The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2020 was +0.57 deg. C, up from from the August, 2020 value of +0.43 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com is +0.38 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.35 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.53 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.38 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.12 +0.65
2020 02 +0.75 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.47 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.39 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.97 +0.48 +0.92
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
so you are saying my bees will die in February or March . I have fed them 40LBs of sugar per hive so i am hopeful, but the last time we had a cold snap in March is it was very bad. :~(
Keep breaking records. A new 5 year record of 0.42 C. This is 0.25 C higher than any previous non-overlapping 5 y period.
Your bees wont have trouble from the expected 0.2 C global dip of La Nina.
But they should keep an eye on the arctic and the polar vortex.
dr. roy,
you use fake goverment numbers to draw your lame conclutions.
Why?
How dare you.
i agree.
climate change is all about the temperture of the oceans. right?
so what controls the temperture of the oceans? anser, the amount of sunlight geting to them, right. the ambent air temperture mostly does not heat the oceans. so the more junk in the atmustphear the less light/heat gets to the oceans. so in conclution one must assume that burning will cool the planet.
u dum fuk, b,s make huney to feed themsleves. u give them sugar and they will get acne and get so fat they cant fly.
i half to ask a question. how maney people have died from climate change in america? anser 0. how maney people will die in america if we stop using hydrocarbones? anser. 330 million.
Who is saying to stop using hydrocarbones?
We are saying to stop burning them.
I too have to ask a question.
Why’s your command of written English so poor?
Why we shouldnt drink and post.
3 things i learned about posting. 1. dont post whilst drunk, 2. it is no fun posting unless you are drunk, 3. either way it does not matter.
You just feed them on a sunny pre-spring Day when they fly out to empty their bowels. Make sure your bee families are large when they go into winter. The larger size means less energy expenditure thus healthier spring bees
The 13 month running average is once again above the 1998 peak. Last month was the second warmest September on record. 2020 running ahead of 1998, likely to be the second warmest year on record.
Planet continues to warm.
It is sitting at +0.52C right now; just a hair short of the record of +0.53C set in 2016 with raging El Nino.
It is certainly possible. But I suspect the La Nina might have something to say about that.
M,
La Nina is a description. It says nothing. You might be hearing imaginary voices.
People who can’t cope with abstraction, including personification, generally lie on the spectrum.
M,
Cryptic imaginary voices, too! No wonder you seem confused and lost at times.
Still trying to figure out where on the spectrum you lie.
That comment of yours was a god indicator, but I need more info – say something else idiotic.
M,
A *god indicator*? Do you really worship me?
Thanks for the encomium, although I make no claim to being a god. Feel free to keep finding god indicators in my words.
The idiocy of someone who pretends not to know what a typo was meant to be.
Thanks for satisfying my request – you have just pushed yourself to the extreme end of the spectrum.
I know an autistic guy. He is a software engineer. He quit working at my company and started his own software engineering company employing only autistic engineers. They are booming. What is your point?
The point is his lack of ability to interact socially in an appropriate way, whether or not he has that as an excuse.
This actually is supposed to be a science blog.
So unclear why Swenson/Flynn comes here, when he has no interest in science.
Maybe he is just here to tell us that he has no interest in science.
Ok, think we got it. Now he can go away.
Indeed.
So why are none of the alarmists able to produce that most basic item of science?
Why is a testable GHE hypothesis conspicuous by its absence?
And right there is the reason for the alarmists diversionary tactics. Anything to avoid actually accepting the scientific method! Cargo cult science, as Richard Feynman. Assertion after assertion. No testable hypothesis. No theory. Nothing.
Nate
It looks like he has given up pretending he is not Mike Flynn. He is not even trying any more to avoid using his phrases.
Yep, bad at science, bad at fraud.
Two deluded nutters, overlooking the obvious. Not as bad as Michael Mann believing he won a Nobe Prize, or Gavin Schmidt believing he was a scientist! But close.
The whole deluded group believe that CO2 somehow makes thermometers hotter, but hide their testable hypothesis because scientists might want to check it! Ho ho!
Carry on, nutters. Try another diversion.
Perhaps one day Mikey you’ll get some variety in your comments which will make it harder to determine that you are he and he is you.
Des, please stop trolling.
M,
Who is Mikey? One of your imaginary opponents? Is he like Warnie?
You a delusional, but you have to create a diversion to avoid the fact that you have no science, just a mindless strong of assertions. Nobody else cares about your fantasies. One non-existent person is as influential as another non-existent person, I suppose.
Others may prefer to notice that you cant even define the GHE in any useful way!
Carry on fantasising.
“Who is Mikey?”
Bad at accepting reality. Not sure what he is actually good at, other than trolling.
“Why is a testable GHE hypothesis conspicuous by its absence?”
As Im sure the cop told you when u ran thru the red light, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’
Ignorant of the easily accessible facts?? Not our problem, Mike.
An Australian would know Warnie – Mikey was Australian.
Is there any more reason to care if Swenson used to comment as Mike Flynn than there is to care that you used to comment as Bob, Des, Bond, and Bobdesbond? Mike Flynn isn’t banned, after all – the name posts OK. Seems like a bit of a pointless and hypocritical obsession, Des.
Nate,
There is no testable GHE hypothesis, is there? There isnt even a description of the GHE scientific enough to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. You are living in fantasy land!
No reason to care at all. The point is only that he chooses to deny it, out of some kind of shame.
Swenson says:
Funny, Mike Flynn asked that exact question 247 times.
Wikipedia says:
“The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Here’s the principle with some random numbers:
| N | Dwn | In_ | Up_ | Note
|——————————-
| 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | TOA
| 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | Mid
| 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | Surface
Notes:
1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
2) Each layer absorbs all incoming radiation.
3) Each layer emits what it receives, i.e. stable temperatures.
4) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
5) Without layer 2+3, layer 0 would emit 160 W/m^2 directly to space.
6) That corresponds to a lower temperature than that which emits 480 W/m^2.
So how are the temperatures of each layer fixed?
By the fact that each layer has equal input and output.
Remember that any surplus or deficit means temperature change.
It’s just that you said there is “heat flow up through each layer”, but also that the layers have “stable temperatures”. Heat flows down a thermal gradient, and acts to reduce that gradient to zero wherever possible (there are obvious exceptions where this is not possible). So I was wondering what stops the warmer lower layers from warming the layers above them? Especially as you say heat is flowing that way. Presumably there is no means by which the temperatures are actually fixed, as in “artificially maintained at the same amount”. So your conception of the GHE appears to suffer from a pretty fundamental contradiction.
It seems like you have an input of 160 W/m^2 turning itself into 480 W/m^2 by magic.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“So I was wondering what stops the warmer lower layers from warming the layers above them?”
All layers gain and lose the same amount, as you can see.
For example, layer 1 gets 480 from below, and 160 from above, total input 640 W. It radiates in all directions, 320 up and 320 down. Heat is net energy, so the heat loss is 160 W up, and heat gain is 160 W from below. Net zero means stable temperature.
“For example, layer 1 gets 480 from below, and 160 from above, total input 640 W.”
…and how is layer 0 producing 480, in order to provide layer 1 with 480 W!? Why, because it gets 320 from layer 1, and 160 from the sun.
(Svante won’t see the problem with that).
Yeah, the sfc gets 160 W/m^2 in other frequency bands.
Svante your model is a model of non-colliding separated layers. It has no reality in the atmosphere. One might be able to build such a device and either operate it in outerspace or pump all the gases out from between layers to manufacture high R value insulation, but that has zero relevance to our atmosphere because energy exchange from collision of molecules far exceeds energy exchange by radiation in a gas.
You see this is why Nate calls this the grade-school model but as a grade-school model is misinforming our kids. But that’s the goal right?
Svante didn’t see the problem. No surprises there.
Another problem is that the division into three layers is arbitrary. You could divide the atmosphere up into a potentially near-infinite number of layers, and then by applying the same logic and the same initial 160 W input the surface layer ends up ridiculously high in temperature.
You both misunderstand.
It’s not a model of the atmosphere.
It shows how simple symmetric absorbs and emission creates a greenhouse effect.
NOTE: the atmosphere is not exactly like a greenhouse either.
I didn’t describe it as a model of anything, Svante. My criticisms still stand.
Yes, the division in three layers is arbitrary.
In reality it is different for different frequencies.
In reality the atmospheric window has zero layers.
The real atmosphere corresponds to less than one layer.
In fact it has no distinct layers at all.
You need a Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model to calculate it well.
Can you understand the principle I described?
Of course, that’s how I know it’s wrong.
For comparison, here is the situation without GHGs:
| N | Dwn | In | Up | Note
| 0 | 000 | 160 | 160 | Surface
As you understand, 160 W/m^2 corresponds to a lower temperature than the 480 W/m^2 (hypothetical) GHG example.
The numbers are random of course, I’m just illustrating the principle.
‘Presumably there is no means by which the temperatures are actually fixed, as in ‘artificially maintained at the same amount’. So your conception of the GHE appears to suffer from a pretty fundamental contradiction.’
Oh no, not that rot again!
There seems to be no hope that DREMT will ever comprehend heat transfer basics.
DREMT just cannot wrap his brain around this ordinary everyday occurrence, when a heated system reaches a steady-state with a steady heat flow and a steady gradient in temperature.
Svante, I already explained why you are wrong.
Sure you did, but as usual with the Dunning Kruger afflicted, you have way overestimated your understanding of the issue.
“but as a grade-school model is misinforming our kids.”
The problem here is adults who are misinformed and are acting like kids.
Nate says:
There seems to be no hope that DREMT will ever comprehend heat transfer basics.
DREMT just cannot wrap his brain around this ordinary everyday occurrence, when a heated system reaches a steady-state with a steady heat flow and a steady gradient in temperature.
=====================================
Nate there is no steady heat transfer gradient in the atmosphere. You are just imagining there is one.
Most of the heat in the atmosphere transfers by an unevenly distributed water in the atmosphere and it does so with the bulk of the heat in the atmosphere being delivered via the higher heat capacity of water combined with latent heat. Anybody trying to stress a steady gradient to that needs their head examined. Radiation is a minor player in that symphony.
You are just parroting the hypothesis you sent that duplicate historic climate.
bill hunter says:
“Radiation is a minor player in that symphony.”
It’s a major player as you get nearer the top.
If you understood my simple explanation, here’s more:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/joc.1803
Indeed Svante. And if you ever had the pleasure of flying propeller passenger aircraft to any extent you would quickly learn that near the top is the most turbulent zone in the atmosphere. Jets are much better as they fly mostly in the stratosphere.
Nate says:
but as a grade-school model is misinforming our kids.
The problem here is adults who are misinformed and are acting like kids.
Svante says:
You both misunderstand.
Its not a model of the atmosphere.
=====================================
Love the way you guys are scrambling like cockroaches when the light gets turned on.
OK this concept is as dead as a maggot-ridden corpse.
“Nate there is no steady heat transfer gradient in the atmosphere. You are just imagining there is one.”
For the 47th time, Bill claims I said something I didnt say.
He just cannot bring himself to honestly debate the things that people actually say.
I was claiming that steady state gradients are a common phenomenon. The atmosphere has gradients which vary over time with weather. Overall it has a rel steady average gradient.
You guys just cant appreciate the big picture, and you focus on the rust on the hub caps.
The point is that the simple models were never intended to capture every detail of the atmosphere, with its weather and overall general circulation.
They are only intended to explain one aspect, the basic mechanism of the GHE.
No point to complain that they fail to do what they were never intended to do.
Bill, note that what I actually said was:
"Heat flows down a thermal gradient, and acts to reduce that gradient to zero wherever possible (there are obvious exceptions where this is not possible)."
By acknowledging that there are "obvious exceptions where this is not possible", I clearly accept that there are everyday situations where you have steady temperature gradients and steady heat flow. Nate always deliberately misrepresents others, which is one of the reasons why I no longer bother responding to him.
Nate says:
October 5, 2020 at 8:34 AM
“Nate there is no steady heat transfer gradient in the atmosphere. You are just imagining there is one.”
For the 47th time, Bill claims I said something I didnt say.
He just cannot bring himself to honestly debate the things that people actually say.
I was claiming that steady state gradients are a common phenomenon. The atmosphere has gradients which vary over time with weather. Overall it has a rel steady average gradient.
You guys just cant appreciate the big picture, and you focus on the rust on the hub caps.
======================================
Well maybe Nate you should read the reference you sent to support your claim that the the greenhouse effect physics had been tested. And here it appears you are both denying you said it and claiming some kind of mean steady state at the very same time.
Typical warmist double speak!!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
By acknowledging that there are “obvious exceptions where this is not possible”, I clearly accept that there are everyday situations where you have steady temperature gradients and steady heat flow. Nate always deliberately misrepresents others, which is one of the reasons why I no longer bother responding to him.
====================
My take on the topic is that the paper submitted by Nate from the 1960’s by Manabe and Wetherald assumes a rigid lapse rate mean value of some sort in the troposphere as a whole in order for a hypothesized forcing at TOA to reach back to the surface.
My take on that is if true a boiling pot of water would merely steam rapidly rather than boil. Treating a gas or a liquid for that matter like rigid insulation is the controversy in the current viewpoint of the atmosphere acting like a blanket.
Thus simply positing that while it isn’t rigid it is rigid in the mean sense seems a bridge too far with the current state of science.
Certainly I would love to be illuminated on the topic further but Nate appears way too ignorant of the facts to accomplish that. I certainly don’t expect it come from another skeptic on the basis that its not possible to disprove or dispute a theory not clearly stated.
Nate says:
The point is that the simple models were never intended to capture every detail of the atmosphere, with its weather and overall general circulation.
They are only intended to explain one aspect, the basic mechanism of the GHE.
No point to complain that they fail to do what they were never intended to do.
===========================================
You are actually correct there Nate. But it raises the question why you believe it then. Even M&W in the study you sent in support specified that the steady lapse rate gradient was an ”assumption”.
Which of course leaves us without any proven theory of how CO2 controls the climate.
Yes, the GHE depends on the lapse rate, which is determined by convection mostly.
bill hunter says:
“if you ever had the pleasure of flying propeller passenger aircraft to any extent you would quickly learn that near the top is the most turbulent zone in the atmosphere.”
I flew gliders and the turbulence often disappeared a few hundred meters above the surface.
“Even M&W in the study you sent in support specified that the steady lapse rate gradient was an ‘assumption’.”
Yes sure. Which was an adequate model to understand why the lapse rate has the average value it does.
“Which of course leaves us without any proven theory of how CO2 controls the climate.”
No. Strawman. MW not intended to do all that. The global circulation models go way beyond MW and see AGW in action.
Nate i thought you were giving me the basic function study I asked for. no problemo simply supply the proof i asked for and stop stonewalling
Ask Gordon about the ideal gas law.
One thing for sure Svante you have no answers. Waiting on Nate but it appears he is as clueless as yourself.
Answers about the lapse rate feedback?
don’t feel too bad Svante. I am getting crickets from Tim Folkerts on the same issue. Swanson also jumped in, but what’s clear is nobody seems to know.
“Nate i thought you were giving me the basic function study I asked for. no problemo simply supply the proof i asked for and stop stonewalling”
Uhh, MW 1967 does exactly as I advertised, it shows that convection IS included in the models of the GHE from the getgo, which addressed your questions and coplaints.
Now you want to morph the question into something else, and whine that I didnt answer that…go play in traffic.
The internet is useful tool if you are not a lazy SOB. I gave you a good starting point if you truly want to learn.
Here: tinyurl.com/y*x*b*l*7
Remove the stars.
Difficult link:
https://tinyurl.com/y6qfr73k
Search:
“4.2.1 Water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks” site:.be
It’s pretty obvious he doesn’t want to learn Nate.
Svante says:
Its pretty obvious he doesnt want to learn Nate.
===================================
audit time is expensive. I am not going to search for whats not there. Its up to the proponents of a theory to provide evidence of its truth. In the audit game you try to ask folks that either claim to know or should know. If they don’t have an answer its time to figure out how much more you are going to charge them to come up with a solution.
So if you guys want to pony up on that, the order desk is open.
but I figure the two of you are just frauds claiming to know and either too stupid due to the Dunning Kruger effect or you are running a con. Because if its not a con then you definitely would like to let me know. . . .basic human nature.
so I have moved on from you two morons and am waiting a response from the professor. So far crickets! Gotta wonder about him too maybe.
If you were interested in the answers you wouldn’t respond with Gish gallops.
“For example, layer 1 gets 480 from below, and 160 from above, total input 640 W.”
…and how is layer 0 producing 480, in order to provide layer 1 with 480 W!? Why, because it gets 320 from layer 1, and 160 from the sun.
This is perpetuum mobile, Svante.
Exactly out there in the world parroting grade school climate models as if the technology actually ever even once worked like that in a gas. You might even ask why anybody believes that for even one tenth of a second. And the answer is because the atmosphere has a lapse rate. It doesn’t have anything at all to do with forcing anything.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Please note that each layer produces net zero power.
Not a very good perpetuum mobile.
160 W/m^2 is transformed into 480 W/m^2! I think it’s pretty good. You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself.
Yeah, net zero everywhere.
Temperatures will fall if you take any energy out of the system.
Svante isn’t concerned by the physical impossibility of the concept he’s proposed. Good for him.
It’s a bit like a greenhouse isn’t it?
N.B. It is not exactly like a greenhouse in every respect.
No, it is nothing like a greenhouse.
Except a greenhouse gets warmer when you close the top windows.
Without adding more input energy.
Funny that.
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“Its up to the proponents of a theory to provide evidence of its truth.”
Bill is becoming a full time troll after training with Swenson.
The idea is to pretend no AGW model is out there.
The theory and its evidence are published for all to see.
Bill just participated in bashing a physics today review of it, without bothering to read it.
How bout this: find and read a review of the theory, and THEN tell us what specifically you think they have done wrong and why.
“and how is layer 0 producing 480, in order to provide layer 1 with 480 W!? Why, because it gets 320 from layer 1, and 160 from the sun.
This is perpetuum mobile, Svante.”
When it comes to heat transfer, DREMT contnues his clueless ways.
1LOT says for any layer simply sum all inputs and outputs to findvout if the layer is warming or cooling or steady.
Where is the 1lot violation here? Nowhere.
#2
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
And the heat flow is 160 W/m^2 from bottom to TOA,
i.e. warm to cold so that’s OK with 2LOT.
#3
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.”
Perpetuum ignarus.
which highlights the failure to make a convincing argument, or any physics based argument.
the single layer greenhouse doesn’t do anything so Nate is trying to ram the ”grade-school greenhouse climate model” up everybody’s rearend. if one layer doesn’t work maybe all you need are a 1000 layers.
Very profound arguments there from DREMT and his team mate.
#4
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“if one layer doesnt work maybe all you need are a 1000 layers.”
Bill, I thought you read MW. I guess not. You are regressing.
This is why no one wants to be your research assistant. Things are shown to you, explained to you, you seem to get it, then you revert back to gobbledegook.
Let me just congratulate Perpetuum Ignoramus in advance for ‘winning’ the last word game.
But still looking for a cogent argument from the TEAM.
#5
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
How old are you?
Old enough to know that the only way to deal with people like you is through endless repetition. You don’t respond to logic or reason. You are simply here to defend your religion.
Svante, your layer 1 has an input that comes from your layer 0. Where does the energy come from for this output from layer 0? Largely, from layer 1! Most people will be able to see through this, especially when I spell it out for them like that. I don’t need you to admit you are wrong, I know you never will. So, repetition is the best course of action.
You will respond with some other nonsense. I will go back to the numbered, repeated responses.
You are basically saying insulation can work.
Does it help you if I add a column for heat?
Please say which numbers you think each cell should have.
| N | Dwn | In | Up | Heat | Note |
| 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | 160 | TOA |
| 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | 160 | |
| 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | 160 | Surface |
Notes:
1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
2) Each layer N absorbs all incoming radiation.
3) Each layer emits what it receives, i.e. stable temperatures.
4) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
5) Without layer 2+3, layer 0 would emit 160 W/m^2 to space.
6) That corresponds to a lower temperature than that which emits 480 W/m^2.
7) No energy is destroyed (1LOT).
8) Heat moves from hot to cold (2LOT).
#6
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“Old enough to know that the only way to deal with people like you is through endless repetition. You dont respond to logic or reason.”
Where was that logic you speak of?
All I saw was a DECLARATION, that Svantes layers are perpetual motion machines, ie creating energy from nothing.
But this is completely unsupported. Where is your evidence of a first law violation?? All inputs and outputs obey laws of physics. They are from the solar input or from SB radiation.
Lacking logic or evidence, your claim is FALSE.
‘Endless repetition’ of a poor argument is still a poor argument.
You just look like a fool.
#7
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Which numbers you think each cell should have?
| N | Dwn | In | Up | Heat | Note |
| 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | 160 | TOA |
| 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | 160 | Mid |
| 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | 160 | Surface |
Notes:
1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
2) Each layer N absorbs all incoming radiation.
3) Each layer emits what it receives, i.e. stable temperatures.
4) Emission is in all directions, fifty-fifty up/down.
5) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
6) No energy is destroyed (1LOT).
7) Heat moves from hot to cold (2LOT).
#8
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Nate says:
October 8, 2020 at 7:29 AM
“if one layer doesnt work maybe all you need are a 1000 layers.”
Bill, I thought you read MW. I guess not. You are regressing.
This is why no one wants to be your research assistant. Things are shown to you, explained to you, you seem to get it, then you revert back to gobbledegook.
===============================
No problem Nate. I am in here to learn.
It is obvious to me that politics is playing far too big of a role at his point in time. It is being divisive rather than inclusive. The very concept of academic freedom is a license to be a weirdo. Its important in academic circles to NOT adopt the ‘party line’. I doubt that climate science currently further astray from that standard than anytime in US history anyway.
You are obviously incapable of even understanding what you have passed along as you avoid discussion of it like the plague. That’s fine I recognize your political obstinance, combative attitude, and lack of desire to discuss squishy issues.
So indeed don’t be my research assistant and also please don’t respond to my posts. I will try to avoid responding to yours as well.
bill,
The physics is more solid than ever, it’s the Republicans that have gone astray (except the Republican party in California, right?).
Climate science was not a political issue a couple of decades ago, and it’s only a major problem in the US, Australia, Brasil, Indonesia and Arabia.
thats just wishful political thinking on your part Svante. What you have in evidence is continued warming and a major 5 year ENSO event as an explanation for it.
However, thats been an injection of hope into the warmist community. But what has been happening as science advances has been a relentless increase in knowledge of natural variation that accounts for a goodly portion of the longer term warming.
Further in the category of convincing educated minds no significant inroads have been had on turning experts around on the matter. We can expect the numbers to remain highly in favor of the warmest point of view for really no other reason that its warmism that speaks to a bright future for people in the field, especially the younger ones. . . .and as a model for attracting new talent into the field. But those kinds of numbers mean absolutely nothing one way or the other. They vary based upon stuff that has nothing to do with the actual science surrounding climate change.
The vast majority of publishing climate scientists say you’re wrong.
And an increasing number of voters:
https://tinyurl.com/y3rfqens
PS Which ENSO index has been positive for 5 years???
Svante says:
PS Which ENSO index has been positive for 5 years???
============================================
The index doesn’t need to remain positive for the entire 5 years and I don’t think it ever has. But NWS talks about such phases where El Nino dominates. And the domination of El Ninos is known to be associated with the warm phase of the PDO.
Look at 1982-1987 for example. Similar to what we are going through now.
Also the 1930’s and 40’s were likely an extended El Nino dominate period. . . .with more evidence of that provided by climate models not otherwise being able to duplicate that. You have to know what causes it to duplicate it.
Further that period casts doubt on most of the recent warming as it could be just another reoccurance of that either in whole or major part.
You guys basically reject that by belonging to a religious sect that doesn’t recognize itself as being one. If so time will tell.
Here’s the trend in natural variability:
https://tinyurl.com/y7c37cyh
V – Volcano
SO – Southern Ocean.
LN – La Niña
Fig. 6.
https://tinyurl.com/y2u6b9b3
Yep, most of the modern warming could be ENSO related.
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fncomms1297/MediaObjects/41467_2011_Article_BFncomms1297_Fig2_HTML.jpg?as=webp
Bill, you guys blaming the scientific facts and conclusions on politics is a copout.
It is an admission that you cannot judge the science on its merits, because you do not have the chops to do so.
So you take the easy way out. It’s wrong because of politics.
To see the evidence against this, look no further than the classic papers and reports on the GHE and AGW from before it became politicized.
Arrhenius 1896
Callendar 1938.
Suess and Revelle 1959
Manabe and Wetherald 1967
Keeling, 1976
Charney Report 1979
Hansen 1981
These papers establish the theory behind AGW, and make the predictions of future warming, that indeed happened.
You can learn a lot from these papers, with out fear that they have been politicized.
All any of those papers do Nate is state a theory based upon assumptions about how the climate works. Revelle in particular emphasized that it was premature to conclude anything. He held the theory but as a respectable scientist he knew his theory needed confirmation.
The Charney report, FYI, was headed by Charney, who was chiefly responsible for developing numerical weather prediction. The report’s predictions have held up well.
Nice ENSO image there bill.
So global temperature levelled off in 1980, and then went down?
“Revelle in particular emphasized that it was premature to conclude anything.”
Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
The same article you are referring to stated: “there is every expectation that scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade”
And that did happen. The predicted warming and other fingerprints of AGW indeed appeared, and continued to develop over the decade, and two more decades after his death.
So nice try, but another big red herring.
Do you guys have anything that’s not a strawman or a red herring?
Nate says:
Revelle in particular emphasized that it was premature to conclude anything.
Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
The same article you are referring to stated: there is every expectation that scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade
===============================
Thats a refreshing viewpoint compared to the claims he had been conned. Just that I notice nothing on your list above is dated later than 1981 and even the IPCC concludes that observations have not tracked the the path of the model mean by 50%.
========================
========================
Nate says:
And that did happen. The predicted warming and other fingerprints of AGW indeed appeared, and continued to develop over the decade, and two more decades after his death.
=====================================
What actually happened is the Santer fingerprint study tracked a 17 year period of warming acceleration that died almost on the day he published.
An update would be spinning on its head and quashing a whole lot of political propaganda in favor of immediate action. . . .so it hasn’t been updated. Not to talk about the backlash that would unleash and how that would harm the democrat science constituency in its never ending quest for more fuel to power their progress.
And Lonnie Thompson hasn’t updated is prediction about Qori Kalis either from the day that glacier stopped melting. Before that we were regaled with annual updates.
Mark Serreze hasn’t updated his predictions about the arctic.
James Hansen hasn’t been doing anything but walking back his prediction about the West side highway being submerged about this time.
Arrhenius is long dead.
Revelle never made a prediction,
Keeling only talked about CO2 increasing in the atmosphere,
The Charney Commission morphed into the IPCC (report above),
Callendar is long dead and made a lowend of the range prediction below the action window,
and carbon credit investors are screaming for relief.
======================
======================
Nate says:
So nice try, but another big red herring.
Do you guys have anything thats not a strawman or a red herring?
=========================================
So what does the above leave? Oh yes a 1967 paper on essentially system feedbacks.
My professional opinion on that is likely the high bidders were either pessimists or felt a great need to clearly separate themselves from what climate has been seen to do in recent global history naturally without a need for emissions.
And politicians whose constituencies are screaming for moola, aren’t apt to do a better job sending that by conceding even to the level estimated by M&W, or even lower to get to Callendar, or even lower than that to embrace actual observations.
Well Bill,
My response with the list of earlier works was responding to you blaming politics for AGW science.
Now right on que, you will move the goal posts, and claim many of these people are dead and yada yada.
Yes. That happens, people die. But their science lives on. And was proven prescient. Even if you deny it.
The Charney report was not connected to the IPCC.
Charney was a pioneer of weather and climate modeling. He and the other authors of the report knew what they were talking about. None of today’s politicization was involved.
Nate my only comment is you have not made a science case that the warming we have seen is caused by CO2. If the science was uncertain 1991 what happened to change that? The climate sort of warmed for 3 decades?
#9
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
” If the science was uncertain 1991 what happened to change that? ”
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.
So lets see, the 1981 Hansen paper predicted the warming would rise up out of the climate noise of the previous century
In 1990, the global temperature had slightly and briefly exceeded the climate noise of previous century as you can see in red curve.
Revelle would have been correctly cautious in interpreting this.
But you can see in the Green curve, by today, the upward trend was way out of the noise of the previous century. And Revelle would have been impressed by the accuracy of the predicted magnitude of the warming in eg the Hansen 1981 paper, and by the arctic amplification, sea ice decline, and W. Antarctica warming that were all predicted.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:1990/mean:24/plot/gistemp/from:1989/to/mean:24
He would have said the models need to improve, but the AGW effect has largely agreed with predictions, because ultimately he was a scientist not a denier.
Nate says:
October 11, 2020 at 6:02 AM
If the science was uncertain 1991 what happened to change that?
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.
=============================
Even if that were true Nate, and you claim to be a scientist, statistical certainty doesn’t arise unless you can change the controlling variable and get a reaction from the system. An essentially linear or logarithmic rise in a variable compared to a similar but not exact rise in the result doesn’t increase certainty.
Dr. Richard Lindzen gets that but obviously everybody on a payroll surrounding the modeling exercise including all the extra dollars to analyze mitigation and avoidance strategies is definitely not going let that absorb into the their skull.
And some people are stupid to talk about in public. LMAO!
Once again correlation is not causation. Thats just another form of fallacy exactly like curve fitting. . . .call it straightline fitting rather than curve fitting.
The only reason nobody is listening to Lindzen is they don’t have another option. And politics isn’t going to let it die. The most important paradigm in politics is ”never waste a crisis”
“statistical certainty doesn’t arise unless you can change the controlling variable and get a reaction from the system. An essentially linear or logarithmic rise in a variable compared to a similar but not exact rise in the result doesn’t increase certainty.”
With that viewpoint, Bill, there can never be an adequate test of the theory, since we don’t have alternative Earths.
But that means all observational sciences, like Astronomy, or Geology, or Zoology are not science?
But clearly they are.
With Climate Science, we don’t have a control Earth. But we have models that can include all known natural forcings, and have added anthro carbon or don’t.
For the past century we can see that the natural forcings alone are not sufficient. We can test models against past history and make predictions, as Hansen’s 1981 model did, and then see how they performed.
This modeling, together with continued observation, is the best we can do. And we have to base our choices on that.
Just as if there were an asteroid headed our way in 25 y. What choice would we have other than to use known physics and computer models to predict what will happen, to make decisions about what to do.
Lindzen didn’t make any proper predictions.
This is based on what he has said.
https://tinyurl.com/y4jen75w
Nate says:
With that viewpoint, Bill, there can never be an adequate test of the theory, since we don’t have alternative Earths.
======================
LMAO! You have no vision Nate. Thats probably your whole problem in this topic!
Of course we have ways of testing the theory. You don’t need duplicates of the earth to do it.
I sense there is a lab experiment that can do it. Not a cheap one though more like the Cern experiment. But I don’t think you have to build a whole Cern site. I imagine with a little ingenuity it could be done in an artificial environment.
But thats certainly not the only option. We have a few planets in our solar system. I would start there. hmmm, I think some folks have already been going off in those directions.
======================
=====================
Nate says:
But that means all observational sciences, like Astronomy, or Geology, or Zoology are not science?
==========================
This is just your one track mind deceiving you yet again. There are lots of objects of all kinds in the universe, no shortage of statistic sampling except maybe to disprove the existence of a single creator which by definition would like proving CO2 drives climate because its correlated to the beautiful design of the world.
=========================
=========================
Nate says:
But clearly they are.
With Climate Science, we don’t have a control Earth. But we have models that can include all known natural forcings, and have added anthro carbon or don’t.
==========================
That all depends on the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam
======================
======================
Nate says:
Just as if there were an asteroid headed our way in 25 y. What choice would we have other than to use known physics and computer models to predict what will happen, to make decisions about what to do.
=======================
Hmmm, I think we have tested all those theories Nate in the lab. Computers are used then to quickly do the calculations we already know how to do.
I know how it works because I work in an environment with uncertain variables but some clearly known facts. Each new project is the first try. Action is taken and usually within a few years we know if we have a correlatable response. Its like actually stopping or slowing the emissions to see the effect.
So in essence we are running an experiment. It gets pretty controversial though when you want to run an experiment on the entirety of humanity. Kind of sounds like a lamarckian Soviet five year plan or a German-wide experiment in Francis Galton eugenics. Hmmm, Francis Galton may have been one of the world’s first climate scientists.
bill hunter says: “Its like actually stopping or slowing the emissions to see the effect.”.
It happens every year with the seasons. Feldman et. al measured the varying back radiation. The idea that it’s not thermalized at the surface is simply preposterous.
Svante says:
bill hunter says: “Its like actually stopping or slowing the emissions to see the effect.”.
It happens every year with the seasons. Feldman et. al measured the varying back radiation. The idea that it’s not thermalized at the surface is simply preposterous.
======================================
Thats just an emotional outburst Svante. Doesn’t even approach being scientific evidence that it does.
Further the seasonal test isn’t one of emissions. Its a test of orbital variation and a change in primary hemisphere exposed to the sun. Thats one of the reason even seasonal weather is disqualified from being called climate.
“I sense there is a lab experiment that can do it. Not a cheap one though more like the Cern experiment.”
Yes, good idea, but those have been already done starting 150 y ago with IR properties of CO2. And then in the atmosphere, as discussed in Arrhenius 1896.
“But thats certainly not the only option. We have a few planets in our solar system. I would start there. ”
Yep another good idea that’s been done, as described by eg Hansen who started with Venus and Mars.
You are full of good ways of testing things in the lab, but other people had these ideas long ago too, and even done them!
As far as better quantifying feedbacks in the Earth system, computer modeling and testing with observations is the way to go.
But getting a better understanding of the feedbacks is not going to make AGW go away.
Even Lindzen knows that.
Well with especially the stuff that Svante has been posting today about AGW backdating to God knows when, who would want to get rid of AGW?
Don’t be shy about actually making a case for the idea that CO2 is the responsible party for the greenhouse effect.
A nice study of a multiple planet correlation would certainly help convince folks. If such a beast exists I would like to read it.
A computer model one could run on a PC that one could drop real parameters in like how to turn the moon into a motorized indy car site in a farm belt, with the resultant CO2 emissions feeding farm plants in the infield could be inspiring for a whole new generation of space explorers. Heck they could kill several birds with one stone. race their butts off, feed plants, plants produce oxygen, oxygen and the fruits of the plants support more race car drivers. . . .the only limits are ones imagination. . . .and just think doing that would divert fossil fuels to the moon, raise the price of the fossil fuels, reduce use on earth and everybody would be happy without having to dream up some way to punish people.
With all the billions we pour into this one would like to think that something positive would result.
Artificially created greenhouse effects on the various planets would be so cool! Gee it would open the window maybe to imagining turning the red planet into a giant farm and converting it to the green planet. Heck would even be a kick and great training vehicle for kids that want to grow up and become arctic farmers.
Nate says:
”Yes, good idea, but those have been already done starting 150 y ago with IR properties of CO2. And then in the atmosphere, as discussed in Arrhenius 1896.”
No I wasn’t talking about a one planet mathematical model. I was talking about a scale model planet artificially created ala the Cern project that shows that cosmic rays may play an important role in climate.
Seems from a raw progress point of view the cosmic ray theory is out in front having actually produced evidence of the desired effect in an artificial environment.
The CO2 folks need to get their behinds in gear and catch up. Perhaps the model project is too challenging but there is always the space program as described above.
“No I wasn’t talking about a one planet mathematical model. I was talking about a scale model planet artificially created ala the Cern project that shows that cosmic rays may play an important role in climate.”
Well you were doing well with lab testing of IR properties of gases, etc, but now you have gone seriously off the rails.
You think a ‘scale model planet’ would be useful in understanding cloud feedbacks, albedo feedbacks, changes to circulation patterns, ocean dynamics on the real Earth?
Better than a computer models??
OK.
You believe size doesnt matter? You may want to quiz some lady friends about that.
Just one example may put this idea to rest. A few decades ago, computer models were finally able to reproduce the actual general circulation pattern of the Earth using first principles, with the various latitude bands and air flow patterns.
The Coriolis effect is just one effect for which ‘size matters’ a great deal. Eg contrary to popular belief, it doesnt happen in a toilet.
So no ‘scale model’ of the Earth will be able to reproduce the general circulation pattern, cloud or albedo feedbacks, etc anytime soon.
“N:’Just as if there were an asteroid headed our way in 25 y. What choice would we have other than to use known physics and computer models to predict what will happen, to make decisions about what to do.’
=======================
B: Hmmm, I think we have tested all those theories Nate in the lab. Computers are used then to quickly do the calculations we already know how to do.”
Nope. We have not.
Im talking about if asteroids of 500 m, 1 km, 2 km, 5 km, hit the Earth, what will be the destructive effect on the Earth, and climate?
Will there be a catastrophic effect, like a nuclear winter that kills off most food production for decades?
Only computer modeling can tell us.
Well you were doing well with lab testing of IR properties of gases, etc, but now you have gone seriously off the rails.
You think a ‘scale model planet’ would be useful in understanding cloud feedbacks, albedo feedbacks, changes to circulation patterns, ocean dynamics on the real Earth?
=====================================
Seriously? Come on Nate you must be pretty ignorant about the role of modeling. When someone wants to do a model of gravity one doesn’t need a whole world to do it to model everything effected by gravity on the face of the earth.
I am talking about a greenhouse gas model that produces a hotter than source greenhouse effect using the first principles used in the climate models. You don’t need clouds and oceans or circulation patterns to do that. I am certainly not talking about producing a climate/weather model out of a modeling exercise just suggesting it might be a good idea to understand clearly the mechanics of a greenhouse gas effect.
We used to have scientists that actually did experiments. Did all those imaginative people just die off and science has turned into a virtual reality study where we can arm the cartoon participants with ray guns?
Hey, you could inject chlorine to cure Covid-19!
“I am talking about a greenhouse gas model that produces a hotter than source greenhouse effect using the first principles used in the climate models.”
The first principles, atmospheric physics, IR physics, have been well tested in the lab and in the atmosphere with balloons etc. The lapse rate has been measured and compared with models, like MW. We’ve told you several times about tests detecting the GHE in spectroscopy and in the W/^2 forcing directly in the atmosphere.
It seems like youve decided to ignore all that.
Your issues have previously been with the feedbacks, which as I said cannot be tested in a lab model.
Nate says:
Im talking about if asteroids of 500 m, 1 km, 2 km, 5 km, hit the Earth, what will be the destructive effect on the Earth, and climate?
Will there be a catastrophic effect, like a nuclear winter that kills off most food production for decades?
Only computer modeling can tell us.
================================
Boy are you ever naive. Have you ever had a real world job developing and testing computer models? Sure doesn’t sound like it. An asteroid? Yeah we probably have enough lab science to know what an asteroid up to X size will do as we have information on megaton bombs. A lot bigger than that and models aren’t going to help a hoot. One could pull out a bar napkin and lay out a straight up extrapolation if you understand the math for a tested bomb. If you want to lay it out geographically then obvious a GIS software package would be useful.
But what is the plan here for avoidance, map out all the impacts for every location on earth? What you need to know is how to stop the thing from hitting a vulnerable spot. Blow it up, change its path. No doubt a mission to do that would rely on computers. Plus every thing that goes into a model is known factual stuff that wasn’t learned by a computer but learned by people and translated into the computer.
Yes you can learn from computer modeling. Maybe after a few devastating asteroid hits we might actually be able to use a computer to figure out how to change our strategy.
Nate do you actually have a job as a physicist? Are you retired? Did you retire before the computer modeling age began?
“Yeah we probably have enough lab science to know what an asteroid up to X size will do as we have information on megaton bombs. ”
THats the whole point!
It should be obvious that the asteroid impacts we have to worry about are the ones much bigger than any bomb we have tested in the atmosphere!
” A lot bigger than that and models arent going to help a hoot.”
Well sorry but thats all we’ve got when it comes to asteroids that produce possibly global effects.
They can ONLY be modeled on a computer.
Thankfully we’ve learned from climate modeling and some data from past asteroid events.
Nate says:
The first principles, atmospheric physics, IR physics, have been well tested in the lab and in the atmosphere with balloons etc.
==============================
Maybe you should learn what they have learned Nate. You have it all wrong. Yes you can look up in the sky and measure a radiant field up there. But to understand what it is you actually have to work with it and do stuff with it and then measure the results. I am fairly convinced you don’t even understand how its currently believed to work and provide a forcing.
A hint is that yes the atmosphere MUST have an insulating value but it is not the kindergarten model.
You should perhaps take a hands on lab course in it to straighten out how you believe the greenhouse effect works.
================
===============
Nate says:
The lapse rate has been measured and compared with models, like MW. Weve told you several times about tests detecting the GHE in spectroscopy and in the W/^2 forcing directly in the atmosphere.
=============================
Get into a lab environment explore all that stuff and when you come out tell me what you found. Heck I am not even sure there is a lab course in it. . . .one sounds rather politically dangerous. Computer models need not apply. All computer models are are reflections of the ignorance of the programmer. Now computer models built on empirically verified effects are darned good. Computer models able to routinely fit a problem are good. Computer models of essentially linear warming in its first test run as are all the 1976 technology models keep failing and the operators keep denying why and figure it must be subregional cloud processes that are screwing them up. Listen carefully to the Sabine interview of Tim Palmer I believe Svante posted.
================
===============
Nate says:
It seems like youve decided to ignore all that.
===============================
Nope, I have said uncertainty still exists. Uncertainty that even the IPCC is not recognizing. Such is possible in worlds where all the funding decisions are made by the inculcated. Academic freedom is supposed to remedy that, but even academic freedom gets hijacked in the same manner general freedom does and for the exact same reasons. If that weren’t the case, I wouldn’t have a job quite frankly. My job for the last 33 years has been to investigate just that and tell my clients exactly what is going on and apprise them of what has solid support and where the soft spots are.
======================
======================
Nate says:
Your issues have previously been with the feedbacks, which as I said cannot be tested in a lab model.
=====================
It still is. Fact is politically speaking all anybody wants to recognize are positive feedbacks. Putting on the racehorse blinders and racing to the big prize at the end of the rainbow entails not getting dallied by blind alleys. People who go down blind alleys get mugged, delayed, and seldom finish first.
but I am a weird bird. I don’t care about fame and fortune. Alleys are my place of doing business and it actually is a far more interesting place than joining the rat race.
So yes it is about feedback. Here I am talking pre-surface thermalization feedback. Even incoming solar has to deal with it, its strange though how many morons believe IR doesn’t.
I will admit to a strong appeal to the idea but it seems like one hardly anybody is looking at in detail. They just buy automatically into the traffic jam idea of heat leaving the atmosphere. I will even go and concede its possible but with quite a few years of dealing with heat energy, experimenting with it, and building solutions for it. . . .there is probably a better way to explain it. After all the amount of heat being radiated from the top of the troposphere by CO2 is a pittance.
And speaking of traffic jams, the kindergarten model leaves out the carpool lanes.
And why when it comes to assigning a percentage of uncertainty regarding a process you can only include the uncertainty you acknowledge.
” But to understand what it is you actually have to work with it and do stuff with it and then measure the results. I am fairly convinced you don’t even understand how its currently believed to work and provide a forcing.
A hint is that yes the atmosphere MUST have an insulating value but it is not the kindergarten model.”
More yada yada they dont understand, you dont understand…
Lets be honest here. You dont understand the science well enough to critique it.
But you keep declaring that science doesnt understand, never mind me.
But this is total nonsense, since you have know idea what is understood and what is not. You only know what YOU don’t understand.
You don’t analyze, as we have asked you to do many times, the real papers, to tell us what they have done wrong.
You just exude ignorance, and this allows you to sling BS that is not based on the science, but instead based on your politcs and ideology.
This is clear from how often you insert politics as a substitute for answering our science questions.
Can you be honest about that?
And I had missed this, but right on cue you substitute politics for science answers.
“Your issues have previously been with the feedbacks, which as I said cannot be tested in a lab model.
=====================
It still is. Fact is politically speaking all anybody wants to recognize are positive feedbacks. ”
Might as well get a tattoo for your forehead,
“Science is Leftist, therefore it must be wrong”!
Nate says:
” But to understand what it is you actually have to work with it and do stuff with it and then measure the results. I am fairly convinced you don’t even understand how its currently believed to work and provide a forcing.
A hint is that yes the atmosphere MUST have an insulating value but it is not the kindergarten model.”
More yada yada they dont understand, you dont understand…
Lets be honest here. You dont understand the science well enough to critique it.
==================================================
Thats just a cover up for your inability to defend it. In fact, all of science isn’t defending it per se.
I agree it’s a thorny issue and let me tell you I have untangled a lot of thorny issues. Unable to produce forcing in a lab it’s assumed to suddenly arise at TOA not because of forcing but because of a lack of emission capability of CO2.
Now thats an instantaneous moment when the pea gets dropped under a different shell. The argument has been made and at the last second it turned on its head. I agree it’s puzzling. But at TOA there are already hardly any CO2 emissions to further block. The kindergarten model explains why.
But the kindergarten model as far as CO2 is concerned is near saturation, it’s a dead horse that for time immemorial hasn’t won a race. . . .always losing by a 100 lengths to a horse named Convection.
so a new argument just HAS to be formulated to explain climate change. Enter the multiple layer argument where the kindergarten model actually starts influencing the temperature of atmosphere layers when it is completely incapable of doing anywhere in the stratosphere. So it just has to be happening in the troposphere. Ignore its impotence and lets pretend it is going to create an extension of the height of the troposphere lapse rate which it must do to do its dirty work. Yet that is what the tropopause is it’s a place where troposphere height varies on a diurnal basis.
What you are seeing is a depiction of the mean troposphere height as it varies through various insolation and weather conditions. So imagining CO2 extending the troposphere seems to be something right out of the ‘Twilight Zone’. An atmosphere a place of amazing apparitions, where the imaginations of the Rod Serlings of the world can think up things to control the world.
And of course the answer given to that problem is the models have figured it out. So now you are in my bailiwick not yours. I can tell you just as Drs. Lindzen, Happer, Curry, Akasofu, Cristy, Spencer, and many others that just isn’t so.
Nate says:
Might as well get a tattoo for your forehead,
Science is Leftist, therefore it must be wrong!
===============================================
LMAO! ‘Science’ is as political as any other large group of people and their left or right leanings are for the same reasons as other groups of people.
Indeed there is leftist science and there is rightist science, or at least it’s claimed to be science. It’s more than highly questionable that that either of those sciences is really science when real science as once said of by Will Happer is something very easy to explain to an eager classroom of bright students.
The only thing political going on in this thread is your underhanded and false suggestion that science is of one mind on this topic.
And we know that scientists being mostly funded by government and we know government workers are one of the most politically-oriented groups in America. that has to do with a lot of reasons, not the least of which is being funded by tax dollars.
So left leaning science is a reality. It’s right in front of your face but you are a denier of that real science.
more on that later.
“And we know that scientists being mostly funded by government and we know government workers are one of the most politically-oriented groups in America. that has to”
This is you being ignorant about science and its funding, and substituting your political ideology, and conspiratorial thinking for facts and evidence..
Funding from the govt for science is apolitical. After all, the govt is us, not a party.
I recieved several govt grants to do science. The only requirements i
are that it be high quality, relevant and useful, and meet the standards of science. And a track record of accomplishment in the field of study is essential.
There you go denying science right off the top Nate.
Lots of good studies on the topic here is the first one that comes up in a google search. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/08/did-you-know-democrats-dominate-professorships/
I mean they could have been independents right?
I am not talking about blatant bias but the bias is exacted at every level including what you can get a grant for. I live in a world of grants much of my work has been supported by grants. As a grant applier it was well known for at least a decade that if you didn’t have global warming or climate change in your grant you weren’t likely to get funded. Just the terms themselves are politically charged and have nothing to do with relevant science issues that might or might not conclude global warming or climate change was occurring. Those are words invented by activists for the specific objective of moving the political needle. They operate on the assumption that climate is changing rather than varying as it always has. And you sit there red faced and claim otherwise. Shame on you.
Given that one party is the deny science party, which party are scientists likely to be members of?
German scientists were also less likely to be in the Nazi party, who decided that 20th century physics was ‘Jewish physics’.
Notice the similarity to todays Trumpists who think science is ‘leftist’.
Sorry, science is science, there is no ‘leftist’ science, at least not in the physical sciences.
And yet temperature is trending up along the bold black ln(CO2) line predicted by physics long ago:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
Are medical and biological sciences ‘leftist’?
I guess they must be since they tend to accept evolution, AIDS is caused by a virus, and hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.
ARE Physics and Astronomy leftist? I dont know what leftist physics is, so you tell me?
Chemistry?
Geology?
Archaeology?
Engineering?
Pls tell what you think is ‘leftist’ in these fields of science.
Nate says:
Are medical and biological sciences leftist?
======================
Sure they can. Are they often, yes. Is endemic? No.
What about the science of when a fetus become a human being? Do we have any science about that? Seems like a topic for biological sciences. And we see a lot of politics in biological sciences. Extinction of polar bears is one that comes to mind.
Uh impacts of climate change on wild populations of animals another.
These fields are absolutely ridden with politics where science really ceases being science and becomes advocacy where you put your preferred PhD up on the court dias; in a seat in Congress to testify; and in public dialogue.
You must have your head drilled deep deep deep in the sand to not have noticed that.
Nate says:
I guess they must be since they tend to accept evolution, AIDS is caused by a virus, and hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.
=========================
Is there any politics going on about evolution? I know there was back almost a century ago.
Is aids a virus? I have no idea I haven’t paid any attention to the topic. Haven’t seen any need to. been monogamous for uh 40 years.
hydroxychloroquine we know is not a cure for covid so I don’t know what you mean about effective against covid. What we do know about hydroxychloroquine is that it acts similar to a nutritional supplement and strengthens our bodies to be better prepared for Covid. It works for a rather wide range of ailments and even thousands of doctors swear by it as a way of building resistance to the disease even after contracting it. I took it in in 1965 as preparation for an assignment to Vietnam.
Looking around at 74 year old men who have taken it. . . .can’t find any reason to believe it doesn’t help.
==========================
===========================
Nate says:
ARE Physics and Astronomy leftist? I dont know what leftist physics is, so you tell me?
Chemistry?
Geology?
Archaeology?
Engineering?
Pls tell what you think is leftist in these fields of science.
======================
Well not sure but it does appear that if you were a middling scientist in one of those fields you might have rushed for opportunities in climate science that was experiencing an exponential increase in funding for quite a few years. If you were really good in your field you probably stayed put.
I know DREMT!
Bill please stop trolling! LMAO!
Yep, Bill, thanks for confirming that indeed you think science is often ‘leftist’ and that is how you judge it to be in error.
“What about the science of when a fetus become a human being? Do we have any science about that? Seems like a topic for biological sciences.”
If you think science can decide if an x weeks old fetus is not a ‘human’ but x+ 1 weeks fetus is a ‘human’, you must be really naive.
That is all about religion and belief, not science.
And really, evolution? In biology and medicine, evolution is long since proven science and essential to those fields.
Evolution has only ever been politicized by people from the religious right.
Nate I seriously doubt anybody would want to take any advice from you because you at the drop of the hat instantly conclude ”that indeed you think science is often ‘leftist’ and that is how you judge it to be in error.”
LOL! Don’t project on me how you think Nate. You say the models prove global warming. That is like saying because the models produce some warming it must be that CO2 is the cause.
Thats the kind of thinking I am rejecting Nate.
“You say the models prove global warming. That is like saying because the models produce some warming it must be that CO2 is the cause.”
I said Models made predictions. Then the observations over the next 4 decades agreed with predictions.
Quite different from your BS version of what I said.
Yet another strawman from our strawman specialist.
“Looking around at 74 year old men who have taken it. . . .cant find any reason to believe it doesnt help.”
Uhhh, not what was reported, he had several other treatments that had demostrable benefits.
IOW, he finally listened to the experts for a change. Should have been a good lesson for your ilk.
Nate says:
You say the models prove global warming. That is like saying because the models produce some warming it must be that CO2 is the cause.
I said Models made predictions. Then the observations over the next 4 decades agreed with predictions.
Quite different from your BS version of what I said.
===================================
Now you are lying. Since no breakthroughs in science has occurred since what was it 1971, you agreed that it was uncertain then but that certainty had arisen from the models since.
Thats always the deal with liars the truth eventually leaks out.
========================
=======================
Nate says:
Uhhh, not what was reported, he had several other treatments that had demostrable benefits.
============================
So does everybody else. Thousands of doctors are still prescribing the whole range of preventatives and therapies. As a result the death rate is deescalating quite a bit. Now even WHO admits the lockdowns had negative impacts.
The democrats were just focused on harming the economy, now thats a huge health impact, which of course leads to endless pictures of people suffering that might lose their health care if we stop charging the middle class for the cost of it.
“The democrats were just focused on”
We were talking about the facts of what the medical treatments were for DT. You were wrong about that.
And what he get from Bill is instant politicization, and its the Ds fault.
“I said Models made predictions. Then the observations over the next 4 decades agreed with predictions.
Quite different from your BS version of what I said.
===================================
Now you are lying. Since no breakthroughs in science has occurred since what was it 1971, you agreed that it was uncertain then but that certainty had arisen from the models since.”
False. You are nuts.
Im lying? Quote me directly and point out the part where:
“You say the models prove global warming. ”
You, as usual, are simply unable to honestly debate what I actually said, and cannot help but twist and misrepresent what I say, into something you can trash.
That is called a strawman argument. And your MO.
Nate says:
The democrats were just focused on harming the economy
We were talking about the facts of what the medical treatments were for DT. You were wrong about that.
=====================================
More Nate Lying- You said:
hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.
I said: that it was part of DT preparation and treatment for Covid. So what do you think you are? Some kind of magician? I said thousands of doctors continue to use hydroxychloroquine and DT got Covid and was symptomatic free in what like 3 or 4 days?
and he is in at least 2 vulnerable groups, overweight and over 70.
Democrats keep harping ”hydroxychloroquine is not effective for Covid.” amd that taking hydroxychloroquine is not safe.
Why do they actually think they are doctors and they want to limit people’s choices and they would prefer people to die just in order to prevent DT from getting reelected?
We even have Svante chiming in: ”Hey, you could inject chlorine to cure Covid-19!”
============================
============================
Nate says:
Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.
===============================
You do realize that warming could be related to something else don’t you. Check with an expert Nate. Dr. Akasofu would be a good start. Check with a democrat and it can’t be anything but what they want it to be.
Nate says
”And what he get from Bill is instant politicization, and its the Ds fault.”
=========================
Well you have that right. Indeed it sure appears it was the democrats that turned you into a talking parrot.
Dr. Akasofu says:
“The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing.”
Warming is back on track and Akasofu is 89 years old, so it’s time to look elsewhere for a better answer.
“Roger Revelle died in 1991. I have no problem with his statement at that time.
As we discussed dozens of times, the predictions in the papers proved quite accurate.”
Exactly. The observations, the data are what came after. They agreed with the prior predictions. The magnitude of the rise and the spatial pattern. Generally in science that is considered good evidence.
Not the last word.
So you still posted a dumbass strawmen.
Bill, take whatever patent medicine you want.
Hydroxy is good for your heart, take lots of it.
Funny that DT has stopped mentioning it now that he had covid and was not treated by experts with it.
I realize Svante and the warmists are ecstatic about the resumption of warming. But as your side reminded our side for 10 years plus weather anomalies can last 10 years or more. In fact what did Ben Santer say? A couple of decades? See ya in 2035! 2025 at a minimum.
No need to wait, we have 150 years of it:
https://tinyurl.com/y4ml8269
Svante says:
No need to wait, we have 150 years of it:
===================================
Yep! We took 500 years to plumb the depths of the LIA, we should take maybe as long to climb out of it.
Some hope that though it might not take as long if you look at ice core records recoveries from glacial periods take a lot less time than the plunge into the glacial takes. It would be good to have a hypothesis that produces that pattern, but alas we don’t.
The LIA is history, we are past the MWP:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Ice age hypothesis:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337
Probably not!
First we have no idea what the range of natural variability is.
Second, proxy data varies quite a bit, one can cherry pick a resource and come up with one number and cherry pick another and come up with another.
Ice core noise suggests that 3 degrees isn’t out of range.
Its been a good deal less than 3 degrees in the current climb out of the LIA.
A lot of uncertainty in all this. If one wants a vote to decide, we should the people should be the ones voting.
You can not rely on single proxy data locations, or even a single proxy.
Use all of them to get the best estimate, as in the link I provided.
Let the scientists vote, it will be a 97% land slide.
Svante says:
You can not rely on single proxy data locations, or even a single proxy.
Use all of them to get the best estimate, as in the link I provided.
Let the scientists vote, it will be a 97% land slide.
==============================
Svante you are such a science illiterate its not even funny. Took me about 2 minutes to figure out what you said above is false.
This data base maybe as you say it is up to sometime between 500ad and 1500ad, showing the MWP as cooler than the holocene maximum. I haven’t seen much disagreement on that proposition.
Where the controversy jumps into this study is then the 500-1500 mean was matched to Michael Mann’s hockey stick in the 2kpages recreation of it with Mann as an author.
Here is the defining statement in the methods section:
”The composites were registered to the temperature scale (left-side x-axis) by aligning the 500 to 1500 CE mean of the composite with the mean of the global temperature reconstruction from the same interval in the PAGES 2k Consortium571 multi-method median reconstruction. The variance of the Holocene temperature composites (all based on records in units of °C) were not scaled.”
Check out Figure 8 how they spliced this to the temperature record. The bulk of the proxies end about a thousand years ago. The one proxy comprising 43 records extends to about 250 years ago and shows the LIA to be hotter than the MWP. Then Michael Mann takes over from there and we all already know about that.
Fooled again eh Svante? All it amounts to is a samo samo Michael Mann hockey stick and of the numbers you they tossing around doesn’t even touch much less change a hair of that.
Where are you quoting from?
#10
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Too late, he already answered below.
#11
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked.”
Seems like Ive heard this somewhere before. Deja vu all over again?
But I still can’t for the life of me see where it was debunked and what was debunked. Seems nobody does.
But it does seem clear that DREMPTY has won the last word game…10 times or so! Cujos to him.
#12
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
“Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first. ”
Nope. So if I post a random made up number, I could demand that you chase down the real one??
The wet dreams of a troll..and nice try at evasion.
#13
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Nate says:
Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first.
Nope. So if I post a random made up number, I could demand that you chase down the real one??
The wet dreams of a troll..and nice try at evasion.
====================================
No evasion at all I told you straight up it was a source that I didn’t have verification of. It may well be in the documentation of Had-crut 3 or it was in the ruminifications by James Hansen, who happens to be a scientist I do like because he is straight up and open about what he is sure of and what he isn’t.
Actually a humble man even though he strongly believes in the Arrhenius theory.
So fine you don’t know. And I don’t feel any need to educate you further.
Fact is the only thing that matters about that inaccuracy is UHI and other anthropogenic changes and not how much there is of it in the record, which is quite considerable, but what matters is how much its changing. Obviously mountain terrain isn’t changing much and oceans despite predictions aren’t washing over New York highways.
“The big dog in surface database errors is UHI”
As usual, Bill, you were proven to be making up your own numbers.
What to do? Pretend you were talking about something else. IOW move the goal posts.
Nate so much with your obfuscating. UHI has been discussed at length for decades with no resolution. It is one of the most important reasons to move to satellites as the surface weather stations were never sited or designed for the purpose of measuring mean global climate.
Of course you probably have had your head buried so deep on that for so long I suppose you are completely unaware of it right?
“UHI has been discussed at length for decades with no resolution.”
Yes it has been discussed here as nauseum. But in the scientific literature, studies of it (see Berkeley Earth) show that that the current data sets change negligibly as a result of it.
Your dreams for it to add uncertainty are just that, dreams.
Nate says:
Yes it has been discussed here as nauseum. But in the scientific literature, studies of it (see Berkeley Earth) show that that the current data sets change negligibly as a result of it.
Your dreams for it to add uncertainty are just that, dreams.
==================================
Yeah if you want to call that study good, that’s your personal choice. I thought the sampling examples left a lot to be desired. I truly am not worried about UHI but I am interested in the science.
I once lived in a house with a big open patio on the west side. Had no air conditioning and only kitchen windows on that side of the house to let the westerly afternoon breezes blow through the house. That patio made it almost unbearable in the summer. So I took some of the concrete out, planted trees and some greenery and it improved the situation. This was back in the late 70’s so it wasn’t a climate experiment.
#14
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
Quite right, the UHI meme has been debunked.
Svante please stop trolling
#15
The concept, as you presented it, has been debunked. No diversions will be followed.
This message will be repeated until it is the last word on this sub-thread.
From the underlying documentation – 12k stuff – all nicely linked just look for it.
Here is some help:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3
bill hunter says:
Can we please stick to one point at a time, and narrow it down until we’re done with each point?
If you read the fig. 8 text it says:
“No instrumental data are shown.”
It’s from PAGES2k: https://tinyurl.com/y442z4qe
PAGES2k has “692 records from 648 locations” and “Nearly half of the proxy time series are significantly correlated with HadCRUT4.2 surface temperature over the period 1850-2014”.
Michael Mann is not among the fifty or so authors in the two papers.
Svante says:
Can we please stick to one point at a time, and narrow it down until we’re done with each point?
================================
Points? You started out with conclusions Svante.
====================
=====================
======================
Svante says:
Michael Mann is not among the fifty or so authors in the two papers.
===========================
Svante he is the main author, yes he is being treated here as a ‘shadow’ author, but all you need to do is dig down into the underlying proxies and there you will find him all over the place.
You can just read the first page you always need to verify the authenticity of the underlying assumptions which in this case are temperature records constructed on proxies patched together in a network. You have several climategate shadowy figures deeply involved in the temperature interpretations of these papers.
I am not saying the papers are wrong Svante, what I saying you have people with very little credibility involved here, climategate conspirators, who openly discussed how to most deceptively present the data to be convincing to policy makers.
There is no question of the bias that is also undoubtedly embedded in the results if they do not in fact drive the results.
Look I am no virgin at this. I have been involved in multiple projects to optimize a desired solution in very similar GIS analytical work. It is incredibly easy to do, all you need to know is what your objective is.
I have done several projects where data was presented as optimum and myself personally using the datasets and the proper GIS software come up with far more optimum solutions, once you remove the bias and truly aim for say least economic impact outcome on the data presented. Usually the bias is for a hidden economic benefit for a particular party, sector, or political objective.
So now that you have been taught to look at any proxy with a critical eye and withhold your conclusions such as about being the best because its the most what did we learn from pages 12k? That warming is quite modest in terms of natural variation. You can run a statistical analysis on the variation seen in the output of this report along with the quantitative uncertainties and find really no significant trend in warming over the past 12 thousand years. I don’t need to actually do that, I can see that without doing that its so obvious.
You would like to point out the steepness of the current trend but thats extremely sophmoric. Fact is proxies lack details of short term runups, they miss peaks, and steepness of short term weather phenomena, and even of moderate climate change periods like decades and often centuries as well.
Svante says:
If you read the fig. 8 text it says:
No instrumental data are shown.
================================
You are right Svante, instead what is shown are Michael Mann reconstructions of instrument data. Observe and read the legend of Figure 3.
And you will find it> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7#Fig3
The whole paper really is a Michael Crichton-like State of Fear reconstruction. The details of what is being shown is buried under the footnotes. No deception Svante perfect semantics to say an instruement record hasn’t been shown when an intervening paper included it in a multi-proxy. Its just hide the decline on a monumental scale. Check the inset for figure 3 where the red, blue, yellow, and orange proxy reconstructions run out and and what is left is the black instrument line.
Thats all fine I don’t object when its all forthwith or its a reanalysis of instrument data or its instrument data. Bottom line is overall in the last 12,000 years there is no significant trend in temperature.
Another point should be perhaps we should limit warming from the top of the 12k analysis to uh a maximum of 2 degrees and start taking aggressive action when its 1.5 degrees. Or if you want to be super aggressive say a 20 year average of 1/2 a degree more than now.
The reason I say thats super aggressive is the error bars in this would be hugely much larger than the shaded area. Even the error bars for current global mean surface temperature is believed to be within + or – 2c. And its super aggressive because current warming while rapid it doesn’t match well to increases in CO2 and the IPCC has found that 30% of the warming is identifiably natural.
So anyway you want to cut it, aggressive or conservative, its still only at best about 8/10ths of degree industrial era warming and quite apt to get smaller in the next decade as that natural warming component doesn’t include the most recent El Nino cycle.
You’re a weird “auditor”. You refuse to get to the bottom of things, you just go from one Gish gallop to another.
Michael Mann’s results have been replicated time and time again. It’s a hallmark of science, but it is forbidden by your political ideas.
The authors of my first reference are:
Darrell Kaufman, Nicholas McKay, Cody Routson, Michael Erb, Basil Davis, Oliver Heiri, Samuel Jaccard, Jessica Tierney, Christoph Dätwyler, Yarrow Axford, Thomas Brussel, Olivier Cartapanis, Brian Chase, Andria Dawson, Anne de Vernal, Stefan Engels, Lukas Jonkers, Jeremiah Marsicek, Paola Moffa-Sánchez, Carrie Morrill, Anais Orsi, Kira Rehfeld, Krystyna Saunders, Philipp S. Sommer, Elizabeth Thomas, Marcela Tonello, Mónika Tóth, Richard Vachula, Andrei Andreev, Sebastien Bertrand, Boris Biskaborn, Manuel Bringué, Stephen Brooks, Magaly Caniupán, Manuel Chevalier, Les Cwynar, Julien Emile-Geay, John Fegyveresi, Angelica Feurdean, Walter Finsinger, Marie-Claude Fortin, Louise Foster, Mathew Fox, Konrad Gajewski, Martin Grosjean, Sonja Hausmann, Markus Heinrichs, Naomi Holmes, Boris Ilyashuk, Elena Ilyashuk, Steve Juggins, Deborah Khider, Karin Koinig, Peter Langdon, Isabelle Larocque-Tobler, Jianyong Li, André Lotter, Tomi Luoto, Anson Mackay, Eniko Magyari, Steven Malevich, Bryan Mark, Julieta Massaferro, Vincent Montade, Larisa Nazarova, Elena Novenko, Petr Pařil, Emma Pearson, Matthew Peros, Reinhard Pienitz, Mateusz Płóciennik, David Porinchu, Aaron Potito, Andrew Rees, Scott Reinemann, Stephen Roberts, Nicolas Rolland, Sakari Salonen, Angela Self, Heikki Seppä, Shyhrete Shala, Jeannine-Marie St-Jacques, Barbara Stenni, Liudmila Syrykh, Pol Tarrats, Karen Taylor, Valerie van den Bos, Gaute Velle, Eugene Wahl, Ian Walker, Janet Wilmshurst, Enlou Zhang & Snezhana Zhilich.
Svante you have to know what an auditor does before you call him weird. Being called weird is a phrase similar to what an auditor hears every time when he finds a mistake or a lack of due diligence or a lack of controls, or even fraud is denied.
Replication of a proxy or a temperature record isn’t like a replication of an experiment. Especially when you simply order the computer to recalculate. Or add an additional proxy or search for more stuff that fits the mold.
Building evidence of a case is a process of finding everything that supports your case and handwaving away evidence that suggests otherwise.
Get good at that and you can have a bright future of exotic travel, a-list tea parties, celebrity elbow rubbing, fame in journals and media, promotions, appointments, control of immense finances.
Gee you are a democrat right? Are you an A lister? How about B lister? or are you in the C, D, and F classes?
Bill you constantly tout your auditor skills, and expect us to be impressed by that and take your science critiques seriously, but then you post totally wrong, seemingly invented stuff like this
“Even the error bars for current global mean surface temperature is believed to be within + or 2c.”
and your credibility goes down the drain.
The auditors I’ve met were logical and coherent.
They did not respond with Gish gallops.
Nate says:
Bill you constantly tout your auditor skills, and expect us to be impressed by that and take your science critiques seriously, but then you post totally wrong, seemingly invented stuff like this
Even the error bars for current global mean surface temperature is believed to be within + or 2c.
and your credibility goes down the drain.
============================
Thats not a number I came up with Nate.
Thats a number acknowledged in conversations with those maintaining the temperature records, there is a general acknowledgement in the trade that quite a few earthly environments are very badly represented in the temperature record and a large amount of inconsistency of how temperature is measured. For example, few weather stations exist in forests, mountain tops, rugged terrain, lakes, glacier, ice sheets. Airport and city type terrain is far far over represented. Plus large differences in methods between ocean and land.
One simply cannot make an argument that says the surface records are a true representation of climate temperatures. But the argument use instead is that anomalies are not significantly affected by this heterogeneity. There are big temperature differences between urban and rural and big temperature differences depending upon vegatation types and heights.
In my first meteorology class the class took a highly accurate thermometer across campus and took ground level temperatures then the elevator to the roof of the highest building on campus, which was about 12 stories if I recall correctly and we could see almost a 1/2 degree centigrade difference between ground level and the top of the building.
Most cities and towns are built on the plains around which mountains can make up a large part of the terrain. Seems to me a 2,000 foot mountain makes for a 4C difference per US standard atmosphere. We have a few mile high cities but those even tend to be dwarfed by mountain ranges surrounding them.
Satellites may have the same problem if they don’t have algorithms to deal with elevation of the land the scans are passing over. I don’t know enough about the technology to opine on that topic.
Too bad you are too ignorant of climate science to even had a clue about that to just spout off about it as if it was a bad representation of the facts without a shred of evidence or even a logical argument of what the error is.
And to further demonstrate your stupidity and cluelessness. . . .auditors never represent anything. The job of the auditor is to simply test the representations of the auditee and obtain the evidence supporting the auditees assertions and then indicate if they have qualifications about it or not.
When an auditee is not forthcoming with evidence the auditor just assumes he is talking to the wrong underling in the organization, moves up the ladder talks with supervisors and finds out who should know.
Since different people have different jobs in an organization the process moves on getting what is known by those who know. Its amazing how many people an auditor runs into who thinks they know what is going on in an organization and actually doesn’t have clue one.
You are like that Nate as you never can back up your assertions. You operate entirely within and envelope of an unknowledgeable narrative. You spout textbook physics like that was the only thing you have actually seen in life.
When asked for definitive evidence of your definitive beliefs you always come up short. Do you actually do anything with that degree of yours or are you just fresh graduate stupid where you remember the cartoon representations of overly simplified descriptions of the world but totally lack any real world experience using those tools? Please elucidate on that.
Svante says:
The auditors Ive met were logical and coherent.
They did not respond with Gish gallops.
===========================================
And of course Svante is so clueless he doesn’t even recognize his argument above as a gish gallop.
Michael Mann’s results are not used in PAGES2k:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pages2k/pages2k-temperature-v2-2017/data-current-version/
He is cited as a reference for CPS:
“finding everything that supports your case and handwaving away evidence that suggests otherwise.
Get good at that and you can have a bright future of exotic travel, a-list tea parties, celebrity elbow rubbing, fame in journals and media, promotions, appointments, control of immense finances.”
Good at being a conformist and confirming the standard model gets you fame and fortune in science?!
Bill, on the contrary, you’ve got it exactly backwards!
Getting fame and recognition in science generally accrues to those who have pushed the boundaries of what is already known, discovered new things and created new fields. Handwaving doesnt usually cut it, since getting proved wrong is generally a career killer.
They are often non-conformists.
“Thats a number acknowledged in conversations with those maintaining….yada yada yada nonsense.”
OMG Conversations?!
And no link or cite of data?
“You spout textbook physics like that was the only thing you have actually seen in life.”
Ha!
Says someone fond of posting made up physics, that begs a response with real physics.
Nate says:
Bill, on the contrary, you’ve got it exactly backwards!
Getting fame and recognition in science generally accrues to those who have pushed the boundaries of what is already known, discovered new things and created new fields. Handwaving doesnt usually cut it, since getting proved wrong is generally a career killer.
They are often non-conformists.
====================================
Well from that one can conclude that nobody has pushed the boundaries on this ever in terms of proof of a GHG mechanism that actually results in a greenhouse effect defining both the necessary and sufficient components of such.
At least celebrated atmospheric emissions expert Dr. William Happer discovered the sodium guide star. He pushed the boundaries. I asked you for evidence of anybody pushing the boundaries currently involved in climate science and all you have so far is a lot of untested theories about as well defined as the Big Bang theory.
Then we have you adding 1366 watts from the sun to 400 watts from GHG in the atmosphere and claiming that results in the same thing as a 1766 watt light!!
Thats fantasy land stuff that simply does not follow from any physics I am aware of. Or any physics you have been able demonstrate it exists. I think you are gradually descending into insanity. The theory you are believing in was proven wrong by Dr RW Woods over a hundred years ago.
I even offered you an opportunity to prove to yourself how wrong headed that is. For as little as $100 and a small investment of time you can save yourself from a lifetime of ridicule. What a Deal!!!
Actually Hansen pushed the boundaries by making a bold quantitative prediction with a simpler model in 1981. You don’t like the results.
And as a matter of fact, Michael Mann pushed the boundaries by pioneering the millenial global temperature reconstructions, and discovered the evil vile Hockey Stick.
And after much yelling and screaming and many different groups with different methods working on it, its still holding up.
“Then we have you adding 1366 watts from the sun to 400 watts from GHG in the atmosphere and claiming that results in the same thing as a 1766 watt light!!”
Actually not 1366 W, a lot is reflected and some is abs*orbed before reaching the ground, but yes 400 W from the GHG could be added to the remainder.
You are still trying to deny this basic physics point?
You are better consulting with your team of experts on this one then to follow the lead of the troll Clint.
Because they all prefer to use real physics.
Nate says:
Thats a number acknowledged in conversations with those maintaining.yada yada yada nonsense.
OMG Conversations?!
And no link or cite of data?
======================================
You ask where is the link! Absolutely Nate where is the link?
Great example of what is wrong across the board Nate!!
Embracing facts, embracing uncertainty, being straight with people is how you build buy in.
You have to be a bigot about the intelligence of the people to treat them like mushrooms in a mushroom farm, keeping them in the dark, feeding them shiit. You see it all over the place, absence of error bars, absence of descriptions of uncertainty, lack of analysis why such uncertainty can be essentially ignored. Treat people like they are intelligent is the only way to get them to act intelligently.
Those unaware of that are either ignorant or have a hidden agenda.
So in short you can shove all that stuff about me not providing links to where the sun doesn’t shine. . . .not my job. . . .never an auditors job.
“And no link or cite of data?”
Bill,
You posted a specific number, +- 2 deg C, as the error bar on todays global temperature measurements.
AFAIK that is not even close to being correct.
And still nothing. No data. No source for that factoid.
Then, well, obviously you just made it up. Thats what you do.
And thus you have no credibility.
Nate says:
AFAIK that is not even close to being correct.
===============================
Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first. If you know nothing on the topic then the acronym AFAIK is meaningless.
“Well the first step in making that mean anything to me is show me what you know first.
So if I post random made up numbers, I could demand that you chase down the real ones??
Thats the wet dream of a troll..and nice try at evasion.
No evasion at all I told you straight up it was a source that I didn’t have verification of. It may well be in the documentation of Had-crut 3 or it was in the ruminifications by James Hansen, who happens to be a scientist I do like because he is straight up and open about what he is sure of and what he isn’t.
Actually a humble man even though he strongly believes in the Arrhenius theory.
So fine you don’t know. And I don’t feel any need to educate you further.
Fact is the only thing that matters about that inaccuracy is UHI and other anthropogenic changes and not how much there is of it in the record, which is quite considerable, but what matters is how much its changing. Obviously mountain terrain isn’t changing much and oceans despite predictions aren’t washing over New York highways.
“So fine you don’t know. And I don’t feel any need to educate you further.”
All of the major available T records state their uncertainties. They are all much much smaller than 2 C, your made up number that you tried to pass off as real.
Nate says:
All of the major available T records state their uncertainties. They are all much much smaller than 2 C, your made up number that you tried to pass off as real.
==========================
Oh gee really? They just state them? No significant organized study of terrain and impacts? Just off the top of their heads?
LMAO!
I suspect what you are looking at is probably various runs of computer gridding programs and the kind of variances found by employing different gridding parameters. Which of course would not touch on the representation issue.
How would I know that? Well there are a few principles you learn with experience. One is that to do it right would cost a lot of money and if you spent the money you would want to publish the result. Changing parameters on a gridding program multiple times and running them probably takes less than a day for one guy to do. Why? Because I do that kind of work all the time.
See for example
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/
current error < 0.1 C
Nate do you always fire from the hip? I wasn’t talking about the accuracy of the anomaly database. I was talking about the absolute temperatures. Thats like 288k rather than .8k.
288 vs 0.8 ?
Red herring.
In the instrument era, the absolute temperatures are measured. Then a constant offset is applied. The error is ~ the same for abs temp and anomaly.
The error is still << 2 degC.
There are slight diff between data sets because some sets incorporate higher latitudes.
In the paleo or reconstruction records the error is of course larger.
You are the only one dispensing red herrings Nate.
The big dog in surface database errors is UHI. It’s a very large number and its only questionable how much of that number leaks into surface record trends. Putting on horse blinders doesn’t make it go away.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542715
Top 10 13 month running averages – and some other numbers from 1998 / 1999
1. Sep 2020 +0,52
2. Nov 2016 +0,51
3. Oct 2016 +0,51
4. Aug 2020 +0,51
5. Dec 2016 +0,51
6. Jun 2020 +0,51
7. Jul 2020 +0,50
8. May 2020 +0,50
8. Sep 2016 +0.50
10. Jan 2017 +0,50
—-
16. Dec 1998 +0,46
19. Nov 1998 +0,45
20. Oct 1998 +0,45
22. Jan 1999 +0,45
25. Feb 1999 +0,43
27. Sep 1998 +0,42
31. Aug 1998 +0,40
37. Mar 1999 +0,37
40. Jul 1998 +0,36
51. Apr 1999 +0,33
Gasp!!!!!!
The 13 month average is .055degC above 1998. My gawd thats a rate of warming of .25degC per century!!!! You guys crack me up!
Please learn some statistics, at least some wikipedias article.
Really? Its always fun when somebody starts out talking about statistics without using any statistics. Seems kind of similar to ad hominem arguments.
It’s always fun when someone cherry picks tiny windows of data to misrepresent the overall trend.
Obviously you are talking about the guy that said:
“The 13 month running average is once again above the 1998 peak. Last month was the second warmest September on record. 2020 running ahead of 1998, likely to be the second warmest year on record.
Planet continues to warm.”
My comment was a satire on that. Just forgot to put the /s tag on it, but glad you picked up on it.
I see only data in his post, no conclusion. Your reply is straw man satire.
Midas says:
I see only data in his post, no conclusion. Your reply is straw man satire.
====================================
Oh really? I didn’t know you were such a special needs case Midas. excuse me!
But in fact:
”once again above the 1998 peak”
”second warmest September on record.”
is just as much a conclusions as:
”a rate of warming of .25degC per century”
The latter though is more informative as its not just simply comparatively ranked but gives a quantified rate of what occurred over 22 years.
Like. . . .wow! golly! gee! almost unprecendented!!!
then insignificant!!! was the satire. And golly gee here you are emphasizing it!!! LMAO! Putting a big period to it along with another repetition so even the slow can pick it up. Gee thanks Midas!!
His only words were “Top 10 13 month running averages and some other numbers from 1998 / 1999”. As usual, you are making it up.
Midas says:
His only words were Top 10 13 month running averages and some other numbers from 1998 / 1999. As usual, you are making it up.
==========================
thats only because you are too stupid to follow the reply line. I wasn’t replying to Petter…. I was replying to Robert Ingersol.
Robert Ingersol hasn’t commented in this sub-thread, so your comment is out of place and is the cause of confusion. No one to blame for not making the connection but you yourself.
No Barry he didn’t comment in this sub thread, but this subthread is a discussion of comment I made to Robert to which he didn’t object to.
You are quite late to the party.
“What actually happened is the Santer fingerprint study tracked a 17 year period of warming acceleration that died almost on the day he published.”
Uhhh, pls show us a cite and data.
Is there such thing as a “correct” global mean temperature? And if there is, what is it and why?
Our previous Interglacial Period was warmer than this one. An argument can just as easily be made that our global mean temperature is too cold.
On the climate issue, it is crucial to have a historical perspective. The global cooling of the 17th century killed around a third of the world’s population. Therefore, the current global warming is a blessing for humanity.
During the previous interglacial period there wasn’t 7.5 billion people on the planet which kind of makes a big difference.
Of course there is no correct global mean temperature I believe this is a misunderstanding of the issue. We need to avoid rapid warming as this will impact coastal populations through sea level rise, impact where crops currently grow best and lead to population migration as hot regions get hotter.
G,
And, of course, you are terrified that vast areas will become productive once again, if they become a little warmer.
Good luck with your efforts to prevent the climate changing. As to sea levels, you do realise that some 6000 m mountain peaks used to be below sea level, dont you?
What does “correct” mean to you? What is it you are wanting to optimize?
I don’t want to optimize anything. Climate does it’s own thing, with or without humans.
Likewise, is there a “correct” sea level? Geologically speaking, the answer is clearly no. Where it has been for the last 2000 years is in no way better than a meter or two higher. Of course geology doesn’t have to pay taxes to rebuild coastal infrastructure.
Now is there a correct percentage of California that should be covered with trees?
I’m trying to understand your points. Geologically speaking, why did you reference the 1998 peak? Why is 1998 more significant than the all time peak over the geological past or more significant than various peak temperatures that can be determined by taking say, 100 or 500 year slices of time from the geological record?
In the time period inferred by your reference to 1998 can you break down for me the amount of warming due to natural warming and cooling influences that have been present since time immemorial versus the amount of warming due to C02 added to the environment by human activity? And then for the peak temperature for each 100 or 500 year slice of time in the geological past can you help me understand how much of that peak can be attributed to natural warming influences versus C02 added by humans?
Since you made the economic argument that geology doesn’t have to pay taxes to rebuild costal infrastructure, can you tell me the net present value cost difference to society between the scenario where we incur costs to eliminate human contributed C02 from the environment as opposed to the scenario that calculates the cost of rebuilding costal infrastructure caused by sea level rise due to C02 added to the environment by humans?
So all you are asking from me is a full accounting of every climate event since “time immemorial”? How about you just read the scientific literature?
What is significant about 1998? Well, for one thing, it was the onset of “the pause” that was supposed to signify the end of the “AGW hoax.” How is that working for you? Just like “no decline in sea ice since 2012.” How much longer is that going to pass the giggle test?
As for the cost of replacing FF with renewable energy, I am a chemist, not an economist. But I note that FF is a finite resource (and extraction is getting increasingly expensive now because we have already taken the cheap/easy stuff). We will need a replacement soon anyway. Wind, solar and batteries are already cost competitive in many cases and getting cheaper. Add in the other environmental benefits and there are clear advantages to doing this now.
First if all you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked of you. You simply deflected and pivoted. Your deflection and pivoting demonstrates you don’t know the answers. You asked me to read the scientific literature. I have read dozens of peer reviewed studies as well as the various IPCC assessments and from reading them it is clear that the scientific literature attributes all warming since 1998 and indeed back several decades before then to C02 from burning fossil fuel while attributing no warming to natural causes. If you would have read the scientific literature you admonished me to read, you would have known this. Or perhaps you did read it and didn’t understand it.
I am an econometrician and am very familiar with complex mathematical modeling and stochastic analytical methods that are used in various modeling environments including both economic modeling and climate modeling. You can divide the geologic time line into discrete timelines of 100, or 500 or even 1,000 years, each of which would have a peak temperature associated with it. The problem is that any discrete historical time period selected in which we know natural influences were the primary drivers of the peak temperature, needs to be differentiated from time periods which have human caused C02 as the primary driver of the peak temperature. Once this is done the amount of warming that can be attributed to natural causes can be known. When it comes to time periods where significant amounts C02 were added to the environment by human activities you only have a narrow window which represents a single data point that you have available to use in your differentiation analysis. With a single data point your confidence interval is infinite and your analysis is meaningless.
I note that you claim you are a chemist and not an economist. Your comments on the economics of abating the man made effects of global warming certainly demonstrate that your statement of not being an economist is true.
Are you giggling about the Antarctic sea ice extent running in the top 10% in 2020 since the satellite era began?
Here we have someone who has looked at the graph of Antarctic sea ice extent, and believes that if this year’s extent lies inside the interdecile range that it is in the top 10%. This is what happens when mathematically challenged people involve themselves in science.
Des, please stop trolling.
“Geologically speaking” Manhattan was covered with a km thick sheet of ice 20,000 y ago…
Not good, but irrelevant to today.
Today we have massive infrastructure, productive and stable agricultural regions, water sources, and cities like London that are located where they have been for many centuries because of climate stability.
That climate stability is no longer assured.
Gee Nate no longer assured why is that? Last I heard you guys were talking about how CO2 had diverted a plunge toward a new ice age.
Nope, never did.
Just one more voice in your head that you try to blame us for.
Glad you are disclaiming those choir notes.
No you’re not. You’re just getting in cheap shots.
Nor is there a ‘choir’ on that point. Cheap rhetoric, too, bill.
Glad you guys don’t endorse that BS. Temperatures do go up and down naturally.
You can blame me for that bill.
I say we were in a long term decline for 6000 years.
Fifty ppm CO2 might have been just right to stabilize the climate, but we overdid it badly.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Svante you did read the title of the 2k paper.
”No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.”
Looking at the 12K paper it looks like there is some evidence of a globally coherent warm and cool period – – – -and of course no significant trend can be seen as well.
Moving conversation back to right topic:
Svante says:
October 18, 2020 at 2:24 AM
bill,
Your comment is in the wrong place, but I assume you are talking about LIA recovery. It means a temperature increase without a cause. First a perturbation away from equilibrium, then a return. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the correction, less strength the closer you get to the old value.
So we would expect a flattening of the curve as we approach the old value. Instead we got an acceleration as we exceeded the old level.
a record breaking solar grand maximum is a direct cause, so that is different.
=====================================
I would think the earth could walk and chew gum at the same time even if you think thats a bit challenging.
Obviously climate is subject to a variety of internal and external perturbations and even 800 year delayed reactions to such perturbations if they are sensibly significant enough to have significant influence on the deep ocean.
Probably the best evidence of that is the 800 years it takes for CO2 to peak in the atmosphere after warming has ceased. Since the industrial age is at best 170 years long and 90%+ has been in the last 50 years. So the perturbation of anthropogenic emissions has to be a drop in the barrel compared to the iceage glacial change data.
Milankovich theory could be a major contributor to mean global temperature oscillations of 3c to 10c (we really don’t even know which is closer to correct and its apt to stay that way until we go through the cycle) as areas of the world go through greater climate change than that seasonally every year.
bill hunter says:
CO2 used to come from Ocean outgassing, as a slow temperature feedback. Now CO2 is way ahead, and the Oceans are a net sink.
There is no comparison:
https://tinyurl.com/yyt6jd22
Well if change is scary for you without evidence, at least you might look more closely as to any significant change has occurred.
Measuring CO2 in the air when ice isn’t accumulating is a bit different than looking at it in ice long after it accumulated.
thats is an important step in validating a proxy, especially when the IPCC has found that CO2 could drop by 50% of the perturbation in 2 to 3 decades.
There are many other proxies for CO2:
https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-carbon-pollution-15-million-years
And oddly enough continued accelerated carbon emissions are probably the most direct path to few carbon emissions. Just that some on this roller coaster ride really don’t want to be on it.
What does that mean?
Svante says:
What does that mean?
=================================
Well I understand well how little you understand this most basic fact. Fact is science continually advances at an accelerated pace in proportion to how much time and labor can be diverted to such endeavors.
Fossil fuels are unquestionably the largest factor in getting that done. They are inexpensive because they involve less labor to extract than alternative fuels.
Pre-scientific era was largely due to everybody needing to devote time and effort to more important stuff like surviving.
Now we have a controlling elite class who don’t care that some people are still struggling. They are more interested in their heirs.
That goes double and maybe triple for the third world. And gee we recognize that if you are living a 3rd world existence you need assistance, and the proposed way of doing it is by ignoring the fact that many our own citizens are living 3rd world lives.
So this goes around. We want to change the morality of the world to the elitist hedonistic realities of modern life in the developed world. We aren’t convincing hardly anybody so we have to dream up better schemes about future disaster and free handouts to get that buy in. Of course very few liberals actually are helping now, no they want somebody else to contribute. They want that guy with a new job to pay just as he is starting a family.
He is the guy that commutes the furthest, uses fossil fuels the most to get to work and raise a family. There is no question that fossil fuels have been and will be for the foreseeable future the best path forward.
Its only special and self interest that might see otherwise. And of course evil men seldom think of themselves as selfish, self centered, narcissistic, or dishonest.
But this is a great forum attracting those sorts displaying blatantly their deceptiveness. Congratulations on being part of the cure.
Svamte, just curious what your take is on these quotes from your reference?
“For the most part, carbon dioxide was below 400 ppm for the last 14 million years or so,”
”Of course, C02 concentrations aren’t stopping today,” said Lachniet. ”We’re probably going to blow through 550 to 600 ppm.”
Those sorts of high carbon concentrations haven’t been experienced on Earth in well over 20 million years, noted Lachniet.
I would probably point out that the last comment isn’t in quotes, when the rest were. What’s missing? Why was this journalist moved to not provide the exact quote?
Could it be a qualifier that the current level of sampling isn’t of high enough resolution to detect even multi-centennial variations? That would be my guess as a great deal of such work does lack sufficient resolution to pin it down to where no transients have occurred in the past.
Fine I really don’t have a problem with there is a recent world history analogue or not. I do have a concept of limits that we haven’t yet approached. 600ppm could be 70 to never in the future depending upon technological advances that find ways to provide competitive alternatives. I even posted an article in this thread that suggest we have to do nothing from a government perspective because renewables are already competitive enough to grow robustly over the next couple of decades.
You never even responded to that.
Fossil survives because it doesn’t pay for damages to third parties. Poor people can’t afford coal anymore even so.
Svante says:
Fossil survives because it doesnt pay for damages to third parties. Poor people cant afford coal anymore even so.
===========================
Absolutely fossil pays damages. You go into court, prove your case, and you get damages.
You are just talking about imagined cases that haven’t been made.
Maybe.
“it remains unclear if the wave of litigation — which has faced stiff headwinds in the past but is now propelled by stronger science and reports about what oil companies previously understood about climate change — will succeed or fail.”
https://tinyurl.com/yyd294hn
Can Bangladesh sue in Texas and a hundred other coal and oil producing states?
Svante says:
Can Bangladesh sue in Texas and a hundred other coal and oil producing states?
=============================
Sure! Why not? Crazy lawsuits are filed all the time.
Can’t wait to see your global temperature map. I’m sweating already.
This brings the trend up to +0.1367C/decade +-0.0067. The trendline sits at +0.3386C so this month is +0.23C above the long term trend.
Sort of tends to happen when El Ninos occur.
Just a little hint:
2019 9 0.62
2020 9 0.57
2017 9 0.56
2016 9 0.47
1998 9 0.44
2010 9 0.36
2009 9 0.26
2015 9 0.25
2005 9 0.25
2013 9 0.22
This way you better understand why I laugh when I hear “It’s cooling A LOT”.
J.-P. D.
binny…”This way you better understand why I laugh when I hear Its cooling A LOT.”
You regard 4 years of warming, following an 18 year flat trend, where 2 months have peaked, as an indication of something. You ignore the 18 years of a flat trend from 1998 – 2015, 15 years of those confirmed by the IPCC.
You fail to get it that parts of the world must be cooling in order to offset the parts that are warming. Since parts of the Arctic are +5C above the norm other parts must be nearly 5C below the norm to allow a global warming of under 1C.
Of course, your authority figure is NOAA, who retroactively went back and fudged the SST to show a warming rather than a flat trend. The same NOAA who has slashed 90% of its reporting atations since 1990, and who think nothing of using climate models to fill in the slashed stations using interpolation and homogenization statistical techniques.
The “18 year flat trend” only exists if you cherry pick the dates. Yes, there was a very strong el Nino in 1997/1998 and it messes up trend lines that start around 1997/1998.
How can you honestly look at the data and not say that there was a warming trend from 2008 through 2016 or from 2012 through 2016?
Why are you ignoring the warming trend before 1997?
I am a strong supporter of climate science and not a denier.
But I have to agree that there was a pause in the warming.
The UAH averages for 2005-2010 and for 2010-2015 were both slightly lower than the average for 2000-2005. And that misses the 97/98 El Nino.
That has been more than made up for in the last five years though, with the 2015-2020 average rising above the 2010-2015 average by as much as the TOTAL rise from 1979-1985 to 2010-2015. In other words, we are higher now than if we had extrapolated the 1979-2005 trend without the pause.
Midas, responding to your unthinking post about Antarctic sea ice –
The National Snow and Ice Data Center News & Analysis Page dated 21 SEP 2020 states in the first paragraph,
“In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is now well above average and within the range of the ten largest ice extents on record..”
I noticed how many of you silly global warming zealots got exited about the Antarctic sea ice decline in 2016. But actually, that was a sea ice compaction event due to poleward wind vectors that year. Same thing happened in the Arctic this year. Poleward wind vectors on the Siberian side of the Arctic compressed the sea ice up to 85 deg. North latitude. The Antarctic sea ice is expanding again after the 2016 compaction event. I reckon the Arctic will do the same like it did from 2012 to 2013.
CORRECTION – NAME OF POSTER – Rob Mitchell not Rosa Gonzalez – it was a misclick
Midas, responding to your unthinking post about Antarctic sea ice –
The National Snow and Ice Data Center News & Analysis Page dated 21 SEP 2020 states in the first paragraph,
“In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is now well above average and within the range of the ten largest ice extents on record..”
I noticed how many of you silly global warming zealots got exited about the Antarctic sea ice decline in 2016. But actually, that was a sea ice compaction event due to poleward wind vectors that year. Same thing happened in the Arctic this year. Poleward wind vectors on the Siberian side of the Arctic compressed the sea ice up to 85 deg. North latitude. The Antarctic sea ice is expanding again after the 2016 compaction event. I reckon the Arctic will do the same like it did from 2012 to 2013.
He tries to get away with pretending he said “top 10” when he actually said “top 10%”.
As an aid to this deception, he responds in an entirely unrelated thread, hoping no one else will look back.
Who exactly has made the “unthinking post” here?
Let’s give you the opportunity to fire up a second neuron:
Is Antarctic sea ice in the top 10% as you previously claimed, or were you lying?
In finding slightly lower averages for 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 than for that of 2000-2005, isn’t that simply a function of using such short time periods, five years, as your units of analysis? Surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures are subject to many sources of natural variability, and over short periods of time that natural variability can overwhelm the effects of anthropogenic climate change. But when you lengthen the time frame to a decade, the effects of natural variability get washed out and the pause disappears, as illustrated in the following graph:
https://www.hotwhopper.com/chart/charts/2018/decadal.png
In finding slightly lower averages for 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 than for that of 2000-2005, isn’t that simply a function of using such short time periods, five years, as your units of analysis? Surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures are subject to many sources of natural variability, and over short periods of time that natural variability can overwhelm the effects of anthropogenic climate change. But when you lengthen the time frame to a decade, the effects of natural variability get washed out and the pause disappears, as illustrated in the following graph:
https://www.hotwhopper.com/chart/charts/2018/decadal.png
I agree Midas. There was a pause or at the very least a substantial reduction in the rate of warming over that period.
Just a glimpse at any of the global temp records (even the suspicious outlier, UAH) shows that there never was a pause. If you were confused, try looking at it starting in 1999. 1998 is a cherry pick.
Further confirmation of that comes from your fellow climate science deniers who have stopped talking about “the pause” because it is an embarrassment. 1998 was a jaw dropping heat spike at the time. It is not even in the top 10 warmest years now (surface records). Last 7 years (including 2020) are all warmer than any previous year in the 140 year record. Climate science deniers predicted cooling and they were wildly wrong. Climate scientists quantitatively predicted unprecedented warming with uncanny accuracy. Why are we still debating this?
Robert Ingersol says:
Just a glimpse at any of the global temp records (even the suspicious outlier, UAH) shows that there never was a pause.
================================
UAH did show a pause. So did Had_crut 3 before it was determined they need to go global and eliminate the 1930/40’s blip. That is what one could identify as suspicious if one was inclined to go down that avenue. Which I am not.
==============================
——————————
Robert Ingersol says:
If you were confused, try looking at it starting in 1999. 1998 is a cherry pick.
==========================
Nope, if you are going to create a trend line across maximum peaks as is necessary to bring it to the present. One needs to lay the linear line down on the peaks like a long beam sitting on the longest posts to find a natural trend line. If you create a trend line that has one end of the line sitting on the ground and the other on a post you have created a false trend.
But I guess you aren’t bright enough to figure that out on your own.
Robert Ingersol says:
Further confirmation of that comes from your fellow climate science deniers who have stopped talking about the pause because it is an embarrassment. 1998 was a jaw dropping heat spike at the time. It is not even in the top 10 warmest years now (surface records). Last 7 years (including 2020) are all warmer than any previous year in the 140 year record. Climate science deniers predicted cooling and they were wildly wrong.
===========================
Seems to me you are cherry picking skeptics. I never said cooling was imminent. One has to realize that climate itself has a lot of variation. Attempts have unsuccessfully been made to either classify such variation as short term weather and where that hasn’t been possible through a rewriting of history. And still all those attempts remain incomplete. Its not easy to do. Some really out there radicals will try to take it to the extreme and start book burning. Sort of basic human nature on the part of those types of wannabee authoritarians.
=================================
———————————
Robert Ingersol says:
Climate scientists quantitatively predicted unprecedented warming with uncanny accuracy.
=============================
Hmmm, where did you read that? For years about all I have heard in that regard were frantic searches for the missing heat. If the heat was missing thats not an accurate prediction FYI, even if you claim to have found it. What that is either an excuse or a learning experience. If its an excuse its not likely you will do better in the next round. If its a learning experience then you may do better in the next round.
===================================
———————————–
Robert Ingersol says:
Why are we still debating this?
=====================================
thats easy! Because we aren’t as gullible as you.
It looks like the tropics have dropped back a tad, but they are still very elevated, not reflecting la nina conditions. If you look at 2017 as proxy, the enso region started cooling mid-year after a brief warm spell, but around September, UAH ocean tropics were still at +0.53. By early 2018 they had dropped below baseline which is what we should expect out of this la nina.
Bindidon to continue out discussion about the EGP station, I have downloaded the data, and replaced the missing daily readings indicated by -999 by interpolation. There really were not that many missing days. 10 over 5 years. I then overlaid this years data on top of other years so you can see how much we are hugging the bottom of the normal range. Due to the short data set, I did a count of the number of daily records hot and cold. The cold outnumbered the hot 75:44 and 18 of the last 18 records were all to the downside.
So how does this fit into my multiple timeframes theory? It all comes down to the relationship between the AMO and the Beaufort Gyre. There are 2 multi-decadal climate forcers… the 42 year and the 60 year. How these forcers combine and cancel is responsible for the majority of our decadal climate changes. During the last AMO peak, they were not aligned. That is why this AMO peak is higher. The 42 year cycle is driven by a multi-decadal cycle in the tropics linked to the solar cycle. The 60 year cycle has to do with the barycenter movement of the solar system, where sunspots are located on the sun. All you need to know is the Beaufort Gyre is filled with fresh, cold water right now because it has been bottled up by the combined 42 / 60 cycles for the past 20 years. Now both cycles will drop together and this water will be released. We should go deeper than the mid century cooling because at that time, the cycles were still not aligned to the down side. You had the 60 year going down, but the 42 was holding it up.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3639301112755752&set=pcb.3639303042755559&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3639301032755760&set=pcb.3639303042755559&type=3&theater
Some reading on the Beaufort Gyre…
https://www.us-ocb.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/03/OCB-meeting-2014-Beaufort_Gyre_Dynamics_and_implications_for_North_Atlantic-Arctic-exchange-1_189964.pdf
This is a temporary matter. La Nina will only be stronger now.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
You have four ENSO regions to choose from, and you always choose the most dramatic. How about some consistency so you don’t appear to be a cherry picker.
You’re wrong. The increase in the Nino 4 Index signals an increase in SOI.
SOI values for 2 Oct, 2020
Average SOI for last 30 days 9.92
Average SOI for last 90 days 7.75
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 18.11
Monthly average SOI values
Jul 4.25
Aug 8.39
Sep 9.93
Two years ago when I pointed out this same issue, you claimed that it was the Nino 1.2 index that is the first indicator of an impending La Nina. Your story changes with the wind. I assume you will not link to the other regions again.
Wind is a driver of climate change.
Predictably, you avoid the issue with a nonsense reply.
Des, please stop trolling.
Wow Scott. Do you have a degree in astrology?
Robert,
Jupiter and Saturn are the primary cause of the suns movement around a barycenter. This movement leads to cycles on the sun including the solar cycle. Do you deny that?
Yes.
rather than choosing to deny that which is unknown Svante, its usually best to say you don’t know when you don’t know.
I was hoping he had some evidence.
Apart from Zharkova’s curve fitting.
Svante says:
I was hoping he had some evidence.
Apart from Zharkovas curve fitting.
================================================
Everybody is curve fitting Svante.
In the modeling I work around hypotheses are made and tested by fitting the curve to the historical data. Review panels are very specific about testing variations of the hypotheses to determine that the chosen hypotheses does a better job of fitting known outcomes. It is very difficult because of uncertainty of quality data to measure against.
In climate science the curve neither fits the historical data nor is it compared to specified variations of the hypotheses. Variations are treated like proprietary information, though I hear there is now some unspecified amount of sharing going on between teams for the purpose of attempting to correct for failures of the chosen-one hypothesis.
Unfortunately what has happened in the past is the observation data has been judged to be in error so you don’t even have a good standard by which to measure the historical curve fitting because of obvious efforts to fit the observations to the model.
So to correct for your ignorant parroting of talking points. It isn’t that Zharkova is curve fitting. She should be curve fitting. The pejorative actually refers to a claimed lack of established physics first principles to underpin the curve fitting she is doing.
While CO2 science may not be lacking in first principles it lacks greatly in how the first principles interact between one another in a chaotic system, which in a mixed system is just as important as a first principle.
So you parrot the party line and throw out one of the first principles that is only known to occur in a non-colliding vacuum because of complete ignorance about how that principle works in a colliding medium. Is that curve fitting without the necessary underpinning information? You betcha!
Water circulates chaotically in a pool.
If you reduce it’s heat loss it will get warmer.
The accumulated thermal energy will match the imbalance precisely.
Svante says:
Water circulates chaotically in a pool.
If you reduce its heat loss it will get warmer.
The accumulated thermal energy will match the imbalance precisely.
====================
The process involves heating the surface and the surface heating the atmosphere and where the atmosphere is heated to the same as the surface TOA will be emitting what isn’t making its way directly from the surface to space but so far nobody has described a way for the GHE to exist. . . .its merely claimed that CO2 is responsible. The grade school model you were inculcated on was destroyed without response by G&T. Halpern basically agreed with G&T simply saying it didn’t work that way then failed to say how it did work.
For stable temperatures you need equilibrium at the surface, in the space interface (TOA), and everywhere in between.
At the same time.
The GHE at TOA depends temperature, which depends on altitude.
Less (IR) optical depth, higher TOA, colder.
Seen from the surface you see a lower/warmer layer, i.e. more back radiation, less heat loss.
Temperature between the surface and TOA is determined by the lapse rate, which is mainly set by convection. Yes, it varies, sometimes even inverts, but the global average is pretty stable.
The enormous imbalance we have can not hide in the atmosphere.
One degree of ocean temperature increase corresponds to one thousand degrees in the atmosphere.
Svante says:
For stable temperatures you need equilibrium at the surface, in the space interface (TOA), and everywhere in between.
At the same time.
The GHE at TOA depends temperature, which depends on altitude.
Less (IR) optical depth, higher TOA, colder.
Seen from the surface you see a lower/warmer layer, i.e. more back radiation, less heat loss.
Temperature between the surface and TOA is determined by the lapse rate, which is mainly set by convection. Yes, it varies, sometimes even inverts, but the global average is pretty stable.
The enormous imbalance we have can not hide in the atmosphere.
One degree of ocean temperature increase corresponds to one thousand degrees in the atmosphere.
============================
Just a bunch of gobbledygook Svante. We know we have a greenhouse effect, figuring out why is what we are trying to do.
Going on about less emissions from higher altitudes is simply a recognition that some have occurred at lower altitudes.
Perhaps you can help in understanding. I have a hard time seeing how emissions are reduced by the lapse rate.
Individual molecules near the surface have a given amount of energy. This energy warms the air and parcels of air rise in the atmosphere and cool while rising. So looking at gas laws how is this gas cooling as it rises. Hmmmm they say the heat is converted by work to a form of potential energy. OK fine I can see that when I fill a scuba tank or even discharge bottled air to clean dust out of my computer.
But that presents a problem. We are talking about a given parcel of air discharging heat into potential energy as it rises higher in the air. Just a given parcel of air. For each parcel of air that goes up there must be a parcel coming back down heating as the work of compression recompresses the gas.
So exactly where has the energy gone from convecting air? I would suggest it went nowhere. Instead as the air rises it decompresses both expanding the number of meters its surface represents and also optical depth of this virtual surface.
https://robertcarrollweather.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/agburt01_09.jpg
We can see by the atmospheric profile that it takes the same number of kilometers of elevation at the bottom of the atmosphere to reduce atmospheric pressure by 900mb as it takes near the top of the atmosphere to reduce it by 9thousandths of 1mb.
Under that scenario you get the same rate of radiation at the surface as you do high in the sky. If not why not? Do we just take it for granted ‘not’? Did anybody tell you Svante or do you just believe ‘not’?
Surfaces of objects are pretty well defined. In a gas atmosphere its seems rather unlikely to be so.
So how do we measure this stuff. How do you define a surface at the stratopause where its like 0C? Can I go up there and just wear a nice US48 winter coat? or should I bundle up a bit more on the chance of winter blizzards?
Your mind is bubbling over again. If you want order in your mental chaos you need to resolve one thing at a time.
Everything radiates according to its temperature.
Temperature falls by about one degree per 200 m.
So GHGs radiate less the higher they are.
How far you can see through the atmosphere depends on frequency. In the atmospheric window you can see right through to space at 2.7 K. In the GHG absorption bands you see something warmer.
The “surface” you see is a mixture of different depths.
If you want to know the radiation from that mixed “surface” you can use MODTRAN.
Heat loss depends on (T^4) temperature difference.
So if you see (in IR) something warmer you lose less.
If you see a colder layer from space then earth loses less.
Don’t ask other questions until we are through with this.
Svante says:
Your mind is bubbling over again. If you want order in your mental chaos you need to resolve one thing at a time.
======================================
I would suggest that the reason why is at each point a molecule absorbs upwelling IR, through collisions it moves up to about 80% of that into other molecules for the purpose of warming that layer in the atmosphere.
Starting with the surface, the next layer is remains cooler because of what flew out of the atmosphere window. (12C cooler just considering radiation?) With each new layer more heat is lost as heat is moved from molecule to molecule and the new atmospheric window has widened.
Process repeats over and over again and the result is molecules radiate less at altitude. There is no other avenue of the loss of that energy, its already on its way to Proxima Centauri and many other locations in the universe. So its rather duplicitous to implicate cool upper layers for warming the surface because you believe all that radiation is being retained to warm the surface.
==========================
=========================
==========================
Svante says:
If you want to know the radiation from that mixed surface you can use MODTRAN.
==========================
The missing energy up in the atmosphere has been MODTRANized!, Right?
bill hunter says:
Yes, molecules within a parcel of air will have the same average temperature. CO2 will share its absorbed energy with other molecules. When it emits energy it will also get new energy from those other molecules.
A large part of this energy comes from convection and latent heat.
So CO2 will radiate according to the temperature of the air it is in.
No, the next layer remains cooler mainly because of convection. As air rises it expands and cools according to the ideal gas law, moderated by latent heat. The corresponding falling air obeys the same relationship.
This creates the lapse rate (although it is enhanced by GHGs).
GHGs radiate less at altitude because it is cooler there.
Stable temperature on Earth requires equilibrium radiation budget with space (TOA). If more GHGs push TOA up to a cooler level, radiation drops and thermal energy accumulates inside.
Heat transport from the surface stalls because there are more “layers” to go through. The TOA imbalance propagates down to the surface along a lapse rate curve which is now longer.
Svante says:
No, the next layer remains cooler mainly because of convection. As air rises it expands and cools according to the ideal gas law, moderated by latent heat. The corresponding falling air obeys the same relationship.
This creates the lapse rate (although it is enhanced by GHGs).
=================================================
Uh. . . .no! Convection cools the surface by transporting heat from the surface into the atmosphere Svante.
Yes, convection cools the surface and warms the atmosphere, but not to equal temperature because temperature falls as the air expands with lower pressure.
“Averaging over time and large geographic regions has shown that within the lowest 10 km of the atmosphere, the lapse rate is usually positive and is typically 6-7 degrees per km.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/lapse-rate
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/adiabatic-lapse-rate
Svante says:
Yes, convection cools the surface and warms the atmosphere, but not to equal temperature because temperature falls as the air expands with lower pressure.
==============================
Yes indeed Svante. Should fall as 40watts whizzes straight out of the atmosphere from the surface. Thats good for a temp drop of 12C right off the bat. Then from their the heat reorganizes via collisions then sends another pulse up that even cooler as the window widens the higher you go. Via Trenberth a mean of 239 watts are sent. No doubt a lot more in clear sky and and a lot less from the cloud tops.
And now an increase in GHGs is pushing temperatures up.
Its nice you know that even though you don’t know how its doing that.
I just told you, more GHGs means increasing the average height where radiation leaves earth.
Higher means cooler means less radiation.
There’s a more intelligent argument you can make beyond that, but you will never get there.
Yes, I heard that.
1) Do you have link to an experiment where the mean temperature of a gas are cooled by gas laws while occupying the same space? Is it the weight of additional CO2 molecules compressing the lower atmosphere?
2) How about a study on why altitude makes a difference on a channel already blocked a few meters above the ground?
3) Finally if more space bound photons are gathered in the upper atmosphere how does that lead to cooling?
4) The atmosphere’s temperature profile doesn’t look anything like a proportional gas depressurization curve and couldn’t because gas depressurization only applies to defined parcels of air.
5)Seems more likely that the lapse rate is simply a recognition of zones of net heat gain or loss due to the mix of gases. The impotence of CO2 to cool the atmosphere with elevation is apparent when 10ppm of diffusing ozone appears responsible for the stratosphere temperature inversion.
6) hot spot theory seems to have been suggested as a critical part of the mechanism. A cold stratosphere would seem to want to attract more heat not block heat.
People have a lot of questions they want answered Svante. How come you don’t want them answered?
Seems the national response has been an attempted lockdown of thought. Block questions on the megachannels of the internet. Shame people for asking questions. Top scientists unwilling to be interviewed by the public in one on one debates. Top rated scientists disagreeing. The grandfather of global warming saying the science isn’t there while government websites hammer on it being settled in the late 19th century. Grand conspiracy theories of Big Oil spreading FUD and seeding the public with questions nobody can answer. Firing people for asking the questions. Media making scientific determinations of what questions are appropriate.
Is that what settled science should look like Svante?
One would think one would have to find some way to verify all this stuff. The theory sort sounds kind of orderly like once a CO2 photon always a CO2 photon with columns of identified photons all lining up like a marching drill team and just ignoring the chaos that goes on with molecules in the atmosphere.
You just can’t focus, can you? It always have to be a Gish gallop.
Its difficult to focus without the answers to the questions above and I am sure many other similar questions.
I have never seen something seriously considered as conclusive science by so many with so many lingering questions in my decades of experience. Kind of makes me feel like I had teleported back to 1630.
From the perspective of the USA….
Global CO2 emissions increases ~10,000 Million metric tons every 20 years. USA’s portion was ~30% in the 70s and now ~12%, likely ~8% in 20 years.
For the sake of argument, if trillions we don’t have were spent to eliminate our emissions in 20 years, global CO2 emissions would still increase ~15% instead of ~30%.
Is there anyone who has a concrete, executable plan to address emissions from China, India, etc first, since the USA has already been reducing it’s CO2 emissions slowly over the last 20 years?
Barry
From the perspective of the the rest of the world ….
Is there anyone who has a concrete, executable plan to address emissions from USA first, since China already emits 1/2 as much per capita, and India emits 1/8 as much per capita.
It’s all in your sense of what is ‘fair’.
Tim,
I’m pretty sure the equations include CO2 molecules, not CO2 molecules per capita.
Or, has the goal been changed from reducing climate change to something else?
Barry
Barry,
These are not easy issues. There is no easy answers. But it is impossible to decrease CO2 while simultaneously:
* maintaining current population levels.
* consuming energy at the rates in the US.
* relying on current energy sources.
Some very hard decisions will need to be made if the goal is indeed to decrease global CO2 output.
We could try:
* dramatically decreasing the overall population (but population control is VERY tricky — ask China).
* becoming more energy efficient per capita, like driving less, LED lightbulbs, smaller homes, (But if you live in India and are hardly using any energy, there is not much to cut).
* finding new or bigger ways to tap into energy sources. (Expensive and these have their own environmental impacts).
Tim, only idiots would consider drastically ridiculous measures for imaginary problems.
Tim,
Where I am, forecast is 39 C. Not too bad, it gets hotter at times. Too much CO2 about, do you think? Cant see why. Not much population, not many cars, no heavy industry, not much of anything really.
That CO2 must work better when the temperature is high, do you think?
Clint, and only idiots would wishfully ignore a serious problem.
Hopefully the wise people are in the middle. Realizing that global warming is definitely not imaginary, but also realizing that it is not responsible for every weather event. Realizing that some steps can be taken easily and effectively, but that we shouldn’t shut down the world to deal with CO2.
Neither the extreme you postulate nor the extreme you project onto me is a good starting point.
Tim, you are ignoring the problem. The problem is that too many people want to ignore reality. That is a serious problem. It leads to bad things, like lawlessness and rioting.
People like you, that claim to be “in the middle” but are in reality extremists, are the problem.
Tim,
If global CO2 levels are a problem, there is no viable solution currently and that is my point. A solution that does not include China, India, etc, is not a solution.
Population control is a lot more than ‘tricky’…
If you want to try your other suggestions yourself or in your community, go for it. But, nationally we are already reducing our contributions steadily while the rest of the world is increasing rapidly.
Barry
You seem to be making the case that economic growth in China and India to make them equal to our level of wealth is a huge threat to all of humanity due to global warming.
Was that your intent?
Tim,
I don’t think the USA has a moral right to demand China and others not do what we’ve done. I’m just asking what mechanism even exists.
Also, since the USA’s contribution is small and shrinking, we’re already doing our part at the moment.
Barry
How does 15% of global emissions for 4% of the global population qualify as “small”?
Per capita, the only western countries with more emissions are Canada and Australia.
It is about 25% more than Russia, 50% more than Japan, double China, more than double the entire European’s average, and almost triple the UK.
“European’s” should be “European Union’s”
Midas,
Per capita is a moral discussion. ‘The models’ use CO2 molecules.
Energy policy takes decades. USA is decreasing ~1% per yr (same as EU) and China, India, etc are increasing single digits % per yr. USAs contribution will be <10% in ~20yrs. Spending trillions to reduce USAs part more will be useless until the bulk of contributions is reducing.
Barry
If you are going with total emissions, then the US is second highest after China.
So in your words, the US releases the second highest number of CO2 molecules.
You really should have stuck with per capita. But if you want to make your argument worse, who am I to argue.
Anyway, same question … how does that qualify as “small”.
Midas,
So I think 15% is small and you think it isn’t.
That doesn’t address the fact that USA is decreasing along with EU and China etal are increasing and it appears they will be for a while.
Barry
Not 15%. That is meaningless.
15% for 4% of the population. That is LARGE.
Des, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
From the perspective of the the rest of the world ….
Is there anyone who has a concrete, executable plan to address emissions from USA first, since China already emits 1/2 as much per capita, and India emits 1/8 as much per capita.
Its all in your sense of what is fair.
=======================================
Well is 1/2 as much the target? Or is it 1/8th as much? Then we can determine who should get paid to change if anybody. That’s the standard that Turkey is holding out for. Seems to be the right approach.
From a practical point of view the nations that have signed on to the Paris agreement account for 85% of the emissions. Thats a sufficient experimental sample don’t you think? For if you don’t get a result on that you aren’t going to get one with 15% more.
We can follow their lead as they prove the pudding. Only neocons, hegemonists, and ‘closet believers’ in American exceptionalism believe the US should take the lead on this.
there is another issue as well. The US is one of the few nations in the world that conforms to voluntary agreements (when properly ratified). Only the threat of enforcement induces most. Where no threat exists like in the Paris Agreement the only route to compliance is by actual willful belief in action being effective in improving the cost/benefit balance sheet. So more so perhaps than any modern agreement the Paris agreement is a broad test of that concept. I have little doubt American’s will jump in with both feet once the goodness of the pudding is observed.
I wonder how much of our reduction was because we exported those emissions to another country.
sounds like a test of that assumption is needed! Go Trump!
“trillions we don’t have”? LOL
Trump printed $2 trillion, which included at least half a tril for all his business buddies, back in March. All those businesses he said were doing so great all needed billions of $s to bail them out so he simply printed trillions on the spot.
You might want to rethink your “we don’t have” comment
b/c the US gov’t obviously has a whole lot more than anyone knows about.
Also, the US with 4% of the worlds population is still adding 15% of the worldwide total yearly CO2 tonnage to the atmosphere.
Lou,
I think you might be saying “we already spend like drunken sailors, so might as well spend even more for a benefit”?
But even if the assumptions about AGW are correct, to benefit requires the entire planet spend like drunken sailors. The USA has been a leader in reduction recently; our contribution in both absolute and percentage is already shrinking.
Barry
“The USA has been a leader in reduction recently; our contribution in both absolute and percentage is already shrinking.”
Weve done ok at reduction, but our per capita emissions are roughly double those of Europe, so reuction is relatively easier for us.
Also, we are a developed country with service oriented economy. Not the case for develpping world which produces all our stuff.
These countries need to continue their development, but must be incentivized to develop with more renewable energy.
Nate,
I’m hearing redistribution from that…
If the goal is averting crisis from elevated global CO2 levels, the solution is global reduction of CO2 emissions. We are already reducing, on par with EU percentage-wise. China etal are increasing and it appears they will be for a while.
Barry
“Im hearing redistribution from that”
Call it whatever u like.
Chinas and Indias energy use per capita will continue to grow because we still want our cheap products, and because it is neccesary to become a developed country like europe and US.
They were moving to renewables under Paris agreement, but now in the me-first world, idk.
Nate,
China would love to sign voluntary agreements obligating USA to spend trillions on this. It will hasten their rise to the top economically.
Barry
Indeed Nate reward China for its use of reeducation camps and slave labor. That will be a great investment for the future of this country.
what is unbelievable is the number of foolhardy who actually believe in that stuff.
Nate says:
Also, we are a developed country with service oriented economy. Not the case for develpping world which produces all our stuff.
These countries need to continue their development, but must be incentivized to develop with more renewable energy.
=====================================
Excellent observation Nate! Clearly the onus has to be on those producing our stuff. Do you suggest tariffs on goods produced with fossil fuels? If not what kind of incentive are you suggesting?
Obviously exceptions to compliance are huge disincentives.
Costs to 3rd parties should be added on CO2.
The same cost should be added as tariffs on imports, unless other countries choose to tax it themselves.
If you don’t like taxes then cut back elsewhere.
“Excellent observation Nate! Clearly the onus has to be on those producing our stuff. Do you suggest tariffs on goods produced with fossil fuels? ”
You dont believe Trump when he says China pays the tariff do you?
Trump is right. The basic laws of economics dictates that in trade wars the consumer nation always wins.
Free trade was the obvious ticket when the US was the No. 1 producer nation. And its still immensely popular with producers and intellectual property rights holders making a ton in China.
So the objective of the trade war is some form of reasonable parity and its definitely achievable.
I was being satirical about a tariff on goods produced by fossil fuels. That might be something some ignorant nation might pursue that could have some positive outcomes for them if they still have a consumer class when its all said and done based upon the harm they do to their own economy by eschewing fossil fuels because its not too likely they will be competitive on the world market for real goods versus intellectual goods.
Svante says:
Costs to 3rd parties should be added on CO2.
The same cost should be added as tariffs on imports, unless other countries choose to tax it themselves.
If you dont like taxes then cut back elsewhere.
=============================
Indeed that should be the case should it be shown that fossil fuel burning is bad. But so far its been good. Not only does the greenhouse effect restrict extreme temperatures, it makes the mean temperature of the planet livable. Few creatures, if any, could survive on earth without greenhouse gases.
And thats just the beginnings of benefits. It saves millions of lives every year. I provides the machinery to rescue people subjected to natural disasters. It provides the production capabilities of building homes and structures for protection from the elements for billions. It provides for modern agriculture that creates vast amounts of free time for people to invent other stuff to improve our lives. And we should charge people for it? That would be like taxing air. Imagine all the people unable to pay the tax that would die?
there is stupid then there is really really stupid.
It’s expensive if all costs are counted.
It can no longer compete with wind power in most places.
By the way, the GHE increases temperatures.
Temperatures get more and more extreme.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Optimum CO2 is 800ppm – 1200ppm , the plan is burn all you want until you run out, then figure out something else
Optimum for what?
Midas,
Do you really not know, or are you really that stupid?
Please entertain my stupidity.
M,
OK. I admit your stupidity is entertaining.
So you also don’t know what he is referring to. Got it.
M,
Of course I do, dummy. Your stupidity is indeed entertaining. More please!
Well he clearly doesn’t mean global temperature.
M,
Keep at it. Keep jumping to conclusions. You might land on a correct answer by sheer chance, but I doubt you would recognise it as such!
It’s funny watching you do everything possible to avoid being pinned down to anything, because you know you be caught out. You hate those “gotchas”, right Mikey.
M,
Maybe if you could learn to speak English, I might be able to understand your concern.
*. . . you be caught out . . .*? Really? What a donkey!
Yet again, you focus on easily-decipherable typos instead of the easily-understood message.
Des, please stop trolling.
For snowmen ball rolling
You’ll want more aerosols, less solar radiation, and/or less atmospheric GHG concentrations to optimize for snowmen building. At 800-1200 ppm of CO2 you’ve all but guaranteed a complete melt out of all sea and land ice on the planet within a few hundred years.
b,
Sounds like you have worked out a CO2 powered heater, there. Have you got plans? Should be a good market for people in cold climates with high energy costs.
bdgwx,
Here are quotes I found in a USAToday article about average temperature of Antarctica:
“Ice makes up 98 percent of Antarctica’s surface, and in some areas, the ice is more than 2 miles thick.”
“In Antarctica, the average annual temperature ranges from -76 degrees Fahrenheit at the most elevated parts of the interior to 14 degrees along the coast.”
I’m pretty sure we’ll remain in an ice age…
Barry
bdgwx
Richard Alley states that if we were to burn all fossils fuels, although CO2 concentrations would be at ice-free levels, it would take about 100,000 years to melt all the ice on the planet. At the current rate of melting it would take a million years to melt all the ice.
Bob,
Err..typo on my part. I should have said a few thousand years.
Can you post a link to where Dr. Alley says that it will take 100,000 years to melt all of the ice at high CO2 concentrations?
I’ve watched many of his lectures and read a lot of his publications and I don’t remember him throwing out an estimate that high.
Unfortunately I won’t be able to recall in which video Alley said this.
Unlike the deniers, I don’t keep a list of links to be used for bombing people.
Whereas I find this material interesting, it really is an industry for them. (Sorry for the digression)
Also apologies for mixing up those two names.
Midas, gotcha…thanks. I’ll see if I can dig it up. I thought the estimates I’ve seen for 4xCO2 (1000’ish ppm) was about 5000 years. Perhaps I’m wrong about that.
bdgwx, Des, please stop trolling.
Midas says:
Optimum for what?
========================
CO2 supplemented agriculture Midas.
The planet optimum may be higher as the agricultural optimum is restrained by the cost of supplying the CO2 which is essentially by burning propane or natural gas which has a hefty price tag.
In a natural system where the gas is being readily supplied elsewhere at essentially zero marginal cost the optimum would certainly go to a higher level unless other costs are actually observed and attributed properly.
Optimum is rather pretty clearly associated with the idea of maximum sustainable yield for feeding the World’s population. History has shown that having sufficient food is one of the greatest risks to survival.
To understand what that is one has to allow for enough freedom to actually learn what the limits are. It seems rather apparent we aren’t encroaching on that boundary now despite all the false fear mongering about CO2 lingering in the atmosphere. That has already been debunked by the IPCC.
The idea of restricting learning is what makes the ”precautionary principle” so dangerous to our well being. It really is more like a religious belief held by those who know little about living an independent life. It’s one thing to watch Bear Grylls episodes and quite another actually living them.
barry k. Its perfectly clear that it is a global problem. If every country takes a me first approach, as US has, then no action will happen.
If we come to an international agreement to take action, and that typically requires US leadership, then it will be effective, as it was with the ozone hole problem.
Nate,
If leading means another voluntary international agreement, what mechanisms are in that agreement to force compliance?
I’m saying leading is tied to actions and we are already decreasing.
I don’t think we have a right to demand compliance and withhold enrichment of other countries anyway. But that is likely decades off…
Barry
“Im saying leading is tied to actions and we are already decreasing.”
Not lately.
Reversing on regulation of coal power plants, on auto mpg, on methane leaks, on efficiency, on anything Obama did on emissions.
Nate,
You seem fixated on ‘actions’ that boil down to signing pieces of paper. Isn’t actual reduction what matters?
Barry
Well, some of the policies are failing in their goal, for example the strong effort to bring back coal, by reversing every possible pollution standard, has been unable to revive coal in the face of cheap gas and renewables.
Others have been more successful at reversing our reductions, like auto mpg standards and methane emissions. And of course leaving the Paris agreement has enabled other countries to increase emissions.
Nate says:
barry k. Its perfectly clear that it is a global problem. If every country takes a me first approach, as US has, then no action will happen.
If we come to an international agreement to take action, and that typically requires US leadership, then it will be effective, as it was with the ozone hole problem.
====================================
Its not the same kind of problem. Flourocarbons may have been beneficial for refrigeration and harmful the atmosphere.
CO2 is beneficial for a far wider range of things than refrigeration and is equal important as a life giving gas in the atmosphere. One should be very sure that it poses a very serious problem before taking action.
Other nations have agreed to take action. If they don’t that would be typical. As it stands when the US enters an agreement to take action we do. Then it requires strong punishment for violators to get the rest to come along.
If the US reputation is in danger abroad that’s the reason it is. Nobody likes the big boss. We can’t even have a nuclear arms treaty without cheaters. And everybody agrees nuclear arms are a bad thing.
bill…”Flourocarbons may have been beneficial for refrigeration and harmful the atmosphere”.
It’s ironic that since they banned fluorocarbons that another ozone hole opened over the opposite Pole. It’s the same with the banning of DDT based on Rachel Carson’s propaganda re its effect on the eggshells of raptors (bird of prey). So, the only chemical we have against mosquitoes, the cause of malaria, that kills millions each year, was banned because it was theorized that DDT was causing the shells of raptor eggs to thin.
Lo and behold, many years after banning DDT, it was discovered that raptor eggshells had been thinning long before DDT and well after it was banned. This is why I am so opposed to climate alarmists. I don’t want them imposing pseudo-science on the rest of us based on their religion of false beliefs.
Another denier gem.
Agreement from bill hunter, DREMT, Swenson, ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).?
I don’t have an opinion on it either way.
Gordon do you have a reference on that shell thinning discovery? Here in California the focus was never on the thinning of egg shells of raptors but instead was on the thinning of egg shells of Pelicans.
The Pelicans made an amazing recovery sometime after DDT was banned. But major ocean changes were underway at the same time with a resurgence in sardine populations. Anchovies a much smaller forage fish was abundant during the decline of the Pelican that was blamed on DDT. Just read an article in the rag Scientific American blaming residual DDT for continuing problems with the California Condor.
But wait!! The Pelican is a big clumsy bird that dives into the sea with a big pouch mouth open to nab prey. It is also possible because of the lack of sardines and nutrition that the pelican went into decline. And that also makes a lot more sense for a giant scavenger bird not having the kind of carrion it had back in its heydays.
Lots of big animals perished during the Holocene in California. The La Brea tarpits is a huge repository of giant sloths, huge short face bears (largest known bear), clumsy powerful sabre tooth tigers, huge lions, mammoths and more. All believed to have perished due to a lack of nutrition in the Holocene. I would be interested in reading it if you have a link.
barry k…”Global CO2 emissions increases ~10,000 Million metric tons every 20 years. USAs portion was ~30% in the 70s and now ~12%, likely ~8% in 20 years”.
Seems like a lot of gas but the end result is that CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. It has been known that the oceans absorb roughly 50% of the emitted amount but I read recently that percentage may be even higher. And let’s not forget that vegetation absorb an immeasurable amount.
The Artic region seems to be driving these higher average global temps. Any idea why?
Arctic Amplification
The Arctic is certainly the fastest warming region over the long term, but by area it is not the largest region, so saying it is the “driver” might be pushing it. In UAH the Arctic, ‘NoPol’, covers 60-90N. Land areas of the northern and southern hemispheres and the tropics are also warming faster than the global average.
bill…”The Artic region seems to be driving these higher average global temps. Any idea why?”
I don’t think the Arctic has anything to do with recent global averages. This is a hangover from the 2016 El Nino, which has been prevented from cooling off for some reason. I have cynically offered one opinion for that condition, that NOAA, who provides the sat data, is messing with the data before UAH receives it. The have fudged the surface temperatures badly, why not their own sat data?
The Arctic’s temperatures seasonally vary from around 0C down to -50C or so.
Have a look at these global temperature contour maps from UAH. Note that warming in the Arctic for September 2020 is represented by a tiny region that appears to be north of Russia with a warming of +3.5C. Opposite that, over Greenland, there is a cooling of -3.5C which cancels out the warming leaving the Arctic with little or no warming during September 2020.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
If you go back to January 2020, in the Arctic winter, you see basically the same thing but with the warming patches having moved.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/january2020/202001_Map.png
For all the commenters above who are pointing to “breaking records”, “positive trend” etc hinting perhaps that this is evidence of increasing CO2 causing increased temperatures, if one looks at the actual monthly temperatures from the UAH web site one finds, in fact, that over the whole period the hypothesis that the temperatures are stationary cannot be rejected. Like many other climate variables they appear to be fractionally integrated. For example, the Globa Land monthly values are fractionally integrated with a coefficient of around 0.45 and the Global Ocean with a coefficient of around 0.43. However, the estimated standard errors would mean one could not reject the hypothesis these coefficients are equal. The key point, however, is that these are stationary time series while the CO2 content in the atmosphere is non-stationary. That does not look good for the hypothesis that CO2 content drives temperatures.
I was called away before I could finish the previous comment. I meant to say that having TLT monthly temps stationary with CO2 content in the atmosphere non-stationary is not good for the linear model linking CO2 content to TLT.
Looking at the data further, it is interesting that the degrees of long-term persistence in the UAH TLT data differ geographically:
Region Fractional integration
South Pole Land 0
South Pole Ocean 0
SH Extra-tropics Land 0.24
Tropics Ocean 0.26
Tropics Land 0.26
North Pole Ocean 0.32
North Pole Land 0.33
NH Extra-tropics Land 0.40
SH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.41
NH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.47
These would seem to suggest that the TLT over the extra-tropics oceans are the largest sites of longer-term persistence.
Peter, try running the numbers again… but this time only use the most recent 20 years of UAH data.
In order to determine “long-memory” properties of time series you want to use the longest sample possible.
Yes, of course you do.
skeptical…”Peter, try running the numbers again but this time only use the most recent 20 years of UAH data”.
Why??? From 1998 – 2015, you have an 18 year flat trend then in early 2016, you had a major El Nino. So, you are asking Peter to analyze 4 years of heavily biased data to draw an inference about a much larger range.
Peter,
I’m not following you. The UAH global TLT trend is +0.1367C/decade +-0.0067 which is statistically significant by a large margin.
Remember that climate forcing agents (like CO2 or whatever) perturb the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). It is the net effect of all perturbations that dictate the final EEI and the final accumulation/depletion of heat in the geosphere. In addition there are several mechanisms that work on varying time scales that transfers heat from one reservoir to another. There is no expectation that CO2 (or any single climate forcing agent) should track the TLT trend exactly. Though the long term trend of the UAH global TLT is positive (not stationary) as is CO2 concentration so…
What statistical technique are you using to get the coefficients of 0.45 and 0.43? I’d like to understand more about what you’re looking at here.
The analysis treats all the series as stochastic without deterministic time trends. Use L to denote the lag operator. For a time series X_t, LX_t = X_{t-1} and L^kX_t = X_{t-k}.
A time series that is growing over time, like the Mauna Loa CO2 monthly values, is non-stationary if it has a random walk component, for example, X_t = X_{t-1}+\epsilon_t or (1-L)X_t = \epsilon_t. Such a random walk component is known as a “stochastic trend” if \epsilon has a non-zero mean. The series X_t is also said to be integrated of order 1 if (1-L)X_t is a stationary time series, integrated of order 2 if (1-L)X_t is not stationary but (1-L)^2X_t is stationary, and so on.
A time series that is integrated of order d for d integer can often be modeled as an ARMA process
\rho(L)(1-L)^dX_t = \theta(L)\epsilon_t where d is an integer,
\rho(L) = 1 – \rho_1L − \rho_2L^2 − … − \rho_pL^p with the roots of the polynomial
\rho(z) = 1 – \rho_1z− \rho_2z^2 − … − \rho_pz^p = 0 lying outside the unit circle
and \theta(L) = 1 + \theta_1L + \theta_2L^2 + … +\theta_qL^q with the roots of the polynomial
\theta(z) = 1 + \theta_1z + \theta_2z^2 + … +\theta_qz^q also lying outside the unit circle.
A time series is said to be fractionally integrated if instead -0.5 < d < 0.5. These processes have a "long memory", but not as long as random walks were the "memory" is "forever". The higher the value of d, the longer the memory.
As I mentioned in the first post, many climate variables are fractionally integrated. It turns out that this is the case for the UAH TLT temperatures.
On the other hand, monthly average CO2 from Mauna Loa is integrated. In my opinion, this is consistent with at least a partially human driver of the CO2 (emissions are related to GDP, and that is integrated, so the CO2 series inherits that integration).
My point about what this says about climate models is that if we have
∆T = k_1∆Forcing = k_2∆CO2 where k_1 and k_2 are constants (effectively a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature) then if the CO2 series is integrated so should the temperatures be integrated. However, that is not what we find. To me that means a simple linear connection between CO2 in the atmosphere and TLT is strongly inconsistent with the data. Furthermore, there does not even yet appear to be strong evidence that TLT are non-stationary, as they ought to be if they are driven by non-stationary economic processes (which economic growth is) through some other mechanism.
The other finding I emphasized is the the "length of memory" in the TLT temperatures varies across the globe. There seems to be more persistence (longer-term feedbacks operating, but still not permanent change) in the extra-tropics oceans, extra-tropics land and to a lesser extent the north pole. Then comes the tropics and southern hemisphere extra-tropics land, which appears to operate more like the tropics than the northern hemisphere extra-tropics land. Curiously, the south pole TLT does not appear to have any "long memory" process at all — maybe because it is somewhat isolated from the rest of the globe by circumpolar air flows?
Thanks Peter. I’m somewhat familiar with stochastic analysis, but pretty weak at it. When I get time I’ll see if I can’t get more up to speed on these techniques.
@Peter Hartley, It appears that you are using the lack of obvious month-to-month changes to claim that the average UAH temperature anomaly in the 2010’s is not really higher than it was in the 1980’s. If you processed daily anomalies instead of monthly, your conclusion might appear even stronger; but it would be equally senseless. Please average the data over a year or two or three and repeat your analysis.
No one is claiming that CO2 is responsible for every fluctuation of global temperature anomaly. Instead, the claim of most climate scientists is that increases in global CO2 are primarily responsible for a trend of increasing anomalies that are clearer as one averages data over longer periods. That trend is apparent in the 13-month running average of Dr. Spencer’s plot and is even more apparent when the averaging period is longer.
Jeff,
Just to clarify, I am not using month to month changes — I am looking at the whole sample of 501 months of data posted at the link to the UAH web site that Roy gives. I also am not comparing averages in the 2010’s to averages in the 1980’s. I also am not looking at trends in moving averages of the UAH data. Implicitly, these techniques assume there are deterministic trend components in the time series. My approach instead treats them as entirely stochastic. I am simply trying to characterize the type of stochastic process that the temperatures appear to be following.
Such an exercise is a different way of summarizing the properties of the data. It is useful for checking theories because the theories have to be consistent with the stochastic properties of the data sets. In particular, two series linked in a linear functional relationship should display the same levels of integration. If they do not, they cannot be so linked.
In this case, the very different properties of the CO2 series and the temperature series imply that there cannot be a simple functional connection between CO2 and temperature.
Interestingly, if one looks at the CO2 series in more detail it turns out that the fluctuations at the annual frequency are also integrated. This shows an example of what I am talking about. As CO2 content in the atmosphere follows a stochastic trend, the seasonal fluctuations due to NH deciduous vegetation uptake in the spring and release in the fall are also trending over time. More CO2 leads to more deciduous vegetation, which in turn leads to larger seasonal fluctuations. The time series properties of the series are consistent with the theoretical link.
Going back to the TLT, the other thing that is revealed by the analysis is that the longer-term persistence in TLT appears to be focused on the atmosphere over the NH extra-tropics ocean and to a lesser extent the NH extra-tropics land and SH extra-tropics oceans. Since I presented the fractional integration parameters above, I have now also modeled the short-run dynamics and the persistence levels have declined a little but the ranking remains similar to what I found above above. For the fractional integration parameters, I now get:
South Pole Land 0.0
South Pole Ocean 0.0
Tropics Ocean 0.260
Tropics Land 0.261
North Pole Ocean 0.266
SH Extra-tropics Land 0.322
North Pole Land 0.325
SH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.360
NH Extra-tropics Land 0.387
NH Extra-tropics Ocean 0.427
jeff…”It appears that you are using the lack of obvious month-to-month changes to claim that the average UAH temperature anomaly in the 2010s is not really higher than it was in the 1980s”.
In actuality, that’s close to the truth. UAH, in it’s 33 year report claimed little or no warming till the 1998 El Nino. I interpret that to mean there was little in the way of anomalies above the baseline. The 98 EN drove global temps suddenly above the baseline almost a full degree C.
Following the 98 EN came a lengthy flat trend till about 2015. The year 2010 had another significant EN yet the average remained about 0.2C above the baseline.
You have to be aware that the trend pre 1998 was made up mainly of negative anomalies, not true warming, which requires positive anomalies.
Another old gem from Gordon’s copy/paste gallery.
And once Dr. Roy updates the baseline there is no real warming at all.
bdx…”Remember that climate forcing agents (like CO2 or whatever) perturb the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI)”.
There is no such thing as a climate forcing agent. That is climate model theory based on unvalidated models and forcings apply only in models as mathematical forcing functions. Climate is an average of daily weather and the weather is driven basically by solar energy.
Weather, hence climate, involves atmospheric gases but there is not a shred of proof that a trace element in atmospheric gases, CO2, at 0.04% of the gases, is driving the temperature of those gases. That is contrary to the Ideal Gas Law. The major gases, N2 and O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere control the temperature.
Thank you, dr. Spencer! I think the most interestingin the sepember report is that the southern hemisphere is as warm (+0.56) as the northern hemisphere +0.58). This contrasts considerably from the surface measurements, for instance the reanalyzer series, where the southern hemisphere has recorded very ow values the last month.
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php
Does anyone have an explanation for this? T. Klemsdal, Oslo, Norway.
The title of that first graph is “GFS vs CSFR”. Doesn’t that mean it shows only the difference between these two models?
And the second says “bias wrt respect to 168h forecast”. Doesn’t that mean it is showing only the difference between actual temperatures and the forecast of a week ago?
Correct me if I have misinterpreted.
The top graph is the GFS analysis+forecast anomaly vs the CFSR 30 year average from 1981-2010. The analysis is to the left of the dotted vertical line and the 7-day forecast is to the right.
The graph underneath it is the GFS 7-day forecast bias relative to its own analysis. It is essentially assessing the skill of the GFS 7-day forecast. The GFS has a well known cold bias on forecasts especially for the SH. And as you can see the bias is pretty substantial. The cold bias increased quite a bit last year when the FV3 numerical core and newer parameterization schemes were implemented.
It is important to note that “analysis” and “reanalysis” while similar conceptually are not the same thing. The GFS is not designed to measure the global mean temperature nevermind produce a stable measurement of it that is consistent over long periods of time. The GFS is primarily used as an operational weather forecasting tool. Tradeoffs are made such that its skill in operational meteorological forecasting is given priority over skill in measuring climatic parameters. You’ll want to stick with bona-fide “reanalysis” datasets for climatic data analysis. The site does have the NCAR reanalysis dataset.
Tor,
Different things are being measured. UAH TLT is pretty high up in the atmosphere as opposed to the surface temperature which is only 2 meters above. Monthly troposphere temperatures can and often do move opposite that of surface temperatures even though there is a positive correlation over long periods of time.
b,
So to an alarmist, the surface does not really mean the surface? Or does the word *surface* mean anything you want it to?
I understand this mightn’t apply to little men like you, but most of us don’t experience climate within a centimetre of the surface.
M,
So you agree that the alarmist *surface temperature* is not really the *surface* temperature? Climate is the average of weather, donkey, so your pointless ad hom appears to have been wasted. My feet, unlike dreamy alarmists, remain firmly on the surface. Thats the real surface. I dont walk a meter or two above it, nor on water as some alarmists seem to imagine they can.
Funny, coming from the master of ad hom.
Des, please stop trolling.
Yes, I agree that short term different trends may be fully ‘normal’. But UAH has had the southern hemisphere as warm as the northern since may/june.
In contrast, if you plot a 3 month period (ie. june, july, august) for NOAA, land and ocean, the northern hemisphere for 2020 comes out as the warmest, at 1.17 C, while the southern hemisphere is only 0.67 C and at 4.th place.
Tor…”Does anyone have an explanation for this? T. Klemsdal, Oslo, Norway”.
I have asked this question several times. We know UAH gets their data from NOAA. If Roy is retrieving it directly from the sats, I trust him and I’ll drop the question. If NOAA is getting the data before UAH then passing it on, there is nothing to stop them fudging it upward using some kind of algorithm.
I don’t think that is a conspiracy theory. We know they have extensively fudged the surface record, for reasons unknown, seemingly political, and they have the technology to ‘adjust’ sat data anyway they want since it’s their sats and their telemetry.
Thanks for your comment. I am not looking for any conspiracy, but just trying to understand what physical/meteorolgical phenomenon could explain why the troposphere apparantly is not tracking the surface. We will see how RSS and GISS and NOAA surface records come out for september.
Note that there were several tropical storms in September. This could have caused the tropospheric temperature to rise.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo, your question has been answered several times. Dr. Spencer posts data from J. Christy at UAH which processes the satellite data that is/has been supplied by NOAA. There’s no separate way that Spencer could receive the data directly from the satellites.
Of course, Gordo immediately seq-ways into another conspiracy rant, claiming that “they” (i.e., some people at NOAA) are fudging the data. He appears to be completely unaware that NOAA STAR is not the same group of people as NOAA NCEI or NASA GIS.
Swanson your analysis fails to consider that:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab (militant group), Boko Haram, Indonesian Mujahedeen Council, Taliban, Sipah Sahaba, Iran, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are not all the same group of people either.
I would also note that all those groups above aren’t a conspiracy. Thus any discussion of them as a group shouldn’t be considered a ‘conspiracy rant’, either. Now an ‘indoctrination rant’ would seem to be at least realistic.
We are very clearly in a data fudging era. And I am not talking about intentional or necessarily conscious fudging. Never seen that in my area of examination. But still have had numerous findings. The non-conscious fudging is at least an order of magnitude greater than the conscious fudging among people who have worked hard to get where they are. And for all kinds of fudging its several orders of magnitude in the direction of either direct money or fealty toward the dispenser of the money. And it doesn’t have to be a lot of money it can be as little as an regular or occasional cup of coffee as long as its relatively larger than other inducements.
So data fudging automatically arises out of an impassioned search for the truth already believed in.
Here is a great email exchange exemplifying that:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt
They were right, 1940 is not in line with proxy data:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000216
Something changed with ship measurements.
WWII?
Fig. 3.
You are right who knows. then you just pick your favorite answer right?
It seems rather stretchy to be using proxy data to overrule the instrument record considering how bad proxy data tends to be.
But maybe this would shine more light on the topic.
“TC: I have only read a few emails and then realized I shouldn’t read any of it – it is, let us not forget, illegally obtained material from a personal email, and in my view has the same respect as would any personal letters that one may get in the mail.”
Crowley talking about climategate. Lets see what did he get wrong? Well number one we don’t know if the emails were illegally obtained. It could be a whistle blower. It could be the system was left openly accessible. No reason to believe the emails were illegally obtained without some proof.
Second, these are not ‘private conversations’ these are conversations being conducted under payments to the persons from public funds. There is a public right to know involved here.
But none of that matters to Crowley. He just sees it as a problem for a rather loosey goosey case for CAWG.
And there is more:
”Crowley’s reconstructions of Earth’s temperature history have independently corroborated those of Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann and other scientists, who were the subjects of the email hack.” Hmmm is this his occupation? Has he ever corrected any of those folks? Is there even a shade of a color of independence shining from Crowley in regards to his neutrality as a dedicated scientist? I’ll let you try to figure that out Svante.
In politics I have a learned aversion toward people that tend to check every check box on the party platform. Rules you out from being a sneaky ideologue anyway.
Now take Judith Curry and Roy. Both believe in the basic greenhouse effect but recognize uncertainty and rather reasonably believe that observations suggest a much weaker effect.
bill hunter says:
OK, the difference is within the statistical error margin, so you can go with the instrumental record if you trust that.
P.S. 1903-1904 are also statistical outliers.
Svante says:
P.S. 1903-1904 are also statistical outliers.
===========================
statistical outliers? The weather changes daily. How are you defining a statistical outlier?
It’s at 2‐σ
See: https://tinyurl.com/y4gkfofa
Is that the proxy that Tom Wigley said needed to be created?
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt
Maybe, but the word proxy is not in your reference.
‘a change in radiative forcing perturbs the surface air temperature’
Your link states the above as the precondition for feedbacks. I will look at that after somebody describes and defends exactly how additional layers of absorp-tion by CO2 perturbs the surface.
Svante says:
Maybe, but the word proxy is not in your reference.
======================
doesn’t matter is anything that isn’t going and reading the thermometer in the afternoon and early morning and recording the reading on a log is a form of proxy for doing that.
How about MODTRAN?
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Modtran is a proxy for temperature if one decides that it is. For that matter your mother’s french poodle could be a proxy if somebody decided it was.
No, no, no.
It calculates IR radiation.
You asked about radiative forcing remember.
but so far the only description of converting whats absorbed to surface forcing has been your closed window greenhouse model that was debunked a long time ago. I will let DREMT have the last word here unless you offer more.
If you think photon energy is destroyed at the surface you are violating the first law of thermodynamics.
If you think the surface turns into a mirror whenever it sees these “excess” photons, then you’re even weirder.
It will add thermal energy to the surface, and temperature will rise.
When you understand that you can think about feedbacks, and the only relevant question is how much?
Svante says:
If you think photon energy is destroyed at the surface you are violating the first law of thermodynamics.
If you think the surface turns into a mirror whenever it sees these excess photons, then youre even weirder.
It will add thermal energy to the surface, and temperature will rise.
When you understand that you can think about feedbacks, and the only relevant question is how much?
===================================
come on Svante building a whole chinese army of strawmen and BS doesn’t get you anywhere.
It’s been calculated and measured.
It’s not stopping in the atmosphere and it’s not coming out of the oceans:
* K. von Schuckmann et al.: Heat stored in the Earth system
https://tinyurl.com/y32lsoxq
Svante says:
Its been calculated and measured.
Its not stopping in the atmosphere and its not coming out of the oceans:
=======================================
Where in the world Svante did you ever get the idea that heat might be coming out of the oceans?
The oceans are colder than the surface. Is this some kind crackpot concept of cold things warming hot things ran totally out of control?
Wow!!
You gave me that idea, ocean cycles you said.
If surface warming came from ocean cycles the ocean heat content (OHC) would go down, wouldn’t it?
Svante says:
You gave me that idea, ocean cycles you said.
If surface warming came from ocean cycles the ocean heat content (OHC) would go down, wouldnt it?
============================
Well you may have gotten that from me but that would be due to your misunderstanding of everything i have said about the dynamics of internal variation via ocean oscillations. And I have said plenty, if read properly, to come to the completely opposite conclusion.
1) I have only ever discussed any dynamics on the PDO and ENSO.
I have had people many times point out (can’t remember if you were one) that the PDO index isn’t an index of increasing ocean temperatures, which I have agreed with every single time. In fact, efforts are made to detrend the PDO data.
2) I have explicitly said I wasn’t certain how the PDO affected world climate but have merely noted it is highly correlated with it. Thus one explanation, and the one I find the most plausible in the absence of another finding, is that ocean storm tracks do move when the PDO moves. That results in longer trips across the Pacific for storm systems. Wind is a huge variant in evaporation as shown when you blow on hot food to cool it. thus the injection of water vapor into the atmosphere (which I consider to be the largest by far possible avenue for additional greenhouse warming – considering water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere) could be a likely explanation for the correlation. Now technically thats removing heat from the ocean but only temporarily as it falls back within days and it seems likely to have no impact or de minimis impact on ocean heat content, which at a minimum renders your claim as rather absurd.
3) the above recognizes as I have regular recognized effects from a greenhouse effect. And its also due to the fact its clear that water is not saturated in the atmosphere completely consistent with a single layer GHE philosophy.
4)I have never studied the AMO. I really don’t know anything about the AMO beyond believing its very possibly a key ingredient in the comings and goings of Arctic ice because it is one of two major pathways for maintaining cold ocean bottoms. This infusion of cold water into the deep ocean would have possibly large impacts on ocean heat content over time. But there is no sense in talking about it because we don’t measure ocean heat content at the bottom of the ocean.
b,
You do realise that EEI is just alarmist gibberish, dont you?
Unless you have a magic one way insulator which allows more total energy to pass unidirectionally, of course! The climate dills at NASA apparently believe in such a thing, but of course it only exists in their imaginations.
swenson…”You do realise that EEI is just alarmist gibberish, dont you?”
It’s based purely on radiation theory and radiation is known to be a minor player at terrestrial temperatures. In other words, it is not a good means of heat dissipation at those temperatures. If it was, home-builders would not be as focused on preventing heat loss by only conduction using insulation like R-rated insulation.
EEI disregards several complex means of heat retention and heat loss on the planet. Furthermore, Trenberth and Kiehl, who wrote the nonsense admitted they had no scientific basis for the theory. You can see that when they have back-radiation for GHGs transferring as much heat back to the surface as what is dissipated via radiation.
I lost any respect I had for Trenberth when he was caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting the warming has stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why. Then he interfered in peer review while his IPCC partner as a Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, claimed he and ‘Kevin’ would ensure that certain skeptical papers would not reach the review stage. I think one of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
Alarmist scumbags!!!
Gordo tosses out another of his science denialist rants. For example, he wrote:
It’s well known that reflective insulation layer reduces radiant heat transfer under a roof.
Not to mention the fact that the UAH data analysis is based on the same theory of radiation heat transfer in the atmosphere, though at a longer wavelength band in the microwave than the emission bands of CO2 and H2O which provide the Green House Effect. Of course, he ignores the fact that the surface loses thermal energy thru convection, in addition to radiant HT, so there’s no reason to expect that the upwelling IR must equal the downwelling IR.
E. Swanson says:
Its well known that reflective insulation layer reduces radiant heat transfer under a roof.
======================
In some directions! One has to understand which directions.
GR said: Its based purely on radiation theory and radiation is known to be a minor player at terrestrial temperatures. In other words, it is not a good means of heat dissipation at those temperatures.
ALL…as in 100%…of Earth’s heat dissipation is via radiation. It is the ONLY means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures or any temperature for that matter. That is the exact opposite of “not a good means of heat dissipation”.
There is one other means, albeit insignificantly small.
The escape of gases from our atmosphere into space.
You have to wonder what other means of dissipation Robertson could be suggesting, given that conduction, convection and phase transition require a medium, which is missing in the vacuum of space.
bdgwx, Des, please stop trolling.
Number of months above +0.3
Last 5 years (60 months) … 47 (78%)
Before that (442 months) … 31 (7%)
Number of months above +0.4
Last 5 years (60) … 32 (53%)
Before that (442) … 16 (4%)
__________________________
Incremental CHANGES in 5-year averages.
(ie. 60-month periods ending September)
(First period starts in Dec 1979, so has 82 months instead of 60)
1980-85 … ___
1985-90 … +0.09
1990-95 … +0.01
1995-00 … +0.17
2000-05 … +0.06
2005-10 … -0.03
2010-15 … 0.00
2015-20 … +0.30
Sum of first 6 increments: +0.30
Last increment” +0.30
M,
Now entertain us all by correlating your figures to CO2 concentrations. Weekly will do.
Do you think I would get a positive correlation or negative?
What if I instead tried to correlate global temperatures with solar activity?
M,
You are the one doing the entertaining calculations. How would I know what answer you are trying to get? I am assuming your calculations are completely pointless, and you are just trying to appear intelligent.
If you want to correlate global temperatures against solar activity, go your hardest. Or you could correlate them against US postal charges – you would find a very good correlation. Try learning some physics, and apply the scientific method to your figures.
I’ll take that an agreement that global temperatures will correlate negatively with solar forcing.
M,
You can keep making stuff up to your hearts desire. Keep up the gibberish about *forcings*. If you find nobody understands what youre saying, try using physics terms.
Heres a hint – the GHE is not a scientific effect.
By the way, nobody has ever even defined what a *global temperature* is, let alone measured one. If you keep braying like a donkey, people will draw the obvious conclusion!
It is not “a global temperature”. It is “a global average temperature”.
Hope that help you avoid your next straw man argument.
M,
Oh, I see. So the *global temperature* is not the *global temperature* at all. Its something else.
Maybe you could explain what the *global average temperature* is? Only joking, of course.
Just like Mike Flynn, you use asterisks to bold words, forgetting you’re not on YouTube.
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas I assume for those calculations you used post-adjusted calculations? How does it come out with the pre-adjusted datasets?
crickets! Obviously not an independently thinking mind. Just another soul the Godless socialists can swap out for a robot.
I believe he used the UAH TLT file so yes those calculations are post-adjusted.
that wasn’t the question I asked. I had already assumed that.
I don’t know regarding the second question. You’d have to ask Dr. Spencer.
Why? I think the older version is still up on the UAH website. Or it was a few weeks ago.
All of the UAH version make adjustments. They do not publish a file that would be described as “pre-adjusted”. I’m not sure it would be meaningful or even possible for that matter.
bdgwx says:
October 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM
All of the UAH version make adjustments. They do not publish a file that would be described as pre-adjusted. Im not sure it would be meaningful or even possible for that matter.
====================================
Whatever. Its a tool I frequently use. It’s actually a requirement in financial statements to inform investors and lenders of the changes in a displayed comparative manner over a period of time.
“Planet continues to warm”
Yes since the end of LIA ,170 years ago.
100 of these years CO2 was at preeindustrial levels.
The LIA ended in the 1910s.
Funny how when you have two correlated effects – “end of LIA” and “rising CO2” you decide for yourself without justification that one is the cause of the other instead of the other way round.
M,
Funny how you decide one is the cause of the other instead of the other way round!
The cause of the rise in CO2 levels is not disputed.
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas says:
The LIA ended in the 1910s.
Funny how when you have two correlated effects end of LIA and rising CO2 you decide for yourself without justification that one is the cause of the other instead of the other way round.
===============================
Some may, including yourself. I don’t. The answer to that is inconclusive and uncertain to me.
The Northern Hemisphere could prepare for a strong La Nina from November.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01014/pscf56hnyz96.png
Talks of the northern hemisphere as he gives a graph of Antarctica.
During La Nina, sea ice grows in the south.
I’m sure it does. Doesn’t explain the link between your comment and your graph though.
The temperature of the Humboldt Current depends on the amount of melting Antarctic ice.
A problem with that:
Like all ocean gyres, the Humboldt Current (which is part of the South Pacific Gyre) does not cross the equator. So it doesn’t effect the northern hemisphere. (At least not on the timescales you are referring to.)
And you say “depends on” without saying which way the dependence goes.
The Humboldt Current is a surface current and reaches the Nino 1.2 region. Depends on the wind along the west coast of South America.
Yes – and Nino 1.2 is south of the equator – nothing to do with the northern hemisphere.
Of course by “equator” I actually mean the Intertropical Convergence Zone.
Midas says:
A problem with that:
Like all ocean gyres, the Humboldt Current (which is part of the South Pacific Gyre) does not cross the equator. So it doesnt effect the northern hemisphere. (At least not on the timescales you are referring to.)
And you say depends on without saying which way the dependence goes.
============================
I seriously doubt that. If you didn’t have a lot of mixing occurring at the equator you wouldn’t have an ENSO effect that affects world temperatures.
During La Nina and low solar activity, stratospheric intrusions in the Northern Hemisphere during the winter / spring period can be very severe.
How is climate hustle 2 going?
It’s been a week since the premiere.
Anybody paid money to see it?
studentb,
Millions. Why do you care? Are you one of the producers? Worried you are being ripped off? I dont blame you. Tough gig, the movie business.
Apparently no one.
I hear they can’t even give it away.
When you say india and china produce less, that is the average.
Some of the worst industries are in those countries getting away with high emmissions, whilst rural people emit nothing.
This distorts the average.
Mark Wapples
” … whilst rural people emit nothing. ”
A very good remark indeed!
This the reason why some people no longer do compare countries on the basis of the emissions they produce, but rather on the basis of the emissions produced by their imports from the exporting countries:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05905-y#Fig6
China’s and India’s emissions have few to do with the average behavior of their inhabitants. For the US and Europe, the inverse is the case.
J.-P. D.
What days of the year are the strongest contributors, what time of day does the greatest warming happen, and where on Earth are these events most evident? The problem of averages is that it suggests things are as bad in Prudo Bay as they are at Cairo. And why is 0.14ºC/decade considered climate change and not climate rebound? This warming has been going on since the last glacier-building era ended in the 1800’s.
Your problem is that you believe the issue is about how warm it is on a particular day in a particular locality, instead of the slow-response factors which don’t care about the temperature on a particular day.
M,
Your problem is that you haven’t got a clue. What slow response factors? Don’t you realise that climate is the average of weather?
Maybe you could have a stab at giving everyone a good belly-laugh by telling us how CO2 affects weather! Or you could try diversion, I suppose.
M,
And now you see why I use asterisks instead of apostrophes. Nothing to do with YouTube. If leaping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you would be an Olympic champion
Who cares what your reason is – the whole point was that it proves you are Mike Flynn.
M,
As I said, if leaping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you would be an Olympic champion.
Maybe you should devote yourself to learning some physics. Then you could involve yourself in discussions about science, rather than your silly fantasies..
“Leaping to conclusions” involves presenting no evidence. I have presented countless pieces of evidence, this month and last. Everyone here knows you are Mike Flynn. The only question is why you are ashamed to admit it.
Fan of Ray Bradbury, are you Mikey?
M,
You leap to the conclusion that a GHE exists. No testable hypothesis, no physical basis, but there you are! Your assumptions are no more evidence, than the silly NASA climate model runs are experiments!
As I said, if leaping to conclusions was an Olympic sport, you would be an Olympic champion.
Maybe you should devote yourself to learning some physics. Then you could involve yourself in discussions about science, rather than your silly fantasies. Going to try for another diversion?
The record has a scratch.
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas says:
The record has a scratch.
==================================
You are right. All I hear is ”You are Mike Flynn” being constantly repeated. . . .and who cares?
I see DREM has had another bout of urinary incontinence and PST’d himself again, 8 times in 7 minutes.
The pads must be running out.
Wow, you really are completely obsessed with me, aren’t you?
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM,
Well maybe Des has something to say about obsessions.
All your 8 PSTs were obsessively aimed at someone called Des!
DREM, you can’t take a trick, can you? Absolutely hopeless.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Wow, you really are completely obsessed with me, arent you?
================================
Pee dreams!! Wow!!
Yes Billyou may be right.
DREM’s spontaneous emissions of PSTs seem to be the wet dreams of a piss-ant, probably associated with REM.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Mike R, I was just commenting on what must be going on inside of your head where please stop trolling is imagined by you as a golden shower. you seem to be asking for more.
Bill,
I eventually worked out that your reference to pee dreams was related to DREM’s enuresis, but what are these golden showers you are talking about?
Are they just sun showers? Is this some new meteorological phenomenon related to global warming?
I have just done a Google search and it seems that it is a type of micturition that seems to be common in Las Vegas ( could be the right climactic conditions) and is the method of ablution preferred by the current PUTZUS.
Thank-you Bill for broadening my knowledge. Is there anything else urological that Immediately comes to mind?
you tried all that?! my word!
Bill,
Tried what? You seem to have an over-active imagination.
Denial?
You seem to be the one with the imagination
”another bout of urinary incontinence”
”PSTs seem to be the wet dreams of a piss-ant”
I was just responding to that juvenile stuff. Now you want to make it about me and pretend you had nothing to do with it? LMAO!
Bill,
Yes you are 100% correct.
I should have not have made fun of DREM and his predeliction for repetitive four word commentary via cut and paste.
DREM’s periodic outbursts of PSTs are clearly a sign of a superior intellect.
How did I not realise this and that you are such a fan of his contributions?
Trolling does seem to be a rather enthusiastically pursued occupation around here as opposed to actually discussing the issues. Seems legitimate to point it out when it’s occurring. If it’s not trolling a well reasoned argument should make that apparent. But I think that’s probably exactly what DREMT is suggesting.
bill, MikeR gives everyone the respect that deserve.
Ask him a sensible question if you want a sensible answer.
Bill,
I don’t know why I find DREM’s outbursts of PSTs so irritating. Maybe it’s the repetitive vacuous natureof them.
The first time might have been, in the eyes of some , slightly amusing , to others slightly offensive. By the 2000th time (rough estimate),the charm has worn off leaving just offensiveness
Bill, do you find them entertaining, intelligent, witty, perhaps worthy of Oscar Wilde?
Perhaps you find them irritating because you are a troll, but are in denial about it.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
That’s you in a nutshell.
…and you in a nutshell, Svante.
I’m not in denial about anything. I’m fully aware that there are several people here who consider me a troll, and I understand why. They’ve lost a few arguments to their intellectual and moral superiors, they start getting upset, I start correctly asking those who are trolling to stop, and in their agitated state they consider that an act of trolling in itself. I get it.
MikeR says:
Bill, do you find them entertaining, intelligent, witty, perhaps worthy of Oscar Wilde?
=============================
I would reason that if you wanted to set a standard for posts in this forum you start with yourself.
Bill,
I would attempt to ascend to the intellectual heights of the twat’s micro-tweet length PSTs but removal of my frontal lobes is not an option I would like to pursue.
I kind of see it like a question of ones manhood. If you aren’t in doubt about it that nonsense rolls off your back. I see it could be very irritating to a troll.
Bill,
If you want to introduce a manhood pissing contest ( apologies for another allusion to a pungent topic) then yes, I doubt if I could win.
At my age and hevresultant BPE, I probably couldn’t compete unless he has a indwelling catheter.
I am also terrified by the impressive intellectual cod piece that DREM brings to the table.
One prick and it reveals an intellectual vacuum underneath. An imploding troll would surely be a sight to behold but I might be severely concussed by the force of the implosion.
MikeR says:
If you want to introduce a manhood pissing contest ( apologies for another allusion to a pungent topic) then yes, I doubt if I could win.
At my age and hevresultant BPE, I probably couldnt compete unless he has a indwelling catheter.
I am also terrified by the impressive intellectual cod piece that DREM brings to the table.
One prick and it reveals an intellectual vacuum underneath. An imploding troll would surely be a sight to behold but I might be severely concussed by the force of the implosion.
============================
Sheesh, the sensitivity! It was a well known analogy commonly held. It wasn’t an attempt to question your manhood. Way too much trolling in here and too little honest debate.
“Sheesh, the sensitivity! It was a well known analogy commonly held. It wasnt an attempt to question your manhood. Way too much trolling in here and too little honest debate.”
Yes Bill, pissing contests are well known around these parts.
I have no idea why you are rushing to the defence of the uber troll, if you are genuine with your concerns about trolling.
Do you want join the PST brigade, maybe as a backup singer?
He already has, lunatic reference frame and all.
Svante,
Really! Bill is a card carrying member of the Non Rotational Axis of Evil?
I must have missed it. I thought he might have been slightly saner. Oh well it explains a lot.
Confused as always, but bill hunter says:
I told him to fill a big bowl with water and let small bowls float around the edge. He insisted they would face inward as the big bowl rotated, just like DREMT thinks.
DREMT spilled the water all over, but bill insisted it was the Coriolis effect that forced the small bowls to keep to the inertial reference frame.
Svante, MikeR, please stop trolling.
Watch the pretzel production team in action:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-476833
ditto. Svante obviously you believe the moon coincidentally rotates in perfect time with its orbital rotation and in complete denial of cause and effect.
So the Moon does not rotate.
You have graduated with a lowercase ‘z’.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e. about its own center of mass. That is what is being argued. The moon does rotate, about the Earth/moon barycenter. This is known as “orbiting” or “revolution”.
Whatever.
But as Tim Folkerts pointed, nothing rotates on its own axis.
It has to be in relation to some frame of reference.
The Earth rotates on its own axis.
OK, let’s agree on that.
OK, Svante.
With respect to the inertial reference frame.
From any reference frame, the reality is that the Earth is rotating on its own axis. You may be able to think of a reference frame in which it appears not to be, sure.
I think we have finally an understanding of where DREM and his disciples are coming from.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-535306
We are now at the begetting stage of the ancient narrative where in the Book of Sock Puppets , g-e-r-a-n begat JDHuff and Hapless, who begat DREMT who is still busy begetting ClintR.
MikeR is just going all weird again.
I have worked in heavy math my entire life. I know that averages smear reality outside the drawing lines suggesting peaks and valleys don’t exist and that grey areas are painted in hues by statistics not found in grey areas.
There is no reason to believe the average temperature applies to every hectar of the Earth equally, and that all times of day are equally affected, and that time times and places are different in important ways than others.
Gordon Robertson pretending he is not Gordon Robertson.
Are you getting paranoid about holding a minority opinion Midas?
Will there come a time when you begin to make sense?
Tor Klemsdal [October 2, 2020 at 12:59 AM]
You wrote above:
” Yes, I agree that short term different trends may be fully ‘normal’. But UAH has had the southern hemisphere as warm as the northern since may/june.
In contrast, if you plot a 3 month period (ie. june, july, august) for NOAA, land and ocean, the northern hemisphere for 2020 comes out as the warmest, at 1.17 C, while the southern hemisphere is only 0.67 C and at 4.th place. ”
*
I’m always wondering about such trials to deduce something valuable from so little data.
Here is the comparison, for UAH6.0 LT, of the two hemispheres:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11iNbVZZAouWgXVz7mBP214SARHhY6mem/view
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/y4ln5u9t
Below the NH and SH plots, there is a plot of their differences (which were displaced by -1.1 to avoid them interfering with the data out of which they were calculated).
You see above all that it not so very useful to concentrate on two or three differences around 0.02 C when these in fact span over [-0.63 : +0.65].
But you see as well that the differences were mainly negative before about 1996, and moved then to positive values, what means that before 1996, the UAH SH anomalies were on average surprisingly higher than those in the NH.
Last not least, the comparison might be interesting in so far as while in the NH the difference between 2015/2016 and 1997/98 is positive and very high, the inverse happened in the SH: there, the difference between the LT reactions on the two El Nino periods matches the differences between the ENSO signals in the MEI index (2015/16 was about 85 % of 1997/98).
J.-P. D.
Because the changes observed since the early 20th century are not a rebound. Left to natural climate processes Earth would have continued cooling at the same rate as the last 5000 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Instead we have artificially upset the balance in favour of accumulating heat and are now warming as a result of our own activity.
Do you think we can compete with solar energy? Also with the magnetic energy of the solar wind?
It’s not the energy we produce which is the problem we only produce 15 terajoules /year.
It’s the 300 zettajoules/ year the planet is soaking up because we’ve upset the energy balance.
RW,
Rubbish. You cant get anything to soak up energy, on a yearly basis, on the Earths surface. After the sun goes past the zenith, things start to cool down. Even worse, the elliptical orbit and axial inclination of the Earth cause seasons. No soaking up. No accumulation.
Put a sealed container of water outside in the sunlight. You cant even get it to soak up enough energy to boil! Not even if you let it soak up energy for a hundred years!
Swenson says:”Rubbish. You cant get anything to soak up energy, on a yearly basis, on the Earths surface.”
Sure you can… it’s called ice. Ice must absorb energy in order to melt. A glacial retreat is ice soaking up energy on a yearly basis.
Swenson,
“Put a sealed container of water outside in the sunlight. You cant even get it to soak up enough energy to boil! Not even if you let it soak up energy for a hundred years!”
You want to make a bet on that?
s,
A glacial retreat is lack of precipitation. Nothing to do with absorbing more energy than it emits. Antarctic ice close to the pole gets six months continuous sunlight. No soaking up, no accumulation. No melting.
b,
Absolutely. Now you can pretend to be a smart donkey, and tell us about your magnifying lens, parabolic mirror, electric heater, or any of the other idiotic things alarmist donkeys present trying to overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
I have never lost a bet against a stupid donkey. What are your hidden conditions? Do I really have to include no additional heat source, and only the unconcentrated rays of the sun? And so on?
Yes Swenson,
No additional heat source, no parabolic mirrors, no electric heaters.
I can still do it.
Still want to bet?
Hint the word is still!
Yep. Unconcentrated sunlight only energy source. Sealed container of water. Go for it. Provide proof of your measured temperatures.
Imaginary experiments or models dont count.
I missed the sealed container part, which makes it impossible, without breaking the container.
So I will launch it into orbit, still outside, still in the sunlight and crash it into an asteroid, where the container will break and all the water will boil.
Silly answer for a silly question.
b,
It seems like you missed the *imaginary experiments . . . dont count* bit, too. Donkey.
Then there is another answer, connect a vacuum pump to the sealed container and evacuate until the contents start boiling.
Donkeys will kick you where the Sun don’t shine.
blob, please stop trolling.
DUMPTY,
Please stop spreading like a slime mold.
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
Richard, obviously you don’t have much background in physics. Consequently, you don’t understand how funny such statements are:
“Instead we have artificially upset the balance in favour of accumulating heat and are now warming as a result of our own activity.”
And,
“It’s the 300 zettajoules/year the planet is soaking up because we’ve upset the energy balance.”
Or maybe you’re just poking fun at several of the idiots here that believe such nonsense?
..and yet, despite all the protestations, we have +0.57 degrees for September !
Maybe Richard is getting scared, like you. It’s looking more and more like reality is setting in.
Protesting won’t help.
richard…”Left to natural climate processes Earth would have continued cooling at the same rate as the last 5000 years”.
That would be fine had we not endured a mini ice age called the Little Ice Age for 400 years, It cooled a lot faster during that time and we are slowly returning to whatever the norm was before the LIA.
So you agree the globe has warmed since the LIA.
So tell me … how does the ideal gas law prevent greenhouse warming, but not prevent this warming?
I’ll wait for your spin.
Des, please stop trolling.
Its already starting to dip in the Uk, I can see this being an awful winter. Not helped by the Covid1984 hoax. Regards Tim
So Herr Trumpler is hoaxing you now, is he?
No Midas. Trump is conducting sophisticated epidemiological experiments.
How does Covid spread on a aircraft?
How do you maximise spread via running superspreader events? On the latter, very early results are in with 6 infections but more to come…
Hahaha – hilarious! Every time he picks up a cocktail glass, he loses the means to count up to one, let alone six.
Up to 11 now. Decimal digit overflow. Time to take off socks.
Des, MikeR, please stop trolling.
I thought I could smell something, DREM your pads need changing again.
The latest figures are 34. Now there are more active Covid cases in the White House than in Taiwan. At this rate the White House should be able to overtake China in a week or two.
Time to rename the virus.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
MikeR says:
The latest figures are 34.
======================
Be thankful to those people working hard for the nation. Everyone has the personal choice of holing up in a basement somewhere should they choose.
Bill, it would be good to know which nation they are working so assiduously for.
The notorious DJT has been rumoured to work for several nations on a reciprocal basis.
Anyway it has been speculated * those in the White House may have been working on a biological weapon and that the virus has inadvertently escaped.
* source PizzaAnon
Let me guess. Drugs is a popular recreational pastime around your place or was at one time.
Nah Bill,I never inhaled!
What’s your choice of poison?
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
The troll is stuck in an infinite loop. Time for a hardware reset.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
The troll is now out of control. Going around in circles. Maybe he is a roomba?
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
I think the troll is stuck in a corner. That’s what happens when you can’t rotate on your axis.
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
It’s still in a boot loop, just keeps mindlessly generating PSTs.
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
There seems to be a lot of flashing lights but no one appears to be at home.
Will DREM break a 100 PSTs? That is the question,
more to come…
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Anyone know the Help Line number for an out of control PST troll?
The troll is running hot.
Stay tuned…
There are a few people with this type of experience, but none of them have been able to cure it:
– Rex Tillerson
– John Bolton
– Jim Mattis
– John Kelly
– Mike Mullen
– James Comey
– Robert Mueller
– H.R. McMaster
Svante, please stop trolling.
Yes Svante,
The parallels are obvious. I am sure DREM regards himself as another stable genius and wears a MAGA hat.
The good news is our resident troll is just a pain in the arse and only causes aggravation in the confines of this forum. It is also fortunate that the main victims are the “guilt by association ” denialists.
The bad news is the troll is unlikely to be gone by Halloween or shortly after.
#8
MikeR, please stop trolling.
I think the malfunctioning troll needs a firmware upgrade of some sort. Dumb trolls are just passe.
MikeR please stop trolling
My God, the trolls are breeding. I didn’t think they were capable as they are directionally deficient.
Must be the result of a cloning experiment that went wrong.
#9
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Now that Bill has joined the circus, DREM has competition at last and it’s time to reopen the book on Troll of the Month. DREM has won the Golden Troll by default for the last 2 years.
Could there finally be a challenger? Starts a long way behind (70 PSTs) but you never know.
#10
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DREM now leads by 71. Where’s the other troll?
Just facts MikeR. As long as you aren’t adding anything to the debate. . . .you are nothing but a troll.
Bill,
I will endeavour to be as fact free as a PST. However I am not sure I can manage it.
What’s your secret?
#11
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Oh, you are taking, cut and paste lessons from DREM.
MikeR says:
I will endeavour to be as fact free as a PST. However I am not sure I can manage it.
What’s your secret?
===============================
the please stop trolling message is rich in meaning MikeR.
A troll is a person who posts unresponsive messages with no rationale for the sole purpose of being a pest.
It comes from mythology where trolls ate farmer’s goats. It places you in the same category of pests as a ground squirrel is to a gardener.
therefore when a response in a debate is effectively the sound of somebody stomping his foot that’s being a pest, intellectually dishonest, non-responsive, or designed to offend.
So if you are having a hard time remembering all that in a single one line message I can certainly oblige an old codger like yourself and compose some longer text if you desire to let you know that your last post wasn’t at all helpful nor did it appear to be intended to be helpful.
PST is obviously not a troll. . . .its sole purpose is to end trolling. If I post a PST on a post where you disagree that the intent of the targeted post was indeed helpful the reasonable response would be to explain why the targeted post was labeled a troll incorrectly.
I am in here to discuss the issues, share my perspectives, learn, and debate. If you don’t like that FU! Just don’t read or respond to my posts.
Bill, so PSTs are an effective method for controlling trolls?!
That’s why the PST has been repeated thousands of times by DREM?
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Consequently DREM, if he is not a troll, he is insane.
Personally I think he is both.
Well if it doesn’t work at least its works as a sign post to warn trolls live here.
Yes in a self referential sense it does, but we don’t need incessant reminders of DREM’s mental state.
Well if you can’t take a hint I guess the public service announcement is needed.
Bill , as they say. Troll heal thyself.
Or alternatively heel, kindly resist the urge to troll.
Compris le message?
Sounds like good advice to trollers. Hopefully it will work.
Yes Bill, I am hoping so as well, but the signs aren’t that hopeful as the PSTs are continuing apace.
I don’t know about that Mike. You haven’t caught any today. As the old saying goes if you want to change the world start at home.
Yes Bill,
Great advice which I am sure you are following to a T (and a S and P). Pity about the Troller in Chief who is rapidly approaching 100 PSTs.
At this rate he could suffer from intellectual burn out.
and Svante why not a recovery bigger than the decline? after all we just went through a record breaking solar grand maximum
bill,
Your comment is in the wrong place, but I assume you are talking about “LIA recovery”. It means a temperature increase without a cause. First a perturbation away from equilibrium, then a return. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the correction, less strength the closer you get to the old value.
So we would expect a flattening of the curve as we approach the old value. Instead we got an acceleration as we exceeded the old level.
“a record breaking solar grand maximum” is a direct cause, so that is different.
Svante says:
First a perturbation away from equilibrium, then a return. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the correction, less strength the closer you get to the old value.
So we would expect a flattening of the curve as we approach the old value. Instead we got an acceleration as we exceeded the old level.
============================
Yes in general one would expect at least a small diminishment under say a general increase in insolation as that effect slowly melted ice and warmed the deep ocean. But these are not short term processes and its rather inconclusive that late 20th century warming was faster or slower than early 20th century warming.
The fact that cooling climate change occurred between the two just adds to the mystery rather than subtracts from it.
The ‘mixing’ zone in the ocean warms quickly because the waters do mix. Then mix from the heat added into the photic zone of the ocean creating convection, and winds, and tides.
Below that for 90% of the ocean is the aphotic zone of the ocean consisting of unique currents that have been moving for over a thousand years without substantial mixing, with substantial mixing determined by a inability to date the water.
====================
====================
====================
Svante says:
a record breaking solar grand maximum is a direct cause, so that is different.
===========================
Indeed and essentially adding an confounding element whereby one may not expect any slowing in warming. You got feedbacks and you have recent solar activity primary effects. . . .enough perhaps to actually increase the imbalance naturally.
Here’s the net effect since 1750:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/climate-forcing-figure2-2016.png
Svante says:
Heres the net effect since 1750:
=============================
The correct way to put that is “our best estimate of the net effect since 1750 if and only if the highly sensitive versions of control theory from a mean estimated from a wide range of models is correct.
Observations (all current temp records) conclude to various degrees that level of sensitivity is incorrect and thus the chart is in need of change. However, since the chart was designed to support political objectives thats the way it was looking when published.
You need at a minimum to distinguish between political science and real science.
Your solar idea is still an order of magnitude too small.
Another argument from ignorance. The correct and intelligent way to term that Svante and not look like a dumbass in the process is to say ”Your solar idea may be an order of magnitude too small.”
But on the other hand one can equally say: ”your carbon idea may be an order of magnitude or more too large”
And again, if the warming was caused by the Sun the stratosphere would not be cooling.
Svante says:
And again, if the warming was caused by the Sun the stratosphere would not be cooling.
=========================================
Only if the sun doesn’t cause changes of water and clouds in the atmosphere Svante. Uh. . . .of course that’s how CO2 does it mostly also.
So who taught you that stupid idea?
Increased solar power delivery at the surface would flow upward and warm the atmosphere all the way to the top.
You think it will create an enhanced greenhouse effect instead, and clouds to take away the surface input at the same time? Shall we call it the pretzel effect?
Except there is no evidence of increased solar input. In space or at the surface.
Svante says:
October 22, 2020 at 7:40 AM
Increased solar power delivery at the surface would flow upward and warm the atmosphere all the way to the top.
You think it will create an enhanced greenhouse effect instead, and clouds to take away the surface input at the same time? Shall we call it the pretzel effect?
Except there is no evidence of increased solar input. In space or at the surface.
==============================
Strawman alert!! Svante I never said that solar TSI is responsible for all the warming observed. All you are doing is flopping around like a fish out of water cause you can’t see the issue clear enough. You can’t get that kindergarten-Greta Thunberg-model out of your mind. Its being played in Technicolor on the wall of the cave you are living in.
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543760
Svante please stop trolling.
Tim Wells
My humble guess is that your awful winter prediction might be much more a hoax than is the very present COVID19 (please have a look at Worldometers, the alleged hoax is in the US responsible for 30 times more fatalities than the seasonal flu).
I just downloaded the latest UK temperature data and can tell you that while few stations were at the top of the list, just as few were on the bottom lines.
The coldest corner during September was
https://tinyurl.com/yxzt55lq
J.-P. D.
tim…”Not helped by the Covid1984 hoax. Regards Tim”
It is a hoax, Tim, not with an intent to deceive but based on a belief in seriously bad, unproved science. The premise of covid, as with HIV, is that we cannot find the virus but we believe its there and a lot of scientists agree in the belief. In lieu of actually isolating it and seeing it on an electron microscope, we will infer that certain strands of RNA come from a virus.
I am not saying it’s there, or it’s not there, I don’t know and I don’t care. I am saying the science behind it is dreadful just like the anthropogenic theory. Whatever is behind the contagion, it has not killed more than 0.06% of people in any population, hardly the basis for declaring a pandemic and depriving people of their democratic rights.
Dr Roy,
I posted the following at the article on Mid West Temperatures vs UN Models. I’ve been told that you don’t look at posts in the later stage of a blog, so I’m re-posting it here with the hope that you see it.
September 30, 2020 at 8:20 AM
Dr Roy,
The NOAA web site says that the average temperature for the earth has increased at a rate of 0.18c/decade since 1981. it further states that in 2019 Central North America was the only pocket of cooler than average land temperatures.
Your graph for the US Mid West shows a rate of 0.08c/decade. Is Central No. America that much cooler than the rest of the world or is there something up with the NOAA data?
Would it be possible for you to do a graph similar to the one in this article with NOAA overall observations for the average earth’s temperature compared to the CHIP model?
Tom
Thanks for your good work.
Tom
There is satellite data specific to the US midwest?
M,
If you say so. Or are you just trolling?
Apparently you don’t understand the purpose of a question mark. Or are you just trolling?
M,
So you dont know whether there is satellite data specific to the US Midwest, and will believe whatever Tom Tucker tells you, is that it?
Pull the other one, donkey!
No I don’t know. Do you?
M,
And youre gullible enough to believe what an unknown commenter tells you, are you?
What a gullible donkey you are!
If he ever answers, I would expect him to link to this data.
If he doesn’t link to it then I won’t believe or disbelieve him, until some evidence comes along.
See how it works, Mikey?
Midas poses a gotcha. Not interested in the answer. As diverting as ever,
“See how it works?” is a “gotcha”??
You deserve my sympathy.
M,
You posed the following supposed question – * There is satellite data specific to the US midwest?*, as a gotcha – that is, you are not interested in the answer, rather just in being a donkey.
Your worm-infested brain has now transformed that into *See how it works?*
Another diversion. I assume you are attempting to be gratuitously offensive, or maybe you are just stupidly trolling. Others can judge for themselves.
How are your physics studies going?
I am most definitely interested in the answer. The purpose of the question was to get the data, nothing more.
I passed 2nd year physics with flying colours 35 years ago. You?
Midas,
Was it your physics lecturer who advised seeking data from total strangers? No wonder you passed with flying colours!
All nonsense, of course. You could have sourced the data from a reliable source, but you just want to troll.
Carry on.
Apparently inquiring about the location of data is now “trolling”. A google search reveals no such “reliable source”.
Des, please stop trolling.
tom t…”Your graph for the US Mid West shows a rate of 0.08c/decade. Is Central No. America that much cooler than the rest of the world or is there something up with the NOAA data?”
As you say, Roy may not see your post at this stage. I have not seen him around much in this thread anyway. Hope he is OK.
There is something seriously up with NOAA. They have been fudging surface data since 1990 and since that year they have discarded 90% of their ‘reporting’ surface stations (GHCN). After the IPCC reported 15 years of a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, in AR5, NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to show a trend.
It’s very well documented on this site, how NOAA and NASA GISS have accomplished the fudging.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
If you read through the entire site you will see info on NOAA, GISS, Had-crut, GHCN and NCD-C.
Once reason the sat data is lower has to do with the comprehensive coverage of the sat telemetry which covers 90% of the surface as opposed to about 15% for NOAA. For example, in California, NOAA has only three reporting stations, all near the warmer coast. In the Canadian Arctic they have one…ONE!!!…reporting station covering the entire region. NOAA does not care about colder regions, their focus is clearly on warmer stations.
The alrmists around here will try to convinceyou that the sat telemetry can only measure a 4 km thick region of the atmosphere. That’s because every one of them is totally ignorant as to how a satellite AMSU unit (telemetry) works.
Now here is what the IPCC ACTUALLY said in their AR5 report:
“The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years. … Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 19982012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 19512012.
NO flat trend was reported. Do you ever speak the truth?
Midas is obviously stupid enough to believe IPCC propaganda as being factual. Sucker!
GR: The IPCC said this.
Me: No, here is what the IPCC actually said.
Flynn/Swenson: I’m going to pretend the comments were not about what they said, and add my own drivel, irrelevant to that discussion.
Midas says he is going to keep pretending. Nothing new there.
Serious comprehension issues there on your part, Mikey.
Des, please stop trolling.
roy provides a link every month to under lying data and maps
bdg…”Im not following you. The UAH global TLT trend is +0.1367C/decade +-0.0067 which is statistically significant by a large margin”.
You can’t take the stated trend literally over the entire UAH range. It’s a number, nothing more, which includes an 18 year flat trend and before that a trend below the baseline. UAH referred to that trend as showing little or no true warming. That is an obvious reference to the occasional blip above the baseline from 1979 till about 1997.
How do you explain an 18 years flat trend within the context of a 0.13/decade trend over nearly 40 years?
Remember the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not).
The modern saying is: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.”
bdg…”ALLas in 100%of Earths heat dissipation is via radiation. It is the ONLY means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures…”
I see you have absorbed all the bs taught by your authority figures at realclimate and skepticalscience. Why should 100% of surface heat dissipation be via radiation to space?
Ever heard of the Ideal Gas Law, it equates temperature, pressure, volume, and the number of atoms/molecules in a gas? It tells us clearly that heat can be dissipated in a constant volume when the pressure drops. Guess what happens to pressure with increasing altitude?
It means heated air can dissipate heat simply by expanding. It has plenty of time to do that during the night hours when solar input is not there.
Also, the fact that the atmospheric average temperature is a theoretical 33C above what it would be without an atmosphere and oceans, suggests something has caused that average temperature to rise. What could that be, maybe the Sun? So the Sun raises the temperature of the atmosphere to 33C higher than what it could be then it “HAS TO MAINTAIN THAT TEMPERATURE”.
It cannot maintain that temperature while radiating all the input energy back to space. Sorry…but there is far more to the dynamic nature of the surface-atmosphere relationship than a simple theory of heat in = heat out. A lot of heat is retained, in the surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere.
That’s why the Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget has to create a fictitious back-radiation to balance the heat budget. They don’t even begin to understand how complex the problem is they are dealing with.
I wish DTrump a speedy recovery.
With access to the best/latest treatments, that Americans do not, I suspect he will be fine.
But I agree that
“With ready access to testing and the best public health minds at his disposal, President Donald Trump should have been the American safest from COVID-19. Instead, he flouted his own governments guidelines and helped create a false sense of invulnerability in the White House, an approach that has now failed him as it did a nation where more than 200,000 people have died.”
I sincerely hope that his supporters will learn from his experience, that fact and science denial eventually catches up too you.
Trumps got Covid? Fake news surely.
Well Adolf Trumpler is definitely the master of fake news, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
Des, please stop trolling.
Gordo wrote:
Which shows us, yet again, that Gordo has no inkling that he understands heat transfer and thermodynamics. It’s flaming obvious that any mass which continually receives some energy input but which does not simultaneously lose energy at the same rate will exhibit an increase in temperature. For the Earth, averaged over the years, the input from the Sun (minus that reflect) must be equaled by the energy emitted out to deep space. Given that the Earth is surrounded by a vacuum, the only path for this energy to leave is via thermal radiation.
Gordo is either a complete moron or is intent on spreading disinformation about science.
The troposphere is so thin that it cannot trap infrared rays near the surface in winter.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
In November, global sea surface temperature will be the lowest.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
You really should avoid using “will”. You have been wrong so many times.
How do you tell from that graph that December won’t be lower than November?
Des, please stop trolling.
The close dependence of tropospheric temperature on pressure is clearly visible in the tropics.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2019.png
You can also see that the heat radiation that is generated in the ozone production process is released into space.
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017joules of en-ergy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it. For a planet sitting in the near- vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation, which occurs primarily in the sub-range of the IR spectrum with wavelengths of 550 μm for planets with temperatures between about 50 K and 1000 K.”
Pierrehumbert, Raymond T. (2011). Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 1, 33; doi: 10.1063/1.3541943.
Ramona, where did you ever find such nonsense?
The Internet is full of trash like that. Useful idiots come across it and instantly want to believe it means something.
Do you have any idea how stupid that is? Even if you allow the violations of the laws of physics, you still have the lack of logic.
It’s like saying if you never went to the restroom, but continued to eat, for a billion years, you would weigh enough to be a planet!
Does that sound stupid?
Wanting to believe in stupid things makes people idiots.
reference provided.
It’s simple Physics.
Oh, I saw the reference. My question was more to what search words did you use? “Stupid”, “Earth too hot”, “global warming nonsense”?
And it is VERY simple physics, as in “zero” physics. If you believe in that nonsense, provide the calculations.
Then, I’ll show you all the violations of the laws.
ClintR says:My question was more to what search words did you use?
Answer: I don’t get my information from the internet; I read the paper as an assignment for a class in Atmospheric Physics several years ago.
I can’t wait to see your list of “violations of the laws” [of Physics I presume].
If you believe in that nonsense, provide the calculations.
Then, I’ll show you all the violations of the laws.
RR,
And if my bicycle had three wheels it would be a tricycle!
At night the surface radiates away all the energy it received during the day. Thats why it cools. In winter, it is radiating away more than it got the day before. Each day is colder.
Simple physics. Ray Pierrehumbert even said the atmosphere is just insulation! This esults on lower daytime temps, higher nighttime temps. Look at the Moon temps.
Dont people realise that refrigerators use insulation to keep things cold? Have the alarmists no attachment to reality?
ClintR,
Why don’t you prove that you can do the calculation.
You have already proved you don’t understand the applicable laws of physics.
folks have been evacuating the room with grade-school physics models that don’t hold to to scrutiny.
Perhaps you can go a little further?
Didn’t you up it to kindergarten level models?
So, I wouldn’t know, as I never went to kindergarten.
congratulations you said something everybody can agree upon.
FYI, Physics Today is published by the American Physical Society, with 10s of thousands of Physicists as members.
But our almost-physics-minor, Clint, thinks Physics Today is internet trash!
This is the troll who is constantly telling us we dont understand physics, which is an excellent example of projection of ones deepest flaws onto others..
Nate proves me right, again. The Internet is full of trash like his.
And Nate, since I know you will be trolling here all day, I will enjoy ignoring you.
No Snape/Doris/Ramona, your “bad” was finding/promoting nonsense you don’t understand, but just believe in. That’s exactly the behavior of cult members.
I’m still waiting to see if you can do ANY of the calculations at all. Then, I’ll show you why the physics is wrong.
Dr. Pierrehumbert’s paper is very complete, but I get the impression that you may not be able to understand any of it. My bad for not posting material that is over your head.
Dear girl, you were not able to find my relevant link. Let me help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-532922
RR,
The paper is rubbish. Pierrehumbert has no clue about the interaction between photons and matter. If you wish to believe such nonsense, be my guest. I suggest you read it again.
I’m only here to do research for a paper on science denial, but I will say that Dr. Pierrehumbert’s credentials are impeccable having taken several classes from him. He was just recently elected to the Royal Academy; what are your credentials I wonder?
Great to know you and your false god are so knowledgeable about physics, Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Perhaps you can provide the calculations for his fraudulent 800,000K.
We’ll be waiting…..
RR,
Appealing to authority? His credentials are impeccable because you were his student?
