Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2022 was +0.28 deg. C, down from the July, 2022 value of +0.36 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 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 20 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 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -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 0.23 0.19
2022 06 0.06 0.07 0.04 -0.36 0.46 0.33 0.11
2022 07 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.13 0.84 0.55 0.65
2022 08 0.28 0.31 0.24 -0.04 0.59 0.50 -0.01
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 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
Had expected the anomaly to be lower compared with last month’s high.
This is the 5th warmest August in the UAH data.
The ten warmest Augusts are
1 1998 0.39
2 2016 0.32
3 2020 0.30
4 2017 0.29
5 2022 0.28
6 2019 0.26
7 2010 0.21
8 2021 0.17
9 1995 0.15
10 2001 0.12
Depending on exactly how the trend is rounded, I think the Monckton pause will have moved forward a month to October 2014.
The warming rate since January 2004 is 0.2C / decade, that’s 18 years and 8 months, the same length as the old pause.
The rate of warming since January 1997, a period covering both supposed pauses is currently 0.12C / decade.
My prediction for 2022 (based on some very crude statistical extrapolation) is now 0.19 +- 0.07C. This would put it close to 2010. I estimate a 40% chance of it beating 2010 for 6th warmest, but still with a reasonable chance it could finish as low as 9th.
Assuming it does finish that high, it will mean that every year since 2015 (8 years in total) are in the 10 ten warmest years.
“Assuming … are in the 10 (ten) warmest years” in the satellite record, starting in 1979.
Do you think starting before 1979 would make much of a difference.
GISTEMP starts in 1880. I predict 2022 will also be a top ten finish, making every year since 2014 a top ten finisher. There will only be one year in the top ten that is more than ten years old, and that will be 2010, in 10th place.
Yes I think starting before 1979 would make a huge difference.
The proxy data shows most of the past 10000 years were warmer than now.
Besides which, given that there is only a short period of record, you are making your argument on the basis of tenths of a degree, which is hardly significant.
Ken
Would you please link to this proxy data. Please make sure it is global.
I am making 80 US dollars per-hr to complete some internet services from home.I have not ever thought like zxs it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details going this web-page.
10
>>> https://www.worksful.com
Here is Carl Otto Weiss showing that climate is cyclical. He shows that proxy data is valid for making assumptions about global climate.
https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
The problem is that the cyclomaniacs rarely agree on what the cycles are.
Some physics morons think there are conditions for something to be a cycle beyond a single instance of going up, down, up or down, up, down. So they inhabit various forums babbling nonsense. They would be classified as a troll if it weren’t for the fact they often clearly show themselves to just be the village idiot.
Very funny how some keep stalking, baiting, and tossing ad hom grenades at their targets, all while accusing them of being trolls.
somebody needed to address your cycle denialism.
I am making 80 US dollars per-hr to complete some internet services from home.I have not ever thought like zxs it would even achievable however my confidant mate got 16k us dollars only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details going this web-page.
10
>> https://libertyinc0me.neocities.org/
“The problem is that the cyclomaniacs rarely agree on what the cycles are.”
So explain what
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
is part of then.
A cycle or not? Will it repeat? If not, why not?
“A cycle or not? Will it repeat? If not, why not?”
No a single minima does not, by itself, constitute a cycle.
Whether it repeats is unpredictable. Why ask for the unknowable?
I am making 80 US dollars per-hr to complete some internet services from home.I have not ever thought like zxs it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details going this web-page.
10
>>> https://www.worksful.com
Yes, I think Lord M’s pause start date will hokey-cokey forward to Oct 2014.
Is anyone counting how many different months have now been hailed as the commencement month of the latest ‘pause’?
You may have misunderstood the point of the pause. When I first saw the escalator debunking on climate skeptic I considered the pause totally and thoroughly debunked. Then I read Monkton’s new pause article on WUWT and realised I got the wrong idea.
The pause is not a claim that global warming has ended nor it is a claim that CO2 is not warming the planet.
The pause is evidence that the rate of warming is so slow that it will not affect our lives.
The concept is like going up a slope on a bike. If you are on a steep slope there are no ‘false flats’ every turn on the pedals is hard, the gradient may vary from 7% to 11%, but it never seems easy. If you are on a gentle slope there are lots of false flats, that is periods that feel flat. The point of the pause is we can go decades of false flats, so we are on a gentle slope compared to our livespans and the remaining stock of oil.
“The pause is evidence that the rate of warming is so slow that it will not affect our lives.”
________________
That depends on what the long term rate of warming is. In UAH_TLT the best estimate might be +0.13C per decade since 1979, but in RSS_TLT it’s a lot higher; +0.21C per decade. The surface sets suggest RSS is closer to the mark, but neither figure is ‘slow’, exactly. And it’s not just ‘our lives’ we should be considering, is it?
Im currently making at least an additional $37,000 a month with Domestic through Domestics fairly honest and simple online paintings. q1 through the accompanying training resources
on a specific website .. http://waytoincome24.blogspot.com
There’s another way of looking at it when you see it then you realize that’s what it is doing-the temperature. From 1979 to about 1993 the temperature was oscillating around -0.3. Then there was a step change and it oscillated around -0.1 until about 2012. Then there was another step change and now it is oscillating around 0.2. These step changes indicate that it is not on a gentle and that it is nonsystematic.
That’s similar to the escalator debunking response to the pause that can be found at the climate sceptic website.
As proof that the planet is warming and the current pause will likely end at the next big El Nino it’s convincing.
But the point remains if CO2 were forcing a warming of the planet at eg 2C / decade it would override all the other noise and oscillations and you would observative temperature increases almost every year.
The CO2 forcing is much slower than 2C / decade however, so other noise and oscillations allow the creation of the pause statistic.
>But the point remains if CO2 were forcing a warming of the planet at eg 2C / decade it would override all the other noise and oscillations and you would observative temperature increases almost every year.
Yes, essentially the same point.
Jimbo said: “But the point remains if CO2 were forcing a warming of the planet at eg 2C / decade it would override all the other noise and oscillations and you would observative temperature increases almost every year.”
Why are you expecting an increase in atmospheric CO2 to suppress all of the other heat exchanges going on within the atmosphere to the point that they drop below the 0.0025 W/m2.month increase in ERF caused by CO2?
“The pause is not a claim that global warming has ended nor it is a claim that CO2 is not warming the planet.”
Whatever Monckton might now claim, it’s clear that he knows that’s what his audience will hear. So many will argue on his articles that the real point of the pause is it shows CO2 is not warming the planet, or that warming is over.
If you just want to say the rate of warming is too slow to worry about, you can make that claim just by pointing to the rate of warming. The pause narrative tells you little about the rate of warming. Other data sets have pauses that are as long or longer than UAH, despite having much faster rates of warming.
Monckton places too much emphasis on the pause.
It could disappear next year and the argument falls apart.
The argument is that the warming since 1979 slowed down in the past 7 years. That could be the start of a new trend or a nothingburger. I expect it to be a nothingburger. But it is real and shows that CO2 is just one of many climate change c variables.
The pause also shows how little the mass media cares aboyt rewality
It is not reported.
The attention is 100% on CAGW, which does not exist, has never existed, and looks dumb with the recent pause. CAGW is only a prediction that began 50+ years ago, that has BEEN WRONG FOR 50+ YEARS. IT IS UNRELATED TO AGW, OR ANY PRIOR WARMING TREND.
Just a prediction of doom that never ends.
“But it is real and shows that CO2 is just one of many climate change c variables.”
Indeed so. And the effects of the big hitters, like ENSO and volcanoes are well known.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2021.pdf
As you can see, when the normal effect of ENSO is removed,
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/Tglb-0.1xNino.pdf
global temperature is rising faster than previous decades.
“The pause is evidence that the rate of warming is so slow that it will not affect our lives.””
No. That is not a correct interpretation either. ‘The pause’ is merely evidence that short-term variation is relatively large compared to the large-term trend. It says nothing about the severity of warming.
On your bike, whether you gain 1000 ft on a slow steady hill or gain 1000 ft on a series of small hills, you are still 1000 ft higher either way. Similarly, whether temperature goes up in 2 steps of 0.2 C or goes up 0.1 C per decade, the result the same amount and the same ‘affect on out lives’.
In fact, to me, saying there is ‘step changes’ is scarier than the idea that temperatures are warming steadily. Steady changes are understandable. They can be planned for. The idea that anytime, for no particular reason, global temperatures can just shift by 0.1 or 0.2 or 0.3 C removes understanding. Removes the ability to plan.
You write “The pause is merely evidence that short-term variation is relatively large compared to the long-term trend.” I agree.
Then you say “It says nothing about the severity of warming.”
Au contraire! It does say something about the severity of the long-term trend – you have said it yourself: is it small compared to short-term variation.
That is precisely the point of the pause, the long term trend is small compared to the variation we live and deal with in our every day lives.
If we could only carve out pauses of a few months then the trend would mean we are rapidly heading into areas we are not accustomed to dealing with.
The fact we can carve pauses lasting decades means we have time to sort this out and the clamour for change right now or we are doomed is false.
“the long term trend is small compared to the variation we live and deal with in our every day lives.”
Yes and no.
Daily temperatures fluctuate on the order of 10 C from day to night; seasonal temperatures fluctuate on the order of 30 C from summer to winter (depending of course on your specific locations). These are large compared to a 1 C climate change.
But these tend to average out. One day will be warmer than another, but we have a good sense of what a ‘typical day’ will be like. One winter will be colder or warmer, but the tend to average out in the long run.
But if the average shifts up 1 (or 2 or 3) C, that starts to be significant. Glaciers melt a bit more. A hot summer heat wave is that much hotter. Plants that require a cold winter will be less likely to germinate.
Small shifts (relative to daily or annual fluctuations) CAN make a difference!
No, Tim, step changes imply something nonsystematic, like the Sun or planetary cycles, etc. Some cause other than manmade systematic changes.
SPA, That’s not true at all. If x where a systematic effect and sin(x) where a cyclic effect than the model y = x + sin(x) would be a composite of systematic and cyclic effects that produces a pause-up-pause-up result. The observation of this pattern does not preclude a systematic effect. And more realistically the model T = 1.7*log2(CO2) + 0.12 * ENSOlag5 + 0.16 * AMOlag3 – 5.0 * AODvolcanic is a composite of systematic (CO2) and cyclic/random (ENSO, AMO, volcanism) effects that produces a chaotic pause-up-pause-up pattern that matches the UAH TLT anomalies very well.
BGDWX,
Go work on your math. That’s not what we have. CO2 is rising linearly. If there was a systematic effect on the temperature it would be rising linearly too.
“No, Tim, step changes imply something nonsystematic, ”
The problem here is that there are not actually any statistically defined “step changes”. As a simplest possible example, draw sin(x) + x. It looks exactly like a series of step rises followed by a series of plateaus. But there is nothing ‘nonsystematic ‘ about it.
Similar things happen with more random bumps and hills overlaying a smooth rise. We spot what *seem* to be sudden steps when in fact it is just random variation. One large random rise and — voila! — a “step”. A systematic rise can be so easily disguised by random short-term variations.
If you think the data truly DO show ‘steps’, I would challenge you do come up with any sort of statistical test to spot the ‘steps’.
“CO2 is rising linearly. If there was a systematic effect on the temperature it would be rising linearly too.”
No. A linear change in one variable could result in a quadratic change in another variable. Or an exponential change. Or a logarithmic change. Or any other mathematical function.
SPA said: “CO2 is rising linearly. If there was a systematic effect on the temperature it would be rising linearly too.”
Why would a linear contributor turn off all of the random or cyclic contributors?
If you add the linear ‘x’ term to the cyclic ‘sin(x)’ term in the model y = x + sin(x) does it cause the cyclic sin(x) modulation to go away?
And more realistically does adding the 1.7*log2(CO2) term to my model (https://i.imgur.com/CRUboKt.png) cause the 0.12*ENSOlag5, 0.16*AMOlag3, and 5.0*AODvolcanic terms to go away?
Most people read Monckton’s articles and conclude from the pause that CO2 cannot be a modulating factor in the planet’s enthalpy and temperature increase. In an effort to be communicate why the pause is not inconsistent with CO2 forcing I created the following model.
https://i.imgur.com/CRUboKt.png
That’s not the explanation Monkton gives though.
If I have understood your model correctly it has an ECS of 1.7? (to doubling of CO2)
So although it fit (just) into the prior IPCC AR5 range of 1.5 – 4.5 it now lies outside of the IPCC’s AR6 range of 2.5 – 4 (best estimate 3) so you find yourself at odds with the IPCC?
Can I ask how your model accounts for sulfur aerosols? Is it entirely in the AODvolcanic – so you sweep up man made aerosols into that one factor?
IMO I would agree that ECS is likely less than 3C.
The 1.7 figure would be more analogous to TCS. The model does not include anthropogenic aerosols or non-CO2 anthropogenic GHGs. I am hoping to include those two components at some point. Anthropogenic aerosols is proving very difficult as it is hard to find easy to use monthly AOD values. I will say that per IPCC AR6 total ERF from 1980 to 2019 is +1.98 W/m2 with CO2 only accounting for 1.07 W/m2 (or 54%) of the total. So if I were to add more components to the model we might expect that 1.7 figure to drop to 0.9. I don’t know what the relationship between the 1.7 (or 0.9) figure and ECS would be using this approach though since that 1.7 (or 0.9) figure isn’t really a TCS nor even if were used as a proxy for such might have an entirely different relationship to ECS than the canonical one. But that is all kind of moot since the point of the model is demonstrate visually that the Monckton Pauses are not inconsistent with CO2 based models.
In regards to ECS I think 3 C is pretty reasonable. Sure, it could easily be less. But the reason why I think ECS is higher than observational analysis suggests is due to the fact that the climate sensitivity in C per W/m2 isn’t static. Low ERF (in W/m2) probably has a low climate sensitivity whereas high ERF probably has a higher climate sensitivity due to tipping point activations.
Anyway, good discussion. I appreciate it.
In regards to ECS I think 3 C is pretty reasonable. Sure, it could easily be less.
If it is easily less then it is not pretty reasonable.
The 3C is admitted to be rubbery and far too high.
It could easily be higher as well. 3 C is a reasonable middle-of-the-road estimate.
Roy, Have you any comments regarding the recent findings that Australian forest fires lofted carbon black high into the stratosphere and the other finding that the volcano in Tonga may have also lifted material into the stratosphere, particularly, water vapor? Did the US forest fires also impact the stratosphere?
SEE: “The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Hydration of the Stratosphere”, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL099381
Sounds like the title of a Dr. Seuss book.
Appropriate given that most of the scientific merit of AGW is like trying to find any literary merit in a Dr Seuss book.
Im currently making at least an additional $37,000 a month with Domestic through Domestics fairly honest and simple online paintings. w20 through the accompanying training resources
on a specific website .. http://waytoincome24.blogspot.com
I take exception to your comment about Dr. Seuss books.
Read the Butter Battle book sometime. Very enlightening.
I learned how to read using Dr. Seuss’s books. The intent of Dr. Seuss’s books isn’t about literary merit, but rather to engage children so fully that they want to read and read and read. Granted, a wee fraction of the illustrations and references that were culturally benign at the time may now have speculative connotations when played backwards on a turntable. To any child under that age of 10, they are all about the whimsy, not the literary merit.
My own best guess is lower Antarctic sea ice has reduced the SH albedo just enough to lead to the increase. Winter in the SH is when the ice expands the most and reaches latitudes where sufficient sunshine could be a factor.
Since most of the sea ice melts in the SH summer, the areal coverage of the extent has much less effect. I suppose one could go back and try to correlate the SH sea ice extent and the temperature, but would take a lot of work to adjust for other factors.
It’s hard to believe that more water vapor in the stratosphere would result in a net reduction of ozone, as the paper claims. I’d have to see more of the detailed chemistry.
But, let’s say that’s true. Then a reduction of stratospheric ozone would result in more high-energy UV reaching even into lower troposphere. And then affecting UAH temperatures there. That would jive with the higher temperature anomalies, especially the last two months.
Our lower stratosphere (LS) product shows the lowest temperature anomaly yet for August, 2022. Maybe related to the volcano?
An ascending sort of your monthly report for LS including July 2022 shows
2020 7 -0.54
2020 8 -0.51
2016 7 -0.49
2020 9 -0.49
2018 3 -0.47
2016 8 -0.46
2020 10 -0.46
2016 6 -0.45
2019 1 -0.45
2000 11 -0.44
Looks partly like a list of recent El Nino anomalies, doesn’t it?
A 10% increase in the stratosphere is a staggering amount. And the fact the area of the stratosphere where the water vapor pooled has seen perpetual record breaking low temperatures since early July is equally staggering.
https://i.imgur.com/d5m3o2l.png
Solar wind
speed: 505.4 km/sec
density: 8.35 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Sep 22
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.93×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.7% Elevated
Less spots in northern hemisphere,
continues
Forgot: Sunspot number: 42
And:
—-Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
29 August – 24 September 2022
Solar activity is expected to be at mostly very low to low levels,….—
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
It seems to me unlikely to get spotless within a week but very low
for next week appears obvious
” Solar activity is expected to be at mostly very low to low levels… ”
Really low low low?
Here is the top20 of an ascending sort of SILSO’s SSN daily for 2022 with SSN values less than 40 (in column 5):
2022 01 03 2022.007 10 7.1 37
2022 01 04 2022.010 10 4.6 30
2022 04 11 2022.275 11 7.8 46 *
2022 04 12 2022.278 14 6.5 46 *
2022 01 23 2022.062 20 6.7 24
2022 04 10 2022.273 21 9.1 35 *
2022 06 09 2022.437 22 5.6 41 *
2022 01 05 2022.012 23 4.5 31
2022 01 21 2022.056 23 2.7 48
2022 02 25 2022.152 23 4.6 48
2022 01 22 2022.059 24 6.7 34
2022 02 26 2022.155 25 6.0 51
2022 08 01 2022.582 26 7.0 46 *
2022 01 02 2022.004 27 6.9 32
2022 05 02 2022.333 31 12.5 33 *
2022 02 24 2022.149 32 7.7 43
2022 02 27 2022.158 32 6.7 34
2022 06 06 2022.429 32 9.9 39 *
2022 01 24 2022.064 33 7.0 24
2022 04 13 2022.281 33 10.2 45 *
Source
https://tinyurl.com/mr2kd8nv
Where is your problem, gbaikie?
Bindidon says:
September 1, 2022 at 1:43 PM
Solar activity is expected to be at mostly very low to low levels
Really low low low?
They [NOAA] said “very low to low levels”
So, I guess they mean very low compared past Solar Max. But not low compared to a time during a Solar Min.
Or in Solar min, you get a lot of spotless periods, and there is more GCR and the thermosphere of earth is less energized.
Or or very low compared to what they thought was normal at this stage
of solar max and/or what their model would “expect”.
It also very low to what I expected, but I am just guessing.
I did allow Neutron count could dip higher than 3 % but I was not predicting it would not get to 5% for a long time [a week being the start of a long time- and 1 day isn’t}. So, so far it’s not outside my prediction, but did think up to 3% [and it’s 2.7% at the moment, and it’s possible I will be wrong within next few weeks- but I still doubt this will happen- but I am just guessing and I could be way off, we find out in couple months or as much as 4 months].
Oh they got August, now:
75.4 average spots for month:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
To go over this, it fell a bit in AUG, their {NOAA} prediction
29 August 24 September 2022 is “very low to low levels”
which means to me, SEPT number could fall thru there plot line.
At the moment their Aug 29 to 24 Sept prediction is “correct”.
It’s possible NOAA has more info, which allow them to make this
prediction {or I don’t know what going on at back side of Sun nor at polar regions of sun and there is a lot details about sun activity I know nada about.
But I didn’t guess nor do I guess Sept will fall thru the plot line. BUT for most of Sept NOAA, say very low to low.
And “low” could be “guessed as meaning” as not dropping thru the plot line. But it would still mean, I guessed wrong.
A small bump, followed by larger bump is a more normal/traditional prediction.
I was thinking steep higher bump, followed by a smaller bump.
Of course it might smaller and steeper bump. And I don’t of any which are predicting that.
gbaikie
I think your mistake is to compare different situations within SC24 and SC25, due to the asymmetry in the NOAA pictures: their SC24 start on the chart is one year later as it should be, and that gives the impression that SC25 is much weaker as it really is.
Correct would be (monthly averages for F10.7):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
I think NOAA knows their curves are cartoonish.
And using what you linked, it appears NOAA is predicting to sept 24
That it will roughly going follow cycle 24 [but could dip lower}.
Can you overlay NOAA cartoon on that?
We have named Hurricane in Atlantic {looks closer to Canada than
US]
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And could get one on other side where I live:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Maybe even two.
Im currently making at least an additional $37,000 a month with Domestic through Domestics fairly honest and simple online paintings. e30 through the accompanying training resources
on a specific website .. http://waytoincome24.blogspot.com
They have not given CO2 levels for August: {yet}
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
I don’t think global CO2 levels are going to go up by much,
and I wouldn’t worry if they went up a lot.
But wind mills and solar farms aren’t lowering CO2.
And burning wood and making ethanol wouldn’t and couldn’t.
So, govts around the world have wasted trillions dollars pretending they wanted to lower CO2, while flying personal jets.
And it was tyranny and more corruption they were obviously seeking.
BUT if you want to lower global CO2 levels, you should tell your congress critter, to speed up getting crew landed on the Moon.
And after determining if and where there is mineable lunar water,
quickly going to Mars {and finding mineable water in Mars} would best
thing to lower Global CO2 levels.
Nuclear power would of course work, but you should have started that
decades ago. You might regard as a dropped ball and going to take governments too long to find that ball.
The private sector might do something, but exploring the Moon is something govts can do, and it’s very cheap thing for a govt to do.
What I have always thought about space exploration being important is it could lead to Space Power satellites,
And both the Moon and Mars are connected to this. Mars might be more significant. But the Moon could be seen as a path to Mars.
Mars fans suspect NASA will get bogged down on the Moon- just like NASA got bogged down on ISS and Shuttle and just about everything.
So with Moon they thing to focus on is whether there is mineable water or not. Though frozen CO2 is related also. Or mineable water includes a lot factors, and having enough CO2 is one of those factors. All these factors are not NASA’s business, all they need it to find out is how much and where, any and all volatiles but probably water is most important one.
Mars is huge area relative to small lunar polar regions. NASA getting bogged down on Mars, is expected.
Or a danger of Mars exploration is it’s going bore the public- it’s also difficult. And if the Lunar polar region has mineable water, and various billionaires mine it, this might keep public interested in what NASA doing on Mars {Or so Mars does not turn out like Apollo did- Congress defunding it a fast as they could}.
It will be a very long La Nia.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202208.gif
How large are the measurement uncertainties?
You just stuck your finger in a hornet’s nest.
The most recent uncertainty analysis we have is Christy et al. 2003 [https://tinyurl.com/3h7xkyfw]. Monthly anomalies are assessed at +/- 0.20 C (k=2). I did my own type A evaluation with RSS a few months back I got +/- 0.16 C (k=2).
Thanks for the reference. Apparently, the trend of .06 K/decade has doubled since publication, with no visibly obvious inflection in the data.
It’s unusual to not include uncertainty with such data. Most people don’t realize that these satellites are at or beyond their accuracy limit.
I remember coming to the same conclusion about historical US thermometer data and time-of-observation adjustments. It was just assumed that the volunteers who put considerable effort into the measurements didn’t have the wherewithal to fix an obvious double-counting error.
Roy and others
When will you heed the extremely serious accusations that I have proven to be correct, namely that the CSIRO in Australia has failed to acknowledge that the claims that greenhouse gases warm the planet (when in fact, according to correct physics, they cool it) are based on nothing but fictitious, fiddled physics? You cannot get any physicist to prove their physics correct or to prove mine wrong. Ask the IPCC, NASA and the CSIRO to provide the physics used in their climate models to quantify the Earth’s surface temperature. Send their response to me for comment. You will find that they add solar and atmospheric radiation and use the sum in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. But that law only gives correct temperatures that can be attained by radiation from a single source, not the sum of that from multiple sources. A cheap experiment proves them wrong. They also assume the troposphere would have been isothermal in the absence of greenhouse gases, but gravity would have formed an even steeper gradient making the surface temperature hotter as the quantity of greenhouse gases reduces to, say, half.
Yeah, Do*ug Cot*ton.
You told us that stuff years ago, and Mr Spencer proved you wrong.
There’s $10,000 for the first to prove myself, Prof Claes Johnson and the brilliant 18th century physicist Josef Loschmidt wrong about gravity forming the temperature gradient which is the state of maximum entropy (which we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium) because there are no unbalanced energy potentials when the sum of molecular kinetic and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous over altitude. That, of course, means there will be a temperature gradient – assuming you know something about the kinetic theory of gases as used by Einstein and many others – but you probably don’t. It’s a pity you and Roy don’t understand the process of maximum entropy production which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about. You probably have a naive school-boy “understanding” that it is only about heat and temperature. It’s not. Submit your weak attempt at proving my physics wrong by all means right here if you or Roy has the guts to debate me.
Over 3,150 have watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI
Thanks for the link. Look forward to watching. Everyone, even the alarmists, intuitively know that there must be something wrong with the science behind the dire predictions. The government is ALWAYS the last bad actor, thus we have the Green New Deal.
Yes, the August data continues to show net global cooling since the peak of the 60-year cycle in 1998. Back in 2011 I predicted there would be such a trend. The 1000-year cycle will probably peak around 2057 to 2060 with temperatures only about half a degree above the 1998 peak, and then there will be about 500 years of global cooling. Some of my comments are being deleted, but anyone may write to me at [email protected] or submit an attempt at refutation on Researchgate. I doubt that Roy has the courage to leave my comments here.
” the August data continues to show net global cooling since the peak of the 60-year cycle in 1998″
And thus we establish that you are nuts…
“Yes, the August data continues to show net global cooling since the peak of the 60-year cycle in 1998.”
Oh let’s have a look:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend/plot/uah6/trend
5 year average centred on 1998: -0.05
5 year average to August 2022: 0.22
I’m not seeing that global temps have cooled.
Except if you compare last month’s anomaly with the warmest month in 1998.
You can do the same by carefully selecting a day in Winter that is warmer than a day in Summer, but I think everyone would agree it is stupid to say that therefore Summer is cooler than Winter.
Your mistake is obvious to any high school science student. Two things can happen at the same time. Heat transfer by thermal radiation is a complex topic that requires an understanding of Black Body Radiation and its relation to the individual spectra of individual gases as well as the surface of the earth. The entire interaction is extremely complex, and it defies your simplistic analysis. Have fun!
Yes indeed, you do need to learn the correct physics about blackbody radiation and why it cannot cause heat from the cold greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to the already-warmer surface the temperature of which is maintained by the effect of gravity forming the observed non-zero tropospheric temperature gradient. By all means attempt to refute my 2012 paper on radiation by publishing your refutation on Researchgate if you think you understand how and why every single one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law states: “in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.” (Wikipedia: Laws of Thermodynamics) It refers to every single such process. Radiation out of the surface and non-radiative surface cooling processes are NOT “interacting” systems in regard to “back radiation” which is grossly overstated. Back radiation only raises electrons through quantum energy states: its energy is not thermalized into kinetic energy in the atoms or molecules involved.
Climatology energy diagrams even show more thermal energy supposedly coming out of the base of the atmosphere than enters at the top! (LOL)
I suggest you study my writings before replying, and only do so if and when you think you can apply your “radiative forcing” invention by Pierrehumbert to explain why the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s global mean surface temperature.
I have been first in the world to explain the heat which achieves such temperatures, including those of the Venus surface. You have a lot to learn from my very extensive post-graduate research and world-first discovery of that heat process.
Re the absurd implications of climatology energy diagrams that the atmospheres of Earth and Venus apparently generate thermal energy sending more out of the base of these atmospheres than enters at the top see this image which is also on my website that gets blocked here by Roy …
http://homestead.com/climateimages/NASA-2.jpg
If the Venus surface temperature were warmed on the sunlit side by radiation there would have to be over 16,500 w/sqm from the less-hot atmosphere somehow violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereas the solar radiation even before reflection is only about 2,600 w/sqm so the atmosphere violates the First Law also does it? But a location on that Venus surface does in fact warm by about 5 degrees from 732K to 737K over the course of about four months on the sunlit side, having cooled by that amount on the dark side as is to be expected. Only the heat process that I discovered (which only happens in a force field) can achieve that warming and it is not a radiation process.
Also see this graphic of the study in my second paper on SSRN showing that the main greenhouse gas water vapor cools rather than warms the surface. This is what is to be expected when you understand the correct physics in that 2013 paper. In response to my Freedom of Information the CSIRO in Australia has not been able to produce any counter study and nor can they produce any documented physics or experiment supporting the incorrect use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for the sum of radiation from the Sun and the atmosphere. That law is only for a single source. So climatologists make two major mistakes – this wrong use of that Law and their failure to recognise that the temperature gradient is a direct result of the maximum entropy production associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
I should not feed the troll, but you remind me of someone. My high school physics teacher once very explicitly explained to the class that he did not understand gravity. He stated that terminal velocity is a property of gravity and objects stop accelerating at 120 mph. Most of the students laughed to themselves knowing that terminal velocity is highly variable depending on the object. It is simply the speed at which wind resistance equals the weight (not mass) of the object.
Yes I could detect that you had nothing more than a bit of high school physics. I have four years full time study of university physics plus 10 years of extensive postgraduate study in the field of atmospheric and sub-terrestrial physics in which I made a world-first and very significant and relevant discovery. I have pee-reviewed writings and a book about that discovery. You are obviously out of your depth in this discussion so I suggest you don’t interrupt any serious discussion with others such as may starting. Your trolling is of no interest to me, but you probably have a financial interest in what is the biggest scientific scam in history now rubbished by thousands of scientists who understand long-established physics. It was proved wrong by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in the 19th century.
“the solar radiation even before reflection is only about 2,600 w/sqm so the atmosphere violates the First Law also does it?
“But a location on that Venus surface does in fact warm by about 5 degrees from 732K to 737K over the course of about four months on the sunlit side”
So you are thinking that the sun’s input of 2600 W/m^2 cannot possibly warm the surface to 737 K? And this is a violation of 1LOT?
FALSE.
With the help of insulation, a small heat flux can produce a high temperature.
1LOT is about Conservation of Energy, not Conservation of Power or Heat Flux.
So you are a physicist who seems to have forgotten some rather fundamental physics.
I do have a financial interest. Someone is trying to take away our access to cheap reliable plentiful energy on the basis of a false claim of AGW hypothesis that will destroy the economy we all depend on for our lifestyles.
Thus it is in your interest to try to cast doubt on the science, regardless of its validity?
This certainly seems to be the case for many commenters here who are not knowledgeable enough to actually judge the validity of the science, but confidently judge it anyway.
This is also how some corporations have responded to legitimate science that affected their profit margin.
Tobacco companies, as discussed recently,
Leaded gasoline companies, drug companies.
chemical companies, fossil fuel companies,
have all tried to cast doubt on science that ultimately turned out to be valid and hurt their bottom line.
You can read about some of the history here.
https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
If the fake Physicist did have 4 years of university physics, it must have been one of those mail-order courses.
. Back radiation only raises electrons through quantum energy states: its energy is not thermalized into kinetic energy in the atoms or molecules involved.
Radiation is how we detect temperature.
If back radiation is added to direct radiation that gives us the temperature on the earth surface
It is not the kinetic motion that we detect with thermometers.
To my beloved sock puppet,
You were banned by Roy:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Cheerios.
And nearly 3,000 have downloaded my papers, with thousands more at least reading the abstracts. The same papers and four more articles have also been read by thousands on Researchgate where only qualified scientists can submit, so any reader with scientific qualifications could submit an attempted refutation there, but there is no correct refutation of any of my papers in over a decade, including the initial peer-reviewed paper in 2012 on radiation, citing Prof Claes Johnson and extending his work. I have also extended the work of Josef Loschmidt and, based on evidence throughout the Solar System, the probability of my being wrong is at least billions to one against.
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Im currently making at least an additional $37,000 a month with Domestic through Domestics fairly honest and simple online paintings. r540 through the accompanying training resources
on a specific website .. http://waytoincome24.blogspot.com
Those who want to understand what regulates the natural 1000-year and 60-year natural climate cycles and how cosmic rays (that assist cloud formation) cause climate change should read my third paper on ssrn and also my latest article …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
D C returns.
Thank you for the update, Dr Spencer.
Best comment in this whole thread.
As I predicted awhile ago the Sun activity made another move sideways with average of 75 Spots
https://i.postimg.cc/mrYt7Q8v/Clipboard01-2.jpg
Now wait for Bindidong’s nonsense babbling response
It’s no coincidence that the Little Ice Age was when sunspot activity barely existed in the Maunder Minimum. That is because as sunspot activity increases it expands the heliosphere around the Sun. That extends beyond the inner Solar System where we are and this heliosphere reduces the influx of cosmic rays. In the last decade or so scientists have established the fact that cosmic rays do in fact assist cloud formation and, understandably, more clouds means cooler temperatures. On average clouds reflect about 20% of the solar radiation straight back to Space. That figure would only have to vary between about 19% and 21% to explain all the climate change about which scientists are reasonably certain in the last 4,000 years or so. There is a clear cycle of a bit over 1,000 years and we are approaching a peak in that before 500 years of cooling. The last peak in the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than the present. Then the peak before that (in Roman times) was warmer still, and about 3,200 years ago there was a warmer period than the Roman one. There is a graph of this on my website.
> The last peak in the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than the present.
Yet it’s warmer now, which is good for crops:
https://tinyurl.com/ye2b26d5
Yes, warmer is good for a lot of things.
If the AGW crowd gets their way and things become colder, a lot of the economic world we enjoy will deteriorate.
Thanks for the reminder, Lewis:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-growth/
I have to work on that page!
“If the AGW crowd gets their way and things become colder…”
Could you please cite any of the “AGW crowd” hoping things will get colder? I think you made that up.
I wouldn’t wonder when the babbling Edog gullibly believes in what ‘physicist’ D C wrote above:
” It’s no coincidence that the Little Ice Age was when sunspot activity barely existed in the Maunder Minimum. ”
This is wrong.
The LIA began within the XVIth centrury; the Maunder Minimum started around 1645, i.e. about a century later, and ended 1715, long time after Maunder ended.
Some people see LIA starting even much earlier, around 1350:
https://tinyurl.com/yck4ttmy
From:
The Little Ice Age signature in a 700-year high-resolution chironomid record of summer temperatures in the Central Eastern Alps
Elena A. Ilyashuk & al. 2018
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-018-4555-y
Typo…
” The LIA began within the XVIth centrury; the Maunder Minimum started around 1645, i.e. about a century later, and ended 1715, long time before LIA. “
“Little Ice Age (LIA), climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 C (1.1 F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 CE. The term Little Ice Age was introduced to the scientific literature by Dutch-born American geologist F.E. Matthes in 1939. Originally the phrase was used to refer to Earths most recent 4,000-year period of mountain-glacier expansion and retreat. Today some scientists use it to distinguish only the period 15001850, when mountain glaciers expanded to their greatest extent, but the phrase is more commonly applied to the broader period 13001850. The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 9001300 CE) and preceded the present period of warming that began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age
Holá babbling Edog!
More ‘sideways’ for you to enjoy:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
Eben,
The sunspot records have lots of up, down and sideways periods on their cycle trajectories.
They are noise, not signal.
I said this could be the first of the double peak maximum, Ren said this is the first peak of the maximum.
We put ourselves on the record.
You are just a blabbering ankle biting troll playing a Bindidong’s sidekick
Ok so you cant tell the difference between noise and signal.
Here’s a clue: AFTER a smooth curve is fitted to the completed cycle you see that most of what you thought were peaks were just wiggles.
Another clue is the sun rotates the sun spot groups around in ~ a month
Hmmm
rhe UAH6.0 global temp anomaly is currently at 0.28C vs. CMIP6 average computer models predicted we should be at 1.35C by now if the CAGW scam was a viable hypothesis, which it is not.
It seems like were in a very rare triple-dip La Nina cycle, so the next El Nino cycle likely wont start until the end of 2023, and will likely be a moderate one, followed by another La Nina cycle which will likely be strong one since there hasnt been a strong La Nina cycle since 2010.
The PDO 30-year cool cycle started in 2017, and a 30-year AMO cool cycle will likely start around 2025, which will bring 30+ years of flat or falling global temperature trends from around 2025, which will kill this stupid CAGW farce once and for all.
“UAH6.0 global temp anomaly is currently at 0.28C vs. CMIP6 average computer models predicted we should be at 1.35C”
Not comparing like with like.
UAH6.0 is an anomaly temperature above (IIRC) the 1990_2020 baseline.
CMIP6 model runs project an anomaly temperatures above a pre-industrial baseline.
To compare them you would have to adjust them to the same baseline.
Both UAH6.0 and CMIP6 models represent global temperature anomalies..
CMIP6 computer projections are wildly devoid from reality.
Weve enjoyed about 1.0 C of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, which CO2 has contributed about 50% or 0.5C of the total.
Who cares about such a trivial amount of beneficial CO2 induced warming, which is net boon for life in earth
CAGW is dead. Its time to stop wasting money on this hoax.
SAMURAI wrote:
Perhaps you are forgetting that the UAH LT is not the temperature of the surface, which you point to, so comparing the two must take that into account. And, the UAH product is running cooler than the RSS TLT or TTT products which uses the same satellite data.
Since 2005, which is when they stopped using NOAA14 data?
