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.
Ball4 wrote, “the measurements are valid…”
E. Swanson wrote, “…his measurements may be invalid.”
Who will win? Obviously they will have the integrity to debate it out between themselves…
DREMT, Allmendinger reported measurements from 3 bulb thermometers; these are valid devices for measuring temperatures. DREMT hasn’t even read the original paper cited to check temperature measurement device validity!
DREMT, please stop your bullying and start improving your research.
Ball4 throws down the gauntlet…insinuating (via continuing to cyber-bully me) that Swanson “hasn’t even read the original paper cited to check temperature measurement device validity!” So he’s saying that Swanson is definitely wrong when he said, “…his measurements may be invalid.”
How will Swanson respond!? I can’t wait to find out…
There was no insinuation concerning Swanson’s reading by me DREMT, just an obvious attempt by DREMT at more bullying instead of DREMT doing basic research. Amusing.
What’s amusing is that you and Swanson argue diametrically opposing things, but lack the integrity to debate each other.
No “opposing things” in context DREMT, that’s just your attempt at bullying by failed quote mining. Very amusing.
DREMT, please stop bullying.
Add in the full context, you still disagree. You make the vacuous argument that the measurements are valid, but only apply “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”, despite the fact that you are completely missing the point as I already explained to you here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362651
Whereas Swanson questions that the measurements are valid.
You disagree.
Swanson was writing what “he admits”, “he” being Allemendinger. Another failed, but amusing, try.
DREMT, PSB
I know what he said. So what? Swanson went on to say: “Which is likely as there’s no expectation from other work that the gasses would all produce a warming such as he [f]ound. Extraordinary results require extraordinary proof.”
Swanson clearly doubts the validity of the measurements. You do not. You disagree.
(Allmendinger actually “admitted” no such thing, that’s just Swanson’s rhetoric, but never mind).
Of course you are whining, Graham, and you are a contrarian.
Oh look, as predicted, Little Willy responded.
He will probably respond to this! So predictable…
Cult Leader grammie pup, Again, I note that Allmendinger’s measurements are flawed. His basic setup is shown in his Figure 4 of the 2016 paper in which he describes the method used to mount his thermometers. In all cases he states that:
He says nothing about how this foil layer is attached to the tips of the thermometers, perhaps he used an adhesive backed foil tape. In any event the foil is not a perfect reflector, so some IR radiation will be absorbed. Also, only case “A” places the tip of the thermometers partially within the Styrofoam wall, in all other cases some length of the stem is exposed to IR radiation, he gives no description of the distances. Glass is an excellent IR absorber, thus the IR radiation will warm the stem and this warmth will be conducted to the thermometer bulb. In sunlight, the external stem would also be warmed by the solar energy.
The result is that his data shows the heating of the thermometers, not the temperature of the gases. This would also explain the fact that the more distant thermometers displayed less temperature gain than the one closest to the lamp. All of his conclusions based on these data are flawed as a result.
Yes, Swanson, you think the measurements are invalid. Ball4 doesn’t. I’m wondering when you two are going to duke it out. Instead, you both seem to be directing your conflicting arguments towards me.
As to your concerns, it’s strange that you have waited until after I contacted Dr Allmendinger, to bring them up.
“He says nothing about how this foil layer is attached to the tips of the thermometers, perhaps he used an adhesive backed foil tape.”
Well, I could have asked him, but you deliberately (it seems) missed the boat.
“In any event the foil is not a perfect reflector, so some IR radiation will be absorbed.”
Yes, Swanson. A tiny amount. It’s a shame Dr Allmendinger didn’t have any perfect reflectors lying around, like they used to have 150 years ago.
“Also, only case “A” places the tip of the thermometers partially within the Styrofoam wall, in all other cases some length of the stem is exposed to IR radiation, he gives no description of the distances. Glass is an excellent IR absorber, thus the IR radiation will warm the stem and this warmth will be conducted to the thermometer bulb. In sunlight, the external stem would also be warmed by the solar energy..”
So let me get this straight…we’re worrying about the parts of the thermometers besides the contact tips? Besides, look at Figure 25. Those results were obtained using method A in any case, and the infrared lamp rather than being outside in the sun. Those are the main, most important, results of his experiments, and even by your own standards you shouldn’t have a problem with them!
“It does not mean I endorse or am personally responsible for anything hes said, ”
And yet you keep posting a continuous full on defense of it.
And seem surprised on offended and people push back.
Cult Leader grammie wrote:
Indeed, those results from version A were the basis of his conclusions. But, version A had no reflective material inside the tube, just exposed Styrofoam walls. He recognized this setup was flawed, thus his later attempts with increasing modifications of the basic idea. Question for grammie: “What’s the IR emissivity of bead board Styrofoam and what impact would it have on the experiment?”.
It would seem that the author knew more about the problems with his setup than grammie pup, who should learn to recognize the weaknesses of an experiment before he spouts off with full throated support of said experiment’s dubious conclusions.
DREMT, Allmendinger’s dry bulb thermometer measurements are valid in their environment; it is Allmendinger’s 100cm path length environmental setup that is invalid for its GHE purpose as E. Swanson repeatedly points out 8:49 pm & 7:24 am.
"Question for grammie: “What’s the IR emissivity of bead board Styrofoam and what impact would it have on the experiment?”."
There’s no need to question the impact, because Figures 14 and 15 show it, and he discusses it in the text.
"…spouts off with full throated support of said experiment’s dubious conclusions."
Swanson, you can all try and pretend that there is "full throated support of said experiment’s dubious conclusions" as much as you like. All I’ve actually been doing is repeatedly pointing out: there is enough here to warrant further experimental research into the matter, by climate scientists. The conclusions themselves aren’t "dubious" – they simply follow from the experimental results.
The simple fact is, it’s not that I’m on the defensive, here, it’s that you are all blindly and relentlessly set on "attack". Anything that ever questions your belief system must be attacked and dismissed any way that you can. Usually that involves an awful lot of shooting the messenger, as we’ve seen here. Whether that means me personally, the author of the article on Allmendinger, Allmendinger himself…it doesn’t matter to you lot. Any tiny point in the paper, even if it’s just something written in the introduction, which has no impact on the results themselves or the conclusions drawn, is attacked and blown up into a big deal, usually in an attempt to discredit the author.
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote:
Cult Leader still displays ignorance of the way the scientific process works. New findings which challenge current understanding are always dissected and discussed in detail. If the findings do not survive critical analysis, they are considered refuted (or debunked). It’s not a personal attack, though it might appear that way.
You presented Allmendinger’s 2016 paper as if it rebutted the theory of atmospheric radiation which is the basis of AGW when you wrote: Allmendingers 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.”.
Sorry, grammie, you’re the one who is attacking the science and thus it’s you who must prove your case. With this appeal to “authority”, you’ve failed again.
Ball4’s comment is a disgrace, as usual. Swanson explodes, breathlessly, back onto the scene, with:
"Cult Leader still displays ignorance of the way the scientific process works."
No, he doesn’t.
"New findings which challenge current understanding are always dissected and discussed in detail. If the findings do not survive critical analysis, they are considered refuted (or debunked)."
Which has not occurred here, despite your best efforts.
"It’s not a personal attack, though it might appear that way."
No, Swanson. The many, many personal attacks are what appear to be personal attacks. Legitimate comments on the paper are fine, though few and far between, as we can see from the above discussion.
"You presented Allmendinger’s 2016 paper as if it rebutted the theory of atmospheric radiation which is the basis of AGW when you wrote…"
Those are not my words, Swanson. That’s a quote from the article on Allmendinger.
Of course Graham had to respond with is usual diversions,
He soldiers on.
Predictable Little Willy responds, as predicted.
He will probably even respond to this!
Graham does not always quote Sky Dragon cranks, but when he does it is just to JAQ off.
More personal remarks from Predictable Little Willy. I expect he will continue to respond, since cyber-bullying is all he’s got going for him in his life.
Graham does not always spend a week promoting research from a fellow Sky Dragon that has been published in predatory journals and an article by a well-known conspiracy theorist, but when he does he recuses himself from judging it.
Have I spent a week promoting Allmendinger and his work, or have you guys?
You people cannot ever let anything go, and so the thread grows and grows, becoming all the more intriguing to people scrolling through the comments. All I do is mirror your behaviour in that regard, by continuing to respond to whatever is raised. You all could have left this alone a long time ago. Now it is a thing, the biggest thread under the comments for this month. That is on you, not me.
Cult Leader grammis pup, Yes, I did leave the quote marks off, as I was having HTML trouble. But, the fact is, you did quote him after your comment posted in bold, as if you agreed with it. And, the fact is, you still won’t attempt to actually answer a scientific question, like the one regarding Styrofoam’s emissivity or the comment regarding the shielding of the thermometers. As usual, you are just dancing around, throwing things out to spread FUD wrt AGW.
I stand by my claim that Allmendinger’s paper is deeply flawed and his data presentation does not support his conclusions.
…and 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.
“and you have presented no serious reason to doubt them”
Thus continuing the all out defense of a paper that he says he’s not defending or endorsing.
…then it blows a massive hole in your belief system.
..in a science deniers fantasy world where a single amateurish experiment is able to wipe out all prior empirical knowledge on a subject.
…it blows a massive hole in your belief system.
Graham does not always wash his hands over the results of a Sky Dragon crank who publishes in predatory journals, but when he does he also believes that their results blow a hole into belief systems.
…if correct.
…if.. quantum physics got it all wrong, and spectroscopy gets it all wrong, and Tyndall got it all wrong, and SB Law has little empirical support, and 1LOT can be ignored, and and all his never-been-done-before and this-one-simple-trick claims are true.
IOW if pigs could fly.
See, Little Willy, I don’t have to endorse the research, I don’t even have to defend it. All I have to do is point out that the research exists, and that if it is correct, then it blows a massive hole in your belief system. Then I have to rebut a few people on what I would call “silly dismissals” of the research. These would include:
1) Dismissing it based on the journal it is published in.
2) Dismissing it based on the author of the article about Allmendinger.
3) Dismissing it by saying Allmendinger is a “Sky Dragon Crank”.
4) Dismissing it by disagreement with the author (or confusion about what he is saying) over trivial details in the introduction.
5) Dismissing it by mentioning irrelevant points about “path length”.
6) Dismissing it by referring to possible minor shortcomings in the experimental setup which Allmendinger is well aware of and indeed referenced in the paper himself. Unless you can point out how the correcting of any of these problems would lead to the results being totally different, and suddenly supporting the consensus position instead of totally contradicting it, then the dismissal is silly.
More to follow, possibly…
You certainly do not have to endorse anything, Graham.
You could very well have been trolling for a whole week with a silly Big If True trick.
Not really hard to believe.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I think Flat Earthers say they dont belive in a spherical Earth either. Of course they need to not belive in all sorts of things that depend on this fact. GPS system, sattelite communication etc.
If one doesn’t ‘belive in’ the GHE then one has to stop believing in weather predictions, which use the GHE in their numerical models of the atmosphere. The ones that most of us pay attention to.
…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.
“and you have presented no serious reason to doubt them”
Anybody saying this must have been plugging their ears and covering their eyes for the last week. And is otherwise being thoroughly dishonest.
…blows a massive hole in your belief system.
Cult Leader grammie pup wrote:
If grammie pup had discussed the evidence, he might realize there’s no “if” there cause the paper(s) are full of holes.
Here’s another brain teaser for grammie. The reports claim that the Styrofoam tubes have an “outer diameter 25 cm” and 3 cm thick walls. The tubes appear to be nearly square, so the sides would thus be ~6.25 cm wide. Subtract 3 x 2 mm leaves an interior size of 0.25 cm, which is an obvious error which anyone who reviewed the reports would have caught because the interior size is obviously larger. One would think the author meant to write that the sides were 25 cm, thus the circumference would be about 100 cm. Just one more brick in the wall.
You forgot your *if* again, Graham.
One has to wonder why.
Another desperate, silly, attempted dismissal from Swanson. This really has him rattled. Probably because it’s such a simple experiment, which, if the results are correct (and he has presented no serious reason to doubt them), it blows a hole in his belief system.
IF Chicken Little’s results are correct (and the chicken has presented no serious reason to doubt them), it blows a hole in DREMT’s belief system that the sky is NOT falling.
P.S: It is hard to take Swanson seriously when he confuses “diameter” with “circumference”.
“I do not directly respond to that commenter, which he knows full well and tries to use to his advantage.”
Tee hee hee.
I simply respond when people post misinformation. There is no special exemption for people who have no answers.
…when he confuses “diameter” with “circumference”.
Manual ping back:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1366674
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
All criticisms of the paper are deemed ‘silly’ until proven not.
All refutations of criticism (if any) by the author are deemed valid until proven not.
But on what basis? Be honest (I know that is a lot to ask)
Is it:
– Because of your expertise in this subject?
– Because the author’s expertise and track record in this area?
– Because its published in a reputable journal?
or is it
– Because its results support your preferred narrative?
…so, as I said, more to follow…and here it is:
7) Dismissing it based on your own personal incredulity.
Now, onto more important matters. I do not believe in the GHE. That is the correct statement. I know most of you want to argue that I “believe there is no GHE”, and that this is my belief system or narrative, but no, that is not correct. It requires no belief to think that there is no GHE, rather it requires belief to think that there is one.
Think about the theory of evolution. Personally, I believe in it…but I’m aware it’s a belief system. Just as believing in “Intelligent Design” would be a belief system. There is evidence for evolution, and much of it is “necessary”, but even altogether it is not “sufficient”. Much like with the GHE. There is “necessary” evidence, i.e. there is the evidence provided by research such as Feldman et al, and more, but even altogether it is not “sufficient”.
The crucial difference between the two is that with evolution, there is no serious scientific alternative proposed. With the GHE, there are a number of scientific alternatives to it that have been proposed. It’s not like it’s “either there’s a GHE, or God made the Earth warmer”. There is no requirement to believe in the GHE from a scientific standpoint. It’s simply a choice that you people make. It’s a belief system. I choose to not believe in it, until such time as there is sufficient evidence to be sure about it. It’s just being skeptical.
Now, what is interesting, is that with research like this, by Allmendinger, if it is correct, then it blows a hole in your belief system. However, if it turns out to be wrong, then it’s no problem for me at all. The GHE has been debunked nine ways to Sunday by this point, if this one is wrong, then…so what!? Whereas you lot have to actually believe the results of this research are invalid for some reason, in order to carry on believing in the GHE. No belief involved on my account, whatsoever. I do not have to believe, endorse or even defend Allmendinger.
Much of it is like that. There are so many of these ideas, papers, experiments and people out there that have arguments which potentially demonstrate there is no GHE. It only requires one of them to be correct. Whereas you have to believe they are all wrong, all “cranks”. It’s not like that with evolution, however.
More to come? Probably…
These heuristics stood the test of time, Graham.
Just as your You-And-Him-Fight trolling trick did.
Interesting, so to accept that an observable and well understood phenomena, the GHE, is to have a have ‘a belief system’.
Not really. I have a belief in empirical science, and the scientific method, because it works.
As such, I believe humans can observe and describe what we see, and successfully make predictions. We have a strong track record on this.
Thus the ‘GHE’ doesnt require any special ‘belief system’ beyond that.
Just like other well understood observable phenomena, the stratosphere, the jet stream, the thermohaline circulation, I don’t need a special ‘belief system’ to accept these things are there.
And I doubt very much that you do either.
The difference between those items and the GHE is that nobody has politicized them.
Nothing worthwhile to respond to from Little Willy (there rarely is). We’ll continue anyway…
…so, onto the whole "Luke-warmers" vs. "Warmists" debacle. Now, it might surprise some people that I’ve come to realize, over time, that actually, if you are going to believe in a GHE, then really the "Warmist" position is the more rational one. The "Luck-warmer" nickname is appropriate, because they are really just hoping that it turns out that the "climate sensitivity" estimates are on the lower side. Now, they might have 101 ways of rationalizing that belief, many of which might seem more or less convincing to varying degrees, but they are still ultimately "hoping" that the high estimates of climate sensitivity are incorrect.
Yet when the range of options is something like 1.5 C – 4.5 C of warming per doubling of CO2, and this has not changed (much) in over thirty years of research, then it seems reckless not to take the situation seriously…uncertainty cuts both ways, and all that. Not to mention that dire consequences have been predicted even at the low end of the sensitivity margin. So if I believed in the GHE, I would probably be a "Warmist".
That’s just it, though…I think the wrong group has got the bad name. People who do not believe in the GHE have been demonized and ridiculed from the beginning by both sides of the "mainstream" debate, but I think actually the two sides of the "mainstream" debate should be – "No GHE" vs. "Warmist". That’s what makes sense to me, anyway. The more socially acceptable "luke-warmer" position is actually the one that should be ridiculed.
Sure to be an unpopular opinion, but there you go.
> People who do not believe in the GHE
Team Sky Dragon Cranks has mostly been ignored by Team Science. It has no bench. In any event, Graham’s victim bullying is nothing new:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me
There are reasonable areas of disagreement, like climate sensitivity. On that front, Graham is right to underline that Luckwarmers are stretching the limits of justified disingenuousness.
But then Graham is a Sky Dragon Crank.
Nothing of any merit, from Little Willy. It is perfectly “reasonable” not to believe in the GHE. There has just been years of conditioning that it is not socially acceptable, from both sides of a false debate. The true debate has been and always will be, “No GHE” vs. “Warmist”.
Well, actually, there is also a third side…those who argue that the rise in CO2 is mostly natural.
Look, Graham.
There are three letters. A, G, and W.
If you don’t believe in the A, then the warming is natural.
It’s really not that complex.
Yes, you have to believe in the A. Exactly.
Some people here keep trying to make these issues be all about ‘belief’, rather than what science is normally all about: facts, evidence, logic.
When people don’t have the knowledge or expertise to judge the the evidence on its merits, what can they do?
Apply beliefs, ie their strong biases.
…you have to believe in the A. Exactly.
Sky Dragon Cranks do not disbelieve it is warming, Graham.
And you are equivocating about the notion of belief involved:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
Little Willy, I was just agreeing with you. You said:
“If you don’t believe in the A, then the warming is natural.”
Yes. You have to believe in the A.
Or have a child-like sense that anything they assert is truth. And is thus worth repeating…and repeating.
Hint: most people grow out of this and learn that repeating an assertion doesnt convince others of its truth.
Little Willy, I was just agreeing with you. You said:
“If you don’t believe in the A, then the warming is natural.”
Yes. You have to believe in the A.
“[My intellectual and moral superiors] do not disbelieve it is warming, Graham.”
I know, I never said otherwise.
No, Graham. You’re not just “agreeing” with me.
You’re trolling Nate with a technical concept of belief:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
A belief can be justified well enough to be considered true. In that case we call it knowledge.
AGW is that kind of belief.
> I never said otherwise
You said that there was a “third side.”
There is no third side.
There is a side that holds AGW.
There is a side that holds that the GW is not from A.
Sky Dragon cranks belong to that side.
Unless you disbelieve that there’s warming in the first place.
Why do I always have to explain every logic point to you as if you were a child, Graham?
False. As I explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365225
AGW is a belief system. I compared it to the belief system surrounding evolution, but the truth is, evolution has far more empirical support than AGW.
“You’re trolling Nate”
False again, I do not directly respond to that commenter, which he knows full well and tries to use to his advantage. I merely repeat sentences from previous comments if he tries to sneak in a last word.
“Why do I always have to explain every logic point to you as if you were a child, Graham?”
You often interpret what I say in bizarre ways and then falsely accuse me of not understanding logic. Well, you are a troll, I suppose. No surprises there.
> AGW is a belief system.
One does not simply talk about scientific theories as belief systems, Graham, unless you teach a philosophy class in Mordor, e.g.:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/
Please stop trolling Nate.
One does, actually, especially when one gives good reason for doing so, in a comment which receives no substantive rebuttal.
One indeed could equivocate on the meaning of belief, dear Graham, just like Ann Coulter argues that science is just a set of beliefs on par with religion.
Technically speaking, it’s not exactly false. Rhetorically speaking, it’s an efficient way to troll the libs.
You can tell AGW is a belief system from the responses you get when it’s challenged. Just like this research by Allmendinger. If the results of the simple experiment are correct, then that blows a massive hole in your belief system. So we get day after day of relentless, never-ending tantrums from the believers. If being “scientific”, they could just simply agree with me that the experiments need to be followed up on by other researchers. However, what we get instead is an increasingly desperate series of attempts to dismiss the results of the experiment by any means necessary.
When we see how Graham has been trolling Roy’s for 72 months, we can be sure that Sky Dragon Cranks issues are not purely cognitive.
Insulting me and attacking “Sky Dragon Cranks” won’t invalidate the results, Little Willy.
What is the sound of “results” coming from a forest where scientists never go, Graham?
That won’t invalidate them, either.
Neither is the unicorn fart hypothesis.
That sums it up well!
“Neither is the unicorn fart hypothesis”
The point you are trying to make really doesn’t apply here, Little Willy.
The situation is, we have the results of a simple experiment which call into question the consensus viewpoint. All that is required is for the results to be correct. This is why you people have to keep throwing everything you can at the experiment, hoping that something will stick. So far, all you have is a big messy pile on the floor.
“That sums it up well!”
Of course it does, Nate.
Check Graham respond to this comment.
“Check Graham respond to this comment.”
The messy pile on the floor gets bigger.
See what I mean, Nate?
Graham just can’t resist trolling.
See what I mean?
The messy pile on the floor gets bigger.
if my hypothesis is true, Graham will continue to troll.
He has yet to invalidate it.
One has to wonder why he will not.
Debate me, coward!
Little Willy still doesn’t get it. This isn’t “Allmendinger’s hypothesis is right unless proven wrong”, nobody is saying that. It’s just a simple experiment, the results of which are unexpected according to the consensus hypothesis. So if the results are correct, the consensus hypothesis cannot be.
“Its just a simple experiment, the results of which are unexpected according to the consensus hypothesis. So if the results are correct, the consensus hypothesis cannot be.”
Indeed there are lots of ‘free energy from water’ demonstrations on Youtube. Most of us have realized by now that they are wrong, not because we have investigated and can tell you exactly what they’ve done wrong, but because they implausibly violate some long established laws of physics, like Conservation of Energy.
The only difference between those videos and this experiment is that the latter is published in a ‘journal’, and therefore some people think it deserves greater credence.
But it is quite similar to the Youtube videos in that it that it purports to have implausibly found violations of long established science, like quantum mechanics, among many other problems.
…so if the results are correct, the consensus hypothesis cannot be.
Not responding, but still responding, with the mantra.
…if the results are correct, the consensus hypothesis cannot be.
…if Chicken Little is correct, the sky IS falling.
Yeah, you’re still not really getting it, Ball4.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to be iffing stupid. He wrote:
Most all people make mistakes, as I did confusing “diameter” with “circumference” above. My previous hiccup resulted from my quick reading where I thought, “What does he mean by the diameter of a rectangle?”. Is it the distance between opposite sides or is it the distance between opposite corners? As he was trying to fit a square tube into a round hole, perhaps he should have been more careful to specify the dimensions of his tubes.
But, is should be clear to anyone versed in the basic science that Allmendingers papers are deeply flawed, given facts which grammie pup continues to ignore as he trolls along spreading anti-science FUD.
On the one hand, Graham says he finds it hard to take Eric srsly.
On the other, nobody should ever find it hard to take Thomas srsly.
My hypothesis that he cannot resist trolling is far from being invalidated.
“But, is should be clear to anyone versed in the basic science that Allmendingers papers are deeply flawed, given facts which grammie pup continues to ignore as he trolls along spreading anti-science FUD.”
You haven’t given any facts that I ignore, Swanson. None of you have. First of all, it’s just an experiment. If the results are correct, then that’s it for your belief system. Simple as that. Secondly, this is what he proposes as the alternative to the current understanding (from another paper):
“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.”
Now, you can criticize this all you like, but:
1) His results, if correct, debunk the GHE. That doesn’t change just because you disagree with his alternative understanding.
2) His alternative understanding does not involve a violation of any laws of physics, or of quantum mechanics, nor does it invalidate IR spectroscopy. He is simply saying that the absorp.tion coefficient for this “novel kind of IR absorp.tion” is too low to be detected by IR spectroscopy, which is why this has not been discovered before. He is not saying that the current understanding of quantum mechanics is “wrong”, he is saying that there might just be something “new” discovered here: IR absorp.tion connected with vibration of atomic electron shells. All this could be wrong, but his results still need explaining.
3) Once again, I am not saying “he’s right”, and I am still only trying to get across the point that his research might just deserve to be followed up on by other climate scientists.
Now, DREMT can criticize this all DREMT likes, but:
1) Chicken Little’s results, if correct, debunk the sky is not falling belief. That doesn’t change just because others disagree with the chicken’s alternative understanding.
3) Once again, I am not saying “Chicken Little’s right”, and I am still only trying to get across the point that the chicken’s observation might just deserve to be followed up on by other climate scientists.
WRT Allmendinger who is simply saying that the absorp.tion coefficient for this “novel kind of IR absorp.tion” is too low to be detected by IR spectroscopy due the too short optical path length Allmendinger observed.
IR spectroscopy has been able to detect the absorp.tion coefficient for an optical path through the entire earthen atm. at equator and at the poles.
Ball4 continues to attempt to dismiss the results of an experiment by comparison to some inapt Chicken Little analogy. Perhaps I should dismiss the experiments he continuously attempts to bring up, at other times, using the same technique.
Then he keeps on and on with his ridiculous “path length” argument. Just another way to attempt to dismiss the results…but it is completely irrational, because for the pure N2/O2 mix, and for the other non-GHGs, no warming up was expected, yet that’s what was found. “Path length” can make no difference to that.
DREMT just isn’t competent enough to realize Allmendinger’s experiment, like Chicken Little’s experiment, is also ineptly applied to our atm. since the earthen OLR is reduced by both N2 and O2 over the optical path length of the existing atm., whereas there is no reported measurable affect for Allmendinger’s too short 100cm optical path length.
The master of red herrings does his thing.
… as more astute commenters have observed DREMT really is the master of red herrings.
Incorrect.
> This isnt Allmendingers hypothesis is right unless proven wrong, nobody is saying that.
Speaking of herrings, this one’s quite red.
“If A, then B” should not be that hard to grasp.
If we’re to apply his own logic, Graham’s misunderstanding makes it hard to take whatever he says srsly.
What misunderstanding?
If the hypothesis H is true, then whatever W.
Basic implication form. Same in both cases.
Burden of proof has nothing to do here, Graham.
Are you talking about this?
"if my hypothesis is true, Graham will continue to troll."
I didn’t realize I was supposed to take that seriously! I thought you were just trying to mock what I was saying about the experiment, which is why I responded the way I did. Sorry I over-estimated you.
[W] If my hypothesis is true, Clov will continue to troll. He has yet to invalidate it.
[G] This isn’t Pozzo’s hypothesis is right unless proven wrong, nobody is saying that.
[W] “If A, then B” should not be that hard to grasp. If we’re to apply his own logic, G’s misunderstanding makes it hard to take whatever he says srsly.
[G] What misunderstanding?
[W] If the hypothesis H is true, then whatever W. Basic implication form. Same in both cases. Burden of proof has nothing to do here, Graham.
[G] I didn’t realize I was supposed to take that seriously! I thought you were just trying to mock what I was saying about the experiment
[W] Why not both, Graham? I can mock you using valid arguments, you know. Some call it a reductio.
I thought you were trying to imply (and mock) that I was saying Allmendinger’s hypothesis is right unless someone proves the experiment wrong. However, that’s not what I was saying. The experimental results, if correct, prove that the consensus hypothesis is wrong. There is absolutely nothing to mock about the logic of the latter.
If I got what you were trying to imply wrong, then OK, I got it wrong. It’s not like you make yourself particularly clear.
This:
"if my hypothesis is true, Graham will continue to troll. He has yet to invalidate it."
Does not represent, challenge, mock or have anything to do with the logic that I am using re the experiment. If you think it does, you’re mistaken, and are attacking a straw man.
> I thought you were trying to imply (and mock) that I was saying Allmendinger’s hypothesis is right unless someone proves the experiment wrong.
Yes, Graham. That’s the red herring.
Perhaps you missed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365239
Perhaps you also missed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365612
At first you were more into JAQing off:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1363841
Counterfactual thinking is no better.
There was no deliberate red herring, Little Tiny Willy. That’s actually, genuinely, how I interpreted your comment. Like I said: if that interpretation was wrong, it was wrong. You don’t exactly make yourself very clear.
Yes, I saw all of your pointless comments. You can try to attack me personally (and indeed, that’s all you ever do) but it won’t invalidate the results of the experiment.
Keep on adding to that messy pile on the floor.
> There was no deliberate red herring
See, Graham? That’s another deflection. I just said it was a red herring. Not all commitment reduces to a burden of proof. It’s no big deal.
If you were not trolling all the time, people would take you more srsly. Big if, I know.
People seem to take me very, very "srsly" indeed, Little Willy. If they didn’t, this thread would be an awful lot shorter. You see, actions speak louder than words. If any of the people constantly and obsessively responding to me want to prove that they don’t take me "srsly", then they can just stop responding to me.
However, it really doesn’t matter if people take me "srsly" or not. It doesn’t invalidate the results, either way.
Keep on adding to that messy pile on the floor.
Poor Graham, always the victim.
Have you ever considered that people tend not to like being trolled for 72 months about Dragon Cranks stuff?
Not that you have any commitment toward any crap you peddle over and over again, mind you.
After a while plausible deniability wears off.
Trying to make it all about me won’t invalidate the results, Little Willy.
Keep on adding to that messy pile on the floor.
“but not detectable with usual IR-spectrometers”
Riiiight… why not?
“His alternative understanding does not involve a violation of any laws of physics, or of quantum mechanics, nor does it invalidate IR spectroscopy. ”
Oh, I didnt realize you were sufficiently knowledgeable in quantum mechanics or IR spectroscopy to make such a judgement!
I disagree.
Again, he simply asserts, without evidence, that his thermometry method is more sensitive than spectroscopy.
Spectroscopy is very sensitive, and unlike his approach, has specificity. It can separate the effect of the container and of different gases
His method is crude, less sensitive than Tyndall’s approach from 150 years ago, who at least used a differential method and a thermopile.
It is comparable to doing brain surgery with an axe.
But somehow he thinks that is ‘novel’ and more sensitive!
Gullible people will eat that up.
…keep on adding to that messy pile on the floor.
Graham, please get off the floor.
grammie pup wrote:
No, grammie, in the 2018 paper, p9, he wrote:
Here’s the crux of one of his failures. The absorp_tivity and emissivity are the same for specific wavelengths, not over the entire range of IR and visible wavelengths. His expectation of the same absorbance (“albedo”?) for Sun lit conditions and later emissions of IR is a fallacy. It’s well known that paints with different colors exhibit different absorp-tion and reflection, which is the reason we sense different colors, but it’s also well known that the emissivities may be similar for IR radiation emissions. His conclusions wrt the plates is false.
Another possible problem with his 6 plates is the positioning of the colors. Note that the lightest colors are on the bottom of Figure 4, the darkest at the top. Convection would result in warmed air traveling up along the surface of the array, thus the the plates would experience a warmed surface air flow compared with the lowest. Also, the back of the plates is a tray positioned at an angle, channeling warm air from the back of the plates upwards, again tending to warm the top plates. This suggests that some of the higher temperatures observed for the black and brown plates relative to the white one was the result of this air flow.
All this leads him down a rabbit hole to the end of the paper where he concludes:
Sorry grammie, he’s wrong.
“No, grammie, in the 2018 paper, p9, he wrote…”
I was talking about the 2016 paper…and note that I said:
“Now, you can criticize this [alternative understanding] all you like, but:
1) His results [in the 2016 paper], if correct, debunk the GHE. That doesn’t change just because you disagree with his alternative understanding.”
Which still stands, regardless of whatever faults you want to point out with a different paper and a completely different set of experiments.
“if correct, yada yada”
Yes, heard that somewhere before.
But we (and you) are discussing the flaws in the paper. So that is chaff.
…which still stands, regardless of whatever faults you want to point out with a different paper and a completely different set of experiments.
The paper still stands . . . in a forest where scientists never go.
. . . like Sleeping Beauty, waiting for her Prince in a lab coat.
Meanwhile, Thomas does the rounds of conspiracy megaphones like Jerome Corsi.
. . . like any valiant Truth Seeker would do . . .
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to promote the conclusions from the 2016 paper, further displaying his ignorance of the fact that his later papers in 2017 and 2018 are built around that presentation. In the 2018 paper, we see the fatal flaw in his understanding of physics, as I noted.
The 2016 paper proves nothing, except that the author does not understand the physical limitations of his device’s measurements. But grammie pup keeps iffing along assuming nothing changes with the later expositions, continuing with the assertion that maybe it’s maybe possible that the results might be right, therefore the Greenhouse Effect can’t exist.
"Cult Leader grammie pup continues to promote the conclusions from the 2016 paper, further displaying his ignorance of the fact that his later papers in 2017 and 2018 are built around that presentation."
No ignorance here, Swanson. Well aware that his later papers involve in part the research and understanding from his earlier one. Which is why you can’t refute the earlier paper by attacking the later ones, though you could refute the later papers by attacking the earlier one, perhaps.
"In the 2018 paper, we see the fatal flaw in his understanding of physics, as I noted."
Don’t be so ridiculous. His 2016 paper involves no mention of Kirchoff’s law. His 2018 paper takes a completely different route to get to his conclusions, involving different experiments, which is why it was relevant there. If correct, they add to the evidence provided in the 2016 paper. If incorrect, they don’t detract from it. How could they? It’s a completely different experimental route, after all.
"The 2016 paper proves nothing, except that the author does not understand the physical limitations of his device’s measurements. But grammie pup keeps iffing along assuming nothing changes with the later expositions, continuing with the assertion that maybe it’s maybe possible that the results might be right, therefore the Greenhouse Effect can’t exist."
No, Swanson. You’re just going into overdrive with your rhetoric. The results from the 2016 paper show that a 4:1 nitrogen/oxygen mix warmed identically to normal air, and not very much differently to pure CO2. As long as those results are correct, that sinks the GHE. It’s a really, really, simple matter. You’re all just trying to throw anything you can at the wall, hoping that something will stick. You’re just ending up with an ever-increasing amount of mess on the floor.
You got to hand it to Graham, Eric – the 2016 paper answers everything about the 2018 paper.
That is why he wrote it first.
Swanson was attempting to dismiss Allmendinger based on his understanding of Kirchhoff’s Law, Little Willy. If you had read the papers, you would be aware that only the 2018 paper involves the need for any understanding of Kirchhoff’s Law. Does not affect the 2016 paper in any way.
Imagine if Eric was right, Graham.
Only if, of course.
Look at you. You beg for someone to look into that crap, and as soon as someone does you hide behind a wall of legalalese.
Nothing to contest my hypothesis that are trolling, like you did for 72 months.
Even if Swanson is correct about the 2018 paper, it does not affect the 2016 paper. I am not sure how much clearer I can make it.
Nevertheless, I have contacted Dr Allmendinger again with Swanson’s comments about the 2018 paper. It is not for me to defend somebody else’s understanding of Kirchhoff’s Law.
Trying to make this about me again will not invalidate the results from the 2016 paper.
Cult Leader grammie pup, the results of the tube experiment in the 2016 paper are referenced in his later papers where he re-posts results. I’ve already pointed to some sources of error in the 2016 paper, to which you have not bothered to respond. There are several versions of the apparatus described, the last (Figure 5) said to be the best. But, the author reports data only for air with that final version, all others are from versions he admittedly considered inferior.
In his later reports which reference the tube experiments, he does not re-run the earlier cases using his best version of the apparatus, simply repeating his figures as evidence. He does add a case with heating from a hot plate positioned at the bottom. This setup would heat the outside of the tube via convection, as well as the inside, thus there should be no surprise that the bottom thermometer was warmer than the top.
But, there’s no point discussing the report with you, since you are uninterested in science or truth.
“As long as those results are correct, that sinks the GHE. Its a really, really, simple matter. Youre all just trying to throw anything you can at the wall,”
Yes, this can be said about any experiment. Even the ‘free energy from water’ ones. If correct that would mean many energy companies would go out of business.
But no one seems worried, Energy supplier stocks are still high.
So you see, pointing out that ‘if true then bla bla’ doesnt add anything useful to the discussion.
The experiment only has value if correct. So that is worth discussing.
Meanwhile, many of us have pointed out real flaws with the work, and false claims in the work.
Of course, all are rejected based on a severe case of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
“Look at you. You beg for someone to look into that crap, and as soon as someone does you hide behind a wall of legalese.”
Same can be said about not-responding responses to my posts. Any facts in my posts contradicting his argument can be ‘legally’ ignored because of the messenger.
Yep, that sums up the trolling method quite well.
Even if Eric pays due diligence to the experiments Graham keeps peddling, Graham continues to troll.
72 months like that.
"I’ve already pointed to some sources of error in the 2016 paper, to which you have not bothered to respond."
False, as anyone can see by scrolling up and reading through the discussion.
"But, there’s no point discussing the report with you, since you are uninterested in science or truth."
False. It’s you who are uninterested in science or truth. The only thing you care about is that any people reading this discussion dismiss Allmendinger’s research out of hand for one reason or another. I have repeatedly made clear that I do not simply accept Allmendinger’s papers as "correct" or "true"…what I have said over and over again is that further research should be carried out, by others.
You know, kind of like when you did your experiment on the Green Plate Effect. Geraint Hughes came along and did some further research; in his experiments finding no Green Plate Effect.
You can’t just "discuss" his 2016 results away, Swanson. His experiments need to be replicated, or improved upon, by others. If others find that the results are as the consensus hypothesis predicts, then that’s that. Allmendinger was wrong. Until then, whether he’s right or wrong remains uncertain.
There’s no point in you people keeping on battering me, personally, with insults and false accusations, either. It doesn’t change anything.
Poor Graham, forever the victim.
Readers can indeed read back the exchange between him and Eric:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1364549
They should see who keeps his elbows up.
Yes, exactly. Thank you.
Yes, exactly indeed. Still no attempt by grammie to discuss any of the basic problems with physics that I’ve pointed to. No effort to answer my question about the emissivity of bead board Styrofoam (used in all version A runs), which might take 30 seconds of searching to answer.
No curiosity about the reason I asked that question, I suppose. Consider that the “basking lamp” used is a flood light design, so the IR radiation from it, which mostly originates from the front glass, is rather diffuse. Compare that with the insolation from the Sun, which is nearly collimated, thus can pass straight thru the tube with little striking the walls, if it’s perfectly aligned with the Sun. Could this be the reason his heat lamp produced a different result from the case when placed in sunlight?
“I have repeatedly made clear that I do not simply accept Allmendingers papers as “correct” or “true””
But then you express certainty that none of the criticisms are valid. Even when you don’t have the expertise to know any better, ie quantum mechanics, spectroscopy, the literature.
“His experiments need to be replicated, or improved upon, by others. If others find that the results are as the consensus hypothesis predicts, then thats that. Allmendinger was wrong. Until then, whether hes right or wrong remains uncertain.”
Yes. But all previous experiments contradicting this one, and there are many, can be ignored?
Why?
Swanson, as anyone can see from reading the discussion we’ve already had, most of the problems you had with the experiment were with setups other than A, which was the setup used that yielded the most significant results of the experiment, as shown in Fig. 25 (the results shown in Fig. 25 were also obtained with the IR lamp, thus eliminating your other objections re sunlight conditions). Now, your response was to mention that "version A had no reflective material inside the tube, just exposed Styrofoam walls". As Allmendinger himself remarked:
"The attachment of a self-adhesive aluminium foil inside the Styrofoam walls (method A1) lead to a considerable flattening of the distance/limiting temperature curve, as it is evident from Figures 14 and 15. This may be explained by a less warming-up of the walls due to the reflection of the aluminium foil, and therefore reducing their counter-radiation towards the contact-tips of the thermometers. On the other hand, the initial energy loss of the radiation beam becomes lower inducing a smoother pathway of the radiative intensity."
Fig. 14 & 15 show results obtained using argon as the gas. Now, according to the consensus understanding, there should be no warming up of argon due to IR radiation. There obviously still was, even with the aluminium foil lining the styrofoam walls. It is thus hard to see how the results could possibly have supported the consensus understanding, even if method A1 had been used for the comparison shown in Fig. 25.
A citation regarding what the consensus holds regarding argon might be nice.
Whenever you have time, Graham.
First result in a quick Google search:
https://sciencing.com/argon-act-greenhouse-gas-23837.html
“Because infrared light passes through argon…”
That’s not a proper citation, Graham.
I’m sure you can find something more formal, say by RTFR and tracing down a real paper in a real journal.
Thomas should have done so, but now you made it your job.
Research and report.
[Rolls eyes].
You can start with teh Scholar if you please.
Oh, quick question – do you know what is an argon matrix by any chance?
A response from Dr Allmendinger regarding Swanson’s criticisms of the 2018 paper:
“Thank you for the hint. My answer is as follows:
The measurement-method with coloured plates was originally described in the paper entitled “The solar-reflective characterization of solid opaque materials” https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJSTER/article-full-text-pdf/E7435F759158. Therein, the absorp.tion process was separated from the emission process, and finally combined by mathematical modelling. The first one was carried out in the presence of solar light, and the second one was carried out in a dark room. This splitting was necessary since the then used aluminium plates were so thick (namely 20 mm) that the temperature shift was not apparent during the measurement period of 30 minutes, due to their relatively high heat capacity, and that the measured temperatures were far from the limiting temperatures. In order to minimize the environmental interferences such as air convection, the plates were enveloped by Styrofoam below and laterally , and frontally by thin PVC foils providing an outer windows effect.
Interestingly, the heat-emission behaviour of the plates was independent on the colouring of their surfaces, corresponding to the behaviour of a “black body” – in contrast to their heat-absorp.tion behaviour. Thus they were designated as “opaque”. Indeed, this contradicts the well-known Kirchhoff theorem which was an obstacle to realize this behaviour. In the subsequent, here relevant paper 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, thinner aluminium-plates were used (namely 8 mm thick ones) which enabled to reach the limiting temperature range after several hours. These empirical results widely confirmed the results which were obtained by modelling. As a consequence, the Kirchhoff theorem cannot be applied in this case.”
Cult Leader grammie pup has no reply to my previous post, then posts a comment by Allmendinger who wrote:
Of course, if he had made an effort to study the physical properties of his paints, he would have learned that they likely exhibited high emissivities for IR wavelengths which would have explained the IR radiation component of the energy loss from his plates. Also, he seems to think that 3 cm of Styrofoam represents a large resistance to conduction and he ignores the convection losses from the surface of the covering pvc film. No, his reply only demonstrates his lack of understanding of basic heat transfer principles.
grammie pup’s previous reply was no better, as he tries to paper over my critical comments by quoting Allmendinger again. grammie wants to ignore the problems with version A, for which the diffuse IR from the “basking lamp” represents a significant heat source to the Styrofoam walls with emissivity of ~0.60. Add in the problem of geometry called “view angles” (remember those?), and it would be difficult to actually model the heating for all cases in which data from version A was used.
The cases with reflective covering are more difficult to understand and model, since the high reflective material also exhibits some absorp-tivity, which is a function of the basic material as delivered and the method used to apply it to the rough Styrofoam surface. Multiple reflections between the walls within the tubes would increase the energy absorbed, also raising the temperature of the walls. Again, the later versions have the thermometers placed deep within the tube where the glass barrel is also exposed to the IR within the tubes.
No, grammie, you are beating a dead horse. Give it up.
Swanson, it’s not (or shouldn’t be) a question of whoever repeats themselves the most, wins. You’re just going over the same points again and again. You didn’t respond to the main point I made in my 5:00 PM comment, yesterday, at all, and you pretend in your first sentence that I didn’t respond to you at all! You just say anything you can to dismiss the research and to dismiss Allmendinger himself.
"grammie wants to ignore the problems with version A, for which the diffuse IR from the “basking lamp” represents a significant heat source to the Styrofoam walls with emissivity of ~0.60."
You’re lying again. Not only do I not want to ignore it, I actually addressed it in my 5:00 PM comment.
"The cases with reflective covering are more difficult to understand and model, since the high reflective material also exhibits some absorp-tivity, which is a function of the basic material as delivered and the method used to apply it to the rough Styrofoam surface. Multiple reflections between the walls within the tubes would increase the energy absorbed, also raising the temperature of the walls. Again, the later versions have the thermometers placed deep within the tube where the glass barrel is also exposed to the IR within the tubes."
I just have to shake my head at your ridiculous stubbornness, Swanson. If the walls of the Styrofoam don’t have a reflective covering, you have a problem with it. If the walls do have a reflective covering, you have a problem with it. You’re clutching at straws here, sorry. The argon shouldn’t have warmed. Clearly it did, even with the reflective covering.
You are beating a dead horse. Give it up.
Cult Leader stumbles around in the weeds trying to resurrect his dead horse. He claims:
If grammie had any interest in truth, he might check Allmendinger’s reports more closely. The curves for argon in his 2018 paper (Figure 13) were copied from his 2016 paper (Figure 26), that figure being for Version A of his device. He presents no data for argon with the best version for which the inside of the tube is covered with reflective foil. grammie also fails to comprehend the effects of multiple reflections between the parallel walls of the tubes.
grammie loses again.
> whoever repeats himself
But but but, Graham, you are not repeating yourself right now. You are repeating Thomas, who simply repeated himself. Do you think that this will suffice to revolutionize physical chemistry?
I mean, it is quite possible that a simple styrofoam setup invalidates the results scientists obtained over the years with an argon matrix.
Big if true, but still not impossible. So unless something is not impossible, it is still possible. Which means it can still be true. Some day. Hope springs eternal.
Oh, and of course repeating counts:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_index
Swanson makes another blunder. Look at the 2016 paper, Swanson, Fig. 14 & 15, as I said in my 5:00 PM comment. The comparison is between methods A and A1 (which includes the reflective covering), using argon as the gas.
"I mean, it is quite possible that a simple styrofoam setup invalidates the results scientists obtained over the years with an argon matrix."
The question as to why modern spectroscopic methods have not been able to detect this absorp.tion has been answered again and again throughout his various papers. Now, you might not agree with that answer – that’s fine – but nobody needs to act like he hasn’t at least tried to answer it. I hope that’s not what you were doing…
“Interestingly, the heat-emission behaviour of the plates was independent on the colouring of their surfaces, corresponding to the behaviour of a black body
Indeed, this contradicts the well-known Kirchhoff theorem”
Swanson is making a very valid point here. Almadinger’s statement is totally wrong.
Kirchoff’s Law applies only for the same wavelength being absor*bed and emitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
A plates color is in the visible wavelength range. Its thermal emission is deep in the IR. Not the same wavelengths at all.
"Of course, if he had made an effort to study the physical properties of his paints, he would have learned that they likely exhibited high emissivities for IR wavelengths which would have explained the IR radiation component of the energy loss from his plates."
Sure, Swanson, and he indeed thanked you for the tip, but does it really change anything about his results, if he had expected this beforehand or not? No. Seems like the whole Kirchhoff thing is a bit of a red herring. Just another excuse to attack Allmendinger in an attempt to dismiss his research. There’s been quite a few of those, throughout.
And so instead of answering Eric, Graham once again basically attacks him. As well as fairly well established science. A lot of picking of nits over lawyerly details from figures that are not the immediate topic of discussion. A fair few false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
You can always count on Little Willy for a false summary.
. . . Eric’s criticisms still stand, regardless of whatever faults Graham wants to point out with a different figure and a completely different set of experiments.
Little Willy clearly hasn’t been following the discussion. He’ll keep responding.
“No. Seems like the whole Kirchhoff thing is a bit of a red herring. Just another excuse to attack Allmendinger”
It shows he didnt understand this fundamental physics. It makes one question his other claims, and understanding of heat transfer and other physics.
Any peer reviewer catching such a thing would reject the paper.
Graham keeps attacking me (me!) instead of acknowledging that Eric might be right.
And if Eric is right, then that would put a big hole in Sky Dragon Cranks beliefs, right?
Right?
If Allmendinger’s wrong, it changes absolutely nothing for those that do not believe in a GHE. I made this point earlier, if you’d been paying attention. This is a "new" challenge to GHE theory, if you like, and does not interfere with any of the existing reasons that people have not to believe in it. It’s in addition to, not instead of, existing reasons.
As I said, there’s a lot of papers and people out there with challenges to GHE theory. It only takes one of them to be correct. Whereas you have to believe they’re all wrong, all "cranks". Which you do, without question, because you lack any true skepticism.
All that said, Swanson’s criticisms amount to a whole lot of nothing. Even if you take them all seriously, which I have tried to do for the sake of argument, there is still enough there in Allmendinger’s research to warrant further investigation (meaning experiments) by others. I’d like to see that happen. If he’s proven wrong, fine. If not…
There is no legitimate reason here why anyone could possibly object to further research being carried out on the matter. Even if you have your serious doubts and suspect it might be a waste of time, at least the further research could finally put it to bed. This is why I keep making this same point…because every time it’s ignored, it just shows you guys for what you are. You’re just here to dismiss. It’s been coming up for two weeks of constant attempts to simply dismiss the matter out of hand…really quite comical.
We’ll be here all month at this rate…
> It changes absolutely nothing
That’s not how it works, Graham. A real fight for epistemic claims is not all upside. At the very least, if Thomas is wrong, you lose the “Big If” stance you tried to sell here.
The only way for you to never lose is to never commit to anything, or to commit to some kind of Dutch book by which contrarians never lose, e.g.:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/
Besides, you forget about time. Imagine all you could have done instead of trolling this website for 72 months. . .
> There is no legitimate reason here why anyone could possibly object to further research
And why not underline another mistake you make, Graham. Nobody is objecting “further research” whatever you might mean by that. Everybody is reminding you that you’re peddling what is obvious crap. This misrepresentation is so blatant that the only good rationale for making it is that you’re trolling.
Besides, think about all the research that rests on argon matrices. Thomas’ results undermine more than greenhouse theory. He’s revolutionizing atomic theory!
You really should think about what you’re saying instead of always whining like that.
Little Willy, you have not contributed one thing of any value to this discussion. The only person besides me that has even remotely tried to, is Swanson. You are just a constantly yapping, ankle-biting chihuahua. Worry about wasting your own time.
See? Graham is still attacking me!
Sky Dragon Cranks are very mean to me.
I think I’m gonna take my ball and go home…
***
Srsly, Graham. You’re just saying stuff. I could list at least ten constructive contributions I made in this exchange alone.
Wanna bet?
If you had any honor, you’d take that bet.
But you won’t, for you’re a sly, manipulative, and ignorant brat.
Yap, yap, yap…
Please commit to something real for a change, Graham.
Take that bet.
You won’t because you know you’re a filthy liar.
I have no doubt that you could list out ten things you have said that you think have added value to the discussion, Little Willy. After all, you think you’re the bees knees. Mostly, however, others seem to think you’re utterly worthless. Sorry for the reality check.
There’s no reality check coming from a trio of abusive sock puppets and a few other loonies, Graham.
Many of them don’t particularly like you either.
In fact most of them would rather that you kept being ignored, for you mostly contribute trolling noise, like almost everything you said in this exchange.
You’re starting this food fight simply because you’re forced to commit to something.
You can’t do research.
You can’t summarize arguments.
You can’t argue properly.
You can’t read anything properly.
You can’t stick to one topic.
You can’t stop whining.
You can’t stop trolling.
You’re yapping again.
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.
No, you’re just yapping.
Please, Graham, do continue to dehumanize while playing the victim.
Little Willy, please stop yapping.
Most welcome, Graham.
#2
Little Willy, please stop yapping.
Hey, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1367414
Are you trying to resurrect that silly old point you lost so many times already?
It’s as if you’re trolling or something.
#3
Little Willy, please stop yapping.
So, Graham, have you found the time to spell out your argument?
Somehow you’re still missing the many ways Thomas could be right or wrong for all kinds of reasons.
#4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I think I want to go over what I believe.
I believe Earth absorbs a lot energy more than any other
planet. And therefore believe Earth emits a lot energy, again
more than any other planet.
And Earth is only planet with an ocean warmed directly warmed by our sun, and I THINK Earth absorbs the most because it has an ocean.
So, I believe Earth absorbs a lot the Sun’s energy.
And I think other planets don’t absorb much because they don’t have a transparent ocean.
And I believe Venus atmosphere has been fairly accurately measure and I don’t think Venus atmosphere [or Earth atmosphere or any known atmosphere of any planet] has gotten much smaller or bigger in a time frame of last 100 million years.
And therefore if Venus had ocean it would not have absorbed much sunlight. And I think there is no evidence of Venus had a ocean.
If you are talking about more than 1 billion years, it seems there is
more uncertainity regarding any significant change in any atmosphere, so I have no belief in particular or it’s debatable and could have guesses. Or it seems roughly 100 million is not enough time, but 10 times the amount of time and 10 times amount change, or 20% change in mass of a planets atmosphere, is more “possible”.
The possibility of Venus surface resurfacing or idea it’s a fairly young surface might be true.
But I don’t have a believe in it. Or think it’s likely true.
Another thing is how, Earth got a ocean.
I believe the Moon was formed by large impactor hitting Earth AND
that event, is related to why Earth has an ocean.
Or don’t believe Proto Earth had our ocean, but Proto Earth could have about the same amount of water, Mars has.
I believe Mars has a lot more water than most people think it has.
And why would proto Earth have had plate tectonic activity?
So, that roughly means I believe Earth had ocean for a long time- which appear to be what most people think.
Mars is smaller but has about same day as Earth [spins slower} and it huge day to night temperature swings.
Hmm, does Mars absorb more or less sunlight than Moon with it’s long day?
What do others say? 110 watts:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
In global dust storm: emits 106 watts.
Our Moon, some say 210 K, 200 K is 90.7 watts
And if Moon had Mars atmosphere it would warmer.
But it’s 120 C surface temperature would not cooled much by such
a thin atmosphere, so would about 110 to 120 watts.
And if Moon had 24 hour day, with Mars atmosphere around 150 watts.
And considering Mars gets 60% less sunlight, 110 watts is a lot absorbed from the less sunlight.
And I think the due to Mars atmosphere freezing out and vaporizing.
And/or 110 watts is wrong.
Solar wind
speed: 574.2 km/sec
density: 10.85 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 79
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.90×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.8% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.7%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
FARSIDE SUNSPOTS: There are two sunspots on the farside of the sun so large they are affecting the way the sun vibrates.
The sun is vibrating with excitement.
I am getting a good feeling we will get a solar max
like conditions, soon.
Look like hurricanes going north for winter
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And Kay is still a hurricane
Solar wind
speed: 559.5 km/sec
density: 8.07 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 56
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.95×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.3% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.1%
3092 might grow a bit, otherwise a lull for awhile
Hurricane Kay probably going affect my weather in about
3 days. It’s been hot for around a week or so, 111 F today,
should drop by 20 F and maybe with more rain from Kay.
But we haven’t much of hurricane season in terms landfalls
of hurricane. In Atlantic both are stay in ocean {and weak hurricanes}.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
It seems having a lot rain for it being summer, but not rain
which has any effect upon the drought condition.
Solar wind
speed: 542.8 km/sec
density: 10.53 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 56
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.95×10^10 W Neutral
{It seems moderately high and been constant level}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.0% Elevated
48-hr change: +1.2%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“A SUNSPOT WITH A TAIL: Sunspot AR3092 has a tail–a really long one.”
Hurricane Kay is Cat 2 and they forecast it will die soon, but it’s moisture could give 1″ to southern California- which would be a small dent in drought conditions.
Solar wind
speed: 494.2 km/sec
density: 9.82 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 75
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.94×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.8% Elevated
48-hr change: +1.6%
QUIET SUN: Today, solar activity is low. The solar disk is peppered with sunspots, but all of them have stable magnetic fields unlikely to explode.
Ok, at the moment. 3092 hasn’t changed much, yet.
And stuff can pop out nowhere.
Less imbalance between north and south hemisphere.
Other than high Oulu Neutron Counts, sort of a normal Solar Max
Chinas Economy Is Headed for One of the Largest Meltdowns Ever
-To stimulate the economy, Chinas regulators are forcing Chinese banks to meet high loan quotas.
To hit the difficult-to-attain targets, ingenious bankers are lending and simultaneously allowing borrowers to deposit identical amounts with their institutions at identical interest rates.–
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/09/chinas-economy-is-headed-for-one-of-the-largest-meltdowns-ever/
The ingenious bankers are buying time. Considering the possible large amount inflation- it could work.
I think just think it’s high price of coal, $457.80 per US ton.
The good news for China is Russia military seems to be falling apart,
and Russia and China are natural enemies.
I should look at that Cat 3 hurricane:
“According to CNN, it made landfall with wind speeds of about 95 mph, equivalent to a Category 2 hurricane.”
So, not much with that, though would have caused shipping delays.
There would be surfing opportunities if anyone surfs {and apparently they do}.
I doubt anything will happen soon. It seems more of slow moving train wreck. And Russia in trouble would seemed to help.
Though Europe might be different.
Sea ice
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
Source
https://tinyurl.com/s6d98by4
Climate change is destroying Greenland’s ice sheet, producing an extraordinary amount of meltwater. (Even if we somehow totally stopped emissions today, Greenland’s melting could still contribute nearly a foot of sea-level rise.) And in a twist of fate, that meltwater is loaded with the right kind of sand for concrete production.
Great plumes of glacial sediment are swirling along the coast, actually adding land along the edges of the island.
“Contrary to most of the other parts of the Arctic coast, Greenland is not eroding. It’s in fact growing bigger because the ice sheet is melting. So you can think of the ice sheet as a tap that pours out not only water, but also all the sediment.”
https://tinyurl.com/Delta-progradation-Greenland
TM, did you find another link you can’t understand?
That nonsense was a “weather report” from years ago. Here’s the reality from Greenland’s last season. You likely can’t understand it, but the SMB was about 25% above the mean.
https://postimg.cc/5HZRG67V
Don’t worry, Greenland is not going to tip over.
Napoleon,
Did you link to something you don’t understand?
Here’s a different story.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1109352
Braindead bob can’t understand that the SMB was about 25% above the mean.
THAT is what “braindead” looks like.
Oh, and he won’t go away and learn. He’ll be here all day stalking me. But like the other worthless trolls, I just stop responding.
Napoleon doesn’t understand that SMB is not the whole story.
It’s missing an integral part of what is going on with the Greenland Ice sheet.
I wonder what that could be, maybe the Titanic could shed a few ideas?
bobdroege at 10:46 AM
Waterloo redux:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/PolarPortal/season_report/polarportal_saesonrapport_2021_EN.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj_9CiNkkn4
A historically accurate re-enactment:
https://youtu.be/qt3eyeO0R94
If there’s one thing history teaches us, it’s that humans never learn from history.
For the layman, this paper is about progradation of Greenland’s deltas.
In sedimentary geology and geomorphology, the term progradation refers to the growth of a river delta farther out into the sea over time. This occurs when the volume of incoming sediment is greater than the volume of the delta that is lost through subsidence, sea-level rise, or erosion.
TYSON! Published in 2017 and you’re just now telling us?
You’re welcome!
Greenland’s surface mass balance: more data, less polemic
Though being five years old, the article accessed by TYSON MCGUFFIN’s link couldn’t be more actual.
As usual, Clint R (or Napoleon, thank you Bob, sounds pretty good) behaves condescending
” TM, did you find another link you can’t understand? ”
but doesn’t himself know anything, and is at best able to present a link to current data compared to a recent minimum and a 30-year mean.
That chart however does not represent the situation as it is.
No wonder: it is akin to Clint R’s ball-on-a-string ‘philosophy’ (also named KISS).
*
Here is an evaluation of DMI’s SMB data showing all yearly SMB plots from 2011 till 2022, together with the 1991-2020 mean:
https://tinyurl.com/mtv6epuc
The reason to show superposed years is evident: while 2022’s SMB indeed looks pretty high, it is nevertheless topped by 2018.
But only one year later, 2019 went down to bottom, a bit above 2012! And 2020 and 2021 changed the direction again.
Thus Clint R should better refrain from talking about links others wouldn’t understand.
We all here are lay(wo)men and hardly could give any prediction for what will happen next year.
*
And for those who think that bobdroege posted some irrelevant, alarmist WMO nonsense, here is the DMI source the article links to:
http://polarportal.dk/en/home/2021-season-report/
” 7 January 2022
2021 is the 25th year in a row in which Greenland’s Ice Sheet lost more mass during the course of the melting season than it gained during the winter.
The early part of the summer was cold and wet with unusually heavy and late snowfall in June, which delayed the onset of the melting season, whilst a heatwave at the end of July led to a considerable loss of ice. “
Data source
https://tinyurl.com/4um2bnzu
Bindidon, that’s an awfully lot of babbling rhetoric trying to disagree with me only to prove me right.
Thanks.
The troll’s typical nonsense.
You were proven wrong, final point.
Sorry Binny, but you proved me right:
The reason to show superposed years is evident: while 2022’s SMB indeed looks pretty high, it is nevertheless topped by 2018.