Read what I said.
You say Dr Pierrehumbert was recently elected to the Royal Academy. Maybe you might like to revise your statement. Or did you turn him into a famous artist intentionally? In any case, scientific fact is not determined by credentials or elections.
Credentials?
Galileo said ‘In matters of science the authority of a thousand isn’t worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.’
Appeal to authority on the basis of credentials isn’t science.
“Appeal to authority on the basis of credentials isnt science.”
No, but the science in this review article in a highly reputable physics journal IS science.
While ad-homs with no science content is the alternative presented by the two proven dimwit-trolls, Clint and Swenson.
There is no contest here.
Nate can’t help Snape/Doris/Ramona with the calculations, so he resorts to his usual blah-blah. They always try to cover for each other, like good little cultists.
https://royalsociety.org/people/Raymond-Pierrehumbert-25380/
blob, please stop trolling.
DUMPTY,
please stop drooling
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
” Even if you allow the violations of the laws of physics,”
huh?
I thought so!
The first clue was the fake name. The second clue was the stupid nonsense. Then we see she can’t place her comments correctly!
Welcome Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Hi g.e.r.a.n
Midas, I wish you would enlighten me as to how I impress you as much as your hero. Can you link me to any of his comments?
I wish you could enlighten me as to why you feel shame about your old identity.
Links?
oh c’mon, its bleeding obvious.
Only you and him are constantly telling people to ‘learn some physics’, while posting physics gobbledegook, such as trying to add momentum and force vectors.
Des, please stop trolling.
The ocean constitutes the largest heat reservoir in the Earth’s energy budget and so exerts the most significant influence on climate. The rate of heat uptake/release by the ocean is dependent, to a large extent, on dynamic processes controlling air-sea exchange. The exact nature of these processes is debatable; for example it is still unclear if the largest contribution of changes to ocean heat content is due to dynamic changes in the equatorial or the higher latitude oceans. The processes are thought to impact climate from decadal to century and millennium timescales. Superimposed on the overall decreasing trend since Holocene Climate Maximum (~8000 years BP) is significant multi-century variability. For example it may be that the deep Pacific is still adjusting (down) related to the cooling going into the Little Ice Age. This lag suggests that large parts of the ocean interior are not in equilibrium with the recent observed tropospheric anomaly. We have much to learn. There is good reason to suspect that the massive volume and heat capacity of the oceans will mitigate small radiative changes in the atmosphere, and that short-term tropospheric temperature anomalies can be mostly explained by dynamic variations of air-sea heat exchange.
What we do know is that the top 2000m of the ocean is taking up a large amount of heat. And a study just recently published revealed that the stratification of the ocean is increasing as well which means vertical mixing of heat and carbon is now being suppressed. That means more heat may be available for transfer to the atmosphere and the ocean’s carbon buffer capacity may be beginning to wane.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00918-2
b,
More Mann/Trenberth nonsense. Warm water floats, cold water sinks. Vertical mixing of heat? No wonder Nature has to retract so many papers!
The authors need to do a few experiments, rather than indulging in wild flights of fancy.
The authors appear to omit the possibility that the upper ocean has been gaining heat since well before the 1960s related to net cooling of the deep ocean since the the LIA. Over the period of hundreds of years changes in upper and deep ocean heat content have similar ranges, highlighting the importance of deep ocean dynamics on heat and carbon dioxide exchange at the surface.
Very astute, CAD.
Such facts and reasoning derail the Alarmist Train.
ClintR
Please notice the apostrophes.
Don’t you just hate it when you get ignored and have to request notice?
You seem to be saying you know the feeling all too well.
Trolls can’t ignore me Midas, as you so clearly demonstrate.
Swenson
[Warm water floats, cold water sinks. Vertical mixing of heat? No wonder Nature has to retract so many papers!]
Large scale vertical mixing (top square):
https://tinyurl.com/y6cjr8xx
S,
Dont be a donkey. Are you really saying that the hottest water is not on the surface? Only an alarmist would be so stupid as to post a link which contradicts him!
https://tinyurl.com/Temperature-Profiles
M,
For the same composition, the deeper you go, the colder it gets, until water reaches its maximum density, Why do alarmists persist in linking to data which confirms what I said? Are you quite mad? Maybe Trenberth has hypnotised you into thinking his missing heat is hiding in the ocean depths.
Now, tell us all again, how you get water heated by the sun to plunge into the denser, colder, water beneath.
As my diagrams show, what you say does not contradict what they say – that there is vertical mixing of heat. Saying “the deeper you go the colder it gets” goes nowhere close to contradicting that.
Midas,
There is no vertical mixing of heat. There is no heat mixing from the surface into colder layers below. Trying stupid diversions by playing with words does not alter fact. Trenberth is deluded – there is no missing heat lurking in the oceans.
At least you are all getting a bit of healthy exercise flogging a dead horse,
So now it comes down to your outright denial without even attempting a scientific explanation. I suppose the oceans don’t convect?
Midas, you witless wonder!
I assume you are referring to convection, where heat enters the ocean from the bottom, and the warmer water rises. Did you sleep during your physics classes?
You suppose the oceans dont *convect* because you are dim. Trying to put words in my mouth and asking stupid gotchas wont make anybody think you are a clever donkey – youll still look like your average alarmist jackass,
“Now, tell us all again, how you get water heated by the sun to plunge into the denser, colder, water beneath.”
By making it saltier as the heat from the Sun evaporates the water.
b,
Nope. The hot water still sits on the surface. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, diffusion ensures that salinity increases, ensuring that the hot water doesn’t sink.
Even if you force it (by pumping, say), the warm water cools to the temperature of the surrounding water, raising the temperature of the surrounding water, which now being of lower density rises until it is surrounded by water at the same temperature.
Nature is amazing, isnt it? Doesnt seem to care about credentials, education or consensus. Who knew?
Amazing how different the anomaly looks, right?
[Dont you just hate it when you get ignored and have to request notice?]
Ignored?
Actually, somebody welcomed me back before I had even posted a comment.
You’re such an idiot, Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Got those calculations finished yet?
No, because you’re an idiot.
ClintR/g.e.r.a.n and Swenson/Mike Flynn clearly studied at the same school of denial.
Dimwitted Midas doesnt accept that denying the existence of something that doesnt exist (a testable GHE hypothesis), is just common sense
He is still trying to invoke the Holocaust, just like James Hansen and his *coal trains of death*!
Midas could always try to practice a bit of science, but then he would have to face reality. He might as well keep up his trolling and idiotic gotchas. What a donkey – braying loudly, hoping someone will think he is a clever donkey, at least. Other donkeys might.
Midas, where are those calculations your false religion supports?
Where are they, Midas?
And they both respond together on cue.
Calculations?
snape…”somebody welcomed me back before I had even posted a comment”.
You’re never away, you’re always posting under a different nym.
The temperature distribution in a hurricane (in this case Teddy) shows the relationship between temperature and pressure. The temperature of the cloud tops that reach the tropopause drops to -80 degrees C, gradually dropping in the lower troposphere layers.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/01014/54k48wra2jz7.jpg
This image also shows how thin the Earth’s troposphere is. As with other planets with a dense atmosphere, the troposphere ends at a pressure of about 100 hPa.
I found something called CET and noticed that temperatures have risen 2.5C since 1700.
I guess that about says it all: its the end of the world as we know it. However, I feel fine.
Somehow I am disappointed as its not quite the conflagration we’ve been led to expect.
Exactly, Ken.
My furnace is ready to go, and I’ve got plenty of CO2-producing firewood stored.
Life goes on.
ken…”I found something called CET and noticed that temperatures have risen 2.5C since 1700″.
The Little Ice Age lasted from about 1400 to 1850. During that period, global temps were claimed to be 1C to 2C lower than normal. You 2.5C sound close to the range.
We must remember that the LIA was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period, where temps were claimed to be higher than today. Apparently the ice in Greenland melted enough to allow the Vikings to farm there.
Naturally, the global average has warmed since then but lo and behold, it is blamed on CO2, a trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. No mention from alarmists about the LIA.
During the LIA, glacier expanded in a major way and now that they are melting, wouldn’t you know the alarmists blame it on…wait for it…CO2. Sea levels would have been lowered as well and CO2 levels would have dropped since colder oceans absorb more CO2.
Gordon , what do you mean there is no mention of the LIA from “alarmists”. What are you implying that people who believe that C02 is currently raising Earths temps , ignore there was an LIA? if so your statement is total nonsense.
+1
For each US climate region, number of months (out of 120) above the 1895-2019 average, in the 1930s and 2010s.
Regions (% of US 48-state area in brackets)
1. Northwest (8) – ID, OR, WA
2. West (9) – CA, NV
3. Southwest (14) – AZ, CO, NM, UT
4. West North Central (16) – MT, NE, ND, SD, WY
5. South (19) – AR, KS, LA, MS, OK, TX
6. East North Central (8) – IA, MI, MN, WI
7. Central (10) – IL, IN, KY, MO, OH, TN, WV
8. Southeast (10) – AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA
9. Northeast (6) – CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT
10. Entire Continental USA (48 states)
Maximums:
1. 72-83 (72 months above average in 30s, 83 above average in 2010s)
2. 71-83
3. 66-93
4. 84-78
5. 79-75
6. 70-66
7. 73-67
8. 68-75
9. 73-83
—————
10. 77-86
Minimums:
1. 60-89
2. 62-96
3. 62-98
4. 70-87
5. 72-82
6. 61-88
7. 63-84
8. 63-94
9. 56-95
—————
10. 70-98
Averages:
1. 71-86
2. 66-92
3. 67-97
4. 77-78
5. 72-81
6. 68-79
7. 69-77
8. 66-86
9. 68-88
—————
10. 76-91
I might do this for other cutoffs (ie. more than 1C above average, more than 2C below average, etc.) Perhaps also other decade comparisons.
Prepared for the Robertson spiel and the Flynn/Swenson and g.e.r.a.n/ClintR vitriol.
Midas,
You obviously think you have a point, and also a clue. You seem to be singularly clueless, and your comment is pointless. Is this something to do with a GHE that you cant even describe?
Why have you ignored the other 95% of the world? Thats not very polite, is it?
Pointless and clueless, even for a not-so-bright donkey.
It’s the other 98% of the world, S4B.
And I’d be happy to include it, given that it did not experience the warmth of the US in the 1930s.
I’ll give you a chance to reconsider whether you want me to make my case so much stronger.
Midas,
Boasting about leaping to conclusions about global anything based on 2% of the globe, seems about as pointless and clueless as a donkey could get.
Are you trying to say that 98% of the world was cooler than the 2%, or not? What is the case you are going to make so much stronger? A nutcase, perhaps? Mind how you go!
“Do you really not know, or are you really that stupid?”
Midas likes to play with the data, believing he understands science. It reminds me of a little girl playing with toy pots and pans, pretending she is cooking.
Are you using the raw data or the 30-40’s data that was adjusted downward a decade ago.
https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USHCN-temperature-adjustments.png?resize=720%2C633&ssl=1
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1254147614.txt
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/03/restoring-scientific-debate-on-climate/
Graphs without data prove nothing.
Just follow the references if you want the underlying data.
midas…”So you agree the globe has warmed since the LIA.
So tell me … how does the ideal gas law prevent greenhouse warming, but not prevent this warming?”
Of course it has warmed since 1850, when the LIA ended. I did not say the IGL prevents greenhouse warming since I don’t think greenhouse warming occurs in the atmosphere. Greenhouse warming involved molecules of air being heated by conduction then trapped by glass when they try to rise. There are no glass walls or roofs in the atmosphere. In fact, as Joe Postma put it, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
The IGL gives a scientific relationship between temperature, pressure, volume and the number of atoms/molecules in a gas. The atmosphere is a gas and the IGL shows that a decrease in pressure of the gas produces a natural heat dissipation vehicle.
There you go pretending that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is what actually happens in a greenhouse. It is a NAME, nothing more.
And it has NOT warmed since 1850. It has warmed since the 1910s, which were colder than the 1850s. That is when the LIA ended.
And why not say “Of course the LIA ended in the 1910s, when greenhouse warming started to become significant”. You have no reason for the choice of causation, other than your preconceived notion that there is no greenhouse effect.
So let me ask again … how does the ideal gas law prevent the greenhouse effect, yet not prevent other warming?
Midas,
So tell us – why call the greenhouse effect the greenhouse effect if it has nothing to do with greenhouses? NASA disagrees with you. Of course, the climate dills at NASA are as deluded as you, so my question is moot.
No wonder no-one can come up with a testable hypothesis for something that cannot be described!
Keep flogging that dead horse! Do you think that putting a blanket over the corpse will bring it back to life? Have you heard of the scientific method? Give it a try.
It only became NOT a real greenhouse effect when RW Woods more than a century earlier debunked it and nobody since has been able to undo that debunking without fudging the experiment.
In a word “no”
You should try some research and try to determine whether or not Wood’s experiments have been repeated with better results or not.
Not looking good for your argument.
Remember this, repeating Gordon’s assertations without researching whether they are true or not will get you in trouble.
No I have not seen significantly different results
Bill,
Maybe you took a vacation from this site, which is admirable.
But Woods experiments have been repeated and the results were posted on this site recently.
what I have seen are a number of repetitions of Woods that didn’t come up with significant differences. But that is no longer a point of debate at the upper levels of thought on this.
Dr. Lindzen in particular has noted the necessity of a lapse rate in current thought for the purpose of creating the surface forcing.
Thus focusing on the Woods experiment is really only useful for educating those who remain uneducated. And of course the scientists concerned about CO2 aren’t interested in recognizing that Woods was right either.
There is a political cost associated with telling your supporters that they have it wrong. That tends to get them questioning the very authority they were originally believing.
Here is one for you:
The lapse rate is caused by the greenhouse effect.
Just say no!
I’ll ignore you.
blob, please stop trolling.
ramona…”For a planet sitting in the near- vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation…Pierrehumbert”.
That might be the case if you had no training in physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry. Pierrehumbert is wrong about the planet continuing to heat without a means of heat dissipation. Atoms and molecules can take only so much heat energy for a certain heat input. They don’t store it as he suggests. Clearly, Pierrehumbert does not understand quantum theory.
In order for the Earth to reach the incredible temperatures suggested by Pierrehumbert, it would require a nearby star with the means of transferring that much heat. He clearly does not understand thermodynamics, then again, none of the alarmists do.
Has Pierrehumbert ever noted that the planet is claimed to be +33C above what it would normally be in space with no atmosphere or oceans? Has it not occurred to the rocket scientist that the 33C needs to be maintained once the equilibrium temperature has been established? If you want to maintain that temperature difference you don’t want to radiate a lot of the energy to space. If you radiated away all the daily solar energy, the planet would cool. Without heat storage in the oceans and atmosphere, the planet would cool.
Why would it need to radiate a lot of energy to space? The ocean, atmosphere, surface system is part of a planet located at the ideal distance from the Sun and rotating at exactly the right speed to maintain the 33C with the same solar input. That system exchanges heat from surface to atmosphere and ocean to atmosphere. The atmosphere acts like a compressible gas, which it is, expanding while the Sun is shining and contracting while it is not.
Once the Sun has raised the global average by the alleged 33C, all it needs to do is maintain the temperature by shots of solar radiation for several hours a day. When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation.
The problem with Pierrehumbert is that he’s unable to think in more complex terms required for this kind of dynamic system.
As Robertson illustrates he believes heat is stored in electron energy states of an atom.
Does the nonsense never end.
“When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation.”
Please indicate the means of this dissipation. Is it convection, conduction or phase transition. And where does the heat go?
According to Gordon and his understanding of the Ideal Gas Law, the atmosphere expands and takes the heat with it and leaves the Earth.
Actually a whole economy has developed around the grade-school radiation model. But then again at UFO fests they sell an awful lot of aluminum foil beanies with propellers on top too.
That explains a lot, if you get your science from UFO fests.
Bobdroege – I was merely inquiring where the science is. . . .all I see is what I would expect to come out of a UFO fest.
So either put up or shut up!
Bill, you will have to ask Gordon.
Well at least you admit you don’t have it.
Crickets is a more common response
Bill,
I didn’t see you pose a scientific question.
They usually end with a “?”
Here is one
“what is a grade school-radiation model?
You will have to ask Nate. He is the one that labeled it a ”grade-school model”.
Bill,
That explains a lot.
Did you have a question about anything I have posted then?
bobdroege says:
Did you have a question about anything I have posted then?
======================================
No not anything you have posted. Just what you haven’t posted, which namely is a common place condition with all the warmists on this board and has been an issue now for over 30 years. And thats a description of how the greenhouse effect actually works to force the surface. Its not anything anybody is ready to post as the job of figuring that out has been assigned to dozens of modeling groups.
Bill,
You must have missed it then, here is what I have posted about what is the core of the greenhouse effect.
Here goes, it’s pretty simple really.
CO2 as a gas emits infrared radiation in three specific wavelengths at a rate determined by the concentration of those molecules in the gas with the required excited states. The concentration of those states being determined solely by the temperature of the gas.
Some of that radiation then reaches the ground.
Now if you increase the concentration of the CO2 gas, that above effect is increased which would be the forcing you are looking for.
So I call bullshit on you saying no one can describe the greenhouse effect.
”I often say that when you can measure what you
are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you
know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the
state of Science, whatever the matter may be.”
Lord Kelvin, 1883
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earth’s surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Sorry Bill,
Try refuting what I said instead of complaining that I didn’t give you any equations or numbers.
I am aware that I was responding to someone who can’t do numbers and equations, so I didn’t give any.
Google something like populations of excited states calculations.
I found an on-line calculator that gives the percentage of excited states.
Maybe you can do your own homework for once and try not to be such a rent seeker.
bobdroege says:
Sorry Bill,
Try refuting what I said instead of complaining that I didnt give you any equations or numbers.
I am aware that I was responding to someone who cant do numbers and equations, so I didnt give any.
==============================
My gawd what a lame excuse that is! Did the dog eat your homework?
====================
===================
bobdroege says:
Google something like populations of excited states calculations.
I found an on-line calculator that gives the percentage of excited states.
Maybe you can do your own homework for once and try not to be such a rent seeker.
=============================
thanks I wasn’t at all interested in what gases emit. What I am primarily interested in is 1) how the radiation reaches the ground; and 2) quantified reasons for why you treat radiation as the dominate and only force needed to be quantified.
Should be simple stuff for somebody who knows what they are talking about. I sure don’t know what you are talking about unless you start talking about why you think what you think.
That’s what I thought.
You want to know why I think what I think, because you don’t understand the greenhouse effect, because it has to do with the behavior of gases and you are not interested in that.
I know I am dealing with a philosopher who doesn’t understand that the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Get on the right side of that argument and I can talk to you.
Until then.
But you wonder
“1) how the radiation reaches the ground; and ”
Some goes up, some goes down, the part that goes down, unless it’s absorbed, it reaches the ground, radiation goes in straight lines for the most part.
2) quantified reasons for why you treat radiation as the dominate and only force needed to be quantified.
Because that is the only way to escape the Earth, convection and conduction don’t.
bobdroege says:
”1) how the radiation reaches the ground; and ”
Some goes up, some goes down, the part that goes down, unless its absorbed, it reaches the ground, radiation goes in straight lines for the most part.
”2) quantified reasons for why you treat radiation as the dominate and only force needed to be quantified.”
Because that is the only way to escape the Earth, convection and conduction dont.
==========================
I am not asking for the kindergarten lesson Bob. I want to see the graduate school blueprint.
Here it is:
https://tinyurl.com/y3aqyrfm
Svante says:
Here it is:
=============================
Goodness you mean I have to pay $60 to get an answer from a guy reported here as saying: ”Remember Dr Pierrehumbert said energy input so not heat, so I dont see what laws of physics would be violated.”
LMAO!!! I can see why you are so messed up on the science and bandying around kindergarten models.
It’s physics. You don’t want to know?
Ray Pierrehumbert is absolutely brilliant.
That’s why ClintR has to slander him.
Here’s a free version where he alludes to the “800 000 K”.
If you are prepared to spend six minutes on the climate issue that is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slPMD5i5Phg
Bill,
You don’t seem to be qualified for the graduate school version, try enrolling in grad school and pay the tuition.
In chemistry, physics, atmospheric sciences or some other equally appropriate curriculum, it’s a lot harder to get into than philosophy or underwater basket-weaving.
bobdroege says:
You dont seem to be qualified for the graduate school version, try enrolling in grad school and pay the tuition.
In chemistry, physics, atmospheric sciences or some other equally appropriate curriculum, its a lot harder to get into than philosophy or underwater basket-weaving.
================================
what degree did you earn that made you so proficient at arguing via ad hominems? Antifa University?
Bill,
I learned it from you most recently.
“I often say that when you can measure what you
are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you
know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the
state of Science, whatever the matter may be.
Lord Kelvin, 1883”
And others on this thread.
You are getting the idea Bob. Warming by CO2 is a quantitatively deficient theory.
Nope, that would be incorrect
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Sorry Bob but correlation is NOT causation.
Arrhenius quantified the causation in 1896.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Bill,
Not that old correlation is not causation canard, you have to do better than that.
Correlation with a mechanism makes a pretty good theory.
I already gave you the mechanism.
You didn’t understand it, that does not confront me.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
Not that old correlation is not causation canard, you have to do better than that.
Correlation with a mechanism makes a pretty good theory.
I already gave you the mechanism.
You didnt understand it, that does not confront me.
========================================
that wouldn’t pass an auditor’s scrutiny for a manufacturing company that made soda pop.
Auditor goes and looks at the books and sees the company has boasted a $3 billion increase in sales and $1 billion increase in profits. So the auditor asks to look at the sales books.
Manufacturer produces a US Commerce Department report that says the soda pop industry increased its sales by $5 billion in the past year.
Auditor says: Is that all you got in the way of books?
Happens all the time and if you don’t have an auditor you might actually think thats good evidence. A classic is a home owner in a big city who owns a home in New York. He wants to know the value of it. So he picks up the New York Times that runs a periodic column on New York housing prices and it reports that the average cost of homes sold in New York was $2,700,000 each. Home owner is now satisfied his home is worth $2,700,000.
Evidence? LMAO!!! You have a model that can’t imitate natural variation because nobody knows how it operates and so you are going to look at temperature records and confirm your theory on how much warming CO2 is going to cause?
You’re thinking here is like saying the CO2 increase is natural. We know we emit twice as much but that disappears down a hole somewhere, not sure where, and the increase is from somewhere else, not sure where but we’re sure it’s natural.
Bill gets busted using the correlation is not causation canard, and then doubles down
“Evidence? LMAO!!! You have a model that cant imitate natural variation because nobody knows how it operates and so you are going to look at temperature records and confirm your theory on how much warming CO2 is going to cause?”
with a Gish gallop of:
1) models can’t imitate natural variation canard.
and
2) nobody knows how models work canard.
but dear Bill,
you can get a reasonable estimate of how much warming you will get from comparing the CO2 record with the temperature record.
still has a lot of uncertainty, but the correlation is positive and if you are careful you can get statistical significance.
Bill,
Your irrelevant examples clearly show that your experience as an auditor has not equipped you to evaluate science.
Completely different fields.
But you think it doesnt matter. It does.
Just as I, a physicist, am not equipped to tell whether an economist or a liver doctor know what they are talking about, and I know that.
The internet has mislead many people into thinking they can easily know as much as an expert.
Check out The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols.
Nate says:
Your irrelevant examples clearly show that your experience as an auditor has not equipped you to evaluate science.
Completely different fields.
But you think it doesnt matter. It does.
Just as I, a physicist, am not equipped to tell whether an economist or a liver doctor know what they are talking about, and I know that.
The internet has mislead many people into thinking they can easily know as much as an expert.
Check out The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols.
================================
Nate if you have never worked in any of those areas how can you know their examples are irrelevant? I can freely agree that experience in a particular industry is a necessity to understand what is translatable and what is not.
But what you are ignorant of is I haven’t worked in just one industry. So on one hand I can agree you know nothing of the subject for having never been there but you can’t project your own shortcomings to someone you don’t know who has been where.
Bottom line is an auditor learns the skills to audit anything. Of course you need a couple of years experience in a field before being an auditor in charge. thus you absorb an effective demotion each time you change industries. But I have never been motivated by money so that hasn’t mattered. I have received education in philosophy, meteorology, biology, architecture, and business. I have experience in outdoors, radiant systems, finance, auditing, and policy making based on science. Other than winning a physics award and scoring above 95% of my physics peers in highschool, I have no physics education. So as auditors learn to do I rely on physics experts. And the truth is even if you are a professional you still do the same thing, or you should be.
One gets an effective demotion each time an auditor changes industry. But most of us spend most of their time on earth working. Thus I feel its more important to have a passion about your work than make more money which does you no good at all when you die.
So besides the numeric/statistical/documentation skills that come with auditing, auditors still use expert advice and there is an art to that as well which is 100% translatable from industry to industry. What you want is a variety of expert opinions. Where the opinions don’t agree you can mark down as uncertainties. Its important when you change industries to realize that experts always agree on some stuff and seldom agree on other stuff.
So I would ask you if you accept expert opinion in a balanced and intelligent way? There is obvious disagreement. Sometimes pinning down the exact nature of that disagreement is difficult but that is the challenge of the auditor has to be a journey if he is going to dispense advice. Its time consuming but very doable.
Obviously your expertise hasn’t risen to that level yet. Who are you or whom am I to decide that issue? Answer is we both aren’t.
there are far more qualified physicists out there than you or I.
But I talk about uncertainty and you talk about certainty so its clear you are ignorant of your own ignorance.
Whereas I am not. Sure I can misspeak once in a while and I have a favored viewpoint, developed from that list of experiences above but I haven’t even yet revealed what that is much less tried to promote it. I am still working on it hoping I can bring it full circle to a conclusion that can be tested and proven. I’ve done the same thing to NASA I do here and challenged their web developers to put more convincing evidence up than they have up.
If my government is going to spend trillions on solving a problem I want to know its a problem in need of a solution. I don’t buy the concern of rich environmentalist with a seaside estate worrying about ocean accretion. I have lived myself in that harm’s way almost my entire life. And it didn’t go beyond notice that the Obama’s hocked their children’s future by recently buying into such an estate with their new found wealth. Were they seriously convinced? Nope they are just laughing their way all the way to the bank.
“Bottom line is an auditor learns the skills to audit anything.”
Now that truly is cause for LMFAO.
You are the Dunning Kruger poster child, Bill.
It is the height of ignorance Bill, that your auditor experience misleads you into thinking you have the expertise to judge the validity of highly technical theory in another field, when you clearly don’t.
And, the supporting evidence is your track record in your posts. You have many many erroneous scientific claims already, that were easily attributable to ignorance.
You simply view science thru a highly ideological filter. Then you prejudge it, regardless of its validity.
Nate says:
Bottom line is an auditor learns the skills to audit anything.
Now that truly is cause for LMFAO.
You are the Dunning Kruger poster child, Bill.
It is the height of ignorance Bill, that your auditor experience misleads you into thinking you have the expertise to judge the validity of highly technical theory in another field, when you clearly dont.
================================
LMAO, you can’t resist showing how stupid you are Nate can you?
Is that denial? Yep!
In your best fake news tradition you just cut out of your quote of mine (Of course you need a couple of years experience in a field before being an auditor in charge.)
Thats how it works dude. If you change fields you go back into a form of advanced apprentice mode. Beginning apprentice mode is when you leave academia no matter the level of your degree. Apprentice mode is when you learn about the real world rather than the imaginary hypothetical worlds of academia.
Doctors go through it. Engineers go through it. Lawyers go through it. It matters not if you have Bachelor or a PhD. Of course having a PhD gives you an advanced skill set but you are still just as real world dumb as a green Bachelor degree apprentice.
After serving as a lead auditor, if you change fields you demote down to assistant lead auditor for a couple of years.
In auditing you don’t need a degree in the field you are auditing. You just need auditing know how, the math, the standards, and the experience with what you audit.
On technical issues auditors consult with independent experts.
And excellent example of how that is done can be found at climate audit.
Here you have an expert mining auditor auditing climate. He consults experts and plies his trade. His work has been recognized by the National Academy of Sciences.
A lot of people he has helped go out of their way to not acknowledge that it was his help that caused them to make corrections.
Phil Jones feared having him audit his temperature records so much he said he would destroy the evidence before handing it over to him.
Sometimes auditors aren’t liked, but only when somebody really has something to hide.
We really are nice guys.
=============================
==============================
Nate says:
And, the supporting evidence is your track record in your posts. You have many many erroneous scientific claims already, that were easily attributable to ignorance.
==============================
In your ignorant opinion of course. Try to back it up. You are too ignorant to do so.
=============================
==============================
Nate says:
You simply view science thru a highly ideological filter. Then you prejudge it, regardless of its validity.
================================
Stop projecting Nate.
“You simply view science thru a highly ideological filter. Then you prejudge it, regardless of its validity.
================================
Stop projecting Nate.”
Not at all Bill, one doesnt have to be a detective to discern the ideology in many of your posts where you liberally (Ha!) mix science in with rants about Leftists, Dems, govt regulation, govt control, socialists, etc.
It is no coincidence that these gish gallops result in the science being rejected as ‘uncertain’ or ‘leftist’.
That rejection is transparently not based on any expert review of the science that you ordered.
“On technical issues auditors consult with independent experts.”
Great. Where is your team of ‘independent experts’?
FYI, they are not found on denialist blogs.
They are rarely experts.
They often have political agendas, ie they are not independent.
Nate says:
Great. Where is your team of independent experts?
FYI, they are not found on denialist blogs.
They are rarely experts.
They often have political agendas, ie they are not independent.
================================================
Richard Lindzen
Judith Curry
William Happer
Fred Singer
Roger Revelle
Syun Akasofu
Don Easterbrook
Nir J. Shaviv
John Cristy
Roy Spencer
Are all blog denizens? Rarely experts? Not independent?
And you are relying on that? Your expert is one who acknowledges the science was not settled in 1991 and tells you because the uncontrolled experiment of the world getting warmer for 4 decades the theory must now be settled.
Nate you are a moron!
Well Bill, thats great.
Why dont you listen to them? Especially when they concur that the basic mechanism of the GHE is valid?
At least those among them who actually worked in climate science.
Among them none would agree with many of your posts on this issue such as this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537257
Because they actually understand the science.
If you dont fully understand it, fine. Don’t assume no one understands it.
Read the papers of your team of experts and become illuminated.
Nate they don’t vouch for its validity they say its plausible and the only known option.
I agree with that.
That doesn’t validate it. There is no proof of causation, there is only proof of mean existence.
If you have somebody who actually described a proof, which I have been asking for years for, the argument would be over.
Two of them, Roy and Judith Curry have talked about how the concept is pretty mushy and poorly established. It occupies the null hypothesis as its the only one not disproven. . . .so far.
Further the actual investigatory work being done by all these individuals avoids addressing that issue. So why question it.
That fact is the difference between a scientist and an auditor; and is also the difference between academic peer review and audit peer review. Audit standards establish a minimum level of effort in every area where doubt is possible and potentially material.
In the end auditors are allowed to rely on expert opinion to reach conclusions. But that is a concession necessary to make audits not overly oppressive.
The doubt about the very foundation of the greenhouse effect is at the current moment is not sufficient alone to forestall action, but larger problems are. Like how much warming will occur (where the investigatory work of all of them are currently centered) as well as the impacts that will occur, which entails decisions that only science can assist in making. Its not even conclusive that more warming isn’t sustainable. All that is is a moral imperative of the environmental movement that mankind has no rights to create change. No GMOs, no nuclear impacts, no pesticides, no herbicides, no chemical residues, no warming, no cooling, no sky coloring, no contrails, no meat, no artificial enhancements, no extinctions, no ash or soot, no guns, no profits, no personal property, no individual rights to life.
I do recognize that that list isn’t a good description of each and every environmentalist or environmental organization but the thinking is based upon the same basic premises across the board.
“Two of them, Roy and Judith Curry have talked about how the concept is pretty mushy and poorly established.”
Roy has always stated the GHE mechanism is real, exists, etc. He is trained in meteorology, and thus fully understands the lapse rate issues you have issues with.
I assume the same for Judith.
If you have quotes from her otherwise, show them to us.
Judith Curry has no apperent doubt about the GHE mechanism, as you erroneously believed.
“However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.”
However she thinks there is a gap between the public explanation of the GHE and the real models.
This is because the real models require lots of physics and math.
https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
Nate says:
Judith Curry has no apperent doubt about the GHE mechanism, as you erroneously believed.
“However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.”
However she thinks there is a gap between the public explanation of the GHE and the real models.
This is because the real models require lots of physics and math.
==========================
Thats typical of you Nate. You find an article that essentially says alternative skeptic ideas that have been laid out don’t hold up to close scrutiny. And you broaden it to ”has no apparent doubt” as to the certainty of the mainstream GHE mechanism (as if it were carved in stone like a physical law).
Nothing unusual is happening here Nate when a political organization determines an issue such as manmade climate change is worthy of billions of dollars in funding to investigate what climate scientist would not be intensely interested in participating? The answer is none. Dr. Curry has selected her role and reasonably believes that the theories laid out by the early scientists is probably the correct model. Which is fine but it hardly qualifies as scientific proof. The entire modeling exercise and you have already acknowledged it as so is for the modeling exercise to become so predictive that it can be accepted as a basis for action. Dr. Curry clearly does not think that to be the case. It remains uncertain and as long it remains uncertain the entire theory is up for grabs.
Another cocktail of scientific and political misunderstanding.
Yes, the “GHE mechanism” is “carved in stone like a physical law”.
Judith Curry is retired now but she doesn’t deny that, because that would be stupid.
Svante says:
Another cocktail of scientific and political misunderstanding.
Yes, the “GHE mechanism” is “carved in stone like a physical law”.
Judith Curry is retired now but she doesn’t deny that, because that would be stupid.
======================================
Indeed Ronald Reagan was right:
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/
From the conclusion:
”The simplified radiative forcing model that relates the tropospheric radiative flux to the surface temperature requires far too many unwarranted assumptions (my concerns with the equation ΔTs = λRF will be the subject of a future post.)
I’ve mentioned these general ideas a number of times before, including my opinion that the equation ΔTs = λRF was not carved in stone on Mount Sinai.”
Lost another argument guys. What does that make? A shutout?
Bill,
You so quickly lose focus when your posts are proven erroneous. Keep your eye on the ball.
“You find an article that essentially says alternative skeptic ideas that have been laid out don’t hold”
We were talking SPECIFICALLY about the basic GHE mechanism. On that she is absolutely clear. It is valid.
She has other issues with the IPCC. She thinks positive feedbacks are smaller. She agrees with the rest of us that there is uncertainty in the magnitude of feedbacks.
Different issues.
Nate don’t be a moron and not read what the discussion has been about here and what Dr. Curry thinks about it.
The discussion is about the assumption in climate science that the absorp-tion of radiative flux equals the change in surface temperature, before feedback.
Thats what I started discussing here, never refuted by you except by declaration. You even tried to include Dr Curry as supporting your position, and I just showed that to be a lie.
IMO, and always has been that the atmosphere is too complex for such a simplistic assumption such as that.
One more point. If that equation falls all bets are off.
“The discussion is about the assumption in climate science that the absorp-tion of radiative flux equals the change in surface temperature, before feedback.”
I dont think so, Bill. First of all ‘equals the change in surface temperature?’ makes no sense. No one is saying that.
You have mentioned feedbacks and their uncertainty. If you stuck with that, Dr. Curry could agree with you.
But instead you went all Denier on us, and into the whole thing with the GHE mechanism being uncertain, not including convection (it does), there being no way for the TOA to communicate with the surface.
She would not agree with you on any of that.
But feel free to change the subject.
“The simplified radiative forcing model that relates the tropospheric radiative flux to the surface temperature requires far too many unwarranted assumptions”
Yeah. I think that is a reasonable complaint. The magnitude of the surface temp rise should not be assumed to be the same as the TOA temp change.
But she is not denying that there will be a significant surface temperature rise.
A proper model, like GCM, is needed to evaluate the actual change. And the feedback’s need to be correct.
Nate says:
“The simplified radiative forcing model that relates the tropospheric radiative flux to the surface temperature requires far too many unwarranted assumptions”
Yeah. I think that is a reasonable complaint. The magnitude of the surface temp rise should not be assumed to be the same as the TOA temp change.
But she is not denying that there will be a significant surface temperature rise.
A proper model, like GCM, is needed to evaluate the actual change. And the feedback’s need to be correct.
==============================
Sheesh Nate I had to erase an entire page of comments on your previous assertions before I arrived here at your current comment.
Yes this is about the central equation for atmosphere capture of out outgoing IR used in models before feedbacks. Though she isn’t talking about TOA temp change. She is talking about the entrainment of additional IR into the atmosphere and how that radiatively affects the surface.
Who knows when we will know what a proper model is. Certainly not anytime soon as none are fully documented much less validated.
Until then we can use the best models we have.
They told us where we were heading forty years ago.
If you skip climate models and have zero feedback you get 1 C for a doubling of CO2, but we’re already past that for much less than a doubling.
https://cobblab.eas.gatech.edu//warming_papers/Hansen_etal_1984.pdf
Well Svante if we use your new super study and compare it to the Michael Mann hockey stick we are about 3tenths of a degree warmer than the MWP and a blistering 5 hundredths of a degree warmer than the Holocene Maximum. Expand that 5 hundreths to 100 hundredths and you will have my attention.
We are 0.8 C above the MWP if you measure from the edge of the error margin, and 1 C over the average estimate.
So this is not a LIA recovery.
By the most generous reading we are just passing through the Holocene max. The Paris agreement attempts to stop it before your “100 hundredths”, but look at the rate of warming:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Svante says:
October 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM
We are 0.8 C above the MWP if you measure from the edge of the error margin, and 1 C over the average estimate.
So this is not a LIA recovery.
By the most generous reading we are just passing through the Holocene max. The Paris agreement attempts to stop it before your 100 hundredths, but look at the rate of warming:
==================================
so you ascribe to the rot that your mates Nate and Barry just disavowed?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-532926
Natural climate does indeed go up and down.
You do have to realize though that during the Holocene max the arctic was indeed ice free. And since the official line is that entails positive feedbacks it looks like we aren’t really there yet.
Looking at the ice core temperature record for interglacials I am seeing double and even triple peaks. Also interglacials lasting up to near 50,000 years. You have to be a moron to rule all that out as a possibility. And thats not to speak of .3 tenths of a degree in the long term instrument record trend coincides with the recent El Nino cycle. That needs to play out for maybe another couple of decades.
I think its at least equally reasonable to conclude we could be in the ballpark of the Holocene max entirely due to natural variation. . . .because we do actually have a track record of that. . . .which of course CO2 theory doesn’t. The CO2 theory remains deficient in both inductive and deductive worlds of logic. Can we solve that problem? I tend to think we can but via an approach that doesn’t depend upon model predictions, historical proxies or any such stuff as that. Over funding all that stuff is just for political reasons not scientific ones.
What do you suggest if it’s not models or proxies?
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
I didn’t know the Arctic was ice free in the mid Holocene.
Do you have a scientific citation for that?
I guess there must have been less ice than today, because feedbacks had more time to settle.
Yes there are number of geologic studies that establish the arctic was ice free or virtually ice free. Among the most compelling are beaches on the shores of far northern shores that show the type of wave action erosion that can only be accomplished through wave actions generated over ranges of miles that overlap the central arctic. Others include bottom deposit studies which are less conclusive but universal in showing open ice free water during the Holocene. Those aren’t conclusive quite simply because the arctic is not yet ice free and thus there are areas yet to be sampled.
https://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf
Its a good start.
It says:
“Further north, ridges are short and sporadic, restricted to mouths of embayments and valleys, which suggests that permanent sea ice persisted throughout the Holocene at the northernmost stretch of the coast”.
You are right Svante. When I pointed that out about 10 years ago in a discussion as I recall about Mark Serreze prediction of an ice free arctic back from 2007 as occurring in about a decade; I was informed and subsequently confirmed that in climate science – ice free is determined to be less than one million square kilometers of of persistent ice.
You see the problem is these thick layers of bottom fixed ice that you find around glaciers and shorelines aren’t expected to go away in order to declare the arctic ice free so they allow for the ice extent to remain at one million square kilometers. You need to read up primarily on shoreline geologic studies to determine if the arctic ocean was, as defined, ice free. Those studies rely upon wave power. Large waves need long distances to build up to gain enough power to move big boulders and such. These event occur rarely even in open oceans because it requires massive storms and long distances for big waves to form. Its certainly not an exact science like all proxies but one should look at the data, especially data that isn’t politically controversial, though that process itself brings controversy when it rubs against political narratives. Usually it spawns a host of political science robots to search out contrary information. So keep this low profile, we don’t need more government corruption than we already have.
The data indicate that the temperature of the planets’ troposphere, with an atmosphere with a mean surface pressure well above 0.1 bar, is dependent on distance from the Sun and pressure at a certain atmosphere level.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Holmes24/publication/324599511/figure/fig1/AS:616941823750148@1524101801784/A-thermal-gradient-appears-in-all-planetary-atmospheres-10kPa-1.png
In the troposphere of planets with a dense atmosphere, there is a certain mean temperature gradient.
Heat dissipation in the troposphere is influenced by such factors as conduction, convection, and the planet’s rotation speed about its axis.
Exactly and our efforts to date to characterize that have been deficient.
Arrhenius made a pretty good estimate in 1896:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Its an impressive piece of work Svante. The challenge though is in validating the theory.
Yes, like in the paper you analyzed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/?replytocom=529975#respond
Line-by-line radiative transfer model compared with measurements.
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/#comment-530083
Yep picked up on that paper on antarctic and greenland. Sometimes the greenhouse effect works as advertised and sometimes it doesn’t.
I already had the figured out.
You asked about validation, was it good enough for you there?
Works sometimes doesn’t work others?
Thats validation? You should hear the excuses auditors hear all the time!
Please be specific, which page are you referring to?
Svante I have no idea what you are talking about. Your link says this in the conclusion i.e. cooling on the antarctic plateau:
Our findings cannot be understood as explanation of this phenomena but show remarkable similarities with the observations. . . .
Yet we showed that for the cold Antarctic continent some care needs to be taken when discussing the direct warming effect of CO2.
==================================
One might not be able to say it more delicately than that.
Your quote is taken out of context. They are talking about earlier work.
I was wondering if you were happy with their validation of radiative transfer calculations with GHE measurements by satellite?
Nice try Svante. I said it was in the conclusion and its in the first person plural.
Go ahead and don that tin foil hat with the spinner on top again.
Here’s quote with more context:
Are they talking about earlier work maybe?
No!
What do you think the word “this” refers to then, if it’s not the findings by the 3rd person plural?
Svante says:
October 13, 2020 at 4:22 PM
What do you think the word this refers to then, if its not the findings by the 3rd person plural?
=========================
By pronoun reference rules it refers to: ” slight (but statistically not significant) cooling trend for the centre of Antarctica.” found in the preceding sentence.
Instead of getting so worked up over it and playing quiz games why not just come out and say what you think>
I think it refers to the preceding sentence:
“They even found a slight (but statistically not significant) cooling trend for the centre of Antarctica.”
And “They” refers to “Chapman and Walsh [2007] and Steig et al. [2009]” in the sentence before.
Which is earlier work like I said.
Now the question I asked was if you were happy with their satellite validation method when you analyzed their paper.
I haven’t read their paper. I read the conclusion to see if it was something I should read.
this is pretty serious stuff Svante. Think seriously about it for a moment.
Your kindergarten model proposes a forcing on the surface based upon CO2 evenly distributed in the atmosphere.
Thus the forcing should be the same everywhere according to the kindergarten model. Yet you have two studies that show that the Antarctic has no warming and in fact cooling with increased CO2.
All you have do now is do what climate scientists do routinely and just extrapolate your arse off. that means there is no greenhouse effect above the Antarctic. Is that a violation of physics laws Svante?
Obviously there must be something else about this greenhouse effect we haven’t figured yet.
So you link to a study to explain this and the authors themselves disclaim it as an adequate explanation. And further add a warning to assume that the ghe is as simple as advertised.
Now I could take the time to read their study but why? I am only interested in answers with high levels of certainty. I am not interested in the study for the purpose of what most are interested in such studies that work in climate science, namely figure out how it does actually work. For somebody trying to do that that might be useful. For somebody like you what is it? Some way to feel better that there might be an explanation?
I guess that figures that if you need 3 variable that need to come together and each is about 1 chance in 3, then you add all that up and get 100%?
what it really adds up to is one chance in 27.
It’s kindergarten simple, why can you not understand?
There is no GHE without a positive lapse rate.
There is a negative GHE with a negative lapse rate.
That is because higher temperature means more radiation.
What matters is the temperature where radiation leaves for space, the temperature that you see (in IR) from space.
Higher temperature, more IR loss to space, and vice versa.
Fig. 4 gives you the global picture of the varying GHE.
Svante says:
October 15, 2020 at 8:22 AM
Its kindergarten simple, why can you not understand?
There is no GHE without a positive lapse rate.
There is a negative GHE with a negative lapse rate.
That is because higher temperature means more radiation.
What matters is the temperature where radiation leaves for space, the temperature that you see (in IR) from space.
Higher temperature, more IR loss to space, and vice versa.
==========================
Thats really interesting Svante. So the colder the atmosphere the greater the backradiation?
I will have to plug that idea into the kindergarten climate model.
That’s right, if the space interface cools everything inside of it will warm up. Back radiation is only part of the story.
There must be equilibrium at the surface, at TOA, and everywhere in between. Until we have that, temperatures will go up.
Correction: Until we have that temperatures will go up or down as they always have and always will. Fact is the problem, if its a problem, will only ever cease after we are all dead and fully rotted away.
Pretty compelling argument that you have your head in the clouds.
Yes, temperatures have always changed.
Always changed for a reason.
Today it’s a very strong reason: GHGs.
You don’t care because you are dead soon.
That’s inconsiderate and impolite.
Svante I agree temperatures change for a reason.
As we continue to work on understanding how climate changes we will get better at predicting it. We aren’t very good now when we have to after the warming has occurred go down range and move the target into the spot the bullets hit. That’s the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
We were good enough at prediction fifty years ago, and 150 years of history is telling us how it works:
https://tinyurl.com/y4ml8269
#2
Yep! We took 500 years to plumb the depths of the LIA, we should take maybe as long to climb out of it.
Some hope that though it might not take as long if you look at ice core records recoveries from glacial periods take a lot less time than the plunge into the glacial takes. It would be good to have a hypothesis that produces that pattern, but alas we don’t.
“The problem with Pierrehumbert is that he’s unable to think in more complex terms required for this kind of dynamic system.”
Evidence from just three of his many publications spanning 38 years belie your statement. To wit,
1980: The Structure and Stability of Large Vortices in an Inviscid Flow. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2010: Principles of Planetary Climate. Cambridge University Press, 652pp.
2018. Global or local pure condensible atmospheres: Importance of horizontal latent heat transport. The Astrophysical Journal 867:54
Snape/Doris/Ramona, where are your calculations for the [bogus] 800,000K?
Surely you don’t swallow nonsense just to prove you can swallow, do you?
The fact that you seem hung up on a set of basic calculations found in every textbook on Introductory Atmospheric Radiation leads me to believe that you are not yet schooled in the subject. That, combined with the ad-hominem attacks indicate you may be in middle school, maybe?
When you reach college you will be exposed to Petty’s book for example, where chapter two will walk you through the theory and the problems will provide ample opportunity to practice.
Don’t be discouraged. Keep working at it; Physics is the most rewarding of all the sciences.
Snape/Doris/Ramona, you remind me of Nate and Norman. A lot of “blah-blah”, but no substance.
Where are your calculations for the [bogus] 800,000K?
ClintR,
There is a word you need to look up in the dictionary.
The word is “if”
We’re still waiting for your calculations, Snape/Doris/Ramona.
Even IF some troll jumps in trying to distract.
ClintR,
It is a simple calculation, anyone who almost has a minor in physics ought to be able to do it.
Why don’t you do it ClintR?
Somebody that used to post here tried to calculate it before. This is their effort:
“dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume). => dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.”
…
So far we’ve got Snape/Doris/Ramona, Nate, bobdroege, Midas, and bdgwx, all accepting the 800,000K nonsense.
One stated the nonsense could be verified by “…a set of basic calculations found in every textbook on Introductory Atmospheric Radiation.”
One stated “It is a simple calculation…”
But yet, none have supplied the “simple calculation”.
I’ll be glad to show the calculation, after it’s substantially clear that none of them are capable. They can’t meaningfully support the nonsense they believe in. That’s typical cult behavior.
Thanks DREMT, now I don’t have to do it.
Let’s see IF any of the cult members can explain why it’s wrong.
ClintR says:
Dear ClintR, add me.
If you cite the whole paragraph and don’t take it out of context.
Oh yes silly Svante, we know you’ll swallow anything.
DREMT has kindly provided the calculation, now what laws of physics are violated?
Remember Dr Pierrehumbert said energy input so not heat, so I don’t see what laws of physics would be violated.
Other than the ones already violated by his statement of if the earth couldn’t get rid of the heat.
Obviously it’s a preamble to the argument that reducing the rate of cooling would result in the world warming.
I guess he’s on about “cold can not warm hot”.
Which depends on two way radiation,
which doesn’t apply “if the earth couldn’t get rid of the heat”.
It’s been long enough. If any of the idiots could recognize the problem with the bogus 800,000K, they would have said something by now.
A “thought experiment” is used frequently to make a point. It’s usually easy to understand, and has a valid purpose. The problem arises when it is used to pervert science. A thought experiment can NOT violate the laws of physics. If it does, it is invalid, bogus, and corrupt.
Pierrehumbert’s “800,000K” nonsense is an example of perverted science. He allows no energy to escape Earth. That’s impossible.
Pierrehumbert then goes on to require Earth to continue warming even after it has reached the maximum temperature for the incoming flux. That’s not how it works, and violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This garbage should never have been published, and indicates either incompetence or dishonesty of everyone involved. It’s another good example of the perversion of science happening before our eyes.
You’re funny ClintR.
A child like literalist.
If by “child like”, you mean “uncorrupted”, then that’s correct.
If by “literalist”, you mean “realist”, then that’s correct.
“He allows no energy to escape Earth. That’s impossible.”
Lots of things in lots of thought experiments are impossible.
* frictionless surfaces
* massless pulleys
* perfectly rigid objects
* perfect vacuums
* perfect blackbodies
* perfect reflectors
* wires with no resistance (at room temp)
* incompressible fluids
* ideal Carnot cycles
* ideal gases
* perfectly insulated containers
The concept of a perfectly insulated containers that allow no heat to escape is hardly more extreme or perverted that any of the other idealizations listed. Pretty much every calorimetry problem in freshman physics, engineering, or chemistry makes this assumption.
“Pierrehumbert then goes on to require Earth to continue warming even after it has reached the maximum temperature for the incoming flux. “
That is actually not 100% clear in original article. (https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf)
In one interpretation, the energy is sunlight. In another interpretation, the energy merely needs to be 1.22 x 10^17 J. It is perfectly possible to interpret the sentence to merely mean an amount of energy, in which case there is no ‘temperature for the incoming flux’ to compare with.
**********************
Look, I agree it is a kind of silly calculation, taken to a silly extreme. I would have preferred 800K in 1 million years to 800,000K in 1 billion years. That would have side-stepped issues like “hotter then the incoming sunlight” or “any mirror would melt” while still making the point that the earth would quickly become uninhabitable.
Tim, that’s a lot of “blah-blah” trying to defend nonsense.
bobdroege says:
Remember Dr Pierrehumbert said energy input so not heat, so I dont see what laws of physics would be violated.
=========================
Criminy! With that exception you could toss the entire 2nd law.
Yes, the 2nd law applies to heat, not its one-way components.
Hmmmm, I can see how that would work for a surface at 0k
Yes, the equation has only on term then instead of two.
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
Svante says:
Yes, the equation has only on term then instead of two.
q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
==========================
Gee Svante everytime I fill in the terms and the second term is smaller than the first the heat flows from hot to cold.
If I switch the terms and fill them in the heat still runs from heat to cold.
What am I missing???? A lobotomy?
Maybe we could make some progress if we get past the abstract of the paper?
sorry Bob but the Stefan Boltzmann law is the conclusion of the paper. You can check beyond the abstract of it if you wish but a lot of us already have.
One correction to the above. The Stefan Boltzmann law does not include the emissivity variable because of the difficulties of properly presenting that variable in a simple manner.
Bill,
That statement would be incorrect.
The Stephan-Boltzman law does not include emissivity because it is for black-bodies, which are perfectly emitting and perfectly abbysorbbing.
Bill go ahead and reread the paper, as you are wrong.
If this
“sorry Bob but the Stefan Boltzmann law is the conclusion of the paper. You can check beyond the abstract of it if you wish but a lot of us already have.”
was true the paper would not have advanced science any and it might not have been published.
The conclusion of the paper is a little more than that.
bobdroege says:
That statement would be incorrect.
The Stephan-Boltzman law does not include emissivity because it is for black-bodies, which are perfectly emitting and perfectly abbysorbbing.
=================================
Take off your sunglasses Bob thats what I said: Svante posted the formula with the emissivity factor in place. q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah
I made my first post then noticed he had the emissivity factor in the equation so I made a second post that said:
“One correction to the above. The Stefan Boltzmann law does not include the emissivity variable because of the difficulties of properly presenting that variable in a simple manner.”
Not only is that the Stefan Boltzmann law without the emissivity factor but it would indeed be a blackbody calculation because blackbody emissivity is 1.0
The emissivity factor should always be used in a real world problem because there is no such thing at least in our part of the universe of something being a perfect blackbody.
Gordo continues spewing his delusional physics, writing:
Gordo never offers an basis from physics to explain how his atmosphere “dissipates” it’s thermal energy at night. The only mode of “dissipation” for the atmosphere is radiation heat transfer to deep space because there’s no convection or conduction possible in a vacuum. And, the outgoing thermal radiation also happens during daylight hours as well.
Gordo needs to learn some physics, or quit trolling a science oriented group. That’s not likely, as he’s been so wrong for so long that he must have some ulterior motive for his moronic posts.
As a result of convection, warm air rises, where the pressure drops and the gas increases in volume. The temperature must drop. Atmospheric layers above the globe increase the volume of air with increasing .
Temperature in the tropopause above the equator drops to -80 degrees C, and above the poles to -60 degrees, and in winter to -70 degrees C.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2020.png
The Earth’s stratosphere can be an example of a thin atmosphere in which the pressure drops below 0.1 bar (as is the case on Mars). In such an atmosphere, heat is only dissipated by electromagnetic radiation.
“The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to the density found 35 km above the Earth’s surface.”
swannie…”Gordo never offers an basis from physics to explain how his atmosphere dissipates its thermal energy at night”.
I explained it. During the day, the atmosphere expands as it warms. At night, it contracts and cools.
Charles’ Law from the Ideal Gas Law, V1/T1 = V2/T2.
As Foghorn Leghorn would often say to Henry the Chicken Hawk, “you’re built too close, I say boy, you’re built to close to the ground, went way over your head”.
Gordo repeats his moronic delusion, writing:
Yes, the atmosphere is a mixture of gasses which expands when it is warmed and contracts as it cools. The cooling is the cause of the contraction. In your delusional physics, you have got the cause and effect backwards and are ignoring the process of cooling, i.e., the loss of energy to deep space. And, the fact is, that energy loss can only occur via thermal radiation heat transfer.
Old Foghorn was a funny critter who could barely fly (perhaps made worse by his excess weight), telling a hawk who could soar high above about being “over your head” in understanding.
Gordon says: “During the day, the atmosphere expands as it warms. At night, it contracts and cools.”
To reiterate what E. Swanson said, these sentences muddle cause and effect. It ought read:
During the day the atmosphere absorbs more energy than it emits, causing it to warm and therefore expand.
During the night the atmosphere emits more energy than it absorbs, causing it to cool and therefore contract.
It is always energy change -> temperature change -> volume change for earth’s atmosphere.
The atmosphere absorbs energy from sunlight and from the warmer surface.
The atmosphere emits energy to deep space. (And occasionally a bit the surface when there is a temperature inversion).
Without the emission to space, there is no energy loss, there is no cooling, and there is no subsequent contraction at night.
E. Swanson says:
Gordo continues spewing his delusional physics, writing:
The atmosphere acts like a compressible gas, which it is, expanding while the Sun is shining and contracting while it is not.
When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation.
Gordo never offers an basis from physics to explain how his atmosphere dissipates its thermal energy at night.
==============================
Sure thing Swanson go ahead and make fun of somebody for not understanding how the system works. But please avoid the strawmen.
We all know that TOA radiation is in part how the earth cools. The question at hand isn’t that its how those free floating gases at TOA actually exact a rigid insulation like forcing all the way back down to the surface.
We are already to hear the take on that that convinced you. So prove right now you aren’t a total boob.
“[the question at hand is] how those free floating gases at TOA actually exact a rigid insulation like forcing all the way back down to the surface.”
It’s not a ‘rigid’ forcing, but there is a simple-to-explain connection.
* The CO2 at the TOA is what emits IR in the 15 um band to space.
* The more CO2, the higher the altitude of the TOA.
* The higher the TOA, the cooler it is.
* The cooler it is, the less IR energy emitted to space in the 15 um band.
* The less emitted @ 15 um, the more must be emitted at other wavelengths to achieve a steady-state.
* the more emitted at other wavelengths, the warmer those surface would have to be.
It’s all related to that most fundamental of principles, Conservation of Energy.
Tim Folkerts says:
Its not a rigid forcing, but there is a simple-to-explain connection.
* The more CO2, the higher the altitude of the TOA.
* The higher the TOA, the cooler it is.
* The cooler it is, the less IR energy emitted to space in the 15 um band.
* The less emitted @ 15 um, the more must be emitted at other wavelengths to achieve a steady-state.
* the more emitted at other wavelengths, the warmer those surface would have to be.
Its all related to that most fundamental of principles, Conservation of Energy.
============================
I have no problem with that simple explanation of a steady state lapse rate.
That’s the basis of insulated window physics.
So the theory is that CO2 raises the height of the troposphere in order to insert additional layers is that correct?
Tim,
There is no forcing, rigid or flexible. You are confusing fantasy with forcing.
So –
Anything at about 193 K radiates IR in the 15 um band. Doesnt matter if its on the surface or elsewhere.
The height of the top of the atmosphere does not depend on CO2 in the atmosphere. Please dont tell me that TOA really means something else than Top Of Atmosphere! The alarmist use of redefinitions gets more bizarre each day.
You are talking gibberish as usual. CO2, like anything else, radiates photons whose wavelengths are proportional to its temperature. No spectrometry or excitation involved here.
Go away, learn some real science, and come back.
Swenson says: “Please don’t tell me that TOA really means something else than Top Of Atmosphere! ”
Let me clarify. I should have said something more like “the CO2 that is detected when we look down from above the atmosphere”. So let me try again, with slightly different wording (but the same conclusion).
* When looking down from outside the atmosphere, the 15 um IR that is observed comes from CO2.
* The more CO2, the higher the altitude from which that 15 um IR comes.
* The higher the altitude, the cooler that CO2 is.
* The cooler it is, the less IR energy emitted to space in the 15 um band.
* The less emitted @ 15 um, the more must be emitted at other wavelengths to achieve a steady-state.
******************************************
“Anything at about 193 K radiates IR in the 15 um band. “
This hints at some serious misconceptions. What you seem to be referring to is the fact that a blackbody at about 193 K radiates most strongly in the 15 um band. This is knows as “Wien’s Law”.
But …
1) Objects at other temperatures (both warmer and cooler) also radiate in this band. In fact, a blackbody at higher temperatures will radiate MORE in this band than a 193 K object.
2) Non-black bodies radiate differently. For example, a ball of CO2 at any 193 K radiates a lot of IR near 15 um, as does a ball of ice. However, a ball of N2 at 193 K radiates essentially zero IR in the 15 um band, and a ball of polished silver also would radiate poorly near 15 um.
Tim Folkerts says: Crickets!
Tim,
As I said – *Anything at about 193 K radiates IR in the 15 um band. Doesnt matter if its on the surface or elsewhere.*
You agree. Good.
B Hunter wrote:
You missed the point I made about Gordo’s delusional physics. Read back up the thread. He clearly doesn’t understand that the Earth emits thermal IR radiation to deep space.
What convinced me you ask? How about reading several texts on atmospheric radiation heat transfer, and that after earning 2 degrees in ME. The atmosphere tends to be stratified in layers and I think models built using multiple layers should do a good job of representing reality. Then, one must understand that the GHG molecules radiate in all directions and emissions within a layer would tend to be absorbed again within that layer, so the net effect is that the IR in each layer at any GHG wavelength emits with the same intensity downward as upward. Compounded over many layers and the surface would be warmer than without those GHG’s.
Sorry, I see no need to “prove” anything for you. You gotta figure it out for yourself.
OK so lets assume thats correct. So in effect the ”convection adjustment” is a slowing of convection by slowing TOA cooling.
We also have a more rapidly warming polar region (eventually for antarctica too) that reduces the movement of polar to equator convection loops.
thus things like wind shear are also reduced. Now how do we end up with more hurricanes? Tornadoes? etc.
B Hunter, I think it’s more complicated than you suggest.
Warming in the tropics appears as a measured increase in the pressure height of the tropopause, since there’s more convection as the radiation energy loss from the surface to to deep space is reduced. The vertical convection would be strengthened as the surface layers would become less dense due to the addition of more water vapor, which has a lower density than the N2+O2 mixture.
I expect that the stronger vertical convection would result in stronger storm systems, both in the tropics and the mid-latitudes. Winter air mass movement from the tropics to the polar regions would also strengthen, leading to more intense weather at the boundaries between the warm and cold air masses. Remember that the tropics are in surplus, i.e., more solar energy arrives than thermal IR leaves above TOA and the poles are in deficit, the deficit being satisfied by tropic to pole energy movement via convective mass transfer. This may explain the data which shows greater warming during the polar winter than summer, even though the snow/sea-ice/ocean albedo feedback is strongest in summer.
Or, as I’ve pointed out, this difference between polar seasonal temperature change, particularly that reported by the UAH data, may be incorrect due to the influence of the reported decline in melt season sea-ice area.
But, hey, what do I know, I’m no professional PhD career guy.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, I think its more complicated than you suggest.
==============================
I haven’t suggested a mechanism. I was pointing out claimed effects of upper layers reducing radiation to space and the observed and warmist explained more rapid warming of the colder regions of the earth relative to the warmer ones. And both of those suggest less convection.
And yes to correct for it there would need to be more convection at least at TOA, but not necessarily cross latitude.
In fact while typing that the actual melting of the arctic allowing more heat from the oceans into the atmosphere via stripping of the ice insulation barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean, would suppress equatorial convection also perhaps accounting for the entire globe warming. Said to be a feedback but is it?
But thats a distraction. Something to keep in mind.
E. Swanson says: (parens my comments)
”Warming in the tropics appears as a measured increase in the pressure height of the tropopause, (wouldn’t that be expected in a warming world?).”
”since theres more convection as the radiation energy loss from the surface to to deep space is reduced. (my current understanding is that convection is restricted leading to surface warming and to correct convection will return to its original value)”
”The vertical convection would be strengthened as the surface layers would become less dense due to the addition of more water vapor, which has a lower density than the N2+O2 mixture.(isn’t this the hypothesized return of convection that was restricted by a lack of cooling at TOA?)”
”I expect that the stronger vertical convection would result in stronger storm systems, both in the tropics and the mid-latitudes. (stronger than the suppressed convection value? Yes! stronger than the original value, no!)”
”Winter air mass movement from the tropics to the polar regions would also strengthen, leading to more intense weather at the boundaries between the warm and cold air masses. (huh? storms come out of the arctic, not vice versa because the big convection loops deliver high level air above the poles that then cool and descend to the surface pushing surface air south. The restriction of convection at TOA is slowing that process down not speeding it up, you need another mechanism)”
”Remember that the tropics are in surplus, i.e., more solar energy arrives than thermal IR leaves above TOA and the poles are in deficit, the deficit being satisfied by tropic to pole energy movement via convective mass transfer. This may explain the data which shows greater warming during the polar winter than summer, even though the snow/sea-ice/ocean albedo feedback is strongest in summer. (this fact tells me that since emissivity equals absorp-tion per Kirschoff’s law that if the polar region is default a heat loser that when you lower the emissivity it becomes a bigger heat loser via heat loss being proportionally bigger than heat gain. This seems to be potentially part of an iris-like effect of warming)”
”Or, as Ive pointed out, this difference between polar seasonal temperature change, particularly that reported by the UAH data, may be incorrect due to the influence of the reported decline in melt season sea-ice area. (well I imagine it still beats to a pulp then any claim toward more accuracy achieved by extrapolating land station temperatures over the polar seas out to about 1500km!! and then kriging in the remaining holes)”
”But, hey, what do I know, Im no professional PhD career guy.(yep!)”
b hunter, there’s much in your post to which I disagree. To begin with, you mention”TOA”, but you appear to be thinking about the tropopause, which is a way below TOA, i.e., outside most of the atmosphere where satellites operate.
Then you write: “.. my current understanding is that convection is restricted leading to surface warming..”, which I’ve not heard of. It should be obvious that increasing the water vapor content at the bottom of the atmosphere would result in stronger vertical convection. Perhaps you could provide a reference?
Continuing, you wrote: “huh? storms come out of the arctic, not vice versa because the big convection loops deliver high level air above the poles that then cool and descend to the surface pushing surface air south.”. In the mid-latitudes, such as the US, the storms form along the boundaries between the polar flowing warm air masses and the returning cold air. The cold, dense air flows below the warmer air, forcing the warm air to rise resulting in precipitation as the moisture condenses. Both air masses exhibit rotation in a clockwise direction due to the Coriolis Effect and at the frontal boundaries, there’s a change in wind direction, which tends to spin up storms. In Winter, the storms which form in the North Pacific roll onto the west coast and progress across the US.
Then you wrote: “this fact tells me that since emissivity equals absorp-tion per Kirschoff’s law that if the polar region is default a heat loser that when you lower the emissivity it becomes a bigger heat loser via heat loss being proportionally bigger than heat gain.” You are focusing only on surface emissions while ignoring the atmospheric emissions. And, the snow/ice albedo effect applies only to solar energy, not thermal IR emissions. Besides, over the Arctic Ocean in the summer melt season, there is frequent cloud cover and thus the out going emissions tend to originate from the clouds, not the surface.
Regarding the UAH data over the Arctic, they are useful for short term weather forecasts, but may not provide an accurate picture of the longer term trends, in which is what we are most interested.
Mental models are fun, but, as we all know, they aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
b hunter, You may think this piece from CBS last night as too alarmist, but it’s still of great importance to those impacted. And, HERE’s some additional Twitter comments.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, theres much in your post to which I disagree. To begin with, you mentionTOA, but you appear to be thinking about the tropopause, which is a way below TOA, i.e., outside most of the atmosphere where satellites operate.
=========================================
I am using TOA as intended in the study of the radiation as measured from satellites. You are just confused over the fictional descriptions of CO2 doing something, still to be specified, at the top of the troposphere
======================
========================
Swanson says:
Then you write: .. my current understanding is that convection is restricted leading to surface warming..,
===================
All I am doing here is using the only reference so far supplied to me by Nate for evidence that convection didn’t override the forcing of new undescribed layers at the top of the troposphere. Its possible I got what a convection adjustment wrong because I didn’t spend much time reading the paper as its merely a hypothesis based upon some ‘assumptions’ about steady state lapse rates.
But if you disagree with that we are on the same page. What I would be interested in rather than you arguing point by point is that you provide the study you use to describe how the multi-layered GHE operates then I can make some comments better tailored to your viewpoint.
=====================
====================
Swanson says:
which Ive not heard of. It should be obvious that increasing the water vapor content at the bottom of the atmosphere would result in stronger vertical convection. Perhaps you could provide a reference?
======================
You are jumping ahead of the discussion Swanson to a surface forcing.
It gets a bit confusing because I can acknowledge continued leakage of CO2 bandwidth to space on the shoulders of a single layer near TOA single layer model that additional CO2 could fill.
The only thing I am issuing challenges for evidence is that the idea of multiple radiation exchanges in the atmosphere results in a greater forcing at the surface.
So I am accepting a single bite at the apple theory and challenging people to provide evidence that multiple bites can be taken.
=======================
======================
Swanson says:
Continuing, you wrote: huh? storms come out of the arctic, not vice versa because the big convection loops deliver high level air above the poles that then cool and descend to the surface pushing surface air south..
In the mid-latitudes, blah blah blah
========================
See above. . . .wrong page.
=========================
=======================
Swanson says:
Then you wrote: this fact tells me that since emissivity equals absorp-tion per Kirschoff’s law that if the polar region is default a heat loser that when you lower(correct to raise) the emissivity it becomes a bigger heat loser via heat loss being proportionally bigger than heat gain. You are focusing only on surface emissions while ignoring the atmospheric emissions. And, the snow/ice albedo effect applies only to solar energy, not thermal IR emissions. Besides, over the Arctic Ocean in the summer melt season, there is frequent cloud cover and thus the out going emissions tend to originate from the clouds, not the surface.
==========================
OK so you have an argument. But keep in mind that the process of forming clouds is by far the largest means of net transfer of energy from the surface into the atmosphere accounting for atmosphere emissions to space on a global basis. . . .per Trenberth and Kiehl 2009
========================
=======================
Swanson says:
Regarding the UAH data over the Arctic, they are useful for short term weather forecasts, but may not provide an accurate picture of the longer term trends, in which is what we are most interested.
Mental models are fun, but, as we all know, they arent worth the paper they are written on.
=======================
Golly Swanson how do you account for not being a skeptic then?
b hunter wrote:
You previously wrote: “And yes to correct for it there would need to be more convection at least at TOA, but not necessarily cross latitude.” Most of the vertical convection is in the troposphere and there’s little in the stratosphere above, which is the reason I mentioned TOA. Your assertion of “fictional descriptions” is just an assertion of your political world view.
You continue: “I am doing here is using the only reference so far supplied to me by Nate”. I don’t read everything posted on the blog and so that’s why I requested a reference.
Lastly, you ask: “Golly Swanson how do you account for not being a skeptic then?” Surely you understand that all true scientists are skeptics. Without questioning the conventional wisdom, there would be no scientific progress. So, I’m skeptical about the validity of the UAH LT product for assessing temperature trends.
You said mental models aren’t worth the paper they are written on. so that includes the greenhouse effect. We know there is a greenhouse effect, we can measure it and compare it to other principles like Stefan Boltzmann equations we have established as correct.
But when it comes to explaining it its all mental models.
And I don’t see how that relates to UAH temperature record. Reading temperatures with IR equipment is a well documented and correlated process. Not sure what the mental model part is.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, You may think
=====================================
Mostly I avoid formulating my opinions based upon 15 second media soundbites on every topic probably especially science.
b hunter wrote:
The Greenhouse Effect theory is based on mathematical models, which are subject to verification by comparison the model(s) to actual atmospheric measurements.
Then you wrote:
Perhaps you haven’t noticed the claims, going back several years, about whether the S-B equations (which include back radiation from a cooler body to a warmer one) are incorrect.
And then you wrote;
And I don’t see how that relates to UAH temperature record. Reading temperatures with IR equipment is a well documented and correlated process.
You are making the same mistake that Ol’ William Happer made in Congressional testimony.
The MSU/AMSU instruments don’t measure IR “temperature”, like that from a hand held IR thermometer. They measure microwave intensity in a narrow bandwidth, which is the result of emission/absorp_tion from the ground to the instrument orbiting above TOA, then compare that measurement to that from a heated target at known temperature and a scan of deep space. The instruments scan side-to-side across the ground track, with the middle being downward at nadir and the end scan positions viewing near the “limb” of the Earth. Each scan position “sees” a different peak emission altitude, but all are weighted averages over a range of pressure altitudes. S&C take these measurements from each scan swath and combine them using a theoretical math model to create their MT, TP and LS data series. They then combine these three using another theoretical model to create the LT product which we all enjoy each month.
BTW, speaking of where you get your scientific information, you still haven’t given your reference to Nate’s source.
E. Swanson says:
The Greenhouse Effect theory is based on mathematical models, which are subject to verification by comparison the model(s) to actual atmospheric measurements.
==============================
All you are saying there Swanson is climate varies and people pretend to have mathematical models to explain it all. . . .except that those models don’t explain it. Perhaps you need a few lessons in the scientific method, control of experiments, statistics, and the validity of apriori assumptions such as is there really a GHE. Its easy to beg the question in an argument and its far too much easier to do it in a mathematical model than it is in a philosophical model, and that’s because philosophical models inspect all the various assumptions in a language everybody can understand. . . .whereas highly trained numerically focused determinists often fail to do.
======================
========================
========================
E. Swanson says:
compare it to other principles like Stefan Boltzmann equations we have established as correct.
Perhaps you havent noticed the claims, going back several years, about whether the S-B equations (which include back radiation from a cooler body to a warmer one) are incorrect.
===================
Yes but in an atmosphere I think backradiation doesn’t matter.
Backradiation in window technology is routinely ignored and test results show it doesn’t matter. If those tests are too inaccurate is a possibility but thats why I would like to see a bigger test that demonstrates that fact. It seems to me the null hypothesis should be no, backradiation does not matter.
Intuitively I think it does matter in a vacuum but actually I would like to see that established via carefully measured testing in a vacuum environment. . . which may have already been done just that I haven’t seen the tests. Shouldn’t be a hard test to do getting good vacuums at sea level is a challenging job but perfect isn’t all that necessary.
=======================
======================
======================
E. Swanson says:
And then you wrote;
And I don’t see how that relates to UAH temperature record. Reading temperatures with IR equipment is a well documented and correlated process.
You are making the same mistake that Ol William Happer made in Congressional testimony.
The MSU/AMSU instruments dont measure IR temperature, like that from a hand held IR thermometer. They measure microwave intensity in a narrow bandwidth, which is the result of emission/absorp_tion from the ground to the instrument orbiting above TOA, then compare that measurement to that from a heated target at known temperature and a scan of deep space. The instruments scan side-to-side across the ground track, with the middle being downward at nadir and the end scan positions viewing near the limb of the Earth. Each scan position sees a different peak emission altitude, but all are weighted averages over a range of pressure altitudes. S&C take these measurements from each scan swath and combine them using a theoretical math model to create their MT, TP and LS data series. They then combine these three using another theoretical model to create the LT product which we all enjoy each month.
===========================
LMAO, Ol William Happer. Come on Swanson Happer is incredibly well qualified to talk about those matters. You are embarrassingly wrong in criticizing his use of IR. Here is the key definition:
”The infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum covers the range from roughly 300 GHz to 400 THz (1 mm 750 nm). It can be divided into three parts: Far-infrared, from 300 GHz to 30 THz (1 mm 10 μm). The lower part of this range may also be called microwaves or terahertz waves.”
Beyond that weirdo criticism, which actually is a big negative to your case; the UAH methodology is so superior from a sampling point of view to the surface record its almost a joke. From an accuracy point of view the surface record is constantly undergoing adjustments for non-heterogeneous sampling techniques – – -using not a whole lot more than a divining rod with the assumption that station managers are morons as a guide. I could go on and on about problems with assumptions about buckets, engine intakes (actually have worked on a few boats), XBTs, ARGO corrections, time of day, and probably a few more I have forgotten. I have years of sample design experience that is connected to the kind of industries I have worked in over the past 35 years as a consultant. Give me any sampling design and its like the doctor hit my knee reflex muscle and I have a list of items to look more closely at. This is the entire problem with proxies, especially in the area of bias which is endemic to everything political. Microwave scanning of the surface I am sure has a few flaws in coverage of spherical object but they are teensy weensy compared to surface temperature station coverage.
Its actually ridiculous to consider anything but, IMO. But we are stuck with surface station data before 1980 and I love for archaic projects to continue to provide coverage for the sake of consistency even if I really can’t make a really good argument for why. I use satellite data regularly both professionally and recreationally. It is ridiculously superior to what I used when I first started with such data some 50 years ago.
I suspect that if you personally had a real world application for the use of the data you would quickly grow to understand that.
BTW, speaking of where you get your scientific information, you still havent given your reference to Nates source.
b hunter, you wrote:
I’ve worked with dynamic models on several occasions and found them very useful for, example, in satellite control systems design and railroad accident reconstruction. Other engineering applications for models, such as finite element models for load calculations, are common. AIUI, the models used for climate projections are similar to weather models, except that they must be run with longer time steps because of computational constraints. The climate models don’t “explain” anything, they just simulate things, given a set of assumptions.
Regarding back radiation, you wrote:
Been there and done that. Perhaps you haven’t noticed the discussion over the past few years about the Green Plate Effect and my back radiation experiments.
You continued:
OF course, you haven’t a clue about the details of the UAH product, so you resort to an ad hominem putdown and a long digression about your experience, completely ignoring what I wrote about the UAH products. Then, you wrote
.
Allow me to point out that “using” satellite data (probably the weather visualizations from synchronous orbit) and understanding how it’s produced and the science behind it are very different. I certainly do understand the great advances in information available from satellites, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to the MSU/AMSU and follow on instruments.
Lastly, you seem to think that I know Nate’s source, when it was I who first asked you for that reference to support your claim.
E. Swanson says:
I’ve worked with dynamic models on several occasions and found them very useful
========================
Nobody said they can’t be useful Swanson. Its just their use in trying to figure out how the greenhouse effect exacts a surface forcing to create a greenhouse effect isn’t like to succeed for at least two reasons, one of which might doom it to failure and the other all but certain to doom it to failure.
There only use is to try to scare people. Dr. Lindzen knows it and has called them out on it. I know it because I have worked with sophisticated models where you can’t test outcomes or control variables. The models I have worked on are much more complicated, namely natural systems as opposed to engineered systems you have worked on.
=====================
=====================
E. Swanson says:
Been there and done that. Perhaps you haven’t noticed the discussion over the past few years about the Green Plate Effect and my back radiation experiments.
========================
I am not disputing, per se, a simple non-forcing single layer greenhouse effect. The green plate effects I have seen are next to irrelevant in speaking about what is defined as the earth’s greenhouse effect.
==================
==================
E. Swanson says:
OF course, you haven’t a clue about the details of the UAH product, so you resort to an ad hominem putdown and a long digression about your experience, completely ignoring what I wrote about the UAH products.
=====================
1) I did mock you mocking the extremely esteemed Prof Happer for saying MW frequencies were IR. They are! Have you still not figured that out?
2) Perhaps I missed something significant in what you said about UAH but everything you said about it didn’t seem to me anything I should be concerned about. I haven’t audited their model but it doesn’t appear to me you did either as you simply talked essentially about ”concerns” and didn’t reveal an found ”error”. I have little doubt if you found something you could actually express in words and numbers Roy and John would be interested in what you had to say. My comments on the satellite data ACROSS THE BOARD is 1) the amount of data; 2) the consistency of the data; 3) the detail of the data; 4) the completeness of the data; 4) the accuracy of the data. Having that data and the knowledge of atmosphere, the relationship of brightness to temperature. . . .how can you go wrong? These are the data paradigms you pray for. And you make a post oh gee they use a theoretical model here and there. You need to be a lot more specific than that.
==================
==================
E. Swanson says:
Allow me to point out that “using” satellite data (probably the weather visualizations from synchronous orbit) and understanding how it’s produced and the science behind it are very different. I certainly do understand the great advances in information available from satellites, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to the MSU/AMSU and follow on instruments.
======================
I suppose an apprentice auditor on one of his first couple or three audit assignments probably could get away with a comment like that as the summation of his work product in a specific area. But he would have to quickly fix it to last through his probationary period. Thats not an ad hominem, that’s just a fact. I am not impressed. Perhaps you have more to say and can actually verbalize a real concern.
b hunter, the models I worked with were of necessity limited in complexity, given the available computational capabilities of the day. Much has changed since my time working on a UNIVAC 1108 with 56 K of memory.
You wrote:
The same S-B physics of back radiation also works with multi-layer insulation, even for materials of high emissivity.
Regarding the UAH products, you wrote:
See my 2017 paper HERE and my updated version HERE.
You wrote:
See previous links.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, the models I worked with were of necessity limited in complexity, given the available computational capabilities of the day. Much has changed since my time working on a UNIVAC 1108 with 56 K of memory.
=========================
I started around there first bringing the first military personnel records online in the early 60’s, studying programming in the late 60’s, then in the early 80’s started doing modeling on a 500somethingkb Compaq portable PC.
===================
==================
E. Swanson says:
I am not disputing, per se, a simple non-forcing single layer greenhouse effect.
The same S-B physics of back radiation also works with multi-layer insulation, even for materials of high emissivity.
=====================
Indeed I am aware of multi-layered insulation models with physical solid materials in place to impede convection.
======================
=====================
E. Swanson says:
Regarding the UAH products, you wrote:
I havent audited their model but it doesnt appear to me you did either as you simply talked essentially about concerns and didnt reveal an found error.
See my 2017 paper HERE and my updated version HERE.
================================
I glanced at your paper and it seems interesting. In fact part of your key finding was on the emissivity of water. I actually posed that question to Dr. Trenberth because he uses an emissivity 1.0 for the entire earth’s surface for his radiation budget. I understand that to be impossible having a few years seatime under by belt and have had to deal with water reflectivity constantly. Dr Trenbert provided me with some papers to support his position. After reading them they strongly supported a lower emissivity for water than 1.0 some significantly lower (I didn’t inquire about ice though). So rather amazed that Trenberth gave me supporting science contrary to what he was using I got back in touch with him and he merely said he didn’t believe the papers he gave me.
Go figure!
Let me take a shot at this.
OK, this concept of work being employed from rising air is a bit of a misnomer. The reason is the total potential energy in the atmosphere never changes. And since it never changes there is zero work for convection to occur, instead convection is simply a process of diffusion that is always unstable (from the standpoint as a mean value) because of TOA cooling.
And since no work has to occur this diffusion has no limits on how rapidly it will overturn air and via this overturning of air evaporation is accelerated creating an additional greenhouse effect over land and accounting for feedback.
So really the only issue is the additional layering of CO2 within the troposphere having an effect. But thats where I become skeptical because the top of the troposphere seems defined by the upper limit of condensable water and with no work involved in potential energy the lapse rate won’t additionally destabilize.
So the problem seems to be evidence that CO2 can cause water to rise into colder zones of the atmosphere and what does it look like up there in regards to saturation in the CO2 bands.
It must not be too good or folks wouldn’t be talking about multi-layered gas insulation models, but it seems rather complicated how that kind of model would fit into a diffusing gas environment. All I know is such an environment in the study of insulating windows one can completely ignore radiation effects and simply calculate the gas diffusion effects.
Please if you have comments stay on topic and avoid all the haranguing and heartburn the discussion might cause. I am just an amateur at this and would like to learn more.
Bill,
“OK, this concept of work being employed from rising air is a bit of a misnomer. ”
Birds seem to be able to get work from rising air.
Me too, but I only jumped off of a cliff twice, once into a deep pool of water and once on the back of a hang glider pilot, where we managed to stay aloft longer by using thermals.
Your mileage may vary.
Well what I am saying isn’t inconsistent. If the gas laws are correct and indeed they are for ideal gases. And total potential energy is locked to the mass of the atmosphere, where does the energy for the work come from? I am an amateur at this. I just like to hear logical explanations. Not one that it must come from somewhere.
It’s the Sun.
If its the sun how much should we subtract from surface warming due to the use of that energy as work?
For the kindergarten level model or the grade school model?
which ever one you use
How the oil industry made us doubt climate change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382
Thats just pure propaganda!
Nate is posting links today pointing out models were done in 1959 and 1967 and this guy at Exxon mobil discovered climate change in 1981 with a computer model?
Pure propaganda. He may well have, pure plagiarism. . . .like what Biden is expert at.
It wasn’t Nate, it was me.
There is no major western oil company that openly deny climate science.
Because that would make them look stupid.
Like you.
Svante says:
There is no major western oil company that openly deny climate science.
Because that would make them look stupid.
Like you.
================
Exxon wants to sell fuel to idiots. I don’t so I don’t care.
Why do you care then?
And why does Exxon agree that the GHE is real?
Because it was led by a brilliant fact based republican maybe?
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change
Svante says:
Why do you care then?
And why does Exxon agree that the GHE is real?
Because it was led by a brilliant fact based republican maybe?
==================================
LOL! Why does Exxon agree you ask?
They agree because they have an understanding that the oil companies won’t be paying for curing climate change it will be you.
Where do you get this idea it has something to do with a Republican?
Because their policy changed when Rex Tillerson came in.
Why did they do that?
https://tinyurl.com/jnwrz4g
thats easy in the mid 2000’s GW Bush put together a bipartisan coalition with environmental community buy in for cap and trade.
Global warming became political in the US after that, but Exxon stands by the science.
It’s an inconvenient truth for them, their product has damaging side effects.
No silly snowflake. The product has no damaging side effects, unless you misuse it. Using it for fuel adds CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere. Both compounds are essential for life on Earth.
Bill said:
”thats easy in the mid 2000s GW Bush put together a bipartisan coalition with environmental community buy in for cap and trade.”
Svante changes the topic. Are you in on a piece of the action Svante?
Yes, why not?
Well at least that rules out idiocy for being such a big advocate. Hopefully you are collecting monthly and not betting on the long bet.
Would love to see this graph with data averaged per mooncycle, instead of per month. So on Oct 16th the data of mooncycle 2020.09 that started with the new moon on Sep 17th, and all previous mooncycles…
Martijn van Gelderen
To do the job in an accurate manner, you need a daily time series.
Met vriendelijke groeten uit Duitsland
J.-P. D.
ClintR
Regarding Pierrehumbert,
A thought experiment starts with a premise and is followed by a logical conclusion. Doesnt matter if the premise itself is true or false. Heres an example –
If Clinton is dumber than Gordon, and Gordon is dumber than Flynn….
… it follows that Clinton is dumber than Flynn.
*****
The three of you could argue about who is really the dumbest. Doesnt matter. The conclusion in the thought experiment, given the premise, is still valid.
Trying to blame others for your problems won’t fix your problems.
You’ll always be an idiot unless you start accepting reality.
Bad example snape, could be true.
800 000 K can’t be true, we all know that.
S,
But Al Gore said there were millions of degrees just a few kilometres below the surface, didnt he?
Less than a million above the surface? A mere bagatelle!
[A thought experiment starts with a premise and is followed by a logical conclusion. Doesnt matter if the premise itself is true or false.]
S,
So whos the dumbest out of Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, and Pierrehumbert? Assume that one is the smartest, and one is the dumbest. How would you rank them?
swenson…”So whos the dumbest out of Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, and Pierrehumbert? Assume that one is the smartest, and one is the dumbest. How would you rank them?”
That’s a tough one. Obviously Schmidt and Mann are dumber than Pierrehumbert because they run realclimate and have installed him as their climate science authority. Schmidt also used to be a subordinate to Hansen and Hansen taught him all he knows. Not sure how Trenberth fits into things but after his energy budget sci-fi and accepting Phil Jones of Had-crut as his Coordinating Lead Author partner at IPCC reviews, he’s questionable.
Hansen, however, was a disciple of Carl Sagan, an absolute fool of a man who talked a bit like Elmer Fudd. That wouldn’t be bad in itself but he looked like Elmer and thought like him. Hansen, a physicist, spent much of his career following Sagan in astronomy, before dabbling in climate modelling.
Shyster science at Peak Stupid
https://youtu.be/6YpfJgVZ5ow
There are no “secrets” of science hidden within YouTube, blogs, memes, or elsewhere on the internet.
If it is not in the peer-reviewed literature, it is just someone’s opinion.
RR,
And all so-calked climate science is merely someones speculation. Peer review is meaningless, judging by the number of scientific papers having to be retracted.
Keep appealing to authority. Climate is the average of weather. An average 12 year child can do averages.
The Five Characteristics of Denial (FLICC)
Fake experts.
Logical Fallacies:
Red herring
Misrepresentation
Jumping to conclusions
False Dichotomy.
Impossible Expectations.
Cherry Picking.
Conspiracy Theories.
Ramona Rivelino says:
All real potential alternatives to a theory not clearly stated.
RR,
You have pointed out the characteristic of alarmists – precisely. For starters – fake experts.
Gavin Schmidt – not even a scientist. Mathematician. Michael Mann – faker, fraud, scofflaw, deadbeat.
You work the rest out for yourself. Climatology is not science.
Snape/Doris/Ramona, was the 800,000K nonsense from your church’s “peer-reviewed literature”?
As with all cults, your “church” is perverted and corrupted. How many examples do you need?
I see you still can’t wrap your brain around the 800,000K in 1×10^9 years idea. Try 800K in 1×10^6 years, same workflow, but maybe more manageable for you.
Unfortunately you can’t “see”, Snape/Doris/Ramona. You’re “blind”. Your submission to a false religion has made you that way. You can’t see reality.
A blackbody surface absorbing 960 Watts/m^2 could only achieve a maximum temperature of 391K. That’s it. For your “high priest” to claim otherwise indicates he is either incompetent or dishonest, or both.
For you to continue to swallow such nonsense, while blaming others, makes you an idiot.
“A blackbody surface absorbing 960 Watts/m^2 could only achieve a maximum temperature of 391K. ”
Clint, you have this all backwards! The article claims a perfect “silverbody” which emits nothing, not a blackbody, which emits perfectly. Your appeal to blackbodies shows you missed the point completely.
You did get the calculation correct for a blackbody, with emissivity = 1. But what objects objects with about other emissivities that absorb 960 W/m^2?
1.0 –> 361 K
0.95 –> 365 K
0.80 –> 381 K
0.50 –> 429 K
0.20 –> 539 K
0.05 –> 762 K
0.01 –> 1141 K
There is, in fact, no theoretical maximum temperature for an object absorbing 960 W/m^2. The lower the emissivity of the surface, the hotter it could be. Its easy to get materials with emissivity = 0.05, so it would be easy to get the temperatures over 700K. In the theoretical limit of emissivity =0, the temperature goes to infinity!
Tim, upthread you were rambling in an effort to defend the nonsense. Now you are being either incompetent, dishonest, or both.
The nonsense was CLEARLY about Earth, not some “silver body”. Here’s the text:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 10^17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Why are you discrediting yourself by trying to save this absolute crap from the toilet?
And you don’t understand “emissivity”.
Tim,
So how hot could an object get absorbing 300 W/m2?
The 300 W/m2 is being emitted by ice.
Clint,
Those two sentences are clearly NOT about earth. The hint is the two words “would” and “if”. The sentences are about some object with the same mass and same energy input as earth, but this object is different in that it is hypothesized not to be able to radiate away energy.
To prevent thermal radiation from leaving, the object must have emissivity equal to zero. This means the object must be perfectly reflective (or perfectly transparent). A perfectly reflective object is perfectly shiny = perfectly silver.
**************************
Clearly those sentence were designed as a “hook” to catch attention. The article is a general interest article in a physics magazine, not a scholarly research paper in a journal. As such, it can be written in a little more flamboyant style.
Those sentences are not a step within a developing argument. Those couple sentences could be deleted without affecting anything in the rest of the article. Those sentences are not the style I would have chosen, but they are not intrinsically false. (They are certainly able to mislead, especially with people who want to be misled.)
So how hot could an object get absorbing 300 W/m2?
The 300 W/m2 is being emitted by ice.”
Ah! This old nugget. This is a different situation than we have been discussing, in that now we are assuming the only input is uniform thermal radiation (Rather than a generic 300 W from any sort of source — say an electric heater embedded in the object).
Given walls of ice at 273 K and emissivity = 0.95 emitting 300 W/m^2 as the only energy arriving at the object, the object could only get to the exact same 273 K.
TimF provides a perfect example of his devotion to the cult.
Here’s the text, with bold my emphasis:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 10^17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
The example is clearly talking about Earth.
Here’s how TimF tries to deny reality:
“Those two sentences are clearly NOT about earth. The hint is the two words “would” and “if”. The sentences are about some object with the same mass and same energy input as earth, but this object is different in that it is hypothesized not to be able to radiate away energy.”
See how they do it? They just make up stuff to support their nonsense. They have no problem rejecting “truth” and “reality”. They much prefer perversion and corruption.
Tim,
Ah, the magic embedded electric heater! At least you admit that an object receiving LWIR radiation from ice cannot become hotter than the source of the radiation.
So how hot would an object get receiving 960 W/m2 from the sun? Assume the Suns temperature is 5800 K.
You and Pierrehumbert are as thick as each other.
RR,
How hot can something get if the heat source is 5800 K.
The maximum is 5800 K, donkey! Not 800,000 K.
If you ignore Pierrehumbert’s premise.
Silly Svante. your “priest’s” premise makes it even worse. He uses 960 W/m^2. That means the maximum temperature would only be 361K.
“At least you admit that an object receiving LWIR radiation from ice cannot become hotter than the source of the radiation.”
I think everyone everywhere (who has even a basic understanding of the physics involved) ‘admits’ that an object whose only source of energy is radiation from an object at temperature T cannot get warmer than T.
If you can find anyone who actually claims that radiation from 273 K ice (without any other source of energy) can make an object warmer than 273 K, I would be fascinated to see it. Otherwise, give up on this strawman already!
“They just make up stuff to support their nonsense. ”
I didn’t “make up” the words “would” or “if”.
There are two choices.
1) The object being described IS the earth, and the earth cannot radiate away thermal energy.
2) The object being described IS NOT the earth, but is a similar object that cannot radiate away thermal energy.
There is really no other choice.
Tim, can a sky at 250K warm Earth’s surface at 288K?
No Tim, the object being described IS Earth.
Quit trying to pervert reality.
Swenson says:
How hot can something get if the heat source is 5800 K.
The maximum is 5800 K, donkey! Not 800,000 K.
===================================
this is brings up another troublesome question for me.
The sun is 5800k. The radiation arriving from the sun is capable of warming something like the earth’s shape to ~278.5k based upon 341 watts being received.
Yet the thermosphere is estimated to be a couple thousand k. reading a bit on it, it seems that this temperature isn’t actually measured but in some way deduced. Suggesting that via certain frequencies and the inability of monatomic oxygen and nitrogen can only absorb high frequencies and thus only emit high frequencies the atoms up there get hotter than what the earth is capable of by a long shot. Perhaps only limited to the 5800k.
but now we have a different radiation theory based upon the energy of vibrating light frequency waves which raises the question of how CO2 with its low frequency band could produce a greenhouse effect.
While this might not apply to the method described that slows convection by warming the upper atmosphere it does begin to debunk a lot of nonsense about backradiation.
Tim Folkerts crickets on my question suggests he sees may possible ways that the GHE could work and isn’t sure which one it is.
thats not exactly the kind of comforting professional advice about my investment strategy. Its about that point that uncertainty begins to demand a whole lot of additional potential rewards – pushing that return on investment well up into the double figures.
It has that sound of investment advice that sounds like advice to lay on the couch more because you might break a leg at work. . . .or even possibly. . . .gasp. . . .die!
And all this advice has actually largely arisen via a guy that thinks coal miners are better off without a job. Of course Joe Biden doesn’t see it that way. After all they could all become programmers.
Of course nobody wants to talk about any of those details and thus. . . .crickets!
Bill,
“The sun is 5800k.”
the surface of the Sun is 5800
Hotter deeper
Hotter further out
the thermosphere is very thin and is heated by UV. The thermosphere absorbs almost all the extreme ultraviolet that it receives.
The extreme ultraviolet comes from the corona, not the surface.
Is it a different theory, or the same one, that matter absorbs and emits radiation based on the energy levels available in the individual atoms and molecules?
Tim Folkerts says:
I think everyone everywhere (who has even a basic understanding of the physics involved) admits that an object whose only source of energy is radiation from an object at temperature T cannot get warmer than T.
=============================================
Well its probably only a few thousands of everyone everywhere that believe that includes T too.
Aha.
Svante, please stop trolling.
By the rules of the scientific community, peer-reviewed literature from establishment journals represents the frontier of knowledge. It is the foundation of knowledge on which your work should build; other research literature (technical reports, conference proceedings, web sites, submitted papers) is called “gray”. You may find it useful and it may give you advance notice of new work, but it is not considered “knowledge.”
How to read papers
1. Begin with the abstract (of course). Is it useful? If no, you don’t need to read further. If yes, you do.
2. Read the intro. A good intro is designed to motivate the paper in the context of previous literature. It often gives you a useful perspective on how others look at the research problem.
3. Read the conclusions. They expand on the abstract and often present broader perspectives that may be useful to your work.
4. Read the sections that are of specific interest to you or for which you have specific responsibility. You may be most interested in the model description, a data table, a piece of analysis…you shouldn’t feel obligated to read the whole paper. If you’ve read the abstract and conclusions you have done your duty as far as staying on top of the literature. The rest is to serve your practical needs.
5. If there are fundamental things that you don’t understand in the paper, don’t be complacent. Go to the textbooks and learn about them. There is no excuse for ignorance.
If the “peer-reviewed literature” contains violations of laws of physics, It is NOT science.
1) This article is not “peer reviewed literature”. It is a general interest article in a ‘trade journal’.
2) There is no violation of physics in the science presented. The “if it could not radiate” is merely a lead-in showing what would happen if the laws of physics WERE violated in a specific way. The absurd conclusion (800,000 K) shows that thermal radiation MUST be included. The body of the article goes on to do exactly that.
1) This discussion is about a general case, not the nonsense article. Try to keep up.
2) In the nonsense article there is definitely violations of the laws of physics. Quit trying to pervert reality. You attempts to play “attorney” are as pathetic as your knowledge of physics.
I dont understand what got Clint’s pantied in a bunch.
The article CLEARLY states, “if the Earth had no way of getting rid of it”.
This makes the statement TRUE.
But of course, the Earth does have a way of getting rid of it, as he makes clear in the next sentences.
This seems to be entirely contrived controversy.
Nate says:
The article CLEARLY states, if the Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
But of course, the Earth does have a way of getting rid of it, as he makes clear in the next sentences.
This seems to be entirely contrived controversy
===============================
Its just that the controversy is too sophisticated for you to notice.
Mankind is amazing its ability to mimic nature. But there are some things he does have trouble with experimenting in a lab.
About all he can do is hypothesize about such mechanisms in conditions where a test is too difficult.
Ya can’t get that past the FDA!!!
Yet the political proposal is for the world to take an untested vaccine to cure a case of a disease with no known adverse symptoms.
The side effect of the pill is to kill off the primary means by which the world has progressed. . . .but only for capitalistic nations. Socialist nations get an exemption.
Sorry but my vote is going to make that vaccine totally voluntary.
And you lost us at ‘political’..
Litigation support is the perfect example of politics and when science begins to resemble litigation support it is politics.
ClintR, I’m curious, how could Earth get rid of incoming energy if it “had no way of getting rid of it”.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Sorry, inconvenient question for you.
Not in the least. ClintR’s point is obviously that “having no way to get rid of it” is impossible.
“Not in the least. ClintRs point is obviously that ‘having no way to get rid of it’ is impossible.”
Why are you guys so dense?
No one, not even the author claims that is POSSIBLE.
It is simply illustrative of the amount of warming that would result from the solar input alone.
Reminds me of the Chinese govt taking an article from The Onion literally, and freaking out.
Lets see you rebut the rest of the article.
#2
Not in the least. ClintR’s point is obviously that “having no way to get rid of it” is impossible.
“the nonsense article there is definitely violations of the laws of physics. ”
More unspecified claims, as usual fro our climat clown.
None will be forthcoming.
#3
Not in the least. ClintR’s point is obviously that “having no way to get rid of it” is impossible
What else is new?
#4
Not in the least. ClintR’s point is obviously that “having no way to get rid of it” is impossible
And so say all of us.
If only you actually did! Instead of basing arguments on this very principle, about what you think happens when radiation gets ‘trapped’ and prevented from leaving Earth…
There is a way:
Input > output, radiation surplus => energy accumulation, temperature rise => increased output radiation => radiation equilibrium.
So there are two sides to temperature, input and output.
You may ponder what would happen if you had no output.
Funny, you all just agreed it was impossible. Now…there is a way.
Yes, you can ponder over the impossible.
Children may take it literally and get confused.
No way out of this one for you, is there?
Not with this child.
Ad hominem won’t work, Svante. Try something else.
This reminds me of all those illustrative thought experiments like:
Suppose we took all the water molecules in a teaspoon of water and connected them end to end in a molecular string, how long would the string be? And of course it wraps around the Earth a million times.
DREMT and Clint and Swenson would object that this is impossible, the string would fall apart, no one could actually wrap it around the Earth, etc etc
Oh well, thought experiments require imagination.
#2
Ad hominem won’t work, Svante. Try something else.
OK, if you tried walking to the moon, how long would that take you?
Hypothetically speaking.
About 80,000 hours if you travelled at 3mph.
You’re crazy, you’d fall on your face if you tried.
Learn some physics.
You’re still missing the point I made here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535639
To extend your analogy:
Everyone agrees it is impossible to walk to the moon, but you argue that it is just a thought experiment. The point is how long it would take, hypothetically. Then, after agreeing that it is impossible to walk to the moon, you turn around and say:
“Well, you can walk to the top of the clouds, though…”
When it comes to promoting their beliefs, science and reality get thrown out. Their attempts to justify the nonsense reveal their fanaticism.
You can not walk to the moon.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536564
You’re just another idiot perverting reality. Knowledgeable people would know not to waste any time “studying” such crap.
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536564
Please stop trolling.
It takes a special talent to disagree with oneself and be certain your right both times…
#3
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536564
Another ridiculous comment, from self-confessed troll.
You can not walk to the moon.
Learn some physics.
#4
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536564
Svante please stop trolling.
OK bill, since you asked so nicely.
I guess there’s no hope of Svante ever addressing the point being made. Easier for him to just attack straw men.
Svante says:
Another ridiculous comment, from self-confessed troll.
You can not walk to the moon.
Learn some physics.
==================================
You can if you are Governor Moonbeam Brown
All you have to do is build a high speed rail line from Los Angeles to Sacramento.
RR,
You are one deluded donkey. There are no *rules of the scientific community*. Who wrote them? Who enforced them?
Maybe you mean * I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”*
One of your experts making up rules?
The Ad Hominem Argument (aka Personal attack, Poisoning the well): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., That so-called judge; or He iss so evil that you cannot believe anything he says. See also Guilt by Association.
Ramona Rivelino:
Do you regard something that is written in a published scientific paper as being an ultimate truth, one which cannot be questioned or argued against?
What exactly do you think the purpose of peer review is?
Q: Why are amateur scientists more accepted in Astrophysics and Astronomy circles than they are in Climate Science?
A: There is a lot of Citizen Science done in Climate. The phenomenon in Climate Science though is that a lot of so called, citizen science, has been sloppy science not Citizen Science. Some people with a political agenda to try to so called disprove global warming, have been making a lot of onerous data requests and then raising spurious questions that try to confuse the issue rather than doing honest science, and that has given it a bad name.
Ramona Rivelino says:
Some people with a political agenda to try to so called disprove global warming, have been making a lot of onerous data requests and then raising spurious questions that try to confuse the issue rather than doing honest science, and that has given it a bad name.
===========================
Gee you at least recognize that the theory is poorly stated, why so much heartburn about the doubt that surrounds a poorly stated theory?
Is it because you lack an understanding of it yourself and it suits you politically?
RR,
A donkey braying loudly is still a donkey!
Climate science is an oxymoron. Climate is the average of weather. Only a donkey would claim doing an average is a science. Its basic arithmetic, donkey. Add up. Divide. Subtract. Multiply – that sort of thing,
Ramona,
Trying to engage with some of these people intellectually is proving to be a forlorn task. I still occasionally attempt it (not sure why) but ridicule and scorn may be more effective.
Were are not talking P.N.A.S. here , just a forum, for a bunch of self declared experts of the armchair variety, to proudly indulge in their fantasies .
In total contrast, I am just a self declared fool.
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
MikeR,
If you find that rational people ignore your attempts to convince them that climate is not just the average of weather, dont be surprised. If you find that your ridicule and scorn are also ignored, you should be thankful.
Less polite people might laugh at your attempts to sell your wares. You are surely a fool if you think scorn and derision are more useful than the scientific method, for advancing knowledge. You dont even have to boast about being a fool. It is self evident.
Swenson,
I haven’t participated in the debate re climate versus weather so I am not sure what exactly you are referring to, but I can guess.
As for the rest –
There are people whose comments, in my humble opinion, deserve respect but unfortunately there are so many that don’t.
On that note, from the Wiki about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
“It is apsychologicaleffect in which people don’t realize their level ofknowledgeor ability in a subject. People who know little about a subject will think that they know more than they actually know. People of low ability may not have enough intelligence to fully grasp how complicated something can be, causing them to overestimate their knowledge or ability. This can cause them to underestimate the intelligence of a high ability person who claims something is complicated when they falsely believe they understand it fully.”
Accordingly, the one thing I have learnt, is that rational debate does not seem to be effective with these armchair experts and if I am ineffective with ridicule and scorn, then I will have to further hone my technique.
MikeR, you have shown yourself to be a typing fanatic with nothing of substance to offer. As you attract ridicule and scorn, continue as if you believe you are an “expert”.
Mike R. What I am taking issue with is the non-specificity of how the greenhouse effect actually operates. It might be this might be that but all we know for certain is its one way or the other.
On that I have to call BS.
“Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”
===================================
Keep in mind that unskilled and low skilled is a ‘relative’ concept. If you can’t explain in detail something correctly you are by definition low skilled in that skill category. And you can be that even if there is no one more skilled than you, because the true measure of ‘unskilled’ is against perfection.
So if you ascribe to CO2 being the control know of the planet temperature and you can’t explain how it works specifically you are both unskilled and likely to over access your skill.
And when measured against true knowledge fact all of us are unskilled to a great deal. So experts can definitely pick apart the arguments of those less skilled but they are just as inept at seeing the problems with their own arguments.
True science was designed to eliminate that. But gee once you make a scientist, like a hammer everything starts appearing like a nail.
And some problems are extremely challenging to find tests for in the lab (which is a skill in and of itself, meaning that non-experimental scientists are danged unskilled at understanding the scientific method)
So you have a lot or rote learner type scientists that trust authority because truly they are incapable themselves, even though they don’t recognize that fact.
Then statistics emerged as sort of a quasi science. But the use of statistics only specifies a likelihood you are wrong about a very explicit detail. Experienced modelers having computers to grind out computations quickly learn what the shortcomings of models are in complex matters. 200 to 300% range of variances from low to high isn’t at all uncommon. Thus its extremely important when modeling a solution that you know you have a worthy problem to solve.
Warming by itself isn’t a problem within a good number of degrees. The problem needs to be defined in terms of a cost benefit analysis.
Is the problem worth solving. All the hand wringing a lack of physics in actually knowing a greenhouse effect can be caused by CO2 has its own high levels of uncertainty. And when you get to that few degrees effect you think it might have you aren’t even half way home to going any further. Thus scientists lobbying for the effect of their own work is a complete joke as scientists are thousands of miles away from understanding what is important to people. At that point very clearly they have crossed the line into total incompetence.
So the Dunning-Kruger effect is in every room.
Yes Bill, I agree that the Dunning Kruger effect is usually present in every room.
If you had read the Dunning Kruger Wiki that I extracted that information from, you would have read that it includes both those who underestimate their own intelligence as well as those who overestimate.
Unlike the clear cut cases, it can be difficult to estimate your own position on the scale.
It is best to leave it to the judgement of others, which in my case, I am very happy to do.
As a follow-up to the above.
Bill, you made some interesting comments that show insights into issues such as uncertainty. My lay reading (for what its worth ) suggest that these uncertainties are addressed ( ensembles , confidence intervals etc..) , and even uncertainties in the uncertainty, but maybe you have been reading different things.
Correspondingly, the following comments are not addressed to you, but to those whose you seem to be happy to associate with.
Unlike many who comment here, I do not claim to have any particular expertise in the area of climatology. I tend to leave areas, like brain surgery, to those who have had formal training.
In contrast there are several here who proudly promote some remarkable outlandish theories on a continuing basis ( not naming names). Some, heaven forbid, would consider them to be crackpots.
However there have been notable occasions when “crackpots” have contributed or revolutionised science, so you cannot rule out the possibility. There are thousands or millions ( by orders of magnitude) commenting daily on the internet on areas well beyond their areas of expertise and generating theories, if true, would revolutionise science. In contrast most fields of science have significant paradigm shifts that occurvery rarely (perhaps once a decade) .
Employing this fact as a Bayesian prior* , then the chance of a particular arm chair expert’s outlandish theory gaining any credence is vanishingly small.
This could explain why Gordon did not win the recently announced Nobel Prize in Physics ( neither did I, but I have been recently playing down the expectations ). This is also why I have a jaundiced view about those that have no formal training in the dark arts and haven’t even bothered to read up on the basics.
It is not even the lack of basics , but it is the pretence of having competence that irritates and makes them too easy a target for my ridicule. I should lay off them as it like shooting fish in a barrel but my tolerance of fools is limited. It is something I need to work on.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability
MikeR,
Why would you think that your ridicule and scorn achieve anything at all?
Do you imagine your ridicule and scorn possess magical mind altering powers? Seems to me that you are short on facts, but still full of your own self importance. Try and learn some physics instead of wasting time attempting to hone your ridicule and scorn skills.
Can you bray like a donkey? You certainly come across as one.
MikeR says:
Unlike many who comment here, I do not claim to have any particular expertise in the area of climatology. I tend to leave areas, like brain surgery, to those who have had formal training.
+++++++++++++
Well you are considerably more permissive than I am about that. I am not letting a brain surgeon operate on my brain without first demonstrating a robust track record of getting the procedure in question right.
“Well you are considerably more permissive than I am about that. I am not letting a brain surgeon operate on my brain without first demonstrating a robust track record of getting the procedure in question right.”
Bill, I think you misconstrued.
Commenting well outside your area of competence is like performing brain surgery after watching a D.I.Y. YouTube video.
However, if you are dealing with qualified surgeons, I would get the most competent surgeon based on published results and also base my decision on reviews by his or her peers.
MikeR,
And of course, you would support lobotomy, as the proponent of this procedure was awarded a Nobel prize for medicine. Do you still think lobotomies are performed by reputable surgeons?
You can select any brain surgeon you like, based on any criteria you choose. I wish you well. Why do you think you need a brain surgeon? Excessive trolling making you feel inadequate? Feeling insecure because your scorn and derision are inducing amusement rather than fear?
How are you going with the quest for a testable GHE hypothesis? Not so well?
Oh dear.
MikeR says:
Bill, I think you misconstrued.
========================================
Misconstrued what Mike? I merely made a true statement. I don’t deem an expert somebody thats good at doing a witchdoctor dance around the campfire. You need a real track record, not an imagined or claimed one.
===========================
==========================
MikeR says:
Commenting well outside your area of competence is like performing brain surgery after watching a D.I.Y. YouTube video.
However, if you are dealing with qualified surgeons, I would get the most competent surgeon based on published results and also base my decision on reviews by his or her peers.
========================
Hmmmm, ”published results”, ”peer review”? All that sounds more like talk than results. Perhaps you could provide some examples?
For me brain surgery would have a good deal of verification. For instance there is a two decade long accepted treatment for schizophrenia, manic depression and bipolar disorder, among other mental illnesses that involves brain surgery. The pioneer of the treatment even won a Nobel Prize and became so popular such that the sister of US President underwent the treatment. The practice only began to fall out of favor in the 1950’s.
Is a Nobel Prize award adequate verification for you?
well that exchange ended quickly eh Swenson?
Swenson et al.
I have never been an advocate for lobotomies. In fact I said wouldn’t undergo the procedure even if it allowed me to reach your intellectual heights.
I guess the fact that a proponent won a Nobel Prize is very unfortunate.
Does this automatically means all the work of all Nobel Prize winners in Physics such as Einstein, Feynman etc needs to be dismissed? If Einstein’s Nobel needs to be posthumously revoked , should Gordon be his replacement?
You guys need to fire off a letter to the Nobel Committee post haste.
As for your condemnation of brain surgery that involves removal of brain tissue, does that include the treatment of epilepsy via lobectomy?
https://www.chp.edu/our-services/brain/neurosurgery/epilepsy-surgery/services/lobectomy
There are dozens of refereed journal articles about the use of lobectomies for this condition, that can be found using Google Scholar such as
https://pn.bmj.com/content/20/1/4 .
There are also many other conditions that a be treated by excision of brain tissue such as Parkinson’s disease ( removal of the thalamus) and of course brain tumours .
Anyway this discussion is of limited usefulness and I strongly suggest you consult a neurosurgeon rather than relying on some random, such as myself.
However, as always, it was entertaining having these discussions.
p.s. Apologies to Bill about my lack of immediate response to his last comment. I was asleep.
MikeR says:
Does this automatically means all the work of all Nobel Prize winners in Physics such as Einstein, Feynman etc needs to be dismissed? If Einstein’s Nobel needs to be posthumously revoked , should Gordon be his replacement?
You guys need to fire off a letter to the Nobel Committee post haste.
==============================
Of course not MikeR. This was merely a response to your suggestion that experts should be trusted in deference to your own investigation into actual outcomes. . . .or in the case of climate science when the track record is unsuccessful.
No need to protest, just don’t be a sucker.
Its exceedingly easy to find differences of opinion. if you look and don’t just get your expert advice in the form of 15 second media sound bites that roughly half of the citizens depend upon.
It takes very little effort to find the likes of Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT; Dr. William Happer, Princeton; Dr. Judith Curry, University of Georgia; Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Founding Director International Institute of Arctic Research and Emeritus Professor University of Fairbanks; Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, trained as an atmospheric physicist; Dr. Lennart O. Bengtsson, Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology; Dr. Nir J. Shaviv, Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. And of course our two professors at UAH. These folks are all over the place and not difficult to find.
Yes Bill,
I am aware of the writings of most of them but we both definitely need to read more widely. These guys get honourable mentions here –
https://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame
and
https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/
and of course
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
The only one that seems to be missing is Lennart O. Bengtsson for some reason. What is his seminal contribution to climatology? Is it this paper?
https://physicsworld.com/a/dispute-arises-over-rejected-climate-science-paper/
MikeR says:
Yes Bill,
I am aware of the writings of most of them but we both definitely need to read more widely. These guys get honourable mentions here
================================
|Ad hominems are indeed the argument of desperate last resort.
Bill your attempt to argue from authority is intriguingly amusing .
I don’t know if pointing out the scientific limitations of the members of your reading list is an ad hom? If you are going to list those who you find credible then, in the interests of balance, alternative opinions about their credibility should be made available (unless there is something to hide, such as being paid shills).
MikeR says:
Bill your attempt to argue from authority is intriguingly amusing .
I dont know if pointing out the scientific limitations of the members of your reading list is an ad hom? If you are going to list those who you find credible then, in the interests of balance, alternative opinions about their credibility should be made available (unless there is something to hide, such as being paid shills).
=============================
Well with about 35 years more experience than you have on the topic Mike I found that you can always tell when the science is truly settled. Why you ignorantly ask? (ignorance is actually a lack of experience not ability)
The answer is surprisingly simple. Scientists go to school for about 8 years of advanced education. Then they serve as coffee boy to whoever they work for a few years pretty much making krapp for a salary. Finally the get the lead on a research project. When they get that lead they don’t want to screw up the reputation they worked for so long and so hard by denying the obvious. In academia being a screwball is almost a given right, but failing to honor the unwritten code of science by actually opposing something that is settled truth is career suicide. There really aren’t any bad guys out there in that business there are just a lot of guys that speculate very hard about the unknown . But bring the truth and the proof of it changes everything.
I said that in litigation (and climate change is more about litigation than anything) you can go hire a hired gun to advocate your position. But those hired guns rarely will lie for you. What they do is find what you want to advocate and then make the most extreme argument possible that is consistent with science, doing the best they can to ignore any argument to the contrary. When the science is actually settled you don’t choose to go to trial in the first place, unless of course you are stupid enough to be your own attorney.
So since that probably confused you what did I really say?
The science really isn’t settled.
Bill, I tend to agree with you the science in general is never settled. However there tends to be consensus about fundamental aspects of science, such as the existence of gravity .
However there will always be people who will want to challenge the consensus. Darwinian evolution normally can normally account for these outliers. Creationists may disagree but that’s another story see –
https://tinyurl.com/y4byn6k7
MikeR says:
October 8, 2020 at 10:19 PM
Bill, I tend to agree with you the science in general is never settled. However there tends to be consensus about fundamental aspects of science, such as the existence of gravity .
=================================
Hmmm, got a list of celebrated scientists who dispute gravity? Hmmm, didn’t think so. No need to answer.
==========================
==========================
MikeR says:
However there will always be people who will want to challenge the consensus. Darwinian evolution normally can normally account for these outliers. Creationists may disagree but thats another story see
===========================
Obviously you are too inexperienced to see that this isn’t even a real conflict in science.
You probably shouldn’t be embarrassed about that though as quite a few scientists are out there in the same situation. Of course many are not.
So let me relate a little philosophical thinking on the topic. And along the way maybe just maybe you will learn a little more about what science actually is and what its limits are.
I am not going to give you the long version course on this. Instead this is just going to be a Cliff Notes short version of a single chapter in the topic.
I would note:
1) Creation and Evolution are not the same thing. Creation as described by science is the big bang followed by unspecified brew of primordial soup.
Some science yeah! And heck thats even more recent than it was before when the universe had no beginning and thus there could be no creation. but the scientists finally figured out they were wrong about that too.
2) Evolution is not creation. That will be a big big surprise for a lot of scientists. But it shouldn’t be difficult to see why. I mean science would conclude that something has to be created before it can be evolved.
3) Where did the primordial soup come from? Don’t you need a cook? Oh, thats right some scientists don’t believe anybody in the entire universe or outside of it can be smarter than themselves. Thus for many that rules out supreme beings.
4) So what is the argument for ruling out supreme beings. Its a dedication to the idea of orderly development over time of all things by pure chance. But the very idea of that could have created a supreme being before our world came into being. Thus the argument for a supreme being is consistent with the science view of the universe.
5) So what is faith? (this is going to be the super condensed version here, but its clear you need some). The realm of faith is in the unknown; the role of science is to understand our world from that which we can sense or in other words know. Faith is what fills in the rest.
6) So why do we need faith? Well for one thing it often helps. It helps with people going through difficult times in their lives, it gives people hope, its a higher being than yourself to keep yourself humble, aid in your development, and comfort you when the road gets bumpy. They teach in 12 step programs to embrace a higher power of your choosing. That higher power becomes your conscience it tells you the right thing to do when you are tempted. It aids you in establishing or accepting a code of morality that you are passionate about, find fairness in, find comfort in, and makes you feel like you belong in something. Sure lots of people don’t think they need it. And maybe they actually don’t. But I find that pretty unlikely. For example, part of feeling good about yourself is helping others. For me there is no more satisfying feeling than to know I improved the life of another. I feel that in my family, I feel that in my friends and I feel that in the people I work with.
A commitment to faith is one of the most useful tools in helping others go through rough spots in their lives. You can share your faith, share your stories, and instill hope and resolve in others to overcome their difficulties. Faith is what you can pass on to others when they need it the most. If you don’t have it, don’t ascribe to it you just don’t have any of it to pass along.
Some people actually think giving money to others is the way to help them. Sure it might fill their belly for a day or a week or longer; but its not what cures people of the despair they may be experiencing.
Faith helps immensely with that. Typically infinitely better than a donation. Some people simply aren’t ready to accept faith. I actually feel great sorrow for them because they really have no idea what they are missing.
I really don’t have a genuine preference for any particular denomination . . . .they all seem to have a great deal of the same in common. Rituals and traditions vary greatly but under it is a very similar concept of salvation.
I simply never attached to a particular denomination but instead started studying religion in philosophy and have studied a number of religions. I started out as a dumb ignorant atheist and just gradually changed direction.
It took many years doing it the way I did it. I sometimes think about what I missed not doing it sooner. But how greedy should I be? After all it’s now been decades that a big smile has been permanently pasted to my face and from what I have seen in others it’s not so much when it gets there it’s if it gets there. . . .thats when time becomes irrelevant. Its like boarding a never ending, always changing, never boring, exhilarating Disneyland ride. My sympathies go out to those who have never experienced it.
I am happy for Roy. And I absolutely see no reason why his faith should get in the way of science. The only science its apt to get in the way of is stuff science does not yet know. Which actually is a really good thing when it does.
Fact is not having faith may be one of the best avenues to think something is scientific in nature when its not. We strive for knowledge and having a refuge in ignorance makes sure we don’t go too far out of the need to find comfort from fear of the unknown.
So no there is no timidness arising out of the unknown existing in my world. Its all about confidently forging ahead, being confident, and comfortable in self leadership.
Append ”with the aid of God” to the end. Because its faith out of which self confidence and self leadership arises.
Unless you have it in yourself.
God=Faith. Faith in God is a redundant expression.
either you have it or you don’t.
You can arrive at “self confidence and self leadership” by educating yourself.
https://tinyurl.com/y3dgcao3
Svante says:
You can arrive at self confidence and self leadership by educating yourself.
https://tinyurl.com/y3dgcao3
=============================================
My oh my Svante! Interesting role model (from Wikipedia)
”One of the most notable instances of persecution during the reign of Aurelius occurred in 177 at Lugdunum (present-day Lyons, France), where the Sanctuary of the Three Gauls had been established by Augustus in the late 1st century BC. The sole account is preserved by Eusebius. The persecution in Lyons started as an unofficial movement to ostracize Christians from public spaces such as the market and the baths, but eventually resulted in official action. Christians were arrested, tried in the forum, and subsequently imprisoned. They were condemned to various punishments: being fed to the beasts, torture, and the poor living conditions of imprisonment.”
(s)Definitely sounds like an enlightened leader to admire, choke choke, don’t you think? (/s)
I won’t mock Bill’s creationist religious beliefs even though I am sorely tempted to. Bill’s sermon should provide more source material for Ramona ‘s analysis –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534127
MikeR says:
I wont mock Bills creationist religious beliefs even though I am sorely tempted to.
======================================
thats probably a really good choice for you Mike. Partly because you don’t know what my beliefs are on that matter.
And parly in fact, I don’t know either.
The only thing I am aware of is the presence of a spirit that quite frankly can’t describe any better than I already have. . . .by that peace, happiness, and satisfaction that I feel 24/7/365. I don’t spend hardly any time pondering creation. When I do give it a thought images of big bangs, primordial ponds, sprouting gardens, the genius of creation which I only see in the astounding beauty of the natural world all run through my mind. There is no hesitation to try to pick one, no decision, I just take it in and enjoy the thought. If you want to find something weirdo about that please be my guest. I can’t be insulted. It’s impossible that it would mean anything to me. There is no self doubt, no need for reinforcement. No cracks to pry on. No crack, no drugs, no alcohol absolutely no need to blunt or sharpen reality and enough experience in life to know all that is a zero sum game.
Yes bill, my role model made many mistakes.
The worst one was his son.
Bill,
You seem to be a man of faith. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest you are of the Christian faith.
In any case, even amongst this group, there appears to be a significant number who accept the basic tenets of climate change and are more concerned about the consequences. than yourself or Dr Roy who, God forbid, may have melded his theology with his Science.
Some examples where the orthodoxy is being challenged are the following –
https://grist.org/article/what-evangelical-christians-really-think-about-climate-change/
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/january/australia-fire-hillsong-scripture-union-rocha-climate-chang.html
Amongst the younger brethren, things are stirring –
https://qz.com/1709793/evangelical-leaders-are-making-climate-change-a-religious-issue/
Even the good old Christian Scientists have had some revelations –
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/From-the-Editor/2020/0123/How-we-see-climate-science .
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Bill, do you know the Help Line number for an out of control PST troll?
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
MikeR says:
You seem to be a man of faith. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest you are of the Christian faith.
==============================
Yep!!
The definition of faith to me is a viewpoint of the bigger picture, the picture our senses doesn’t reliably tell us about.
I sense a soul but can’t see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it.
So its kind of a 6th sense. Whatever that means. Its a sense for me that is embodied in free choice and imagination.
One can discard the entire body because we see that as just a construction of physical facts in chemistry. So what guides this mass of flesh and bone? Are we just robots in a pre-determined world, simply manipulated and pushed around like so many robots?
Hah! No way! When we talk about life and death the non-religious/non-faithful only talk about the life and death of the body.
I think most people have at least some faith. We care about our children and we care about the children of our children. Why would we need to care if it was already pre-determined for them in a physical world of cause and effect?
No matter how you feel about whether you have free will or not you hope that at least there is a plan for us and our children that is fair and good.
But even the very idea of a ‘plan’ defies a deterministic world of random by chance occurrences.
I can’t think of more despair than that. That is when suicide becomes more prevalent as people lose their last hopes, last dreams, and completely lose faith.
So I am a man of great faith. I am by birth a christian, I was baptized as a baby and confirmed as a preteen. Since then I probably haven’t attended church more than a dozen times.
And you? the difference between you and I is I haven’t adopted science as a religion. You seem entranced by the idea that science can answer all questions and its just a matter of finding the right thing to read. . . .which for everything you read you don’t agree with its the effectively the anti-christ.
Here we talk about iffy statistics, models that don’t work, ideas and extrapolations of science neither solidly defined by statistics much less tested in a lab as rock solid science as to if it is or it is not. Now who is truly the religious one? You are just desperate to find a label to attach because your knowledge is far far too impotent to drive the point home.
Groovy.
Bill, you are being very presumptuous. I haven’t made science my religion as I don’t believe the twain shall meet other than via anthropology.
In contrast , some people seem to have adopted religion or blind faith as their science, but if they find reassurance there, then who am I to criticise?
It is strange however to find people expounding their faith on a blog that is ostensibly science based. Maybe the religious forums are full of highly technical scientific discussions about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Who knows?
MikeR says:
Bill, you are being very presumptuous. I havent made science my religion as I dont believe the twain shall meet other than via anthropology.
===============================
I am being no more presumptuous than you were.
I do believe that that religion and or faith can be a very positive thing. Having the humility to accept that there is a greater power in the world naturally causes one to seek that which brings him closer to that power which appeals to the greater good in people.
Without it I think there is a tendency to seek the same kind of solace that brings into the arms of an ordinary person who may not have your best interest at heart.
And certainly organized religion and politicized science can fall into exactly the same trap.
=======================
======================
MikeR says:
In contrast , some people seem to have adopted religion or blind faith as their science, but if they find reassurance there, then who am I to criticise?
=====================
Exactly! Why criticize? As long as they aren’t out to get me for being an infidel.
=======================
======================
MikeR says:
It is strange however to find people expounding their faith on a blog that is ostensibly science based. Maybe the religious forums are full of highly technical scientific discussions about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Who knows?
========================
I have little idea who you are talking about. I would say the biggest thrust in that direction is folks that figure that the climate models have risen to a standard of proof. I know thats not the case and so do a lot of scientists.
Has Bill had a Damascene epiphany? Bill don’t tell me you have lost your faith! Gosh that was quick!
========================
MikeR says:
“It is strange however to find people expounding their faith on a blog that is ostensibly science based. Maybe the religious forums are full of highly technical scientific discussions about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Who knows?”
========================
Bill “I have little idea who you are talking about.”
========================
I had no expectation that you were a participant in the discussion where angels domicile as it was ushered in a long time ago, so my statement was pure conjecture, but it seems Bill now wants to disown his lengthy discourses on faith and science.
Some snippets are here –
Bill , before he went rogue –
“Faith helps immensely with that. Typically infinitely better than a donation. Some people simply arent ready to accept faith. I actually feel great sorrow for them because they really have no idea what they are missing.”
and
“So I am a man of great faith. I am by birth a christian, I was baptized as a baby and confirmed as a preteen. Since then I probably havent attended church more than a dozen times.”
========================
Finally my personal position statement on these matters is very brief.
I regard as myself as a humanist and as the evidence for a higher being is mixed , I am also an agnostic.
However in the off chance God does exists, then I believe he or she is an atheist so I am unlikely to end up in hell. Always best to play safe.
MikeR says:
Has Bill had a Damascene epiphany? Bill dont tell me you have lost your faith! Gosh that was quick!
========================
I had to look that one up. Never heard of it before.
======================
=====================
MikeR says:
I regard as myself as a humanist and as the evidence for a higher being is mixed , I am also an agnostic.
=======================
Hmmm, humanist? Why on earth would you oppose creationists? Do you think you are just apparition?
======================
=====================
MikeR says:
However in the off chance God does exists, then I believe he or she is an atheist so I am unlikely to end up in hell. Always best to play safe.
===========================
Hmmmm, off chance? You have a statistical study to show that?
No doubt you had a lot of non-sightings to build your case right? LMAO!!
Bill,
I don’t think the theology is settled. As I indicated I don’t like mixing religion and science, so I don’t have a statistical model.
It would be fascinating if someone did. Are you planning to construct one ? In that case Bill, the absence of confirmed sightings could be a Bayesian prior. There are many more I could suggest but again, I don’t think this the appropriate forum.
With regards to humanism, I comment therefore I am (with the possible exception for comments that pass the Turing Test).
Bill, you seem to be of a creationist bent. There are many models. Do you have a specific one, maybe a testable hypothesis?
MikeR says:
It would be fascinating if someone did. Are you planning to construct one ?
======================
Nope that would be foolish.
========================
========================
MikeR says:
With regards to humanism, I comment therefore I am (with the possible exception for comments that pass the Turing Test).
===================================
Well you paraphrase Descartes largely recognized for starting the humanist philosophy and beginning the discussion on the mind body problem.
But in my view its a diversion to choose a path.
And so did Descartes. He made several attempts to prove the existence of God and set the stage for a philosophy known as Rationalism much to the chagrin of church leaders.
So what I think you have to do is not see it as a fork in the road but instead realize its a road that has two aspects to it. Having a strong existential bend I am very much aware that you are what you are doing and not what have done. I say that with emphasis.
I am not saying it very well but its complicated. Take Locke and Berkeley. Locke talked of particles underlying vision, Berkeley said it was God that was the underlayment of our vision. In my view both are correct. there are things we personally surely will never know and faith is a great guide through that wilderness.
So its clear follow God as you see God, and learn as you go and use knowledge to make the tools so that your life fulfills and completes the job that God gave you.
So each step in life is a moral step and an opportunity to learn more. If you let God guide you will probably be in good shape. Just look out for those false Gods that want you to join some kind of Crusade or Jihad.
So I see Descartes as perhaps the first guy to come along, at least in the Christian world, and say that yes God talks to all of us and we can use that combined with our own ability to reason to decide where to go. But lose touch with either is pretty much not a path to happiness. I think when I first got around to fully accepting that was the last time I felt any misery beyond the loss of loved ones.
========================
========================
MikeR says:
Bill, you seem to be of a creationist bent. There are many models. Do you have a specific one, maybe a testable hypothesis?
=================================
Absolutely! And the testable hypothesis is my life. Don’t look to deep for meaning there though. My favorite spiritual text is eastern in nature. The Story of Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. A quiet simple life helping others is a true path to peace. The old man who teaches kids to tie knots, in Siddhartha’s case pushing a ferry across a river taking a small fee from those who could pay and letting others ride for nothing.
So yes it is a testable hypothesis. Why that may or may not apply to you is actually what most of the story of Siddhartha is about.
Religion has lessons for us all and all the major religions share a lot of common themes.
Bill, I was referring specifically to a testable creationist model.
Your life is the creationist model? Did your parents have any role in your creation? Is it a case of Father, Bill and the Holy Ghost?
I know DREM thinks he is one of the few with special insights inaccessible to the common man (particularly scientists) but this is exceptional (but not in a good way).
Anyway your experiment hopefully has many more years to run. Report back with your conclusions at the appropriate time.
Yes, I read Siddhartha almost 50 years ago and I recall that it was inspiring stuff. Maybe the river subliminally affected me to become a lover of nature and accordingly reject crass materialism that despoils the environment. That’s the great thing about a great piece of literature, each person can take his own message from the work.
MikeR says:
Bill, I was referring specifically to a testable creationist model.
Your life is the creationist model? Did your parents have any role in your creation? Is it a case of Father, Bill and the Holy Ghost?
==================================
all of the above Mike. But do you want me to explain how it all came down? All I know is God gave me all the tools I needed to fulfill his purpose in creating me. I strongly believe he gave me a way of understanding what that was.
=========================
========================
MikeR says:
I know DREM thinks he is one of the few with special insights inaccessible to the common man (particularly scientists) but this is exceptional (but not in a good way).
=========================
I certainly don’t see it that way. DREM appears to me to be a very intelligent and thoughtful gentleman with a good grasp of science.
======================
======================
MikeR says:
Anyway your experiment hopefully has many more years to run. Report back with your conclusions at the appropriate time.
Yes, I read Siddhartha almost 50 years ago and I recall that it was inspiring stuff. Maybe the river subliminally affected me to become a lover of nature and accordingly reject crass materialism that despoils the environment. That’s the great thing about a great piece of literature, each person can take his own message from the work.
=========================
Actually I read it I think 50 years ago in the fall quarter in 1970.
So what do you see to be crass about materialism?
I mean why should I care about whether somebody else cares about something different than me? Quite honestly I don’t get that kind of anguish.
You might say I am a materialist. I have an odd obsession of having every tool to do every job. It might even be beyond a healthy obsession as it puts pressure on me to find a place for them all.
The message I got out of Siddhartha wasn’t so much nature but how each person might find his niche in a surprising way.
Many of us are attracted to the distractions that Siddhartha went through. Following our ancestors, following a greatleader/teacher, becoming rich and powerful. Or what? A ferryboat man? Yes the river was an important symbol in the story as it represented both the continuity of life and a barrier to those trying to get over it.
So this really gets pretty simple with creation. God created us and gave us the basic tools to be the architect of our own lives. I find it hard to believe that he didn’t also give us a good spirit. Many though may have trouble finding what our role is.
It’s easy to become obsessed with a person of great wealth, a jealousy if you will. One thing I have never been obsessed with is keeping up with the Joneses. And I am thankful for that.
I recently read one of Roy Spencer’s books as part of my research for a paper I’m writing and wanted to gauge the scientific horsepower within his average audience. I have gathered a good number of data points from the over 400 comments these past two days that I will now analyze it.
I have to say that the unmoderated approach of this blog made my task very easy.
There you go. Moderation would have made your imaginary task much more difficult. Have you tried writing comedic routines? I doubt you have the ability, but following your natural bent might generate a few laughs.Possibly very few, unfortunately.
It might be best if you dont give up your day job.
I am using the CCRPM* and moderated sites like those at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and the Society of Petroleum Engineers only allow me to collect data on Cognitive Factors. There are also self-moderated sites that are somewhere between moderated and free-for-all’s.
*Van der Linden, S. The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 112–124.
Yes and most of the stupidity is expressed by I am sure its right but I don’t know the details.
that only is partly rivaled by I am sure its wrong, but I don’t know why. I say only partly rivaled because knowing why something is wrong is dependent upon knowing the details. . . .and thats what is supposed to be coming from the I am sure its right crowd. So in the reality of politics the I know its right crowd generates its own backlash and thats fair game because its all completely outside of science no matter of how much you can decorate the non-science part with science. And of course non-skeptical scientists are the worst of the whole bunch because they are the most inculcated.
. . . .to know better.
Those are good, Bill.
One of your specialties:
” I am sure its wrong, but I dont know why.”
saying it hasn’t been proven, FYI which is a fact; isn’t saying its wrong.
A little lesson you are obviously in dire need of being taught.
Some brains just operate in a simpler world of absolutes where there is incredibly steep and high cliff that separates popular and authoritarian belief from total denial where one dare not tread out of fear of falling into the abyss from which there is no redemption.
RR says:
”Some people with a political agenda to try to so called disprove global warming, have been making a lot of onerous data requests and then raising spurious questions that try to confuse the issue rather than doing honest science, and that has given it a bad name.”
===============================================
”given it a bad name”. You have a pronoun reference problem there. What is ‘it’?
And everybody has a political agenda. Its ridiculous to suggest such people are undeserving of open and transparent access to public data. Makes you sound like a despot who wants to punish everybody who doesn’t share your political agenda.
You want to demand honest science then you have to turn our amateur system of science into a professional system of science, establish standards, licensing, courts of inquiry into malpractice, etc. Plus systematic peer review as opposed to the ad hoc peer review.
I have been involved in this for over 20 years and gradually regulatory processes have become more transparent where nobody has to fill out data requests, you just put up a website and let folks download the data, and make a few librarians available to assist people in getting the correct data documentation.
Freedom of information inquiries were designed to encourage people to make the data public. Everybody has two options still. . . .put up with requests for the data or create an open data repository. . . .so stop whining about it. The citizens of this nation are entitled to what they pay for with taxes, its up to the holders of the data to determine how to streamline their operations to make that as seamless as possible.
dmt…”Remember the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not).
The modern saying is: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.””
If you have anything intelligent to say, get back to me. You obviously know nothing about trends and the contexts of the UAH data.
An extremely interesting start to a new solar cycle. The activity of the solar wind is undulating. This foreshadows interesting changes in the winter polar vortex, especially during La Nina.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01014/xo3q56l9fzq1.gif
midas…”As Robertson illustrates he believes heat is stored in electron energy states of an atom”.
Ah…Midas is Bindidon. First he leaves in a snit and comes back as a female and now he has taken his nym from King Midas who turned anything to gold that he touched. To bad Binnie has the opposite effect in science, everything he touches turns to crap.
Where else would heat be stored? Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, it’s not going to be stored in the nucleus since the only atomic particles than can change energy levels are electrons. According to quantum theory, put forward by Bohr and quantified in equations by Schrodinger, the electron changes orbital energy levels as heat is added.
There is no other energy that can be added but heat. Electromagnetic energy from the Sun is converted to a higher energy state by any mass that absorbs the energy and the absorp-tion is done exclusively by electrons. The higher states are higher states of kinetic energy. What did I just say about heat being defined as the kinetic energy of atoms?
Well Gordon,
You just contradicted yourself and demonstrated your limited understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
“What did I just say about heat being defined as the kinetic energy of atoms?”
vs
“According to quantum theory, put forward by Bohr and quantified in equations by Schrodinger, the electron changes orbital energy levels as heat is added.”
The orbital energy levels are not kinetic energy, and there are other modes that can absorb energy like the rotational, vibrational and bending states of the entire molecule including the nucleus and these are typically of lower energy levels than the orbitals and can absorb and emit infrared.
Just don’t try to bullshit us with your wrong understanding of Quantum Theory Gordon.
bobdroege
So how does one reason with a mind like Gordon Robertson. If he knew nothing of science he could learn and grow and understand. The problem is he has all these false made up versions of physics in his head that he believes are 100% correct. He is not even willing to accept the possibility he is totally wrong. With his mental state he is stuck in limbo. He can’t learn and grow and he keeps peddling horrible physics he made up. His ego is so into his ideas he can’t even conceive how bad they really are. Lot of illogical and irrational thinking on his part. Not much can be done though. He has been this way for many years. Many have given him some real solid physics but it does not get through his EGO filter. Only his ideas are good and valid, the rest are corrupt and wrong from bad science. It is a very strange mental state indeed!
Nothing but opinions and attacks from Norman.
He must believe lashing out at others makes up for his lack of knowledge.
CLintR, at least Norman understands where Gordon goes wrong, but you just swallow any and all denier bullpoop.
blob, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Why don’t you tell Gordon to stop trolling the threads with all the incorrect science he posts?
Why don’t you stop trolling?
Why don’t you know any science?
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
b,
You are dreaming. Reading too much Wikipedia, perhaps?
I suppose you will claim to be knowledgeable about quantum mechanics. Before you do, you might like to look at Lambs experimental work which brought existing quantum mechanics theory undone.
Dreams, speculation, and fantasy, all turn to dust when faced with reality. Except for climate alarmists, of course.
Which Lamb?
Is he the one lying down on Broadway?
Quantum Theory undone?
Shirley you jest.
b,
Keep braying, donkey. Learn to read. Learn to search. Learn about the progress of quantum mechanics. Lamb won a Nobel Prize for his work. Quantum electrodynamics resulted. Now the most rigorously tested theory ever. Just keeps on being right.
Now bray some more about what a clever donkey you are. Hee haw!
Yeah, but that wasn’t the undoing of Quantum Mechanics now was it?
But I only passed a first course in Quantum Mechanics, Lamb and Feynman barely got a mention.
Lamb and Feynman certainly did not undo the Quantum Mechanics models and equations for harmonic oscillators that explain the infrared absorpption and emission by CO2.
b,
Well, yes, it was. Experimental measurements differed from theoretical predictions, Ttheory was wrong. CO2 can absorb and emit IR of all frequencies, to a greater or lesser degree. As does all matter. Even donkey brains,
It makes no difference if you reject reality. The universe just keeps keeping on.
You know Swenson,
If you actually understood Lamb and Feynman, you would know that they would not support your statement
“CO2 can absorb and emit IR of all frequencies, to a greater or lesser degree.”
Because it is wrong. Well unless you consider zero to be lesser.
Sorry charlie, reality bites into your beliefs.
b,
The only thing which absorbs zero radiation at all frequencies is the absence of anything – a vacuum! CO2 is matter. Given sufficient optical depth, it is opaque to all frequencies.
You are still a donkey. Get with the program. Or keep denying reality. Your choice.
Swenson,
Now you are the one braying like an ignorant donkey.
Matter only absorbs radiation if it is the same energy as an available transition between energy levels of the matter doing the absorbing.
Read up on some of the science that Lamb and Feynman advanced.
b,
You are definitely a donkey. Matter at 0 K can be heated by radiation from matter at 1 K, for example. Or try explaining how you can heat CO2 (or any other gas) to an arbitrarily high temperature by compression (or friction). You really have no clue, do you?
Your cult leaders are spouting nonsense. You are simply too dim or too gullible to realise you are being conned. Learn some physics – hopefully not from donkeys like Mann or Pierrehumbert.
SOI values for 5 Oct, 2020
Average SOI for last 30 days 9.90
Average SOI for last 90 days 8.05
Index Nino 1.2 and Nino 3 are falling.
https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Odds are increasing that we see a strong La Nina this winter. The multi model ensemble mean is about -1.6 for December. The last time we had a strong La Nina was 2010-11.
So…how low will the 13-month average on UAH TLT go this time around? Are the 2016 and 2020 peaks the long term top? What say you?
bdgwx
Snape shows below what will happen next year:
https://tinyurl.com/y2ztez4j
And this is pretty akin to the ENSO forecast made by the Japanese Met Agency:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Would we move to a strong La Nina, so would the prediction look like, namely with a yellow/blue ratio of 20/80, if not even 10/90.
That the JMA forecast shows the inverse with a move from 30/70 to 40/60, is a hint on a rather weak La Nina.
But there is evidence that due to the 4/5 month lag between ENSO surface signals and the LT reaction to them, UAH’s global anomaly should drop a bit in the next months.
A good way to look at this near future would be to compare a lagged
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
with UAH6.0’s data, and to search in the record for La Nina starts looking similar.
J.-P. D.
thats fairly easy to do Swanson. 2010 index went negative in AMJ 2010 and temperature peak was September 2010. This time around the the oni went negative also in MJJ so will the fall proceed in October? The 2010 descent to La Nina was stronger taking two seasons to get to -.6 rather than the three seasons this time around.
the pattern is there for 2007 also. oni went negative for MAM and UAH started a steady decline in August 2007.
Perhaps your problem is you are looking at monthly values which jump around a lot because of the timing of kelvin waves rather than the seasonal index that defines an official La Nina.
B Hunter, Hate to bust you bubble, but I didn’t write the post to which you replied. I only post with my real name, unlike others around here.
My most humble apologies!
This model is projecting a -2.0 C anomaly (nino 3.4 ) for January 1,
https://tinyurl.com/y2ztez4j
Down – 0.75 C from early September.
Snape
What you might have overlloked is how short ENSO lasts in Nina mode.
J.-P. D.
To clarify –
The September 2 projection for Jan 1 was -1.25 C
I dont see any difference between how long the two last (nino vs. nina):
https://tinyurl.com/y255ywhj
A 36 month la nina event during the years 1973 – 1976
A 32 month event during the years 1998 – 2001
Starting in 2021, NOAA is going to move the ENSO reference period forward 5 years, making the ONI values slightly colder.
Could Earth become 800,000 K?
What would an example of something being 800,000 K.
Is our Sun 800,000 K?
Well the part the Sun which is emitting the most energy into space is not 800,000 K.
We consider that the photosphere of the Sun as emitting most of energy into space and it temperature is about 5,778 K
Though parts of sun are over 800,000 K
In regard to Earth we call the temperature of air 5 feet above the surface of the ground or ocean as it’s average temperature.
So when say can earth become 800,000 K do mean the temperature of the air 5 feet above the ground and ocean.
Well there can’t be a ground if temperature is 800,000 K, though could have some kind ocean of some kind- an ocean of plasma of sort sort. Mainly due word ocean, as ocean kind of broad term and ground or land is something one might one could stand on.
If we to measure Earth like measure the Sun {if say it’s 5,778 K} we might say Earth temperature is 240 watts per square meter.
And to be 800,000 K, it’s how many watts per square that is.
But currently measuring Earth in different way, and likewise one decide to measure earth a different ways you claim Earth could become 800,000 K.
So terms of how the Earth would look like if 800,000 K, it could look exactly like Earth look now.
Only difference some who have imagined an Earth which is 800,000 K could also not emit any energy into space, and present earth radiate about 240 watts per square meter. So one could argue Earth emitting 240 watt is hotter than Earth which emits zero watts- or has one instead decided the amount it emits into space is it’s temperature. Or you go to 5 meter above the ground and ocean thing and say it’s 15 C.
Personally I decided Earth is currently about 3.5 C. As apparently one can make rules willy nilly, I would rather they make some sense. I am going to say ocean planet average temperature should be the average temperature of it’s ocean. And it doesn’t include the frozen ice.
What other planets are water planets. We imagine Europa could be a water planet {actually moon of Jupiter]. If Europa is was comprised to bigger ocean than Earth- would the temperature of ocean be more significant than the cold vacuum of it’s surface?
Though guess how much watts in emits at surface could also be it’s temperature.
So with Earth, 3.5 C ocean and emits about 240 watts per square meter.
Another question is of the 240 watts per square meter emitted from Earth where does most it emit from?
As simple matter 70% of surface of Earth is ocean and more energy come from the more area. But brighter and hotter parts comes land areas- small fraction total area of land.
Maybe mostly from the larger ocean areas with some hotspots on land area?
gbaikie
That ignorants like Robertson
” When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation. ”
don’t understand what would happen when Earth could not give back to space what she obtained from the Sun: nobody wonders.
But that YOU don’t understand what Pierrehumbert meant with these 800,000 K: that is too much for me.
Why don’t you simply compute the amount of energy accumulated since 4,5 billion years by a celestial body hit every day by the Sun with 1360 W/m^2, when the body doesn’t return anything of that energy back to space?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, the 800,000K was not calculated from 1360 W/m^2. It was calculated AFTER albedo, ie 960 W/m^2. That’s how he got the 1.22 (10)^17 Joules.
And energy does not “accumlate” once the equilibrium temperature is reached. That’s where the nonsense really explodes and reality implodes.
As I indicated before, the equilibrium for a blackbody surface absorbing 960 W/m^2 is 361K.
You’re just as wrong believing the 800,000K as you are believing the ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
“… as you are believing the ball on a string is rotating about its axis. ”
Wrong, JD*Huffman: I never did believe that.
Sorry Bindidon, but you’re trying to hide behind words.
Is the ball on a string rotating about its axis, yes or no?
I can answer, without any evasion, “no”.
What’s your answer?
Much to the chagrin of his followers, even astrophysicist Joseph Postma believes the moon, like a ball on a string, rotates on its own axis.
You would be hard pressed to find any astrophysicist that did not “believe” as such.
That’s where modern “science” has gone. It’s all “beliefs” over reality,
It’ll swing the other way at some point.
Reality always wins.
Perhaps “believes” was the wrong word. Substitute the word “stated”. He stated a reality.
No, you had it right the first time. It’s all about “beliefs”, not science. That’s why you had to deny your own words.
See, reality always wins.
Let me just quote Postma:
“The moon rotates on its axis, which orbits the Earth”
Happy? Reality.
You would be hard pressed to find any astrophysicist that did not “believe” as such.
That’s where modern “science” has gone. It’s all “beliefs” over reality,
It’ll swing the other way at some point.
Reality always wins.
You appear to be a fake skeptic. Real skeptics can think for themselves and do not have to rely on their “high priests”.
I don’t rely on any high priests. Simple kinematics indicate a ball whirling on a string is rotating on its own axis, just like the moon.
SGW,
I just stated that Postma is wrong. Now you can wheel out your large barrow of appeals to authority. For the moment, Sir Isaac Newton agrees with me.
SGW, if you believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis, then you are an idiot.
It’s an easy test. If the ball were really rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.
You can tell your astrophysicists and kinematics teachers they are idiots also, if they believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
“Simple kinematics indicate a ball whirling on a string is rotating on its own axis, just like the moon.”
According to even simpler kinematics, you can describe the ball as rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, and not on its own axis. That’s why kinematics does not resolve the issue. You can describe the same motion two different ways…
…but only one way is correct. In reality, the ball is prevented from rotating on its own axis by the presence of the string. The ball is therefore not rotating on its own axis.
Now…something that cannot rotate on its own axis moves a certain way whilst orbiting. The particles making up the object all move in concentric circles about the center of the orbit. If the object were axially rotating whilst orbiting, the paths drawn out by the particles of the object would criss-cross.
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
“If the ball were really rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.”
ROTFLMAO. I can tell you never set foot in a kinematics class in your life. Listen, dumbass. The string will not wrap around the ball because the ball is rotating on its own axis precisely 1 revolution per 1 orbit.
And Swenson? You never said anything regarding Postma in all this blog.
And DREMT spouts more of his usual BS.
Pointless to argue with clowns.
I forgot, SGW is a “rotation about an external axis” denier. The axis of rotation must always pass through the body in question, according to him. That’s definitely wrong, as even Wikipedia confirms:
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
SGW, appealing to nonsense will not help you. If you’re sincerely trying to learn, start studying here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-519976
This is about thinking for yourself, not worshiping cult leaders. It is not difficult to prove the ball-on-a-string is not rotating about its axis.
Avoiding reality makes people idiots.
the realist will realize that the forcing on the ball is well understood. For greenhouse gases the forcing is not well understood. Thus realists will understand that the ball rotates around the point the string pivots rather than its own pivot.
But for the greenhouse effect where the forcing isn’t known to translate back through multiple layers to the surface (alleged pivot point) the non-realist becomes a follower of authority which is a follower of a paycheck which is the authority that anoints all authority. Thus you will observe most skeptics are older on average and less of a follower.
An apt description of post normal science.
ClintR,
Thanks for the link displaying the history of your stupidity. Wow! You make Dumb and Dumber look like geniuses.
“Thus realists will understand that the ball rotates around the point the string pivots rather than its own pivot.”
Exactly.
Poor Bill.
The ball has angular momentum which can be calculated. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity. Furthermore, in kinematics we can translate reference frames to observe the relative motion of an object wrt the translating reference frame. Our translating reference frame will be an x-y coordinate system centered on the ball on a string. What will be observed is the ball rotating on its own axis about the center of the translating reference frame.
Now, let’s cut or release the string, What happens? The ball travels on a trajectory tangent to the circle (with radius r of string) at the point of release. However, the ball will also be rotating on its own axis, since it was already rotating on its own axis prior to the string being cut (conservation of angular momentum).
Yes, the ball appears to be rotating on its own axis, from the “translating reference frame”. In reality, it is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis. Only the total system angular momentum need be conserved. That’s orbital angular momentum plus spin angular momentum. There is no spin angular momentum before release, only orbital angular momentum. After release, there is spin angular momentum, and no orbital angular momentum.
DREMT says:
There is no spin angular momentum before release, only orbital angular momentum. After release, there is spin angular momentum, and no orbital angular momentum.
========================
Exactly!!
Drilling for grey matter around here is maybe even worse that drilling for oil. At least every once in a while with oil drilling you get a “Eureka” moment. In drilling for grey matter around here in the ‘spinner’ community you keep drilling and drilling through rock formations and tearing up drill bits.
The ball appears to be spinning because it IS spinning. And it will continue to spin when the string is cut. Newton’s first law of motion. The attached string confuses the hell out of you, because you think “It can’t spin!” Lack of grey matter is your problem, and lack of an education in physics.
An object that does not spin has to translate per the laws of kinematics. And the ball on the string is NOT translating. Therefore it is spinning. Also, the only force acting on the ball are tensile forces in the string, which do not cause any kind of spin.
I think this guy missed out on the previous round.
"An object that does not spin has to translate per the laws of kinematics. And the ball on the string is NOT translating. Therefore it is spinning."
It is rotating about an external axis (revolving), and not rotating on its own axis.
No Bob,
This insanity was rehashed two years ago with all the moon non-rotation tin-hat freaks. What it comes down to is a serious lack of education. I didn’t miss anything. The stupidity ensues.
Bill, Bob. Whatever. Same clown.
SGW, why don’t you try arguing against the GHE instead? You’re much better at that.
Our new idiot is still here! Not only is he confused about physics, he’s confused about what a “skeptic” is. Great entertainment!
SGW makes the same mistake about angular momentum that others made. He believe that if you can calculate an angular momentum, then there must be angular momentum! He’s never studied angular momentum, obviously.
An angular momentum for Moon can be calculated by mvr, but that is only a calculation. Since Moon is instantaneously translating, it only has linear momentum That’s why if gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would continue in a straight line. And since it is not rotating about its axis, it would continue in a straight line, also NOT rotating about its axis.
Poor Clint does not seem to know what translation is. Here is the definition:
“TRANSLATION It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Rectilinear Translation: All points in the body move in parallel
straight lines. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
[ http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
The moon is not translating. The ball on a string is not translating. The earth is not flat. You can’t turn lead into gold. Elvis is dead.
You should consider a career in stand-up comedy.
But by all means, please publish a paper on the moon’s non-rotation and notify NASA. I am sure they would eagerly await your amazing find. And don’t forget to send your paper to the National Enquirer as well!
SGW, you need to go to the link I supplied, and get up to speed. This has all been discussed before. You’re late to the party, and making a fool of yourself. You don’t appear to have a clue, since you believe the ball on a string is also rotating about its axis.
The fact that you need to look up definitions of the basic concepts means you don’t understand them. We see that a lot.
Also, you forgot to look up “instantaneously”, not that you will be able to understand it.
Clint,
We had a big party in of 2018 for the February UAH temperature update, when there were over 3,500 comments, mostly to do with moon rotation, and balls on strings. You were not there. I was, and soundly made fools of all takers. You are just rehashing debunked stuff.
Please cite a kinematics or kinetics reference which defines instantaneous translation.
Fortunately SGW, I have learned how to deal with idiots. If you refuse to accept reality, then you are an idiot, and can’t learn. There is no need to waste time trying to teach idiots.
You failed to understand that the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis. You believe it is. You have no “cite” from a “kinematics or kinetics reference” that a ball on a string is rotating on its axis. It’s just your belief that it is.
If you had followed my advice to study the previous discussions, you would have learned about the wooden horse securely fastened to the edge of a rotating platform. The wooden horse cannot possibly be rotating about its axis because it is bolted, nailed, glued, stapled, and screwed to the platform.
So, for your idiot test, is the wooden horse rotating about its axis?
a) Yes
b) No
Federal and state laws require me to give you the correct answer, before you have to answer. The correct answer is “b”. Failure to answer correctly means you are an idiot.
Now, what is your answer?
realists will understand that the ball rotates around the point the string pivots rather than its own pivot.
Clint,
So no kinematic definition of instantaneous translation? Thought not. You just make shit up.
I already told you how to show the ball is rotating on its own axis by using a translating reference frame and and the concept of relative motion. But you are a clown and don’t even know what translation is.
You are nothing but a fake. You belong in a carnival freak show.
Bill,
You do read, right? Well, here is some light reading homework for you from some MIT course notes for classical mechanics:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/readings/MIT8_01F16_chapter20.pdf
Now, go to page 20-19 and read to the end. This is what it states at the very beginning:
“We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.”
They go through a formal proof.
The ball on a string is a rigid body in motion. That motion can be described as the translation of the ball’s center of mass (which follows a circular path) plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.
Got it?? Ya. I thought not.
Clint the clown moans:
“The wooden horse cannot possibly be rotating about its axis because it is bolted, nailed, glued, stapled, and screwed to the platform!”
This is the problem with these clowns and their clown physics. Yes the wooden horse cannot and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the wooden platform. But that is NOT the correct reference frame to use if one is going to use Newton’s laws! Please read the following:
“Only when we go to laws of motion, the reference frame needs to be the inertial frame. From the point of view of kinematics, no
reference frame is more fundamental or absolute.”
[https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME562/bajaj562chpt2.pdf]
“A Newtonian or inertial frame of reference does not rotate and is either fixed or translates in a given direction with a constant velocity (zero acceleration). This definition ensures that particle’s acceleration measured by observers in two different inertial frames of reference will always be the same.”
[http://www.engineering.uco.edu/~aaitmoussa/Courses/ENGR2043/Dynamics/Chapter3-1/ch3-1.pdf]
“An inertial frame is defined as one in which Newton’s law of inertia holds—that is, any body which isn’t being acted on by an outside force stays at rest if it is initially at rest, or continues to move at a constant velocity if that’s what it was doing to begin with. An example of a non-inertial frame is a rotating frame, such as a carousel.”
[//galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/lecture1.htm]
You clowns are using a non-inertial rotating reference frame in your analysis. You sputter your complaint that the ball cannot rotate on its own axis with respect to the string! Well duh! The string and ball are on the same rotating reference frame! You moan that the horse glued, screwed, stapled, and nailed to the carousel platform CANNOT rotate on its own axis wrt to the carousel platform!!! Well double duh!! HOW STUPID IS THAT, Captain Obvious!!!!?? You have to use an inertial reference frame, which can be fixed or translating, to describe the motion of your object. So the ball DOES rotate on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and so does the horse.
By the same DUMB logic, if your horse was attached right smack dab center of the carousel, you would say it simply CANNOT rotate on its own axis because it is attached to the carousel!!! LMAO!!
You clowns are beyond belief! You clowns are more screwed than the horse!!
Poor SGW…driven insane by argument-loss, he rants and raves…
…first he insists that every motion is a combination of a translation and a rotation, thus defining all pure rotation, and pure translation, out of existence. Whoops! So the ball on a string, which is purely rotating about an external axis, not on its own axis, goes over his head.
Similarly with the wooden horse, which physically cannot rotate on its own axis, and is also merely rotating about the center of the platform, he first argues about reference frames (yes it may appear to be rotating on its own axis, from the inertial reference frame, but in reality it is just rotating about the center of the platform), then he puts words in our mouths about what we would say if the horse was instead located exactly in the center. Well, if the horse was located exactly in the center, of course it would be rotating on its own axis, as its own center of mass would coincide with the center of the rotating platform. The horse is instead located towards the outside edge of the platform, just as the moon is hundreds of thousands of miles from Earth.
So, for your idiot test, is the wooden horse rotating about its axis?
a) Yes
b) No
Federal and state laws require me to give you the correct answer, before you have to answer. The correct answer is “b”. Failure to answer correctly means you are an idiot.
Now, what is your answer?
Yeah DREMT, SGW is “wild”, okay. He not only qualifies as full idiot, but shoots right up to “blithering idiot” status.
Clint,
I am still waiting for your definition of instantaneous translation.
If Clint the Clown’s feet are bolted, nailed, glued, stapled, and screwed to the center of a spinning carousel platform, is he rotating on his own axis?? Not according to clown physics, because he cannot possibly be rotating about his own axis because he is bolted, nailed, glued, stapled, and screwed to the platform! Meanwhile Clint the Clown is turning green and upchucking green as well. But he is not spinning! Nothing to see here, move along! LMAO.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
He’s “wild” all right. He doesn’t even read where his points are addressed, and just wildly repeats himself.
DREMT can’t even figure out what translation is, and then he argues with himself and gets more confused.
I’m sure glad we have the “idiot test”. It comes in handy, a lot.
Once they self-identify as idiots, we know they can’t learn. SGW is just another harmless coward, filled with rage due to his many failures.
The only thing that suffers is his keyboard….
False.
Clint,
Give me the definition of instantaneous translation, or STFU, moron.
Clint, Bill, DREMT. Any one of you three stooges. Please give the definition of instantaneous translation from a kinematic or kinetics reference source.
…………….
SGW, I wish there were some way we could help you, but we can’t. You’re an idiot. You can’t learn. You wouldn’t understand anything we provided.
If you were a normal person, these things are easily teachable. But you actually believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis! We can’t help someone with such strange beliefs.
I know it’s frustrating for you, so we try not to laugh.
Let us know if anything changes.
SkepticGoneWild says:
We shall now show that the motion of any rigid body consists of a translation of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass.
They go through a formal proof.
The ball on a string is a rigid body in motion. That motion can be described as the translation of the balls center of mass (which follows a circular path) plus a rotation of the ball about its center of mass.
Got it?? Ya. I thought not.
==================================
All artificially derived SGW.
The rigid system that the moon is part of includes the earth as the main pivot point creating a barycenter somewhere within the earth.
Same for the ball on a string. One end of that string is anchored by an object with a larger mass or uh the earth would rotating around the moon instead of vice versa.
So glad you recognize the string as part of the rigid system. DREMT and I were having a tough time arguing that point with some blockheads in the last thread on this issue.
Seems all we need to do now is move you from the end of the string to what its anchored on in the rigid system.
And as due to what’s rigid and what is not, the concept in engineering is no system is perfectly rigid and what you strive for is ”rigid enough”.
As to the lunar earth system enough is to both keep the moon in rotation around the earth.
So as I have been saying the answer to the question is whether you believe the motions of the moon are merely coincidental or are they controlled by the ”system”.
And that is all DREMT and myself have been saying. Thanks for your contribution it definitely was head and shoulders above the rest around here.
ClintR
You used the term “instantaneous translation”. Please define the term. I doubt you even understand “translation”, because the moon is not translating either.
Don’t worry about me not understanding, I’ve taken university courses in kinematics and kinetics.
And don’t worry about making yourself look stupid. You’ve already crossed that bridge.
SGW, I wish there were some way we could help you, but we can’t.
You’re an idiot. You can’t learn. All you do is appeal to authority and try to convince us you’ve studied the subject. Yet there is no evidence of that. You wouldn’t understand anything we provided.
If you were a normal person, these things are easily teachable. But you actually believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis! We can’t help someone with such strange beliefs.
I know it’s frustrating for you, so we try not to laugh.
Let us know if anything changes.
SGW and I have both offered proofs that the Moon both rotates on its own axis and revolves around the Earth on a different axis, but the four stooges lack the science skill to understand them and the guts to admit that they are wrong.
Others have contributed as well.
End of story.
Your “proofs” always involve you not understanding how to correctly separate axial rotation from orbital motion.
Rather than define the term he used, “instantaneous translation”, ClintR decides his best course of action is to stick his head in the sand. Brilliant move!
People are laughing at you, Clint.
Whats a matter DEREMPTY,
You can’t attack my logic so you attack me.
Goes with the flow I guess.
I’m not “attacking” you, blob. I’m just stating a fact.
SGW, you’re not intelligent enough to figure it out. Once I determine someone is an idiot, I no longer need to waste my time trying to help them. You have tested positive for “idiot”.
Don’t expect any further response from me until your condition improves. You might be contagious….
How’s the search for Bigfoot going?
Now you’re posting in the wrong place…
Binny,
Ice can emit 300 W/m2. Surround a container of water with ice, Let the water accumulate energy from the ice for a million years.
How hot does the water get? Pierrehumberts ignorance was on display with his 800,000 K. Shared with other alarmists, sad to say.
–gbaikie
That ignorants like Robertson
” When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation. ”–
It can dissipate heat to the rest of the earth, but to leave earth, there are some ways other radiant transfer, but I don’t imagine they are significant- and I would not claim it’s a net loss. But main thing is don’t think it’s significant either way. But can dissipate elsewhere within earth and could be significant.
–don’t understand what would happen when Earth could not give back to space what she obtained from the Sun: nobody wonders.
But that YOU don’t understand what Pierrehumbert meant with these 800,000 K: that is too much for me.–
I don’t know if Pierrehumbert knows what he meant, but roughly you need an energy intensity to reach 800,000 K.
An impactor certain can deliver it, as can fission/fusion. But considering Earth’s relatively low gravity, it’s atmosphere obviously can’t be that hot.
–Why don’t you simply compute the amount of energy accumulated since 4,5 billion years by a celestial body hit every day by the Sun with 1360 W/m^2, when the body doesn’t return anything of that energy back to space?–
Well, it doesn’t work that way- it’s a silly idea.
Adding watts is like working for million years and getting somewhere, due solely to hours put in.
Or million monkeys typing Shakespeare.
Graphene-based circuit yields clean, limitless power
{don’t let the headline fool you- but it’ interesting}
“Oct. 2 (UPI) — Scientists have developed a new graphene-based circuit capable of producing clean, limitless power. Researchers suggest the energy-harvesting circuit — described Friday in the journal Physical Review E — could be used to power small, low-voltage devices and sensors.”
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2020/10/02/Graphene-based-circuit-yields-clean-limitless-power/1571601661030/
linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Scott R
This thread is so incredibly boring, so full of endlessly repeated ignorance… You just need to look at dumb statements like
” When the Sun is not shining, at night, the atmosphere can dissipate the day heat naturally, without radiation. ”
Imagine our Earth would not be able to radiate out what she got in! The planet would have burned since billions of years.
And… it is in clear contradiction to 1LoT.
*
Maybe we should continue our discussion in the thread we were before.
I processed Promice daily data
https://promice.org/PromiceDataPortal/api/download/f24019f7-d586-4465-8181-d4965421e6eb/v03/daily
in a first step in between.
Though it is interesting to see that 2019 and 2020 winter temperatures appear at top of an ascending sort, we nonetheless should keep in mind that they all were measured by the EGP station, and that it is located at an altitude of about 2,650 m.
The next specialist in reporting cold temperatures is the CEN station, it is at 1,800 m.
J.-P. D.
“A blackbody surface absorbing 960 Watts/m^2 could only achieve a maximum temperature of 391K. Thats it. For your high priest to claim otherwise indicates he is either incompetent or dishonest, or both.”
But then, when your entire model is built on a Venusian surface warmed up to its current temp via solar input, you’ll do just about anthing to justify that long held fantasy
philj…”But then, when your entire model is built on a Venusian surface warmed up to its current temp via solar input…”
Phil…apparently the source of the surface heat, about 450C, is unknown, and cannot be explained by solar input alone. It certainly cannot be explained by a greenhouse effect since the surface being much hotter than the atmosphere cannot explain a transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a hotter surface.
2nd law and all that.
further to bobdroege says:October 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM:
When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the
molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an excited state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) re-radiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.
At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited
molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any
molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized
greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is
transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.
Many of us the word “thermalize” to describe the transfer of the newly acquired molecular vibration/rotation energy to kinetic or thermal energy via collisions.
Snape, you found some actual physics!
Now isn’t that better than the usual nonsense you spew?
ClintR hijacked my reply to Gordon Robertson on:October 3, 2020 at 2:27 AM that:
“It cannot maintain that temperature while radiating all the input energy back to space. Sorry…but there is far more to the dynamic nature of the surface-atmosphere relationship than a simple theory of heat in = heat out. A lot of heat is retained, in the surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere.”
After 48 hours of inane comments and ad hominem attacks and for the sake of expediency I’ve decided to ignore your comments. Not personal, just not interested in unserious discourse.
Well Snape, I won’t miss your inane comments and ad hominem attacks.
But, I doubt that you can leave me alone.
We’ll see….
RR,
Molecules do not *bump into* or *collide with* each other. You are just throwing around words that sound scientific, but you have no clue.
Heres a short test, not that I think youll be interested.
Compressing CO2 quickly will raise its temperature. Where do the photons come from that raise the temperature of the CO2 to say, 500 C? What peak frequency is emitted by the 500 C compressed CO2?
Time for another diversion?
I’m down with all that
With Ramona that is.
blob, please stop trolling.
I am not Ramona.
You seem to be different people at different times, Doris.
@Ramona,
Clearly, the man is not well. He has come to believe that every new commenter is really me. Its a strange and sad obsession.
First, Artemis Dinwitty had to endure the indignity, then Doris Weizendanger, and now you.
Apologies.
In my 72 years on this planet I have been called worse! No sweat.
Nearly a year later and what does each side know now that they did not know earlier? Just that the same arguments are being made by the same folks on the same positions with no change at all. Both sides are dug in like in a foxhole just waiting for the opponent to show his head so he can take it off! Or attempt to do so. The alarmists use science like many politicians, to push an agenda, like abortion, whereby the science is clear (life begins at conception)but the waters are purposely muddied to levy a counter concept, namely that abortion IS exclusively a woman’s right or choice or both! The ultimate exclusion from the equation is the LORD God of the universe. Therein lies the crux of the matter! Genesis 8:22 nasb
22While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.
Poor nutrition and hunger is responsible for the death of 3.1 million children a year. Thats nearly half of all deaths in children under the age of 5. The children die because their bodies lack basic nutrients.
Globally, 822 million people suffer from undernourishment.
God might want to pull his finger out of his ass mate.
What a total nonsense post.
Galaxie500, are you blaming God for man’s stupidity? Your stupidity?
Did God teach you to hate?
Today about 4.6% of children die worldwide before reaching their 15th birthday. At todays birthrate thats about 6.4million per year.
Not that far in the past the rate was around 50% with about 25% dying in their first year.
Fossil fuels have been largely responsible for that dramatic reduction in death rates. . . .enabling the time for science to advance. Thus its reasonable to surmise that the trend will continue if we don’t mess it up with bad science that ends up reducing the time available for scientific advancement.
Malnutrition is one of the biggest enemies. And at this point in time it appears CO2 is going to help with that rather than hinder it.
Said the self righteous galactic fool (Galaxy500) that has NO CLUE about reality, origins or climate change. The fool has said in his heart there is NO GOD! Self condemned to be sure, perhaps Sovereignly condemned but that is not my determination to make. But you have been apprised of your exalted place now, and you border on blasphemy.
Then I said, “Here I am send me”.
And He said, “Go and tell this people:
Keep on hearing but do not understand;
Keep on seeing but do not perceive.”
“Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy, and shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
and return and be healed.” Isaiah 6:8c-10
Look into the perfect law of liberty and see yourself in the mirror like a blind guide or blundering fool believing you can comprehend the totality of what your senses perceive and your education yields. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction! Proverbs 1:7
Nice! Let thy spirit be free!
“push an agenda, like abortion, whereby the science is clear (life begins at conception”
And can remain a frozen embryo in a test tube indefinitely. Not much of a life but could be eternal.
Seems like you are dug in your foxhole on that one.
Irrelevant Nate with his contemporary wisdom, like the current American crop of subversive politicians, attempting to deflect and redefine reality with some scientific jargon that appears to exalt man to the place of God. Perhaps you can relay the date, time and method of your own death that would indicate you have any credibility at all insofar as any kind of life is concerned!
tim…and swaniie…
“During the day the atmosphere absorbs more energy than it emits, causing it to warm and therefore expand.
During the night the atmosphere emits more energy than it absorbs, causing it to cool and therefore contract”.
Tim…you are back to the old energy obfuscation. What energy is absorbed and how is it absorbed? Most alarmists claim the atmosphere does not absorb incoming solar, which to me is scientifically unreasonable. Why should a gas not warm when solar radiation strikes it? Why does solar energy need to warm the surface first then radiation from the surface warm only GHGs in the atmosphere?
The anthropogenic theory makes no sense. Why should a trace gas at TOA be responsible for dissipating heat from the surface that creates radiation which outnumbers the absorbing capacity of CO2 about 95 to 5? That’s right, CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs, theoretically, only 5% of surface radiation.
With regard to what causes expansion of the atmosphere during the day, it is solar EM. There is no reason that N2/O2 cannot absorb broadband solar EM and warm. Solar EM warms the stratosphere, why not the troposphere?
Electrons in N2/O2 will absorb solar EM causing them to jump to higher orbital energy levels. That translates to heating and the heating translates to increased pressure hence expansion.
When solar input is gone for the day, the electrons will not maintain their higher orbital energy level, they will naturally drop back to an energy level representative of the temperature without solar input. Therefore, cooling does not cause contraction, it is a natural process of a gas heated then allowed to cool.
Please note that expansion and contraction are related to a change in pressure. Expansion occurs when atoms/molecules gain kinetic energy. If a gas in a cylinder, with a constant number of atoms/molecules, is compressed by a piston, and has its average KE increased, it would exert pressure on the piston as well as the walls of the cylinder. That would be an increase in pressure. If the piston did not move the volume would remain constant.
The only energy that can cause that pressure change in a gas, with a constant volume and constant mass, is thermal energy (aka heat). And the only particle in an atom that can cause such heat, is the electrons in the atom as they change orbital energy levels. If the heat is turned off, and heat escapes through the walls of the cylinder, the average kinetic energy of the gas will reduce and the temperature will drop as the gas contracts.
Therefore, it is not the contraction causing the cooling but a reduction in temperature causing the cooling. Same in the atmosphere.
bill hunter…”Sure thing Swanson go ahead and make fun of somebody for not understanding how the system works. But please avoid the strawmen”.
I have a good understanding of how the system is ‘supposed’ to work, I simply disagree with it and I’m hypothesizing an alternate explanation based on physics and thermodynamics.
I don’t think a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for heating it and dissipating heat from it via radiation. In fact, I think that idea is ridiculous.
I also think the interaction between solar energy and heat transfer into the system and dissipation of that heat, is being highly simplified to a level that is almost comical.
I wasn’t suggesting you don’t Gordon. I was taking Swanson to task for trying to treat you like the press treats Trump taking stuff out of context and trying to make a big deal about it. A lot of heat is lost in the atmosphere in many ways. These guys are focused on radiation and thats not even the issue. The issue is the specific process that makes their cherished multi-layered greenhouse effect actually work. but they would rather build strawmen to shoot down because they are completely incompetent to explain exactly what they so feverishly believe in.
At least most religious folks today hold their belief system as a mystic belief something that is very personal in their efforts to get closer to God.
whereas believers in science see it as an exoteric belief one capable of anybody with sufficient study and abilities can understand without understanding it themselves. and to mask their own ignorance by berating other non-believers and erecting strawmen to shoot down.
In the old days that might be classified as a neurosis. In todays hedonistic drug oriented society its like considered normal
bill…”At least most religious folks today hold their belief system as a mystic belief something that is very personal in their efforts to get closer to God.
whereas believers in science see it as an exoteric belief one capable of anybody with sufficient study and abilities can understand without understanding it themselves”.
What fascinates me is that Newton was both religious and a damned good scientist. I am not religious in a conventional manner but the more I see of the workings of the human body the more I think it had to be created. It’s far too complex, with a multitude of unrelated process working magically in sync, that I can’t see chance, as in natural selection, taking part.
The most recent example is a tiny particle called an exosome. For the longest time, scientists regarded them as garbage products, the refuse from cells. Now they see them as products created by cells to communicate with each other.
I have recently read that micrographs of covid are identical to exosomes. In other words, someone has apparently photographed exosomes with an electron microscope and mistaken them for covid.
If this is true, then the tests for covid are testing for exosomes, which can be related to all the symptoms attributable to covid, and more. Exosomes can be produced by cells during stress, tiredness, and so on. So, the tests are testing for natural body functions not a virus.
Here’s the kicker. Exosomes use the same entry into cells as is claimed for covid.
Yep got to agree with you. I am not religious in the sense of belonging to a particular church but my spiritual adventure started in an upper division philosophy class on free will and determinism.
Physics, chemistry are all based upon the perception of a deterministic world. It extends its tentacles into medicine and all aspects of our lives. It does so on a ”statistical” basis that recognizes on one hand life is a gamble and on the other hand wants to determine how everybody should place their bets.
Its an insidious descent for the spirit.
Free will in all it forms argues against this deterministic world. Do we really have free will? Sure seems so. But if we do we can change the world, we can change the future, we aren’t just the cog in the machine that is supposed to do what it does as instructed. Instructed by who? F–k That!
ramona…”When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an excited state”.
A molecule is nothing more than a name for an aggregation of two or more atomic nuclei bonded together by electrons. The molecule as such is not absorbing anything, it is the electrons. There is nothing in a molecule other than electrons can absorb IR/EM. It is the electron that reaches an excited state as opposed to its ground state.
“At the higher densities of Earths atmosphere, the excited
molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any
molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized
greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with…”
The problem here is that molecules are aggregations of atomic nuclei surrounded by electrons which bond the nuclei together. Since electrons repel each other and are widely spaced, are you suggesting the nuclei actually collide? Don’t think so. Even if they did, that cannot change the temperature since that is governed by the kinetic energy of the electrons in whatever orbital energy level they may exist.
The kinetic molecular theory tells us that the collisions between air molecules are elastic, meaning there is no loss of energy during collision. The kinetic energy of atoms is heat but that KE exists in the electrons of atoms, defined by the orbital energy level at which the electron exists.
Is this more bs from Pierrehumbert?
Gordon,
this
“The kinetic molecular theory tells us that the collisions between air molecules are elastic, meaning there is no loss of energy during collision. ”
Is one of the assumptions of the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
Consider yourself schooled.
blob, please stop trolling.
I troll with truth, the opposite of what you do DREMTY.
As long as you admit you are a troll…
So that means you admit you troll with lies?
That’s what I thought.
You may return to your regularly scheduled programming.
No troll, it means you admitted to being a troll.
At least I am a funny troll sometimes, and not so repetitive like you DUMPTY.
blob, please stop trolling.
binny…”Imagine our Earth would not be able to radiate out what she got in! The planet would have burned since billions of years”.
Why? The heat in is obviously being used to maintain an alleged 33C warming that alarmists call a greenhouse effect. Since much of that heat is stored, all that is required is a shot of solar energy each day to maintain that excess heat. The system takes care of most atmospheric heat dissipation internally via the Ideal Gas Law.
If you had a planet with no oceans and no atmosphere, like the Moon, or being close to the conditions on Mars, you’d have a different problem altogether. It’s the fact that the Earth turns at the rate it does, and it’s distance from the Sun, that sets up our unique conditions.
A heat budget where heat in = heat out has been incorrectly presumed. The people who made that claim obviously have no idea of what heat is and how it works with a mass. Heat can be dissipated simply by changes in pressure and/or volume.
Goddie says:
“A heat budget where heat in = heat out has been incorrectly presumed.”
What fool said that? The Earth is running a surplus, we have increasing OHC, air and surface temperatures. Ice and permafrost is melting.
S,
Complete nonsense, of course. Have you heard of nighttime? Winter, even?
The Antarctic used to be ice free. Flora and fauna abundant. Are you a parrot, a donkey, or a combination of both?
Maybe you could come up with a scientific description of the (cough) GHE! Of course you cant. Why is that, Svante? Cat got your tongue?
Oh dear.
Mikey
So what if the Antarctic used to be ice free, what does that prove?
Well Antarctic is Huge icebox of very very cold ice.
G addresses his invisible demons. Obviously too confused to realise that ice where no ice used to be means it got colder. In the case of Antarctica, a lot colder, for a very long time.
Maybe he thinks Antarctica will return to its previous fertile state. I hope so.
The subsurface wave in the equatorial Pacific is weak. There is no strong turning wave in the Western Pacific. This foreshadows a long La Nina.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202010.gif
This is the beginning of a new solar cycle.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20201005_hres.png
The alarmists tell us that the global temperature would 33 C (or something) less, without GHGs. This would of course mean that the oceans would be frozen through. So ice, in direct sunlight, would not melt? Or maybe only a bit?
Oh dear. Reality bites. Alarmists are donkeys, regardless of credentials, qualifications, or awards! Braying loudly, but incapable of thinking things through. Good try, fellas! Pity Nature is ignoring you.
Upthread, we see Tim Folkerts displaying his ignorance of physics. Here are his words, with my corrections:
“There is, in fact, no theoretical maximum temperature for an object absorbing 960 W/m^2.”
The maximum temperature is the equilibrium temperature for the absorbed flux. For a blackbody surface absorbing 960 W/m^2, the maximum temperature is 361K.
“The lower the emissivity of the surface, the hotter it could be.”
Completely WRONG. For the same incoming flux, the lower the emissivity, the cooler it will be.
“It’s easy to get materials with emissivity = 0.05, so it would be easy to get the temperatures over 700K.”
Not with only 960 W/m^2 incoming. The MAXIMUM for 960 W/m^2 is 361K. Reducing the emissivity increases the reflectivity.
“In the theoretical limit of emissivity = 0, the temperature goes to infinity!”
Completely WRONG. If emissivity = 0, reflectivity = 1, i.e. zero temperature increase for any incoming flux.
Clint,
I get what you are saying, I really do. Unfortunately, you are making two major errors.
1) You misread the paper. The original statement says the object absorbs 1.22 x 10^17 Joules each second (=960 W/m^2). Period.
In, particular, it does NOT say that 1.22 x 10^17 J/s is incident, but some of that might be reflected based on emissivity and/or reflectivity. Based on the actual wording, any effects of reflectivity are ALREADY included, and the final result is given.
2) You misunderstand the relationship between emissivity and reflectivity. Emissivity does not have to equal (1-reflectivity). These quantities vary with wavelength, and can be quite different for visible light vs IR.
For example, white paper could have emissivity ~ 0.9 (for IR) and simultaneously have reflectivity ~ 0.9 (for visible light). At the other extreme are “selective surfaces”, where emissivity might be ~ 0.1 (IR) and reflectivity might also be ~ 0.1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_surface
White paper will stay relatively cool in sunlight. Black paper will be warmer. A “selective surfaces” would be hotter yet.
Tim, that’s just another of your frantic typing frenzies. !) and 2) have nothing to do with your mistakes I mentioned.
Face reality.
But they have everything to do with YOUR mistakes. Lets focus on one:
“Reducing the emissivity increases the reflectivity.”
Here is a whole table of real materials with IR emissivity and solar (1-reflectivity) = absor.ption in the table. If you are correct, these two numbers should vary together. And yet look at these numbers (first solar abs. and then IR emissivity)
* 0.09, 0.03 Aluminum
* 0.09, 0.90 MgO paint
* 0.91, 0.94 Martin Black Velvet Paint
* 0.92, 0.08 Ni oxide on stainless steel
These two numbers can vary independently over a huge range, with either being larger.
Tim, you are getting yourself confused, again.
Find two cars that are in full sunlight, one white and one a dark color. Just feeling the surface you should be able to learn about emissivity, absor.p.tivity, and reflectivity.
Maybe….
Forgot the link: http://solarmirror.com/fom/fom-serve/cache/43.html
Clint,
With the cars, you are giving an example where switching from black paint to white paint increases reflectivity changes while emissivity stays constant. Yet you had just insisted that the way to increase reflectivity is to lower the emissivity. You can’t be right both times! You ARE right that reducing the IR emissivity increases the IR reflectivity, but that is not the issue at hand.
When you put your hand on the cars, you learned you were wrong to insist “reducing the emissivity increases the reflectivity.” You can have any combination of high or low emissivity with high or low reflectivity. (Just like paint can reflect blue and absorb red, or absorb red and reflect blue. Or reflect neither. Or reflect both.)
And you are wrong about “For the same incoming flux, the lower the emissivity, the cooler”. That one ought to be intuitively obvious.
The lower the emissivity, the less efficiently the object radiates away power. Keeping other factors constant, an object radiating inefficiently with low emissivity must get warmer to match the power output of an object radiating efficiently with high emissivity.
T = ( P / [A(epsilon)(sigma)] )^0.25
Tim, I’ve learned not to get into a typing contest with idiots that refuse reality.
I explained your mistakes here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-533783
People that can think for themselves can see your efforts to pervert physics. For those that may have forgotten some basics, this explains it quite well:
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-emissivity-emissivity-of-materials-definition/
I like to use simple examples. Not everyone has a background in physics. The “light/dark cars in sunlight” example was simple to understand, and most have experienced it. You tried to pervert the simple example.
I will not respond to your usual nonsense. If you can’t face reality, you’re just wasting people’s time.
These discussion are informative. You get people with just enough knowledge to be interesting — for example they can correctly calculate the temperature of a blackbody receiving 960 W/m^2). This can give a false sense of confidence. For example, they INSIST that lowering the emissivity will lower the temperature of an object like an asteroid exposed to sunlight.
It’s fairly easy to derive the correct answer in simple cases — but these get dismissed as either too simple or to complex.
It’s fairly easy to find the correct answer on the internet (see below) — but these get dismissed as part of some huge conspiracy.
It’s fairly easy to intuit the right answer (the harder it is for energy to leave, the warmer the object will become) — but these get dismissed with insults.
We’re not going to change many minds 100’s of posts into a discussion, but the process is remarkably consistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Surface_temperature_of_a_planet
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1003
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-8-applying-the-stefan-boltzmann-law-to-earth/
Tim,
A vacuum flask is a good insulator. It doesnt matter how good, it still wont make your 70 C hot beverage any hotter. Not even if you leave it in full sunlight for a million years!
Maybe you have a magic one way flux insulator that has not been invented yet?
That won’t work, Tim. You’re still trying the “blah-blah”.
You haven’t owned up to your mistakes. You’re still trying to cover up.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534184
If you can’t face reality, you can’t learn.
Sven and ClintR were going to work, (ha ha) and ClintR asked Sven what that new contraption he was carrying was. Sven say itsa Thermos, it keeps hot things hot and cold things cold.
ClintR say cool, what you got innit?
Sven say a cuppa coffee and two popsicles!
blob, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
2) You misunderstand the relationship between emissivity and reflectivity. Emissivity does not have to equal (1-reflectivity). These quantities vary with wavelength, and can be quite different for visible light vs IR.
For example, white paper could have emissivity ~ 0.9 (for IR) and simultaneously have reflectivity ~ 0.9 (for visible light). At the other extreme are selective surfaces, where emissivity might be ~ 0.1 (IR) and reflectivity might also be ~ 0.1.
=============================
Thats all true, but does it matter to anything important? After all the concept of the GHE is an imbalance to equilibrium and according to Stefan Boltzmann equations emissivity affects a rate of energy transfer but doesn’t affect equilibrium.
Now I am aware we are looking at some special kinds of light considering the distance of the sun from the earth. But that tells me you get just one bite at that apple and these multiple bites have been devised due to perceived deficiencies in one bite being adequate to explain more warming.
The only thing I have read on the one bite principle is that there might be a few tenths of a degree more warming on the shoulders of the CO2 IR absorbing band.
Seems our ignorance of clouds is simply ignored despite variance there could have enormous climate effects.
I can imagine some climate models toying around with cloud impacts but nobody wants to talk about that except Roy perhaps because gee that would interfere with the political message.
Bill,
Clouds are not ignored in climate models, perhaps you should do some homework.
bill does not do any homework, he sends others on his wild goose chases. When the answer arrives he discards it because he knows scientists are corrupt. Then he invents something else that no scientist has ever thought of.
Who knows, it could be Leprechauns.
Svante we are all corrupt. You just don’t believe you and the people you admire are not corrupt.
The very act of doing something to influence others to do the same is a manifestation of that corruption. Self interest is at the heart of it. Nothing to be ashamed of as we all do it.
I guess we know others through ourselves,
so I say you are wrong, generally speaking.
Especially about science.
You would be shredded if you tried to peddle falsehoods.
That is the “conspiracy” in the climategate emails.
Svante, please stop trolling.
It is important to note that the average kinetic energy used here is limited to the translational kinetic energy of the molecules. That is, they are treated as point masses and no account is made of internal degrees of freedom such as molecular rotation and vibration. This distinction becomes quite important when you deal with subjects like the specific heats of gases. When you try to assess specific heat, you must account for all the energy possessed by the molecules, and the temperature as ordinarily measured does not account for molecular rotation and vibration. The kinetic temperature is the variable needed for subjects like heat transfer, because it is the translational kinetic energy which leads to energy transfer from a hot area (larger kinetic temperature, higher molecular speeds) to a cold area (lower molecular speeds) in direct collisional transfer.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html
Anybody rememberz besides CO2 being 800-1200 ppm , I said the life on earth would be better off with temperature 4-5 C higher ?
https://bit.ly/2Svf0Yz
Hope evolution can keep up when it happens in a hundred years.
Another post , another ankle bite
Is the extent of the sea ice in the south increasing?
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01015/ll9ockkhvbh4.png
ren
Yes it is. Is it a surprise for you?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CPSG0C_h9i1HjDTrF2Vmj84A6t2p3t9O/view
But as the Arctic is deeper below the 1981-2010 average
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rIi_Ml6yinPkUWPDFPz4VEy9BUX4fZL/view
the sum of the two looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YiaEnD5ywRCU4nY9x-OZh1ThLNaC2VNe/view
J.-P. D.
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
Hi JD. I see you failed to answer the simple question. Just too busy trolling, I guess.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-533783
ren
To compare Antarctic and Arctic sea ice, departures wrt the mean of a common reference period are imho better than absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BCEkUrq8b2d_DwZZZRM43rQwMDrWnEdM/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
J.-P. D.
Swenson says:
“Maybe you could come up with a scientific description of the (cough) GHE!”
– A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, Observational determination of the greenhouse effect.
Mike Flynn went into a spin on the word “trap” there, just like ClintR and the “800 000 K”.
It’s pretty well defined in that sentence though.
Interesting that they didn’t mention any “back-radiation”.
Does that mean they are learning?
It says the “atmosphere absorbs and emits the longwave radiation”.
Does CO2 emit randomly, or is it only aiming up?
Silly Svante, years ago the “definitions” would include the belief that back-radiation could raise surface temperatures. That was the nonsense the whole AGW hoax was based on. Everyone knows the Sun warms the planet. The AGW nonsense claimed that CO2 could add to solar.
So, it’s interesting that your quote does not mention surface warming.
Yeah, ClintR,
Fluxes add, do you have a point?
b,
Dont be a donkey. 300 W/m2 plus 300 W/m2 equals 600 W/m2? Really? Two blocks of ice are hotter than one?
Swenson says:
“300 W/m2 plus 300 W/m2 equals 600 W/m2?”
Yes, if it’s the same m^2.
Swenson
YOU: “Dont be a donkey. 300 W/m2 plus 300 W/m2 equals 600 W/m2? Really? Two blocks of ice are hotter than one?”
Not quite. You add 300 W/m^2 plus 300 W/m^2 and you get 600 W/2 m^2. The two blocks of ice are NOT hotter than one but two blocks of ice have more total energy than one. Each has so many joules so you add this together but you also double the mass so the amount of energy per mass is the same and that is why the temperature stays the same. If you possessed any logical or rational thought process you would know this.
Each block of ice emits 300 Watts/m^2 and the two emit a total of 600 watts but not per m^2. They emit a total of 600 Watts from twice the area. Still only 300 W/m^2. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
S,
You really believe that two blocks of ice can result in higher temperatures than one? Maybe you think you could concentrate the IR with an IR lens!
Some donkeys would believe that. Stupid ones.
N,
I understand perfectly.
So no matter how much CO2 is emitting energy, it cannot make anything hotter than the – 80 C or so that 15 um represents (with all the usual caveats). Just like more heat energy from more ice cannot result in higher temperatures!
Fluxes dont add. Just more alarmist gibberish
Norman just goes in circles, trying to claim fluxes add without claiming fluxes add. He can type all night.
Silly Svante and bogus bob just say what they want, with no regard for reality, as usual.
Just a trio of idiots. Differing personalities, but still idiots.
That’s right, it’s called Friday Night Lights, not Friday Night Light, because fluxes add and you can make the field more brighter more better see football, with more than one spot light.
That’s bogus bob. Totally different scenario. You can’t understand the physics, but you’re welcome to heat your apartment with ice cubes this winter. If you’re not warm enough, get a few gallons of ice cream, because in your beliefs, fluxes add.
Too bad for you ClintR, I have actually scientifically measured fluxes and found out that they do indeed actually add.
Well there you go, bogus bob. That means you’ll be nice and toasty this winter with your ice cubes.
And your discovery explains why the polar ice caps are melting, too much heat from all the ice. Just at the Arctic alone, 5 million sq. km of sea ice means 4.73 (10)^28 Joules each year.
And that’s just the Arctic.
You trio of idiots should apply for a Nobel. Forget CO2. It’s the ice that’s going to melt the planet!
(Idiots provide so much entertainment.)
“Called Friday Night Lights”
Good one.
And Clint ‘totally different scenario’
Hilarious. And he will never say how its different’
And the ‘fluxes dont add’ another mental fingerprint of ger*an.
Now, we have a quartet. Nate has joined the trio of idiots.
And he brings with him his confusion over “lights”. If he were able to think for himself, he could see Folkerts give a brief explanation below. But, Nate can’t think for himself.
