears that they have done an excellent job rebuilding it — looks authentic down to the most minute detail.
Did you take any radiation measurements?
Addressing ‘climate change’ is a political gift that will keep on giving. Any reasonable human should realize:
i) it’s not possible for several billion humans to have a reasonable standard of living without drastically impacting mother earth in the first place (in many more ways than just CO2)
ii) carbon based energy is the reason they can experience the quality of life they have and the energy economy has enormous inertia. It will not change much even over long periods just because it won’t.
But, we will have politicians and activist demanding change and every law passed will only cause an impact well within the noise so there will be further calls for more action from now until well after I’m gone…
If folks in the AGW crowd really want to affect change, they should cut their own CO2 emissions to ~0. This is something within their power and then they can morally pat themselves on the back for ‘doing something.’ Then, they should leave me alone… somehow, I doubt it. They seem compelled to require me to live by their moral code.
Barry
I am not as pessimistic as Dr. Spencer. I do believe men (and women) will regain their senses, even though it is slowly and one-by-one. (Hat tip to Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.)
One scenario, although it could be too slow to avoid severe damage from the Climate Mafia, is that (possible) reduced solar activity in the next decades, slowing or halting global warming in the face of accelerating emissions, would change minds.
A more timely, hopeful idea is that the Dems nominate a Presidential candidate who is such a climate alarmist that President Trump is forced to roll out the heavy artillery and the anti-Trump media cannot then continue to hide the climate truths.
Regards.
As recently as maybe five years ago I thought the Good Ship Global Warming/Climate Change had sunk into the abyss, and all the excitement was just the crew waiting to drown.
I’ve changed my mind too. The only thing that will stop it is Civil War/Revolution and I wonder what that will look like.
Over at a well known blog I just posted that it has morphed from Global Cooling, Nuclear Winter, Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Climate Change and is now morphing into The Climate Crisis. I think Climate Emergency doesn’t have quite the ring to it.
California is gearing up to ban natural gas, and is closing all it’s power stations in preparation to run their economy on wind mills and solar panels.
Left wing politicians need poor and oppressed people to vote them into office. California is busy both manufacturing and importing those votes.
I’m 75 so I won’t be around to see the ugliness, that to use a well known term, is in the pipeline.
You are 75!?! I would have never guessed.
MW
Mr. Case:
Five years ago, after reading real climate science and junk climate science as a hobby for about 17 years, I decided to start a climate science blog.
The climate predictions were getting more and more ridiculous, and I couldn’t sit back and do nothing.
In the prior 17 years I had written only two articles on climate change, for another hobby, my economics and finance newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC.
I’ve believed all along that only cold wether could change minds about the coming climate “crisis” (always coming, but never shows up).
But this year, I’ve seen another possibility — ‘green’ proposals so radical they could never happen, like the Green New Ordeal, and spokespeople so annoying, like Alexandria Occasionally Coherent, and spokespeople so angry they sound like a village idiot standing on a street corner telling passersby the world is coming to an end (Greta “Thunderberg”).
If someone had asked my how to sabotage climate alarmism a few years ago, I would have recommended encouraging the alarmists to become even more radical, and even more annoying,so that a majority of people would be turned off, and reject the alarmists.
And that’s exactly what the alarmists have done to themselves (leftists are not very bright). Perhaps a “civil war” will not be necessary?
Since you’re 75, and I’m 66, perhaps we both agree that warm weather is good, and cold weather is bad?
The fake coming climate crisis, that can only be fixed by Democrats, is just the latest way to sell socialism.
I call it “save the planet socialism”.
Never mind that the planet does not need saving.
It’s really hard to sell socialism by promising more goobermint bureaucracy, slower economic growth and higher unemployment !
Richard Greene says:
November 21, 2019 at 1:22 PM
It’s really hard to sell socialism by promising more goobermint bureaucracy, slower economic growth and higher unemployment !
One would think that convincing people that warmer weather is a disaster is a hard sell as well, but it’s obviously been done. A real tribute to the power of carefully worded nonsense more commonly known as propaganda and bullshit.
Yes. Nothing to worry about.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32596-6/fulltext .
Always look on the bright side. There are often both positive and negative effects of many actions and policies. Sometime the negative effects might outweigh the positive effects, but it helps to be aware of both sides.
A fundamental requirement for all human prosperity and well-being is a continuous and reliable supply of energy. The less expensive the energy, in terms of real cost, taking all factors into consideration, such as the health costs of pollution, the greater is the potential for an increase in the prosperity of everyone.
The more expensive the energy supplies become, the less we have available to use, the less goods and services we can produce, and the less prosperous we become, on average.
Fossil fuel supplies are a limited resource. Whilst there would be no concern about shortages in the near future if we were to continue to rely solely on fossil fuels, there would eventually be a scarcity which could result in an economic crisis if we failed to prepare for it.
The positive side of the current alarm about the climate effects of CO2 emissions, is that we are in effect preparing well in advance for a future scarcity of fossil fuels.
The negative side is the likely, mistaken belief that reducing CO2 emissions, at great expense, will reduce the severity and frequency of extreme weather events. The consequences of that mistaken belief will be loss of lives and damage to property and infrastructure that could have been avoided if the resources spent on developing renewables had been spent instead on flood mitigation dams and other measures to protect people and homes from the future hurricanes and storms that are known to have occurred in the past.
>>Fossil fuel supplies are a limited resource.
Well, not really. Since as far as i know, modern day geochemistry rules out hydrogen loss as a dominant cause of irreversible oxidation of earth surface, i mean that there just has to be enough of the reduced carbon in earth crust to burn away all the oxygen, and considering that most of the produced oxygen went on to oxidize exhumed (+2) iron to (+3),there is probably more than enough of fossil fuels to burn away all the oxygen in out atmosphere several times over. And with the ongoing development of fracking, all that carbon buried in black shales is becoming more and more available to us. So yeah, worry aboot that =)
Global warming is the easiest thing to debunk , The skeptics get no traction because they do horrible job at it, they keep falling for misdirections and strawmens and debating wrong things , they even adopted and use the idiotic terms Like “Climate change” a completely undefined nonsensical term , call CO2 “green house gas” when it has nothing to do with being or doing what green house does, I could go on and on but the bottom line – the skeptics are losing big time.
To actual scientists it already has been debunked. Climate Change is not about science. The UNIPCC is not a scientific body. The leftists will never let this go. It is an integral part of their agenda. The reason they don’t worry about it in places like China is because the leftists are already in control.
Eben, what do I say and do to avoid making a horrible job of debunking Global Warming?
If you want to make a legit stab at it the best strategy might be to focus on the climate sensitivity aspect. Find evidence that supports the hypothesis that the climate is not as sensitive as the consensus would suggest.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
On the flip side, I routinely engage skeptics who claim that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and that it is physically impossible for the cold atmosphere to make the surface warmer by increasing its CO2 content, anyway. No matter how many different ways I try to show how they are wrong, they never change their stance.
THEY wont change THEIR stance? I always loved the quotation attributed to Oliver Cromwell, Can you not believe in the bowels of Christ that you might be wrong? No. Apparently in some quarters the possibility of error is not worthy of consideration, to say nothing of its even raising a glimmer of doubt.
Some of us seem to be suffering from climate battle fatigue. The game no longer seems worth the candle, so lets blame our weariness on static battle lines. The three (some say four) laws of thermodynamics and most of the physics of energy have been good reliable science for a few centuries now. Even quantum mechanics developed by Planck and Einstein is over 100 years old and acknowledged to apply to Gods whole universe. How very odd they do not apply to one particular province Earths atmosphere, tended by researchers who seem to have learned all they need to know about the discipline despite, or perhaps because of, its association with a dubious crowd of hustlers. Having lately and extensively read in the physics of the atmosphere and climate, I have gained a belief that the physicists know more about energy and radiation in this special province than do their learned critics. I believe further that the specialist critics in that charmed and isolated domain are doing themselves and the rest of us a serious disservice by dismissing out of hand established, valid, and robust physical theory and practice even as applied to this planet and its atmosphere.
Are you truly certain there is one physics for the entire universe and a special exception or dispensation for the atmosphere and climate (as you understand it)?
Your steadfastness, to put it kindly, places us in thrall to the profoundly flawed (false really) CAGW narrative. The laws of thermodynamics on the land and in the air are incontrovertibly inviolable, its not like running a red light. As one physicist noted after lengthily developing an Earth-like radiant energy model of concentric spheres from the standard blackbody cavity, of course there isnt really a concentric outer shell, only scattered molecules. And Marc-August Pictet established in 1800 that colder energy does not flow to warm. It is still good physics.
But my real concern and sorrow, actually, is that the skeptical side will never prevail, cannot prevail, without understanding and using the right physics instead borrowing the CAGWs pretend scheme, good only for propping up the calamity narrative.
So, Tom, one cannot alter energy flows by putting a cold lid on a warming pot of water to make the water warmer still, given the same rate of heat input from a gas flame?
Or put cold insulation in the walls of a heated house in winter to make the inside warmer still, given the same rate of internal heating?
How do you explain a handheld IR thermometer reading a higher temperature when scanning from the zenith to an oblique angle in a clear sky? The thermopile in the thermometer actually has its surface temperature go up, even though it is pointed at a cold sky.
The examples are endless, from everyday life: Cold things can make warm things even warmer still if they reduce the rate of energy LOSS. This is Thermodynamics 101. To claim otherwise is foolishness.
“Cold things can make warm things even warmer still if they reduce the rate of energy LOSS.”
NO! Something other than “Cold things…” has to supply the heat energy to “…make warm things even warmer…”
A corpse will cool off slower if a blanket is placed over it, but it won’t warm up any. The reason for that is a corpse has no heat producing metabolism. You do have a working metabolism so you stay warm under a blanket.
After sunset on the dry desert it cools off rapidly and in a humid jungle not so much, but neither one warms up until sunrise in the morning.
Yes the “greenhouse effect” is real and yes it works by reducing the rate of energy loss, but it’s the sun that does the warming.
yes, there has to be a supply of energy. The sun provides the energy. But TEMPERATURE of the Earth’s surface is not only determined by the rate of energy gain, but the rate of energy loss. Greenhouse gases reduce the rate of energy loss.
You are falling into the trap of allowing semantics and imprecise wording get in the way of understanding for others… understanding of the processes that determine temperature. What is important are the physical equations, and words representing those equations can be ambiguous.
If I put a lid on a heated pot of water, or add insulation in an exterior wall of a house, or put a coat on before going outside in the winter, the increase in temperature that results can be fairly attributed to the introduction of those “cooler than the heat source” objects. Please don’t let use inexact wording as an excuse to mislead others into thinking that the “greenhouse effect” cannot exist. Because that is exactly what has happened as a result of arguments like yours, Steve.
“yes, [Steve you’re right,] there has to be a supply of energy.”
Too bad you didn’t say that, and only that. Considering the first sentence above:
“Do the global warming wars ever change anyones mind?”
You pretty well illustrate the point. Dr. heal thyself.
—————-
Well, I didn’t earn any points with that, but I had to say it.
What does the initial temperature of the pot lid have to do with the topic under discussion? Isn’t it apparent to all that it blocks the escape of warm (or hot) water vapor, thus physically slowing the loss of the vapor’s heat? The lid will of course warm up to near the vapor temperature, but that’s from conduction.
The mechanism with insulation (coat or building insulation) is somewhat different, relying on low-conductivity material and gas pockets to slow heat loss. Decades ago I built a cabin using Rex Roberts’ “Your Engineered House” for design principles. He strongly recommended reflective insulation, noting its quick response when heating the building (and avoiding insulation material that appeals to rodents). So I used the recommended foil paper. Well, no doubt there was reflected IR, although most warmth came directly from the stove. But the air and the objects in the cabin didn’t warm a lot, so the cabin cooled quickly when the fire died. In my current conventionally insulated house, the furnace warms the air and, by conduction, the objects in it, and when the furnace is set down at night the house cools slowly.
I have yet to find a description of the Greenhouse Effect that includes actual evidence. I can’t find it on your site, and the Wikipedia article cites only “evidence” from nearly two centuries ago. Skepticism is warranted, especially considering how few physicists seem to understand that blocking advection is the dominant greenhouse mechanism. Apparently they don’t tend to be drawn to gardening and don’t know that simply throwing a tarp over tomatoes can protect them from a late season frosty night.
“I have yet to find a description of the Greenhouse Effect that includes actual evidence.”
Evidence is obtained from Earth satellites measuring the global median multiannual effective brightness temperature looking down which is around 255K. For a description of their (CERES et. al. instruments) calibration to near surface thermometer temperature see:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1
For the 30yr. thermometer evidence measured Earth near surface global median air temperature WMO standard go here and find the black line at 0 anomaly is around 288K about 33K above what the satellites measure.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2019-0-46-deg-c/
However, if you really are looking for the actual green house effect, go see your local farmer and/or florist and obtain/measure the thermometer temperature in their greenhouse(s). Then get the weather report for the day to find the difference to outdoor thermometer temperature. Then understand this difference may be due to 2 different mechanisms whether 1) the greenhouse is situated in a windy location with thin walls or 2) the greenhouse is situated in calm conditions with thick walls.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
When I say the insulation in my home makes it warmer most people understand what I’m saying. They intuitively understand that the furnace is still supplying the heat and that the insulation is just augmenting its ability to warm my home. The analogy should/i> apply reasonably well to the climate system too. When I say GHGs warm the surface it should be obvious to those who have bothered posting to a science based forum like this that it is actually the Sun that is still supplying the heat. But, experience has told me that this isn’t the case at all. Statements that have intuitive assumptions to me aren’t so intuitive to others especially the contrarians. I’ve learned to be more precise with my wording over the years. I still slip up from time to time.
GHGs are not insulators, and do not function in any way that is even comparable to insulation. Its nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with actual meaning.
Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
DREMT,
Insulation impedes the transmission of heat. GHGs impede the transmission of heat. That is an example of a functional similarity. If the term “insulation” is offensive to you I’m certainly open to calling them both thermal barriers or some other generally agreeable term.
But I think this proves my point…while Dr. Spencer and I (and most others) can naturally converse on the topic using a wide assortment of vernacular and analogy because we interpret meaning based on context clues you require a rigid set of narrowly focused terms. That’s okay. Just understand that you’ll have to let us all in on your choice of terms and definitions so that we can all communicate with you without confusion.
”GHGs impede the transmission of heat.”
No, they don’t. Once again, GHGs are not insulators, and do not function in any way that is even comparable to insulation. It’s nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with actual meaning.
Radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
“we interpret meaning based on context clues you require a rigid set of narrowly focused terms.”
Incorrect, and extremely offensive.
DREMT,
First, accept my sincere apology if I have misrepresented your position or if anything I said was offensive to you personally. It is never my intention to offend anyone.
Second, we definitely disagree on GHGs (like CO2 and H2O) being thermal barriers. Even has early as the mid 1800’s it was discovered that radiation in certain parts of the EM spectrum would not fully transmit through these gas species. 150+ years of experimentation since then overwhelmingly and undeniably attest to this fact. And principals rooted in molecular physics and quantum mechanics provide convincing explanations for why this happens. In this manner GHGs definitely act as thermal barriers to impede the transmission of heat.
Firstly, if you’re genuinely trying to pretend to be unaware that what you said in the second paragraph of your 1:56pm comment is offensive, then you would be completely tactless, and lacking in any kind of interpersonal skills. You’re welcome to find that offensive if it does indeed apply.
Secondly, I’m not here to get into yet another discussion about the GHE. It has already been discussed, at enormous length, all over the internet, and in published papers, for many years. The results of those discussions have been that those defending the GHE, lost. As I’ve said to you before, your journey of discovery about that is entirely up to you. Initial considerations that might make the wheels start turning could be, “how are gases that are more able to absorb and radiate IR somehow better at “impeding the transmission of heat” than those that aren’t?”, and “does the absorp.tion and emission of IR really matter in an atmosphere that freely convects?”, but these are not in any way meant to be taken as something you need to respond to, just potential starting points for your journey.
Dr. Spencer, I know that you are quite sensitive to any suggestion that you might be wrong, which shouldn’t be a surprise, given the many months and years of contention on the problem of AGW. Your last post in this sub-thread seems rather testy to me, complaining about comments which followed after you wrote:
As a mechanical engineer, I must reply that radiation shields are widely used in our world and they can function whether the shield material is reflective or absorbs. For example, most of us who drive modern automobiles have catalytic converters surrounded by such shields.
Of course, as you note, what happens in the real atmosphere is a complex mix of convection and both SW and LW radiation. As I understand things, there is abundant evidence which proves there is down welling LW in the CO2 bands of the LW spectrum and the impact of this energy flow is to warm the surface. A straight forward conclusion from these data would appear to be that GHGs do act in a way similar to solid radiation shields, except they act at specific wavelengths.
First CO2 is an “insulator”, now it’s supposed to be a “radiation shield”!
☺️
P.S: Nice idea, pretend not to have noticed that you’re talking to DREMT and not Dr Spencer…that way Dr Spencer might be irritated to have been mixed up with me, and decide to ban me…
DRsEMT, Sorry, If I had noticed it was you, I wouldn’t had said anything. We already know that you appear not to understand the physics of radiation shields or insulation. Found any “magic green arrows” lately?
You didn’t realize it was me? Oh dear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_barrier
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thermo-Tec-16500-Muffler-Catalytic-Converter/dp/B000TXSER4
DRsEM, Yes, reflective barriers make the best radiation shields.
However, your posts about reflective shielding material does not present the actual OEM type shielding method for catalytic converters, which are typically much hotter than the muffler further down the exhaust pipe. The radiation shield functions to speed the heating of the catalyst to operating temperature on startup, typically a period of maximum emissions.
“DRsEM, Yes, reflective barriers make the best radiation shields”
Of course. Because radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas was discovered over a century ago.
The exact effect burning fossil fuels has on the climate is still unknown.
Feedbacks are unknown.
In the past 4.5 billion years, only a tiny period, from 1975 through today, could be said to have global warming CAUSED by burning fossil fuels.
We have evidence in the past 800,000 years that natural global warming caused oceans to emit dissolved CO2 with a multi-hundred year delay.
There is no evidence that high CO2 levels have ever caused runaway warming.
And there is much evidence that high CO2 levels were followed by a transition to global cooling, rather than runaway warming.
Even the very biased IPCC blames greenhouse gas increases for “more than half the warming since 1950”, they do not say 100% of the warming.
And they believe in a huge range for ECS.
That adds up to wild guessing, to skeptical me.
But even more important than wild guessing the future climate, and being wrong, is the failure to consider that global warming in the past 300 years– probably +2 degrees C. since the 1690s — has been good news, and slight global warming in the future ought to be good news too.
“Greenhouse effect” is a poor term to describe the physics, because it has nothing to do with a real greenhouse.
Even “global warming” is a poor term, because the warming has been uneven, with the Arctic much different than Antarctica — a very important difference.
I also object to the misleading phrase that “CO2 causes warming” — it would be more accurate to say CO2, and other greenhouse gasses, disrupt the cooling of our planet,
making it warmer than it would otherwise be.
And warmer is not bad news.
The planet os always warming or cooling.
If we didn’t have global warming, we’d have global cooling.
A lot of cooling if the Holocene interglacial ends.
What’s so good about global cooling?
This is the concern I share. The entire argument for CAGW is based on theoretical premises with inherent contradictions. Take something as simple as the process causality for CO2 warming.
The general defined mechanism is that increasing more CO2 in the atmosphere captures more LWIR from the surface leading to higher temperatures. The natural question that follows is “how do we detect this phenomenon?” Immediately the contradictions arise:
There will be a hotspot in the atmosphere
* No hotspot exists
There will be a greater differential between OLR and incoming solar insolation
* Satellite measurements show OLR increases and decreases based on changes in surface temp
The effective emission height will be higher because of increased CO2 concentration and based on the lapse rate, it will result in a warmer surface
* CO2 changes in emission height are dwarfed by humidity based alterations and its effect on the lapse rate to the point it can’t be measured
So the inability to definitively detect the phenomenon at the atmospheric level causes scientists to look for signature in other areas. Sadly, this exercise devolves from theory to, as Delingpole describes, downright fraud.
Temperature records have been modified to “better find” the warmth. Audacious claims that we definitively know the global temperature of the ocean since 1900 to today well enough to detect a .08C change in global average temperature 2019. Even the satellite data is strictly a measurement of energy throughput for a complex system and not some static object being measured.
The discipline even gets more absurd with poorly sourced proxies (tree ring) and scientists who willingly block access to their data and algorithms. Who would not want to prove their studies? If I ran a 9.5 sec 100M dash, I would want to show you the video out of pride in my accomplishment.
Since the data supporting the narrative is suspect, skeptics have focused on more definitively measurements like the longest stations in continuous operation. This US data shows no warming. Would this cause a rethinking by AGW proponents? Of course not, the argument changes to “coverage”. Ignoring that Karl had to modify the ocean temperature data, the claim is now over 90% of global warmings signature is in the ocean.
Is there a place less well measured than the bulk ocean temperature? And yet 90%+ of our effect on the planet is supposed to be here.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Naturally, one would expect to be able to demonstrate this massive human caused global impact on ocean temperature. But like the hotspot, OLR, and lapse rate changes; a search for studies measuring this ocean warming for CO2 is practically fruitless. The one study that speaks to CO2 measurements of ocean temperature changes states with a straight face:
“The total calculated volume mean warming is 0.09C indicating an average change in the surface fluxes of 0.39 W m−2 for the 19552010 period over the World Ocean. Such small changes in the average atmospheric infrared (IR) emission incident at the sea surface occurring over decades are not feasible to measure with currently available instruments.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
This is increasingly laughable when one realizes that the cooling effect due to evaporative increases from a 1MPH change in wind speed dwarfs this calculated CO2 incident IR.
Do climate scientists know the changes in average wind speed across the world’s oceans for 55 years? What about the humidity?
NOAA claims CO2 changes are happening in the ocean specifically BECAUSE it is irrefutable not because it is true.
Based on the physics of the air/ocean interface, the null hypothesis would accurately assert that CO2 changes cannot have a detectable change in ocean temp so AGW for 90% of the attribution is false.
A true skeptic is left with:
Atmospheric measurements of the AGW effect from CO2 have not been detected
Temperature measurements of the AGW effect from CO2 do not exist in unaltered data and the contrived data is highly suspect
Derived measurements (like OCH) for detecting AGW lack accountability for orders of magnitude greater variables like humidity, evaporation, wind speed and are not supported by the physics
So why does this malthusian belief in a trace gas survive? Do people believe we are stronger than natural forces? Archeology shows us entire civilizations have been buried over by time. Nature has been taking back Detroit before our eyes.
http://www.sweet-juniper.com/2009/07/feral-houses.html
Greenwood County, KS disappeared in a day…
https://www.kansas.com/news/weather/finger-on-the-weather/article88825552.html
The challenge for most is recognizing how insignificant we are. Man is not having any detectable impact on the climate. Should we measure it? Sure. Prepare to adapt to changes? Absolutely.
But this fraudulent marriage of science/politics claiming we are changing it and/or can change climate forces through policy is insulting to the purity of science.
@Roy W. Spencer, PhD.
There are 2 sides to this climate change stuff. There is much data that seems to show that CC will not be good for humans. Models are the only thing that can try to predict the future.
You seem absolutely convinced that the problems will be small and easily handled by adaption. [Not “absolutely convinced”. Only pointing out what people hear are exaggerations. -Roy]
Could you please give the scientifically backed reasons why we should not be worried. Is there a model that shows CC is not a problem? Is there data that shows temperature will not go higher than 2C even if CO2 keeps increasing? [The Russian model best matches our observations. Actual energy budget calculations using the same radiative forcing scenarios, ocean heat content increase, and surface temperature increase since the 1800s as the IPCC shows warming from 2XCO2 will only be about 1.5 deg. C. And that assumes ALL of the warming is from increasing CO2, without nature. (Lewis & Curry, 2018 J. Climate) -Roy]
What scientific evidence is there that proves the 1C already in the measurements is caused by things other than CO2 increase? [There is no “proof” of such, just as there is no “proof” it is due to CO2. NONE of the global average energy flows in the climate system are known to the level of accuracy needed to determine the global energy imbalance causing recent warming (about 1 part in 250) is due to CO2 rather than natural processes. -Roy]
I assume you would disagree with this plot of worsening extremes:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHKmNtZWsAAHprZ?format=jpg
Can you give scientific reasons why this plot is wrong please?
[Ummm… that is not a plot of worsening extremes. It is a plot of the number of insured losses above some monetary threshold, which is affected by the threshold as well as how many insurance policies are written, increasing population, and increasing weather-vulnerable infrastructure. Check out Roger Pielke Jr. on the subject. -Roy https://twitter.com/rogerpielkejr/status/1157058849875955712?lang=en%5D
r.dent,
There is actually data that CC is not a problem. It’s called 4.5 billion years of earth’s history. We have seen changes even within the last 1/2 million years that are an order of magnitude larger than those predicted by ‘the AGW models’.
The more I read blogs and see news I’m absolutely convinced that folks on your side actually believe something along these lines:
A reasonable number of people making a reasonable sacrifice for a reasonable amount of time can ‘solve the problem.’
The truth is:
Everyone on earth will need to make very large sacrifices for a very long time and even that may not dramatically reduce global CO2 levels within the next 100yrs or so…
And to me this is the kicker… if everyone on earth who claims that CO2 is a problem would cut there own carbon footprint to zero (something within their power to do short term although very expensive), that would have a much bigger impact much faster than any proposed legislation that would force me to do what you aren’t already doing…
Barry
ro.dent:
You say:
“There is much data that seems to show that CC will not be good for humans. Models are the only thing that can try to predict the future.’