I know how frustrating it must be trying to prove me wrong. But, I enjoy your futile efforts.
What is futile is the typical trial of isolating an event such that its context keeps ignored:
” The reason to show superposed years is evident: while 2022s SMB indeed looks pretty high, it is nevertheless topped by 2018.
But only one year later, 2019 went down to bottom, a bit above 2012! And 2020 and 2021 changed the direction again. ”
It’s like the ball-on-a-string: KEEP IT SIMPLE, Stupid!
Twenty years ago! It seems like only yesterday.
At least one institution is trying to make a PhD in physics mean something.
They’ve got a long way to go. It’ll take a generation, or two, to clean up the mess.
And by “cleaning up the mess”, I mean restoring PhD credibility to the level of Richard Feynman.
The solar activity cycle 25 is approaching its maximum, so the solar radiation yet is not reduced very much. But the observations show the change of leading magnetic polarities of sunspots that appears much earlier in cycle 25 (normally it should appear at the descending phase of a cycle, not at its ascending phase as happens now in cycle 25.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
The magnetic cycles of sunspots differ from the solar cycles.
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/
” He shows that proxy data is valid for making assumptions about global climate. ”
Oh how interesting!
As soon as proxies, usually discredit down to death, are used by a German ultraskeptic guy, they suddenly become ‘salonfähig’, don’t they?
Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss : Climate change is due to natural cycles
https://i.ibb.co/yFvfL46/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-09-06-214848.png
Thanks, I’m able to read documents.
salonfhig
Translation please?
It’s so easy, Ken!
https://translate.google.com/?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&text=salonf%C3%A4hig&op=translate
Or even better:
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&text=salonf%C3%A4hig&op=translate
Is he related to Carl Palindrome Weiss?
Mars is thought to absorb and emit about 110 watts per square meter global average.
And I think that if Mars was covered by bright white H20 snow to a depth of 100 meters [globally] that would increase Mars average temperature.
This is based upon my assumption that rocky surface does not absorb much sunlight energy.
Or to make more simple, dry sand does not absorb much energy from the Sun. But wet sand would absorb more energy {but wet sand, dries up].
Now dry sand heats up quickly, and in dry conditions one can get the highest air temperature. Or to get record breaking day time high temperatures, you need a desert.
Many imagine that higher daytime temperatures equals global warming – and does not. Global warming is about having a higher average global temperature.
We in an ice house global climate. Which is a cold ocean average temperature. The warmest global climate are called greenhouse global climates which don’t have a cold ocean average temperature.
An ice house global climate is dry, a greenhouse global climate is wetter.
Of course Earth is quite wet, compared to Mars.
And if covered Mars with bright white snow, you would make Mars wetter.
A “problem” with covering Mars with bright white snow is Mars is going to go from dim Mars to very bright Mars- and people tend to imagine reflecting more light would make Mars colder.
I don’t think it would.
I think bright snow on Land makes land warmer. I think bright snow on
sea ice, is a slightly different issue. Or a transparent ocean would absorb more than snow. And even wet sand could absorb more than snow- but as I said, it doesn’t remain wet for long. And remains “wet” as long as there is snow- hence hundred meter rather than a few inches of snow on Mars [which would disappear fairly quickly].
But I going to make perhaps easier, let dye the snow black and have 100 meter depth of black snow covering Mars.
Would this make Mars warmer?
And how much warmer compared to undye white snow.
[Of course maybe we should make dye so it can evaporate, but don’t know anything like that- so it end up with H20 evaporating and condensing as transparent ice which will eventually make Mars look less dim as time goes by.]
Btw: I had problem with idea that Mars absorbs 110 watts- but it does snow on Mars.
And 110 watts seems to indicate it snows a lot more than I thought it did. But I tend to think it doesn’t snow this much
and 110 watts is not correct. But I will accept the number 110 watts, unless given a better number.
Oh, it’s known Mars snows a lot on polar region [and evaporates in summer]. So it might be it snows more at poles- it said to snow a lot, but might snow a lot over greater area of polar region than I imagined, I was mostly referring to snowing in temperate zone {more surface area} but it could be just small area of poles- which would mean snow evaporates mostly from warmer air, as compared direct sunlight].
Have you considered finding a ‘chat’ website about Mars? Your insight is lost on us earth preferring plebs.
Well, US taxpayer have spend tens of billions of dollars putting a number robotic orbiting and landing missions on Mars. Far more money than satellites which provide the global average surface temperature of Earth- which would be say few billion dollars.
And considering we spent trillions of dollar on the cargo cult religion, and maybe we have more and better satellites measuring our planet.
And we spent about 200 billion dollars on ISS, which was claimed to have something to do with exploring Mars, and spend 20 billion on SLS, which again was said to have something to do with exploring Mars. We going to explore the Mars, which is said to related to Mars, probably spend 50 billion on that, then we going to send Crew to Mars costing about $100 billion dollars [mainly due to Starship providing a way to explore Mars- otherwise hundreds of billion dollars, failing to get crew to the Mars.
Or you look at NASA budget [NASA has been overly obsessed with failing to explore Mars] and that in 2022 dollars has been about 20 billion dollars per year [about 1/2 of State Dept budget] and from 1970 to 2022, it’s 52 times 20 = about 1 trillion dollars.
Other than gazing at stars, and studying the Sun, other Moon and Mars, what should NASA spending it’s budget, on?
Some argue, the only thing of value in Universe, is the global satellite Market- which most private funding and about 300 billion dollars per year market, and critical to national defense- which spends about 50 billion dollars per on space related things {black programs mainly- black meaning not public knowledge in terms what they doing and how much they are spending per years- which made *mostly* public decades later.
I don’t think I will get answer. So, NASA should have an artificial gravity station which can cost about 200 million dollars.
Also it has been and is NOAA job to study Earth’s weather and climate, it’s budget is about 6 billion dollars per year.
I would guess it’s their satellites which are involved measuring
global temperature, or at least partly paid for it.
But NASA has managed to spend in total about 10 billion dollars on the cargo cult religion stuff. And probably all fed government not specifically about this religion, as spend a lot more- but they have much larger budgets to waste their money on.
How Lake Ice Melts
A wonderful description of how lake ice melts away appeared on the web blog “Air Mass”, hosted by the Star Tribune’s Bill McAuliffe. Ed Swain, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency describes the process of freezing and thawing lakes.
In the late fall, the lake loses heat to the atmosphere, and then on a day or night when the wind is not blowing, ice forms. The ice gets thicker as long as the lake can continue to lose heat.
In most Januaries and Februaries, snow both reflects sunlight and insulates the lake. With a thick snow layer, the lake neither gains nor loses heat. The bottom sediment is actually heating the lake water slightly over the winter, from stored summer heat.
Around March, as the air warms and the sun gets more intense, the snow melts, allowing light to penetrate the ice. Because the ice acts like the glass in a greenhouse, the water beneath it begins to warm, and the ice begins to melt FROM THE BOTTOM.
When the ice thickness erodes to between 4 and 12 inches, it transforms into long vertical crystals called “candles.” These conduct light even better, so the ice starts to look black, because it is not reflecting much sunlight.
Warming continues because the light energy is being transferred to the water below the ice. Meltwater fills in between the crystals, which begin breaking apart. The surface appears grayish as the ice reflects a bit more light than before.
The wind comes up, and breaks the surface apart. The candles will often be blown to one side of the lake, making a tinkling sound as they knock against one another, and piling up on the shore. In hours, a sparkling blue lake, once again!
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/ice_out_description.html
Lake ice candles explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpzkQ2zxXn0
Tim and others: If one electric bar radiator at a certain distance warms your cheek to 315K then 16 such radiators will NOT cook you at double the temperature (630K) because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law only gives correct temperatures for a single source of radiation.
“Wien’s displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature. The shift of that peak is a direct consequence of the Planck radiation law, which describes the spectral brightness of black-body radiation as a function of wavelength at any given temperature. However, it had been discovered by Wilhelm Wien several years before Max Planck developed that more general equation, and describes the entire shift of the spectrum of black-body radiation toward shorter wavelengths as temperature increases.” *
So, adding the Planck functions of 16 identical radiators does NOT shift the peak and does not produce a Planck function the same as a single source yielding 16 times the flux which, by S-B, would produce double the K temperature because 2^4 = 16.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
p,
Tim’s a bit strange, but at least he seems to realise that radiation intensities (fluxes) measured in W/m2 are not necessarily related to temperature, and cannot meaningful be added at will.
You would be aware that boiling water in a container of appropriate material may emit precisely the same “flux” as a container of different material filled with ice! The temperature of each container will be reflect the temperature of the contents, but climate cultists no doubt believe that they can determine temperatures of physical objects in the dark by measuring the quantity of radiation being emitted. Sad.
Regardless of the “fluxes” being “added”, the temperature of an object subjected to such radiation cannot be raised above that of the radiating object. For ice, this means that no matter how you concentrate the IR from ice (say to 1000000 W/m2), you cannot heat anything to above freezing.
In the case of sunlight, temperatures up to 5500 K or so may be achieved. Any 12 year old with a hand lens can start a fire with direct sunlight, even at the poles, in air temperatures of -70 C!
No hand lens? Make a bigger one from ice! Yes, you can. Just basic physics at work.
Not to the liking of the average climate nutter, I fear.
“For ice, this means that no matter how you concentrate the IR from ice (say to 1000000 W/m2), you cannot heat anything to above freezing.”
No, what it means that no matter how you try to concentrate the IR from 273 K ice, you can never concentrate it above 315 W/m^2 (the value that a perfect blackbody would radiate). Concentrating it to 1000000 W/m2 would lead to direct contradictions to 2LoT.
“boiling water in a container of appropriate material may emit precisely the same ‘flux’ as a container of different material filled with ice! ”
Sure if the container for the ice has an emissivity close to 1 and the container for boiling water is close to 0.3.
“… believe that they can determine temperatures of physical objects in the dark by measuring the quantity of radiation being emitted.”
Well, if you know the emissivity of the surface (and perhaps some details about the surroundings) then you can quite accurately determine the temperature. For $30 you can buy an IR thermometer and judge for yourself how accurately it work. Other than shiny, low-emissivity surfaces, it works quite well.
“then 16 such radiators will NOT cook you at double the temp”
The SB law finds the total radiant heat flux not the spectrum. It makes no difference that the 16 emitters produce different spectral distribution than a single doubled T source. They produce the same heat flux.
For cooking, only the total heat flux matters, not-a-physicist-nor-a-cook.
Mr Physics, Radiant fluxes on a surface add, the result being some higher temperature of the material. Temperatures do not add.
Swanson, your “demonstration” proves you don’t understand the issue.
In regard to heat, not light, radiative fluxes from different sources cannot be added and the sum used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, as a simple experiment easily demonstrates.
My peer-reviewed paper on radiation is at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Mr Physics (a.k.a., You Know Who), Your paper is full of flaws with references which do not support your conclusion. You’ve essentially said: “IR energy from a cooler source to a warmer one can’t add energy to the warmer one because of the 2nd Law and it violates the 2nd Law because the energy can’t flow from the cooler to the warmer one”. Circular logic there with no proof.
As for my demonstration that fluxes add, as we know, the incandescent flood lamps emit mostly IR radiation, which is absorbed by the from glass and re-radiated at a lower temperature. The demonstration could have been performed using “heat lamps”, which filter out most of the visible except for a dull red color, with the same results. The added fluxes result in more energy being absorbed by the plate, thus the plate’s temperature increases as a result.
Zounds like someone owes you 10 large.
Tim Folkerts did a better job with his take down.
If you add an effectively stronger source of course you will see the result of the higher flu x and the temperature will be similar to what that source on its own could achieve. You will NEVER get the observed temperature by using the sum of fluxes in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. The CSIRO could not find any documented physics or experiment indicating this could be done. If you can find such (in other the climatology musings) send it to the CEO of CSIRO Dr Larry Marshall who is very aware of my papers and will by next year have to provide such answers in a major class action. So do help him!
By the way, did you have trouble re ading the words “not light.” For someone who apparently knows so much about The Second Law of Thermodynamics I am surprised you don’t understand the difference between the process of converting electromagnetic energy in radiation to molecular translational kinetic energy in a target and the process of reflection of light. Chalk and cheese! Argue with the three PhD scientists who peer-reviewed my 2012 paper and are named therein, and/or with Prof Claes Johnson wh has written a book of over 100 pages on this topic.
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.
PS Don’t bother to reply until you have understood my paper on radiation which cited the brilliant research of Prof Johnson.
PPS: Consider the top of Mt Everest on a clear, mid-summer day around noon where it receives over 1,100 w/m^2 of solar radiation by my calculations. Add at least 324 w/m^2 of back radiation (as per NASA) and see what S-B gives. Answer: 398K = ~125C. (It’s all part of what climatologists say averages about 15C globally, but it’s not pulling its weight contributing to that average, now is it. Radiation to the Venus surface fails miserably in explaining the surface temperature. Try it.
Mr Physics, Your calculation displays considerable ignorance. The top of Mt. Everest may be receiving 1,100 w/m^2 for a brief period near noon, but the rest of the day it won’t. Don’t forget that there’s no sunlight during night so the rocks will cool considerably as the wind causes strong cooling with the air temperature at the top of Mt. Everest likely to be quite cold most days, all of which subtracts energy from your calculated IR radiation heat loss and resulting SB calculation of the surface temperature of the rocks.
I suggest you read the cited works of a certain well-known professor in my 2012 peer-reviewed paper and feel free to make your assertive statements to any of the three PhD scientists who reviewed my paper and are named at the end thereof. I’m really not interested in arguing with those who have so obviously been brainwashed with the fictitious fiddled physics invented by climatologists. You’ll find that the Professor whose 100+ page book on this issue has a blog where you can argue with him to your hearts content.
Mr Physics, Your comment about Mt. Everest is just an attempt at creating a straw man to refute AGW. It fails because it doesn’t include all the heat transfer processes, well known in the engineering profession, as well as meteorological facts about the temperature at ~29,000 feet altitude. You then present an appeal to authority, which does nothing to cure your failure to present the physics involved.
Physicist, you have several bits of bad physics and/or bad reasoning here.
Mostly it seems to come down to a confusion about flux EMITTED FROM surfaces and flux RECEIVED AT surfaces. Consider the ‘cheek’ you mentioned (and for simplicity, assume it is a manikin in deep space with a blackbody surface). [Also, you have confusingly use the number “315” as the temperature, rather than using “273” as the temperature and “315” as the flux, but I can easily use youer numbers.]
Suppose we have radiation EMITTED FROM a bar. Assume it is 1500 K, emitting 287,000 W/m^2 with a peak wavelength around 1.9 um. At some ‘certain distance’ that flux could drop to 558 W/m^2 RECEIVED AT the cheek (but the peak is still 1.9 um).
That flux hitting the ‘cheek’ would be absorbed. Eventually a steady-state condition would be established and the cheek would radiate 558 W/m^2 EMITTED FROM the cheek (315 K and 9.2 um peak). This flux and it’s peak is a function of the CHEEK’S temperature, not the BAR’S temperature
Adding a second bar at 1500 K emitting 287,000 W/m^2 with a peak wavelength around 1.9 um at the same “certain distance” results in another flux 558 W/m^2, or a total of 1116 W/m^2 ARRIVING AT the cheek. Now the cheek warms up some more. The cheek EMITS a flux of 1116 W/m^2, which is 375 K and a peak at 7.7 um.
We are now in a position to correct your statement. So, adding the Planck functions of identical radiators does NOT shift the peak of the INCOMING radiation to the cheek (it simply increases the intensity). But is does shift the peak (and intensity) of the OUTGOING radiation as the CHEEK radiates at a higher temperature.
And yes, 16 such radiators WILL provide 16x the incoming radiation and WILL cook you at double the temperature (630K) because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives correct temperatures for a single source of radiation — which is the CHEEK here, NOT the BARS.
[The only interesting and important limit is that you can only add enough bars (or lenses or mirrors) to provide a maximum of 287,000 W/m^2 and the cheek cannot get above 1500 K using these heaters.]
Folkerts, you keep promoting that nonsense but you’ve yet to provide a valid technical reference to support it.
You know why?
Because there is NO valid support for it. It’s all your made-up nonsense.
I suggest you also Tim Folkerts read the cited works of a certain well-known professor in my 2012 peer-reviewed paper and feel free to make your assertive statements to any of the three PhD scientists who reviewed my paper and are named at the end thereof. I’m really not interested in arguing with those who have so obviously been brainwashed with the fictitious fiddled physics invented by climatologists. You’ll find that the Professor whose 100+ page book on this issue has a blog where you can argue with him to your heart’s content.
I’m grateful for the above link to this VERY IMPORTANT talk by a Professor saying much like I did back in 2011 about superimposed climate cycles indicating the current near level temperatures since 1998 and future cooling, the next minimum he says will be around 2035 and then it will be cooler still around 2075.
https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
All should watch as he proves there is absolutely NO correlation with CO2 levels.
The only correlation, according to Salby, is that CO2 lags temperature on both short and long time scales. Seasonally, it lags 90 degrees out of phase.
There’s far, far more to it in that video. But if you don’t want to learn then don’t watch it.
https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
You are spewing nonsense, but is amusing to see someone so clueless and so self confident at the same time — belligerent as well!
The amount of warming from rising CO2 levels has been not measurable.
If it was measurable, one would not have all these wild guesses about how much global temperature will increase in the future.
And past guesses have all been wrong.
Hardly anyone says CO2 levels cause the rise in temperature from the colder Little Ice Age. Instead they try to say Little Ice Age didn’t exist- or they are complete idiots and frauds.
Not being expert, I think a doubling of CO2 could cause .1 to .5 C within 100 years. Which means I agree CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas.
It’s possible is closer to zero.
But I don’t see any evident of higher CO2 causes global cooling- and what you linked, doesn’t either.
It seems that the 25th cycle is proceeding in accordance with Zharkkova’s forecast.
https://i.ibb.co/v1g2bfX/srep15689-f2.jpg
It seems above all that on the chart you show, the historical data went only till 2005.
What about being honest, and showing us a similar chart with ‘historical’ data going up to exactly now, and with currently valuable predictions?
It seems Bindidong is too stupid to grasp that prediction made in 2005 will have data till 2005
It seems much more that the babbling Edog was in such a hurry to stalk me that he couldn’t even correctly read my comment.
Could be.
Bad news for Mars crew exploration.
Or good news.
I think we use chemical rockets to get to Mars in 3 months
or less.
I am not getting many people believing this.
It is widely agreed that nuclear rockets can get to Mars
in 60 days.
I am not a fan of nuclear rockets, and I don’t think they can get
to Mars in 60 days.
Anyways people might get interested in getting crew to Mars
within 3 months or less. And solves radiation issue, and helps with the microgravity issue.
Though if we just make a cheap artificial station, that might solve
the microgravity issue of going to Mars.
artificial station = artificial gravity station
In contrast to our favorite sock puppet, Otto has not been banned from Roy’s by Roy:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Willard,
More irrelevant gibberish?
Otto? Roy’s? Roy? Who are you trying to manipulate Dr Spencer into banning now?
What about Mike, Warnie, Billy-bob and Rastus?
Carry on.
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Search for “Roy” and “Otto” on this page.
Cheers.
Weary Willard,
No. Why should I?
If you don’t want to explain why you are a obfuscatory idiot, I don’t blame you at all.
Keep it up – nothing wrong with me having a good laugh at capering climate cultist, is there?
Mike Flynn,
You asked who was Otto.
Or did you?
Perhaps you were just playing dumb!
You are a natural.
Long live and prosper.
Weepy Willard,
You issued a command. I refused to carry it out.
You are a powerless, impotent fool, for issuing commands which I can ignore without fear of repercussions.
Feel free to pretend that anyone is about to do what you tell them to.
[laughs at pretentious nitwit]
Swenson
Watching this exchange I saw one person offer you a source of information and another refusing to look at it.
Refusing to look at information is usually a symptom of denial.
Is denialism truly the philosophy you want to project?
Entropic man
Flynnson is a crackpot, a weirdo no one takes seriously.
Wait, Mike.
Does that mean you were *ordering* me to carry on?
C’mon Willard,
Can’t you work out anything for yourself?
If you don’t want to carry on, you have my permission to stop.
Most people are capable of making their minds up for themselves, but if you need direction from me, let me know.
I’m always glad to help out those less capable or fortunate than myself.
You don’t need to thank me, it’s my pleasure.
Mike Flynn,
Do you even speech acts?
Swoon.
Growing more incomprehensible by the day, are you?
What hell are “speech acts”, and how are they done?
Is it the same as a “Swoon”?
What do do with a swoon? Is it a specialised sort of spoon, used by acolytes to slurp up climate swill dispensed by self appointed “climate scientists”?
All very mysterious – as well as completely meaningless.
Carry on.
Here, Mike:
https://memegenerator.net/instance/62770960/carl-sagan-do-you-even-science
Welcome to the Internet!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Another no doubt pointless and irrelevant link?
Maybe referring to the delusional Carl Sagan who didn’t seem to want to accept that the Earth cooled from the molten state, and had to invent fantasies involving weak young suns, physically impossible frozen Earth states, and various other pieces of nonsense.
What an idiot!
Proof that intelligence is no proof against various forms of mental disturbance.
Don’t blame me for your obvious inability to use English as a vehicle to express your thoughts. Are you suggesting that the “Internet” has scrambled your brain?
Oh well, I suppose you figure that any excuse is better than none!
Carry on.
Why are you talking about Carl Sagan, Mike?
I did not mention him.
Oh, could it be that you clicked on the link?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
UN weather agency is catching up with superdeveloping tripple dipper La Nina ,
Almost as late as our ENSO megaspecialist Bindidong
https://youtu.be/K_REvo310oo
Compared to the babbling Edog stalker, I’m indeed an ENSO megaspecialist.
Because apart from stalking, endlessly babbling and posting youtubes, he isn’t able to do anything valuable, e.g. downloading and processing all the available ENSO data (MEI, NCEP etc).
Don’t expect from our worldwide acknowledged ENSO forecast gigaspecialist to produce any chart like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AeK8oGGqzX27K60aYAn4JWDho-8lhwMl/view
He hates the past (you know, what begins every yesterday).
ENSO megaspecialist Bernardong Who missed three La Ninas in a row checking ENSO for La Nina
https://i.postimg.cc/4ycXKhpM/bernardidon.jpg
Avez-vous lu le commentaire juste au-dessus du mien? C’est exactement ce que j’avais anticipé.
Binny,
How many languages can you be irrelevant in?
Have you lost your marbles?
https://babylonbee.com/news/after-second-failed-launch-nasa-decides-to-scrap-artemis-program-and-just-fake-another-moon-landing
No wonder that the troll and denial specialist posts such infamous nonsense.
Bindidon, NASA (your cult headquarters) needs plenty of sarcasm. They can’t get a rocket launched, yet Elon Musk launches about one a week.
NASA no longer is interested in science. They’re fully “WOKE”: “With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon…”
Sorry that you have such a pathetic false religion.
Sky Dragon cranks say the darnedest things.
Pup still holds that two sunbeams CANNOT add!
Wonky Wee Willy,
He’s right, actually. No matter how many “sunbeams” are “added”, or concentrated, an object cannot be heated to a temperature above that of the source of the sunbeams – around 5800 K.
Just like “icebeams”. No matter how much radiation you concentrate, amplify, or manipulate, you cannot raise the temperature of an object with that radiation, higher than the freezing point of water.
Learn some physics, laddie.
Next thing, you will be claiming that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize!
Tsk! Tsk! You Sky Dragon cranks have some weird beliefs.
Mike Flynn,
Try to open a lamp in your living room, then try to open another.
See if that makes any difference with your iPad.
Cheers.
Willard,
What are you blathering about, you idiot?
Do all Sky Dragon (AKA delusional climate cultists) suffer from the same mental retardation as you?
Open a lamp? Why would I want to do that? Do I care what’s inside if its working?
You sound very, very, confused.
Mike Flynn,
Please, do continue to play dumb.
Suits you so well.
Enjoy your evening,
http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/peddling/
Clint R is such a genius…
He compares the greatest rocket ever built with Space X’s small rockets:
https://www.spacex.com/launches/
*
And then, no wonder about what he writes:
” Theyre fully ‘WOKE’: With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon … ”
*
If geniuses like Clint R or Robertson find a way to discredit anything more than ever, we can be 101 % sure they’ll head for it.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Bindidon.
That’s always a good way to learn.
Binny,
The maximum probability of an event expressed as a percentage is 100 percent – coming from the Latin “per centum”.
101% probability is nonsensical, and about as witless as the mathematician Gavin Schmidt claiming that a probability of 38% meant more likely than not!
You might not have noticed that “the greatest rocket ever built” seems to have a few problems, resulting in it not actually lifting off the ground.
Do you think this is due to incompetence, or poor design or manufacturing? Maybe a dastardly Russian plot or make NASA look foolish?
“He compares the greatest rocket ever built with Space Xs small rockets:”
Small rockets??? Falcon Heavy is largest rocket currently launching and it also has reusable first stages. It launched a few times and launching quite few of them before end of year:
October: Falcon Heavy USSF 44
4th Quarter Falcon Heavy USSF 67
4th Quarter Falcon Heavy ViaSat 3 Americas
TBD Falcon Heavy USSF 52
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
So, 2 or 3 military and 1 civilian before end of year.
The demo launch of Falcon Heavy sent a Tesla into Mars like trajectory, wiki:
“Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster is an electric sports car that served as the dummy payload for the February 2018 Falcon Heavy test flight and became an artificial satellite of the Sun. A mannequin in a spacesuit, dubbed “Starman”, occupies the driver’s seat. The car and rocket are products of Tesla and SpaceX, respectively, both companies headed by Elon Musk. The 2010 Roadster is personally owned by and previously used by Musk for commuting to work. It is the first production car launched into space and first to orbit the sun. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster
It’s been largest rocket for last 4 years, though since it uses kerosene engine in it’s second stage, rockets with stage stages with LH engines {higher ISP} can deliver slightly larger payloads which sent on escape trajectories, but delivers most payload and at lowest price to LEO compared any rocket in the world.
I believe launch some earlier this.
“The second flight, and first commercial one, occurred on 11 April 2019, launching Arabsat-6A, with all three boosters landing successfully for the first time.
The third flight occurred on 25 June 2019, launching the STP-2 (DoD Space Test Program) payload
In June 2022, the US Space Force certified Falcon Heavy for launching its top secret satellites, with the first such launch expected to be in the latter part of 2022”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
So guess only 2 others, and 1 of those were also military test payload. Military payloads tend to very expensive- a cheap launch not useful and it’s whether it’s very dependable- which SpaceX rockets have proven to be.
“Swensob says”
https://imgflip.com/i/6smj7c
“Small rockets??? Falcon Heavy is largest rocket currently launching and it also has reusable first stages.”
Exactly gbaikie. Bindidon is desperate as he sees his cult collapsing.
I agree to have been a bit ‘subinformed’.
But… after a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship
I see there is much more of ‘promising’ than of ‘already done’.
You just need to read at
” Falcon Heavy was designed to be able to carry humans into space beyond low Earth orbit, although as of February 2018, SpaceX does not intend to transport people on Falcon Heavy, nor pursue the human-rating certification process to transport NASA astronauts. ”
or
” Starship is designed to deliver 100 t (220,000 lb) to low Earth orbit. Once in orbit, the spacecraft can be refueled by Starship tankers for transport to higher orbits or other destinations … ”
to understand.
Thus gbaikie’s critique is not relevant at all.
All he managed to do was to superficially discredit NASA in favor of Musk’s SpaceX.
Bin, NASA discredits itself. It needs no help with that effort.
“I see there is much more of promising than of already done.”
Starship is a space shuttle that works and it’s space shuttle designed to land on Mars.
{despite some movie depiction, Space Shuttle could never get out of LEO [too damn massive and no rocket power to do it. But to land on Earth or Mars, the shuttle has to somewhat massive {you have slow down] but vertical landing vs runway land can reduce to massive.
Superheavy can be made not to land or not to be reuse, and lift a lot payload to LEO. But Musk wants to have city on Mars which he feels need lots of reuse and wants to land 100 ton on Mars surface.
NASA can only land 1 ton on Mars surface- a has various “plans” of land payload.
See, Mars fans think getting to Mars is cheaper than getting to Moon, because they use the Mars atmosphere “to brake”, but NASA is capable of landing 100 tons on Moon but was capable of putting more 1 ton on Mars. Or Musk is solving the Mars problem with Starship- landing 100 tons on Mars, cheaper than landing 100 tons on the Moon.
Or as said, it’s space shuttle to Mars,
–Thus gbaikies critique is not relevant at all.
All he managed to do was to superficially discredit NASA in favor of Musks SpaceX.–
SpaceX, would not exist, without help from US military, “Space Pirates” {Or I just call them space cadets}. And NASA.
And the Ex NASA employees, who got tired of waiting- and who went to work for Musk {who wanted to go to Mars as fast as was possible- something NASA has been failing to do, for many decades.}.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
> Pakistan is facing one of the worst flooding events in its history.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/devastating-flooding-overwhelms-pakistan
Yes, and most dramatically is that, given the very ambiguous attitude of the country’s Islamic leadership towards the Taliban regime, its people are unlikely to be able to expect any real outside help.
From the French newspaper ‘Le Monde’:
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2022/09/07/avant-apres-les-inondations-catastrophiques-au-pakistan-vues-de-l-espace_6140573_4355770.html
To translate, please use
https://tinyurl.com/4d9wfext
Maybe it’s superdeveloping La Nina ?
W
Tell us you can understand anything more complex than the control knob theory. Tell us you understand the country is prone to flooding. Tell us you understand the history of changes in monsoon variability over the Holocene affecting massive floods. Tell us you understand period.
Would you like mustard or mayo in your sammich, Fernando?
I understand that there’s no linear relationship between temperatures and CO2 levels. Perhaps you should skool Javier about that.
Bruno,
Willard the Wanker doesn’t even understand what he writes.
Sammich? Fernando?
He obviously lives in a bizarre fantasy world, where the inhabitants worship Willard, and accept his delusional opinions as fact. He probably calls it WillardWorld, but can’t find a single person to pay to enter!
He seems to think that linking to a weather report makes him an intellectual giant.
Poor, sad, Weepy Willy.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop projecting your own stupidity.
Cheers.
Pathetic, poor, sad, Weepy Willy,
I am happy enough to let others form their own opinions.
Some might value your Sky Dragon crank maunderings – I don’t.
Mike Flynn,
You already played dumb about sammiches. Many times.
I already explained it to you. Many times. For instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-675387
April 2021.
Please, do continue to make a fool of yourself.
Willard,
You can “explain” your bizarre and pointless use of “sammiches” to Mike Flynn as much as you like.
Try and find somebody who cares.
Expressing yourself in English might garner more respect, you know.
Carrying on like a petulant child, kicking an screaming when you don’t get your own way, just lowers you in everyone’s estimation – except fellow Sky Dragons, of course.
I explained what “sammich” stands for and where it comes from and why I am using it not to a third party, Mike.
I explained it to you.
Get it?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/0VOWi8oVXmo
The moon, in shadow its surface temperature drops to minus 150 degrees Celsius. In sunlight it rises to over a hundred. Virtually at the same distance from the Sun, temperatures on earth are much less extreme and we owe this life-giving fact to its atmosphere, in particular to the presence of the so called greenhouse gases.
Climate of Concern – Royal Dutch Shell (July 19, 1991)
I didn’t watch the whole thing, TM. It’s just a rehash of the same-old cult nonsense. No physics, just beliefs.
They mentioned the extreme high temperatures on Moon (actually more like 115C, 240F). They failed to mention Earth’s systems keep it from being anywhere near the boiling point of water.
But, the comments were a hoot — just like the cult comments here, all beliefs, emotion, and politics. A funny one, “Our planet is in deep trouble and Trump don’t give a damn.”
That’s why this is so much fun.
ClintR,
TM is a strange Sky Dragon crank.
He provides support for his opponents, by quoting reality, and I wonder if he assumes that most people are like himself, and reject reality in favour of Sky Dragon (AKA climate nutter) fantasies.
As John Tyndall and many others have been pointing out for hundreds, if not thousands of years, without an atmosphere, not even plants would survive the -150 C temperatures at night, nor the 127 C temperatures of the day. No food, no people.
The atmosphere ameliorates temperature extremes. A Goldilocks world – mostly not too cold, not too hot, but just right!
Hooray!
Mike Flynn,
You’re the Sky Dragon crank.
Sorry.
Witless Willard,
Sky Dragons is a pejorative term for those poor deluded souls who believe that CO2 produced by mankind will somehow result in us all being ” . . . toasted, roasted and grilled”, at least according to the IMF chief and strident Sky Dragon.
An idiot just like you!
Mike Flynn,
A crank is an annoyingly eccentric person who holds weird ideas.
Denying the greenhouse effect is one such weird idea.
Just like you do.
Love,
Willard,
Seeing as how that you can’t even describe the greenhouse effect, there is no need to worry about something that doesn’t exist! Only SkyDragon cranks treat fiction as fact, and use stupid terms like “deniers” to describe anyone who points out that CO2 has not managed to prevent the surface cooling when the sun sets, or over any given longer period – for example the four and a half billion years or so of the Earth’s existence.
Love that!
Nitwit.
You can read about PSI errors on the page on my website headed such. Their arrogant Joseph Postma posts pathetic “physics” as in his first paper on PSI.
Mike Flynn,
How many times did I quote you describing the greenhouse effect?
Please, do continue to play dumb.
Weary Willard,
As far as I know, Mike Flynn has repeatedly pointed out that there is no greenhouse effect at all.
This of course means that you have never quoted Mike Flynn describing the greenhouse effect! Not one time. Zero. Nil.
Repeating a lie wont’t make it come true, Woeful Willard. It just reinforces the fact that you are a lying tosser.
Still no greenhouse effect, is there? Mike Flynn agrees, I’m sure.
Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person, Mike – do you think you’re Cesar or something?
With Pup as Napoleon, that’d be great!
Cheers.
PS: Ask Bob about Napoleon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
drops to minus 150 degrees Celsius.
Or radiate about 13 watts per square meter
120 C, radiate about 1354 watts square meter
what seems more dramatic, 393 K to 123 K or 1354 to 13 watts.
The Moon is not long at around 393 K compared to time it’s at
around 123 K.
A lunar surface spends long time being cold and short period being
hot.
It’s kind interesting that cargo cult likes solar panels, which on earth get electrical energy for a short period of time in 24 hour day.
Most of the Moon has similar [and far worse problem] a very long night. One solution given was storing thermal energy on the Moon.
They didn’t say make lava, but you could.
But that was olden days. With lunar polar region one has vast area of darkness with patches light. And lit area can have sunlight 80% of the time.
Also if standing near south Pole on Earth you walk around the world quickly. And polar region of Moon is small and also walk around world in a short distance.
So you connect patches light which go around world and get solar power nearly 100%.
So don’t need to make lava.
But even equator moon is a shorter circumference than earth, but say do at 50 degree latitude, and instead circling whole moon, you do two time zones west and then two time zone east. Noon to 2 pm and to 10 am. Or added 4 hours to the 12 hour, of course still very long lunar night. But halved the long lunar night.
Of course this works with Mars which same hours of night as Earth, so could 16 hour solar energy and 6 hours of no energy. And with Mars one also use polar region and get 24 hours solar power without very long transmission distances. Of course Mars is quite bigger than Moon and Mars has 25 degree tilt of axis
Nope. We owe a few degrees of cooling to the main greenhouse gas, water vapor.
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
Find out why at http://climate-change-theory.com
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
Moon……223,35 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
–
In the post the “W/m” should be read as “W/m^2”.
“The Earths atmosphere is very thin.”
If 10 tonnes per square meter, is very thin.
But most sunlight enter the ocean which is very deep.
Compare to our ocean, our atmosphere is close to nothing.
“There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature. ”
I generally think the atmospheric greenhouse effect is about +15 K.
Maybe that wrong.
If ocean was covered with say 1 foot of ice, how warm would earth
be. Well still most sunlight would pass thru the 1 foot of ice.
So until ice melts, it would be like having very little sunlight.
Instead say ocean surface had 1 C freshwater on it, 1 foot thick, then don’t delay of melting the ice.
That’s complicated, make it 1 foot of freshwater which was 20 C.
This is greenhouse climate in an instant.
Global water vapor soars.
Average ocean surface temperature in instant is 20 C.
Tropical heat engine stops.
Anyways add couple degree to global average temperature.
But happens tropics is weird, it cools.
Let’s not add the 20 C water to tropics.
So tropical global engine is slowed down.
“I generally think the atmospheric greenhouse effect is about +15 K.
Maybe that wrong.”
Yes, that’s wrong.
The atmosphere cannot raise Earth’s temperature. That’s Sun’s job. Sun warms, atmosphere cools.
“Sun warms, atmosphere cools. ”
And when the Sun warms faster than the atmosphere cools, you get global warming.
That’s correct. It’s the Sun, stupid.
And the atmosphere, child.
Correct again. Sun and the atmosphere work together. Sun warms and the atmosphere acts as lossy insulation. Sun is fairly constant, but the atmosphere cools based on temperature.
The atmosphere cools by insulating, and Pup is a genius.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Maybe that wrong.
Yes, thats wrong.
The atmosphere cannot raise Earths temperature. Thats Suns job. Sun warms, atmosphere cools.
Global warming is not about raising the temperature, it’s about making a more uniform global temperature.
You might have notice that earth’s temperature is not very uniform,
though very uniform compared to the Moon [with it’s very long day and lack of atmosphere or ocean].
Or what is global warming is having a 24 hour day.
So, I mean 15 C is the portion of the 33 C that can’t be explained by the cargo cult idiots. Of course the cargo cult idiots do assume water vapor is large portion of the missing 33 C. But some minority of cargo cult think CO2 causes the 33 C.
In a greenhouse global climate, Earth has ocean of 10 C or more and it has much more uniform global climate as compare to our Ice Age or ice house global climate.
[Our average temperature of our ocean is about 3.5 C. And ocean surface average temperature is about 17 C, tropics being about 26 C and rest ocean surface being about 11 C. And global land is about 10 C. And N hemisphere average about 12 and south about 8 C {mainly due to cold Antarctica continent}. Anyhow with average global surface temperature of about 15 C]
“Global warming is not about raising the temperature, it’s about making a more uniform global temperature.”
Where did you ever get such nonsense, gbaikie?
Global warming is not about raising the temperature, its about making a more uniform global temperature.
Where did you ever get such nonsense, gbaikie? —
We have millions of years of ice house global climate and millions of years of Greenhouse global climate [before we entered our Ice Age which going on for last 33.9 million years- which is called the Late
Cenozoic Ice Age]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
Also one look and peak warm periods of past interglacial period, and you look peak of our Holocene interglacial period, where sea levels were 1 to 2 meter higher than today.
Or we have been cooling for last 5000 years- look at 6000 to 10,000 years ago or look a HCO:
“The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 C and summer of 2 to 6 C in northern central Siberia). Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Anyway what controls global temperature is average temperature of our ocean which is currently about 3.5 C.
If our ocean were to be 4 C or more, it would cause a lot of global warming. How could a slightly warmer ocean make anything hotter?
It doesn’t, but it make Earth wetter.
More than 5000 years ago, the Sahara desert was not like our Sahara Desert, it was wetter. Or mostly grassland, and rivers and lakes and forests, which today are not rivers and lakes and forests.
And people live there, and they don’t today.
The whole cargo cult thing is Earth could return to warmer periods of the past. Periods with higher CO2 levels.
Everyone knows we living in Ice Age, and this Ice Age has low CO2 levels. Why we have lower CO2 level is disputed, CO2 levels higher than 1000 ppm are part of Earth’s history. But we have not had such CO2 level during our Ice Age.
The cult spends a lot time imagining we going to get CO2 levels higher than 1000 ppm, but the cult forgets we have a cold ocean.
They have been unaware of how long it takes to warm our ocean.
So in past where it’s thought sea levels were 4 to 9 meters higher, our ocean was 4 C or warmer.
Anyhow, we not going to get close to 1000 ppm {though it would ok, if we magically did]. The cult is living in the past, we not in period where coal mining is important, we better ways to make electrical power. China is mining a huge amount to coal- using coal is easier or simpler to kick start a poor country like China, though is been kind of moronic to take it so far [4 billion ton coal burnt every year and
at price of over $300 per US ton- no one has been this stupid, nor would any country do it, if they could. It’s not quite as stupid as burning in huge forest to make electrical power- which the US has subsidized a lot, as “green policy”. Or also turning corn into gasoline also called green energy.]
Wrong Christos
You forgot that the Solar constant of 1.361 W/m^2 has to be spread out over 4 times the area because surface area is exactly four times the area of the disc of the same radius orthogonal to the solar flux and through which all the solar flux that is going to strike the Earth passes. Earth is not a flat disk. The average temperature of the Moon is well below zero C and so would be Earth’s with no atmosphere. Earth’s surface (and that of Venus) is hotter than it would be without an atmosphere for one reason and one reason only which is explained in my 2013 paper on planet temperatures and my book on Amazon – see https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
How do you know I am wrong you haven’t visited my site yet?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“…the Solar constant of 1.361 W/m^2 has to be spread out…”
Flux can not be “spread out”. That is one of the many mistakes in climate “science”. That leads to such nonsense as Earth’s surface only receives a flux of 163W/m^2, which would correspond to 231.55K, -41.6C, -42.9F. Very bad physics.
Physicist says: “You forgot that the Solar constant of 1.361 W/m^2 has to be spread out over 4 times the area ”
I disagree with Christos for several reasons, but this is not one of them. Christos gets this part right.
Consider Christos’ equation (edited slightly for clarity and emphasis):
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^(1/4) /4σ ]^(1/4)
Raise both sides to 4th power:
Tmean.earth^4 = Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^(1/4) /4σ
Multiply by sigma:
σ Tmean.earth^4 = Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^(1/4) /4
The “Φ” and “(β*N*cp)^(1/4)” are empirical fudge-factors to make the answers closer, and I dislike these fudge-factors. The rest is the incoming flux (So), with a correction for albedo (1-a) and a correction of “1/4” for the spherical shape.
Thank you, Tim!
“Consider Christos equation (edited slightly for clarity and emphasis):
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^(1/4) /4σ ]^(1/4)”
Let’s also make it simple then:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^(1/4) /4σ ]^(1/4)
Let’s have only one constant, let’s have only one coefficient:
Tmean.earth= coeff*[(1-a) So (N*cp)^(1/4)]^(1/4)
S – the incoming flux W/m^2
(1-a) the correction for albedo
N = 1 rotation /per day = axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC = average surface specific heat
Thus, we have a Universal Equation for the theoretical calculation which obtains results remarkably close to the satellite measured the planets’ mean surface temperatures!
Tmean.earth= coeff*[(1-a) So (N*cp)^(1/4)]^(1/4)
Thank you, Tim!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Thank you, Tim ” ???
For what?
You just did nothing but better disguise the fudge factors that Tim Folkerst just so pretty good unearthed.
Είσαι ένας από τους χειρότερους χειριστές που έχω συναντήσει ποτέ.
“and a correction of 1/4 for the spherical shape.”
It’s also suppose to include rate of Earth rotation
Slaying the Slayers – see my page “PSI errors” on my website …
http://climate-change-theory.com/psi.html
Peddling:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/peddling/
Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss in youtube video The climate change is due to natural cycles, at 4:27 says:
” we couldn’t find a single paper which looked into the question of climate cycles so we said well if there’s no paper on that we start doing that…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAELGs1kKsQ
Which reeks of confirmation bias since all he had to do was search the work of any paleoclimatologist.
He also cites the paper by Ludecke, Weiss and Hepelmann which was thoroughly panned in Climate of the Past for among other things, confirmation bias.
Deniers are so gullible.
At 2:15 of the video Carl-Otto Weiss says that he has only been studying the subject for two years, since he never had time before his retirement.
Hardly an expert, but a perfect authority figure for deniers.
Temperature “data” from more than 400 years ago will always be contentious, i.e., it ain’t science.
So, it’s not scientific to claim this current warming is not natural, considering the likelihood of cycles longer than 400 years.
But, the physics is definite and absolute — a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface.
Science-deniers are so gullible.
Clint R
Your bold declaration is only partially correct: “But, the physics is definite and absolute a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface.”
The correct wording would be “by itself”. The energy emitted downward by the atmosphere will lower the amount of radiant heat loss. With the same solar input the surface temperature will rise.
That is the correct and complete physics. Your partial physics is only partially correct. Maybe look at the bigger picture and complete the correct view.
Please take another “rational pill” you are again slipping into arrogant stupidity. Not a charming place to be.
Norman, Sun is ALWAYS heating Earth. You’re probably confused by day/night. THAT is the “big picture”.
Found a valid technical reference for Folkert’s nonsense yet? How about Earth’s “real 255K surface”?
Keep looking.
Clint R
Your repetitious nonsense (which have already been answered numerous times) does not get you out of being arrogant stupid. Try again with new material. Your regurgitation of old material is like a year old vomit. I think you could do better but that would be asking a lot from you.
Tim Folkerts is quite intelligent and knowledgeable. He explains things to you very clearly. It is a shame you lack the rational or logic thought process to comprehend his scientifically based information.
norman…”Tim Folkerts is quite intelligent and knowledgeable”.
***
Tim, no doubt, has access to intelligence, like the rest of us, and he has a lot of knowledge, however, knowledge is not truth, rather it is an accumulation of past experience. My experience debating Tim, and you, is that both of you cling to pseudo-scientific knowledge that has little or no meaning.
Intelligence is often an abused word. We tend to use the psychological definition based on an IQ test. However, someone who has a Mensa-level IQ would not last in the jungles of Borneo more than a few weeks, if that. Meantime, a native who would likely score 0 on the IQ test could survive indefinitely. So, who has the most intelligent in that environment?
I prefer to look at intelligence as a natural process. You allow it to operate or you don’t. Therefore, one is not intelligent per se, each person can allow it to operate or he/she can suppress it.
When it comes to matters like the Moon’s alleged rotation, or the 2nd law, both you and Tim fail to allow your natural intelligence to operate. You rush to textbooks and misinterpret them and Tim allows his ego to get in the way.
Norman,
You wrote –
“The energy emitted downward by the atmosphere will lower the amount of radiant heat loss. With the same solar input the surface temperature will rise.”
Unfortunately for Sky Dragons like yourself, the facts are otherwise.
After about four and a half billion years of solar input, the fact that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten shows that the surface temperature has actually fallen.
This phenomenon is called “cooling”. It happens every night, during winter, solar eclipses, and so on.
Only idiots like Trenberth and NASA are stupid enough to show the Sun shining brightly on all continents at once! Are you really stupid enough to believe that sort of nonsense?
Probably, I guess.
Gordon says: “My experience debating Tim, and you, is that both of you cling to pseudo-scientific knowledge that has little or no meaning.”
Given that I had to correct you (and then repeat the correction) about basic gas law ideas earlier in this thread, I am not sure you are in a strong position to judge scientific knowledge.
So … what specifically do you think I ‘cling to’ that is ‘meaningless pseudo-science’?
tim…”Given that I had to correct you (and then repeat the correction) about basic gas law ideas earlier in this thread”
***
Exactly what I meant when I said you allow your ego and arrogance to suppress your intelligence. You corrected me on nothing, all you offered was an incorrect assessment of the Ideal Gas Law.
Gordon, you were wrong, plain and simple, when you said:
“If we know that P2 = 0.3P1 and we compare equal volumes of air, it follows that T2 should be around 0.3T1. ”
This comparison is ONLY valid when the number of moles in the volume is the same. If N2 = 0.3N1, then T2 would equal T1!
And we know that the number of moles in 1 m^3 is NOT the same at sea level.
You are now making the same mistake a THIRD time after having been corrected twice!
Tim, please stop trolling.
norman…”The energy emitted downward by the atmosphere will lower the amount of radiant heat loss”.
***
To do that, one or both of the following would have to apply:
1)The energy emitted downward would have to heat the surface to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.
2)the GHGs emitting the radiation would have to significantly warm the atmosphere.
1)contravenes the 2nd law, since the the emission source is cooler than the surface.
2)has never been proved.
But there is a 3). If the entire heat cycle of surface-GHG-surface occurred as you claim, it would be a perpetual motion machine. You cannot take radiation from a source and return it to the same source to raise the temperature of the source. That’s especially true when there are very significant losses in the cycle.
Gordon Robertson
No you are not correct in your thought process.
Your 1) “1)The energy emitted downward would have to heat the surface to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.”
The correct understanding is the downward energy reduces the amount of heat lost by the surface. It is proved and verified. Your inability to accept it is your own.
2) No they would not.
Your Next 1) “1)contravenes the 2nd law, since the the emission source is cooler than the surface.”
You have never understood the concept of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and will even not accept what Clausius himself said about radiant heat transfer. I have linked you numerous times to his own quoted material. You just can’t accept that you do not grasp the 2nd law or what it actually states.
GHE is proved and accepted. Your denial is your own. I give you valid data, your brain does not accept it. Not much can be done with a science denier.
3) That is not the claim at all. The claim is more of the insulation based concept. The GHG reduce the amount of radiant energy leaving the Earth’s system to space. They absorb almost all the radiant energy emitted from the surface. The GHG emit radiant energy back to the surface. The surface warms because the net loss is reduced with the same incoming energy.
I give you a logical representation.
You have a 1000 gallon water tank. It has a steady flow of 10 GPM into it. At the bottom is a throttle valve. If the valve is closed the water level in the tank goes up (think of this as temperature). An Earth with no atmosphere would be having the throttle valve at the tank bottom open all the way. Say it achieves 10 GPM out flow from the water pressure when the tank level is half-way up the tank. The input water is equal to the output water and the level (temperature) reaches a steady state. Now pinch back on the throttle (you are not adding more water) but the water level goes up. You reduced the amount that is leaving and with the same input water flow the tank level rises until the pressure will allow 10 GPM out of the throttled valve.
Norman, you don’t even understand your own analogy. More CO2 means MORE energy to space. In your analogy, it would be making the drain bigger, or adding more drains.
Gordon Robertson
Some specific proof (not that it matters, you are not able to accept evidence).
Here is a actual measured amount of IR emission from Africa measured from space satellite.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/91ad7b41-38bf-4800-b07b-5a7f18ca4bf4/jgrd11735-fig-0001.png
Source Link for image:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JD005232
The desert areas emit lots of energy to space, the tropics not so much.
Anyway even with the Desert, the hot areas emit around 320 W/m^2 to space. The surface of the desert in July average 86 F. So with a sand emissivity of 0.91 the surface is emitting around 430 W/m^2. Even in the drier air the surface has to reach a temperature where it emits 430 W/m^2 in order to get 320 W/m^2 out to space.
In the wetter areas is is much more pronounced. The jungle may average 75 F so the surface will emit around 397 W/m^2 but only around 200 W/m^2 leave to space. It is most obvious from real world data a GHE exists, it works and it is why the surface is warmer than without it. Believe it or don’t. Really does not matter, it is more for your benefit than mine that you can accept data. I can’t make you accept it, I can offer it to you for you own benefit.
Norman,
As much as I think people who resort to analogies just demonstrate their inability to address reality, your tank analogy misses an important facet.
To simulate night, you need to have an extra hole in the bottom, which allows water out continuously – just as energy flows from the dark side of the Earth continuously. You may close your throttle valve entirely, but the water still flows out.
This is all silly, anyway. The fact is that the Earth has cooled since it was created, and none of your pointless and irrelevant analogies or fantasies can change this fact.
Maybe you could produce some facts to support your cultist beliefs? A reproducible experiment involving a heat source, a thermometer, and CO2 between them would count as a fact. I suppose you are going to claim that fantasy tells you that reducing the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer will make it hotter, are you?
If so, you are an idiot!
Carry on avoiding reality.
Clint R
YOU: “Norman, you dont even understand your own analogy. More CO2 means MORE energy to space.”
NO it does not! You can post these stupid cult minded points but they are very wrong.
Not sure why you are obsessed with false information.
You seem to totally forget the surface would emit much more energy to space without an atmosphere. It is a verified measured fact.
Your idiot cult trolling will not change this. Go ahead and post your idiot cult beliefs. You have a couple nonscience supporters like Gordon Robertson and Swenson.
Norman, you’re making this too easy.
The only way thermal energy can leave Earth is by being emitted. Radiative gases emit to space. Therefore, if you add more radiative gases, you get more emission to space.
In you analogy, it’s like increasing the size of the drain.
clint…”The only way thermal energy can leave Earth is by being emitted. Radiative gases emit to space. Therefore, if you add more radiative gases, you get more emission to space”.
***
I like to look at it in another way. If you have a TV setup in your home using an indoor antenna, EM at a very low intensity level measured in microvolts, will pass straight through the walls of your home. Same with wifi. I have a computer in the basement and the router upstairs on the far end of the house. It transmits a very low energy EM signal through several walls and the floor to reach the computer.
Heck, you can receive the signals from a wifi point up to a block away, through walls, floors, etc. EM radiation from the surface will pass directly through air like a hot knife through butter. 95% of surface radiation escapes to space without encountering a GHG molecule. The question is, what path does it take. According to G&T, no one knows and figuring ti out theoretically would require Feynman diagrams.
What I did not realize till recently is that the layers of the atmosphere all behave differently. I need to investigate that more but the ionosphere and the magnetosphere can potentially interact with EM. That changes the dynamics of radiation moving in a straight line to space.
norman…”You have never understood the concept of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and will even not accept what Clausius himself said about radiant heat transfer”.
***
Yeah, Norman, it’s really hard to understand what Clausius meant when he declared that heat can NEVER, by it’s own means, be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. NEVER is clear enough for me, it means by conduction, convection, and radiation. He even said as much later in one of his books when he stated that radiative transfer must obey the 2nd law, as stated above.
No energy can be transferred by its own means from a lower potential energy state to a higher potential energy state.
Absorp.tion and reflection are based on wavelengths. The longer the wavelength, the more likely reflection will occur. CO2’s 15μ photon has to find a very cold surface to be absorbed. That’s one of the reasons CO2 can NOT warm Earth’s 288K surface.
Your TV, and WiFi, signals probably aren’t going through walls. They’re bouncing around them. Long wavelength photons bounce really well. That’s why “shortwave” radio can bounce off the upper atmosphere. (“Shortwave” radio means short to radio bands, not actually short. The shortwave radio bands can use photons with wavelengths up to 100 meters!.)
“norman “The energy emitted downward by the atmosphere will lower the amount of radiant heat loss”.
Take two large glowing balls of steel at 1000C. Suspend one in a room at 20 C. Suspend the other in a furnace at 900C.
If Norman’s statement is correct, the chunk of steel in the furnace will cool more slowly. The “energy emitted downward” (and upward and sideways) by the 900 C surroundings will “lower the amount of radiant heat loss”. The steel will lose energy more slowly and will remain warmer longer.
Anyone arguing against this specific statement must conclude that the 900 C furnace and the 20 C room would cause the steel ball to cool at the same rates.
There are lot’s of FURTHER points to discuss, but you really can’t argue against Norman’s specific statement there.
Yes Folkerts, “hot” can warm “cold”. But “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
I know your cult didn’t explain that to you. Fortunately you’ve got me.
Clint, you are stuck on words that are *related* to correct concepts, but you continue to misinterpret what I and others claim.
* Yes, cold objects BY THEMSELVES cannot provide the energy to warm a hotter object.
* But cold objects can IMPACT the temperature of a hotter object.
I own two identical coffee pots. Suppose I plug them both in. I carry one into a sauna @ 40 C. I carry the other outside on a cold winter day @ -20 C. Both environments are ‘cold’ compared to the coffee pot. But the cold *impacts* the temperature of the coffee. The coffee in the sauna will be much warmer than the coffee outside.
And if I take the coffee pot from outdoors (where the coffee might be 50 C) into the ‘cold’ sauna, the coffee will warm up (maybe 90 C). The ‘cold’ surroundings
That is all that I have claimed. That the temperature of a ‘cold’ environment AFFECTS the temperature of a hotter, heated object. NOT that the colder environment itself HEATS the hotter object.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss should have attended one of the many lectures by Dr. Richard Alley (PhD 1987, Geology, Wisconsin) as part of his research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley). Or just watched a video!
Richard Alley – 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2
0:55 Those of us who do history of climate, paleoclimatology, are dedicated to trying to find out what happened, when it happened, and why it happened. We generate hypotheses that lead to new measurements that lead to new samples that are taken specifically for hypothesis testing. Fascinating people say oh look there’s a change in the North Atlantic that predicts the protactinium thorium ratio of the sediments, and you go measure it and see if it does. And so, it’s a fascinating field, it’s a very fun field that we work on.
https://youtu.be/ujkcTZZlikg
Carl-Otto Weiss would also have benefited from the following:
Richard Alley: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g
You might try posting a video featuring someone who is not an absolute dweeb. Still no scientific proof that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
dweeb: a boring, studious, or socially inept person, i.e. a nerd.
That’s actually a compliment!
“Still no scientific proof that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.”
Your [long] history of posts on this site indicates that your “science” dates back to around 1826 thus lending context to your statement. Wait ’till you see what the future holds!
maguff…”your science dates back to around 1826…”
***
Actually, it dates back further than that. I go back as far as Newton and beyond. Of course, if you have a problem with Newton’s science….
“Actually, it dates back further than that.”
My point exactly!
Atmospheric science didn’t begin until the 1820s with Joseph Fourier.
Here’s a glance at the future for you: https://ibb.co/7v1Ky2s
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TM,
It has possibly escaped your notice that the Earth has cooled since the surface was molten, or indeed that the surface cools each night, during winter, etc., etc.
Maybe you could demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer causes the temperature of the thermometer to rise?
Only joking – of course you can’t! Climate crackpot fantasies don’t translate to reality, no matter how much cultist like Alley, Schmidt, et. al. play with their big knobs.
Keep believing. At least it’s good for a laugh, which doesn’t seem to have any adverse side effects!
TM, would you find the times in those two videos where he describes the physics of how CO2 can warm Earth’s surface?
Those are always the funniest parts.
Gosh, it’s been hours and TM has been unable to find any hint of physics in his fast-talking hero’s videos.
What a surprise….
If you want hotter, go to the Moon.
No greenhouse gas makes anything hotter.
Global warming is about global warming.
Which mostly about warming nights and warming winter.
Tropics has no winter.
Global warming is about warming where it is cold.
Germany is cold. China average temperature is colder than
Germany, so warming China. And obviously warming the frozen wastelands, which called Russia.
Russia used to be a lot warmer, Russian probably deep memories
of warmer and happier times, and why they so crazy. Any thing connected to being warmer, makes than excited. Russian have trying to get warm water port for centuries. And the sold Alaska, which is warmest port they ever had. Most people wouldn’t imagine Alaska as
warm water port.
Anyhow, it’s unlikely we going to get any warmer, unless we do something to make this ice age, warmer.
And apparently human are dumb or they like to be cold.
There are some merits to being cold. But Russia is lesson in what living in the cold does to people.
Mars is not cold.
Cold refers to air temperature, Mars has little air. Same with the
Moon, very little air.
Our ocean is cold. Space is not cold. Space is not hot.
Our ocean is a pretty good refrigerator, but Moon and Mars are better
refrigerator. Mars and Moon have handy freezers also.
Humans spend a lot energy to cool things with refrigerators and freezers and air conditioning. With Moon and Mars and Space, you don’t need to use energy to kept things cold. Also they good to keep things hot.
A major issue with vacuum or space, is it’s costly to cool. Our cold Earth, is far easier to cool things, which you need with power plants.
This is one reason water in space is useful. But the more immediate
value of water in space is to make rocket fuel.
Water to make rocket fuel is “worth” about $500 per kg, water for use for taking a shower, in space is worth about $1 per kg. And on Earth it’s worth about $1 per ton. And as coolant on Earth, it’s about 10 cents per ton. Also worth this for farming purposes- grey water worth about 10 cent per ton.
Anyhow Mars sold at $1 per kg on Mars could be a quite profitable business, trying to get $10 per kg, would be less profitable.
Making water a lot less than $1 per kg, should be very profitable.
Lunar water at $500 per kg, could end up being profitable, getting to point of being to sell at $100 per kg as fast as possible is more profitable.
And in 100 years from now, selling water in space for less than water cost on Earth, is very profitable. There is far more water in space to sell, than water on Earth.
Here is excellent interview Alexa Lavoie with Chemical engineer and retired professor Samuele Furfari on the subject of energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHe9qAn3_cQ
Nothing I disagree with.
Will add. LH2 doesn’t work as first stage rocket.
It wouldn’t work for airline planes.
LH2 first stage rocket would work with assist launch system- it might work planes which assisted launch.
First stage rockets and airplanes take-off require a lot power.
And LH2 is not dense fuel, therefore need big pipes, and etc.
Also, SLS having problem with LH2. Hard to make work. Bad idea if you want run a business. And it’s quite dangerous, so good idea unless you want to kill people.
Or I think my pipelauncher would helpful for LH2 first stage rocket.
And one could even launch airplane that way.
