Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2022 was +0.17 deg. C, down from the April, 2022 value of +0.26 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 17 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.31 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.43 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.22 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
2022 05 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.59 0.22 0.19
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 2022 should be available within the next several 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
New research shows that fewer clouds result in greater, not less warming.
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2022-0478.pdf
To me that was common sense, but I guess the IPCC was confused. Anyway, fewer clouds allow more warming visible radiation to reach the oceans, resulting in warming. CO2 doesn’t work into that model. Ocean currents alter the clouds over the Oceans. The Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 molecule rule out CO2 as the cause. Fewer clouds over the oceans is what is causing the warming. Watch Dr. Jim Steele’s videos to understand how La Nina alters the clouds.
The reduction in clouds as measured by CERES and discussed in this paper seems to validate your view.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm
“The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020).”
“Ollila concluded that this increasing downwelling SW, which is particularly strong since 2014, may be responsible for a new wave of heating after the hiatus. This finding is in conflict with the assumption that further global warming originates mainly from the LW radiation capture caused by greenhouse gases, i.e., a decline of outgoing LW”
https://imgur.com/gallery/Sv58OwA
https://imgur.com/gallery/AXk1TOx
I actually have obtained $19700 merely a month just working parttime at home. Just when I lost my previous post, I was so disturbed and eventually I’ve searched this simple online job & in this way I am capable to get thousand USD from my home. Anyone can certainly get this chance and may collect more dollars on-line by going following internet-web site….
>>> https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/
So…Declining SW out at TOA so more SW is available to heat the oceans, which is shown by the increase in OHC. GHGs are not absorbing the SW so it has to be something else which is decreasing albedo. This is explained as mostly a decrease in clouds and also ice. We also have an increase in outgoing LW at TOA which should not be there if GHCs and LW were the dominant forcing that’s causing an increase in temps. An increasing outgoing LW at TOA is also explained by a decrease in clouds as less LW is being trapped by the clouds which is actually countering the SW increase at the earths surface but, obviously SW is dominant because we have the increase in OHC which makes sense as SW is a better water heater than LW.
Dr. Spencer was ridiculed when he wrote of clouds as a forcing and not a feedback…was that Spencer Braswell 2011?
This paper is not that complicated and with the observational data from CERES…Why are we still talking about CO2? An increase in SW at the earths surface is a near perfect fit for increased OHC and in turn higher atmospheric temps, is it not?
“with the observational data from CERES…Why are we still talking about CO2?”
Satellite era net top-of-atmosphere flux trends for 09/2002-03/2020 due to changes in:
Water vapor…….0.31 +/- 0.19 W/m^2/decade
Clouds…………0.25 +/- 0.18 W/m^2/decade
Trace gases…….0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2/decade
Trace gases = ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC-11, CFC-12, and HCFC-22
The trend in incoming solar flux is negligible in the period at -0.053 W/m^2/decade.
Ref.: Loeb et. al. 2021 in GRL 10.1029/2021GL093047
But where did Loeb et al get the data to support their numbers. Oh right, from “models”, “guesses” and “estimates”. LOL.
I can’t speak to the accuracy or usefulness of the Models Loeb used but his logic seems to state:
GHGs lead to higher temps, higher temps lead to lower relative humidity, lower relative humidity leads to fewer clouds, fewer clouds causes more SW and less LW at earths surface. In short, he claims clouds as a positive feedback to increased temps.
See Dr. Spencer’s post below.
This is the whole chicken-vs-egg issue I’ve been harping on for many years (and even wrote a book about). When a decrease in clouds occurs with warming, is it from decreasing clouds causing warming (which can also include strong negative cloud feedbacks on warming), or is warming causing a decrease in clouds which amplifies the warming (positive cloud feedback)? I’ve never found a way empirically to answer the question. Yet, everyone still thinks they have stumbled upon the answer. As usual, it’s a matter of faith which way you believe.
It can still be both.
If warming is caused by other than greenhouse gases and causes less clouds so more shortwave, which then causes warming.
Or as a feedback from more greenhouse gas warming.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acc.523 Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of (acz21) income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
More information. >> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
Other than changes in the surface area of the oceans and other sources of water, what other than changes in temperature would cause changes in cloud formation?
Changes in Humidity.
And what would cause changes in humidity other than changes in ocean surface area or changes in temperature?
Well the ‘humidity paradox’ says it is not just temperature and the ocean surface area has changed much in millennia.
It must be very basic physics that increased temperature will cause increased evaporation , and unless that water vapour floats off into space it is going to form clouds as it rises into cooler air. so more heat= more clouds. Sure there will then be at least two effects ov the clouds being there; reducing the incoming light and trapping outgoing heat. can’t guess which is more significant but that probably varies with a multitude of other factors. But only to the extent of mitigating the cloud formation effect of increased temperature. It must be reaction rather than primary cause of warming. IMH but strongly held O.
D J S
“It must be very basic physics that increased temperature will cause increased evaporation”
See ‘evaporation paradox’ which says that the opposite is happening.
It takes more than humidity to cause clouds. It also takes dust or volcanic ash or some other fine particles floating in the air. The saturation level does not only depend upon temperature. Air pressure is another influence. Some scientists believe that varying output in certain energy forms from the sun causes variation in cloud formation. (It is noteworthy that not all scientists agree on that last point.)
Cosmic ray nucleation with trace gas catalysis to grow them, root cause being orbits of the planets moving the barycenter relative to the position of the sun and earth and strength of the solar wind and magnetic field and perhaps changes in cosmic ray flux coming from outside the solar system
Was Svensmark first to show cosmic ray nucleation (since confirmed by CERN?)
hallo
SA
I have actually created $18330 merely three weeks simply working job at my computer.~r8259~When I have lost my last position, I was exhausted & luckily I have came across this super on-line offer and I can manage to have thousands directly from my home.~r8259~All of you can certainly get this golden opportunity & benefit more money on-line by viewing this link.
>>>>>>>>>> http://works360.blogspot.com
Svensmark theorised it, CRN has not shown it for the size particles actually present in our atmosphere. This remains unverified.
I theorised that stratospheric water vapour drives changes in the troposphere via jet stream regimes. High SO2 volcanic events strip H2O from the stratosphere, pinitubo resulted in multidecadal cooling of the stratosphere which enhanced a zonal jet stream regime with less mixing and therefore clouds. Now with the Hunga Tonga steam explosion likely reversing stratospheric humidity long term, the reverse aspect of the theory can now be tested. We should experience meridonal regime with increased clouds and global cooling. The temporal correlation and reversal should put the notion CO2 driving cloud decreases to bed. Downside is “winter is coming”
hallo
I have actually created $18330 merely three weeks simply working job at my computer.~r8259~When I have lost my last position, I was exhausted & luckily I have came across this super on-line offer and I can manage to have thousands directly from my home.~r8259~All of you can certainly get this golden opportunity & benefit more money on-line by viewing this link.
>>>>>>>>>>
Dr. Spencer, I’m a bit confused by your statement you’ve never found a way to empirically answer that question.
Your book and this website [https://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/] give strong indication that (cloud)feedbacks are net negative. At least in the period 2000 – 2007.
Do you not consider that empirical, or too short of a period?
Did you ever do re-analysis on longer, now available data, periods?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
https://imgur.com/gallery/AXk1TOx
would seem to suggest that OLR HIRS rises before cloudiness.
Not sure thats the case RLH. Sharpest bend in the cloud chart is 2002-3 and sharpest bend in the OLR chart is 2005.
Sharp bends in most atmospheric charts occur in 1991 with Pinatubo eruption so some smoothing is probably called for there that takes a lot of the OLR lead out of focus but even with it there the most distinct change in direction seems to occur with the years I mention above. Perhaps it would take a more formal quantitative approach to confirm that.
The orange line trends upwards before the blue line trends downwards.
The blue line appear declining back to the start of the record, especially if you consider Pinatubo.
https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change#:~:text=Sulfuric%20gases%20convert%20to%20sulfate,four%20years%20in%20the%20stratosphere.
Look at the center of the graph where most of the change happens.
thats what I was looking at. The definite upturn in clouds at the conclusion of the 1999-2002 La Nina and the flatenning of the OLR curve in response.
My opinion was ”not sure thats the case” noting I was finding the chart not convincing and suggested the most convincing feature of your hypothesis was the 1991 response to the Pinatubo eruption and the most convincing feature of it not being the case was 2002.
I am of the opinion (and I am no expert but I usually have a good nose for data) that you get more warming with clouds and cooling without clouds. The first post put up on the May UAH report talks about the greenhouse effect of clouds which is something I have been talking about for years being aware that El Nino entrains a stream of moisture clouds into the atmosphere and brings heavy rains off the Pacific onto the Westcoast. La Nina brings clear weather and less entrainment of moisture in the air. I further believe that it is possible that the only variation of the greenhouse effect we see is regimes of ENSO, PDO, (maybe AMO and other ocean circulation patterns), and variable length events like solar minima and maxima variations.
Caveat: Don’t take the word possible as probable.
I was looking at the data from 1995 to 2005.
CO2 trails temperature. And we are told it also leads it. However it does appear the former dominates over the later, thus its a rational projection that at least half the warming we have observed is natural, rather than the other way around.
The perception of what science is and is not is changing rapidly. Post Normal Science (aka science by fiat) is becoming more of a daily fact than ever before. Who should be most alarmed by that and they are not? Anybody perceived as speaking contrary to precisely what the official Truth Ministry believes! Keep the faith!
lol
Science is better than ever.
That would be science is better than ever. Not political science.
I remain confused re La Nina associated with more clouds but cooler pacific oceans and El Nino less clouds and warmer oceans.
To me a warmer ocean must produce more water in the atmosphere though I guess the carrying power of the atmosphere for water goes up as well.
The concept of overall heat in, no clouds, easier to get out but more energy in the system as a whole at ground level contrasted with less energy in, clouds albedo effect, warming under the clouds but less energy so overall warmth is less?
Very confusing.
Have that round the wrong way!
I remain confused re La Nina associated with less clouds but cooler pacific oceans and El Nino more clouds and warmer oceans.
El Nino and La Nina cause clouds at differing parts of the Pacific.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/ENSOPageWhatisElNinoTest_0.png
Once again the UAH anomaly tracks very closely to the lagged sea surface temperature in Hadsst3. The SST dropped by about 0.1 C from November to December 2021.
The next two months will likely stay close to this value as the SSTs were fairly flat. Here’s the longer term comparison.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
Using your 5 month lag, of the last 12 times HADsst changed by more than 0.05, UAH changed in the same direction on only 4 occasions.
The 4-6 month lag is found generally when ENSO is positive or negative.
Correlation coefficient for HADsst vs 5-month lagged UAH since 1979: +0.04.
Correction: Correlation coefficient for monthly CHANGE in HADsst vs 5-month lagged monthly CHANGE in UAH.
wow that acceleration in warming is really taking off!
just imagine presenting this graph to the IPCC in 2000
never mind throwing out the ECS>2 models… at this point, with the CERES SW data, it’s fair to question whether there’s any real CO2 LW signal at all
doubtless the models will thrive even if actual temperatures peak before 2050
2000 CE?
Ok.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/trend
Identical trends before and after.
This is a great time to test a near-term prediction made by IPCC. thanks for reminding!
IPCC 2001 [TAR]
“On timescales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This approach suggests that anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades”
This was for surface temperature, so let’s use Had.CRU4, as it is the slowest warming of the surface data sets – I mean, that’s how you do it, right?
Decadal trend since 2001: 0.145 C/decade (+/- 0.088)
And let’s include the slowest warming of the lower troposphere data sets, even though it’s a different metric, and because, well, it’s the lowest one!
UAH v6: 0.143 C/decade (+/- 0.130)
Now, it’s 4 years early to test the near-term prediction from the IPCC report that followed, IPCC 2007 [AR4], but what the hell?
“For the next two decades, a warming of about
0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios.”
Trends since 2007 to date…
Had.CRU4: 0.223 C/decade (+/- 0.152)
UAH v6: 0.262 C/decade (+/- 0.219)
Using the Monckton method…
The pause period (= 0.26 C/decade) is now at 124 months (10 years, 4 months).
The peak warming period (0.34 C/decade) is now at 137 months (11 years, 5 months).
Ugg…the board filters out all content between less-than and greater-than symbols completely changing the content and meaning of my post. Let’s try this again without using those symbols…
Using the Monckton method
The pause period (less than or equal to 0 C/decade) is now at 92 months (7 years, 8 months).
The 2x warming period (greater than or equal to 0.26 C/decade) is now at 124 months (10 years, 4 months).
The peak warming period (0.34 C/decade) is now at 137 months (11 years, 5 months).
bdgwx said: “The 2x warming period (greater than or equal to 0.26 C/decade) is now at 124 months (10 years, 4 months).”
Nope. That’s not right. Actually the 2x warming period using the Monckton method is 184 months (15 years, 4 months).
+0.17 C on the 1991-2020 baseline is +0.29 C on the 1981-2010 baseline. I believe enough data is in that we can call those prediction for sub-zero anomalies on the 1981-2010 for the last 2 La Nina cycles as failed. We just experienced a strong La Nina and yet UAH TLT is nowhere close to this sub-zero threshold and even further away from the cooler period in the early 2010’s.
> those prediction for sub-zero anomalies
Which ones?
There are several. Here are a few from SAMURAI.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548129
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664707
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1041161
LOL, They are going to birth a brick when we get the next el Nino.
When will that be?
It will be the next time it happens, and the contrarians won’t like it.
I hope it gets warmer. Getting warmer has been a great thing over the past few hundred years since the nadir of the LIA in 1700. Less ice means more productive lands and seas.
“It will be the next time it happens, and the contrarians wont like it”
The blog at climate.gov recons that La Nina is more frequent than El Nino over the last 25 years. Do you expect that to change?
Since the start of 2015 we’ve has 2 El Ninos, and 4 La Ninas. And look what that got you:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1972/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2015
The vast majority of months well ABOVE the long term trend line.
So Nate says that La Nina/El Nino do not cause global temperature changes and the ratio of them in any period will not effect it either.
“So Nate says”
Again, Nate said what he said. Not what you made up.
Why do you do that?
In any case, the data tells the story.
3 degrees in 250 Years
It is well known that global temperature reacts to ENSO with about 5 month delay , The La Nina reached the lowest peak only last month , so that wouldn’t show up in the temperature until about 4 month later from now, but you already declare you have enough data today,
OK
I have this comment bookmarked.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-682048
I have this comment bookmarked.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2020-0-48-deg-c/#comment-454034
The ONI 5 months ago was -1.0.
The current double-dip la Nina reached its cold peak in 2020.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
I’m using this metric (Oceanic Nino Index), as it is the one favoured by Eben (and RLH) – the SST basis of CFSv2 forecast model they favour over all others.
2020 3-month ENSO anomalies (ONI)
SON -1.2
OND -1.3
NDJ -1.2
If we centre on the middle months and accounting for 5 month lag, this would be impacting March, April and May of 2021.
MAR -0.05
APR 0.08
MAY -0.01
Let’s see what that looks like for the post-2016 period.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2017/to:2023/plot/uah6/from:2017/to:2023/plot/uah6/from:2021.17/to:2021.42
While the 5 month lag is in evidence, it’s not perfect. The coldest of the 3 Nina anomalies is the warmest of the 3 global temp anomalies 5 months later.
None of those cold anomalies are negative on the previous baseline, on which those sub-zero predictions were made.
So we’re going to need more la Nina and stronger to get us there, and perhaps some help from other factors that influence global temps on monthly scale.
Current monthly ONI SST for 2022 is:
JAN -0.95
FEB -0.89
MAR -0.98
APR -1.12
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
“Three-year history of sea surface temperatures in the Nio-3.4 region of the tropical Pacific for 8 previous double-dip La Nia events. The color of the line indicates the state of ENSO for the third winter (red: El Nio, darker blue: La Nia, lighter blue: neutral). The black line shows the current event. Monthly Nio-3.4 index is from CPC using ERSSTv5. Time series comparison was created by Michelle LHeureux, and modified by Climate.gov.”
“The current double-dip la Nina reached its cold peak in 2020”
Doesn’t quite tell the whole picture.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14522
Yep all of them except one had turned upward by now and it went a 3rd winter.
Fact is we just passed the middle of the model unpredictability barrier a couple of weeks ago. So far a nothing burger in the ONI index. Also one month anomalous changes in direction are extremely frequent in the ONI measured record that turn out as nothing burgers.
So like last year we have an experts forecast for La Nina (and they relented in early March as they try to look through the model biases and the infrequencies of triple dips) and we will probably have to wait until late August to get the nervous models to settle down and consistently predict La Nina if indeed that is what is in store for us.
We are already in La Nina territory so I assume you mean a continued La Nina into this winter.
Yes. Triple dip includes both continuing La Ninas and those that go neutral in the spring before starting another.
Experts are predicting its likely we will have a La Nina winter. Models have been predicting a neutral winter and have been warming for a few weeks from that. Same as last year and last year the models kept getting warmer through spring into early summer and finally reversed direction in August.
You’ll note that 5 of 8 of the double-dip la Ninas in the graph all had record-setting low points in their evolution that have not been matched for that point in the calendar evolution by any other.
So when RLH tells me that THIS double-dip la Nina also has a low point unmatched for the particular time of the year by any other, “unprecedented” takes on a certain yellow hue.
Personally I haven’t seen anything labeled as unprecedented related to climate that I would call anything but rather mild. But it seems those who set the standard don’t like living by it.
https://imgur.com/gallery/8AC3rda
Cilmate.gov ENSO blog says otherwise.
Looks like Dr. Roy’s data continues to confirm AGW.
Here’s a new climate video to chew over:
Rising Wet-Bulb Temperatures Mean More Killer Heat Waves
https://youtu.be/HCX8JGckvfM
As always your comments are welcome.
Dr. Mark
Actually all it does is confirm modest warming.
None of the data confirms if the warming is due to natural variation or AGW.
The data also shows the model projections to be profoundly wrong.
The fact of the models being wrong shows AGW hypothesis is wrong too. We don’t know enough about climate to make any attributions.
Profoundly wrong?
The models show multidecadal warming from 1980 onwards.
Since 1980 every decade has been warmer than the last, and yes with UAH data, which is, like, the best global temp data ever.
Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by ‘profoundly’ and then move to what you mean by ‘wrong’.
“Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change”
Indeed yes. They built that opinion on 30 years of ONI data and its corrolation to global warming, ignoring that the ONI is an index based upon a 30 year baseline. Thats James Hansen for you that started this whole mess after Al Gore appointed him the head of NASA’s Goddard Lab. He also created the climate models that every climate model today still ascribes to. He also predicted the Manhattan freeway just outside his office window would be underwater by now.
Wrong in that the observations are outside the 95th percentile of the average of 0ver 100 climate model projections.
Profoundly Wrong in that people still cling to AGW despite the data falsifying the experiment.
If my estimation is correct then the UAH data is currently completely outside of the 40 CMIP-6 Model runs (outside the range because to cool). If that isn’t profoundly wrong, then what is? and the other data are similar over past 40 years.
I am not sure that Ken is saying that model projections are wrong in projections of direction, but they do seem to be quite wrong in projections of magnitude. I have seen a few alarmists try to explain away or deny the magnitude discrepancy between projections and actual temperatures. To me their explanations were far from convincing, and they would have been better to say that initial projections were too high, but now we believe we have a better handle. the issue is not confined to temperature. Models also projected the disappearance of polar ice by 2014 and billions of climate refugees by 2020.
I thought it was 2050.
Does Willard think that the models are correct?
Mark,
One month’s global temp data confirms nothing about any trend or cause for it. Far more data and multiple lines of evidence are required.
“Something weird is up with La Nina, the natural but potent weather event linked to more drought and wildfires in the western United States and more Atlantic hurricanes. It’s becoming the nation’s unwanted weather guest and meteorologists said the West’s megadrought won’t go away until La Nina does”
La Nina has been linked to drought and El Nino to wet weather since at least 1980 here on the Westcoast.
the west’s megadrought comes at a time where California’s population and use of water is at record smashing levels.
The deep La Nina of 1988-9 spurred this LA Times article.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-06-me-455-story.html
“What’s bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and that’s causing contention in the climate community about what to believe, according to Columbia University climate scientist Richard Seager and MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel.”
“Well, God give them wisdom that have it; and those that are fools, let them use their talents.”
So who do you think is correct? The overly warm climate models or Seager and Emanuel?
I think the article sets up a false dichotomy.
Gbaikie
Here’s that early hurricane you were looking for.
https://zoom.earth/storms/agatha-2022/
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
NOAA is counting two chances. It is giving that a greater than 60% chance and got another it is giving less than 40%.
And I was looking for chances, but I was thinking that they might be forming nearer Africa.
Daily Sun: 01 Jun 22
Solar wind
speed: 424.1 km/sec
density: 2.65 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 39
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.30×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.6% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.4%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
I don’t have any particular opinion about effects of Sun’s
solar activity has on Earth’s global climate or weather.
Other than Sun activity in general is very important in many aspects.
Understanding the Sun activity, it’s history and what it do in the future is important aspect regarding space exploration.
But I think exploring the Moon and then exploring Mars is important and the sun’s activity is particularly important regarding crewed exploration of Mars.
Generally it though Solar Max condition lower the effects GCR radiation which is a concern upon crew when dealing with long duration of crew in the space environment.
And the fastest we reached Mars from Earth [arriving not flying by it] is about 7 months. So, years in space for crew lifetimes exposures increases unknown risks to them. This can be lowered by the Sun’s Solar Max, and can lowered by more radiation shielding and/or faster travel times.
The Age of Starship.
{If we only had the Age of the Space Shuttle. As I said Starship is similar to Space Shuttle AND ex-NASA employees made Starship- with Elon Musk’s, leadership}.
The Space Cadets are quite excited about the Starship- and they weren’t excited about the Space Shuttle.
The significant aspect of Starship is it “could” refuel cheaply in Low Earth orbit.
I have thought a lot about refueling spacecraft in space. For example refueling in low lunar orbit is important to use the Moon.
And refueling in High Earth orbits, I think is important to get to Mars fast. And refueling in Venus orbit is important.
I tend to think about it, in terms of markets. Need a market of water on the Moon. Need a market of water on Mars. Need a imported water market in Venus orbit.
I am not against big corporations but also not a fan of big corporations. Had NASA made the Starship instead of Space Shuttle [which was possible], it would been better, but not really something to get very excited about. NASA might have wasted less time. But the theory behind having NASA make Space Shuttle {or something like Starship] was it was going to run by the private sector- govt develops it, private sector runs it, and improves it. And that didn’t work with Space Shuttle and has yet to work with ISS.
One thing which excite me, about Starship is it’s future launches from the Ocean. And immediate hope, is Starship enables NASA to explore the Moon within shorter time period and finally getting to exploring Mars.
Starship’s revolution is landing the booster, in theory can be reflown with such minimal refit that the cost to orbit may drop tenfold, opening up vast new vistas of spaceborne design possibilities
note that NASA did in fact fund a competitor, SLS, which is currently clocking in at around $4B per launch
it wasn’t just the private sector per se, it was one man in the private sector who changed spaceflight — and maybe opened up the Solar system
I recall when Musk was making his falcon-1, I wasn’t overly impressed but I was excited about new players getting into the game.
As I recall I was sort of fan of what was called the big dumb booster. I also liked idea of Sea Dragon, which could be called big dumb booster, except it was new and never tried, which doesn’t really count as big dumb booster.
But you could say falcon-1 was a small dumb booster.
Musk has already changed spaceflight with his falcon 9, which will probably reach 50 launches this year.
I am still excited by new players getting into market.
One could count Starship as big dumb booster, because he making 33 raptor-2 engines very quickly, and therefore, cheaply.
Musk also making satellites at an ungodly speed, which others are also beginning to do. The cost of satellites used to be far more expensive than the total rocket launch costs.
A big dumb booster, was big and had a simple cheap engine, raptor 2 is very costly high performance engine, made quick and cheaply.
I think Musk should make his greenhouse. By which I mean he should make an artificial gravity station [very cheaply}.
It seems we need to test artificial gravity- and need it more than testing a greenhouse on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKEy2Q60F9c
A recent summary
also from https://www.spaceweather.com/
EXPLODING COMET DEBRIS: Have you ever seen a piece of a comet explode? Francis Murphy did on Monday night in Thorndale, Pennsylvania:
…
“According to the International Meteor Organization, the shower peaked with a sharp maximum of 50 meteors/hour around 0450 UT on May 31st. The timing is in excellent agreement with the predictions of Joe Rao, a lecturer at the Hayden Planetarium who drew attention to this shower before ithappened.”
7 hours ahead of me, 11:50 pm pacific time.
Also:
“FARSIDE SUNSPOTS: Right now, there are sunspots on the farside of the sun so big they are affecting the way the sun vibrates. Helioseismologists have detected their echoes in the latest farside map from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory. Don’t be surprised if we see CMEs billowing away from the farside of the sun in the days ahead.”
Farside would be effecting GCR in space. As would anything happenning in polar regions. And it seems we getting a lot more sunspots on near side fairly soon- like, within 1 week.
Solar wind
speed: 278.7 km/sec
density: 7.62 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Jun 22
Sunspot number: 52
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.86×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.2% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.3%
SOLAR CYCLE 25 UPDATE: Once again, Solar Cycle 25 is exceeding predictions. Sunspot numbers in May 2022 more than doubled NOAA’s forecast, setting the stage for a relatively strong Solar Maximum in early 2025.
https://www.spaceweather.com/
I am going to guess peak before Jan 2025, or late 2024, otherwise, NOAA seems the most correct.
of the three.
Daily Sun: 05 Jun 22
Solar wind
speed: 289.0 km/sec
density: 13.30 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 75
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.62×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.6%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
It seems to me returning towards more solar min type conditions,
though it seems we could get double peak {though why not have a triple peak??}. Or we had our peak, and it’s downhill from here.
Generally, I would say, we in a Solar Grand Minimum, but unlikely some sort of great solar grand Minimum. Or we entering it. Or it seems unlikely the we going to go back to “normal” within time frame of next 10 years, but returning to normal within say 30 years seems likely.
Or exploring Mars within next 30 years will harder, as compared if we had explored Mars in the last 30 years.
Daily Sun: 05 Jun 22
Solar wind
speed: 268.3 km/sec
density: 12.59 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 57
{it seems it’s getting “close” to
spotless. But it seems it will take a few
days to get spotless, but of course new spot may appear.
But looks like low Sunspot numbers for maybe next week and
the issue whether we eventually get a double peak type thing}
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.62×1010 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.6%
Here’s one more climate video that you may find interesting:
Climate Change Is Creating Ghost Forests
https://youtu.be/CW6MGLvBkLI
Again, comments are welcome.
Dr. Mark
Mark Shapiro
Do you have solid linking evidence that the long term drought in the South West US and California is due to Climate Change or just some natural state based upon things like ocean currents or hot and cold regions in the Pacific that vary and change over time but can persist.
Research has shown that this drought is not unusual and that this region has had many severe droughts, many lasting much longer than this current one. Factors were at play that created those other drought conditions and they had nothing to do with a warming world.
I keep hearing this drought is Climate Change but I see almost zero supporting evidence. Some vague ideas are that hotter world can evaporate more water making a more severe drought. Is there any actual calculations showing that this is the case? I like science which means conclusions need support. It has to be more than speculation and opinion or repetition. We have a few contrarian “skeptics” on this blog that endlessly state their opinions and make believe science and repeat it many times thinking this will magically change their opinions to facts. I need more than assertions, need some supporting evidence.
Mark Shapiro
Looking into some beetle infestations. Here is one type of beetle destruction that takes place in Alaska caused by the Spruce Beetle.
There were major outbreaks over periods of time.
They have a graph showing different levels of damage over an extended time frame.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r10/forest-grasslandhealth/?cid=FSEPRD536861&width=full
I like to look at long term records because whenever I do it seems that current damage is not that unusual or alarming. It is bad but hard to link a degree or so of warming to major forest damage.
See the following video
https://youtu.be/q6tuiSWzrrM
and the reference therein.
mark…”Climate Change Is Creating Ghost Forests”
***
Climate change as presented by you and other alarmists is a myth. No scientific proof that meets the requirements of the scientific method.
Since 1998 we’ve had a 15 year flat trend followed by a 4 year flat trend. No warming = no changing climates.
Gordon,
Your argument is a perfect illustration of the “staircase fallacy.” Every step on the staircase is flat, but “miraculously” you still reach a higher level when you climb the steps.
See for example:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
to understand how those steps add up to significant warming.
Dr. Mark
“Every step on the staircase is flat, but ‘miraculously’ you still reach a higher level when you climb the steps”
So how do you know that it is not following a long term sine wave which will produce a similar outcome?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/amo.jpeg
I have a simple question. If the surface record has to be compensated for the heat island effect with published research in support of that effort, why are record high temperatures not also compensated or at least explained? Maybe the news media need to calm down.
” Maybe the news media need to calm down. ”
Over 100 % agreed.
But…
1. ” If the surface record has to be compensated for the heat island effect with published research in support of that effort, … ”
The urban heat island effect is a part of the surface temperatures and hence should not be compensated at all.
What on the hand must very well be compensated for this effect out of the measured temperatures is the global temperature which people try to correlate to the increase of CO2 and water vapor.
*
2. ” … why are record high temperatures not also compensated or at least explained? ”
They are already compensated because they are the end result of what is done in (1).
“The urban heat island effect is a part of the surface temperatures and hence should not be compensated at all”
Any idea of the ratio between urban and rural/ocean areas?
Agreed on news media being sensational.
Some records compensate for UHI effect, some don’t.
Record high temperatures ARE explained.
Any idea of the ratio between urban and rural/ocean areas?
UAH is accounted for differently by those compilers that adjust for it. I would suggest googling if you are interested in the details. I left that conversation a few years ago.
Check out BEST, the Berkeley effort. That dataset had a bunch of ‘skeptics’ involved in making it, and it has the largest number of stations and ocean sources of any global temp dataset.
http://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/
Ethanol: A Dumb Idea or A Crime Or Both?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/01/ethanol-a-dumb-idea-or-a-crime-or-both/
It list a lot reasons Ethanol is dumb and a crime [I would say a war crime].
But seems to me the worst thing is it supports Big Farming.
I don’t like big corporate farming.
It seems to me corporation should grow big, and have natural death- instead of govt giving them life support.
The sacrifices, the public is forced to make via corrupt politician {they are all evil and corrupt] is doesn’t help anyone.
Steven Goddard is cranking up his yootoob again
https://youtu.be/p-SmSPyVeHA
I suppose it’s possible that Rising CO2 levels cause less hotter daytime highs.
It seems to me that a warmer average ocean would cause less hotter daytime highs, but the average ocean temperature has not increased by much.
It seems very unlikely that average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C will rise by .5 to become 4 C within 100 years.
This month we at .013 C per decade.
It doesn’t seem to me, we going continue .013 C per decade or increase this rate within next few decades.
From my prospective, in the 20th century I was told the average global temperature is 15 C and was going to rise to 18 C or more within a century. And it’s now said the average temperature of 20th century was about 14 C.
One could wonder how much colder the 20th century will get as we get further from it.
14, 15, and 16 C is cold air temperature.
And 3,5 C ocean is quite cold.
Should want Earth having average global surface air temperature of 14 C or colder?
It seems it has more hot days and more cold days, so if you want more variety or more temperature extremes, the answer seems to be, yes.
But it’s said the average temperature is 15 C and it might actually be warmer or colder than this.
In terms of energy use, it seems it would be better to have a more uniform average temperature.
I was thinking recently the ocean settlements on Black Sea might good, but at moment wondering if it would be too cold.
Obviously ocean settlements would better in the tropical ocean.
“Cranking up” is the appropriate expression:
https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/2014/10/01/tony-heller-even-anthony-watts-thinks-im-a-sack-of-shit/
Crank describes you rather well.
You’re defending teh Goddard, dummy.
Here’s who you’re calling cranks:
ipcc.ch
No. I am calling you a crank. Idiot.
Our Logician with a big L fails transitivity.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I am calling you a crank. Idiot.
Superdeveloping triple La Nina effect forecast
https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/florida-could-take-early-season-strike-from-brewing-tropical-system/1195134
To save everyone time, la Nina is not mentioned in the article or the accompanying video. Eben has a fetish.
La Ninas can cause intense Atlantic hurricane seasons by lowering wind shear, but it is by no means inevitable.
Atlantic hurricane season was above average in 2016, during the major el Nino of that year, BTW.
You got me , I just like to type “Superdeveloping La Nina”
“La Ninas can cause intense Atlantic hurricane seasons by lowering wind shear, but it is by no means inevitable”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2022-atlantic-hurricane-season
“NOAA predicts above-normal 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXkc07ihiY
Got an American guy on who went into earlier part of Ukraine
war.
They talk about how bad Russia soldiers were, but I accept the idea
these Russian soldiers were just cannon fodder. Or clueless guys sent on a “training exercise”.
Which regard more immoral and more stupid than compared to just badly untrained Russian soldiers.
So some story of an American guys joining a bunch untrained Ukraine soldiers fighting the cannon fodder “Russia soldiers” somewhere vaguely in region where Russian tanks were parked as shown on TV, which is in that long line for that long time.
Yes, I have plenty of sympathy for the Russian soldiers, as well as the ordinary Ukranian citizen whose cities have ben shelled.
It’s a fucking disaster.
barry…the whole exercise is futile and meaningless unless you take the time to research what it’s all about.
The Ukraine have twice been labeled the most corrupt government in Europe. That’s not news in itself, but when the corruption extends to ousting a democratically-elected pro-Russian president in a coup by armed fascist militants, while the so-called armies and police of a so-called democracy sits back and watches, then the picture becomes somewhat clearer.
The coup occurred in 2014 and Russian speaking Ukrainians in the eastern provinces rebelled over a president voted in by them being given the boot. They appealed to Russia, who did nothing for 8 years, other than offer the rebels assistance. Finally, they’d had enough and invaded.
As one UK newspaper insinuated, this is not about a bully beating on an innocent country. It goes far deeper and we in the West are being lied to daily about the real cause.
For example, the Azov battalion located in Mariupol had been charged with war crimes. They follow a neo-Nazis belief system and that has been corroborated by the US Congress who voted to stop supporting them due to their beliefs. A New York Times columnist dismissed the neo-Nazi angle as nothing more than romanticism.
We in the West are simply not taking the situation in the Ukraine seriously. Any leader, including Zelensky is running the country with a gun held to his head by armed militants, who forced one president to pass a law recognizing Ukrainian war criminals from WW II as heroes.
We in democratic countries should not be standing for that but we are defending it.
Come on, Gordo –
> Russia was the lowest rated European country in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2021; ranking 136th out of 180 countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Russia
And you will never guess toward which side lean the most corrupt politickers in Ukraine.
Buffer states keep the peace.
Vladimir should have thought about that one after his ZZ stuff, not as an afterthought.
Erm. Before his ZZ stuff, that is.
Willard wants to revise history!