YOUR BELIEFS ARE BOTH WRONG !
(1)
There is no evidence that intermittent global warming, since the late 1600’s, has harmed anyone, and much anecdotal evidence that the cold climate in the 1690s was HATED by virtually all the people alive then.
Climate change in the past 325 years has been 100% good news.
(2)
There are no real climate models that make accurate predictions of the future climate.
No such model could exist without a thorough understanding of the physics of climate change.
The physics of climate change today is just a list of the usual suspects, with no way to determine what percentage of climate change is natural, and what percentage is man made.
We have over 50 years of failures to predict the future climate, even just ten years in the future.
The correlation between CO2 levels, and global average temperature, has repeatedly changed in the past 100 years — we’ve had positive correlation, negative correlation and very little correlation — there’s no evidence CO2 levels have ever been “the climate control knob”.
@r.dent
Is there data or (other) scientific study that evidences that the “1C” warming (to quote you) is due to other than natural variability? Surely that must be the starting point of any null hypothesis?
And isn’t that why that Penn State fella tried to erase the MWP and a few other warm periods to boot?
Finally, your graph. Two issues, we are far more adept at collecting data now, the web only went public in 1991. And the period is short – 36 years.
Arguably a better look at the same issue –
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900–an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf
Can you post a reconstruction of the global mean surface temperature that you feel is trustworthy and which adequately represents your idea of the MWP so that we can compare it to other reconstructions?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
I am a few years from retiring now and I despair on the direction the world is taking. The climate change movement should fund research into replacing fossil fuels and not expect us to subsidise wind and solar power. I have always thought that scientific research should be carried out without bias but it seems we have so many troughers today taking money from us for no clear benefit to us in return. I hope the Brexit party can win some seats in the coming election in the UK otherwise the media and establishment will keep their control over the majority of us inventing scares. We are told we must vote against political parties not for any, we are told that to leave the EU will result in economic disaster and of course unless we subsidise renewable energy we will all die from climate change. It seemed that at one point that the public had woken up to the tactics being used against them by those in power but the tactic has been relentless and has been successful.
It is pointless arguing with a religious zealot.
Climate change happens: Fact.
Climate Change Alarmists would have you believe mankind is causing 100% of the current changes.
Climate Change Deniers would have you believe mankind is causing 0% of the current changes.
Both are wrong.
The truth is, we can’t live on this planet and no affect the climate. The very real question is: How much is mankind responsible for?
Closely followed by is it something we can do anything about? With an ever growing population will the problem get worse? Or will technology find a way to combat our influence?
I used to believe Al Gore after watching his video. I became a skeptic after reading up on the subject, intensely. The more I argued with CAGW alarmists on social media the more I got frustrated with these people as they simply couldn’t see the facts. The I discovered the “deniers” to be equally as bad. No amount of evidence would counter their argument that we have no effect.
In the end I came to the conclusion as Dr Roy Spencer, James Delingpole & Jacobs came to. You can’t argue with religious zealots, so save your time and frustration.
“The truth is, we cant live on this planet and no affect the climate. The very real question is: How much is mankind responsible for?”
Best estimate to date. There is a 95% chance that we have caused at least 50% of 20/21st century warming. There is about a 60% chanc that we have caused all of it. There is a 5% chance that we have caused 160% of it.
Mid-range estimate, we have turned 0.01C/decade cooling trend into a 0.13 to 0.2C/decade warming trend.
Nonsense numbers Entropic.
Anyone can make a wild guess, and many do.
The correct answer — no one knows — does not get attention and study grants.
A coming climate crisis prediction gets attention and study grants.
Governments pay for the science they want, just like cigarette companies did.
It is impossible to know how much of an effect, if any, burning fossil fuels has had, or will have, on our climate.
Anyone who claims to know is a liar.
You apparently believe some of the liars.
Sometimes the correct answer is “No one knows”.
That would be WAY over your head !
Sean Chatterton
Wow! What you found is identical to my own discovery. Science used to be about doing your best to find the truth. It was the one island in the human mind that seemed to be resilient against lies and distortion after all proof and evidence were a requirement and trying your hardest to get the best evidence was a primary motivation.
Yes I find both extreme sides to be very closed minded. The extreme skeptics distort valid textbook physics and twist the 2nd Law of Thermo so much it is not longer recognizable.
The alarmists blame climate change only for the bad weather events (which still are a small amount of the weather events) but never for good nice days.
The polarized world is not a pleasant one. I think social media caused it. You get echo chambers. That is one nice thing about this blog. He does entertain a multiple of various opinions from all the sides. Those banned generally attack the blog owner.
I believe there has been a concerted effort for a long time to polarize us (speaking of the USA). The result is a much more stable political system. Red states will elect Republican governors and congressman. Blue states will elect Democrats. And to become president, you just have to sway the 10-15% of independent thinkers in the middle. It means politicians can typically stay in power for decades and it means Washington will continue to be bipolar. It means CNN/MSNBC will continue to be a cheerleader for all things Democrat and the world’s best investigative journalist organization for all things Republican (and vice-versa for Fox News). After the next Democrat president is elected we’ll be seeing the same headlines (just switching the names and the signs on the door…).
But, we are partly to blame and the only partial solution I fear would be term limits, but they would never impose that on themselves…
And speaking of science. ‘Science’ as an objective bastion has failed because human being no longer consider it the highest goal or objective. Now political activism and progressivism is the highest goal or standard. So, science must be bent and used as a tool to meet that objective, etc. As we no longer have folks who are classically educated and can think for themselves, the groupthink mentality has swallowed it whole somehow.
Barry
I’ve actually come to see the climate alarm project as antithetical to the highest principles of progressivism. According to “Wicked-pedia” (for what that’s worth), progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reforms, and that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. But the alarmists seem unconcerned with improving the human condition, and some of the leading “greens” have expressed downright anti-human ideas.
For example, Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” and
Michael Fox,vice-president of The Humane Society: “Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
This population control notion is very ironic is it not.
For instance, if someone thought that population control was important, they could start with themselves. Problem solved. Not only would they reduce population, but they wouldn’t have to bother themselves with thinking about it anymore. The fact that they want to live but find it important to reduce human population elsewhere means they consider themselves somehow morally, intellectually, or physically superior, etc.
The ultimate problem is people elevate an ideal or a philosophy (i.e. solving CC or poverty, etc) to the point they are a fanatic about it (ignoring all the other problems out there at the same time). Then I guess they have no problem putting logic, reason, science, or just plain human-kindness aside to meet that end.
But, when it comes to things like CC and poverty, they will always be here, so the cycle will continue and it seems no one will learn.
Barry
“According to “Wicked-pedia” (for what that’s worth), progressivism is…”
Whatever that means would be their opinion. In political practice however progressivism is the desire of the governors to progressively take more control over the lives of the governed.
Better: “According to “Wicked-pedia” (for what that’s worth), progressivism is…”
Whatever that means would be their opinion. In political practice, progressivism is the desire of the governors to progressively take more control over the lives of the governed.
Better tag control: “According to “Wicked-pedia” (for what that’s worth), progressivism is…”
Whatever that means would be their opinion. In political practice, progressivism is the desire of the governors to progressively take more control over the lives of the governed.
who says dave
foreman speaks
for all progressives?
or any of them?
that’s your first
error.
a very convenient
one for you
You seem to be using the term “climate change” in the usual way these days. Why don’t we ask what the change actually is? Warming and cooling can be measured, but climate change seems to be unmeasurable — and an all-purpose bogey man for alarmists. How can anyone sensibly even comment on how much is caused by humans? This is not scientific in the slightest. Sometimes I even hear and read that something or other is “caused by climate change”, as though it’s a force of some kind!
I have never been so delusional that I would see the end of the Global warming fraud in my lifetime.
There are $trillions riding on the back of this fraud. Every government in this world are sucking on the oxygen this fraud supplies.
It will never “end”. It may stagnate. The taxes wrought from the people on this fraud will remain.
The wind turbines and the fields of solar panels will remain.
We will never see it’s end. No of us over the age of 20 years will see it’s end.
Even Trump has been unable to suppress the screams from the socialist states of the USA and the bankrupt EU are sure as hell not going to let go.
The bottom will fall out of the alarmists’ wagon when, as has already been alluded to in a comment above, the earth enters into an unpredicted decade long cooling period. During that same decade, it is quite possible that the Chinese will begin selling their factory/production line produced inherently safe modular nuclear reactors. The advantages of the small, safe reactors will be quickly appreciated and they will be adopted by developing nations without coal or hydro resources of their own as a way of generating electricity that is relatively cheap and dependable. This will have the very quick effect of slowing or reversing CO2 emissions. The cooling temperatures and stopped emissions will put an end to the growing control of the government’s takeover of the energy systems as citizens see the advantages of cheap reliable electricity and the prosperity it engenders. Twenty years from now people will be using the phrase “Pull a Gore” when they want to describe somebody making an obvious and egregious mistake.
(Fingers crossed}
I am a bit surprised by this position given some of your past posts that included research about how people rank climate change in the list of issues facing society, and think you missed the mark. I dont really think people care about climate change that much relative to other issues (https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-voters/), but the media and social media bombard society so we get exposure bias. I think people who comment on blogs or social media generally do not represent the general population and this page is a perfect example.
People are tribal by nature and seek division of large groups and unity in small groups. Social media became the perfect outlet for the end members of these groups to Express their voice. And catastrophe sells.
” I’ve had to block more fellow skeptics from commenting on my blog than I have blocked alarmists.”
Yes, sometimes I feel blocked.
Worry not Roy – if my point 3/3a proves correct, most people will know that catastrophic man-made global warming is a false crisis.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/12/arctic-blast-has-arrived-in-the-eastern-usnumerous-record-low-temperatures-by-early-wednesday/#comment-2845511
Well, there it is – the perfect Trifecta my work here is done.
In 2002, co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae wrote:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
2. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-63579
3. If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.
Allan MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013 or earlier:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/study-predicts-the-sun-is-headed-for-a-dalton-like-solar-minimum-around-2050/#comment-1147149
3a. I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.
Regards to all, Allan MacRae
_______________________________________________
SELECTED REFERENCES:
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx
THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph DAleo, October 26, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/
Roy,
You and others apparently don’t see the elephant in the room here, and that is that it’s not getting debunked. The issue is not (likely) winnable with our side basically supporting the whole thing, albeit only to a lesser degree.
Lindzen was right years back, the word ‘skeptic’ should never have been accepted. Because the term ‘skeptic’ implies having doubts about a plausible proposition. If the proposition is plausible, it is therefore legitimate. It isn’t winnable with the issue being legitimate.
Yourself and pretty much everyone else on our side in the field is letting the other side dictate the terms of the debate almost entirely. It’s not winnable this way. Or I’m at least becoming more and more doubtful it is.
The main premise that man is now likely the dominant (warming) influence on the climate has to be getting debunked. This is the minimum threshold our side needs to be hitting to have a realistic chance.
….and it’s simply not happening.
I’m sorry, but this is the brutally harsh truth. And someone needs to say it, so I am.
It’s not “winnable” because the Luke-warmer position automatically hands them the victory. You’re already arguing everything on their terms.
And the really ridiculous thing is, for some bizarre and inexplicable reason, the Luke-warmer’s have spent an inordinate amount of their time endlessly insulting and denigrating and labelling as insane and brain-washing everyone that they can against any viewpoint that does actually refute AGW!
Luke-warmers: You are the f*cking problem!
Well, I accept that the GHE is probably correct, which means that the added GHGs should be causing *some* push in a warming direction, among all other pushes, cooling warming, natural and anthropogenic.
However, I have serious doubts whether or not the net anthropogenic influence is even warming. It may be, but I don’t think this is anywhere near clearly established at all. Yet our side just goes along with it.
Why do you accept GHE as probably correct? I started from that position several years ago, but then I finally went searching for confirmatory data — and found disconfirmatory data, most clearly at climate4you.com. How can CO2 or any so-called greenhouse gas be a “control knob” as Hansen still insists when it isn’t correlated with temperature. With CO2 rising continually and temperatures undergoing relatively swings back and forth, I don’t understand why this isn’t seen as invalidating the modellers’ hypothesis, let alone disproving the dependent theory. There may be no such thing as “proof” in science, but there’s definitely disproof.
undergoing relatively LARGE swings
Is it possible that you are not understanding the model? The consensus model of the climate system does not say swings (either large or small) will cease to happen. It also does not say that CO2 is the only modulating agent in play. It’s quite the opposite. The model says that it is the net effect of all agents (and there are many) that best describe the climate system. This model, though not perfect, is quite skillful at explaining and predicting both the paleoclimate and instrumental records. Weak-GHG or no-GHG alternative models can’t even come close to matching the consensus model. In fact they are actually astonishingly bad.
David Wieland,
“How can CO2 or any so-called greenhouse gas be a control knob”
Why does CO2 have to be a ‘control knob’ in order for the GHE to be correct?
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature” – IPCC climate scientists.
Must be true, eh?
Thanks for the article. so glad I found this. We need credible, intelligent rational spokespeople to speak out to the general public using multiple channels. e.g. I rarely see any articles approaching climate skepticism in our local paper. Seems like there is a fear to share skeptical information. I do not share the pessimism expressed here as I think people would be relieved to hear the truth. By the way, silly question maybe but how to I subscribe to this blog?
I think Roy Spencer has explained the GHE in terms of energy flows and this makes sense to me even if the atmosphere is cold it still radiates some energy back to the Earth which has to be taken away from the amount that the Earth radiates.
The validity of the GHE is not the issue or problem here. What it boils down to is the sensitivity, and this is where our side has come up (and is continuing to come up) way, way short.
Depending on the source, you can get estimates from 1C/doubling up to 6C/doubling for CO2 climate sensitivity.
The upper bound is very un ertain, but you can set a lower limit. CO2 is up from 280ppm in 1880 to 411ppm today. Temperature is up about 1.1C over the same period.
The forcing equation gives an expected increase in forcing of 5.35ln(411/280) = 2.05W.
Estimated forcing sensitivity is that a 3.7W increase produces 1C warming.
Thus the CO2 increase to date would produce a direct forcing of 2.05/3.7=0.55C.
The observed 1.1C warming implies that climate sensitivity including feedbacks is 1.1/0.55 = 2.0
Since lag in the system delays the emergence of the full warming, this 2.0 underestimates the total warming and therefore is a minimum bound.
But in this analysis you are assuming that the estimates used to compute the forcing and sensitivity are correct and all the warming is from CO2. Beyond these weaknesses it needs to be pointed out that only about 3% of the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels (Harde 2019) so even if your uncertain numbers are correct we have only caused about .02C of the .55C warming.
Please review Kohler et al 2018.
The energy numbers are straightforward physics. If they are wrong, so is a lot of technology you rely on.
There are three lines of evidence that the CO2 increase is down to us.
1) Measurement of increasing CO2 in atmosphere and flow between sources and sinks.
2) Accounting; we know how much fossil fuel we burn and hence how much CO2 we release.
3) Atmospheric CO2 contains two main carbon isotopes 12C and 13C. Fossil fuels ae almost all 12C.
CO2 from fossil fuels dilutes the 13C We measure that dilution and it matches our CO2 release. If most of the extra CO2 came from natural sources we would not see that dilution.
This is why the sceptics are struggling. You can speculate all day, but when you do the numbers, the numbers support the consensus.
On other sources of warming
On God’s control board the main control knobs for Earth’s climate are continental positions, orbital variations, albedo, solar intensity, vegetation, volcanoes, impacts and greenhouse gases.
We can measure all of them and work out the settings. The first seven are set to neutral or slow cooling. The Greenhouse gases knob is set to rapid warming.
bdgwx
Kohler was wrong. See https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored and https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ at 55 min.
Entropic Man
Your point 1 implies we have good measurements of natural flows from sources and sinks…we don’t. Point 2 is correct. point 3 is refuted by analysis of the natural flow of C13. See the Salby reference above. Harde, Berry, and Salby put the human CO2 at about 3% and they have not been reasonably refuted. Kohler’s attempt was very poorly done. Now we have the work of the Connollys showing that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not control temperature.
DMA,
Harde, Salby, and Berry still haven’t satisfactorily answered simple questions. Where did all of that anthroprogenic carbon go if not into the atmosphere and hydrosphere? And what carbon reservoir sourced the atmospheric increase if it wasn’t the fossil reservoir? Why do they continue to conflate molecular residence time with the adjustment time for a pulse of CO2? Why does their model have less skill in explaining and predicting CO2 and temperature relationships than what we already have and why does it fail entirely to explain other observations like 13C-to-12C ratios, 14C ratios, O2 ratios, etc.?
bdgwx: has it been showing in old still growing trees that the surface layers contain much more C12? If not, why not?
esalil: Yes. 13C-to-12C ratios are declining as evidenced by both tree ring and ice core analysis. The same was happening with 14C as well until the bomb spike anomaly appeared after WWII. The rate at which these ratios changed is consistent with models that invoke the fossil reservoir and have long adjustment times for pulses of CO2.
bdgwx
Salby, Harde ,and Berry demonstrate that the fossil fuel CO2 flows into the natural sinks in the same proportion as its emissions are to natural emissions. Salby shows that natural emissions of C13 are responsible for the changing ratio as the C13 emission rate is controlled by temperature like the C12 but at opposing rates. Berry has a preprint available addressing the carbon cycle showing the errors in the IPCC accounting. See the Salby video for a refutation of the “adjustment time concept” error.
So 13C-to-12C remained relatively stable over a million years and then suddenly natural emissions decided to change with perfect timing and with perfect magnitude to match the tap of the fossil reservoir…by mere coincidence? That is the epitome of an extraordinary claim. But let’s forget about that for now. We still have the problem of simple mass accounting with the SHB model. Where did all of that fossil carbon go? And which reservoir was tapped to cause the increase in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere reservoirs if not via the fossil reservoir? And how does SHB explain the PETM? Clearly there are lots of questions with the SBH model. Nevermind that the SBH model still doesn’t have the same explanatory and predictive power as the consensus model so even if their model can be defended to any extent why would anyone choose an inferior model over what we already have?
bdgwx
See the Salby video at 26 min. to understand the C12 and C13 explanation. Later in the video the consensus model (Bern model) is shown to be nonphysical. So if it is a better predictor it is purely an accident and should not be the one chosen to form policy upon. Once all the fossil carbon went into the same sinks the natural carbon went into in its proportion to total emissions. The fossil fuel emissions are so small compared to the total it is lost in the noise of the mostly unmeasured system flows.
Salby provides no explanation in that video for why 13C ratios were relatively stable throughout the Quanternary Period even though CO2 concentrations changed quite a bit. Furthermore, his observation that 13C ratios are out of phase with the seasonal changes in CO2 concentration is actually evidence that changes in 13C ratios are the result of exchanges between plant based reservoirs. And we already know that the biosphere is not a net source (and is likely actually a net sink) of carbon right now which leaves us with the fossil reservoir. The timing matches. The magnitude matches. 13C ratios match up. O2 ratios match up. 14C ratios match up. The mass matches up. The consensus model can adequately explain both changes in CO2 concentration AND temperature for both the paleoclimate and instrumental record. It can also explain the PETM, ETMx eras, and other pulsed events.
Here we can see the futility of the Luke-warmer position in action…
“As a result, despite being a skeptic on the subject of humans having a serious effect on global climate, Ive had to block more fellow skeptics from commenting on my blog than I have blocked alarmists.” – Dr Spencer.
Oh dear. Censor anybody who challenges your views? Of course, you are absolutely certain you are right, and anybody who disagrees is bound for Hell. That sounds a little like religious fervour, doesn’t it?
Some people might not believe in your infallibility. Real scientists, for example. Or does Dr Spencer believe the science is settled (apart from a bit of minor tuning, of course)?
Ho, ho, ho!
I have been wondering what is the physical basis of CO2 being an insulator? If I have understood correctly it absorbs the IR emitted by the earth but it releases the absorbed energy immediately mainly by colliding with the nitrogen and oxygen milecules. So, how does this compound resist the flow of heat?
You partially answered your own question. CO2 resists the flow of heat near the 15um band via thermalization with neighboring molecules and by radiating it in all directions including toward the surface.
Isn’t it either thermalization or radiation? Anyway, where is the resistance of heat flow?
Both can and do happen. This impedes the transmission of heat because whereas with no CO2 those 15um photons will have a free escape to space but with CO2 some of those same photons will be blocked and either thermalized immediately or sent back towards the surface.
Back Door Guy, when are you going to take your first steps on that journey of discovery? Instead of just disappearing out the back door?
It is the resistance to photon flow that is the property of CO2, now photons can be converted to heat and vice versa.
blob, please stop trolling.
Just trying to explain it to those who will listen, you are not one of those, so just **** off.
Obviously not too brilliant at explaining things, eh? Try harder.
I am to people who have a rudimentary understanding of physics, which Eh? and DREMPTY lack.
You do understand that heat can be converted to photons and photons can be converted to heat, right?
I could go into that in more depth, but you are unfortunately unable to follow such an argument.
blob, please stop trolling.
@esalil
This is my best guess, expressed in very simple terms:
O2 is Oliver
N2 is Nate
CO2 is Clyde
The three are standing side by side, each holding an empty apple basket.
Round 1) An apple is thrown to Oliver, but it goes right through his hands. An apple is thrown to Nate, but it goes right through his hands. An apple Is thrown to Clyde and he catches it.
Clyde then hands the apple to Nate who hands it to Oliver who then puts it in his basket.
Round 2) Same as above, but this time Nate keeps the apple for himself.
Round 3) same as above, but this time Clyde keeps the apple for himself.
Now all three have an apple in their basket, even though Clyde is the only one who is able to catch or throw.
Round 4) This time when Clyde catches an apple, instead of handing it to one of his neighbors he gives it a toss. It will likely be caught by another molecule, but if high enough and thrown skyward, might sail away into space.
These four steps are repeated over and over.
********
@Eh?
Thats a terrible misrepresentation. I have never seen Dr. Spencer censor someone for just disagreeing with him. He puts up with a great deal of insults and abuse – from both sides of the fence.
As far as I understand Clyde cannot keep the apple but hands it to neighbors or tosses it away.
“I’ve had to block more fellow skeptics from commenting on my blog . . .” seemed fairly clear, but maybe he is forced to ban people at random, to promote academic freedom and the search for truth.
Thanks for setting me straight. You might be able to answer another question for me. Why is the unnamed person with the apples throwing them away? Surely a finite supply of apples would eventually run out – is this your point?
@esalil
In rounds one and two of the metaphor, Clyde passes the apple to his neighbors, Oliver and Nate.
In round four he tosses the apple away. What if we eliminate round three, where he keeps an apple for himself?
Oliver and Nate would end up with full baskets, but Clydes basket would be empty, right?
Remember, the apples represent units of thermal energy. What happens when a molecule with a basketful of apples collides with a molecule who only has one apple? Which way is the apple (heat) transferred?
Eh?
No.Oliver and Nate will never have full baskets since there are thousends of Olivers and Nates which will receive apples from each other.
But Nate and Oliver constantly give their apples to Clyde, whose rate of throwing his apples depends on the number of apples in his basket.
blob, please stop trolling.
@Eh?
In reference to the unnamed thrower:
I assume you understand that throwing is meant to represent radiation, while handing-off is meant to represent collisions?. So, the Earths surface is throwing apples, and the trillions of GHG molecules are throwing apples. The supply is from the sun, so is constant and essentially limitless.
You might do better concentrating on physics, rather than juggling and horticulture.
CO2 is not an insulator and it does not resist the flow of heat, This is a concocted fallacy that CO2 is always out of equilibrium and always receiving more energy than it has.
In real world CO2 causes both warming and cooling depending on the location, time of season, tome of day, and so on. Either way the effects are so small you could completely remove it or increase it 10 times
and the climate would not know any difference.
Unfortunately many scientists are living in academia bubbles and climatologists in particular do not understand the real world where fizzix must be applied in a way that actually works.
There appears to be a marked lack of rational thinking in society today. We are told that CO2 is causing extreme climate events, record cold and snow in one place, record heat and bush fires in another, droughts here, floods there, powerful hurricanes somewhere but perfectly mild conditions elsewhere. That is, opposite effects attributed to CO2 at different locations yet the CO2 concentration is basically the same everywhere. Sure this is completely illogical.
However, not quite the same everywhere as there is a seasonal effect. In Spring time, life blooms causing the CO2 concentration to decrease as the temperature increases. In Autumn, annuals decay causing the CO2 concentration to increase as the temperature decreases. That is the exact opposite to the UN IPCC theme that CO2 causes global warming. In fact, if there is a Greenhouse Effect it would be moderating the seasonal temperature change by having a dampening effect on the climate and not causing it to become more extreme.
More concerning is the lack of attention to empirical data, the record of what has actually taken place. The Connelly Family of scientists have studied thousands to meteorological balloon data records and proposed an hypothesis that may be a major advance in atmospheric physics. However the UN IPCC ignores this treasure trove of data and goes ahead developing computer climate models based on century old assumptions that the data shows are invalid. See: https://ronanconnollyscience.com/
Another source of empirical data is that from the 300 odd CO2 measuring stations around the globe freely available on the Internet. Again the UN IPCC apparently ignores this record of what has actually been happening. My analysis of six of these records determined that the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature is independent of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. This conclusion seems to agree with the findings of the Connelly Family. See: https://www.climateauditor.com
I can only hope that results from further analysis of empirical data together with the type of deep freeze now being experienced in North America will turn public opinion. A dose of discomfort usually causes people to question the credibility of authority ?