RLH, The NH trends per decade for Dec 2004 thru June 2022 are:
UAH LT: 0.236
RSS TLT: 0.277
RSS TTT: 0.244
One can not directly compare the UAH LT and RSS TLT global, since RSS excludes data poleward of 70S and other areas of high elevation, such as Greenland, the Andes and Himalayas. That may explain the difference between the NAH data for RSS TLT and the LT and TTT.
We had the exact same discussion 3 months ago. There is no possible you didn’t know that the 1.35 C figure is on the 1881-1910 baseline whereas UAH is on the 1991-2020 baseline.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-3526677
And please don’t take this personally, but CMIP6’s 1700 month lead-time prediction skill is superior to your 6 month lead-time prediction skill. Given that why should we believe a 36 month lead-time prediction from you?
” Both UAH6.0 and CMIP6 models represent global temperature anomalies … ”
That sentence shows us that SAMURAI has no idea of how anomalies are constructed.
I won’t go to KNMI to obtain CMIP6’s reference period. A GISS example is enough.
GISS anomalies are constructed wrt the mean of 1951-1980.
The anomaly for July 2022 wrt that period is 0.90 C.
To obtain the anomaly wrt the mean of 1991-2020, we have to displace it with the mean of the 1951-1980 anomalies for that period, which is 0.61 C.
0.90 – 0.61 gives 0.29 C, even less than the UAH LT anomaly: 0.36 C.
The same has to be done when comparing UAH to CMIP6.
I have overlooked that bdgwx mentioned a post he wrote as answer to SAMURAI at WUWT.
First of all, solely the fact that SAMURAI repeats his June WUWT nonsense on this blog in September proves that he not only is incompetent, but also dishonest.
But bdgwx reports that the reference period for CMIP6 is 1881-1910.
The GISS anomaly average wrt 1951-1980 for the period 1881-1910 is -0.26 C.
Thus, if we construct a GISS time series wrt 1881-1910, the anomaly for July 2022 will be 1.16 C, still well a lot below CMIP6 with 1.35 C, but not so terribly far away as SAMURAI falsely insinuated.
“rhe UAH6.0 global temp anomaly is currently at 0.28C vs. CMIP6 average computer models predicted we should be at 1.35C by”
Nice try Samurai. Anomalies are wrt different periods!
UAH is from 1990-2020 average. CMIP6 is from what, preindustrial?
I see. Already pointed out..
Here is the graph for the last few thousand years – note the time scale is right to left so we see long term cooling …
http://homestead.com/climateimages/hco-rwp-mwp.jpg
Then this interesting graph is based on the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all planets. It shows an apparent correlation with the 1000 year cycle and the superimposed 60 year cycle. The eccentricity of the planet Jupiter seems to regulate the 1000 year cycle. I postulate that the fields of the planets (which reach to the Sun) could affect sunspot activity and also the planets can alter the paths of cosmic rays as Venus, Saturn and Jupiter may well do and thus affect the intensity of such rays reaching Earth – thus cloud cover is affected and so temperatures.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/planetcycles.jpg
Enjoy the coming climate cooling …
http://homestead.com/climateimages/coming-climate-cooling.jpg
And so Roy …
As I told you years ago, the temperatures at the base of planetary tropospheres (and any solid surface there) are not determined primarily by radiation if at all. No solar radiation reaches the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus but it’s hotter down there because, as physicists knew in the 1870’s (two decades before a certain pathetic and irrelevant experiment by you-know-who) it is gravity which forms the temperature gradient AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL because it is the state of maximum entropy. It is not formed by back radiation. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law CANNOT be used for the SUM of different sources of radiation. The CSIRO in Australia could not provide me with any evidence that the law works for such a sum, and the fact that it doesn’t is easily established with a cheap experiment – even some electric bar radiators and a thermometer in your backyard on a calm night. Invest in some extension cords and prove the IPCC authors all wrong for less than a hundred bucks!
It is obvious that all their computer models add atmospheric (greenhouse) gas radiation to solar radiation and thus incorrectly calculate the surface temperature. You yourself, Roy, once admitted that the back radiation is not measured but just calculated so as to give the right temperature. What a fudge! They end up showing more energy out of the base of the atmosphere than enters at the top. It’s all right here Roy …
http://homestead.com/climateimages/NASA-2.jpg
I’ve been right all along Roy. Nobody has or ever will prove me wrong. My 2013 discovery of that heat transfer process that only occurs in a force field was the last nail in the GH coffin.
“No solar radiation reaches the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus”
Hmm.
“The troposphere of Uranus is where the methane clouds are.”
Well that does not help much. Are these methane clouds seen because sunlight, make than visible. Or is it radar or visible because heat.
“The Uranian atmosphere can be divided into five main layers: the troposphere, between altitudes of −300[a] and 50 km and pressures from 100 to 0.1 bar;” -Wiki
So 100 to .1 atm, And:
“The troposphere hosts four cloud layers: methane clouds at about 1.2 bar, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia clouds at 310 bar, ammonium hydrosulfide clouds at 2040 bar, and finally water clouds below 50 bar.”
Well still no clue of “350Km high nominal troposphere”
But Methane clouds are at 1.2 bar. And at Uranus distance the sun has
4.04 to 3.39 Watts per square meter. Now back to “350 km high”
Repeat:
“The Uranian atmosphere can be divided into five main layers: the troposphere, between altitudes of −300[a] and 50 km and pressures from 100 to 0.1 bar; the stratosphere, spanning altitudes between 50 and 4000 km and pressures of between 0.1 and 10−10 bar; and the hot thermosphere (and exosphere) extending from an altitude of 4,056 km to several Uranian radii from the nominal surface at 1 bar pressure. Unlike Earth’s, Uranus’s atmosphere has no mesosphere.”
So, from several radius out, the exosphere, thermosphere, and then stratosphere which end at .1 atm and Troposhere begins at .1 atm and at 50 km above a ocean of something. And then high clouds of methane
start at about 1.2 atm.
Anyhow, it seems to me:
“No solar radiation reaches the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus”
Makes no sense. As I assume/infer the troposphere has elevation of about 50 Km.
But I brought my own question about sunlight reaching the clouds and being able to reflect the light back. Which seems unlikely.
But whatever the case, sunlight at 4 watts is not heating anything
much. And I can just leave out how much sunlight is scattered going thru more than 1 atm of mostly hydrogen and helium
Now, instead of wasting my time, read my papers at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 as I have an interview with an important Australian politician in the next half hour or so. It is in connection with the major class action by large companies against the CSIRO at which I shall be giving professional testimony regarding the relevant physics. Over 150,000 have visited my climate websites, watched my videos, downloaded my papers or read my book.
You wrote –
“Over 150,000 have visited my climate websites, watched my videos, downloaded my papers or read my book.”
Far more people have appently read the Bible, the Koran, the Tanakh, or the Veda.
Based on numbers, which one do you think represents truth?
Or do you think truth comes from Uranus?
Nice one!
The Bible contains the Word of God and is true. If you have any questions on it I may be able to help because I gained First Class Honours in each of the three years of a Theology course that I did in my 70’s. I am the author of http://SavedByTheLamb.com
The Word ain’t Jesus, bro.
Besides:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Instead of wasting their time reading our sock puppet’s diatribes, reader might profit from revisiting:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
The height of the Uranus troposphere is 350Km from altitude minus 300 to altitude plus 50. Read my article on Uranus and learn heaps:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
Yes, gravity causes a gradient to form, but not for the reasons you have expressed.
The gradients form in atmospheres because the systems are NOT in equilibrium and are NOT at maximum entropy. There is always heat flowing up through the atmospheres — from some combination of sunlight penetrating the atmospheres, gravitational contraction of gas giants, radioactivity inside planets, and heat left over from the formation of the planets.
As we all know, gas is an excellent insulator. The thermal conductivity of air is less than 0.1 W/m*K (depending on density, composition, and temperature), so a heat flow of even 1 W/m^2 would set up a gradient of at least 10 K/m in still air! Of course, air will not remain still. Convection will take over and limit the gradient to approximately the adiabatic lapse rate. This is why all planetary atmospheres have gradients approximating the adiabatic lapse rate.
This NON-equilibrium heat flow is what sets up the gradient. If you could somehow get column of air that is truly in equilibrium with no heat flows, the temperature would be uniform throughout the column (even if the column were 10 km tall).
Yeah Folkerts, you got one right. A system can NOT be at maximum entropy if there is a temperature gradient.
But, you sure are funny about the ones you want to correct.
You don’t seem interested in correcting the real nonsense here, like correcting the idiots claiming ice cubes can boil water. In fact, wasn’t it you that started that nonsense?
Clint says :”A system can NOT be at maximum entropy if there is a temperature gradient.”
“Physicist” is going to be upset that yet another person disagrees with his break-through, previously unknown discovery!
“… like correcting the idiots claiming ice cubes can boil water. ”
There are many sub-discussions related to ‘ice boiling water’. Anyone who claims that ice and ice alone at 0 C can warm anything above 0 C is wrong. And I have said that consistently and will gladly correct any ‘idiot’ who says that.
But there are situations where ice at 0 C IN CONJUCTION WITH other sources can boil water. For example, when there is a heater, and the ice at 0 C replaces even colder surroundings. Then adding the ice can (with the heater) result in the water boiling.
“In fact, wasnt it you that started that nonsense?”
No. You started it by failing to understand basic physics and misunderstanding what I said!
Clint is mistaken and somewhat naive in his understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.* Changes in any form of internal energy including gravitational potential energy affect entropy. In the absence of phase change, nuclear reactions, chemical reactions (including fire) the remaining natural thermodynamic processes can still involve changes in potential and kinetic energy. In a column of air in the troposphere thermodynamic equilibrium (ie maximum entropy) is only attained when the sum of mean molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous (ie constant) over altitude. Since temperature is proportional to mean kinetic energy and the potential energy varies with altitude then so must the kinetic energy. Hence we have the temperature gradient first explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s and never proven wrong. (Robert Brown made a pathetic attempt to prove Loschmidt wrong and my refutation of Brown is in the WUWT errors page on my website.) BigWaveDave also corrected you Dear Tim years ago at the end of that WUWT thread when you questioned his credentials. I don’t forget such conversations. Try explaining why the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface. I have been first in the world to explain the necessary heat input to support 320K down there. You will never prove me wrong my friend: there’s too much evidence in the Solar System supporting my “heat creep” hypothesis in my 2013 paper at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. And, by the way, there are no “interacting systems” in relation to the passage of radiation from cold CO2 molecules to the warmer surface, so such radiation does not add thermal energy to the surface. Even the climatology “hero” Raymond Pierrehumbert stated that the momentum of photons in back radiation is not sufficient to add translational kinetic energy to surface molecules – such photons can only raise target molecules through matching quantum energy states that are reflected in changes only in rotational and vibrational kinetic energy. Such changes are readily reversed by the emission of an identical photon and that is why we physicists call the process resonant or pseudo scattering. The energy in back radiation photons never becomes thermal (ie kinetic) energy in a warmer area of the surface and so back radiation does not help the solar radiation to raise the surface temperature on a clear sunny morning. It cannot be added to solar radiation in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations because that Law is derived only for a single source and does NOT apply to the sum of radiative fluxes from different sources. So that is the second major error in the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology.
There’s no mention of “heat” or “temperature” in this statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics* because that would be unnecessarily restrictive. Even when a ball rolls down a plank that is the Second Law acting. Likewise when wood burns.
* which “states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.” (Wikipedia: Laws of Thermodynamics)
Nope! You’re doing it again, Folkerts. You’re can’t admit that ice cubes can’t boil water without mentioning ways that could happen. You have to leave the door open, to allow for your perversion of physics.
A handheld IR thermometer reads a clear sky temperature at -27°F. If you use a device to focus the flux, by a factor of 100, on an absorbing surface that is already at 70°F, how much will you raise the surface’s temperature?
And perhaps Dear Tim you would like to explain how and why a carbon dioxide molecule in a clear blue sky without clouds somehow “knows” it must send more radiation downwards (even more than a blackbody could despite the CO2 only radiating in limited frequencies) than it sends upwards. Also explain how the atmosphere apparently creates energy so that it can apparently send more thermal energy out of the base of the atmosphere than enters at the top. For evidence regarding these ridiculous claims by climatologists see the comments under this NASA energy diagram …
http://homestead.com/climateimages/NASA-2.jpg
“Youre cant admit that ice cubes cant boil water without mentioning ways that could happen.”
No. I fully admit that ice cubes cannot — BY THEMSELVES — boil water. I would absolutely disagree with anyone who claims they can.
“A handheld IR thermometer reads a clear sky temperature at -27F. ”
OK. that is a reasonable result. Some weighted average of the warmer lower atmosphere (around 60 F say) in wavelengths where the atmosphere emits IR and the colder depths of outer space (around 2.7 K) in wavelengths of the ‘atmospheric window’.
“If you use a device to focus the flux, by a factor of 100,”
And what, pray tell device do your think could do this? There is no such device. Making up impossible scenarios is not a way to win an argument!
(This is when it gets fun. Folkerts knows he’s trapped and starts squirming.)
What do you object to Folkerts, that infrared can be focused, or the factor of 100?
“What do you object to Folkerts, that infrared can be focused, or the factor of 100?”
In the terms you are using, I object to the “100”.
Radiation from any uniform source cannot be focused any brighter than the source itself. This is a theoretical limit imposed by the 2nd Law. So sunlight cannot be focused any brighter than the surface of the sun. You can’t focus light from a diffuse fluorescent panel any brighter than the surface of the diffuser.
And you can’t focus the diffuse IR light from the atmosphere any brighter than the ‘brightness’ of the initial IR source. So if Ice emits 315 W/m^2 of IR, then IR from ice cannot be focused to be more intense than 315 W/m^2.
And you can’t focus the diffuse radiation from the atmosphere to any thing greater than its initial intensity (ie -27 F or 240 K or 188 W/m^2).
BINGO Folkerts!
And THAT is why the GHE nonsense is bogus. A cold sky can NOT warm a warmer surface, even if focused.
“BINGO Folkerts!”
Glad to see you agree with at least some basic physics.
“And THAT is why the GHE nonsense is bogus. A cold sky can NOT warm a warmer surface, even if focused.”
And then immediately you go off the rails. This claim has basically nothing to do with what I just explained.
I have a surface in the sunlight (or heated by an electric heater or any other source). I can then add
A) no other IR light.
B) unfocused IR light.
Even unfocused, diffuse IR will provide some additional energy (eg up to and additional 315 W/m^2 from 0 C ice) and will cause the surface to be warmer than with no added IR light. The light does not need to be “focused x100” (or even x1.1) to have an impact!
As expected, the squirming beings!
Wrong Folkerts, a -27°F sky can NOT warm a surface that is at 70°F.
Even focussing the flux from the sky, it can NOT warm the surface.
But, don’t let that stop you from squirming….
“Wrong Folkerts, a -27F sky can NOT warm a surface that is at 70F.”
I have a pot of water with a continuously running immersion heater. I put the pot in a cryogenic freezer at -100 F. The immersion heater holds the surface of the pot at 70 F.
I now move the pot to a deep-freezer at -27 F. Any one with a lick of common sense knows that the pot will warm up a bit as the immersion heater keeps running. The introduction of surroundings at -27 F caused the surface to warm above 70F. Something you just claimed was impossible.
I notice you’re no longer using infrared, Folkerts.
Keep squirming. This Whack-a-Mole game is fun.
“I notice youre no longer using infrared, Folkerts.”
Sure I am. These happen to be vacuum freezers. The only transfer is via thermal IR radiation.
(The actual point is that the MEANS of thermal transfer doesn’t matter. Whether it is conduction, convection or radiation, raising the temperature of the surroundings — even when they are always less than the temperature of some other heated surface — can and will cause the temperature of that heated surface to rise.)
Okay, so now you’re back to claiming a -27 °F sky can warm a surface that is at 70 °F. A clear violation of 2LoT.
I was waiting for that one.
Whack!
“Okay, so now youre back to claiming a -27 F sky can warm a surface that is at 70 F. A clear violation of 2LoT.”
And you are back to claiming that radiation can’t violate 2LoT but conduction can.
Whether it is conduction or convection or radiation, the temperature of the cooler surroundings DOES affect temperatures of warmer objects. And this does NOT violate 2LoT.
Oh good, I get two whacks this time.
I never claimed that radiation can’t violate 2LoT but conduction can, Folkerts. You’re making stuff up again.
Whack!
We’re not talking about cooler surroundings affecting temperatures of warmer objects. The violation of 2 LoT is cooler surroundings RAISING temperatures of warmer objects.
Whack!
Please continue.
> I never claimed
U sure, Pup?
“Were not talking about cooler surroundings affecting temperatures of warmer objects. “
Actually, that is EXACTLY what we are talking about!
The surroundings of the heated pot of water AFFECT the temperature of the surface of the pot. Surroundings at -27 F lead to warmer surface temperatures than surrounding at -100 F
The surroundings of the heated earth AFFECT the temperature of the surface of the earth. Surroundings at -27 F K lead to warmer surface temperatures than surroundings at -450 F.
This is true whether we are dealing with conduction or radiation.
This is true whether we are dealing with a pot of water heated with electricity or the earth heated with sunlight.
The atmosphere AFFECTS the surface temperature. Even when the atmosphere is cooler than the surface!
None of this violates the 2LoT. None of this requires heat flowing from the deep freeze to the pot’s surface or from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface .
We’re not talking about cooler surroundings affecting temperatures of warmer objects. The violation of 2 LoT is cooler surroundings RAISING temperatures of warmer objects.
Whack!
This was a repeat, but still fun.
Please continue.
A repeat, but still wrong, Clint.
We were specifically talking about the cooler surroundings affecting the temperature of a warmer pot of water.
And yet you double down on “Were not talking about cooler surroundings affecting temperatures of warmer objects.”
Folkerts, this is where your knowledge of 2LoT fails you. “Cooler surroundings” can COOL a warmer object, but can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer object.
Whack!
Please continue.
Clint, you keep going back to this mantra that you repeat without true understanding.
A blackbody in deep space with an internal 315 W heater and a 1 m^2 surface will be 273 K. This is due to the combination of the heater and the cooler, 3K surroundings.
If the cooler surroundings are raised to 200 K, the object will warm to 290 K. This is due to the combination of the heater and the cooler, 200K surroundings.
If the cooler surrounding are raised to 250 K, the object will warm to 312 K. This is due to the combination of the heater and the cooler, 250K surroundings.
The cooler surroundings matter. Warming those surroundings — even when they stay cooler than the original object — will cause the heated object to get warmer still.
This is all I have ever claimed. This does NOT violate 2LoT.
False. If the troposphere were isothermal there would be unbalanced energy potentials because molecules at the top would have more gravitational potential energy and yet the same kinetic energy as those lower down. At thermodynamic equilibrium (ie maximum entropy) the sum of mean molecular PE plus KE is homogeneous over altitude and hence there is a temperature gradient as was explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in 1876 and never proven wrong. I showed why he was right using physics and evidence in experiments with centrifugal force, as well as data throughout the Solar System. And because Loschmidt was right the whole conjecture about “greenhouse” gases causing the gradient with their radiation crumbles. Read my second paper at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
tim…”Yes, gravity causes a gradient to form, but not for the reasons you have expressed.
The gradients form in atmospheres because the systems are NOT in equilibrium and are NOT at maximum entropy”.
***
Nothing to do with entropy, Tim. The pressure gradient is a simple consequence of a variation in the gravitational field strength. The field is stronger near the surface and drops of with altitude as 1/r^2.
Whereas such a decrease in gravitational force would not be significant to a considerable mass, it is major to a molecule of gas. The stronger field near the surface compacts the molecules producing a higher pressure.
There is no other explanation for why air pressure at 30,000 feet altitude is 1/3rd the pressure at sea level. It means there are 1/3rd the number of air molecules. Entropy has nothing to do with it since entropy is a measure of heat.
The Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, can be written…
P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2
If we know that P2 = 0.3P1 and we compare equal volumes of air, it follows that T2 should be around 0.3T1. I don’t know why this simple fact has escaped modern climate alarmists, who seem to attribute lower pressure at higher altitudes with the mysterious fabrication called lapse rate. They acknowledge that temperature drops with altitude but fail to link it with a gravitationally-induced pressure drop with altitude.
Clausius defined entropy loosely as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat. Therefore entropy is a sum, an integral that loosely measures the amount of heat transferred.. There is no way to speak of a maximum entropy unless the heat is varying in a regular cycle. Referencing entropy in relation to pressure is ingenuous.
Of course, heat is also transported via convection from the surface. Conduction through the gas is negligible. I am talking only of steady-state conditions in a gas.
Entropy is most certainly NOT a measure of heat by which I assume you mean thermal energy. It is a measure of progress towards thermodynamic equilibrium, ie maximum entropy. We physicists use the word “heat” for the PROCESS involving effective transfer of thermal (ie kinetic) energy from a source to a target. It is not a property of anything.
Every single (spontaneous) natural thermodynamic process occurs for one reason alone, namely that it increases entropy. That’s what the Second Law of Thermodynamics* states – see Wikipedia: Laws of Thermodynamics. Nothing happens spontaneously in Nature unless entropy increases. When ice melts, wood burns, a ball rolls down a plank or a cup of coffee cools – all these natural thermodynamic processes (“dynamic” referring to motion) are examples of the Second Law operating.
Now read my 2013 paper to learn about the significance of entropy in this debate because the “heat creep” process that I discovered and have been first in the world to explain from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is indeed increasing entropy (so we know it can happen) and is of fundamental importance in that it enables us to correctly explain observed temperatures in all planetary atmospheres and subsurface regions down to the core. Read my second paper at …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
* “in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
Are you related to Lex Luther?
P.S. In the troposphere we can show that gravity creates …
(1) the density gradient
(2) the temperature gradient
as it acts on individual molecules. For example, imagine a vertical cylinder with no air in it and it being perfectly sealed and insulated. Now puncture a hole in the middle and air rushes in. Those molecules that go into the top half will be slowed by gravity and those that go to the lower half will be accelerated. Hence, since temperature is proportional to mean (translational) kinetic energy, we have a temperature gradient. But there will also be a tendency for slightly more molecules to fall into the lower half because of the way that gravity curves the path of molecules in motion between collisions. A molecule that bounces off another molecule and then goes in a direction just above horizontal may have its path curved by gravity such that it ends up lower than where it last collided. This creates the density gradient. The density gradient and the temperature gradient are both one and the same state of thermodynamic equilibrium – ie maximum entropy.
PRESSURE is proportional to the PRODUCT of temperature and density. In this example the pressure gradient is the RESULT of the temperature and density gradients both being created by gravity. Pressure is NOT the CAUSE of either the density or temperature gradients. High pressure does NOT maintain high temperatures. Entropy has EVERYTHING to do with the formation of the temperature and density gradients because such are natural thermodynamic processes.
The “heat creep” process occurs ONLY because we can show (as I did in my 2013 paper) that it is increasing entropy as it restores a disturbed former state of thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated thermal gradient. The heat creep process leads to a new thermal profile that is parallel to the original one (before the Sun added energy high in the troposphere) but at a higher level because of the new thermal energy which has to be distributed evenly and thus, in part, reaches the surface and warms it, not by radiation as climatologists assume, but by this non-radiative form of “free” or “natural” convective heat transfer as we physicists call it.
“Now puncture a hole in the middle and air rushes in. Those molecules that go into the top half will be slowed by gravity and those that go to the lower half will be accelerated. ”
The problem is that this is NOT the equilibrium situation. You let the air ‘rush in’. It then needs time to actually come to equilibrium. The initial temperature and pressure gradients will settle toward some final state.
The reasoning is subtle, but the net result is indeed an isothermal column when the column is perfectly insulated.
Here is one simple but powerful argument. You claim a temperature gradient equal to the adiabatic lapse rate is the correct equilibrium state. But different gases have different adiabatic lapse rates. so two columns that are the same temperature at the BOTTOM would be different temperatures at the top! Use that temperature gradient to drive a heat engine. Voila! a perpetual motion machine, running off the eternal temperature difference between the tops of the two columns.
“Nothing to do with entropy, Tim. ”
Well, pretty much EVERYTHING is thermodynamics has SOMETHING to do with entropy. But that is not the central issue here.
“The field is stronger near the surface and drops of with altitude as 1/r^2.”
The drop is actually unimportant here. Over distances important here, the field is very close to uniform (ie approximately 9.8 N/kg near the surface, and still about 9.8 N/kg hi in the atmosphere.
But that is also no the central issue here.
“There is no other explanation for why air pressure at 30,000 feet altitude is 1/3rd the pressure at sea level. ”
Again, the explanation works perfectly well for a uniform field. But yes, gravity does cause a pressure and density gradient.
“The Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, can be written
P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2”
No.
P1V1/T1 = n1R and
P2V2/T2 = n2R
Your conclusion is only true if n1 = n2, ie if both samples contain the same number of moles. But you just agreed that equal volumes do NOT contain the same # of moles at sea level as at 30,000 ft — sea level is denser. So you are simply wrong before you even start! Nothing else you say after this has any foundation.
And now you “know why this simple fact has escaped modern climate alarmists”. Because this ‘simple fact’ is wrong!
tim…”Well, pretty much EVERYTHING is thermodynamics has SOMETHING to do with entropy”.
***
Duh!!! Thermodynamics is a science that studies heat and entropy is a measure of heat transfer. Thermodynamics has everything to do with entropy, and vice-versa.
**************************
“[GR]The Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT, can be written
P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2
[Tim]No.
P1V1/T1 = n1R and
P2V2/T2 = n2R
****
[Wiki]hypertext corrected for this blog…
Combined gas law
Combining the laws of Charles, Boyle and Gay-Lussac gives the combined gas law, which takes the same functional form as the ideal gas law, says that the number of moles is unspecified, and the ratio of PV/T is simply taken as a constant:
PV/T = k
where P is the pressure of the gas, V is the volume of the gas, T is the absolute temperature of the gas, and k is a constant. When comparing the same substance under two different sets of conditions, the law can be written as
P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2
Since P is totally dependent on n and V, if V is constant it seems redundant to keep n in the equation since P covers it. That presumes we are sampling similar volumes at different altitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
Remember, Tim, he Ideal Gas Law is a collection of gas laws that was combined by Clapeyron into a single law.
Boyle’s Law….P1V1 = P2V2
Charles’ Law….V1/T1 = V2/T2
Avogadro’s Law…V1/N1 = V2/N2
Gay-Lussac’s Law…P1/T1 = P2/T2
And let’s not forget good, old Dalton…
The total pressure of a gas is the sum of the partial pressures.
Come on, Gordon, you are smarter than this!
The ‘combined form’ has “unspecified” moles — but it has to have the SAME unspecified number of moles for each situation. The requirement for the “same substance” means the same amount of that substance.
“That presumes we are sampling similar volumes at different altitudes.”
No! That presumes you are sampling similar NUMBERS OF MOLES at different altitudes!
Remember, Gordon
Boyles Law.P1V1 = P2V2
Charles Law.V1/T1 = V2/T2
Gay-Lussacs LawP1/T1 = P2/T2
all only hold true if we assume ‘a given mass’ with a constant number of moles on each side of the equation! And the same for the ‘combined form’.
Entropy is not a measure only of “heat transfer” because mass transfer can also be involved. In the quote below “equilibrium” is referring to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, maximum entropy:
“In the state of equilibrium, all irreversible processes finish… Entropy transfer occurs either through heat or mass transfer.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/clausius-statement#:~:text=1The%20Clausius%20statement%20of%20the,body%20to%20a%20hotter%20body.%E2%80%9D
And the game of “Whack-a-Mole” begins! The moles pop up, each spouting a pet scenario and each spouting a pet explanation. The explanations usually contradict not only each other, but also text book physics. No matter how many corrected explanations are given, there are always two or three or 10 new “But what about ____?” that pop up!
Tim, please stop trolling.
(There, I whacked the mole)
Tim…it helps if you understand the text book physics. Your interpretations are like nothing I have ever read.
“Your interpretations are like nothing I have ever read.”
Really. Would you care to point to even one thing I have written and one currently used physics textbook, and show how my writing disagrees with the textbook?
Folkerts, some of your nonsense isn’t in textbooks. For example, your two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface and heating it to 325K.
That ain’t physics.
“For example, your two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface and heating it to 325K.”
If there is one sunbeam providing 315 W/m^2 to a surface, and then a second sunbeam of 315 W/m^2 is added (say with a mirror), the net flux is 630 W/m^2. These fluxes can and do add. Exactly as I and common sense and every text on radiative heat transfer would conclude.
Those are ‘my two 315 W/m^2 fluxes’. Arriving at a surface. They do add.
You might have different 315 W/m^2 fluxes in mind. But you are discussing ‘my’ two fluxes. You don’t get to substitute ‘your’ fluxes for ‘my’ fluxes.
No Folkerts, the flux in question is YOUR example:
“Folkerts, some of your nonsense isn’t in textbooks. For example, your two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface and heating it to 325K.”
Quit perverting the situation.
I don’t know how to be any clearer. Yes, the flux in question is MY example.
And my example is two 315 W/m^2 fluxes from the sun arriving a surface, which will combine and will heat it to 325K.
All of your attempts to redefine the problem are trying to put words in to my mouth that I have never said. You can ask about how your fluxes will behave, but that is a different question!
Wrong Folkerts. Your original example was solar plus ice”
“And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and [t]he final temperature would still be 325 K.”
Whack!
So it is YOU trying to “redefine the problem”, not me.
Whack!
If you keep this going much longer, I’ll need a new mallet….
Clint, that is a DIFFERENT question from a DIFFERENT unresolved discussion. We can get to that eventually. But first you have to agree to the following.
1) the 5700K sun can create a flux of 315 W/m on a surface. That flux by itself would warm a blackbody surface in space to 273 K
2) two such fluxes could be shone onto a surface, creating a flux of 630 W/m^2 on the surface. Those combined fluxes would warm a blackbody surface in space to 325 K.
No, Dear Tim. You can’t add radiative fluxes from different sources and use the sum in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations because that Law is derived from the integral of a single source. Simple experiments confirm what I have said and no physics text says otherwise – only the invented physics of Raymond Pierrehumbert by which you have been brainwashed because climatologists think they can add solar and atmospheric radiation to explain GH gas warming. But that’s their second huge mistake, the first being to have assumed the troposphere would have been isothermal in the absence of GHG. It’s time you studied my 2013 paper as thousands have. It’s the second one at …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
and it’s also on Researchgate where you may try to post a refutation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
” the troposphere, between altitudes of −300[a] and 50 km ”
Yep: The difference between -300 and +50 is indeed 350 as any schoolboy would know.
Yep – With solar radiation only 4 w/sqm at the top of the Venus atmosphere this compares with Venus receiving about 2,600 w/sqm and yet even for Venus where the troposphere is only 50 Km high, barely 2.5% of that far stronger radiation gets through. That’s less than an eighth of what Earth’s surface receives. But the Venus surface is around 745K. The Uranus troposphere is indeed about seven times as high as the Venus one.
So I rest my case. At the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere there is no solid surface to absorb any solar radiation, virtually none of which gets through anyway.
So I also quote from Wiki: “The temperature falls from about 320 K (47 C; 116 F) at the base of the nominal troposphere at −300 km to 53 K (−220 C; −364 F) at 50 km.” *
Yes, the weak solar radiation at the top is only able to achieve and maintain temperatures around 53K. But the base of the troposphere is about 320 K and that is supported by the heat process I have been first in the world to discover and explain from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I suggest you cease making a fool of yourself showing that you did not even understand negative altitudes. The base at “-300Km” is indeed 350Km below the top at +50Km.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere
— physicist says:
September 2, 2022 at 1:35 AM
the troposphere, between altitudes of −300[a] and 50 km
Yep: The difference between -300 and +50 is indeed 350 as any schoolboy would know.–
So, saying 4 watt per square meter of sunlight does not warm the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus. A bottom we have not even detected, but there are various theories/models about what could be down there.
What do people say about it:
–Uranus gets its blue-green color from methane gas in the atmosphere. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and is reflected back out by Uranus’ cloud tops. Methane gas absorbs the red portion of the light, resulting in a blue-green color.
Uranus is one of two ice giants in the outer solar system (the other is Neptune). Most (80% or more) of the planet’s mass is made up of a hot dense fluid of “icy” materials water, methane, and ammonia above a small rocky core. Near the core, it heats up to 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit (4,982 degrees Celsius).–
What is meant by small rock core?
How big is Uranus rocky core?
“The core is relatively small, with a mass of only 0.55 Earth masses and a radius less than 20% of Uranus’; the mantle comprises its bulk, with around 13.4 Earth masses, and the upper atmosphere is relatively insubstantial, weighing about 0.5 Earth masses and extending for the last 20% of Uranus’s radius.”
Hmm so it’s core is suppose to be cooler than Earth core, but bigger than Earth core.
We are thought to have dense and hot core: wiki: It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth’s radius”
The temperature at the inner core’s surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K (5,430 C; 9,800 F)
Mass of it: That density implies a mass of about 10^23 kg for the inner core, which is 1⁄60 (1.7%) of the mass of the whole Earth
Earth mass: 5.9722 10^24 kg times .55 = 3.28471 0^24 kg
So Uranus core is about 32 times bigger and bit colder than
Earth’s core.
And has much bigger mantle than Earth, but it seems it’s core is larger relative it’s mantle as compared to Earth’s core and mantle.
I would guess, Earth core is mostly denser and Uranus has more mass of mostly less dense material.
But these are mostly guesses without much data.
But important thing is they say it’s icy mantle.
So guess what do the say it’s temperature of atmosphere is?
“Just above the “surface” of Uranus lies the troposphere, where the atmosphere is the densest. The temperature ranges from minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 153 degrees Celsius) to minus 370 F (minus 218 C) , with the upper regions being the coldest. This makes the atmosphere of Uranus the coldest in the solar system. ”
So, water clouds are like our water clouds which have a lot of ice particles??
–Radiation from the sun and from space heats the stratosphere of Uranus from minus 370 F (minus 218 C) to minus 243 F (minus 153 C). The stratosphere contains ethane smog, which may contribute to the planet’s dull appearance.–
Well, that seems like a lot warming from 4 watts of sunlight.
But I bet a lot space rocks are hitting it.
Escape velocity (km/s) 21.3
So, it would hit by impactors at velocity similar to Earth.
And don’t know it hit more than Earth- but I imagine it would.
So, maybe 1/4 of heat. minus 153 C. And our Moon is -130 C
Oh so it’s much colder than nightside our moon. I wish they give K, so:
-153 C is 120 K
and in atmosphere: -218 C = 55 K to 120 K
So not as cold as permanent shadowed crater on Moon but still very cold. And light reflected off crater wall 1/2 km away could add 50 to 100 K. It does not take much heat to warm up that kind of cold.
Anyhow I don’t people are talking much in terms of greenhouse effect in regard to Uranus.
really thought it might shoot up to .14/decade this month
best performing models are still in the ECS range 1.2 to 1.7
trillions of dollars still being wasted on the wrong problem
this still looks about right to me, though of course we have three more years support for lower ECS values
https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/01/whats-the-worst-case-climate-sensitivity/
The imaginary “surface” dear friend is the layer designated as zero altitude, only 50Km below the top of the troposphere. That’s why the average temperature above it is indeed very cold. I gave you the data from Wikipedia – 53K at altitude +50Km but 320K at -300Km which is the base of the nominal troposphere.
Actual measurements by Voyager II exhibited the start of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient which facilitates the “heat creep” process you need to read about. It is valid to extrapolate the Voyager measurements down to -300Km altitude as being about 320K there (that is, 300Km below the nominal imaginary “surface” at zero altitude. And thus 350Km below the top of that nominal troposphere, as you seemed to think was not the case. You’ll never prove me wrong my friend, so don’t try unless you’re a beggar for punishment.) The temperature gradient may be calculated (and confirmed by data) based on the quotient of the acceleration due to a planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. I did the calculations years ago and the formula works for all planets because it is based on my valid physics. Greenhouse gas radiation reduces the magnitude of that gradient a little (like 5%) on Uranus.
And, by the way, the “heat creep” process is also what “heats up” the core as well as the base of the troposphere. The same goes for all planets including Earth’s subterrestrial regions. The rest of my response is here …
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
(About 3,500 have viewed the Abstract with over 800 downloading the whole paper which has also been read by thousands on other websites. It’s time you did so. Good night from here.)
Finally, it’s just on two years since I wrote this article on Uranus …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
When you construct another sun cycle ramp up prediction
non-prediction psychobabble
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352569
include an update on your Nino1+2 psychobabble prediction non-prediction you made
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279572
Thanks babbling Edog for reminding us about things you aren’t about to understand even a little bit of.
What do I read above, posted by the ‘physicist’ ??
” Yes, the August data continues to show net global cooling since the peak of the 60-year cycle in 1998. ”
WOW.
That’s climate pseudoscience at it’s best, isn’t it?
Here is UAH 6.0 LT for the aforementioned period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gy8Uh7vpSeJkgwLuRhnrjzZ08IwpipRz/view
Linear estimate: 0.11 +- 0.02 C / decade
If you take UAH’s absolute values instead, the estimate is even a bit higher, of course at the cost of a slightly higher standard error due to higher deviations in the data:
Linear estimate: 0.12 +- 0.07 C / decade
*
Maybe the ‘physicist’ looks at time series like Robertson, and draws a line from April 1998 down to August 2022.
Yeah.
“Thats climate pseudoscience at its best, isnt it?”
***
No, it’s a fact. The global average is lower now than in 2016.
And Robertson continues distorting everything everywhere.
” Yes, the August data continues to show net global cooling since the peak of the 60-year cycle in 1998. ”
Aren’t you able to simply READ, you dumbie?