”With roughly 130,000 troops on Ukraine’s border, Putin is demanding that the former Soviet republic be blocked from ever joining NATO. Though the Kremlin claims it has no plans to invade Ukraine, the Biden administration has warned that a Russian military incursion into the former Soviet republic could be imminent.”, Feb 2, 2022
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-helped-nato-expand-in-the-90s-which-putin-now-threatening-war-over-2022-2
Bill gets everything backassward once again:
> NATO and Finland share common values, conduct an open and regular political dialogue and engage in a wide range of practical cooperation. NATO and Finland actively cooperate in peace-support operations, exercise together and exchange analysis and information. An important priority is to ensure interoperable capabilities, maintaining the ability of the Finnish armed forces to work with those of NATO and other partner countries in multinational peace-support operations.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49594.htm
Willard quickly deflects and changes the subject.
Bill is slow on the uptake.
Now that his ZZs made a mess, the buffer states are gone, and he has more military forces where he did not want them than before.
So you are saying that actually the Soviet Union had the perfect right to move missile into Cuba in 1962?
Gordon must have missed the speech by Putin, where he compared himself to Peter the Great, the tsar who made his name by expanding the Russian empire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2sfJjl7_Zk
Putin clearly has the same goals. This has nothing to do with Ukraine’s behavior.
There are many actors at play in and around Ukraine, of which militias are but a few. I wrote “ordinary Ukranian citizens” for a reason.
What very country in the world does and should rail against is one country invading another, when there is no threat of war or incursion into the invading country.
There are always other options. Military invasion crosses a line that is deeply drawn with extremely good reason.
We only have to look to previous “well-intentioned” invasions to se why.
Putin has made a catastrophic error. Russia may well prevail, but the region will be reeling from this for decades to come, and the law of unintended consequences will be savage. Th invasion has already pushed neighbouring countries not aligned with Russia closer to NATO, and that will only agitate Putin’s paranoia (or Soviet nationalist ambition).
Hopefully this dictator will be fucked off and Russia will acquire a more reasonable government.
Speaking of corrupt governments, Russia is hardly a paragon.
gb…”They talk about how bad Russia soldiers were…”
***
They were good enough to take out the elite Ukrainian battalion, the Azov battalion, and force them to surrender in Mariupol. They are good enough to be winning this warm so much so, that Zelensky is now whining about having to negotiate with Putin.
Don’t forget, the Russian army took out many Nazi divisions, driving them back to Germany. That kind of experience far outweighs anything the Ukrainians have, even when they use neo-Nazi battalions.
C’mon, Gordo –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
One does not simply resort to terrorism when one thinks they’re winning.
willard…I realize you are incapable of reading anything with an open mind. Amnesty International has claimed both sides have been guilty of war crimes but proving it in a court is another matter.
Everything I have claimed is verifiable. A wiki article is not. Historians have verified that Ukrainian nationalists formed and organization in 1929 based on fascism and white supremacy. One of the leaders pre-WW II was Stepan Bandera, who went on to work for the Nazis in Abwehr, as a spy. He was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes and managed to escape.
Other Ukrainians is western Ukraine formed Nazi SS divisons like SS Galacia. Both Bandera and other Nazi sympathizers, who sided with the Nazis are now honoured as heroes in the Ukraine. These same SOBs were responsible for crimes against humanity for their help in exterminating Jews, Poles, and Russians.
I am not going to discuss this with you anymore since it’s like talking to a wall. You are too damned lazy and too damned stupid to research it for yourself even though I have given you several links to reliable sources.
Gordon Robertson says: Everything I have claimed is verifiable. A wiki article is not.
The subject wiki article had 370 source reference links and your post doesn’t, so there’s that.
Don’t be a cheerleader for the Russian army, Gordo, and maybe people won’t try to demonstrate that you are cheerleading.
Of COURS there are war crimes. There always are. And on all sides.
That’s just one of the myriad reasons why war should only occur in defense of the nation that chooses that path.
Russia was not under threat, except perhaps in a paranoid leader’s mind. NATO is never going to mount an offensive against Russia.
–HMM: The Tide Is Turning Toward Russia: Its time to face some grim facts about the war in Ukraine.
I havent found Frenchs track record especially impressive, but its important to recognize that the war isnt over until its over.
537 comments
Posted at 7:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds–
https://instapundit.com/
Links to:
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-tide-is-turning-toward-russia?s=r
“Back when Ukraine dominated the Google charts, it was militarily ascendant. It hadnt just stopped Russia initial drive against Kyiv, it had completely routed Russian forces in the northern Ukraine. It not only inflicted staggering losses on the Russian military, it had chased its forces back to the start line. The Ukrainian capital was safe, and much of the striking power of the Russian army lay in ruins on the streets and in suburbs outside Kyiv.
But if you know anything about Russian military history, you know this early setback is nothing new. For more than a century its army has made a habit of failing early before it regroups, recenters around its strengthoverwhelming firepowerand gradually (and brutally) exerts its will. And thats exactly what seems to be happening now.”
French press might be right, but doesn’t mean Russia will win
quickly- rather points more of Russia war, which ever wins- unless turning buildings into rumble, counts as winning.
So, our problem is the lack of world leadership, and Joe Biden does not do, anything vaguely like, global leadership.
So, world should go to Plan B, and try to resolve this with something like leadership. Or Europe needs to, or Europe is going to get more and more dragged into this.
Or I generally think EU is doomed, but this could be doomed on a much shorter time frame, then I imagine.
But Russia not going to win anything, unless grown ups find a win-win situation for those concerned.
Or Biden just find a way to fuck up everything- to paraphrase, former President Obama.
The ZZs are a bit like climate contrarians –
The more they lose, the more they win.
No wonder so many contrarians root for them.
Willard the skeptics are winning. Troglodyte warmists like yourself are slowly on the path to extinction.
See for yourself, Bill –
https://www.statista.com/statistics/663247/belief-of-global-warming-according-to-us-adults/
That will not prevent contrarians and cranks to declare victory every single day!
Come on willard I recognize that its been getting warmer and have been on record on that for 20 years. sheesh. you are as dumb as those guys who published the 97% of scientists believe in global warming that included Roy.
Of course you do, Bill. It just so happens that you have all kinds of questions about the Moon, radiative physics, and Freedom. Among other things.
All the barren roads lead to the Contrarian Matrix:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Well Willard you need to find a poll of how many of you troglodyte ”earth has a fever” climate nuts. Thats the one that is in decline. Soon it will be smaller than the UFO crowd.
Would you like fries with that, Bill?
Contrarians have a bigger problem than you may presume –
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/
They always win, which means they are not really doing any science.
what are you doing Willard? Promoting your blog?
Not my blog, Bill. Why are you always wrong?
I linked to a post. The post has a demonstration in it. Contrarians cannot lose.
One reason you are always be wrong may be – it does not matter for contrarians, in the end they always win.
Willard how in your brain do you come to the conclusion that a question can be wrong?
When did you stop punching hippies, Bill?
I just punched you, so I suspect I haven’t stopped. Nothing worse in the world than an ex-smoker.
Global sea surface temperatures will decrease as La Nina persists.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_t2anom_1-day.png
How does providing a graph of temperatures up to this point prove what they will do in the future.\?
This says that the central Pacific is cold right now and is unlikely to return to warm anytime soon.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
Again … how do temperatures NOW give an indicator of what will happen in the future?
Because ENSO 1+2 feeds into ENSO 3 feeds into ENSO 3-4 feeds into ENSO 4 (read East to West across the Pacific).
Peer-reviewed paper supporting this claim please.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni
Trade winds over the Pacific that cause this East to West behavior.
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/tropical_stuff/enso/enso2.htm
Your link states only that during an ENSO event there is a change in the temperature gradient between east and west. It does not state that warming/cooling begins in the east and propagates to the west.
Nor does it say that every time it cools in the east that there is a later cooling in the west.
Assuming that La Nina does follow an east to west cooling pattern, your conditioning is back to front. You are stating that whenever La Nina forms that it cools first in the east, whereas you need to justify that whenever it cools in the east a La Nina forms.
Further, as you are making a universal claim, I need provide only one counter-example.
Here is the transition from El Nina to La Nina in 1998. ENSO 1.2 clearly did not lead the transition.
https://tinyurl.com/Transition-to-La-Nina-1998
So the well known ocean surface gyres that follow just that pattern have no effect whatsoever.
https://res.cloudinary.com/dtpgi0zck/image/upload/s–OkDknzd0–/c_fit,h_580,w_860/v1/EducationHub/photos/ocean-currents.png
Did you not look at my previous post?
Did you notice that the East to West progression in ENSO areas follows the ocean gyres directions in the Pacific?
AQ: So the fact that La Ninas progressing just as I observed from East to West has no effect on your thinking?
I just showed you that the transition in 1998 did NOT run east to west.
So for a small period during El Nina the pattern differs but during neutral and La Nina periods (which together are the majority case) it is as I said.
You may not have noticed we are in a La Nina now.
….El Nino….
Oh really? So is this difference something you have always known about, or is it something you just concocted now? And what exactly would cause that difference?
I have always known that natural phenomena have long term patterns to them and try to show that is true on my blog. I also know that the same natural patterns have a large influence on global temperatures.
“what exactly would cause that difference”
If I knew what caused natural patterns to vary so much over long time periods I would be inline for a Nobel at least. I don’t so I’m not.
So you were unable to provide a SPECIFIC response to my question. In other words, you invented your El Nino to La Nina transition scenario.
“you invented your El Nino to La Nina transition scenario”
I just reported what other climate scientists were observing.
“Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change”
“La Ninas ‘dont know when to leave,’ said Michelle LHeureux, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast office for La Nina and its more famous flip side, El Nino”
See, Richard?
You’re doing the moving the goalposts again.
Here is the claim AQ is challenging:
“Did you notice that the East to West progression in ENSO areas follows the ocean gyres directions in the Pacific?”
And now you’re into:
“Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change”
This is not a pub conversation, you know. Everything is written down. Forever, as far as humans will ever know what forever means.
Willard does not like me quoting Michelle L’Heureux at all.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso
“The ENSO blog is written, edited, and moderated by Michelle LHeureux (NOAA Climate Prediction Center)” amongst others.
Richard dislikes clarifying that what is unprecedented is only the strength of he current La Nia, not its reoccurrence.
He also dislikes admitting it is completely irrelevant for whatever point he thinks he is making but has not the fortitude to make explicit.
No – you made a claim that La Nina cooling always happens east to west, then when I presented you with a counter-example you invented an exception. Why are you having difficulty addressing, THAT concern of mine, instead creating a straw man to argue against?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1306513
“you made a claim that La Nina cooling always happens east to west”
following the ocean currents in that region.
La Nina section of the ENSO, more upwelling in the West moves the surface water from West to East.
https://youtu.be/WPA-KpldDVc?t=235
Still can’t explain why this didn’t happen in 1998 can you.
So a single case in 1998 where the oceans currents were stronger than normal in the central Pacific is your sole response. Even though all the ocean current atlases and scientific knowledge says that at the equator, in all ocean basins, things progress from East to West.
You’ll be telling me next that at 30N/S (approx) things don’t go in the opposite direction. And at 60N/S (approx) they are in the same direction again.
See
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/guides/mtr/hurr/gifs/mvmt1.gif
Not at all. 1998 was simply the first and only one I looked at.
Here is the current La Nina, beginning with the first neutral month between the 2020-21 and current La Ninas:
https://tinyurl.com/Nina-2021-22
It certainly looks to me that ENSO 1.2 was still rising when ENSO 3.4 started to fall.
Here is the 2011-12 La Nina, beginning with the only neutral month between the 2010-11 and 2011-12 La Ninas:
https://tinyurl.com/Nina-2011-12
Not as obvious this time, but you certainly could not honestly claim that ENSO 1.2 is leading.
I stand by the fact that surface cold water is driven by the prevailing wind as all global ocean current atlases show.
https://imgur.com/gallery/N2ErqXP
That is very religious of you, given the evidence.
I still stand by the fact that surface cold water is driven by the prevailing wind as all global ocean current atlases show.
Reciting verse instead of thinking … again very religious of you. Repeating a comment ad nauseum is what trolls do on youtube.
Avoiding the question about cold water movements and prevalent winds at the Equator is your hallmark.
Antonin Qwerty
No chance to discuss with people completely opinionated and literally married to Global Cooling.
Even if you tell such people that e.g. UAH experienced since beginning some cooling phases similar to 2016-now, they will find something making it ‘unprecedented’.
People like e.g. Linsley-Hood aka RLH have told you that in 2021, UAH LT had 11 months in a row less than those of the preceding year.
True!
But when you search in your SQL data base for similar years, you obtain:
1981, 1982, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2011, 2021
And searching for years having had even all 12 months lower than those of the preceding year still give you
1982, 1992, 1999, 2011
Oh… 2021 is now absent. What a pity. Its December was… not cool enough.
*
They tell you that linear estimates based on OLS are worth nothing, but nonetheless have no problem at all with using them when they want to show cooling:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
*
Now, let us search again in the data base for six years long sequences in which the last year has a yearly anomaly less than those of all five years before.
psql says: 1985, 1992, 2000, 2008!
Oh Noes! 2021 not in the list? What’s that?
Yeah. That was the bad boy 2018: its anomaly was, ah yes, even lower than that in 2021.
*
The very best is that some are ‘convinced’ that a persistent La Nina is a hint on Global Cooling coming soon! Hilarious.
La Nina 2010-12 (some of its MEI indices were way below -2)
https://i.postimg.cc/Jzr88YzK/MEI-superposed-La-Ninas.png
was followed by El Nino 2015-16, and we will see what happens in a few years.
*
I can only repeat:
Warmistas are really bad and counterproductive with regard to climate evaluation, but Coolistas are even worse.
I’m wondering what you mean my “Warmista”?
Are you referring only to people who follow the nonsense of Guy McPherson and co., or are you referring also to people who agree with the IPCC science?
No I mean those people who exclusively talk about warming, and deliberately, intentionally ignore that cooling phases exist as well.
Yeah – I tire of people on both sides who try to claim that the current month or year is representative of where the climate is right now. I recall arguing with someone who claimed we are already at +2 because there have been a couple of months where the land temperature (ie. not land+sea) has been +2. We see the opposite extreme of that here, while they try to claim that it is WE who do not recognise variability..
I think calling people “Warmistas” though, without clarifying what you mean, runs the risk of getting the wrong people off side.
I tire of people who claim that models truly represent past temperature movements over the whole globe.
“Whats bothering many scientists is that their go-to climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe predict more El Ninos, not La Ninas, and thats causing contention in the climate community about what to believe, according to Columbia University climate scientist Richard Seager and MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel.”
RLH – did you notice I wasn’t talking to you here?
AQ: Did you notice I was claiming that you are ignoring other climate scientists?
Are you claiming to be a climate scientist?
And have you noticed that you are ignoring the vast majority of climate scientists?
I never tire of contrarians who whine about the D word and then use an expression that reinforces red baiting.
Sometimes they even whine about *contrarian*.
AQ: “climate scientist Richard Seager and MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel”
Willard being an idiot as usual.
You can tell a classic Warmista like Bindidong by not being able to predict absolute zshit, but hoping for things instead.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294434
Bboy says:
April 2, 2020 at 7:57 PM
The last dip almost reached the zero line , the next one will cross it
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2020_v6.jpg
compared to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2022_v6.png
Again and again and again, Cooling genius Linsley-Hood compares the current situation with that of… 2020, deliberately discarding and dissimulating that this happened many times already in UAH’s history.
I repeat:
” Now, let us search again in the data base for six years long sequences in which the last year has a yearly anomaly less than those of all five years before.
psql says: 1985, 1992, 2000, 2008!
Oh Noes! 2021 not in the list? Whats that?
Yeah. That was the bad boy 2018: its anomaly was, ah yes, even lower than that in 2021. ”
*
But… as Ebaby writes all the time, the only what matters is predicting the future, whereas the stupid Bidendong only ‘dissects the past’.
{ Maybe one day Ebaby dares to ask NOAA how they manage to predict the future of La Nina, but… me thinks he knows the answer already. }
Again and again Blinny puffs his chest out.
“the current situation with that of 2020”
Check what Willard posted against what I showed. Idiot.
For once it would make sense to repeat your red herring, dummy.
No, you got to spam it everywhere except where it matters.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1306513
Blinny offers his biased opinion as usual.
Strange – I was thinking your opinions look pretty biased.
As my blog says, I report climate data and what it shows.
“As my blog says …”
I say it also.
Explain us, Coolism genius Linsley-Hood, what exactly is biased in my comment above!
“People like e.g. Linsley-Hood aka RLH”
and
“Coolism genius Linsley-Hood”
Is a very neutral way of describing people.
That’s right – YOU say it. “Say” meaning “claim”.
Richard is a cycle nut.
I only tell what the data shows.
I follow the data, not preconceptions as you do. Still think that the models are correct?
“YOU say it”
Are you saying that my graphs are incorrect?
Are you saying MY graph was incorrect?
Remember – I only needed to find ONE counter-example to disprove your claim.
Sure. Go do it then. All of my graphs are on my website. Have fun.
Go do what? Are you now claiming not to have seen my graph despite having commented on it?
“I only needed to find ONE counter-example to disprove your claim”
So your one counter-example disproves all the current atlases and scientific knowledge.
….ocean current atlases….
While you pretend I have not now found THREE counter-examples. Meanwhile, you have provided NO examples, only your misinterpretation of theory.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1308784
“While you pretend I have not now found THREE counter-examples”
All during the spring prediction barrier.
Thus, Linsley-Hood, I notice that you can’t present anything technically biased in my comment.
And by the way: don’t loose our time in whining about such a tiny bit of polemic: of that you are one of the top masters on this blog.
I just need to recall all these utterly false, polemic claims against my allegedly incorrect USCRN processing you never were able to technically contradict.
You are always against every thing I post even though you use already rounded data as though that doesn’t matter.
” … even though you use already rounded data as though that doesnt matter. ”
And you, Linsley-Hood, ride and ride and ride again with this dumb stuff!
YOU, Linsley-Hood, are the one who uses only daily data, where the difference indeed matters.
I repeat: you were never able to give this blog a proof that there would be a noticeable difference between averaging hourly and subhourly data into complete months as I do.
How is it possible to keep so dishonest?
So you admit you use already rounded data as though that doesn’t matter.
“The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not unprecedented third straight winter”
but a record is not unprecedented, apparently.
” So you admit you use already rounded data as though that doesnt matter. ”
And of course, the polemicist Linsley-Hood continues to insinuate and lie, instead of presenting, in form of monthly USCRN time series corresponding to those I generated, a technical proof that using rounding data gives wrong results for monthly averages.
*
We all see that
– you are absolutely unable to present such a proof on this blog in form of monthly time series showing the exact difference, for each month, between averaging of subhourly and hourly USCRN data,
and hence that
– you are and keep a thoroughly dishonest person.
Blinny still defends using already rounded data (to 1 decimal place) as though it does not matter.
We have been through all this before with you claiming that your monthly figures from already rounded hourly data were more accurate than USCRNs own monthly figures.
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how Hourly rounds up but SubHourly down at 1 digit of precision?
But you are too arrogant to read things closely or understand any of it.
No, Linsley-Hood
Im NOT too arrogant to read things closely or understand any of it.
YOU are too ignorant and too inexperienced to understand that your tiny single day differences from a single station do NOT PLAY ANY ROLE when averaged for 138 stations in a month.
Stop discrediting and denigrating, Linsley-Hood, and start finally working, by generating two monthly time series out of (1) hourly and (2) subhourly USCRN data, for all 138 stations in 2002-2021.
And then come back to us, and present your results.
By the way, dont forget to do that job for
(Tmin+Tmax)/2
median
24h average
He he he heee.
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how Hourly rounds up but SubHourly down at 1 digit of precision?
Precision is not your strong point is it?
You denied that any difference existed in your calculations, not that it was just very small.
Do you still have the graph where you boasted about your hourly calculations were better than USCRNs daily figures for just a single station?
This is for Richard M, who believes that the monthly change in HADSST temperatures is a good predictor for the monthly change in UAH temperatures 5 months later:
https://tinyurl.com/HADSST-vs-UAH
“But look how well it worked this month” he will surely say.
Of course his strategy is to continually vary that lag period so that he can get an approximate match.
Good catch.
He should btw move to HadSST4 because HadSST3 is now deprecated.
The difference is much smaller than that between Had-CRUT3 and Had-CRUT4, however.
Some natural weather/climate patterns that have an effect on global temperatures to a lesser or higher degree.
Antarctic Oscillation (AAO)
Arctic Oscillation (AO)
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)
Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD)
Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO)
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO)
North Pacific Oscillation (NPO)
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
Pacific-North American (PNA) Pattern
This site has all the data you need to debunk CO2 causing global warming. There are multiple data sets: GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST. CO2 is a constant over all those data sets. The Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 molecules is a constant over all those data set. Problem is, they all show different warming trends. How can a constant cause a variation? Is this the new math? Does Climate Science get to redefine sound science? A real science would be exploring what is causing the differences, the real cause of the warming, and not focus on a constant that can’t be causing the changes. CO2 also can’t cause an oscillation in temperatures. The oceans and their warming will.
Feedbacks, Geology, Ocean Currents, ….
Next.
Models (which are acknowledged to be wrong or suspect).
P.S. Your answers are all natural phenomena.
Being natural phenomena was the entire point.
Are you saying that natural phenomena exceed CO2 warming?
On short time scales, yes. On longer time scales the natural variability averages out to zero, leaving the upward trend.
“Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change”W
“On longer time scales”
How long is that? Over 15 years and longer most natural series do not sum to 0 but to some value that varies between + and – in a wavy pattern.
That’s right – in the past 25 years we have been in a generally negative ODO phase (with the odd hiccup). Sooner or later that will switch.
Funny though that people on THIS site have previously claimed that the only reason we warmed during the 2010s was that we have had MORE El Ninos. It seems you guys choose your story depending on what you want to argue.
AQ: Well having more El Nino would appear to make things warmer and more La Nina to make things colder overall.
AQ: AMO seems to be at its peak.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/amo.jpeg
AQ: PDO likewise (but you do need to invert this one)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/pdo.jpeg
Indeed – warmer or cooler than the rising trend line. And all La Ninas now are warmer than all El Ninos 40 years ago, globally speaking.
AQ: Let’s add a few others
SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/soi.jpeg
SAM
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/sam.jpeg
“Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change”
La Nina teed to make things colder in the Pacific.
….tend….
No – the PDO is at its low point – there is no inversion. Negative PDOs cause more La Ninas and cooler temperatures.
The only one that gets inverted is ENSO/
PDO is an index, what is ‘up’ is a convention, not a fact.
Here is ENSO 3.4
https://imgur.com/a/wiZ70af
There is no convention in how the PDO affects ENSO. Positive PDO tends to Negative ENSO, ie. warmer temperatures, and vice versa. You were trying to claim that the PDO is in its warm phase when you compared it to the AMO and said “likewise”.
“However, a study by Gershunov and Barnett (1998) shows that the PDO has a modulating effect on the climate patterns resulting from ENSO. The climate signal of El Nio is likely to be stronger when the PDO is highly positive; conversely the climate signal of La Nia will be stronger when the PDO is highly negative. This does not mean that the PDO physically controls ENSO, but rather that the resulting climate patterns interact with each other.”
As both PDO and AMO are indexes, all you can say is that they are further away from the center really. If you adopt that convention then the PDO needs to be reversed in order to be directly compared to the AMO over the last 25 years of so (or you could just reverse the AMO instead).
In any case it looks like over the last 25 years La Nina is becoming more present than El Nino compared to the 25 years before that.
So if you believe that El Nino causes Pacific warming then with a more prevalent La Nina that will mean more Pacific cooling in the future.
“The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not unprecedented third straight winter”
but a record is not unprecedented, apparently.
You still fail to identify what is unprecedented, Richard.
Some background reading, AQ:
iS ThAT WeAThEr OR clIMaTE?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1268178
“The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month”
Is not a record unprecedented enough for you?
W
I always enjoy the first of the month since I dont have to scroll down very much to find your pearls of wisdom.
Thanks, Fernando.
Do not forget to give to Clowns Without Borders – they are needed in a territory where ZZs are committing atrocities.
Have you ever wondered why Eboy never mentions ZZs, BTW?
Willard: Not big on irony are you?
No U, dummy:
[C] This site has all the data you need to debunk CO2 causing global warming.
[A] Feedbacks, Geology, Ocean Currents… Next.
[R] Are you saying that natural phenomena exceed CO2 warming?
[A] On short time scales, yes. On longer time scales the natural variability averages out to zero, leaving the upward trend.
[R, spamming his pet topic of the moment] How long is that? Over 15 years and longer most natural series do not sum to 0 but to some value that varies between + and in a wavy pattern.
[A] That’s right – in the past 25 years we have been in a generally negative ODO phase (with the odd hiccup). Sooner or later that will switch. Funny though that people on THIS site have previously claimed that the only reason we warmed during the 2010s was that we have had MORE El Ninos. It seems you guys choose your story depending on what you want to argue.
[R] *Spams his pet topic of the moment in three different comments.*
[A] Indeed warmer or cooler than the rising trend line. And all La Ninas now are warmer than all El Ninos 40 years ago, globally speaking.
[R] *Sends more spam.*
[A] Indeed warmer or cooler than the rising trend line. And all La Ninas now are warmer than all El Ninos 40 years ago, globally speaking.
[R] PDO is an index, what is “up” is a convention, not a fact.
[A] There is no convention in how the PDO affects ENSO. Positive PDO tends to Negative ENSO, ie. warmer temperatures, and vice versa. You were trying to claim that the PDO is in its warm phase when you compared it to the AMO and said likewise.
[R] But unprecedented!
[W] What is unprecedented, again?
[R] You are an idiot.
Never change, Richard.
Willard claims that setting a record is not unprecedented.
Richard claims that saying “setting a record” clarifies about what and is eo ipso relevant.
Willard still claims that setting a record is not unprecedented.
Richard still equivocates about what is really unprecedented.
Willard doubles down on claiming that setting a record is not unprecedented.
RLH
“However, a study by Gershunov and Barnett …”
Thanks for confirming what I said.
Why not quote the whole part
“a study by Gershunov and Barnett (1998) shows that the PDO has a modulating effect on the climate patterns resulting from ENSO….”
Yes – that was exactly what I said.
“the PDO has a modulating effect on the climate patterns resulting from ENSO”
thus they are linked.
Again … that is exactly what I said. Why are you pretending otherwise?
Willard says:
Richard still equivocates about what is really unprecedented.
—————————————
Willard futilely tries to support ‘the team’ and once again attacks the dictionary.
Dictionary:
Unprecedented: never done or known before
“Unprecedented: never done or known before”
like a record month might show.
You were the one who said
“There is no convention in how the PDO affects ENSO”
You also said
“Negative PDOs cause more La Ninas and cooler temperatures.”
Yes, and that is entirely correct, and exactly what your links show.
It is the Team, Bill, but I prefer the Kyoto Flames.
And in our sorry episode our cycle nut is using the epithet, though if that was for something that would displease him he would ask since when exactly
AQ: So you see no contradiction between
There is no convention in how the PDO affects ENSO
and
Negative PDOs cause more La Ninas and cooler temperatures.
Willard won’t admit the Michelle is the one he should be attacking, not me. But he won’t do that will he.
Richard should know that Michelle is not responsible if an old cycle nut decides to use her to flip the script on the U word.
Is it unprecedented or unprecidented:
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/uk-flooding-and-the-unprecidented-tagline/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Never Again! they say. 15,000 Ukrainians killed in the Donbas since 2014. Per Ukrainian capita thats three times the rate of US gang murders. Cant ignore it. Then 30,000+ Ukrainian troops amassed on the borders of the Donbas- I dont know that they were going to invade for a Final Solution, but Never Again!
I personally think Putin could have shut off gas and wheat to bring attention to this matter but perhaps he figured Biden is in the tank for the anti-Russians. About 3/4 of global nations have not joined sanctions but the 1/4 who have had to convince him a diplomatic peace could not be won in Donbas.
Why he used tens of thousands of conscripts and old trucks and tanks as missile fodder up north, I dont know. Id have thought they could do what they did in Georgia, in Chechnya, in Crimea go in, blow a lot up, and leave after killing a lot of enemies.
Bottom line: its sad we dont have leadership to save tens of thousands of lives, but I hope a cease fire will come soon. And Putin will suffer for this as much as he has for his previous invasions in Georgia, Chechnya, and Crime: not much.
dirk…”Why he used tens of thousands of conscripts and old trucks and tanks as missile fodder up north, I dont know”.
***
In war strategy, it’s called a feint. You fake an attack from the north when your real intention is to strike elsewhere.
The Allies used it at Normandy to great effect. They had Hitler convinced the attack would come at Calais so he moved most of his armour there. On D-Day, they dropped in airborne divisions to cut off bridges, preventing the panzer divisions from reaching Normandy. By then, the had also taken out rail lines and junctions via bombing raids.
BTW, the Russians were on our side at that point and without them we could never have taken out Hitler. Many of the ancestors of modern day western Ukraine were fighting with the Nazis. They are now celebrated as heroes.
Most of the garbage we have been fed about the Russians and their intentions have come from media run by English majors (literature) who have never been in a violent altercation, never mind a war. Their idealistic Wuthering Heights romantic novels have been applied to Russia as the big bully beating up on an innocent Ukraine. One of them thought it romantic that the Ukrainian Azov battalion wore Nazi insignia on their helmets and their flags.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here’s what your “feint” looked like:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/u9l5pj/arestovych_the_russian_military_called_kyiv/
Think.
Stanfords WSO data leaves no illusions. Solar dipoles are weakening. This is most clearly seen in the solar equatorial dipole. Counting weak, inactive spots wont help. One active spot appears, followed by several weeks of weak spots.
https://i.ibb.co/fHdJgTX/Dipall.gif
https://i.ibb.co/S7bJH5B/latest.jpg
The prolonged La Nia has to do with the weakening solar magnetic field. La Nia is too weak for a full ENSO cycle to occur. Slowly melting ice this year could signal major climate change.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202206.gif
https://i.ibb.co/WnW5Cgc/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
Current ocean surface temperatures
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
La Nina will strengthen in November when water from melting sea ice around Antarctica feeds the Humboldt Current, a surface current. It is highly dependent on the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex to the south.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2022.png
Well this is what happened last year.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
Let’s see what happened next.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_SH_2021.png
If you want to compare like with like
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_SH_2022.png
What happens to the solar dynamo?
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
barry says:
June 1, 2022 at 9:00 PM
Profoundly wrong?
The models show multidecadal warming from 1980 onwards.
Since 1980 every decade has been warmer than the last, and yes with UAH data, which is, like, the best global temp data ever.
Perhaps you could start by explaining what you mean by profoundly and then move to what you mean by wrong.
————————————————————–
Models can be useful tools used to understand complex systems like climate.
There are over a 100 climate model projections. The only fair way to manage the different projections is to apply statistical tools such as mean standard deviation etc.
The model projections can be considered reasonably close if the observations fall within standard deviation bounds.
Outside of that standard deviation the models are considered wrong. You might still make the difficult argument that some of the parameters used in the model are wrong and need further study
When the observations fall outside of the 95th percentile then they can be considered profoundly wrong and the models are shown to be based on completely wrong assumptions. Some major factors are escaping our understanding of how climate works.
The climate models are all based on the assumption that CO2 is causing all of the warming. Clearly its time to recognize the AGW hypothesis is false.
I rely on Ross McKitrick paper comparing observations with projections.
“The only fair way to manage the different projections is to apply statistical tools such as mean standard deviation etc”
You probably need to consider median and IQR as well at the very least.
> The model projections can be considered reasonably close if the observations fall within standard deviation bounds.
Zeke assessed models from 1970 to 2007. Their predictions fared quite well. If we look at 2019, it’s right in line with the old CMIP5 models. There are many other comparisons, as climate scientists tend to test their models a lot.
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-predictions#modulz-fail
“Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change”
“Weather‘s unwanted guest: Nasty La Nina keeps popping up”
just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say
climate simulation models that tend to get conditions right over the rest of the globe
Pray tell what models are these and if they’re the same Kennui is whining about, dummy.
“just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say”
over what some say is responsible for 30% to 50% of global temperature changes.
*some say*
Weather. Climate. Learn the difference, dummy:
> GFDL scientists work with a hierarchy of models – ranging from simple conceptual models to high-resolution fully-coupled general circulation models – to isolate the key processes responsible for ENSO and its sensitivities to climate. Previous work focused on the role of stochastic forcings (weather) in energizing and perturbing ENSO (Vecchi et al. 2006; Gebbie et al. 2007; Zavala-Garay et al. 2010). A more recent focus has been on understanding how nonlinearities in ocean/atmosphere feedbacks generate asymmetries between warm and cold ENSO events (Choi et al. 2013; Choi et al. 2015), and using new observations and models to reassess and improve upon existing conceptual models of ENSO (Graham et al. 2014; Graham et al. 2015).
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/el-nino/
If you could also distinguish the models you are whining about, that would great.
Still refuting “just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say”?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-atlantic-scientists-weather-el-nino-b2089441.html
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/29/weathers-unwanted-guest-nasty-la-nina-keeps-popping-up-confounding-climate-modellers/comment-page-1/
https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/la-nina-here-for-the-third-year-in-a-row/
https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/may/28/la-nina-sets-new-record-for-strength/
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/05/28/weathers-unwanted-guest-nasty-la-nina-keeps-popping-up/
https://www.digitaljournal.com/world/la-nina-is-behaving-badly-and-could-impact-caribbean-hurricanes/article
https://www.air1.com/news/tech-science/double-dip-la-nina-being-blamed-for-ongoing-weather-concerns-32887
https://neweysnews.co.uk/nasty-la-nina-keeps-popping-up/
“The current double-dip La Nina set a record for strength last month and is forecast to likely be around for a rare but not quite unprecedented third straight winter. And its not just this one. Scientists are noticing that in the past 25 years the world seems to be getting more La Ninas than it used to and that is just the opposite of what their best computer model simulations say should be happening with human-caused climate change.
‘They (La Ninas) dont know when to leave’ said Michelle L’Heureux, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast office for La Nina and its more famous flip side, El Nino.
An Associated Press statistical analysis of winter La Ninas show that they used to happen about 28% of the time from 1950 to 1999, but in the past 25 winters, theyve been brewing nearly half the time. Theres a small chance that this effect could be random, but if the La Nina sticks around this winter, as forecast, that would push the trend over the statistically significant line, which is key in science, L’Heureux said. Her own analysis shows that La Nina-like conditions are occurring more often in the last 40 years. Other new studies are showing similar patterns”.
“If you could also distinguish the models you are whining about, that would great”
Ask Michelle not me. Idiot.
Calm down, Black Knight.
It’s just a flesh wound.
Willard when asked to substantiate his opinion ducks and dives instead.
Look, dummy.
First, I did not ask you to substantiate your point. Second, you have not made any explicit point. Third, you did not substantiate anything. Fourth, you keep putting words in my mouth.