The Connolly link “Balloons in the Air” lists many soundings from 1 site Tucson. Then concludes that the compressibility factor (commonly z) in the Ideal Gas Law is in fact shown in the data at high altitude. This is nothing new and well known for over a century.
The UN IPCC uses balloon data from many more sites (see the US Standard Atm. publications for the midlatitude tropics).
Ball4,
You mention but one of a number of videos. Have you read their three papers on “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere, I, II and III “ ?
Bevan, I’ve read enough of their papers to form an opinion that their pervection, multimerization, and phase change discussions are not interesting or even new – just their own (vague) terms for well-known experimental atm. gas physics. I already commented about their work claiming to discover compressibility factor z in PV=zNRT at high earthen altitudes.
If you do want to really dig into understanding empirical data for which the Connolloy’s invent new terms, then I’d suggest getting familiar with this work that better explains the basic theory from many 1000s of observations with atm. sounding rockets and balloons. Pay particular attention to sec. 1.3 which was delivered in 1976 (and earlier 1962) compared to what the Connolloy’s are writing about now.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539.pdf
There really is no advancement in Connolloy’s dreaming up new terms for already well understood atm. gas physics already long ago available in the published literature.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
please stop trolling
please use proper punctuation
David, you were banned. Get over it, and move on.
dremt, please
stop trolling.
David, please stop trolling.
I have just discovered Dr Roy Spencer. Thank you for all your work.
Figure SPM.1 in the AR5 Summary for policy makers shows evidence for tidal heat redistribution as well as global warming in general. Look closely at the purple areas showing greatest increase in heat. The Northern hemisphere has the highest frequency, followed by the Southern hemisphere with the Equatorial regions warming the least.
If the sun shines overhead along the Equator, why is it not heating up just as fast as the high latitudes?
It’s evidence for Fred Singer’s much maligned suggestion that the 1,470 year natural climate cycle could be partly responsible.
Heat is being moved from the equator towards the poles. The EVIDENCE is in the IPCC data.
Heat isn’t just being moved around though. It’s accumulating in bulk in just about every reservoir in the geosphere including the troposphere, hydrosphere, cryopshere, etc with most of it going into the hydrosphere. The measured imbalance via OHC is about +0.6 W/m^2.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
DREMT
please stop trolling
please use proper punctuation
David, you were banned. Get over it, and move on.
The effect you are referring to is “Polar Amplification” that says that temperatures at high latitudes rise (or fall) at a rate three times higher than the global average.
Almost ten years ago I decided to look into this by studying temperature records for Greenland that have been maintained by the Danish Meteorological Institute since 1873:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dorothy-behind-the-curtain-part-2/
Here is a quote:
“The temperature increase over the period is 2.3 oC compared to the IPCC’s ~0.8 oC for the same period (see AR4).”
The idea of “Polar Amplification” is supported by the data. Hopefully Dr. Roy will be able to explain why this is so.
I would place myself in the category of someone who believes in the creation and has no idea about the creator, and by extension the autonomy and utility natural world. We are in the midst of a mass extinction and the loss of natural diversity. Is it the end of the world? No. Is it still a tragedy that must be weighed against human comfort and reduced suffering? Yes. Even if estimates for future warming are too high it’s likely that as the ocean warms up we will pass a point where Antarctica will melt, it may take 500 years but we are changing the world and I think it’s a problem. But I can acknowledge and even sympathize with someone who puts human well being above that of the natural world.
“I can acknowledge and even sympathize with someone who puts human well being above that of the natural world.”
How about someone who puts his own well being above that of his descendants? Our currnt high standard of living comes at the cost of depleted resources, submerged cities and climate change for our children.
Matt R,
I suggest studying the most recent 1/2 million years of temperature (google something like Vostok Ice Core Data, etc). We live in a very stable system and are currently within about 1C of the MAX. But no one I’ve talked to or read has considered systems theory and how even some of the middle-of-the-road projections would put us over the MAX (i.e. the rails of the system). One suggestion is Antarctica is actually an ‘anchor’ that will keep us in an ice age (albeit an interglacial). The thing about the last 1/2 million years is we’ve spent 90-95% of it much colder than now (that was true long before we started emitting CO2).
Entropic Man,
There is no one forcing you to have a high carbon footprint and a high standard of living. Feel free to cut your carbon footprint to zero and equalize your moral compass as it relates to your offspring…
Barry
An excellent idea. Please advise me how to get zero carbon treatment for diabetes from a hospital thirty miles away.
My dilemma is that I can function within society and advocate for a lower emissions society or I can take on an individual low carbon lifestyle and drop out of the debate.
Think of it as a cost/benefit calculation. I hope that my individual emissions now will be offset by greater reductions by society later.
Sure, it’s always easy to expect “society” to change first. Why not change yourself first and become a beacon for others to follow?
Why do you think you deserve treatment? Are you special somehow? Eh?
Entropic man,
That is a much more honest and thought out response than “How about someone who puts his own well being above that of his descendants?”.
Your first response has the undertones of… it’s ok to force everyone to do what I think they should do because I think they should even though I’m not already doing it. The second admits that a carbon-based economy affords you a better standard of living and benefits you wouldn’t otherwise have.
As I’ve said elsewhere it seems many on your side of the debate think a reasonable number of people making a reasonable sacrifice for a reasonable amount of time could ‘solve the problem’ when in reality it would take everyone on earth (who has non-zero carbon footprint) making a very large sacrifice for a very long time and that still wouldn’t ‘solve the problem’ within our lifetime, etc.
The selfish reason I wish people on your side would put their money where their mouth is and actually attempt to drastically reduce their carbon footprint is then they would see how difficult and expensive it is and have a better appreciation for the sacrifices everyone would have to make.
Barry
I use buses when possible( they shut down the train 60 years ago).I heat my home to jumper temperature, not t-shirt temperature. I do what my circumstances allow.
The real problem is that the infrastructure in rural Northern Ireland is very dispersed and difficult to access using only public transport. I am also expected to have an address, an income, pay rates and taxes. There is also the climate. West Ulster is not a place to grow anything more nutritious than grass, so I am dependant on food imports.
My society is not designed with a zero carbon emissions lifestyle in mind. To achieve it would require a considerable redesign of the local infrastructure. I could attempt it, but as an elderly man with limited mobility and poor health, I doubt I would survive long.
That is why you need to redesign the society, rather than start with the individuals.
Richard Whybray,
Still a cop out. Most people do very little, if anything. I just heard a commentary where the guy asked if so many are convinced about the effects of Climate Change (TM), such as coastal inundation and widespread severe drought, why aren’t waterfront properties and farm lands aren’t being sold in droves? BTW, your “redesigned society” wouldn’t include you living where you do. Face it, there is NO solution that doesn’t include a completely different energy source. Think nuclear fusion maybe. The problem is finite resources however, not CO2 emissions.
Richard Whybray,
If it is difficult and expensive for you personally to cut your carbon footprint to zero, do you really think it would be easy and inexpensive if everyone were forced to do so?
That’s just the economic side of it…. I’m actually trying to get at the ‘moral’ side of it (i.e. see Entropic man’s statement about offspring, etc).
The moral side of the argument cuts both ways… The AGW crowd would have us believe it is something we must do to save the polar bears and the children (regardless of the cost, etc)… i.e. it is the ‘right thing’ to do.
I’m sorry, but if that is the case, the morals also apply to you individually and you should individually cut your carbon footprint to zero (i.e. regardless of the cost)…
See what I’m saying? I’m ok with someone claiming based on their understanding of ‘the science’ they think we should do something; but, don’t bring the polar bears and children into the argument and demand that I change my lifestyle to fit your morals… especially when I don’t have your morals and you haven’t lived them yourself.
Barry
CO2 radiates a band of frequencies from 17.8THz to 22.2THz. The ground is already vibrating at those frequencies, with a greater intensity. To warm the ground you have to increase the peak frequency. Adding like frequencies does not increase the peak frequency. You have to radiate the ground with a peak frequency greater than the grounds peak frequency or to put it another way cold cant warm hot.
Add two waves of the same frequency in phase and they reinforce.
Add two waves of the same frequency 180 degrees out of phase and they cancel out. Hence interference fringes.
It is not the frequencies that matter, it is the energy being transported.
Kelvin Vaughan
You are repeating the false physics that the skeptics like to bring up. It is based upon poor thought process and is not at all logical.
It can be most easily disproved. If Claes Johnson was an actual scientist and not a mathematician he would have performed some type of experiment to test his ideas. Rather he publishes them on blogs and hungry skeptics, looking for something, eat this crap up and think it is meat.
An experiment to prove your notions false, misleading and incorrect.
In a vacuum have two plates close to each other but not touching held up by some insulating material. One is heated by an external source with a constant and consistent energy input. The other has a means to vary its temperature (say it is hollow and you can add water at different temperatures). You will find that once the system reaches a steady state temperature you can control the temperature of the heated plate by changing the temperature of the non-heated plate. Why? Because of the energy it transports to the heated plate.
At room temperature the surface of objects have very few surface molecules or atoms in energy states above the ground state. Most surface molecules are free to absorb all incoming energy that cause them to vibrate at higher energy states.
The reason cold does not warm hot is because hot is losing energy at a faster rate. The temperature of the cold will alter the temperature of the hot. It is a fact.
I guess that after a steady state the heated plate has it’s constant temperature and the non-heated plate the temperature it had before adding water. You just added temporarily a dose of external energy to the system.
He’s not real bright, eh?
So if that’s true can I use this :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/radfrac.html#c1
to calculate the power in the band between 17.8THz to 22.2THz if I make the temperature 15C? Then multiply it by 0.58 which seems to be the amount of that band blocked by CO2.
I’m guessing you get a number not significantly different to zero, eh?
Kelvin Vaughan
For the band of CO2 (using 14000 nm to 16000 nm) at 15C I get a blackbody emitting 390 Watt/m^2 and the band given above it will be about 37 W/m^2 or close to 9% of the band.
OK. You have convinced me you really are as thick as you seem.
Eh?
Do you have a valid point or are you being the brain-dead polarized zombie?
Not sure why you post except to be overly annoying.
Norman
I get about the same using 13520 nm and 1685 nm. If I now reduce that to 14C and reduce the bandwidth to 13600 nm and 16750 for 280 ppm I get about 2W less so I assume Raising CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm raises the temperature by 2W?
Kevin,
Detailed questions like these might be better answered with MODTRAN.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
When in doubt, obfuscate, eh?
I can confirm Norman’s results. I get 390 W/m^2 for a 288K blackbody. And 37 W/m^2 is up for grabs within 1um of 15um. Note that if this window is closed off and temperatures increase the flux available to close off increases as well. We can run the numbers with whatever assumption you prefer though.
Equally as thick as each other, eh?
Jimi Hendrix debunked that a long time ago!
OK, blob.
“Adding like frequencies does not increase the peak frequency.”
Adding like frequencies produces higher harmonic frequencies which one would be aware of if they had ever listened to Jimi Hendrix.
stop trolling asshole
Stupidity and ignorance evenly balanced by arrogance and mindless obscenity, eh?
Do tell me exactly what I posted was ignorant, arrogant or stupid.
Eh?
Dr Roys EMT:
Please stop trolling
Please start using proper punctuation
You –
we never see such
faults in our own
stars
Pot. Kettle. Dumb. Dumber.
Dr Roy Spencer
With all due respect, the reason it’s not cloud cover albedo is because it’s not insulation and Milankovitch cycles aka ice albedo. They are certainly part of the equation but there’s another layer.
Always been about this-not science.
https://junkscience.com/2019/11/democrats-introduce-bill-for-imposing-co2-tax-on-taxpayers/
Here’s some useful terminology for use in climate discussions:
97% of scientists, the science, since records began, straw man, cherry pick, highest ever, record high, likely, denier, liar, warmist, skeptic, ocean acidification, extreme, debunk, hand waving, confirmation bias, and more recently, virtue signalling.
Other suggestions welcome!
But not simultaneously from one molecule. Back radiation is not resisting the heat flow. I think back radiation as an explanation of GHE is rejected a long time ago. Immediate thermalization is not resisting but advancing the heat flow. So, what is the physical basis of CO2 being an insulator?
The comment was to bdgwx
If a photon capture leads to thermalization or the emission of a new photon that is directed back toward the surface then the amount of energy the original photon was carrying no longer escapes to space. It is trapped inside the geosphere. The egress flow of energy is reduced. Thermalization does not advance the flow of heat here. It impedes it. Remember, that 15um photon sans CO2 already has a free escape trajectory. Its energy and heat potential would normally be lost to space. But with CO2 that energy gets converted into heat at the level of thermalization instead of escaping to space.
No convection?
Convection still occurs with or without GHGs. That doesn’t change. Neither does advection, latent heat, sensible heat, or any of the other heat transport mechanisms that move the heat around. Note that the Earth does not lose any heat to space via convection. It’s lost via radiation. Impede the transmission of that radiant heat and it gets trapped in the troposphere and hydrosphere until the temperature stops increasing and a new equilibrium is established. BTW, this is why the stratosphere is cooling. That radiant heat is being impeded low enough in the atmosphere that it isn’t even making it to the stratosphere.
“what is the physical basis of CO2 being an insulator?”
Insulator dictionary dot com def.: “A material or an object that does not easily allow heat, electricity, light, or sound to pass through it.”
If a photon of light emitted from near Earth surface (in a hemisphere of directions) doesn’t get absorbed by an air molecule, then it easily passes through the atm. to space and departs. This process is not def. of insulator.
If a photon of light does get absorbed by an air molecule, then it does not easily pass through the atm. to space and depart. This process is def. of insulator.
You can insert “CO2 molecule” for “air molecule” if you want. Sometimes the atm. air is not an insulator, sometimes atm is an insulator since on net any atm. is an insulator e.g. the Earthen measured global 33K difference TOA v. surface.
I am talking about heat transfer.
The definition of insulator includes heat esalil.
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.”
Reflected rather than absorbed.
Invented long ago for reflected IR AND absorbed IR: foam board in practice for higher R-value in real construction projects
https://www.homedepot.com/p/SilveRboard-24-in-x-1-in-x-48-in-R5-Radiant-Acoustic-Insulation-Kit-STC-19-5-Piece-SB12AKIT/205975329
“A radiant barrier is a type of building material that reflects thermal radiation and reduces heat transfer. Because thermal energy is also transferred by conduction and convection, in addition to radiation, radiant barriers are often supplemented with thermal insulation that slows down heat transfer by conduction or convection.”
Very good DREMT, you are starting to better learn and quote some of this stuff.
The radiative part of the insulation is from the reflection, as the quote makes plain.
Yes, good progress DREMT, the metal foil added to the plain foam block of insulation increases the IR reflection over plain foam block thus “higher R-value per inch” over plain foam block so you realize the adv. is correct.
When Ball4 loses an argument, he just acts like he’s won and hopes others won’t check.
Ah, but some do check DREMT. Trust but verify. In this case your 8:03am quote is accurate as is the adv. stating the added foil delivers higher R-value which those who do trust will verify.
Another thing he likes to do, as we saw further upthread…is when a result comes in that challenges the consensus viewpoint, he simply pretends that it is nothing new.
All Tricks, is our Ball4/Trick.
No pretending DREMT. Trust but verify. And PST.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Dr Roy’s EMT:
Please stop trolling
David, you were banned. Get over it, and move on.
dremt, please stop
trolling
David, please stop trolling.
How is radiant heat trapped in the troposphere? It does not thermalize N2 and O2? It does not radiate directly to the space? Could stratosphere cooling be due to the increased concentration of CO2 there?
esalil: It’s also trapped in the hydrosphere too. In fact, over 90% of it is taken up by the hydrosphere either directly by the backradiation itself or indirectly via the various heat transport mechanisms occurring in the atmosphere. And yes, one pathway for photon capture and energy distribution is UWIR -> CO2 -> N2/O2. Another is UWIR -> CO2 -> N2/O2 -> CO2 -> DWIR. Yet another is UWIR -> CO2 -> DWIR. And there are many more; even infinitely many more if you allow your pathway chain to extend indefinitely as the quanta of energy bounces around chaotically. The important take away is that whereas without CO2 a significantly higher percentage of those 15um photons freely escape to space unimpeded than with CO2 where you introduce pathways that result in thermalization or DWIR.
UWIR?
Now we’re onto a “percentage of photons”…
☺️
DWIR = downwelling IR radiation, UWIR = upwelling IR radiation
That whole model has been completely wiped out by Berry’s two papers.
Berry wiped out our understanding of molecular physics and quantum mechanics?
You know nothing about quantum mechanics or molecular physics – except how to copy the words!
True?
How does the back radiation heat the hydrosphere?
esalil
YOU: “How does the back radiation heat the hydrosphere?”
If doesn’t “heat” either the hydrosphere or the land surface. That is not the function of downwelling IR. I think this is why so many skeptics reject the GHE because this is how they frame it.
I gave an example of a heated plate temperature being changed by the IR emitted by a colder object.
The solar input will cause the hydrosphere to reach a higher temperature when DWIR is present than in a system without this radiant energy.
The surface has to reach a temperature that will allow it to balance the incoming solar (this averages at 240 W/m^2 over the Earth). Without GHE that would be at the temperature where the surface would be emitting 240 W/m^2. The surface has to reach a temperature where it emits 390 W/m^2 to get 240 W/m^2 out.
It is really similar to insulation even if DREMT is not able to understand conceptually how this is possible and dwells only on semantics missing the concept completely.
The difference between this:
“The solar input will cause the hydrosphere to reach a higher temperature when DWIR is present than in a system without this radiant energy.”
and this:
“DWIR heating either the hydrosphere or the land surface”
is semantics. Norman, you are the one who is arguing semantics. When I and others here say that GHGs are notinsulation, we are talking about them not being like insulation, or anything comparable to insulation. In other words, the semantics are not important.
Only Norman could make an argument based entirely on semantics whilst simultaneously falsely accusing someone else of doing the same.
Its not unlike the insulation in your home. If you add more insulation the temperature in your home will increase until a new equilibrium is established all other things being equal. Similarly if you add more GHGs in the atmosphere then the surface temperature will increase until a new equilibrium is established.
GHGs act as thermal barriers. Period. This is not controversial or disputed in anyway. It was discovered more than 150 years ago, explained convincingly by the known laws of physics, and the mechanism is tested on a planetary scale on a daily basis via the many radiometers we have in space and infrared spectroscopy.
Of course it’s controversial and disputed. Are you simply denying the existence of those who argue against the Greenhouse Effect, and their arguments!?
Esasil
Downwelling radiation is absorbed by the sea surface and creates a warm surface layer which acts as a high temperature hurdle which inhibits heat transfer from the bulk ocean volume to the atmosphere.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC013351
How much is the DWIR in W/m2
The global mean DWIR flux is about 340 W/m^2 which is coincidentally close to the incoming SW flux at TOA. The global mean UWIR flux is about 390 W/m^2. IR at TOA is about 240 W/m^2. The margin of error on these figures is about 2%.
Some interesting discussion in the comments under this old article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/
According to physics tables the ice emits 300 W/m2 of IR. Why does not the ice heat the hydrosphere? Are there various types of IR? I have two 800 W electric heaters in my living room. One m3 of ice would provide 1800 W.
He’s not terribly bright. One of the dimwits who thinks temperatures are measured in watts, eh?
esalil: Why does not the ice heat the hydrosphere?
We have to be careful with terminology here. Ice (and snow) act as radiation shields or thermal barriers. That means UWIR from below does not easily pass through. From a thermodynamics perspective ice does not heat water below. What it does is reduce the net flow of energy away the water. The water cools at a slower rate. If the water is being heated by another source at a higher temperature (say by an advective flow) it will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature with the ice present than without it and assuming no other heat transfer mechanisms are in play. BTW…this is why air temperatures drop faster on calm and clear nights with snow cover present than without it. The air is losing energy via radiation to space but is not receiving a sufficient replacement flux from the surface below. There are lots of potential details to discuss so please ask follow up questions if needed. There’s also a lot of details in the way sea ice, ocean, solar input, melting, etc. work together. If that was the crux of your question we can discuss that as well.
Are there various types of IR?
There are frequencies to consider. Many materials respond to specific frequencies only.
I have two 800 W electric heaters in my living room. One m3 of ice would provide 1800 W.
Let’s assume these entities are blackbodies and that the electric heaters are 1m3 cubes. Assume ambient temperature is 294K. With the heaters turned off they would emit 423 W/m^2. And the environment is emitting 423 W/m^2 towards the heaters. The net flow is 0 W/m^2. Nothing happens. With the heaters turned on they would emit 556 W/m^2. The net flow is now +133 W/m^2. The environment warms. For the ice cube it emits 300 W/m^2 but is being bathed by 423 W/m^2 from the environment. The net flow is -123 W/m^2. The environment cools while the ice cube warms and eventually melts.
Eh?: One of the dimwits who thinks temperatures are measured in watts, eh?
See Planck’s Law. Temperature measurements are made via volts (thermocouple), ohms (RTD), watts (thermopile), refractive index (laser interferometer), pressure and volume (ideal gas law), geopotential heights (hyposometric equation), etc. Nearly all devices that “measure” temperature are actually measuring something else and then use a model to map that value to a temperature.
As stupid as ever, eh? Trying to appear clever just exposes the level of your stupidity.
bdgwx: Now you have very different physics compared to mine. If you have ice on the water heated by another source the water will surely be cooler than in the absence of ice. A huge amount of heat (333kJ/kg) is consumed to melt the ice instead of warming the water. The same applies to snow cover on the ground.
By various types of IR I thought that according to you oddly some IR (340w CO2 DWIR) is warming while some IR (300W of the ice) is cooling. This cannot be a matter of frequencies.
From what you answered to the heater problem I must assume that in your opinion the air let say at 1000 m of height is warmer than at 2m and there the air is warmer than the sea surface. How otherwise DWIR can warm the sea since you explained correctly that in my living room the warmth flows from warmer to cooler.
esalil:
You are now introducing the concept of enthalpy of fusion into the ice thought experiment which complicates it further. That’s going to change things for sure.
Regarding radiation…there is no property of a photon that dictates whether it will warm or cool a body. Radiation of a certain frequency behaves the same regardless of what emitted or absorbed it.
The point I’m trying to make is that from a pure thermodynamics perspective the DWIR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the surface by itself. What it does is slow the rate at which heat is lost from the surface. The Sun is what is proving the energy to warm the surface. The surface will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature with the CO2 present than without it.
It’s a similar concept with the insulation in your home. The insulation does not warm your home by itself. But what it does is augment your furnace to allow your home to achieve a higher equilibrium temperature.
The act of adding a thermal barrier, whether it be CO2 in the atmosphere or by shutting a window in your home, results in a temperature increase. I’m okay with people saying that this act resulted in warming. Just understand that from a pure thermodynamics perspective this isn’t quite correct at the most fundamental level. It’s the energy source (the Sun or the furnace) that is actually causing the the thermodynamic warming and in accordance with the 1LOT and 2LOT.
Down-thread we go:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-409207
Exponential insulatory stupidity. A roof insulates you from the effects of the sun. You think it is supposed to make the interior hotter by trappping the Sun’s heat? What a loony idea! According to you, sunshades make you hotter, eh?
That is a looney idea. It’s a good thing for me that I never said sunshades make you hotter or that a roof on a typical residential home makes it warmer by trapping the Sun’s heat.
No, but you do keep falsely comparing GHGs to insulation.
Insulation is a thermal barrier. GHGs are thermal barriers. It seems like a reasonable comparison to me and likely most others who acknowledge the vast experimental and observational evidence regarding both.
Just keep saying that, over and over and over and over again, and hopefully enough people will start to believe it.
Disinformation is a core competence of the US Govt and has been since 1945. They are not alone in that: the UK is exactly the same and no doubt many other governments worldwide too.
So disinformation as a political tactic is hardly surprising when the most powerful organisation in your nation uses it routinely.
The real more interesting question is this: can you ever make a large majority of humans dispassionate seekers of truth without compromising the reproductive impulses of the herd?
My hypothesis is that right now, at this point in history, no you cannot.
So my assumption is that truth does not work as a means of mass influencing, and that media/propaganda folk have become skilled at finding the distortions from the truth which DO work.
This is quite depressing because I am not a skilled liar and it means that politics is outwith the compass of those not comfortable in telling porkies in public.
The first truth that cannot speak its name is that a large majority of the richest people have absolute contempt for democracy and a personal penchant for autocracy. As these folks have inordinate influence, it means that democracy constantly fights uphill battles against the financial interests of oligarchs.
The second truth that cannot speak its name is that mass indoctrination is attractive to those obsessed by power. Now that religion is on the wane, climate hooey is an attractive alternative, as is Russophobia etc etc. Inculcating minds with falsehood is half the job of the CIA and its equivalents overseas.
The third truth that cannot speak its name is that telling the truth is the path to unemployment. So long as holding climate views, anti US imperialistic views etc etc is ostracised, it is to be expected that people remain ignorant as a self preservation tactic.
So I am not surprised that disinformation is so rife. What surprises me is that people actually think that we will ever be any different….
Sad but true.
It is not too late to push back by ensuring that Donald Trump wins in a landslide in 2020.
He won’t be able to make government honest but he will make sure it does not destroy prosperity by punishing the consumption of fossil fuels.
trump can’t even be honest
himself.
we all know he’s a bald
faced liar.
everyone here knows this.
Just another politician, eh?
no, far far worse. > 13k lies to date
Trump is one of the few honest people in Washington.
How many of our House and Senate members could survive a $40 million proctology exam?