Ive been over this ‘fluxes dont add’ BS with both of your other personalities, ad nauseum. You simply make up your own garbled physics to suit your weird beliefs.
If you agree with football fans that lights on the field do sum to make the field brighter, then wada ya gonna do?
‘Different scenario’
Ur done. There is no there there.
Undoubtedly you will respond with the usual projection of your physics ignorance onto us.
Yup, we have a quartet. Nate has joined the trio of idiots.
And he brings with him his confusion over “lights”. If he were able to think for himself, he could see Folkerts give a brief explanation below. But, Nate can’t think for himself, or face reality.
He’s an idiot.
bill hunter, ever been to a floodlit football stadium?
Svante says:
bill hunter, ever been to a floodlit football stadium?
========================================
I can only imagine what kind of moronic thoughts are bouncing around of the inside walls of that near empty skull of yours.
Your answer for Tim, “Again, Folkerts tries to pervert the issue with another typing fest. Its all in an effort to avoid reality”
shows that he did not provide you an out.
Nope your ‘fluxes dont add’ is still total BS.
Do you agree with ClintR here?
Svante says:
Do you agree with ClintR here?
=================================
where’s here?
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534743
the only thing from Clint I saw at your link was: ”Hes an idiot.” with the ”He’s” referring to Nate.
Uh. . . er. . . .uh yeah.
S,
Complete nonsense as usual. The surface cools at night. The temperature drops. More energy out than energy in. Same in winter. Same over the long term since the Earth was born.
As to trapping, if matter absorbs energy it generally heats as a result. And then cools, in the absence of ongoing energy input. No storage or accumulation of heat.
Try appealing to authorities who know what they are talking about, next time. They dont claim additional surface warming, though. So its an effect of no effect. Brilliant.
Here’s a suggestion for everyone discussing the addition of fluxes — define specifically what you mean by “flux”. Below is a list a few dozen different quantities all related to light and intensity.
If you look down the list you will find
4 different quantities that include the word “flux”
3 different quantities that have units “W/m^2”
Until you can clearly state which specific quantity you mean, no one else will be able to intelligently comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
Tim,
Excellent. Unfortunately, alarmists refuse to specify units and conditions. This might pin them down. Shock! Horror!
So, which fluxes can be added, and what is their relationship to the apparently misnamed GHE as far as GHGs are concerned?
Your illumination would be appreciated.
Since you asked …
The two most relevant quantities to this discussion seem to be “irradiance” and “radiant exitance”, both measured in W/m^2.
Irradiance = the radiant flux (power) received by a surface per unit area. Ie the light TO a surface.
Radiant exitance = Radiant flux (power) emitted by a surface per unit area. This is the emitted component of radiosity, the light FROM a surface
NOTE! “radiant flux” in this list has units of Watts and is NOT what people seem to be calling “flux” in this discussion.
Radiant exitance definitely does NOT add. This quantity is simply the familiar
Radiant exitance = P/A = (epsilon) (sigma) T^4
When someone says “ice emits 300 W/m^2” that is radiant exitance. You cannot add more ice and cause more power FROM a given surface.
Irradiance, on the other hand, does add. This is incoming light. So when someone says “two lights are brighter than one, this is irradiance. The two lights can provide twice as much light TO a surface as one light.
Tim,
So tell me, adding 300 W/m2 from ice, to 300 W/m2 from sunlight, can raise water temperature by how much? Nothing? Not even a tiny bit?
I can boil water by concentrating the sunlight, but alas, the power of the ice refuses to be concentrated. Looks like your logic and knowledge falls apart in the face of reality. Sad.
Try another diversion.
Swenson,
It is so ironic that after you commend me for wanting people to be specific, you personally skip the specifics and present vague, ill-defined comments and challenges.
*********************************
Since you are discussing the ability to warm some container of water, ie adding energy into an object, we can assume you are talking about irradiance at that point in your comment. If you put a container of water in a chamber where the walls are all ice @ 270 K then the irradiance of the chamber (lets assume all the surfaces are blackbodies for simplicity for the sake of discussion, and that there is no conduction or convection) by the walls of ice will be 300 W/m^2. This will cause the water to stablize @ 270 K. Ie the radiant exitance from the container will equal the irradiance to the container and the net energy to/from the water is zero.
If we add any other energy — whether from sunlight, an IR laser, an electric heater or a heat exchanger — the water will get warmer than 270 C. That is simple physics. An additional 300 W/m^2 will warm the water to 320 K.
******************************
“I can boil water by concentrating the sunlight, but alas, the power of the ice refuses to be concentrated. ”
And now we get to the heart of your confusion. You switched to meaning radiant exitance.
The radiant excitance of the ice is about 300 W/m^2.
The radiant excitance of the sun is about 64,000,000 W/m^2.
Given a radiant exitance of 300 W/m^2, the maximum irradiance it can cause is 300 W/m^2. By building an entire room out of ice, you have already ‘concentrated” the power of the ice as much as possible. Adding mirrors or lenses or more walls cannot push the irradiance above the radiant exitance.
Given a radiant exitance of 64,000,000 W/m^2, the maximum irradiance it can cause is 64,000,000 W/m^2. By putting the sun far away, the irradiance it causes is diluted to ~ 1360 W/n^2 (less at the surface because of the atmosphere in the way). However, we CAN concentrate sunlight — up to the theoretical maximum of 64,000,000 W/m^2.
There is no “magic” required to be able to concentrate sunlight to an irradiance above 300 W/m^2, since it starts with a radiant exitance of 64,000,000 W/m^2. There would be magic to concentrate ‘ice light’ above 300 W/m^2.
Read. Think. Learn. If you pay attention to exactly which terms you mean, I am sure you can sort this out.
A small correction. I said:
“put a container of water in a chamber where the walls are all ice @ 270 K then the irradiance of the chamber by the walls of ice … ”
Opps, that should be the “the irradiance of the CONTAINER by the walls of ice…”
“The container of water is being hit by an irradiance of 300 W/m^s due to the 300 W/m^2 radiant exitance of the walls of the ice chamber.
Again, Folkerts tries to pervert the issue with another typing fest. It’s all in an effort to avoid reality.
Here’s the simple reality:
Two identical objects are in full sunlight, in a vacuum. Everything is the same for both objects. Now, a large block of ice is placed close to one of the objects so that the sunlight is NOT blocked.
Will the object close to the block of ice get warmer? It’s now receiving both sunlight AND the flux from the ice. Will it get warmer?
Idiots claim it will get warmer, because “fluxes add”.
That’s why they’re idiots.
I will happily be lumped with “idiots” who accept conservation of energy as a basic principle of physics.
Clint, let me clarify for you .
Two identical objects are in full sunlight, in a vacuum IN THE DEPTHS OF OUTER SPACE. Since we are trying to ultimately explain planets, lets set the stage appropriately.
Lets suppose that planet is *just* far enough from the star that the sunlight itself warms the planet to 273 K.
Now surround the planet with ice at 273 K. The ice by itself would warm the planet to 273 K. Are you seriously trying to claim that adding sunlight to a planet that is already at 273 due to the ice would stay at 273 K when the sunlight is added? Do you really think an object in a deep freeze will not warm up even a little if you shine a bright light on it?
See how Folkerts has to pervert the simple example? That’s what he’s about–perverting and corrupting. Notice he wouldn’t answer the direct question: “It’s now receiving both sunlight AND the flux from the ice. Will it get warmer?”
He can’t answer, because he will destroy his false religion.
Watch this:
Hey Tim, if you’re swinging a ball around you, that is held by a string, is the ball rotating on its axis?
It depends on the background temperature behind the ice.
Since the loss rate depends on the (T^4) temperature difference.
The “background” is the same for both objects, silly.
I must say it is fascinating watch the lengths to which Clint can go to avoid trying to actually understand. He has a clear answer and won’t listen because it doesn’t match the answer he wants.
An unheated, blackbody object in deep space will be 3K.
I could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) and warm that object to 273 K.
Or I could surround that object with ice @ 273 K and warm the object up to 273 K.
Then (just to make Clint’s & Swanson’s heads explode) I could surround it with ice and THEN add the sunlight. The ice made it 273 K already. The extra energy from the sunlight would warm the object further (325 K to be specific; +52 C warmer than it was).
And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he final temperature would still be 325 K.
Yes, adding ice that was always as cold or colder than the object did indeed result in the object warming up above the temperature of the ice; above the temperature that the sunlight by itself could manage.
So Tim, after all the “blah-blah”, it appears you were finally able to answer. You believe adding the block of ice will warm the object.
That makes you an idiot.
If you were right, that would explain why the poles are melting. So, you ended up messing up your false religion, after all.
“See how Folkerts has to pervert the simple example? Thats what hes aboutpervertin”
Good example of clint being obtuse and stubborn. He doesnt specify where the object is and the temperature of the surroundings, which he fails to realize matters!
Then when Tim clears it up, Clint doubles down on stupid.
An object surrounded by space at 3K and in sunlight, will get warmer when the 273 K block of ice is brought in to block out the cold of space.
Yes Nate, we already knew you are an idiot, but thanks for reconfirming.
Your next goal should be to move up to “blithering idiot”.
I think you’ll make it….
Tim,
You wrote –
*If we add any other energy whether from sunlight, an IR laser, an electric heater or a heat exchanger the water will get warmer than 270 C. That is simple physics. An additional 300 W/m^2 will warm the water to 320 K.*
Unless the energy comes from, say, ice. Then you start wriggling and twisting, and saying that 300 W/m2 from ice doesnt really count. And then you go to waffle about diluted radiance!
At least you seem to be admitting that CO2 cannot cause anything to be warmer than it is itself. I talk about temperature specifically, as the alarmists talk about increasing temperatures due to CO2 and other gases.
Now I suppose you are going to tell me that the irradiance from CO2 Is greater than the Sun? If its not, it cannot raise the temperature of anything in sunlight, any more than ice can. Not convincing Tim.
Nate,
Only a donkey believes that cold objects radiate cold!
Block out the cold of space? Really?
Swenson, I can’t believe I have to say this, but here is the basic conversation (distilled and emphasis added).
ME. If you have walls of ice and add any OTHER SOURCE of energy besides the energy already coming from the ice, the object will warm up more than either source by itself.
YOU. Yeah, but what if that other source was ice?
You are absolutely correct that adding ice when we already have ice will not cause any additional warming. You cannot get 600 W/m^2 by ‘doubling up’ on the ice walls. Science is very clear about this. Nobody says this can happen.
I had explicitly said it was another source. The mental block here is something to behold. No matter how many times I say this in excruciating detail, the same tired, false challenge comes up.
Tim,
You are becoming quite adept at distilling something into a discourse which never happened. Just quote my words, if you wish to dispute them.
You wrote * If we add any other energy whether from sunlight, an IR laser, an electric heater or a heat exchanger the water will get warmer than 270 [C].* Your problem, and the secret of your illusion, is that you cannot just arbitrarily *add energy*. Additionally, you blithely refer to water being at 270 K. You have turned it into ice, but you hope nobody will notice. Tut, tut.
Donkeys buck and snort, and lash out if they dont get their way. You are like the donkey who refuses to accept the reality that he is, in fact, a donkey.
How about you acknowledge that the extra energy you are supplying must come from a source which has a temperature higher than the melting point of ice, if you want to stand a chance of making water warmer? Boiling water in a low emissivity container may be emitting 100 W/m2. It will melt ice. It is hotter. Ice emitting 300 W/m2 will not melt ice. It just isnt hot enough!
And CO2 at 20 C will not *add* to sunlight to make ground above 20 C any hotter at all! No GHE. Regardless of what you call it.
“Nate,
“Block out the cold of space? Really?”
Yep really. It really works.
Guess you’ve never stood in front of a freezer with an open door, and felt the cold emanating from it? Or more precisely, heat flowing out of you and into the freezer?
Of course the freezer door, when closed, does have the effect of blocking out the cold of the freezer. More precisely blocking your heat from flowing into the cold freezer.
Thus you feel warmer with the freezer door closed. Anyone with common sense understands this.
But that may be a stretch for you.
Nate is confusing “conduction” and “convection” with “radiation”, with his open refrigerator door.
Or, maybe it’s just another instance of attempting to pervert reality?
Hilarious.
“Nate is confusing ‘conduction’ and ‘convection’ with ‘radiation’, with his open refrigerator door.”
Clint the genius seems to think heat cant flow from hot to cold by radiation???? Only by conduction and convection???
More bizarro-world Fizuks from our resident troll.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Eden. Kind of missing the point I would say. If you are starting your Earth from scratch you might consider a higher “optimum temp” but what we actually have to look at is the impact rising temps will have on the 7 billion people living as we do and on the impact on the ecosystem as it is. If our higher optimum temp gives significantly higher sea levels then good luck with that
Well I suppose if all the fruitcakes could get off the anti-nuclear energy bandwagon the problem, if there is a problem, could be solved rather quickly.
Having stood on a core divider plate, gapped the shoot out steel and set the vessel head, I think I my opinion that nuclear is ok as long as it is cheaper than other forms of energy is valid.
However it’s not.
I think the energy sector executives agree with me.
The problem is its cheapness, not likely to be solved.
Whoa. Hard to argue with that!
Well I did leave out the lead time.
That would be another important issue, would you open and staff a bagel shop if you knew you wouldn’t get any return on your investment for 10 years or longer?
b,
Ooooh! A completely irrelevant gotcha!
Its hard to understand the idiot dialect. But ‘gotcha’ seems to mean anything swenson cannot rebut, which is most things, but feels he must post anyway.
“Ooooh! A completely irrelevant gotcha!”
No, I am thinking like those goobers I used to work for.
b,
No wonder you were fired. Incompetence, stupidity, or both?
There is that donkey braying again, anyone have any hay to shut him up?
blob, please stop trolling.
Well you are right about the costs. But it’s the cost of the fruitcake that puts it over the top.
Typically the energy sector executives ignore the fruitcakes.
It seems only the pearl clutchers amongst the denialati seem concerned with their views.
You mean they ignore the fruitcakes when they can. Obviously you are not familiar with public utility permitting, fees, mitigation costs, and public utility price setting processes. Those costs can’t be ignored. And they are highly susceptible to certain areas with a lot of fruitcakes living nearby Generally the industry makes money. Recently they became temporarily unprofitable as a result of the post Fukushima frenzy.
ignorance goes a long way toward increasing costs. some projects particularly older designs are prone to maintenance interruptions. so like any business it requires competent management
some simply should not apply
bill hunter says:
“Recently they became temporarily unprofitable as a result of the post Fukushima frenzy.”
It’s a long term trend, more safety rules, more cost.
Hopefully new designs can break the trend.
It has already been broken in some neighborhoods and is profitable.
Bill,
“Obviously you are not familiar with public utility permitting, fees, mitigation costs, and public utility price setting processes.”
Are you sure, as I didn’t discuss any of that.
You just spouted off some bullshit hoping to look like you know what you are talking about.
Maybe yes maybe no.
I am in the electrical deregulation was a catastrophe camp, at least for those who are customers, it did allow utility companies to swindle people.
bobdroege says:
I am in the electrical deregulation was a catastrophe camp, at least for those who are customers, it did allow utility companies to swindle people.
========================
so what does that have to do with the issue?
b,
So coal, oil, and gas it is, then. Reliable, cheap, and returns to the atmosphere some of what Nature took out and stored for our use.
Nope, solar and wind it is, as the cheapest.
That seems to be the go to amongst the energy sector execs these days.
b,
Ill take all the solar and wind energy you can produce on a continuous basis, then. You cant provide it when I want it? I see,
bobdroege
The problem with wind and solar are not just with cost. It has more to do with reliability. Wind is the same as it has always been. Some days it blows and then others it does not. A civilization needs power on a continuous basis. Wind is not the source for this.
You can monitor wind with this source and see that it is not a reliable source for power.
https://www.windy.com/?2020-10-10-03,41.257,-96.395,3
Even if fossil fuels did not create a Global Warming with it potential risks, they do have a limited amount. If all the World wanted to have our standard of living you would have to burn a lot more coal to produce the power.
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019/electricity
You would run out of coal after some time. So humans need to find new sources of energy. Nuclear is expensive and produces radioactive waste, it makes non radioactive materials radioactive by bombarding it with neutrons so it has some major long term flaws.
Fusion may solve some but not with tritium/deuterium mix as that also produces a neutron flux. Other fusion materials like boron and hydrogen do not produce neutron flux (just helium) but the temperature to generate fusion is much higher so new technology will have to be found to confine at higher temperatures to achieve this form of fusion.
Yes wind and solar are intermittent, solar inbthe SW less so.
But we have a Grid. And it is smart. With that we are supplyed by a vast mix of power plants over a large multi state region. Wind and solar are a part of the mix.
As things progress, I think storage will help.
Yes, batteries and a continental HVDC super grid to even it out.
Water power is ideal for load balancing.
Natural (or hydrogen) gas power can be backup.
In any case, pricing can balance the load.
Everyone might not need to charge their cars when supply is low. Make deals with steelworks to shut down in a crisis.
On the positive side, prices have been negative when winds are good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_grid
Swenson,
Just like you are always blowing smoke, the wind is always blowing somewhere.
b,
And the sun is always shining somewhere. If you are trying to appear smarter than a retarded donkey, you have failed again!
The economics of nukes is currently being affected by both regulation and costs of competing fuels.
Regulation could be dramatically reduced with a standard footprint. When oil and gas prices go back up, everything changes.
I like the plan I heard years ago to build 50 new nukes in the next 30 years. But, that will require leadership.
Wow, quite a sensible post from ClintR!
A thinking person behind the troll mask.
All my comments are sensible, silly Svante.
Maybe your eyes are starting to open somewhat.
bobdroege says:
Having stood on a core divider plate, gapped the shoot out steel and set the vessel head, I think I my opinion that nuclear is ok as long as it is cheaper than other forms of energy is valid.
However its not.
I think the energy sector executives agree with me.
=================================
Good for you standing there. My wartime duty should it have occurred in the military was nuclear defense. That isn’t nuclear retaliation, though my primary duty of defense was in maintaining the war readiness of a retaliatory strike in the midst of having suffered a nuclear strike. As you probably understand that entailed knowledge of exposure monitoring, exposure avoidance, and exposure impacts. After that I never worked directly on a nuclear regulatory/permitting process but since I do work on regulatory/permitting processes on environments affected by nuclear power generation I have over the years found it somewhat handy to learn from that process particularly science on the sorts of mitigation necessary that arises from the generation of nuclear energy. But after my service days none of that mitigation involved any nuclear contamination. It was more related to cooling systems. Environmental mitigation is a topic that has no bounds, except political bounds. In a changing world what constitutes acceptable change. Thats my area of concentration. You have to first know how much change and then you have to know the impacts vs benefits of that change. To say its a deep involved and politically hot topic has to be a gross understatement. And no I don’t work for industry I work for public interests and to do that its a real balancing act. . . .in other words I am on the receiving end of arrows coming from all directions. Its a dog eat dog world out there and their are a lot of pseudo interests posing a public interest when its really special interest.
Bill,
Why should I care, you are still stuck with the Moon non-rotators, so I could give a shit what you have to say.
read this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535263
Bill,
You are with DREMT on this issue then, enough said.
As long as you are stuck and can’t get past eighth grade science, a simple conclusion is that you can’t understand the greenhouse effect.
With Tesla…
Tesla couldn’t get past eighth grade science either.
Practical joker methinks.
Another ridiculous comment, from self-confessed troll bobdroege.
I think I will steer clear of this until such time that some big entrepreneur decides to name a device the bobdroege.
I suspect that if it happens it will likely be something that shovels fertilizer.
b hunter, I was against nukes back in the ’70’s. T the time, my faculty advisor was running a seminar on the new report from ERDA called WASH-1400, which used precise reliability calculations to conclude that the chance of injury from a nuclear accident was less than being hit by a meteor. I thought it was pure mathurbation, having worked with control systems in a previous life, and I had learned about the TVA’s Brown’s Ferry accident in 1975, as well as the Fermi plant meltdown.
After Three Mile Island, the danger(s) from nukes became much more visible and the industry essentially died. One reason was that the economic consequences were so large that the industry had obtained an exception to liability from the government with a law called the Price-Anderson Act, so when the public began to realize that fact, serious people started asking questions.
Ever read the book “Normal Accidents”?
Oh, BTW, the Moon rotates once an orbit in inertial space, which is the way space science (and the missile industry) defines rotation.
anybody can define anything they want. The question is though does the definition recognize the dependence of the moon’s rotation as being dependent upon the earth’s gravity?.
As DREMT showed in the lessons on kinetics is engineers are taught in a way so that they understand what gear and lever system to work on and how many of them you need. Astronomers must get paid by each rotation machine they work on so they invented a few extras.
Say the moon very gently developed a crack clean through the center of the moon. What would happen to the moon’s axis? And would the two parts go off in different directions like a record on a highspeed axis coming apart?
b hunter wrote:
Not in physics. Measuring the Moon’s rotation would be possible with an inertial navigation system, the same type of system used to control the trajectory of ballistic missiles.
DRsEMT rants endlessly about kinematics, which involves solid connections, but the Moon is not connected to the Earth except by gravity. Over a very long time, perhaps billions of years, the tidal forces between the two bodies has caused the Moon’s rotation rate to be once an orbit. And the measured rotation of the Moon indicates a rotational axis which is NOT PERPENDICULAR to the Moon’s orbital plane.
You mistake any change in orientation of the moon whilst it orbits, for axial rotation. The moon is just orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.
Because of the way the moon orients itself wrt its orbital plane whilst it orbits, you can place an imaginary line through its center of mass that is not quite perpendicular to the orbital plane. It is offset by 6.68 degrees. There is however, no rotation of the moon about this imaginary line.
Because of the way the EARTH (Moon) orients itself wrt its orbital plane whilst it orbits, you can place an imaginary line through its center of mass that is not perpendicular to the orbital plane. It is offset by 23.5 (6.68) degrees. There is rotation of the Earth (Moon) about this imaginary line.
That imaginary line thru the Earth at present points to a fixed spot in the celestial sphere near the North Star. That imaginary line’s orientation is not fixed, but changes over long time periods and is the cause of the glacial cycles. One can measure the rate of rotation of the Earth using a three axis gyroscopic device such as used in inertial navigation. The same device would indicate rotation if placed on the Moon. The Moon rotates once an orbit and the Moon’s orbital parameters may be used to define inertial coordinates.
Oh, BTW, didn’t you forget to say something about the risks of nuclear power?
Swanson, the difference between the tilt of the moon’s axis and the earth’s axis is the moon’s axis is gravitationally determined by the ecliptic where as it orbital tilt is not.
The earth’s tilt isn’t determined by anything visible other than its spin.
A detective would take that as a clue.
Swanson, the gyroscopic device detects changes in orientation. Orbital motion (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation whilst it orbits. Think motion like a ball on a string, where the ball faces through N, E, S and W whilst it orbits; but it is still only orbiting. The ball is physically incapable of rotating on its own axis, because it is held in place throughout the orbit by the string.
Or, if that’s too much for you, think of a wooden horse securely bolted towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round. The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis when the merry-go-round is stationary. It’s bolted down. Hence, it is still not rotating on its own axis when the merry-go-round is rotating. It is rotating about the center of the merry-go-round (orbiting), only. Same as every other part of the merry-go-round.
But, you could put one of those gyroscopic devices on the wooden horse, and it would detect that it is changing its orientation whilst it orbits (it faces through N, E, S and W) – and you would mistakenly believe that this means the wooden horse is rotating on its own axis. That would be wrong, because something that physically cannot rotate on its own axis, cannot then be rotating on its own axis.
b hunter, the Earth’s tilt isn’t a fixed value. It changes over long periods due to precession, etc.
DRsEMT, You wrote:
Your ball-on-a-string analogy fixes the ball’s axis of rotation along the line of the string. There’s nothing to stop the ball from rotating about that line, except the torsional stiffness of the string and the moment of inertia of the ball. Your conclusion that the ball is ” physically incapable of rotating” ignores this reality. What would happen to the motion of your ball if you allowed it to dip down and contact the ground? The torque produced by the collision would cause it to start spinning around the line determined by the string.
The Moon is not like your horsey bolted on the MGR, because, as you note, it’s a part of the MGR and it’s motion is determined by the motion of the MGR. The Moon is free to rotate and there’s no solid connection with the Earth. The Moon’s rotation is not determined by the Earth’s rotation, except that tidal forcing over a very long time has resulted in the Moon constantly presenting the same side to the Earth. It’s obvious that the Moon rotates, as it’s orientation with the Earth-Sun vector results in the Lunar phases we enjoy.
In order for the ball to rotate on its own axis, the string would have to wrap around the ball.
Nobody is arguing that the moon is physically attached to the Earth in any way. You have completely missed the point of my previous comment. Maybe try reading it again.
The lunar phases prove that the moon is orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, the Earths tilt isnt a fixed value. It changes over long periods due to precession, etc.
==============================
The axial precession is timed to the moons orbit nodal precession.
“With Tesla”
Tesla believed cities could be powered wirelessly…
which was very wrong.
Tesla believed he could communicate with the dead via radio waves.. which was very weird.
Tesla had a number of weird, erroneous ideas such as…
the Moon doesnt rotate.
HIs arguments on this subject were strange and had no point.
Appeal to his authority is a dead end.
b hunterwrote:
The Earth’s axial precession has a period of 25,772 years. The Moon’s orbit nodal precession has a period of about 18.6 years. Sorry, I don’t see any timing correlation between the two.
For a climate perspective, see: Milankovitch Cycles.
DRsEMT wrote
No, you are wrong. You can’t arbitrarily assume that the ball would rotate around an axis which would force the string to wrap around the ball. The rotational axis is defined by the configuration, which constrains the rotation to the line along the string thru the ball.
Troll, your model with the horsey welded to the base of the MGR is flat out wrong. If you had used a bearing to mount your horsey, that would be closer to the actual physics and would allow the horsey to rotate. But, you don’t want to admit the truth, as is usual for a denialist.
Troll, a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball. It is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis. In order to rotate on its own axis, the string would have to be wrapping around the ball.
The wooden horse is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about an axis that is external to the horse (one that passes through the center of the merry-go-round). It is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis. It physically cannot do so.
Notice that in both cases, the same side of the ball, or wooden horse, remains facing towards the center of the orbit throughout. The particles making up the ball, or wooden horse, all move in concentric circles about the center of the orbit.
E. Swanson says:
The Earths axial precession has a period of 25,772 years. The Moons orbit nodal precession has a period of about 18.6 years. Sorry, I dont see any timing correlation between the two.
The pseudoaxial (visual illusion) precession of the moon is timed to the moons orbital nodal precession. . . .so its as unreal as the pseudo optical illusion axis is. One must ignore the reality of its unreal nature in order to maintain the optical illusion that the moon is spinning on its own axis.
b hunter, I take it that you now agree that there’s no connection between the axial precession of the Earth and the moons orbit nodal precession, contrary to your previous assertion.
Now, all we need to do is get the DRsEMT sock puppet to understand that the Moon isn’t welded to the Earth nor is it connected by some sort of string, thus it’s analogies are wrong.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, I take it that you now agree that there’s no connection between the axial precession of the Earth and the moons orbit nodal precession, contrary to your previous assertion.
Now, all we need to do is get the DRsEMT sock puppet to understand that the Moon isn’t welded to the Earth nor is it connected by some sort of string, thus it’s analogies are wrong.
==============================================
You are really getting desperate Swanson when you have to resort to adding in parenthesis (of the earth) after I used the term axial precession in a discussion of the moon. If thats the best argument you can come up with I will give you a point that yes there is no connection between the earth’s axial precession and the moon’s orbit nodal precession. But it really could be difficult for some to not see you are an idiot when you are not.
Your desperation continues when you see the logic in what DREMT is saying and out of pure obstinance you just have to be right so you are going to deny that a string analogy is a good analogy for the force of gravity holding the same face of the moon toward the earth.
Finally with the string analogy like another poster in here suggested that in fact it was the string rotating around the moon’s axis that caused it to not wind up. But in that world you need to include the anchor on the other end of the string. So as I have said repeatedly either the moon is rotating around the earths axis or the earth is rotating around the moons axis. You can take your pick, I have already taken mine.
b hunter wrote:
I was trying to clarify the discussion since I can’t claim much knowledge of astronomy. That said, the WIKI page notes that the Moon’s axial precession produces a small change in the point in the celestial sphere toward which the Moon’s poles point. I haven’t found out how large an angle that circle actually represents. I should point out that axial precession is a function of the axial rotation of the Moon, based on dynamics, i.e., no rotation in inertial space implies no axial precession will occur. From dynamics, all rotations must be referenced to inertial space, such as the celestial sphere.
The DRsEMT sock puppet’s ball and string analogy is imperfect. Attach the string to a support and let the ball hang below. It should be obvious that the ball could rotate about the line of the string, though the torsion in the string would limit the motion. Add a bearing between the string and the ball would allow the ball to rotate freely. Spin that around your head and the ball could also rotate around the axle defined by the string.
You are missing the point of the analogies, Swanson. It’s very simple.
Is a ball on a string rotating on its own axis? Correct answer: no.
Is the wooden horse rotating on its own axis? Correct answer: no.
What do these objects, that cannot rotate on their own axes, have in common? They move in their orbits with one face always towards the center of the orbit. The orbital paths of the particles making up the objects form concentric circles. In other words, the orbital paths do not criss-cross, like they would have to if the objects were both orbiting and rotating on their own axes. The objects are only orbiting.
Now you move onto the moon…
…the moon, generally-speaking, also orbits with one face always towards the center of the orbit. That’s why we always see the same face from Earth. Notice that it’s not being implied that the moon is actually physically attached to the Earth, at any point. That isn’t the point of the analogies. The point is to recognize that the motion of the moon is similar to that of an object that physically cannot rotate on its own axis.
Is it exactly the same? No, there is libration to consider, and the orbit of the moon is elliptical rather than circular. Does it need to be exactly the same? Of course not! I’m not pretending that these analogies actually model the moon’s motion perfectly. Do the orbiting objects in the analogies need to be free to rotate on their own axes? No, obviously not. You would be missing the point completely if you thought otherwise.
E. Swanson says:
I should point out that axial precession is a function of the axial rotation of the Moon, based on dynamics,
=====================
Thats an assumption on your part. A big hint is the moon’s axial precession is in time with its unusually tilted orbit’s nodal precession. the moon’s face presents itself within 1.5degrees to the ecliptic which makes for a small circle compared to the earths 23 some degrees.
Since the face of the moon is locked to the ecliptic at its likely most desirable mass configuration, the fact the moon’s titled orbit of 5.14 degrees to the ecliptic and critically the moons orbit elliptical where by the moons orbit shape rotates
one full turn every 18 some years the axis does also in time as the angle of pull changes over that 18 year period.
================
================
E. Swanson says:
i.e., no rotation in inertial space implies no axial precession will occur. From dynamics, all rotations must be referenced to inertial space, such as the celestial sphere.
===================
Source please! And saying all rotations must be referenced to a certain perspective isn’t based upon any material fact. Long a ago I said no one around here was questioning motives for selecting one point of view or the other. Just happens that the non-spinner view accepts a moon earth system as fully accounting for the moons orbit around the earth and its rotation at the same time. The same cannot be said of the earth and sun as clearly the earth does spin on its axis from all perspectives.
================
================
E. Swanson says:
The DRsEMT sock puppets ball and string analogy is imperfect.
===================
of course its imperfect its an analogy! Not a duplicate!
================
================
E. Swanson says:
Attach the string to a support and let the ball hang below. It should be obvious that the ball could rotate about the line of the string, though the torsion in the string would limit the motion. Add a bearing between the string and the ball would allow the ball to rotate freely. Spin that around your head and the ball could also rotate around the axle defined by the string.
=====================
The actual forces on the moon are better expressed by DREMT’s string than yours. Why? Because gravity has selected the mass concentration inside the moon and the tangent of the point on the surface of the moon that is in line with earth’s COG and the moon’s COG as the attachment point.
The attachment point is not in the form of a bridle on the axis of the moon. Thus your concept is not supported by the physics involved.Its only supported by what you want it to be.
b hunter wrote:
No, it’s basic physics of rotating bodies.
Continuing, you wrote:
No, the “face” of the Moon isn’t “locked to the ecliptic”. I agree that the Moon’s axis of rotation is nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic, however, the fact that the Moon presents different sides to the Sun during it’s orbit means that it isn’t “locked” in three dimensions.
And, you wrote:
Pick up any text book on dynamics and try to understand the concept of Inertial Space. For example a spinning body, such as a child’s toy gyroscope or the Moon, experiences Nutation because of gravity. HERE’s a YouTube video, there are many more which also present the equations from classical physics.
In astronomy, nutation and precession are caused by gravity. Your own link says:
“The nutation of a planet occurs because the gravitational effects of other bodies cause the speed of its axial precession to vary over time, so that the speed is not constant”.
You will find a similar sentence in the article on axial precession. It is not some proof, or artefact, of axial rotation. It is gravitationally-induced.
I understand the concept of inertial space, and I can assure you that whilst there are inertial reference frames in which the ball on a string (when in motion) or wooden horse appear to be rotating on their own axes, in reality they are not; as they are not physically capable of doing so. They are rotating about an external axis, located in the centers of their respective orbits, instead (orbiting, or revolving, only).
E. Swanson says:
No, its basic physics of rotating bodies.
Continuing, you wrote:
Since the face of the moon is locked to the ecliptic
No, the face of the Moon isnt locked to the ecliptic. I agree that the Moons axis of rotation is nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic, however, the fact that the Moon presents different sides to the Sun during its orbit means that it isnt locked in three dimensions.
=======================================
Swanson you need to bone up on some of the basics. Being ‘locked to the ecliptic’ has nothing to do with the face of the moon. Being locked to the eclipitic is merely a statement that the moon’s equatorial plane is parallel to the ecliptic. The precession of the moon’s axis only provides a variance around that.
As DREMT corrects you on the influences that create axial precession, in this case because the precession is locked to the moons orbit nodal precession you can identify the major gravitational force variant. And it is the tilt of the moons orbit that moves the moon above and below the ecliptic plane thus creating a weak but varying gravitation influence. Further disturbing the moon gravitationally is that variance introduced by the moon’s titled orbit provides a variation of that influence by virtue of the orbit being elliptical in shape. That changes the gravity vectors ever so slightly
In determining the actual face of what the moon is locked to is a far different matter than the forces that caused the moon to stop rotating on its own. The moon is all the time influenced by the sun but its rotating its face to the sun in time with its orbit around earth. Its axial rotation is locked to earth but that doesn’t stop the sun from having an influence on the orientation of the moon just like the moon is the dominate force for tides on earth, the sun also has a significant but weaker influence.
Notice the change in the moons orbit with the ecliptic in this animation. http://www.discoverearthscience.com/regentses/units/earthinspace/animations/precessionmoonplane.gif
I endorse DREMTs take here:
I understand the concept of inertial space, and I can assure you that whilst there are inertial reference frames in which the ball on a string (when in motion) or wooden horse appear to be rotating on their own axes, in reality they are not; as they are not physically capable of doing so. They are rotating about an external axis, located in the centers of their respective orbits, instead (orbiting, or revolving, only).
“and I can assure you that whilst there are inertial reference frames in which the ball on a string (when in motion) or wooden horse appear to be rotating on their own axes, in reality they are not; as they are not physically capable of doing so.”
Well, as discussed many times, to no avail, that argument just does not apply to the Moon.
And then there is it’s axial tilt, axial precession, and libration, that CANNOT be explained with a rigid-rotator model of the Moon only rotating around an external axis.
So when the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, in reality it is.
It is physically capable of doing so, and any other model fails miserably to account for its motion.
Nate says:
October 14, 2020 at 5:22 PM
and I can assure you that whilst there are inertial reference frames in which the ball on a string (when in motion) or wooden horse appear to be rotating on their own axes, in reality they are not; as they are not physically capable of doing so.
Well, as discussed many times, to no avail, that argument just does not apply to the Moon.
And then there is its axial tilt, axial precession, and libration, that CANNOT be explained with a rigid-rotator model of the Moon only rotating around an external axis.
So when the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, in reality it is.
It is physically capable of doing so, and any other model fails miserably to account for its motion.
===========================
thats just a demonstration of how ignorant you are Nate. If the string is a rubberband the the ball will demonstrate librations.
The axial tilt is on average dead on the pull of gravity of the combined moon and sun. Variation in its actual position occurs because the orbit of the moon is tilted to that plane and the orbit is elliptical in shape.
It wouldn’t be possible to imitate the effect with rubberbands but thats only because the earth and its support in a model would get in the way of the band from the sun to the moon passing through the earth and its support. But gravity has no problem doing that.
“thats just a demonstration of how ignorant you are Nate. If the string is a rubberband the the ball will demonstrate librations.”
Ha!
Well that’s stretching (!) the rigid rotator model beyond its limits! Desperate times call for desperate measures.
“The axial tilt is on average dead on the pull of gravity of the combined moon and sun.”
It’s tilted 6.7 degrees from the Moon’s orbital plane around the Earth. That is not a small number and it produces significant wobbles in the Moon’s face. It interacts with the 3rd body, the Sun, which causes its precession, but so what?
The MAIN POINT is for the Moon to have an axial tilt (as you agree), the Moon must have a rotational axis! Something DREMT et al have repeatedly claimed it doesnt have.
Unlike the TEAM claims, a rigid rotator model of the Moon’s motion, with no axial rotation, just fails miserably.
“Variation in its actual position occurs because the orbit of the moon is tilted to that plane and the orbit is elliptical in shape.”
That explains part of the Libration. The rest of the libration is caused by the Moon spinning on its tilted axis at a fixed angular velocity. While the orbital angular velocity varies as it moves farther or nearer the Earth.
Again, this clearly requires the Moon to have an independent axis of rotation, which straight forwardly FALSIFIES the TEAM’s claim that there is no independent axial rotation of the Moon.
Nate says:
Ha!
Well thats stretching (!) the rigid rotator model beyond its limits! Desperate times call for desperate measures.
================================
That comment just goes to show what kind of engineering moron you are. Elasticity is a factor that figures in all engineering problems Nate. Where did you not learn that?
========================
========================
Nate says:
The axial tilt is on average dead on the pull of gravity of the combined moon and sun.
Its tilted 6.7 degrees from the Moons orbital plane around the Earth. That is not a small number and it produces significant wobbles in the Moons face. It interacts with the 3rd body, the Sun, which causes its precession, but so what?
==========================
All you are doing there is making the case for why gravity isn’t in line with the orbital tilt along with the other factor not controlled by earth’s gravity, namely the elliptical orbit; that produces the forces to create the lionshare of every motion thatt you are observing.
You should really learn some celestial mechanics rather than just spewing a bunch of nonsense. If you think its not nonsense then provide a link to a expert that says what you are saying.
================
================
Nate says:
The MAIN POINT is for the Moon to have an axial tilt (as you agree), the Moon must have a rotational axis! Something DREMT et al have repeatedly claimed it doesnt have.
======================
An axis is merely an imagined, artificial creation that is placed at the center of any perceived rotation whether real or otherwise. Learn the difference between concepts and reality.
================
================
Nate says:
Unlike the TEAM claims, a rigid rotator model of the Moons motion, with no axial rotation, just fails miserably.
===========================
You were just informed that rigid doesn’t exclude elasticity in each and every engineering project known to mankind. So take your ignorant inexperienced academic BS some place else. You are wasting your time and looking like a fool to anybody who knows what you are trying to talk about.
================
================
Nate says:
Variation in its actual position occurs because the orbit of the moon is tilted to that plane and the orbit is elliptical in shape.
That explains part of the Libration. The rest of the libration is caused by the Moon spinning on its tilted axis at a fixed angular velocity. While the orbital angular velocity varies as it moves farther or nearer the Earth.
==================
Nobody I know of disagrees that the moon has a wobble in it due to variation of gravitational pulls due to both its titled orbit and the elliptical shape of it. But as I said such lack of rigidity exists in absolutely every single engineering job in the universe. You are trying to set a standard for engineering that simply cannot be met. Engineering kinetics by the instructor whose book (can’t remember the name) teaches concepts of rigidity and doesn’t discuss elasticity. But those kinetics don’t change when the engineer move up to the next level of course study and actually learns the proper way to build things considering a need for elasticity.
Why is your skull so thick that can’t sink in?
================
================
Nate says:
Again, this clearly requires the Moon to have an independent axis of rotation, which straight forwardly FALSIFIES the TEAMs claim that there is no independent axial rotation of the Moon.
========================
So Nate concludes his asinine analysis with an asinine conclusion. Seriously Nate, can you find a single example of a respected scientist that argues your line of arguement. I think it would be fun to see if you can find one as stupid as you. Probably could be one, but its definitely a good candidate for a carnie freak show if it has a famous name attached to it.
bill hunter says:
“An axis is merely an imagined, artificial creation that is placed at the center of any perceived rotation whether real or otherwise.”
The Moon perceives it because it performs its axial precession on it. It’s an artifact of rotation and it is not aligned with the orbital plane.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
An axis is merely an imagined, artificial creation that is placed at the center of any perceived rotation whether real or otherwise.
The Moon perceives it because it performs its axial precession on it. Its an artifact of rotation and it is not aligned with the orbital plane.
=====================
If it were aligned with the moon’s orbital plane I would have to agree you are right. Would you agree then I am right?
Bill,
“ou were just informed that rigid doesnt exclude elasticity in each and every engineering project known to mankind.”
OMG you are utterly stupid…
The word ‘rigid’ in ‘rigid rotator model’ is not meant to be interpreted as NOT RIGID, as in elastic!
“The MAIN POINT is for the Moon to have an axial tilt (as you agree), the Moon must have a rotational axis! Something DREMT et al have repeatedly claimed it doesnt have.
======================
An axis is merely an imagined, artificial creation that is placed at the center of any perceived rotation whether real or otherwise. Learn the difference between concepts and reality.”
What have you been smoking? Peyote?
Real or otherwise? Can you define ‘real’ vs ‘not real’?
No of course not. Because its nonsense.
Clearly, you have joined the idiot cult.
Maybe you joined just to have another opportunity to troll, and annoy people.
“All you are doing there is making the case for why gravity isnt in line with the orbital tilt along with the other factor not controlled by earths gravity, namely the elliptical orbit; that produces the forces to create the lionshare of every motion thatt you are observing.”
Huuh?
The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.7 degrees wrt to its orbital axis. This is just an observable fact. Its in all the astronomy references. It is thus quite real. The orbit tilt wrt to the ecliptic is another separate parameter. Both are real.
The elliptical eccentricity is yet another independent parameter. It does not ‘produce forces’ only gravity between the bodies does.
‘You should really learn some celestial mechanics rather than just spewing a bunch of nonsense. If you think its not nonsense then provide a link to a expert that says what you are saying.’
Says a very confused auditor to a physicist. Hilarious!
Nate says:
” You were just informed that rigid doesnt exclude elasticity in each and every engineering project known to mankind.
OMG you are utterly stupid
The word rigid in rigid rotator model is not meant to be interpreted as NOT RIGID, as in elastic!”
Sorry Nate you made zero argument here. The rigid rotator model is an engineering model. No engineer disregards elasticity. It must be engineered into the design to avoid failure to vibrations. Its just another course in physics above your head. The rubber band is just an analogy I am sure there is enough stretch and elasticity in a solid steel arm connecting the earth to the moon to provide the amount of libration you are talking about. Plastic is another substance used in these type models as well.
Nate says:
The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.7 degrees wrt to its orbital axis. This is just an observable fact. Its in all the astronomy references. It is thus quite real. The orbit tilt wrt to the ecliptic is another separate parameter. Both are real.
Yes it is real Nate, but the expected orientation of the moon in a rigid rotator model isnt to the tilt of its orbit but instead to the direction of pull of gravity. In other words roughly the elliptic plane.
The elliptical eccentricity is yet another independent parameter. It does not produce forces only gravity between the bodies does.
Yes the elliptical eccentricity of the orbit is an independent parameter, but distance is a variable in gravitation pull and an elliptical orbit that precesses changes the orientation of the nodes of the orbit and thus the distance the moon is from the earth the major component of the gravitational influence on the moon.
Another zero argument.
Svante please stop trolling
“Sorry Nate you made zero argument here. The rigid rotator model is an engineering model. No engineer disregards elasticity.”
OMG Bill,
Engineers might use a rigid body model of an airplane, with a rigid strut. No engineer in his right mind would accept a rubber band as a replacement of the rigid strut! Because a rubber band cannot sustain compression.
Furthermore this a big red herring. We are not doing engineering of the Moon’s orbit. We are simply trying to model its motion.
As such, a Rigid Rotator model is used by the TEAM of idiots to describe the Moon’s orbit. In the textbook so often quoted by the TEAM, it is clear what that means. It means a mass rigidly attached to eg a wheel turning on an axis.
That is why DREMT keeps screaming, that the mass ‘physically unable to rotate on its own axis’. Indeed that is true only if it is rigidly attached.
Again the Moon is not rigidly attached to anything. Like any planet it is free to orbit and independently rotate. The right model will allow this freedom.
For such an object a rigid rotator model just doesnt work, because it doesnt allow the Moon to indpendently rotate on its axis and orbit.
Therefore the most logical model, the one astronomy uses, allows it to freely rotate and orbit, as independent motions. With independent rotation there is no limit on axial tilt. For Earth it is 23.5 degrees, for Moon it is 6.7 degrees.
And again, with an elliptical orbit, the Moon’s orientation wobbles PRECISELY BECAUSE of its independent rotation and orbital motion.
Describing the motion most simply is what astronomy aims to do. Getting into the CAUSES of motion, is another issue (where we get into tidal effects etc).
You want to change to a rubber band model? Go right ahead, but it will only lead to unnecessary complications, as compared to the standard astronomy model.
Nate says:
October 16, 2020 at 7:33 AM
Sorry Nate you made zero argument here. The rigid rotator model is an engineering model. No engineer disregards elasticity.
OMG Bill,
Engineers might use a rigid body model of an airplane, with a rigid strut. No engineer in his right mind would accept a rubber band as a replacement of the rigid strut! Because a rubber band cannot sustain compression.
=======================================
Boeing recently safety tested the 787 dreamliner for wing flex and the wing bends 25 feet.
Its just your stubborn ignorance that you don’t understand the moon’s rotation is completely controlled by gravity, primarily by the earth and aproximately 18% by the Sun andf probably less than one percent by the rest of the universe.
The moon meets all criteria for being considered a slave rotator in time with its orbit around the earth.
And you jump in and moronically start complaining about the rubber band analogy. The rubber band is an analogy you bleeding idiot!
“Its just your stubborn ignorance that you don’t understand the moon’s rotation is completely controlled by gravity, primarily by the earth and aproximately 18% by the Sun andf probably less than one percent by the rest of the universe.”
And so what?
What we are discussing, as I explained, is how to properly DESCRIBE a planetary motion.
That is Kinematics, the first thing taught in a physics course.
What cause the motion (DUH, gravity is involved!) that is an entirely separate issue from describing the motion. That is the next subject taught in physics, Dynamics, Newton’s laws etc.
First one needs to describe the motion in a language that can apply universally to any planet or Moon.
Rigid body rotator? No not universal? RBR with rubber bands, No, not universal. These are not useful models for describing the motion of a planets in orbits that can also rotate on their own axes.
Nate says:
First one needs to describe the motion in a language that can apply universally to any planet or Moon.
=====================================
DREMT and I have both done that Nate:
The moon has zero spin axis rotations for each orbital rotation. E.g. one sidereal rotation per month and 13 total per year from the perspective of space for an orbit of the sun. (12 sidereal due to earths gravity plus 1 sidereal due to solar gravity)
The earth has 365 spin axis rotations for each orbital rotation. Making 365 spins from earths perspective and 1 additional sidereal from the perspective space.
Your theory wants to ignore the true physics and have a one size fits all formula as the catalog gets complicated when you start adding in other rotations like around the galaxy and the galaxy around other stuff.
So they manufactured a non-realistic way of expressing it for those who get confused easily. Kind of funny how the same easily confused people can’t grasp that its been made easy for them.
But in reality is just a more advanced Einsteinian-like relationship from where your perspectives are. The extra sidereal spins layered in depending upon your vantage point. A vantage point outside of the universe would come up with yet at least one more sidereal rotation.
All sidereal rotation additions thus aren’t independent spins on the axis of the celestial body.
So in answer to your challenge you now see how easily a universal model can be applied to any planet or moon.
b hunter wrote
The earth has 365 spin axis rotations for each orbital rotation. Making 365 spins from earths perspective and 1 additional sidereal from the perspective space.
I think that you are confused. We define the time measure called a “day” as the time between successive local noon occurrences, which is then divided into 24 equal segments called hours. But during those 24 hours, the earth has actually rotated (1 + 1/365.25) rotations in inertial space, or 1.00274 rotations. Multiple that by 365.25 days per year totals 366 rotations per year. That’s another example of the absolute requirement to think in terms of inertial space.
In inertial space, the Moon rotates once per orbit.
“Your theory wants to ignore the true physics and have a one size fits all formula as the catalog gets complicated when you start adding in other rotations like around the galaxy and the galaxy around other stuff.”
Youve missed the point. Descrbing the motion of planets in the way that all astronomers do is not ignoring physics, it is JUST describing the motion in thr most useful way. Then the physics can be used to explain the motion, as Newton and followers did.
If you think your way of describing planetary motion is better, great. But astronomers and physicists dont agree.
Oh well, too bad for you.
“So they manufactured a non-realistic way of expressing it for those who get confused easily.”
Who? Astronomers manufacturing all these standard parameters for describing orbits, for nefarious purposes?
No. And really nuts!
E. Swanson says:
I think that you are confused. We define the time measure called a day as the time between successive local noon occurrences, which is then divided into 24 equal segments called hours. But during those 24 hours, the earth has actually rotated (1 + 1/365.25) rotations in inertial space, or 1.00274 rotations. Multiple that by 365.25 days per year totals 366 rotations per year. Thats another example of the absolute requirement to think in terms of inertial space.
================================
Sure it serves a useful purpose. Everybody on earth only sees 365 days in a year plus one extra day every 4 years. Defining it this way recognizes the real physics, provides and explanation for the difference in the way astronomers perceive it (if they block out the orbital rotation) etc. You are over complicating it and confusing people when you don’t recognize the physics.
Whats confusing is when you try to tell somebody they rotated one more time than they noticed.
Nate says:
Youve missed the point. Descrbing the motion of planets in the way that all astronomers do is not ignoring physics, it is JUST describing the motion in thr most useful way. Then the physics can be used to explain the motion, as Newton and followers did.
=======================
I pointed out to you what a couple months or more ago that astronomers don’t need concern themselves with this fact unless they are trying to determine when a planet or moon will lose its independent spin. Much easier for cataloging stuff. I have not problem with that and said so. I still trying to figure out why you guys care with its obvious there is a reason to think of it as non-spinners do. You guys are the backward kkk science bigots and it shows here and just about everything else you guys go on about. e.g. ooooh you are a fool to not agree the earth is going to warm 3k via CO2 doubling, etc., etc. etc.
Nate says:
If you think your way of describing planetary motion is better, great. But astronomers and physicists dont agree.
==========================
I never said it was better for astronomers. In fact I recognized that within probably 20 or 30 posts I made on the topic the first time I heard about this tempest in a teapot.
I haven’t seen a reason why physicists would perfer a model that doesn’t recognize all the physics at work though. Do you have a reference?
Nate says:
Oh well, too bad for you.
So they manufactured a non-realistic way of expressing it for those who get confused easily.
Who? Astronomers manufacturing all these standard parameters for describing orbits, for nefarious purposes?
No. And really nuts!
========================
I am just referring to the hundreds of posts that were made to inform you those motions were attributable to gravity rather than an independent spin.
Seems that still hasn’t sunk in for you. Why because you remain so sure its an independent spin? LMAO!!!
Simple solution Nate. Call them correctly as 366 sidereal rotations. Sidereal means: f or with respect to the distant stars (i.e. the constellations or fixed stars, not the sun or planets).
The rest of us were interested in if the moon spins independently or not and why. At some point with your head in the stars you might need to come back down to earth.
b hunter wrote:
Sigh. Defining the rotation of the Earth as “once per day” does not represent the “real physics”. Astronomers are presenting the real physics, just as they did long ago when they declared that the Earth is not flat, in opposition to the apparent view as seen by the man on the street (and The Church).
I hate to tell you, but you lost the scientific argument when you admitted that both the Earth and the Moon add a rotation with each orbit. The Moon rotates approximately once an orbit.
The moon rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis.
Just as you agree the ball on a string rotates about an axis that is external to the ball, and not about its own center of mass.
Dead simple.
“I am just referring to the hundreds of posts that were made to inform you those motions were attributable to gravity rather than an independent spin.”
I havent been informed of anything. I have seen some erroneous declarations without no evidence.
Again, this is ridiculous. What you guys are pushing is illogical and impractical and pointless.
The physics of orbits have been understood for centuries. Kepler explained the motions. Newton in 1600s, and followers in 1700s and 1800s figured out all of the physics. Even predicted the precession rates of titlted axes and orbits of the Moon.
If you think that you’ve found something new that astrophysics hasnt found long ago, good luck.
++
Svante, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
October 17, 2020 at 2:29 PM
I am just referring to the hundreds of posts that were made to inform you those motions were attributable to gravity rather than an independent spin.
I havent been informed of anything. I have seen some erroneous declarations without no evidence.
Again, this is ridiculous. What you guys are pushing is illogical and impractical and pointless.
The physics of orbits have been understood for centuries.
==============================
Then don’t be shy to link to a study attributing the moon’s axial precession to what you believe it is linked to. All I am saying is these things are linked to gravity and in this case the precession is in time with an observable change in gravity pulling on the moon. If thats wrong provide another hypothesis.
“Then dont be shy to link to a study attributing the moons axial precession to what you believe it is linked to.”
Try Googling ‘lunar axial precession’. Its all there. Come back when youve done that and we can discuss.
Oh and be prepared to tell me why you think it matters to the discussion that the sun’s gravity is responsible for the moon’s axial precession.
Since WHATEVER the mechanism, if the Moon has axial precession, then it has an axis that is tilted. If it has an axis, then it must be determined by rotation of mass around that axis. If so, then the Moon is rotating around its own, tilted, axis. QED.
Done! Nothing there particularly on tidal locked axial precessions. You got something or have you been talking through your hat?
” tell me why you think it matters to the discussion”
And I dont think you did it, as you would have noticed that axial precession requires a rotational axis!
Thats only true if you mistakenly believe the world of semantics is identical to the world of reality.
“Thats only true if you mistakenly believe the world of semantics is identical to the world of reality.”
Thats the argument of someone who lost the argument.
The Moon’s axis, with its 6.7 degree tilt, which pierces the Moon at its N and S Poles, which are labeled on all Moon maps, is not real?
But the Earth’s axis, with its 23.5 degree tilt, which pierces the Earth’s surface at its N and S poles which are labelled on all the maps is real, or maybe not??
Are the lunar poles real or not? Ya know the places on the maps that are the coldest and darkest on the Moon? Are the Earths poles real or not?
Nate says:
Thats the argument of someone who lost the argument.
===========================
No thats just the argument of somebody who isn’t buying your BS.
Nate says:
The Moons axis, with its 6.7 degree tilt, which pierces the Moon at its N and S Poles, which are labeled on all Moon maps, is not real?But the Earths axis, with its 23.5 degree tilt, which pierces the Earths surface at its N and S poles which are labelled on all the maps is real, or maybe not??Are the lunar poles real or not? Ya know the places on the maps that are the coldest and darkest on the Moon? Are the Earths poles real or not?
=====================================
Its not a 6.7 degree tilt to what matters Nate. Even the earth’s axis precesses on the ecliptic not its orbital tilt.
The earth though has a very small orbital tilt thus if the earth was tidal locked its axial precession would be incredibly small.
A major part of your problem is that in your education you ascribed to a lot of unnecessary stuff that amounts to nothing more than cartoonish analogies that you accepted as fact and are not critical to understanding or a factor in how the universe works.
Your ascription to the photon model eschewed by Einstein is one example. Here you have adopted a ‘gyroscopic’ top as a model.
The gyroscope has the ability to standup like a top in opposition to gravity. And a gyroscope by applying and external wobble to it will continue to stand up even when gravity says it shouldn’t because of certain forces generated by the spinning of the gyroscope.
Of course a planet in space doesn’t need a gyroscope to remain steady; but not in Nates world if the moon stopped rotating it would fall over right?
“Its not a 6.7 degree tilt to what matters Nate. Even the earth’s axis precesses on the ecliptic not its orbital tilt.”
The Earth’s 23 degree axial tilt is wrt to its orbit around the sun, which is in the ecliptic plane.
The Moon’s 6.7 degree axial tilt is wrt to its orbit around the Earth.
Gyroscopes are also spinning around their rotational axes and precess just like the Moon, due to gravity.
This is again well known to physics.
Im not sure where this is going? And how it addresses your claim that the Moon’s axis is not ‘real’, while the Earth’s axis is real, and presumably gyroscope axes are real?
“A major part of your problem is that in your education you ascribed to a lot of unnecessary stuff that amounts to nothing more than cartoonish analogies that you accepted as fact and are not critical to understanding or a factor in how the universe works.”
Bill, this particular topic is right in my wheelhouse, and far from yours. In physics we learn way way more than ‘cartoonish analogies.’
So it is extremely weird and Dunning-Krugeresque that you try to lecture me on this.
And your claim that my education is somehow a hindrance is extremely ignorant and implausible.
Nate says:
A major part of your problem is that in your education you ascribed to a lot of unnecessary stuff that amounts to nothing more than cartoonish analogies that you accepted as fact and are not critical to understanding or a factor in how the universe works.
Bill, this particular topic is right in my wheelhouse, and far from yours. In physics we learn way way more than cartoonish analogies.
So it is extremely weird and Dunning-Krugeresque that you try to lecture me on this.
And your claim that my education is somehow a hindrance is extremely ignorant and implausible.
=======================================
Obviously your education is a hindrance to you. If I were to guess why I would suspect you have never done any real research post passing your University requirements for a degree. Certainly nothing to be ashamed of we all make decisions in life that cause us to shift directions.
Nate says:
Its not a 6.7 degree tilt to what matters Nate. Even the earth’s axis precesses on the ecliptic not its orbital tilt.
The Earths 23 degree axial tilt is wrt to its orbit around the sun, which is in the ecliptic plane.
The Moons 6.7 degree axial tilt is wrt to its orbit around the Earth.
Gyroscopes are also spinning around their rotational axes and precess just like the Moon, due to gravity.
This is again well known to physics.
Im not sure where this is going? And how it addresses your claim that the Moons axis is not real, while the Earths axis is real, and presumably gyroscope axes are real?
======================================
Well as you should know Nate gyroscopes tend to fall over before they stop spinning. I noted that in a previous thread that the moon’s axis probably shifted as a result of the cessation of independent spin. At a minimum any independent spin on a random axis is going to adjust the tilt of the axis via the spin’s influence. So its arguable that the axial precession is either a result of independent spin or a spin put on it by multiple different directional pulls of gravity and fully dependent upon a dependent rotation around the earth’s axis.
So my assertion is that the moon’s axial precession is fully dependent upon its relationship with the earth and sun and thus no independent spin is evident. Further such an assertion is consistent with the kinetics of rotation around an external axis.
You can certainly retain your undying allegiance to every word endorsed by favorite political candidate in regards to science if you wish. But we will just have to agree to disagree. That is until you provide proof of your assertion then you can win me over.
Bill,
This whole thing has recently been argued ad nauseum elsewhere , see several thousand comments at – /http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comments
Do you really want to align yourself with the Non Rotating Axis of Evil? I guess being a member of an exclusive club ( a less than a dozen* including sock puppets) could be enticing.
Just three points to pose to yourself and the other members of the cult.
1. With regard to hypotheses testing. Do you have a real world example, rather than theoretical musings, where the conventional theory about the moon’s rotation has been falsified?
2 .Remarkable claims that would require the revision of a vast range of of physics and astronomical text books require remarkable evidence. This evidence would need to be irrefutable.
Many moons ( approx 25) have passed since this claim has been made and each claim has subsequently been shredded ( see reference above).
3. What difference would it make to any practical sense to anything at, if this incredible theory had any basis in truth? Would merry-go-rounds have to be redesigned? Would the plans for future moon landings have to be revised? Would yo-yos stop spinning?
Where I come from people who proudly try to advocate theories that have no practical implications at all, are just a bunch of armchair ….. (rhymes with merchant bankers).
* in the known universe. Possibly more in parallel universes.
“So its arguable that the axial precession is either a result of independent spin or a spin put on it by multiple different directional pulls of gravity and fully dependent upon a dependent rotation around the earths axis.”
No it is not arguable.
Because ‘a spin put on it by multiple different directional pulls of gravity’ makes absolutely no sense.
That is gibberish.
A spin is a rotational motion that is present or not. And due to conservation of angular momentum, it is self-sustaining, and doesnt require directional pulls of gravity.
The multiple pulls of gravity are what causes the precession of the spin, and the orbital parameters.
MikeR says:
1. With regard to hypotheses testing. Do you have a real world example, rather than theoretical musings, where the conventional theory about the moons rotation has been falsified?
answer: First you have to come to grips that the moon is rotating. . . .around the center of gravity of earth.
——————
2 .Remarkable claims that would require the revision of a vast range of of physics and astronomical text books require remarkable evidence. This evidence would need to be irrefutable.
Many moons ( approx 25) have passed since this claim has been made and each claim has subsequently been shredded ( see reference above).
answer: Astronomy isn’t a separate universe Mike. Its principle disagree with engineering principles. See below also.
——————————-
3. What difference would it make to any practical sense to anything at, if this incredible theory had any basis in truth? Would merry-go-rounds have to be redesigned? Would the plans for future moon landings have to be revised? Would yo-yos stop spinning?
Where I come from people who proudly try to advocate theories that have no practical implications at all, are just a bunch of armchair .. (rhymes with merchant bankers).
answer: Well it may be of no importance to astronomy. Thus deciding rewrite books becomes a cost/benefit analsys that seems to prevent that. But it is of utmost importance to a maker of merry go rounds. Merry go rounds properly express what the moon is doing as well.
It’s the theory that is consistent with a globe welded to a mgr rotating around the center of the mgr. Those that are not welded are free to spin on their own while they rotate. If you count rotations from the center of the merry go round you get a different number than when counting from a drone above the merry go round. That difference is the first clue in the puzzle.
your coalition that holds to the incorrect answer is actually fissured by disagreement on the mgr analogy. Some would say that the gravitational influence is too weak to be considered a rigid system. But that is easy debunked by how much libration the moon experiences, which is far less than the vast majority of engineered systems including mgrs.
=========================================
* in the known universe. Possibly more in parallel universes.
answer: I guess that means ”earth to MikeR” here is a bit more difficult than ”earth to mars.”
Here is an engineered example of how the mgr works.
You have a merry go round with an axle through the center of its round floor with a speed control motor controlling its speed of rotation.
There is a globe sitting near the edge of the rotating merry go round floor like a little horsey on a typical mgr.
You fix the globe to the mgr using an axle powered by a speed control motor so the globe can turn on its own independently of the merry go round.
OK fire up the experiment. Turn on the globe motor so that it turns exactly 1 revolution per minute. The globe turns one time a minute from whereever you view it.
Now turn on the mgr motor so that the merry go round is turning exactly 1 revolution per minute in the same direction as the globe is turning.
Now from the center of the mgr it appears the globe is turning 1rpm. From a drone though the globe is now turning 2rpm.
See not complicated at all, you guys are just making it too complicated and confounding how one would engineer such a device.
==============================================
Bill Hunter says –
“answer: First you have to come to grips that the moon is rotating. . . .around the center of gravity of earth.”
==============================================
No Bill. It is revolving around the barycentre of the earth/ moon system*. Everyone including your non-rotating colleagues agrees with that.
==============================================
Bill says –
“answer: Astronomy isnt a separate universe Mike. Its principle disagree with engineering principles. See below also.”
==============================================
See above*
As for the merry-go-round, it has been discussed extensively previously and from an external observer all points, such as rigidly mounted horses, are rotating about axes defined by directions N,S,E.W.(top, bottom, right and left on the screen in the gifs below) .
I am obviously in total agreement that they are not rotating relative to the merry-go-round itself.
In the following gifs, you can replace any point on the rigid body with a rigidly mounted mgr horse.
Firstly –
https://i.postimg.cc/Z57x0HVs/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/3NBjt1f4/Tesla3.gif
and
https://i.postimg.cc/J4r5swtb/Pizza-Gate4.gif
and treating the earth moon system as a rigid body**, which it isnt of course, but Tesla fan boys may be lurking.
https://i.postimg.cc/tJN70C67/Moon-Earth.gif
** Note the missing spokes and also the earth is rotating 28 times faster than what is shown in the above gif.
==============================================
Bill says –
“OK fire up the experiment. Turn on the globe motor so that it turns exactly 1 revolution per minute. The globe turns one time a minute from whereever you view it.
Now turn on the mgr motor so that the merry go round is turning exactly 1 revolution per minute in the same direction as the globe is turning.”
==============================================
Bill, eith your motor driving the globe on a mgr, is the testable hypothesis that 1+1 =2 ? I would agree with that. I would agree with the hypothesis that without the motor striving the globe that 1 + 0 = 1 . i.e the globe is rotating on its axis.
Finally as you can see Bill, it wasn’t a great career move , credibility wise, to identify yourself with DREMT et al..
MikeR says:
No Bill. It is revolving around the barycentre of the earth/ moon system*. Everyone including your non-rotating colleagues agrees with that.
==============================================
MikeR you really ought to check your facts first. The moon rotates around the earth and the earth/moon ‘system’ rotates around the barycenter.
the rest of your post isn’t even worth commenting on.
==============================================
Bill’s latest version
“MikeR you really ought to check your facts first.
The moon rotates around the earth and the earth/moon system rotates around the barycenter.”
==============================================
Bill, I assume you agree that the moon rotates about the earth/barycentre as the earth does.
You have changed you tune, as this is very different to your first statement
==============================================
Bill’s previous version
“First you have to come to grips that the moon is rotating. . . .around the center of gravity of earth.
==============================================
The centre of gravity of the earth is different to the centre of gravity (or barycentre) of earth/sytem . The centre of gravity of the earth lies at or close to the physical centre of the earth.
In contrast the barycentre of the earth/moon system lies, on average, 4670 km from the physical centre of the earth. A good illustration of this is
https://youtu.be/7hMfCCqSdFc
As for the rest of my comments above you clearly have no answer.This is not unexpected considering your other comments about this topic.
MikeR has four gifs clearly showing objects rotating around a central point, and not on their own axes, and yet he believes the gifs show the objects rotating on their own axes! He doesn’t understand the distinction, and never will. That’s his loss. Don’t waste your time, bill.
“But it is of utmost importance to a maker of merry go rounds. Merry go rounds properly express what the moon is doing as well.”
OMG. I didnt know MGR makers blame errant physics for their dramatic loss of playground market share!
Its getting weirder and weirder..
And again we bizzarely return to discussing rigid rotators that have no relevance to the Moon, whose parts are not moving in concentric circles around a fixed external axis.
MikeR says:
Bill, I assume you agree that the moon rotates about the earth/barycentre as the earth does.
==================================
No MikeR you are about to enter the moron zone with your comments. The moon rotates around the earth center of gravity. The earth moon system rotates around the sun center of gravity.
the idea of a 2 body barycenter in a more than 2 body problem one cannot say the earth/moon rotates around an earth/moon 2 body barycenter. Its purely conceptual that it does. Like conceiving the moon rotates on its own axis which is also purely conceptual and only perceptible from the conceptual notion of fixed stars that are not fixed.
So once you straighten out what is conceptual and what is real you will realize the moon rotates around the earth’s center of gravity with a lot of zigging and zagging from the conceptual view of an alleged fixed star.
So the net result is the moon’s orbit around the conceptual 2 body barycenter doesn’t cause any orbital deviation itself but deviations of the earth moon distance arises as you add celestial bodies to the problem.
You now have an primer education in how astrology and in particular astrometeorology arose, of which the Milankovitch theory is part of.
Within that web of space are several forces, light radiation being one of them. The movement of magnetic fields another. Affects of gravity on planetary and lunar movement. And even perhaps stuff we haven’t learned yet. . . .like a non-emptiness of space (once proposed as aether but discarded after a big effort to detect it failed)
So there has been zero change of tune, the only thing changing is you.
========================
======================
======================
MikeR says:
The centre of gravity of the earth is different to the centre of gravity (or barycentre) of earth/sytem . The centre of gravity of the earth lies at or close to the physical centre of the earth.
In contrast the barycentre of the earth/moon system lies, on average, 4670 km from the physical centre of the earth. A good illustration of this is
https://youtu.be/7hMfCCqSdFc
==================================
And none of that matters to the relationship of the moon to the earth MikeR, unless you can dig up some connection to variable aether that such conceptual movement has to pass through. So why bring it up in the problem of the moon rotating around the earth center of gravity? I would suggest its because you know you lost the argument and are now grasping at straws to make it look otherwise. Myself I could care less what it looks like I am just interested in facts.
So DREMT is correct its a waste of time to discuss your current line of reasoning.
DREM,
With your intervention, you seem to be very worried about Bill’s ability to answer for himself! He is actually much more astute thay you are.
Bill understands the concept of reference frames which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp,.
Fir instance, Bills description of a thought experiment employing a motor driven globe mounted on a mgr.
==============================================
“Now from the center of the mgr it appears the globe is turning 1rpm. From a drone though the globe is now turning 2rpm.”
==============================================
Accordingly I am sure Bill has the capability to visually assess whether in
https://i.postimg.cc/Z57x0HVs/Rectangular-plate-pivot.gif
1. the centres of the red, green and blue arrows are rotating around the pivot point and
2. are also each arrow are rotating around their centres (with respect to the directions of top, bottom, left and right of the screen) .
I am aldo sure thst Bill realises that all points , being part of a rigid body, not only do not translate relative to each other but also do not rotate relative to each other . Consequently as the entire plate rotates, each point rotates at the same rate on a perpendicular axis that passes through each point. Again this is with respect to the external directional frame of reference.
Of course , in the end , this is all moot as the moon/earth system is not a rigid body and both bodies can rotate on their axes independently.
I grasp reference frames just fine, MikeR. In your gifs you show the objects appearing to rotate on their own axes, from an inertial reference frame. In reality, they are not rotating on their own axes, since such motion is not physically possible when the objects are rigidly attached to the point they are rotating about (orbiting). The objects are merely rotating about a central point. Even Norman agrees with me on that.
The relevance to the Earth-moon system was explained again in a comment further above.
“The relevance to the Earth-moon system was explained again in a comment further above.”
Nope. Declared, not explained. There is a big difference.
Facts become irrelevant when you can simply declare your own truths.
” Astronomy isnt a separate universe Mike. Its principle disagree with engineering principles. ”
FALSE. Show us an engineering reference to the Moon not spinning on its axis.
dThere are none.
Engineering principles are based on physics principles. Any great disagreement is entirely invented by the TEAM.
XY plotters, CNC machines, 3D printers, the Apollo missions all use engineering principles that agree with the Astronomy ones.
Specifically, they all separate motions into Translations and Rotations wrt to the Inertial Frame.
For example, an XY plotter draws a circle simply by TRANSLATING the pen along a curved path. In Engineering Textbooks, this is known as Curvilinear Translation.
Forcing the pen to rotate as it translates is understood to be a superfluous extra motion.
Aerospace engineers agree with Astronomy that a planetary orbit is simply a CURVILINEAR TRANSLATION around a center.
They do not agree with the TEAM that an ORBIT implies a planet changing its orientation wrt the stars.
IOW, they do not agree that a planetary orbit is like a rigid body rotation around an external axis.
…and, MikeR, once again…do not forget that revolution is simply another word for a rotation about an external axis, as this professor of physics and astronomy explains:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Where did Bill get the weed that he must have been smoking? The THC content must be unbelievable.
Bill, in his latest missive -“So why bring it up in the problem of the moon rotating around the earth center of gravity”
“answer: First you have to come to grips that the moon is rotating. . . .around the center of gravity of earth”
This was Bill himself introducing the topic in the first place .He must have forgotten.
Bill in his addled state also made some claims that may have made sense to himself, but may regret later, when the effects of the weed subside. Accordingly I will let them pass, other than to state that the earth/moon barycentre centre is orbiting around the earth-moon/sun barycentre and not around the centre of the sun.
A useful explanation is found here –
https://www.sciencealert.com/mesmerising-animations-show-our-entire-solar-system-doesn-t-exactly-orbit-the-sun
Finally I have to state that this commentary is about as useful as tits on a bull. NASA today managed to rendezvous with asteroid Bennu, just using bog standard conventional orbital mechanics. No need to call on the expertise of Bill and DREM.
p.s. If DREM and Bill Hunter were running Mission Control and employing their peculiar idiosyncratic insights, it could have been used as the plot line to a new episode of Lost in Space.
Nate says:
But it is of utmost importance to a maker of merry go rounds. Merry go rounds properly express what the moon is doing as well.
OMG. I didnt know MGR makers blame errant physics for their dramatic loss of playground market share!
Its getting weirder and weirder..
=====================================
Well American ingenuity doesn’t typically apply to America’s arm chair physicists.
You will find tough sledding in the mgr business if you insist on installing rotational motors on all the mgr ride seats to get them to rotate at the same speed as the mgr when they are not requested in RFPs.
MikeR you better go check to see if your catheter is clogged Mike. I sounds like ammonia might be backing up into your brain cells.
So, in summary, since astronomers agree that an orbit is a rotation around an external axis, and the orbital paths of the particles making up an object rotating around an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) form concentric circles/ellipses…then they should all agree that the moon is only orbiting, not rotating on its own axis. Since the orbital paths of the particles making up the moon form concentric ellipses around the Earth/moon barycenter.
Since they mostly don’t seem to agree with that, and instead think that the moon does rotate on its own axis, there must be a lot of cognitive dissonance amongst the astronomical community. They apparently disagree with their own definition of revolution! It might make more sense if they thought orbital motion was like curvilinear translation, for example, but the various definitions you can find only ever mention rotation about an external axis. I haven’t found a single one that mentions curvilinear translation.
OMG DREMT is stuck in an infinite loop of reality distortion.
Once again, his same lame source of Astronomy facts contradicts his erroneous ideas
“Orbit is the motion of one object around another.”
“The strict definition of rotation is ‘the circular movement of an object about a point in space.'”
He knows full well that the Moon is NOT making a circular movement around a point in space.
He knows full well that therefore the Moon is not rotating around the barycenter.
He tries to alter these definitions to suit his erroneous beliefs, when he knows full well that Geometry and Astronomy and Physics and Engineering disagree with his definition of orbit.
He knows full well that Astronomy states that the Moon has an independent rotation around its own tilted axis, and that there is SIMPLY NO WAY to describe the Moon’s librations with his rigid rotator model.
He is a 47 time loser of this argument who pretends that his lies and distortions are never rebutted.
“You will find tough sledding in the mgr business if you insist on installing rotational motors on all the mgr ride seats to get them to rotate at the same speed as the mgr when they are not requested in RFPs.”
Yes, Bill you should offer them your auditing services to help them get their business model back on track. You may, however, need to offer your services pro bono, since ya know, they are probably not loony.
Nate says:
Yes, Bill you should offer them your auditing services to help them get their business model back on track. You may, however, need to offer your services pro bono, since ya know, they are probably not loony.
============================
Happy to help out. Will definitely significantly reduce costs Nate. Typical moving part installed of the size of a mgr seating element should save something on the order of a grand per seat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object can always be rotated about an infinite number of imaginary lines called rotation axes (AK-seez). If the axis passes through the body’s center of mass, the body is said to rotate upon itself, or spin. A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity. The axis is called a pole.”
Here is Wikipedia describing it as a rotation about an external axis, also. Note that further on, in another section, it describes orbiting as one object moving around another, which does not contradict the rotation around an external axis definition…the rotation around an external axis definition is just more specific. If an object is rotating around another object, it is still one object moving around another, after all.
Again, if anybody can find a definition of orbital motion as curvilinear translation, instead of a rotation about an external axis, please let me know.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
It might make more sense if they thought orbital motion was like curvilinear translation, for example, but the various definitions you can find only ever mention rotation about an external axis. I havent found a single one that mentions curvilinear translation.
===================================
No doubt astronomers are smart enough to not embark on fool’s errands. Certainly can’t say the same of the wannabee astronomers in this forum.
“In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object”
“A trajectory or flight path is the path that an object with mass in motion follows through space as a function of time.”
“In classical mechanics, the mass might be a projectile or a satellite”
Notice an orbit is simply a PATH thru space. Nothing mentioned about object orientation here.
YOUR ASSUMPTION of objects orientation following the trajectory is simply not in the definition.
In this Engineering course, projectile motion is specifically identified as a curvilinear translation.
https://mathalino.com/reviewer/engineering-mechanics/curvilinear-translation-projectile-motion
In the simple descriptions of orbits, as in Wikipedia, the tidally locked orbit is a specific sub-type, defined as
“Some bodies are tidally locked with other bodies, meaning that one side of the celestial body is permanently facing its host object.”
Clearly Orbit and Tidally locked Orbit are not equivalent terms.
The thing that people like MikeR can’t wrap their heads around, is that an object rotating around an external axis automatically keeps one face towards the center of the orbit whilst it moves. That’s without the object also rotating about its own center of mass. That’s just what the motion "rotating around an external axis" is. That one face of the object remains permanently oriented towards the center of the orbit is simply part and parcel of it being a rotation around an external axis.
If an object rotates around an external axis, whilst rotating about its own center of mass as well, then you would see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit. No matter what speed it is rotating about its own center of mass, and in which direction relative to the orbit.
So as soon as you see those definitions of "orbit" and "revolution" mentioning "rotating around a fixed point" or "revolving around an axis of rotation", you know that the orientation of the object is included. Obviously at some point along the way, the relevance of this to astronomers has been lost.
To keep it simple, just remember to look at the orbital paths of the particles making up the orbiting object:
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
“So as soon as you see those definitions of ‘orbit’ and ‘revolution’ mentioning ‘rotating around a fixed point’ or ‘revolving around an axis of rotation’, you know that the orientation of the object is included. Obviously at some point along the way, the relevance of this to astronomers has been lost.”
Generalizing from one example is poor logic.
Indeed ‘rotating round a fixed point’ can be considered one type of orbit.
But orbits in general do not have that property, as the definition of orbit clearly does not require such.
You cannot change definitions of things willy nilly to suit your particular novel beliefs.
Your notion of what an orbit is, is simply wrong
Oh well.
“Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.”
Orbits in general are ellipses, not circles. They are not therefore rotations around an external axis.
Nate it doesn’t matter if an orbit bobs and weaves around it stil goes around.
“an orbit bobs and weaves around it stil goes around.”
Yep. It is just a path thru space that goes around something.
It is a translation on a curved trajectory, no change of orientation is specified.
DREM is propagating his nonsense again.
************************************************
According to DREM
“Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation”
*************************************************
In contrast here is the real situation ( assuming circular orbits).
For a moving rotating circle ( aka moon) the paths are concentric.
https://i.postimg.cc/1zhfqcn8/Rotation-Concentric-Circles.gif
For a moving non rotating circle ( aka moon) the paths crossover.
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls2mSyg3/No-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
DREM is either blind or deluded or both. Take your pick.
Yes, that demonstrates it nicely. Thanks again.
You show the paths crossing in the situation where the circle orbits and rotates on its own axis in the opposite direction to its orbital motion, once per orbit. The paths also criss-cross if the circle is orbiting and rotating on its own axis in the same direction as its orbital motion. The only possible situation in which you get concentric circles is when the circle is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis.
“The only possible situation in which you get concentric circles is when the circle is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis”
In a world where they have a diffferent definition of ‘orbit’ than in our world.
In our world the concentric one is orbiting and rotating.
But anyway the interesting one is the elliptical orbit.
What does DREMT think the ‘just orbiting’ with no rotation looks like?
So DREM,
Your claim, that you have made on several occasions, is that the moon does not rotate on its axis in any (underline any) frame of reference*.
Unless you are seriously deluded **, with respect to the directional rose, the moving circle (alias moon) is rotating as shown here –
https://i.postimg.cc/1zhfqcn8/Rotation-Concentric-Circles.gif
As DREM thinks otherwise, can he explain how the moving circle is not rotating with respect to the directions as defined by the rose ( or with respect to the screen’s vertical and horizontal axis)?
Give it a go DREM. As they say laughter is the best form of medicine and I need a good laugh.
* it is however not-rotating with respect to the the reference frame of the circular orbit.
** blindness might be an excuse.
Nate says:
Yep. It is just a path thru space that goes around something.
It is a translation on a curved trajectory, no change of orientation is specified.
====================================
See! Your brain is in neutral Nate. The orbital revolution is absolutely specified. Its always in the same direction as the orbit! Never otherwise.
Bill,
Do you have an opinion on whether the moving circle is rotating ot not rotating with respect to the vertical and horizontal directions of the screen in the following depiction?
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls2mSyg3/No-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
Do you want to wait for the glorious leader to awake from his slumber so you can get the party line directly, or do you want to give your opinion?
I already explained it, here, MikeR:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542134
and about 1,000 times before. Re the directional arrows, once again: the circle is changing orientation whilst it orbits, because that is what orbital motion without axial rotation involves. Your gif with the concentric circles is a perfect representation of orbital motion without axial rotation. How many times do you need this to be explained to you?
The circle is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an axis that is external to the circle. Read the linked comment again.
You do not need to ask bill as he has already expressed agreement in previous discussions. You do not need to ask me because I have already explained this to you many, many times. Stop asking stupid questions, and finally get up to speed with where others on your side of the argument are up to. You are behind everyone else.
DREM,
Are you Bill? You seem to assume he is not capable of independent thought? I am wondering whether Bill shares your unique insights.
By the way Bill has not previously commented on either of these examples.
So I am interested whether he has an opinion on whether the moving circle is rotating ot not rotating with respect to the vertical and horizontal directions of the screen in the following depiction?
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls2mSyg3/No-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
Likewise with,
https://i.postimg.cc/1zhfqcn8/Rotation-Concentric-Circles.gif
You also specifically asked me to comment, MikeR. I am more than happy to completely stop talking to you on this subject, since you are ineducable. All you have to do is stop mentioning my name, and stop asking me questions. Deal?
“See! Your brain is in neutral Nate. The orbital revolution is absolutely specified. Its always in the same direction as the orbit! Never otherwise.”
Obviously definitions of words can be ignored by you, Bill.
We are talking what an ‘orbit’ is, and ‘orientation’. Its meant to be universal. Applicable to any planet. Your’s fails for the Earth, Mars, etc.
Even for the Moon it fails. The Moons orientation does not always align with its orbital path.
In fact that is how we know that the Moon has an independent spin.
It is spinning and changing its orientation at a constant rate, while the orbital position is not advancing at a constant rate, due its eccentricity.
Nate says:
The only possible situation in which you get concentric circles is when the circle is orbiting and not rotating on its own axis
In a world where they have a diffferent definition of orbit than in our world.
===========================
Nate makes the 6,000 year old claim that you change the name of something the physics change.
” because that is what orbital motion without axial rotation involves.”
Nope. Unless facts can be ignored, for the thousandth time.
And here’s one of the problems with that.
That incorrect definition of an orbit, makes you guys feel good about a circular orbit with one side always facing the center. One side always pointing along the orbital path like a horse on a MGR. It seems like a ‘natural’ motion somehow.
But with real orbits, which are elliptical, the naturalness becomes awkwardness. Even for the tidally locked Moon orbit.
The same face no longer points always to the center. The same face no longer points along the orbital path. In fact that is mutually exclusive.
What, in this case would be the ‘natural’ way for the orbiting planet to point? It might seem natural for the horse’s head to always point along the path, but in this case it doesnt.
Why not?
Of course it makes perfect sense only when you realize (I realize that is a stretch for some!), that if the Moon is independently spinning at a constant rate (yes on its own axis), and its CM is orbiting along an elliptical path, speeding up and slowing down as it goes closer and farther from the Earth.
There is no ‘natural’ understanding of this behavior as ‘just orbiting’. There is no understanding of this behavior unless the Moon has its own independent spin.
And when that spin is about a tilted axis, it makes even less sense to think it is ‘just orbiting’.
“Nate makes the 6,000 year old claim that you change the name of something the physics change.”
6000 y???! Bill you just dont make much sense, most of the time.
It is in fact the TEAM that is changing the 300 y old idea of what an ORBIT is, and have claimed at various times that the physics is thus changed.
MikeR says:
Do you have an opinion on whether the moving circle is rotating ot not rotating with respect to the vertical and horizontal directions of the screen in the following depiction?
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls2mSyg3/No-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
Do you want to wait for the glorious leader to awake from his slumber so you can get the party line directly, or do you want to give your opinion?
================================
Yes the moving circle is both rotating on its axis and rotating on the center of the large circle.
Since the rotation of the moving circle is in the opposite direction of the orbit rotation it appears to not be rotating to you guys. But appearances can be deceiving.
You can see from the lines ascribing its orbit as they cross over each other twice that it has to be rotating. You would not see this cross over if it wasn’t rotating.
Think of an object going in a straight line with the lines crossing over each other that defines a rotating object.
Proof comes when you do the same thing with tangent points on the orbit as the system speeds through space you will see the orbital rotation as the same kind of line crossing.
Nate says:
6000 y???! Bill you just dont make much sense, most of the time.
It is in fact the TEAM that is changing the 300 y old idea of what an ORBIT is, and have claimed at various times that the physics is thus changed.
======================
Physics hasn’t changed, just the rotation of the moon has changed as it spun down from earth’s gravitational pull as astronomers think it did.
Perhaps you could provide evidence of your claimed definition and the science from which it was derived? Not holding out much hope for that as you usually are just saying AFAIK, and when you know nothing. . . .
“Perhaps you could provide evidence of your claimed definition and the science from which it was derived?”
Did that here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542111
initial quotes from wikipedia. Others from cited engineering course.
Clear?
Nate thats a fake reference for the definition of the word orbit you are holding to. The word orbit isn’t even on the page.
Nate says:
Clearly Orbit and Tidally locked Orbit are not equivalent terms.
===============================
So now you are trying to claim the moon isn’t tidally locked? None of that says anything that supports your case . . . .at all! See I told you that the moon spins on its own axis AFAYK! But you don’t know anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
The word ‘orbit’ is in there.
Bill you are stuck on stupid.
Bill,
As I CLEARLY stated “initial quotes from wikipedia. Others from cited engineering course.”
You simply have no reading comprehension skills.
Or you are trying very hard to remain ignorant.
Nate says:
Clearly Orbit and Tidally locked Orbit are not equivalent terms.
===============================
So now you are trying to claim the moon isnt tidally locked? ”
No. And how can anyone read what I wrote and get THAT from it? You are extremely confused!
No need to. DREMT already provided you with the references.
Bill, are you DREM’s parrot in residence? You have lifted your explanation , almost word for word from his comments.
For example, I did ask you to refer to the reference with respect to directions* (not the orbit) so you answer is just a regurgitation of the glorious leader’s pronouncements.
Have another go Bill and this time refer to the orientation of the moving circle with respect to the screen axes –
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls2mSyg3/No-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
* reminder that DREM’s claim is that there exists no reference frame where the moon rotates.
p.s. Bill it appears that you may have to be the spokesman for the non rotators as the glorious leader has gone into “ostrich mode”.
MikeR says:
October 22, 2020 at 6:47 PM
Bill, are you DREM’s parrot in residence? You have lifted your explanation , almost word for word from his comments.
For example, I did ask you to refer to the reference with respect to directions* (not the orbit) so you answer is just a regurgitation of the glorious leader’s pronouncements.
Have another go Bill and this time refer to the orientation of the moving circle with respect to the screen axes –
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls2mSyg3/No-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
* reminder that DREM’s claim is that there exists no reference frame where the moon rotates.
p.s. Bill it appears that you may have to be the spokesman for the non rotators as the glorious leader has gone into “ostrich mode”.
=======================================
The similarity in speech is because we both took the description of the situation from the same scientific reference.
You guys are flopping all over the deck like suffocating fish trying to find anything that half way resembles a scientific reference for you viewpoint. Nate just broke all records by offering up something on curvilinear translation that doesn’t have the word orbit in it and tried to mate it to a wikipedia article on orbits that didn’t have either of the words curvilinear or translation in it.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!
Then you drop in naked as a j-bird as ready for the loony bin as Charles Bronson, Englands most famous prisoner.
This is getting flipping seriously funny.
Bill’s got the giggles! On the weed again, Bill? With your Eastern mystical bent , it sounds like you have had way too much Laughing Buddha.
As I am not particularly interested in your semantic disputes with Nate , there was nothing in your comment that was relevant to the challenge, I set you.
When you eventually come down from your high, you can have another go.
Again I simply ask. Do you believe with respect to the screen axes (not the orbital path) is the moving circle rotating?
https://i.postimg.cc/L58Qm1hH/Zero-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
If you think it is rotating, can you explain your reasoning? If you think it is not rotating then you can have a fight with your comrade.
For comparison here is a rotating circle.
https://i.postimg.cc/L6ZBLTcc/Rotation-Concentric-Circles.gif
p.s. I have made some minor changes to the previous versions so that these are more suitable for the vision impaired.
‘Yada yada, i cant read, and this is beyond 6th grade level’ says Bill.
The cliff notes:
An orbit is a ‘Trajectory’ thru space.
Example of trajectories are satellites in orbit and projectiles, like Newtons cannonball!
Projectile TRAJECTORY is a Curvilinear Translation.
Yes these are big words. But if you try you can understand their meaning.
An orbit is simply a translation thru space. No orientation involved. ENGINEERING agrees.
If Bill has more than just whines, as in a source that claims an orbit does require the orientation to follow the path, lets see it!
Put up or shut up!
MikeR’s new trick is to repeatedly ask questions that have already been answered, in the hope it makes it seem as though people are trying to “evade” when they don’t bother re-answering.
MikeR says:
October 23, 2020 at 5:00 AM
Bill’s got the giggles! On the weed again, Bill? With your Eastern mystical bent , it sounds like you have had way too much Laughing Buddha.
When you eventually come down from your high, you can have another go.
Again I simply ask. Do you believe with respect to the screen axes (not the orbital path) is the moving circle rotating?
https://i.postimg.cc/L58Qm1hH/Zero-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
If you think it is rotating, can you explain your reasoning? If you think it is not rotating then you can have a fight with your comrade.
For comparison here is a rotating circle.
https://i.postimg.cc/L6ZBLTcc/Rotation-Concentric-Circles.gif
p.s. I have made some minor changes to the previous versions so that these are more suitable for the vision impaired.
========================================
You just can’t take yes for an answer. Yes its rotating around the center of the unmoving circle. Very clearly. The difference between rotation and curvilinear translation is if the tangent lines cross. If an object is translating (either plain or curvilinear) and rotating on its axis the tangent lines will cross.
Its important to have clear concepts in engineering. If you don’t things like buildings and bridges collapse, gears and lever arms don’t work.
The issue here isn’t rotation vs not rotating as you continually try to spin it. The question is what rotations are in force and what the reality is. All you guys are doing is extrapolating concepts as if there were something materially absolute about those concepts. You come up short on the climate issue for the same reason.
Nate says:
Yada yada, i cant read, and this is beyond 6th grade level says Bill.
The cliff notes:
An orbit is a Trajectory thru space.
Example of trajectories are satellites in orbit and projectiles, like Newtons cannonball!
Projectile TRAJECTORY is a Curvilinear Translation.
=================================================
Indeed it might be because the lines will likely cross if it travels far enough.
When the lines stop crossing then its in pure rotation which will also occur if it travels far enough further. Curvilinear translation is for any object traveling a curved path not in pure rotation.
Nate says:
Yes these are big words. But if you try you can understand their meaning.
An orbit is simply a translation thru space. No orientation involved. ENGINEERING agrees.
========================
Thats just because you are an ENGINEERING IGNORAMUS!
Nate says:
If Bill has more than just whines, as in a source that claims an orbit does require the orientation to follow the path, lets see it!
Put up or shut up!
===============================
An object in curvilinear translation (which is a slippery concept) can, is, and ought to be looked at as rotation with a counter rotation occurring. And looking at it that way is more realistic as I am not familiar with any object that can actually stay in curvilinear translation. Rotational inertia can be negative also. Curvilinear translation is kind of one of those ”approximate” ideas that isn’t quite real, a fleeting illusion. . . like judging motion from a fixed star.
Bill,
“An object in curvilinear translation (which is a slippery concept) can, is, and ought to be looked at as rotation with a counter rotation occurring.”
While constantly touting Engineering over science, Bill flouts the not at all slippery definitions that are in Engineering textbooks. Like the one DREMT refers to.
Then he substitutes his feelings about what things mean for what their actual definitions are.
No real engineers can get away with that slippery way of thinking.
Nate says:
While constantly touting Engineering over science, Bill flouts the not at all slippery definitions that are in Engineering textbooks. Like the one DREMT refers to.
Then he substitutes his feelings about what things mean for what their actual definitions are.
No real engineers can get away with that slippery way of thinking.
=====================================
Only problem here Nate is you need to oil the hinges in that steel trap mind of yours.
Perhaps DREMT would be so kind as to provide the link to the engineering course on rotational theory again.
Apply a little oil to brains mechanism, perhaps a little meditation will help, then carefully reread the sections again.
“I am not familiar with any object that can actually stay in curvilinear translation.Rotational inertia can be negative also. Curvilinear translation is kind of one of those ‘approximate’ ideas that isn’t quite real, a fleeting illusion. . . like judging motion from a fixed star.”
Yep you are clearly not familiar. And not willing to learn or think of any.
The Engineering textbook gives you an answer. A projectile. Like a cannonball. It undergoes curvilinear translation.
If in the vacuum of space, even better.
That clearly means its CM follows a trajectory thru space, with its orientation remaining fixed.
“Put up or shut up”
I have put up support for the definitions.
Where are yours?
Here it is, bill:
https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
The rectangle in Fig. 2(b) is rotating about an external axis (point O). The rectangle is not rotating about its own center of mass.
Nate says:
Yep you are clearly not familiar. And not willing to learn or think of any.
The Engineering textbook gives you an answer. A projectile. Like a cannonball. It undergoes curvilinear translation.
============================
Nate a cannonball lands it doesn’t stay in curvilinear translation.
DREMT has been nice enough to put up the line once again where you can go see that objects stay in curvilinear translation until they are not.
They can smash into the side of an enemy fort or they can enter into pure rotation. In both cases curvilinear translation has been brought to a halt and no longer does the object rotate on its own axis.
Don’t ask me just read the reference material.
If in the vacuum of space, even better.
That clearly means its CM follows a trajectory thru space, with its orientation remaining fixed.
“Put up or shut up”
I have put up support for the definitions.
Where are yours?
“2.0 Types of Motions
1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the
body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.”
“They can smash into the side of an enemy fort”
Yes. But pointless.
“or they can enter into pure rotation.”
No of course not. Except by magic.
So, as we saw, an orbit is a rotation about an external axis. We have the article from the professor of physics and astronomy, and the Wikipedia article on rotation, clearly stating that. In contrast, there are no articles directly stating that an orbit is curvilinear translation. There are only the indirect inferences of those who are clearly in denial.
So, by definition, the moon is only orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.
Anybody challenging that needs to get the definition of revolution altered.
I mean…revolution…the word is synonymous with rotation. That should be a clue.
Nate says:
If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.
—————————–
don’t stop half way through the lesson, at this point there are zero rotations as there are zero axes.
The rest of the lesson introduces a refined definition of curvilinear translation where the curves(or tangent lines) of the object intersect and where they don’t. In the latter with a special admonishment not include rotation as a case of curvilinear translation. Read the whole thing carefully and oil up that steel trap mind of yours that has been rusted up so long.
Nate says:
October 23, 2020 at 4:21 PM
They can smash into the side of an enemy fort
Yes. But pointless.
or they can enter into pure rotation.
No of course not. Except by magic.
=========================
Gravity isn’t magic Nate. What year was the text you are reading published that says it is? Was that found among the Dead Sea scrolls?
Bill- “You just cant take yes for an answer. Yes its rotating around the center of the unmoving circle”
i.e. orbiting. Of course Bill, its effn orbiting!
Either Bill is just trying to evade or he is another one who doesn’t understand the difference between revolving (orbiting) around an external axis and rotating about an internal axis.
Have another go Bill. This time refer to the rotation or non rotation of the moving (or orbiting) circle with respect to directions. You can use the compass rose if you don’t understand the concept of vertical and horizontal directions.
https://i.postimg.cc/L58Qm1hH/Zero-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles.gif
This is what bill said earlier:
“Yes the moving circle is both rotating on its axis and rotating on the center of the large circle.
Since the rotation of the moving circle is in the opposite direction of the orbit rotation it appears to not be rotating to you guys. But appearances can be deceiving.”
Somehow that wasn’t clear enough for MikeR.
DREM,
Nota bene – Bill refuses to acknowledge the existence of directions and claims it is rotating on its axis with respect to the orbit.
In this case the appearance is not deceptive and Bill is in reality just generating b.s..
Mike you take to parallel lines. Then you take a sphere the same diameter as the distance apart the 2 parallel lines. Then you attach the sphere with a couple of cable guides screwed in the sphere at the equator at the prime meridian and at the 180 degree meridian. So then you like the globe down the two parallel lines. That is called a translation with zero rotation. Now you bend the two parallel lines in a circle and slide sphere down the two cables and you have a rotation on the center point of the circle the cables form.
To change that arrangement you have to put an independent spin on the object and it couldn’t do that unless the attachment points of the two cables also rotated around the sphere.
Understand? Or are you still in the dark?
Another attempted evasion from Bill. He must have learnt this talent at the feet of the master.
Notice there is no mention of anything directly relevant but a disordered Heath Robertson (sic – homage to Gordon) thought experiment along these lines –
https://tinyurl.com/y3hnhkbd
Due to my advanced stage of decrepitude, I would find it more comprehensible if he could translate his thoughts onto paper. Bill try and photograph your diagrams and upload them onto the web site postimg.cc.
However it would be far easier to relate directly to the depiction below .
https://i.postimg.cc/qRyZkjgs/Zero-Rotation-Cross-Over-Circles-Tangents.gif
Bill as you commented recently about crossing tangents , I have included them to provide some additional context.
So once again I simply ask. Do you believe with respect to the screen axes (not the orbital path) is the orbiting circle rotating in the above depiction?
p.s. Bill, you are also very welcome to reference this accompanying depiction .
https://i.postimg.cc/Z5sQjW1d/Rotation-Concentric-Circles-Tangents.gif
How can it be “evasion” when he has already answered your question!?
” In the latter with a special admonishment not include rotation as a case of curvilinear translation. ”
Yes, and so what? We already knew that!
That is precisely the point. A pure rotation is not a curvilinear translation.
A pure orbit IS a curvilinear translation, thus a pure orbit is not a pure rotation.
DREM,
Why do you keep intervening on Bill’s behalf? Could it be because he is floundering?
Surely not.
So if you actually want to do something useful for a change, why don’t you illustrate Bill’s latest concept. Remember a picture is worth a 1000 words.
Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered? Could it be because you are floundering?
Surely not.
Poor MikeR cannot understand even the simplest concepts unless someone draws him a picture.
You are right DREM. I am severely demented and cannot understand Bill’s concept without a picture.
Clearly you can, so for my benefit, go ahead and make my day.
Let’s see if you are capable of producing suitable depiction(s) of Bill’s thought disordered experiment.
DREM. Time to put up or shut up.
No thanks. I am quite happy to shut up. As I said before, I am more than happy to completely stop talking to you on this subject, since you are ineducable. All you have to do is stop mentioning my name, and stop asking me questions. Deal?
“So, as we saw, an orbit is a rotation about an external axis.”
Bullshit. An EXAMPLE of an orbit, ONE TYPE of orbit, is a rotation about an external axis.
This is a Hasty Generalization fallacy.
“We have the article from the professor of physics and astronomy, and the Wikipedia article on rotation, clearly stating that.”
Bullshit. You cherry pick what you like and ignore what you dont like in the articles.
And how can you be claiming ‘physics and astronomy’ agrees with you, when you have already admitted that Astronomy does not agree with you!
“Since they mostly don’t seem to agree with that, and instead think that the moon does rotate on its own axis, there must be a lot of cognitive dissonance amongst the astronomical community.”
MikeR? Deal or no deal?
No questions, no mentioning my name (directly or indirectly, i.e. no more of this “glorious leader” nonsense).
I will take “no response” as meaning you accept the deal.
In which case, goodbye for now, unless I hear anything different.
P.S: I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_astronomy#O
See Orbit-“The gravitationally curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.”
“Rotation period
The time that an object takes to complete a single revolution about its own axis of rotation relative to the BACKGROUND STARS. ”
For the MOON this is clearly not in agreement with your definition of ORBIT.
Feel free to show us a definition of ‘Trajectory’ that specifies orientation of the object tracks its path thru space.
Hint: you wont find one.
Im sorry for your argument loss for the 47th time, but not happy that you continue to run away from facts and reality.
Oh, and MikeR…don’t try to use the fact we are no longer talking to each other on this subject to your own advantage. Believe it or not, I already have one obsessive stalker who I stopped responding to over a year ago now, and he still continuously tries to talk to me, and to use the fact he knows I won’t directly respond, to his own advantage. He is that desperate and pathetic. One of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered on a blog.
“on’t try to use the fact we are no longer talking to each other on this subject to your own advantage. ”
Exactly, dont be like DREMT, who thinks if he doesnt respond to people pointing out the flaws in his arguments, then those flaws don’t exist, and he has won the argument!
#2
One of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered on a blog.
Nate says:
In the latter with a special admonishment not include rotation as a case of curvilinear translation.
Yes, and so what? We already knew that!
That is precisely the point. A pure rotation is not a curvilinear translation.
A pure orbit IS a curvilinear translation, thus a pure orbit is not a pure rotation.
=================================
So what?!! Its a rotation because it goes all the way around and the individual particles of the moon form concentric circles.
The earth’s orbit is a curvilinear translation. And the reason for the difference is the earth’s rotation is controlled by gravity.
really simple stuff, don’t understand why you can’t grasp these concepts.
Nate says:
In the latter with a special admonishment not include rotation as a case of curvilinear translation.
Yes, and so what? We already knew that!
That is precisely the point. A pure rotation is not a curvilinear translation.
A pure orbit IS a curvilinear translation, thus a pure orbit is not a pure rotation.
================================
No Nate! An orbit is not a curvilinear translation. An orbit can be a curvilinear translation as expressed by Dr Madhavi. But you have already acknowledged the exception for the object particles traveling in concentric circles.
You are just trying to advance ‘a defintion’ to the level of physics. The physics are expressed by Madhavi. For planets to adopt the relationship of the earth and moon by chance is astronomically improbable since the difference in spin rate is unlimited by chance and there is only one speed it could be traveling coincidentially.
Besides that Nate physics on the moon has advanced and we now understand why its appears to spin at the same rate as its orbit, namely because the orbit rotation is controlled by earth’s gravity.
“intellectually dishonest” pot-kettle supremo!
“So what?!! Its a rotation because it goes all the way around and the individual particles of the moon form concentric circles.”
Not at all. I don’t know about your solar system, but in mine the particles of the Moon definitely do not travel in concentric circles around the orbit center.
I would agree that the individual particles of the Moon travel in concentric circles around the Moon’s rotational axis which passes thru its center of mass.
Which itself is following curvilinear translation on its orbital path which is an ellipse.
“The earths orbit is a curvilinear translation.”
Yes, as are all the orbits.
And the reason for the difference is the earths rotation is controlled by gravity.”
The Earth is simply rotating. Gravity is not controlling it.
In what weird way do you think it is ‘controlled by gravity’?
That makes little sense.
Nate you continue to bark up a long dead tree.
No more declarations. If you want to make an argument provide a specific source that disputes Dr. Madhavi or just stop trolling.
“No Nate! An orbit is not a curvilinear translation. An orbit can be a curvilinear translation as expressed by Dr Madhavi. But you have already acknowledged the exception for the object particles traveling in concentric circles.”
Not an exception. I am saying that orbits are simply a path thru space, a curvilinear translation.
The rotation of a planet is a separate motion, and it is around its own axis. As you can see by the Astronomy definition of Rotational period,
“The time that an object takes to complete a single revolution about its own axis of rotation relative to the BACKGROUND STARS.”
DREMT wants to claim that period is infinite for the Moon, because it is not rotating on its axis. But that’s wrong.
It has a rotational period of 27.3 days. Google it.
“If you want to make an argument provide a specific source that disputes Dr. Madhavi ”
Bill I have no argument with him. He never said anything about the Moon. You are confused.
And you still have not provided a source that describes a planetary orbit as specifying orientation or rotation rate.
Nate please stop trolling
Im Bill, facts no longer matter. Ive joined the cult of idiots.
So DREM, responds to a challenge
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543643
by heading to the hills and thereby confirming his legendary incompetence . In this context DREM’s bluster declaring victory is particularly humorous.
Anyway it sounds like DREM may have learnt a lesson and may refrain from pursuing his nonsense . If he desists then, of course, I accept his offer of a truce.
n.b. I have offered him exit ramps in the past but he has always foolishly doubled down, so maybe he is capable of learning.
Nate says:
October 24, 2020 at 5:17 PM
Im Bill, facts no longer matter. Ive joined the cult of idiots.
=============================
I know you have, so please stop trolling
"A rotation around an external point, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called a revolution or orbital revolution, typically when it is produced by gravity."
“It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
While waiting for a sensible response* from Bill (I have given up on the other characters) and for the sake of completeness, I decided to modify my software to simulate elliptical orbits, and include the apparently contentious topic of longitudinal libration.
For an an elliptical orbit of eccentricity 0.6 –
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
The amplitude of the libration in this case is 77.7 degrees.
For the Moon’s orbit of eccentricity 0.0549.
https://i.postimg.cc/SRBsxH8Q/Ellipse-Moon-Eccenricity-0.gif
The amplitude of the libration is 6.4 degrees which agrees with the average figure shown at this site –
http://www.jgiesen.de/moonlibration/
i,e. 6.4( +/- 1.54 degrees due to inclination of the moons rotation axis w.r.t. to the ecliptic).
Obviously my simulation would make no sense if the moon was not rotating on it’s axis. For the non-rotation case libration does not make much sense as the whole moon is visible over one lunar orbit.
* a response related to the external directional of reference and not the rotating orbit.
A moon with a motion like a bobblehead at the end of the gravity leash doesn’t fundamentally change the relation. EOS.
It does. Because your simpleton model does not replicate that libration in longitude.
What imaginary forces are you going to add to your model?
When it is so easily modeled by Johannes Kepler’s elliptical orbit and rotation stabilized by Newton’s inertia.
Bill as a postscript to the above.
My first attempt at this exercise showed an elliptical path with zero libration. I subsequently realised that I had forgotten to include in the code, Kepler’s 2nd law of conservation of orbital angular momentum.
Once that was included then libration occurred.
I seem to recall, that Gordon and ClintR vigorously asserting on many occasions that the moon (I gather that it was a blanket assertion that includes all orbiting objects) does not have orbital angular momentum (Kepler would be spinning in his grave).
Bill and DREM (if he has come out of ostrich mode). Do you believe , like your two compatriots, that the moon does not possess orbital angular momentum?
If either of you believe the moon does have orbital angular momentum, then you may be able to convince Gordon and ClintR that they might be mistaken. Good luck with that.
Downthread you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544316
Nicely done simulations, MikeR!
Two ways of interpreting this.
In ordinary science, the model that can reproduce the observations wins.
In religion, the model that fits your beliefs wins, observations are irrelevant.
The TEAM has no way of reproducing the observation with their model of no lunar spin, even conceptually.
Seems clear which category their model fits.
#2
Downthread you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544316
Svante says:
It does. Because your simpleton model does not replicate that libration in longitude.
What imaginary forces are you going to add to your model?
When it is so easily modeled by Johannes Kepler’s elliptical orbit and rotation stabilized by Newton’s inertia.
==================================
You are the simpleton Svante because you think that the libration is a continuation of an axial rotation that requires inertia to stop.
When in reality its a lack of axial rotation that needs intertia to start rotating.
So you your unique and simpleton way you think physics only works when you need it to. I recognize though the bobble head motion of the moon being physically consistent, which it is, to both notions of rotation. Try learning something new Svante if you can.
MikeR says:
October 26, 2020 at 2:00 AM
Bill as a postscript to the above.
My first attempt at this exercise showed an elliptical path with zero libration. I subsequently realised that I had forgotten to include in the code, Keplers 2nd law of conservation of orbital angular momentum.
============================
Ditto for your ignorance of physics the same as Svante’s.
You need a force to create angular momentum MikeR and that force is equal to the angular momentum you are talking about.
Nate is probably on this dummy wagon as well as much as he has made of this issue.
This is the same issue as the floating bowls, they don’t start spinning suddenly when the big bowl they are floating in starts spinning. Why? Basic physics! The friction of water requires time to accelerate the small bowls to the same speed as the big bowl.
Your libration argument is a non-starter because the REAL physics exist in both cases as opposites.
The only formal physics education I have had was high school physics. I recall learning that concept that what goes up must come down and that you need a force to create a momentum that requires a force to start or stop. Did you guys get any formal training in physics?
DREM,
Your link appears to be recursive.
The link immediately following your one is ClintR’s assertion that the moon does not have angular momentum of any sort around any axis.
Does this suggest you agree with ClintR? Why are you being so coy?
The discussion has moved downthread.
Down you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544316
DREM,
Still being coy and repetitively posting recursive links.
You clearly don’t want to to be associated with Clint’s nonsense.
Why don’t you have the guts to say so? Too ashamed?
Down you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544316
Bill,
*****************************************************
“The only formal physics education I have had was high school physics. I recall learning that concept that what goes up must come down and that you need a force to create a momentum that requires a force to start or stop. Did you guys get any formal training in physics?”
*****************************************************
I have disclosed my qualifications elsewhere. Seek and thee shall find.
It is a great pity that you were not taught about torque and angular momentum at high school.
Torque is what causes an increase in angular momentum. This us what causes the wheels of you car to go faster as you apply the accelerator and the car to also go faster if their is sufficient traction between the wheels and surface
In the absence of torque an object will continue with the same angular momentum indefinitely. This is the rotational equivalent of Newton’s first law.
I encourage you to learn this material as it is never too late and there are copious amounts of relevant teaching material on the internet.
Time to finish this exchange with DREM as he is going around in circles in an endless loop.
The PST troll is dizzy with embarrassment. Bye.
#2
Down you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544316
MikeR says:
I have disclosed my qualifications elsewhere. Seek and thee shall find.
==================
Qualifications? Obviously you don’t understand something here. I question you still retain any qualifications and have simply forgotten too much and/or possession of the ability to think analytically.
========================
=======================
MikeR says:
It is a great pity that you were not taught about torque and angular momentum at high school.
============================
Quite to the contrary. I can remember the lessons from almost 60 years ago.
========================
=======================
MikeR says:
Torque is what causes an increase in angular momentum. This us what causes the wheels of you car to go faster as you apply the accelerator and the car to also go faster if their is sufficient traction between the wheels and surface.
In the absence of torque an object will continue with the same angular momentum indefinitely. This is the rotational equivalent of Newtons first law.
=================
good for you! You remember that part. Consider the case where angular momentum is zero. It takes the same torque. Did you forget that part?
========================
=======================
MikeR says:
I encourage you to learn this material as it is never too late and there are copious amounts of relevant teaching material on the internet.
===================
I would recommend that you learn that the ‘trained’ rotation of the moon around the earth will continue its course on any shape orbit.
Sure earth’s gravity goes out of line with the ‘mass concentration’ of the moon and is attempting at this point to change the orbit and rotate the moon on its axis, a fact that would demonstrate itself to be true with any calculation that put the moon in orbit and eventually spun down the moon to its ‘masscon’ orientation toward the COG of earth.
The elliptical orbit each orbit puts a torque in opposite directions attempt to spin the moon on its axis to realign the ‘masscon’ along the pull of gravity. No doubt if you had measurement capabilities so precise you might actually see the moon slightly shift on its axis one way and back the other way, like a bobble head.
Thus the moons actions are completely consistent with any torque model you want to apply.
Too bad you missed the part about torque trying to start an axial spins from a body at rest. Either that or you brain is getting wrinkles too and you forgot.
Bill,
You are thoroughly confused,
We are talking about angular momentum which has two components orbital ( around an external axis) and rotational (around an internal axis).
Assuming your premise that the moon does not rotate on its axis, you are left with the moon’s orbital angular momentum. Do you, like ClintR and Gordon (DREM’ s unsure?) , think orbital angular momentum does not exist?
========================
Bill says –
good for you! You remember that part. Consider the case where angular momentum is zero. It takes the same torque. Did you forget that part?
========================
Torque causes angular acceleration (or deceleration). No one is arguing that the moon’s rotation rate is changing significantly ( it has been measured to be changing very, very slowly * due to residual tidal effects).
If the rotational angular momentum is zero then it is a constant, implying no external torque. Likewise if the moon is rotating once per lunar sidereal month.
========================
Bill again,
The elliptical orbit each orbit puts a torque in opposite directions attempt to spin the moon on its axis to realign the masscon along the pull of gravity. No doubt if you had measurement capabilities ** so precise you might actually see the moon slightly shift on its axis one way and back the other way, like a bobble head.
========================
Bill, are you claiming the torque in opposite direction attempts to spin the moon on its axis? Does it fail miserably or does it cause to moon to rotate on it’s axis? The confusion is immense.
However, I think you might have something correct, as the moon “shifts” continuously during an elliptical orbit as the instantaneous speed of the moon changes due conservation of orbital angular momentum.
Ok Bill , if I have misinterpreted , then lets see your calculations and better still a depiction of your ideas.
*https://tinyurl.com/y6dzz6yz
** ibid.
MikeR says:
Bill, You are thoroughly confused, We are talking about angular momentum which has two components orbital ( around an external axis) and rotational (around an internal axis).
Assuming your premise that the moon does not rotate on its axis, you are left with the moons orbital angular momentum. Do you, like ClintR and Gordon (DREM s unsure?) , think orbital angular momentum does not exist?
====================================
No MikeR you are completely confused.
I am neutral on the issue as to whether the moon would fly off in a straight line or would be spinning at the rate it currently orbits.
It seems to be two separate questions with the tidal locking occuring due to the force of gravity on a masscon in the moon, vs the momentum of the moon traveling in an orbit around the earth. There may be a connection but I would have to see it calculated.
You could slow the moon down with the force of your little finger A different issue exists for the gravitational control of the moon’s orientation which is related to a force. If there is some kind of proportionality its possible they are of equal value. But tidal locking is due to the pull of gravity on a moon masscon.
I can see through your argument. But its opaque to you.
You, Nate, and Svante have been pounding a skinless drum.
It doesn’t matter, its that simple.
If the moon is spinning on its own axis, is not spinning on its own axis, or even if it does or does not have angular momentum.
The moon would librate in all those scenarios as long as the orbit is elliptical.
You need a force to create or destroy angular momentum.
If its not one then its the other.
Thus it would be a fruitless effort to even approach the problem of whether the moon spins on its own axis or not from that angle.
Bill says
“No MikeR you are completely confused.
I am neutral on the issue as to whether the moon would fly off in a straight line or would be spinning at the rate it currently orbits.”
This is related to the rotational angular momentum and not the orbital angular momentum of the moon.
BILL, you are unsure about rotational angular momentum. What about orbital angular momentum?
p.s. Your reference to “masscon” is obscure. Do you mean a mascon due to tidal bulge?
Yes a mascon. Certainly seems possible it could be something else as well.
On the orbital angular momentum it makes sense. A spinning disk has its outer most particles traveling faster than particles closer to the axis around which it spins.
**********************************
Bill,
“On the orbital angular momentum it makes sense. A spinning disk has its outer most particles traveling faster than particles closer to the axis around which it spins.”
***********************************
Bill you seem to be referring to a rigid spinning object, but yes this is the same as an object that is orbiting at a larger distance R from the centre of the orbit having a larger speed v for the same angular velocity w.
i.e v = r.w
So I take it Bill, you are ok with orbital angular momentum.
Not sure of the calculations but I have heard that the momentum removed from the moon spinning changes the orbital path.
Its this conversion of energy into the orbit changes of energy change in angular momentum that seems unique to orbiting celestial bodies that makes it so I can’t conclude on what the moon would do if gravity were suddenly switched off.
Yes Bill,
The moon’s orbit is changing very slowly (the distance betwen the earth and moon is increasing) as both the earth and moon’s rotational rates are slowing due to tidal effects.
The earth’s rotational speed is slowing (hence the addition of a leap second every couple of years) so that eventually after many, many eons the earth will be also tidally locked to the moon’s orbital period.
In that case only one half of the earth will be able to see the moon.
https://www.universetoday.com/128350/will-earth-lock-moon/
Anyway it is good to see you are able to say that you are unclear about these matters. No shame in that.
Despite my formal training there are areas in Physics, well outside my expertise that I am clueless about. It is always good to recognise your own limitations.
#3
Down you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544316
DREM, please stop trolling.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
#4
Down you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544316
MikeR says:
Despite my formal training there are areas in Physics, well outside my expertise that I am clueless about. It is always good to recognise your own limitations.
==============================
Well I am lacking in formal physics education but the only thing really missing is an easy relationship with the mathematics and equations. I have self-taught myself engineering in construction and radiant systems, both in OJT environments and through my own research and reading.
As an auditor you tend to find two types. One the calculator the other the conceptualizer. The basic principles are pretty easy to grasp as said by William Happer.
Fortunately the little formal training I had in physics was by a super teacher who was an excellent conceptualizer and designed his lessons around that as opposed to trying to teach you the math and equations. He would only introduce those after his demonstrations had established the concept. It was like OK now that you can see what the results are, how do you predict them!
Calculators and computer guys are more like rote learners who really don’t understand the conceptual relationships and make many mistakes in extrapolating their calculating skills beyond the concept or more frequently while blinded to the opposite as in opposites attract, opposites that are fundamental in science and only obvious in the conceptual view. Turning a equation around as a means of math checking the results, etc.
If that weren’t a common case I wouldn’t have had the career I have had.
It is clear from both a calculation point of view and conceptual point of view that the moon rotates around the earth in a ‘system’ described by Dr Madhavi as rotation and not to be confused with curvilinear translation.
Anybody who has read Madhavi and understands the distinctions she is making should know that. Hanging on to the concept of the moon rotating on its own axis is contrary to the principles being taught by Dr. Madhavi. . . .even though such a view is tolerated by astronomy. And by tolerated I mean astronomy has found no reason to change its viewpoint on that. But likewise has found nothing that depends upon it either.
But finding no reason to change ones viewpoint isn’t a good defense for it being the right viewpoint. However, change Dr. Madhavi’s viewpoint and much of engineering falls apart.
The distinction is critical in conceptualizing devices that depend upon rotation and can be designed properly by a competent engineer.
On the Tesla idea that the moon would zoom off without spinning if released from its orbit is not contrary to any known facts.
Bringing analogies of earth bound devices like exploding LPs definitely makes for some compelling arguments. But Tesla addresses that as due to a physical contact with other material parts in the system where the actual separation provides the push from the parts that stay behind.
For the moon though suspended in space and not attached to anything with physical properties to impart that departing spin leaves one with only a mathematical analogy. No scientist with any conceptual knowledge of science would accept such an analogy as proof.
Though I am also having a light discussion with Svante who believe mathematical constructs of quantum mechanics is correct while Einstein revolted. Einstein may be proven wrong on specific predictions he made about this mathematical extrapolation, but he can never be proven wrong about his concept of all this having a much more interesting physical construct that eventually will demonstrate the limits of quantum theory.
Quantum mechanics moves along and as each new discovery is made with it is cause to celebrate but still the scientist must maintain skepticism about all mathematical constructs. One must also read the latest tests of evidence Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics is also very iffy. The tests are so fleeting so dependent upon assumptions, bias has not yet been ruled out.
Some of that bias stems from the concept of randomness. One of the first things you learn in my trade is nothing is random. At some point a computer generated random number depends upon a concrete predetermined code. Sure a computer is used frequently to generate random numbers, numbers than would be incredibly difficult to guess, like uncoding a sophisticated cypher device; but ultimate they all have a structured code pre-determining the outcome. Just because you yourself can’t decode it doesn’t make it random. So these discoveries ultimately depend upon being actually developed into useful products like hackproof computers that while thought hackproof might be anything but once somebody figures out the code.
And that is exactly what I have been doing for a living for the past 35 years, working as a skeptic of mathematical constructs and seeking and finding the flaws and often finding errors in the constructs. Math checks are a small part of the business, which is something most people would find surprising as by far the most effort is put into finding actual evidence that the numbers and conclusions are correct. Mathematical errors have practically been eliminated from the scope of work because of computers. You only really need to do math checks for testing computer output (e.g. detecting malware code) and as rough reasonableness checks on the resultant figures. The rest is conceptualizing what reality is and bringing evidence of that.
I can conceptualize Tesla’s release of the moon without a spin and someday when we develop new technologies we may discover he was right. The absor-ption of angular momentum into the orbit/speed is a one-way conversion of energy into a linear-like motion. Simple release of the moon from its gravitational leash may not return that. OTHO there may be a spin generated from the current speed of its parts except that for the possibility at the instantaneous moment of the release there is a linear component to it that simply allows it to just keep moving in one direction.
Tesla was a great conceptulizer while remaining lousy at balancing his books. But all of it in my view is a strong reminder of the value of the scientific method and to continually demand the establishment of performance at that level. For all those that believe how climate changes or believes the moon spins on its own and would continue to spin if released I just have to say. . . .beware of what you believe.
Good thinking, but when it comes to science you are many decades/centuries behind your time.
Svante, please stop trolling.
“the moon rotates around the earth in a ‘system’ described by Dr Madhavi as rotation and not to be confused with curvilinear translation.”
Bill.
Nowhere does the book discuss the Moon.
Nowhere in the book does it describe an elliptical orbit of an independent body as an example of pure rotation around a central axis. NOWHERE.
Please find it if you disagree.
ON THE CONTRARY it specifically describes motion that cannot be described as pure rotation as a SUM of rotation plus translation.
This is how Astronomy describes it.
An orbit fits her description of curvilinear translation.
You are totally misunderstanding and adding your own ‘spin’ to Madhavi.
It doesn’t matter Nate.
The forces and momentums are essentially the same and quantifiable. If you want to carve out an exception for the moon be my guest and bring your computations here to explain how they work. EOS
Yes, It doesnt matter. Because science will move on without you.
Nate says:
Yes, It doesnt matter. Because science will move on without you.
=========================================
Indeed Nate science doesn’t need me to move on. And am sure when you or somebody else comes in here and shows me the references that science has moved on I will accept it.
Will you? You didn’t when provided the Dr. Madhavi paper.
Bill, thank you for your self revelatory comments. I have some of my own.
Firstly,
“Well I am lacking in formal physics education but the only thing really missing is an easy relationship with the mathematics and equations”.
Bill, it is a real pity that you have missed out on the insights and understanding that having a mathematical background allows. The maths underpins so much of understanding of so many areas of life, not just physics. Mathematics is also beautiful and, if there is any evidence of a higher being, it might be the best evidence there is.
However , my mathematical abilities are not profound and the probability I will win a Fields medal is probably inversely proportional to the number of people that currently inhabit this planet.*
However my limited mathematical skills has allowed me to have a career as an experimental physicist for close to 40 years in both academia and industry.
Secondly , I am also an auto-didact when it comes to computer programming having, as a student , learnt machine language coding on the first Z80 development system, back in the 70s. Ah, the good old days of an 8 bit 1MHz CPU with 4K RAM running a data acquisition system that could only be done by hand coding the instructions ( used to dream of having Assembly Language , those were the days!).
These self taught skills in computing, combined with training and maths and physics, allows one to illustrate concepts that are difficult to convey with hand waving thought experiments.
Thirdly, another reason why the non rotating theory triggered my b.s. detector is because I have been an amateur astronomer for many years ( the upcoming great Saturn, Jupiter conjunction will be my fourth and , after consulting actuarial tables, probably my final one) so I have some familiarity with how planetary and lunar orbits work.
Finally, as an academic I was often sent, unsolicited correspondence from the general public. They were usually contained highly eccentric theories, often having a common thread ,which more often or not,could be reduced to 1/0 = infinity, 2/0 = infinity and therefore 1 = 2 **.
The lunar non rotation one doesn’t appear to readily fit this model. I think it is more of just a lack of the understanding of reference frames***. It is amazing that in this day and age this is still misunderstood. It is as if the Copernican revolution never happened.
* minus one, as I don’t think Bill you are likely to win one either.
** the concept of all infinities not being equal ( however some are more equal than others) would be foreign territory to many,
**** maybe you were off sick when your amazing high school physics teacher covered this area.
p.s. even a humble calculator can be used to provide conceptual. insights in the right hands i.e. What is sin(x)/x when x=0? Bill get out your actuarial calculator out and see if you can work it out. You could also do it using L’Hospital’s rule but that would require maths.
Well MikeR I didn’t end up missing an education in mathematics as I obtained it in another field of study.
But I do have a unique education where one learns the difference between the tools of a trade and the real world. Reference frames are no more than a tool. There is no reality to them. So when you mistake reference frames as reality often you are on a fruitless path.
The correct way to understanding is in theory that holds up from all viewpoints. Such is the case with the physics surrounding the dynamics of rigid bodies. One described in the terms of the forces that have captured an object one now has a reference frame that doesn’t change as you move from fixed star, to the face of the earth, or the face of the moon. It provides a consistent explanation from all perspectives. Lacking such and relying upon a single perspective is without a doubt an auditor’s most common finding. Intentional disregard for the truth frequently termed fraud, is by far less common. But the criminals that commit fraud are very prolific at trying to manipulate the crime scene in a way that perhaps by the most common perception the crime is not detected.
So yes I understand the difference between perception and reality, in fact that was the first upper division course I took at the university. . . .about 50 years ago. And lo and behold it wasn’t limited to an academic interest but here I am now well past the age when most retire still making a living at identifying the difference. It really is so unfortunate that so many, but far from all, academics never move into an occupation where that begins to take on important meaning.
“Will you? You didn’t when provided the Dr. Madhavi paper.”
Please show us where she discusses orbits? The Moon?
Ellipses is a circle? Anything that agrees with your POV?
Put up or shut up!
Bill,
You are quite right is some respects with your philosophical musings regarding perception and reality, but reality rears it’s ugly head when you measure an intrinsic property such as the energy of rotation.
You may or not be aware of this depiction from many moons, many ago of three objects.
https://postimg.cc/k63hJyqm
As we all know the movement of celestial bodies can be separated into two parts, the orbital motion of the centre of mass and the rotation around the centre of mass. The latter is shown separately in the frames at left of the depiction,
Opinions have been expressed as to which two of the three objects are rotating on their axes based on whether the object is
1, rotating with respect to the frame of reference of the vertical and horizontal axes of the screen or
2, alternatively with respect to the frame of reference of the circular orbit.
Each orbiting object has the identical orbital trajectory and consequently the orbital energy is the same. For the three different cases, the object is also rotating around its centre of mass at different rates, so the rotational energy is different.
As a believer in the Socratic method I leave it to you to work out the order of the three cases from lowest energy to highest.
Bill, I would be interested in your opinion on the matter of energy of these three systems, as this is a concrete example where the frame of reference definitely matters.
Nate says:
“Will you? You didn’t when provided the Dr. Madhavi paper.”
Please show us where she discusses orbits? The Moon?
Ellipses is a circle? Anything that agrees with your POV?
Put up or shut up!
=========================================
Your argument Nate is getting really juvenile. So now you are claiming that the moon lives by a different physics rule book?
I noticed that Madhavi also didn’t mention merry-go-rounds. . . .but its still the same set of physical laws we are dealing with.
MikeR says:
Bill, I would be interested in your opinion on the matter of energy of these three systems, as this is a concrete example where the frame of reference definitely matters.
===================================
I find the topic to be fascinating. But I am a busy man and really don’t have a big interest in this topic as other issues are more important for my time. My interest here is on the topic of the greenhouse effect and its just my curiosity that has sidetracked that mission.
“Your argument Nate is getting really juvenile.”
My argument is quite simple. You regularly make claims that you cannot support with facts. This is one more of those.
Nate you are really acting childish.
So you are in your typical snit around here that if anybody wants to believe something other than what you believe you want them to prove it to you.
Then when they do you bring up that each and every individual object subject to the rules of physics isn’t listed by name.
That has to be the lamest argument I have ever heard!!!
“So you are in your typical snit around here that if anybody wants to believe something other than what you believe you want them to prove it to you.”
OMG!
Bill, I have no problem with your claims that are strictly in the realm of religious or philosophical beliefs.
I have a problem if you claim for WEEKS ON END that they are supported by science and fact, without actually being able to provide the supporting facts and science.
I think you have finally come to the realization that you cannot find the facts to support your beliefs.
And that is frustrating.
Bill,
“Then when they do you bring up that each and every individual object subject to the rules of physics isnt listed by name.
That has to be the lamest argument I have ever heard!!!”
Not what I said Bill.
You seemed to have missed this in my post above:
“Nowhere in the book does it describe an elliptical orbit of an independent body as an example of pure rotation around a central axis. NOWHERE.
Please find it if you disagree.
ON THE CONTRARY it specifically describes motion that cannot be described as pure rotation as a SUM of rotation plus translation.
This is how Astronomy describes it.
An orbit fits her description of curvilinear translation.”
===================================
Bill says –
“I find the topic to be fascinating. But I am a busy man and really dont have a big interest in this topic as other issues are more important for my time. My interest here is on the topic of the greenhouse effect and its just my curiosity that has sidetracked that mission.”
===================================
Bill we get the picture. When confronted by Nate and myself, Bill has suddenly become too busy and lost interest after spending an enormous effort with long screeds full of philosophical musings and revelations about his scientific and religious/spiritual background .
I guess we can cross Bill off, leaving just DREM , Clint and Gordon as the hard core members of the cult.
At least they’re not NXIUM. As a branding exercise DREM with or without the final T sounds very painful.
Nate what happened to your “Madhavi didn’t name the moon” argument you so brilliantly formulated?
[You really believe that two blocks of ice can result in higher temperatures than one?]
Its called a power grab – happens when a greedy, inconsiderate block of ice steals the watts from his neighbor.
[Thats bogus bob. Totally different scenario.]
I know, right?
A scenario where fluxes add is totally different than a scenario where fluxes dont add!
As I predicted, it didn’t take Snape long to forget his goal to stop trolling me.
climate shystering next level up
https://youtu.be/punjBhQG__s
The Guardian reporter minds are exploding!
No need to make a case for renewable subsidies anymore as the price of renewables will build them out painlessly on a for-profit pace.
And since no identifiably harm has been seen (that would be via science rather than political posturing) we can all just take the better road and not impact everybody in the nation, especially the poorest, to get somewhere where there is no identified need to rush.
Consumerism has demonstrated the advisability with the popularity of battery operated cars etc. We are no longer on the business as usual track that so many feared.
Sit back and enjoy the ride.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/05/aussie-government-we-dont-need-a-carbon-price-because-renewables-are-too-cheap/
Crickets! This Guardian article shows just how stupid Biden is. No need for a Green New Deal. Plenty of cheap CO2 free energy for all. No need to politicize something that’s taking care of itself, which is the case for all stuff that everybody cares about. Everybody can be ecstatic about simply continuing to make good economic choices and retain our freedoms at the same time.
I’me even seeing electric cars whupping gas powered ones on the drag strip. Probably not long at all before some electric top fuel eliminator starts breaking records.
Here is more research that shows CO2 change follows temperature change:
https://tinyurl.com/y4zso26m
and I have found that water vapor change leads temperature change.
Each gas added to the mass of the troposphere raises its temperature, depending on the percentage of increase. The difference between H2O and CO2 is that water vapor is lighter than air, and CO2 is heavier than air (N2 and O2 molecules are much lighter).
Therefore, water vapor is able to transfer heat from the equator to the poles.
Water vapor above the equator reaches the tropopause, and above the poles, it can enter the stratosphere. Take a look at the temperature at hurricane Delta.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01015/005m0ve947xn.jpg
For humans, “warmer” means an increase in temperature, that is, an increase in the average kinetic energy of the surrounding air particles. Of course, this does not apply to the thin atmosphere above 10 km above the Earth.
ramona…”I recently read one of Roy Spencer’s books as part of my research for a paper I’m writing and wanted to gauge the scientific horsepower within his average audience. I have gathered a good number of data points from the over 400 comments these past two days that I will now analyze it”.
And you will analyze it incorrectly because your source, Pierrehumbert, is based on an appeal to authority, not on real physics. I have read Pierrehumbert in the past and I have no idea where he gets the sources of his conclusions. He is obviously hung up on an incorrect paradigm for which he has no scientific proof.
I remember Carl Sagan with his TV-based pseudo-science. He could not talk about the Big-Bang without stating, “WHEN the Big Bang happened…”. Any scientist who claims such an event happened is not dealing with a full scientific deck. That’s what Pierrehumbert does, he makes inferences about CO2 that cannot be backed by the scientific method.
Paradigms are formed when like-minded scientists agree on a point via consensus. The entire theory of HIV-AIDS is based on consensus, as is the theory of evolution. With HIV, the scientist credited with discovering it, Luc Montagnier, has claimed he has never seen HIV on an electron microscope. The virus was inferred based on the agreement between certain scientists that reverse transcriptase, an enzyme found in all humans and often not related to a virus, MUST be a sign of HIV.
Why did they not stop when they could not SEE the virus? If it’s there, why can’t they see it? Now Montagnier is claiming HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system, a fact that was obvious back in 1983 when the discovery of the virus was announced?
DATA and predictions since 1983, have all proved the theory is wrong. However, a strong paradigm has been installed and no one is willing to challenge it. One scientists who tried, Peter Duesberg, had his career ruined.
The scary part is that a test for this phantom virus, the RNA-PCR test, aka viral load test, was developed to amplify the phantom virus because no one could see it. Now the same test is used to test for covid. The test does not test for a virus, it tests for strands of RNA which no one can prove come from a virus. Every cell in the human body has RNA and sometimes it floats about outside the cells.
It’s the same with the anthropogenic theory and Pierrehumbert is spouting nonsense that cannot be proved. The paradigm was established by consensus, and Naomi Oreskes, has claimed consensus is a valid way of doing science.
Maybe you agree.
“I have read Pierrehumbert in the past ”
One does not “read” Pierrehumbert; one STUDIES Pierrehumbert!
If you in fact only read Pierrehumbert then you have serious gaps in your knowledge. It is impossible to just “read” a 500+ page textbook, work the problems and implement the python software provided. The same applies to research papers.
You read a novel.
Snape, your hero is no “science god”. In fact, he can’t even get the basics correct. 800,000K?
He’s just another idiot perverting reality. Knowledgeable people would know not to waste any time “studying” such crap.
Somewhat earlier, bdgwx wrote –
*Many of us the word “thermalize” to describe the transfer of the newly acquired molecular vibration/rotation energy to kinetic or thermal energy via collisions.*
Many of you are obviously out of touch with modern science. Many of you have no clue. Many of you talk gibberish, hoping humans will think you are intelligent.
Some hope.
I still do not understand the obsession with the 1980 to present trend. 1980 was the bottom of the AMO cycle. It works like this… rise for 20 years, pause for 20 years, drop for 20 years, repeat. The mechanism is stores of fresh water in the arctic released into the north Atlantic on a 60 year cycle, which collapse north Atlantic temperatures, thus cooling the eastern US and Europe in particular. When it happens I’m sure the global cooling will also be blamed on man as many climate scientists of a large degree of narcissism. We should be able to measure our actual impact after collecting another 20 years of data… however, I suspect that we will go below the 1980 temperatures as back in 1980, the 42 year cycle was holding us up. We should return to temperatures we had around 1920 by 2040 when the 60 and 42 year cycles were aligned to the downside. Course if we do indeed go into a GSM as predicted, it will go much deeper – back to record low temperatures not seen since the little ice age, but that will also require a VEI7 volcanic eruption, which is probably tied to low solar activity as well. Basically, where we draw our trend line to calculate the effect of green house gases (man made or not) will depend on what the sun does over the next 20 years and if we get a VEI7. An exciting time to be a climate scientist.
The reason why post 1980 gets a lot of attention is because that was the beginning of the satellite era.
Zharkova is now on record saying the GSM has already begun and to expect 1C of cooling by 2043. Don’t hold your breath. Easterbrook made similar predictions. He said 1998 would be the peak and that by 2020 the planet would be 0.7C cooler. But here we are in 2020 and the UAH TLT 13 month average is 0.1C higher than 1998. His prediction is off by 0.8C in only 20 years. And with a +0.8 W/m^2 EEI that still needs to equilibrate plus continued GHG emissions trying to push that EEI higher we are all but guaranteed to be warmer in 2043. Zharkova’s prediction has a good chance of being worse than Easterbrook’s.
Checking the central England dataset gives us a good proxy of what to expect in the GSM at least in that region. We can predict that locations in the eastern US will also experience similar sharp drop, as we have recorded several 60 / 42 year cycles and know the relationship there. The GSM is undoubtedly very regional. Some areas will get much colder than -1C, others will warm. Actually, my location has recorded 12 month running means of 43.8 and 53.9 all between 1876 and 1882. By 1918 the running mean was 45.1 again. The natural cycles stack and can make some huge local swings. Unfortunately, we have very limited data that for back, and our proxy datasets (like tree rings) have been shown to be less than reliable.
I am not familiar with Easterbrook’s work. Perhaps there wasn’t enough data at that time to realize the 20 year pause phase repeats in that AMO cycle.
I still think the earth sun distance changes due to the barycenter movement. Look at the planetary formation right now… I have to believe our distance is above average for October 7th.
https://www.theplanetstoday.com/
I still think the earth sun distance changes due to the barycenter movement.
It still doesn’t.
Now the question is, are there any other consequences, is the changing velocity also changing the rotation speed of the Sun as well. I have been searching for solar rotation rates but it seems we are unable to record this presently, there are no fixed points on the surface of the Sun which has a highly movable outer layer. The idea of a solar rotation change due to the planets is highly speculative, but until we can get an accurate measurement of solar rotation it cant be ruled out. If we could record the solar rotation accurately this discussion would be overbut we CAN record the rotation rate of Earth, and I postulate on the following with some brain food The Earths rotation rate is calculated by recording the Length of Day which shows our longest days (slower speed) are always in January. Theories suggest this is because of weather patterns that always occur in January but it also coincides with our planets fastest velocity which shows a very regular pattern each January.
https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/new-angular-momentum-graph/
ren, The barycenter wobble, which is induced primarily by Jupiter and Saturn, may have an impact on the solar dynamo and the 11 yr solar cycle.
Around every 25-30 years Earth’s rotation slows temporarily by a few milliseconds per day, usually lasting around 5 years. 2017 was the fourth consecutive year that Earth’s rotation has slowed. The cause of this variability has not yet been determined.
bdgwx says:
I still think the earth sun distance changes due to the barycenter movement.
It still doesnt.
============================
You are half right and completely stupid. bdgwx. earth sun distance changes for the same reason that the sun revolves around a barycenter not because it goes around the barycenter.
Just do the math when the earth is in opposition the sun is pulled away from the earth. When the sun is in opposition the earth is pulled away from the sun. When neither is in opposition then the only influence is the gravity between the sun and earth.
just a simple issue that deals with how gravity diminishes with distance. . . .so the closer object will get more pull than the further object. If this were not the case then barycenters would not be as close to the larger object as it is.
this only occurs with 3 or more objects where one of the objects can be in opposition. So it doesn’t occur with simple 2 body barycenters.
A common concept where this is has a real effect are variously the sun, moon,earth barycenter; And a very difficult to calculate, a solar system barycenter. Often proponents of this effect on the sun singles out major planets jupiter, saturn, neptune, and uranus as they make a very large proportion of the total effect. Where it gets a bit weird is then attributing that to solar changes, the solar cycle, and solar output.
But untested is affects on magnetic fields their potential influences.
The only one that might matter to climate is the solar system barycenter. Thats because the unique 3 body sun, moon, earth barycenter occurs on a bimonthly basis. There is a biannual variation in the earth sun moon on the solar system basis that is meaningless to climate as well. Finally there is the 12 year orbit of Jupiter and longer periods for the other gas giants that provide a much longer period of change in gravitational relationships.
But there is no reason to argue about this other than its just evidence of another possible influence that in the end may or may not amount to anything. Just another reminder that there is more going on in this universe than the exchange of radiation.
Other considerations are that the influence of the other planets. are stuff in rough time with solar changes. 2.4 orbits of Jupiter with one orbit of Saturn. 7 orbits of Jupiter for each orbit of Uranus, and about 14 orbits of Jupiter for each of Neptune.
Interestingly from Wiki:
”Milankovitch did not study planetary precession. It was discovered more recently and measured, relative to Earth’s orbit, to have a period of about 70,000 years. However, when measured independently of Earth’s orbit, but relative to the invariable plane, precession has a period of about 100,000 years. This period is very similar to the 100,000-year eccentricity period. Both periods closely match the 100,000-year pattern of glacial events.”
So is the effect relative to gravitational pull from the galaxy?
If so then the planets look like pretty good candidates for effects also. Fascinating stuff. Maybe the solar dynamo advocates shouldn’t have such strong controls over solar study.
For the next 7 years, the barycenter of the solar system will remain outside the Sun.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.png/600px-Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.png
ren I am dumbfounded how bdgwx can not see that the earth sun distance can change due to the barycenter motion. If it does not, what is the barycenter motion even relative to? If every planet is locked, there would be no barycenter motion at all, and we would probably be looking at gravity more carefully wondering if it even exists or if one of the crazy electric universe theories is correct.
It’s because Earth moves with the Sun, not with Jupiter, remember:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper-that-blames-the-sun-for-climate-change-has-been-retracted
Zharkova is the only one that thinks the Earth bobs in and out like a spring in it orbit around the Sun. Every other scientist is dumbfounded that she believes this. Here is the pubpeer thread where experts are trying to explain this to her.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24
No, it is Jupiter that moves with the Sun.
“However, in our actual solar system the Sun and Jupiter combine to have 99.95% of its mass (with the Sun having 99.85%), and their gravitational force is much stronger than that of any other planet-Sun pair. So to a good approximation the Sun and Jupiter orbit about their CM, lying at a point just outside the surface of the Sun, with Jupiter having the much larger orbit and acceleration (the Sun is 1047x more massive than Jupiter).”
The barycenter can be approximated using only Jupiter because of it’s dominant mass. You also have the barycenter movement due to the fact that Jupiter has a aphelion and perihelion. Jupiter’s location + Saturn is responsible for the majority of the barycenter movement. I agree with Zharkova. The earth is not tethered to the sun. You have an 8 planet system. Currently, all 8 planets are on the same side of the sun. It means the sun must be more distant than usual as the amplitude of the vector is maximized due to all the planets being on the same side.
Another way to look at it… the earth rotates around the Sun / Jupiter center of mass, but the sun moves around that. Because of this, October 7th for instance, does not always have the same earth sun distance. It depends on where Jupiter is mostly.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
Scott,
It’s the same principal with the Earth-Moon system as well. Satellites in Earth orbit are gravitationally bound to the Earth; not the Earth-Moon barycenter. Earth satellites do NOT bob in and out as Earth wobbles around this barycenter. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but the Earth will NOT crash into his StarLink satellites as the Earth rotates between the barycenter and those satellites. The barycenter wobble amounts to 4670 km while the StarLink satellite distance remains constant at 550 km. The StarLink engineers (and pretty much all scientists) understand this.
One intuitive visualization of this is that Jupiter tugs on BOTH the Sun AND the Earth; not just the Sun. It pulls the Sun towards it and away from the center of mass of the solar system. BUT it also pulls the Earth towards it and away from the center of mass of the solar system as well. BOTH the Sun AND the Earth are wobbling around the solar system barycenter. Thus the Earth-Sun distance remains constant.
Scott seems unable to learn or follow the simple logic and the fact that satellites are orbiting the Earth, not the Earth-Moon barycenter.
Where Zharkova messed up was claiming her work debunked AGW. Had she claimed her work supported AGW, her paper would have been accepted and widely acclaimed.
Yikes. I reread my second paragraph above. I bungled that badly. There’s not much I can salvage with that. I think the most intuitive visualization of what is going on is to simply think of how satellites of Earth behave in the Earth-Moon system. That is they orbit the Earth and not the Earth-Moon barycenter.
bdgwx,
The orbits of satellites do decay you know. That is why we have a specific geostationary orbit to follow. I suspect if the mass of the satellite was larger, and it was not so close to the earth, the movement could not be approximated around the earth without taking the moon into consideration. Think about what happens to F in the F = Gm1m2/r2 as r approaches infinity. The denominator for F(moon to sat) is about 300,000 times larger than for the F(earth to sat). Then factor in the weaker mass of the moon.
Also, the solar system is not a 3 body problem.
Anyways… the other issue with what you are saying as I have mentioned before is the Milankovitch cycle theory. That theory states that the orbit of the earth regularly changes from a more eccentric orbit to less eccentric orbit in a cycle. It is the sum of many forces on the short time frame that cause this to happen. The vector of these forces are not always pointed in the same direction, as they change with Jupiter’s position.
I’m not sure how much the earth moves with each Jupiter orbit, but it is not 0. Since it is not 0, it is logical to conclude that there could be multidecadal changes to our climate because of it.
I don’t believe that any of us on this blog have done the calculations for a 9 body system. (sorry Pluto)
I’m still very open to the decadal climate cycles being controlled primarily by the solar cycle anyways, which are also related to Jupiter.
Milankovitch cycles operate on millennial time scales and have been in a cooling trend for six thousand years.
A solar increase would warm the upper atmosphere, we have cooling.
Svante,
Eccentricity has been decreasing, making the earth’s orbit more circular. Since the Aphelion is currently in the NH summer, a more circular orbit warms the arctic more in the summer, reducing albedo and warming the earth. Obliquity is decreasing, meaning the NH summer is getting slightly less radiation. These are offsetting. The tie breaker has been the precession. Because precession was working over the past several thousand years to put the earths’s aphelion in the NH summer, it has been acting to cool. That has bottomed with the perihelion being reached in January. From here, precession will team up with eccentricity to extend the current interglacial / offset obliquity. Aren’t we lucky? We have another 13,000 years of relative stability as these forcers offset.
Milankovitch cycles operate on millennial time scales.
You say it’s stable now.
There is nothing stable about this:
https://tinyurl.com/y42asq3x
ScottR says:
Im not sure how much the earth moves with each Jupiter orbit, but it is not 0. Since it is not 0, it is logical to conclude that there could be multidecadal changes to our climate because of it.
==========================
absolutely!
Climate is primarily a job of dealing with the motions of liquids and gases. Gas composition is an important element of that, but its a long ways away from the only variable.
So little honesty about that. It should be easy to teach what the difference is between living in a greenhouse and living on the surface of the moon. (i’m picking the greenhouse)
Start with that as an educational base and certain fact begin to make themself known that quite frankly you hear far too little about. Why? Well the answer is clear, the examples are so obvious you don’t even want to start talking about them if it runs contrary to your agenda. Like for example how hot would days get during the day if there were no greenhouse gases. Thats a real good start. Then you can talk about how cold it would get at night without greenhouse gases. Now you are building a good foundation for a more rational inquiry into the matter. But gee it doesn’t fit the narrative!!!
The rotational speed of the Earth falls from about 2006 years.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/LengthOfDay_1974_2005.png
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruch_obrotowy_Ziemi
ren
Long time before atomic clocks allowed for more precision, astronomers computed the loss of speed in Earth’s rotation: about 2 ms / century.
This was confirmed by many observations of the past. The most recent publication:
Ancient shell shows days were half-hour shorter 70 million years ago
https://news.agu.org/press-release/ancient-shell-shows-days-were-half-hour-shorter-70-million-years-ago/
*
Subdaily‐Scale Chemical Variability in a Torreites Sanchezi Rudist Shell: Implications for Rudist Paleobiology and the Cretaceous Day‐Night Cycle
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019PA003723
J.-P. D.
bdgwx, from my personal perspective, I hope your warming predictions are correct. In fact, I would like to see the ENSO water warm up really quick, preventing this dreaded La Niño.
But, if we get some warming it won’t be because of “+0.8 W/m^2 EEI that still needs to equilibrate plus continued GHG emissions”.
We know that is nonsense, for sure.
That should be “La Niña”!
The September UAH TLS value came in at -0.76C. This brings the TLT minus TLS trend up to +0.419C/decade.
Imagine if Earth was the only planet in the solar system. The mutual force of gravity would influence the distance between the two bodies. correct?
What if you added Jupiter to the picture, and aligned it with Earth?
Wouldnt the mass of Jupiter team-up with the mass of Earth, and pull the sun a little closer to both?
If so, seems reasonable to expect that Earth would bob in and out like a spring a little bit in its orbit around the Sun – closer when Earth and Jupiter are on the same side, further when the two are on opposite sides.
OTOH, Jupiter reaches alignment with Earth every 13 months, so the above relationship should be readily apparent.
And making things even more confusing (to me), is that Earth already has a 12 month, slightly elliptical orbit. What effect would a 13 month cycle have on a 12 month cycle?
A constantly changing ellipse?
********
Just thinking out loud…… maybe someone could help me out?
[Wouldnt the mass of Jupiter team-up with the mass of Earth, and pull the sun a little closer to both?]
Come to think of it, the opposite would also be true…..
… when Jupiter is on the opposite side of the sun, the mass of Sun and Jupiter would team up and pull Earth a little closer!
All very confusing.
Better look up some orbital mechanix before you start typing
snape, read that whole exchange that bdgwx linked to.
It absolutely fascinating how the message just doesn’t sink in.
Then note the absence of comments from any real heavy weight astronomer, while Scott R and various blogs raise it to the sky.
You can understand why if you read what Richard Muller says here:
https://tinyurl.com/ua7lsht
It’s in the bin.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Hurricane Delta heads to the western Gulf of Mexico.
Continue from
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534234
Climate catastrophe not taking place
In the interview, moderator Tichy reminded that civilization began 7000 years ago, a time when it was 3C warmer than today, and Vahrenholt responded saying he expects civilization to continue for another seven thousand years. There was no tipping point back then, why would there be one today? Warmth and moisture have always been good for mankind, said Vahrenholt. Cold has been mans worst enemy.
Plenty of time to move rationally
https://bit.ly/30IO38h
3 C warmer 7000 y ago?
Nope.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Nate,
An average of eight interpreted temperature records from an almost unmeasurable proportion of the surface?
If thats good enough for you, its good enough for you!
Our best evidence says we might be passing the Holocene max just now. At a rapid pace.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
So are you going to just pat yourself on the back Svante or are you going to produce a proof its the best evidence?
Your challenge is to refute the evidence posted by Svante by posting evidence yourself. An amount of evidence that would rise to (but not exceed) that posted by Svante would be a similar comprehensive holocene temperature database born out of 589 other lines of evidence that comes to a significantly different conclusion. If you want your argument to transcend Svante’s then you need present even more (far more actually) since other studies not affiliated with that posted above come to the same conclusion. That is your challenge. If yo decline to present the requested evidence then we have no choice but to accept the conclusion Svante posted as being the best available to us.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3
typical post normal science lover.
I would suggest that if you want to call something the best you probably should gather all the studies together and do a scientific analysis of them. . . .similar to the approaches used by Steve McIntyre. Otherwise you might be advised to just point the study out as interesting. Remember replication is the test of science as we have seen in the past with hide the decline and sacred trees in Siberia it’s not replication it’s selection. Here Joe here is one that fits in that gap. . . .oops less erase that part of the data as being off beat for some unknown reason.
Pass that test with flying colors and then you might have something you can call the best.
bill hunter says:
It’s what they did.
“1,319 data records based on samples taken from 679 sites globally”.
By “93 paleoclimate scientists from 23 countries”.
It agrees with Marcott et.al which was the best in 2013, which had “73 globally distributed temperature records” using:
– Boreholes.
– Chironomid transfer function.
– Diatom MAT.
– Foram MAT.
– Foram transfer function.
– Ice Core δ18O, δD
– MBT.
– Mg/Ca.
– Pollen MAT.
– Radiolaria.
– TEX86.
– UK’37.
“If thats good enough for you, its good enough for you!”
Apparently someone declaring it is 3 C, is good enough for you!
Eben said: 7000 years ago, a time when it was 3C warmer than today
Not even remotely close. In fact, it is more likely that it is warmer today than it was 7000 years ago.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Svante
I assumed the exchange would be over my head.
No, it’s over the author’s head but not yours.
Svante, please stop trolling.
S,
Reading papers is all well and good. What papers did Einstein read to decide they were all wrong? What about Feynman and others deciding that quantum mechanics to 1947 or so could not explain some experiential results? Or Wegener, soundly condemned and ridiculed for his supposedly insane idea that continents moved?
Science advances because some scientists find mistakes in the thinking of the consensus. An error of parts per million between predicted and observed results might be reason to challenge decades of orthodox thinking!
So-called climate science is nonsensical when compared with science requiring thought, rather than galloping after the loudly braying herd of donkeys.
Swenson says:
“What papers did Einstein read to decide they were all wrong?”
The MichelsonMorley experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Svante, please stop trolling.
Solar activity is extremely low at the beginning of the 25th solar cycle. The spots that appear on the sun’s disk exhibit low magnetic activity. Class B flares are a rarity, let alone Class C.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20201007_hres.png
gbaikie…”I dont know if Pierrehumbert knows what he meant, but roughly you need an energy intensity to reach 800,000 K”.
The presumption is this…if the Sun keeps shining on the Earth and the Earth cannot radiate the heat away, then the heat will accumulate.
This is a totally theoretical concept that is being posed and answered as a thought experiment. It belies the actual quantum process involving electrons in any mass. Furthermore, who has ever seen such a process where heat is added to a mass and the mass is prevented from dissipating the heat?
It’s also based on the GHE theory where solar energy enters a greenhouse but the IR converted from solar SW cannot escape through glass and becomes trapped. There is a presumption that the trapped IR can somehow warm the greenhouse. Where’s the evidence that trapped IR warms anything?
I have no idea where this pseudo-science came from. In a real greenhouse, heat will escape through the glass and the frames so heat cannot accumulate beyond a certain temperature. If you open the doors of the greenhouse, the temperature drops. So, convection is related.
Where can you find a container that will allow solar SW to enter it yet heat dissipation is prevented by radiation, conduction, and/or convection?
Suppose you had such a device. Solar SW EM enters and is converted to heat in a mass by its electrons. Therefore, the electrons must rise to a higher orbital energy level. So the electrons are now at that energy level and solar SW EM is still entering the device and hitting the mass.
Why should the mass get any hotter once the electrons reach an energy level that matches the incoming solar? I’m sure the mass will get really hot but why should the heat increase without bounds?
It’s possible that the electrons will exceed the energy level where they can escape the mass. Eventually, the mass will melt and disintegrate.
This problem, simplified by alarmists, is far too complex to predict. I am sure of one thing, the Earth could never reach 800,000C and still remain together as a mass.
I think your last paragraph is correct.
“Where can you find a container that will allow solar SW to enter it yet heat dissipation is prevented by radiation, conduction, and/or convection?”
Solar pond.
And I would also say, Earth’s ocean.
Shallow solar pond wins in terms of highest temperature.
But highest temperature depends a fairly shallow solar pond.
A deeper solar pond absorbs more energy from Sun, but doesn’t reach the higher temperatures of shallower pond.
Or a deeper solar gets same energy at meter depth level, but as goes deeper the sunlight energy is diffused throughout meters of water depth.
So if don’t need 80 C water temperature, one can get more joules of heat per a time period with deeper solar pond which only heats to say, 60 C.
Our transparent ocean with wind and waves and rain which wrecks the shallower solar ponds or is a “better solar pond” in terms gaining energy from the sun in the “a real/wild world”.
Now, question, if solar pond had less gravity, does work “better” or “worse”?
If had say, 1/100th of 1 gee, one could probably use fresh water rather than needing salt water gradient.
How about ten times 1 Gee {10 gee].
Could one make a solar pond work?
–Suppose you had such a device. Solar SW EM enters and is converted to heat in a mass by its electrons. Therefore, the electrons must rise to a higher orbital energy level. So the electrons are now at that energy level and solar SW EM is still entering the device and hitting the mass.
Why should the mass get any hotter once the electrons reach an energy level that matches the incoming solar? I’m sure the mass will get really hot but why should the heat increase without bounds?–
Well solar ponds have upper limit.
They heat to about 80 C and stay near 80C during the night.
And take long time {week} to warm to this highest temperature.
Solar ponds would more useful if they heat to 100 C, but they don’t. But on Moon they should heat up to 120 C.
One good thing that comes from the 800,000K nonsense is that we see the Alarmists rushing in to slurp it down. When it comes to promoting their beliefs, science and reality get thrown out. Their attempts to justify the nonsense reveal their fanaticism.
The strength of the solar magnetic field drops (black line).
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
The blockage of the polar vortex is already visible in the lower stratosphere over the Bering Sea.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01015/je5az0ax63p8.png
Clint said:
“For the same incoming flux, the lower the emissivity, the cooler it will be.”
and to further explain, he said:
“Find two cars that are in full sunlight, one white and one a dark color. Just feeling the surface you should be able to learn about emissivity, absor.p.tivity, and reflectivity.”
It just dawned on me what you were thinking here, and why you were wrong.
The question is basically “If you make an object more reflective, will an object get warmer or cooler?”
The answer is “It depends.”
Everything else being equal …
* If you make an object more reflective for INCOMING light (eg sunlight), then the object will indeed become COOLER in the sunlight, because the object ABSORBS energy less effectively. (This is your black or white car analogy).
* If you make an object more reflective for OUTGOING light (eg thermal IR), then the object will become WARMER, because the object EMITS energy less effectively.
“Emissivity” measures the second property– how well an object can emit thermal thermal radiation (ie thermal IR for temperatures on the order of 100 K or 1000 K). As the emissivity drops (and the reflectivity increases for thermal IR), an object will indeed become warmer, exactly as I said.
This explains why polished metal can get so hot. The metal reflects visible light very well and therefore people might think it would be cool. But it also reflects thermal IR quite well (has a low emissivity) which tends to make it warm. For the many metals that reflect thermal IR better than they reflect visible light, that makes them quite warm in the sunlight.
And with that, I think I will end the free physics lessons and get back to other interest.
Thanks for spreading some light here.
Tim, that is mostly garbage!
Emissivity is simply the ratio of what a surface emits compared to a black body.
A surface does not change its emissivity if the flux changes.
Quit trying to make up stuff to cover your mistakes. You’re only fooling idiots like silly Svante.
“Emissivity is simply…”
In simple vs accurate, we can always count on our resident simpleton to make the wrong choice.
So sorry but, emissivity is wavelength-dependent, whether that fits your beliefs or not.
I’m talking about the definiton of “emissivity”. Nate will never understand, so this is just for others:
Black body emits F W/m^2, at temperature T.
Object emits .5F W/m^2, at temperature T.
The emissivity of the object is .5F/F= 0.5
Black body emits 10F W/m^2, at temperature T2.
Object emits 5F W/m^2, at temperature T2.
The emissivity of the object is 5F/10F = 0.5
“Black body emits 10F W/m^2, at temperature T2.
Object emits 5F W/m^2, at temperature T2.
The emissivity of the object is 5F/10F = 0.5”
So if “black body” is absorbing 10 F W/m^2 from external source, it will hold steady at temperature T2.
If “Object” also absorbs 10 F W/m^2 and is at T2, it will only emit 5 F W/m^2, and the other 5 F W/m^2 will be retained, causing “object” to warm up. In fact, it will warm up to 2^(1/4)T = 1.19T, at which point it will also emit 10 F W/m^2.
So who is right?
* “Current Clint” who concludes that decreasing the emissivity will lead to HIGHER temperatures.
* “Former Clint” who concludes that decreasing the emissivity will lead to LOWER temperatures.
Inquiring minds want to know!
See how he does it folks? I never “concluded” what he indicated.
Tim just lies like there is no tomorrow. And the other idiots care not. Anything to support their false religion.
It’s a cult.
Tim came back this morning to try to cover up more of his mistakes. So, let’s spend some time on how they work a deception.
First, notice how Svante and Nate rush in to provide distraction. Second, notice how Tim goes in many different directions, trying to confuse and distract.
This all started when Tim tried to support the 800000K nonsense. He tried to pervert physics so that he could make the 800000K appear legitimate. Here are his exact words:
“There is, in fact, no theoretical maximum temperature for an object absorbing 960 W/m^2.”
Note how he deceptively switches to “an object”. The discussion is NOT about “an object”. The discussion is about Earth, which Pierrehumbert idealized as a black body. (That’s allowed. That’s not where he violated the laws of physics.) Tim tries to derail the discussion to another situation.
But, for a black body the MAXIMUM temperature for 960 W/m^2 absorbed is 361K, no matter how much they try to pervert reality.
Now, Tim is trying to play the same kind of trick, confusing emissivity with reflectivity.
They’re so desperate.
Svante says:
ClintR, out of curiosity, how could Earth get rid of incoming energy if it “had no way of getting rid of it”.
Objects handle incoming electromagnetic energy 3 ways.
1) Transmission
2) Absorp.tion
3) Reflection
How do they get rid of it when there is “no way of getting rid of it”.
They’re just making stuff up to fool idiot snowflakes like you, silly Svante. They know you’ll swallow anything they spew.
Yes, I think I understand the premise:
“no way of getting rid of it”.
Here he says the same thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slPMD5i5Phg
It’s not very hard to understand, is it?
No, it’s easy to understand–he sounds like an idiot, but you believe he’s your ticket to nirvana.
Typical cult behavior.
ClintR,
“Objects handle incoming electromagnetic energy 3 ways.
1) Transmission
2) Absorp.tion
3) Reflection”
You forgot a couple, but that’s to be expected, check your textbooks.
You might want to wonder why the sky is blue.
blob, please stop trolling.
The Physics Today article was written for physicists and science students, ie intelligent, curious people who have the imagination to understand a ‘thought experiment’ without getting all discombobulated, like Clint and DREMT.
Lets see them dive into the meat of the article and tell us what he has wrong.
Its not simple. It depends is true and our climate rests on it depends. Great fodder for 1st principles research as emissivity is quite simply ridden rough shod over in the public debate. Understanding the mathematics of emissivity in their whole complexity as expressed by the skies and the earth surface is critical. Without it I seriously doubt that the modeling effort is ever going to get close to getting it right.
The other big area is the water cycle and all the weird stuff about it.
The only guidance given in the world arena is to create a role for world government in the power seeking that all governments try to obtain in a form of perpetual empire building.
Ah, it’s the Illuminati again.
Yeah, all those models that predicted cooling when know the opposite happened.
Svante says:
Ah, its the Illuminati again.
==========================
Is that true? do you mean the group that was banded together more than two centuries ago to oppose the imposition of religious ideas on the population?
Sounds more like a group of skeptics to me. Why would they be opposed to skepticism?
You tell me, you and ClintR are the conspiracy experts here.
We live rent free in silly Svante’s head.
And, there’s plenty of room here….
“Understanding the mathematics of emissivity in their whole complexity as expressed by the skies and the earth surface is critical. Without it I seriously doubt that the modeling effort is ever going to get close to getting it right.”
Luckily many people do understand the mathematics of that.
It is astonishing, Bill, that you so often think that your lack of understanding is equal to science’s lack of understanding.
But they are not equal.
Obviously you aren’t aware they disagree on the emissivity of water in the oceans. Should the simplest of them all. All the rest of the earth they need much higher resolution spectroscopy
Nope.
That is False meme from the denialist blogoshere, that keeps getting repeated with no critical thinking applied.
The IR emitted from the ocean is used by satellites to determine eg the cloudiness.
Where did I say what we know about ocean emissivity wasn’t useful. No I didn’t say that at all. What I said was there are questions about emissivity that make it difficult to create radiation budgets. Swanson has written a paper on that and obviously disagrees with you.
My opinion on Swanson’s paper is yes its a legitimate issue. It is an uncertainty. But we have tremendous uncertainty around our entire monitoring systems for very much similar reasons.
Climate science consciously chose to use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures as a way of mitigating that issue on the assumption that the potential real difference in temperatures from that what is being scanned is relatively immaterial to detecting change in the system with less error.
IMO, it’s a shaky assumption but definitely has some merit as long as those things being measured are somewhat static (e.g. elevation that doesn’t change), but there are also fleeting influences on temperature as well that may change for reasons both known and unknown.
Yes what remains in that process is a reduction of uncertainty but not an elimination of it. there are other issues surrounding the practice of using anomalies. But most of that is how we tend to reflect bias that what we do is right and what they do is wrong. . . .in a strong politically motivated sense.
A potential example would be, yes we recognize that our absolute temperature is maybe 2k incorrect at the surface. but 2k compared to 288k is a small error that isn’t going to influence climate change much at all. So if we look at the anomaly instead our error should be a lot smaller. But it does make the assumption that your error itself isn’t changing because of not measuring everything.
The argument 20 years ago was much more compact as there was no measured imbalance in the atmosphere and there was no assumed imbalance as a result of the assumption that any such imbalance is eliminated by the 30 year baseline. Now that assumption has proven false and the imbalance isn’t measured but instead its a plug figure to fill in between the models and observations.
Of course all that certainly flew over your head because your mind is closed on the matter.
Bill,
For you, it seems just about everything in science becomes uncertain.
There is no certainty about anything and there is no good route to certainty. IDK how we ever progress or make decisions.
This has been the consistent strategy of big corporations when faced with the prospect of losing gobs of $$ because science says their product causes harm.
Cigarettes and human health. The science is uncertain.
Lead in gasoline and then in the environment and children’s bodies. The science is uncertain.
CFCs and the ozone hole. The science is uncertain.
etc etc
thanks Nate for you giving here such a succinct viewpoint of the kind of reasoning you are capable of. Nice scientific argument. . .not.
I especially like your argument about how the science is uncertain until it becomes certain. I am so impressed with your acute scientific insight and coming up with such a compelling argument where you managed to cherry pick three things to make a case for that.
LMAO….Moron!
“Nice scientific argument. . ”
And yet another strawman, Bill.
Obviously I was not making a scientific argument there.
Simply pointing out the absurdity of your ‘everything is always uncertain’ arguments.
It is a perfectly valid point. Particularly when your personal understanding of the science is weak.
Then there is the, perhaps coincidental, utilitarian reason for the ‘science is always uncertain’ arguments that have been made.
“Climate science consciously chose to use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures as a way of mitigating that issue on the assumption that the potential real difference in temperatures from that what is being scanned is relatively immaterial to detecting change in the system with less error.”
Subtracting a constant from a measurement, which is what gives anomalies, has no effect whatsoever on measurement uncertainty.
Yet another erroneous emission from Bill.
Nate says:
Nice scientific argument. .
And yet another strawman, Bill.
Obviously I was not making a scientific argument there.
Simply pointing out the absurdity of your everything is always uncertain arguments.
It is a perfectly valid point. Particularly when your personal understanding of the science is weak.
Then there is the, perhaps coincidental, utilitarian reason for the science is always uncertain arguments that have been made.
===============================
It is true all science is uncertain. Its really a science or an art all its own on determining the level of uncertainty. That is something I am trained and certified at doing. You aren’t you couldn’t pass a freshman test on that.
And it you don’t believe me go read Dr Curry’s blog on the topic.
Whether you call it art or science, I call this BS that makes absolutely no sense:
“A potential example would be, yes we recognize that our absolute temperature is maybe 2k incorrect at the surface. but 2k compared to 288k is a small error that isnt going to influence climate change much at all. So if we look at the anomaly instead our error should be a lot smaller. But it does make the assumption that your error itself isnt changing because of not measuring everything.”
“The argument 20 years ago was much more compact as there was no measured imbalance in the atmosphere and there was no assumed imbalance as a result of the assumption that any such imbalance is eliminated by the 30 year baseline. Now that assumption has proven false and the imbalance isnt measured but instead its a plug figure to fill in between the models and observations.”
WTF??
Nate says:
Whether you call it art or science, I call this BS that makes absolutely no sense:
WTF??
=================================
You are right about something. Maybe you ought to do a little reading up on what using anomalies do and the science behind atmosphere radiation budgeting what size the window’s of uncertainty are. Hint they are far bigger than the alleged imbalance.
“the balance is eliminated by the 30 year baseline.”
Let me put it this way: neither of your experts, Judith Curry nor Richard Lindzen, would agree that this is a problem with anomalies, because they actually understand the science.
They understand that the baseline is just an offset that has no impact on the trends.
Nate says:
Let me put it this way: neither of your experts, Judith Curry nor Richard Lindzen, would agree that this is a problem with anomalies, because they actually understand the science.
They understand that the baseline is just an offset that has no impact on the trends.
==============================
You misinterpreted what I was saying. I was not talking about anomalies I was talking about a TOA imbalance that was not shown in the original late 90’s work of Trenberth, but only showed up in the 2009 version when an explanation for cooling was needed.
Contrafactual on maths and politics.
Svante you are only trolling.
Evidence please.
Bill
“Maybe you ought to do a little reading up on what using anomalies do and the science behind atmosphere radiation”
Maybe you should explain WTF you were trying to say, because it made absolutely no sense.
Feel free to quote any of your team of experts who agree with this nonsense.
I understand what they do Nate. Using them over the actual temperature record increases statistically-derived certainty that warming is actually occurring.
An important consideration to give in any political portrayal of whats going on. Works especially well when you cherry pick snippets of warming periods.
Contrafactual on maths and politics.
Svante please stop trolling
Tim
[This explains why polished metal can get so hot. The metal reflects visible light very well and therefore people might think it would be cool……]
I think the hot-to-the-touch issue with metal is more about conduction than emissivity. Metal is a good conductor. A neighboring object, same temperature but a poor conductor, will feel much cooler.
Conduction is certainly a part of it. 60 C metal will feel much hotter than 60 C wood (and will burn you more quickly as well).
But the metal have to be actually hot to begin with. And chrome car parts truly do get quite hot in the sun, even though they reflect 90+% of incoming sunlight.
Tim,
Metal mirrors reflect infrared nicely. For example, concentrating the Suns IR (more than 50% of solar output) for solar furnaces and so on.
It just takes a highly reflective object longer to heat up, longer to cool down. A matt black object and a shiny silver object at the same temperature are in thermal equilibrium. That is part of the definition of temperature. A large object at the same temperature as a small object are in thermal equilibrium.
They may be emitting completely different amounts of energy, at different irradiances. You obviously believe the stuff you make up. No GHE, however.
ScottR
[I suspect if the mass of the satellite was larger, and it was not so close to the earth, the movement could not be approximated around the earth without taking the moon into consideration.]
Right.
The moon tugs on a satellites orbit ever so slightly. Satellites do not orbit the earth independent of the moons gravity, just like the earth does not orbit the sun independent of Jupiters gravity.
Yep… but because the moon’s orbit is only 1 month long, the moon tends to offset itself leading to even more satellite stability. Jupiter has a 12 year orbit. Lots of time to disturb our orbit.
Jupiter does perturb Earth’s orbit. It’s part of the complex dynamic that drives the Milankovitch cycles on time scales of thousands to tens of thousands of years. What does not happen is that the Earth-Sun distance does not ebb and flow due to the Sun’s motion around the solar system barycenter. Earth’s orbital perturbations do not (in any significant way) change the integrated solar energy received. These orbital perturbations do change the distribution of the solar flux though. It is the see-sawing of the solar flux between latitudes and seasons that impacts the climate.
bdgwx as I have pointed out to you before, the albedo of the earth is not consistent, therefore, what part of the orbit the earth receives extra energy matters. The south pole reflects much better and the multidecadal cycles matter very little there because it is so far below freezing.
To get to millennium scale perturbations, you have to have incremental perturbations, which are not going to always be at the same vector. The sum of these tiny perturbations make the Milankovitch cycles… the tiny perturbations could be making a difference in our climate.
Indeed there is no known minimist perturbation on the topic of albedo. Changes in albedo could be the most important element of a possible extended LIA recovery.
Yes. I agree. In fact, I said just that…”These orbital perturbations do change the distribution of the solar flux though. It is the see-sawing of the solar flux between latitudes and seasons that impacts the climate.”
The orbital perturbations I’m talking about are the Milankovitch cycles which are, in part, caused by Jupiter. The Earth STILL does not bob in and out on its orbit around the Sun though. The amount of solar flux received at TOA does not change as result of the Sun’s wobble around the barycenter. Therefore Zharkova’s claim that Earth’s climate is affected by the solar inertial motion is wrong.
bdgwx says:
Therefore Zharkovas claim that Earths climate is affected by the solar inertial motion is wrong.
=======================
Gee bdgwx I would say the earth’s climate is affected by such things. The only question is by how much for each of possible range of effects that gravity could have on climate.
It doesn’t see fair to pick and choose. Typically rather than retraction for a mathematical error don’t they instead issue a corrigendum?
Bill said: Gee bdgwx I would say the earth’s climate is affected by such things.
Then like Zharkova you would be 100% wrong as well. The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as result of the Sun’s motion around the barycenter.
And note that Zharkova’s claim is a completely different topic than other orbital perturbations the Earth really does experience.
Zharkova did not make a simple mathematical error. The entire premise was completely wrong. The problem with this whole debacle is how Zharkova managed to get that claim through peer review in a prestigious journal. The peer review process isn’t meant to adjudicate all elements of right and wrong, but it is meant to filter out egregiously deficient or spam-like publications which failed in this case.
bdgwx says:
Then like Zharkova you would be 100% wrong as well. The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as result of the Suns motion around the barycenter.
================================
Sure it does just not by much. But what is not enough? Nobody knows. I am sure you can rule out TSI changes but you may not be able to rule out frequency, magnetic, and atmosphere changes.
I see it as unlikely but like everything you first need to know the equations before you can judge their output.
climate science has made a specialization of curve fitting then criticizes anybody else that does it.
Yeah, the GHG warming predicted by physics could be hiding somewhere and it’s all due to something else.
Silly Svante, there is no physics that predicts GHG warming.
You’re such a gullible little snowflake.
Bill said: Sure it does just not by much.
Ok, something isn’t clicking here. I’m not sure I can articulate this any more clearly. So what part of “The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as result of the Sun’s motion around the barycenter.” do you not understand?
Bill said: Nobody knows.
Everybody knows this. I think even Zharkova herself eventually conceded this point.
bdgwx says:
Bill said: Sure it does just not by much.
Ok, something isnt clicking here. Im not sure I can articulate this any more clearly. So what part of The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as result of the Sun’s motion around the barycenter. do you not understand?
Bill said: Nobody knows.
Everybody knows this. I think even Zharkova herself eventually conceded this point.
==============================
What don’t you understand about the statement: ”Current ephemeris calculations show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article.”
Come on bdgwx read the stuff you spout before you spout.
Bill said: What don’t you understand about the statement: ”Current ephemeris calculations show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article.”
There is nothing about this statement I don’t understand. The ephemeris data falsifies Zharkova’s hypothesis convincingly. And the reason the ephemeris data is “substantially less than the amount reported in this article” is because the Earth-Sun distance does NOT change because of the Sun’s orbit around the barycenter. It varies for other reasons (measurement error included) which are not being disputed.
Bill said: Come on bdgwx read the stuff you spout before you spout.
Not only did I read it, but I actually downloaded the data from the references given.
Here is the ephemeris trend over the last 200 years…
+0.000022 AU/century +- 0.000418
First…this is statistically equivalent to 0 AU/century.
Second…using the figure verbatim that is only an increase in the Earth-Sun distance of 0.000044 AU in the last 200 years or about 1/400th the 0.02 AU variance Zharkova claimed.
Third…using the figure verbatim that is an increase in the Earth-Sun distance which would (if it were statistically significant…its not) equate to a decrease in solar irradiance. But Zharkova claimed that solar irradiance increased over the last two centuries.
Fourth…using the figure verbatim this equates to a radiative force of -0.02 W/m^2 over the last 200 years…hardly enough to cause 0.5C/century of warming that Zharkova claimed nevermind that the force is negative and not positive.
Looking over the correspondence Zharkova appears to concede an error but still maintains an effect.
So indeed some of her critics like Gavin Schmidt are saying zero effect which is also an error.
At any rate I think maybe she over estimated the effect by an order of magnitude. . . .maybe two or three times that.
Changing the topic shouldn’t stratosphere cooling be resulting from low solar activity? After all the reason its warm is ozone absorbing high frequency light and the sun is sending a lot less high frequency light.
bill hunter says: “Changing the topic” 😊
Richard Muller says:
“Something else that just happens, by accident, to perfectly match the carbon dioxide increase, are you serious?”
https://youtu.be/kTk8Dhr15Kw?t=240
bdgwx says:
because the Earth-Sun distance does NOT change because of the Sun’s orbit around the barycenter. It varies for other reasons (measurement error included) which are not being disputed.
======================
Well now you are splitting hairs. The distance varies as the earth rotates around the sun in relationship to the suns position relative to the barycenter. The barycenter is bobbing and weaving in and out of the sun and the sun rotates around the barycenter as the earth rotates around the sun so the maximum SE displacement occurs when the barycenter is the furthest outside the sun and the earth, the sun, and the barycenter are all in one line. So maximum displacement occurs when the sun and all the planets including earth are all sitting on a straight line.
So you can play silly games with that as to whether the solar system barycenter is rotating around the sun or the sun around the barycenter or the earth/sun system rotating around the barycenter. Its all the same thing depending upon what you choose as a point of reference.
bdgwx says:
Here is the ephemeris trend over the last 200 years…
+0.000022 AU/century +- 0.000418
First…this is statistically equivalent to 0 AU/century.
=====================
Relevant statistical equivalence would be in relationship to how much TSI changes. So you are saying that TSI naturally changes by other means like solar cycles by uh 2 standard deviations or 33 times as much?
I think that works out to about 22 watts. 1366 down to about 1344? Really? Sounds about right. . . .5.6 watts at the surface. Where did you get that info bdgwx?
bdgwx says:
Second…using the figure verbatim that is only an increase in the Earth-Sun distance of 0.000044 AU in the last 200 years or about 1/400th the 0.02 AU variance Zharkova claimed.
Third…using the figure verbatim that is an increase in the Earth-Sun distance which would (if it were statistically significant…its not) equate to a decrease in solar irradiance. But Zharkova claimed that solar irradiance increased over the last two centuries.
Fourth…using the figure verbatim this equates to a radiative force of -0.02 W/m^2 over the last 200 years…hardly enough to cause 0.5C/century of warming that Zharkova claimed nevermind that the force is negative and not positive.
===========================
OK I think you need to rework your figures. I am seeing her owning up to an error. But on your redo this link might help as its a paper linked on Zharkova’s website with the date Apr2020 on it about a month after the retraction.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.06550.pdf
”The S-E distance is found, in average, linearly reducing from 1700 until 2700 with the rate of 0.00027 au per 100
years, or 0.0027 au per 1000 years”
If the distance is reducing the sign can’t be negative.
I suspect the end number is still way off. the article is really confusing especially when she starts talking about the elliptical orbit. I think maybe smoking a lot weird stuff is popular around that campus. And it also looks like Russian interference.
Hope somebody gets this straightened out. I am figuring a number comes out of this, and with the warmists spending billions to grab a few extra tenths of a watt; the skeptics need to get in that game too. Everything helps to save the world!!
Svante says:
October 11, 2020 at 2:40 AM
bill hunter says: Changing the topic 😊
Richard Muller says:
Something else that just happens, by accident, to perfectly match the carbon dioxide increase, are you serious?
https://youtu.be/kTk8Dhr15Kw?t=240
=======================================
thats pretty dang amusing Svante. Richard Muller just invoked the proof of God argument in favor of CO2. The world is so perfect what else could account for that!
In other words, Muller just precisely expressed the fallacy ”argumentum ad ignorantiam” and we all know what hogwash it is to suggest even carbon dioxide perfectly matches changes in climate. So he simultaneously invoked a strawman fallacy.
He’s talking about the long term trend, not your short term ocean cycles. It’s a logarithmic function of CO2 as predicted by physics.
They found the AMO was +/- 0.17 C (five year smoothing).
Watch the whole video, it’s only five minutes.
Global warming in a nutshell.
Bill said: Relevant statistical equivalence would be in relationship to how much TSI changes. So you are saying that TSI naturally changes by other means like solar cycles by uh 2 standard deviations or 33 times as much?
Zharkova’s claim is that TSI has increased because the Earth-Sun distance has decreased.
I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the ephemeris data is statistically equivalent to a 0 AU/century change in the Earth-Sun distance. Therefore the TSI change is also statistically equivalent to 0 W/m^2.
Bill said: I think that works out to about 22 watts. 1366 down to about 1344? Really? Sounds about right. . . .5.6 watts at the surface. Where did you get that info bdgwx?
First…I got the ephemeris data from the source cited in the retraction note. I plugged it into Excel and did a LINEST on it. The result was +0.000022 AU/century +- 0.000418. That is a change of +0.000044 AU over 200 years.
Second…A TSI of 1360 W/m^2 is for 1.000000 AU. And because TSI is inversely proportional to the square of the distance the multiplier is then (1.000000 – 0.000044)^2 = 0.999912. So 1360 because 1359.88 W/m^2. That is a change of -0.12 W/m^2. But that is TOA. The radiative is force is -0.12 / 4 * 0.7 = -0.02 W/m^2.
I have no idea how you get a 5.6 W/m^2 change out of all of this.
Bill said: OK I think you need to rework your figures.
Sure. I double checked. Same result.
Zharkova said: The S-E distance is found, in average, linearly reducing from 1700 until 2700 with the rate of 0.00027 au per 100
years
I get -0.0000012 AU/century from 1700 to 2700.
Bill said: I suspect the end number is still way off. the article is really confusing especially when she starts talking about the elliptical orbit.
It is still way off. Yes, based on commentary from experts I believe her amended paper is now considering only perihelion/aphelion distance changes and not the mean annual change. In other words, I think she has rediscovered one of the Milankovitch cycles.
Bill said: Hope somebody gets this straightened out.
It is straightened out. JPL provided the data. Nature retracted the paper.
JPL didn’t calculate the climate effect. IPCC has calculated an increasing solar effect though supposedly from observation. It would seem to be an interesting paper to test correctly the gravitational effect in a solid article that properly characterizes celestial mechanics.
All JPL does apparently is provide the raw data on gravitational influences.
ClintR
[Black body emits F W/m^2, at temperature T.
Object emits .5F W/m^2, at temperature T.
The emissivity of the object is .5F/F= 0.5]
That is my understanding as well.
Scott
[Yep but because the moons orbit is only 1 month long, the moon tends to offset itself leading to even more satellite stability. Jupiter has a 12 year orbit. Lots of time to disturb our orbit.]
You need to consider the orbit of both bodies. A satellite circles the earth every 90 minutes or so, potentially passing the moon each time (depending on where the moon is located relative to the satellites orbit).
The Earth passes Jupiter every 13 months.
I agree with that Snape. The earth’s orbit also needs to be considered. When the earth is passing between the sun and Jupiter, the vector is pointed out into the night sky. When the Jupiter is at opposition, the vector is pointed near the sun. The vectors on one axis mostly cancel because Jupiter pulls nearly equal on both sides of our 1 year orbit. (but not exact due to it’s movement) On the other hand, the other axis does not cancel, and is always acting near the same point over the year. The complete cycle takes 12 years (same as Jupiter’s orbit) Now when you add Saturn to the mix, the effect can be amplified or partially offset. Every 60 years that cycle repeats when you consider Jupiter’s perihelion location also matters very much and how that combines with Saturn.
I guess the point of frustration you guys probably have with me is that you guys are seeing the gravitational interaction as something separate from the barycenter movement, where I’m combining all the forces and motions in one thought.
bdgwx
What does not happen is that the Earth-Sun distance does not ebb and flow due to the Suns motion around the solar system barycenter.
This is the part that confuses me. Basically, the solar system barycenter and the Jupiter/Sun barycenter are one and the same.
Every 13 months the Earth passes close by Jupiter, which should exert a tug on Earth.
My guess is that this almost annual fly-by is part of what initially defined Earths orbital path. By initially, I mean when the solar system was first formed.
Like I said yesterday – imagine an Earth/Sun solar system. Then, introduce Jupiter. No way in hell does Earths orbital path stay the same.
Snape Jupiter’s Perihelion is roughly 90 deg offset from both Saturn and the earth. It is reasonable to assume that Jupiter likes to force the orbits of the other planets to have their perihelions right after it’s perihelion. Interestingly, Mars however does not fit this theory, even though it is even closer to Jupiter than we are. It’s actually the only planet that does not have it’s perihelion within 80 degrees of Jupiter’s perihelion. It has made me wonder what happened to Mars. Did something hit it and disturb it’s orbit more recently than we think? It also has a huge rage of what obliquities are possible over time. Interesting isn’t it? The fact that earth and Saturn are so close to 90 deg for their perihelion from Jupiter makes me believe that earth has not had any large impacts in a long time. (the fact that we are here also helps that idea) Saturn is rather large, so impacts might not do much to push it away from that 90 deg. Mercury and Venus are so close to the sun that Jupiter can’t effect them as much… so no perfect 90 deg. Perhaps passing stars can interrupt Uranus and Neptune or the infamous planet X if it is out there.
Bottom line, Mars has a strange orbit and motion to me.
Why are you handwaving?
Ephemeris calculations are routine nowadays.
From bdgwx’ link:
Svante, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535501
Svante, please stop trolling.
Sorry, forgot to put brackets around the quote.
Very low temperature over Hudson Bay.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01015/s8gsr9ufiyie.png
ClintR
[But, for a black body the MAXIMUM temperature for 960 W/m^2 absorbed is 361K, no matter how much they try to pervert reality.]
The 361K is reached when energy-in equals energy-out. But, following the rules of the make-believe thought experiment, energy out always equals zero. Therefore, an equilibrium could never be reached and the surface would keep warming.
Well, from your POV, it couldnt warm forever. Once it reached the same temperature as the sun, in keeping with the 2LOT, Earths surface would activate a giant force field and fend off any additional solar energy.
Well, actually, Snape …
There IS a theoretical reason why the earth could not get hotter than the surface of the sun due to sunlight. And it doesn’t involve force fields or magic or any such thing.
When the earth is ~ 300 K, it is within the laws of physics for the earth to be perfectly reflective for wavelength where the earth is emitting thermal IR (roughly 4 um and longer)(ie emissivity = 0) AND ALSO be perfectly black for wavelengths where the earth is absorbing sunlight (roughly 4.9 um and shorter). (Just like you could imagine a paint that perfectly absorbs red light, but perfectly reflects blue light.)
Two different sets of wavelengths; two different properties.
But suppose the earth somehow warmed to 5700 K. Now the wavelengths that the earth emits are the SAME as the wavelengths that the earth absorbs. Now the properties for both must be the same (know as Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation).
I didn’t quite finish before accidentally sending.
To continue, if earth is 5700 K and not emitting thermal radiation (emissivity = 0) it necessarily follows that the earth could not ABSORB thermal radiation from a 5700 K sun.
************************
Pierrehumbert’s comment that started all this is ambiguous.
* IF he truly literally meant “absorbing 1.22 x 10^17 J/s of solar power from our sun at 5700 K”, then his thought experiment is impossible, like Clint claims. An object cannot simultaneously absorb energy from a 5700 K surface and not emit energy from its own 5700 K surface.
* IF he only meant “absorbing 1.22 x 10^17 of generic energy from some source capable of “, then his thought experiment is possible (if a bit extreme).
Given that he is a smart fellow, I suspect that he knew these details but chose to go with a memorable ‘hook’.
Tim,
This is all getting pretty stupid. As I recollect, you acknowledge that you cannot raise a body to a higher temperature than the temperature of the source of heat. So, ice cannot be used to heat anything above the freezing point of water.
You need a source of 800,000 K to heat an object to 800,000 K.
CO2 cannot make anything hotter than the CO2 is. You cannot arbitrarily add fluxes (however defined) from atmospheric CO2, ice, or anything else to something emitted by an object of higher temperature. This is foolishness practised by alarmist donkeys, just like Pierrehumbert, who imagines he can accumulate heat from a 5800 K source, until it reaches 800,000 K!
Swenson, Re Pierrehumbert:
Pierrehumbert specifically said adding 1.22 x 10^17 J each second (without losing any) would lead to that 8,000,000 temperature. He did not specifically say the energy had to come to from the sun. So in a very narrow sense his numbers are accurate. In particular, the result that earth (not just the atmosphere) would start warming at a rate of 8,000,000K/1,000,000,000yr = 0.008 K/yr is legitimate.
I think the 8,000,000 K statement is silly and extravagantly hypothetical. I would never have started an article like that.
But nothing that follows depends on that statement. It merely illustrates that earth MUST be losing energy via thermal radiation, so understanding that thermal radiation is critical. Focusing on this as some ‘flaw’ in global warming theory is grasping at straws.
Swenson, Re the actual science you discuss here:
“As I recollect, you acknowledge that you cannot raise a body to a higher temperature than the temperature of the source of heat.”
Yes. Or more precisely, you cannot raise the temperature of an object higher than the HOTTEST source of energy. This is a requirement of the 2LoT.
Using only CO2 @-40 C, you cannot warm something above -40 C.
Using only ice @ 0C, you cannot warm something above 0 C.
Using only walls @ 20 C, you cannot warm something above 20 C.
Using only sunlight @ 5500 C, you cannot warm something above 5500 C
If you combine that CO2 & Ice are still theoretically limited to 0C
If you combine that Ice and more ice are still theoretically limited to 0C
If you combine that that Co2 & walls are still theoretically limited to 20 C.
If you combine that ice and sunlight are still theoretically limited to 5700 C.
“(however defined)”
“You cannot arbitrarily add fluxes (however defined)”
Sure you can. Defining “flux” as irradiance (the rate of energy hitting a surface), this can definitely be added. Turn on two lightbulbs and you add the fluxes to get twice the flux and a brighter surface. More energy is deposited from two lights than from one.
This is a dangerous statement and I object to anyone claiming certainty about anything they cannot or will not define.
“arbitrarily”
I also object to this word. Neither I nor any other scientist I know have never tried to do anything “arbitrarily”. We do things within the laws of physics (unless specifically relaxing some law to see what the consequences might be).
“You cannot … add [irradiance] from atmospheric CO2, ice, or anything else to something emitted by an object of higher temperature.”
This is the crux (of the flux). I say that clearly you still can.
If I haven’t lost you already, we could pick up this discussion later.
Another typing fest from desperate and pathetic Folkerts, filled with numerous errors. I’ll just mention a few glaring ones, since I have better things to do:
* The bogus temperature was 800,000K, not 8,000,000K. Try to at least get something right, Tim.
* “He did not specifically say the energy had to come to from the sun.” WRONG. He specifically used the solar constant, adjusted for albedo, of 960 W/m^2. Quit twisting reality.
* “If you combine that ice and sunlight are still theoretically limited to 5700 C.” WRONG. Sunlight’s max, after albedo, is 960 W/m^2. That corresponds to 361K. Ice will not raise the temperature of something at 361K, you idiot.
That’s enough for now.
Tim,
As to Pierrehumbert, if he doesnt have a heat source of 800,000 K, he cant heat anything to 800,000 K! You cant add any energy whatsoever to a hotter object from a colder one. Try adding the energy from ice to liquid water to raise its temperature. Try adding the energy from CO2 to sunlight at 5700 K to raise the temperature of the surface.
As to fluxes of any sort, you attempt to mislead again using visible light, presumably emitted by a heated object. Deceptive, of course. Take a nominal cold source like a neon tube, or common flouro lamp. Do you really think you can add the fluxes from numerous lights until the object being lit is so bright as to be blinding? Brighter than any single light source?
And you still cant produce your magical insulator which admits more energy in one direction, can you? It exists only in the imagination. Pity. Nobody would need refrigerators – just let more energy go from the contents to the surroundings. Or home heating – just let more energy in, than out.
Time for more analogies and misdirection, Tim.
Tim,
OK. You can indeed add numbers which represent fluxes, just like you can add temperatures. The result may be arithmetically correct, and completely meaningless.
Just like the energy balance cartoons of Trenberth and similar climate donkeys, 240 W/m2 from the sun is not the same qualitatively as 240 W/m2 from, say, CO2 in the atmosphere having a temperature less than the sun.
Or Pierrehumbert heating something to 800,000 K with a 5700 K source. Maybe his magical one way heat accumulator multiplies temperatures – all arithmetically correct of course. He is either a fool, a fraud, or sloppily incompetent.
Wrong again, Tim.