I am getting a bit tired of having to spank a 76 years old who cannot behave with honour. But if you keep provoking me, the spanking will continue.
Do you at least realize that Kennui was not talking about meteorological models?
Spanking? LMAO! Its more like a fly buzzing around the room!
“you have not made any explicit point”
I don’t know how more explicit I can be about how some in the scientific community are now wondering about the accuracy of the models, how setting a record month is always unprecedented and how you are an obvious idiot.
Start with acknowledging that the two topics are unrelated, dummy.
In fact your two points are incompatible.
Quite a Logician we got there.
Who said I cannot make 2 topics (or even 3) in a single post. Idiot.
1). The scientific community are now wondering about the accuracy of the models.
2). How setting a record month is always unprecedented
3). You are an obvious idiot.
I’ve quoted the IPCC here saying that there is no consensus on if or how ENSO will change in a warming world, and this body assesses a large number of models and studies.
Or you could brandish a news article sentence, claim that THIS is what the broader climate community believes, and tacitly assuming that these results are derived from the same models that project warming under GHG emissions, infer that those same GCMs are very wrong. Not to mention that the same article says the results thy have are not yet statistically significant.
Your choice.
You could note that the models in question here project global temps, consider that they may not make any projections about ENSO (about which you have no fucking clue), and maybe refrain from trying to shoehorn in your fetish du jour. But you’d probably have to be a different animal.
Question directing attention back on the news article in 3… 2…
It is as if Richard rediscovered the meteorological fallacy all by himself and never heard of the Climateball campaign led by Pielke Senior to proclaim that unless and until we get regional and short term models right we should just let his Honest Joker son decide what is what.
But perhaps because Senior is a Good Guy in the contrarian universe Richard will pretend that he is more into analysis than modelling!
Our Logician is right – we have never seen such a display of education since the Greeks at least.
As I said,
1). The scientific community are now wondering about the accuracy of the models.
2). How setting a record month is always unprecedented
3). You are an obvious idiot.
The scientific community did (a) for decades.
Your (b) took two days to get it out of you, is mostly irrelevant, and still conceals the point you are making.
Your (c) is obviously false unless you mean *ninja*.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A problem with the AGW hypothesis might be that they guessed the wrong molecule. The amount that water vapor increases as a result of temperature increase can be calculated using the saturated vapor pressure vs temperature curve for WV. This has been done for average global temperatures reported by several agencies. Accurate measurements of average global WV have been done by NASA/RSS using satellite based instrumentation. The observation is that in all cases, the measured WV is substantially more than calculated from the temperature increase. The extra WV comes from human activity. It appears that human activity has contributed to warming but it is a result of WV increase, not CO2 increase. Temperature increase from WV increase is small compared to ice house/hot house and/or Milankovitch forcings and is inherently self-limiting. An example of the calculation of WV change from temperature change is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
They wouldn’t get anywhere regulating water vapor.
If you lost your keys in a dark alley would you look for them under a streetlight because you could see better?
The effect of increasing WV is self-limiting. WV has been regulating the temperature of the earth for billions of years.
“barry says:
June 1, 2022 at 9:00 PM
Profoundly wrong?
The models show multidecadal warming from 1980 onwards.”
***
A model will show you anything you want it to show based on how you program it. Since models are used primarily by alarmists, they show warming.
Anyone who hangs off Zharkova’s word is also following a model.
“Zharkova et al. suggested to use the summary curve as a new proxy of solar activity, which utilizes not only amplitude of a solar cycle but also its leading magnetic polarity of solar magnetic field”
I am not sure about calling a combined proxy a model but you had to say something.
I guess you’ve never heard of PCA.
Principle component analysis
“In data analysis, the first principal component of a set of p variables, presumed to be jointly normally distributed, is the derived variable formed as a linear combination of the original variables that explains the most variance”
That’s not a model, that’s an analysis.
An analysis is data driven, a model is parameter driven.
Funny how the part you made bold (with focus on the first word) is one of the reasons that it is only a model.
The main reason though is that she is using past data to predict future events, without properly referencing any of the physical processes which lead to variability. THAT is a model. (Yes, she might speak of those processes, but they are not factored into her model.)
“Funny how the part you made bold”
I have long had an opinion on using symmetrical gaussian normal distributions and appropriate statistics in climate whereas in fact they are skewed, bimodal distributions instead.
I said that an analysis is data driven, a model is parameter driven.
As we have discovered many times in the past two days, you saying something does not make it fact. If it did, then I wouldn’t have been able to find three La Ninas where ENSO 1.2 has not led ENSI 3.4 (and I have still only looked at 4 La Ninas).
Do you dispute that all wind and current atlases say that the trade winds are to from the West to the East around the equator?
Do you dispute that the major upwelling of cold water in the Pacific arises to the East of South America?
Still waiting for your first EXAMPLE of ENSO 1.2 leading ENSO 3.4 into La Nina.
Heads up – I would expect about 50%, because the cold water comes from subsurface by upwelling, not by lateral flow.
“The climate models are all based on the assumption that CO2 is causing all of the warming.”
No they aren’t. They are based on physics. The CO2 input, as with all atmospheric gases in GCMs, is represented by its optical properties as empirically measured by spectroscopy, and all the atmospheric gases and how they attenuate inbound and outbound radiation is done by standard radiative transfer equations.
No assumptions of any kind are made with CO2, nor are models “programmed” to produce warming, as one idiot put it here.
Models are run without any changes in components, to test if they can represent a stable and realistic ocean/atmosphere coupling over many iterations (g 100 years).
When stability is achieved, and that output has fidelity to the real world, then components are ramped up or down to see what effects occur. Early models would immediately increase CO2 atmos. conc. by double or 100 ppm, and then see how long it took for the system to equilibrate. Later models began working with incremental increase.
CO2 is hardly the only component that was tested like this.
“Clearly its time to recognize the AGW hypothesis is false.”
It’s at least 2 decades past time that critics learned to understand what they are criticising.
TOA graphs of flux vs wavenumber e.g. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k9OpSeNkiavyKjxzgU22i33m_QHNiUt3/view?usp=sharing show that radiation from water vapor molecules in the wavenumber range 400/cm to 600/cm and altitude range 2 km to 6 km makes it all the way to space. Therefore much of the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules gets redirected to WV molecules which radiate it to space. How do GCMs account for this?
How do they not account for it?
Faulty programming
IOW, you are just jawing.
“Therefore much of the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules gets redirected to WV molecules which radiate it to space. How do GCMs account for this?”
Where is this idea from?
Nate, the idea comes from an understanding of thermalization and TOA graphs of flux vs wave number.
IOW there is no source for this. Not clear what you even mean by this.
And again, Modtran disagrees with you. Do you have an alternative calculation?
Nate, as you well know, the TOA graphs are PRODUCED by MODTRAN. There can be no disagreement.
Nope. There are measured TOA, and then there is modeled TOA in Modtran.
Modtran should be right with the upward flow despite being aa disaster for the downward flow. Right?
Dan,
Nate doesn’t want to understand thermalization or anything else that interferes with promoting his AGW dogma. You can explain it to him, but you can’t understand it for him.
So you guys think its fine for Dan to mix up measurement and modeling?
Bill,
Good question. Is downward info from Modtran even possible? I don’t play with Modtran because what good is a snapshot when trying to figure out what the climate system is doing 24/7/365 over the whole globe?
“Modtran disagrees with you.”
That’s an unverified assertion, if Modtran could even do it.
“So you guys think its fine for Dan to mix up measurement and modeling?”
I am not my brother’s keeper. Except for you who I will continue to call out as King of Obfuscation every chance I get.
Chic Bowdrie says:
Bill,
Good question. Is downward info from Modtran even possible?
——————–
It’s not possible for downward/backward to have an effect on the GHE. It only has an effect on the GPE.
Nate will disagree because he does not believe that an object that has reached a SB equilibrium with a radiation field that it is restricted from warming more from emissions from that radiation field.
MODTRAN (U Chicago) has a toggle to look either down or up
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
MODTRAN6 (Spectral.com) appears to only look down.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
I know what I am criticizing.
Climate model projections that are being used to take away my access to cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuels.
The projections are profoundly wrong when compared to actual observations. So the reasons for taking away my access to fossil fuels are based on politics and not on science.
Holodomor is the closest I can come to the understanding of what will happen.
“cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuels.”
At the moment, none of the above, and not because of climate policies.
Hmmm, you actually believe that?
”With roughly 130,000 troops on Ukraines border, Putin is demanding that the former Soviet republic be blocked from ever joining NATO. Though the Kremlin claims it has no plans to invade Ukraine, the Biden administration has warned that a Russian military incursion into the former Soviet republic could be imminent.”, Feb 2, 2022
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-helped-nato-expand-in-the-90s-which-putin-now-threatening-war-over-2022-2
Biden had the chance to open negotiations to head that off. Why did he decline to act and instead predict that Russia would invade?
the answer is simple he needed something to detract from his endless record of reckless leadership.
Relevance to “not because of climate policies.” ???
in fact, the growth of renewables ought to have lowered demand, and prices for fossil fuels.
Now Nate flunks economics.
The growth of renewables is being subsidized by taxes including taxes on fossil fuels and since renewables are less cost efficient. . . .prices go up. It is illegal for fossil fuel suppliers to conspire to raise prices but its not illegal for investors in renewables to conspire to raise prices with the government. Its just the usual carpet bagging that goes on whereever governments find the power to do more.
FF also subsidized Bill.
In any case, for global commodities, like oil and gas, it is supply and demand that determines price.
Nate doubles down on displaying his ignorance of economics.
One needs to consider elasticity of demand. People need to drive to work, keep their home comfortable. Industry needs power to make products. These things are all inflexible
The Warren Buffet theory of investing is to invest in businesses that have the power to raise prices. Thats would include necessities and coveted brands. Yes if you add a buck fifty in taxes to fuels. The price of everything goes up. And since there are limited dollars some demand has to go away. Vacations, going out for entertainment, etc.
Meanwhile regulations are shutting down coal and nuclear energy produces reducing supply and shifting demand to other fossil fuels. Of course that requires the construction of new facilities, larger supply chains, etc. So these things take time to replace and nobody is going to replace them unless prices go up for the other forms of energy.
So your economics knowledge seems to be limited to have never taken a course in economics. Everybody has heard of supply and demand but generally you need a little education to learn how it actually works. Like your simpleton view of the GPE and thinking the first plate with an input coming in is going to warm to a temperature greater than its equilibrium via the method it cools.
Silly laughable stuff! Thats the foundation required to heat the surface to its equilibrium. Its the surface of an 8,000 mile diameter planet and heat loss through the planet doesn’t exist. If it did it wouldn’t even warm to equilibrium. Thats true of every plate in the GPE as well.
Here is proof of that: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
“Nate doubles down on displaying his ignorance of economics.”
As usual Bill is completely confused about what the topic is, thus throws out all sorts of red herrings along with ad-homs.
“Like your simpleton view of the GPE and thinking the first plate with an input coming in is going to warm to a temperature greater than its equilibrium via the method it cools.”
And he is even more confused about that one!
Another more savvy Bill already pointed to the main cause of the recent price hikes:
“With roughly 130,000 troops on Ukraines border, Putin is demanding ..”
IOW something else entirely that has EVERYTHING to do with supply and demand, nothing to do with climate policies.
And then other non-sequiturs..
“Meanwhile regulations are shutting down coal and nuclear energy”
Sorry, nothing to do with the price hikes in oil and over the last year. Both coal and nuclear lost the battle in the free market years ago.
Gas and solar and wind are cheaper! Learn some Econ 101, Bill.
Nate I am not in any way opposed to non-subsidized wind power. But the sad fact is the costs of wind power has been vastly underestimated since day one. I can only assume it still is as government corruption looks only at what they want to look at.
And of course everything works to raise the cost of fuel. Regulation is huge, taxes are huge, permitting redtape is huge, international adventurism is huge, poltical agendas are huge, supply line/chain issues are huge. Uncertainty of supply is the largest of all.
Both political parties have in large ways been on the wrong side of all this. But power corrupts. I agree that renewable energy has promise of keeping energy prices low. I made a partial living on it in the 70’s and 80’s and did so with zero government support in an era when government was interested in energy independence. Political interest is in large centralized projects where pay to play opportunites are abundant that also puts upward pressure on prices.
Fossil fuels are more subsidized than renewables, Bill, and you might like:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-19/buffett-s-berkshire-proposes-3-9-billion-wind-solar-project
Willard you need to hire a real accountant to tell you what a real subsidy is. If the BS that gets spread about oil subsidies were really removed then the oil business would be the only business in America who couldn’t deduct the cost of things like ‘oil rights’ that they pay for to be produce oil to figure their income.
Bill I know what a subsidy is:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
Nice try.
Nope Willard, you think you know what a subsidy is. Big difference especially since your daddy treats you like a mushroom farm, feeding you shit, and keeping you in the dark.
“I know what I am criticizing.”
Your criticism was based on a completely false premise.
“Climate model projections that are being used to take away my access to cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuels.”
This is the level of your understanding. You criticise not from any position of knowledge, but because someone on a blog or facebook or the news got you all angry about wasting your money. You work backwards from there, filling in in the yawning chasm of understanding with tidbits from blogs, facebook or the news that makes you angry.
barry says:
No assumptions of any kind are made with CO2, nor are models ‘programmed’ to produce warming, as one idiot put it here.
———————
A fool has been born every minute over the last century. Did you know that?
“You criticise not from any position of knowledge, but because someone on a blog or facebook or the news got you all angry about wasting your money. ”
Yep very apt.
It is a common tactic for some posters here, to post a melange of science and politics.
When there is a lack of a supportive scientific fact available to make their argument, they simply substitute a political point.
thats because when something is being forced upon you without science it is precisely because of politics and the accusation and burden of proof gets reversed ”its your fault that there is no evidence” aka ”When there is a lack of a supportive scientific fact available to make their argument, they simply substitute a political point.”
Bill is a leading expert at this tactic.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Sorry, the glaring flaws in this amateurish paper have been pointed out by many.
I even had an email conversation with these authors. They acknowledged flaws in the experiment, that they could not explain missing heat and the apparent lack of agreement with the SB law.
But whenever there is a singular, flawed, outlier paper, that is contradicted by thousands of others, deniers seem to love it.
But nice try at distraction.
Nate you tried and couldn’t point out any flaws. Neither could bdgwx.
I did point out the major flaw. They record -29.8 W/m2 at the front and only +17 W/m2 at the back. There is no discussion of where the -29.8 W/m2 at the front went or what effect the +17 W/m2 at the back had. Most egregiously there is no accounting for the missing 29.8 – 17 = 12.8 W/m2. It just goes poof in violation of the 1LOT.
exactly
stay tuned I will get to that in a couple of days.
bdgwx says:
I did point out the major flaw. They record -29.8 W/m2 at the front and only +17 W/m2 at the back. It just goes poof in violation of the 1LOT.
——————-
Well obviously its not a violation of 1LOT all you are doing there is essentially stating that the losses in the other chamber explain the fact that the 17w/m2 doesn’t result in a heat signal on the back wall in accordance with IR backscatter ‘forcing’ theory.
There is plenty of reasons to be suspicious that ‘forcing’ theory itself is a violation of both 1LOT and 2LOT without this experiment.
As discussed the last couple of days ‘forcing’ theory is a violation of the net of SB equations resulting in a direction of heat flow and that heat flow zeros out at equilibrium when looking at the sun creating additional warming. And it is also clear from the discussion here that insulation does not force anything.
Thus it is theoretically true that greenhouse gases do not force the climate system in terms of the amount of heat retained in the system. That should be fundamentally understood.
The experimenters tested variability by modifying the insulation and it wasn’t observed to change the results. Pretty much end of story as far as ‘forcing’ is concerned.
Nobody has any interest in spending a lot of money to just prove what is already proven. Though you are certainly welcome to go for it, replicate it reduce the losses and see if it helps. I am willing to pony up a bet you can’t. The GPE model simply cannot do it. It has been proven over and over again yet people still persist in believing it works without any evidence.
and while not actually describing how they checked that they did modify it and still no backwall warming from the IR dectected backscatter effect. . . .what ever it amounts to.
What effect did the extra 17 W/m2 have on the rear chamber?
What happened to the missing 12.8 W/m2?
bdgwx. This is easy to figure where the 29.8 watts went.
There is no 17 watts as you assume it represents a flow of energy back to the plate but we know the plate is too hot to warm from an additional 17 watts. So its a mistake to subtract if from the 29.8 that needs accounting for.
The almost all the missing wattage went out the front window. This fact is supported by the known fact that a single glazed window whether it is metal, glass, IR transparent will not obstruct the flow of heat out the window and thus the window finds an equilibrium between 4 flows of energy. Inside and outside of both radiation and convection.
So the 29.8w/m2 missing went out the front window as convection and wasn’t measured by the IR detector.
The last part of section 3.2 shows that the back compartment should have warmed 4k when it didn’t warm. He checked that to determine if the walls were responsible by doubling the insulation on the walls with no significant improvement. If the 17w/m2 backscatter potential conducted through the walls then doubling the insulation should have shown that.
So it is a well devised experiment. If you still think he made a mistake then you should replicate his work and check for yourself. It is a perfectly replicable experiment. Handwaving doesn’t get you anywhere.
29.8 and 17 W/m2 were measured. 29.8 was the decrease in the front and 17 was the increase in the rear. What effect did the 17 W/m2 have on the rear and where did the 29.8 – 17 = 12.8 W/m2 go?
If you want me to explain it in terms of an imaginary forcing model then I can’t tell you any thing different than I did.
If you can demonstrate a forcing model I would love to see it. The GPE is a passive model. I
t never tells us the effect on either the source or the sink.
In the kitchen version of the GPE you have a powered refrigerator spewing heat out the back and a room that at a minimum is getting heat from outside if not from a heating and air system.
So these experiments also don’t tell us what happened to the 17 watts.
And you can take it to the bank and bet the farm on it that if you heat a box in a cold room some of that that some of that heat is going to be exiting through conduction.
So you can continue to piss and moan about experiments that don’t account for everything all the while you have never produced one yourself.
This isn’t a criticism based on pedantry. There is no description of what effect the 57% of the backscatter energy that was recorded had and the remaining 43% disappears altogether. In other words, they have no idea what any of that 29.8 W/m2 of forcing did. That is a lot of forcing. For it to have no apparent effect is quite remarkable.
It’s not remarkable as I described and it is calcuable
You don’t think it’s remarkable that a body can take an extra 17 W/m2 of energy and nothing happens?
You don’t think it’s remarkable that 43% of the forcing being analyzed for its effect disappears?
You are making an assumption its forcing. You folks have argued for an insulation model endlessly and insulation does not force anything.
Semantics.
The energy is missing, plain and simple. Theyve lost track of it.
Are you making an assumption, Bill, that they must have done the experiment perfectly, and they have discovered something new?
Whereas, as I, who do a lot of experiments, know that many things can go wrong or can be missed.
bdgwx says:
You dont think its remarkable that a body can take an extra 17 W/m2 of energy and nothing happens?
You dont think its remarkable that 43% of the forcing being analyzed for its effect disappears?
—————————
Don’t you think that Stefan-Boltzmann concept of equilibrium is rather remarkable where two objects facing each other pumping 400w/m2 into each other doesn’t change anything?
The argument you are trying to make here bdgwx is if I give you 2 dollars and you give me back a dollar I must be richer by a dollar.
Hunter, the S&O experiment measured the IR both with air and with CO2 in the front chamber.
In the data from Figure 7 – we see an IR radiation reduction of 29.8 W/m2 out of the front chamber when filled with CO2.
From their Figure 9 – Backscatter (increased IR radiation measured by IR2), received by the rear wall of the box, increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front box.
…
in Figure 9 – …the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber.
From Figure 9, with air only, the rear sensor measured about 460 w/m^2 when cold and about 490 when the 2 chambers were warm. Some portion of that initial 460 w/m^2 must have originated from the room. With the addition of the CO2, there would surely be absorp_tion of some of that inbound energy, thus it would be no surprise that the measured IR at the rear was less than predicted from their measurements. The missing 12 w/m^2 is only ~3% of the energy measured when cold.
My argument in monetary form is this. If you have a balanced budget such that your daily income and expenses match then you are neither getting richer nor poorer. But if I then decide to give $28.80/day back to you then you should be getting richer by $28.80/day. If for some reason you are only getting richer by $17.00/day then that means you lost $12.80/day somehow. But even in that case your accumulation of $17.00/day should still have a noticeable effect at least by the increased weight of the paper of those dollar bills you are now accumulating.
bdgwx, the watts aren’t missing. If you don’t know how to figure it out you don’t understand energy transfer.
We know that 17 W/m2 of the 29.8 W/m2 got returned to the rear chamber. If the remaining 12.8 W/m2 isn’t missing then where did it go?
My email correspondence with Seim, my questions are numbered.
“Hello Nathan
Some answers to your questions:
1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you don’t measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?
Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.
2. The 17 W/m^2 is hitting the rear wall, which is ~ a black body, thus it should be absorbed and heating the wall. It seems you are finding that it is not? Isnt this a violation of the First Law and of Kirchoff’s Law?
We agree that the following response to increased IR radiation, absorbed in the back wall should be:
– The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoff’s Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!
– One explanation is that so much energy is lost due to losses through the walls and windows in the boxes. But the measurements of losses done by us do not support this.
– The loss of energy due to expansion of the gas during heating (First Law) was also discussed, and found not to be the cause of the missing heating.
3. “The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).” So then are we to conclude that the Stefan Boltzmann Law has a problem? I don’t understand?
We do not state that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wrong, but that there must be some other physical mechanism(s) that can explain the experimental results.
4. “The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC.”. But there is extra heating of the walls that should be coming from the back-scatter radiant power hitting it. So it seems you are casting doubt on basic radiative heat transfer principles here. No?
Note that the walls inside the two boxes are covered with thin, high-polished Al-foil. They reflect all IR radiation efficiently (based on tests done by us). IR radiated out from the back wall is mainly reflected out the front window. The walls are heated thermally, and the temperature is close to identical to the air temperature.
5. Is it possible that the expected rise you calculated is incorrect? I didnt see any indication of the total heating power input to the experiment? If it is much larger than the emitted black body radiation power from the rear wall, then the SB-law calculate temperature rise from eq 2 will be an overestimate.
The heating of the back wall was done in several different ways to ensure that energy loss through the rear side of the source did not influence the results. For the black-painted metal plate and the Al-foil the temperature was close to 100 oC. The back wall around the plate was heated from ca 20 to ca 50 oC. As you mention more IR radiation is emitted by the IR source than from the Styrofoam back wall. But when the IR radiation out of the front window was measured, the detector scanned the IR out the front window and the presented value is the average IR value. So we did not use the Eq. 2 to compute IR from the plate, but measured IR output directly through the front window!
I hope the answers to your questions is satisfactory! If not, please contact me again!
Best regards,
Thorstein Seim”
So it really looks to me like they simply have some unaccounted for heat loss in the system.
Not surprising, nor evidence of a problem with physics.
bdgwx says:
”We know that 17 W/m2 of the 29.8 W/m2 got returned to the rear chamber. If the remaining 12.8 W/m2 isnt missing then where did it go?”
Well you know it didn’t disappear bdgwx. If you know anything about solving heat transfer problems you should be able to figure it out. If you don’t perhaps you should listen to somebody that knows more than you.
I’m more than happy to listen to someone else. That’s why I’m asking. Where did the 12.8 W/m2 go?
Seems you want a really large sandwich. So if you don’t know how to calculate this stuff why do you believe what you believe?
To get it calculated professionally here in California you hire a Title 24 Engineer to give you a Title 24 report to give to the building department to get a plan approval for your home design demonstrating that your home meets the minimum requirements for heat loss.
As you can see by their answers, even the guys who did the experiment cant figure it out Bill.
So its very silly to expect someone who wasnt there to track down their lost heat.
More correctly Nate its easy for a heat loss engineer to figure out what the additional heat loss is through front window.
And the answer seems obvious to one like myself with a moderate amount of experience in going through the details of heat loss calculations.
The researchers note that the warming in the two compartments did not change by switching to CO2 in the front compartment.
Thats strange isn’t it with all that absorbing going on.
But if one looks at the 3rd grader radiation model its easy to see why a gas doesn’t typically warm due to an increased ability to absorb radiation. Namely the beam of light needs to be twice as strong as the gas its heating. . . .just review the GPE to see why. the initial BP starts out half the temperature in any given field of light. Thus a gas that warms by conduction and moved by convection from a warm surface maintains that temperature if it has no radiant qualities. Add radiant qualities and it absorbs radiation but doesn’t heat because it emits what it absorbs. All it does is perform like a resistance creating a shadow in the radiation field. . . .and enter Clausius, man who only knew the resistance (wave) model.
In any test one can do it performs like a resistance and not a forcing. The socalled detected back radiation isn’t performing like a layered model as it is claimed to in the 3rd grader radiation model. Instead its effects aren’t even detectable. Time after time this is shown to be the case.
The only way you can even mathematically justify the forcing model is give some kind of special attribute to the radiation of an active source as opposed to the radiation from a passive one. Both are radiating consistently saying the sun is responsible is like saying a void inside a rock will incrementally warm up due to consistent additional waves of radiation being thrown against the other surface. Its worse than what DREMT argues that there is no back conduction. The back radiation model clearly only operates part time. IMO if statistically it only operates half the time then what you have is in fact the resistance model. But warmists want to distinquish between radiation depending upon its source.
The problem with a forcing model is it is clearly inconsistent with evidence.
Create a void inside of a giant rock, fill it with gas, and heat the rock so its emitting a 1000 watts and the rock should explode from gas expansion or if it were a vacuum the inside of the rock should become molten.
Take down the 3rd grader radiation model and you have to look elsewhere for the greenhouse effect and even mostly toward what the effect really is. What is clear to me is the forcing model simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in any shape or form. Climate science is too much into its infancy stage where that blood letting is how you get rid of evil spirits.
“But if one looks at the 3rd grader radiation model its easy to see why a gas doesnt typically warm due to an increased ability to absorb radiation. Namely the beam of light needs to be twice as strong as the gas its heating”
This makes little sense to me. How can light and a gas be compared in ‘strength’?
More likely it is something trivial like heat loss out the back or sides. In any case, personally I would need to see the setup in person.
bdgwx says:
Im more than happy to listen to someone else. Thats why Im asking. Where did the 12.8 W/m2 go?
—————–
I would consider this process: https://learn.compactappliance.com/convection-oven-faqs/
Cooks faster huh? Bottom line is there is no measurements being made of the temperature of the front window since the IR temperature of the windows can not be detected by the IR detector (they are IR transparent).
Is it cooking faster? Well a huge lawsuit against the seller’s of convection ovens could be in the offing if it doesn’t.
What does convection have to do with the missing 12.8 W/m2?
What does the temperature of the front window have to do with the missing 12.8 W/m2?
If radiation isn’t facilitating the transfer of heat, convection does.
Bill,
so the odds of being a fool are 1 in 240!
Whatever it works out to Bob. could well be a gross underestimate as the benchmark criteria is non-quantifiable.
If it’s not quantifiable, how do you know if you are a fool or not?
bobdroege says: If its not quantifiable, how do you know if you are a fool or not?
“The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you dont know youre a member of the Dunning-Kruger club. People miss that.
— David Dunning”
I will not be a member of any club that would admit me as a member!
barry,
Three questions.
1) Why haven’t models been adjusted to account for the recent data showing not as much warming as was previously modelled?
2) Have modelers treated factors producing increases in ASR in the same way as you described how they treated the CO2 factor?
3) Other than Modtran-like simulations, is there any data showing that an increase in CO2 will increase global temperatures any further?
1) Observed temperature data is not an input into models. That would rather the defeat the purpose.
2) Forcings like CO2 and solar are included in models for the lead-up period. Models can be used to test what happens when changing different variables, like more cloud cover. I don’t think (but don’t know for sure) that ASR is a tunable variable, but rather a resulting variable from changes in solar output and cloudiness. Cloud changes are generally an output, as far as I’m aware. If you look it up, let me know.
3) Dunno. Probably. It’s impossible to simulate the optical depth of a column of atmosphere with any physical apparatus, so it must be done digitally, or if you have the stomach for it, a calculation by hand. Arrhenius was the first to give it a shot and get the result published.
1a) My question was meant to be why revised model projections aren’t made now to replace the old model outputs. What are modelers waiting for, revisions of past data to match the model outputs?
1b) What purpose? Fooling people that doubling gas prices is worth it and scaring people into thinking we have only 12 years to save the world?
2) So, you don’t know, yet here you are lecturing blog readers on what the models did and do.
3) I am not the one needing the stomach to do anything, especially back-of-the-envelope calculations. Modelers need to stop trying to prove CO2 is a control knob and use the tremendous measurement capability they do have to work on the major unknowns like clouds. Why continue running models averaging hot?
“Its at least 2 decades past time that critics learned to understand what they are criticising.”
That’s a valid criticism. What about you learning to criticize AGW dogma you promote without fully understanding?
“If you look it up, let me know.”
Yep that is the key point. Chic won’t do that. He is not actually interested enough to do that. He wants to make other people to do it.
Nate says:
If you look it up, let me know.
Yep that is the key point. Chic wont do that. He is not actually interested enough to do that. He wants to make other people to do it.
—————————-
He doesn’t need to as you guys answered his question. The modelers have ass-u-me-d the only longterm variable is CO2 and they are going to stick by their guns.
Every minute the set a new world record in major modeling futility with 25 years of consistent futility in improving the model outputs.
But one thing we do know for sure fanboys Barry and Nate will be right here castigating anybody who dares speak of the Emperor having no clothes.
Of course, it is Bill is wearing no clothes when Bill just ass-u-mes there is another longterm meaningful monotonic variable in addition to trace gases and colloid water.
Bill, put on some clothes and name (with supported measured data) another meaningful monotonic long term atm. opacity variable.
“Chic wont do that.”
Oh that’s rich from the guy who is still looking for evidence of a bottleneck while sinks continue soaking up at least 50% of the known new CO2 emissions. Nate earns his King of Obfuscation title here every day with unverified assertions, no models, no data, useless comments.
And then there’s the royal hypocrite Ball4 claiming there’s a measured 255K emission height up there somewhere over the rainbow.
Bill is right. The onus is on you guys to put up or shut up.
Chic, the relevant meteorological satellites trace out a repeating surface as they orbit. Their radiometer instruments looking down measure a multi-annual brightness temperature median of ~255K.
Figure it out.
No. You need to figure out that 255 K is a temperature not an altitude. You cannot measure something that is imaginary. Keep on dodging, hypocricizing, and making a fool of yourself.
The relevant satellites orbit at an altitude over a near spherical surface & their radiometer instruments measure a brightness temperature of ~255K. Really, it’s not all that hard to figure out Chic. Apply yourself to the task.
“The modelers have ass-u-me-d the only longterm variable is CO2”
You guys are clearly frustrated. Mindlessly blurting unsupported BS like this, and trolling.
Its obvious Nate. Simple modtran matches the mean model output with all the other potential variables not varying. Now individual modelers may slightly vary the output of volcanos and other stuff but all in all the mean warming hasn’t changed since Hansen said all the modern warming was due to CO2 and the explanation for observations not matching modtran have been explained away by WAGs of other variables as modeling central clings tightly to the Hansen estimates. Its easy to see from that consistency of the mean model output that every model has modtran built into the heart of it.
Ball4 writes, “Really, its not all that hard to figure out Chic.”
The reason you keep dodging and making a fool of yourself is obvious to anyone paying attention.
Even if someone created an algorithm that estimated the average emission height producing radiation measured by one satellite at one location at a single time, what would that prove? How long would it take to average enough data to get any significant result for an imaginary emission altitude that only exists for a moment in time? How many satellites would it take?
Your bluff has been called so many times, by now one would think you would have stopped asking others to do what you cannot do yourself. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, much?
Nate writes, “He wants to make other people to do it” while projecting his feelings on others, “You guys are clearly frustrated.”
Only God knows why Nate and Ball4 insist on others explaining the flaws in the models they promote and defend.
“what would that prove?”
Simply that someone could create an algorithm that estimated the average emission height producing radiation measured by one satellite at one location at a single time.
“How long would it take..”
The surface measured at ~255K uses satellite radiometer data observed over as few as ~4 years and is now observed over 12 to ~20 years.
“How many satellites..”
Several. Measuring the ~255K surface doing the same thing over and over has reduced expectations of a different result then the measured surface at ~255K to nil with more than 95% confidence.
Chic then asserts Ball4 insists on promoting and defending the “flaws” in some sort of model without any proof. I prefer to go with experimental and observational results at 95% confidence.
Really, this is not all that hard to figure out, Chic, as there are many reliable observational reports found for free on the internet from which Chic studiously avoids learning.
“The surface measured at ~255K….”
That is an imaginary surface as your inability to put an altitude number on it shows.
You are documenting being an insane troll. Do continue.
Just look up the various orbital altitudes of the CERES, ERBE, and NIMBUS instrumental radiometer observations to find the ~255K surface(s) Chic seeks.
Only another insane troll like you would do that and you couldn’t find a 255 K surface even if you tried. It’s hypothetical dude, you know, imaginary. Carry on pursuing insanity.
It may be hypothetical & imaginary to Chic but the named meteorological satellite radiometers really do or did exist viewing through their own ~255K surface. Not looking up what Chic seeks is just another example of Chic studiously avoiding learning.
Now Ball4 imagines that radiometers do and did report a 255K surface. Where, when, and at what specific altitude was it sighted? Na na na nah, na na na nah.
Where? Already stated. When? Already stated. Specific satellite altitude? Look it up Chic since studiously avoiding learning is getting Chic nowhere.
“Its obvious Nate. Simple modtran matches the mean model output with all the other potential variables not varying.”
Modtran doesnt calculate warming, or temperature, Bill, while thats a main goal of GCM models.
So…?
“Only God knows why Nate and Ball4 insist on others explaining the flaws in the models they promote and defend.”
The spherical Earth is presumably your model. Do you need to show Flat Earthers the evidence, when they demand it, knowing full well that they will find an excuse to dismiss all evidence that you show?
Thats where we are.
The University of Chicago Modtran calculator page used to modify the temperature by modifying the CO2.
Now they have simply disabled the output algorithm but the ground temperature in the output section is now stuck on 288.2k. They finally got the message I guess.
“Thats where we are.”
No, that’s where Nate is, stuck on obfuscation as usual.
“Do you need to show Flat Earthers the evidence, when they demand it, knowing full well that they will find an excuse to dismiss all evidence that you show?”
Bill and I are not the ones defending a flawed model and I’m not demanding anything. If you agree that climate models are flawed, then we’re done here. If you can’t explain why they are flawed, on what basis do you judge our analysis incorrect?
“did report a 255K surface.”
255 K is the effective T of a planet measured by its IR. It is the result of inverting the SB law and finding a T to match average OLR.
Anyone requiring there to be a ‘surface’ or ‘level’ with this temperature is misunderstanding the science.