The greenhouse gas effect is a concept not a science based on IPCC Chapter 8. Why are you treating it as a fact?
I agree. There is no real reason, empirical or otherwise, to assign CO2 a climate sensitivity other than zero.
But, but, but . . .
Try calculating it from evidence rather than assigning it.
show your work
Eh?
Fresh from Notrickszone:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/21/scientists-cite-uncertainty-error-model-deficiencies-to-affirm-a-non-detectable-human-climate-influence/
I just looked at the K&L 2019 paper. The authors appear to be all-in on the GHE. But help me out. The uncertainty reported here appears to be that of the AHI relative CERES. The authors note that broadband imagers are highly accurate but have low spatiotemporal resolution whereas narrowband imagers have high spatiotemporal resolution but suffer from lower accuracy. The AHI is a narrowband imager. And it’s RMSE is reported to be 11 W/m^2 relative to CERES. Furthermore, if the global mean was the metric of interest then wouldn’t the error be 11/sqrt(510e6/(20*20)) = 0.01 W/m^2 relative to CERES? I’m thinking this is yet another case of notrickszone playing tricks on their audience. I wonder if we aren’t being similarly tricked with the other cited papers as well? What do you think? What do the experts think?
The Kato 2018 paper says the global mean net LW+SW error is about 8 W/m^2 from CERES. That’s about 2% of the total TOA flux. This is actually less than the CO2 forcing error cited by the IPCC of about 10%. But the cummulative CO2 forcing error since 1750 is only about 0.08% of the incoming surface flux and about 0.05% of the DWIR flux.
You wilfully ignore science then promote your leftist agenda in the name of science.
Hoping that bullshit baffles brains, eh?
Dr Berry answers all your questions about the carbon cycle and fixes the IPCC’s misguided carbon cycle and shows 77% of the carbon increase from 1750 has been natural.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/a-simple-explanation-of-the-new-climate-science/
“the bet?”
Eh?
Dr. Spencer, The satellite data you post monthly is priceless. It shocks friends and when I have time, I show it to patients (ophthalmologist and science nerd). When you show people that the 2016 peak simply matched the 1998 peak, and we don’t have accelerating warming, it is easy to win a debate. I love to follow the technical arguments, but the actual data will eventually rule the day. Thank you for your excellent blog.
I’m shocked, too.
I don’t know who taught you to analyse data, but they did a crap job.
You do not deduce a long term trend by jumping from one outlier to another. You consider the whole dataset.
The proper indicator is the long term trend calculated by Dr Spencer, +0.13C/decade.
Richard Whybray,
The trend of +0.13C / decade is meaningless. We only have 4 complete decades since UAH started. It would be the equivalent of charting March-June, stating the trend is +12 deg F per month and thinking we were about to burn up on this planet.
We haven’t even captured a full AMO cycle, let alone a GSM cycle.
Do you guys realize before humans came along, the climate was changing. Thinking that ALL the change we see now is from us would be a very big mistake.
It only goes back to 1979, 40 years. When we get another 40 years and then another, we will know more, assuming nobody comes along and makes agenda driven adjustments to the data. I know that satellites come and go, and orbits move around and decay and sensor calibration changes, but I trust the UAH contingent to handle these professionally.
what about uah’s adjustments
to the satellite data?
What about them, eh? Good? Excellent? Wonderful?
When computer modeling meets the real world fizzix.
A little while ago I posted a video of first flight of an airplane designed by computer modelers ,
this is another airplanes first flight again by computer modellers – same results, not video but picture sequence
https://i.postimg.cc/Nfpd1dkb/1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/bNBQyWTX/2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0NfjQJs6/3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/CKmMYTGk/4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/bvWyd05w/6.jpg
America WAS “Tribal” 35 years ago, but we were all in the same American Tribe back then. “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” was something we (almost) all believed in.
A scion of the Left “budded off” a new Globalist Socialist Tribe. Thus tribe is International and Anti-National. (A world without borders utopia kind of thing) The US Constitution and Traditional American Values stand in the way of the ultimate plans and goals of this Tribe.
The Climate Crisis is just a clever tool used by this Tribe to weaken and eventually subsume Western Civilization.
They must be stopped. The amount and degree of death and destruction these Socialists would do (once again) should not be underestimated.
DocSiders says:
November 21, 2019 at 12:17 PM
America WAS Tribal 35 years ago, but we were all in the same American Tribe back then.
unless you were gay, black,
hispanic, noncausasian
or
a women
then you were expected to accept
second class
citizenship
Better than third class citizenship, eh?
@Scott R
You could apply that same idea of uncertainty and skepticism to what you call the pause. Could have been 15 years of natural cooling if not for the increase in GHGs. We dont know.
Instead, a 15 trend is meaningful when it supports your viewpoint. A 40 year trend is meaningless when it doesnt.
Snape… let me explain another way. Using the 40 years of data collected, I would say that we can say with confidence when we are in a +ENSO or -ENSO phase, and how UAH reacts to that. We know this because these cycles last a short period and we can observe multiple complete cycles. Therefore, saying we are in a short term downtrend, short term uptrend based on ENSO makes good scientific sense.
Bottom line, you can not come up with a trend per decade with only 4 decades worth of information. That’s bad science. Again. Think about the example I gave of collecting 4 months of high temperatures, and coming up with a trend per month. It’s the same thing.
We know that prior to 1980, there were cycles that were effecting the trend, in particular, the AMO. We also know that the AMO bottomed in 1974. That is fact. The AMO is actually made out of 2 components at 84 years and 61 years. The way these forcers combine together, creates a unique wave each time. Both the 84 year forcer and the 61 year forcer topped around 1998 or so. The AMO hasn’t been able to really drop yet, because cooling takes time… similar to the late 30s – early 60s slow Atlantic cool. Im projecting the bottom of the Yoshimura cycle (61 years) in 2035, and the bottom of the Gleissberg cycle (84 years) in 2030. The fact that these line up with the GSM is not a coincidence. It is time for the sharp Atlantic drop.
Snape see the AMO here:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1850
where does the
warming energy
for the amo come from?
where does it go
during a negative
phase?
Round and round and round it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows, eh?
D60Peabody,
You are thinking of the global energy system all wrong. The energy doesn’t go anywhere. The atmosphere only makes up a tiny fraction of the mass of the earth. How the energy is distributed depends on many things, most of which are poorly understood. During a +AMO, you have less overturning of water. During a -AMO you have more overturning of water. This warms, cools the atmosphere respectively, without any energy change for the earth as a whole.
In my opinion, the AMO is being created by the sun, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. That might sound crazy until you actually look at the data yourself and see the 61 year Yoshimura cycle, and the 84 year Gleissberg cycle with your own eyes in the data. Somehow, the orbits of the planets are effecting the sun – either it’s barycenter, or it’s solar cycle… and then the sun impacts the earth in a very predictable way.
We all get that the AMO is mechanism by which heat is transported through the climate system. But heat isn’t just being moved around right now. It is accumulating in bulk in all reservoirs including the hydrosphere, cryosphere, troposphere, etc. Everything in the geosphere is warming. The AMO is not a source of energy and cannot cause everything to warm by itself.
Some interesting discussion in the comments under this old article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/
bdgwx,
Looking at the 400 year cycle, 2000 year cycle, 100,000 year cycle, it makes total sense that the earth should be generally warming (over the past 100 years) with no influence from humans at all. So how do you separate the warming effect of the earth’s circular orbit (which basically we are in the early June of that cycle) from mans influences?
The answer is, in order to confirm our influence on different time frames, we have to experience (and record the data) of at least a full cycle of natural forcers. More than one is better. Im very confident, that the sat record does not include a full AMO cycle, and only includes the +AMO portion. This is based on solid recorded ocean data going back to the mid 1800s. We therefore, have not identified the proportion of the 1980 to present warming that was caused by the AMO, and won’t until the mid 2030s.
bdgwx,
You can use the base noaa 2 meter temperature data for locations specifically tied to the AMO. It just so happens that I live in one such location, Detroit MI. The base NOAA data fits the AMO extremely well, going all the way back to the 1880s. It is an undeniable fit actually. Note that the 12 month running mean for Detroit MI has already retraced 1/2 of the 1980-2016 warming period. I’ve mentioned this before that the AMO acts like a leader – once a negative AMO gets going, the ice will recover in the arctic, and that will reflect more sunlight reaching the earth. That will cool the entire planet.
Scott, The relationship between AMO and sea ice does not support your thesis. AMO has been flat since 2003 while Arctic ice has decreased markedly see –
https://imgur.com/a/CEE8Xar
If anything the rate of Arctic sea ice loss has decreased since 2003 see –
https://imgur.com/a/6ObjuCy
There may be something else at play. I suspect the temperature in the Arctic may play a part (understatement).
Mike R,
Let me give you an example. Does the arctic ice min occur on June 21st each year or at the end of August? Even though the sun is at peak strength in June, the min occurs on a delay of 20% of 1 cycle length. The same thing happens on longer time frames.
Actually, I’m not sure by what measure you are judging the ice min and the peak AMO. Where does 2003 come from? If you go by the AMO index, the peak was 2010. If you go by HADSTT3, the peak was 2012. Not surprisingly, the warmest year for Detroit MI was 2012 @ 54.5 deg F average temperature, just edging out the previous high of 53.9, set in 1882.
Going by the AMO, we have retraced less than 20% of the up move. Going by the HADSTT3, we have retraced ~10%. In my opinion, the arctic ice hit it’s minimum in 2012. You can see that this particular minimum has not been taken out. The way summers work each year is a good analogy. We warm sharply until late June, and temperatures go sideways for a couple of months, before they plummet for the winter season.
Mike R you can go to NASA’s website and see the arctic photos, chart yourself. Since the Atlantic rolled over in 2010-2012, the ice has been growing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
MikeR,
Detroit’s 12 month running mean has plummeted from 54.5 in 2012 to 50.5 as of October 2019. The 145 year average is around 49.3. I would venture to say, that you will continue to see the “cold spot” over north America continue to grow until it becomes a dominate global feature. This cold spot will continue to reinforce the -AMO, causing the ocean to cool, which will make the cold spot, colder.
It’s like a game of ping pong as the earth bounces back and forth between 2 extremes as it finds a 2 different equilibrium points at the top and bottom of the AMO cycle.
scott r, what percentage
of the globe is detroit
and what percentage of the
atmosphere is the
weather station there, which is,
what, 1000 mm^3 in size?
Scott, sorry to snow on your parade.
I used the year 2003 as my start point as this was when the AMO trend until the present became negative. I thought that 16 years of data, with a negative or zero trend, since 2003 might be a good test of your thesis.
You seem to claim in the above, that the response of sea ice to AMO is lagged. How many months, years or decades is the lag? Do you have data, such as lagged correlations to support this? From the period 1979 to 2003 there appears to be no lag and ice cover decreases as the AMO increases, but from 2003 until the present this relationship collapses, unless a lag of unknown duration mysteriously appears.
A lot simpler thesis for the decline in ice is related to the increasing temperatures in the Arctic. This is a highly plausible mechanism that does not require a lag to suddenly materialize.
Your estimate of the minimum in ice cover as being in 2012 is not borne out by the data. Yes there was a minimum for September in 2012 but the average ice extent for the entire year shows that Arctic sea ice for 2016 (10.153) was well below 2012(10.418) .
In fact if you look, in contrast to the minimum, at the maximum ice cover over the past decade, March 2012 was the greatest at 15.2 closely followed by March 2013 at 15.14.
For the January to October, the average for 2019 is currently running the lowest on record (for all years) at 10.125 and well below 2012 (10.364) , 2016 (10.199 ), 2018 (10.264) .
Irrespective of the above, starting at your preferred data 2012 , the trend in AMO is still slightly positive but the annualized ice cover is plummeting at 0.56 per decade.
Finally I note that you linked to the following
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
Did you actually look at this site? Did you miss the rate of change of ice cover that was just above the graph? Minus 12.85% per decade. Chilling!
Maybe you need to adjust your blinkers.
PeabodyEnergy,
The way the AMO works, you have to go local. The temperature reacts to the AMO on a regional delay to the AMO. For instance, Detroit has a 4 year delay to the AMO, while the middle east region is 12 years. Im perfectly aware that Detroit MI is only one place on the globe, but in the same way we can drill an ice core and learn about the climate 1,000,000 years ago from one place on the earth, we can learn something from each region on the earth today.
MikeR,
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you are completely wrong about when the AMO peaked. It did not peak in 2003. The highest recorded temperature for the AMO was recorded in 2010.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1850
The highest recorded temperature according to HADSST3 was in 2012. What you have is a weakening, or rolling over of the trend. You do not have a linear up trend and then suddenly a linear down trend. That is not how energy flows work. lol
As mentioned to PeabodyEnergy, the delay of the AMO is region dependent, so you will have to drill down to the local stations to see the relationship to the AMO and calculate the delay. The delay for the middle east is 12 years… so we haven’t even absorbed the peak AMO there yet. In the same way, the min ice doesn’t occur on June 21st, the min ice may not appear exactly on 2010, or 2012. However like I said, by some measures, the ice min HAS occurred, and therefore may not be on a delay. The effect of the ice on the world is what is on a delay. We are not making new ice mins. As for 2016 and 2019, these years had a El Nino contributing to ice melt, but according to the NASA data, a new min was not reached in 2016 even though it was a strong El Nino year. I don’t believe they’ve updated the picture for 2019 yet, but the chart does contain the 2019 data point. summer 2012 was a ENSO neutral year. Summer 2010 was actually a la nina year. Of course the ice is dependent on more than the AMO. The forcers stack on top of each other. I only referred you to the NASA site to see the photos of the arctic in 2012, and see that the average September extent is increasing ever since the AMO reversed. I obviously don’t agree with their trend conclusions.
Scott R,
With regard to your comment to Peabody, I suspect strongly then you could find a lagged correlation with anything for every location on earth.
What was the size of the lagged correlations? How much larger was this maximum lagged correlation, than for other lags?
Finally have you heard of the terms p-hacking and data dredging their associated controversy?
Sorry to be so dubious of your claims but this is a humorous explanation of the problem of p-hacking. Enjoy.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant
Adding more insulation to your home wont cause the temperature to increase. Your thermostat will prevent that by reducing the amount of heat produced by your heat source to maintain the same temperature. With climate , increased cloud cover due to increased temperatures will reduce the amount of radiation reaching the surface and cooler oceans will absorb more heat and CO2 from the surface, not to mention increased radiation due to space from any transient temperature increase. Thats how the climate thermostat may work.
Pft, Your scenario sounds like the Lindzen Adaptive Iris hypothesis. One big problem there. That “thermostat” works both ways. Please explain how there could be Ice Ages with that, as the process would counter cooling as well as warming.
Or?
test
E. Swanson
A fellow named Geraint Hughes did a similar experiment with two plates in a vacuum. One heated by a lamp the other is found above and not heated. He came to the conclusion that back-radiation GHE is bogus. The heated plate did not get hotter as in your experiment a while back.
I am thinking his plastic spacers are what changes the experiment dynamic. You have no contact with plates. He separates his with plastic spacers. My opinion is that the thermal conduction through the plastic spacers act to cool the heated plate by transferring energy via conduction to the upper non-heated plate. I am not sure but I thought you could take a look.
Here is the link.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
It is comforting to know that backradiaton is such a weak force that it can be effectively eliminated with a couple of plastic spacers…
By the way…re redid the experiment without the spacers…still no back radiation…
🙂
Scott
Ok, maybe my comment wasnt fair. A few things to consider, though:
– [Think about the example I gave of collecting 4 months of high temperatures, and coming up with a trend per month. Its the same thing.]
Well, there are roughly 480 monthly data points in the UAH record. If Roy reported the trend as +0.001083/month, would you like that any better?
– what was the ENSO trend during the pause years? It would shed some light onto the influence of natural variation.
– [The AMO is actually made out of 2 components at 84 years and 61 years.]
How many of those cycles have been accurately observed? One?
– I expect several years of declining temperatures, so at least we agree on that. Its been a while since a decent La Nina.
******
Also, just so you know, my comments always end up at the bottom of the thread. Whats worse, the apostrophes disappear.
😥
Scott R
You get a significant trend when the two ends are more than 4 standard deviations apart.
For UAH the SD is 0.05C. 4SD is 0.2C.
To reach a significant trend at 0.13C/decade takes about 15 years. 40 years shows a total change of 0.5C, more than enough.
Snape and Richard Whybray,
Have you guys ever heard of multiple timeframe technical analysis in stock trading? That is what we are dealing with here with the climate. You have competing cycles on multiple timeframes leading to the global temperature departure. Then you have humans. Getting all the forcers right on every time frame is critical to understanding what humans are actually doing. Isn’t that what we all want?
“Well, there are roughly 480 monthly data points in the UAH record. If Roy reported the trend as +0.001083/month, would you like that any better?”
Basically, that would be like using daily high temperature readings and reporting a daily trend in my example. You could apply a standard deviation to the daily readings and still come up with the wrong conclusion because you’ve ignored the higher time frame.
As far as the ENSO trend, it really depends on your measure point. If you take 2016-present it’s declining. If you take 2018-present it’s increasing. ENSO is a very complex forcer. It has 3 main periods at 11 years, 3.6 years and 2.2 years. The way these combine are constantly changing the ENSO forcing. I don’t think it serves a purpose measuring ENSO trends longer than 11 years because you are capturing PDO trends, not ENSO. The forcers stack on top of each other.
The AMO we have observed 2 complete cycles since 1850. Like I said, the component forcers are 84 and 61 years. That said, you can use the central England dataset as proxy for the AMO, and the relationship holds firm all the way back to the little ice age. On a side note, Central England was at 7 deg c in 1695, and by 1737 it was at 10.5 deg c. (1/2 AMO cycle) The relationship between the AMO and global temperature is tricky… the AMO tends to lead. The reason is the AMO is responsible for the arctic ice growing and retreating. The arctic ice reflects more sunlight when it’s growing. That causes a delay, and explains why the global temperature lags the Atlantic, which lags the peak Yoshimura and Gleissberg spikes. The earth is very complex… taking many years to absorb events.
Scott R
[Getting all the forcers right on every time frame is critical to understanding what humans are actually doing. Isnt that what we all want?]
Yes, and that was exactly my point regarding the pause years. Just looking at the TLT trend during that short a period tells us very little about the forcing from GHGs. The forcing from the other stocks, as you put it, need to be accounted for.
[You could apply a standard deviation to the daily readings and still come up with the wrong conclusion because youve ignored the higher time frame.]
I agree with this too, but you didnt answer my question. Would you rather Roy report the trend as a monthly change? If he did, the first thing I would do is change it back to per/decade, the more familiar context.
Snape,
What I would like to see happen is the uptrend since 1980 properly framed within the context of the longer cycles. I feel that many here look at this trend and attribute it all to us, and that is absolutely not true. It can’t be true. The system was dynamic before we came along. I do not think that the natural cycle has offset our action during this uptrend. I believe the forcers were aligned. Only now will they start to separate, and we will see the true AGW forcer amplitude from the bottom of the AMO, GSM cycle over the next 40 years. A great scientific opportunity we have.
https://bit.ly/35s4Mwg
And you think a single station matters why?
One cubic centimeter out of 10^24?
Eh?
D60Peabody,
One cubic centimeter ?
What a poor argument!
Especially in defense of a theory that does not have a cubic millimeter of credibility.
Now, if you like big volumes, see this: https://zupimages.net/up/19/47/ilvv.png
Good question. The answer may be that the thermostat changes for reasons we dont fully understand. Perhaps changes to long term solar cycles, orbital changes, GCRs, etc. The fact that climate has changed without mans contribution to CO2 is indisputable, so while at any given moment in time the thermostat is set at X, its variable over time with history suggesting its usually set far lower.
I suppose one can argue CO2 is a variable in the thermostat setting, perhaps, however the evidence suggests its more likely CO2 levels respond to climate change and fall in glacial periods while rising during interglacials. The ice core data unfortunately is limited since it gives a snap shot of levels over a 200 year average at each depth and chemical processes may lower the results.
Also, measuring CO2 levels near an active volcano and major source (warm pacific ocean) is a questionable practice given this measurement is used to calibrate the other sites measurements. I am not sure I agree that the atmosphere is well mixed with regard to CO2. In urban areas it may be double the global average at near surface levels and is responsible for higher night time temperatures which seem to be driving the global increase in average temperature with day time temperatures rather flat (relatively speaking).
Do you think climate scientists realise that CO2 levels are greater near fires?
why do you think
that matters?
Eh?
Roy wrote:
While Im sure there are other examples, the unfortunate truth is that fewer and fewer people actually care about the truth.
Roy is saying, the truth as Roy sees it.
Not many people think Roy is right. His ideas haven’t succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, that’s not his fault — everyone is against him. It’s their fault. In the scientific literature he’s had to resort to deception to get published. It took him most of a decade to admit to a sign error. Roy has a solid reputation as a denier, and not without reason.
Science advances one funeral at a time, no matter how much a coal company funds you.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roy-spencer-peabody-energy_n_57601e12e4b053d43306535e
That’s totally annihilated him, eh?
roy’s cartoon up top is funny
I wonder if he realizes that
colluding is exactly
what most of the world
think he’s done.
probably not
several years to
fix a sign error?
we never see such
faults in our own
stars
Eh?
phi
Eben was not talking about NH, but about Reykyavik.
Eben’s permanent following of people a la Heller aka Goddard lets him think all the time of wrong work done by GISS, but the he one who is wrong, that’s in fact Heller himself.
I’ll present a correct evaluation later downthread.
I was having a discussion on a potholder YouTube video with a Climate Change alarmist. During the discussion, I mentioned that Michael Mann’s hockey stick had disappeared the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. The alarmist replied that he could see the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in Mann’s hockey stick. I could not help but think of Greta Thunberg claiming she can see carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, believers tend to see what they believe.
Can you post a global or NH reconstruction of the mean temperature that you feel supports your perception of the WMP and LIA so that we can compare it to the various other global and NH scale reconstructions available including the MBH99 one? Again…the important thing here is that it should be global or at least northern hemisphere in scale.
Whole lot of difficult questions for you to ignore, bdgwx. Maybe its time you disappeared out the back door for good?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_mobergnh.php
bdgwx says (november 20, 2019 at 12:06 PM) : Convection still occurs with or without GHGs.
This is a very strange statement. Could you explain how convection could occurs without GHG? Thank you.
Convection occurs due to the bulk movement of mass because of a temperature gradient. GHGs are not necessary to make this happen. Even in the atmosphere GHGs are not a necessary condition for deep moist convection. DMC can occur via solar heating, advection of a warm airmass, and many other non-GHG processes.
Deep moist convection, eh? Been watching too much porn again?
Most GHE defenders claim an atmosphere would be isothermal in absence of GHGs, so no temperature gradient. bdgwx is going off-script.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Most GHE defenders claim an atmosphere would be isothermal in absence of GHGs, so no temperature gradient.”
Not Roy Spencer or any other climate scientist, surely?
Citation?
One from 2015, in which his opinion has obviously not changed from the one referenced below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
DREMT, Dr. Spencer does not write “an atmosphere would be isothermal in absence of GHGs” in that link you provide. Try again. Hint for proof: search for “isothermal” in your 11:23am link.
Fine, reject that one if you like. Try the other two.
Not in your other two links either.
11:30am link:
“This is key: without IR absorp.tion and emission by the atmosphere, surface heating by the sun would eventually warm the atmosphere to the same temperature as the surface, and such an “isothermal” atmosphere cannot support convection”
Thanks DREMT for proving your 6:06am comment was intentionally misleading.
From the 11:18am link:
“Why is this lack of an atmospheric cooling mechanism important? Because in our thought experiment we now have an atmosphere whose upper layers are colder than the surface and lower atmosphere. And what happens when there is a temperature difference in a material? Heat flows by thermal conduction, which would then gradually warm the upper atmosphere to reduce that temperature difference. The process would be slow, because the thermal conductivity of air is quite low. But eventually, the entire atmosphere would reach a constant temperature with height.”
Also, take note of this paragraph:
“Since it is the convective overturning of the atmosphere that causes most of what we recognize as ‘weather’, most weather activity on Earth would stop, too. Atmospheric convective overturning is what causes clouds and rainfall. In the tropics, it occurs in relatively small and strongly overturning thunderstorm-type weather systems.”
Once again, 1:53pm no mention of the words DREMT claimed 6:06am. Nothing new.
…and I linked to the 11:23am reference because it included a reiteration of the idea I said to take note of:
“Remember, without greenhouse gases, the upper atmosphere could not lose the energy it accumulates from all sources, and would stay warm, and the atmosphere would not destabilize and cause convective overturning (weather).”
Showing his ideas had not changed from 2009 (although the 11:30am link makes that even clearer).
DREMT, continue to quote Dr. Spencer’s exact words and you will go far in this field.
OK, I will quote his exact words:
“This is key: without IR absorp.tion and emission by the atmosphere, surface heating by the sun would eventually warm the atmosphere to the same temperature as the surface, and such an “isothermal” atmosphere cannot support convection”.
vs. bdgwx:
“Convection occurs due to the bulk movement of mass because of a temperature gradient. GHGs are not necessary to make this happen.”
…and we can wait and see if bdgwx ever re-appears to defend what he’s saying, or if he’s disappeared out the back door again.
Meanwhile you will continue to troll me, I guess.