Anyways, we have a lot natural gas in our ocean, and we waiting for govt to figure out how to mine it. Govt will waste a lot time. So,
depending govt, will take a long time, and they might “prove” it can’t be done. Remember, NASA proved the Space Shuttle can’t work, and we see if SpaceX, proves them wrong.
Anyways, Earth has finite amount of cheap energy- and cheap energy isn’t coal at $400 per ton.
It seems we can use less energy and have better life. Left want use to use less energy and for people live an oppressed life.
Ocean settlement can be low cost and low energy use.
And we need to stop wasting time and explore Moon and Mars.
Multivariate ENSO Index: some superposed La Niñas – update
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
Source
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
Wot Laninas ?
https://i.postimg.cc/4ycXKhpM/bernardidon.jpg
La Nia getting stronger under the Pacific surface.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202209.gif
If we engage with this idiot c*o*t*T*0*n, after Roy has banned him, it would not surprise me if Roy did not shut the site down.
The idiot has insulted Roy in the past and continues to do so. Anyone supporting him by engaging with him is pretty well telling Roy they don’t care about the insults.
Mike Flynn was never banned. The fact this post got through proves it.
C’mon, Gordo.
There are many ways to ban someone. If Roy can’t only think of blacklisting strings of letters, that’s on him.
Willard,
Oooooh! If that’s supposed to be a sly dig at Dr Spencer’s intelligence, it’s a miserable failure. I suspect that you are just peeved because Dr Spencer has a mind of his own.
He might consider your comments to be as valuable as I do – which is to say, not very!
You do realise that intelligent people have been known to change their views from time to time, as circumstances and facts change? Witness people like Einstein, Hawking and Feynman. All changed firmly held views, as new information emerged.
Fanatics of the Sky Dragon variety tend to ignore reality and facts – sometimes unto death!
willard…”If Roy cant only think of blacklisting strings of letters, thats on him”.
***
You are far too stupid to get my point. Idiots like you are allowed on this site because Roy has infinite patience. However, none of us drag him into personal assaults on his integrity. He is likely far too busy to monitor what goes on but if it comes down to us disrespecting him by freely interchanging with someone he has banned, he might just decide to shut the site down, or cut off comments, rather than try to control idiots like c*0*t*t*0*n.
I used to respond to the above because he had basically decent ideas. However, that came with major obnoxiousness that he obviously cannot control. You can’t understand it because you have a similar level of obnoxiousness.
C’mon, Gordo.
You said something stupidly false. You got served.
Besides:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Willard,
And yet, Mike Flynn commented not so long ago, as I recollect.
Why is it seemingly so important to you? Do you really care who Dr Spencer allows to comment?
Maybe you could spend your wasted time learning some physics, in order to give the appearance that you occasionally know what are talking about.
For example, what physical processes are involved in the surface temperature falling at night? In spite of falling surface temperature, why does a night-time low level inversion not result in heating of the cooling surface?
Dimwit – you haven’t a clue, have you?
Mike, Mike,
Graham was trying to make a point.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Dimwitted Willard,
Who is Graham? Who is Mike?
Must you always talk in riddles?
Mike is the person I refer as “Mike,” Mike.
That is, you.
Graham is the person I refer to as “Graham.”
If only you could do anything else than to play dumb.
You can’t!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon, maybe Dr. Spencer is doing a public service by allowing these braindead trolls to continue here. I, for one, have learned a lot. I never imagined people would insist on nonsense like “ice cubes can boil water” and “a racehorse is rotating on its axis as it laps the track”.
These people are obsessed with their cult nonsense. And some of them even use their real names. They’re seriously insane. The have no appreciation for truth, honesty, science, or reality.
It’s a very clear glimpse of what is happening in the world these days.
Hey, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/climate-hustle-2-premieres-this-evening-at-8-p-m/#comment-532852
Dis U?
Wistful Willard,
Still thinking that perverting plain English makes people think you are clever?
What is a “Dis U”?
You seem to be obsessed with the fact that Dr Spencer is not taking much notice of your desires. Are you really so stupid as to believe Dr Spencer values your opinions on the operation of his blog?
Maybe you are a narcissist, or a delusional psychotic?
Or just the average dimwitted SkyDragon crackpot, with unswerving belief in the magical heating powers of CO2. Tut, tut, Willard. Whining about how stupid you think Dr Spencer is won’t even get you banned, I think. Best to let everyone see what an incompetent nincompoop you are.
Mike Flynn,
New phone.
Who dis?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
clint…I agree, by exposing the alarmists as basic dolts through their commentary. However, none of the alarmists take cheap shots at Roy’s intelligence and integrity.
Some idiotic alarmists show up from time to time to challenge Roy’s posts. That’s fair comment. You know who goes too far with his acerbic comments and know-it-all attitude toward Roy.
I may not agree with some of the opinions Roy has offered but I respect the fact he has a Ph. D in a pertinent field to his work, that he has integrity, and that he stands up to the status quo alarmist idiots, even though it has likely cost him dearly. The thing I really admire is that he allows me to post here given my controversial nature and set of opinions.
I have posted occasionally on WUWT, against Willard’s POV that I would be banned. I have posted on a lot of sites in my time but I enjoy posting on Roy’s site due to the unique interchange.
I had no problem with c*0*t when he posted here until he insulted Roy by challenging his intelligence and integrity. I have no problem with anyone insulting me. I have a thick skin, and unlike Roy, I have no reputation to be compromised.
Since you’ve mentioned some good things about Spencer, I’ll add my favorite. If you haven’t seen it, there is a youtube video of the John Stossel show where Gavin Schmidt, of NASA Goddard, refused to debate Spencer. A GOV employee afraid of a scientist!
That was a hoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw
Schmidt dodged Richard Lindzen as well.
Pointing out that Roy was mistaken when he said (some years ago) that “the troposphere would have been isothermal without greenhouse gases” (and I can assure you he did in an article he wrote here) is only intended to be helpful, as indeed I can be having studied the relevant physics well beyond what Roy has. Nobody will understand this unless they have a correct understanding of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics about which I will soon publish my third paper on that law.
D’uglas Cott’n
You come back with more of your incredible uninformed stupidity. I do not know which of the two posters are less informed of physics. You or the idiot cult minded Clint R. He is quite dumb but you seem to be right there with this poster.
Roy is right and you are wrong. You never studied physics so quit pretending you did.
Here:
https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/stratosphere_temperature.html&edu=elem
The Tropopause (no more convection) a 10 KM layer is isothermal. Your heat creep idea is an idiot dream. It does not exist. You understand nothing and never will.
Clint R
Congratulations on describing yourself to a tee. You are seriously insane. You have no appreciation for truth, honesty, science, or reality. Those are your exact characteristics.
You are the only idiot that concludes that an atmosphere that reduces the surface heat loss means ice cubes boil water. Only in your insane mind does that logic exist. Not one poster has ever thought to reach such a stupid conclusion when it is obvious radiant fluxes will add energy to a surface. No one would conclude this means ice can boil water. As it stands only you come up with that stupid point. Just like all your others most idiot points. Like that Moon does not rotate on its axis when NASA had to use the Moon’s rotation to carry out successful Manned Moon missions.
Norman, you’re getting better and better at making stuff up. But, you have a big problem. You’ve also said you support your made-up stuff. So, let’s start with some valid technical reference for:
1) Your claim that Earth has a “real 255K surface”.
2) Your claim that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving at the same surface can heat it to 325K, emitting 630W/m^2.
3) Your claim that NASA needed to “use Moon’s rotation to carry out successful Manned Moon missions.
I won’t hold my breath.
Clint R
Vomit man!
Do you enjoy lying? Just wondering.
1) Ball4 not me said there is a real 255 K surface. I have clearly stated many times and corrected you many times on this. I said there is a 255 K radiating surface and I went to elaborate lengths to explain the concept. So you are just lying when you post that.
2) Yes that is correct but you have to have correct context to this claim. Too simplistic. Go to the original Tim Folkerts post. A sphere of clear ice surrounding an object and sunlight going through the ice also. This is the correct description of the two fluxes.
E. Swanson demonstrates two fluxes add and increase temperature. You are a science denier.
3) Yes that is correct I linked you to an article describing it in detail. You could not understand the article and just go on with your anti-science cult rants. Endless amount of stupid posts from you.
Anyway you are a liar, you are stupid and can’t learn, and you are a cult minded person who believe endless repetition of points makes them correct. You are all the things you claim others are.
Norman, you don’t have any valid technical reference for your nonsense. Blah-blah doesn’t count. Insults and false accusations don’t count.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R
Basically it sounds like when rational thought comes your way you go into your zone and post nothing of value. While in your idiot bunker ca you answer a yes or no question? Does fire have a radiating surface, yes or no?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362541
Norman,
Like most climate crackpots, you have confused yourself.
It is true that the atmosphere reduces both the the rate of heating due to incoming radiation, and the rate of cooling due to outgoing radiation. This is the definition of insulation.
You mention ” . . . reduces the surface heat loss . . . “. This of course is nonsensical – maybe you really mean the rate of heat loss, but do not understand the difference between reality, and your perception.
I won’t ask whether you agree with me or not, neither reality nor I value your opinion. If you want to believe the Earth has heated up since it first had an atmosphere, prepare to have the odd eyebrow lifted in your direction, or even audibly laughed at!
Your choice.
Perhaps you should discuss your insulation theory with Pup, Mike.
Search for *lossy insulation* on this page to see how his view contradicts yours.
Cheers.
Swenson is one of the most effective anti-troll commenters. He clobbers them so hard they remain punch-drunk for days….
Mike is doing so great that he needs Pup to cheerlead him from time to time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Thank you for posting this informative article. This is really helpful!
This is an informative article, thank you for posting it. Thanks for sharing this!
I found this to be very informative!
Global temperature is something we should be aware of. Thanks for this website!
Swenson at 7:15 PM
“TM,
…
Maybe you could demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer causes the temperature of the thermometer to rise?”
What century and/or village do you live in? Are there libraries there?
TM,
No, you nitwit, you don’t understand the question.
Tyndall and others showed that gases could be heated using infrared radiation many years before 1856.
Climate cultists don’t understand that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer (for example, by interposing CO2 between the heat source and the thermometer) makes the thermometer colder – not hotter.
As Professor Tyndall demonstrated, some gases (not CO2) are so effective in this regard, that interposing a brass plate between the source of IR and the thermometer causes no additional cooling of the thermopile.
Don’t blame me if your apparent attempt as sarcasm goes wide of its mark. You can’t help being a delusional Sky Dragon.
It’s your destiny, as Darth Vader might say.
I answered your question. Why won’t you answer mine? Again: What century and/or village do you live in? Are there libraries there?
TM,
You didn’t answer my question at all, you idiot.
I asked –
“Maybe you could demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer causes the temperature of the thermometer to rise?”
You provided the quite well known fact that gases can be heated by sunlight, and depending on their physical properties, some heat at a faster rate than others. All eventually achieve precisely the same temperature, when in the same stable environment. Surprise, surprise!
Dimwits such as yourself are confused. A thermometer illuminated by the Sun, on the Earth’s surface is hopefully not measuring the temperature of the atmosphere. You will notice it is responding to the amount of radiation it receives. Shading the thermometer (blocking some of the radiation) causes the thermometer to cool.
Much to the amazement of climate crackpots, throwing a blanket over the thermometer reduces its temperature! So does increasing the amount of things which impede the Sun’s rays – water vapour, carbonic acid, dust, clouds, etc.
Your intended sarcasm (or evident stupidity – take your pick) fails when facing fact.
Care to answer my question? No?
Of course you can’t. Your fantasies are not reality. Go and whine about how Nature is not obeying your commands, if you wish.
No intended sarcasm there. I literally stated that you are a marginally educated anachronism, hence my question ( which remains unanswered):
What century and/or village do you live in? Are there libraries there?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
“…and put them out in the sun. “
TM, when you put things in the sun, they often warm up. It does NOT mean the things are warming themselves. The sun is the source. Some people say “It’s the sun, stupid”.
Yes, Pup. The Sun warms stuff. And the atmosphere cools them down. Just compare the nights and the days on the Moon and the Earth.
Pup is a genius.
Willard, you idiot.
Objects warm if they absorb more energy than they emit.
They cool if the emit more energy than they absorb.
No atmosphere required, dummy.
The Earth has emitted more energy than it absorbed over its life. That’s why it has cooled.
Or do you believe in fairies and Carl Sagan?
Mike Flynn,
Objects? Warm? No atmosphere required?
How are your remarks related to what happens to objects within an atmosphere?
Have a cup of coffee. Wait for your brains to kick in.
Come back when you’re ready.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It would be fun if TM, or any of the cult idiots, would explain what Foote’s “experiment” proved about the GHE nonsense.
Of course, they won’t even attempt such a thing.
I wonder when Pup will comment on this idea:
> It is true that the atmosphere reduces both the the rate of heating due to incoming radiation, and the rate of cooling due to outgoing radiation. This is the definition of insulation.
Prolly never. He prefers to troll using his latest sock.
How many socks do you have, Pup?
Why not grow up and learn some science. For example, what do you believe is wrong with the quote you supplied?
I ain’t no sock puppet, Pup. Climateball manners maketh the Climateball player. How you troll this site shows you got no honor.
As for the quote, compare and contrast:
Perhaps you should tell us how your “lossy insulator” make temperatures fall at night while reducing the rate of cooling due to outgoing radiation.
Pup, you didn’t answer the question.
That’s because you’re a worthless troll. Like Norman, you have NO science so you have to make things up.
Answer the question. Put up or shut up.
> Pup, you didn’t answer the question.
That’s right, Pup. You didn’t.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Playing the Riddler won’t solve your pickle, Pup:
(C1) Sun heats Earth’s surface and the atmosphere acts as a lossy insulator. Losses being due to radiative gases, of course. Thats why temperatures fall at night.
(C2) It is true that the atmosphere reduces both the the rate of heating due to incoming radiation, and the rate of cooling due to outgoing radiation. This is the definition of insulation.
If C1 is true, C2 is false. If C2 is true, C1 is false.
Which is it?
Your assessment is wrong, Pup.
Both statements are correct. You just don’t understand science. There’s no conflict. There’s only your lame attempt to throw things against the wall hoping something will stick.
Either the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling, Pup, or it increases the rate of cooling. So either you qualify your claim, or you fold and go play elsewhere.
You can reinvent the laws of physics all you want, but you can’t reinvent the laws of logic.
Sorry Pup, but your trickery won’t work. You’re trying to dodge the question you can’t answer: “For example, what do you believe is wrong with the quote you supplied?”
Answer that question, explaining the physics you believe is wrong. Your twisted logic counts for NOTHING.
> Sorry Pup, but your trickery won’t work.
You’re quite right, Pup.
Keep on voicing your inner coach.
That’ll help you.
Worthless willie bails again.
He tried to throw his nonsense against the wall, but it spattered back in his face.
He’s as afraid of physics as he is of reality.
At least he makes a good pup. He’s almost house-broken….
— Willard says:
September 9, 2022 at 2:02 PM
Playing the Riddler wont solve your pickle, Pup:
(C1) Sun heats Earths surface and the atmosphere acts as a lossy insulator. Losses being due to radiative gases, of course. Thats why temperatures fall at night. —
Most of Earth surface is ocean, ocean can trap heat for thousands of year. It’s very transparent and very good insulator.
It’s all rather complicated.
Ocean also keeps water cold- for thousands of years.
It might seem strange, cold ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C with average air temperature and ocean on top of 80% of all volcanic activity and more than 80% of geothermal heat of the planet.
And million nuclear bombs would immeasurably warm it.
It’s rather simpler than that, gb. When Pup says:
he owes himself an explanation as to how the atmosphere reduces or increases the rate of cooling.
Please stick to Martians.
Willard, you nong,
Playing your “silly semantic games” does not change reality one skerrick!
The Earth is subject to the laws of physics, which either you do not know, or do not want to know.
You think you are proposing clever gotchas when you write things like –
“Perhaps you should tell us how your “lossy insulator” make temperatures fall at night while reducing the rate of cooling due to outgoing radiation.”
First, why “should” anyone try to explain anything at all to a SkyDragon fanatic such as yourself?
Second, all insulators are lossy. There are no perfect insulators.
Third, if you refuse to accept that temperatures fall at night (slowly or quickly) because the surface is emitting more radiation than it is receiving, then there is no point trying to “tell” you anything related to reality, at all!
If you don’t want to accept that the Earth has cooled since its creation, fair enough. Some Creationists believe that the Creator created the universe, and all it contains, fairly recently – fossils and all. Bishop Ussher deduced that the first day of creation was October 23, 4004 BC. Even the brilliant British physicist, Lord Kelvin, went to his deathbed having calculated that the Earth was no more than 40 million years old, and he was no Creationist, to my knowledge.
Adhere to your SkyDragon fairytales if you like. Some people will no doubt believe you. There are lots of gullible dimwits out there.
Mike Flynn,
Silly semantic games? Lossy insulators? Laws of physics?
Try to be relevant.
Either the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling or it increases the rate of cooling.
Deal with it. Or not. Who cares?
Certainly not you!
Willard,
Just because you wrote “Either the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling or it increases the rate of cooling”, it might not mean what you want you to mean.
By that, I mean that the greatest possible rate of cooling occurs in the complete absence of an atmosphere!
In other words, insulation retards the rate of heat transfer – from hotter to colder. It doesn’t prevent any energy at all from eventually leaving. Maybe you could try actually understand physics – after you have brushed up on use of the English language, of course.
You are a donkey – your pseudo-logic, as evidenced in your self-styled “silly semantic games” doesn’t seem to have prevented the Earth from cooling, or winter being colder than summer, nor even night being colder than day!
Carry on braying.
Sorry, what you want “it” to mean, of course,
Dang me – I made a typographical error! Shame, Swenson, shame!
Oh well, physical reality, ie., the total lack of any greenhouse effect, remains unaffected.
Mike Flynn,
Sorry?
You do not recall that you were talking about the atmosphere?
Try not to pout too incoherently, will you?
No?
Why, you are too good at it?
You got that right!
Cheers.
Willard,
What are you blathering about?
You obviously didn’t notice my small typographical error. Does this represent sloppiness or stupidity on your part?
Because you seem rather confused, I will repeat my previous words (with the typo corrected) –
“Just because you wrote Either the atmosphere reduces the rate of cooling or it increases the rate of cooling, it might not mean what you want it to mean.”
Let me know what part you don’t understand, so I can snigger at your ignorance.
Off you go now.
Insult,
Question? Another question?
Feigning ignorance!
Deflection.
Put down.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Still very cold western equatorial Pacific. It promises to be a long La Nia.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
Oh, me thinks that the poor MEI index must have been fraudulently deceived by Nino 1+2:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
because that region is contained in MEI’s evaluation region as well.
As such, we remain very, very wary of MEI’s July/August data for now:
2022: -1.02 -0.97 -1.30 -1.61 -1.68 -1.95 -2.22 -1.79
You should remind to Ren the La Nina ended last April
What the trend of solar magnetic dipoles tells us.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/DipallR.gif
The Sun’s direct radiation to the surface of Venus was measured as less than 20w/m^2 by Russian probes dropped to the surface. Neither that radiation nor the radiation from less-hot carbon dioxide is what raises the already-hotter Venus surface temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of four months on the sunlit side. It would need more than 16,500 w/m^2 if radiation were doing that.
This single fact thoroughly refutes the “radiative forcing” conjecture described by Raymond Pierrehumbert in his “gold standard” textbook on climatology. It is non-radiative “heat creep” that does the warming, and it likewise warms the base of the Uranus troposphere making it hotter than Earth’s surface, which it also assists the Sun to warm.
Ever since 2013 it’s all been in my second paper (which is on planet temperatures) at …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 and in my book on Amazon, so please don’t bother to reply if you have not read such – fair enough?
PS: An email similar to the above has been sent to the CEO of CSIRO in Australia, Dr Larry Marshall who is aware of my papers and the legal staff at CSIRO. Copies have also been sent to both Senator Roberts and Senator Rennick, both of whom have challenged Dr Marshall and been in contact with myself.
If Dr Marshall fails to advise the Australian Government that the physics of climatology is wrong and there is no correct physics that can be used to explain why “greenhouse” gases could warm us, then I shall commence recruiting large companies to initiate a multi-billion dollar class action against the CSIRO. I already have connections with the United Australia party senator and hope to involve billionaire Clive Palmer who heads and funds that party.
> This single fact thoroughly refutes the “radiative forcing” conjecture
Thanks:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/#venus
I read your second paper.
Yes, gravity plays an important role, and this role is often not stated explicitly. No, gravity alone does not explain surface temperatures.
But there are also numerous false assumptions and incorrect conclusions. I’ll name just a few.
1) “But, quite apart from radiation, heat is also transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by nonradiative processes. Then nitrogen and oxygen molecules play the main role of insulating the
surface”
All we can conclude is that N2 and O2 play the largest role in insulating against conduction. But they play no role in insulating against radiation. Conversely, CO2 and H2O play little role in insulating against conduction, but play the major role in insulating against radiation. As you point out “the physics of heat transfer is not easily understood” and we would need much more than conjecture to untangle the relative importance of conduction vs radiation (vs convection) in a dynamically heated atmosphere.
2) You quote that entropy has been described as “energy not available to do work”. In fact, the quote from wikipedia is that entropy has been describe as “a measure of thermal energy per unit temperature that is not available for useful work”. You are leaving out key words from the definition. You either don’t know or don’t care that you are working with an incorrect definition as you try developing your unconventional results.
3) “when the ball comes to rest on the floor, it has acquired the greatest entropy”
No, the ball had greater entropy — greater disorder — when it was bouncing around. As it comes to rest, the ball LOSES entropy and the room GAINS entropy (as the air and floor warm up slightly). The total system gains entropy.
Tim,
You wrote –
” . . .and we would need much more than conjecture to untangle the relative importance of conduction vs radiation (vs convection) in a dynamically heated atmosphere.”
Well no, we wouldn’t.
We are talking about the surface, presumably, but it doesn’t matter, really.
All matter above absolute zero radiates energy. That’s how you know it’s there.
The surface radiates continuously, in accordance with the laws of the universe.
To simplify matters, consider night-time. Convection is suppressed, and the surface cools. Even in the total absence of an atmosphere (as on the Moon), the surface still cools.
Conduction may likewise be demonstrated to be ineffective in preventing the surface from cooling.
The only role that the atmosphere plays is to slightly change the rate of cooling – faster in the absence of GHGs (eg arid deserts regions), slower where GHGs, clouds, rainforest canopies and so on, reduce the rate of cooling. No heating – just cooling, faster or slower.
But cooling it is. Temperatures fall.
So don’t fret yourself about irrelevancies. No energy at all – none – is prevented from leaving the surface by the atmosphere or any imaginary greenhouse effect. That sort of thing is in the fanatical lexicon of SkyDragon cultists, but is not part of reality.
Others may decide as they wish. Nutters are in endless supply. There are several born every minute, I believe.
“To simplify matters, consider night-time. …
The only role that the atmosphere plays is to slightly change the rate of cooling faster in the absence of GHGs (eg arid deserts regions), slower where GHGs, clouds, rainforest canopies and so on, reduce the rate of cooling. No heating just cooling, faster or slower.”
Ok. More GHGs = slower cooling; less GHG’s = faster cooling. Got it.
So what happens the next morning? Because of GHG’s, there was less cooling overnight. At sunrise, the temperature is warmer than if there were no GHGs. So as the sun starts to warm the surface, it starts from a warmer initial value, and therefore temperatures the next day rise higher than they would have with no GHGs. And from that warmer temperature at sunset, there is slower cooling and warmer temperatures at the next sunrise. And the next day. And the next day.
It is pretty obvious that your description of ‘more GHGs = slower cooling; less GHG’s = faster cooling’ leads to higher average temperatures with GHGs than without. No ‘heating’ involved. Just ‘slower cooling’.
Congratulations! You understand the Greenhouse Effect!
Tim,
Semantic cavorting won’t help you here.
A couple of examples which turn your supposition on its head –
– The Earth has cooled in total over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you like it or not.
– Temperatures drop in winter, in spite of your efforts to deny reality.
You might not know that the greatest diurnal temperature variations occur where supposed GHGs are at their lowest – arid deserts! So much for heat accumulation!
Still no greenhouse effect.
So sad, too bad.
Mike Flynn?
Cavorting? Deserts?
That makes no sense at all!
Why not keep things simple –
You say that greenhouse gases slows cooling, Pup says the opposite.
Have you ever tried to fight that one out with him?
Not that anyone would care.
Just a thought.
Wobbly Willard,
Look at facts. Make up your own mind.
Reality doesn’t care what anybody thinks. Why should I take any notice of you claiming that somebody or other wrote something or other which I am supposed to care about?
Are you quite mad?
Mike Flynn,
Here is a fact:
You are rediscovering the Chewbacca Defense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
You and Pup are still caught holding opposite views on the atmosphere.
Sorry not sorry.
Buffoon.
Tangents won’t help you, Swenson. We are talking about YOUR words and YOUR situation.
Suppose it is 20 C when the sun sets where you are. With GHGs (the real earth) the temperatures might fall to 10 C over overnight. Without GHGs, you acknowledge temperatures will fall faster. Maybe to 0 C.
The next day, when the sun tries to warm that bit of earth back up, the sun will have much more success if the initial temperature is hotter. Maybe up to 22 C with GHGs. Maybe only 18 C without.
This is clear and simple and intuitive and logical. Over the long haul, less cooling overnight results is warmer overall temperatures. It doesn’t matter what numbers we use, the conclusion is inescapable.
Trying to distract us with seasons won’t get you out of the predicament you put yourself in. Every day will be warmer (on average) if there are GHGs rather than no GHGs. Next winter will be warmer if there are GHGs rather than no GHGs. Next summer will be warmer if there are GHGs rather than no GHGs.
Trying to distract with 4 billion years ago won’t help. The earth would have cooled EVEN MORE (both inside and out) without GHG.
Trying to distract with deserts won’t help. Faster cooling with fewer GHGs is exactly what YOUR prediction was.
Little Willy, Tim, please stop trolling.
Entropy is not about disorder – that is a very old-fashioned, limiting and incorrect definition. But trust Wiki if you wish (LOL)
What I state is always correct physics. When any natural thermodynamic process occurs, including balls rolling down planks, fire, phase change, chemical reactions and variations in internal energy of any kind, including kinetic energy (ie temperature) then entropy increases. Heat creep happens because entropy is increasing. No natural thermodynamic process occurs unless entropy increases. Fullstop.
Wiki gets it right up to the end of this sentence under “Laws of Thermodynamics” …
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.
NOTE: “interacting”
Don’t waste your money.
More self-referencing BS from a self-publishing author whose only formal accolade is an undergraduate degree in physics.
It just keeps going
https://bit.ly/3d0MNXd
For Gordon Robertson
Clausius Quote from his book “The mechanical theory of heat”
“The principle assumed by the author as the ground of
the second main principle, viz. that heat cannot of itself, or
without compensation, pass from a colder to a hotter body,
corresponds to everyday experience in certain very simple
cases of the exchange of heat. To this class belongs the
conduction of heat, which always takes place in such a way
that heat passes from hotter bodies or parts of bodies to
colder bodies or parts of bodies. Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
He clearly states radiant energy goes both ways and NOTE: “simultaneous double exchange of heat”
Link to book, start of Chapter 12
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up
There is a two way flow of energy with both objects emitting and receiving radiant energy. The 2nd Law is not violated with this because the hotter object loses more energy than it gains from the colder one.
Oh that’s a really old story in between… simply have a look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-264900
and
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-264905
Where we all can see that
– this discussion is some ‘unendliche Geschichte’, an endless blah blah, repeated ad nauseam
– the similarities between ge*r*an and Clint R resp. Mike Flynn and Swenson are very interesting.
Chou vert et vert chou, dira-t-on chez nous…
Norman, you are lost in the complexity of the words, as usual.
Fortunately, I can make it easy to understand. I like to “Keep it simple, stupid”.
A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
See how simple it is?
The Moon does NOT rotate on its polar axis.
The ball-on-a-string is everywhere.
Correct Bindidon.
Welcome to reality.
Finally…some sense from Binny.
… for KISS lovers of the trivial only, however.
Clint R
You are the Master of incomplete and partial explanations of reality.
A cold object can raise the temperature of a hotter heated object if the cold object is warmer than an even colder object. This is reality and factual and proven so often it is now used in engineering applications. It has gone past theory and is in application form.
Sorry you can’t understand it. Roy has some posts on the matter and has done actual tests to demonstrate this. Maybe you need to expand your mind a bit so you can see a bigger picture. Your limited view is just that, limited.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Norman, let’s try it again.
A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
See how simple it is?
KISS — Keep it simple, stupid.
Clint R
Simple is not always right. You are wrong.
In the real world if you have a heated object submerged in liquid nitrogen (the cold object) it will reach some temperature. If you keep adding the same heat to the hotter object and remove the liquid nitrogen and replace it with water the heated object’s temperature goes up, it rises. You are just wrong and simple minded.
At least you admit you are a simpleton. Thanks for finally being honest. You can’t process complex ideas or concepts and must keep it simple so you can understand balls on strings but you can’t understand orbiting bodies and the effects of gravity. You can’t understand tidal torque because the concept is too complex for you.
It explains a lot. It is why Tim Folkerts can give you intelligent instruction but you can’t understand what he is saying.
Keep it simple stupid is a good saying for you.
Norman, let’s try it again. Like they say, “Third times the charm”.
A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
See how simple it is?
KISS — Keep it simple, stupid.
Just like the ball-on-a-string, you have to be a braindead cult idiot to deny it.
Norman,
You are an idiot.
You wrote –
“If you keep adding the same heat to the hotter object and remove the liquid nitrogen and replace it with water the heated objects temperature goes up, it rises.”
Well, duh! How hot is your heater?
Irrelevant of course. Water is hotter than liquid nitrogen, in case you haven’t noticed. Applying radiation from water to liquid nitrogen heats the nitrogen, you clod. The water cools as a result of losing the energy to the nitrogen.
Given time, in an isolated system, you will end up with both the nitrogen and the water in thermal equilibrium – unless you have a magical version of the laws of thermodynamics lying around.
Still no GHE, is there?
Clint R
To keep it simple. You are an idiot.
Yes Norman, your insults are simple and lame, like your failed attempts at science.
Clint R
You are an idiot.
Norman,
You wrote –
“A cold object can raise the temperature of a hotter heated object if the cold object is warmer than an even colder object.”
You seem to be describing insulation is a quite roundabout way. However, insulation heats nothing. It merely slows the transition of heat from hotter to colder (there being no “cold rays”, of course.
You are a bit late. The physics behind radiation and insulation have been known in a practical sense for thousands of years, when used for making ice in various deserts – India, Iran, and so on. Notably absent is any method of creating heat by energy accumulation or multiplication. That’s a climate crackpot myth, spread by people who should know better.
Even Dr Spencer has to use an internal heater of undefined temperature (other than it is hotter than anything in the vicinity, and of possibly infinite power), his wonders to perform. Cut the electricity supply, and the illusion fades away.
Try explaining why the Earth has cooled, and why the surface cools every night, in terms a reasonably intelligent Indian child can understand. If you can’t even do that, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand what you are talking about.
Or just keep pushing the fanatical SkyDragon agenda. You probably need the exercise, anyway.
Svenson
You are too irrational to form coherent thought. You cannot follow any logic so I generally avoid any discussion with you.
You are good at repeating things, that is about all I can see from any of your posts. You might have OCD and are stuck in some continuous thought loop that generates the same word over an over.
Your condition may be of interest to those that study the mind but this is a climate change blog.
Norman,
You are correct.
A body emitting more energy than it receives gets colder.
It cools.
Just like the surface of the Earth at night, and over the last four and a half billion years or so.
I’m not sure why you can’t accept that reality is reflected by what you quoted.
norman…how many times do I have to repeat this answer before you get a hint of the meaning?
In the days of Clausius, no one knew anything about how heat was transferred via radiant energy. Clausius and everyone else of his era thought heat moved as a physical entity through an aether as ‘heat rays’.
In the quote above from Clausius he was correct in claiming there is a two way flow of energy but what he said about a simultaneous exchange of heat is based on the incorrect idea that heat flowed between the bodies.
Actually, there is not an intentional two way flow of energy since both bodies are radiating isotropically and each happens to cut the radiation field of the other.
It was not till after the death of Clausius that the electron was discovered, then it took another 15 – 20 years for Bohr to related the emission/absorp-tion of EM by electrons.
Bohr’s work and subsequent study of quantum theory proves conclusively that heat does not flow through space between bodies of different temperatures via radiation. Heat in the hotter body is CONVERTED to electromagnetic energy and that heat is lost in the conversion. If a cooler body receives that EM, it is converted back to heat in the cooler body. That process is not reversible.
The hotter body loses heat and the cooler body gains heat but the heat loss/gain is a local process. No heat moves through space via radiation. Proof of that is in the properties of EM, which consists of an electric and magnetic field with no heat whatsoever.
As brilliant as he was, Clausius was wrong about the exchange of heat. However, he did claim in the same chapter you reference that heat transfer via an apparent radiative transfer must obey the 2nd law. Quantum theory explained that for Clausius some 50 years later.
Bohr discovered that EM is absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms as they transition between orbital energy levels. It is not possible for EM from a cooler body to cause electron transitions in a hotter object. The EM from the cooler body simply lacks the frequency and intensity to affect electrons in a hotter body.
Therein lies the reason why heat can only be transferred from hot to cold via radiation. Clausius was right about radiation obeying the 2nd law he just had the mechanics wrong. That’s not his fault, he was right about radiative transfer having to obey the 2nd law.
“As brilliant as he was, Clausius was wrong about…” many things. Or rather his knowledge was incomplete and has been improved and expanded on over the decades. Hence any attempt to canonize his ideas (like definitions of “heat” or “entropy”) are misguided.
“Bohrs work and subsequent study of quantum theory proves…”
First of all science never “proves”. Science merely provide theories that try to provide effective ways to describe the universe works and predict what will happen.
“Proof of that is in the properties of EM, which consists of an electric and magnetic field with no heat whatsoever.”
Again, “proof” is the wrong word. And to validate this assertion, you need
1) a clear definition of what you mean by “heat”. I think you mean (more or less) what modern physicists would call “internal energy” (U).
2) to show your definition consistently describes how the universe works.
In particular, you need to show that your proposal works BETTER than ‘textbook thermodynamics’ that has proven remarkably effective saying that conduction, convection and radiation are all forms of “heat” (Q).
Tim,
Read and learn – conduction and convection are not forms of “heat”.
Maybe you need to think before you start hammering away at your keyboard.
Stick to imaginary and nonsensical irrelevancies. Reality is obviously a bit much for you to accept.
Swenson, google ‘thermodynamics heat’. Then read and learn from the results.
Heat, ie Q, is exactly what I described. Processes that transfer thermal energy from one place to another.
Or stick to your imagined definitions that you will not find in any textbook.
No, Tim.
Conduction and convection are widely misunderstood mechanisms by which “heat” is transferred from a hotter region to a colder one.
As you correct yourself and say “Processes that transfer thermal energy from one place to another.”
You might be confused about the fact that the Earth has cooled, despite having an atmosphere. So has the Moon, despite not having an atmosphere! Does that deserve a “Hmmmmm”?
No wonder nobody can describe a GHE which accounts for the Earth cooling!
Don’t worry Tim. Nature has been trying to kill you from the moment you were conceived. I’m backing Nature to succeed. Care to bet otherwise?
Yes, too many people get misled by the Clausius “hot to cold” Statement which is only a corollary of the far wider reaching Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Clausius statement applies to a passage of radiation from source to target, but it is not always applicable for non-radiative heat transfer in a force field. That’s what “heat creep” is as in my paper on planet temperatures at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
> but it is not always
Physical laws come with not buts. A bit like being banned:
http://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
There is not a word about heat or temperature in the Second Law of Thermodynamics* on which my papers are based.
As I have recommended to you several times: read my papers (now downloaded by over 3,000 on SSRN alone, and much more on Researchgate and elsewhere) before replying.
* “in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
> There is not a word about heat or temperature in the Second Law of Thermodynamics* on which my papers are based.
Fat chance:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo2.html
Get lost.
That is a restricted “Clausius statement.” By all means edit Wikipedia from which I quoted verbatim. When a ball rolls down a plank, that is the Second Law operating. When ice melts or fire burns or chemical reactions take place – all are examples of entropy increasing due to the Second Law.
THINK about this correct statement …
When gravity forms the DENSITY gradient in the troposphere it is maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) resulting from the action of the Second Law. That same state has a temperature gradient also. The pressure gradient is a consequence of the first two.
With your pathetic lack of knowledge about entropy you quoted (effectively) the formula that is developed ignoring changes in gravitational potential energy. I quoted the law correctly in its general form which is valid, my friend. Go learn some Third Year University physics. I quote again from Wikipedia / “Laws of Thermodynamics”
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
That is all it needs to say. It does NOT apply to NET results of two or more processes that are not interacting, such as surface warming by solar radiation (on a small portion of Earth’s surface) and subsequent radiative and non-radiative surface cooling possibly mostly at a later time. Every one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law because there are no other “interacting systems.”
Next time, do not reply until you have read my first two papers in which there are several pages on the Second Law …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
You have a lot of physics to learn from me. In case you don’t know, I made a world-first discovery in the field of atmospheric and subterrestrial physics in 2013 and NOBODY has EVER correctly refuted it or what is in either my 2013 paper or my earlier peer-reviewed paper on radiation and the Second Law.
Note that the Second Law applies only to “Interacting thermodynamic systems” where “dynamic” refers to motion since …
ENTROPY IS AFFECTED BY CHANGES IN ANY FORM OF INTERNAL ENERGY.
> By all means edit Wikipedia from which I quoted verbatim.
Oh, Dug:
I don’t think “restricted” means what you make it mean.
“When gravity forms the DENSITY gradient in the troposphere it is maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) ”
Except it is certainly not in thermodynamic equilibrium. There is heat flow in and out of this system.
Oh well.
Willard: If the Second Law were only about heat and temperature, then why would physicists say it is about entropy increasing and not even mention “heat” or “temperature?” You have a lot to learn about entropy which you could from my second paper at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.
” Every one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law because there are no other ‘interacting systems.'”
This is FALSE.
Clausius and other founders of Thermodynamics understood that in radiative heat transfer, it is the NET radiation between two bodies that must obey the 2LOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
“Clausius statement
The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[37] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[38]
The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
And it is the heat that is required to flow from hot to cold in the 2LOT.
It is only the NET radiation that is (Today) called heat flow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
See section on Radiation.
Swenson at 6:20 PM
Here’s another chance for you to answer my question:
Hint: THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND ARTS. VOL. XXII. – NOVEMBER, 1856. Pages 382-383
Bonus points: Describe the phenomena being measured here https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS
Hint: Use your science words.
When Sun is there, temperatures rise. When Sun is gone, temperatures drop.
TM,
Dodging, weaving, and diverting won’t help you. Nor will pretending that demonstrating that gases can be warmed by sunlight is somehow amazing.
Presumably, you are desperately hoping that some other idiots will leap to the conclusion that reducing the radiation reaching a thermometer somehow makes it hotter!
It doesn’t, rather the opposite.
That is why maximum temperatures on the surface of the airless Moon (around 125 C) are far higher than anything that can be achieved beneath the mildly insulating blanket of the atmosphere, which prevents about 30% of the Sun’s energy from even reaching the surface, but precisely none from leaving it!
Maybe you could find an experiment which contradicts me, but just pointing to random demonstrations which support me, won’t get you many followers.
Keep at it.
No answers huh, only more incoherent bullshit.
Entertaining though it is, your tap dancing bores the shit out of me.
Another SkyDragon resorting to profanity, when unable to answer a simple question.
Feel free to be bored by anything you wish.
My care factor is, as usual, precisely zero.
Swenson at 9:30 PM
“Another SkyDragon resorting to profanity…”
Yes of course, because you keep misrepresenting my comments as sarcasm when, in fact, I mean what I say when I say what I mean. To wit: you are an under educated anachronism who bores the bejeezus out of me.
TM,
You may blame me for your choosing to be bored.
Maybe you think I care?
Fat chance.
[snigger]
“TM,
You may blame me for your choosing to be bored.”
Not at all. This one’s entirely on me for choosing to engage with a boofhead. Mea culpa.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Once more, the completely stoopid, useless, egomaniac Flynnson blah blah.
Binny,
Go on, tell me what you really think!
[chortle]
Foote didn’t have the science background to know what she was doing.
We see this all the time, even today.
Two Rocky Super-Earths Discovered Around A Nearby Star, And One Could Be Habitable
https://www.sciencealert.com/two-rocky-super-earths-discovered-around-a-nearby-star-and-one-could-be-habitable
“Although the two masses have not been measured, the radial velocity data gave the scientists an upper mass limit for both exoplanets.
LP 890-9b is about 1.32 times the diameter of Earth, and up to 13 times its mass.
LP 890-9c is about 1.37 times the diameter of Earth, and up to 25 times its mass.
These measurements are consistent with the density of rocky worlds, like Earth, Mars, and Venus, rather than gaseous or icy worlds like Jupiter or Neptune.”
Earth diameter: 12,756 times 1.32 = 16837.92
times 1.37 = 17475.72 km in diameter
Well, don’t know gravity. Nor their spin.
But it seems it has a lot surface gravity.
Humans can’t live in 10 gee. Pilots can take about 9 gees for few minutes [with flight suit].
What upper limit of gravity to be considered habitable?
gb…”Two Rocky Super-Earths Discovered Around A Nearby Star, And One Could Be Habitable”
***
Load of nonsense gb, all they have is a blip of interference with EM on a radiotelescope. The planet is not hot enough to radiate its own EM that can be picked up on an RT. They are dependent on interference blips of EM as ‘something’ passes in front of a star.
They have to justify their grants so they create fanciful stories about exo-planets.
Does apply to the thousands of planets found orbiting stars, or do you mean just this specific case?
My issue was there is some limit to habitability related to the amount gravity a planet has.
Uranus is also related to this, and how cold it is. Seems extremely dangerous in terms of it’s temperature.
But I was wondering about mining Uranus, and I thought the sheer horror of trying might be attractive to some people. But it seems one need powerful rockets.
Cycle 25 will be weaker than 24, just as Zharkova predicted. We are already close to changing the leading solar poles, and activity remains low.
https://i.ibb.co/JQF134f/wolfmms.png
https://i.ibb.co/4FK21Lp/plot-image.png
https://i.ibb.co/0GpSZsn/srep15689-f2.jpg
Looks like Ren didn’t notice the Sun activity is running ahead of the “Red Line”
Hopefully Bindidong sets him straight and repost his misaligned 10.7 flux chart one more time quickly
” … his misaligned 10.7 flux … ”
Where is that please?
” Cycle 25 will be weaker than 24, just as Zharkova predicted. ”
A prediction based on data ending in 2005? Are you kidding us?
*
” We are already close to changing the leading solar poles… ”
Source?
*
What about you giving us a prediction for the next months based on this current situation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
Would be a bit more helpful I guess.
I won’t predict anything: far too complex.
How about you source your brain for a change,
You can’t predict anything because you are totally clueless how anything works.
How about YOU, babbling Edog, rebooting what’s left of YOUR brain, hoping that then finally you’ll INSULT LESS and ARGUE MORE?
For example: where is your REALLY meaningful answer to my question above, concerning
” … his misaligned 10.7 flux … ”
Where is it?
Binny,
Probably hiding out with Trenberth’s missing heat, or Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize!
What is a “misaligned 10.7 flux” anyway? Do you think someone should immediately realign it (and probably fit a new flux capacitor to the DeLorean at the same time)?
Come on, don’t be a sauerkraut, life’s too short. Go away and draw some more brightly coloured graphs. Breathe. Contemplate the nature of the universe. It’s not as bad as you think – it’s actually worse,
[laughing gently]
Bindidong’s misaligned 10.7 flux chart is the same nonsense as his using the red line as a “real” solar activity prediction benchmark,
But he has no intention to learn anything about it, he just wants to engage in circular ass arguments because he is just a trolling ankle biting debil ,
As seen here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1352673
” What is a ‘misaligned 10.7 flux’ anyway? ”
Flynnson is so dumb that he didn’t see who originally mentioned the point.
If he manages to get out of his gin or whiskey fog, he could ask Eben aka the babbling Edog about it.
One would think, after I proved you wrong so many times, you would at least pay some attention to what I say, but not you,
You really are a special kind of stupid,
But it’s ok, every board needs its clown.
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴
Where
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon can be expressed now also QUANTITATIVELY. And it happens so to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.
…………
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the nighttime minimum temperature rises.
But there is something else very interesting happens. When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon… ”
Oh this is heresy. Vournas obviously wants to end up at the stake.
” The Earth has cooled in total over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you like it or not.
Temperatures drop in winter, in spite of your efforts to deny reality.”
So you’ve just identified two cooling processes that happen on Earth.
So therefore warming processes are not allowed??
After winter cooling, we have summer warming, so it seems warming processes can happen.
The geothermal flux of 0.1 W/m2 is doing its very slow cooling thing.
Are you saying that modulating the 240 W/m^2 fluxes entering or leaving the atmosphere should have a negligible effect in comparison?
But winter cooling and summer warming are cause by just that!
All in all, your logic is very mysterious.
Nate,
You asked –
“Are you saying that modulating the 240 W/m^2 fluxes entering or leaving the atmosphere should have a negligible effect in comparison?”
Those “fluxes” have precisely no long term effect. As Fourier and others have pointed out, all the heat of the day is lost during the night, plus a little of the Earth’s remnant internal heat.
If you can manage to increase the Sun’s output (by a goodly percentage), or move the Earth closer to the Sun (by a goodly percentage), then you could arrest the slow but inexorable cooling of the big blob of mostly molten rock we call the Earth. Not otherwise.
So your attempt at a brilliant gotcha becomes a demonstration of your ignorance, doesn’t it?
The atmosphere does not stop energy leaving the surface. Otherwise, the Earth would not have cooled, and it has. The Earth does not “accumulate” or “store” energy from the Sun. Just climate crackpot fairytales.
If you read my paper on planet surface and sub-surface regions you may understand how solar energy raises the Venus surface temperature by about the same as it cooled on the dark side – which is about 5 degrees in 4 months. So it could have cooled right down in a few hundred years but for the Sun’s energy. But you can’t explain how that energy gets to the surface, now can you? But I have for the first time in world literature.
http://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Dug Cttn,
You wrote (possibly in a fit of misguided attempted mindreading) –
“But you cant explain how that energy gets to the surface, now can you?”
Of course I can. What do find mysterious about a large roughly spherical molten blob cooling from the outside?
Maybe you don’t accept that heat travels from hotter to colder, and if that is the case, then you might have difficulty persuading those who believe it does, to change their views.
“Heat creep” seems to be a nonsensical and pointless speculation. As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
And of course, you don’t have a single reproducible experiment to support your ideas. This might explain why many regard you as an odd bird, suffering from some sort of mental aberration. No offense intended, of course. The universe doesnt give a toss which either one of us thinks.
Yes, Sky Dragon cranks like Mike Flynn have been flexing for more ten years on this venue.
But on a Climateball time scale, this is a blip.
Their flex have precisely no long term effect on anything.
Willard makes his ”let them eat cake” talk.
“If you can manage to increase the Suns output (by a goodly percentage), or move the Earth closer to the Sun (by a goodly percentage), then you could arrest the slow but inexorable cooling of the big blob of mostly molten rock we call the Earth. Not otherwise. ”
Then there must be another reason why the global average temperature has stopped decreasing and is now increasing.
Flynnson
” The atmosphere does not stop energy leaving the surface. ”
Thus, all radiation emitted back from Earth in response to incoming solar radiation reaches space, right?
But then: why don’t we have a temperature profile similar to that of our Moon?
*
” Otherwise, the Earth would not have cooled, and it has. ”
This is the greatest crackpot crackpottery I’ve read here since quite a while, Flynnson.
And you dare to name others ‘idiot’ ?! OMG.
You donkey.
Try for a decent gotcha, at least.
You wrote –
“But then: why dont we have a temperature profile similar to that of our Moon?”
Maybe you don’t realise that the Moon is not the Earth. It has no atmosphere, you fool! In any case, your gotcha is about as witless as asking why the Lut Desert doesnt have the same temperature profile as the Amazonian rain forest, or the Antarctic Plateau!
Do you have to train really hard to be so stupid, or are you just naturally gifted in that regard?
Don’t be a sauerkraut. It won’t alter your stupidity quotient.
“As Fourier and others have pointed out, all the heat of the day is lost during the night, plus a little of the Earths remnant internal heat.”
More accurately, to an excellent approximation all the heat of the day is lost during the night, plus a little of the Earths remnant internal heat. But this is only an approximation. Not some universal law.
“If you can manage to increase the Suns output (by a goodly percentage), or move the Earth closer to the Sun (by a goodly percentage), then you could arrest the slow but inexorable cooling of the big blob of mostly molten rock we call the Earth. Not otherwise.”
First this is wrong. The core is approximately the same temperature as the sun’s surface. Even if you brought the earth closer than Mercury, the earth’s surface will still be cooler on average than the core, resulting in a net hear flow out of the earth.
But more importantly, this is a red herring. In our daily lives, the cooling of the core and mantle are of no importance. Zero. Zilch.
The warming and cooling that we care about is only in the ~ 10 km over hour heads and the 100 m under our feet. That is where we live. And that is not inexorably cooling. This part can and does warm (or cool) over timeframes measured in days, years, or decades, or millennia. Because the energy gained during a day only APPROXIMATELY gets lost — sometimes with net gain, and sometimes with net loss.
tim…”As Fourier and others have pointed out, all the heat of the day is lost during the night, plus a little of the Earths remnant internal heat.
***
Fourier is known as a mathematician not as a physicist. Although sayings claimed to be from him are exaggerated, nevertheless, his understanding of physics was limited.
If solar energy heats the ocean, there is nothing in physics proves the heat accumulated must be dissipated in real time. That’s particularly true if the atmosphere is heated to the same temperature. If they are in thermal equilibrium, no heat will be dissipated by the ocean as long as that condition exists.
In the Tropics, that is more likely.
Radiation has been entirely over-played as a means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures. As Newton discovered, with his law of cooling, the rate of cooling is determined by the environment in which a body is contained. This has nothing to do with radiation, it’s about two surfaces of different temperatures in contact with each other.
We have all experienced during summer in the Northern Hemisphere conditions in which there is not much cooling at night. Till recently, I could walk in the wee hours of the morning wearing a tee-shirt. That makes it obvious that surface radiation during the night has little or no impact cooling the atmosphere.
I recall sitting out all night in Fiji drinking beer. As long as you wanted to drink, the hotel manager would be available. We were sitting on deck chairs till 4 in the morning wearing n shirts at all.
It’s blatantly obvious the oceans and atmosphere retains heat and I know that works during winter in the Vancouver, Canada area as well. We have a mild climate in winter due to ocean and atmospheric currents crossing the Pacific from warmer climates. Those currents retained heat for thousands of miles.
Gordon:
1) I was REPLYING to that quote from Fourier and speaking against it! Not supporting it.
2) “If solar energy heats the ocean, there is nothing in physics proves the heat accumulated must be dissipated in real time.”
Right. That was my point to Swenson. Sometimes heat arrives faster than it leaves (resulting in a net warming) and sometimes heat leaves faster than it arrives (resulting in net cooling).
3) “As Newton discovered, with his law of cooling, the rate of cooling is determined by the environment in which a body is contained. This has nothing to do with radiation, its about two surfaces of different temperatures in contact with each other.”
Yes, the environment is critical to the rate of cooling.
No, it is not the case that radiation has nothing to do with cooling. Radiation, convection, and conduction all play a roll. A warm body in a vacuum chamber can still cool, and that is due entirely to radiation. The relative importance of radiation, convection, and conduction depends on the conditions.
4) “Thats particularly true if the atmosphere is heated to the same temperature. If they are in thermal equilibrium, no heat will be dissipated by the ocean as long as that condition exists.”
The ocean can still radiate IR directly to space via the ‘atmospheric window’. This is separate from conduction to/from the atmosphere.
5) “Its blatantly obvious the oceans and atmosphere retains heat”.
Yes, fluids warm during the day and retain the heat. And the oceans emit heat at other times and/or locations.
The question at hand is whether there is ever a NET retention over moderately long time spans (decades, centuries, millennia). This is also ‘blatantly obvious’ (because global temperatures DO go up and down) despite Swenson’s single-minded focus on the net losses that occur over billion-year time-frames.
Tim,
Don’t be stupid.
The Earth continues to cool, and currently loses energy at a rate of about 44 TW from memory. The Earth’s “energy budget” is in deficit – cooling is what an energy deficit is called.
Waffling about sunlight is pointless, as half the globe at any time receives no sunlight, and cools down.
If you don’t believe me, put a thermometer on an exposed surface. Watch the temperature increase during the day, only to fall during the night. Maxima are higher during summer, and minima are lower during winter.
You are probably confused about thermometers showing increases in temperature, roughly since the Industrial Revolution in the Western world. Anthropogenic heat, although ephemeral, is generated 24/7, and is recorded by thermometers – after all, that’s way at they were designed to do.
The Earth does not “heat up”. It continues to cool. What else would you expect from a big blob of mostly molten rock a long way from the Sun?
Maybe you don’t agree with reality, but reality doesn’t care. Quite obviously, neither do I.
Off you go now, and dream up, some more fantasies proving that the Earth “must have” become hotter since it was first created, due to the atmosphere, the GHE, Gavin Schmidt’s Big Red Knob, or copious applications of Folkert’s Fantasy Fluid.
[quiet laughter]
“The Earth continues to cool, and currently loses energy at a rate of about 44 TW from memory. The Earth’s ‘energy budget’ is in deficit cooling is what an energy deficit is called.”
This is pretty good so far. The 44 TW energy flow (ie a deficit of a little under 0.1 W/m^2) is the ‘energy budget’ for the earth up to an including the crust. This is a relatively steady value and the interior of the earth is indeed slooooowly cooling and losing energy through the crust.
But there is more to the earth than the crust and below. You seem to forget the oceans and atmosphere and the top few meters of solid ground (the ‘biosphere’ for lack of a more precise name). These can warm and cool INDEPENDENTLY of the bulk below; can gain and lose their own energies.
When the earth is entering glacial periods, the deficit is GREATER than 0.1 W/m^2. The interior is cooling AND the biosphere is cooling.
When the earth is entering interglacial periods, the deficit is LESS than 0.1 W/m^2. The interior is cooling BUT the biosphere is warming.
And more specifically, the warming of the biosphere can exceed the cooling of the interior, and there can be a net SURPLUS rather than a net deficit. That is where we are now. The net surplus is thought to average nearly 1 W/m^2 as the atmosphere and oceans warm and ice melts.
No Tim,
The Earth is presently losing about 44 TW – net. No “surplus” – rather a deficit, which is called “cooling”.
That’s the Earth – atmosphere, aquasphere, lithosphere – all of it.
Yes, building a fire on the surface can result in the surface getting as hot as the fire, but when the fire dies down, cooling from that spot resumes.
The core of the Earth is much hotter than the surface. Heat inexorably flows from hotter to colder. If the core is say 5000 K (probably more), then unless the surface exceeds this figure, the core will continue to cool as heat progresses from hot to cold – not the other way.
No snowball Earth, no “faint young Sun”, no GHE, just a big blob of molten rock sitting in space – a long way away from the Sun.
By the way, the Earth indeed loses heat through the crust – to anything on or beyond the crust at a lower temperature – seas, rivers, soil, concrete, the atmosphere, etc. Eventually every bit of this heat flees to outer space.
Time for some more Folkert’s Magical All-purpose Warming Elixir?
This is perhaps the crux: “By the way, the Earth indeed loses heat through the crust to anything on or beyond the crust at a lower temperature seas, rivers, soil, concrete, the atmosphere, etc. ”
Yes. Imagine a mathematical surface over the entire earth at the top of the crust. Heat flows up out of that surface to anything on or beyond the crust at a lower temperature. Perfectly stated. But heat flows down into that surface from anything on or beyond the crust at a lower temperature. [Higher temperature than the TOP OF THE CRUST, by the way, not higher temperature than the CORE.]
So if you could manage to cool things above that surface, you would speed up that heat flow out. Conversely, if you could manage to warm things above that surface, you would slow down that heat flow out up. And indeed, if you could warm up things enough, you could actually reverse the heat flow!
And we are indeed (temporarily anyway) in a world where things *have* warmed up, reversing the 44 TW geothermal heat flow at the surface! [The heat flow is still very much active far below the surface — say 1 km down.]
Tim, please stop trolling.
–The Earth does not accumulate or store energy from the Sun. Just climate crackpot fairytales.–
As I have said, I do think Earth does store energy from the Sun- during glaciation periods. But the glaciation periods do seem to getting colder and longer.
But it could a random effect of some sort.
g,
Nah. Nothing stores or accumulates hear. Anything heated to make it hotter than its surroundings, promptly cools down when the source of heat is withdrawn.
Without being exposed to an exterior energy source, matter will emit radiation at progressively longer wavelengths (all the way to absolute zero, theoretically, where no energy is emitted at all). The laws of the universe at work.
Matter cools spontaneously, in the direction of greatest entropy. Matter does not, by itself, spontaneously create internal energy, and raise its temperature as a consequence.
Unless you can manage to overcome energy conservation laws, of course, which state that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
No heat storage. No spontaneous warming. A slow rate of temperature fall is still cooling.
Promptly.
Progressively.
Spontaneously.
So beautiful. So true.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Are you saying that modulating the 240 W/m^2 fluxes entering or leaving the atmosphere should have a negligible effect in comparison?’
Those ‘fluxes’ have precisely no long term effect. As Fourier and others have pointed out, all the heat of the day is lost during the night, plus a little of the Earths remnant internal heat.So youve just identified two cooling processes that happen on Earth.”
You seem to have missed the word modulating. Consider outputs that are modulated for long period of time. That WILL produce a long term effect.
“The atmosphere does not stop energy leaving the surface. Otherwise, the Earth would not have cooled, and it has.”
The Earth has also warmed periodically, as in the last century, and beginning 20,000 ag0. And many times before that.
That the Earth has been cooling for 4.5 Billion years is big red herring.
Because it hasnt stopped the Earth from warming at regular intervals.
So statements like this ” The Earth has cooled in total over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you like it or not.”
serves no purpose, and convinces no one.
But you keep repeating it anyway. Sign of insanity?
Worthless willy (Pup) is one of the main trolls here. He doesn’t understand the science like the other trolls, but he works to ruin the blog discussions.
He’s trying to find some inconsistency in quotes from Swenson and me. He has two problems:
1) He doesn’t unders\tand ANY of the science.
2) He’s comparing two quotes, taken from context, by different people.
‘
Here’s his latest whine: “…he owes himself an explanation as to how the atmosphere reduces or increases the rate of cooling.”
I wisely ignore most of Pup’s nonsense, but this deserves an answer because it refers to Earth’s ability to moderate its temperature.
Earth can reduce the rate of cooling by emitting less to space when it’s too cold, or increase the rate of cooling by emitting more when its too hot. Earth’s atmosphere can even moderate the amount of solar energy incoming, by altering its albedo. Cloud formation is just one example of how Earth can change its atmosphere.
Pup won’t understand any of this because its science.
Pup (Pup) is perhaps the commenter with the most socks to have commented on this blog. Let’s revise his latest contribution:
“He’s comparing two quotes, taken from context, by different people.”
I’m glad he agrees that I quote from context. These two people are himself and Mike Flynn, two Sky Dragon Cranks. If these quotes are conflicting, he needs to resolve it.
Which he just tried to do:
(C1) Sun heats Earths surface and the atmosphere acts as a lossy insulator. Losses being due to radiative gases, of course. Thats why temperatures fall at night.
(C2) It is true that the atmosphere reduces both the the rate of heating due to incoming radiation, and the rate of cooling due to outgoing radiation. This is the definition of insulation.
(C3) Earth can reduce the rate of cooling by emitting less to space when it’s too cold, or increase the rate of cooling by emitting more when its too hot.
Putting C1 and C3 together, we get:
(C4) Temperatures fall at night because the Earth can reduce the rate of cooling by emitting less to space when it’s too cold.
Pup is a genius.
As predicted, Pup can’t understand any of it.
Temperatures fall at night because the Earth can reduce the rate of cooling by emitting less to space when it’s too cold.
Pup is a genius.
You’re a strange lad, Wee Willy.
All gases radiate IR, as does all matter above absolute zero.
Cooling, whether fast or slow, is defined as a fall in temperature, you idiot. No heating.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. The surface cools every night, giving back all the heat it received during the day. No heat accumulation at all.
You are a blithering idiot, trying to deny reality by playing “silly semantic games”.
Oh dear, reality a bit much for you? Can’t understand why a big blob of almost completely molten rock about 150 million km from the nearest appreciable heat source continues to cool?
It must be because you are incredibly stupid, woefully ignorant, or completely delusional.
Logic away, laddy, logic away.