LOL! The way you describe it Nate. . . .without a forcing model the T as measured by IR only matters to a molecule of air at TOA and doesn’t have any say on the T of the molecule it is slowing he cooling of because it is in fact physically floating as well as having a floating temperature.
People have been searching for this mysterious forcing and every experiment comes up and doesn’t show it.
Thus the actual greenhouse theory is not at all described so much less do we know how it varies.
Its funny these days you hardly ever see the diagram of the 3rd grader radiation model anymore. All you do is hear about it on forums like this by commenters. Does anybody have a link to a half way credible site still displaying a graphic of it? 15 years ago we were being bombarded by it.
“If you agree that climate models are flawed, then were done here.”
Why would I agree to something that you havent shown me?
Especially something that is based on your ideology, not science.
We showed you Nate. It is built on a bogus forcing model. There is no radiation-based forcing and you have to violate either the SB law , 1LOT, and 1LOT to create one. Its a pipe dream. The alleged diminishing of radiation at TOA doesn’t do squat.
Its a bizarre theory for which a ‘forcing’ element is imagined, but not described, and as such it must be the ‘big bad wolf’. And since it is advanced from a seat of power and influence all us peons are ordered to honor it. It is deemed true until somebody proves its not true. And your response perfectly describes the state of the theory.
Its truly a theory that perfectly suits the tinfoil hat crowd.
Declaring. Showing.
Not the same thing, Bill. You always get those confused.
Forcing is just lingo, for warming. Nothing to get bent about.
Putting your GP between the BP and the ice box caused the BP to warm.
It is a forcing.
Nate it warmed the BP only because the BP was not at equilibrium with the heat source namely the 400watts from the sun. That means its possible to warm the blue plate up to 290K and no more.
The GPE only warms the blue plate to 262K so that is not prohibited.
However the models that have been presented to the public has the radiation warming the surface (blue plate) to a higher temperature than the equilibrium it is already at in a model without any atmosphere providing a radiation assist. . . .and that is what is prohibited.
“The GPE only warms the blue plate to 262K so that is not prohibited
Hooray. Then you have debunked Postma and DREMT!
“However the models that have been presented to the public has the radiation warming the surface (blue plate) to a higher temperature than the equilibrium”
What is your ‘equilibrium” temperature for Earth?
"That means its possible to warm the blue plate up to 290K and no more."
Sure, Bill, with radiative insulation (i.e. reflective surfaces) you might be able to warm the BP up to 290 K. Not with a blackbody plate, which is what they’re trying to dupe you into believing.
Radiation of 341w/m2 equals a maximum of 278.5k arising from an electromagnetic only process. Obviously mechanical or chemical processes are not governed by the electromagnetic laws.
Clarification for DREMT. 262K is all you can warm the blue plate with a single vacuum gap created by the green plate (assuming its a blackbody plate). 290K is the limit you can warm the BP with an infinite number of greenplates creating vacuum gaps.
” Not with a blackbody plate, which is what theyre trying to dupe you into believing.”
More declared ‘truth’ from DREMT and the Sky Dragon slayers.
Bill explained that even glass plates, separated by a gap, air or vacuum, will act as insulators.
Some people are just never going to accept how the real world works.
The other trick they try is the “vacuum gap” thing. The whole experiment takes place in a vacuum, so really there are no “vacuum gaps”. There is just distance between the plates, and energy transfer via radiation. Back-radiation from the GP to the BP has no insulating/warming effect.
Anybody saying there are no ‘vacuum gaps’ is just desperate and declaring nonsense.
Bill, if you want to consider the gap between the two plates a “vacuum gap” then maybe you should consider the gap between the Sun and the blue plate a “vacuum gap”. So consider just the Sun and a BP. Does the “vacuum gap” there insulate the Sun, and make it warmer?
Does heat transfer better across a vacuum gap or one filled with metal?
Bottom line is insulation doesn’t warm anything. All insulation can do is facilitate a heat source to do a better job of warming an object. But the object can never be warmer than its heat source without a chemical/mechanical assist. Science properly states the heat source for the surface of the earth as being about 341w/m2. Thus its maximum temperature using insulating shields without a chemical/mechanical assist is about 278.5k. Now one chemical/mechanical assist the atmosphere gets is the phase change capabilities of water. Trenberth has variously estimated that water moves about 80-85w/m2 of latent heat a chemical process into the atmosphere and science is saying that global precipitation has increased by about 1.2inches since the beginning of the 20th century that amounts to about a 3% increase in latent heat or about an increase of about 2.6w/m2 and another .5 watt/m2 for increased insolation and you get 3.1w/m2.
“Bottom line is insulation doesnt warm anything. All insulation can do is facilitate a heat source to do a better job of warming an object. ”
Agree. The light bulb is a heat source and it got warmer with insulation.
“But the object can never be warmer than its heat source without a chemical/mechanical assist.”
Agree.
“Science properly states the heat source for the surface of the earth as being about 341w/m2. Thus its maximum temperature using insulating shields without a chemical/mechanical assist is about 278.5k.”
Disagree. The Earth surface certainly gets warmer than this. It can’t get warmer than the Sun, which is its heat source.
Like the steel greenhouse example, the heated planet can get warmer if the insulation around it increases.
As discussed elsewhere, unlike the BP which can emit direct to space, the planet’s surface can only dissipate its heat to space THRU the steel shells. If the shells (or atmosphere for Earth) become better insulators, the surface can heat up more.
See eg Venus. Ave Temp 475 C, compared to MAX temp of Mercury 400 C, even though it is closer to sun.
The average solar flux hitting Venus is 660 W/m^2. But the SB flux emitted by a 475 C surface would be 18,000 W/m^2!
“262K is all you can warm the blue plate with a single vacuum gap created by the green plate (assuming its a blackbody plate).”
The basis of the 262 K is that back-radiation from the green plate warms the blue plate. The 200 W/m^2 from the GP (or 133.33 W/m^2, as they have it, at equilibrium) is considered by Team GPE as an input to the BP. None of the calculations involve the insulating value of the plates plus “vacuum gap”. So you are barking up the wrong tree with the whole “vacuum gap” thing, it is simply not considered in the math. It’s just another trick.
Some people can never figure out that they’ve lost an argument, and that it is over.
They just endlessly make up NEW red herring excuses.
Nate says:
”Bottom line is insulation doesnt warm anything. All insulation can do is facilitate a heat source to do a better job of warming an object. ”
Agree. The light bulb is a heat source and it got warmer with insulation.
————————-
Indeed. Windows technology explains the insulating effect of the glass shell of a lightbulb.
But all that allows the shell to do is come to equilibrium with the heat source as modified by the inverse square distance law.
There is no explanation of how that insulation effects the filament though you remain convinced it gets hotter. So please explain Nate how you arrived at your conclusion.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1315433
The glass is where the filament’s heat needs to be dissipated. If the glass bulb is warmer because it has been externally insulated, then the filament must warm (a bit) to maintain the same heat flow to the glass.
Just as when we add a layer to the multi-layer insulation, it results in the next inner layer warming, which causes the next inner one to warm, etc, all the way to the source.
Nate it was originally radiating twice what it needed to. So it doesn’t need to radiate more. All that is happening is the filament is losing less heat.no need to radiate more.
“Nate it was originally radiating twice what it needed to.”
That makes no sense.
Once it reaches an equilibrium T, it radiates exactly what it needs to.
“There is no explanation of how that insulation effects the filament though you remain convinced it gets hotter.”
Bill, you are trying to reason with people who believe that if you put a thin, perfectly-conducting blackbody shell around the Sun, the Sun would warm itself by 1,094 K with its own energy, until it’s emitting twice as much (in W/m^2) as it was before! Of course they think the filament gets hotter…
Some people offer no science or a shred of evidence to back up their assertions that radiation from the inner side of a metal shell surrounding a planet simply goes away, or does not exist, or has no effect.
They cannot explain why this is supposed to happen. They just declare that it does.
But they think that if you get an incredible result from an incredible thought experiment, then that proves something.
Of course it doesnt.
Some people never learn that failed logic just keeps on failing.
…the concept of thermal equilibrium, and the correct application of the radiative heat transfer equation, is completely beyond Team GPE, it seems. Oh well, I don’t mind another victory.
… based on debunking the 1LOT.
Is that the same 1LoT you claimed debunked the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution to the 3-plate scenario, Ball4?
Nate says:
”Some people offer no science or a shred of evidence to back up their assertions that radiation from the inner side of a metal shell surrounding a planet simply goes away, or does not exist, or has no effect.
They cannot explain why this is supposed to happen. They just declare that it does.”
Nate nobody said it had no effect. It just doesn’t have an effect on a warmer object already at equilibrium with its power source. Instead the effect is on a conductive object by cancelling normal warming of that object. If it weren’t for the radiant field it presents to the warmer object slowing its cooling (cooling instantly replaced by the power source as it presents the same interface to the powersource which is a fixed power source.
As I told bdgwx above you are trying to tell me that if I give you 2 dollars and you give me a dollar back, I am richer by a dollar. Sounds like a con man joke I heard in the 3rd grade doesn’t it? And you are spinning all over the place trying to locate the dollar I am supposed to be richer by.
“Nate nobody said it had no effect”
Yes DREMT does. And neither he nor you have explained why.
Meanwile ypu have already agreed that a heat source like a lightbulb surrounded by a blackbody enclosure will warm.
You have already agreed that the BP will warm when the GP is brought in.
So Im not sure why you are now changing your tune.
Just tryin to please DREMT?
Nate says:
”Nate nobody said it had no effect”
Yes DREMT does. And neither he nor you have explained why.
————————-
I certainly did you just aren’t listening. It had an effect on how much heat was transferred to the cooler plate. It has no effect on a plate at equilibrium with the only power source.
You keep getting it half way when you say the sun then heats the plate in equilibrium, except you also in your heart know that is wrong also. If its not wrong then S&B is wrong.
The only way that the sun could heat the equilibrium plate (the earths surface that is already insulated from heat loss by the planet) would be if heating occurs in proportion to frequency rather than total watts. But if that were true then the CO2 theory would be DOA anyway.
The fact is the sun emits photons and heat absorbed by a surface is based upon a view factor (explaining why the solar radiation field is divided by 4 for a sphere) and the intensity of the field due to the spreading of photons by the inverse square distance law that has fewer photons hitting a square meter.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Most likely he would defend the GPE if questioned. The Team stick together, after all.”
Of course just like Nate who one minute acknowledges the insulation argument not driving the surface temperature higher and jumps to the sun did it. Which of course is a violation of S&B law.
The next day he is arguing the insulation does it in violation of the 2LOT.
All these guys are doing is trying to find a path between the two laws to advance their ‘other’ agenda.
Some people think they ‘win’ by just throwing around some sciency words that others have used properly, like ‘thermal equilibrium’ and ‘radiative heat transfer” and ‘view factors’. But they dont use these terms remotely correctly to construct a sound argument.
Then they weirdly declare ‘victory’. No one believes them.
Yes, Bill, you can see why I don’t bother responding to him any more.
Bill, you can certainly defend your argument that the heat source together with added insulation of black shells or GP will result in warming of the heated, insulated object. The BP, the bulb, planet, or sun.
But DREMT fundamemtally disagrees with this and keeps making flawed arguments to push this narrative.
So it makes no sense for you to defend his flawed arguments that are intended to prove you wrong.
One of which is that the SB emission from the inner surfaces has no effect. It is as if it simply vanishes, without explanation.
This is indefensible.
Such as here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312675
For one thing, he takes snippets of quotes out of their full context, and doesn’t link to the original discussion so you can see the full comment and understand the context it was presented in. That’s just part of who he is.
Nate says:
”Some people think they win by just throwing around some sciency words (you mean like 2LOT and S&B Nate?) that others have used properly, like thermal equilibrium and radiative heat transfer and view factors. But they dont use these terms remotely correctly to construct a sound argument.
Then they weirdly declare victory. No one believes them.
———————————–
You weirdly cannot either demonstrate why we are wrong nor can you even make an explicit criticism of what we are saying. You just resort to the sort of wild arm waving that is apparent in your above comments.
Nate says:
One of which is that the SB emission from the inner surfaces has no effect. It is as if it simply vanishes, without explanation.
This is indefensible.
———————
You are fundamentally confused Nate.
I clearly showed that the shell merely adopts a temperature so that the flow to the object was equal to the flow through the object. Nothing is vanishing.
And what I demonstrated was in the case of insulation which is clearly an unpowered resistance its performance was consistent with both wave and particle theories.
And I am in good company here on the rest. Dr. Einstein said that every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what light quanta is but they are mistaken.
And I futher noted that every experiment I have seen with an an object at equilibrim receiving back radiation that no effect is seen. One should note that is consistent with wave theory and is a very difficult pill to swallow for all those folks completely married to an idea that photons are particles of energy.
After all Clausius could be wrong since he only knew the wave theory when he wrote his laws. The fact they haven’t been overturned or amended demonstrates the current state of knowledge.
You would think that somehow these photon particle-huggers believe that observed experiments of light quanta showing both wave and particle effects simply represents the entire set of aberrant behavior possible for light quanta. So they instantly join with their teachers and every Tom Dick and Harry who thinks he knows the answer.
But thats an aside. The only evidence that omnipotent particle-huggers have isn’t even evidence. Sunlight hits the earth system and reflects 30% the 239w/m2 is absorbed by the system and emitted by the system. Imbalances are easy to understand in variation in sunlight that hits the surface as most of it absorbed at depth in the ocean and some of it doesn’t see the surface for maybe 1,500 years. Variation in that could create imbalances that take 1,500 years to play out and then another round might be on the way.
So there is no evidence that any greenhouse effect the earth might have is the result of radiation absorbing by CO2.
Nate says:
Bill, you can certainly defend your argument that the heat source together with added insulation of black shells or GP will result in warming of the heated, insulated object. The BP, the bulb, planet, or sun.
But DREMT fundamemtally disagrees with this and keeps making flawed arguments to push this narrative.
=========================
Nate continues to push his BS. Nate takes issue with DREMTs comment:
”That is, the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP]”
But DREMT is absolutely correct here. What the GP does is give a warmer interface to the BP than what it had before because if the BP is the same temperature as the GP there is zero heat loss by the BP.
So like a CO2 particle the GP having been completely robbed of a source of heat cools toward the mean temperature of the BP and the sink. Meanwhile the BP having had its heat loss completely blocked by the GP starts moving toward and equilibrium between itself and the heat source. What in effect has happened is the BP and GP continue to represent an ‘insulating unit’ but conduction from the BP and GP was interrupted by their separation and they took on a greater insulating value. This process of the BP warming and the GP cooling will continue until the flow of energy into the insulating unit equals the flow of energy out of the insulating unit. So here something has happened that represents a resistance to the loss of energy by the heated object without exceeding any equilibrium.
Of course Nate will argue that equilibrium in this simple example will result in the heated object to exceed its equilibrium. To which skeptics say why does every experiment say otherwise. Does theory really trump observation? Yes says Dr. Trenberth. ”The observations have to be wrong.”
“…takes issue with DREMTs comment:
”That is, the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP]””
Bill, that is not even my comment. It is a quote from Postma, and it does not exist on its own like that. It is part of a longer comment, and cannot be fully understood on its own, as a single sentence. There is an entire paragraph of explanation that goes along with it, as well as other commentary that gives it the necessary context. It’s about how Team GPE treats the radiation the same whether it comes from a point source or an infinite parallel plate, and why it is wrong for them to do so.
“But DREMT is absolutely correct here. What the GP does is give a warmer interface to the BP than what it had before because if the BP is the same temperature as the GP there is zero heat loss by the BP.”
Well, DREMT fundamentally disagrees with you, Bill, when you say things like
“Clarification for DREMT. 262K is all you can warm the blue plate with a single vacuum gap created by the green plate (assuming its a blackbody plate). 290K is the limit you can warm the BP with an infinite number of greenplates creating vacuum gaps.”
He declares that The BP does not warm when the GP is put in place. They both stay at 244K.
He declares that the vacuum gap between the BP and GP does not insulate.
If the vacuum gap does insulate, as you and I agree that it does, then there will be a T difference across it.
You need to get and keep your story straight. You cant have it both ways.
“It is a quote from Postma, and it does not exist on its own like that. It is part of a longer comment, and cannot be fully understood on its own, as a single sentence. ”
Yep and DREMT pretends that no one pointed out the extreme flaws in that quote.
He had no answers then or now. Because it makes no sense.
The GP does radiate in both directions according to the SB law, and radiate means ‘lose energy’.
Hence the claim that the “the [GP] cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the [BP]”
is FALSE.
“What in effect has happened is the BP and GP continue to represent an ‘insulating unit’”
Bill, as you argue that the vacuum gap is what insulates the BP you of course agree that the GPE is debunked, because in the GPE the BP is supposed to warm due to back-radiation from the GP, and not due to insulation from a vacuum gap. In fact anyone who argues that the BP increases in temperature due to the vacuum gap, and not due to back-radiation from the GP, is arguing that the GPE is debunked, and that’s great to see, however (and I hate to rain on your parade), the BP will not increase in temperature when the plates are separated.
The plates, at 244 K…244 K, with view factors = 1 between them, are at course at equilibrium according to the radiative heat transfer equation. So there is no reason for the BP to rise in temperature. With no heat flow between the plates, and no heat flow from the Sun to the BP (there was heat flow whilst the BP was rising in temperature after first being introduced, but as soon as the BP reached equilibrium with the Sun, there was no longer any heat flow between them), there is of course no need for any heat flow out of the GP. The GP just radiates energy to space based on its temperature and emissivity.
Your confusion might lie here: “So like a CO2 particle the GP having been completely robbed of a source of heat cools toward the mean temperature of the BP and the sink.”
Space has no temperature, so the GP cannot “cool towards the mean temperature of the BP and the sink”. As I said, the GP just radiates energy to space based on its temperature and emissivity, and its temperature is set by the BP, whose temperature in turn is set by the Sun.
Those arguing that the BP increases in temperature on separation of the plates are making the mistake of thinking there “needs to be a thermal gradient to drive heat through the system” but there really is no need. Heat flow has gone to zero throughout. You would have to believe that the GP simply stops radiating altogether at equilibrium to believe there’s a need for a thermal gradient to make the GP radiate energy to space. The GP radiates energy to space because it is an object above 0 K. All objects above 0 K radiate energy. There is no need for there to be heat flow between the plates for the GP to radiate.
“Of course Nate will argue that equilibrium in this simple example will result in the heated object to exceed its equilibrium. ”
Nope I never said that. I never said the BP would warm above 290 K.
In the DIFFERENT geometry of the steel greenhouse, the planet can warm much more. But it still doesnt warm beyond the T of its heat source, the Sun.
“…are at course at equilibrium according to the…”
Should be:
“…are of course at equilibrium according to the…”
“The plates, at 244 K244 K, with view factors = 1 between them, are at course at equilibrium according to the radiative heat transfer equation.”
Good example here: 3 buzzwords tossed out, ‘view factors’ ‘equilibrium’ and ‘radiative heat transfer eqn’.
But none are put together and used correctly to make a sound, logical argument.
‘view factors’ do not stop emissions or loss of energy from the GP.
‘equilibrium’ in this problem there is heat flow into the BP from a heat source, and out of the BP to the GP, and out of the GP to space (or matter in space). So this is not technically an equilibrium situation. It is a steady state situation.
The ‘radiative heat transfer eqn’ determines the flow of heat from the BP to GP and is given by sigma*(Tbp^4 – Tgp^4).
If there is no temp difference between BP and GP as DREMT declares, then there is NO heat flow from BP to GP.
And since there IS heat flow into the BP from the heat source, then 1LOT has major problem with NO heat flow out of the BP.
1LOT says NOPE!
“With no heat flow between the plates, and no heat flow from the Sun to the BP (there was heat flow whilst the BP was rising in temperature after first being introduced, but as soon as the BP reached equilibrium with the Sun, there was no longer any heat flow between them), there is of course no need for any heat flow out of the GP.”
And of course here, DREMT ludicrously turns off all heat flow, even from the heat source! This is of course, nonsense.
The sun is 6000 K and the BP settles at 244 K, when by itself, and the radiative heat transfer eqn OBVIOUSLY indicates that heat flow from SUN to BP is never 0!
Bill, I wonder if Team GPE can show us the correct way to calculate the heat flow between the Sun and the BP, at equilibrium, using the radiative heat transfer equation and the relevant view factors. Let’s say the temperature of the Sun is 5,778 K, like ours.
Heat flow between the Sun and the BP is zero because of the vacuum between them. EMR/photons flow both ways between the two objects exchanging energy because incoherent photons have not been detected to interact.
Just go ahead and wonder again when DREMT or Bill needs any more help.
“Heat flow between the Sun and the BP is zero”
I’m glad Ball4 agrees with me. Any other members of Team GPE like to weigh in?
Stick with that basic physics DREMT, and you will go far.
Thanks, your disagreement with the other Team GPE members has been helpful.
Good. Even DREMT, when correctly helped, can make progress understanding thermodynamics but I do doubt it will stick with DREMT. We shall see.
First it was Ball4 arguing that 1LoT debunked the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution to the 3-plate problem, and now he’s argued that heat flow between the Sun and the BP is indeed zero in the 2-plate scenario. His help in debunking the Green Plate Effect has been invaluable, over the years. He’s even learned a little thermodynamics along the way.
DREMT, the GPE is not debunked you are overturning yourself, the 1LOT stands as Eli wrote as it always has due to the EMR/photon non-zero “energy going in” (Eli terms) to the BP from the Sun to which you just agreed!
Good job, no backsliding, the 1LOT has not been debunked as DREMT used to claim before 11:59 AM so it is DREMT that HAS changed sides and supported the GPE at least for a few minutes. Note Eli did NOT write “heat” from the sun going in to the BP which is zero due to the vacuum.
DREMT needs even more correct help. Just ask.
Ball4 agreed once again at 11:23 AM that the GPE is debunked, now sadly tries to backslide at 1:28 PM. Looks like he still has a lot to learn about thermodynamics. Oh well.
Wrong DREMT, no debunking of the GPE, my 11:23 am still has non-zero “EMR/photons flow both ways between the two objects exchanging energy”.
DREMT is so confused over this simple fact: no heat, just EMR exists in the vacuum of the GPE.
Eli & 1LOT has always been correct despite DREMT’s various futile efforts over some 5 years to convince all others that the GPE thus 1LOT has been debunked. DREMT has not succeeded in the efforts because DREMT is simply wrong.
Looks like he still has a lot to learn about thermodynamics. Oh well.
“The net radiative heat transfer from one surface to another is the radiation leaving the first surface for the other minus that arriving from the second surface.
For black bodies, the rate of energy transfer from surface 1 to surface 2 is:
See the equation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
Q(dot)1-2 = sigma A1*F12*(T1^4 -T2^4)
F12 is view Factor A1 is surface area of 1
So regardless of what Ball4 and DREMT are saying there is a net heat flow from the sun to the BP.
And of course this depends on the temperatures of the sun and BP.
And as you can see, there is nothing in the equation dependent on the BP being at a steady T or not.
Nate, EMR is not heat. There is as Eli writes, and DREMT has agreed at least for a few minutes, “energy going in” (Eli terms) to the BP from the Sun.
If you prefer, we can say there is heat transfer
from the sun to the BP.
The point is 1LOT references Heat input or output. It doesnt distinguish Heat by radiation from any other.
1LOT is delta U = Q – W, U is internal energy, Q is heat added, and W is work output of object.
The EMR is not work, so it must be Q, heat.
The BP is receiving heat from the sun. It is also transferring heat elsewhere, space and the GP.
Looks like Team GPE can’t use the radiative heat transfer equation, i.e. substitute in the relevant numbers and actually come out with an answer in W/m^2 for what the heat flow is from the Sun to the BP at equilibrium. Sun is at 5,778 K, remember…
Check your own ref. Nate, Q is dotted viz.: “the rate of energy transfer from surface 1 to surface 2 is:”
Delta U takes time to occur hence Nate’s 1LOT eqn. is per unit time thus Nate’s Q and W are rates of thermodynamic internal energy transfer; Q dot by virtue of a temperature difference in the time period, W dot by working (force through a distance) in the time period. Many (most?) authors leave out the dot or per unit time unfortunately.
EMR is neither heat nor work.
The BP cannot be receiving heat from the sun as heat cannot exist in the vacuum of the GPE; the sun’s heat is reduced as its thermodynamic internal energy decreases converted into its EMR, some of which is absorbed by the BP.
EMR can exist in a vacuum and thus transfer thermodynamic internal energy between objects in that vacuum (sun to BP) which was an early physics conundrum since resolved by thorough experiment.
DREMT 4:13 pm, you just agreed the heat flow from the sun to BP is zero. That is correct.
Eli has already correctly ~5 years ago figured out the energy flow in vacuum from the sun to BP (using his geometry and BP opacity, emissivity); a flow to the cold sink of space which is not zero at temperature steady state using the 1LOT in the GPE.
DREMT has yet to correctly solve the thermo. beginners home work problem after ~5 years of futile attempts.
“EMR is neither heat nor work.
The BP cannot be receiving heat from the sun as heat cannot exist in the vacuum of the GPE”
Then the sun cannot heat anything? Sorry Ball4. That is simply wrong.
There is no place in the 1LOT for EMR, except in Q.
The Radiative Heat Transfer equation is all about transferring heat, by radiation. So you’ll have to take it up with ALL Heat Transfer textbooks!
As far as DREMT wanting to put numbers into the equation I posted, anyone can see that if we put T1 = 5800 K, and T2 = 244 K the result cannot be 0.
“So youll have to take it up with ALL Heat Transfer textbooks!”
Not necessary Nate, the ones I’ve consulted all get it right: heat cannot exist in a defined vacuum. Or show a text that supports Nate’s view that heat can exist in a defined vacuum.
The sun is heating all of our known solar system objects over the cold sink of deep space, so I would not agree with Nate’s “Then the sun cannot heat anything?” That answer is obviously “No”.
DREMT needs to solve the easy homework problem posed on DREMT’s own time. Eli’s work is a credible example for DREMT to show DREMT has correctly accomplished beginner’s thermodynamics after ~5 years of futile attempts.
“DREMT has yet to correctly solve the thermo. beginners home work problem after ~5 years of futile attempts.”
No, I understand perfectly how Eli solves his problem. Always have. I just disagree, and have explained why at great length. What I would be interested to see is any example problem from a textbook that is solved in the same way as Eli solves the Green Plate Effect.
“What I would be interested to see is any example problem from a textbook that is solved in the same way as Eli solves the Green Plate Effect.”
Good idea DREMT. Just head over to DREMT’s local college library, go to the thermodynamics section, and start with the A’s; let us know when you find one.
See? They try to pretend that the GPE is some “common thermodynamics problem” but it really isn’t. If it was, they would have no problem linking to a similar example…
If all DREMT needs is a “similar” example solved, then DREMT only had to go down to the B’s: Bohren 2006 p. 33 solves “similar example” to GPE and even allows for the BP to be variable opacity and actually includes earthen albedo!
Still no link…
DREMT, please stop trolling.
Regardless of the semantic argument, the reality is that radiative heat transfer eqn indicates the sun is transferring heat to the BP, even when the BP has reached its steady Temp. DREMT cannot refute this.
There is no link DREMT 6:16 pm since I provided you a text book “similar example” to the GPE.
And it’s only a semantic issue when the physics eqn.s are incorrectly worded Nate. Correctly: EMR is not heat.
Come on, Ball4, if these problems are as common as you guys make them out to be, you should be able to find an online example easily. Remember, it has to be solved in the same way as Eli solves the GPE. Off you pop.
I will say this one more time.
1) Assume FV=1 in all cases
2) Infinite Heated plane is radiating at 400watts and is in equilibrium with radiation field.
3) Heated plane is facing an infinite sink at 0K
4) BP and GP are infinite planes and can be any temperature to start
5) Insert BP between the heated plane and the sink.
Result:
BP will either lose energy or gain energy and stabilize at a 2-way equilibrium between the heated plate and the sink.
The glass will be absorbing 200w/m2 on the side toward the heated plate and be losing 200w/m2 toward the sink. The temperature of the glass will be 244K
Uvalue of this pane of glass equals 1.0
6) Now pull out the BP. Assemble the BP and GP together with a gap of any size between the two.
7) The BP and GP assembly can be any temperature
8) Insert the dual pane assembly between the heated plate and the sink.
Result:
The BP/GP assembly will either lose energy or gain energy and stablize at a 2-way equilibrium between the heated plate and the sink. The assembly will be absorbing 100w/m2 from the heated plate and losing 100w/m2 toward the sink. Uvalue of assembly equals 0.5
This is how insulation works. A Wall or glazed unit will find a mean temperature between the heat source and the sink.
In order to accomplish this feat the surface of the BP will need to be 262K to limit how much the unit absorbs from the 400k source down to 100w/m2.
The surface of the GP will need to be 205k to limit its heat loss to the sink to 100w/m2.
So DREMT is right it is nonsense to say GP warms the BP because the beginning temperature could be say 320k and the assembly would need to cool with the GP needing to cool more than the BP. But at no point in that cooling cycle will the BP ever gain any heat from the GP.
the assembly could start at 100k and the BP will warm faster than the GP because it will only be passing on half the heat it gains to the GP and the BP is here the only source of heat for the GP.
Insert GP between the BP and the sink.
Result: The GP and BP together operate in unison like a single pane in seeking stablization at a 2 way equilibrium. But Uvalue will have changed to 0.5. Thus the dual pane unit will be radiating 100 watts in each direction
of glass but instead of U=1
I will say this one more time.
1) Assume FV=1 in all cases
2) Infinite Heated plane is radiating at 400watts and is in equilibrium with radiation field.
3) Heated plane is facing an infinite sink at 0K
4) BP and GP are infinite planes and can be any temperature to start
5) Insert BP between the heated plane and the sink.
Result:
BP will either lose energy or gain energy and stabilize at a 2-way equilibrium between the heated plate and the sink.
The glass will be absorbing 200w/m2 on the side toward the heated plate and be losing 200w/m2 toward the sink. The temperature of the glass will be 244K
Uvalue of this pane of glass equals 1.0
6) Now pull out the BP. Assemble the BP and GP together with a gap of any size between the two.
7) The BP and GP assembly can be any temperature
8) Insert the dual pane assembly between the heated plate and the sink.
Result:
The BP/GP assembly will either lose energy or gain energy and stablize at a 2-way equilibrium between the heated plate and the sink. The assembly will be absorbing 100w/m2 from the heated plate and losing 100w/m2 toward the sink. Uvalue of assembly equals 0.5
This is how insulation works. A Wall or glazed unit will find a mean temperature between the heat source and the sink.
In order to accomplish this feat the surface of the BP will need to be 262K to limit how much the unit absorbs from the 400k source down to 100w/m2.
The surface of the GP will need to be 205k to limit its heat loss to the sink to 100w/m2.
So DREMT is right it is nonsense to say GP warms the BP because the beginning temperature could be say 320k and the assembly would need to cool with the GP needing to cool more than the BP. But at no point in that cooling cycle will the BP ever gain any heat from the GP.
the assembly could start at 100k and the BP will warm faster than the GP because it will only be passing on half the heat it gains to the GP and the BP is here the only source of heat for the GP.
First 5:28 pm DREMT wants “a similar example” problem to the GPE. Then 7:23 pm DREMT wants a problem “solved in the same way as Eli solves the GPE”. Then DREMT claims an unnamed “you guys” write these problems are “common”. Where is that written?
Clearly DREMT can’t write exactly what DREMT really wants.
——
Then Bill writes one more time as if that’s it: “But at no point in that cooling cycle will the BP ever gain any heat from the GP.”
Of course not since there is a defined vacuum gap between them in the GPE & in physics correctly: EMR is not heat.
Bill then botches physics: “BP is here the only source of heat for the GP.”
No. There is a defined vacuum between BP and GP: EMR is not heat. BP is physically a source of EMR in the vacuum that is absorbed by the GP & vice versa.
See Eli’s solution for the correct answers Bill. 2 independent 1LOT eqn.s, 2 unknowns, so GPE is solvable as Eli demonstrated.
Ball4 says:
Then Bill writes one more time as if thats it: But at no point in that cooling cycle will the BP ever gain any heat from the GP.
Of course not since there is a defined vacuum gap between them in the GPE & in physics correctly: EMR is not heat.
Bill then botches physics: BP is here the only source of heat for the GP.
No. There is a defined vacuum between BP and GP: EMR is not heat. BP is physically a source of EMR in the vacuum that is absorbed by the GP & vice versa.
————————–
Still haven’t figured it out yet eh Ball4? The BP has a source of heat. . . .space does not. Only objects can be heated. Space is not an object.
Convoluted Bill.
“The glass will be absorbing 200w/m2 on the side toward the heated plate and be losing 200w/m2 toward the sink. The temperature of the glass will be 244K”
You have changed the GPE by replacing the Sun with a plate.
If the heated plate is emitting 400 W/M^2, I think you mean the glass will absorb 400 W/m^2 on the side facing the heated plate. The glass will emit 200 W/m^2 on both sides.
I agree it will end up at 244 K.
Then with the GP inserted, what does the BP (glass) end up at?
262 K is what you previously stated. Then it will emit 267 W/m^2 toward the GP. The GP will emit 133 W/m^2 on both sides and end up at 206K.
Note that there IS a T gradient present in steady state across these plates and heat flow thru them, hence they are acting as insulators.
“The sun is heating all of our known solar system objects over the cold sink of deep space”
Good. Then the radiative heat transfer equation correctly states that heat has been transferred from the sun to the BP, via radiation. The equation:
Q(dot)1-2 = sigma A1*F12*(T1^4 -T2^4)
is correct, and it indicates the sun is heating the BP. Hence it is a heat source.
1LOT then clearly has a problem if the BP is receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat from the sun, 200 W to space and transferring 0 to the GP. Because that would indicate its internal energy U would need to rise by 200 W/m^2.
Ball4 concedes that the GPE is not a common thermodynamic problem that you can easily find on the internet. You just don’t solve problems the way Eli solves the GPE. Yet Team GPE pretends these “1LoT eqn.s” (as Ball4 puts it) are the norm. They are not. If they were the norm you could find an example from the internet of a problem being solved this way.
Bill mentions U-values, but nowhere in Eli’s GPE math are U-values taken into account. The GPE is simply not an insulation problem. “Insulation” is one thing, “back-radiation heating” is another. “Insulation” works, “back-radiation heating” is physically impossible.
DREMT, you are wrong there is no pretending in ideal Planck’s Law, S-B, 1LOT, and Eli’s correct GPE solution. Google will provide you millions of hits (“similkar examples”) of their use. I gave you a text book source that expands on Eli’s solution.
“back-radiation heating” is not physically impossible as Dr. Spencer demonstrated experimentally in his post “Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still” that DREMT claimed to have found and DREMT claimed to have read. Pity DREMT didn’t understand what DREMT read.
—–
Nate 4:38 am: “Then the radiative heat transfer equation correctly states that heat has been transferred from the sun to the BP, via radiation.”