I don’t pay attention to red-herring arguments.
Here is my take in global warming due to CO2.
About 1800 after the little ice age global temperatures started to increase from about 1800 through the 1900’s. Measurements such as they were recorded an increase of about o.6 degrees C over the first 100 years.
With the more accurate satellite measurements of global temperature change as recorded by UHA beginning in 1979 the annual year end average to date is looking like 0.25 degrees C to the end of 2022. As a 100 year trend this is (o.25/43)*100 which is 0.6 degrees C
Since CO2 was not an issue in the 1800’s and early 1900’s the measurements recorded by UHA during the growth years of CO2 show there is no cause and effect of atmospheric warming caused by CO2.
There is no argument CO2 will warm by infrared radiation but obviously it’s temperature increase due to the warming is too small to influence the natural cause that we see.
1) It’s “UAH”, not UHA.
2) “There is no argument CO2 will warm by infrared radiation “
Sorry, but there is an argument. CO2 can NOT warm the planet. Unless you believe ice cubes can boil water….
Geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, who was a pioneer in research of the solar wind, has claimed re-warming from the LIA should be about 0.5C/century. He also claimed the IPCC erred by failing to take that re-warming into account.
Even though the IPCC acknowledged the LIA and the Medieval Warming Period, in the 1990 review, they are now distancing themselves from the theory. They have bought into the stupid idea of alarmists that the LIA was a local event to Europe.
There is strong proxy evidence and anecdotal evidence that the LIA was global. Explorers seeking a Northwest Passage between 1600 and 1850, reported the Arctic blocked by ice, even in summer. Later explorers around the 1800s, who reached what is now navigable passages in the NW Passage reported it blocked by ice in that era during summer.
The Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps expanded enormously down a valley, wiping out long-established farms and villages. It is not possible that such a cold climate could be localized to one area and not affect the rest of the globe.
Anecdotal evidence from North America showed the cold climate conditions had extended as far south as present day Florida and Texas. Aboriginals were starving due to their inability to grow crops. Proxy data has revealed similar conditions in China and South America during the LIA.
The IPCC continue to lie to the public as they support their political, idiotic masters.
“has claimed re-warming from the LIA should be about 0.5C/century. He also claimed the IPCC erred by failing to take that re-warming into account.”
His 2013 paper doesn’t state a mechanism for change, just this ‘rebound’ idea that obviously doesn’t explain anything.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4/htm
Clint
Apologies’ re UHA. I did not infer CO2 is causing atmospheric warming that can be measured just that IR will warm CO2 That is a fact.
Clint
Apologies’ re UHA. I did not infer CO2 is causing atmospheric warming that can be measured just that IR will warm CO2 That is a fact.
IR does not warm CO2, let alone H2O.
These two molecules (together with CH4, N2O, the CFC group) intercept IR and re-emit it in all directions, what causes energy imbalance because not all IR reaches space.
You really are an idiot, Binny. Tyndall proved circa 1850 that CO2 absorbs IR and warms. The questions is, how much, and what effect that warming has on surrounding gas molecules? No one has ever proved there is any effect, yet that is the entire basis of modern GHE and AGW theory.
Circa 1909, R.W. Wood an expert on gases like CO2, who was consulted by Neils Bohr due to his expertise on gases, stated he did not think CO2 could warm the atmosphere. Wood would have been aware of the Ideal Gas Law and came to the obvious conclusion there was not enough CO2 to cause the other gases in the atmosphere to warm.
At 400 ppmv, one CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. Since CO2 can absorb no more than 5% of surface radiation and the nitrogen and oxygen will have heat of their own and in thermal equilibrium with the CO2, it’s highly unlikely that CO2 could have a significant warming effect on the N2/O2.
AGW theory is built on a house of cards.
” Circa 1909, R.W. Wood an expert on gases like CO2… ”
You are the idiot here, Robertson.
Wood was an eminent specialist of light and associated frequencies (UV, near IR).
Wood never and never claimed to have been a CO2 specialist, let alone one for CO2’s relation to far IR frequencies.
YOU are the one who distorts the history of Science in order to spread your nonsense.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here are two claims you made:
(C1) Tyndall proved circa 1850 that CO2 absorbs IR and warms.
(C2) No one has ever proved there is any effect
Pick one.
Nice try Willard, here is the full statement…
c2)”The questions is, how much, and what effect that warming has on surrounding gas molecules? No one has ever proved there is any effect, yet that is the entire basis of modern GHE and AGW theory”.
Both C1 and C2 are correct, given the full context in which they were stated.
C’mon, Gordo:
(C1) Tyndall proved circa 1850 that CO2 absorbs IR and warms.
(C2) No one has ever proved there is any effect, yet
The “yet” introduces another clause.
The “any” in C2 is refuted by C1.
I’m paid to read.
You don’t read.
Witless Willard,
Who is deranged enough to pay you to read?
You are lying, aren’t you?
Either that, or you are talking advantage of someone who suffers from an intellectual disability.
Which is it?
Looking forward Sir Willard to your attempts at answering the 15 questions I posed for Roy and alarmists at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1359461
Here are my responses, good Sir:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Here is the tiny document presented by Wood:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FRwisYlwsjGiM6hseCRZSgGFl5b-Rg9Y/view
It is evident that Wood underestimated the fact that when eliminating the effect of solar near IR by adding a glass plate, he would conversely eliminate any effect of terrestrial far IR as well.
*
” I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter… ”
Hmmmmh.
There is a big difference between someone of Wood’s stature not pretending to have gone deeply into the matter and people like modern alarmists who have not gone into it at all.
To a highly experienced scientist like Wood, it was obvious that CO2 at 0.04% could not contribute significant warming.
La Nina works. The entire north above Europe (from Greenland to Siberia) is blocked by highs.
ren’s usual wrong stuff…
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/b495a4af-9d31-4f4f-ba5c-fca4fbb1c70d/964df132ad012c8524df77238aa847fc/89ab5c39-26a7-4be3-a414-1ac186a7e196.png
We are since days and for days under heavy influence of big low pressure areas.
If Binny thinks Ren is wrong, that means Ren is right. Binny is the site buffoon.
Sez the dumb Ignoramus who claims that when Newton writes
“Jupiter certainly revolves with respect to the fixed points in 9.56 hours, Mars in 24.39 hours, Venus in about 23 hours, the Earth in 23.56 hours, the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours 43′. ”
Sir Isaac understands under ‘revolves’ something like ‘orbits’.
Robertson calling others ‘buffoon’… OMG.
Bin, when you’re dealing with words, languages, translations, and your lack of knowledge about orbital motion, there’s no doubt you’re confused.
The planets mentioned are “rotating” while “orbiting”. Moon is only orbiting.
In correct, modern usage, “orbiting” and “revolving” are the same motions. “Rotating” refers to axial rotation.
Newton’s Principia ( 3rd edition in 1726, just before he died)
Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV:
” Quoniam enim Luna circà axem suum uniformiter revolvit eodem tempore quo circà Tellurem periodum suam absolvit ”
Translation:
” For the Moon uniformly revolves around its axis in the same time as it completes its period around the Earth ”
No one can ignore, distort or erase what Newton wrote.
Isaac would never have written something as dumb as that. He had already pointed out correctly that the Moon moves with a constant velocity via curvilinear motion. It’s obvious that a body moving like that, keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, cannot possibly rotate about a local axis at the same time.
1. ” Isaac would never have written something as dumb as that. ”
Now Robertson moves into pure denial. And he is too much a coward to go into the source.
https://tinyurl.com/ycokq9ys
Easy to find.
*
2. ” He had already pointed out correctly that the Moon moves with a constant velocity via curvilinear motion. ”
And if that was not enough, he now starts inventing and lying again.
Nowhere did Newton write that in his Principia.
Nowhere!
Even something as sacred as the Bible has been altered by enthusiastic scribes. No one knows if Principia has been amended over the centuries by equally enthusiastic scribes.
Or simply mis-translated.
Gordon
“Isaac would never have written something as dumb as that.”
As dumb as what? That the moon’s phases are caused by the shadow of the earth?
Who was it who made that claim and refuses to withdraw it?
” No one knows if Principia has been amended over the centuries by equally enthusiastic scribes.
Or simply mis-translated. ”
Exactly.
Through magic, scribes over the past few centuries have introduced precisely what Robertson does not want to read, and just as covertly removed what he misses.
Is it even possible to be dumber than Robertson, to fall lower than him?
I’m not that sure.
But what I am more than 100% sure of is that Robertson and Clint R will repeat their dumb lies about Newton at the next opportunity!
Bindidon, we have to face the very real possibility that you are so braindead you can’t learn.
A chain of translations of something out-of-context may not leave the correct impression. Combine that with the fact that you refuse to consider the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, and it’s clear you have no interest in reality.
At least, you’re a good bickerer!
” A chain of translations of something out-of-context may not leave the correct impression. ”
Excellent reply. Very impressed.
You quoted me correctly, Bin. Thanks.
But, you omitted my next sentence:
“Combine that with the fact that you refuse to consider the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, and it’s clear you have no interest in reality.”
That’s why you can’t take things out-on-context. You can completely alter the intent.
On the subject of long term warming trend versus short term variation.
I plotted UAH6.0 I added a linear OLS trend and offsets of +/-0.2C.
The result is a band 0.4C deep. You can see that most of the short term variation is within the band and that the band itself slopes upward following the long term warming trend.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend/plot/uah6/trend/offset:0.2/plot/uah6/trend/offset:-0.2
I did the same for GISTEMP and got a similar pattern of short term variation within a band showing a long term warming trend.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/offset:0.2/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.2
“Pauses” reflect the short term variation due to ENSO etc. but say nothing about the long term trend.
entropic…as Mark Twain put it: ‘There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics’.
I am not knocking statistics here, I have studied the discipline and I am aware of the value of it. The problem lies in the way it can be so easily manipulated to produce results favourable to an opinion.
You could take a dozen posters from Roy’s blog and ask them to apply Wood4Trees to a statistical analysis and they’d likely all reach a different conclusion. I have tried the algorithms there and surprised myself as to how easily I could tilt a positive trend to a negative trend.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Our current spammer has been banned from most Climateball lands, including contrarians. Since Roy has no real moderation services (Graham not being a real moderator), we might be stuck with him for a him. While his itch passes, you might be interested in some light reading:
https://tinyurl.com/the-critical-mass-of
Thank you.
> for a him
For a while, of course.
Any site that bans a poster simply because he/she does not agree with their views are propagandists. Had Roy followed suit, you would have been banned long ago.
Have a little respect when commenting on the site of a scientist who is open-minded.
Robertson
Roy Spencer very well banned Do*ug Cot*ton years ago.
If there is a poster who should be banned here as well, that’s you, Robertson, because you permanently insult scientists and great historical persons, distort what scientists wrote, and spread incredible amounts of partly disgusting denial stuff.
Posted by an idiot who distorts UAH data to make it appear to agree with surface data.
Major difference with my posts is that I respect Roy, support his science (and that of John Christy), and do nothing to challenge his reputation as a scientist.
Typical lies of a person
-denying viruses, Einstein (even a basic principle as time dilation), and discrediting and denigrating anyone, even renowned scientists, whose results he is not even able to understand;
– unable to understand anything about things like temperature time series and their correct comparison, let alone to generate them.
“Any site that bans a poster simply because he/she does not agree with their views are propagandists. Had Roy followed suit..”
Roy bans people.
barry…I have never seen Roy ban anyone for simply disagreeing with him, or posting material that disagrees with his views.
He has banned people for taking cheap shots at him and I don’t blame him in the least. On the other hand, on realclimate, run in part by the head of NASA GISS, you can get banned for simply disagreeing with their propaganda.
Roy did not agree with Do*g C*tton’s and banned him for continually posting and arguing for his point of view over and over.
Plenty of people here say the same things over and over and don’t get banned.
Yes I was banned in the sense that certain key words, my websites, titles of papers, some email addresses I have and my name all get rejected so the posts don’t appear. Roy has indeed deleted many of my comments that have appeared when he was probably asleep or at a weekend. So I haven’t bothered coming here over the last two years or so. See what happens to my comments on this thread. Note my questions to Roy (and the CSIRO in Australia via an Australian senator) in my latest post currently at the end of the thread.
You got banned in the sense that you got banned, dear Sir:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Please keep your pathetic rationalizations to yourself.
C’mon, Gordo.
Disagreement is not the issue here.
I suspect you know this.
Think.
Obvious weather variations related to La Nina activity. The thing we should be noting is that La Nina is in its third year, with no end in sight.
I refer you all back to this comment just added …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1359336
I’m rather busy now preparing information for an Australia senator who will be presenting my correct physics to the Australian Government and challenging the CSIRO as I have, tying them in knots just as I can and will do for people like Tim who has been sadly brainwashed by the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology.
I refer you all back to when our most beloved sock puppet got banned by Roy:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
That is all.
tim s…”Your mistake is obvious to any high school science student. Two things can happen at the same time. Heat transfer by thermal radiation is a complex topic that requires an understanding of Black Body Radiation and its relation to the individual spectra of individual gases as well as the surface of the earth. The entire interaction is extremely complex, and it defies your simplistic analysis”.
***
It’s actually quite simple Tim. According to Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law…
1)Heat can never be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
2)heat transfer by radiation must obey 1).
Nothing new has developed to change that in modern times. The only thing that has changed is the arrogance and ego-trips of many modern scientists.
Another field that has developed is quantum theory. When Clausius stated the 2nd law, and defined entropy as a property of heat, he knew nothing about the electron and it’s relationship to electromagnetic energy.
Bohr’s research circa 1913 proved Clausius right. EM from a cooler body has no effect on a hotter body.
Let us suppose that a sphere is partially surrounded by a half sphere at some distance that is colder than it, and both in turn are fully surrounded by another separated sphere that is colder than both the above. All the above is placed in a vacuum so that only radiation between the bodies needs to be taken into account.
Are you saying that the half sphere and its presence or absence has no affect on the temperature of the innermost sphere?
RLH,
You wrote –
“Are you saying that the half sphere and its presence or absence has no affect on the temperature of the innermost sphere?”
Presumably, you are trying to be clever, but your gotcha is obscure in the extreme.
Consider an inner sphere at 2 K, a half sphere at 1 K, all surrounded by a sphere at 0 k.
Are you suggesting that the inner sphere will get hotter? It won’t!
What has any of this nonsense to do with the stupid assertion that radiation from a colder atmosphere can result in the increase of temperature of a hotter surface.
Are you quite deranged, or simply trying to be too clever by half?
Show some intelligence, lad.
“Are you suggesting that the inner sphere will get hotter? It wont!”
Nope! That is not what he was suggesting. You should read more carefully. Heck you even quoted the right sentence!
“Consider an inner sphere at 2 K, a half sphere at 1 K, all surrounded by a sphere at 0 k.”
OK. The actual thought experiment is to consider TWO scenarios,
A) an inner sphere at 2 K, a half sphere at 1 K, all surrounded by a sphere at 0 k.
B) an inner sphere at 2 K surrounded only by a sphere at 0 k.
The question was ‘does the half sphere have an EFFECT’, not ‘does the inner sphere get hotter” and you incorrectly deduced.
So is there an effect? If you agree that the inner sphere in “A” cools more slowly, then you agree with RLH that there is ‘an effect’. That cooler surfaces DO affect the temperature of warmer surfaces.
Tim,
What the heck are you on about?
Slow cooling is not heating, just in case you think that RLH is so stupid as to think it is.
Of course insulators affect the rate of energy transfer – that’s what they are designed to do! Nothing to do with any cultist belief in the mad idea that a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface.
Go away and help RLH design another irrelevant gotcha!
Does the inner sphere cool more slowly when the half sphere is present or not? That is the simple question.
RLH, your problem is set up more as a gotcha than anything of value. You haven’t provided enough information for a meaningful answer.
That’s likely due to your ignorance of the subject.
“Slow cooling is not heating”
What the heck are you on about? The question was not about heating.
Understanding that the surroundings affect cooling rates (which you seem to do!) is the first step to understanding that the atmosphere DOES affect surface temperatures.
The sun heats the ground. With different cooling rates due to the atmosphere, that leads to different surface temperatures. Plain and simple.
“You haven’t provided enough information for a meaningful answer.”
What information is missing that cannot be replaced by a simple equation in those terms you think I have not specified??
RLH,
You wrote –
“Does the inner sphere cool more slowly when the half sphere is present or not? That is the simple question.”
If you don’t know the answer, you are obviously exceptionally stupid.
If you do know the answer, you are again being exceptionally stupid by posing such a stupid gotcha.
Read about insulation, and you will have your answer. If you prefer, admit your ignorance, ask for my assistance, and I will attempt to explain to an obvious dimwit how insulation reduces the rate of heat transfer between two bodies of different temperatures.
However, I assume you are trying to imply that the mythical GHE is “just another name for planetary insulation” (Raymond Pierrehumbert).
Nope. No raised temperatures by reducing the amount of radiation that the Earth receives from the Sun. Only fools and climate scientists are daft enough to believe such nonsense.
Do you need my help?
“Read about insulation, and you will have your answer”
So are you agreeing that some half sphere insulation at a lower temperature than the inner sphere will mean that the temperature of the inner sphere will be higher if it is present than if it is not?
RLH,
You wrote –
“So are you agreeing that some half sphere insulation at a lower temperature than the inner sphere will mean that the temperature of the inner sphere will be higher if it is present than if it is not?”
Not even a good attempt at a gotcha. Here’s a tip – amateur gotcha composers often start their gotcha with “So . . . “, eventually phrased as a question, when the dimwitted gotcha author is trying to disguise a statement as a question. If you don’t understand something, just say so. If you are trying to make the object of your gotcha appear stupid, why bother?
Would it not be more appropriate to provide facts to support your disagreement? Both parties might benefit.
You are obviously confused, as well as ignorant. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that the three bodies you mention will eventually be in thermal equilibrium – at 0 K, absolute zero.
If you wish to admit your inability to understand physics, or even to phrase a sound question, let me know.
It seems that you are seeking my agreement to some ill-defined proposition or other, which you don’t seem to have any particular reason for asking! You are a time-wasting fool.
Carry on.
“The laws of thermodynamics dictate that the three bodies you mention will eventually be in thermal equilibrium”
So what? We are concerned with how they get there, not their final disposition.
Start with some non zero T at each sphere, distributed as I said. The highest temperature being at the inner sphere, the next being at the half sphere and the lowest at the outer one.
How will each progress in time with or without the half sphere being present? Produce your thinking and arguments.
Gordon Robertson
This person can greatly help you. You are stuck in a delusional belief system created by your overbearing ego and desire to be someone important. There are others out there like you. This person debunks this sloppy thinking with sound logic, physics knowledge, rational thought.
He could help deprogram your fantasy thought process and ground it in real science.
I hope you watch, you might find him most interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNTu_pqmq2E
Norman….the guy is a blithering idiot. I got tired of his smarmy attitude as he denigrated Wal Thornhill. Then he turned to his proof, which is the sci-fi offered by mainstream astronomers about how the universe was formed.
I don’t accept the theories of Thornhill as fact but if you read him he comes across as an academic trying to understand a problem. The smarmy jerk at your link paints him as a buffoon.
The fact that you think I have something to learn from that idiot reveals how little you know about physics yourself.
There is proof that electric currents are running through the universe. Our own Sun outputs currents of protons and electrons and they interact with our magnetic field like a real current to produce voltages and currents in our atmosphere and surface. That’s electrical currents acting at a distance of 93 million miles.
Th idiot at your link also knocks Velikovsky. I have read Velikovsky and I found him to be an interesting read. Of particular interest is how he backs his claims by evidence from history. One of his astounding predictions was the surface temperature of Venus. He was right whereas everyone else was wrong.
You don’t need to believe everything you read and I am among the most skeptical of readers. That does not mean you cannot enjoy reading someone like Thornhill or Velikovsky. Far more interesting than listening to a sniveling loser knocking those guys like the jerk at your link.
richard…”Are you saying that the half sphere and its presence or absence has no affect on the temperature of the innermost sphere?”
***
You seem to be confusing heat dissipation with a cooler body affecting the temperature of a hotter body. Newton’s law of cooling specifies that the temperature of the environment in which a body resides does affect its rate of heat dissipation. That was not developed for an evacuated chamber, as far as I know.
Does that apply in a vacuum where there is no environmental medium between the inner and outer spheres?
The problem with thought experiments is the inability to realize them. How would you set up an experiment to represent your thought experiment?
Ideally, the temperature in a vacuum should be around -273C. Therefore, if you evacuate a chamber, the temperature of objects inside should drop to -273C. They don’t in a terrestrial environment like Earth. That would suggest the ambient temperature of a room has an effect on objects in an evacuated chamber.
I would guess that’s due to leakage between the external and internal environments. In other words, there’s no way to stop heat entering the evacuated chamber.
I think the problem you present is far more complex than it appears.
I don’t know what relationship exists between an inner sphere in a vacuum with an outer sphere re EM radiation. I’d like to know. I do know that the composition of the outer spheres can affect EM radiated from an inner sphere. If the outer sphere is metal, it will absorb the EM. If it’s close enough to the inner body, to block its radiation, it will cause the inner body’s temperature to rise.
That is not due to a heat transfer from the cooler outer shell to the warmer inner sphere. It is due to the fact the inner sphere has already cooled due to radiation. If you block its ability to radiate its temperature will rise toward its natural temperature with fully blocked radiation.
That presumes that the inner sphere is independently heated.
“How would you set up an experiment to represent your thought experiment?”
By setting it up as described. Let the inner sphere be at temperature A. The half sphere be at temperature B and the outer sphere be at temperature C.
Does the presence or absence of the half sphere affect the temperature of the inner sphere at all? If so, how?
Based on your incomplete information, you give an answer and we will use it to teach you.
How is the information I gave you incomplete?
It’s not complete.
What is missing?
Details.
Such as?
Such as what?
RLH,
You wrote –
“Does the presence or absence of the half sphere affect the temperature of the inner sphere at all? If so, how?”
Gee, I don’t know. [laughing] You tell me.
You seem to be fixated on irrelevancies. Is there a point to your fixation, or are you playing some sort of bizarre game? What are the rules? Do I get a prize if I win?
Here’s something for you to consider – The core of the Earth (maybe 6,000 K), is surrounded by two half spheres of mantle (by definition), at a much lower temperature. These, in turn, are surrounded by a complete sphere of crustal material at yet lower temperature (not even molten).
Does the presence or absence of the mantle affect the temperature of the core at all? If so how?
Once you have worked it out, you have the answer to your silly gotcha.
Idiot.
Hmm.. And everybody knows that the polar ice cap ‘warms’ the ocean.. Just think how much colder the ocean would be without it lol…
PS: Also read
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1359373
Jesus Cot*ton!
It’s enough now.
Your egomania is simply unbearable.
I had a foreman on a site and one day I was swearing a blue-streak as he walked by. I knew he was devoutly religious, and I apologized for my outburst. He was classy about it, he told me he had no problem with vulgarity, considering the environment in which e worked, the only thing bothering him was people using the name of God or Jesus in vain.
We both know Roy has a religious faith and I don’t know how Roy feels about it but you just did it. I wonder if you have the class to apologize to Roy for such an outburst on his site?
Why should mere beliefs attract more respect than facts?
There is no need to apologize for the use of offensive language in front of anyone regardless of their faith.
We are all better off knowing who are the boors and poorly educated who cannot express themselves with civility.
” … who are the boors and poorly educated who cannot express themselves with civility. ”
Whom do you mean here, Ken?
The one who writes ‘Jesus, Cot*ton’ ?
Or the one who permanently insults scientists with a disgusting ‘cheating SOB’ ?
Thanks for clarifying.
Questions for Roy (and any alarmists)
1. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Do you agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How do you explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram?
2. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied?
3. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm do you agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own?
4. Using the same calculator, do you agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C) ?
5. Do you agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies?
6. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K?
7. You, Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Have you any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy?
8. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, do you agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature?
9. When the CSIRO in Australia responded to an FOI from myself they could not produce any documentation or experiment that confirmed that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Do you have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less non-radiative surface cooling?
10. In light of your responses to all the above, do you now agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram?
11. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids and gases. I showed how this is the state of maximum entropy which physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium, being the result of the action of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The proof is in my second paper about temperatures in planetary systems at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct?
12. You, Roy, also once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of that 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do you explain this contradiction?
13. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere ) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do you explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature other than how I explained the process I described in the above cited paper?
14. Do you agree that, in order to determine any incremental change in a planet’s surface temperature we must first have a valid way of quantifying the observed temperature? (We cannot determine the derivative of a function if we don’t have the function in the first place, can we?)
15. How then do climatologists quantify global mean surface temperatures in a similar way for at least both Earth and Venus?
Answer to our favorite sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Many people don’t understand what global warming is.
Very basic stuff is unknown.
Such as what does it mean if our global average surface temperature is 15 C. Or what does it mean if it’s 18 C.
Both 15 C and 18 C means that Earth is in an Ice Age.
Everyone knows we are in an Ice Age, but they may not know what an Ice Age is or why we are in one.
What is common is to think an Ice Age is the same thing as a glaciation period.
An Age is generally related to long period of time. And one can argue a glaciation period is a long time period, but our Ice Age is 33.9 millions years old. And it’s called the Cenozoic Ice Age.
Wiki:
“The Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing. It is Earth’s current ice age or icehouse period. Its beginning is marked by the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
During this period the average global air temperature has been colder than 15 C and warmer than 18 C. And last couple million years has been the coldest time period.
“Throughout Earth’s climate history (Paleoclimate) its climate has fluctuated between two primary states: greenhouse and icehouse Earth.Both climate states last for millions of years and should not be confused with glacial and interglacial periods, which occur as alternate phases within an icehouse period and tend to last less than 1 million years. There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
And if you don’t know this, you don’t know anything about global climate.
What is common is to think an Ice Age is the same thing as a glaciation period.
Strange how most glaciation periods occur in ice ages?
Well we currently in a glaciation period, we have two rather large sheets. This 33.9 million Ice Age or the time Antarctica has had a “permanent” ice sheet. Recently [couple million years] we have added another ice sheet which is “permanent” on Greenland.
But what loosely call glaciation periods is when Ice Sheets form on a continent which are “permanent” in sense “a ice sheet” will remain on a continent for thousands of year. It could grow larger, it could be cut in half, it could be 4 of them, or whatever, as long as you point to continenet and it has one or more of more of them, it’s a glaciation if there one continent [other Antarctica continent] with a ice sheet [or ice sheets].
The Antarctica ice sheet has not remained unchanged. Glacier or Ice sheets are moving things. Or no one has found 33 million year old glacial ice. Or even 3 million year old ice, hence why I say “permanent”. Mars has fairly permanent icesheets, Mars one might find ice over 200 million years old- which would be fairly permanent.
Greenland is big island- not called a continent. There are lots of other smaller islands with ice sheets, just not continental ice sheets.
Polar sea ice, is not land glaciers flowing ice in the ocean. Because Canadian northern islands flowing ice in Arctic ocean [and helping to create sea ice]. And ice free polar ice in arctic ocean does count sea ice caused these islands flowing ice into the sea which amount about 1 million square. Or ice free doesn’t include that 1 million square km.
And some think the Arctic ocean could be ice free in 50 years- or only have 1 million square km of ice in arctic ocean].
1) The bottom of the atmosphere is warmer than the top. So naturally GHGs at the bottom radiate more than GHGs at the top.
2) You are trying to compare two different things. The “168 + 324 = 492” into the surface should be compared to the “390 + 78 + 24 = 492” leaving the surface. These two should (approximately) match since the surface stays (approximately) the same temperature in the long term.
3) Correct
4) Correct
5) Water vapor actually radiates pretty well across a wide range of IR frequencies. “a few” is a gross understatement.
6) Yes, it *is* likely that the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K. Much of the radiation comes directly from a few meters up where the temperature would be 288 K. And you completely left out the nearly blackbody radiation from clouds.
And there is no reason to settle for ‘likely’. The calculations are not simple, but they are not some mystery that needs to be guessed at by an amateur Physicist.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
7) I don’t know what Dr Roy might have said. Perhaps something as simple as “an electronic meter measures a voltage or current, and only indirectly tells us about temperature, pressure, brightness, etc.”
In any case, you are wrong that this “implies that the atmosphere generates energy”. Any high school science student can add up energy flows and see that the totals match up. Energy comes in from the sun; energy leaves via IR radiation; and in between it is shuffled around by radiation, evaporation, convection, etc. No energy is ‘created’ within the atmosphere.
8) Correct
9) Here is one source. Look at that first equation on page 14, which is exactly the summation you requested. Any moderately advanced text will have this.
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Besides, this is intuitively obvious. If you block half of the light from a source, things get dimmer and they don’t heat as well. Allow the full light to shine, and a surface will get brighter and hotter.
10) The diagram greatly simplifies the situation, but in light of everything explained above, the concepts are correct.
11) If Loschmidt were correct, then you could connect a thermal conductor to the top and bottom, and run a heat engine off the difference in temperature, ie a perpetual motion machine. For this and many other reasons, we know that Loschmidt was wrong. Even smart guys make mistakes now and then.
12) I am not sure what you are arguing here, so I will skip this.
13) There does not need to be “compelling evidence of net cooling”. As you point out the lapse rate is always related to specific heat and g. For example, on earth this is about 6.5 K/km or 0.0065 K/m. The thermal conductivity of air is about 0.03 W/m*K. That leads to about 0.0002 W/m^2! even if that is off by an order of magnitude, that is 0.002 W/^2. Any heat flow above 0.002 W/m^2 will result in convection and in a temperature gradient equal to the adiabatic lapse rate. You would have to find ‘compelling evidence’ that the net flow in a planet was less than a few mW/m^2. And measurements are simply not that good.
***********
Basically … for some simple calculations you are right. For other simple calculations (and for pretty much any complicated idea) you are wrong.
Most government agencies don’t have the time or resources to correct every person with a pet theory about climate. Don’t expect that they will take you seriously until you have convinced at least a few serious scientists that you are right.
FOOTNOTE: Temperature is proportional to the mean molecular (translational) kinetic energy. (See Wikipedia: Kinetic Theory of Gases/Temperature and Kinetic Energy: “The average molecular kinetic energy is proportional to the ideal gas law’s absolute temperature.” Further down it clarifies that this relates only to translational kinetic energy – an important point sometimes disputed. “Thus, the product of pressure and volume per mole is proportional to the average (translational) molecular kinetic energy.”) Even Raymond Pierrehumbert acknowledged that photons from the cold atmosphere do not have sufficient momentum to increase the translational kinetic energy of surface molecules – only the vibrational and rotational energy. That is basically saying such photons cannot warm the surface, as in my first paper on Radiated Energy. This fact alone refutes the climatology claims.
Endnote:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
For someone who is so wrapped up in the Second Law, you seem to be oblivious to the effect of the ratio of specific heats. You also have confused Internal Energy, Enthalpy, and Entropy with gravitational effects. You are indeed a very sad character.
Water vapor from the tropics is very important at mid-latitudes,
especially in autumn-spring, because then it competes with ozone, which falls from high latitudes. There is a noticeable decrease in the vertical temperature gradient in zones where water vapor increases (tropopause altitude increases). Of course, if water vapor reaches above the tropopause it gives off infrared radiation to space. This is the case with hurricanes, for example.
Air containing a large amount of water vapor is much lighter than the surrounding air, so in the tropics the tropopause reaches an average of about 13 km above the Earth. This also shows that the Earth’s troposphere is quite thin.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f000.png
https://i.ibb.co/3pNDjmt/time-pres-TEMP-MEAN-ALL-EQ-2022.png
I think the planet’s rotation speed also affects surface heat loss at night.
Not the rotation speed per se, but the length of the night.
The longer the night, the more heat loss and the lower the minimum temperature.
Consider how cold the poles get when the night lasts months.
https://xkcd.com/481/
Hi Roy and all
Has any one ever calculated the heat added to the atmosphere of burning as I heard yesterday one and a half million football fields worth of the Amazon each year? I’s not hard to get endless opinion on haw much the resulting CO2 released is warming the atmosphere but no one seems to be interested in how much direct warming is resulting. Also all the burning of fossil fuel and nuclear reactors is constantly doing the same. Isn’t it likely that all our energy use which all creates heat is doing far more to warm the planet directly than CO2 comes near?
Cheers D J S
We live in an Ice Age.
A Ice Age has a cold ocean.
The average temperature of all Earth oceans is about 3.5 C.
A million nuclear bombs can’t make our cold ocean, a warm ocean.
Our ocean is where most volcanic activity occurs, the heat of all this, is far more heat than human or burning down forests could make.
Citizens of nations, should mostly interested in what their nation is doing, and not harass other nations.
What Russia is doing in Ukraine is one of worse thing any nation is presently doing. And lack of international leadership to politically stop this war, is utterly pathetic.
Well at least you agree that Russia is the criminal. Unlike most of your conservative revisionists.
Could you tell what the seemly craze term.conservative revisionists
means.
Meanwhile, I googled:
–“During the event, prominent Russian and foreign experts focused on the impact of revisionist tendencies on world politics.
The current trend in international relations, associated with the growing tensions in the world, is compounded by mutual accusations of revisionism by the United States on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other. Washington has always been trying to reform existing institutions to serve its own interests. These efforts became particularly evident during the Trump presidency, when Washington withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, revised the terms of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), criticized the World Trade Organization (WTO) and exited the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) and Open Skies treaties. Americas new President Joe Biden and his team will apparently continue with the efforts to change existing norms and regimes.–
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/03/14/revisionism-and-conservatism-in-world-politics-who-calls-the-shots/
Which appears to be typical diplomatic gibberish.
Though many like it when they speak utter nonsense, as any break in the jabbing seems uncomfortable- and will encourage excessive unwanted stray thoughts.
Well, all founding fathers of US assumed they were criminals to a world’s superpower.
Russia is lacking such fine people as these founding fathers.
Which the American left also calls criminals.
I think the left, should have left, already.
They are so hopeless lazy and demented- to such an extent they enjoy being called the left.
Me, I am left of bernie, and unlike Sanders,I can manage a little math.
But I think Bernie would been more interesting and amusing than Joe.
With Joe, math is nonexistent as monkey who hasn’t been taught to count.
But do appreciate the lack of anything while the troops of old farts get closer to their grave.
> I am left of bernie
What’s left of democratic socialism, again?
Democrat socialist is Bernie Sanders.
Has 3 houses. Goes to Soviet Union for a
honeymoon. Favors working class.
“But Bernie” does not cut it, gb.
Libertarians are not at the left of democratic socialists, unless you’re some kind of tankie.
I score libertarian, I would not vote for a party called Libertarian- anything calling itself Communist has never been Communist- nobody wants totalitarian, 99.9% of all politicians are totalitarian.
Basic shit, dude, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As a libertarian I want balancing powers. I am not a moderate, which effective means the opposite of balancing power.
Only thing slightly “good” about Republicans, is they know Republicans voters will punish them. Generally it’s a good idea to punish politicians, politician should very afraid, of who they represent. I am somewhat in favor of hanging politicians who commit high crimes- a lot of them do this. Maybe they do less high crimes if a few are hanged. Might be true, why give it a try.
It not like we will ever get shortage of these bums.
Citizen are innocent until proven guilty, politicians and government in general, are guilty unless proven innocent.
> Basic shit, dude
Then you should be able to get it straight, gb.
You’re not the first libertarian who pretends to be a leftist but who keeps raving about right-wing lunacies, you know.
–Youre not the first libertarian who pretends to be a leftist but who keeps raving about right-wing lunacies, you know.–
There are a lot of libertarians, probably like me they could not give a name of politician which is part of Libertarian Party.
I going google it:
https://www.lp.org/
Not helpful
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
“As of 2021, it is the third-largest political party in the United States by voter registration. In the 2020 election the Libertarians gained a seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives, giving them their first state legislative win since 2000. As of August 2022, there are 310 Libertarians holding elected office: 193 of them partisan offices and 117 of them non-partisan offices. There are 693,634 voters registered as Libertarian in the 31 states that report Libertarian registration statistics and Washington, D.C.”
Well, I learned something.
I mainly wanted to know if party existed, and I not sure that I found anything.
Maybe bigger thing in Wyoming?
Do you live in Wyoming?
–but who keeps raving about right-wing lunacies, you know.–
I have link to Marxist who likes Trump, you might like that.
But it doesn’t work.
Yes I get that there would be nothing like enough heating produced to warm the ocean; and that in the medium term atmospheric temperature would stabilise accordingly. But in the short term; like months, how much energy is entering the atmosphere? None from undersea volcanos obviously.
D J S
Planetary heat imbalance:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
About 1×10^22 J/year
This is just the imbalance in inputs – output.
Total energy usage:
4 x 10^20 J.
so about 4% of gain.
https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021/final-consumption
The New Pause Pauses
“… we can expect only 0.9 K further global warming all the way to 2100. A more sophisticated version generates much the same result. Midrange equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity is just 3.45 x 0.3 x 1.0764 = 1.1 K. Hardly life-threatening, now, is it?”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/03/the-new-pause-pauses/
That seems rather optimistic.
How much will the Sahara desert green just from a global average temperature which is around 16 C?
And will African efforts to green the Sahara desert be more effective
than a global average temperature of about 16 C.
What I am more interested in, is what will humans have done before 2100 AD.
For instance, the richest human is trying to make a city on Mars well
before 2100 AD.
What could be more important than that?
A lot of things.
Or Elon Musk is in the process of building global satellite network- which I think is more important than a city on Mars. Though it does depend on what such a city, actually does. It could do a lot of things- such as world peace and the normal jazz.