Your Earth at 5700K is also bogus. Obviously you’ve never heard of the Inverse-Square Law. The maximum solar, after albedo, is the 960 W/m^2 mentioned. That means the MAXIMUM temperature, for emissivity = 1, is 361K.
Clint, Obviously you have never heard of mirrors or lenses.
Wrong again, Tim.
I’m heard of shovels, also.
Keep digging that hole.
The “temperature” of sunlight starts out at 5700 K at the sun and remains 5700 K when it gets to the earth. More specifically, the spectrum retains the spectrum of 5700 K light. It does not change to the spectrum of 361K.
This means that the sunlight can, in principle, be used to warm an object up to (but not beyond) 5700 K. A simple magnifying glass lets you get well above 361K and ignite paper. A “selective surface” like I mentioned before is another way to get above 361 K.
Tim, you pathetic idiot, there is NO magnifying glass that can raise Earth’s temperature to 5800K!
Keep shoveling.
Dear ClintR, Tim just agreed to that.
Silly snowflake Svante, Tim just doesn’t know how to round numbers.
And you know nothing about the science involved.
Effective temperature: 5772 K
(Delete the “**” from link before clicking.)
https://nssd**c.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html
Yes I see, he low-balled the warming potential.
Lying ain’t much of a legacy, snowflake.
He said 5700 K and you said 5800 K.
Which is lower?
Which is correct, snowflake?
ScottR
[When the earth is passing between the sun and Jupiter, the vector is pointed out into the night sky. When the Jupiter is at opposition, the vector is pointed near the sun.]
Jupiter is at opposition when the earth is passing directly between the sun and Jupiter. Roughly 6 1/2 months later, it is on the opposite side of the sun – conjunction.
*****
My thinking now is that Earths orbital path is constantly changing – influenced by the ever changing locations of all the bodies in the solar system.
In the distant future, maybe hundreds or thousands of years from now, the current relationship of sun/planets will be seen again, at which time Earths ellipse will be the same shape as it is now. Milankovitch cycle?
Just a guess.
Snape technically when we say conjunction or opposition it is relative to the observer on earth. Sun / Earth / Jupiter = conjunction. Earth / Sun / Jupiter = opposition.
I agree with you 100%. The earth’s path is constantly changing… unless a model takes into account every speck of matter in the solar system, it is not going to be accurate, which opens up another can of worms. Where is the “dark matter” located?
Scott,
Snape is correct and you have got it the wrong way around.
Opposition means the planet is in the opposite direction to the sun as seen from the earth i.e.sun/earth/jupiter while conjunction means conjunction between the planet and the sun, i,e. jupiter/sun/earth.
Jupiter is closest to the earth at opposition. It is also why jupiter at opposition rises at sunset,is at maximum altitude at midnight and sets at sunrise.
At conjunction Jupiter is aligned with the sun and rises and sets with the sun.
*******************************************************************************
JDTDB, Calendar Date (TDB), LT, RG, RR,
**************************************************************************************************************************
$$SOE
2459130.500000000, A.D. 2020-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.770690293841379E-03, 9.991640512039697E-01, -2.814990122307250E-04,
2459495.500000000, A.D. 2021-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.771377855392774E-03, 9.992830987962268E-01, -2.893769802015197E-04,
2459860.500000000, A.D. 2022-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.771622305930904E-03, 9.993254240948585E-01, -2.899141255925057E-04,
2460225.500000000, A.D. 2023-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.772160868247537E-03, 9.994186732693441E-01, -2.815848716824268E-04,
2460591.500000000, A.D. 2024-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.770932218344635E-03, 9.992059391332210E-01, -2.928875088390927E-04,
2460956.500000000, A.D. 2025-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.771102166643493E-03, 9.992353647690003E-01, -2.849328543736172E-04,
2461321.500000000, A.D. 2026-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.771855559513092E-03, 9.993658107006665E-01, -2.826036964183679E-04,
2461686.500000000, A.D. 2027-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.772034795303292E-03, 9.993968444157226E-01, -2.932921276961186E-04,
2462052.500000000, A.D. 2028-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.770499966006775E-03, 9.991310969609594E-01, -2.820356346028253E-04,
2462417.500000000, A.D. 2029-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.771234126662076E-03, 9.992582129379455E-01, -2.875776405478936E-04,
2462782.500000000, A.D. 2030-Oct-08 00:00:00.0000, 5.771611881031208E-03, 9.993236190794301E-01, -2.921465624865441E-04,
$$EOE
**************************************************************************************************************************
Coordinate system description:
Ecliptic at the standard reference epoch
Reference epoch: J2000.0
X-Y plane: adopted Earth orbital plane at the reference epoch
Note: obliquity of 84381.448 arcseconds (IAU76) wrt ICRF equator
X-axis : ICRF
Z-axis : perpendicular to the X-Y plane in the directional (+ or -) sense
of Earth’s north pole at the reference epoch.
Symbol meaning [1 au= 149597870.700 km, 1 day= 86400.0 s]:
JDTDB Julian Day Number, Barycentric Dynamical Time
LT One-way down-leg Newtonian light-time (day)
RG Range; distance from coordinate center (au)
RR Range-rate; radial velocity wrt coord. center (au/day)
Geometric states/elements have no aberrations applied.
Computations by …
Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Information : https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
Documentation: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons_doc
Connect : https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons (browser)
telnet ssd.jpl.nasa.gov 6775 (command-line)
e-mail command interface available
Script and CGI interfaces available
Author : [email protected]
*******************************************************************************
Wrong place, ephemeris for Scott R.
Svante,
I’m going to need some help understanding what this is. Could you put the data into an excel document, label each data with units, and post a google link? If not it is totally fine. I don’t expect you to give me a lesson on planetary orbital dynamics. I can at least see from the data that it is not constant year over year, and the % change is small. This is what I expect. Tiny changes causing tipping points between 2 earth modes as the earth bounces back and forth from 2 equilibrium levels factoring in all the feedbacks on the way up and down.
I wonder how they can even write these models without knowing how much “dark matter” is in the solar system, and where it is.
I think you can do it yourself.
You have the column headers at the top and the explanations at the bottom. Use the AU range.
I took one set of values per year for ten years.
Radiation drops by the square of the distance.
Remember to divide by four (the area/cross section ratio),
and subtract 30% albedo.
There’s no dark matter to worry about in this calculation.
Thanks Svante, this looks to be very interesting. I will cut and paste your info to my note pad, examine it further. It is nice when others do the heavy lifting for you… as long as you can prove it’s accurate. If dark matter did exist, it should matter (haha) but I don’t think it does. Most likely the dark forces holding the galaxy together are plasma / electric / magnetic.
Good joke there!
It could matter there were heavy dark matter blobs inside the solar system. I don’t think so because NASA have not had any unexplained misses lately. An external force would act similarly on the planets and the Sun.
Follow Fasciola’s instruction if you need more data.
Svante, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535501
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
Hurricane Delta is approaching Texas.
ScottR
https://tinyurl.com/y4ru7xbp
https://tinyurl.com/yawa76hu
Yes sorry Snape you are correct. I get mixed up due to the definition of where the observer is and my last comment did not help. lol
Tim
Tim
An object cannot simultaneously absorb energy from a 5700 K surface and not emit energy from its own 5700 K surface.
Huh?
No more impossible than any other temperature.
Whoops.
I hit send before editing.
Couple of things. The orbits of all the planets are chaotic. You might just as well assume they are regular, because chaos is unpredictable. Really. The interactions between more than two bodies subject to gravity are also chaotic. Sometimes cycles seem to be present for long periods of time, but stop. Sometimes the opposite. Chaos rules, so make whatever assumptions you feel are best.
As to bodies (black, grey, brindle, whatever), a body does not have to emit as much radiation as it receives. A block of concrete on the ground, for example. It gets hotter, it gets colder. When it receives more energy than it emits, its temperature increases, and vice versa. Even though it lies in the rays of the 5800 K sun, it will not accumulate energy. It will never reach 5800 K.
Presumably, the purveyors of this nonsense think they are talking about thermal equilibrium, and its relationship to the definition of temperature. No thermal equilibrium on the Earths surface, and the temperature rises and falls.
Put an insulator between the surface and the sun, and it wont even get as hot as without the insulation. No amount of cunning word play and irrelevant analogies can overcome reality.
As to hotter than it otherwise would be, that is nonsense. For example there is a figure of 33 K bandied about. This would mean seas and lakes would be frozen right through, and somehow ice exposed to the full rays of the tropical sun would remain frozen. Only NASA climate donkeys and their ilk promote such fables.
Science? You must be joking!
Swenson,
I agree… unless we someday record every spec of matter in the universe, there will always be some chaos.
I do think it is interesting to look at the 3 largest amplitude forcers when analyzing systems and cycles. That allows for predictions to be made. In the case of the solar system, Jupiter’s movement around the sun is likely forcer #1. Jupiter’s movement between aphelion and perihelion is forcer #2 as surprisingly it has more of an effect than Saturn itself. Saturn’s location is forcer #3. All three of these seem to be the cause of the 60 year cycle.
To my surprise, there also seems to be a strong signal at 42 years, which corresponds to 1/2 Uranus orbit. According to my calculations, Uranus should not be that important, but there clearly is a 42 year cycle. Maybe Uranus can combine with Jupiter at perihelion even if it is at opposition… similar to how the moon creates 2 high tides.
Delta generates heavy rainfall and thunderstorms from Texas to Alabama.
KHOU 11 News Houston:
“HAPPENING NOW: Rain, wind, & high waves! That’s what we’re seeing this morning on GalvestonIsland – all effects of Hurricane Delta as it approaches our neighbors to the east. Can’t believe we were here in this exact spot covering TS Beta less than 3wks ago.”
Tim Folkerts makes up his own personalized “physics”, again!
Upthread, Tim claims an object warmed by sunlight to a temperature of 273K, will increase in temperature to 325K, if ice is added. IOW, he claims ice adds to sunlight!
Tim Folkerts, making up nonsense: “And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he [sic] final temperature would still be 325 K.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534856
He does it with a made-up (bogus) equation: (Tf )^4 = (T1)^4 + (T2)^4, his calculation looks like this:
(Tf )^4 = (273)^4 + (273)^4 = 5,554,571,841 + 5,554,571,841
Tf = (11109143682)^0.25
Tf = 324.65 ~ 325K
Of course, no such equation exists in science. Tim is perverting a perverted equation. As we so often see with the idiots, they have great imaginations, but little knowledge of physics, and zero appreciation for reality.
So how does a layperson know who is right?
If a layperson can think for himself, a quick example will be all he needs.
Assume Tim is correct, the object will now be at 325 K, after adding ice. Then, add more ice! Does the temperature then go to 359K? How about adding even more ice? The bogus equation yields invalid results. If Tim were correct, the polar ice caps, and all glaciers would have melted a long time ago.
You can’t make-up things and pervert reality, except in cults. (Notce that not one cult member will jump in to chastise Tim. In fact, we can expect one or more to support his nonsense!)
EQUATION 1) My first “made up” equation is that when a steady state has been reached and the temperature is stable, then
P(out) = P(in)
EQUATION 2) My next “made up” equation is that when two sets of photons are absorbed by an object, then the total power from the two sets is the sum of the two powers.
P(in) = P(in,1) + P(in,2)
In this case there are 300 W/m^2 worth of photons hitting the object coming from a wall of ice, P(in,1) = 300 W/m^2, and there are P(in,2) =300 W/m^2 worth of photons from a star. We have postulated that the object is a black body, so we know all of these photons are indeed absorbed.
EQUATION 3) The final “made up” equation is the that power radiated out from an object is given by the SB Law
P(out) = (sigma)T^4
Combining gives the simple, elegant, incontrovertible conclusion that for an object at a steady temperature losing energy only by radiation:
(sigma)T^4 = P(in,1) + P(in,2)
So for our object out in deep space:
With only ice and no sun, (sigma)T^4 = 300 W/m^2 + 0 W/m^2
T = 273 K
With no ice and only sun, (sigma)T^4 = 0 W/m^2 + 300 W/m^2
T = 273 K
With both ice and sun sun, (sigma)T^4 = 300 W/m^2 + 300 W/m^2
T = 325 K
All standard equations. All very simple to follow.
Tim, you need to take a basic college course in physics. Your mistakes are pathetic.
In your 2nd made-up equation, you’re adding power. Power does NOT add. Energy is conserved, power is not.
I refuse to try to teach physics to an idiot, but you’re essentially trying to add two liters of water, both at the same temperature, and claiming the temperature increases!
I’ll be anxiously awaiting your next typing exercise where you continue to make an idiot out of yourself.
Power is energy per second. The entire discussion could be reframed in terms of “energy in one second”.
… when two sets of photons are absorbed by an object for one second, then the total ENERGY during that second from the two sets is the sum of the two energies.
E(in) = E(in,1) + E(in,2)
Similarly for the other parts. Whether we are talking about “energy in one second” or “energy per second”, energy is conserved. And energy conservation does indeed cover the concepts I was discussing. More energy absorbed in one second means more energy emitted in one second in steady state.
” you’re essentially trying to add two liters of water, both at the same temperature, and claiming the temperature increases!”
Nope! not at all. In the original problem, the “object” has some fixed mass (the mass of the earth if we are going ALL the way back to the original, but it could just be 1 liter of water in some thin plastic shell). We are not adding one more mass; we are not dumping a second earth in with the first; we are not adding more warm water to warm water. We are adding energy to water; adding energy to a planet. You are adding water with energy to water with energy and somehow thinking that is a proper analogy. It is not. Sorry.
Restating: the problem at hand involves adding and removing energy without adding or removing mass. You are trying to equate that to a situation where you are adding energy along with adding mass. They just are not equivalent. The are not even “essentially” the same. In their essence, they are different.
You are clearly never going to accept anything I say (even though it is all in agreement with textbook physics). Even if I say 1+1 = 2 (or 300 + 300 = 600) you will assume I am wrong and come up with some explanation why. I would encourage you to go to any local university’s physics department and show them our discussion. See what they say.
Tim, “power” is NOT conserved. “Power” and “energy” are NOT the same. Flux (power/area) is an intensive property, as is temperature. Energy is an extensive property.
I used the example of adding the equal one-liter bottles of water, but you couldn’t understand the analogy. When the liters of water are combined, the mass doubles, but the temperature remains the same. Extensive properties add, Intensive properties do NOT add. You simply don’t have the background to understand even the basics.
Your cult requires you to believe that sunlight plus ice is warmer than just sunlight alone, so you believe it. I can’t teach physics to an idiot.
Tim,
Unfortunately, you obviously dont understand that, generally, photons from ice cannot be absorbed by hot water. You share with the climate donkeys (some highly intelligent, wonderfully credentialed, and stupid beyond belief), the fantasy that you can somehow force hot bodies to become even hotter, using radiation from a colder body.
Stop fantasising. Try an experiments or two. Use sunlight and ice in any order you like, and heat an object to more than the temperature of the sun. Use a magnifying glass if you wish.
Or why not just add the radiation from cold ice to the radiation from some warmer ice to melt some colder or warmer ice? Because it is impossible, thats why! You should dance a donkey duet with Pierrehumbert.
Swenson says:
Ha ha ha, good one!
The intelligent photon U-turn!
Silly Svante, are you suggesting that a photon has more intelligence than an idiot snowflake cult member?
You may be on to something….
S,
Ha ha ha, good one!
Alarmist donkey tries bizarre diversion. Doesnt want to accept reality. Try heating water using ice. Gee, talk your way around that! Hee haw, donkey.
Two strawmen responding!
It’s more like two different ways of showing how stupid a silly snowflake can be.
Swenson, I’ll leave you with one point to ponder.
Can a 10 um IR photon be absorbed by -10 C ice? By 10 C water? By 50 C water? By 100C water? (Hint, Wien’s law equates 10 um to 17 C.).
Does it matter whether that photon came from -10 C ice or 10 C water or 50 C water or 100 C water? Does it matter if it came from a CO2 laser that can weld steel?
All 10 um photons are identical. The source cannot influence whether the photon gets absorbed!
You need to wrap your head around this and be able to give a simple explanation for the circumstances for which a specific photon (or set of photons) will or will not get absorbed.
Tim, you’re having trouble with physics, again.
A 10μ photon will have trouble being absorbed by a surface much hotter than 17C, because most of the molecules in the surface will have vibrations/rotations of higher frequency than the photon.
But, if it somehow gets absorbed, it’s frequency would lower, not raise, the surface average temperature. Energy was added to the surface, but it did not have the “right stuff”. It’s analogous to adding ice to a cup of coffee. Energy was added, but the temperature of the coffee did not rise.
ClintR breaking new ground in physics, brilliant!
Thank you, snowflake. But, I can’t take credit for concepts established years ago by others. I’m just happy to share what I’ve learned.
You should try learning some time.
Citation please!
Certainly.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535885
Like I said, original work by the genius ClintR.
Again silly Svante, I humbly acknowledge the contributions of many others. I’m merely relating their genius.
Split personality, you cited yourself.
Wow snowflake! You can’t even follow a simple blog string. No wonder you’re so easily conned.
Goes back to that old saying “There’s a sucker born every minute”.
I can, it was here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536019
Svante, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535501
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
“In your 2nd made-up equation, youre adding power. Power does NOT add. Energy is conserved, power is not.”
He said nothing about consevation of power, doltus maximus.
His point is apt, intensities striking the same point on a surface do indeed SUM.
And intensities are simply power per unit area.
Troll Nate proves me right:
“You can’t make-up things and pervert reality, except in cults. (Notce that not one cult member will jump in to chastise Tim. In fact, we can expect one or more to support his nonsense!)”
Which cult member will be next?
Im in the real physics cult.
Nate,
Focus two beams of concentrated sunlight (5700 K or so), on an object. Or 200. Or 2000.
Try and heat your object above 5700 K. Cant be done. It took an Einstein to figure out why.
Or concentrate the IR from some ice, and use it to try to melt some other ice. Focus 300 W from 1m2 into 1cm2. Now the intensity is 300 x 100 x 100 / m2. Nope. Still cant use it to melt ice. Bad luck.
ClintR says 5700 K is wrong, he says 5800 K.
S,
What do you think? Or are you just trolling?
You are wrong and ClintR is right, it’s about 5,778 K.
The silly snowflake Svante is just trolling. That’s all he ever does. It’s not much of a legacy, but it’s all he’s got.
“Approximately 23% of direct incident radiation of total sunlight is removed from the direct solar beam by scattering into the atmosphere; of this amount (of incident radiation) about two-thirds ultimately reaches the earth as photon diffused skylight radiation.”
Simple question for Clint and Swenson:
If the direct sunlight produces visible light intensity, Is, on the ground, and the diffuse sky radiation produces visible light intensity, Id, on the ground, what is the total visible light intensity, It, on the ground?
Nate the phrasing of your indicates your confusion. And, we know you can’t understand physics. So this is just for anyone else that happens by.
In general if there are two different fluxes arriving a surface, the stronger flux wins out. It’s as if the weaker flux isn’t even there.
Ha ha ha, another breakthrough in theoretical physics by our own climate clown ClintR.
“Climate clown”?
Poor silly snowflake Svante’s world must be caving in on him. He so trusted the AGW fraudsters. And now the hoax is unraveling right in his face.
That’s a new one:
“It’s as if the weaker flux isn’t even there.”
S,
I said 5700 K or so. Anybody claiming to measure the temperature of the Suns surface to 1K, is guilty of measurebation, or being intentionally deceptive. But, hey, alarmists claim to be able to measure constantly changing and turbulent sea surface levels to less than the thickness of a human hair!
What a pack of donkeys!
Don’t kill the messenger, talk to ClintR about that.
Alright, Clint Swenson seem to need a hint.
No the weaker one doesnt vanish, that would be a weird new concept in physics.
The intensities add.
It = Id + Is.
Yep, all of the radiation from the sky contributes to warming the planet.
Nate,
Try adding the radiation from ice to your hot soup to make it hotter. Use as much ice as you want.
Try making the sky blue without the sun.
Donkey dreams, not reality.
Not talking about soup. Try to focus. What say you about flux from sky and sun? Do they add? Or you think one of them somehow doesnt count?
We seem to have lost Clint. He’s gone silent.
Does Clint think really think that flux coming from the sky, whether in visible or IR, doesnt add to flux from direct sunlight?
Does he really think the weaker flux simply doesnt count, vanishes, goes down a rabbit hole or what?
Does he really think that is consistent with physics?
Maybe he should find a link to a textbook that can back that up.
Nate, I think he gave the game away there, he can’t be that stupid. He is very good at stirring people up, but once in while he goes a bit too far.
Similarly with DREMT, he knows exactly when he has to stop answering and go into a loop. So he knows he is wrong.
The question is what the purpose is. Is it to trash this blog, so that no one can make any sense of it? The PST messages are certainly in line with that, and they seem to fool some gullible people too.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Svante,
Do you know anyone who has the manual to the troll – model number PST2000?
In particular I need to know how to reset it.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
“once in awhile he goes to far”
Yeah that is on the rare occasion that he tries to actually talk science. Then he reveals his supreme ignorance and weird thinking.
He seems to have actually learned that it is safer just to sling insults.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-535501
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Svante and Nate.
I have wondered what motivates DREM et al.. Some are clearly unhinged in their desire to create the totally new field of Revisionist Physics, but could some of them be “false flag” trolls?
They are doing such a good job at discrediting the climate change denial commentariat that one has to suspect this might be their real motive . Either that or they are too stupid to realise the collateral damage they are doing.
In the end it is hard to know, so I will probably go with the less conspiratorial ” too stupid” option for the moment.
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
‘False flag’ IDK about that, but if these guys are supposed to be representing the denialist TEAM, the best they can offer, then the denialist side has big big marketing problems.
Its like they hired Snoop Dogg to sell toothpaste,
the three stooges to sell Fidelity investments,
Donald Trump to sell steaks, college, or MENSA.
Nate you left out:
Joe Biden to sell influence.
No Bill, Joe has little chance as Trump cornered the market in influence peddling, running the US government as a franchise of Trump Inc..
You can find a partial list of Trump’s corruption here –
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-so-far-atrocities-1-923
MikeR says:
No Bill,
============================
Yeah I have to admit to he really botched the whole deal.
MikeR says:
Well they do check of Roy’s arguments makes skeptics look bad:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
They do increase the confusion, as in the the tobacco industry quote: “doubt is our product”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product
They also match the russian MO:
https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/05/exposing-russian-information-operations-does-not-violate.html
Like you say, it could be some psychological issue.
Like this guy: https://tinyurl.com/yyv2oue2
Anyway, the PST messages are either juvenile or insane.
Svante says:
Well they do check of Roys arguments makes skeptics look bad:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
They do increase the confusion, as in the the tobacco industry quote: doubt is our product.
============================
Yep have to find blame. Let me tell you that tobacco advertising never influenced me to smoke. I smoked for 25 years fully knowing the risks. Why? Because I enjoyed it. I finally quit 30 years ago. Why? Because I was beginning to not enjoy it.
On the Greenhouse Theory I disagree somewhat with Roy. I recognize that the ‘science’ theory on the GHE is plausible but that a great deal of the propaganda arising out even the science community isn’t plausible either.
Such is the nature of politics. Claiming it isn’t effective is simply not recognizing how effective it is. Its interesting how you started out with ”doubt is our product”. . . .well what is the difference between that and ”certainty is our product”?
First I hate politics. The ultimate solution though isn’t fighting politics with politics, its resolving the science issues at hand.
On Roy’s points I think Roy is mostly wrong. Let me take it point by point. In three parts:
1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
Roy argues: ”Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored.”
I don’t think there is any non-political argument against downwelling IR, the argument as I see it is the downwelling IR just is a characteristic of a warm climate, not necessarily the cause of it. When you say ”effect” you are suggesting the downwelling IR is the cause of the warming.
The argument Roy is really advancing here is that the greenhouse capabilities of CO2 are both necessary and sufficient to explain the greenhouse effect. I disagree. I believe its necessary, detectable, but I am leaning toward it being insufficient.
So what we have here mostly is folks saying one thing and others hearing another thing, not a denial of science.
2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Roy argues: ”The second law can be stated in several ways. . . ., But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body.”
Roy is arguing an insulation model, yet the way its presented to the public its presented as a ‘forcing’ on the climate system vs a ‘resistance’ to the loss of heat by the climate system.
This is the fault of the climate science community that simply doesn’t want to simply clearly argue how the sun will warm the surface instead of CO2 death rays, back radiation and all that squishy theoretical stuff about light that even Einstein wouldn’t completely buy.
For the science community it seems better to invent a forcing against the commonly held idea of a force, instead of going purely with the insulation model of resistance instead. It politically Better to advance some idea of of CO2 being some kind of death ray.
3. CO2 CANT CAUSE WARMING BECAUSE CO2 EMITS IR AS FAST AS IT ABSORBS.
Roy argues: ”No. When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, the mean free path within the atmosphere is so short that the molecule gives up its energy to surrounding molecules before it can (on average) emit an IR photon in its temporarily excited state.”
I would just point out that Roy is arguing that CO2 warms the atmosphere, by collisions with other molecules not the surface.
4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE.
Roy more or less concedes the point here: ”This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.”
Sounds like he is going for a neutral effect.
5. ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE THE CO2 ABSOR-PTION BANDS ARE ALREADY 100% OPAQUE. First, no they are not, and thats because of pressure broadening. Second, even if the atmosphere was 100% opaque, it doesnt matter. Heres why.
6. LOWER ATMOSPHERIC WARMTH IS DUE TO THE LAPSE RATE/ADIABATIC COMPRESSION. No, the lapse rate describes how the temperature of a parcel of air changes from adiabatic compression/expansion of air as it sinks/rises. So, it can explain how the temperature changes during convective overturning, but not what the absolute temperature is. Explaining absolute air temperature is an energy budget question. You cannot write a physics-based equation to obtain the average temperature at any altitude without using the energy budget. If adiabatic compression explains temperature, why is the atmospheric temperature at 100 mb is nearly the same as the temperature at 1 mb, despite 100x as much atmospheric pressure? More about all this here.
Roy is simply expressing a scientifically popular view of causation and arguing against the gas law advocates.
Gee I think both groups make mistakes. So I am sort of an equal opportunity guy on this and point to the points above as support.
But thats kind of a true argument being used to falsify all possible arguments.
Nothing unusual all warmists, including luke warmists do that.
Logic obviously isn’t taught in detail as a rigid standard in applied science as it is in a logic major. That would be a good improvement to the science curriculum in my view.
7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in todays temperature causing this CO2 rise? Cmon people, think. But not to worryCO2 is the elixir of lifelets embrace more of it!
I agree completely with Roy on this one as this is undoubtedly true that mankind is enhancing CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a really bad skeptic argument that I hear a few people make. One can argue over the proportions but thats it.
8. THE IPCC MODELS ARE FOR A FLAT EARTH I have no explanation where this little tidbit of misinformation comes from.
I won’t comment on this one, beyond saying that ‘flat earth’ is clearly a bad analogy. But bad analogies seem to be somewhat endemic on both sides. Like the analogy between rigid insulation and atmospheric insulation.
9. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE Really?!
Roy argues: Statistics are real! LMAO! No they are a step beyond empiricism. Very useful but not real.
10. THE EARTH ISNT A BLACK BODY. Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, its close to a blackbody, with an average emissivity of around 0.95. But whether a climate model uses 0.95 or 1.0 for surface emissivity isnt going to change the conclusions we make about the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing carbon dioxide.
Roy is generally right here. But understanding emissivity particularly in the atmosphere could be critical to understanding how temperature might vary. So your mileage might vary and its a legitimate concern that certainly deserves more consideration than a handwave.
It’s clear that Roy believes that the greenhouse model is correct. It fits best with everything he has learned. I can respect that. And I still accept it as a plausible theory.
But sometimes those kinds of things like Newtonian physics are only good approximate measurements of what is versus being the substance of what is. Often finding true causes is very difficult in the face of only perceiving the results and lacking controlled experimentation. Einstein succeeded to break that barrier by noticing that the natural world would provide the needed experiment.
Roy should open up his mind a bit here like he has for creationism. Roy is very unfairly beaten up for that and was just in this thread again by yet another bigot, but maintaining skepticism and holding to a strong moral dogma does provide for a healthy foundation. Evidence of that fact is demonstrated every single day.
What makes humans so much better than machines is they are so imaginative. . . .like Einstein. Quite honestly the sum of our knowledge still has many closed doors and we should revere those who choose to look and believe past them.
There is way too much selective reverence that goes on in this world and that includes a belief in experts that have no legally binding incentive to treat us fairly. We have enough problems with those experts who do have those obligations; but overall that belief remains well founded.
Svante says:
Russia aims to create confusion, foment distrust of all institutions, and deepen discord on just about every contentious topic, including national debates on race, immigration, policing gun control, and other issues. Russian efforts seek to amplify extreme positions, often magnifying dissonance and aggravating divisions by promoting the polar expressions of both sides of the issue.
Like you say, it could be some psychological issue.
Like this guy: https://tinyurl.com/yyv2oue2
Anyway, the PST messages are either juvenile or insane.
=====================
Svante please stop trolling.
I wasn’t trolling, but I can stop here anyway.
You make skeptics look bad.
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
Juvenile or imbecile?
Which is it?
Svante please stop trolling
Thanks, bill. Saved me the trouble.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Thanks, bill. Saved me the trouble.
==========================================
Your welcome DREMT.
“Focus two beams of concentrated sunlight.”
Sure, most of have focussed sunlight onto a piece of paper and made it burn.
Certainly not getting anywhere near 5800 K.
Thus if you focus two or three beams the intensity will be two or three times the intensity of one, and it will be hotter, but still nowhere near 5800K.
And the solar thermal power plants use thousands of mirrors to focus sunlight on the furnace. Still not reaching near 5800 K.
Hmmm, why?
Nate,
You are accepting reality. Good. No flux addition or multiplication can exceed the temperature of the source.
As to your other question, try focussing the light from the blue sky, and see what maximum temperature you can get. Its not that simple, as clear blue poleward sky (according to Wikipedia) can have a colour temperature of 27,000 K or so. Not enough to melt ice, generally. Oh well.
“colour temperature of 27,000 K or so. Not enough to melt ice, generally. Oh well.”
Relevance to the discussion?
None.
But glad to see you agree that fluxes SUM.
“No flux addition or multiplication can exceed the temperature of the source.”
Sure, but the situation with sunlight shining on the Earth is that we never get anywhere near the source temperature of 5800 K, because the sun is so far away. We get 240 W/m^2 on average from the sun, which corresponds to a blackbody temperature of 255 K.
So there is plenty of room for the addition of flux from the sky to contribute to the total. It = Isun + Isky
Thus if the background sky is at some average emission temperature as seen from the Earths surface, say 230 K, such that it produces, Isky = 160 W/m^2. Then
It = 240 W/m^2 +160 W/m^2 = 400 W/m^2. ANd that corresponds to a surface temp of 289 K.
Nate,
Dont be an ignorant donkey. Why do you think the blue sky gets energy from some other source than the sun?
You are saying that the energy from the sun, plus more energy from the sun, is greater than the energy from the sun! Sounds like NASA reasoning. NASA obviously has its share of ignorant donkeys.
How do you think GHGs make the Earth hotter, when they are cooler than the surface? Magic?
Oh well, two sources of light is clearly beyond your comprehension.
How bout this?
1. If the Earth was closer to the sun, half the current distance. By how much would the suns intensity increase?
2. Or alternatively, like in some starx wars mvies, suppose we had more than one sun in the sky. Lets say 4. By how much would the light intensity increase? For simplicity suppose they are all at the same angle above the horizon?
Nate,
So the blue sky comes from some other source than the sun? Obviously not, so you divert to Star Wars.
Typical alarmist not-very-bright donkey tactics.
Looks like you are unable to answer basic questions, and have no alternative but to troll.
One more try:
Talking about the IR emitted from a sky that has been warmed by the sun to an equivalent SB temperature of 230 K.
What specifically in my post do you disagree with:
“So there is plenty of room for the addition of flux from the sky to contribute to the total. It = Isun + Isky”
This a valid equation or not? Why not?
“Thus if the background sky is at some average emission temperature as seen from the Earths surface, say 230 K, such that it produces, Isky = 160 W/m^2.”
This a correct calculation of what the sky emits or not?
“It = 240 W/m^2 +160 W/m^2 = 400 W/m^2. ANd that corresponds to a surface temp of 289 K.”
This correct calculation or not? Why not?
Nate says:
It = 240 W/m^2 +160 W/m^2 = 400 W/m^2. ANd that corresponds to a surface temp of 289 K.
This correct calculation or not? Why not?
=============================
Yes it is correct. Why is it correct Nate? And what does it prove?
It proves that light intensity from multiple sources striking the same surface do indeed add. In this case IR intensity from the sky adds to the direct solar intensity, and both warm the surface.
And it proves that Clint’s fake physics is indeed totally wrong.
Thank you Bill.
N,
X + y = z. Valid equation? So 3 + 4 = 18. Hee haw.
Donkey. The blue sky is a result of part of the Suns radiation being scattered. No extra energy. Your IR from the blue sky doesnt exist. Visible blue is not infrared. Only the shorter wavelengths are scattered. Basic physics, although you wont believe me.
Swensons brain this morning sez: hmmm what do do? Strawman or red herring?
Maybe a combo, followed by right hook with The Donkey.
Same every day.
Or maybe go with straight up BS. Yeah.
“No IR from a blue sky”
Riight..
“Your IR from the blue sky doesnt exist. Visible blue is not infrared.”
Another tactic, feigned ignorance.
Did you miss this part:
”
Thus if the background sky is at some average emission temperature as seen from the Earths surface, say 230 K, such that it produces, Isky = 160 W/m^2.”
For the perpetually confused, the 160 W/m^2 is IR.
And yes it comes from the sky, even though it is ALSO emitting blue visible light.
I realize that two types of light emitted from the same place is difficult for you to imagine or accept, but it is what it is.
My word! I didn’t expect “+0.57 deg” to prompt so many inane and off-topic comments. I really wish the trolls and counter-trolls would cease and desist.
Dr. Spencer, please have your web designer duplicate the body value in the name=”” attribute of the enclosing block, so we can use a CSS extension to effectively filter out trolls and counter-trolls from these threads. Without a way to control the cruft, these threads become a huge tl;dr nightmare.
WizGeek, trolls can be annoying but Dr. Spencer may have a purpose in allowing their comments. The AGW issue is not about science. The science was settled long ago–“cold” cannot warm “hot”.
The issue is about politics. So by letting the trolls have a voice here allows people to learn what they are about. In the few months I have been commenting here, I have learned a great deal. I did not realize how fanatical they can be.
Offering your opinion, as you did, is not really trolling. But if you want the discussion to include only science, you might want to contribute in that way. But, that’s just my opinion.
Fruit for thought about self-moderating:
“if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency.”
“…the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time.”
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 7:48 AM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 8:18 AM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 8:42 AM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 9:40 AM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 10:42 AM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 10:44 AM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 11:32 AM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 1:15 PM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 2:44 PM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 3:14 PM
Snape says:
October 8, 2020 at 3:15 PM
What you see here is the low IQ posters thinking the one with the last post in the circular ass debate is the winner
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
Eben, your description is eerily familiar. It seems to describe one of the posters to a T. I will try and recall his name.
While I cogitate, I seem to recall his amazingly stubborn insistence
on getting the last word in.
Also I recall that he leaves Snape in his wake when it comes to rapid fire PSTs (8 times in 7 minutes).
MikeR,
I am sure the anonymous poster, whose name you are trying so desperately to recollect, will wonder how you know his IQ.
Maybe you could look up the name which you noted while you obsessively recorded his amazingly stubborn Insistence, and rapid fire PSTs (whatever they may be).
Did you attend Troll University, or does trolling come naturally to you?
You havent found a testable GHE hypothesis, have you? Or Trenberths missing heat? How about Gavin Schmidts science qualifications?
Hee haw!
Swenson, are you missing some items? Someone may may have nicked them. Maybe your local Cash Converters will have a used GHE.
I will also search for them under my bed. If I find them I would personally deliver them, but I don’t want to go into quarantine for 2 weeks up your way, especially as the wet season approaches.
If you are in a hurry, maybe you could ask Google to look for them. It’s a very powerful search engine and I understand it can be useful for locating missing items. As some old codger once said. “Seek and thee shall find”.
As for this Troll University you are referring to, can you provide more details? Is there a troll on admission or is it free?
MikeR,
You seem confused. No wet season, just spring, with summer coming, as usual. No quarantine. As to Troll University, I know nothing about it. I was curious if you are a natural troll, or had some sort of special training.
I know you cannot produce a testable GHE hypothesis – I was just having a laugh at your expense. Carry on trolling.
Swenson,
More details about your alma mater please. Did you major in sock puppetry? Honours come loudly?
By the way, I located the GHE. It wasn’t difficult to find. It was hiding in plain sight all along. First entry in Google (what did they teach you at school?).
https://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/
Swansong,
I see you had a fair bit of rain up your way a couple of days ago,
I would have thought you would realise , being so on the ball, that LaNina brings an early start to the wet season to the Territory.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/rainfall-onset/#tabs=Normal-onset
Do you ever get out or are you glued to your computer?
Mike, I didn’t know they relaxed quarantine rules a day or two ago. Thanks for the info. Maybe I will run into you at Mindil beach.
MikeR,
You seem to be living in fantasy land. I am not in the *Territory*, wherever you think I may be. In my part of the world, we have four seasons. It is spring now. Temp forecast to max 30 over the next few days, dropping to 25 after. Your clairvoyance lessons were wasted.
Your quarantine comments baffle me. Do you think I am someone called Mike?
Your stupid and irrelevant link is nonsensical. Your anonymous author repeats some of the climate donkeys wishful thinking. No GHE. The surface cools quite nicely in the absence of sunlight.
So, no testable GHE hypothesis. Not from anyone. Carry on dreaming.
Sure thing Swens-nong,
You just do an amazing impersonation of an idiot who used to post here using the same catch phrases and you do keep identical hours (like clockwork), However it seems you have relocated from Darwin to somewhere cooler where the climate is less onerous.
Being a refugee is nothing to be ashamed of.
Sweeney. With regards to the testable GHE hypothesis.
You might need to elaborate. Are you thinking of a lab based experiment or something more global?
Let’s start with a lab style experiment.
Part 1. For a lab based experiment you might need CO2 at high pressure to simulate the atmospheric column of CO2. This may cause pressure broadening of the a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n bands and invalidate the experiment.
As methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas it could be used instead. I am sure it is an abundant resource in your vicinity. You could relieve your abdominal distension at the same time as supplying the methane.
So find an enclosed space, maybe a glass house and let them rip. Please ensure there are no naked flames present. If you find you need supplementation, baked beans should help. However you may need an abundant supply so you should apply for some grant money to help financially. I am sure the GWPF organisation would be happy to be of assistance and could be where you finally publish your results.
You will need to measure the temperature very accurately. Consequently you should also monitor your basal metabolic rate because any changes in your temperature could influence the result. If you use a rectal probe please wash it if you decide to measure your temperature orally.
If you take things too far however and the build up of gases becomes extreme, a Krakatoa type of event may occur. This is why we need to know your location. Seismometers can triangulate, but nothing beats an exact location. Anyway I suggest a dry run at home first (definitely not a wet run) and evacuate the neighbourhood first.
Part 2. The global experiment, to be continued…
Part 2. The global experiment.
The GHE can be tested globally by one of its fundamental predictions. The GHE should cause an increase in temperature of the troposphere while causing a corresponding decrease in the temperature of the stratosphere. This could be tested prospectively via a massive injection of CO2 and then following the temperatures of the troposphere and stratosphere.
This experiment is currently in progress and we await results.
Some people suggest that this experiment was performed on a neighbouring planet and the local inhabitants regretted it greatly. However this is pure conjecture because visits to this planet have been very brief and no sign of past life has been detected.
To be continued….
…continued from above about a testable GHE hypothesis.
Rather than this prospective type of study we can look for verification, or falsification, of the GHE via a retrospective study of the atmospheric temperatures. These have been compiled in very convenient forms here, for the troposphere
https://tinyurl.com/ycshmept
and here for the stratosphere
https://tinyurl.com/yxdaj3vs
So Swensy, you should plot these results and see if this testable GHE hypothesis is falsified or not.
MikeR, the 2nd link is out of order.
Fix it quick, we don’t want any hiccups in Sweeney Todd’s science barbershop.
Thanks Svante,
I don’t know what happened with tinyurl?
This should work for the stratosphere.
https://tinyurl.com/y4ln5u9t
The reason I had to use tinyurl was due to the links at the very top have the dreaded combination of “d” and “c”.
MikeR,
No, there is no GHE hypothesis that is testable. First you need the hypothesis (to explain some phenomena which cannot be explained using current knowledge).
Part of the scientific method. Start with the observable phenomena which cannot be explained using current knowledge. Cant find any? Oh dear!
You are not just a donkey, you are a stupid and ignorant donkey.
Sweating Mike (who used to be sweltering in Darwin but is now looking for a cooler climate).
The observable and measurable phenomenon to be tested is the temperature trends in the troposphere and stratosphere, of course. Do you have an explanation using current knowledge?
On the matter of proof, I used to have an old mate Karl who used to “pop in” regularly for a yarn (hence his nickname ). He would go on endlessly, philosophising about science and talked incessantly about swans of various colours.
He used to say it is impossible to prove a thesis and it was far easier to disprove a thesis , so Sweetie, the onus (or in this case the anus) is on you.
Do you have a testable GHE hypothesis that can be used to falsify the GHE?
This is where you need to put up or shut up.
MikeR is still confused, and obsessed with someone he names *Mike*. He shared this imaginary playmate with some other commenters, and presumably thinks his fantasies are important.
He somehow thinks there are *temperature trends* which have unknown causes. Nobody has yet measured the temperature of the troposphere or stratosphere, so assigning a reason for something that has never been measured is just stupid, the loud and raucous braying of a donkey.
However, it is generally recognised that heat is responsible for temperature. MikeR obviously denies this for reasons known only to himself.
At the present time, natural temperatures in the troposphere have been recorded at between >1000 C, and – 90 C. MikeR seems to think that nobody has managed to relate these temperatures to heat.
Vague assertions about trends being inexplicable is not science. It is just more climate donkey alarmism, by a not very clever donkey.
Sweeney deturred,
Apologies for thinking you were MikeF. I can understand why you would not want anyone to think you are that idiot.
It was just that you were using the same signature tune, kept exactly the same hours, lived in the same time zone . What also convinced me was the succession of sock puppets spawned by MikeF that immediately preceded your arrival on the scene . You can see why anyone would make that mistake.
Returning to your comment above.
You must be wondering why Dr Roy Spencer has based his entire career on measuring tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures derived from satellite data. Why has he wasted his time on this futile exercise ? Why does he have a website where he presents monthly temperature data ?
Also why does he have a comments section, where idiots spout nonsense, claiming “Nobody has yet measured the temperature of the troposphere or stratosphere” without the appropriate qualifying statements ( I can suggest several)?
Also from the same whackjob , “Vague assertions about trends being inexplicable is not science”.
I would suggest that this knobhead use his vast scientific knowledge to explain the increase, since 1979, of tropospheric temperature and the corresponding decrease in stratospheric temperatures . If he can provide an explanation for these trends that doesn’t invoke the GHE that would be fascinating. In fact let’s hear exactly how heat explains these trends. No vague assertions please.
More importantly,does this “genius” have a GHE hypothesis that can be tested to falsify the hypothesis ?
As I said above, it’s time to put up or shut up.
MikeR says:
Do you have a testable GHE hypothesis that can be used to falsify the GHE?
This is where you need to put up or shut up.
=====================================================
Interesting but wrong. Einstein not only had a hypothesis but designed a way to demonstrate it. Then the onus shifts to those who can point out that demonstrated hypothesis isn’t the case, an anomaly, or just done wrong.
Today’s scientists spend to much time at the beach catching waves and riding them to the beach. Which of course proves that the surfboard makes a wave you can ride. Done until somebody proves it wrong.
Bill,
“Then the onus shifts to those who can point out that demonstrated hypothesis isnt the case, an anomaly, or just done wrong.”
Well said Bill.
Do you have an explanation that accounts for the measured increasing tropospheric and decreasing stratospheric temperatures that is not GHE based?
I am also glad you are not arguing with Popper and that Swensy needs to supply his own testable hypothesis.
MikeR,
Thank you for your encomium. Your apology is accepted with heartfelt thanks.
As to why Dr Spencer does what he does, you would have to ask him.
You may suggest as you wish, and I may choose to ignore suggestions from an alarmist donkey, as I wish.
You cannot even define the GHE in any useful fashion, so claiming it explains anything at all, is just stupid. If you are concerned about the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years, dont be. Just basic physics.
When you have composed your GHE hypothesis, be sure to let everyone know. I suggest NASA, as the climate donkeys there seem to torn between real greenhouses and insulating blankets. Both of which have been known to physicists for some time.
You will need to come up with something original. Or just divert, attempt to be gratuitously offensive. Try rudeness combined with schoolboy toilet talk. Words like bum, anus, knobhead – they might garner applause from other climate donkeys. What do you think?
Sweating Swenson,
You seem to have gotten terribly hot under the collar for some reason.
I have given you one testable GHE hypothesis, which you have not responded to. Was it too difficult perhaps?
With regard to hypotheses, I have shown you mine. Where’s yours?
I am also sorry to say that you are getting to sound more and more like the aforementioned ignoramus, who when challenged could never provide an answer. Just bluster.
If you want to differentiate yourself from that drop kick then you should not act like one.
p.s. I would never issue a vulgar profanity like b*m. I am deeply shocked.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
It is interesting to watch how la Nina forecast changed withing last month
https://i.postimg.cc/QNKKkknV/4Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Yep… this is the 11 year la nina down beat. The cycle becomes clear when you apply a 5 year moving average to the ENSO data. There is also a strong signal at 3.6 years, and a weaker signal at 2.2 years. The 11 year la nina down beat comes 3.6 years offset from the solar minimum.
The Warmest September Ever Is A Myth Cooler Times Likely Ahead As NASA Foresees Strong La Nina
https://bit.ly/36Ma35X
Yeah, this 260 year trend will turn around next month:
https://tinyurl.com/y7c37cyh
See fig. 3.
Svante, please stop trolling.
ClintR,
I had assumed my name was rather unique. Apparently not, because several of the comments you listed were made by someone other than myself. Sorry for the confusion.
So, to help differentiate one Snape from another, Ive decided to follow your example and include an initial.
– Best regards, SnapeR
Does your therapist know about all your fake names?
Usually it is one person that has two names, but This time one name has two people
–Svante says:
October 8, 2020 at 4:02 PM
Yes, I think I understand the premise:
“no way of getting rid of it”.
Here he says the same thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slPMD5i5Phg
It’s not very hard to understand, is it?–
“If you kept absorbing all the sunlight and kept accumulating the energy, …the temperature grow without bound ”
But there is limit.
“Energy is only 1/2 of picture, the second piece of story is energy loss mechanism”… like sun does…”
Stop here, how does sun lose energy.
He goes on talking where Earth loses it’s radiant energy and if it’s 1 km higher Earth surface will be about 6 C warmer.
I don’t anyone thinks sun losses energy at some thin layer of photosphere/chromosphere.
But fair to say we still learning stuff about the Sun and let’s just talk about Earth which know so much about.
I don’t think anyone thinks there is a point in Earth atmosphere where it losses some significant amount radiant energy from which one could then measure 1 km higher in which could become due to greenhouse gases.
But in terms significant point, I imagine a spot has to with tropical zone. And there has been discussion about the failure of a hot spot appearing.
But let’s move on.
“and radiant temperature of Earth might about -20 C… and difference from surface temperature is caused by greenhouse gas.
Or about -20 C and average global air of about 15 C difference is about 35 K due to greenhouse gas.
Well if added 10% to the mass of Earth atmosphere, that also increase this elevation or if removed 10% of atmosphere it reduce air temperature by about 6 C.
Suppose Earth had 1/2 the mass of it’s atmosphere. So accordingly losses and significant amount in terms of average temperature. But one say more sunlight reaches the surface and therefore increase radiant temperature.
But I don’t think Earth would absorb more energy.
I would say that Earth land surface would get hotter and colder.
Obviously ground temperature would get hotter and land surface would radiate more energy than they do now. Wearing better shoes would be needed. And animals have evolve better “shoes”.
So I think Earth absorbs as much sunlight as does now, is due to two major factors: the ocean and the 10 tons of air per square.
If air was 5 tons per square meter, it would reduce the amount it can absorb.
Though we have not changed the ocean.
What is our present global air temperature is ocean which has average temperature of 17 C.
So if 1/2 atm and allow more sunlight to reach the surface, would increase global surface temperature of the Ocean?
I think argue it could increase or decrease.
One ask a question, does it decrease or increase hurricanes.
Does increase or decrease tropical ocean engine ability to warm the rest of world.
In terms major things like extremes of Snowball Earth or Greenhouse Climate, I think if Atmosphere is 1/2 it does either of these things. And it does not significantly increase the amount sunlight absorbed by the surface. And main thing does is lower convectional heat transfer. Earth would not be near being a vacuum
but it’s closer.
Or where {wherever that is suppose to be} the atmosphere radiates into space is not the control knob, it made out to be.
gbaikie,
If the surface didnt radiate light directly to space, satellites wouldnt be able to receive radio signals, take visible and IR photos, and so on. Light covers all frequencies. Climate donkeys obviously slept through their physics lectures.
All matter radiates IR. It can be absorbed by another colder object, not a warmer. That object will warm, and given two objects only, both will achieve thermal equilibrium, as one warms and one cools, and be the same temperature. Peace and harmony reign again!
Anyhow, I think the average temperature of entire ocean is control knob.
And the cargo cult seems to agree with this.
They say it in backwards way, “More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
But they imagine global warming is important 90% of is warming the ocean. Or “mostly” about warming the ocean.
I would say it’s nearly all about warming the ocean.
So in term of effective temperature, ocean temperature is large factor related to it.
So global warming is about raising the effective temperature.
Our effective temperature has been much higher in the past and lower in past. Or the average temperature of our ocean has changed in timescale which much longer than human lifespans.
So, we in an Ice Age because we have a cold ocean, and nature will continue to “provide us” with cold ocean into very distant future.
Our ocean temperature range in our Ice Age has been about 1 to 5 C. and now it’s about 3.5 C.
A ocean which was 5 C would dramatically alter global climate- but we would still be in Ice Age, as 5 C is still a cold ocean.
What would be less change, but more lethal to all life would ocean which was 3 C or colder.
We are going to get ocean which is about 3 C anytime soon [within say 1000 years] and might get ocean of 4 C within centuries, and 4 C ocean would transform our world- or it’s close to climate change, but Earth not hotter, it’s wetter. And we have less droughts and deserts. Or if Sahara turn into grassland, that is really a “big climate change. And would be good news to the world, but particularly good news for continent of Africa. Though other deserts may also be transform into less dry places.
A “downside” is might it slightly discourage having more “modern irrigation” use. And other main aspect is the increase the greatest forest in the world, so as to become even greater.
gbaikie…it’s an interesting subject but we need to remember that the oceans only warm the coastal regions of continents, particularly the west coasts of Europe and North America. Not sure about South America and the Africa Coasts. The oceans do moderate temperatures in New Zealand and apparently Australia is far enough from Antarctica not to be affected by it too adversely like we are in North America due to the Arctic.
Here is Vancouver, BC, we have really moderate temperatures due to the Japanese current and the same is true of Europe, warmed by the Gulf Stream. However, a few hundred miles from the west coast of Canada, temperatures begin to drop rapidly till 1000 miles inland, temperatures can drop to -50C in winter. In Vancouver, it seldom drops more than a few C below zero and only when cold Arctic air descends on us.
As you progress eastward in Canada, beyond the midway point, temperatures begin to rise again in winter, presumably due to the effect of the Atlantic. However, the Atlantic has no warm currents in Canada drawing warmer water into the region.
–Gordon Robertson says:
October 9, 2020 at 7:25 PM
gbaikie…it’s an interesting subject but we need to remember that the oceans only warm the coastal regions of continents, particularly the west coasts of Europe and North America. …–
And also strongly effect coastal regions of Greenland.
Well, I think tropical ocean is heat engine of world- it even heats the poles.
And I think ocean being 70% of entire surface “controls” global air temperature.
The ocean is warmer {higher average temperature] than land. And land cools, and ocean warms the planet.
And tropical zone is confined in sense of in terms latitudinal bands {not sure of the technical term] though course they have break outs, like polar vortices are a break out of artic zone, Or El Nino pushing more warmer water out tropical zone, etc.
Or global/region weather effects.
And course mountain range such as Rockies do limit the extent of ocean warming and particularly inhibit the ocean moisture from getting beyond them, but if blocked all ocean moisture, Alberta would a lot drier then it is, and if pacific ocean was warmer, it seems to follow that Alberta would get more moisture. Though I suppose one can imagine warm pacific ocean add so much snow to the rocky mountains that the snow increases their elevation {which seems rather doubtful}.
Or the warmer surface air, the higher the level that more moisture can carried in the atmosphere.
And average ocean {3.5 C [38 F]} if warmer would strong effect surface water of northern pacific waters- and a near zero upon upon thick slabs of warm tropical waters
“…In Vancouver, it seldom drops more than a few C below zero and only when cold Arctic air descends on us.”
And cold artic air is from northern pacific ocean- so it would not be as cold if the ocean was warmer. If it was dry air then it would be coming from the land areas of arctic regions {and I think not dry air when you are saying, “cold Arctic air descends on us”}
Yes,
“Wearing better shoes would be needed” in that case.
gbaikie…”Svante says: If you kept absorbing all the sunlight and kept accumulating the energy, the temperature grow without bound
Gbaikie…”But there is limit”.
Yes. there is a limit and Svante’s theory that heat will continue to accumulate is simply not true.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and that KE is controlled by the orbital energy levels of electrons in the atoms. As the electrons absorb heat, they rise to a higher orbital energy level, and as they drop back to a lower energy level, under terrestrial conditions, they emit infrared energy. In other words, electrons convert solar SW to terrestrial IR.
The heat source is the 1300 watts/m^2 at TOA. At that power level the electrons absorbing the EM representing that power level can raise the electron energy levels only so much. You can keep shining that light forever and the electrons won’t rise to a higher energy level. Therefore, the limit is set at the energy level reached by electrons as they absorb EM from a 1300 W/m^2 source.
Unfortunately, climate alarmists have no basic understanding of quantum physics. None of them seem to understand the role of electrons and they are stuck at the molecular level, which they regard as an imaginary black box with mysterious properties.
Gordon Robertson
Your claim is that you studied physics at the higher University level and yet you display total ignorance in your understanding of kinetic energy?. Kinetic energy is NOT the energy controlled by orbital levels of electrons in atoms. Answer one question. What class did you take that made this claim? What physics class made that absurd statement? Your physics does make a science minded person throw-up! It is some of the worst bull-shit I have ever read!
The electron at higher energy levels represent potential energy not kinetic energy! The energy is given off when the electron returns to a lower level and it is given off in the UV or visible light spectrum NOT the IR lower band spectrum. You can’t understand how stupid you really are and keep making up this awful physics!
The kinetic energy you describe as “heat” comes from the motion of molecules or atoms. In a solid it is how rapidly they jiggle around, in a gas it is how fast they are moving about.
I think it is time to fess up and admit the real truth. You studied NO PHYSICS anywhere and you flunked out of engineering school to become a radio repair man. Your posts are very bad science based upon nothing of valid reality. You just make up absurd ideas and seem to think they have merit.
Norman, did it ever occur to you that Gordon might be trying to make it easy for idiots like you to understand? He’s not so concerned about every sentence being exactly “legal”. He’s trying to make it simple so laypeople can understand.
Gordon gets it right: “Yes. there is a limit and Svante’s theory that heat will continue to accumulate is simply not true.” He gets the right answer, but you ignore the right answer and try to pick apart his explanations.
–Gbaikie…”But there is limit”.
Yes. there is a limit and Svante’s theory that heat will continue to accumulate is simply not true.–
Well, to fair I don’t think Svante claims to have a theory.
There is general idea that if atmosphere radiates at higher elevation this results in higher surface temperature.
I have similar idea but I would not claim it’s my theory, rather something already known. So it’s more that I agree with what already known.
But I will describe as way to make the surface temperature have higher temperature than it’s “suppose to have”.
But first I prove it’s already know. And I done this many times but I will do it again:
“In the empty Mediterranean Basin, the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high even during ice age maxima. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 °C (18 °F) per kilometer, the maximum possible temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 °C (72 °F) warmer than it would be at sea level. Under this extreme assumption, maxima would be near 80 °C (176 °F) at the lowest points of the dry abyssal plain, permitting no permanent life but extremophiles. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
So earth surface air of 80 C is temperature Earth surface air is not suppose to have. And done by heating surface at higher elevation and it’s heating “adiabatically” the surface air at lower elevation
So, sort of similar.
Or if CO2 suppose raise the level atmosphere emits by 1 km it warms surface air by about 6 C. Though if climb hill 1 km higher the surface air also about 6 C cooler.
Now for it work “well” with the empty Mediterranean Basin, you need high air temperature over large area land which above and/or surrounds the empty sea basin. Land important because land give you the highest air temperature which are then adiabatically to even higher air temperature which below the heated land surface air.
Now, one could worry about “how can warmer air fall”- and most adiabatically heated air {which is common on earth} is done by falling air. But doesn’t really have have falling air- it simply needs the warmer air above it- and gravity or lapse rate “does it”.
Or from Svante general idea, from perspective floor of dry sea the upper atmosphere is “radiating at a higher level”
So I say surface is heating at higher elevation and Svante saying it’s radiating at level.
And I say this how Venus is hotter then it “should be” Venus has very high and large surface which being heated, and that surface is the acid clouds. Now these acid clouds don’t heat air as well and land surface could heat the air, but they at really high elevation and cloud heated by very intense sunlight and acid has high temperature that it evaporates at.
And could do same thing by having floating balloons that covered the entire sky at +50 Km elevation. Such balloons would work “better” if they black, but it also work to lesser extent if were reflective {reflected 70% of the sunlight}.
Anyhow, CO2 might increase level atmosphere radiates at, but I think it simply a smaller effect than some others imagine it is.
And various reasons for this. And I think there could additional ways CO2 increases global average temperature.
As have said I think doubling of CO2 causes 0 to .5 C. And I think that .5 C is a lot warming. But don’t accept or I have no evidence that CO2 or water vapor cools earth {lowers global average temperature}. And I don’t accept that our water world is 33 K cooler without the radiant effects of greenhouse gases. But Earth would have much lower average temperature without ocean- and would be much warmer if Earth was all ocean.
I didn’t know you agreed with the CO2 enhanced GHE.
I would be called a lukewarmer. And since first look at topic, I always been a lukewarmer. I used to be lukewarmer that thought a doubling of CO2, might cause as much as 2 to 3 C added to global surface air temperature. But I think I have adjusted and refined my view over the decades.
But when I say doubling of CO2 could cause 0 to .5 {such range is due to my uncertainty] I am talking the any warming in less than 100 year after doubling the CO2 levels.
I limit it to 100 years, due even more uncertainly over a longer period AND because predicting 100 years in future is “impractical” or kind of silly.
I don’t think it’s useful to predict as much as 100 years {I am being a bit silly}, and think 20 years in future we will have more understanding- or there no “need”.
And I am aware of various ways we could cool global temperature- if we wanted to. By which I mean if wanted to spend a couple trillion dollar to do this. And in 20 years in future, we will probably able do this by spending less 2 trillion dollar rather costing more.
As far I know, nobody actually wants global temperature to be 2 C cooler, and if spent couple trillion and were trying to cool by 1 C, it might result in 1.5 C of cooling.
And we are in Ice Age, generally it’s better to be on the warm side of things. And global warming is not hotter surface air temperature, it means more globally uniform higher average surface temperature.
Or roughly more conditions which are similar to tropical conditions, globally. {tropics is warm because less difference between night or winter extreme temperature. Or drier air generally causes both colder and hotter air temperature [or desert like conditions]. Not that don’t like deserts- I live Southern California {and it’s a desert- which has lots water added- it would look more like desert if stopped bringing in the water for farming and residential use].
UAH has more than 0.5 C warming for less than double CO2.
Correct Svante. When temperatures rise the oceans eject more CO2. When temperatures decrease, oceans suck more CO2.
That’s just one of the reasons we know AGW is a hoax.
–Svante says:
October 10, 2020 at 4:47 PM
UAH has more than 0.5 C warming for less than double CO2–
Well, IPCC does not claim all warming in last 50 years is done by increased CO2 levels.
And I am not a person which is claiming it, and so one is left with the option searching for someone who does claim nearly or all recent warming is caused by higher levels of CO2.
I would suggest you disregard “news reporters” as a lot of them are idiots.
If find such person, I would be interested in such claims.
The IPCC is way to skeptical.
The anthropogenic contribution is about twice the increase:
https://tinyurl.com/ybrvus6a
Svante says:
The IPCC is way to skeptical.
The anthropogenic contribution is about twice the increase:
https://tinyurl.com/ybrvus6a
====================================
Its not that the IPCC is too skeptical its that most of that stuff has been debunked.
–Svante says:
October 11, 2020 at 3:04 AM
The IPCC is way to skeptical.
The anthropogenic contribution is about twice the increase:
https://tinyurl.com/ybrvus6a —
Well I just started listening.
So far as it’s encouraging for number reason,
and the headline which adds to the encouragement is
following quote, regarding it
New Scientist September, 2008
“It’s an insane argument. It’s total and utter nonsense”
“I get very emotional about it because I think it’s very bad science”
Washington Post August, 2009:
“I think it’s a bunch of bosh”
“I get really upset with him, because people
who oppose global warming {legislation} can
use this as some kind of dodge”
But without hearing all it, yet; I imagine it
will support my view {generally}. Which I will repeat:
what I am saying in regards to near future in in terms of
global warming.
My interest in global warming has to do my interest
in idea of humans being a space faring civilization.
And my question began with, why are we “there” already.
Anyway, in that context, global warming was presented as
immediate “concern” and I assess it, and reached conclusion that
at most, doubling of CO2 would cause increase of 2 to 3 C
which I regarded as a non problem.
Or we have lots problems and 3 C rise in global temperature
within 100 years, is at best a lessor problem.
And as said, my current assessment is instead of 3 C being upper
limit due to CO2 increase, I think it’s about .5 C.
And my understanding of global climate is it’s long term matter,
and concerning CO2 levels, idea around it, was it going be a short term problem of “within 100 years” or it factor which can changes
within 100 years.
So, I am not saying what global temperature will be in 100 years, I am only talking CO2 {and/or other greenhouse gases and/or human effects upon global temperature- though regarding the .5 C is only to do CO2 and it’s “forcing effect”. Or I think land changes are usually under rated. And if did something like green the Sahara desert it seems it could be more significant than compared increasing global CO2. And if progress continues in African continent {seems very likely} greening Sahara desert will become a political issue- and happen.
Needless to say, I favor that “happening”, and imagine it will cause more global warming {have not seen much in terms of predicting “how much” and the possible how much would a factor involved}.
So, to repeat .5 C has to do radiant effect of increase of CO2 and includes any “forcing” related to it within 100 years.
I will get more coffee and listen to it.
I don’t think Ruddiman has been credibly debunked.
I think he’s out on limb with the LIA, but still.
–Svante says:
October 11, 2020 at 1:13 PM
I don’t think Ruddiman has been credibly debunked.
I think he’s out on limb with the LIA, but still.–
I finished listening to it.
I could say a lot about it {and I made notes- which hesitant
to fill this blog with].
Unlike Ruddiman I have no problem understanding why the global warming religion objects to his view- and, it’s not just his acceptance and understanding of LIA. {as most actual scientists generally agree about LIA being significant cooling period}
I guess include some notes I took:
–he seems to think that from Holocene Maximum, earth naturally would have cooled.
But seems to “forget” that ocean temperature increased to 4 C {or more] during last interglacial periods or sea levels and were meters higher than they ever got to during our Holocene period.–
Or I would say there a difference in our interglacial period because interrupted in very early stages. {and was/is “recovering” from that event}
Or my personal complaint is he mostly ignore the current ocean temperature which is 3.5 C.
But other than what I think is the most important factor, I don’t anything in particular to argue about with Ruddiman, and does not to conflict with my views that doubling of CO2 could cause as much as .5 C increase in Global air temperature within 100 years.
I will also add that I don’t think ocean temperature will increase by .5 C within 100 years.
And if Ocean were to increase by .5 C, it would have large effect upon global air temperature.
In terms of methane.
I would not prohibit rice farming {or slaughter all the cows} but there some ideas about making rice farming emit less methane, perhaps they could be a good way to grow rice.
Trees
And favor growing far more trees and burning less trees.
And strongly against how California has been managing it’s public lands. {though not claiming the Fed was doing a good job either}.
And think California can grow a lot more trees AND have less trees burn up in forest fires.
Svante says:
I dont think Ruddiman has been credibly debunked.
I think hes out on limb with the LIA, but still.
=========================================
I may have over used the term debunked. One does not have to debunk anything. Its on the shoulders of the advocate to make the case whatever it is. If they can’t then the government has absolutely no role to perform.
If the government could actually resist its own temptations for empire building then there would be zero need for anybody to get involved.
As I see it since the IPCC indicated that CO2 would remove itself from the atmosphere at a rapid rate for about 1/2 the excess we can probably ignore any CO2 emitted before probably 1970
It’s an interesting hypothesis, isn’t it?
Methane from rice farming is small compared to industrial emissions.
The last interglacial had a sharp peak, but ours is drawn out:
https://energyeducation.ca/wiki/images/8/8f/Ice_ages2.gif
–Svante says:
October 12, 2020 at 3:57 AM
Its an interesting hypothesis, isnt it?
Methane from rice farming is small compared to industrial emissions.–
Made me think. But the general {rather specific] idea is true particularly when imagine CO2 levels linger {which I am not on board with] But nature {the living} alters climate, and humans are part of nature. Also interesting in terms altering “everyone” view of thing.
Or terms of religion, quite interesting.
Thing about industrial emissions is the relation to economics, or simply if methane has value, efforts will made the limit industrial emissions. Or we had a lot gas flaring {or burning it rather releasing it was a “improvement”}, but if market for it, you don’t throw it away. So more use/market for Methane use does not mean more methane released. But economics does not work {as well} with cows, rice, or swamps. I don’t worry about human methane release {except farts} because if there to be enough of make difference, it means a huge waste money.
I guess one might worry more if one more small operators which because small scale they can’t realize economic benefit of selling Methane- but seems eventually “market forces” would improve to eliminate even that kind of waste.
But because of small operator problem- it would better if “big business” was involved in ocean mining of methane hydrates.
But big Business is incompetent, so tendency is for small operators doing it first.
I would favor more governmental involvement- and normally don’t like governmental involvement. Of course government in general even more incompetent than big corporation, and combining them tends to get worse imaginable outcomes. But I could hope, they are less stupid then they generally are.
Yes, methane is difficult to transport since it’s not liquid or solid, so sometimes it’s not worth it. Flaring is a bit of a waste, but it’s better than leaks. Satellite leak monitoring will help.
gbaikie
” There is general idea that if atmosphere radiates at higher elevation this results in higher surface temperature. ”
Exactly, gbaikie.
The higher the reemission altitudes, the lower the temperature of the reemitting gas molecules (H2O is inexistent there, as it precipitates a far lower altitudes).
The lower the temperature, the lower the reemission energy: this creates an in/out imbalance, resulting in the planet becoming a tiny bit warmer.
This has been pretty good explained in a French paper
documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1
Unfortunately, apart from the abstract, everything is… in French.
This PDF file is difficult to translate using Google’s translator, due to Adobe’s stupid format making copy/paste nearly impossible.
*
But commenter Adelaida luckily managed to discover a shorter resumee of the paper written in HTML.
When I have time to do that, I will translate that resumee in English.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, gases don’t emit based on temperature. You are confusing gases with surfaces.
No wonder everyone tells you to “learn some physics”.
Of course, I know that idiots can’t learn physics.
Another climate clown breakthrough in physics.
Gases on the Sun radiate less that the Earth’s atmosphere.
Snowflake, it’s amazing how confused you can get yourself.
Dear ClintR, please tell me, how did you discover that gases radiate less as they get warmer?
Experiments or theoretical work?
Where are your papers published?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation#/media/File:Wiens_law.svg
We knew that gases emit in narrow bands, but to get more power at lower temperatures will really shake up climate science.
Silly Svante, I know you’re getting desperate as your cult begins to fall apart.
So, I’ll wait until you can ask responsible questions.
“The higher the reemission altitudes, the lower the temperature of the reemitting gas molecules (H2O is inexistent there, as it precipitates a far lower altitudes).”
I don’t where talking about or how high, BUT water vapor reaches higher than Tropopause.
Water vapor is very significantly lower at higher elevation.
But water vapor at surface air level, is higher concentration, than CO2 anywhere on Earth surface. Or very dry air surface air has higher concentration than 400 ppm.
So if want to say CO2 concentration become more “significant” in comparison to water vapor at higher elevation, then that it seems correct.
{{I just reading something about Mars {looking at where on Mars would be good place to put base] where measured water vapor as high as 1000 ppm, but on average in Mars atmosphere very, very dry and very cold air it’s said to be about 210 ppm.
In case anyone interested.
There is pretty big impact crater in Mars northern polar {73 degrees] with crater rim with elevation of about 2000 meter.
It’s mostly filled with water ice amounting to over trillion tons of water. And ice at top crater is “super chilled” which is keeping the ice from evaporating and been there for about 5 million years.
So probably has older ice than anywhere on Earth- and any ice cores could be interesting. But main thing is there is a lot H20. And I think any Mars town should access to a lot water {but +1 trillion tons is even more water than is needed].
But anyways, I thought it could good place for a NASA Mars base, and maybe not good place for a Mars town.
{I generally think Mars towns might better in Mars tropics if you get a few billion tons of water and make into a lake [in some crater].} Oh, got a link:
https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2019/1/exploring-the-kilometer-deep-ice-in-korolev-crater
Interesting!
ClintR, I don’t know whether you are now getting your science from Gordon or are just making it up as you go, but
“Bindidon, gases dont emit based on temperature. You are confusing gases with surfaces.”
Gases have to have molecules with excited states to emit radiation, the population of these excited states increase with temperature, and the emission of these molecules is first order, which means they emit based on concentration.
So you get emission based on temperature and concentration.
Maybe you should look for your physics textbook.
bob, gases don’t emit based on temperature. You are confusing gases with surfaces.
ClintR,
Go out and take a good long look at the Sun.
Reread what I said and then go looking for your Quantum Physics textbook.
bob, gases don’t emit based on temperature. You are confusing gases with surfaces.
#2
The DREMT numbering game!
ClintR on holiday in Crimea?
Yes silly Svante, DREMT came up with a useful system for tracking out-of-control trolls.
Are you two related by any chance?
Svante, please stop trolling.
ClintR can’t make an argument so he just repeats himself.
“gases dont emit based on temperature. You are confusing gases with surfaces.”
Uhm, yes they do that’s one reason stars are different colors.
Go outside at night and take a look all around.
Three days later, after ClintR has moved down-thread?
blob, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Stop trolling and make a choice.
Who is right and who is wrong.
To tell you the truth, the wrong guy has moved on.
Take it down-thread, if you think he is wrong. Hiding up here three days after he has moved on in order to sneak in the last word is just trolling.
skeptic gone stupid…”This is the problem with these clowns and their clown physics. Yes the wooden horse cannot and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the wooden platform. But that is NOT the correct reference frame to use if one is going to use Newton’s laws”!
You are delusional and should stay away from physics. If a horse is bolted to a floor, and cannot turn on its axis, it cannot turn on its axis in any reference frame.
You are living in a world of thought-experiment illusion. You fail to understand the reality, that a device bolted to a floor is stationary wrt the floor and can never turn about its axis, no matter what the conditions, without sheering the bolts, or removing them.
It’s odd what a human thinks he/she sees, based on a delusional brain, opposed to the actuality of what the brain is seeing. The delusion begins with people seeing the Sun rising in the morning, as if it is orbiting the Earth. Then it carries on to thinking time exists and formulating a theory of spacetime, in which time not only is a 4th dimension of space, it can actually curve. Some of the more delusional are trying to replace gravity as a force with a fictitious spacetime.
You are not alone, there are a hole mess of scientists and others unable to comprehend what they are observing because the brain distorts what is observed due to its conditioning. It’s not that hard to see without the conditioning but first you have to recognize it is there and acknowledge it.
Gordon is rattling on about observations, vision and the brain.
Unfortunately I wouldn’t take advice on these matters as Gordon is missing his corpus calosum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain#Visual_test
He can only see one side and ignores the other, but maybe it’s for convenience.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-535400
MikeR, please stop trolling.
This blog should have like a secondary “sub level” forum where the kinder garden debaters can go or be moved to, the equivalent of kids table, that way nobody gets deleted but the grown ups can stay unaffected by the chaff and clutter nonsense.
Good question Eben, seriously.
Perhaps if we don’t respond below our own level, or only respond once.
You are above the moon rotation sub level, but you still throw in sub sub level links.
There’s a problem with the lack of non-AGW talent here.
There is Roy Spencer but he is a luke warmer and he doesn’t respond much. Kristian, Dan Pangburn and gallopingcamel have science based arguments. Anyone else?
S,
No sign of a testable GHE hypothesis from the alarmists yet. No science, just the sound of donkeys braying.
When you demonstrate you understand something about science, there will be no debate.
“In its normal state, the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar radiation and maintains global energy balance by re-radiating this energy to space as infrared or longwave radiation. The intervening atmosphere absorbs and emits the longwave radiation, but as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it absorbs more energy than it emits upward to space. The energy that escapes to space is significantly smaller than that emitted by the surface. The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect, G.”
– A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, Observational determination of the greenhouse effect, Nature v342 14 Dec 1989, pp 758-761
No heating of the surface! Their definition has changed to match reality.
Good.
Unless GHGs increase.
Svante:
you may already be familiar with this work, but if not…
Rolf Philipona et al., Solar and thermal radiation profiles and radiative forcing measured through the atmosphere, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L13806, doi:10.1029/2012GL052087, 2012.
Of course Philipona (as well as many others) in his long career has shown us that the scientific basis, in theory and experiment, underlying greenhouse gas warming is as robust as any aspect of modern science.
It is often assumed, especially within the general public, that global warming can be understood by supposition only, but actual measurements of all the fluxes involved are “ground” truth.
Thanks, snape is it?
You’re worse than ClintR with name changes.
I think David cited it before, but I had lost the bookmark.
Good one for bill hunter to read.
If the does read.
What your cult leaders don’t tell you is that adding more CO2 means more emission to space. And, you’ll be surprised to learn that “more emission to space” means “cooling”.
“Reality”–Don’t leave home without it.
Look at ClintR’s nonsense:
” What your cult leaders dont tell you is that adding more CO2 means more emission to space. And, youll be surprised to learn that ‘more emission to space’ means ‘cooling’.
*
How is it possible to be so ignorant?
The more you add IR intercepting gases like H2O (!!!), CO2, CH4, N2O and a few others, the less IR can reach space directly.
IR intercepting gases
– reemit only on half of what they absorb up to space again,
– the other half being sent back down to lower atmospheric layers, where the IR again either is intercepted by other molecules, or contributes to atmospheric warming through collisions with N2 / O2 molecules.
*
And what arrogant persons like ClintR either intentionally ignore or deny, is that the higher the altitude of reemissions to space in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere, the less efficient they are, because the reemission energy is much lower there than it is at the surface, due to the temperature difference.
In the higher stratosphere of course, the lapse rate is inverted, and temperatures increase with increasing altitude; but when the point is reached where the stratospheric temperature equals that of the surface, there are no longer any intercepting gases anyway.
*
ClintR tells all people who don’t share his pseudoscience: ‘Learn some physics’, exactly as did ge*r*an and later JD*Huffman.
If there are persons ignoring everything about physics, then these are ClintR and all his dopplegangers.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
There is a small stratospheric CO2 contribution in the opposite direction, but it is insignificant.
Bindidon, I bet if I make it really, really simple, you still can’t understand. Here goes:
CO2 at time T1 = 400 ppm, emission to space = E
CO2 at time T2 = 800 ppm, emission to space = 2E
Quick, reject that simple reality.
ClintR
” CO2 at time T1 = 400 ppm, emission to space = E
CO2 at time T2 = 800 ppm, emission to space = 2E ”
Sorry, that’s really too stupid. Every ten year old child would laugh at you today.
I repeat what I wrote above:
(a) IR intercepting gases
reemit only one half of what they absorb up to space again,
the other half being sent back down to lower atmospheric layers, where the IR again either is intercepted by other molecules, or contributes to atmospheric warming through collisions with N2 / O2 molecules.
(b) … the higher the altitude of reemissions to space in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere, the less efficient they are, because the reemission energy is much lower there than it is at the surface, due to the temperature difference.
THUS, the more CO2 you pump up into the atmosphere, the less IR reaches space directly, and the less energy leaves Earth because the last reemission takes place at higher altitudes.
*
Try something more intelligent.
You behave exactly as all these elementary school teachers I met during the last 40 years: they all had always simple answers to complex problems (probably because they never haqd to solve any).
J.-P. D.
Well it took you over an hour to reject that simple reality, Bindidon. But, you did prepare another of your useless distracting typing exercises, including your childish attempts at insults.
Maybe if you use more bold font, you can convince yourself you’re not an idiot. It’s worth a try….
S,
The same pointless description of the never observed phenomenon misnamed the GHE. Of course, this description fails to accept the reality of night, winter, or shortly after the sun reaches the zenith, and the surface commences to cool.
The description is not worth a cracker. For example, the atmosphere is colder than the surface, and outer space at 4K or so, is far colder than both. Look up Newtons Law of Cooling. Its an oldie but a goodie!
In the meantime, practice braying, snorting, and generally being an asinine cultist. Or learn to think for yourself.
“The center of Delta made landfall a little more than 10 miles from where deadly Hurricane Laura slammed into the coast in August. While Delta is not as powerful as Laura — which left much damage that still hasn’t been fixed — it does have a broader wind field, Sater said.
CNN’s Martin Savidge, in Lake Charles, Louisiana, said just after Delta made landfall that the rain was incessant and the wind increased dramatically.
Thousands of blue tarps that had been covering roofs damaged by Laura were blowing through the city. Debris piled up on road sides was being sent like missiles through the air.”
I read somewhere above:
1. ” The Warmest September Ever Is A Myth… ”
and
2. “… Cooler Times Likely Ahead As NASA Foresees Strong La Nina “.
*
1. It’s interesting to note what people like Eben of course overlook, namely that Gosselin’s Tricky Zone always discredits RSS data when it shows more warming than UAH, but conversely accepts RSS data when it shows as less warming as UAH does.
And what Eben of course doesn’t understand: temperatures in the troposphere have few to do with what happens at the surface.
*
2. People like Gosselin intentionally push up all information fitting to their narrative, and consequently hide all information they themselves don’t want to show.
So it comes that, while Gosselin always discredits NASA temperature reports, this tricky manipulator accepts NASA data whenever it shows the lowest La Nina forecasts, and hides all others, especially this one:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html
*
How is it possible to reproduce ad nauseam such polemic stuff on a science site like Roy Spencer’s ?
J.-P. D.
Scott R
” Yep this is the 11 year la nina down beat. The cycle becomes clear when you apply a 5 year moving average to the ENSO data. ”
*
Could you please explain what you EXACTLY mean here?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jnPJqzcVcvkuILYU_jt7J-o9fLOLsfvk/view
Where is there any correlation between solar cycles and ENSO’s 61 month i.e. 5 year running mean?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
The reason you have to apply the 5 year moving average to see the 11 year enso cycle is that this is a very strong signal at 3.6 years with an amplitude greater than the 11 year cycle signal. (1/3rd solar cycle) Next, the 11 year la nina down beat is delayed to the solar min by 3.6 years.
Now can you see it in the data? This is how I was able to predict this la nina over a year ago. I would not be surprised at all to see another la nina winter 2021-2022 on this 3.6 year cycle downbeat.
I am really worried about all this 5800k talk about heating up the Earth.
My computer screen has a 5800k setting. Do you think I need to turn it off before it makes my desk as hot as the surface of the Sun?
Just don’t have any ice too close to your screen. That could be explosive!
☺
Mark,
You were taught about absorbtion spectra. No relationship to spontaneous emission due to temperature. Im not surprised the difference wasnt pointed out. Maybe you were expected to think for yourself.
Binden could you explain how IR of one frequency emitted from CO2 is absorbed by N2/O2.
In my degree we were taught they had different absorbtion spectra and the CO2 peaks did not match either N2 or O2.
Mark Wapples
” … could you explain how IR of one frequency emitted from CO2 is absorbed by N2/O2. ”
… or contributes to atmospheric warming through collisions with N2 / O2 molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
J.-P. D.
binny…Brownian motion does not apply here, it is a phenomenon noted by a botanist related to tiny particles moving in a fluid.
Even if it does apply in the atmosphere, any collisions, according to the molcular gas theory, are elastic, hence they cannot exchange energy.
The reality is far more complex than it appears.
Its a good question.
IR energy is absorbed by CO2 as per the science.
As CO2 goes from zero state to one state, it expands as per gas law and rises. As it expands and rises it collides with billions of oxygen and nitrogen.
Emissivity of CO2 becomes important. When it reaches one state it emits IR energy at the same frequency as it was absorbed. As I understand it climate models assume the emissivity rate to be much higher than actual.
Nasif Naule, in his paper, used data from Hottel et al ‘Radieant Heat Transfer’ table and shows actual Emissivity at the present concentration in the atmosphere is 0.0017. Naule also states as the concentration goes up the emissivity goes down and CO2 starts acting like a coolant.
naule’s paper is titled: ‘Total Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide and its effect on Tropospheric Temperature’ 12 May 2010 and is worth the read.
ken…”As CO2 goes from zero state to one state, it expands as per gas law and rises. As it expands and rises it collides with billions of oxygen and nitrogen”.
Need to keep in mind that CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. That means it is outnumbered 2500 to 1 by N2/O2.
Also, according to the molecular gas theory, any collisions are elastic and cannot exchange energy.
Gordon Robertson
Again bad physics that you pull out of somewhere but not valid!
YOUR BAD IDEA: “Also, according to the molecular gas theory, any collisions are elastic and cannot exchange energy.”
I have zero idea from where you get this. It is plain wrong and based upon nothing.
Here is reality:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_Chem1_(Lower)/06%3A_Properties_of_Gases/6.05%3A_More_on_Kinetic_Molecular_Theory
“The trajectory of an individual gas molecule consists of a series of straight-line paths interrupted by collisions. What happens when two molecules collide depends on their relative kinetic energies; in general, a faster or heavier molecule will impart some of its kinetic energy to a slower or lighter one. Two molecules having identical masses and moving in opposite directions at the same speed will momentarily remain motionless after their collision.”
Energy is exchanged in elastic collisions. Quit with the bad physics please!
N,
Except that atoms and molecules dont collide, or bounce off each other, or all those pretty simplifications. Thats what you would teach children if you either want to shield them from the truth, or you dont know any better.
Come on, learn some reasonably up to date physics. The 19th century is over.
Gordon,
Norman cites a Chemistry textbook but I went down to the pool hall.
I struck the cue ball with the cue stick and sent the cue ball such that it hit 15 motionless ball, and guess what, the cue ball transferred energy to the all 15 balls.
Pool balls being close enough to elastic collisions for this crowd.
A couple things to consider
“A perfectly elastic collision is defined as one in which there is no loss of kinetic energy in the collision. An inelastic collision is one in which part of the kinetic energy is changed to some other form of energy in the collision.”
and
“An elastic collision is defined as one in which both conservation of momentum and conservation of kinetic energy are observed.”
b,
Stick to pool. Physics is not your game.
To the braying donkey,
I got the physics right, too bad for you that you can’t tell me where I got it wrong.
By the way, do you want some hay?
blob, please stop trolling.
ken…”Nasif Naule…”
That would be Nasif Nahle for anyone wishing to look him up. He did an impressive amount of work.
Gordon, Thanks for the correction on the spelling.
Shouldn’t there have been some decline in aco2 from covid shutdown and corresponding temperature decline?
I was in Maui not too long ago and visited my grandparent’s old condo at Halle Kai o’kihei that I frequented in my youth. The beach and rocks out front were the same. Lots of new condos and homeless but same sea level. No detectable change in 50 years. I expected some flooding the way the alarmists talk.
Darwin Wyatt
” I expected some flooding the way the alarmists talk. ”
Maybe you confound the way people discredited as alarmists talk with the way people discrediting others as alarmists talk about them.
No one of the people inspecting sea level changes has ever pretended that any flooding would occur now wrt 50 years ago.
What some people tell is rather that, all other things remaining equal, flooding might well happen in 100 years – but not necessarily in Maui.
No one of those discrediting such people ever managed to scientifically contradict them.
J.-P. D.
Binnie,
You are going to stop tectonic plate movement (both above and below the geoid) precisely how? When sea floors rise, so do sea levels. When sea floors drop, so do sea levels. The opposite with respect to above geoid movements.
You didnt take any of that into account, did you? Neither do climate donkeys, with their spherical featureless Earth, created at absolute zero, and heated only by the sun.
Are you really silly enough to believe such nonsense?
binny…”(b) the higher the altitude of reemissions to space in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere, the less efficient they are, because the reemission energy is much lower there than it is at the surface, due to the temperature difference.
THUS, the more CO2 you pump up into the atmosphere, the less IR reaches space directly, and the less energy leaves Earth because the last reemission takes place at higher altitudes”.
****
You alarmists are getting desperate with your perversion of science. How does the temperature reduce with altitude? Do you think it’s due to the cooling of a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere?
R. W. Wood was an expert on gases like CO2. He was so renowned with his expertise that Neils Bohr consulted him on a gas, related to Bohr’s research into the spectral lines of gases.
He commented a long time ago that he doubted that CO2 could play a significant role in atmospheric warming. There is a reference to Nahle in another post and he reproduced an experiment performed initially by Wood in 1909 that proved greenhouse warming in a real greenhouse was due to a lack of convection in the greenhouse and nothing to do with the trapping of IR.
Wood theorized that the atmosphere warms due to atmospheric gases absorbing heat from the surface via conduction then transporting it high into the atmosphere. Because gases like N2/O2 that make up 99% of air cannot radiate away the heat, they retain it, hence so-called greenhouse warming.
However, the heated air could not keep rising if a negative thermal gradient with altitude had not already been established. The heated air requires an air density greater than its density in order to keep rising. The air pressure at 30,000 feet, at the top of Everest is 1/3 the pressure at sea level. The only explanation for that is a decrease in gravitational force.
The definition of the lapse rate completely ignores decreasing pressure as a cause of decreasing temperature with altitude. It presumes temperature will drop on its own with altitude without an explanation of how that can occur.
It can’t. Heat, which is measured by temperature, is the kinetic energy of atoms. However, heat, as temperature, in a gas, is directly related to pressure, volume, and the number of atoms. Molecules are nothing more than two or more atoms bonded by electrons, so talking about molecules of air is nothing more than talking about atoms bonded by electrons.
The Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, gives a direct relationship between P,V,T and n, hence talking about temperature in the lapse rate, without relating it to pressure and volume is meaningless. It might be of value to atmospheric physicists, but not much good as an overall descriptor of the atmospheric gases.
From wiki, lapse rate is defined mathematically as:
Typically, the lapse rate is the negative of the rate of temperature change with altitude change:
Γ = − dT/dz
where Γ is the lapse rate given in units of temperature divided by units of altitude, T is temperature, and z is altitude.
It strikes me as being ingenuous that someone would remove T from the Ideal Gas Law and related it to altitude without reference to why T has decreased.
Obviously a presumption was made that V is a constant, which is fairly reasonable. That means that pressure, hence n, must decrease with altitude, but no explanation has been given as to why.
P and n are directly proportional since the pressure in any container is directly proportional to the number of atoms/molecules. It stands to reason that n decreases with altitude since the air is thinner, meaning there are less atoms/unit volume. That also means P has decreased, and T.
But why are there less atoms/molecules as altitude increases? There is only one imaginable explanation, the gravitational force on them has decreases. That also means the the number of atoms/molecules are greater at the surface, hence a higher pressure.
So, it’s cooler at greater altitudes because the pressure is lower. That has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 and CO2, at 0.04% mass density has absolutely nothing to do with temperature.
The thing to note is that as altitude increases, heat is dissipated naturally due to a gradual reduction in pressure. Therefore, the Sun heats the surface during the day, that heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and transported high into the atmosphere. However, as the heat rises, it dissipates naturally.
This is not a trick to get around the conservation of energy, it’s a fact of the conditions here on Earth. We are located far enough from the Sun that we are never overheated and we rotate at just the right rate to allow absorbed heat to dissipate naturally during the night. The entire process based on those conditions has equalized at the alleged 33C warming.
I don’t think that nullifies radiation from the surface it’s just that the inverse square law dissipates that radiation very quickly, within feet, not miles. At terrestrial temperatures radiation is simply not an effective means of heat dissipation.
darwin…”The beach and rocks out front were the same. Lots of new condos and homeless but same sea level. No detectable change in 50 years”.
Same here, just across the pond in Vancouver, Canada. If you walk the sea walls around the city you can see tidal marks on the walls and they have not changed significantly. On the Fraser River delta, that runs through Richmond, immediately south of Vancouver, there are dykes to prevent flooding in Richmond. Even at high tide in melt water peaks, there is plenty of room below dyke level.
If the predicted sea level rises had occurred as predicted since 1988, Richmond would been under water by now.
Ken
Nasif Naule is just wrong! He must not know who to use the Hottel data at all. CO2 emissivity is near 20% at current concentration. You can believe the mind of a contrarian or you can look at the data on your own and conclude he is clueless.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
Here is some actual science based upon real data.
https://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
norman…”Nasif Naule is just wrong!”
It’s either that or you’re wrong, Normie. Based on how often you are wrong, my money is on Nahle.
Gordon Robertson
I am not the one who is wrong. You post invalid unsupported material by contrarians and believe it is correct. I have supported most my points with valid data. When you get confronted you make the lame claim that textbook data is not good because they still use current flow as positive to negative. No you are wrong even on that post. Nahle is a dumb contrarian who made a rather large error and does not know how to use Hottel graphs to calculate emissivity. Just another dumb contrarian you blindly follow like the dufus Lanka who is really a dumb one. His measles argument is horrible and dangerous yet you think this person is brilliant. Why do you side with the unscientific contrarians all the time?
Norman, if a layperson like yourself had to decide between some of the modern psycho-babble nonsense found in “peer-reviewed” papers, or basic common sense, you should go with the basic common sense.
Hours in a typing frenzy does NOT translate to good science. Just because some idiot is employed by NASA, or some university, does NOT translate to good science. There is more nonsense out there than there is good science, by far.
A few examples of nonsense, just from the last few days, from commentors on this blog:
* Adding ice to sunlight raises the temperature!
* Whirling a ball on a string over your head means the ball is rotating about its axis!
* Sun can raise the temperature of Earth to 800,000K!
It doesn’t require much thought to debunk crap like this. But idiots can’t think.
testing…part 1
ramona…”Of course Philipona (as well as many others) in his long career has shown us that the scientific basis, in theory and experiment, underlying greenhouse gas warming is as robust as any aspect of modern science”.
Philipona’s nonsense was debunked long ago and only diehard alarmists cite him today. Here is an example of his nonsense:
“In the early 19th century Fourier [1827] found the atmosphere to be acting like a glass of a hothouse, letting through light rays of the sun but retaining the dark rays from the ground. That dark thermal radiation is absorbed by atmospheric trace gases, now called greenhouse gases (GHGs), was observed by Tyndall [1861]. To him water vapour had the greatest influence, and it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variations of the temperature that were lessened by this circumstance. The importance of carbon dioxide however, and the influence of artificial CO2 production on temperature at Earth’s surface, was pointed out by Arrhenius [1896] by the end of the 19th century.
[3] Accurate and highly resolved laboratory measurements have since improved the knowledge on spectral abso.r.p.tion of gases [Goody, 1964]. The amount of heat energy added to the atmosphere is mainly controlled by the con.c.e.n.t.r.ation of greenhouse gases and their ability to absorb solar shortwave and thermal longwave radiation”.
**********
1)Fourier said no such thing, he was misquoted.
2)Philipona has misrepresented Tyndall as well, inferring that he was talking about the atmosphere when in fact his work was done in a tube in a lab.
ramona…here’s what Fourier actually said…nothing to do with the current psudo-science of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/10/fourier-and-his-greenhouse-effect.html
I expect Norman along shortly to castigate the messenger while completely missing what Fourier said. Fourier did notice that the atmosphere has an existing negative pressure gradient and offered the notion that each density level in the gradient is heated differently by solar energy, hence a negative temperature gradient.
No mention of CO2 or any other GHG but a plausible notion with regard to the cause of the negative gradients for both pressure and temperature.
Philipona completely misrepresented what Fourier said.
Amazing how much he got right.
No, this is what Claes Johnson says Fourier said in his 1827 “MEMOIRE sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires.”
There have been several accurate English translation of this paper or you can of course read the French original if you are bilingual.
btw, I think Johnson blogs specifically for the hard of learning.
part 2…
3)Arrhenius made inferences and never proved any. In fact, both Tyndall and Arrhenius thought any warming would be beneficial, ergo, they were not predicting catastrophe.
4)There is no proof that heat added to the atmosphere is due to greenhouse gases. An expert on CO2, R. W. Wood doubted CO2 could add significant heat to the atmosphere. Wood thought the atmosphere absorbed heat directly from the surface and retained it due to the inability of N2/O2 to dissipate the heat via radiation.
5)Philipona claimed that GHGs can absorb solar SW but that no other gases can. That claim is sheer pseudo-science. Solar SW has a very broad spectrum and N2/O2 can absorb energy in parts of the spectrum.
You have misunderstood Wood’s experiment, or maybe you read some of his fiction literature which he also wrote, adult and children’s.
Also, seems to me that you are quoting Gerlich and Tscheuschner which is total rubbish.
Third, Fourier did not say that the working of the atmosphere is analogous to the workings of a greenhouse. The French word serre (greenhouse) does not appear anywhere in his essay.
You have been misled.
your posts in general: tl;dr
To Roy.
I just noticed that while UAH48 has risen for September, USCRN has actually dropped.
Usually they go in the same general direction, just by different amounts.
Any idea why this might have happened?
spike55
I live in Europe, and thus my interest in CRN isn’t very high.
But the worldwide GHCN daily data set contains the raw data for all USCRN stations.
When building the monthly “UAH minus GHCN daily CRN” differences wrt the mean of 2004-2018, I obtained end of last year, for Jan 2004 till Jun 2019, 107 of 186 positive anomaly differences, i.e. no more than 58 %.
Please do the same job using the real CRN data set. Maybe it differs from the raw data.
J.-P. D.
binny…”But the worldwide GHCN daily data set contains the raw data for all USCRN stations”.
Which raw data are you looking at, the fudged data or the actual data received by GHCN from people actually reading the thermometers? You are still in denial that NOAA takes the raw temperature data and fudges it. They not only fudge in real time they fudge retroactively to the point where GHCN data is absolutely worthless.
Not only that, they have discarded 90% of the GHCN reporting stations since 1990 and use climate models to recreate the discarded data from adjacent stations up to 1200 km apart. That’s over land, who knows how they fudge the SST.
As to a colder body heating a warmer.
Alarmists claim that energy can spontaneously transfer from the colder to the warmer. Unfortunately, energy would be lost from the colder, and its temperature would fall as a result. The energy taken up by the warmer would result in an increase in temperature. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so an increase in one has to be balanced by a decrease in the other.
The temperature difference between the two has now widened! Entropy has spontaneously decreased. Impossible. Now the process repeats ad infinitum, until the colder object has transferred all its energy to the warmer, and reached absolute zero. The warmer has all the energy available. Completely impossible, but it is an article of faith among alarmist donkeys.
So much for CO2 heating the surface by transferring energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.
Quite right, hot to cold:
Sun => Surface => Atmosphere => Space.
What an amazing dissertation Swenson.
You could be nominated for a Nobel for that.
Thanks, you are so smart.
b,
You are most welcome.
Im pleased you now see why alarmist GHE fantasies are impossible.
Swenson
I’ll have to burst your bubble here.
You say
“Alarmists claim that energy can spontaneously transfer from the colder to the warmer.”
Before I call that a lie, I’ll give you the opportunity to name one Alarmist that makes such a claim.
I certainly don’t.
b,
Heres your chance! Tell us all how greenhouse gases supposedly make the Earth hotter! Or are you now saying they dont?
Go for it, donkey. The world waits for you with bated breath.
Norman is attempting the same subterfuge below. They’re in denial about their own denial of physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536769
–Heres your chance! Tell us all how greenhouse gases supposedly make the Earth hotter! Or are you now saying they dont?–
Well where in world is there most greenhouse gases and gets the most sunlight warming the surface?
The tropical zone.
It’s not hot in tropical zone.
When was hottest air temperature ever measured correctly {or considered an official temperature reading of air temperature]
About 100 years ago.
So did have increase of global temperature and increase global greenhouse gases in last 100 years?
If answer is yes, then you got the answer- greenhouse gases do not make Earth hotter.
And theory is greenhouse gases increase global average temperature and global average temperature is a cold, 15 C.
If 20 C is not hot, but it is warmer than 15 C.
And it’s general accepted the coldest parts of world will have the average temperature increase the most.
So USA is about 12 C
And Canada about – 4 C
With more global warming, Canada should warm up to 0 C well before US warms up to 15 C.
And whenever US gets to 14 C, it’s still cold. And could have more snowfall and skiing as compared to when it was 12 C.
Snowfall actually makes or accompanies warmer average temperature.
Or if someone say US will increase it’s average temperature by 1 C, if true, then should expect more snowfall in winter in US.
Might not get more snowfall, but most likely, will.
Or other aspect of this, is, it can get too cold to snow and occurs often in US.
Because US is cold, but not as cold as Canada.
Swenson,
Let’s keep it to one strawman argument at a time shall we?
All I am asking is for one Alarmist who says that heat can spontaneously transfer from cold to hot.
All your braying like a pack of donkeys, and you still can come up with one.
Of course greenhouse gases make the earth warmer, but they don’t do it by spontaneously transferring energy or heat from cold to hot.
If you could do anything more than name drop quantum chromodynamics you would know that.
Perhaps you should up your game and learn how the greenhouse effect actually operates instead of braying like a donkey.
Want some hay?
b,
Alarmist who believes energy can spontaneously move from cold object to hot object – bobdroege.
Believes CO2 can transfer energy to hotter surface, thereby making surface hotter.
Swenson,
You braying donkey, I said exactly the opposite of that.
Rhetorical question
How can someone who can’t read past the third grade level understand quantum electrodynamics?
b,
Now you agree that radiation from a colder object cannot increase the temperature of a hotter object? Is that it?
As in, the colder atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the surface, regardless of composition?
Now you are accepting reality. Good for you!
Swenson,
The energy transfer from the cold atmosphere to the surface can make the surface warmer. Without violating the second law.
You can’t seem to remember when the word spontaneously should be used, or not used.
Review my posts if and when you get confused, or listen to the music play.
You obviously can’t keep the second law straight.
blob, please stop trolling.
DREMTY,
You want that spontaneously, or when I am damned good and ready, and do you want some hay too?
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
Swenson
Your point: “Alarmists claim that energy can spontaneously transfer from the colder to the warmer.”
I am not sure who peddles that but certainly not any climate science nor do most scientifically minded posters.
The atmosphere does not spontaneously transfer energy from cold to hot. The atmosphere just slows the loss down as compared to no atmosphere so the surface can reach a higher average (note average) temperature. The Moon with no atmosphere and receiving similar amounts of solar input has a much colder average temperature than the Earth. Your point is only valid if the surface is not constantly receiving energy from the Sun (an external source). It would be nice if one of you contrarian skeptics actually took the time to learn what the GHE actually claims and what it does not. Mostly you are wrong in your understanding but to contrarian to learn the “Real Deal”.
Norman, are you now in denial of all the violations of 2nd Law you idiots have touted?
The “plates” nonsense, and “ice warming sunlight”, just for two examples.
ClintR
No violation of the 2nd Law at all. You have to know what is being stated. I think you could not understand Tim Folkerts intelligent and correct physics. (he has a PHD in physics). If you had a planet warmed by ice and added an external source of energy the temperature would increase above the original temperture. This is NOT a violation of any physics laws. It happens all the time in many situations. I feel you do not have a solid grasp of physics and it is nearly impossible to have intelligent discussions with you. Normally I like to avoid your posts as they are very unproductive.
I am sure that responding to you will likely prove very unproductive.
Norman, you are in deep denial.
You’re twisting the situation around. The violation is NOT if Sun can warm a surface “heated” by ice. The violation was Folkerts claiming ice could warm a surface heated by Sun. That’s a clear violation of multiple laws of physics, including 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You’re an idiot already for denying reality. Why further humiliate yourself by blatantly lying? Why do you want to behave like a pathetic loser?
(And I don’t believe Tim Folkerts has a PhD in physics. I’ve seen too much of his nonsense. Unless he got it from some online diploma mill, for $19.95)
ClintR
You are the one who is wrong in your thought process.
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534753
You can’t understand radiant heat transfer regardless of the valid physics. The plate with the ice close to it will reach a higher temperature than the one without ice near it. This is established physics. The IR from the ice will be absorbed by the plate as well as the solar input. The other one will not have this extra energy.
The ice alone (as Tim Folkerts tried many times to explain to you) will warm the plate to a certain temperature much above the temperature it would have with no ice. Now add more input energy and it gets hotter. I really do not know how you distort the 2nd Law but you do and all the contrarians on this blog do so as well.
The big flaw with all the contrarians is they do not accept established physics then they go on their own rants about the corruption of science. Yet not one of you can provide any evidence at all you know what you are talking about. Science is about evidence, and rational logic thought connecting the evidence. Not one of you has any evidence at all but have unshakable beliefs you are correct. All based upon contrarian thought. No science, just blind stubborn belief that can’t change.
Again Norman, it’s sunlight FIRST, then ice SECOND, you idiot. Here’s what your phony PhD was saying:
First–sunlight (300 W/m^2) = 273 K
Second–sunlight (300/m^2) + ice (300/m^2) = 325 K (He even showed his phony equation.)
That violates laws of physics and thermodynamics. It’s such a gross violation that even an idiot like you should be able to figure it out. But, that would wreck your false religion. So, you have to see if you can type yourself out of reality and into your world of make-believe physics.
Good luck with that.
ClintR
You are wrong again. I am not a zealot or hold on to a “false religion”. I use basic textbook physics (you should try it sometime for a change instead of your version whatever that is). I like evidence and rational logical thought.
Tim Folkerts is correct. It does not matter the order you arrange the energy. The ice is emitting energy to the planet that will be absorbed no questions there, that is established physics.
Maybe you need to take a course on statistical thermodynamics. If you would you would find that at room temperature most molecules are in ground state, all freely available to absorb incoming photons.
Look at Problem 5 of this link:
http://pollux.chem.umn.edu/4501/homework/4501_Homework04sol.pdf
With Tim Folkerts explanation you just need to have the sunlight get through the ice to work. If you don’t have the ice around the planet, the surface would only receive the solar input, the energy from space is very small indeed. Not sure what part of physics you think this violates. I can link you again to a free text-book on heat transfer. They have many problems to look at.
You simply do not understand radiant heat transfer and it appears you never will. You are stuck in contrarian thought and unable to move out of it. Like I said, I will stick to textbook physics until it is proven incorrect with valid evidence. Your opinions of me or my thought process are not the type of evidence that is very convincing. Get some textbook physics that agrees with you and I will consider your ideas. As of now it is just your opinions.
Norman, your blah-blah won’t work with me. You’re a proven idiot. You are definitely a zealot in a cult. You don’t know crap about physics, especially thermodynamics. Your distracting links won’t help you.
You keep trying to change the situation. Face reality. This is the situation:
First — sunlight (300 W/m^2) = 273 K
Second — sunlight (300/m^2) + ice (300/m^2) = 325 K
That violates laws of physics and thermodynamics. It’s such a gross violation that even an idiot like you should be able to figure it out. But, that would wreck your false religion. So, you have to see if you can type yourself out of reality and into your world of make-believe physics.
It’s not working, is it?
N,
Pardon me for laughing, but . . .
Are you serious? You place a thermometer in the sun, then cover it with ice, then it gets hotter?
You have taken leave of your senses.
ClintR
You are the one caught in a strange false contrarian religion NOT ME.
You do not understand heat transfer. I do actually understand it quite well and mine is based upon textbook physics. Yours is a contrarian made up version.
The real physics that you don’t accept is that heat transfer is the sum of the energy a hot object loses minus the energy it gains from a colder body. I could send you links to real physics so you know it is not my own understanding but that of real physics.
Not much to be gained by discussing intelligent physics with a contrarian like you. You don’t accept real physics only the contrarian (like Postma’s garbage ideas) type is what you accept.
Nothing will change your view. That is why I consider any interaction with you unproductive.
More blah-blah and distractions from you, Norman. (Who’s Postma?)
All in a effort to avoid reality. Here’s the reality that you hate:
One of your cult members claimed:
First — sunlight (300 W/m^2) = 273 K
Second — sunlight (300/m^2) + ice (300/m^2) = 325 K
That’s right, he claimed adding ice to sunlight would raise the temperature. He, like you and several others are idiots.
That violates laws of physics and thermodynamics. It’s such a gross violation that even an idiot like you should be able to figure it out. But, that would wreck your false religion. So, you have to see if you can type yourself out of reality and into your world of make-believe physics.
But now your keyboard has overheated, and your are on display as the fraud you are.
I guess you have never heard of Prevosts’s Principle or studied Max Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation;” or I should say the echo chambers you frequent never have mentioned these.
RR,
And your point is? Or are you just appealing to authority about nothing at all?
If you have only two bodies, one warmer than the other, regardless of insulation (other than perfect), both will eventually have identical temperatures. The warmer cools, the colder warms.
You obviously dont agree, otherwise you could not possibly believe that GHGs make the Earth hotter.
Now Swenson the braying donkey,
“If you have only two bodies, one warmer than the other, regardless of insulation (other than perfect), both will eventually have identical temperatures. The warmer cools, the colder warms.”
You know that’s not what’s going on in the earth’s atmosphere.
Or maybe you don’t, that’s a failure of your schooling.
Where did you go to school, I want to make sure no one I know goes there.
b,
Getting a bit desperate? Telling me that I really think Im wrong?
Not at all. If you want people to accept your speculation that the laws of thermodynamics dont apply to the atmosphere, I wish you luck. In the meantime, you might care to specify the observable phenomenon (incapable of explanation using known physics), which is supposedly explained as the Greenhouse Effect.
Its the first step of the scientific method, which seems to be unknown to you.
Swenson,
Of course the laws of thermodynamics apply to the atmosphere, there is just more to it than the surface absorbing energy from the atmosphere.
Which happens as the atmosphere radiates infrared which some of it hits the surface adding energy to the surface.
Of course the atmosphere is warmed by the Sun directly, warmed by radiation from the surface, warmed by convection currents from the surface (thermals), and warmed by conduction from the surface.
So the atmosphere is not spontaneously warming the surface with nothing else gong on.
b,
So you are now saying that radiation from a colder atmosphere raises the temperature of the hotter surface by adding to the radiation from the sun? Like Tim Folkerts claiming he can make an object in sunlight hotter by covering it with ice radiating 300 W/m2?
In any case, are you trying to say the atmosphere only increases the temperature of the surface when the sun is shining? No wonder no one can describe the need for a GHE!
Swenson,
there is a long list of things you don’t seem to understand.
I’ll start with averages, since you seem to be the one most in love with the claim that you can heat something with ice. Which no one ever made.
Mikey flynn was in love with that approach as well.
So prove to me you understand averages, then we can move on to physics.
Ill start with averages, since you seem to be the one most in love with the claim that you can heat something with ice. Which no one ever made.
Mikey flynn was in love with that approach as well.
=========================
Holy moly I must be Mikey flynn. I recall having about a 600 post exchange that took me to task for suggesting eskimos heat their igloos with ice.
Igloos? Well, we’re not really talking about the radiation from ice in that case, are we?
ice makes a good insulator when its thick enough so yes. Radiation from 0c ice is a lot better than insulation from -30c outdoors.
Going beyond that I would want to take a course in how to improve that. No doubt a few eskimos still have that technology down.
The ice in the igloo is acting as a good themal regulator, and blocking convection.
There will now be a big drop in temperature at night in the Northeast in the US. End of the growing season.
Yeah, global warming stops every autumn.
#PolarVortex (PV) animation from this morning’s GFS still suggesting to me a reflective or stretching PV event with warming centered on the Dateline that favors relatively #cold temps in Central Asia but especially central & eastern Canada & US with timing likely for late October.
https://twitter.com/judah47/status/1314596476593614849
The Nino 3.4 index drops below -1 C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Obviously nature (reality) doesn’t go along with all the nonsense about AGW and “radiative forcing”.
ren
Maybe one day you start looking a little further into the future instead of always looking to tomorrow morning:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html
Here you see that the Tokyo Climate Center has a much more moderate forecast than has NASA (SST3+4 <= 2 deg C vs <= 3 deg C)
By the way, it is a bit strange to see 'skeptic's choosing NASA data for NINO3+4 forecasts, as they usually denigrate them because NASA shows too much warming in temperature series.
But NASA people are always good when they show… cooling, aren't they?
J.-P. D.
JD is getting nervous. Even his head “church” (NASA) is admitting ENSO cooling.
Hopefully they’re telling the truth and it’s not colder than they’re admitting….
This study might interest you Ren if you missed it. Actually, the growing season in south east Michigan has been over for a while. We had frost when it was still summer. I compared the last 12 years to see how early frosts have been changing in the USA. Indeed, the map has more blue colors.
https://www.facebook.com/reddformula350/posts/3616909304994933
Scott R
I remember you suspected recent cooling over Greenland, probably because you had a look at the Promice weather station “EGP”, located in a very cold part of that country, at an altitude of about 2600 m.
‘Cold’ does not automatically mean ‘cooling’, just like ‘warm’ does not automatically mean ‘warming’. In fact, many stations located in cold or warm places show relatively stable temperatures.
EGP’s place isn’t cold only: it is cooling as well (but as the station’s record starts in 2016, this is not very significant).
Here is a plot of EGP’s daily data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NPu7MmGtUxgPMpHp2FbPsDtMT7nexSoS/view
The estimates looks a bit flat, but this is due to the time series’ short period. 2 C / decade, typical for such periods within which linear trends are often smaller than the standard error associated to them.
*
It was interesting to spend some idle time today on looking how other Promice stations behave in comparison.
Since all have different absolute temperatures (partly due to very different altitudes), only a comparison based on station local departures from the mean a common reference period are meaningful.
The will to integrate the ‘cold’ data of the stations EGP and CEN implied the (very short) reference period 2018-2019.
Here is a chart with the anomalies of a subset of the 25 Promice stations presenting as much data as possible:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a0ZExz2tY6MX08hmNdaGjQ5l7i6wqPe5/view
A comparison of the anomaly average of these 9 Promice stations with that of the 10 GHCN daily stations having data for 2018-2019 shows this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YAREKypqHX72aAqU_jr3WQmvFyMftLzD/view
Maintenant, Scott R, c'est à votre tour…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
All of these Greenland datasets are very short, occurring during the high base portion of the 60 year AMO cycle. There should be no trend during this period. I actually did study 5 locations in detail. We are definitely having a cold year. These 4 stations have the longest most complete data with the fewest number of missing days. There is no point expanding that to more stations because of the problems with missing data. That said, I interpolated the missing data points, scrubbed leap days, and made a running 365 day moving average for these stations. I see no up trend here at all.
As to my point about this being a cold year, at the time of this post daily records for these 5 stations were 175 record cold days to 107 record hot days. The cold side has really gotten aggressive since la nina started picking up.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/3668044209881442/?d=n
Scott R
” There should be no trend during this period. ”
Wow. Nice theory. You really seem to think AMO is the only one source of trends in temperature series. Good grief…
*
But we both were wrong in our estimates, because there is very well a trend in the Promice station data, and it is, in clear opposition to my comment above, not positive at all.
You were wrong because you think you can
– eliminate stations just because they don’t have enough data;
– construct a time series out of no more than 4 stations, where in fact even 25 are by no means enough.
I was wrong because I forgot that constructing station-local anomalies out of so few stations inevitably leads to the same mistake.
*
Here is, to circumvent that mistake, the average of all available absolute Greenland data for GHCN daily and Promice stations, for the period 2000-2020:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gbA_81HaKOrDdLjyohwLTFpguwyDdza0/view
It is visible that the Promice average contains data from stations measuring temperatures lower by at least 5 C compared with the GHCN daily data set.
Here is the same data, but now as anomalies built out the global average, wrt the mean of 2010-2019:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_J8Q_vUH5YlAhPNbNjTAM-MCeKGTKQwI/view
The trend for Promice and GHCN daily anomalies for 2010-2020 is about 3 C (!) / decade; there was a quite similar trend drop for 1976-1984 with -4 C, and also during 1900-1910.
The GHCN daily trend for the satellite era is +0.7 C / decade; that is something we really should call flat.
J.-P. D.
Typos
– The trend for Promice and GHCN daily anomalies for 2010-2020 is about –3 C (!) / decade…
– … that is something we really should NOT call flat.
And the -3 C trend is insignificant because, like UAH trends beginning with Jan 2016, it starts with the highest value in the period.
The trend for both GHCN and Promice starting with 2012 is nearly zero.
I have just read the bit about brownian motion above.
The ke energy of translational collisions which I believe brinion is talking about is about a thousand times less than the IR vibrational state of absorbtion.
I fail to understand how the re emitted IR radiation could lead to these translational state changes.
Quanta of energy can only be absorbed by specific interacctions of radiation at specific frequencies.
If the method of energy transfer you qiote existed it wouldnt allow any mixed gas IR spectra to be taken.
Mark Wapples
I am glad you like to study and learn things. Most refreshing!
On your point that KE is thousands of times less than IR vibrational states, that is not correct.
Here:
https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/using-the-kinetic-energy-formula-to-predict-air-molecule-speed/
This calculation gives the average energy of air molecules at room temperature.
The number they came up with is 6.23 x 10^-21 Joules. The energy of an IR photon at 15 microns (one of CO2 emission bands) is 1.3254 x 10-21 joules. The 15 micron photon is only about twice as energetic as room temperature gas KE.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/converters/e_of_photon
When you look at the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution you have plenty of air molecules that have enough KE to raise the vibrational states of a CO2 molecule.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Kinetics/03%3A_Rate_Laws/3.01%3A_Gas_Phase_Kinetics/3.1.02%3A_Maxwell-Boltzmann_Distributions
So the thermometer only shows the average kinetic energy of the air particles. How is temperature measured at 1 mbar?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t01_nh_f00.png
Does the thermometer only show the air temperature? The thermometer under the influence of direct sunlight, isolated from the wind, shows a much higher temperature.
Ren,
Spot on. And the closer the thermometer gets to the sun, the higher it reads. Most people are still back in the 19th century, where atoms were like little billiard balls, and EMR was waves.
ren
Does the thermometer only show the solar activity? The thermometer under the influence of wind, isolated from the insolation, shows a lower temperature.
That, ren, is the reason why one of our external thermometers is isolated from insolation, but NOT from the wind.
J.-P. D.
Binnie,
Thats not what he asked, is it? But anyway.
Have a go at explaining why a thermometer exposed to the sun shows a higher temperature than one shielded from the sun. Use as many collisions as you like, but remember there is a fair lack of molecules between the sun and the earth. No collisions.
ren is asking the right sort of question. You wont have the right sort of answer. Time for a diversion, perhaps?
IR photon at 15 microns is 13.254 x 10-21 joules.
ClintR
For that one I will thank you. I had intended just to put down what the calculator came up with which was 1.32430e-20 Joules. I should have just copied and pasted it like I just did. A 15 micron IR photon has about twice the energy as the KE of an average air molecule at room temperature.
Mark Wapples
I spoke about collisions of IR sensitive molecules (H2O, CO2 etc) having absorbed – but not reemitted yet – IR photons, with N2/O2 molecules.
J.-P. D.
Binnie,
No collisions. So sorry.
Flynson
You are just as ignorant and presumptuous as your spiritual doppelganger Robertson.
No collisions, Flynson?
https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-36-3-563
(One of dozens of papers available upon a deeper search)
*
The only (somewhat positive) difference between you and Robertson is that you spare us these stoopid, kilometer long, pseudoscientific elucubrations.
Thanks for that, Flynson.
J.-P. D.
Binnie believes I am a non-existent person, a demon, perhaps. Who cares?
However, appealing to the authority of experts who also believe in molecules colliding, will not make quantum electrodynamics (the most rigorously tested theory ever), any less true. No collisions. No little collections of coloured billiard balls banging into each other following Newtons Laws.
A reasonable analogy, if neither you nor your audience know any better.
OK we’re again impressed by Flynson tossing out big words like “quantum electrodynamics”, but then all is hope lost when he says “experts who also believe in molecules colliding” “no collisions”.
Truly an odd duck.
Swenson
So if you say molecules do not collide what are they doing?
From actual physics sources I would say you are wrong but I wait for you to provide some support of your points. Will you do so ?
https://www.accessscience.com/content/collision-physics/149000
“The study of collisions of molecules, atoms, and nuclear particles is an important field of physics. Here the object is usually to obtain information about the forces acting between the particles. The velocities of the particles are measured before and after collision. Although quantum mechanics instead of classical mechanics should be used to describe the motion of the particles, many of the conclusions of classical collision theory are valid.”
norman…”Swenson…So if you say molecules do not collide what are they doing”?
I have not read Swenson’s argument but it seems you are misunderstanding what is meant by molecules colliding. They don’t literally collide, nucleus to nucleus, if they did the molecules would be destroyed. If you knocked even one electron off a nitrogen or oxygen atom, you’d have a whole lot of charged ions floating around.
If you knocked protons off the nucleus, as well as electrons you’d change nitrogen and oxygen into different elements.
The collisions are elastic, suggestion the collisions are likely due to electrostatic repulsion, or a similar mechanism that causes a soft rebound without the loss of energy. No one has ever seen two molecules collide.
Although I don’t know, from my training in electronics, I’d guess the molecules don’t get anywhere close to each other. Even when the gas molecules strike the solid surface of a container, I don’t think there is a real collision. For example, oxygen is surrounded by 8 electrons, all at varying depths around the nucleus. If the container is made of iron, each iron atom has 26 electrons surrounding them, all at varying depths.
As you know, the negative charges on electrons repel each other, so any collision under normal velocities would likely get no further than the electron level. With higher velocities, the atoms are destroyed, but that requires accelerating them with immense energies.
Sometimes the collisions are just between the electrons of the molecules or atoms involved, sometimes the nucleus gets involved if the energies are high enough.
Go look up Rutherford and his destruction of the figgy pudding model.
Just like when you drive your car into a brick wall, ok, there is no actual collision, just electrons repelling each other.
blob, please stop trolling.
As you quoted –
*Although quantum mechanics instead of classical mechanics should be used to describe the motion of the particles, many of the conclusions of classical collision theory are valid.*
Dont you read what you post? And even using quantum mechanics ultimately failed. Hence, quantum electrodynamics. No collisions, although this simplification is good enough for those who do not know any better. Such as yourself. Sorry about that. Dont blame me.
Swenson
You still have not provided anything stating what occurs when say when an alpha particle, moving into a gold plate, changes direction and moves back to the source. Explain this observed phenomena that acts the same as a collision of particles. You are claiming the concept is wrong but that is all you are doing. You are not further explaining what actually takes place to reverse the direction of an alpha particle.
N,
Alpha particle and a gold plate? Read what you quoted, if you cannot understand your own reference, why bother throwing it at me? It is not my fault if you are dim.
Next time, when you appeal to authority, use an authority who supports you. Otherwise, you just look really, really, stupid.
Ernest Rutherford and the figgy pudding model?
b,
Choose an up-to-date authority, otherwise you will look really, really, stupid.
Read this paper and get back to me
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1636691
Swenson
Are you running for political office? You are a classic politician. I ask a direct question and you go off on some unrelated tangent.
I have asked you to supply information that if molecules do not collide, what do they do? They change direction and energy just like a macroscopic collision. You claim I look stupid. Sounds like a political debate with you. Rather than answer a question or provide evidence you launch an attack on your opponent to divert attention away from the fact that you have provided no information to support your claims. How long will your political shenanigan’s for on? Only you know the answer but you will probably divert that one to some unrelated point to avoid answering.
N,
You provided the answer to your question. Dont blame me if you refuse to accept your own authority.
You quoted –
*Although quantum mechanics instead of classical mechanics should be used to describe the motion of the particles, many of the conclusions of classical collision theory are valid.*
See – quantum mechanics. Later superseded by quantum electrodynamics. No little billiard balls. You dont want to believe anything I say, so why do you bother asking?
Or this one you ignorant braying donkey
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1681388
blob, please stop trolling.
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
SOI values for 12 Oct, 2020
Average SOI for last 30 days 12.34
Average SOI for last 90 days 8.52
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 11.28
Monthly average SOI values
Jul 4.25
Aug 8.39
Sep 9.93
gbaikie…”There is general idea that if atmosphere radiates at higher elevation this results in higher surface temperature”.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The version I heard, which is just as dumb, is that the atmosphere radiates less at higher altitudes therefore the surface is warmer. That’s an observation about the results of another process, not a cause and effect for why the surface is warmer.
In an atmosphere with a negative, gravity-based density gradient, there are far more molecules at the surface than there are at higher altitudes. Suppose the atmosphere was somehow the same density throughout, would the surface still be warmer? No, the whole atmosphere would be statically the same temperature.
People who have theorized not only a lapse rate but an adiabatic lapse rate, are not considering the underlying physics/chemistry/thermodynamics. There can be no such thing as an adiabatic process in the atmosphere for the simple reason there is nothing there to contain the gases. Claiming a process is adiabatic over a vertical column of air several miles wide is sheer nonsense since the gases on the boundary regions are free to transfer heat via convection to cooler areas.
Look at the reality. You have a static atmosphere with dynamic perturbations (convection currents). On some days, when there is little or no convection over an area, the air has to be governed directly by the Ideal Gas Law. Not to say that any law governs the atmosphere but the mathematical relationships in the IGL, based on over a century of proof, must be obeyed.
So, how do you explain the negative pressure gradient from the surface to 30,000 feet where the pressure is 1/3 of the surface pressure? You cannot explain that with the anthropogenic theory or lapse rate theory. There is only one explanation, a negative gravity gradient. Even with Everest and the Himalaya extending into the atmosphere, they cannot affects the air pressure as much as the immense mass underlying them. No matter where you are located on the planet, the air pressure at 30,000 feet will be 1/3 the surface temperature.
The climate crowd have the temerity to claim that lower pressure at higher altitudes is due to air being forced up to higher altitudes and losing pressure, hence temperature. What utter nonsense. There is no reason for the air to lose pressure unless something lowers the number of air molecules. How the heck does forcing air to higher altitudes accomplish that?
No, The phenomenon that is responsible for that effect is gravity. It is gravity that creates the negative pressure gradient and with it, a negative temperature gradient.
The people who offered your statement seem oblivious to that reality. They think higher temperature at the surface is caused by something mysterious and as a result the mystery agent causes the atmosphere to have a negative temperature gradient.
I think they believe there has to be a pressure gradient between the warmed surface and the -270C of space. However, such a negative gradient cannot explain the negative pressure gradient. Gravity can.
–Gordon Robertson says:
October 12, 2020 at 12:55 AM
gbaikie…”There is general idea that if atmosphere radiates at higher elevation this results in higher surface temperature”.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The version I heard, which is just as dumb, is that the atmosphere radiates less at higher altitudes therefore the surface is warmer. That’s an observation about the results of another process, not a cause and effect for why the surface is warmer.
In an atmosphere with a negative, gravity-based density gradient, there are far more molecules at the surface than there are at higher altitudes. Suppose the atmosphere was somehow the same density throughout, would the surface still be warmer? No, the whole atmosphere would be statically the same temperature.–
If same density, it would short distance and/or lower gravity.
So, kind like any normal room {roughly same density} or Mars or a room on Mars or the Moon. Also in pressure vessel it lessen difference- though low pressure and huge pressure vessel should have difference of density from top to bottom [up and down in gravity].
“People who have theorized not only a lapse rate but an adiabatic lapse rate, are not considering the underlying physics/chemistry/thermodynamics. There can be no such thing as an adiabatic process in the atmosphere for the simple reason there is nothing there to contain the gases.”
When enough air density, there so many molecules, it’s like a traffic jam- individual molecules “don’t go anywhere”, but what travels up is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy will/can cause air masses to move- so single molecules still stuck in traffic jam, but the traffic jam, can move. This the average state, but through dispersion, perfume or different gas molecules of densities will travel and will equalize in volume of gas. Or water vapor will disperse within Earth atmosphere, but less water vapor will disperse in a upper part of the column of air.
Water vapor is complicated as continues to change from liquid to gas state within a column of air and that reason it alters lapse rate temperature of air. Or there is movement of individual molecules but mostly, say +90%, not movement.
But as air gets less dense as elevation increases the travel distance of an average single molecule increase. As recall in low earth orbit such distance is like 1 mile and molecules have much higher average molecules.
When consider very high velocity of molecule {speed light being example of most extreme {or GCR particles}} they can go thru traffic jams in terms miles of distance in dense air- or they go so fast they can “go thru rain without getting wet”.
But molecule of air going fast going nowhere at a velocity of faster than bullet {500 m/s} so talking about +500,000 m/s in term getting somewhere without interacting with the traffic jam {or have greater chance of doing so}.
.. much higher average molecules. I meant: much higher average velocity of molecules. But much, I mean like say twice velocity.
“Look at the reality. You have a static atmosphere with dynamic perturbations (convection currents). On some days, when there is little or no convection over an area, the air has to be governed directly by the Ideal Gas Law. Not to say that any law governs the atmosphere but the mathematical relationships in the IGL, based on over a century of proof, must be obeyed.–
Yes. But I would add, reality on Earth always involves H20 and dust and lot’s complexities. And wind is what we notice, or lots “wind” don’t notice and difficult to even measure.
“So, how do you explain the negative pressure gradient from the surface to 30,000 feet where the pressure is 1/3 of the surface pressure? You cannot explain that with the anthropogenic theory or lapse rate theory.”
Well, roughly explain it as lots of air above 30,000 feet- and 30,000 feet is effect from that air, which air molecule can travel further. Or it’s different traffic jam at +30,000 feet.
But bigger difference is a bit higher. I don’t use feet: 30,000 feet is 9144 meters. The troposphere varies so better to use it rather feet or meters.
So upper part of troposphere is tropopause where convection is greatly diminished.
How about analogy, liquid doesn’t have individual molecule moving freely, so air acts vaguely like liquid within troposphere. And stratosphere air molecules may move 1 meter {There is exact number somewhere- I just spitballing it}. I would say traffic jam changes most starting in stratosphere {which is huge volume space}.
Hmm let put this way, you have jet stream, because it’s in zone allows fast air movement. As airplane go higher as allows faster movement, and plane don’t go even higher, because air not enough to float on- same sort of rules of jet stream.
But make simple go back what said, traffic jams rules change- all the troposphere is tropopause and all other -spheres are roughly different kinds of traffic jams.
“The climate crowd have the temerity to claim that lower pressure at higher altitudes is due to air being forced up to higher altitudes and losing pressure, hence temperature. ”
I would say density rather than pressure. Pressure is easier- it depends largely upon amount of air above.
Density is constantly changing, one need go up there measure it. And Military needs to measure it- because air density matters for what they do.
{Of course, there are models for air density.}
Weather guys would talk about density- can’t say anything much about the climate crowd- though what is notable is they seem to tend think CO2 has something significant to do with the lapse rate.
gbaikie…”If same density, it would short distance and/or lower gravity”.
Only have a few minutes to reply. You can’t lower gravity, it is fixed by the Earth’s mass. Without gravity, our atmosphere would be lost to space. Gravity causes the density gradient of air, not the other way around.
gbaikie…”When enough air density, there so many molecules, its like a traffic jam- individual molecules dont go anywhere, but what travels up is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy will/can cause air masses to move- so single molecules still stuck in traffic jam, but the traffic jam, can move”.
Kinetic energy is not energy per se, it is a descriptor of energy. That is, it describes energy in motion…any energy. However, there has to be something real that is moving, like air molecules. They have the kinetic energy and it is the molecules that are rising.
Heat is the kinetic energy of those molecules as far as temperature is concerned. A gust of wind involving those molecules could apply a force to a mass so the kinetic energy of those molecules could represent mechanical energy and work.
The two are related, work has an equivalence in heat and vice versa. So, if you have molecules rising after being heated, they represent a transfer of heat and they could represent a rising force. In the extreme, that heat and force can create great damage as in a hurricane.
There are supposed to be high winds in the stratosphere but I wonder how dense they are with the lighter air?
norman…”The atmosphere does not spontaneously transfer energy from cold to hot. The atmosphere just slows the loss down as compared to no atmosphere so the surface can reach a higher average (note average) temperature”.
Of the two ideas, one is just as bad as the other. The atmosphere cannot transfer heat to the surface, the 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.
Neither can the GHGs in the atmosphere slow heat dissipation. Even if they could, GHGs on average account for only 0.3% of the entire atmosphere and, at best, could absorb no more than 5% of surface radiation.
Heat dissipation is affected only by temperature difference and the only bodies involved are the whole atmosphere in contact with the surface. The temperature of the atmosphere is governed by N2/O2, which make up 99% of the atmosphere.
Even at that, without convection (heated air rising) the two would be in thermal equilibrium and heat dissipation would be negligible. Heat dissipation depends on heated surface air rising and cooler air from above replacing it. The cooler air is heated by the surface and the cycle continues.
Moreover, during the autumn-spring period, a polar vortex means that different air masses do not mix with each other. The front is so strong that it pushes warmer air to the south.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f120.png
ren…”during the autumn-spring period, a polar vortex means that different air masses do not mix with each other”.
It’s amazing how a warm front and a cold front can collide without simply mixing. I imagine they do to an extent but what causes them to move around each other in a swirling action (vortex)?
I guess the density difference acts much like hot air floating in cold air. I am interested in what mechanism causes that to happen. I can see it with a boat filled with air on water, but why between masses of air?
Gordon Robertson
You repeat the same thing over and over even after people correct you. No one disputes that “heat” cannot be transferred from a cold to hot body. All physicists understand ENERGY will transfer both ways. You don’t accept physics so you continue to play out this same old theme over and over and over.
A cold object emits energy to a hotter body. The hotter body can absorb this energy (Even Clausius knew this, you don’t…I have posted links to his own words on the topic that you twist and reject).
The heat is the amount of energy transferred. The HOT object transfers MORE energy to the COLD object than the COLD object transfers to the HOT object. Therefore HEAT is always transfers from the HOT to COLD body. Your ideas are bad, they are not based upon any actual physics. Mine are and I have supported them with textbook data (which you reject).
You could attempt to understand it but you are a contrarian and will only accept information from other contrarians. Evidence does not sway or change your thought process. Nothing seems to unless some contrarian tells you different.
N,
You are a donkey. Not a terribly bright donkey. A body losing energy cools. The body gaining energy gets hotter (apart from phase changes, etc).
If you are saying that temperatures do not change when the hotter body somehow accepts energy from the colder, then how would you know it has happened? Nothing has changed. Is this the basis for CO2 warming? No change to temperatures?
Maybe if you realise that 18th and 19th century ideas have been modified during the 20th and 21st centuries, you might become a slightly brighter variety of donkey,
Swenson
Your post is not very logical. I do not follow any rational logic. It is a ridiculous reply to my comment. Seems you just post to call people “donkey”. This must have an appeal to you.
Your points have nothing at all to do with the content of my post.
You just seem to ramble around comments with no real point. Not sure how to even respond to what you post.
N,
Not sure how to respond? Have you considered silence?
Theres a good little donkey. Settle down. No need to bray.
What Norman can’t understand is that “cold” can NOT raise the temperature of “hot”. He can’t accept reality because it would destroy his false religion. His cult leaders probably have already stockpiled the “purple koolaid”.
His cult has actually stated that adding ice will raise the temperature of something already in sunlight. This is the kind of crap his cult believes and tries to promote:
First — sunlight (300 W/m^2) = 273 K
Second — sunlight (300/m^2) + ice (300/m^2) = 325 K
That violates laws of physics and thermodynamics. It’s such a gross violation that even an idiot like Norman should be able to figure it out. But, that would wreck his false religion. So he types and types and types, trying to distract, distort, and deceive.
ClintR
Sorry cult minded contrarian. You have the characteristics of a cultist that you accuse thoughtful intelligent people of having. When you have no valid supporting evidence for your religious claims, you repeat the posts like a chanting thought process. It creates a barrier to prevent actual physics from interfering with your contrarian religion. A belief system held together by the glue of conspiracy and overwhelming ego. You think your mind is far superior than everyone else. You have a set of false beliefs you endlessly chatter and that reinforces the cult mind you accuse others of having (which they don’t).
Norman, that’s all just your blah-blah opinions, and no science, seeking to avoid the issue.
When you can’t support the nonsense Folkerts spews, maybe it’s time for you to leave the cult and face reality.
But, we know that won’t happen.
ClintR
The huge difference between you and Tim Folkerts is that he actually knows REAL physics. You don’t.
Tim is very intelligent and I can learn from his posts. Your posts are just contrarian opinions of things you read on blogs. Not at all real physics. I linked you to an actual textbook on heat transfer.
To benefit you here again is the link. Read up on radiative heat transfer. You will find Tim Folkerts knows his material and you will also find where you lack (which is considerable).
https://ahtt.mit.edu/
Download the free textbook and read away.
Still just your opinions, Norman. And a link to physics doesn’t help you case. You don’t use physics, I do.
Your cult member has actually stated that adding ice will raise the temperature of something already in sunlight. This is the kind of crap your cult believes and tries to promote:
First — sunlight (300 W/m^2) = 273 K
Second — sunlight (300/m^2) + ice (300/m^2) = 325 K
That violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
ClintR
What physics do you use? Homemade contrarian version. It is certainly NOT established physics.
I could also make up physics and use it. It will not make it corret or rational. What valid physics are you using in your critique of Tim Folkerts post? I have not seen any yet. Just your contrarian blog physics. Show some real physics please.
N,
Established physics to date is quantum electrodynamics. Most rigorously tested theory ever. Not faulted to date. Explains every physical process in the known universe, with the exception of nuclear processes and gravity.
Sadly, you appear to know nothing whatsoever about it.
Keep adding your fluxes. Keep quoting outmoded physics. Keep living in the 19th century. Keep believing donkeys like the pretend scientist and balding bearded buffoon, Gavin Schmidt. Or the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, Michael Mann.
Good luck!
I guess we’re supposed to be impressed that Swenson can say “quantum electrodynamics.”
But then he won’t add fluxes and cant explain where fluxes go if not added, and he loses any cred that he hoped for.
N,
Whether you are impressed or not is of no concern to me.
However, other people may be taken in by your nonsense. You ask *where fluxes go*, which is a nonsense question. A flux is a concept. In your case, it goes nowhere at all.
If you are talking about radiation, in the form of photons, then it all depends. Photons can be absorbed, (partly or wholly), reflected, or transmitted. No missing energy. Maybe you dont like the way quantum electrodynamics describes the way the universe seems to work.
You might like to read up on the *two slit* experiment, which encapsulates quantum weirdness. And then the uncertainty principle. You dont even need chaos theory to rapidly conclude that predicting the actions of the atmosphere by numerical calculations is an exercise in futility.
Alarmist donkeys dont realise this, or accept its reality. Bad luck for them.
ClintR
I give you valid textbook physics and you respond with your made up blog physics with zero support for any of it. I guess you think if you call enough posters “idiot” you think it makes you smart?
Cold can most certainly raise the temperature of a heated object. You do not have enough real physics knowledge to understand it.
However, in a futile attempt to reason with a closed-minded contrarian I will give you an example of how indeed cold can increase the temperature of a heated object.
In the case you have a heated sphere surrounded by a colder shell. This eliminates the complication of view factors.
The inner sphere is heated by a heating element so that it will emit 300 watts.
Is this post too long for you, can you follow the logic?
The outer shell is near absolute zero so it is not emitting any energy back to the sphere. The inner sphere needs a constant input of 300 watts from the heating element to maintain a steady-state temperature.
Now if the outer shell is heated to a degree where it emits 200 watts to the inner sphere (please note the outer shell is COLDER than the inner sphere) the inner sphere temperature will increase.
I guess you don’t understand the radiative heat transfer equation
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah
The equation states the amount of heat lost by a hot object is based upon how much it emits MINUS the energy it receives from the colder object.
Physics is not your strong point. You know very little but think you know it all.
You can’t even understand simple basic equations. You believe some made up BS that a hot object cannot absorb energy from a cold one. Total made up and unsupported. Only peddled and believed on contrarian blogs.
Norman, your new nonsense is just a distraction. Why are you running away from Folkert’s nonsense?
Too much nonsense for you to handle?
PS Your so-called “radiative heat transfer” equation is invalid. Meaning, of course, that you don’t have a clue about what your raving about.
ClintR
You make the stupid claim that the heat transfer equation is invalid. Based upon what? Your own contrarian ideas you dreamed up? What is your supporting evidence for this nonsense claim?
It is NOT just a hypothesis. It is so well established it is used no radiative heat transfer engineering.
Making false claims about things you do not understand does not make you an intelligent poster. It just makes you a bone-head contrarian.
Here is REAL physics problems. Look at some, they are using the very equation you call invalid.
Any poster on blogs can say whatever they like. You can say a well used and working equation is invalid but how does your unsupported opinion of this make it correct.
That is another example of where I have easily demonstrated your physics is not correct. So far the reality is against you.
The reality is you don’t understand real physics. So you stick to a contrarian made up version and that is the facts jack.
Norman is always attacking, and never learning. Here, he asks me: “You make the stupid claim that the heat transfer equation is invalid. Based upon what?”
He just lashes out, unable to think for himself. He doesn’t have the physics background to know that emission is based on “T^4”, not just “T”.
He just types, attacks, and avoids reality. He’s an idiot.
ClintR
The equation does have temperature to the 4th power.
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ah
That is what the 4 is in the equation. (Reads temperature of hot object to the 4th power minus the temperature of the cold object to the 4th power).
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Here is the source of the equation. When copy/paste it changes the obvious 4th power so your attack is not a valid one. Kind of premature and without all the facts. Typical of contrarian thought process. Defensive maneuver when shown to have limited scope of knowledge on subject at hand. Grasping is a good word for it.
That’s just an excuse for not knowing what the equation is about, Norman. I told you it was invalid, and that was just the start.
Your problem is also invalid. You did not set it up correctly. You leave too many assumptions to be made. Once again, you have no knowledge of physics. (I’ve made the obvious assumptions and arrived at the temperatures for both spheres. You can’t do the same.)
“I told you it was invalid”
Yep we heard that, but its still wrong and strange, and you offer nothing to back it up.
Nobody believes you.
And you still think fluxes don’t add, and you think the weaker flux hitting a surface just ‘doesn’t count’.
Weird, unphysical, just idiotic.
Nobody believes you.
And yet you expect us to believe that you understand physics better than we do?
No one believes that.
Troll Nate cannot solve the problem. He cannot find the sphere temperatures. Nor can Norman. Nor can any troll/idiot.
But, I can solve for the temperatures.
I wonder who knows the physics, idiots or me?
You ‘solved’ something? I think you dreamed that.
It is nowhere to be found.
Typically your ‘solving’ involved guessing, or simply making up the answers, eg GPE, and they do not match the back of the book answers.
If I missed it, show me where you ‘solved’ the spheres.
As expected, Clint is an idiot. He never made a ‘solution’.
He just slings insults.
It’s hard to believe that more than 100 years after Dr. Max Planck wrote the following you still find discussions such as the ongoing!
“A body A at 100 deg. C emits toward a body B at 0 deg. C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B at 1,000 deg. C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B a stronger emitter than A.”
The Theory of Heat Radiation, 1914 (Masius translation).
edit: primes added.
A body A at 100 deg. C emits toward a body B at 0 deg. C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1,000 deg. C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.
It thus follows that the rate of downwelling radiant heat flow from the [cooler] atmosphere retards the surface emission in the window of the greenhouse gases and raises the temperature. Key here, for the hard of learning is the downwelling heat.
That doesn’t “follow”, Snape.
But, you’ve violated about 3 laws of physics!
couldn’t have said it better myself!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
“Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D”
I can see one of the reasons you’re confused, Snape.
RR,
And yet, the surface cools nicely at night, in winter, during a total solar eclipse, when it is cloudy, or shortly after the sun passes the zenith.
The surface manages to stay cold in polar regions, while receiving moths of continuous sunlight.
You cant even specify an observable physical phenomena which would result in a need for a new hypothesis to explain it. Just like the other climate donkeys, you are full of donkeycrap.
“But, you’ve violated about 3 laws of physics!”
You mean Max Planck, who she quoted, violated 3 laws of physics?
More than likely he did not.
But it is more than likely that your made-up Fizuks is, well made-up, and wrong, and weird.
Correct Snape, Planck would quickly disavow the GHE.
Gordo repeats his usual delusional physics, writing:
Gordo still can’t understand how the atmosphere “dissipates” the energy it receives from the surface below and sunlight above. The only mode of “dissipation” possible for the atmosphere is thermal IR radiation to deep space, which includes that due to greenhouse gases.
that is an incredibly illogical response.
The atmosphere dissipates heat from the surface in several ways. The top of the atmosphere only has IR to dissipate heat to space. Dissipation of heat from the surface by IR is negligible except in windows not subject to blocking by CO2 and partially transparent to water.
If the topic is thermalizing the surface one cannot just talk about cooling at TOA. Everybody want us to think that the atmosphere has a static thermal gradient when we know it doesn’t.
then the theory goes on to say that if blocking occurs at a higher cooler altitude that will thermalize the surface, leaving out all the details in between about unmovable thermalization curves through the atmosphere. LMAO! Alice in Wonderland stuff! OK actually makes some sense if indeed you have a steady lapse rate, but as a matter of course we don’t. Further what would make sense is that shedding sufficient heat at TOA would require more heat to move into the system. Check got that.
But wait a second, IR direct from the surface is too saturated to do it, thus the need for this multi-layered model to reach to the stratosphere where its not a moot point.
So thermalizing the layer below it by blocking radiation is gaining some sensible logic to it!!!
But wait a second! Heat delivered directly to TOA by thermals is a tiny amount.
By far the biggest package of heat comes from latent heat of vaporization and it doesn’t follow the same rules as the lapse rate. It disrupts the lapse rate from wet to dry, whats the sweat about doing the same thing at TOA where its now warmer above. Fedex just puts the package on a higher step.
Keep in mind that radiation from CO2 doesn’t mean jackshiit if the atmosphere is 3k. The process of radiating the atmosphere isn’t a process of heating up CO2 alone its a process of heating entire layers of the atmosphere. Look at the stratosphere, CO2 can’t do jackshiit there either. It has to wait apparently until 10ppm ozone gets out of the way before it lapse rate is created in the mesosphere.
Does CO2 warming make sense? Sure it does but not on a model that starts at 1 degree/per doubling and goes up from there. The powers to be feeding shiit to the mushrooms below doesn’t want you to know that. If there is going to be less warming from emissions they want to make sure its taken out of the ill defined realm of feedbacks. But feedbacks in the view of the mushroom collaborators for the powers to be all has to occur after the surface is thermalized and its a whole bunch of hogwash.
“The powers to be feeding shiit to the mushrooms below doesnt want you to know that. If there is going to be less warming from emissions they want to make sure its taken out of the ill defined realm of feedbacks. But feedbacks in the view of the mushroom collaborators for the powers to be all has to occur after the surface is thermalized and its a whole bunch of hogwash.”
Its only shit for ideologues, who cant be bothered with the real science, and thus take an ideological shortcut around it to conclude its all wrong.
You already admitted that the science in 1991 was uncertain.
Nothing has changed since. You want to elevate a 4 decade warming period in a totally uncontrolled experiment as proof that its become certain.
That is truly what ignorance of science consists of Nate.
“The atmosphere dissipates heat from the surface in several ways. The top of the atmosphere only has IR to dissipate heat to space. Dissipation of heat from the surface by IR is negligible except in windows not subject to blocking by CO2 and partially transparent to water.”
So far so good.
“If the topic is thermalizing the surface one cannot just talk about cooling at TOA. Everybody want us to think that the atmosphere has a static thermal gradient when we know it doesnt.”
Nope, nobody is saying that. Strawman.
“then the theory goes on to say that if blocking occurs at a higher cooler altitude that will thermalize the surface, leaving out all the details in between about unmovable thermalization curves through the atmosphere. LMAO!”
Nope, BS.
As discussed ad nauseaum, but you forgot, the real theory and real computer models DO NOT leave out all the details in between. EG MW 1967.
You are stuck in ignorant strawman MO.
“By far the biggest package of heat comes from latent heat of vaporization and it doesnt follow the same rules as the lapse rate. It disrupts the lapse rate from wet to dry, whats the sweat about doing the same thing at TOA where its now warmer above. Fedex just puts the package on a higher step.”
Yes, Meterorology 101.
Did you really think they arent aware of this?
As a reply to the last 2 posts you took to task some observations that I have made of ways a greenhouse effect could reliably occur that I am generally ready to accept if the premises were true. I said they were not true and you agreed by essentially saying no body was claiming them to be true.
So to take stock of where we are in the conversation I laid out several conditions that would make the greenhouse effect true. You argued that none of those conditions exist.
So what remains lacking in the world of uncertainty you copped to as existing in 1991; is an exact description of how the greenhouse effect works.
Instead you want to point to 4 decades of warming, which is unimpressive (and interestingly at the heart of the video of Gavin Newsome saying obviously its getting warmer and dryer) and could be caused by anything, it occurred naturally in the past for unknown reasons, and there is no particular reason to believe such natural warming could not be caused naturally in the future.
Can you see what is missing in that picture? If so please explain.
“So what remains lacking in the world of uncertainty you copped to as existing in 1991; is an exact description of how the greenhouse effect works.”
Nope. Not part of the uncertainty in the minds of all who have studied the issue. Talk your experts. They ALL understand how the GHE works and none agree with your complaints about it.
“laid out several conditions that would make the greenhouse effect true. You argued that none of those conditions exist.”
Where did you and I do any of that? Very confusing.
The professionals do understand the lapse rate varies. But that is a red herring that doesnt change the basic ghe mechanism.
As i explained once, MW67 model is simply trying to explain why the lapse rate has the average value that it has, by incorporating the GHE. It worked for that. But it was not trying to explain all weather.
norman…”You repeat the same thing over and over even after people correct you. No one disputes that heat cannot be transferred from a cold to hot body. All physicists understand ENERGY will transfer both ways”.
Heat IS energy so which energy is transferred both ways? Heat does not flow through air. It does to a minimal extent via conduction but that is inefficient and not worth mentioning.
In the process of heat transfer by radiation between bodies of different temperatures, no hear is transferred. Radiation involves heat being converted to electromagnetic energy and the EM flows away from the body.
If you have a hotter body radiating EM, the heat creating the EM is lost. So that body cools and will continue to cool unless the heat is replaced. If the EM from the hotter body contacts a cooler body, it will be converted back to heat in the cooler body. Therefore the cooler body will warm.
Consider the cooler body. If heat on that body is converted to EM the EM flow outward. There is no process of energy exchange between bodies, each body is radiating isotropically and as such only a thin slice of the radiating energy can contact a body of similar size. The rest, flows past it and in other directions.
Remember what you said above, that no one disputes heat cannot be transferred cold to hot. So, a small portion of the EM from the cooler body contacts the hotter body. If what you said is true, that EM cannot transfer heat to the hotter body since that would contradict the 2nd law.
Quantum theory confirms that. The conversion from heat to EM is done via electrons in the atoms/molecules. That means the electrons have to lose kinetic energy, which they do by dropping to a lower kinetic energy level. That also translates to a lower frequency.
In order to reverse that process, it is necessary to supply EM that has the correct energy intensity and frequency. That is not possible if the EM comes from a colder body. The kinetic energy levels and available frequencies per level are simply not high enough to affect electrons in hotter atoms.
“Quantum theory confirms that. The conversion from heat to EM is done via electrons in the atoms/molecules. That means the electrons have to lose kinetic energy, which they do by dropping to a lower kinetic energy level. That also translates to a lower frequency.”
Nope Gordon,
The electrons drop to lower energy levels and emit radiation but they do not lose kinetic energy, its energy levels, because the electrons are in standing waves of different energy levels.
“In order to reverse that process, it is necessary to supply EM that has the correct energy intensity and frequency. That is not possible if the EM comes from a colder body. The kinetic energy levels and available frequencies per level are simply not high enough to affect electrons in hotter atoms.”
Again wrong Gordon,
In the hotter body, most of the electrons are in the ground state, until you get to a pretty high temperature, so the radiation from the colder body can be absorbed because there are energy transitions that match the incoming energy level.
So just don’t tell us anything about Quantum Theory because it is beyond your understanding.
Nobody else should try to understand you either because you are almost always wrong.
Don’t take Chemistry lessons from Gordon.
blob, please stop trolling.
Norman we are not talking about the overall energy of the molecules but the quanta of energy between the transitional states. The ir energy wont suddenly be released and give a big boost to the Kinetic energy.
The conservation of moment comes into play as well.
You cannot pick and choose which bits of phydics and which you ignore for the agw theory.
Mark Wapples
I am not sure what point you are making. I am not sure of which physics I choose and ignore. I choose all valid physics. If you have valid physics to share, great! I don’t like made up contrarian physics of ClintR, Gordon Robertson, Swenson. I can make up physics all the day long as well. it is unproductive. If you want to change textbook physics you need evidence. Contrarians never seem to supply any support for their made up ideas, they just make it up and then believe it is true, correct and absolute and all scientists are wrong. So if you are not a contrarian but a lover of truth, supply support. I will be glad to read it.
Norman, I asked you before to provide just one example where my physics was not correct. You could not do it. You just make up stuff.
The truth is that you have no meaningful background in physics, by your own admission. You just learn AGW nonsense on the Internet, and repeat it like a non-thinking parrot.
YOU are the “contrarian”. You are contrary to reality.
ClintR
I have already done it numerous times. Not sure why you pretend I have not. I do not make up stuff! That is totally a lie from you. I make a point, and support it with valid physics. That is not “making stuff up” that is what you and your like minded contrarians do constantly.
I do have a meaningful background in physics. I do have a college semester of it which is much more than you possess. So someone who has zero formal physics classes vs me is not a valid comparison, try again with your made up opinions please.
Actually you are the one who learned their contrarian physics from blogs. I get mine from textbooks on the topic.
Here is an example of your incorrect physics. You claim a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. That is made up physics. Real science makes the opposite claim. So there is one. You rarely post any real physics to dispute. Most of your posts are calling people “idiot” complaining about the length of a post, telling posters they don’t know physics etc. Rarely do you post a physics point, but when you do most likely it is wrong. That is why you avoid doing it.
On the example.
Your made up claim: Cold object cannot transfer energy to hot object.
Real physics (not blog version): “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.”
Make more actual physics claims and I will show they are not correct.
All wrong, Norman.
What I have said is a cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hot object. You keep trying to change my words to mean something else.
And yes, you are an idiot. You believe a ball on a string is rotating about its axis. That alone makes you an idiot. But in general, denying reality also makes you an idiot.
Here was your admission to DREMT that your physics background is lacking: “I have not studied general physics for many years.”
“General” physics is a beginner’s course. That’s all you’ve had, and you are weak in that.
ClintR
That is much more REAL physics than you will ever know.
I did not say a ball on a string is rotating on its axis. I am observing the debate on this one and learning along the way. My view (correct or incorrect) is that the ball has apparent rotation on its axis not real rotation. It appears to rotate as long as the string is in motion but it is not equivalent to actual rotation.
I mentioned that it is similar to road marks that appear to move as long as a vehicle is in motion but stop when the vehicle stops. The ball may appear to rotate as long as the string is in rotation but once the string stops rotating the apparent ball rotation also stops. Real rotation is not dependent upon another motion.
And you are still totally wrong. The temperature of a cold object can raise the temperature of a heated hot object (which is the GHE, the Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun). If you increase the temperature of the cold object, it will then raise the temperature of the heated object to a higher temperature.
The ball on a string is NOT rotating on its axis, idiot. (“Appearance” is NOT reality!)
“Cold” can NOT warm “hot”, idiot. (Bringing in the Sun is NOT “cold” warming “hot”. That is changing the scenario to match your false beliefs.)
See why you’re an idiot?
N,
Unfortunately, the radiation from the sun has to get through the atmosphere before it can warm anything. In that case, the thicker the insulation, the cooler the days, the warmer the nights.
Try it. Measure the ground temperature. Now insulate it a bit. Use CO2 or transparent sheeting, rock wool, whatever you like. No surprise, the surface temperature has dropped. No *radiative forcing* in evidence.
Practical insulators include things like roofs, sunshades, hats, parasols and so on.
ClintR
The temperature of the cold object, in reality not contrarian world, does change the temperature of a heated object. The higher the cold temperature object is, the higher the temperature of the heated object becomes. This is actual physics.
I think you fail to read the key word “heated”.
I Tim Folkerts post you have a source of external heat, the Sun, and ice which is the surrounding temperature. The higher the surrounding temperature is, the higher temperature the surface will reach with the solar input.
Calling people much smarter than you “idiots” does not make you correct. It is just a mechanism to preserve your incorrect contrarian beliefs. Nothing to do with reality, just low minded contrarian cult belief.
Contrarians are not scientists. They make up ideas and repeat them over and over in cult like fashion and then they accept the made up idea as fact. They are not evidence based thinkers. You are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. You rarely post any scientific point as your ignorance will shine brightly. You just sit around waiting to pounce on a post and tell the poster they are “idiots”, “Don’t know physics”, “Don’t accept reality”, “Pound the keyboard” etc. Just mindless additions to pointless comments. If you post an actual physics idea they are generally incorrect. I can see how shallow your mind is when you do not understand the concept of apparent motion.
The ball on a string is NOT rotating on its axis, idiot.
“Cold” can NOT warm “hot”, idiot. (Bringing in the Sun is NOT “cold” warming “hot”. That is changing the scenario to match your false beliefs. It’s the same nonsense as adding insulation. You can’t understand physics.)
If you would think before you typed, your comments would be reduced by about 90%. But, you can’t think.
See why you’re an idiot?
ClintR
Here ClintR provides more evidence of a simple mind as he cannot explain any of his allegations. He just mindlessly repeats his program over and over. A mantra for his cult programming. He has no other option since he does not understand enough physics to refute anything I posted so he goes into his repeat mode.
My post is well established physics. He does not or cannot comprehend the content so he resorts to attacking the length of post as he can’t find ways to attack the physics.
Please note, ClintR is not able to attack the physics as he does not know any. He will keep the post simple, and throw in a few “idiot” to make it seem as he has actual knowledge.
Please not ClintR cannot understand the word apparent motion.
He does not understand that the Sun appears to move in the sky. Not a very bright person. But he does know how to type “idiot” numerous times. Not real impressed with this skill.
Norman, just read my previous comments for numerous debunks of your pathetic efforts to pervert physics.
Also, I notice you didn’t accept the challenge:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537483
Nothing keeps you away from your keyboard. You’re kind of the idiot’s idiot. At least you’ve excelled at something in your life.
Energy can be transferred at the quantum level from a cold to a hot surface.
Unfortunately more energy will be transferred back when you move away from the quantum level.
You cannot use quantum level mechanics to explain the macro size.
The balance of energy flow whenever you move from a single atom state will always be hot to cold.
In case you didn’t know enso gets updated on Mondays , that’s the thing to watch nowadays since the solar cycle strength is years ahead
https://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
In case you didn’t know
– the elinometer at WUWT shows the same stuff since about two weeks:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200928185544/https://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
– the Japanese Met Agency is far less alarmist wrt ENSO than are pseudoskeptic Americans:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html
Bah. Alarmism kinda ‘warmer than evah’.
Btw, the solar flux at the beginning of SC25 is in best form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HxB0TsYFM8TtfX_amobgmVcGLb84n0Vx/view
J.-P. D.
CFS is probably overdoing the La Nina. I hope I’m wrong though because I’d love to see a record setting La Nina so that we can see just how low UAH TLT can go.
Yes, that would be interesting.
I wonder if we have left the UAH linear trend line (0.35 C), since the Earth energy imbalance has increased to “0.87 +/- 0.12 Wm-2 during 2010-2018.”
https://marine.copernicus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/essd-2019-255-typeset_manuscript-version5.pdf
I don’t see any evidence that CFS is overdoing La Nina so it might be more informative if you said why.
And keep in mind CFS tracks about .2c or.3C high from what gets recorded as the official La Nina apparently due to being on a different baseline. For example CFS shows JAS at about -.3 or -.4 and JAS official was recorded at JAS -.6. There is some rounding and I haven’t taken the time to figure out what the baseline difference is.
The CFS is an outlier. The multi model ensemble mean is for a peak in the -1.5 to -2.0 range. The record is -2.0 so with the CFS at -2.4 that would be a significant extreme event if it verified.
That raises several questions. CFS has numerous versions on its website. The one typically reported in the weekly ENSO forecast wasn’t and still isn’t showing 2.4 in its latest incarnation. It is displaying ~-1.7 today and yesterday and appears rather stable in later runs vs earlier runs.
Here is a link to the one that gets reported weekly in the ENSO report.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/CFSv2SST8210.html
It is the one that is labeled: Nino3.4
(PDF+Spread correction)
The page above with a little tiny ‘here’at the end of the first paragraph provides some documentation and other model runs based upon other criteria.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2seasonal.shtml
Its fun to explore around with them all.
So here is my take:
Now the CFS records numbers in its historical line .2 to .3 warmer than what the official number was for previous seasons. This is related to using a different base period.
In the ensemble cfs is cooler but not the coolest. In the ensemble the .2 to .3 is added back in from the model run on the old climatology.
But the take home message is that since the ensemble was done last month CFS has gotten .3 c colder to the present. So if the apparent stability is maintained CFS should be -.2.
You can find a -2.4 run under other assumptions on the cover page to the old climatology, probably all considered experimental by the modelers since its the older climatology that put in the ensemble and weekly update.
Another ensemble will be done this week in a couple of days and we should see the ensemble get colder or CFS will then become to look more like an outlier.
One last point. The CFS v2 site is how models are supposed to be developed. Much remains unknown and unpredictable about ENSO. I would think this represents the computer output of a range of thinking on the matter. About all that is missing are the hallway discussions.
We don’t get to see that with the other modeling groups.
All of the model runs on the links I gave you have the following disclaimer.
CAUTION: Seasonal climate anomalies shown here are not the official NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks. The NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks can be found at CPC website. Model based seasonal climate anomalies are one factor based on which NCEP seasonal forecast outlook is issued.
But in the weekly update by the NCEP they include the model results for the one I pointed out to you in the previous post. So the official one appears to be the one displayed in the IRI/CPC ensemble which isn’t outlying near as much as you said in the last official update being at -1.7 so maybe I am not looking at the same thing you are. NCEP CFS v2 is the medium green squares. You might also notice that the current index is at -1.2 which when compared to the ensemble appears to be a trajectory only closely approached by 2 or 3 models, CFS being one of them.
I was looking at the link Eben posted. It is from the E3 set. The E3 set uses initial conditions from the most recent 10 days. The E1 and E2 sets use initial conditions from 30-20 and 20-10 days in the past respectively. The E3 set has the most skill of the 3 sets because it uses more recent initial conditions. But, a blend (sometimes equally weighted or preferentially weighted to E3) has even more skill than just E3 alone. Note that each set is itself an ensemble of several stochastically perturbed runs.
All modeling groups do this. Even operational short range weather forecasting relies heavily on ensembling techniques. For example, the deterministic weather model from the ECMWF group has about 7-8 days of useful skill. But when ran as an ensemble with 50 other perturbed members the mean of the ensemble increases the useful skill to 8-10 days. Operational medium climate forecasting models are exclusively ensembled and offer up to 9 months of useful for average conditions over large spatial and temporal domains. The CFS is just one among many operational climate models (and it isn’t even the most skillful). And like how ensembling within the same model extends the skill ensembling with different models increases the skill further.
The official CPC ENSO forecasts are multi-run and multi-model based. And when they consider the CFS it is usually using the PDF (probability density function) bias adjusted/corrected version.
It’s complicated stuff for sure and I’m by no means an expert. It is interesting that the CFS is trending strong with the La Nina in recent runs.
We will get to see how the other models are trending in the next summary report.
It seems that nobody can produce a useful scientific description of the Greenhouse Effect.
Maybe we need to go back a step. To the beginning of the steps involved in the scientific method. First, you need an observable physical phenomenon, which cannot be explained by known physics.
Alarmists might say that a thermometer showing a change in temperature is an observable phenomenon. And so it is, but as thermometers are designed to show changes in temperature, no mystery there.
Alarmists might say a thermometer showing increasing temperature over a period of time cannot be explained by known physics! Strange lads, these alarmists. Thermometers react to degrees of hotness, and are even calibrated in degrees. So thermometers react to heat. Over time, as well.
Alarmists might say that there is an unknown heat source, unknown to modern physics. Known sources of heat include friction, compression, exothermic chemical reactions, nuclear fusion and fission, and a few others.
Alarmists, being innately confused about heat, energy, and temperature, have decided that a new form of heat called *radiative forcing* exists. Unfortunately, they measure this in W/m2, which bears no relationship to temperature or energy content, except under well defined preconditions. For example, ice, a container of boiling water, a container of molten lead may all radiate 300 W/m2.
How silly are alarmists? Pretty silly.
swenson…”Alarmists, being innately confused about heat, energy, and temperature, have decided that a new form of heat called *radiative forcing* exists. Unfortunately, they measure this in W/m2, which bears no relationship to temperature or energy content….”
Good point. Actually, a watt is a measure of mechanical energy. It all started with someone harnessing horses to pull loads and measuring…somehow…the work they did while moving the loads over a certain distance and time period. That lead to Jimmy Watt naming the horsepower as a measure of a horse lifting a 550 pound weight via a pulley to a height of 1 foot in one second. Or 33,000 pounds by one foot in a minute.
Of course, the Europeans, feeling outdone by a Scotsman, invented their own measure of the horsepower and called it the Watt, in honour of Jimmy Watt. So, 746 watts = 1 hp.
But where does the w/m^2 come from? No one seems to know. Circa 1840, the physicist Joule, calculated an equivalence between heat and work, whereby 4.18 joules of work is equivalent to 1 calorie of heat.
Around about the same time, scientists were thinking that heat could be transmitted through air. They didn’t know that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, they still thought of it as some kind of fluid that could be transmitted through air in rays. So they applied the equivalence thingy of Joule and measured those heat rays in W/m^2.
Now that we know the stuff flowing through air is not heat but electromechanical energy, scientists still persist in measuring it as heat even though EM has no properties equivalent to heat. The truth is, they can’t measure it at all, nor can any energy be measured directly. All that can be measured is the effect energy has on matter.
EM has no heat and that seems to confuse climate alarmists immensely. It can be converted to heat by electrons in atoms but there are rules. A major rule is that EM cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body.
Poof!!! There goes the GHE and AGW.
I am suffering from late night psychosis. I have called electromagnetic energy ‘electromechanical’ energy at least twice. It was flagged by the spell checker and I stared at it, unable to see the error.
Duh!!!
“I am suffering from late night psychosis.”
I guess you always post nightly.
Svante, please stop trolling.
–Swenson says:
October 12, 2020 at 5:18 PM
It seems that nobody can produce a useful scientific description of the Greenhouse Effect.–
It’s the atmosphere effect upon a planet’s surface temperature and it can assume there is a surface air temperature which affect the surface temperature. Or it can assume surface air temperature can an effect upon stuff upon the surface.
Our Moon has no greenhouse effect.
Mars appears to have little or no significant greenhouse effect.
One can say, that a greenhouse {hothouse- British meaning, greenhouse] will cause increase in average air temperature within if put on the surface. Or something other than greenhouse can cause warmer temperature within it without furnace or active heating, If planet’s greenhouse effect is “reduced” or non existent.
Or rather use greenhouse, one use insulated box with transparent top which allows sunlight to enter the box.
So one could use such insulated box to measure or compared the existence or potential of planet’s greenhouse effect.
Anyhow, an insulated box when sun at zenith will heat air and bottom of box to about 80 C.
It seems if put box on Moon {and fill it with air} it should reach around 120 C.
Now part of you want is average air temperature, but above indicate highest temperature. But one can say Earth is not perfect
“greenhouse”. But also the insulated box on Moon will increase the lunar surface temperature. Also insulated box on surface Venus should not increase air temperature or surface temperature.
But no one has done it, so could “measure it” and see if my assumption is correct.
But as said greenhouse effect is about average air temperature {possible effect surface or things upon the surface temperature}.
Instead of insulated box, one could use a solar pond.
A solar pond when sun appears near zenith, can have average night and day temperature of about 80 C {at bottom of shallow pond}. And solar pond if put at higher latitudes {where sun is never a zenith] will have lower average temperature- it have near constant temperature “depending upon the season- or where rises to highest at noon in the sky”.
Now if put solar pond on the surface Venus, it should be same temperature is surrounding surface air temperature at Venus.
But again it’s my assumption and has not actually done.
One could say greenhouse effect upon earth is more complicated- one could say Earth greenhouse is heated. And it’s heated by the tropical ocean heat engine and you have stuff like weather.
One could say greenhouse effect is a bad/silly fairy tale.
Greenhouse inhibts convection heat loss, and the Earth surface air is all about convection heat loss or transfer.
Earth land surface can reach 70 C and it’s air temperature can reach about 50 C.
But Earth mostly covered ocean. And ocean surface temperature can reach 35 C and surface air temperature of 35 C.
And solar pond surface reaches about 30 C [with water at 80 C at bottom of pond}.
Better fairy tale could called the solar pond effect. The ocean is simply a very deep solar pond.
But we in Ice Age, and 30% of solar pond has land on it
Now, why doesn’t bottom of solar pond lower lower temperature at night?
Never really thought much about this much, but I guess what happens is surface water during night cools but such cooling does in turn have much effect upon hot water below it. And during day
surface warm back fairly quickly, but some heating deeper.
So top surface can fluctuate quite a bit and bottom fluctuates a lot less.
In in terms of fairy tale, this similar to Earth.
But Earth instead 80 C, our deep water is 3.5 C {Ice Age}, and deep water fluctuate a little, and surface water fluctuates a lot over time periods of centuries.
But it seems when start solar pond and water might be 25 C, during night surface water cool on average to say 23 C, but when bottom heats up to 80 C, the surface water on average cool 1 degree less as compare when there wasn’t the hot water at bottom.
Or hot water at bottom reduces amount cooling at top and on average it might be about only 1 C difference- somedays it could be 3 K and other day 0 K. It shouldn’t cause negative cooling effect.
And in terms of Earth and near polar region, as long ocean is liquid, it also does not cause land to be cooler than it would be without having the liquid ocean surface. Though surface ice can more like a land surface, and could make the land cooler.
And roughly if ocean is 3 C, have more ice for more of time around polar, and when 4 C, have far less ice around polar regions.
2 C ocean lots more ice in polar, and 5 C is no ice [sea ice} in polar. And that basically is our Ice Age. Ocean from 1 to 5 C.
The CFS forecast is updated every day, not just on Mondays:
https://tinyurl.com/y6g6ovd8
Not exactly climate but very much about science and shystering involved in historical perspective.
https://youtu.be/Cq1YvlBnubQ
Today anything and everything that happens on the planet is caused by CO2 , if you could demonstrate the zshitt starts falling upwards instead downwards they would explain it by rising CO2 levels
eben…”Today anything and everything that happens on the planet is caused by CO2 …”
That old theory, now everything is caused by covid.
ClintR
Another example of your incorrect physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536002
You: “Bindidon, gases don’t emit based on temperature. You are confusing gases with surfaces.”
If they are IR active gases like CO2 or H2O then yes the amount of energy emitted is based upon temperature.
If you mean something other than that be more specific.
A higher temperature atmosphere, with IR active gases, emits more IR than the same atmosphere at lower temperature.
Evidence:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f851f455cf21.png
Direct correlation between temperature and amount of energy emitted by atmosphere.
Norman is trying to prove me wrong. So he links to something that proves me right!
Yeah, he’s an idiot.
ClintR
Once again the ClintR demonstrates a very simplistic and limited mental process. His comment has zero evidence, basically it is just a child like response. No content. Says I prove him right but has no evidence to back it up. In reality by evidence proves him quite wrong so I am unsure how he makes his simplistic assertion. I guess it makes sense in his simplistic mind. It would not satisfy and intelligent or thoughtful adult mind.
Again he gets to post his favorite word “idiot” with zero content to justify its use, no explanation, no thought. Just a very simplistic “I am right!” but no reason given for this assertive staement.
My evidence clearly shows the energy from the atmosphere is temperature dependent. How he concludes it supports his is strange. In a simple mind I guess it works.
Again ClintR demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of real physics.
Please note ClintR does not like to elaborate on any issue as it will expose his ignorance. Unlike Gordon Robertson who with pride will show his ignorance of physics, ClintR is cautious and really says nothing (unless you like his pet word “idiot” you don’t get much from his posts).
Norman, if you were paying attention you would know that the “idiot” designation is your personal choice, not mine. A person that willingly ignores reality is an idiot. That’s your problem, not mine.
As to gas molecules emitting, the more detailed explanations are WAY over your head. You can’t even understand such simple things as ice can NOT warm sunshine. That’s another reason you’re an idiot.
But the simple explanation about gas molecules emitting can be found in any number of online examples of gas spectra, should you bother to look. Gas molecules emit “line spectra”, as opposed to a surface with emits a full spectrum.
I fully expect you to keep going with this, because you are an idiot.
ClintR
You are not intelligent enough to present any information above any one’s head. Your post are very simplistic and uninformative. That has not changed.
We all know that gases emit in certain bands of IR. That is not an astonishing point. Very basic. Your lack of understanding of Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution is obvious. You were informed of your error above but you just repeated your incorrect statement.
This won’t help you but it is the reality you deny.
https://deepai.org/machine-learning-glossary-and-terms/maxwell-boltzmann-distribution#:~:text=A%20Maxwell%2DBoltzmann%20Distribution%20is,axis%20defined%20as%20the%20speed.
They show graphs of speed of gas molecules at different temperatures. Speed of molecules is equivalent to the molecules K.E. As molecules “collide” the higher the K.E. the more likely the IR emitting molecule (CO2 or H2O) will be raised to an excited state and be able to emit an IR photon in its IR bands.
The more molecules raised to excited states the more energy that will be emitted. Pretty basic science that you either cannot understand or deny to be a contrarian.
Basically you are quite wrong and pretending you have “secret” information that is beyond mere mortal comprehension is not a winning tactic. You just don’t understand basic physics.
And yes ice emitting energy to a surface that is also warmed by the Sun will reach a higher temperature then a surface only exposed to cold space and Sun. You are very wrong on this but don’t expect real physics to change your contrarian view.
Gas molecules emit “line spectra”, as opposed to a surface with emits a full spectrum.
I fully expect you to keep going with this, because you are an idiot.
ClintR again says nothing of importance but avoids the main point that he is wrong.
ClintR will cover his ignorance in predictable fashion by not really saying anything.
His post: “Gas molecules emit line spectra, as opposed to a surface with emits a full spectrum.”
Has nothing at all to do with if the amount of energy a IR active gas based upon temperature. His point has no bearing on his incorrect statement. He believes by making some point it makes his earlier claim correct. However this is not the case. The claim made by ClintR is that: “bob, gases dont emit based on temperature. You are confusing gases with surfaces.”
The correct physics is both gases and surface emit based upon temperature. ClintR thinks because gases emit in narrow bands of IR that they will not emit more IR energy as the gas temperature increases. Odd thinking. And certainly wrong. But one will not be able to convince a contrarian of their wrong thinking.
As to gas molecules emitting, the more detailed explanations are WAY over your head, Norman. You can’t even understand such simple things as ice can NOT warm sunshine.
That’s another reason you’re an idiot.
“ice can NOT warm sunshine”, I’ll be darned.
ClintR still unable to supply any support for his incorrect idea that “gases don’t emit based upon tempearature” he doubles up on pretending to have “secret knowledge” so advanced we are unable to comprehend it. A useful tactic for someone who does not have actual knowledge.
ClintR uses common contrarian tactics. Making false claims from a poster and repeating them as if they were actually stated.
In this case ClintR came up with this idea that ice warms sunshine. It is not what either Tim Folkerts nor I stated. Contrarians take what is actually stated and represent and absurd distortion and think it is a clever way to distract from not proving false claims that they make. One can appreciate his efforts to avoid being wrong.
What I actually said is that sunlight and ice will warm a surface to a higher temperature than sunlight and cold space. He does not know what is actually said so he concludes a distorted view.
Norman starts the day by denying reality.
Now he’s trying to deny the order of adding ice. If sunshine is added to ice, it can definitely warm it. But, not the other way around. Ice can NOT warm something being warmed by sunshine. Norman has to deny his own cult. But the facts are well documented:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537139
That’s why he’s an idiot.
ClintR says:
“Ice can NOT warm something being warmed by sunshine.”
Unless it sits between the object and space at 2.7 K.
For example.
Svante, please stop trolling.
swenson…”So you are now saying that radiation from a colder atmosphere raises the temperature of the hotter surface by adding to the radiation from the sun?”
That’s what AGW is based on. I communicated with a German physicist once, Stefan Rahmstorf, who tried to convince me that back radiation from GHGs in the atmosphere can be added to solar energy to increase its warming effect.
I don’t know where they get those strange ideas, certainly not from experimentation. A quick look at the solar spectrum versus the terrestrial IR spectrum shows the latter as a tiny blip off the end of the solar spectrum. How do you add EM with vastly different frequencies/wavelengths?
And how do you get around the 2nd law, where radiation from a cooler atmosphere is striking a warmer surface THAT WARMED THE GHGs? Recycled heat, eh wot?
No recycled heat, just recycled energy.
Unless Tc is zero:
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
svante,,,No recycled heat, just recycled energy.
Unless Tc is zero:
q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ah”
*******
It’s called global warming not global energy. Warming = heat and recycled heat is governed by the 2nd law. That is, no heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, by its own means. Unless you have an air conditioning unit running in the atmosphere, acting as a heat pump, you cannot transfer heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
The equation you have offered is a measure of heat dissipation at the surface where Th = surface temperature, or average thereof, and Tc = atmospheric temperature. The equation tells us that the cooler the atmosphere the faster heat is dissipated. If Th = Tc, then no heat is dissipated and if Tc > Th the atmosphere heats the surface.
On the face of it, Th does = Tc with the surface-atmosphere interface. However, air heated by the surface rises and cooler air rushes in to take its place, creating a cycle where Tc < Th in general.
The original, where q = e.(sigma).A .T^4 is Stefan's equation derived from the data in Tyndall's experiment. It tells us the radiation, q, is proportional to T^4. Your equation came from someone other than Stefan or Boltzmann because they never used such an equation.
Feel free to nominate me for a Nobel.
Yes, there is heat loss from surface to the atmosphere.
Find it by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation twice.
Once for the surface and once for the atmosphere.
The difference is heat.
Indeed you have to do it that way because epsilon is different for the two sides. And per frequence of course.
Silly snowflake Svante, did you solve the example Norman made up? He can’t solve it. You’re pretending to be an expert on that equation, so show us how you can use it to find the temperatures of the two spheres.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537404
You weren’t just blowing smoke again, were you?
Silly snowflake Svante, show us you can use that equation. Find the temperatures of the two spheres:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537404
Silly Svante, since you’re pretending you understand that equation, take the challenge I left for Norman to solve his own problem:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537483
Norman couldn’t do it.
ClintR
In my post I did not postulate a problem to be solved. I gave a clear example of how a cold object will allow a heated object to reach a higher temperature. Not sure what you point is.
My point is, you’re an idiot, Norman.
You didn’t give a “clear example”. You gave some made-up nonsense that you can’t solve using the equation that you mentioned. I can solve it, but you can’t. You can’t even solve your own nonsense.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. And you can’t learn.
You made my point for me — you’re an idiot.
ClintR was given a clear example of how cold surroundings can increase the temperature of a heated object. ClintR is not intelligent enough to grasp the equation used in heat transfer in many applications. The cult minded contrarian believes the equation to be invalid. Of course when one does not know any real physics and makes up whatever the want they are prone to see actual physics as invalid.
ClintR makes the false claim that I don’t know what I am talking about and can’t learn. Those cases only apply to his own limited thought process. Contrarians are not capable of learning anything.
ClintR is given many links to good valid information. His limited abilities restrict his learning capacity.
Again it seems the primary reason ClintR posts on this blog is so he can use the word “idiot”.
Similar to another contrarian troll who had a pet word as well “hilarious” ClintR has his pet word “idiot”.
Again notice how ClintR avoids any real information in his posts. That is because he really does not know the topic so he avoids any depth, no real information will be supplied by ClintR.
If you like the word “idiot” as much as ClintR seems to, then you may enjoy reading his simplistic uninformative posts.
How many keyboards are you going to burn up Norman, just to prove you’re an idiot?
We already know you’re an idiot.
ClintR unable to supply any useful information resorts to a J.D.H.u.f.fman meme about keyboards and their use.
ClintR gets to use his pet word “idiot” twice in one post. I suppose, since he does not know enough physics to post knowledge he likes to post “idiot” as a necessary diversion.
Norman, we both know you can’t solve the problem. You can’t use your bogus equation to find the temperatures of the two spheres.
But, using physics, I can find the temperatures of the spheres. All you can do is wear out keyboards.
That’s why you’re an idiot.
ClintR demonstrates his skill by typing the word “idiot” a few more times to add to the thousand times he has used this word.
Should the crowd applaud this ability?
Norman, we both know you can’t solve the problem.
But, using physics, I can find the temperatures of the spheres. All you can do is wear out keyboards.
Thats why youre an idiot.
Such silliness:
October 13, 2020 at 3:28 AM
swenson…”Alarmists, being innately confused about heat, energy, and temperature, have decided that a new form of heat called *radiative forcing* exists. Unfortunately, they measure this in W/m2, which bears no relationship to temperature or energy content….”
From some old USAF publications:
“EM radiation transports vast quantities of energy from the thermonuclear furnace of the sun to the vinyl seat cover in your parked car. In view of this fact, it would seem natural to characterize radiation in terms of its energy content, using the standard SI units of joules (J). But because natural radiation is not pulsed but rather continuous, it actually makes more sense to speak of the rate of energy transfer, or power, in watts (W=J/sec). Furthermore, radiation doesn’t transport its energy through a single point but rather is distributed over an area. Therefore, the most convenient way to describe the transport of energy by radiation at a location is in terms of its flux density F in W/m^2.”
Snape, do you realize that that quote just means you have no clue what “radiative forcing” means?
“Radiative forcing” comes from AGW nonsense. The claim is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere adds energy! The very concept violates science. Swenson is talking about the nonsense. Your quote is talking about the energy from Sun, which is REAL.
Idiots have no clue. They just find links and quotes they believe supports their nonsense.
The donkey brays, loudly, and stupidly. Heat from the sun is not new. The rate of energy transfer is unrelated to the temperature. Both ice and sunlight may be emitting 300 W/m2. Which is hotter?
RR is completely in denial. If his brains were dynamite, he would not have enough to blow his nose. His lunatic attempts to appeal to authority support his opponent, rather than himself! How stupid must he be? What was he thinking?
“A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.”
RR,
Very true, It is obvious from your comment that you are the fool.
I will send you back to the kiddie table with this continuation to my comment.
“If you understand why the inside of a car sitting in the sun heats up so much, you can understand forcing. It is what initiates a temperature change. And if you understand how rolling down the car’s window reduces the warming, you can the understand feedback.” From Dr. Spencer’s manual for the hard of learning.
RR,
There is no such thing as forcing. An object sitting in the sun gets hot. The air in a closed vehicle or shipping container gets quite hot, but not as hot as you might think. No heat accumulation.
Simple really. Provide adequate ventilation, and the interior air is the same or lower temperature as the air outside. The interior is in the shade, just like a Stevenson screen. No *forcing* needed. No *feedback*. Just ordinary physics. No need for alarmist jargon.
Your appeal to authority might not work as well as you hoped. Who knows?
rr…”If you understand why the inside of a car sitting in the sun heats up so much, you can understand forcing”.
We used to call that warming, or heating. If solar energy heats the upholstery and the dashboard, they heat the air molecules and there is no way to dissipate the heat so the interior air gets hotter.
No forcing.
Forcing is a mathematical term ‘forced’ on us by alarmist climate weenie modelers. They use differential equation theory in a model and a forcing function is a means of testing a differential equation by ‘forcing’ it to respond in a certain manner.
For example, the differential equation of an electronic amplifier could be tested for an extreme response by applying a unit impulse function (square wave) to it as a forcing function. The sharp rising and following edges cause a sharp response in the main equation, causing it to oscillate (ring). The same is true with a real amplifier when a square wave is applied but the square wave is not called a forcing.
In a model, a differential equation, or set of equations would represent the atmosphere. They would create an equation to represent CO2 and they would apply it to the main equation(s) to force a totally theoretical response. Then alarmist weenies like yourself picked up the term and began using it incorrectly in the real world.
Naturally, the alarmist climate weenies got confused between the model virtual world and the real world and they could not tell the difference between the two.
The term ‘forcing’ in the context it is used here just means there is a perturbation in the energy balance of a system. So by saying there is “no forcing” you are effectively saying there is no energy imbalance inside the car. This seems to conflict with your statement about solar energy being allowed in but having no way to dissipate or get out. So it sounds like you acknowledge that an energy balance develops in one sentence and then say that it doesn’t (“no forcing”) in another. Which is it?
bdgwx, you can define “forcing” anyway you want. But just don’t violate the laws of physics.
A surface at room temperature will be warmed by full sunlight. The sunlight could then be considered a “forciing”. But, when someone tries to claim ice can raise the temperature of a room temperature surface, that violates physics.
And of course those that claim a sunlit surface can be warmed more with ice are just idiots.
rr…”A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.”
Who said that, Peewee Herman?
Actually I should have said more like half dozen or so of the models rather than 2 or 3.
Another thing I find interesting is the CPC Consolidated dark blue line is below the model averages for both dynamic and statistical models. Not sure but it would seem to have to be expert opinion that has the dark blue line going close to CFS.
I don’t recall the dark blue line ever being outside of the model averages. Must be something afoot. Maybe its all those supercold runs CFS and perhaps others are seeing as well. But it does seem we are entering uncharted territory. We will have to see if that ends up bringing something unprecedented.
Like I said above it is interesting that CFS is trending more potent with the La Nina, but with the other modeling groups staying more muted the odds suggest the CFS is bit too aggressive. I am still rooting for a -2.0 event because I want to see just how low UAH TLT can go, but I accept that it probably isn’t going to happen.
another thought further out there is that huge swath of cold water swooping up South American coast and spreading into the entire northern portion of the south Pacific is going to get entrained into the Kuroshio current. What is that going to do? Slow it down, speed it up, cool the north Pacific?
bill…”cool the north Pacific?”
That’s what we’re bracing for here in the Vancouver, Canada area. Having said that, I did not consider the 2008 La Nina that significant, even though the global average fell below the baseline.
ramona…”It thus follows that the rate of downwelling radiant heat flow from the [cooler] atmosphere retards the surface emission in the window of the greenhouse gases and raises the temperature. Key here, for the hard of learning is the downwelling heat”.
No such thing as down-dwelling radiant heat flow. You are confusing heat with electromagnetic energy and they are two very different energies. Later, you call it down-dwelling heat. That moves your thought processes back to the 19th century when scientists believed heat flowed through an aether as heat rays.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. The only way it could ever be down-dwelling is during a convective flow of air molecules. However, the alarmist clowns, including Pierrehumbert, think heat and EM are one and the same, even though heat is a property of atoms and EM is a transverse electrical/magnetic field that has no mass.
So, let me get this straight, you are saying that RADIATION which is basically an electromagnetic mechanism is NOT a mode of heat energy transport. So you must believe that the sun’s heat energy reaches us by magic, no?
Let me set you straight then, in the vaccum of space heat energy can only be transported via radiation since convection and conduction are not possible. Here on earth when you sit in front of a roaring fire, a portion of the heat that reaches you is carried via radiation.
Downwelling radiant heat is measured at the surface and available from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN); this is not a supposition it’s a fact.
Here is a reference made specifically for the hard of learning with many pictures
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/first-results-from-the-box-investigating-the-effects-of-infrared-sky-radiation-on-air-temperature/
“It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool then to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Snape, do you believe your reference means ice can warm a sunlit object?
rr…”you are saying that RADIATION which is basically an electromagnetic mechanism is NOT a mode of heat energy transport…”
No, it’s not. Heat is not transported or transferred through space by solar radiation. Electromagnetic energy carries no heat, it is a transverse wave with an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Furthermore, it has no mass.
Heat requires a mass to be in existence and heat cannot pass through a vacuum. It is the kinetic energy of atoms. Normally, EM is created by electrons in an atom as they change kinetic energy levels to a lower level, aka orbital energy levels. The changes in energy levels is a change is heat levels when taken over bazillions of electrons.
An electron is a particle with mass that has an electrical charge and when it moves, it generates a magnetic field. When the electron drops to a lower energy level, it releases that electromagnetic energy as a quantum of energy.
At the surface of a mass, when the electrons emit EM quanta, there is a loss of heat, since in dropping to a lower energy level they must release that energy as EM. At the macro level, that radiation represents a loss of heat in the mass but it is not heat per se, There has been a conversion from heat to EM.
That EM can travel through space and will do nothing till it encounters an object cooler than the mass that created it. It’s not carrying heat although you might claim it is carrying a potential energy that can be converted to heat if absorbed by electrons in a cooler body.
When we talk about heat transfer between the Sun and the Earth, that does not mean heat is transferred through space to Earth. It means heat is converted to EM at the Sun, as a loss of heat at the Sun, then converted back to heat at the Earth as a gain in heat by the Earth. The net heat loss/heat gain is referred to as heat transfer.
Wikipedia says: “heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat#Mechanisms_of_transfer_that_define_heat
If fluxes simply added, wouldn’t the ground surface itself be warmed to a potential maximum temperature of nearly 113 C in equatorial regions with the sun at zenith? There you would be receiving about 960 W/m^2 from the sun plus about 300 W/m^2 from the atmosphere..1260 W/m^2 equates to a BB temperature of about 113 C. 960 W/m^2 equates to about 88 C. Have ground surface temperatures as hot as 113 C ever been recorded? Obviously the ground is not a blackbody, and you have cooling by conduction and convection to consider, too.
Just wondering.
I have pointed out before In the post page where Dr Roy defends the back radiation nonsense, if their so called back radiation was adding up the way they claim it would be a free energy amplifier and the process would not stop just stop at some desired temperature , it would keep adding up until the the planet explodes like a supernova or something.
I forgot the picture , so here it is – the back radiation infinite power amplifier
https://bit.ly/33Zc3pF
p.s. don’t drink and post
Maybe this problem was solved with infinitesimal calculus by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Zeno:_Achilles_and_the_tortoise
This is completely dumb nonsense.
The backradiation is in the LWIR range, and therefore is the energy Earth reemits due to it negligible compared with Sun’s SW radiation.
No perpetuum mobile whatsoever.
Typical for the ignorant and polemic ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ people.
J.-P. D.
“The backradiation is in the LWIR range, and therefore is the energy Earth reemits due to it negligible compared with Sun’s SW radiation.
It’s very “negligible”. It effectively doesn’t exist if it’s being overridden by Sun. That’s why ice cannot warm sunshine.
It’s all very confusing for idiots.
That runaway temperature increase only happens when the energy absorbed from the Sun exceeds the Komabayashi-Ingersoll limit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi-Ingersoll_limit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
OMG, more nonsense!
The first reference is to a “paper” by Komabayashi. In that paper, he allows for no clouds and no rain. IOW, he doesn’t allow Earth to cool itself! Pure nonsense.
The third reference is to the idiot we debunked upthread, Pierrehumbert. The infamous “800,000 K” guy.
Even if Earth could not cool itself (a dream for idiot Alarmists), Sun could still not warm it above the 361 K.
The idiots get lost in their nonsense, every time.
DREMT
There are some factors to consider in your thoughts. One is not only is Solar energy reflected (which you took into consideration) but over 20% is absorbed by the atmosphere that never reaches the surface.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php
I made a graph of radiant fluxes at Desert Rock around Summer Solstice (maximum for that location). I found one of a sunny day.
If you look at the brown trend line in the graph, that one is upwelling IR. It is based upon the actual surface temperature of the hot sand (maybe around 55 C). There is thermal inertia (surface takes time to warm and cool because of the mass of the material being warmed and its characteristic properties like specific heat). You can see the thermal inertia at night. Even though the surface is losing energy continuously it only cools at a certain rate as the heat stored from the day conducts through the material to the emitting surface.
Then you have convection (conduction in air is not a major player). As the surface warms it creates thermals that remove considerable energy and keep the surface from reaching the peaks you describe.
But in the tropics, except desert areas, you would never get this type of energy reaching the surface as clouds build up and reflect massive amounts of solar input energy.
The graph does have the downwelling IR also included.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/HottestSpot/page2.php
This link has an actual hot surface temperature measurement. In desert the major heat removal of surface energy would be convection. In the tropical regions evaporation removes massive amounts of energy from the surface. Over 100 W/m^2 in moist areas. Also convection is huge as this is what causes the ITCZ
“In the midday sun, the temperature 0.4 centimeters below the soil surface was 71.5°C (160.7°F). The air temperature, measured four feet above the ground, was 42.5°C (108.5°F).”
Norman is an idiot. He just rejoins the thread pretending he has never been shown to be a complete fraud. He believes if he keeps typing he might get something right.
He’s an idiot.
ClintR having to post about things he is unable to understand.
He just needed to post his favorite word “idiot” again.
ClintR is hopelessly confused by real data.
ClintR seems obsessed with having to post whenever he sees one of my posts. I think DREMT might have a chance at intelligent thought.
ClintR is not capable of intelligent thought. He just needs to post the work “idiot” endlessly like a small child who just learned something knew.
I guess no on here is impressed that ClintR can type ‘idiot” a few thousand times. He thinks he is special with this ability.
Norman, it’s really easy.
Just calculate the temperatures of the spheres, from your example to show you have a minimum grasp of radiative physics.
Then, face reality that the ball on a string is NOT rotating about its axis, and ice can NOT warm sunshine.
Just those things would give you a little credibility. Right now, you have NONE.
You’re an idiot.
“As the surface warms it creates thermals that remove considerable energy and keep the surface from reaching the peaks you describe.”
Only 17 W/m^2 worth, according to the Trenberth energy budget cartoon. Not enough to make much difference…
That’s the global average. If you want to compare averages that’s fine, but instead of focusing on the 960 W/m^2 peak you should switch to the 240 W/m^2 average.
bdgwx, that “240 W/m^2” comes from the AGW nonsense. They try to average TSI, so as to reduce it’s real warming potential. Yeah, just more fraud. For reality, stick with the 960 W/m^2. If everything is ideal, that would correspond to 361 K, 88 C, 190 F.
Of course we never see such values, because things are never ideal. A flat plate, properly insulated on the back, and positioned for maximum solar would get very close. The brown metal door to my shop gets to 145 F, and it’s not even perpendicular to the flux, besides losing energy on the back side.
Reality always wins out over nonsense.
The 240 W/m^2 figures comes from integrating the solar flux not reflected over the entire Earth and for one orbit around the Sun. This comes out to 240 W-years*A joules where A is the area of Earth. It has nothing to do with AGW.
bdgwx, if you weren’t trying to hide the truth, you would just say “they divide TSI, after albedo, by 4”. Which is what they do. And, as I indicated, the purpose is to make it appear Sun can not warm Earth. It’s part of the AGW nonsense.
No amount of wordsmithing can get around reality.
Dividing TSI (or albedo adjusted TSI if you like) by 4 and integrating it down the sphere are mathematically equivalent…
TSIa W/m^2 / 4 * 1 year * A m^2
= integral(TSIa*sin(t)*cos(t), 0, pi/2) * A/2 + integral(0*sin(t)*cos(t), 0, pi/2) * A/2
= 240 W-years*A
…where TSIa = 960 W/m^2 and A is the area of Earth.
This still has nothing to do with AGW.
bdgwx, if you weren’t trying to hide the truth, you would just say “they divide TSI, after albedo, by 4”. Which is what they do.