Mike, Mike,
Compare and contrast:
(C4) Temperatures fall at night because the Earth can reduce the rate of cooling by emitting less to space when it’s too cold.
(C5) The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. The surface cools every night, giving back all the heat it received during the day.
Do you see the connection? Me neither!
Tim already showed that C5 was ridiculously irrelevant. Without any atmosphere, the temperature profile of the “surface” would be very different.
Ask the Man on the Moon about that one.
Cheers!
Woebegone Wee Willy, paragon of pointless stupidity,
I repeat –
Oh dear, reality a bit much for you? Cant understand why a big blob of almost completely molten rock about 150 million km from the nearest appreciable heat source continues to cool?
It must be because you are incredibly stupid, woefully ignorant, or completely delusional.
I’d suggest you try to learn some physics, but your inability to even win at your “silly semantic games” does not bode well for your intellectual capacity.
Physics is hard for the mentally challenged. Best you stick to acting the clown – just act naturally, and accept the laughter with good grace. They’re laughing at you, not with you.
Off you go, now.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I repeat”
Of course you do! You have nothing else!
Do you you think repeating your irrelevant point will make it relevant out of a sudden?
Do you recall what you said about imbeciles who keep repeating the same things over and over again while expecting different results?
Do you think I read what you said after “I repeat”?
You clown.
Weepy Willard,
You wrote –
“Do you think I read what you said after “I repeat”?”
Oooooh! Asking me what I think, now?
I’m not going to tell you, you fool. Why should I care one way or the other? What you read or don’t read is your decision.
How are going trying to explain to yourself how the Earth managed to cool, and why winter is colder than summer? Not well, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Asking me what I think, now?”
I should have asked if you think first.
You got me there!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Chart showing that despite all the noise from the uneducated rabble, it isn’t the sun.
And it isn’t volcanoes either.
https://ibb.co/XLQw1wF
P.s.: source @25_cycle
TM, those temperatures and solar values, from thousands of years ago, came from bat droppings and tea leaves?
Translation: That ain’t science.
However, it is the Sun.
https://i.ibb.co/HgPLqN5/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
How is it possible to be dumb and ignorant enough to compare a graph showing thousands of years with a simple, trivial temperature chart showing exactly one day?
No, all winter is a negative temperature anomaly in the southern hemisphere. Prove otherwise.
I repeat:
… to compare a graph showing thousands of years with a simple, trivial temperature chart showing exactly one day?
The fact that many days show the same during one little winter is irrelevant compared with thousands of years.
What did you not understand, Polish man?
binny…this is way beyond your level of intelligence. Why do you persist on sticking your nose into technology you don’t understand?
Robertson
” Why do you persist on sticking your nose into technology you dont understand? ”
Sez the idiot de service who isn’t even able, among hundreds of other things, to understand why UAH’s and NOAA’s temperature anomalies for the US keep so similar, and hence claims I would produced ‘faked graphs out of fudged data’.
Of course without being able to prove this by producing a graph proving mine wrong.
Apart from dumb, stubborn, ignorant stuff, Robertson didn’t produce anything valuable on this blog since he posts his eternal dog poos on it.
Bindidon says:
September 10, 2022 at 8:20 AM
Flynnson
The atmosphere does not stop energy leaving the surface.
Thus, all radiation emitted back from Earth in response to incoming solar radiation reaches space, right?
But then: why dont we have a temperature profile similar to that of our Moon?
*
Otherwise, the Earth would not have cooled, and it has.
–
“But then: why dont we have a temperature profile similar to that of our Moon?”
–
Bindidon says:
September 10, 2022 at 4:25 AM
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon
Oh this is heresy. Vournas obviously wants to end up at the stake.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
…in a moment of early onset dementia, Binny offers,,,”why dont we have a temperature profile similar to that of our Moon?”
***
Duh!!! The Moon’s orbit exposes the same face of the Moon to the Sun for 14 days, At the same time, the opposite face is exposed to the extreme cold of space. Then it flips, the other side gets sun for 14 days while the originally heated side is plunged into the freezer.
Unlike the Earth, the Moon is not in orbit around the Sun. The Earth faces much different conditions. For one, it rotates on its axis every 24 hours whereas the Moon does not rotate on its axis at all. One face of the Earth gets only several hours of sunlight per day as opposed the Moon’s exposed face getting it for 14 days.
The Earth, with its atmosphere, has convection that circulates heat from the surface to higher altitudes. Even so, if the Earth had one face being flooded with sunlight for 14 days that convection would be fairly ineffective. In fact, the oceans might boil off, forming clouds of water vapour that blocked sunlight. Could life exist in such an environment.
Yes…rotation is a prime factor in the difference of temperature profiles between Earth and Moon.
Gordon admits Earth’s moon rotates on its own axis wrt the sun: “Then (the moon) flips, the other side gets sun for 14 days while the originally heated side is plunged into the freezer.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Charts showing that despite all the noise from the uneducated rabble, it isnt the sun.
And it isnt volcanoes either.
https://ibb.co/XLQw1wF
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2502/
When will La Nina end? Reservoirs full in eastern Australia?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
“When will La Nina end?”
As you probably already know, NOAA says:
“Reservoirs full in eastern Australia?”
Don’t know. Can’t say that I care.
The point is, no climate model predicted a triple La Nina.
NOAA are climate alarmists, so when they claim likelihoods of 91% and 80%, that translated to 100% and 95%.
Your new graph is much better, TM. At least you’re now in the satellite era, where actual TSI measurements are possible. You’ve still got problems with accuracies, as advertised changes are so much smaller than error ranges.
Beyond that, TSI and surface temperatures won’t align due to cloud cover and ocean oscillations.
But, it you’re trying to say Sun is not apart of climate, or even a minor pert, you’re going in the wrong direction.
gistemp…sure you jest? This is the same crowd who claimed 2014 the hottest year ever based on a probability of 38%? Major fudgers.
It will be a long winter in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Some source proving what you guesstimate?
However, it is Sun.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2022.png
You yourself would never be able to explain the relation between what you guess and the picture you post the link to!
One of the many mistakes made here is in misunderstanding the concept that “adding more energy to a system means the system will increase in temperature”. The concept implies that any time a system receives more energy than it is losing, its temperature MUST increase. The mistake is the “MUST”.
A system can receive more energy than it loses and NOT have an increase in temperature. The bricks-in-a-box is a simple example. A perfectly insulated box contains bricks, all at a temperature of T. No energy can leave the box, and all its contents, sides, and air, is at temperature T.
Now, add more bricks, also at temperature T. The temperature of the box does NOT increase. More energy has been added, but the temperature does NOT increase. It doesn=t matter how many T bricks are added, the system temperature will not increase.
It takes the “right kind” of energy to raise the temperature of a system. Energy from the same temperature source, or from a lower temperature source can NOT do it. The energy must be from a higher temperature source.
That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water. And that’s why a cold sky can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer surface.
Night and winter.
If add more bricks which aren’t that warm, it makes night and winter
warmer.
So our cold ocean is warmer than winter and night.
Our Ocean has 1000 to 1 the heat as our sky.
Our ocean remains somewhat at uniform temperature, or it must remain at a fairly uniform temperature.
If ocean was 5 C rather than 3.5 C, it’s more obvious, but even if it’s 4 C, it makes Earth have a more uniform temperature, and a more uniform global temperature is global warming.
> the concept
That’s not a concept, Pup. Here’s a concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
Witness your The temperature of the box does NOT increase.. Here’s another concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Witness your It takes the “right kind” of energy to raise the temperature of a system.
A decade of trolling at Roy’s and you can grok concepts?
Tsk tsk.
Willard,
Try raising the temperature of water with ice. Use as much as you like, combined with as much “logic” as you like.
Doesn’t work, does it?
The ice might have plenty of energy, but it is not “hot” enough. It needs to have the “right kind” of energy, but dimwitted SkyDragons don’t actually understand reality. An example is the silliness of meaningless “energy budgets”, based on the bizarre concept that energy fluxes can be added and subtracted willy-nilly!
Reality doesn’t take any notice of your “silly semantic games”. Thank goodness.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Reality? Understanding? What do you know about that?
Do you think that baiting me about energy budgets will work?
So many questions, so little time!
Try to stick to the topic at hand – concepts.
Cheers.
Willard,
Of course you prefer concepts to facts, because you suffer from a severe lack of facts to support your mad speculations!
All of a sudden, you seem disenchanted with “energy budgets”. What’s the matter, the concept of the “energy budget” doesn’t please you? Or is it only when I point out what a pointless concept it is, as presented by dimwits like Trenberth and NASA?
The progressive cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so, doesn’t seem to fit with some “concept” you have, is that it?
Take all the “concepts” in the world, add $5, and you can probably buy yourself a cup of coffee somewhere.
You could always pretend you are wise and powerful, you know. A fantasy concept. Give it a try, if you like.
You don’t have to thank me.
Mike, Mike,
Suppose it is 20 C when the Sun sets where you are.
Temperatures fall overnight. Say 10C with greenhouse gases.
Without greenhouse gases, temperatures fall faster, and it gets colder, say 8C.
Next day, the Sun warms back the Earth.
With greenhouse gases, it gets hotter faster.
You agree with all of this.
Welcome aboard Team Greenhouse Effect!
Cheers.
No, dimwitted Willy.
As the arid deserts demonstrate, temperatures are higher when GHGs are lowest.
Faster heating, faster cooling, greatest diurnal variations. Basic physics, you SkyDragon donkey!
As to your other nonsense, it all fades into irrelevance when faced with the fact the Earth has actually cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, all your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Even closer to home, your stupid “reasoning” counts for nought, when faced with next winter!
Keep polishing those turds! Someone might believe they are gold. Another delusional SkyDragon, perhaps?
Mike, Mike,
We’ve been over the “But Desert” distraction already –
Have you ever spent a day in a desert?
Why it get so cold at night?
Why it stay so warm on cloudy night in Jamaica, mon?
Dipole moment:
http://www.nku.edu/~hicks/CHE%20120/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect%20alpha.htm
This comes from an old comment, I’m sure gb recalls it.
Witless Willy,
You wrote –
“Have you ever spent a day in a desert?
Why it get so cold at night?
Why it stay so warm on cloudy night in Jamaica, mon?”
What a stupid attempt at a gotcha! Or are you really so stupid that you don’t understand “Why it get so cold at night?” Maybe you haven’t heard of a phenomenon known as “cooling” – that’s why temperatures drop.
Here’s your opportunity to explain why desert temperatures get so cold at night – unless you really dont know, of course.
Why do you ask whether I have ever spent a day in a desert? What business is it of yours?
You idiot!
Let me get this straight, Mike –
It gets so cold at night in deserts because it’s cooling?
Have you ever heard of the dormitive principle?
No? Here it is:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle
Go right ahead. Click on the link. Or not. Stay ignorant all you like.
What a buffoon!
So Swenson,
Since you are so sharp with your physics,
Which place is colder at night, right now this week.
Jamaica or Phoenix?
bob,
What are their respective temperatures right now this week?
I’m pretty sharp at pointing out stupid and pointless gotchas composed by complete nitwits, too!
But thanks for your flattering remarks about my knowledge of physics. It shows even a flattering fool can get things right occasionally.
Carry on.
Swenson,
But why does it get colder in the desert at night, when it doesn’t.
That’s all I am asking.
Call it a gotcha if you like, but you are complaining about too many gotchas.
Physics might not be your strong suit.
Obviously weather is not either.
But carry on, remember to wipe the drool off.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“One of the many mistakes made here is in misunderstanding the concept that ‘adding more energy to a system means the system will increase in temperature’.”
This is a strawman on two fronts.
1) Everyone (with even a modicum of scientific knowledge) know you can add energy to a system without increasing the temperature. Phase change and chemical change are two common, obvious examples.
2) The brick example is not about adding ‘the right kind of energy’ but about adding mass. Again, people know that temperature is related to AVERAGE thermal energy and people know that adding more at the same average is not going to increase the average.
An example where you are adding mass (bricks) is not informative about situations where you are not adding mass (the non-boiling water).
************************************************
So let’s strip away Clint’s distractions. When we aren’t dealing with phase change, chemical change, mass change, or other such complications, then temperature change is straight-forward.
If more thermal energy goes into a closed system than leaves the system, the temperature goes up. Period. ANY thermal energy in counts; ANY thermal energy out counts.
This leads to a few obvious results. Like the system can never get hotter than that hottest source (or colder than the coldest source). If the only source for thermal energy is ice at 273 K, then the system will never go above 273 K if it starts out out colder, and never go below 273 K is if starts out warmer.
This is standard physics.
Also if there are two or more sources, the final temperature must be BETWEEN the highest and lowest temperatures (some weighted average).
This is also standard physics.
Tim,
And still the Earth has cooled, hasn’t it?
As the surface does every night, every winter, during solar eclipses . . .
Just more standard physics you don’t want to know.
No GHE. You can’t even describe a GHE which explains why the places with the least GHGs (so-called) actually achieve the highest temperatures!
Time for another diversion, Tim. You seem to have convinced yourself that the radiation from a colder body cannot actually cause the temperature of a hotter one to rise, at least.
As in, a colder atmosphere cannot result in a hotter surface. Even given copious application of Folkert’s Mystical Heating Fluid! That is why temperatures fall after the Sun passes its effective zenith. Nighttime is an extreme example. No heating – just cooling.
Face reality if you dare.
Folkerts is above average when it comes to perverting physics. In fact, he’s quite good at it. But, his nonsense is easy to unravel.
First, “adding mass” is NOT the subject. Adding bricks to the box adds mass AND energy. Mass by itself can NOT raise the temperature. So Folkerts starts off by grasping at straws. It’s just one of his distractions.
Next, Folkerts claims: If more thermal energy goes into a closed system than leaves the system, the temperature goes up. Period. ANY thermal energy in counts; ANY thermal energy out counts.”
The bricks-in-a-box debunks that nonsense. More energy in than leaves, but T does NOT go up.
Then Folkerts wanders off talking about a source can not raise the temperature above its own temperature, which is true. He always mixes in something valid to cover his perversions of physics.
He also fails to acknowledge that he can NOT produce ANY valid technical reference to support his claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can heat it to 325K.
He just makes up nonsense he can’t support. That’s why he’s such a phony.
sigh ….
CLINT: First, “adding mass” is NOT the subject.
For the critically-thinking impaired, I guess I need to ne more explicit. The brick example is not about adding the right kind of energy but about adding energy while also adding mass.
ME: “If more thermal energy goes into a closed system than leaves the system…”
CLINT: “The bricks-in-a-box debunks that nonsense. ”
Bricks-in-a-box is not a closed system.
As for technical references, I have already provided specific examples. And any text on radiative transfer covers this. I can’t teach you sophomore physics/engineering if you can’t open a basic textbook.
Wrong Folkerts, the box IS a closed system. You’re sooooo desperate.
And your own “examples” of you nonsense is NOT a valid technical reference.
What will you try next?
A ‘closed system’ by definition has no mass added or removed.
Your box has mass added.
Therefore …
Tim, please stop trolling.
Called it!
“The war in Ukraine will continue until the complete defeat of Russia,” Igor Girkin, a far-right nationalist, grumbled in a video address to his 430,000 followers on Telegram on Monday. “We have already lost, the rest is just a matter of time.”
Girkin, a former Russian intelligence colonel who became a commander of the pro-Russian separatist forces in 2014, is arguably the most prominent voice within an increasingly loud and angry group of ultra-nationalist and pro-war bloggers who have taken to berating the Kremlin for its failure to achieve its tactical objectives as the fighting in Ukraine has entered its seventh month.
For now, Girkin and other military bloggers are likely to keep up their daily criticism as Putin’s bloody military offensive has stalled in Ukraine. “Don’t EXPECT ANY BIG WINS in the next 2-3 months,” he wrote in a post this week. “If our Kremlin elders do not change their tactics, we will be seeing catastrophic defeats by then.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcqOgM4UF2I
The Russian Military Is Collapsing – Ukrainian Counter Offensive Update
34,212 views Sep 10, 2022
Do you think Ukraine will go to Moscow?
No.
No one vaguely sane wants to govern Russians.
And I think Ukrainians will allow Russia to continue have
access to warm water port.
I think the world should allow Russia to have access to warm water
port.
Tim Folkerts:
The 315K is the temperature (just over 40C) which would be comfortable on your cheek, being just above body temperature. There will always be some distance at which a household electric bar radiation would achieve such a temperature. I am not interested in your assertive statement about S-B. Help the CSIRO in the court case I am arranging for large Australian companies! Dr Larry Marshall (their CEO) has been tied in knots by myself and two Australian senators. Now read this comment above …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1363560
“There will always be some distance at which a household electric bar radiation would achieve such a temperature [40 C]. ”
Yes. And there will be closer distances where that 1500 K heater would achieve higher temperatures. I don’t know why that ‘assertive statement’ is problematic for you.
As for your comment above ….
“PPS: Consider the top of Mt Everest on a clear, mid-summer day around noon where it receives over 1,100 w/m^2 of solar radiation by my calculations. Add at least 324 w/m^2 of back radiation (as per NASA) and see what S-B gives. ”
You have two whopping problems here!
1) The top of Mt Everest is mostly covered with snow, with an albedo of ~ 0.85. That cuts the incoming absorbed solar to under 200 W/m^2. Even the bare rocks would be WAY under 1000 W/m^2.
2) 324W/m^2 of back radiation is the AVERAGE value at an average location. The value at 9 km elevation is more like 50 W/m^2.
So for the snow, that works out less than 300 W/m^2 or well below freezing from SB, even at noon. If we call it 600 W/m^2 for the rocks, that is still a maximum of ~ 50 K. At noon. Ignoring heat lost via convection/conduction to the -20 C air.
“Help the CSIRO in the court case I am arranging …”
Maybe I should! If all your arguments are like you have presented here, it would be easy and I might collect a nice little paycheck. What’s that name of the contact there?
Couple of things, Tim.
As Tyndall pointed out, as a black bulb thermometer is taken to altitude, its temperature increases, so your calculations are based on false assumptions. Maybe you forgot that as the radiation of the Sun increases due to the decreasing thickness of the atmosphere, a suitable thermometer reacts by showing increased temperature- as it should.
You may be confusing the temperature of the thin air with the much denser rock or soil (in still air conditions, of course).
An extreme example is the airless Moon, where temperatures reach around 127 C. No atmosphere at all, you see.
As to the CSIRO, maybe you should be careful in case Dug Is suggesting you donate money to help their defense. Your apparent sarcasm may be misguided, but I am only trying to help you to avoid looking foolish – if I happen to be right.
You don’t need to thank me, of course,
I agree that there are many factors at play (air temperature, air density, humidity, incoming sunlight, and incoming IR all spring to mind). Comparing Mt Everest and sea level and the moon, requires taking many factors in to consideration.
I had never heard of a ‘black bulb thermometer’. I have found it described as “an ordinary mercury thermometer with its bulb painted black, enclosed in a vacuum” or “A mercurial, maximum thermometer with a blackened bulb enclosed in an evacuated outer bulb, once used for estimating solar radiation.”
As such, it is not surprising that it gives higher measurements at higher altitudes, since it is intended to measure solar radiation alone. The vacuum eliminates conduction and convection with the surrounding air, so air temp is of little importance (unlike Mt Everest, where air temp is quite important.
“Maybe you forgot that as the radiation of the Sun increases due to the decreasing thickness of the atmosphere”
No. That is included in the 1100 W/m^2 figure (typically below 1000 W/m^2 at sea level).
Tim,
“A thermometer placed in a black globe to measure radiant energy or solar radiation; one of the three temperatures required to complete the Wet Bulb Globe Thermometer (WBGT) index. From: black bulb thermometer in The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine ”
If you prefer US Gov – “This temperature is found by using a copper globe painted in black matte paint with a thermometer inserted so that the bulb is in the center of the globe.” – weather.gov
No need for a vacuum.
Of course I was right! Most SkyDragons have no inkling of temperature measurement, or the physical principles involved.
One physical principle disliked by SkyDragons in particular, is that when the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer is reduced, the instrument shows a lower temperature. The demonstration of this principle is shown by the fact that the Moon’s surface achieves maximum a surface temperature of some 127 C.
Interpose the Earth’s atmosphere between the thermometer and the sun, and the maximum temperature drops by more than 30C.
Bobbing, ducking, and diverting won’t help. There is no GHE. It is quite simply a figment of the collective SkyDragon imagination.
“One physical principle disliked by SkyDragons in particular, is that when the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer is reduced, the instrument shows a lower temperature. ”
I am not sure at whom this is aimed. No one could ‘dislike’ your claim as presented. If an object is in some steady-state situation and then the amount of energy being absorbed is decreased, the object will cool until a new steady-state is achieved.
I *suspect* you are referring to the fact that adding CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs some incoming solar radiation, reducing the amount of radiation reaching the ground. But I *also* suspect you are excluding the fact that the CO2 in the atmosphere simultaneously increased the radiation reaching the ground by providing thermal IR.
To know the net impact of the CO2, you would have to determine which effect is greater. CO2 is nearly transparent over much of the solar spectrum, so its ability to reduce incoming sunlight is minor. CO2 is not transparent over key parts of the IR spectrum, so CO2 *is* quiet effective at adding IR.
You could go through the detailed calculations yourself if you are so inclined. But multiple sources conclude the INCREASE in thermal IR radiation is larger than the DECREASE in solar radiation.
So the physical principle here is that CO2 both increases and decreases radiation ‘reaching a thermometer’, with the increase outweighing the decrease.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Tim, please explain, why snow melts at area where it melts?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim: There are indeed bare rocks in mid summer at the top of Mt Everest which is only about 4 degrees of latitude outside the tropics. There’s a photo on the page of my website where I expose the errors of Joseph Postma in his paper on the Principia Scientific (PSI) website here:
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
As for your Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, well, well ….
300 w/m^2 -> 269.7K
600 w/m^2 -> 320.7K
900 w/m^2 -> 354.9K
Hope you find that helpful as I’m sick of wasting my time with you.
As I mentioned for the benefit of others, BigWaveDave told you that gravity forms the temperature gradient years ago. It is also observed in other force fields such as when centrifugal force creates a radial temperature gradient in every functioning vortex cooling tube. This is mentioned on the ‘Evidence’ page on my website, the Home page of which has had over 51,700 hits.
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/evidence.html
Others here see right through you Dear Timothy and you obviously have a pecuniary interest in maintaining what many physicists now call the biggest scientific scam of all time. One such physicist, when he retired, said he was ashamed at himself for having taught this stuff without checking first for it had no scientific basis whatsoever. His exact words are on the above ‘Evidence’ page of my site. (That page has had over 8,000 hits.) He was right, but you will be among the last to believe physicists like him or me.
The number of downloads of my first three papers on SSRN has just passed 3,000. There are these three and four more articles also on Researchgate.
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
I strongly suggest all read this one …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
You’re spamming again, sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Willard,
Pity you are completely impotent and powerless to do anything about it, isn’t it.
Keep at it – you might find someone who values your opinion. Have you whined about your problem to Ken Rice? Or is he just as impotent and powerless as you, perhaps.
Mike Flynn,
I just did something.
Ta.
Willard,
You just “did” something, did you? No matter much you polish it, no matter how brightly you think it glistens – it’s still smelly, and not to be brandished about it polite company.
Do another one. Examine it minutely – boast about its superb texture and consistency if you must.
It’s still a turd, you idiot, and pretending otherwise won’t help.
Your efforts to manipulate Dr Spencer don’t seem to be working too well. Maybe he values your opinions as much as he might value one of those other things you “did”.
Why don’t you ask him, instead of wasting time on sly subterfuges? No guts? A lack of moral fibre?
Questions, questions!
Mike Flynn,
You asked –
“You just “did” something, did you?”
Yes, I did!
If you ever feel the need to ask other silly questions like that, do not hesitate!
Cheers.
Willard,
You had best tell everyone where you did it, so they can avoid stepping in it.
Most people wouldn’t boast about it, but there you go!
Mike Flynn,
Why would I be better off spoon feeding you?
Please, do continue to play dumb!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson
Nothing to be done about you. Schiller was right.
Against stupidity
The gods themselves
Contend in vain.
EM,
Indeed. You are stupid if you believe that the atmosphere makes the Earth hotter, when reality indicates that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years!
Of course, you can find a description of the GHE which explains that inconvenient truth – if you claim you are not stupid, I suppose.
But you can’t, because you are. Just another SkyDragon true believer.
Dear me! Several here are so brainwashed by the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology. Maybe these will clear your thoughts …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
Shorter and clearer:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
The true test of a paper is not how many have read it, but by its influence, by how many have used it in their own research.
This is measured by the number of citations. For example, Researchgate reckons that Marcott et al 2013 has been cited 1271 times.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235885717_A_Reconstruction_of_Regional_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Years
I checked your citation rate and your papers do not appear to be cited at all.
Below is a copy of one of my Freedom of Information question to the CSIRO. They must answer all such questions by law, usually within 30 days. They could not produce any such study anywhere in world literature. Can you? My study shows the opposite, namely that water vapor cools, and there is correct physics in my 2013 paper explaining how this comes about.
I request any study carried out by CSIRO staff that demonstrates that, other things like latitude and altitude being similar, the temperature records for regions with varying levels of the “greenhouse” gas water vapour indicate that surface warming by water vapour occurs more in the areas with higher concentrations of water vapour, and to what extent quantitatively.
My study is summarised in this bar chart …
http://homestead.com/climateimages/study-15-locations.jpg
Also sent to the CSIRO just on three years ago ..
I quote: “An increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that the climate science community was a faadeand that the vitriolic attacks upon the sensible arguments of mathematicians, statisticians, and indeed of scientists using plain common sense were not the product of scientific rigour at all, but merely attempts at self-protection at any cost. At this point the veil began to lift on what has arguably become one of the greatest scientific frauds in the history of mankind.”
Not surprisingly, I note that the link I cited is now inactive, censored no doubt.
https://www.space.com/ancient-asteroid-blast-living-things-charcoal
Fiery ancient asteroid impacts turned living things into charcoal
By Elizabeth Howell
published about 13 hours ago
The dramatic ends of ancient microbes reveal clues of asteroid impacts.
–The charred bodies of microorganisms killed by even a moderate asteroid impact can show the amount of damage produced by a cosmic crash, a new study suggests.
A research team examined four craters in Estonia, Poland and Canada that were created thousands of years apart. Despite their geographical distance and the amount of time between these various impacts, the team found millimeter-to-centimeter sized pieces of charcoal mixed in with the material that was formed during each of them, the authors said.
…
The smaller impact craters Losiak studies those that are only up to 656 feet (200 meters) in diameter form every 200 years or so and thus present numerous opportunities to study formation conditions, she said.
…
“At first, we thought this charcoal was formed by wildfires that occurred shortly before the impact, and charcoal just got tangled in this extraterrestrial situation,” she said. “But later, I found similar charcoal in other impact craters, and started to think that something was not right with this hypothesis.”
…
Losiak said. “Campo del Cielo is particularly interesting because there are not only true impact craters sites where an asteroid literally exploded when it touched the ground but also penetration funnels.”
A penetration funnel occurs when an asteroid slows down in the atmosphere during its entry to Earth. This formation happens when it is hitting the ground with velocity similar to that of a sniper rifle bullet, the researchers say.
It’s not that I want to be evil or spam, Watts Up With That?
But a bane of this blog, might be interested:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/09/a-much-larger-greenhouse-effect-but-temperatures-dominated-by-cooling/
It seems to say wild things. And might be comforting to some.
I hope you managed to read that part of the comment section where people behaved clearly skeptic against Win Röst’s nonsense.
“I hope you managed to read that part of the comment section where people behaved clearly skeptic against Win Rsts nonsense.”
Nope. But read Win Rsts reponses to my posts.
I thought it was a bit crazy, and thought about it, for a few hours,
and then posted my comment.
The issue was Earth’s huge greenhouse effect- specifically dealing with atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Thing is I think there is a huge greenhouse- it’s just I think it’s about Earth ocean. Rather than argue my point, I thought I ask for clarification of what is meant by huge greenhouse effect.
And we seemed to have a pleasant chat.
Venus is thought to have very uniform rocky surface temperature, and uniform surface temperature is the greenhouse effect.
So, my question was how huge in comparison to Venus.
And I “agreed” Earth’s greenhouse effect is bigger than Venus greenhouse effect, and since some could “reasonably” imagine Venus greenhouse was HUGE, and I think Earth is bigger. In that context,
I didn’t have objection to saying Earth greenhouse is HUGE.
And I don’t really know how one could have Earth, have larger greenhouse effect, than it does.
But as I said, 4 C ocean, has large effect and 5 C ocean fit CAGW scary view somewhat- but not hot. But ocean with average temperature of 5 C is global average temperature of +20 C.
Which for some reason, hardly anyone “gets” though it’s quite obvious.
Now, we aren’t going to get a ocean which is about 4 C.
But have had such a warm ocean.
And we have ocean which was warmer than 5 C.
Even during our 33.9 million year Ice Age, called the Cenozoic Ice Age, it seems most of it had ocean of around 5 C.
But in last 2 million years, it does not appear to me, the ocean as been as warm as about 5 C. But plenty of times when it about 4 C, and it appears our ocean was somewhere around 4 C in last 25,000 years.
It is widely agreed that our Holocene interglacial was odd, and some even question what call the Holocene interglacial, is actually an interglacial period. And such a weird view, could also imagine, the Holocene could have double peak.
We of course have past our interglacial peak temperature, and if you thought CO2 levels could have strong effect, a double peak could be seen as “reasonable”.
But it seems to me, that time, has proven that idea was wrong.
It also seems people might imagine a higher level of global CO2 levels than what appears likely within the next 100 years.
But I think a lot things going to happen within the 50 years, though predicting 50 year into the future can not taken very seriously.
But to play that game, it seems Africa will be superpower sooner than 50 year in the future.
I would not bet, NASA is going to explore then Moon any time soon, but maybe it’s 50% chance. But someone going to explore the Moon, fairly, soon, 75% chance.
I think NASA should get it’s butt in gear, before we decide we don’t need this agency. But that happens, we will waste some time, and have start another space agency. The only good coming from killing NASA, would be we might kill more govt, which is far more useless.
But I rather NASA just do it’s job, and maybe it encourage other govt to do it’s job.
Below is my latest (6th) FOI to CSIRO gaining evidence for the multi-billion-dollar class action against them. I may not write here for a while as I am about to write letters to hundreds of Australian companies (starting with the top 50 tomorrow) in regard to this action.
Freedom of Information request
Please provide copies of any communication received by Dr Larry Marshall from any source, internal or external, which provides the appropriate physics and related computations using laws of physics (such as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) which allow correct quantification of the global mean surface temperature for Earth and are thus appropriate for use to quantify variations to that mean temperature supposedly due to molecules in the atmosphere capable of radiating energy at tropospheric temperatures.
Didn’t post. Try Shorter version:
Someone, might be interested:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/09/a-much-larger-greenhouse-effect-but-temperatures-dominated-by-cooling/
It might appear to say wild things.
And might be comforting to some.
Solar wind
speed: 458.2 km/sec
density: 2.80 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 72
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.01×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.6% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.6%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“QUIET SUN–CONTINUED: For the third day in a row, solar activity is low. The solar disk is peppered with sunspots, but all of them have stable magnetic fields unlikely to explode.”
Northern is more active, might grow more active.
3092 remained the same [I thought it could grow}.
Hurricane Kay died, and it looks like it did drop about 1″ or
rain. So had 111 F daytime highs and it fell a lot, and will remain cool for several days. I think it made a small dent, in your drought
condition.
Solar wind
speed: 395.9 km/sec
density: 6.06 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 113
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.80×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.4% Elevated
**CHANCE OF FLARES TODAY: NOAA forecasters say there is a 20% chance of M-class solar flares today. The probable source would be fast-growing sunspot AR3098, which has an unstable ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field–
AR3098 in northern hemp and grew quickly
I would guess 3100 [large] in south hemisphere- probably grow bigger/more active.
Solar wind
speed: 519.5 km/sec
density: 11.99 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 76
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.20×10^10 W Neutral
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.4% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.7%
Neutron Counts dropped but don’t think drop much
more, until sun gets more active.
I don’t the existing spots will grow and stay about same
for couple days, and spots will over the horizon- and will see
what around from other side.
See also this article I wrote nearly three years ago … but add the missing “o” in my name at the end of the link …
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cogent-irrefutable-reasons-why-carbon-dioxide-cannot-warm-cottn/
Tim Folkerts says:
September 10, 2022 at 9:12 PM
There will always be some distance at which a household electric bar radiation would achieve such a temperature [40 C].
Yes. And there will be closer distances where that 1500 K heater would achieve higher temperatures. I dont know why that assertive statement is problematic for you.
As for your comment above .
PPS: Consider the top of Mt Everest on a clear, mid-summer day around noon where it receives over 1,100 w/m^2 of solar radiation by my calculations. Add at least 324 w/m^2 of back radiation (as per NASA) and see what S-B gives.
You have two whopping problems here!
1) The top of Mt Everest is mostly covered with snow, with an albedo of ~ 0.85. That cuts the incoming absorbed solar to under 200 W/m^2. Even the bare rocks would be WAY under 1000 W/m^2.
2) 324W/m^2 of back radiation is the AVERAGE value at an average location. The value at 9 km elevation is more like 50 W/m^2.
So for the snow, that works out less than 300 W/m^2 or well below freezing from SB, even at noon. If we call it 600 W/m^2 for the rocks, that is still a maximum of ~ 50 K. At noon. Ignoring heat lost via convection/conduction to the -20 C air.
Help the CSIRO in the court case I am arranging
Maybe I should! If all your arguments are like you have presented here, it would be easy and I might collect a nice little paycheck. Whats that name of the contact there?
—————
Tim, snow melts even in tundra at summer!
–
There is not any significant back radiation from the snow*s IR via atmospheric greenhouse gases back onto the snow.
–
The snow*s albedo in tundra is also 0,85!
–
Tundra is located at Earth*s the higher latitudes, where sun is much lower, than at the Mt Everest.
–
Tim, please explain, why snow melts in tundra, and not on the Mt Everest?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Lapse rate.
IIRC lapse rate is 3C per 1000ft altitude.
Thus all else being equal the top of Everest at 29,000ft is 87C cooler than tundra at sea level.
In fact snow and ice on Everest are melting. Climbers are reporting areas which used to have snow or ice cover are now bare rock and that the bodies of climbers lost on the mountain over decades are now being uncovered.
https://www.foxnews.com/science/melting-mount-everest-glaciers-reveal-dead-climbers-bodies-report
EM:
“Lapse rate.
IIRC lapse rate is 3C per 1000ft altitude.
Thus, all else being equal the top of Everest at 29,000ft is 87C cooler than tundra at sea level.”
Tundra becomes tropics at Everest location at sea level! Tundra at sea level is equal to Everest at 29,000Ft.
EM:
“In fact, snow and ice on Everest are melting. Climbers are reporting areas which used to have snow or ice cover are now bare rock and that the bodies of climbers lost on the mountain over decades are now being uncovered.”
–
It is the clearest confirmation of the global warming really taking place.
Still, it doesn’t explain the reasons of global warming.
–
The question remains unanswered:
“Tim, please explain, why snow melts in tundra, and not on the Mt Everest? ”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim, please explain, why snow melts in tundra, and not on the Mt Everest?
It’s a false premise. Melting occurs in both locations.
Vournas does not seem to have understood that the melting of the glaciers , even on Mt Everest, is mainly due to the disappearance of the snow cover above them (see the South Col Glacier for example).
Bindidon, you haven’t answered yet the previous issue! It is for Tim to give the answer now!
Bindidon,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1363355
———-
Tim:
“1) The top of Mt Everest is mostly covered with snow, with an albedo of ~ 0.85. That cuts the incoming absorbed solar to under 200 W/m^2. Even the bare rocks would be WAY under 1000 W/m^2.
2) 324W/m^2 of back radiation is the AVERAGE value at an average location. The value at 9 km elevation is more like 50 W/m^2.
So for the snow, that works out less than 300 W/m^2 or well below freezing from SB, even at noon. If we call it 600 W/m^2 for the rocks, that is still a maximum of ~ 50 K. At noon. Ignoring heat lost via convection/conduction to the -20 C air.
Help the CSIRO in the court case I am arranging
Maybe I should! If all your arguments are like you have presented here, it would be easy and I might collect a nice little paycheck. Whats that name of the contact there?”
Tim, please answer the question.
–
Bindidon, let Tim answer!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Circulation in the Atlantic is blocked. Northern and central Europe will receive air from the north. It is good that Ukraine declares energy assistance to Poland in winter.
https://i.ibb.co/k4ZqwhM/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
Sorry.
https://i.ibb.co/jyt3QLH/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
Some people seem to be very picky when posting excer~p~ts from solar activity sites like this one:
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thus what about a spotless day report?
Current Stretch: 0 days
2022 total: 1 day (<1%)
2021 total: 64 days (18%)
2020 total: 208 days (57%)
2019 total: 281 days (77%)
2018 total: 221 days (61%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
2008 total: 268 days (73%)
2007 total: 152 days (42%)
2006 total: 70 days (19%)
Bold emphasized: cycle transition years for SC23->SC24 resp. SC24->SC25.
The character sequence ‘rp~t’ seems to be the problem in ‘absorp~tion’ because ‘option’ is accepted.
Similarly, ‘excerp~t’ is refused as well when you don’t separate ‘p’ and ‘t’.
I’m going to repeat from comments above much of my explanation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics because this is the most important law in physics that you all need to know about and which none of you does know much at present.
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
When a ball rolls down a plank, that is the Second Law operating. When ice melts or fire burns or chemical reactions take place – all are examples of entropy increasing due to the Second Law.
THINK about this correct statement …
When gravity forms the DENSITY gradient in the troposphere it is maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) resulting from the action of the Second Law. That same state has a temperature gradient also. The pressure gradient is a consequence of the first two because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. (IGL)
I quoted the law correctly in its general form which is valid from Wikipedia / “Laws of Thermodynamics”
That is all it needs to say. It does NOT apply to NET results of two or more processes that are not interacting, such as surface warming by solar radiation (on a small portion of Earth’s surface) and subsequent radiative and non-radiative surface cooling possibly mostly at a later time.
Every one-way passage of radiation (from source to target) obeys the Second Law because there are no other “interacting systems.”
In my first two papers there are several pages on the Second Law …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
You have a lot of physics to learn from me. In case you don’t know, I made a world-first discovery in the field of atmospheric and subterrestrial physics in 2013 and NOBODY has EVER correctly refuted it or what is in either my 2013 paper or my earlier peer-reviewed paper on radiation and the Second Law.
Note that the Second Law applies only to “Interacting thermodynamic systems” where “dynamic” refers to motion since …
ENTROPY IS AFFECTED BY CHANGES IN ANY FORM OF INTERNAL ENERGY, NOT JUST MOLECULAR KINETIC (THERMAL) ENERGY.
I am not interested in assertive statements saying the above is incorrect, because that is not the case and any such denials just exhibit you lack of understanding of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production.
> I’m going to repeat from comments above
Dug does it since at least February 2012:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/is-the-fight-against-global-warming-alarmism-hopeless/#comment-35424
“When gravity forms the DENSITY gradient in the troposphere it is maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) resulting from the action of the Second Law. ”
No, the troposphere is NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium. It is constantly receiving energy from the sun and the warm ground, and constantly losing energy to space. Wind is blowing. This is not an ‘assertive statement’ — it is simply the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium.
“In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, within a system or between systems. In a system that is in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, no macroscopic change occurs.”
Wikipedia
So, where is the macroscopic change occurring?
The troposphere TENDS towards thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated non-zero temperature gradient. That’s because you can’t stop the Second Law of Thermodynamics functioning.
Thus that gradient tends to reform when disturbed. It reforms quite well on a calm night when surface cooling virtually ceases, proving that the gradient has nothing to do with rising air supposedly cooling because it is expanding – a fact you need to think about.
My response to your anticipated reply is already at …
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, within a system or between systems. In a system that is in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, no macroscopic change occurs.
Yep! That’s the Second Law operating, increasing entropy and getting rid of unbalanced energy potentials so that macroscopic changes reduce and cease altogether at maximum entropy (ie thermodynamic equilibrium.)
Yep! That’s the state to which the tropospheres of all planets with atmospheres TEND towards. They do NOT tend towards an isothermal state even where there are insignificant concentrations of IR-active gases like carbon dioxide etc. Think again about a calm night on Earth. There’s a really good example on Uranus:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
Cosmic rays cause climate change, not carbon dioxide, as explained here:-
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2627605
DO you seriously think I didn’t know what was stated in that quote?
More fun with bricks-in-a-box
Yesterday, the cult was unable to deal with the simple example of bricks that were all the same temperature. No matter how many such bricks were added to the box, the box would never get above the temperature of the bricks.
Let’s make it even more illustrative and interesting:
The box ia at a temperature of 288K. The brick inside is also at 288K. The brick has emissivity of 1, emitting 390 W/m^2. As before, the box is perfectly insulated so no energy can leave.
Then, another brick is added. The new brick is at a temperature of 264K, emitting 275 W/m^2.
The cult believes fluxes add, so the temperature of the box must go up, according to their nonsense: 390 + 275 = 465 W/m^2, which corresponds to 301K!!!
(For those that don’t recognize the temperatures, 288K is Earth’s average temperature, and 264K is the average temperature from the atmosphere level measured by satellites used by UAH.)
You forgot to clarify how you get that new brick in the box and how it gets that flux, Pup.
Perhaps you ought to leave thought experiments to specialists:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/
Clint asks more questions. While unable to answer the most basic physics questions that we ask.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362820
One that he should be able to answer. Yet he cant or wont and runs as far away as possible.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362293
Nope.
Simple question, what is the cube’s T when surrounded by ice?
Youve tried every evasion.
What seems to be the trouble?
See if you can understand this, troll Nate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362293
And of course unable to deal directly with the physics of flux addition and heat transfer, he substitutes very faulty analogies, which are intended to confuse and mislead.
Like the rest of your cult, troll Nate, you’re good at perverting reality.
Why do you propose analogies while evading the real physics?
Nate, why did you avoid the physics problems I’ve presented. NONE of you cult idiots were able to answer the simple problems.
No surprise, huh?
“The cult believes fluxes add, so the temperature of the box must go up”
No. Scientists believe that separate irradiances add, but that radiant exitance (aka radiant emittance) do not add. You don’t understand thermal radiation, so you don’t understand the difference in these two fundamentally different sorts of fluxes.
Consider first an empty cubic box (say 1m x 1m x 1m for simplicity) with each wall at 288K emitting 390 W/m^2 (the radiant exitance from each side).
Now consider one face of that cube — lets say the top face. That top face EMITS 390 W/m^2, but how much does it RECEIVE (irradiance)? The bottom face is emitting 390 W/m^2, but not all of that reaches the top face. It turns out that 20% reaches the top (a 78 W/m^2 irradiance), while the rest hits the other 4 sides. Furthermore, we get the same answer for each of the 4 sides; they emit 390 W/m^2, but only 20% gets absorbed by the top (the rest being absorbed by the other sides and the bottom).
So the net result is that the top receives 78 W/m^2 from the bottom + 78 W/m^2 from the right + 78 W/m^2 from the left + 78 W/m^2 from the front + 78 W/m^2 from the back. Not surprisingly (other than maybe for Clint), the net flux arriving at the top is found by — yes! — adding 78+78+78+78+78 = 390 W/m^2. The 5 separate irradiances add to give the total irradiance. Each face emits exactly as much as it receives, and everything is exactly balanced and in thermal equilibrium.
Science work! Engineers know how to calculate radiant energy transfers!
(We could discuss bricks at this point, but first this part has to be crystal clear.)
Nice distraction, Folkerts. You cleverly avoided addressing the colder brick being added. You’re so tricky!
You’re still making stuff up. But at least you’re not violating 2LoT this time.
Where’s your valid technical reference for your other nonsense, where you do violate 2LoT.
But do you agree that in this system, the flux arriving at the top is found by adding 78 W/m^2 from each of the other 5 sides?
Do you agree that you make up stuff you can’t support?
Do you admit you twist/distort/pervert reality to support your cult?
Its hopeless. Clint is not here to find the truth. He is only here to mislead people and troll.
Wrong troll Nate.
I’m here to teach physics and reveal the trolls.
So Clint DOESN’T object to adding fluxes!
And so my post was NOT a distraction — rather it got to the one fundamental idea. Fluxes from different sources DO simply add! We can add 78 W/m^2 from the bottom + 78 W/m^2 from the right + 78 W/m^2 from the left + 78 W/m^2 from the front + 78 W/m^2 from the back.
Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Who is this idiot Folkerts that trolls here all the time?
Norman believes Folkerts has a PhD in physics. Of course, we know that’s not true, based on Folkert’s lack of understanding of physics. (Unless he purchased his sheepskin from the same on-line diploma mill as “Dr” Mark.)
So likely this idiot has assumed the identity of a real person.
It didn’t take long to find a “Timothy John Folkerts, PhD physics” on a quick search. Such a person is associated with a small community college in a small town in Kansas.
But wait — it seems this Kansas Folkerts was recently terminated by the small community college, called Barton Community College.
Was that our Folkerts? Was he terminated, when it’s almost impossible for a college professor to be terminated, in our WOKE society?
The plot thickens.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Hey, Pup.
I found Tim’s thesis mentioned in a technical document:
https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-841-notes.pdf
Enjoy!
I though it was low when Clint R questioned my military service, but here he again show his true colors.
It’s not your service that is in question, braindead bob. It’s your credibility.
You apparently have no respect for reality. You stand ready to pervert reality at a moment’s notice.
Funny how you appeal to reality when you root for Dragon Crank positions that do not even constitute a minority viewpoint. In fact you cannot even agree with Mike about simple stuff, such as why it gets cold at night.
And as far as credibility is concerned, you got banned a few times over your decade of trolling this website, and you are still back.
Try some reality, worthless willard.
I can recommend it.
I would gladly try the Sky Dragon crank reality in which closed systems change mass, Pup.
Where can I find it?
Your first taste of reality is realizing YOU are a “sky dragon”, Pup.
We can go from there, as you mature — baby steps….
Napoleon,
Now you question my credibility.
When I am the one who is not a sockpuppet.
I have provided evidence of my studying physics, you have not.
I have provided evidence of my military service, you have not.
So who is more credible?
And who can’t even correctly solve the problems they post here?
Sorry bob, but you apparently have no respect for reality. You stand ready to pervert reality at a moment’s notice. Just look at your last comment. Your childish “sock puppets”, your false claims to fame, your false accusations, and your readiness to pervert science, all work to destroy your credibility.
Don’t blame others for your failures.
Napoleon,
I have a grasp on reality, unlike posters who claim there is no greenhouse effect or that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its axis. You are the delusional one, and that’s not a false claim.
I have made no claims to fame, unless you count graduation from college, serving in the US Navy, and making antimatter fame, that’s your problem, I consider those things rather mundane.
Unfortunately for you, I do get the science correct, your failure to understand physics is your problem.
And where am I blaming any others for my non failures to understand physics.
Continue with your delusions, they are fun to watch!
That’s another example of how you twist and distort reality, bob. Like Folkerts, you mix in some truth trying to give credibility to your blatant nonsense. You forgot to mention that you’ve claimed ice can boil water and a ball-on-a-string swung in a circle is rotating on its axis.
In your depraved head, anything you conjure up is “reality”. You believe you can bend reality to fit your false beliefs. That’s why you have no credibility.
Sorry Napoleon,
But I can boil water with ice, and the ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
That’s the real reality, not your Dolly Madison fed delusions.
That’s why you have no credibility, bob.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
Dr. Spencer’s posted, relevant experiments prove Clint R is wrong and bob 1:06 pm correct.
Amusingly Clint R is simply as usual behaving correctly as the blog laughing stock.
Deeply unpleasant human being Ball4 continues to do his thing.
Tell me again Napoleon,
What does boiling water with ice have to do with the greenhouse effect or anything else?
Several ways to boil water with ice have been posted here, but what does that do to the greenhouse gas theory?
Nuttin Honey!
Yeah DREMT, no-credibility Ball4 rushes in to help no-credibility bob!
Who’s next, no-credibility Norman?
That’s why this is so much fun.
I made a choice over a decade ago to post under my real name. People know this. Its not secret that needs to be uncovered. I wanted to have real conversations about real issues, so I keep things real and open.
I have chosen to focus my posts on physics (which I know quite a bit about). I post sometimes about math and statistics. I choose not to post much about topics like long-term climate forecasts or economics or politics, since I am less well-versed in those topics.
I try hard not to stoop to insults or personal attacks or ad hom arguments, even when insults are flying in many directions. I try to focus on the topic at hand. Sometimes tenaciously so that people can’t ‘get off the hook’ and avoid their mistakes.
For instance, here the issues is not where I chose to live or work. It is not ‘woke society’. It is not the moon. It is not whether ice can boil water (although that one is at least vaguely related).
The issue is thermal IR flux in a box at 288 K. That was the topic Clint wanted to discuss. I think I showed quite clearly that the simplest possible case — an empty cubic box — has a flux of 78 W/m^2 arriving from each of the other 5 sides. These fluxes add to give 78 W/m^2 +78 W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 = 390 W/m^2. [I have glossed over one or two minor points, and I could discuss those too, but until *this* much understood, there is not point.]
These. fluxes. add. THIS is what *I* consider “fun”. Homing in on the crux of the issue to understand the physics. Each side sends and receives 390 W/m^2, leaving all sides in equilibrium.
Adding a brick at 288 K is a trivial extension once you know how addition of flux works. The brick sitting on the bottom will block some of the flux originating from the bottom. But the brick simultaneously exactly replaces that blocked flux as it emits its own flux! Whatever size the brick, the top still receives a net flux of 390 W/m^2. Everything stays in equilibrium.
So what do you say Clint? Do you want to discuss actual science? Do you want to refute anything I said about your box?
Yes Folkerts, we know you’re a legend in your own mind. But your inaccurate impression of yourself isn’t the topic here.
This latest example demonstrates that fluxes do NOT add. Cold can NOT warm Hot. That destroys your cult nonsense, so now you’ve perverted the example so much even I don’t recognize it!
That’s what you do. You pervert/distort/deny reality.
Do you need some examples of your past here?
“This latest example demonstrates that fluxes do NOT add. ”
Really? if you want to discuss physics, then tell me what specifically is wrong. For the empty box, there are 5 fluxes of 78 W/m^2 each arriving at the top of the box, and they add to give 390 W/m^2.
If you disagree so far, tell me what specifically you disagree with.
If you add a brick that covers 1/4 of the bottom, then the bottom can only provide 3/4 as much flux as before, or 58.5 W/m^2 to the top. But the brick will provide some flux. It is only 1/4 as large as the bottom, so the flux at the top due to the brick will only be 1/4 * 78 = 19.5 W/m^2.
The net flux at the top is still found by adding all the fluxes. 78 W/m^2 +78 W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 + 58.5 W/m^ + 19.5 W/m^2 = 390 W/m^2.
If you disagree, tell me what specifically you disagree with. What specifically have I said in this thread about your topic that you think is ‘cult nonsense’. Not vague platitudes like ‘cold cannot warm hot’. There is no cold or hot here, so your statement is no germane.
A brick at 264K is added to the box at 288K.
Pervert that.
“A brick at 264K is added to the box at 288K.”
That should be pretty obvious by now, but I have a few free minutes.
RECAP FROM UP-THREAD:
1) Every face in the box EMITS an outward flux according to its temperature.
* Every face @ 288 K radiates a flux of 390 W/m^2
* Every face @ 264 K radiates a flux of 275 W/m^2
2) Every face RECEIVES 1/5 of the flux emitted by each other face.
* a face receives a flux of 390/5 = 78 W/m^2 from a 288 K face.
* a face receives a flux of 275/5 = 55 W/m^2 from a 264 K face.
3) The total flux received is simply the sum of all the incoming fluxes.
So let’s add a large flat brick @ 264 K that covers the bottom completely.
The bottom sees 5 faces @ 288 K and receives 78+78+78+78+78 = 390 W/m^2.
Since it radiates only 275 W/m^2, it is GAINING 115 W/m^2 and warms up.
Every other face now sees 4 faces @ 288 K and 1 face @ 264 K. So every other face receives 78+78+78+78+55 = 367 W/m^2. Since these faces are radiating 390 W/m^2, they are each losing 23 W/m^2 and will cool down.
Or to summarize: by properly adding all incoming fluxes, we see that the hot faces cool down by losing energy to the cool face, and the cool face warms up by gaining energy from the warm faces.
Easy-peasy!
The recap (and italics) should end after point (3). The rest is the answer to Clint’s longing to know how radiative physics works when there are two temperatures in the box.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts tries to obfuscate his own argument.
Apportionating the energy received from the sides of a cube is not the same as saying the receptive side has anything different from from a uniform field of view at 390w/m2. Also it doesn’t receive 78w/m2 from each side. It receives 390w/m2 from each side with the m2 determined by the field of view which in turn is partly influenced by the angle of the side to the top.
Even if he wants to specify it at 78watts (without the area measurement) per side he is still wrong because the bottom has a different FOV than the 4 adjacent sides.
Finally, this argument Tim is making does not support Nate’s argument that a given flux will continue to warm an object indefinitely unless it has an avenue for cooling.
Nates argument is a denial of Stefan Boltzmann’s work. When at equilibrium with the FOV=1 source there is no cooling, there is instead an equilibrium, like the brick in the middle of a room. Nate just believes there is some kind of special boundary condition that makes a brick in the middle of a room behave differently than a planet inside a universe.
The more sophisticated and likely still wrong argument is that steady state gases can due to their gravitationally induced pressurization can produce a greenhouse effect by increasing the elevation that cooling occurs from. But no evidence of this has ever been produced. It is simply science by fiat. Its an argument based on sand whereby the cooling effect of greenhouse gases actually brings about their claimed warming effect.
The alternative? I would speculate that the variability of the greenhouse effect on earth is created by phase changes of water, the variability of which is influenced by numerous drivers including but not limited to a changing intensity of the sun.
There has been much discussion on this as to the role of UV, Xrays of the sun(variability of high intensity cosmic rays), aerosols, and magnetism in producing slight variations in phase changes. Some of these changes on a large scale can be so spectacular there is an actual tourist trade surrounding them. One can conduct far less spectacular home experiments of this variability using 10 cent bottles of Costco water and the refrigerator/freezer in your home.
Lets face it the physics of the atmosphere still lies outside the understanding of our institutions and it is only a matter of our institutions desiring to be more relevant that brings us our so-called climate crisis.
From an auditor perspective this is apparent. A decided lack of evidence, a variety of opinions, and thus at a minimum a huge gap in our knowledge (huge uncertainties) whereby the more sophisticated scientists in our institutions simply go along with the narrative because they can see which side of the bread has butter on it and most of them wisely avoid trying to argue the points from a non-existant body of science on forums or anywhere else because they know they don’t have the ammunition nor a deep understanding of the problem.
Myself I admit my point of view is speculation and all I can do is draw attention to the fact that water obviously has by far and away the greatest effects on climate.
“Nates argument is a denial of Stefan Boltzmanns work. When at equilibrium with the FOV=1 source there is no cooling, there is instead an equilibrium, like the brick in the middle of a room. Nate just believes there is some kind of special boundary condition that makes a brick in the middle of a room behave differently than a planet inside a universe.”
Kindly quote me and provide a link to the discussion before attempting to dispute anything Ive said, Bill.
Otherwise it is too easy to misrepresent my arguments, as you do here.
You seem unwilling to dispute it. If I find some time I will find the link. But in the meantime we have you effectively believing that putting a brick or a pile of bricks in a 279k room will cause the room to warm as I don’t know of any theory that makes a planet act differently than a brick. . . .with the mainstream ‘trapping’ of sunlight being the argument.
Of course you can always resort to your comment that the GHE doesn’t work unless you have a lapse rate making it happen. . . .which is the argument that greenhouse gases warm the surface because they cool the atmosphere a rather circular argument in support of violation of the 2LOT.
Its understandable why no scientist interested in his reputation actually puts forth a complete argument for the cause of the GHE.
“But in the meantime we have you effectively believing”
Nope. No quote, then it aint my opinion.
Yep its a different day since you have a different opinion every day. And you can’t even say what it is today.
Its quite simple.
You dont quote me and distort my opinion into something else, then its no longer my opinion. It is dishonest.
I tried to explain the basics of boundary conditions in heat transfer problems to you, why they matter, I linked to a explanation, but you still fail to understand, and are not open to learning, so you substitute your preconceived erroneous intuition.
Here you are saying they dont matter. Not correct.
Nate says:
”I tried to explain the basics of boundary conditions in heat transfer problems to you, why they matter, I linked to a explanation, but you still fail to understand, and are not open to learning, so you substitute your preconceived erroneous intuition.”
Actually it was Postma via Dremt that attempted to explain boundary conditions to you and you just turn around and point at a list of boundary conditions claiming that the 3rd grader radiation model, which you attempted to support in a contradictory manner, has different boundary conditions than a brick in the middle of a room.
Here is an example of your nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1349800
”Yep, which is a CONSTANT HEAT FLUX boundary condition, NOT A FIXED T boundary condition.”
The walls of the room are no more or less fixed than the energy being emitted to the ground in the 3rd grader radiation model Nate.
The arguments I made then are perfectly sound. You failed to get it then. You are still an auditor failing to understand basic science, but still trying to man-splain to those who do understand.
Why would there be a different outcome now?
Thats pure BS and you know it Nate. You can’t lay down a cogent argument on that here and now. . . .and you know you can’t so you won’t and instead you will try a diversion or point at something invisible.
Let me point out another BIG reason discussions go nowhere with you, Bill,
This quote of mine:
“Yep, which is a CONSTANT HEAT FLUX boundary condition, NOT A FIXED T boundary condition.”
was taken out of context by you and FALSELY attached to this problem:
“The walls of the room are no more or less fixed than the energy being emitted to the ground in the 3rd grader radiation model Nate.”
While the actual context of the quote which you LEFT OUT was that it was applied to a DIFFERENT problem, the 3 plate problem.
“The middle plate is warmed with a 400w/m2 source at FV=1.0.”
You keep mixing up different problems and thus making hot mess out of any discussion. Intentionally or not, you are unable to focus on one problem and one topic at a time.
As predicted with certainty, Nate resorts to diversion and once again and forever will fail to lay the smack down as also predicted.
The ‘3 plate problem’ is a variant of the ‘2 plate problem’ better known as the ‘green plate experiment’.
The Green Plate Experiment as show is nothing but a deception from the 3rd grader radiation model (otherwise known as the greenhouse model) brought about by multipling the number of radiating surfaces of a non-insulated object. A brick or a pile of bricks in the middle of a room of a stated temperature is the perfect analog of the 3rd grader radiation model.
The room is firmly planted on an insulated surface (the earth) the brick is surrounded by a room warmed by a steady source (as in the GPE and the 3rd grader radiation model simulating a greenhouse. FYI, greenhouse walls and roof don’t need to be transparent to warm the insides to the temperature of the outside. The reason greenhouses are transparent is to both keep the plants inside warm and provide them direct light from the sun so they can grow. Facts apparently completely unknown to climate scientists.
And whether or not it is actually unknown to climate scientists it is certainly unknown to Nate because no climate scientist has said anything about this and thus Nate has been led to believe it has something to do with boundary conditions instead. Thus it is 100% certain that Nate knows nothing about boundary conditions either.
Finally that will continue to be certain as Nate will never lay the smackdown and relate to us a complete greenhouse theory that can be established in fact. But don’t blame Nate for that. After all some self proclaimed climate scientist told him it could be established and Nate believed it.
The fact that you think they are the same problem illustrates perfectly that you don’t understand boundary conditions. No wonder you are confused!
whatever Nate. I might not be able to understand your theory but you will never know if that is true or not unless you actually describe your theory. If not me then for your own reputation in being able to explain what you claim you can explain and people don’t mistake you for a liar.
Whats the problem? Is it because if you make the attempt you will be proven to be a liar?
Be honest, as you have been at times, do you really understand how to use boundary conditions to solve heat transfer physics problems?
Obviously Nate I know enough to know you are only obfuscating with your boundary condition claims.
Obviously you are trying to sneak a lapse rate into the discussion but don’t want to admit that because that will lead to the question of how the lapse rate creates a greenhouse effect. . . .a question that has never been answered. So what do you do instead? You point at others, call them dimwitted trolls when in fact you are the dimwitted troll.
Of course you could prove you weren’t a dimwitted troll by actually explaining your version of the greenhouse effect and how it physically works. We already know you have admitted the 3rd grader radiation model perpetrated on millions was a fraud.
“sneak a lapse rate into the discussion”
It is a truly bizarre fantasy world that you live in.
If you are unable to admit (even to yourself!) the limitations of your understanding of this subject then its impossible to have a sensible discussion of it.
Nate it is impossible to have a sensible discussion of the theory you support if you don’t actually describe the theory and instead just claim what you think the results are. Or are you too dimwitted to realize that?
” The cult believes fluxes add… ”
Absolutely typical, nonsensical Clint R blah blah.