I don’t know if it will be shining city in a hill.
Some could imagine it will be in some huge cave, I prefer to think of it as being under a large lake.
One would have to be really optimistic to think China will have any coal to mine by 2100 AD.
To me, it seems China is currently at Peak Coal and is part of reason China is paying about $400 per US ton of Coal.
The other reason is due to incompetence of CCP, but they aren’t only government which is hopelessly dumb.
Burning Coal is so 19th century. Another thing we could be doing before 2100 AD, is mining Methane Hydrates from ocean bottom.
And related to this is ocean settlements. One thing about mining Methane Hydrates is one can also mine freshwater, which could important resource for ocean settlements.
Anyways it seems ocean settlements would connected with making city on Mars, and having global satellite network.
Coming up perhaps, soon is determining if the lunar polar regions have mineable water. Much has speculated about mineable lunar water in last couple of decade. And at moment it is all over the place- none or a vast amount. More recent is idea there could also be a fair amount of frozen CO2.
It seems if there is lot of lunar water and CO2, this could change how richest person in the world will make his city on Mars.
What could be more important than that?
Being prepared for global cooling similar to Little Ice Age.
Being prepared for similar event as Carrington event.
Ending the ‘Green’ Reset before civilization is destroyed.
“Ending the Green Reset before civilization is destroyed.”
It will end when there is a more liked religion.
The godless need some kind of god.
They tend to want to talk rather than do anything.
“Being prepared for similar event as Carrington event.”
That doesn’t seem like good enough religion to replace global
warming.
“Being prepared for global cooling similar to Little Ice Age.”
I think we have global satellite internet before that. And could
have settlements on mars before that.
And if there is mineable lunar water, could find it, then mine it
before that.
Remember the profits have said global warming also causes global cooling- so CO2 will cause cooling, also.
GB,
Even based on alarmists’ science it is only about 0.6C of warming.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Doesn’t have August, yet.
What other matters for them are more pressing?
Office furniture??
Twitter?
Some other paper work?
Updated:
August 2022: 417.19 ppm
SLS going to try to launch again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6unayerz-Q
Gives news of Starship and SLS launch
Climatic Optimum, global warming farce
https://youtu.be/U9wHxu01FTA
I’m currently making at least an additional $37,000 a month with Domestic through Domestic’s fairly honest and simple online paintings. through the accompanying training resources on a specific website ..
http://waytoincome24.blogspot.com
Well, in tropical zone, you can talk about weather, but in terms of climate, or climate temperature, it is roughly constant.
Or due to global weather one can droughts or a lot rain in tropics, and Sahara desert [in tropics and near] was effected by global cooling or same thing, global drying, and we have had cooling for about 5000 years [and we will continue to cool for tens of thousands of years].
All peak interglacial periods were Climatic Optimums, but many earlier peak interglacial period where the ocean was 4 C or warmer were “better” Climatic Optimums.
To me, it’s only weirdness of Holocene, which leaves a slight possibility of double peak {but it seems quite unlikely}.
But if we are spacefaring, a glaciation period is not much of a problem- it might be a great joy.
Of course we could cause a Climatic Optimum, for very little cost if
you want to wait a century or two.
If want it to happen within a decade or two, it’s a lot more costly- in many ways- not just dollars, which could less than 1 trillion dollars, though trying to do this, fast could be like building SLS or much, much worse. Plus many other problems which could be worse than wasting 1 trillion dollars.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279572
Why Bindiclown doesn’t want to be reminded of his psycho-babbling predictions
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRkvzXpQ/nino344.png
The babbling Edog gets more and more boring with his stoopid posts, but stalkers never give up.
https://i.postimg.cc/MGkTwMkc/Screenshot-20220903-193850-TCC-Nino3.png
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
You can try, but Bernardon cannot see La Nina , his cognitive dissonance renders La Ninas invisible to him.
https://i.postimg.cc/PqbVv4Fm/doesnt-look-like-anything-to-me.jpg
ps:
I hope everyone is familiar with the “Westworld” to get it
The babbling Edog gets more and more boring with his stoopid posts, but stalkers never give up.
Well, it looks like Dr. Roy’s data once again support the climate change predictions.
For those of you who follow my videos, I’ve posted two more climate-related ones that you might enjoy:
Heat Deaths in the United States – Surprising Results: https://youtu.be/BXsluExM3DM
and The Toxic Legacy of Uranium Mining in the United States: https://youtu.be/q68G4m7hkAw
and not climate-related, but something you might find interesting: College Costs Are Soaring – Why?
https://youtu.be/oAZE31pLxqk
Enjoy.
Which climate change predictions might those be?
The observations are outside 95th percentile from model projections. AGW is falsified.
Mark S, did you ever come up with the physics as to how CO2 can warm the planet?
Your previous effort was a major fail.
Tell me what meiv2 says will happen in the future at the tropics.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/meiv2-2.jpeg
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
A planet surface doesnt absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
–
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planets solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet.Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury..325,83 K..340 K
Earth.287,74 K..288 K
Moon223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
_____ Instead of “W/m”, please read “W/m^2” ______
— Christos Vournas says:
September 3, 2022 at 12:53 PM
A planet surface doesnt absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.–
Well yes, even very transparent stuff is not absolutely pure, and even if absolutely pure, it’s not absolutely transparent.
So, zillions of photon going thru, .001 mm of pure and absolutely transparent stuff, some are going to be absorbed.
But roughly speaking most of sunlight goes thru .1 mm of ocean water.
So with fairly clear skies and sun fairly close to zenith will have
1120 watts of sunlight go thru .1 mm of ocean water which covers about 80% of surface area of the tropics and Tropic get more than 1/2 of all sunlight which reach the surface of the entire planetary surface.
And in terms of sunlight reaching the rest of Earth surface, about 70% is ocean surface.
So if imagine the ocean is like a greenhouse or a solar pond and you know the ocean absorbs both direct and indirect sunlight, and ocean surface in many ways to absorbing most of energy reaching Earth’s surface. And under the ocean, one can see the blue sky. And you could about salt particle and water droplets near Ocean surface and call that part of ocean surface. And consider the rolling waves and lots of stuff.
And roughly speaking one could say the ocean absorbs all “useful” sunlight which intersect the cross section of planet Earth- and quibble about the insignificant amount related to land areas.
But land area are more relevant to your point as land surface are also to some degree transparent. The lunar surface is quite transparent. But on Earth land one has sand and ice and snow, but solid looking rock is quite transparent if talking the surface directly interacting with sunlight. And Longwave radiation is quite different. None gets thru .1 mm of water or anything. Well maybe some of huge spectrum of longwave radiation, lets just say most don’t.
Yep, it’s just a pity that no solar radiation reaches the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus and that there’s no solid surface there anyway, yet it’s about 320K – hotter than Earth’s surface even though more than 20 times further from the Sun.
So much for your guesswork.
I am the only scientist in the world who made the major discovery of the “heat creep” process which is what supports such temperatures and even those of the Venus surface which receives far less direct solar radiation than does Earth’s surface.
The ONLY correct relevant physics is in my book and 2013 paper – the second paper at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 so stop your guesswork and read what really happens and which nobody can prove doesn’t.
Also read about Uranus in my fourth paper …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
And so why is the mean surface temperature of the Moon somewhat below zero C when it is without an atmosphere and at a very similar distance from the Sun?
Calculations as to the effect of gravity forming the tropospheric temperature gradient from the radiating altitude down to the surface and then all the way to the core are quite easy, based on the quotient of the acceleration due to a planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the atmospheric gases or solids and liquids below the surface.
But the magnitude of the tropospheric gradient is reduced about 30% on Earth, 25% on Venus and only 5% on Uranus due to intermolecular radiation between identical “greenhouse” molecules at different altitudes.
It’s all explained in detail in my second paper at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 and which not one of the thousands of readers has ever correctly refuted because there is so much supporting evidence in experiments with centrifugal force and data throughout the Solar System, and also because it is all based on the Second Law process of maximum entropy production.
hallo
Im currently making at least an additional $37,000 a month with Domestic through Domestics fairly honest and simple online paintings. through the accompanying training resources
on a specific website .. http://waytoincome24.blogspot.com
The Multiplier
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/03/the-multiplier/
“What set me to thinking was the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It relates temperature to the amount of thermal radiation emitted. It turns out that the radiation varies as the fourth power of the temperature,”
That reminded me of things, also.
I say average ocean causes cooling or warming of air.
Most obvious being ocean surface temperature, which is more of
simply being global average air temperature, because it simply is
70% of the surface area of planet Earth.
But if the 3.5 C average of ocean warms it cause an increase in global temperature.
And it doesn’t have to do the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
Or ocean temperature of 3.5 C is equilibrium temperature.
Or it’s 99.99% of the heat of global climate system.
{1 C warmer ocean = 1000 C warmer atmosphere.}
Or it a way of thinking of it.
Or reason Earth stays warm if sun disappear the heat of atmosphere
and the ocean.
It can seen in weather, if weather effect make your day cold, and in summer, it can take awhile to warm back up.
Or if night is cold, next day will take a while to warm up.
Or it matters where you are when the sun blinks out. If in winter and cold, it just gets colder, fairly quickly [couple days].
But in summer, it like a very cold [cold for summer] weather system rolled in.
If you read my 2013 paper at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 (as thousands of others have) you will find out why the ocean is not warmed primarily even by the solar radiation which can penetrate a few metres, let alone by the back radiation which undergoes “resonant” or “pseudo” scattering in the first small fraction of a millimetre of the surface and does not transfer any thermal energy whatsoever from colder regions of the atmosphere either to warmer water or land.
My point about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is that it is derived from the integral of a single Planck function and it only ever applies for a single source of radiation. It will NOT give the correct equilibrium temperature that the sum of solar radiation and about twice as much greenhouse gas radiation might imply.
That is one of the two VERY SERIOUS MISTAKES in the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology, as you can see here by clicking the link below. And that is why no alarmist in the world can correctly validate their “physics” as my 15 questions above demonstrate. A Federal Senator in Australia spoke with me in a 39-minute phone call and he will pose those questions to Larry Marshall at the CSIRO shortly, tying him in knots.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/NASA-2.jpg
P.S. The link below is about who Dr Larry Marshall is, but my questions prepared for an Australian Senator who has already been talking with Dr Marshall will tie him in knots and will perhaps eventually be used in court action against the CSIRO unless they come clean and admit to the Australian Government that there is absolutely no valid physics supporting the contention that greenhouse gases warm us. Click this link to see the study which demonstrates cooling by the main GH gas, water vapor.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
Dr Larry Marshall is Chief Executive of CSIRO, Australias national science agency and innovation catalyst. Larry is a scientist, technology innovator and business leader with a wealth of experience in creating new value and impact with science. He has a PhD in Physics … Read more here …
https://people.csiro.au/m/l/larry-marshall
Also read my note about the incorrect use of Stefan-Boltzmann calculations in the link in the above comment.
I agree with Wondering Willis –
He’s not seeing any physical processes by which the 1.2 W/m2 could somehow be increased to 6.5 W/m2.
A few degrees colder is 100 times worse than few degrees warmer
The land I live on had a mile of ice on it not that long ago
https://youtu.be/vntVVcazJD4
That much ice would have made it hard to clear your driveway. Should have compressed the land pretty good at the same time.
The upside, according to alarmists, is the ice should have warmed the place up pretty good due to IR radiation.
barry…”His [Akasofu] 2013 paper doesnt state a mechanism for change, just this rebound idea that obviously doesnt explain anything.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4/htm
***
Don’t know how you can arrive at such a conclusion since Akasofu states it clearly as far more than a simple rebound.
“One possibility, then, is that this near linear component is due to a gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) of 1800~1850 [8], as the LIA did not end abruptly. It is generally perceived that the temperature during the LIA was about 1 C lower than in the present (Figure 2, Figure 3). Thus, the rate of this gradual temperature increase since 1800 would be roughly 1 C /200 years (= 0.5 C/100 years or 0.05 C/10 years), similar to the rate of the near linear increase of about 0.5 C that we see over the course of the 20th century”.
Note: I removed the degree symbols for fear it would be trashed by the WordPress html interpreter. This is an example for a test… 1 C .
What he is saying as far as I can see from skimming the first part of his paper, is that global warming was well under way in the early 1800s, long before CO2 began to accelerate circa 1950. And that the warming trend is what we might expect from a re-warming from the LIA.
At least Akasofu is supplying viable figures for the trend based on actual fact as opposed to the AGW theory, which relies heavily on uncorroborated theory.
I think Akasofu is right. The LIA lasted more than 400 years and during that time the ice load on the Earth grew significantly. Oceans cooled. With our seasonal variation in temperatures, especially poleward, it would have taken a long time to re-warm. It seems reasonable to claim a 0.5C re-warming per century.
The Mer de Glace glacier near Chamonix, France has taken nearly a century to melt back to its current position. When it expanded during the LIA, it wiped out established farms and villages as it progressed down a valley. That’s evidence alone that the glacier progressed during the LIA and its recession is not related to CO2 warming.
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/environmental-change/little-ice-age-glacier-variations.html
Still no mechanism. Just a ‘recovery’, which has no physical process to explain it.
The LIA has no mechanism for it either, nor the ‘recovery’.
Various theories contend/combine for the causes of the LIA, with increased volcanic activity leading the pack. It’s also argued that the cooling was not necessarily global in extent.
This is why Bernardon missed and could not see three La Ninas in a row coming, despite having all the facts and data laid right in front of him.
He is a brainless leftist Minion programed to type babbles and see only certain things but not others.
https://youtu.be/o0iAY0f-BIM
“He is a brainless leftist Minion…”
***
That’s an insult to minions.
The babbling Edog gets more and more boring with his stoopid posts, but stalkers never give up.
I am not believer in God, nor believer in stars, or anything in particular. But I think worth considering whether God “wants” or “allows” or “planned” on whether humans will become a space faring civilization.
One could say and I have imagined, that God didn’t want the human creature to be spacefaring and I have imagine whether there were creature which given the life of being spacefaring.
What kind of planet would they evolve on? What is a habitable planet which is easy to leave.
Back in the days, when I believed in habitable zones. Earth roughly hard to leave, Mars easy to leave, could there be planet easier than Mars and what planet is worse than Earth. And other thing about traveling to different stars. Anyhow much of my opinion has changed
over years.
But Earth is fairly hard to leave. And there the saying that if God didn’t want us to be spacefaring he wouldn’t have given us the Moon.
I should google that.
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1151269941607317504
And more importantly:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/lunar-anthropic-principle-180968049/
“One of the most remarkable books of the last 30 years is The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler. The principle is really nothing more than a statement that the laws governing how the universe operates seem to be arranged so as to require our existence and participation. In other words, the human race is not some accidental byproduct of creation, but an essential component of the way the universe is put together. This philosophical gem came up recently during a wide-ranging discussion of ideas at a post-lecture dinner with media/journalism honors students and their advisors at the University of Texas at Tyler. Though we discussed many things, the anthropic principle came up during questions regarding lunar development. And as good conversation always does, it made me think deeper.
I hadnt previously connected the Barrow-Tipler principle with a quote (in the same vein) that I use in my lunar development talks. This quote comes from Krafft Ehricke, a member of Wernher von Brauns original rocket design team from Peenemunde. Ehricke spent a lifetime thinking about the broader, philosophical aspects of space travel and the colonization of other worlds. Ehricke remarked in 1984 that, If God wanted man to become a spacefaring species, He would have given man a Moon. Ehrickes quote distills down to its essence the truth about the Moons utility….”
Paul D. Spudis
February 6, 2018
So some guy called Ehricke, and 1984 was before I got more
interested in topic- unless sfi novels counts as interested.
But I just look at all the human interest of heavens above and people who want to go to heaven. But I would not say I am instinctively, interested in heaven.
But I have wondering whether artificial gravity works for us, and whether one can live in Mars gravity.
If plan was space faring, why would artificial gravity not work and why have Mars.
Of course I think it’s possible to solar shade Venus to any temperature we want. But also don’t think planets are good place to live, there more like a nursery and/or kindergarten. So Mars could be a second home until we get use to it. Which assume one could figure out how to live there.
But if Mars gravity does cut it, and artificial gravity doesn’t work,
then what? Humans are suppose to make AI?
We like Angels trapped in what appears to be a very limited world?
Well if so, I think we should give the finger to this idiotic God.
gb…”I am not believer in God…”
***
I have reached the conclusion that beliefs serve no purpose. Furthermore, believing in someone or something is not really a belief. It’s an expression we use to say we have faith in someone or something, but don’t necessarily have a belief about either.
My approach is to observe and try to answer certain questions, for which there is no scientific explanation. For example, DNA is a necessity of life yet it has codes built into it to enable the construction of proteins, another necessity of life.
An evolutionist might claim those codes are a product of natural selection but that is a belief since there is no proof for it. To me, the codes are evidence of intelligence and suggest a creator. I can’t say more than that because I have no evidence.
It goes deeper than the codes in DNA. The entire human organism is too perfect to have originated by chance from inert elements like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and hydrogen. It’s far too complex at a cellular level to have developed by chance.
From the onset of human life, at the egg level, a tiny framework is built on which cellular structures emerge. Then the framework is removed. It’s beyond amazing and I simply cannot accept that a fluke of nature is at work.
The end result, with eyes that taken in light, convert it to biochemical energy while retaining the image viewed, processing the information in the brain then projecting it somehow so we can see what we are viewing as an image, is too incredible to understand.
A baby has to learn to see at depth. Depth perception does not come naturally, something in the brain has to process the light intake and present it in the brain as a 3-D image. In other words, what we see out there is somehow projected as an image in our brains.
I don’t know about others but I can have lucid dreams which accurately portray scenarios in colour as if I am there in real time during the day. I can see faces clearly, sometimes people I recognize and sometimes not. All with my eyes closed during an unconscious state. How does the brain do that?
Surely no one believes that came from a chance occurrence over the years re evolution.
The heart has four chambers, two to pump blood to the extremities and two to receive venous blood returning. The upper chamber of the outflow side is driven by electrical pulses from the sinus node. That fires the upper chamber, the atrium, which pumps blood to the lower chamber, the ventricle. There has to be a slight delay between the firing of the upper chamber and the lower chamber so they don’t fire at the same time. Intelligence!!!
Anyone think this happened by chance?
There’s more than enough compelling evidence of the existence of God in the Bible – tens of thousands of words He dictated to prophets telling of numerous future events which He then orchestrated to occur, culminating in His bringing about the death of Jesus and subsequent resurrection and ascension up into the clouds as was witnessed by followers. I’m happy to point anyone to such evidence anytime as I have qualifications in Theology resulting from 18 exams covering all 66 books of the Bible, which, by the way, I can name in order from memory and summarise the contents of nearly all of them. I’m author of http://SavedByTheLamb.com visited by nearly 10,000.
Which ‘God’ is that and why is (s)he so important above the tens/hundreds/thousands/millions of other ‘Gods’ in history?
Some of you need to use a Stefan-Boltzmann calculator more often.
NASA diagrams show 168 w/m^2 entering Earth’s surface after reflection, and it’s OK to enter 1.0 for emissivity when reflected energy is not included. So we get 233.3K or about minus 40 C.
For Venus less than 20 w/m^2 reaches the surface.
For Uranus less than 0.5 w/m^2 reaches top of atmosphere.
The hottest spot on the Moon receives about 1,360 w/m^2 giving 393.5K or about 120 C as is observed.
Use this …
https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator
WSJ: Why the Renewable Energy Transition will Fail
2 hours ago
Eric Worrall
“Personally Id prefer to wait until the technology that does not yet exist is developed, at least to prototype stage, before gambling everything on a green transition which likely isnt possible.”
Eric doesn’t get it- it never will. But I didn’t post there, telling him.
A simple reason is a frigid is not worth much if cools for 6 hours
a day. Or people don’t unplug their frigid for 18 hours to save on the electrical power it uses.
Or 6 hours per day of electrical power, has little value to anyone.
And the whole idea is to light when the sun goes down. Or we once used candles.
So, solar power is more of parasite then anything of value/use.
It needs a battery. One could say all powerplants need something like a battery and there are different loads at different times.
A real powerplant can run 24 hours a day. A powerplant which could only work 6 hours in middle of day- is a worthless powerplant.
And solar panels make powerplants work for less hours of day- making them be more costly [solar panels = parasite}.
How about there is someone who wants more power [or only want power] during the hours of solar peak hours. Great, they buy solar panels.
Or a solar farm can sell their power to such people. But very few people have such a need. They want more power in winter and don’t lights in a bright day.
In terms of solar and wind providing say 10% of power, it’s less of a parasite and might be worth buying.
So, if power user wants to use solar, it’s different than required to buy it. If I buy some potatoes every week, it different than law that requires me to pay for potatoes every week.
The problem is govt want to dictate and mandate everyone’s lives based on seriously insane ideas.
“The problem is govt want to dictate and mandate everyone’s lives based on seriously insane ideas.”
Dunno what happened in your country, but we had strong COVID restrictions and lockdowns, mask mandates, 5 kilometre travel limits and all sorts.
The pearl-clutchers and conspiracy theorists came out in droves to tell us the government wanted to control people. A stupid idea, I thought, as all these restrictions hurt the economy that props up the government.
Late last year, after the vast majority had received their second, voluntary jab, the country opened up. We’re still ordered to wear masks on public transport but that’s it. About 5% of people wear masks on public transport and no one gets fined.
I wonder what adjustment the people telling us about government control have made.
The story of COVID is one of the brightest I’ve seen play out in a long time. Countries all over the world heeded the medical advice and with varying degrees of success managed to stem the tide enough to save lives, even to the cost of the economy. When those most afflicted are those contributing least to the economy. I said at the very beginning that we would find out what the value was of a human life to governments. I’m happy to discover it’s worth more than I thought.
Well, I would be happier if COVID didn’t spread all over the world and this was a China and a WHO “mistake”.
Running into server configuration error…posting in parts to isolate error…
gb…it was a WHO mistake at least. The researchers in China, in January 2020 admitted they had not physically isolated a virus. They used the dubious method of gene sequencing, which required an educated guess as to the origin of the RNA.
As Kary Mullis put it, when you take a sample from someone’s lungs, or their nasal passages, and that person has an infection, there is no way to separate a virus using the current gene sequencing since the lungs/nasal passages are filled with unrelated contaminants.
part 2…
The scientist who developed (rushed out) the RNA-PCR test for covid, Christian Drosten of Germany, also admitted he had not physically isolated covid. Although his test had not been peer reviewed, the WHO automatically accep.ted it and passed it on to the US CD.C, who accep.ted it without question.
Drosten made the ridiculous claim that people showing no signs of infection could pass on covid. Another assinine comment with no peer review that the WHO rubber stamped. He based it on one woman from Wuhan, visiting Germany, who he deemed to be uninfected, yet who had passed the virus.
Further research revealed the woman was taking antivirals. Do people take antivirals when they have no symp.toms? Maybe if they are crazy, antivirals can cause serious damage to the liver, kidneys, and blood.
It is well-known why Drosten’s test is bogus. The concep.t of an RNA-PCR test was instigated for HIV by Fauci and Ho because no one could find enough HIV to work with.
part 3…
Think about it. If you have a real, physical virus, why do you have to go through a convoluted method of presuming a few strand of RNA are from the virus, convert that RNA to DNA, amplify the DNA using PCR and count the number of amplification cycles? You would already have a positive identification with a physically isolated virus.
Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted in an interview that he had never seen HIV on an electron microscope. Even though I posted a link to the video in which he states that, with a quote from his lab tech that HIV had not been detected, Norman was in deep denial after watching it.
Montagnier admits in the video to ‘inferring’ HIV based on retroviral theory. He added that inference was good enough for him. However, the crux of his test was the appearance of healthy cells dying when exposed to a serum from a person with AIDS.
Stefan Lanka, a favourite scientist of Norman, later proved Montagnier and all other virologists wrong based on that assump.tion. They had all failed to provide a control test to prove the preparation of the healthy cells would not kill the cells.
part 4….
For some odd reason, healthy cells are pre-starved in a lab and treated with antibiotics to prevent bacterial infection. Talk about stacking the deck against the healthy cells surviving. One might call it cheating.
Lanka convinced a German court that the process killed the healthy cells. An expert appointed by the court agreed with him. Therefore, the identity of HIV, and subsequently covid, has never been established, since covid research uses the same faulty process.
The clincher was the input of Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method for DNA amplification. He told Fauci that PCR could not be used as a diagnostic test to identify a virus that could not be seen on an electron microscope. His logic was simple. If the virus cannot be seen on an EM, PCR will amplify everything equally and the virus will still not be visible.
Fauci disagreed and Mullis called him a liar for continuing to spread his falsehood that he could identify an HIV viral load by using PCR. That makes liars of the entire covid community who continue to use this stupid test.
If the test had been abandoned, as any sensible scientist would do, we’d have been forced to assess covid directly based on symp.toms, as we do with the flu. This faux pandemic would never have happened.
barry…”The story of COVID is one of the brightest Ive seen play out in a long time. Countries all over the world heeded the medical advice and with varying degrees of success managed to stem the tide enough to save lives…”
***
That’s the propaganda being spread to save face. At no time,in any country did the number of deaths exceed 0.2% of the population and that was the absolute worst case scenario. In countries like the US where the 0.2% applied, there were complaints from doctors being forced to declare a death covid related for dubious reasons.
One of the worst was this. If a person died of an unrelated disease but had been in contact with a person who had tested positive, within the past 30 days, the deceased was declared to have died from covid.
They are still raving about covid in the US whereas, here in Canada, we put it to bed and declared it endemic. People in Canada now walk about freely without mask requirements or the stupid vaccine passport we had for a while. There has been no uptick in covid deaths or cases. It should have been declared endemic in the first place.
In my province of BC, Canada, the number of deaths never exceeded 0.05% of the population and that was about typical for Canada as a whole. Of the people who died, unfortunately, most were elderly and/or had compromised immune systems.
When Pfizer lied about the protection offered by their vaccines, out of 50 million+ RNA-PCR tests administered in Canada, only 3% tested positive. Pfizer claimed their vaccines prevented covid at a 95% level. What good is such a claim when only 3% of 50 million+ tests reveal a positive?
Pfizer are known liars. They have been fined nearly 5 billion dollars over the years for lying about their products. They lied about preventing covid infection. Dr. Robert Malone, an expert with the mRNA used in the vaccines pointed out they cannot prevent a covid infection.
Here in Canada, back in January 2022, local health authorities began releasing number related to hospitalizations. A clear 70% of people hospitalized for January and February were fully vaccinated.
Pfizer claimed the mRNA vaccine would not affect the DNA in cells. A recent Swedish study has claimed the mRNA goes straight to the liver after injection and alters cells. More lies fro Pfizer.
The biggest fear about the so-called vaccines is their RNA basis. No one has ever proved the RNA comes from covid. Many scientists have claimed it is a common element in many natural processes in the body. If that is true, then mRNA is teaching the body to attack itself…auto-immune disease.
I am not about to succumb to conspiracy theories but I have encountered several fully vaccinated people who are now suffering debilitating conditions. Several have suddenly developed rheumatoid arthritis, a known auto-immune disease.
The person I am concerned about most is a friend who suddenly developed an inflamed liver with cirrhosis. He is perplexed because he has never been a heavy drinker and he has none of the other precursors like hepatitis. It just seems ironic to me that his liver has failed shortly after being vaccinated.
I am doubly suspicious after hearing the Swedish conclusion that mRNA is affecting cells in the liver. It’s not supposed to. My friend has been healthy as a horse for the 10 years I have known him and suddenly he has an mRNA vaccine and comes down with serious liver damage.
Sorry, I have no time for the bs being spread about covid. The tests are seriously questionable for reasons I have laid out in detail in earlier posts. You claim governments took preventative action. I think they panicked and listened to uninformed epidemiologists who had no answers.
Lockdowns began when a UK scientist produced an unvalidated computer model that predicted millions of deaths. This guy, Neil Ferguson, had been seriously wrong with other predictions going back to 2000. With the sudden number of deaths in Italy and his crystal ball predictions, the concern spread from covid to hysteria.
Excess deaths is ample demonstration that the disease is deadly. Some countries saw a 20% jump in their overall annual death rate (ie, the US). That kind of departure from average hasn’t been seen since WWII.
The strong element of this metric is that it doesn’t rely one whit on a diagnosis. Of course, there will still be some fools who think that there were 20% more deaths due to some other cause.
The US is an excellent test case as a significant fraction of the population refused to get vaccinated. Surely just a coincidence that it had such a poor result compared to other developed nations….
Running into server configuration error…testing…
Barry…you have a way of missing the forest for the trees.
Check the number of deaths in Canada, which is around 0.05%. We are right next door to the States yet they have a figure in the neighbourhood of 0.2%.
C’mon, Gordo.
Canada rose to the top for 1st doses:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-first-dose-1.6060834
Probly just a coincidence.
Canada is one of the many countries where national excess deaths (number of fatalities above average) greatly exceeds the official national mortality figures from COVID. Some provinces had fewer excess deaths than COVID deaths suggesting strict measures saved more lives than other years.
This happened in Australia, too, where we had very few COVID deaths in 2020. In fact, our death rate shot up late 2021, coinciding with restrictions being removed. The whole country had been under very strict policies until then.
March 2020 – December 2021: 2353 deaths attributed to COVID
2022 so far: 14067
6 times as many people have died from COVID in Australia in the year when we had no restrictions than in the 2 years previous. Vaccines were less effective against new variants.
Australian excess deaths had been just under average until 2022, and now are well above for the first time since the pandemic. Excess deaths in 2022 closely match the rising COVID fatality numbers.
Compounding the correlation is that at the end of Summer, early 2022, when we usually have our lowest death rate, we had our highest rate of excess deaths during the pandemic. Restrictions had come off all around the country a few months earlier.
Restrictions worked.
Comparing vaccinated/unvaccinated hospitalisation and mortality rates also makes clear that while the vaccines have been less effective against new variants, vaccinated people are much better off. You’re 4 times as likely to die from COVID if you’re unvaccinated.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/you-can-t-just-look-at-the-raw-data-unvaccinated-patients-dying-from-covid-19-at-higher-rates-in-several-provinces-1.5788959
There is a wealth of data across scores of countries confirming these results.
US death rate for COVID is 0.3% at minimum. This is a robust figure, as the official COVID death count is exceeded by the excess death count for 2020 and 2021, suggesting that COVID deaths may rather be undercounted, and the percentage is based on the whole population (330 million), rather than infection rate. This fraction assumes that everyone in the US caught COVID.
COVID was the 3rd largest killer of Americans in 2020 and 2021.
For many countries seasonal flu rates dived due to lockdowns, physical distancing and mask-wearing. These measures prevented the transmission of communicable diseases.
It’s not hard to put together that these measures saved lives.
I don’t know how highly you value a human life, but I’m glad you weren’t running the show in any country.
” For many countries seasonal flu rates dived due to lockdowns, physical distancing and mask-wearing. ”
Exactly, barry.
In Germany for example, seasonal flu infections were very high because an incredible number of people live without paying attention to the causes of such infections.
Anyone who, like me, had to use public transport such as the subway, buses, etc. was immediately affected by the consequences of this social carelessness and got sick once a year despite the flu vaccination.
Since March 2020 my lady and I have been wearing a mask on public transport and all shops and markets.
Since then no more flu infections.
Bindidon, since you like anecdotes, you’ll love this one:
I never got Covid vaccinated, and never wore face masks. If some business refused me access, I just went to another business. And I haven’t patronized those offending businesses since.
When I got Covid last year, I was ill for 4 days but never went to a doctor. When a Pfizer-vaccinated friend got Covid, he spent over two weeks in the hospital.
Clint R
You behave as stupid wrt COVID as you do wrt other things.
Where do you live exactly?
I mean the immediate locality, not the country.
” When a Pfizer-vaccinated friend got Covid, he spent over two weeks in the hospital. ”
Looks like your ball-on-a-string idiocy.
Words of a lying troll.
Clint R
“When a Pfizer-vaccinated friend got Covid, he spent over two weeks in the hospital. ”
Correlation is not causation.
I knew Bindidon would love that. He got to rant and rave like an immature brat. He even got to use the “L” word.
The guy really hates reality.
Clint R
You of course didn’t answer the question:
Where do you live exactly?
I can pretty good imagine why you don’t answer.
Isn’t it because unlike your allegedly Pfizer-vaccinated friend, the locality where you live is so small and so far away from everything that there, you harldy could have been heavily infected by COVID?
Wrong Binny. That was in a highly urbanized area. I’ve now known 8 people who tested positive with Covid. All had taken a vaccine, except me. The worst case was in the hospital for weeks, even after getting the vaccine. Three of us had really mild cases. One said that the side-effects from the vaccine was worse than the disease!
My opinion is the mRNA vaccine does more harm than good. The J&J version seems less harmful. A healthy immune system needs no vaccine. Any flu that produces a fever needs to be taken very seriously, and that’s the mistake many people make. If you have a fever, you need to be in bed!
Your anecdotal opinion is belied by large sample statistics from all over the world.
Countries with high COVID fatalities also have surges of excess deaths (total fatalities, all causes), and these surges are contemporaneous. Not only are they contemporaneous, there are peaks of both in Summer, when mortality is traditionally low. You have to get ludicrously creative to unlink this correlation.
Rates of hospitalization and mortality are much higher with the unvaccinated. That’s a constant statistic worldwide.
“When I got Covid last year, I was ill for 4 days but never went to a doctor. When a Pfizer-vaccinated friend got Covid, he spent over two weeks in the hospital.”
So, a Clint-style research study showed that getting the vaccine makes you sicker…
“Any flu that produces a fever needs to be taken very seriously, and thats the mistake many people make. If you have a fever, you need to be in bed!”
And Clint-style research has also discovered the best treatment regime..
Reminds one of the Clint-style theory of Orbital Mechanics.
barry, how many non-covid deaths were counted as covid deaths?
Troll Nate, it’s funny that you never attempted even one of the physics problems. It’s almost like you’re afraid of science.
“even one of the physics problems. ”
Real physics problems specify all needed unknowns. Yours rarely do that.
Like your claims that ice cubes can’t make a surface warmer.
Because you fail to specify the geometry. You fail to specify the temperature of the surroundings. You fail to specify that heat is supplied to the surface.
They are vague on details allowing you create strawmen and arrive at wrong conclusions.
So here is a problem similar to yours, but properly specified:
A 1 m^3 cubical black-body is in space surrounded by a temperature of 3 K. It is heated with 1200 W.
a. What T does it equilibrate to?
b. Now surround it by ice @ 273 K, what T does it equilibrate to?
Hint: You should find that surrounding it by ice causes it to warm to > 273 K.
Wrong troll Nate. I supply all the info necessary to solve the problems, for someone that understand the basic physics.
If you’re trying to show that 273K can warm something that is at 244K, then that’s correct. A “hot” can warm a “cold”. You just can’t go the other way like your cult tries.
“barry, how many non-covid deaths were counted as covid deaths?”
Excess deaths figures (based on all mortality from any cause) tend to support official COVID numbers.
For example, in 2020 the US had about 350,000 deaths attributed to COVID. But the total number of Americans that died that year was 500,000 above average. Before 2020 the largest departure from average annual mortality post WWII has only been 70,000.
So even factoring in the largest departure from average, excess deaths exceeded the official COVID toll, suggesting that COVID deaths were undercounted.
The same happened the next year in the US. Remarkable coincidence!
You can go around the world and see this correlation in country after country with high COVID mortality.
Furthermore, COVID deaths have come in waves, temporally coinciding with the peaks in excess deaths. Spikes in COVID mortality are contemporaneous with spikes in overall mortality.
And to further corroborate, some of those contemporaneous spikes in mortality occurred in and just after Summer, when in normal years mortality is lowest.
This is overwhelming evidence.
“youre trying to show that 273K can warm something that is at 244K, then thats correct. A hot can warm a cold. You just cant go the other way like your cult tries.”
Good, it warms. But to what T?
If you actually can follow physics to where it leads, then you will find T is warmer than 273K.
Can you?
Clint you seem unable to follow the physics to where it leads.
Here’s some more helpful hints.
You have already admitted that the heated cube can be warmer than its surroundings. When they were 3 K, you stated that the cube was 244 K.
You have already admitted that bringing the surroundings up to 273 K by surrounding it with ice, will cause the cube to warm further.
So it is no logical leap from there to see that the cube will warm to be WARMER than its 273 K surroundings.
That’s your problem, troll Nate. Perverting physics is NOT logical.
barry, so the answer to my question is “no one knows”.
Your figures are all very questionable, considering the impetus to link everything to covid.
Thus Clint, our physics wizard, is unable to tell us what the T of the cube will be for b.
He is sure that with the heated cube will be greater than the surrounding temperature @ 3K.
But he thinks the heated cub would not be greater than the surrounding temperature if @ 273 K.
Why?
He offers no answers
Troll Nate, as I stated from the first: “If you’re trying to show that 273K can warm something that is at 244K, then that’s correct. A “hot” can warm a “cold”. You just can’t go the other way like your cult tries.”
Your problem makes no sense, if you’re somehow trying to disprove 2LoT. Is that what you’re trying to do?
How about stating clearly what you’re trying to do.
I’m trying to get you to answer the question that I asked and you seem unable to answer.
“Good, it warms. But to what T?”
The point is this is a real example in which surrounding an object with ice causes it to warm to > ice temperature.
It falsifies your claims that ice cubes cant make a surface warmer, than ice.
So Clint, you seem unable to apply basic physics to this simple problem and find the T when the surroundings are @ 273K.