And, as I indicated, the purpose is to make it appear Sun can not warm Earth. 240 W/m^2 corresponds to an equilibrium temperature of 255 K, -18 C, -0.5 F, which distorts reality. Sun is MUCH more powerful that than. That’s why the “240” is such an important part of the AGW nonsense. It’s even used in the fraudulent “energy budget”.
You’ve been duped.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the Earth absorbs an amount of energy substantially different from 240A W-years each year?
I’m saying they can’t average flux. It’s deceptive to do so. It has no scientific meaning. It deceives people.
Look at this incompetent diagram from NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg
Notice they end up with a bogus “163.3 W/m^2” ONLY, being absorbed by Earth. They falsely represent that SUN is only warming Earth to 231.7K, -41.5C, -42.7F.
That’s NOT science, that’s “agenda”. And people fall for it, just like they’ve fallen for Moon rotating about its axis.
You probably know someone that has fallen for such nonsense….
First…Loeb 2008 and Trenberth 2009 are not claiming the surface should only be 231.7K. That figure came from you.
Second…163 W/m^2 is the average amount absorbed by the surface. 240 W/m^2 is the average amount absorbed by the surface+atmosphere.
Third…are you seriously trying to claim that the surface absorbs an amount of energy substantially different from 163A W-years each year?
First…That figure is the equilibrium temperature for the bogus flux. Loeb and Trenberth obviously have no familiarity with physics.
Second…You can’t average fluxes.
Third…Flux is not energy. Surface is not absorbing “average” of 163.3 W/m^2, as represented by people like Loeb and Trenberth.
231K is the BB temperature for a hypothetical 163 W/m^2 radiator. But the surface radiates with an average flux of 398.2 W/m^2 which equates to a BB temperature of 289K. Your mistake here is thinking you can plug only the solar radiation absorbed by the surface into the SB law. Oh, and to balance that 398.2 W/m^2 energy lost via UWIR you’ll notice that the inflows 163.3 + 340.3 minus the other outflows 18.4 + 86.4 is 398.8 W/m^2. So the surface is accumulating energy at a rate of about +0.6 W/m^2. That is 0.6A W-years each year or 60A W-years over 10 years.
bdgwx, you’re starting to transition into your idiot mode now.
Your first sentence is correct, because you were just reiterating my words. The rest of your nonsense is pure garbage. Your mistake was in ever believing such crap.
Five identical BB surfaces present a simple example that you’ve been taught wrong. One of the surfaces is at a temperature of 290 K, emitting 300 W/m^2. The other 4 surfaces are all at 306.4 K, emitting 500 W/m^2. The average flux is 400 W/m^2. But the average temperature is 303 K. But, 303 K emits 478 W/m^2, not the average of 400 W/m^2! But, if you average all fluxes, you get 460 W/m^! Which values do you like?
That ain’t science, my friend.
You can’t average fluxes over Earth and expect anything but garbage.
Duh…the SB law does not allow you to compute an accurate mean temperature from non-homogenously emitting surfaces. That’s why you can’t take the 398.2 W/m^2 surface emission and just assume that the global mean temperature is exactly 289.5K. Everybody already knows this. It’s also why I think the often cited 240 W/m^2 and 255K figure needs to be taken with context. Afterall, the Moon has a bond albedo of 0.12 so its ASR is closer to 315 W/m^2 yet its global mean temperature is a significantly lower 200K. An Earth without an atmosphere would likely be very different and more like the Moon and its large diurnal swing resulting in a global mean temperature likely much lower than 255K even with the bond albedo of 0.3. You should already be capable of understanding why the differences in the magnitude of the diurnal cycle can effect the relationship of the mean flux BB temperature and the actual mean temperature.
The “5 surfaces” example completely destroyed one of the tenets of bdgwx’s false religion–the bogus “energy budget”. So now, he’s babbling incoherently.
Nothing has been destroyed the least of which is the 240A W-years of energy that Earth receives in one year. And the fact that you think it is appropriate to compute a temperature without context at all nevermind doing so using 163.3 W/m^2 tells me you don’t yet understand what you are looking at and how to utilize it for analysis.
I want you to consider a 1 m^2 surface. It emits 400 W-years of radiant energy in one year while 100 W-years of energy gets removed via other means (like via sensible and/or latent fluxes) in that same year. What is the BB temperature of that surface? How much energy does it need to receive to maintain a steady-state?
Clarification…
Nothing has been destroyed the least of which is the 240A W-years of energy that Earth receives in one year.
…should be…
Nothing has been destroyed the least of which is the 240A W-years of energy that Earth absorbs in one year.
The Earth actually receives 340A W-years of energy in one year. 100A W-years of that is reflected.
bdgwx asks: “It emits 400 W-years of radiant energy in one year while 100 W-years of energy gets removed via other means (like via sensible and/or latent fluxes) in that same year. What is the BB temperature of that surface?”
That’s another example that demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the issue, bdgwx. You can NOT derive a temperature based only on energy flows. You have to know the “information” of the incoming energy. Four ice “sources” emitting 300 W/m^2 each is NOT the same as one source emitting 1200 W/m^2.
When are you going to try to learn?
ClintR said: You can NOT derive a temperature based only on energy flows.
That’s what I’m trying to you!
Yet you’re the one that is trying to take energy flows (and you’ve chosen the most inappropriate components at that) from Trenberth’s diagram and plug them into the SB law to come up with a temperature. That’s not what this diagram is used for.
That’s not to say that the BB temperature of 289.4K from the average surface emission of 398.2 W/m^2 isn’t a close first order approximation. It is. And of all the energy flow components in Trenberth’s diagram that is the ONLY one that is going to give you a meaningful approximation via the SB law because it at least represents the radiant emission from the surface.
But choosing the 163.3 W/m^2 solar flux absorbed at the surface and proclaiming the temperature to be 231.7K is absurd. It is absurd because the SB law does not relate a body’s temperature to some cherry-picked individual component of its ingress energy flow. What it does is relate a body’s temperature to its radiant emission.
I’m sure you believe all that typing was worthwhile, bdgwx.
But, it’s all garbage.
The “energy budget” you’re in love with is NOT energy. It has units of flux, W/m^2. That’s not energy. Your heroes don’t understand that flux is NOT conserved. Trying to balance flux is meaningless.
Ah…but it is conserved when it is in reference to the same time (t) and same area (A). Every single one of those fluxes in the Trenberth diagram is in reference to the same t and same A. That means when you see 340.4 W/m^2 toward and 339.8 W/m^2 away from Earth that necessarily means the Earth is accumulating energy at a rate of 0.6 W/m^2. In other words the Earth is storing an additional 0.6A W-years (or 3e14 W-years or 9.66e21 joules) every year.
Mathematically if…
Ftoward*t*A = Faway*t*A + Fstored*t*A
…then it follows that…
Ftoward = Faway + Fstored
…holds as well.
You’re still not getting it, bdgwx. The areas/temperatures/fluxes can’t be treated as regular quantities. They don’t know what they’re doing. They’ve just kludged a hodge-podge together to fool idiots and sheep.
Look how ridiculous it is with this simple example:
Five identical BB surfaces are considered. One of the surfaces is at a temperature of 290 K, emitting 300 W/m^2. The other 4 surfaces are all at 306.4 K, emitting 500 W/m^2. The average flux is 400 W/m^2. But the average temperature is 303 K. But, 303 K emits 478 W/m^2, not the average of 400 W/m^2! But, if you average all fluxes, you get 460 W/m^! Which values do you like?
That’s one of the tenets of your false religion, but it ain’t science!
We already know that you can’t average multiple fluxes and use that average in the SB law to predict the actual mean temperature. It is mind numbingly obvious. That’s why nobody is suggesting that you do that. It is a strawman you built. You are free to tear it down and I will even help you do so. Just don’t act like Trenberth is the one that built it.
bdgwx, Trenberth marketed the backradiation model. I recall years ago he was criticized for it by a number of scientists in all camps. It’s a bogus model to explain the GHE.
Looking around here its pretty obvious that a lot of people don’t see what’s wrong with it.
bill,
Can you post a link to what was being criticized. I suspect the criticism was quite a bit different than a wholesale rejection that the atmosphere emits DWIR toward the surface.
Also, if you’ve followed this thread of discussion I encourage you to read Trenberth 2009 and see for yourself that ClintR’s criticism that Trenberth does not understand/consider the nuances involved when using fluxes/temperatures when there are spatial and temporal inhomogeneities is factually incorrect and that the argument that you should be able to take the solar absorbed at the surface component and calculate a meaningful temperature is a strawman. Pay particular attention to the section on spatial and temporal sampling. I’m under no illusion that ClintR will read it, but I think there is a good chance you might.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/90/3/311/59479/Earth-s-Global-Energy-Budget
bdgwx, the problem is that at any one second, the energy from the sun is falling on only one half of the Earth, the lit hemisphere. In the same second, energy is leaving from the entire Earth’s surface. So, on a second by second basis, input is over half the surface area of the output.
So if (numbers are for example only) you had an input of 480 W/m^2 over the lit hemisphere, that would balance with an output of 240 W/m^2 over the entire Earth’s surface (on a second by second basis). The total energy involved (in joules) would balance, even though the flux values do not – because the surface area over which the output is coming from is double that compared to the surface area over which the input is received.
Why is this important? Think of the Earth as a chicken, rotating on a spit. The incoming flux on the side of the chicken that is cooking is always high enough to cook it through, as it rotates, if you think of it in real time. If you average it all out, however, that incoming flux is reduced, and it may appear as though the chicken cannot be cooked.
bdgwx, I read both of Trenberth papers on this. First the 1997 paper probably in 2007 and the 2nd paper shortly after it came out. I have personally contacted Trenberth on some of his findings and he basically lied to me. Claiming at first he wasn’t assuming a 1.0 surface emissivity when thats documented right in the paper. Then he provided two sources for why it shouldn’t be 1.0. After reading those I contacted him back and pointed out he wasn’t using their emissivities, to which he replied he didn’t believe them.
Lots of hinky stuff, extremely rough measurements, a wide range of difference of opinion at least documented in 1997 paper can’t remember if it was as well documented in the 2009 paper.
An example of that is in the abstract you provided:
”Surface upward longwave radiation is adjusted to account for spatial and temporal variability. A lack of closure in the energy balance at the surface is accommodated by making modest changes to surface fluxes, with the downward longwave radiation as the main residual to ensure a balance.”
Between 1997 and 2009 outgoing emissions by the atmosphere increased by 4 watts (not decreased though there is that .9 imbalance he plucked so outgoing increased 4.9 watts and he stole .9 back for an imbalance.
Thats the minor adjustments he must be talking about to make everything balance.
bill,
That’s right. Trenberth considered the spatial and temporal variability of the surface temperatures and fluxes.
Regarding the +0.9 W/m^2 imbalance the Trenberth study estimates it from climate models. Turns out Trenberth’s estimate is pretty close to the recent +0.87 W/m^2 estimate from the most comprehensive study to date which considers many lines of evidence.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
DREMT, I don’t think anyone is challenging any of that. What you thinking here?
Well, they do challenge it usually. Lol.
I don’t know anyone that seriously challenges the fact that the mean temperature a body is exposed to over a period of time is not the same as the max (or min) temperature.
OK, bdgwx. Maybe try reading my comment again. Or not.
DREMT, what specifically do you feel is being challenged? Provide a publication making that challenge.
No. Re-read until understood.
“Think of the Earth as a chicken, rotating on a spit. The incoming flux on the side of the chicken that is cooking is always high enough to cook it through, as it rotates, if you think of it in real time. If you average it all out, however, that incoming flux is reduced, and it may appear as though the chicken cannot be cooked.”
Here again its the ongoing battle between the Monday morning quarterbacking, armchair ‘scientists’ and the in-the-field climate scientists.
The arm-chair folks again claim that the in-the-field scientists are highly prone to simple geometry and physics errors, and have failed to learn how to cook.
The onlooking crowd seems skeptical of these claims, yelling ‘BS!’ to the arm-chair ‘scientists’.
One onlooker noted that rotisserie chicken cooks just fine. And on-off heating is how an oven works!
#2
No. Re-read until understood.
Nate says:
One onlooker noted that rotisserie chicken cooks just fine. And on-off heating is how an oven works!
==================================
Yes especially to the chef that understands that the difference isn’t due to radiation. Could be an early lesson for a chef when he switches from gas to electric stove top cooking or vice versa also.
DREMT, I reread it. You speak about chicken rotisserie. You mention that the chicken cooks because it is exposed to a high flux on the cooking side. You also speak about the lower average flux and about how someone could erroneously conclude that the chicken would not cook if they used that lower average flux to infer its susceptibility to cooking instead of the maximum flux. Clearly the mean temperature the chicken is exposed to is less than the maximum temperature. I say no one is challenging this. You say they are. If I have misrepresented you here then please provide clarifying commentary so that I can better understand your point.
No.
“If you average it all out, however, that incoming flux is reduced, and it may appear as though the chicken cannot be cooked.”
BDG “please provide clarifying commentary so that I can better understand your point.”
“No”
It seems to be trying to say ‘people believe rotisserie chicken shouldnt cook, but of course it cooks”
And of course this is just a weird strawman.
It seems that as he was writing it that he realized it wasnt going anywhere, and it just petered out…
#2
No.
DREMT
The figure you give is a global average.
https://www.earthonlinemedia.com/ebooks/tpe_3e/energy/geographical_patterns_of_energy.html
From this graph you can see the global sensible heat is not large but in certain places like deserts it is quite large.
This link gives you an actual observed energy balance over a desert location. The sensible heat becomes quite large for the hottest part of the day.
https://atmos.washington.edu/~breth/classes/AS547/lect/lect10.pdf
The 300 W/m^2 from the atmosphere that I added to the 960 W/m^2 was also a global average. Actually the Trenberth energy budget gives the back-radiation from the atmosphere as 333 W/m^2. So I was being conservative.
OK, Norman. Please give me your best estimate of what the back-radiation from the atmosphere would be, the flux from the sun would be, and what the flux from the thermals would be, at a hypothetical clear-sky desert location with the sun at zenith.
At the moment I’m still going with 960 W/m^2 plus 300 W/m^2 minus 17 W/m^2 = 1243 W/m^2, equating to a BB temperature of about 112 C, unless anybody can give me some better figures.
DREMT
I already gave you, not just an estimate, but actual measured values of this information. The flux from thermals in a hot desert can reach 400 W/m^2 at peak which I posted a link.
The radiative material comes from Desert Rock around Summer Solstice so it would be direct solar rays equivalent to equator.
Again:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f886776e825a.png
Solar at surface maybe around 850 W/m^2
Back-radiation is around 375 W/m^2
So you’re adding a flux that is in reference to 510e12 m^2 to a flux that is in reference to 1 m^2 (and technically not even that) and you think you can you can then use that result in the SB law? You can add fluxes only if they are in reference to the same spatial and temporal domain.
bdgwx, if your convoluted wordsmithing translates to ice can NOT increase sunlight, then you’re correct.
According to your graph, Norman, downwelling solar is in excess of 1100 W/m^2 at points!
DREMT, That’s right. Being at 13 degrees away from the zenith at solar noon on June 20th in Desert Rock, NV the incoming solar flux is quite high. In fact, it is a significant percentage of that received closer to the Tropic of Cancer on this date.
DREMT
Yes the Downwelling Solar is in excess of 1000 W/m^2 It would be even higher but the atmosphere absorbs around 20%.
The energy that can warm the surface is the downwelling solar minus the upwelling solar (the energy that is reflected by the surface). You get a NET solar of around 850 W/m^2 that can warm the surface at peak energy (Noon).
Ah, but we were looking for a hypothetical BB temperature…that means no reflection of solar from the surface, Norman. So, that is 1125 W/m^2 from the sun, plus 375 W/m^2 from the back-radiation, less the 400 W/m^2 from the thermals…that still leaves 1100 W/m^2, which equates to a BB temperature of 100 C.
Still sure that fluxes simply add/subtract? I would say the ground surface temperatures at Desert Rock (which you put at what, 55 C?) are more likely caused by the sun alone than by sun plus back-radiation.
DREMT
You still need to factor the thermal inertia. If you read one of my links, the desert surface starts warming with the morning Sun. Initially the energy gets conducted downward. To reach a high temperature of 100 C from a very short term high energy flux would require no thermal inertia.
You can achieve the 100 C with sunlight if you prevent convection in a solar pond. The bottom can get up to around 100 C which would satisfy your research.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/solar-pond
In the desert convection will prevent this high of temperature. I did link you to a study that found over 70 C temperatures just below the sand surface.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1477-8696.2001.tb06577.x#:~:text=of%20201%20%22F%20was%20measured,by%20a%20layer%20of%20gravel.
Here they have a recorded surface temperature of 93.9 C getting really close to your 100 C that includes both downwelling IR and upward convection.
Well, at least one of my original questions has been answered. Seems like ground temperatures as hot as 113 C have never been recorded.
DREMT
Yes and with convection it would be very hard to reach the 113 C temperature.
The Moon without convection or loss through atmosphere reaches the steady state temperature of the solar flux (actually a little more)
The claim is the Moon can get to 127 C during the day
https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html#:~:text=Daytime%20on%20one%20side%20of,F%20(minus%20173%20C).
Energy is also dissipated via the latent flux (evaporation). Though I concede that this avenue of heat removal is probably relatively low in desert regions. But the sensible flux (convection/conduction) is probably quite high given the high temperature differentials in bottom 2 meters of the atmosphere and the super-adiabatic lapse rates in these regions. Regardless, if you remove that 375 W/m^2 DWIR energy supply to the surface the energy budget will have a deficit and so the mean temperature of the surface has no choice but to drop along with the integrated UWIR until that UWIR matches the lowered integrated ingress flux.
I think bdgwx just likes the sound of his own voice…
bdgwx is starting to figure out his cult leaders have been lying to him.
He feels like an idiot….
DREMT, then what do you think is going to happen when you removed 375 W/m^2 of input from the surface?
Depends if it truly is an “input”.
bdgwx, electromagnetic fluxes do not simply add/subtract. So the fact that you keep trying such simplistic approaches indicates you have no background in radiative physics.
If a surface is receiving flux, in exactly the “same way”, from a “sun” source (960 W/m^2), and a “sky” source (300 W/m^2), what happens then depends on the surface temperature.
For the values of flux given, if the surface had a temperature of 288 K, then the surface temperature would increase to 361 K, assuming emissivity = 1, and no losses. If you then removed the “sky” source, the surface temperature would be unaffected.
DREMT,
So your answer is that you don’t know; or least you don’t know if the DWIR is truly an input or not. Either way you don’t have an answer to the question. Is that correct?
ClintR,
Is it okay if we stick with the fluxes that DREMT is using in this thread…1125 W/m^2 incoming solar and 375 W/m^2 of downwelling infrared? And yes…I know the 1125 W/m^2 does not all reach the surface (it is actually closer to 850 W/m^2). I’m just playing along with DREMT’s interpretation for now.
Your answer is that the surface temperature is entirely determined by the 1125 W/m^2 flux, but not the 375 W/m^2 flux correct?
What is different about the energy from the 1125 flux versus the 375 flux that causes the 1125 flux to effect the surface temperature but not the 375 flux?
"And yes…I know the 1125 W/m^2 does not all reach the surface (it is actually closer to 850 W/m^2)."
No, bdgwx…the 850 W/m^2 is the net solar, that being the downwelling solar minus the upwelling solar (reflected from the surface).
Yes, of course, when I used the word “reach” I actually meant “absorbed”.
Perhaps just use words according to their actual meanings.
bdgwx asks: “Your answer is that the surface temperature is entirely determined by the 1125 W/m^2 flux, but not the 375 W/m^2 flux correct?”
Correct.
bdgwx asks: “What is different about the energy from the 1125 flux versus the 375 flux that causes the 1125 flux to effect the surface temperature but not the 375 flux?”
The higher flux indicates a higher equilibrium temperature. A lower temperature cannot raise a higher temperature. That’s why you can’t raise the temperature of a sunlit object with ice.
DREMT said: Perhaps just use words according to their actual meanings.
Yes. Of course. I’m agreeing with you here. I should have used the word “absorb” instead of “reach”. I’m not sure how to make that any more clear.
Is your final answer that you don’t know to the question of what happens if you remove the 375 W/m^2 DWIR input from the surface?
ClintR, and what do you think happens to that 375 W/m^2? Do you think it just disappears…poof?
Yes, you made a mistake. I corrected you. You’re welcome.
My “final answer” is what I said. Bother somebody else.
bdgwx tries to distract: “ClintR, and what do you think happens to that 375 W/m^2? Do you think it just disappears…poof?”
One topic at a time, bdgwx. Don’t try your debate tricks on me. The topic is “sky” cannot add to “sun”. Do you agree that “sky” (your 375) can NOT add to “sun” (your 1125)?
No. I absolutely do not agree with that. Nobody will agree with that because it would violate the 1LOT.
If the sky source is supplying 375 W-minutes of energy to a 1 m^2 square surface every minute and the sun source is supplying 1125 W-minutes of energy to that same surface every minute then that surface is receiving 1500 W-minutes of energy every minute. That means the energy flux upon that surface is 1500 W/m^2. And if that surface is in a steady-state then it must dissipate energy at 1500 W/m^2. If you disagree with this then you are ignoring the law of conservation of energy. That’s problem #1.
Furthermore, you cannot take the 1500 W/m^2 input or 1500 W/m^2 output and plug it into the SB law and expect to arrive at a meaningful temperature. The reason is because the SB law can only be applied to the radiant emission of a surface. But that surface can expel energy by both sensible and latent fluxes as well and it can store different amounts of energy for a given rise in temperature based on material specific heat capacities. So it emits at a lower temperature than would be inferred by looking only at the incoming side of the energy budget. You are misinterpreting and inappropriately using the figures in those energy budget diagrams. That’s why you arrive at crazy temperature estimates like 231.7K (from 163.3 W/m^2) for the surface of Earth. That’s problem #2.
Wrong again, bdgwx.
The 375 + 1125 arriving does NOT mean it will be all absorbed. That’s what you are unable to understand. That’s why you can’t warm sunshine with ice. The “1125” wins out.
You don’t understand the physics so you believe energy “stacks up”. That’s why you made the mistake of trying to figure out the temperature by the energy in/out. That’s NOT how it works.
That’s your problem #1.
And you’re so desperate that now you’re trying to bring in “sensible and latent fluxes”! I’m talking about ideal conditions with black bodies, vacuums, etc. That’s just your desperate attempt to misdirect and confuse. You’re just trying to overturn the game table because you are losing.
That’s your problem #2.
And, you got more problems than just those two….
I never said all of the 375 + 1125 is absorbed. In fact, it was me that pointed out that of the 1125 solar only about 850 is taken up by the surface though admittedly I incorrectly used the word “reach” when I meant to use the word “absorb”. That mistake is on me, but the consideration of albedo came from me first.
I never tried to figure out the temperature by using energy in/out. That was you and you tried it using absurd logic. Out of all of the energy flow components you had to choose from you picked solar energy absorbed by the surface. Why didn’t you at least estimate it from the actual surface radiation emission? Had you chosen that instead you would have gotten 289.4K which is at least close to the actual global mean temperature.
I’m bringing up sensible and latent heat fluxes because it is essential in understanding why you can’t plug the total incoming energy into the SB law and expect to get a meaningful temperature.
You need to address problems #1 and #2 to be able to understand what’s going on. I can help by explaining things as best I can, but I can’t make you understand it.
bdgwx, it’s always fun when you deny reality, but it REALLY fun when you deny your own words. You definitely mentioned trying to determine temperature based on energy in/out.
Here, you get to deny your own words, again: “I want you to consider a 1 m^2 surface. It emits 400 W-years of radiant energy in one year while 100 W-years of energy gets removed via other means (like via sensible and/or latent fluxes) in that same year. What is the BB temperature of that surface? How much energy does it need to receive to maintain a steady-state?”
Ah…but look what I’m asking…I’m asking what the BB temperature will be for a 1 m^2 surface if it emits 400 W-years of radiant energy in one year. And my follow up question should have clued you in that it is in a steady-state. You have all the information you need to answer the question. If you don’t think I’ve provided enough information then you are free to ask clarifying questions.
And note that I didn’t ask you to tell me the BB temperature using the input energy or an energy flow other than the radiant emission. I did provide you with a piece of information that is irrelevant to the question of its BB temperature. That piece of information is relevant to answering the follow up question though. I’m trying to get you to think through the problem. This isn’t a test or anything. You may even come up with an answer I didn’t consider because we’re using different assumptions about the situation. That’s fine. That’s why it is on open discussion.
You’re STILL making the same mistakes, bdgwx.
What if it emits 600 W for half a year, but 200 W for the rest of the year? The average is 400 W for the entire year, but the average emitting temperature is different. Averaging flux can mislead you. Just like not having a clue can mislead you.
You’re seem unwilling to learn, but keep believing you know what you’re talking about.
bill hunter says:
They are not, the spin is constant and the orbital speed varies. They are at different angles.
You need these two independent motions to explain what we see.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
those motions were attributable to gravity rather than an independent spin.
They are not, the spin is constant and the orbital speed varies. They are at different angles.
You need these two independent motions to explain what we see.
===========================
All engineered systems have deflection upon acceleration and deceleration Svante. For instance the rigid wing structure of a Boeing 787 provides for a flex distance of 28% of its length.
Thats 28% of its length. A wing connecting the earth to the moon would have a flex percentage .06%. . . .pretty danged rigid.
A steel arm 3feet long would only have about 2 hundreths of an inch flex at that level of rigidity.
OK, now turn that into a moon model that is equivalent to steady rotation.
ClintR said: What if it emits 600 W for half a year, but 200 W for the rest of the year?
Absolutely. That scenario comes out to 282K. A consistent 400 W/m^2 scenario is 289K. A 100-700 scenario is 269K. Notice that larger cycles yield lower average BB temperatures. Note that I am NOT suggesting the Earth is in a homogeneous steady-state where every square meter is radiating at 400 W/m^2 all the time. I’m just trying to get you to think about the situation here.
But notice what we didn’t do. We didn’t need to factor in the 100 W-years of heat dissipation by other means to estimate the BB temperature under any scenario (cycling or steady-state). But we DO have to factor in that extra heat dissipation to conclude that the input energy must be 500 W-years otherwise the system would not have been in steady-state or if it were cycling it would have substantially deviated from its cycling channel. And we certainly don’t use 500 W/m^2 (steady-state) to get 306K or 300/700 W/m^2 (cycling) to get 301K.
Nobody is suggesting that you take any of those figures in Trenberth’s diagram and predict Earth’s actual global mean temperature with precision. That is NOT what that diagram is used for. But, if you insist on doing so then you must at least use the most appropriate component…the radiant energy value of 398.2 W/m^2. And even then you must interpret your answer in the appropriate context. Using any other figure from that diagram would be absurd.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-540152
…
dremt…”If fluxes simply added, wouldnt the ground surface itself be warmed to a potential maximum temperature of nearly 113 C”
This is not an answer to your question, it addresses the meaning of flux. The word flux comes from Newton’s term ‘fluxion’ which was intended to represent an instantaneous rate of change of a field. He meant it as the 1st derivative of a function.
There is no way to simply add instantaneous values, you must sum them using integration. I find it highly unlikely that instantaneous values of different fields could be integrated in space by their own means. In electronics, if you captured an electromagnetic wave with one antenna and another with a separate antenna, you might be able to add the electrical signals created by the conversion of EM at each antenna to electrical current. However, you’d be summing electric currents, not EM.
That’s correct DREMT, and it’s another good example exposing their nonsense. We don’t have boiling oceans!
And ice can’t raise the temperature of a sunlit object.
I believe they’re getting desperate. The “chalk circle” was too much for them. And now their predicted warming isn’t happening, La Niña is forming, and winter is coming on. At least a couple of the idiots can stay warm next to their burning keyboards.
norman…”As molecules “collide” the higher the K.E. the more likely the IR emitting molecule (CO2 or H2O) will be raised to an excited state and be able to emit an IR photon in its IR bands”.
It’s little wonder that you don’t understand why EM cannot be transferred both ways between masses of different temperatures. You still don’t understand the basics of atomic theory.
The term ‘excited state’ refers only to the electrons in the atoms that make up a molecule. The normal state for an electron as part of an atom is the ground state. When the electron is raised to a higher state, by moving to a higher orbital energy level, it is said to be in the excited state.
There is nothing else in a molecule that can be excited.
There are no IR bands in a molecule. And, electrons don’t emit a photon when they are raised to an excited state, normally the get there by absorbing IR of the correct frequency and intensity. Electrons emit IR when they drop to a lower energy level.
Conservation of energy. If an electron is in an excited state, at a higher energy level, in order to drop back to a lower energy level it but get rid of the excess energy, hence an EM emission. The intensity of the EM emitted is exactly the difference in energy between the levels through which the electron drops.
There is nothing else in a molecule that can do that.
Gordon Robertson
I have wasted a lot of time and sent you links explaining the molecular motions. You are much a brain-dead contrarian to attempt to understand it.
You show total ignorance of both Chemistry and Physics when you make stupid points such as “There is nothing else in a molecule that can be excited”. I have explained and sent links to you on molecular vibration. You are too much a contrarian to attempt to understand what this means. Basically am done wasting any more time with you on this issue. You show no desire to learn real science and you think people on a science blog are interested in your lunatic fringe physics. You have ClintR the other contrarian (who like you cannot understand actual physics) that is about the only posters who would think you have valid points
norman…”I have explained and sent links to you on molecular vibration”.
Yes, and I have explained to you that molecular vibration is actually atomic vibration where two or more nucleii are bonded by electrons. It is the interaction between the nucleii and the electrons that cause vibration. Vibration increases when the energy of the electrons increases because nothing else in an atom is capable of changing energy states.
Your understanding of atomic theory is highly superficial.
Gordon Robertson
You are wrong: YOU: “Vibration increases when the energy of the electrons increases because nothing else in an atom is capable of changing energy states.”
Have you considered the K.E. of the nuclei can change? The more energy the mass part of the molecule has (the nucleus) the faster it vibrates and the more energy it has. My understanding of atomic theory is a few years above your simplistic views.
Also K.E. energy of vibrational states will not emit IR unless there is a charge difference. You need polar molecules vibrating to generate IR. That is why N2 and O2 are very poor IR emitters and only emit under special circumstances. They are non polar molecules. They have vibrational states but there is not change in electric charge as they vibrate so there is no electromagnetic change and no emissions.
Norman, trying to claim someone is wrong, with your background, just makes you look like an idiot.
You should be trying to learn from people that get it right, rather than pounce on picayune errors you believe you’ve found. Otherwise, you just look like a desperate idiot.
norman…”Have you considered the K.E. of the nuclei can change?”
No. KE = 1/2mv^2. Where is the velocity in the nucleus? And why should the nucleus vibrate? No internal velocity, no KE.
The energy associated with the nucleus is nuclear energy. It is the energy that holds the protons and neutrons together, and when it is released from some elements you get a real Big Bang, not the fictitious Big Band claimed to have formed the universe out of nothing, in an instant.
The only moving part in an atom, the electron, has the velocity for KE = 1/2mv^2, and mega amounts of it in a relative way. KE is the energy of motion, a mass or particle has to be moving to have KE.
You could claim that a nucleus has KE if it is moving freely through space, however, the reference re KE is normally to the entire atom, including electrons. Vibration is not related to that motion, it is an internal vibration between nucleii due to the vibration in the bonding electrons.
In a solid, like a block of iron, all the iron atomic nucleii are bonded together by electrons. The nucleii, having positive charges, repel each other. The electrons, having negative charges, are attracted to the nucleii but for some reason, possibly their momentum/kinetic energy, never spiral into the nucleus. However, the attractive force between the electrons and the nucleus act like a spring that vibrates. If you give the electrons more energy by heating them, the spring vibrates harder.
In a gas molecule, like CO2, the molecules are so far apart their is no electrostatic attraction between them. However, internally, their is an attraction between the electrons that bond the C and O atoms together and the nucleii of the C and O atoms. That’s where the vibration takes place in a molecule, between atoms. If you add heat to the electrons, the bonds vibrate harder and if you add enough heat they will break.
With the rotation of a linear molecule like CO2, I am hypothesizing that the rotating bonds made up of electrons, radiate and absorb EM.
When investigating vibration and rotation, you should discard the notion of a molecule and think in terms of atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. The shapes of molecules are dependent on the electronegativity of atoms in molecules and electronegativity is related to electrons.
Where’s Kristian? Haven’t seen him for a long time. Maybe he’ll receive this post by ESP and drop in.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 14, 2020 at 8:50 PM
I posited that you are saying that RADIATION which is basically an electromagnetic mechanism is NOT a mode of heat energy transport.
Your retort: “No, it’s not. Heat is not transported or transferred through space by solar radiation.”
But then you say: “When we talk about heat transfer between the Sun and the Earth, that does not mean heat is transferred through space to Earth. It means heat is converted to EM at the Sun, as a loss of heat at the Sun, then converted back to heat at the Earth as a gain in heat by the Earth. The net heat loss/heat gain is referred to as heat transfer.”
So, the heat energy lost by the sun is gained by the earth, hence transported from the sun to the earth. I worked the oil fields for over forty years and was transferred many times; each time I was transported from one station to the next.
Conservation of energy is proof that “God does not play dice with the universe.”
Gordon Robertson
For the sake of completeness I will add that I don’t know what you mean by “Heat requires a mass to be in existence and heat cannot pass through a vacuum.”
We know that solar energy is generated by the conversion of four hydrogen atoms to one helium atom in nuclear fusion reactions deep within the core. Using the amount of energy released in these reactions and the law that says “E=mc^2,” we can calculate how much of the sun’s mass is radiated into the vacuum of space in the form of electromagnetic energy every second.
I shouldn’t have to provide references for these assertions since it’s all common knowledge to any college freshman, and besides, many simpletons on this blog mistake Referencing for Appealing to Authority; laymen are funny that way.
“And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.”
Gordon uses archaic and outdated vocabulary. This is why he can be tough to understand and why equations are better than words.
The first law is commonly written as
ΔU = Q – W
Using standard, modern vocabulary:
U = internal energy within a system
Q = heat added to the system
W = work done by the system
Gordon calls U “heat”. As long as you remember that, it is easy to decipher Gordon’s words and reframe them in modern words. Just think “internal energy, U” whenever he says “heat”.
In that light, what he says is good science. U does not get transferred directly from the sun to the earth. The sun’s U is transferred to the U of a bunch of photons — ie a photon gas at 5700 K. When some of those photons get to the earth, the U of the photons is lost and the U of the earth increases.
(There are a few philosophical points I could make, but this will suffice for now).
Well said, Tim.
The only thing I would attempt to improve on was your last sentence: “When some of those photons get to the earth, the U of the photons is lost and the U of the earth increases.”
I would prefer: “When some of those photons get to the earth, the U of the photons is transferred to matter on Earth.” Since we know energy is not really “lost”.
Have you had time to study the things you were confused about?
Yeah, saying “lost” is a bit colloquial, but it is easily understood. The energy is “lost from one system (the photons) and simultaneously added to the other system (the earth)”. Very much like putting a hot piece of metal into cool water. The energy is “lost from one system (the metal block) and simultaneously added to the other system (the water)”.
Furthermore, that process in the quotation marks is exactly what is meant by “Q” (= what scientists call “heat”).
Vey good, ClintR agrees that photon energy adds.
Got those sphere temperatures figured out, silly Svante?
You need to get that done, otherwise people are going to know what an incompetent troll you really are.
tim…”Yeah, saying lost is a bit colloquial, but it is easily understood. The energy is lost from one system (the photons) and simultaneously added to the other system (the earth). Very much like putting a hot piece of metal into cool water. The energy is lost from one system (the metal block) and simultaneously added to the other system (the water)”.
Tim, if you insist on using the generic word energy, without specifying the energy, then you are going to get lost in theory without understanding the reality. You also insist on using the word photon in place of electromagnetic energy. Since EM is defined partly based on its frequency and wavelength, how do you integrate photons into a wave front with frequency and wavelength?
What we have with solar energy striking the surface is a conversion from electromagnetic energy to thermal energy. But you can’t bring yourself to use the term thermal energy, aka heat. You resort to a vague ‘internal energy’. Name the energy.
During the conversion, EM is lost and heat is created. If there is no mass to intercept the EM it will carry on to infinity without making anything hotter.
You are fine using the conservation of energy law but you seem unaware that ‘energy’ is a cover (generic) word for several different kinds of energy with very different properties.
How does the conversion take place? If you don’t understand that process you will get your cahones tied in knots when it comes to understanding why that same solar energy, when contacting a hotter star than the Sun, has no effect. Or why radiation from the cooler Earth cannot raise the temperature of the Sun.
We know damned well that on a hot summer’s day. pavement can become so hot it will burn your bare feet. The pavement is hotter, it has had its level of heat raised, and you can measure that on a thermometer. A thermometer does not measure internal energy, it measures heat, thermal energy
What other internal energy could burn your feet on pavement, electrical energy, mechanical energy, nuclear energy?
The process of converting EM to heat, according to Bohr and Schrodinger, who created the laws for the conversion, is simply. The EM from the Sun has the required intensity and frequency to raise electrons in the atoms of the masses it contacts, to higher energy levels. Those energy levels are kinetic energy levels and heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. So, raising the KE raises the heat level.
svante…”ClintR agrees that photon energy adds”.
Where is the addition? We are talking about energy quanta being converted to a different form of energy.
tim…”Gordon uses archaic and outdated vocabulary”.
Gordon uses the proper scientific vocabulary while Tim uses a modernized, incorrect version.
“Gordon calls U heat”
No, Gordon calls U internal heat + internal work. What else could internal energy be? Do you think there is a separate energy internal to a mass other than heat and work?
You use the 1st law version, delta U = Q – W. Clausius defined that U and he made it clear that U is the sum of the heat contained in a body plus the work done by atomic vibrations. Modernists treat U as if it is some magical, undefined quantity of energy without specifying what it is. What kind of energy? It could have been called internal heat but heat is just one part of internal energy.
The vibrations of the atoms in a solid lattice represent mechanical energy, hence work. The degree of vibration is dependent on the amount of heat in the atoms since that heat represents the kinetic energy of the electrons bonding the atomic nucleii together. Since heat and work have an equivalence it is fair to lump them under the term internal energy.
“The suns U is transferred to the U of a bunch of photons…”
Not transferred, Tim, converted. Heat is converted to a form of energy with vastly different properties than heat. The internal heat of the Sun is converted to electromagnetic energy which can flow through empty space whereas heat cannot do that.
You modernists have lost contact with the basics of science and invented a pseudo-science. You refer to entropy, an invention of Clausius, as a measure of disorder. Entropy is a measure of heat, actually a summation of infinitesimal changes in heat during a process at the temperature T at which they occurred.
entropy = S = integral dQ/T.
Do you see any reference to disorder in that equation?
When Clausius invented entropy, he made that clear. He added as an after-thought that since most reactions in nature are irreversible, leading to disorder, that the entropy is always positive. Modernists has misinterpreted that to mean entropy measures disorder.
rr…”For the sake of completeness I will add that I don’t know what you mean by “Heat requires a mass to be in existence and heat cannot pass through a vacuum.””
Heat was defined by Rudolf Clausius, who created the 2nd law of thermodynamics, who defined internal energy, U, in the 1st law, and who invented entropy. He defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. As such, that means heat can only exist in atoms and since there are not atoms in a vacuum like space (theoretically) there can be no heat. There are obvious exceptions, like the solar wind, which is a plasma of protons and neutrons ejected from the Sun.
Clausius went into great detail on this. basically, he defined internal energy as the summation of internal heat and work and related external energy as heat and work.
So, the first law becomes Q = U + W, where:
U = Qint + Wint
therefore Qext = (Qint + Wint) + Wext
Clausius explained Wint in internal energy as the vibration of atoms in a solid. He explained Qint as the heat contained in a body. If you increase the heat contained in a body via Qext, U is raised therefore Wint is raised and the atoms vibrate harder. If you remove heat (Qext), the heat contained by the body decreases and U decreases, therefore Wint decreases as the atoms vibrate less.
It is well known that the solar constant is about 1360 w/m2. What most people fail to realize is that all that power is coming from just one square meter of solar surface!
ClintR is not most people. He is one of the smart ones.
That’s right, ClintR can hardly see the Sun at all, because that single square meter is 149.14 million km away.
Nah. The 1360 W/m^2 is coming from the emission of all square meters, albeit in unequal proportions, of the Sun facing Earth and after being attenuated as it spreads out over its 149e9 meter journey. The bright circle in the sky isn’t really a single square meter. It just looks that small because it is really far away. FYI…the Moon’s surface area is also substantially greater than 1 m^2 as well. I will concede that it is quite bit less than the Sun, but it is also much closer which makes it appear similar in size.
bdgwx,
I am pretty sure the original post from Anonymous was intended as sarcasm.
I am pretty sure Anonymous knows that the individual fluxes arriving at a surface on the earth (irradiance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance) from all the square meters on the sun add up, but was trying to show an obvious flaw in the repeated claim that ‘fluxes from different sources can’t be added’.
Lol. My sarcasm sensor is clearly really bad!
tim…”I am pretty sure Anonymous knows that the individual fluxes arriving at a surface on the earth… from all the square meters on the sun add up…”
Flux is a concept with which one has to be wary. Lines of flux are imaginary concepts used to represent a field. If you have lines of magnetic flux passing through a square metre, and you view them on end passing through that square they will appear as dots.
The only way to add to those dots to make the flux more dense is to add lines in between the other lines. That is not addition in the sense of adding two sine waves together that are in phase.
If you want to talk about lines of flux adding, you have to be very specific as to what you mean. You cannot compare a fictitious photon to a line of flux. The flux is a representation of magnetic field strength and the field strength has been measured. How do you measure a photon as a fictitious particle in a wave of EM?
Tim,
So how many do you reckon there are? Have you added them all, or are you just making stuff up?
Try making up a CO2 global warming theory instead. Should be easy for a bright fellow with a PhD, surely.
Doh…that was obviously meant for Anonymous.
The square meter of sun surface that heats the earth is called the heating square.
Out of millions of square meters on sun surface, which one is the heating square? Very elusive! A great mystery for science.
Ha!
Hee haw!
The power arriving at Earth from one square meter of sun surface cannot be added to the power arriving at Earth from a different one square meter of sun surface.
Fluxes are to never be added.
Yeah, it follows from ClintR’s assertion that the Sun emits laser beams.
You can see how desperate silly snowflake Svante is becoming. His belief system is falling apart. They’ve lied to him, and he’s swallowed every drop of the slop.
Reality is closing in on him.
Yeah, “the power arriving at Earth from one square meter of sun surface cannot be added to the power arriving at Earth from a different one square meter of sun surface.”
Requires laser beams, doesn’t it?
Desperate, truly desperate.
You’re busted again☺.
Svante, please stop trolling.
A,
Add the fluxes from two blocks of ice, or 10 if you like. What do you get?
Laughter, for looking like a fool.
Do you really think hot objects add any better? Were you born thick, or did you have to work for years to achieve your present intellectual level?
Anonymous says:
The power arriving at Earth from one square meter of sun surface cannot be added to the power arriving at Earth from a different one square meter of sun surface.
Fluxes are to never be added.
S,
Have you truly lost the ability to think for yourself, or are you appealing to the authority of an anonymous jackass?
Either way, not very convincing, is it?
☺
Svante, please stop trolling.
backradiation from a cooler atmosphere warming up a warmer surface is a myth
https://planetaryvision.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-backradiation-has-no-warming-effect.html
My own take it is not just a myth , it is the biggest bastardization of laws of fizzix
svante…”I am suffering from late night psychosis.
I guess you always post nightly”.
I do post nightly quite a bit but I don’t suffer much from late night psychosis. You, on the other hand, always suffer from psychosis since you live in a night and day delusion that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real despite the lack of evidence to confirm it.
If the sky had one hundred suns shining down, our world would not be any warmer or brighter than just one sun. This is known to Eben and ClintR.
The curious question is then, from which of the one hundred suns would come the solar constant of 1360 w/m2?
A decision for humans to vote on or a decision only for God to make?
A,
The classic bait and switch.
One sun, one hundred suns, one thousand suns, it makes no difference to the maximum temperature that an object could be heated to. A million suns at 270 K adding all their *fluxes* could not raise anything above 270 K. You might be silly enough to believe temperatures can be added, but two suns at, say, 5800 K, do not make a temperature of 11,600 K possible.
You are as confused as the climate donkeys at NASA or Penn State, who also are unable to distinguish between temperature, heat, energy and power. Reality is not like the starship Enterprise, where the captain decrees *make it so*, and off we go at warp factor five.
Try figuring out what the observable physical phenomena needing a GHE might be. I hope you can come up with something better than saying thermometers show rising temperatures! Thats what they are designed to do – react to heat! Off you go now. Try and think up another deceptive gotcha.
Hee haw!
Swenson, I (and science in general) agree with much of what you write.
You are right right that “a million suns” cannot warm an object to above the temperature of the sun. And just as truly, “a million blocks of ice” cannot warm an object to above the temperature of the ice. The best you can hope to do is to surround an object 100% by walls at a given temperature, and then the object will get to the temperature of those walls.
If you surround an object with empty space, it will settle to 3K.
If you surround it 100% with ice @ 273 K, it will settle to 273 K
If you surround it 100% with plasma @ 5800 K, it will settle to 5800 K (and of course it would melt before it actually got that hot).
So far so good. We agree 100% (I hope!).
What if the object (assumed now to be a black body for clarity) is only 0.0005% surrounded by hot plasma and remaining 99.9995% by space? A quick calculation shows that this is about the right ratio to get the object to 273 K (and not coincidentally, this is about the fraction of the sky covered by the sun as seen from earth). Or put another way, the temperature of the object is somewhere between 3K and 5800 K; closer to 3K than 5800K, but it is not a terribly difficult calculation to find it is 272K)
Now starting covering the 99.999% percent with ice. The object receives more and more flux, more and more energy. The temperature will rise. It will be closer to 273K than 5800K, but it will be above 273K. (325K if you do the calculation.)
Wrong again, Tim. You’re making the problem too complicated, and that may be what is confusing you.
Just use a “perfect” surface, as in my example above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-539377
If that surface is receiving 960 W/m^2, it will reach an equilibrium temperature of 361 K. If you then “add” another flux of 960 W/m^2, the surface temperature will NOT increase. That’s why you can NOT “add” ice to sunlight. That was just a huge mistake on your part.
(How many does that make?)
ClintR said: If you then add another flux of 960 W/m^2, the surface temperature will NOT increase.
Not even remotely correct. You can do the experiment yourself. Suspend two heat lamps above a pan of water (or your favorite food dish). Wait for a steady state and measure the water temperature with both lamps turned off. Turn one lamp on, wait for a steady state, and observe the water temperature increase. Turn the second lamp on, wait for a steady state, and observe the water temperature increase further. This experiment is done countless times every single day in cafeterias all over the world. Fluxes can be added. You just have to know when and how to do it correctly. Just because you don’t understand how to do the analysis doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally perplexed by it.
You’re confused again, bdgwx. The food was not at the maximum temperature of the source. So in that “special” case you can say fluxes add. But that is not the general case, and that is certainly not the case when comparing sunlight to ice, or sky.
Even with your heat lamp example, you cannot raise the temperature of the food above the temperature of the lamp filament, even by adding more lamps.
Are you trying to learn, or just adding confusion to protect your false religion?
Clint you are still confusing flux emitted FROM a surface and flux received TO a surface. (How many does that make?)
If your “perfect surface” is completely surrounded by walls at 361K emitting 960 W/m^2 from the surface of the walls, then at steady state, the ‘perfect surface’ of your object will be receiving 960 W/m^2, emitting 960W/m^2 and be 361 K.
If your “perfect surface” is 1/2 surrounded by walls at 429K emitting 2×960 = 1920 W/m^2 (and the rest is space at 3 K), the object will ALSO be receiving 960 W/m^2, emitting 960W/m^2 and will again be 361 K.
If your “perfect surface” is 1/10 surrounded by walls at 641K emitting 10×960 = 9600 W/m^2 (and the rest is space at 3 K), it will ALSO be receiving 960 W/m^2, emitting 960W/m^2 and will again be 361 K.
Both the temperature of the source and the size of the source matter. Your attempt at a ‘one size fits all’ answer is too simplistic.
Again Tim, you are trying to confuse the issue, or maybe just exceedingly stupid.
What’s with the “1/2 surrounded” nonsense? If the surface is receiving 1920 W/m^2 over its entire surface, it will have an equilibrium temperature of 429K, not 361K,
ClintR, Good. we agree that the fluxes from both lamps add such that both modulate the temperature of the water. Let’s extend the experiment. Your pan of water is now being heated from underneath with an element that can drive the water temperature above that of the lamps. If you find water problematic due to its lower boiling point then switch to cooking oil instead…just be careful. You can do this at home by putting your apparatus on the stove. Repeat the procedure above. Turning on one lamp still increases the temperature of the oil. Turning on two lamps increases the temperature further. It does so even when the oil temperature is higher than the lamp temperature because the lamps are still warmer than what the environment would be otherwise. And this situation is perfectly consistent with the 1LOT and 2LOT. And unsurprisingly that is exactly what is observed to happen in the real world.
Wrong bdgwx. You’re just making stuff up.
If you were an honest person, you would do the experiment yourself and admit you’re wrong.
But heck, you won’t even admit the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis.
You’re just not an honest person.
ME> Clint you are still confusing flux emitted FROM a surface and flux received TO a surface.
CLINT> If the surface is receiving 1920 W/m^2 over its entire surface …
ME> Pounds my head against a wall.
CLINT> Whats with the 1/2 surrounded nonsense?
ME> Pounds my head against a wall again.
The sun EMITS 64,000,000 W/m^2 from its entire surface. The earth does not RECEIVE 64,000,000 W/m^2 because of geometry (ie the sun is only visible over a small solid angle.
The walls that “1/2 surround” EMIT 1920 W/m^2 from their entire surface . The inner object only RECEIVES 960 W/m^2 because of geometry (ie the walls are visible over 1/2 of all solid angles). No surface is receiving 1960 W/m^2.
You might start by studying the inverse square law, and learn about solid angles.
And that explains your “1/2 surrounded” nonsense.
It’s all about confusion to cover your incompetence.
These are quite straightforward arguments. The sun covers .5 degrees out of 180 degrees in the sky. And we get 1000 W/m2.
Cover the sky with more suns, you get more light! Its that simple.
Only when the entire sky is filled with suns, do you get 5800 K. The same as if the Earth was right up against the sun.
Even you should be able to get that.
Okay, let me see…With Tim and bdgwx, I was “1/2 surrounded” by idiots. Now with Svante and Nate, I am completely surrounded by idiots.
Got it.
So you think more suns covering the sky would give the same the same light and the same warming?
Cmon, cant believe you believe that.
Yeah, I can’t believe the nonsense you come up with either, Nate.
But then, you are an idiot.
Translated from ClintR’s lunatic reference frame:
Nate is right and I’m busted again.
Svante, please stop trolling.
And so it goes.
Alarmists are unable to scientifically define the Greenhouse Effect.
Of course, they cannot come up with a testable GHE hypothesis to explain something they cant define.
Maybe they have redefined the scientific method, and come up with the theory first. Alas, no. Either that, or hidden from Internet search engines, Try looking for Greenhouse gas theory, or Global Warming theory, or similar. No luck?
Still the donkeys bray. Hee haw!
“Alarmists are unable to scientifically define the Greenhouse Effect.”
Hmm, the greenhouse effect theory, defined greenhouse effect as warming caused by greenhouse gases. Wiki:
“The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 C (59 F) below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 C (57 F). The greenhouse effect is the contribution of greenhouse gases to this difference.”
The hypothetical planet is an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody which reflects 30% of the sunlight.
This doesn’t make much sense.
Let’s try to make it have some sense.
So, got Ideal thermally conductive blackbody and say at Earth/Sun L-1 there are reflectors which blocking/reflecting 30% of incoming sunlight.
Or one put reflector in Earth orbits- but seems more complicated and has various problems.
But if in L-1 blocking sunlight, it would be about the same as putting Earth at 1.2 AU distance from the sun. Putting reflector in low orbit, the reflectors would have have block some of IR coming from Earth surface. Of course Earth clouds actually do this- but is effectively reducing the amount of surface area of the blackbody is radiating. The further from surface the less it does this- hence L-1 which very far away {1.5 million km}
But if 30% has do with reflection of clouds- the clouds very close to the surface.
What seems like, is ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorbs 340 and emits 340 watts per square meter.
Times 340 times .7 get 238 and it would emit 238 watts.
Then got this blackbody emitting 238 and uniform temperature of -18 C.
Does Earth resemble something with uniform temperature of -18 C?
Well Earth surface is much colder and much warmer that -18 C
Anyhow, one can say no planet resemble ideal thermally conductive blackbody, but you say the purpose of such model is give idea
of how warm a planet would be, on average. Or sunlight on surface going to be much hotter, surface in night much colder and it have some thermal mass.
So our Moon is warmer than they say it is. Because 1 meter below the surface it will have a fairly warm uniform temperature and it’s warmer than average surface temperature. And ideal thermally conductive blackbody, would indicate the highest this temperature should be is 5.3 C, and it’s much colder than that. It’s something like -30 C. So the moon fits model. End of story. The moon is no where near an ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
But if did same thing- meter under surface of earth surface, you going much higher temperature than Moon. And I believe it’s higher than 5.3 C
Why is Earth much warmer than Moon.
Well roughly, Earth has Atmosphere and Ocean and rotates faster.
Compared to Moon the big difference, Earth has huge amount mass which can heat up, and the Moon has very thin mass which can be heated, like 1/2 ton per square meter.
Earth has 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter, tons of ocean water per square meter, and land surface about like Moon ground surface. And Earth has clouds and greenhouse gases- or water vapor which has lot of latent heat. And since lukewarmer, the radiant effects all greenhouse gases have warming effect. And btw I have yet to really consider how much warming is related ozone.
Wiki, Planetary equilibrium temperature:
“The planetary equilibrium temperature is a theoretical temperature that a planet would be at when considered simply as if it were a black body being heated only by its parent star. In this model, the presence or absence of an atmosphere (and therefore any greenhouse effect) is irrelevant, as the equilibrium temperature is calculated purely from a balance with incident stellar energy.”
Per that definition, Earth’s Planetary equilibrium temperature is assumed to be around 240 watts.
But Earth would not emits 240 watts without atmosphere.
I would say planet equilibrium temperature, is temperature that requires time to reach.
For instance if earth average global air surface temperature were to increase by 10 C {say impactor increase it by 10 C] given time Earth would return to it’s equilibrium temperature.
Or if block all sunlight reaching Earth for 3 days, air temperature would decrease, but given time it return to it’s equilibrium temperature.
Now, I would say Earth average global surface air temperature is
more of the result rather than the cause of equilibrium temperature.
Or what I say constantly, is that average ocean temperature determines global surface a temperature. Or the true global temperature of Earth at the moment is 3.5 C- the average temperature of ocean.
Or Earth ocean temperature is Earth’s equilibrium temperature.
The temperature of entire atmosphere is a part, an minor part, of Earth’s equilibrium temperature.
So presence or absence of Earth’s atmosphere is having or removing a part of Earth’s equilibrium temperature and the present or absence of Earth ocean is having or removing an even larger part of Earth’s equilibrium temperature.
Or to return to Earth’s equilibrium temperature of it’s atmosphere {whether it’s cooled or warmed a lot} requires a time of a few days. Whereas a change of 1 C difference in ocean temperature, requires centuries to return to it’s equilibrium temperature.
If believe Earth’s temperature is all about global air temperature, then one can believe that Earth can rapidly increase it’s equilibrium temperature.
If ignore Earth ocean average temperature, you part of the global warming cargo cult. Or “greenhouse effect theory” is only about global air temperature.
But since it’s claimed:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. ”
There is some hope you are not part of this religion.
Though if worried that a cold ocean is going to get a bit warmer, one is only going a direction in which one could discard the religion, but you still clinging to it.
Normally I am not against religions, but I am against pseudo science, and I oppose the totalitarian stuff.
Norman wrote –
*What I actually said is that sunlight and ice will warm a surface to a higher temperature than sunlight and cold space.*
Err, no, Norman. Only in youe imagination. The Moons surface gets to about 127 C in sunlight. Do you really believe that adding ice at 0 C or so will make the surface hotter than 127 C?
You are as silly as Svante. A right pair of nutters.
Yep. Thats how light intensity sums. Sorry. The ice emits 315 W/m2. The sun supplies 1300 W/m2. Together what do they supply to the surface?
Yep, 1615 W.
What, did you think the 315 W/m2 just goes away? Vanishes? Goes down a hole?
That would be odd.
Nate,
Do you really want to appear even more stupid than you are?
Covering a sunlit object with ice makes it hotter?
Now the ice melts, and the resultant water, being hotter, emits more W/m2? Where will it stop? Hotter and hotter! Nates own version of the *ultraviolet catastrophe*.
Hee haw.
No dumqit, nobody said cover the sun with ice!
Cover the dark sky with ice.
Wrong Nate. You have to start with full sunlight, then add ice, to prove it will raise the temperature. No “dark sky” involved. That’s the nonsense you’ve chosen to believe in. That’s why you’re an idiot.
Quit trying to change the facts.
So you think the sky as seen from the Moon is what? Blue? White?
Really??
“So you think more suns…”
“So you think the sky…”
See why you’re an idiot, Nate?
The point is the geometry must allow both the suns light and the light emitted from the ice to sine on the same spot.
That can be accomplished by having ice cover the sky except for a hole for the sun.
Having the ice block out the sun is not what anybody had in mind in this discussion.
N,
Off you go and do it, then.
Tell us how much hotter your thermometer became, when you surrounded it with ice – but still left enough space for a bit of sunlight.
A wise physicist said –
*It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.*
Nate you are just being too stupid to not see you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Yes the sun doesn’t shine evenly on the surface. And the surface doesn’t have the same mean temperature everywhere either. Every watt you draw robs a solar watt from somewhere else. You need to keep the bank account balanced and stop floating checks.
Nate says:
Yep. Thats how light intensity sums. Sorry. The ice emits 315 W/m2. The sun supplies 1300 W/m2. Together what do they supply to the surface?
Yep, 1615 W.
What, did you think the 315 W/m2 just goes away? Vanishes? Goes down a hole?
That would be odd.
==================================
LMAO!
Ok! I am standing in my courtyard and the sun bears down daily at an average of 400 watts/hr. the ground I am standing on is emitting 400 watts/hr. The fences around my court yard on 4 sides are emitting 400 watts per hour. How hot should I be? Lets see that adds up 2400watts. Hmmmm, go to the spectral calculator. . . .
Wow 181C or 368f – golly I should look like a Thanksgiving Turkey left in the oven too long.
Well the fact that you use nonsense units of W/hr kind of tells us all we need to know.
Il posed problem.
I guess you don’t know what 400 watt years is either.
Just forgot to tell you my courtyard is one cubic meter. So I fit in it like a big turkey in an oven.
W/hr?
Does kilowatthour ring a bell?
Yes kwh actually makes as a unit of energy.
Kw/hr or the words you used kw per hour dont mske sense.
But youvwere trying to describe power and flux which should be W or W/m2.
This SHOULD remind you that you are not an expert, and maybe should try to learn from rather than lecture to experts.
OK Nate I will give you a point for being the spell checker around here.
bill,
Power is in units of joules/second or watts. Energy is in units of joules or watt-seconds. There are 3600 W-seconds in 1 W-hour. The convention for energy (the integration of power) is expressed as W-hour. W/hr would actually be the rate at which power is changing.
Based on the above would you mind clarifying your example? We may need to ask more follow up questions before we can estimate how hot you’ll be.
Yes your calculation is correct 1 watt for 3600 seconds is 1 watthour
Therefore 400w/m2 for each meter squared is 400watthours per every 3600 seconds or .4kwhr on your electricity bill, now once the thing is pre-heated it seems Nate thinks its going to be 2.4kwhrs.
If so thats hot enough to cook a turkey. Of course the correct answer is that in an enclosure of sufficient temperature to be emitting 400watt/m2 from all surfaces, whatever you put in there is going to warm up or more likely cool as the case maybe to 17 c and it will be emitting 400watt/m2 in all directions and you have equilibrium between the sides of the enclosure and the object inside the enclosure.
So since the inside would be 62.5f you would probably need to put on a sweater so as to not get uncomfortably cold. No sweat on hypothermia though unless you were submerged in water at that temperature.
And Tim Folkerts agrees with me bdgwx.
Tim Folkerts says:
October 16, 2020 at 7:58 AM
Swenson, I (and science in general) agree with much of what you write.
You are right right that a million suns cannot warm an object to above the temperature of the sun. And just as truly, a million blocks of ice cannot warm an object to above the temperature of the ice.
=========================
What it seems our warmist friends want to do is after allocating the 6000 degrees of the sun to all parsecs of the universe hemisphere and then spreading the resultant 1366 watts/m2 over a spherical earth they want to go back and take another bite of the apple that has already been handed out completely in so many wedges.
bill,
You can add fluxes if those fluxes are in reference to the same time and same area. You cannot add the emission flux of each surface in the courtyard because those are different surfaces. What you can do is add the flux received upon an observer from each emitting surface in the courtyard because the receiving surface is always the same. For a cube in the center it will receive 67 W/m^2 from each of the 6 directions in the courtyard. This 6*67 is 400 W/m^2 upon the cube. The BB temperature of the cube is then 289K. If you add another Sun emitting at the 400 W/m^2 it will be received as 67 W/m^2 upon entire the cube. The cube is now receiving 7*67 or 467 W/m^2 and will now be at 301K. I don’t get 2400 W/m^2 upon any body in the center of the courtyard.
If you add another Sun to the solar system and with Earth between them the average flux upon the Earth from both Sun’s is 340 + 340 = 680 W/m^2. Note that each 340 term is in reference to the same area (that of the Earth). That is why we can add fluxes in that case.
Again…you can add fluxes when they are in reference to the same time and same area. You can’t add the 400 W/m^2 emitted from each side of the courtyard because those are different areas. But you can add fluxes falling upon a body in the center because the area (that of the body) is the same for each flux. Does that make sense?
bdgwx, that is complete nonsense you are spewing.
“Nate thinks its going to be 2.4kwhrs”
No of course not, as usual you lie about my posts.
Your problem is il posed and not at all similar to the geometry being discussed.
Itvis yet another strawman!
Nate if I mischaracterized what you said the intelligent response would be to better explain the reasoning in what I was responding to. Namely:
Nate says:
October 16, 2020 at 2:37 PM
Yep. Thats how light intensity sums. Sorry. The ice emits 315 W/m2. The sun supplies 1300 W/m2. Together what do they supply to the surface?
Yep, 1615 W.
What, did you think the 315 W/m2 just goes away? Vanishes? Goes down a hole?
That would be odd.
===============================
So sorry if I took you literally, explain carefully what I got wrong and exactly how you derived the 1615 watts. If you don’t do that you look like you are trying to avoid discussing that which you entered into discussing.
Crickets!
bill, You are free calculate the flux falling upon an object in the center of your courtyard yourself. If you think 400 W/m^2 is nonsense then what do you get? Perhaps to make things easier imagine a closed room where all 6 sides (floor and ceiling included) emit at 400 W/m^2 and that there is a cube suspended in the center receiving the energy.
bill, BTW…the geometry of that problem (a cube inside a cube) is not easy to work out formally. It involves really complicated calculations involving view factors. What I’m interested in is how you think through the problem.
bdgwx, before you start asking questions, you need to first identify yourself as an “idiot”.
It’s the “full disclosure” thing.
If you believe emissions from walls in a room can add, then you have no understanding of radiative physics.
Yes. I acknowledge that a cube in the center of the room receives 2x as much energy when 2 walls are emitting than if only 1 is emitting.
Is that your way of admitting you’re an idiot, bdgwx?
Bill, the point is you butted in to a long discussion to point out that I am wrong without knowing whats being discussed. It doesnt help that the Team of idiots constantly tries to distort whats being discussed.
This is a good metaphor for what you and othrrs here do with climate science. You butt in to the middle of decades of development of the science to claim theyve done it wrong. Youve found an error! They neglected convection!
The summing of flux is only valid when two sources are shoning flux onto the same spot, as in lights on a football field, two suns on the Earth, or the sun and backround sky on the Earth surface.
“The summing of flux is only valid when two sources are shoning [sic] flux onto the same spot, as in lights on a football field, two suns on the Earth, or the sun and backround sky on the Earth surface.”
Wrong Nate.
Spotlights are “sources”. Suns are “sources”.
The sky is NOT a “source”. That’s one of the reasons you can’t add it to sunlight.
“The sky is not a souce”
Ok, ill bite. Why not?
What makes it different than any other wa rm material?
And to give you some contxt, the diffuse visible light coming from the sky, when the sun has just gone down sure seems to illuminate the Earth. The sky isnt a source in that case?
Another gas that when warm is a source of light is the gas in fluorescent lamp. No?
Nate I realize the reality of the situation has been over your head probably for years and you are very much married to your belief system. But it ‘might’ be OK to consider adding a 1366watt sun bearing down to a 240 or so IR downwelling at a particular location and time. I tend to think even that is a misconception of the reality of the situation.
Keep in mind the idea of ‘flux’. I see it mischaracterized all the time. During the day there is zero downwelling flux. At nighttime when the sky is warmer than the surface there is downwelling flux.
When you start dividing up via photon theory all you really do is greatly elevate confusion. Radiation flux is a flow of energy. Net flow of energy is really, logically, all that matters. Thus when the surface is warmer than the sky the flux is up, when the sky is warmer than ground there usually isn’t downward flux either because of the atmospheric window. So typically you need clouds filling the sky to get downward flux. Roy posted some graphs of nighttime IR temperatures and it dramatically showed the impact of clouds going over head. But without the clouds the radiant IR flux was consistently from the ground to the sky.
Where you go wrong is in thinking in terms of a steady state, which never exists. Further the fact that you can correlate what you believe. You even might get it correct if you are really careful to not get confused via imagining photons massively flying all over the place reflecting and deflecting off stuff, being emitted by everything. . . .if you correctly find yourself through that wonderful maze. . . .what have you proved? Nothing is the answer! You have found something that correlates to the conditions at hand in accordance with physical laws but you haven’t yet considered everything and thus may confuse the effect as a cause.
When speaking of radiant balance the only place that is a relevant concept is at the top of the atmosphere for both incoming and outgoing radiation. It doesn’t matter at all inside of a rock, below the surface, and may only partially matter in the atmosphere.
Therefore all you brainwashed people who believe the only thing that matters in the atmosphere is radiation are simply wrong. All that is grade-school model Greta Thunberg inculcation technology.
“bdgwx, that is complete nonsense you are spewing.”
It was perfectly clear for anyone interesred in learning, Bill.
This why people get fed up and dont bother trying to explain simple things to you.
“But it might be OK to consider adding a 1366watt sun bearing down to a 240 or so IR downwelling at a particular location”
Thank you, Bill, now explain it to Clint and Swenson.
The rest is yet another gish gallop of off the point red herrings..
If you want to make a single, succinct point, RELEVANT to the discussion of adding fluxes, I will take a look.
In thermodynamics, a “source” brings new energy into a system. Sun is a “source”. It provides sunlight to Earth. Reflected light does not make the reflector a “source”. The reflected energy is already in the system.
That’s why infrared from the sky does not add to sunlight. Infrared from the sky is nothing more than dissipated/depleted sunlight. It cannot be added back to sunlight. Energy does not “organize” that way.
This is not to be confused with something like a campfire. Even though the firewood is already “in the system”, its energy is not available. Once the fire is started, the energy is released, then making the campfire a “source”.
Nate said: The summing of flux is only valid when two sources are shoning flux onto the same spot, as in lights on a football field, two suns on the Earth, or the sun and backround sky on the Earth surface.
Exactly. Nobody here is suggesting that we combine fluxes coming from different surfaces without proper consideration. What we are saying is that you combine fluxes falling upon the same surface. Yet, we continue to get posters on this blog that echo the same strawman about not adding fluxes over and over again. I don’t know…perhaps part of the blame lies with me because that point is so obvious that I just assumed everyone understood it.
bill, Neither Nate nor I (or anyone else) ever suggested that you sum all 6 of the 400 W/m^2 fluxes (from different surfaces) to come up with 2400 W/m^2 hitting your body. What we are suggesting is that you combine all of the fluxes hitting your body (the same surface).
Nate says:
Bill, the point is you butted in to a long discussion to point out that I am wrong without knowing whats being discussed.
===========================
I offered you an opportunity to clarify Nate. Why not do that rather than bitch about it?
bdgwx says:
Exactly. Nobody here is suggesting that we combine fluxes coming from different surfaces without proper consideration. What we are saying is that you combine fluxes falling upon the same surface. Yet, we continue to get posters on this blog that echo the same strawman about not adding fluxes over and over again. I dont knowperhaps part of the blame lies with me because that point is so obvious that I just assumed everyone understood it.
======================================
Of course the obvious question that arises here is why are we simply declaring it as a fact? Certainly somebody must have taken a some tubes, and shown a light on a target measuring device at the far end of the tube as the control model, then filled the tube with CO2 as the test model, right?
“In thermodynamics, a source brings new energy into a system. Sun is a ‘source’. It provides sunlight to Earth. Reflected light does not make the reflector a ‘source’. The reflected energy is already in the system.”
Wrong. Reflected light is a source. IF some of it returns to the Earth’s surface. That portion needs to be added into the direct sunlight, else you get the wrong answer. Accounting 101.
“Thats why infrared from the sky does not add to sunlight. Infrared from the sky is nothing more than dissipated/depleted sunlight. It cannot be added back to sunlight. Energy does not ‘organize’ that way.”
Weird and erroneous declarations. Yes the sun is the ultimate cause of warming. And so what?
If the atmosphere is warmed by the sun AND the UWIR from the surface then it produces DWIR. Regardless of its origins, if the DWIR is striking the Earths surface, it needs to be summed with the direct sunlight. (ILOT).
You are not paying attention, Bill.
I clarified here:
“The summing of flux is only valid when two sources are shoning flux onto the same spot, as in lights on a football field, two suns on the Earth, or the sun and backround sky on the Earth surface.”
ANd BDGWX makes it ever so clear.
You still dont get it?
‘Why are we declaring it as fact?”
Because it is a well-tested fact.
Again, just because YOU are ignorant of it and all of the tests of it, does not mean science is also.
obviously nate you want to convince me of that by force of argument rather than force of an easily constructed experiment right?
If not then provide a link to this experiment that could easily be set up with about $100 worth of parts you could buy at the local Home Depot though you might need to get the CO2 cartridge at a local sporting goods.
nate probably wants to save the $100 and use a climate model instead.
Nate says:
Thank you, Bill, now explain it to Clint and Swenson.
The rest is yet another gish gallop of off the point red herrings..
If you want to make a single, succinct point, RELEVANT to the discussion of adding fluxes, I will take a look.
=======================================
The succinct point Nate was you said if you have a 1366 w/m2 source and add to it another 240w/m2 source that that would be the equivalent of a source at 1606watts/m2
If true equilibrium would be higher. Thus one could test the notion with a simple comparative experiment. One with greenhouse gases and one without. Of course nobody ever publishes experiments that show false unless its to refute one that has been done that showed true.
So where is the true experiment or are you just making this shiit up? I would expect no change in equilibrium and possibly a slower rise of the thermometer at the far end of the tube in the case of the tube containing CO2. IOW, compatible with the findings of Dr. RW Wood.
So you have claimed Woods is false so where is your proof. I even outlined an experiment that would probably cost about $100 perhaps more if you wanted to detect very small differences or have an automatic recording system embedded.
What say ye? Put up or f off.
bdg…”W/hr would actually be the rate at which power is changing”.
I would say the rate at which energy is consumed. In the case of electrical energy, it is the rate at which a consumer consumes electrical energy.
Power, as in horsepower, is the rate of doing work, where work is the force required to move a weight over a certain distance.
“If true equilibrium would be higher. Thus one could test the notion with a simple comparative experiment. One with greenhouse gases and one without.”
No Bill. That is a completely different topic, the GHE.
We were talking here about whether fluxes add when striking the same surface. They do. It is basic physics and thermodynamics.
If you want to remain ignorant about it that’s up to you, but its pointless to so, since it is well established science, and oh BTW, common sense!
You are just being ignorant here Nate.
You have a 1000w/m2 source of heat hitting a surface. You take a 500w/m2 light behind the 1000w/m2 light it doesn’t warm that light up. That is demonstratable as a fact. RW Woods demostrated that in his greenhouses when he capped one with a light and not the other.
If you position a 500watt bulb in front of a 1000watt bulb you just shaded the 1000w bulb and replaced it with a 500watt bulb. Now if you manage to build transparent bulbs of unique and different spectral lines you can add those.
If they are of the same spectral lines the more powerful bulb in back would be absorbed by the less powerful bulb and reflected back unless it heated the front bulb to the equivalent of emitting 1000watts per surface whereby then the 500watt bulb became a 1000watt bulb was now in equilibrium with the back thousand watt bulb and combined would shine 1000 watts on to the surface.
You can’t just keep adding stuff together and forget the physics that creates limitations. You make the same mistake with your thinking a bobbleheading moon is proof its not rotating around the COG of earth.
Now you can take two bulbs of 1000watts and put them side by side and get 2000 watts but here you are changing the view.
The reason the greenhouse effect can’t work on the surface of the earth as a mean value is because a mean value has changed it into a 100% view. Therefore the only way a greenhouse effect can occur is by an insulating process. Thats why the retreat on your wrongheaded point of view of radiation adding is complete
BS.
You can show that fact by noting the mean surface temperature and the mean atmosphere temperature (radiant temperatures only) doesn’t add together. What happens instead is the warmer of the two attempts to warm the other to the same temperature. your confusion arises out of equating an insulating value as a forcing value.
A resistance is not the same thing as a force. A force is active and a resistance is passive. A force without resistance is really something. A resistance without a force is really nothing.
Swenson is smart one like Eben and ClintR.
Even if a thousand degrees sun was sitting on the front lawn. This heat cannot be added to the heat from the sun already in sky.
Still comfortable to enjoy with lemonade and good book to read.
I don’t care if you want to act like a total debil in here , but stop typing my name into your idiotic posts.
A,
You are still one confused donkey. Just as confused as the climate donkeys at NASA and elsewhere.
Look up, and learn about physics. You might want to start with heat, energy, temperature, power, radiation. Pretty soon you will see that what you said is just letting others see what a donkey you are.
Trust NASA or Swenson? Difficult choice.
S,
Only for alarmist donkeys. Would you trust a a NASA mathematician who loudly proclaimed *the hottest year EVAH*, while calculating it was nearly twice as likely not to be? Even a random coin toss would have been better support for his claim.
That was Gavin Schmidt, by the way. Not even a scientist! Trust away.
He never said hottest year evah.
Braying donkey of the day award to Swenson.
b.
OK. I copied alarmist donkeys and distilled his words.
Would warmest year on record import a different meaning? With 62% probability it really wasnt?
Swenson,
Why yes it would, and was there a year with a higher than 38% probability of being the highest?
The answer is no.
You have to give him credit for taking the uncertainty of the measurement into consideration.
blob, please stop trolling.
” distilled his words.”
IOW distorted, twisted, until they produced a perfect strawman. Par for the course for Flynson.
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
S,
Why?
Too deep for Svante so he relies on trust. Trust me Svante NASA does what is good for NASA. If you want them to care about you like your doctor does you need to have recourse for bad decisions in the same way your doctor is incentivized to care for you.
Engineers want to engineer.
Designers want to design.
Researchers want to research.
Scientist want to be scientific.
Astronauts want to to fly.
See what the Trump appointed administrator used to say:
https://tinyurl.com/y66yfmd9
It’s good for NASA to be brilliant, and that’s good for us.
Trolls want to troll, and silly snowflakes want to worship things they believe are brilliant because it makes them feel brilliant.
Svante says:
Its good for NASA to be brilliant, and thats good for us.
============================
I agree. There are a lot of good scientists working for NASA. Just often morons get appointed as the boss.
There are quite a few people in possession of a lot of convenient ignorance. And generally speaking its usually not the best policy to let your boss know you know that. So yes what goes on in NASA is of great net importance. What we see of it your mileage is apt to vary greatly.
Yes, this time the appointed moron became enlightened.
Despite foul political play behind the scenes:
https://apnews.com/article/4ec9affd55a345d582a4cc810686137e
Svante says:
Yes, this time the appointed moron became enlightened.
Despite foul political play behind the scenes:
================================
LMAO! Not sure what you find more shocking Svante, a disagreement between Dr. Happer, a scientist, and a saber-rattling politician- – – or if Michanel Mann the mathematician is a better physicist than the physicist.
Certainly Seth Borenstein called Mann a Climate Scientist and suggested Happer was the politician.
I’m just glad Jim Bridenstine came to his senses.
Svante, what is the dispute between Dr. Happer and Bridenstine?
What is it that makes you say Bridenstine has come to his senses?
Actually a quick Google search provides some hints. Its apparently over some of children educational stuff on the NASA website.
That might be in the ”grade-school model” category of trying to con kids into believing that’s all it takes. Indeed the kiddies eat up that nonsense and obviously carry into their adult voting years as evidenced by many on this website. And indeed it is all over NASA’s website.
Apparently Happer forwarded an email complaining that the NASA website was indoctrinating australian children in bad science. That seems a reasonable charge as we even have you spreading the grade-school model BS around.
“That might be in the ‘grade-school model’ category of trying to con kids into believing thats all it takes.”
Bill why are you so dumb? A ‘con’??
You really think kids need to see the model with the differential equations, or the full GCM computer models?
Nate says:
Bill why are you so dumb? A con??
You really think kids need to see the model with the differential equations, or the full GCM computer models?
The communications are so bad you can’t communicate. You just pretend you do so you can look intelligent . . . to yourself.
And you don’t need for the kiddies to understand how to work differential equations. All you need to do is explain in plain terms what the equations do.
But alas, that would expose the equations of some real world testing so can’t do that.
They measured 0.358 +/- 0.067 Wm-2.
IPCC predicted 0.508 +/- 0.102 Wm-2.
The ranges overlap so they are not inconsistent.
Could be 0.41 Wm-2.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Svante says:
They measured 0.358 +/- 0.067 Wm-2.
IPCC predicted 0.508 +/- 0.102 Wm-2.
The ranges overlap so they are not inconsistent.
Could be 0.41 Wm-2.
===================================
Yep in a Texas sharpshooter contest it does. So there is now a miniscule bit of heat way up in the CO2 spectral band, probably an artifact of overlapping spectra between CO2 and water. As modtran is probably right about the amount of CO2 absorbed.
A hotter light layer will leak through a weaker light layer, but not vice versa. So water vapor emissions in the CO2 spectral bands would seem to be likely candidate for this first round of negative feedback.
Also this energy is 10’s of thousands of feet above the surface. Between there and the surface there are chaotic winds and your freshly acknowledged complete lack of any radiant forcing to shine through to the surface. So what next?
It’s not miniscule when you multiply by 510 trillion m^2.
This is CO2 absorption, not WV.
It propagates down through the lapse rate curve, which is measured daily in hundreds of places, and the average is stable despite local chaotic behaviour.
Increasing opaqueness seen from the surface is just the other side of the coin.
Svante big numbers are meaningless. Its all about proportions. CO2 makes up 1/2500th of the atmosphere and absorbs about 1/8th radiation that shines on it. So counting molecules is a game of proportions.
Yeah, the total is about 240 W/m^2 so that’s about a 0.17% increase in 17 years.
With a linear approximation, 0.17% of 288 K is 0.5 K.
Not counting CH4, water vapor or any other feedbacks.
Svante says:
Yeah, the total is about 240 W/m^2 so thats about a 0.17% increase in 17 years.
With a linear approximation, 0.17% of 288 K is 0.5 K.
Not counting CH4, water vapor or any other feedbacks.
===================================
Where does that math come from Svante? Did you dream that up?
Percentages are taught in kindergarten.
Use your T^4 knowledge if you want a better estimate.
Svante says:
Percentages are taught in kindergarten.
Use your T^4 knowledge if you want a better estimate.
==============================
You mean when you do it correctly you come up with 5 times less maximum potential warming?
“That was Gavin Schmidt, by the way. Not even a scientist!”
Uhhh he IS a scientist. Just read his papers! His PhD in applied math, postdoc in climate modeling–mentored by climate scientists.
If that training is unacceptable, not sure why you guys accept the word of people trained in Philosophy, Economics or Statistics trying to do Climate Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
N,
Mathematicians are not scientists, Climate is the average of weather, any competent 12 year old can calculate averages. You could probably do it yourself.
No science there. Keep dreaming.
But anyway, it seems you are perfectly okay with Economist Philosphist Mathematics types doing climate science, as long as they come down on your side?
So you are a hypocrite? Ok as expected.
Nate says:
But anyway, it seems you are perfectly okay with Economist Philosphist Mathematics types doing climate science, as long as they come down on your side?
So you are a hypocrite? Ok as expected.
=====================================
I think you have that wrong Nate. All sorts of these people have various skills relevant to climate science but their aren’t doing climate science when they stick to their skill set.
Even climate science has to go through all the rules of proof and estimation of uncertainty, and cost analysis. Skills in weighing the adequacy of proof and correct calculation of uncertainty, is all something most of those professions have to deal with and some of them are better equipped and more experienced than others in terms of the maturity level of model development, certainty estimation, and cost/benefit analysis.
Sounds like you disagree with Swenson. Maybe he’ll listen to you.
Nate the only thing I have heard Swenson or Clint criticize you on is your idea of what a force is.
You finally made clear what your issue with a librating moon was and when you did it became apparent that you don’t understand the relationship between forces and resistance or momentum. You exposed your belief that it takes a force to counter momentum all the while ignoring the fact it also takes a force to create momentum.
You are doing a similar thing in the greenhouse effect. You are confusing forces with resistances. You fail to look at things with a holistic point of view. When you start doing that you are well on your way to skepticism.
Bill,
I know you feel a need to be loyal to the Cult no matter what they spew, but they said what they said, and you said what you said, and the two things are opposite, and now you want to take it back?!
Swenson “That was Gavin Schmidt, by the way. Not even a scientist!”
He has a degree in applied math, etc.
Bill:
“All sorts of these people have various skills relevant to climate science but their arent doing climate science when they stick to their skill set.
Even climate science has to go through all the rules of proof and estimation of uncertainty, and cost analysis. Skills in weighing the adequacy of proof and correct calculation of uncertainty, is all something most of those professions have to deal with and some of them are better equipped and more experienced than others in terms of the maturity level of model development, certainty estimation, and cost/benefit analysis.”
Nate says:
”Even climate science has to go through all the rules of proof and estimation of uncertainty, and cost analysis. Skills in weighing the adequacy of proof and correct calculation of uncertainty, is all something most of those professions have to deal with and some of them are better equipped and more experienced than others in terms of the maturity level of model development, certainty estimation, and cost/benefit analysis.”
And no doubt you think peer review is up to all that.
Deft Change of subject..
If peer review were the whole story, then the hockey-stick story would have been complete when it was published.
Peer review is a part of the larger scheme of the scientific method. The rest of it is replication, competing researchers, hashing things out at conferences, the interplay between theory and observation.
You can see all that in operation with the hockey stick work.
And yeah, I think it works very well.
Indeed there are other informal systems in science and like putting Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life that control has morphed into single payer funding control of having the means to question the Big Kahuna. Corruption in the system slows down that response. But fortunately, at least not yet, the government doesn’t have more power than it already has.
Wow, you have a deep revulsion for science and scientists!
Did one abuse you when you were a child?
Nate says:
Wow, you have a deep revulsion for science and scientists!
Did one abuse you when you were a child?
=======================
Which scientists are you talking about Nate? Would that be Pope Urban III and his court of corrupt scientists that got Galileo arrested? Or Cardinal Bellarmine who burned scientist Giordano Bruno at the stake and prosecuted Galileo under the authority of the Roman Inquisition?
Or would it be the modern day version of firing men from their jobs attempting to block publication of science as seen in the Climategate emails?
I am certainly entitled to call out cowardly scientists as much as calling out cowards of all stripes.
And you object to that?
This is a good example of the ‘people who disagree with me must be bad, corrupt, incompetent’ theory.
And like any conspiracy theory, it can’t be falsified since more evidence means more conspirators.
It gets a bit silly though when you’re past ten thousand people from all over the world including organizations like GM which had nothing to gain from the truth:
https://tinyurl.com/y3oqvrbe
Nate says:
This is a good example of the people who disagree with me must be bad, corrupt, incompetent theory.
======================================
OK Nate, so your take is the persecutors of Galileo and Bruno were actually good, non-corrupt, and scientifically competent.
LMAO!
Seems to me thats a lot like pretending that Biden wasn’t in on the take while the kid was scooping up Big Joe’s share.
They were not persecuted by scientist.
They were persecuted by non-scientists like you.
Svante says:
They were not persecuted by scientist.
They were persecuted by non-scientists like you.
=======================================
I was talking about the Pope and the Cardinal. . . .and their single funder funded cadre of scientists believing in the Ptolemy Theory Svante.
But I haven’t boycotted a journal, fired an editor, blocked a publication, inculcated any youngsters, claimed that anybody was destroying the world, shouted fire in a crowded auditorium, criticized mathematicians, astronomers, philosophers, and economists for criticizing other mathematicians, astronomers, philosophers, or economists because they were out of their league.
The skeptic community has statisticians criticizing statistics used by climate disaster advocates, mathematicians criticizing mathematics of climate sensitivity, Philosophers criticizing the use of fallacious arguments, astronomers arguing for similarity between planets without any evidence or statistically valid commonality with a class of planets. Economists questioning the estimates of economic disaster vs economic benefits.
So all your and Nate’s complaining about that seems like just another fallacious argument. Like your consensus argument, your argument of relying on unaccountable experts in fact of a long history of needing to make professional experts extremely accountable.
If you want to know what a babe in the woods looks like. Just look in the mirror.
Bill, the topic was how science works TODAY.
The pope hasnt been a player in it for a long long time.
It is indeed true that the single funder funded cadre of for sale scientists does have a new leadership.
“Gordon Robertson says:
October 15, 2020 at 10:31 PM
…How do you measure a photon as a fictitious particle in a wave of EM?”
Bwa ha ha! Evere hear of a photomultiplier?
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/e17323073cc3316afefe11e8b72d8f89.jpg
Misinformation: False information that is disseminated, regardless of intent to mislead.
Disinformation: Misinformation that is deliberately disseminated to mislead.
Fake news: False information, often of a sensational nature, that mimics news media content.
Continued influence effect: The continued reliance on inaccurate information in people’s memory and reasoning after a credible correction has been presented.
Illusory truth effect: Repeated information is more likely to be judged true than novel information because it has become more familiar.
A photon of visible light with about 2.49 eV will pass through transparent glass when normal to the surface. Beyond a certain angle of incidence, it will be partly reflected, and then totally reflected past another certain angle.
Certain commenters cannot understand why photons are not necessarily absorbed by matter they impinge on. Accept reality.
The metalloid germanium exhibits the above behaviour to some lower energy photons, but appears as a silvery grey in visible white light.
Why? When you have worked it all out, get back to me. Until you do, I am inclined to disregard any opinions you express about photons.
Somewhat earlier, Svante wrote –
*ClintR says:
Ice can NOT warm something being warmed by sunshine.
Unless it sits between the object and space at 2.7 K.
For example.*
Which shows just how dim Svante is. Take a cup of hot water – say 80 C. Put it in the sun. Pack as much ice around it as you like, while still not blocking the sunlight. The ice is definitely between the water and space. I say the water will not get hotter. I also say the water will cool more slowly without the ice.
What say you, Svante? Hee haw?
It’s not in space at 2.7K, you forget about the GHE.
S,
Donkey. The Earth is definitely suspended in space. Objects on the surface radiate directly to space. Satellites use these radiations to form images, receive radio transmissions, measure surface and atmospheric temperature, and so on.
You cant even describe where this *GHE* may be observed. Your imagination doesnt count.
It can be observed in the GHG absorption bands.
In the bands where you can’t see space from the surface.
Measured here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf?
Nice study except the conclusion. The observed about .18w/m2 corresponding to a 84% reduction of Modtran estimates. But of course they weren’t able to observe the whole band because of sensor shortcomings so they doubled the result on the basis of ‘wing symmetry’. So there conclusion on that assumption was ~.36w/m2 and only a 42% reduction from Modtran estimates. Still not looking good.
Now check out this fully spectrum view of the CO2 bight in the spectrum and it conveniently even has a line drawn a 650cm-1 as they are looking at other sensors and put together an entire bight.
Hmmmm, wing symmetry. What am I missing here. It looks like the left wing is about 1/2 the size of the right wing. Thats not too symmetrical doncha think Svante?
Looks to me Modtran is estimating more than double the warming. I come up with a number about 57% less than Modtran estimated before positive feedbacks, WTF knows what that will turn out like. Thats a bit less than what Curry is estimating. . . perhaps natural warming accounts for the difference. If we leave the surface generated feedback sensitivity figure at 3 to 1 then we might have about 1.3degC in the offing for a doubling of CO2.
Seems not much heat is missing, quite the contrary its right on the mark for UAH and maybe UAH even has more natch in there too.
Svante says:
They measured 0.358 +/- 0.067 Wm-2.
IPCC predicted 0.508 +/- 0.102 Wm-2.
The ranges overlap so they are not inconsistent.
Could be 0.41 Wm-2.
======================================
Svante I was comparing it to modtran. The IPCC is 20% lower than modtran. That’s part of the reason Dr. Curry is disgusted that they don’t come off the standards set back in the 1970’s and continue to emit propaganda stuff is going to end up as originally predicted. Instead like a bunch of ditch diggers they keep shoveling the difference into future warming, even though this TOA effect has nothing to do with the idea of surface feedbacks.
Looks like I forgot to include the link to the graph that shows the weakness of the left wing. Sorry about that.
https://earthzine.org/the-far-infrared-spectroscopy-of-the-troposphere-first-instrument-new-technology-for-measuring-earths-energy-balance-and-climate-change-2013-earth-science-technology-showcase/
If you correct for that you end up with about .27w/m2 and if they offered no error margin for doubling their observations when they ‘presumed’ they were only were observing half. Then the maximum adding in error margin 1/3rd of modtran and 20% below the minimum subtracting maximum error from IPCC.
Hmmmm, have you figured out why yet? Probably not.
bill hunter says:
“Svante I was comparing it to modtran.”
Which MODTRAN atmosphere did you use?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Ice can NOT warm something being warmed by sunshine.
Except for a scenario where ice CAN warm something being warmed by sunshine.
***
Good to know, Clint. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
S,
Your sarcasm is misguided. A donkey claimed ice could warm something being warmed by sunshine. Maybe you could actually quote ClintR saying what you allege, but I doubt it.
Have you found any global warming theories yet?
Bill Hunter,
[Ok! I am standing in my courtyard and the sun bears down daily at an average of 400 watts/hr. the ground I am standing on is emitting 400 watts/hr. The fences around my court yard on 4 sides are emitting 400 watts per hour. How hot should I be? Lets see that adds up 2400watts. Hmmmm, go to the spectral calculator. . . .]
Easy as pie to find a situation where fluxes dont add up. Easy as pie to find a situation where they do.
Whats your point?
S,
So define the differences, using CO2.
Indeed SnapeR if its as easy as pie have at it. Don’t just claim it is.
When you get down to the brass tacks on this what Tim Folkerts said:
A million 6000 degree suns can only warm you to 6000 degrees max.
If one desires one can evenly allocate the energy from a single 6000 degree sun around a planet that is about 93 million miles away and that has already been done for us by science and physics and it comes out to 341w/m2. Obviously this is an artifice of statistics but we still need to treat it properly. The only way the earth is going to warm to 6000 degrees is if the entire sky is made up of suns, but its not. So the averaging of the sun’s power to the entire hemisphere of the universe the earth is located in is the first step in the allocation, an allocation of what falls on earth. We find that to be 1366 watts/m2 intercepted by a disk the size of the earth’s cross section. Convert that to hemisphere of a sphere and it drops to an mean 683 watts/m2. Then recognize the earth revolves with only half its surface exposed to the sun and its down to 341.5 watts/m2.
So while in reality the sky is empty above the earth’s systems, we have allocated the solar energy from a small spot in the sky to create a virtual sun that surrounds the entire earth that emits 341.5 watts.
So truly we can’t revert back to 3 watts for the purpose of calculating a warming influence. We are now only concerned about surfaces above the earths surface that emit more than 341.5 watts.
Oh my gawd!!!! Double counting!!! Isn’t that what Bernie Madoff did? Rob Peter to pay Paul? With a slight of hand the pea slips from a warm shell to a colder shell where suddenly 341.5 watts/m2 starts becoming meaningful again. Sorry folks but that new 341.5 watts in that gas circulating over your head is what keeps your head from freezing and snapping off your neck.
Truthfully that’s why nobody describes the physical mechanisms of how the greenhouse effect works. They just a allow a bunch of stooges to spread misinformation. I know the bunch of you warmists have brains, but you haven’t turned them on long enough to penetrate the culture you live in. The BS being spread here about fluxes adding is just stuff designed to influence the Greta Thunbergs of the world.
Tim knows the right answer just he has immersed himself so deep in the culture he hasn’t really thought about it.
And fluxes? There is zero flux between two objects the same temperature, zero, zero, zero! You are so caught up in the physicality of photon culture you can’t see what Einstein saw.
“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.” (Einstein shortly before his death 1954)
Notice the use of ‘light quanta’ rather than ‘photon’.
Crickets!
All the stuff being said by the regulars is the same stuff they were saying a year ago, and five years ago. Everyone is on loop now, for years. Only the phrasing changes. But not by a lot.
Are you sure this is a good option for you? To keep on doing this?
Sometimes the idiots come up with a new one. The latest is that ice can make sunshine hotter!
But other than that, you’re right, it’s just typical cult behavior. They actually believe their history of lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and perversions of reality will earn them 72 raisins when they die.
You know, typical cult behavior.
Don’t fool yourself. You’re just as much in the loop. Deflecting is as bright a signal as any that you’re just as mired as others.
Sorry barry, but it’s all based on reality. The idiots here hate and despise reality. They’ve formed a cult to protect their false religion.
You either accept reality, or you despise it.
Do you believe something that cannot rotate about its axis is rotating about its axis? Do you believe ice can warm an object being warmed by Sun?
Who gives a shit about the moon rotation argument? It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to anything outside this blog. You’re not shedding light onto reality, you’re on a merry-go-round. And you don’t know it. It’s pathetic, in the old sense of that word.
Well, it seems you have a little animosity toward reality, barry.
The moon issue is especially relevant because it is so easy to understand and clearly proves many institutions WRONG. These are the same institutions that promote the AGW nonsense. Moon does NOT rotate about its axis, just as the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis. You cult members have to claim you don’t “give a shit” about the moon issue because it’s a huge dose of reality you can’t swallow.
You hate reality, barry. Are you sure this is a good option for you?
Clint R, What you are ultimately saying is that you reject science and it’s child, engineering. You are the one promoting a cult of anti-science, endlessly repeating your half baked analogies which do not capture the physics while you insist they do. The ball-on-the-string is a perfect example of your denial, as it’s obvious that the ball’s rotation is constrained by it’s attachment to the string. The ball can rotate, but only about an axis parallel to the string.
Your model is a good analogy for the effect of gravity on the motion of Moon’s center of gravity as it orbits, but it doesn’t work for rotation. You repeatedly insist that the ball can’t rotate by arbitrarily specifying an axis perpendicular to the string. Your analogy is just another denialist red herring.
The Moon rotates once an orbit
"The ball can rotate, but only about an axis parallel to the string".
Yes, the ball rotates about an axis that is external to the ball. It orbits, in other words. The ball does not rotate about its own center of mass. You’re getting it.
E. Swanson, I remember you from last May. You were the junior assistant janitor for a company that built satellites, if I recall correctly.
Anyway, your first paragraph is nothing but your blah-blah erroneous opinions, not facts, no reality.
But, in your first sentence of your second paragraph, you hit the jackpot: “Your model is a good analogy for the effect of gravity on the motion of Moon’s center of gravity as it orbits, but it doesn’t work for rotation.”
That’s correct! The ball-on-a-string is a good analogy for something orbiting, but NOT rotating about its axis, as Moon is doing.
At least you got something right.
ClintR again shows how illogical his thought process is. This one thinks he is intelligent but fails at basic logic.
He believes a ball on a string is representative of the Moon orbiting Earth hence no rotation of Moon on its axis (though actually it does rotate regardless of his beliefs contrary).
Extending this belief logically he would also have to conclude the Earth and Sun also are a ball on a string (as gravity would not be a selective force just for one orbiting body) but he accepts the Earth rotates as it orbits the Sun. So why does his ball on the string fail on this situation. Selective gravity? Acts like a ball and string in one case but not the other? That, people, is illogical thought process.
Note most of all ClintR’s posts lack any substance. They are just mindless comments mostly to be able to use his pet word “idiot”
Wrong again, Norman.
Earth has TWO motions, “orbiting” and “rotating about its axis”. Moon only has ONE motion. That’s why the ball-on-a-string can model Moon, but not Earth.
And yes, if you deny reality, you are an idiot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537818
DREMT
I am not sure your correct in your point that the proof the Moon does not rotate on its axis is that concentric circles are formed by its motion. It is likely that a sphere rotating at the same rate (once per orbit) it orbits will also draw concentric circles and still be orbiting.
I already did tbe Quarters. You have to rotate the “orbiting” quarter as you move it around for it to keep the same face toward the center quarter. I suggest you try it. I think MikeR’s videos are very convincing showing clearly that objects can orbit and rotate on their axis keeping the same face to the center if the rotation rate and orbit rate are the same.
swannie…”You repeatedly insist that the ball cant rotate by arbitrarily specifying an axis perpendicular to the string. Your analogy is just another denialist red herring.
The Moon rotates once an orbit”
At least you are consistent…consistently wrong. What do you mean by an arbitrary axis? If the ball at the end of the string is rotating about an axis within itself that axis must be perpendicular to the string to fulfill Clint’s argument that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. That’s what the ball on the string is meant to emulate.
As you have pointed out, the ball cannot rotate about that axis since it is constrained by the string. You are corroborating Clint’s argument.
His argument is also that the Moon cannot rotate about an internal axis once per orbit since the same face of the Moon is always pointed to the Earth’s centre.
Consider three points on the Moon, one on the near-face, one on the far-face, and one at the centre, all on a radial line through the Moon from the Earth’s centre (presuming a circular orbit). Represent each one with an imaginary sub-orbit (3 concentric circles) and draw a tangent line through each point where each circle intercepts the radial line. Let the radial line rotate through each point on the orbit and all three tangent lines must remain parallel.
Is it not obvious to you that the tangent lines cannot remain parallel if the Moon is rotating once per orbit?
norman…”I already did tbe Quarters. You have to rotate the orbiting quarter as you move it around for it to keep the same face toward the center quarter”.
I don’t call that action rotation, you are ‘adjusting’ the coin direction to fulfill the requirement that the same face of the coin always point to the stationary coin’s centre. That is the real action between Moon and Earth’s gravity. The Moon has only linear momentum and Earth’s gravity adjusts its direction gradually into an orbital path.
It’s also not rotation if you look at the coin by drawing it on paper for each position. Presume a circular orbit and draw a radial line from the stationary coin’s centre extending through the centre of the moving coin and out the other end. At the 3 points where the radial line intercepts the near face, far face, and centre, draw 3 concentric circles. Now draw tangent lines to the circles at each point (lines perpendicular to the radial line).
As the radial line rotates through 360 degrees, all three tangent lines must remain parallel to allow the same face to always point in. What you see as rotation is the properties of a tangent line at each point of a circle. The tangent represents the way the circle is changing hence it points in a different direction for each point.
Norman, you have previously agreed that both a wooden horse bolted towards the outside edge of a rotating merry-go-round and a ball on a string are not rotating on their own axes, they are only orbiting.
The orbital paths of the particles making up those objects form concentric circles.
Therefore:
Concentric circles = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
barry says: October 17, 2020 at 5:10 AM
All the stuff being said by the regulars is the same stuff they were saying a year ago, and five years ago. Everyone is on loop now, for years. Only the phrasing changes. But not by a lot.
Are you sure this is a good option for you? To keep on doing this?
Hi Barry, In your case, it’s way over ten years ago. On the long gone Random International forum I said that you pretend to take the high road but in reality were in there kicking, biting and eye gouging along with everyone else. As you say, “Everyone is on loop now, for years” That includes you. Me too of course. The only change is the amount and type of ammunition. I know way more stuff and more of it to throw at your side of the argument than I did then.
Sigh!!! Another declaratory victory on the part of sycophants.
Swanson is one of those types who would have been dancing and carrying a torch at the witch doctor’s incantation ceremony in 6000bc northern Europe.
I thought you turned sensible there.
I thought you said Swenson.
Svante, please stop trolling.
It is exactly like this in here
https://youtu.be/EKr5qEhzJsw
Good one Eben!
The flux argument is recycled. but until now I had forgotten the mental model that helped me understand how it works.
********
– Place a square meter block of ice on the floor of a large dome… like a big igloo or small planetarium.
– Assume the ice emits 300 w/m2
– Assume the interior dome surface area is 300 m2 (floor not included)
– It follows that if a blackbody, then each square meter of dome surface will absorb about 1 watt from the block of ice.
– if we bring in another same-size block of ice, and set it next to the first one, then each square meter of dome surface will absorb 2 watts.
*******
This is an example of how fluxes from two blocks of ice can be added.
No Snape, that is an example of how ignorant you are about radiative physics.
S,
You are off with the fairies. Assume you fill the igloo with ice. Now a solid block. All the individual bits of ice (one molecule in size) are radiating as they should.
Keep adding fluxes until you get sick of it. Makes precisely no difference. The ice does not heat up.
Assume you are still a clueless donkey. Go from there.
Snape, your thought experiment has some good intentions, but some flaws. First since the “square meter block” is facing up, the geometry will cause square meters near the floor to get lest flux than square meters of the dome near the apex.
The geometry would be simpler if you had a sphere at the center surrounded by a spherical dome. Then a sphere of ice at the with a surface area of 1 m^2 emitting 300 W/m^2 would emit 300 W uniformly, and 300 W would hit the dome. If the whole dome was 300 m^2, then each each square meter would receive one of those 300 W. (This is simply the inverse square law in reverse.)
Doubling the surface area of the inner sphere to 2 m^2 would cause 600 W to leave and 600 W to get absorbed by the dome, or 2 W/m^2 at the dome.
Its a cleaner way to say what you were trying to say.
Tim,
Now, expand the sphere until it occupies the done. There is now one spherical piece of ice instead of two. Nothing has changed. No adding of fluxes. No increase of temperature.
That would just be silly, wouldnt it? Unless, as some alarmists fondly imagine, separating one block into two creates heating.
Making one block blue, and the other green, seems to create the magic!
Tim believes: “Doubling the surface area of the inner sphere to 2 m^2 would cause 600 W to leave and 600 W to get absorbed by the dome, or 2 W/m^2 at the dome.”
Just doubling the surface area wouldn’t do it. You would have to add more energy.
300 W/m^2 * 2 m^2 = 600 W.
Exactly. Tim needs another 300 W.
(Very good, bdgwx. You got something right.)
The point was that everything about the ice was the same as before except there’s more of it. He’s not replacing the 0.09 m^3 of 270K ice with 0.27 m^3 of 227K ice. The bigger 0.27 m^3 sphere of ice is at 270K and emitting at 300 W/m^2 as well. That obviously means the inner sphere emits 2x the energy in the same amount of time. That is not in dispute. I think you’ve totally missed the point of Tim’s post.
I agree Tim’s nonsense is poorly worded. (He even left out words!) Since you’ve got so much time, maybe you would like to reword it.
Then I can explain more clearly how confused you both are.
b,
It doesnt matter how big you make your bits of ice. If they start of at the same temperature, say 270 K, then they stay at 270 K. Add all the fluxes you like, frontwards, backwards, sideways. No change to the temperature.
It doesnt matter what shape your ice is, it doesnt matter how large it is, or how small. Use any combination of mirrors, lenses, or magic wands.
No change to temperature. All the energy balance climate donkeys are full of what comes out of a donkeys rear end.
Learn some physics.
snape…” Place a square meter block of ice on the floor of a large dome like a big igloo or small planetarium.
Assume the ice emits 300 w/m2
Assume the interior dome surface area is 300 m2 (floor not included)
It follows that if a blackbody, then each square meter of dome surface will absorb about 1 watt from the block of ice”.
******
The surface area of a sphere is A = 4pi.r^2 so the surface area of a hemisphere (excluding floor) should be half that or 2pi.r^2.
A = 300 m^2 = 6.28r^2
r = sq.rt.(300m^2/6.28) = 6.9 metres.
You forgot the inverse square law where the intensity of radiation from ice is lost exponentially with the distance from the ice. Radiation intensity at such temperatures drops off drastically over a few metres.
You also have not calculated the intensity of ice in W/m^2 at the dome. It most certainly will be lower than 1 W/m^2 at the dome (excluding floor).
Same with the Sun, which generates a field isotropically as a sphere. If you calculate the surface area of a solar EM sphere at TOA, with r = 1 au (distance from Sun), the 1300+ W/m^2, represents 1 m^2 area in that sphere. You can see how much the radiation drops in intensity over 1 au considering the temperature at the Sun.
The only way your proposition would be true is if the square metre of ice had an object exactly 1 m^2 facing it and very close, like almost touching it.
If the dome surface is same temperature as the ice. and also emits 300 w/m2. then each block of ice would receive a 1 watt flux from each of those 300 square meters.
Thermal equilibrium.
You idiot trolls can never learn. You can’t even learn how to place your comments.
“Idiot equilibrium” I believe it’s called.
snapeR,,, aka MikeR…”…then each block of ice would receive a 1 watt flux from each of those 300 square meters”.
Depends on the distance each block of ice is from the dome and the size of each block.
A wise man said –
* It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.*
We are still waiting for the alarmists to come up with a theory. Sad.
Surely with all the PhDs being waved around, somebody must have written a theory about AGW, or the GHE, or CO2 planetary heating. Surely?
swenson…”A wise man said
* It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.*
He’s talking about the scientific method. Many of today’s scientists are so arrogant and stupid they think science is about how many of them agree something is true.
In medicine, if a strange new malady appears, they immediately conclude it must be caused by a virus. When they look for the virus, if they cannot find one, they change the rules for identifying a virus so it aligns with their agreement on what it ‘should’ look like. Then they develop poisonous drugs to treat it.
In climate science, they program their models with arrogant and stupid principles, some of them over 100 years old and unproved, then create an illusion that 90% of scientists agree with them. Anyone who disagrees is ex-communicated.
Gordon: you say that ‘In medicine, if a strange new malady appears, they immediately conclude it must be caused by a virus. When they look for the virus, if they cannot find one, they change the rules for identifying a virus so it aligns with their agreement on what it should look like. Then they develop poisonous drugs to treat it.’
Where have you got this nonsense from? It’s an insult to countless working laboratory professionals around the world, and disregards well established knowledge built up over the years. Here’s a brief resume and reference:
Viral Pathogen Discovery
Charles Y Chiu
Abstract
Viral pathogen discovery is of critical importance to clinical microbiology, infectious diseases, and public health. Genomic approaches for pathogen discovery, including consensus polymerase chain reaction (PCR), microarrays, and unbiased next-generation sequencing (NGS), have the capacity to comprehensively identify novel microbes present in clinical samples. Although numerous challenges remain to be addressed, including the bioinformatics analysis and interpretation of large datasets, these technologies have been successful in rapidly identifying emerging outbreak threats, screening vaccines and other biological products for microbial contamination, and discovering novel viruses associated with both acute and chronic illnesses. Downstream studies such as genome assembly, epidemiologic screening, and a culture system or animal model of infection are necessary to establish an association of a candidate pathogen with disease.
Huh?
” Carbon500 says:
October 5, 2020 at 8:24 AM
Do you regard something that is written in a published scientific paper as being an ultimate truth, one which cannot be questioned or argued against?
What exactly do you think the purpose of peer review is?”
RR,
It doesnt matter what you think the purpose of peer review is. Judging by the numbers of retracted papers which appeared in prestigious journals, peer reviewers have been shown to be incompetent.
From a peer reviewed paper published in a prestigious journal –
* People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process.*
Peer reviewed. Must be true.
Swenson says:
October 18, 2020 at 4:50 PM
are you an idiot? is your reading comprehension non-existent? do you understand quotation marks? stfu!
RR,
No. No. Yes.
Andif I dont stfu, what then? Will you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue? Go ahead. See if I care.
While you are pondering your next course of action, you might let me know if you think that using all lower case makes you look more intelligent.
Ramona: the ‘warmist’ fraternity is obsessed with the term ‘peer review.’ It’s where they scuttle at the merest hint of any criticism of their views. ‘How can your opinion possibly mean anything? Has what you’ve said been peer reviewed?’ A nonsensical stance to take. It’s the refuge of those haven’t actually done any scientific research themselves at higher degree level or beyond.
I suggest that you become more sceptical about everything you read. I would be surprised if there’s anyone involved in scientific research who at some stage hasn’t come across a flawed research paper which has nevertheless passed peer review.
Here’s a well-known paper on the subject of the peer review process and its flaws from the British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/186519?path=/bmj/340/7749/Feature.full.pdf
Carbon500:
So let me make sure I understand and not that I think this would ever happen but, if you were asked to review a paper submitted to an established journal that you read, you wouldn’t do it because you don’t believe in the peer review process; even though it is your responsibility to your profession and to your peers.
You say “the ‘warmist’ fraternity is obsessed with the term ‘peer review.’” which says a lot about your pedestrian ways. Peer-review is more than just a term, it is a process used by industry and academia alike. There is not a single engineering project that gets approved without passing the company’s peer-review process.
I only review papers submitted to journals that I read, not others, because of a feeling or responsibility and also scientific interest. Yes a large number of papers get published that should never see the light of day, e.g., arXiv; and also the decision to publish a paper ultimately rests with the editor regardless of the best efforts by the peer-reviewers.
In the end, the peer-review process is not perfect but it’s better than not having it. But you will never understand that.
rr…”if you were asked to review a paper submitted to an established journal that you read, you wouldn’t do it because you don’t believe in the peer review process; even though it is your responsibility to your profession and to your peers”.
Peer review was introduced to prevent wacko laymen from posting pseudo-scientific ideas. Somewhere along the line, journal editors began using it to reject ideas with which they did not agree. They did that by selecting reviewers who agreed with them.
Why should a scientific paper’s legitimacy be decided by one reviewer? Why not check the paper roughly, to see if it meets the requirements of the scientific method, then publish it so peers can review it. As it stands, it is not peer review, it is a review by a journal editor and an appointed reviewer.
nate…”Yep. Thats how light intensity sums. Sorry. The ice emits 315 W/m2. The sun supplies 1300 W/m2. Together what do they supply to the surface?
Yep, 1615 W.”
You’d better explain that to Bohr and Schrodinger, who developed the relationship between EM and heat. Bohr initially put forward the theory that EM is absorbed by electrons that are confined to quantum orbits that represent their energy levels. He also hypothesized the theory that an electron is elevated to a higher orbital (kinetic) energy level when it absorbs exactly the correct intensity and frequency of EM.
Schrodinger put the math to Bohr’s theory and developed differential equations whose solutions represent the energy orbital levels.
You can try explaining how electrons raised to a higher energy level by solar radiation can be elevated further by IR from ice that lacks the intensity or frequency to affect the electrons. Since heat is that kinetic energy of electrons in atoms it means ice cannot possibly emit EM that can heat a body more than it is heated by solar energy.
Bohr developed a quantum theory about how individual atoms (hydrogen in specific) have quantized orbits. It was remarkably effective at explaining the behavior of hydrogen atoms. As an aside, it takes UV
When quantum theory is expanded to more complicated atoms, the theory gets more complicated.
When quantum theory is expanded to include molecules, then vibrations and rotations come into play, and the theory gets more complicate yet.
When quantum theory is expanded to include solids, then even more vibration modes come into play and the theory moves up another notch.
If you are trying to apply your knowledge of the Bohr model of HYDROGEN ATOMS to molecules of other elements, you are about 3 big steps short of knowing enough to understand the physics involved here.
Tim,
You might help out by answering Gordons question about how ice can make a body heated by solar radiation even hotter. I dont believe you can, so I would be interested in learning about your *3 big steps* which will achieve magical outcomes.
I assume you are just making stuff up. Do you understand the theory of quantum electrodynamics? Or are you just appealing to your own dubious authority?
Swenson,
You and Gordon are missing the idea of vibrations. Sunshine hitting a molecule or a solid can set up vibrations of atoms, without raising the electrons to higher orbitals ala Bohr. If quantized orbits were still the only way to molecules or solids to interact with photons, then solids could not be black (absorbing all frequencies). There are whole new worlds of physics you have yet to explore, like phonons and band structure. Even the quantum mechanics of harmonic oscillators seems to elude you.
Two quick points for you two to consider (and maybe grab a QM textbook to explore further.
1) Even in the Bohr model, hydrogen atoms can only absorb visible light if the electron has ALREADY in the first excited state. Atoms in excited states can and do absorb visible light. They need to be in the 2nd excited state (or higher) to absorb IR. But hydrogen CAN absorb IR photons. That kind of destroys the whole argument about ‘how can excited electrons be excited further’.
2) In solids and molecules, there are vibrations that act like tiny harmonic oscillators. These well-understood vibrations are when lead to the famous 15 um band for CO2. And in QM, harmonic oscillators can absorb any number of quanta of energy. A CO2 molecule that has absorbed one 15 um photon will go to an excited vibrational state. From there, it can absorb a second 15 um IR photon. or a third. Even when CO2 is quite hot, it can STILL absorb 15 um photons and gain vibrational energy.
You all need to take a graduate level QM course before you are ready wade into this discussion in any sort of informed way!
Tim,
You didnt answer Gordons question, did you? Thats because you cant, isnt it?
What about your *3 big steps*? Missing in action?
You are not only confused, you obviously lack any real understanding of quantum electrodynamics. Throwing in random sciency words *phonons* and *band structures* merely shows your lack of understanding.
Maybe you should try to explain how ice can make a body heated by solar radiation even hotter. Appealing to your own authority is pointless. You really have no clue about reality, have you?
Folkerts likes to pretend he understand physics, but he continues to make huge mistakes. Upthread, he was completely wrong about emissivity, as just one example. And like most idiots, he can’t learn.
You mean the time where YOU were wrong that decreasing the emissivity will increase the temperature when input power is held constant??
Now Tim, are you trying to misrepresent my words, again?
In steady-state, the rate that thermal power enters an object equals the rate that thermal leaves the object.
P(in)=P(out)
For an object losing energy only by radiation with an emissivity, ε, the power out is given by
P(out) = εσT^4 A
Combining and solving for T gives:
T = [P(in)/εσA]^0.25
Since P(in) was fixed at 960 W/m^2 and the object was fixed in area and σ is a constant, we have
T = k/ε^0.25
The smaller the emissivity, ε, the higher the temperature. Exactly as I claimed. Exactly the opposite of what you claimed.
That won’t work Tim. You’re claiming I said something. You need to show where I said what you are claiming.
Okay Tim, I found what you are referring to. I can see why you got confused. I made a mistake in my wording. You were justified in being confused, that time.
I’m bad about not proof-reading my comments. I clearly understand how emissivity works, as indicated by my example of the black and white cars. But, I did not state it correctly.
Sorry for the confusion.
Tim,
Your idea is a big improvement. I agree with everything!
DREMT
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f8badbb704e8.png
Above you were questioning the need for the Back-Radiation.
This graph (based upon actual measured values) will demonstrate to you that without Downwelling IR adding energy to the surface this graph is not possible.
First thing to note, the other heat transfer mechanisms that are not measured here only remove energy from the surface, they do not add any (conduction, convection and evaporation).
Take the area under the trend lines and this will give you total joules of energy in 24 hour period for each surface square meter.
You will find that without downwelling IR added you lose more joules per day than supplied by the Net solar (the energy that is absorbed). This is a very clear way to see the GHE at work. I have calculated it (estimate) a few times. You can estimate as the difference is large and some errors will not change the overall conclusion. Solar alone does not add enough energy to the surface to sustain the energy lost by the emitting surface. When you add downwelling IR you have more energy to the surface than emitted, this energy is removed by the other heat transfer processes. I think after you calculate it you will see why GHE is considered established science. Roy Spencer accepts it as well as Anthony Watts. Fringe contraraians like Joseph Postma cannot accept it, I attempted to show him and he stated “God hates me!” and I am a robot. Far from a rational person but he has a small group of cult followers who are not very rational.
N,
Look at the graph. At night, no sunshine.
The following day is just the same as the previous day. No heat accumulation.
Why do alarmists keep posting links that dont support their assertions? Because they are donkeys, thats why!
Norman, as usual there are several things wrong with your “logic”.
The big problem here is that the data were taken in summer. The ground remains fairly warm at night, hence the amount of upwelling.
You only see what you want to see. That’s belief, not science. You will even claim that a ball on a string is rotating about its axis. You only see what you want to see.
Notice ClintR is pretending he can understand radiant energy graphs.
ClintR fails at the most basic physics of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. No surprise since he does not understand the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (only the blog versison).
ClintR can’t comprehend the ground stays warm in the summer because of downwelling IR. Nothing can convince a contrarian.
ClintR is not logical or rational enough to begin to grasp basic physics. But he is very proud that he knows the word “idiot” that is about as productive as his presence on the blog is. If you like to read idiot many times a day then you can encourage this one to post more.
If the true idiot ClintR has any rational thought he might have checked some data before posting a truly mindless comment.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f8c4a06e1376.png
This graph is not for the illogical ClintR but for others who doubt how little physics he posses or any reasoning abiltiiy.
I make grasphs of the clear desert in the winter when the temperature is cold and you have even less solar input generating a much greater outflow of joules. Proof positive ClintR is the idiot he accuses intelligent, logical rational thinkers of being.
Hypothesis is this one never did well in science and hates intelligent people so he goes on blogs telling intelligent people they are idiots thinking this makes him smart somehow.
Wrong again, Norman. But you provide more evidence that you reject reality in favor of your false beliefs.
The ground is warmed by Sun. The sky does not warm the ground. The ground cools slowly after sunset. You don’t even know what is happening to produce the data you misinterpret.
And yeah, I did forget to mention that you are an idiot last comment. Thanks for reminding me.
You’re an idiot.
NO ClintR I am not wrong. Your ignorant opinion is really worthless, means nothing. You don’t know enough about physics to state a valid opinion of right or wrong and you can’t understand or process information. Pointless.
The Downwelling IR and the solar input add energy to the surface.
If you had the slightest ability in science (which you don’t so it won’t help you) you could easily understand what is posted. You are not smart enough to understand it.
I really did not post this for you anyway. I think DREMT has potential. I don’t think you do. I posted the links for him to look at and calculate. You are far too lacking in science to be able to attempt a rational calculation or understand the implications.
But you do know the word idiot.
What makes you so much fun Norman, is the more I prove you wrong, the more you type garbage!
It’s not hard to find 900 W/m^2 of direct sunlight. And a typical level for infrared from the sky is about 300 W/m^2.
If you believe those will magically sum to 1200 W/m^2, then you’re just proving yourself an idiot, again.
1200 W/m^2 would raise a black body over the boiling point of water! You could even do an experiment to prove that won’t happen, if you were competent. But, don’t you believe Alarmists would have done thousands of such experiments, if it were possible?
No, ice does not add to sunlight. You’ve been deceived.
ClintR
As already stated and proven, you can’t understand what the graph is showing so you type some irrelevant point thinking you will impress someone with your ignorance.
If the Earth did not rotate and faced the Sun continuously you would get much hotter temperatures on the Sun lit side. The atmosphere could help some but not enough as the poles get quite cold in the long winter.
You sound like a little kid who thinks he knows something. Reality is you know nothing.
Why not try to figure out what the graphs indicate instead of being wrong?
And now you’re talking about Earth not rotating! That’s the kind of desperation we love to see, Norman.
It was the 1200 W/m^2 example that collapsed your house of cards.
Reality does that.
ClintR
There was no example that collapsed my view. All it does is expose how little you can comprehend or understand in science. It is not my fault you are not a smart person. Wanting to be a smart person does not help.
You demonstrate no ability to reason, comprehend or understand even simple posts or concepts. It is possible you are not capable of understanding what the word “if” means. It is to make point.
You can’t understand what the trend means. You are unable to grasp that the 1200+ W/m^2 is for a very short duration.
Since the Earth not spinning flew over your head, put a pot of cold water on a red hot burner plate. It is quite hot and will burn off a layer of your skin if you touch it. Now take the pot of water (full since you can’t think of this possibility without the guidance of an intelligent person) and put it on the burner for a minute. Is it boiling? You don’t even grasp thermal inertia.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f8ccead2fa57.png
Notice the highest air temperature occurs after the peak solar, or maybe you don’t understand that either.
If not here is a larger sample, the USA. The most intense solar input is June (Summer Solstice) but the hottest temperatures occur later in July and August. Now does it make any sense to you? Probably not, you are not smart enough to understand it and it does not fit in your distorted reality.
https://championtraveler.com/dates/best-time-to-visit-united-states/#:~:text=If%20you're%20looking%20for,See%20average%20monthly%20temperatures%20below.
Wow Norman. You’re all over the board, keyboard that is. The more I prove you wrong the more garbage you type.
That 1200 W/m^2 really got to you. No wonder you hate reality. It always reveals what an idiot you are.
ClintR
You are not a very smart person. Can you stop wasting my time and quit jumping in posts that are not to you? Is that possible?
ClintR
I would rather read intelligent posts than yours or interact with a person who can at least logically reason. You fail at all things science.
Norman, you can’t help yourself. You can’t stop responding. You’re OCD, besides being an idiot. You have to be typing out nonsense, like this: “Solar alone does not add enough energy to the surface to sustain the energy lost by the emitting surface.”
You actually believe Sun can’t warm the planet!
That makes you an idiot.
b . . . no doubt thought he was being clever when he wrote –
*bill, You are free calculate the flux falling upon an object in the center of your courtyard yourself. If you think 400 W/m^2 is nonsense then what do you get? Perhaps to make things easier imagine a closed room where all 6 sides (floor and ceiling included) emit at 400 W/m^2 and that there is a cube suspended in the center receiving the energy.*
He demonstrates the usual alarmist donkey thinking, producing donkeycrap by the bucketload.
He is obviously unaware that temperature is not measured in W/m2. His stupid gotcha makes no mention of the temperature of his walls. 400 W/m2 could be any temperature from around 16 C to over 800 C! Or each wall could be a different temperature!
A scientist might do a series of calculations. Or just measure the temperature. Alarmist donkeys model everything, and discard any measurements which they dont like. b . . . Is a prime example. Has no clue about reality, and will just keep posing nonsensical gotchas, thinking it makes him look intelligent!
Deniers have no data, no models, only politics. A pathetic bunch, really.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Earcher/science_debate_cartoon.pdf
Deniers of reality are indeed a pathetic bunch.
That’s why they’re called “idiots”.
rr…”Deniers have no data, no models, only politics”.
What is a denier? If you mean, as many alarmists mean, a skeptic, then UAH has the data and don’t require models.
Unvalidated models as used by climate alarmists are essentially useless,they cannot even predict the present given past data.
Data without a model is useless; how do you think we predict the formation and subsequent path of hurricanes?
RR,
Poorly. Thats why hurricane updates are at least 6 hourly. A 12 year old with 30 minutes instruction, a straight edge, and a pencil, can do about as well.
The atmosphere behaves chaotically. Even the IPCC recognises this. If you dont like chaos theory, the Uncertainty Priciple will lead to the same end result, using classical mechanics,
Bwahahaha! Making your alma mater proud, no?
RR,
If you could provide some facts to show I am wrong (unlikely though it might be), I am sure you would. Instead, you make a pointless puerile comment, in the usual alarmist donkey fashion.
Well done. You might force people to check facts for themselves.
Tell me, how many variables will this 12 y.o. be working with. Will he be able to tell all those oil workers in the GOM when to begin evacuating and when to shelter in place? You must not live on the US Gulf Coast. Laughable!
The usual anti-science rant from Swenson/Flynn.
Next time a willy-willy is predicted to hit your town, no worries Mike. Just kick back and have a bevvie.
Nate attempts to divert attention from the facts, having no cogent answers.
Still obsessed with non-existent person, who obviously haunts his dreams.
Maybe Nate could advance some facts, but this would mean he would have to face reality. Fat chance!
It is true of 99.9% of the comments on this blog that your part could be easily played by most publicly available code/models/datasets. I am not exactly saying that people here are bots, but I truly do not know for sure anymore seeing as bots are very good at mimicking commonality.
Deniers try to lower the bar in order to make everyone average or good. Their idea is that relying on a few brilliant individuals is retarded and that a large, educated collective is required in order to advance society.
The problem is that only a few individuals can be brilliant, and attempting to make a large educated collective is impossible because even if you offer education to people, unless they’re willing to become part of the few brilliant individuals then the education is useless. Besides, if everyone is educated, only the few brilliant super-educated people will make a difference. The higher the average education is, the better the super-geniuses will become to compensate.
RR,
Have you taken one too many incoherence pills by mistake?
rr…”Their idea is that relying on a few brilliant individuals is retarded and that a large, educated collective is required in order to advance society”.
If you are referring to Pierrehumbert, I am afraid you are deluded as to his brilliance. He is very good at re-gurgitating pseudo-science, which means he kissed a lot of butt to get his degree.
I’m referring to people such as myself. People who study hard and do all the work necessary to understand the world around us.
Regarding: Norman says:
October 17, 2020 at 9:01 PM
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f8badbb704e8.png
In case you haven’t seen this; fun with models.
The RRTM model simulates the flow of electromagnetic radiation in and out of the Earth. The orange, red, and purple pairs of arrows on the right represent, respectively, the amount of shortwave radiation (incoming and reflected sunlight), longwave radiation (radiation given off by the ground and atmosphere), and total radiation averaged across the entire Earth’s surface. The arrows are graphed as a function of altitude, with the size of the arrow at a given altitude representing the amount of energy being carried per second in that direction per unit area. The size of the arrows is determined by the characteristics of the sun, surface, and atmosphere, which you can manipulate in the control panel on the left. The overall balance of this energy at the top of the atmosphere indicates whether the Earth is gaining energy (and likely warming as a result) or losing energy (and likely cooling).
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/rrtm/
The energy amplifier that turns 350 wats into 550 wats by adding power to itself ,
This model that claims you can catch and reabsorb your own radiation and add it up is like claiming you can vomit your lunch then eat it again and say you get fatter because you doubled your calories intake.
A Bizzaro world science
Yeah, just like any insulation.
S,
So there is no GHE, and the atmosphere is just planetary insulation? Thermal insulation reduces the rate of heat transfer, nothing more. Used in large amounts to keep people and goods cold.
Another pointless comment cutting the ground from under the alarmist donkeys.
Well done!
And, where is your model?
P.s.: I’d prefer it to be in Python, but that may be too much to ask.
FORTRAN is fine too.
rr…”FORTRAN is fine too”.
How about WATFIV?
I missed a little part , the post should read like this
The energy amplifier that turns 350 wats into 550 wats by adding power to itself ,
This model that claims you can catch and reabsorb your own radiation and add it up and increase your own temperature is like claiming you can vomit your lunch then eat it again and say you get fatter because you doubled your calories intake.
The correct model that contains no back radiation is like this
https://i.postimg.cc/R0tfvP3w/origbudget.jpg
RR,
Who needs a model when you have reality?
rr…”The RRTM model simulates the flow of electromagnetic radiation in and out of the Earth”.
Science fiction.
Says the guy who’d never heard of a Photomultiplier until two days ago!
Light reading.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2020/10/how-greenhouse-gases-heat-surface.html
Such nonsense has been debunked for years. The “modern” Warmists now only claim the GHE warms the atmosphere. Because that’s all that happens. Sun warms the surface and the excess energy move through the atmosphere to space.
Nope. Climate scientists do not think that only the atmosphere is warming. If you want to criticize a scientific position you must understand that position first. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you continue to criticize a position no knowledgeable scientist supports. If you don’t understand their position then ask questions.
bdgwx, you wouldn’t know a “scientific position” if you saw one. No one is going to take you seriously if you continue to deny reality.
I’m afraid you are misteken.
The “modern warmists” will tell you that most of the extra incoming heat is raising the ocean heat content.I
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/ocean-heat-content-rises
Yes, all that “ocean heat” is hiding right under the huge La Niña formation.
EM,
N*OAA has its share of alarmist donkeys. Just look at the nonsense in the press release. Dont these people study physics? Heres a clue or two – sunlight does not penetrate 2000 m below the surface, and warm surface water does not sink!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FKFQsFDVl0
It would seem that temperature is proportional to q, the amount of heat a body contains.
The huge volume of our cold ocean water has thousands of time more heat than huge volume of our atmosphere.
Does anyone know what or if one can say the temperature of the 10 tons of mass per square meter, is?
Or pretty easy to give total energy but how could or should someone characterize it in terms of temperature.
I guess get average temperature of each, say 100 meter elevation, up tropopause than add what potential energy would be for higher elevation, would give air temperature of troposphere. Though seems there could other ways one could arrive some average temperature and/or do entire atmosphere.
Tim Folkerts,
(This is simply the inverse square law in reverse.)
The Square Law?
Square Law = gravity
norman…”https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f8badbb704e8.png
Above you were questioning the need for the Back-Radiation.
This graph (based upon actual measured values) will demonstrate to you that without Downwelling IR adding energy to the surface this graph is not possible”.
**********
You are as bad as Swannie with his nonsense that a plate supported above a heat source can radiate energy back to the heated source to raise its temperature.
Look at the IR on the graph, it varies about 200 watts between full solar radiation and none. You presume the IR is maintained by the atmosphere but it is clearly maintained by the surface of the desert to absorb heat and maintain it. The IR curve tells you the surface temperature only varies by 200 watts between day and night.
Note that the graph represents 1 day in the desert summer. You could sleep outside all night in your shirt in those conditions.
Gordon Robertson
I do not know what point you are making. I do not think you are following the point of the post.
If you take the total amount of joules the surface receives from the Sun (the area under the parabola) in 24 hours it is less than the energy the surface is emitting in that same time. Without back radiation you have an impossible situation, the surface is generating energy from nowhere.
Since you won’t do the math.
Area under a parabola is (2/3)(Height times base)
2/3(850)(14 hours times 3600 seconds/hour)=joules of solar absorbed in one 24 hour period. Calculating you get 28,560,000 joules of energy a square meter will absorb.
At the same time this ground is constantly radiating away joules so you calculate this by estimating (best you can) of the surface IR emission. If it was a constant 400 W/m^2 (which it is more than that) you get an emission of 34,560,000 joules. If you use 500 watts as the emission you would lose 43,200,000. If you did a detailed calculation you could get a much closer real value but that would not make much difference for the concept.
If you don’t include downwelling IR (which is actually a measured value, I just did not include its trend line) you are losing more energy than the Solar input can provide. This means the surface much be making energy from nothing. It receives a maximum of 28,560,000 joules a day but it is able to emit over 35,000,000 joules of energy. That does not even take into consideration other heat loss mechanisms from the surface.
Sorry Gordon. Your whole belief system is wrong. GHE is a real effect and it is quite sound science. That you reject it is your own choice. It is real and it works. You could read a textbook on heat transfer and you would see it is based upon actual physics.
Tim Folkerts takes his time to try and educate some on real physics. But the contrarians don’t care to listen. His posts are very informative. You should read them for content not just to be contrarian.
norman…”If you dont include downwelling IR (which is actually a measured value, I just did not include its trend line) you are losing more energy than the Solar input can provide. This means the surface much be making energy from nothing”.
No it doesn’t, it means the surface is not dissipating the heat it acquired during the day very quickly due to the lack of a significant temperature differential between the atmosphere and surface. Remember, it’s mid-June, not mid-winter.
Here’s the temperature data for Desert Rock Airport:
https://weatherspark.com/y/145416/Average-Weather-at-Desert-Rock-Airport-Nevada-United-States-Year-Round
“The hot season lasts for 3.3 months, from June 5 to September 14, with an average daily high temperature above 90F. The hottest day of the year is July 18, with an average high of 99F and low of 73F.
The average low on July 18th is 73F = about 23C. The hot season starts June 5th so your graph is well into the hot season where the nightly low is likely around 20C. That’s room temperature in the average home. You would not expect much heat loss from the Desert Rock surface at 20C.
Gordon Robertson
You are quite a dense one! You do not grasp what is going on. The surface IS losing MORE energy by it emission than it is gaining from the Sun in a day.
You are not understanding it at all. It would be like you have a tank of water. You are adding 100 gallons a day to it and out of the drain it is losing 150 gallons a day but the tank level does not drop.
Norman, your example of the water tank should raise questions in your head. Your example should get you thinking if you have interpreted the Desert Rock data correctly.
But, you can’t think for yourself.
Well, ClintR,
Since most of the surface of the Earth is warmer than a block of ice, of course it would be radiating more than it recieves from the Sun, but since you never studied physics, that concept is beyond your understanding.
Why is that you ask, it’s because the downwelling IR adds to the solar flux, making the surface hotter than it would be just from the solar flux.
Yes bob, we know what your cult believes. In fact, your cult even goes as far as to believe ice can add to sunshine.
And you are always accusing others of not understanding physics….
ClintR
The Desert Rock information is correctly interpreted. You are not smart enough to understand it.
No Norman, the data is WAY over your head. You have no concept of the applicable physics. That’s why the 1200 W/m^2 blew up in your face.
You can’t even get the simple stuff right. You belief the ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
That’s why you’re an idiot.
Well,
That’s my point, the average solar radiation is the same as the average radiation from a block of ice.
Averages, some can’t understand averages.
ClintR?
b,
You wrote –
*Thats my point, the average solar radiation is the same as the average radiation from a block of ice.
Averages, some cant understand averages.*
Concentrated sunlight can boil water, or melt steel. Concentrated radiation from ice cannot even melt ice. Do you understand why alarmist donkeys talk about fluxes and things like W/m2?
Physics, some cant understand physics. Would you like to see how really stupid you can make yourself look?
bob makes the same mistake as we see so often in “climate science”: “That’s my point, the average solar radiation is the same as the average radiation from a block of ice.”
Emitted fluxes can NOT be averaged. Fluxes cannot be simply added, subtracted, divided, averaged. 900 W/m^2 from one source is NOT the same as 300 W/m^ from three sources. An emitted flux is not conserved. Idiots believe that since fluxes have the same units, they are like mass or energy. Mass and energy are both conserved. Two grams of a substance added to another two grams of the same substance makes 4 grams. If it takes 2 Joules of energy to lift a mass 1 meter, it takes 4 Joules to lift it 2 meters. If 300 W/m^2 is “added” to 300 W/m^2, you still have 300 W/m^2. Emitted fluxes don’t simply add. A small ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. A huge iceberg, with millions of times more mass, emits the same 300 W/m^2.
Idiots don’t understand physics, and they can’t learn.
CLintR,
Yup,
Go ahead and keep demonstrating that you can’t understand averages.
And fluxes add, no matter how much you jump up and down and keep repeating that they don’t.
If neutron fluxes didn’t add nor subtract, nuclear power plants wouldn’t work, yet they do.
Fluxes add, that’s why a football field gets brighter as more lights are turned on.
According to you it is worthless to add additional floodlights to increase the amount of light on a field, or the amount of flux.
bob gets caught trying to promote the “ice warming sunlight” nonsense, so he tries to divert to nuclear reactions and spotlights.
Idiots are so much fun when they get caught.
ClintR,
That’s right ClintR,
Keep building strawmen,
“bob gets caught trying to promote the ice warming sunlight nonsense, so he tries to divert to nuclear reactions and spotlights.”
How did you catch me promoting the ice warming sunlight?
I never promoted your strawman argument.
We are not making that argument, that’s your incorrect version of my arguments.
Fluxes can’t be added, averaged or whatnotted, that’s your position and it be wrong.
Well if you are willing to admit ice can NOT warm sunshine, then that would clear it up.
Otherwise, statements like “That’s my point, the average solar radiation is the same as the average radiation from a block of ice”, just indicate you don’t know squat about the issue.
ClintR,
Since I never said ice could warm sunshine, why would I need to admit that ice can’t warm sunshine to “clear things up?”
You do understand the average solar flux is an average over 4 times the actual area that is incoming due to the shape of the Earth, or is that beyond your limited understanding?
Might be good to clear that up.
Or you could keep demonstrating how much squat you know.
Remember the Sun goes down at night, some places on Earth never see the Sun very high above the horizon.
But then you refuse to go outside and see how transparent O2 and N2 are to solar radiation.
And you refuse to go outside at night and see what color stars are.
Okay, I’ll put you down as unwilling to accept the physics that ice can NOT warm sunshine. That won’t affect your idiot status, as it’s continuing to reject reality.
ClintR,
I never said ice could warm sunshine.
So put me in the box that says that ice can’t warm sunshine.
I’ll put you in the English is not my first, second, or third language box.
Anyway, Sunshine is photons, and photons can’t warm photons, because photons don’t interact with each other.
blob, please stop trolling.
Norman you don’t understand physics, thermodynamics, or the scienctific method. All you have are your opinions and beliefs. You believe everything that comes from NASA is flawless, accurate, and honest. You are unable to think for yourself. You actually believe a ball on a string is rotating about its axis because your cult believes that. You reject reality.
That makes you an idiot.
ClintR
You are not a smart person and your opinions are basically the same as an ignorant person. I have not seen any intelligent post from you to this date. You are not able to understand graphs or the implications but you do like to reply to my posts. Not sure why.
Norman you don’t understand physics, thermodynamics, or the scienctific method. All you have are your opinions and beliefs. You believe everything that comes from NASA is flawless, accurate, and honest. You are unable to think for yourself. You actually believe a ball on a string is rotating about its axis because your cult believes that. You actually believe the sky is warming Earth, not Sun!
You reject reality. That makes you an idiot.
Gordo wrote:
Yeah, that was the result of my first experiments. Since I could not characterize the surface properties of the cookie sheet, I moved on to the Green Plate experiment in a vacuum, then to my freezer experiments with multiple materials.
Of course, you continue to ignore my Ice Plate experiment, where adding ice causes a heated plate to warm. Your ignorance is profound, such as claiming that O2 and N2 can act like a black body and radiate energy to deep space, which is false. Only the Greenhouse Gases can radiate energy from within the atmosphere and there’s lots of research to support this fact.
E. Swanson, you’re confused again. But, they probably didn’t teach you any physics in janitor school.
O2 and N2 absorb high energy photons, even including UV. In fact, that is how O3 is formed–O2 molecules being hit by UV.
And if energy is absorbed, it can be emitted. And if emitted, there’s an equal chance the emitted photon will go to space. So O2 and N2 can definitely “radiate energy to deep space”. Your ignorance is profound.
And your “experiment” does NOT prove ice can warm a heated plate. You just proved you don’t have a clue about science.
(Have you learned how to use a broom yet?)
If we are to believe Clint,
Swanson didnt learn
“any physics in janitor school.”
Though in fact, Swanson has Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering.
And Tim Folkerts “likes to pretend he understand physics, but he continues to make huge mistakes.”
even though he is a PhD in physics.
So what does this mean? It means Clint is extremely bad at looking at available facts and data and coming to correct conclusions.
And Svante’s theory of reversing whatever Clint says to find the truth seems to be valid.
Nate, your devotion to people isn’t due to their knowledge of physics. It’s due to the fact that you are all in the same cult. You all have the same beliefs. You have no such respect for engineers and scientists that respect reality.
Cult beliefs supercede reality, as you idiots continue to demonstrate.
“. It’s due to the fact that you are all in the same cult. You all have the same beliefs. ”
Yes, my ‘cult’ believes in facts, science, evidence. My cult is well educated and trained in the scientific method and engineering.
Your cult members appear to have little knowledge of real science or engineering, are unable to argue with real science, and instead have to resort so often to ad hom attacks.
We saw a perfect example of your appreciation for “facts, science, and evidence” when I answered your question about what a “source” is.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-540482
Your response was to completely reject the “facts, science and evidence”. Just as you reject reality.
You get the last word. I know not to waste time with you.
Nate says:
Yes, my cult believes in facts, science, evidence. My cult is well educated and trained in the scientific method and engineering.
==================================
Thats pretty doubtful there are several facts you claim as science you cannot provide any evidence for just in this single Roy post comment section.
tim…”If you are trying to apply your knowledge of the Bohr model of HYDROGEN ATOMS to molecules of other elements, you are about 3 big steps short of knowing enough to understand the physics involved here”.
Tim, it’s too bad that you have studied in the modern era after the ego and arrogance of scientists became predominant and ruined science.
No, Bohr did not develop ‘a’ quantum theory, he developed ‘the’ quantum theory. Bohr used the hydrogen model because it was simple and because he wanted to explain why atoms like hydrogen only radiated and absorbed at certain frequencies. He explained that purely on the relationship between the electron, the nucleus, and the electron’s relationship to EM.
More complex atoms are certainly more difficult to understand because the basis of the theory, developed by Schrodinger, depended on the solutions to differential equations. I have actually read through a book that explains how the differential equations are modified for more complex atoms. My background in differential equation theory was sufficient to get me through…roughly.
The Bohr model obviously had to be modified to accommodate the more complex atoms and concepts like spin were developed to account for variations from the hydrogen model.
If the Bohr orbital theory of electrons is correct, and I doubt it, having worked in electronics much of my life, the simple hydrogen model has one electron orbiting a single proton. It is amazing to me that Bohr was able to visualize quantized orbitals for the electron but even more amazing that Schrodinger was able to write the math based on certain presumptions about the electron-proton relationship.
When you have hydrogen in its natural state at STP, it is a diatomic molecule. That means the two electrons have to find modified orbitals in order to orbit both nucleii. That’s part of the reason more complex atoms/molecules require a modified approach.
Linus Pauling went to Europe to learn this new quantum theory but Schrodinger was too arrogant to meet him. Maybe he was intimidated by Pauling’s understanding of atomic/molecular structure. Whatever it was, Pauling brought the theory home and tried to apply it to his vast knowledge of molecules. In the end, he had to modify Schroddy’s equation but he made it work and that is the basis of the modern theory of molecular chemistry.
Please don’t tell me that modern solids don’t use the same theory. It’s all about atoms and their electron bonds. There is no other possible source of internal vibration.
Gordon, just nope
Bohr developed what is now known as the old quantum theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_quantum_theory
Nobel prize worthy contribution, but since then has been superseded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
blob, please stop trolling.
tim…you mentioned phonons in response to my claims about electrons underlying Bohr’s theory of the atom. I heard about phonons a few years ago and my understanding is they are an analog for electrons in insulators.
The ideal insulator is not supposed to conduct electrical current but they all do to one extent or another. Heat is conducted through conductors via electrons as well as electrical current, so quantum theorists needed an analog for heat leakage in insulators, hence the phonon. Like it’s counterpart in EM theory, the photon, there is no proof of its existence.
In the old days, when I studied capacitors and semiconductor theory, the ideal capacitor did not allow reverse current flow nor did the ideal NP/PN semiconductor junction. Both do have reverse leakage current in reality, usually measured in microamperes. It seems to me the phonon is a quantum concept introduced to explain heat leakage through an insulator.
I have resented the way quantum theorists have set themselves up us the modern science while dismissing Newtonian theory. This is the ego/arrogance of modern scientists I mentioned in another reply to you. Any good scientist should be incorporating both quantum and Newtonian theory into his/her repertoire rather than dividing science into various factions based on emotion and arrogance.
There are areas at the atomic level where quantum theory can explain certain phenomena which Newtonian theory cannot explain. However, quantum theory is not a user-friendly theory in that it cannot be visualized easily, or even at all. Therefore, we are stuck with taking the word of many quantum theorists and what many are asserting is sheer rubbish.
I urge you to let go of the modern theories you have been taught about heat and atomic theory and start over. It’s not as hard as it may seem since, if you have a solid background in physics, it should go fairly smoothly.
I had to learn the quantum theory underlying atomic structure for electronics but I had no idea that what I was learning was quantum theory. It made good sense to me since it described atomic structure in terms of electrons and I was by then fully conversant with electron theory. When I learned basic electronics, nothing was mentioned of quantum theory.
When I did encounter quantum theory it was in relation to the more esoteric claims produced by quantum theorists like action at a distance, where it is claimed electrons can have an effect on otherelectrons at a distance. We are talking about a long distance, not a few feet.
Even though Bohr started the theory he was responsible for going off on a tangent with such nonsense. That’s when Einstein and Schrodinger distanced themselves from Bohr and his sci-fi, claiming that science should be about the observation of real phenomena and not conjecture. Then Einstein contradicted himself by claiming time can dilate at high speeds.
There is a lot of crap science going on today and students are being required to accept it at the risk of being kicked out of class or even expelled. Like I said, ego and arrogance are driving much of modern science, not the scientific method.
“I heard about phonons a few years ago”
And yet you presume to pass judgement on what they are and if they help explain the natural world.
Read a textbook. Take a class. When you can accurately describe phonons AND do the calculations related to phonons, only then are you in any position to tell me or anyone else what they are or if they are a good description of the behavior of solids.
Tim,
What textbook and what class would that be? Or are you just trying to patronising?
I await with interest your definition of a phonon which would distinguish it from EHF to THF and higher oscillating fields in a slolid matrix.
swenson…”I await with interest your definition of a phonon which would distinguish it from EHF to THF and higher oscillating fields in a slolid matrix”.
I might add that in a real wavefront, like a wave on the ocean comprised of real particles, or a wave of sounds, comprised of real air molecules that are compressed and rarefied, we have a basis for real measurement.
When it comes to wave of light traveling through space, or waves of sound or heat traveling through an insulator, and we want to treat them in the same way we’d treat an ocean wave or a sound wave, we have to invent imaginary particles to deal with instantaneous parts of the wave.
With light, we invented the imaginary photon to represent a particles of light, therefore we had to give it momentum with no mass. Mind, you, the idea that light has momentum comes from a strange notion of Einstein that light striking a mass increases its mass. I think that’s plain silly.
With a wave of heat and/or sound inside an insulator, like a crystal, we invented the phonon to represent a particle of that wave. We don’t need phonons in a conductor because we already have particles called electrons transporting electrical charges and heat.
Quantum theory can be very strange at times and not at all user friendly wrt visualization.
Gordo wrote:
Looks like Gordo has never heard of Solar Pressure and Solar Sails?
tim…”Read a textbook. Take a class. When you can accurately describe phonons AND do the calculations related to phonons, only then are you in any position to tell me or anyone else what they are….”
I think that has to be one of your most arrogant, myopic posts Tim. No one can tell you what a photon is, never mind a phonon. Both are theoretical concepts and in that capacity no math can describe them accurately. I read through the math on wiki, trying to describe a phonon and they ended up calling it a boson. Load of nonsense.
You guys today with your modern jargon and pseudo-science are killing science. I’m trying to keep it alive.
Gordon,
just google something you don’t understand for a change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon#:~:text=A%20phonon%20is%20the%20quantum,a%20normal%20mode%20of%20vibration.
blob, please stop trolling.
Trump’s criticism of Biden: ‘He’ll listen to the scientists’
Enough said.
I listen to Roy W. Spencer.
Does Nate listen to Roy W. Spencer.
Does Nate disagree with Roy Spencer?
Does Biden listen to
Will Happer
Richard Lindzen
Judith Curry
Roy Spencer
John Cristy
and the thousands of others aware of the actual levels of uncertainty in climate theory?
Sure I listen to themvwhen they present science. When they turn into activists and toss out red meat to deniers, not so much.
I listen to the other 97% also, who disagree with them.
Do you?
And how do you arrive at the opinion that a celebrated atmospheric physicst like William Happer is an activist. It more like he was the victim of an activist who fired him from his job for disagreeing with Al Gore.
If you are going to accuse somebody of being an activist who is highly credentialed as a scientist, you should be explicit. In fact among living scientists I don’t know if anybody has higher credentials in atmospheric emissions with his discovery of the sodium guide star. Not that I am a historian of that or anything, I could be wrong about that too. So educate me Nate don’t just sit in your armchair and shoot arrows.
always crickets when it comes to time to put up or shut up!
Nate says:
Yes indeed. He was a scientist in a previous life, and a good one. But a spectroscopy guy, not really a climate science expert.
But now he has become an activist. He has gotten into politics, trying to influence policy on Climate change. He is no longer contributing to the science.
I can honestly say the same thing about James Hansen. He is an activist now. His recent science should be considered in that light and not taken too seriously, IMO.
==========================================
But being an activist now kind of suggests you were an activist when you decided to get involved in climate. Guess we should throw out the Charney Report results since they were primarily based on James Hansen’s theoretical imagination.
Activists seem resistant to changing their mind. As you can see from this testimony of Happer he like Curry aren’t activists but are more inclined to go with the real science. Both are reducing their views of CO2 capabilities based upon real science.
“But being an activist now kind of suggests you were an activist when you decided to get involved in climate. ”
Huh??
Nope not at all. Why?
In fact in his 1981 paper Hansen states that he doesnt know whether the warming will be good or bad for the world.
“As you can see from this testimony of Happer he like Curry arent activists but are more inclined to go with the real science. Both are reducing their views of CO2 capabilities based upon real science.”
Oh. People on your side are not activists? They are the ones doing the real science?
How naive you are!
Before joining Trump, Happer served as president of a group called the CO2 Coalition.
After a few years of flatlining, global carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels jumped to an all time high in 2018, but that is not a problem for the CO2 Coalition.
CO2 Coalition describes its mission as ‘educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.’ In a section on its website dubbed, ‘CO2 Fundamentals,’ CO2 Coalition says, ‘The debate about global warming and climate change has shifted from genuine scientific exploration to a campaign demonizing CO2.’
CO2 Coalition has received $100,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in 2016 and 2017, according to IRS filings examined by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). In an internal Bradley Foundation grant proposal record for CO2 Coalition dated 6/14/2016, Bradley staff writes, ‘Through strategic public discourse techniques, it will use science to counter the campaign demonizing the use of fossil fuels a campaign that has effectively replaced scientific inquiry in the climate change debate.’
Nate says:
But being an activist now kind of suggests you were an activist when you decided to get involved in climate.
Huh??
Nope not at all. Why?
In fact in his 1981 paper Hansen states that he doesnt know whether the warming will be good or bad for the world.
===============================
Actually the word activist is the wrong word in this context. An activist is somebody who strongly believes something and takes action on that belief. Both Hansen and Happer are activists.
I have said I like Hansen many times. He is passionate about his beliefs. I happen to disagree with his beliefs but that doesn’t mean he has a hidden agenda. Many people are just part of mob and may take action or not but what is more important to them than facts is being part of the mob. Neither Hansen nor Happer belong to that latter group and its is only that latter group that hangs on to long dead and gone positions on matters. The leaders of those mobs can have hidden agendas. . . .like Kerry Emanuel trying to convince Lindzen to come along because it will be good for science.
=======================================
=======================================
=======================================
Nate says:
Oh. People on your side are not activists? They are the ones doing the real science?
=======================
Activist is your term. It seems rather obvious that Happer and Curry are bucking the bucks rather than riding the bucks.
For many people that’s just more satisfying. Hey I said it was uncertain!! I keep saying that!! There is plenty of room on that bus for activists with good intentions from all sides, though you aren’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed if you don’t see the uncertainty.
Happer not an activist?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/William_Happer
Happer is an activist. I said that. An activist is a person who acts. I am an activist. And anybody is welcome to pay me to say what ”I think” any place, any time. I got a taste of that as an auditor/consultant and decided to double down and do it on stuff I was passionate about as opposed to doing it for what somebody else was passionate about. So into the world of environmentalism in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt’s wise use. Make the world a better place while preserving what was good about the old world.
Once on that tour for several solid fulltime years you learn thats a lot more complicated than you might have imagined when you just viewed the world from your own self imposed point of view.
I have eschewed making money saying what others think for my entire career, though I have been asked to and offered money to do otherwise.
“William Happer is an activist. ”
Yes indeed. He was a scientist in a previous life, and a good one. But a spectroscopy guy, not really a climate science expert.
But now he has become an activist. He has gotten into politics, trying to influence policy on Climate change. He is no longer contributing to the science.
I can honestly say the same thing about James Hansen. He is an activist now. His recent science should be considered in that light and not taken too seriously, IMO.
I dont think Biden should listen to only outliers who confirm his beliefs, in any science subject.
That does make more sense, because the ”Big Guy” is a policy maker and it’s his job to not have beliefs but represent his constituency and leave the job of being the bag man to his son.
weird and…..just weird.
Im not a believer in the theory that people who disagree with me are inherently bad, incompetent, or corrupt.
You seem to subscribe to that theory, Bill.
OTOH, I do think certain individuals are bad, incompetent, and corrupt, as demonstrated by their actions and speech.
I think DT is one of those. And there seems to be a growing bipartisan agreement on this.
Im not a believer in the theory that people who disagree with me are inherently bad, incompetent, or corrupt.
====================================
Well beyond just saying that completely out of context as you pass around links smearing Happer. I have said in this forum at least a half dozen times that I like James Hansen despite being in almost complete disagreement with him.
So while I am living it you are just saying it and doing another.
“smearing Happer”
No. Just pointing out that he is an activist against AGW, which you agreed with.
for good reason. A lot of fruitcakes running around like you.
The context is that you are happy that the President and his cronies are trying to manufacture a faux narrative about his opponent Biden being corrupt on the eve of the election.
The reality is that Biden has bipartisan respect. Just because he is a Dem doesnt make him corrupt.
Yes/no?
No it doesn’t make any difference which party.
More light reading.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2020/10/no-overlaps.html
EM,
The somewhat confused alarmist Rabbett demonstrates how to overlook reality, yet again. Over 150 years ago, John Tyndall did a series of experiments which showed that gases both absorb and emit IR.
Having absorbed energy, the gas heats. Having heated, it may be hotter than the surrounding environment, and promptly radiates energy, until it is once again in thermal equilibrium, and so on.
An example might be the Earths atmosphere. In sunlight, the atmosphere warms – more slowly than the surface, being less absorbent. Any suspended particulate matter will heat faster than the surrounding gases, causing it to radiate higher energy photons, until it reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere which surrounds it. So called GHGs respond in exactly the same way. And at night, the opposite occurs.
Alarmists rabbits and donkeys share mental deficiencies. No science, just delusions.
Ramona: You say ‘So let me make sure I understand and not that I think this would ever happen but, if you were asked to review a paper submitted to an established journal that you read, you wouldn’t do it because you don’t believe in the peer review process; even though it is your responsibility to your profession and to your peers.’
Where did I say that I don’t believe in the peer review process?
You say ‘There is not a single engineering project that gets approved without passing the company’s peer-review process.’
So engineers always get thing right, thanks to peer review?
Components never fail, structures never fail? Right…..
You say: ‘In the end, the peer-review process is not perfect but it’s better than not having it.’
Agreed.
You say: ‘But you will never understand that.’
Don’t be absurd.
C500,
He cant help being absurd. It is his destiny.
Does he think that the people who died in the 737 Max crashes, died happy because the sloppiness that killed them was sloppily peer reviewed?
Absurd.
“So engineers always get thing right, thanks to peer review?
Components never fail, structures never fail? Right…..”
Nope. I did not say that and you know it! I said for your benefit, that peer-review is a process, not just a “term,” used in industry and academia. It does not insure against failure of course, but there is not one single (honest) scientist or engineer who does not welcome review of her work.
Ramona: ‘So engineers always get thing right, thanks to peer review?
Components never fail, structures never fail? Right….’
Of course you didn’t say this. I did.
I suggest you read my comments again and this time pay attention to the quotation marks.
If Earth average surface air temperature were to warm to 17 C, how would effect things?
In general, presently:
tropical ocean {40% of earth surface} is about 26 C
Outside tropics ocean is about 11 C
Average of entire ocean surface air of 17 C
Global land Average surface air temperate is about 10 C
Europe average surface air, about 9 C
Germany: 9.5 C
Russia: -3.5 C
Canada: -3.5 C
China: 8 C
India: 25 C
Mexico: 21 C
United Kingdom: 9.5 to 10 C
USA: 11 C
Mongolia: 1 C
South Africa: 18.5
Southern Africa: 20 C
Africa: 25 C
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/country-list/
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/global-land
What countries would higher increase in average temperature
What countries become more wet and most dry?
My state {and some States which around 15 C}
California: 15.5 C
Spain: 15 C
France: 14.5 C {includes tropical islands}
France, Europe: 12 C
Italy: 14 to 14.5 C
Greece: 16 C
North Carolina: 16
Tennessee: 15 C
More stupidity from NASA alarmist donkeys –
*You have already learned that Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation. They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation, which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation.*
Really? NASA has decreed that certain elements do not emit or absorb infrared radiation?
Reality shows that oxygen and nitrogen can, indeed, be heated by infrared radiation. And of course, can cool by emitting infrared, which is how both gases are liquified.
Of course, alarmist donkeys believe anything cult leaders preach.
“You have already learned that Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation.”
That’s blatantly FALSE. And it comes from NASA! That’s like the “holy city” for the cult. It will be fun to watch them try to spin, twist, pervert reality to cover up another mistake.
(Good find, Dr. Swenson.)
This we know,
O2 and N2 absorb incoming solar radiation, the question is how much.
b,
You now accept that N2 and O2 absorb incoming solar radiation. Its a start. How much incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere in total? How much by GHGs? What happens after the radiation is absorbed?
Do you know, or are you just another alarmist donkey trying to appear intelligent?
Swenson,
“How much incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere in total?”
I asked you this question, why don’t you try and answer it?
Me: ” O2 and N2 absorb incoming solar radiation, the question is how much.”
Or bray like a donkey, that’s all you are good at.
blob, please stop trolling.
bob, are you daring to go against NASA? NASA claims “These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation.” There’s no room for doubt there, bob. Cults don’t like “doubt”.
Careful, you’re leaning toward reality. And reality is a dangerous place for idiots.
ClintR
It could help if you were able to comprehend meanings of words. It is really fascinating how ignorant you are and how proud of the fact you seem to be. Amazing!
Transparent:” (of a material or article) allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen.”
Where in this definition of the word used by NASA (transparent) does it make the claim all energy goes through? That is your ignorant and incorrect definition of the word.
You actually stick you neck out and make a strong declaration: “That’s blatantly FALSE. ”
How so? How is it false? Can you see the Sun if you look at it? That is the definition of transparent. They are generally talking about visible light. Glass is opaque to IR bands but it is considered transparent because you can see visible light through it.
You are just plain wrong almost all the time but you are proud to be an ignorant one like most contrarians.
N,
To a physicist, light covers all frequencies, not just the visible. Both NOAA and the WMO say the atmosphere is not transparent to solar radiation, ie light of all frequencie# emitted by the sun.
Learn some real physics. More than 50% of solar radiation is outside the visible range.
“It will be fun to watch them try to spin, twist, pervert reality to cover up another mistake.”
Swenson
Reality is certain you are ignorant of real science. You read a science book by Feynman at one time and now you falsely believe you are the ultimate master of physics. Great now tell us all to what degree can N2 and O2 (diatomic molecules with no polar charge) can absorb infrared or emit it. It is several magnitudes less than CO2 or H2O. The amount would be in microwatt range. You do not understand language very well. If you had intelligence you can think about the claim. When you are dealing with insignificant amounts it can be ignored by science as a contributing factor.
Why?
Idiot Norman reports to duty, as predicted.
His preferred method of denial appears to be to avoid the issue. His eyes probably can’t even see “These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation”.
It’s called “tunnel vision”. He only sees what he wants to see. And he throws in a little ad hom, indicating his desperation. Typical cult behavior.
CliintR
You accuse me falsely of having OCD for responding to your posts. You jump in every post I make like stalking me waiting until I post something. Talk about obsessed.
So idiot ClintR, would you still call a window transparent to light if it had a couple microscopic smudges? Are you really as stupid as your posts make you? Do you have any reasoning ability at all?
Yes N2 and O2 are transparent to incoming solar radiation.
This has a spectrum of Solar energy and what gets absorbed by the atmosphere:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
N2 only abosrbs UV that is less than 0.1 micrometers and there is very little Solar energy in that region. O3 absorbs UV but even O2 absorbs a <0.245 micrometers. Again almost no solar energy in this range.
For people with reasoning ability and logic the statement is valid. People call windows transparent even if they are not absolutely so. Only people, like you and Swenson, who are not very smart, posses very little thinking skills, unable to reason…yes you two will be totally blown away by these types of statements as you can't grasp concept or significance.
I knew this was going to be fun!
Norman provides a link that proves NASA wrong, then he attempts to deny his own link!
He’s such an idiot.
N,
You must have heard of hot air. You seem to emit enough of it. However, you might like to ask yourself how the atmosphere becomes warm enough to remain a gas.
Heres what NOAA says –
*Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere . . .*
You might prefer the WMO –
*In total approximately 70% of incoming radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere . . .*
And of course, it cools down in the absence of sunlight, by emitting infrared. So yes, the atmosphere is quite transparent to many wavelengths including visible light (thank goodness), but absorbs many others, resulting in heating.
Just for laughs, if you compress air to achieve a temperature of say 500 C, what temperature is the CO2? The O2? The N2? The radon . . . ? If CO2 can only absorb certain wavelengths, where did they come from? Try looking it up on Google, or one of your outdated textbooks. Tell me how you got on, or just grind your teeth, and fly into a rage.
norman…”Yes N2 and O2 are transparent to incoming solar radiation”.
Why? The stratosphere warms because O2 molecules in the stratosphere absorb UV at the upper end of the solar spectrum. Why would molecules of O2 in the troposphere not absorb it as well? Same with N2. It is known to absorb certain radiation frequencies in the solar spectrum.
Since N2/O2 make up 99% of air it would not take a lot of absor.p.tion to warm the air significantly.
norman…”N2 only abosrbs UV that is less than 0.1 micrometers and there is very little Solar energy in that region. O3 absorbs UV but even O2 absorbs a <0.245 micrometers. Again almost no solar energy in this range".
There is enough intensity in the UV range to badly burn human skin. Although the there is not much UV in the solar spectrum, what there is has a high intensity.
Don't be fooled by the low levels of UV shown in the solar spectrum. Planck built in an exponential expression in his equation that describes the solar spectrum to get the bell-shaped curve. In reality, UV is very intense but he concluded there was not a lot of it compared to the frequencies at the peak representing yellow and green light.
You can bask in that part of the spectrum all day and it won't harm your skin. A small amount of UV can cause cancer.
ClintR
A lot of your posts are similar content to a poster that was banned here. He went by (g/e/r/a/n). He had a pet word he used “hilarious” and you seem to have a pet word as well. Not that you are it is just interesting the similarities to posting content. Like identical twins.
Note: He did not have slashes in the posting name, but he censor would not allow it without.
Norman, since you have so much time for nonsense like this, could you link me to some of his comments? He must have had a lasting effect on you.
I guess I could start using the word “hilarious”. You are funny. But I actually prefer “idiot”. It’s a perfect fit.
ClintR
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258488
You can read some of his posts with this link.
I did forget, not only did he like “hilarious” but he loved the word pseudoscience. So you have your “idiot” and he had “hilarious” and “pseudoscience”.
Thanks for that, Norman. It was very informative. You haven’t changed a bit. I’ve seen you do the same thing–link to something that doesn’t fit.
And some of the trolls that were there are still with us today!
–Reality shows that oxygen and nitrogen can, indeed, be heated by infrared radiation. And of course, can cool by emitting infrared, which is how both gases are liquified.–
No gases are cooled by emitting infrared- and I doubt it’s possible- I know lots people imagine, CO2 does this.
But no one actually cools CO2 by allowing CO2 to emit energy, nor is this done to cool any gas.
One can make liquid air, by compressing air and flowing that heated compressed air thru bucket of ice water.
Swamp cooler {evaporative cooling} can be efficient way to pre cool the air, but generally one uses the surrounding atmosphere cool the gas heated by compression- so, mostly using convection heat loss.
In vacuum one might have rely only upon radiant heat loss of the pressurized gas {which less efficient- takes longer, or have to a bigger radiator or can use more pressure to get a gas to higher temperature- and thereby can loss more heat}
g,
The only way an object (or gas) can cool is by losing energy. If the photons emitted are longer in wavelength than visible light, they are infrared. Cooling an object or gas is just allowing it to lose energy. Things are not made cold, they are allowed to become cold.
Cold is just a lack of heat.
Hmm. Well one find a dark crater on the Moon with a surface temperature of 50 K. It’s dark and doesn’t get sunlight {to speak of]. A greenhouse house make no sense. So make a 5 meter radius sphere with 1″ thick wall of an aluminum alloy that gets remains strong at 50 K.
Put into the 50 K crater. I assume the temperature of sphere would cool and stay at about 50 K. It might not be the case, it’s possible it further cool to around 4 K. But if doesn’t remain at 50 K, to simplify, add some small amount of heat so it does remain at 50 K.
So got crater and sphere in it and it’s 50 K.
Put some gas into sphere. Any gas, but going to oxygen gas. The amount of pressure is vey small. Gas has small amount pressure and density and it similar to amount pressure and density found at 100 km elevation on Earth {which is more than found on the Moon}.
Now having such low density of oxygen it can be 50 K and be a gas.
CO2 can’t but oxygen and other gases can. H20 gas also can’t be gas at such temperature.
So got tiny bit of oxygen gas in the sphere in 50 K crater. The addition of gas, “should” not cause any cooling. If sphere doesn’t cool lower than 50 K, adding Oxygen gas inside of it, shouldn’t cause sphere to cool “more”.
If I add more 50 K oxygen gas to it, I will be increasing the heat of gas in sphere. Or adding kinetic energy, any gas added has kinetic energy. If add enough gas {and get enough pressure}, liquid Oxygen will form- that formation warms from latent heat of O2 becoming LOX.
So got 50 K sphere in crater with 50 K gas and 50 K liquid. Add more O2 at 50 K, at some point LOX should form into solid, adding more heat. So get Sphere at 50 K, gas at 50 K, and liquid and solid at 50 K. None of this should cause cooling to sphere. By adding gas, it warming, but should cool back down to 50 K. And it remain at 50 K, same way the Aluminum would remain at 50 K.
If needed x amount energy/heat added to make sphere remain at 50 K, adding gas {and liquid and solid oxygen} should not cause more the x amount of heat needed.
So this is dome something I make liquid oxygen on Moon, the higher it’s temperature the more it radiate heat, and more liquid oxygen I make, but I need sphere strong enough to withstand the pressure.
At 1 atmosphere of pressure liquid air is 90.19 K and solid at 54.36 K.
And according to this:
The maximum temperature for liquid oxygen is the critical point. Go warmer than that you have a gas or neither gas or liquid. That is about 155 degrees Kelvin (-118 degrees Celsius or -180 degrees Fahrenheit).”
So if sphere was strong enough I could have liquid at 155 K which radiates energy than at 90.19 K
“732 psi” is that critical point.
And 1″ aluminum, probably not thick enough to be strong enough for 5 meter radius sphere {it would work in smaller sphere}.
So split water and get probably fairly hot H2 and O2, and have to cool it the store in it’s liquid or frozen form.
To get water from lunar regolith, I have heat the regolith- so can heat with hot gases which cool the gases, with than could cool further in that sphere.
So practical matter the sphere probably thinner wall of AL, and would not try get anywhere critical pressure with such large sphere.
g,
I believe the freezing point of oxygen is around 54.4 K, so you wont have gaseous oxygen at 50K.
You dont need pressure. Comets are frozen gases, water, dust and rock. Zero pressure. Im not sure what you are trying to say.
If you are trying to say that matter can cool other than by radiating photons of energy, thus lowering its energy content, maybe you could give some theory backed up by reproducible experiment.
–Swenson says:
October 20, 2020 at 4:52 PM
g,
I believe the freezing point of oxygen is around 54.4 K, so you wont have gaseous oxygen at 50K.–
We were at low pressure and air density. The gas in sphere has no temperature, the walls of sphere do have temperature. Could O2 freeze on the wall, it possible, but are added heat by adding O2 gas, eventually going get some frozen on wall.
One could question how exactly the O2 gas is added. Let imagine got frozen block of O2, and heating the frozen block so some of it turns to gas.
I was thinking about adding warmer gas which cools entering sphere, but instead could have block O2 ice in the sphere which is heated enough so it vaporizes.
So to repeat oxygen gas to be 50 K require the gas to dense enough- and with low density, the molecules travel quite a distance without interacting will other O2 molecules and is going at about the velocity of hundreds miles per hours. Sort like throwing baseballs at sphere wall and having it stick [O2 would/could do that, but not “often”}.
“You dont need pressure. Comets are frozen gases, water, dust and rock. Zero pressure. Im not sure what you are trying to say.”
Comets are frozen solids and largely H20 and CO2. In vacuum H20 evaporates around 15O K. It’s large because dark crater of moon can be 50 K [even 30 K} that solid ice is considered possible.
And there is also though to be CO, Co2, and methane and other gases. But no frozen N2 or O2. Since Sun spews Oxygen ions, which blacken the Lunar surface, maybe there is frozen O2, but it’s not expected.
Regarding Comets, frostline:
“In astronomy or planetary science, the frost line, also known as the snow line or ice line, is the particular distance in the solar nebula from the central protostar where it is cold enough for volatile compounds such as water, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide to condense into solid ice grains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line_(astrophysics)”
And:
“The frost line is a boundary between mostly ice-covered objects and mostly rock-covered objects. It is about 5 AU from the Sun.”
5 AU about Jupiter distance
Jupiter: sunlight: 55.8 to 45.9 watts per square meter.
g,
If you heat your oxygen above its liquefaction temperature, and then expose it to 50 K, it will radiate IR until it reaches equilibrium with its environment. Vacuum, no vacuum it doesnt matter.
Saying a gas has no temperature is saying it is at absolute zero. Maybe I misunderstand you.
Oxygen at 50 K is not a gas. It is solid. Just as H2O below 100 C is not a gas, it is liquid. H2O below 0 C is a solid. And H2O cools from the gas to the solid by allowing it to do so – radiating energy away in the IR spectrum.
Have you a different hypothesis?
Swnenson,
Check your phase diagram for Oxygen, you may find that Oxygen may be a gas at 54 K.
“Saying a gas has no temperature is saying it is at absolute zero. Maybe I misunderstand you.”
Absolute zero is a temperature.
What mean by no temperature is, it doesn’t cause thermometer, to expand or contract.
So 10 C air will cause thermometer indicate the air is 10 C.
Low density air can’t be measured. Nor can vacuum of space be measured and so as to provide a temperature of space. Vacuum of space is neither cold not hot.
With air if have high density, it can measured more quickly, low density require more time to heat or cool the thermometer, but at some point as get even lower in density, no amount of time will measure it’s temperature. Of course thermometer in space and not in sunlight- will get a low temperature- as it something that radiate heat.
Or if helps, space doesn’t have a “room temperature” and very low air density also doesn’t have a “room temperature”.
Or take atmosphere in low earth orbit, and compress it, and at some density, it will have temperature {and it be quite hot}.Or it is hot gas- but it lacks density.
b,
I said at 50 K oxygen, in a hard vacuum, will not be gaseous. No maybe about it. Who cares what you think you might find?
Swenson,
I said check the phase temperature diagram.
In a hard vacuum, Oxygen at 50 K will be gaseous.
Are you guys getting more stupid as the temperature goes down?
The triple point of Oxygen is
54.36 K and 0.152 kpascals
If you get confused, go to Heller’s blog and ask him what a triple point is, tell him bob droege sent you.
blob, please stop trolling.
gbaikie…”No gases are cooled by emitting infrared- and I doubt its possible- I know lots people imagine, CO2 does this”.
Are you trying to say that CO2 in a transparent container, that will freely pass IR, and located inside a vacuum where conduction and convection have no cooling effect, will never cool down?
Yes
Of course transparent container is “probably” both ways- so will not warm either. But if could only make it one way, also, yes.
Of course, loosely speaking we are living in a “type” of container which doesn’t actually have container “wall” and so that nothing of container wall is completely transparent.
In make our existing something like a container be more of container, one could stop all movement of air- have very, very still air.
Of course people breath {which is hurricane in regards to a very, very still air].
Swenson,
Really you need to stop making shit up.
This is how liquid Nitrogen is produced
“Liquid nitrogen is produced commercially from the cryogenic distillation of liquified air or from the liquefication of pure nitrogen derived from air using pressure swing something”
This is how liquid Oxygen is produced
“Liquid oxygen is obtained from the oxygen found naturally in air by fractional distillation in a cryogenic air separation plant.”
Keep going, we will keep checking your facts!
b,
As I said, by allowing the gas to shed energy, and cool as a result. Cryogenic processes depend on this fact.
Learn some physics.
* Low temperatures are achieved by removing energy from a substance. This may be done in various ways. * is a quote from a very basic introduction. You can find more involved explanations if you wish.
Swenson,
This is what you actually posted
“And of course, can cool by emitting infrared, which is how both gases are liquified.”
Total bull
b,
I see why you got the boot.
Maybe you believe in cold rays? How do you think an object cools, donkey?
Swenson,
So you totally misunderstood how gases are .
I actually worked at a place that manufactured liquid nitrogen and even liquid helium, and letting the gases cool by emitting infrared was not how it was done.
There are other ways to cool an object other than just allowing the object to emit infrared.
Are you really too stupid to know that?
Rhetorical question.
I assume you got let go from that job too.
There are precisely no ways to cool an object other than allowing it to lose energy, generally infrared.
If there were, Im sure you would have mentioned them by now. Working at a place does not mean you understand anything about the science or technology involved, especially if you were employed as a clerk, janitor, or instrument monitor.
“generally infrared.”
Weird.
How about by evaporation? Conduction thru walls?
Swenon,
Me, I put my beer in the fridge, if gets colder there a lot faster than just waiting for it to cool by emitting infrared.
The job was only a summer job of limited duration.
And I did mention other ways to cool things, apparently you are too stupid to realize that.
And while I was in the Navy, I was trained to operate and maintain the air-conditioning plants, and they don’t work by emitting infrared. Yeah, they let me go too.
I would off you a shovel, but apparently you have an unlimited supply.
blob, please stop trolling.
Not read the comments for a few days, but thanks to some of our contributors I will now make a prediction that we are going to go into a new ice age.
This is based on ghe argument that ice can warm up a warmer surface.
As we are constantly being told all the ice is being melted so there will be less of a warming effect so it will be colder and we will go into an ice age.
Just before anybody thinks I am stupid I am just trying to point out how both sides use bad science to try and back up their argument.
Are you really so caught up in your theories you can no longer apply common sense.
Roy can you post another article. The comments on this are getting too big to follow.
mark…”Just before anybody thinks I am stupid I am just trying to point out how both sides use bad science to try and back up their argument”.
You have supplied no example to back your allegation.
Gordon, look below. bdgwx is supplying enough bad science for everyone!
Mark said: This is based on ghe argument that ice can warm up a warmer surface.
I think you may have misunderstood the argument. The argument is of 3 different bodies. Body A is the one whose temperature we are most concerned with. It is being supplied with energy such that it maintains a steady temperature. Body C is the environment that A is exposed to. The introduction of body B (ice) between A and C will cause A to increase in temperature when B is shielding A from C and when the temperature of B is greater than C even though A is still greater than B.
For example…
Let A emit at 400 W/m^2 with T=290K
Let B emit at 300 W/m^2 with T=270K
Let C emit at 0 W^m^2 with T=0K
A receives 400 W/m^2 such that it is in steady-state.
Without B then the heat transfer from A to C is 5.67e-8*(290^4 – 4^4) = 400 W/m^2
With B then the heat transfer from A to B is 5.67e-8(290^4 – 270^4) = 100 W/m^2 and from B to C is 5.67e-8*(270^4 – 0^4) = 300 W/m^2.
As you can see the moment body B is placed into position the imbalance on body A is +300 W/m^2 and on body B is -200 W/m^2. Therefore A warms and B cools.
It is important to note that ice can only warm a warmer surface if that surface is being supplied energy and if the ice is shielding that surface from something even colder than the ice.
That’s wrong, bdgwx. You’re trying to warm a 290 K object with a 270 K object. That’s not the way it works.
You’re such an idiot.
Oh yeah, here is some internet idiot trying to heat a 364.4K object with a 333.3 object.
Yeah, that’s impossible, right?
“Correct answers
364.4 K for Inner sphere
333.3 K for Outer sphere
Energy balances (All units Watts):
Inner SphereIn 300 + 700, Out 1000
Outer SphereIn 1000 + 400, Out 700 + 700
SystemIn 700, Out 700”
Outer sphere at 333.3 heating a warmer inner sphere at 264.4 with 700 watts/square meter.
b,
You are the perfect alarmist donkey. Your imaginary inner object has an internal heater. You have discovered insulation which has a temperature.
Just try doing what the usual alarmist NASA donkey tries to do. Imagine the inner sphere is receiving its heat from the outer sphere, just like the Earth is heated by the sun. As Feynman said –
* It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. *
Imagine you are brilliant. Imagine that heat can spontaneously flow from cold to hot. Imagine that Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize. Imagination is not fact.
Swenson,
Yes, there is a heater to the inner sphere, as well as the outer sphere.
That’s ClintR’s solution by the way.
And there is my typo above 264.4 should be 364.4
Interesting find.
Troll bob is trying to misrepresent the situation: “…here is some internet idiot trying to heat a 364.4K object with a 333.3 object.”
But, Swenson doesn’t fall for it. He points out that the objects have heaters.
Poor bob.
Dimwits both of you,
even heated, there is still energy transfer from the outer shell to the inner shell.
The inner shell goes from 270 to 364 due to the energy transfer from cold to hot.
blob, please stop trolling.
bdg…”It is important to note that ice can only warm a warmer surface if that surface is being supplied energy and if the ice is shielding that surface from something even colder than the ice…”
I have tried to explain several times that the ice is not warming the heated object, it is acting to slow its heat dissipation, but only in certain instances. If you slow down the heat dissipation of a heated object, its temperature will rise but not to a level greater than it’s natural undissipated temperature.
If I run an electrical current through a 100 watt resistor (big mother) it will heat up to the point where it will burn your fingers. So, I set up a circuit that will drive the resistor with the correct voltage to draw 100 watts from the resistor. That’s its max, beyond that power the resistor will gradually deteriorate till it burns up.
I take the temperature of the resistor in free air under those conditions.
I turn off the circuit and insulate the resistor heavily to prevent as much heat loss through conduction to air. That should prevent convective losses as well since theoretically no heat is leaking through the insulation. Then I wrap the insulation with a metallic covering to stop radiation heat loss. I also include a temperature measuring device inside the insulation.
I turn on the circuit and let it stabilize. If the resistor does not burn up, I note the temperature of the resistor and it will be very much hotter than the resistor without the insulation. I note that temperature and call it the resistor’s natural temperature under those conditions.
Now I remove the insulation and surround the resistor closely with ice. The temperature of the device will not rise, it will fall. The ice will act to increase the heat dissipation from the resistor by cooling the surrounding air and increasing the temperature differential between the resistor and the air.
If I put the resistor in an enclosure with no ice, and I blow hot air through the box, the resistor will warm, even though the heated air is only 1/10th the temperature of the resistor. If I continue to increase the temperature of the heated air, the temperature of the resistor will continue to rise.
Note the 2nd law. The heated air temperature is less than the resistor temperature therefore the air cannot heat the resistor. The resistor is heating toward the natural temperature I described earlier with it fully insulated.
Gordo wrote:
If the resistor does not burn up, I note the temperature of the resistor and it will be very much hotter than the resistor without the insulation. I note that temperature and call it the resistors natural temperature under those conditions.
…
The resistor is heating toward the natural temperature I described earlier with it fully insulated.
Another round of Gordo’s delusional physics. Your so-called “natural temperature” is just the equilibrium temperature given some level of insulation. With even more insulation, that value would be greater. With less insulation, such as your case with the resistor surrounded by air, that temperature will be lower. Duh.
Your conclusion, “Note the 2nd law. The heated air temperature is less than the resistor temperature therefore the air cannot heat the resistor” is invalid, as your hypothetical does not include thermal IR radiation from the surrounding environment, including the atmosphere, only convection and conduction.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Mark,
Let me make this easier to understand so that you don’t have to be frustrated by the same misunderstanding and confusion that plagues others. Body A is being warmed by the energy source (S). The flow of heat without B is…
(1) C A –> C
…and with B is…
(2) C A –> B –> C
Let S emit at 800 W/m^2 with T=344K (and thus is received as 400 W/m^2 upon A).
So it is the energy source at 344K that is warming body A. Body B at 270K in scenario (2) is shielding body A from an even colder body C at 0K.
“…shielding body A from an even colder body C…”
Now you’re making “B” an insulator, bdgwx. Which destroys your whole effort here. Everyone knows insulation insulates.
Why not just admit you’re plagued by the same misunderstanding and confusion as other idiots?
If S is emitting 800 W/m^2, how come A is only receiving 400 W/m^2?
Good question. The blog mangled my energy flow scenarios (1) and (2). Here is what it was supposed to look like. Treat { as a left arrow and } as a right arrow.
(1) C { S } A } C
(2) C { S } A } B } C
So as you can see 800 W/m^2 hitting the left face of A is received only on half of it’s area. That’s mean all of A only receives 400 W/m^2.
That means A receives 800 W/m^2 on one side and emits 400 W/m^2 from both sides.
However, this “split by two” only occurs if A is at such a distance from the source that it effectively has two “losing sides”. In other words, if it can lose energy not only from the side facing away from the source, but also from the side facing the source. If the source only subtends a small angular area of the “sky” as seen from the viewpoint of somebody standing on the surface of A, then A can lose energy in the entire hemisphere of possible directions from the surface of A bar the one direction that is directly perpendicular to the surface, the one pointing straight at the source. Along this direction, energy is being gained from the source, so energy can not be lost. In all other directions, the radiation misses the source, and the surface of A is not receiving anything in return. So it is losing energy in all possible directions bar one, and overall this makes the side facing the source another “losing side”. Two “losing sides” equals “split by two”. 800 W/m^2 input becomes 400 W/m^2 output.
If view factors are 1 between the source and A, then A is warmed until it too emits 800 W/m^2, at 344 K, because it has only one “losing side”, the side facing away from the source. On the side facing the source, it is receiving energy from every possible direction. There is no direction in which radiation is leaving A and missing the source, so the surface of A is always receiving something in return. So the side facing the source is the “gaining side”. It is gaining energy from the source over this side, in each and every possible direction. So you do not “split by two” when view factors are 1. One “losing side” equals “divide by one”. 800 W/m^2 input remains 800 W/m^2 output.
DREMT said: If view factors are 1 between the source and A, then A is warmed until it too emits 800 W/m^2, at 344 K
All bodies are blackbodies and have VF=1 between them.
If it helps assume all bodies are have 1 m^2 of surface area.
How can body A in steady-state with 1 m^2 of surface of area which is receiving 400 W (800 W/m^2 * 0.5 m^2) from source S radiate at 800 W (800 W/m^2 * 1 m^2)?
Furthermore, use the heat transfer equation to analyze the two scenarios.
For scenario (1) compute…
S (344K) to C (0K)
S (344K) to A (290K)
A (290K) to S (344K)
A (290K) to C (0K)
For scenario (2) compute…
S (344K) to C (0K)
S (344K) to A (290K)
A (290K) to S (344K)
A (290K) to B (270K)
B (270K) to A (290K)
B (270K) to C (0K)
And then using your results tell which bodies are in steady-state and if they aren’t what their energy imbalance is.
“All bodies are blackbodies and have VF=1 between them”
Then S warms A to 344 K…and similarly B will be warmed to 344 K. C remains at 0 K, since it is actually not a body, but “the environment”, i.e a vacuum. A vacuum cannot be heated.
VF = 1 means no losses. The source provides 800 W/m^2 to A…the only way the overall system (A + B) can shed the 800 W/m^2 is to the right of B. Can’t get rid of any energy to the left of A, as VF = 1 also means the source (and A and B) must be infinite parallel planes. Which means there is no way past the source for radiation to leave. So both A and B must be warmed to the same temperature as the source.
You won’t understand. Oh well.
Let’s check your work.
S at 344K is 794 W/m^2
A at 344K is 794 W/m^2
B at 344K is 794 W/m^2
A-in-left = 794 W/m^2 on 1/2 of A’s area
A-in-right = 794 W/m^2 on 1/2 of A’s area
A-out-left = 794 W/m^2 on 1/2 of A’s area
A-out-right = 794 W/m^2 on 1/2 of A’s area
Ain-Aout = 794/2 + 794/2 – 794/2 – 794/2 = 0 W/m^2 (yay!)
B-in-left = 794 W/m^2 on 1/2 of B’s area
B-in-right = 0 W/m^2 on 1/2 of B’s area
B-out-left = 794 W/m^2 on 1/2 of B’s area
B-out-right = 794 W/m^2 on 1/2 of B’s area
Bin-Bout = 794/2 + 0/2 – 794/2 – 794/2 = -397 W/m^2 (doh!)
Sigh…unfortunately B has a -397 W/m^2 imbalance. It will immediately begin cooling.
Fix this issue and resubmit your solution for review.
No issues, bdgwx. Re-read my previous comments until understood.
The fact that B has a persistent net loss of 397 W/m^2 isn’t an issue for you? You think it can keep shedding energy without a corresponding feed of incoming energy forever and still maintain 344K? That is an issue for me, all of the worlds scientists, and nature.
Re-read my previous comments until understood.
I’ve read your statement multiple times. You don’t even address the energy imbalance on B when it is 344K. It’s as if it has no importance to you whatsoever. Instead you twist yourself into knot talking about view factors, infinitely long plates, and whatever else so that you deflect attention away from the fact that when B is at 344K it has an energy imbalance and so is not in steady-state.
I tell you what…if it helps lets redefine the problem and use spherical geometry. This eliminates any concerns you may have with view factors without actually changing the salient point of the thought experiment. Make body A a sphere with surface area of ~1 m^2. Make body B a sphere that is just barely larger than A such that it is not touching A but still has a surface area of ~1 m^2. A is the inner sphere and B is the outer sphere. The inner sphere is heated internally with a 400 W input. The outer sphere is exposed to a 0K environment.
What are the temperatures of A and B such that they both satisfy Ein-Eout=0 (steady-state)?
Once you figure out the steady-state temperatures for the 2 sphere scenario will move on to the really fun and enlightening 3 sphere scenario.
An engineering analogy. The earth moon system looks like a single gear turning with the gear driving nothing.
The illustration of a spinning circle rotating around a larger circle is of two rotating gears meshed of the same size, each rotating in opposite directions. Perspective is everything. Selecting a perspective is anti-Einsteinian. For example you could choose to be on a fixed star observing the moon. If that fixed star is rotating at the same speed and direction as the lunar orbit, then the moon will appear to be rotating again. So even from a fixed star we can make the moon appear to rotate by simply taking action to eliminate the rotation of the orbit.
Ooops said that wrong. We can spin in space at a fixed star location at the rotation speed and direction of the orbit to eliminate the appearance of that effect and the moon will then be seen to not rotate. The non-intersecting circle test is how you distinguish between rotation and non-rotation. . . .and that applies to all translations.
Sorry, bdgwx. The discussion is over, if you are not even going to attempt to understand my comments.
“The discussion is over, if you are not even going to attempt to understand my comments.”
This is how all ‘debates’ with DREMPTY end. Him having no answers, running away as fast as he can, and blaming you for not reading his post that had no answer.
Then claiming later he debunked your claims. Hint: he never actually does.
#2
Sorry, bdgwx. The discussion is over, if you are not even going to attempt to understand my comments.
Here is his new name
L’quipe de modration d’urgence du docteur Roy et les singes franais de reddition
Yes, bdgwx surrendered.
bdgwx, you are just confused by your own concepts. This is not what happens. There is an equilibrium temperature each light can cause a system to obtain. A light within the system isn’t going to change that unless it is feeding off a different power source.
RW Woods established this fact a 100 years ago.
Common sense and intuition even make it seem very real. In the 1970’s I took an interest in the topic and started building greenhouses for clients, it morphed into architectural considerations Since I was a builder I got into designing such systems and gobbled up all DIY literature I could get my hands on.
I wasn’t interested in the physics per se I was interested in just producing the effects which was a natural outcropping of a need to consider something beyond fossil fuels because starting in 1973 for about a decade or more there was uncertainty if you could get them.
The sourceless near surface radiation driver of this theory is basically dead. Its been dead as long as people have talked about hotspots.
Just a lot of people never got the memo.
The important thing to recognize here is yes you can change the rate of a system seeking equilibrium but you can’t change the equilibrium with only the stuff that is being argued here. Basic RW Woods!
I am working on a paper to outline this in the common language.
I even have an alternative theory but I am still struggling with the possibility it depends upon the version of the greenhouse theory used in black box climate models.
As Dr Curry points out the greenhouse effect is loosely based upon control theory in engineered systems. ΔTs = λRF (if thats not clear after I submit it the formula is deltaTsurface equals sensitivity times radiative forcing.
Her take home comment on it is: ”According to this simple model that relates radiative forcing at the tropopause to a surface temperature change, there is an equilibrium relationship between these two variables. The physical relationship between these two variables requires many many assumptions, including zero heat capacity of the surface and a convective link between the surface and the tropopause. Well, these kind of assumptions were arguably useful in 1967, at the time of the famous Manabe and Wetherald 1967 paper, but why are we still using such a vastly oversimplified model to assess climate sensitivity?”
The forcing in this case is occurring as a result of heat not exiting the system at TOA which in turn forces the surface. It has nothing to do with what you guys are arguing. Bottom line bdgwx you Nate, Svante, and many others in here just don’t understand the science. Nate seems to have an inkling as he coughed up M&W 1967. I tend to think personally that M&W are barking up the wrong tree, one that has no bear in it. But thats going to a matter of a future conversation.
Good comment, Bill.
Keep in mind that Curry does not understand the physics of Earth’s energy flows. Her background is in geography. She relies heavily on the nonsense coming from the AGW believers.
Such an example is the bogus equation ΔTs = λRF. That equation comes from someone’s imagination. It has no basis in physics. With the two “fudge factors”, they can make the temperature change anything they want. The only “radiative forcing” for Earth is Sun.
ClintR says:
She relies heavily on the nonsense coming from the AGW believers.
===================================
I disagree. You mistake her practical approach to resolving the issue as opposed to embarking on a fool’s errand.
The issue in discussion under M&W might be resolvable but to attack it from that point of view you need to have some information of how to deal with it. I haven’t read M&W carefully but quickly noted the ”convective adjustment” and instantaneous thought dang how is that measured? I have practical experience with window insulation and dual and triple glazing and the truth of the matter radiation isn’t even considered unless one puts some reflective material on the glass known best as ‘low e’.
So the issue settles on the convective adjustment not the back radiation (except for the naturally created lapse rate that the theory goes on to enhance into cooler zones of the tropopause – which actually weren’t recognized as a cooling trend but instead a bend from cooling lapse rate to the inversion ”reverse lapse rate?” stratosphere.
Just recently in fact have I been seeing a few atmosphere temperature profiles characterizing the troposphere as cooling trend with a lesser lapse rate before abruptly turning into the stratosphere profile. I imagine that comes from folks operating about an order of magnitude higher than the tin hats in here. But even that seems rather laughable.
From Curry’s point of view how do you disprove something you can’t even measure?
So she is very practically taking on the basic equation I listed above. Sensitivity could be negative, budgets show it to be strongly negative from a pure radiation standpoint. I am against the modeling exercise as an avenue of proof from my own modeling experience and seminars on how models come up short.
The biggy for climate science is the lack of defining moments, events with beginnings and ends that you can build statistically upon. Consistent emission with consistent warming is one single event. When you try to look at accelerating emission then it comes up statistically short using the equation offered by Curry.
So the one testible thing you can do is measure the sensitivity variable. Which is what Curry is or was doing and getting nowhere with the best science available because of the political landscape.
And understand completely that curry isn’t measuring sensitivity after CO2 has warmed the surface. Thats just another political artifice concocted to establish a minimum baseline of warming that frankly isn’t supported by the equation in question.
Well hopefully she’s changed. I don’t keep up with her as well as you do. A couple of years ago, when she testified before Congress, she basically claimed that CO2 was warming the planet.
But if she’s now working on a “negative climate sensitivity”, then maybe she’s learned.
ClintR says:
Well hopefully she’s changed. I don’t keep up with her as well as you do. A couple of years ago, when she testified before Congress, she basically claimed that CO2 was warming the planet.
But if she’s now working on a “negative climate sensitivity”, then maybe she’s learned.