I definitely stand by what I said. The GHE is not a necessary condition for convection. Changes in GHE magnitude may modulate convection to some extent but other factors like warm air advection, solar heating, etc. play a more dominant role in triggering it. And no, I don’t think the atmosphere would be perfectly isothermal in the absence of GHGs. Thermal gradients would still develop due to the uneven spacial and temporal solar heating effect. Convection would still occur.
bdgwx,
Forgive me, but what you write has no physical meaning. It’s still interesting because you serve the classical IPCC vulgate but you do it without the usual precautions. Thus, we can see that this theory does not hold water.
phi, Let me articulate this in no uncertain terms. Convection can and does occur in materials that are not GHGs. All it requires is some mechanism by which a temperature gradient emerges. Is this what you are taking issue with?
bdgwx,
Yes and in the atmosphere, only GHGs can maintain a gradient because they are the only way to remove heat.
phi, GHGs do not maintain a gradient in earthen midlatitude lower stratosphere which is on avg. isothermal. GHGs are not the only way to remove your so called “heat” in the troposphere. GHGs do not maintain a gradient in the troposphere either – that (dry or wet) gradient is set by air enthalpy and gravity.
phi, GHGs are not the only way heat can escape the Earth. It can also escape via microwave emissions. Remove GHGs from our atmosphere and the surface will cool thus moving Earth’s peak spectral radiance more towards the microwave bands. See Planck’s Law. BTW…these microwave emissions are exploited by UAH to measure the temperature of the atmosphere.
Yes, that’s right. Most claim that (including Dr Spencer), and yet bdgwx is claiming otherwise. Hence my comment.
Citation?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
Unless Dr Spencer has changed his opinion since then, here he is arguing for an isothermal atmosphere without GHGs.
Another one, if you need it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/how-the-climate-system-works-for-dummies/
You are right!
bdgwx,
Free convection can only occurs between a hot source and a cold source.
GHGs are the only cold source of the atmosphere.
So without GHGs, there can be no deep convection.
This is basic thermodynamics.
phi writes: “Free convection can only occurs between a hot source and a cold source.”
Above the midlatitudes tropopause on earth for about 9km of height there is nil convection yet this region is “between a hot source and a cold source”.
phi’s “basic thermodynamics” seem not so reliable.
Actually phi, basic atm. thermodynamics explains both the troposphere convection and nil lower stratosphere convection in that as long as there exists a fluid warmed from below in a gravity field there will be convection. Nil convection results when the fluid becomes warmed from above like above the tropopause for ~9km even though still in a gravity field. Basic thermodynamics.
Unless the fluid is water or gas, eh? Non-convecting solar pond, anyone?
Ball4,
And ?
Convection occurs in a fluid when the column is destabilized by a too negative thermal gradient.
Basic thermodynamics.
If there is no gravity field, there is no convection phi. Basic thermodynamics since the definition of convection.
Ball4,
Yes, so what ???
So phi in reality: convection does not occur in a fluid when the column is destabilized by a too negative thermal gradient without a gravity field. Since there can be no destabilized too negative thermal gradient in free fall.
phi, you are playing too loose and fast with terms. This practice can be corrected. Although all too often evident around here, you seem to insist that nonspecific terms be forced as reality basic thermodynamics on others. Won’t work. Like my Writing Composition Prof. taught: Be specific.
phi: GHGs are the only cold source of the atmosphere.
I don’t even know that means.
phi: So without GHGs, there can be no deep convection.
Well, convection has no problem occurring in my oven. Anyway, did you mean deep moist convection? That of course occurs in the presence of water vapor. WV is a GHG. But the convection is not occurring due to the GHE here either. It is occurring because equivalent potential temperature a lower level is higher In other words, if WV were not active in the IR band DMC would still occur regardless.
phi: This is basic thermodynamics.
So if we filled a box with a non-GHG gas species and heated the bottom you think basic thermodynamics precludes convection from occurring?
That’s it, you tell him, bdgwx! Keep on arguing against that GHE.
Eben
Your comment on November 22, 2019 at 3:58 PM
Unfortunately, it becomes more and moree difficult to post comments at this site. The blog software ignores nearly every longer one containing lots of special chars.
Here is the comment on the cloud:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EGeEbB0WgsoEmsjWnz-IiKr5gqmOrlcb/view
Adjustments are partially made at the national level, GHCN adjusts, GISS adjusts data already processed once or twice.
Evaluation of the GHCN adjustment stage: https://zupimages.net/up/19/47/dyn5.png
phi
In reply to yourt comment on November 23, 2019 at 5:39 PM.
It gets really difficult to post here.
Even the Google Drive lin seems to make problems.
https://tinyurl.com/tcd39jy
The method is described in the graph. This is an estimate of the series that have values in 1901. We can also choose another base year, but that does not change the result much. The effect is that of homogenizations only because QCUs are series whose quality has been controlled. The important thing is that the adjustments do not have the randomness they should have. There is therefore a significant unexplained bias.
phi
“The important thing is that the adjustments do not have the randomness they should have. ”
As long as you don’t eliminate the corrections in front in order to solely deal with adjustments, your method is useless.
Bindidon,
???
bdgwx November 23, 2019 at 10.27 AM:
There is no complication in the ice-water experiment. You cannot solve the problem without taking into the consideration the heat of fusion. The correct answer is real life. Without the heat of fusion the thought experiment of yours gives a totally erroneous result Similar situation can be found in the following link: https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
You say that DWIR does not warm the surface by itself, but slows the heat loss from the ground. What could be the physical basis on this? How does the radiation from CO2 downwards slow the radiation from the ground upwards?
Doncha know it’s magic?
esalil
Your question is easy to answer if you look at a textbook on heat transfer. Eh you don’t know much of anything do you?
YOU: “You say that DWIR does not warm the surface by itself, but slows the heat loss from the ground. What could be the physical basis on this? How does the radiation from CO2 downwards slow the radiation from the ground upwards?”
Heat loss is a net loss of energy. You have the surface emitting energy at a certain rate. You have downwelling energy absorbed at some rate. The net loss of heat from the surface is reduced. Its emission rate is not reduced it is that as it emits and loses it receives and gains.
On the experiment you linked to I think the flaw is the plastic spacers conducting heat. When he removes this thermal bridge he will see the GHE that he denies. I hope he does such an experiment.
And, of course, the person least likely to ever do an actual experiment would be you, eh?
Eh?
You are correct. You would be the least likely to do any testing or any science reading. You are here for one purpose. To troll the blog.
Anything to avoid actually doing a real experiment, eh?
Norman: so you really believe that the heat goes simultaneously both ways? From the warmer ground to warm the cooler air and from the cooler air to warm the warmer ground? And the difference is the net heat loss? You say “you have downwelling energy absorbed at some rate”. This means warming?
“Its emission rate is not reduced it is that as it emits and loses it receives and gains.” What does that sentence mean?
It seems that you don’t believe in the second law of thermodynamics and that’s why your lifeline in the experiment is that the plastic spacers are conducting enough heat. That you can measure by yourself without vacuum at home…
esalil
DWIR that is absorbed DOES NOT MEAN WARMING. Warming is a temperature rise.
I actually do believe in the correct version of the Second Law, not the made up blog version that the “skeptics” believe to be correct.
I also DO NOT BELIEVE “HEAT” goes both ways. I say energy (IR) does indeed go both ways, it goes all ways from an object that has high enough temperature to generate IR. Heat is the NET energy of this exchange. The hotter surface emits more energy than it receives from the colder object so it cools. The colder object receives more energy from the hotter object than it emits so it warms.
Here I will help you: Read this:
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
Every valid textbook on heat transfer physics says the same thing. Not one says different. Engineering textbooks on heat transfer also say the same thing. It is correct your understanding of the 2nd Law is the flaw.
So CO2 and DWIR doesn’t cause temperatures to rise, eh? No warming?
So global warming is really global “not really warming”, eh? Brilliant!
Eh?
CO2 will not cause a non-heated surface to reach a higher temperature. DWIR will cause a heated surface to reach a higher temperature than one with same input energy lacking the DWIR. You will not understand what I wrote and get it wrong. It is what you do. You can’t think or behave differently. I would not expect you to.
I see. It’s the heat which causes temperature increases, eh? That sounds reasonable. Do you really believe that CO2 increases temperatures, or is it just a fantasy of yours?
Norman, plastics are insulators, poor conductors of heat. Try again.
DREMT
Depending upon the plastic they would not be a choice for an experiment that is trying to prove a point with no other source of heat transfer.
Here are some common plastics
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-plastics-d_1786.html
There are better choices than plastic
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
I suggested he suspend the upper plate with fish line or something so all the available area for radiant effects is exposed and no heat will be transferred from the hot bottom plate to the top via anything but radiant energy.
When doing a valid experiment you want to eliminate or reduce any other possible effects. Plastic spacers that conduct some heat from the bottom plate to the top plate would not be the best practice for what the experiment is trying to prove.
Yes, Norman. The thermal conductivity of all the plastics in that table are very low.
Try again.
DREMT
It is low compared to metals. It is high compared to other objects.
You miss the point of a good experiment. You can argue forever about it. Let Geriant do it with no plastic spacers and eliminate this effect. Do you know how much heat is being transferred by the plastic spacers or are you just offering an opinion? I like real science not opinion based speculation. Do you have any estimated calculation of how much energy will flow through those plastic spacers at the temperatures recorded? Why guess? Why not eliminate and end the opinion fest.
No, Norman. Get a grip. All the plastics in that table have thermal conductivity of 0.5 or below. By contrast, pure aluminium has a conductivity of 235. That’s the sort of scale we are talking about.
It’s fun to watch how skeptical you are of an experiment, though, suddenly. I anticipate this from all of you…none of you showed even the slightest skepticism towards Swanson’s experiment. Absolutely none.
I’ll get my popcorn out, and enjoy the show.
DREMT
If you look at the list of common materials beef is included. It has a thermal conductivity around 0.4 (double the plastics but still very low). You can cook steak from the outside in via thermals conductivity so it has an effect that should be eliminated. At this time you are just guessing and speculating. You know you can cook meat via thermal conduction so you know that even for insulators it is an effect. Geriant said he would suspend the upper plate. It will end the debate with solid evidence. Wait and see what he gets.
You mean beef, in contact with a metal pan at about 200 C? OK, Norman.
Sure, the plastic spacers might make a difference. A negligible one.
Meanwhile, you never had a problem with the damn great lead weight which was in view of the blue plate when on its own, then moved out of view when the green plate raised into position, in Swanson’s experiment.
DREMT
You can get a frozen steak to room temperature by just leaving it out in ambient air via conduction. The point is conduction is an effect. Experiment will determine how negligible it is.
The lead weight would not have the effect of holding down the blue plate temperature. If it had any effect is would cause some warming due to back-radiation. It would not cause the blue plate to get cooler because it is in its view. If you would want to see the effect contact E. Swanson and have him move the lead weight up and down without the green plate at all to see what effect it has on the heated blue plate temperature.
Munch, munch…this popcorn is tasty. More desperate evasion of reality, please.
How about doing a real experiment, eh? All your speculation is worthless, eh?
esalil:
Regarding ice-water…if you want to jump right into the real world sea ice scenarios then you need to take into consideration much more than just the enthalpy of fusion. That’s fine. Just understand that we’re adding complexity that is unnecessary when discussing the fact that ice and snow are IR thermal barriers. The fact that ice and snow melts and can convert and transport heat in this manner in no way nullifies the fact that ice and snow also act as a thermal barrier for IR radiation.
Also, I don’t say that DWIR from CO2 slows the UWIR from the ground. That doesn’t even make any sense. What I say is that DWIR reduces the net egress of energy away from the surface. Remember, heat loss in this context is a function of ingress minus egress energy flows. If ingress is higher than egress then the body will warm and vice-versa. This is why your block of ice radiating at 300 W/m^2 still warms when placed in a typical room.
And the temperature still falls at night, in winter, in the shade – and all the rest, eh?
Put your head in a bucket of ice. Your brain has overheated! Or does the ice make things even hotter?
The temperature falls even faster still at night, with calm winds, clear skies, and with snow cover present than without it.
Eh?
“…ice and snow are IR thermal barriers”
Ice and snow are only radiative thermal barriers to the extent that they reflect radiation. They can be “thermal barriers” through other means (including the energy that gets tied up in melting the ice, or conducting through it), but the radiative part is limited to that good old reflectivity.
So there is a mutual agreement that snow/ice is a thermal barrier then right?
As I explained it (and unlike GHGs in our atmosphere), snow/ice can be a thermal barrier, yes. Gases which facilitate heat transfer can hardly be called “thermal barriers”, now can they!?
This is a rhetorical question, BTW.
Right…but you disagree with a 150+ years of experiments that definitively show that polyatomic gas species impede the transmission of IR radiation so they can’t possibly act as thermal barriers. You’ve certainly made your position regarding the matter abundantly clear.
We’re not talking about infra-red gas absorp.tion experiments in a laboratory, bdgwx. We’re talking about how GHGs function in our atmosphere.
The empirical evidence is just not supporting the idea that GHGs are impeding total OLR, resulting in any enhanced GHE.
Some interesting discussion on that in the comments under this old article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/
(I guess if I direct you to it for a third time, you might take a look…or maybe just disappear out the back door again…)
Ok…so you believe the laws of physics are different in a laboratory than in the atmosphere? Explain then…how do space based radiometers detect water vapor in the atmosphere? Be careful not invoke a process by which the water vapor blocks UWIR emitted by the surface.
You really can’t be bothered to start that journey of discovery, can you?
My journey of discovery could start with your revolutionary explanation of how WV can be detected from radiometers in space.
I don’t need to explain how WV can be detected from space in any different way to how it’s detected. I’m also not saying the laws of physics are different in a lab than in the atmosphere.
You will note I said “total” OLR, right!? That’s a clue. Now maybe follow the link. The pertinent comments start immediately following the text of the article.
Your journey begins when you finally accept that all your talking points have been addressed many times before, and you actually start taking the time to learn about the “no GHE” position. You comment as if you have never heard of any of it before. I would imagine that this is simply a dishonest debating tactic; you have heard the arguments, but you keep acting like you haven’t and hope that I, and others, get bored of repeating ourselves.
I call it, “the game”..,
The detection of WV by radiometers in space involves exploiting the same fundamental process that also makes it a participant in the GHE. You can’t have one without the other.
OK, bdgwx. Stay in your bubble, if you wish.
I have got to say my big worry about temperature measurements is the inconsistencies in the techniques over the last two hundred years.
Thete is no consistent approach to ensuring the microclimate has not changed in the locations of land based stations. The ocean based measurements are not consistent in methedology.
The satellite based data is of too short a time base to ensure we are not mistaking natural fluctuations for CO2 induced warming.
The data is supplemented by models which may or may not be accurate, and haven’t been tested by experimental data.
I have to say that we need at least 150 years of consistent measurements before we try to model the global climate.
@bdgwx, Norman, Dr. Spencer….etc.
At steady state, egress is the same as ingress.
Why then, would the lid to a pot still be considered a thermal barrier? Why would GHGs or the clothes we wear still be considered a thermal barrier?
This is a rhetorical question, BTW.
Why bother asking a question if you know the answer, eh? Do you think Dr Spencer is so dumb he needs to ask you for help? Or are you trying to appear clever?
Snape
The term is a relative one based upon the comparison between one condition and the other.
With a heated object, it will reach a certain temperature at a steady state condition. The ingress equals the egress. With a thermal barrier the ingress and egress are still the same, but the temperature of the heated object goes up to egress the same amount of energy.
Eh? There is a subject called physics, which doesn’t need ingresses, egresses, egrets, or regrets, even. Probably too real for you, eh?
Norman, why would the temperature go up if the ingress and egress are still the same?
In the alarmists’ fantasy, impossibility becomes fact, eh? Like CO2 heating, eh?
Snape
The answer to your question can be best understood with light bulbs.
A tungsten filament can get over 2000 C with a 100 watt input.
A ball with a surface area of 1 m^2 with the same 100 watt input would have a very cold surface (if both conditions were done with no other input energy…maybe like in a deep crater on the Moon that was very cold).
The input and output energy for both are the same but the temperature is so much different.
The ball only has to get to 205 K (-90.7 F) with the 100 Watt input as that is all that it needs to reach to emit 100 watts away.
The filament needs to reach over 2000 C to get rid of 100 watts of energy because of its very small surface area.
So temperature is not based upon the amount of energy in and out, there are other factors that must be considered. To find a temperature you need to find how hot something has to get to lose the amount of energy you are adding. With a thermal barrier, the same amount of energy added to an object (say normal insulation) will reach a higher temperature to get the same amount of energy out.
The water in the tank analogy makes it fairly easy to see.
The level of water in a tank is analogous to temperature.
You have drains at the bottom with different diameters that can be activated by opening a valve for each drain.
You add a continuous 100 GPM (input). With a large drain valve open the tank will only go up so high before the water pressure will move 100 GPM through the drain. If you have smaller drains the water level will have to reach higher pressure to push 100 GPM through the smaller area and the tank level goes up. Same water in same water out, tank level depends upon other factors than water in and out.
Water? Light bulbs? Drains and valves? You missed out on the ingresses and egresses, eh?
Norman
I really don’t get your maths or physics.
For the same mass of material a filament will have a higher surface area than a sphere. It will then radiate more energy and should be cooler.
you like most climate scientists are using misconceptions of scientific principles and are failing to use any controls in experimental observations
The reason a filament is used is to increase the resistance so that the energy is converted to heat.
if you put 100 watts into a 1m squared surface area ball the resistance would be lower and the heat produced lower.
A new moniker, eh? Go back into your cave, Mike.
Snape
Maybe you are right, it could be Mike coming back again after a few weeks off.
Eh?
Norman
You gave an example where a common form of insulation caused output to be less than input – a thermal barrier. Temperature then increased until both were equal.
Again, my question is: why would you continue to call insulation a thermal barrier when it no longer causes outflow to be less than inflow?
*****
Regarding our nutty friend, this sentence has a familiar ring to it, right?
There is a subject called physics, which doesnt need ingresses, egresses, egrets, or regrets, even.
Ignorance?
You are right!
Wrong place …
Yes, thank you…and did you notice all the false accusations, and attempts to muddy the waters, from Ball4? That is his purpose, here. Those supporting the GHE argue for an isothermal atmosphere in absence of GHGs. Those arguing against it suggest it would not be isothermal. Because, obviously, if the bottom of the troposphere is still warmer than the top, in absence of GHGs, then you have our current temperatures explained, without needing GHGs to explain them…
As outlined in this comment, for example:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/how-the-climate-system-works-for-dummies/#comment-180316
“Those supporting the GHE argue for an isothermal atmosphere in absence of GHGs.”
Not all, like Dr. Spencer for one where DREMT actually and accurately quoted him:
“This is key: without IR absorp.tion and emission by the atmosphere, surface heating by the sun would eventually warm the atmosphere to the same temperature as the surface, and such an “isothermal” atmosphere cannot support convection”.
No mention of GHGs by Dr. Spencer so DREMT 5:32 pm is the commenter with false accusations, and attempts to muddy the waters. This practice won’t work because DREMT proves himself wrong using/linking Dr. Spencer’s actual words.
DREMT, quote Dr. Spencer’s exact words and you will go far in this field.
“No mention of GHGs by Dr. Spencer”
Dr Spencer said:
“…without IR absorp.tion and emission by the atmosphere”
Most here would attribute “IR absorp.tion and emission by the atmosphere” to GHGs. But sure, there have been a few GHE-busting arguments coming out recently where evidence has been found that “non-GHGs”, like nitrogen and oxygen, could be more “IR active” than previously thought. So it’s maybe a good thing that you made that distinction. Thanks.
If I can be provided with a definition of “equilibrium climate sensitivity with respect to doubling …” that does not involve circular reasoning, or how to define it even functionally, or an explanation what “equilibrium’ mean in this context, I won’t be an ‘impossiblist” type of “skeptic” any more
The most general sensitivity is that if you increase the net energy entering the climate system by 3.7W the system warms by 1C.
Global temperature changes in response to two classes of influence, forcings and feedbacks.
Forces are external or artificial, influences such as orbital cycles, changes in the strength of the sun or human release of GHGs.
Feedbacks are responses to forcing which amplify or reduce their effect. The include water vapour, cloud cover and ice melt or growth.
Forcings and feedbacks are normally expressed as changes in energy flow, W/m^2, but can be converted to temperatures by dividing be 3.7.
Thus there are values of interest. The first is the sum of the forcings. The second is the sum of the feedbacks. The third is the overall change, the sum of all the forcings and feedbacks.
Climate sensitivity is the ratio of the overall change to the forcings.
Climate sensitivity = (Total forcings + feedbacks)/total forcings.
Two examples.
At the end of the last glacial period orbital changes increased forcing by 4.4W/m^2.
The main feedback was to increase CO2 from 200ppm to 280ppm, which added 1.8W/m^2. Other feedbacks added 12.8W/m^2.
Thus the climate sensitivity is 4.4+1.8+12.3 / 4.4 = 4.2
You can express it another way.
Climate sensitivity = Total temperature change/ temperature change due to forcing
For the end of the last glacial period the forcing produced 1.2C direct warming and another 3.8C due to feedbacks.
The climate sensitivity is 1.2+3.8 / 1.2 = 4.2.
For human produced CO2 the direct forcing from increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm is 5.35ln(410/280) = 2.04W/m^2.
The total observed change in forcing since 1880 is 4.07W/m^2.
The other measured forcings have no net effect. Thus the CO2 is the only significant for ing and the sensitivity is
4.07/2.04 = 1.99
This is a minimum value, known as the transient climate response.
There are lags, so it takes decades for temperatures to stabilise. Thus the equilibrium sensitivity due to the CO2 released to date will be higher than that 1.99.
Hmm.
How is this ‘forcing from CO2″ to be measured or quantified amidst any other type of radiant “forcing”
How is a measured temperature temperature change attributed to this to be distinguished from any other cause
No sale.
Brian G Valentine
Feel free to disagree, I just enjoy discussing the science.
This is the outward longwave radiation spectrum.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Flux on the Y axis, wavenumber(1/wavelength) on the X axis. The handy thing about this is that a given area on the graph represents a given amount of energy flow.
The red line shows the flux radiated by the surface at different wavelengths. The black line and the blue shaded area show the amount of energy radiated to space.
The area between the black and red lines shows the amount of energy converted to downwelling radiation by greenhouse gases, cloud etc. Across the whole spectrum most of difference is due to water vapour.
This is where it gets interesting. Look between wavenumbers 600 and 720. This is where CO2 absorbs and reradiates. The surface radiates about 56W/m^2. Of that 28W reaches space, 18W/m^2 becomes downwelling radiation due to CO2 and 10W^m^2 downwelling radiation due to water vapour.
This is much larger than the effect of any other GHG except water vapour.
Over time the 18W/m^2 is increasing and the 28W/m^2 is decreasing. This is due to the increase in CO2 concentration, and the resulting decrease in outward radiation matches what you would expect if the warming were due to CO2.
Do similar investigations for the half dozen main forcings and you see much less change, and in the opposite direction.
There are two main arguments for CO2 as the cause of the current warming.
1) The observed changes in energy flow due to increased CO2 match what you would expect from theory, and the amount of warming.
2) All the other possible forcings are generating much smaller changes, and their net effect is cooling, not warming.
The games continue…
It’s just like with bdgwx, upthread: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-409758
We’re still getting repeats of the arguments about absorp.tion spectra…about the lab experiments and about the readings from space as discussed here…
…as if nobody has ever discussed it before. Just like we’re getting the analogies to overcoats, and pots on lids, and on and on and on and on…
Might I suggest a brand new way to proceed.
Entropic Man, why don’t you do a little research, find the counter-arguments against what you have written, and post them up here for anyone unfamiliar.
Transient Climate Response (TCR) is the change in surface temperature at the exact moment a radiative force is observed.
Equilibrium Climate Response (ECR) is the change in surface temperature after the climate system has equilibriated to that same radiative force.
ECR is higher than the TCR due to feedbacks, heat equilibration processes mainly between the hydrosphere and troposphere, and any positive energy imbalance at the surface. It can decades before the fast feedback ECR is fully realized. It can take centuries for the slow feedback ECR is fully realized. If not specifically stated ECR is usually in reference to the fast feedbacks only.
Not coming up with anything, E-Man? You can’t be looking very hard! It’s been discussed here many times before. I’ll give you one example, then you find and link to more.
Read from here onwards:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/technically-scott-brown-is-correct/#comment-129676
Still nothing?
OK, I’ll give you another one, then you can find some more.
Try reading from this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/#comment-101453
all the way through and down to this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/#comment-103383
@Huffy, Svante
I didnt follow the argument upthread very closely, but FWIW, bdgwx and Dr. Spencer seem to have very similar views regarding an atmosphere without GHGs.
You would be wrong.
Dr Spencer:
“This is key: without IR absorp.tion and emission by the atmosphere, surface heating by the sun would eventually warm the atmosphere to the same temperature as the surface, and such an “isothermal” atmosphere cannot support convection”.
vs. bdgwx:
“Convection occurs due to the bulk movement of mass because of a temperature gradient. GHGs are not necessary to make this happen.”
I think we do. Namely that an atmosphere without GHGs will be far closer to isotherm than an atmosphere with GHGs. But I don’t think it would be perfectly isothermal and I doubt Dr. Spencer does either. And when I speak of convection in this blog post I’m referring to one of the fundamental heat transport mechanisms. I think when Dr. Spencer refers convection in the other cited blog post he is referring to deep moist convection which occurs when the level of free convection (LFC height) drops down to the the lifted condensation level (LCL height) thus reducing convective inhibition (CINH) to zero. He and I would also likely agree that convective available potential energy (CAPE) will be broadly higher in an atmosphere with GHGs than without thus making DMC both more likely and more vigorous.