Strange, given that you were able to find its temperature when the surroundings were 3K.
What is giving you trouble?
NASA and China are eyeing the same landing sites near the lunar south pole
by Andrew Jones August 31, 2022
https://spacenews.com/nasa-and-china-are-eyeing-the-same-landing-sites-near-the-lunar-south-pole/
This is a bit silly. But let’s go over it:
–HELSINKI China and the United States have identified overlapping potential landing sites at the south pole of the moon as both countries ramp up their lunar exploration ambitions.–
Neither can go to all sites. And I think NASA should also explore North polar region. But going to South polar region before going to North polar region, can be a good idea.
“NASA earlier this month announced the selection of 13 potential locations for the Artemis 3 crewed mission which is currently scheduled to launch in late 2025.”
So maybe go to up to as much as 3 or 4 of them, before going to North polar region up to say 2 or 3 places. And then if no one has done any exploration of south polar region, maybe do more site in south polar region. But if China explores 3 other site in south polar region, then maybe NASA is done, time to explore Mars. And if China fails and just looks at 1, maybe do 2 more southern polar site, and then you are done, explore Mars.
If China wants to explore same site, that’s fine, but in total one might want to explore 6 or more area- or china explore same site is not helping much. And if China somehow explore the 13 sites and just explore 4 different sites. But I think NASA should get to Moon quickly, before China has chance to explore all sites.
“NASA candidate landing sites, each about 15 by 15 kilometers, are located within six degrees of latitude of the south pole. ”
Well 15 by 15 km area seems to me like a massive area to mine lunar water. 15 times 15 = 225 square km, 5 square km seem like a lot.
Though it depends on what is found.
Though one thing which could short supply is area to have solar panels, but area which mined could be quite small. Or one thing is site to explore to mine. And other is someplace to have base and whatever stuff.
How much water [though other stuff matter] is in 1 square km to 1 meter depth. Or say near surface [less than .25 meter depth] over 5 square km. Or is ice which is say roughly 2 meter under the surface which can’t detected from orbit. It seems to me NASA might focus on 1 meter depth and/or near surface, unless there is some evident a lot water deeper under the surface. And a lot water deep under surface seem to require less area to be mined.
I would not abandon the south pole to Chinese, but I also would not decide Northern pole shouldn’t explored- maybe a lot less than south
pole.
“NASA is severely limited in its capacity to engage with Chinese entities by the so-called Wolf Amendment inserted into an appropriation bill in 2011. ”
wiki: “The Wolf Amendment is a law passed by the United States Congress in 2011 that prohibits the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from using government funds to engage in direct, bilateral cooperation with the Chinese government and China-affiliated organizations from its activities without explicit authorization from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Congress.”
Well, they are not part Artemis accords, why would you??
But it seems useful to have players not part of Artemis accords who are also exploring the Moon. Or more China explores moon, the less NASA needs to explore the Moon. And include any non governmental entities exploring the Moon.
NASA should ensue enough exploration is done on the Moon. But purpose is to get mining of moon- anyone mining the Moon other than NASA would be just fine.
And anyone mining the Moon, should encourage more Non-NASA exploration of lunar water. Lots of lunar exploration not done by NASA, the better. NASA should try to get started exploring Mars, before anyone actually mine hundreds of tons of lunar water.
[Extracting less than few tons, is exploration rather than anything counted as mining}. The most valuable few tons of lunar material is lunar samples worth at least $100 per gram, or $100 million per ton and that also sort of more related to exploration, but if bring back more than 10 tons of lunar dirt in one trip, then we could say that is mining- not mining water but lunar regolith]
Solar wind
speed: 645.4 km/sec
density: 11.12 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 68
Daily Sun: 04 Sep 22
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 13.99×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.3% Elevated
https://www.spaceweather.com/
…HEAVY RAINS FROM EARL COULD CAUSE SOME FLOODING IMPACTS IN PUERTO RICO, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND THE NORTHERN LEEWARD ISLANDS THROUGH SUNDAY…
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Roughly almost two hurricanes in Atlantic and almost
two tropical storms in East Pacific
There’s a typhoon ravaging the Pacific near the Philipines.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/west-pacific
https://www.nytimes.com/article/typhoon-hinnamnor.html
I have heard it could affect weather in North America. Hold onto your horses.
Ain’t La Nina fun???
It’s pouring and we have thunder. The hurricane disappeared, but we got some of it.
So, 2 is left with just 1 coming, called Kay
Earl [over in Atlantic] still tropical storm
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
barry…”Dunno what happened in your country, but we had strong COVID restrictions and lockdowns, mask mandates, 5 kilometre travel limits and all sorts”.
***
Let’s face it Barry, Australia is a mess. You have complete idiots running the country and Australians who vote for them and obey them are dolts.
Here in Canada, a bunch of truckers got into civil disobedience and parked their rigs in the capital, Ottawa. They were protesting vaccine passports, an idiotic idea developed in Nazi Germany by Dr. Mengeles. The PM, Trudeau, went berserk. First he panicked, packed up his family and left town. He thought the truckers were coming to get him.
Later, when he returned with egg all over his face, he refused to meet with the truckers. Instead, he suggested they were Nazis, because one person was flying a Nazi flag.
A classic case of missing the point that he is the Nazi and the flag was flown to get that point across.
He brought in a never-used war measures act to run them out of town, at the same time, he froze bank accounts of anyone contributing to the truckers.
He called the unvaccinated misogynist, racist, and educationally-challenged. This is an idiot with 32% of the popular vote.
The actions of the truckers were applauded by people around the world who value democracy. Newcomers who had lived in fascist states were appalled by Trudeau’s action.
The irony is that he comes across as sane compared to politicians in Australia.
If we put up with this bs, it will become the model for any insane ideas politicians come up with.
Good Aussie and Kiwis died in WWII fighting against this fascism. Why are you current Aussies such a load of wusses?
Robertson, all the time whining about ‘ad hom’s, proves again how deeply and woefully he insults others like Canada’s Trudeau.
Of course: ‘Gordon Robertson’ is a nick name behind which he spreads lots of things which he never and never would sign with his real name.
*
And as usual, he replicates disgusting lies like
” They were protesting vaccine passports, an idiotic idea developed in Nazi Germany by Dr. Mengele ”
originally produced by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Reps like like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Scott Perry, Madison Cawthorn and Lauren Boebert, or by Fox News people like Tucker Carlson or Lara Logan who all, each with own words, intentionally mixed Nazi past with vaccination present.
Especially Logan was disgusting enough to describe Anthony Fauci als a ‘modern Josef Mengele’.
That ridiculous woman has no idea about who was Mengele, and what he did between 1933 and 1945.
*
Mengele was way, way more than a simple Nazi: he was a major SS man, responsible for watching the supervision of the gassing of the Jews, and for cruel experiments on living people.
With the help of the Catholic Church, he flew like Adolf Eichmann out of Germany via Rome down to South America. But unlike Eichmann, Mengele unluckily was never detected nor caught by Israel’s Mossad.
*
What a disgusting idiot like Robertson is far too dumb and ignorant to understand is that all what he writes about
– Nazism vs. vaccination
or
– Russia’s alleged ‘Denazification of Ukraine’
is 100% identical to what French and German Neo-Fascists and ultra-right wing parties (Germany’s AfD, France’s Rassemblement National) endlessly propagate!
*
Who behaves on this blog like an asshole should be named an asshole.
And that’s the only name Robertson merits.
Binny…in case you missed it, the Nuremberg Code is addressed in Wiki…
“The Nuremberg Code (German: Nrnberger Kodex) is a set of ethical research principles for human experimentation…”
The reason it was implemented and signed by most civilized nations is that Dr. Menegele, a Nazi, had been experimenting on prisoners in concentration camps without their consent.
That’s essentially what most governments were doing by coercing citizens to accept an experimental vaccine for covid. The vaccine passport was a means of ensuring citizens cooperated or lost certain freedoms, a blatant contravention of the Nuremberg Code. It all stems from the Nazi Menegele.
No one knows as of yet what the side-effects of these experimental gene therapy products may be. Pfizer is not required to track them or report on them. All they have to do is report on the effect of a “vaccine’, and gene therapy does not meet the definition of vaccine.
Furthermore, the convicted criminals at Pfizer, who have been fined multiples times for lying about their products, to the tune of 5 billion dollars, have been released from any damage the gene therapy may cause.
” The vaccine passport was a means of ensuring citizens cooperated or lost certain freedoms, a blatant contravention of the Nuremberg Code. It all stems from the Nazi Menegele. ”
That is again the reason why I name you as above:
” And thats the only name Robertson merits. “
> “Gordon Robertson” is a nick name
Is it?
I should have added ‘very certainly’ in between.
That will be Mr. Gordon Robertson to the likes of you, Willard. Or, if you prefer, Sir Gordon Robertson. I don’t insist on being called Sir due to my lack of ego.
barry…”Still no mechanism. Just a recovery, which has no physical process to explain it”.
***
We are talking about the Little Ice Age, whether the world cooled between 1300 AD and 1850 AD. Barry is being obtuse, he is pretending the world did not cool during that period because there is no physical process to explain it. Barry is really claiming there is no physical evidence to explain such a period of cooling therefore there can be no recovery from it.
This is dim-witted thinking, even for Barry, who tends to excel at appeals to authority. It’s likely not as much dim-witted as acting dumb. For example, when I claimed a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, he called me a liar. When I produced the same quote from the IPCC, he went into dumb mode and replied with a red-herring argument about short term flat trends being insignificant, if you can call 15 years a short term.
Barry readily accepts La Nina and El Nina but no one can point to an underlying cause of either. No one can explain why ENSO phase changes are short term while PDO and AMO phases are long-term. In fact, we knew nothing about the PDO till the 1990s. The PDO caused a 0.2 global warming in 1977 and the response from several scientists was like Barry’s solution, dismiss it because it makes no sense.
So, even though there is very good proxy data and anecdotal evidence supporting the LIA, Barry dismisses it because there is no evidence as to why it formed.
There is little evidence as to why dinosaurs went extinct but there is no doubt they existed. We have dinosaur fossils. In the same manner, we have signatures via proxy data of cooler periods and hotter periods. Proxy data globally reveals a cooling between about 1300 and 1850.
There is a lot of evidence that the LIA occurred and that the cooling from it was global. It would make little sense if a mini ice age occurred in Europe only. Furthermore, a renowned geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, has put his reputation on the line by claiming the IPCC erred by not recognizing re-warming from the LIA.
Akasofu is renowned for his pioneering work on the solar wind. He is an eminent scientist who has the integrity and the courage to view global warming theory objectively rather than take the easier route of falling in line and accepting the popular theory. As a geophysicist he can claim to be a climatologist with expertise in that area.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re Gordo.
You’re all ego.
“Barry is being obtuse, he is pretending the world did not cool during that period because there is no physical process to explain it. Barry is really claiming there is no physical evidence to explain such a period of cooling therefore there can be no recovery from it.”
Nope, you can’t read for comprehension.
I said that Akasofu does not provide any physical mechanism for his theory, which greatly weakens his case. He simply assumes that whatever led to the end of the LIA continued to cause warming through the 20th century.
No cause explained, just curve-fitting and a bald assertion empty of details, implying that the Earth’s climate system has some ‘normal’ state that it must return to like a piece of elastic after being stretched.
A hypothesis without an explanation is simply a statement.
“Let’s face it Barry, Australia is a mess.”
Looks ok from where I’m sitting. No ideological divide polarising the country, economy still stable after COVID and Ukraine war, prices are up a bit but not soaring like in other parts of the world. We kept our death rate low in 2020 and 2021, COVID restrictions came off despite the fretting of the doom-mongers.
I don’t think you have a good idea of what things are like in Australia.
Tim – There is no reason why radiation should match when there is another major input of thermal energy by non-radiative processes which is not shown because they don’t know about it. My points are all valid and Dr Larry Marshall (CEO of the CSIRO) is getting tied in knots over such questions, but a court case will probably be inevitable by next year.
1. I asked how an individual CO2 molecule could “know” that it had to radiate more downwards than upwards. Molecules at the top can still radiate downwards and those at the bottom can radiate upwards. There is no other molecule relatively close to somehow stop their radiation.
2. No my friend – it can only be an input of thermal energy that is raising the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus on the sunlit side. The Venus surface is not warmed at all by radiation as you would understand from my 2013 paper – it is raised by the heat process I was first in the world to discover and explain from the laws of physics. That same process does most of the warming of Earth’s surface – not the fictitious 324 w/m^2 of back radiation which is not a measured figure anyway and would be impossible for GHG to radiate.
3. Glad you understand that direct solar radiation could only achieve a mean temperature 40 degrees below zero C.
4 & 5. Water vapour is concentrated at a higher altitude than 1.5m where on average temperatures are a bit below zero, so the 342 figure is wrong and no matter what it is, it will not add thermal energy to the warmer surface.
8. Yes the calculations give 288K BUT THEY ARE INCORRECTLY APPLYING S-B TO THE SUM OF DIFFERENT SOURCES OF RADIATION. IT NEVER WORKS FOR SUCH A SUM BECAUSE RADIATION DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY IN REGARD TO ITS WARMING EFFECT. THAT’S WHERE THE CSIRO IS TIED IN KNOTS AND COULD NOT PROVIDE PHYSICS SUPPORTING SUCH ADDITION. A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT PROVES I’M RIGHT.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT VISIBLE LIGHT ADDING. HEATING IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. The S-B Law is not about visible light that is reflected – not absorbed.
My refutation of the pathetic attempt by Robert Brown is on the “WUWT Errors” page of my climate website. I proved Loschmidt correct from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and also experiments with centrifugal force (which also creates a temperature gradient as does gravity) and evidence throughout the Solar System. Read my 2020 paper on Uranus also on Researchgate.
NO “HEAT FLOW” is needed to create the tropospheric temperature gradient my friend. It forms at the molecular level. It even forms in a vertical sealed and insulated cylinder and it forms by the same process that forms the density gradient.
GRAVITY FORMS BOTH THE DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH ONE AND THE SAME STATE OF THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM (ie MAXIMUM ENTROPY) WITH NO UNBALANCED ENERGY POTENTIALS BECAUSE MEAN MOLECULAR (KE + PE) = CONSTANT.
EXPLAIN THE NECESSARY HEAT THAT IS NEEDED AT THE BASE OF THE 350KM HIGH NOMINAL TROPOSPHERE OF URANUS TO MAINTAIN TEMPERATURES OF ABOUT 320K. I HAVE BEEN FIRST IN THE WORLD TO DO SO.
Don’t forget to read my refutation of Robert Brown’s gross lack of knowledge regarding the fact that the gravity gradient forms in solids, liquids and gases (including the copper wire) so when the wire is connected you form a new (combined) system and so you use the weighted mean specific heat of the solids and gases involved in the denominator of -g/Cp. A new state of maximum entropy would rapidly form – not perpetual motion!
I REST MY CASE UNTIL YOU CAN ALSO EXPLAIN VENUS AND URANUS TEMPERATURES WITH THE FICTITIOUS, FIDDLED PHYSICS OF CLIMATOLOGY THAT USES S-B INCORRECTLY AND IGNORES THE GRAVITATIONALLY-INDUCED TEMPERATURE GRADIENT.
PS You may also read the other copies of my first 3 papers at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
In case you still don’t understand, Tim, temperatures in all planets with tropospheres are anchored usually in the middle to upper troposphere in accord with the intensity of the solar radiation. On Earth that’s about 255K, but the surface is 288K. On Uranus it’s only about 53K (solar radiation being less than 0.5 w/m^2) but 350Km further down at the base of the nominal troposphere it’s about 320K and the gradient is very close to the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the atmospheric gases. There’s no solar radiation reaching down there and no solid surface – no rising gases – no convincing evidence of overall planet cooling, so the temperature MUST be supported ONLY by the process I discovered in answer to prayer, by the way, because God knows how it all works. I don’t suggest arguing with Him.
So the temperatures build up for one reason alone – the temperature gradient is the state of maximum entropy (which is thermoDYNAMIC equilibrium) and so the heat process I discovered only happens in a force field that creates such a gradient. Gravity spreads out thermal energy absorbed in the atmosphere raising the thermal profile to a higher but PARALLEL position, so some of the new thermal energy reaches the surface. It’s not school-boy “hot to cold” physics – there’s nothing restricting the Second Law only to internal energy which is kinetic energy. It applies for all forms of internal energy including gravitational potential energy. For example, the density gradient is also the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, and since the temperature also has a gradient then the pressure has a resulting gradient also by IGL.
Now, the gravity-gradient would be -9.8 K/Km in the absence of GHG and so the surface temperature would be a few degrees hotter than 288K but then water vapor reduces the magnitude of that gradient partly due to latent heat release, but mostly due to intermolecular radiation between identical molecules at different altitudes, eg two clouds. Likewise carbon dioxide also causes a lower surface temperature, but probably by less than 0.1 degree.
PS You may read some backstory about our new sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Vintage 2016.
Irrelevant slurs, Sir Willard. Pathetic that you cannot refute my correct refutation of the claims that greenhouse gases warm us when in fact they cool. And because you can’t prove me wrong, and nor can Dr Larry Marshall, CEO of CSIRO and with a PhD in physics, you attempt personal smears by people like Watts and O’Sullivan whose arrogance prevents them from even looking into my correct physics. Likewise yours.
Well, there’s still AU $10,000 on offer to the first in the world to prove that the “heat creep” process does not occur. You can’t explain Earth, Venus or Uranus temperatures with your pathetic fictitious, fiddled physics – but I can.
I challenge you to show with correct physics how you quantify Earth’s surface temperature with radiation calculations. Then try Venus. Then answer my 15 questions above and explain the 320K on Uranus.
The required physics relating to maximum entropy production by way of dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials is beyond your understanding it seems.
Think of Williard as a Chihuahua.
Its best to just ignore Willard. No need to think of him at all.
If by slur you mean a truthful claim, dear sock puppet, then you’re quite right:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Having taught physics to many students I always learn from feedback such as that from yourself which indicates a belief in “authority” and a complete lack of understanding of areas of physics such as entropy and thermodynamics. That clarifies for me why it is that so many like yourself fall for the biggest scientific hoax in history, namely the fictitious claim that GH gases warm the Earth’s surface when evidence, especially for water vapor is that they cool it and correct physics such as I have presented in my peer-reviewed writings can be used to explain why that is the case. But you wouldn’t understand such physics, so we’ll leave it at that.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
Frankly I’m amazed that you write on a thread like this where the top post shows the net global cooling since 1998.
Dear sock puppet,
Roy banned you here. Many times, you kept coming back.For years.
Here you are, bragging about having taught physics in the very same sentence you are deploring appeals to authority.
I hope you did not teach critical thinking.
Or manners, for that matter.
Why high clouds in winter raise temperatures in the troposphere.
“Imagine what must happen when the Sun rises and starts to warm the tops of clouds, thus disturbing the state of equilibrium that was closely the case the night before. There is now more energy but the temperature gradient will tend to restore its previous value. This means that the whole thermal profile (graph) will rise to a higher (but parallel) position with downward heat transfer being necessary towards warmer regions.”
Does anybody know why this guy uses 13-months SMAs on his graphs?
What would you use?
Loess? Lowess? Savitzky-Golay? CTRM?
binny…read Richard’s comment, he knows what he’s talking about.
Typical example of Robertson’s lack of understanding.
Because an odd number allows for the central point to be determined easily. Mind you everything is actually calculated to the last day of any month so doing it to day of the year makes more sense and nothing says that plotting it in that form is not allowed.
RLG, The monthly LT data presented is an average over the entire month. There is no daily data from the UAH LT processing.
A simple “trailing average” or “moving average” distorts the phase of any underlying cyclic signal, which can easily be demonstrated by comparing a running mean with some simulated sine wave, for example, a 36 or 48 month sine wave with a 12 month MA. Basic signal processing that.
I realize that the data is collected over the whole month but the figure presented includes all days in that month from its first to its last.
P.S. Phase is one of those things that you can just simply adjust by altering the point at which you conclude its output operates.
A ‘trailing average’ or ‘moving average’ is the same thing really just with its output point altered (i.e. its phase or delay) to be either at the end for the first or in the middle for the second.
” … but the figure presented includes all days in that month from its first to its last. ”
And who the heck told genius Linsley Hood that in the UAH monthly averages, all days in all months are present?
Where is the visible proof for that?
So Blinny, what do you think is the orbital time of the satellites?
You didn’t understand what I was asking for.
What does let you think that all daily measurements in all grid cells were considered valid and hence contributed to the monthly averages for these cells?
Even monthly averages of grid cells had to be considered invalid (between 1984 and 1988).
Did you read and understand what the v6 methodology is and how do you think that effects that is measured at a grid basis? Do you think that RSS is any better? If so, why?
” Did you read and understand what the v6 methodology is and how do you think that effects that is measured at a grid basis? ”
Try to ask in a more understandible way.
*
YOU, Linsley Hood, are talking about RSS:
” Do you think that RSS is any better? If so, why? ”
I don’t.
*
But, nonetheless, if you talk about RSS: my question.
RSS, like Met Office, uses ensemble averages out of Monte-Carlo distribution techniques since 2012, which are known to reduce uncertainties.
Does UAH?
So you think that models are more accurate than empirical calculations do you?
I think it is interesting that the community of remote sensing experts cannot yet conclude whose approach and rationale is better, but some amateur dabblers here can.
How do they explain that?
Maybe they have severe Dunning Kruger syndrome, and overestimate their own qualifications.
Or maybe they are just going with the one whose results better fit their narrative.
Or maybe that the data presented better fits the UAH approach from 1979 ’til now.
“the data presented better fits”
Can you back that up with any analysis? Show us.
swannie…”…which can easily be demonstrated by comparing a running mean with some simulated sine wave, for example, a 36 or 48 month sine wave with a 12 month MA. Basic signal processing that”.
***
You sure like to talk nonsense, Swannie. There is no scientific meaning in your words.
Gordo proves again that he has no clue about low frequency time series analysis. Clue for the electrical engineer studying a control system: What’s the attenuation of a digital filter vs. frequency?
What is its response curve and is that in linear or log?
swannie…” Whats the attenuation of a digital filter vs. frequency?”
***
Whatever you design it to be. Someone designing a digital filter would likely model it first with an analog filter because you can see the results on a scope. There is no meaning in the digital codes that represent the signal being analyzed other than a range in numbers say between 0 and 255, depending on your resolution.
If you are filtering a range of frequencies, you are in reality filtering varying voltages, which are real, electrical phenomena. In the end result, you cannot hear the digital codes, so they have to be converted back to analog to drive a speaker.
If we want to design a notch filter to notch out 1 Khz in an audio spectrum, we have to design it with a roll-off of so many dB/octave. There is no such thing as a filter that will attenuate 1Khz without affecting frequencies around 1 Khz.
The attenuation is the depth of the notch and you can control that through adjusting circuit components. Same with a digital filter except you are working with numbers not voltages.
This is why I have a concern about applying filter theory to statistical data points. I can see how it can work to an extent but I think the danger is obvious. If people blindly insert numbers into an algorithm representing a filter, without understanding the physical reality, they could easily produce incorrect outputs.
I am mystified by people discussing data points like temperatures and speaking of noise. Seems to me far too much filter theory and electronics theory has crept into statistical theory. I am no expert on statistics but I have studied the field enough to realize how easily one can fool oneself by losing tract of context.
Gordo wrote:
A centered moving average is the most basic digital filter. Roy has been using one to smooth his data for many years. Do you object and if so, what other filter type would you prefer, perhaps RLH’s CTRM or the one I used in my last papers?
CTRMs are not mine, I just use them because they are very nearly gaussian. VP came up with the figures I use of 12, 10 and 8 month for a yearly filter.
what’s with all the internal server errors? Just me, or is WordPress trying out a new algorithm to mess with us?
Gordo, I haven’t experienced any lately, but then, I don’t post long rants of mostly nonsense. Must be that YOU are the target of some nefarious plot.
swannie…”I dont post long rants of mostly nonsense”
***
No, your rants are all nonsense.
I agree. They should be 12 month averages, as I told Roy years ago. The 13-month ones give double weighting to one month which is inappropriate because the whole idea is to eliminate the regular seasonal patterns.
12
12 month CTRMs would be more correct for a true low pass high quality frequency response. SRMs are not very good all round as VP will tell you.
Unlike you, Linsley Hood, Vaughan Pratt knows everything about CTRMs and will certainly confirm, should you ask him, that a 12 month CTRM smoothing is equivalent to a 16 month Savitzky-Golay smoothing or a 16 month running mean.
No he won’t. Your understanding of CTRMs is sadly lacking if you think that any SRM can simply replace them.
See https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/
My Physics is apparently unaware that the weights for a moving average are all the same. There’s no “double weighting”, it’s just that the resulting average would be plotted at that center month with an equal number of other months included from before and after that month.
When ‘scientists’ start feeling the need to write in their posts more and more sentences in capital letters, I usually stop reading their posts.
Well show me how to do bold or italic here.
text without the spaces within the brackets gives text
text without the spaces within the brackets gives text
Sorry, didn’t work.
{b}text{/b}
{i}text{/i}
Replace { by
Replace “{” by “”
Hope it works now…
physicist says:
September 3, 2022 at 6:33 PM
“And so why is the mean surface temperature of the Moon somewhat below zero C when it is without an atmosphere and at a very similar distance from the Sun?”
The mean surface temperature of the Moon is 220 K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OK I accept that the Moon’s average temperature is 220K which is about minus 53 C. That would be the mean surface temperature on Earth too if we had no atmosphere. The effect of gravity forming the temperature gradient in the troposphere raises the surface temperature from -53 to about +15 C – that’s 68 degrees – comparable with what I explained years ago. Radiation from GH gases is NOT what does that raising. It is the “heat creep” process (which I was first in the world to explain back in 2013*) that supplies the necessary thermal energy – not back radiation which supplies none at all where the surface is warmer than the source of that radiation. If water vapor (the main GH gas) did most of 68 degrees at its average concentration of just over 1% then, if climatologists were right, how much warming would it do in a rainforest where its concentration is more like 4%? Mmmmm?
* https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
P,
Gravity has nothing to do with temperatures. Temperatures on the Moon’s surface exceed anything on Earth (over 100 C). Less gravity, and no atmosphere to speak of.
Nothing “raises” temperatures apart from energy from something hotter.
Loschmidt was delusional – there is no gravito-thermal effect.
As Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” You have precisely no experimental support for your “heat creep” fantasy, have you?
Keep dreaming.
I’m not interested in responding to assertive statements made by those who have obviously not read my ground-breaking 2013 paper about temperatures in planet surfaces (and down to the core) in which paper I explain my world-first discovery of what I called the “heat creep” process.
This process exists because it is maximizing entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, in case you don’t know, says nothing about heat or temperatures but, for very good reasons, reads as in Wikipedia (Laws of Thermodynamics) “in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.” It is far more general in its application than just explaining heat and temperature changes.
This law functions in every single natural thermodynamic process, not just those involving heat or changes in temperature. For example, the formation of the observed density gradient in a planet’s troposphere is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and that gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, being maximum entropy with no unbalanced energy potentials.
Entropy may be considered as a measure of progress in the dissipation of such unbalanced potentials. If a troposphere were somehow isothermal there would be unbalanced potentials because molecules at the top would have greater gravitational potential energy whilst having the same kinetic energy as those lower down. There is a good reason why gravity is in the numerator of the expression for the gradient.
This physics should be understood by anyone who has completed an undergraduate degree doing at least three years of full time university physics, as distinct from the one year course conducted by climatologists in which students are brainwashed with fictitious, fiddled physics.
The “heat creep” process is also observed in experiments with centrifugal force and radially in every functioning vortex cooling tube due to the centrifugal force. It must happen in all planetary tropospheres for there is no other valid explanation for the heat at the base of such tropospheres or the temperatures in any solid surface there.
Nobody will get the AU $10,000 reward as the first to prove “heat creep” doesn’t happen unless they refer to my proof in that paper which I claim proves it does.
Physicist,
Here’s a different hypothesis.
Planetary bodies were initially in a molten state, and have since cooled.
This cooling was slower than was calculated by luminaries such as Sir Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin, because neither was aware of radiogenic heat.
Seems to explain present reality fairly well. Bizarre nonsense such as Loschmidt’s gravitothermal concept is not born out by experiment, but that obviously doesn’t suit you.
Tough.
“Nobody will get the AU $10,000 reward as the first to prove ‘heat creep’ doesnt happen”
Now we have go to ‘prove’ crackpot theories are invalid?
But the crackpots don’t have to prove established science invalid?
That’s a nice setup!
My theory is that there is another Earth hidden in another dimension with all the same people as here, but almost all are evil and have goatees and mullets and way more tattoos.
Prove my theory wrong.
— Physicst says:
September 4, 2022 at 5:02 PM
OK I accept that the Moons average temperature is 220K which is about minus 53 C. That would be the mean surface temperature on Earth too if we had no atmosphere.–
Earth has an ocean.
What would Moon average temperature be, if it had Earth’s ocean.
If that’s too hard, and we assume Earth doesn’t have ocean, Earth also spins faster.
What would the Moon’s temperature by if it’s length of day was the same as Earth’s day.
That’s kind of simple.
If you want something more challenging which doesn’t involve a Earth ocean, what would Venus rocky average surface temperature, be, if it
was the same distance from the Sun, as Earth is?
gb..”If you want something more challenging which doesnt involve a Earth ocean, what would Venus rocky average surface temperature, be, if it was the same distance from the Sun, as Earth is?”
***
That’s a good question. It’s distance from the Sun right now can’t explain its 450C surface temperature, nor can a runaway greenhouse effect.
On the contrary, the greenhouse effect is bar far the likeliest candidate, when the average surface temperature of Venus with an atmosphere and clouds to reflect the Sun is hotter than the average surface temperature of Mercury with neither clouds nor atmosphere and is closer to the Sun than Venus.
Barry,
The problem is that you can’t actually describe the “greenhouse effect” in any useful way, can you?
Are the hottest temperatures on Earth (in arid deserts) due to this “greenhouse effect”? Are the extremes of temperature on the Moon due to a lack of “greenhouse effect”?
All you can do is dodge the question, and abuse anyone who disagrees with your fantasies!
Carry on regardless.
IR absorbing gases slow the rate at which IR escapes to space from the surface. Any system receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must heat up until rate of outgoing energy = rate of incoming energy.
“IR absorbing gases slow the rate at which IR escapes to space from the surface. ”
But if use such gases how much does it cause a more uniform global temperature?
Assuming you wanted to increase Mars global average temperature.
{I don’t think Mars average temperature needs to be increase, but
assuming it was needed to be increase a lot…]
What increase Mars average temperature most and at lowest costs per 1 C?
Oh, but I think warming Earth might be good idea- what be cheapest way to increase global temperature by 1 C.
Say it costs 200 billion dollar to green Sahara, this should increase global average temperature?
Also if warming world causes a greening Sahara, would IR gases be faster and cheaper way to green Sahara?
barry,
In a fit of misguided enthusiasm, you wrote –
“IR absorbing gases slow the rate at which IR escapes to space from the surface. Any system receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must heat up until rate of outgoing energy = rate of incoming energy.”
You have overlooked a major consideration – the rate of incoming radiation is also slowed by the atmosphere. Your word salad that an object must heat up because of your fantasy is just nonsense.
The Earth obviously emits more energy than it receives – otherwise it would still have a molten surface! Even the most ardent climate cultists claim that the maximum temperature that can be achieved by radiation from the Sun is around 255 K!
You are an idiot – a cooling object is obviously emitting more energy than it receives! Any object emitting precisely as much energy as it receives is neither warming nor cooling.
Take some boiling water, if you wish. Put it in a vacuum flask, slowing the rate of thermal emission. Notice it doesn’t get hotter. Put the flask in the Sun so the water receives continuous energy, as you say. The water still cools from 100 C or so!
The Earth has cooled, you nitwit, whether you think it should have done so or not. It has cooled to its present temperature, whether you think it really should be colder, or not.
Any anthropogenic heat generated is ephemeral, and quickly escapes to the cold sink of outer space – as it should. Feel free to keep talking nonsense – it obviously keeps you happy.
Carry on.
“You have overlooked a major consideration the rate of incoming radiation is also slowed by the atmosphere.”
Not overlooked. Greenhouse gases are virtually transparent to incoming sunlight but not to IR. More greenhouse gases absorb far more IR than insolation. Your view would seem to imply that greenhouse gases absorb incoming sunlight and outgoing IR equally. This is demonstrably not the case from spectroscopy of atmospheric gases.
More greenhouse gases absorb far more IR than insolation. If a system receiving continuous energy has its rate of thermal emission slowed compared to incoming then it must heat up until it equilibrates with incoming energy. Basic physics.
barry,
You still refuse to accept that the atmosphere does not prevent the energy contained in any wavelengths from fleeing to space.
The Earth has cooled, nitwit. No heat “accumulation” or “storage”.
Not even each night – you may not realise that the temperature falls when the sun goes down! No “energy balance” there!
Don’t blame me if you refuse to believe that gases such as nitrogen and oxygen can be both heated and cooled. You may have heard of a thing called “air temperature” – as a result of the atmosphere being above absolute zero!
Gee! Who’d have thought that donkeys like Hansen, Mann and Schmidt don’t accept physical laws? Dimwits like you, perhaps?
Oh, by the way, incoming sunlight is more than 50% infrared. You didn’t know that, did you?
barry claims: “Any system receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must heat up until rate of outgoing energy = rate of incoming energy.”
barry, you are bastardizing 2LoT to promote your GHE nonsense. Your unqualified statement would mean Earth could reach 800,000 K some day. That’s a cult belief that you willingly accept because you don’t have a clue about physics.
“You still refuse to accept that the atmosphere does not prevent the energy contained in any wavelengths from fleeing to space.”
The atmosphere doesn’t prevent IR escaping to space. It slows its escape to space from the surface.
The fact that there is day and night with different temperatures doesn’t repeal the greenhouse effect. All that’s happening is that the added energy of say time sun is gone at night. The greenhouse effect remains, which is why earth does not reach the extremely cold night time temperatures that the moon does.
The infrared coming from the sun is far less intense than the visible light. Very little of that is absorbed by the atmosphere. Whereas the upwelling radiation from the surface has peak intensity in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 and water vapour.
You persist with the implication that the atmosphere absorbs the same amount of infrared radiation from the sun as the surface. Empirical spectroscopy measurements do not agree with you.
“barry, you are bastardizing 2LoT to promote your GHE nonsense.”
Not at all. Plenty of things slow the escape of thermal energy from a system/surface, resulting in warmer temperatures. Sweaters do this without breaking any law of thermodynamics. Same thing happens with home insulation and central heating on a wintry night.
Any system receiving continuous energy that has its rate of thermal emission slowed must warm up. It’s an everyday experience for us.
“Your unqualified statement would mean Earth could reach 800,000 K some day.”
No it doesn’t.
Trying to troubleshoot what is causing an internal server error….
barry…”The atmosphere doesnt prevent IR escaping to space. It slows its escape to space from the surface”.
***
Your theory contradicts Newton’s law of cooling.
part 2…
Newton claimed that the rate of heat dissipation by a body is proportional to the temperature of its environment. The environment of the Earth’s surface is 99% oxygen and nitrogen. Therefore the rate of heat dissipation at the surface depends on the temperature of N2/O2, not a trace gas.
part 3…
When we hang a thermometer on the wall of a room, it is measuring the nitrogen and oxygen that contacts the thermometer bulb. The notion that a trace gas is warming the 99% that is N2/O2 is just plain silly.
As proof, if you removed all CO2 and WV from a greenhouse, the air in the greenhouse would be the same temperature. A greenhouse warms because the N2/O2 is heated by infrastructure and soil and the heat collected is trapped as the N2/O2 molecules try to rise.
Odd. When I post parts 1,2, and 3 together, I get an internal server error. It’s not the length, as the more cynical suggest, I have posted lengthy replies recently with no problem.
“Your theory contradicts Newton’s law of cooling.”
Newton never considered thermal radiation in his thesis,, only convection/conduction and it is based on the notion of an environment with a uniform temperature.
Newton’s theory does not contradict the properties and effects of greenhouse gases.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law accurately predicts the global mean surface temperature of the Moon and would do so similarly for Earth without an atmosphere. There needs to be just a small adjustment for the reflected sunlight from oceans versus solid surfaces.
Over the course of billions of years the rate of rotation is not very relevant, but I would accept that Earth might be just a few degrees colder – so what? My point is that we wouldn’t be here if there were no atmosphere or gravity. In contrast, if the atmosphere were the height of the Venus one, our temperatures would be around 600K, the Venus surface being about 735K even though it receives less than 20 w/m^2 as measured by Russian probes dropped to the surface decades ago.
The solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface is of the order of 170 w/m^2 on average and that cannot maintain a global mean surface temperature above about minus 40 C. That is why there has to be “heat creep” assisting the direct solar radiation to warm the surface each sunny morning. If there is heavy cloud cover heat creep does nearly all the work, as it does entirely on Venus and at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface.
PS: See my recent comment about how to qualify for the AU $10,000 reward, but don’t reply until you have studied my 2013 paper on planetary temperatures at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 and also on Researchgate where all my seven papers may be read.