It’s hard to behave more stubborn, ignorant and stupid, but Clint R shows once more he can.
Bindidon, are you in denial that your cult believes fluxes add? Where have you been?
I don’t belong to any cult, Clint R.
YOU belong to the unscientific cult of all those who willfully ignore what does not fit their fundamentalist religious beliefs, and hence constantly insult those who do not belong to their cult.
Binny, you didn’t answer the questions.
You trolled in with your insults and false accusations, but you can’t stand by your false claims. You got caught, so you resort to more false claims.
You used to try to pretend you were an “intellectual”, just because you could use a keyboard. But now, you can’t even pretend any more. Your mask is off.
You’re just another worthless troll. You’ve got NOTHING.
Give it up Clint R!
Don’t tell me you ‘forgot’ to be the one who permanently insults others on this blog with ‘braindead cult idiot’.
As has been explained several times Bin, “braindead cult idiot” is not an insult. It is reality. It’s a choice you have made. You accept anything your cult puts out, without question. You don’t only accept it, you fully support it, to the point of perverting/denying reality.
When you start thinking for yourself and quit perverting/denying reality, then you won’t be a braindead cult idiot.
I’m not insulting you. I’m trying to help you.
Clint R
I can see by your post that you do not understand science at all or what it attempts to do.
You are the cult minded religious type mentality. You use manipulation tactics and bully pulpit to attempt to sway people to your odd-ball ideas. You keep asserting the same things over and over. (So do Swenson and Gordon Robertson). You belong to some cult.
The thing is you never show any signs of “thinking” you just assert. You do not do any deep or thoughtful pondering of radiant physics or Moon axial spin. You just assert the same worn out points over and over. If someone says radiant fluxes can add (which has even been proven to you) you then claim “ice cubes can boil water” You never think about the possibility that fluxes can and do add all the time.
You claim a colder object can never raise the temperature of a hotter one. Roy Spencer sets up an experiment and shows that assertion is wrong. You never think about it you just continue to repeat the same assertions. That is not thinking at all it is cult mentality. See reality you are a cult minded person.
Science is not a system where thinking for yourself is the goal. The goal is to support your thinking with valid experimental or observational evidence. Asserting and repeating things over an over has nothing to do with science. It is cult programming. Wake up and see what you really are. You pervert and deny reality (experimental evidence which shows your assertion is wrong) so you are a braindead cult idiot based upon your own statement. So quit being one.
Nice one Norman — just your opinions, insults, and false accusations.
No science, as usual. You’ve got NOTHING.
That’s why I enjoy your meltdown so much.
Norman,
Maybe if you could actually describe the GHE, then you could describe at least one reproducible experiment which would support any proposed hypothesis.
But you can’t of course, because nobody can seem to work out why the Earth managed to cool in spite of having an atmosphere with considerably higher CO2 and H2O concentrations than now.
The GHE description would also have to explain why the hottest places on Earth (arid deserts) also have the lowest GHG concentrations.
You might as well just keep pushing the bizarre SkyDragon assertions that CO2 raises temperatures, when four and a half billion years or so of history says otherwise.
Off you go now, deny, divert, and confuse. Talk about something else. Maybe Michael Mann’s non-existent Nobel Prize, or Gavin Schmidts non-science qualifications? You have a wide range of nonsense to choose from.
Clint R
As usual your repetition and assertions. Your cult mentality.
You say I have nothing. That is a false cult assertion.
I gave you E. Swanson experiment with fluxes adding. You reject it, you are a cult-minded science denier. You are given information and choose not to accept it. Cult minded.
I have linked you to Roy’s experiment clearly demonstrating a cold object raises the temperature of a hotter heated object. Again you are cult minded and science denier.
You are also cult minded and a denier when you falsely claim I have nothing. Not even remotely correct outside of your science denying cult.
Carry on cultist. Deny the science and repeat your assertions.
Norman, your first two “sentences” aren’t even sentences. No wonder you can’t advance in keyboard school.
And to tag along with other’s work, that you don’t understand, ain’t science.
As usual, you’ve got NOTHING.
That’s why I enjoy your ongoing meltdown so much.
Norman,
I see you decline to attempt to describe the GHE.
Very wise. You would quickly look like a foolish SkyDragon if you tried.
Keep avoiding reality. The Earth has cooled, notwithstanding your mythical GHE.
norman…”If someone says radiant fluxes can add (which has even been proven to you)”
***
The original claim was that fluxes could add in free air, meaning the actual electromagnetic signals could add together in free air. This belies an understanding of the meaning of flux.
The original definition comes from Newton’s fluxion, which is an instantaneous rate of change of a function. In other words, it’s the 1st derivative of a continuous function. All it will reveal the rate at which a function is changing.
As applied to free air, you’d need a surface area in the air through which EM passed, and the fluxions, or fluxes, would be the rate of change of the EM at any point within the area. That would require a double integral to solve, and a whole lot more.
If light is the EM passing through the square area, there are bazzillions of frequencies, hence wavelength involved. How the heck would you add them?
Flux is used in magnetic field theory by referring to lines of flux. If you looked at them head-on, you’d see bazzillions of dots representing the ends of lines of flux facing you. To increase the flux density, you need to add more lines of flux but that is not adding them, it’s adding to them. You are making the field more dense.
I can see how you might do that with a magnetic field but not an EM field.
EM is not quite the same but there are parallels. An EM waveform is an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Looking at the EM wave head on you’d see a cross-like shape with the vertical and horizontal waves varying in amplitude, provided they were polarized in that direction (x-y plane). There are bazzillions of those crosses and you are suggesting the electrical waves and the magnetic waves can be added mathematically.
Good luck!!!
If the EM strikes a surface, it can be converted to heat in the surface if the conditions are right. If a second source strikes the surface, and is trying to affect the same electrons affected by the first source, nothing will add.
If the EM from the second source manages to strike electrons not affected by the first source EM, it will raise those atoms to the same temperature as the first source EM. Therefore the temperature remains the same.
Temperature is defined based on kinetic gas theory as the average kinetic energy of the atoms. I am not sure if that applies to solids but let’s presume it does.
The following is absurd because it’s absurd to talk about 1 electron in 1 atom. However, if an electron absorbs a photon of EM and that raises its kinetic energy to 5 (I am not using units) then the same EM will raise 100 atoms to the same KE individually. To find the average we sum all the 5s of 100 atoms to get 500, then we divide by the number of atom to an average of 5.
This problem is obviously far more complicated and I will not attempt to address that complexity, mainly because I can’t. However, this should be enough to show what you are dealing with when it comes to fluxes. If you understand them, you don’t try to arbitrarily add them.
.
gbaikie on September 10, 2022 at 8:38 PM
” Sun spot number: 72 ” ???
” QUIET SUNCONTINUED: For the third day in a row, solar activity is low. ”
Quite interesting…
*
Here is today’s output of SILSO’s EISN estimate for September 2022 (their estimates mostly matches what becomes the official SSN):
2022 09 01 2022.667 61 13.4 34 37
2022 09 02 2022.670 61 8.6 31 39
2022 09 03 2022.673 66 5.7 27 34
2022 09 04 2022.675 68 4.6 25 35
2022 09 05 2022.678 80 13.7 27 35
2022 09 06 2022.681 80 18.7 33 39
2022 09 07 2022.684 94 12.7 28 35
2022 09 08 2022.686 89 7.1 25 33
2022 09 09 2022.689 97 8.2 23 31
2022 09 10 2022.692 113 11.0 24 29
2022 09 11 2022.695 127 9.9 20 27
Does gbaikie know, by the way, that the average of the monthly SSN means from Jan 1749 till now is 81.6?
“Does gbaikie know, by the way, that the average of the monthly SSN means from Jan 1749 till now is 81.6?”
No.
gb is interested in space exploration.
The Sun is part of space exploration, but it very complicated.
I think being able to predict sun activity is very important in terms having spacefaring civilization. I am interested in Sun activity because of it’s effect upon Mars crew exploration.
In terms of Sun’s effect upon global climate, I think it mostly effects global weather.
Global weather is also important, but also very complicated.
I am interested in such complicated issues. And sometimes I have opinions about them- but more like a sport I watch, rather than play.
Nobody is going to Mars
Nobody is planning on sending any crew, soon.
First up is sending crew to Moon.
It might be helpful in that regard if SLS gets to orbit.
I optimistically gave 50% chance, and it didn’t.
Also also gave 70% chance of it launching before the end of the year.
Well, now, it seems more doubtful of 70%, but I will leave it on the table.
Another part, relates to Starship.
They were going rather slow, and got that explosion which appears to
have damaged some inner engines. And they appear to be more cautious.
Unexpected things happening and not being certain why they happen, tends to curb enthusiasm. Or one could say the explosion, was a bit of luck- which is same, tends to curb enthusiasm.
Also I guess the FAA is saying I told you so, which would rather annoying- considering they can’t actually say anything useful.
I have my idea of pipelauncher, but I won’t go there. Instead I would suggest another idea of making cheap artificial gravity station.
Though I did have idea related to pipelauncher. A pipelauncher goes up at speed of about 100 mph and probably has practical limit of somewhere 300 mph. And thinking of cheap floating platform which one launch larger rockets than Starship, and would go up, at about 10 to 20 mph. And roughly idea is limit the damage caused by launch mishap- and one would test firing from it.
But I think cheap gravity station would be better- something Musk could launch within a month.
But anyhow, it seems FAA is still delaying and Musk is more cautious- which really means people are actually doing it are more cautious.
Musk might less frustrated, with making the station- no one is stopping him.
Anyhow, is nobody going to Moon?
Or is just nobody going to Mars?
Nobody
Eben, it seems obvious to me, you want me to discuss how we will become a spacefaring civilization.
It seems to me, we are living in the best of times.
And one might argue that there is perhaps some resistant
to humans becoming space faring.
But it seems to me, humans are rather vicious.
And need to become a spacefaring civilization- mainly to
have more fun.
But it appears to me, planet Earth doesn’t have enough cheap
energy. There is no lack of resources, other than cheap energy.
And as I mentioned, coal at $400 per US ton, is not cheap energy.
And though I am not against burning all the coal in the world, and I am not against using a lot nuclear energy- it’s not really a good idea.
Now we do have a vast amount Methane in our ocean, enough for few centuries, all we have at moment is mostly governmental effort to somehow make it mineable,
As I have said, I don’t want NASA to waste our time and money trying to pretend it could mine lunar water. And US Congress has made it clear, NASA is not going to make settlements on Mars {as it crazy and US tax payers, aren’t going to paid for it.
But US Congress does want NASA to explore the Moon and then to explore Mars.
Plus there are other countries interested in using the Moon- one might even say, more interested than US Congress.
NASA has a pretty big budget compared to other nation’s space agencies. The exception is amount of money the Chinese govt is spending on space related activity. But if you count amount money US spends Military Space related matter, it’s not very close. Or US spends twice as much space with it’s military as compared NASA.
One might argue, US should spend more to NASA, not could say, NASA is
a bit of clown show. I would say NASA want more money, but they a lot to lessen their budget.
NASA wants to make lunar bases and wants to mine lunar water- as example of how foolish they are. They also are very eager to find life on Mars.
It seems US military might have interest in life on Mars. And I can see the worry of finding life on Mars. If there is life on Mars, that would brake any effort to explore Mars, and could make Mars not a habitable planet.
I think the possibility of life on Mars, makes exploring Mars more expensive, and NASA seems quite eager to spend a lot money.
If there is life on Mars, it provides a reason to build lunar base, to prevent the possibility of infecting Earth with this Mars life.
The chances are not likely there is life on the surface of Mars, there could rock varnish. And Mars rock varnish may not be a problem.
But mars life is likely underground. Most of Earth’s life in underground. And again this could be harmless- but how do you know it’s harmless, and you have consider what public opinion will be.
Or US public is somewhat worried about warming when we in the coldest period of Ice Age.
But roughly speaking NASA promotes idea of alien life Mars, and doesn’t have a clue what to do about it, if they found it. A clown show. At least with the Military, they tend to be more serious about things. And then NASA lies about how much things will cost to Congress. Congress are the liars, liars don’t like amateur liars.
So, NASA spends too much, and does not get enough- and can lose 4 billion dollars, and their main task is to advise Congress about matters related to space, and Congress is mostly clueless about space matters. And their PR department sucks really bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmuQvDDdag
Made me wonder if NASA has a third act.
How Long Until SpaceX Launches Starship from Florida?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGi6AkIlWWE
About a year.
Also video covers New Glenn launch site.
Two richest people in the world want to make a spacefaring
civilization, and are building rockets to do it.
What do the most successful business men in world, see, that
you don’t?
And both are sort of environmental nuts.
A question I have had for years, is why bill gates is not
interested in space. It seems Bill Gates thinks nuclear energy
is the better path.
And addressing water issues in Africa, is also good idea.
Anyhow, got SpaceX, Blue Orgin, and SLS {Boeing} have large
rockets {at least as plan}. It’s like three company who building
Moon rockets {Saturn V}. Musk says going to use his Moon rocket
to launch 30,000 LEO satellite, other two appear they are mostly about going Moon. Bezos likes to keep things secret, it’s possible
New Glenn rocket could be used for satellites- mainly because it probably be reusable. SLS is not reusable and Boeing has other rockets for satellites.
Also China is considering making a large rocket, but they say by 2035. Long March 9 design.
But one get to Moon with smaller rockets, smaller rockets getting crew to Moon were considered for Apollo crew landers, but the large Saturn V rocket was picked because in was simplest and fastest way to land crew on the Moon and safely return them to Earth.
So, what saying is to get crew to moon, we don’t even need, Starship, SLS, or New Glenn.
Or could get to Moon with Falcon Heavy, and can also get there smaller rockets, like with Ariane VI,
In terms of other rockets, we have Ariane VI being made, the existing
Long March 5, other rockets which can get, say 20,000 kg payload to LEO- or even with Falcon-9.
Or another way of saying it, is normal Starship [not variants- which includes expending the stages] does really get out LEO, without re-fueling. So, if include refueling or mating fueled stages from having two [or more} rocket launches, you have way to get crew to the Moon. Or China does not need Long March 9 to get crew to the moon and one could say their experience with a their space station, makes this pathway easier. So, American, European, Russian, and Chinese have experience of docking and re-fueling in LEO. But ISS is not at good inclination of orbit to do this- a lower than 51 degree inclination is better. And private sector wants to build more space stations- and perhaps Blue Origin is looking that.
So, got 3 Saturn V rockets getting ready to go, and have done docking in LEO, which allows existing rockets to used to send crew to the Moon. And countries aren’t just thinking landing crew, but instead they plan on making lunar bases.
So, it leads to question do think the Apollo landing were fake?
Meanwhile at the Boca Chica Launch Site, the FAA still
has some requirements to be done before the test launch
they had list of 75 items one could assume most are completed,
and they probably need to do 33 engine of first stage, test
firing and probably a number of other things. And perhaps
all this can done within a month.
Then after the test launch, it depends the results of test launch,
apparently launching some the new verison of starlink satellites will
be part of test launch. Also some think the test launch may not include heat shield tiles, which would seem suggest the second stage
may not survive re-entry. But it’s not going to carrying a 100 ton payload, nor is re-entry velocity as fast as coming from the Moon or landing 100 ton on Mars surface. So it might land and might have various kinds damage done it from reentry.
Though also without tiles, it’s less massive, and test launch could be less about testing re-entry. And more about seeing if one can recover the first stage booster {it’s more valuable than second stage]. Anyhow the second launch of starship could be delayed for many months or not. But believe SpaceX can only launch 5 Starship per year from Boca Chica and they could less than 5 launches before using the Florida launch site. And it’s possible they not recovered any of the stages successfully before launching from Florida- though might have recovered a 1/2 or 1/3rd of them. But things work out, they could launched hundreds Starlink satellite before they launch from the Florida site.
Or have failures in which FAA will ground rocket until investigation is done and the problem is resolved. Which could take more than a year.
And there seems about 50% chance SLS will launch before the end of year. And again, if something goes wrong, then FAA could also ground for SLS for more than a year. Something like 2 years grounded is also
possible, and that would probably mess up NASA’s schedule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9yAOKLxzko
The SpaceX superfans uprooting their lives for Elons Starship
–Are the North Atlantic Currents Strengthening or Weakening?
1 hour ago
Guest Blogger
10 Comments
Art Viterito
One of the most important questions in the geophysical sciences is whether the system of currents of the North Atlantic, collectively referred to as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, has strengthened or weakened in recent years.
Opinions vary widely, but theres a strong consensus among climate modelers that the AMOC has weakened in the past and will continue to weaken going forward. —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/11/are-the-north-atlantic-currents-strengthening-or-weakening/
I thought they were weakening. I still think they are weakening.
Article doesn’t really change my opinion.
What does our many geniuses say??
I wonder who came up with that “AMOC” acronym.
gb…”but theres a strong consensus among climate modelers that the AMOC has weakened in the past and will continue to weaken going forward…”
***
Consensus based on models and proxy studies. No real, physical evidence.
Willard,
Someone who can actually read, I suppose. Probably a “climate scientist”, who didn’t understand about convection currents, or that they are chaotic.
It is impossible to predict future states of chaotic systems – the lithosphere, aquasphere, and the atmosphere are but three examples.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Someone who can actually read, I suppose.”
Then that excludes you.
Progress!
If you say so, Willard, if you say so.
Oh I do, Mike, I do!
Would you say that a closed system has no mass added or removed?
Willard,
Would you say that you are more ignorant than stupid, or vice versa?
Dimwit.
No, Mike, I would not. You would, however. In fact you just did, and prolly will again.
See? I just made a prediction about you chaotic mind! Same as when you make predictions about what happens in deserts during the night.
Weather. Climate. Learn the difference.
Willard,
I believe that climate is the average of historical weather records.
Only SkyDragon nutters are stupid enough to believe a derived number controls anything at all.
Climate is the result of weather, not the other way round, you fool!
I don’t know why you don’t accept that climate depends on weather, not the other way round. That’s why I asked whether you were more ignorant or stupid.
By the way, you might consider that your assumptions (guesses) about the future are superior to those of a 12 year old child, and you might decide that calling them “predictions” gives them extra gravitas. Even the SkyDragon Club (the IPCC) quickly backed off from “predictions”, and resorted to “projections” and “scenarios” – completely meaningless synonyms for “keep the money flowing while we achieve absolutely nothing”!
Keep “predicting”, Willard. Maybe someone is acting on your “predictions”, but I doubt it.
Mike Flynn,
In a span of an evening you said three things –
Climate is chaotic.
Climate is weather statistics.
Chaos was not statistical.
In the words of Ed Lorentz –
> Interruption, incoherence, surprise are the ordinary conditions of our life. They have even become real needs for many people, whose minds are no longer fed by anything but sudden changes and constantly renewed stimuli. We can no longer bear anything that lasts. We no longer know how to make boredom bear fruit. So the whole question comes down to this: can the human mind master what the human mind has made?
Willard, you dimwitted fool,
You have quoted Paul Valery, who is not even Ed Lorentz (whoever you think he is), and certainly not Yogi Berra, who you “sure” used the words of Edward Lorenz (meteorologist, mathematician, etc.,), who presented a talk –
“Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterflys Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in
Texas?
by Edward N. Lorenz
Presented before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 29, 1972”
Of course you are “sure” that Lorenz would never have talked about chaos.
Of course, you can’t quote me saying that “chaos was not statistical” because you just made that up! If you must tell lies, don’t assume that nobody can use the internet, or actually knows what they are talking about.
Maybe you are not a complete idiot, because you don’t possess sufficient brainpower to complete anything at all!
You’ll just have to work harder.
Incomplete idiot!
How do you know I quoted Paul Valry, Mike – have you ever read him?
Splendid prose, I wonder how it works out in English.
Oh, I forgot – the name is Lorenz, not Lorentz.
One day you might get the Poe.
Anyways, keep the chin up.
Oh, Willard, Willard,
Who is Paul Valry? Is he related to Lorentz? What about Mike?
You really are a sloppy incompetent nincompoop, aren’t you?
Mike, Mike,
You must know by now that letters with French accents are parsed out by this silly WP installation. Roy prolly decided not to implement UTF8.
Here is the guy you pretend to know:
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Valry
There is a letter missing in the URL.
You silly goose.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So I can’t predict that the gulf stream will still be flowing north tomorrow, next Tuesday and for the foreseeable future?
Remember, the butterfly stays in the box.
That’s a prediction, prove me wrong.
bob,
You are free to predict as you wish. It won’t change the future, will it? You are assuming you can peer into the future. Even the IPCC has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states, as the atmosphere is chaotic. I don’t think you are prepared to challenge the authority of the IPCC, but I may be wrong.
Your assumptions about the future are about as useful as those made by any 12 year old child.
Can you come up with something better?
By the way, if you had actually read Edward Lorenz’ papers, you wouldn’t say something as stupid as “The butterfly stays in the box”, would you?
Others may or may not agree that you have no clue.
Are you aware of what a climate state is, or how many possible climate states there are?
Yeah, the butterfly always stays in the box, and you think that is a stupid statement.
I am not sure you understand chaos.
If you would get smart, you would ask agent 99.
bob,
Oh dear, another witless attempt at a gotcha!
The IPCC says that it is impossible to predict future climate states. You are free to disagree.
What nonsense are you talking about butterflies and boxes? As to what you think, feel free to convince me why I should care.
In the meantime, others can check facts for themselves. You have no objection to others making their own decisions, I trust?
Mike, Mike,
You seem confused. The notion of space might be too abstract. Try a simpler –
However good you are at Poker, unless you stop playing you will lose. This is a theorem about the risk of ruin.
That does not tell you when you will go broke. Only that you will. It is a certainty.
See?
There is a good lad.
Willard,
Keep bobbing and weaving.
The IPCC stated that it was not possible to predict future climate states, due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere.
You may blather on about poker, and some some nonsense about a “theorem” relating to the risk of ruin. Unfortunately, reality shows that classical treatment of probabilities fails to cope with the reality of chaos. Insurance companies fail, hedge funds collapse, economies crash, and the mightiest military forces in the world continue to lose against supposedly weak opponents.
You may be interested to know that I I have played poker in the past, and hope to continue to do so in the future. I prefer that the other players lose, and give their money to me.
So far, so good.
And no, I have insurance that the government does not require to have by law.
Once again, so far so good. Cleverness or luck?
Who cares?
Mike,
You keep missing the point –
Poker players careers cannot be predicted. But we can still predict that in the long run they will face ruin.
Same with climate. We do not know when temperatures will rise in the aggregate, but we know what happens to planetary systems with atmosphere full of CO2.
Weather patterns are indeterminate, seasons are kinda regular.
In the eternal words of Yogi Berra – chaos is when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Willard,
You keep burbling to no effect, as usual.
By the way, it was Edward Lorenz who said “Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.”, not Yogi Berra.
Was your misquoting more due to ignorance, stupidity, or just general disregard for reality?
As to you saying ” . . . we know what happens to planetary systems with atmosphere full of CO2.”, indeed we do. It cools – witness the state of the Earth after four and a half billion years or so!
No GHE.
Cmon, Mike.
I am sure it is Yogi Berra who said it, just like I am said that someone who jumps down a skyscraper can seek comfort in the thought that so far, so good.
No need to know what temperature it will be in Perth in September 2063 to predict that the average temperatures on land should be warmer than our actual average if we do not stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like we lived in a Mad Max race.
Cheers.
Willard,
Reality says Edward Lorenz said “Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.”
You can be as sure as you like that he didn’t, but that just makes you look like a fool.
Just like you are presumably “sure” that CO2 makes the world hotter, in spite of four and a half billion years or so of the Earth’s history indicating precisely the opposite.
What a reality denying idiot you are!
Keep it up – we all need more laughs. Have you considered employment as a professional butt (for jokes, that is).
Mike, you buffoon.
Do you really think the quote looks like an Ed Lorentz quote?
Yogi Berra said it, I am sure.
For a discussion of its various interpretations by famous Poker players:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ergodic-hierarchy/
For a historical account of the game after which Yogi said it (he was playing against the Boston Bruins):
https://pdodds.w3.uvm.edu/files/papers/others/1992/berliner1992a.pdf
Swenson eviscerates worthless willy, again.
(You can always tell when willy knows he’s beat. His true 14 year-old immaturity comes out.)
Willard,
Your surety fails in the face of fact, and by the way, the person who made the statement was named Edward Lorenz, not Lorentz, whoever you think Lorentz might be.
From the occasionally correct Wikipedia –
“The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.”
Good luck with convincing anyone that your stupid fantasies are superior to fact.
You might as well try diverting to irrelevant discussions of poker players. You really are a strange diversionary SkyDragon, aren’t you?
What next? Do you want to talk about darts? Croquet? What about the evils of playing Mahjong?
First, you might care to explain how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so. I suppose you’re “sure” it didn’t, so facts are irrelevant!
Delusional donkey! You might as well try to get yourself banned, but I doubt you have the intelligence to do even that!
Swenson,
Since you don’t seem to know what a climate state is, and how many of them there are, why should anyone take anything you say about any IPCC statement about them seriously.
You are out of your depth and don’t have a clue.
By the way, average temperature is not a climate state.
Mike Flynn,
Prove that Ed said it.
I gave you a historical account of the game between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Boston Bruins. I also gave you how various Poker authorities interpret the claim. Perhaps that is not enough. So have a version of the script movie based on the events:
https://romanfrigg.org/wp-content/uploads/writings/chance_oup.pdf
Please stop trolling, and provide evidence for a change.
Willard,
“Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Yeah, that doesn’t sound like something Lorenz would say.
There’s no problem predicting eclipses, and that’s predicting a chaotic system.
Bob,
Mike is trying to fight ergodicity. Let him fight a property that may very well be universal. Meanwhile, we will enjoy cocktails we can predict will be strongly mixed.
I hope you liked my allusion to the Boston Bruins.
Someone really yanked Ws chain. To employ a reference to Berra and the Bruins in the same thread is a real tell.
Not yanked, Fernando.
Brooklyn Dodgers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If Jupiter’s Orbit got Weirder, it Would Actually Make Earth More Habitable
https://www.universetoday.com/157565/if-jupiters-orbit-got-weirder-it-would-actually-make-earth-more-habitable/#more-157565
Over time the axial tilt of Earth changes slightly, giving more extreme or mild Winters. Earths axis also precesses over time, meaning that its orientation relative to the elliptical shape of Earths orbit also shifts. All of these factors underly what is known as the Milankovitch cycle. This is a measure of how much overall heat Earths terrestrial surface receives, known as insolation. It varies over thousands of years. Twelve thousand years ago, at the dawn of human civilization, insulation was very high, giving us a particularly pleasant world. Currently, its somewhat lower, and without the effects of global warming, we would be in a cool period.
Part of the Milankovitch cycle is due to the slight gravitational tug of Jupiter. But since Jupiter also has a circular orbit (e = 0.048), this isnt a significant factor. In this recent study, the team created simulated solar systems where Jupiters orbit had a higher eccentricity. They thought a more eccentric Jupiter would make Earth less habitable, but they were surprised to find it actually made things better. With an increased gravitational effect from Jupiter, the Earth would have better insolation over its surface, so that even more of Earths land masses would be within a temperate range.
g,
On the other hand, everything in the universe is affected by the gravity of everything else, and as well as that, even celestial orbits are chaotic.
Ah, the delights of modelling – “money for nothin’, and your chicks for free”!
I won’t quote “That little faggot, he’s a millionaire” from the same song, else I might be accused of being less than completely PC.
Swenson,
You’re just banging on the bongos like a chimpanzee.
Try an up your game and sound like a human.
bob,
“Try an up your game . . .”
I assume you meant to say “try and up your game . . .”, but your general sloppiness and ineptitude prevented you from saying what you really meant.
However, why should I take any notice of your desires?
What are you going to do if I refuse? Have a tantrum? Hold your breath until you turn blue? Run blubbering to your Momma?
Gee, bob, that sounds threatening, doesnt it? Should I be really, really, afraid?
You idiot.
[snigger]
That’s right Swenson, do just the opposite, mouth breather.
bob,
And if I dont, what then? Will you hurl some more pointless invective at me?
Oh, dear, how scared should I be? Will you run me over with your submarine, perhaps?
[laughs at impotent bob]
Swenson,
If you want schoolyard taunts, I can play that game, it seems that’s all you got, you have no science.
And why should I give a rat’s behind for what you have to say.
The only reason I engage with you is that you are funny, in a sick, depraved, ignorant, and desperate way.
What else you got?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
swenson…didn’t the song go…from Dire Straits, Money for Nothing.
“See the little faggot with the earring and the make up
Yeah, buddy, that’s his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot, he’s a millionaire”
gbaikie:
“Twelve thousand years ago, at the dawn of human civilization, insulation was very high, giving us a particularly pleasant world. Currently, its somewhat lower, and without the effects of global warming, we would be in a cool period.”
–
Well, what I think, it is the exactly the opposite happens.
Twelve thousand years ago, at the dawn of human civilization, insolation was lower, giving us a particularly pleasant world. Currently, its somewhat higher – that is why we experience now a Global Warming Trend!
–
It is the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
Yes, you can see that from December to February the southern oceans accumulate a lot of heat, which is directed toward the poles during La Nina.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202203.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202209.gif
— According to Milankovitch Ice Ages are generally triggered by minima in high-latitude Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, enabling winter snowfall to persist through the year and therefore accumulate to build Northern Hemisphere glacial ice sheets.–
I am unaware what Milankovitch or anyone said about causing ice sheet, or it seems what make the ice sheet disappear what was considered a puzzle. Or what caused the sudden and massive global warming.
I will note Canada is cold enough now to have ice sheet, but lacks enough snowfall {it’s dry} or lack snowfall at the right times.
Generally we slowly get cold, and the “trigger” or “sudden change” the warming.
” But Earth cannot accumulate heat on the continents land masses. Earth instead accumulates heat in the oceanic waters.”
I agree with this.
I would like find anyone who disagree with this.
One could bring up that huge ice sheet has a lot thermal mass, not in comparison entire ocean, but in terms atmosphere and in terms something being on land.
In regard to Al Gore and his nutty idea of ice sheet falling into the ocean, that it would effect local ocean water- or freeze them. Though in time periods thousands of years, it’s different, but in was inferred it happens in human scale lifespans- or Chicken Little, stuff.
Of course ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are also very cold, and I don’t know how cold ice sheets on North America were. But just latent heat for melting is enormous.
But it seems Milankovitch was talking about direct sunlight warming and melting the ice sheet on Land. And there ideas about ice sheet getting dirty and this allowed sunlight to warm them more.
But it seems to me that rain can be very destructive to glacial and ponds of water on the glacial can absorb a lot energy.
So, rain, making ponds, and warm ocean could make a short work of it.
g,
You wrote –
“I would like find anyone who disagree with this”
I have just satisfied your request. I am pleased to have brought some joy into your life, but you dont need to thank me.
I dont suppose you want me to tell you why nothing at all “accumulates” heat, do you?
Cool, I will count you as one person.
And being precious, I won’t need any explanation.
After I get a few, then I could afford a reason
or two given.
Oh, forgot quotations- that is copied text from the link.
If I wrote it, there would of course would be mistyping and etc.
Well it rained again. Lots of rain and thunder/lightening.
Weird 7 weather forecast. Night going to be a cold 59 F [15 C]:
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=weather
swenson…”The IPCC stated that it was not possible to predict future climate states, due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere”.
***
It’s in the Third Assessment (TAR).
Then the IPCC went ahead and predicted future climate states using unvalidated climate models. At least, they did, till expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out the obvious to them: unvalidated model cannot predict.
Not to be fazed by reality, the IPCC simply changed ‘predict’ to ‘project’ and carried on with their lies.
Gordon,
The IPCC didn’t predict nor project any future climate states.
You obviously don’t understand what a climate state is.
Well gee, bob, why don’t you just go right ahead and explain to the assembled multitude precisely what a “climate state” is?
You can’t, can you?
Just like the GHE.
Are you finally conceding you have absolutely no idea what is a climate state, Mike?
Well gee. Willy, why don’t you tell me what you think it might be?
You can’t can you?
Oh, how we sniggered at Willy’s attempt at a gotcha!
Thank you for your concession, Mike.
In return:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
As usual, I can absolutely guarantee that witless Willard’s link doesn’t contain a definition of a “climate state”.
Pointless and irrelevant links from a pointless and irrelevant nitwit.
How can you know it’s pointless without looking into it, Mike?
You clown.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Oh dear – you link to WG1AR5, which of course doesn’t define a “climate state”, and then you ask why I say it’s pointless?
Quite apart from the fact that you’ve never given me the slightest reason to assume that anything you link to would be of any value to me whatsoever!
Carry on pretending that arguments and wishful thinking can change facts.
Of course you have not clicked on the link, Mike.
Ten years of trolling and you still have to RTFR.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swendon,
I can do that, if you pay me my regular fee!
You know, for a nominal service charge, you could reach nirvana tonight!
I could drop all the rest of my pressing affairs and devote my attention to you.
Look here brother.
bob,
You’ve been caught out asking stupid gotchas.
Don’t blame me – it was all your own doing.
Maybe you could revert to a bit of foul language to make you feel better.
What a moron you are!
Swenson,
There are only stupid gotchas because you are making false claims.
No false claims no stupid gotchas.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d…”The IPCC didnt predict nor project any future climate states.
You obviously dont understand what a climate state is”.
***
I predict that you’ll go on supplying red-herring arguments ad infinitum.
What do you think all this bs about climate change is based on? Governments are advised by the IPCC that climates are likely to change drastically by the end of this century unless CO2 emission are drastically reduced. If you go through their reviews they make predictions on everything from sea level rise to changes in flora and fauna.
And where do you think the IPCC gets these predictions? From unvalidated climate model papers submitted by alarmists for review. As Vincent Gray pointed out, unvalidated models cannot predict.
Modelers are a special breed of idiot. When John Christy of UAH approached a modeler with satellite data that proved his models wrong, the modeler replied he did not care, his model was right.
So Gordon,
What’s a climate state?
Your buttinski totally failed to address the point I was making.
“Modelers are a special breed of idiot. When John Christy of UAH approached a modeler with satellite data that proved his models wrong, the modeler replied he did not care, his model was right.”
Was that before or after Christy was told there were errors in his satellite data?
Youse Guys should look shit up on wiki before you make such glaring mistakes.
bob,
Oooooh! A gotcha!
You can’t say what a “climate state” is, can you?
What an idiot, resorting to profanity because you haven’t a clue how to define a “climate state”.
You are as silly as Willy, and that’s no mark of intellectual superiority, is it?
Swenson,
“You cant say what a climate state is, can you?”
Yes I can, but I am not the one who made the claim about the IPCC and there statement about making predictions or projections about climate states.
That was Gordon.
If you don’t know what a climate state is, it’s you that’s looking like a moron.
bob,
You can’t define a “climate state”. Nor can the IPCC, or anyone else.
I am happy to let others decide as to relative moronicity.
OK with you?
Swenson,
Yes I can, just because you assert that I can’t doesn’t make you correct.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Some past wisdom from Australia…climate change is a UN-led ruse.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/australia-pm-advisor-says-climate-change-a-un-led-ruse.html/
sorry, wrong link….
https://web.archive.org/web/20150717012830/https://climatechangedispatch.com/australia-pm-advisor-says-climate-change-a-un-led-ruse.html/
Eppur si riscalda.
EM,
No the Earth. It seems to have cooled substantially over the last four and a half billion years or so – atmosphere, CO2 and H2O notwithstanding.
Why do you think this is?
Everybody knows about entropy, Mike.
It has no bearing on AGW.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
D’ug Cott’n September 10, 2022 at 8:03 PM
“… I may not write here for a while as I am about to write letters to hundreds of Australian companies (starting with the top 50 tomorrow) in regard to this action.”
Followed by:
D’ug Cott’n September 11, 2022 at 6:10 AM
D’ug Cott’n September 11, 2022 at 6:01 AM
And:
D’uglas Cott’n September 12, 2022 at 2:06 AM
D’uglas Cott’n September 12, 2022 at 2:08 AM
D’uglas Cott’n September 12, 2022 at 2:13 AM
D’uglas Cott’n September 12, 2022 at 2:37 AM
D’uglas Cott’n September 12, 2022 at 2:43 AM
D’uglas Cott’n September 12, 2022 at 2:56 AM
D’uglas Cott’n September 12, 2022 at 3:07 AM
Short letters huh?
D’uglas Cott’n at 3:07 AM
“In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, within a system or between systems. In a system that is in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, no macroscopic change occurs.
Yep! That’s the Second Law operating, increasing entropy and getting rid of unbalanced energy potentials so that macroscopic changes reduce and cease altogether at maximum entropy (ie thermodynamic equilibrium.)”
This is very confused thinking.
What is this maximum entropy you speak of? Are you saying that the earth is a closed system? Are you saying that the earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium or not?
The facts are:
1) The earth imports low entropy from the sun represented as net shortwave flux density divided by the sun’s emission temperature (~6000K), and exports high entropy as the net longwave flux density at the top of the atmosphere divided by the emission temperature (~255K).
2) Thus the earth produces (and has for billions of years) significant amounts of entropy due to diabatic processes of radiative flux, phase changes of water, sensible heat flux, and dissipation of kinetic energy.
3) Additionally, life enhances those purely physical diabatic processes.
4) A picture [sometimes] is worth a thousand words: https://ibb.co/ZYC84kY
I may not write here for a while as it is football season in America. Or I may not.
TM,
“I may not write here for a while [ . . . ] or I may not.”
Do all SkyDragons share your superlative command of English?
I may not reply to troll SwenSOB for a while. Or I may not not reply to troll SwenSOB for a while.
Meanwhile, a public service announcement from Fort Worth’s favorite native son… https://youtu.be/38x9mx3kzSE
Tyson, please stop trolling.
maguff…your concept of entropy is off-base. Entropy is nothing more than a measure of heat transfer.
As defined by Clausius, who invented the concept, entropy is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat leaving or entering a body. Entropy is a sum, an integral, and it does not exist as a physical phenomenon.
Clausius explained that he wanted to call it energy (presumably thermal energy) but that word was in use. So, he used the Greek word for entropy which means ‘tranformation’.
Clausius talked a lot about the transformation of heat to work and vice-versa. In that context, he would be following the transformation in infinitesimal quantities, and the sum of those heat quantities is entropy.
If you look around the Net you will find abysmally incorrect definitions of entropy. One of the most egregious is that entropy is a measure of disorder. If you read Clausius, he explains it differently. He pointed out that during irreversible processes, disorder is a result. That is far different than claiming entropy is a measure of disorder.
That’s a no-brainer, however, the disorder has to involve heat transfer. Disorder that does not involve heat transfer has no relation to entropy for the simply reason that the units used for entropy are joules/degree K.
Furthermore, entropy is defined as zero for a reversible process. In a reversible process, heat released at one stage of a reversible cycle is recovered in another stage. For an irreversible process, entropy is positive. That confirms the 2nd law because entropy can never be negative as would be the case if heat could be transferred cold to hot.
Entropy is about heat transfer. WRT the Sun, there is no heat transfer when solar heat is converted to EM. Heat is lost during the conversion.
Gordon Robertson at 7:43 PM
“WRT the Sun, there is no heat transfer when solar heat is converted to EM. Heat is lost during the conversion.”
So you don’t believe in the law of conservation of energy then? Duly noted.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Since our brigade of Dragon Cranks have renewed their interest for experiments:
https://physics-archive.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Web_Article_Yu.pdf
Quite a punchline!
One of the shortest and most concise S-B reviews I’ve read since years.
Yep. And Stefan-Boltzmann calculations ONLY EVER apply for a SINGLE SOURCE and NOT, as pathetic climatologists (rarely qualified in physics) assume for the sum of solar and atmospheric radiation from IR-active molecules such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.
As in my 2013 paper, such molecules tend to even out the temperature differences such as between clouds at different altitudes (just as in the paper you linked, the temperature of coffee and the table tend to even out due to radiation) and so these molecules tend to reduce the magnitude of the tropospheric temperature gradient which gravity tends to form (and repair) because such a gradient is indeed the state of maximum entropy which we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.
You could have read about this over nine years ago in my 2013 paper explaining how “heat creep” provides the necessary thermal energy. Heat creep provides the thermal energy which back radiation doesn’t.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy tending towards a maximum as unbalanced energy potentials tend to dissipate. At maximum entropy the sum of mean molecular gravitational potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE) is constant over altitude because there are no unbalanced energy potentials and thus nothing happening on a macro scale. Since only the KE affects temperature, and since PE varies with altitude then there has to be a non-zero temperature gradient which forms at the molecular level and has nothing to do with rising parcels of air or any lapsing process.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
Cosmic rays cause climate change, not carbon dioxide. Nearly 6,000 have viewed this Abstract. How about you?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148
Dug,
TL;DR, also:
http://tinyurl.com/banned-by-Roy
Stefan-Boltzmann calculations ONLY EVER apply for a SINGLE SOURCE, emitting radiation based on the SURFACE’S TEMPERATURE. And NOT, as people imply, based on INCOMING radiation (whether from 1 source or 2 sources or 1000 sources).
Now, those various sources are part of the overall energy balance, and therefore do play a role in establishing the surface temperature, but that is NOT a “Stefan-Boltzmann calculation”. The only calculation is “The surface has a temperature T and an emissivity, e, and emits a flux P/A = (e)(sigma)T^4”.
So do please provide details as to how climatology’s brilliant (/sarc) computer models actually quantify surface temperatures. The CSIRO in Australia can’t.
Willard,
I see you are staggered. Experimental confirmation that the Stefan Boltzmann Law remains intact! Fact remains superior to fantasy!
What a relief!
Now, if you can just find experimental confirmation of the GHE( which no-one can even describe), that would really be something.
In the meantime, maybe you could try to appear intelligent by telling everyone that other physical laws have, in fact, been confirmed by experiment. How about Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation? Maybe one of Newtons Laws of Motion?
There are more to choose from, out there.
You are probably a bit late to the party, though. Real scientist have already conducted reproducible experiments to see whether initial speculations are correct, in many fields
Unlike climate scientists, political scientists or social scientists who assure us that fantasies and wishful thinking are superior to facts.
Or delusional SkyDragons in general, who refuse to believe that the Earth has actually cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
I suppose you are stupid enough to believe that an atmosphere containing GHGs really should have mad the Earth hotter! How nutty is that?
Glad you are in violent agreement, Gordo.
Graham, Pup, and other Sky Dragon Cranks dispute it.
What will you do about it?
Love.
I do not dispute the SB Law.
Weird Wee Willy,
SkyDragons are GHE true believers.
They simply refuse to believe the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Maybe you should use your puny knowledge of the SB law to compute the temperature of the original molten surface of the Earth!
A typical,SkyDragon would claim that they would calculate the temperature of molten rock to be 255 K! They use the same defective application of the SB law to calculate exactly the same 255 K for the Earth’s present temperature.
You idiot – the fixed radiation (as from the Sun), to which an object is subjected may result in a rise in temperature, a fall in temperature, or no change at all!
You really have no idea, have you?
Mike,
You are a crank. Few in this world are as crank as you. Like a Dragon.
You pretend not to believe in the greenhouse theory. Sky Dragon.
(While admitting it sotto voce.)
That makes a Sky Dragon Crank.
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse theory, dummy.
Try looking it up. Gee, nothing at all, is there?
Maybe you should try pretending you know what you are talking about – some idiot SkyDragon believer in the non-existent warming power of the atmosphere might believe you, but of course you don’t get any advantage from other idiots being as stupid as you.
Carry on being a dimwit – it suits you.
Keep denying, Mike.
One day you might be right!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
dullard…”It also confirms that the tungsten filament can be considered as an approximate idealized black body”.
***
Duh!!! Since S-B is based on the experiment by Tyndall, in which he electrically heated a platinum filament till it glowed, is it not obvious a heated tungsten filament would glow with a wide bandwidth of EM?
A blackbody is a hypothetical heated body that emits a broadband of EM frequencies. Why do we need that ancient theory when we have the actual, physical tungsten filament?
All blackbody theory has accomplished is misleading people into sci-fi pseudo-realities that do not exist. It was developed by Kircheoff, circa 1850, and was intended only for bodies in thermal equilibrium. What possible good does that do in modern science, after the development of atomic theory and quantum physics.
Scrap it.
Come on, Gordo.
That is just ranting. Try arguments.
Dimwit,
Arguments are not facts, and won’t change them.
Arguments are the refuge of GHE true believers, who believe in science by vote!
What a pack of fools!
Mike,
Nobody died and made you King of Facts.
Facts do not stand alone. There is an infinity of them. Most of them are irrelevant.
Try arguments. It would do you good. Otherwise Bob had a point about the bongos.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Facts are facts. Arguments don’t change them.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding an atmosphere loaded with CO2 and H2O.
Don’t blame me if the facts are ignoring your attempts to make them go away.
What an idiot you are!
Mike, Mike
Arguments often involve facts.
Without arguments, we can’t reason.
Them’s the facts.
Deal with it.
Facts are facts, you nitwit.
Arguments cannot change them.
Try and argue away the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, if you like – atmosphere, CO2 and H2O notwithstanding.
Let me know about your reasoning.
Dimwit.
” the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so”
Which raises various questions.
What was the core temperature 4.5 billion years ago?
What is it now?
Why is the core temperature cooling more slowly than the rate of geological heat flow would suggest?
Why is the current surface temperature ten degrees warmer than it was 700 million years ago?
Another question being raised –
When will Mike Flynn realize that his silly factoid is of no relevance whatsoever?
EM,
A few pathetic gotcha attempts, but no matter.
Others might actually be interested.
Earth’s core – probably about 5700 K. Sources vary.
Present temperature – about the same. Sources vary.
It isn’t. Look it up.
You’re obviously confused. Thermometers mounted some distance above about 30% of the surface or less, are responding to the additional heat created by more than seven billion humans producing as much heat as they can, in order to enjoy the best life they can.
You may believe that thermometers do not respond to radiation impinging upon them, if you wish.
You might even be silly enough to believe that the Earth’s surface has not cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of possessing an atmosphere containing CO2 and H2O in greater quantities than presently.
Maybe you could provide answers to your pointless gotchas, and demonstrate your knowledge to any observers wanting to learn something?
No? No facts to support you? Just models, and assertions by self appointed “climate scientists”?
Carry on.
Everybody knows about entropy, Mike.
It has no relevance whatsoever with AGW.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The polar vortex is just forming. You can see that the top of the stratosphere is cold, so the vortex should be strong and quite circular in the upper stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png
However, below the 10 hPa level, strong pressure anomalies can be seen, so one must be cautious in predicting the polar vortex. Therefore, in autumn, cold air from the north will fall in waves to the south.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2022.png
New Shepard had a in flight abort:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2022/09/12/blue-origin-23/
Dr Roy Spencer!
Dr Roy Spencer!
Dr Roy Spencer!
Dr Roy Spencer!
Dr Roy Spencer!
Dr Roy Spencer!
Dr Roy Spencer!
Dr Roy Spencer!
You REALLY need to study what I have said at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148
Dug,
You wrote (for some bizarre reason) –
“You REALLY need to study what I have said . . .”
Why is that? What will you do if he cant be bothered?
Maybe you could threaten to poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle! Do you think that prospect might convince Dr Roy Spencer to drop everything and read a paper which contains breathtaking new physics like ” . . .heat transfers by non-radiative molecular collision processes . . “? (That was sarcasm, in case you didnt realise it.)
I wouldnt, myself.
But carry on, it doesnt hurt anybody to think nobody recognises your brilliance. Nobody else cares.
your an idiot cotmouth, no one wants to read your trash.
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Show-Article.php?articleID=180#
Parker Solar Probe Speeds Through Close Encounter with Highly Active Sun
Posted on 09/07/2022 11:57:32
with a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHZ_NvXSVsI&t=36s
dullard…”In the eternal words of Yogi Berra chaos is when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future”.
***
Anyone familiar with the quips of Yogi knows he never talked like that. This was Yogi…
“Baseball is 90 per cent mental. The other half is physical.”
“You give 100 per cent in the first half of the game, and if that isn’t enough in the second half you give what’s left.”
“Pair up in threes.”
Come on, Gordo.
Have you ever seen a game between the Boston Bruins and the Brooklyn Dodgers?
It was a Poe. Like you do, but ironically.
Think.
C’mon Willard,
You’ve been caught out being a drongo.
Try another irrelevant diversion, or try to compose a well thought-out gotcha.
Or just keep being a source of innocent merriment, if you prefer.
Mike Flynn, you clown.
Willard,
Every opinion you have ever opined, plus five dollars, might suffice to purchase a cup of coffee.
I prefer tea, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Like Swenson pointed out, you’ve been caught with your pants down re Yogi Berra. I am sure you’re the type who has no problem dropping his pants in public.
Come on, Gordo.
You yourself said that it did not look like a Yogi Berra quote, and you will never guess where the quote comes from. It comes from the Wiki entry Mike Flynn claimed to have read.
If only you were half as bright as you think you are, that would be an exponential improvement.
Think.
Willard, you dimwit.
The quote came from Edward Lorenz, no matter how “sure” you are that it didn’t.
You have been caught with your pants down, and you seem to be doing your best to bend over, now that they’re down!
What’s up Willard? Getting a bit desperate for attention?
The quote comes from the wiki page on chaos theory.
Yogi Berra did not play for the Brooklyn Dodgers, but for the New York Yankees, the most prestigious team in the Major League of Baseball.
The Boston Bruins are a hockey team.
Since you do not click on links, everything this went above your head.
How you are still playing dumb is quite delightful.
Please continue.
Willard you idiot,
The quote came from Edward Lorenz.
Wikipedia correctly ascribes this quote to him.
Drop your pants, and bend over for your spanking!
Why should I care about Yogi Berra, baseball or hockey, in relation to a quote about chaos from Edward Lorenz?
Are you quite mad? (You don’t have to answer, of course.)
Mike, Mike,
Thy Wiki does not mention where Ed wrote that aphorism, does it?
If you have not checked back if he indeed did, does it mean you now trust thy Wiki out of a sudden?
More importantly, does it mean you had to check if Yogi Berra said it?
Really?
So I made you look?
You silly goose.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
BoM confirms triple dip la Nina is official.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-13/bom-declares-third-la-nina-summer-weather-flood-risk/101424100
“But for many parts of central and south central eastern Australia, we are actually looking at cooler days than normal over a pretty broad area, which corresponds to expectation of having more cloud and wetter soils.”
But the country’s extreme north and south are still expecting above-average daytime temperatures this spring.
https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/837c15aa07c9362e99be7a49318dac01?src
BOM starts out semi-admitting their forecasts were pathetic: “After months of speculation it is finally Bureau of Meteorology official: we are in the third La Niña in row.”
BOM appears to be dominated by AGW-indoctrinated forecasters. I bet they will be among the first to forecast the next El Niño….
Unfortunately, they have no idea.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202209.gif
As far as I’m aware BoM may be first of the monitoring groups to officially call a triple dip la Nina.
Remember who was the first to call for the third year La Nina and when
Ren. In 2019. With the rope.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I wonder if Bindiclown is still hoping ,
I think you finally pricked his bubble now
his trusty BoM failed him again
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1294434
As we can see: babbling Edog can’t stop stalking…
Weiter so, Dummkopf.
This is not just the third year in a row of La Nina, it is the the third year of La Nina that Bindidong clown could not see coming and argued against,
the most epic forecasting failure ever.
When exactly do we start laughing ???
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1140553
https://youtu.be/mbDUuntPia8
Why don’t you ask me again , where is our superdeveloping La Nina
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709017
As we can see again: babbling Edog cant stop stalking… and he will never do.
Weiter so, Dummkopf.
barry…”BoM confirms triple dip la Nina is official”.
***
BOM is the NOAA-like fudgers of Australia. They have to be hit over the head with a dead kangaroo before they will open their eyes to reality. Being at one end of the ENSO effect, Australia should have been first to recognize thecurrent La Nina 3 year existence.
Heck, even NOAA admits LN produces excessive rain in the Paific NW of North America and droughts in the southern US. At the moment, it’s producing a mini-drought in the Pacific NW. We’ve had no rain for over a month. I imagine LN is saving it for November, when it will unleash flooding-type precip.
5 days prior to their announcement NOAA was still talking about the trip dip as a probability.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/september-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-it%E2%80%99s-q-time
So BoM aren’t slower than any other group to call the trip dip officially. Your reflex BoM bashing is as mindless as usual.
A good sign that BOM is really bad at forecasting and way behind the others is just the fact that Bin&barry pick it as their favorite
Far as I’ve been able to find out BoM were first to officially call a trip dip la Nina.
I have no favourite ENSO monitoring group. When I do general updates here I cite 3 of them.
Lunar mining, Moon land claims, and avoiding conflict and damage to spacecraft
“At least six countries and a flurry of private companies have publicly announced more than 250 missions to the Moon to occur within the next decade. Many of these missions include plans for permanent lunar bases and are motivated in large part by ambitions to assess and begin utilizing the Moons natural resources.”
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4446/1
Are they actually going to be 250 missions to Moon in 10 years?
Well say only 1/3rd do what they say going do by a time period close
the time period planned. Maybe even less. But within say 5 years more could added to happen within 5 years. So maybe get 125 within 10 years or average of 12.5 per year. That’s a crazy amount.
And we don’t even know if the Moon actually has mineable water.
What happens if it doesn’t?
I mean there could be more water then we think there could be, but also goes the other way.
I think it could be quite strange and beautiful going to this unexplored place. I don’t think it will look like Apollo, at all.
And good chance we will find stuff, we do not expect.
So it might exciting, but seems like a lot of traffic, and it’s not a really big area.
I guess it will mean that North polar region will also be explored, and wanted that to happen- at least a few missions, there.
Anyhow, it seems NASA should hurry up. It’s two planned before end of year, it should make sure, they actually do it, when say they going to it.
Snowstorms in the Alps on September 17.
Snowfall Returns to the Bighorns and Natrona County
What/When: Snow will begin this evening, and continue through Thursday morning.
Amounts / Intensity: The Bighorn Mountains are favored to receive 4 to 8 inches of snowfall through Thursday morning. The lower elevations of Natrona county may expect 2 to 5 inches of snowfall, with higher accumulations on the south side of the city. Casper Mountain is expected to receive 5 to 9 inches of snowfall through Thursday morning.
850 hPa ~1,500 m
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/09/17/1100Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=11.85,54.98,1786
“Snowfall Returns to the Bighorns and Natrona County”
https://i.ibb.co/yVrqxSC/306325603-453200486847515-2295353459725935834-n.jpg
Source?
Oh I found the place you probably mean:
Zugspitze (2962 m)
https://i.postimg.cc/PJvC6B0b/Screenshot-2022-09-13-at-20-27-18-Wetter-Zugspitze-aktuelle-Wettervorhersage-von-Wetter-Online.png
Yeah. That’s usual weather at this 3000 m altitude when cold air is aspired between southern high and northern low pressure areas and moves southwards.
And this situation is also the origin of a cooling from Germany till Spain during the incoming 6-7 days.
*
Here is what has to be understood under ‘Alps’: the mountain region located mainly in Austria:
https://i.postimg.cc/MTHHHvbK/Screenshot-2022-09-13-at-20-38-51-Wetter-Alpen-aktuelle-Wettervorhersage-von-Wetter-Online.png
Snowstorms, huh? Only in your head, ren.
And what should I respond to such a text?
https://i.ibb.co/tYqPPvs/gfs-mslp-pcpn-frzn-eu-15.png
As usual, some graphics you yourself can’t explain the relation to what you claimed above.
I explain. A very wet Genoese low will bring heavy snowfall to the Alps.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/09/17/0400Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-349.30,44.38,4500
CAPE Convective Available Potential Energy from Surface
indicates the buoyancy of air, a measure of atmospheric instability and predictor of severe weather
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/09/16/2000Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=cape/orthographic=-349.23,44.88,3572
I repeat:
https://i.postimg.cc/MTHHHvbK/Screenshot-2022-09-13-at-20-38-51-Wetter-Alpen-aktuelle-Wettervorhersage-von-Wetter-Online.png
is not the same as
https://i.postimg.cc/PJvC6B0b/Screenshot-2022-09-13-at-20-27-18-Wetter-Zugspitze-aktuelle-Wettervorhersage-von-Wetter-Online.png
Snowfall forecast Switzerland
https://www.bergfex.pl/schweiz/wetter/schneevorhersage/
You perfectly confirm what I mean: your “blizzards” always move down to small 1-5 cm snowfall as soon as someone forces you to speak plainly.
You are the perfect Cooling alarmist: that’s the reason why Robertson loves you.
whiney biny…”You are the perfect Cooling alarmist: thats the reason why Robertson loves you”.
***
Nope. I like Ren’s posts because he presents them scientifically, as opposed to your blatantly forged, unscientific contributions.
Have you always had a personality disorder??? It seems you are an immigrant to Germany. Are you perhaps over-compensating, hoping the Germans will like you better if you are belligerent and irrational?
ren…”And what should I respond to such a text?”
***
Ren…I would not even bother responding to the idiot. I don’t respond to him, my responses are to those who might read Binny’s nonsense and get the wrong impression, that he understands what he is talking about.
Come on, Gordo.
Do you really think people are responding to you so you could change your mind and stop repeating the same silly talking points refuted a thousand times?
Think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
On this day in 1922 the temperature at Al Azizia, Libya reached a world record 57.7°C, 135.9°F.
But the WMO wiped it off the record books because it didn’t fit the agenda.
On 13 September 2012 the World Meteorological Organisation disqualified the record for the highest recorded temperature, exactly 90 years after it had been established at El Azizia, Libya, with a measurement of 58Celsius. The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7C (134F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature/
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……….
If that were true you wouldn’t be trolling here, now would you?
It’s called data fudging and the WMO are a minor player. The major players are NOAA, NASA GISS, and Had-crut. Of course, the IPCC uses papers based on the data fudging in their reviews and politicians spread the lies to the public.
It’s a good thing we have UAH to expose these frauds by supplying real data from real instruments. NOAA has the same sat of data as UAH since the sats are owned by NOAA. However, they ignore that data and go with surface data that can be easily fudged. The IPCC ignores sat data as well.
” However, they ignore that data and go with surface data that can be easily fudged. ”
Again: Typical pseudoskeptic paranoia.
As usual, Robertson simply doesn’t have a bit of a clue of what he writes.
NOAA has very well sat data, Robertson:
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/
From there you can access, using e.g. FileZilla, all data you need, e.g. TMT:
ftp://ftp.star.nesdis.noaa.gov:21/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v3.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Global_Mean_Anomaly_Time_Series/NESDIS-STAR_TCDR_TMT_Merged_MSU2_AMSUA5_Monthly_S197811-E202208_V3.0_Regional_Means_Anomaly.txt
Unlike UAH, NOAA has no TLT data.
But… their TMT data is nearly identical to UAH’s TLT, and the trend for UAH’s TMT data is a lot lower than that for NOAA’s TMT, due to the fact that UAH is, at series’ begin, one more time a lot warmer than all others:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M0NtcZ2NGkBM6MBQkpH1zJABGpClR1D_/view
How strange!
But Robertson will, as usual, claim that NOAA’s sat data is the fudged one because it looks like RSS’.
I doubt Robertson would ever manage to properly access ftp data these days.
Thus here is the data (which however, when a comparison is wished, has to be reconstructed wrt the mean of UAH’s reference period):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cHysB_rGPBwXhkMzismUQrUkTF7T6_y3/view
Take a look here at the NOAA global land and ocean bar graph and tell me ho there is a relationship between it and UAH data.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series
For one, NOAA’s graph takes off on a distance linear trend from 1980 onward. The UAH graph is in a negative anomaly phase till 1997 then it is flat from 1998 – 2015.
The NOAA graph shows 8 years of global temps above 0.8C, including 2022, from 2015 – 2022, while UAH shows nothing close to that. UAH maxed out at 0.7C in 2016 and one year was 0.6C, the rest were 0.5C or below and recently, more typically around 0.3C.
NOAA show no recent cooling at all. NAA is clearly fudged to show a steadily warming planet, which is a major lie.
that should be a distinct linear trend.
later NAA is obviously NOAA.
What is really strange is your mind, Binny. You present NOAA data and claim, “There…it’s from NOAA, therefore it must be accurate”.
I have posted link after link demonstrating how NOAA fudges its data, along with its accomplice at GISS. One of the most egregious fudges was their claim that 2014 was the warmest year ever. They hid the fact their claim was based on a 48% probability while GISS outdid them using a 38% probability.
UAH data, derived from NOAA sat data, shows 2014 as being nowhere near a record year. It’s extremes were below the 0.1C anomaly.
” But the WMO wiped it off the record books because it didnt fit the agenda. ”
Typical pseudoskeptic paranoia.
Bin, your paranoia is getting worse the more you deny reality.
Pretty soon you won’t be able to sleep at night because the ball-on-a-string is going to strangle you.
Boo!
Binny,
The Australian BOM refuses to recognise official temperatures prior to 1910. This is one of their later excuses –
“Pre-1910 records are not included in ACORN-SAT because they are insufficient in their continental coverage.” Aust BOM website.