=============================
I would have to hear her say that in context, though from a purely philosophical/physical point of view anything that retards heat leaving a system is going to result in warming of the system. Insulation does work, the question is what kind of insulation does the atmosphere represent. To understand that you have to step away from static models. Retard enough heat and the upper limit equilibrium is something based upon 1366watts. Not 1366watts plus 400watts as suggested by Nate. Using 400watts isn’t even the right physics concept. You have 1366 watts and either a u or r value. I have an idea of what it is but its not what Nate thinks it is. But Nate is just as confused about as all the amateurs and non-specialists seem to think it is.
they have all been sucked into the modtran model which is a representation of the equation listed by Dr Curry. The evidence already demonstrates its not that simple. You can’t claim the models provide evidence and non-evidence in the same breath. The entire basis of a modeling exercise is to change your model as the observations change eventually and hopefully sometime in the future the observations match the model output. But models are not moving out of dogma and a false narrative that there is a serious modeling effort going on. It needs to be ended or depoliticized with the later looking like the least choice. Why? because you just don’t buy super computers for anybody but institutions and the institutions are corrupt. Never feed the beast! The ball is in the institution side of the court.
If they act responsibly then Curry will have won.
The stuff I have been linking to from Curry is from 10 years ago.
I suspect from a practical standpoint she isn’t going to challenge the warming as natural either because she can’t explain that. So she gains credibility for not claiming science is wrong for reasons she can’t explain.
It’s a pretty good lesson in wise compromise. All this stuff has acceptable margins. For instance in the population dynamics of harvesting seafood you have what is called the ‘virgin spawning biomass’ which is a biomass of spawning fish unaffected by human extraction. Then you have the ‘spawning biomass at maximum sustainable yield’ which is the biomass level at which if it goes lower yield will be suppressed by killing too many spawners to replace spawners over time.
The two degree warming standard is something like that. The more it looks like we won’t hit that the more the worry-beaders want it to be lower. They want to win also and are willing to game the system if necessary.
Its something very difficult to grapple with because I am well aware that in small systems like windows warming is negligible as established by RW Woods for greenhouses from the point of view of the absorp-tion of IR. But what works in small systems isn’t always the case in large systems where indetectable warming from very small delays could add up to something detectable.
Bottom line is there is a greenhouse effect that needs explaining. I believe that over 2/3rds of it is easily explained by radiation laws, particularly Stefan Boltzmann equations for equilibrium that ensure the earth reaches 278.5K without calling that a greenhouse effect (e.g. the temperature corresponding to 341.5watts/m2). That’s true because you can’t build anything that wouldn’t do that in an experiment.
It’s the last 10C that is the mysterious greenhouse effect.
On the flipside if you prove its changes in clouds via observation it won’t be long before its suggested clouds are going to be built on the backs of bacteria like creatures that build shells of ice that pesticides are killing.
As it is I am already laboring under the blame associated with being the evil grandspawn of a refrigeration engineer held majorly responsible for the ozone hole which may have caused a few skin cancers.
“Bottom line is there is a greenhouse effect that needs explaining.”
I agree Bill, that is what we have been led to believe. We have been led to believe that there is an unnatural mechanism warming the planet, in additon to Sun. And, if we can’t identify it, then the “default” is CO2.
But, that’s all nonsense foisted on us by a massive array of institutions, media, and corrupt politicians.
They compare an imaginary black body sphere, with no atmosphere and no oceans, to Earth. That black body would have an equilibrium temperature of 255 K, with 960 W/m^2. But Earth has an average temperature of 288 K. So, they claim Earth has some “unknown” extra warming. And guess what that “extra warming” is?
They take an imaginary concept and apply it to reality, and make a claim. That ain’t science.
Here’s the reality. Sun heats Earth’s surface, including oceans. The surface heats the atmosphere. Excess energy radiates to space. The resulting average temperature is 288 K.
Bill,
I feel your grandfathers pain. As long as sunlight finds oxygen in its path, ozone is created. Oxygen reacts with short wavelength UV to form ozone. Result, none of this UV reaches the surface! There isnt any left!
Rowlands received a Nobel Prize, in spite of misunderstanding the physical process involved. Mind you, he was a chemist. NASA continues the tradition, by listening to a mathematician (Gavin Schmidt) opine on matters of physics.
Nature doesnt care, but we have to pay for this nonsense, and suffer because of it!
Sorry for the exceedingly long ramble.
The hottest the mean temperature of the earth could get would be as hot as the face of the moon.
That would be under the circumstance of perfect insulation.
The first problem is that in gases without lapse rates there is zero greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases.
Also water boils at lower temperatures at altitude so an influence of carbon dioxide on water vapor might bring a greenhouse effect from latent heat, that is if we actually understood latent heat better. But arguing water would release its latent heat higher isn’t far fetched.
So that’s pretty much a summation of what validity the greenhouse effect has. But I have problems with all that regarding whether there is actually a restriction on emitting heat to space as there seems to be no avenue added by which to contain the heat except by warming from the top down which is I think the point Dr. Curry is making that convection isn’t a direct connection between TOA and the surface. Its a direct depressurization argument once your realize the irrelevance of the grade school model and that this is all about convection.
Thats why I scoff at the grade school model which in the end ends up a the focus of the argument of every single warmist I have seen post in here.
In summation the proponents of the pressurization of gas lose for the same reason that those who rely on the depressurization of gas lose.
I am with Akasofu that what we are looking at is a combination of natural variability that periodically changes albedo amplifying, deamplifying, smaller anthropogenic and natural variation. I think its bosh suggest the something like .8 to 1.2 change in the past 170 years is anything to get excited about.
Swenson says:
Nature doesnt care, but we have to pay for this nonsense, and suffer because of it!
==================================
there is no question mankind has an impact on the world, but so did the dinosaurs and everything that came before.
You are right nature doesn’t care. Nature abhors a vacuum and will do everything it can to fill it.
Mankind is part of nature. Every creature affects its habitat some positively in the cases of parasites and viruses often negatively if there isn’t a symbiotic relationship going on.
Mankind is a unique creature in that not only can we build comfortable habitat we can build better habitat for other things to and actually mitigate some of the changes we make. I have been working in that area for over 20 years. I have seen smaller examples of everything you say all the time.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-541964
bill said: This is not what happens.
That is exactly what happens. Show me why you disagree with the heat transfer equation.
Pretty simple if you had any experience in designing systems.
Convection overrides the radiant blocking. The grade school model only theoretically operates in a vacuum. I say theoretically because there is no such thing as a completely transparent IR blocking glass. (on that note I would love to see performance reports on multi-layered space craft windows that are tested in all the ways approved fenestration is tested for homes)
Thats why M&W 1967 was developed to overcome that problem.
The bottom line bdgwx is you asked a good question. The way that an auditor would insist that the question be answered in a publicly understandable way would be to blueprint the greenhouse effect, to provide scientific reference material for each element in the blueprint in an organized and a progressive fashion. That way the public could bypass all the BS and see for themselves how uncertain things are.
What scientists like Trenberth whose mission is to inform the public are clueless about is that the public, in general, doesn’t listen to strangers no matter what they have for credentials. Instead they look to friends they see as being informed whom they trust. When you are an acknowledged expert in something it starts with the family and extends to friends who trust you.
Its amazing how clueless the folks at the levers of government are of this. . . .it leads to just more distrust.
So the question is, is Trenberth stupid or is he deceptive? I learned rather quickly deception is part of his game. They know they can’t make an air tight case so instead they focus on the young, naive, and inexperienced. It also helps if they are sociopaths who have no friends and just like to break things.
bill,
What I’m saying is that the arrangement…
S (344.6K) to A (289.8K) to C (0K)
…has heat transfer of…
S to A: 5.67e-8*(344.6^4 – 289.8^4) = 400 W/m^2
A to C: 5.67e-8*(289.8^4 – 000.0^4) = 400 W/m^2
…so body A is in steady-state at these temperatures and has an energy imbalance of 0 W/m^2. Therefore it will remain at 290K.
But for this arrangement…
S (344.6K) to A (289.8K) to B (270K) to C (0K)
…has heat transfer of…
S to A: 5.67e-8*(344.6^4 – 289.8^4) = 400 W/m^2
A to B: 5.67e-8*(289.8^4 – 269.7^4) = 100 W/m^2
B to C: 5.67e-8*(269.7^4 – 000.0^4) = 300 W/m^2
…so body A is NOT in steady-state and has an energy imbalance of +300 W/m^2. Therefore it will warm beyond 290K.
This is mathematical proof that body A warms when it is has an energy source available to it and when another body is position such that it is being shielded from an even colder environment.
I have no idea what Trenberth or convection has to do with any of this.
bdgwx, that’s just another attempt to pervert physics. It’s just a rewrite of the blue/green plates nonsense.
Don’t you have anything better to do with your life than pervert reality?
bdgwx, there is no reality to what you are writing.
Simple home experiment will shed some light. All you need is a cheap IR detector. The experiment works the best (more obvious results) when its cold, still, and relatively dry (not raining) outside and nice and warm and toasty inside.
It also I guess requires an older home with single glazed windows. You can do it with dual glazed but you need more calculations. Dual glazed do represent insulation from the standpoint of heat loss
Check the temperature with the IR detector on interior walls. Check the temperature outdoors on some heavy vegetation or an exterior wall. Record the temperatures you get. Add them together then divide by two. Then check the temperature of the glass on both sides. Both sides of the glass should be the same temperature as the result of your math done above. Or at least very close. Recheck the experiment. If the inside or outside temperature changes so will the glass.
The glass becomes the balanced temperature you are trying to achieve with your equations and carefully crafting them with a spectral calculator. But thats no the way it works. Uninsulated panels simply are the item that is forced to adopt the midway temperature. Insulated panels do the same thing except they have a temperature drop across their crosssection also.
There is no forcing. It can’t be any other way unless its an electric blanket.
You would thing the great educators in Boulder Colorado would have the world plastered with this stuff. The problem is it is they don’t want to educate they want to inculcate with propaganda.
You have to examine the engineering calculations for radiation and convection set by the US Bureau of Standards to begin to understand why a greenhouse effect is difficult to pin down.
And an interesting side note is it was only in the late 1970’s that the agency that establishes standards realized that there was a lot of bogus information running around about radiation barriers and zero standards. So they established equation standards and testing requirements for actually getting calculations correct.
So you are barking up the wrong tree. There still are a lot of scientists running around that don’t know any of this. I assume it doesn’t include anybody working on GCMs hopefully. Bottom line here bdgwx no forcing occurs at least until convection creek runs dry.
Thats the top of the atmosphere. wherever the heck that is. I doubt there is even any forcing there. the theory is that thickening layers of CO2 will cause radiation blocking higher in the atmosphere and create more greenhouse effect. I think thats bosh too but that’s the theory everybody is working on and mentioned by Dr. Curry when she brings up M&W 1967. That was the great paper that essentially got people in the know actually thinking maybe they have discovered the real greenhouse theory.
Before then it was more like an alter with some decorations and copies of Arrhenius plastered on the alter. Up until then you couldn’t teach the stuff without the thermodynamic students erupting in choruses of laughter.
And of course that was also about the time that Dr. Roger Revelle had Al Gore as a student also. Must have been an exhilarating time! To finally absolve Arrhenius from having his reputation destroyed by that rascal Woods oil lover devil about 60 years earlier. But this 2nd coming may also be a phantom.
bill said: bdgwx, there is no reality to what you are writing.
Then prove me wrong with math.
I will tell you that nearly all scientists agree with me including Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer.
bdgwx says:
What Im saying is that the arrangement
S (344.6K) to A (289.8K) to C (0K)
has heat transfer of
S to A: 5.67e-8*(344.6^4 289.8^4) = 400 W/m^2
A to C: 5.67e-8*(289.8^4 000.0^4) = 400 W/m^2
so body A is in steady-state at these temperatures and has an energy imbalance of 0 W/m^2. Therefore it will remain at 290K.
=================================
Well its not going to remain stable.
You forget that you are talking about layers in the atmosphere with molecules flying all over the place from a couple hundred meters a second to a couple thousand meters per second smashing into each other at 5 times the rate they release photons. I doubt there is much stability.
He is not talking about the real atmosphere, Bill, or convection. He asked you whether his analysis of radiant heat transfer is correct.
Impressive obfusaction!
“You forget that you are talking about layers in the atmosphere with molecules flying all over the place from a couple hundred meters a second to a couple thousand meters per second smashing into each other at 5 times the rate they “
bill said: Well its not going to remain stable.
So now Ein-Eout=0 is no longer stable or steady-state?
bill said: You forget that you are talking about layers in the atmosphere with molecules flying all over the place from a couple hundred meters a second to a couple thousand meters per second smashing into each other at 5 times the rate they release photons. I doubt there is much stability.
If you haven’t yet understood simple idealized scenarios there’s no way you’re going to understand a scenario that is vastly more complex.
If view factors = 1 between your source and A, then your source will heat A until A is also at 344 K.
Let’s test it out DREMT…
Ain-left = 800 W/m^2
Ain-right = 0 W/m^2
Aout-left = 800 W/m^2
Aout-right = 800 W/m^2
Ain-Aout = 800/2 + 0/2 – 800/2 – 800/2 = -400 W/m^2
Nope. A is not in steady state at 344.6K.
But what about 289.8?
Ain-left = 800 W/m^2
Ain-right = 0 W/m^2
Aout-left = 400 W/m^2
Aout-right = 400 W/m^2
Ain-Aout = 800/2 + 0/2 – 400/2 – 400/2 = 0 W/m^2
There we go. A is in steady-state at 289.8K.
If this sinks in we can move onto the scenario with body B included as well. I have no objections to using spherical geometry so that view factor distraction can be completely eliminated.
Your source supplies A with 800 W/m^2. There is no way for A to get rid of that energy but to the right hand side of it. It can’t lose any to the left hand side, the source is in the way. Infinite parallel planes, remember, if VF=1…
So, A must warm to a temperature such that it is emitting 800 W/m^2.
Otherwise, at 290 K, it is receiving 800 W/m^2, but only losing 400 W/m^2.
Let that sink in.
DREMT,
Seriously? You really think that A emits 0 W/m^2 (at 0K) on its left side and 800 W/m^2 (at 344.6K) on its right side?
The mean temperature of would now only be (0+344)/2 = 172K (assuming the gradient is linear). And although that state is at least consistent with the 1LOT and satisfies Ein-Eout=0 you are now violating the 0LOT and 2LOT because the sequence 344K to 0K to 344K to 0K isn’t going to work.
And think about this logically…no other body in the history of ever has stopped radiating altogether on the side facing a warmer body. Don’t believe me…get your IR thermometer out and point it at the sky which is facing the warmer ground. Do it for any surface facing a warmer body. The result is all the same.
bdgwx says: “Then prove me wrong with math.”
bdgwx, it’s not your math that is the problem. It’s your knowledge of physics that is a disaster.
Calculating values with a bogus equation just gives you bogus values.
bdgwx bashes another straw man to death.
It would emit 800 W/m^2 from both sides…however it can only lose energy on its right side. It cannot lose energy on the side facing the source. That is the side over which A is gaining all its energy, from the source, after all. I have explained this to you already.
bdgwx is attempting to revive the “blue-green plates” nonsense. But, he knows it has been completely debunked, so he is trying to bring it back in a disguise. But, he’s got the letters so confused that we can’t follow, even though we know what he’s trying to do. He’s got “S”, and “A”, and “C” all confused. Is “S” an object, or a source, or both?
He could make the discussion a lot clearer if he just used the graphics used before.
But then he would be exposing himself….
And now we’re back to this again…
Ain-left = 800 W/m^2
Ain-right = 0 W/m^2
Aout-left = 800 W/m^2
Aout-right = 800 W/m^2
Ain-Aout = 800/2 + 0/2 800/2 800/2 = -400 W/m^2
Notice that Ain-left – Aout-left = 0 W/m^2.
Also notice that 5.67e-8(344.6-344.6) = 0 W/m^2.
There is no net transfer of energy nor is there is a heat flow on the left side of A. You’re using the word “lose” to mean the same thing as when I say “net”. That’s fine. Just stay consistent with your usage.
But…you still have that pesky problem where Ain-Aout = -400 W/m^2. A is either not in steady-state and will begin cooling immediately or you have thrown the 1LOT to the wind. Which one are you going to invoke now?
ClintR said: Calculating values with a bogus equation just gives you bogus values.
I think this sums up your position perfectly. You think the SB law and 1LOT are bogus.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-541964
bdgwx says: “I think this sums up your position perfectly. You think the SB law and 1LOT are bogus.
No bdgwx, that is what you want to BELIEVE. You twist, spin, and pervert reality to fit you beliefs. You are a religious zealot, worshiping corrupt institutions.
The equation you believe in merely gives the difference of fluxes. It’s just a mathematical computation. It has NOTHING to do with heat transfer, since it tells you NOTHING about absorp.tion. The equation has no derivation in physics. It has no purpose other than to attempt to pervert science. A “difference of fluxes” doesn’t even have any meaning if the fluxes were emitted by different temperature surfaces.
You’re WAY over your head.
You have no valid physics, so you have to claim that others believe valid physics like, SB Law and 1LoT, are bogus.
You’re just another useless idiot.
ClintR: It has NOTHING to do with heat transfer, since it tells you NOTHING about absorp.tion.
We’re discussing black bodies. They absorb everything.
Wrong, bdgwx. “It” was the bogus equation. That’s what I was discussing. I NEVER mentioned black bodies. Nice attempted distraction.
Do you ever get tired of trying to deceive people?
Clint “Keep in mind that Curry does not understand the physics of Earths energy flows.”
What more evidence do you need, Bill, to listen to the real experts like Curry, as opposed to idiot trolls like Clint who declare that no one understands physics, but him?
Well Clint is right – nobody does understand earth’s energy flows.
In fact, Dr. Curry recognizes that as well when she said: ”why are we still using such a vastly oversimplified model to assess climate sensitivity?”
Did you catch that ”vastly” adjective Nate?
I explained to Clint that she wasn’t relying ”heavily on the nonsense coming from the AGW believers.” but was instead doing her part in working toward fixing the most obvious errors in the control model.
Ultimately there is good reason to see the possibility of some control but its not possible to see it in the grade-school model because that model simply doesn’t get the job done in an atmosphere.
The idiot trolls are the ones saying otherwise. I actually have some hope for you Nate. Perhaps you can lead Svante and bdgwx out of the valley of darkness. But you will have to set aside any political agendas you have ascribed to in order to do that.
My prescription for you doing that is a virtual nicotine patch, where you go back and carefully reread M&W 1967 and repeat over and over to yourself as you read it – ”its not just radiation. . .its not just radiation. . .its not just radiation. . .its not just radiation”
Thats the only point I have been making is that feedbacks and radiant forcing need to considered in tandem throughout the entire atmosphere and as a result we don’t know if any CO2 effects actually reach the surface. Looking at the stratosphere and how CO2 is unable to cope with 10ppm of ozone might be a predictor of its impotence in the troposphere as well.
“Well Clint is right – nobody does understand earth’s energy flows.”
Well even if that were accurate, it does not follow that Clint has a better understanding of the physics of any of it than Judith Curry or any of the others on your list.
Again this is YOUR list of so-called expert consultants. Unless your interest is learning advanced trolling techniques, you should be listening to them rather than idiot trolls like Clint.
Just a thought.
Nate says:
Well even if that were accurate, it does not follow that Clint has a better understanding of the physics of any of it than Judith Curry or any of the others on your list.
Again this is YOUR list of so-called expert consultants. Unless your interest is learning advanced trolling techniques, you should be listening to them rather than idiot trolls like Clint.
Just a thought.
========================================
Actually Nate I haven’t heard Clint explain how he thinks the greenhouse effect works. Are you sure that you think he is operating as an ”expert consultant”?
I know I am not. But anybody should be free to question the science as clearly there is a lot to question. Dr Curry testifies to that.
Nate, name-calling seems to suit you. You were never good at responsible comments, anyway.
“Nate, name-calling seems to suit you. You were never good at responsible comments, anyway.”
Wait, the guy who never has a proper science rebuttal, but always has a handy playground insult, is complaining about name-calling?
That’s like DT complaining about Cronyism and Swampiness in Washington!
As I said: “You were never good at responsible comments, anyway.”
b hunter wrote lots of words, including:
.
M&W was the state of the science in 1967. Moving on, there have been many other papers with increasing model sophistication. The Greenhouse Effect theory no longer depends on a single, simple model. For example try: Ramanthan & Coakley (1978). That work was published 42 years ago.
E. Swanson says:
The Greenhouse Effect theory no longer depends on a single, simple model. For example try: Ramanthan & Coakley (1978). That work was published 42 years ago.
================================
I think what Dr. Curry was saying is what you are perhaps saying. With what we know now: ”Why are we still using such a vastly oversimplified model to assess climate sensitivity?”
I don’t think R&C does anything to mitigate what we know now.
The concluding remarks from R&C aren’t helpful when they say: Radiative-convective models underestimate change in surface temperature. (However observations say M&W overestimated it by about 60% on the radiative convective part to 100%, the latter in the case of GCMs).
they also argue that the radiative convective model is of academic interest only (since its not predictive) and helpful in assigning cause and effect to outputs from GCMs. Gasp!
In other words if you believe in the orthodoxy you can say with authority you understand the cause and effect even though the models don’t help with that. What a bunch of bosh! A total gish gallop! What do you see in there worthwhile Swanson?
R&C could have been more straight forward and said we really like the idea because it gives us something to assign blame with while the GCMs come up short in that.
The fact is apparent Swanson that R&C merely compounds the error.
b hunter wrote:
You write as if R&C’s paper represents current science, which it obviously does not. What their work showed is the importance of modeling the atmosphere as multiple layers, not a simple layer, as some want to do. They were also writing at a time when GCMs were in their infancy and coupled ocean-atmosphere global models had not arrived.
Much has been learned about the oceans circulation patterns and how they influence climate, knowledge which is integral to our understanding of the present dilemma facing humanity. The time lag due to the oceans isn’t included in R&C or other works of the time.
You need to read more than just the conclusions to understand things. Get off your high horse and do some research, i.e., read the literature, such as the references in R&C’s paper. And do let us know when your peer reviewed paper is published.
E. Swanson says:
You write as if R&Cs paper represents current science, which it obviously does not. What their work showed is the importance of modeling the atmosphere as multiple layers, not a simple layer, as some want to do. They were also writing at a time when GCMs were in their infancy and coupled ocean-atmosphere global models had not arrived.
Much has been learned about the oceans circulation patterns and how they influence climate, knowledge which is integral to our understanding of the present dilemma facing humanity. The time lag due to the oceans isnt included in R&C or other works of the time.
You need to read more than just the conclusions to understand things. Get off your high horse and do some research, i.e., read the literature, such as the references in R&Cs paper. And do let us know when your peer reviewed paper is published.
========================================
I realize that the science is moving rapidly on all this. But right now to me it seems like rapidly is something like Voyager 1 traveling 17km/sec progress to Proxima Centauri.
IMO, I think there are some fundamental flaws in our approach. So this paper I am working on isn’t going to solve the climate change issue. M&W and R&C didn’t either. Instead what they did is they directed the climate modeling logic. The paper I am working on is no different, it just suggests a different outcome which of course will also be in need of validation like M&W and R&C needed and found wanting resulting in new epicycles being incorporated no doubt not unlike the history of the Ptolemy theory.
Fact is 100’s of billions have been spent, if not trillions on the current theory, both to detect, estimate, and mitigate its predictions. You might say it has built up a huge economy of its own. So I hold no great expectations for my paper considering the wind its going to be thrown into. But I suppose it’s possible that Copernicus ended up with a grin on the face of his soul. Some things you do like tilting at windmills you do because you think it’s the right thing to do. . . .which of course you need freedom to do it also.
Mark, I apologize. This blog stripped out important information from my post. (1) and (2) should look like this…
(1) C
A > C(2) C
A > B > C…hopefully that goes though. If not I’ll try again with different arrangement of characters.
Wow. That clearly did not work. Let’s try again.
(1) C A ==> C
(2) C A ==> B ==> C
Yikes. I’m sorry. I’m going to have to experiment to figure out why the blog won’t allow me to enter what I want.
Take 4…
(1) C <<
>> A >>> C(2) C <<
>> A >>> B >>> CTake 5…
(1) C { S } A } C
(2) C { S } A } B } C
There we go. The blog kept removing my S. Let { an arrow to the left and } be arrow to the right. Sorry, but the blog is treating more obvious directional characters as special and causing some really pertinent symbolism to get mangled unbeknownst to me.
bdgwx, that’s so pathetic I could almost feel sorry for you, if I didn’t know you were out to deceive others and pervert reality.
bdg…you are completely ignoring the 2nd law. Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler body to a hotter body.
No exceptions.
344K to 290K to 270K to 0K
Heat is always being transferred from warmer to cooler.
Until you have your cooler object B warming your warmer object A. In reality, A simply warms B until it is the same temperature as A.
Mark Wapples
1. ” This is based on ghe argument that ice can warm up a warmer surface. ”
This is by no means a GHE argument; it is the intentionally distorted variant of what has been described by Rudolf Emanuel Clausius in 1887:
https://www.twirpx.com/file/1480601/
It is the fact that though heat never can flow without external effect from a cold body to a hot one, both bodies radiate, and the resulting energy moving from hot to cold is the difference between the two radiation intensities. The radiation emitted by the warmer body always remains greater than that emitted by the cooler one.
All the rest is discrediting, denigrating, distorting and lying: pseudoskeptic business as usual, to doubt is here degraded from a sound control instrument down to a self-feeded goal. You merely see here critique, no scientific contradiction.
*
2. ” As we are constantly being told all the ice is being melted so there will be less of a warming effect so it will be colder and we will go into an ice age. ”
This IMHO is a valuable thought.
Oceanographers reported over 20 years ago about a strong decrease of salinity in the Northwestern Atlantic; crossing this information with ice core research gave hints to a similar situation during the Younger Dryas.
The result at that time was an abrupt cooling, followed by an abrupt rewarming. See for example
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml
for further details.
In 1999, I stored only the link to the paper.
But I remember that the oceanographers wrote that not so much the rapid ice melting as such was the primary cause for the harsh cooling; rather, the lack of salt on the surface of the ocean was the real cause, since it severely disturbed the Atlantic end of the thermohaline circulation.
Thus: you were all but wrong.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
JD, you completely missed the boat! Likely you got lost in your language barrier, but you got lost.
1) Mark was referring to the nonsense here in the last few days where idiots are claiming ice can make sunshine even hotter.
2) So Mark is spoofing the nonsense by suggesting that if the ice melts, there will be less warmth, since ice is a warming mechanism.
Does that help?
Mark Wapples
Here is Clausius’ text published in 1887:
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich
bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
i.e.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
Of course, in 1887 it was usual to mix radiation and heat, but this doesn’t change a iota to Clausius’ understanding of the stuff.
Binny,
Clausius. 1897. * It is known . . . *
It was also * known * that the luminiferous ether was required to transmit radiation as waves. It turned out that what * everybody knew * was wrong.
You might consider updating your physics.
binny…”It is the fact that though heat never can flow without external effect from a cold body to a hot one, both bodies radiate, and the resulting energy moving from hot to cold is the difference between the two radiation intensities. The radiation emitted by the warmer body always remains greater than that emitted by the cooler one”.
1) note the following: “…heat never can flow without external effect from a cold body to a hot one…”. That means it cannot flow naturally from cold to hot.
2)…”the resulting energy moving from hot to cold is the difference between the two radiation intensities. The radiation emitted by the warmer body always remains greater than that emitted by the cooler one…”
This pre-dates Stefan/Boltzmann but it is saying essentially the same thing, that hotter bodies radiate more radiation. It says nothing about heat being transferred from cold to hot.
3)Sadly, because I really respect the work of Clausius, he was severely limited in his understanding of radiation. Everyone of his era, from him to Stefan/Boltzmann, Maxwell, and Planck, thought heat could be transferred through space as heat rays.
When Clausius did his work on heat, the electron had yet to be discovered and it was not discovered till the 1890s. It took another 20 years before Bohr put the electron together with electromagnetic radiation to demonstrate the interaction between the two, that heat is converted to EM by electrons and vice-versa.
I feel for Clausius because his work on solids and gases wrt heat was brilliant and he demonstrated an uncanny insight into atomic structure considering his lack of knowledge about the electron. I learned a heck of a lot from reading this dude and I think his work should be mandatory reading for the modern nerds who completely botch his 2nd law and entropy.
Mark Wapples
Feel free to admire the trash produced by three ignorant and stubborn boasters… only pretentious words, no valuable science.
J.-P. D.
JD, apparently you are still not getting it. Mark’s comment was filled with sarcasm/ridicule of some of the nonsense people here espouse.
Not understanding science, or Mark’s comment, you deceived yourself. And you now continue in that direction, blaming others for your incompetence.
carbon500…”Genomic approaches for pathogen discovery, including consensus polymerase chain reaction (PCR), microarrays, and unbiased next-generation sequencing (NGS), have the capacity to comprehensively identify novel microbes present in clinical samples”.
Load of bs by one of the New Age imposters in science. I am trying to respect Roy’s generosity in allowing us to go off topic. When I do go off-topic, I try to relate it to the pseudo-science offered by some climate science to explain CAGW and the degree to which the status quo will go to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them. Roy, John Christy of UAH, and Richard Lindzen have all experienced such nonsense. I am trying to show that modern science cannot be trusted much of the time since they replaced the scientific method with inference and consensus.
There is an established method for identifying a virus and it was established by the Louis Pasteur Institute. The virus must be isolated, purified, then seen on an electron microscope. When isolated, which means separating the virus from its cell culture, it can then be applied to uninfected cells to see if it kills them.
The next-generation sequencing referenced above is more bs. Because they have strands of RNA, they believe they can piece them together to form a genome. However, the strands of RNA were introduced into the experiments by the researchers in the first place by their methodology.
THEY DON’T HAVE THE ACTUAL VIRUS TO CONFIRM THEIR ALLEGATIONS!!! If they had it, why would they need to go through all the bs mentioned in the quote above? They could find its genome directly.
The alleged covid genome was examined by Montagnier, who discovered HIV, and he thinks it is man-made. It has sequences in the genome that he claims come from HIV. However, Montagnier thinks the genome is legit whereas Lanka has pointed out it was created on a model which had a database with all the RNA sequences required. Where there were breaks in the sequence, they simply filled them in using what they ‘thought’ fit best. With the fake covid genome, the idiots obviously inserted RNA strands found in HIV.
This was done with the measles virus. Researchers argued for 50 years over what genetic material made up the virus. If they had the actual virus, that would be unnecessary. The point is, the virus was inferred based on consensus.
This is no different than climate modeling. If they can’t explain something, they make it up. They created a warming effect for CO2 and created a positive feedback related to back-radiation. That’s what they are doing in modern virology, a whole lot of creative and imaginative theorizing that is supported by consensus.
With HIV, the scientists credited with ‘discovering’ it, Luc Montagnier, freely admitted he could not see HIV during the third step using the EM. He admitted he has never seen HIV. So, he developed an alternative method which involved finding evidence of reverse transcriptase and ‘inferring’ strands of RNA came from a virus.
Why?? If you can see the damned virus, why all the bs of inferring one?
Using that method, he got a sample from a lymph node of a person with AIDS, prepared it and added it to an uninfected cell culture. The sample killed cells so Montagnier leaped to the conclusion he had a virus.
Fast forward to 2016, where Stefan Lanka, a microbiologist is defending himself in court. He offered a considerable sum of money to anyone who could prove there was a measles virus using certain criteria. Someone claimed the award and a lower court upheld his claim. On appeal, Lanka convinced a higher court that the plaintiff had nor proved his case and to do that, he commissioned an independent study to prove that the cells claimed to be killed by the virus would have died anyway.
The court agreed based on that and other information but the point made by Lanka is astonishing. No virus identification has run a control study to see if the cells claimed to be killed by any unseen virus would have died due to the preparations of the cells like pre-starving them of nutrients, to make them more susceptible to the so-called virus, and adding antibiotics to prevent bacterial infection.
In other words, there’s no scientific evidence that any of the popular viruses, from measles to polio, even exist. I am not claiming they don’t exist, I am passing on Lanka’s information that no proof exists to support the claims. Photo’s offered as proof have been systematically debunked by Lanka who has identified them as nothing more than cell particles related to dead cells.
Back to Montagnier, who admitted HIV cannot be seen. Researchers devised a method to amplify the cell samples using the PCR method referenced in the quote above. However, they had no virus to amplify, what they were amplifying were strands of RNA BELIEVED to be from a virus. The method referenced above converts RNA strands to DNA then amplifies the DNA using the PCR method for DNA amplification.
The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis was adamant that PCR could not be used to amplify a virus if it could not be found in the unamplified sample. I think an elementary school kid could understand that logic.
Here’s the pertinent question, why the heck can they not isolate and SEE a virus like HIV? And since it is what is now called an RNA virus (retrovirus), and so is covid, why can the viruses not be isolated and seen on an electron microscope?
Covid was alleged in a Wuhan lab using the bs described in the quote above. At no time was the virus isolated in the true sense of that word but the meaning has been changed by the charlatans to mean strands of unidentified RNA have been found. No one has seen the covid virus because RNA viruses cannot be seen.
There are fraudulent micrographs of it on the Net but they are a serious laugh. Those published by NIAID are different sizes and shapes.That’s not possible when the viruses must come from a certain density gradient during their isolation.
Gordon: ignore all the internet speculation, and treat yourself to a book on molecular biology laboratory diagnostic techniques – and be prepared to spend a lot of time getting to grips with it!
Regarding visualisation of viruses, here’s a link to give you some idea of the complexity of the task – it’s aimed at those in the field, but I think should give some idea of what’s happening:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3773172/
Carbon500
Such proposals are unfortunately useless: Robertson never reads scientific papers. He reads only Contrarian, pseudoskeptic trash.
His goal has never been to fairly discuss anything on this blog: what he intents is
– to push up his egocentric narrative based on pseudoscience he reads in ‘skeptic’ blogs;
– to discredit and denigrate scientists.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
binny…”Such proposals are unfortunately useless: Robertson never reads scientific papers”.
Binny’s rebuttals consist entirely of ad homs and appeals to authority. He’s German and ironically I am far better informed on the brilliant German physicist, Rudolf Clausius, than Binny.
c500…”Gordon: ignore all the internet speculation, and treat yourself to a book on molecular biology laboratory diagnostic techniques…”
What speculation? I am reading straight from the source, from the scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier. Are you trying to tell me the dweebs who wrote the article at your link are better informed on HIV than Montagnier?
Montagnier had the guts to admit he has never seen HIV, nor has anyone else. Take a look at the sad examples of HIV presented in that article. They are talking about freeze-drying which adds yet another dimension to the obfuscation. The micrographs are unviewable and they see spikes on that garbage because they are looking for them. For all we know, the bombardment of the specimen by electrons caused projections that look like spikes.
Lanka is an expert on viruses. I told you he convinced a German high court no scientific proof exists to support the measles virus. He also testified on behalf of a German doctor claimed to have infected people with HIV that no scientific proof exists to support the HIV theory. The court accepted his testimony over that of other so-called witnesses.
There is no proof that HIV exists. Even Montagnier admitted he could not see HIV on an EM yet the yahoos at your link talk about it as if it is an every day experience. Those idiots could not tell a virus from a banana peel.
Furthermore, Montagnier now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and the data backs him.
Gordon: you say: ‘Are you trying to tell me the dweebs who wrote the article at your link are better informed on HIV than Montagnier?’
Before referring to them as ‘dweebs’, perhaps you should have a look at the author’s backgrounds.
You’re obsessed with seeing viruses.Identification of viruses is not simple. They cannot be seen without using electron microscopy, hence molecular probes are used.The point of these detection techniques is that structural and genetic similarities can be indirectly visualised in a laboratory. This approach yields far more information than looking at a picture of a virus. Antibodies are for example used in viral detection. These target specific structures on a given virus. Antibodies used in this type of assay can be ‘labelled’ to reveal their presence – for example via immunofluorescent dyes. Other techniques include restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, DNA fingerprinting, or PCR. Restriction enzmes (so called because their action is highly specific or restricted to a given DNA base sequence) cut DNA into specific fragments, which have closely related patterns from related viruses when subjected to a technique termed electrophoresis.
PCR (the Polymerase Chain Reaction) is used to amplify RNA or DNA, which can then be further analysed.
As you see, there are many more relevant ways of examining a given virus than just looking a picture via a microscope.
Gordon: following on from my last post, regarding your statement that ‘there is no proof that HIV exists’.
Be in no doubt whatsoever that HIV exists.
The medical molecular technology for its detection is well established:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095005/
bobd…”just google something you dont understand for a change”.
Bob…for all you know, the wiki article could have been copied and pasted by Norman from one of his text books.
I claimed that phonons are imaginary models to represent the flow of heat through an insulator. Here, MIT seems to agree.
https://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-phonons-0706
“In a sense, then, phonon is just a fancy word for a particle of heat”.
Stick with me, Bob, I’ll teach you physics yet. They base that assertion on the fact that heat and sound appears to move through solids like crystals (insulators) in waves and the phonon is the equivalent of the photon in that it particalizes the waves.
MIT even agrees with Clint and Swenson.
“But unlike photons (the particles that carry light or other electromagnetic radiation), which generally dont interact at all if they have different wavelengths, phonons of different wavelengths can interact and mix when they bump into each other, producing a different wavelength. This makes their behavior much more chaotic and thus difficult to predict and control”.
Particles of heat, yeah right Gordon.
Your cite agrees with the wiki link, phonons are vibrating crystals.
So what is vibrating in these crystals, why it’s the nuclei of the atoms involved, which you said couldn’t happen.
You will never teach me any physics.
bobd…”So what is vibrating in these crystals, why its the nuclei of the atoms involved…”
Actually, it’s an interaction of electrostatic forces between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electrons. Local positively charged nucleii are repelling each other while the negatively charged electrons are trying to coral them and hold them together.
Gordon,
You know protons and neutrons are ~1800 times more massive than electrons, so negatively charged electrons can’t coral them.
bob, did you see the words “electrostatic forces”?
Electrostatic force involves “charge”, not mass.
Yeah dumbass,
force equals mass times acceleration
what part of that do you not understand?
Electrons ain’t gonna push protons and neutrons around.
Actually bob, it would be “pull”, since positive and negative charge attract.
b,
When a photon is absorbed by an electron, the result may be to increase the velocity of the whole atom or molecule, like when CO2 absorbs IR photons. Average velocity increases. This is called heating.
So, an electron can corral many neutrons and protons. Whole atoms and molecules, in fact.
Does this surprise you? Are all alarmist donkeys of your ilk?
Im not sure whether your stupidity outweighs your ignorance, or vice versa.
Swenson,
“When a photon is absorbed by an electron, the result may be to increase the velocity of the whole atom or molecule, like when CO2 absorbs IR photons.”
Not right away, first the electron raises one or another of the possible electronic, stretching, vibrational, or rotational states to a higher energy level, which doesn’t affect the velocity, yet.
ClintR,
“Actually bob, it would be pull, since positive and negative charge attract.”
Yeah, ClintR, that’s why electrons are always falling into the nuclei.
Wait, whut, they don’t??
That’s called a “straw man”, bob. And you’re very good at such tricks because that’s all you’ve got.
b,
You wrote – * Not right away, first the electron raises one or another of the possible electronic, stretching, vibrational, or rotational states to a higher energy level, which doesnt affect the velocity, yet. *
You really are as dim as you appear, arent you?
I see why you resort to obscenities, straw men, ad homs, and sarcasm. Its because you cant figure out the difference between stupidity and ignorance. Dont worry, you have enough of both.
Swenson,
But I can tell the difference between arrogance and incompetence!
blob, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
This is what you actually posted
“I heard about phonons a few years ago and my understanding is they are an analog for electrons in insulators.”
bobd…”This is what you actually posted
I heard about phonons a few years ago and my understanding is they are an analog for electrons in insulators.”
I stand by that. Phonons apply to insulators. No need for them in conductors, electrons do that job. In an insulator, electrons are not as free to move around, that’s why they are insulators. Quantum physicists needed something equivalent.
Gordon,
I would say they are like waves of vibrations of the nuclei of atoms in solid objects.
Like nuclei all vibrating with the same frequency.
blob, please stop trolling.
I had time to search way upthread for something this morning. I found what I was looking for, but I also found something interesting.
Several trolls are coming back days after a discussion has moved on, and are making comments. I guess they somehow believe they are “winning” if no one sees their comments? Nate and bobdroege appear to slip in 1-3 days after the discussion is over. MikeR even commented 6 days late once!
Apparently it’s just one more trick used by the trolls. They have nothing better to do.
ClintR,
We do have better things to do, that’s why we may not comment for days or months or even years.
And it’s not about winning, it’s about getting the science correct.
Something you seem to have a problem with, getting science even close to right.
See the comment below about the atmosphere being transparent to light.
According to you, that’s false, actually blatantly false.
Just go outside and check, preferably during the day.
OK bob, sounds good.
See you in about a year.
ClintR,
So here’s bowl of marbles, how many times will you be wrong in the next year?
Winner gets the bowl of marbles.
So have you gone outside yet?
At night to see if stars are different colors, telling us that gases do indeed emit light based on their temperature.
During the day to verify that the atmosphere is mostly transparent to light from the Sun?
To use a verb tense not present in the English language: ClintR you be wrong.
Which means you were wrong, you are wrong, and you will still be wrong in the future.
They are so desperate to defend NASA’s error.
(I knew this was going to be fun.)
ClintR,
Tell us what you think NASA’s error is and we will tell you how you are wrong.
Remember, you were wrong, you are wrong and you will be wrong.
But it is easier to say “you be wrong”
As usual bob, you don’t even understand the issue. You just troll. I don’t even think you have much respect among the other idiots.
bobdroege
Yes ClintR is most certainly wrong and mostly flawed in thinking ability. Will not matter. Gordon Robertson is also wrong most every idea he posts. Contrarians are generally wrong. They are not skeptics, who question things but will accept evidence. Contrarians are not bound by evidence. They just contradict established ideas to do it. As you have observed it does not matter the ideas. They reject anything if it is established.
The Blog PSI is a collection of these types of minds. They need to find each other through the Internet. Then they support each other and do not feel so alone.
That does not make them right. If you observe contrarians, they have a mental system that counts the number of times they repeat false misleading ideas. The more they repeat them the more they think it is true. Just like Flat-Earth thinkers. You can change a Skeptic with logic, and evidence. Not so much with contrarians.
ClintR,
That’s right, you won’t even tell what you think NASA’s error is, because you know we will make fun of you when you do.
Perfect! Norman’s keyboard is smoking again. And bob reveals he knew the answer to his question, so he was just trolling, again.
They’ll do anything to protect their cult, and reject reality.
(I knew this was going to be fun.)
ClintR,
Cool then, I’ll just go straight to making fun of you then, since you have no argument, and have trouble getting out of a wet paper bag.
Who knew contrarians could be so easily triggered.
Still can’t find that NASA mistake, might be best to get out of your mom’s basement, go outside, take a look all around.
bob, we were already aware of you being a troll.
Did you believe you were fooling anyone?
b,
The only thing transparent to light (as physicists use the term) is a vacuum, which is nothing at all.
This is why * the speed of light * is specified as being taken in a vacuum.
NASA considers 23% absorbing to be transparent, I suppose. Thats how much sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere, according to them. NASA used to say 35% in places.
Maybe you could find a GHE or AGW theory somewhere? Or even a hypothesis? How about a scientific description of the GHE?
No?
ClintR,
You know it takes one to know one.
I would rather not troll, but then I am trying to get you to admit that you are wrong on the physics and the science in general.
That makes you the troll.
bob, I can solve Norman’s example, that he couldn’t solve. That Svante couldn’t solve.
Being a troll, you are always claiming others don’t know physics. Here’s your chance to show you at least understand the basics. I’ll even give you some starting points.
* Inner sphere has a surface area of 1 square meter, heated electrically with 300 Watts.
* Outer sphere is just slightly bigger, but not touching inner sphere, heated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.
* Everything is in a vacuum
* Both spheres have emissivity of 1.0
Find the equilibrium temperatures of both spheres.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537404
ClintR,
before I do your problem, a few clarifications are necessary.
A cold object can transfer energy to a warmer object.
The outer shell transmits a total of 200 watts to the inner shell.
If those are correct, I’ll think about it.
But then, you are not qualified to teach physics are you?
Give me the details of when you studied physics and where.
If and only if you provide that information, will I perform your little trick for you.
For quid pro quo, I studied physics at the University of Illinois.
3 semesters of physics for physics and other science majors.
You have enough info to solve the problem, troll.
Lose the “blah-blah”, and solve the problem.
I did.
ClintR,
You didn’t solve the Rabbet’s plate problem correctly, so I don’t think you can solve this one correctly either.
Answer my questions or go fuck yourself.
ClintR,
By the way, you are using the term equilibrium improperly.
There is no equilibrium temperature of either sphere, as the energy transfers are not equal.
Try steady state instead.
Just solve the simple problem, bob.
Desperate attempts to distract and delay won’t get it done.
ClintR,
I have, but will not share my results until you demonstrate that you are qualified to ask the question.
So far, you have fucked up so many easy science questions, that you are totally unqualified to judge other peoples work.
Answer these two questions, that you missed before, and maybe we can proceed.
Is the atmosphere transparent to solar radiation?
Due gases emit radiation based on their temperature?
Now you can answer with as much detail as you like, but I will accept one word answers.
Note that I am a corporate instructor in a science related discipline, so I am qualified to ask and judge you on your responses.
Show your results, bob. Just “claiming” won’t work.
Desperate attempts to distract and delay won’t get it done.
ClintR,
I don’t believe I have signed an employment contract with you.
Try getting the science correct first.
It’s now been over 3 hours since bob acknowledged receipt of the problem, sent last night.
Someone competent could have solved the problem in 10 minutes. Even having to find paper and pen, calculator, more coffee, etc., it could have been solved in 30 minutes. More distractions, maybe an hour. And bob has composed several distracting comments, so he obviously has free time. Even if he had to “phone-a-friend”, he should have had an answer by now.
And hiding behind he won’t give the solution until I answer his nonsense doesn’t fit his personality. If he really thought he had the correct answer, he would be flaunting it.
Time’s up.
The verdict is in. bob is just another incompetent troll.
ClintR,
I am assuming that the outer shell can transmit energy to the inner shell even though the inner shell is warmer, I get 345 and 306.
Flail away.
I believe you failed to understand the inital conditions. The outer sphere is emitting 200 W to the inner sphere. That means it must be receiving 400 W from the electrical source.
Other than that, it appears you did it right. (Meaning your values work for only 200 W input to inner.)
Who helped you?
ClintR,
My cat, since he finished his previous assignment of making serial dilutions for my GC.
I guess if the outer shell is sending 200 watts to the inner shell, it must be getting 400 watts total, so it can emit from both sides, which it has to.
So how did I misunderstand the initial conditions?
Yeah, you got help. You just won’t admit it.
If you knew what you were doing, you would know the energy balance doesn’t work for 400 W input to outer sphere.
Better ask whoever helped you, for some more help.
ClintR,
The center sphere is heated with 300 watts and gets 500 watts from the outer sphere.
The 500 watts comes from the 300 added to the inner sphere and the 200 watts from the outer sphere, so the whole system has to get rid of that 500 watts.
That puts the outer sphere at 306 K, and the inner sphere is 345 K to get to 800 watts out.
So you are right, it doesn’t balance, because your initial conditions are 200 from the outer in to the inner, you specified that, so the outer sphere doesn’t have to also add 200 out because it is already hot enough to provide that amount.
You put a magical one way heater in your problem.
You want it to balance with 200 in and out from the outer sphere, you get a different answer.
No bob, you just don’t have the background to understand the physics.
Norman’s original setup: “Now if the outer shell is heated to a degree where it emits 200 watts to the inner sphere”
My version: “Outer sphere isheated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.”
If it is to emit 200 to the inside, it must emit 200 to the outside. And that requires 400 input.
Now that you understand the initial conditions, go back to your friend and see if you can get the correct answers.
ClintR,
Nope, not going to redo the calculation because you fucked up the initial conditions.
Maybe you should phone a friend.
Is that 200 watts emitted to the inner sphere in addition to the 300 watts that the inner sphere is already contributing to the outer sphere?
That way you get 290 and 243.
Or if it’s not and it’s not a one way heater like you described in your fucked up initial conditions, and you have 400 watts added to the outer shell.
then it’s 364 and 333.
So pick one.
Well after an all day effort, and who knows how much help from friends, you finally got the right answer, on your third effort, bob. I’d say your knowledge of physics is pretty pathetic. And your effort to blame your failings on others is part of your problem.
Correct answers…
364.4 K for Inner sphere
333.3 K for Outer sphere
Energy balances (All units Watts):
Inner Sphere–In 300 + 700, Out 1000
Outer Sphere–In 1000 + 400, Out 700 + 700
System–In 700, Out 700
Assuming…
Outer sphere is barely larger than inner.
Inner sphere exterior SA is 1 m^2.
Outer sphere interior SA is 1 m^2.
Outer sphere exterior SA is 1 m^2.
Inner sphere heated electrically with 300 W (300 W/m^2).
Outer sphere heated electrically with 400 W (200 W/m^2).
Then for steady-state…
Outer sphere must shed 700 W to exterior. This is 700 W/m^2. It’s temperature must be 333K.
Therefore the outer sphere emits 700 W toward the inner sphere. It has another input of 300 W for a total of 1000 W. The inner sphere must shed 1000 W. This is 1000 W/m^2. It’s temperature is 364K.
I agree. 364K for the inner and 333K for the outer.
Now let’s do something fun. Let’s add a middle sphere that does not receive any input other than that provided by the inner and outer spheres. What are the steady-state temperatures of all 3 spheres now?
bdgwx, you come in and agree with the solution I gave? Acting like you could have solved it?
Are you that stupid to believe you can pull off such a con?
I guess you are that stupid. You’re an idiot.
ClintR,
But your solution has the outer plate emitting more than 200 watts/meter squared to the inner plate.
So it’s fucked up.
Your initial conditions has the outer plate heated until it emits 200 watts/meter squared to the inner plate.
Your solution of 363, 333 has the outer sphere providing 700 watt to the inner plate, but your conditions are only that the outer plate is heated until it emits 200 to the inner sphere.
So your solution is fucked up.
That’s your initial conditions, the outer sphere can only emit 200 to the inner sphere.
here are your initial conditions
“heated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.”
The inner sphere only provides enough to get to 150, so the outer sphere has to provide only enough to get to 200, not an additional 200.
So the 290, 243 answer is better as the out sphere is only providing 200 watts per meter to the inner sphere as per your initial conditions.
I knew it was a fucked up problem from the beginning, so I knew which ever solution I provided would be wrong.
Oh and now by the way, you admit that energy can be transferred from cold to hot!
Right, your solution proves energy can go from cold to hot.
You may think you won this battle, but you lost the war.
Apply your thinking to the green plate effect from the Rabbet!
How’s that second law feeling right now?
bob, physics can be very frustrating for idiots.
Go back and study the problem setup. Instead of understanding it, you were (erroneously) trying to claim my use of “equilibrium” was wrong. You need to stop correcting people when you can’t learn. You’re trying to talk with your mouth full of crap.
Even bdgwx understands it. That should tell you how pathetic you are.
As Feynman said –
* It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. *
The problem being discussed seems to make a few unstated assumptions. Consider for a moment placing the inner and outer spheres in contact. Now separate them by an infinitesimal amount. A few questions should occur to enable resolution of the vanished temperature difference.
If you cant figure out the oddity, press on. You havent the knowledge to understand the answer.
ClintR,
I’ll remind you of the initial conditions of the problem
“Outer sphere is just slightly bigger, but not touching inner sphere, heated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.”
Since the outer sphere is already heated by the inner sphere such that is warmer than necessary to emit 200 watts/meter, how is it heated further?
So if you have an electric circuit designed to keep the outer sphere at that temperature, it wont provide any input as the temperature is already maintained, by heat transfer from the inner sphere.
So obviously you have set up a fucked up problem.
Also maybe you should look up what equilibrium means.
Hint: you are constantly adding energy to the system.
bob, the keyword is “initial”. You were given the initial conditions. Your job was to find the temperatures at “equilibrium”, that is the point where the temperatures are no longer changing.
(You seem very confused about the word “equilibrium”. You fail to realize equilibrium in radiative heat transfer is not always the same as equilibrium in conductive heat transfer. Your confusion is likely caused by your inability to learn.)
And the energy is flowing in and out of the system, as I indicated:
Energy balances (All units Watts):
Inner Sphere — In 300 + 700, Out 1000
Outer Sphere — In 1000 + 400, Out 700 + 700
System — In 700, Out 700
Your “education” in physics is obviously a big FAIL. Did you keep your tuition and book receipts? Maybe you could get your money back?
ClintR,
You are trying to solve a 2 heat source problem like it’s a one heat source problem.
If the outer sphere is emitting more than 200 watts per square meter, it won’t draw any current from it’s heater because it’s already at that temperature, actually a little more.
That your initial condition, the outer sphere won’t go to 700 like in your solution, because it’s already beyond 200.
“Outer sphere is just slightly bigger, but not touching inner sphere, heated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.”
320 inner and 270 outer meet the conditions at steady state with actually more than 200 watts from the heater, it’s off, it’s already providing more than 200.
You fucked up the problem, you just won’t admit it.
And you have energy transfer from cold to hot, I had thought that your interpretation of the second law prohibited that.
Good to know you now understand that the second law does not prohibit energy transfer from cold to hot.
I can’t address all of your incompetence bob, as I would be here forever. But I’ll mention one of your errors, just for anyone else that might be interested.
Electrical energy input is different from other energy transfer methods. The electrical current can flow into a “hotter” object because the energy transfer is not caused by temperature difference. It is cause by “voltage difference”. There are several different energy transfer methods, but they all obey 2nd Law.
Keep providing more evidence of your ignorance of physics, bob. I find it very interesting.
ClintR,
I’ll just repeat your initial condition
“Outer sphere is just slightly bigger, but not touching inner sphere, heated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.”
It’s the sphere that is heated to emit 200 W/m^2, so once it is there, there is no more heat input, that is, if you have designed your electrical circuit correctly.
It’s English you are having a problem with.
Now that we have the second law straight, maybe you want to admit that a ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
Maybe not.
Just keep repeating my words, bob. That’s a good way to learn. Repeat them over and over, until you have them memorized.
That way you won’t look so stupid.
ClintR,
Just so you know, your heater is set to heat the outer shell to 244 K, so it emits 200 watts to the inner shell.
When the inner shell, which is heated by 300 watts, gets to its initial temperature based on 300 watts/m^2, it is now heating the outer sphere so that the outer sphere is radiating 300 watts/m^2 to the environment, which means the outer sphere is now hotter than 244 K, so the heater turns off.
It’s not my problem that that’s how you worded the problem.
I wouldn’t put you in charge of designing any electrical circuits.
ClintR said: Even bdgwx understands it.
If I had worked of your original statement I would have come up with the same result bobdroege did initially as well.
I suggest we move on to fun stuff.
So with two spheres with SA of 1 m^2 with the inner heated by 300 W and the outer heated by 400 W the temperatures are 364K and 333K respectively. Each sphere is in energy balance such that Ein-Eout=0. In other words, they are in steady-state so they will remain at 364K and 333K indefinitely.
Now add a middle sphere that receives no extra input; just what is coming from the inner and outer. What are the temperatures of the 3 spheres now?
Remember…we’re looking for the steady-state temperatures. So each sphere must satisfy the condition Ein-Eout=0 like we did for the 2 sphere scenario.
bob, heater is set so outer sphere emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere. That means it is also emitting 200 W/m^2 to space. That means the outer sphere is receiving 400 Watts from the heater.
At equilibrium with the inner sphere, the outer sphere has a temperature of 333.3 K because it must emit all of the energy input to the system.
Keep providing more evidence of your ignorance of physics, bob. I find it very interesting.
bdgwx, thanks for admitting you couldn’t have gotten the correct answers without my help.
ClintR,
You still don’t realize that you put different conditions on your two heaters, and you still treat them the same, and you don’t understand that.
” Inner sphere has a surface area of 1 square meter, heated electrically with 300 Watts.
* Outer sphere is just slightly bigger, but not touching inner sphere, heated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.”
If you had specified that the outer heater is set to 200 watts, then yes your solution is correct.
But you didn’t, you specified the outer heater is set to 200 watts/meter^2, so it’s a different problem.
Once the outer shell is heated by the inner shell and goes above 200 watts/meter^2, then it no longer adds heat because it is set to 200 watts/meter^2 or 243 K, not a constant input of 200 watts.
The problem is you don’t understand your own problem.
bob, that was discussed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542595
You can’t understand because you’re an idiot. Norman understands, he’s the one that came up with the example. Even bdgwx understands. That puts you at the bottom of the idiot list, along with Svante, Nate, SGW, and Ball4.
At least you have some company….
ClintR,
You have to keep an eye on your units.
300 watts for the inner sphere, those are different units than the 200 watts/meter^2 for the outer sphere.
So you can’t treat them the same.
Why is that so hard for you?
Looks like you put me in good company.
Now you don’t even know the difference between “W/m^2” and “Watts”.
I’m not surprised.
ClintR,
That’s exactly my point, that you are getting watts/meter^2 mixed up with watts.
300 watts to the inner sphere
200 watts per meter squared to the outer sphere
Dumb
Yes you are dumb, bob. In fact, you’re an idiot.
You started out quoting me exactly, but now you are misrepresenting me. As you realize you can’t fake a knowledge of physics, you resort to perverting reality. You are getting more and more desperate. So that’s a good place for me to end this.
It was necessary to devote this much time, as you are always claiming someone doesn’t know physics. I’ve got enough evidence now that it is YOU that is clueless.
Enjoy talking to yourself….
ClintR,
Here are your exact words
” Inner sphere has a surface area of 1 square meter, heated electrically with 300 Watts.
* Outer sphere is just slightly bigger, but not touching inner sphere, heated electrically so that it emits 200 W/m^2 to inner sphere.”
Inner sphere heated with 300 watts
Outer sphere heated to emit 200 W/m^2
So how am I misrepresenting what you say.
I learned early to keep track of units and not to fuck up by mixing them up, like you have done.
blob, please stop trolling.
Somebody sneaked in the last post after you left ? I have a suggestion for you – go cry to your mama !!!
Swenson
You are not amazing me with your brilliance. I already know the components of solar energy. Did you look at my linked graph of the spectrum?
https://tinyurl.com/yyhz8cyf
“Glass reacts to light differently based on its chemical composition. Completely clear glass, for example, absorbs between 2-4% of the light that passes through it, while prismatic glass absorbs between 5-10%”
This is why your post is not very good about NASA and the term transparent to O2 and N2.
Transparent glass still absorbs light energy.
Most the 20 or so percent of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere is in the IR bands and absorbed by CO2, and H2O. N2 absorbs almost none.
Norman, now you’re down here trying to cover for NASA, your false “god of science”. Remember your desperate actions were predicted:
“You have already learned that Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation.”
That’s blatantly FALSE. And it comes from NASA! That’s like the “holy city” for the cult. It will be fun to watch them try to spin, twist, pervert reality to cover up another mistake.
ClintR
You should go by ClodR as you are really thick and not very smart.
I gave you the valid definition of transparent.
Basically you just like to post I guess as you have nothing of value to add.
The only deception comes from you. NASA is not the “god of science” but the sentence you say is “blatantly FALSE” is NOT and you have done nothing to prove it is. You are proud of your ignorance. Amazing really. Most people do not boast of how little they know. Most like to take some pride in what they do know and understand. You are a strange one indeed.
Once you have been corrected and you continue to post false misleading information you become a liar. It is one thing to be ignorant. But once informed and you continue in your wrong statements you go from ignorant to outright liar. Kind of like Gordon Robertson with his many lies on viruses. He has been informed of his incorrect views so when he continues to spread false information he is now a liar.
Norman, you may have to go back for more indoctrination. You can’t use secular definitions. You must use the definitions from your cult:
They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation, which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation.
Keep spinning.
(I knew this was going to be fun.)
ClintR
It is correct. N2 and O2 do not absorb much solar incoming radiation (insignificant amount) nor do they absorb an significant amount of Upwelling IR. Yes these two gases are basically transparent to those bands of EMR. NASA statement is correct, you are wrong. Simple conclusion. I wait for the next incorrect statement you will make.
Step 1) NASA says N2 and O2 are transparent to solar.
Step 2) I point out the two gases are NOT transparent, even mentioning ozone production by solar UV.
Step 3) Norman tries to downplay the “amount”.
Step 4) Then, Norman tries to play semantics with the definition of “transparent”.
Step 5) But NASA had defined their use of “transparent”.
Step 6) Everything Norman tried, failed. So now he just declares he’s correct, ignoring the reality. Just like the idiot he is.
Also from the NASA link: “The sun’s ultraviolet wavelengths are strongly absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere.” Just more reality for Norman to try to deny.
(I knew this was going to be fun.)
ClintR
1) Yes NASA is correct
2) No you have done NO such thing. Define transparent? Is glass transparent to visible light? Do this before you continue.
3) No downplay, the amount is really important to the definition of transparent, please define the word transparent.
4) NO you are the one confused by the word! You think it means nothing at all can be absorbed. You are clearly wrong in your view.
5) Then give the definition NASA uses for transparent
6) Maybe you flunked Chemistry ozone is O3 neither N2 nor O2, it is a different molecule. It is the one that absorbs the bulk of solar UV.
All your points are wrong and bad. I guess you like to expose your ignorance. I demonstrated all your points are ignorant. You have not accomplished any value here.
Great denial, Norman. I especially enjoyed your effort to distract with semantics and definitions. Made even funnier because I gave you the NASA definition!
And adding to that was your confusion about ozone!
I knew this was going to be fun.
ClintR
On the technical level they are totally correct. N2 and O2 as molecules do not individually absorb or emit EMR in the IR bands.
It requires a complex of molecules that create slight dipoles among the group to emit any IR and then it is a tiny fraction of all the nonpolar molecules that it does not amount to a measurable quantity and is quite insignificant in any radiant heat transfer calculation.
In science you do leave out insignificant things in order to progress.
A little Chemistry lesson for you:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Book%3A_Molecular_and_Atomic_Spectroscopy_(Wenzel)/4%3A_Infrared_Spectroscopy/4.1%3A_Introduction_to_Infrared_Spectroscopy
Norman, I wasn’t talking about infrared.
Of course I know you have no interest in accuracy, honesty, or reality. Your cult doesn’t recognize or appreciate such.
ClintR
The NASA definition contained Solar or IR. UV light is primarily absorbed by O3 not N2 or O2 although you need O2 to dissociate to make the Ozone but the O3 is what absorbs the most UV not the other two molecules. I suppose sunlight might have some UV in the range that N2 absorbs but it would be exceedingly small so it would not be considered.
You claim to have taken physics. You then know that significant digits are very important. If the value is below the threshold of the significant digits of your measuring device it does not count.
The amount of energy that either N2 or O2 absorb falls below that threshold of value.
I contend that NASA is not wrong with the claim made.
Norman, you don’t recognize your OCD. You are obsessed with defending your false religion. You will type all night, if you have to. Just think if you had that much devotion to something worthwhile….
A normal person would have just admitted that the NASA text was not exactly correct. But you can’t do that. You are obsessed that your “god of science” must be perfect.
I knew how you idiots would respond. That’s why I made sure it got notice.
It was fun.
N,
Anything below visible wavelengths is IR. What wavelengths do you think oxygen and nitrogen emit at 20C? None? No temperature at all?
Heres what NASA says – * Light comes to Earth in waves. Some of the waves are long. Some of the waves are short. The waves are all different in their size. We can see some of the waves in the form of color. But other waves we cannot see with our eyes. But we can see them with special cameras.
Infrared light is one of the lights we can see with special cameras. Infrared light shows us how hot things are. It can also show us how cold things are. But it all has to do with heat. *
You see? Infrared light shows how hot things are. Like gases. Everything above absolute zero emits IR.
ClintR
Here is the funny thing about your posts. You are all over NASA for
their wording (also it looks like the page comes from something for the General Public and not so concerned with rigid language, just get the ideas across) then you fail in your own posts.
Now you say: “A normal person would have just admitted that the NASA text was not exactly correct.”
That would be a fair statement. Your initial assessment was: “That’s blatantly FALSE.”
Yes Norman, it’s blatantly false. And if you weren’t OCD, you could have behaved rationally and responded with something like: “Yeah, the NASA text was not exactly correct.”
But that didn’t happen.
N,
No, as Feynman showed experimentally, reflection can be zero. Sir Isaac Newton knew this, but could not explain it.
Quantum electrodynamics does. Verified by experiment.
You were saying?
“Swenson says:
October 19, 2020 at 6:28 AM
RR,
Poorly. Thats why hurricane updates are at least 6 hourly. A 12 year old with 30 minutes instruction, a straight edge, and a pencil, can do about as well.”
Truly the most idiotic thing I’ve heard anyone say!
It takes days to secure and evacuate the oil platforms in the U.S Gulf of Mexico. I sure am glad you are not one of the modelers developing these forecasts. Get real!
Satellite Animation Shows Nate Become a Hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpzxF9H2wck
Offshore oil rig dealing with massive waves! – Engineering Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t80tOhAS4Oo
RR,
Maybe you can show that Im wrong? The method of naive persistence forecasting is widely used for commercial wind farms.
You might want to read a couple of peer-reviewed articles in Nature. Some of the graphs were generated using Python, so you should be happy.
Alarmist donkeys find reality ridiculous and beyond belief, yet again!
Nate says:
Bill, this particular topic is right in my wheelhouse, and far from yours. In physics we learn way way more than ‘cartoonish analogies.’
So it is extremely weird and Dunning-Krugeresque that you try to lecture me on this.
And your claim that my education is somehow a hindrance is extremely ignorant and implausible.
======================================
Nate I never said you didn’t learn anything worthwhile in your physics education, far from it. But you would have to tell me how it has helped you.
And yes its important to recognize what kind of hindrance an education can give you while at the same time provide a huge boost. Those things don’t necessarily offset one another.
I just downloaded A(nta)rctic sea ice extent daily data.
Here is the Arctic, in absolute form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rIi_Ml6yinPkUWPDFPz4VEy9BUX4fZL/view
Looks funny! Instead of going up nicely, as it seemed to do at the beginning of October, the sea ice cheekily decides to pass 2019 first! Well so what…
In departure form, this is even a bit more visible:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
*
At the other pole, everything OK, the departures keep pretty good above the mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BCEkUrq8b2d_DwZZZRM43rQwMDrWnEdM/view
J.-P. D.
Nice graphs!
It is the lowest extent for this date on record.
It is the widest departure from the climatological average on record.
The YtD mean is the lowest of any year on record.
Yes, yes bdgwx.
But Humanity faces quite a lot of dangers: hunger, lack of drinkable waterfatal diseases, drugs, wars all around the world, deforestation, pollution etc etc etc.
J.-P. D.
swenson…”This is why * the speed of light * is specified as being taken in a vacuum”.
I was pondering the other day, as I waited for the kettle to boil, why Einstein had such a fetish with the speed of light.
E = mc^2
Far too convenient that energy should be related to mass by the speed of light squared.
Dayton Miller, who opposed Einstein’s theory of relativity, was holding out for the discovery of an aether in a vacuum to explain why the velocity of light is a constant. Einstein admitted, that if Miller is right, his theory of relativity is wrong.
Recent studies have revealed that the vacuum of space is actually teeming with the sub-atomic particle, the neutrino.
–Recent studies have revealed that the vacuum of space is actually teeming with the sub-atomic particle, the neutrino.–
I don’t think needed a study to indicate space is ” teeming with the sub-atomic particle, the neutrino”. But is it teaming with more matter than the Solar wind?
And if so, how much more.
Solar wind
speed: 395.6 km/sec
density: 7.1 protons/cm3
And how many per cubic meter, 7.1 million proton
And per 100 km km long and meter by meter: 710,000 million
Times 3.966 = 2,815,860 million protons pass thru square meter of space in 1 second.
If “wind” was going .3956 km per second {395.6 meter per second or 882.9 mph} it would be 2,815 million protons which pass thru square meter per second. {1/1000th less mass in given volume of space}.
And neutrinos travel near speed of light or about 1000 times faster than solar wind.
It seems if solar wind increased it’s density by 100 times, that probably effect speed of light.
If solar increase it’s velocity by 100 times, that probably should not effect the speed of Light. But if solar wind was 100 times faster, would effect planet earth a lot more. And make space travel more difficult.
In terms of Einstein and bending light, I would be interested in density of solar wind at 8 radii from the Sun.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts managed to create an object with an absorp*tivitiy of 1, and an emissivity of 0.25.
Only in your mind, Tim, only in your mind!
Swenson,
Such materials are commercially available and are known as “selective surfaces”, used for solar thermal power. They are used for exactly the purpose I described — absor.bing a lot of sunlight and not emitting much IR, so they get especially hot.
“Typical values for a selective surface might be 0.90 solar absor.ption and 0.10 thermal emissivity, but can range from 0.8/0.3 for paints on metal to 0.96/0.05 for commercial surfaces. Thermal emissivities as low as 0.02 have been obtained in laboratories.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_surface
Such materials are a fantasy only in your mind Swenson. Only in your mind.
Tim,
Only an alarmist donkey would give an unverified Wikipedia article as a support for his fantasy. You still start off with absorp.tivity of 1 (unspecified material of unspecified characteristics, presumably your defence is that is a black body), and then miraculously change it to another body with an absorp.tivity of 0.25!
Only an idiot would do this, and assume they would get away with it. Maybe you could claim temporary insanity?
“Only an alarmist donkey would give an unverified Wikipedia article as a support for his fantasy.”
There are references in the Wiki article. You could do your own google search. You could ask someone in the industry. But you choose to wallow in your own ignorance, rather than make the minimal effort to learn something new.
People make solar ovens. People make solar thermal panels. Do you think no one anywhere ever thought about which materials would work best?
“You still start off with absorp.tivity of 1 (unspecified material of unspecified characteristics, presumably your defence is that is a black body), and then miraculously change it to another body with an absorp.tivity of 0.25!”
It does not take a miracle to change the optical properties of a surface. Paint will do the trick. Polishing will do the trick. Letting the surface oxidize will do the trick. There are MYRIAD way to change just IR emissivity, just visible absor.ptivity, or both at once.
A few links to more reliable info about Dr Dayton C. Miller:
– https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dayton_Miller
and (among some others) the analysis performed by Thomas J. Roberts:
– cds.cern.ch/record/981721/files/0608238.pdf?version=1
There are soo many trials to discredit Einstein’s work; this one bolongs to the worst of them.
J.-P. D.
I suddenly recall a much more reliable criticist of Einstein’s work: the outstanding physicist Herbert E. Yves.
Together with G. R. Stilwell, he conducted one of the first experiences proving time dilation:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment
But Yves was a hard proponent of Lorentz’ aether theory, and his goal was here in fact to repeat the Michelson-Morley experiment he claimed to be incorrect, and to give a proof that time dilation was due to the motionless aether.
Later on, their experiment was improved many times, disproving Yves belief on aether.
*
But Yves nonetheless was a fine physicist and observer, and published in 1952 an admirable paper:
Derivation of the mass-energy relation
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/wp-content/Ives/HerbertIvesDerivation.pdf
in which he proved that Einstein was not the true origin of the more important of the two interpretations of E = mc^2, which was due to Fritz Hasenöhrl and Max Planck.
*
Later on, Yves results were woefully misused in an incredibly superficial and polemic book written by a rather dumb anti-relativist named Dean Turner:
Einstein Myth and the Yves papers
https://tinyurl.com/y68b6j4z
I forgot to mention a last point.
On Principia Scientific, there is a page dedicated to Yves
Ives, Einstein and the Aether
https://principia-scientific.com/ives-einstein-and-the-aether/
which miraculously manages to ‘omit’ the fact that the Yves-Stillwell experiment was the first proof of the existence of time dilation…
Wonderful.
WARNING… do not attempt to read the following if your IQ is less than 120.
NASA’s Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) spacecraft unfurled its robotic arm Tuesday, and in a first for the agency, briefly touched an asteroid to collect dust and pebbles from the surface for delivery to Earth in 2023.
This well-preserved, ancient asteroid, known as Bennu, is currently more than 200 million miles (321 million kilometers) from Earth. Bennu offers scientists a window into the early solar system as it was first taking shape billions of years ago and flinging ingredients that could have helped seed life on Earth. If Tuesday’s sample collection event, known as “Touch-And-Go” (TAG), provided enough of a sample, mission teams will command the spacecraft to begin stowing the precious primordial cargo to begin its journey back to Earth in March 2021. Otherwise, they will prepare for another attempt in January.
“Our industry, academic, and international partners have made it possible to hold a piece of the most ancient solar system in our hands. This was an incredible feat – and today we’ve advanced both science and engineering and our prospects for future missions to study these mysterious ancient storytellers of the solar system,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate at the agency’s headquarters in Washington. A piece of primordial rock that has witnessed our solar system’s entire history may now be ready to come home for generations of scientific discovery, and we can’t wait to see what comes next.
OSIRIS-REx launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida Sept. 8, 2016. It arrived at Bennu Dec. 3, 2018, and began orbiting the asteroid for the first time on Dec. 31, 2018. The spacecraft is scheduled to return to Earth Sept. 24, 2023, when it will parachute the SRC into Utah’s west desert where scientists will be waiting to collect it.
Desperate times call for desperate corruptions
‘Weve got to get the attorney general to act,’ Trump said in an interview on ‘Fox & Friends.’ ‘Hes got to act, and hes got to act fast. Hes got to appoint somebody. This is major corruption, and this has to be known about before the election.’
If Hunter took money he will probably take a fall for the Manafort charge of working as an unregistered foreign agent.
Additionally did he pay taxes on both his share and the ‘Big Guy’s’ share?
Will Hunter take the fall meant for Dad?
Will Dad let his son do that?
Live soap opera! Where does morality land? Setting a new precedence.
a. Fake news.
b. Abuse of office. Trying to get your political opponent charged with an ‘crime’ on the eve of an election only happens in Banana Republics!
Nate, the King of Obfuscation, blatantly posts a comment he cannot possibly back up with any truth. Let’s see him try.
Nate says:
October 21, 2020 at 7:42 AM
a. Fake news.
b. Abuse of office. Trying to get your political opponent charged with an crime on the eve of an election only happens in Banana Republics!
===============================
Accusing Obama of running a Banana Republic! Shame on you!
There is no way Joe will be charged with a crime before the election. But it would be good to know if Hunter took the money. After all it was Joe carting him around on Air Force 2 carrying the bag.
Seems quite unlikely to be Russian disinformation. Hunter hasn’t been denying its his laptop. . . .most likely because that would be foolish to try to do so if it is his. So what fake news are you talking about Nate?
You guys seem awfully OK with the US becoming a banana republic.
Interestingly, if a Democratic president were doing anything remotely close to this, you guys would be getting your guns and joining militias.
Nate seems awfully OK with building straw men.
That’s what he does–make things up.
I dont have to make anything up. Its all there in DT quotes.
This is the straw man you made up, Nate: “You guys seem awfully OK with the US becoming a banana republic.”
It’s always quite instructive when you idiots have to pretend you didn’t say what you said.
Nate says:
Interestingly, if a Democratic president were doing anything remotely close to this, you guys would be getting your guns and joining militias.
====================================
Doing anything remotely like what? You have a hanging pronoun reference problem Nate.
You guys are clueless.
Says an alarmist donkey, and idiot to boot!
Who do you think might believe you?
Anyone with intelligence.
Can i apologise to those people who mistook my point about ice melting causing the next ice age as a serious comment.
It was meant as a joke to point out the absurd way contributors on both sides of the argument use bad physics to try to prove their point of view.
I feel the science behind climate change needs people who have a good understanding of multiple disciplinces of science.
Too much on both sides appears to rely on a partial understanding of principles which leads to wrong conclusions.
I don’t disagree that something is happening to the climate, but I am not convinced we have an understanding of the data or of all the influences that drive the climate.
No need to apologize from my perspective, Mark. I thought your comment was needed, relevant, and showed signs of genius.
There are several here that have rejected reality so long they have lost the ability to think for themselves. Maybe getting wrapped up by your comment will force them to re-evaluate what they are doing with their lives.
According to you its already a banana republic.
I haven’t heard anybody say Biden is being charged. The are just investigating his self-described bag man. . . .and they should be that email is tantamount to a confession. The only question remaining is: Was it a crime contemplated or was it a crime committed. Sounds like the meeting came off. . . .
And you are OK with that? Influence for sale? Dad selling his son down the river? You think running for office should give you immunity? You are talking some strange talk Nate.
Im not ok with many things going on in the country right now. Things that the President needs to deal with.
Hunter Biden is not in the top 10. In fact hes already been investigated.
But DT wants you to think its urgent. Its #1. And you are buying it.
And he wants to use his Justice Dept to do what Ukraine refused to do, a politically motivated investigation, on the eve of an election, which under all previous administrations, they would not do.
Nate says:
Hunter Biden is not in the top 10. In fact hes already been investigated.
=================================
Sure he was Nate. But so was Hillary. . . .then some more emails showed up on the laptop of the husband of her assistant. Oops! She didn’t pound that one to smithereens with a hammer as he did her and her staff Blackberrys.
Same thing here Nate. Nothing unprecedented going on hre. You need to tone down your politically biased zeal.
“Nothing unprecedented going on hre. You need to tone down your politically biased zeal.”
Ive explained already what he has done, just wrt demanding the justice dept doing politically motivated investigations on the eve of the election. He has fired inspector generals who looked into his corruption. You know the Ukraine history and even Rs who voted agaisnt his impeachment agreed what he did in trying to coerce an investigation into his future opponent was an abuse of office.
Obviously it is hopeless to think that Trumpists can ever look objectively at his actions, much less accept that he is doing anything wrong.
Nate says:
Nothing unprecedented going on hre. You need to tone down your politically biased zeal.
I’ve explained already what he has done, just wrt demanding the justice dept doing politically motivated investigations on the eve of the election.
He has fired inspector generals who looked into his corruption. You know the Ukraine history and even Rs who voted agaisnt his impeachment agreed what he did in trying to coerce an investigation into his future opponent was an abuse of office.
=========================
What law is that Nate? There is no such law. You claim coercion but what is the coercion? The fact Trump fires people? Thats a stretch. Trump urging an investigation isn’t illegal. Its up to the lawyers to decide if an investigation should be started.
But there needs to be probable cause to start using the FISA court, tapping phone calls. etc.
It now appears obvious a serious crime has been committed. They gave that Rod Blagojevich 14 years for pay to play.
Before there was a lot of suspicion that didn’t rise to the level of probable cause, even though it doesn’t take a sharp tack to pick up on the drift in the case of Hunter. Taking money from foreign players, while riding around with Joe on Air Force 2 looks suspicious as hell because he has no skills to offer. But you needed more than that to rise to probable cause.
Now they have a smoking gun email that it was to meet the Big Guy and they now know the meeting came off too. That is exactly what probable cause looks like.
Now if the FBI finds out Trump planted the notebook. . . .hmmm that makes him about as guilty as Hillary with her bought and paid for dossier.
Nate says:
Obviously it is hopeless to think that Trumpists can ever look objectively at his actions, much less accept that he is doing anything wrong.
===========================
Gee Nate urging the FBI to go nab a crook isn’t illegal. Ya think running for office makes you immune to being charged for a crime? What did you think of the Russia investigation Nate?
Bill, This is obviously a rabbit hole with no bottom, that you are keenly interested in diving into. I will not follow you.
Meanwhile there has already been a number of investigations that have produced nothing much exciting, except to deeply partisan hacks.
The Senate Intel Committee investigated Hunter Biden for no apparent reason other than politics. Nothingburger.
The Justice Dept investigated FISA and found some poorly done paper work. Hand slaps ensued.
The Justice Dept investigated heinous ‘unmasking’ done by Obama people. Ended with no announcement and another nothingburger.
The Justice Dept pursued conspiracy theories around start of Russia investigation.
Trump had high hopes for this:
DT “Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes — the greatest political crime in the history of our country — then we’ll get little satisfaction, unless I win,”
But after Durham 2 years of investigating, nothing.
DT “For the love of God ARREST SOMEBODY.”
Also you guys are fond of False Equivalencies and Double Standards.
You seem to equate pursuing international business with corruption. Lock em up!
If so, then DT and his children must be very very corrupt!
And HC email thing should be impeachable!
Four years of many unethical or impeachable things later, an actual impeachment, and several convictions of co-conspirators, you guys find some way to excuse DT every time.
But those those HC emails! Something really should be done about that. Lock her up!
“As mentioned, ‘power’ does not simply add like ‘energy’. A simple analogy is a car that has a maximum speed of 100 mph. If you weld two such cars together, they still have a maximum speed of only 100 mph. Ten such cars welded together still only have a maximum speed of 100 mph.”
What a thoroughly dumb analogy!
We dont need bad analogies when we can just understand that we add fluxes, which are flows of energy.
“But, the energy used in traveling a certain distance increases as cars are added. Energy adds, but power doesn’t.”
Nope. Power is just energy per second. It still adds. You are clueless.
Ugggh wrong thread.
Bill:
What did you think of the Russia investigation Nate?
Nate:
The Justice Dept investigated FISA and found some poorly done paper work. Hand slaps ensued.
Bill:
Hand slaps for violating somebody’s Constitutional rights? Much less for launching an investigation.
Nate:
The Senate Intel Committee investigated Hunter Biden for no apparent reason other than politics. Nothingburger.
Bill: Congress only investigates for political reasons. . . .when at the time there is insufficient evidence to put professionals on the job. Congress is just bringing the impropriety to public light. CPA’s for example must be independent and the standards go beyond that CPA’s must maintain the appearance of independence. Thats for the sake of the reputation of CPAs in general and is grounds for having your license suspended but no criminal liability. Thats all fair game in politics . . . .that is I forgot you have had your head buried in a sand dune for decades right?
Nate: But after Durham 2 years of investigating, nothing.
Bill: Not only is that wrong (oh thats right handslaps!) But is it? Clinesmith is going to be sentenced until December. He facing a maximum of 5 years and a fine of up to $250,000. And Durham’s investigation continues.
If there are no other violations of law that comes out of investigations based upon no probable cause certainly thats establishing a precedence of what is OK in politics Nate. Congress could change that tomorrow and Trump would certainly sign it. So why isn’t it happening where its supposed to happen in Pelosi’s neighborhood?
As to DT, thats why people love him. He wears his heart proudly on his chest. No cheesy lies, no wishy washy words designed to appease everybody, just a an out and out equal opportunity proponent. I think Trump grew up in my era, one where the catch phrase was sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I remember one boring day back when I was 12 or 13 about 10 of us of many ethnic backgrounds sat around telling ethnic jokes. We were simply resting after several days covering a 100 plus miles humping our kits over rough terrain on a wilderness trip and hadn’t seen anybody else for almost a week.
At the time polack jokes were the rage but between the 10 of us I think we managed to smear everybody. Today people would be quivering and barfing in the toilet
“As to DT, thats why people love him. He wears his heart proudly on his chest. No cheesy lies”
Riiiight.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/
the latest: “I am the least racist person in this room”
This from the man who with his father plead guilty to systematically excluding blacks from their rental apts.
This from the man who took out a full page ad calling for the execution of the Central Park 5 black teenagers who were ultimately exonerated, and he never acknowledged their innocence.
This from the man who stated that white supremacists included some ‘very fine people’
Ok Clinesmith.
“Clinesmith was a lower-level FBI attorney working on the early Russian investigation into Page and other Trump-connected advisers, then known at Crossfire Hurricane.”
“the court documents laying out the single charge against Clinesmith don’t make any broader allegation of a conspiracy by FBI investigators against Trump, an accusation Trump has frequently made. Instead it shows another FBI official who signed the fourth FISA warrant raising a concern about whether Page was a CIA source and seeking email proof when Clinesmith downplayed the CIA relationship with Page.”
“Clinesmith’s error over email was first discovered by the Justice Department’s independent inspector general Michael Horowitz last year.”
“Despite the error, Horowitz did not find that the problems with Clinesmith undermined the overall validity of the surveillance.”
Again this is the sort of thing that only gets partisan hacks excited.
Nate says:
the latest: I am the least racist person in this room
This from the man who with his father plead guilty to systematically excluding blacks from their rental apts.
===========================================
Thats BS nobody pled guilty. Further what is racism exactly, precisely? Its blaming the sins of the father onto the child. Nothing more nothing less, and it especially includes alleged sins.
Further and in fact, reverse racism arises out of guilt of what the father may have done. That’s as much racist as well if you don’t limit your compensating actions to yourself instead of trying to implicate a race.
If Trump’s father’s actions are what are motivating him that’s not racist. And if he can accomplish it in a non-racist way by taking action to ensure equal opportunity that’s not racist either.
Plenty of blame to spread around, finding one out of the situation by rebuilding infrastructure where its lacking is the correct answer and the answer being pursued by Trump. What do the democrats do have done? Not much. Even putting a wall up on the border is aiding in that rehabilitation.
If you want to fix the world start with your own house.
Ok Bill. Whatever psychobabble you say…
Nate says:
Ok Clinesmith.
Clinesmith was a lower-level FBI attorney working on the early Russian investigation into Page and other Trump-connected advisers, then known at Crossfire Hurricane.
the court documents laying out the single charge against Clinesmith dont make any broader allegation of a conspiracy by FBI investigators against Trump, an accusation Trump has frequently made. Instead it shows another FBI official who signed the fourth FISA warrant raising a concern about whether Page was a CIA source and seeking email proof when Clinesmith downplayed the CIA relationship with Page.
Clinesmiths error over email was first discovered by the Justice Departments independent inspector general Michael Horowitz last year.
Despite the error, Horowitz did not find that the problems with Clinesmith undermined the overall validity of the surveillance.
Again this is the sort of thing that only gets partisan hacks excited.
=====================================
So what exactly was the probable cause that got the investigation of the Trump administration started Nate? Fact is they did not come up with a single shred of evidence. The same can not be said of Clinesmith (the only applicable indictment in the entire sordid affair so far)
“So what exactly was the probable cause that got the investigation of the Trump administration started Nate?”
Bill you seem to have been in a alternate news bubble these last 4 years, or you are intentionally blocking out inconvenient facts.
This seems to be a time wasting game for you… not gonna play.
Come on Nate, please stop trolling. If you don’t know be a man and own up to it.
Bill,
As I said, this is a rabbit hole with no bottom.
You seem to prefer the ‘deep state conspiracy’ narratives.
I don’t.
To me it looks like the deep slate of experienced govt experts has prevented the political appointee hacks from really screwing things up even worse then they have been.
and others have been courageous in becoming whistle blowers and losing their jobs as a result.
Obviously you aren’t going to man up. Impotent case? Yep! So pleas stop trolling.
FYI,
“Fox News has reviewed emails from Bobulinski related to the venture — and they don’t show that the elder Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings, or took any payments from them or the Chinese. ”
“Former vice president says he had no involvement; corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden”
Oh well….
But he has his kid out hanging out there as the bag man like a mafioso boss’ junior soldier.
Biden delivered the goods, the kid handled the illegal part like a pimp.
So is his kid in violation of lobbying as an unregistered foreign agent? and acting as a human toll booth for getting into seeing Dad?
“Biden delivered the goods, the kid handled the illegal part like a pimp.”
I think you are in the wrong class. This is Journalism 101, not Creative Writing!
Anyway we can all just relax because DT says:
“We’re rounding the corner!”
There seems to be no question we are rounding the corner Nate.
Deaths from Covid are less than 20% what they were in mid April.
A combination of social distancing and improved therapies is rounding the corner big time.
“There seems to be no question we are rounding the corner Nate.”
I think you got stuck down the rabbit hole and missed out on a couple of weeks of news.
Or you are just happy to live in the state of Denial.
Worldometer Deaths in US last 2 days: 1055, 1030
Current 7 d ave: 820. April Peak: 2250.
Where do you get less than 20% ?
c-d-c website
https://tinyurl.com/rfsvryt
The lastest weeks are always an undercount because
“NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. “
Nate says:
The lastest weeks are always an undercount because
NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period.
========================================
That raises the same question with your source Nate. Its also why I took a weekly number some weeks ago that demonstrated a level pattern and didn’t get the number from the most recent weeks. If I had selected the most recent week the reduction would have been 95%.
There is no question we have rounded the corner and did so like 6 months ago. As it stands all the ‘free’ nations are having continuing problems with the pandemic and the only difference the democrats could make would be via taking our freedoms away.
What it really gets down to is individual choice. If you want 100% protection from Covid, hide out in your basement and get your food dropped off at the front door stoop.
Bill, cases are rising fast with cold weather. We are breaking the record for cases per day set this summer.
Deaths are always lagging behind the rise in cases. Vaccines are still months away from being much help.
ALthough we have improved the survival rate, it is simply one more DT denial of reality to say ‘we are rounding the corner’.
And this has been his strategy all year to deny reality, and each time reality has bit him in the ass.
Most Americans no longer believe him.
Typical democrat to expect the government to put a mask on your face, wash your hands for you, lock you up in a basement.
Beyond that its also democrats that want the same for everybody else.
Now of course the Chinese government actually did that and more. Invaded homes where a covid case had arisen and shipped everybody in the place off to a covid concentration camp, many kicking and screaming at the same time.
Myself if I were that fearful I would voluntarily lock myself up in the basement and let others make their own choices.
As it is I am being cautious and not going out much. I pick the least crowded hours if I want to go somewhere. It’s a compromise that continues to pose some risk but I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Biden though equivocates over it all. Nobody knows what he would do. He is afraid of even telling us. His campaign platform stops at ‘mo betta’. With Trump you get what he says. With Biden its still uncertain who has both the biggest bag of cash and the willingness to give it to him. Pretty factual given Biden’s record of 47 years in office.
As usual, you change the subject.
None of that has to do with whether it is accurate for DT to falsly claim we are rounding the corner.
Originally the doctors said all we could do was flatten the curve. That’s what rounding the corner was in April.
Advancements in therapies has pushed it down much lower.
An 80% reduction in mortality is fantastic!
The virus is among us is never going to go away unless by some miracle a vaccine is created that completely eradicates it, which seems unlikely.
Its going to likely evolve and become like the flu. Between advances in therapies and antibodies hopefully it will become as benign as flu has become.
So what do you think Biden would have done differently?
Biden might have let Fauci decide.
Since Biden is not anti-science.
You read too much fake news Nate. Trump did follow Fauci’s advice.
That would be why he does not hold any big rallies.
“Trump targets Fauci instead of COVID-19 as infections and deaths rise”:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-19/trump-fauci-coronavirus-campaign-call
Svante you are such a ding bat. I ask a question and you post something stupid that doesn’t answer the question. Nothing in quotes from Fauci, some political disinformation from the Times, and about the only thing solid in terms of criticism is of Trump for not wearing a mask. Yet Trump has endorsed masks, social distancing, and hand washing; stuff recommended by Fauci though Fauci flipped on the mask wearing.
‘We are rounding the corner’
And as we make it around we see 101,000 cases yesterday.
Biden would not have continually tried to mislead people and hide the severity.
Trump does make one big error. He actually thinks that people are smart enough to decide for themselves how much they want to avoid catching the virus.
Obviously, the virus is viewed by most of us as less dangerous than jumping out of perfectly fine aircraft, yet a lot of people do that.
Maybe they have decided to take risks to make a living?
But most likely most of the cases are coming from social gatherings, thus the new emphasis on family get togethers, parties, and restaurant/bar/nightclubs.
However, the corner has been turned. Comparing cases today with cases 6 months ago really has no validity because 6 months ago the emphasis was on people without risk enhancers should just stay home like they would with the flu. Thus there is no counting of perhaps millions of cases. Comparison to today when they are trying to ensure that everybody who might have the virus take a test is like comparing apples and oranges. Death rates though are far more consistent in sampling. If the death rate starts going up and down can be expected. If it goes up consistently for a long time then perhaps you can claim the corner has not been turned. I doubt that will happen. Governments are already responding.
Great support for science here:
https://tinyurl.com/y2arf6zq
Not sure what you were looking at there Svante.
We are looking at the president undercutting his chief scientist.
see there you go Svante.
You got lied to by some media or other source that told you Trump was undercutting one of his scientists. Then somehow you got the link and apparently never listened to it.
The crowd is exhorting him to do something about Fauci and he said he would think about it.
The crowd is angry with Fauci because Fauci is saying the democrats are right that a shutdown has fewer consequences than the virus.
But Fauci is completely out of his league in making such a comment as he is virtually a virgin when it comes to the negative consequences of a shutdown. It’s a decidedly political statement on the part of Fauci, hopefully he isn’t stupid enough to believe his statement is based on science.
Death rates rising. “I doubt that will happen. Governments are already responding.”
Wishful thinking. Death rates rose after the cases spiked in summer.
Hospitilization rates are already reaching record levels in many states.
And FYI, death rates are already rising. Current 7 day ave 836. Two weeks ago, 715.
The alarmist donkeys are still at with green plates, blue plates, and all the rest of the imaginary folderol. Still trying to measure temperatures in W/m2. Still totally our of touch with reality.
Here. A very fit athlete of average body size can produce a little over 200 W/m2.
Surrounded by an environment of ice producing 300 W/m2, the athlete has an inward energy imbalance of 100 W/m2. Idiots believe that due to the miracle of flux addition, the athlete will just get hotter and hotter, finally undergoing spontaneous human combustion due to excessive flux, or something.
I say the athlete will die of hypothermia. Who should the athlete believe?
Swenson,
Do inuits die in igloos?
The athlete should not believe Swenson.
He should just google, how warm is an igloo.
bob gets confused, again. He can’t understand the sarcasm from Dr. Swenson. bob doesn’t know that the nonsense he believes indicates that ice can warm sunshine, and more ice makes things hotter.
But yet he really knows ice is cold. His false religion tells him ice makes things hotter, but he has seen ice make things colder. Is his false religion lying to him?
bob is so confused….
ClintR,
Get your strawman right, it’s sunshine warming sunshine, and no I don’t believe in that.
I assume you had a troubled childhood and never built an igloo.
Sorry for your loss, maybe you can call a therapist.
Not a strawman, bob. That’s what your cult believes.
Tim Folkerts: “And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he final temperature would still be 325 K.”
Tim is claiming if sunlight heated an object to 273 K, then he could add ice, also at 273 K, to being the object to 325 K.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534856
Your cult believes nonsense like that bob.
It’s not a straw man, bob. It’s what your cult believes. Tim Folkerts believes he can add ice, at 273 K, to an object warmed by sunshine to 273 K, and the object will increase to 325 K.
“And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he final temperature would still be 325 K.”
Your cult believes a lot of nonsense.
ClintR,
I may understand that the sunshine from the Sun added to the infrared from the atmosphere combines to heat the surface. Flux from one source gets added to a flux from another source that just happen to be colinear.
The whole heat something with ice is a red herring from the contrarians which has nothing to do with reality.
bob said: “The whole heat something with ice is a red herring from the contrarians which has nothing to do with reality.”
Wrong, bob. That nonsense is not from “contrarians”. That’s what your cult believes. Tim Folkerts believes he can add ice, at 273 K, to an object warmed by sunshine to 273 K, and the object’s temperature will increase to 325 K.
“And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he final temperature would still be 325 K.”
Your cult believes a lot of nonsense, as do you.
ClintR,
That’s just a strawman, comes from Mikey Flynn, on this site.
Tim’s just trying in vain to teach you guys some physics, you are not learning very much.
No bob, it wasn’t a straw man, red herring, or said by someone else. Here, for the 3rd time, is the direct quote, made by Tim Folkerts: “And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and [t]he final temperature would still be 325 K.”
Your continuing attempt to deny your own cult’s nonsense is interesting. You should be ashamed you’ve fallen for such crap.
Clint believes that if you put an ice-cold object inside a room made of ice (all at say 270 K) and then focus a heat lamp or laser or sunlight on the object, the object will stay at the temperature of the ice. I rather doubt he realizes that is what he believes, but it is. Its hard to reason with a cult mentality like that.
CLINT, here is the section you pulled the quote from. Since you presumably agree with the beginning, but not the end, tells us all specifically what you disagree with (and what your prediction would be instead).
An unheated, blackbody object in deep space will be 3K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
I could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) and warm that object to 273 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
Or I could surround that object with ice @ 273 K and warm the object up to 273 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
Then (just to make Clints & Swansons heads explode) I could surround it with ice and THEN add the sunlight. The ice made it 273 K already. The extra energy from the sunlight would warm the object further (325 K to be specific; +52 C warmer than it was).
AGREE or DISAGREE?
And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he final temperature would still be 325 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
You claim to be an expert. You claim to know the answers. Give the answer for EVERY part, or quit pretending you know the answer to ANY part.
Tim, the reason you idiots have to continually misrepresent, spin, and pervert what we say, is because you have a corrupt belief system. You avoid reality. You get caught spewing your crap, and you only come up with more crap, like this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-542855
Clean up your act.
tim…”Or I could surround that object with ice @ 273 K and warm the object up to 273 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?”
Disagree. You’d never survive those temperatures to get the ice around the body and the ice would almost instantly decrease in temperature to nearly 0K.
Why did you select 3K as the base temperature of unheated space? Have yo been sucked in by the idiots who claim there is a background radiation of 3K left over from the Big Bang? The idiots don’t even know that radiation is not heat.
If you are referring to a part of space where there is no radiative energy to warm a mass, its temperature would be 0K.
bobd…”I may understand that the sunshine from the Sun added to the infrared from the atmosphere combines to heat the surface. Flux from one source gets added to a flux from another source that just happen to be colinear”.
Bull feathers. The infrared from the atmosphere comes from a cooler source and the 2nd law makes it clear that no heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means. Furthermore, the spectral range of the atmospheric back-radiation is off the end of the solar spectral curve. No addition.
I disagree with the last two. That is just your perverted nonsense, Tim. You can’t warm sunshine with ice. What kind of idiot are you?
And I never claimed to be an expert. I just know more than you.
“You’d never survive those temperatures ”
Thanks for one of the best chuckles I have had in a while.
Tim Folkerts
I hope the contrarian trolling of types like ClintR, Swenson, or Gordon Robertson don’t drive you off. People that like science appreciate your knowledgeable and intelligent posts. I do learn correct physics from your posts and it the same as you would read in a textbook.
You can not change the mind of a contrarian, that is one solid fact from my experience on this blog. Evidence does not matter. I already provided actual measured values of Solar input from Desert Rock (both Summer and Winter, same result) and the corresponding surface emission. They do not grasp the actual 2nd Law, they have a perverted form of it they cling to. ClintR does not know any actual physics. When you ask him to support his claims he comes up with some mindless posts. Probably Gordon Robertson is worse. ClintR does not like to demonstrate his ignorance of physics so he just babbles about nonsense. Gordon posts and exposes his total ignorance of physics, chemistry and science in general.
Swenson read on book by Feynman and now he is an expert in all fields of physics. He quotes lines from Feynman thinking that it makes his posts more credible.
I do hope you continue to post. I do learn from you. Thanks.
” disagree with the last two. ”
Great. So you agree with the previous statements, including that that “I could surround that object with ice @ 273 K and warm the object up to 273 K”. Just ice. Warming the object to 273 K.
Are saying that no matter how much sunlight I now add, that the object will never get warmer than 273 K???
If I add 30 W/m^2?
If I add 315 W/m^2?
If I add 960 W/m^2?
If I add 6000 W/m^2?
Can none of those can make the object even a bit warmer than 273 K? If they can, how MUCH warmer than 273 do you think the object would be? If not, what happens to the sunlight when it gets absorbed? (again, assume as before the object is a blackbody.)
Folkerts, have you cleaned up your act yet?
Why do you misrepresent me?
Why do you misrepresent science?
Why do you reject reality?
Why are you an idiot?
Have you cleaned up your act yet?
Tim Folkerts says:
October 22, 2020 at 6:57 PM
CLINT, here is the section you pulled the quote from. Since you presumably agree with the beginning, but not the end, tells us all specifically what you disagree with (and what your prediction would be instead).
An unheated, blackbody object in deep space will be 3K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
I could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) and warm that object to 273 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
Or I could surround that object with ice @ 273 K and warm the object up to 273 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
Then (just to make Clints & Swansons heads explode) I could surround it with ice and THEN add the sunlight. The ice made it 273 K already. The extra energy from the sunlight would warm the object further (325 K to be specific; +52 C warmer than it was).
AGREE or DISAGREE?
And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he final temperature would still be 325 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
You claim to be an expert. You claim to know the answers. Give the answer for EVERY part, or quit pretending you know the answer to ANY part.
==================================
Good lord!
I agree with the first two and disagree with the second two.
In the later cases you have whats known as equilibrium. the ice and the object will be at freezing and a light emitting 315k is either going to melt the ice very slowly or its going to maintain it in equilibrium.
And sure if you bathe the ice and object in a warmer light the ice will turn to water and the object and the water will be at whatever temperature you choose for the light. If the light is say emitting only 200w/m2 the objects and the ice will just be colder.
Nothing complicated. We do it everyday when we put stuff in the freezer, particularly if you have one of those old ones that frosted up.
Fluxes don’t add the objects just assume the temperature of the warmest light.
bill hunter
Along with others you make the assertion that “fluxes don’t add”, where does this come from?
Fluxes used as Watts/m^2 would be joules per second/m^2. The m^2 surface is receiving this energy (if it can absorb it). If you add more joules to the mix the surface will receive more energy. How would the fluxes NOT add? This does go way outside the established physics so I would like more than your opinion, I would like some documented supporting evidence.
I can easily prove your statement is false with heat lamps. I can take a thermometer on a plate. Turn on one heat lamp that is directed toward the plate (say a 300 watt bulb) and wait for a steady-state temperature with the surroundings then I turn on a 100 watt heat lamp (lower flux than first) which is also directed at the plate and the temperature of the plate increases. This is direct evidence you are wrong and that fluxes do add.
Norman, you don’t understand radiative physics.
Your example of adding a second heat lamp is an example of adding new “right kind” of energy.
But, even doing so it will not raise the temperature of the object above the temperature of the filament. Fluxes don’t add.
You keep trying to pervert the issue to fit your false belief that a cold sky can warm a warmer surface. That’s why you want to believe ice can warm sunshine.
You’re wrong, your false religion is wrong, reality is right. You’re an idiot for denying reality.
ClintR
Break Down of your post to me. I actually wanted to hear from bill hunter, I already know what you think. Repeating it does not make it better.
BREAKDOWN OF YOUR POST:
“Norman, you don’t understand radiative physics.”
ME: That is your unsupported opinion. To date you have not supplied any evidence to support this opinion. Zero Nada and based upon your posts you never will.
“Your example of adding a second heat lamp is an example of adding new “right kind” of energy.”
ME: Energy is energy. The only stipulation to consider is if the surface can absorb the energy. The Earth can certainly reabsorb the same bands it emitted. So this also is just an unsupported opinion with zero supporting evidence.
“But, even doing so it will not raise the temperature of the object above the temperature of the filament. Fluxes don’t add.”
ME: This is the point I want bill hunter to support. Your opinion is that “fluxes don’t add” established science says they do. Other than being a contrarian who opposes established thought just to oppose, give supporting evidence for your opinion.
You keep trying to pervert the issue to fit your false belief that a cold sky can warm a warmer surface. That’s why you want to believe ice can warm sunshine.
ME: It is not a false belief. I have posted supporting evidence with the radiant energy flows of Desert Rock. You are clearly wrong in your views but not able to correct your beliefs. What you attribute to others is only the glaring flaw in your own mental processing.
You’re wrong, your false religion is wrong, reality is right. You’re an idiot for denying reality.
Norman, I realize this is over your head. You don’t understand radiative physics, and you can’t think for yourself. You seldom get anything right. And you link to things that either prove you wrong, or you don’t understand. You have no background in physics. You can type, and you can do online searches for things you believe support your nonsense, but you can’t get the right answer. (You couldn’t even solve your own example.) That’s why my comments are for others that may be interested. Idiots like you don’t count.
If you put a black body under a heat lamp, the body will reach an equilibrium temperature with the lamp filament. (In radiative physics, “equilibrium temperature” means the final temperature based on the absorbed flux.) If you then place an ice cube close to the body, even though the ice is emitting about 300 W/m^2, it will not increase the temperature of the body. Two ice cubes won’t either. Thousands of ice cubes won’t either. Fluxes don’t simply add.
One ice cube emitting 300 W/m^2 does NOT mean that 3 ice cubes will be emitting 900 W/m^2. 300 W/m^2 corresponds to an equilibrium temperature of 270 K, 900 W/m^2 corresponds to an equilibrium temperature of 355 K. If fluxes added, you would be able to boil water with ice cubes. Fluxes don’t simply add.
A black body with a temperature of 300 K emits 459 W/m^2. But, the same body at 400 K, emits 1452 W/m^2! A 133% increase in temperature produces a 316% increase in flux!
Even temperatures don’t simply add. Two glasses of water at 40 degrees, poured together do not add to 80 degrees. The combined solution remains at 40 degrees. 100 glasses of the 40 degree water poured together is still 40 degrees. Temperatures don’t simply average either. A 100 liter quatity of water at 40 degrees added to 1 liter at 60 degrees does not mean the 101 liter mixture will be (40+60)/2 = 50 degrees.
The idiots want to pervert and corrupt science, but reality is out there. And reality always wins.
bill said: I agree with the first two and disagree with the second two.
Let me make sure I’m understanding your position…
You believe the laws of physics allow a body to have an energy imbalance of +315 W/m^2 indefinitely and yet never increase in temperature?
ClintR
YOUR STATEMENT: “The idiots want to pervert and corrupt science, but reality is out there. And reality always wins.”
This is exactly descriptive of you, Gordon Robertson and Swenson. The lot of you pervert real science drastically. The posters you attack all have had valid science classes and Tim Folkerts is a PhD in the topic, far smarter than most of us in physics. Yes reality is there. You all choose to ignore it. Evidence has no meaning to any of you. You just assert you ignorant opinions over and over and believe that their is some strength in repetition.
ClintR
YOU: “One ice cube emitting 300 W/m^2 does NOT mean that 3 ice cubes will be emitting 900 W/m^2. ”
Of course NOT. No intelligent person would make a claim it did. However one ice cube (depending upon its size if it has an area of one meter squared it will emit 300 watts) will emit a definite amount of energy per second.
If you have one ice cube emitting 300 watts then 3 ice cubes of same size will emit a total of 900 watts.
The contrarian argument about adding water has no bearing on radiative physics at all. When you add two glasses of water at 40 degrees each you are doubling the amount of energy of the water but at the same time you are doubling the mass.
You do no such thing when you add fluxes! You are not doubling the mass of the surface but you are increasing the energy it receives!
ClintR
YOUR POINT: “If you put a black body under a heat lamp, the body will reach an equilibrium temperature with the lamp filament. (In radiative physics, equilibrium temperature means the final temperature based on the absorbed flux.) If you then place an ice cube close to the body, even though the ice is emitting about 300 W/m^2, it will not increase the temperature of the body. Two ice cubes wont either. Thousands of ice cubes wont either. Fluxes dont simply add.”
The situation depends upon the surroundings. If you are in empty space then ice will increase the black body object, if you have surroundings emitting more energy to the black body than the ice would, the ice will act to cool the black body.
Roy Spencer did a real world experiment showing you contrarians wrong. Evidence (hence science which is an evidence based pursuit…not contrarian opinions or assertions) does not change the mind of a contrarian. You are not evidence based, just opinion based.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
This experiment demonstrates you are just mindless opinion with zero evidence. You act an expert but know nothing of the topic.
Sorry you will be wrong as long as you want to be a contrarian. One who disagrees with established views just to do it.
Norman, as usual, you can’t understand the physics and you reject reality. So again, this is just for anyone interested:
We see nonsense like this often in “climate science”: “If you have one ice cube emitting 300 watts then 3 ice cubes of same size will emit a total of 900 watts.”
Norman makes the mistake of believing “power” adds like “energy”. One square meter of ice is emitting about 300 W/m2, so that equates to 300 Watts, or 300 Joules each second. So in 2 seconds 300 * 2 = 600 Joules would be emitted. But, the power remains at 300 Watts. Energy is conserved, but power is not.
Two square meters of ice would then be emitting 600 Joules each second, but again there is only 300 Watts.
That’s one of the reasons the idiots keep trying to add flux. They think it adds like energy. That’s why they end up with nonsense like Tim Folkerts “PhD” claiming ice can warm sunshine.
They’re idiots because they reject reality.
^ClintR
More opinions still no evidence.
If you use watts/m^2 the 3 ice cubes would emit 900 watts/3 m^2 or again reduce to 300 watts/m^2.
Look at the Roy Spencer link. He clearly shows your opinions are wrong. You can keep making them, they still will not be correct.
Yes the energy of ice will add to the energy produced by Sun. That is just the facts. You don’t accept facts because you are contrarian and facts don’t matter.
Skeptic ask questions to make sure ideas are correct. Contrarians assert opinions over and over never providing any evidence. Never accepting any evidence that shows them wrong.
Again, not only does Roy Spencer demonstrate your opinions are false, I have also done it with links to Desert Rock location when shows the solar input alone cannot sustain the amount of energy lost.
“The situation depends upon the surroundings. If you are in empty space then ice will increase the black body object, if you have surroundings emitting more energy to the black body than the ice would, the ice will act to cool the black body.”
Indeed.
This is the part Clint et al purposely keep VAGUE. They know if they discuss the surroundings they will lose the argument. So they claim we are ‘perverting reality’ by getting specific about the surroundings.
“But, even doing so it will not raise the temperature of the object above the temperature of the filament. Fluxes don’t add.”
And they keep repeating this STRAWMAN that is simply a red herring. No one is suggesting the added fluxes will produce temperatures > the filament temp. NO ONE.
In fact the temperatures are nowhere close to the filament temps, and fluxes do add.
Bill “Fluxes dont add the objects just assume the temperature of the warmest light.”
Where do these rules come from? It seems to be just made up.
What does ‘warmest light’ mean?
If objects are completely surrounded by an object at some temperature, AND have no other way of transferring heat, then yes they end up at the same temperature.
Fluxes add, again only if they are striking the same surface and that surface can ab*sorb that light.
A BB can ab*sorb all light.
If they don’t add, then conservation of energy requires that the not added light went somewhere. Where??
So in this example, surrounded by ice, an object reaches 273 K, equilibrium with the ice.
BUT if sunlight can pass thru the transparent ice, or if there is a hole in the ice, then the object will warm up further.
This is a thought experiment so we IGNORE the fact that ice would eventually melt from the extra emission from the object, that is beside the point.
As mentioned, “power” does not simply add like “energy”. A simple analogy is a car that has a maximum speed of 100 mph. If you weld two such cars together, they still have a maximum speed of only 100 mph. Ten such cars welded together still only have a maximum speed of 100 mph.
But, the energy used in traveling a certain distance increases as cars are added. Energy adds, but power doesn’t.
When the fluxes are in reference to the same time (t) and same area (A) they can indeed be added.
(F1*t*A)+(F2*t*A)+…+(Fn*t*A) = (F1+F2+…+Fn)*t*A = E1+E2+…+En
Gordon,
You say:
“Bull feathers. The infrared from the atmosphere comes from a cooler source and the 2nd law makes it clear that no heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means.”
Not only wrong but fuck wrong, it’s not by its own means, the atmosphere exchanges energy with the ground, it goes in two directions, according to your hero Clausius. It’s not by its own means, what part of that do you refuse to understand.
Here again, is the Clausius statement
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Note: I was discussing energy, not heat for one. For two, heat is the difference in two energy flows, so there is always a possibility of energy transfer from cold to hot, in addition to transfer from hot to cold.
You say:
“Furthermore, the spectral range of the atmospheric back-radiation is off the end of the solar spectral curve. No addition.”
Yeah, they are in totally different regions of the spectrum, therefore totally addable.
Idiot alert
“As mentioned, power does not simply add like energy. A simple analogy is a car that has a maximum speed of 100 mph. If you weld two such cars together, they still have a maximum speed of only 100 mph. Ten such cars welded together still only have a maximum speed of 100 mph.
But, the energy used in traveling a certain distance increases as cars are added. Energy adds, but power doesnt.”
Yeah that’s why them 100 car coal trains only have one locomotive pulling them.
Oh wait, they usually have four.
Local idiot strike again.
Norman says:
Along with others you make the assertion that fluxes dont add, where does this come from?
=============================
Fluxes add if you add them properly. But you can’t produce more heat out of 315w/m2 light than 315w/m2. When everything is at that temperature you have equilibrium.
2 surfaces facing each other at 400w/m2 are in equilibrium if they have zero loss occurring on other faces. Thats an example of zero net flux.
bdgwx finds another way to make the same mistake. F*t*A = energy. Energy adds, but not flux.
And bob can’t understand the simple analogy of the 100 mph car. That’s why I love simple analogies. The idiots can’t understand them.
Simpleton alert
ClintR,
Your simple analogy is wrong, 10 cars welded together will be able to go faster, because there is 10 times more power, but the wind resistance providing the limit to speed is only slightly more for 10 cars welded together than for one.
Too bad this years Tour de France is over, you could watch that and see why you are wrong.
Simpleton.
That’s why I love simple analogies. The idiots can’t understand them.
bob will be struggling with trying to understand it for days, weeks. Probably lose sleep over it. Nightmares of 100 welded cars chasing him, going 100 mph….
ClintR said: bdgwx finds another way to make the same mistake. F*t*A = energy. Energy adds, but not flux.
That’s right. And if energies add then fluxes (when in reference to the same time and area) MUST add as well. That’s what the math says.
Or are you seriously going to challenge the concept of factorization? Ya know…like how xa+xb+xc = x(a+b+c)?
I’m not challenging your algebra, bdgwx. It’s your physics that is pathetic.
Once you convert flux to energy, you can add because energy can be added. But, there’s no going back. It’s no longer flux. You can’t simply add flux.
So sorry, you can’t use algebra to pervert physics either.
What will you try next?
(Did you see bob claiming cars could go faster if they were welded together? Now, that’s a REAL perversion of physics. You’ve got some strong competition.)
As mentioned, power does not simply add like energy. A simple analogy is a car that has a maximum speed of 100 mph. If you weld two such cars together, they still have a maximum speed of only 100 mph. Ten such cars welded together still only have a maximum speed of 100 mph.
What a thoroughly ignorant analogy!
We dont need bad analogies when we can just understand that we add fluxes, which are flows of energy.
But, the energy used in traveling a certain distance increases as cars are added. Energy adds, but power doesn’t.
Nope. Power is just energy per second. It still adds. You are clueless.
So you have two cars each with a 200 hp engine, they both have a top speed of X.
Weld them together and replace the two engines with a 400 hp engine.
Lets have a race, I pick the two cars welded together with the 400 hp engine.
You guys wanna bet?
I’ll give you some credit, you are not that stupid.
Norman says:
Along with others you make the assertion that fluxes dont add, where does this come from?
=========================
Simple concept once you understand it. Take a light of a given intensity, if the view factor is 1.0 the only way to add flux is find a light of higher intensity with a higher wattage output rating. If the view factor is less than 1.0 you can add flux with another light, depending upon the background.
But in the case of ‘mean’ value global warming the 6000degree sun’s light is first reduced by a view factor of light that doesn’t hit earth and instead travels past earth. What hits earth is 1366 watts/m2 over the face of a flat disk the diameter of the earth perpendicular to the sun. By the time its allocated around the world that is the equivalent of 341w/m2 light that fills the entire heavens. So at this point the 3watts of outer space is now meaningless to any calculation that talks in terms of mean global values.
Amazing how many folks haven’t gotten this far yet. They are always talking in ‘means’ and talking about the 3k or 0k of space. WRONG!
Thats why when TOA either emits or reflects a total of 341.5 watts its in equilibrium. It also means that the backradiation you can measure at the surface only has a relevancy in regards to how light travels through substances. Radiation doesn’t travel through solid materials. It effectively doesn’t travel through the atmosphere either because of too many layers, but the bottom line is its not warming the surface either.
That brings us to the problem that indeed the surface is warmer so how did it get that way. Well you need to start with M&W to get an inkling of what the Big Kahuna thinks the real process is. And never cross the Big Kahuna of you want to get your daily bowl of Poi.
An aside: Most lights are rated wattage input so when CFLs and LEDs came out they started talking in terms of incandescent equivalents which is a fancy way of saying more efficient, more light, less heat so you can’t go by bulb ratings unless you have the entire specification sheet.
So which is faster in the Tour de France, or any other bike race.
A team of riders in single file taking turns at the front.
Or Lance Armstrong in his prime?
Well, it seems bob used the “phone-a-friend” option. He now realizes you must increase the power level since power doesn’t add. Two 200hp cars welded together isn’t the same as a 400hp car.
Power doesn’t add. That’s why fluxes don’t add.
Reality always wins.
Reality paging ClintR
How many screws on an aircraft carrier?
Reminds me of a navy saying, the screws my stop turning but the shaft never stops.
And penis boats out at the Lake of the Ozarks have more than one outboard, sometimes as many as four.
Why don’t you tell them power doesn’t add.
So you want to race me with my 10 cars welded together against you in a single car?
I’ll give you a head start.
Hint power adds, wind resistance doesn’t.
Simple analogies are the best. Like the ball-on-a-string, for example. The idiots absolutely hate that one. It’s like hitting then with a ton of bricks. “Reality calling”!
That’s why I love simple analogies.
Simple analogies for simpletons.
Simple doesn’t always work, eh ClintR.
Assuming…
Etot = E1 + E2 + … + En
…then dividing both sides by tA it follows that…
Etot/tA = (E1 + E2 + … + En)/tA
Etot/tA = E1/tA + E2/tA + … + En/tA
Ftot = F1 + F2 + … + Fn
As you can see if energies add then fluxes must add as well. Similarly if energy is a conserved quantity then flux must be conserved as well. Again…as long as they are in reference to the same time (t) and area (A).
For example…if you supply a 1×1 meter plate with 1000 joules of heat on top for 1 second this is equivalent to saying you supplied that plate 500 W/m^2 for that period of time. If you then supply another 1000 joules to bottom in the same time period it will have now received 2000 joules. This is equivalent to saying you supplied that plate 1000 W/m^2 for that period of time. Etot = 1000 + 1000 = 2000 joules or Ftot = 500 + 500 = 1000 W/m^2. Etot / tA = Ftot or (Etop + Ebottom) / ta = (Ftop + Fbottom). I can convert between the two because both energies and fluxes add. This also means that if you believe energy is conserved such that dU = (Q1 + Q2) – (W1 + W2) then dU/tA = (Q1/tA + Q2/ta) – (W1/tA + W2/ta) also holds which means fluxes are conserved as well. Again…when time (t) and area (A) are the same for Q1, Q2, W1, and W2.
Unfortunately what I’m seeing the contrarians do on this blog is try to add fluxes when the time (t) and/or area (A) are different. I have also seen attempts at plugging in a flux other than the radiant emission into the SB law as if it will produce a meaning temperature. These you cannot do.
What you don’t see is those of us who understand how to apply the laws of physics adding 400 W/m^2 from 6 different directions and assuming a cube in the center will then receives 2400 W/m^2. That was the contrarians who did that.
What you don’t see is those of us who understand how to apply the laws of physics taking the 163.3 W/m^2 solar absorbed at the surface in Trenberth’s diagram and trying to claim that the surface is then 231.7K. That was the contrarians who did that.
What you don’t see is those of us who understand the to apply the laws of physics claiming that a body with Ein – Eout 0 is somehow in steady-state will maintain its radiant emission and thus temperature indefinitely. That was the contrarians who did that.
Dang bdgwx, I think you can “blah-blah” better than Norman. And that’s saying something.
Let me summarize your nonsense, in case anyone is interested:
* You used algebra, attempting to pervert physics, again
* You gave an example of a surface absorbing flux
* You opined obsessively on “contrarians”
Or, in an even more condensed version:
* That ain’t science.
Glad to help.
ClintR
I do not understand why you can’t see the glaring flaw to your power analogies.
The reason 2 200 HP cars do not make a 400 HP car is because you are adding mass. Do you possess even simple basic physics?
Power=Fd/t (Force times distance divided by time)
Now Force=ma (mass times acceleration)
In your examples with cars the two welded cars put out a total of 400 HP but since you doubled the mass you get the same effect as a single car with 200 HP.
It is the same stupid point you make with adding 40 degree water to another container of 40 degree water and the temperature does not increase. Yes you double the total energy of the system but you also doubled the mass so the temperature is the same.
Not one of your examples has the slightest bearing on the issue of fluxes adding.
If you have one piston in a car that develops 50 HP max, with approximately the same mass car you will get much more acceleration with 8 such pistons. The power of each piston adds, it the mass of the pistons are much less than the mass of the overall car you will greatly increase performance with each piston. Your points are not very good at all, you are not a smart person.
Wrong again, Norman.
You got lost in all the nonsense thrown out by trolls like you. Go back to where I started the simple analogy. I said a car with “maximum speed”:
“A simple analogy is a car that has a maximum speed of 100 mph. If you weld two such cars together, they still have a maximum speed of only 100 mph. Ten such cars welded together still only have a maximum speed of 100 mph.”
Your fellow idiot bob brought in HP. I just played along because I knew he was just going to make a fool of himself, again. Which he did.
That’s why I love simple analogies. You idiots have a hard time denying them. Like the simple ball-on-a-string analogy, which only an idiot would try to deny.
bill hunter
I do agree with you on your first point. If the view factor is 1 you will need a greater source to increase the temperature of an object.
On the Downwelling IR, it is not going from the TOA down to the surface. The Downwelling IR that reaches the surface comes from GHG that are warm near the surface. The mean free path of a 15 micron photon in Sea Level air is not very far.
The warm air is producing the Downwelling IR, it also goes up but until it gets thin enough at TOA the middle layers are in steady state, going up and down.
However the solar flux and the IR downwelling flux do add. I gave the contrarians a measured real world graph.
In the graph if you find the total joules of solar energy received by a one square meter surface you will find that it is emitting more energy than it receives from the Sun. If you add the downwelling IR to the mix you now have a surplus of energy which is removed from the surface by other heat transfer mechanisms.
Note. The Downwelling IR is less than the Upwelling IR. This satisfies the 2nd Law. The atmosphere alone does NOT warm the surface. Colder does not warm hot. Colder does lower the loss of energy so that the amount of solar energy added is enough to maintain the emission.
I will let the graphs do the talking.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f939d31db31c.png
If you calculate the total energy in a 24 hour cycle you will find the solar input is too low to sustain the energy lost by surface emission. So add downwelling IR
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f939d99cfc8d.png
Now you have proof of GHE effect and fluxes adding. The solar energy plus the downwelling IR exceed the number of joules lost by surface emission.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f939e24b8a20.png
Or if you prefer combining both IR (Downwelling gain minus Upwelling loss). You can see the 2nd law is NOT violated by Downwelling IR. The Net IR is negative, the downwelling IR is NOT warming the surface. With the GHE the GHG decrease how much NET energy the surface emits so that the incoming solar can raise the surface to a higher temperature.
You have to understand what makes cars go fast, what makes them accelerate fast etc.
ClintR claims that his assigning a maximum speed to car, that’s what limits its speed.
Stupid is as stupid does.
His assignment of a maximum speed is just talk, you could modify the car to go faster.
What limits a cars speed is a combination of three things, to keep it relatively simple: Wind resistance, rolling resistance and the amount of horsepower available to the wheels.
Lower two of those and raise one and you can go faster.
That’s why ClintR is wrong when he claims two cars welded together won’t go faster.
You double the power to the wheels while only increasing wind and rolling resistance slightly. Of course this will result in an increase in speed.
Same as making the car sleeker with respect to the wind, or reducing the rolling resistance by putting better tires on it, or jacking up the horsepower.
Obviously Clint isn’t a gear head.
We have heard this argument before, its the same old moon argument, how can something go faster if it can’t go faster is the same as how can something that can’t spin spin.
bdgwx says:
Let me make sure Im understanding your position
You believe the laws of physics allow a body to have an energy imbalance of +315 W/m^2 indefinitely and yet never increase in temperature?
=============================
There is no energy imbalance in the system as described by Tim – assuming he was considering a view factor of 1.0.
Net flux in that system is zero. Draw it up.
Norman seldom gets it right, can’t learn, and can’t stop typing. That’s what OCD does to a person.
He keeps showing those Desert Rock graphs believing the sky is creating energy!
I could explain how solar energy is stored by the surface and the mass of the atmosphere. Or I could just continue to be entertained by his lack of education and his inability to think outside of his cult….
ClintR
As stated, you are not a smart person and you have little actual science education. It is not correct that the atmosphere is creating energy. If you could logically understand the graphs maybe you could learn what is happening. You are not smart enough to process the data so all you can do is say a stupid comment.
Solar energy can’t store in the ground and atmosphere WHEN it is LESS than what is being lost by emission. The problem is not only that you are not very smart you don’t have logical thought process.
You need some logic to understand science.
The energy of the downwelling IR is NOT created! It is part of the upwelling IR that is returning so the loss is less. Rather than losing around 500 W/m^2 the surface loses between 100 and 200 W/m^2. Now the solar input is at a surplus energy to the surface.
If you were smart or logical you could understand my post and the graphs. Since you posses no logical thought and are not very smart the graphs are far beyond what you can comprehend. I was posting them for bill hunter not you. The hope is he is much smarter than you are and can logically understand what they mean.
I have little hope in your abilities. We must all suffer with your ignorant posts.
Norman most of your nonsense is so wrong that it’s easily ignored. But sometimes I just get a huge laugh:
“Solar energy can’t store in the ground and atmosphere WHEN it is LESS than what is being lost by emission.”
Others will get to laugh at you, but you won’t even understand why that is so stupid.
bill said: There is no energy imbalance in the system as described by Tim – assuming he was considering a view factor of 1.0. Net flux in that system is zero. Draw it up.
Ok. Sure. Here is the scenario.
Tim said: An unheated, blackbody object in deep space will be 3K.
and…
I could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) and warm that object to 273 K.
and …
Or I could surround that object with ice @ 273 K and warm the object up to 273 K.
You disagreed with #3 saying…
bill said: I agree with the first two and disagree with the second two.
So here is what we have. We have a body in deep space that is in equilibrium with its environment at 3K. It is then surrounded by a body at 273K emitting at 315 W/m^2 on all sides. That means the body also receives 315 W/m^2 (that’s just how the math works out regardless of the geometry of the body).
Eout = 5.67e-8*3^4 = ~0 W/m^2
Ein = 5.67e-8*273^4 = 315 W/m^2
Ein – Eout = +315 W/m^2
There is definitely an energy imbalance here. That body will begin warming.
bdgwx, you got the basic math right, but you’re still messing up the basic physics.
If a body at 273 K is receiving 315 W/m^2, then it is also emitting 315 W/m^2.
There is NO energy imbalance.
bdgwx says:
So here is what we have. We have a body in deep space that is in equilibrium with its environment at 3K. It is then surrounded by a body at 273K emitting at 315 W/m^2 on all sides. That means the body also receives 315 W/m^2 (thats just how the math works out regardless of the geometry of the body).
================================
The problem with your characterization and about 99.9% of everybody that views this problem is a break in logic.
I took the 3k as being irrelevant. The 315watt emitting light is emitting 315 watts to outerspace and not changeing the temperature of outer space.
So in brief the error in your thinking if I understood the example correctly is there are 4 evenly distributed layers.
Layer one is the object, lets call it earth and ignore its own internal temperature because that temperature is likely irrelevant. The surface is 273k and emitting 315w/m2 up
Layer two is the ice. Its 273k and emitting 315w/m2 up and 315w/m2 down. Layer one and two are in equilibrium.
Layer three is a ‘powered’ light via whatever source spread evenly above the ice. (everything in this system has a view factor of 1.0). Its receiving 315w/m2 from the ice in layer two and emitting light to layer two. The light is also warm itself and emitting 315w/m2 to 0k space (lets keep it simple). Its not in equilibrium with space but its ‘powered’ so that doesn’t matter.
So in this system where is the imbalance? Well obviously its in the power source for the light. The sun will run out of fuel someday or somebody will flick the switch or fail to pay their power bill.
bdgwx and TimF – Your arguments are wrong. I tried to explain why and you simply have a mental block. But get this:
1) There is no greenhouse effect according to your side without a lapse rate. Period.
2) If your little experiment in a box actually worked they would have proven the effect you believe that exists something like 120 years ago and there would be no longer any debate about it. But they can’t prove the effect as you have devised because quite simply it just doesn’t exist.
The greenhouse effect you want to believe in requires a lapse rate, it is this feature that prevents if from being duplicated in a lab experiment.
Now even then that explanation cannot be tested and it is just inferred because there is a greenhouse effect near the surface and that theory doesn’t violate any physical laws. So when ignorant folks talk about backradiation they think of a light lighting up the surface and making it warmer. When a knowledgeable scientist thinks about it the increase in CO2 blockage of radiation will cause the average emission level to rise in the atmosphere to a colder zone necessitating that the surface warm to supply sufficient radiation to that layer to emit the sufficient radiation to balance with incoming solar.
The process of how the surface actually feels the resistance isn’t specified.
Bill,
This is not a discussion about the atmosphere, the GHE or lapse rate. SO your point is a strawman.
It is just about fundamentals of heat transfer.
None of your team of experts disputes what we are saying about this fluxes adding thing.
Do you really want to get sucked into the cult of idiots who deny basic physics?
Nate you have demonstrated that you don’t even know basic physics. All you are doing is like the moon just parroting what you thought somebody taught you.
bill, we are discussing what happens when you place a body at 0K in an environment that is 273K. Nate believes the body 1) has an initial energy imbalance of +315 W/m^2 and 2) that it will begin warming until it has reached 273K. That is basic physics. I agree with Nate. You disagree with us. The laws of thermodynamics agree with Nate and I. You may want to consider that it is actually you that does not fully understand basic physics yet.
I agreed with Tim’s 2nd and 3rd propositions and disagreed with the 4th and 5th.
I did say I agreed with the first 2 and disagree with the second 2. I had missed whether I should agree with the first. Which I do agree with.
So what you say above is not true as that was the 2nd proposition that I agreed with any way you wanted to read my answer.
So you need to back off the strawman you are trying to erect and look around to see if you can salvage the argument in question, numbers 4 and 5 of Tim’s questions.
To recap from Tim’s questions the only two questions that there is disagreement on:
4th proposition
I could surround it with ice and THEN add the sunlight. The ice made it 273 K already. The extra energy from the sunlight would warm the object further (325 K to be specific; +52 C warmer than it was).
AGREE or DISAGREE?
No! The light is only capable of warming anything to 273K
5th proposition
And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he final temperature would still be 325 K.
AGREE or DISAGREE?
Still wrong.
You can test both. Put the object and the ice in a box filled with a vacuum with walls temperature controlled to 273K.
You could mess around with infintessimally small spot lights capable of warming everything inside of the box to 273k inside a box with walls at 3k, using of course the super tiny spotlights that eclipse an immaterial area of box walls. Doesn’t make any difference.
Swenson,
Where did you get this
“Here. A very fit athlete of average body size can produce a little over 200 W/m2.”
That’s more like the output of a dead body.
Someone alive would be close to 500 W/m^2
So a body in an igloo would be slowly melting the ice, not the other way round.
b,
Many alarmist donkeys seem to use Wikipedia as a reference, so –
Human skin area – 1.5 to 2 square meters.
Also from Wiki –
* Normal human metabolism produces heat at a basal metabolic rate of around 80 watts. During a bicycle race, an elite cyclist can produce close to 400 watts of mechanical power *
You can do basic arithmetic, can you?
So now you need to resort to obscenities. As many alarmist donkeys do, when they discover how stupid they are.
Why do you never check before bragging about how stupid you are? Or do you just lie because thats your nature?
You are an Idiot alarmist donkey.
Many alarmist donkeys seem to use Wikipedia as a reference, so
Human skin area – 1.5 to 2 square meters.
Also from Wiki –
* Normal human metabolism produces heat at a basal metabolic rate of around 80 watts. During a bicycle race, an elite cyclist can produce close to 400 watts of mechanical power *
You can do basic arithmetic, can you?
So now you need to resort to obscenities. As many alarmist donkeys do, when they discover how stupid they are.
Why do you never check before bragging about how stupid you are? Or do you just lie because thats your nature?
Typical Swenson bullshit, there you like profanity.
So the Human metabolism is 80 watts, that has nothing to do with the emissivity of the human body.
e*sigma*T^4
The emissivity of the human body is
“the human skin emits, practically, like a blackbody. In their experiments, where the emissivity was measured by reflection, they found ε=98.91% ε = 98.9 1 % .Mar 1, 2009”
about 99% so just about like a blackbody.
e is .99
sigma is 0.0000000567
T is 35 C or 309 K.
You do the math.
Find out you are still wrong.
b,
Carry on with the profanity if you think it can change facts.
So with an input of 80 W, and a surface area of 2 square meters, your claim of 500 W/m2 gives 1000W.
Alarmist donkey dreaming. 80 W turns into 1000 W through the miracle of ignorance and stupidity.
Next.
Swenson,
You are missing an input there.
I’ll let you know when you figure it out.
It might help to take your clothes off and wait a while, and then put them back on.
b,
God preserve me from idiots misunderstanding insulation.
Insulation doesnt turn 80 into 1000!
Still missing an input.
I’ll have to assume you are too stupid to figure it out.
Bob please stop trolling
Good Bill,
Maybe you can tell Swenson what he is missing in his heat balance of the fit athletes body.
But then, maybe you are too stupid to figure it out too.
blob, please stop trolling.
Bob if you are having trouble with Swenson, deal with it yourself.
Bill,
Swensons too stupid to figure it out, but that doesn’t stop you and DREMPTY from butting in.
Get it, butting in, putting your ass where no one wants it.
Methinks you and DREMPTY are also too stupid to figure it out and just troll the thread.
Bob you can handle your own problems, but don’t be telling me how you want me to handle my problems and then we will be fine.
People with an IQ above 70 but below 85 are characterized by:
The inability to use precise language to articulate oneself.
Propensity for anger and retaliation; in contrast to logical forward-thinking and self-advancement.
Propensity for mob or “group-think.”
Attraction to low level concepts that require very little research or intellectual rigor.
Show very low levels of creative inspiration.
Shallow thinking, inadequate, limited in thought.
Maybe that’s why they’re called “idiots”, huh Snape?
Romana rivelino.
IQ ests are very flawed as they test a very small part of intellect.
They are usually taken around the age of 14 when the human brain is still developing.
As a teacher some of the most creative kids I teach and some of the kids who have fantastic practical ability fit into that band you describe.
O not assume academic ability is inteligence.
Some of the most academic people I have known haven’t any common sense.
mark…”Romana rivelino.
IQ ests are very flawed as they test a very small part of intellect”.
The intellect that is tested is not true intelligence, it is more man-made. If you took a person with a Mensan IQ of 180 and put him in the Borneo jungle, he/she would likely be dead in a week. A native of Borneo, with a much lower Mensan IQ could survive indefinitely. In fact the Borneon would likely test as a moron or an idiot on our IQ test.
I think intelligence is unrelated to the human conscious mind. It comes from a deeper level. If we humans relied on the the so-called intelligence of the conscious kind we’d have become extinct long ago.
I have unfortunately stopped putting much stock in Gordon Robertson’s comments since the moment* he revealed that he didn’t know what a photomultiplier is, and was thus making statements that were complete suppositions, yet cloaked in an air of authority. A poseur if you will.
For your education, please read the following.
“Photomultiplier tubes are vacuum tubes that consist of a glass, ceramic, or metal envelope, a photoemissive material (photocathode), secondary emitting electrodes (dynodes), and a collection electrode (anode, see Fig. 1). A photon passing through the PMT window is absorbed by the photocathode if the energy of the photon exceeds the binding energy of the photocathode material. An electron is released in accordance with the photoelectric effect, which was described by Einstein early in this century.”
https://www.laserfocusworld.com/detectors-imaging/article/16554117/select-the-photomultiplier-tube-that-matches-your-application
*“Gordon Robertson says:
October 15, 2020 at 10:31 PM
…How do you measure a photon as a fictitious particle in a wave of EM?”
RR,
What evidence are you talking about? Your link merely supports precisely what I said,
Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, are they? Try it – find a NASA publication which says * the temperature is so many W/m2 *!
You are an alarmist idiot, who has to believe what you dribble about. All this adding fluxes nonsense is just a magical attempt to make people blind to the fact that the climate donkeys are really trying to add and subtract temperatures!
Or are you going to change tack, and now claim W/m2 do NOT represent temperatures? If they do, then the alarmist donkeys at NASA believe that 20 C plus 20 C equals 40 C!
So, W/m2. Temperature or not temperature? You are a self acknowledged idiot, so just say the first thing that occurs to you. You can always try to wriggle out of it later.
Mark Wapples,
In my experience, which is based on over 40 years in industry, IQ correlates well with achievement. Granted, I cannot go around administering IQ tests to grown adult professionals so I use proxies such as the criteria I listed above to categorize individuals and make judgements about their potential to add value to the company. It is not perfect and I have made some mistakes, but overall it has served well.
RR,
So you pick high achievers, and then guess they have high IQs because they are high achievers?
Is your employer aware that you are an alarmist donkey as well?
Svante says:
Increased solar power delivery at the surface would flow upward and warm the atmosphere all the way to the top.
You think it will create an enhanced greenhouse effect instead, and clouds to take away the surface input at the same time? Shall we call it the pretzel effect?
Except there is no evidence of increased solar input. In space or at the surface.
===================================
You have a vivid imagination Svante. Once surface IR has been absorbed its indeed in the atmosphere and not at the surface. As it stands somewhere between 90 and 95% of all IR is absorbed by the atmosphere, leaving 20 to 40 watts irradiating out of the atmospheric window that CO2 can’t close much at all if any.
To get more surface warming from CO2 you need to rely on an unestablished theory like the M&W 1967 theory modified as pointed out by Nate by the R&C 1978 theory. Just a bunch of balderdash arising out of the minds of the imaginative.
Not saying its not true just saying totally unconvincing evidence it is true. Its kind like estimating how fast a tree can run by measuring a tree from its toe to the first major branch. Its usually a good idea to actually put a stopwatch on it. I am sure they are doing that, problem is they can’t see the tree cuz it blew away in the last storm.
bill…”Svante says:
Increased solar power delivery at the surface would flow upward and warm the atmosphere all the way to the top”.
I think what Svante may be getting at is the IR converted from solar SW by the surface ‘flows’ upward and warms the atmosphere. Still wrong, for several reasons.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I think what Svante may be getting at is the IR converted from solar SW by the surface ‘flows’ upward and warms the atmosphere.”
Thanks Gordon, you got it.
Yes the heat absorbed by the surface does warm the atmosphere, just not all by radiation. That is what is wrong with the grade school model is it a model of a ‘minor’ atmospheric heating process while ignoring the vast majority of the atmosphere heating. So you continue to pedal that deceptive model like it was the be all end all and are you are doing is demonstrating the ignorance that has been inculcated into you. The saying is a little knowledge can be extremely dangerous.
Yes, I tried to start with a simple model.
It made you even more confused.
If it was the Sun heat would flow upwards by all mechanisms, not just radiation, warming the whole column.
But we have warming at the surface and cooling at the top, so it’s due to an increasing thermal barrier in the atmosphere.
“But we have warming at the surface and cooling at the top, so it’s due to an increasing thermal barrier in the atmosphere.”
Svante, you have the cart before the horse. The “thermal barrier” you imagine is due to surface warming and the transfer of energy to space. You see the result in the lapse rate. Temperatures drop as you near the tropopause.
Svante says:
Yes, I tried to start with a simple model.
It made you even more confused.
==================================
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543939
bill hunter says:
Heat flow depends on temperature difference.
GHGs make the atmosphere more opaque.
So the surface sees a warmer/lower layer of the atmosphere.
That’s called back radiation.
The same is true for convection. If less heat is coming out at the top there would be a temperature buildup in the atmosphere. As the temperature difference decreases convection would slow down. The surface runs a surplus and temperature goes up until the original heat flow is restored.
Sensible criticism welcome here!
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
The process of how the surface actually feels the resistance isnt specified.
Heat flow depends on temperature difference.
GHGs make the atmosphere more opaque.
So the surface sees a warmer/lower layer of the atmosphere.
Thats called back radiation.
The same is true for convection. If less heat is coming out at the top there would be a temperature buildup in the atmosphere. As the temperature difference decreases convection would slow down. The surface runs a surplus and temperature goes up until the original heat flow is restored.
Sensible criticism welcome here!
=====================================
Yes that’s the theory but if you put a dam on a river the water doesn’t necessarily back all the way up to the source. It may electronically in an electrical circuit but the resistance in this circuit is so high it instead relies on the river to back up. Proof? Of 396 watts/m2 emitted by the surface only 23 watts makes it way to space from being absorbed by the atmosphere and by far most of that is attributable to the uneven distribution of water vapor.
Svante says:
The process of how the surface actually feels the resistance isnt specified.
Heat flow depends on temperature difference.
GHGs make the atmosphere more opaque.
So the surface sees a warmer/lower layer of the atmosphere.
Thats called back radiation.
===========================
They say CO2 is absorbed mostly within a very small distance above the surface. You have to explain how the air gets warmer before you can claim more backradiation Svante.
Svante says:
The same is true for convection. If less heat is coming out at the top there would be a temperature buildup in the atmosphere. As the temperature difference decreases convection would slow down. The surface runs a surplus and temperature goes up until the original heat flow is restored.
Sensible criticism welcome here!
======================================
Well for a starter we can estimate CO2 based upon air samples on the basis that CO2 is assumed to be evenly distributed. But we can’t sample the density of clouds as they are not evenly distributed so cloud estimates as I hear are only believed to be about 95% accurate. The case for water vapor and precipitation is equally inaccurate.
You have to account for all the variables in the atmosphere sufficent to override your theory and we aren’t even close to doing that.
if you have a company claiming 1 million in profit on sales and uncertain liabilities of about 10 million with no track record of being able to avoid that liability what do you do? Sell the family farm and invest?
Reality.
* An Austrian man beat his own record for the longest full-body contact with ice cubes on Saturday.
Josef Koeberl managed to stay 2 hours, 30 minutes and 57 seconds inside a custom-made glass box filled up to his shoulders with ice cubes. * Sept 2020.
So much for adding the flux from ice to the flux from his body, and making him warm and toasty. About as stupid as the GHE fantasy.
If he filled that box with some CO2 he would have an energy amplifier and stayed in there until all ice melted
gbaikie…”I dont think needed a study to indicate space is teeming with the sub-atomic particle, the neutrino. But is it teaming with more matter than the Solar wind?
And if so, how much more”.
I think you need to distinguish between the electrons and protons that make up the solar wind and sub-atomic particles like neutrinos which are at a lower scale than electrons and protons. The solar wind is matter as we define matter, electrons and protons, whereas sub-atomic particles are theoretical building blocks of atoms.
The solar wind is made up of high temperature electrons and protons ejected from the Sun. They are so hot at ejection that they form a form of gas plasma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
The solar wind, as a gas plasma interacts with our magnetic field to produce seriously high voltages which can induce electrical currents in the atmosphere, ocean, and solid surface. No one thus far has produced published science connecting those electrical currents to weather and climate.
swannie…”Another round of Gordos delusional physics. Your so-called natural temperature is just the equilibrium temperature given some level of insulation”.
I think I made myself clear. I surrounded the resistor with sufficient insulation to prevent conduction therefore the exterior temperature of the insulation would not be affected by convection. Furthermore, I included a reflective shield to block radiation.
In essence, I claimed, albeit ideally, that the resistor was insulated to the max therefore could dissipate no heat. As such, the resistor would heat to a natural temperature representing no heat dissipation. That’s the max temperature it could reach while consuming 100 watts under those conditions and that’s the temperature toward which the resistor with heat dissipation would warm.
That’s why your conclusion was erroneous re your experiment with a metal cover suspended over a heat source. You concluded that the metal plate would back-radiate energy to a heating element so as to raise it’s temperature, a contradiction of the 2nd law. I pointed out the correct conclusion that your metal plate was blocking heat dissipation hence the heating element rising toward its natural temperature.
Gordo wrote:
He continues to amaze with his lack of understanding of heat transfer. There is no such thing as “sufficient insulation to prevent conduction”. In real world physics, adding lots of insulation would result in destruction of the resistor, as it’s temperature would increase to the point of material failure, i.e., burn out or melt down.
Try this. Place a resistor, such as a 100w incandescent light bulb, between two 6 inch thick layers of fiberglass insulation and connect it to a power supply. Turn it on and enjoy the show.
Your repeated claim that: “the correct conclusion that your metal plate was blocking heat dissipation” is similarly delusional, as you have never shown how the Green Plate would “block” energy loss from the Blue plate in a high vacuum environment.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts is still doing his bait and switch. Obviously too much of an alarmist donkey to realise that W/m2 has precious little to do with temperatures in the real world. This is why thermometers are not calibrated in W/m2.
NASA alarmist donkeys use W/m2 to delude and confuse.
Tim would have us believe that an object heated by sunlight to a temperature above the freezing point of water by the sun, can be made even hotter by adding the supposed 300 W/m2 from ice.
This all goes to show that having a PhD is no protection against attacks of idiocy.
Seriously he doesn’t believe that Swenson, does he?
Inculcation is a real bitch.
Maybe we have to keep this a little simpler. We have an object laying on the ground say in Canada and the ground is 0c. So we take some ice and throw it on top of the ground, the ground warms up? Then we shine a light emitting 315w/m2 through the ice and the object starts melting the ice from the inside? LMAO!
Gee I have a solution for that just throw more ice on top! Oh no! Thats going to make it warm faster!!
bill…” So we take some ice and throw it on top of the ground, the ground warms up?”
Reminds me of the absurd plan by nobs in Europe, to dump barge loads of dry ice in the Arctic to cool it down. I am wondering what they were thinking about, the Arctic is far colder for 11 months of the year, due to little or no solar input, than what any amount of dry ice could cool it.
This is why I don’t want alarmists like the current crop of Democrat eco-weenies interfering in our environment.
Swenson says:
October 23, 2020 at 12:25 AM
“realise that W/m2 has precious little to do with temperatures in the real world. This is why thermometers are not calibrated in W/m2.”
Consider the evidence though…
“Infrared radiometers are sensors that measure infrared radiation, which is used to determine surface temperature without touching the surface (when using sensors that must be in contact with the surface, it can be difficult to maintain thermal equilibrium without altering surface temperature). Infrared radiometers are often called infrared thermometers because temperature is the desired quantity, even though the sensors detect radiation.”
https://www.apogeeinstruments.com/
Apologies. Initially posted in the wrong place.
RR,
What evidence are you talking about? Your link merely supports precisely what I said,
Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, are they? Try it find a NASA publication which says * the temperature is so many W/m2 *!
You are an alarmist idiot, who has to believe what you dribble about. All this adding fluxes nonsense is just a magical attempt to make people blind to the fact that the climate donkeys are really trying to add and subtract temperatures!
Or are you going to change tack, and now claim W/m2 do NOT represent temperatures? If they do, then the alarmist donkeys at NASA believe that 20 C plus 20 C equals 40 C!
So, W/m2. Temperature or not temperature? You are a self acknowledged idiot, so just say the first thing that occurs to you. You can always try to wriggle out of it later.
Swenson says:
“Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, are they? Try it find a NASA publication which says * the temperature is so many W/m2 *!”
…
“Or are you going to change tack, and now claim W/m2 do NOT represent temperatures? ”
You seem confused, no?
An infrared thermometer allows the temperature of objects to be measured at a distance based on the principle that they emit radiation more or less like blackbodies. Mercury thermometers allow measurement of temperature based on the principle that a fixed volume of mercury expands when heated and contracts when cooled thus rising and falling along a capillary tube which is scaled between the freezing and boiling temperatures of water. Both instruments invert for temperature.
rr…”Infrared radiometers are sensors that measure infrared radiation, which is used to determine surface temperature without touching the surface…”
Once again, my expertise is in electronics and I have explained this before. A radiometer does not measure temperature, it measures the frequency of IR from a heat source. The temperature of a mass can be ‘inferred’ based on the frequency of IR it is emitting but that applies to frequencies well beyond the IR spectrum. You can infer the temperature (colour temperature) of a glowing piece of iron by its colour, which infers its frequency.
When the IR is collected by a radiometer it affects the conductance of a semiconductor device and the current produced in the device can be compared to values in memory which were pre-calculated in a lab. Of course, in the lab they would have used a proper thermometer to calibrate the actual heat of the mass radiating the IR.
Gordon I agree with you entirely.
I was once told an allagorical story.
“There was al large academic conference in Geneva.
A professor of english literature, a professor of biology and a professor of astronomy hired a boat and a local man to row across the lake.
Each boasted that their subject was the greatest so they asked the oarsman to judge.
The professor of english expound upon the glory of Shakesphere.
The professor of biology described the variety and beauty of nature.
The professor of astronomy described the wonders of the Universe.
They turned to the oarsman and asked his verdict.
“Your descriptions are beyond my understanding” he replied. “I cannot Judge, but can I ask you a question. Can you swim?”
“No, why?” each answered in turn.
He replied, “because while you were talking the wind has got up and the waves will sink this small boat before we hit land”
Who is the most intelligent person in this story?
Ramona Rivelino says:
October 23, 2020 at 6:48 AM
I have unfortunately stopped putting much stock in Gordon Robertsons comments since the moment* he revealed that he didnt know what a photomultiplier is, and was thus making statements that were complete suppositions, yet cloaked in an air of authority. A poseur if you will.
For your education, please read the following.
Photomultiplier tubes are vacuum tubes that consist of a glass, ceramic, or metal envelope, a photoemissive material (photocathode), secondary emitting electrodes (dynodes), and a collection electrode (anode, see Fig. 1). A photon passing through the PMT window is absorbed by the photocathode if the energy of the photon exceeds the binding energy of the photocathode material. An electron is released in accordance with the photoelectric effect, which was described by Einstein early in this century.
https://www.laserfocusworld.com/detectors-imaging/article/16554117/select-the-photomultiplier-tube-that-matches-your-application
*”Gordon Robertson says:
October 15, 2020 at 10:31 PM
…How do you measure a photon as a fictitious particle in a wave of EM?”
I have used photomultiplier tubes to measure the radiochemical purity of Fluorodeoxyglucose F-18 injection. A drug I hope no one ever needs, however if you do need it it may save your life, and/or determine the best course of treatment.
b,
And? Should anyone applaud your brilliance?
No, but you should accept it as evidence of the existence of photons.
But you do already, being the expert on quantum chromodynamics.
b,
Why should be impressed that you can push buttons and read displays?
As you say, I accept the existence of photons. Why would I need to ask you what I already know?
If you claim I am an expert on chromodynamics, then you might supply something evidence to support your claim. You are just being an idiot, otherwise.
Swenson,
You are the one that started the quantum chromodynamics lessons, it was all about molecules and atoms not colliding.
It was pretty funny.
But then you are more funny than smart.
blob, please stop trolling.
bobd…”I have used photomultiplier tubes to measure the radiochemical purity of Fluorodeoxyglucose F-18 injection”.
There is no scientific proof that a particle called a photon exists. I prefer the word ‘quanta’ or ‘quantum’, because it suggests an amount rather than a particle.
A quantum, as an amount may have a frequency and a wavelength but a particle cannot. In other words, no one knows what is being emitted that affects a photomultiplier. Is it a small burst of energy in a wave, that can have a frequency?
Gordon,
Recheck your Einstein history, he got a Nobel prize for proving photons exist.
b,
Gordon asked you a question, He appears to be seeking knowledge. A half smart alarmist donkey would think it was far too clever to actually help someone by providing assistance,
You are that half smart alarmist donkey, obviously.
Swenson,
Alright Gordon asked me a question. I’ll answer as best I can, but he won’t understand it nor like the answer.
Gordon’s question
“Is it a small burst of energy in a wave, that can have a frequency?”
Well yes, photons are small bursts of energy that have both wave-like and particle like properties.
But
“A quantum, as an amount may have a frequency and a wavelength but a particle cannot.”
Kind of hard to get through when you have to deal with that bullshit.
Because Gordon was arguing that electrons have frequency, but they are particles, so what is he really thinking.
blob, please stop trolling.
Drempty’s back.
Why don’t you go back to the Lunatic discussion.
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
rr…”I have unfortunately stopped putting much stock in Gordon Robertsons comments since the moment* he revealed that he didnt know what a photomultiplier is…”
Don’t recall the conversation. I have worked in the electrical, electronics, and computer fields most of my life and I have been aware not only of photomultipliers, but the related circuits that operate them.
I suppose you are trying to use a photomultiplier to convince me of the existence of photons but even Einstein stated later in his life that no one knew whether EM was a wave of a series of photons.
In order for the alleged photon to have a frequency and a wavelength it could not be a particle. By definition, a photon is a particle of EM that has momentum and no mass. Who are they trying to kid? Those who defined it have no more of an idea of what it is than my Granny.
Gordon,
here is some light reading, never mind the pun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet
Multiple choice question:
A: Light is composed of particles called photons
B: Light is composed of waves of electric and magnetic fields
C: Light is sometimes a wave, sometimes a particle
D: Nobody knows which one light is
Pick the one Einstein picked.
bobd…”here is some light reading, never mind the pun”.
I have tried to warn you that any idiot can enter an article in the wiki. For all we know, that article could have been from Norman copy/pasting from one of his textbooks.
A quote from the wiki article:
“one of the basic concepts in the formulation of quantum mechanics is that of light coming in discrete bundles called photons. The energy of a photon is a function of its frequency,
E = h ν (E = hf if the Greek nu does not translate)”
Now they are calling a photon a wave packet. However, the photon is defined as a particle of EM with momentum but no mass. It would be appreciated if they’d make up their friggin’ minds.
Let’s face it, the photon is a mysterious fabrication that not even Einstein was sure about. That’s why I prefer the words quantum or quanta to describe what is emitted/absorbed by an electron. A quantum of energy is non-specific and might have a frequency. However, it also admits we have no idea what the quantum is. On the other hand, we know that an electron is a particle and has mass.
Somewhere in the article they arrogantly refer to Schrodinger’s wave equation being replaced by a theory by Born. That’s bs. Shroddy’s wave equation is still the basis of quantum theory. So your article was written by some arrogant dweeb. In the 1930s, a mini revolt occurred in which quantum theorists like Bohr branched off into a more esoteric version of QM which makes little sense and Born was part of that revolt. In essence, the wiki article is comparing apples to oranges since Born and Schrodinger did not agree.
They also claim in the article that E = hf solved the ultraviolet catastrophe. Bs. That was solved by the Planck equation, in which he included an exponential function to statistically create a bell curve rather than the ultraviolet catastrophe’s infinite amplification.
If you look at E = hf, that’s exactly what would happen, E would move toward infinity as f increased. That is the ultraviolet catastrophe. Planck modified it with the assumption that higher frequencies representing UV and beyond would be less available, hence the Planck curve.
If wikepedia agrees with what I have learned earning a college degree then I use is as a convenient source.
You mean this equation that solved the Ultraviolet Catastophe?
Bsublambda(lambda,T)
=(2hc^2/(lambda^5))((1/e^(h*c)/(lambda*boltzmans constant*T)-1)
Which lead Einstein and others to postulate photons and wave packets to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe.
As I said before, that’s what they gave him the Nobel Prize for.
Photons
bobdroege says:
If wikepedia agrees with what I have learned earning a college degree then I use is as a convenient source.
You mean this equation that solved the Ultraviolet Catastophe?
Bsublambda(lambda,T)
=(2hc^2/(lambda^5))((1/e^(h*c)/(lambda*boltzmans constant*T)-1)
Which lead Einstein and others to postulate photons and wave packets to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe.
As I said before, thats what they gave him the Nobel Prize for.
Photons
===================================
You must have gotten that out of Wikipedia because photons weren’t named as such for about a decade after Einstein won his Nobel Prize. Further he absolutely opposed the idea called it a misconception of what he had discovered.
In 1954 over a generation after the photon was named Einstein said this:
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.
Do you see photon mentioned in there? No! Is that really in Wikipedia or did you just make that up?
Bill,
Photons were what Einstein discovered with the photoelectric effect.
Yeah photons was coined later, but it was for what Einstein called a wave packet or light quantum.
I’m sure you think you have a point.
The point was Bob is to Einstein you are one of those Tom, Dick, and Harry’s.
Bill,
For that statement to be true, you are assuming that I think I know exactly what photons are.
You mentioned a Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Tom says photons don’t exist.
Dick say he is sure photons exist but doesn’t know exactly what they are.
Then there’s Harry, who says he knows exactly what photons are.
You are putting me in the Harry camp, there you go again, overestimating your own comprehension of the situation.
Typical rant, since you don’t know everything, we all know nothing.
Rubbish
bobdroege says:
Bill,
For that statement to be true, you are assuming that I think I know exactly what photons are.
You mentioned a Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Tom says photons dont exist.
Dick say he is sure photons exist but doesnt know exactly what they are.
Then theres Harry, who says he knows exactly what photons are.
You are putting me in the Harry camp, there you go again, overestimating your own comprehension of the situation.
Typical rant, since you dont know everything, we all know nothing.
Rubbish
===================================
Einstein was referring to the mainstream thought on the matter. Obviously he wasn’t talking about people without any science training. He was referring to how the duality of light had led to a statistical version of reality.
So I think you have a mysterious Einstein quote which you probably pulled out of context.
I am also sure you think you understand what Einstein was thinking about, but I surely think you don’t.
Maybe since you have an understanding of Einstein, maybe you could help Gordon understand the physics of light.
Bob, indeed you do have a well earned reputation around here of drawing conclusions on inadequate evidence so I am not at all surprised that you doing it again.
Bill,
“Bob, indeed you do have a well earned reputation around here of drawing conclusions on inadequate evidence so I am not at all surprised that you doing it again.”
Nice, a vague insult, with no supporting evidence.
What exactly are you talking about.
That I conclude that photons exist and that there is a greenhouse effect, well those two are firmly established conclusions drawn by better thinkers than me.
Or maybe it’s my conclusion that you think you understand Einstein, that’s true, but there is a high probability that you don’t understand Einstein.
Like a lot of misfits that pull a Einstein quote out of context.
Maybe you could quote me saying I know exactly what a photon is.
https://www.livescience.com/65697-einstein-letters-quantum-physics.html
https://www.livescience.com/62418-quantum-einstein-paradox-test-entanglement.html
Reading a bunch of Einstein quotes, still finding no context for the Tom, Dick, and Harry quote.
But I’ll try and be as humble as Albert.
Svante says:
https://www.livescience.com/62418-quantum-einstein-paradox-test-entanglement.html
======================
What exactly is the point you are trying to make with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox?
That Einstein’s quantum concerns have been proved wrong.
Svante says:
That Einsteins quantum concerns have been proved wrong.
=========================================
You got the idea that the building of proof for the Einstein spooky paradox theory some how proves Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics?
Who infused that idea into you? Sounds pretty spooky to me.
It was the article you quoted.
Svante proof isn’t there yet.
Here it is:
https://www.nature.com/news/quantum-teleportation-achieved-over-record-distances-1.11163
They need a sustained channel to separate it from coincidence.
It’s been proved, Einstein was wrong on quantum theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefsPBDOcFE
Not correct Svante. The only science question that is answered by your post is your own political bias.
Quantum theory is political, you’re funny!
No its obvious Svante.
Dr. X proposes theory says he got a faint signal. Theory supports Svante’s world view – Svante says Dr. X just destroyed Einstein’s projection.
Dr. Y proposes theory says he got a faint signal. Theory does not support Svante’s world view – Svante says the Dr. Y is wrong.
Quantum entanglement was proven years ago, Bill. One more thing you need to get up to speed on.
Indeed math problems can get really tangled up. I still remember one logic proof I did in college that took 25 pages of equations to solve. It was like solving a Rubic’s cube, but with a much more difficult solution.
Proof of the effect will only come when there is at least a working prototype of a device that can seen information over the channel in a dependable way. Over the years I have heard many claims of breakthrough experiments that ended up being phantom effects. If I were a physics student or researcher it would be a great thing to work on and see if you can turn it into something dependable enough to validate.
I am a big believer in the possibility of extra sensory perception.
This has nothing to do with talking to the dead though, in my experience anyway, but actually perceiving the energy and/or thoughts of a still living being at a level that can’t be explained by the normal senses. Perhaps it has something to do with quantum entanglement. So I certainly haven’t ruled it out. It would be interesting to find out if a person could find a dependable channel for that without any instruments.
“Proof of the effect will only come”
As usual this is in your mind, not science.
What you are talking about is a specific application of the effect of entanglement which was established by A Aspect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
bill hunter says:
“I am a big believer in the possibility of extra sensory perception.extra sensory perception.”
I can see why you are at odds with science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
So you are one of those science nut cases that think a belief in God is contrary to science?
It’s worse than that, you are superstitious.
Nope you have that wrong.
Having ideas about what is beyond what we can perceive isn’t a superstition. A superstition is when one sees ominous signs out of what you believe about the unknown.
Like a fear of climate change. Thats a superstition.
believing CO2 will warm the earth a couple of degrees isn’t a superstition, fearing it is.
Believing in God or believing in ESP or believing in UFOs aren’t superstitions unless you start thinking you are seeing ominous signs.
Its not an easy thing to define. I see ominous signs in modern society’s rejection of a higher power.
But its based in the science of psychology and the benefit of having a positive attitude and not because of some fear of punishment forthcoming from God. I would think God would see right through that and that it would affect your choices and hobble your efforts to actually serve God.
I can’t rule out such punishment but attitude is important to a healthy individual and a healthy society. there is a decidedly spiritual nature to that that we have very poor understanding of. Attitude is really almost everything as far as we are concerned.
How that is manifested is of top importance. The work of Mother Teresa isn’t her belief in God, its her attitude and her desire to help others that matter. If the belief in God helped her with that, and I have very little doubt that it did, all the more power.
Noun
superstition (countable and uncountable, plural superstitions)
“A belief or beliefs, not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, that events may be influenced by one’s behaviour in some magical or mystical way.”
Like extra sensory perception.
Thats a piss poor definition of superstition. I have always depended on Merriam Webster which is one of the good dictionaries.
Definition of superstition
1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Note ”evidence to the contrary”
”fear”
”irrational”
”trust in magic or chance”
”false conception of causation” (like your belief in the grade school model you pedal around here)
Believing in God or that there are things in this world that we simply have difficult perceiving including perception itself isn’t superstition, its keeping a healthy open mind. Of course you can delude yourself by believing in anything unvalidated too much. Thats where you cross the line into superstition.
We have the scientific method for pinning things down via controlled experimentation. In natural resource issues thats usually not possible so we rely upon statistics. But statistics isn’t certain and is far too often abused – like recent election polls.
bill hunter says:
“Of course you can delude yourself by believing in anything unvalidated too much. Thats where you cross the line into superstition.”
You fit your own definition.
actually you are the one that tends to believe in stuff unproven. climate change, unforced synchronous rotation, quantum entanglement, free trade. you are also probably an egalitarian.
quantum entanglement, hmmm electromagnetic energy like the brain operates? could be a source of esp.
i don’t go around arguing against any of the things you so ardently believe in. nor do i go around around arguing for the things you don’t believe in. i just believe in endless possibilities and approach each one from a position of of looking at the evidence for and against.
esp is really possible if realize how limited our perceptions are and how unlimited the transfer of energy is. in fact the difference is so dramatic in every known dimension it seems probable that among infinite possibilities one or more exists that our electromagnetic nervous system is able to detect.
thus because we haven’t learned what signals represent esp we can be completely unaware that signals we already feel represent a definable perception. we know how to screw with our perception systems. learning how to extend them is much more difficult.
Mark,
You asked –
* Who is the most intelligent person in this story? *
You? I gave up thinking about possible scenarios.
What happened to Climate Hustle 2 ?
You remember, that glorious offering hyped in the previous thread.
I have heard it is available in a few $2 shops as a Christmas stocking filler. Plans for CH3 have been shelved.
Hercules is unemployed again, and several of the aged “experts” have been admitted to nursing homes suffering from dementia.
MJ,
Are you postin a pointless comment intentionally, or do you have a point?
You certainly dont have a good description of the GHE, or any sort of AGW theory, do you?
Like several before me, most notably DREMT and ClintR, I have been enlightened by the greatest scientist who ever lived (he even said so).
And no, it is not Galileo, or Newton, or Einstein. They were fools by comparison.
Have I piqued your curiosity? Good!
To be continued…..
greenland…”I have been enlightened by the greatest scientist who ever lived (he even said so)”.
Only someone like Michael Mann would be foolish enough to make such a statement. Then again, that would PO Gavin Schmidt, who lays claim to such an honour.
norman…”They do not grasp the actual 2nd Law, they have a perverted form of it they cling to”.
Here’s the definition I use, by the creator of the 2nd law, Clausius. Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. What is it about NEVER you don’t understand Normie?
Gordon Robertson
I perfectly understand it. You however are totally lacking. You are a mindless contrarian who thinks himself a genius. Your ideas are really simplistic and basic. No depth and most are wrong and distorted versions of real physics. I tire of your stupidity. I have linked you several times to what Clausius himself said. You are too ignorant and stuck in contrarian land to understand it.
Once again Clausius own words. Maybe it might some day sink in but it is not very likely.
Clausius: “The principle assumed by the author as the ground of
the second main principle, viz. that heat cannot of itself, or
without compensation, pass from a colder to a hotter body,
corresponds to everyday experience in certain very simple
cases of the exchange of heat. To this class belongs the
conduction of heat, which always takes place in such a way
that heat passes from hotter bodies or parts of bodies to
colder bodies or parts of bodies. Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
He freely states there is a double exchange of heat. The hot sends energy to the cold object and likewise the cold sends energy to the hot. The reason the hot gets colder and the cold warms is because in the simultaneous exchange of energy the hotter one is sending MORE energy to the cold than it receives. Likewise the cold is sending less energy than it receives.
You are a clueless contrarian that does not even understand what Clausius himself is stating. Nor will you ever.
norman…”Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
***
Norman…must you be so terminally dense? The first part of the quote from Clausius upholds what I just said. The second part has been explained to you ad nauseem. Clausius refers to radiation between bodies of different temperature as “a simultaneous double exchange of heat”. That was the belief in his day that heat flowed through an aether has heat rays. Others believed that too, like Stefan, Bolzmann, Maxwell and Planck.
We know now that theory is wrong, although some modern scientists have not become aware of that. Heat does not flow between bodies of different temperatures, it must first be converted to EM, and that’s what radiates. The text books you use as reference are making the same mistake.
Bohr established circa 1913, some 25 years after Clausius had died, that electrons in atoms do the conversion of heat to EM and vice-versa. He discovered that while investigating why certain atoms radiate and absorb only at discrete frequencies. He established also that certain conditions are required for an electron to absorb EM/IR.
In order that an electron gain the energy to move up to a higher orbital energy level. the intensity and frequency of the absorbed EM must be sufficient to be absorbed at all. That’s because electrons are resonant particles orbiting at a specific frequency and kinetic energy.
Stick this in your pipe and smoke it. The EM intensity and frequency of EM generated by a cooler body lacks the required intensity and frequency to move an electron to a higher energy level. That is, EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by the electrons in a hotter body, ergo, that EM can be converted to heat in order to make the hotter body hotter.
Gordon Robertson
I think they all understood that energy transfers both ways with radiant energy.
The electron transition energy is mostly visible and UV light. Yes an individual atom in an already excited state will not absorb incoming EM. What you do not understand is that most atoms are not in excited states. So even if one will not absorb the EM another one will. Your ban on hot object not able to absorb energy from a colder one is bogus. Has not valid science behind it.
Also most IR is not a product of electron transitions. It is from molecular vibrations. I have tried many times to explain this concept to you. It is like a barrier you are not able to penetrate.
Here:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/single-spring-en.html
This is a simple block and spring simulations. Only the outer shell electrons are bonding electrons for molecules. When a molecule forms it releases energy and goes to a lower energy state. The bonding electrons act as spring tension for the nuclear masses of the molecule. In CO2 you have heavy nuclei (thousands of times more massive than electrons). This is what vibrates in molecules that produces IR. The nuclei are like blocks connected by springs. They move around. In a polar molecule that creates an electromagnetic energy. The K.E. of the vibrating nuclei is converted to IR and the vibration drops to a lower energy state.
Here are the possible vibrations of CO2 molecule. The nuclei are what hold the K.E. that converts to IR. Same as the block is what stores the K.E. in the block spring.
http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~schauble/MoleculeHTML/CO2_html/CO2_page.html
The bonding electrons act like springs while the nuclei are the source of the K.E. that converts to IR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-aUVqKrybw
N,
I suppose you will try and tell me that argon (nearly 1% of the atmosphere) is not heated by sunlight because it has no molecules to vibrate?
You really are an ignorant alarmist donkey, arent you?
Argons specific heat ratio is a little higher than CO2, but you wouldnt be able to accept this reality.
How many imaginary molecular springs can you find that dont exist purely in your disordered brain?
Swenson
I don’t know what you are even attempting to respond to. It is mostly ignorance.
There are more energy storage systems in atoms than molecular vibration. Argon would have K.E. energy of translation energy moving at 394 m/sec. Since Argon exists as a single atom it has no molecular vibrational modes. And no it would not be heated by sunlight directly. Sunlight (mostly IR) that is absorbed by H2O and CO2 will then increase in energy that can be transferred to Argon atoms and increase the average translational energy.
There are no actual springs connecting nuclei within molecules but the bonding acts in similar fashion and you can even use Hooke’s Law to determine the energy contained in the vibrational modes.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Pacific_Union_College/Quantum_Chemistry/05%3A_The_Harmonic_Oscillator_and_the_Rigid_Rotor/5.01%3A_A_Harmonic_Oscillator_Obeys_Hooke's_Law
Norman claims: “Your ban on hot object not able to absorb energy from a colder one is bogus. Has not valid science behind it.
(Norman must believe a hot object can absorb energy from a colder object. He must believe that to support his cult’s belief that a cold sky can warm a warmer surface. And keep in mind that he is obsessed with his beliefs. He’s so obsessed he will even reject reality.)
Sometimes, the best way to deal with absurdity is with more absurdity.
Assume an object has a temperature of 90 degrees. Assume an identical second object has a temperature of 40 degrees. Assume ALL of the thermal energy from the 40 degree object could magically be transferred to the 90 degree object.
Would the temperature of the 90 degree object go up or down?
It would go down, of course. “Cold” can not raise the temperature of “hot”.
Norman is off with the fairies – again. Firmly believes that liquid argon will not evaporate in sunshine because it cannot be heated by the sun. Probably doesnt believe that liquid Argo used medically allows skin to radiate IR so quickly the skin cells freeze and die.
Strange lad, Norman. Typical alarmist donkey.
Seems to believe a cold object can provide energy to make a hot object hotter, without the cold object getting even colder! Magical energy creation. The hot just keeps on getting hotter, while the temperature of the colder jus5 stays the same. For ever, presumably,
ClintR,
Your claim
“Assume an object has a temperature of 90 degrees. Assume an identical second object has a temperature of 40 degrees. Assume ALL of the thermal energy from the 40 degree object could magically be transferred to the 90 degree object.”
You can transfer heat from cold to hot, all you need is something that does work.
No magic necessary, brains might be required though, it seems you lingered last in line for brains and the one you got was sort of rotten and insane.
Swenson
The lot of you contrarians are demonstrating to the rest of the blog that not one of you are very smart. You lack logical reasoning. You think you are a physics expert because you read a Feynman book.
You can’t read or process information on even a basic level. The contrarian noise in your head is too loud to actually read what people post. I have clarified the point many many times to contrarians like you and yet you still say stupid things.
Why are contrarians so stupid? What is wrong with your thinking ability?
Here is your really stupid point that has NOT been said by me and I also have clarified it. Are you as stupid as ClintR. He has zero ability to reason. Maybe the dumbest of the contrarians on this blog.
YOUR STUPID POINT: “Seems to believe a cold object can provide energy to make a hot object hotter, without the cold object getting even colder! Magical energy creation. The hot just keeps on getting hotter, while the temperature of the colder jus5 stays the same. For ever, presumably,”
NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT!! Your stupidity is frustrating since you make claims I do not make and attribute them falsely to me. Why do you do this?
HERE is what I say. Yes a cold object will send energy to a hotter one via EMR. If it is absorbed by the hot object is will be an additive effect. BUT (Please read this many times maybe someday it will sink into the limited mental ability you have) this energy will NOT warm the hot object! There is NO energy creation. If the hot object is HEATED (read that as many times as you can or you will go on being stupid) and you have the energy returning to the hotter object, the hotter object will indeed get warmer than it would without the cold object’s EMR reaching it.
I can try again and again. None of you contrarians is intelligent enough to understand the point made. None!
Conclusion: Sketpics are intelligent thoughtful people.
Contrarians are dense ignorants who don’t know the topic of interest, act as pseudo experts, say really stupid comments, lack logical reasoning abilities. Generally just annoying people.
Norman finally admits his false belief that energy from a cold object will warm a hotter object:
“If the hot object is HEATED (read that as many times as you can or you will go on being stupid) and you have the energy returning to the hotter object, the hotter object will indeed get warmer than it would without the cold objects EMR reaching it.”
Norman believes he has immunity from reality with his “clarification” of “HEATED”. But, he doesn’t understand thermodynamics. He’s like a convicted murder claiming he never killed anyone, with the “clarification” that it was the knife that did it!
Gordon,
Nope
“Stick this in your pipe and smoke it.”
Now you are peddling the brown acid, didn’t you hear the announcement to stay away from the brown acid?
“The EM intensity and frequency of EM generated by a cooler body lacks the required intensity and frequency to move an electron to a higher energy level.”
Yes for a transition to a higher electronic state, but there are vibrational, rotational and stretching modes that are of lower energy and often unpopulated, so there are available spots for the energy to be used.
“That is, EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by the electrons in a hotter body, ergo, that EM can be converted to heat in order to make the hotter body hotter.”
But it can, but not by the electrons themselves, but by the whole molecule.
b,
There you go, bob, demonstrating your ignorance again.
I absolutely guarantee that if you mix a colder gas with a hotter, the temperature will fall. Maybe you are confused by science?
By the way, the only interactions between photons and matter is with electrons. You obviously have some outdated 19th century notions
Swenson,
Do I?
Now you are really proving you are a dumbass.
“By the way, the only interactions between photons and matter is with electrons. You obviously have some outdated 19th century notions”
Really you should check your facts, you lie almost as much as Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration
You are right. I was remiss in not specifically excluding nuclear processes.
Consider them excluded (unless you are now claiming the GHE involves atomic nuclear processes, ROTFLMAO).
How are you going adding a colder gas to a hotter, and getting the temperature of the hotter to increase?
I am not doing that mr stupid asshole.
were you confused?
I never said I was, keep building your strawmen.
I was transferring energy from one location to another via radiation.
But you are too stupid to understand that.
b,
What is it that you are not doing? You are not being clear.
I am aware that energy can be transferred by means of radiation. Hopefully, you are not trying to say that energy can spontaneously transfer from a cooler body to a hotter body! This would mean that the cooler body would get even colder – all by itself.
What is to stop it radiating energy all the way to absolute zero?
bob, the Laws of Thermodynamics seem to admit of no exceptions. No heating by exposure to radiation from colder bodies. That would be as pointless as trying to use all the energy in the Antarctic ice cap to heat a teaspoon of water!
Only in your alarmist donkey fantasy, bob.
Swenson, this time I’ll quote you exactly.
“No heating by exposure to radiation from colder bodies. That would be as pointless as trying to use all the energy in the Antarctic ice cap to heat a teaspoon of water!”
That is not prohibited by the second law, because heat is always transferred from hot to cold because heat is defined that way.
The second law does not prohibit radiation transfer from cold to hot when there is also radiation transfer from hot to cold, or something like the Sun available to do work.
Which is why the second law does not prohibit the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface, because there is energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere and the Sun available to do work.
Try to read up a little.
Swenson,
This is what you asked me:
How are you going adding a colder gas to a hotter, and getting the temperature of the hotter to increase?
Did you figure it out?
That I wasn’t doing any adding of a colder gas to a warmer gas.
And here you go again
“I absolutely guarantee that if you mix a colder gas with a hotter, the temperature will fall. Maybe you are confused by science?”
You know that would make the colder gas hotter, right?
What I was saying is that molecules in a hotter body can abbssorb the energy from photons from a colder body if certain conditions are met, according to the laws of thermodynamics.
Maybe put that Quantum Electrodynamics book down, because you don’t understand it, try the Cat in the Hat instead.
More your speed.
blob, please stop trolling.
swannie…”In real world physics, adding lots of insulation would result in destruction of the resistor, as its temperature would increase to the point of material failure, i.e., burn out or melt down.
Try this. Place a resistor, such as a 100w incandescent light bulb, between two 6 inch thick layers of fiberglass insulation and connect it to a power supply. Turn it on and enjoy the show.”
The tungsten resistor in an incandescent light bulb is already at it’s optimum temperature. It is glowing to the point of emitting light. The resistive unit in a 100 watt resistor is surrounded in ceramic and likely well under-rated. Not even close to its max rating.
You misunderstood my point. You don’t need to cut-off heat dissipation altogether, in fact, I referred to that condition as ideal. I also inferred the conditions at 100 watts, so the current has to be limited to a value that will produce 100 watts at minimum heat dissipation. At that point, the natural temperature will be achieved…at 100 watts.
Besides, you seem to think that cutting off heat dissipation totally will cause the resistor to be destroyed. That’s not necessarily the case. The heat is produced by electrons colliding in the resistor and that process may become self-regulating. Certainly, if you increased the current without limit, the resistor would be destroyed, but I specified 100 watts, which limits the current available.
***
“Your repeated claim that: the correct conclusion that your metal plate was blocking heat dissipation is similarly delusional, as you have never shown how the Green Plate would block energy loss from the Blue plate in a high vacuum environment”.
Why wouldn’t it? Metal blocks EM and converts it to heat produced by eddy currents in the metal. However, only the EM corresponding to the electron energy levels in a particular metal will be absorbed. The rest will be blocked anyway. Look up Faraday cage.
The BP will experience the GP as a limiting factor for its radiation field hence lowering its rate of heat dissipation and increasing the temperature of the BP toward its natural temperature with no dissipation.
Gordon,
Alarmist donkeys come up with fantasy scenarios all the time. Yes, if you apply 1000 volts to a 10 ohm 1/8 watt resistor, the resistor itself will disintegrate in short order. Cannot dissipate heat quickly enough
However, Swannie has fantasy resistors without conductive leads. He will find that trying to perfectly insulate a real resistor is more difficult than he imagines. A short amount of exposed lead will dissipate a substantial amount of heat, so the wired resistor can survive, even if embedded in epoxy or suchlike.
Swannie may not realise that roof sarking and vaccum flasks depend on the phenomenon which he believes proves the existence of back radiation.
He is more delusional than dishonest, as far as I can see.
Gordon,
* According to the eminent physicist Richard Feynman, the quantum double-slit experiment puts us up against the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature *
As bizarre as it appears, photons are simultaneously waves and particles as we think of them. Set up an experiment which depends on photons being waves, you get wave results. Or particle results, if that is what your experimental setup expected. But it gets worse. You may choose to look int9 it in depth.
Still, the theory of quantum electrodynamics provides the most precise agreement between prediction and observed experimental results.
Feynman –
* The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is–absurd.” *
Seems fair to me. What works works.
Exactly thats why you need lab experiments to nail down science. Even that is challenging in controlling variables.
Modeling is always uncertain when you have to resort to modeling its because of an inability to control variables. Thus models must be proven out statistically by being able to manipulate or observe the manipulation of the test variable and match that manipulation to the output of the model.
When you can’t manipulate the test variable or nature doesn’t do it an emphatic fashion sufficient to override all natural variation you can’t do really anything with models except rule out some measured variables. TSI is ruled out only in short term analysis because our record of it is short term. System momentum can only be guessed at because of inadequate knowledge of the total heat content of the planets surface, its oceans, and atmosphere. The heat content of the oceans so far outweighs everything else its like trying to shoot down a fortress with a pea shooter.
Nothing is settled. Listen to Svante’s link of an interview of Tim Palmer by Sabine. (might have been a previous thread). Here the modelers are pleading they need bigger and more powerful computers. The argument is mostly about multi-billion dollar computers – like arguments about B1 bombers than anything else.
Yeah, did scientists get climate change wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fkCo_trbT8
Palmer is the head guy in the climate change industrial complex.
Its his job to testify to the need for billions of dollars worth of institutional computers to run everybody’s lives and protect them from the environment.
Good interview. Notice how hesitant Palmer is about his statements. He is trying to toe a very fine line.
swenson…”As bizarre as it appears, photons are simultaneously waves and particles as we think of them. Set up an experiment which depends on photons being waves, you get wave results. Or particle results, if that is what your experimental setup expected”.
We’re on the same page.
I tend to think of it the other way around. You can detect and measure light wave action with instruments but there is no way to detect or ‘count’ individual photons. It is claimed that a photomultiplier is activated by photons but when I learned about photomultipliers the word photon was never used. I think the photons was developed to serve as a theorized wave particle.
In fact, I was just reading an essay by Bohr in which he went into that. He described how Planck worked out a quantum relationship between EM energy levels at a particular frequency. Planck actually inferred tiny oscillators at each frequency of the EM spectrum.
At the time he produced his equation, he knew nothing about electrons because the theory was just being developed. He claimed, that had he known about electrons, it would have made his work much simpler.
It was Bohr who brought the EM/electron relationship to fruition. He described the quantum relationship between electron energy levels as being described by Planck’s ‘h’. If you look at the overall relationship between EM = E and f = frequency of the electrons emitting the EM, E = hf, then h is the factor that relates the two.
Planck’s ‘h’ is the magic factor and he developed it through statistical analysis, not experimentation. In fact, he worried for years that his theory had no analogy in reality. He theorized a quantum relationship between frequency and intensity for a blackbody radiator in order to modify E = hf so the equation would not run away with frequency rise (ultraviolet catastrophe.
E actually is the difference between the energy levels through which the electron moves as it emits a quantum of energy that has been called a photon. Planck did not call it that, or Bohr. Sometime after, circa 1928, Compton began using the word photon but there has never been a concrete explanation of what it is. It seems to have been developed by consensus and usage rather than experimentation.
For me, the word photon makes little sense. Due to its origin, emitted from an electron on an atom, you can’t really call it a wave at that point. So, when does the wave develop? Seems to me it would require bazillions of quanta from individual electrons to combine into a wave.
Of course, you may be referring to the netherworld of quantum theory. Feynman claimed quantum theory works but no one knows why. The theory is so obscure in some areas that no one can visualize it or even work with it in its more obscure inferences.
I think David Bohm put it best. He claimed both Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics have reached the ends of their respective roads and that we need to find a better explanation for reality. That’s how I feel about photon theory, we can do a lot better.
rr…”In my experience, which is based on over 40 years in industry, IQ correlates well with achievement”.
That means IQ is also a measure of butt-kissing since people who achieve tend to be those who are willing to fit in and not rock the boat.
Now bobdroege wants to race ten cars welded together against one car. He is boasting he will win. I have news for bob. I will take his bet. All he has to do is produce his ten car weldment.
It will be fascinating to see if he welds them side by side, or end to end. Maybe on top of each other?
In any case, on a quarter mile track, Ill literally run rings around him. But hes an alarmist donkey idiot who is a legend in his own lunchbox. All mouth and no trousers. Lives in a dream. Poor bob.
“But he’s an alarmist donkey idiot who is a legend in his own lunchbox.”
THAT’s a keeper!
ClintR is the one who suggested welding the 10 cars together, and claimed they would have the same top speed as one car.
Soo its the top speed, so no quarter mile track.
The point was horsepower adds linearly while wind resistance doesn’t.
IF ClintR builds the cars, it was his idea to weld 10 cars together, the 10 cars welded together will have 10 times the horsepower, but will not face 10 times the wind and road resistance.
It’s like the Tour de France, you are alone in the breakaway, do you like your chances or do you think the peloton is going to catch you?
The idiots sure hate simple analogies.
We don’t hate them, the question is why you like them and why you think they are valid?
Oh that’s easy bob.
You idiots can type forever. You can put out more nonsense that any responsible person has time to refute. Several idiots here could win most typing contests. But, they can’t think for themselves.
But a simple analogy brings all your nonsense down. Reality sets in.
ClintR,
I was thinking you meant to weld the cars together back to front.
Still think the single car will be the fastest?
How is that simple analogy holding up?
Yup, the simple analogy is working great, as expected.
It clearly explains why fluxes aren’t simply added. And, it keeps idiots like you up all night trying to figure out ways to pervert it.
That’s why I love simple analogies.
You still need to do more work than that to prove you can’t add fluxes.
So far all you have is some piss poor work.
See!
ClintR,
Yup, how are you doing, proving fluxes don’t add.
Not very well I am afraid.
One spotlight makes a field visible, 100 spotlights makes it bright, no tell me how the fluxes aren’t adding.
Let me have your next attempt at saying the most stupid thing ever said on this site.
See!!
I’ll let you off of the hook.
See!!!
I can be more stupid than you.
You want a stupid contest.
Let’s see who can make the most stupid statement.
You go first.
blob, please stop trolling.
DREMTY charges out of the gate and takes the lead.
#2
blob, please stop trolling.
ClintR joins the race!
“Do you believe ice can warm sunshine?”
#3
blob, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY takes the lead!
“A jet which is circumnavigating the globe does not need to turn in order to keep the same side of the aircraft oriented towards the ground whilst it moves.”
#4
blob, please stop trolling.
My statement seems to have been misinterpreted, so one more time.
An unheated, blackbody object in deep space will be 3K.
I could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) and warm that object to 273 K.
Or I could surround that object with A SHELL OF ice @ 273 K and warm the object up to 273 K from the original 3K. No Contact. No Convection. No conduction. A hollow shell of ice in a vacuum. Or equivalently, a steel vacuum chamber with walls at 273 K.
[Presumably Clint still agrees up to here]
I could surround the object with that vacuum chamber at 273 K so the object will be 273 K. Then add some sunlight AIMED AT THE OBJECT (not at the walls of the vacuum chamber). The ice-cold walls made it 273 K already. The extra energy from the sunlight would warm the object further (325 K to be specific; +52 C warmer than it was).
[Presumably Clint still disagrees, but maybe this clarification has changed his mind.]
And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then bring in the ice-cold walls to surround the object. and the final temperature would still be 325 K.
Tim,
Dont be stupid. Heat an object in sunlight to above freezing. Now surround it with ice. Or just leave a glass of Scotch in the sun until it warms up. Then just add ice. Guess what?
It doesn’t heat up. You are an alarmist donkey, trying to sell donkeycrap as gold.
Tim, you are saying an object at 273 K, that is emitting 315 W/m^2 and receiving 315 W/m^2, will then warm to 325 K? Did your “PhD” teach you such nonsense, or are you just a natural-born idiot?
Tim Folkerts says:
October 24, 2020 at 1:14 AM
My statement seems to have been misinterpreted, so one more time.
An unheated, blackbody object in deep space will be 3K.
I could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) and warm that object to 273 K.
===========================
You need some clarification here to correctly compare to our world.
You say sunlight. Does that sunlight have a view factor of 1.0 on to the surface or alternatively the ice?
If it has a view factor of 1.0 then the 3k space is irrelevant because your sun will be the only source shining toward space. Its a bit confusing in the real world because the sun is a pinpoint in the sky without a view factor of 1.0. But when its spread out to the equivalent of a light shining from all parts of the sky, then the surface nor the ice theoretically even sees the 3k space. (e.g. view factor zero). The view of all things totaled cannot have a view factor over 1.0 because that view factor is like a blanket layer of 100% of the sky.
Here’s one more simple scenario to get people thinking.
We have a large vacuum chamber at room temperature (300K). Inside hung from a thin silk thread is a copper sphere painted flat black. If we wait a while, the sphere will become 300 K as well.
Now turn on a few small bright spot lights inside the chamber, all aimed at the sphere. I hope everyone agrees we could warm up the sphere doing this, even with the walls kept at 300 K. Lets suppose the spotlights are bright enough to warm the sphere to 330 K.
If we now set the temperature of walls to a series of HIGHER temperatures and wait each time for the sphere to come to a steady reading. What will the temperature of the sphere be?
Walls: 320 …. Sphere (still 330, warmer than 330)
Walls: 329 …. Sphere (still 330, even warmer than case 1)
Walls: 331 …. Sphere (331, even warmer than case 2)
If we now set the temperature of walls to a series of LOWER temperatures and wait each time for the sphere to come to a steady reading. What will the temperature of the sphere be?
Walls: 270 K …. Sphere (270, still 330, between 270 and 330
Walls: 4.2 K …. Sphere (4.2, still 330, cooler than Case 1)
I didn’t bother, but bonus points to anyone who wants to/is able to calculate the actual temperatures in each case.
Tim introduces his hidden high temperature heat sources by sleight of hand.
For example, if Tim used LED spotlights rated at 58,000 lumens, and colour temperature of 6000 K, how warm would the sphere get? Tim wouldnt have a clue, because hes clueless.
However, Tim doesnt mention he really means a series of incandescent heat sources, temperatures at least 2700 K. Gee. He can make something hotter by using an infinite heat source with a higher temperature.
Well done, Tim. You deserve a fresh bag of oats to augment standard your alarmist donkey food.
Tim seems very confused. He appears to be trying to make a point, but he doesn’t know what the point is, or how to make it.
Tim starts off with “Here’s one more simple scenario to get people thinking.”
Okay, I think Folkerts is incompetent.
Any 6th grader can understand this straightforward experiment. But weirdly, Clint and Flynson pretend that they dont.
Strange strategy to pretend that you are dumber than a 6th grader!
It shows that they know they are caught in a pickle, and the only way out is to feign ignorance..
Well Nate, help Tim out. Answer his questions.
Then we can correct you.
I know the correct answers, as does any 6th grader.
He asked YOU. And you have no answers.
Either you are dumber than a 6th grader. Or you are evading because it will prove you wrong.
So, lets see.
Wrong Nate, you didn’t have any answers. If you had, you would have provided such. bdgwx threw his nonsense out. Of course it’s wrong, but you had NOTHING!
(And I won’t respond to your usual troll nonsense.)
The answers dont prove my physics wrong. Thats why he asked YOU, dimwit troll!
And its transparent that you are still running away as fast as you can from facing reality.
Or you are dumber than a 6th grader.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543939
At steady-state for the sphere at 300K Fin = 459 W/m^2 and Fout = 459 W/m^2.
With the spotlights at steady-state for the sphere at 330K Fin = 672 W/m^2 and Fout = 672 W/m^2.
The spotlights provide an additional input of F = 213 W/m^2 upon the sphere.
Walls at 320K: 594 W/m^2 + 213 W/m^2 = 807 W/m^2 or 345K.
Walls at 329K: 664 W/m^2 + 213 W/m^2 = 877 W/m^2 or 353K.
Walls at 331K: 680 W/m^2 + 213 W/m^2 = 893 W/m^2 or 354K.
Walls at 270K: 301 W/m^2 + 213 W/m^2 = 514 W/m^2 or 309K.
Walls at 4.2K: 0 W/m^2 + 213 W/m^2 = 213 W/m^2 or 248K.
Notice that I do not need to know how big the sphere is. I use the fact that the fluxes I’m working with are in reference to the same time and same area.
I do this by starting with the 1LOT dU = Q – W. If you believe that this equality holds true then the equality dU/tA = (Qw/tA + Qs/tA) – W/tA = Fw + Fs – Fout must hold as well. And at steady-state dU = 0. So 0 = Fw + Fs – Fout and Fout = Fw + Fs must be true for the sphere in steady-state where Fs is the flux received upon the sphere by the spotlights and Fw is the flux received upon the sphere by the walls.
When you turn on the spotlights the sphere warms. When you turn off the walls the sphere cools. When adjust the temperature of the walls up/down the sphere warms/cools. Fluxes add!
You still display the same problems with physics, bdgwx.
You make so many mistakes, it’s almost as if you want to pervert reality….
ClintR
He makes only one mistake and it is not with physics. He is trying to teach ignorant contrarians like you, Gordon Robertson or Swenson real and valid physics. It will always fail.
A contrarian, like you and the others, opposes established science just to oppose it (that is what a contrarian is). Remember that a contrarian, like you, does not accept real world evidence (like Roy Spencer’s actual real world experiment with real world temperature readings). A contrarian does not care about reality or Truth, they just oppose established science just to do it.
You are not a very smart person.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543939
Norman, since you mentioned “reality and truth”, is the ball on a string rotating about it axis?
You can’t answer truthfully, because it will expose your false religion. You can’t face reality.
And don’t forget the perverted physics you swallow and spew.
Tell us some more about “realtiy and truth”, you phony.