Don’t forget the Superdeveloping Triple Dipper La Nina is still cranking up
https://youtu.be/KJ9294fWQlc
The Nino34 just broke below one degree C
https://i.postimg.cc/NfYpfbrN/nino345.png
MEI.v2 update and solar cycles comparison charts coming shortly
Solar flux F10.7 monthly: SC24 vs. SC25
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
Solar activity
Bremen Mg II daily composite index: SC24 vs. SC25
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TeTmv3aYPCjUhQcP2HMgftcEFwNOVlNH/view
Source
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_composite.dat
binny…”Mengele was way, way more than a simple Nazi”
***
The only reason I am talking about this on Roy’s blog is that we will soon face the same kind of interference in our democratic freedoms over the insane positions and policies of eco-alarmists. Now that they have a precedent to which many people have succumbed without question, governments will feel free to interfere in our rights over an unscientific theory.
The point you are missing in your delusion is that the Nuremberg Code was created to prevent people being subjected to medical procedures without their consent or without being informed as to the possible outcomes. It is based on the excesses of Nazi ideology and the experiments of Dr. Menegele in particular.
Every government who signed that agreement abandoned it by coercing people into accepting experimental gene therapy.
I don’t give a rat’s patootie about Mengele or the Nazis, they were taken care of by people who cared about human rights and democracy. Modern governments have slapped those people in the face by disrespecting what they fought for.
There was no excuse for vaccine passports, lockdowns, or coercing people to accept experimental gene therapy. There was insufficient scientific evidence to warrant it. In the end, lockdowns and vaccine passports were based on unvalidated medical models that were seriously wrong.
Governments reacted hysterically and used that as a justification for depriving people of their rights. They have exhibited a Nazi mindset and it concerns me deeply that this mental deficiency becomes a precedent for this kind of nonsense in the future.
Here in Canada, the federal government is already calling for environmental enforcement officers who will be armed. For me, this is unjustified control akin to Nazi ideology. The Nazi ideology was accepted by most Germans because it caused them little or no harm. It was the people who objected to it that suffered mightily.
Here in Canada, we have a certain percentage who will blindly accept any kind of authority. A psychologist offered that 30% of most populations will gladly go along with government authority. Unless things have gone completely awry, there is an equal number of Canadians who will resist mindless authority. We saw that with the truckers’ protests which set an example to the world of Canadian integrity and love of freedom.
On the other hand, we have a Prime Minister who lauds the dictatorship of China. He also admired Fidel Castro. International bodies like the Club of Rome have stated in their manifesto that democracy is an inefficient form of government. Al Gore was a member and the CoR is behind much of the current propaganda re climate change..
Trudeau thinks we should should go along with his nonsense about covid lockdowns, vaccine passports, and experimental gene therapy. The resistance to that is coming to a head as Canadians lash out. Recently, In Alberta, an infuriated resident lashed out at the Deputy PM as she entered an elevator. Fortunately, there was no physical violence.
Trudeau reacted with typical arrogance, claiming no woman should be subjected to such abuse. I would agree except the woman in question, Chrystia Freeland, had rubbed our faces in the exorbitant cost of gas by claiming it was good for the environment. A seriously dumb thing to have said before going to Alberta, our main oil producing province.
I think it is time we woke up to these obvious facts. Our PM referred to people opposed to vaccine passports as misogynist, racist, and educationally challenged. He referred to truckers in a peaceful protest as Nazis because someone had a Nazi flag. It did not occur to him that the flag represented a symbol of his ideology.
Swedish epidemiologist, Johan Giesecke, has expressed concern that not many people protested over lockdowns. He complained about the Swedish constitution being amended to allow for them in future.
We need to be particularly wary of people who arbitrarily find justifications to meddle in human rights. Taking the word of epidemiologists who are theorists to justify lockdowns is dangerous to me.
Gordon,
Maybe you don’t care about patooties in general, but Physicist seems a bit obsessive about Uranus.
Pardon the poor taste pun!
However, someone did write “Who behaves on this blog like an asshole should be named an asshole.” I can’t quite see why Binny’s opinion should necessarily be the arbiter. In the regard, one might say that opinions are like assholes, except that there are way more opinions floating round. Most opinions might benefit by being kept away from the public gaze, I suppose.
Unless they are wonderfully fragrant, sweet smelling and a delight to the eye, like mine.
Oh well, we are all entitled to our opinions. They cost nothing at all, and someone might pay you for them if you are persuasive enough.
Have fun.
The reason is that, of all planets in the Solar System, Uranus provides the best proof that “heat creep” exists (supported by measurements from Voyager II) and so my physics is the only correct physics relating to planetary temperatures in surfaces and even down to the core. It can also be used to explain why greenhouse gases cool rather than warm us and why the core of our Moon is more than 1,000 degrees hotter than the hottest point on its surface: think about that! Read my recent comment above about how to qualify for the AU $10,000 reward and then read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
and my second paper at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
P,
Unfortunately, you can’t actually demonstrate your “heat creep” fantasy by means of reproducible experiment, so it remains a figment of your imagination, isn’t it?
The fact that Uranus exists is proof that Uranus exists – and nothing more.
You are free to propose anything you like. I am free to ignore anything I choose.
Reproducible experiments are very convincing, speculation about why things are so, is not so convincing. I assume you are somewhat delusional, but don’t appear to be harming anyone, so why should I worry too much about what you think?
Have you considered why heat should creep into the Earth, and stay at the centre, without just creeping out the far side? Just about as silly as Kevin Trenberth claiming that the Sun’s heat creeps into the sea, and refuses to come out until its good and ready,
Normal physics is enough for me, until someone demonstrates otherwise by experiment.
swenson…I never take anything I say seriously, I always leave room for humour. Always good to have a laugh at oneself.
The Zen story of the old monk comes to mind. He was sworn to chastity and encountered a young maiden at a stream in a quandary as to how to get across. The old monk advised her to jump on his back and he’d carry her across, which he did.
A young disciple could not contain himself as they walked along after the good deed. He asked the monk if he had not just broken his vow of chastity. The monk replied, “That was back then”.
Binny is not telling me anything about me being a patootey, I declared myself one long ago. It’s a moment of true enlightenment to get that. Doesn’t mean I have to be one all of the time, like Binny.
C’mon, Gordo.
You just said that you were talking about vaccine and stuff because you fought for freedom.
Freedom Fighters are nothing but Very Serious twats:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/freedom-fighters/
Think.
Geez, Willard, you are a strange wee lad!
Why would you bother appealing to the authority of an anonymous commenter on a website operated by a known delusional person named Ken Rice, who apparently believes in “climate science”?
Climate is the average of past weather. You are free to believe that an average can predict the future, and I am free to laugh uproariously at your silliness!
Does Ken Rice also believe he can predict the future by diligently examining past weather records?
Dumb and dumber.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Have you clicked on the link?
That is what I thought.
Cheers.
W needs to be excused on those days when his Bingo addiction gets the best of him. It manifests itself in manifold ways.
Indeed it does, Fernando:
https://twitter.com/FernandoLeanme/status/1566043390717853696
Weary Willard,
You seem to be obsessed with what I choose to do.
Why is that?
Are you annoyed that I positively refuse to click on links you provide?
(Unless I choose to do so, of course!)
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
I care about your constant inconsistencies.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I don’t ;like the phrase ‘freedom fighter’ either just as I don’t like paid medical professions being labeled ‘front line’ workers for doing their jobs.
I am for civil disobedience in response to mindless authority.
BTW…I did not refer to myself as fighting for freedom, I was talking about soldiers in WW II who fought for freedom against the Nazis.
Come on, Gordo.
No one cares how you refer to yourself.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Physicst says:
September 4, 2022 at 5:02 PM
“OK I accept that the Moons average temperature is 220K which is about minus 53 C.”
Yes.
“That would be the mean surface temperature on Earth too if we had no atmosphere.”
No, the atmosphere on Earth is very thin to have any significant influence on the global mean surface temperature.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster than Moon.
–
Please visit my site, where I have explained about the
Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING Phenomenon.
–
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is why fringe scientific views should not be censored.
I am greatly entertained by the debate between Christos Vournas and D*oug Cot*ton on the relative merits of “heat creep” and “Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING”
Entropic man:
“This is why fringe scientific views should not be censored.
I am greatly entertained by the debate between Christos Vournas and D*oug Cot*ton on the relative merits of heat creep and Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING”
–
It is Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING Phenomenon.
–
Entropic Man, please visit my site, where I have explained about the
Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING Phenomenon.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t see why any scientific views should be censored.
And if the two would switch and explain the other’s position it seems that would be asking too much.
Since that is seeming impossible, I think other things could be explored, like is 15 C air temperature warm or cold.
I think it’s cold.
Does any of theories provide answer to how to warm this planet which is in an Ice Age?
Do either or both disagree that we in Ice Age?
It seems it would unfortunate if we have spin earth in order to get out of an Ice Age.
Is there any easy way to spin planets that I am not aware.
But it also seems, one go in the direction of agreement.
Like, Venus is not vaguely like Earth, perhaps?
BTW…I did not refer to myself as fighting for freedom, I was talking about soldiers in WW II who fought for freedom against the Nazis.
You really don’t understand what is in my paper because you haven’t read it. The height of the atmosphere has everything to do with the surface temperature of Earth, Venus etc.
So, distance from the sun, doesn’t matter?
What about acid, it’s quite valuable, would Venus warm or cool too much if most of the acid was removed/used?
P,
Rubbish.
For example, surface temperatures on Earth vary between roughly 90 C and -90 C.
The airless Moon has much greater maximum temperatures, and much lower minima.
Maybe you are confusing the “height” of the atmosphere with surface pressure. Colder air is denser, and the rotating Earth creates an equatorial bulge in the atmosphere. Both the surface pressure and the height of the atmospheric column are constantly varying, and have no effect on temperature in any case.
When the sun goes down, the temperature drops – whether or not the height of the atmosphere changes.
You’re off with the fairies, as they say.
“Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster than Moon.”
What a laugh! I suppose you think it’s due to some sort of friction between the top of the atmosphere (with hardly any molecules) and Space, is it?
That’s interesting idea, so the hardly any molecule {of course there is atomic oxygen also which also say is hardly any] and very little plasma of the solar wind.
The problem is 1000 mph rotation is very slow compare to 500 km/sec of this very little plasma. 500 km/sec is 1,116,000 mph.
Or fast spin of earth is about 1/1000th of the solar wind’s typical velocity.
The only thing it made wonder about is how fast is the wind of atmosphere with very little gas.
We know lower than the top, with both Earth and Venus one gets wind around 100 m/s [223 mph]. And was wondering what wind speed of the hardly any molecules near top of Venus were going?
I know it’s often complained we know very little of region of Earth atmosphere that high up. Or some think it would useful to know more about if one is going to do suborbital travel {one would spend a lot time in this part of atmosphere, and we currently don’t, though do have balloons, and highest elevation being:
While no one can ever guarantee a weather balloon will soar to a specific height, the balloons typically reach between 60,000 and 105,000 feet. However, the highest recorded weather balloon flight on record was launched in 2002 and soared to an incredible height of 173,000 feet.Jun 15, 2022
173,000′ = 52730.4 meter
So it’s the 50 km to 100 km part I was talking about.
And then we had SR-71 blackbird, which reportedly flew as high as 85,000 feet. And also had X-15 stuff, and sounding rockets and those doing the sub-orbital joyrides.
But no one concerned about wind, more about variation in densities- which guess could be related to wind.
And I suppose, because Venus only rotates once in about eight months it should be colder than the Moon ?????? /sarc
Physicst says:
September 5, 2022 at 5:36 AM
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster than Moon.
What a laugh! I suppose you think its due to some sort of friction between the top of the atmosphere (with hardly any molecules) and Space, is it?
_____
You will not laugh if you visit my site.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos…don’t waste your time arguing with this guy.
I’ll summarise:
1. Radiation from the relatively cold greenhouse gases in the lowest layer of the atmosphere (the troposphere) which is all we need to consider can never cause a transfer of thermal energy into an already-warmer surface – absolutely none at all. My first paper on radiation was peer-reviewed by the three PhD’s named at the end and it built on the writings of Prof Claes Johnson who had explained how and why not all the electro-magnetic energy in radiation becomes kinetic (ie thermal) energy in target molecules. If the target is hotter than the effective temperature of the source (after attenuation due to distance) then there is no conversion at all. The photon’s energy is temporarily stored as either extra electron energy (possibly) and/or extra rotational and/or vibrational energy in the molecule. Such energy is not associated with temperature for that is proportional to the mean molecular translational kinetic energy. For example, at the base of Earth’s troposphere molecules move at about 500m/sec (1800 Km/hr) whereas, where it is cooler near the top of the troposphere their speed is about 1400 Km/hr. When the photon’s energy is temporarily stored that way it is easy for the molecule to immediately fall back through the same quantum energy state(s) and thus emit an identical photon. So it looks a bit like scattering and I called it resonant scattering and others seem to have settled on “pseudo” scattering. The energy thus has no warming effect and, energy-wise, it is just like diffuse reflection.
2. Closely related to the above is the fact that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law never works for the sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, but climatology energy diagrams (such as linked in the first question) clearly imply that they are adding such fluxes in all their computations of surface temperatures, no doubt in their computer models. That is how they get a higher temperature when they increase the flux from GH gases. But my study in the Appendix of my second paper (Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures) showed that regions with higher water vapour were cooler than drier regions. The reason is that temperatures in all planets are anchored at a kind of weighted mean altitude which they call the radiating altitude, that temperature depending on the solar flux. From there, solely because of the effect of gravity forming the temperature gradient (at the molecular level) the temperature rises towards the surface and even onwards towards the core. But radiation between identical GH molecules at different altitudes works against the gravity gradient reducing its magnitude but rarely by more than 30%. Water vapour does most of this and that is why the surface gets cooler since the graph of temperature against altitude has a lower gradient whilst still being anchored at the radiating altitude.
3. Now, turning to the issue of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, climatology students on the internet obviously know that if the 18th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was right about this then all their GH conjecture is wrong. Be assured that Loschmidt was right. This I have proved based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is not just about heat and changes in temperature. It is correctly stated in the Wikipedia item “Laws of Thermodynamics” as “in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.” Note that it refers to every single thermodynamic process which can be stand-alone or in a group of interacting (meaning participating or dependant) systems. Climatologists try to excuse the fact that radiation from GH gases to the warmer surface is supposedly transferring thermal energy into the surface by saying it is only the net effect that matters. But outward radiation and non-radiative surface cooling processes are not interacting systems with the inward radiation. So the Law applies to the inward (back) radiation in its own right, and this is consistent with what I have discussed in both 1 and 2 above. Hence they are totally wrong in using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for the sum of fluxes and assuming the “back radiation” helps the Sun to warm the surface.
4. After I wrote the 2012 paper on radiation exposing these errors it left unanswered the question as to how we can explain the observed surface temperatures of Earth, Venus and others, because it is clear that there must be additional input of thermal energy since the solar radiation reaching the surface is well below what would be needed to explain those surface temperatures. It took me another year to work it out. Others have failed to make an impact because they have not had this correct (and only correct) explanation of what I called “heat creep.”
5. Firstly, it is important to understand that the tropospheric temperature gradient is not due to any “lapse” process, or rising and cooling air masses: instead it forms at the molecular level. Think of a tall, vertical cylinder perfectly sealed and insulated and with no air inside initially. Then puncture a hole in the middle and the air enters. The molecules that go upwards will be slowed by gravity and those that go downwards will be accelerated. As we saw above, temperature is related to the velocity (kinetic energy being proportional to the square of the velocity) and so we have the Loschmidt temperature gradient. Now remember how the Second Law processes involve entropy increasing. It’s not hard to understand what is happening: unbalanced energy potentials are diminishing. But these relate to any form of internal energy including phase change energy, chemical and nuclear reactions, changes in potential energy and, yes, kinetic energy. In the absence of any phase change or reaction, we will have no unbalanced energy potentials when the sum of mean molecular (gravitational potential energy + kinetic energy) = constant. So, since PE gets higher with altitude then KE must reduce. Only KE affects temperature so we have the temperature gradient. Because all energy potentials have dissipated (seeing that PE+KE is homogeneous over altitude) that is the state of maximum entropy.
6. The new equilibrium state will have the same gradient with the graph of temperature against altitude moving higher to a new but parallel position. So the new energy absorbed high up must in part flow downwards so as to spread out evenly as it pushes that graph up to its new parallel position. That is heat going from cooler to warmer regions via molecular collisions called “natural convective heat transfer.” It has to happen and it does. There is absolutely no other valid explanation for the heat needed to explain a planet’s surface temperatures and even the fact that the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface!
Shorter sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
1. Radiation from the relatively cold greenhouse gases in the lowest layer of the atmosphere (the troposphere) which is all we need to consider can never cause a transfer of thermal energy into an already-warmer surface absolutely none at all.
Energy has to go somewhere. Take the example of a wood fire under a plate of iron. Despite the melting point of iron being somewhat higher than the temperature of burning wood, the energy goes into the iron plate and eventually the steel plate melts.
Your theory may have merit in the lab but not in real world.
So the flame of temperature lower than melting point of steel will melt it anyway if it just burns long enough.
Good one Ken, good one,
Almost as good as back radiation energy amplifier warming the warmer ground by Cooler air.
I saw it happen at fire school.
Yes Ken, that’s why iron skillets aren’t used over campfires. They just melt away.
(Being the idiot you are, you likely didn’t understand that was sarcasm.)
That reminds me , I used to be a fireman long time ago
7. It is very important that you understand that the temperature gradient is a state of equilibrium. If disturbed by weather conditions or new energy absorbed from solar radiation high in the troposphere then the gradient will tend to restore itself. Think of rain falling on just a part of a lake. Gravity will spread out the new water all over the lake making it rise to a new equilibrium (ie level) state. But due to the force of gravity and because the temperature gradient is thermodynamic equilibrium (ie maximum entropy) the level state of the lake is equivalent to the sloping equilibrium state of the graph of temperature against altitude. In this case gravity spreads out the new thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation which normally has more of a warming effect (in terms of degrees) in the upper troposphere than down near the surface. This spreading is rather like that of the water in the lake.
P,
What a load of irrelevant rubbish!
The Earth was initially molten.
It has cooled.
It is still cooling, and will continue to do so for a very, very, long time.
If you choose to reject reality, and prefer fiction to fact, you are in good company.
Even a location on the surface of Venus warms about 5 degrees over the course of four months on the sunlit side having cooled that much (from 737K to 732K) on the dark side. Without the Sun it would have cooled right down in a few hundred years. I suggest you read my 2013 paper before trying to take me on. If radiation were what was warming that surface it would have to be over 16,500 w/m^2. But it’s not – “heat creep” is.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
p,
I’m not trying to “take you on”.
I’m just pointing that you are delusional.
It is fairly obvious that the Earth (hopefully the most important planet for the purpose of the discussion) has temperatures which vary between about 90 C and -90 C.
Daily variations in excess of 50 C have been recorded, with even greater variations over a full year.
The surface has cooled from its presumably molten state over the last four and a half billion years or so. You might believe that the Earth was created in its oblate spheroidal form at absolute zero, and has warmed up due to gravity, heat creep, or magic pixie dust, for all I know.
I disagree. I’m right, you’re wrong.
I’ll repeat Richard Feynman’s words – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Your fantasies are not experiments.
As far as I recollect, none of your papers contain any experimental results supporting the gravitothermal effect, heat creep, or the warming properties of magical pixie dust.
Over to you.
Troll on troll action. How fun is that!
https://youtu.be/qyt3Op2dTc0
“When we have government like this who needs terrorists”
Its not okay that this is how they rule ya.
ESG is anti-human.
The problem is we are too weak kneed to fight back. We laid on our backs while the government lied about covid and now they are lying to us about global warming/climate change while implementing an agenda no on voted for. The government has a 32% popular vote.
The Deputy Canadian PM, and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland, with her Barbie Doll voice,told us higher gas prices are good for us.
“Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland was being insensitive when she told Canadians high gasoline prices are a reminder of why climate action is so important and why as a country we have to work even harder and move even faster towards a green economy.
Then she went to Alberta, where fossil fuels are king, and she got reamed out by an irate Albertan.
I know UK Tories have blatantly screwed Brits but there does not seem to be a viable alternative party. The Labour Party are no longer about Labour and socialism, who knows what they stand for now.
She is cute.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/09/05/the-fib-faked-the-trump-photos/
Yeah.
And NASA was never on the Moon :- )
solar cycles comparison chart
https://i.postimg.cc/Rh4ZM0k4/msolar-cycle-comparison8.jpg
The coldness of 15 C air.
There is a lot to said about 15 C air.
First, thing is there is very little air which has average temperature of 15 C.
And I live in the land of average temperature of about 15 C,
which is called California. Florida is 22 C and smaller and surrounded by ocean. And Lancaster, Ca is about 17 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/34.56N-118.70W
It being high desert and somewhat near highest ever recorded daytime temperature [which also has cold, colder temperature- it’s both hotter and colder than where live. Hmm I look up furnace creek average temperature, but it should be close to 15 C.
So 15 C is 59 F. And if day is 15 C, it’s likely to freeze at night.
And the not a lot of time when it’s close to 15 C. And temperature close being around 15 C would be in a beach, and fairly cold beach.
Another place I used to live was Torrance, which oddly has same average temperature of 17 C. In Torrance citrus trees rarely freeze to death. It’s roughly beach town. So need to go north to find 15 C
beach town. But probably would not have more time anywhere near 15 C.
Probably San Diego though higher average, has more of time around 15 C. Anyhow point is it’s rare.
For primitive animal like human, it’s best act like animals and migrate with the seasons. Though if in tropics, you don’t need to.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
Land quickly heats up and quickly cools down.
Ocean surface do not heat up quickly nor cool quickly.
Global refer entire world, most of surface of the world is ocean.
Obviously since 70% of entire surface is ocean, and average temperature of ocean surface is warmer, the ocean surface temperature controls global air temperature. And we talking about global air temperature. We should be talking the average temperature of entire ocean which set global air temperature, but we clueless morons.
So since we are clueless moron, we can still is that 70% and warmer surface controls global air temperature.
And we could say ocean surface warms land surface.
BUT even morons know the Gulf Stream adds about 10 C to European land temperature. So Ocean certainly does warm a land surface. But my point is entire ocean surface warm all land surfaces {which morons may not know- but morons are instructed that the tropical OCEAN heat engine warms the entire world [and that include all land surface of the world]. So morons just need need know a tiny little bit more- to understand this LAW: the ocean surface warms the land surface air temperature.
If living in tropics, there is no Ice Age. And glaciation and interglacial are not noticeable.
An issue is wettest and driest, rather than air temperature. So in glaciation period, you could have droughts whereas wouldn’t have them during interglacial periods.
Or roughly speaking, everyone happier when it’s warmer. Or every animal is happier when it’s warmer.
As I mention a lot, in warmest time of our Holocene, Sahara desert, was not a desert. It’s vast region, and one have drier and wetter place. Sahara if wetter would be huge forest and it only some forests. And when Earth was a lot warmer, Sahara would had lot more forests- but that would have been a long time ago, millions of years ago. But in last 1/2 million years, during warmest times of interglacial period it was mostly grassland, and some forests and lakes and rivers where there is not lakes or rivers, today.
Some go as far as saying it was where Eden was. But whole general region has deserts and middle east in general would likewise been wetter. And Eden might been more of a world, than some specific place. But one could say interglacial and glaciation is mostly an European thing. And it’s only Europeans who really wonder why their world was warmer than it “should be”, and were terrified about it getting colder. Of course Europe is warmer because of the Gulf Stream which is less helpful when it’s colder.
When it’ colder, it’s why are we so cold, “let’s move to Canada!”
[which is not much better- but they might able to walk there {and Marxism works}].
Well post your guesswork on a reputable site like Researchgate where my seven papers and articles are to be found.
https://www.researchgate.net
The questions Roy can’t answer without getting ties in knots …
1. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Do you agree that the GHG molecules somehow know to radiate more downwards than upwards? How do you explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram?
2. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 77 = 265 w/sqm so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied?
3. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm do you agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own?
4. Using the same calculator, do you agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C) ?
5. Do you agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies?
6. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K?
7. You, Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Have you any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy?
8. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, do you agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature?
9. When the CSIRO in Australia responded to an FOI from myself they could not produce any documentation or experiment that confirmed that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Do you have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less non-radiative surface cooling?
10. In light of your responses to all the above, do you now agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram?
11. In the 1870s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids and gases. I showed how this is the state of maximum entropy which physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium, being the result of the action of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The proof is in my second paper about temperatures in planetary systems at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct?
12. You, Roy, also once stated that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. This is in accord with the explanation once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the radiating altitude and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of that 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA lapse rate) so how do you explain this contradiction?
13. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planets gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K hotter than Earths mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere ) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do you explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature other than how I explained the process I described in the above cited paper?
14. Do you agree that, in order to determine any incremental change in a planets surface temperature we must first have a valid way of quantifying the observed temperature? (We cannot determine the derivative of a function if we dont have the function in the first place, can we?)
15. How then do climatologists quantify global mean surface temperatures in a similar way for at least both Earth and Venus?
A simple point our sock puppet cannot counter:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Your slurs are water of a duck’s back. Of course I can answer – Roy (and Watts and O’Sullivan) don’t like to be proven wrong. Nor do you. You failed to answer any of my 15 questions so you don’t qualify for the AU $10,000 reward for the first to prove me wrong. Stop wasting my time as you obviously don’t understand entropy or the Second Law.
Evidence that you are using a sock puppet to bypass moderation is the opposite of a slur, dear sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
You can contact James Annan to see if he is interested in your bet. He usually wins them. That is unless you are a dock and flee away:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/08/bet.html
1.
The answer is they are idiots.
You draw Earth Budget. And it will also indicate you are idiot.
No shortage of idiots.
2. to 4. See 1.
5. Do you agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies?
Solids and liquids {and Plasmas] emit a broader spectrum than all gases.
-6. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K?–
Roy and many others regard it as insulation and back radiation is heating, it’s slowing surface heat loss.
You could imagine it’s heating sunlight is heating surface, it “could be” heating, but Earth surface is controlled convection heat loss, not radiant heat loss. Or it doesn’t heat surface.
“7. You, Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Have you any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy?”
As I said Roy says. See 6.
“8. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, do you agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature?
Diagram is wrong. See, 1.
“9. When the CSIRO in Australia responded to an FOI from myself they could not produce any documentation or experiment that confirmed that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Do you have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less non-radiative surface cooling?”
See, 1.
“10. In light of your responses to all the above, do you now agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram?”
See, 1 – you can try to provide a better one.
“11. In the 1870s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids and gases. I showed how this is the state of maximum entropy which physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium, being the result of the action of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The proof is in my second paper about temperatures in planetary systems at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct?”
Did your paper include the ocean which holds 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere.
Our ocean average heat is 3.5 C, it’s not at maximum entropy but roughly it is.
“12. You, Roy, also once stated that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. This is in accord with the explanation once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the radiating altitude and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of that 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA lapse rate) so how do you explain this contradiction?”
wet laspe is 6.5 C change per 1000 meters up, dry lapse cools more than 6.5 C per 1000 meters op.
It is not a contradiction.
“13. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planets gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases.
,,,,”
Yes, that how they can “model” the atmospheric temperature gradient.
Think of it this way, probes taking temperature, are not hovering, they falling fast. Orbit speed, gravity, etc.
No balloon has ever been deployed yet in any atmosphere, other than Earth’s.
P,
Josef Loschmidt was wrong. Gravity warms nothing, otherwise the abyssal depths would be much warmer than they are (just above freezing).
Likewise for pressure. At depths of 10 k, the water is still – just about freezing!
Gases? Try to figure out whether a SCUBA tank contains air at 3500 psi, or is empty, by measuring its temperature.
No gravitothermal effect. No heat creep. No GHE, either. Just known physics at work.
Having taught physics to many students I always learn from feedback such as that from you and our friend Willard which indicates a belief in “authority” and a complete lack of understanding of areas of physics such as entropy and thermodynamics. That clarifies for me why it is that so many like yourself fall for the biggest scientific hoax in history, namely the fictitious claim that GH gases warm the Earth’s surface when evidence, especially for water vapor is that they cool it and correct physics such as I have presented in my peer-reviewed writings can be used to explain why that is the case. But you wouldn’t understand such physics, so we’ll leave it at that.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
Frankly I’m amazed that you and Willard write on a thread like this where the top post shows the net global cooling since 1998.
If you are going to do that kind of data analysis, at least get the date correct.
It’s net cooling since 2016.
See the graph at the top of the page.
Mr Physics makes the repeated denialist claim of no warming based on cherry picking the data. Starting the trend calculation with the strong 1998 El Nino year results in a reduced trend until the next strong El Nino year in 2016. Run the calculation beginning with 1999 and one finds a warming trend.
14. Do you agree that, in order to determine any incremental change in a planets surface temperature we must first have a valid way of quantifying the observed temperature? (We cannot determine the derivative of a function if we dont have the function in the first place, can we?)
Our earth has not been explored, nor has any planet.
Our average surface global temperature of 15 C is at best
a guess. And ocean is about 3.5 C. It’s not 3.5 C
Global climate is best described as drunks looking for their
lost keys, under a street lamp, because that area is lit by the street lamp.
15. How then do climatologists quantify global mean surface temperatures in a similar way for at least both Earth and Venus?
Well, first you have to trust Russians.
Their probe.
I don’t have a lot trust, but US should explore Venus, so
it’s kind of budget diagram, until such time as someone do something
better….
Idiot…”The questions Roy cant answer without getting ties in knots ”
***
This is why you got banned you idiot, have you no effing brains at all?
Leave Roy out of this, he is the host and he has given us a lot of freedom of expression other than taking shots at him.
I supported you in some of your scientific views, but I cannot support a blatant assault on Roy. As long as you keep up that nonsense I have no interest in responding to you.
I’m trying to help Roy understand why his graphs show net global cooling. Having taught physics to many students I always learn from feedback such as that from you (and Roy) which indicates a belief in “authority” and a complete lack of understanding of areas of physics such as entropy and thermodynamics. For example, Roy thought the troposphere would be isothermal in the absence of GH gas because he doesn’t understand entropy. He even admitted that the 324w/m^2 figure for back radiation was calculated, not measured. The trouble is that he thinks the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus are determined primarily by radiation, but that is not the case as readers of my second paper at …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 would understand.
All this clarifies for me why it is that so many like Roy fall for the biggest scientific hoax in history, namely the fictitious claim that GH gases warm the Earth’s surface when evidence, especially for water vapor is that they cool it and correct physics such as I have presented in my peer-reviewed writings can be used to explain why that is the case. But Roy probably wouldn’t understand such physics, so we’ll leave it at that.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
The evidence that water vapor cools is staring you in the face. Click the above link to see such evidence. Consider how temperatures in humid Singapore rarely exceed 33C because of all the water vapor in the air above it capping the temperature even where it is only one degree of latitude from the Equator.
Roy obviously doesn’t want your help. That’s why he banned you. The fact that you have to sneak back on here, waiting to be banned again, demonstrates your fixation on your own importance.
No one else on here feels the need to attack Roy’s integrity even though they might not agree with a particular POV he holds.
P,
Are you really stupid or just playing the fool.
“(We cannot determine the derivative of a function if we dont have the function in the first place, can we?)”
Yeah we can, sometimes you can just measure the derivative, by say measuring speed, or momentum or any other variable that is the derivative of another function.
Yes, like measuring the cooling effect of water vapor which is by far the most prolific “greenhouse” gas.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
But I also like to understand why correct physics implies that should be the case, and I was first in the world to explain such cooling using the laws of physics back in 2013 in my second paper at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
and nobody has ever correctly refuted that paper or my earlier peer-reviewed paper on radiation.
If you are not going to respond to my post, you are going to get a Fleetwood Mac youtube.
From above, barry says: “Plenty of things slow the escape of thermal energy from a system/surface, resulting in warmer temperatures. Sweaters do this without breaking any law of thermodynamics. Same thing happens with home insulation and central heating on a wintry night.”
Exactly barry, insulation works. Sun heats Earth’s surface and the atmosphere acts as a lossy insulator. Losses being due to radiative gases, of course. That’s why temperatures fall at night. Then, the next day Sun heats Earth’s surface again. People that understand that say “It’s the sun, stupid”.
Are you denying your cult’s belief that Earth could reach 800,000K?
Except that it is not the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface of Venus which warms that by about 5 degrees on the sunlit side. Nor does such direct radiation do all the warming of Earth’s surface where the temperature still increases under thick cloud cover in calm conditions in the morning. Instead it is the non-radiative process I called “heat creep” which can pass right through clouds.
It will take you 15 minutes to learn what really happens …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be
More effective insulation = slower escape of heat, a system being warmed by continuous energy (such as a centrally heated room) must therefore get warmer. No laws of thermo broken.
“Are you denying your cults belief that Earth could reach 800,000K?”
I look forward to you citing anyone proposing that idea.
“More effective insulation = slower escape of heat, a system being warmed by continuous energy (such as a centrally heated room) must therefore get warmer. No laws of thermo broken.”
Sure, barry, as Clint R said, insulation works. “Sun heats Earth’s surface and the atmosphere acts as a lossy insulator. Losses being due to radiative gases, of course.”
So Clint R is correctly pointing out that it’s the oxygen and nitrogen that insulates, not the GHGs. Can’t get a “slower escape of heat” than from good old O2 and N2, they can’t even radiate very effectively, in comparison to GHGs.
Easy to accommodate:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
You and your cult can’t understand why this is wrong because you can’t understand 2LoT.
clint r…”… the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years…”
***
The author of the statement, Pierrehumbert, looks as eccentric as his ideas. The surface temperature of the Sun is not even 6000K and the surface is the source of the radiation reaching Earth. According to Pierrehumbert, the Sun could heat the Earth to about 133 times its own surface temperature.
I don’t know how he came to that reasoning. He seems to think an object gets hotter the longer you heat it.
In order for an object to warm like that, the electrons surrounding its atoms would have to rise to energy levels where the electrons would leave the atoms. Given the amount of energy available from the Sun, electrons in surface material will reach a certain energy level and go no higher, no matter how long the Sun supplies energy. That means the material will reach a relatively low temperature and stay there.
That’s why metal melts at a certain temperature. Even hotter temperatures could vapourize metal butt those temperatures are extremely low compared to 800,00K.
Most metals melt between about 600C and 1700C. Metal will vapourize st under 3000C.
Peirrehumbert is the resident guru at realclimate, run by NASA GISS leader Gavin Schmidt and climate clown Michael Mann. That’s how alarmist sites get by, using pseudo-science.
Thank you for providing the quote, which belies your claim.
“if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
That should do, but let’s quote the next sentence for completeness.
“For a planet sitting in the near-vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation, which occurs primarily in the subrange of the IR spectrum with wavelengths of 550 m for planets with temperatures between about 50 K and 1000 K.”
Frivolous claim dismissed.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Pierrehumbert-2011.pdf
Barry if Earth had no way of getting rid of it. would that not mean the Earth temperature would be approaching 0k? Black holes can not shed their energy either.
Perfect billy bob — throw their nonsense back in their faces.
“would that not mean the Earth temperature would be approaching 0k”
No, according to First Law of Thermo.
billy bob,
Don’t be so sure of yourself.
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-harness-energy-black-holes.html
barry…”For a planet sitting in the near-vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation…”
***
You’re missing the point, Barry, Pierrehumbert claimed under those conditions, the Sun would raise Earth’s temperature to 700,000K.
No one is arguing that a body in a vacuum can only dissipate heat via radiation, the fallacy in Pierrehumberts argument is that a body prevented from radiating will continue to heat indefinitely. He doesn’t get it that the Earth would vapourize long before it reached the figure he suggests.
What Pierrehumbert missed is that radiation in versus radiation out does not happen in real time. He also missed that heat gathered at the surface by air and convected higher into the atmosphere, loses heat naturally as it rises.
The Sun is maintaining the Earth’s temperature at a much higher temperature than it would if heat was lost at the same rate it is gained. People like Pierrehumbert preach that a trace gas causes such a delay, which is ridiculous. There are many factors involved.
As Christos tries to point out, the rate of rotation of the Earth is a major factor in retaining heat. The fact that heat can be dissipated internally is another factor. When you sum up the different ways the Earth can retain heat without radiating it to space, you get a situation where the Earth is retaining far more heat than it would have if it emitted it to space immediately.
It’s a stupid argument anyway. There is no way to build a metal shield around the Earth to prevent it radiating and if you did, it would block EM from the Sun as well. realclimate under the guidance of Pierrehumbert is full of this pseudo-scientific gibberish and they all sit there, like children in Sunday School, listening to the teacher as an authority figure. Anyone who disagrees is banned.
One of the leading authorities at realclimate, at least in his own mind, William Connolley, is a computer programmer. Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician whose expertise is in programming climate models. His partner, Michael Mann, is a geologist who screwed up royally by messing up the statistical algorithms in proxy data to reach a lame conclusion that the 1990s were the hottest decade in a 1000 years.
That’s why they accept Pierrehumbert as their guru. No one else would touch the place.
Come on, Gordo.
Gavin has a PhD in applied maths.
Search, read, then think.
The point I was making is that in order for a planet to absorb energy and allow no energy to escape would either be from a chemical reaction like photosynthesis in which energy in converted to potential energy OR it would have to be a singularity preventing energy to escape due to the gravitational pull. In both cases a spectral analysis of the planet would show no energy output. Thus very low temperature.
There is a lot of energy, just not in the form of heat. No doubt if we could tap the energy of a black hole it would be tremendous. But that does not change the idea that black holes are cold.
Imagine if we could tap into the furor contrarians release online through their keyboards.
Boundless renewable energy!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry – “For a planet sitting in the near-vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation”
***
Gordon – “You’re missing the point, Barry, Pierrehumbert claimed under those conditions, the Sun would raise Earth’s temperature to 700,000K.”