A slightly earlier excuse –
“Temperature measurement from before approximately 1910 used a wide variety of non-standard configurations and are therefore not directly comparable to modern measurements.” Aust BOM website.
From an official Australian Parliamentary record (Hansard) “I have recent correspondence with the BOM where they state, when questioned about temperatures in Australia, that the temperature data prior to 1910 was unreliable.” – Member for Tangney, 2014
Maybe the BOM was confused about why temperatures before 1910 should be discarded.
At the very least, they get rid of the very inconvenient extreme temperatures of 1895-1896. Official heat related death toll around 430.
Maybe “pseudoskeptic paranoia” is justified? Even the BOM doesn’t seem to know why it does not use official temperatures prior to 1910.
Of course, the IPPC and “climate scientists” use these prior to 1910 when it suits their purpose. Who do you believe? Why?
Flynnson
I’m fully aware of that, and I never agreed to BoM’s choice.
But unlike some others, I know where to find their raw data… going far before 1910.
yes..but all your data is the product of fudging by NOAA and GISS.
Binny,
Their early data is still available, however the BOM has decided it’s worthless.
You don’t agree, and consider it’s useful.
The only things neither choice has changed are the facts – the physical evidence of the records. Somebody wrote a figure down. An essentially meaningless figure, as all temperature records are. Recording, hopefully, the temperature of the thermometer, in arbitrary units on an arbitrary scale. Useful? To whom?
A historical curiosity, just like records of cloud cover, or sunshine hours.
Raw data – so raw, indeed, that the BOM cooks it, then later re-cooks it, until it has the texture and flavour it wants.
After having discarded data it considers noisome, of course. Obviously pre 1910 data plays no part in the BOM data cooking recipe.
” Raw data so raw, indeed, that the BOM cooks it, then later re-cooks it, until it has the texture and flavour it wants.
After having discarded data it considers noisome, of course. ”
Some valuable proof, Flynnson?
Or is it one more time a spoonful of your usual polemic blah blah, fed by e.g. journalist JoNova or biologist Dr Marohasy?
*
” Obviously pre 1910 data plays no part in the BOM data cooking recipe. ”
This bloody ‘pre 1910’ polemic is of the same vein as what others write about e.g. global data prior to 1860.
Why is it discarded?
Simply because there aren’t enough stations active before then, and which above all are all located in a few corners and hence aren’t representative enough for the Globe as a whole.
You yourself would probably be the very first one to laugh about a global surface time series starting in 1800 with, for the period 1800-1860, worldwide no more than 22 weather stations (11 in Europe, 5 in America, 3 in Australia, 2 in Asia, 1 in Africa).
” yes.. but all your data is the product of fudging by NOAA and GISS. ”
Typical for Robertson: mix of lie, nonsense and… hatred.
As if GISS and NOAA would have anything to do with BoM’s raw data!
Plus bête tu meurs – Dumber you die.
Both reasons are true.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.3530
Berkeley Earth have Australian data back to 1876.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/Australia
The 1878 spike coincides with the super el Nino of that year.
In 1908 the BoM was created and that shortly brought a common national standard for temperature measurements. It’s also true that data was sparser prior to 1910, with Tasmania and Western Australia being particularly data sparse until that time. From 1910 onwards there is enough data coverage and uniformity in data collection methods to produce a national temperature record.
You can see that the uncertainty in the Berkeley Earth record gets wider prior to 1910. In 1894 that uncertainty reaches 1C. That is purely from the sparseness of weather stations.
2013 version of ACORN SAT, version 1.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.3530
maguff….”[GR]WRT the Sun, there is no heat transfer when solar heat is converted to EM. Heat is lost during the conversion.
So you dont believe in the law of conservation of energy then? Duly noted”.
***
I do question the generalization of the conservation of energy as if every amount of energy that disappears has to be accounted for by another energy to replace it.
My post had nothing to do with conservation of energy per se, it’s about the fact that heat does not flow through space as radiation. Obviously, the heat lost at the Sun’s surface is conserved as EM but that EM has no heat properties. EM is simply an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field.
The first law of thermodynamics is generally used to represent conservation of energy and that is a gross generalization. The 1st law applies only to heat and work, and to no other forms of energy, therefore it can’t be generalized as a general law of conservation of energy.
So, what does conservation of energy mean? I have never seen an exact definition for it, it’s one of those cliches presented as fact with no fact accompanying it.
For example, if I set up a transmission tower to generate EM, and the EM propagates isotropically around the tower’s antenna, the EM intensity will dissipate with the square of the distance from the antenna.
If nothing absorbs large portions of the EM it should travel indefinitely through space. At which point can be declare the EM signal so weak as to claim the EM no longer exists? In other words, the EM is conserved only within a limited distance from a source.
Stars are another matter. They represent powerful generation of EM that can obviously survive great distances. What’s to say there are not stars at double the distance whose EM peters out before we can detect them at Earth?
Now consider heat. A parcel of air at the surface is heated via conduction and it begins to rise. Heat in the parcel is defined by the kinetic energy of the molecules in the parcel. The KE of the molecules is dependent on the air pressure, so as the parcel rises, air pressure diminishes allowing the molecules to separate, and the KE of the parcel diminishes.
The heat in the parcel is not being converted to another form of energy, it simply dissipates as it rises. In other words, the parcel cools naturally as it moves into ever-decreasing air pressure.
Before we accept theories such as the conservation of energy carte blanche, we should first try to understand each form of energy and what it means. Using the word ‘energy’ without specifying the type of energy is ingenuous. Each form of energy has vastly different properties, and whereas some are related, like heat and work, others are not.
“Before we accept theories such as the conservation of energy carte blanche, we should first try to understand each form of energy and what it means.”
Scientists have been working to ‘understand each form of energy’ for centuries. No one accepts conservation of energy ‘carte blanche’. It is accepted because conservation of energy has strong theoretical underpinnings and strong experimental confirmation.
If you want to study what is known and look for errors or inconsistencies, I wish you luck. If you want to simply throw out an unsupported hypothesis like “conservation of energy is wrong” — well, you could be right, but with no evidence, don’t expect massive support!
Did not claim conservation of energy theory is wrong I claimed it is highly generalized. In my post I acknowledged that energy at the Sun’s surface is conserved as it is converted from thermal to electromagnetic energy.
My point was that once thermal energy is converted to EM, it no longer exists as thermal energy. EM travels through space, heat does not. Maguff challenged me on that, claiming I did not accept conservation of energy, which is a red-herring argument.
However, I supplied examples of how energy can dissipate and not be conserved and I received no replies to those claims.
If a gas is compressed by a piston, work is converted to heat in the gas. If the gas is then allowed to expand by its own means, it will do work on the piston.
If solar EM heats the surface and it heats air, there is no work down in the process. When the air rises into lower pressure areas, there may be work down but it has nothing to do with the fact that the air molecules are expanding and the air is cooling naturally.
In that case, heat is not being conserved through conversion to another form of energy. It’s akin to compressing air in a cylinder with a piston then releasing a valve that will very slowly allow the pressure in the cylinder to dissipate. No work is done but the heated, compressed air will lose heat naturally.
“Before we accept theories such as the conservation of energy carte blanche, we should first try to understand each form of energy and what it means.”
Scientists have been working to ‘understand each form of energy’ for centuries. No one accepts conservation of energy ‘carte blanche’. It is accepted because conservation of energy has strong theoretical underpinnings and strong experimental confirmation.
If you want to study what is known and look for errors or inconsistencies, I wish you luck. If you want to simply throw out an unsupported hypothesis like “conservation of energy is wrong” — well, you could be right, but with no evidence, don’t expect massive support!
Tim,
I have a somewhat different view. I agree with Einstein and others, that e=mc2. Nothing else. Nobody has yet managed to either create or destroy energy.
I believe I can support my views with facts, but feel free to fire your fusillade of gotchas.
I”ll step out of their path, if they are too silly. Facts are facts, and they seem to be on my side.
Consensus or no.
swenson…”I agree with Einstein and others, that e=mc2″.
***
Einstein had a notion that mass could be converted to energy and vice-versa. He actually claimed that EM absorbed by a mass increases its mass. He made a lot of these statement before quantum theory was clearly understood.
E = mc^2, as applied to a nuclear explosion, does not imply mass is being converted to energy, The tremendous energy released is the nuclear binding energy between atoms. In a nuclear bomb, all that energy is contained in a few kilograms of mass (about 64 kg in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki explosions). All of the atoms in the mass survive the explosion and the damage is done largely by heat and light released.
There’s also the explosive force, which is actually a shock-wave generated by the 65 kilograms of uranium or plutonium breaking apart. That shock-wave has to be due to air molecules being compressed to the point they can damage buildings, etc.
People have survived such a shock-wave, and the EM/heat components, by being protected by a retaining wall or the likes. Of course, it depends on how far you are from the explosion centre. At Nagasaki, POW’s in a concentration camp survived if they were standing behind something. Others in the open died instantly, mainly from the EM wave.
It has never made sense to me that E is so perfectly related to m by the speed of light squared. E. had a fetish for c^2.
Gordon,
As far as I know, about 700 mg of matter became photons (no rest mass at all) when the Hiroshima atomic bomb exploded. This matter conversion takes about a microsecond, creating a fair old bang.
All a bit weird and counter-intuitive, but well supported by experiment. Doesn’t make much practical difference to most of us, I suppose.
All of the atoms in the mass survive the explosion
No. Some of the uranium atoms split, becoming two different atoms (and several neutrons).
Most of the energy released when a nuclear bomb explodes is in the kinetic energy of the fission fragments.
Same as in a nuclear reactor.
A fission nuclear bomb is energy is mostly the neutrons but bomb also
include material which absorb neutrons which convert to heat.
Air and water also absorb neutrons.
A Nuclear Orion Spacecraft uses small fission bombs and works better
in atmosphere [where you don’t want to use it]. It works ok in space, but it seemed hard to get it going to even low fractions of speed of light.
tim…to clarify my position, I have no interest in being ornery or in challenging established science out of a desire to be obstinate. There is very little of mainstream science I do challenge.
I do not challenge the 1st law of thermodynamics, I am perfectly happy with it as it stands. It expresses a relationship between heat and work, not any other forms of energy. Calling it the Law of Conservation of energy is wrong to me. It is one example only of conservation.
Another thing I often challenge is entropy. Before reading Clausius, I had no idea what was meant by the word. When I read his succinct definition, it made immediate sense. He defined it as a sum of infinitesimal heat transfers at a temperature, T. When written, it is S = integral (dq/T).
Since T is constant, we can move it outside the integral sign as S = 1/T.integral(dq). That makes it totally apparent that entropy is a sum of infinitesimal (differential) quantities of heat.
Clausius mentioned at the time that irreversible processes lead to disorder and that seems to have been interpreted incorrectly that entropy is a measure of disorder. Not so, entropy = S is still = integral (dq/T). If heat is released during the irreversible process, one might be able to categorize the relative extent of the disorder through entropy but it is still a measure of heat.
If I recall correctly, that is done with exothermic reactions. Heat is released to the surroundings and the entropy of the surroundings increases. That’s another way of saying heat increases in the surroundings thus the temperature rises. The degree to which heat is released can be measured by entropy.
Furthermore, the T has to be constant. Clausius got around that by suggesting the heat be taken from a heat bath which maintains its temperature as heat is removed.
I don’t think I am being unreasonable by dabbling in such questions. Of course, if you want to regard me as a trouble-maker, that is your option.
“Since T is constant …”
Actually, temperature is rarely constant! Put a hot block of metal into cold water. The block continuously changes temperature (getting cooler), as does the water (continuously getting warmer). Most thermodynamic interactions involve changing temperatures. Usually T can NOT be pulled out of the integral.
Entropy is NOT “a sum of infinitesimal (differential) quantities of heat.”
Try a simple calculation. Suppose it is 1 kg of copper @ 360 K placed into 3 kg of water at 280 K. What is the change in entropy of the copper, the water, and the universe? (Assume the water and copper are in a perfectly insulated container).
Tim,
Nice to see you stating that an object 360 K will cool when surrounded by an environment of 280 K.
Even if you place it all in bright sunlight being emitted by a body with a temperature of about 5700 K.
Rather like the Earth, surrounded by a cooler atmosphere, illuminated on one side by the Sun.
No need to be concerned about entropy, but feel to tell me whether entropy increases, decreases, or remains the same. Assume the universe is surrounded by a effect insulator, if you wish.
Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing, and the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, so your pointless and irrelevant gotchas achieve nothing.
Try for better gotchas next time.
“Even if you place it all in bright sunlight being emitted by a body with a temperature of about 5700 K.”
1) You are going completely off-topic from the discussion here about entropy.
2) Now you have added an additional variable, and all bets are off. The 360 K object is no longer ‘surrounded by an environment of 280K’. It is surrounded by an an environment partially at 280K and partially at 5700 K. The 360 K block might cool down. Or might warm up. Or might stay the same.
Try for a more germane, more accurate counterargument next time.
Tim,
Don’t be stupid.
Take an object at 360 K.
Place it in direct sunlight.
You say –
“The 360 K block might cool down. Or might warm up. Or might stay the same.”
Complete nonsense. Give it a try. Tell me how many times an object heated to 360 K, and placed in the Sun, will remain at that temperature, or heat up?
By the way, during the night there is no sunlight. Unlike the fantasies of Trenberth, and NASA.
Off you go now – try to bend reality to your will!
You really don’t want to accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, do you?
Tim – in case you missed my reply it’s at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365060
Dug,
In case you missed it at first:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Global average surface air temperature is caused by the global ocean surface temperature which is caused be average temperature of the ocean- which is about 3.5 C.
The ocean average temperature of 3.5 C was warmer in the past, and when one has higher ocean average temperature, one has higher global air temperature.
On recent interglacial periods, the average ocean was 4 C or warmer and I assume our early Holocene was near 4 C.
The ocean average temperature varies sea level and it said early Holocene had sea levels 1 to 2 meters higher and small part of higher sea level could be due to a warmer ocean.
Another aspect of early Holocene was African humid period:
“During the preceding last glacial maximum, the Sahara contained extensive dune fields and was mostly uninhabited. It was much larger than today, but its lakes and rivers such as Lake Victoria and the White Nile were either dry or at low levels. The humid period began about 14,60014,500 years ago at the end of Heinrich event 1, simultaneously to the BllingAllerd warming. Rivers and lakes such as Lake Chad formed or expanded, glaciers grew on Mount Kilimanjaro and the Sahara retreated. Two major dry fluctuations occurred; during the Younger Dryas and the short 8.2 kiloyear event. The African humid period ended 6,0005,000 years ago during the Piora Oscillation cold period.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
And wetter Africa would have lowered sea levels, as removing water with wells and lowering the water table, increases sea levels.
Though this human effect is quite small- and Nature making a continent wet, is much bigger effect. Or human effect is scale of inch, wetting a continent would be some number of feets {or meter or so]. Though I wouldn’t say this was limited to just Africa.
Got to check Australia:
Approximately five million years ago, they claim, rain in the area increased so much that the area became part of a rain forest. And it happened very quickly, geologically speaking, in a matter of just 100,000 years. That period, the team reports, lasted for approximately two millions yearsafter that the area returned to its dryer pattern that led to the weather in the area todaythe Nullarbor Plain gets just 3cm of rain on average per year.
To explain the suddenly wetter conditions, the researchers point to other research that has shown that ocean temperatures rose just prior to the short wet period, and that led to a fourfold increase in rainfall in parts of Australia, which led to a transformation in the types of plants growing in some areas. The oceans warmed, it is believed, due to unknown factors that caused global atmospheric warming.”
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-underground-formations-reveal-australia-nullarbor.html
maybe that what I was thinking about [way, way earier] And:
Australia’s Holocene facts
Position
Australia global position was virtually the same as it is today.
Climate
Australia’s climate became slightly wetter until about 5,000 years ago; since then it has continued to dry.”
https://australian.museum/learn/australia-over-time/evolving-landscape/the-holocene-epoch/
Earth had to be much warmer, for Australia to get much wetter, but
similar to Africa, it’s been drying for last 5000 years
It seems to me that very long periods of easterly winds in the Nino 4 region (SOI) for example, with not very strong solar winds (as at present), are enough to make the climate in Australia wetter. There could have been changes in ocean currents.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iersst_nino4a_rel_2014:2022_2019:2022.png
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Will the Troposphere temperature text files be updated?
I’m waiting too, especially for the LS grid data, still dated 2022-08-08.
Sanity returns to England
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/liz-truss.png
Paradiddle Diddle La Nina:
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-clairvoyant-climate-extreme-weather.html
Not as prescient as ze Eboy, but still.
W
Perfectly in line with what would be expected coming out of the LIA and during the warm phase of the AMO. Doesnt take much to impress you. Do you also get a tingle down your leg from a Summer breeze?
In regard to European urban areas, the largest warming effect is caused by urban heat island effects.
“Severe heat makes vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. For example, residents with restricted movement cannot access parks or other areas with cooler temperatures. The poor are hit hardest because low-income neighborhoods are often densely constructed with few green spaces or water surfaces to help cool the area.
Fortunately, there are three ways to manage the impacts of urban heat.”
https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/3-ways-beat-heat-european-cities
Urban heat island effect have been known about for a long time and it’s not clear to me, there are easy ways to manage them, otherwise these steps would taken.
Or it seems all politician like to brag about any success they have, and there seems to be shortage of such bragging.
Though it could be that UHI effect is not problem to be solved as most people die from cold, rather warmer conditions.
Fernando,
You have a loose concept of line.
That might explain:
https://tinyurl.com/fernando-must-report-to-lew
The Cuban government can thank God that they didn’t get a hurricane this year.
But there is new one, called Seven:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And I might get more rain:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Spare a thought for Eboy:
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1570083859852566528
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Since about 2016 I have repeatedly pointed out Robertson’s arrogance, ignorance and incompetence with regard to any topic he posts about.
This is especially visible and easy to demonstrate when he posts about temperature data.
*
Here is his most recent, as usual completely stupid post:
” Take a look here at the NOAA global land and ocean bar graph and tell me ho there is a relationship between it and UAH data.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series
For one, NOAAs graph takes off on a distance linear trend from 1980 onward. The UAH graph is in a negative anomaly phase till 1997 then it is flat from 1998 2015.
The NOAA graph shows 8 years of global temps above 0.8C, including 2022, from 2015 2022, while UAH shows nothing close to that. UAH maxed out at 0.7C in 2016 and one year was 0.6C, the rest were 0.5C or below and recently, more typically around 0.3C. ”
*
I have explained several times to Robertson the major role played, in constructing anomaly based time series, by the reference period chosen for the construction.
We see on NOAA’s ‘Climate at a Glance’ chart:
” Please note, global and hemispheric anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average. ”
As we can see, he still does not understand this major point, and tries to compare NOAA’s anomalies (calculated with respect to the reference period 1901-2000), with UAH’s, which are calculated wrt the reference period 1991-2020.
He will never understand that (or repeatedly forgets what he once eventually might have understood).
To show how wrong his comparison blah blah is once again, let’s download the NOAA data in monthly form (as the UAH data is after all) by selecting ‘All Months’ in the ‘Timescale’ field.
Now we can compare the downloaded data with UAH6.0’s monthly time series:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
As we can see, this anomaly comparison is nonsensical, due to highly differing reference periods.
For a proper comparison, we need to displace NOAA’s anomalies by subtracting from them their mean during 1991-2020, which is 0.62 C:
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
And with this chart we see Robertson’s incredible level of incompetence.
When namely both UAH6.0 and NOAH anomalies are shown wrt the mean of the same period, we see that NOAA keeps even below UAH till 2004, as do all other temperature anomaly series.
And conversely, from 2004 on, UAH6.0 moves below NOAA as it does compared to all other temperature anomaly series as well.
Thus, no one should wonder that NOAA’s trends are way above UAH’s
– 1979-2022: +0.17 for NOAA vs. +0.13 for UAH
– 1998-2015: +0.14 vs. -0.01
*
” NOAA show no recent cooling at all. NAA is clearly fudged to show a steadily warming planet, which is a major lie. ”
There is ONLY ONE MAJOR LIAR here, and that’s Robertson.
*
Finally, a look at a comparison of NOAA to UAH5.6 (deprecated since August 2017):
https://i.postimg.cc/VkHyccZr/UAH-5-6-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1981-2010.png
shows a quite different picture: no wonder, because UAH5.6’s trend for Jan 1979 – Jul 2017 is namely 0.156 C / decade instead of 0.126 for UAH6.0 at that same time.
*
We can be quite sure that Robertson butt-kisses UAH only because it is the time series with the lowest trend of all.
Had UAH’s Christy & Spencer kept rev 5.6 instead of moving to rev 6.0, and had RSS’ Mears & Wentz kept rev 3.3 instead of moving to rev 4.0, so we can be quite sure as well that Robertson would today praise RSS and discredit UAH. 100 % sure.
“Each form of energy has vastly different properties, and whereas some are related, like heat and work, others are not.”
Heat and work are not forms of energy. Heat and work refer to energy in transit.
Each of the forms of energy can be converted into every other form.
The different forms of energy are:
1) Mechanical kinetic and potential energy.
2) Thermal energy.
3) Electromagnetic energy.
4) Chemical energy.
5) Nuclear binding energy.
6) Mass energy.
Yep! That is indeed the meaning of those words for the past 100+ years. Unfortunately, some people either
1) don’t understand that distinction (common in 1st year physics classes).
2) are living in the past and using outdated names (eg using “heat” to mean U, rather than “heat” to to mean Q)
Neither sort of person is likely to change their minds easily.
There is always hope for those 1st year students who have intuitive ability and talent. Not so much for people who choose to live in the past though.
I suspect that for them the rate of growth in human knowledge, in hindsight, seemed linear during the nineteenth century and therefore comforting. However, at the current rate, human knowledge doubles every 8-10 years and the future comes at you fast.
“You mustn’t fool yourself with the idea that you could hire experts to attend to things; for how could you know that a man was an expert, unless you knew as much as he did? Some day your foreman might drop dead, or some other fellow would buy him away from you, and then where would you be? Be your own expert, said Dad!”
― Upton Sinclair, Oil!
It’s actually the other way around. Modern 1st year students face a plethora of pseudo-science created by modern scientists who have failed to understand the past.
In a recent post, you referred to heat as a measure of energy in transit. Then you listed several basic forms of energy. Which one of those energies in transit is represented by heat?
There can only be one, thermal energy, which is heat. According to you, heat is a measure of heat in transit. Can you not see the error in your thinking and in the thinking of those who taught you that rubbish?
tim…”2) are living in the past and using outdated names (eg using heat to mean U, rather than heat to to mean Q)”
***
If you read Clausius on internal energy, U, he describes it as a combination of heat and work. Heat added to a mass causes atoms to vibrate harder and the extended mean paths of the vibrations is work.
He should know, it was Clausius who defined the term internal energy for the first law.
“If you read Clausius ” … which is pretty much the definition of ‘living in the past’.
Science progresses. Ideas get refined. No one scientists statements become ‘gospel truth’. Clausius was a great scientist to be sure, and made great contributions. But even you wrote “As brilliant as he was, Clausius was wrong about ____”. It doesn’t matter what ______ is. We never turn to a single scientist and look for ultimate truth — whether it is about entropy or heat or work.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Northrop Grumman exec says SpaceXs Starship rocket has awesome potential but not there yet
Key Points:
Rob Hauge, President of Northrop Grummans SpaceLogistics, on Wednesday said SpaceXs rocket Starship is going to be an awesome capability.
Still, Hauge said, We need to see a mature launch vehicle … Starship is not there yet.
Northrop Grumman has an agreement with SpaceX to launch robotic spacecraft that extend the life of satellites in orbit.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/14/northrop-executive-spacex-starship-has-potential-but-not-ready-yet.html
People tend to say obvious things.
I would also note SpaceX still doesn’t have FAA permit to launch the Starship.
And we should developed capability refueling in orbit decades ago.
Space cadets generally don’t like it, said, that Starship is basically the Space Shuttle.
After decades of wasted time with Space Shuttle, the only significant conclusion realized was that Space Shuttle was an experimental rocket, rather than an operational rocket.
And the moment, Starship is not even an experimental rocket.
What might have been nice, is to have a site, to launch experimental rockets.
I tend to think launching rockets off shore, would be good.
But one could be thankful, that we launch so rocket’s trajectory goes over the ocean. There are countries that don’t do this.
But I realize that having a government manage a launch site off shore, could easily exceed the ability of government to manage.
Someday we will have ocean settlements and be baffled at how we were so primitive.
It seems there will be the excuse that titanium was too expensive and governmental oppression don’t allow oceanic ownership- it would be lucky day when we can give such simple answers.
Where has the most severe drop in sea surface temperature occurred in the past week?
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_global_current.png
Does it affect the Gulf Stream?
This decline was caused by hurricanes blocked in the Atlantic.
More important is the decline in the eastern equatorial Pacific.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_global_current.png
You think that the reason, I am so cold:
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=weather
It’s getting down to global average temperature at night.
And more could come, yet:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
This is the impact of the meandering jet stream.
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/jetstream
“I do not challenge the 1st law of thermodynamics, I am perfectly happy with it as it stands. It expresses a relationship between heat and work, not any other forms of energy. Calling it the Law of Conservation of energy is wrong to me. It is one example only of conservation.”
Heat (Q) and work (W) are not forms of energy. Heat and work refer to energy in transit.
The sum of Q and W is the amount of energy that enters the system, and therefore, by conservation of energy, this is the amount by which the energy of the system changes.
This is why the law of conservation of energy, aka the 1st law of thermodynamics, is written as:
Delta U = Q + W,
The change in energy of the system is equal to the heat added plus the work done, where U is the total energy content of the system.
maguff…”Heat (Q) and work (W) are not forms of energy. Heat and work refer to energy in transit”.
***
Are you a complete raving idiot?
What energy is in transit Mr. Rocket Scientist, and where is it going? Do we now have a new form of energy no one knows about?
If we do work on a mass we apply a force, a mechanical force. When we apply that force through a distance it is called work. Work is mechanical energy in motion.
When we add heat to a mass, the atoms in the mass begin vibrating harder. The mass can expand through a distance and do work. If we have a gas in a cylinder with a piston, and we add heat, the molecules become more energized and the gas expands. As the gas expands against the piston it does work on the piston by moving it through a distance. Therefore, heat can produce work as in the 1st law.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. And no, kinetic energy is not an actual energy, it is a description of energy in motion. The energy in motion is heat, and/or work as in the example I gave.
Any engineer who has spent even just one week in an engineering thermophysics course would have understood my comments. Hell, maybe even just one day, because if I remember correctly, the first day’s lecture was titled “Temperature, Energy, and Heat.”
Tyson, please stop trolling.
It’s the Sun stupid – Kindergarten level 1
https://youtu.be/vlkB8cJEmgI
Ah, the good ol’ days:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/28/the-radiation-fight/#comment-3257617
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, shadup!
Willard,
As Tim Folkerts pointed out, a hotter body surrounded by a colder one (Earth surrounded by water and air), cools.
Even if half of it is in sunlight..
Look at how the Earth has cooled down over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Or close your eyes and believe in fairy tales.
“As Tim Folkerts pointed out, a hotter body surrounded by a colder one (Earth surrounded by water and air), cools.
Even if half of it is in sunlight..”
No. That is not what I ‘pointed out’.
If “half of it is in sunlight”, then it is not surrounded by a colder body. It is partly surrounded by colder body and partly surrounded by a hotter body (the sun). In such a case, the hotter body might cool or might warm or might stay the same.
In terms 1/2 spherical body in sunlight, being in 1/2 of sunlight isn’t a uniform amount of sunlight reaching the surface if there is
no atmosphere, and less reaching the surface if it has atmosphere, though in terms of upper atmosphere, sunlight energy wraps around a bit, whereas without atmosphere, it obviously doesn’t.
Anyhow, if sphere surrounded warm body, and warm body becomes warmer by 1 C, then sphere gets warmer by 1 C.
If sphere is only 1/2 surrounded warm body, roughly the warmed body has to warm by 2 C to warm sphere by 1 C at most {or it’s much less than 1 C}.
Tim,
Not hardly. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. It doesnt receive enough sunlight to do otherwise.
No spontaneous heating, no more than a red-hot lump of rock in full sunlight will either stop cooling, or get hotter. You will need one of your hidden heat sources, or some Folkerts Patent Planetary Heating Elixir, for that.
Maybe you could try one of Willards semantic tricks, and claim slow cooling is really heating!
Everybody knows about entropy, Mike.
That you keep talking about this would beggar belief if we presumed you are communicating to make any sense.
Swenson: “Not hardly. ”
Not hardly WHAT?? What are you disagreeing with?
* Are you disagreeing that the original case was a closed box with no sunlight, and that you misrepresented what I said?
* Are you saying that and object can be completely surrounded by 280 K walls and but yet be in the sunlight?
* Are you disagreeing that adding sunlight can warm something?
“No spontaneous heating, no more than a red-hot lump of rock in full sunlight will either stop cooling, or get hotter. ”
As to this point, consider a large, several ton ‘lump of rock’ Melt it in a crucible until it is ‘red hot’ all the way through.
Then let it start to cool. The center could still be ‘red hot’ while the outside might just be warm to the touch — let’s say 30 C on the outside. Do this in a dark room or at night when the air temp is 20 C.
Now put the boulder in sunlight. Here’s the point. Sunlight can warm the surface of a rock to a temperature ABOVE 30 C — we have all felt asphalt on a sunny day. If the SURFACE is 40 C and the layer just below the surface is 31 C, what will happen? Heat will flow INWARD from the surface! The net thermal energy of the rock as a whole will increase. The rock has — at least temporarily — stopped cooling and started warming!
(Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely. Eventually the layer directly below the surface would get up to 41 C due a combination of inner heat and solar heat. Then heat will start to flow out again and then the rock will start to cool again.)
tim…”The center could still be red hot while the outside might just be warm to the touch….”
***
Don’t think so, Tim.
Tim,
As you say, your rock will cool. Just like the Earth has, over the past four and a half billion years or so.
As you also point out, during the day a rock in the sun may have a skin temperature greater than that just below the surface – only on the side exposed to sunlight, of course. Just like the Earth. And, just like the Earth (or the Moon), the side not exposed to the Sun will not warm above ambient, due to sunlight – there isn’t any shining on it!
So no, Tim, the Earth’s surface (as a whole) does not spontaneously heat up due to the action of sunlight. Your fantasies and poorly thought out irrelevant analogies do not supplant fact.
No GHE – the atmosphere has contained far more supposed GHGs in the past, but the Earth has cooled nevertheless.
Even the ardent SkyDragon cultists apparently believe that the Sun cannot maintain an isothermal Earth’s temperature above 255 K. The Earth is still well above this temperature, with a core at above 5000 K. This means it is still cooling – unless the laws of thermodynamics have been revised in your favour.
Good luck with that!
“Now put the boulder in sunlight. Heres the point. Sunlight can warm the surface of a rock to a temperature ABOVE 30 C we have all felt asphalt on a sunny day. If the SURFACE is 40 C and the layer just below the surface is 31 C, what will happen? Heat will flow INWARD from the surface! ”
The heat of sunlight will act as insulation.
It would change interior heat gradient, slightly. And interior heat will prevent much of heat gradient from the sunlight.
Sunlight could heat rock surface to 60 to 70 C, the rock surface from Sunlight could reach 70, convection air loss controls it unless the air is over 50 C.
Or if sunlight only heats surface rock to 40 C, it’s weak sunlight, say low at horizon sunlight, or air is quite cold or cool and windy.
If sunlight is above 45 degree above horizon, the surface is dry [it was hot- though could have rained] it should heat surface to about 60 C, unless highly conductive of heat [normally rock is not].
ME: The center [of a large rock] could still be red hot while the outside might just be warm to the touch
GORDON: Dont think so, Tim.
The earth is a large rock that is red hot on the inside and cool to the touch on the outside. So yes, such rocks exist.
Even a smaller rock on the order of 10 m in radius would be conducting on the order of 100 W/m^2. Which would be warm but not that hot.
Swenson: “As you also point out, during the day a rock in the sun may have a skin temperature greater than that just below the surface only on the side exposed to sunlight, of course. ”
So you agree that the rock is gaining energy on the sunny side. That is a huge step in the right direction. You recognize least some parts at some times are not inexorably losing energy.
The next step is to recognize that long-term changes can occur that tip the balance slightly toward warming, when averaged over large areas. Remember, these don’t have to be large changes. The geothermal flow is only about 0.1 W/m^2. Even a small change in temperature at the surface can make the surface warmer on average than the day or year before. This is turn can make a net average heat flow inward when averaged over a day or a year.
Tim,
Don’t be stupid. Of course the sunlit side of the Earth is hotter than the unlit side. Or the sunlit side of anything, if the Sun is the only hotter thing around.
An object on the surface will be hotter during the day, than at night.
There is no “tipping towards warming”. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
No spontaneous heating. You cannot make any object hotter than about 90 C, exposing it to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun, and you have to be exceptionally cunning to do that. And of course, when the Sun goes down, so does the temperature of your sun-heated object!
No spontaneous heating. The Earth is cooling – very, very , slowly. Slow cooling is not heating, regardless of semantics.
That’s reality.
tim…”The earth is a large rock that is red hot on the inside and cool to the touch on the outside. So yes, such rocks exist”.
***
Not in the crucible in your example. A crucible is about 1″ diameter at its opening.
1) None of this has any direct bearing on global warming. The long-term cooling of the interior of earth tells us basically nothing about whether the exterior of the earth is warming or cooling.
2) But to understand my point above, consider an analogy. The Amazon river flows inexorably downhill. From high in the mountains down to the ocean. Always from higher potential energy to lower potential energy.
But actually, where the river meets the ocean, the water at the mouth sometimes runs *backwards*! When the tide comes in, water actually runs from the ocean INTO the mouth of the river! A “tidal bore”. Of course, all the river water plus all the tidal water does eventually flow back out (when the tide reverses). But changes in conditions at the interface between river and ocean can indeed cause temporary changes in direction of flow and push water into the river..
Just like changes in temperature at the interface between air and ground can ‘push’ thermal energy back into the ground.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Tim, you wondered why I said “Not hardly”.
It was In response to you writing –
“If “half of it is in sunlight”, then it is not surrounded by a colder body. It is partly surrounded by colder body and partly surrounded by a hotter body (the sun). In such a case, the hotter body might cool or might warm or might stay the same.”
Not hardly. You’re dreaming. If the Earth is above 255 K (according to “climate scientists”), then there is no “might” to be found. The Earth cools.
All matter will cool, if it is receiving insufficient energy to at least replace the energy it radiates away. Just like the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Accept reality, or don’t. Makes no difference to reality.
“All matter will cool, if it is receiving insufficient energy to at least replace the energy it radiates away. Just like the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so.”
And again, this is definitely true ON AVERAGE. On average there has been a net flow up through the surface. But that does not mean there couldn’t be one day or one year or one century when the reverse was true. Remember, the earth is only radiating away 0.1 W/m^2 of geothermal energy. It would only take a SMALL change in air temperature or solar output cloud cover to ‘at least replace’ 0.1 W/m^2 of geothermal energy flow.
Tim,
You wrote –
“But that does not mean there couldnt be one day or one year or one century when the reverse was true.”
And you might die in the next 30 seconds, world peace might break out, and the Earth might spontaneously go back its molten state!
The future is unknowable, but I’m assuming that there is more chance of you dropping dead than the Earth spontaneously combusting! Still no evidence that the mythical GHE has prevented the Earth from cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so, is there?
As to solar output changing sufficiently to stop the Earth cooling, maybe the Sun will go nova tomorrow, but I’m assuming it won’t.
Your comment about air temperature is just silly. What magic process will suddenly make the air hotter? A GHE which hasn’t stopped the Earth cooling, so far? Pixie dust?
No GHE. Just thermometers responding to increased heat produced by seven billion people.
That’s reality, backed up by physical laws. Don’t blame me for pointing out reality.
tim…”the earth is only radiating away 0.1 W/m^2 of geothermal energy”
***
That may be true at the solid surface but there are places at the bottom of the oceans where direct magma flows are happening and hot water is vented into the ocean.
Over the long term, that heats the oceans.
Gordon,
Not a lot of people have the brains to accept that the oceans are heated from the bottom, not the top!
Even more rare would be a “climate scientist” realising that the temperature of Antarctic glaciers increases with depth. These donkeys don’t realise that glacial melting (as in ice sheets vanishing) is unlikely until surface ice temperatures rise above freezing, as the bases of many ice sheets are actually above freezing – sitting on liquid water!
Some “scientists” live in a strange fantasy world, where slow cooling becomes heating!
By chance you are here to remind us that ice melts above freezing point, Mike.
Where would science be without you?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Whether you believe existence is 6000 years, young, or billions of years, Earth has cooling.
We are in 33.9 million year old Ice Age, which has been the coolest
in last couple millions {or prior to this Greenland did not a have a permanent ice sheet}.
Earth is currently in ice house global climate and in ice house climate the average temperature of all the ocean is cold. And our ocean average is 3.5 C. And 3.5 C [38.3 F] is cold.
In comparison, a greenhouse global climate, does not have continental ice sheets nor a ice sheet in the polar region. And it has warmer ocean than ice house global climate has, and it has a more uniform global air temperature.
Present Earth doesn’t have uniform global temperature, and it’s tropics zone has a more uniform temperature. Our Earth is dry and more 1/3 of it’s land area as deserts.
A warmer world or greenhouse global climate has far less desert regions, it lot less dry.
The driest of Earth’s ice house climate causes more extreme weather events, droughts last longer, and one has more powerful storms, and one has both very cold and hot weather. Obviously deserts have more temperature extremes, but this also true globally.
So where one has the most greenhouse effect and the most sunlight, the tropics also has most uniform temperatures in the world- which lacks a uniform global average temperature. Air temperature extremes are 50 C to well below -50 C. But the temperature above unfrozen oceans is far more uniform.
The average global liquid ocean has average temperate of about 17 C,
and average global land is about 10 C, which gives the global average
of about 15 C [70% is ocean and 30% is land}.
Therefore it seems to me, that if we were to somehow get a dramatic increase in global air temperature, this be increase in global water vapor, and we make deserts, become greener. And it would cause a significantly more uniform global air temperature.
And I wondering what people regard as bad aspects connecting to increasing global air temperature.
Does is mainly have to do this sea level rise?
Or is there something worst than this?
Solar wind
speed: 326.9 km/sec
density: 11.17 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 93
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.71×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.1% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.5%
Neutron Counts up to 5%
And don’t see rescue for it anytime soon
and Sept is going sideways.
And got one tropical depression in Atlantic
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
And got two disturbances on my side and other
than my side, this hurricane season has been weak
though one could call it odd/interesting.
Maybe it’s because solid/steady state of La Nina, rather going into
or out of it.
I don’t think it has anything to do with sun, I am just interested
in both.
Solar wind
speed: 323.1 km/sec
density: 1.42 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 57
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.55×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.1% Elevated
Tropical storm Fiona heading towards
Cuba
In Eastern Pacific the two tropical storms
are still forming. Are going to do the exact same
thing the last hurricanes, did?
I would say in general they don’t do same thing
over and over again. Unless God saying something.
🙂
Kind of looking like we in a Solar Grand Min
–“The work of erosion on Mars is driven principally by the wind which acts like a feather duster over hundreds of millions to even billions of years. This is very different from Earth, for instance, where the extreme ruggedness of the San Gabriel mountains is created by torrents of rain water dissecting the landscape over relatively brief periods of geologic time,” says John P. Grotzinger, the Harold Brown Professor of Geology and the Ted and Ginger Jenkins Leadership Chair of the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences.–
https://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Wind_drives_geology_on_Mars_these_days_999.html
What about impactors. Mars atmosphere very thin, but it’s mass is
25 trillion tons. And if talking hundreds million to billions
how many dinosaur impactors is that?
But let go smaller, how many 1 km diameter space rocks in that?
It seems it would create some wind.
Say you are 300 km from 1 km space rock smashing into Mars at 15 km/sec [33,480 mph]. Maybe you mostly worried about the earth or Marsquake from it. Or that would be the immediate thing, but would you be surprised by some significant wind related to it?
Anyone (REN???) heard any more about the Pacific typhoon Merbok? It is currently headed toward Alaska but when it hits colder air up that way, as I understand it, the typhoon could be re-directed down toward the Vancouver, Canada area.
Our incompetent Environment Canada has not even mentioned it yet as a possible issue. They are too focused on finding evidence of anthropogenic warming. JMA is tracking it and another typhoon in the Philipines area, Nanmadol.
The thing of concern apparently is that the northern Pacific is 4C above normal. That immediately raises suspicion in my mind that the PDO is involved in conjunction with La Nina.
Are we seeing a phase change in the PDO?
Speedy shift ahead: from typhoon to major Alaska storm in just two days
–Typhoon Merbok which developed well to the northeast of the usual Northwest Pacific stomping grounds for typhoons is predicted to evolve into a powerful post-tropical cyclone on Thursday, just a few hours before it reaches the Aleutian Islands and less than 48 hours before it slams Alaskas west coast on Friday and Saturday. At 2 p.m. EDT Wednesday, Merbok was a category 1 typhoon with top sustained winds of 75 mph, moving north at 23 mph, according to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC).
Storms often rage in the Bering Sea in early autumn, but the post-tropical version of Merbok may go far beyond the usual into the truly dangerous. Forecasters are already warning of the potential for 50-foot-high waves.
The National Weather Service office in Anchorage is predicting wind gusts of up to 75 mph in coastal parts of southwest Alaska and up to 85 mph in the Aleutians, with 60-mph gusts possible as far inland as Bethel.–
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/09/typhoon-muifa-sweeps-into-shanghai-caribbean-eyes-new-tropical-depression/
thanks, gb. Apparently is destined to roll off the cold front in the Arctic and head south. Hopefully it will stay far enough off-shore that it does not produce major winds in the Vancouver area.
Then again, we are not strangers to wind storms around here. I recall, as a kid, riding my bike down a steep hill and being lifted, bike and all, off the road by a gust of wind and deposited in the ditch.
Typhoon Merbok could soon bring record-breaking hot temperatures to Ontario
“According to The Weather Network, its a relatively rare feat to record 30C across the GTA so late into September.
And its not just Ontario thatll be impacted. Typhoon Merbok is set to shake the whole countrys weather next week. ”
https://dailyhive.com/toronto/typhoon-merbok-ontario-weather
But it seems Vancouver, will remain cold or maybe more colder.
And Merbok seems to want to go to North Pole:
https://zoom.earth/storms/merbok-2022/
maybe it will hit reality “die” and give lots of snow to Vancouver,
but of course I don’t predict weather or anything. But it’s been weird here.
As I recall, there is a lot polar sea ice in it’s way, poor Merbok
doesn’t stand a chance.
Gordon Robertson, right now, a weather pattern is taking shape in western Canada, similar to that of last year. A stationary upper-level low (looping at 500 hPa) will settle in the Gulf of Alaska, pulling Arctic masses south. Cyclones present in the Pacific will move over the Bering Sea and further north.
https://i.ibb.co/dfyb0mR/pobrane.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=ak&product=wv_mid
Willard (in fit of denial of reality), wrote –
“Everybody knows about entropy, Mike.”
Really? Irrelevant, as well as being a breathtakingly stupid statement.
Addressed to a figment of his fantasy, to boot!
What a donkey is Woeful Willy.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Irrelevant”
Quite right.
Your argument, if you can call your ringtone an argument, is utterly irrelevant!
Cheers.
Woebegone Willy,
More nonsense?
You idiot. Ringtone? What argument?
Try one of your “silly semantic tricks” to deny the fact that the Earth has cooled (regardless of GHGs, atmosphere, strenuous chanting from SkyDragon cultists, or anything else)!
Maybe you could bang on about “entropy”, and make a ridiculous claim “everybody knows about entropy”, hoping to sow confusion and divert attention from inconvenient facts.
You are an idiot.
Love it when you’re playing dumb, Mike.
Search for “molten” on this page.
Meanwhile, did you know that at night, desert temperatures fall to around -4C?
You idiot, Willard.
Here’s your original comment –
“Mike Flynn,
You say
Irrelevant
Quite right.
Your argument, if you can call your ringtone an argument, is utterly irrelevant!
Cheers.”
Search for “molten”? No. Why should I?
You’re really stupid. Do you realise that temperatures in the desert can fall to -98.6 C? Oh, you didn’t realise that Antarctica is a desert? Even NASA knows that, you ninny,
Try another stupid diversion.
Mike, Mike,
Searching for the word you alone are using might help you recall that ringtone of yours.
Please, do continue to play dumb!
Silly goose.
Willard the Fool makes a bizarre demand (of Mike, whoever that is) –
“Mike, Mike,
Searching for the word you alone are using might help you recall that ringtone of yours.
Please, do continue to play dumb!
Silly goose.”
Talks in riddles, furiously trying to avoid the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so – atmosphere, GHE, or even SkyDragon incantations notwithstanding.
He babbles about ringtones (whatever he thinks the relevance is), and claims “everyone knows about entropy”, trying to divert attention away from the fact he is metaphorically lowering his trousers, bending over, and asking for a spanking.
What a guy!
What riddle, Mike?
You are just playing dumb.
Or perhaps you are just naturally dumb?
That is certainly possible!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim…”We never turn to a single scientist and look for ultimate truth whether it is about entropy or heat or work”.
***
Re Clausius, we still use the 1st law in which he defined U, the 2nd law as he wrote it, and entropy as he wrote it. Only an arrogant ass would redefine what he wrote, when they have no scientific proof to back them.
In chemistry, in Gibb’s free energy equation, entropy is used as Clausius defined it.
delta G = delta H – T delta S
G = Gibb’s free energy
H = enthalpy = total heat content of a system
S = heat released by body to atmosphere
If you look at the Clausius definition of entropy…
S = 1/T (integral dq)
In the integral, S = Q/T, therefore
Q = T.S, where T.S is the macroscopic change in Q
Therefore, Gibb’s free energy could be written…
delta G = delta H – delta Q
It’s saying the free energy, aka heat, is the heat left over when heat is transferred out of the system where H = the total heat in the system.
********************
Re Joule…we still use his relationship between work and heat to convert calories/watts to joules.
************************
Re Newton…we still use many of his relationships.
*********************
Re Kircheoff…we still used his relationship in the electrical/electronics field re the sum of voltage drops being equal to the applied voltage.
***************
Re Simon Ohm…we still use his relationship E = IR.
“Re Clausius, we still use the 1st law in which he defined U” … but we have a better definition of “U” now.
“Re Joulewe still use his relationship between work and heat to convert calories/watts to joules” .. but we have a better numerical values.
“Re Newtonwe still use many of his relationships” … but we use relativity for cases where we know newton’s laws will fail.
“Re Simon Ohmwe still use his relationship E = IR” … except his original relationship was x = a/(b+l), relating current to LENGTH of a wire. We have improved that as I = V/(r+R) where we know resistance is proportional to length, and we know the voltage source had an internal resistance.
So you are actually making my point for me. The initial works were great leaps forward for sure, but ALL of these have been improved by future generations of scientists.
Only an arrogant ass would resist the work of generations of scientists who have indeed tested and refined and improved the original ideas.
Tim, please stop trolling.
It’s fun to watch Folkerts pretending he understands 1LoT and 2LoT. He’s the idiot that claims fluxes simply add, which means ice cubes can boil water!
Of course the cult has to believe that. That’s how they justify a cold sky warming a warmer surface. They make up their own “science” that can’t be supported with valid Laws of Physics.
At least the cult is always in complete lockstep with each other. Skeptics tend to be such independent thinkers they often argue amongst themselves. But “thinkers” arguing is how REAL science gets established. “Braindead” never produces anything but nonsense.
Clint R
You just can’t keep your stupid illogical thoughts under a rock so no one can see how dumb you are. Why do you like looking like a foolish person all the time.
Fluxes do add and you can do your own experiments. All your buffoon declarations that they do not will not change this reality. Your attempt at forming a cult following here fails because only a handful of like minded idiots are a illiterate on actual science as you are.
Fluxes adding DOES NOT mean ice cubes boil water. You lack any logical thought, you have no geometry training to understand things.
If you have one ice cube that could emit a total of 300 W/m^2 because of its temperature that does not mean it will emit 300 watts to an object. You are not rational enough to understand the content of this post.
Here is a geometry lesson for you. Pay attention and learn something once. An ice cube has a surface area around 50 square centimeters or 0.005 m^2. If it radiates to some object it will radiate less than one watt to the object. If you add another ice cube the object will receive more energy and warm a bit. As you keep adding ice cubes each will add some energy and warm up the object. Here is where your logic fails and you lack logical reason to see you glaring flaw. Once you completely surround the object with ice it will receive a maximum of energy from the ice. If the surface area of the object is one square meter it will receive 300 watts total energy from all the ice surrounding it. More ice will no longer add energy because it can’t reach the object.
Your lack of reasoning is why you do not understand Tim Folkerts. He is aware that ice will only emit so much energy at a given temperature. He clearly stated clear ice shell with visible light going through it which can reach the object surrounded by the ice and add energy to it.
You know nothing and are quite the illogical cult mentality.
Nothing here will change your stupid posting or your lack of reasoning ability.
“Braindead” never produces anything but nonsense.
Clint R
As expected you are not able to produce any thoughtful comment. You are truly a very stupid person.
My comment above described how braindead the cult is because they believe Folkerts’ nonsense. Folkerts’ nonsense would result in ice being able to boil water.
So braindead Norman rushes in to prove me wrong by agreeing with me that ice cubes can not boil water. Yet, Norman believes Folkerts’ nonsense.
Of course, Norman returns with his juvenile insults because he’s got NOTHING. He can’t even support his nonsense, even though he has claimed he always supports his claims.
THAT is what “braindead” looks like.
Clint R
You are a complete idiot! Einstein must have known someone like you when he came up with his quote.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/942-two-things-are-infinite-the-universe-and-human-stupidity-and
Of course, Norman returns with his juvenile insults because he’s got NOTHING. He can’t even support his nonsense, even though he has claimed he always supports his claims.
THAT is what “braindead” looks like.
Clint R
I think the only value your irrational rants might provide is for examples of Dunning-Kruger Effect for psychology students for perfect examples of it in the real world.
You keep blabbing like an idiot: “because hes got NOTHING” A meaningless phrase from a idiot. You have everything you need but you don’t realize your lack of rational logical thinking prevent you from understanding it. Why you are so stupid you can’t answer the simple question: Does fire have a radiating surface?
I guess some people here find your stupid comments entertaining. A few illogical thinkers that don’t know physics may think you are saying something. No one else here considers you as anything but an idiot.
That’s correct Norman. You’ve got NOTHING.
That’s why you always have to insult and falsely accuse. That’s why you can’t support what you claim.
You’ve got NOTHING.
All you need is a couple flashlights and a light meter to answer this question once and for all.
Been there done that.
I wonder why there are typically 4 tubes in a fluorescent light.
No wait, I don’t wonder.
I am smarter than the average troll.
bob, are you trying to address the “fluxes don’t simply add” issue without even understanding it?
THAT is what “braindead” looks like.
Just for laughs, what do you believe the issue is about?
Clint R,
You are too funny.
Fluxes add simpleton. You have to know how to add them, but since you don’t know the first two things about adding vectors, maybe you are not up to the task of adding fluxes.
You do know that the CO2 in the atmosphere is often warmer than ice, don’t you?
And sometimes the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.
And the second law does not prevent an atmosphere making the surface warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.
If greenhouse gases cool, than how come Venus with 92 bar of CO2 is so hot?
So it’s way past time to abandon your pile of straw.
I could list all the things you don’t understand, but I don’t have all day.
Yeah braindead bob, I knew you didn’t understand the “fluxes dont simply add” issue.
You were just trolling, as usual.
Just another claim you can’t support Clint R.
Nope, my claim is you don’t understand the issue.
You support my claim.
Thanks.
Clint R,
I am not misunderstanding it, you don’t understand what I wrote, so it’s all on you.
I could show you how two fluxes of 315 watts/sq meter would result in heating a surface to 325 K.
For 50 Bucks.
Deal or no deal?
You say it’s impossible, only one counter example needed to prove you wrong.
Not that it’s that hard to do.
Folkerts already did that, braindead bob. That’s why you believe it.
With no understanding of physics, you swallow anything Folkerts spews.
That’s because you’re a braindead cult idiot.
No deal it is.
You choose to remain an ignorant deluded soul.
That’s your choice.
You have not chosen wisely grasshopper.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I state that ice cannot boil water and I explain why ice cannot boil water and I further calculate how ice cannot boil water. And Clint still gets it wrong.
At least he attempted to create a focused discussion about adding fluxes upstream. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1363853
But he immediately jumps to false strawman conclusions, like “according to their nonsense: 390 + 275 = 465 W/m^2, which corresponds to 301K!!!”
After considerable back-and-forth, I show that fluxes do indeed add, but not like this strawman.
So Clint abandons the discussion and then repeats his debunked claim here.
So here is your chance Clint. What specific line(s) in this post do you think are incorrect? What do you think the correction should be? What in my post leads you to conclude “according to their nonsense: 390 + 275 = 465 W/m^2, which corresponds to 301K!!!”?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1364872
Nice incoherent rant, Folkerts.
Where’s your valid technical reference that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can warm it to 325K?
I’ll never get tired to asking….
Well gee, Tim.
The Earth has cooled down over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Not enough flux being added?
Keep up harping about that factoid, Mike.
One day it’ll be relevant!
Weird Wee Willy,
It’s only been relevant for four and a half billion years or so, if you are prepared to accept reality.
Some argue that mathematical truths have a longer shelf life than that, Mike.
That does not make them any more relevant for our topic at hand.
Relevance is relative to a topic, not to a time frame.
Cheers.
Willard,
You can argue until you are blue in the face.
The fact remains that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and no amount of atmosphere, GHE, mathematical proofs, or endless whining that you don’t accept facts, affected the fact that the Earth has cooled.
Go away and spank yourself. Or poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle, while I laugh at your discomfort, if you wish.
[laughing at idiot]
You should leave that kind of imagery for your spouse, Mike.
But please, do continue to make a fool of your sorry self!
Silly goose.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Two [of many] reasons for continuing your studies of thermodynamics beyond nineteenth century science.
1st: The ether theory has been replaced by field theory.
The Mechanical Theory of Heat. R. Clausius, 1879.
2nd: The 2nd law had to be extended for non-equilibrium systems that exchange energy and/or mass with their surroundings.
The earth, for example, is a non-equilibrium system.
La Nina model
https://youtu.be/uO-DGnh9Vas
Global Cooling Update
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coldocean.html
This might not prevent Gordo and Mike from saying stuff.
Willard,
NOAA, unfortunately, neglects to mention that a rather large amount of the heat involved is remnant heat from its initial state.
NOAA also forget that the ocean originally started off as boiling water, and has since cooled to its present temperature. The only reason that parts of the ocean have not completely frozen is due the peculiar physical properties of water, which reaches its maximum density slightly above zero.
NOAA has at least stopped claiming that ocean currents are solely due to wind, and grudgingly acknowledge that convection is involved, but then they try to dismiss the physics of convection (as investigated by many including Edward Lorenz), by implying that cold creates convection, rather than warmth from below.
However, simultaneously, NASA dimwits claim that the oceans are heated from above, leaving SkyDragons having to come up with flights of fancy which involve water cooling at the poles, and miraculously travelling up hill and down dale over the mountain ranges on the sea floor, around a sphere (the Earth) to the Equator, where the abyssal water at close to zero, is magically warmed by the sun at depths of several kilometers, floats to the surface, half going North, and half going South.
Suffice it to say, the whoever is speaking for NOAA has no clue at all.
below.
“However, simultaneously, NASA dimwits claim that the oceans are heated from above”
I know. The sun…heating the oceans…what a weird idea!…sez our chief dimwit troll.
Nate,
You wrote –
“The sunheating the oceanswhat a weird idea!”
Exceptionally weird, and in contravention of known physical laws.
But of course, cultist fools like you believe any nonsense served up to them.
At a depth of 10 km, ocean temperature is just above freezing. The ocean basin rock at that depth is around 200 C.
SkyDragon idiots no doubt believe that the “flux” from the colder water is somehow heating the rock surrounding it! If they do, they are a pack of dimwits.
Your attempted sarcasm fails completely – you are inadvertently speaking the truth.
What a delusional nitwit you are!
Carry on.
> Exceptionally weird, and in contravention of known physical laws.
Wait, Mike –
Are you suggesting that the Sun can’t warm the oceans?
Willard,
What a stupid gotcha! Can’t you comprehend English?
The Sun has demonstrably failed to stop the oceans cooling from their initial boiling state – after four and a half billion years or so continuous sunlight.
Or are you being a bit sly, and pretending that any heating of the surface which occurs during the day, doesn’t vanish completely at night, resulting in no net heating of the oceans whatsoever?
Tut, tut, Silly Willy – you need to go back to Gotcha U, and demand a refund because they were stupid enough to accept a mentally disabled dimwit like you as a student!
Wait, Mike –
Does it mean the Sun cannot warm deserts either?
it does not prevent them to become glacial half of the time.
Got to love Sky Dragon Cranks logic!
Willard,
Are you completely mad?
Tell me how hot the Antarctic desert is, due to sunlight.
I asked you before if you realised that Antarctica was a desert, but SkyDragons are obviously not really keen on becoming acquainted with reality.
So no. Can the Sun warm something? You tell me. Does the object lose all that heat during the night?
I’ll tell you – of course it does, and you know it.
Back to Gotcha U, for you, idiot.
“Are you suggesting that the Sun cant warm the oceans?”
Yes indeed, our dimwitted chief troll certainly is.
And making up BS to justify it
I just wonder how he thinks the bottom of the ocean can be just above 0 C, with “The ocean basin rock at that depth is around 200 C.”
Nate says:
”Are you suggesting that the Sun cant warm the oceans?”
Yes indeed, our dimwitted chief troll certainly is.
And making up BS to justify it
I just wonder how he thinks the bottom of the ocean can be just above 0 C, with ”The ocean basin rock at that depth is around 200 C.”
—————
Speaking of dimwitted trolls!
One has to wonder why this troll thinks that a slightly better than zero degree ocean is being warmed by the sun when the commenter clearly spoke of ”where the abyssal water at close to zero, is magically warmed by the sun at depths of several kilometers”
Several kilometers is well below the ocean photic zone.
“thinks that a slightly better than zero degree ocean is being warmed”
That the ocean can be warmed by the sun, is what was questioned by our resident troll. Only the ignorant think it cannot. The bottom, OTOH, is staying quite cold.
Ocean currents do transport warmer water to the deep. Another thing that only the ignorant think cannot happen.
As usual my stalker distorts what I say to score troll points.
Nate says:
”Ocean currents do transport warmer water to the deep. Another thing that only the ignorant think cannot happen.”
Sloppy Nate! Ocean currents transport relatively ‘saline’ water to depth but that process is overwhelmed by downwelling highly saline brines that come from seawater freezing, thus the deep ocean is far colder than than the mean surface water temperature despite being warmed from the bottom by a far hotter earth core.
And in periods where surface water temperature is higher sea ice retreats which creates an acceleration of ocean water freezing. So your thoughts on this do not correspond with known science and represents yet another attempt by you to spread anti-science propaganda.
ok whatevr you say Bill. Now go troll someone else.
It takes a real narcissist to believe getting corrected on a scientific fact is trolling.
You want your posts to be taken seriously?
Dont bookend with ad homs.
Dont make up your own facts.
Dont infuse with superfluous gibberish.
Dont mix politics w science.
Nate says:
You want your posts to be taken seriously?
”Dont bookend with ad homs.”
Like ‘dimwitted trolls’?
”Dont make up your own facts.”
like the ocean being dominated by downwelling warm currents as your evidence the ocean is warmed by the sun?
”Dont infuse with superfluous gibberish.”
Like claiming a brick in the middle of a room will warm via its radiation being radiated back to the brick?
”Dont mix politics w science.”
If politics weren’t mixed by science we wouldn’t have this forum.
Antarctica, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
woolard…”The actual amount of heat generated per square meter of Earth is quite small, especially compared to the amount of heat necessary to warm the ocean. Geothermal energy emanating from the Earth averages only about one tenth of a watt per square meter”.
***
Typical nonsense. The surface is not generating heat and it is not the source of the heat, which is about 2750 miles below it. The surface generates EM and EM is not heat. In fact, it is incorrect and misleading to measure EM in w/m^2.
The watt is used because there is an equivalence between heat and work although they do not share the same units. The watt is a measure of mechanical energy and when expressed over a distance, it is work. EM has no such units because it has no heat and does no work.
The amount of surface heat dissipated as it is converted to EM is but a fraction of the heat dissipation to the atmosphere via conduction. Also, there is direct conduction to the oceans, lakes, etc.
NASA does not specify what is meant by so many watts/m^2. They are expressing more an idea than scientific fact. Someone has sat down at lunch and scratched out a formula on his lunch bag rather than examining the problem closely.
Come on, Gordo.
You will not find more energy by overclocking on definitions.
Think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Thomas Sowell says the destructive driving force of leftists is ENVY.
But common with all humans.