No that’s not physical & impossible. EMR is never heat. Physically it’s a radiative energy 1LOT transfer equation in a defined vacuum & the resultant sign shows which way is the net direction of energy flow.
There can be no heat in the defined vacuum of the GPE, only EMR. The sun’s thermodynamic internal energy is transformed into EMR & EMR transfers through the vacuum not the sun’s heat which stays put but decreases as it is transformed into EMR.
Bill 12:25 am incorrectly writes: “The BP has a source of heat..”
Bill, the BP & GP exist in a defined vacuum, correctly both the BP and GP have a source & sink of EMR as Eli shows. Eli writes out the 1LOT EMR exchange from source to sink physically correct so Bill can study and learn from Eli’s work.
Lots of words in Ball4’s 8:45 AM comment, but no link. Ball4’s prose will be ignored until such time as Ball4 provides a link backing up Ball4’s assertions.
“Physically its a radiative energy 1LOT transfer equation in a defined vacuum & the resultant sign shows which way is the net direction of energy flow.”
I dunno what that means Ball4.
Where is EMR in the 1 LOT equation?
deltaU = Q-W.
Why can the Radiative Heat Transfer equation called that? And why is the transferred energy in it called Q?
This is the current view of what heat is, in Thermodynamics
“In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
You don’t agree. Oh well.
“Where is EMR in the 1 LOT equation?”
For the GPE, in the rate of energy transfer through a defined vacuum by virtue of a temperature difference during the delta U process as correctly worked out by Eli for that GPE.
According to the clipped wiki page definition, EMR is heat. Thus, that definition fails because EMR is NOT heat.
For the defined vacuum of the GPE: In thermodynamics, EMR is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system in a defined vacuum, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.
Note: a search of the page does not turn up the word “vacuum” so the wiki writers do not deal with, or are unaware of, that GPE issue (or potentially somewhere they use a word meaning the same as vacuum). By the way, always check the references at the bottom for the precise work. Wiki ref.s Clausius who does write a properly physical definition of heat & compare it each time Clausius properly uses the term for his real meaning.
Nate says:
Convoluted Bill.
The glass will be absorbing 200w/m2 on the side toward the heated plate and be losing 200w/m2 toward the sink. The temperature of the glass will be 244K
You have changed the GPE by replacing the Sun with a plate.
——————————-
So your claim is solar radiation is different than plate radiation?
See here for my response on that. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1318206
Ball4,
Your hackneyed bastardizing of the generally understood meaning of radiative heat transfer makes anyone truly interested in following the discussion want to skip every one of your comments.
Stop being a noddy.
“Thus, that definition fails because EMR is NOT heat.”
It is THE definition. So how can it fail, Ball4?
I understand you don’t LIKE the definition, but is the one being used currently in thermodynamics, in physics, chemistry.
The point is heat inside a material is called internal energy.
Thermal energy passing between materials is called heat.
It works and is universally used. Then thats all that matters.
Now DREMT is still violating 1LOT and making SB emissions from The GP disappear with no sensible explanation.
“Thermal energy passing between materials is called heat.”
Now Nate is obfuscating by suggesting that heat can be something other than energy moving from hot to cold.
Uggghh.
Did I say heat flows from cold to hot anywhere?
Nate says:
1LOT then clearly has a problem if the BP is receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat from the sun, 200 W to space and transferring 0 to the GP. Because that would indicate its internal energy U would need to rise by 200 W/m^2.
—————–
It requires a thorough understanding of electromagnetic energy. If your thought experiments keep coming up different than your observations at which point do you revise your thought experiment?
Some people though walk around until they find something that has been warming for a while and claim ‘I found it’ having walked right by many examples where you should have found it. As they say in science it only requires one observation to prove your theory wrong.
“but (it) is the one being used currently in thermodynamics, in physics, chemistry. The point is heat inside a material is called internal energy.”
Nate, no as then there is cold inside some materials too, so read a little further down your own wiki link: “now obsolete language usage that allowed that a body may have a “heat content””.
Properly, thermodynamic internal energy U is all you need to write, there is no heat (or cold or work) content in any material body these days, universally. I challenge Nate to find one modern thermodynamic text book that declares there is heat (or work) content in any material object since I have not found a one after some extensive searching. Since Nate writes heat “inside a material” is “universally used”, Nate’s search ought to end quickly but it won’t.
Thermal energy passing between materials is properly and modernly called thermodynamic internal energy passing between materials. In the GPE defined vacuum, the energy passing between materials is EMR. Uninformed DREMT and others practice being confused about heating, informed Nate should not be doing so.
“So how can it fail, Ball4?”
As I already explained, that defn. fails because that incorrect def. allows EMR to be heat when EMR is NOT heat.
“… the generally understood meaning of radiative heat transfer…”
Chic, generally? No. Not at all. Heat is a much-misused term & is always unneeded. Is there then the generally understood meaning for radiative cold transfer? All bodies radiate be they deemed hot OR cold. There is no special radiation with the unique capability of heating bodies. There is just EMR. Radiation of any frequency is capable of heating given sufficient power or given that the body illuminated is suitably chosen.
For example, someone writing statements that heat cannot flow of its own accord from a cold body to a hot body can properly be replaced by the following: If two bodies are placed in contact, one body with a higher temperature than the other, the temperature of the hotter body always decreases whereas that of the colder body always increases.
“1LOT then clearly has a problem if the BP is receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat from the sun, 200 W to space and transferring 0 to the GP. Because that would indicate its internal energy U would need to rise by 200 W/m^2.
It requires a thorough understanding of electromagnetic energy”
Not at all, Bill. This is quite simple.
400 units of heat input per second, and 200 units of heat output per second, cannot result in a steady temperature.
Do you think we need to obey the laws of physics and arithmetic, or not?
DREMT does not.
“I challenge Nate to find one modern thermodynamic text book that declares there is heat (or work) content in any material object ”
Nor did I say that Ball4.
Heat is colloquially discussed that way, but I indicated that internal energy is correct. Or enthalpy.
“Thermal energy passing between materials is properly and modernly called thermodynamic internal energy passing between materials.”
Nonsense. No one is calling it that, Ball4.
It is simply called Heat Transfer.
“The BP has a source of heat. . . .space does not. Only objects can be heated. Space is not an object.”
Exactly, Bill. So consider a BP, heated in space by a “Sun plate” which is at 290 K. View factors are equal to 1 between the “Sun plate” and the BP. According to the radiative heat transfer equation, heat flow goes to zero when the two plates are at the same temperature, and then that is it. Equilibrium. The “Sun plate” simply warms the BP until it is at the same temperature as the “Sun plate”, because there are no losses past the edges of the plates (VF=1). There is then no heat transfer between the source and the BP, and of course no heat transfer to space. Everything is in balance.
Now, Team GPE would have you split the 400 W/m^2 from the source by 2, so that the BP emits 200 W/m^2 at a temperature of 244 K. Then there would be a constant thermal gradient between the source and the BP, and heat constantly flowing between them, but no heat flow out to space! So that makes absolutely no sense. The heat flowing between them would simply warm the BP until it was the same temperature. There is no reason for a thermal gradient to just permanently establish itself, out of the blue.
Team GPE would have you split the 400 W/m^2 from the source by 2, regardless of whether the source is an infinite parallel plate, or a point source. They don’t think about whether the energy from the side of the BP facing the source can be lost past the edges of the source or not. It can with a point source, it can’t with an infinite parallel plate.
“Nor did I say that Ball4.”
Nate did write that: “It is simply called Heat Transfer.”
For heat to transfer out of a body there must be heat content IN that body to transfer out. So I will remind Nate what Nate’s own link correctly wrote: “now obsolete language usage that allowed that a body may have a “heat content””.
I’m fairly sure authors that write “heat transfer” will officially acknowledge the death of caloric theory, they then proceed to do everything possible to breathe life back into the corpse. The miss-usage of the heat term has led to entire websites being created to put heat content back into a body: DREMT’s climate sophistry, Principia, and countless others.
DREMT was correct to begin this discussion agreeing that “Heat flow between the Sun and the BP is zero” since it is now obsolete language usage that allowed that a body – the sun – may have a heat content to transfer out.
DREMT is then incorrect physically writing at 6:10 am “heat flow goes to zero” since DREMT had agreed “Heat flow between the Sun and the BP is zero” so the rest of DREMT’s 6:10 am arguments fall apart accordingly.
“So consider a BP, heated in space by a ‘Sun plate’ which is at 290 K. View factors are equal to 1 between the ‘Sun plate’ and the BP. According to the radiative heat transfer equation, heat flow goes to zero when the two plates are at the same temperature, and then that is it. Equilibrium. The ‘Sun plate’ simply warms the BP until it is at the same temperature as the ‘Sun plate’, because there are no losses past the edges of the plates (VF=1). There is then no heat transfer between the source and the BP, and of course no heat transfer to space. Everything is in balance.”
Some people keep repeating the same fundamental and arithmetic errors over and over again. They refuse to learn.
So in this accounting the BP has zero input heat (or energy!), but is emitting 400 W/m^2 of heat (energy) by SB law to space.
0 in. 400 W/m^2 out. Not equilibrium!
Again, plenty of objects in space, notably the Webb Space Telescope are heated by the sun or by internal sources, and then must dissipate that heat into space to cool, or to maintain a cold and steady temperature.
It is an undeniable reality that objects in space have input heat and output heat to space.
I will remind people of the definition of heat:
“In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter (e.g. conduction, radiation, and friction).[1]”
Nate again chooses an incorrect definition of heat that cannot be relied upon from a wiki source that actually writes the language used in the definition is now obsolete – because the wording is physically incorrect.
NB: I couldn’t quickly find the wiki definition of heat in the wiki ref. 1. That source does write p. 8: “An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat.”
This should further clarify for Nate that EMR is NOT heat, “Heat flow between the Sun and the BP is zero” due to the defined GPE vacuum, and there is “now obsolete language usage that allowed that a body may have a “heat content””.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”There is then no heat transfer between the source and the BP, and of course no heat transfer to space. Everything is in balance.”
Indeed Roy that could well be true. As I said originally actually doing an experiment in space would be a necessary step to eliminate a lot of equal possibilities eliminating them one by one.
Your viewpoint is consistent with the ‘medium’ concept that energy isn’t transferred except by signal across a medium as with the flow of electricity that needs a difference in potential to flow. Thus what you are saying is the difference in potential must be sensible in some way. Of course the narrow minded, well trained seals we have in this forum would never ever entertain such a notion and just scoff at it. . . .narrow minds indeed. No chance any of these idiots would ever look outside the inculcation box they were trained to live in. Well done!
Of course some rather simple experiments in space could tell us that. Similar experiments in an atmosphere don’t support the claim of Nate.
Nate mentions that 200watts/m2 net out of a system in a radiation field isn’t consistent. Yet we have laws that allow it in stefan-boltzmann in that no limits are put in place (e.g. must not be fully insulated on the back side.) Stefan-Boltzmann simply says two objects facing each other at the same temperature, regardless of energy flow between them (one of the objects may reflect heat away) are in equilibrium.
And then we have the window glass where an equilibrium is found without any similarity in temperature between the source object and the window. That equilibrium is made sense of by engineers using heat transfer calculations that include a gaseous medium. And one can see how there is variation in the insulation value via the specific element of gas used. that can be seen by reading this: https://www.vitroglazings.com/media/qjtlduqr/vitro-td-101.pdf
Bottom line is what we have here in the climate change issue is a sham trial. The evidence isn’t there but the fossil fuel industry is being tried in the public center on an issue they fear taking to court where discovery and evidence matters. Dr. Einstein would no doubt get a few quotes in such a trial.
Science is about evidence. Without evidence its not science.
What they get wrong, Bill, is they think the BP must be emitting heat to space. It isn’t. The BP just radiates energy to space because it is an object above 0 K and thus radiates EMR according to its temperature and emissivity. That EMR just goes out to space…it’s not heating anything. It is not "heat". So there is zero heat flow between the source plate and the BP, and zero heat flow out to space. What is so difficult to understand about an object being heated to the same temperature as a heat source, when its an idealized situation in which there are no losses past the edges of the plates!?
You guys who disregard the definition of heat I found are welcome to show us an alternative definition from a legitimate, modern, source that agrees with your alternative views.
As far as emission of heat to space, this is purely semantic, since all agree that energy is emitted. And with that emission, and 1LOT, the math fails to work.
Again, with source and BP at the same T, the radiative heat transfer equation indicates 0 heat transfer, and that means 0 NET energy transfer.
Then the BP has 0 W input and is emitting 400 W/m^2 to space, yet is at a steady Temperature.
Sorry that is BS.
Nate, physically EMR is NOT* heat so with source and BP at the same T, the radiative energy transfer equation indicates 0 net energy transfer, and that does mean 0 NET energy transfer.
*Since Nate’s wiki legitimate, modern (1970) source ref. does write p. 8: “An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat.”
Continuing with my thoughts from earlier…
…the only way for their way of looking at it to make sense is if with the BP and source at the same temperature, the BP just…stopped radiating altogether. As if it were at 0 K. Unfortunately for Team GPE, that doesn’t happen. The BP radiates based on its temperature and emissivity, so at 290 K with emissivity = 1, the BP radiates 400 W/m^2. It radiates that to space regardless of the fact that there is zero heat flow between the BP and the source. It radiates energy to space because it is matter above 0 K. There is absolutely no requirement for there to be a temperature gradient between the source and the BP, for the BP to radiate EMR to space.
Nate says:
Again, with source and BP at the same T, the radiative heat transfer equation indicates 0 heat transfer, and that means 0 NET energy transfer.
——————–
Nate there is no difference between ‘net energy transfer’ and ‘energy transfer’? When you talk in such terms its like you are confused, unsure, or guessing.
And of course hopefully you know which surface had to emit first before getting anything in return. The things we don’t know for sure is how much did the object actually emit and if it got anything in return.
Its a simple case of a teacher using cartoons to describe a mathematical problem. . . .you don’t know if the cartoons are real.
If a teacher gave you two cartoons. A) where Suzi gave Beth a dollar. And B) where Suzi gave Beth $2 but Beth only accepted $1. He would have made it more difficult for you to learn what he is trying to teach you and showing you two cartoons will undoubtedly leave you confused. Which is it? Nobody knows.
” The BP radiates based on its temperature and emissivity, so at 290 K with emissivity = 1, the BP radiates 400 W/m^2. ”
Indeed it does, on both sides!
DREMT has by some voodoo magic made the emission of 400 W/m^2 on the side toward the source go away, vanish, disappear.
He seems to believe that just saying magic words, like ‘view factors’ or ‘equilibrium’ are an explanation for this vanishing.
They are not.
He does this to fudge the accounting. This is called fraud
DREMT accounting BP receives 400 and emits 400 on one side only, to space. 400-400 = 0 equilibrium.
Correct accounting BP receives 400 and emits 400 on both sides.
400 – 400 – 400 = -400 not equilibrium.
Problem. The BP is not at 290 K. it is at 244 K. It emits 200 on both sides.
400 – 200 -200 = 0 equilibrium.
Except this satisfies SB law, and 1LOT.
“Nate again chooses an incorrect definition of heat”
And yet no one can show us an alternative definition from a legitimate source!
Until someone does, I will continue using the accepted definition.
“Correct accounting BP receives 400 and emits 400 on both sides.
400 400 400 = -400 not equilibrium.” in DREMT scenario.
And let me just point out that the first two terms 400 -400 are between the source and BP. They give 0 Net energy transfer between the Source and BP.
This is entirely consistent with the RHT equation giving Q = 0 between the plates.
Zero heat transfer between the plates. Zero net energy transfer between the plates (BTW this is not a coincidence)
And to reiterate, for the BP to be at a constant T while emitting 400 W/m^2 to space under these circumstances, as DREMT would have it, is a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
“Team GPE would have you split the 400 W/m^2 from the source by 2, regardless of whether the source is an infinite parallel plate, or a point source. They don’t think about whether the energy from the side of the BP facing the source can be lost past the edges of the source or not. It can with a point source, it can’t with an infinite parallel plate.”
So that’s why you split by 2 for the BP if the source is a point source Sun, and you don’t split by 2 if the source is an infinite parallel plate.
1) Point source Sun = BP at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.
2) Infinite parallel plate source Sun = BP at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2.
“And yet no one can show us an alternative definition from a legitimate source!”
Nate’s 5:57 am own link earlier references the physical definition of heat from a legitimate source: the generally accepted and often used text book by Dr. Callen.
For Nate to continue to use the unphysical and admittedly obsolete definition of heat, Nate’s comments on the subject will continue to be unphysical and obsolete (pre-1850s caloric level instead of 1970 modern).
—-
DREMT 6:32 am, the sun’s rays are collimated so your 1) and 2) will have the same answer. Since you get different answers, one of the two MUST be wrong.
The point source Sun’s rays are collimated. The infinite parallel plate source Sun’s rays are not.
“definition of heat from a legitimate source: the generally accepted and often used text book by Dr. Callen.”
Which is what!?
Make sure that it works with 1LOT.
Navigate to Nate’s wiki link ref. 1 1970 text, see p. 8 (given to Nate for the 3rd time).
“They dont think about whether the energy from the side of the BP facing the source can be lost past the edges of the source or not.”
There is no need to be ‘lost past the edges’, it has an obvious place to go: the source plate, which being a black body, must abs*orb it.
It has been emitted, according to the SB Law. Someone, anyone, maybe Bill, needs to think about why it has simply vanished in the accounting, and explain it to us.
From Callen:
“The heat flux to a system in any process (at constant mole numbers) is the difference in internal energy between the final and initial states, dimininished by the work done in that process.”
Indeed this is simply defining it in terms of 1LOT.
The 1LOT is deltaU = Q -W.
If not work is involved then
deltaU = Q the heat input.
So in radiative heat transfer, Q = delatU, the transferred energy, by radiation is the Heat.
Cult Leader grammie pup, The question isn’t about two infinite parallel plates and there’s no “Sun Plate” with a view factor of 1.0 from the BP.
The Sun appears to be about 0.52 degrees wide, so the view factor from the BP toward the Sun would be very small, whereas the BP’s remaining view factor of deep space is very nearly 1.0. As a result, almost all of the BP’s IR emissions on the side facing the Sun go to deep space. Therefore the BP’s emissions from each side will be 200 w/m^2 for a 400 w/m^2 illumination on the Sun side.
Get over it, will you?
Q is not an amount Nate, physically Q is a rate of heating (or cooling) by virtue of a temperature difference over the time the process of delta U completes.
Then Nate still fails to correctly use Dr. Callen’s physically correct def. of heat on page 8 when Nate writes: “radiation is the Heat.” No, EMR is NOT heat as Dr. Callen correctly points out for Nate on p.8.
DREMT remains correct at the start of this discussion, there is zero heat flow from sun to BP in the defined vacuum of Eli’s GPE solution.
“No, EMR is NOT heat as Dr. Callen correctly points out for Nate on p.8.”
Nope. He doesnt.
Only his formal definition can be used, and I used it.
It clearly states that Heat is whatever energy that has been transferred in a process, that is not via mass transfer, or via work.
It obviously agrees with the previous definition I showed:
“In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter (e.g. conduction, radiation, and friction).[1]”
You have two bodies in vacuum, with T1 > T2, isolated from all else.
2LOT makes it clear. To reach equilibrium there must be heat transfer from T1 to T2. That heat transfer can only be accomplished by radiation.
Hence we have the term Radiative Heat Transfer.
The internal energy of body 1 decreased, hence according to Callen, it lost heat -Q.
Body 2 increased its internal energy, hence according to Callen, it gained heat Q.
Anyone saying there was no heat transfer in this process, is disagreeing with Thermodynamics.
Nate says:
”It has been emitted, according to the SB Law. Someone, anyone, maybe Bill, needs to think about why it has simply vanished in the accounting, and explain it to us.”
First off I don’t need to explain it. Every experiment shown demonstrates that no greenhouse effect is generated.
It is up to the proponents to demonstrate how the effect works and that it works.
Second, I am not convinced there is any purely EM-based. If there even is a greenhouse effect which seems uncertain to some degree due to the ‘inverse albedo’ variable seen in Stefan-Boltzmann equations for non-blackbody radiation. This little variation from imaginary blackbody science to real world science may explain why there is no greenhouse effect as described.
In addition there are both chemical, and mechanical means of producing a greenhouse effect, which would place the role of greenhouse gases in the equation as necessary but not sufficient to produce a greenhouse gas effect. If greenhouse gases are not sufficient then one needs to confirm it is sufficient to vary the greenhouse effect as being possible of being greater than the 11% that a properly adjusted budget suggests it is.
I love it when Swanson explains back to me that which I have been explaining to others, as if he was teaching something new. Yes, Swanson, with a point source Sun you do split by two. That is because, as you say, "almost all of the BP’s IR emissions on the side facing the Sun go to deep space". However, with an infinite parallel plate source Sun, all of the BP’s IR emissions on the side facing the Sun go to the Sun…and in return, the Sun will be sending energy to the BP along every possible vector.
So, with an infinite parallel plate source Sun, the BP can no longer "lose energy" from this side in the same sense as it could before. The only side of the BP which can "lose energy" is now the side facing space. With only one "losing side", you do not split by two (whereas in the case of the point source Sun, there were two "losing sides", in this case there is only one), so with an infinite parallel plate source Sun, at 290 K, the BP will warm until it too is at 290 K.
The significance of this ought to be obvious. The Sun is treated as a point source in Eli’s thought experiment, sure, but the BP and GP are treated as being infinite parallel plates in relation to each other. Split by two for the BP, then, 244 K (emitting 200 W/m^2), but you do not split by two for the GP. So the GP is also at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. That is the solution. 244 K…244 K.
Third, there are a number of questionable tricks employed in describing the greenhouse effect. the largest is hiding negative feedback. Another is using incorrect figures based upon black-body radiation rather than real world radiation. All of these questionable figures run in the direction of increasing the greenhouse effect.
“The only side of the BP which can “lose energy” is now the side facing space.”
Wrong DREMT 11:17 am since that statement violates Planck law which shows all illuminated material objects radiate (“lose energy”) at all frequencies at all object temperatures all the time just like Eli’s equations show.
“Every experiment shown demonstrates that no greenhouse effect is generated.”
Wrong Bill. The proponents such as Dr. Spencer have all demonstrated how the effect works especially on the earthen atm. so not “every experiment” & the proper ground experiments/theory were verified by satellite instrumentation.
The optical depth of the atm. is greater than many experiments so some experiments were misleading due to their using significantly less optical depth.
Both sides of the plate radiate, Ball4. However, only one side can truly “lose energy” in the sense that I made clear in the comment.
Nate 10:48 am: Actually anyone writing there was something called heat transfer in an EMR process, is disagreeing with Dr. Callen and the wiki page Nate cited.
Nate 10:48 am claims: “Only his formal definition can be used, and I used it.”
No. I searched this blog page and Nate never uses Dr. Callen’s formal defn. of heat on p.8 as I quoted above so Nate’s claim can be proven false.
In the passage clipped:
“The heat flux to a system in any process (at constant mole numbers) is the difference in internal energy between the final and initial states, diminished by the work done in that process.”
Dr. Callen wrote on p. 8 that he is using the term “heat flux” in the passage clipped by Nate to mean: “An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat.”
The passage from Dr. Callen does not mean energy transfer by EMR which is NOT a “heat flux” as properly defined by Dr. Callen.
DREMT 11:47 am, if the side radiates as DREMT agrees, then the side loses the energy to that radiation.
1) A plate is facing a point source. A vector of emission leaves the plate at a 45-degree angle. It misses the point source. No energy is coming the other way along that vector, from space.
2) A plate is facing an infinite parallel plate source. A vector of emission leaves the plate at a 45-degree angle. It hits the infinite parallel plate source. Energy is coming the other way along that vector, from the infinite parallel plate source.
There is an important difference between 1) and 2). No point whining over what exactly is meant by “losing energy”. The two situations must be handled differently. Postma makes a case for doing just that. Team GPE want to ignore the difference…split by two either way, they say.
1) A GPE plate is facing a point source. A photon of light leaves the plate at a 45-degree angle. It misses the point source. No relevant photon energy is coming the other way along that vector from space of course because all the energy from the point source is collimated into parallel rays incident on the plate equal to the outgoing radiation in a hemisphere of directions from the plate at radiative equilibrium as Elis equations show.
2) A GPE plate is facing an infinite parallel plate source. A photon of light leaves the plate at a 45-degree angle. It hits the infinite parallel plate source but may not be absorbed, the photon may be reflected or transmitted. Energy is coming the other way along that vector, from the infinite parallel plate source but in total no more than the collimated rays of the point source under the initial conditions of the GPE.
The answers to 1) and 2) are the same under the same GPE initial conditions so one of DREMT’s different answers must be wrong.
Ball4 tries to sweep the difference between 1) and 2) under the rug. Won’t work.
No rug, my comment is there for all to read, even DREMT or Postma. No sweeping either, just correcting DREMT’s or Postma’s wrong physics when needed.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues his delusional claims with a “Sun Plate” as a parallel configuration. That has nothing to do with the BP and GP model in which one side of the BP receives 400 w/m^2 from the Sun. That energy is emitted from both sides, therefore an initial 200 w/m^2 exits each side. The GP receives an initial 200 w/m^2, then begins to emit 100 w/m^2 from each side. The 100 w/m^2 directed back to the BP doesn’t vanish, it’s absorbed by the BP, etc.
Even if one uses infinite plates for the BP and GP, each has 2 emitting sides, one of which faces deep space. Each plate emits IR radiation at the same rate on each side. Your logic and the resulting math are hopelessly flawed. Your “Sun Plate” straw man is nothing but an intentional deception for which has no possible real world example.
“So, with an infinite parallel plate source Sun, the BP can no longer ‘lose energy’ from this side in the same sense as it could before.”
Again, some people ignore the obvious, that emitted energy from the BP goes to directly to the source plate, where it must be abs*orbed.
The SB law requires energy be emitted from the BP surface. The TEAM of Morons cannot explain where it went. It simply vanishes.
They weirdly think for the BP to have emitted and lost energy it needs to have gone around anything in its path, which is insane.
This allows them to leave it out of the energy balance of the BP, and thus get the wrong answers for temperature.
Bill has no explanation but continues to defend this weird DREMT analysis that in the end produces results that he doesnt agree with.
Swanson, E-Lie’s solution to the Green Plate Effect is debunked. Has been for years. You guys can try to shoot down alternative solutions to the GPE all you like. It won’t change the fact that your solution is a bust…
…and infinite parallel plates has been a part of the GPE discussion for as long as it’s been going. You obviously don’t have a clue.
“An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat.”
Yes this a hand wavey description of conduction, ONE type of heat transfer mode.
He then notes: “Of course this descriptive characterization of
heat is not a sufficient basis for the formal development of thermodynamics, and we shall soon formulate an appropriate operational definition.”
Which is what he provides on p 18. The one I showed you.
It certainly encompasses radiative heat transfer. Your denial of this fact makes absolutely no sense.
Provided on p. 18 is more hand wavium not formal development of thermodynamics. What p. 8 accomplishes is Dr. Callen providing a definition of what is called heat ever since Clausius set forth the exact same definition of heat in his own treatise ~110 years previously so has rightly withstood the test of time.
EMR has no hidden atomic modes of motion thus can NOT be called heat so there is no such thing as radiative heat transfer or radiative cold transfer. There is radiative energy transfer which Eli employs correctly in his GPE.
Nate, I’m using text book stuff as to why all the sky dragons technically are wrong, Eli is right, and it is strange you are resisting – of all commenters. Your resistance is what makes no sense and will be futile because it disagrees with Clausius’ and Callen’s equivalent defn.s of the heat term.
“Provided on p. 18 is more hand wavium not formal development of thermodynamics.”
False. It is a formal definition.
You are starting to imitate DREMT, taking one quote from a source, out of context, and ignoring all else that the source says. And other sources.
“What p. 8 accomplishes is Dr. Callen providing a definition of what is called heat ever since Clausius set forth the exact same definition of heat in his own treatise ~110 years previously so has rightly withstood the test of time.”
There we have it. It is you who is stuck with the obsolete definitions, Ball4. Thermodynamic definitions have evolved since Clausius.
“so there is no such thing as radiative heat transfer”
Then you disagree with physics, engineering, and all current heat transfer courses taught at universities.
“Nate, Im using text book stuff as to why all the sky dragons technically are wrong”
No you are doing the opposite of that. And you are acting just like them.
Ball4 says:
Wrong Bill. The proponents such as Dr. Spencer have all demonstrated how the effect works especially on the earthen atm. so not every experiment & the proper ground experiments/theory were verified by satellite instrumentation.
The optical depth of the atm. is greater than many experiments so some experiments were misleading due to their using significantly less optical depth.
—————————
First, as I recall Roy introduced an electric light in his experiment and didn’t verify what the intensity of the light was based upon FV=1 so we never knew what the equilibrium was. It is just another GPE.
You are just talking gibberish going on about anonymous space experiments.
As to optical depth, it just more gibberish.
What you are trying to tell me makes no sense. Say on a moon I take a pallet of bricks and lay them out individually spread out on the ground that was being radiated by a 290k sun until everything is 290k. Then I quickly pick one brick and arrange all the other bricks around it and bridged them over the top without touching that one brick. And you expect me to believe that the radiation from those bricks are going to make the center of the pile hotter?
Since I showed everybody here how insulation works and that that additional insulation of the same value declines by half (which is the same as claimed for the greenhouse effect that increases with every doubling by the same increment) and that its maximum value is the equilibrium temperature with the power source (AKA 278.5K), insulation only radiates at its own temperature there is no addition.
If you have any panel between two suns spreading 400k/m2 on the panel on both sides all it gets to is 290K. It doesn’t matter if the panel is highly conductive or highly insulated. . . .but if its highly insulated in only needs one sun for the surface to get to 290k. Go figure! Its easy to figure if you know how to do math.
that the brick i picked will get hotter. Thats ridiculous. Somebody has really conned you.
Nate says:
DREMT has by some voodoo magic made the emission of 400 W/m^2 on the side toward the source go away, vanish, disappear.
He seems to believe that just saying magic words, like view factors or equilibrium are an explanation for this vanishing.
They are not.
He does this to fudge the accounting. This is called fraud
———————
well then you are the one being fraudulent.
The BP is a allegory for the first layer in the atmosphere separated by a vacuum gap (no heat losses from convection allowed). There is no insulated earth surface in the GPE.
Bottom line is you can have a 400w/m2 radiation field on both sides of the plate and it will still be 290k. And it will be 290k with zero heat loss.
If the plate was well insulated on one side (like the earths surface) then you only need a 400w/m2 sun on one side to make the surface temperature approach 290K.
But with only one sun on one side of the plate The only thing with that is the insulation would have a temperature gradient down so that the other side the temperature would be approaching 0k (or approaching 2k if there are stars on the other side)
With no insulation on the backside of the plate a 400w/m2 radiation field on one side and the plate will be 244k.
And it doesn’t make any difference if that insulation involves vacuum gaps, air gaps, or conventional insulation. Back radiation simply acts as insulation and performs exactly as described above, you can never have too much if your desire is to keep temperatures at equilibrium.
“well then you are the one being fraudulent.”
Oh? But DREMT gets a different answer than you. This is correct:
“But with only one sun on one side of the plate The only thing with that is the insulation would have a temperature gradient down so that the other side the temperature would be approaching 0k (or approaching 2k if there are stars on the other side)
With no insulation on the backside of the plate a 400w/m2 radiation field on one side and the plate will be 244k.”
DREMT keeps repeating that it is 290 K in this instance. You and I clearly disagree.
I am simply pointing out the flaws in his analysis that leads to to this wrong answer.
He leaves the emission from the BP on the side of the source out of the accounting, without explanation.
You keep defending his analysis.
This makes no sense, since you are contradicting yourself, Bill!
“And it doesnt make any difference if that insulation involves vacuum gaps, air gaps, or conventional insulation. Back radiation simply acts as insulation and performs exactly as described above”
Yes! This is well put, Bill. Keep it up.
And again, DREMT totally disagrees with this.
“The basis of the 262 K is that back-radiation from the green plate warms the blue plate. The 200 W/m^2 from the GP (or 133.33 W/m^2, as they have it, at equilibrium) is considered by Team GPE as an input to the BP. None of the calculations involve the insulating value of the plates plus ‘vacuum gap’. So you are barking up the wrong tree with the whole ‘vacuum gap’ thing, it is simply not considered in the math. Its just another trick.”
He keeps trying to claim that insulation and back radiation are somehow completely contradictory phenomena.
If you mention insulation, then it can’t be back radiation, or if you calculate with back radiation, then it can’t be insulation.
Of course that is because he gets just about everything about heat transfer wrong.
One can calculate heat fluxes, SB emissions and solve for temperatures, without ever mentioning insulation or R value. That doesnt mean there is no insulation going on!
“With no insulation on the backside of the plate a 400w/m2 radiation field on one side and the plate will be 244k.”
View factors permitting, yes.
1) With a point source Sun, the BP’s temperature will be 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.
2) With an infinite parallel plate source Sun (VF = 1), the BP’s temperature will be 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2.
Team GPE agrees on 1), but for 2) believes the Sun plate would warm to 311.5 K, emitting 533.33 W/m^2, whilst the BP would warm to 262 K, emitting 266.67 W/m^2. I, on the other hand, do not have the Sun plate warming.
“And it doesn’t make any difference if that insulation involves vacuum gaps, air gaps, or conventional insulation. Back radiation simply acts as insulation and performs exactly as described above”
Back-radiation is not insulation, Bill. They want to conflate back-radiation with insulation, because then they can pretend it causes objects to warm up when there is a constant source of power present. It’s just another trick.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to present his distortions of reality. Simple fact, there is no second case with a “Sun Plate” emitting at 400 w/m^2 with a VF of 1.0 toward the BP. His claim is based on this statement:
As usual, he has no basis in physics for his empty assertions, just empty rhetoric. For example, where does the energy for the “Sun Plate” originate? If the back of the plate is perfectly insulated, it can’t be supplied by the real Sun. If the energy comes from the real Sun with a very small BP VF and a BP VF of nearly 1 toward deep space, what we would find is that the “Sun Plate” is actually the same as the original BP.
grammie pups postings are just a waste of electrons.
Hunter continues to display his total failure to understand the physical basis of Eli’s GPE model, writing:
No, Bill, the BP in the model is the surface of the Earth at equilibrium, so thermal mass has no effect. The basic situation has the BP being illuminated on one side while emitting IR to deep space on both sides, much like the real Earth, modeled as a flat disk with one side facing the Sun. Adding the GP to only one side is like adding a layer of atmosphere to both sides with reduced absorp_tion, as would be the case with the real gases. With the GPE, convection in the atmosphere is ignored because the energy received from the Sun ultimately exits the Earth as IR EM radiation.
Bottom line is Hunter still has no clue, his mind focused on window technology instead of physics.