Yep Tim is messing with the view factor and not revealing how he is doing it. The only way to evenly heat a sphere is to eliminate the lights and essentially heat the walls. If the lights are spread sufficiently to heat the entire sphere to 330k then the walls are completely out of play in this scenario.
Swenson nailed the trick.
You guys always focus on the rust on the hubcaps and miss the beautiful car!
The sphere could be of copper!
Now focus on the point of the example. Fluxes add, and all energy counts!
Indeed all energy counts. . . .but only when its net energy, not just a bunch of photons zooming around completely ignoring all the processes available to creat equilibriums rather than keeping the atmosphere from radiating anything significant in accordance with the grade school model.
How many layers in the atmosphere Nate? plug that into the grade school model and figure out how many watts would be emitted to space in accordance with that model. As it stands and they are guessing the atmosphere emits 99.7% of what it is supposed to.
” lights and essentially heat the walls. If the lights are spread sufficiently to heat the entire sphere to 330k then the walls are completely out of play in this scenario.”
This is quite strange. You have never heard of bright/hot lights that are small in size?
You need to pay better attention Nate. TimF did not specify a view factor. I said there was zero possible effect with a view factor of 1.0. If it heats like the average solar heats the earth in accordance with the 341.5 watts allocated there would be room for zero warming. So far nobody has made clear the answer to the question. You morons think it doesn’t matter.
Tim did not need to specify view factors. First…we were given the temperature increase of the sphere directly. That means we know the additional flux received upon the sphere already. No conversion from sender to receiver is required. Second…because the 300K is coming from the environment and in all directions we know the VF for that exposure is 1.0 upon the sphere.
You would need the VF (or at least more information to calculate it) between the sphere and spotlights if you wanted to know the flux emitted by spotlights and thus their temperature. But the temperature of the spotlights was not something that was asked.
Yes there is the possibility with a light without a 1.0vf.
The process you believe that works in a box quite simply does not work in a box. If it did the issue would be over.
Further I am having a very difficult time not noticing that the ‘box model’ has simply instead been inserted at the top of the atmosphere.
Perhaps it’s because it’s hard to sit up there with a box and run an experiment.
So there is definitely a method to the madness to allow the deception of the box to exist where it doesn’t exist and where the experiment has proven to be so impotent no paper has been published on such an experiment.
So where does that leave us? I leaves us with an unexplained greenhouse effect.
Gee no explanation for those blinking lights in the sky so it must be UFOs.
bill,
I think something isn’t clicking here. The vf for the conversion from the spotlights (sender) to the sphere (receiver) is < 1.0. It's not just a possibility; it's actually a fact based on the geometry of the problem Tim described. But it doesn't matter what it is because we already know how much energy the sphere is receiving from the spotlights so we don't have to make that conversion and thus we don't need to know what the vf actually is.
I see you want to move on and talk about the atmosphere. That's great. But, if simple idealized scenarios cannot be understood then there is no way a vastly more complex scenario will be any easier.
bdgwx says:
October 25, 2020 at 4:10 PM
bill,
I think something isnt clicking here. The vf for the conversion from the spotlights (sender) to the sphere (receiver) is < 1.0. It's not just a possibility; it's actually a fact based on the geometry of the problem Tim described.
But it doesn't matter what it is because we already know how much energy the sphere is receiving from the spotlights so we don't have to make that conversion and thus we don't need to know what the vf actually is.
I see you want to move on and talk about the atmosphere. That's great. But, if simple idealized scenarios cannot be understood then there is no way a vastly more complex scenario will be any easier.
The bottom line bdgwx is there isn’t enough information to solve the problem.
What you need to know in each instant is what the mean sky temperature is. Tim told us for the starting scenario that its 330k.
Then he started changing a portion of the sky without letting us know how that affected mean sky temperature.
Your calculation magically delivers a mean of +213w/m2 to the sphere without taking up any sky space.
There is no sky. Tim’s scenario is a room with walls.
And he didn’t change the temperature of just a portion of the walls. All walls experienced the same change in temperature. The temperature of the walls is homogenous as well.
Before you start introducing complexities you must first understand the simple idealized scenario first and how I arrived at the 213 W/m^2.
The point is bdgwx is you don’t know if the lights are 672w/m2 of spectral power and filling the entire sky. Or if they are more powerful and filling only part of the sky.
Thus when you change the wall temperature to 320watts if the lights fill all the sky you do nothing to change the temperature of the globe.
If the lights are more powerful and fill half the sky changing the wall temperature only has a 50% affect on the globe.
The point being is you can’t add spectral power you can only change the view and the view is not a given in the problem.
Bill,
“Now turn on a few small bright spot lights inside the chamber, all aimed at the sphere. I hope everyone agrees we could warm up the sphere doing this, even with the walls kept at 300 K. Lets suppose the spotlights are bright enough to warm the sphere to 330 K.”
There is nothing unrealistic about this scenario. Small bright lights like these are real. When powered up. they are adding energy to the system. Small black spheres, when hit by bright lights DO actually warm. Vacuum is actually possible. Holding the walls at a fixed temperature is possible.
Cmon this is really really straightforward and should be understood with just common sense.
Unless you are trying very hard to obfuscate (possible, to evade reality), there is no point in making something this simple more complicated than it actually is.
“If the lights are more powerful and fill half the sky changing the wall temperature only has a 50% affect on the globe.”
Ok, so?
Lets say the lights are small and take up 10% of the wall space. When they are off, they come to the temperature of the walls, and emit just as the walls would do.
Now power them up. Now 10% of the wall is emtting at a higher temperature, and 90% at the wall temp. It has no choice but to warm. Yes?
Now change the wall temp lower. The sphere has no choice but to cool down as well.
Yes bill. We are all well aware that the spotlights eclipse the radiation from the wall. We are assuming the effect is negligible…for now. The point of the scenario is to get you thinking about how heat transfer works in simple idealized scenarios first. Assume the spotlights are small and bright.
Once you understand the simple idealized scenario then you can start considering fine grained details like the eclipsing effect. If you don’t understand how the spotlights can be providing 213 W/m^2 to the sphere under a simplified zero eclipsing scenario then you’ll never be able to understand how various spotlight sizing scenarios and their corresponding eclipsing effects are going to play into the calculations.
bdgwx says:
Yes bill. We are all well aware that the spotlights eclipse the radiation from the wall. We are assuming the effect is negligiblefor now. The point of the scenario is to get you thinking about how heat transfer works in simple idealized scenarios first. Assume the spotlights are small and bright.
Once you understand the simple idealized scenario then you can start considering fine grained details like the eclipsing effect. If you dont understand how the spotlights can be providing 213 W/m^2 to the sphere under a simplified zero eclipsing scenario then youll never be able to understand how various spotlight sizing scenarios and their corresponding eclipsing effects are going to play into the calculations.
===============================
I asked what the view was because it wasn’t specified. I haven’t ever calculated one without a view specification
then yes I would assume your calculations to be correct in as if the lights were side by side with the pinpoint spotlights assumed to be of infinite undefined power but then defined as adequate to warm a 300k globe to 330k.
But I think that also proves nothing about anything we were talking about.
We were talking about how the walls might add to the power of the spotlight when eclipsed as our resident physics-challenged Nate is arguing.
So perhaps you can help Nate out on this point. At some point if you are going to argue physics we ALL NEED TO LEARN. But I am not sure this lesson is sufficiently complex for him to learn from.
The lights are not sufficient to heat the sphere to 330K. If the sphere were in deep space it would only warm to 248K.
“Tim Folkerts says:
October 24, 2020 at 1:46 AM
Here’s one more simple scenario to get people thinking.
We have a large vacuum chamber at room temperature (300K). Inside hung from a thin silk thread is a copper sphere painted flat black. If we wait a while, the sphere will become 300 K as well.”
Add large vacuum chamber is within room in which air temperature is
300 K. And can say room air pressure is 1/2 atm. Sensor are near vacuum chamber walls which act as themostat which control heating of air in room which maintain at 300 K and room is well insulated.
So before any later heating is added, it needs warming every 1 hour.
“Now turn on a few small bright spot lights inside the chamber, all aimed at the sphere. I hope everyone agrees we could warm up the sphere doing this, even with the walls kept at 300 K. Lets suppose the spotlights are bright enough to warm the sphere to 330 K.”
How much energy is needed?
Well heat source must be over 330 K. How about something as warm as 500 K [226.85 C]. How hot it has to be depends distance.
Say have heating element like one uses from keeping coffee pot warm, but smaller. Put in middle 2 foot long 1″ diameter pipe and encase it in a lot insulation with open end of pipe pointed at target. And have say 6 or 4 of these pipe. 4 if chamber a sphere.
Inside pipe is blackbody surface.
If end if pipe is say 2 feet from target or 50 cm, a 50 cm spherical area is 31415.93 square cm and square meter is 10,000 square meters or about 1/3 square meter. Pipe end, 1 inch diameter and insulation say 4″ or 10 cm diameter is 78.5 square cm and 4 would total: 314.159 square cm, or 1/100th area at about 50 cm from target. Or from sphere it sees 1% or area which is a heat source. But radiating energy from will widen after leaving the end of pipe. But roughly it seems it act sort of like directed light because heat source is within the pipe.
“If we now set the temperature of walls to a series of HIGHER temperatures and wait each time for the sphere to come to a steady reading. What will the temperature of the sphere be?”
So my situation the room air is heat to higher air temperature.
“Walls: 320 …. Sphere (still 330, warmer than 330)
Walls: 329 …. Sphere (still 330, even warmer than case 1)
Walls: 331 …. Sphere (331, even warmer than case 2)”
Ok, perhaps.
“If we now set the temperature of walls to a series of LOWER temperatures and wait each time for the sphere to come to a steady reading. What will the temperature of the sphere be?
Walls: 270 K …. Sphere (270, still 330, between 270 and 330
Walls: 4.2 K …. Sphere (4.2, still 330, cooler than Case 1)”
Yes, I think the heated target is more controlled by heat from “pipes”. But obviously much different if not vacuum chamber {because one has the convectional heat loss}.
But it also depends chamber, and inside chamber will glows at temperature of sphere accounting the distance {or total area of inside chamber- or glow at lower temperature of the hotter target sphere.
Since only made room 1/2 atm, the chamber doesn’t need to be as massive as compared 1 atm. And room could be even less like, perhaps 1/4 of atm. And if chamber is smaller a lot less massive.
But if chamber was made of diamond {highly conductive}, the inside wall will still glow.
Swenson says:
Temperatures are not measured in W/m2, are they? Try it find a NASA publication which says * the temperature is so many W/m2 *!
Or are you going to change tack, and now claim W/m2 do NOT represent temperatures?
You seem confused, no?
An infrared thermometer allows the temperature of objects to be measured at a distance based on the principle that they emit radiation more or less like blackbodies. Mercury thermometers allow measurement of temperature based on the principle that a fixed volume of mercury expands when heated and contracts when cooled thus rising and falling along a capillary tube which is scaled between the freezing and boiling temperatures of water. Both instruments invert for temperature.
RR,
What are temperatures measured in? Not W/m2, thats for sure!
No, I am not at all confused.
What do your infrared thermometers show? Degrees, thats what. As a master of interest, without knowing the emissivity of what they are pointed out, IR thermometers can be wildly inaccurate.
You are a fool, just like the alarmist donkeys at NASA who think they can meaningfully add and subtract temperatures by using W/m2 as a measure of temperature.
You and one other commenter on here are in a virtual tie for the world title in Pigeon Chess. Good going!
Stupidity through obscure incomprehensibility!
Maybe you could look slightly less stupid by admitting that temperatures are measured in degrees (of hotness) rather than W/m2. Adding either is nonsensical in terms of final temperature.
Alarmist donkeys obviously enjoy looking like what they are.
Swenson says:
October 19, 2020 at 6:28 AM
“RR,
Poorly. Thats why hurricane updates are at least 6 hourly. A 12 year old with 30 minutes instruction, a straight edge, and a pencil, can do about as well.”
Developing now:
“Published: 9:49 AM CDT October 23, 2020
Updated: 6:00 AM CDT October 24, 2020
Yes, ladies and gentlemen — we have yet another system in the tropics that has the potential of becoming the next named storm, which would be Zeta.
Invest 95L is in the Caribbean and now has an 80 percent chance of developing into a tropical depression in the next two to five days while moving slowly towards western Cuba this weekend, according to the National Hurricane Center. ”
https://media.khou.com/assets/KHOU/images/15537a8b-2f58-4d2b-bfb9-12c265f82780/15537a8b-2f58-4d2b-bfb9-12c265f82780_750x422.jpg
Better keep that 12 y.o. on stand-by. Although I’m starting to think that “Swenson” is the 12 y.o.
RR,
Would you book a flight on an aeroplane that might or might not exist in two to five days, and had an 80% chance of taking off safely?
An alarmist donkey might, I suppose.
That statement makes absolutely no sense!
The real question is, when do I begin evacuating my multi-billion dollar platform in the Gulf, shutting in several hundred thousand barrels of daily oil production and the flying crews to safety; or do I not take any action? What does the 12 y.o. [wink wink nudge nudge] think?
RR,
You dont actually have a multi billion dollar platform on the Gulf. You only have your delusional fantasy.
The 12 y.o. says that at this time of year, there is always a chance of hurricanes forming, with the potential to cause loss of life and damage to property. Looking at satellite pictures and meteorological observations will help.
I note the latest advice from your link has changed, as usual. Good thing nobody spent a lot of money based on what you linked to.
Alarmist donkey!
ClintR,
You can transfer heat from cold to hot, all you need is something that does work.
No magic necessary, brains might be required though, it seems you lingered last in line for brains and the one you got was sort of rotten and insane.
b,
Indeed. You have rediscovered refrigeration, have you? You do know what it is generally used for, dont you?
Not warming. Cooling.
Swenson,
Apparently ClintR was unaware of it.
You cool something something else has to warm or there has to be a phase change.
As for you, you have heard of heat pumps, generally used for heating, you know they work exactly like a refrigeration unit.
Actually I think you are that stupid.
b,
So the GHE depends on the principle of refrigeration, does it? Or are you being a diversionary alarmist donkey?
You cant even describe the GHE, can you? So many questions, so few answers.
Next.
Yeah, I can!
Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere makes thermometer read more hotter.
So the description of the Greenhouse Effect is * Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere makes thermometer read more hotter. *
Unfortunately, bob, reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer by increasing the amount of insulation between it and a heat source results in a lower temperature.
You of course have a testable hypothesis to show that known physical laws do not apply to the unspecified gases you refer to a# * greenhouse * gases.
What might your testable hypothesis be? Or are you just another loudly braying alarmist donkey?
Maybe you try avoiding the question by tearing off at diversionary tangent! I wouldnt blame you.
And the lower Flynson repeats his ignorant strawman that temps are measured with the thermometer in the sun! Again.
Why does think tripling down on stupid is a winning strategy???
Swenson,
You oversimplify with your objection, I’ll explain it for you.
“Unfortunately, bob, reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer by increasing the amount of insulation between it and a heat source results in a lower temperature.”
There are more than one heat source
There is the Sun radiation down, and the surface of the Earth radiating up.
The greenhouse gases do better at insulating the upward radiation from the Earth than the downward radiation from the Sun, which causes the surface to warm, warming the thermometer, which is near the surface.
You go further off of the stupid cliff with this
“You of course have a testable hypothesis to show that known physical laws do not apply to the unspecified gases you refer to a# * greenhouse * gases.”
No, I don’t have that as I don’t need that, all known physical laws are observed and apply to greenhouse gases.
You should know by now what greenhouse gases are, but may you are still too stupid to figure that out.
b,
What you say would be true, if you had a magical one way insulator. However, such a thing only exists in the imaginations of alarmist donkeys.
For example, a box made of such a material, placed in the sun, would lose heat from its interior, radiating more than it received. A sun powered infinitely powerful refrigerator. Installed the other way, the one way insulator would make things hotter and hotter, until they turned into plasma!
This seems to be the fantasy of alarmist donkeys. But even at NASA, no-one is prepared to put such a ludicrous notion on paper. Some alarmist donkeys just claim the science is settled, and hope nobody asks them what science they are talking about.
So dream on. No magical insulation. You have been conned.
Swenson,
Such a magical insulator would be one that has different emission and xxxxxxxxx qualities at different wavelengths.
Greenhouse gases, you know, poly-atomic molecules that xxxxxxx better in the infrared than they do in the visible range.
Because in order to xxxxxxxx light, there has to be transitions in energy levels available in the molecule that match that of the light.
You would understand that if you knew anything about quantum electrodynamics, you know the most verified theory in the history of mankind.
But you don’t, apparently basic physics eludes that steel trap of a mind you possess.
blob, please stop trolling.
bobd…”You can transfer heat from cold to hot, all you need is something that does work”.
I have no problem with that. However, the 2nd law states that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
‘By its own means’, which Clausius called without compensation, means that no work is done on a gas. With water, it would mean there is no pump to make the water flow uphill. With a boulder at the base of a cliff, there is no machine to lift it up onto the cliff. Neither can perform said action ‘by their own means’.
There is nothing in the atmosphere that can cause heat to be transferred cold to hot. In a heat pump or an air conditioner, to move heat from a colder area to a hotter area, electrical power is required to run a compressor, to compress a gas…yada, yada.
Yes, Gordon you are correct, the Sun is not in the atmosphere, but that doesn’t mean it’s not available to do work.
blob, please stop trolling.
Idiot bob has to try to twist my words.
That’s one of the reasons he’s an idiot.
No I didn’t CLintR
“Assume an object has a temperature of 90 degrees. Assume an identical second object has a temperature of 40 degrees. Assume ALL of the thermal energy from the 40 degree object could magically be transferred to the 90 degree object.”
“Would the temperature of the 90 degree object go up or down?
It would go down, of course. Cold can not raise the temperature of hot.”
that’s what you said, exactly, and it’s wrong for several reasons.
One of which is this:
You can use work to transfer some of the energy from the 40 degree object and transfer it to the 90 degree object and that object will get warmer.
The second reason is that now both objects are colder, you have violated the first law by destroying energy.
Initial: one object at 40 and one object at 90. Note you didn’t specify units, so pick any C, F, or K
Final: One object at 0 K, and one object at less than 90.
It doesn’t matter if you use work or “magic”, the point is “cold” can not warm “hot”.
And no energy was destroyed. It was merely transferred.
You just can’t understand physics or simple analogies, because you’re an idiot.
Nope,
The point is you can warm hot with cold under certain circumstances.
You refuse to understand that because you don’t understand physics and can’t learn.
I would rather be an idiot than an asshole.
ClintR
You have two objects at the start you have one at 40 and one at 90,
Then you have one at 0 and one at less than 90.
And you don’t understand how that violates the first law of thermodynamics.
A lot of stupid things have been said on this site, but that one is in the running for stupidest thing ever said with respect to science.
Well done!
This is why I love the simple analogies. The idiots get so wrapped up trying to pervert the analogies they only make themselves look even more stupid.
Poor bob will be working on this all day. He gets so frustrated. He punches reality and it just punches back harder.
Some people won’t admit their analogies are more fucked up than Hogan’s Goat.
Looking at you ClintR.
You violated a bunch of laws by using your ClintR magic to take energy from one object and add it to another object to cool it.
Ha Ha Ha
b,
Juvenile obscenities suit you.
bob is slow, so it always takes him a long time to realize he’s just making a fool of himself, again.
When reality sets in, he gets frustrated and angry and he resorts to profanity.
He’s not very bright and never matured. Just another dumb kid.
ClintR,
Why don’t you discuss the science you fucked up rather than my immaturity?
I know why, because you are better at calling people idiots than science.
Remember it was you guys who go for the juvenile insults, I just get down in the mud with the pigs.
bob,
In my estimation, ClintR is equally good at idiot calling and science. You, on the other hand, are fairly hopeless at both. The mindless use of profanity and obscenity is a characteristic of the feeble mind
How feeble-minded do you wish to appear?
Swenson,
I point out time and time again how you and ClintR get the science wrong, no hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, Mr. quantum electrodynamics guru.
You must mean ClintR is no good at insults, all he gots is the repeated idiots, some may be tired of that, therefore he is no good at science.
I’ll give you both credit for your kung fu grips, you get a hold of an idea, no matter how stupid it is, you won’t let go.
Lots of examples come to mind, fluxes not adding being one of them, ClintR just won’t let go, even though we give him numerous examples where fluxes do indeed add.
And you just revealed you have no idea how to produce a single photon.
blob, please stop trolling.
bobdroege is a confused alarmist donkey at the very least.
Earlier he wrote-
* If you could do anything more than name drop quantum chromodynamics you would know that. *
Unfortunately, if anyone cared to look, they would notice I never uttered such words. I assume bobdroege is confused, rather than intentionally lying. In any case, as far as I am aware, a particular particle which must exist to confirm the theory of quantum chromodynamics has not been found, even though particle accelerators of sufficient capacity exist.
This is not to say that quantum chromodynamics is not valid. At present, it remains speculation.
Just like bobdroeges ability to think beyond kindergarten level
I must have hit a nerve.
Is your real name Stewart Pedasto?
b,
More stupidity from you. You havent managed to hit on much in the way of truth yet, let alone a nerve.
Why keep on with pointless questions? Is Stewart Pedasto another of the inhabitants of your fantasy world?
I may have thought you said quantum chromodynamics when you actually said quantum electrodynamics.
My apologies.
b,
Youre welcome. Maybe you could quote my exact words in future, if wish to lambaste me. Only a suggestion of course, you must do what you feel is right.
I will, maybe you could learn from me and admit it when you are wrong, which will probably be your next post.
Wasn’t one of yours that all matter above 0K emits infrared radiation.
You want to admit that’s wrong or should I spell it out for you?
b,
My definition of infrared is that it covers all wavelengths below visible red. Infrared.
At least some people agree – * All objects in the universe emit some level of IR radiation, but two of the most obvious sources are the sun and fire. *
Some people assign names to various sections of the infinitely wide radiation spectrum, Maybe you prefer that I use the term thermal radiation?
As in * Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero. *?
Feel free to ask me what my definitions are. What is your definition of IR? Be specific. NASA isnt, so maybe they and the other climate donkeys will learn something from you.
Most sources would give a range for infrared, and photons of lower energy would be called somethin else like microwaves or radio waves.
“My definition of infrared is that it covers all wavelengths below visible red. Infrared.”
All groupies must bow down in the sacred royal presence of the great Swenson.
Definer of all things.
Good to know you think so highly of your ass.
b,
Feel free to bow down if you wish, but its not compulsory. You may have noticed I am not short of self-esteem, but I thank you for your approbation.
bill…”Norman says:
Along with others you make the assertion that fluxes dont add, where does this come from?
=========================
Simple concept once you understand it. Take a light of a given intensity, if the view factor is 1.0 the only way to add flux is find a light of higher intensity with a higher wattage output rating”.
****
Bill…you are obviously well informed and I am not debating your POV on this. I have issues in general with the word flux because in my fields, electrical and electronics, a flux is generally a field like a magnetic field in which a flux is measured by lines of force. The only way to increase such a flux is to make the lines of force in an area increase.
As you know, if you hold a magnet below a sheet of paper covered in metal filings in random order, the magnetic field will align the filings along the magnetic field lines. I have always found that effect to be fascinating.
This example is what I call flux:
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/711675/view/magnetic-field-with-iron-filings
I am not so sure that a flux can be applied to light since light waves tend to add and subtract when combined on a surface via a diffraction grating. Not so sure that can happen in space between waves from different sources. It seems to be related to separating the inherent light frequencies and recombining them so they add and cancel on a surface.
That action via a diffraction grating suggests to me that light is not comprised of quanta or photons but is made up of a continuous wave. I have no problem admitting I have no idea what is going on with light since its source is individual electrons in atoms.
Gordon and Bill have it right, flux does not simply add. To oversimplify it, an electromagnetic wave is just a sinusoidal wave. So for one sinusoidal wave to add to another, they both need to have the same frequency (wavelength).
Idiots will find numerous ways to fight this simple analogy. They can’t accept reality. They will search the Internet for things like “lasers”, “radio interference” or “modulation” as examples (to them) of waves adding, not realizing such things are caused by equipment, not waves “adding”.
Idiots hate simple analogies.
Contrarian ClintR demonstrates his inability to use logical thought or understand concepts discussed. When the claim is made fluxes (as described by W/m^2) it is the energy that does add! His contrarian opinions do not change that reality, they only make him look ignorant (not hard to do since almost everything he posts is wrong).
If EMR is confusing one can go to sound. It does not really matter the frequency. If you have a low pitch sound and a high pitch sound that reach an absorbing material, the energy of each sound will be added to the absorbing material. It is certain ClintR is not smart enough to understand that. There is hope for bill hunter.
The energy (if the surface can absorb it) is what is added. It is fairly simple to intelligent people to understand. What is easy for logical people is not possible for contrarians.
Sound waves don’t simply add either.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-spl.htm
Well, not simply, we never said simple, we just say they add.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound_(Grateful_Dead)
ClintR
I do like when you post some useful information.
On your link. They are calculating the pressure from the sound. the energy would simply add regardless of the frequency or intensity if you had a material capable of absorbing the sound. All the energy of the sound would then convert to heat and get randomized.
The energy would add in a simple way. The energy of common sound is very small but it would still add together.
That is what is described when saying fluxes add. The posters are talking about the energy. If you have 300 W hitting an object it will absorb 300 joules of energy each second. How it loses the energy is complex and depends upon the surroundings. If you have one source adding 300 watts and another 100 watts the object will absorb 400 joules every second. Not so complex. So when people say fluxes add they mean the energy is added (the joules).
And that’s why I don’t try to teach you Norman. You refuse learning, just as you refused to learn that sound waves don’t simply add either.
You seem to be backing away from your original stance that all fluxes add. Now you’ve changed to “energy”. But, you’re still clinging to the nonsense. You won’t back away from the “ice can warm sunshine” crap. You ignore reality. That makes you an idiot.
You can’t give up your false religion. Because that’s all you’ve got.
ClintR
The reason you are so confused is you never understand things. You assume one thing is meant when everyone else is talking about something else. When posters say fluxes add they are talking about energy. I don’t know what other part of a flux would matter.
You are wrong about energy from cold not being able to raise the temperature of a heated object. Totally lacking any knowledge of radiant heat transfer. You are the one who cannot learn and refuse to learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
I linked you to Roy Spencer’s real world experiment. He demonstrates your position is wrong. As does every textbook on the topic. None agree with your stance and they all disagree.
I hope you understand contrarians, by nature, are opposite of the truth. This is where you are at. You cannot understand how energy of a cold object will add to another object regardless of its temperature. What matters for the hot object is what material it is made off. if the hot object and the cold object are made of the same material then the the cold object’s energy will be absorbed by the hotter object. If the hot object is heated it will rise to a higher temperature with the cold objects energy than if it was removed. This is what Tim Folkerts tries to teach you. Your unable to process this and it does not support your contrarian viewpoint (oppose just to oppose).
See.
ClintR
The “see” you posted goes for your posts. You have real world experiment that proves you wrong but you won’t accept reality.
So yes it is a correct “see” to the point you are a contrarian and will not look at evidence. You will oppose established science just to oppose it.
Idiots will find numerous ways to fight this simple analogy. They can’t accept reality. They will search the Internet for things like “lasers”, “radio interference” or “modulation” [or sound waves] as examples (to them) of waves adding, not realizing such things are caused by equipment, not waves “adding”.
Idiots hate simple analogies.
Sound waves do not exist according to ClintR!!!
On that basis resonance based musical wind instruments such as organs, oboes, flutes etc. don’t exist. Same for string based instruments.
The Moog synthesiser would blow Clint’s mind.
By the way
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-spl.htm
show how to add incoherent and coherent sound waves. Clint, you should read up what these terms mean and then you will be able to understand the site.
MikeR,
I cant see where ClintR said sound waves dont exist, and neither can you, so that makes you an alarmist donkey of the lying kind.
The musical instruments you mention make precisely no sound by themselves. They just sit there, quietly radiating IR. Trying to get a any resonance from a Moog synthesiser without an external power source would generate laughter (and maybe a little sympathy for the simple minded donkey who thought he could).
Back into the real world, which you obviously have difficulties with.
Put your self proclaimed expertise into figuring how get energy to transfer to a hotter body from a colder, increasing the temperature of the hotter, without the colder body getting even colder because it has lost energy. Remember the conservation laws, if you increase energy somewhere, you have a corresponding decrease somewhere else.
Even the climate donkeys at NASA and elsewhere havent figured that one out. Hence, no useful GHE description. Look for one if you dont believe me.
Sweatsound,
Clintr – “[or sound waves]as examples (to them) of waves adding, not realizing such things are caused by equipment, not waves adding.”
If Clintr does actualy realise that sound waves exist he has no idea about how to add the waves coherently or incoherently. The concept of standing waves and acoustic resonances are way beyond him.
Sweatysound , with regards to the Moog synthesiser, then your comments suggest the properties are simply a function of the power supply?
Then does it matter if it is A.C. or D.C? If the latter, conventional transformer, full wave or half wave rectification based or switched mode power supply?
Usually capacitance and/or inductance is used to reduce noise in the power supply and definitely not to generate harmonics!
The more we hear from you Sweaty, the more you display the range of your core incompetencies.
MikeR is just another long-winded troll, obsessed with perverting reality. That makes him an idiot.
ClintR,
Nice one.
“Idiots will find numerous ways to fight this simple analogy. They cant accept reality. They will search the Internet for things like lasers, radio interference or modulation [or sound waves] as examples (to them) of waves adding, not realizing such things are caused by equipment, not waves adding.”
The word you are looking for is superposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle#Wave_superposition
Why do you keep demonstrating that you never even took high school physics.
Maybe you’re young and the victim of budget cuts for high school physics equipment, but at least they would have shown videos of wave tank experiments showing how water waves add when you have two wave sources.
We even did the 2 slit experiment with water in high school.
Yes, it showed that waves add.
Yes bob, “wave superposition” is another example. That’s why I mentioned idiots would try to use such examples to pervert the simple analogy.
“…flux does not simply add. To oversimplify it, an electromagnetic wave is just a sinusoidal wave.”
“Idiots will find numerous ways to fight this simple analogy. They can’t accept reality. They will search the Internet for things like “lasers”, “radio interference” or “modulation”…”
Now we can add “sound waves” and “wave superposition”.
Nice one.
ClintR
sin x + sin x = 2 * sin x
Yes Bob,
sin(x) + sin(x) = 2 sin(x)
As power is amplitude squared, the addition of identical amplitude in phase waves gives 4 times the intensity of a single wave. Will this fact cause a brain malfunction for Clintr et al.?
Hint
sin(x) – sin(x) = 0
Or
sin(x) + cos(x+pi/2)
MikeR, blob, please stop trolling.
DREMTPY,
I am trying to teach ClintR some Math,
DO YOU MIND?
You can butt out anytime.
blob, please stop trolling.
lost my post…
swenson…”As bizarre as it appears, photons are simultaneously waves and particles as we think of them. Set up an experiment which depends on photons being waves, you get wave results. Or particle results, if that is what your experimental setup expected”.
We’re on the same page.
I tend to think of it the other way around. You can detect and measure light wave action with instruments but there is no way to detect or ‘count’ individual photons. It is claimed that a photomultiplier is activated by photons but when I learned about photomultipliers the word photon was never used. I think the photons was developed to serve as a theorized wave particle.
In fact, I was just reading an essay by Bohr in which he went into that. He described how Planck worked out a quantum relationship between EM energy levels at a particular frequency. Planck actually inferred tiny oscillators at each frequency of the EM spectrum.
At the time he produced his equation, he knew nothing about electrons because the theory was just being developed. He claimed, that had he known about electrons, it would have made his work much simpler.
It was Bohr who brought the EM/electron relationship to fruition. He described the quantum relationship between electron energy levels as being described by Planck’s ‘h’. If you look at the overall relationship between EM = E and f = frequency of the electrons emitting the EM, E = hf, then h is the factor that relates the two.
Planck’s ‘h’ is the magic factor and he developed it through statistical analysis, not experimentation. In fact, he worried for years that his theory had no analogy in reality. He theorized a quantum relationship between frequency and intensity for a blackbody radiator in order to modify E = hf so the equation would not run away with frequency rise (ultraviolet catastrophe.
E actually is the difference between the energy levels through which the electron moves as it emits a quantum of energy that has been called a photon. Planck did not call it that, or Bohr. Sometime after, circa 1928, Compton began using the word photon but there has never been a concrete explanation of what it is. It seems to have been developed by consensus and usage rather than experimentation.
For me, the word photon makes little sense. Due to its origin, emitted from an electron on an atom, you can’t really call it a wave at that point. So, when does the wave develop? Seems to me it would require bazillions of quanta from individual electrons to combine into a wave.
Of course, you may be referring to the netherworld of quantum theory. Feynman claimed quantum theory works but no one knows why. The theory is so obscure in some areas that no one can visualize it or even work with it in its more obscure inferences.
I think David Bohm put it best. He claimed both Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics have reached the ends of their respective roads and that we need to find a better explanation for reality. That’s how I feel about photon theory, we can do a lot better.
You mean string theory?
Yep Einstein saw that need. Starting with a better understanding of electromagnetism is what stumped Einstein. Climate change is suffering terribly from it and nobody on a payroll wants to talk directly to the issue as it’s considered to be adverse to the sales job funding for saving the world. Better to say the science is settled.
Gordon,
“You can detect and measure light wave action with instruments but there is no way to detect or ‘count’ individual photons.”
Sorry Charlie, now you are talking about the field I actually work in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_emission_computed_tomography
The company I work for is actively pursuing the manufacture and distribution of SPECT tracers.
The cameras build pictures by counting photons one at a time.
They use sodium iodide crystals doped with thallium.
bobd…”The cameras build pictures by counting photons one at a time”.
bs. You are visualizing a pea shooter where the shooter can blow out one pea at a time. No such animal for the alleged photon or an electron.
The measuring devices measure a burst of an undefined energy bundle. If the receivers receiving the energy of one photon or one electron they would never indicate anything.
EM emission is detectable because bazillions of electrons are emitting at the same time, in a wave. In the case of your tomography using gamma rays, the nucleus of a radioactive material would be emitting bazillions of gamma rays at one instant,
The rays have to be focused into a beam just as the electrons in a cathode ray tube or an electron microscope have to be focused.
Gordon,
The radioactive material is Fluorine-18 which emits a positron and decays to Oxygen-18. One positron from one atom of Fluorine-18.
Then that positron finds an electron, and a matter anti-matter reaction occurs, the positron and electron are gone, and 2 photons and maybe a neutrino or more are produced.
Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography.
We have been counting photons two at a time for more than 20 years. That field is Positron Emission Tomography.
I guess I make a good wage dealing with bullshit.
bob,
You are employed sweeping up the manure from the bulls, are you? Im glad you are well paid.
You should have paid more attention to Wikipedia. You are cpnflating a couple of entirely different things. Try again, but this time concentrate on providing example of creating single photons. Its not rocket science, you know.
Swenson,
I was talking about detecting single photons, not producing them.
You are the self promoted expert on quantum chromodynamics that should be right up your wheelhouse.
Apparently your are ignorant about how single photons can be produced.
I’ll suggest a couple things, the first being a little obscene, and the second being to read one of Einstein’s papers.
You know, the one he got the Nobel prize for.
You want me to research that for you, you need to pay me as much as my company does on an hourly basis, you want to contract me out for such services. I charge by the week, all expenses paid, and I only train in person, one on one.
bob,
I thank you for your input, but sweeping up cattle droppings doesnt interest me that much.
You said before –
* I may have thought you said quantum chromodynamics when you actually said quantum electrodynamics.
My apologies. *
You appear to be a slow learner. Apology number two required?
Swenson,
Since you are not an expert on either one why should you care if I mix them up all the time?
blob, please stop trolling.
Swenson says:
October 24, 2020 at 2:54 PM
“RR,
You dont actually have a multi billion dollar platform on the Gulf. You only have your delusional fantasy.
The 12 y.o. says that at this time of year, there is always a chance of hurricanes forming, with the potential to cause loss of life and damage to property. Looking at satellite pictures and meteorological observations will help.
I note the latest advice from your link has changed, as usual. Good thing nobody spent a lot of money based on what you linked to.
Alarmist donkey!”
Yes, the forecasts are updated as new data is collected and entered into the models; hence my suggestion that you keep your 12 y.o. forecaster on standby.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a71d6758535042dd969114fb6a356888
Your cavalier attitude about models is frightening for someone commenting on a science blog.
Lastly, google Pigeon Chess because you are the world champion now. Congrats!
P.s.: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a71d6758535042dd969114fb6a356888
So the models cannot even provide accurate forecasts 6 hours into the future. Neither can my 12 y.o.
If you are frightened of my cavalier attitude to alarmist donkeys, I cant help. Seek professional help, or stop reading my comments.
You may Google what you wish. I am not overly interested in your fantasies. But thank you for your kind thoughts.
I am curious as to your reasons for pretending you are a female, but it is none of my business, so I wont ask.
Interesting statistic about this month’s blog to date: 3,007 comments in 24 days, or about 125/Day.
Even more interesting is that some commenters are posting at an average rate of 10 per day! A clear example of quantity of quality, no?
Proves the old adage, “a wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool speaks because he has to say something.”
RR,
Your posting is a graphic illustration of the adage to which you referred.
You wrote – * A clear example of quantity of quality, no? *
You had to say something, no?
Above, Tim and bdgwx tried again to pervert physics. Their preferred perversion technique involves an imaginary black body, and the bogus equation Q(dot) = σA(Th^4 – Tc^4).
Using an imaginary object, and a bogus equation, they are well armed to corrupt science.
So, it’s always fun when their tricks blow up in their faces and they don’t even know it.
A blackbody sphere inside, but not touching, a slightly larger blackbody sphere is the ideal scenario for the bogus equation. (This is the same scenario as the infamous “Steel Greenhouse” that was touted as “proof” of the GHE years ago, before it was throughly debunked.)
If the inner sphere is supplied with 240 Watts, and has a surface area of 1 square meter it will be emitting 240 W/m^2. But using the bogus equation, the inner sphere will be emitting 480 W/m^2! And that’s with no additional energy to the system! They claim this is proof the atmosphere (outer sphere) can warm Earth (inner sphere).
That’s all nonsense, but here’s where it blows up in their faces. For the inner sphere to be able to emit 480 W/m^2, it must have a temperature of 303 K. But Earth’s average temperature is only 288 K. So the idiots have “proved” the GHE cools the planet.
Actually atmospheric CO2 does cool the planet slightly, but it’s nice to know the idiots have “proved” the amount of cooling is 15 K (15C, 27F).
We know, insulation is a hoax.
Nope, insulation isn’t a hoax. What is a hoax is the claim we know what it is and how it works.
bill hunter
I do not agree with your statement about a hoax. Science may not know what an electron is exactly or what EMR is exactly but they know how both of them work. That is why we have technology that works. Science may not know what gravity is but they know how it works and use this knowledge to successfully predict Total eclipses or land vehicles on other worlds.
in this case they know what it is but they don’t know how it works. If they did you wouldn’t have 30 modeling teams.
bill hunter
You make some good points. I think with the climate the problem is with complexity. It is a chaotic system where once something changes it can effect an outcome and produce unknown effects. It could turn out that Climate Science will always be difficult regardless of the computer power because of the complexity involved in chaotic systems.
It might be that only certain boundaries can be seen with just a blurry vision.
I think science does well in the non-chaotic systems. Chaotic systems are quite the challenge.
Indeed!
Scientists and engineers have a really good idea of what insulation is and how it works so I’m not sure what you think is the hoax here.
Silly snowflake Svante was just trolling, as usual. He didn’t know what say, but he knew he had to say something…”a fool speaks because he has to say something”.
That’s what I call then ankle biters, they can’t dispute the post have nothing meaningful to say but feel the urge to post something as if they did
Eben, I am literally disputing the claim “What is a hoax is the claim we know what it is and how it works.” There is a massive multi-billion dollar industry dedicated to research, development, manufacture, and installation of insulation for industrial, commercial, and residential use cases. In fact, I’m not just disputing the claim, I’m saying it absurd.
b,
So at the fundamental quantum electrodynamic level, tell us how insulation works. Feel free to cut and paste from the Internet if you wish.
Or you might care to acknowledge that you spoke a little hastily.
Or you could try a diversion, I suppose.
ClintR provides more evidence that contrarians are not very smart.
Here he pretends knowledge by not remotely being able to understand the steel greenhouse (it was not debunked by actual scientists, just a couple contrarians like Joseph Postma, not a bright person but extremely fanatic).
If you look at an actual global energy budget the actual number of watts the surface receives is 503.6 W/m^2 so you have that one wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-En
And no it does not mean the GHE is cooling the surface that you derived from incredibly bad logic!
The surface has other cooling mechanisms than radiant energy. They remove 104.8 W/m^2.
Norman, as usual you have several things wrong.
* The 240 W/m^2 comes from the 960 W/m*2 average solar, after albedo. It is used all the time in “climate science”. 960/4 = 240.
* The bogus equation and imaginary black body are also used all the time in your cult’s teachings. All I did was point out your own beliefs result in a surface temperature of 303 K.
And yes Earth has other cooling mechanisms than just CO2. That’s why I described the CO2 cooling effect with the word stated “slightly”. Surely you wouldn’t expect a major cooling effect from only 400 ppm, would you?
clint…” Their preferred perversion technique involves an imaginary black body, and the bogus equation Q(dot) = σA(Th^4 Tc^4″).
If you expand that equation it becomes:
Q = sigma.A.Th^4 – sigma.A.Tc^4
that is nonsense because it implies that the total radiation between two bodies of area A is the difference between their temperatures. That is definitely a misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann because they intended Q to be the radiation intensity from one body with temperature T. You can also see that it’s nonsense because there is no emissivity included and A is used to represent the area of both emitting surfaces.
One usage I did find interesting is to take Q as the rate of heat dissipation of the hotter body (not the radiation intensity) at temperature Th while Tc represents the temperature of a cooler environment in contact with the hotter body, like our atmospheric gases an the surface or the air surrounding a heated body in a room.
Q (rate of heat dissipation) = sigma.Ah.(Th^4 – Tc^4)
Ah = area of hot radiator
Th = temperature of hot radiator
Tc = temperature of environment in which hot radiator is found
I think the reason they use T^4 rather than straight T is because the sigma = Boltzmann’s constant has units required T^4 to be meaningful.
I don’t know which mechanism causes heat dissipation to vary with the temperature difference between a radiating body and its environment. I don’t even know if the equation is kosher since the units of radiation intensity and heat dissipation would seem to be different.
I think we’re dealing with quantum conditions in which the radiating electrons in a body can sense the surrounding temperature. Perhaps they sense the surrounding temperature and drop to lower energy levels just at the surface. That does not explain radiation in a vacuum, however.
Gordon Robertson says:
How about radiation depends on T^4?
How about heat = radiation difference?
I.e. always from hot to cold?
More diff = more heat?
No electron intelligence required?
S,
I could assume you agree that a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer surface, but that would be a mistake, wouldnt it?
Alarmist donkeys believe that a colder object can provide additional energy to a hotter object without losing any itself, in the process.
Ah, the miracle of ignoring the conservation of energy! Something for nothing. Free lunches all round.
I agree, a colder atmosphere can not heat the warmer surface.
it can only make it warmer by reducing its heat loss.
Thus conserving its energy.
First, silly snowflake Svante says: “I agree, a colder atmosphere can not heat the warmer surface.”
Then, he says: “it can only make it warmer by reducing its heat loss.”
The silly snowflake believes the atmosphere can’t make the surface warmer, then it makes the surface warmer!
It’s always fun to see the idiots arguing with themselves.
The reality is the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface.
Why is it that the math and physics never agrees with them, but somehow, by some combo of red herrings and strawmen, they still insist they are right anyway.
Their theory is never falsifiable.
The mark of religion.
On the other hand, a heating process does not necessarily warm the receiver, as used to be the case for Earth:
https://tinyurl.com/y4crg6lq
Nate, to better understand ClintR’s argument, you have to imagine that he stomps his foot during his ending statement.
Nate and Svante offer up their usual insults, misdirections, and perversions of reality.
Svante says:
I agree, a colder atmosphere can not heat the warmer surface.
it can only make it warmer by reducing its heat loss.
Thus conserving its energy.
==========================
thus zero ‘forcing’
Gordon, I suspect the bogus equation had its roots in two false concepts:
1) The bogus equation “looks” valid. The valid equation for conduction is Q(dot) = kA((Th – Tc)/d. So you can see the similarities to the bogus equation.
2) Also, the equation confuses “flux” with “energy”. Flux can NOT be simply added/subtracted, especially from surfaces with differing temperatures.
The equation has no validity in real engineering applications due to the need to do all the testing to find the actual “view factors”. As you know, if you have to do mock ups and testing to use an equation, you don’t need the equation!
The very ignorant ClintR demonstrates he is not a smart person.
He falsely claims (for no reason known) that the valid radiant heat transfer equation is bogus.
Only a couple of contrarians who know very little physics agree with his ignorant comments. You will not see intelligent knowledgeable posters that know science agree with his ignorance.
I wonder why such an ignorant one is so arrogant and believes his endless lies are truth. He can continue lying, freedom of speech. Fortunately there are posters who know how wrong his is and will correct his false statements.
For Gordon Robertson. You feel the equation is not valid.
Maybe read this. It is used in engineering spacecraft where radiant energy dominates heat flow. So I am not sure why you choose to agree with a very ignorant poster.
Read this Gordon Robertson.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/271917.pdf
You’ve got two problems here Norman. First you find links that either prove you wrong, or you don’t understand. Second, your constant insults leave you with no credibility.
ClintR
Your ignorance is legendary. You are not a smart person. It would be a hopeless for you to read some of this material. It proves you are the idiot your claim everyone else to be.
Yes, a real ignorant person.
I do not expect someone like you to begin to understand the content of this material. It totally proves you wrong so in contrarian fashion you make the contrarian claim (opposite of reality and facts) that it proves me wrong.
You are not a smart person.
My “insults” correctly describe who you are. Take them as insults if you must, or quit being ignorant. I can’t help you with that. I can state the truth. You are not smart and you are very ignorant as well as a mindless contrarian.
Now you’re problem is your credibility. That hasn’t been fixed yet.
The heat transfer equation is just a combination of the SB law and the 1LOT.
I think the contrarians have articulated their position sufficiently. That is the contrarian position is that the SB law and/or the 1LOT is “bogus”.
If contrarians cannot be convinced that the SB law and the 1LOT are unassailable then it is unlikely they can be convinced of anything.
Nothing necessarily wrong with the radiative heat transfer equation. You just have to be careful how you use it:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math/#comments
Good link, there’s a great guy there named “tjfolkerts”.
He seems to be agree with me.
The last message is also a hoot:
Joseph E Postma says:
“Roy Spencer usually ends up trying to use the same lie as well.”
Yes, the comments are worth reading, as well as the article itself.
Tim has been lying on blogs about the GHE for some time, as he is employed to.
Tim and Roy Spencer you mean?
Do I? That’s quite an accusation, Svante.
It’s in DREMT’s link you see:
Joseph E Postma says:
“Roy Spencer usually ends up trying to use the same lie as well.”
I just linked to a blog article which naturally includes some comments. Does not mean I agree with all of them.
No bdgwx, the bogus equation perverts the laws of physics. The bogus equation confuses “flux” with “heat” and “energy”. The three are not the same. “Heat” is only the proper transfer of energy. “Flux” doesn’t even have the same units as “energy”. You don’t have a grasp of the basic physics. You make the same mistakes over and over, because your false religion makes you reject reality.
You will be trying to warm sunshine with ice until your dying day. And you will still be believing the ball on a string is rotating about its axis.
You will spend your whole life wrapped in the nonsense of your false religion. You will squander all of your natural talents trying to pervert and corrupt reality.
At least you won’t be alone….
bobdroege said – * What I was saying is that molecules in a hotter body can abbssorb the energy from photons from a colder body if certain conditions are met, according to the laws of thermodynamics. *
Of course, what he doesnt say, is that it is impossible to raise the temperature of a warmer body by exposing it to the radiation from a colder.
This would require that the colder body would have to experience a drop in temperature, which is nonsensical, reducing entropy, leading to perpetual motion. Ill leave bob to his playing with semantics, insulation, and puerile obscenity.
Swenson,
“This would require that the colder body would have to experience a drop in temperature, which is nonsensical, reducing entropy, leading to perpetual motion. Ill leave bob to his playing with semantics, insulation, and puerile obscenity.”
Nope, because the colder body is being heated by the warmer body, and both bodies are being heated by the Sun.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544247
Thanks for that link, DREMT. I would not have seen it otherwise.
MikeR is still confused about angular momentum. We explained it to him before, but idiots can’t learn. So this is just in case anyone else is interested:
You can “calculate” an angular momentum for Moon by the simple equation “L = mrv”. But that confuses some because it is just a “calculation”, or “mathematical construct”. Moon does not have angular momentum. It only has “linear” momentum. This would be obvious if gravity could suddenly be turned off as Moon would go hurling into space in a straight line, due to its linear momentum.
Just because a calculation can be made, that does not mean the calculation has any validity.
Now everything changes if there is a mechanical attachment to an orbiting body. If Moon were attached to Earth by a long arm, then the two bodies would share momentum. With the mechanical attachment Moon would have a “real” angular momentum.
“Moon does not have angular momentum. It only has ‘linear’ momentum. ”
That’s reaching new heights of fizuks for dummies!
Might even beat out you trying to add momentum and force vectors.
Your Deans are meeting to decide whether to take away your ‘almost physics minor’.
From this monthly update we’ve discovered the contrarian commenters think the SB law and 1LOT are bogus, the Moon no longer has angular momentum, insulation (or least knowledge of it) is a hoax, etc. And that is in addition to all of the other bizarre claims made previously. The heights to which the contrarians here have gone in their wholesale rejection of science has reached a new level of absurdity in this monthly update.
Now bdgwx, is that really the truth?
Or are you just desperate because your nonsense “proves” Earth’s surface temperature should be 303 K, instead of the reported 288 K?
They’re bad at math too.
blob, please stop trolling.
Re my depictions of elliptical orbits.
The depictionsdisplay,
1. Longitudinal libration as being the phase difference between the axial rotation angle and the angle of the position vector joining the earth/moon barycentre and the centre of the moon.
2. They also display elliptical orbits where the instantaneous velocity (v) is inversely related to the length of the position vector (R) . This is a consequence of the conservation of angular momentum, L = mv X R = mvR ( v and R are always perpendicular).
If ClintR, DREM and Bill want to argue the point then they should take it up with Johannes Kepler. He currently resides in Regensburg, Germany. He hasn’t lost an argument in almost 400 years but you guys can be so persuasive.
miker…”Longitudinal libration as being the phase difference between the axial rotation angle and the angle of the position vector joining the earth/moon barycentre and the centre of the moon”
I have already explained this in detail, comparing a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit. With the circular orbit, A radial line from the centre of the Earth (to heck with the fictitious barycentre) through the Moon remains intact through the orbit. With an elliptical orbit, the radial line must be located by bisecting the angle between a line from either focal point to the orbiting object.
That means the radial line is no longer centred at the Earth’s centre but slightly to one side. It also means the near face of the Moon is not pointed directly at the Earth’s centre, allowing us to peak around the edge of the Moon.
Libration does not involve a physical rotation of the Moon, it is a property of an elliptical orbit. The Moon does not, at any time, rotate on its axis. If it did, libration would allow us to see around the edge of the entire Moon’s surface as it rotated. As it stands, we see only the same area.
Therefore your point proves the Moon is not rotating on its axis.
We can see 59% of the Moon’s surface from Earth.
bobd…”We can see 59% of the Moons surface from Earth”.
We can see 50% already looking at the near-face during a full Moon. The other 9% is due to libration and that varies during an elliptical orbit.
I wonder why, given your 59% figure, you don’t get it that we never see the other 41%? It it rotates once per orbit as you claim, it would have to reveal the full 100% since the Earth turns 28 days during one lunar orbit.
Please don’t throw in synchronous rotation, that is sci-fi used to explain an illusion.
Gordon,
The elliptical orbit doesn’t explain all the libration.
The tilt of the Moon’s axis explains some of it as well.
The Moon’s axis is tilted away from 90 degrees with respect to the plane of its orbit. That explains some more of the libration, and is why the Moon only face directly towards the Earth twice each orbit.
The Moon in its elliptical orbit moves faster and slower as explained by Kepler’s laws, but it rotates at a constant rate.
It’s turning you fools, as it orbits, it faces a different direction with each second as it orbits.
Yes Gordon,
You are 100% correct as long as the moon rotates once per orbit.
If it does not then this is what you get.
https://i.postimg.cc/Dyd0LpFM/No-Rotation-Moon-Eccentricity-Point-6.gif.
You get to see 360 degrees or 100% of the moon.
You’re all messed up MikeR, as usual.
That gif is rotating about its axis CW once per orbit. That’s why you see all sides from inside the orbit. And that’s why the tracers cross. Something that is only orbiting, like a ball on a string, would have non-crossing tracers.
MikeR says:
“For an an elliptical orbit of eccentricity 0.6 –
https://i.postimg.cc/90p8mHsZ/Ellipse-Eccenricity-0.gif
The amplitude of the libration in this case is 77.7 degrees.
For the Moon’s orbit of eccentricity 0.0549.
https://i.postimg.cc/SRBsxH8Q/Ellipse-Moon-Eccenricity-0.gif”
He seems to think these simulations prove something about whether or not the moon is rotating on its own axis. Not sure why.
Miker’s just desperate.
Your “chalk circle” is the reality he can’t deal with.
Yeah, I got fed up talking to him as he is ineducable and just goes on and on. So I thought I would bring the discussion down here, so others will actually read it, and respond to him if they wish to waste their time.
“Not sure why.”
Yes that is obvious.
When your beliefs are not about explaining the real world data, then you dont understand why people bother with it.
Take a crack at explaining the observed motion of the Moon.
I’ll hold my breath.
Your ball on a string, merry go round, chalk circle and anything else you have so far offered doesn’t do.
They are not meant to capture every nuance of the moon’s motion.
Then they are worthless and don’t support your theory that the Moon does not spin on its axis.
But yet you blather on endlessly.
No, they are not worthless.
They make this point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-537818
DREMPTY,
You make several statements in that post that you have been shown to be false.
Repeating them makes you a liar.
You are lying about whether the Moon spins on its axis or not.
Incorrect.
This one is false
“…the moon, generally-speaking, also orbits with one face always towards the center of the orbit.”
And you are lying and I have no time for you.
Generally-speaking, it does. That’s why we always see the same face from Earth…and I go on to mention libration, which means we see a little bit more than one face.
It’s certainly more correct to say that we see the same face from Earth than it is to say we see all sides of the moon from Earth.
The simple analogies indicate orbital motion, without axial rotation. The simple analogies indicate the motion of Moon, orbiting, but not rotating about its axis.
Idiots hate simple analogies.
“It’s certainly more correct to say that we see the same face from Earth than it is to say we see all sides of the moon from Earth.”
No, that’s another lie, especially this far into the argument you should know the correct answer.
Saying we see the same face from earth is a lie.
Saying we see all sides of the Moon from earth is a lie.
Both lies, try telling the truth.
"…and I go on to mention libration, which means we see a little bit more than one face."
DREMPTY,
Care to take a crack at explaining libration?
bob, several in your tribe have already tried the libration distraction. Review the list and try to come up with something new to deny reality:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Hotel bills and feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
ClintR,
I’ll put you down for unable to explain libration.
How are you doing at figuring out that
sin x + sin x = 2 sin x
equation?
Libration of longtitude: The moon moves through space at varying orbital speeds whilst its change in orientation is at a steady rate. This fact, coupled with the eccentricity of the moon’s orbit means that at some points you can see slightly more of the moon from Earth.
Libration of latitude: The moon is oriented in such a way whilst it orbits, that an imaginary line passing through its center of mass remains inclined at about 6.7 degrees to the normal to the plane of its orbit. The origin of the libration in latitude is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earth’s orbit around the sun, the only difference being in Earth’s case the body is actually rotating on its own axis. The moon is only orbiting.
DREMPTY,
You forgot two forms of libration.
“The moon moves through space at varying orbital speeds whilst its change in orientation is at a steady rate.”
A change in orientation means the Moon is rotating on its axis.
That’s the only way something can change its orientation, by spinning on its axis.
Well done and welcome again to the spinners club.
YUR DONE
bob is all over the board now. He’s not making any progress promoting Moon nonsense, so he’s switching to the “adding flux” issue.
I can go there.
Fluxes don’t simply add, just as sine waves don’t simply add.
Idiots are welcome to add these two sine waves:
4sin(15t + 4.2)
17sin(4t – 1.78)
(Please show all work.)
“A change in orientation means the Moon is rotating on its axis.”
A small chalk circle drawn towards the outside edge of a rotating platform is also changing its orientation whilst it moves…however it is not rotating on its own axis. It is only orbiting the center of the platform.
ClintR
the sum = 4sin(15t + 4.2) + 17sin(4t – 1.78)
There I added them together.
Get a graphing calculator, it will have no problem with that.
DREMPTY,
Nope, YUR DONE.
OK, blob. I will just ignore you, then, if you are going to be silly.
DREMPTY,
Fine with me, you lost the Moon argument, you are a spinner now.
The chalk circle spins, you spin, I spin, the Moon spins, your my little pony spins and of course Zeta spins.
“They are not meant to capture every nuance of the moons motion.”
Indeed.
So xan we be done now?
Can
ClintR
Try this
https://www.mathopenref.com/graphfunctions.html
Or this with the actual functions you wanted me to add
GFE
Yes bob, sine waves do not simply add. And, it even gets worse with radiative fluxes.
(Disclaimer: This is physics. Idiots can NOT understand physics.)
“that an imaginary line passing through its center of mass remains inclined at about 6.7 degrees to the normal to the plane of its orbit. The origin of the libration in latitude is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earths orbit around the sun”
Very good. Now what is that line? I know, you must not speak it.
Reminds of the joke about the guy coming across a pile of dog poop. ‘Looks like poop .. smells like poop….feels like poop… tastes like poop. Hmm. Must be poop. Sure glad I didnt step in it!’
Same thing here. Replace ‘poop’ with ‘axis of rotation’, and ‘step in it’ with ‘say it out loud’.
Must also be a joke.
ClintR,
You are in the wrong classroom, you didn’t do your homework, and all your classmates are laughing at you.
Adding two sine waves is Mathematics, not Physics.
Two continuous functions, like any two sine functions can be added by adding their values for each and every point on the x-axis.
bob was unable to understand the Disclaimer.
Nope ClintR, you just showed that you can’t handle trigonometry.
I just showed you how simple it is to add sine functions.
The dog ate your homework is all you got.
Nate says:
that an imaginary line passing through its center of mass remains inclined at about 6.7 degrees to the normal to the plane of its orbit. The origin of the libration in latitude is analogous to how the seasons arise from Earths orbit around the sun
Very good. Now what is that line? I know, you must not speak it.
================================
You are just doing what you accuse everybody else of doing of adopting a preferred perspective. Here your perspective is of tilt from the orbit, a tilt not controlled by gravity as is the tilt of the moon’s axis. The axis over the period of the precession of the nodes (just over 18 years) has a mean tilt of zero degrees to the ecliptic.
“You are just doing what you accuse everybody else of doing of adopting a preferred perspective.”
The Earth’s axis has objective, measurable properties, as does the Moon’s.
How do we know the Earth has a real axis of rotation and that it is tilted?
1. We can observe that the Earths center is orbiting the sun.
2. In addition all parts of the Earth are rotating in concentric circles around a line thru its center with period = the sidereal day.
3. The axis exits the Earth’s surface at the poles.
4. Standing at the poles, one’s body is parallel to the axis, and points to a fixed star, Polaris. IOW the axis points to a fixed point in the heavens.
5. Ponting to Polaris, the axis has a 23.5 degree tilt to the orbital axis.
6. Averaged over an orbital period, the Poles receive the least sunlight and are the coldest places.
The Moon’s axis has ALL of these features as well, with different numbers, and Moon is of course orbiting the Earth.
“The axis over the period of the precession of the nodes (just over 18 years) has a mean tilt of zero degrees to the ecliptic.”
And the Earth’s axis precesses over 25000 years.
Does that make their axes not real?
The key point is that the Moon’s axis is defined by the fact that all parts of the Moon are moving in concentric circles around this line, just as for the Earth.
There is simply no other way an axis can be defined.
But feel free to try.
Nate says:
The Earths axis has objective, measurable properties, as does the Moons.
How do we know the Earth has a real axis of rotation and that it is tilted?
===========================
Yes the earth’s axis is tilted to both its orbit and the ecliptic. That is the best evidence that indeed the earth has a real spin on its imaginary axis.
The axis is imaginary because no such thing exists its merely imagined at the center of either a real spin or any perceptible spin. An example of an imagined spin would be if you yourself was orbiting the moon there would be a imagined and perceived axis perpendicular to your orbit around an object sitting still.
The percieved axis of the moon is staked perpendicular to the ecliptic as it should be. The moon appears to spin with an axis perpendicular to the gravity that restricts its spin, while the planet orbits.
One can imagine a second axis in the earth that there is a perceived spin for that is also perpendicular to the ecliptic. The major axis for the earth’s real spin is tilted 23 degree from the ecliptic. But say you removed all the clouds and just had a blue sea the real spin would not interfere with perceiving a spin of the earth around the sun on an axis perpendicular to the ecliptic. That perceived spin is of the seasons and takes one year to complete.
So its really not about where an imaginary axis is, its all about trying to define reality from perception. You though are a slave to static unimaginative inculcation and as such fail to see the obvious and known forces at work that form and elevate reality above perception.
=========================
==========================
==========================
Nate says:
The key point is that the Moons axis is defined by the fact that all parts of the Moon are moving in concentric circles around this line, just as for the Earth.
There is simply no other way an axis can be defined.
===========================
Sure axes can be defined in terms of forces and momentum, or they can be defined in terms of definitions. Definitions is the resort of the non-scientist.
But I will say I can see two real axes for earth as described above based in physics. But based in physics I can identify only one axis for the moon.
You simply want me to add an one for the moon which coincidentally is in the same place and has the exact same spin as the real one I see.
“Sure axes can be defined in terms of forces and momentum, or they can be defined in terms of definitions. Definitions is the resort of the non-scientist.”
Please elaborate. I dont think you will be able to.
In general you are mixing causes and effects.
Forces like gravity are the causes. The effects are the observed motions.
What this discussion has been about has been about how to describe the motion, the effects.
The two are separate issues in Physics. Galileo and Kepler explained how to describe the motions well before Newton and forces.
Of course the motions of planets wrt to the Earth are perceived to be different. The challenge of Kepler was to explain what the motions really were wrt to the inertial frame.
What we are talking about is what the motions really are wrt the inertial frame. There is only one correct version of that.
Nate says:
Of course the motions of planets wrt to the Earth are perceived to be different. The challenge of Kepler was to explain what the motions really were wrt to the inertial frame.
======================================
Kepler certainly discovered some great stuff but you just listed one that hasn’t held up and has been negated by Einstein’s work in relativity. Reference frames do not confer physical reality. The only thing they are helpful for is understanding various forces. But if you choose to use them by ‘definition’ or the work of an astronomer from 400 years ago you would be well advised to find some real physics to support your point of view as opposed to just declaring by definition thats the way it works.
You guys have had more than a reasonable opportunity to provide evidence above and beyond the reference frame you have chosen and you haven’t been able to come up with a single thing. This subject has been beat to death. You can choose to continue to whip a dead horse all you want but truthfully your argument has become boring, uninformative, and non-scientific thus is worthless to anything beyond your justifying your own stubbornness for yourself and the others in here in the same situation.
Observations count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif
Yes, blob. From such observations, over time, astronomers have deduced where they think the axis of rotation is, for the moon, based on their erroneous belief that the moon rotates on its own axis. If you think the moon rotates on its own axis, it stands to reason you are going to place that axis somewhere. The moon orients itself in such a way whilst it orbits that an imaginary line passing through its center of mass remains inclined at about 6.7 degrees to the normal to the plane of its orbit. There is just no rotation about that line, so it is not an axis.
If you think the moon rotates on its own axis, then you would call that line the axis of rotation. If you do not think the moon rotates on its own axis, then you can still acknowledge the existence of the line, since it is a product of the way the moon moves in its orbit. You are just aware that the moon does not rotate about that line.
DREMTPY,
I see no attempt at explanation of the link showing the motion of the Moon.
You just jump to your precious claim that the Moon doesn’t rotate, which you have absolutely no evidence for.
It’s your claim, back it up with evidence.
40,000 some posts, a wild ass guess, but somewhat close, but no evidence.
Zero
The explanation of the link’s existence on this thread is that you posted it. The explanation of libration, which the link shows, I posted earlier. The side to side motion is libration of longitude and the nodding motion is libration of latitude. Put them both together, add a back and forth motion due to the varying distances of the moon from Earth, plus the phases of the moon, and you get what you see at your link. Basically it is what you see of the moon from Earth over the course of a lunar month.
“The moon orients itself in such a way whilst it orbits that an imaginary line passing through its center of mass remains inclined at about 6.7 degrees to the normal to the plane of its orbit. There is just no rotation about that line, so it is not an axis.”
This is not even realistic science fiction anymore. It is in the pure Fantasy genre.
The ‘imaginary line’ is only defined and identified by the direct observation of rotation of mass around it.
If anyone thinks that such a line can be defined, identified, or found WITHOUT observing rotation of mass around it, then they should explain how that could be done.
Nate says:
If anyone thinks that such a line can be defined, identified, or found WITHOUT observing rotation of mass around it, then they should explain how that could be done.
====================================
Boy are you ever dumb! Easy sit on the horse on the merry-go-round like many of us did when we were kids and watch the fair grounds go around.
And if your senses are really really sharp and undulled by drugs you might even notice that while the fair grounds circulate around you, your point of view is also moving round in a circle around a smaller part of the fairgrounds. That and a good frame of references you might even find your ass.
Nothing more from blob. I guess he must be satisfied with the explanation I gave.
DREMPTY,
I just saw it, and
“The explanation of the link’s existence on this thread is that you posted it. The explanation of libration, which the link shows, I posted earlier. The side to side motion is libration of longitude and the nodding motion is libration of latitude. Put them both together, add a back and forth motion due to the varying distances of the moon from Earth, plus the phases of the moon, and you get what you see at your link. Basically it is what you see of the moon from Earth over the course of a lunar month.”
You are basically saying libration is due to libration.
And you forgot about the two other forms of libration.
Here try this,
The libration of the Moon is due to the fact that the Moon rotates on its axis, that works for two of the four types of libration.
The third is because the Moon’s orbit is tilted with respect to the Earth.
The forth is because the Earth is rotating.
“The explanation of libration, which the link shows, I posted earlier.”
October 26, 1:45pm.
“Easy sit on the horse on the merry-go-round like many of us did when we were kids and watch the fair grounds go around.
And if your senses are really really sharp and undulled by drugs you might even notice that while the fair grounds circulate around you, your point of view is also moving round in a circle around a smaller part of the fairgrounds. ”
Yes, and that is a key difference from the Moon.
For a rider on a horse with a tilted pole. The rider looks up he sees the pole pointing to different stars as the MGR goes around.
If Im sitting on the N. pole of the Moon, with its tilted axis, and I look straight up, I always see the SAME stars directly overhead as the Moon rotates and orbits.
Because the Moon’s axis is a REAL rotational axis, while the horses pole is just a pole tilted, not a rotational axis.
Yes DREMPTY,
The explanation of libration, which the link shows, I posted earlier.
October 26, 1:45pm.
That’s the time you explained libration by explaining that the Moon rotates on its axis.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Oh, you are back to just being silly again.
“Sure axes can be defined in terms of forces and momentum, or they can be defined in terms of definitions. Definitions is the resort of the non-scientist.”
Please elaborate. I dont think you will be able to.”
Can you or not?
Lets face it, this is just obfuscation. An axis absent rotation of mass around it is undefined.
ANd oh BTW the motions we are talking about in the solar system are all non-relativistic, so that is a red herring.
But nice try.
Still awaiting your alt-axis definition.
Sorry Nate I am not going to reexplain the role of gravity and mascons to you are the umpteenth time in stopping the rotation of the moon and tidal locking it while we are waiting for your first explanation that isn’t just astronomy classifies it like that.
The ball is in your court. You can take issue with gravity, you take issue of lunar mascons. . . .all that’s fine except that it is already accepted science.
This is YOU claiming it was easy.
“Sure axes can be defined in terms of forces and momentum”
Apparently that was hot air.
No surprise.
Look, Bill, we are in the ‘garbage time’ of the game and its 72-5, not in your favor.
Its the time to throw out any pretense that you can win on the facts or on actual logic.
So its time to throw anything silly and see if it sticks:
‘a physics education is for losers’
‘real men of science don’t need definitions’
‘An axis is not real if it precesses’
‘No axis, just gravity’
‘It just exists in your perspective’
‘its a pseudo optical illusion’
We’ve entered the final Strawberry Fields phase:
‘Nothing is real’
Send me some of the stuff you are smoking Nate. I want to sell it to some of my other liberal friends around here.
Bill,
Projecting.
You give me crap for being too much of a realist and relying on textbook physics.
Now suddenly Im smoking stuff? Get your insults straight!
Bill: “Sure axes can be defined in terms of forces and momentum”
Im still waiting for your alt definition of an axis to back up your claim.
When can I expect that?
FYI
Meriam Webster
“Definition of axis of rotation
: the straight line through all fixed points of a rotating rigid body around which all other points of the body move in circles”
Please find a definition of axis that DOESNT require all points to be moving around it.
All the particles of the moon rotate in circles around the straight line that goes through the center of gravity of earth.
If you don’t want to consider the earth moon system as a cohesive body that just because you don’t understand how they are connected together. Its like when you walk through a glass door not believing it was there.
“All the particles of the moon rotate in circles around the straight line that goes through the center of gravity of earth.”
Is that what you think? No wonder you are so confused!
Facts are just darn inconvenient when they dont agree with your beliefs!
Ignoring the Moon’s eccentricity and libration is the way to go, I guess.
And what happened to the barycenter?
Nate says:
Ignoring the Moon’s eccentricity and libration is the way to go, I guess.
=========================================
All rigid bodies have vibrations and tolerances. The moon’s tolerances to its orbit are very tight. But I have told you this several times.
Nate says:
And what happened to the barycenter?
==============================================
The barycenter is completely irrelevant to the rigid system. Its every bit as irrelevant as a frame of reference that makes it appear the moon rotates on an internal axis.
You are now solidly in the frame of reference of a troll as you have been told this many times yet you keep trolling. So Nate please stop trolling.
“have been told this many times ”
If Im told something erroneous many times, Im supposed to accept it as fact??
Well that is how the Trump campaign seems to work…
Again, make whatever false declarations you want, as many times as you want, but if you dont support them with facts, then you will get called out on it.
“All rigid bodies have vibrations and tolerances. The moons tolerances to its orbit are very tight.”
When one looks at the Moon going thru its variations in apparent size, orientation, and face to Earth, they dont look small!
If your model fails to account for these observations. Then as Feynman noted, no matter how much you love it, its WRONG.
Nate says:
All rigid bodies have vibrations and tolerances. The moons tolerances to its orbit are very tight.
When one looks at the Moon going thru its variations in apparent size, orientation, and face to Earth, they dont look small!
=================================
Simple Nate. Any variation can look large by magnification of view and time.
Sit in your backyard and watch the moon to get the realistic effect.
Watch global average temperature rise on a chart you will see the magnifying effect of using anomalies.
Im Bill. My model cant explain the observations. But I say they dont matter. Cuz its my belief, and not falsifiable by mere facts.
Nate please stop obfuscating! The model explains the moon completely by all practical standards.
Your complaints against are against Madhavi’s text as the moon fullfills all of Madhavi standards and exhibits only the sort of system variation exhibited by everything in the world that constructed on the Madhavi guidelines.
1) You are wrong about the axis not being in the right place.
It is in the right place on the ecliptic with an axial precession of about 1.5 degrees in accordance with the La Grangian Invariable Plane.
2) You are wrong that lunar libration is an unusual and disqualification for the moon rotating on the earth COG.
All objects in rigid body dynamics have connections with tolerable deviations.
3) Your best argument is that the moon earth is not a rigid system. Indeed the control of the moon is fragile. taking the spin off an orbiting body is a long term process. But as they would say in engineering its better built than a bridge or tall building as long as a large object doesn’t run into it.
“are against Madhavis text as the moon fullfills all of Madhavi standards”
You keep making this empty declaration, bill, and are unable to point out where she supports your POV. Lame!
Bill,
Libration and eccentricity are features of the lunar orbit, along with axial tilt and precession that are informative for the physics, and have demanded explanation for centuries. And physics did explain these things, with the Moon having an independent spin, which interacts with gravity of the sun.
So your answer for that is to ignore these things as unimportant?
I dont see how that is a selling point?
It just shows you have belief that is not fact-driven.
“Your best argument is that the moon earth is not a rigid system.”
Yes that should be self evident. Thus there is simply no motivation to use a rigid body model of a system of 2 detached bodies.
And Astronomy models planetary motion using universally and easily applicable models. They are meant to apply to all planets, moons, satellites, not just tidally locked moons.
Nate says:
“are against Madhavis text as the moon fullfills all of Madhavi standards”
You keep making this empty declaration, bill, and are unable to point out where she supports your POV. Lame!
=================================================
I can understand that Nate. If you don’t have the ability to see that the physics principles outline by Madhavi would apply to the moon and thus need for her to say they do apply to the moon for you, I get it.
Nate says:
Your best argument is that the moon earth is not a rigid system.
Yes that should be self evident. Thus there is simply no motivation to use a rigid body model of a system of 2 detached bodies.
=============================================
The moon and earth are not detached. They are glued together by gravity. I realize you can’t actually see gravity but I can assure you that its there Nate.
Nate says:
And Astronomy models planetary motion using universally and easily applicable models. They are meant to apply to all planets, moons, satellites, not just tidally locked moons.
==========================================
Thats correct Nate. And one rule of thumb about models is only make them as realistic as necessary to accomplish what you want to accomplish. Embellishing models with everything in nature sets you back in your efforts. However, you always run the risk of failing to note something important in your mission. The issue of how the moon is attached to the earth is dealt with by assuming synchronous rotation with a full understanding of how that arises. Going beyond that into engineering the additional detail of the moon rotating around the earth’s COG would only be important to the ‘builder of worlds’. Something that astronomy isn’t, at least yet, aspiring toward. When and if they do, then this issue becomes material.
In the meantime it has become clearer to me. The cannonball and the jet plane will rotate around the world keeping one face pointing at the ground, simply because when the cannonball was fired, and when the jet plane took off it already had orbital angular momentum (was already spinning on the earth’s COG)
The spinning object, moon, coming in from space entering orbit will have one axis at the center of the object around which all the particles are rotating. It will immediately have another axis that is going through the earths COG with that axis on the ecliptic plane.
In fact the moon is subject to many such axes. The celestial cog, the galactic cog, the solar system cog, the earth’s cog all with modifications from moving stars, moving planets, and an earth slowing its spin.
So what it really boils down to is your complete inability to see complexity, you are a rote learner who has skipped over the fundamentals simply because they confuse you.
Nate says:
And physics did explain these things, with the Moon having an independent spin, which interacts with gravity of the sun.
============================
How can something interact while being independent in physics. What are you one of those Gaia believers that the moon has a mind of its own?
Bill, you are stuck in an infite loop of stupid and strawmen.
You HAVE NOT shown anything in madhavi that supports your POV. Unless you simply cannot read, you know I dont require her to say the word Moon. Stupid strawman.
Gravity is an inverse square law. That That is simply not what a rigid body has!
Stupid strawman.
You offer no compelling reason to switch the model that astronomy uses for any orbiting object, to a model that cannot explain the observations of the Moon.
Why? Other than it soothes your ego?
Not bloody good enough.
“In the meantime it has become clearer to me. The cannonball and the jet plane will rotate around the world keeping one face pointing at the ground, simply because when the cannonball was fired, and when the jet plane took off it already had orbital angular momentum (was already spinning”
In the meantime you drank the cult koolaid, Bill.
You were using sensible logic, until you heard what the cult expects you to believe!
Wow.
Nate says:
“In the meantime it has become clearer to me. The cannonball and the jet plane will rotate around the world keeping one face pointing at the ground, simply because when the cannonball was fired, and when the jet plane took off it already had orbital angular momentum (was already spinning”
In the meantime you drank the cult koolaid, Bill.
You were using sensible logic, until you heard what the cult expects you to believe!
Wow.
========================================
Wow is right you are losing it Nate.
Obviously the cannonball will remain with one face facing earth. Even your own arguments support that point of view.
The cannon when fired has angular momentum So the cannonball will receive that angular momentum and continue around the earth.
Unless of course you now believe when confronted with the absurdity of your position that the moon will not spin when released from orbit.
The angular momentum in the cannonball will ensure that the cannonball orbits the earth rotating on the earth’s COG.
The non-spinner argument argues that the cannon itself is not rotating around its own COG but is sitting on the surface rotating as part of the surface of the earth.
Does it tumble as the earth goes around in synchronous rotation?
Either you are being stupid or you are being stubborn.
Nate says:
“In the meantime it has become clearer to me. The cannonball and the jet plane will rotate around the world keeping one face pointing at the ground, simply because when the cannonball was fired, and when the jet plane took off it already had orbital angular momentum (was already spinning”
In the meantime you drank the cult koolaid, Bill.
You were using sensible logic, until you heard what the cult expects you to believe!
Wow.
========================================
Wow is right, you are losing it Nate.
Obviously the cannonball will remain with one face facing earth. Even your own arguments support that point of view.
The cannon when fired has angular momentum So the cannonball will receive that angular momentum and continue around the earth.
Unless of course you now believe when confronted with the absurdity of your position that the moon will not spin when released from orbit.
The angular momentum in the cannonball will ensure that the cannonball orbits the earth rotating on the earth’s COG.
The non-spinner argument argues that the cannon itself is not rotating around its own COG but is sitting on the surface rotating as part of the surface of the earth.
Does it tumble as the earth goes around?
“The angular momentum in the cannonball will ensure that the cannonball orbits the earth rotating on the earths COG.
The non-spinner argument argues that the cannon itself is not rotating around its own COG but is sitting on the surface rotating as part of the surface of the earth.”
Thats not a bad point. Interesting Now lets analyze it, and hopefully you will continue with this logical approach.
Lets say the cannon is on the equator facing east. It will be rotating @ 1 rev/24 h.
When the cannonball is fired into low earth orbit, its orbital period will be ~ 90 minutes. Look it up.
But if its rotation rate is the same as the cannon, 1 rev/24h, that will not match 90 minutes orbital period.
So it will not keep the same face to the Earth.
Fired West, N, or S, different results, but still a mismatch.
Nate, your analysis comes up short.
The problem with changing direction is you also have to change the muzzle velocity for orbit insertion. But none of that changes the rotation rate it just changes the number of rotations per orbit.
I am largely in agreement that an object not spinning entering orbit is a different case and also has implications for all cases for cannon’s not fired due east.
So lets examine this closely. Lets assume some protoUranus planet is entering solar orbit. Its spin is perpendicular to the axis defined by the barycenter for the tilt of it orbit. Lets say its right on the ecliptic.
1) Okay then what you have is Uranus still spinning on its axis that is parallel with the ecliptic.
2) But Uranus now is a giant mass circling the sun with an axis perpendicular to the ecliptic adding to the angular momentum of the solar system.
3) Your claim it false this planet is spinning on that perpendicular axis at the sun/barycenter of the solar system around which it revolves in time with the sun.
4) You also claim this planet isn’t spinning on a second axis that pierces Uranus’ equator at opposite sides and is parallel with its orbital axis. (cannonball argument)
My argument is simply that 3 is true not false and it represents an angular momentum that can be attributed to Uranus that is dissociated with a separate angular momentum of protoUranus spinning on its side and that has nothing to do with a second axis imagined as penetrating Uranus’ equator in two locations.
So since my argument wins because of default on your part and your confusion of concepts and axes. A question remains of what your favorite axis in Uranus with its sideways rotation is doing.
Is this axis spinning essentially end over end or does it remain pointed at a fixed star. This is the only point I am neutral on. Does the gravity of the sun and other planets gradually induce a single rotation per orbit out of Uranus’ commonly understood axis or does that occur during the first orbit.
Answering this question determines if Tesla was right or if the common astronomer idea of it all is right. But the astronomer has to then wrestle with what the total angular momentum is in these systems.
Some hints about one axis stopping to favor another axis is found at the north pole of the moon where it has been identified that the lunar axis moved locations over the past billion years or so.
Or as G&T would state it: On the other hand, there are many other fields, where a poorly defined graphical language is used, e.g. in business related topics, and, of course, in all kinds of brainwashing.
bill hunter says:
Nate just shot my argument into smithereens, let’s come up with dozen new ideas so it won’t be so apparent.
Svante, please stop trolling
Just read what Nate wrote.
Try and refute his point, and nothing else.
Svante, I did address Nate’s points. they are irrelevant.
Bottom line Svante. . . .what an object does in the first orbit is a very interesting item. . . .but it doesn’t matter a hoot about which axis the moon rotates around.
Its either going to turn like suggested by DREMT or its going to eventually just be along for the ride like the little bowls floating in the big bowl.
So if you guys want to endorse the idea that a chalked circle on a merry-go-round platform rotates around its own center rather than the center of the merry-go-round; realize that as of yet you haven’t come up with a single argument why it should be considered to do that.
DREMT produced a science paper supporting his point of view and you guys have no evidence its wrong.
There is no science that says the cannonball will automatically face inward.
This is the core dividing line of the whole debate, and it’s
nice that we have boiled it down to just that.
Thinking that the Moon would go straight without rotation if gravity disappeared is the other side of the same coin.
Just rotate and release some of your garden tools to improve your feel for physics. It will require great effort to send them off without rotation, so have some pretzels ready for strength.
No, Svante, the core dividing line of the entire debate is and always has been: is a small chalk circle drawn towards the outside edge of a merry-go-round rotating on its own axis, or is it merely rotating about the center of the merry-go-round?
The correct answer is that it is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. I can tell you it’s still the core dividing line, as there are people like Entropic Man, Snape, Ball4, bobdroege and MikeR passionately arguing that the chalk circle is rotating on its own axis from the inertial reference frame…and you yourself, Svante, still mention reference frames all the time.
If you want to move the argument on, then it’s time for any of you “Spinners” that do understand that the chalk circle is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame, to start explaining that fact to the likes of Entropic Man et al. When I finally see any of you display the intellectual honesty to start doing that, we might finally be getting somewhere.
“Just read what Nate wrote.
Try and refute his point, and nothing else.”
Yep. Bill, you evaded by changing the subject.
What you gonna do about the fact that 1 rev/24 h DOES NOT MATCH 1 REV/90 minutes.
The cannonball cannot keep one face to the Earth!
“No, Svante, the core dividing line of the entire debate is and always has been:”
The dividing line always moves when the TEAM loses an argument.
The TEAM insisted Newtons cannonball which first defined what an orbit was, MUST therefore be rotating like the Moon. If not then there whole concept of what an orbit is, is wrong.
Now that is not looking so promising, we evade like mad that subject, and move the line.
They are simply incapable of honest debate.
“There is no science that says the cannonball will automatically face inward.”
Well, aircraft tend to keep their undersides automatically facing towards the ground as they circumnavigate the Earth…and they do not need to pitch up or down (rotate on their own axis) in order to do so.
“Well, aircraft tend to keep their undersides automatically facing”
You are aware that airplanes have wings and experience drag and lift forces from the air?
Red herring.
Still no logical argument.
” Your claim it false this planet is spinning on that perpendicular axis at the sun/barycenter of the solar system around which it revolves in time with the sun.
4) You also claim ”
No Bill, stop making up stuff I never claimed.
What happened to Newton’s Cannonball? Follow your own logic to its conclusion.
Then we can go on to something else, preferably not ur anus.
Nate says:
Yep. Bill, you evaded by changing the subject.
What you gonna do about the fact that 1 rev/24 h DOES NOT MATCH 1 REV/90 minutes.
The cannonball cannot keep one face to the Earth!
================================
First, obviously if its fired with a rotation on it it can’t. But if its fired due north or south we have the example of the protoUranus which you are avoiding discussing.
We have an issue of two potential axes. A diagram I posted suggested additional ones for the celestial axis and the galatic axis. Add that to an axis for independently spinning bodies, and yet another for COG of the sun, and yet another in the case of the moon for COG earth. That makes for 5 independent axes.
Organizing all this information using forces of gravity defines 4 of the axes. The only one not defined is for independently spinning bodies which gained their spin due to some unknown cause.
Thus all 4 of the moon’s axes are dependent. . . .and subject to definition by Madhavi as rotations on an external axis.
You just want to maintain it is the case that each of these axes are independent coincidental rotations by the moon on its internal axis.
The non-spinner position is thats definitely possible by adding spins onto the moon’s internal axis and then causing the moon to expose all of its sides to the axes going through the COG of all the other gravitational influences.
And if you want to run it down further, you can describe separate axes for every object in the universe. but that gets really messy and you start picking up all sorts of weird movement by the moon if your instruments are sharp enough to capture them.
The remaining lunar variables that are undefined are its orbit speed and orbit tilt. These account for the all the librations of the moon.
Nate says:
November 1, 2020 at 8:05 AM
Just read what Nate wrote.
Try and refute his point, and nothing else.
The cannonball cannot keep one face to the Earth!
Nate says:
November 1, 2020 at 8:21 AM
No, Svante, the core dividing line of the entire debate is and always has been:
The dividing line always moves when the TEAM loses an argument.
The TEAM insisted Newtons cannonball which first defined what an orbit was, MUST therefore be rotating like the Moon. If not then there whole concept of what an orbit is, is wrong.
Now that is not looking so promising, we evade like mad that subject, and move the line.
They are simply incapable of honest debate.
Nate says:
November 1, 2020 at 8:21 AM
No, Svante, the core dividing line of the entire debate is and always has been:
The dividing line always moves when the TEAM loses an argument.
The TEAM insisted Newtons cannonball which first defined what an orbit was, MUST therefore be rotating like the Moon. If not then there whole concept of what an orbit is, is wrong.
Now that is not looking so promising, we evade like mad that subject, and move the line.
They are simply incapable of honest debate.
Nate says:
Yep. Bill, you evaded by changing the subject.
What you gonna do about the fact that 1 rev/24 h DOES NOT MATCH 1 REV/90 minutes.
The cannonball cannot keep one face to the Earth!
================================
First, obviously if its fired with a rotation on it it can’t. But if its fired due north or south we have the example of the protoUranus which you are avoiding discussing.
There are a lot of distractions in this argument.
We know that planetary rotation on an internal axis is translatable to simply a change in orbit. thus there is no ‘inherent’ axial spin. There is only an angular momentum associated with it.
But there is also angular momentum associated with every particle of mass in a merry-go-round platform that varies with distance from the center of the platform. Remove that mass and the angular momentum of the platform changes.
So all this BS about all this angular momentum meaning chalked circles spin on their own internal axis is just pure and unadulterated BS. All the particles are a piece of a system held together by atomic forces that diverts the axis to the COG of the system while not at all changing the orbit path of the smaller object around the larger object since they rotate in time in opposition to each other around the barycenter.
So what we have is a well established physical theory of Madhavi versus some antique definition lunar rotation that probably even predates Kepler’s improvement in organization that astronomers haven’t yet found any compelling reason to change. Tesla certainly offered up some interesting insights as he was particularly talented at doing.
But truthfully science is a process of consensus, but not a process of a phony forced consensus like theories of the origin of worlds is wont to be. Plenty of unplowed ground in between for all but the scientists with particular vulnerabilities to suggestion.
“First, obviously if its fired with a rotation on it it cant. ”
But that was your argument as to why it keeps the same face to Earth.
Now you realize that argument doesnt fly, you revert back to gobbledegook.
Instead of following the logic to the correct answer, you have an answer the Cult wants, and are desperately seeking a reason for it.
But as noted by Svante, there is no reason for the cannonball to keep the same face to the Earth.
If the ball is fired with no rotation, then it doesnt have any as it orbits.
“The cannon when fired has angular momentum So the cannonball will receive that angular momentum and continue around the earth.”
Yes any point mass, m, moving on a straight path past another point at speed v, at the closest approach, r, the path is perpendicular to r. Then its angular momentum is mvr. Txtbook physics.
A point mass has angular momentum, but it cannot rotate!
So while the cannonball has angular momentum simply by moving perpendical to an Earth radius, it need not be rotating!
If it goes into orbit, maintaining its distance from the center, then it still just has mvr of angular momentum.
No additional ang momentum or rotation is added to it just because it is in orbit
dremt…from your link to MikeR’s folly…”I [MikeR] seem to recall, that Gordon and ClintR vigorously asserting on many occasions that the moon (I gather that it was a blanket assertion that includes all orbiting objects) does not have orbital angular momentum…”.
For the umpteenth time, the Moon has only linear momentum. If gravity was turned off it would fly off on a line tangential to the orbital curve. If it somehow had orbital angular momentum it would carry on orbiting. But it can’t because it is the perpendicular gravitational force that nudges its linear momentum into a resultant orbital curve.
You can only speak of orbital angular momentum when an orbiting body is connected directly to an axis with a rigid body, like the rim of a flywheel connected to an axis by rigid spokes. A better idea for this purpose might be a bicycle wheel where the mass of the rim is significantly greater than the mass of the spokes.
The Earth-Moon system is a different kettle of fish. The Moon has it’s own linear momentum independent of gravity and you’d never find that condition with a rotating mass connected to an axis with a rigid connector. The Moon’s linear momentum is gradually re-directed but instantaneously, the Moon is always moving tangential to a radial line through it from Earth’s centre.
On the other hand, with a bicycle wheel allowed to turn freely on an axle, the angular momentum in the wheel’s rim/tire will keep it turning about the axle till friction overcomes the momentum. That does not happen with the Moon in orbit.
Momentum is synonymous with a force that resists the degradation of speed in a body. Angular momentum is the same for a body following a curved path. That makes no sense with the Moon for the simple reason that if the Moon loses or gains momentum it will no longer follow the orbital path. That’s not true for a mass attached to an axis with a rigid connector.
The other application of angular momentum we used was related to the Moon rotating on its own axis. For that to happen there would have to be an angular momentum about the local axis and there is none. The Moon simply sits in its orbit with the same face toward the Earth, moving with curvilinear translation. That is, all parts of the Moon are moving in concentric orbits as part of a rigid body.
“That is, all parts of the Moon are moving in concentric orbits”
That’s right.
Concentric circles/ellipses = orbital motion without axial rotation.
Paths criss-cross = orbital motion with axial rotation.
Gordon,
I knew you had major issues with much of the concepts of Modern Physics but until recently I did not realise you had similar issues with Classical Mechanics from the era of Newton and Kepler.
Orbital angular momentum has been extremely well understood for several centuries. Discussion of the conservation of angular momentum with regards to Kepler’s 2nd law can be found in most Physics and Astronomical text books that discuss orbital motion.
Here is some reading that is available on the internet ( you should learn how to use Google).
https://www.sparknotes.com/physics/gravitation/kepler/section2/
https://eloisechen.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/conservation-of-angular-momentum-and-keplers-second-law/
http://burro.case.edu/Academics/Astr221/Gravity/kep2rev.htm#:~:text=So%20Kepler's%20Second%20Law%20Revised,Angular%20momentum%20is%20conserved.
Mike R. I think you need to recognize that as a moon or planet spins down the angular momentum of the spin is converted to linear momentum in the orbit. It isn’t going to give that back.
Might be some question regarding the orbital radius difference creating a spin upon release. I really don’t have an opinion on the matter. Some things you need to observe and I am not sure there is an opportunity to do that.
“I think you need to recognize that as a moon or planet spins down the angular momentum of the spin is converted to linear momentum in the orbit. ”
Angular momentum is conserved. It cannot be lost to linear momentum. It CAN convert to orbital angular momentum.
But then again, that comes from my physics education, which has probably misled me.
LMAO!!!
You mean that if the moon was released from its orbit it would start spinning at the rate it spun before being inserted in orbit?
Wow thats a wild thought! Where did that come from? Reference please! Something like Dr. Madhavi’s book would be fantastic!!
I can hardly wait to read it Nate!!!
“Angular momentum is conserved.”
If you think thats a wild thought, the reality must be a wild thought.
“You mean that if the moon was released from its orbit it would start spinning at the rate it spun before being inserted in orbit?
Wow thats a wild thought! ”
Again Bill you strangely attribute a wild thought in YOUR own head to me.
If the Earth exploded and its gravity suddenly vanished, the Moon would fly off in a straight line while continuing to spin @ 1rev/27 days, about its own axis, leaving the Earth’s original position far behind.
I hope you understand that for the Moon to suddenly stop its rotation would be a major violation of Conservation of Angular Momentum, and common sense.
It also shows, IMO, that the Moon is rotating on its axis as it orbits.
I just forgot to apply the sarc and /sarc tags.
And of course the sarcasm is the idea that each particle in a merry-go-round platform has its own angular momentum around its own internal axis and thus the merry-go-round platform has zero angular momentum of its own because its all held individually by micro rotations.
So when the merry-go-round platform flies off its axle and spins across the fairgrounds it just a whole lot of individual particles spinning around on their own in the platform that adds up to sliding it across the fairground still spinning.
Then of course that must mean that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis either.
Its just seems that way because of some grand conspiracy of the all the particles of the moon rotating around their own internal mini axes all conspiring together to make it look like the moon rotates on its own axis.
I think that’s worthy of some sarcasm. Don’t you think so?
Apparently reality keeps you in stiches.
But yes the moon is rotating wrt the stars. We all agree on that.
Am I to understand that you would have it suddenly stop, for no apparent reason?
Funny, and weird.
Not my point of view Nate. The moon rotates around the COG of the earth. You want to argue that point and argue it rotates around an internal axis. But your logic for that suggests maybe you could dissect the moons parts into thousands of rotating pieces of the moon. . . . .oops just another point of view containing no interesting facts except your argument is merely a perception a perception that fits all the scenarios the moon is known to be influenced by.
Nate says:
November 1, 2020 at 8:30 PM
Apparently reality keeps you in stiches.
But yes the moon is rotating wrt the stars. We all agree on that.
===================================
You are mistaken Nate. What is happening the individual particles of the moon are all rotating on their own individual axes.
You are just mistaken the moon is rotating on its own axis.
Fact is all those particles rotating on their own axis are all simply also ‘orbiting’ the moon’s internal axis like a giant herd of buffalo.
That has tricked you into thinking you are seeing a rigid moon rotate around its own axis. Particles ‘orbiting’ an axis are just in curvilinear translation you ignorant boob!
“But yes the moon is rotating wrt the stars. We all agree on that.”
I didnt say anything about axis.
We all agree the Moon is rotating wrt the stars. You have said it.
Are you going back on it now?
“Am I to understand that you would have it suddenly stop, for no apparent reason?”
Bill, this is not a semantic question anymore.
This is something that is experimentally verifiable.
If the Moon is rotating wrt the stars, and we all agree that it is, then if you think it will suddenly stop rotating, in the absence of any massive torque on it, then you are very very confused.
Please just try to explain specifically how that would come about, even conceptually. Try not to get mystical and metaphysical.
Nate says:
“But yes the moon is rotating wrt the stars. We all agree on that.”
I didnt say anything about axis.
We all agree the Moon is rotating wrt the stars. You have said it.
Are you going back on it now?
==================================
Nate, you still haven’t noticed that it has always been the case that everybody here has been believing the moon rotates wrt the fixed stars.
The only argument has been either:
1) the rotational axis is at the COG of earth per Madhavi scientific reference and explained that this rotation is properly as all particles of the moon moving in concentric circles around the earth’s COG.
2) the axis is at the center of the moon per just about everybody who says so. The explanation being that if the moon were not rotating on its own axis, it would not be rotating at all.
Instead the moons particles would just be going around the earth in a curvilinear orbit with all its particles going in concentric circles instead of doing the dosey doe.
3) the axis is at the center of each individual particle in the moon, ala each particle of a chalked circle. the explanation being that the particles of the moon are just orbiting the moons axis in a curvilinear translation while doing an allemand left while doing a simultaneous dosey doe as the moons axis goes around the earth’s cog in a curvilinear translation.
Hmmm, seems rotation is a matter of proper perceptive focus and simplifying a lot of unnecessary gobbledygook of curvilinear translations upon curvilinear translations. That’s what engineers do for a living while considering physicists like yourself as looney birds with your heads in the stars.
Madhavi has a real teaching challenge laid out for her of grounding the looney birds and getting them to see reality.
Nate says:
If the Moon is rotating wrt the stars, and we all agree that it is, then if you think it will suddenly stop rotating, in the absence of any massive torque on it, then you are very very confused.
Please just try to explain specifically how that would come about, even conceptually. Try not to get mystical and metaphysical.
======================================
Simple! Just install some giant retro rockets into the leading face of the moon and fire them off. Might not like the results though.
“Simple! Just install some giant retro rockets into the leading face of the moon and fire them off. Might not like the results though.”
As expected you have no answer.
Then whadda you gonna do?
Keep believing stuff that you cant support with logic, evidence??
Seems so.
“Madhavi has a real teaching challenge laid out for her of grounding the looney birds and getting them to see reality.”
It seems the myth that your new guru Madhavi supports your claims has grown with every post.
Now she’s the spiritual advisor to the Cult!
But when repeatedly asked to point out any specifics, you cannot.
The immense power of self delusion at work.
“Fact is all those particles rotating on their own axis are all simply also ‘orbiting’ the moons internal axis like a giant herd of buffalo.”
Bill your obfuscation skills are getting better all the time.
Whenever you are trapped in a obvious logical pickle, which lately is quite often, you start throwing up all sorts of goobledegook chaff.
You are not even trying to make sense anymore.
Should be a red flag for you.
Nate whatever you say.
You might first try to figure out the difference between sarcasm and obfuscation.
and unlike you I will admit to an error on the linear momentum. A lack of formal drilling allows for a slip up here and there.
Beyond that Nate. . . .whatever you say.
p.s. the moon is a rigid body that is orbiting the earth. The earth/moon system clearly does not form a rigid body.
Its quite a bit more rigid in its application than nearly 100% of human constructions.
Bill,
If the earth/moon system was a rigid body then the earth would be rotating every 29.3 days or alternatively the moon would be orbiting the earth daily!
Excellent point MikeR! Thank you that’s a great argument!
We now have additional proof. The earth does rotate around the earth/moon barycenter with the moon in opposition exactly on the correct schedule for a rigid system!
I just love how Bill blithely ignores facts that don’t fit his narrative.
Such as here, with the Earth rotating on its axis @ 1 rev/day, while nothing else in the Earth-Moon system follows along.
Somehow this is compatible with ‘rigidity’.
Nate says:
I just love how Bill blithely ignores facts that dont fit his narrative.
Such as here, with the Earth rotating on its axis @ 1 rev/day, while nothing else in the Earth-Moon system follows along.
Somehow this is compatible with rigidity.
==================================
No doubt Ptolemy would have said the same thing to Copernicus if he had still been alive.
Science and engineering is about simplification of concepts into workable models. You and all your dosey doeing particles you imagine up overly complicating a simple mechanism places a huge burden on science. Not to speak of the poor teachers like Madhavi whose job is to teach you discipline.
“Science and engineering is about simplification of concepts into workable models.”
YEs Bill, then why are you taking us back to epicycles and other unnecesary complications to prop up your beliefs, when Astophysics has already determined the simplest workable model?
Nate says:
Science and engineering is about simplification of concepts into workable models.
YEs Bill, then why are you taking us back to epicycles and other unnecesary complications to prop up your beliefs, when Astophysics has already determined the simplest workable model?
==========================================
I am afraid its your theory that has epicycles in the form of curvilinear translations. I demonstrated that by using your logic to move to the next epicycle level of yet another curvilinear translation following the exact logic of your argument for the moon spinning on its own axis.
So what epicycle are you accusing me of?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-545328
It is well known by those who know it well that the planetary greenhouse effect is easily demonstrated by simply analyzing a system consisting of an opaque surface and an overlying atmosphere modeled as a translucent sheet at uniform temperature.
Yes Snape, and that “model” indicates Earth should have a surface temperature of 303 K. But the actual surface temperature only averages 288 K.
Obviously Earth can cool itself quite well, even with all the “hot air” from politicians and alarmists.
I’ve seen you mention this 303K value several times now. Where are getting that?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543995
Gotcha. So you made up some model where a sphere with 1 m^2 surface area which is supplied a 240 W input must somehow emit 480 W/m^2. You then decided that Earth must emit 480 W/m^2 as well because…I don’t know…reasons I guess. Finally you used the SB law (which you think is bogus) to determine that 303K must be the right temperature now even though earlier you thought it should be 231.7K. Just remember…you came up with the ficticious 303K and 231.7K figures. That wasn’t me, Tim, Trenberth, or any reputable climate scientist.
bdgwx, there is just so much confusion and nonsense in that comment I wouldn’t dare try to sort it all out. It’s almost as if you got into some bad drugs, or maybe you’re just in crash mode since your false religion is collapsing around your head?
See if you can clean it up so that it makes sense. I can respond to responsible comments.
These dimwits love bad analogies, confusion, diversions, and gotchas.
What they cant do is describe the GHE, or propose any theory that doesnt require rewriting the laws of thermodynamics!
Alarmist donkeys, one and all.
These dimwits love bad analogies, confusion, diversions, and gotchas.
What they cant do is describe the GHE, or propose any theory that doesnt require rewriting the laws of thermodynamics!
Alarmist idiots, one and all.
Let
Ts= surface temperature
Ta= temperature of the atmosphere
In this idealized system the eight fluxes involved, and their direction vectors are:
F1 (down) is the incident shortwave flux from the sun on the top of the atmosphere.
F2 (down) is the transmitted (through the atmosphere) portion of F1.
F3 (up) is the transmitted (through the atmosphere) portion of F4
F4 (up) is the shortwave flux reflected by the surface.
F5 (up) is the long-wave emission upward by the atmosphere.
F6 (down) long-wave emission downward by the atmosphere (down-welling).
F7 (up) transmitted (through the atmosphere) portion of F8.
F8 (up) long-wave emission by the surface.
At equilibrium, the net fluxes at the top of atmosphere and at the surface are both zero and given by:
F(net), top = F3+F5+F7-F1=0,
F(net), surface = F4+F8-F2-F6=0.
After substituting the appropriate Stephan-Boltzmann for fluxes and invoking Kirchhoffs Law you are left with two algebraic equations in two unknowns, Ts and Ta. For any case in which the atmosphere absorbs more long-wave than short-wave radiation, the difference between Ts and Ta is the greenhouse effect.
Easy.
Snape, the difference between Ts and Ta is due to the “lapse rate”. You’re grasping at straws.
Did you expect Ts to equal Ta?
RR,
Once again, you are trying to invoke the magic of the one way insulator.
Insulators work equally in both directions. You do not seem to realise that Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and all the rest seemed to be totally unaware of the physical principles involved.
Produce someone who claims to have invented such an insulator, and Ill show you a fraud or a fool!
Then I’ll let you decide.
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-material-heat-insulating-heat-conducting.html
bobd…”Then Ill let you decide”.
I have decided, Swenson is right. The article has not proved that insultors don’t act the same in both directions.
I guess it isn’t so easy for some. As I’ve said before, denialists have not models, and no data, only idiology.
All that typing for nothing, huh Snape.
Reality isn’t easy for cult followers with no knowledge of science.
Remember when I said the planet would be much better off 5 degrees warmer ?
You heard it from me first but The scientist are catching on
https://bit.ly/35DXE1A
bobd…”You can use work to transfer some of the energy from the 40 degree object and transfer it to the 90 degree object and that object will get warmer”.
You cannot transfer heat cold to hot directly via work. Heat can be converted to work or vice versa but there is no way to transfer heat naturally from a colder region to a warmer region. You cannot use the conversion of heat to work to transfer heat cold to hot.
Work is simply the use of a force to move a mass through a certain distance or it could be the use of a force to compress a gas. The Sun cannot perform that kind of work on the gases in the atmosphere.
When you transfer heat from the air in a colder room to the warmer air on the outside of a home, you do it via the compression of a gas. Electrical power, or some other kind of power is required to compress the gas, hence the work. The heat transfer is done via the Ideal Gas Law. The heat from a colder room is absorbed by a low pressure gas in a tube which is compressed to a high pressure liquid state then run through a radiator to release the heat to a warmer atmosphere.
At no time is there a direct transfer of heat from cold to hot it’s done via the work done on an entirely independent gas that compresses and expands. There is no way to compress and expand atmospheric air in that manner to enable the transfer of heat from a colder region to a warmer surface.
There is another part to this process. After the high pressure liquid loses heat to the warmer environment, it is atomized and expanded back to a low pressure gas. That low pressure gas absorbs heat from the cooler area, cooling it.
Where do you see such a mechanism in the atmosphere? No matter what anyone claims, there is no mechanism in the atmosphere that will allow the transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Kiehle-Trenberth and their energy budget were wrong to infer that as much heat can be transfer back to the surface as is dissipated by the surface. Alarmist climate science is rife with this nonsense.
Gordon,
your claim
“You cannot transfer heat cold to hot directly via work.”
I see you understand refrigeration, or air conditioning, that’s and example of using work to transfer heat.
In the atmosphere the heat from the Sun evaporates water which later transfers that latent heat to the upper atmosphere.
So it’s doing work, moving mass from one place to another.
There is also no mechanism in the atmosphere that prevents the transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface via radiation.
There are several ways that energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, one by radiation, two by convection, three by the transfer of latent heat, and even fourth by conduction. Also the Sun heats the atmosphere directly. So the atmosphere gets heat from 5 sources and is able to give some to the surface and some to space by radiation.
All within the laws of thermodynamics which you continue to fail to grasp.
bob,
The laws which prevent the cooler CO2 making the warmer surface hotter are called the laws of thermodynamics, which you obviously dont understand.
The Laws of Thermodynamics
1) In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.
2) heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder to a hotter body
3) A system’s entropy approaches a constant value as its temperature approaches absolute zero.
You will note that the second law says nothing about the transfer of energy from a colder body to a hotter body.
Maybe you have learned different versions of the 3 main laws, so tell me how they work to prevent the transfer of energy from cold to hot.
bobd…”You will note that the second law says nothing about the transfer of energy from a colder body to a hotter body”.
Why would it, the 2nd law is called the second law of thermodynamics (aka related to heat energy)?
There are no three parts to the 2nd law, the other two were added by idiots who did not understand what Clausius was talking about. Rather than read the actual papers in which he defines the 2nd law, they created their own through sheer arrogance and stupidity.
When Clausius sums up his intro to the 2nd law he states something close to this: “Heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body”.
At that point he had not talked about entropy, so the 2nd law was never based on entropy. He invented entropy as a means of quantifying the 2nd law and he stated his invention as follows: Entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at temperature T over a process.
Entropy only indicates the direction of transfer and the degree of transfer of heat. It is an ambiguous concept in the wrong hands. Clausius explained that in a reversible process, entropy = 0. That’s because any heat exchanged is reversed and sums to 0. In irreversible processes, heat transfer cannot be reversed therefore entropy is always positive.
Your rule 3) has claimed entropy approaches a constant value, which is bs. Entropy disappears altogether with the heat.
The nattering about entropy in step 3) of your bs is self-evident. If there is no heat to be transferred the sum of such heat must be zero.
All you have presented is an obfuscation of the 2nd law and that’s why the current alarmist anthropogenic theory exists at all.
Gordon,
Those were the three laws of thermodynamics, not three versions of the second law. All of them can be written several different ways.
Now tell me how your version of the second law:
“Heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body
Prevents the transfer of energy in the form of radiation from the atmosphere to the surface?
Next, you claim
“Your rule 3) has claimed entropy approaches a constant value, which is bs. Entropy disappears altogether with the heat.”
That is true only for well ordered substances, amorphous substances still retain some entropy as they approach absolute zero.
Anyway, zero is a constant, are you really that bad in math?
Ain’t science fun and weird?
bob, “energy” is NOT “heat”. “Heat” is the transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. Energy transfer, other than from “hot” to “cold”, is just energy transfer.
(Disclaimer: This is physics. Idiots can NOT understand physics.)
ClintR,
If you were a careful reader, and you are not, you would note that I didn’t say heat was transferred from the atmosphere to the surface, only energy.
All in accordance with the laws of Physics, which are in that textbook you still haven’t pulled the plastic wrap off of.
bob didn’t understand the Disclaimer.
ClintR forgets his physics and doesn’t remember that heat is a specific form of energy.
bob, you’re a really great troll.
bobd…”Now tell me how your version of the second law:
Heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body
Prevents the transfer of energy in the form of radiation from the atmosphere to the surface?”
That’s not my version, the words are those of Clausius. Thermal energy, aka heat, must obey that version, whether conduction, convection, or radiation. A cooler atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface by any of those means.
That is especially true according to the AGW theory which claims the heat in the atmosphere’s GHGs comes from the surface. Such a recycling of heat so as to raise the temperature of the source is called perpetual motion.
Based on quantum theory, the EM from the atmosphere simply cannot be absorbed. Being from a cooler source it lacks the intensity and frequency of EM to excite electrons in the hotter surface.
Gordon,
And you are still wrong.
The second law Clausius Statement is about heat, the greenhouse effect is about energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.
And looking at the atmosphere like it’s doing something with nothin else involved is wrong, there is a two way transfer of energy involving the surface and the atmosphere anyway. It’s not by its own means, it has help, or compensation.
Check your organic chemistry, remember your sp3 hybrid orbitals, and how they are detected using infrared spectroscopy?
You say
“Being from a cooler source it lacks the intensity and frequency of EM to excite electrons in the hotter surface.”
Remember the Bohr model? The one that explains how photons excite the electrons in the Hydrogen atom? Those photons are in the higher energy ultraviolet range.
That model doesn’t apply to poly atomic molecules, which have lower energy states available to catch photons. They are able to catch infrared even from colder objects.
Infrared spectroscopy proves that the greenhouse effect is possible, now go measure it.
blob, please stop trolling.
bobd…”In the atmosphere the heat from the Sun evaporates water which later transfers that latent heat to the upper atmosphere”.
That satisfies the 2nd law, heat is transferred from a hotter region to a colder region. It’s transferred by convection. At no time is heat transferred from the cooler atmosphere to the hotter surface.
wont post…part 1
norman…”Read this Gordon Robertson”.
Had to stop reading it, bush-league crap from the 1961 military.
They start out with this false claim:
“Boltzmann theoretically reduced this same relationship,stating that the heat radiated by a black body is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, q = sigma.AT^4”
Boltzmann said nothing of the kind, neither he nor Stefan claimed the equation represented heat radiation. It represents EM radiation, which is not heat nor does it have any properties of heat. The equation represents EM intensity.
Furthermore, S-B is not based on the highly theoretical blackbody theory of Kircheoff which applies only to thermal equilibrium. It is based on a real metal heated till it glows. While some claim that a glowing metal is close to the theoretical BB, it does not behave at all as a BB is claimed to behave such as being able to absorb and emit all frequencies of EM. That’s getting back to the stupid theory that ice brought close to a glowing metal would raise its temperature.
Gordon Robertson
It is actually quite good physics. The point you can’t grasp is that they use this in the design of spacecraft. They DO NOT USE the contrarian physics since it DOES NOT WORK in reality. In your own contrarian Universe it seems right but it does not work.
You are still wrong about the ice and metal. If the surroundings were exceedingly cold like near absolute zero they would send little to no energy to the hot metal. The ice will, however, add around 300 watts/m^2 of additional energy to what is already heating the metal to the glowing point.
Say hot metal is 900 F. It has a source of energy 0f 18423 Watts (if the plate area is one square meter). If you add the ice energy to this you will increase the temperature of the metal to 904.7 F. Not a massive increase but detectable.
You don’t know much about real physics. Your contrarian physics is not used. What I linked you to is REAL world physics that engineer actually use to design spacecraft. Super important to get it right or your electronics can burn up. You would destroy most spacecraft with your ideas.
N,
Heat some water to say, 70 C.
Add the radiation from ice – just throw in as much as you like. Tell me how hotter the water gets, you fool!
part 2…
Then they go on:
“Absorp-tion or emission beyond 2 microns is due to raising the vibrational and kinetic energy levels of the molecules themselves”.
Again, we get idiots talking about molecules, who seem to be unaware that molecule is simply the name for two or more atoms bonded by electrons. They are completely unaware of Bohr’s theory circa 1913 even though the paper is dated 1961. Bohr made it clear that it is electron transitions that govern absorp-tion and emission and has nothing to do with molecular vibration of the kinetic energy of a molecule. The kinetic energy is related solely to the KE of each electron energy level.
The entire quantum theory is based on the electron and its energy levels. When Bohr and Schrodinger created the theory, Schrodinger responsible for the complex math, they based it on the hydrogen ‘ATOM’. Not once was the word molecule used, nor vibration.
Later, when they push their idiotic transfer of an ‘energy’ exchange between bodies, they are completely unaware of how EM is absorbed or emitted by electrons.
This is about where I stopped reading:
“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the net radiant exchange of energy between two black body radiators, one completely enclosing the other, is Q = sigma.A1.TI^4 – sigma.A2.T2^4”.
At no time did either Stefan nor Boltzmann talk about a net radiation exchange. Their equation is based on an experiment by Tyndall in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire till it glowed. As he increased the current it glowed in different colours representing progressively higher temperatures.
Another scientist converted the colours to temperatures and Stefan noted the T^4 relationship between the colour radiation and the temperature.
The S-B equation has always been about a one-way heat transfer between a heated metal and its environment. It included no reference to a two-way exchange of heat or EM.
Norman, it would be a lot easier to learn the physics rather than referring to garbage textbooks.
Gordon,
where do you get the idea that electrons bounded in atoms have kinetic energy?
Just asking for a friend.
bobd…”where do you get the idea that electrons bounded in atoms have kinetic energy?
Just asking for a friend”.
Because they have mass and they are moving in their energy orbitals. KE = 1/2mv^2.
Sorry Gordon.
Not part of the Bohr model, which is scientifically obsolete for a number of reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
bobd…”Not part of the Bohr model, which is scientifically obsolete for a number of reason”.
Odd…I was just reading Bohr the other night and he was talking about the kinetic energy in electron orbitals.
Anyone who thinks the Bohr model is scientifically obsolete is an idiot. The basic model is still in use today but it has been modified to explain the relationship of electrons to the nucleus in atoms larger than hydrogen.
If you take a course in organic chemistry today, you will be presented with the Bohr model, which is basically electrons orbiting a nucleus in variable energy levels. Rather than the simple orbital of Bohr, they have no broken each orbital into sub-orbitals. Same old, same old.
Gordon,
This is what wiki says, I edited it myself.
As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory.
I have a degree in chemistry, have taken Organic Chemistry, and no, you don’t learn Bohr’s theory in Organic Chemistry.
That’s a subject for Introductory Chemistry.
That’s kind of besides the point, the point being molecules catch infrared because the orbitals can catch it, there are differences in energy levels between orbitals that have the correct energy difference to catch the infrared.
“When I studied a year of organic chemistry, the theory worked there too, orbitals and all.”
That’s your claim, maybe it’s true, but if you took a year of Organic Chemistry at a reputable school you would have been introduced to identification of organic compounds by infrared spectroscopy, and you would know what the carbon oxygen double bond does.
Here is another quote I put into Bohr’s wiki page
“An electron in the lowest energy level of hydrogen (n = 1) therefore has about 13.6 eV less energy than a motionless electron infinitely far from the nucleus.”
So an electron in the lowest energy level of a hydrogen atom has less energy than an electron at rest, ie, no kinetic energy for electrons in orbital.
Usually it is understood that you have to give the electron some energy to release it from it’s parent atom or molecule.
blob, please stop trolling.
bob,
You are lying again. You are posing a gotcha. Do you suffer from self-esteem issues perhaps?
Swenson,
I’ll get it right this time.
Perhaps Quantum Electrodynamics says you are wrong.
I would have a hard time explaining to either you or Gordon why electrons are not orbiting the nucleus, because that science is way over your collective heads.
Just tell me how fast the electron in the ground state orbital of the Hydrogen atom is moving, and we can go from there.
bob,
You said you were asking for a friend. I dont believe you. Why cant your friend ask? Is the misleading gotcha you now pose coming from you or your imaginary friend?
Your question shows why you confuse the names quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics. You havent a clue. Putting it briefly, your question is nonsensical. Learn some quantum physics, and you will appreciate why.
You can go anywhere you like. I wish you a happy journey.
Swenson,
You have a point, it is a non-sensical question.
It does have an answer though, if you knew anything about Quantum Mechanics you would know the answer. Or as you say Quantum Physics, so you sticking with Gordon, with the idea that electrons orbit the nucleus?
I know knowledge of plain old Quantum Mechanics is a pre req for both Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics.
You have expressed insufficient knowledge of the physics that would be necessary for an understanding of the greenhouse effect.
And by the way, this has been a long running discussion, or an attempt at a discussion with Gordon, he almost never answers, and never admits he doesn’t know much about how light and matter interact.
It seems neither do you.
bobd…”Perhaps Quantum Electrodynamics says you are wrong”.
Quantum electrodynamics preceded Bohr. They claimed an orbiting electron was not feasible because it would lose momentum and spiral into the nucleus. In that case, all the planets should lose momentum and spiral into the Sun.
Bohr got around their concerns by applying Planck’s quanta. He reasoned that an electron would have to occupy a specific orbital defined by a quantum level with no in-between states. He was trying to explain why emission and absorp-tion lines in hydrogen occur at specific frequencies only, and experimentation proved him right, even if the theory makes no sense.
I have spent most of my live studying electronics and working in the field. I am not convinced that electrons orbit the nucleus but the theory works and I have no proof it is wrong. When I studied a year of organic chemistry, the theory worked there too, orbitals and all. That all came from Pauling who brought quantum theory back to the US in the 1920s and applied it to chemistry.
bob,
There you go again. Horribly confused. I invite anybody to look up quantum physics in, say, the Oxford English Dictionary. Then they could investigate quantum mechanics, discover that quantum electrodynamic theory is the most rigorously tested theory in history. Why would one need to study early quantum mechanics, which was shown to be wrong, and led to the theory of QED?
Quantum chromodynamics has not been verified experimentally in several key aspects, so it remains speculative in nature.
So you try putting words in my mouth – which is called lying, by some people less polite than myself.
There is no greenhouse effect, you dummy. You are just too stupid to realise it. You cant even describe the supposed effect in any intelligible sense, let alone state where it may be observed.
I suggest that you depend less on Wikipedia for your information. When you have managed to use the energy from as much ice as you like to heat the smallest quantity of water, get back to me. Until then, you are simply providing evidence of your delusory state.
Swenson,
I am afraid you are the one that is totally confused, yes there is a greenhouse effect, and if you knew anything about Quantum Electrodynamics you would know that theory confirms that there is a greenhouse effect.
All the greenhouse effect is, is the selective catch and release of radiation by matter, on the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere.
That’s what Quantum Electrodynamics is, the study of the interaction of radiation and matter.
Perhaps you can tell me the difference between Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Electrodynamics or how and why QE superseded QM.
I can do it in one word.
How about it?
And quit with the strawman heating something with ice, or I’ll have to start swearing again, as I never made that claim.
Or I could pressurize some water to a high pressure in a steel chamber, then cool it with liquid nitrogen, drop the chamber into a bucket of crushed ice and open the chamber.
Then the ice would be warming the water.
Is that a good enough sci-fi story for you?
blob, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry your contrarian views leave you to a state of ignorant bliss. The people you refer to as idiots are several levels of intelligence above your very limited ability. It is funny how stupid people like you think you are a genius and the actual geniuses are idiots. You can’t grasp anything they say so to make you feel better you spout out some physics you cobbled together from very limited sources and pretend to be a genius. You could not come close to doing what these people can. A lot of stupid people, like you, ClintR and Swenson think to be genius but you have most simplistic views, no logic not reason. Just simple minds.
You still have failed to address my concern about the crackpot Lanka on measles. I asked you, if measles is not a virus, how did scientists eradicate the disease by using a weakened version of something that Lanka (stupidly) claims does not exist. Since you can’t answer this you ignore it. I should win the $100,000 he offered if he cannot explain how the disease was eradicated. You follow these crackpots like they were special but your not logical enough to see how all their stupid contrarian ideas are horrible!
norman…”I asked you, if measles is not a virus, how did scientists eradicate the disease by using a weakened version of something that Lanka (stupidly) claims does not exist”.
Once again, in your blatant appeal to authority, you have accepted the dogma that the vaccine eradicated it. Where’s your proof based on the scientific method?
Polio peaked in the 1930s and went away on its own. It peaked again in the 1950s and was well on its way to decline when the vaccine was produced. That was after Salk killing several thousand people with his first vaccine.
Lanka has claimed that none of the major virus isolations claimed used a control. They claimed something was killing cells in a culture but none of them looked to see if the cells would have died on their own. Then they argued for 50 years about which genetic materials were found in the measles virus. If they had the virus, why did they not simply examine it?
Lanka won his case in the German high court partly because he proved the cells in question would have died anyway due to the treatment they receive in a lab. They are starved of nutrition to make them more vulnerable to the alleged virus and they are treated with antibiotics to prevent a bacterial infection. Lanka proved through an independent lab that cells treated that way will die anyway.
So, here you are calling the judges in the high German court stupid. With regard to you winning the prize, the judges would fine you for contempt of court, for wasting their time.
Lanka has also claimed that not one of the micrographs claimed to represent the major viruses are actually photos of that virus. This guy is no dummy, he is an expert on viruses. He can tell a virus from debris from dead cells.
Gordon Robertson
Here is the scientific method:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
YOU: “Once again, in your blatant appeal to authority, you have accepted the dogma that the vaccine eradicated it. Where’s your proof based on the scientific method?”
NO Blatant appeal to authority! The scientists made a hypothesis that measles was caused by a specific virus. They isolated the virus, made a weakened strain, injected this into children, the theory was that the natural immune system could “learn” to recognize the virus that causes measles and then when the wild version got into someone the immune system could kill it off before it became a widespread ailment. The hypothesis worked and the disease was eradicated with very small numbers getting ill. Now it is only in those people who do not vaccinate.
This is what happened. If the German judges could not see that then yes I would call them stupid, the same as you are stupid and the contrarian Lanka is NOT just stupid he is a bad person with evil intent. He is harming people with his ideas and using his authority to do it. You are so stupid that no one takes you serious so your ideas are not really harmful. Lanka, on the other hand, is a bad person. You think these people that do intentional harm are heroes! Your contrarian mind is so warped to try to disagree with any established thought that is considers bad people good guys. Sorry you are so deluded. You no longer recognize what is bad.
Their false religion is collapsing around them. Norman provides another example:
“Say hot metal is 900 F. It has a source of energy 0f 18423 Watts (if the plate area is one square meter). If you add the ice energy to this you will increase the temperature of the metal to 904.7 F.”
Norman claims ice can warm a hot plate that is at 900 F!
That’s what years in a cult does on a person’s brain.
N,
From your link –
* It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; . . .*
Apply this to the GHE nonsense.
Where have you observed the GHE? Where is the hypothesis you have formulated?
Tut tut. Go back to your fantasy.
Swenson
I have already linked the idiot ClintR to the evidence. I will give a try with you always hoping evidence has some influence on you.
Read what you took from the link on scientific method.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f989cab34053.png
The graph in the link is measured values of total net solar (that what is absorbed by the surface not reflected) energy reaching a square meter of surface and the upwelling IR energy that is leaving the same meter squared. The units are in Watts/m^2. Joules/second. To calculate take the seconds in 24 hour cycle and then you will have the total amount of joules the m^2 receives and radiates away. The amount radiated away exceeds the amount received by a significant degree. Idiots like ClintR think the energy is stored and somehow that is why the ground can radiate more energy than it receives. Total illogical. How can the ground store energy when it is losing more than it is gaining. With a GHE, adding the downwelling component from the atmosphere the surface receives more energy than it loses.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5f989e2216ac2.png
With the GHE in place the surface only loses around 200 W/m^2 rather than over 400 W/m^2. This does not violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics nor create energy from nothing. It satisfies the scientific method.
Here you go again, Norman. You can’t leave it alone.
You have a link that you believe “proves” the sky is heating the surface. You don’t have the science background to know what is happening, so you just “believe”.
You couldn’t even solve the “spheres” example. That’s why you can’t figure this out. If the desert surface starts off at sunup at 75 F, how much new energy will Sun add before sunset? That’s what you need to know, but the facts won’t fit into your false beliefs.
And, of course, you mentioned me, again. Thanks for the advertisement.
N,
Have you heard of the conservation of energy? If an object absorbs a certain amount of energy, it cannot emit more than it receives, unless its temperature falls. To lose more energy than it gains without temperature change is just not physically possible. You might notice that that both types of energy in your link are undefined.
One is total net solar (what frequencies are unspecified), and one is upwelling IR – also unspecified bandwidth and energy content. No wonder the NOAA chief scientist just got replaced!
Try defining the GHE. Try finding a Greenhouse Theory. Try using your brain.
Swenson
The devices just measure energy. They are not spectrometers. They measure the total energy of all the wavelengths of the Sun hitting the instrument. Rather than attack the graphs you should look into the instruments. If you don’t care to research it than your opinion is meaningless and ignorant, it is based upon nothing. The sensor is painted with material that approaches a blackbody so it is absorbing nearly all the available energy in sunlight.
The first point in you post is exactly what I have been demonstrating. Without a GHE you can’t radiate the amount of energy that is measured to be leaving the surface. The solar input is not enough to sustain the output without GHE. The graphs are the empirical and scientific proof of the GHE.
Norman, you can’t learn because you can’t think. And you can’t think because you’re an idiot. You can’t face reality.
You’re confused by the upwelling energy. You believe it comes from the atmosphere. The reality is it comes from Sun. You can’t face that reality because that’s not what your cult wants to believe
Yup, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
>>The S-B equation has always been about a one-way heat transfer between a heated metal and its environment.
uhm, no. It is about radiation being in equilibrium with matter.
cournix…”>>The S-B equation has always been about a one-way heat transfer between a heated metal and its environment.
uhm, no. It is about radiation being in equilibrium with matter”.
Knock off your science fiction, Stefan explained what it was about, the relationship between the temperature of a body and the radiation it emits. Your statement makes no sense.
I don’t care what Stefan thought about what it meant, that’s history, not science. (and no, history is barely a science to begin with). The sweet thing about natural sciences, especially teh hard sciences, is that their laws are rather objective. They are not invented but are rather discovered, and while we’re all grateful to their discoverers, the laws have life of their own, independent from the authority of the people who discovered them. You don’t need to know what newton or einstein personally though of gravity in order to reason about it. The SBlaw, as it is derived in the textbooks if i remember it correctly, is an integration of planck’s law which is a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that is *in equilibrium* with matter.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law has nothing to do with “heat” or “equilibrium”. It has to do with the electromagnetic emission, from a perfect emitter, variation with its surface temperature. Spectifically,
S = σT^4
The equation was discovered experimentally, but later derived mathematically. It is one of the most solid laws of physics. For applications to the real world, an “emissivity” must be used, which is just the ratio to a perfect emitter.
S = εσT^4
“S” is the “flux density”, or “radiant flux”, having units of power/area, typically “Watts/meter^2”. “σ” is the S/B constant, 5.67(10)^-8 Watts/(K^4*m^2), and “T” is the Absolute temperature (K).
The bogus equation, Q(dot) = &sigmaA(Th^4 – Tc^4), is a perversion of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and has NO validity, anywhere.
TYPO alert!!!
Last paragraph should be:
The bogus equation, Q(dot) = σA(Th^4 – Tc^4), is a perversion of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and has NO validity, anywhere.
ClintR
Only in your empty contrarian mind is this valid and often used equation considered “bogus”. You have your ignorant opinions. That is all you have. You are not smart enough to understand or apply the equation so in defense of your limited thinking ability you consider the equation “bogus”. Thankfully for astronauts, engineers are considerably more intelligent than you and use this equation regularly to design spacecraft. Not a lot of room for error when people are flying in space with people on board. If the electronics overheat and malfunction because engineers believed the equation to be “bogus” and used your ignorant ideas the people on board could die.
Hi Norman!
Sorry, I didn’t read all your comment. I’ve read them before. They’re always the same. Nothing of value, just your usual perverted opinions.
Have a great day trolling.
ClintR
Please say that means you will no longer tag on my posts that are not to you? I hope so. I really am not interested in your posts.
When I ignore your comments (as they are really low level and unintelligent) then you jump on everyone of my posts like a crouching predator.
You are one of the more unscientific people posting. You reject evidence and valid science.
Norman, you’re addicted to spewing nonsense. It’s your cover for being such a loser. You can type 500 words of pure nonsense and believe you are a genius because you have fooled people. I don’t thing you fool very many.
You can’t leave me alone. You’ve tried, but your OCD is too much for you. No, you won’t stop trolling those of us that bring reality. Your comment just above is a perfect example. You could have left me alone, but you couldn’t resist trolling.
You’re an idiot and probably always will be.
Now, type out one of your long irrelevant, derogatory, offensive keyboard exercises.
Great,
Now ClintR is crying like the poor widdle snowflake that he is.
“Great” is the word, bob.
You’re such a great troll!
nate…”Abuse of office. Trying to get your political opponent charged with an crime on the eve of an election only happens in Banana Republics!”
You mean, like the Democrats trying to link Trump to Russian collusion before the 2016 election? That plot was hatched and funded by the Clinton foundation. They did not push it because, in their arrogance, they though Hillary was a shoo in. They did not use their fake news till after the election, while in shock, after losing to Trump.
Those of us opposed to political correctness and the way of life to which we are familiar can only hope he wins again. I don’t agree with Trump’s politics but I prefer him to the anti-democratic plans of the Democrats, including their hysterical climate alarm.
Note the difference: Nate only sees things one way, through his cult glasses. Gordon sees both sides of the issue.
“You mean, like the Democrats trying to link Trump to Russian collusion before the 2016 election? ”
You are rewriting history.
The suspicious facts arose long before the election, THE FBI, not democrats, began investigating. The President never told them to investigate it, or ANNOUNCE they were investigating it or what they found in the month before the election, as DT has done.
Thats not true Nate. We know Obama and Comey were coordinating on such investigations as detailed in the Susan Rice memo to herself that Obama ordered it be done by the book. The memo make it pretty clear that everybody in the room at that point was beginning to believe their own propaganda.
nate…”THE FBI, not democrats, began investigating. The President never told them to investigate it…”
There is a well-written book on the subject by Andrew McCarthy, called Ball of Collusion. He has been a prosecutor and claims to admire the FBI and CIA but he reveals that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were up to their ying yangs in this affair well before the 2016 election.
Peter Strok was an FBI investigator who was caught expressing hatred of Trump. His girlfriend, Lisa Page, was an attorney on Mueller’s team and they were exchanging confidential information. Both have ties to the Democrats.
The head of the CIA at the time was also an anti-Trump, Democrat sympathizer. The CIA and FBI are supposed to be above politics but McCarthy revealed how they both ignored US law to enable the Obama administration’s investigation of Trump. There was absolutely no reason to be investigating him and Mueller proved that.
An early investigation of Trump, was commissioned by the Clinton Foundation, pre 2016.
bobdroege is convinced that the laws of thermodynamics allow a cooler body (the atmosphere) to raise the temperature of a warmer (the surface) by means of radiation.
Which is about as silly as claiming that you can use the radiation from a cooler body (ice) to raise the temperature of a warmer (liquid water) by means of radiation.
bobdroege lives in the alarmist fantasy world.
Swenson,
You have failed to show that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit a colder atmosphere from raising the temperature of the warmer surface by radiation.
All you present is the strawman argument that that is like heating something with ice.
Swensen/Flynn wrote:
The Swensen troll apparently chooses to ignore evidence which rebuts his repeated claim that the thermal IR emissions from ice can in fact cause an increase in the temperature of a heated warmer body. My Ice Plate experiment clearly demonstrated that result, but Swensen/Flynn simply ignores my results by insisting on using water as the warmer body instead of a solid. It’s been more than a year and the troll hasn’t refuted the results from my simple experiment. The troll’s brain is so locked in denial that it can’t accept reality.
E. Swanson, you don’t know how to do a science experiment. You’re as incompetent as the rest. You believe a tether ball wrapping around a pole is rotating about its center of gravity.
You people are idiots.
(Have you learned how to use a broom yet? Mop?)
Speaking of idiots, ClintR/DRsEMT the sock puppet TROLL forgets that I said nothing about a “tether ball wrapping around a pole” which was never mentioned as a model of orbital motion. Your ball-on-a-string analogy must allow the string to pivot about the center, not wrap around a pole, which would shorten the string. My point was that the ball could rotate around an axis along the direction of the string but no other because the solid connection provided by the string prevents rotation around other axes.
So just to be clear E. Swanson, you now agree that the ball on a string is an acceptable model of “orbiting”, but NOT “rotating about its axis”?
Sometimes a ball on a string is just a ball on a string.
Not good for much else.
Actually a ball on a string seems to be quite divisive amongst the “Spinners”. Some agree that it is not rotating on its own axis, the lower-level intelligence commenters seem to think that it is rotating on its own axis.
E. Swanson hasn’t answer the simple “yes or no” question. I’m content to give him more time, but I suspect he’s working on some kind of dodge. He either won’t answer at all, or will answer in some convoluted tangled web of nonsense to avoid a simple answer.
That’s why idiots hate simple analogies.
Give it a rest guys.
You lost the Moon rotation argument.
The Moon rotates on its axis, that’s been proven.
bob, did anyone ever tell you what a great troll you are?
You’re a really great troll.
A thought experiment for you ClintR.
You are rotating your ball on a string, now shorten the string, the ball revolves faster and faster, keep shortening the string until its length is zero, now the ball is just spinning.
bob, you just said it was over. If it’s over, why are you still trying to pervert reality?
You’re such a great troll.
That makes you what?
Dumber than a troll?
Serial loser in arguments with a troll?
How you doin with dat trig?
Wow, you’re such a great troll, bob.
Who could compete with that?
ClintR/DRsEMT, The ball-on-a-string analogy is useful to help explain orbital motion to a beginning student of physics, but the ball is not orbiting in free space. The string is a solid (though flexible) mechanical connection, unlike the force of gravity, which has little effect on the rotation of an orbiting body. The ball may rotate about an axis parallel to the string, but no other.
If the ball were simply suspended by the string from a point above and not swaying side to side, it could easily rotate about the now vertical axis thru the center of gravity.
Well, there’s a lot of “blah-blah” there, but E. Swanson has been forced to admit the ball on a string models “orbiting” but NOT “rotating about its axis”.
E. Swanson, do you agree the ball on a sting is the same motion as Moon? It is orbiting but NOT rotating on its axis.
ClintR asks:
The simple answer for your stupid question is a “NO!”. The ball-on-a-string analogy does not describe the motion of the center of mass of a body in space under the influence of gravity, which is typically an ellipse, not a circle. Orbiting is not the same as rotation around the center of mass measured WRT an inertial reference frame.
Okay E. Swanson, your own words: “Orbiting is not the same as rotation around the center of mass measured WRT an inertial reference frame.”
Forget the elliptical orbit nonsense. We’re talking about the ball swinging around you. Forget the “inertial reference frame” nonsense.
Is the ball rotating on its axis as you swing it around you?
You can’t answer with a simple “yes” or “no”.
I can.
The answer is “no”. If the ball were rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it. The answer is simple. But idiots can’t leave their cult.
The ClintR/DRsEMT troll wrote:
ClintR is too ignorant to see that he has not defined the ball’s “axis”, thus his repeated claims are nonsense. An object’s “axis of rotation” is defined by the measurable rotation wrt some set of fixed coordinates, i.e., an inertial reference system, not some ad hoc choice which suits him, now referring to “swinging the ball” or previously pointing to a tether ball mounted on a pole.
When ClintR writes:
we are left with no standard against which to determine whether the ball actually rotates (or not, as may be the situation).
See E. Swanson, that’s why you were never able to advance above Junior Assistant Janitor.
The ball on a string provides you all the information you need to know:
String wrapping around ball = rotating about its axis.
String not wrapping around ball = not rotating about its axis.
This is physics and reality. Idiots and Junior Assistant Janitors need not apply.
swannie…”If the ball were simply suspended by the string from a point above and not swaying side to side, it could easily rotate about the now vertical axis thru the center of gravity”.
To a point. The string would start twisting and the more it twisted, the more it would resist the ball’s rotation. Don’t see what this has to do with anything.
Gordo, Allowing the ball/string to be suspended so it could dangle freely only illustrates the fact that the ball can rotate about an axis parallel to the string. Of course, the string will twist as the ball is rotated, but that only proves that the ball can in fact “rotate about it’s axis” even as the twisting of the string limits the number of turns.
For another obvious example, place the ball on a flat floor and push it around. Obviously, it will rotate, but not on any particular axis.
Talk about doing anything to miss the point.
Swanson, the ball on a string is in motion, in a circle. The string is taut. Is the ball rotating on its own axis, i.e. rotating about its own center of mass? Correct answer: no. It is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball. The ball is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. You obviously agree, then try to wriggle your way out of it.
Stop wriggling.
ClintR/DRsEMT wrote:
Could it be that you clowns are finally understanding that rotation refers to angular motion about the ball’s Center of Mass?
The ball is not “orbiting” as a free body (such as the Moon), would under the influence of gravity, it’s revolving around a circular path constrained by the string. The ball being attached to the string, it can rotate around it’s CM, but only along an axis parallel to the string. It may rotate as a function of how it’s launched or whether it is allowed to contact the ground to impart a torque, etc.
The correct answer should be “maybe” or “it depends”.
The correct answer is “no”.
The issue has always been “does the moon rotate on its own axis”, and “on its own axis” has always meant “about the center of mass”.
Stop wriggling.
Wrong again, E. Swanson.
The ball on a string is a clear and accurate model of orbital motion. You keep trying to pervert reality to fit your perverted beliefs. In pure orbital motion, as with Moon, the same side always faces the center of the orbit.
You prefer perversion over reality. That’s why you’re an idiot.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 26, 2020 at 8:33 PM
At no time did either Stefan nor Boltzmann talk about a net radiation exchange.
Malarkey.
In 1879 Josef Stefan derived the empirical relationship for the power radiated by an ideal blackbody and the temperature. In 1884, Boltzmann deduced the same theoretical law by applying the laws of the Carnot cycle to an engine in which the radiation played the part of the working substance, i.e. Boltzmann derived the same law on the basis of classical thermodynamics.
rr..”In 1879 Josef Stefan derived the empirical relationship for the power radiated by an ideal blackbody and the temperature. In 1884, Boltzmann deduced the same theoretical law by applying the laws of the Carnot cycle to an engine in which the radiation played the part of the working substance, i.e. Boltzmann derived the same law on the basis of classical thermodynamics”.
Wrong on both counts. Stefan’s work was based on a non-blackbody source but closer to a BB than not. He used the data of Tyndall who electrically heated a platinum filament between about 500C and 1200 C. He noted the colours ranged from ‘red heat’ to ‘white heat’. In his day, heat was thought to flow through space via rays.
Tyndall himself noted a 12 fold relationship between temperature and radiation but did not see the significance. It was Stefan who had already encountered that relationship who finally put it together.
One critique of his number T^4 was that it could not be applied to blackbody equations. It was found out later that he was right because expected errors had cancelled. However, T^4 is related more to the platinum wire and can vary for other materials.
Boltzmann was encouraged to follow Maxwell’s work in the statistical domain. His work was not in the field classical thermodynamics, he worked largely in statistical analysis. Planck learned his stuff from him.
These laughable attempts to smuggle your drivel into the pantheon of the possible under the cover of the word knowledge are born from a lack of clarity of thought, wishful thinking, genuine or mischievous misunderstanding, or some unfortunate combination of all of the above.
IMHO.
Snape, you just can’t accept reality. The bogus equation is a perversion of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Give it up.
bdgwx, whenever you come down from your bad drug trip:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544505
I’ll be happy to discuss any questions you have about science, if you can present them responsibly.
Romana I haven’t read this discussion for a couple of days.
Going back I see your model relies on an “an opaque surface and an overlying atmosphere modeled as a translucent sheet at uniform temperature.”
This is not appropriate as the Earths surface is not opaque. A better description would be a poor reflector.
The introduction of a solid translucent sheet is not appropriate as the atmosphere is transparent to most wavelengths not translucent. Also the solid layer would interfere with heat transfer towards space by convection.
Furter more you are implying that the Earth is a blackbody emitter, which it most definitely not.
mark…”Going back I see your model relies on an an opaque surface and an overlying atmosphere modeled as a translucent sheet at uniform temperature.”
This is all the alarmists have, Mark, thought-experiments and models. Neither the greenhouse effect nor its evolution to the anthropogenic warming theory can be proved using the scientific method.
I find it absurd to consider a trace gas like CO2, making up 0.04% of atmospheric gases, to be capable of heating the atmosphere significantly and causing the catastrophic warming the invalidated models are predicting.
A quick and rough application of the Ideal Gas Law to the atmosphere proves that the warming contributed by gases in a mixed gas are proportional to the individual pressures, which are proportional to the mass percent of each gas. That means N2/O2 contributes about 99% of the heat and CO2 about 0.04% of the heat.
That presumes a fairly constant volume and considers the atmospheric gases to be static. I realize there are dynamic processes in the atmosphere that transport heat and change pressure but I think, on average, the Ideal Gas Law should give a ballpark estimation.
Of course, that’s no better than what the alarmists are doing but at least the IGL is an established law. They don’t have one law.
And then there is reality.
https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/d5b46c7f6b02b858ca3bef854928ca8a66347a77/4-Figure4-1.png
The “hottest” curve on that graph appears to correspond to a surface temperature of about -140F. Where on Earth was that data taken?
RR,
Why keep posting your irrelevant graphic?
The surface cools at night, winter is colder than summer, and the Antarctic is colder than the Lut desert.
Not to mention that you cannot heat water using the heat content of ice. Nor warm the hotter surface using the heat content of colder CO2. Maybe if you link to the same graphic another 50 times, a miracle may occur, and the laws of thermodynamics might change.
Ah, look, the pigeon is back!
🐤
rr…your graph is not based on scientific measurement, it is a guess. I say that because the entire CO2 range is covered by the water vapour range.
Also, note that the vertical axis is in mW. Even when integrated over the CO2 hole it represents no more than about 5% of surface radiation.
Is there a vaccine for Dunning-Kruger syndrome yet?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b4/44/d0/b444d0f8412f32fecb3bcc9437a7be32.jpg
Are you volunteering to be the test donkey?
By the way, Ramona Is a girls name. Maybe you mean Ramon?
Sounds like Physics envy!
❄
norman…”The scientists made a hypothesis that measles was caused by a specific virus. They isolated the virus, made a weakened strain, injected this into children…”
Lanka p.roved to a German high court that what you claim is wrong. No one has isolated a measles virus, they claimed they did, but Lanka p.roved to the court’s satisfaction that they did not.
The garbage they have put in the vaccines have seriously damaged children. It has been noted that children vaccinated early stand a good chance of developing autism and other mental disorders. The C.D.C has taken a lot of flack over that and have failed to supply adequate answers. In fact, money earmarked for research into that issue at the C.D.C was stolen by one of their researchers who absconded with the money to a country where he cannot be extradited.
Salk’s initial polio vaccine did serious harm to several thousand children. Who knows what harm the second strain did.
The C.D.C is in bed with the drug companies and you are too naive and too stupid to do research on their chicanery.
The C.D.C is in bed with the drug companies and you are too naive and too stupid to do research on their chicanery.
Gordon: you say ‘No one has isolated a measles virus, they claimed they did, but Lanka proved to the courts satisfaction that they did not. that no-one has isolated a measles virus.’
This is absolute drivel.
Here’s a link to what’s known about this virus.
https://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/laboratory/manual_section1.1/en/#:~:text=The%20measles%20genome%20consists%20of%2015%2C894%20nucleotides%20although%20some%20variation,by%20an%20intergenic%20trinucleotide%2C%20GAA.
EXtensively studied in detail using modern molecular biology techniques. To suggest that the measles virus does not exist is nonsense.
carbon…more sci-fi. Lanka convinced a German high court that such data and theory is unproved propaganda.
Gordon Robertson
I could care less what a court ruled. They are not scientists and they seem ignorant on top of things.
I am asking you directly to explain how does a cure for measles that infected millions of Americans yearly and killed hundreds, come about when the scientists claim it was a virus, so they extract what they believe is a virus, create a weakened form and inject it in children and the disease is nearly eliminated and ONLY pops up in NON-VACCNATED Children? If the hypothesis was false then a vaccine based upon a non-existent virus would work. This is what is called logic and reasoning. You are not using these tools. You are blindly following an evil person (Lanka) for reasons known only to you. He is wrong and evil and yet you think he is a good guy. Not sure why.
Polio is no more a disease so I do not know what you base your argument on. It seems absurd.
https://tinyurl.com/y86d3s7v
When I was growing up our neighbor had contracted polio as a child and was crippled and walked with a limp the rest of his life. Are you asking to have this disease come back?
norman…”I am asking you directly to explain how does a cure for measles that infected millions of Americans yearly and killed hundreds, come about , i when the scientists claim it was a virus…”
There’s no proof of where the contagions originated and whether they’d have gone away on their own. Scientists have virus-on-the-brain. Every time a contagion appears they go off looking for a virus. Retroviral theory was invented in the 1970s largely as a theory that cancer may be caused by retroviruses. 50 years of research has yet to produce a link yet they have spread this pseudo-science to HIV and covid..
When HIV allegedly showed up, they could not find it using the standard science, which requires isolation (spearation) of the virus and being viewable with an electron microscope. Montagnier admitted in the movie you saw that he was unable to see HIV on an electron microscope. The pseudo-science should have ended there and then. But, no, they went on to invent a new method to isolate a virus they could not see, therefore the definition of isolation has changed.
Because they could not see HIV, they inferred it based on RNA found in a specimen believed to be infected. That has never been proved since they did not have the actual virus. So they developed the concept of viral load whereby an amount of virus could be determined by their delusional RNA source.
They went about converting RNA to DNA and amplifying it with the PCR method, believing they were amplifying viral material. Not a shred of proof. Kary Mullis, who invented PCR told them the method could not be used like that and they told the inventor he was wrong.
Arrogance!!! And guess who one of the inventors was for the viral load method? Anthony Fauci!!! That’s why Mullis called him an ***hole. He still is and he is still pushing that pseudo-science for covid testing.
Gordon Robertson
If you had a logical reasoning brain and looked at the evidence you would conclude that measles is a virus and was almost eliminated by the use of a vaccine (a weakened version of the disease causing strain).
http://goodnewstraveller.com/the-measles-infected-nearly-every-child-in-the-us-until-the-vaccine-was-introduced/
You had hundreds of thousands of cases each year for decades and after a vaccine is developed and used the case number drops into the hundreds.
You will listen to stupid contrarians but you will not use rational or logical thought to form conclusions. Any stupid conspiracy theory from a contrarian to you is absolute fact. Evidence based science (which the measles graph is) has no impact on a conspiracy driven contrarian like you.
nate…”In addition all parts of the Earth are rotating in concentric circles around a line thru its center with period = the sidereal day”.
The Earth does not keep the same face to the Sun during its orbit. Suppose the near face of the Earth to the Sun at a particular instant is the Americas, with the Atlantic and Pacific on either side. For an instant, all parts of that face to any depth are moving in concentric circles in the orbit. An instant later, those parts have rotated a smidgeon around the Earth’s axis and another set of parts are moving in concentric circles…for an instant.
The Moon is an entirely different story, it’s near face is always facing the Earth. The orientation of that face does not rotate even a smidgeon about an imaginary lunar axis. It can’t, because each point on that near face is moving in concentric circles about the Earth.
Run a radial line through that face, from the Earth’s centre (presuming a circular orbit) and out the back of the Moon. Every part of the Moon touching that radial line must be moving on concentric circles inside/outside all the other points on the line.
It must be that way in order for the near side to always point at the Earth. I have just described curvilinear translation since all points on the Moon are moving parallel to each other and at the same angular velocity of the radial line.
coturnix…”I dont care what Stefan thought about what it meant, thats history, not science”.
For cripes sake, Stefan discovered the relationship and you claimed science is about discovery. I am telling you how he discovered it and what was involved. There was nothing in his equation to indicated that it could be applied to two blackbodies radiating at each other. Any equation claiming that is theoretical fiction. The 2nd law must be respected.
The EM intensity part was about the colour of light emitted by an electrically-heated platinum filament. The temperature was the temperature recorded by Tyndall in his experiment. Someone else converted the colour to a frequency related to colour temperature. Stefan discovered that the EM intensity was equivalent to the 4th power of the temperature.
My point is that neither Stefan nor Boltzmann said anything about a two-way exchange of EM energy between black bodies of different temperatures. That is fiction added by modernists who don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground. Neither Boltzmann nor Planck were even considering such an exchange and I think that was because Boltzmann had a healthy respect for the 2nd law. He tried to prove it statistically and failed.
With regard to a two-way heat exchange due to a two-way EM exchange, quantum theory tells us that is not possible and why. The 2nd law also tells us it’s not possible and the reasoning laid out by Clausius, who wrote the law, explicitly excluded an uncompensated transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter body.
miker…from the 2nd link you posted re angular momentum. “Any objects orbiting or rotating have angular momentum. To change angular momentum of the object, we need to apply a twisting force, or torque”.
This author is as screwed up as you are about it. And, Kepler’s 2nd Law has nothing to do with angular momentum. As applied to the solar system it is about a radial line from the Sun to any planet carving out an equal area in an equal time.
He has added ‘orbital’ to ‘Any objects orbiting or rotating have angular momentum’. It should read, any objects attached to an axis and rotating about the axis have angular momentum.
Both of you are missing the obvious. Angular momentum can only apply to a mass if it is attached to and rotating about an axis. That means all of its momentum is constrained within an orbital path due to being held there by a rigid body.
That is not the case with any of the planets. They have only linear momentum which is nudged into an orbit by solar gravitational force. Both forces are independent in their own right and that is not the case with a ball on a string, a wooden horse bolted to a MGR, or any other body constrained to move in a curve such as a spoke in a wheel.
The author talks about adding a torque to change angular momentum. How exactly does one go about doing that with the Moon? With a wheel on a bicycle, the pedal drives a chain that drives a gear on a hub and that adds a torque to the wheel rim via the spokes. If you apply more force on the chain by pedaling harder, you increase the torque on the hub and the wheels angular momentum.
Can’t do that with the Moon. There is nowhere to add a torque and if you could speed up the Earth’s rotation it would make no difference to the Moon. The Moon has its own momentum and you can’t change that by adding a torque anywhere.
You could get a set of huge rockets behind it and push but you’d better be pushing in a tangential direction. If you push too hard, the Moon will break free of its orbit and take off on a tangential and linear course.
If you had a wheel set up with rigid spokes and you attached a small rocket to the rim tangentially and aimed in the right direction, that would add a torque and increase its angular momentum.
Gordon you are correct. Changing the orbiting angular momentum would require an external torque. This is happening via tidal forces as the distance between the earth and moon is slowly increasing. This has been measured as increasing using laser retroreflectors on the moon at 3.8 cm per year* . This increases the orbital angular momentum of the moon.
As the orbital angular momentum increases there is a corresponding reduction in rotational angular momentum of the earth and moon via a slowing down of rotation of the earth** and the moon***.
All this is described here –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
*** also measured using laser retroreflectors on the moon.
See – https://spie.org/news/12-09-laser-ranging?SSO=1
and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00897102 .
Gordon is correct, but MikeR is terribly confused by the nonsense he finds on the Internet.
“Tides” do not produce torque on Moon. That’s why “tidal locking” does NOT happen.
We don’t know for sure Moon is moving away from Earth. There are two known possibilities to explain the so-called 3.8 cm/year apparent increase in Earth/Moon distance:
1) The measurements are not accurate enough to detect 3.8 cm/year. It’s possible this is so far into the “mud” that people are interpreting it as actual, when in fact it is just measurement error. The “3.8 cm” is similar to the “0.8 W/m^2 energy imbalance” we see being reported. The errors are just too big for any such accuracy. It’s nonsense.
2) If the measurements turn out to be reasonably accurate, we don’t have enough data to say this is not just a normal orbital motion. That is, in 100-200 years or so, Moon could start meandering back toward Earth. We just don’t know.
If Moon were actually moving away from Earth at a constant rate, it would be hard to explain how it is over 3 billion years old, as that would have put it too close to Earth.
A body in space can NOT transfer angular momentum, without physical contact. Idiots confuse their beliefs with science. Beliefs are NOT science.
Light reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
The key to measuring the distance is to measure the delay between sending out the laser pulse and detecting the reflection.
This is about 1 picosecond. Perhaps Gordon Robertson will confirm that modern electronics can measure to this accuracy.
If Gordon can confirm that time exists.
Entropic man, the errors are similar to those in GPS. You’re dealing with two moving objects, changing atmospheric conditions, and processing times. And Earth/Moon distance is an order of magnitude greater than Earth to GPS sats.
A few centimeters is “in the mud”, to use the terminology of measurement science. ☺
Let’s play with some numbers.
The distance to the Moon is 385,000 km. The return trip distance is 770,000 km.
The return trip time for a laser pulse is 770,000/300,000 = 2.57 seconds.
To measure this distance to an uncertainty of 1km requires a timing accuracy of 2/300,000 = 6.67*10^-6 seconds. That is +/- 6.67 microseconds.
To achieve an accuracy of +/- 1 metre requires a timing accuracy of +/-6.67 nanoseconds.
To achieve +/-1mm requires +/- 6.67 picoseconds.
A modern atomic clock can measure to +/- 100 picoseconds, so one measurement can achieve a ranging accuracy of 100/6.67 = +/-15mm.
That is for one measurement. In practice tens of thousands of measurements are taken and the accuracy of their mean improves as measurement acciracy*1/√n.
For 100 measurements accuracy becomes 15*1/√100 = 1.5mm
For 10,000 measurements accuracy becomes15*1/√10,000 = 0.15mm
I see no reason to doubt the distance and rate of recession figures in the literature. The values and uncertainties quoted are within our measurement capability.
If you want to really play with numbers, throw in some slowing of light due to a varying atmosphere and changes in relative positions of points on both bodies. The accuracy drops off quickly from your ideal scenario. The problems are the same as in GPS, only worse. Wikipedia offers an intro into the GPS problems, if you’re interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
But you’re correct, a lot of data, over a long time, by independent sources will be more credible. We’ll know in another 100-200 years, or so, if Moon is actually leaving Earth, or just being affected by periodic planet alignments.
Your link lists several variables relevant to laser ranging.
They give an uncertainty of +/- 1 metre.
To be certain that the Moon is retreating using the numbers you gave me, you would need to see a 2 metre change.
At 38 mm/year that would take 52 years of data.
Since the first laser reflector went up in 1969, we’ll know next year!
Well, we’ll have more data. With the uncertainties involved, whether or not we accept the data is related to our trust in the providers of the data.
What we know is Moon has to gain energy to move to a higher orbit. And it can’t gain energy from Earth.
Another credible hypothesis is that Moon has leftover energy from its origin. It has not yet settled into its final orbit.
That is, if it turns out it is actually moving higher. Time will tell.
“Another credible hypothesis is that Moon has leftover energy from its origin.”
Oh. What kind?
Kinetic? Nope
Potential? Nope
Electro-magnetic??
“A body in space can NOT transfer angular momentum, without physical contact. Idiots confuse their beliefs with science. Beliefs are NOT science.”
Well thats weird, because you guys have said that the Newtons cannonball obtains rotation from gravity.
In any case, it does transfer with tidal effects.
It should be obvious that a ball full of water sloshing around will slow its rotation, and lose angular momentum
If the sloshing is due to the Moon’s gravity (hint: it is), then the Moon must be gaining angular momentum, again its conserved.
Fossil fuel most likely.
The trolls show up within 10 minutes of each other. Their need to pervert reality must be like a drug addiction.
Of course, they can’t affect reality. It’s what it is. And when they attempt physics, it’s beyond funny.
Clint is a magnet for ridicule…he seems to seek it out with inane comments.
Bad attention is still attention, I guess.
Many hours of therapy may help.
N,
Maybe you need to look up Newtons Cannonball. Its falling, not rotating. As Newton said elsewhere, the Moon seems to be rotating – to people who dont understand the Law of Universal Gravitation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Gravity and linear momentum combining to create an orbit…
…and an orbit is a rotation about an external axis. The axis is within the Earth, in this case. No rotation about the cannonball’s own center of mass, of course.
Anyway, the animations speak for themselves.
“Maybe you need to look up Newtons Cannonball. Its falling, not rotating. As Newton said elsewhere, the Moon seems to be rotating”
You are right, it does not obtain rotation like the Moon has just by being fired from a cannon.
Now explain to Dremt and Clint.
I see DREMT is violating his policy.
And yes the animatio speaks for itself, and agrees that the cannonball does nothave rotation like the Moon’s.
How could it? Clint said grav cannot cause its rotation, and I agree.
Anyway the TEAM needs to meet and agree on what their beliefs are.
Perhaps they could meet in the chancel, the ambulatory, the transept, the altar, the sanctuary, the nave or the narthex.
Perhaps they could discuss whether Newton mentioned rotation when doing his cannonball thought experiment.
Nate says:
You are right, it does not obtain rotation like the Moon has just by being fired from a cannon.
============================================
Obviously Nate, the cannonball isn’t rotating around anything.
“Obviously Nate, the cannonball isnt rotating around anything.”
Thanks Bill, I agree. Now explain why to DREMT.
“…the cannonball isn’t rotating around anything.”
It certainly isn’t rotating about its own axis.
It seems DREMT believes Anything = One Thing
DREMT is right. The cannonball isn’t rotating around anything.
Including but limited to: Its own axis, the COG of the earth, or anything. . . .zero rotations.
The cannonball is “orbiting”, bill. So yes, it is rotating about the Earth’s COG. It just doesn’t rotate about its own center of mass.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The cannonball is orbiting, bill. So yes, it is rotating about the Earths COG. It just doesnt rotate about its own center of mass.
=============================
So you are talking about orbiting cannonballs not ordinary cannonballs? I thought Entropic man had a good observation when he noted that the jet plane and the cannonball had an orbital angular momentum when launched.
For objects entering orbit without any angular momentum obviously orbital angular momentum is formed in the first orbit. Such an object would have no axis entering and would then be orbiting on the earth’s COG with an orbital angular momentum by definition.
Then you have the case of Uranus orbiting at 98 degrees from its spin axis. If you observe close enough from the fixed stars you will note a rotation with another axis almost perpendicular to its spin axis. Our friends here then would be arguing that Uranus spins in multiple directions at the same time on its axis.
Its obvious that the tilt in Uranus’ second axis is in line with the ecliptic whereas its spin axis is not, accounting for almost all of its axial precession.
But imaginary second axis in Uranus would have some of its own precession from the gravity of other objects in the universe.
In the case of the earth it also has a second axis. That axis is perpendicular to the earth’s path around the sun. Which by definition astronomy names the ecliptic. The tilt of all planets then is measured by their deviation from the ecliptic. Pretty arbitrary.
Of interest though is the La Grangian Invariable Plane (LGIP) which is a plane extending from the suns cog through the barycenter of the solar system. Earth’s orbit (the eclipitic plane) is a bit more than 1.5 degrees from the LGIP.
The moon’s tilt and ~18 year axial precession is also just over 1.5degrees from the eclipitic.
In fact there are more axes of rotation throwing in celestial and galactic planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_coordinate_system#/media/File:Ecliptic_equator_galactic_anim.gif
Lots of stuff for climate to vary from.
Yes, orbiting cannonballs.
“DREMT is right.”
Unless you have to say that to remain in good standing with the cult, No he isnt, as you noted that the cannonball is not rotating about anything, not even the earth CG.
You were correct, he was not.
DREMT is confused because the cannonball goes into orbit with no initial rotational angular momentum. No spin. And cannot obtain rotation without something applying torque. And none is available.
But he equates orbit with ‘tidally locked orbit’, and thus it the ball MUST be rotating if orbiting, which shows his folly.
Interesting reply, by the way, bill. I was a bit short in my response, but yes I was talking about an orbiting cannonball.
The cannonball is fired without spin, and there is no torque from anywhere to make it spin (rotate on its own axis) after being fired. That doesn’t mean it can’t rotate about the COG of the Earth though. Just because there is no torque to make it rotate on its own axis doesn’t mean that there is no torque to make it rotate about the COG of the Earth. An object rotating about the COG of the Earth, without rotating on its own axis, keeps the same side of itself oriented towards the center of the orbit, whilst it moves. That’s just what rotation about an external axis involves.
As you can see from the Newton’s Cannonball gifs, the torque required to make the cannonball rotate about the COG of the Earth (and not on its own axis) comes from a combination of the linear momentum of the cannonball, and gravity, which are acting at right angles to each other. Kind of like turning a handle.
So, just to be absolutely clear:
1) Nobody is saying that gravity can provide a torque about the cannonball’s own axis.
2) We are talking about a combination of linear momentum and gravity providing a torque to rotate the cannonball about the Earth’s COG.
Dont fall for it Bill.
“Just because there is no torque to make it rotate on its own axis doesnt mean that there is no torque to make it rotate about the COG of the Earth.”
No torque on canonball means it cannot start rotating about any axis.
“Thats just what rotation about an external axis involves.”
And you see the problem, the logic and the conclusion dont match.
What to do? Fake like they do.
“We are talking about a combination of linear momentum and gravity providing a torque to rotate the cannonball about the Earths COG.”
Sorry physics says that is gobbledegook.
You are thinking of linear momentum perpendicular to a radial arm from earths center gives you orbital angular momentum.
That would be true even for a point mass, which of course cannot rotate.
Thus rotation of the ball is not a result of having orbital angular momentum.
DREMT points out: “We are talking about a combination of linear momentum and gravity providing a torque to rotate the cannonball about the Earth’s COG.”
And look how fast Nate rejects reality: “Sorry physics says that is gobbledegook.”
The idiots don’t understand physics and they can’t learn.
Funny I was just thinking it sounded a lot like Clints made up Fizuks.
“The idiots don’t understand physics and they can’t learn.”
I’ll say!
Yes I find it quite difficult to learn your fake fizuks that cannot be found in any textbook, and unlearn the real version that actually is in every textbook.
But please do show us any legit source that agrees with this gobbledegook:
“a combination of linear momentum and gravity providing a torque”
If not, then lets agree that it is simply fictional.
#2
“The idiots don’t understand physics and they can’t learn.”
I’ll say!
Mark Wapples says:
October 27, 2020 at 1:30 PM
“Romana I haven’t read this discussion for a couple of days.
Going back I see your model relies on an “an opaque surface and an overlying atmosphere modeled as a translucent sheet at uniform temperature.”
This is not appropriate as the Earths surface is not opaque. A better description would be a poor reflector.
The introduction of a solid translucent sheet is not appropriate as the atmosphere is transparent to most wavelengths not translucent. Also the solid layer would interfere with heat transfer towards space by convection.
Furter more you are implying that the Earth is a blackbody emitter, which it most definitely not.”
I assume that these comments are addressed to me even though you misspelled the name.
Regarding opaque vs poor reflector I say that is semantics and don’t see the relevance. The model assumed e=1 and A=0.30.
I never said “solid translucent” sheet. My definition of translucent here is a semi-transparent atmosphere that transmits some frequencies but not others. Specifically it allows for the fact that there is an atmospheric window through which infrared radiation escapes directly to space while some frequencies are absorbed and re-emitted by the IR active gases.
In my model, assuming blackbody behavior is short hand for Planck’s function.
The image below describes the greenhouse effect better than I ever could;
https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/d5b46c7f6b02b858ca3bef854928ca8a66347a77/4-Figure4-1.png
The bite out of the Planck function by CO2 means that in order to maintain equilibrium the surface has to heat up until the area under the curve is equal to the total energy input to the system. Note the atmospheric windows around 10-12 and 8-9, hence translucence.
U.S. Gulf of Mexico energy producers, refiners brace for Hurricane Zeta
Oct. 27, 2020 4:04 PM ET
Crude oil prices (CL1:COM) climbed today as Gulf of Mexico operators shut roughly half of all oil and gas production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico ahead of Hurricane Zeta.
An estimated 914.8K bbl/day of crude production and 1,500 MM cf/day of natural gas was shut in, reflecting 49.4% and 55.3% of U.S. Gulf output, respectively, according to the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
BP and Chevron say they have shut in all of their operated platforms, while Royal Dutch Shell, BHP, Murphy Oil and Equinor have shut at least some platforms and production ahead of the storm.
https://www.myfoxhurricane.com/storm1_enhanced_satellite.html
I expect safety standards has improved since Deepwater Horizon.
Exploring for, producing, and refining oil has always been, and will always be a risky business. Not unlike every other Engineering undertaking. That is why we only need the best and the brightest; we can’t always attract the cream of the crop but are always vigilant in our recruiting, training and assessment programs.
Such are the perils of delivering a product that practically sells itself. From wellhead to gasoline pump risks abound.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2020/10/stranded-venezuelan-oil-tanker-potential-disaster-what-we-know/
Gordon: you say ‘No one has isolated a measles virus, they claimed they did, but Lanka proved to the courts satisfaction that they did not. that no-one has isolated a measles virus.’
This is absolute drivel.
Here’s a link to what’s known about this virus.
https://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/laboratory/manual_section1.1/en/#:~:text=The%20measles%20genome%20consists%20of%2015%2C894%20nucleotides%20although%20some%20variation,by%20an%20intergenic%20trinucleotide%2C%20GAA.
EXtensively studied in detail using modern molecular biology techniques. To suggest that the measles virus does not exist is nonsense.
Carbon500
Thank you very much.
The same holds of course for the virus-based poliomyelitis, discredited in the same way by the same ignorant commenter.
I will never forget the year 1960: I saw a picture of a 23 year old, European joung man looking like an athlet on a Californian beach, and suddenly had to discover that it was the same person sitting one year later in a wheelchair…
J.-P. D.
Bibdidon: yes, as you point out, the virus causing poliomyelitis has also been studied in detail – for interest, here’s a link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456262/
I too remember those days, the era of the ‘iron lungs’ in use to assist the breathing of those stricken with this terrible disease.
I’m still wondering about the fact that the discussion about Moon’s rotation about the axis perpendicular to its equator still is solely based on
– ridiculous, trivial toy-like examples (merry-go-round, coins and the like)
or
– the quick shot made by the Serbian Nikola Tesla, an inventer who demonstrably never finished any scientific education in any university on Earth.
*
I prefer to keep on real science, and show in the following two documents.
– (1) a translation in English – using Google’s automated translation tool – of the introductory part of Lagrange’s work published in 1780
Theory of the libration of the Moon
which of course rather deals with a complex, mathematical proof of the relation between Moon’s apparent, optical libration, and its rotation about an axis interior to its body, first discovered by the Italian Domenico Cassini and later on by the German Tobias Mayer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vXxroMHi8H_GBI9925-ZUe437wZLMQeN/view
The French Academy of Sciences had, at that time, asked for the best possible explanation for Moon’s optical libration effects, and Lagrange won the price.
Nota bene: I have always supposed that Moon’s non apparent, free i.e. physical libration, was first discovered upon analysis of Lunar Laser Ranging data, e.g. by Odile Calamé in 1979:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00562246
or, without paywall:
https://tinyurl.com/y2kwdfrr
This was a mistake! The first person having discovered the existence of Moon ‘s physical libration was… Lagrange.
And Lagrange was also the person who proved that Sir Isaac Newton’s universal gravitation theory could perfectly explain Moon’s orbiting around Earth, but not its rotation around the axis interior to its body.
*
– (2) a recent paper presented in 2018, entitled
Prospects in the orbital and rotational dynamics of the Moon with the advent of sub-centimeter lunar laser ranging
written by a group of scientists based in the US, Russia, Spain, Germany and China:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.1450
*
Of course: all these stubborn, ignorant people who woefully urge in discrediting and denigrating historical (*) and present scientists on this blog, and permanently distort their results, will continue to do so, cowardly keeping hidden behind their nicknames.
Let them do!
J.-P. D.
(*) See the arrogant ClintR, who not only
– insults – like do Roberson and Swenson – everybody whose meaning differs from his own one by naming him/her an idiot,
but also
– denigrates the great Cassini down to the astrologer he had been for a short period as a joung man, though his entire life’s work was notably dedicated to astronomy!
Pfui Deibel.
JD, your confusion is maybe justified due to your difficulty with English. Maybe I can help.
The issue of Moon rotation is relevant because it exemplifies the perversion of science happening today. This should be nothing new, if you were a student of history. The perversion of science has sometimes been for money, prestige, power, or even sex. You should not be surprised that such a thing occurs.
Fortunately, we have reality on our side. So the simple analogies are helpful to explain the issues to people that do not understand orbital motion. When a responsible adult realizes that a ball on a string has the same motion as Moon, he has to start wondering. And the more thinking he does, the more he learns.
A side benefit of discussing the issue here (Thank You, Dr. Spencer) is people get to see how far zealots will go to protect the fraud coming from governments and institutions. If you follow all the comments, you will see people willing to do almost anything to protect their false beliefs — lies, false accusations, misrepresentations, profanity, temper tantrums, personal attacks, the list goes on and on. We see exactly the same kind of acts with Alarmists, trying to defend the CO2 nonsense.
And the use of the word “idiot” came about because we noticed several here refused to accept reality. Being an “idiot” is a personal choice. If a person wants to reject reality, they have that right. Consequently, when I identify someone as an “idiot”, it’s not an insult. It’s in recognition of their rights. Some are even proud to be idiots. It’s very similar to cult members that are proud to be in the cult.
I’m glad you mentioned “libration”. That’s a perfect example of the idiots not being able to learn. We have explained many times that libration is NOT related to “rotating about it axis”. Libration is merely the changes in viewing angles resulting from motion in an elliptical orbit. If Moon were really rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Do you believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis?
Pfui Deibel.
Keep practicing snowflake.
Maybe someday you can be a great troll also.
What a legacy….
ClintR
” The issue of Moon rotation is relevant because it exemplifies the perversion of science happening today. ”
You behave even more dumb, stubborn and ignorant than does Robertson: ignoring Galilei, Cassini, Mayer, Newton, d’Alembert, Lagrange, Laplace and many others.
Manifestly, you are absolutely unable to read a simple, 7 pages long document, let alone would you be able to scientifically contradict a genial mathematician like Lagrange.
YOU, ClintR, are the perversion in person!
J.-P. D.
Now JD, were you able to translate: “…lies, false accusations, misrepresentations, profanity, temper tantrums, personal attacks”? Those are the tactics idiots use.
Do you believe the ball on a string is rotating about its axis?
(Refusing to answer that simple question is another tactic idiots use.)
ClintR
Your question is not simple: it is dumb, unscientific, and totally useless.
THAT, and nothing else, is the reason why I don’t answer.
And by the way, I suddenly see in your ridiculous comment:
” A side benefit of discussing the issue here (Thank You, Dr. Spencer)… ”
You are simply too much a coward to ask Roy Spencer himself about his meaning concerning Moon’s spin… because you PERFECTLY KNOW his answer!
Unlike you, Roy Spencer is… a scientist.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Oooooh! Not so subtle attempt to appeal to authority!
What a gutless cowardly sack of crap you are! You realise how stupid you will look if you answer a simple question, so you claim the question was, amongst other things, totally useless.
Wrong. It showed the feral response of the cornered alarmist rat. Give up, Binny.
The Moon continuously falls towards Earth, showing its underneath to us, as it should. In one second, it falls about 1.25 mm, and travels about 1.02 km (from memory). Work out the rest yourself. Hopefully, like Newton, you will discover all is well. The theory is supported by the fact. You wont get crushed by the falling Moon,
Sorry JD, the question is indeed simple. It’s so simple that even an idiot can understand it. That’s why you won’t answer. The simple question crushes all of your nonsense, along with all your “appeals to authority”. By the way, Newton and Galileo are the scientists you should be studying, if you want to debunk the “rotating” nonsense. Tesla got it right also. Cassini was a fraud when it came to the moon.
Like I said, you have no obligation to answer. You’re free to be an idiot, as you desire.
What other areas of science are you also ignorant of? Do you believe ice can warm sunshine?
I see above:
” By the way, Newton and Galileo are the scientists you should be studying, if you want to debunk the “rotating” nonsense. ”
Here is what Newton wrote in his Principia Mathematica, Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV:
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena.
The spots in the sun's body return to the same situation on the sun's disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon's latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
*
Persons denying this are simply dishonest.
J.-P. D.
No JD, you’re still looking at libration.
Libration has NOTHING to do with rotating about an axis.
Libration is due to orbital motion.
Repeat those bolded sentences 20 times, before each meal.
No, ClintR!
YOU should repeat the following sentence 100 times, once per hour:
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
You are an ignorant denialist excluding any information, even from Sir Isaac Newton, that doesn’t fit to your egocentric narrative.
I keep with Cassini, Mercator, Newton, Lagrange, Laplace and all others.
You can write all you want, as long as you want.
J.-P. D.
ClintR,
“Repeat those bolded sentences 20 times, before each meal.”
So it’s like counting your rosaries, like a prayer.
That’s all we need to know.
Pick your title
Pope, Bishop, Vicar, Rector, Priest, Nun, Alter Boy, Pastor, Cardinal, or one of your choosing.
JD, you’re going to have to get off the libration kick and learn about the motions involved. Newton clearly described gravity’s effect on an orbiting body. It’s the same as you see with the ball on a string. But, like the other idiots, you reject reality.
I’m content with you being an idiot, since you are.
Nate wrote –
* October 28, 2020 at 1:35 PM
“Another credible hypothesis is that Moon has leftover energy from its origin.”
Oh. What kind?
Kinetic? Nope
Potential? Nope
Electro-magnetic?? *
I will gladly provide Nate with an answer, as soon as he tells me where the Moons initial velocity came from. He has loftily ruled out kinetic energy, so his options might be a bit limited. Einstein said that two things are Infinite, the universe and human stupidity.
Nate provides a graphic illustration that Einstein was right. Im not sure whether the universe is infinite, though.
bobdroege aspires to heights of idiocy.
He wrote –
* Perhaps they could meet in the chancel, the ambulatory, the transept, the altar, the sanctuary, the nave or the narthex.
Perhaps they could discuss whether Newton mentioned rotation when doing his cannonball thought experiment. *
Why would Newton discuss irrelevancies? He didnt discuss the alchemical uses for ground up unicorn horn, either. Are you an idiot pretending to be a fool, or vice versa?
Oh I don’t know why Newton would discuss that, your team was making a big deal about something that wasn’t in Newton’s experiment.
That’s what I was pointing out the foolish discussion of something that wasn’t in Newton’s experiment, by those who think the Moon isn’t rotating, they seem to think Newton supports their case.
And in your case, you are not pretending.
bob,
I dont have a team. You are in fantasyland.
You are making no sense at all. Keep it up.
Swenson mentioned Newton’s Cannonball so I thought I would link to the Wikipedia entry on it. Newton doesn’t mention rotation, but it is all about orbital motion, after all. You see, orbital motion is described as a rotation about an external axis:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
DREMPTY,
So you just assumed this statement was true.
“No rotation about the cannonballs own center of mass, of course.”
So then you googled it and found out it wasn’t.
Remarkable!
Where does it say the cannonball is rotating about its own center of mass?
DREMPTY,
That’s the point, it doesn’t say anything about the cannonball rotation.
But that doesn’t stop your from saying it says the cannonball doesn’t rotate.
I didn’t say it says that.
It just stands to reason. If the cannonball is launched without spin, and there is nothing there to apply a torque to the ball itself after being launched, then the ball orbits without rotating on its own axis.
Which means the same side of the ball is always oriented towards the Earth.
DREMPTY,
Your reasoning is remarkably faulty.
If when launched, it doesn’t spin, that means it doesn’t turn, that means it stays orientated to the same distant celestial object, which means that from the ground a fast moving observer would see all sides of the cannonball.
A jet which is circumnavigating the globe does not need to turn in order to keep the same side of the aircraft oriented towards the ground whilst it moves.
I paint a black dot on the front of the cannonball after I load it in Newton’s cannon.
I point the cannon at a star on the Eastern horizon and fire it.
As the cannonball leaves the cannon the black dot faces the star.
In my version of reality the cannonball does not rotate and the black dot continues to faces the star.
In your version the cannonball rotates so that the black dot continues to face the horizon ahead of it.
#2
A jet which is circumnavigating the globe does not need to turn in order to keep the same side of the aircraft oriented towards the ground whilst it moves.
Come to think of it, there is a third option.
While it sits in the cannon the ball is rotating anticlockwise once every 24 hours, along with the cannon and the Earth.
If it keeps that rotation after firing the cannonball would then orbit the Earth once every 90 minutes and rotate on its axis once every 24 hours.
The black dot would face the star once every 24 hours.
Rotating anticlockwise at 22.5 degrees/hour the black dot would face the forward horizon once every 360-22.5/360*90 = 84 minutes.
That leaves three options.
Does the cannon ball leave the cannon with
1) no rotation relative to the stars, which requires a torque to cancel the Earth’s rotation.
2) rotating once every 24 hours relative to the stars, which conserves the existing 24 hour rotation.
3) rotating every 90 minutes relative to the stars, which requires a torque to accelerate rotation from once per day to once per orbit.
Entropic man, are you another one that doesn’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating about its axis”?
Moon is orbiting, but NOT rotating about its axis.
Earth is orbiting, AND rotating about its axis.
If you could tie a string between Moon and Earth, the string would NOT wrap around Moon.
If you could tie a string between Earth and Sun, the string would wrap around Earth.
Does that help?
If not, you might be ready for the “idiot test”. Many here have tested positive, but it’s not contagious as long as you are shielded by reality.
ClintR
If the first question is “Is this object rotating? The second question is “Relative to what?” .
Consider the Moon.
Look at the Earth
1)An observer at the Apollo 11 landing site sees the Earth stationary in the same position relative to the horizon.
Now the same observer looks at the Sun.
2 She sees it move slowly across the sky, returning to its starting point relative to the Moon after one complete lunar day and night cycle in 28 days.
Now she looks at how the Earth and Sun move against the stars.
Simplifying slightly,
3)The Earth returns to the same position every 28 days.
4)The Sun returns to the same position every 365 days.
She can deduce from 1) that the Moon is not rotating relative to the Earth.
From 2) that the Moon is rotating every 28 days relative to the Sun.
From 2) and 3) that the Moon is orbiting the Earth every 28 days.
From 4) that the Moon is orbiting the Sun every 365 days.
So, is the Moon not rotating at all, or rotating on its axis every 28 days? It depends on your point of reference.
Relative to the Sun and stars the Moon is orbiting and rotating on its axis. Relative to the Earth, the Moon is orbiting and not rotating.
Relative to the sun and stars, the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. In reality, the moon is only orbiting. Orbital motion without axial rotation is motion like a ball on a string, where the same side of the object remains oriented towards the center of the orbit.
Entropic man, the fact that you want to keep confusing the issue is very telling. It’s really simple. (And, there were no females on Apollo 11.)
Here’s the idiot test. Best of luck.
A wooden horse is bolted to the outer edge of a rotating platform. Is the horse rotating on its axis?
a) yes
b) no
Due to laws against discrimination, idiots are given the correct answer. The correct answer is “b) no”.
Now, what is your answer?
ClintR,
That’s DREMPTYS my little pony, I suggest you give it back to him before he spits his binky.
The Idiot Test was ClintR’s idea. Shame you failed it.
See ClintR,
I told you DREMPTY would spit his binky.
Shame you failed it.
Someone’s short a few IQ points from an idiot.
wait there’s several.
You are indeed.
DREMPTY,
You already argued the Moon spins on its axis, you cant go back now.
Changes its orientation and what not.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
blob is being silly again.
I mount a telescope in the astrodome of a 1950s jet airliner and fly it from London to Seattle over the North Pole.
I keep the telescope pointed at the Pole Star throughout.
Leaving London the telescope points forwards towards the cockpit and about 60 degrees upwards. At the North Pole the telescope points vertically upwards. Arriving at Seattle the telescope points back 60 degrees over the tail.
During the flight the telescope line of sight and the pitch axis of the aircraft have shifted relative to each other by 60 degrees.
Is this because the line of sight between Earth and the Pole Star ( and therefore the position of the Pole Star) has rotated or because the pitch axis of the aircraft has rotated?
During the flight, did the underside of the aircraft remain oriented towards the ground?
The aircraft has “orbited”, Entropic man. It’s motion is that of orbiting.
One more effort to distort reality, and you will be administered the idiot test.
“During the flight, did the underside of the aircraft remain oriented towards the ground? ”
Yes, which raises an interesting question. The Earth is a sphere, so the surface of the Earth at London and Seattle are at different angles. The only way in which an aircraft could fly from London to Seattle without rotating would be if the Earth was flat.
Are you a Flat Earther, DREMT?
ClintR
An orbiting object travels at such a velocity that the inward force of gravity is balanced by the outward centripetal force. At Earth’s surface that velocity is about 18,000 mph.
An airliner isn’t travelling fast enough to be orbiting.
The Earth is not flat, and yet the aircraft does not need to pitch up or down (rotate on its own axis) in order to keep the underside oriented towards the ground as it circumnavigates the globe.
“An airliner isn’t travelling fast enough to be orbiting.”
Entropic man, an aircraft has engines. The engines provide the energy to keep it from falling due to gravity. An aircraft orbiting the earth, or a ball on a string, or Moon is an example of “orbiting” but not “rotating about its axis”.
Truly a unique viewpoint.
Before I leave you to it, one final question.
How would a suitably protected Foucault Pendulum behave
1) at the South Pole of the Earth?
2) at the South Pole of the Moon, as defined by its apparent rotation relative 8th the stars?
Read Tesla on the Foucault Pendulum.
“Truly a unique viewpoint.”
Yes, to some, reality is truly unique.
Say a plane takes off from Quito, Ecuador, and the pilot points it directly towards the north star Polaris and travels north. He keeps the plane pointed towards Polaris as he travels north.
When it gets to Charlotte North Carolina and the pilot looks out the window, what does he see? He still has the plane pointed towards the north star Polaris.
OK, blob. I expect you believe you have a point.
DREMPTY,
I have two points
One: a plane circumnavigating the earth rotates once per circumnavigation. Around an axis perpendicular to both the fuselage and the wings.
Two: Your head is pointy enough to play ring toss.
If the aircraft was rotating on its own axis, then halfway around the orbit it would be upside down.
It rotates around an axis parallel to the wings, is what I meant to say.
Or you could be flying upside down a quarter of the way round. Depends how many times the aircraft is rotating on its own axis, per orbit.
Zero axial rotations per orbit would mean the underside of the aircraft remains oriented to the ground throughout.
Anyone that believes an airplane circumnavigating Earth is “rotating about its axis”, is an idiot.
But I’ll add the Foucault Pendulum to the list. They are really getting desperate.
ClintR,
Go ahead and add it to the list of things you don’t understand.
Might as well add that the Australians are falling off of the earth because they are upside down.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fthumbnails%2Fimage%2Fearth_and_limb_m1199291564l_color_2stretch_mask_0.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Fimage-feature%2Fgoddard%2Flro-earthrise-2015&tbnid=R8Y8pvToteg7YM&vet=12ahUKEwjh2fClltvsAhVRMM0KHbrBCW8QMygAegUIARDdAQ..i&docid=EdWDjBvRrXIl-M&w=2048&h=2048&q=picture%20of%20earth%20from%20the%20moon&ved=2ahUKEwjh2fClltvsAhVRMM0KHbrBCW8QMygAegUIARDdAQ
Some idiots try to push the nonsense that Earth can transfer angular momentum to Moon. The Foucault Pendulum shoots down that nonsense.
Reality always wins.
Argue with these guys then ClintR,
Though I think they are sharper and more clever than you.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/37-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-and-the-earth/111-is-the-moon-moving-away-from-the-earth-when-was-this-discovered-intermediate#:~:text=The%20Moon's%20orbit%20(its%20circular,a%20radius%20of%20384%2C000%20km.)&text=The%20reason%20for%20the%20increase,raises%20tides%20on%20the%20Earth.
bob,
Why would you believe anyone who thinks the Moons orbit is circular? Your appeals to authority fall flat. The force of gravity does not transfer momentum, you donkey!
Swenson,
It’s 95% circular, and it’s from a prestigious ivy league school, and Bill Nye the science guy is from there.
I should believe you instead?
Have some more hay.
bob doesn’t have a clue about the physics. He believes the nonsense from his cult, so who does he go to for “proof”?
His cult!
bob is a great troll.
ClintR,
At least I go somewhere for evidence, and not just repeat nonsense over and over again.
Yes, the fact is that the Moon has angular momentum, of both kinds, rotational and orbital.
And that the Earth is transferring some of its angular momentum to the Moon.
Remember our discussion of the fact that the Moons center of gravity and center of mass are not the same point, and due to the fact that the Moon rotates these two points become non linear with the center of gravity of the earth.
Such that a torque results.
It seems you still can’t muster up the energy to crack that physics book, oh, wait, you sold it to buy drugs.
bob distorts reality. No surprise.
He’s such a great troll.
ClintR,
You…
Lingered last in line for brains, and the one you got was sort of rotten and insane.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
I’ve learned not to waste time with idiots and trolls like you, bob.
You clearly don’t understand physics and you can’t learn. When you’re not perverting reality, you’re perverting my words.
If anything changes, let me know.
ClintR,
You don’t have any arguments, you just call me a troll.
Prove me wrong.
Yes, you’re a troll. And an idiot.
If anything changes, let me know.
For ClintR et al.
A depiction of a plane circumnavigating the earth.
https://i.postimg.cc/k5Z6wkJP/Airplane.gif
For circumnavigating planes, trains, automobiles etc..
http://postimg.cc/McNvnf9G
Exactly the same.
What next? Flying pigs?
Yes, thanks…lots of objects orbiting without rotating on their own axes there…and you even included one in the airplane gif that was rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit (so it appears to be not rotating on its own axis).
DREM,
Always a pleasure to get your commentary that demonstrates your competence.
You have inspired me to generate an airplane –
https://i.postimg.cc/k5gW1WKW/Airplane-Rotations.gif
and a flying pig –
https://i.postimg.cc/jSZ77Cm2/DREMT.gif
that that are rotating on it’s axis at varying rates .
The latter finishes with the pig rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
Funny how you have put in an effort for a computer program that shows object behaving like the moon rotating one for one with its orbit.
Near as I can tell nobody around here ever said anything different. I certainly haven’t heard DREMT say the moon doesn’t rotate.
I simply simplify in an engineering design sort of way that indeed the moon rotates around the earth’s center of gravity. And if you want to split rotation from orbit, nothing changes. . . .
In fact, even the angular momentum remains unchanged by your efforts.
The whole purpose of using the engineering design viewpoint is to have a clear view within the framework of physics of the realities of the moon and earth relationship. If you want to study the gravitational relationship between the earth moon which would be critical in building such a device you need to be aware of the Madhavi facts or you won’t last long as an employed engineer.
Indeed, bill. Basically the moon rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis. It is orbiting only, in other words. An orbit is a rotation about an external axis. That is motion in which the same side of the body faces towards the center of the orbit throughout. I certainly have never said the moon does not rotate. It does not rotate on its own axis.
MikeR has made zero progress in about two years of trying to understand our position. I have never known anybody so slow on the uptake in my entire life. If you have the patience to continue talking to him, good for you.
Bill,
Now that you have regained interest, are less busy and have some time on your hand, you can have a go at responding to the question I posed a couple of days ago.
It is with reference to this depiction of 3 orbiting objects labelled, A,B and C in –
https://postimg.cc/k63hJyqm
The movement of celestial bodies can be separated into two parts, the orbital motion of the centre of mass and the rotation around the centre of mass. The latter is shown separately in the frames at left of the depiction,
Opinions have been expressed as to which two of the three objects are rotating on their axes based on whether the object is
1. rotating with respect to the frame of reference of the vertical and horizontal axes of the screen or
2,. alternatively rotating with respect to the frame of reference of the circular orbit.
Each orbiting object has the identical orbital trajectory and consequently the orbital energy is the same. For the three different cases, the object is also rotating around its centre of mass at different rates, so the rotational energy is different.
Can you work out the order of the three cases from lowest energy to highest?
Bill, I would be interested in your opinion on the matter of energy of these three systems, as this is a concrete example where the frame of reference definitely matters and it is not just a matter of appearance.
Once you have worked out the rankings in terms of energy then we can discuss, for which one of A, B and C, is the orbiting object not rotating around its centre of mass.
So over to you Bill, which one has the lowest energy?
MikeR, I consider frames of reference to be a tool, not a decider of fact. I think Einstein establishes that in his theories on relativity.
I have had many occasions to buttheads with somebody on frames of reference which merely expresses a preferred form. In the trade we call it elevating form over substance.
And its all about predictability. One need not concern oneself much about form over substance as it never gets complicated unless there is a predictive element to it. Einstein’s work is mostly important for the same reason.
When looking at the moon’s rotation the most important elements are in understanding why the moon rotates as it does and in understanding and using that information to predict the future for the earth moon system.
I have already written two pieces on it above.
One is the protoUranus study. And the other a sarcastic way of looking at things that arise out of what you consider to be most important.
ProtoUranus:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-547331
and
Sarcasm:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-547824
I think it was Tim who wanted to call what the earth does to the moon as nudging. Nudging isn’t a scientific word and can hold many meanings. A nudge typically is a temporary bump that changes direction slightly.
But what the earth does to the moon is like what a drill instructor does to a young recruit. He nudges him until he is strictly disciplined. That kind of nudging adds up to something else entirely.
Bill,
You had several choices as to answering my question regarding the energy of the three orbital depictions.
One was to provide an answer the question. The second choice was to waffle on.
Maybe actuslly answering will enable you to understand that the choice of reference frame allows you to calculate tangible quantities such as energies.
Rather than sticking your head in the sand, wouldn’t it be wonderful to learn something useful?
Well if you would bother to read the protoUranus piece you would see that it leads to the explanation you are looking for.
No Bill, your linked in latest answer did not address the energy of rotation anywhere.
Just more b.s. obfuscation by going off on a tangent that disappears up Uranus.
So once again. Very simply in the depiction –
https://postimg.cc/k63hJyqm
Which of tge three has the lowest and which has the highest energy? It’s not rocket science , it’s as simple as ABC.
I said I was indifferent to the scenario you are offering up. Dynamics of rigid bodies by Madhavi seems wholly unconcerned about the issue you are trying to make an issue.
It seems inapplicable to the reality of a rotation around an external axis what energy is present in the system or how it got there. Why does that matter?
The protoUranus talks about multiple axes.
The odds seem very high against tidal locked moons having axes the same as existing spin axes. Statistically it seems pretty safe to say that.
So your diagram with orbiting bodies and spins without separate axes is extremely unusual for example A.
B clearly has a spin on the center of the orbit and is consistent with a tidal locked moon.
C is a hard case. No separate axis from the orbit suggests that it is a case of the small bowls inside the large bowl.
But since you improbably placed the spin axis of A perpendicular to it’s orbit axis, you could have made the same mistake with C.
Further my response to you saying the calculations are easy is what technique do you employ to determine the calculations are correct? Check the book? If so does the book have references to how to confirm the calculations? The book you are using would be a good start in figuring out the correct answer.
If you had that book it would certainly be a lot easier to make a convincing case for your belief system and heck if it has a good way of checking its calculations you would even convince me, like the Madhavi text did on really another mutually exclusive aspect of this problem.
MikeR says:
No Bill, your linked in latest answer did not address the energy of rotation anywhere.
===================================
You are wrong. There is energy there, mass rotating around the sun on an axis perpendicular to protoUranus’ spin axis. There is mass velocity and distance from the sun enough to calculate its angular momentum.
If its also spinning on a second internal axis also is an extraneous matter that some day will be subsumed into the orbital momentum.
Then there is the spin on protoUranus’ internal axis perpendicular to the orbital axis. Will that spin ever be subsumed? Are there different answers if this internal spin perpendicular to the orbital axis ends up with the internal spin axis parallel or perpendicular to a radian? Fun questions to think about. Does your book or Newton provide you any guidance there?
I crown Bill our new Evasion King.
There is no reason to evade this energy question, other then to avoid and evade reality.
elementary physics Nate isn’t evasion.
Bill,
You are asked simple physics questions that actually illuminate the truth of the matter.
What do you do? You gish gallop on tangents and evade, as if answering these simple questions will give you Covid.
We can no longer pretend that you are here to find the truth.
Bill this is just for you,.