No. How cretinous are you? He said:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
So what does he say about “those conditions?” In the very next sentence:
“For a planet sitting in the near-vacuum of outer space, the only way to lose energy at a significant rate is through emission of electromagnetic radiation, which occurs primarily in the subrange of the IR spectrum with wavelengths of 550 m for planets with temperatures between about 50 K and 1000 K.”
How on Earth do skeptics fail to see that the first para is about Earth with no radiative loss, and the second is WITH radiative loss?
So blinded by their agenda they can no longer read for comprehension? So triggered by keywords they’re unable to understand a very basic antithesis over three whole sentences? The cognitive failure here is stark.
Nine days later!? barry, please stop trolling.
Not really, Graham, I’m not yapping. I’m making the same kind of “reality check” you claim to have done.
But instead of using that as an opening to have a real exchange, you return your childish trolling.
72 months of that regime and you still can’t stand your ground.
Always got to flee.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Alex, can I have 2 letter conjunctions for 200 please?
And the answer is a word introducing a conditional clause.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
barry,
Don’t be an idiot.
Take a red hot coal from a fire. Insulate it as much as you want. Place it in the sun if you like. Watch it cool.
Or place a molten blob of rock in space. Call it Earth. Expose it to sunlight for four and a half billion years or so. Watch it cool.
Fool.
You’ve removed the continuous source of energy from the equation. A dead body doesn’t get any warmer if you cover it with a blanket. So you’ve constructed a false analogy.
“Or place a molten blob of rock in space. Call it Earth. Expose it to sunlight for four and a half billion years or so. Watch it cool.”
Ok.
https://tinyurl.com/3jhsunwr
Don’t see any cooling. How soon till the Earth is 0C?
barry,
A molten blob of rock like the Earth has plenty of heat within it. That’s no analogy. That’s a fact.
Now add the vast radiogenic heat generated internally over the last four and a half billion years or so, four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, and the surface has managed to cool some thousands of Kelvins.
I consider a reduction in temperature over time “cooling”. Climate nutters call a reduced rate of cooling “heating”.
So, the Earth has had more than one source of energy supplied, yet it has managed to cool!
You are a fool, preferring fantasy to fact.
As to your question about how long it will take for the Earth to cool to an average surface temperature of 0 C, I estimate (guess) between 2 and 15 million years. Presumably, you were not seeking information, but merely trying to be silly. If you disagree, what’s your estimate, and why?
The sun has been getting hotter over the aeons, and yet the Earth’s surface is cooler now than soon after its formation. According to your argumentation this demonstrates that the sun has no effect on global surface temperature.
Of course that is not the case, but it demonstrates the paucity of your argument, which is a red herring.
None of what you said relates to your initial challenge that no one has explained the greenhouse effect.
The enhanced greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions is barely 150 years old, so your references to billions of years ago are quite irrelevant. As we know from multiple lines of evidence the Earth’s surface has warmed in the period that GHGs have accumulated in the atmosphere. Where is the cooling in this period?
As to the future of global temperatures – the sun will expand and grow hotter. On the time scales you distract the discussion with, the Earth will get much hotter. But these time scales are irrelevant to AGW.
barry,
You wrote –
“The sun has been getting hotter over the aeons, and yet the Earths surface is cooler now than soon after its formation.”
Cooler? Are you admitting that the Earth has cooled? Shame on you!
You then wrote –
“The enhanced greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions is barely 150 years old, . . . ”
Unfortunately for you, CO2 levels have been far higher in the past, but the Earth has still managed to cool, as you say. Once again, shame on you! You will be summarily dismissed from the Climate Loony Club if you start accepting reality.
As to thermometers showing higher temperatures when exposed to sufficient radiation from sources hotter than the thermometer, surely you are not so stupid as to believe that the combustion required to generate CO2 from hydrocarbons occurs at room temperature?
Hold your hand over a candle flame for a bit. Try to convince yourself that the blisters forming are due to CO2, rather than the process producing it!
Dimwit.
” Swenson says:
September 6, 2022 at 12:30 AM
barry,
You wrote
The sun has been getting hotter over the aeons, and yet the Earths surface is cooler now than soon after its formation.
Cooler? Are you admitting that the Earth has cooled? Shame on you!”
Well, our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.
I am unaware of when in Earth’s history the average temperature the Ocean has been cooler, than 3.5 C.
I can guess when it might been about 3 C.
And I believe that Earth surface temperature is actually average temperature of our ocean.
So, we sun which giving ever increasing heat over millions of years of time, yet Earth is about the coldest it’s ever been.
The explanation of this paradox, is related to geology.
Or where land masses are. As everyone knows.
“So Clint R is correctly pointing out that it’s the oxygen and nitrogen that insulates, not the GHGs.”
Not only does Clint not mention these gases (so you’ve simply invented his argument), they are not greenhouse gases and are unreactive to infrared radiation coming up from the ground. Oxygen insulates against ultraviolet radiation. Luckily for us.
barry,
That noted GHE believer Raymond Pierrehumbert put the insulating effect of the atmosphere in total as equivalent to one seventh of an inch of polystyrene (whatever that’s supposed to mean!).
According to Professor Tyndall, at normal atmospheric pressure, dry air with normal concentrations of CO2 prevents about 30% of incoming solar radiation reaching the ground, of which CO2 is responsible for about half.
Gaseous Insulation in is quite agnostic to the direction of energy impinging upon it. No none has yet managed to invent a form of insulation which allows more total energy to pass in one direction than its reverse, otherwise it would be a simple matter to wrap a container of water in such insulation, place it in the sun, and it would “accumulate” energy, boil, and the steam used to generate power!
Nah. Just more climate clown wishful thinking.
Still no GHE.
Carry on.
“Gaseous Insulation in is quite agnostic to the direction of energy impinging upon it.”
But not to the wavelength and intensity of the radiation impinging on it, which is the point.
barry,
Total energy is precisely the point.
The atmosphere cools at night. Some idiots believe that some infrared frequencies emitted by the surface (even after the sun sets) somehow cannot escape to space!
Are you one of those idiots?
By the way, a reduced rate of cooling is not heating! The operative word is “cooling”. Look up the definition, if you don’t believe me.
Carry on.
You are now referring to arguments I’m not making. I guess you ran out of options.
You’re also ignoring points I’ve made and repeating the comments that launched them. Once again, you’ve excised the energy source to make a point.
Forgive me if I don’t join you doing laps of the same circuit.
barry,
Argue anything you like. It makes no difference at all to facts.
The Earth has cooled. The surface cools every night.
Deny the facts all you like – neither Nature nor I care.
Off you go now, argue up a storm.
Are you suggesting that a reduced rate of heating is not cooling, Mike?
“Not only does Clint not mention these gases (so you’ve simply invented his argument), they are not greenhouse gases and are unreactive to infrared radiation coming up from the ground. Oxygen insulates against ultraviolet radiation. Luckily for us.”
barry, you’re not listening, to either Clint R or myself.
Clint R said: “Sun heats Earth’s surface and the atmosphere acts as a lossy insulator. Losses being due to radiative gases, of course.”
The non-radiative gases are the planetary insulators, barry, since they “hold onto the heat” and thus delay cooling most effectively. The losses come from the radiative gases. Here, try this comment:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#comment-6070
“Another way to put the issue.
The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that heat (Infra-Red or IR radiation) passes from the surface to space.
1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.
2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.
3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.”
Have you missed the comment from Robert Brown, Graham?
Here it is:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#comment-6073
If you can explain in your own words the relevance to the comment I linked to, please go ahead.
Perhaps you missed this other comment by Robert, Graham:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/#comment-6072
Robert worked with the Galloping Camel, him as a professor, the camel as a lab tech.
Also, search for “Robert Brown” in this page.
Little Willy couldn’t explain the relevance. We’ll put him on “ignore”, and await a response from someone who knows what they’re talking about.
Graham knows that Pup did not mention O2 or N2.
He also knows that he’s using Barry to peddle his talking point about “non-radiative gas,” e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1344156
He could search for “Robert Brown” on this page, but no, he has to troll.
72 months of trolling like that.
Just for barry’s benefit, whenever he shows up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345984
“If Brandon now wants to leave the CO2 nonsense and realize that the non-radiative gases act to insulate Earth, I’ll certainly accept that.”
I will assume barry is aware that the main “non-radiative gases” in our atmosphere are O2 and N2.
Perhaps Barry would like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345384
Between 71 and 72 months of trolling like that.
As I’m sure barry is aware, what is disputed about the GHE is not that the surface can warm GHGs in the atmosphere, or that the Sun can directly warm GHGs in the atmosphere. That is “hot warming cold”. What is disputed is that the GHGs can insulate (and thus warm) the surface. What the comment I linked to makes clear is that the third pathway, involving O2 and N2, is the only effective form of planetary insulation.
[GRAHAM] what is disputed about the GHE is not that the surface can warm GHGs in the atmosphere
[PUP] Losses being due to radiative gases
Every. Single. Time.
At least 71 months of trolling like that.
I’m sure barry is also aware of this sentence:
“…while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere”.
which ties in with what Clint R is saying.
I’m sure Barry realizes that Pup holds both that “retarding heat loss of an object is NOT the same as raising the temperature of the object” and that retarding heat loss “IS how insulation works.”
Every. Single. Time.
Please. Stop. Trolling.
I’m sure Graham realizes that what Barry said:
is true.
I’m also sure Graham will PST me once again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1361345
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1361432
"Not only does Clint not mention these gases (so you’ve simply invented his argument), they are not greenhouse gases and are unreactive to infrared radiation coming up from the ground."
OK, so it’s true that Clint did not mention O2 and N2 in his post of 5.55 PM, but it’s not true that I’ve "simply invented his argument", as the comment of Clint’s that I linked to at 9:18 AM shows:
“If Brandon now wants to leave the CO2 nonsense and realize that the non-radiative gases act to insulate Earth, I’ll certainly accept that.”
It’s also true that O2 and N2 are "unreactive to infrared radiation coming up from the ground", but that’s kind of missing the point. I’m sure barry will understand it all better when he actually reads the comment I linked to at 4:55 AM. If not, I’ll be here to help him, with no interruption from trolls.
To those who repeat the myth that since CO2 molecules are the last radiators of heat to space, that means that CO2 causes the atmosphere to be cooler, I would simply point out that in ANY insulation it is the last molecules of it that transfer the heat on.
So in a 12 inch layer of fiberglass insulation in your attic, it is the last few mm of fiberglass that passes the heat on to the air, the little heat that has managed to make it thru all 12 inches!
Would anyone claim those last bits of fiberglass are making the house cooler?
If not, I’ll be here to help him, with no interruption from trolls.
barry…”More effective insulation = slower escape of heat, a system being warmed by continuous energy (such as a centrally heated room) must therefore get warmer. No laws of thermo broken”.
***
Barry, use some grey matter. You used the sweater as an insulator, consider a blanket. The notion of CO2 at 0.04% as an insulator is equivalent to a blanket reduced to a few threads, or a sweater to a few strands of wool.
Besides, a blanket, or home insulation, does not block infrared energy, both block actual heat transfer via conduction. Air in the atmosphere already has a very high resistance to heat loss via conduction, that’s why air is such a good insulator.
The point is that heat loss via radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a very poor means of heat dissipation. That’s why builders ignored it till recently. Had it been an issue, they would have included reflective material as insulation long ago.
Most surface heat is lost via direct conduction to air molecules at the surface. Only 5% of surface radiation can be captured by CO2 and that figure is based on an unvalidated theory.
The only reason radiation has been made an issue is due to the convenience it represents to climate modelers. The Navier-Stokes differential equations used in climate models are made for turbulent fluid flow. They needed a way to relate the CO2 absorp-tion revealed by Tyndall circa 1850 into the model equations. Since conduction and convection is poorly understood they ignored it and focused on the alleged warming of trace gases via radiation.
However, Navier-Stokes cannot tell anyone where heat comes from. It is obvious the Sun is the main source but the assump.tion that IR trapped by CO2 and WV molecules can in any way affect the degree of heating by the Sun has never been proved.
That has been extended to the inane suggestion that only GHGs can warm the atmosphere or radiate energy to space.
A cubic meter of atmosphere contains 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2.
Seems like a lot of ‘threads’ to me. And these molecules collide with non GHG molecules, transferring the IR they’ve absorbed, which are more threads in the blanket.
Inhale a volume of of air with 25ppm arsine and you will die. 250ppm and you will die instantly.
Small amounts can have big consequences. Incredulity at ‘trace gases’ is an empty posture.
barry,
Molecules don’t actually collide, but you’re excused for being a little ignorant.
However, as you say, GHG molecules immediately radiate absorbed energy away, if they are hotter than their surroundings, and then cool as a result of their energy loss.
No heat “accumulation”, is there?
You might have noticed that the atmosphere cools at night – GHGs notwithstanding!
Don’t blame me if you can’t accept reality.
The vast majority of CO2 molecules that absorb IR lose their energy to other molecules rather than by spontaneous re-emission.
More GHGs –> more IR absorbed –> more transference to other atmospheric molecules –> average kinetic energy for the system increases –> higher temperatures.
Eventually upwelling radiation escapes through the heat bath of the atmosphere, but extra absorp.tion, collisional transfer and re-emission slows the rate at which this occurs.
An object receiving continuous thermal energy that has its thermal emission slowed must heat up until it is in equilibrium with incoming energy.
barry,
Just writing nonsense like “The vast majority of CO2 molecules that absorb IR lose their energy to other molecules rather than by spontaneous re-emission.” doesn’t turn fiction into fact.
Writing “An object receiving continuous thermal energy that has its thermal emission slowed must heat up until it is in equilibrium with incoming energy.” is completely meaningless. The Earth seems to fit your condition ever since it first had an atmosphere. Guess what – it has cooled, as the facts show. You are a reality denying nitwit, ducking and weaving without success.
Try accepting reality. How hard can it be?
barry, you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, hoping it will come true. You don’t know anything, and you can’t learn.
For example, what’s wrong with your constantly repeated verse?
“An object receiving continuous thermal energy that has its thermal emission slowed must heat up until it is in equilibrium with incoming energy.”
What’s wrong is the source MUST be hotter than the sink. The sky is NOT hotter than the surface. If you change your “source” to be Sun, then you’re correctly saying “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
And more of the same infrared does NOT result in an increased temperature. That’s like trying to boil water with the infrared emitted by ice cubes. You can go to the Greenland ice sheet and still not be able to boil water with all the ice.
Slowing the cooling is NOT heating. You need less entropy to provide higher temperatures. The heat transfer through the atmosphere results in MORE entropy, not less.
Try to learn instead of just repeating the same nonsense, like a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
You can go on Greenland and make an igloo, Pup.
Please advise.
barry is another one that swallowed Folkert’s nonsense, without understanding. When I tried to explain to him that that nonsense would mean you could boil water with ice cubes, he resorted to calling me a “lying dog”!
Typical cult response. They don’t want the truth. They have to pervert reality.
I’m not Barry, Pup.
Please advise.
“he resorted to calling me a “lying dog”!”
I can let a lot of what Clint writes slide, but not this. I have never used those words or words remotely like those on this blog.
It is beyond ironic that his very next words are “They dont want the truth. They have to pervert reality.”
And for those interested in the science, Clint can’t seem to understand that not all 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface are identical. A 315 W/m^2 flux arriving at a surface from ice at 273 K is fundamentally different from a 315 W/m^2 flux arriving at a surface from the sun at 5700 K.
The solar flux contains relatively high energy photons from a relatively small portion of the surroundings. The ice flux contains relatively low energy photons from the entire surroundings.
The two solar fluxes of 315 W/m^2 CAN add to create a 630 W/m^2 flux arriving at a surface (because each flux comes from a small portion of the surroundings, so two different sources from two different small parts of the surroundings can be used as sources).
The two ice fluxes of 315 W/m^2 CANNOT add to create a 630 W/m^2 flux arriving at a surface (because the 315 W/m^2 already comes from the entire surrounding, so no additional sources can be added).
Pretty sure Clint R meant that barry called him a "lying dog", Tim, not you.
Folkerts, your reading comprehension is as pathetic as is your knowledge of physics.
Go back and reread my comment. See if you can figure it out for yourself. If not, you need to find an adult to help you, then ban yourself from commenting here for 90 days.
I don’t teach physics, or reading comprehension, to cult idiots.
You and your cult don’t want the truth. You just want to pervert reality.
Now Folkerts is trying to un-pervert his perversion of physics. He got caught, with the two 315 W/m’^2 resulting in 325K nonsense.
Keep un-perverting Folkerts. You’ve got a lot more to go.
Pretty sure Pup is a trolling pup.
OK, I jumped too quickly on the “lying dog” line. Sorry.
***************************************
But my science is still correct and Clint’s is still wrong. No matter how often or how clearly I explain that 2 ice cubes CANNOT boil water, Clint refuses to understand.
Clint got caught saying two sunbeams can add and that two sunbeams are not brighter than one and that using a mirror to shine two sunbeams on the same place will not make the surface there any warmer.
So you can have an opportunity to correct yourself. Do two 315 W/m^2 sunbeams focused on the same spot create a flux of 630 W/m^2.
Yes or No?
This is why you have NO credibility, Folkerts. You keep twisting, spinning, and perverting until it’s impossible to pin you down.
I’m NOT the one claiming ice cubes can boil water. That comes from your false claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can heat it to 325K. That’s bogus. I said if that were true then 4 such fluxes would result in more than enough heat to boil water. Your cult had fits, knowing that’s obviously wrong. So you started your spin, first trying to claim ice could not bring 315 W/m^2. I simply said you could use more ice. And, it just went on and on, with more of your twisting, spinning, and perverting, aided by people like barry.
So sorry, you’re stuck with your own original words.
“And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and [t]he final temperature would still be 325 K.”
Whack!
Correction: “Clint got caught saying two sunbeams can NOT add …”
“Im NOT the one claiming ice cubes can boil water. ”
Yes, you are. Even with the new ‘gotcha’ want to use:
1) the temperature is 325 K, which is NOT boiling
2) I am using ice cubes AND sunlight, not ice cubes and ice cubes.
You never properly represent what I say, and you always attack strawmen!
Tim, please stop trolling.
“You never properly represent what I say”
Exactly. But call a spade a spade. Clint constantly lies. He attributes views to people that aren’t theirs again and again and again. I got tired of giving him the benefit of the doubt and confirm without regret that it wasn’t Tim who called him a lying dog.
For example, he says I think two or multiple ice cubes can boil water through added radiative flux, despite me explaining why this can’t happen. And he did it over and over after I’d done so numerous times. Multiple fibs from him. Eventually it has to be called out. He continues in the same vein above.
Not that he’ll ever absorb what he’s been told. Relies on the same tired BS over and over.
Tim, you once advised me to maybe give it a rest when the argument isn’t in good faith…
barry…”A cubic meter of atmosphere contains 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2.
Seems like a lot of threads to me”.
***
Context, Barry, context.
In the context of a blanket, 0.04% of the blanket is a few threads. I would not keep you very warm.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 is still 0.04% of the atmosphere. If a blanket was 5′ x 8′ it would have an area of 40 sq. ft. Taking 0.04% of that area we get 1.6 sq. ft. That’s like a face cloth. How warm would that keep you?
Besides, despite all the molecules of air in the atmosphere, solar energy has no problem getting through so why should the same kind of energy, albeit at a lower frequency, have an issue getting through the same atmosphere?
Slow down Gordon, you’re in too much of a hurry.
0.04% of 40 is 0.016.
We’ve got plenty of time to whack the cult idiots.
“If a blanket was 5′ x 8′ it would have an area of 40 sq. ft. Taking 0.04% of that area we get 1.6 sq. ft. That’s like a face cloth. How warm would that keep you?”
Warmer than if your face was uncovered.
Nine days later!? barry, please stop trolling.
10 days later?
You know the rest.
Yes, the rest is: barry, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“The point is that heat loss via radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a very poor means of heat dissipation.”
May be, but it’s the only way the Earth can lose heat, because it can’t lose it by conduction or convection.
“That has been extended to the inane suggestion that only GHGs can warm the atmosphere or radiate energy to space.”
Well no, no one is making those suggestions, because for one, the surface directly radiates some energy to space, and of course the Sun warms the atmosphere directly with wavelengths that greenhouse gases can catch.
b,
You forgot to mention that all atmospheric gases can be heated by sunlight. That’s why the atmosphere is gaseous, rather than liquid or solid.
Maybe you are aware of “air temperature”?
The “air” is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but even when CO2 and H2O are removed, it still manages to remain gaseous, and its temperature does not change.
You must have heard of “hot air”, because you utter a lot of it!
Swenson, you can’t read.
“You forgot to mention that all atmospheric gases can be heated by sunlight. Thats why the atmosphere is gaseous, rather than liquid or solid.”
No I didn’t forget because I said this
“and of course the Sun warms the atmosphere directly with wavelengths that greenhouse gases can catch.”
and anyway all atmospheric gases can not be heated by sunlight, because some atmospheric gases are transparent to sunlight.
That’s why your eyes can see the Sun.
And I thought you said things cool at night.
“and its temperature does not change.”
Apparently not!
And by the way, the atmosphere is not liquid or solid because the Earth hasn’t had enough time to cool down enough for oxygen and nitrogen to liquify or freeze.
You know, since the Earth was a molten blob in space.
bob,
You’re talking nonsense again. Air without GHGs can be heated by sunlight, particularly by the IR component, which comprises more than 50% of sunlight.
As I said, removing the GHGs from a sample of air does not cause its temperature to change. I’m not sure whether you are agreeing, but it’s a fact whether you agree or not.
You do seem to agree that the atmosphere remains gaseous because the Earth has not finished cooling, so that’s something. You might be aware that Antarctic temperatures can drop below the freezing point of CO2 even now, so depending on GHGs to keep the atmosphere warm is a joke, isn’t it?
Maybe you can come up with a gas which cannot be heated by sunlight, but I doubt it. Your cultist beliefs do not translate well into reality.
Maybe you should return to spewing filth and obscenities to divert attention away from your obvious ignorance?
Carry on.
Swenson,
“Youre talking nonsense again. Air without GHGs can be heated by sunlight, particularly by the IR component, which comprises more than 50% of sunlight.”
How does that happen?
Please explain, because Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon are transparent to the IR component.
“As I said, removing the GHGs from a sample of air does not cause its temperature to change. Im not sure whether you are agreeing, but its a fact whether you agree or not.”
Where did you get that drivel?
Thomas Allmendinger’s experiments?
bob,
You wrote “How does that happen?”
I assume that you think you have composed a brilliant gotcha. You havent.
Are you really admitting that you don’t realise that all objects above absolute zero are emitting infrared radiation, which came from somewhere, given that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
If you want to investigate some experimental resources, and you are too lazy or incompetent to perform them yourself, you can read John Tyndall’s published work, in which he demonstrates that gases such as oxygen , nitrogen etc., both absorb and emit infrared radiation. Not even a need for an understanding of quantum electrodynamics!
The atmosphere cools quite rapidly during a solar eclipse, and if memory serves me correctly, Dr Spencer has recorded this phenomenon. Liquid nitrogen boils furiously when exposed to infrared radiation. Put some in the Sun, holding a block of germanium above it to filter out visible light (or a piece of Wood’s glass). Tell me nitrogen doesn’t absorb IR from the sun, if you like!
As to air with or without supposed GHGS, once again I refer you to experiments conducted by Tyndall and a host of others.
I suppose you could try to convince readers that you could establish whether a charged cylinder of CO2 could be distinguished from a cylinder of any other gas at any pressure at all, or even a cylinder practically exhausted to near vacuum, when allowed to cool to ambient temperature, by measuring its temperature!
You fathead, a cylinder, and the gas within it, are at precisely the same temperature, when in equilibrium with their surroundings. And this is the same for all objects, gaseous, liquid, solid, shiny, dull, regardless of radiative properties. Look up the laws of thermodynamics, and you will no mention of specific materials.
You really have nothing except resorting to gotchas, unsupported assertions, and lapses into coarse language and obscenities.
Admit that your knowledge is inferior to mine, fall to your knees crying “I am not worthy”, declare you accept my absolute infallibility in matters of physics, and I’ll laugh at you anyway.
Dimwitted Sky Dragn!
“Ok, I just looked at the paper. It is a joke right?”
Swenson,
Cleary you are having trouble distinguishing between the behavior of solids, liquids, and gases.
Perhaps you could show me the energy level diagrams that show how well gaseous Nitrogen and Oxygen can absorb or emit IR.
“declare you accept my absolute infallibility in matters of physics,”
Perhaps you could tell me where you studied physics?
Before I bow down to your sacred presence of the latex solar beef.
bob,
Reality a bit much for you, is it?
Maybe you arent aware that the laws of thermodynamics don’t need to refer to “. . . energy level diagrams that show how well gaseous Nitrogen and Oxygen can absorb or emit IR.”
Nor whether gases, liquids, or solids are involved, as it happens.
Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or do you just not understand what you copy and paste?
Why should I tell you anything? Will it make any difference if I tell where I studied physics (or anything else)? You are apparently just trying to avoid reality by diverting attention away from your obvious ignorance.
If you consider you are more knowledgeable than myself, good for you! Maybe you can convince others. I don’t care at all. The facts speak for themself.
Maybe, maybe not.
https://publiusnationalpost.substack.com/p/greenhouse-gas-effect-does-not-exist
Swenson,
Since you declared
“Admit that your knowledge is inferior to mine, fall to your knees crying I am not worthy, declare you accept my absolute infallibility in matters of physics, and Ill laugh at you anyway.”
It might be relevant to know how you got such infallibility in matters of physics.
From the Pope?
Especially when you make such egregious errors, such as thinking the laws of thermodynamics have anything to do with the spectroscopic properties of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon.
Those gases are transparent to IR, that’s why the Sun feels warm on your face, I am dumbing it down to your level of understanding.
Because, as you say
“The facts speak for themself.”
Yes they do.
DREMPTY,
Are you still joking?
Anybody can pay to have some crap published in a pay to publish journal.
Thomas Allmendinger is a joke.
Maybe, maybe not:
https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/E00ABBF60017
DREMPTY,
The guys journal shopping, not much there.
Not a very good experiment to show that IR is absrobed by Oxygen, Nitrogen, or Argon.
I prefer spectrographic evidence, not what he has done.
By the way, if you guys are arguing that Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon absrobe IR, then you are arguing for a stronger greenhouse effect.
That’s not on your agenda.
“I prefer spectrographic evidence, not what he has done.”
That’s kind of missing the point, bob:
“What Allmendinger found surprising was physical scientists had relied almost entirely on spectrographic analysis to measure the molecular ab.sorp.tion of IR energy by gases. He stressed that “apparently no thermal measurements have been made of gases in the presence of IR-radiation, particularly of sunlight,” even though the primary climate concern with greenhouse gases involves the thermal ab.sorp.tion of IR energy.”
“By the way, if you guys are arguing that Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon absrobe IR, then you are arguing for a stronger greenhouse effect.”
No, bob, don’t be silly:
“The global warming argument fails if CO2, a trace element in Earth’s complex atmosphere, can be proven to have no atmosphere warming abilities not equally shared by oxygen and nitrogen.”
DREMPTY,
The global warming argument fails if CO2, a trace element in Earths complex atmosphere, can be proven to have no atmosphere warming abilities not equally shared by oxygen and nitrogen.
Pretty big hill to climb there bud, maybe you can climb it, maybe not.
The facts are that CO2 is roughly a billion times better at absrobeing IR than Oxygen, Nitrogen, or Argon. While Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon, all together are only 2500 times as concentrated in the atmosphere.
Though you could check out Game of Thrones or Rings of Power for could climbing scenes.
“The facts…”
…have been challenged by Allmendinger’s experiments. You would think climate scientists might take empirical evidence a little more seriously, try to replicate his experiments, conduct some of their own, at least investigate the matter a little.
DREMPTY,
Sorry but they have done better experiments.
I’m certainly not taking your word for that, bob.
DREMPTY,
Since you are so good at finding irrelevant high-school level physics experiments, maybe, just maybe you could put your interweb skillz to better use, and find the real evidence for the greenhouse effect.
Hint: start with the graph at the top of the page.
The deflections begin. You made a statement, bob. You can either back it up or acknowledge your argument loss.
DREMPTY,
Not playing that game.
You named a dude, implied his experiments are valid, you didn’t even provide a link to his papers.
It’s up to you to explain how that brings the whole greenhouse effect down.
And what you did link to made this statement
“The global warming orthodox scientific community has rejected Allmendingers work as utter nonsense, ”
Linking to And then there’s physics
Who claims
“I am not a climate scientist,”
And I have looked at his papers
“Any artificial greenhouse needs a solid transparent roof, which is
absent in the case of the atmosphere”
Really?
Anyone should take this guy seriously?
Desperate, pathetic stuff, bob. You failed to support your statement that “they” have conducted better experiments than Allmendinger’s on the thermal measurements of gases in the presence of IR radiation. Why should you be taken seriously?
DREMPTY,
Sorry I didn’t do it today,
But it’s been done and discussed enough times on this blog.
Go back and search for yourself.
The spectrums of CO2, Oxygen, and Nitrogen have been discussed on this blog.
Or you can go do your own homework.
Here’s the guys conclusion.
If you think it’s worthy, that’s on you.
“In fact, it would be feasible to refute the climate greenhouse
theory already by some simple arguments: The fact, that the
atmospheric carbon-dioxide has increased while the average global
temperature has increased, too, does not at all reveal a causal
relationship but solely an analogous one. Moreover, a greenhouse
needs a solid transparent roof which is absent in the case of the
atmosphere. And finally, it seems unlikely that the extremely low
carbon-dioxide concentration of 0.04 percent is able to co-warm the
entire atmosphere to a perceptible extent.”
We have been over this stuff before.
No, bob, this is the guy’s conclusion:
"This study describes a method employing one or two comparatively large tubes from Styrofoam, preferably mirrored by aluminium foils, and being covered on both ends with thin plastic foils. It enables temperature measurements at gases under the influence of solar light as well as of artificial IR-light using special bulbs with a reflector. The temperatures are measured at three positions, allowing studying the path dependence on the radiation intensity. Due to a hygrometer being laterally embedded in the tube, the filling degree of a gas can be checked. Usually, immediately after the start, the temperature rises linearly but later on, it tends to a constant limiting temperature, which is due to the equilibrium of the thermal absorp.tion rate and the radiative emission rate. The initial slope of the temperature/time curve enables the determination of the warming-up rate and the thermal absorp.tion degree, regarding the heat capacity of the gas, while the limiting temperature delivers the empirical coherence between the (absolute) temperature and the emission power of the gas.
Thereto, the following remarks have to be made with respect to an atomic model concept: It has to be emphasized that the thermal absorp.tion degree may probably not be equal to the radiative absorp.tion degree since presumably not the whole ad.sorbed radiation energy is transformed into heat, i.e. into kinetic energy, but it may be temporarily stored within the atoms or molecules in the form of exited electronic vibrational states. In order to determine the radiative absorp.tion degree, solely spectroscopic methods would be suitable. However, at very low absorp.tion degrees, as is the case in this study, such methods appear to not be sensitive enough due to the relative low absorb.ance compared to the whole radiation intensity, and due to the possible interference with lenses and prisms in the IR-range. But above all, for atmospheric considerations solely the thermal behaviour is relevant, and that one cannot be strictly derived from spectroscopic features because of the aforementioned reason.
Moreover, the knowledge of the limiting temperatures and of the fact that different gases may deliver different limiting temperatures. The conclusion can be drawn that the radiative emission depends on the atomic features of the gas, namely on the mass and on the size. Indeed, based on the kinetic gas theory, a mathematical formulation could be found delivering a direct correlation between limiting temperature and radiative emission power, given by the product of mean kinetic energy and collision frequency, delivering the power-dimension W. On the other hand, the warming-up rate turned out to be independent of the gas type.
Since sunlight as well as IR-bulbs were employed as radiation sources, near-IR was expected to be predominant and not medium-IR as it is commonly assumed. Comparing the results in sunlight and in artificial light, the effective wavelength could be assessed delivering the value of 1.9 μm. Surprisingly, and contrary to the expectation of the greenhouse theory, the limiting temperatures of air, pure carbon-dioxide and argon were nearly equal, while the light gases neon, and particularly helium, exhibited significant lower limiting temperatures. Thanks to this empirical evidence, the greenhouse theory has to be questioned. Instead, the warming-up of the lowest layer of the troposphere has to be understood as the result of the warming-up of the Earth’s surface, mainly depending on its albedo (Barrett, 1995)."
DREMPTY,
Maybe you could explain how this result is different from what is predicted by the greenhouse effect.
“Surprisingly, and contrary to the expectation of the greenhouse theory, the limiting temperatures of air, pure carbon-dioxide and argon were nearly equal, while the light gases neon, and particularly helium, exhibited significant lower limiting temperatures.”
Because your source didn’t.
And anyway, what has that paper to do with how effective Nitrogen and Oxygen are in absrobing IR as compared to CO2?
Which is what I was responding to Swenson about, when you butted in with your irrelevant source.
bob, Swenson said to you:
“You’re talking nonsense again. Air without GHGs can be heated by sunlight, particularly by the IR component, which comprises more than 50% of sunlight.”
and you responded:
"How does that happen?
Please explain, because Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon are transparent to the IR component."
So I mentioned Allmendinger’s experiments because they show that air without GHGs can be heated by sunlight:
"Allmendinger constructed an experimental apparatus that enabled him to measure the IR thermal absorp.tion (rather than the spectrographic light wave absorp.tion) of atmospheric gases, including CO2, O2, N2, and argon (Ar).
In a 2018 article entitled “The Real Cause of Global Warming and Its Consequences on Climate,” published in the SciFed Journal of Global Warming,[4] Allmendinger summed up his experimental findings. Allmendinger’s thermal measurements concluded that “any gas absorbs IR — even noble gases do so [like Ar] — being warmed up to a limiting temperature which is achieved when the absorp.tion power is equal to the emission power of the warmed gas.” He continued: “It could be theoretically demonstrated that the emission power of a gas is related to the frequency of their particles (atoms or molecules) and thus to their size.”
Allmendinger’s experimental tests found no significant differences between the IR absorp.tion capabilities of CO2, O2, N2, or Ar when thermal absorp.tion was measured instead of spectrographic wave absorp.tion. “As a consequence, a ‘greenhouse effect’ does not really exist, at least not related to trace gases such as carbon dioxide.”"
DREMPTY,
“So I mentioned Allmendingers experiments because they show that air without GHGs can be heated by sunlight:”
That’s because his enclosures are being heated by sunlight, it’s not due to the absroption of IR by Oxygen or Nitrogen.
Which doesn’t happen as previously discussed.
“Compared with solid bodies, thermal measurements on gases are much more delicate due to their low heat capacity letting suppose a considerable interference of the vessel walls in which the gas is embedded, apart from the fact that gases may move when a temperature gradient arises. Hence, a large ratio between the gas volume and the surface of the vessel must be intended, as well as a low heat capacity of the vessel material. Therefore, it does not astonish that no effect could be detected when erstwhile materials and apparatus were used. But it is all the more astonishing that such measurements have not been made in recent times.
Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each being equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and being covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 2). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.”
bob 4:34 pm, in our atm. N2 and O2 do absorb IR, in combination lowering the global OLR around 0.28 W/m^2. Together this amounts to 15% of the OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at 2012 atmospheric concentrations. Over Antarctica the combined effect of O2 and N2 increases on average to about 38% of CH4 with single values reaching up to 80%.
—–
DREMT 4:47 pm, Allmendinger simply showed Beer-Lambert law over an optical path length of only 100cm finds no measurable (by him) difference in exponential radiance decay for the various gases tested after entering his absorbing/scattering medium apparatus.
Beer-Lambert shows this is not the case as measured for a much longer optical path length (tens of km.s) applicable to the GHE through the stratosphere and troposphere (e.g. in accounting for earthen 33K GHE & aerosols in climate).
> Jerome Robert Corsi (born August 31, 1946) is an American author and conspiracy theorist. His two New York Times best-selling books, Unfit for Command (2004) and The Obama Nation (2008), attacked Democratic presidential candidates and have been criticized for including numerous inaccuracies.
Graham has intriguing bed time reading.
No, never read anything by the guy before that article on Allmendinger, and was aware of Allmendinger’s work long before I read that article. Just happened to come up in a search because it was a recent article on Allmendinger, so I thought I would link to it. I did think to myself, if they get really desperate they might try attacking the author of the article. I guess we are at that stage already.
grammie pup, Corsi’s latest book was co-authored by Marc Morano, the long time denialist who once worked for Rush Limbaugh (1992 to 1996) and later for Senator Jim Inhofe (2006-2009?). Neither can be taken as disinterested scientists, but as political hacks pushing an agenda for the fossil fuel industry.
> No, never read anything by the guy before
Of course you did not know who was Jerome Corsi before, Graham. He lives in another continent. Different echo chamber.
Still, you got to admit that you have elective affinities for weirdly conspirational stuff.
Look at how desperate they are.
The truth is out there, for Sky Drsgon cranks like Graham and Info War truthers alike.
…I think you are just dancing around, throwing things out to spread FUD wrt this research, because if the results are correct (and you have presented no serious reason to doubt them) then it blows a massive hole in your belief system.
“Thereby, sunlight as well as artificial light (IR-lamps) shall be applied”.
“What Allmendinger found surprising was physical scientists had relied almost entirely on spectrographic analysis to measure the molecular ab.sorp.tion of IR energy by gases.”
Tyndall’s work 150 y ago did exactly what he claims hasn’t been done!
So he’s a nutter.