“Team GPE agrees on 1), but for 2) believes the Sun plate would warm to 311.5 K, emitting 533.33 W/m^2, whilst the BP would warm to 262 K, emitting 266.67 W/m^2. I, on the other hand, do not have the Sun plate warming.”
Nobody said any such thing. The ‘sun’ plate is at fixed Temp, 290K in order to emit 400 W/m^2/.
Where did the SB emissions from the BP go? Where did the emissions from the GP toward the BP go?
VF? No. This is a buzzword, not an answer.
Equilibrium? No. This is a buzzword, not an answer.
DREMT has no answer. Because he knows he cannot be explain it with sound facts and logic.
It is just asserted that the SB emissions of the BP toward its heat source should not be counted.
It is just asserted that the SB emissions of the GP toward the BP should not be counted.
This is how DREMT ‘wins’ arguments.
“2) A plate is facing an infinite parallel plate source. A vector of emission leaves the plate at a 45-degree angle. It hits the infinite parallel plate source. Energy is coming the other way along that vector, from the infinite parallel plate source.”
And? that makes it disappear? Vanish?
No, it doesnt!
Vectors leaving the plate and hitting the source plate does not mean that it never was emitted!
This is utterly stupid.
The SB emissions leaving a plate must be counted as a loss of energy in order to satisfy 1LOT.
SB emissions striking another black plate are abs*orbed and must be counted as a gain in energy in order to satisfy 1LOT.
The BP emits energy toward the ‘sun’ plate. That energy is lost to the BP. It is gained by the ‘sun’ plate.
It has not vanished and must be counted.
Same with the GP emitting to BP. SB emissions from the GP are energy lost to the GP. It is energy gained by the BP.
It has not vanished and must be counted.
Team GPE clearly are not deep thinkers. They just attack, attack, attack any alternative solutions to the GPE, without realizing that their own solution is debunked. Their own solution is wrong. They need to accept that first, then perhaps that would open their minds a little to alternative ideas.
Swanson is hopelessly confused about the "Sun plate". It’s just like a Sun, except it’s a plate. It’s a thought experiment. You are allowed to think, and to be a little creative with your thoughts. It’s just a blackbody plate, exactly like the BP or the GP, only it has some kind of means of internally producing heat. It’s at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2, initially. There’s nothing more to it than that. The GPE does not (and never did) have a fixed temperature heat source, so if emissions from the BP go back to the Sun plate, then they will warm the Sun plate, according to E-Lie’s logic.
According to E-Lie’s math, and logic, the Sun plate would be warmed to 311.5 K, and the BP would be warmed to 262 K. That’s just a logical extension of his thought experiment. There’s no point bitching and moaning about it because it makes your thought experiment look stupid. Your thought experiment looks stupid because E-Lie’s logic is stupid. Yes, adding a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate in view of the source (with VF=1 between source and plate) makes both the source and the plate warmer, according to E-Lie’s logic.
“Yes, adding a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate in view of the source (with VF=1 between source and plate) makes both the source and the plate warmer, according to E-Lies logic.”
If one doesnt really understand heat transfer and how to apply it in different problems with different boundary conditions, then one might think they can simply extend “E-lie’s logic” to any problem.
If the sun-plate is intended to mimic the sun and produce a constant 400 W/m^2, then it needs to be held at fixed Temp of 290 K, which can be done in the real world by varying its heat input.
In the original problem with the sun, the BP is free to adjust its T.
These are different problems with different boundary conditions, so they do not have the same behavior.
But if this bothers people then they should stick to the original problem.
Eli’s solution to the original GPE problem works because it satisfies 1LOT, 2LOT, SB law, and the Radiative Heat Transfer Eqn.
And that’s all that matters.
Cult Leader grammie pup is wrong again, writing:
No, grammie pup, your “thought experiment” isn’t just like the Sun. As has been pointed out before, the Sun is a long way off and is almost a point source as seen from the BP. Thus, the BP on the sun side is almost completely “viewing” deep space. Your assumption that the VF from the BP to the Sun is 1.0 is completely bogus, so your “thought experiment” is another worthless diversion which proves nothing, except that you have no interest in reality. Your mental effluent is not “creative”, it’s BS, pure and simple.
Swanson can’t even understand the simplest concepts. Yes, in the original GPE setup the Sun was treated as a point source, some distance from the BP. Now, we are looking at a different situation where the heat source is not a point source, but a plate exactly like the BP and GP, only with its own internal source of heat. The source plate is very close to the BP, or it can be considered that the plates are infinite in size, such that view factors are equal to 1 between the plates.
The reason for doing this was explained earlier.
Nate says:
DREMT keeps repeating that it is 290 K in this instance. You and I clearly disagree.
—————————————-
1) a non-insulated plate will be 244k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source and the sink is 0k at FV=1 on just one side of the plate.
2) a non-insulated plate will a non-insulated plate will be 290k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source at FV=1 on just both sides of the plate.
3) a well insulated plate with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1 on one side of the plate will be approaching a maximum of 290k on one side of the insulation and approaching 0k on the other side of the insulation. That insulation can be conventional or a sufficient number of spaced plates to qualify as being well insulated. (this is well established in window technology)
4) a well insulated plate with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1 on both sides of the plate will be 290k no matter how many spaced layers of insulation is provided.
No greenhouse effect is created in any of those scenarios with the 3rd grader model or the GPE.
The conclusion I agree with DREMT. I may not agree on every one of the numbered points but I have no doubt about those points as I have worked with engineers designing and building such structures. I agreed that I have no outerspace experience and have named what I think the difference between within the atmosphere is that when using air gaps and IR opaque panels in outer space it will require one less panel to achieve the same results with a minimum of 2 panels for within the atmosphere to achieve any effect. But I don’t make a practice of insisting on things being true without seeing the experimental evidence and I think that Swansons experiment is probably consistent with that though it is poorly documented to actually make the calculation that it is the same.
So on the big point that the surface of the earth is warmed by the GPE or the 3rd grader model to a higher level than the mean radiation is complete BS. In none of the cases above where multiple radiation layers are provided no such warming will be noted.
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote more BS, finishing with:
Was that HERE, where you wrote
If so, you are ignoring the fact that the BP has two sides and thus with only one side facing your “Sun plate”, the other side still faces deep space or the GP. Because of that, the BP can never back radiate all the energy it receives from the Sun plate, since half is radiated from each side.
You conclude with this:
What you are forgetting is that you have arbitrarily specified that the temperature of the “Sun plate” is fixed at 292K. You don’t say what rate of energy is supplied to achieve this temperature, just assume that it’s the 400 w/m^2 which is radiated from the surface. If the rear of the “Sun plate” is perfectly insulated, less than 400 w/m^2 would be necessary, since the back radiation from the BP would be added in, resulting in that 400 w/m^2 surface emissions. That’s the same result as one would find from replacing the BP with a layer of insulation.
“Cult Leader grammie pup wrote more BS, finishing with:
[Quoting me] “The reason for doing this was explained earlier.”
Was that HERE, where you wrote…”
No, Swanson, the reason was explained in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1319333
“What you are forgetting is that you have arbitrarily specified that the temperature of the “Sun plate” is fixed at 292K.
290 K, and no, the temperature of the Sun plate is not “fixed”. The Sun plate has an 800 W internal energy source. Assuming it has two sides of 1 m^2 each, it will emit 400 W/m^2 at a temperature of 290 K, but the temperature is not fixed. None of it is insulated.
After Bill lists several points of major disagreement with DREMT, he says:
“The conclusion I agree with DREMT.”
Bill does not appear to understand the word ‘agree’.
He makes no attempt to understand the reasons for the disagreement.
The reasons are DREMT’s fundamental misunderstanding of heat transfer. Specifically, making SB emissions disappear from the accounting, with no plausible explanation. This is straight forward accounting fraud, and the IRS has been informed.
And DREMT shows little understanding of insulation, heat flow, view factors, or equilibrium.
It seems Bill must appease the Dear Leader by not appearing to disagree with him. Truly sad.
Bill, I think our agreement becomes clearer with the sphere and shell examples that were discussed further down-thread. We had your heated sphere and 30 shell example, and my Sun shell example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312073
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312540
I would say (given what you said at the time) that you agree the Team GPE answers I calculated for both those situations are ridiculous and obviously cannot be correct…yet that is what they believe! They are perfectly happy to defend those answers. The Sun plate example has the Sun itself increasing in temperature by 1,094 K just by adding a single perfectly-conducting blackbody shell around it with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell. The Sun is literally warming itself up with its own emitted energy, to the point it is emitting twice as much (in W/m^2) as it was previously! Physically impossible.
If there was no vacuum gap, and the shell was actually touching the Sun, they would have absolutely no problem with the shell just coming to the same temperature as the Sun, with no warming of the Sun.
“I would say (given what you said at the time) that you agree the Team GPE answers I calculated for both those situations are ridiculous and obviously cannot be correctyet that is what they believe! They are perfectly happy to defend those answers. The Sun plate example has the Sun itself increasing in temperature by 1,094 K just by adding a single perfectly-conducting blackbody shell around it with a tiny vacuum gap between the Sun and the shell. ”
I really dont understand why people can, with a straight face, make claims that energy radiated from surfaces of plates or spheres simply goes away, vanishes, and can be removed the energy balance of these objects, without any logical explanation.
It is very simple. They need to sensibly explain this. But they seem unable to do so. Ordinarily such claims that cannot be supported should be abandoned.
And I don’t understand why others keep enabling this fraud, without having any sensible answers either!
Lacking supporting facts, they again declare that themselves incredulous that an impossible thought experiment (surrounding the sun with a giant metal shell!) produces an incredible result– the sun warms! They call this “ridiculous and obviously cannot be correct”
Do they offer any logic or evidence at all that this cannot be correct? No.
They seem to think that just THEIR incredulity of this incredible result in an incredible experiment is evidence that it cannot be true!
It is not.
Their incredulity has no credibility.
“The Sun plate example has the Sun itself increasing in temperature…”
Should be
“The Sun shell example has the Sun itself increasing in temperature…”
Cult Leader grammie pup, FYI, the classic text book example of IR radiation heat transfer is: “Given two infinite, parallel plates (A and B) and having known emissivities, calculate the heat transferred between A and B.” The answer is a standard calculation using the S_B equations. If Ta is 290K and Tb is 0K an black body emissivities are assumed, the result is 400 w/m^2. As Tb increases, the heat transfer rate is reduced because the radiation from Plate B is absorbed by Plate A. This effect is well known and repeated in thousands of experiments and examples from engineering experience.
The math is similar to that from electrical engineering:
E = I * R = (Va – Vb), or:
I = (Va – Vb) / R
Assuming some value for Va and I determines Vb. Your assumptions of 290K for the Sun plate and 400 w/m^2 emission can only obtain when the temperature of the BP is 0K.
Your “Sun plate” isn’t the Sun. If it were, it would be a one sided sphere, emitting only on the outside, just like the Sun. Your mental excrement assumes that the “Sun plate” acts like the Sun, claiming that the radiation from the BP has no effect, but there’s no truth in your empty assertion and you have provided no evidence to support your delusions.
Swanson tries to "teach" me the radiative heat transfer equation, as if it wasn’t known, understood, discussed multiple times, and utilized. Try reading the comment I linked to, again.
He remains completely ineducable on the Sun plate. Oh well.
It seems folks want to ascertain that the skeptic team is on the same page in every respect. Since I can’t jump inside every skeptics mind and carefully examine their every word as to what they meant by it let me carefully restate where I am coming from and lets see if anybody disagrees.
Folks have been avoiding replying to my itemization of 4 radiantly heated plates and what happens when they are heated. Probably because everybody agrees and they simply haven’t processed the implications yet.
I said:
”2) a non-insulated plate will be 290k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source at FV=1 on just both sides of the plate.”
No radiation is escaping here from the plate and no greenhouse effect is created. Implication is heat need not escape the system for an equilibrium to exist. All the talk about balance at TOA is contrary to known physics.
I also said:
”3) a well insulated plate with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1 on one side of the plate will be approaching a maximum of 290k on one side of the insulation and approaching 0k on the other side of the insulation. That insulation can be conventional or a sufficient number of spaced plates to qualify as being well insulated. (this is well established in window technology)
4) a well insulated plate with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1 on both sides of the plate will be 290k no matter how many spaced layers of insulation is provided.”
Swanson wants to examine the energy source itself because he doesn’t believe the stuff above. Yes DREMT is correct the energy source might be generating 800w with 400 going out the backside. But thats not the typical case in modern housing where the energy is produced inside the house. So the energy source itself can be insulated and the same rules applied without 400w/m2 going out the backside.
So to understand radiant heat one first must reject the notion that cooling is necessary or heat will continue to collect. Its accepted to not be true with conduction and for some reason it is not rejected for radiant heat.
You left off #1
If I understand the geometries, then I agree with them. But not always the interpretations.
“2) a non-insulated plate will be 290k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source at FV=1 on just both sides of the plate.
No radiation is escaping here from the plate”
Radiation of 400 W/m^2 IS escaping from both sides of the plate.
“So to understand radiant heat one first must reject the notion that cooling is necessary or heat will continue to collect.”
I don’t quite agree. In the above case, there is radiation on both sides, if there were not, the T would rise.
In “1) a non-insulated plate will be 244k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source and the sink is 0k at FV=1 on just one side of the plate.”
The plate is receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat on one side and emitting 200 W/m^2 on both sides. Without this emission on both sides, its T would rise.
Now note: the source here can be the sun, a far away point source, or it could be a sun-plate. It makes no difference. It will emit 200 W/m^2 in either case.
Hunter, RE your plate descriptions, assuming you refer to black body radiation to seep space at 0 deg K.
1 – A single plate supplied with 400 w/m2 on one side while radiating 200 w/m^2 from 2 sides would exhibit a temperature of 244K.
2 – A single plate supplied with 400 w/m^2 on both sides while radiating 400 w/m^2 from both sides would exhibit a temperature of 290K.
3 – Perfect insulation on one side of the plate would be a repeat of 2 with half rate of energy supply while radiating from half the area. OK, so what?
4 – Your one side insulated plate supplied with 400 w/m^2 per side would need to emit 800 w/m^2 from the one side still exposed. Your S-B calculated temperature is wrong, it would be 345K. FAIL!
You conclude:
Which is incorrect, given your erroneous calculation.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to ignore physics. Your Sun plate model can not ignore the effects of the energy radiated from the cooler BP in calculating the Sun plate’s temperature.The BP will receive half the radiant energy from the Sun plate and will then radiate half that amount from each side. You have not proven otherwise, after years of trying. Your mental gymnastics are just repeated assertions of your delusions, without any support from real world experimental results or actual experience. Endlessly repeating stupid claims does not make them true.
"Cult Leader grammie pup continues to ignore physics. Your Sun plate model can not ignore the effects of the energy radiated from the cooler BP in calculating the Sun plate’s temperature"
That’s why I calculated what Team GPE would have the Sun plate’s temperature rising to using just that logic, Swanson. Team GPE would have to believe that the Sun plate would warm to 311.5 K, emitting 533.33 W/m^2, whilst the BP would settle at 262 K, emitting 266.67 W/m^2.
“eam GPE would have to believe that the Sun plate would warm to 311.5 K, emitting 533.33 W/m^2, whilst the BP would settle at 262 K, emitting 266.67 W/m^2.”
Nope, no one did. If the sun plate was meant to replace the sun and produce an unchanging flux of 400 W/m^2, then its temperature must be fixed at 290 K, which is quite possible to do.
DREMT is simply trying to confuse all with this thing that nobody said.
IN any case, he cannot get the original ELi problem right, nor the steel greenhouse problem right, nor Bill’s list above right, because he claims that that there is no SB emission from the inner sides of plates or shells.
Therefore he gets different answers from Bill. He has no plausible explanation for this.
Nate in cases 1 and 3 the plate has a mean temperature of 244k. Plate 3 though has one surface approaching 290k and the other surface approaching 0k due to the insulation.
These are plates of infinite dimensions. So for plate 2 and plate 4 there is a 400w/m2 source on both surfaces of the plate. The plate isn’t near 345k which would be the result of 400w/m2 on both sides making the equivalent of 800w/m2. It is 290k.
How is the 400w/m2 escaping and not heating anything? BDGWX wants to know. And was this not also your criticism of the Seim et al experiment?
Bill,
“2) a non-insulated plate will be 290k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source at FV=1 on just both sides of the plate.”
If you say its 290K, then it must be emitting 400 W/m^2, from both its sides. A total output of 800 W/m^2.
It is also receiving 400 W/m^2 on both its sides, for a total input of 800 W/m^2.
1LOT is happy with this. You arent?
I am perfectly happy Nate. So what was your precise complaint about Seim et al again? How about RW Woods experiment?
“How about RW Woods experiment?”
RW Wood didn’t report if/how he kept the rock salt plate from absorbing humidity which importantly reduces its transparency to IR. Thus the original RW Wood experiment isn’t replicable & was just a test of the rock salt plate dryness level.
“So what was your precise complaint about Seim et al again?”
S&O admitted to “maybe” measuring/using cavity radiation emissivity 1.0 instead of bare styrofoam emissivity frequently measured at 0.6.
Way off topic, Bill. Try to stay focused on one thing at a time.
So it sounds like you agree that surfaces are emitting according to SB law.
Now for #1 “a non-insulated plate will be 244k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source and the sink is 0k at FV=1 on just one side of the plate.”
The plate is receiving 400 W/m^2 on one side and emitting 200 W/m^2 on both sides. 1LOT is happy with this. Stephan and Boltzmann are happy with this. Are you?
Because DREMT claims it will not emit on both sides. He has emissions on the source side = 0.
This leads him to erroneously believe it only emits 400 W/m2 on one side, and it is at 290 K.
Well obviously Nate you no longer have any objections to Seim et al or Woods or you would have reaffirmed your previous statements with regards to them.
So we can safely toss the 3rd grader radiation model that we are teaching our kids in school and we note that be BP experiment is simply and experiment of what the plate would be before it reaches equilibrium and that no matter how many plates we add it will not exceed equilibrium as claimed by the 3rd grader model.
Ball4 says:
RW Wood didnt . . . .
S&O admitted to maybe
———————
Yes indeed one can wonder at what went wrong that always goes wrong in explaining why every experiment ever conducted fails to validate the 3rd grader radiation model.
I just explained why with my 4 points.
And gee it appears there isn’t any argument against it. Just skepticism. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. . . .how bout that?
Nate says:
Because DREMT claims it will not emit on both sides. He has emissions on the source side = 0.
This leads him to erroneously believe it only emits 400 W/m2 on one side, and it is at 290 K.
Why is that erroneous Nate. The Sun emits equal amounts on both sides and it doesn’t come from backradiation in your mind does it?
You can also have an insulated radiant plate (remember I used to do some of these usually with insulation on the backside to save heat)
That radiates very little through the insulation on the backside and emits 400w/m2 on the front side.
Just for the record, Bill, the plates emit on both sides, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nate is just incapable of honestly representing my position, which is one of the reasons I no longer respond to him. Please ignore everything he has to say about what I am supposedly arguing, and just go by my own comments themselves in their entirety, and in their full, original context. I stress that because another thing he will likely do is quote mine something from a full comment, and then not include a link to the original comment so that you can see the full context of the discussion.
Bill,
You keep agreeing with DREMTs flawed logic while disagreeing with his answers.
You get 244 K for #1. He gets 290 K.
You get that the BP warms when the GP is placed behind it (in the original GPE). He thinks it doesnt warm.
I have an explanation for his wrong answers. Do you have an alternative explanation?
It seems you still want to avoid at all costs saying DREMT got something wrong. Why?
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote:
grammie continues to ignore the facts. The problem is like the electrical equation (E = I * R), one can pick 2 variables and calculate the third, but one can not arbitrarily specify all three. Your calculation starts by assuming plate temperatures, then calculates the Sun plate’s emissions, which is reasonable. However, you still insist that it’s correct to force the Sun plate to have a fixed temperature while emitting at a fixed rate while facing the BP with a fixed temperature.
Sorry troll, physics doesn’t work that way.
Ball4 says:
RW Wood didnt report if/how he kept the rock salt plate from absorbing humidity which importantly reduces its transparency to IR. Thus the original RW Wood experiment isnt replicable & was just a test of the rock salt plate dryness level.
So what was your precise complaint about Seim et al again?
S&O admitted to maybe measuring/using cavity radiation emissivity 1.0 instead of bare styrofoam emissivity frequently measured at 0.6.
—————————
Actually Ball4 RW Wood didn’t need to check for moisture in the rocksalt plate. He obtained evidence that if it had it wasn’t significant to the outcome of the experiment in that the rock salt allowed its greenhouse to warm faster than the IR blocked greenhouse. So he knew that 1) the rock salt was blocking less IR than the glass, and 2) still no results on the backradiation.
Ball4 you need to catch up with the crowd here on the fraudulent 3rd grader model. Nate is agreeing with me.
“Just for the record, Bill, the plates emit on both sides, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nate is just incapable of honestly representing my position”
False. SB emission of radiant energy means losing energy. This is yet another attempt to play word games.
“So, with an infinite parallel plate source Sun, the BP can no longer ‘lose energy’ from this side in the same sense as it could before. The only side of the BP which can ‘lose energy’ is now the side facing space.”
DREMT has been given numerous opportunities to explain. He still could!
I asked many times for a sensible explanation of where the emissions from the GP to the BP have gone.
Aside from saying magic buzzwords, like VF, and equilibrium, he has never EXPLAINED where these emissions have gone.
What can anyone conclude then? He has no explanation.
He now tries to take the illogical position that the emissions are still happening, but somehow, they THEN go away with no mechanism for this vanishing given.
“Both sides of the plate radiate, Ball4. However, only one side can truly ‘lose energy’ in the sense that I made clear in the comment.”
In his accounting, they do not appear as a loss of energy in the energy balance of the GP, as they should. IOW, it is as if they were never emitted!
"However, you still insist that it’s correct to force the Sun plate to have a fixed temperature while emitting at a fixed rate while facing the BP with a fixed temperature."
False. I am not the one who thinks the Sun plate’s temperature is fixed. The only thing that is fixed is the 800 W internal supply of energy to the Sun plate.
You’re getting so bogged down in the weeds with the specifics of this Sun plate that you can’t actually see the bigger picture explanation I’m making, and how it ties in with the original GPE. It’s completely hopeless talking to you.
Nate says:
False. SB emission of radiant energy means losing energy. This is yet another attempt to play word games.
——————————
Incorrect Nate. There is very significant SB emission occuring in all my examples 1 through 4 with no loss of energy at all.
In examples, 2 and 4 there is zero loss of energy.
———
———
Nate says: I asked many times for a sensible explanation of where the emissions from the GP to the BP have gone.
———–
they have gone nowhere Nate. that fact can be confirmed with thermometers.
You agree with my 4 statements and yet you are so inculcated you can’t see the obvious. the 3rd grader model is a fraud. Its a religion. Its your daddy telling you what is so and you being a blind believer in your daddy.
There is nothing to fear but fear itself. There is no forcing that arises from insulation.
“Incorrect Nate. There is very significant SB emission occuring in all my examples 1 through 4 with no loss of energy at all.
In examples, 2 and 4 there is zero loss of energy.”
“they have gone nowhere Nate. that fact can be confirmed with thermometers.”
Oh?? Where is nowhere? WTF are you talking about?
Recall this:
“Bill,
‘2) a non-insulated plate will be 290k if it has a 400w/m2 radiation source at FV=1 on just both sides of the plate.’
If you say its 290K, then it must be emitting 400 W/m^2, from both its sides. A total output of 800 W/m^2.
It is also receiving 400 W/m^2 on both its sides, for a total input of 800 W/m^2.
1LOT is happy with this. You arent?
Bill Hunter says:
June 20, 2022 at 6:58 PM
I am perfectly happy Nate.”
So you were happy with a 290 K plate emitting 400 W/m^2 from both sides and receiving 400 W/m^2 from both sides.
FYI
“emit
/əˈmit/
Learn to pronounce
verb
produce and discharge (something, especially gas or radiation).”
Bill writes 7:22 am: “Actually Ball4 RW Wood didn’t need to check for moisture in the rocksalt plate.”
That would then invalidate the RW Wood experiment altogether Bill, which is the case as he didn’t check. The results RW Wood presented depend on the dryness of the rock salt plate so that’s what his experimental results report. The RW Wood experiment as written doesn’t report on climate. The experiment only reports on the dryness of his rock salt plate. It was only a plate dryness detector.
And insulation forces temperature, Bill, as every 3rd grader finds out experimentally in winter time.
Nate says:
He now tries to take the illogical position that the emissions are still happening, but somehow, they THEN go away with no mechanism for this vanishing given.
—————————————-
Nothing is vanishing Nate. You need to understand that energy races around in every system. If you look at individual molecules the energy is constantly moving, bumping into other molecules exchanging packets of energy.
Seim is a perfect example of how energy can be detained in a box without affecting its temperature. radiant energy works just like the wind. For it to flow you need a difference in pressure.
Nothing is vanishing Nate. You need to understand that energy races around in every system. If you look at individual molecules”
Still evading the issue and throwing up chaff, Bill.
If we cannot understand whats going on the simplest problem where all is known, there is no point in moving on to complex problems with many unknowns.
In #1 how do you know the plate is 244K, emitting 200 W/m2 from BOTH sides?
Why isnt it 290 K and emitting 0 on one side and 400 W/m2 on the other, as DREMT asserts?
Ball4 says:
That would then invalidate the RW Wood experiment altogether Bill, which is the case as he didnt check.
—————————
Boy you have a thick skull Ball4. He didn’t measure the moisture but if moisture had gotten into the rocksalt plate then the rocksalt plate would have warmed the greenhouse as slowly as the IR opaque greenhouse. Thus insufficient moisture entered the rocksalt plate to invalidate his experiment as you are ignorantly claiming. The evidence is clear on that.
————
————
————
Ball4 says:
And insulation forces temperature, Bill, as every 3rd grader finds out experimentally in winter time.
—————-
Now you are just making regional rather than global arguments Ball4. Winter in one part of the globe is mirrored by summer in another part.
Here is how winter and summer vary by latitude.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/insolation_latitude.gif
This is for the northern hemisphere. To get the southern hemisphere just slide the bottom scale 6 months in either direction.
“radiant energy works just like the wind. For it to flow you need a difference in pressure.”
Indeed so. For radiant energy to flow (net energy transport), there needs to be a T gradient.
Now explain that to DREMT.
He has the notion in your #1, that we have Sun plate sending energy to BP sending energy to space with temperatures:
Tsp = Tbp > Tspace.
With the gradient Tbp > Tspace we do get energy flow (heat) from BP to space (or to matter in space if you need it).
But as you noted, no net energy (heat) can flow from SP to BP without a T gradient.
Thus we have Heat Flowus Interuptus. A violation of continuity.
We have removal of energy from the BP, without replacement of it from Sun Plate, a violation of 1LOT.
Thus the notion of Tsp = Tbp is total nonsense.
“Thus insufficient moisture entered the rocksalt plate to invalidate his experiment as you are ignorantly claiming. The evidence is clear on that.”
An unknown amount of moisture entered his rock salt plate so the results of RW Wood’s experiment can be interpreted to anything Bill wants and anything anyone wants. It’s useless to interpret for climate.
Dr. Spencer has posted experiments that can be used for climate study so Bill should learn from them.
Also Bill should learn from 3rd graders that properly employing insulation forces temperature in winter AND summer.
I have a question for E. Swanson here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1321381
Nate says:
””radiant energy works just like the wind. For it to flow you need a difference in pressure.”
Nate says:
Now explain that to DREMT.”
——————————
I stated my opinion of plates in the atmosphere above a heated and insulated earth surface where heat out the backside isn’t variable and the earth plate is in equilibrium.
DREMT said:
”So thats why you split by 2 for the BP if the source is a point source Sun, and you dont split by 2 if the source is an infinite parallel plate.
1) Point source Sun = BP at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.
2) Infinite parallel plate source Sun = BP at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2.”
If its not in equilibrium then you would get a different result. I have been trying to drive the point that equilibrium represents a limit to what insulation can do via either radiation, conduction, or convection do between a source and a sink. The concept of both a source and a sink that does not change is integral to correctly estimating heat losses.
When something is called out as the source or the sink engineers understand that to mean something not materially affected by resistance created by insulation. Once you accept that then the rest works. Certainly in the case of the earth’s surface one can question the earth’s surface as a source but effectively it is by virtue of being in equilibrium with the real source.
So I am going with DREMT on this variation. Sorry Nate you appear to be wrong again. You seem to be making that a habit. Perhaps its your very strong propensity to build strawmen. If you question whether DREMT’s infinite plate is a proper source you should ask him why he is considering it to be so rather than just making up how its constructed in your own mind and simply choosing to ignore that DREMT is calling it out as the source.
Ball4 says:
That would then invalidate the RW Wood experiment altogether Bill, which is the case as he didnt check.
And insulation forces temperature, Bill, as every 3rd grader finds out experimentally in winter time.
Since the sun has 50% IR. An IR transparent plate will transmit heat faster to the surface than an IR opaque plate will.
RW Woods tested his rocksalt plate by observing it allowed the greenhouse to warm faster than the IR opaque glass covered greenhouse.
And I agree it is pretty easy to deceive kids under 9 years old on this issue. Anybody over 9 should be able to understand that winter is colder because there is less sunlight.
That is if they had a competent teacher. Apparently you didn’t.
Cult Leader grammie pup, Then, the only difference between the BP/GP situation and the Sun plate/BP situation is that the former receives 400 w/m^2 on one side and the sun plate receives 800 w/m^2 on one side. As a result, the Sun plate with the BP will have a higher temperature than the BP with the GP.
More of the same and empty headed BS without any evidence to prove the assertions.
Bill 8:22 pm, even kids under 9 quickly learn wearing insulation in the winter (& summer time) forces temperature.
Nobody knows the extent to which RW Wood’s rock salt plate was IR transparent as he didn’t check & report it so you can write whatever you want, no one can prove you wrong or right on climate based on RW Wood’s results.
Dr. Spencer’s experimental results however can do so.
RW Woods experiment matches expectations of the well established insulation model in all respects. It failed to match your expectations. I understand why you are so frustrated in not being able to find a single experiment consistent with your point of view Ball 4.
“Cult Leader grammie pup, Then, the only difference between the BP/GP situation and the Sun plate/BP situation is that the former receives 400 w/m^2 on one side and the sun plate receives 800 w/m^2 on one side. As a result, the Sun plate with the BP will have a higher temperature than the BP with the GP.”
The Sun plate provides 400 W/m^2 to the BP but with view factors = 1 between the Sun plate and the BP. The Sun in the original GPE setup provides 400 W/m^2 to the BP but with view factors < 1 between the Sun and the BP. The Sun is a point source in the original scenario.
I have already calculated for you what E-Lie’s math and logic dictates would be the temperatures for the Sun plate and BP. You’re welcome.
“As a result, the Sun plate with the BP will have a higher temperature than the BP with the GP”
Indeed, Team GPE has to believe that adding a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate next to a heat source makes the heat source warmer! Only when not physically touching, though. When touching, they agree the temperature would be the same. Both at 290 K. Separate them by a nanometer and up pops the temperature of that heat source…
“So I am going with DREMT on this variation. Sorry Nate you appear to be wrong again. ”
So you agree with DREMT that Tsp = Tbp > Tsun.
No T gradient but still energy flow, is fine with you?
Or are you fine with NO T gradient and NO energy flow from SP to BP, then T gradient and energy flow from BP to Space, and a violation of 1LOT?
Either way, it makes absolutely no sense.
You are fine with contradicting your stated answer to #1, BP = 244K?
You are fine with contradicting your statement that “radiant energy works just like the wind. For it to flow you need a difference in pressure.” ?
Then you are fine with sacrificing your integrity and credibility for the Cult Leader, and just looking foolish.
Correction
Should say
“So you agree with DREMT that Tsp = Tbp > Tspace.”
Again I notice that whatever the result of a heat transfer experiment is, or whatever the result of applying laws of physics to a situation, some people will find a way to express shock at the result.
And then, lacking any science, they try to use their shock, their faux incredulity, as the whole basis of their argument.
Weve seen this ploy so many times by now that we all are quite aware of this failed tactic, and bored by it.
It has no power as an argument.
Decent changeup Bill 12:11 am, you have now changed to insulation forces temperature same as the RW Wood easy experiment did as you write “matches expectations of the well established insulation model in all respects.”
Unfortunately for Bill though, all of Dr. Spencer’s replicable experiments reported on this blog are consistent with my point of view and generally accepted text book atm. physics. Bill can still learn about climate from them.
—–
Then DREMT writes 1:51 am: “I have already calculated for you what E-Lies math and logic dictates would be the temperatures for the Sun plate and BP.”
No, DREMT just made a wrong guess and didn’t show DREMT’s calculations so DREMT’s error could be correctly pointed out.
“Only when not physically touching, though. When touching, they agree the temperature would be the same”
People are ‘shocked’ that physical contact, such as touching a hot pan with a finger, can dramatically enhance the transfer of heat by conduction, and the reduction of T gradient, between objects.
Some people apparently have no life experience.
Ball4 trolls away, not offering any alternative values for the Sun plate and BP.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues with his delusions. He previously wrote:
But grammie pup seems to agree that one can calculate the net energy transfer between two parallel plates, knowing the respective temperatures. That calculation shows that the net transfer of IR radiation energy between 2 parallel plates will be zero when both plates have the same temperature. Also, as previously noted, there must be some temperature difference across the gap for energy to be transferred, so his solution is obviously FALSE.
Nate says:
So you agree with DREMT that Tsp = Tbp > Tsun.
No T gradient but still energy flow, is fine with you?
Or are you fine with NO T gradient and NO energy flow from SP to BP, then T gradient and energy flow from BP to Space, and a violation of 1LOT?
———————–
actually I am not even sure what you guys are arguing about. There are so many variables being thrown around its impossible to keep track of the specific construction of the thought experiment.
And I am not even sure why I should care. I am talking about earthbound radiant systems. Run 290k water through pipes and the most you will ever see is 290k temperatures anywhere those pipes run. You have been wrong on that score since day one and haven’t even admitted it yet. So I am going to go with you being wrong on this one too.
"Also, as previously noted, there must be some temperature difference across the gap for energy to be transferred, so his solution is obviously FALSE."
No, Swanson, there must be some temperature difference across the gap for heat to be transferred. When heat transfer between the plates has gone to zero (which is when they are at the same temperature, in the case of infinite parallel plates), then that is "equilibrium". The BP just heats the GP until it is at the same temperature as the BP, because there are no losses past the edges of the plates.
Ball4 says:
Unfortunately for Bill though, all of Dr. Spencers replicable experiments reported on this blog are consistent with my point of view and generally accepted text book atm. physics. Bill can still learn about climate from them.
——————–
What experiment? The only ones I saw from Roy were modified GP experiments.
Do you understand the difference between a GP experiment and a greenhouse effect experiment?
Just drop the word experiment into the blog’s search engine Bill.
—–
DREMT 7:29 am, there is no calculation of Sun plate and BP values for which to offer a correct alternative. Show your work.