Group think, Mob worship, depression, but then again
Trump is a Lefty- or at least Marxist.
Or one has to ask, what is New York, Dem?
Lefties eat their own.
Primative/Primal and cannibalistic, humans lacking faith
in God.
Can’t say I have “faith in god”, but if don’t respect
the great religions, you are simply an idiot.
I might have some faith in children.
It seems the left has lost it’s faith in children.
Trump is a Marxist? Let’s see, a Marxist is an extreme socialist. A Marxist believes in the power of the state and is anti Bill of Rights or freedoms. A Marxist believes in one-party rule and using the power of the government against political opposition. A Marxist doesn’t believe in private property rights or wealth accumulation except for the state. You can have private corporations in a Marxist state like China for instance but in reality, the state owns everything. Corporations are heavily regulated and have no privacy. They can confiscate private wealth at their discretion. How does any of that apply to Trump? Trump has claimed to be a Democrat in the past but he had been mainly apolitical. He only ran because he loves this country and saw what Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats were doing to it. Look what they’re doing to it now.
Marxist is suppose to support working class.
Also upper class is suppressing the working class.
A Marxist might say the is a Deep State working against the working
class.
Do, I need to go on?
Is not Trump a New York, Dem?
> A Marxist believes in the power of the state
You might be suprised, Troglodyte:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/workers-solidarity-movement-marx-the-state
Willard,
And then, having discarded the old order, they create a new one.
They’re Marxists, you idiot, not anarchists!
The quote was straight up Yogi Berra, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
stephen p. anderson
Trump would be more on the line of a Dicator who has total authority over everything. A step even worse than the Marxist you describe. Trump and Putin seem to have virtually identical personalities. Narcissist, dishonest liars, crave power and only tolerate those who totally agree with them. The time you disagree you are an enemy.
They both seem to have a bunch of ignorant loyalists who blindly believe anything they say and any of their actions (Trump taking the papers and not returning them or trying to overturn the election by force with his fanatic followers and Putin invading Ukraine).
I think Trump is worse than the leftists. They might want organized power so there will still be some checks and balances. A supreme leader has no checks, what they decree is the Law.
Wish you Trump supporters could get your obsession with a tyrant personality. We do not want or need anything, ever, that resembles a Putin or Kim Jong-un. Let the tyrant rant and rave maybe put him in jail for some time to show in this system no one is above the Law. He is now trying to rally his braindead followers to acts of violence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-fbi-documents-fraud-suit-b2168175.html
Lefties hate Lefties.
“Thomas Sowell says the destructive driving force of leftists is ENVY.”
I am going to dare to amend {or clarify], the great Thomas Sowell.
Lefties are envious of other Lefties.
{{Of course there is no sane reason for anyone to be envious of any lefty}}
norman…”Trump would be more on the line of a Dicator who has total authority over everything. A step even worse than the Marxist you describe. Trump and Putin seem to have virtually identical personalities”.
***
The evidence proves you wrong. Trump had 4 years in office and as far as I am concerned worked wonders at turning political correctness on it head. At no time did he act like a dictator, like Biden has turned out to be. He also had the sense to see the climate change bs for what it is.
He got along with Putin because he saw a human being in Putin rather than a hated ideologue. Gorbachev claimed Putin was a good person. He pointed out that he had a background in the KGB but he decided to follow glasnost and perestroika.
We will never know Putin’s personality because he speaks Russian an all we have to go on is what the media tell us. I know nothing about him but I am watching to see what he’ll do next.
Thus far he has kept to his word, which was to capture the Donbas region and drive out Nazi Ukrainian battalions. The Russians surrounded the Nazi Azov battalion in Mariupol and wiped them out.
C’mon, Gordo.
Even ZZ propagandists stopped using that tired line:
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1568310989149605888
You’re rooting for the richest man in the world.
Think.
stephen…”Thomas Sowell says the destructive driving force of leftists is ENVY”.
***
You strike me as a fair-minded person. Do you think it was right in the 1800s for children to be forced to work? Some children were used in coal mines to crawl into seams that were too big for a man. Men and women were forced to work in sweat-shop conditions and if they did not, they were often sent to debtors prison.
That was the context in which Marx formed his manifesto. That’s what he was arguing against. I do not subscribe to his overall manifesto, I have not even read it because it does not interest me. However, I applaud Marx for standing up to the cruel conditions imposed on humanity by belligerent and stupid capitalists.
Eventually, some brave souls said, ‘enough is enough’. They began to form unions and demanded better wages and conditions through civil disobedience. They paid the price. Their capitalist bosses hired thugs to beat them and even kill them. Still, they persisted and eventually won wages and conditions we would regard as a pittance today.
We can thank those brave souls for the wages and benefits we take for granted today. Pensions, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, medicare (in Canada anyway)…all were demanded and achieved by socialist unionists. And it happened in the US as well.
You don’t seriously think any of those benefits and conditions came from the kindness of a capitalist’s heart, do you?
It had nothing to do with envy, they were angry at the way they were being treated and they revolted.
Comparing this modern load of idiots, like AOC and her leftist whiners to real socialists is a serious joke. About the only time AOC and her ilk get their hands dirty is if they fall down.
With regard to Marxists, there is no such thing. A lot of anarchists claimed to be following the tenets of Marx but it was a bluff to impose a Draconian order. They called themselves socialists but Marx would have nothing to do with socialism.
True socialists these days are a dying breed. True socialists fought for reforms in a just cause. It was based on need, not envy. Furthermore, modern socialism took place within democratic countries, not hell-holes like the USSR and China, or in banana republics in South America or Cuba.
Those who are called Leftists today are nothing more than politically-correct idiots who comes from the left and the right of the political spectrum. Arnold Schwarzeneggar would be considered a Lefty even though he is right of Attila the Hun in his political thinking.
–stephenThomas Sowell says the destructive driving force of leftists is ENVY.
***
You strike me as a fair-minded person. Do you think it was right in the 1800s for children to be forced to work?–
Sowell would be talking modern American Left.
And in terms 1800s he might be discussing matters related to black being enslaved in the southern US states and Dem Party racial discrimination which followed the American civil war as it led up to 20th century.
gb…”Sowell would be talking modern American Left”.
***
My argument is they are not Left, they are politically-correct idiots.
The distinction between Left and Right has become blurred in modern times because not as many people are hurting financially. The so-called Left, through unionism, moved the working class into the middle class, and when people become weathier they tend to forget their roots.
My Dad, who spent most of his life in the UK, pointed out how the UK became socialist after WWII. They voted Churchill out. After a decade of relatively easy living, they became lax and fat, then began voting for right wingers like the Tories.
Here in Canada, intellectuals and the politically-correct have invaded socialist parties like the NDP and forced them to turn on unions, the original backbone of the party. They are replacing unions with special interest groups like eco-alarmists and political-correctness aimed at shaming people into accepting homosexuality by labeling them as homophobic.
Ironically, the leader of the Federal NDP is concerned that the Tories, under a new leader, are appealing to unionists. Although the NDP have distanced themselves from unionists they still want their votes. I am one former unionist who no longer supports them.
I have no idea what Left and Right means anymore. I have no identity with either side.
GB,
From 1837 until about 1865, the world was in a major Depression which culminated in the Civil War for the US. During the next Great Depression, you’ll see a lot of child labor laws go by the wayside just as they did during the last. People forget child labor laws when they have to eat.
Huh???
Where do you get these nutty ideas?
On September 17, there will be heavy snowfall in the morning hours in the Alps at an altitude of about 2 km.
https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR1PacyEWcbHqnpLPd7BVFCUKSw6fCsGtMWyFYsdeAyCjjdKB7VDuDrNpNk#2022/09/17/0700Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=precip_3hr/orthographic=-345.98,45.64,1786
https://www.schneehoehen.de/schnee-wetter-lawinenbericht
Seems to be a lot mind reading going on.
And to keep it, simple. It’s not working.
Though it probably actually, can’t work.
Does it seem like the lull before the storm,
or it just me?
It seems the Ukrainian war, has reached a point.
I guess I should give some evidence of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCc9Y2Ppdkk
Though he might actually be more interested in killing
an elk.
I have not tasted elk, that I can remember, but
he thinks it’s tasty. I imagine it depends your
hunting and butchering skill- which I lack.
I like fishing, and trout and salmon are fairly
simple to do, and are yummy.
But not something I do, in this desert- it’s been
quite awhile.
The other thing is Starship launch. And also SLS.
We also entering the election season. And the slow news
of August is over.
The Dodgers are in the play offs.
I was going not watch them anymore- in protest.
But I am lousy protestor.
As I said, I don’t think Grand Min, will effect our ice house
global climate, much. But should effect the weather.
Since don’t know much about volcanoes and very little about
most of then in the ocean, it seems possible the Grand min or
sun activity might have something to do with it.
But generally I think of Grand min effects the northern part of our
world’s weather. But it could be we simply have more information about this part of the world- drunk looking for keys under light of lamp post.
So, we recovered from the little ice age, and we going to roughly stay recovered, and might get some clue in next couple decades of where it will go. But roughly we have gone anywhere much, in last 100 years, and unlikely next 100 years will much different- we could return to 1970’s. God, that was boring, in some ways.
But in terms of what humans do, we moved a lot, and probably things will more in next 50 and in last 50 years.
There is much to hope for.
On September 17, masses of Arctic air from over Greenland will fall over the Alps and Central Europe. Nighttime temperatures in Central Europe will drop to about 5 degrees C in the lowlands at night. In mountainous regions, it may drop below 0 C.
https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR1PacyEWcbHqnpLPd7BVFCUKSw6fCsGtMWyFYsdeAyCjjdKB7VDuDrNpNk#2022/09/17/0700Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-341.58,60.07,709
Heat and work are not forms of energy. Heat and work refer to energy in transit.
Each of the forms of energy can be converted into every other form.
The different forms of energy are: https://ibb.co/w7jxYXv
1) Mechanical kinetic and potential energy.
2) Thermal energy.
3) Electromagnetic energy.
4) Chemical energy.
5) Nuclear binding energy.
6) Mass energy.
maguff…”Heat and work are not forms of energy. Heat and work refer to energy in transit”.
***
Number two on your list is thermal energy. Are you seriously that stupid? You are claiming that thermal energy is energy in transit.
Why can you not name the energy in transit? Are you that stupid?
Number 1 on your list is wrong. Kinetic and potential energy is not energy per se, rather it is a description of energy in motion or at rest. Kinetic and/or potential can be used to describe any of the energies you list.
You forgot electrical energy is your list. Although electrons produce a magnetic field when they move in a conductor, EM is not electrical energy. Again, you can have potential electrical energy, like a battery with no circuit attached, or you can have kinetic electrical energy when a current flows in a circuit.
Work is kinetic mechanical energy. It is mechanical energy in motion. If you compact a spring without releasing it, the spring has potential mechanical energy.
There…are you not glad we had this little chat to straighten you out on basic science?
Any engineer who has spent even just one week in an engineering thermophysics course understands my comment. Hell, maybe even just one day, because if I remember correctly, the first day’s lecture was titled “Temperature, Energy, and Heat.”
You, of course, being a layman are exempt from understanding. Move along.
TM,
Unfortunately, “climate scientists” don’t seem to know the difference between “Temperature, energy, and heat’, do they?
These pseudo-scientists are so stupid, they think that temperatures are measured in W/m2, or something. They burble on about “energy balance”, “back radiation”, and all sorts of other nonsense.
They imply, like Carl Sagan, that the Earth has not steadily cooled to its present temperature, retaining much of its interior heat, but was somehow created at absolute zero, and has been heated to its present temperature by the Sun!
You wouldnt be silly enough to believe a fairytale of that nature, would you? Yes?
You are a SkyDragon cultist are you?
Or just stupid and ignorant, perhaps.
Off you go now, and tell everyone how the magical warming powers of CO2 only started working a few years ago.
Donkey!
> They imply, like Carl Sagan, that the Earth has not steadily cooled to its present temperature
Why tell two lies to plug your irrelevant factoid, Mike?
To be funny?
No need to push it.
You’re a natural clown!
Oh dear Willard
Drop your trousers, lower your undergarments, bend over and prepare for another spanking.
Tell me, which “climate scientists” accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature? Can’t think of a single one?
Oh well.
swenson…”Unfortunately, climate scientists dont seem to know the difference between Temperature, energy, and heat, do they?”
***
Excellent point. Even more unfortunate, it seems to be mainstream scientists who are developing the same problem.
Paradigms get established by bullies. I am currently reading a book by Robert. F. Kennedy, Jr. in which he reveals in detail how Anthony Fauci has totally corrupted medical science by bullying other scientists into accepting his corrupt agenda for selling out the US public to drug companies.
For anyone interested, the book is titled ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’. I had no idea the extent to which this evil man has corrupted medical science to serve his buddies in the drug industry while lining his own pockets. Kennedy does a masterful job, supplying more citations/reference per chapter than I have ever seen in a book. There are literally several pages pf references per chapter.
I have no doubt that the same corruption is present in the global warming/climate change arena. Top climate scientists have seen to it that any dissenting voices are resisted and the media is helping by censoring skeptics. The IPCC corruptions has reached to excluding skeptics from reviews.
It is little wonder they fail to understand the distinction between temperature, energy, and heat? They have no interest in understanding, their MO is to present pseudo-science and propaganda to enhance a false theory.
Hey, Mike:
https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change/The-last-great-cooling
Pray tell more about your sexual fantasies.
Willard,
I see I have spanked some sense into you. You can pull up your trousers now.
Britannica, of course, doesn’t want to admit that the Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years, but I suppose 50 million is a good start.
The eminent British physicist, Lord Kelvin, calculated the age of the Earth to be no more than 40 million years, so Britannica has moved along a little.
Post something more authoritative than a quote from an encyclopedia, and you will find the Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years or so. It doesn’t heat up and cool down all by itself you know!
That’s a SkyDragon cult fairytale.
Carry on.
Does your wife know about Britannica, Mike, and does she have a safe word?
If you ever feel the urge to reenact what your dad made you suffer, recall the wisdom of Yogi Berra:
> Entropy production due to [the A word] of solar radiation in the climate system is found to be irrelevant to the maximized properties associated with turbulence.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
For some completely bizarre reason, you wrote –
“Does your wife know about Britannica, Mike, and does she have a safe word?
If you ever feel the urge to reenact what your dad made you suffer, recall the wisdom of Yogi Berra:
> Entropy production due to [the A word] of solar radiation in the climate system is found to be irrelevant to the maximized properties associated with turbulence.
Cheers.”
Keep it up – hopefully, others will associate other climate cultists with your witless avoidance tactics.
Mike,
Are you suggesting that you tried to spank but whiffed?
Twice?
Try again, you still have one strike left!
Cheers.
Willard,
Acting the fool won’t stop people accepting that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, meaning that any supposed GHE had no heating effect whatever!
By the way, in case anybody like yourself doesn’t know, slow cooling is not heating.
Thats why the word “cooling” is used, you donkey.
Spanking and silly semantic games do not mix, Mike.
At least remove your dominatrix outfit.
Willard,
You dont seem to be able to address the fact that nothing managed to stop the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so, mythical GHE included.
Carry on being a nitwit.
Mike Flynn,
You seem unable
Why do you prefer latex to leather, Mike –
Is it because it hides your lack of argument better?
Willard,
Not happy that your arguments have no effect on facts?
Gee, why am I not surprised?
Maybe you don’t like the fact that the Earth has cooled a lot over the last four and a half billion years or so, showing that the GHE has not caused any heating at all!
Tough. Have an argument with reality.
Let me know how you get on, dimwit.
I am more than happy to acknowledge your lack of relevance, Mike.
That is the naked truth,
You clown.
Willard,
Relevance?
Yes, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Only an ignoramus like you would understand it. Even a child, who has suffered a burn, could tell you that heat is real and very physical.
Heat burns skin. According to you, it is a mysterious energy burning the skin and heat is a simple, theoretical measure of the amount of that energy transferred.
Yes, you are very childlike. Duly noted.
It’s obvious from your replies that you have lost the debate and have now resorted to the childish practice of name-calling.
If you truly understood the essence of heat and work you’d be able to reply using physics. You obviously can’t since you are pathetically lost in your world of appealing to authority.
I’ve given you plenty of physics justifications with all my comments, including very detailed diagrams.
As for you calling me names all throughout this exchange, I couldn’t care less. That’s just your way of admitting that I’m right.
Go back to your 19th century physics. Pro tip though: learn to read for context and understanding.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Frank Howell a Scott McIntosh follower on Solar Cycle 25
https://youtu.be/tJclGEyy9CA
Well, it is steeper.
And I do think 25 will be should be shorter.
But nothing about the humps- first being taller or shorter
and second hump being taller or shorter.
And more importantly to me, what is solar cycle 26 going to be
like.
And both 24 and 25 are weak- or low solar activity is giving us, higher GCR levels.
Steeper than what ? the single hump prediction line ? that has no meaning , I wrote about it here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1127430
Compare to real very low previous cycle it is not steeper at all
https://i.postimg.cc/Rh4ZM0k4/msolar-cycle-comparison8.jpg
Compare to real very low previous cycle it is not steeper at all
https://i.postimg.cc/Rh4ZM0k4/msolar-cycle-comparison8.jpg
Well the whole video you linked was about the why and wherefores
of why is it going to be steeper and shorter than NASA and NOAA models. Lots of time explaining Terminator line – relating a theory magnetic nature of Sun
You may or not agree with it.
But just say I agree with that aspect of very long video.
Oh also said there going to be very high amount sunspots activity- which I thought was not likely.
Do you think that is likely?
It is absolutely evident that if SC25 would, since beginning, have followed the red line point after point, babbling Edog aka Eben never and never would have written
” Steeper than what ? the single hump prediction line ? that has no meaning… “.
Never and never.
If you want best information about how SC25 develops compared to its predecessors, look at the page
https://www.stce.be/content/sc25-tracking
I hope everybody remembers Bindiclown’s best ENSO forecast, before you check his best SC25 site that updates its data only once every four month
Bindidon says:
never and never would have written
Steeper than what ? the single hump prediction line ? that has no meaning .
Never and never.
————————————-
As soon as I saw people trying to match up the SC25 progress to the prediction line I started saying to do that is nonsense and there is no way the real cycle would ever follow that line,
Bindiclown on the other hand is a lying trolling ankle biting debil who doesn’t understand the mechanics how anything works and cannot predict absolutely anything
maguff…” We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion.
The Mechanical Theory of Heat. R. Clausius, 1879.
2nd: The 2nd law had to be extended for non-equilibrium systems that exchange energy and/or mass with their surroundings”.
***
I am glad you are reading Clausius. I found that you have to really focus on what is being said. Clausius was a brilliant guy, way ahead of his time. If you you simply skim his work, looking for ammo in an argument, you are doing yourself a huge disfavour.
The guy brilliantly explains the relationship between heat and work in a way you won’t hear in modern physics lectures. No one bothers these days to explain physics subjectively. That was a complaint of Feynman. He felt his lectures were worthless if he could not physically explain what his lectures represented.
In the first part of the quote, Clausius is talking about the opinions of other scientists. The part I have repeated above is his view, that heat is motion of particles of bodies, meaning atoms. Vis Viva is a reference to kinetic energy, therefore he is saying that heat is a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms. That’s far different than the modern definition that heat is a measure of energy transfer of a mysterious energy.
Later on, he drops the reference to ‘measure’ and claims that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Think about it. You have a distinct form of energy related to the motion of atoms and you want to call it something. So, you call it thermal energy which translates to heat.
Kinetic energy means energy in motion, but it does not tell you which energy is in motion. When it comes to atoms in motion, whether its vibration in a lattice or whatever, that kind of energy has been defined as thermal energy, aka heat.
The 2nd law has never been extended. When you talk about exchanging energy with the surroundings you mean exchanging heat with the environment. The 2nd law applies to such a heat transfer. It has nothing to do with a mass transfer unless that mass is transferring heat.
Gordon,
John Tyndall published a book in 1860 or so, based on his earlier experiments, titled “Heat considered as a mode of motion”.
He was a persuasive writer and lecturer, and his speculations about a “luminiferous ether” are very convincing. Quite a pity that the luminiferous ether can’t actually be shown to exist (at least with the contradictory properties it would need to have).
However, nothing changes the fact that the radiation from colder bodies cannot make hotter ones even hotter. That would lead to the stupid conclusion that the colder body, losing energy to the warmer, would get even colder as a result! The final result would be that all matter in the the universe would rapidly proceed to absolute zero, with the exception of a smaller amount which would be subject to infinite heating! Energy being neither created nor destroyed, of course.
What nonsense!
Here we are – case closed.
Swenson,
“That would lead to the stupid conclusion that the colder body, losing energy to the warmer, ”
Right, that’s a stupid conclusion, because the colder body is being warmed, gets energy from the warmer body, the heat transfer being from warm to cold.
Are you making that stupid conclusion?
And the drivel that follows?
bob,
It looks suspiciously as though you agree that a colder object (the atmosphere) cannot heat a hotter (the sunlit surface).
Or are you one of the SkyDragon cultists who just refuse to accept that the Earth has cooled from a much hotter condition, and is precisely no hotter or colder than it should be?
Off you go – talk about something else. Avoid inconvenient truth at all costs.
Swenson,
Yes, I refuse to accept that it has only cooled since the collision that formed the Moon, I think it was colder before that event.
It warms, it cools, according to the laws of physics.
And what’s in the atmosphere helps determine precisely how cold or hot it should be.
And the atmosphere causes the surface to be warmer than it would be without an atmosphere, even if the heat transfer is from the surface to space.
If you don’t understand, get some help.
bob,
You wrote –
“And the atmosphere causes the surface to be warmer than it would be without an atmosphere, . . . ”
Nonsense. The Moon has no atmosphere, and surface temperature exceed the Earths by a large margin.
You really are ignorant, arent you? Or is it stupidity?
Either way, you arent the sharpest tool in the shed. Hence, your less than stellar career history.
Swenson,
Yes, and it gets down to 45 K at night in some places.
What’s your point.
Certainly it’s not to show how sharp you are.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
swenson…”John Tyndall published a book in 1860 or so, based on his earlier experiments, titled Heat considered as a mode of motion”.
***
I don’t argue with the basic premise that heat is a mode of motion, after all it is represented by the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules which is a mode of motion.
Don’t know what to make of the aether. Dayton Miller presented a compelling argument for it and Einstein admitted that if Miller is right his theory of relativity is wrong.
Recently it has been discovered that so-called empty space is teeming with neutrinos. Neutrinos could be the aether of Tyndall and Miller. There could be other sub-atomic particle we have not yet discovered.
swenson…thinking about this several hours later, motion requires something to be moving. Clausius, like Tyndall, thought heat moved somehow through space, via the aether you mentioned. Both were surprisingly close given the knowledge available at the time about atomic theory and its relationship to EM.
Clausius equated heat to the motion of atoms…he wrote…”…the heat found in bodies and determining their temperature is treated as being a motion of their ponderable atoms…”. Heady stuff since little was known about atoms at the time. No one knew atoms had a nucleus with electrons around them since electrons were not discovered till the 1890s.
However, Clausius knew that atoms vibrated, leading him to the proper definition for internal energy, U. His definition of U is the one in the 1st law and it’s surprising how many modernists fail to understand it. All they have to do his read his description of internal energy, which involves both internal heat and work.
I think Tyndall and Clausius had it right for solids, and perhaps liquids and gases, but both failed to grasp that heat moving through space can do so only as convection, involving the flow of air or gas molecules. It won’t transmit through a vacuum but EM will. A pure vacuum, of course, has no matter whatsoever.
Therefore the mode of motion obviously must involve atoms or molecules. Since I am sure both Tyndall and Clausius were aware that heat could not flow through space without being part of atoms, they must have speculated that without atoms the transfer of heat through space must have involved some kind of invisible energy moving through an aether.
Neither of them could have known about EM and its construction featuring an electrical wave perpendicular to a magnetic wave. There is still an argument as to whether EM moves through completely empty space or whether there is a medium, like an aether. Maybe that medium is the neutrinos discovered to be teeming in empty space.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr hypothesized his theory of EM being generated and absorbed by electrons that we knew anything about how EM was created at the expense of heat in a body. Had Tyndall or Clausius learned that, I am sure the light would have turned on immediately.
Bohr’s theory also immediately disproved the notion that heat could be transferred cold to hot by itself. Clausius knew that re radiation and he said so, claiming it must obey the 2nd law. He knew enough about energy to make such a claim and he is just as right today as he was then.
Quick read trough Tyndall’s book on mode of motion, I got these quotes….
“The dynamical theory, or, as it is sometimes called, the mechanical theory of heat, discards the idea of materiality as applied to heat. The supporters of this theory do not believe heat to be matter, but an accident or condition of matter ; namely, a motion of its ultimate particles. From the direct contemplation of some of the phenomena of heat, a profound mind is led almost instinctively to conclude that heat is a kind of motion”.
“The theory, then, which Rumford so powerfully advocated, and Davy so ably supported, was, that heat is a kind of molecular motion; and that, by friction, percussion, or compression, this motion may be generated, as well as by combustion.
This is the theory which must gradually develop itself during these lectures, until your minds attain to perfect clearness regarding it”.
“the mechanical theory of heat, discards the idea of materiality as applied to heat.”
Gordon should learn & regularly apply that fact from Gordon’s reliable subject matter source.
ball4…before rushing to comment, you should first understand what has been written. Tyndall is claiming the material view of heat has been discarded, meaning the idea of heat as a fluid inherent in mass has been discarded.
Tyndall goes on to advocate for the theory that heat is a mode of motion related to atoms. Mode of motion is another word for kinetic energy, a word that was not used in his day. Clausius referred to KE as Vis Viva. Therefore Tyndall is claiming the same as Clausius, that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, kinetic energy is not energy per se but a description of energy. It tell you the energy is in motion, or acting. Therefore the energy in the kinetic energy of atoms is heat. One might call it kinetic thermal energy or kinetic heat.
In calling it kinetic thermal energy we must distinguish between the motion of molecules in a gas and the vibration of atoms in a solid. With a gas, heat is involved internally in each molecule’s atoms and in the velocity of the molecules themselves.
In a solid atomic lattice, as heat (thermal energy) is added, the atoms vibrate harder, therefore their kinetic energy increases. As Clausius explained, the vibration is work, which has a heat equivalent, but it is thermal energy that causes the atoms to vibrate harder. Work itself cannot cause an increase in atomic vibration within a solid.
One might wonder where the heat comes from that warms the atoms in a solid. It comes from a transfer of heat from an external source where the atoms in a flame, for example, are vibrating much faster than the atoms in the solid.
As Tyndall pointed out, heat can be induced simply by striking a piece of lead with a hammer or dropping a mass from a height. In such a case, the mechanical energy of motion is converted to heat upon impact.
Are you paying attention, Maguff? We’re talking about conservation of energy.
It should be noted that during impact, atoms are forced to move at varying velocities producing kinetic energy. If the kinetic energy is related to the motion of atoms, it is called heat. That is the name of the ‘energy’ in kinetic energy related to the motion of atoms.
Tyndall claimed you can calculate the amount of heat produced based on the velocity of a mass before impact.
If a mass is falling from a height, the kinetic energy is mechanical energy. When the mass hits the ground, or another object, mechanical KE is converted to thermal KE.
Lets see, if I didnt miss any, Gordon 4:43 pm claims kinetic energy is all of these:
1) A mode of motion
2) Vis Viva
3) not energy
4) thermal energy
5) (making) atoms vibrate harder. (harder?)
6) related to the motion of atoms.
7) mechanical energy
Gordon doesn’t have a firm grip on
*m*v^2
being defined as the kinetic energy of a point mass which Gordon doesn’t even mention. Get a firmer grip on KE, Gordon, in order to ably discuss KE on a science blog.
Gordon correctly writes: “the material view of heat has been discarded” thus heat is not contained in a material object in modern day but then Gordon claims: this non-material heat can transfer, and even “be induced”, into a material object. Paranormally I suppose.
Obviously, Gordon continues to struggle to understand the basic science of both KE and modern-day thermodynamics in which “the material view of heat has been discarded”.
… 1/2*m*v^2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Vast Space to develop artificial-gravity space station
by Debra Werner September 15, 2022
Vasts greatest near-term challenge is building a world-class engineering team that can attack any problem, McCaleb said. Vast will live or die on the quality of its engineering team.
…
The things we are building arent road-shippable, so we need access to a seaport or airport for shipping, McCaleb said. Likewise, its challenging to test our modules without doing it in space when testing on Earth, we have to contend with Earths gravity.
https://spacenews.com/vast-space-intro/
It might sound exciting, but I would start small.
Use second stage falcon-9 and add about 10 meter to how tall it
is. Make entrance/air lock, have several floors. And that’s about it.
Though I would make a bit more complicated, mostly related to making
it have a more uniform temperature. But it could be just cylinder 10 meter and end and air lock to get into it. Building it cost nothing, it’s the launch cost and another launch to get crew to it.
Or it would cheaper and better than launching two dragon capsules and using a rope.
And it’s a way to test it, so you can built bigger and better ones.
La Nina Modoki
https://bit.ly/3eWEzAd
https://bit.ly/3BL0OSE
ren…here’s a local article on Cyclone Merbot.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/canada-a-perfect-storm-is-about-to-change-your-september/ar-AA11NupP?cvid=607daba774444422b2ed85effb0a42e4
The thing to note is that warming from this typhoon is forecast to set near record temperatures for September in Ontario, at least 3000 miles from the typhoon.
Gordon Robertson, the cyclone is heading north. You can watch for updates. Renewing every hour.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
ren…thanks. Notice the amount of air it is displacing down the coast toward Vancouver. They expect that warmer air to affect Ontario, about 2500 – 3000 miles to the east.
Good example of how the ocean can affect inland temperatures.
I read that the northern Pacific Ocean is 4C warmer at this time.
Gordon Robertson, a lot of snow will fall in the mountains north of Vancouver.
Grand Solar Minimum Update
https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/02/science-into-agitprop-climate-change-is-strangling-our-oceans/#comment-782826
Those were the days.
That’s correct, CO2 does NOT prevent cooling.
I thought you said it caused cooling, Pup.
No Pup, you don’t think. You can’t think.
You’re braindead.
Of course Clint R said CO2 contributes to atmospheric cooling.
As an answer to the claim that more CO2 means less IR reacing space, he repeatedly claimed that the more CO2 is in, the more IR leaves the system!
Like nearly all Pseudoskeptics, Clint R is ‘convinced’ that CO2 contributes to evacuate IR by reemitting it, oh My.
That’s correct Bin, “CO2 contributes to atmospheric cooling”.
… mostly in the stratosphere.
No, it is not correct.
It is the same as when you would claim that H2O aka water vapor would ‘contribute to atmospheric cooling’.
This is completely stupid.
It’s correct, Bin. But to explain it to you requires physics, and we both know that won’t work.
Best to just quote me exactly. That way no one will know how dumb you are.
169, Pup. 169:
https://xkcd.com/169/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Whoever wrote that has expressed my views better than I could.
Do you agree with the author’s assumptions?
If not, why not?
Whoever wrote that, Mike?
You wrote that.
My toaster could not prevent the Earth from cooling since the dawn of time. Would you say it can’t do me toasts?
Willard,
Answer the question, dummy. Or not, if you want to scuttle away, like the fake scientist Gavin Schmidt scuttled away from debating Dr Spencer – just like a cockroach!
Toaster? Ringtone?
Still don’t want to accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature?
Who cares what you think? No great expressions of support for you, donkey boy, by the look of things. How sad!
Carry on.
Mike, Mike,
Tim answered your silly gotcha in this thread.
John Carpenter answered your silly gotcha in that original thread.
Yet here you are, with your silly gotcha.
Is that why you are rooting so hard for entropy?
Cheers.
Wriggling Wee Willy,
So it’s to be scuttling away like the cockroach you are, is it?
Still dont want to accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature?
I don’t blame you at all. Rather destroy your SkyDragon belief in magical CO2, wouldnt it?
Maybe you could try talking about toasters, ringtones, or anything else that will divert attention away from a GHE that you can’t even describe!
Ah well, thats the nature of cultists who cant back up their idiotic beliefs.
Carry on.
Mike,
Nobody cares about your silly gotcha for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with AGW.
Entropy does not imply what you make it imply. You might as well try to suggest that the Earth cooling off prevents you from eating marmite toasts or drive a car with an explosion engine.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The 2nd law has never been extended.”
That’s what you would say if your only acquaintance with thermo was through 19th century science.
The classical formulation by Clausius applies to isolated systems that have reached equilibrium. How many practical engineering problems meet those criteria?
News flash: the 2nd law has (since long ago) been extended to deal with systems exchanging energy [and mass] with their surroundings, and that are far from equilibrium.
“We on earth are not going toward equilibrium.”
Ilya Prigogine. Nobel Prize 1977.
Quit trying to pervert reality, TM.
2LoT applies everywhere, all the time. Clausius knew that and knew how that fit with entropy. Clausius understood it well. In fact, Clausius was the one that came up with the word “entropy”, to describe the reality.
Clint…I explained to maguff that energy exchanged with the environment is heat. Therefore the 2nd law applies. Even if mass exchanged with the environment contains heat, then heat is transferred as well. 2nd law.
The 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer and whether a system is isolated or not has nothing to do with it.
It’s kind of pathetic when those arguing against the 2nd law have to turn to lame arguments like whether a system is isolated or not. It’s the same argument to which spinner resort when trapped. They claim the Moon is turning on its axis based on a change of reference frames. They get so ridiculous they claim a ball on a string is rotating on its axis in a different reference frame.
Gordon writes: “Even if mass exchanged with the environment contains heat” but elsewhere Gordon agreed with Tyndall “the material view of heat has been discarded” in modern day.
Would Gordon’s mass then contain ghostly non-material heat? Gordon writes very paranormally on a science blog. Gordon should go back and re-read Clausius’ writing: “heat is a measure” of the total KE of atoms in a material.
I’ve given you plenty of physics justifications with all my comments, including very detailed diagrams.
As for you calling me names all throughout this exchange, I couldn’t care less. That’s just your way of admitting that I’m right.
Go back to your 19th century physics. Pro tip though: learn to read for context and understanding.
P.s.: this exchange started September 12, 2022 at 7:43 PM with you questioning my understanding of the entropy of an open system far from equilibrium. I’ve shown repeatedly why your Clausius methodology falls short in such situations. I don’t expect you to understand any of it because it wasn’t until about the mid-1950s that this methodology was introduced and you are stuck in the 1850s.
Happy trails.
“this exchange started September 12, 2022 at 7:43 PM with you questioning my understanding of the entropy of an open system far from equilibrium. Ive shown repeatedly why your Clausius methodology falls short in such situations”.
***
You have yet to reply to my point that energy leaving a system is heat. If heat leaves a system, the 2nd law applies. If mass leaves a system, and carries heat, the 2nd law applies.
In other words, the 2nd law applies to any system where heat is transferred.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1364518
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1364328
Tyson, please stop trolling.
We need to stay on this “ice boiling water” issue because it’s got the cult in such a tizzy.
They keep trying different schemes to get out of it. They’ve used spotlights, two suns, and two flashlights trying to pervert the issue. The “ice boiling water” is to the GHE nonsense what the ball-on-a-string is to the lunar rotation nonsense.
This issue arose with the claim that infrared from the sky (back-radiation) would add to solar flux to make the surface even hotter that Sun could. Of course that’s nonsense, as radiative fluxes don’t simply add, and entropy does not decrease naturally. But Folkerts conjured up an example, complete with numbers, claiming two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface could heat it to 325K. Here’s how he claims it would work:
The two fluxes result in a total of 630 W/m^2. So to emit that amount, the surface must be 325K. Pure nonsense. As soon as it was pointed out that that would result in ice being able to boil water, the cult started the perversions. They brought in the two spotlights, two suns, and one of the idiots even did an “demonstration” using two spotlights. It was all an effort to pervert the issue. The issue did NOT involve multiple energy sources.
The issue only involves ONE energy source. Sun is Earth’s energy source. The atmosphere does NOT bring new energy into the system.
Now watch the whining and gnashing of teeth. That’s why this is so much fun.
The atmosphere does NOT bring new energy into the system is Clint’s own simply made-up strawman for which Clint R can not find a reliable source. Actually the atm. absorbs and emits the sun’s radiated energy along with emitted terrestrial energy absorbed from the sun.
If the issue only involves ONE energy source of flux as Clint R writes, then there was never a need to discuss TWO fluxes “adding”!
Entertainer Clint R continues to be this science blog’s long time laughing stock.
“We need to stay on this ice boiling water issue because its got the cult in such a tizzy.”
Related to this, we are in Ice Age and we have a lot ice stacked up on land areas colder than melting point ice which is 0 C.
We are in this condition because of temperature of the ocean, 90% of the volume of our ocean is 3 C or colder, but top surface of ocean warmer {average temperature of about 17 C} which cause us to have average global temperature of about 15 C.
15 C is a cold air temperature. But since humans live on land we also consider the global land temperature which about 10 C. And due to laspe rate, 1000 meter above sea level, the average air above the land would be 10 C – 6.5 C = 3.5 C.
And 1/2 the mass of atmosphere is at elevation of about 5000 meter- and 2000 meter on average is 3.5 – 6.5 = -3 C.
People can live at 2000 meter elevation, in term weather a lot it is at 2000 meters elevation above sea level or higher.
Some people are concerned how warm it gets in summer, but without such warmer condition 3/4 of the rest of year period would lower average land temperature air temperature. And 1/2 of the year is quite cold.
And what is odd, is that people living in colder land regions are more concerned about having warmer air temperature. And they to ban the use of “fossil fuels” which keeps from freezing to death is the colder 1/2 of the year.
So, 15 C air temperature is cold air temperature. But where people live who worried 15 C is too warm, it’s much colder than 15 C.
Such people should interested is average air temperature of the winter where they live- because that cold temperature kills far more people, than the warmer summer times.
Of course they don’t need to measure the air, they simply look out their windows. Trees lose the leaves, animal flee from such cold condition. They even have to sense to flee from it.
The other thing is people are brainwashed to think global warming is about hotter air temperature.
Global warming is about have conditions warmer in our Ice Age.
We in a warmer part of our Ice Age, we in between periods of glaciation periods, or interglacial period. Called the Holocene interglacial period
Global warming is the time, we leave this colder time and is about the warmest times in an interglacial period.
In comparison to warmer times in an interglacial period, we are currently in a cooler time.
The warmest time periods in past interglacial period had warmer ocean
than we have. These periods had much warmer winter.
Of course there area of world which don’t have winters [or summers] and is tropical region. The tropical region has more sunlight and more greenhouse gases, and it doesn’t the hottest temperatures. Though it tends have has very high average yearly air temperature.
India has average yearly air temperature of 25 C and Germany has average yearly air temperature of 9 C. Germany likewise doesn’t have highest air temperature, and Germany gets far less sunlight. But in summer it almost gets as warm as India. Germany has longer daytime time with a weaker sunlight in the summer. And is quite dim, in the winter. Germany would be a lot colder in winter, if not for warming
from the Gulf Stream. Or greatest warm effect Germans get is from a warmer ocean. Though another large warming effect is from Urban heat island effect due to cities.
But now that know global warming has nothing to do with hotter air temperature. We can talk about something colder 0 C, can cause global warming.
With the atmosphere, when surface air temperature increases or decreases, the higher elevation of air above surface air follows.
And most of atmospheric mass is colder than 0 C.
So, if surface air temperature increases by 5 C, higher elevation air
also has to warm by 5 C.
So, if day starts at 20 C [68 F which cold air] the sunlight has warm entire entire atmosphere rather just the top 1000 meter of surface air. And likewise when sun not shining, the entire atmosphere needs to cool, so takes many hours to cool. But without having all this atmosphere mass to warm and cool, it would warm and cool faster.
So the very cold air at 5000 meters, is warming or keeping night air warmer. Or 6.5 C times 5 = 32.5 C colder than 20 C, is causing the night to cool slower.
Also in same sense, one could say the ocean cools, the ocean temperature only varies at most by 1 C. And land temperature varying a lot in the a day. And ocean air is warmer than land night air, and cooler than land day air.
So Ocean appears to cause cooling, but it’s actual cause land air to have a higher average temperature. Or ocean always warms, unless it’s a frozen ocean surface.
Clint R,
Prosecutor asks the question:
What’s the boiling point of water in Kelvin at one atmosphere?
Can I get a “never mind” in your best Rosanna Rosanna-Danna voice?
bob, that’s not nearly silly enough. You can be much more immature than that.
Show us your stuff.
Clint R,
The boiling point of water at 1 atmosphere pressure is 373.15 K.
Look it up if you don’t believe me.
373.15 is greater than 325.
Do you feel like a moron yet?
You just beat Gordon’s the Earth’s shadow causes the phases of the Moon.
Well Done!
Perfect bob, thanks.
You just proved again what a braindead cult idiot you are. You STILL don’t understand the issue. You’re braindead.
The “325K” comes from Folkerts’ adding the two 315 W/m^2 fluxes, incorrectly. If that were really true then 4 such fluxes would result in 1260 W/m^2, which would correspond to 386K, 113C, 235F. That’s plenty enough to boil water.
You can’t learn because you’re braindead, and you’re braindead because you can’t learn.
“That”s plenty enough to boil water.” good job, Clint R 11:49 am finally gets it right!
Clint R,
At least I quoted you correctly, and you didn’t mention 4 such fluxes, which would be enough to boil water.
When busted you claim you meant 4 such fluxes.
But the real question is what does fluxes from ice have to do with the greenhouse effect?
The only one “busted” was YOU, bob.
This has all been discussed numerous times. And as much as you troll, you’ve probably seen it more than once. But, being braindead, you couldn’t understand it. You were probably trying to claim ice could boil water if an ice meteor hit a lake, or some such childish diversion.
It’s just like my comment above that described the connection of this issue to the GHE nonsense. You clearly read the comment, but you couldn’t understand it. So now, you’re wanting to know the connection to the GHE nonsense!
You’re braindead.
Not really since bob simply realizes Clint R is correct about additive fluxes: “That’s plenty enough to boil water.”
Clint R,
No way Jose!
“The only one busted was YOU, bob.”
You’re the one who claimed a temperature of 325 K was enough to boil water.
I’ll keep reminding you of that fact.
“This has all been discussed numerous times.”
Now you are using your partners “trick” of claiming it has all been discussed, yet you continue to fail to demonstrate understanding of the topic.
Hence the continuous claim that we think adding fluxes from ice leads to boiling water.
What has the flux from ice have to do with the greenhouse effect?
You’re evasiveness is noted.
All WRONG, braindead bob!
Where did I ever say 325K could boil water?
Clint R,
Raight here
“The two fluxes result in a total of 630 W/m^2. So to emit that amount, the surface must be 325K. Pure nonsense. As soon as it was pointed out that that would result in ice being able to boil water, the cult started the perversions.”
from your comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1366161
Yes braindead bob, if two 315W/m^2 fluxes could simply add to 630W/m^2, then four such fluxes would add to 1260 W/m^2, which would be able to boil water. Pure nonsense.
Get an adult to explain it to you.
You’re a pathetic example of a Navy Vet. I’ve worked with many ex-Navy. They were mostly highly trained, dependable, and mature. You’re the exception.
Clint R
I will try some rational thought once more (hoping for a different outcome).
The fluxes that are adding are NOT the flux from the emitting objects around the receiving one. Tim Folkerts did explain that to you more than once.
Ice can emit a maximum flux of 315 W/m^2 at the temperatures given. That means to get a flux of 315 W/m^2 to reach the receiving surface the ice would have to totally surround the receiving object and no more energy from ice can now reach the object. It you had different bands of EMR that can pass through the ice you could get other fluxes that add up to reach the boiling point of water. Each flux will add at the surface. The emission flux does not have to relate the the receiving flux. If you think about this things may clear up. I hope so.
Norman, here’s some “rational thought” for you: This issue is about fluxes ARRIVING at a surface — “But Folkerts conjured up an example, complete with numbers, claiming two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface could heat it to 325K.”
You’re attempting to pervert reality, as usual. That’s because you’ve got NOTHING.
What will you try next?
Experiments? No, especially not Clint as past experiments show Clint R is wrong.
Norman,
“It you had different bands of EMR that can pass through the ice you could get other fluxes that add up to reach the boiling point of water.”
Yes, and if I had a billion dollars, Id be a billionaire!
I suppose some idiot is going to propose using radiation from a source with a temperature above that of boiling water – the Sun, for example, around 5700 K.
Minor problem. Ice is frozen water. How do you stop the radiation melting the ice and turning it back into water? Maybe you could apply some Folkerts Magic Ice Sustaining Elixir?
You idiot. Just another example of ignorance or stupidity on your part.
The only way you can heat something, is by exposing it to photons of energy greater than the object is emitting. As Einstein pointed out, “Its the frequency, stupid!” (Yes, I rephrased a tad.)
So keep on dreaming. The Earth used to be a lot hotter (molten). It has cooled. Its temperature is no more and no less than it should be and is.
norman…”That means to get a flux of 315 W/m^2 to reach the receiving surface the ice would have to totally surround the receiving object and no more energy from ice can now reach the object”.
***
Norman, old chap, how do you manage to paint yourself into these corners? A watt is a measure of mechanical energy. It is used to measure heat because their is an equivalence between heat and work as exposed by the scientist Joule. Only heat or work can be measured in watts.
The IR radiated by ice has no heat. Claiming ice radiates the equivalent of 3 x 100 watts bulbs per square metre is just plain bonkers. This vulgarity comes from a serious misapplication of S-B.
Here I am referring to the electrical power of the lamp to demonstrate the absurdity. It is claimed that the EM radiated from a 100 watt bulb is 5% of the rated power of 100 watts. That 5W over a sphere of 1 metre radius would give an EM intensity of about 0.385 W/M^2. So, the claim that ice radiates EM of 325 W/m^2 is sheer bs.
S-B, as developed by Stefan, is based on an experiment by Tyndall who heated a platinum filament wire electrically to temperatures between approximately 500C and 1500C. Stefan calculated the radiation intensity from the platinum BETWEEN THOSE TEMPERATURES had a T^4 relationship with temperature.
There is no evidence that the S-B relationship applies elsewhere in the temperature spectrum. At the following link, an excellent argument is provided to support that argument. As the author puts it, ice radiating at 315 w/m^2
is not happening.
https://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
Come on, Gordo:
> The watt (symbol: W) is the unit of power or radiant flux in the International System of Units (SI)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
Gordon Robertson
You do not seem as stupid as Clint R (inability to think or logically process information). However you are wrong on so many things that communication with you is not possible. You have your own definitions of words that are not used in current science so you fuddle up any conversation insisting only your definition is valid.
IR transfers heat from one object to another. This is accepted science. If you do not wish to accept it you are a science denier and all you offer is outdated opinions that you insist are correct.
Your link is from an unscientific crackpot Gary Novak. That you consider him a valid source of anything shows your complete ignorance.
I have linked you to low temperature Stefan-Boltzmann experiments which clearly show the 4th power relationship to temperature.
This is experimentally verified reality. You link to a lunatic crackpot over hundreds of years of experiment and research. That is a poor reflection on your thought process. You have no ability to discern crap over truth.
Clint R,
“Yes braindead bob, if two 315W/m^2 fluxes could simply add to 630W/m^2, then four such fluxes would add to 1260 W/m^2, which would be able to boil water. Pure nonsense”
You said two, not four.
Easy enough to build an apparatus where you have four 315 W/m^2 fluxes impinging on the same 1 square meter target, and then measure the temperature. With careful geometry they would add to 1260.
Even simpler to show that fluxes add, and not simply, but they do add.
For 50 bucks for materials and my hourly fee that could be very easily done.
You are wrong, and you have been busted.
Norman, have you found those “valid technical references” to support your nonsense yet?
Braindead bob, thanks for admitting that you believe ice cubes can boil water. Norman is afraid to admit his beliefs. You’re such a great example of a braindead cult idiot.
Clint R,
Yeah, but I haven’t said the flux from ice cubes can boil water.
That’s your pile of straw.
bob, the reason radiative fluxes don’t simply add is because they are composed of photons, and photons don’t simply add.
For example, two photons have wavelengths of 2.4 and 4.7 microns. Add them.
780 meV
Moron 1 + Moron 2 = another moron on welfare
Clint R,
That’s another 50 bucks, I’ll put it on your tab.
Wrong braindead bob.
You’re just adding the energies, not understanding what you’re doing. The photons are going in different directions!
I don’t have to pay for your comedy show. I get it for free….
CLint R,
Yes they are going in different directions, but they just hit the same object and they were converted to energy in the process, and that energy increased the temperature of that object.
Are we having fun now?
You’re trying to add photons with different wavelengths, bob.
You don’t have a clue why that is not even possible.
Maybe that’s because you’re braindead.
Clint R,
That’s because the photons have hit a surface and are no longer photons.
That’s what happens with the greenhouse effect.
Energy from the Sun and the atmosphere add.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/CwxcPV2C8pQ
[TULLY] You can really write. Why do you live like a bum?
[HENRY] I am a bum. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to write about the sufferings of the upper classes?
[TULLY] This may be news to you but they suffer too.
[HENRY] Hey baby, nobody suffers like the poor.
Tell that to teh Google, who thought I’d like that video:
https://youtu.be/wk2YUNglhNE
which is weird for I never discuss these issues.
If you think that Climateball is ugly, you’ve never seen TERFs in action.
Trust the algorithm.
maguff…”To commit to a bar fight you need to be at least as stupid as the person youre fighting”.
***
Makes no sense and reveals you have never been in a bar fight. If some idiot wants to take you on you had better be prepared and able to defend yourself. Appeals to authority and faulty logic won’t get you out of it. Ad homs and insults will only make it worse if you go down.
If you think you have the option in bar to commit to a fight or not, you are seriously naive. If someone wants to fight you in a bar, you seldom have a say in it. If you try to talk your way out of it, you come across as a sissy, and that emboldens your adversary.
Come on, Gordo.
You keep trying to talk yourself out of Climateball.
Tell me what that is supposed to mean.
Worrisome Wee Willy,
Tell me what that is supposed to mean.
[chuckle]
It means that Gordo is a sissy, Mike.
At least according to his own logic.
Willard,
And you imagine that someone is interested in your opinion because . . . ?
Witless fool!
Asking me questions might not be the best way to show you have no interest for my opinion, silly clown.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You need to up your reading level, laddie.
I don’t value your opinions.
I merely asked why you thought someone might be interested in your opinion – which is a totally different thing.
One can be interested in understanding why SkyDragon cultists refuse to believe that the supposed GHE has not prevented the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so. This does not mean that the opinions of SkyDragons are useful or valuable.
I laugh (sometimes quite loudly) at your semantic capering. I generally snigger at your feeble attempts to convince people that your opinions are based on anything but your febrile fantasies.
I believe in unfettered free speech. My opinions are my opinions, and others may choose to agree or disagree. Rational and sensible people often provide verifiable facts to support their opinions.
Unlike dimwitted SkyDragon cultists like you!
Carry on.
Dear Mike Flynn,
You need to work on your logic skillz, or else I’ll keep on skooling you.
Best,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
GR at 9:25 PM
Since you are so childlike I will expand on the metaphor in my comment.
In this case, the bar fight is a metaphor for engaging with online trolls as the linked video makes clear.
Trolls exploit the natural human instinct of self-defense.
When the targets of abuse by trolls respond they do three things. First, they reiterate troll dribble. Second, they legitimize a vacuous ideology as valid for discussion. Third, they confirm to the trolls that their targets are listening to them and are affected by what they read online, which reinforces the trolls’ behavior.
GR at 9:25 PM
“Makes no sense and reveals you have never been in a bar fight.”
That’s correct, I’ve never been in a bar fight.
Although it’s been over 40 years since I last patronized a bar where a fight could potentially have broken out, the fact that I’ve been 6-4 and 240# since high school might have deterred some from, as we say ’round here, messing with me.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Oh wonder.
Day 16 of the September month, and still no new monthly reports for the four atmospheric layers, let alone grid data updates.
Mais qu’est-ce qui se passe à Huntsville en Alabama, ma parole?
Global warming is a slow orbitally forced process.
Global warming is slowing and is reaching now its culmination point.
–
This will continue for about a millennium, and then a slow gradual Global cooling process will occur.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What’s happening under the equatorial Pacific?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202209.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Not quite surprisingly, Coolistas never ask, when looking at
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
what happens at all these other places
– north of Siberia
– between Canada and Greenland
– between Kamchatka and Japan
– in the Mediterranean Sea
– etc etc.
Unlike the bull that puffs and stares at nothing but the red muleta in the corrida, blue seems to magically attract Palmowski.
What is happening in Central Europe?
https://i.ibb.co/r0zgkGW/gfs-T2ma-eu-9.png
As said: you are half-blind.
Binny,
Thats a bit harsh. All SkyDragon followers are definitely one-eyed, but they are all completely oblivious to facts.
Not physically blind, just stupid and living in a fantasy of denial.
“What’s happening under the equatorial Pacific?”
Scary! Will this La Niña ever end?
We need some “global warming”….
” Global warming is a slow orbitally forced process. ”
Aha.
The Milankovitch cycles, nicely and concisely explained
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
1. Eccentricity (periodicity of 100,000 years)
At present the orbital eccentricity is nearly at the minimum of its cycle.
2. Axial Tilt (periodicity of 41,000 years)
At present axial tilt is in the middle of its range.
3. Precession (periodicity of 23,000 years)
At present the Earth is at perihelion very close to the winter solstice.
*
Maybe this extraordinary combination of Optima is the reason why we are currently posting on this blog.
Higher CO2 levels were suppose to save us from this cooling.
It seems China is running out of coal.
Or they have ran out of cheap coal {for whatever reason] and
what is in doubt how much will pay for Coal and will it get more expensive.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
It could related to some wrong govt policy, which could be reversed.
Such as not looking for more coal and/or shutting down coal mines which provided competition which kept the price down.
Both seem likely. Or Big Coal wanted have monopoly where they could raise price [so don’t other large companies with new mines increasing supply and lowering price]. Or “just” corruption, but corruption is very difficult to fix. Or just corruption doesn’t get fixed.
Some day a climatologist is going to calculate Venus surface temperature were Venus at Earth distance from the sun- and be famous.
After that, losers will do other planets at Earth distance from the Sun.
What would Mars average temperature be, if it was Earth distance from the Sun?
If Mars was at Earth’s L-3 {Earth’s distance from the sun} would Mars be more habitable?
Why would it be more habitable?
Why wouldn’t it be more habitable?
One thing to fix, regarding Mars, is the global dust storms.
If Mars was at Earth distance, fixing the global dust storm problem
should be harder to do.
g,
If Willard was a dancing, prancing, limp wristed nancy-boy, would he be more or less of a fool?
Only joking – I know the answer.
As to your queries – who knows?
I was wondering about increasing ocean temperature to 5 C, which involve using something like the Tsar Bomba and I wondered if anyone could make an island {if had enough Tsar Bomba and exploded them right places in the deep ocean}. Then I was thinking one heat ocean with less Tsar Bomba if one used them cause a lot underwater lava flow- which naturally lead to idea of making island [and commercial value of making an island in a good location].
Of course we had underwater nuclear tests- they weren’t very useful.
Government had consider using nuclear bombs for construction projects, Project Plowshare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
And I believe Soviet Union did do some of it. And we would do it, with Mars and the Moon. Though one also use space rocks directed to the area you want them to hit {and they could be far more powerful].
But I thinking that actually no one even model Earth at Earth distance if the ocean was 5 C, rather than 3.5 C.
Or no one even model Earth at 3.5 C
This is going in that direction:
University of Rochester Researchers Go Outside the Box to Delineate Major Ocean Currents
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/17/university-of-rochester-researchers-go-outside-the-box-to-delineate-major-ocean-currents/
Tsar Bomba in the ocean would be like a fart in St Paul’s Cathedral.
Its not like setting it off in atmosphere where its bobbling the surface tension.
Any change in temperature in the ocean would be too small to register on even the most sensitive of instruments.
Ken,
On the other hand, Edward Lorenz wrote “If the flap of a butterfly’s wings can be instrumental in generating a tornado, it can equally well be instrumental in preventing a tornado. And that would be impossible for us to know.”
Maybe you prefer Alan Turing – “The displacement of a single electron by a billionth of a centimetre at one moment might make the difference between a man being killed by an avalanche a year later, or escaping.”
Richard Feynman expressed things a little differently, and pointed out that the uncertainty principle, and quantum electrodynamics, showed that it is impossible to predict the future of a deterministic system, even if its initial state is completely defined.
You might be right, but on the other hand, you might be wrong. The future is unknowable.
On yet another hand, four and a half billion years or so of GHE and sunlight hasn’t even stopped the Earth from cooling, let alone made it hotter!
Gordon Robertson, typhoon approaches Bering Strait, and we have a cold low in the Gulf of Alaska.
https://i.ibb.co/TqTZ2vY/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-09-17-041706.png
Thanks, Ren.
I posted the following link previously in a reply to Norman. It reveals the absurdity of applying S-B to normal terrestrial temperatures.
https://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
“Here’s the problem with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant: Satellite measurements indicate that the sun’s energy approaching the earth is 1366 watts per square meter. The amount reflected away is said to be 26%. The amount absorbed into the atmosphere is said to be 16%. (See NASA chart). That’s 1366 minus 26% minus 16% = 792 W/m2. That’s how much radiation would fall on a black asphalt surface at the equator at noon. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates that in a dark basement, a concrete wall at 59F (the global average temperature) would emit 390 W/m2. That’s 49% as much radiation emitted from a dark, cold basement as falls on a black surface at the equator. It isn’t happening”.
“Night vision equipment shows that there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter”.
–The amount reflected away is said to be 26%. The amount absorbed into the atmosphere is said to be 16%. (See NASA chart). Thats 1366 minus 26% minus 16% = 792 W/m2. Thats how much radiation would fall on a black asphalt surface at the equator at noon. —
When sun is at zenith and clear sky, the sunlight reaching surface would be 1050 watts per square meter of direct sunlight and total amount of direct and indirect sunlight being 1120 watts per square meter. And ocean surface would absorb 1120 watt. Black asphalt would be heated by direct sunlight of 1050 watt per square meter.
At equator at any noon, the sun would always be near zenith- so roughly number of 1120 watts is close enough. Of the budget global and includes cloudy days.
Or you could be where noon sun is 60 degrees away zenith [or said other way sun was 30 degrees above horizon, and sunlight could be
around 500 watts per square meter.
And at equator, at 2 hour after sunrise and 2 hours before sunset, the sun is 30 degrees above the horizon.
When at 30 degree the sunlight will travel thru twice much atmosphere atmosphere. And if black asphalt surface is level the sunlight is spread over twice area. Or the length of shadow is twice as long as you are tall. Or 500 watts per square meter is 250 watts per square
meter. So lose sunlight energy because going to thru twice as much atmosphere and if not pointing at the sun. And it’s going thru a lot atmosphere, an hour after sunrise or an hour before sunset [15 degree above horizon it at equator. Equator always has about 12 hour daylight and hour of days vary a lot depending winter or summer- but at equinox it is 12 hours roughly everywhere.
Come on, Gordo.
Not Gary Novak.
Witless Willard,
You have plumbed new depths of idiocy through obscurity.
What a donkey you are!
If only you could click on links from time to time, Mike.
Willard,
If only you were capable enough to say what you need to say, without having to resort to nonsensical links.
If you cant explain something to at least an intelligent 12 year old, you dont understand it.
Links wont help.
Dear Mike Flynn,
My comment was addressed to Gordo. Try as hard as you might to play dumb, we all know you know who that is. Had you read his comment, you would not why I mention Gary Novak.
There is a link in his comment, click on it if you want to know more.
You playing dumb will not prevent the heat death of the universe.
Willard,
When you write incomprehensible nonsense like “you would not why I mention Gary Novak.”, is it any wonder that others just cant be bothered wasting time figuring out what you really meant?
If you had a reason for saying something, maybe you should say it.
If you believe the context suffices, posting your comment as a reply to the person to whom it was addressed, might make you look less stupid. Sloppy, Willard, very sloppy!
Trying to blame others for your own ineptitude wont get you very far.
Have you managed to accept the reality that the supposed GHE has not prevented the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so? It is quite stupid to insist that the laws of physics have suddenly changed just because your fantasy demands it,
Keep rejecting reality if you wish. Reality remains unmoved.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
Since you’re responding to a comment made to Gordo, please let it be known that on this day in 1939, the USSR joined the German invasion of Poland in line with the terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Vlad criminalised all mention of Moscow’s shameful alliance with Adolf.
Swoon.
Willard,
The GHE doesnt seem to have worked for four and a half billion years or so. The Earth has cooled regardless.
Maybe you could try a diversion – dribble about something completely pointless.
Maybe you could mutilate the English language, hoping to sound intellectual, rather than childish. Inserting words like “swoon”, or “skillz” at random might help to disguise the fact that you are a SkyDragon cultist, detached from reality.
How’s the search for a definition of the mythical (and demonstrably ineffective) GHE going?