“I don’t think it would be perfectly isothermal and I doubt Dr. Spencer does either.”
I agree.
To get his isothermal stratosphere only atmosphere, Dr. Spencer resorts to (as clipped by DREMT) an atm.: “without IR absorp.tion and emission”. This is a natural singularity and cannot really occur in an earthen atm., it is in the limit in theory & can’t be tested in a lab.
If you think about starting with the current earthen atm. midlatitude avg. tropopause height (about 10km standard) with today’s GHG ppm then start reducing the GHG ppm, the troposphere height reduces as more and more stratosphere takes over (i.e. nil convection replacing weather).
As GHGs (CO2, CH4, wv etc.) are reduced to zero ppm, the tropopause would end up lower but still several km.s high.
Meaning weather up to that tropopause height and “clean air” flying for electric airplanes above that only few km.s high.
Dr. Spencer’s “without IR absorp.tion and emission” then takes that to the theoretical limit meaning imagining the tropopause taken down to the surface, to mean an isothermal stratosphere above. This can’t happen in reality only in a thought process as O2,N2,Ar emit.
So when Dr Spencer said, “such an “isothermal” atmosphere cannot support convection”, what he really meant to say (but didn’t) was, “such a nearly, but not quite, perfectly “isothermal” atmosphere cannot support deep moist convection specifically, but all other convection is fine, despite the lack of temperature gradient”.
Glad you’re here to clear that up for him.
Maybe. Only he can answer that for sure. I base this opinion on the fact that his context was a “weather” happening…like as in a precipitation event. People don’t typically attribute dry thermals (which is a form of convection) as a particularly interesting “weather” happening. Now deep moist convection in which precipitation occurs would almost certainly be considered “weather” by most people. I would also be willing to bet that he would agree that this closer-to-isothermal state without GHGs occurs and is maintained at least partially because of the dry thermals that would develop due to the diurnal solar heating of the surface. Either way a temperature gradient is going to form close to the surface. I don’t see how that could be avoided. Do you?
bdgwx,
Either way a temperature gradient is going to form close to the surface.
Exactly!
And a very strongly positive gradient, so inverted. In a thin boundary layer.
Can you clarify something for me? In the atmospheric sciences a positive lapse rate (or gradient) is when temperatures decrease with height. A negative lapse rate is when temperatures increase with height. And the term inverted or more commonly inversion typically refers to the scenario where the temperature increases with height and thus is a negative lapse rate. So what do you mean when you say “positive gradient, so inverted”?
dt / dz would be strongly positive in the boundary layer thus inverted compared to the standard atmospheric gradient.
Okay gotcha. Yeah, you’re speaking in terms of pure dt/dz. Lapse rate is typically defined as LR=-dt/dz (note the negative sign). I’m not really envisioning how dt/dz would become strongly positive though. Solar insolation will heat the surface. This heat will conduct into the land-atmosphere interface (the skin) first. This heats the skin thus giving it a superadiabatic lapse rate (strongly negative dt/dz value). Why would that not activate convection to transport the heat away from the surface? And regarding the boundary layer…I’m not convinced there would be much of a planetary boundary layer to begin with, but wouldn’t it still be characterized by a positive lapse rate (negative dt/dz) such that heat continues to move up via convection?
bdgwx,
such that heat continues to move up
Oh? To move up ? But where if there is no way out ???
The atmosphere would still emit radiation that escapes to space.
bdgwx,
Negligible. It is not forbidden to revise your theory that does not hold water and review the role you assign to GHGs.
The heat that moves up is emitted to space radiatively.
phi,
If we’re going to go down this rabbit hole we might as well go all-in right? I’d imagine conduction into the skin layer is negligible itself. The land would obviously still be emitting strongly in the IR so most of the ground heat would escape directly to space via radiation…ya know…because its no longer getting trapped near the surface.
Working from 240 W/m^2 we can infer a ground temperature of 255K. But, what would the 2m temperature be? I’ve not seen any analysis of the relationship between ground temperature and 2m temperature in the absence of GHGs. I’d imagine it would be considerably lower due to the limitation of conduction and the significant reduction in advective processes.
Of course the absence of GHGs would lead to other significant differences as well so the thought experiment would be fraught with debatable assumptions. I honestly I have no idea what the 2mT would be.
Anyway, my point is that the atmosphere would still radiate to space without GHGs just with a significantly different spectral radiance. This radiation might be negligible, but the mean TLT temperature be equally negligible as well.
What are your thoughts?
“Working from 240 W/m^2 we can infer a ground temperature of 255K the absence of GHGsI honestly I have no idea what the 2mT would be”
A little above 255K if albedo remains same i.e. more surface ice exactly balancing no atm. wv for nil change in SW reflected.
Then can get some idea how far above 255K from O2 clear sky reducing earthen OLR around 0.11 W/m^2 and N2 reducing OLR around 0.17 W/m^2. (Together this amounts to 15% of the OLR reduction caused by CH4 at present (2012) atmospheric concentrations.)
Then apply dry lapse rate g/Cp. Can’t immediately find the midlatitude avg. troposphere height change in this scenario; going on memory comes down to several km.s.
Eh? Say again?
BTW…I have recently discovered that the comment filtering occurring here is at least partially the result of the browser being used. When I post via Chrome a comment of mine might be blocked, but I can take the EXACT same content and paste it into the Edge browser and it will post fine. Maybe this will help others.
My experience is the time delay doing the paste and copy was the enabler not the browser switch. There appears to be min. time between comments here that has to expire before posting again. To limit those back and forth chats that go nowhere.
@Huffy, bdgwx
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
January 23, 2015
yes, the day-night heating cycle would cause some sort of circulation, as would the equator-to-pole temperature difference. But it might end up being very weak and large-scale, as in the stratosphere where there is strong diurnal heating of ozone by the sun, and an equator-to-pole temperature difference.
But we really dont know what it would look likeI doubt that anyone has ever run a global climate model with no IR emission-absorp.tion by the atmosphere. It would probably take a lot of fiddling to make it work because of parameterizations they use which are based on real atmospheric conditions, not imaginary ones.
@phi
Imagine a column of air rising from a sun heated surface to the TOA. With no GHGs, the column would still warm via convection, albeit very slowly. With no means of cooling itself, and given enough time, the column would eventually reach the same temperature as the ground, at which point convection would obviously stop. This is the basis of the isothermal situation Spencer is referring to.
OTOH, we have to also envision a billion other similar columns spread around the globe, including at the poles and night side. All would be above surfaces of varying temperature – so advection enters the picture.
Now, throw in the Coriolis effect and a short diurnal cycle…. It gets really, really complicated.
Snape, your earthen parcel, warmed from below above ambient atm. T by conduction from the dirt/ocean surface, would rise to the tropopause a few km.s high with no GHGs where convection ceases and then only if its CAPE value is just high enough vertical KE to make it all the way. If the CAPE is lower than that, your parcel equilibrates and stops rising below the tropopause. This could be a real scenario.
In Dr. Spencer’s atm. “without IR absorp.tion and emission” unreal scenario there would be no parcel rise at all as there is no troposphere (no weather). The parcel’s CAPE would be zero since the surface would be the same constant temperature as the whole isothermal stratosphere starting right at the surface. There is no longer a fluid warmed from below in a gravity field, no troposphere, the fluid is warmed from above by the sun as in the current stratosphere for nil convection as Dr. Spencer points out (no weather). Of course this is theoretical only as all matter is WITH IR absorp.tion and emission. Any real planetary atm. then always has a troposphere with convection and weather.
I think most of us can agree that removing GHGs would make Earth a strikingly different place. So it’s really hard to try and analyze all of these what-if scenarios especially when they require assumptions that aren’t even realistic. The best control experiment we have is the Moon and it is obviously a very different place in many ways.
Well no, not everybody agrees…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/what-do-16-years-of-ceres-data-tell-us-about-global-climate-sensitivity/#comment-228596
@Ball4
TOA was a mistake, Thanks for the correction. Should have been the upper troposphere, which, without the added buoyancy of water vapor would be much lower.
Another oversight was forgetting to include ozone, dust, etc. I had oxygen and nitrogen in mind, nothing else. Again, thanks for the correction.
Regardless, your comment was interesting. I need to read through it a few more times before offering a reply. You seem very confident in its accuracy.
Tested it lately?
Snape, test my 5:52pm against Dr. Spencers words & meanings in the links/clips DREMT supplied (or if you find any pertinent others). Any difference found would be interesting to understand & discuss.
Sometimes i have a feeling that the greenhouse effect deniers are actors hired by shady warmist puppeteers in order to denigrate the skeptical cause. But then i remind myself of the occam’s razor, which in this particular case states that one need not explain with conspiracy what can be explained with idiocy.
7:34pm: +1
So you only have these feelings sometimes, eh? What do you feel the rest of the time? Maybe you could get some facts. Then you wouldn’t have to depend on occasional feelings.
That’s exactly what my point is. The fake denial conspiracy is a feeling, the fundamental physics and arithmetics denial idiocy is a fact.
So you abandon reliance on facts in favour of feelings sometimes? Who denies physics and arithmetic, eh? Or are you having feelings again?
Yes, the “Greenhouse Effect is falsified” deniers fundamental physics and arithmetic denial idiocy is indeed a fact. As we’ve seen upthread, they have to deny the results of an experiment showing that “back-radiation heating” (or “back-radiation insulation”, or whatever the hell you want to call it) simply doesn’t happen:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
Just because some random guy can’t properly do an experiment doesn’t falsify the green plate effect.
The plastic spacers show poor experimental design.
I did better with a big pan, two plates and a thermometer.
When I added the second plate the temperature went up.
Case closed.
And math is already plural, anyone who uses maths is a wanker.
Yes, as I mentioned, they are in denial…
DRsEMT, See my reply at:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28806
I did. I enjoyed your usual pomposity, and the error you made in your first paragraph.
I eagerly await the response.
(I still have my popcorn).
DREMPTY,
Failure to find the green plate effect in an experiment does not falsify the green plate effect.
It’s like I went outside my house and it was dark, therefore there is no sun.
We need a better class of you know what
In much the same way that failure to find a unicorn doesn’t prove that unicorns don’t exist…
…you carry on believing in unicorns. I’ll enjoy my popcorn.
&Ball4
You wrote, [In Dr. Spencers atm. without IR absorp.tion and emission unreal scenario there would be no parcel rise at all as there is no troposphere (no weather).]
He clarified his position here, [yes, the day-night heating cycle would cause some sort of circulation, as would the equator-to-pole temperature difference.]
Atmospheric circulation amounts to weather. More importantly, though, he also wrote this, [But we really dont know what it would look like!]
Atmospheric circulation means things like Hadley cells so forth which occur at ambient and are mass continuous. Their effect on stratosphere only “without IR absorp.tion and emission” global median surface temperature would very likely be nil but yes “don’t know”. For this discussion seems safe to just ignore the general circulation day/night stuff (safer by far than ignoring the singularity with no atm. emission) unless a case can be otherwise justified.
Eh?
@Ball4
Yeah, Its safer to ignore the day/night stuff, the equator to pole stuff, the Coriolis stuff…..because the situation is highly speculative even to a specialist like Dr. Spencer.
Or we could take a page from phi and pretend we have it all figured out.
bdgwx, snape,
The question is quite limited, it is simply a matter of understanding the general role of GHGs in the atmosphere and not knowing what a GHG-free atmosphere really would be. Probably a GHG-free atmosphere is not stable because it’s too hot and will disappear but, again, that’s not the question.
The important thing is only to notice that GHGs do not have the function of heating the atmosphere, convection does it very well.
For the very simplified theoretical model without GHG:
1. Surface at 255 K average but large differences in temperature (Max close to 70 C ?).
2. Convection and horizontal circulation will quickly bring all the atmosphere to an adiabatic profile adjusted on surface T max with a thin boundary layer in strong inversion.
3. More slowly, by conduction, the whole atmosphere, except the boundary layer, will tend towards isothermy with T a little weaker than Tmax surface.
So surface being 288 K, furthest reaches about 4 K, you reckon the whole lot will approach 288 K, eh? The miracle of conduction, is it?
Maybe two more things.
1. One can of course argue that such a simplified model does not make sense. It is true. But then, to claim that without GHG the surface temperature would be 255 K does not make more sense.
2. If we accept that 255 K is the surface temperature without GHG and therefore we also accept that the role of GHGs is to cool an atmosphere that would be warmer without GHGs, then the notion of radiative forcing does not make any sense because adding GHGs in an atmosphere that did not have any previously would be expected to produce a huge negative forcing !!!
So you choose between two options you admit are nonsensical, and ignore the facts which you acknowledge, eh? Do you think that shows how clever you are?
No, I try to show how stupid I am. This is the principle of reductio ad absurdum. Eh, eh, eh, eh, eh!
The net effect of GHGs is to increase the mean temperature of the troposphere and hydrosphere. Adding GHGs to an atmosphere that did not previously have them would yield a positive radiative forcing at the surface and negative radiative forcing at TOA thus increasing the mean temperature below the GHG layer and decreasing it above the GHG layer. This pulls the temperature further away from isothermy.
bdgwx,
The net effect of GHGs is to increase the mean temperature of the troposphere and hydrosphere.
Profession of faith. Not argued and contrary to the exposed physical behavior.
Adding GHGs to an atmosphere that did not previously have them would yield a positive radiative forcing at the surface…
Yes, on the surface and as long as this notion makes sense. But conventional radiative forcing is determined at the TOA.
thus increasing the mean temperature below the GHG layer
No, and there are two reasons for that:
1. GHGs do not constitute a specific layer.
2. GHGs cool the atmosphere at all levels.
Not to leave a claim without justification: we know that GHGs cool the atmosphere at all levels because GHGs are net emitters at all levels.
It is a position of established fact based on 150 years of observation and experimentation and explained convincingly by thermodynamics and molecular and quantum physics.
It is a convention that radiative forcing is in reference to the surface unless otherwise stated.
Just because GHGs emit in the IR does not mean that adding more of them will decrease the mean temperature. It’s quite the opposite. The reason for this is because the energy carried by UWIR from the surface which would have had a free escape to space is now impeded such that a lot of it is either converted into heat directly via thermalization in the troposphere or into DWIR and directed towards the surface.
phi: Not to leave a claim without justification: we know that GHGs cool the atmosphere at all levels because GHGs are net emitters at all levels.
Are you saying that if we could hypothetically remove all GHGs that the near surface mean temperature would increase beyond the current ~288K? How much do you think it would increase by?
“GHGs are net emitters”
Net of what?
bdgwx,
What a mess!
Reciting the IPCC catechism is not arguing.
Try to understand what the notion of heat is and read again what I wrote.
Goodbye.
Have fun.
Ball4,
Net emitters of treasury bills.
phi:
First, the IPCC was established in 1988 long after Gilbert Plass summarized the basic idea of how a GHG works in the 1950’s. So if credit is to be given for this explanation it should probably go to him.
Second, I think I have a decent understanding of heat. But if you feel I am misunderstanding your statements then it might be helpful for me if you could clarify them. Perhaps start by answering my question regarding whether you think the global mean temperature would truly increase as GHGs decrease.
bdgwx,
1. The concept of radiative forcing does not date from the 1950s, it is more recent. Early 1980s? 1988? I would be very interested to know the history of this concept. Unless I am mistaken, it does not appear in the works of Manabe or Ramanathan of the 1960s and 1970s.
2. whether you think the global mean temperature would truly increase as GHGs decrease No, I never claimed such a thing. In fact, I think that adding GHG probably causes some warming but we have no theoretical tools to evaluate it. The stupidity of the notion of radiative forcing is there to remind it.
Plass was using radiative transfer models in the 1950’s. He may not have used the term “radiative forcing” per se but he was definitely a pioneer of the concept and tool. Other pioneers of climate science like Tyndall, Arrhenius, Chamberlin, Callendar, etc. were using different models. I think Plass was the first to describe climate change in terms of W/m^2. I am prepared to be wrong about that if someone knows of an earlier reference.
bdgwx,
Plass is in the phase of trial and error. Pseudo-science appears only when one conceals arbitrary assumptions under ididots concepts. The concept of radiative forcing (which does not carry information on entropy) disguises an arbitrary hypothesis on the thermal gradient.
someone wrote,
But conventional radiative forcing is determined at the TOA.
no, it’s at
the tropopause
You really mean non-existent radiative forcing, eh? The imaginary sort, made up by so-called climate scientists?
someone wrote
and therefore we also accept that the role of GHGs is to cool an atmosphere
that’s coco for coconuts
really just absurd
and wrong
And you were dishing out punctuation advice, eh? Maybe you could try and equal yourself by dishing out nonsense as fact?
@phi
Umm…..if I understand correctly:
A body at -18 C is in direct contact with a body at 70 C, and you think the former heated the latter??
-18 is only an average.
Surface therefore low position :
Cold -> Conduction -> weak downward heat flow, ineffective
Warm -> Convection -> large upward heat flow, very efficient
So a body with an average of -18 C would warm a body with an average of 70 C, eh?
You didn’t really mean that, did you?
No problem with thermodynamics as long as the spontaneous flow of heat goes from hot to cold. This is quite common, for example: refrigerators heat their environment which has a higher average temperature than theirs. In any case, an average temperature is not a physically rigorous quantity.
Attempted evasion by diversion, eh? Have you understood what you just wrote?
Your criticisms are too vague to be of interest. If you think something is wrong, say exactly what and why it is wrong.
What criticisms, eh? Feel free to be as silly as you like.
CHAOS and the butterfly effect
https://youtu.be/6BvTKBYBMFY
co2 absorbs infrared
radiation.
And you can name something that doesn’t, eh?
Eh?
In the frequency range emitted by Earth’s surface, oxygen and nitrogen.
And you sure as hell won’t specify those frequencies, eh? Ever used a hair dryer or measured air temperature? Better start planning your evasion and obfuscation techniques, eh?
Q: “Do the global warming wars ever change anyone’s mind?”.
A: Mine. I started to study seriously climate science since 2007. Before I somehow agreed with the idea of Kyoto: those countries placing more CO2, should pay more for an extra warming.
But, since 2007, I started to change my mind, as I discovered that the claims from IPCC were based in distorted unscientific beliefs (in short: climate sensitivity parameter estimation was fictitious, climate change attribution was based in cherry picking fallacy, and climate models were not reliable as a trend detected in few decades can never predict any behavior during next centuries).
Later, it came climategate: proving that, ok, I was not a mad man; and I could hope that things will go back to normal.
But, hey, then they came: Obama, the Pope, WGI-AR5, NGOs and the allmighty UN; that was too much. I mean, if the Pope says “God has told me that global warming is real and that we must do what IPCC tell us to do, to save our planet”; well, I have no objection. But if this same thing is told by few scientist (with, at least, non-transparent methodologies) supported by an institution “the United Nations” that has been proven to be a highly corrupted institution & by non-governmental organizations based on propaganda, well, my objections rise exponentially.
Finally, I learnt last year (2018), from an old translator of IPCC documents, that the last targets from the UN are both: poblation growth control and countries’ wealth redistribution. Now I undertand Kyoto (and Paris) deal(s) more as a part of an agit-prop programme related to corruption and supranational power (i.e., a power that you citizen can never remove with your vote).
At Norman, Swanson
I briefly skimmed the Geriant experiment. What was going on with the dip in temperature he mentioned?
The heated plate, no vacuum, loses thermal energy via a combination of conduction/convection, and IR. When a vacuum is introduced, the former ability is removed. The plate should get warmer as a result. Is this what happened?
*******
Conversely, a thermometer measuring air temperature inside the bulb, no vacuum, is sitting in a thermal, conductive bath. Introducing a vacuum removes this bath and the thermometer should rapidly cool.
With that in mind, what sort of thermometer was used? It should not be the immersive type if any part of its surface is exposed to the vacuum rather than the plate.
*****
Also……
as a test, the green, unheated plate should be lowered into place BEFORE the vacuum is introduced. It would act as a barrier to convective heat loss from the heated blue plate, just like putting on a coat. The blue plate should get warmer as a result. If it doesnt, the set-up is fatally flawed.
Was this test performed?
*******
Finally, a great deal of trust is required to honor the results of video tests. Easy to fake. This applies to both Geriant and Swanson. Not surprisingly, each has accused the other of being a fraud.
On second thought, I agree with Geriant regarding the dip. One side of the heated plate is also exposed to a thermal bath. If that bath is suddenly removed by the vacuum, the plates temperature could/should initially drop. It would get warmer after that until radiative output matches the input from the heat source.
All speculation, of course.
The experimenter’s name is Geraint Hughes. His experiments merely demonstrate physical fact. No back radiation in evidence, eh? Fell free to look at his latest.
Not finding the back radiation doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist, it just shows he is a poor scientist.
When he added the second plate the temperature went down and didn’t return to the same value as the single plate.
Bad experimental design, back to the drawing board.
What plates are you talking about? I’m referring to the experiments he summarised on 9 November 2019. Which recorded results are you disputing, eh? Why?
I was referring to the results posted on 22 Nov 2019, there isn’t a post on Principia Scientific International on 9 Nov 2019, so maybe you could provide a link to what you are talking about.
I am disputing those results from 22 Nov 2019 of course.
Why you ask, because those results demonstrate incompetence.
And lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
Not everyone can be bothered reading your mind. Not much there of value, eh? Dispute away. Your disputation is worth precisely nothing. I prefer reproducible facts. You don’t, like the rest of the alarmist pretenders.
Nope that’s wrong,
I like reproducible facts, that is all we have here, is the possibility of reproducing the green plate effect.
Reproducing a non-fact is what Geraint Hughes has done because he can’t perform an experiment properly.
That’s wrong, eh? If you could detail what’s wrong, and produce a fact or two, people might stop laughing at you, eh?
Dude!,
What’s wrong is you said “I prefer reproducible facts. You dont,”
two things wrong with that to be precise, you like precise, dude?
Geraint’s experiment didn’t produce a reproducible fact and I do indeed like reproducible facts.
Dude!
People are laughing at you, Eh?
Whats wrong with laughter, eh? I suppose fools like yourself prefer to wallow in misery? Would it be asking too much for you to learn normal English with appropriate punctuation?
@ Eh?
Its a video, Mike, not a fact. We cant examine the equipment or the reported results, rather, are required to trust the honesty of someone who is clearly hostile to established science.
Videos? I can’t be bothered watching videos. Learn to read. Repeat the experiments, document your results. Let us know if you get different results, eh? It’s called science.
Do you think an object will radiate in every direction except towards the original heat source? Nonsense. And no, science is not required to investigate every nutters claim:
Hey Mike, I built a time machine. It took me three years. Me and George (George Washington) had a nice chat. Thats a fact. Its a fact because I said so on a blog. Learn to read.
Dont believe me? Here are the instructions. Build your own time machine and see if you get different results. Its called science.
Can’t abide fact, eh? Taking refuge in stupidity won’t help.
“Do you think an object will radiate in every direction except towards the original heat source? Nonsense”
That’s right, and Geraint Hughes is not saying that. In fact, he quite clearly acknowledges the existence of back-radiation. The experiment is not to test for “the existence” of back-radiation, it’s to see if said radiation results in a temperature increase of a heated object.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
“Oh and yes, if I put an IR detector on the 1st plate, it would indeed detect IR coming from the 2nd plate, but SO WHAT. It meant nothing, there was no temperature rise at all. The 2nd plate is cooler than the 1st, so there is no mechanism at play which would enable higher peak temperatures. You can’t warm objects to higher temperatures using their own heat. There was no reduction in the rate of cooling, resulting in a faster rate of warming or higher peak temperatures, NONE. Some thermal mass was added and that was it.”
Be sure to read all the comments, too. It’s fun to watch Swanson embarrassing himself…
Sorry, I should have looked closer before asking questions and commenting.
Nope that’s wrong,
I like reproducible facts, that is all we have here, is the possibility of reproducing the green plate effect.
Reproducing a non-fact is what Geraint Hughes has done because he can’t perform an experiment properly.
And your results from the same setup differ how? Oh, you don’t need no stinkin’ experiments, eh?
I did the experiment, and yes I observed a temperature increase when I added a second plate.
As would be expected from the laws of thermodynamics.
dude!
You didn’t reproduce anything, did you? Even Swanny’s well-meant but misguided attempt to demonstrate a physical impossibility, eh?
I reproduced the temperature increase, replicating the work of others, not the shabby work you seem to be in love with, dude.
It’s not a physical impossibility to reproduce the green plate effect.
People are laughing at you, though some youngsters are mad at you.
Only in your fantasy, eh? Try harder.
You’re too funny, eh? Dude?
What’s also funny is you guys think if you have three identical BB plates in vacuum, with the central plate heated by an electrical energy source to 244 K, when pressed together all three will be at 244 K, and then when separated (by even a mm) the central plate shoots up to 290 K (the outer two are at 244 K). Press them back together, all three go to 244 K. Separate them, up shoots the central plate again! Just like playing some sort of accordion of heat.
Funny stuff!
Some people claim someone has performed the free energy thee plate trick, but he’s gone on holiday. Or maybe he’s been beamed up by aliens for brain probing, eh? Will they find anything, I wonder?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says
“Whats also funny is you guys think” …
… that conduction and radiation have the same heat transfer formula.
Can’t decide whether cryptic or inscrutable is better? It doesn’t matter, stupidity shines through regardless, eh?
Different formulas, sure.
And, if you use them properly, you don’t come to stupid conclusions involving heat accordions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374964
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375390
Thanks DREMT.
The experiment proposed above to show whether the temperature of source will or will not increase if you separate the plates 1 mm apart, is very easy to do. It involves the use of a computer but, rest assured, no calculations are required.