“No, Swanson, there must be some temperature difference across the gap for heat to be transferred. When heat transfer between the plates has gone to zero (which is when they are at the same temperature, in the case of infinite parallel plates), then that is ‘equilibrium’. The BP just heats the GP until it is at the same temperature as the BP, because there are no losses past the edges of the plates.”
Again, I refer people to the definition of Heat. It clearly states that it is the energy transferred between bodies by all processes other than work or mass.
So when T difference is 0, between the BP and GP, and there is indeed no heat transfer, then there is also no energy transfer.
People keep forgetting this and trying to evade 1LOT by inventing another energy transfer that is NOT heat. But this is of course, fantasy, and violates 2LOT.
The GP does have a T difference between itself and space. And when the GP is losing heat (energy) via the radiative heat transfer to space (or matter in space), there is a problem.
When as all agree that the GP loses energy via radiation to space, that energy is not being replaced by energy from the BP (they are supposed to be in equilibrium!). Thus the GP must cool.
Thus the solution Tbp = Tgp > Tspace is not a possible solution.
There must be a T gradient to drive heat (energy) thru the system.
That is what heat transfer is all about.
There’s an easy way to check it’s correct, Ball4.
Sun plate = 311.5 K, emitting 533.33 W/m^2.
BP = 262 K, emitting 266.67 W/m^2.
The Sun plate is initially at 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2. It has an 800 W internal energy source. 800 W split by the Sun plate’s two sides of 1 m^2 each = 400 W/m^2. According to E-Lie’s logic, any energy received by the BP from the Sun Plate is split by two, so the BP would emit 200 W/m^2 at a temperature of 244 K…but energy from the BP can back-radiate towards the Sun Plate, which (again according to E-Lie’s logic) will cause the Sun Plate to rise in temperature…meaning it will radiate more to the BP, so the BP must increase in temperature also…
…with the Sun plate at 311.5K, emitting 533.33 W/m^2 at the BP, the BP receives this and (according to E-Lie) it’s split by 2, so the BP emits 266.67 W/m^2 at a temperature of 262 K. The Sun plate is receiving its 800 W internal energy supply plus 266.67 W from the BP, so it receives 1066.67 W in total. Divide this by its two sides and there you go…it’s emitting 533.33 W/m^2. Everything "ties up", according to E-Lie’s logic.
“actually I am not even sure what you guys are arguing about. There are so many variables being thrown around its impossible to keep track of the specific construction of the thought experiment.
And I am not even sure why I should care.”
Bill, no one is forcing you to post on this topic. Yet you keep posting.
And you keep defending DREMT and telling others that they are wrong.
But now you are saying you dont know what the argument is about??
Quite lame!
Its quite simple. If you don’t care about a subject, don’t post!
If you don’t know what people are talking about, don’t post!
“1 A single plate supplied with 400 w/m2 on one side while radiating 200 w/m^2 from 2 sides would exhibit a temperature of 244K.”
This is case 1. The BP is supplied by 400 W/m^2. It makes no difference what is supplying it.
If it is supplied by the sun, or a plate @ 290K it is fixed at 400 W/m^2.
There is no need to complicate the problem by allowing the source to warm and emit more than 400 W/m^2, as DREMT wants to do to further obfuscate this problem.
“Everything “ties up”, according to E-Lie’s logic.”
No DREMT 1:42 pm that’s not Eli’s logic in total. It’s really obvious you left out Eli’s second eqn.
Your work has 800 into the system and the system emitting 533.33 to the cold sink of deep space to the left say and 266.67 to the cold sink of deep space to the right as only a first guess. This assumes the 800 is constant somehow regulated to 800 no matter the Tsp (a somewhat unphysical headache).
Per Eli’s correct logic after he performed the same first guess procedure, there also has to be an energy equilibrium for the BP which can’t have at system equilibrium 266.67 out to space and 533.33 in from sun plate as BP would still be warming to its eventual equilibrium Tbp.
So following Eli’s correct logic to completion, DREMT still needs to further write the eqn. of equilibrium for the BP as Eli does, then follow Eli’s logic for solving two independent 1LOT eqn.s for the system and 2 unknowns Tsp, Tbp to obtain Tsp and Tbp at system equilibrium 800 in and 800 out with neither plate warming or cooling. Go for it. Show DREMT’s work so anyone can check DREMT’s work.
Again, I refer people to Nate’s 1:36 pm unphysical definition of Heat which Nate incorrectly states that what is called heat is the energy transferred between bodies by all processes other than work or mass. Physically in 1LOT, Q is a heating rate and W is a working rate.
Correcting Nate, Nate’s own source IS physically correct: “An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat“. Thus, this transfer doesn’t happen in reality in a defined vacuum between bodies.
Nate’s wiki source: “the term “heat flux” is a residue of older and now obsolete language usage that allowed that a body may have a “heat content””.
Nate’s own sources teach Nate’s usage of the heat term is both unphysical in a defined vacuum and obsolete.
"…there also has to be an energy equilibrium for the BP which can’t have at system equilibrium 266.67 out to space and 533.33 in from sun plate as BP would still be warming to its eventual equilibrium Tbp."
No, Ball4. 533.33 W/m^2 in from the Sun plate received on the BPs left side gets split by two according to E-Lie’s logic, so the BP emits 266.67 W/m^2.
So the BP emits 266.67 W/m^2 as just a 1st guess, DREMT, as I wrote “the BP which can’t have at system equilibrium 266.67 out to space and 533.33 in from sun plate” so at those temperatures the system is not in equilibrium. Use Eli’s correct 1LOT logic to get the temperatures at system equilibrium. Or give up DREMT, doesn’t matter to me.
262 K, emitting 266.67 W/m^2, is the equilibrium temperature of the BP in the Sun plate scenario, according to E-Lie’s logic. If you think otherwise, tell me the temperature you think it should be, and what the temperature of the Sun plate then is (because that will be different too).
You got the 3-plate scenario temperatures wrong as well, Ball4, so nobody is expecting very much from you.
“Nates wiki source: the term heat flux is a residue of older and now obsolete language usage that allowed that a body may have a heat content.”
I will remind Ball4 that he is out of touch with modern Thermodynamics. His notion that there is no such thing as radiative heat transfer would require the rewriting of dozens of textbooks and all college courses.
It is he who stated that he favors the very old definition of heat. I do not claim that bodies have heat content.
“I do not claim that bodies have heat content.”
That’s a good start for modern thermo. Nate. Now work on thinking through if solid body A does not physically have “heat content”, then what is correctly called heat cannot physically transfer out of Body A. Body A can radiate into a defined vacuum by transforming some of its total internal U (KE) into external EMR. That transformation reduces U in Body A (i.e. delta U per unit time = Q rate of cooling).
This is modern thermodynamics Nate, I have not yet run across a modern text book that needs any rewriting, perhaps Nate can find one. I have only checked maybe a dozen, earliest 1st ed. in 1965 iirc. Seem to recall someone noting the last paper written using caloric theory was in the 1970s. So, there might be a modern text yet to be found that does allow that a body may have “heat content”. Would be fun to read.
—–
DREMT 3:47 pm incorrectly claims: “262 K, emitting 266.67 W/m^2, is the equilibrium temperature of the BP in the Sun plate scenario, according to E-Lies logic.”
Wrong. As I wrote, DREMT fails to use Eli’s logic which shows that is not equilibrium T of the BP as BP is receiving more radiation than it is shedding in DREMT’s first guess.
DREMT is also wrong about me getting the 3 plate scenario wrong since Eli’s 3 plate scenario solution is correct as I’ve written many times. It is DREMT that is obviously wrong missing Eli’s second equation for that scenario’s BP equilibrium.
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess ‘heat’; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
There are dozens more like this easily found, Ball4.
So again, we have a high temperature and low temperature objects in vacuum, that can only reach equilibrium with each other by radiant energy transfer.
Thus this energy in transit between them is HEAT, according to the definition.
You don’t like this, but that is the definition. And without it, the 1LOT and 2LOT are difficult to reconcile with this.
E-Lie always splits by two, idiot. The BP in the original thought experiment receives 400 W/m^2 on its left side and emits 200 W/m^2 at equilibrium (before the GP is added). Split by two.
The BP in the Sun plate scenario receives 533.33 W/m^2 on its left side and is thus at equilibrium (according to E-Lie) when it emits 266.67 W/m^2. Split by two.
“Now work on thinking through if solid body A does not physically have ‘heat content’, then what is correctly called heat cannot physically transfer out of Body A. Body A can radiate into a defined vacuum by transforming some of its total internal U (KE) into external EMR. That transformation reduces U in Body A (i.e. delta U per unit time = Q rate of cooling)”
Yes, in the First Law of Thermodynamics this process is descried with the equation
deltaU = Q – W.
Q is the heat transferred to the body (not a rate), W is the work done by the body.
Notice there is NO EMR in this equation. Notice there is no heat in the bodies, but internal energy does change.
This leaves me wondering where you think the term HEAT can ever be used?
Ok, then that particular passage confirms in modern thermodynamics a body has no “heat content”: “An object does not possess ‘heat'”.
It also confirms Q is a rate of heating: “this is properly called heating”.
“Thus this energy in transit between them is HEAT, according to the definition.”
No. The energy in transit in the passage (“transferring energy”) is in the form of EMR which is not properly called heat (EMR has no atomic hidden modes of motion).
“(according to E-Lie) ”
Interesting how some people are getting more competent at using correct physics to analyze a heat transfer problem.
But perversely, they continue to assert that the results of this analysis are wrong.
Given that these results satisfy 1-LOT, 2-LOT, the radiative heat transfer equation, the SB law, Kirchoffs Law, it would be interesting to know what laws of physics they think Eli’s solution does NOT satisfy?
‘Thus this energy in transit between them is HEAT, according to the definition.’
No. The energy in transit in the passage (‘transferring energy’) is in the form of EMR which is not properly called heat (EMR has no atomic hidden modes of motion).”
Non-sequitur.
That does not follow from the definition, or anything stated in that source.
That does not follow from anything stated in the First Law of Thermodynamics. There is no EMR term in 1LOT, because it is Q. And Q is heat.
This is exclusively a notion from your own mind, Ball4, or from obsolete definitions.
I get that YOU don’t like the definition, but you offer no evidence that it is wrong.
Properly every process employed to change U takes time: delta U per unit time = Q W
So Q and W are rates to keep units consistent. Q is the heating rate, W is the working rate.
“This leaves me wondering where you think the term HEAT can ever be used?”
Here: “An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat”.
That’s correct physically but not useful.
It is very easy to deal with that physically correct definition of heat which cannot be counted. Why waste time and effort defining something that cannot be counted? Don’t.
Heating, however, is the name of a macroscopic process in which the internal energy of a system changes by virtue of a temperature difference between it and its surroundings. Why “macroscopic”? Temperature is a macroscopic quantity. There is no such thing as the temperature of a single molecule, only that of a collection of many molecules. Temperature can be measured, much more useful.
delta U per unit time = Q – W
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature. If two bodies at different temperatures are brought together, energy is transferredi.e., heat flowsfrom the hotter body to the colder. The effect of this transfer of energy usually, but not always, is an increase in the temperature of the colder body and a decrease in the temperature of the hotter body. A substance may absorb heat without an increase in temperature by changing from one physical state (or phase) to another, as from a solid to a liquid (melting), from a solid to a vapour (sublimation), from a liquid to a vapour (boiling), or from one solid form to another (usually called a crystalline transition). The important distinction between heat and temperature (heat being a form of energy and temperature a measure of the amount of that energy present in a body) was clarified during the 18th and 19th centuries.”
“And Q is heat.”
No. Properly & physically Q is a heating rate by virtue of a temperature difference.
That does follow from the physically correct definition of what is called heat and what is written in Nate’s source.
It is very easy to deal with that physically correct definition of heat which cannot be counted. Why waste time and effort defining something that cannot be counted? Dont.”
Ha. Then clearly you cannot define it or state when it is used.
Whereas I can define it by simply looking up multiple sources.
deltaU = Q-W is 1LOT. There is no need to put time in it. Why are you putting time into it?
There is no EMR in this equation. Yet it includes all relevant energy.
That is deal breaker for your narrative.
“Then clearly you cannot define it or state when it is used.”
No. Dr. Callen’s definition IS physically correct as it is in many text books: “An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat” the total of which which cannot be counted. Don’t waste the time and effort to do so.
Nate says:
Bill, no one is forcing you to post on this topic. Yet you keep posting.
————————-
You keep calling me out.
You said regarding a failure to call DREMT out over something you said you agreed with that you think DREMT was violation of:
”Then you are fine with sacrificing your integrity and credibility for the Cult Leader, and just looking foolish.”
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black after you agreed with my analysis of insulation and you still continue to not say clearly that the 3rd grader radiation model is bunk. Obviously you don’t want to disturb the mushroom farm you and others have been cultivating.
Bill,
I have pointed out the glaring flaws in DREMTs and Sky Dragon Slayers never-ending argument with the GPE.
YOU agree with everyone but DREMT on what the GPE temperatures turn out to be, because you have actual experience with heat transfer.
And yet YOU keep posting to jump to his defense:
“Nate says:
False. SB emission of radiant energy means losing energy. This is yet another attempt to play word games.
Bill: Incorrect Nate. There is very significant SB emission occuring in all my examples 1 through 4 with no loss of energy at all.
In examples, 2 and 4 there is zero loss of energy.
Nate says: I asked many times for a sensible explanation of where the emissions from the GP to the BP have gone.
Bill: they have gone nowhere Nate. that fact can be confirmed with thermometers.
Nate says:
He now tries to take the illogical position that the emissions are still happening, but somehow, they THEN go away with no mechanism for this vanishing given.
–
Bill: Nothing is vanishing Nate.”
And then you say you didn’t know what the argument was about!
And yet you keep posting, still.
So yes I called you out on this contradictory behavior.
Bill Hunter:
So yes I called you out on this contradictory behavior.
———————-
Nothing contradictory at all. My discussion is the behavior of windows in the atmosphere. DREMT’s discussion is the behavior of radiation in space. I have two heat transfer variables, and DREMT has one. As you know in a math problem with an extra variable their is no limit on how results could change. You are just an old curmudgeon convinced you know it all and you simply can’t open your mind up to other possibilites. Plain and simple. The science on this stuff is in an absolute abysmal state. The science of window technology in the late 1970’s was in such an abysmal state that the government felt the need to establish standards. . . .standards obeyed by the window industry under the force of law and completely ignored at will by universities with major funding agendas.
This is the problem with governments doing stuff the corruption is off the charts.
“called heat’ the total of which which cannot be counted. Dont waste the time and effort to do so.”
Certainly can be counted, or measured with a calorimeter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorimeter
“My discussion is the behavior of windows in the atmosphere”
So you are NOW claiming your cases 1-4 that you gave solutions for were in the atmosphere?
BS!
Where is your integrity, Bill?
Nate 9:11 am, vestiges of the obsolete caloric theory do remain, for example, in the unit the calorie. In modern times, a calorimeter uses a change in temperature to find the change in enthalpy due to some heating or cooling process.
Temperature is a macroscopic quantity measured from the average energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) in a body. So temperature is NOT what is called heat.
Remember “An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat” which is a total in the body which cannot be counted so is useless.
Ball4’s gone very quiet on the subject of the Sun plate scenario calculation…guess he realized he was wrong again.
“Remember ‘An energy transfer via the hidden atomic modes (of motion) is called heat’ which is a total in the body which cannot be counted so is useless.”
BTW, Ball4, in blackbody radiation within a cavity, the thermal energy in the solid walls is in the ‘hidden atmomic modes’ but also shared equally with the EM modes of the radiation in the cavity.
This is known as Equipartition of the thermal energy. Basically nature shares thermal energy equally (in equilibrium) with all available motions that can contain energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html#:~:text=%22Blackbody%20radiation%22%20or%20%22cavity,which%20is%20incident%20upon%20it.
Exactly like the ‘hidden atomic modes’ in a solid, which are typically vibrational waves (phonons), the EM modes each contain on average kT of thermal energy, until this gets cutoff by quantum effects at higher energy.
Then, as Einstein showed, the EM modes are better described as photons, particles, which have a distribution of energy averaging ~ kT. This is very similar to a gas of atoms who have a distribution of kinetic energies, averaging ~ kT.
So the point is the thermal energy in Blackbody Radiation ‘modes’ has many similarities, statistically, to thermal energy in the ‘hidden atomic modes’ of solids and gases.
Nate says:
”My discussion is the behavior of windows in the atmosphere”
So you are NOW claiming your cases 1-4 that you gave solutions for were in the atmosphere?
BS!
Where is your integrity, Bill?
—————————–
Nate the cases 1-4 is how I believe it works in space and is how I know a greenhouse works in the atmosphere. And as far as the atmosphere is concerned one is rather undereducated and or inculcated to not know how a greenhouse works with all the available experiments of RW Woods, Pratt, Spencer, kitchen GPEs, Seim et al to which the otherwise inculcated write off as flawed in not producing 3rd grader radiation model results.
If that is different than DREMTs then so be it. In my view how it works in space is irrelevant to an alleged hotspot within the atmosphere affecting our climate so I have simply not give a lot of thought to how it works in space. I find it a curiosity though.
I would assume that the space program might have some information on it from actual in space performance of insulation systems. But a cursory search for any information on that doesn’t seem to be in the public domain.
Until it is I will avoid jumping onto the insult wagon parade with you folks.
So obviously you agree with examples 1-4 and acknowledge that radiation alone is not capable of producing a greenhouse effect. Typically that calls for a far better description of how a greenhouse effect is created on the surface of a planet. . . .something else that does not seem to exist in the public domain either.
So you have previously noted that I have a bit of political acrimony against the insult wagon parade as the only reason to join it is either out of fear and ignorance or for the purpose of building their personal power bases.
Seems rather like another rendition of lords and flies.
So where is your integrity Nate?
“If that is different than DREMTs then so be it.”
At least that is more honest than saying DREMT is right, when he clearly isnt agreeing with you.
I was agreeing with DREMT like a judge or jury agrees with one side or the other. There were two arguments being offered. One was the 3rd grade model where the blue plate was evidence that the 3rd grade model was valid as has been presented in University classrooms, On the NASA site, and argued endlessly by the warmists in this forum.
Not one of them has stepped back from that obviously incorrect radiation model.
So I picked DREMT as being right between the two. If you and your team accepted the insulation model as insulation incapable of actually warming anything above the wattage of the radiation field. That would tip my ruling the other direction. but as long as you and your team tries to continue to beat a dead horse you all appear to be the source of the conflict thus my finding where the most incorrect is the one who pays. Decisions on the basis of that are made every minute of every day, where injustice occurs is when somebody is found to be the most unreasonable based upon a myth, social standing, or lack of power.
So your excuse is that you were arguing a different argument, in your mind, that no one else was arguing!
Classic Bill.
Nate says:
So your excuse is that you were arguing a different argument, in your mind, that no one else was arguing!
———————–
Excuse? No I stated very clearly in the comments that insulation, including the blocking of IR by solid barriers in the atmosphere does not demonstrate any forcing whatsoever.
However, all of you sycophants in here keep parroting what your daddies told you so DREMT was making reasonable points consistent with warm object warming cold objects and not vice versa as all the claims about the GP warming the BP.
What nonsense!! All the plates are warmed by the source and there isn’t any energy skirting the outside edges of the plates and coming back around and heating the GP and then the BP in turn. You have to be a blithering idiot to believe that.
Feel free to compare NOAA’s CFSv2 NINO3+4 forecast of 2022, Apr 3
https://i.postimg.cc/dVfs0sCJ/nino34-Mon030422.gif
with that of today 2022, June 2
https://i.postimg.cc/pLww7p85/nino34-Mon020622.gif
On X11, we can superpose two windows containing the NOAA CFS charts such that Jan22 appears exactly at the same place, and keep the mouse’s button pressed; that has the effect that the window below still is visible in half tone. Maybe that works for other window systems too…
Looks interesting.
Are you sure there’s no El Nino in the forecast? And what’s next?
https://i.ibb.co/R74BP2K/Screenshot-1.png
So are you saying that all models lack precision in their future projections?
Want to suggest what you think will happen over the next 2 months?
You can find the answer here.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_west.gif
I prefer to use a whole world view
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
” So you are saying… ”
” Are you saying… ”
” So you recon… ”
That is Linsley-Hood’s ‘argumentation’ world: insinuate, insinuate, insinuate – until those who read his insinuations begin to believe in them.
Do you think such a guy would admit what he very certainly sees, namely that NOAA’s La Nina forecast changed by a lot within two months?
NEVER AND NEVER!
And this despite clearly showing how difficult it is to predict the near-unpredictable, even when using up-to-date statistics tools like the averaging of Monte-Carlo driven ensembles (incidentally, as is done since 2012 by the Hadley Centre and Remote Sensing systems)?
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how Hourly rounds up but SubHourly down at 1 digit of precision?
But you are too arrogant to read things closely or understand any of it.
No, Linsley-Hood
I’m NOT ‘too arrogant to read things closely or understand any of it’.
YOU are too ignorant and too inexperienced to understand that your tiny single day differences from a single station do NOT PLAY ANY ROLE when averaged for 138 stations in a month.
Stop discrediting and denigrating, Linsley-Hood, and start finally working, by generating two monthly time series out of (1) hourly and (2) subhourly USCRN data, for all 138 stations in 2002-2021.
And then come back to us, and present your results.
By the way, don’t forget to do that job for
– (Tmin+Tmax)/2
– median
– 24h average
He he he heee.
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how Hourly rounds up but SubHourly down at 1 digit of precision?
Precision is not your specialty. Nor truth it seems.
Still got that little graph you presented so proudly to show USCRN daily data for Kenai differing from your calculations? Do did you delete it because you were so ashamed?
….Or did you delete it….
” Notice how Hourly rounds up but SubHourly down at 1 digit of precision? ”
Again and again:
No one is disputing you microscopic example.
*
” Still got that little graph you presented so proudly to show USCRN daily data for Kenai differing from your calculations? Do did you delete it because you were so ashamed? ”
You still did not understand that I was NOT interested in daily data.
I produced that graph last year ONLY to show you that I had understood the difference between USCRN’s daily data and hourly data averaged to days WITH ONLY ONE DIGIT AFTER THE DECIMAL POINT.
Will there be any hope that you become honest enough to admit that when you average floating-point hourly data into months, the problem you so stubbornly point out does not exist?
WHY DON’T YOU DO THE JOB AS I DID, Linsley-Hood?
Stop discrediting and denigrating, Linsley-Hood, and start finally working, by generating two monthly time series out of (1) hourly and (2) subhourly USCRN data, for all 138 stations in 2002-2021.
Of course: don’t forget to generate your data with three digits after the decimal point.
Did you delete the graph where you boasted about how your data was more accurate than USCRNs daily data on a single station?
“That is Linsley-Hoods argumentation world: insinuate, insinuate, insinuate ”
Exactly, then change the subject.
Which of these NCEP NOAA NINO 3.4 projections do you consider more likely and why.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd1/nino34Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd2/nino34Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Surely the more likely is the one based on the more recent initial conditions.
I recon the ind1 one is more likely to be closer to the truth. Later this month we will see.
Based on …. what?
I note that nowhere have you considered subsurface temperature progressions.
The expected forward transition from
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
And this still looks cold
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Thanks for providing a recent subsurface temperature anomaly graph which shows significant subsurface warming since the last one I saw from early May. You did understand “progression”, right?
The last subsurface warm pulse died out. Do you expect this one to do so as well? Or do you think that Michelle got things wrong in her assessment that the La Nina is likely to continue until this winter?
I have no expectations. You seem to believe that I am saying that there won’t be another La Nina – I am not. I am saying that I don’t know, and neither do you. There are many differing projections of what will happen. You cherry pick the one which gives you what you want to see, without being able to find a spin to explain away why you chose only that one. Are YOU saying the other models are wrong when they predict a return to neutral conditions in the next few months? Does associating your choice with the name of a person make your choice more believable? … because that seems to be your only reason for using a name instead of an organisation.
I am saying that Michelle thinks that this La Nina will continue until winter this year. I agree with her. Do you differ and why?
Michelle LHeureux, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast office for La Nina and its more famous flip side, El Nino.
I just told you I don’t know what will happen. Did you miss that part or are you ignoring it? So I don’t have a differing opinion. My point has only been that you and I don’t know/ So only you need to explain your opinion.
And I have told you many times what my opinion is based on and where it has support in the scientific community.
You asked who Michelle was (as though you hadn’t actually read any of the threads above and last month). I answered.
Do you think a record is unprecedented or are you as ignorant as Willard?
Would you please quote me asking who Michelle is.
“Does associating your choice with the name of a person make your choice more believable? because that seems to be your only reason for using a name instead of an organisation”
When I had previously fully named both her, her institution and the various blog posts.
Oh and loads of press coverage about the whole saga.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1306513
I would love to be able to understand the workings of a mind that could possibly associate that with enquiring about who she is.
“enquiring about who she is”
You most obviously did not read anything from this month or the last two where this had been gone over time and time again.
Boy are you slimy. You know exactly what I just said, yet pretend it was something else.
Boy you do not read anything on this blog.
As your pretence continues ….
(You will now mimic me again instead of saying something original. That’s a real 1D brain you have there.)
You are as much an idiot as Willard is.
How much effort does it take to copy-paste your own comment? Certainly no brain power.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Weak solar activity.
https://i.ibb.co/KjHdhmj/AR-CH-20220601-1.png
If you can match solar trends and cycles with global temperatures then you might have a point.
Do you have a better explanation for why La Nina is endless than a weak solar wind? The strength of the solar wind did not increase until May 2022, but is now weakening again.
https://i.ibb.co/XZ7HnZK/onlinequery.gif
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Look at the long ridge of galactic radiation in this solar cycle.
Do you have a match for the solar cycle in global temperature data?
Here is Carl Otto Weiss showing solar cycle and global temperature data: https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
I asked you a question. It is clear that during La Nina the temperature cannot rise significantly.
Blinny would differ on that.
Here it is not one solar cycle that is important, but a clear downward trend of the solar magnetic field. This is not a matter of 11 years, but at least 22, because that is the solar magnetic cycle.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Would you please provide a graph of Maunder and Dalton magnetism for comparison.
As usual, our great solar specialist ‘ren’ shows us the data for one single day, exactly as he does for ENSO.
Here’s a more comprehensive plot of current solar activity using the solar flux at 10.7 cm (which matches perfectly with the number of sunspots over longer periods of time):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
Downloaded today (2022, Jun 2) from
http://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
More of Binny’s home made graphs.
What exactly do you see as the problem with graphs made from non-home-made data?
Nothing, till people like Binny use them to compare his home made data to those of the professionals at UAH.
Any graph should be properly titled with the source marked clearly. Binny doesn’t bother with that, taking data from UAH and reproducing it inaccurately on his own graphs, to make it appear as if UAH data agrees with surface data, for instance.
Please provide an example of this inaccurate reproduction of date.
… data.
Bindidon
I can’t access either of your graphs.
Did you share the one on Google Drive? It is telling me I need to request access.
For the second one it tells me the page can’t be found.
Antonin Qwerty
1. Apos, I forgot to make it free for general access.
Never request access from Google Drive to a private link!
They REALLY send your REAL email address to the link’s owner.
Privacy? What’s that?
*
2. This is a browser >< ftp problem.
I use 'wget' to download that data on my LINUX system.
I see that the ftp link is now automatically converted by the Canadians to 'https://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/…', but it doesn't work correctly.
Via https, you can access solar flux year by year, but not the entire stream since 2004 in one step:
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-flux-en.php
*
It's funny to see Putin's disgusting boot licker and cock sucker Gordon Robertson writing
" More of Binnys home made graphs. "
though he can't see anything of them.
P.S. All my solar flux graphs are based on spaceweather.gc.ca’s ‘absolute’ flux (recently named ‘URSI’).
You might also try LISIRD at colorado.edu, e.g.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/latis/dap/cls_radio_flux_f107.csv?&time%3E=1951-11-01T01:00:00.000Z&time%3C=2022-06-02T02:00:00.000Z
No need for your vile language on Roy’s blog. Roy is a decent guy with integrity, no need to disrespect him by using such language.
Would you now please inform Swenson, RLH and others that their vile language is also not welcome here.
I don’t use vile language. Blinny does.
binny…”As usual, our great solar specialist ren shows us the data for one single day, exactly as he does for ENSO”.
***
Ren’s specialty is meteorology, he just updates us on solar issues as a bonus.
P..s off, Putin’s boot licker!
What are his qualifications?
Besides having hypnotic skinny jeans, Gordo is the author of this absolute masterpiece:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
H/T Tyson.
Binny has no qualifications.
willard…I wonder how Jen is doing these days? You must be pretty desperate wading through her archives to find my words of wisdom.
I noticed how you cherry picked parts of my post and pieced it together as if I had said simply what you quoted. With regard to the Earth as a pumpkin, it does flex under tidal forces from the Moon and that was offered by a physicist as a reason for earthquakes. The flexing causes movements in faults, setting off earthquakes.
That makes far more sense that the plate tectonics theory. A plate extends for 100s of miles yet earthquakes occur in a specific location. One plate sliding over another would produce multiple Earthquakes simultaneously.
The rest of my post is simply about the 2nd law. With the Earth’s centre at 5000C heat must flow toward the boundary layer, the surface. If the boundary is an ocean, it will warm the ocean and over billions of years that heating would be considerable.
I was enquiring about ren’s qualifications.
Come on, Gordo. You buffoon.
I copy-pasted the whole post.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“3 New Studies Show Atlantic Tipping Point Unrealistic”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/02/3-new-studies-show-atlantic-tipping-point-unrealisticmuted-responsechanges-to-be-viewed-with-caution/
“Any simulated AMOC changes from freshwater forcing should be viewed with caution”
rlh…”So are you saying that all models lack precision in their future projections?”
***
Trick question, intended or unintended, likely the latter. You omitted the key word ‘unvalidated’ as in unvalidated models. The word projection was introduced by the IPCC when expert reviewer Vincent Gray pointed out the obvious, that unvalidated models cannot predict.
A projection, a la IPCC, cannot withstand the scrutiny of precision. They present projections as several scenarios, which are no more than wild guesses.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110313140007/http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf
https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p155.pdf
The peoples with the models do not claim they are unvalidated.
Neither do they claim the positive feedbacks they use liberally, or the weighting of CO2 warming, are fake science.
I’ll bet the IPCC did not know they were unvalidated till Vincent Gray pointed it out to them.
Sea ice extent for end of May 2022
– Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
‘Unprecedented!’ the Coolistas will say.
– Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
‘Unprecedented!’ the Warmistas will say.
Idiot those who know you will say.
Yeah – just throw around insults – it makes you look like such a reasonable person.
Blinny and I can have a fight without you getting involved. This is about his own words and data and how he won’t stand up for them.
No, this is about your method of providing “argument”.
Still you persist in your engagement when this is something that Blinny and I have been going on about for a couple of years.
So you believe in censoring opinion .. interesting.
Nope.
Then the matter is settled.
FWIW, Richard has not been here for a couple of years.
My blog has been around since 2014.
Hmmm
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2020
RLH
Please link me to Bindidon commenting on your blog from two years ago.
Commenting on here?
Willard: https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
I know about that post, Richard. In fact I cited it when we first met. Bunny did not comment on that page. He did not comment on any post of yours that I read. You should have learned by now that I tend to read stuff.
You and Binny has been going on for while now, but not for years. He tends to pull people in instead of letting them be, so as far as I am concerned, that is on him. But if you go peddle your crap unsolicited, that is on you.
Climateball ought to be simple. Own what you are doing, drop the irrelevant untruths, and you will enjoy more time for your models, I means your analyses.
No RLH – Willard stated that you had not in fact been here for a couple of years since as you claimed, and your direct response was one about your blog, refusing to refute his statement. So if you have not actually been here for two years then your argument with Bindidon must have started on your blog, right? Otherwise why would you mention it?
I can only actually trace my arguments with Blinny on here back to early 2021 via Google. That’s a couple of years in my book, certainly longer than a year.
Certainly longer than you have been around on here.
“Bunny did not comment on that page. He did not comment on any post of yours that I read”
Did I say that he did on there? He mostly started commenting against me on here when I challenged his assertion that he was more accurate than USCRN.
Apparently 1.4 now rounds to 2.
Larger than 1 is years not year.
> Certainly longer than you have been around on here.
You insufferable twat:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/a-tribute-to-rush-limbaugh/#comment-646389
So you do not recall that I greeted you here.
A true Logician. Nothing like we’ve seen since the Greeks.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Source
https://tinyurl.com/2bauk2aa
resp.
https://tinyurl.com/p8y8dehf
So you can do both North and South Polar. Do you need a clap?
Again – what is your problem? If you have something to challenge then do so, otherwise it would pay you to stay silent and move on to something you actually have something to say about.
Always a response from you. Even when it is not needed.
I responded to a comment that was not needed. Apparently you cannot see that there is always a response from you. But you get an exemption, right?
I was addressing Blinny, not you. But you butted in anyway.
Yet you had no problem butting in yourself in another thread when I was addressing him. Hypocrites never see their hypocrisy.
I understand you have been around here for only a couple of months now.
Relevance?
rlh…”I understand you have been around here for only a couple of months now”.
***
It’s more likely he has been around for a while but was receiving no replies, so he switched nyms. I would presume that a switch in nym would require a different act. That’s why Anton, or whoever, has little of importance to say. Might expose himself as the dummy he was with a former nym.
I recall the time when Binny disappeared in a huff, claiming he would not be back. A few weeks later he re-appeared under the name of his girlfriend. When we exposed him, his girlfriend’s name disappeared and he resorted to his Binny nym.
Of course, Binny will stick to his story that it really was his g/f, who magically appeared a couple of weeks after he left.
Gordon,
Is there a reason you don’t mention Mike Flynn/Amazed/Swenson in the same breath?
“Relevance?”
Well the ‘nym’ is new at least. Unless you forgot all the history about Blinny not having the guts to own up to starting this fight then you are also.
Gordon is claiming I am old, you are claiming I am new – do you think you can both be right?
Would most people refer to 5 months as “a couple”?
Compared to a couple of years, yes.
Answer to my first question?
You can be both old in years and new at this site.
As you deliberately misinterpret my meaning of “old”.
As I said, you can be both old in years and new at this site.
And it has no relevance the second time.
So you acknowledge you have only been on here for a few months, definitely not years.
Why would I feel the need to acknowledge or deny your irrelevance? You are just playing child games.
You are as much an idiot as Willard is.
Personal abuse is a poor substitute for argument, used by people who have no argument.
Endless argument is another way of losing the plot.
rlh…re ocean oscillations…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL030288
rlh…quote from link above…
“We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 19002000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s”.
The reference to the great climate shift was a 0.2C warming circa 1977 that was later named the PDO. I have noted an upward shift following the 1998 EN and another created by the 2016 EN. Each one of these is enough to explain most warming since 1977 and they are due to strong ENs.