Ball4 is missing the point. No warming up of the contents of the tube was expected in the case of air, yet that’s what he found:
“The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects. Firstly, the content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising at least in the case of air, for no warming-up should occur since [air] is colourless and allegedly not able to ab.sorb any IR-light. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since an emission of heat radiation has to be expected insofar as the temperature rises. Secondly, the limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorp.tion in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak. And thirdly, between the two tubes no significant difference could be detected.
Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment, a significant effect of carbon-dioxide on the direct sunlight absorp.tion can already be excluded since it is unlikely that the minor carbon-dioxide concentration in the air of approximately 0.04% should have the same effect as pure carbon-dioxide. However, even pure air (and perhaps also other colourless gases) seems to ab.sorb IR-light – that is indeed an effect which, so far, has obviously not been taken account of because it is very weak. Indeed, in the open atmosphere such a warming-up cannot usually be perceived since the warmed air rises immediately, cooling itself. Moreover, this direct warming-up-effect is superimposed by the much stronger one via the ground-surface.
However, it seemed appropriate to study this effect more precisely with the aim of getting quantitative results, and insight of the theoretically ascertainable coherences. For this purpose, the subsequent experiments were made with artificial light, that is, with IR-lamps, exhibiting a higher amount of IR and being better reproducible (Figure 3). Furthermore, different gases were employed (ambient air, a 4:1 N2/O2-mixture, CO2, Ar, Ne, He) while the apparatus was improved step by step. Finally, the results obtained in artificial light were compared with the results obtained in solar light allowing an approximate statement about the wavelength of the effective radiation.”
Also, in the introduction, he writes:
“As initially mentioned, prior gas absorp.tion measurements in the laboratory were made by Tyndall (1861, 1863, 1872), always applying artificial light. He used various apparatus which may be understood as wideband spectrometers for gases. The favoured one, described in his paper published in 1861, consisted of a brass tube (length 1.2 m, diameter 6 cm) which was filled with various gases at different pressures but which could also be evacuated allowing measurements in the vacuum. The ends of the tube were capped with slabs of rock salt crystal (sodium chloride), a substance known to be highly transparent to heat radiation. A standard Leslie cube from copper, coated with lamp-lack and filled with boiling water, emitted radiation that traversed the tube and interacted with the gas before entering one cone of a differential thermopile. Radiation from a second Leslie cube passed through a screen and entered another cone. The common apex of the two cones, containing a differential thermopile junction, was connected to a galvanometer which measured small voltage differences. The intensity of the two radiation sources entering the two cones could be compared by measuring the deflection of the galvanometer which was proportional to the temperature difference across the thermopile. Different gases in the tube, as well as different gas pressures, caused varying amounts of deflection of the galvanometer needle. Tyndall did not detect any adsorp.tion by pure air, unlike in the case of carbon-dioxide or of other strongly absorb.ing gases particularly of an olefiant gas, at least when he worked at lower temperatures, while at higher temperatures he found a weak absorb.ance by air (Figure 1).”
So the results were unexpected.
DREMT 4:09 am swiftly changes points and publications after being instructed in Beer-Lambert law.
DREMT 4:09 am can be quickly proven wrong in writing and even bolding: “Tyndall did not detect any adsorp.tion by pure air” which really should be “absorp.tion” proven wrong by Tyndall 1861: “Air sent through the system of drying tubes and through the caustic potash tube produced an absorp.tion of about: 1.”
“DREMT 4:09 am swiftly changes points and publications after being instructed in Beer-Lambert law.”
Incorrect. No points or publications changed.
“DREMT 4:09 am can be quickly proven wrong in writing and even bolding: “Tyndall did not detect any adsorp.tion by pure air” which really should be “absorp.tion” proven wrong by Tyndall 1861: “Air sent through the system of drying tubes and through the caustic potash tube produced an absorp.tion of about: 1.””
What Allmendinger (not DREMT) actually wrote included:
“….at least when he worked at lower temperatures, while at higher temperatures he found a weak absorb.ance by air”.
Sorry, Ball4, your quote-mining is not going to be tolerated here.
What Jerome Corsi wrote included:
> While QAnon was initially promoted by Corsi,[53] Right Wing Watch reported that Corsi and Jones both ceased to support QAnon by May 2018, declaring the source “completely compromised”.[54] But in August 2018, Corsi reversed course and said he “will comment on and follow QAnon when QAnon is bringing forth news”, adding that “in the last few days, QAnon has been particularly good”.
Graham haz Very Scientific sources.
Just a recent article I found online about Allmendinger. Who wrote it is utterly irrelevant, so long as the information is accurate. The information on Allmendinger and his research is accurate, as far as I can tell, unless you have spotted some inaccuracy?
Tyndall 1861: “Air sent through the system of drying tubes and through the caustic potash tube produced an absorp.tion of about: 1.” was with room temperature lab air thus at lower temperature, not high temperature, and 1bar.
DREMT is repeatedly wrong.
Too, the passage DREMT more recently quoted is not found in the original DREMT publication cite. Three strikes and you are out DREMT.
“DREMT is repeatedly wrong.”
OK, Allmendinger stands corrected on your nit-pick. Changes absolutely nothing, really.
“Too, the passage DREMT more recently quoted is not found in the original DREMT publication cite. Three strikes and you are out DREMT.”
Ball4, I have only linked to one of Allmendinger’s papers, and the passage I quoted can be found in that paper. You now appear to be lying.
> Who wrote it is utterly irrelevant
It’s actually more relevant than you trying to run with Bob’s “how” question with your guru of the moment, Graham, as it shows that Dragon Cranks are one step away Phil Jones batshit crazy echo chamber.
How does the experiment answer Bob’s question?
Presumably you mean this question:
Swenson: “Air without GHGs can be heated by sunlight, particularly by the IR component, which comprises more than 50% of sunlight.”
bob: “How does that happen?
Please explain, because Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon are transparent to the IR component.”
Well, Allmendinger offers a suggestion in the paper I linked to. Can you find it?
Most importantly, before you ask how it happens, you have to first accept that it does happen. Do you accept the results of his experiments?
> Allmendinger offers a suggestion
You’re the one who pays lip service to Thomas’ physical contribution, Graham. The onus is on you to provide the explanation. So far all you did was to handwave to Jerome Corsi’s conspirational piece on it.
Climateball ought to be simple. If you played it well, you would not have to troll for 72 months without saying much.
grammie pup, Your reference to Allmendinger should also take note of this quote:
So he admits that his measurements may be invalid. Which is likely as there’s no expectation from other work that the gasses would all produce a warming such as he round. Extraordinary results require extraordinary proof.
"You’re the one who pays lip service to Thomas’ physical contribution, Graham. The onus is on you to provide the explanation. So far all you did was to handwave to Jerome Corsi’s conspirational piece on it."
I would expect people to read Allmendinger’s paper rather than the non-conspiratorial piece by Corsi, which I haven’t handwaved to but simply quoted where appropriate (mostly to answer bob’s silly questions that he should have known the answer to before he asked). The explanation you seek is even in the abstract, so it’s not hard to find.
"So he admits that his measurements may be invalid…"
…well no, not really, Swanson. Though, of course, any experimental results from anyone may be invalid. I’m sure Allmendinger would welcome any further research into the matter…perhaps you could even conduct some experiments yourself.
Were it not for his 72 months of trolling, I expect Graham to find the paper, reads it, and finds the explanation himself.
Since Graham has been trolling this website for 72 months, I expect him to find an Infowar veteran a kindred spirit.
Is there *any* conspiracy he would not fall for?
grammie pup blurts out:
The guy doesn’t want to start over using results from the final improved B3 configuration, after wasting everybody’s time presenting data from his earlier setups. Anyone who thought about what he did might consider that the earlier results were from a flawed setup in which the thermometers were not properly isolated from the IR radiation. The fact that he found such high temperatures at his upper thermometers would be a clue.
As for experiments, I’ve already done several, which you continue to dismiss. What experiments have you done and where have you posted your results?
Little Willy proves he couldn’t even understand the abstract. Oh well.
DREMT 3:37 pm cited: “In a 2018 article entitled “The Real Cause of Global Warming and Its Consequences on Climate, [4] published in the SciFed Journal of Global Warming”” is 11 pages long and only mentions Tyndall once without the passage DREMT 4:09 am copied/pasted without understanding.
It is DREMT 7:56 am that can’t keep his cites straight. The [4] is a giveaway that DREMT is wrong & not truthful enough to use Allmendinger’s own published writing. Pity.
3 strikeouts and your half inning IS over DREMT. The pitcher won.
That was a quote from the article on Allmendinger, Ball4. I linked to an article on Allmendinger, and I linked directly to one of his papers. The passage I quoted on Tyndall was from the paper I linked to. God, you are dumb.
DREMT 12:56 pm forced to admit I was correct 7:45 am: “Too, the passage DREMT more recently quoted is not found in the original DREMT publication cite. Three strikes and you are out DREMT.”
You really are out DREMT; DREMT needs to be truthful next thread, this one is over for DREMT.
This is the original DREMT cite:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362284
What you are calling the original DREMT cite is actually a quote from the article on Allmendinger, and is a citation the author of that article made, not me. Learn to read, Ball4.
Graham still confuses an (unreproducible) experiment with an explanation.
No, I don’t. The (tentative) explanation is offered in the paper. You can even find it in the abstract:
"The absorp.tion was assumed as a result of vibration of the atomic electron shell, induced by the electromagnetic waves. Comparing the results in sunlight to those obtained in artificial light, the effective wavelength could be assessed delivering the value of 1.9 μm."
None of this changes the fact that the experiments seem to show:
"Air without GHGs can be heated by sunlight, particularly by the IR component, which comprises more than 50% of sunlight."
Proving Swenson correct. Which is why I mentioned Allmendinger.
> The (tentative) explanation is offered in the paper.
Quote it, Graham.
What, again!?
An abstract is not *in* the text, Graham.
Here is how quoting works:
So maybe you need to revise your concept of “original” cite.
I did not cite the paper Ball4 claims I did. That was the author of the article.
Now DREMT takes back his own written words I clipped verbatim. DREMT’s sophistry sure is amusing.
These words:
“In a 2018 article entitled “The Real Cause of Global Warming and Its Consequences on Climate, [4] published in the SciFed Journal of Global Warming”
are not mine. They were written by the author of the article on Allmendinger that I linked to. They are part of the section of the article that I quoted, in a response to bobdroege.
Alright, Graham. Quoting might be hard. Here’s another example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362463
This quote establishes a few things. First, that you indeed quoted Corsi, a known conspirational fabulist. Second, that you indeed quoted Corsi mentioning the article that is being discussed.
Now, either that non-peer-reviewed paper is relevant to the other one you cited elsewhere and still refuse to quote, or it’s not.
If it’s not relevant, then one has to wonder why you used that quote to support your claim about that non-peer-reviewed paper.
Which is it?
It is relevant.
If it’s relevant, Graham, then you ought to address B4’s point and stop your parsomatics about the word “cited.”
Also, I forgot to add a third thing, about the emphasized word:
What an experiment establishes does not tell how or why.
Citing Corsi, whom you now know is a serial mythomaniac who can only bow to Gordo, is obviously not enough.
“As initially mentioned, prior gas absorp.tion measurements in the laboratory were made by Tyndall (1861, 1863, 1872), always applying artificial light.”
He applied the emissions of heated body. Is that artificial? The Earth surface is a heated body, so equally artificial?
All that matters is the broad wavelength spectrum of the emitted light. In that respect the Earth’s surface and the heated body are similar.
This is a very very silly paper.
Thus, sky dragon slayers think its the bees knees. Because they are very gullible.
Ball4 falsely accused me of “changing points and publications” following one of his comments. I pointed out that his accusation was false. Besides that, he has no point that I need to respond to.
“What an experiment establishes does not tell how or why.”
Yes, indeed. The explanation for the how and the why offered by Allmendinger is that:
“The absorp.tion was assumed as a result of vibration of the atomic electron shell, induced by the electromagnetic waves. Comparing the results in sunlight to those obtained in artificial light, the effective wavelength could be assessed delivering the value of 1.9 μm."
The reason the effect has not been discovered before is explained as follows:
“In order to determine the radiative absorp.tion degree, solely spectroscopic methods would be suitable. However, at very low absorp.tion degrees, as is the case in this study, such methods appear to not be sensitive enough due to the relative low ab.sorb.ance compared to the whole radiation intensity, and due to the possible interference with lenses and prisms in the IR-range. But above all, for atmospheric considerations solely the thermal behaviour is relevant, and that one cannot be strictly derived from spectroscopic features because of the aforementioned reason.”
Former studies into IR absorp.tion of gases have primarily relied on spectroscopy, you see.
“So the results were unexpected.”
Yes indeed. And disagree with 150 y of physics experiments.
But, for some reason, some people believe ALL those other experiments can be ignored because only THIS NEW ONE is correct.
Puleeez…
There was no false accusation by Ball4 as DREMT’s comment is there for more astute commenters to read where DREMT 4:08 am didn’t understand, bolded, & obviously changed on his own a later proven false statement; DREMT even later tried to blame the statement DREMT changed (without attribution) on another author.
DREMT would be better off taking such sophistry to the blog DREMT supports for that purpose as more astute commenters keep ridiculing (year after year) many of DREMT’s sophist comments on this science blog.
Ball4, your nitpicking over Allmendinger’s statements about Tyndall’s experiments is not what I was referring to.
You’ve had nothing of any substance to bring to this discussion.
Well, it’s not really been a discussion. It’s just been five professional sophists piling on and personally attacking me, basically. As well as the author of the article. A lot of picking of nits over irrelevant details from the introduction to the paper. A fair few false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults…
…oh well. It just makes you lot look bad. So, please continue.
Wasn’t nitpicking, was fundamental.
The more astute 5 are rightfully personally attacking DREMT’s wrongful science & proven wrong comments. Please improve your work DREMT, get the science right, and not change other author’s work without attribution. DREMT won’t then be personally attacked successfully because there will be no rightful reason to do so.
No, it’s not fundamental, Ball4. Whether Tyndall did or did not "detect any adsorp.tion by pure air" really changes absolutely nothing about the results of Allmendinger’s experiments.
"Please improve your work DREMT, get the science right, and not change other author’s work without attribution."
What science have I got wrong, and where have I changed any other author’s work without attribution!?
> it’s not fundamental
And what is fundamental, Graham? You cited a source that summarized a different paper than the one you yourself cited. It’s not big deal.
Give it a rest. Stick to what’s fundamental – the explanation you owe to Bob.
"You cited a source that summarized a different paper than the one you yourself cited. It’s not big deal."
Incorrect, Willard. The article I linked to cites four of Allmendinger’s papers, one of which is the one I linked to. The article is really a summary of Allmendinger’s work in general, but the paper I linked to is as good an introduction to it as you’re going to get.
"Give it a rest. Stick to what’s fundamental – the explanation you owe to Bob."
Explanation given.
> Explanation given.
Incorrect, Graham.
Perhaps you should read the paper again, assuming you read it.
We both know why you balk.
4:57 PM, Little Willy. Re-read until understood.
Please stop begging questions while hand waving, Graham.
Perhaps you should read the definition of *assumed* in a dictionary.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of “tentative”.
Perhaps you have no idea how Thomas one-line armwaving explains anything, Graham.
Or that it is not developed further in the text,
Or how this is supposed to work under natural light but not artificial light.
You read science papers like a truther, including papers written by Dragon cranks.
It’s not one line, Little Willy. Part of understanding his explanation comes from the parts of the text where he explains why the effect has not been discovered before. Part of understanding his explanation comes from reading his other papers. Part of understanding his explanation comes from realising that vibration of the atomic electron shell is not the normal way IR is understood to be ab.sorbed.
“Or how this is supposed to work under natural light but not artificial light.”
If you had read and understood the paper, you would know that it worked under both.
Try to understand that I’m not saying his explanation is definitely “right”, or is definitely “truth”. I’m just saying, he has offered a tentative explanation.
Finally, and most importantly, understand that his experiments show that it happens, not why it happens. That it happens is still a problem for the GHE theory.
Perhaps this, from a more recent paper, will help:
“The comparison of the results obtained by using IR-spots, on the one hand, and sun light, on the other hand, yielded that the absorbed IR-radiation was short-wavy, supposedly approx. 1.9 μm. Subsequent experiments with a hot-plate positioned below the radiation tube (Figure 13), which entailed lower temperatures (<90°C) and therefore larger wave-lengths, were less precise but delivered similar results [20]. However, at a larger distance pure CO2 was even less warmed up than air (Figure 14).
Thus, this kind of absorp.tion occurs over a relatively large wave-length range, in contrast to the hitherto known IR-spectroscopic measurements which deliver solely narrow absorp.tion bands. Obviously, another kind of IR-absorp.tion has herewith been discovered, characterized by a considerable warming-up of the irradiated gas, but not detectable with usual IR-spectrometers, whereas in the latter case, the absorbed IR-radiation is supposedly re-emitted, without having a warming-up effect. This novel kind of IR-absorp.tion is supposedly not associated with vibrations of atom nuclei within molecules, but rather with vibrations of atomic electron shells.”
> Part of understanding his explanation comes from the parts of the text where he explains why the effect has not been discovered before.
No, Graham. You can’t pivot to Thomas’ experiments like that. It’s obvious you only read the last line of Bob’s comment. Mike never reads anything. He obviously has not read Thomas.
The exchange between Mike and Bob was about O2 and N2. You are supposed to explain how Thomas’ “vibration of the atomic electron shell, induced by the electromagnetic waves” theory makes it so that O2 and N2 does all the radiative work.
When done with that, you’ll still be stuck with Bob’s point:
Instead of absrobing truther papers, try to follow exchanges properly.
bob’s point was countered as soon as he made it, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362328
“You are supposed to explain how Thomas’ “vibration of the atomic electron shell, induced by the electromagnetic waves” theory makes it so that O2 and N2 does all the radiative work.”
…because O2 and N2 can supposedly absorb in this manner just as effectively as GHGs. It levels the playing field, meaning that GHGs are no longer necessary to explain warning of the atmosphere by the Sun. The results show that a 4:1 nitrogen/oxygen mix warmed identically to normal air, and not very much differently to pure CO2.
So you can’t explain Thomas’ armwaving, Graham. That’s fair. He probly can’t himself.
If O2 and N2 can supposedly absorb IR, two things obtain –
First, they should not be called non-radiative.
Second, as Bob underlined, we suddenly got a bigger greenhouse problem.
Are you sure you want to go there?
Since you have effectively just repeated your previous comment, Little Willy, I refer you again to my previous comment.
The Earth is composed of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, Graham.
Your turn.
> The Earth is composed
The Earth’s atmosphere, that is.
I’m starting to talk like Pup!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
To wrap up:
Thomas claims to have found “a considerable warming-up of the irradiated gas, but not detectable with usual IR-spectrometers.”
Thomas assumes that this is caused by some “vibration of the atomic electron shell, induced by the electromagnetic waves.”
Graham explains this armwaving the following: “because O2 and N2 can supposedly absorb in this manner just as effectively as GHGs.”
So Graham found another conspiracy, which he explains by saying that O2 and N2 absorb infrared radiation because they do.
The truth is out there.
To sum up, Allmendinger conducted a series of experiments, the results of which show (regardless of how you explain them) that there is no Greenhouse Effect. The only way to carry on believing in the Greenhouse Effect conspiracy, is to believe that his results are invalid, for some reason.
Shorter Graham – 99% of the atmosphere absorbe infrared radiations because a Sky Dragon crank said so.
Demonstrated so, experimentally.
So you say, Graham, based on what Thomas says, and as reported by Jerome Corsi, another conspiracy fan.
Data and code, pretty please.
No, based on the experimental results.
Have you seen Thomas’ results, Graham, and have you ever heard of indeterminacy ?
The results show that a 4:1 nitrogen/oxygen mix warmed identically to normal air, and not very much differently to pure CO2.
You have not seen the results, Graham. Only what Thomas reports.
Spectographic analysis is not young, e.g.:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ScientificPapers/nbsscientificpaper444vol18p235_A2b.pdf
Perhaps Bob could teach you, if you ask nicely and if you fork a few bucks for each lesson.
Willard proves he hasn’t been paying any attention, by mentioning spectrographic analysis. It really is pointless talking to him.
Graham is stuck on the ad nauseam once again. Has he checked if Thomas revealed the error margins of his very sophisticated apparatus? Why would he. Large tubes from Styrofoam, preferably mirrored by aluminium foils, are so much better than high tech lab spectrometers to confirm Dragon cranks conspiracies [1].
[1] This comment has NOT been sponsored by ThermoFisher: https://www.thermofisher.com
ThermoFisher, please call me.
“The primary objective of this investigation was to verify empirically the common assumption that carbon-dioxide unlike the main air components nitrogen and oxygen absorbs infrared light, being thus significantly accountable for the so-called greenhouse effect. For this purpose and contrary to any previous measuring concepts, not the intensity of the radiation beam should be studied as by spectroscopic methods but its particular influence on gases, thus on matter, that is, their thermal behaviour in the presence of a light-beam. At that time, it was not evident that solely the near-IR should be focused.
Compared with solid bodies, thermal measurements on gases are much more delicate due to their low heat capacity letting suppose a considerable interference of the vessel walls in which the gas is embedded, apart from the fact that gases may move when a temperature gradient arises. Hence, a large ratio between the gas volume and the surface of the vessel must be intended, as well as a low heat capacity of the vessel material. Therefore, it does not astonish that no effect could be detected when erstwhile materials and apparatus were used. But it is all the more astonishing that such measurements have not been made in recent times.”
> What is remarkable is that, according to the PDF, it was accepted less than a month after being received. Ive been looking through some of my recent papers, and even mostly uncontroversial papers that receive quite positive reviews tend to have a couple of months between being received and being accepted. Here, however, is a paper that, if right (which it is not), would rewrite our understanding of one of the most important scientific topics of the current age, and it takes less than a month. Youd think it might undergo a bit more scrutiny. Youd also like to think that the $519 article processing charge didnt play a role in the speediness of the decision making (you might, however, be wrong if you did think this).
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/seems-omics-international-will-publish-anything/
“Here, however, is a paper that, if right (which it is not), would rewrite our understanding of one of the most important scientific topics of the current age…”
Exactly. You have to believe the experimental results are invalid in order to carry on believing in the GHE. Sorry, Ken, but moaning about where the results of the experiment were published isn’t going to invalidate the results. Nor will nit-picking over certain arguments made in the paper (which is not the same as the one we are discussing, by the way). His article on the subject was a joke.
Graham, please stop trolling.
The funny thing is, throughout this, I’ve not even been saying “he’s right”, or “his results are valid”. They may not be. What’s remarkable is the response I get just for mentioning this sort of thing. People respond for days on end. Everything they can throw at me, at Allmendinger, at the author of the article on Allmendinger, at the journals his papers are published in, at various irrelevant arguments made in the papers, gets thrown with furious indignation that I dared to even mention the guy in the first place. The fact is, the GHE is a belief system. You can see that very clearly in the way people react to any criticism of it. There’s nothing rational there. There’s never any response of any real substance. Truth is, I bring these things up sometimes highly skeptical that there is anything to it, but the response I get is so crazy irrational that it starts to make me think…there must be something to it!
Basically, it’s a series of experiments (which appear to have had a lot of thought and care put into them) with results that would profoundly effect our understanding of atmospheric science, if correct. It could be something that’s, you know, exciting. Inspiring. Interesting. Worthy of further research. Perhaps just a teeny tiny bit of that funding for climate science research could go in the direction of looking into this further? No? Or shall we just decide it “must” be wrong, and leave it at that? Just not think about it? Pretend it never happened? People’s attitudes are so boring…
grammie pup wrote:
A big “if” indeed. But, grammie refuses to consider that the author used data which he later proved to be wrong when he moved the last version of his device outside into sunlight.
gammie doesn’t care because his intent is to spread as much FUD as possible about the scientific foundation of AGW. Case in point is his posting of long pieces of the paper’s text, which anyone who cared could have read in the original along with the figures for context.
Your beliefs about what my intentions are, are wrong, and constitute nothing more than yet another personal attack, Swanson. Further proving the point I just made.
“Case in point is his posting of long pieces of the paper’s text, which anyone who cared could have read in the original along with the figures for context.”
I shouldn’t need to keep posting long pieces of the paper’s text…but if you paid more attention to the discusssion, Swanson, you would notice that people keep posting things that are missing the point. So I have to keep quoting from the paper to set them straight. If I put the paper into my own words, various people would no doubt criticize me for not using the author’s own words…
“But, grammie refuses to consider that the author used data which he later proved to be wrong when he moved the last version of his device outside into sunlight.”
I don’t refuse to consider anything. You’re trying to push this point like it invalidates the whole thing. My point is, if there is any doubt over the validity of the results, why not conduct further research (Allmendinger already did, this is one of his earlier papers)? Where’s the scientific curiosity? There’s enough there in this paper alone to spark a bit of interest, surely!? When it’s something this important?
Graham with more grotesque garbage.
If the results are correct, there’s no GHE. You don’t think that’s even worth following up on? That is grotesque, Little Willy.
Even that inference is invalid, Graham. You got to have at least two premises. Something that could connect the result of the experiment with greenhouse theory.
Everybody knows you’re not here to Just Ask Questions. Why the pretense?
“Something that could connect the result of the experiment with greenhouse theory.”
Everyone here but you already understands the significance of the results wrt greenhouse theory. That you aren’t the brightest or the quickest on the uptake is not my fault, or responsibility.
grammie pup wrote:
grammie continues to ignore the basic flaw(s) in Allmendinger’s paper, which immediately question those “results”. He presents no rebuttal to my comment about the problems, which only scratch the surface.
Wheres the scientific curiosity? brammie isn’t interested in science, only spreading more obfuscation.
Graham goes for more gangrenous gargles.
He really has no clue:
https://xkcd.com/1132/
Swanson, I haven’t rebutted your point because there is no need to. All you are doing is further proving my point. Please continue.
“The results show that a 4:1 nitrogen/oxygen mix warmed identically to normal air, and not very much differently to pure CO2.”
The results of this one dubious paper. Science is not established until we look at accumulated evidence of multiple experiments.
Prior to this paper it was well established by many many experiments , as reported in textbooks, that nitrogen and oxygen absorb negligbly in the IR. Quantum physics explains this rather well.
So, no physicist would accept that this one experiment has shown that all the previous experiments had fatal (but unexplained) errors, AND that quantum theory is somehow wrong as well, with no explanation.
Probability and Occam’s razor suggests that the one new experiment has errors, rather than the thousands of previous experiments and well established theory.
Real science demands replication of experiments like this that purport to overturn long established science.
We await replication. Until then, it is safe to assume that quantum theory is still correct.
grammie wrote:
TRANSLATION: I’m not interested in scientific facts, only in posting more BS.
Please list all your criticisms of the research, Swanson, and I will contact Allmendinger and ask him for a response.
Cult Leader grammie pup, As usual, you want someone else to do your work. I already gave you one example. Why don’t you “invite” him to reply to this blog for himself, without you in the middle?
So you only actually have the one problem with the paper, despite you implying there were more problems with it. Got it.
Plus, I am somehow in the wrong for volunteering to contact the author. I see.
Producing irreproducible results even by the experimenter himself might be hard to minimize, Graham.
Also, you keep missing the point – if Thomas discovers that 99% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gases, then he does not refute greenhouse theory. He reinforces it.
You still have no clue about indeterminacy.
“Also, you keep missing the point – if Thomas discovers that 99% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gases, then he does not refute greenhouse theory. He reinforces it.”
Swanson could correct Little Willy here. He won’t.
Or, Little Willy could just think for a moment about what has already been written in response to that ridiculous comment. He won’t.
“Exactly. You have to believe the experimental results are invalid in order to carry on believing in the GHE.”
And one would have to believe many many more previous experimental results on this phenomena are invalid, and quantum theory is invalid, and all experimental tests of quantum theory are invalid, in order to carry on believing in NO GHE.
But some people are able to ignore very large bodies of evidence when they have beliefs.
If Graham applied his own logic properly, he’d realize that the responsibility is on Thomas’ shoulders to publish his results in a way that other scientists could reproduce, and then to contact the relevant scientific institutions.
Since Thomas prefers to publish in predatory journals and serve as red meat for conspiratorial echo chambers, then so much the worse for the relevance of his work.
Science is a race, not a boxing match.
They’re not all published in predatory journals, Little Willy. I have no idea how difficult it would be to get any paper questioning the GHE published in a “reputable” journal, but I can quite believe it wouldn’t be a walk in the park. How important is the journal, really, given that it’s an experiment?
You keep stating that the experiments cannot be replicated. Are you going to justify that in any way, or just keep saying it?
> They’re not all published in predatory journals
Sure, Graham. Please list them all.
If you could quote me and Eric contradicting one another, that’d be great.
The paper I linked to is not published in a predatory journal. Or at least, it wasn’t last time I checked the list of predatory journals. Unless I missed it somehow.
You and Swanson haven’t contradicted each other. However, I’m quietly confident that Swanson understands why bob’s silly point is wrong about the GHE only being enhanced if Allmendinger is correct. It only takes a little bit of thought, Little Willy. If all gases absorb IR and warm, then additions of CO2 to the atmosphere no longer have any relevance.
There are a number of technical issues one could ask the author about.
Aluminum is not a perfect reflector. In visible its reflectivity is 86% and in NIR 97%. Even if the latter is used, one has to worry about that 3% absor*ption on each reflection, of which there could be several.
tps://www.researchgate.net/publication/337390826_Household_aluminum_foil_matte_and_bright_side_reflectivity_measurements_Application_to_a_photobioreactor_light_concentrator_design
Similarly the plastic film on bottom and top is not perfectly transparent. Its absor*ption could be ~ 10 % in NIR.
Both of these will act to warm the gas.
One needs to compare this heat gain with the observed tiny values.
There are a number of technical issues one could ask the author about.
Aluminum is not a perfect reflector. In visible its reflectivity is 86% and in NIR 97%. Even if the latter is used, one has to worry about that 3% absor*ption on each reflection, of which there could be several.
tps://www.researchgate.net/publication/337390826_Household_aluminum_foil_matte_and_bright_side_reflectivity_measurements_Application_to_a_photobioreactor_light_concentrator_design
Similarly the plastic film on bottom and top is not perfectly transparent. Its absor*ption could be ~ 10 % in NIR.
Both of these will act to warm the gas.
One needs to compare this predicted heat gain with the observed tiny values.
> The paper I linked to is not published in a predatory journal.
Academic Journals is indeed in Beall’s list:
https://beallslist.net/
Whack!
Ah, I was looking for "International Journal of Physical Sciences". I stand corrected.
I contacted Dr Allmendinger, linking to this discussion, and received a response:
Many thanks for your interest and your assent. I don’t want to add further arguments with respect to that article besides the assessment that a critique about empiric results should only be made if own practical experience exists. Moreover, I wish to refer to the subsequent article, published 2018 and entitled “The thermal Radiation of the Atmosphere and Its Role in the So-Called Greenhouse Effect”: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=84015. It delivers empiric evidence of my theoretic approach by another way.
In addition, the work of independent researchers can be added where similar results were attained by another method: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
The abstract of this newer paper is gobbledegook. Maybe a defender can explain what it is saying. Hard to believe such a paper was ever peer reviewed. Likely not.
> Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are considered to be of questionable quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
“Thereby, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation is of central importance in atmosphere physics, and holds the status of a natural law. However, its empirical foundation is little”
Bullshit! It has loads of empirical foundation.
We still haven’t got beyond “attack the journal”, I see.
“As to these basic experiments, the predominance of photometric and spectroscopic methods is remarkable while caloric methods were still neglected. In fact, the spectroscopic methods are even the only methods which were used in recent research, particularly in connection with satellite measurements. Thereby, the intensity loss of IR-radiation is detected after passing through a medium―in our case a gas, in particular atmospheric air―, while the possible temperature change of the medium is disregarded. But this method exhibits two principal weaknesses which will later be discussed on the basis of the authors recently published work: It is not sure whether―or to which extent―the abso*rbed radiation is converted into heat.”
He again falsely dismisses spectroscopy as not sensitive enough. Never explaining why, because of course, this is total BS. The point is he has neither the equipment of expertise to do it, thus he pretends it is inferior.
What rot.
And he’s not sure absorb*ed radiation will be converted to heat? IOW he is doubting 1LOT!
This is interesting, from the new paper (note also the quote from my September 10, 9:06 AM comment from a different paper):
“The interpretation of the results obtained with the IR-spot apparatus enabled the empirical determination of the heat ab.sorb.ance coefficient of a gas, which turned out to be very low. So it is not surprising, that this effect has been overlooked so far. While a theoretical calculation of such an absorp.tion coefficient was not feasible, at least a principal explanation may be given: There is no good reason to assume that ab.sorb.ed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Instead, it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, i.e. to say in all directions, before having induced a temperature enhancement…”
Thomas or Graham might need to revise thy Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StefanBoltzmann_law
Cult Leader grammie pup, Your quote from Allmendingers 2018 paper (p 14), is just a re-hash of his earlier papers referring to data from his first version of his apparatus. There’s no new insight and refers to his “heat absorbance coefficient”, so the conclusion is not supported.
“Your quote from Allmendingers 2018 paper (p 14), is just a re-hash of his earlier papers referring to data from his first version of his apparatus…”
Indeed, Swanson. If you paid attention to what had been written by others, not just myself, you might have understood the need for me to quote it, however…
“Thomas or Graham might need to revise thy Wiki:”
No, not really:
“In Figure 19 the measured limiting temperature values are compared with the computed values based on the Stefan-Boltzmann relation. This means that the real counter-radiation of the atmosphere is slightly weaker than the assumed one in the Stefan-Boltzmann relation. Therefore, according to these results, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation is fulfilled to a certain extent, but not precisely.”
You might have missed the quote Nate emphasized, Graham.
Search for *its empirical foundation is little* on the page or in the paper.
This is only a smidge above Gary Novak crankiness.
“However, its empirical foundation is little, tracing back to experiments made by Dulong and Petit two hundred years ago.”
Foundation. As in, the experiments it was originally established by. I don’t think he is saying that the SB Law hasn’t been experimentally verified since! His only questioning of the SB Law seems to relate to it being applied to the atmosphere:
“Hence, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation was applied to the whole atmosphere―or rather to its lowest layer―, which obviously does not exhibit any surrounding walls, as it was the case for the measurements of Dulong and Petit. Instead, it is held together by the gravity of the Earth. However, this implies a considerably inhomogeneity―even when cloud and dust effects are neglected―, not only because of the vertical pressure and temperature gradients, but also because of horizontal gradients caused by the ball shape of the Earth, which leads to latitude-dependant solar irradiation intensities. In addition, differences in altitude, due to mountains, as well as diurnal and seasonal fluctuations contribute to permanent but not consistent motions which hardly admit steady-state conditions.”
His eqns 3 and 4 are strawmen. There is no emissivity in them. This misrepresents the standard atmosphere models. No one serious thinks the sky is a black body.
He ignores convection, evapotranspiration, and lapse rate, which are not ignored in real GHE theory.
Really he is just knocking down a cartoon fantasy GHE.
Overall a very bad paper.
Of course, climate deniers eat it up.
And as expected the TEAM cluelessly promotes it.
Yes, Graham. Foundation as in the converse it usually means.
Theory provides foundation. Experiments bring empirical support.
Thomas claims something that is contradicted by thy Wiki. In a paper he portrays as scientific.
Take a look at his list of references. It is at best some kind of baroque joke.
“Thomas claims something that is contradicted by thy Wiki.”
No, I don’t think so. No doubt he would agree that the SB Law has been empirically verified. You’re just clutching at straws, as usual…and won’t ever let it go, no doubt.
How long is this going to go on for?
Being almost immediately verified experimentally does not seem to cohere with having little empirical foundation, Graham. Has Thomas checked in the lichurchur? Have you?
I am confident that Dr Allmendinger is likely to be very familiar with the literature, Little Willy.
I applaud your confidence, Graham, and I will take your dodge as a no – you have not researched the field.
You might like:
https://physics-archive.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Wellons_Web_Article.pdf
Have you ever seen Thomas discuss that kind of detail with his own experiments?
“I am confident that Dr Allmendinger is likely to be very familiar with the literature”
Not that you are personally knowledgeable, rather that you trust in your newly found authorities to know stuff.
That is your consistent error.
All I did today was publish Dr Allmendinger’s response to an email I sent to him yesterday. It does not mean I endorse or am personally responsible for anything he’s said, or anything he has written in his more recent paper.
Nothing in this debate has changed. The results of the experiments in the original paper I linked to, if valid, refute the GHE. That ought to be worthy of some further research into the matter.
The measurements are valid for an optical path length of 100cm in an enclosed box which does not apply to the earthen GHE with an optical path length of many 10s of km.s. DREMT is not knowledgeable enough in the subject matter so is reduced to writing: “if valid”.
No more research is required by more astute, informed, critical commenters on this science blog which does not include DREMT who indeed will benefit from more research into the subject matter.
The cyber-bullying continues…
… by DREMT who is better off commenting amusingly at his own climate sophistry blog.
The cyber-bullying continues, from Ball4…
Graham, drop the victim bullying and please help Thomas build a bibliography on experiments about SB.
The cyber-bullying continues, from Little Willy…
72 months of trolling and Graham rips off his shirt.
No, the shirt stays on. Just calmly, very calmly, pointing out that the cyber-bullying continues, from Little Willy…
There is only one rule, Graham:
https://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/22/rules-for-contrarians-1-dont-whine-that-is-all/
Please stop whining.
Not whining, and not a contrarian, Little Willy. Just pointing out the fact that what you do constitutes cyber-bullying. You will respond.