Presuming you are generating your comments on a computer. Here is a recipe.
1.Turn the computer off.
2. Take off the cover.
3. Locate the CPU.
4. Remove the heat sink.
5. Wipe the thermal contact paste.off both the CPU die and base of the heat sink.
6. Put the cover back.
7. Turn on the computer.
8. Wait a couple of seconds.
9. Report back the results of your experiment using any available tablet or mobile.
If you are impatient, rather than removing the thermal paste, construct a 1 mm wide spacer and use that to mount the heat sink.
Your report should explain the result of your experiment in terms of the physics of conduction and radiation. I await your results.
If anyone is worried that damage to the CPU will occur or even a fire might ensue, Do not worry. Modern computers have temperature sensors that will turn off the computer automatically. These usually work but if you smell something burning turn off the computer at the mains.
You’re welcome, Svante.
MikeR, fortunately I don’t live in a vacuum. There is air in my room.
The three plates are identical. Same physical properties for all three. Try to find an example from the real world comparable to what we’re talking about, rather than introducing heat sinks, etc.
Don’t worry about a vacuum or the 1mm gap. Just remove the thermal paste. There will be submicron gaps which will demonstrate clearly that even the tiniest gap can cause a significant increase in temperature off a heat source.
Surely your can’t be that thick to not understand the relevance of this example to your 3 plate experiment?
Couldn’t find a comparable example?
I acknowledge your concession.
I note your non reply to the Thick as a Brick question
Actually you were right, a vacuum would be a better example and the CPU would heat more rapidly. With regard to this, you may have encountered one of these in your travels
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask .
I would be fascinated in your explanation of why there is a vacuum gap between the two cylinders and why a much simpler flask, consisting of a single cylinder whose walls are three times thicker, would perform as well.
Again you are right, I don’t have an exact analog of the 3 plate experiment. Do you?
In this case the best we can do is to perform the necessary calculations using energy balance equations and the S-B Law. Possibly someone else has done this already. If not, I might have a go at the calculations tomorrow as it is very late here. Maybe you can do the calculations in the meantime and we can compare notes. Good night.
Poor MikeR, can’t find a comparable example, can’t click on a link. Oh well.
MikeR, it’s been calculate before.
The trick is to send 2×200 W from blue to green by hand waving, no temperature difference required.
Here’s one by Nate:
https://tinyurl.com/svogzej
“MikeR, it’s been calculate before.”
That’s right…click on the links in my 6:07 am comment for an example of one of the times I did the relevant calculation, and the resulting discussion.
It’s all been talked to death a dozen times already.
I have no real interest in going over it all again. All of this was only brought up thanks to Norman linking to Geraint Hughes experiment further upthread.
That’s all that should be getting discussed, really.
Having said that, I take it you won’t ever make the false argument about the CPU heat sink again, Svante, after reading what’s further down-thread and giving it some thought.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“It’s all been talked to death a dozen times already.”
I agree.
“I have no real interest in going over it all again.”
I agree, and Norman is so much better at it.
I will not make false arguments about the CPU cooling.
Remove the fan and the CPU gets warmer.
No 2LOT violation.
Still not getting it? That is your choice.
Thanks Svante,
I have been remiss in not catching up with all the prior lengthy discussions regarding the 3 plates. There appears to be several hundred comments since I last looked at these issues over a year ago.
Yes, Nate has done the calculations but I always like to check myself so I have done an independent check.
Here is a diagram plus an extract from Excel which confirms Nate’s calculations i.e
see https://i.postimg.cc/J454kTT1/Three-Plates.png .
Maybe DrEMT can generate a similar diagram with arrows and his calculated values so we can compare our results. I think he, or an associate, may have had some involvement in the previous 2 plate controversy. I remember with awe the wonderful multiple green arrows of this depiction which was in the style of Jackson Pollock. Could this one be as amusing?
A calculation, eh? No doubt one that shows nonsensical unidirectional radiation from a surface, plus a complete misunderstanding of basic physics. Maybe trying to make something hotter by putting more obstruction between a heat source and an object? More calculation needed, eh?
Ok Eh? Them there is fighting words.
Show us your mettle. Provide your own analysis that supports the alternate thesis that all the plates are at the same temperature. Show us your diagram of the 3 plates, with arrows to represent the flow of energies and details of your very own calculations.
A challenge that I suspect you will wimp out. What diversion will you choose? You have got the entire DREMT play book at your disposal.
Eh?
Sorry,I forgot to address one of your concerns.
As my diagram shows, each plate emits bidirectionally, one ray from each side. The energy flow leaving and entering the surface is represented by arrows normal to the surface.
If you are concerned by the optics then, because the plates are infinite in extent, the radiation emitted is a plane EM wave parallel to the surface . The direction of propagation of this wave can also be denoted by an arrow normal to the plane wave and therefore also normal to the surface of the plate. This information can be found any Optics text book.
So Eh? get cracking now and produce your analysis of the 3 plates. I am looking forward to seeing your work,
Geraint: [You cant warm objects to higher temperatures using their own heat]
Wow, even Huffy knows better. See his comments upthread regarding insulation/reflection.
You have obviously reproduced Geraint’s results. Don’t like what you see, eh?
The denial continues…
@Huffy
Imagine the same basic experiment, with the blue plate heated to 100F
a) place a green plate (99F) an inch from the blue.
b) place a green plate (- 300F) an inch from the blue.
Do you seriously think the blue plate would remain at 100F throughout?
Just imagine you had a clue, eh? Then you wouldn’t have to live in your imaginary world.
Mind you, I guess they’ve been in denial for the last 266 days…so it’s not likely to stop any time soon.
Fun to watch, though.
Actually, thats how long its been that we’ve been asking you to show us how YOU SOLVE the problem using real physics.
Nothing so far, zilch, nada.
On the other hand we have shown you how to solve it using ordinary physics, which you cannot rebut.
Weve shown you that it agrees with textbook analysis of multi layer insulation, a standard technology.
But facts like these are simply ignored.
Ignorance seems to be bliss for you guys.
What problem, eh? Your fantasies are no problem for me.
The original GPE problem. If you dont know what that is, dont worry about it.
It’s a pity you can’t actually say what your problem is, eh? Have you tried writing it down? Or is it a super secret imaginary problem?
Playing dumb, eh?
Whatever.
You don’t need to play dumb, do you? It’s your nature, eh?
[Eh?
November 29, 2019
You have obviously reproduced Geraints results. Dont like what you see, eh?]
Do you believe I had a chat with George Washington?
So you haven’t actually done any experiments at all, eh? Are you claiming you chat with dead people? Good for you!
Seems like someone’s talking more sense than the rest of them put together, eh?
You are quite the hypocrite, Mike. Sure, I am skeptical of Geraints results. And no, I have not done the experiment myself.
But what about you? You mock my claim of time travel, knowing nothing of the machine I built.
Why would I mock someone who claims to commune with dead people, eh?
From reading those comments, it seems some people might have decided that Swanson’s hand-drawn photograph of the unicorn…might have been a fake!
(Gasp)
I’m sure it’s not true. We can all understand why you’d set the entire experiment up outside, on a table, get the old extension lead out there so you can plug it all in, evacuate the air from the bell jar and take a photo of that gauge…
…then unplug everything and move it all indoors to actually conduct the experiment.
Makes perfect sense!
🦄
Dont believe Swansons experiment?
A. Ok, do your own.
B. Show us how to solve the problem with real physics.
C. Refute the standard textbook theory of multi layer insulation. Third equation. e=1 N=2 for GPE. Which has been proven correct thousands of times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Cant do any of that? The argument is over. Move on.
Any fool can heat things with a heat source. Do you really believe that cutting an object into thirds makes the centre piece hotter? How stupid would you have to be, eh?
I believe in proven physics. In this case radiative shielding, which can act as insulation.
Well understood and useful. See link to MLI.
Trying to disguise stupidity through inscrutability, eh? Insulation provides no extra heat, you dummy!
Strawman, dorkus.
Are you trying to be cryptic or inscrutable? The stupidity still shines through, eh?
Heres a tip. Ifvyou cant follow what people are talking about, dont comment.
No one here is talking about insulation without a heat source, cuz that would be pointless.
Glad you cleared that up. Insulation provides no heat at all. Thats why you insulate refrigerators, eh? Keep things cold?
Mike, as usual you are full of half facts. Refrigerators, yes. Fyi, Ovens too.
Entropic man says (way upthread) that:
“CO2 from fossil fuels dilutes the 13C We measure that dilution and it matches our CO2 release.”
Unfortunately (for him) it does not match. It is very easy to determine the average 13C/12C ratio of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (using the Keeling plot). It is expressed relative to a standard as δ13C and is -13 per mil. Even the Law Dome ice core data since 1750-1800 shows the same ratio as the current observations. Fossil fuels are currently around -28 per mil. Nowhere close.
Are you saying δ13C is the same today as it was since 1750-1800?
I am only saying that with respect to the additional atmospheric CO2 since that time; clearly the instantaneous atmospheric δ13C ratio has changed over time (decreased). What I am saying is that the additional CO2 since then has had an average content of -13 per mil. It appears to have fluctuated with short-term ENSO variations but has, on average, remained at that ratio. This is rather important since any hypothesis regarding the incremental CO2 must reflect that observation. This is obviously a seriously limiting constraint on possible explanations in two ways: first, that the value is not simply that of fossil fuels (or anything close) and, secondly, it has not changed over time, unlike fossil fuels (for example) which have changed as the mix of fuels has moved from predominantly coal towards more gas, which have different δ13C signatures (decreasing over time).
There is a possible hypothesis for the former case (due to oceanic exchanges of CO2), but I am unable to see how this would maintain the same incremental δ13C over time. I can provide some references if you wish.
Gotcha. Yeah, so 13C ratios have declined from about -6.5 to -8.5. This decline is a near perfect match to what is expected from a fossil reservoir release. Not only do models accurately explain this decline but they also accurately explain the 14C decline both before and after the bomb spike. Furthermore, 13C ratios were relatively stable during the Quaternary Period even when concentrations experience large changes. This is strikingly different than the modern era in which 13C ratios have changed dramatically. So clearly something is different today than during the last million years. Also, check out Graven et al. 2017 for an example of how well the CMIP6 suite of models does at simulating the CO2 isotope ratios.
I did not mention 14C or models. I was referring to actual data (i.e. observations/measurements).
You state “This decline is a near perfect match to what is expected from a fossil reservoir release” and I repeat: no, that is not true. Even climate scientists recognise the fact that -13 does not equal -28! The observed decline rate of δ13C is much slower than would be the case if it reflected the addition of fossil fuels alone. This is why their models invoke a substantial input of 13C from oceanic exchange due to differential fractionation (nothing to do with fossil fuels) in order to ‘correct’ for the mismatch.
Incidentally, Graven et al. include their ice core data in Table S2 and a Keeling plot of that data shows that the incremental CO2 has a δ13C of -12.8 per mil (R squared of 0.96).
I have now had the chance to read through Graven et al. and your comment that it is “an example of how well the CMIP6 suite of models does at simulating the CO2 isotope ratios” is rather amusing. The purpose of the study was to construct an historical dataset that could be used as an input to CMIP6 models. Consequently, it reflects an attempt to generate a consistent compilation of the actual historical data, averaged and adjusted between measuring stations and source types. It is not a model output.
No wonder the thick black line on Figure 3 looks like a good fit to the data!
You might want to refer to Keeling et al. 2017, instead.
Jim, yes. I agree. That was a total and unacceptable misinterpretation on my part regarding the Graven et al 2017 publication. My apologies on that. I take that on the chin and learn to be more careful in the future.
So let me ask you this…what is the expected change in isotopic ratios given a fossil reservoir release in the presence of active natural exchanges cycling the molecules out of the atmosphere? What can explain the change from -6.5 to -8.5 if not a fossil reservoir? And why did this cause suddenly appear during the industrial revolution when it remained absent for the last million years?
bdgwx,
Kudos to you for accepting that it was your misinterpretation. We all make mistakes, so no problem with that. Well done for acknowledging it.
If I may, I would like to approach your question about the possible impact of CO2 from fossil fuels on the 13C/12C ratio by taking a step backwards in the evaluation process. A key problem in these quick-fire discussions is the failure to make a clear distinction between: actual data (measurements/observations); and non-unique, theoretically possible, explanations of the data that incorporate multiple assumptions, i.e. models. My focus has been on the data which, after all, constitute the nearest thing we have to facts (and hence the reason the Graven et al study).
The observation that the decline in atmospheric δ13C-CO2 demonstrates that the incremental CO2 (the extra 2-3ppm per year that we currently see globally) has an average δ13C content of -13 per mil simply reflects the measured change of atmospheric CO2 versus the change of atmospheric δ13C. Nothing magic, just a simple cross-plot of 1/CO2 vs δ13C known as the Keeling plot (best to use the values that have had the annual cycle removed – such data are available from Scripps CO2 program: https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/). This is not controversial as far as I can tell. What is not widely discussed, however, is the fact that the Law Dome ice core data give the same value as the more recent direct observations. See http://www.biogeosciences.net/3/539/2006/bg-3-539-2006.pdf. Figure 1 shows the Law Dome data as -13.1 per mil with r squared of 0.96. This paper also provides a good explanation of the underlying basis for the Keeling plot.
Given this level of continuity in 13C/12C ratio of the incremental atmospheric CO2 over time, I feel that it is disingenuous for anyone to claim that it matches the influence of fossil fuels without acknowledging that it cannot be matched without invoking a substantial input of 13C from oceanic exchanges of CO2. This does not mean that such a model is invalid, but I note that the version of the model outlined in the following paper is for one year only:
http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GB001845/pdf (see Figure 5). In addition, Keeling et al had to introduce a time-variant aspect to a key parameter in order to achieve an acceptable match with the most recent atmospheric δ13C decline rate data (2017 paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10361). Here is a quote from the abstract:
“Using updated records, we show that no plausible combination of sources and sinks of CO2 from fossil fuel, land, and oceans can explain the observed 13C-Suess effect unless an increase has occurred in the 13C/12C isotopic discrimination of land photosynthesis.”
This is not settled science.
Jim Rose
I think you have overestimated the expected dilution of 13C.
I have a small bet with myself that you calculated the dilution based on carbon in the atmosphere alone, rather than on total circulating carbon, which includes ocean and biomass reservoirs.
My point has consistently been that the observed decline in atmospheric δ13C-CO2 reflects additional atmospheric CO2 with an average ratio of -13 per mil. Obviously this is a net effect, but we can measure it directly from observations and it has apparently not changed significantly since the start of the industrial revolution (if you accept the Law Dome data). It makes no assumptions about dilution; it is simply what the observed δ13C decline rate in the atmosphere indicates is the average ratio for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is others who like to claim that “This decline is a near perfect match to what is expected from a fossil reservoir release”. Fossil fuels are currently estimated to have a δ13C of -28 per mil (having gradually decreased from around -24 per mil in 1751 due to changes in fuel mix) so such an assertion in isolation is patently untrue.
I have also been the one to point out that this is why climate science models invoke a substantial input of 13C from oceanic CO2 exchange due to differential fractionation (nothing to do with fossil fuels) in order to correct for the mismatch. This hypothesis (which I do not necessarily agree with) is reflected in the following paper, which includes the assumptions of partial uptake of CO2 from fossil fuels by the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans, as well as the observed -13 per mil value:
http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GB001845/pdf
See, in particular, Figure 5.
Day 267 since the GPE was debunked (and Day 8 since it was experimentally falsified), and the GHEDT carry on doing their thing.
I guess somebody’s got to.
Hilarious.
DREMT must believe all those ‘get free energy from water’ videos, and various other perpetual motion machines demonstrated on Youtube.
So long as they claim regular physics has it all wrong, he’s game.
Ignorant folk are easily conned.
Just like the ignorant folk who believe that putting an object between two others makes it hotter than either, eh?
Only if the middle object is the heated one.
Eh? Where did your internal heater miraculously come from? How hot is it? How big is it? Try again.
Cant keep up with the discussion, eh?
The middle plate was always heated in the DREMTs 3 plate example.
So if you heat an object, you can increase its temperature, eh? Brilliant!
Cleary youre here to troll, so no need to make sense.
That’s a good one. Claim you are talking random nonsense because you want to, eh?
A good example of nonsense, Mike! And thats exactly what Phi thinks would happen in an atmosphere with no GHGs. The heat flow is wacky:
sun>surfacespace.
Whoops, that didnt work. Ill try again:
Sun > Surface space
Inscrutable, eh? Are you talking about the Moon? Maybe you are stupid enough to believe that adding an atmosphere to the Moon would add 33 C to its maximum temperature of 127 C, making 160 C. A miracle, eh?
What is the Moon’s mean temperature?
What has that to do with anything, eh? Who cares?
You mentioned adding 33C to the maximum temperature of the Moon of 127C. Using a mean surface flux of 240 W/m^2 and the SB you get 255K which is 33K less than the actual mean of 288K on Earth. Note that the 33K difference is in reference to the mean temperature; not the maximum. If you wanted to use the Moon in this manner then perhaps you should add 33C to the Moon’s mean; not the maximum.
Don’t be stupid, eh? Why should the Moons maximum temperature be different from the Earth, if they have the same atmosphere? Time for goalpost shifting, eh?
If the Moon had the same atmosphere, same albedo, and same everything else I see no reason why it should be different. But that’s a different topic. The +33C GHE is still in reference to the mean temperature; not the maximum. So if the goal post is being shifted it’s not because of me.
So the Moon would have a lower maximum temperature if it had the same atmosphere as the Earth, eh? Bit odd, don’t you think?
Why would that be odd?
If you agree that atmosphere lowers maximum temperatures, then you are on the way to understanding, Grasshopper. Not odd at all, except to an alarmist, eh? Best you stick to pot lids, while you think about it.
I do accept that an Earth-like atmosphere lowers the maximum temperature. I also accept that an Earth-like atmosphere raises the mean temperature. None of this is odd. It is expected.
Testing.
To whomever this may concern:
Temperatures stated are for comparative purposes only.
CPU/Heat Sink
a) CPU without heat sink, in vacuum = 290 K
b) CPU with heat sink, in vacuum = 244 K
3-Plate Scenario
a) Central heated plate, in vacuum = 244 K
b) Central heated plate, with green plates pressed against it, in vacuum = 244 K
Now, try to find a comparable example.
I’m glad you acknowledge that reduced energy loss rate increases the CPU temperature.
In the 3-Plate Scenario the loss rate is reduced when you switch from conduction to radiative heat transfer:
c) Central heated plate, green plates separated, in vacuum = 290 K.
You seem to have missed the point completely. Why am I not surprised?
Let me put it another way:
1.
a) CPU without heat sink, in vacuum = 290 K
b) CPU with heat sink, in vacuum = 244 K
2.
a) Central heated plate, in vacuum = 244 K
b) Central heated plate, with heat sink, in vacuum = 205 K
c) Central heated plate, with green plates pressed against it, in vacuum = 244 K
The green plates do not function as a heat sink.
You will need to try a different comparison.
A ideal thermally conductive blackbody is a cold thing in space.
Say at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
Ideal thermally conductive blackbody, is idealized ideal passive refrigerator- it doesn’t get too warm and doesn’t get too cold.
It doesn’t too warm even in direct light of 1414 watts meter of sunlight, and doesn’t too cold even if sun never shines in some region on the sphere. It has a high average temperature.
It’s temperature is currently higher than average temperature of Earth’s entire ocean, but one can pick and choose different surfaces
of Earth.
In terms of Earth average land surface {or surface air 5 feet in shade] that average temperature is about 10 C. Or 5 C warmer than ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1 AU.
Earth’s average liquid ocean surface is is much higher, it’s about 17 C. But if you thought average cloud surfaces were important, I have no idea what that average temperature is, and one have to make some rules about how measure clouds average “surface temperature” but I would guess it’s cooler than land surface average temperature.
But Earth certainly has colder temperatures and higher temperatures than average {or uniform} temperature of a ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
Earth average surface air temperature in the tropics is about 26 C, and if you designed ideal thermally conductive to uniform tropical temperature like Earth of 26 C, then uniform temperature outside of the tropics, then outside of tropics would be closer to a freezer than a refrigerator. So it would be “room temperature” in tropics and freezer outside of the tropics. And it would be more similar to Earth. But it would good freezer and good room temperature and Earth doesn’t have such perfect conditions. Or Earth is not good freezer- it gets too cold and too warm in most of the regions outside of the tropics.
It seems if you were to mimic all the changing temperatures of 5 feet in shade above the surface on Earth, an ideal thermally conductive surface would be cooler than Earth- despite absorbing more sunlight than Earth. And one call this the Greenhouse Effect, which keeping a thin layer of the surface air at highest average temperature.
The surface air on Earth is the warmest temperature of the entire Atmosphere and it’s a portion of the atmosphere.
One describe it the meeting point of two heat gradients, of troposphere and warmest part of the ocean, which is the surface temperature of the ocean.
The land can have warmer “parts” below the surface, but gravity makes warm water rise- except freshwater which densest at around 4 C {in gravity being denser makes it sink}.
“3-Plate Scenario
a) Central heated plate, in vacuum = 244 K
b) Central heated plate, with green plates pressed against it, in vacuum = 244 K”
Now, try to find a comparable example.
Sure, now show us how you arrive at this result for a.
If you you cat the it is pure fantasy.
And we’re still left with NO solution from youvguys for the 2 plates problem, or the N plates problem.
Explain to engineers how theyve been getting heat transfer technology wrong all this time.
The only plate problem is in your imagination, eh?
To eliminate any possible confusion:
Temperatures stated are for comparative purposes only.
CPU/Heat Sink
a) CPU without heat sink, in vacuum = 290 K
b) CPU with heat sink, in vacuum = 244 K
3-Plate Scenario
a) Single heated plate, in vacuum, no other plates present = 244 K
b) Central heated plate, with green plates pressed against it, in vacuum = 244 K
Now, try to find a comparable example.
Yep, this is you showing you fail to understand the difference between a heat sink, which needs contact, and insulation, that minimizes contact (eg fiberglass with numerous air pockets).
You haven’t a clue, eh?
Ok mike.
Eh?
I love that they have to defend the whole “Accordion of Heat” concept:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-411311
Indeed, their entire religion depends on it.
How did they ever get themselves in such a pickle!? I suppose ultimately the blame has to fall on Eli’s shoulders. Poor guy.
I’ve enjoyed reading their denial of Hughes experimental results, too. Some interesting comments there:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
A couple of old, familiar faces amongst the commenters.
A good quote from the article itself:
“As Nikola Tesla once said.
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
It’s almost like Nikola saw the future of climate clownatology and wrote a paragraph for it in preparation.”
The whole “Accordion of Heat” phenomenon ought to be a basic sanity check that there is something fundamentally wrong with their ideas. The very fact that there is nothing like it occurring in reality…it ought to give them pause for thought…but it doesn’t. They fail the sanity check, and retreat back into their math…
…like the math must be right, and reality wrong!
“I have no interest in going over it all again”
Translation: dont bother me with the facts, Im only here to troll.
“they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
I know.
Physics equations are just gibberish, foreign language.
Best to ignore them.
Physics equations, eh? Which ones, precisely?
”
Ive enjoyed reading their denial of Hughes experimental results”
I love how one experiment by some internet dude, that ‘proves’ ordinary heat transfer laws wrong, impresses you guys.
But a hundred years of experiments and technology that prove them right and are in textbooks? Those can be safely ignored.
So experimental results should be discarded in favour of models, eh? Clever.
As there is absolutely no theoretical or mathematical basis that is presented for this work, I am extremely skeptical, as we all should be.
As the expression goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I prefer to wait for the publication of this work in a peer reviewed journal and then replicated by others. Usually that requirement usually, but not always, weeds out the charlatans and/or incompetent experimental scientists. That’s how the experimental evidence for N-rays, polywater and cold fusion was debunked.
A great pity you can’t describe any extraordinary claims, eh? Which specific measurements are you being skeptical about? None in particular? I’m skeptical that you have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Have you published your concerns in a peer reviewed journal?
Meh,
As the results of this experiment can only be interpreted in terms of a violation of the conservation of energy for a isolated system and/or of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, then most people with a scientific background would regard that as extraordinary.
Why has he not done the maths to demonstrate that his particular results are in accordance with all the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann equation?
Here is an example of the calculations that are in accordance with these laws to peruse at your leisure.
https://i.postimg.cc/CxCgw6Rp/Rabbet-Excel2.jpg
No, I haven’t published my concerns due to the fact that it has not appeared in a peer reviewed journal of any kind. I will publish my concerns in the letter to the editor section, if this paper ever passes peer review at whatever journal is willing to publish such arrant nonsense.
This is the way science is supposed to work.
“As there is absolutely no theoretical or mathematical basis that is presented for this work”
That you could be bothered to go back through the multiple discussions, on various blogs, over the last two years, to read about (even when pointed in the right direction)…
“As the expression goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
That’s right, but you all accepted Swanson’s experiment without skepticism.
“I prefer to wait for the publication of this work in a peer reviewed journal and then replicated by others…”
I very much doubt Swanson will get his experiment published in a peer-reviewed journal. So why accept his extraordinary claims, if peer-review and replication is what you need? I’m afraid that just because there has been a concerted effort by a group of people on blogs to go around repeating over and over and over again for years that back-radiation heating is normal, accepted and standard physics, etc, does not make that true.
Which measurements are you disputing, eh? What extraordinary claims were made?
Nothing extraordinary about Swansons results, as anyone with an understanding of basic heat transfer would know. Clearly you guys do not.