The indices used in the paper are indicated in another quote…
“The indices represent the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO)[Barnston and Livezey, 1987; Hurrell, 1995;Mantua et al.,1997; Trenberth and Hurrell, 1994]. These indices represent regional but dominant modes of climate variability, with time scales ranging from months to decades”.
They didn’t even use the full list you posted and still concluded we should be investigating the relationships between the various oscillation phases as a cause of warming rather than wasting time on the AGW theory.
barry…”Dont be a cheerleader for the Russian army, Gordo, and maybe people wont try to demonstrate that you are cheerleading”.
***
I am by no means cheerleading anyone in a war like this. War is ugly and innocents die. I want to see an end to this war as much as anyone else. I do sympathize with the Russian people after what they have endured since 1920. I’ve expressed my difference with Putin in the past.
I am a student of history in a sense. I have read widely on mainly WW II history, but on other conflicts like WW I, Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. The point is, the Ukraine is not the innocent nation it is portrayed to be. Before WW II, as early as 1929, the Ukraine had dissidents operating in the country and their credo was a nationalist state based on fascism and white supremacy. Now the descendants of those dissidents are sitting in the Ukrainian parliament.
That has created problems internally between pro-West Ukrainians and pro-Russian Ukrainians that amounted to suppression of the Russian language. Worst of all, it has permitted factions with neo-Nazi beliefs to operate freely in the Ukraine.
I would love to have seen a Ukraine with a true democracy join the West, but not at the expense of peace with Russia. We in the West have handled the situation clumsily with our own interests at heart. We had a chance to encourage Russia toward democracy and we turned our backs on them. Ask yourself why we are that stupid, with China rattling sabres in the East.
Any country stupid enough to try suppressing pro-Russian Ukrainians living along Russia’s border, is asking for big trouble. And now they have it and it’s no surprise to me.
I regard Ukrainian leadership, including Zelensky, as being seriously stupid. Circa 2015, US foreign policy expert, Professor John Mearsheimer predicted this war. If he saw it coming, why were the rest of us in the West not able to see it coming?
You cannot objectively understand this war without understanding the full history of the Ukraine.
As Mearsheimer claims repeatedly, you cannot keep poking a bear with a stick without expecting it to attack you.
Maybe you have a better solution, Barry, involving talk that leads nowhere.
C’mon, Gordo.
You only are a student in the sense that you become enamored with every crankery on which you can lay your eyes. And you still insinuate that the son who lost relatives to the hands of Nazis. Here’s how the ZZs believe in their propaganda:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/599170-zelensky-highlights-death-of-concentration-camp-survivor-in-russian/
You are a fool.
“Maybe you have a better solution, Barry, involving talk that leads nowhere.”
Excellent proposal. Far better that than what Russia has done.
I campaigned against war in Iraq in 2003. I’ve lived to see what unfolded there. A lot of Iraqis and quite a few foreigners did not. Speaking of unintended consequences, that war birthed more Qtubian jihadists in the region than were there before. The US did not become safer, and it is cogently argued that the War on Terror instigated an incipient decline of US power in the world, which continues to this day, to no one’s benefit as yet.
to barry and swannie…
“[E. Swanson] Are you saying that NASA doesnt understand radiation heat transfer? Thermal energy can be radiated to Deep Space via IR radiation, a well proven fact of space science.
[Barry}In all forms of heat transfer, Newton showed that the heat flow rate Q is proportional to the difference in temperature.
***
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of heat transfer here. Swannie asks if NASA does not understand radiation heat transfer. It’s a good bet they don’t because they too use the term radiation heat transfer which is incorrect.
Heat is not transferred physically by radiation, no more than the audio energy of a person’s voice in a radio studio is carried to a distant listener by the same EM energy. The audio energy must be recreated in the distant listener’s premises using a radio designed to extract the audio information from the EM signal, demodulate it, then amplify it before presenting it to speakers to re-create the acoustical energy.
In communications, when EM is used as a carrier wave to send information from one place to another, the information on the carrier is unrelated to the information at the source or the target. Same with heat transfer by EM, the EM carries information about the heat at the source and that information can be used at a suitable target to produce heat locally in the target. However, heat does not flow through space physically between source and target.
Barry claims that Newton claimed ‘in all form of heat transfer heat flow Q is proportional to the difference in temperature’. I don’t recall Newton talking about heat transfer and if he did he certainly knew nothing about electromagnetic energy. Maybe Newton was a typo and Barry meant Clausius.
Even at that, Clausius made it clear that transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. Unfortunately, as intelligent and as great a scientist as he was, Clausius knew nothing about EM either. He, like scientists in his day, thought heat flowed through space as heat rays. Apparently NASA still believes that today as do many scientists.
What Barry claims is fundamentally incorrect. With radiation, heat transfer is not dependent on a difference in temperature between bodies. For one, heat does not flow between bodies via radiation. More importantly, bodies do not radiate based on temperature difference, they simply radiate isotropically. The energy is not directed at a specific target.
If one body is warmer, the radiation from it can be absorbed by a cooler body, causing it to warm locally. No heat enters the body and the EM is lost when it is converted by electrons in the absorbing body, moving them to a higher kinetic energy state, resulting in a heat increase when all electrons in a mass do that.
If the EM is from a cooler body, the electrons in the hotter boy cannot absorb the EM due to the basic laws of quantum theory. The EM lacks the intensity and frequency to affect electrons which are already at a higher energy state. That’s why the 2nd law is not contradicted.
All energy behaves the same. Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower potential energy to an area of high potential energy. A cooler body is in a state of lower potential energy than a hotter body.
That’s my point with Swannie’s excellent BP/GP experiment. The cooler GP radiation cannot be absorbed by the warmer BP. That would be a violation of the 2nd law.
In part of his comment I did not quote, Barry talked about a net heat transfer. There is no such thing with radiation, unless two or more heated bodies are heating one cooler body. Even at that, no heat is transferred physically.
The term radiative heat transfer should be abandoned. It’s an anachronism dating back to the mid 19th century when scientists believed heat could be transferred physically through space as heat rays.
Besides, Swannie based his experiment on a hypothetical situation presented by Eli Rabbet, aka Josh Halpern. A paper produced by Halpern at al was presented to rebut a paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner falsifying the greenhouse effect.
In a subsequent rebuttal, by G&T, they exposed Halpern et al as having an inadequate understanding of the 2nd law. In effect,Halpern et al claimed application of the 2nd law to two bodies radiating EM would suggest one of the bodies was not radiating. That’s a seriously naive claim that reveals a shocking misunderstanding of basic quantum theory.
I haven’t mentioned Newton once in at last a year. You’re quoting someone else.
barry…it’s in this post…about Newton…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1305236
Where I quote Nate speaking of Newton.
Gordo wrote another rant, including:
Let me rephrase that for you:
Gordo still can not explain what happens to the thermal IR radiant energy from the GP which hits the BP, so he falls back on more empty assertions without proof. A never ending failure, endlessly repeated.
Well, who ya gonna call?
Gordon who has never taken a physical chemistry course, or the former Physical Chemistry department head?
Which one displays a shocking misunderstanding of basic quantum theory?
“Thats a seriously naive claim that reveals a shocking misunderstanding of basic quantum theory.”
Yes, there is two way transfer of energy by radiation between the atmosphere and the surface.
Otherwise known as the greenhouse effect.
“If the EM is from a cooler body, the electrons in the hotter boy cannot absorb the EM due to the basic laws of quantum theory. The EM lacks the intensity and frequency to affect electrons which are already at a higher energy state.”
and
“Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower potential energy to an area of high potential energy.”
This is just plain wrong.
And agreed with above, that Gordo, nor anyone else that holds this perverse view, can explain what happens to the radiation from the cooler body to the warmer when it strikes the warmer body.
I believe Gordon is translating what he’s learned in electronics to these discussions. The phrases “lower/higher potential energy” come straight from that discipline.
While I can find and have linked many formal physics texts on radiative exchange between bodies of different temperature, neither Gordo nor the other whacky people who think the can provide a single physics text supporting what he claims here.
I’m going to ask again.
Please provide a reference for this assertion, Gordon.
Same goes for anyone that agrees with him.
It’s going to tick over to 3 years soon.
Swanson, bobdroege, barry, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“the EM carries information about the heat at the source and that information can be used at a suitable target to produce heat locally in the target.”
Nope, you know nothing of what you post.
EM does not carry any information about the temperature of its source.
It only carries information about wavelength, energy, frequency and direction it travels.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
It’s the Sun stupid
https://youtu.be/rJIw7ulYaGk
What Melania said to Donnie on August 21 2017.
Solar input to Earth differs more during the seasons than it does during the solar cycle.
Are you really saying that the TOTAL energy hitting the earth is affected by the seasons?
Don’t you think you should be referring to the earth’s eccentric orbit instead? THAT would be a correct statement.
“Are you really saying that the TOTAL energy hitting the earth is affected by the seasons”
Are you saying that the Earth is not closer at present during the NH winter than it is during the NH summer?
Did you not read my second paragraph? Or did you not understand it? Don’t tell me you believe that the earth’s eccentricity causes the seasons.
Did you not understand that earths eccentric orbit can also be referenced by seasons?
Yeah – just like everyone refers to moon’s phases by referencing a girl’s period.
Duck and dive all you like.
“just like everyone refers to moons phases by referencing a girls period”
You’ve been reading about menstrual too much.
“[ISAAC] 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.”
Hey, that is my quote!
Are you suggesting I am AQ by any chance, Richard?
Duck and dive is what you’ve been doing for the last two days, pretending you don’t understand what I’ve said, changing your claims on the fly, and now giving me a quote from a time when “menstrual” actually meant “monthly” in a pathetic attempt at proof by false definition.
Willard: If I leave off the [ISACC] then I think you will find you are not the only one who said that.
“from a time when ‘menstrual’ actually meant ‘monthly'”
Blame Willard and Blinny (at least) for that.
….[ISAAC]….
A simple yes or no would do, Richard.
RLH
Why? They have not used it to provide a false argument against my statement. The issue is WHEN it is appropriate to use that quote. YOU made the decision to use it inappropriately, not them.
“A simple yes or no would do”
You were not the only source of that phrase.
“You made the decision to use it inappropriately”
My decision to use the word ‘idiot’ is quite appropriate.
The quote, dummy.
Is this a bad joke or do you really have an executive function problem?
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s not the Sun, stupid.
The solar intensity trend is down.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/total-solar-irradiance-over-the-past-three-solar-cycles/#.Ypnlet_TVTs
Global dimming.
An interesting reply from Jennifer Marohasey circe 2008 to something I had posed on the Earth’s internal heat energy. I was flamed as providing a 2nd year geophysics response. Willard was trying to troll me again by digging into my past. He really has strong troll features when he goes to such an extent to make a point.
From Jen…
“What is wrong with blog comment at the level of second-year geophysics?
Indeed I am not sure why you and many others are so sensitive about some of my recent posts. (Ive been told even Tim Lambert has been offended.)
Ive just been providing an outlet for those with time to ponder these important and difficult issues and concepts.
I dont think Gordon or Alan or even Bill claim perfect knowledge.
But some of the responses to these harmless ponderings (at this harmless blog) indicated many believe discussion of science should be somehow sanitized and that those with an imperfect knowledge of physics should not be allowed to participate in the discussion?
It is perhaps worth remembering this is a blog, not a text book”.
Well said, Jen.
Meanwhile, you falsely accused Willard of not providing the entire quote. Why was that?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
This link to Jennifer Marohasy was very early in my climate blogging experience. I am happy to write about Jen in Roy’s blog and I am sure the two would get along famously considering the effort both have put in to bringing us real science.
Thank you to Roy, Jen and others.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
Come on, Gordo. First comment:
> Jennifer if youd managed to take in any of the geology you allegedly studied, you would have remembered that the earth is an oblate spheroid because it spins. (You may recall that stuff about centripetal force from high school physics.)
> From what I can gather from the geologists I know, the heat of the earths core is partly due to pressure, and partly due to radioactive decay. Please do try to keep up.
Do try to keep up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-surface-temperature-of-Mars
What is the average surface temperature of Mars?
“A picture worth a thousand words.
Nasa displays that the average temperature of Mars is -63 degree Celsius.”
—
“As others have posted the average temperature is way cold but maybe what is left out is that because Mars atmosphere is so thin, it is nearly a vacuum that temperature does not transfer by conduction or convection like on Earth. The vacuum is actually a very good thermal insulator.
So dont ask about temperature ask about heat transfer So lets say you placed a dead chicken on Mars….”
—
“Because Mars essentially has no atmosphere (1% of Earth’s) cold isn’t all that cold on Mars as compared to Earth. On Earth the atmosphere sucks the heat right out of you through convection and conduction on top of the heat you naturally radiate into the space around you.
On Mars the only real significant source of heat loss is radiant heat loss. Standing naked on Mars (ignoring air pressure issues) if you have…”
—
Or you could say that if in spacesuit, you need to cool the spacesuit
to walk about on Mars surface.
Though if you in spacesuit on Earth, you also need to cool the spacesuit to walk around on Earth surface.
Is frozen CO2 transparent:
Why is solid CO2 white? Is it possible to make dry ice transparent?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-solid-CO2-white-Is-it-possible-to-make-dry-ice-transparent
“At the approach of Hurricane Alicia in 1983 at the local university we had an ultra-cold freezer at -80 degrees that needed protecting when the power went out. We packed it with 20 pound blocks of dry ice, closed it up and evacuated. Coming back 5 days later the blocks of dry ice were gone, but not the carbon dioxide. It had evaporated from the blocks and refrozen on the colder walls of the freezer. It was two inches thick and absolutely clear, like glass.”
{also, in theory, it you compacted the white CO2 snow, enough, it would become transparent]
since CO2 is cheap on Mars and water is currently fairly pricey,
What if you had 1 meter diameter solid sphere of transparent H20 ice, and you encased in hollow 2 meter diameter of transparent solid CO2 sphere. Two hemispheres 2 meter diameter with interior diameter of 1 meter and put 1 meter diameter sphere in inside it.
And put on top of ground on Mars. And wait a day or two.
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.
Are those who ask about my qualifications able to answer when the current La Nia will end and are they denying the qualifications of Stanford WSO professionals?
http://wso.stanford.edu/
Please link me to WSO predictions about when the current La Nina will end.
After the current SOI drop, it is clear that La Nina will not strengthen enough for the subsurface wave to reach the eastern Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202206.gif
You can negate my qualifications, but not the observed data.
So there was no such WSO prediction. Got it.
Does it hurt you to admit that?
As I’ve said many times, I have no prediction about the end of the La Nina. I am not qualified, and neither are you.
“I am not qualified”
Apparently.
The implication being that you are?
What then are your education qualifications in this field?
tick …. tick … tick …
I am an acknowledge amateur at climate. You?
Acknowledged by which climate authority?
Are there are such things?
As climate authorities which acknowledge amateurs.
If not, then you are not acknowledged.
Richard is not a Logician either, but online he pretends he is one –
> A trained Logician. A training like we probably have not seen since the Greeks.
I am the Harry you call in, exactly like he was, to do job for hire
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/a-sadness-aboyt-climte-science/
He thinks he has a right to be here, wherever that might be.
“Richard is not a Logician either”
In Willards humble opinion.
“If not, then you are not acknowledged”
Well I acknowledged that myself in fact.
As a matter of fact, Richard.
A logician either has published logic papers taking part in the relevant lichurchur or he has a PHD in formal logic. Even historians of logic often refrain from saying they are logicians.
Your Master (with distinctions!) does not qualify you. Why the pretense?
Imagine that you meet Vaughan Pratt. How would you feel telling him that you are a logician? A bit silly, I surmise. Vaughan would not care much either way. He would judge it by what you write.
Now, consider what you write. You barely can follow an exchange properly. Is it because you comment by email and the context is lost on you? Perhaps it is because you believe in Russian bot methods to spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam?
In any event it obviously is not a behaviour I would deem logical. In the Spock-Kirk-McCoy game, you are not Spock. At best you are McCoy.
But McCoy is likeable. So try to work on likeability.
So computer scientists are not logicians, even though practical logic is part of their training and discipline. IYHO of course.
You are not a computer scientist either, Richard, and your master thesis must contain theorems to count has having any logic in it. Did you work on complexity theory? Have you done any Description Logic? How about some functional programming? Perhaps something around the closed-world assumption in various Prolog flavours?
Scientists do scientific work. You were a coder. Coding is Hard. Be proud of that.
“You are not a computer scientist either”
Are you suggesting I have been lying on my CV to all my employers?
“Theoretical computer science is mathematics. Practical computer science is engineering.”
Are you starting to realize why so many contrarians pretend to be computer engineers, Richard? In other circumstances, that is another title you claim. We already been over that a while ago. If memory serves well, it is not a protected term in the UK. In other juridictions, it is.
You are a snob as well as being an idiot.
“You are not a computer scientist either”
Strange then that my MSc says otherwise.
Your MSc does not “say” anything, dummy, and considering that this is not a protected title, you can pretend to be a computer scientist all you like. But we both know you ain’t one. You have not done any research. You have not published anything. You barely can grasp basic formal concepts.
If you do that with oblivious people, that is on them. If you do that with people in the know, that’s on you.
“Your MSc does not ‘say’ anything”
It has the words ‘MSc in Computer Science’ printed on it.
“you can pretend to be a computer scientist all you like”
Come to England and I will sue.
“considering that this is not a protected title”
Claiming to have an MSc in Computer Science on a CV but not having one is an offense in English Law.
As I actually have one as described I have not committed any offense.
There is nothing snobbish about requiring having a track record in the field to which you pretend to belong, dear Richard.
It is as if you have no idea whatsoever why I claim to be a ninja.
Claiming to have an MSc in Computer Science on a CV but not having one is an offense in English Law.
As I actually have one as described I have not committed any offense.
It’s the claim to be a computer scientist on the basis of an MSc, dummy.
I have an MSc in Computer Science. Idiot.
“Theoretical computer science is mathematics. Practical computer science is engineering”
Willard thinks that all computer scientists are only Theoretical.
Richard contends he can be an engineer, a scientist, and a Logician without publishing on science, engineering, or logic.
Quite a feat. We have seen nothing like it since the Greeks. There was Archimedes, now there is Richard. Catch him if you can.
The entire US university system considers BS degree holders to be scientists Willard.
Actually more important that publishing papers and getting degrees is getting hands on experience in science. So a BS holder in say oceanography with 10 years of oceanography based seatime is more of a scientist than a newly minted PhD without more than a year of seatime.
We see the same thing in the armed services where say in the USMC a gunnery sergeant with 10-15 years is considered to be more knowledgeable than a commissioned Captain 12 ranks higher with less than 5 years service. Not only that the gunny might even be paid more. Of course in the eyes of those in the service the quality of that experience even lays more heavy than just years.
The world is full of college graduates and until they have 10 years plus quality experience in their field no matter what their degree is they really don’t know shit. Even most of those who find employment end up in some job the equivalent of counting widgets.
You’re saying stuff once again, Bill.
Here’s a simple criteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
When Richard will produce scientific research, he’ll be able to look Vaughan Pratt in the eyes and proclaim – “I am a scientist.”
Meanwhile, LMAO.
OK Willard then what you are saying is everybody in the US who hires scientists is wrong if they aren’t hiring somebody who published a paper?
https://tinyurl.com/yv8yh5ed
You continue to make declarations without even spending a few seconds verifying if what you are saying is widely accepted or not.
And you expect to be believed? to have credibility?
A scientist produces scientific research, Bill. You cannot have any more basic than that. Do continue to pontificate on something you obviously know nothing about. We’re used to it by now.
Perhaps your vast experience can help me with this puzzle –
Suppose a civil engineer buils a bridge that falls. An enquiry founds out that the engineer cut corners to save on costs. His firm is liable for his professional lack of responsibility.
Have you ever read about a similar case in software engineering?
You are pretty slow on the uptake Willard.
Businesses and science institutions hire BS degree holders to do scientific research. In some institutions all the work might be supervised by a PhD or a MS or even a BS depending upon what qualifications are needed and the experience of the people they are hiring. You are doing scientific research even if all you are doing is collecting data and all you have to do is say identify a certain species.
Grad students are all the time getting jobs to conduct research in support of a paper and often they get listed as a contributing author while holding a lower degree.
All you are doing is blathering stupid stuff.
All you showed is that just about anyone could become a scientist, Bill. The requirements are indeed quite minimal. Yet they do not suffice to become one. By contrast, a solid education helps, but even a PhD is not enough.
No scientific research, no scientist.
Sorry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard you truly are ignorant.
Just about all that BS and MS scientists who get hired do is research. They mostly work for institutions that do research. Private institutions do confidential research to produce better products, they don’t publish their trade secrets. Government institution do research to provide you all sort of things like weather forecasting, geological work and generally don’t publish but sometimes they do. Its just not a job requirement like it is for academia that publishes prodigious amount of publications to get promoted and win more power within the academic settings. . . .e.g. control more careers, fund more projects.
Forgot to add. Academia is a strict heirarchial system where highest rank (rank being degree) and time in grade is important. Typical of government institutions.
Here is some recommended guidance for determining author names on papers in environmental sciences.
Conceptualization Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims
Methodology Development or design of methodology; creation of models
Software Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components
Validation Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/ reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs
Formal analysis Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data
Investigation Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection
Resources Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools
Data Curation Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse
Writing – Original Draft Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation)
Writing – Review & Editing Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision including pre-or postpublication stages
Visualization Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/ data presentation
Project administration Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution
Supervision Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Supervision Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Supervision Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Supervision Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Supervision Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Supervision Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
Funding acquisition Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication
So when do you predict the end of the current La Nina and the end of the drought in the US Southwest?
https://i.ibb.co/6y216rq/gfs-T2ma-aus-21.png
Oh sorry, this is Australia after all.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
How about NOAA?
Rather than the WSO that is as they have actually issued a prediction (or rather the climate.gov blog has).
How would linking to NOAA’s prediction negate ren’s false implication that WSO had issued a prediction?
I think that WSO url was not about La Nina predictions, but about solar data.
“Are those who ask about my qualifications able to answer when the current La Nia will end”
and
“are they denying the qualifications of Stanford WSO professionals?”
Given that he was responding directly to my earlier question about his qualifications as a meteorologist, and given that I have not mentioned solar data on this page, had never before mentioned WSO, nor in fact had even heard of WSO before this thread, that would seem a rather strange interpretation of his post don’t you think. Either that, or ren’s post itself was very strange.
“Are those who ask about my qualifications able to answer when the current La Nia will end”
Well, are you?
How many times have I answered that for you. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or does it come naturally?
So we are both amateurs at climate. Why then should your opinion count for more than mine?
Or vice versa.
Indeed.
And as we are not experts then we have to rely on the expert’s ENSO models …… oh wait – you don’t agree with models. Looks like we have nothing to go on then.
I am prepared o follow what others have said that the current La Nina will last until winter. You are not. We will see won’t we.
But when you say “others” you don’t mean “all others”, you mean “my cherry picked others”.
And I have to repeat due to your obtuseness, I have NOT stated this will not happen.
As I have said frequently, we will see later this year wont we.
“ENSO Weather: La Nina has strangely reversed its collapse”
“Though La Nia is favored to continue, the odds for La Nia decrease into the late Northern Hemisphere summer (58% chance in August-October 2022) before slightly increasing through the Northern Hemisphere fall and early winter 2022 (61% chance)”
Alternatively, from a site you didn’t cherry pick:
“Most climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate a return to neutral ENSO during the southern hemisphere winter.”
We will see later this year won’t we.
“Most climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate a return to neutral ENSO during the southern hemisphere winter”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Another ‘believer’ in the BOM.
Average of international model outlooks for IOD Issued 24 May 2022
October IOD index: −1.5 C
“The latest weekly NINO3.4 value to 22 May 2022 is −0.66 C, short of the La Nia threshold (−0.8 C).”
Other sources, such as NOAA, use -0.5 C as the threshold.
“La Nia: characterized by a negative ONI less than or equal to -0.5C”
So I merely point out that there are are other opinions out there and suddenly I am a “believer”. You still haven’t grasped what I am trying to say have you. I don’t believe ANY of them. Yes, it seems we are more likely than not to stay in La Nina. But none of them KNOW. That is the ONLY point I am trying to get into your thick skull.
The same goes with belief in Zharkova. There are countless predictions of where this solar cycle will head, but one group believes they have the knowledge to pick which one will be correct, not realising they are not expressing knowledge but religious belief.
In the case of La Nina, the odds at this point will be on your side. In the case of SC25 the progression of the cycle so far is not supportive of Zharkova’s prediction. But they are ONLY odds – no one knows. And anyone who claims to know definitively is a liar.
You come up with nonsense such as ENSO 1.2 always leads ENSO 3.4 into La Nina.
I show you three counter-examples where that has not happened (and that is out of only 4 La Ninas I have looked at so far) and you, someone who claims they always go with the data, completely ignore the data and continue to express your MODEL as correct … yes, you are using a model in making that claim, despite claiming to despise models, but not a mathematical model – a religious one.
And all the while you pretend that I am advocating the opposite opinion to you, continually misinterpreting my statements (as you again did here), because apparently you can’t deal with the concept of uncertainty. Do you REALLY believe that saying no one knows with certainty whether La Nina will continue is the same as saying it will not?
I do not think it is co-incidental that you used the BOM which has a La Nina threshold of −0.8 C rather than NOAA which uses -0.5 C. Talk about tilting the table.
The preponderance is, as you say, that La Nina (of -0.5C) will continue into the winter.
“You come up with nonsense such as ENSO 1.2 always leads ENSO 3.4 into La Nina”
What I said (or meant) was that for La Nina the cold water comes up the coast of South America and then Eastwards across the Pacific. It looks like your graphs of the Nino areas show that the measurements do not directly support that observation, but overall I think you will agree that is the standard pattern that we all observe and the current/wind atlases agree.
“I dont believe ANY of them”
So all predictions are completely pointless in your thinking.
ENSO 1.2 (ENSO 3.4) averaged over the six months preceding the first month of each of the 16 La Ninas since 1982.
On two occasions where there were no neutral months between successive La Ninas, the “first month” of the second La Nina is the first month of strengthening.
1983-84 … +3.1 (+0.4)
1984-85 … -0.7 (-0.7)
1988-89 … -0.3 (+0.3)
1995-96 … -0.7 (0.0)
1998-99 … +2.4 (+0.6)
1999-00 … -0.8 (-1.1)
2000-01 … -0.6 (-0.7)
2005-06 … -0.6 (0.1)
2007-08 … -0.4 (0.0)
2008-09 … +0.7 (-0.4)
2010-11 … +0.2 (+1.0)
2011-12 … -0.1 (-0.8)
2016-17 … +0.6 (+0..8)
2017-18 … 0.0 (+0.2)
2020-21 … -0.2 (+0.1)
2021-22 … -0.4 (-0.4)
Tally:
1.2 leads: 6
3.4 leads: 5
neither leads (difference between -0.2 & +0.2): 5
Now that that question is settled, time to deal with the proper question:
Not “In how many La Ninas did ENSO 1.2 lead ENSO 3.4”
but “How often does a large drop in ENSO 1.2 result in a La Nina.”
Since 1982 there have been 19 years in which monthly ENSO values dropped by more than 1 degree somewhere in the first 6 months of the year. Of those, 9 turned into La Nina.
Answer: 47%
That should be monthly ENSO 1.2 values.
Do you accept that at the Equator winds and currents generally flow eastwards?
Do you accept that at the Equator any upwelling cold water will tend to follow that pattern?
How do you reconcile those observations with the data you have presented?
What I accept is a pretty moot point if the data shows you are wrong, isn’t it.
So you have decided that all ocean current and surface wind maps are wrong. We await your versions of them.
Look up Ekman Transport. When the wind blows east to west at the equator, the surface water moves NORTH and SOUTH, allowing the colder water underneath to take its place. THAT is how upwelling occurs in the open ocean.
https://cdn.britannica.com/91/53891-050-2E93317C/ocean-systems-world.jpg
http://www.coastalwiki.org/w/images/f/f4/Ocean-Currents_gkplanet.jpg
https://scijinks.gov/la-nina/LaNina_rev1_500.jpg
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/lanina.gif
“There is a great deal of upwelling Ekman suction at the equator because water is being pulled northward north of the equator and southward south of the equator. This leads to a divergence in the water, resulting in Ekman suction, and therefore, upwelling”
The trade winds at the Equator flow East to West.
Good – you get it. Cold water comes from below, not from the east.
Visually the surface eddies flow East to West at the equator.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
The Humboldt Current is a cold surface current
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Current#/media/File:Humboldt_current.jpg
“The Humboldt Current, also called the Peru Current, is a cold, low-salinity ocean current that flows north along the western coast of South America. It is an eastern boundary current flowing in the direction of the equator, and extends 5001,000 km (310620 mi) offshore”
Damn parser
“The Humboldt Current, also called the Peru Current, is a cold, low-salinity ocean current that flows north along the western coast of South America. It is an eastern boundary current flowing in the direction of the equator, and extends 500-1,000 km (310-620 mi) offshore”
As usual AQ only tells half (if that) of the story.
Wow – one month – that proves everything. Now put together an animation for all of 1998 using the following images:
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data3/50km/image/twiceweekly/ssta/global/1998/
Get back to me with the finished product.
Any comment on the Humboldt Current or are you ignoring that?
Here’s the last 3 months
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
No East to West visible is there?
AQ: Do you have the absolute temperature data for the various Nino areas?
e.g.
Nino 1+2: Standard PSL Format
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino12.long.data
etc.
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.data
Why are YOU ignoring 1998?
How about you take off those blinkers.
AQ: Why are you ignoring the absolute temperature data for the various Nino areas as published by NOAA? Is it because that they show a generally lower temperatures in the West (1+2) and a higher temperature in the East (4).
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino12.long.data
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino3.long.data
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.data
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino4.long.data
And as to 1998:-
Nino 1.2
1998 28.27 29.20 29.61 28.66 27.47 24.99 23.15 21.85 20.85 21.18 21.67 22.88
Nino 3
1998 28.61 28.85 29.14 28.98 28.31 26.54 25.41 24.73 24.44 24.19 24.27 24.15
Nino 3.4
1998 29.00 28.84 28.75 28.67 28.55 27.30 26.49 26.04 25.93 25.54 25.43 25.08
Nino 4
1998 29.17 28.94 28.80 28.73 29.00 28.55 28.33 28.04 27.99 27.66 27.52 27.21
Absolute temperatures for Nino areas from 1988 to 2009.
https://i.imgur.com/2Wwddjf.png
Absolute temperatures for Nino areas for the last few years.
https://imgur.com/a/JDp9Wuy
Larger
https://i.imgur.com/SbbVki7.png
Sorry for the typo
Absolute temperatures for Nino areas from 1998 to 2009.
https://i.imgur.com/2Wwddjf.png
the divergence of waters along the equator is one source of upwelling. the other source is offshore winds from the continents. Offshore prevailing winds at the equator pulls up deep water on the west coasts of continents driven by the cold equator bound cold currents (low pressure zones) that operate offshore of western continental coastlines.
https://tinyurl.com/ynur5fwa
And of course this is also the source of the accelerated ekman transport that is associated with La Nina. When reading about it be aware that the ekman transport cyclonic/anticyclonic behaviors changes ‘clock direction’ between the northern and southern hemispheres.
BH: Any comment on the cold Humboldt Current or are you ignoring that?
My familiarity is with the California current which is a cold south bound current that causes upwelling along the Westcoast of the US and is part of the clockwise current motion that occurs around the north Pacific. The Humbolt current is the south Pacific analog to the California current.
https://tinyurl.com/nymmj6mb
The ‘blue’ currents on the world map above corresponds to the permanent upwelling zones around the world in the following graphic at this location.
https://tinyurl.com/ynur5fwa
These currents are part of a larger circulation that rotates in opposite directions between the hemispheres and work together in both the Pacific and Atlantic to create ekman suction. We see more readily the suction part of the transport because it has a surface temperature signature. The downwelling pumping is harder to define because its temperature signature is at depth under the surface. But observation has identified certain areas as having strong downwelling where for example southern warm currents collide with the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. the one off the west antarctic peninsula is the most pronounced I believe.
Where I live on the California coast we have large changes in water temperature during the year because of this upwelling. One day temps might be 68f and the next 58f. That isn’t from water cooling its from water moving. After its 58f it can take a good deal of time to warm again. We have a lot of currents that can accelerate water temp changes but nothing like the upwelling currents.
The Humboldt Current is a combination of upwelling and surface movement from Antarctic areas.
I haven’t seen any sources attributing it to the antarctic. I have heard of referred to as sub-antarctic. But that would be due to winds blowing of western coastlines. It is particularly pronounced off Chile. Here you have the same cyclic pattern as the western shores of north America (mirrored). But you also have warm currents off of Argentina on the other side of a very thin part of the South American continent creating low pressure zones on the western side and high pressure zones on the eastern side giving a boost to the offshore winds. It is considered to be the strongest upwelling zone in the world.
“Another ‘believer’ in the BOM.”
Let me guess. The other one is supposed to be me?
You should try to spend less time being a prat.
Like Anton, I favour none of them.
Whereas you favour the coldest forecast.
3อันดับละคร ช่องวัน vs 3 เมก้าเกม วันนี้มีละคร3เรื่องสนุกๆช่องวัน มาแนะนำ ที่ไม่ควรพลาด กับเกมสนุกเล่นง่ายของ เมกก้าเกม ให้ทุกคนเล่นกัน เบื่อละครก็เล่นเกมได้เงินจริง
Mr Spencer – please delete this spam.
What makes you think that Roy listens to you?
Boy are you needy.
Boy you are arrogant.
By factually referring to you as needy? Interesting.
By being as big an idiot as Willard.
“I don’t use vile language”.
Who said that?
You have a strange belief that the word idiot on its own is vile. Now if I had said ‘vile idiot’ you might have a point.
“cock sucker” is vile, idiot is not.
So you even get to decide the boundaries – how convenient. Interesting that you had no qualms about adding filth to this page.
AQ,
Roy does not maintain this blog very much. He tried to ban sock puppets for a while but his episode with a deranged one made him give up. His installation breaks down from time to time, and it has been hacked. His understanding of the WP platform is as legendary as his Climate Nazis bit.
Richard does not get that reporting spam is just good pro social online convention. He has very little Climateball experience, and prosociality is obviously not his forte. So he tries to play the Hall Monitor, but always end up becoming the Black Knight of the joke.
Welcome to Climateball!
AQ: Climateball is Willards pet invention which fascinates only him.
“So you even get to decide the boundaries”
So you decide that dummy is not vile but idiot is.
Please point out where I used that word.
Did I say you had?
If you insinuate that I am AQ, dummy, you actually do.
Willard: I do not think you are AQ. Where did you dredge that up from?
RLH
So on what basis did you decide that I had made that decision?
“So on what basis did you decide that I had made that decision?”
Which decision?
You continue to feign ignorance.
“So you DECIDE that dummy is not vile but idiot is.”
Did you “forget” about that comment? You just continue to play games.