As the orbital motion is identicalin the preceding depiction for all three cases, I have just isolated the rotational component to make it really, really, really simple .
https://postimg.cc/B8BC1JL5
In the above. Which of the three has the lowest rotational energy and which has the highest? Is Bill able to answer now without galloping off or referring to fish bowls?
Hint: Bill if you can’t work it out, pretend that the dumbbells are propellers or rotary saws blades. Accordingky which one would likely leave you with the most digits if you tried to manually interact in each case?
Treat it a thought experiment, as we would like you to be still able use your keyboardto press A,B or C even if you are a one figure typist.
MikeR of course has not isolated the rotational component correctly. If he had, B would not be rotating, and C would (in the opposite direction to A).
Oh well. No point talking to him. He will never learn.
MikeR says:
November 2, 2020 at 5:17 PM
Bill this is just for you,.
As the orbital motion is identicalin the preceding depiction for all three cases, I have just isolated the rotational component to make it really, really, really simple .
https://postimg.cc/B8BC1JL5
In the above. Which of the three has the lowest rotational energy and which has the highest? Is Bill able to answer now without galloping off or referring to fish bowls?
Hint: Bill if you can’t work it out, pretend that the dumbbells are propellers or rotary saws blades. Accordingky which one would likely leave you with the most digits if you tried to manually interact in each case?
Treat it a thought experiment, as we would like you to be still able use your keyboardto press A,B or C even if you are a one
figure typist.
=======================================
I already gave an answer Mike. I said I wasn’t particularly interested in the topic so I am not giving it a lot of thought.
To me it simply doesn’t matter.
Why should this issue matter to me. I said sometime ago I didn’t have an opinion on whether Tesla or you were right on what face a cannon ball with no spin enters an orbit. That question needs to be answered first and if you can’t answer it you need to wait to observe it.
If we start assuming values it still doesn’t matter. Let say all the particles in C are not rotating in concentric circles around the orbital cog. They will be as momentum is built up from frictional torque. The allegory here is the floating bowls on the water in a larger bowl that you start spinning. The floating bowls aren’t going to start spinning in time right off the bat but will be as the friction of water does its job.
If you assume instead that Tesla is right. Then what you must have had in A and C is two objects spinning in opposite directions before entering orbit and the energy from that is going to be eventually consolidated into the orbital spin.
So in the end what you have is only B with some variation on the radius of the orbit.
So what does any of that matter to what axis the rotation is on?
You guys are just fishing for something that might matter to dispute a very clear fact and having no success.
The classic though was gee the earth can’t be in a rigid relationship with the moon while spinning independently . . . .you guys must have a boring sex life. LMAO!
Of course DREM and Bill, The three depictions could be actually orbiting or not /sarconwhich of course makes all the difference /sarcoff .
So forget about orbiting, which of the three has the lowest rotational energy and which has the highest?
Already played this game with you twice before. You simply cannot learn. And no, I’m not going through it with you a third time.
MikeR says:
Of course DREM and Bill, The three depictions could be actually orbiting or not /sarconwhich of course makes all the difference /sarcoff .
So forget about orbiting, which of the three has the lowest rotational energy and which has the highest?
============================
LOL! Forget about orbiting? You don’t even get the issue MikeR.
I would say B has the least amount of energy. Here is my analysis.
One must solve the orbital dilemma first before just leaping to conclusions about it.
You see the two effects as unrelated and thus separable without changing anything and DREMT sees the two effects as inseparable without affecting the other.
So all you have done here MikeR is devise some kind of diabolical litmus test of belief systems that proves. . . .uh. . . .absolutely nothing.
Here is a video that shows the conversion of linear momentum into angular momentum.(I have to be careful here as I am effectively speaking a foreign language and likewise folks need not focus on the words but on the effect demonstrated) A little high school physics:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-physics/torque-and-angular-momentum/conservation-of-angular-momentum/v/ball-hits-rod-angular-momentum-example
Watching this video it seems rather easy to visualize how a future moon entering orbit might create orbital angular momentum that it did not previously possess.
But its kind of crazy to create double the angular momentum in one direction in order to create some in the other direction which in effect would be a negation of the what is being demonstrated in the video.
So if C has spin angular momentum in the opposite direction to the orbital angular momentum that would be a special case more complicated case to simply having the angular momentum created upon collision with the force field directly into orbital angular momentum. Applying the KISS principle then DREMT wins the null hypothesis on that.
So I conclude B has the least energy as A and C came into the relationship already carrying one spin, each in the opposite direction to the other.
I feel a strong wind of ad hominems arising! I would much prefer one take their frustration to the video and point out why that isn’t a good example. . . .keeping in mind of course we know with certainty that orbital angular momentum is created when something enters into orbit.
“I already gave an answer Mike. I said I wasn’t particularly interested in the topic so I am not giving it a lot of thought.
To me it simply doesn’t matter.”
The effort put into evasion of these simple questions is remarkable!
‘Dont bother me with facts Im not interested in”
Bill is not interested in facts that contradict his beliefs. Its quite obvious.
Why?
Are you here to debate what is the truth, the facts, or just to troll?
If here to debate what the facts are, then F*kin debate!
And then we have DREMT who never met a fact he couldnt ignore.
“Already played this game with you twice before.”
And he didnt like how it worked out for his beliefs before. Its a horrible memory.
And of course Nate is smoking dope again in the morning and hasn’t noticed I answered the question.
“hypothesis on that.
So I conclude B has the least energy as A and C came into the relationship already carrying one spin, each in”
With all the gish galloping and evasion i did miss it.
But guessing based on an erroneous desired outcome is not logical. Im sure Miker will explain.
Nope!
You just don’t like my answer.
Apparently because you don’t know how to dispute the answer you simply say you can’t understand it.
Bill,
At least you had a go.
As everyone agrees including DREM (when it suited) that an object can both orbit and rotate on its axis totally independently.
Accordingly it is impossible to tell from observing the rotating objects only what their orbital status is.
The best way you could tell whether they are rotating ( and their energy of rotation) is simply by measuring it.
Consequently one could simply count how many seconds it would take for each dumbbell to rotate once. Convert this period to angular frequency (w) and calculate E = 1/2 I w^2 (assume the moment of inertia I is the same for all objects).
This is verty simple once you have measured the period of rotation.
Bill, let me know what the measured period of rotation for each dumbell is and we can compare notes.
p. s. for dumbbell C you might want to visit the bathroom first, if you are using a desktop computer.
C isn’t hard to see at all Mike. Its exactly the same as the other rotation in the diagram. And each diagram has one of those rotations. Why complicate it?
Bill,
So what is the rotational period of C?
😄
B
and A
Bill,
I get a rotational period of about 2,5 seconds for A and 5 seconds for B.
Bill what are you getting?
The same for all 3
Bill,
Do you get the same rotational period for all three!!!!!!!???????????? If so what is this period?
Perhaps you mean you get the same estimates of the rotational period as myself for A and B?
Can you clarify?
The EXACT same for ALL 3
###########################
Bill,
The EXACT same for ALL 3
###########################
Bill,
What is the rotational period for all 3 ??????????
Why are you so terrified to answer? This process is like pulling hen’s teeth.
Chapter 5 of the Troll Handbook.
5. When all else fails, play dumb.
I don’t have a stopwatch. but your 5 seconds looks pretty good.
No need for a stop watch Bill.
Measure how long it takes by just counting cats and dogs or more accurately if you have any smart phone.
You disagree with about 2.5 seconds for A? But try again.
Also have a go with C. Just a rough estimate. You can stop at bed time or pause for bathroom stops.😄
Just in case Bill is totally confused here is the relevant depiction again.
https://postimg.cc/B8BC1JL5
What happened to moons?
Now you are talking about objects floating alone in space? what does that have to do with anything we have been talking about?
Have you lost your mind in desperation to come up with something, anything?
Really Bill?
You seem to have participated in this discussion for almost a week, with a dozen comments and now you have suddenly decided it isn’t relevant any more! I can only hazard a guess what brought this sudden realisation on /sarc off.
Bill, if you are incapable of working out the period of the three simple depictions above then how the hell would you think that you could participate in a discussion about the rotation of the moon f.f.s.?
We all knew it would end in tears for you. Pity it took you so long to work that out.
MikeR says:
Really Bill? You seem to have participated in this discussion for almost a week, with a dozen comments and now you have suddenly decided it isn’t relevant any more! I can only hazard a guess what brought this sudden realisation on /sarc off.
Bill, if you are incapable of working out the period of the three simple depictions above then how the hell would you think that you could participate in a discussion about the rotation of the moon f.f.s.?
We all knew it would end in tears for you. Pity it took you so long to work that out.
——————————————-
I have been participating in a conversation about the moon rotating around earth. Not some non-moon object rotating all by itself in the middle of empty space. When did anybody talk about that?
Look I did the protoUranus project to show how a body can have two axes. One a spin axis and the second an orbital rotation axis. Once in orbit the angular momentum is that of mass radius and velocity (no spin figured in whether it exists or not).
If you want to imagine what that looks like it looks like a pony bolted solid to a merry-go-round deck.
If you want to unbolt it and put it on bearings with a separate power source to rotate it you can do that and it might even look like the earth rotating around the sun tilted 23 degrees and rotating on that tilt.
Its going to look different than the pony looked bolted to the deck.
So put a pony on the merry-go-round and fuk with it all you want and tell me if you can keep it looking the same while you fuk with it.
Bill “Convenient Lapse of Memory” Hunter.
With regard to “some non-moon object rotating all by itself in the middle of empty space” you have been participating in the discussion since
November 2, 2020 at 5:17 PM
I explained at that time that the depiction of isolated objects shown here –
https://postimg.cc/B8BC1JL5
are just the left hand sides of the earlier depiction
https://postimg.cc/k63hJyqm .
The isolated depictions showed the objects rotating at different rates around their respective centre’s of mass.
This was done to simplify, as all three objects had centres of mass that orbited identically!
Again, I repeat if you can’t measure the rotational period of these isolated objects, then how can you expect to cope with anything more complicated?
thats fine Mike go play with yourself. If you want to talk about moon’s it might interest me more.
As I said, it appears to be all ending in sad resignation for Bill. Incapable of determining something so basic as measuring the rotation period.
Any way Bill has suddenly decided the only orbiting object he wants to refer to is the moon so , of course, I will indulge him and give him another chance to redeem himself.
Here are the relevant depictions with the moon replacing the dumbbell.
https://i.postimg.cc/43fqP2H8/Moon-Rotations.gif
Here is the ABC rotation question using the moon.
https://i.postimg.cc/DzpjgvTZ/Rotations-ABC.gif
So Bill, hopefully this latter depiction will allow you to measure the rotation periods for A, B and C.
Bill, give it another go.
Pseudomod aka DREMT
” Newton doesn’t mention rotation, but it is all about orbital motion, after all. ”
*
Oh he very well did, in the last edition of his Principia Mathematica, which appeared in 1726: Book 3, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV.
*
There you can read (in the 1729 English translation by Andre Motte):
” That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena.
The spots in the sun's body return to the same situation on the sun's disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb ”
*
People like you, or Robertson, ClintR, bill hunter and a couple of others can try to ignore or to deliberately misinterpret what Newton wrote!
But luckily, you can’t erase it. It’s forever present, either in the original text in Latin, or in any translation.
J.-P. D.
Nice work Bindidon, DREMT busted for the umptieth time☺
We were specifically discussing Newton’s Cannonball, Bindidon. Newton does not mention whether the cannonball is rotating on its own axis, or not.
Pesudomod
Apologies! My bad, I didn’t see that.
Please, keep discussing at the toy level as long as you feel some need for, and wake me up when you get willing to face reality as described by Newton concerning the Moon.
cu
J.-P. D.
Apology accepted.
I was wondering where Newton had made that clear. Thanks Bindidon.
“arising from its uniform revolution about its axis”
It is really clear that Newton, who first explained orbits with physics, understood the Moon to be both orbiting the Earth and revolving on its own axis.
And for the last 300 years physics and astronomy has agreed with him about what an orbit is.
But apparently the TEAM knows Newton had it wrong all this time…
Well done Bindidon,
Newton versus the combined intellect of DREMT, ClintR, Bill Hunter and Gordon Robertson. Who should one believe?
😉
You all act like Bindidon has never linked to that before.
Poor DREMT,
Has to take on Newton now. DREMT has to start somewhere so maybe he can take on the 1st Law and work his way up.
😂
If you say so, MikeR.
Newton pffft!
What does he know about planetary orbits?
Tesla, he da man!
#2
If you say so, MikeR.
Nate says:
Newton pffft!
What does he know about planetary orbits?
Tesla, he da man!
====================================
Newton’s accomplishments and the 3 laws of motion were profound. but Newton isn’t a God and so by some chance science has continued to move forward beyond Newton.
Actually if I have this right, it seems that the force of gravity in combination with the speed of the moon an mean force perpendicular to the the tangent of the moon’s orbit. That would mean the leading edge has a slightly downward momentum and the back edge a slight upward momentum.
In a frictionless environment it only takes a non-zero force to bring about rotation.
Certainly that could be called a rotation on the moon’s axis but like Ptolemy (or at least his successors) found out it’s much simpler to consider it to be a rotation on the earth’s axis.
And simple is good. Lets just call an orbit with a tidal locked orbiting body a ‘pure orbit’ where by all the particles are rotating in concentric circles with the orbital path.
Its only fair because it is inevitability where in the presence of gravity all the particles have found their terminal velocities in accordance with the momentums and forces acting upon it.
Changing any of that involves a lot of particles rubbing together in friction and thus is not sustainable without a constant force.
So Tesla sees these the facts and sees zero countervailing forces on a non-orbiting, non-rotating body traveling through space. Orbit insertion starts out with just a little bend from gravity afar. Without retro rockets to speed up the insertion and make corrections it’s seems rather rare with scientists constantly mulling over the issue of how these orbiting bodies came about.
KISS
Ok so retired auditor Bill has just figured out that Newton, and all followers, have misunderstood orbits.
But he seems incapable of explaining it to us in any half-way coherent way.
I think poor Isaac would be as baffled as we are.
And where is the compelling, extraordinary evidence? When can we expect that?
Im starting to worry Bill has a few loose screws. His posts are increasingly erratic.
Not retired Nate. 76 and still going strong.
So I see you have devolved down to a total lack of points to debate and chosen to go ad hominem because you got your arse handed to you.
So long.
Bill,
Im trying to give any uncommitted people out there a chance to weigh the odds, and judge who is more likely to be correct?
a. Newton. As close to a god of physics as they come. The guy who first explained planetary orbits with physics, and tested his ideas first on the Moon.
b. An auditor and other non-experts, who make the extraordinary claim that Newton got orbits wrong. Oh and Astronomy still gets it wrong. But offer NO compelling evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, just hand waving.
“down to a total lack of points to debate”
Kind of ludicrous to say we havent presented you lots of points during the several weeks of debate!
Clearly you did not believe us when we presented physics-based arguments, though offering no sensible physics-based rebuttals.
It gets a little more ridiculous when you say you don’t believe Newton.
Nate says:
a lot of blather there Nate but I will try to respond.
1) nobody is arguing Newton got any orbits wrong. Who is arguing that? Evidence please.
2) I am not offering evidence Nate. Dr. Madhavi presents concepts of rotation on internal and external axes that are absolutely critical for identifying when one wants to understand how things are put together. So near as I can tell from any evidence you have presented Newton did not address the issue and its clear Madhavi did. So its a strawman to suggest anybody needs to believe me. My only role is to document evidence. Newton is dead so if he did do what you suggest then you should document the evidence.
3) You have made a lot of points about wiggles and axes tilted away from orbital paths but orbital paths and wiggles are not the arbiter of a rotation on an external axis. There are plenty of fun carnival rides that demonstrate that fact.
4) Should I believe Newton about his use of language and intent of that language? Should I believe Newton’s view of God? You are trying to treat Newton as some deity and you don’t care if he made a science case or not. There is no science in that kind of worship.
“nobody is arguing Newton got any orbits wrong. Who is arguing that? Evidence please.”
Nonsense. Where were you this month?
DREMT “you mistake any change in orientation of the moon whilst it orbits, for axial rotation. The moon is just orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.”
Newton:
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”
“Dr. Madhavi presents concepts of”
For the dozenth time, where are the Madhavi quotes that support your views, Evasion King?
Why is it ok for you to vaguely appeal to her authority?
” You have made a lot of points about wiggles and axes tilted away from orbital paths but orbital paths and wiggles are not the arbiter of a rotation on an external axis.”
An axis is defined by ‘movement of mass in concentric circles around it’. Please show a contradictory definition.
A Lunar axis is observed by Astronomy. Its properties are listed in every reputable Astronomical source.
You have tried to claim this is a pseudo axis or whatever. Without proof, or evidence it is just your feeling, speculation, hooey.
Nate says:
””Nobody is arguing Newton got any orbits wrong. Who is arguing that? Evidence please.” Nonsense. Where were you this month?”
This must be someone else you were talking to. If so please provide a link to Newton’s calculations or begone troll!
—————————————
Nate says:
”DREMT ”you mistake any change in orientation of the moon whilst it orbits, for axial rotation. The moon is just orbiting, not rotating on its own axis.”
Newton:
”But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”
I would take it as Newton talking about revolutions around ”its” axis indeed Nate. But please provide the pronoun reference that shows ”it” wasn’t the cog of the moon’s orbital revolution.
If thats all you got. . . .you lose on the Newton argument.
============================
Nate says:
””Dr. Madhavi presents concepts of”
For the dozenth time, where are the Madhavi quotes that support your views, Evasion King?”
Come on Nate you have been provided the reference several times with definitions of the concepts.
Here it is again: https://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
All concepts of motion with definitions dealt with in Section 2. OTOH you have zero evidence beyond vague pronouns being also ignorant of English where you read what you want in place of a pronoun.
======================================
Nate says:
”You have made a lot of points about wiggles and axes tilted away from orbital paths but orbital paths and wiggles are not the arbiter of a rotation on an external axis.”
An axis is defined by movement of mass in concentric circles around it. Please show a contradictory definition.
A Lunar axis is observed by Astronomy. Its properties are listed in every reputable Astronomical source.
You have tried to claim this is a pseudo axis or whatever. Without proof, or evidence it is just your feeling, speculation, hooey.”
OK so ellipses are not circles even when they obey the same physics. You are truly getting desperate.
MikeR wrote –
* Gordon you are correct. Changing the orbiting angular momentum would require an external torque. This is happening via tidal forces as the distance between the earth and moon is slowly increasing. This has been measured as increasing using laser retroreflectors on the moon at 3.8 cm per year* . This increases the orbital angular momentum of the moon. *
This is the sort of nonsense written by donkeys at NOAA, NASA, NSF, and other places which should have higher standards.
MikeR probably believed the NSF when it claimed that melting sea ice would result in rising sea levels!
Gordon Robertson says:
October 29, 2020 at 1:27 AM
“rryour graph is not based on scientific measurement, it is a guess. I say that because the entire CO2 range is covered by the water vapour range.
Also, note that the vertical axis is in mW. Even when integrated over the CO2 hole it represents no more than about 5% of surface radiation.”
Typical of the Denialati to argue against data they do not understand when it doesn’t conform to their beliefs.
FYI…
IRISN4RAD: IRIS/Nimbus-4 Level 1 Radiance Data V001
The Nimbus-4 Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) Level 1 Radiance Data contain thermal emissions of the Earth’s atmosphere at wave numbers between 400 and 1600 cm^-1, with a nominal resolution of 2.8 cm^-1. The data also contain documentation information, reference calibration, average instrument temperatures, and a summary for each orbital pass. The data, originally written on IBM 360 machines, were recovered from 9-track magnetic tapes. The data are archived in their original IBM 32-bit word binary record format, and each file contains an entire day of measurements. The product contains data from April 9, 1970 (day of year 99) through Jan 31, 1971 (day of year 31).
https://docserver.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/public/project/Images/IRISN4RAD_001.png
The IRIS instrument was designed to provide information on the vertical structure of the atmosphere and on the emissive properties of the earth’s surface by measuring the surface and atmospheric radiation in the 6.25 to 25 micrometer range using a modified Michelson interferometer. IRIS viewed along the satellite track direction with a spatial resolution of 94 km at nadir. A Fourier transform was applied to the interferograms to produce thermal emission spectra of the Earth which could be used to derive vertical profiles of temperature, water vapor, and ozone, as well as other parameters of meteorological interest. The Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) experiment on Nimbus-4 is a follow on experiment to the Nimbus-3 IRIS experiment.
Snape, you keep linking to that worthless graph, not knowing anything about it. That is a common trick of idiots. They find something on the Internet that they believe “proves” their nonsense, but they can’t understand it.
That graph makes no sense. If it were done from the wavelength version of Planck, the ground temperature is way too cold. If the graph was from the frequency version, the ground is way too hot.
What was the ground temperature when that graph was supposedly made? Please show all work.
🙊🙈🙉
rr…”FYI
IRISN4RAD: IRIS/Nimbus-4 Level 1 Radiance Data V001
The Nimbus-4 Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) Level 1 Radiance Data contain thermal emissions of the Earths atmosphere at wave numbers between 400 and 1600 cm^-1, with a nominal resolution of 2.8 cm^-1″.
Does it say on your graph that it came from Numbus-4? And do you understand that the data is essentially fudged using simulators and presumptions? They apply Fourier transforms to the data which is a means of synthesizing data using sine and cosine waves. It does not say exactly how they are applied but why do you need to synthesize data at all if the instruments are picking up real data?
As I said, the CO2 spectrum is overlain by the water vapour spectrum How does one go about extracting the CO2 data without using a whole lot of assumptions?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117718303375
As always, you show “a lack of clarity of thought, wishful thinking, genuine or mischievous misunderstanding, or some unfortunate combination of all of the above.”
You ask” “Does it say on your graph that it came from Numbus-4? ”
These data have been available since 1970, and you have obviously never seen it?
” … when it claimed that melting sea ice would result in rising sea levels! ”
Discredit, denigrate, distort and… lie. That’s all donkeys a la Flenson (or Swynn?) are able to do.
*
Wherever you look, you won’t see anything the like. What you see everywhere instead looks like this:
Does melting sea ice increase sea level?
Sea level is rising, in part, because melting glaciers on land are adding more water to Earth’s oceans. … The volume of water they displace as ice is the same as the volume of water they add to the ocean when they melt. As a result, sea level does not rise when sea ice melts.
(NSF)
or
Contrary to some public misconceptions, sea ice does not influence sea level. Because it is already floating in the ocean, sea ice is already displacing its own weight. Melting sea ice wont raise ocean levels any more than melting ice cubes will cause a glass of ice water to overflow.
(NASA)
Careful JD. You’re going to trigger Norman to correct you. He believes melting sea ice causes sea levels to rise, just like he believes ice can warm sunshine.
Do you believe ice can warm sunshine?
Less sea ice means warmer water.
Warmer water means more water volume.
More water volume means more sea water level.
Sea water under the sea ice is 28 F, I measured it myself, using thermometers I calibrated myself.
Sea water not under the sea ice is more than 28 F, I measured it myself, using thermometers I calibrated myself.
The density of sea water increases with decreasing temperature all the way to the freezing point, usually 28 F for the average salinity of the oceans.
So much for the already floating line of thought, it doesn’t stay at 28 F when it melts, it get warmer than that, because it’s now water that readily catches the sunlight, rather than ice which generally reflects the sunlight.
Troll bob filled in for troll Norman.
Little difference.
Like experience counts.
Been there done that.
Of coarse you don’t have any criticism of my logic, nor my facts.
Melting sea ice doesn’t affect sea level rise because it is already floating is a fallacy.
See.
See ClintR run.
blob, please stop trolling.
ClintR
There is much difference between your posts and ours. We base ours on real and valid science. You base yours on nothing but your invalid opinions.
As I already stated. Your thoughts are very limited, you are not a smart person by an stretch. Simple in thought and understanding.
I see you have not even attempted to learn.
Here is what I explained to you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c/#comment-515886
The same as bobdroege has also explained.
Take your glass of water filled to the brim with the ice. let it melt and correct the water will not overfill from the phase transition of ice to water. Now put the water on a burner and increase heat and then tell me thermal expansion does not exist.
I guess you are too young to have used an alcohol thermometer where you can visually see the effects of thermal expansion.
Some people can never learn. Tell them the Truth and they won’t believe you.
Norman, would you mind putting your perversions of reality at the start of your typing exercise?
I had to read almost all of this one to find how you were going to pervert sea ice melt. Of course, you put the Arctic on your kitchen stove!
“Now put the water on a burner and increase heat and then tell me thermal expansion does not exist.”
And you completely changed the issue from Archimedes Principle to thermal expansion!
What an idiot.
No ClintR you are the idiot small minded one.
I told you before you were not smart. That is one fact about you that is quite true. It runs through all your posts. A very simple minded person with no deeper thought potential.
In your older post: “He was arguing that since Arctic sea ice was melting, sea levels would rise. I explained to him that floating ice melting would not cause sea levels to rise. He could not understand. He used visuals like ice bergs, saying You think that mountain of ice will not cause a rise in sea levels?
The person you were arguing with was more correct than you. If the Arctic Sea ice melts to a greater extent than summer average, there is more water exposed to the long Arctic summer sun. You do know that the amount of energy received by the Arctic in Summer is greater than at the Equator?
“On Winter Solstice, the polar North receives no energy from the Sun. In contrast, the amount of incoming solar energy the Earth receives on June 21, Summer Solstice, is 30 percent higher at the North Pole than at the Equator.”
If you have less ice in the Arctic Ocean than previous the temperature of the water can increase and lead to thermal expansion. Now do you understand the connection? Probably not, you have to be smart to make such connections.
Evidence (which you reject):
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/featured-image/public/annualtemp_oct2014-sep2015_620.jpg?itok=VezlT6i-
Wrong again, Norman.
Archimedes Principle has nothing to do with seasons. You can’t understand physics because you’re an idiot.
ClintR
The situation here is that I do understand physics. So much more than you are able. Whereas I can understand your very simple points, you are hopelessly confused by any point from someone far more intelligent than you are (not referring to myself but others on this blog who have attempted to educate you).
We all know Archimedes Principle. No big revelation of new knowledge. The point bobdroege and I are making is that if the ice melts in the Arctic (more so than normal) you expose more water to sunlight which absorbs this energy and warms. Evidence has been presented to you that the Arctic Ocean has indeed increased in temperature so it would also expand and raise the sea level. I am certain your small mind is not adequate to grasp this concept.
You have a serious case of Dunning–Kruger. You don’t know much physics. You possess little logical thinking ability but you believe your limited thought process is so great that we are all idiots when compared to you. The reality is you are very limited in both knowledge and thinking ability. The limited information you possess makes you believe you know everything. Actual intelligent people know there is so much more than than know in a topic like physics that they keep their mind open and learn. You show zero ability to do this and you display very limited thinking ability.
Norman,
Given that the maximum angle of incidence of the sun within the arctic circle does not exceed 50 degrees, what is the maximum (in your silly W/m2) temperature sea water can attain after 6 months of sunlight?
Too hard for you, I know. Try a stupid analogy or diversion. Or something,
Norman, Archimedes Principle has nothing to do with seasons.
You keep claiming that I don’t know physics, but you are unable to provide even one example. Yet you are convinced ice can warm sunshine!
You’re an idiot.
Binnie,
You are right. After about six and a half years, NSF finally gave in and acknowledged that even though Archimedes was a Greek, his principle still worked anywhere in the world!
NASA even followed suit. You can find the original NSF statement, and the long overdue admission they were wrong, if you look hard enough. I have screen captures of the original, and amended web sites.
I posted the following specifically addressed to Gordon Robertsong but I think it applies to a couple of other commenters here so I’ll re-post for general consumption. If the dunce cap fits…
These laughable attempts to smuggle your drivel into the pantheon of the possible under the cover of the word knowledge are born from a lack of clarity of thought, wishful thinking, genuine or mischievous misunderstanding, or some unfortunate combination of all of the above.
IMHO.
https://i.imgflip.com/1yengq.jpg
rr…since I try to base my assertions on real scientists like Clausius, R.W. Wood. Newton, etc., you are claiming their science is laughable. I think that is beyond demented.
I am saying that your comments show “a lack of clarity of thought, wishful thinking, genuine or mischievous misunderstanding, or some unfortunate combination of all of the above.”
”lack of clarity of thought”.
Only problem here is a blog is no place for clarity of thought. What all you Ned Flanders in here fail to grasp are the monumental issues that arise when science is extrapolated into the nth degree. . . .most of you all not even realizing what you are doing.
As far as explaining these issues with clarity goes. . . .ain’t gonna happen on a blog. Hard enough to write an entire book on it.
I notice final silence on adding fluxes together, perhaps we made rare progress there, but science has been beyond that for a long time.
Well,
No one has produced evidence that fluxes don’t add, so we have nothing to counter.
A simple high school science level experiment show they do add, so we have nothing more to offer against the rubbish.
Yes indeed you having nothing more to offer is an excellent observation.
Bill,
I have offered evidence that fluxes do add.
bob,
And you think someone cares about your fantasy because . . . ?
bob, fluxes don’t add, you can only increase the view of a flux.
You can move closer or you can fill the sky with more suns. But the flux of each sun doesn’t get larger as implied by the grade-school model passed around here to deceive the ignorant about BS backradiation. Thats a force that does not exist. If you haven’t gotten that fact by now you are probably hopelessly inculcated.
Bill,
You don’t seem to understand the physics.
“You can move closer or you can fill the sky with more suns.”
Moving closer doesn’t add the flux, filling the sky with more suns would, but that’s not possible.
“But the flux of each sun doesnt get larger as implied by the grade-school model passed around here to deceive the ignorant about BS backradiation.”
BS backradiation is the radiation emitted by CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere, they are measured and follow the laws of physics, and no they are not bullshit.
“Thats a force that does not exist. If you havent gotten that fact by now you are probably hopelessly inculcated.”
It does exist, it has and can be measured.
Which is what scientists do, I miss old huffing stuff who used to always present evidence that it does indeed exist.
Sorry charlie, learn some physics.
bobdroege says:
It does exist, it has and can be measured.
======================
Heat is not a force.
Bill,
I never said that it was a force, you are the one claiming its not a force.
I was saying the downwelling infrared from the CO2 in the atmosphere can and has been measured.
You only think downwelling IR has been measured.
Actually its not measured. Its calculated on the assumption there is downwelling radiation. . . .a conclusion that is usually used to try to explain the greenhouse effect. All wrong.
I mean how often have you seen it referred to as a forcing?
All you are detecting is radiant heat.
Taking insolation and allocating it around the surface creates a solar based mean radiant heat source. That heat source can only warm something if its warmer than the surface the allocated sunlight shines on. Thus you cannot take a second bite of the same apple. The only way to warm the surface in that approach (radiation) is to increase the insolation of the sun, or find another separate source of energy.
G&T made that point and that point by G&T was never refuted.
but science continues to talk about arbitrarily and artificially defined ‘layers’ in the atmosphere in an attempt to compare the atmosphere to layered insulation. Its all total bullshit.
“The only way to warm the surface in that approach (radiation) is to increase the insolation of the sun, or find another separate source of energy.”
No. You can warm it by reducing the heat loss.
Svante says:
“The only way to warm the surface in that approach (radiation) is to increase the insolation of the sun, or find another separate source of energy.”
No. You can warm it by reducing the heat loss.
===============================
Yes but thats not a force. thats a resistance.
Further you have to define how resistance works.
G&T showed it does not occur by radiation. Halpern agreed and said G&T needed to consider non-radiation heat exchange processes. Though he did not specify any system that would produce the desired affect nor how CO2 would affect it. . . .obviously radiant warming by CO2 is off limits. . . .which considering your history here would seem to probably be a surprise to you.
Blindidon
What we need is for some of the climate fearmongers to have an Eureka moment regarding sea ice.
Mark Wapples
Thanks for the ‘Blindidon’, much appreciated.
But even more appreciated would be to explain what you mean. People like you seem to appreciate giving up somewhat mysterious clues. I don’t.
Thus, Mr Wapples, please:
– be more concrete
and in addition
– show some data, at least in graphical form.
For example like this, with 2020 data including Oct 26:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YiaEnD5ywRCU4nY9x-OZh1ThLNaC2VNe/view
or, if you prefer to have a look at older data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10qA6klNnFn_bo1DNOQZrPPa0fzWSvRYG/view
J.-P. D.
It’s like more than a million square kilometers lower than the observed record for today’s date.
That’s for the arctic.
Is that the eureka moment you had in mind?
Are you being serious?
Arctic sea ice is currently 13% lower than the previous record. That’s NOT 13% below the average. It’s 13% below the previous record from way back in 2016!
The rate of sea ice decline in the Arctic is nothing short of astonishing. To illustrate just how unexpected this is look at the IPCC TAR box 7.1 figure 1 from 2001. The IPCC didn’t expect annual mean sea ice extents to drop below 10.5e6 km^2 until 2040. It first happened in 2007 and has happened 6 times since. And 2020 will end well below 10.5e6 km^2 as well with a good chance at the previous record from 2019.
So if by “Eureka moment” you mean we need to wake up and realize that the sea ice decline may proceed even faster than predicted then yeah I agree.
bdgwx, have you sobered up enough you can clean up your nonsense here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-544505
I’ll be happy to address any responsible questions, but no one could make sense out of that irresponsible rage.
Mark Wapples
you say you are a teacher? Kindergarten?
I pity the little Tikes!
Mark, the idiots are so far from reality that they believe the polar ice is melting itself! They believe the emitted flux adds!
You can’t help stupid.
Alarmist donkeys believe anything. For example, 10 m2 of ice can emit 3000 W. My toaster only uses 2400 W.
I cant seem to even warm a teaspoon of water with the radiation from ice. Even adding it to sunshine wont toast my crumpets. Maybe there are different qualities of Watts? Like hot ones, and not so hot ones!
Hey! Maybe someone should tell NASA, NOAA, the NSF, and all the other alarmist donkey sheltered workshops.
Swenson
Calm down a bit. I can help your ignorance, just try to focus a little as hard as that might be.
You understand that in an old style filament light that the tungsten filament could reach thousands of degrees with just 100 watt energy input. Yet is you spread the same energy over a one square meter surface the surface would be quite cold.
Maybe you can’t understand it but if you spread the energy from your toaster into a 10 m^2 surface it would not cook your bread. I am not sure you are capable of understanding these ideas. Maybe you should study more science than reading one Feynman book on the topic. It does not appear your one reading improved your thinking ability.
norman…”if you spread the energy from your toaster into a 10 m^2 surface it would not cook your bread”.
That proves that radiation is a useless form of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. Radiation is incapable of warming anything significantly till you reach temperatures like the elements of a toaster. Even at that, the toast has to be right next to it. Move the toaster elements a few inches apart and they won’t even heat the bread much and they sure won’t toast it.
N,
Come on, now.
I asked for help concentrating energy from a large area of ice at 300 W/m2 to toast my crumpets. Are you just a lyning sack of donkey crap?
You have no intention of helping, because you only know how to troll, and you are not very effective at that. Prove me wrong by providing some help. Or just admit you are a lying sack of donkey crap. At least others will know that you have no intention of carrying out your smarmy words.
Gordon Robertson
You have to remember that to warm an object you have to add more energy than it is emitting. The object you are trying to warm by radiant energy is emitting as well, if you add more energy it also emits more.
norman…”You have to remember that to warm an object you have to add more energy than it is emitting. The object you are trying to warm by radiant energy is emitting as well, if you add more energy it also emits more”.
What’s that got to do with the price of rice? I’m saying you have to move the toast almost next to the red hot elements to get the bread to toast. Move it a couple of inches away and it won’t toast. That’s how quickly radiation dissipates.
At terrestrial temperatures, the warming effect of surface radiation is insignificant after a few feet. Surface radiation is not warming GHGs beyond a few feet. Talking about warming from ice radiation is ridiculous.
You probably think that an eskimo living in an igloo has central heating due to the radiation from the ice.
Norman,
How are you going with helping me?
Either you dont believe IR from ice can be concentrated like any other light, or you just dont understand that radiated energy and temperature are not necessarily related.
Alarmist donkeys may be stupid enough to think that 300 W/m2 from sunlight, and 300 W/m2 from ice have the ability to heat an object to the same temperature.
I think you may agree with the climate donkeys, which makes you very ignorant indeed. What do you think?
N,
So if I concentrated 3000 W of radiation from ice into the area occupied by the filaments on my toaster, I could toast my crumpets? Really?
How would I do that, Norman? Infrared can be focussed just like visible light. A big magnifying glass? Parabolic mirror? Or maybe one of those one way insulators that heats things by the application o& magic – sometimes called the GHE!
How about some practical help here, Norman? Or are you just a perambulating pile of alarmist donkeycrap? You dont actually understand that temperature and radiative intensity are not interchangeable. Look up Leslies Cube.
Heres a sample from Wikipedia –
* Leslie’s cube is a device used in the measurement or demonstration of the variations in thermal radiation emitted from different surfaces at the same temperature. *
You didnt know that, did you? If you did, you wouldnt be the alarmist donkey that you are!
Swenson
Calm some more. You do know that IR emitted from a surface is going in all directions. You would not be able to focus this energy any more than you can try to focus the diffuse energy of the Sun when water droplets in fog scatter it about.
Yes I do know about Leslie’s cube. That would be based upon the emissivity of the surface in the band of energy concerned. Ice is a very good IR emitter but a fairly poor solar receiver. It is a selective surface so it can get colder than dark soil with the same amount of given sunlight.
Norman believes two ice cubes will make something hotter than one ice cube. Because he believes that flux adds. In fact, he even has the calculation to “prove” such nonsense.
Two ice cubes at 273 K would produce a temperature of 325K.
((273)^4 + (273)^4)^0.25 = 325 K
And 3 ice cubes would then be
((273)^4 + (273)^4 + (273)^4)^0.25 = 360 K
4 ice cubes = 386 K
With all the ice in the Arctic, you can quickly see why it’s melting!
(Norman’s an idiot.)
N,
Hang about. The sun emits radiation in all directions. I can focus that. John Tyndall focussed IR from a metal plate emitting in all directions.
Are you saying that radiation from ice can be added to radiation from the sun, but at the same time it cant because its different?
You wrote –
* Ice is a very good IR emitter but a fairly poor solar receiver. It is a selective surface so it can get colder than dark soil with the same amount of given sunlight. *
You just made that up, didnt you? Gets colder with more sunlight? You are off with the fairies, Norman.
swenson…”The sun emits radiation in all directions. I can focus that”.
Both SW solar and IR can be focused. IR can be focused in an IE detector. Saw a vid once on the Net where they focused SW solar with a special lens and melted steel. Saw one where they used an ice lens with SW solar to start a fire.
Then again the solar temperature is 5000C+ at the source and the IR focused by a detector is a few milliwats…maybe even microwatts.
mark…”What we need is for some of the climate fearmongers to have an Eureka moment regarding sea ice”.
I have tried to bring it to the attention of alarmists that the Arctic and Antarctic have little or no solar input most of the year. Their alarmism re melting ice is about 1 month of summer even though water temperatures barely exceed 0C.
No matter how much CO2 you pump into the Arctic atmosphere, it can warm nothing with little or no solar energy.
A clean-up is under way
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8888735/Trump-administration-fires-NOAA-scientist.html
Eben
Clean-up was THE bread-crumb trail during ‘King’ Trumpie’s ‘reign’.
J.-P. D.
In his second term Trump will flush the Alarmistas out of the government
Yes Eben, all sensible people will have to go:
– Rex Tillerson
– Jim Mattis
– John Kelly
– Mike Mullen
– H.R. McMaster
– Fiona Hill
– Gary Cohn
– James Comey
– Andrew McCabe
– Dan Coats
…
S,
You would no doubt employ them, if you were President.
But you are not. You are just an alarmist donkey, trolling for effect.
He did employ half of them.
Nobodys perfect, is that what you are saying?
Silly snowflake Svante does not understand it’s necessary to crack a few eggs to build an omelet. “Draining the swamp” means some bottom feeders may not make it.
Snowflakes make great appeasers, aka cowards.
These people were not cowards, they lost their jobs because they spoke out:
– Rex Tillerson said he is a “moron”.
– John Bolton says “unfit for office”.
– Jim Mattis says “limited cognitive ability”.
– John Kelly thinks he is harming the US.
– Mike Mullen says it’s “impossible to remain silent”.
– John Allen says “awful for the United States and its democracy”.
– William McRaven says his “leadership was putting the nation at risk”.
S,
Yes, well. Trump is the President. The boss, if you will.
The people you list arent. They were employed, then they were fired, I suppose. Let them stand for election as President. Then they will be free to not hire the ex-President.
Fair enough?
No, silly snowflake Svante, YOU are the coward!
Rex Tillerson was a corporate lackey. He had been groveling for so many years he could not lead. He was supposedly an “oil and gas company executive”, yet he bowed to the AGW nonsense. Bolton would sell out his country to write a book. Mattis was talented and dedicated, but unwilling to think outside the box.
Trump wants problems solved, not just accommodated. Bureaucrats and bureaucracies that can only maintain the status quo don’t fit into a Trump Administration. Trump’s attitude is “Fix problems, or get out of the way”.
Yeah, a grandiose narcissist, just like you.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psq.12511
Trumps attitude is ‘Show loyalty to ME, not the Constitution’ else yur fiyed.
It makes sense that Nate and Svante hate Trump as much as they hate reality.
Yes, in your lunatic reference frame.
In the normal inertial reference frame it’s the other way around.
No, you idiots are filled with hate. That’s typical of cults.
Just look at your comments–attacks, insults, misrepresentations, profanity, the list goes on and on.
“No, you idiots are filled with hate.”
Yep.
When youve been lied to 20000 times, you begin to hate it.
I hate that a President tries to incite violence, and people think that is just fine!
“a group of Trump supporters in Texas, driving trucks and waving Trump flags, surrounded and slowed a Biden-Harris campaign bus as it drove on Interstate 35, leading to the cancellation of two planned rallies. The F.B.I. confirmed on Sunday that it was investigating the incident.
On Saturday, President Trump tweeted a video of the incident with a message, ‘I love Texas!’ After the F.B.I. announced it was investigating, he tweeted again, saying, ‘In my opinion, these patriots did nothing wrong,’ and instead ‘the FBI & Justice should be investigating the terrorists, anarchists, and agitators of ANTIFA.'”
Slowed a Biden bus?
Better investigate that those Trump flags are so intimidating obviously they need a safespace where they can’t see that stuff. LMAO!!!
eben…good news but this should have been done 4 years ago.
Much easier said than done.
Yes, because of the deep state.
Another word for people with brains and morals.
Nope! Deep state refers to a shadow state operating outside of the rule of law.
Cleaning out the alarmistas in my view means dismantling the propaganda state. . . .you know those guys that have been deceiving you for years with the grade school model.
You have bought a populistic and false view of the world.
Everything is someone else’s fault, China, Mexico, Canada, NATO, WTO, democrats, leftists, scientists.
Everyone is robbing you.
It’s a message that is very easy to sell, now and throughout history, because it appeals to our tribal instincts.
When did I say ”everything is someone else’s fault”
Stinks of a rotten red herring.
Trump has those ideas and you said you supported him here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/#comment-530479
In particular you sympathized with the “Battle of Seattle” which targeted WTO based on some mercantilist idea that trade does not benefit both parties, when in fact it has led to unprecedented growth ever since WWII.
The isolationism that you also advocate there failed miserably on December 7th 1941.
Boy have you ever bit on the hook!
The Battle of Seattle was a grassroots backlash of Union leaders and environmental leaders distressed that US protections for workers and the environment were being eroded by International agreements and the push toward an undemocratic higher court.
Fundmentally indeed it was anti-federalism like but manifested at the international level.
If you believe your protections are better under a democracy versus and aristocracy you shouldn’t just be opposed to growth of uncaring and undemocratic international control but actually insist that it reside at the local level.
I was impressed seeing all those democrats expressing essentially support for the principles of federalism. Just that too many of them have become brainwashed that government is there to help you. Indeed environmentalism is something to think globally about but all action needs to be local. I have 35 years of experience in seeing how that works better.
the only thing you need to divorce yourself from is thinking you know what is best for everybody else without even listening to everybody else.
So all you do is unwittingly provide support for the growth of the most corrupt empire ever known to man. I am sure its with good intentions, it always is, but ignorant is ignorant and you remain completely ignorant until you hear what everybody else has to say. . . .and the logistics and time for hearing that from everybody in the world just isn’t available. Thus action works best at the lowest level possible. . . .otherwise known as maximum freedom. I don’t care if you are talking about innovation, environmentalism, or jobs its the same for all.
The WTO promotes free trade and reduction of government control.
I know most people thinks globalism is bad, just like you do.
I disagree, free trade is the best foundation for the world economy (I know there are problems, the WTO tries to fix them).
I realize that Svante. The WTO wants you to trade with labor and environmental abusing (all to cut costs of production) with no tariff barriers and have the power to punish you if you don’t. That my friend is about as far from free trade as you can get. More like forced trade. Give up control over the despicable. Both environmentalists and people with jobs don’t want to have to compete with the abusers.
Svante over the past 20 years my portfolio has gradually increased to a point where international relations now comprise over half my business.
Free trade is a great concept and should be pursued bilaterally and sometimes multi-laterally is how we can maintain and protect our natural resources and ensure basic human rights, and ensure that wage earners are fairly paid and treated.
But turning over decision making from our courts to some international body composed of a mixed bag of free nations and dictatorships just is a plain old really dumb thing to do.
This is what the major world corporate conglomerates want because they know they can then bribe their way to doing anything they want. We are far from perfect on that too but we are many strides ahead of any other place I know.
But when over half the world still lives under authoritarian regimes where ordinary citizens can not criticize their government much less organize protests agreeing to world courts and judgements is simply wrong headed. I mostly work on environmental issues and I can say its improving but it still has a long long ways to go.
“The WTO’s agreements permit members to take measures to protect not only the environment but also public health, animal health and plant health.”
Those dictatorships will not improve by hindering their development.
so your plan is to give them a lot of money so they will improve?
Trade benefits both.
I know you can reward dictators with free trade especially when you take it out of the hands of nations to take unilateral action.
But who is both? People are not helped by enriching dictators where the citizens won’t see a red cent. Then the jobs it takes from others will cause harm. Where is the good Svante? So you can buy a new toilet seat for a few cents less not giving a fuk about who was forced to make it or whose honest job you took away?
bill hunter says:
I don’t mind pragmatism in getting rid of dictators, but in general there is a link between retarded political systems and economic underdevelopment. So in general, democracy is promoted by economical development.
Besides, Mexico and Canada are not dictatorships.
It is the seller and the buyer, and a transaction occurs when both gain, as long as it is voluntary.
This does not apply to the greatest example China.
No, it will causes growth when you reorganize production in a more economical.
You have full employment on average, so if you want to make more toilet seats you have to make less rockets, Teslas and internet services. Growth and profit will not be in toilet seats, coal and steel.
Aluminum tariffs can be last drop for Boeing.
Do you want to make toilet seats or aircraft?
You should let the markets decide, not government intervention.
Those people may have very bad conditions, but it is the best they can find, without it they have to find something worse.
Economical growth is a dynamical process, if you prohibit the first steps of the ladder you can’t climb.
Svante says:
”Besides, Mexico and Canada are not dictatorships.”
and we have a new trade deal with them that for the first time ever in a trade deal specifies some minimum hourly wages for Mexican employees. Thats good for both nations but would be prohibited under the WTO.
Thank Trump for that.
—————————————
”This does not apply to the greatest example China.”
It applies especially to China as China has adopted the fascist model of socialism complete with nepotism and favoritism as picked by the communist party who happens to be China’s Fuhrer.
—————————-
”You have full employment on average, so if you want to make more toilet seats you have to make less rockets, Teslas and internet services. Growth and profit will not be in toilet seats, coal and steel.
Aluminum tariffs can be last drop for Boeing.
Do you want to make toilet seats or aircraft?
You should let the markets decide, not government intervention.”
Svante, there are many considerations that you won’t consider when you choose to buy Chinese or American, you will just look to price vs quality. That’s fair enough.
But you as a democrat can’t just slam government competence willy nilly because you are for big government when you are a democrat, either that or you don’t know what the heck you are doing when you vote.
Under Obama his administration was claiming employment couldn’t be made higher, claiming full possibly employment. Trump proved that wrong.
Full employment is zero unemployment of anybody who wants a job. A small number will exist for those laid off seeking new jobs. So your argument above fails the test.
In addition there are other considerations you won’t consider as you make a purchase they are among others: national defense, US employment(established contrary to your argument), wage levels (yes tariffs can raise wages for reasons you haven’t even yet considered in your rush to zero tariffs), environment (one example would be environmental rules imposed on US fishermen for say the purpose of protecting an endangered turtle and instead a foreign fleet is not held to the same rules while fishing harming the same specie of turtle).
In order to understand how tariffs can affect trade you have to understand the difference between a natural ability to produce goods for a lower price and as democrats constantly point out the unaccounted for costs of environmental protection, unemployment, welfare, and domestic wages)
So yeah some tariffs are going to get the necessary job done and others might not. Nobody is going to have a perfect record of pursuing the strategy, like courts don’t always come up with the right verdict. But what you want to do is keep the court in the US with judges appointed by elected officials rather than have members of the court from authoritarian countries where its all unaccountable about their own personal pocketbook, their own families, and all the other nepotistic BS that keeps people poor in their own nations.
Look at China and their new crop of billionaire heiresses all children not of a free market nation but children of the communist party leaders. Its no different than giving money to the Queen of England though she is a pauper compared to many others and for some strange reason folks in the UK relish giving her money.
Svante says:
November 5, 2020 at 12:58 AM
not giving a fuk about who was forced to make it
Those people may have very bad conditions, but it is the best they can find, without it they have to find something worse.
Economical growth is a dynamical process, if you prohibit the first steps of the ladder you cant climb.
Svante says:
Those people may have very bad conditions, but it is the best they can find, without it they have to find something worse.
Economical growth is a dynamical process, if you prohibit the first steps of the ladder you cant climb.
———————————-
Svante you are obviously not good at all at strategy and tactics.
If you establish a mandate for free trade under WTO the dictator will make a lot of money. Gold plate his front door, erect golden statues for himself, and strengthen is grip over his people.
Denying him trade takes that away from the dictator.
That is taking away profits he could have if he makes a deal. If the deal only gets him smaller profits in return for actually helping his people he is going to take that deal because then he also can spend less on keeping an iron boot on the neck of his people because more of them will be happy.
Trade is a great negotiating tool and Trump is the first President who has demonstrated in recent history that he knows how to use it. Of course people will resist hoping he isn’t in office long and certainly he can’t be. But lets hope others have the guts to do what is right. Not doing what is right is an easy path to take I will agree on that. And taking the right path in a nation of selfish aholes is really really tough.
bill hunter says:
Minimum wages can create unemployment, it’s like telling poor people that they are not allowed to work.
No, the chinese people are much richer now than they were under Mao, and their incomes are growing faster than in the US.
Government should be minimal and interfere less with trade.
Unemployment because he was borrowing when he should have been holding back.
It was crazy and it couldn’t last, it would have caused inflation if he hadn’t mismanaged Covid as well.
The natural unemployment is about 4.5%, if you push it below that you will get inflation and economic failure. The key is to avoid ups and downs by keeping aggregate demand stable.
There may be environmental and military reasons, that’s OK, but trade benefits both, so tariffs destroy real incomes.
There is only one way to increase employment and that is to lower wage cost (barring structural reform etc.).
That is what you do when you limit trade.
Full employment is a separate issue that should be achieved by other means.
Yes, if the other country wins because of free carbon emissions you should absolutely put tariffs on them.
Yes.
Many of those billionaires made their money themselves in their own companies on free markets.
That’s an extreme case. Those countries need development, isolating them will perpetuate the situation.
If you’re talking about Saudi Arabia then OK, stop buying their oil.
Yes, some pragmatism might be good.
You have to be very careful about disrupting global logistics chains, the world economy doesn’t need any more disruptions than it already has.
Well we should agree that handing over the management of free trade to an international organization where dictators hold many seats is a brain dead concept. It is complicated by wise trade management is what made this nation great.
https://tinyurl.com/y2t632sv
Wikipedia:
Svante, why would you want to agree to anything like that?
For those of a poor grasp of physics the Eureka moment I referred to was when Archimedes came up with his theory
Archimedes’ principle states that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces. Archimedes’ principle is a law of physics fundamental to fluid mechanics. It was formulated by Archimedes of Syracuse.
So basically any free floating ice cannot displace any more water than the volume below the surface when it melts.
In simple terms melting sea ice at the north pole will not cause a rise in sea level.
Apparently the story goes he realised it whilst having a bath and shouted Eureka, a rough translation is I have got it.
Ramona This is taught at primary school in England. We have a childrens Science museum in Halifax (Yorkshire), where you could go to get some basic physics lessons. Google the museum and you can see a picture of a model to explain it.
Mark Wapples
One of the basics shared by many of these people I like to name ‘Pseudoskeptic’s is to think others wouldn’t know even simplest things like the fact that sea level is not affected by sea ice melting (apart from what bobdroege correctly mentioned).
A surprisingly high amount of these ‘Pseudoskeptic’s are retired elementary school teachers. Are you one of them, Mr Wapples?
In your teachy comment above (October 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM), you mentioned me personally. Could you please show me the place where you got convinced of me ignoring such trivial matter?
Thanks in advance.
J.-P. D.
JD, since you’re looking for examples of you ignoring things, here are two more:
* Is a ball on a string rotating about it’s axis?
* Can ice warm sunshine?
Also, since you’re learning English, did you know “ignoring”, ignore”, and “ignorance” all have the same root? Let me give you an example, to help you learn:
Is JD Bindidon ignorant because he ignores reality, or does he ignore reality because he is ignorant?
Glad to help.
Mark,
Maybe your Eureka moment could be that sea level rise with respect to the melting sea ice in the arctic is more complicated than a Greek in a bathtub.
Though I did name one of my cats after him, full name Archimedes Catapult Jones.
bob,
Its not more complicated at all. Even the NSF and NASA finally faced reality.
You are an idiot, unless you can explain why you think sea ice is complicated. It freezes. It melts. No rocket science involved.
No it’s not rocket science.
Once sea ice has melted, it’s more likely to catch heat from the Sun, then expand and contribute to sea level rise.
Because water catches and ice reflects.
So it’s not the actual melting part, it’s what comes after.
So yes, it’s complicated.
bob,
Catch more heat? Does it run faster, perhaps? Try providing the maximum incidence angle for sunlight at the Arctic Circle. Now provide the minimum reflectance for that angle.
Now you understand why even after 6 months of continuous sunlight in the polar regions, ice persists.
Now try and figure out why 6 months of no sunlight doesnt result in total sea ice cover.
The fact that you are an idiotic alarmist donkey might not help you to understand physics.
Swenson,
It’s enough to melt 10 million square kilometers each summer, and less than that refreezes each year on average.
The average minimum has gone down by about 3 million square kilometers.
“Try providing the maximum incidence angle for sunlight at the Arctic Circle. Now provide the minimum reflectance for that angle.”
Do your own research if you want to know the answers to some irrelevant questions.
The idiots believe too much ice warming the planet:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-546714
(It’s always fun when they get tangled up in their own nonsense.)
b,
You have noticed that ice melts in sunlight – sometimes?
Bravo. How is your water going, catching sunlight?
I didnt ask you to do any research for me – its obvious you need to do some for yourself. If you dont realise that light reflects off water differently at low angles of incidence, you need help.
Swenson,
I started using catching and releasing because I like to fish, and the blog doesn’t like certain words.
You have an answer for this
“Try providing the maximum incidence angle for sunlight at the Arctic Circle. Now provide the minimum reflectance for that angle.”
Or is it your own kind of gotcha?
Do you not live where it snows in winter, how well does sunlight melt ice and snow?
Methinks you were last in line for brains and the one you got was sorta rotten and insane.
bob,
You are becoming incomprehensible. If you dont want to learn about optics and light, I dont care. Not my problem. I suggested you might care to learn, but if you dont want to, fine by me.
You are obviously unaware that 6 months of continuous sun does not melt all the ice near the poles, and the Atlas Mountains in Morocco have perpetually snow capped peaks, in direct sun.
So give us some more diversionary alarmist donkey dribble. Another donkey might believe you.
Swenon,
The point was that sunlight heats water better than it melts ice.
blob, please stop trolling.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/78/11/ca78116a8dd3437107fc3c01ca6a33b3.gif
Mark Wapples,
replying to comments about melting arctic ice with a reference to buoyancy is known as poor framing, imho.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/10/warmer-climate-and-arctic-sea-ice-in-a-veritable-suicide-pact/
“Scientists refer to Earth’s surface reflectivity as its albedo, and to the vicious Arctic melting-warming cycle as a feedback. One action precipitates and reinforces another, in this case with Arctic warming and ice loss each accelerating the other. As a result, the Arctic is warming three times faster than the global average and its sea ice is quickly melting away. In summers between 1979 and 2012, Arctic sea ice had lost half its surface area and three-quarters of its volume. Some climate scientists described this rapid decline as the Arctic sea ice death spiral.”
RR,
Some self styled climate scientists are alarmist donkeys who believe in death spirals! Scary. Look out, the sky is falling! Its worse than we thought!
Blndidon
I apologise if you are one of the few climatologists who understands Archimedes principle, but if you look at the media and on line forums like Roys it is obvious most do not as frequently they attribute it to causing sea level rise.
If yo would actually consider the effect of melting the sea ice, you would find it would decrease the sea level as 4 degrees Centigrade is when water is at its most dense and I don’t believe there is much of the sea inside the arctic circle above that temperature.
As for the term pseudoskeptic and elemetary school teacher you are wrong on both accounts.
I do believe the climate is changing, i just believe the importance of C02 is overstated and being used by political and quasi-religous groups to spread their interpretation of what the world should look like.
Also as for being retired I am in the fortunate position of being financially secure enough not to have to work in either industry or full time teaching. I now work supporting Secondary Science teachers. Unfortunately even though they have good degrees they seem to missunderstand some basic physics and chemistry,
“I do believe the climate is changing, i just believe the importance of C02 is overstated and being used by political and quasi-religous groups to spread their interpretation of what the world should look like.”
Can you point us to the model you use to support this belief? If not, the rest of this statement is bogus.
thx
Wake up, Snape. Take a look out your window. It’s called “reality”.
Rejecting reality makes you an idiot, and then everything you say is bogus.
That explains it.
That’s what ClintR was doing during physics class, staring out the window, that’s why he didn’t pass the class.
Keep distorting reality, troll.
That’s all you’re capable of.
Mark Wapples
Thanks for the convenient reply.
1. ” I apologise if you are one of the few climatologists who understands Archimedes principle… ”
No need for apologies! I’m no climatologist, nor am I a meteorologist.
I like to process, evaluate and present data collected and provided by such people. That is the reason why dumb people, unable to do the same, call me an alarmist and pretend I would make faked graphs out of fudged data.
In French we say to such behaviour: “Plus bête tu meurs”, i.e. “Dumber you die”.
*
2. ” As for the term pseudoskeptic and elementary school teacher you are wrong on both accounts. ”
Good to know! I by the way apologise for having shown excessive polemic, itself due to permanently repeated ignorance and denial around us (see all these dumb posts about Einstein, viruses and… the Moon).
*
3. ” I do believe the climate is changing, i just believe the importance of C02 is overstated… ”
This will keep for a long time a rather fruitless debate in which both sides endlessly exaggerate their respective position, and ignorants endlessly repeat their unscientific nonsense.
I can only say that I respect and understand educated scientists writing that while H2O can’t bypass the tropopause because it is a condensing material, CO2 is present up to 50 km above surface.
In their opinion, this decreases, tiny bit by tiny bit, the amount of IR directly escaping to space.
I can understand that IR intercepted by H2O and, to a far lesser extent, by CO2, is only half reemitted to space, and this takes place, in the case of CO2, at much lower temperatures than for H2O (-60 C in the lower stratosphere), what reduces the energy of IR leaving Earth.
This is – especially on this blog – denied by people having at best 0.1 % of the knowledge of the people they discredit and denigrate.
Some of them even pretend that the heat produced at the surface by conduction and convection magically dissipates within the atmosphere, making IR escape to space unnecessary! OMG…
Best regards
J.-P. D. in Germoney
JD, got any answers yet?
* Is a ball on a string rotating about its axis?
* Can ice warm sunshine?
Mark,
“If yo would actually consider the effect of melting the sea ice, you would find it would decrease the sea level as 4 degrees Centigrade is when water is at its most dense and I dont believe there is much of the sea inside the arctic circle above that temperature.”
I have made the same mistake, fresh water is densest at 4 C, sea water is different, it’s density increases all the way to the freezing point as its temperature decreases.
b,
If that were the case, the sea ice would all be at the bottom of the ocean. It isnt.
You are making a different mistake, perhaps. Living in a fantasy.
Swenson,
You could check the facts I post, you know how to use google?
Ice is less dense than water, hence it floats.
bob,
So tell me, at what temperature is salt water densest? You may not believe that it is above freezing point, but it is. Fairly obvious, as sea ice is formed by freezing salt water on the surface – which is floating there because it is less dense.
On the other hand, you are extremely dense, and reality floats above you, always out of your reach.
Swenson,
“So tell me, at what temperature is salt water densest?”
What a dumb sofa king dumb question.
The density and melting point of salt water is determined by the concentration of the salt in the salt water.
“You may not believe that it is above freezing point, but it is.”
No, it’s not you sofa king stewart pedasto.
Salt water in the ocean at about 35,000 ppm salt, can be both solid and liquid at 28 F, so it’s most dense at the freezing point.
Apparently you are too sofa king stupid to have a conversation with.
blob, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 29, 2020 at 10:37 PM
rr…”FYI
IRISN4RAD: IRIS/Nimbus-4 Level 1 Radiance Data V001
The Nimbus-4 Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) Level 1 Radiance Data contain thermal emissions of the Earths atmosphere at wave numbers between 400 and 1600 cm^-1, with a nominal resolution of 2.8 cm^-1″.
Does it say on your graph that it came from Numbus-4? And do you understand that the data is essentially fudged using simulators and presumptions? They apply Fourier transforms to the data which is a means of synthesizing data using sine and cosine waves. It does not say exactly how they are applied but why do you need to synthesize data at all if the instruments are picking up real data?
As I said, the CO2 spectrum is overlain by the water vapour spectrum How does one go about extracting the CO2 data without using a whole lot of assumptions?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117718303375
……………
Yes, the image does say Nimbus-4 (NOT Numbus-4 of course, that would be retarded).
I know what Fourier Decomposition is (do you?). It is a common method in science and engineering for extracting the frequency content of a data train and there is nothing wrong with the process.
As to the paper you reference, it is a good example of data re-analysis utilizing new capabilities of hardware and software to extract even more information from old data. Again, there is nothing wrong with the approach.
Most important is the fact that the 1970 data clearly shows the bite out of the spectrum taken by the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
rr…I know what Fourier Decomposition is (do you?). It is a common method in science and engineering for extracting the frequency content of a data train and there is nothing wrong with the process.
Fourier synthesis is about creating a signal like a square wave from sine and cosine wave addition. I suppose you can take a square wave signal, or any other and break it into components of sine and cosine waves. It’s not clear to me with the Nimbus (not Numbus) signal if they are synthesizing the waveform using Fourier based on what they EXPECT to see. In other words, are they modeling the signal from artificial sources?
That’s what NOAA and NASA GISS are doing with temperature data. The are using models to rewrite temperature data, especially retroactively to what they think it should be. The NOAA leader who was just fired (demoted back to his old job) had the nerve to tell the US government they were the ones fudging the data to mean something else, like no exaggerated warming.
The climate division of NASA, and NOAA are climate alarmist loonies and I don’t trust them to give us the proper meaning of the graph you presented.
Swenson says:
October 19, 2020 at 6:28 AM
“RR,
Poorly. Thats why hurricane updates are at least 6 hourly. A 12 year old with 30 minutes instruction, a straight edge, and a pencil, can do about as well.
The atmosphere behaves chaotically. Even the IPCC recognises this. If you dont like chaos theory, the Uncertainty Priciple will lead to the same end result, using classical mechanics,”
………..
Chevron, Shell restoring Gulf production after Hurricane Zeta
Oct. 30, 2020 5:20 AM ET|
At least six people have been killed across Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia, while more than 2M people were without power after Hurricane Zeta slammed into the Gulf Coast.
It’s the 27th named storm this season, one less than the record set in 2005, and has halted up to 85% of offshore Gulf of Mexico oil production this week and nearly 58% of its natural gas output.
Crews have now begun returning to Gulf offshore facilities, with Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell redeploying personnel to restore production.
No thanks to your 12 year old prognosticator I will add. He will get another chance soon, no?
This is not the time to be playing pigeon chess.
Video from oil rig shows 50-foot waves in Gulf during Hurricane Zeta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYpCVdQs-vs
RR,
Yes. A 12 year old knows hurricanes can bring bad weather.
RR,
The 12 year old did just as well as the experts, * We think this is going to be a pretty gusty storm, said Robbie Berg, a hurricane specialist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami. *
The 12 year old predicted that if a hurricane formed, it would likely bring high winds and rain.
Seems he was right – again.
I understand the professional deniers saying something like that; I can’t understand you, their useful idiots, saying it though. Anyway I have to give credit for your tap dancing skills.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/78/11/ca78116a8dd3437107fc3c01ca6a33b3.gif
RR,
You are a fool. What is a professional denier, and what has that to do with the fact that a 12 year old can predict the future as well as your supposed experts?
Naive persistence forecasts are the benchmark. They should suit the GHE believers, who are very naive.
Even the IPCC says that It is impossible to predict future climate states. You think you know better than the authorities to which you appeal? How naive is that!
bobd…”The second law Clausius Statement is about heat, the greenhouse effect is about energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface.
And looking at the atmosphere like its doing something with nothin else involved is wrong, there is a two way transfer of energy involving the surface and the atmosphere anyway. Its not by its own means, it has help, or compensation”.
What kind of energy is being transferred, Bob? Electrical energy, mechanical energy, chemical energy, atomic energy? No…the energy claimed to be transferred is thermal energy which we know as heat. Climate and weather are about heat transfers so will you lay off with the generic energy bs?
The problems claimed by alarmists are global warming and climate change, both based on heat.
This is where the pseudo-science comes from, people using generic terms like energy or kinetic energy without specifying the type of energy. Pierrehumbert, who apparently has a degree in physics, and his little buddy Eli Rabbett, another Ph.D in physics, who teaches chemistry, are thoroughly confused about the difference between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics tried to explain the 2nd law to Eli. When they explained it to him, that the 2nd law is about heat transfer only, he came back with the lamest of observations that such an explanation would mean that in a system with two bodies of different temperature radiating in the direction of each other, one of the bodies would not be radiating. That’s the basis of his stupid blue/green plate pseudo-science.
Duh!!! No Eli, the radiation from the cooler body has no effect on the hotter body. That upholds the 2nd law and it is based in quantum theory.
*****
“You say
Being from a cooler source it lacks the intensity and frequency of EM to excite electrons in the hotter surface.
Remember the Bohr model? The one that explains how photons excite the electrons in the Hydrogen atom? Those photons are in the higher energy ultraviolet range.
That model doesnt apply to poly atomic molecules, which have lower energy states available to catch photons. They are able to catch infrared even from colder objects””.
***
Bob…this is one of the lamest claims you have ever made.
Here is a wiki article on the Balmer series of emission spectra of hydrogen. Note that the frequency range is from infrared through ultraviolet, depending on the orbital energy levels through which the electron drops.
It takes intense high frequency radiation like UV to raise the electron from the ground state to the 9th energy level and when the electron falls back to ground state it emits a UV quantum of EM. IR can only raise the electron from level 2-3 and when it falls back an IR quantum is emitted.
There are two other series, the Lyman and Paschen series, for little ole’ hydrogen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
Sodium, with atomic number 11 has has 11 electrons in multiple shells around the nucleus. It radiates EM in the visible spectrum due to electron transitions.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/sodium.html
The mistake you are making with polyatomic structures (molecules) is in your belief that something magical is going on in a molecule that cannot take place in a single atom, like transitions. The only difference between the single atom and the molecule is that certain electrons are shared in the molecule between two or more atoms. That does not mean those electrons cannot transition by absorbing EM or being heated.
There is nothing in a molecule that can absorb or emit EM other than an electron. An emitted quantum of EM requires a transition somewhere since it has an electrical and a magnetic component. The only particle in an atom capable of creating that EM field is the electron. Furthermore, the emitted EM has the frequency of the emitting electron, wther the emission is from a single atom or a molecule. Where else would the EM get that frequency?
From dipole vibrational modes Gordon.
https://tinyurl.com/y2n37cm3
S,
Ooooh! Very sciency! You havent really got the faintest idea what you are talking about, have you? Just an alarmist donkey imitating a parrot!
So tell us, if you will, the molecule having absorbed a photon of sufficient intensity to excite a vibrational harmonic frequency, what then?
You dont know, do you? Just more mindless links, trying to impress.
Still no GHE. Just a braying herd of donkeys, at times making human-like noises.
Swenson says:
Answer: Its energy will be shared back and forth by collisions with other molecules, and it will emit the energy again in all directions. This property is sufficient to create a greenhouse effect, like so:
| N | Dwn | In | Up | Heat | Note |
| 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | 160 | TOA |
| 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | 160 | Mid |
| 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | 160 | Surface |
Notes:
1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
2) Each layer N absorbs all incoming radiation.
3) Each layer emits what it receives, i.e. stable temperatures.
4) Emission is in all directions, fifty-fifty up/down.
5) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
6) No energy is destroyed (1LOT).
7) Heat moves from hot to cold (2LOT).
8) Without layer 2+3, layer 0 would emit 160 W/m^2 to space.
9) That corresponds to a lower temperature than that which emits 480 W/m^2.
Debunked in
1) https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-533163
2) https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-533191
3) https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534740
Silly snowflake Svante has no clue about the violations of physics he promotes. In his cult, reality is ignored because they believe they’re “saving the planet”.
Which violation would that be?
Heat moves from hot to cold, so 2LOT is fine.
You don’t get 480 W/m^2 or 640 W/m^2 from 160 W/m^2.
You get 160 W/m^2, or less.
Aha, you’re confusing heat and two way radiation.
Input – Output = Heat
Layers:
0) 640 W/m^2 – 480 W/m^2 = 160 W/m^2
1) 320 W/m^2 – 160 W/m^2 = 160 W/m^2
2) 160 W/m^2 – 0 W/m^2 = 160 W/m^2
The values on the left depend on T^4, the heat flow is the same.
Nearly 4 hours later and all you can come up with is that incoherent garbage?
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, so you have no clue how to communicate it.
You’re as pathetic as Snape.
Nice hand waving. Now give us your table and numbers in accordance with the notes.
Snowflake Svante, now you’re even sillier than your usual. Now you’re down at the level of JD Bindidon.
Rehab?
Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been thoroughly debunked all serious climate scientists.
“Thanks to two Germans (Gerlich and Tscheuschner of the TU Braunscheig – deeply embarrassing for this university), the absurd claim that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics even made it into an obscure physics journal – obviously there was no peer review to speak of. The bizarre article was promptly demolished by some US physicists. Just recently I read the claim again in an article of coal lobbyist Lars Schernikau – with such fairy-tale beliefs of its representatives, one is not surprised by the decline of the coal industry.”
G & T thoroughly demolished their “demolition” in a reply to the comment by Halpern et al.
Halpern et. al. falsify their falsification.
International Journal of Modern Physics B VOL. 24, NO. 10
COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS”
JOSHUA B. HALPERN, et.al.
Abstract
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.
Yes, G & T published a response to that comment:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
The various papers are definitely worth a deep dive into theoretical physics.
I just want to emphasize one point.
That point is the grade school model and the wrong implications that fluxes can add.
First, its imposed by graphics. To which G&T correctly note (and go into more detail in their response as to why) the following comment.
”On the other hand, there are many other fields, where a poorly defined graphical language is used, e.g. in business related topics, and, of course, in all kinds of brainwashing”
brainwashing exactly!! Here they are talking about my specialty.
Is that true? Even Halpern agrees in his attack on G&T. Halpern says G&T are addressing the issue and: trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process and we are systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earths surface and atmosphere;”
Interesting! Halpern has completely abandoned the grade-school model and left Nate, Svante, Bdgwx, Bob, Swanson and a whole bunch of others here stranded on ignoramus island.
And of course G&T respond:
”Contrary to what Halpern et al. state, we emphasize the importance of the non-radiative forms of heat transfer including convection and latent heat, e.g. already in Section 1.2. of our paper [3, 4]”
So the discussion moves into an entirely different realm than the adding of fluxes. And when you depart that realm the significance of CO2 moves right along with it. In my view what mainstream science has done is completely abandon the grade-school model at the surface that all our resident ignoramuses still ardently believe in. . . .and surreptitiously reintroduced it 10’s of thousand of feet above the surface. Complete nonsense!
Indeed science is moving on this issue and mostly its the grade school model grabbing an airplane and flying off in an escape attempt.
DREMPTY,
“Yes, G & T published a response to that comment:”
Yes, the famous we are physicists, they are chemists response.
One of the funniest comments in the entire greenhouse effect debate.
Bit more to it than that, blob, as anybody can read by clicking on the link.
Bob only reads the parts he wants to read.
Bill,
I read the whole mess when it first came out.
Fish wrapper.
DREMPTY,
The reason it’s funny is you have two non PhDs calling a Physics PhD a chemist.
Oh and it’s an ad-hom too.
And no, there’s not a lot more to it than that, why, because there is a greenhouse effect.
If you say so, blob.
DREMPTY,
You could look up the degrees and qualifications of the parties involved.
That is if you like.
Halpern has a PhD in physics.
Well aware of that, blob.
Everyone knows that greenhouses don’t work like the atmospheric GHE does. Is it really necessary to spend the time to write 40 pages (a third of the paper) convincing the reader of this fact? This is an old deniers’ trick.
Ramona Rivelino says:
Everyone knows that greenhouses dont work like the atmospheric GHE does. Is it really necessary to spend the time to write 40 pages (a third of the paper) convincing the reader of this fact?
==================================
The point isn’t that G&T are saying that the GHE is different than a greenhouse. The point of their paper is that there is nothing about the grade-school model, like adding radiant flux from a cool atmosphere, that can be found within the framework of physics.
Halpern essentially agreed and complained that G&T were not considering other non-radiant heat transfer processes at the same time.
G&T responded that Halpern’s criticism was unfounded.
Conclusion: Halpern is effectively arguing that without feedback you get zero warming from CO2’s radiation characteristics alone.
(feedback is defined as anything other than the absorp-tion and emission of CO2).
That’s a tacit agreement with G&T buried in a lot of other nonsense designed to impress everybody that Halpern still believes in a specific GHE theory.
It’s certainly a sword thrust into the heart of the grade-school model. As that is the model that purports to show a GHE formed strictly by radiation. . . .and leads many people ignorant of physics to start adding fluxes together to create one out of nothing.
G&T goes on to note that Halpern while appearing to the ignorant to have refuted G&T, essentially calling their destruction of the grade-school model a strawman, failed to offer a more complex model to defend instead.
==========================
==========================
==========================
Ramona Rivelino says:
This is an old deniers trick.
======================
LMAO! Yep! Except the denier was Halpern.
The GHE effect is not “formed strictly by radiation”.
If you send up additional heat by convection you get more radiation back down.
Increased temperature => increased radiation you see.
Svante says:
The GHE effect is not formed strictly by radiation.
If you send up additional heat by convection you get more radiation back down.
Increased temperature => increased radiation you see
=======================================
Of course Svante. That flows right out of the fact that G&T’s paper contended that physics doesn’t support creating any warming at all via the concept of backradiation alone.
Halpern replied in an agreeable way but indicated that G&T essentially overlooked the necessary non-radiation feedbacks to produce the warming.
But feedbacks from what? Halpern didn’t say. G&T explicitly noted he didn’t say. They then stated his reply was an opportunity to say that and produce a model that was defensible, and Halpern demurred from doing that.
Thus despite your misconceptions Svante, G&T still hasn’t been refuted. Perhaps somebody else besides Halpern should take a flyer at it. Why not? Because any physicist worth his salt knows G&T are correct?
bill hunter says:
“physics doesnt support creating any warming at all via the concept of backradiation alone.”
It does, by reducing heat loss = radiation – backradiation.
Svante says:
bill hunter says:
physics doesnt support creating any warming at all via the concept of backradiation alone.
It does, by reducing heat loss = radiation backradiation.
========================
LMAO! Oh Svante it’s so simple it seems!
This was G&T’s precise point.
Backradiation isn’t a limiting problem in the atmosphere or in any other convecting medium. G&T discussed that at length and in a way not capable of refutation. There is no greenhouse effect generated from any radiant slowing at all.
Backradiation only is a process of replacement while the system moves toward an equilibrium.
The radiation examples set up in the grade school model simply don’t achieve anything in a gas environment. After all the earth is a system.
The grade school model is simply a model (in a more apropos design similar to planets) of a series of concentric transparent diamond spheres levitated into the center of each larger one rotating in space and all filled with vacuums. Absolutely no relationship to our world thus inapplicable to our atmosphere which isn’t a series of gas ‘layers’ separated by impervious hermetically sealed layers of vacuum.
One must have sufficient brain cells and a will to understand to get beyond the propaganda of the grade school model. Here you are still espousing it.
Halpern did not challenge any of G&Ts calculations he simply stated that G&T was ignoring the gaseous atmosphere and processes within that which are subject to entirely different physical laws.
And here you are truly abandoned by any physicist that understands the situation while you continue to worship the diamond spheres. Just the uttering of the word backradiation as a warming mechanism is a sure sign of either a sucker or a propagandist. . . .often both. Backradiation doesn’t amount to any significant slowing of cooling. G&T clearly demonstrated that and Halpern did not refute any of that. And anybody with broad experience in insulation, especially radiant barriers, understands that.
From a physics theoretical point of view radiation may be a process that goes on within solids but conduction is an poorly understood effect preventing any unified theory between the various means of heat transfer. G&T seized on that and noted that any similar slowing from radiant exchange in the atmosphere would amount to insignificant warming. Halpern did not refute one word of that. He also demurred from even explicitly acknowledging the argument as it would be damaging to State and NGO propaganda efforts.
b hunter wrote:
Sorry, “back radiation” can cause a heated body to experience a higher temperature compared to a similar situation without it. You guys have still not bothered to refute my Ice Plate Demo and never yet explained the results of my earlier Green Plate Demo. In both cases, the energy provided by back radiation causes the heated plate’s temperature to increase. that is to say, the system’s temperature at equilibrium increases compared with the case without back radiation.
And, yes, the use of the term “Greenhouse Effect” represents a simple minded model of the physics, just as the ball-on-a-string is a poor model for orbital motion in the real universe.
Your ice plate demo only shows that radiative insulation works via reflectivity, not back-radiation…the results from your green plate demo were explained in the comments at the first Hughes experiment article. Also, Hughes’ experiments showed there was no green plate effect.
DRsEMT fails to understand that in my Green Plate experiment, both plates were painted with black paint that exhibited an emissivity near 0.94, which is a long way from a perfect reflector with emissivity 0.000. And, with my Ice Plate experiment, I intentionally used materials with varying emissivity to demonstrate emissivity’s impact on back radiation.
Hughes’ experiments were totally flawed, as I’ve pointed out numerous times. No, the balance weight didn’t have much impact as it’s surface was clean steel with low emissivity.
Question for the peanut gallery, is the DRsEMT/ClintR/et al. sock puppet actually Mr. Hughes?
I am not Hughes, and I am not ClintR. You can keep calling two different commenters by the same name if you wish, but it only makes you look foolish.
As do the straw men you attack.
The contention that CO2 molecules are too small to absorb IR photons because they are smaller than the wavelength of IR confuses light waves with photons.
The contention that the stefan-boltzmann constant is not a constant is flat wrong. In equation 28 they have substituted the constant term for I, the irradiance, in error.
I could go on but my time’s up.
Cheers!
I almost forgot, I do have one final comment.
Lunar rotation has been measured and studied since Apollo 11 via the Lunar Laser Ranging experiments.
Yes, I am aware of that. They mistake the moon’s change in orientation due to its orbital motion, for axial rotation.
Read Tesla on the moon’s rotation to get you up to speed on the basics:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
No idiot! Look up “Ranging”.
You seriously believe that the moon does not rotate? And that belief is based on Tesla’s ideas from 1919? Let me ask you this, what is the moon made of?
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 106, NO. Ell, PAGES 27,933-27,968, NOVEMBER 25, 2001
Lunar rotational dissipation in solid body and molten core
James G. Williams, Dale H. Boggs, Charles F. Yoder,
J. Todd Ratcliff, and Jean O. Dickey
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
Snape, is the ball on a string rotating about its axis? If you can’t answer that truthfully, then you have no interest in reality.
And, that makes you an idiot.
No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e. about its own center of mass. The moon orbits. An orbit is a rotation about an external axis, motion like a ball on a string, in which the same side of the object faces towards the center of the orbit throughout.
The Earth both orbits the sun and rotates on its own axis.
The moon just orbits the Earth.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Do you know that Cassini’s Laws preceded Tesla’s publication (if your reference is correct) by about 300 years? Yet Tesla was not aware of them?
Regardless, your references don’t have much scientific muscle.
🌛
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dumberry/cassinimoon.html
The Cassini state of the Moon
What makes you think Tesla was not aware of them? He just disagreed.
Snape, Cassini’s “laws” weren’t laws. They were his imaginations, not physical laws. That’s why they are so easily disproved.
Cassini was a fraud, when it came to Moon. He was trying to copy Newton, who had published his three Laws of Motion about 5 years earlier. So Cassini came up with his 3 Laws about Moon, all WRONG. Had Cassini studied Newton and Galileo, he would not have made his mistakes.
Cassini had some interesting contributions in other areas, so he was not a complete idiot. For example, he is credited with the “Cassini Identity”, which is very interesting for those intrigued by the Fibonacci Sequence.
“No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e. about its own center of mass. The moon orbits. An orbit is a rotation about an external axis, motion like a ball on a string, in which the same side of the object faces towards the center of the orbit throughout.”
Ramona, you see, these guys simply declare their own truth, 147 times or so, and it has no relationship to fact.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
October 31, 2020 at 6:33 AM
“No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis, i.e. about its own center of mass.”
Can you point me to a scientific publication that supports this statement; preferably post the year 1969. I don’t put much stock in websites. thx
Wrong Nate. We don’t take credit for it. It’s not our “own truth”.
To paraphrase Newton, we see so clearly because we are standing on the shoulders of Giants.
You should try some reality.
“Can you point me to a scientific publication that supports this statement; preferably post the year 1969.”
Newton published his work c. 1687. Now close to 3 centuries, it has stood the test of time.
Why don’t you like reality?
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-5584/2013/1450-55841301135T.pdf
Bottom of page 141, top of page 142.
Although your reference is dated 2013, it references a 1962 publication which in turn references Tesla’s 1919 publication.
Anyway, the year 1969 is important because the Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon and has produced data on the lunar rotation as well as the lunar orbital evolution, which are related to the distribution of mass inside the Moon and the interactions between its fluid core and the solid mantle.
thx.
P.s.: my only interest in this subject is from the Geophysical stand point. I couldn’t care less whether the Moon rotates on its axis or not, other then how we can extract information about its core from such data.
OK, Ramona.
Example of a REAL scientific publication on the subject.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2000JE001396
One more paper written by ‘complete idiots’
APOLLO LUNAR-DESCENT GUIDANCE by Allan R. Klumpp JUNE 1971
CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloDescentGuidnce.pdf
Imagine! They were dumb enough to believe in Moon’s rotation about its center of mass!
In page 20 resp. 33 of 76, you see the heresy…
J.-P. D.
Snape believes: “This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon and has produced data on the lunar rotation as well as the lunar orbital evolution, which are related to the distribution of mass inside the Moon and the interactions between its fluid core and the solid mantle.”
Wrong Snape. That is what you read, from sources you believe in, so you swallow it. That ain’t science.
All the reflectors allow is a way of measuring the distance to Moon. That’s all. That’s it. Nothing more. Trying to divine “rotation”, “orbital evolution”, “distributions of mass”, or “interactions between its fluid core and the solid mantle” is such “soft” science, it’s “squishy”.
We don’t even know if Moon is actually moving away from Earth or not. Discussion starts here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-545479
And ends here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-545671
https://cartoonmovement.com/_flysystem/s3/styles/product_detail_image/s3/cartoons/2019/07/first_moon_landing__nem.jpg?itok=8uEcI5iS
JD says: “One more paper written by ‘complete idiots'”.
No JD, I think you just found another link you can’t understand.
You found the idiot, and it was you.
An excellent paper relating Cassini’s empirical laws to today’s theories
Resonance Rotation of Celestial Bodies and Cassini’s laws
W. W. Beletzkii, 1972
https://tinyurl.com/y3w5b8mn
Nothing useful to coward people fraudulent enough to discredit and denigrate Domenico Cassini… without using their real name, of course.
J.-P. D.
Even China got attacked by the Moon rotation virus!
Chinese scientists reconstruct Chang’e-4 probe’s landing on moon’s far side
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-09/25/c_138420913.htm
” As a result of the tidal locking effect, the moon’s revolution cycle is the same as its rotation cycle, and the same side always faces the earth. ”
Incredible. Imagine! So-called ‘scientists pretending that tidal locking exists… OMG.
J.-P. D.
That’s another bogus one, JD.
Here’s a simple rule to help you: If a paper starts off with a false assumption, and then attempts to use the false assumption to “prove” something, that ain’t science.
Cassini’s “laws” are bogus just by inspection. No elaborate proof needed. The ball on a string is NOT rotating about its axis.
Can you admit the ball on a string is not rotating about its axis?
If you can’t admit that simple reality, then you’re part of the problem.
Ramona Rivelino says:
October 31, 2020 at 6:24 AM
You seriously believe that the moon does not rotate? And that belief is based on Teslas ideas from 1919? Let me ask you this, what is the moon made of?
==================================
Nope its just a case of you not seriously listening. Yes the moon rotates. . . .around the earth’s cog.
Yes, G & T published a response to that comment:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
Cheers!
Snape, if you continue to cling to that bogus equation, which is the basis for the GHE, blue/green plates, and the “steel greenhouse”, then you will be happy to know Earth should have an average temperature of 303K. But since we know the average is really 288 K, then something must be cooling Earth. And since radiative gases emit energy to space….
Gordon,
It’s pairs of electrons in poly atomic molecules that catch and release infrared.
If you actually took organic chemistry, you would know that.
Apparently either you never took organic chemistry as you claimed or you flunked the course.
b,
You must be joking, or suffering from delusional psychosis, like Michael Mann!
Do you bother reading what you write? Catch and release? Really?
swenson,
The blog doesn’t like certain words, get a thesaurus.
bobd…”Its pairs of electrons in poly atomic molecules that catch and release infrared”.
And how do they do that without transitions?
Gordon,
There are transitions, you would know that if you took organic chemistry like you said that you did.
bobd…”There are transitions, you would know that if you took organic chemistry like you said that you did”.
My claim was that absorp-tion and emission of EM from atoms, hence molecules, could only occur via electron transitions. You claimed I was wrong. Now you are admitting I am right.
No Gordon,
What I was claiming you were wrong about was the frequency, energy levels, rotation of the electron about the nucleus, and the single electron you were talking about.
And the frequency of the electron matching the frequency of the light.
And I know you were talking about electronic transitions, when the ones that deal with infrared are the vibrational, stretching and bending modes of polyatomic molecules. Different transitions.
You were using the Bohr model, which doesn’t apply to polyatomic molecules.
You were saying the electron, and I am saying pairs of electrons.
You have no idea of what you don’t know.
bob,
Give it a break. You havent a clue, but even worse, you cant even produce a useful description of the GHE!
Whats the point of all your nonsense? You dont seem to have one – just trying to troll (poorly, I might add) for no particular purpose. You even appeal to authority, and then disagree with the authority you presented as supporting you!
You want to push a GHE. Fine. First, you have to describe it fully enough so that others have an idea what you are pushing. You cant, of course. No one can.
Swenson,
I don’t have to explain the greenhouse effect to you because you won’t accept any explanation, because you don’t understand science you just deny everything, build mountains out of straw, and generally troll the site.
An explanation of the greenhouse effect is easy, a planet with water vapor and CO2 in its atmosphere would be warmer than one with out those gases, because they slow the rate of cooling of the planet by absorrrrbing infrared emitted from the surface and emitting it in all directions and transferring energy from other molecules in the atmosphere and also emitting some of that energy as infrared.
You are just going to say but it cools at night and you can’t heat something with ice, or some other anti science rhetoric.
bobdroege says:
Swenson,
I dont have to explain the greenhouse effect to you because you wont accept any explanation, because you dont understand science you just deny everything, build mountains out of straw, and generally troll the site.
An explanation of the greenhouse effect is easy, a planet with water vapor and CO2 in its atmosphere would be warmer than one with out those gases, because they slow the rate of cooling of the planet by absorrrrbing infrared emitted from the surface and emitting it in all directions and transferring energy from other molecules in the atmosphere and also emitting some of that energy as infrared.
You are just going to say but it cools at night and you cant heat something with ice, or some other anti science rhetoric.
=====================================
Here we have another example of an inculcated propagandist/ignoramus. You just spew out what you have been told and simply don’t understand the underlying issues.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-547731
Bill,
You don’t understand it and I don’t care for your opinion on who is an ignoramus.
You can leave the insults in the locker room or I can bring out the vulgarity, the denier side has first choice.
It appears they picked insults.
Most of us have figured things out for ourselves, rather than be inculcated.
Bob anybody who characterizes others in a scientific debate as being anti-science or a denier is in fact an ignoramus.
Bill,
Anyone who characterizes someone in a science debate as an ignoramus is in fact a science denier.
Obviously you don’t understand what an ignoramus is then Bob.
We are all ignorant of vastly more stuff than we know. If we are not cognizant of that, then its another layer of ignorance you labor under.
We are all ignoramuses by that measure.
The question is how ignorant are you of your ignorance? Those unaware are the most ignorant of all.
bobdroege says:
I dont have to explain the greenhouse effect to you because you wont accept any explanation, because you dont understand science you just deny everything, build mountains out of straw, and generally troll the site.
==========================================
Here we go the BS excuse of the century!
typically entails oh gee I am so smart but I am not going to explain it to you because you are so dumb.
================================
================================
================================
bobdroege says:
An explanation of the greenhouse effect is easy, a planet with water vapor and CO2 in its atmosphere would be warmer than one with out those gases, because they slow the rate of cooling of the planet by absorrrrbing infrared emitted from the surface and emitting it in all directions and transferring energy from other molecules in the atmosphere and also emitting some of that energy as infrared.
================================
Indeed GHG are a necessary element of the GHE as we know it. But thats not even an explanation of how it works, much less an explanation of how it varies. And of course you aren’t going to explain it because you can’t. In truth nobody has.
Bill,
This is just incorrect
“And of course you arent going to explain it because you cant. In truth nobody has.”
Because it has been explained ad nauseum to you and others.
I have explained it, and others better than I have done so too.
If you don’t understand it, that’s your fault.
bobdroege says:
This is just incorrect
And of course you arent going to explain it because you cant. In truth nobody has.
Because it has been explained ad nauseum to you and others.
I have explained it, and others better than I have done so too.
If you dont understand it, thats your fault.
=======================================================
So which explanation among the hundreds of different ones was the correct one Bob?
Bill,
Show me 100 different ones and I’ll pick the most correct one.
The one that best matches the data.
However, I doubt there are 100 different ones.
Maybe 100 different ways to say the same thing.
blob, please stop trolling.
After I pointed out that the Moons orbit is not circular, bobdroege responded as follows –
* Its 95% circular, and its from a prestigious ivy league school, and Bill Nye the science guy is from there.
I should believe you instead?
Have some more hay. *
95% circular is a completely useless statement, from an astronomical viewpoint. Sloppy indeed. Would you accept 95% of your wages as being close enough? How about a window with 95% of its glass?
Who is Bill Nye the science guy? What is special about the school he attended? Appeals to an unknown authority are unconvincing, particularly if he accepts 95% circular as a useful description of the Moons orbit.
You may believe facts, or reject them. Your choice. Nothing to do with me.
swenson,
“What is special about the school he attended?”
You’re don’t qualify to attend that school for one.
It takes a certain level of brains, and yours is kind of rotten and insane.
b,
Oh dear. If you appeal to the authority of someone unknown to me, you cannot blame me for being less than totally impressed, can you?
You may be right that I wouldnt want to lecture at your unnamed school, if you represent the type of student it attracts.
Swenson,
I cited the university, what’s the matter, you can’t read.
bob,
No you didnt. Lying again. Maybe you could try appealing to authority, if you cant think for yourself.
Swenson, yes I did.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-546487
b,
Hang on there! You dont even agree with the authority to which you appealed! Is the Moons orbit circular or 95% circular? How about momentum being transferred by gravity from the Earth to the Moon, slowing the Moon, putting it into a more remote orbit? Really?
If thats the standard of education you hold up as being worthy of emulation, I wish you the best of luck. Youll need it.
Yes Swenson,
The rate of rotation of the Earth is slowing down and the Moon is moving farther away from the Earth.
swenson…”Who is Bill Nye the science guy?”
He’s an idiot who wears a bow tie. He should complete his uniform with a red nose, face paint, and those big floppy shoes worn by clowns. Like Ronald MacDonald.
G,
Is he one of the Klimate Klowns? I thought they all dressed as bearded, balding, bumbling buffoons! You learn something new every day.
Swenson says:
October 30, 2020 at 2:39 PM
“RR,
You are a fool. What is a professional denier, and what has that to do with the fact that a 12 year old can predict the future as well as your supposed experts?
Naive persistence forecasts are the benchmark. They should suit the GHE believers, who are very naive.
Even the IPCC says that It is impossible to predict future climate states. You think you know better than the authorities to which you appeal? How naive is that!”
Glad you asked! Professional deniers are “experts” employed by the network of think tanks supported by fossil-fuel interests who make a living as merchants of doubt, following the exact same playbook used by the tobacco industry decades ago.
By repeating their bogus claims and not receiving money for it you have then become one of their useful innocents.
P.s.: cf. the American Institute for Economic Research.
RR,
You forgot to mention the relevance of professional deniers to the inability of your experts to out-predict a 12 year old.
Have you thought of addressing the facts? Maybe you could dig up a testable GHE hypothesis? How about a AGW theory? Ho ho! Only joking. Youve got nothing.
Keep dreaming.
Ramona Rivelino says:
Glad you asked! Professional deniers are experts employed by the network of think tanks supported by fossil-fuel interests who make a living as merchants of doubt, following the exact same playbook used by the tobacco industry decades ago.
By repeating their bogus claims and not receiving money for it you have then become one of their useful innocents.
======================================
What bogus claims?
Roy can I make a suggestion.
Could you set up seperate pages for the discusdion on the moon, the blue green plate experiment and the existance of viruses, so that these discussions which do nothing to enhance the debate on climate change can be removed from the main discussion allowing people to discuss more relevant ideas.
Not a terrible idea..
Mark, the “plates” issue is directly related to the climate issue. The other diverging topics show the politicalization of science. It’s a good way to learn what is happening in our world today. I didn’t realize people would willingly ignore reality, just to protect their false beliefs. Richard Feynman called it “cargo cult science”.
I really think there is a political divide on whether the Moon rotates. Even here.
dont think
nate…”Its a frame of reference problem”.
If the Moon is not rotating about its axis in it’s own frame of reference it is not rotating about its axis in any frame of reference.
And, no, the Moon is not rotating about it’s axis wrt the Sun. From the perspective of the Sun as your view point, a jetliner seen orbiting the Earth would change direction but the jetliner would not be rotating about its COG in any manner. If it did, it would crash.
So, explain why the jetliner acts like the Moon, keeping its underside side to the Earth, while not rotating about a local axis, yet it points continuously in different directions.
It’s a property of the orbit, mate. It’s the same as if the jetliner could travel along the ground for 25.000 miles on a straight line then the straight line was formed into a curve around the Earth. In flight, it’s doing the same thing as it would on the ground.
G,
The donkeys would disagree, and claim your circumnavigating aeroplane was rotating on its axis. Just the same as a boat circumnavigating the globe.
How about an aeroplane travelling at a speed which lets the Earth turn underneath it? Remaining fixed in place WRT the Earths orbit, no rotation. Travelling at the same speed, in the other direction, some would say it was rotating on its own axis, merely by travelling in the opposite direction! Probably breaking a few laws of symmetry along the way.
Oh well, alarmist donkeys just redefine words, laws, and the scientific method to suit whatever hare-brained idea they have latched on to.
It’s a frame of reference problem.
Like any other logical fallacy,if you choose axioms that support your beliefs you can “prove” anything.
The non-Profits have chosen the surface of the Earth as their only frame of reference so non-rotation makes perfect sense to them.
To anyone less parochial it’s nonsense, but belief is a powerful thing.
Entropic man, whenever you attempt to talk about anything scientific, you need to always disclose that you were tested positive for “idiot”.
If something is orbiting, but not rotating about its axis, the center of the orbit works as a reference point. Moon only has one side facing center of orbit. The ball on a string only has one side facing center of orbit.
Only one side facing = NOT rotating on its axis.
Reality–destroying false beliefs everywhere it goes.
All reference frames except one show the Moon to be rotating.
Relative to the Sun, it is rotating. Relative to the stars it is rotating.
A Foucault Pendulum or gyroscope at a lunar pole would show that it is rotating relative to the inertial reference frame.
Be honest with yourself. You believe that the Moon is not Rotating and have found the only reference frame which allows you to believe it.
That is naughty of you. Not good scientific method.
Incidentally, stop insulting people. I learned in my Debating Society days that only losers resort to insults.
Wrong-o Entropic man.
In all your “reference frames”, you omitted the only one that counts — the ball on a string winds up the string, if it is rotating about its axis. You are an idiot for denying that reality.
And your choice to be an idiot is not my fault. Take responsibility for your decisions in life. Quit blaming others.
A string joining the Moon to the Sun will wind 13 times round the Moon in one year.
How can this happen if the Moon is not rotating?
The moon is rotating. Just not on its own axis.
yep in face for anybody experienced at wrappng string up on a rotating device will find it difficult if the rotation provides slack in the string with each revolution.
Let’s try to comfort Mark Wapples with another faked graph, as usual made out of fudged data (UAH’s excepted, of course).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Zyz99oPVBbXThNbHWGqUEv-zB15YTTY/view
The graph was made in order to try to convince hard ‘Skeptic’s that the Arctic is very well warming since beginning of the satellite era.
‘Skeptic’s love to restrict their consideration to less than half of the era (where the trend of course keeps perfectly flat).
*
That the integration of GHCN daily and HadSST3 grid data keeps lower in trend than RSS4.0 LT: that is due to the fact that both series (1) are unadjusted, and (2) lack any grid cell interpolation.
The consequence – ignored by about 95 % of interpolation and gridding detractors – is that each empty grid cell has the same temperature as the global average over the grid. Simple arithmetics…
J.-P. D.
Yet another faked graph from Binny.
To any alarmist donkey who fancies himself cleverer than the average.
Why can I use 300 W/m2 from sunlight to light fires, turn steel white hot, and boil water, when 300 W/m2 from ice can achieve none of those?
Trenberths back radiation exceeds 300 W/m2. What temperature is it? Can I use it to boil water, or light a fire? Or is it as cold as ice?
Go for it, oh wise and learned donkeys! The world awaits your answer!
Swenson,
Radiation doesn’t have a temperature and you don’t understand averages, did you even finish grade school?
Good question.
Focusing sunlight with a lens is equivalent to bringing it closer. It takes up 0.5 degrees of angle in the sky. Using a lens you can make it take up 5 degrees, for example. That makes it hotter.
Sky radiation is coming from the whole sky. 180 degrees of angle.
There is simply no way to bring it closer, no may to increase the angle.
Nate,
So if I use a smaller piece of ice emitting 300 W/m2, and use a magnifying glass to bring it closer, that would make it hotter?
Or is 300W/m2 from backradiation somehow different from 300 W/m2 from the sun? Trenberth and some NASA alarmist donkeys seem to think they are the same, adding and subtracting fluxes with gay abandon!
Are you telling me they dont understand what they are doing?
Swenson,
What don’t you understand about how the downwelling IR and the Solar radiance are different?
Nate told you how they are different.
Methinks you didn’t understand him.
One is from a 1/2 degree diameter circle in the sky, and one is from the whole sky.
blob, please stop trolling.
bobd…”I started using catching and releasing because I like to fish, and the blog doesnt like certain words”.
What possible joy could anyone get out of enticing a fish into swallowing a hook, pulling it from its environment, then releasing it. No awareness of the plight of other life and that seems to extend to your lack of awareness of human beings. You are willing to impose your views about catastrophic global warming on others even though they will suffer for your perverted solutions and you have no scientific proof it even exists.
Gordon,
You don’t know what my views are on catastrophic global warming.
I’ll give you one though, that phrase is a deeniiier straw man.
bob,
So what temperature is Trenberths 300+ W/m2 of back radiation? Can you look at your GHE description and let us know?
If you havent actually got a GHE description which mentions back radiation, then both are irrelevant straw men. You might have to resort to pointless comments and diversion, if you find you dont really know what you are supporting, dont you think?
Swenson,
I don’t call it back-radiation for one.
The greenhouse effect is simply the emission of radiation by gases in the atmosphere that are abysorbbed by the surface, the surface retaining the energy from that radiation.
You know radiation doesn’t actually have a temperature, and if you don’t understand that, it is quite pointless talking to you as you lack some basic understanding of how radiation interacts with matter.
bobd…”The greenhouse effect is simply the emission of radiation by gases in the atmosphere that are abysorbbed by the surface, the surface retaining the energy from that radiation”.
Actually, that theory seems to have gone out of favour since it is obviously contradicted by the 2nd law. The other one is more in favour, that GHGs act as a blanket to slow down heat dissipation from the surface, as a blanket keeps a person warm in bed. There are problems there in that a blanket keeps a body warm by slowing conduction and preventing convective currents from robbing the body of warm air next to the skin.
Physicist/meteorologist Craig Bohren called the blanker theory ‘plain silly’. He did not think much of your theory either. Neither did R.W. Wood an expert on gases like CO2. He did not think glass in a real greenhouse served to block IR, he thought warming in a greenhouse was due to a lack of convection.
You have yet to explain why IR from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere can transfer heat to a warmer surface that is claimed to warm the GHGs via radiation from the warmer surface. According to your theory, that radiation can be recycled to raise the temperature of the surface that emitted them. Neat trick, but it makes me wonder why such a perpetual motion has not been incorporated into homes for central heating units.
bob,
That wont do at all. The surface doesnt even * retain * the energy from radiation from the sun! You may have noticed the surface cools at night, no matter how brightly the sun shone during the day! So surface heating by the atmosphere, at night, seems to result in cooling. Funny GHE, eh!
I am heartened to see you have abandoned the concept of back radiation. It was pretty silly, wasnt it?
You still havent described the GHE. Is it supposed to result in hotter surface temperatures than the sun produces?
In relation to radiation not having a temperature, hmmmm. Previously, you seemed to think that adding fluxes resulted in higher temperatures, but no matter. Can I take it that you now agree that the Trenberth energy balance diagrams touted by NASA and associated climate donkeys are completely worthless, in terms of establishing temperatures?
I am also glad you have started to realise the implications of light interacting with matter. No GHE, but you might need to do a little more study. Keep it up!
Swenson,
You realize that night comes after day, the surface also release energy in the form of infrared during the day.
And yes I have described the GHE, you just don’t understand what I posted about it, apparently that understanding is beyond you.
Yes, adding fluxes can result in higher temperatures, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t it depends.
The Trenberth diagrams are not for determining temperature, silly, they are for determining the energy balance.
Yes there is a greenhouse effect, you just saying there isn’t one, well mother nature doesn’t believe a word you say.
Gordon,
You still don’t understand the second law, the atmosphere can transfer energy to the surface because the surface is transferring energy to the atmosphere, there is compensation according to the Clausius statement.
There is no perpetual motion, just recycling of energy that is already there.
There are mylar blankets that keep someone warm just by blocking radiation.
Sorry bob, but it is you that is still unable to understand the second law. The “compensation” is referring to work being added to the system. You are trying to claim the energy coming back from the atmosphere can reheat the surface it was emitted from. That is the
perpetual motion” Gordon is talking about. It doesn’t happen.
You won’t be able to understand because you are an idiot. This is just in case anyone else is interested.
bobdroege says:
There are mylar blankets that keep someone warm just by blocking radiation.
================================
LOL! Sometimes a little knowledge can be really dangerous.
If you decide to get into engineering human habitats you are going to need to consider a lot more.
ClintR,
So you are saying downwelling infrared is doing work on the system.
Ha, good to know.
So some of that work is converted to waste heat and extra entropy.
Also good to know.
By the way, just saying anything anything that pops into that vacuum of a brain you have, may not be the best course of action.
Bill,
Why would I get into any kind of engineering,
The brain chemistry is doing allright, will take me all the way to retirement.
And the SPECT clouds on the horizon may bring more rain than I can handle.
bob still cant actually describe his silly GHE. Nor can he actually demonstrate this miraculous myth. All he needs is a heat source, a thermometer and some GHG.
He just needs to be able to show that increasing the amount of GHG between the heat source and the thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
Of course he cant, because the concept is nonsensical. The addle-pated maunderings of alarmist donkeys – Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth . . . Never has so much been wasted by so few to achieve so little ( credit to Winton Churchill).
Gee up, donkey! There is still a long way to go!
Swnenson,
“bob still cant actually describe his silly GHE. Nor can he actually demonstrate this miraculous myth. All he needs is a heat source, a thermometer and some GHG.”
I have described the greenhouse effect.
I have a heat source, it’s the Sun Stewart.
I have a thermometer Mr. Pedasto, look at the chart at the top of this page.
I’ll refer you to the Keeling curve for the last one.
What else you got?
indeed all that stuff is handy for you Bob. now all you need is an experiment with the proper controls
Bill,
Do you have another Earth in your back pocket?
If not we will have to make do with computer models.
bobdroege says:
Do you have another Earth in your back pocket?
If not we will have to make do with computer models.
=====================================
If any of the tripe about fluxes adding and backradiation you are pedalling around here actually worked why would you need another earth?
The reason is because you are so ignorant of the issues you only think you do and you have heard others say thats what is needed.
Bill,
If you were actually paying attention, and you’re not, you would know that I don’t peddle the back radiation line.
Try actually refuting the notion that fluxes add, instead of spitting your binky.
Try that, instead of attacking the arguer, try attacking the argument.
Is that what they taught you to do in philosophy school?
Did you make captain of the debate team using those tactics.
“The reason is because you are so ignorant of the issues you only think you do and you have heard others say thats what is needed.”
Right, except I have actually done the work in Quantum Mechanics class to predict the energy levels that photons interact with in the CO2 molecule.
So I have actually done some work on the subject, not just regurgitate what I learned on climate denier blogs like what you do.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
If you were actually paying attention, and youre not, you would know that I dont peddle the back radiation line.
==========================================
Thats good! I wrote a piece around here on how fluxes add and how they do so as a form of view manipulation.
So if you don’t back the idea of backradiation creating a flux that warms the surface we are good to go on that.
Bill,
Oh that’s good,
The reason I don’t like the back radiation term is that CO2 in the atmosphere gets energy from several sources, not just the radiation form the surface.
Bill,
So do fluxes add or is that just tripe?
One has to be incredibly careful how one goes about adding fluxes, especially if you are wont to count backradiation as a flux. Each flux you add needs its own unique source of power and it needs it own unique viewspace as well.
If you count backradiation as a flux you have created a perpetual motion machine that has no upper limit. I may be standing on ground at roughly a mean temp of 289k and looking up at a sky at 277k. Add the fluxes and you get 730w/m2 that’s obviously wrong.
Nate does it by using Trenberth’s numbers adding 161w/m2 to 333w/m2 sky radiation minus 97 w/m2 convection, minus 1w/m2 imbalance and gets 396w/m2 which is correct, at least in total, but its a budget of what is and not a process of getting there.
But between the two you can tell its not backradiation doing it because you come up with different figures in the two examples.
In addition the discussion between Halpern and G&T concluded the same thing that G&T was picking on backradiation unfairly as an assessment of the GHE. I can agree with both sides and G&T made the correct response that they were just attacking the popular theory that is barked over the internet and elsewhere. Then they suggested that Halpern should put the model he thinks works up for public criticism, a request that was met with the sound of crickets as it is sometimes is in here, but most frequently with resurrections of that which we already know to be debunked.
Nate did it after pointing out some antique literature on the topic that he agreed did not rise to a level of the science being there yet. Then he argued the models have proven it since. 30 blackbox models that widely disagree with each other, none picked as the correct one and essentially all of them living in black boxes.
So I am supposed to be certain of outcomes that they just averaged together? LMAO! How can you guys be so stupid? One cannot even call it a con job! Its more like a contract that the terms of which are clearly worded out and very much not in your favor.
bill hunter says:
“If you count backradiation as a flux you have created a perpetual motion machine that has no upper limit.”
Not a very good one since – according to Trenberth – you put in 531 W/m^2 and get 333 W/m^2 back. LMAO.
Swenson,
By the way, I was reading up on Gin and Tonic,
Do you want to know how they would answer this question of yours?
“So what temperature is Trenberths 300+ W/m2 of back radiation? Can you look at your GHE description and let us know?”
You will find that I agree with Gin and Tonic on the subject of Swenson’s thermodynamic expertise.
There isn’t any.
blob, please stop trolling.
bob doesn’t know where to find the correct one unless its given to him.
After all its probable that the only one he is aware of is the one his daddy talked about.
rr…quoting Eli Rabbett aka Josh Halpern…”Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earths surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process…”
********
This proves the confusion not only of Halpern but also Peirrehumbert who is the resident guru at realclimate. They simply do not get it that with two bodies of different temperature, that heat can be transferred only from the hotter body to the cooler body. That is the 2nd law, it is about the transfer of heat from a hotter body to a cooler body. The 2nd law does not cover heat transfer from the cooler body to the hotter body because it’s an utter contradiction of the 2nd law.
What’s more, they don’t get it that heat from the Sun cannot travel through a vacuum nor can heat be transferred through the atmospheric gases with any efficiency. It is the EM (IR) radiated that must supply the heat IF IT IS ABSORBED BY A MASS. According to quantum theory, it is not possible for EM from a cooler body to be absorbed by a hotter body. It lacks the intensity and frequency to excite the electrons in the hotter mass to the even higher quantum energy levels required for an increase in heat.
Therefore it is not absorbed. Neither Halpern nor Pierrehumbert understand that.
These rocket scientists think heat should be transferred both ways and that’s why Halpern stuck his foot in his mouth when he claimed, according to G&T’s claim that heat was transferred hot to cold only, that one of the bodies would not be radiating. This is beyond stupid it is an indication of physicists failing to understand the basic laws of thermodynamics, and of physics.
G&T replied to Halpern that the 2nd law is about heat (duh!!!) and that any quantities added must be heat quantities (implying…not EM quantities). Double duh!!! The rocket scientists think that heat transfer by radiation applies to EM as well and they are using Stefan-Boltzmann on heat transfer. Of course, S-B said nothing about using their equation for a two way transfer of anything.
It’s plain what has happened. Mathematicians have looked at the S-B equation, which was created for one body radiating EM and thought they could apply it to calculate a net heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures by combining the equations for each body. They failed to understand that the 2nd law defines heat transfer, by its own means, in one direction only.
The paper by G&T refuting the GHE was brilliant. It not only covered the history and why it is wrong, it used advanced math to explain why the GHE cannot exist. Gerlich taught math for thermodynamics. He understand the relationship of heat transfer intimately whereas those criticizing G&T haven’t got a clue, like Halpern and Pierrehumbert.
I had frost on my lawn this morning even though the thermometer never dipped to 32 degrees. Hmm!
RR,
You obviously know nothing about radiation and low level inversions. Standard for alarmist donkeys,
Climate science? Hmmmmm.
binny…”Imagine! They were dumb enough to believe in Moons rotation about its center of mass!”
Astronauts are hired based on their ability to kiss butt, not on their ability to think outside the box. They do what they are told and believe what they are told. Come to think of it, you would be a good astronaut.
binny…upon reading through your Apollo landing procedure, you really need to pay attention to what is being said.
As the Lunar module approaches the landing site its reference frame is an electro-mechanical unit (gyro) that determines the LM’s x,y,z coordinates. Every other motion is wrt that platform.
Another definition is a line from the centre of the Moon through the landing site. That line is an extension of the radial line from Earth’s centre through the Moon so it is rotating about the Earth’s centre (presuming a circular orbit).
Since the LM has its own reference frame, of course that line from the Moon’s centre through the landing site will be rotating, not about the Moon’s axis, but about the Earth’s centre. As such it will be rotating wrt to the LM’s inertial frame and will move wrt it.
You have to understand that once the LM departs from the mother ship it is on its own and is subject to other forces including the Moon’s gravity, Earth’s gravity, solar gravity, and it’s own propulsion. That’s why it needs its own reference frame as determined by the gyro. As such, everything in motion affects it and the Moon is in motion around the Earth, but it is not rotating about its own axis. It is rotating wrt to the LM, however, but that rotation is related to its orbital position.
Why do you persist in appeals to authority to compete in arguments when you have no idea what you are talking about? Furthermore, you don’t want to understand, you just want to be contrary.
correction…”That line is an extension of the radial line from Earths centre through the Moon so it is rotating about the Earths centre (presuming a circular orbit)”.
Should read…”That line is related to an extension of the radial line from Earths centre through the Moon so it is rotating about the Earths centre (presuming a circular orbit)”.
Gordo wrote:
The LM’s gyro based 3 axis device provides a measure of rotation in inertial space, which is used to control the LM as it descends to the surface. Once on the Moon’s surface, such a device of sufficient resolution would show the Moon to be rotating in that inertial reference frame, as you note. Inertial space is not a property of the LM or the Moon, but a celestial reference provided by gyroscopic forcing, which keeps the three axes oriented in the same direction regardless of the motion of the LM.
Conclusion, The Moon is rotating around it’s CM in inertial space, which is the ultimate measure of that rotation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-536698
Pseudomod
Why do Pseudoskeptics like you and ClintR persist in giving trivial answers to complex questions?
You manifestly all did not understand even a tiny bit of E. Swanson’s comment!
This is so boring…
J.-P. D.
No JD, we did understand Swanson. That’s why we offered corrections. He’s wrong. He confuses orbting with rotating about an axis. He can’t leave his false beliefs.
It’s the same with you….
Bindidon, you manifestly do not understand the “Non-Spinner” position…and you are very boring…
Conclusion: E. Swanson doesn’t have a clue about orbital motion. Moon is NOT rotating about its CM axis in inertial space. It is orbiting. E. Swanson doesn’t understand that a body that is ONLY orbiting will appear to idiots as if it were rotating. It’s the same motion as the wooden horse bolted to the MGR, or the ball on a string. Neither is actually rotating about its axis.
E. Swanson clings to the nonsense because he believes it will make him look smart.
It’s not working for him….
so swanson have you put your gyroscope on the edge of a revolving merry-go-round?
b hunter, No, I don’t have an inertial guidance system to play with. BTW, that would include three gyros, not just one, each oriented orthogonal to the other two. One might achieve a similar result with one gyro mounted in a three axis gimbal, with the gyro’s axis of rotation being horizontal. That would indicate that the MGR was rotating, no big surprise there.
Yes, the MGR is rotating. So put the gyro towards the outside edge of the MGR, and draw a circle around it in chalk. Rotate the MGR. Are the chalk circle and gyro rotating on their own axes, just because the MGR is rotating? Or are the chalk circle and gyro merely rotating about an axis in the center of the MGR…same as all other parts of the MGR?
What would the gyro tell you is happening, from the inertial reference frame?
ditto
b hunter, I suppose that “ditto” means that you agree with DRsEMT. Of course, there was no mention of mounting the gyro in a gimbal or orienting the gyro’s axis horizontally to begin with. The basic point is that the gryo’s axis stays put while the MGR rotates, that is, it continues to point in one direction as the MGR rotates. Or, one could also place the gryo in the middle of the MGR and one would see the same result. From a viewing position on the MGR, the gyro would appear to be rotating in the opposite direction of the MGR.
MikeR did gyro measurements with his phone lying on a turntable in:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2020-0-44-deg-c
Turned out it was rotating.
Exactly, Svante. That was the point I was trying to make. A gyro will detect changes in orientation, which is mistaken for axial rotation. Such that you are led to the ridiculous conclusion that a mobile phone just resting towards the outside edge of a turntable, is rotating on its own axis! Even though it is not rotating on its own axis, it is merely rotating about the center of the turntable.
E. Swanson says:
b hunter, I suppose that ditto means that you agree with DRsEMT.
================================
Ditto was I had the same questions and requests. I have a gyro in my head and have been on a merry-go-round.
=========================
=========================
E. Swanson says:
Of course, there was no mention of mounting the gyro in a gimbal or orienting the gyros axis horizontally to begin with. The basic point is that the gryos axis stays put while the MGR rotates, that is, it continues to point in one direction as the MGR rotates. Or, one could also place the gryo in the middle of the MGR and one would see the same result. From a viewing position on the MGR, the gyro would appear to be rotating in the opposite direction of the MGR.
=========================
So yes the answer from your gyro came up with a big yes that the merry-go-round is rotating. Excellent.
b hunter wrote:
OK then, mounting three gyros orthoginally in the gimbal on the Moon and it would also prove that the Moon rotates. If one could find the old NASA LM data, I suppose it would indicate that as well. QED.
Way to miss the point, Swanson.
Yep doesn’t matter if its a MGR platter or a tidal locked moon. . . .same deal.
b hunter wrote
We agree then. Both rotate in inertial space. Being tidal locked has nothing to do with the fact that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
The moon does indeed rotate, Swanson…
…about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.
The motion is referred to as "revolution", or "orbiting".
Yep ”rotates one and orbit” is a redundancy.
typing too fast.
”rotates once an orbit” is a redundancy.
Robertson
Again, a series of incredibly ignorant, dumb comments, written by a person who manifestly lives in such stupid, permanent denial.
If at least you were a person with a really scientific education, a real engineering experience AND were inhabited by sound skepticism, some here could understand. But you lack ALL THAT.
Never and never will you ever have acquired enough science to contradict people like Beletzkii and so many others:
Resonance Rotation of Celestial Bodies and Cassinis laws
W. W. Beletzkii, 1972
https://tinyurl.com/y3w5b8mn
*
Luckily, boasters like you, deliberately ignoring, like Tesla and a few others, that Moon rotates at about 4.6 m/sec at its equator, never have had anything to do with things like preparing Moon descent and ascent procedures.
Imagine ignorants a la Robertson having programmed a rendez-vous of a Lunar Module with its orbiting station one day after landing, without taking care of the fact that at ascent time, the module is, wrt the orbiter, distant by about 400 km. OMG….
*
Regardless what people like you write about, Robertson: Moon’s spin about its axis, Thermodynamics, energy balance, Relativity, time dilation, GPS, weather stations or satellite readings, viral diseases etc etc etc: it’s all trash.
Trash you publish HERE for the one and only reason that no other blogger would allow you to do that anywhere else.
J.-P. D.
JD, it’s as simple as a ball on a string. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around the ball.
It’s just that simple.
A string joining the Moon to the Sun will wrap around the Moon 13 times each year.
The Moon is rotating.
…but not on its own axis.
Moon is orbiting Earth, as Earth orbits Sun.
So the Earth-to-Moon string would not wrap around Moon, since Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Blindidon.
Thank you for the graph.
However without the context the data was derived it is a bit meaningless
A one degree anomoly at minus 50 degrees centigrade would be irrelevant.
Yes it is warmer, but would not effect the outcome.
A 1 degree rise at zero degrees would.
This as I think you are trying to suggest is plucking data to fit a narative.
Unfortunately in the UK I am seeing the same effect with covid data.
E.g. NHS ICU beds overwhelmed by covid patients (10 percent were covid), most of the rest were people who wouldn’t have been there if normal operation of the NHS had been supported.
I am becoming of increasingly wary of using data to find correlations and academics assuming causation.
Hello Mr Whapples…
I apologise, but… in comparison with me you are the really blind person.
The graph shows above 60N, even for the coolest time series ‘UAH6.0 LT’, a tiny little bit of warming: 0.25 C / decade, 0.4 for the series merged out of land and sea surfaces, and 0.45 for the heavily discredited LT series ‘RSS4.0’.
That is two times more than for the rest of the Globe. Luckily, places like the Antarctic keep rock-solid.
It’s not dramatic: it is as it is.
*
Concerning COVID-19, feel free to ‘suppose’ it is exaggerated! I just need to have a look at France, Italy and Spain to build my own meaning, thank you for trying to help.
Here in the rich Germoney, we luckily still have lots of ICU beds free, but we begin to dramatically lack qualified personnel. Some people in the hospitals work 12 hours a day since months.
Have a good Sunday, Sir!
J.-P. D.
JD, if it weren’t for CO2 cooling, all the ice in the Arctic would have melted long ago.
As your nonsense teaches, 4 ice cubes can raise the temperature above water’s boiling point:
((273)^4 + (273)^4 + (273)^4 + (273)^4)^0.25 = 386 K (113 C, 235 F)
And there’s a lot more than 4 ice cubes up there!
Swenson says:
October 31, 2020 at 4:19 PM
“RR,
You forgot to mention the relevance of professional deniers to the inability of your experts to out-predict a 12 year old.
Have you thought of addressing the facts? Maybe you could dig up a testable GHE hypothesis? How about a AGW theory? Ho ho! Only joking. Youve got nothing.
Keep dreaming.”
Regarding your 12 year old (wink wink nudge nudge), I just finished my 2021 budget and had to rely on predictions from experts and their models for the amount of down time to factor in due to weather events. Next agenda item is review and update of the five year plan. None of this makes any sense to you of course since you live your life in 6 hour increments, but in the real world you have to plan ahead, way ahead.
Regarding your second question, are you asking me to provide you with statements of the GHE hypotheses? How can you oppose something that you cannot even enunciate? Here is a clue for you, to falsify or disprove a hypothesis you first state the null hypothesis; next you build models and systematically collect and analyze data and determine the statistical significance of the null. If the probability of the null is not significant then you kill it, otherwise you have disproved the hypothesis. Basic science.
Have a blessed Sunday.
RR,
Your usual load of diversionary drivel. The hurricane forecasts are reviewed every 6 hours. Thats reality. Cant be predicted any better than the naive persistence forecasts. Why are you reviewing and updating your five year plan? Have your experts and their models just changed their predictions – again?
Still no GHE hypothesis, then? You are as silly as Kevin Trenberth (he of the stupid back radiation delusion).
Whether you like it or not, the scientific method does not subscribe to your bizarre ideas. Unless you can describe the GHE, it simply doesnt exist. Unicorns are more substantial – at least they have descriptions! Carry on pretending. It might make you feel better, but thats about all.
“Why are you reviewing and updating your five year plan? ”
I knew this would go over your head! Twelve months of actuals are now available!!
RR,
Yes. And seeing the difference between reality and expert computer modelling, you need to review and update!
Just like hurricane forecasting.
You are in good company. Most alarmist donkeys are convinced they can see into the climate future. They cant.
So I did understand you correctly, you don’t know what it is you oppose vis-a-vis the GHE. I am not surprised.
I will give you the kindergarten version, literally:
Think of a kitchen sink; water running in from the faucet represents the sun’s (big word alert) “irradiation” and water running out through the drain is Top Of the Atmosphere radiation going out to space; at equilibrium there is no accumulation of water in the sink. However, if a piece of cucumber gets stuck in the drain (greenhouse gases) the water level in the sink will be “forced” to rise.
The null hypothesis here is that the piece of cucumber has not effect on the flow and thus the accumulation is due to natural causes.
I have another analogy involving a river and a dam that I use with more advanced children and young adults.
You’re welcome!
Your model fails, Snape. The drain opening should be proportional to the height of the water. IOW, as the water gets higher in the sink, the drain gets bigger. That’s how the atmosphere works.
Of course there is no way to plug the drain anyway, but idiots don’t know that.
In a tank with a fixed drain, the rate of flow out of the drain is proportional to the square root of the height of the water column.
Yes Midas, that’s why the model would have to have a way of increasing the drain opening.
Doubling the water height would provide 1.4 times increase in rate of flow out.
Doubling Earth temperature would provide 16 times increase in energy flow. And that’s not including the expansion of the atmosphere.
The point was to make a CONCEPTUAL analogy, not a mathematical one.
Yes, I was just correcting the CONCEPTUAL analogy.
Midas,
How about describing the GHE in scientific terms?
Then you could avoid pointless and irrelevant analogies to something which doesnt seem to exist. A description of the GHE, that is,
If you really had been properly correcting the analogy, you would not have implied that the equilibrium value (water height or temperature) does not increase to a new equilibrium value.
Midas,
How about dumping the pointless analogy for something you haven’t even described?
Mozzie Mike is buzzing around.
Midas seems confused, as usual.
Cant describe the GHE, tries for diversion, gets caught out. Not a happy chappie.
Needs to work harder.
Where’s that damn Mortein?
RR,
Just provide a definition of the GHE, no analogy required. Alarmist donkeys love a good irrelevant and pointless analogy, because it obscures the fact they have no concept of the scientific method.
Start off you description of the GHE thus –
* The GHE is an effect which may be observed . . .
How hard can it be?
If we look at MEI’s most recent ENSO data:
YEAR D-J J-F F-M M-A A-M M-J J-J J-A A-S …
2020 0.29 0.30 0.15 -0.11 -0.24 -0.73 -1.00 -0.99 -1.19
then Roy Spencer should in theory, according to the usual 4-5 month lag between ENSO signals and the tropospheric reaction to them, present us tomorrow a small drop in the October anomaly wrt that of September.
Ich bin gespannt.
J.-P. D.
The place I live was under 1 mile of ice 12 000 years ago.
That’s climate change , not your idiotic one degree warming catastrophe alarmism
https://youtu.be/fyZNYdZynb0
Thanks for this extremely valuable hint, Eben!
12,000 years ago was, if I well do recall, an extremely warm period followed by an abrupt cooling.
Wasn’t that the prelude to the Younger Dryas?
Ouuch mah ankles !!!
10 deg C in in 50 years or less change in the past
There are similar climate documentaries that go through the whole thing without talking about CO2 except at the very end where they insert the CO2 plug rising and blah blah just to keep the warmists off their back , but not in this one, even though they say sea levels are rising and expected to do so in the near future which is perfectly reasonable , CO2 is not mentioned anywhere at all.
Eben, at LGM some 20kBP, the sea-level was about 125m below today. By the Younger-Dryas, the sea-level has already risen about 60m. During the Y-S, there appears to have been a plateau in the S-L curve, as the colder temperatures slowed or reversed the melting. The welting continued until the S-L reached about present levels around 6kBP.
Not knowing where you live (Sweden/Norway or Hudson Bay?), it’s possible that your backyard had already seen daylight by then.
At current point in our Ice Age, our average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
The ocean temperature determines global climate.
What was ocean temperature, 20,000 years ago?
I think 10,000 years ago is was about 4 C and global average surface temperature was 16 C {or more- over thousand year period, maybe dropping as low as 15 C and peaking at 17 C. With periods ice free artic sea ice, and periods when only ice free in summer. And for this to happen need ocean around 4 C}.
gbaikie
” I think… ”
Good grief. Are we here interested about what people think?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
gbaikie
I think
Good grief. Are we here interested about what people think?
J.-P. D.
=====================================
LMAO! So who are you going by Bindidon? Obviously Halpern couldn’t respond to G&T so do you believe what he thinks?
Oh thats right the answer is contained in 30 proprietary black box climate models. . . .I almost forgot.
Just imagine how much work science is going to have backing out thousands of global adjustments of continent uplift, sea level expansion, estimates of mean ocean temperature, instrument surface temperature records, historic arctic ice levels, etc. if they abandon the current climate models. Huge career opportunities await!
hunter
I don’t need such replies from a person dumb enough to doubt about everything he is absolutely unable to contradict, espacially what Newton wrote.
hunter
I don’t need such replies from who doubts about everything he himself is absolutely unable to scientifically contradict, especially what Newton wrote concerning Moon’s rotation.
J.-P. D.
JD claims: “I don’t need such replies…”
Wrong JD, you do need such replies. You can’t understand anything. You need lots of help. You can’t even answer simple questions:
* Is the ball on a string rotating on its axis?
* Can ice warm sunshine?
You need lots of help.
ClintR
Exceptionally, I’m ready to partly answer to your stubborn, nonsensical questions with another question.
Are you – yes or no – able to scientifically contradict Lagrange’s work published in 1780
Theory of the libration of the Moon
whose introductory part is translated here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vXxroMHi8H_GBI9925-ZUe437wZLMQeN/view
*
The French Academy of Sciences had, at that time, asked for the best possible explanation for Moon’s optical libration effects.
Lagrange won the price by explaining it with Moon’s rotation about an axis passing thru its center of mass, thus confirming Newton’s Proposition XVII / Theorem XV published in Book III of his Principia Mathematica.
*
No ball on a string! Simply a celestial body orbiting AND spinning since it was born within the accretion disk of a new star.
Will you win the same price by proving the contrary?
P.S. Please avoid referring to Tesla’s superficial quickshot.
J.-P. D.
JD, as explained to you before, libration is due to orbital motion. Consequently, it really amounts to more proof Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. If Moon were rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it. I’m not sure you even understand what orbital motion is.
And, you didn’t answer the questions.
No surprise. It’s all typing, but no reality, for trolls and idiots.
–Bindidon says:
November 1, 2020 at 3:00 PM
gbaikie
” I think… ”
Good grief. Are we here interested about what people think?–
No one has said what they think the temperature of ocean was 20,000 year, but I can continue to see if perhaps anyone says what they think.
It seems there is agreement that ocean currently is about 3.5 C.
Though I am interested if someone thinks the average ocean is some number other than about 3.5 C.
Another question could be how quickly one thinks the ocean can change in average temperature. I don’t think the ocean temperature of 3.5 C, has changed much in last 5000 years.
But if could take from warmest point in last 5000 year and coolest point {little Ice Age} it could cooled as much as .5 C.
Some people might instead assume that over last 5000 years the ocean has warmed rather than cooled. If so, how much has warmed over last 5000 years.
The other option is ocean temperature has not changed much over last 5000 years.
It seems to me a .5 C cooling of ocean over 5000 year is an enormous amount of cooling. And I am not saying this, because
I was saying if cherry picked the warmest and coolest if could be as much as .5 C. Or terms of actual trend, I would say cooling of about .3 C over last 5000 years. Which would be a “less enormous” amount of cooling of ocean.
In in term normal or typical, I would expect cooling or warming of .5 C per 10,000 year. And would expect a cooling or warming of .1 C {or less} over 10,000 years as unexpected or unusual as a rise or fall of average temperature of .5 C or more within 5000 years.
It seems an extraordinary amount volcanic heating could heat the ocean as much as .5 C over a time period of 5000 years.
And one would need the AL Gore wackiness of Greenland entire glacial mass falling in the ocean to get cooling of .5 C within 5000 years. Though the impossible suddenness depicted by Al Gore, would result in cooling by .5 C within a century or two.
Bindidon says:
hunter
I dont need such replies from who doubts about everything he himself is absolutely unable to scientifically contradict, especially what Newton wrote concerning Moons rotation.
===================================
Hmmmm, does Newton have calculations that prove the moon rotates on its own axis?
Or are you just treating what Newton says as a religious text where every single word is sacred?
“Hmmmm, does Newton have calculations that prove the moon rotates on its own axis”
Yes, lots. They are based on Newton’s Laws, 1,2, 3, as applied to translation and rotation. And his Law of gravity.
But LOL, you guys are claiming he’s wrong. And all that have followed him have had it wrong for 300 years.
This is a quite extraordinary claim, that requires extraordinary evidence.
Where is it?
Where is even ordinary evidence???
Where are YOUR calculations??
hunter
I. ” Hmmmm, does Newton have calculations that prove the moon rotates on its own axis? ”
*
1. Hmmmh, why do you feel the need to doubt about everything?
What the heck is your scientific qualification to do so?
I had to learn that the worst people are those who don’t know what they are talking about.
*
2. No, Sir Isaac Newton was, with 83, a bit too aged at the time of the third revision of his Principia to undertake such a complex task.
The task then was undertaken by Lagrange, Laplace, Delaunay and many many others, all people you probably discredit like the other ignorants spewing their nonsense on this blog.
**
II. ” Or are you just treating what Newton says as a religious text where every single word is sacred? ”
No, I’m exactly the contrary of those people who
– use to treat what Newton says as a religious text where every single word is sacred when the goal is to contradict Einstein,
but
-conversely use to suddenly doubt about Newton when it fits to their unscientific narrative.
And so are you, hunter, like ClintR, Robertson and a few others.
J.-P. D.
JD, you haven’t answered the simple questions yet:
* Is the ball on a string rotating on its axis?
* Can ice warm sunshine?
Running away doesn’t make you look very good, especially when you’re trying so hard to pretend you understand science.
” Can ice warm sunshine?”
Clint’s been drinkin some bad moonshine..
Nate says:
Hmmmm, does Newton have calculations that prove the moon rotates on its own axis
Yes, lots. They are based on Newtons Laws, 1,2, 3, as applied to translation and rotation. And his Law of gravity.
But LOL, you guys are claiming hes wrong. And all that have followed him have had it wrong for 300 years.
This is a quite extraordinary claim, that requires extraordinary evidence.
Where is it?
Where is even ordinary evidence???
Where are YOUR calculations??
============================================
The calculations don’t change from axis to axis Nate. So its more a job of selecting the most appropriate axis, which is what Madhavi does.
It also has the tremendous benefit of simplifying the whole relationship for a much broader suite of applications, which really is what science and engineering is.
KISS
bill,
Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler.
As usual, troll Nate has no clue what’s going on.
He’s just trolling, like the helpless idiot he is.
Bindidon says:
I. Hmmmm, does Newton have calculations that prove the moon rotates on its own axis?
*
1. Hmmmh, why do you feel the need to doubt about everything?
What the heck is your scientific qualification to do so?
===================================
20 years of science auditing Bindidon. What is your experience in theoretical science?
=====================
===================
==================
Bindidon says:
I had to learn that the worst people are those who dont know what they are talking about.
==========================
Look in the mirror Bindidon.
=====================
===================
==================
Bindidon says:
2. No, Sir Isaac Newton was, with 83, a bit too aged at the time of the third revision of his Principia to undertake such a complex task.
=======================
Oh good deal! So you are trying to bust my balls with Newton’s opinion on the matter? LMAO!!
=====================
===================
==================
Bindidon says:
The task then was undertaken by Lagrange, Laplace, Delaunay and many many others, all people you probably discredit like the other ignorants spewing their nonsense on this blog.
=========================
reference please!
I would be interested in auditing the proof the moon rotates on its own axis and see if there truly is a definitive separation between which axis the moon rotates on or if the whole lot of you are nothing more than a lying giant bag of wind.
=====================
===================
==================
Bindidon says:
II. Or are you just treating what Newton says as a religious text where every single word is sacred?
No, Im exactly the contrary of those people who use to treat what Newton says as a religious text where every single word is sacred when the goal is to contradict Einstein, but conversely use to suddenly doubt about Newton when it fits to their unscientific narrative.
=============================
Doubt Newton? Here you go again. You just said Newton was too old to tackle this subject. What kind of bozo are you?
Nobody around here I am aware of is doubting Newton’s findings. Are you drunk or something?
bobdroege wrote –
* Swnenson,
bob still cant actually describe his silly GHE. Nor can he actually demonstrate this miraculous myth. All he needs is a heat source, a thermometer and some GHG.
I have described the greenhouse effect.
I have a heat source, its the Sun Stewart.
I have a thermometer Mr. Pedasto, look at the chart at the top of this page.
Ill refer you to the Keeling curve for the last one.
What else you got? *
He hasnt described the GHE. As to the rest, he is obviously deluded. If he cant actually describe the GHE in such a way as to formulate a testable hypothesis, then it is obvious that the GHE is a mythical beast, just like a unicorn.
Some people imagine, apparently, that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will increase its temperature. Bit silly, of course, but alarmist donkeys will believe anything!
The greenhouse effect increases the amount of energy reaching it, not reducing it.
The greenhouse effect reduces the amount of energy leaving the planet, until a higher temperature is reached.
Foolish denier doesn’t understand.
Ah, the magical energy multiplier. No testable hypothesis then, just more strident assertions!
Not very scientific, is it, bob?
Swenson,
Not magic, just physics, try actually refuting what I posted, instead of spitting your binky.
bob,
As I said, bob.
Swenson,
At least you spell my name with the correct number of els.
However, this
“The greenhouse effect reduces the amount of energy leaving the planet, until a higher temperature is reached.”
Could be a testable hypothesis, no?
or it could be as you say a somewhat strident assertion.
I would say, not very strident, and not much of an assertion as it is backed up by data and facts.
Just look at the graph here
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/airborne-sensors/first
with the giant notch in the radiation spectrum emitted by the Earth and measured by an instrument carried by a balloon.
bobdroege says:
The greenhouse effect reduces the amount of energy leaving the planet, until a higher temperature is reached.
Obviously! to warm anything it needs to retain/absorb the energy necessary to warm it.
but higher temps happen instantaneously with retention so your condition isn’t precise enough to amount to anything; and your process of doing it remains completely undescribed.
Bill,
Nothing happens instantaneously with temperature.
“but higher temps happen instantaneously with retention so your condition isnt precise enough to amount to anything; and your process of doing it remains completely undescribed.”
Looks like you missed this lab.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
Nothing happens instantaneously with temperature.
but higher temps happen instantaneously with retention so your condition isnt precise enough to amount to anything; and your process of doing it remains completely undescribed.
Looks like you missed this lab.
=============================
Bob. . . .it does happen instantaneously. You said: ”The greenhouse effect increases the amount of energy reaching it”
When it reaches it, it warms instantly. You can test that. Just go out and look at the sun.
Bill,
Can you make a coherent response?
Well complaining about my teaching ability is absolutely fair game.
Perhaps myself and others could benefit from your tremendous insight on the following:
Your assertion: ”The greenhouse effect increases the amount of energy reaching it (referring to a thermometer)”
and,
Your assertion: ”The greenhouse effect reduces the amount of energy leaving the planet, until a higher temperature is reached.”
All I suggested was that the instant you retain energy you will increase heat content of the planet.
But how does it become a build up of heat content by absorbing radiation that in accordance with radiation laws has to also send along its merry way at the same rate it absorbs it?
this question was asked and answered by Gerlich and Tscheuschner as being a completely insufficient to account for significant warming by orders of magnitude.
The comment by J. Halpern was yes but you have to consider non-radiative processes. So your first assertion and your second assertion are in dire need of a trigger process to accomplish what you claim.
I am sure this must be clear in your mind.
Please elucidate and entertain us with it. The ball is in your court.
Bill,
Like I said,
You are incoherent.
“All I suggested was that the instant you retain energy you will increase heat content of the planet.”
Rubbish, lets see you come up with a citation that supports that statement.
“But how does it become a build up of heat content by absorbing radiation that in accordance with radiation laws has to also send along its merry way at the same rate it absorbs it?”
More rubbish, lets see you come with a citation for that one.
First off solar radiation warms the surface as an addition. This addition of energy is mostly converted to heat. this gives rise to infrared radiation within the planetary system that moves energy from place to place. If you want to use some of it for work, kinetic, or chemical processes without first heating something please list what you believe those things to be. After the sun warms the surface all IR can do is move that heat around in the system or send it packing into space. It can’t be used to heat something else while its continuing to heat what it started out heating. All transfers of heat by IR involve both cooling and warming.
I can’t believe you don’t even get that. You are just finding yourself in a corner and lashing out brainlessly.
And of course the rule of emitting what you absorb is Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation.
Between the two concepts there is no way for GHG to force surface warming. An undisputed fact offered up by gerlich and tscheuschner. No competent physicist in his right mind would claim otherwise. One might be able to make a case for a radiation break in the atmosphere that could force warming but the analogues in physics for such an effect aren’t known to exist in a gas atmosphere. So folks play around with the Navier Stokes equations for movement in liquids but aren’t well established especially in areas where turbulence exists. You can actually win a million dollars if you solve those problems. There is an available award for that. . . .but understand the discussion of that is very loosely related to IR radiation.
bobdroege says:
The greenhouse effect increases the amount of energy reaching it, not reducing it.
The greenhouse effect reduces the amount of energy leaving the planet, until a higher temperature is reached.
==============================
Gee I believe that. Can you get any less specific? Do you even have a clue?
Bill,
Be specific, can you attack the argument?
You mean your argument is that the earth has a greenhouse effect?
I agree it does so why argue about that?
Or is it that you claim the greenhouse effect increases its energy to be a greenhouse effect? I think to have a greenhouse effect the system needs to increase its store of energy yes.
The only argument we may have is over how it comes about. But you advanced no such argument.
You do know that the GHE isn’t a radiation effect right?
Bill,
No I don’t know that at all.
It is a radiation effect, it doesn’t work like a actual greenhouse.
No Bob you are wrong. There is a greenhouse effect.
Bill,
Whut?
that’s what I have been saying.
You said something about a radiation effect. It’s a greenhouse effect.
Bill,
Now you are just playing word games.
The greenhouse effect is due to the interaction of radiation and matter.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
Now you are just playing word games.
The greenhouse effect is due to the interaction of radiation and matter.
—————————-
Yes thats the claim Bob. But how it accomplishes that has not been well described and hasn’t been validated.
In addition to which the interaction with matter is allegedly occuring several thousand feet above the surface and how it gets back to the surface is hypothesized in various climate models that produce variable results.
Swneson,
It’s pink and sparkly, but also of all colors of the rainbow.
But white mostly, and there is a straight and sharp protuberance out of its forehead.
Very elusive and magical.
Is that what you are so desperately searching for?
bob,
You have described something non-existent. Easy, isnt it?
Now try describing the GHE. You claim it exists. How hard can it be to describe it?
Swenson,
I have already described the greenhouse effect once or twice, if you don’t understand it, try finding your butt while taking a dump.
then move on to more difficult things.
b,
Im sure you imagine you did, but I live in the real world. If you want to demonstrate how unhelpful you can be, go ahead.
I can see you are a confused little alarmist donkey. You cant remember much about your imaginary description, can you? How many times did you describe it? Once, twice, more? Did you forget to write the description down, or do you just dream up up a fresh imaginary description each time?
I can understand why you find it so difficult to link to something which exists only in your imagination. Maybe you could try being gratuitously offensive. You would have to face the prospect of looking like a dimwitted troll, if you failed.
Swenson, I don’t care what you think you can’t see, the greenhouse effect is real, so why don’t you stop playing games?
Linky dinky don’t spit your binky
https://www.google.com/search?q=greenhouse+effect+definition&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS900US900&oq=greenhouse+effect&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i433j0l6.7595j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
bob,
Pick one. Run with it. Which one do you like? The assertion, the greenhouse, the blanket?
All equally silly.
Swenson,
It’s not the one I want, I gave you a link because you asked for one.
Try refuting something instead of spitting your binky.
bob,
Try quoting where I asked for a link to a Google results page. Of course you cant!
You just make crap up as you go, and hope nobody will notice.
Maybe you could make up a description for the GHE. How hard could it be? NASA have at least two contradictory and pointless descriptions, so you could start there.
Have you figured out how to be offensive yet? You need a reasonable amount of intelligence, so you may be a little hamstrung in that regard. Keep trying.
Swenson,
The greenhouse effect is due to the avsorppption and emission of infrared by gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Which makes the surface of the Earth warmer than it would be other wise, without those gases present.
I can be offensive if that’s what you are looking for.
What do you want?
Me to call you an ******** ****?
bob,
You havent a clue what the temperature of the Earth would be * otherwise *, have you?
Try the Moon. Same distance, no atmosphere. Both hotter and colder.
So the GHE makes the maximum Earth surface temperature how much hotter than 127 C?
Youre dreamin* bob, Go back to trying to be offensive. You definitely need to practice!
Swenson,
Why don’t you eat some of that straw?
blob, please stop trolling.
bobdroege is a funny fellow. He wrote –
* Yes, adding fluxes can result in higher temperatures, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt it depends. *
Of course, if he is an alarmist donkey, he wont commit himself to what makes the difference. Adding fluxes is about as silly as adding temperatures.
Of course, bobdroege may just be a common or garden variety dimwitted troll! Who knows?
bill hunter…”Conclusion: Halpern is effectively arguing that without feedback you get zero warming from CO2s radiation characteristics alone.
(feedback is defined as anything other than the absorp-tion and emission of CO2)”.
There is a major problem with the way the term feedback is used by alarmists and in climate models. Gavin Schmidt of realclimate and leader of NASA GISS could not explain positive feedback, yet it’s incorrect usage in climate models is a basic reason they are projecting catastrophic warming.
He’s not alone, I have seldom seen anyone on the Net related to alarmist climate science give an adequate explanation of positive feedback. They seem to think PF can amplify on its own which is incorrect. It needs an amplifier.
Roy cast light on the usage a few years ago when he revealed that positive feedback in climate science really means a not-so-negative negative feedback. That is far different than the amplified heat projected in climate models. They actually use positive feedback in the scientific sense, in which a feedback signal in an amplified system produces an exponentially increasing output signal.
Every feedback in the atmosphere has to be negative feedback. Positive feedback like the type that would lead to a tipping point, requires an amplifier. That means the atmosphere would have to behave like an amplifier that takes heat in at an input while feeding back a portion of the output heat so it adds to the input signal in phase so as to increase the input signal. Naturally, that would produce an exponential increasing output heat signal with each cycle.
The only way to increase heat is by adding heat to it from an external source or increasing the number of atoms/molecules of the same or greater temperature. Also, positive feedback cannot operate without a means of amplifying heat. Climate modelers have the concept of positive feedback totally wrong as explained by engineer Jeffrey Glassman in his exchange with Gavin Schmidt.
See the section ‘Gavin Schmidt On Positive Feedback’ about halfway down page.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician who thinks a 38% chance means more likely than not (actually implied near certainty with regard to 2014 being the hottest year ever (whatever that means)).
I have seen nothing to suggest his competence in physics is superior to his mathematical competence. At least he now accepts that the atmosphere behaves chaotically, as far as I know.
swenson…”Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician …”
Not to mention that he is a legend in his own mind.
–He’s not alone, I have seldom seen anyone on the Net related to alarmist climate science give an adequate explanation of positive feedback. They seem to think PF can amplify on its own which is incorrect. It needs an amplifier.–
Well, amplifier effect is CO2 warms global surface air temperature and this causes more water vapor, and more water vapor as larger warming effect.
But it’s wrong.
To cause more water vapor, one needs to warm the entire ocean.
Or if ocean of 3.5 C were to become 4 C, one would get a lot more water vapor.
An ocean of 4 C, will have ice free arctic ocean in the Summer. An ocean of 5 C, will have ice free arctic ocean, all year long.
Therefore with liquid arctic ocean, one dramatically increase average temperature in entire polar region. Air temperature above liquid ocean can’t cool below 0 C. So don’t get -10 to 20 C air in arctic ocean area or near it. Boom! Higher average temperature in Arctic, without even considering the addition water vapor.
But land area near ocean can’t still have snowfall- you get snowfall at 37 F, and 1000 meter higher is 6 C colder. Or could get a lot more snowfall.
bobdroege, asked to provide experimental confirmation of his mad assertions, wrote –
* Bill,
Do you have another Earth in your back pocket?
If not we will have to make do with computer models.*
Richard P. Feynman –
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. *
Climate donkey –
* I dont need no stinkin experiments. I got a computer game. I programmed it.I always win. So there, how clever am I! *
Keep playing that computer game, bob.
Swenson
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. ”
Richard Feynmann
It always amuses me to see someone like yourself quoting Feynmann.
Have you noticed that your theories do not agree with experiment?
Mine do.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorpXXXXXtion-properties/
Remove the Xs before linking.
EM,
Why would I disagree? Posting random measurements achieves nothing. What is the relevance?
Bananas both absorb and emit IR. Feel free to disbelieve.
Bananas are the edible fruit of the banana plant.
Entropic man, your “theory” is demolished by the simple ball-on-a-string experiment.
And, it’s “Feynman”.
You’re an idiot, with nothing to offer.
EM,
I dont have any theories, as far as I know. Maybe you could enlighten me. Speculations are not theories.
What do you mean * someone like yourself *? Are only people you approve allowed to appeal to authority?
Alarmist donkeys do it all the time, and they are often so stupid that their * authority * supports my point of view! How amusing is that?
Amusement is preferable to misery – at least that is my speculation. You are free to disagree.
Swenson,
So sorry, see the graph at the top of the page and the Keeling curve, see experiment does agree with theory.
bob,
Thats not an experiment. Correlation is not causation, donkey.
bob missed lab that day.
Swenson,
But it is when you provide the mechanism, which I have done.
Bill,
I didn’t do the lab experiment, Dr. Roy Spenser did, try arguing with him.
bob,
Correlation is not causation. Your dreams are not reality.
What laboratory experiment are you claiming Dr Spencer performed? Details, bob, details!
Swenson,
How is the mechanism I provided a dream?
Be specific. Details?
And you know, not all experiments are conducted in a laboratory, some are conducted in space, which is where Dr. Roy has measured the increase in the temperature of Earths atmosphere.
Monitoring global temperature isn’t an experiment.
With an experiment you need a control so that when you change a single variable you invariably get a response.
bob,
You havent provided details about the laboratory experiments you claim Dr Spencer performed. We’re you just making stuff up – again?
Measurements are not experiments, nor are computer models!
You havent provided a mechanism for anything. Just claiming that a mythical something you call the GHE for some reason, has magical planet heating powers, Is pointless.
Keep dreaming, bob,
Bill and Swenson,
I am supposed to believe measurements are not experiments just because you say so!
Have at some introductory reading if you want to discuss the greenhouse effect.
https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/manabe64a.pdf
Yes Bob I read the study. What is a convective adjustment?
bobd…”The greenhouse effect reduces the amount of energy leaving the planet, until a higher temperature is reached”.
No one, including all the alarmist scientists, have explained how GHGs making up no more than 0.31% of the entire atmosphere can affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
Lindzen offered a much better explanation of the GHE even though I find it somewhat flaky. He pointed out that the current GHE model is mickey mouse and geared to a simple yet inaccurate depiction of the atmosphere.
He claimed that heat in the Tropics is transported via convection toward the polar regions where it rises to TOA and emitted. Lindzen has skipped a few steps here, mainly how the heat dissipates through the natural process of expanding into the much thinner air as it rises. Then he fails to explain how the trivial amount of CO2 and water vapour at TOA can adequately transmit the remaining heat to space.
R. W. Wood has offered the best explanation AFAIAC. Heat is transferred to air via conduction at the surface and that heated air rises via convection. Because air is 99% N2/O2, and those gases cannot release heat easily, the air remains warm.
Obviously, as the heat air continues to rise, it will expand and lose its heat. The presumption that all solar energy warming the surface/atmosphere during the day must be radiated away does not address the complex problem of the Earth’s rotation and the effect of gravity in stratifying the atmosphere into a negative pressure gradient.
The fact is that incoming solar has already increased the air/surface temperature to an optimal level and all it has to do then is maintain that temperature. Obviously, most incoming solar is being used for that maintenance and does not require being balanced with an equal amount of outgoing.
Obviously, most incoming solar is being used for that (temperature) maintenance and does not require being balanced with an equal amount of outgoing.
First Law violation.
You have energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun and not leaving.If it was accumulating, you would see an increase in temperature. If it is not accumulating, the only alternative is that it is disappearing, which isn’t allowed. You cannot destroy energy.
Entropic man, your own nonsense indicates that Earth should have an average temperature of 303 K. But Earth’s average temperature is 288 K. Even with all the warming from ice (4 ice cubes can boil water, per your nonsense), CO2 manages to safely cool the planet.
Gordon,
“No one, including all the alarmist scientists, have explained how GHGs making up no more than 0.31% of the entire atmosphere can affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.”
That’s because the greenhouse effect doesn’t affect heat dissipation at the surface.
You don’t understand how it works, that’s ok.
How does it work Bob?
Bill,
Here is someone who can explain it better than I.
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Ramanathan_Coakley_Radiative_Convection_RevGeophys_%201978.pdf
thats fine Bob, except that this is a 1977 paper, when 14 years later. . . .Nate, me, many others including Roger Revelle and Fred Singer said the science still wasn’t there yet.
further this model isn’t about radiation warming the surface its about how radiation affects convection to warm the surface. They are called radiation convective models because the simplistic grade school model you ohh so much want to believe is incapable of warming the surface via radiation alone. Obviously ever line by line computation in the model has to consider all the forms of non-radiative heat transfer and it remains but speculation what effect the grade school radiation model has on that.
My preliminary audit work on it reveals a pattern of selecting the most aggressive ideas about it while relegating huge amounts of negative feedback to the trashbin. I say negative feedback because by the current definition feedback is anything that occurs before the surface warms. Among uncertainties assumed as certainties in the various models are many including the role of turbulence in the atmosphere while proposing smoothed models that can’t model turbulence and its affects. Observations are unclear on this turbulent affect but observations are showing error in the models and then it becomes an aggressive game of passing the torch to something not known well about the atmosphere that was totally ruled out as being a variable in 1977 when this paper was written.
Indeed you are watching the advancement of science here and drawing conclusions about it because of the political noise that surrounds it.
Obviously the climate models are the best we have ever have but thats not saying a lot when in 1966 there were none. In 1971 I was still feeding punch cards to the computer at the state university and getting line printer paper towels back and that was after 7 years after starting doing that.
binny….”Are you yes or no able to scientifically contradict Lagrange’s work published in 1780″
Yes…I am contradicting it. LaGrange was wrong based on his interpretation of the forces acting on the Moon.
He claimed in the book to which you linked:
“To apply this Theory to the Moon, it is only a matter of determining the forces which can act on each of the particles of its mass; now these forces are 1 the attraction of the whole mass of the Moon; 2 attraction of the earth; 3 the centrifugal force coming from the movement of the moon”.
Roughly, he is claiming there are three forces acting on each particle of the Moon which are the mass of the Moon itself, the mass of the Earth and the centrifugal force coming from the Moon. This is sheer nonsense and LaGrange plainly had no idea how the Moon was held in orbit.
He actually thought there was a force acting in the opposite direction to gravity, the centrifugal force, but he says nothing about tangential momentum. He did not get it that the Moon is moving on an instantaneous linear path tangential to gravitational force.
His entire analysis is mathematically-based thought experiment based on the supposition that each particle in a rigid body can be analyzed independently, which is seriously wrong. That’s why he and Cassini are so screwed up about the motion of the Moon and its imagined rotation about its own axis.
Robertson
” Yes… I am contradicting it. LaGrange was wrong based on his interpretation of the forces acting on the Moon. ”
*
No you didn’t. You didn’t at all.
Because in order to contradict a mathematician, it is completely useless to write a few simple-minded, trivial statements like yours above.
You have to go into the theory he developed – point by point, equation by equation, and you must
– prove the equations are wrong
AND
– set up a new, alternative sequence of equations, and present them to people having enough math and science background to check it for correctness.
You are, in the disciplines of science and engineering, a 100 % uneducated person, and prove that with every new comment you write here on this blog.
*
None of my former engineering colleagues would have dared to counter a trained mathematician like Lagrange with such ridiculous and superficial fuss.
None of my former engineering colleagues would ever have written,in comment as you did many times, something as stupid as “Yet another faked graph from Binny”.
Instead, they would have pointed out any errors to me and, as a substitute, would have presented a graph that they considered more correct!
Obviously you have never been able to do this, let alone would you ever be able to develop and validate software for processing of e.g. UAH grid data or GHCN daily station data.
You behave exactly as one of these primary school teachers who think they never would need to learmn and understand more than what they teach to little children.
*
All you are able to do is to discredit, denigrate and distort the results of others.
J.-P. D.
I haven’t read Lagrange’s calculations for lunar motion so I have no opinion on its accuracy but its clear that libration creates a correction force in opposite directions each revolution due to the eliptical nature of the orbit.
thus there should be some physical movement of the moon in accordance with the forcing.
If that were not true then there would be no means to take the spin off the moon’s axis.
bill hunter says:
“libration creates a correction force in opposite directions each revolution due to the eliptical nature of the orbit.”
There is no such force. It is explained by a steady rotation around the Moon’s axis, and varying speed along the elliptical orbit. Shown by MikeR to match observations.
“If that were not true then there would be no means to take the spin off the moons axis.”
The tidal effect does that, but on a completely different time scale.
“It is explained by a steady rotation around the Moon’s axis, and varying speed along the elliptical orbit.”
The moon does not rotate on its own axis. So, rephrasing that:
“It is explained by the moon changing its orientation at a steady rate, whilst moving along the elliptical orbit at varying speeds”.
Svante says:
There is no such force. It is explained by a steady rotation around the Moons axis, and varying speed along the elliptical orbit.
============================
Sorry Svante you are wrong. . . .again.
While most of the moon’s librations are simply changes in perspective both as the moon travels across the sky and because of the elliptical nature of the orbit, the latter libration causes the moon’s face to move out of alignment with its tidal locked position bringing about a tidal force torque to pull it back toward alignment.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JE004755
hunter
No: I won’t laugh at you! Certainly not.
But… how can you, who seriously doubts about Moon’s rotation about its (interior) axis, present a link to a paper in which the following is written:
” The Moon’s orbit is eccentric and inclined. Because the Moon’s rotation is synchronous with its orbit, the tidal bulge oscillates from east to west and north to south during each month. ”
How can you live with such a fundamental contradiction?
*
Be careful, hunter!
I’m afraid Robertson could start excommunicating you off the ‘Skeptical Society’, like he is about to do concerning commenter ‘Eben’.
Oh dear…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
November 3, 2020 at 11:06 AM
hunter
No: I wont laugh at you! Certainly not.
But how can you, who seriously doubts about Moons rotation about its (interior) axis, present a link to a paper in which the following is written:
The Moons orbit is eccentric and inclined. Because the Moons rotation is synchronous with its orbit, the tidal bulge oscillates from east to west and north to south during each month.
How can you live with such a fundamental contradiction?
==================================
The are talking about fractions of an arcsecond Bindidon. Such tolerances are well within the most strictly engineered stuff I have worked with anyway.
So you always construct mountains out of molehills Bindidon? Seems you do so with climate change as well. Is this a pattern with you?
hunter
” The are talking about fractions of an arcsecond Bindidon. ”
What the heck does that have to do with what I was talking about in my comment:
” Because the Moons rotation is synchronous with its orbit… ”
J.-P. D.
seems to be a lot of people around here speaking in redundancies.
“It is explained by the moon changing its orientation at a steady rate, whilst moving along the elliptical orbit at varying speeds.
‘Changing orientation at a steady rate’ = steady rotation rate.
‘whilst moving along the elliptical orbit at varying speeds’ = Not orbiting with a steady rotation rate around the orbit center.
How can anyone conclude that the Moons rotation and orbit are NOT INDEPENDENT motions?
If that has you confounded Nate I would guess probably your daddy never bought you a choo choo train for Christmas.
binny…”” The Moon’s orbit is eccentric and inclined. Because the Moon’s rotation is synchronous with its orbit, the tidal bulge oscillates from east to west and north to south during each month. ””
There is nothing in this statement that suggests the Moon is rotating about a local axis. The rotation to which they refer is misleading in that it is an apparent rotation which is presumed to be about a local axis. The tidal bulge to which they refer is always facing the Earth, which means the far side is always pointed to space. Those two faces are moving in parallel to each other at all times, ruling out rotation about a local axis.
Claiming the Moon’s rotation is synchronous with its orbit is a misunderstanding of the facts. They think it is rotating once per orbit and the rotation period is synchronized with the orbital period.
Think of the likelihood of such a phenomenon occurring and why it would happen. The truth is it is not happening and you have ignored all evidence presented to that effect, I just presented some of the evidence to you in the first paragraph.
hunter
You don’t seem to really understand the concepts of Moon’s libration and rotation.
The (longitudinal) libration Lagrange mathematically proved to be a consequence of Moon’s rotation IS NOT REAL: it is solely an optical artefact resulting from many different things.
In addition to this optical libration, Lagrange discovered a physical libration which indeed affects Moon’s rotation about the axis passing thru its center of mass.
This physical libration is extremely small, and invisible to Humans without using a powerful telescope (or Lunar Laser Ranging data).
But it was nonetheless great enough to be considered a necessary addendum to Moon’s ephemeris – a data set used by all people who calculate for example the trajectory of a spacecraft moving from Earth to Moon, and landing on the latter.
J.-P. D.
Again JD, “libration” is a result of orbital motion.
Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
binny…”In addition to this optical libration, Lagrange discovered a physical libration which indeed affects Moons rotation about the axis passing thru its center of mass”.
He was wrong, his convoluted math and incorrect assumptions regarding physical forces affecting the Moon confused him.
Don’t get me wrong, I think LaGrange was a brilliant mathematician. In his time, however, he obviously lacked the physical understanding of lunar rotation to apply his math correctly. No one today would attack a rigid body problem by considering the particles making up the body.
From reading him via a translator, I almost got the impression he was trying to apply statistical mechanics to a rigid body problem. Total overkill.
Robertson
Again a proof of your persisting ignorance. You lack even tiniest bits of scientific education.
” No one today would attack a rigid body problem by considering the particles making up the body. ”
Exactly that is what is done everywhere by scientifically educated people, who know what ‘integration’ means.
You don’t. Because during your entire life, you never needed to learn anything complex.
J.-P. D.
binny…”Because in order to contradict a mathematician, it is completely useless to write a few simple-minded, trivial statements like yours above.
You have to go into the theory he developed point by point, equation by equation, and you must ”
I proved that his understanding of physics was wrong therefore his math is wrong. His method is total overkill.
He claimed there were three forces affecting each particle in a rigid body. That presumption belies rigid body theory since each particle in a rigid body is forced to follow the properties of the whole. You cannot operate on each particle using fictitious forces and determine that the body is rotating on its axis, when it clearly is not.
He also claimed a centrifugal force affecting the Moon opposite to gravitational force. LaGrange clearly did not understand engineering physics. There are only two forces involved, one a pseudo-force. The Moon has it’s own linear momentum, which is a pseudo-force, or potential force, because if it crashes into something its momentum will be converted to a tremendous force.
I claim that potential force vector can be applied along with the perpendicular gravitational force vector to determine the lunar orbit. No need for the convoluted math of LaGrange. Furthermore, libration can easily be explained from that.
In a circular orbit, a radial line would exist between the Earth’s centre extending through the Moon’s centre. The Moon motion would follow that radial line around the Earth axis. It’s also plain to see that such an arrangement forces the near face, and the far face to move in concentric circles, eliminating the possibility of local rotation.
In an elliptical orbit, however, that radial line must be determined through bisecting the angle formed from each focal point to the Moon.
That is a standard method for visually calculating the tangent to a point on any curve, by finding the centre of radius for the curve and extending the radial line through the curve at a point. The tangent is perpendicular to the radial line and that is the direction in which the Moon wants to move. Gravity changes that direction gradually into an orbit.
In an ellipse, the bisector of the angle formed by lines from each focal point to the Moon will, in the case of the lunar orbit, point away from the Earth’s centre by a tiny amount. That positions the Moon, at certain parts of the elliptical orbit, so we can see around the near edge and that viewing angle is libration.
There is no need for the Moon to rotate on a local axis to enable that libration, it is a natural property of an elliptical orbit.
ps. If LaGrange had pursued his particle theory and related those particles to a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon, it might have become obvious to him that each particle was constrained to concentric paths around the Earth. As such, it might also have become obvious that the Moon could not rotate about a local axis.
binny…”But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb
There is nowhere in that quote from Newton that he claims the Moon is rotating on a local axis. He mentions the ‘upper focus’ which is obviously one of the focal points on the elliptical lunar orbit.
All he is saying, IMHO, is what I pointed out before. The Moon’s near face always points to a radial centre created by bisecting the angle formed by a line from either focal point to the particular point where the Moon is located in it’s orbit. In an elliptical orbit like the Moon, that point will likely be inside the Earth.
He is talking about the lunar day, which has nothing to do with the Earth-Moon system but where the Sun can shine on the Moon. Therefore he is not talking about local rotation, and by axis, he means the Earth, located very near the upper focus.
Robertson
Here again you prove how dishonest and stubborn you are.
Try exceptionally to READ the comment linked to below FROM THE FIRST TO THE LAST LINE.
I repeat: FROM THE FIRST TO THE LAST LINE.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-547692
You are all the time extracting some bits out of a consistent, complete text and try to explain these bits outside of that context.
J.-P. D.
binny…”Trash you publish HERE for the one and only reason that no other blogger would allow you to do that anywhere else”.
The fact that I can post my version of science here is a testament to Roy’s intelligence and tolerance which many blog owner’s lack. They would rather make the blogger a captive audience to their biased POV on science.
Roy has expressed disagreement with several points I have made but graciously allows me to post anyway. In return, I respect him and will gladly defend him against alarmist idiots who try to put him down, including you.
I believe strongly in freedom of expression as long as the person expressing his views is civil and does not express hatred of others, especially the blog owner. Your replies to me are filled with hateful rhetoric, revealing a seriously immature person within.
Your outbursts are obviously motivated by a frustration related to your inability to debate from a platform of scientific understanding. It’s little wonder you appreciate blogs where people are are ostracized for failing to express the local POV.
Robertson
” The fact that I can post my version of science here is a testament to Roys intelligence and tolerance which many blog owners lack.
They would rather make the blogger a captive audience to their biased POV on science. ”
Try to post your permanent BS on WUWT, where the blog’s owner is Anthony Watts, who is by far more a ‘Skeptic’ than is Roy Spencer.
What these two persons share (together with WUWT’s main gest poster Willis Eschenbach) is a common understanding of GHE basics.
But even an absolute anti-GHE blogger like Joseph Postma would drop you off his Climate Sophistry corner within a couple of days.
*
I have a much more sound relation to science than you ever could manage to develop. You are – not only in my understanding – one of the most antiscientific persons writing on this blog.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
Try to post your permanent BS on WUWT, where the blogs owner is Anthony Watts, who is by far more a Skeptic than is Roy Spencer.
What these two persons share (together with WUWTs main gest poster Willis Eschenbach) is a common understanding of GHE basics.
=====================================
LMAO! That’s a ringing endorsement for fair and accurate play on WUWT?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Sounds like X is stupid so X would never post your stuff. Perhaps you should look in the mirror to see stupid.
hunter
?
DREMT (sorry, you are all but a moderator)
Back to your hint:
https://youtu.be/6s3DvJJEfBE
How can you think this being a correct representation of the problem?
Don’t you see that in this video, the Earth even doesn’t rotate, let alone would we see that Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not in the same plane as that of Moon’s orbit around Earth?
Why do you accept such an oversimplified model that doesn’t cope at all with the reality?
If you want to see whether or not our Moon rotates about its interior axis when orbiting around us, you should try to reproduce the reality, instead of using a truncation of it.
To reproduce the reality we daily experience, we need, as already explained:
– Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun
– Earth’s speed at each point of its orbit (e.g. every second)
– the inclination of Earth’s axis passing thru its poles wrt the plane of its orbit
– Moon’s elliptical orbit around the Earth
– Moon’s speed at each point of its orbit (e.g. every second)
– the inclination of Moon’s axis passing thru its poles wrt the plane of its orbit
– the inclination of Moon’s orbit wrt that of Earth.
Having all that, we select an observing point E on Earth, and an observed point M on Moon, respectively.
Then we can start a real simulation in which we follow, second by second, the (Ex, Ey, Ez) and (Mx, My, Mz) coordinates, of course wrt the same coordinate system
– the center of the Sun as origin
– the z-axis through the Sun, perpendicular to Earth’s orbit
– the x-axis joining Sun’s center and e.g. Uranus’ center (because when observing one Moon orbit around Earth, it is nearly a fixpoint compared to Earth’s orbiting speed)
– and the y-axis perpendicular to the x-axis.
We then see how the vector in space joining the observing resp. observed points behaves over 28 Earth days, depending on the rotation speed of the Moon we selected before starting.
*
If you can’t agree with the necessity of using this model representing the reality, then… we land in a blind-alley.
What could we ever discuss further?
J.-P. D.
Again, it’s just a simplification, because it is only attempting to get across to you a very basic concept. Do you actually understand the point being made!?
DREMT
No.
Simply because your will to simplify is in thorough contradiction to what is needed, as I tried to explain above.
I repeat:
If you cant agree with the necessity of using this model representing the reality, then… we land in a blind-alley.
What could we ever discuss further?
*
Your videos are of exactly the same vein as are ‘ball-on-a-string’, ‘merry-go-round’, race-horse-on-a-carrousel’, ‘coins’, etc etc.
Using all that perfectly hides what we need to discuss, and therefore pushes the discussion into absurdity.
Sorry.
J.-P. D.
So you don’t understand the point being made. OK then.
DREMT
Sorry, I repeat: we are in the blind-alley. The point is not that I wouldn’t understand.
The point for me is that there is no point ‘being made’.
J.-P. D.
OK, Bindidon.
binny…”The point for me is that there is no point being made.”
There is none so blind as he who won’t see. If you took the time to look at Dremt’s video it would become abundantly clear to you that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face toward the Earth.
entropic…”First Law violation”.
The 1st law is a relationship between heat, work, and internal energy. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
It has been claimed that the Earth with no atmosphere and oceans would be about 33C cooler. But, we have an atmosphere and oceans and the Earth is located at a good distance from the Sun to host life, and the Earth rotates at a very good rate to enable life.
With the current relationship between atmosphere, surface, and oceans, solar energy has raised the temperature an alleged 30C+. It must now maintain that temperature while only shining on certain parts of the world in so many hours per day. The rest of the day in those place, the heat is dissipated internally via gas expansion. It does not need to be radiated to space. If all energy input was radiated out, the Earth would cool considerably.
You are confusing a highly complex and dynamic process with a simple energy in – energy out solution.
binny…”Exactly that is what is done everywhere by scientifically educated people, who know what integration means”.
There is no way that any scientist can observe individual particles of a rigid body let alone measure their individual parameters. By attempting that, LaGrange was doing a highly theoretical thought experiment and he got it wrong. He presumed there were three forces acting on each particle, a force from the Moon itself, a force from the Earth’s gravity, and a mysterious force acting outwardly in the opposite direction of Earth’s gravity, a centrifugal force.
LaGrange completely ignored the most important parameter, the Moon’s linear momentum. Given the strength of Earth’s gravitational field, that momentum is critical. Not enough and the Moon spirals into the Earth. Too much and it shoots off out of orbit. Of course, with Earth’s gravity still operating on it, if it did shoot off, it would be along a parabolic path rather than the straight line of its momentum.
LaGrange obviously did not understand engineering physics. However, Tesla understood it, having studied engineering. He did not go into a convoluted analysis using particles he could not see, he used a very simple analogy based on rotational kinetic energy.
I don’t think Tesla needed to go that far. In engineering classes we were encouraged to do problems by inspection if it was possible. It is possible to do it in the case of the Moon’s orbit, noting that the inner and outer faces are moving parallel at all times. That is a case of curvilinear translation, not orbiting about a local axis and it explains why the Moon appears to be rotating (pointing in different directions throughout its orbit).
Both rectilinear and curvilinear translation are defined as bodies in which all particles are moving in parallel lines and at the same velocity. This is where the particles must give way to the angular velocity of the centre of mass of the rigid body, even though each particle may be moving at different velocities in curvilinear translation.
If you regard the lunar orbit as circular, with a radial line from the axis in the Earth going through the axis of the Moon, the Moon as a rigid body must always move at the angular velocity of the radial line. We are not concerned about the velocity of each particle, only the angular velocity of a radial line through the rigid body.
That’s why LaGrange was wrong to theorize about individual particles in the Moon.
Just one remark to the most stupid denialist I ever encountered:
Like you, Tesla never studied engineering. He spent his joung man’s life in bars.
J.-P. D.
binny…”Tesla never studied engineering. He spent his joung mans life in bars”.
You get more idiotic with each reply.
From Wiki:
“In 1875, Tesla enrolled at Austrian Polytechnic in Graz on a Military Frontier scholarship. During his first year, Tesla never missed a lecture, earned the highest grades possible, passed nine exams[25][26] (nearly twice as many as required[34]), started a Serb cultural club,[25] and even received a letter of commendation from the dean of the technical faculty to his father, which stated, “Your son is a star of first rank.”[34] During his second year, Tesla came into conflict with Professor Poeschl over the Gramme dynamo, when Tesla suggested that commutators were not necessary”.
It figures that some stupid, stubborn German professor would discourage him. Are all you Germans that stubborn?
I’ll tell you one thing, having studied 3-phase motors, transformers, and circuitry, you don’t invent such technology without a rigourous background in the field. I don’t care if he spent every night in a bar, Tesla revolutionized the electrical field with his brilliant insight.
He could even do integral calculus in his mind which lead to professors claiming he was cheating. He spent lengthy periods of time visualizing technology and that’s why he is considered one of the most brilliant engineers of all time.
It takes a mind like that to ‘see’ that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis. Of course, followers and wannabees like yourself cannot do that. That’s why you believe in anthropogenic warming and fail to understand how satellite telemetry works.
binny…here is your quote from Newton in bold face:
“But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb
He starts out talking about the lunar day, not rotation. In fact, he talks about revolution and that implies he is talking about the Moon’s rotation about its external Earth axis.
A ‘day’ can mean two things. It can be the time it takes a planet like the Earth to turn once on its axis or it can refer to the time sunlight is striking a surface. The latter is normally used with the Moon because it is not turning and has sunlight striking it for roughly 14 days.
Newton claims the Lunar day is menstrual, meaning monthly, so he is obviously applying the meaning of day as the time it takes for the Moon to rotate on its axis. That is not proof that the Moon does turn on its axis, simply because someone like Newton said it.
He is stating that the lunar day is equal to the monthly orbital period and that is wrong. Because the Moon is tidally locked, with the same face always pointing to the Earth, the lunar day is half of the monthly period because it is only lit when the Moon is facing the Sun, when the Moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun.
That’s why we see the Moon in phases and the phases always involve the near-side. When the Moon is between us and the Sun, we don’t see it at all. Furthermore, we can see it only during the Earth night period with the exception of occasionally seeing it during summer when it rises in the East.
It’s clear that Newton was wrong and we have proved it here along with Tesla. Rather than appealing to authority, which is your MO, why don’t you look at the irrefutable evidence we have provided, which coincides with that of Tesla.
Presuming a circular orbit, draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre (don’t care about baycentres) through the Moon’s centre. The ‘same face’ referred to by Newton, or the ‘near face’, must always face the Earth as the radial line turns through 360 degrees. If you draw a line perpendicular where the radial line meets the near face, that line is a tangent line to a circle with the radial length to that point as its radius. As the radial line turns, that line moves on an inner circle.
Draw another perpendicular line where the radial line exits the far-side. That is a line tangential to a circle with radius of the length of the radial line to that point. Now we have an inner circle and an outer circle on which the near side and far side are constrained to move.
That is an irrefutable proof that the near side and far side are moving always in parallel and proves that Newton was wrong.If the near and far sides are moving in parallel then the centre and all points on the radial line are moving in parallel.
binny…”I have a much more sound relation to science than you ever could manage to develop. You are – not only in my understanding – one of the most antiscientific persons writing on this blog”.
I am still waiting for one scientific analysis from you that does not involve appealing to the authority of the ancient generation of scientists. Among them, Newton stands out because he has contributed far more than any of them. That does not make him immune to error.
I am a big fan of Newton, I seriously admire the guy for what he did in times when contagions were prevalent that would make covid laughable. As it stands, I regard this so-called virus as laughable based on the pseudo-science upon which it is based.
There was a psychological issue affecting Newton, Cassini, LaGrange and even as far as Eintein that has been partially solved if any modernists cares to become aware of the dichotomy in the human mind. In essence, we humans lack the awareness to understand our own minds because that awareness has been turned off or not developed. Seven years of university does not give a student sufficient awareness to see what an ass he really can be.
In the days of Newton, it was almost a religious crime to think for oneself or to question edicts proposed by the Catholic church. Copernicus, 1473 – 1543, had his life threatened by the Catholic church for claiming the Sun did not revolve around th Earth.
Galileo, 1564 – 1642, was threatened in the same manner for supporting the views of Copernicus. Newton, 1642 – 1726, was born the year Galileo died. Kepler 1571 – 1630, and his mentor who gathered the data, Tycho Brahe, 1546 – 1601, both preceded Newton.
Cassini, 1625 – 1712, was a contemporary of Newton.
My point is that Newton, as brilliant as he was, still lived in times when the Catholic church was dictating how people should think scientifically and in times when the science of astronomy was just getting going. There was no way for Newton to have had the advantage we have today with regard to orbits and the properties of the Moon, like linear momentum.
Newton was a busy man, he was not only studying in-depth science, he devoted much of his time to writing volumes on the Bible and communing with God. I have no problem whatsoever with such communication, many good scientists have done it and continue to do it. However, there is a difference between then and now wrt psychology.
Freud, 1856 – 1939, made a major discovery regarding the human mind. He discovered that will power had nothing to do with human behavior, most of our motivations comes from unconscious processes.
A person can create an image through will power but the real person still lurks at the unconscious level waiting to be exposed under duress. That’s why heroes are often simple souls who did not appear to have heroic abilities, or even knew they had such abilities, whereas those appearing to be heroes often turn and run when under pressure.
There are people today who still don’t get that and many are scientists. Many have created an image of being competent whereas under the hood they are fakes. Furthermore, the fake-artists tend to group together and create paradigms that make no sense, like the anthropogenic warming theory or the theory underlying covid.
The theories of Freud are regarded as primitive today but from his early work has evolved our understanding of awareness. We humans now have the ability to become aware of our condition and our propensity to create images and project them. At a deeper level, we have the ability to become aware of the process of thought that creates those images to which we cling and SEE how superficial they are. They are empty….have no meaning.
In the days of Einstein, image was everything and Freud was trying to make a breakthrough. He was laughed at and derided. Meantime, Einstein, who has really not accomplished a lot compared to scientists like Newton, was made a hero, a huge image in the minds of his followers. I have fallen prey to that kind of image worship before becoming aware of what it actually meant.
There were times when followers of Einstein literally outlawed any views that opposed those of Einstein. It has only been more recently that anyone has dared to challenge his views on relativity. Even at that, esteemed scientists like Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, and who is an expert on time and its measurement are not taken seriously in their criticism of Einstein.
Essen pointed out that Einstein’s theory of relativity is not even a theory, it is a collection of t thought experiments, many of which have never been proved. Furthermore, Essen claimed that Einstein did not understand measurement which is self-evident when Einstein claimed time can dilate and the lengths of material change with velocity.
Einstein defined time as the hands on a clock, one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard. Time is defined by humans based on the periodic rotation of the Earth, making it a constant, yet Einstein got away with defining a time that can change, and since the distance traveled at a certain velocity is based on that time, the distance can change as well.
If Einstein can get away with such egregious error, I see no problem with Newton failing to get it that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. My image of Newton is based on the same lack of awareness that has created an over-bloated image of Einstein, even in the minds of scientists who should know better.
In many ways, scientists are no different than layman when it comes to awareness of reality. They can do the math, they are full of convoluted theories, but they cannot apply them, so they group together and agree the theories must be correct therefore true.
Know others through yourself:
“we humans lack the awareness to understand our own minds because that awareness has been turned off or not developed.”
And England was not Catholic in Newton’s time.
Svante says:
And England was not Catholic in Newtons time.
=========================================
Wrong!
Wikipedia says:
“The English Reformation took place in 16th-century England when the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.”
Newton was born in the 17th century.
The reformation was reversed briefly by Mary I 1553-1558.
Later catholic monarchs could not restore papal authority.
Svante, the Church of England is Catholic. It just doesn’t give homage to the Pope in Rome. James II was the last of the Roman Catholic kings of England being deposed in 1988 by the Dutch Protestant William of Orange.
Newton’s Principia was published one year before that in 1687.
“The Church of England is Catholic”, that’s a good one : – )
No, the Anglican Church is Protestant.
James II ruled for only three years because:
Are you a member of the church?
Nope. You think there are secret rites in the crypt?
Rest assured Svante the Anglican church considers itself Catholic.
The church continues to with the Catholic traditions and simply doesn’t consider the Pope the head of the church.
I should know I went through confirmation school as a teenager and was confirmed into the Episcopalian Church which is the American branch of the Anglican church.
Of course the Roman Catholic church denies the Anglican church is Catholic. But as usual you bite on the propaganda rather than the facts.
bill hunter says:
“Rest assured Svante the Anglican church considers itself Catholic.”
Citation?
Climate craziness was voted out.
Hope republicans can find an intelligent alternative next time.
svante…”Climate craziness was voted out.
Hope republicans can find an intelligent alternative next time”.
You’re a but premature, it’s not over till the Supreme Court rules on the corruption of the Democrats and how they stuffed the ballot boxes. One of the crooks had the nerve to blame a block of Republican votes being awarded to the Dems as a computer glitch. Computers don’t glitch like that, crooked humans do.
Besides, based on the close split in the popular vote, even if he gets in, Sleazy Joe should acknowledge that he does not have a clear mandate to act on climate hysteria.
You really swallow every conspiracy theory.
How about some skepticism?
svante…”Utter propaganda. This nonsense needs to be stopped right now before many people are seriously injured”.
Trump was up by 500,000 votes in Pennsylvania till they started counting the mail-in votes. Normally such votes follow the trend of the walk in electors. In this case, Sleazy Joe was able to make up a 500,000 vote deficit. In one county in Pennsylvania, a block of Republican votes were credited to Democrats. The woman in charge claimed it as a computer glitch. Exactly how many of those computer glitches were there?
Several Federal Supreme Court justices had already questioned the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to allow Pennsylvania an extension to count the votes. They did not intervene because it was too close to the election. Trump will surely be bringing that back to their attention.
If Pennsylvania is legally challenged then Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan, and other close states will surely follow. What they need is an entire recount in the last 6 states that took up to a week to count their ballots, not to mention Arizona.
What are your sources?
binny…”We then see how the vector in space joining the observing resp. observed points behaves over 28 Earth days, depending on the rotation speed of the Moon we selected before starting”.
I laid that out for you in such a simplistic manner that a grade schooler could understand it and you still don’t get. Forget the obfuscations about the Earth’s orbit and tilt, has no bearing on the fact that the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. The lunar orbital plane is tilted at about 5 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital plane, makes no difference. Does not even matter if the Earth is tilted and/ or rotating or not.
This is a simple problem with the Moon orbiting the Earth on a 2-D plane. You can extend the 2-D plane through the Earth’s centre and the Earth’s tilt has no effect on the problem. So, now we have a conic section through the Earth formed by the lunar orbital plane and at the centre of the conic section we have an axis for the Moon. From the axis is extended a radial line along the 2-D lunar orbital plant and through the Moon, The radial line will rotate about the Earth axis with the Moon on the 2-D lunar orbital plane.
To simplify the problem I have presumed a circular orbit (no libration). The circular orbit is drawn on the 2-D plane around the Earth axis with the radial line from the Earth axis through the Moon and rotating through 360 degrees on the 2-D plane. You cannot get any simpler than that and if you cannot visualize this in your mind you will never understand this problem.
You wanted vectors. The first vector is the force vector at the Moon pointing from its centre down the radial line toward the Earth axis. We need a vector perpendicular to the force vector at the Moon’s centre where it intercepts the radial line. That vector represents the Moon’s linear momentum and is always tangential to the orbital curve.
Some will complain that you cannot mix a force vector with a momentum vector but Tesla got around that by converting the momentum vector to kinetic energy. I get around it by replacing the momentum vector with the equivalent force the Moon would exert on a body if they crashed. Same thing. A force creates momentum and momentum is converted back to that force when something tries to stop it.
Besides. I am not using the vector for calculation, I am using it simply to demonstrate the two conditions that keep the Moon in orbit. LaGrange screwed it up by getting the wrong forces.
With these conditions in place there is another stipulation. The near face of the Moon must always point to the Earth. To orient that face to the Earth and the lunar orbital plane, we need to create an imaginary lunar axis perpendicular to the Lunar orbital plane. Some have claimed that means the Moon’s axis is tilted but that’s false. It is the lunar plane that is tilted about 5 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital plane and that gives the Moon’s pseudo-axis a tilt relative to the Earth-Sun orbital plane.
To summarize, the Moon is orbiting the Earth on a 2-D plane that slices through the Earth’s centre at some angle. There is a radial line drawn from the Earth’s centre along the 2-D plane and through the Moon’s centre. There is an imaginary lunar axis passing through the Moon’s centre perpendicular to the 2-D plane at the orbital path. Since the video presented by Dremt represents that plane, it is valid.
I added a force vector along the radial line from the Moon’s centre to represent Earth’s gravitational force. I added another vector perpendicular to the radial line at the Moon’s centre to represent the Moon’s linear momentum. Now I am going to add two more vectors: one where the near face meets the radial line and tangential to the orbital path and another where the far side meets the radial line. The last two vectors represent the momentum of particles on the near face and far face where they intercept the radial line.
Let the radial line turn with the Moon. Those three vectors will always be parallel to each other due to the condition imposed that the near face always point down the radial line to the Earth’s centre. There is no way the two outer vector can rotate about the lunar axis. No way.
If you look at Dremt’s video, that condition stands out like a sore thumb. I can easily see those vectors turning parallel to each other by watching the near side and face side simultaneously.
Robertson
The longer your posts, the more rubbish they contain, the denser you appear.
You are so busy with your egocentric narrative that you don’t understand what matters, namely that the Moon facing us all the time isn’t alone a consequence of it rotating.
It is a consequence of the combination of its orbiting TOGETHER with its spin.
*
That, Robertson, is exactly what people like the German astronomer Tobias Mayer discovered centuries ago, after having studied, day after day during TWO YEARS, the behavior of many craters on the Moon’s visible face.
Mayer perfectly understood, long before Newton wrote about it:
https://tinyurl.com/yytuurr9
the relation between
– Moon’s apparent libration in longitude
and
– a spin of a duration equal to that of its orbit.
So incredibly accurate was his work that he won – unfortunately only after his death – a British Crown Prize of £ 20,000 dedicated to the first to develop a method of determining longitude at sea.
His widow sent her husband’s work, and received only 3,000 of them. That’s life.
*
You very probably didn’t take even one hour a day during three days, in order to perform 1/100,000th of Mayer’s work, let alone would your three sweet altar boys have done that.
Learn Robertson, learn! Instead of boasting.
And… stop lying!
J.-P. D.
binny…”the Moon facing us all the time isnt alone a consequence of it rotating.
It is a consequence of the combination of its orbiting TOGETHER with its spin”.
You can add Mayer to the long list of scientists who failed to grasp the simplicity of why the Moon can orbit while keeping the same face to the Earth. It does not need to spin, its action is exactly the same as if you had a jetliner able to move on a roadway around the Equator, if you could build a causeway over the oceans.
With such a scenario, the jetliner, on the ground, and under its own propulsion (taxying), would point continuously in different directions without rotating about its COG. Now get it to take off and follow an orbital path at 35.000 feet, exactly the same action. It would circumnavigate the globe, continuously pointing in a different direction, without rotating on its COG. If it did rotate about its COG it would crash.
Exactly the same as the Moon, the same face always to the Earth yet pointing in different directions at each instant. The only difference is that the jetliner requires propulsion to overcome the effect of gravity whereas the Moon requires a linear momentum.
The notion that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit, on a local axis, is completely wacko. There is absolutely no way to do that while keeping the same face toward the Earth.
binny…”You very probably didnt take even one hour a day during three days, in order to perform 1/100,000th of Mayers work….”
In engineering classes, we learned to save time by thinking things through clearly.
You wrote that Mayer understood the principles long before Newton. That’s a good trick considering that Mayer was 4 years old the year Newton died. Furthermore, Mayer used calculus in his calculation and calculus was invented by Newton.
Tobias Mayer (17 February 1723 20 February 1762)
Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 20 March 1726/27)
I just read through a book on Mayer and once again you have confused rotation with libration. Mayer was not concerned with the Moon rotating locally, he was concerned with creating tables that would reveal the position of the Moon in the sky. Part of the problem was libration since it exposed more of the lunar surface.
With regard to the prize money, first prize went to Harrison, a clock maker who produced a very accurate chronometer that could keep tract of longitude. The difficulty with his method was manufacturing enough of the clocks to outfit a fleet. The difficulty with Mayer’s method was the complex calculations that had to be made by captains at sea.
It is sad that the prize money was not handed to the family in a timely manner after Mayer’s death.
Robertson
” That’s a good trick considering that Mayer was 4 years old the year Newton died. ”
Nonsense. I simply copied and pasted a paragraph and forgot to drop ‘long before Newton’ which in fact referred to Cassini’s work (you totally ignore, exactly as that of Mayer you don’t know anything about:
https://tinyurl.com/y22enjxs
When I have some idle time, I’ll write about it.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
”You are so busy with your egocentric narrative that you dont understand what matters, namely that the Moon facing us all the time isnt alone a consequence of it rotating.
It is a consequence of the combination of its orbiting TOGETHER with its spin.”
====================
Egocentric!!!!
Thats you Bindidon believing you can separate out the orbit from the rotation without a single shred of science to establish that. It’s impossible as there is zero torque associated with an orbit that would cause the moon to spin independent of the physics of orbits.
Yet you persist grasping at straws like Newton once mentioned the moon’s axis or this other guy happened to have said the moon’s axis. Mayer is probably rolling over in his grave with you guys misrepresenting his work. Libration has nothing to do with the fact the moon follows an orbital path without putting any torque on the moon whatsoever. An orbit is nothing but the reduction of r in a much larger orbit, one you morons think is a straight line path. No its like an ice skater the earth pulling in her arms and hands, the moon. A factor seen by Tesla about a hundred years ago and which is consistent also with kinematics. A factor that doesn’t apply to strings and rotating disks because of actual breaking of the centripetal forces (gravity doesn’t break).
No its a natural orbit that the rate of rotation speeds up as the ice skater brings in her arms without a shred of torque being applied.
Then you grasp at CO2 being responsible for the temperature of the planet without even a theory that goes beyond a suspicion. It is known beyond a reasonable doubt that greenhouse gases are a necessary condition for a greenhouse effect but it has yet to be established they are sufficient alone for a greenhouse effect. In fact the current theory is actually based on that fact. Science has yet to distinguish between the existing facts and the cause of those facts. The grade school model doesn’t cause any warming, none, zip, zilch.
Myself and others are not egocentric as we don’t think we know answers that haven’t already been established by others, while you morons extrapolate away like you believe you are child genius proteges scolding others for inability see beyond the bounds of known science in a way that suggests your extrapolations are within the bounds of science.
> It is known beyond a reasonable doubt that greenhouse gases are a necessary condition for a greenhouse effect but it has yet to be established they are sufficient alone for a greenhouse effect.
Something tells me you don’t know what “necessary” means, Bill.
From near the beginning of the thread:
nate…”I said Models made predictions. Then the observations over the next 4 decades agreed with predictions”.
Models can’t even predict the past given past data. When Hansen made his gloom and doom predictions based on catastrophic warming predictions, back in 1988, he had to disavow his predictions 10 years later, blaming it on a mistake by his computer.
Expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, set the IPCC straight on models. He told them unvalidated models cannot predict anything, which is right. The IPCC were forced to change ‘prediction’ to ‘projection’, another fancy word for guess.
No model has predicted anything over the decades, they have been egregiously wrong.
Hurrah, that’s what I was looking for, what a data! present here at
this webpage, thanks admin of this site.
“__c th cng vi_c c_a chng ti r_t c_n D_ch v_ tiu h_y gi_y, c_m _n Cng ty Ti_n Tr lun ph_c v_ nhi_t tnh, nhanh chng v c trch nhi_m.”
Heya this is kind of of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML.
I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding know-how so I wanted to get guidance from someone
with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Here is my web site: nh_n __nh bng _ b_
I ԝas aƅlе to find gooԁ advice from y᧐ur articles.
Hello,
What a cool article!
May I scrape it and share this with my website members?
My site is about Korean 출사유출
If you are interested, feel free to visit my site and
check it out.
Thank you and Keep up the good work!
We absolutely love your blog and find almost all of your post’s to be just what I’m looking for.
Do you offer guest writers to write content
to suit your needs? I wouldn’t mind publishing a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects you write with regards to here.
Again, awesome web log!
Wow! This blog looks exactly like my old one!
It’s on a completely different topic but it has pretty much the
same page layout and design. Outstanding choice of colors!
I am really impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your weblog.
Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself?
Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a great
blog like this one these days.