Clueless eh? You think heat transfer in textbooks hasnt been proven by experiments. Many many many experiments.
Keep it up, Mike. The more you post, the dumber you look.
DRsEMT, You might have pointed to my debunking of Hughes’ experimental results:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28806
With his device, the plate is not being uniformly heated and the plate is not thermally isolated from the metal (steel?) angles which support it. His light bulb is a rather long one and most of the light (and heat) is directed toward the angles, which appear to be painted black. He claims no conduction, yet the photos show the thin (1 mm) plate resting on the top of the angles. His vacuum gauge can not measure high vacuum, thus his claim that convection is suppressed can not be proven.
I later calculated the thermal emissions from my demo’s Blue and Green plates, showing that the increase in the Blue plate’s emission is almost exactly that emitted by the Green plate toward the Blue one.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28967
No explanation has been for the increase in power emitted by the Blue plate, except the input from the Green plate.
Actually Swanson, I encouraged people to read all the comments…so that naturally includes the ones you have linked to, the responses from Geraint Hughes, and others, to your “debunking”, and the back and forth over your experiment.
I have enjoyed watching you lose the arguments.
DRsEMT, Yes, lots of fun but you must have missed a few killer points. GH thought my demo should show cooling as his did, apparently unaware of adiabatic cooling, which would have caused his plate to cool as the pressure in his rig decreased. You may also have missed Zoe Phin’s inability to differentiate between steady state and transient conditions, while never explaining the source of my Blue plate’s emission increase of 2.5 watts after the Green plate is lifted.
And your alter ego sock puppet Huffingman showed up to comment too.
Not really “killer points”, Swanson, just your responses to criticisms of your experiment.
Hughes seemed to realize talking to you was pointless fairly early on, Zoe persevered a lot longer. The discussions already exist, are there to be read by others, for them to conclude about as they wish, and won’t be repeated.
Me and Huff.man are two different people. Get over it.
I am not sure that the good Doctor’s egregiously maniacial troll and the departed H*ff were the same sock puppet. I had a look at the time of postings and there seemed to be a time difference of 4 or 5 hours between their bed times and the times they awoke. I suspect the maniacal troll maybe in the UK and H*ff being on the east coast of the US. The identical diurnal behaviour of Huff and G* suggest what we all suspected about their common identities.
I think that what fooled me was the belief that in the infinite multiplicity of universes that we had the goddam luck to be in the only one that could contain two clowns who have identical bizarre belief systems. Additionally the Dunnink Kruger twins have the same arrogant supreme confidence about their own abilities.
How lucky we all are?
Should have been Dunning, but Dunnink is also appropriate, as a short form of ‘dunno know how to think’.
Creepy…
“His vacuum gauge can not measure high vacuum, thus his claim that convection is suppressed can not be proven.”
I’m not defending the authors at your link as I have not read it and don’t intend to. But, this sentence caught my eye.
Do you believe that the Earth’s surface and the effective radiating layer of the atmosphere are separated by a vacuum? Assuming you are sane, and the answer is no, why do you think an experiment relying on having a vacuum is in any way relevant to the question of what impact increasing GHG concentration has on the temperature at the Earth’s surface?
Bart, Unfortunately you have to read the article to appreciate why a vacuum was required. The author was attempting to prove experimentally that radiation from a colder plate back towards a warmer plate does not occur.
Back radiation and its link to the Green House effect has been discussed here by Roy Spencer –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
“The author was attempting to prove experimentally that radiation from a colder plate back towards a warmer plate does not occur.”
False. Why are you people so averse to telling the truth?
What is your explanation for what he was attempting to do?
He is not denying the existence of back-radiation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/climate-extremism-in-the-age-of-disinformation/#comment-410616
Oh it exists? But it has no effect. Why?
If radiation exists, it contains energy, by definition. And if it is hitting a black body, then by definition of a black-body it must be absor*bed.
If it exists, it contains energy, and if it is abs*orbed by a body, then it should have a heating effect, according to First law of Thermodynamics.
Why not?
Thanks DREMT and particularly Nate for his comment.
Yes I should have said.
The author was attempting to prove experimentally that heating via radiation from a colder plate back towards a warmer plate does not occur.
He was demonstrating that back-radiation has no ability to heat, sure.
Yes, E.Swanson, there were a number of strange things about Hughes’s rig. Firstly the light source and its mounting appeared to be sub optimal.
It is hard to tell because the low resolution photos and accompanying very brief video are very poor and out of focus, but it appears that the narrow bulb had its filament parallel to the vertical sides and consequently the amount of light emitted from the top towards the sample would have been possibly as low as 5% or less of the total 40W output. The majority of the light emerging from the sides of the filament would have been absorbed by the black coating.
It actually would have made more sense to have the inside coated with white paint so the light could have been directed towards the plates, similar to an integrating sphere.
A much better arrangement would have used a halide down-light with a narrow spread (30 degrees is common) to direct the partially collimated light towards the plate. A 50 W halogen down-light with a reflector costs a couple of dollars. I think a gain of a factor of 20 or so in power that arrived a light the blue plate could have been obtained , if such a source was used. This would have given a factor of two or three greater temperature difference between the single and double plate setups. However this may not have suited Hughes’s purpose which I suspect was not to see any difference.
This generally thoughtless approach suggested that Hughes was not trying very hard. I think that he might have worried that he could have inadvertently confirmed the standard theories of thermodynamics if he had taken sufficient care. So garbage in, garbage out seems to be the order of the day.
Also don’t start me regarding his eccentric theories presented on his web site (which doesn’t currently carry his results despite what the link says) . He has gone all Joe Postmal and uses the 1367 W/m2 solar constant instead of the correct 342 W/m2 to make some bizarre claims . Roy Spencer quite rightly has given the dragon slayers a serve about this on their web site – https://principia-scientific.org/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/ .
Finally, I have to say that this guy could be an absolute genius or a raving nutter. However the number of geniuses compared to nutters is probably something like 1 p.p.m.. Using this as a Bayesian prior combined with all the evidence we both have seen, the chance of this guy being correct is probably 1 in 10 million.
The video was only to quickly demonstrate something that should have happened in Swanson’s experiment, but didn’t…and you are wrong, the number used in the original plates setup from Eli was 400 W/m^2, something Swanson was also unaware of when charging in accusing Hughes of getting it wrong himself. Both got the initial input number wrong, not that it makes any difference at all.
I expect any criticisms that were worth taking seriously may be incorporated into future tests, as he promised further testing with a different setup.
So you can be in denial of those results too, in time.
No, he is using the standard Dragon Slayer figure of 1367 W -see the diagram near the beginning of his presentation.
I kind of understand why he would use the solar constant value because it would represent the flux intercepted by a plate which has the sun directly overhead at the top of the earth’s atmosphere. However, as Roy Spencer points out, you need to divide by 4 to get the figure appropriate for the earths’s energy budget i.e. 342 W/m2.
I am looking forward to a more serious effort from Hughesy that is much better documented than his current shambolic effort, to see if he can verify his claims. If he succeeds and publishes it and it subsequently withstands scrutiny, then yes I would be happy to say that he is a certified genius. In that case I promise to fly to Oslo for the Nobel Prize ceremony. Otherwise the best we can say is that he is certifiable.
The correct number to have referenced would have been 400 W/m^2. As I said, both Hughes and Swanson got it wrong. I’m well aware of what number he used, but it has nothing to do with Postma’s “flat Earth” arguments. He was simply using the value of the solar constant since that is what would be received by a flat plate in space at our distance from the sun. You are trying to add controversy where there is none.
As I said above in my 2nd paragraph (which you would have missed),yes I understood the reason he may have the used the solar constant but if he was interested in the earths response to solar radiation then the 342 W value was more appropriate.
Perhaps he more interested in an academic exercise or designing multilayer insulation for satellites.
He was interested in falsifying the GPE, which had an input of 400 W/m^2, though the specific numbers themselves aren’t relevant. Talk about making a fuss over nothing.
Also note that in practice MLI uses reflective surfaces. I wonder if they did some testing and found that back-radiation heating didn’t work, so they had to rely on good old reflectivity instead?
Google “site:climateofsophistry.com mli” if you want to see that topic already discussed, rather than pointlessly repeating things that have already been said.
‘Also note that in practice MLI uses reflective surfaces. I wonder if..’
That reflective materials work better as radiative shielding agrees completely with the physical theory of how it works. In no way does it negate that it applies to blackbodies as well.
You guys offer no evidence that it doesnt. Just false assertions, hopes and dreams that the physical theory behind the effect works when you want it to, but doesnt work when you dont want it to.
Nate, as per usual nails it,
Using the same equations used to calculate the energy transfer and temperatures of the two plates, for a green plate with an emissivity less than 1 the temperatures of the blue plate goes up.
Same equations, same principles. Reflection is just back radiation from a low emissivity object.
When I insulate my house, the radiators themselves don’t get warmer.
When you insulate a satellite, the sun doesn’t get warmer.
Oh well.
DReMT , you clearly you know nothing of what you speaketh of.
I don’t know about your heater which may not follow the laws of thermodynamics but for any other heater that is not regulated by a thermostat,the heater itself and the rest if the house will run warmer, of course. Did you really believe it wouldnt? If the heater has a thermostat then it will spend less time in the on state, saving money. That’s what insulation is used for.
If you still don’t believe the above, then maybe you can get the Hughes fellow to come over and do the experiment. Rip out the insulation and measure the temperature and then restore the insulation and compare. Do it a number of times to achieve statistical significance. Report back with the results.
With regards to the sun, the returned energy off a satellite in earth orbit is of course is miniscule compared to the output of the sun. If you want to do the calculation yourself then uses the inverse R-squared law with 150 million kms as your distance . Then divide the solid angle subtended by the sun at the earth (convert the 0.5 degree angular diameter to radians first) by 4 pi..Multiply the incident 1367 W/m2 by a reasonable area for the insulation panel and employ the 2 plate equations. This should give the you an approximate figure for radiant energy that arrives back at the sun. Compare that to the suns output at the surface.
For the odd photon reflected back from the satellite that penetrates the suns photo-sphere then there will be an almost infinitesimally small increase in the suns temperature. To calculate, this part is not easy.Use the results of your previous calculations and use the heat capacity of the sun, whatever that is. Someone has speculated as to what it is here
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142417/what-is-the-actual-energy-content-of-the-sun
If you dont want to, or are incapable of doing the calculations, I hear NASA is planning a manned mission to the surface of the sun. I am sure we can get crowd funding from contributors here to support your application and travel expenses. Take a very accurate thermometer and excellent insulation (gold foil preferred, but you can recycle tin foil) .
…and his answer, hilariously, is “yes it does”, in both cases. Whilst writing an novella to say so. No MikeR, the actual heat source does not get hotter. The air in the house does. The actual heat source within the radiators, does not. The sun does not. Don’t be silly.
(…and reflection is not the same as back-radiation, and a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate is not an insulator…but apart from that you’re doing great…)
“The air in the house does. The actual heat source within the radiators, does not”
Precisely, the air warms just as the Blue plate warms, not the heater supplying the 400W to the Blue plate.
Nate,
I am not sure about that. The source itself has to obey The energy balance equation. Take for example, a vacuum flask, with hot water in it. The hot water is the source and it is receiving back radiation from the insulated external wall. The water will be at a higher temperature than if the external wall was not there.
It is not an exact analog to the two plate configuration but it shows that the source can be heated by back radiation.
Yes DREMT, my statement above was very poorly worded it should have said ‘ reflection is just radiation returned back from a low emissivity object’.
To clarify, reflection is a surface phenomom and the energy ( in the absence of transmission) returns back from one side only ( the face receiving the incoming radiation) while in contrast back radiation , being a bulk thermal phenomenon, is radiated equally from both sides of the plate.
This discussion got me thinking about what would occur if the green plate was not a black body.
If you drop the emissivity so that the green plate becomes a gray body, more energy is reflected back towards the blue plate , increasing the temperature of the blue plate and reducing the temperature of the green plate.
For an emissivity of zero the green plate acts like a mirror and all the radiation is reflected back towards the blue plate . The green plate absorbs no energy and no energy leaves the system via a the green plate.
As a consequence of absorbing no energy, the green plate has a temperature of zero K . All the energy leaves the system is via the blue plate.
Energy balance for the whole system means the 400 W entering the system is matched by 400 W leaving via the front surface and calculation using S-B gives a temperature of 289.8 K for the blue plate.
This extreme case shows how a plate at or close to zero K ( in practice in space the green plate would be at 3 K, but that is different matter) can heat the blue plate by 56 degrees ( in the absence of the green plate the blue would have a temperature of 243.7 K).
So contrary to some opinions expressed here a cold object, even an object at absolute zero, can heat a warmer object via back radiation and/ or reflection.
You might find this article to be of interest:
https://principia-scientific.org/light-recycling-disproves-greenhouse-gas-theory/
MikeR,
“I am not sure about that. The source itself has to obey The energy balance equation. Take for example, a vacuum flask, with hot water in it. The hot water is the source and it is receiving back radiation from the insulated external wall. The water will be at a higher temperature than if the external wall was not there.
”
Yeah i agree, in that case, if there is fixed heat flow supplied to water.
I guess it depends on the setup.
If the source is regulated at fixed temp or fixed heat flow.
ra”a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate is not an insulator”
And yet no how you label things, a blackbody can act as a radiative shield, as the physical theory of MLI and the RHTE, makes clear.
And acting as a radiative shield, it reduces the radiant heat flow from a warm object to cold surroundings, like the blue plate radiating to space.
And you guys need to show that the theory behind that, which simply uses RHTE and 1LOT, is wrong.
“Also note that in practice MLI uses reflective surfaces. I wonder if they did some testing and found that back-radiation heating didn’t work, so they had to rely on good old reflectivity instead?”
Or maybe they should have just listened to blob?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-413960
Dr Spencer, I’m pretty sure, that given 10 years more people get bored with climate change. The difference between what was told us that will happen and what happened grows bigger and bigger. Also, there is nothing that would stop atmospheric CO2 growth, and nothing Western schoolchildren could do about it. So freaking out won’t do a thing.
So I predict by 2030 most of this stuff will be gone, not because people would become any wiser, but because they will get bored in the apocalypse.
What comes to denial: people who don’t believe CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, well, they will continue to do so. People who are Marxists will continue to be so. There’s no fix for being gullible.
And finally, some people will continue to be religious, but I don’t see the correlation believing in the Creation being fragile or not fragile. It is possible to be religious and believe the world is going to end now.
You may be right the boredom, but it seems that an increasing number of people — including, most worryingly, children — are being persuaded to anxiety and alarm and away from critical thinking. Dr. Spencer’s comment about the educational system teaching what, not how, to think seems to be paving the way to greater government control/restriction of our options. I’m not sure I agree with you that there’s no fix for being gullible, but it is hard to break through entrenched gullibility, especially when it’s a characteristic of one’s tribe. Perhaps the Yellow Vest movement offers hope that such gullibility has its limits.
considering the original article was about how information is miss used to propagate beliefs, I find it amusing how information not relating to the original article id being used to propagate the two sides of the argument.
On real issues what are your predictions for the November update. mine is a further drop of about 0.2C
UAH came in at +0.55 which 0.11 higher than October. You can make some reasonably accurate predictions around mid month by using reanalysis + forecast datasets. By mid-November it was looking very likely that November would come in warmer than October on the satellite datasets as well.
Mark Wapples, what do you base that prediction on? Data or gut feel? I play the game sometimes but only when there is a Pacific Ocean indication.
In a bold and daring move to go on-topic to this article…on disinformation…why is it do you think that even on the relatively simple issue of “what is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?” you can get two different arguments about what it actually is?
This, as far as I’m concerned, is the SB Law:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
One term.
Yet you can find sources on the net claiming that the “two term” version (which as far as I was aware was actually the “radiative heat transfer equation”, where you have a term for the hot body, and one for the cold, and you calculate the heat transfer between them) is the SB Law. And some say the SB Law is both that and the single term version.
Strange that there should be this discrepancy.
What’s up with that? What is the truth, and what is the disinformation?
It’s also important to note that the “RHTE” is used for calculating the heat transfer between objects. It’s not meant to be used and abused for considerations of the inputs and outputs to and from individual objects.
Remember, the energy output from an object in W/m^2 is related to its temperature. That’s the SB Law (one term).
So it’s also important that people recognize any other disinformation getting bandied about re the SB Law/RHTE, that can be so prevalent on blog discussions these days.
“It’s also important to note that the “RHTE” is used for calculating the heat transfer between objects. It’s not meant to be used and abused for considerations of the inputs and outputs to and from individual objects”
Of course when the GPE plate sides only see each other, one’s input is the other’s output, so it’s all the same.
With the GPE plates, in the 3-plate scenario, view factors between blue and both green plates are reciprocal, i.e equal to one. So that means the blue and green plates only “see” other (and the green plates see space on their other side). In this scenario, the RHTE shows that heat flow goes to zero when the plates are at the same temperature, and with heat flow at zero, you’ve got your “steady state” as you guys will insist that it’s called.
And that’s that. Simple really.
Should have been, “only “see” each other.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“In this scenario, the RHTE shows that heat flow goes to zero when the plates are at the same temperature”
Yes, and the blue plate heat loss is 200 W on the outside.
So their temperature must fall.
There are things you can use the RHTE for, and things you can’t, as I already explained.
The correct use has been explained to you. You reject it, because you want to believe otherwise.
“In this scenario, the RHTE shows that heat flow goes to zero when the plates are at the same temperature, and with heat flow at zero, youve got your steady state as you guys will insist that its called.
And thats that. Simple really.”
Simple yet so dumb.
Circular logic.
Heat flow goes to zero when plates ar same temp. And plates are same temp why? Because heat flow is 0!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“It’s also important to note that the ‘RHTE’ is used for calculating the heat transfer between objects.”
Do you mean this:
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
“It’s not meant to be used and abused for considerations of the inputs and outputs to and from individual objects.”
‘Ah’ is the area of the hot object, so ‘q’ is at the surface of the hot object. Tc is the cold surroundings, if it was an ‘object’ you need its view factor.
?
Variations can be used for an object and its surroundings, or for between objects. Sure, view factors are important too. Mustn’t forget those when considering heat transfer between objects.
What its called is not important. Using it properly is. At least you now acknowledge, it seems, that the rad heat transfer equation is valid.
If so, then, how can eqial temperature plates satisfy it?
“If so, then, how can eqial temperature plates satisfy it?”
By having an additional path for heat transfer between them.
You guys are arguing about an irrelevant experiment.
The experiment should never have needed to be carried out, so I can see why you’d think it irrelevant. Attempts to either prove (Swanson) or disprove (Hughes) the impossible, shouldn’t be necessary.
The problem is though, we have a group of people on blogs who are all effectively just loudly repeating, over and over and over again, that heat flow doesn’t tend towards zero over time, that somehow heat is not going flow from a hotter object to cooler objects in order to act to reduce a temperature gradient to zero wherever possible, and that two passive plates on either side of a heated plate won’t simply warm via radiation until they are at the same temperature as the heated plate (given that the assumptions are there are no radiative losses past the edges of the plates, that all the plates are perfect conductors, and that they are in a perfect vacuum with no other heat source present), and then stay that way, at the same temperature!
For some reason they believe that, on reaching those equal temperatures, with the temperature gradient between the plates reduced to zero, and therefore no heat flowing between them…that what will happen is heat (not just energy, but heat) will spontaneously start flowing from the passive plates back to the heat source, making the heat source rise in temperature, so that a permanent and ever-lasting thermal gradient re-establishes itself, for no reason, to remain until the end of time!
And so, pointless experiments apparently need to happen to determine whether the impossible can really occur, or not…
Sorry DREMTY,
You do not understand the position of those who argue for the 244, 290, 244 solution.
“that heat flow doesn’t tend towards zero over time,”
Nope not arguing that, I accept Newton’s Fourth Law.
“that what will happen is heat (not just energy, but heat) will spontaneously start flowing from the passive plates back to the heat source,”
Nope, not arguing that, I accept that heat only flows from hot to cold.
“with the temperature gradient between the plates reduced to zero, and therefore no heat flowing between them”
This is correct, and it directly follows that there will be 400 watts in and 0 watts out, so the temperature of the blue plate must increase.
“so that a permanent and ever-lasting thermal gradient re-establishes itself, for no reason, to remain until the end of time!”
Yes, in order for the input to balance the output, First Law and whatnot.
However, once you separate the plates, the green plates now emit from both side, and since they only get 200 watts input and put out 400 watts, they must cool.
And the blue plate, now receives energy from the two green plates, it now must go up in temperature to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics.
Just do the math, balance the equations, solve the problem, don’t just declare the answer to be what you want it to be.
I did not mention separating the plates. Re-read, and try again.
P.S: blob quotes me saying “that heat flow doesn’t tend towards zero over time,”
and says, “Nope not arguing that, I accept Newton’s Fourth Law”
That’s funny…because I distinctly remember being told the idea that heat flow tends to zero was something I was making up, and had to defend! Not by you, blob…but you were there. And you didn’t say anything. Seems a bit…dishonest.
“Just do the math, balance the equations, solve the problem, don’t just declare the answer to be what you want it to be.”
Done that, as you know. In fact, somebody else did similar math for the 2-plate problem about a month after Eli first put it out there..two years ago…didn’t they? They solved the problem, it was explained conceptually by lots of different people, in enormous detail, over numerous comments. Wasn’t it, blob? And you know exactly where that occurred, don’t you? So why do you people keep lying, over and over and over again, about that? Just try being honest. Say, “I am aware that you and others already solved the problem, but I disagree with your solution”…or something like that.
Take some advice and learn from a blob, or go on forever being ignorant.
Your choice.
You don’t get credit for “solving a problem” if you get the wrong answer.
This isn’t an opinion poll where all thoughts have equal merit.
We can give you a participation medal if you wish.
…and you don’t get credibility by being frequently dishonest. Sorry blob.
“In fact, somebody else did similar math for the 2-plate problem about a month after Eli first put it out there..two years agodidnt they? They solved the problem”
And? YOU cannot show us NOW how to solve it with correct physics.
Then what have you learned in 2 years? Not much..
DREMPTY
266 days and counting, I am still waiting for a response from you, to my criticisms of your solution to the 3 plate problem, and you accuse me of dishonesty.
I have not been dishonest.
Show me one time where I have.
Same old same old.
OK, blob.
Quitter Quitter chicken shitter
‘For some reason they believe that, on reaching those equal temperatures, with the temperature gradient between the plates reduced to zero,”
Nope doesnt reach equal temperatures, not according to real physics. here are simply asserting something happens, while offering no concrete evidence whatsoever.
“and therefore no heat flowing between themthat what will happen is heat (not just energy, but heat) will spontaneously start flowing from the passive plates ‘
Well no. Heat flows from the warm plate to the cold plate as RHTE requires!
“making the heat source rise in temperature, so that a permanent and ever-lasting thermal gradient re-establishes itself, for no reason, to remain until the end of time!”
Thats what the physics shows. And whats the big deal with that?
When you insulate a heated object, it gets warmer! Happens all the time in the real world.
Missed it by that much!
Dr. Spencer: To paraphrase the great Laura Ingrahm, please shut up and do science and skip the polemics. I tune in only to see what the latest monthly temperature anamoly is, not for a lecture on politics. What I have learned from my visits is that there has not been a below normal month in years. That, to me, tells the tale.
It’s like some sort of mental disease.. Kind of like a computer virus. Eli’s math is like a little computer program, that has got into people’s heads, and screwed everything up.
They’re a bit like a cult, now. I picture them bowing before Eli, with his fake rabbit ears on, as they all chant, “the math is the life…the math is the life”, over and over again. These people need to be slapped, shaken, and have “wake up!” screamed right in their face. Smelling salts. I don’t know…something. They’re brain dead. I don’t know how else to describe it.
If I had a time machine, and caught these people earlier in their lives, before it all went wrong, and asked them about the heated plate, and adding two identical passive plates either side of it, with a gap, and explained all of the assumptions etc, I’m confident they would have agreed. The hot plate warms the cooler plates until they’re the same temperature…and that’s it. Hot warms cold, until the thermal gradient is gone. Being as how the hot plate is also the heat source, that sets the temperature. And that would have been it.
Now they’re a lost cause.
DREMTPY,
“The hot plate warms the cooler plates until theyre the same temperatureand thats it.”
Nope, not the correct answer, according to Newton, is takes forever for that to happen.
Study up dude.
A blob told you so.
Maybe just quit while you’re behind, blob.
Except I have passed about 5 physics classes, so I am way ahead of you.
You need to get off of the starting line.
OK, blob.
Blob asks are you quitting DREMTY?
Kitchen too hot for you?
No physics class attendance, much less any passing grades?
‘Theyre a bit like a cult, now. ‘
If its a cult, its a big one. Its called ordinary science and engineering.
Denying the reality of ordinary science and engineering along with a few like-minded on the internet: that’s a cult.
The Postma cult.
The Pricipia-scientific cult.
The flat-earther cult.
All the same.
Sheesh. Just listen to them.
OK, all.
Listen to them, yeah. There is a first time for everything!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-413357
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-413390.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2019-0-55-deg-c/#comment-413430
Love the article. My husband and I run a diving center in Cyprus. We want to offer something more than diving to our customers, something different, thought provoking, unique and absolutely appealing. Open to any ideas? Complimentary refreshments already a given…
Right now it looks like Expression Engine is the preferred blogging platform
out there right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are
using on your blog?
Im very glad to stop-by this website. I learned a lot. Thanks for sharing a wonderful article.
https://electricianmtdruitt.com.au/