D you think your mate, the asinine Ken Rice, might be able help?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
Were you there half a billion years or so?
You seem old, but that would make you very old.
Older than Keith Richards!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A renewed increase in galactic radiation since early September indicates a weak solar wind.
https://i.ibb.co/hFcz3B4/onlinequery.gif
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have any measurable greenhouse warming effect on the surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hurricane Fiona has entered the Caribbean Sea and is threatening Puerto Rico.
A cool autumn is forecast in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/f99mv11/hgt300.webp
Another gem from the somewhat delusional bobdroege-
“Thats because the photons have hit a surface and are no longer photons.
Thats what happens with the greenhouse effect.
Energy from the Sun and the atmosphere add.”
Except for the last four and a half billion years or so, of course, as the Earth somehow managed to cool.
No GHE. No magical CO2 warming. The Earth has cooled to its current temperature, unlike bobdroege’s overheated imagination.
Earth’s climate has been cooling for last 100 million years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
And since start of Ice Age, it’s been constantly cooling, due to entire ocean getting colder.
But over time period where entire Earth could cool [hundreds of millions of years, it been up and down in terms of ocean and global air temperature, due to geological factors and changing topography of Earth. With changes topography one have a lot warm water falling compared to amount cold water falling which results in global greenhouse climate.
In our present state we have more cold water falling, which I believe whenever have more polar sea ice, there is less cold water falling.
In order for ocean warm a significant from volcanic heating, one needs a lot volcanic heating over tens of thousands of years.
But also a large enough impactors could do this in very short time period. And such very large impactors would cause more global volcanic activity. In this context, dinosaur impact event would be small, too small. Though it’s thought dinosaur impact did cause more global volcanic activity.
In term energy costs, it costs very energy to make warm water fall.
One could simply add salt.
But I think it cheaper to just force warm water down to the colder part of ocean- and one could wave energy to provide that slight pumping force.
swenson…”[Bob Droege] Thats because the photons have hit a surface and are no longer photons.
Thats what happens with the greenhouse effect.
Energy from the Sun and the atmosphere add.
***
What happens to the photons when they hit the surface, Bob, that causes them to disappear?
How do so-called photons from a cooler atmosphere add to so-called photons from the Sun, which is about 5000C warmer at its surface?
Gordon,
The photons add the energy to the surface, just like a heat lamp keeps fried chicken warm.
Seems that is beyond your understanding.
Braindead bob doesn’t understand any of this.
Heat lamp filaments are typically emit photons from over 1000K. That level of emission allows the photons to warm food to about 140F, which is the safe level to kill bacteria.
Braindead bob must believe the atmosphere is at a temperature of 1000K!?!?
He’s braindead, and keeps proving it….
Clint R,
You keep making the same mistake over and over.
The temperature of the source has nothing to do with whether or not a photon is absorbed.
The photon does not carry that bit of information.
Braindead bob, the issue is that you can NOT compare a high temperature heat lamp, emitting high-energy photons, to the flux from the atmosphere. Trying to do that merely indicates you know NOTHING about any of this.
The only mistake I make, over and over, is in responding to your childish nonsense, bob. Your a rare example of someone that came out of military service with less maturity than an adolescent.
I’ll have to remember that from now on….
Clint R,
A heat lamp or any incandescent bulb also emits low energy infrared. It’s also not a “high temperature heat lamp.”
It emits a wide spectrum of photons, not just “high-energy photons”
You can’t attack my science, so you attack my “maturity” which shows your level of maturity. I am not the one childishly attacking someone’s maturity.
If you were a lawyer, you would be pounding the table.
Tell me about that 325 K being hot enough to boil water again.
The only mistake I make, over and over, is in responding to your childish nonsense, bob. You’re a rare example of someone that came out of military service with less maturity than an adolescent.
I’ll have to remember that from now on….
Swenson,
What would the temperature of the Earth be, if it wasn’t heated by the Sun for the last 4 1/2 billion years?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Fiona forecasting model
https://youtu.be/5wChCJo-AcU
I don’t see too many alarmists blaming these storms on climate change these days. Seems the alarmists have gotten the message that we are in the 3rd year of a La Nina.
norman…”IR transfers heat from one object to another. This is accepted science. If you do not wish to accept it you are a science denier…”
***
According to your logic, IR carries heat through a vacuum, yet basic science will tell you heat cannot travel through a vacuum.
If you take a box made of halite, which is evacuated (no air molecules), through which IR passes easily, then according to you, an object on one side of the halite box can transfer heat through the halite wall, through the vacuum, and out the other side, all via IR.
Your understanding of basic science is primitive. Heat cannot pass through a vacuum because their is no mass in a vacuum. What is called heat transfer by radiation is a misnomer. Heat in a hotter transmitting body is lost when it is converted to IR and IF the IR is absorbed by a cooler body, the IR is converted back to heat. No heat passes through an intermediate medium unless its by conduction or convection.
Heat needs mass to exist because heat is the energy associated with mass. The internal energy associated with a mass sitting still is thermal energy, the energy causing the atoms to vibrate a certain amount at a certain temperature.
You are also wrong that IR from a colder body carries heat to a warmer body. That’s not possible to begin with according to the 2nd law. Besides the obvious fact that it is impossible for IR to carry heat, since it consists of only an electrical field and a magnetic field, it is a basic tenet of physics that energy can only be transferred from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential.
Of course, it’s unlikely you’ll understand that since all of your information is garnered from reading textbook and misinterpreting what is said.
Gordon Roberstson
You can make up your own definitions all day long. It won’t help you communicate. You will exist on an Fantasy Island a world you made up.
Yes IR transfers heat. You can easily determine this because in a vacuum the temperature of an object will decrease as the IR carries away the heat of the object and another object will receive the IR and increase in temperature.
I have NEVER stated that IR carries heat from a colder body to a warmer one. So that is just a blatant lie. I have stated most clearly that energy will transfer from a colder body to a hotter one. That is a fact. You are a science denier so facts do not matter at all to you. Many experiments have been done to verify this reality and it is so well established an equation exists to express it.
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah
There is NO tenet of physics that canergy can only be transferred from a higher potential to lower potential.
Here I will easily show you how wrong you are. I am not the one who can’t understand physics. You are the one with no ability to think or reason and you only believe lunatics like Gary Novak, a fruit bat who makes stupid claims on a continuous basis. I have been on this clown’s web page.
Here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F2.gif
This elastic collision shows energy transfer both ways. The higher energy object transfers its energy to the lower energy one and the lower energy one transfers to the higher energy one. A transfer of energy that goes both ways.
I get tired of reading your redundant stupid physics after a time.
You have no ability to discern garbage from truth. You are not as stupid as the dirt clod Clint R (dumbest human I have encountered, he can’t think or reason in any fashion) but you are quite close. I guess you are about the low level of reasoning and logic as Gary Novak. You are not intelligent enough to understand what a molecular vibration is even though you have been told of it several times by different posters. Still living in dumbsville with idiots wandering around like Gary Novak and the other heroes you love, like Lanka, Duesberg, Postma, Claes Johnson.
Norman,
Maybe with all your immense knowledge, you might be able to explain why four and a half billion years or sunlight, atmosphere, CO2 , and GHE, couldnt stop the Earth cooling.
I doubt it, but try anyway, if you wish.
Idiot.
norman…your equation… q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ah , represents the rate of heat loss at a surface when it is surrounded by an environment with temperature Tc. It has nothing to do with a transfer of heat from a cold body to a warm body.
IR cannot be absorbed by a hotter body if it comes from a colder body.
I regard the equation as bogus as written. If you expand the equation, you get Ah in both terms, which makes no sense. It’s saying that the area A is the area of the hot body’s emission area in both bodies.
Gordon Robertson
The equation is for when an object is surrounded by an environment at some temperature. A more elaborate form includes a view factor if the hot object is not completely surrounded.
The equation determines the amount of radiant heat that leaves a hot surface. If you read any literature on this it states the heat loss from a hot surface is the energy lost by emission minus what it gains from the surroundings.
Roy Spencer clearly demonstrated with experiment that a cold object does add energy to a hotter one. You are really not being an honest person with your understanding. You are the cult minded who has beliefs but will not accept any evidence contrary to his understanding. Similar to the Cult of Flat Earth. You are about the same level of mentality as this group of people.
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Scroll down to page 14. It will explain the equation to you in more detail. You will see that the heat lost by the hot object is based upon its emission MINUS the energy it receives from the cooler object. The warmer the cooler object is the less heat loss from the hot object (which Roy clearly demonstrated). He is not alone in demonstrating this. Any engineer who does heat transfer knows this as a fact. You can continue in you Cult beliefs or learn science. Gary Novak is a crackpot. He just makes claims with no support and convinces a handful of ignorant people.
Norman, you can’t even get your bogus equation right!
The bogus equation is q = ε%sigma; (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
The bogus equation if found all over the Internet. But, it’s in the same category as “ice can boil water”, “lunar rotation”, “tidal locking”, and other nonsense that can easily be debunked.
The bogus equation subtracts fluxes, which can’t be subtracted. And Spencer’s experiment did not show what you believe it showed.
You don’t understand any of this.
Bogus equation idid not make it through. Will try again:
q = εσ(Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
Try this form, Pup:
https://tinyurl.com/the-most-important-law
norman…”The equation determines the amount of radiant heat that leaves a hot surface. If you read any literature on this it states the heat loss from a hot surface is the energy lost by emission minus what it gains from the surroundings”.
***
No such thing as radiant heat, Norman. Heat never leaves a surface via radiation, it is first converted to EM and the EM radiates. There is no heat in EM.
The equation indicates the rate of heat dissipation, that’s why it has a q in it. Try expanding it and see what you get.
q = e.sigma.Ah(Th^4 – Tc^4)
=e.sigma.Ah.Th^4 – e.sigma.Ah.Tc^4.
Makes no sense. For one it’s unlikely that e will be the same for Th and Tc. And why would only Ah be included and not Ac. You mentioned view factor, and A is very important in VF.
Newton’s Law of Cooling addresses it better for a small object in a large environment.
dT/dt(t) = K(Tt – A)
Tt is temperature of object and time, t.
A = temperature of environment
K = constant
It’s telling you that the rate of cooling increases with the difference between Tt and A.
If Tt = A, the rate of change is 0.
if Tt > A, body cools
if Tt < A, A warms the body.
> No such thing as radiant heat
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.watts.ca/solutions/systems/hydronic-heating-systems
Aren’t you supposed to be an engineer or something?
Willard, contrary to your website selection, there is no such thing as heat radiation (or cold radiation), a special radiation with the unique capability of heating (or colding) bodies. Radiation of any frequency is capable of heating given sufficient power or given that the body illuminated is suitably chosen.
maguff…”In this case, the bar fight is a metaphor for engaging with online trolls as the linked video makes clear”.
***
Kind of a dumb metaphor. I frequented a local bar when I was younger that got fairly rowdy toward closing time. If it got too rowdy, the bartender would shut off the lights. That was a sign to dive under the table because the rowdies started throwing beer bottles and glasses of beer till the lights were turned back on or the cops arrived.
You alleged that anyone who gets into a bar fight lacks intelligence. That presumes that only stupid people go to pubs. Even the most intelligent person can encounter a situation in which he is challenged to a fight. What’s he supposed to do? The wrong thing to do is try using intelligence to talk oneself out of the situation.
Where I come from, you use your intelligence against your adversary if a fight is forced upon you. Posters like you shy away from using intelligence, preferring ad homs, insults, strawman and red-herring arguments.
I am still waiting for you to offer intelligent responses based on science. It is not an intelligent argument to claim the 2nd law does not apply based on whether an environment is isolated or not. If you understood the nature of heat you would not offer such a red-herring argument.
ps. where I come from, a guy who is 6’4″ and 240 lbs would be a target for heroes trying to prove their worth. Heroes like that usually never act alone. They usually have half a dozen or more allies standing by to jump in if things go sour. A big guy on his own is no good unless he has the power to dispatch idiots quickly.
When I lifted weights regularly at a local gym there was a massive guy I got along with well for some reason. He was doing deadlifts with 550 lbs and I was standing there watching him, grinning at his strength. He was man-handling 550 lbs like it was a rubber dumbbell. When he finished the set, he grinned at me and said, “I just love to fight”.
That’s the kind of 6’+, 250 lb+ guy you don’t want to encounter in a bar fight.
“…there was a massive guy I got along with well for some reason. He was doing deadlifts with 550 lbs and I was standing there watching him, grinning at his strength.”
So Willard was right? https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1366568
Not that there’s anything wrong with that
maguff…I picture you as a snotty-nosed, pimply-faced adolescent who lives in a world of delusion.
I don’t picture you at all, which is exactly what I mean when I say you are very childlike.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TL;DR. You talk the talk do you walk the walk!
GR says: “where I come from…Heroes like that usually never act alone. They usually have half a dozen or more allies standing by to jump in if things go sour.”
I say: Where I come from we don’t call those people heroes. We have many names for them, hero’s not one of them.
There are no victims, only volunteers.
‘Heroes’ was used sarcastically.
“The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs when energy from a planet’s host star goes through its atmosphere and heats the planet’s surface, but greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent some of the heat from returning directly to space, resulting in a warmer planet.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
“The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs when energy from a planet’s host star goes through its atmosphere and heats the planet’s surface,”
Energy from the sun goes through transparent atmosphere and it’s transparent ocean.
Most of sunlight going thru the atmosphere goes thru the ocean which covers 70% of earth surface.
And most sunlight reaching earth surface is within the tropical zone, and about 80% of tropical zone is ocean.
And the ocean absorbs direct sunlight and indirect sunlight and any kind of shortwave scatter/reflected sunlight- in including the light of the blue sky.
“Anything radiates energy related to its temperature: the Sunat about 5,500 C (9,930 F)sends most of its energy as visible and near infrared light, while Earth’s average surface temperatureat about 15 C (59 F)emits longer-wavelength infrared, radiant heat. The atmosphere is transparent to most incoming sunlight, and allows its energy through to heat the surface. Most gases in the atmosphere are transparent to infrared, but the small proportion of the atmosphere that constitutes greenhouse gases absorbs some of the heat emitted by the surface rather than letting it escape into space.”
Venus doesn’t have this greenhouse effect as Wiki describes it.
Only a tiny portion of sun’s light reaches Venus surface. Instead sunlight directly heats the clouds of upper atmosphere Venus. As the Ozone is also directed heated by sunlight [it doesn’t block or absorbed IR light].
“A runaway greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere through a positive feedback cycle to such an extent that they substantially block thermal radiation (heat) from escaping into space, thus preventing the planet from cooling. The runaway greenhouse effect occurred with carbon dioxide and water vapor on Venus. It is unlikely that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions alone could trigger a runaway effect on Earth. ”
It’s impossible for CO2 to trigger a runaway effect. Venus does not have greenhouse effect and never did. Drop large amount of water in Venus, and it will cool.
As we know, Earth is in ice house global climate. The warmest climates of Earth were greenhouse global climate, greenhouse climate have a warm ocean. The warm ocean causes higher global water vapor.
The immediate effect of doubling CO2 levels does not cause water vapor- if doubling CO2 eventually increases ocean temperature, the warmer water will cause more water vapor.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, it’s warming effect is immeasurable, and therefore unknown.
gbaikie,
Some nitwit at Wikipedia wrote –
The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs when energy from a planets host star goes through its atmosphere and heats the planets surface, but greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent some of the heat from returning directly to space, resulting in a warmer planet.
When is this supposed to occur? Next week, next year, in 2050?
It doesnt seem to have happened for the last four and a half billion years or so, so it must still be coming.
I wont be holding my breath while Im waiting!
[laughing]
“but greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevent some of the heat from returning directly to space, resulting in a warmer planet.”
It does say some of the heat. But it also say 33 C of heat.
Which is a lot heat.
As I say I think ocean is the greenhouse and related to most of heat.
But I don’t think CO2 cools and it might add some warmth and if CO2 does some, H2O gases does a lot more.
But I think it is possible there isn’t any radiant effect of warming from any greenhouse gas. So, water vapor radiant effect is close to zero, and of course, CO2 is less than that. instead it might Ozone does more heating than greenhouse gases. If O3 wasn’t so unstable,
it would great to use as rocket fuel. CO is also rocket fuel.
And of course rocket fuel generates heat. And so we got billions of tonnes rocket in upper atmosphere- and it could make heat.
It was not to long ago that people imagine Earth lose water because sunlight would split H20.
Even climate cargo cult imagines Venus water disappear because it was split. Of course, split water is also rocket fuel. So upper atmosphere has atomic oxygen or O, and O3, CO, and it’s plasma- that’s quite cocktail. Course rocket exhaust is plasma, and we use CO, but we can’t use atomic oxygen or O3 because it’s too dangerous- too unstable. It’s bit frustrating for rocket guys, because they are always looking for the something which gives the most violent explosion.
I was thinking about how they say CO2 is a poison, and if someone was even allergic to CO2, they could not live. And people are allergic to milk and peanuts- and all kinds of stuff.
Careful with your wording, gb:
“But I don’t think CO2 cools and it might add some warmth…”
CO2 emits energy to space — that’s cooling. CO2 does not “add warmth”. That could be misconstrued as “heating”. Even insulation does not “heat”.
You’re saying things I don’t think you mean to say.
Added closed home insulation adds interior warmth without turning up the furnace on a calm steady state winter T day, just like added CO2 does in the earthen troposphere, a jacket, and Clint’s comments mostly add warm laughter on this science blog.
Earth’s insulation is provided by oxygen and nitrogen, which do not radiate terrestrial temperatures to space. But oxygen and nitrogen can NOT raise the temperature of Earth above its possible maximum of ~400K. They can’t even get close, due to Earth’s cooling processes like radiative gases.
Gas is kinetic energy, matter going faster than bullet [on average]- does bullet travel faster in daylight than at night?
Or a bullet does gain frictional heat, does that make it go faster?
Should we heat bullets before, firing them?? To make them travel faster?
Clint R
So how do oxygen and nitrogen prevent energy emitted from Earth’s surface going directly to space? I think the main problem with your posts is you do not possess logical thinking ability. If you play games like Sudoku you can learn to think logically, then your posts would not be so terribly flawed.
The GHG atmosphere reduces the amount of heat transferred from the surface to space. You are correct the GHG cool the atmosphere but they do not cool the surface.
I have no hope you can understand any of that but maybe with continued effort on my part, you may someday understand what you are missing. I think you could speed up your lack if you play logic games. You could also try online Chess which can help with your lack of logical analysis.
Norman, the only thing you got right, in all that blah-blah, is that GHG cool the atmosphere. And you learned that from me!
Usually, all you’ve got is your nonsense, which you can’t support with any valid technical reference.
Clint R
You do seem to refuse useful suggestions. Too bad for you. No you did not teach me GHG cools the atmosphere (but only the upper portion that can radiate out to space). Roy Spencer did a blog on it long before you were posting here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Roy Spencer: “The net effect of GHGs is to strongly warm the surface lower atmosphere temperature, and strongly cool the upper atmosphere temperature, compared to if those gases did not exist. The GHE makes the atmosphere so unstable that convection weather results, which restores the atmospheric temperature lapse rate to somewhere between dry adiabatic and moist adiabatic.
Read his whole article. You may see the flaws to your irrational view. Maybe logic will sink in and you can correct the many flaws you make in your thought process.
Norman, you keep linking to posts by Dr. Spencer, hoping that will give you some credibility. But credibility comes from supporting your claims.
That’s why you have no credibility.
Clint R
Your illogical thought process comes to an incorrect conclusion again. Now maybe you can understand why I suggest you start working on logic problems to develop this part of your brain.
I link to Roy Spencer’s blog post because he is saying the same things I do. Why am I saying them, because of reading Roy Spencer’s blogs, understanding the content and then going on to read more from science textbooks. I link to those not for my credibility but for your benefit to correct your incorrect ideas. For your benefit not mine.
My claims are all supported by actual physics. I have linked you to sources over and over.
Do you know what you say when I link to a source supporting what I claim? You brush it off and just make an illogical conclusion that I do not understand the material. You do not support your illogical claim, you just declare it. Not real smart of you.
Norman, if you had anything then there wouldn’t be a need for all the blah-blah, would there?
Just one credible source that Earth has a “real 255K surface”. And one credible source that two fluxes arriving a surface will simply add so the surface is emitting the sum of the fluxes.
If you had such sources, you would be linking to them constantly. You LOVE to link to sources, mostly to ones you don’t understand.
Put up or shut up.
Clint R
Again you bring up points that have been explained to you over and over. Why do you need to do this? It is highly illogical to continue bringing up points that have been adequately addressed.
I will not continue to respond to what has already been explained in great detail in many ways. All rejected by you. If you are that interested go back to previous posts that have dealt with both issues. Pointless to go over the same material hundreds of times with the same outcome from you.
Norman, your “explanations” mean NOTHING. You don’t understand the basic science. To support your nonsense, you need “valid technical references”. You don’t have any.
Your nonsense is all made-up stuff, conjured by your cult. You’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R
It seems most obvious you have no desire to gain rational or logical thinking ability. You are content to dwell in the fantasy world of your own design and try to spread your cult thought process to any fool who will listen to your nonsense.
It is too bad you wish to remain in such a state but it is beyond the ability of any facts or evidence to change that state of mind you exist in.
You are no different than the Flat Earth cult. They reject all evidence that does not support their incorrect belief just like you do. Sad state I think.
Clint R humorously doesn’t understand all matter radiates at all temperatures & wrongly replies: “Earth’s insulation is provided by oxygen and nitrogen, which do not radiate terrestrial temperatures to space.”
As I’ve been saying for about a year Norman, you’ve got NOTHING. You”re a complete phony — all foam, but no beer!
You have no understanding of the relevant physics. You make stuff up, to support your cult. Then you attack others with insults and false accusations.
Thanks for the confirmation.
gbaikie
” I was thinking about how they say CO2 is a poison… ”
Who does? Only absolute idiots. Here is why they are idiots:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16499405/
There are, of course, less known exceptions, e.g. dry ice:
https://mobil.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/dry-ice-carbon-dioxide-poisoning-is-possible.pdf
*
Of course, CO2 and especially H2O do not cool the atmosphere.
Whatever IR they are emitting, they had just absorbed it, mostly from below.
The lower the ‘below’, and the higher the molecule’s altitude, the greater will be the difference in (re)emitted energy because the emission energy depends of the emitting molecule’s temperature.
IR intercepting molecules do neither warm let alone cool the atmosphere.
The sum of their single actions is to lower the IR energy emitted by Earth to space – by tiny amounts.
Bindidon regurgitates his cult’s nonsense:
“Of course, CO2 and especially H2O do not cool the atmosphere.”
WRONG. Radiative gases emit to space, cooling the atmosphere.
“Whatever IR they are emitting, they had just absorbed it, mostly from below.”
WRONG. What Bin does not realize is CO2 absorbs/emits 4 main wavelengths — 2, 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. But only 15μ photons are from Earth. The other photons come from Sun. So CO2 absorbs high energy solar photons, and emits half back to space, resulting in cooling.
Clint R
” What Bin does not realize is CO2 absorbs/emits 4 main wavelengths 2, 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. ”
Oho. Are you sure sure, BallOnAString Boy?
https://tinyurl.com/4nynrnrc
*
” So CO2 absorbs high energy solar photons, and emits half back to space, resulting in cooling. ”
No. Because most of that energy is distributed within the atmosphere due to Brownian movement, as most CO2 molecules lose their absorbed energy through collisions with N2/O2 molecules ‘long’ before they can re-emit it.
This is the case for IR as well.
But the Brownian movement resulting from IR is by dimensions lower than that resulting from solar irradiation.
The major point still is, as written above:
” The sum of their single actions is to lower the IR energy emitted by Earth to space by tiny amounts. “
Yes braindeadidon, I’m sure. In fact, the 4.3 micron band absorbs/emits much more energy than the 15 micron band.
Molecular collisions are two-way. So energy transferring back and forth does not result in any temperature increase. But, CO2 emitting energy to space means COOLING.
You may want to consult your astrologers.
Binny,
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. Neither the atmosphere, CO2, nor anything else has stopped the cooling.
You claim some previously unknown process called the GHE has come into effect recently – obviously not involving the atmosphere or CO2, both of which have existed for billions of years, resulting in cooling.
Maybe you could explain this very new process to people with no knowledge of either physics or history.
Bindidon says:
September 18, 2022 at 9:48 AM
gbaikie
I was thinking about how they say CO2 is a poison
Who does? Only absolute idiots. Here is why they are idiots:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16499405/
There are, of course, less known exceptions, e.g. dry ice:
https://mobil.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/dry-ice-carbon-dioxide-poisoning-is-possible.pdf
—
“At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death.”
100,000 ppm of CO2 could be problem. As would 50,000 ppm.
9,000 ppm is considered upper limit with submarine and ISS.
One could notice 10,000 ppm of CO2, and I would avoid 5000 ppm over time period of days and weeks. Some make the case that 2000 ppm or higher impairs learning. I would think some kinds teachers would be greater impairment. And I would focus on that rather than CO2 levels.
*
“Of course, CO2 and especially H2O do not cool the atmosphere.”
H20 can locally cause lot of cooling- the tropical ocean heat engine
warms the world, and can apparently “dump heat” a lot heat directly into space. But spreading heat around or making a more uniform global temperature is global warming. Dry air can inhibit the transfer of heat, or wetter air can rapidly disperse heat. H20 molecule is a significant higher velocity molecule. On average it doesn’t matter much, just as CO2 being is somewhat a slower velocity molecule than N2 or O2. But I would say not on average it, does have an effect.
Weekly changes in sea surface temperature show the route of hurricanes. It can be seen beautifully that a hurricane in the western Pacific has reached as far as the Bering Sea.
Another hurricane will now pass over the Japanese Islands.
https://i.ibb.co/w47kPy2/cdas-sflux-ssta7diff-global-1.png
It still has a lot of power, it is causing a lot of problems in Alaska.
Indeed, it’s a real disaster.
You can see the first peak of solar activity in the 25th solar cycle, much weaker than the first peak in the previous cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/2d39sJK/mgii-composite-2.png
Typical for Alarmistas, regardless their preference: they exclusively talk about what fits their narrative.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TeTmv3aYPCjUhQcP2HMgftcEFwNOVlNH/view
What imho matters a lot more is whether or not SC 25 will manage to climb above SC 24 in the next months. The same of course is valid for other observations, like e.g. solar flux.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
Are you predicting SC 25 will climb above SC 24 in the next months or just blabbering out of your ass again???
” … out of your ass … ”
Thank you, babbling Edog, for your as usual so pretty faecal language!
You, a pilot?
Yeah , that’s what I thought ,
We will come back to this in a few month and remind you , just like your other predictions
why don’t you take a guess which way it goes this month,
Here are some clues
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/images/SDO/SDO_HMIIF_512.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/65THHxqY/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.jpg
Babbling Edog, I recently asked you to reboot what’s left of your brain, so that you might
– stop stalking me all the time
– stop claiming I would want to predict anything.
You are such a boring idiot.
And, by the way, I don’t need you ridiculous links.
This here
https://www.stce.be/content/sc25-tracking
is pretty good enough.
I hope everybody remembers Bindiclowns best ENSO forecast, before you check his best SC25 site that updates its data only once every four month
Eben
https://i.ibb.co/rFfxbF7/predi-KFML.png
Only naïve Ignoramuses like you check for updates daily, yell loudly when the change fits their narrative, and stay silent when the direction of the change doesn’t suit them.
This is much better:
https://tinyurl.com/pf2x2j3a
Why don’t you provide the true source?
*
Very interesting, but unfortunately behind paywall:
A Kalman Filter Technique for Improving Medium-Term Predictions of the Sunspot Number
T. Podlad~chikova & R. Van der Linden (2011)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-011-9899-y
I said now could be already the first of the double peak maximum, Ren said this is already the first peak of the maximum.
We put ourselves on the record.
You on the other hand are just a blabbering ankle biting trolling debil
Babbling Edog, I see you never will stop stalking and insulting.
Your mental age is near 12.
To your stupid remarks I prefer reading science, like e.g.
Prediction of the amplitude of solar cycle 25 using polar faculae observations
Jan Janssens (2021)
Solar-Terrestrial Centre of Excellence (STCE), Royal Observatory of Belgium, Avenue Circulaire 3, Brussels 1180, Belgium
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2021/01/swsc200036/swsc200036.html
—
Ireneusz Palmowski says:
September 18, 2022 at 9:50 AM
Eben
https://i.ibb.co/rFfxbF7/predi-KFML.png
—
I don’t think, it’s going follow the purple shaded area.
This month it’s going sideway, under it.
I give 70%, it drops or continues sideways, next month.
20% chance, next month it takes off. 10% it goes the shaded purple
way.
If climbs like a rocket, next month [this month is basically done]
it fall like a rock later- in several months after next month.
It goes sideway, it should have a bigger peak, coming.
Or goes something more unlikely, continue sideway for long time, or fall off a cliff.
Ill let the experts make the predictions
https://www.nasa.gov/msfcsolar
Sun spot peak ~ 135 in 2 y.
Nate, though I didn’t look at that graph, that roughly what said, but they would predicted prior to Sept 2022 [or it says each month they do this],
And they give 5% chance of very high climb and 5% of falling off cliff. And it seems for some reason the next solar min has 5% chance of not having long periods of spotless.
I predict they will change it, next month. Or they would revise if
it doing in Sept 19.
Another excellent article about how to predict the behavior of the incoming solar cycle:
The Polar Precursor Method for Solar Cycle Prediction: Comparison of Predictors and Their Temporal Range
Pawan Kumar, Melinda Nagy, Alexandre Lemerle, Bidya Binay Karak, and Kristof Petrovay (2021)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abdbb4/pdf
Out of the abstract
” The polar precursor method is widely considered to be the most robust physically motivated method to predict the amplitude of an upcoming solar cycle.
It uses indicators of the magnetic field concentrated near the poles around the sunspot minimum.
Here, we present an extensive analysis of the performance of various such predictors, based on both observational data (Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) magnetograms, Mount Wilson Observatory polar faculae counts, and Pulkovo A(t) index) and outputs (polar cap magnetic flux and global dipole moment) of various existing flux transport dynamo models. “
Eben
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/
Eben
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
What about superposing
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
and
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
with
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H69nsXNm0gBpL55ItHTV5ljmOQyGPHS_/view
and explaining us the relation between polar field strength and solar flux (or sun spot numbers which show nearly the same stuff) ?
Sorry, I didn’t see you had posted the explanation already.
The amazing thing occurred, for the first time you asked a legit question that actually makes sense , instead the psychobabble word salads you normally type.
What is not amazing at all is that you still can’t stop babbling your stoopid, redundant blah blah.
No one – some Ignoramuses excepted – is interested in your comments about me, babbling Edog.
Why can’t you simply stop that nonsense?
Why didn’t you stop attaching your zshit babbles to my posts when I asked you, you started it all, you have memory loss now ?
Shorter Eboy:
MOMMY, MOMMY, HE STARTED IT!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Eben
The Stanford WSO charts show that Cycle 25 is already well advanced in its development and close to replacing the dipoles.
Yes, when you superpose polar magnetic fields and sun spots cycle it matches the first of the double peak
Powerful attack by Hurricane Fiona in Puerto Rico.
Hispaniola threatened.
https://i.ibb.co/j5nn07q/7fba0f66-e22d-41a2-94ad-c59b328aa006-1.jpg
Cold stratosphere over the southern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Woopie Doopie La Nina Update:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-likely-increased-extreme-monsoon-rainfall-flooding-highly-vulnerable-communities-in-pakistan/
Who knew that La Nina/El Nino affects world wide temperature’s and precipitation?
That was not the implication, dummy.
Welcome back!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tropical Storm Madeline Spins West of Mexico
“Tropical Storm Madeline will move through an environment somewhat favorable for intensification during the next 24 hours. Madeline will move over water where the Sea Surface Temperatures are near 27˚C. It will move under the southern part of an upper level ridge centered near the west coast of Mexico. The ridge will produce easterly winds that will blow toward the top of Madelines circulation. Those winds will cause some vertical wind shear. The wind shear will inhibit intensification, but the shear may not be strong enough to prevent it. Tropical Storm Madeline could intensify during the next 24 hours.”
https://www.weatherusa.net/news/hobgood-blog/16133
Nobody saying it will come close to California, like other two did.
I think there 40% they are wrong.
It’s not like we need it- it’s cold enough here.
For the storm connoisseur.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62947900
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62938608
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62902494
At more than 80% it will approach California.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
mottainai
“It would be an exciting discussion to determine how much the GCR flux differs between Mars (1.5AU) and Venus (0.72AU).”
[[I thought so.]]
…
“Therefore, the response of each MCP to the high-energy
particles is not known. Furthermore, the housings of the MCP (shape of the spacecraft and the IMA sensor body) differ. In summary, we cannot quantitatively discuss the difference between the Venus
Express (~0.70.9 cm-2 s -1 ) and Mars Express (~0.10.3 cm-2 s -1 ) IMA background ”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.01377.pdf
{I am always so hopeful}
“Honig et al. 2019 concluded that there was a 3 % / AU gradient in the GCR intensity between 1 AU and 4.5 AU. If we apply the decrease rate, only a couple of percent of decrease is expected between Venus and Mars. ”
“A distinct signature found in Figure 3 is a clear trend of anti-correlation between the sunspot number (Figure 3c) and the Mars Express IMA background (Figure 3b). The anti-correlation is consistent with the GCR characteristics at Earth, the intensity of which is known to anti-correlates to the solar activity
(e.g., Van Allen 1993; Van Allen 2000). We can conclude the substantial contribution of GCR intensity to the MCP background at Mars.”
Well I was wondering about relationship of GCR measured here and Mars, and it’s “consistent” which is better than wildly divergent.
Though talked delays of solar effects being relate to odd and even solar cycle [because it being 22 year magnetic cycle, which would apply to solar cycle 24- because wasn’t odd number, but it did…
9 month delay effect was noted- but anyhow.
Shanghai rocket maker considering developing huge methane-fueled rockets
by Andrew Jones September 18, 2022
https://spacenews.com/shanghai-rocket-maker-considering-developing-huge-methane-fueled-rockets/
–China opened up portions of its space activities to private capital in late 2014, resulting in hundreds of firms entering the sector. A number of companies have developed methane-liquid oxygen rocket engines for their own launch vehicles, including Landspace and iSpace, but Jiuzhou Yunjian has focused solely on engines.
The firm signed a deal in October 2021 to supply its Longyun and smaller Lingyun engines to launch vehicle maker Rocket Pi for its Darwin-1 launcher.
The proposed launch vehicles would also provide a different path to developing new launch capabilities in China, separate from those being developed by the Beijing-based China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT).–
Norman wrote –
“The GHG atmosphere reduces the amount of heat transferred from the surface to space. You are correct the GHG cool the atmosphere but they do not cool the surface.”
GHGs obviously do not reduce the amount of heat transferred from the surface to space, any more than 20 km of crust reduces the amount of heat transferred from the mantle to space.
Otherwise, the Earth could not have cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
More energy out than in, you see.
Norman, like most of his bilk, confuses “amount” (a quantity) with the rate at which this quantity escapes to space, and all of it assuredly does, otherwise the Earth would not have cooled!
Now SkyDragons often claim, through semantic trickery, and illusory diversions, that “slow rates of cooling” are really heating – that is, raised temperatures!
Unfortunately, the fact is, that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding the fact that it had an atmosphere, and supposed GHGs, during that time.
It is evident that neither an atmosphere nor CO2 nor H2O managed to stop the Earth’s surface from cooling by some thousands of Kelvins. SkyDragons need to look for another causal mechanism to support their cultist beliefs. A latter day miracle or two, perhaps?
“More energy out than in, you see. ”
Curious. More heat is now coming in than is going out.After 4.5 billion years of cooling the Earth is now warming.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
EM,
Complete rubbish, unless you can locate the extra source of heat “coming in”, which hasn’t been in evidence for four and a half billion years or so.
No problem for journalists working for NASA – they are paid to publicise the fantasies of “climate scientists”. Maybe they are unaware of the fact that that the Earth has had an atmosphere containing GHGs for billions of years, but has cooled regardless.
Richard Feynman, at the conclusion of the Rogers Report, said “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
The latest crop of NASA nitwits can’t even claim that they are trying to improve technology!
As to NOAA, these “experts” believe that currents are due to surface wind, or maybe climate change!
> hasn’t been in evidence for four and a half billion years or so.
You’re only four billion years old, Mike.
How can you tell?
Willard,
How can you not, fool?
Because 4 is less that 4.5, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What Swenson said….
Radiative fluxes are not conserved. That means they do NOT have to balance. So the very concept of trying to balance flux means they don’t have a clue.
And incoming flux and outgoing flux do not even have the same spectrum. This so-called “energy imbalance” is a travesty of science. People should be going to jail!
Who is claiming they have to balance?
Pup has never been able to understand an energy balance equation, and he never will.
As stated, “…they don’t have a clue.”
What is the wavelength of a level 4 photon, Pup?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Haven’t we been over this before.
Fluxes do not have to balance.
For example, the incoming energy from the Sun is absorbed by the dayside half of Earth’s surface. The outgoing energy is radiates from the entire surface area. For a stable climate incoming total energy and outgoing total energy should be equal.
Since the incoming energy warms half the surface while outgoing energy radiates from the whole surface, you would expect the incoming flux to be twice the outgoing flux.
“Fluxes do not have to balance”.
CORRECT! That’s one of the reasons the “energy imbalance” is such nonsense. They’re trying to balance flux, confusing it with energy. And, they don’t know either value accurately enough to be meaningful.
IOW, they don’t have a clue. Typical cult “science”.
Plug in the numbers.
Incoming flux 480W/m^2 on the dayside.
Outgoing flux 240W/m^2.
You wouldn’t believe the difficulty some have in understanding that, Entropic Man.
Nobody misunderstands that, Graham.
You argued against it, ferociously, for about a year.
No, Graham. I did not.
One day you’ll mind your units properly.
Lying will not change the recorded history:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-667800
Indeed it is, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-668122
Yes, if you read through the discussion I linked to you get to that comment, Little Willy. Anyone reading through the discussion I linked to can see me arguing exactly what Entropic Man did above, and you saying over and over again that it is wrong. Even though I was right.
If you actually read the first comment to which you responded in that exchange, Graham:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-663959
The relevant sentence is right after the paragraph I just emphasized: energy balance models are not for “real-time” stuff, whatever you might mean by that. They are instantaneous. The equation holds at all times.
So no, the heating power of the Sun is never diluted, and your own division by 2 isn’t what EM is talking about.
Here you are. Right after having shied away from trying to communicate for real. Trolling with your usual crap.
Yes, bdgwx also understood what Entropic Man and I do.
You did not, as the records show.
You still don’t get what people are telling you, Graham:
BD was telling you that climate is all about statistical properties, not high-resolution functional reactive virtual reality. EM is telling you that fluxes don’t need to balance as long as energy does. I was telling you that you misinterpreted that division by 2. And you still do.
EM did not need to correct the light for their overall angles of incidence to make his point. He, like everybody but Sky Dragon cranks like you, must accept that when we make that correction, the proper ratio between the surface receiving the light the the surface emitting the heat is 1:4.
You’re using that omission for pure trolling.
“EM is telling you that fluxes don’t need to balance as long as energy does.”
That is what I was trying to explain to you, in the linked discussion. You did not understand this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1367391
as the records show…and they always will.
Here’s the bit that EM is not saying, Graham:
The first part is still false for interesting reasons, so interesting it led to a post:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
The second part is still not even wrong.
Remember: EM is not the one who’s arguing that evil climate scientists are reducing the heating power of the Sun by half.
You are.
“[DREMT] …in real time the flux is only received over a hemisphere whilst the output leaves over the whole sphere. So dividing by 2 for the input flux and by 4 for the output is appropriate. The input flux will be double the output flux, but the energy involved will balance, since the area the flux is received over is only half that over which it leaves.
[LITTLE WILLY] > So dividing by 2 for the input flux and by 4 for the output is appropriate.
The first part is false for interesting reasons.
The second part is not even wrong.”
Oh dear.
EM says:
“Plug in the numbers.
Incoming flux 480W/m^2 on the dayside.
Outgoing flux 240W/m^2.”
Last I checked, Little Willy, 960 divided by 2 is 480, and 960 divided by 4 is 240.
The 960 comes from the solar constant, corrected for albedo.
Clint R, Swenson
Gods, you two are thick.
Flux is power/area.
That is equivalent to energy * time/area.
Slotting in units that is Joule seconds/metre^2.
Knowing time and area you can calculate total energy.
Willard, DREMT
For once the three of us agree. Let’s relax and enjoy it.
For Clint R who still misses the point.
The simplest way to calculate the total incoming energy is to start with a disc the diameter of the Earth uniformly illuminated with 960 W/m^2.
The daylight hemisphere receives 960W/m^2 at the subsolar point and nothing at the terminator. Because it has twice the area of the disc the dayside receives an average flux of
960/2 = 480W/m^2.
Outgoing radiation transmits the same total energy to space from the whole of Earth’s surface, though intensity will vary with local temperature.
Since the whole surface has four times the area of the disc the average OLR flux will be 960/4 = 240W/m^2.
The agreement is not violent enough, EM.
Graham tries to argue that “960 / 2 = 480” justifies that we forget about the fairly basic geometric point that the Earth receives light over its shadow:
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8
The shadow of a sphere is a disc, not a sphere.
Another way to get the same result is to correct the angle of incidence of every ray that hits the Earth:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190372
In both cases you get a division by four.
For some reason Graham rejects that geometrical fact because of reasons like “in real time” and “Flat Earth.”
> The shadow of a sphere is a disc, not a sphere.
Not a hemisphere, of course.
I need tea.
Well explained, EM, 1:56 PM. If Little Willy was to be consistent, he would now start arguing with you for months on end in the manner he did with me at 2:04 PM.
By the way, I don’t think Clint R disagrees with what you’re saying…but be careful, at 1:10 PM…power is joules per second so it is total energy divided by time.
Ent, insults and false accusations don’t make up for your incompetence. You should have learned that from witnessing your other cult trolls, such as Norman and Ball4.
This issue is NOT about units. This issue is NOT about an imaginary sphere, which is where your 960/240 W/m^2 comes from. This issue is about the fact that your cult is trying to balance flux, which does NOT balance. If you’re trying to show “energy imbalance”, you MUST use ENERGY, not flux.
I predict none of you cult idiots will understand any of this.
Energy flux will always balance in/out of the closed control volume for steady state T, Clint, for each sec. and each m^2.
Humorously, Clint is always negligent in accounting each m^2 correctly & in closing the system; the physics experimental truth always beats permanently flustered Clint R.
DREMT
” at 1:10 PMpower is joules per second so it is total energy divided by time. ”
Thank you. I sit corrected.
> Since the whole surface has four times the area of the disc the average OLR flux will be 960/4 = 240W/m^2.
Exactly, EM. And since energy in equals energy out, the Earth can’t be receiving more than that overall.
Which means that if Graham was honest, he’d reveal that his calculations leads him to posit that the Earth has one side not far from absolute zero, e.g.:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191035
Not exactly true – it would be 2.725K, as AT pointed out.
Watch him spin around the Earth spin.
"Which means that if Graham was honest, he’d reveal that his calculations…"
My calculations are the same as EM’s.
It gets worse for the “energy imbalance” idiots. They can’t answer any of the relevant questions.
Here’s the link from Ent:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
So, pick any year, say 2015. Only the difference is shown, but what if a responsible adult asked
“What were the two values that produced the difference?”
IOW, what was the incoming solar flux at TOA, for the entire year. How was it measured? At what point was it measured, since there are no satellites at TOA? What is the margin of error?
Same for the advertised flux from Earth.
And when they produce some hokey answers, tell them “radiative fluxes don’t simply add/subtract”.
This AGW nonsense is a hoax, folks.
So Graham still goes for dishonesty, again implying that the disagreement is about rudimentary calculation whence it’s about mystification to double the 240W/m^2 figure everyone is stuck with, including Sky Dragon Cranks.
Imagine if the Earth received twice the energy it emitted each instant since the dawn of time – Mike “Molten Core” Flynn might get a stroke!
Speaking of dishonesty…here’s the full quote, which you mined:
"[LITTLE WILLY] One does not simply sell a hemispherical model of the Earth as a more “realistic” alternative to a model of the Earth, more so when one conceals that it’s -270C on the other side.
[DREMT] One, he’s not doing that…and two, the Earth would only be 3 K on the other side if the Earth were not rotating, and had no atmosphere."
The average flux received by Earth’s surface over each day is 240 W/m^2.
“If youre trying to show ‘energy imbalance’, you MUST use ENERGY, not flux.”
Energy IS USED when climate scientists discuss Earth’s energy imbalance.
It is convenient to divide this energy by the surface area of the Earth, then they can express it as J/M^2. Does that bother you?
Why?
Sometimes they divide the J/m^2 received by the time period it is received and they express it as W/m^2.
Does that bother you?
Why?
Anyone should be able to do the simple math to reverse these calculations and find the total energy. And they do that sometimes.
More legalistic mumbo-jumbo from Graham.
Here is the play by play:
[W] One does not simply sell a hemispherical model of the Earth as a more “realistic” alternative to a model of the Earth
[G] One, he’s not doing that
[JOE] If we wish to determine the physically instantaneous solar input energy density (Wattage per square meter) and corresponding heating temperature, via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, we must use the correct actually-physical geometry. Thus, with a day-light hemisphere of half the surface area of an entire sphere, we must write the hemispherical equilibrium equation as:
Source: https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Graham has yet to open the Magnum Opus he has been whiteknighting for 72 months.
All that really shows is that the 480 W/m^2 input that EM agreed to equates to a blackbody temperature of 303 K, or 30 C. Which you can check for yourself using the SB Law. How meaningful that really is, I’m not sure. The Earth rotates, and has an atmosphere which could transport heat from the sunny side to the dark side in any case, even if it didn’t rotate. See Noonworld, and the other more recent work from Mulholland and Wilde. It gets complicated.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Mulholland/publication/363542927_The_Application_of_the_Dynamic_Atmosphere_Energy_Transport_Climate_Model_DAET_to_Earth%27s_semi-opaque_troposphere/links/6328e8bf873eca0c009cc97a/The-Application-of-the-Dynamic-Atmosphere-Energy-Transport-Climate-Model-DAET-to-Earths-semi-opaque-troposphere.pdf?origin=publication_detail
> The Earth rotates
It always comes down to that silly cope. As if the Earth rotation would fabricate more energy than what the Earth can output in equilibrium.
And so down Graham goes with yet another paper he does not exactly endorses, so if anyone falls for his bait and discovers it’s crap he’ll claim there’s no downside for him.
Pure trolling.
72 months like that.
Sorry that you were wrong for a year, and that you wrote one of the most muddled articles on the subject ever written, but at least you were able to understand some very basic physics at the end of it, thanks to me. You’ll laugh about it one day.
You’re all forgiven for having feigned ignorance as to why the division 2 is utterly silly when it’s used to divorce the input from the output of what is supposed to be an equation, Graham. No wonder you were incapable of producing one. You had to play some kind of pea and thimble game:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190903
You’re still stuck with these two equations, and you have yet to acknowledge that Joe indeed works with a hemispherical model of the Earth.
Well, Little Willy, 480 does not equal 240. So it was mathematically impossible to produce the equation you kept on asking for. Kind of silly for you to ask for it in the first place, it just showed your complete lack of understanding.
> 480 does not equal 240
A hemisphere does not equal a sphere either, Graham.
I starting to believe you when you say that you can’t multiply by two.
…it just showed your complete lack of understanding. Still does.
1) Flux in (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/z
Where x = the solar constant, y = disk surface area, a = albedo and z = the area of the hemisphere.
z = 2y
So:
Flux in (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/2y = x(1-a)/2
2) Flux out (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/w
Where x = the solar constant, y = disk surface area, a = albedo and w = the area of the sphere.
w = 4y
So:
Flux out (W/m^2) = xy(1-a)/4y = x(1-a)/4
You wanted a single equation where 1) was on the left and 2) was on the right side of the equation.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190942
Impossible, since 480 does not equal 240. Your request just showed you had no clue.
You still are mispecifying the problem, Graham:
Energy in = Energy out
If you can’t convert fluxes accordingly, that’s on you.
All you need is to understand that a sphere is two hemispheres.
Everybody else can do it just right.
☺️
You are such a clown.
Why thank you, Graham.
If you appreciate my work, please donate to Clowns Without Borders.
Let’s accomplish the impossible together:
480W/m^2 on a hemisphere = 240W/m^2 on a sphere
I wonder what algebraic operation could make the two sides equal.
Would you like a clue?
No, you have none.
Go on then. Wow us all with your ability to make 480 = 240.
Here is one equation, Graham:
(1) 480W/m^2 on a hemisphere = 240W/m^2 on a sphere
Here is another:
(2) 480 = 240
One is not like the other.
OK. Do it for 1) then. Off you go.
You asked me to wow you with my ability to make 480 = 240, Graham.
Are you implicitly acknowledging that this request was misguided?
It’s effectively what you expected me to show when a year or so ago you asked me to combine the formulae 1) and 2) in my 8:26 PM comment, into one single equation.
You said, at 9:04 PM, “let’s accomplish the impossible together”. I am waiting for you to demonstrate something.
> Its what
No idea what that *it* is, Graham.
A hemisphere is half a sphere.
It is all in the word, as the Jackson Southernaires might say.
How could we represent that relationship algebraically?
I know I am asking a lot of you, but please make an effort.
“It” is 480 = 240.
You cannot equate flux in with flux out, because 480 does not equal 240.
Nevertheless, with a flux in of 480 W/m^2 over half the surface area of the Earth, and a flux out of 240 W/m^2 over the whole surface area of the Earth, energy in does equal energy out.
As you claim you now understand.
Are you about to prove that you still do not understand?
Graham,
I am not the one who pretends that the usual zero-dimension energy balance model reduces to 480 = 240. You are. The onus is on Sky Dragon Cranks like you to derive that contradiction.
So far, no cookie.
My own task is different – it is to make you mind your units.
Imagine a website with two pages and two trolls, G and P. G wrote 480 comments on one page, whereas P wrote 240 comments on each page.
Would you say that G wrote more comments than P?
“I am not the one who pretends that the usual zero-dimension energy balance model reduces to 480 = 240. You are.”
Wrong. I never once, in all these months, even mentioned a “zero-dimension energy balance model”, except perhaps to say that’s what has got you so confused. I have only ever been arguing this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1367391
…which you claim you do not dispute, yet the records show that you did.
> I never once, in all these months, even mentioned
Graham’s denial continues:
[GRAHAM] If you had the input to the Earth as 240 W/m^2 and the output from the Earth as 240 W/m^2 then you would effectively be saying that the sunlight magically falls across the whole sphere.
[AT] No, you wouldn’t. The input to the Earth is clearly 240 W/m^2. That it all falls on one hemisphere doesn’t change this. Of course, if you wanted to be pedantic, you could say the input is 480 W/m^2 on one hemisphere and 0 W/m^2 on the other, but that just averages to an input of 240 W/m^2.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190840
What you considered impossible to do is trivial:
480 W/m^2 on a hemisphere + 0 W/m^2 on the other hemisphere = 240 W/m^2 on the whole sphere
Add the other usual parameters like the SB constant, emissivity, albedo, etc, and that looks like an energy balance model, don’t you think?
Your quote doesn’t have me saying anything about a “zero-dimension energy balance model”, Little Willy. Please try again.
(and no, what I said is mathematically impossible is mathematically impossible. You cannot put my formulae 1) and 2) from my 8:26 PM comment together into one equation, because 480 does not equal 240)
Oh, Graham. You’re a pearl.
Perhaps you could answer this puzzle for me. When you said:
What were the division by 2 and by 4 appropriate for, again?
For calculating the input flux to, and output flux from, the Earth. See EM’s 1:56 PM comment.
And why would you calculate flux in and flux out exactly, Graham? I know that you sometimes convert these quantities into temperatures.
Perhaps this might jog your memory:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190902
Looks like someone who refutes to equate an input to an output to me.
Recall that in the usual energy balance models, the input and the output sides reach the same quantity, i.e. 240 W/m^2.
If that’s not enough to make you reach for another cope, we could revisit all the times you and Joe interjected “But Flat Earth!”
Please explain what exactly your problem is, with EM’s 1:56 PM comment.
An hemisphere is half a sphere, Graham. If you’re serious about the equality sign, you need to equate two equal things.
As AT said, 480 W/m^2 on a hemisphere just averages to an input of 240 W/m^2 on a sphere. Or as BD said, In the context of climate we are focused more on average properties on large spatial and temporal scales.
At each instant, the energy in and out of the system is and, pending astronomical shifts, will be 240 W/m^2.
On average.
For the whole Earth.
Because that’s what we’re trying to model. Not one hemisphere, like Joe clumsily say. Which leads his followers to think that flux in and flux out are not equal.
They are equal.
On average.
For the whole Earth.
Do you recall when I was talking about your Motte and Bailey? You’re hiding into your motte right now, pretending you agree with everyone. With confidence back, you will return to your Bailey about “flat Earth” and “second by second” crap.
I’ll be there for you.
So am I to take it that what you have just written is what you think is wrong with EM’s 1:56 PM comment? Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Then I will respond.
You can take whatever you please whichever way you please, Graham.
The fact remains that we could account for the flux over a hemisphere by correcting each part of the surface according to the angle from which the Sun hits it by applying Lambert’s Law. Then would get the same result as if you took a disc in the first place, and with it the division by 4 you and Joe so pleasantly despise.
You can try to spin the Earth second by second or however else you please, the 240W/m^2 as a hard limit is here to stay
OK, you lack the courage, integrity and honesty to openly disagree with Entropic Man…but just to be clear, you are doing so.
Anyway, the problem with your 10:39 AM comment is as follows:
You talk about "average properties on large spatial and temporal scales" in one breath, then in the next you say:
"At each instant, the energy in and out of the system is and, pending astronomical shifts, will be 240 W/m^2.
On average.
For the whole Earth."
The 240 W/m^2 input is only an average property on a large temporal scale. 480 W/m^2 is actually what is being input "at each instant", over only half the Earth. If you average the 480 W/m^2 over the whole Earth, "at each instant", then you are applying insolation to areas of the Earth’s surface which are not receiving said insolation. That is physically wrong.
> 480 W/m^2 is actually what is being input “at each instant”, over only half the Earth
That’s not exactly true: either you forget about correcting for incidence angle, or about the fact that we’re modelling the Earth. However you slice it, there are two divisions by two. So the division by four is here to stay and, as EM suggested, 480 W/m^2 over a hemisphere equals 240 W/m^2 over a sphere.
Perhaps I should write a post about that. Oh, right, I did –
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
I would not invoke courage when you’re basically trying to suggest that you, Joe, and all Sky Dragon Cranks never disputed the division by 4 and the ordinary energy balance model, Graham.
You do you.
"That’s not exactly true"
Yes, it is exactly true.
"as EM suggested, 480 W/m^2 over a hemisphere equals 240 W/m^2 over a sphere."
I agree with EM’s 1:56 PM comment. You don’t…and you are twisting his words.
"I would not invoke courage when you’re basically trying to suggest that you, Joe, and all Sky Dragon Cranks never disputed the division by 4 and the ordinary energy balance model, Graham."
The division by 4 is disputed…for the input flux. As I said, and you have not shown otherwise, "I never once, in all these months, even mentioned a “zero-dimension energy balance model”, except perhaps to say that’s what has got you so confused."
> Yes, it is exactly true.
Quite a powerful argument you got there, Graham.
Either you deny that the average flux received by Earth’s surface over each day is 240 W/m^2, or you don’t.
If you don’t, you’re part of Team Science, with me, Nate, EM, and just about everybody else in the scientific world.
If you do, you’re part of Team Joe, who rejects this hard limit because of some armwaving the usual litany of excuses: Flat Earth, the Earth spins, but second by second, fluxes don’t add, etc.
The only rationale Joe offers to deny the greenhouse effect is that this 240 W/m^2 is not a hard limit.
Be a man. Deal with that directly.
"Either you deny that the average flux received by Earth’s surface over each day is 240 W/m^2, or you don’t."
I don’t deny that…that is the "large temporal scale" I was referring to in my 11:02 AM comment. The Earth receives 240 W/m^2 if you average it over a day, or longer, because the Earth rotates.
The question which Postma raised was: is it the right thing to do, to average what the Earth receives over a day or longer? Does that represent the actual physics that is really occurring?
It’s like you’ve never understood what he was saying.
"The only rationale Joe offers to deny the greenhouse effect…"
Steady, steady, Little Willy. The reasons not to believe in the GHE are many, and varied. Postma has many, many arguments against the GHE…and there are many, many more people, besides Postma, with arguments against the GHE. It only requires one of those arguments, from one of those people, to be right.
> I don’t deny that
The crow caws for the first time, Graham. Joe does deny that 240W/m^2 is a hard limit. That’s the reason behind his Sky Dragon Stance:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190499
Come to think of it, it might be the second time the crow caws, for you were denying Joe’s denial.
***
Oh, quick questions.
Q1. When you said that the Earth receives 980W/m^2, did you divide 1960W/m^2 to correct for the angles, like EM did, or to take the hemisphere into account?
Not that it changes much, for in the end you get a division by 4, i.e. a disc.
Q2. Would you say that the Earth receives 0W/m^2 on its unlit side? If you do, then EM’s point obtains in a way that parries your silly interpretation.
Even if I agree with you, you still argue back…
Where is Postma saying that averaged over a day, the input isn’t 240 W/m^2? He is not saying that. His problem is with people averaging the input over a day or more, in the first place. Hence he mentions the getting rid of day and night, etc.
"Q1. When you said that the Earth receives 980W/m^2, did you divide 1960W/m^2 to correct for the angles, like EM did, or to take the hemisphere into account?"
There is no 1,960 W/m^2, or 980 W/m^2, Little Willy. Try to be less confused.
"Q2. Would you say that the Earth receives 0 W/m^2 on its unlit side? If you do, then EM’s point obtains in a way that parries your silly interpretation."
EM made no point that I haven’t already made before, Little Willy. Again, try to be less confused.
> Even if you agree
About what, Graham, and do you realize that you just said that, in contrast to Joe, you accept 240W/m^2 as a hard limit?
EM’s point about flux is simpler this way:
(P1) Incoming flux 0W/m^2 on the dayside.
(P2) Outgoing flux 240W/m^2 on average from the whole sphere.
(P3) Incoming flux 240W/m^2 on average on the whole sphere.
(C1) Flux does not need to balance at all time, outside of energy balance models.
(C2) Pup’s claim that “”energy imbalance” is nonsense” is nonsense.
> Where is [Joe] saying that averaged over a day, the input isn’t 240 W/m^2?
You really have not read his Magnum Opus, Graham, have you?
Among other places, here:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
It’s not very far from the quote I provided you less than 24 hours ago.
I’ll let you work out the acrobatics that led him to finding the heat the Earth has been missing for so long, and wildly await for your gesticulation about non-thermal degrees of freedom.
Forgot to edit my copy-pasta:
(P1) Incoming flux 0W/m^2 on the
daynightside."EM’s point about flux…"
Why don’t you try actually quoting EM, instead of just putting words in his mouth.
"…you accept 240W/m^2 as a hard limit"
I don’t even know what you mean by "hard limit". I said what I said. If you average the insolation over a day or more, then the input is 240 W/m^2, because the Earth rotates and so all parts of the Earth are receiving the insolation. Whether it’s right to do this or not, in the first place, is kind of the entire point.
Your quote from what you call "the Magnum Opus" does not say what you want it to say. You just keep quoting things that don’t support your statements. He is questioning there whether it is justifiable to average the insolation over time so that you end up with an "average global heating input of -18 C" (which is the temperature associated with the 240 W/m^2). Exactly like I said.
Once again: nobody is denying that when averaged over time, the input is 240 W/m^2. They are questioning whether such averaging is physically appropriate.
If you can’t understand the distinction, stop commenting.
> Why don’t you try actually quoting EM
No problem:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1367391
You probly missed that one before pouncing with your opportunity to finish your 72th month of trolling on an upbeat note.
The full quote, which I agree with completely:
"Fluxes do not have to balance.
For example, the incoming energy from the Sun is absorbed by the dayside half of Earth’s surface. The outgoing energy is radiates from the entire surface area. For a stable climate incoming total energy and outgoing total energy should be equal.
Since the incoming energy warms half the surface while outgoing energy radiates from the whole surface, you would expect the incoming flux to be twice the outgoing flux."
> I don’t even know what you mean by “hard limit”.
Graham, the quasi-Markov chain of trolling comments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1334564
That was three months ago, so he can be excused for already having played dumb about the hard limit energy-balance models impose on our physical reality.
If Joe accepts that the Earth can’t receive more energy than it emits, he has to postulate something like a radiative greenhouse effect. Just like everyone else.
[GRAHAM, QUOTING EM] Since the incoming energy warms half the surface while outgoing energy radiates from the whole surface, you would expect the incoming flux to be twice the outgoing flux.
[GRAHAM, FORGETTING TO QUOTE] The daylight hemisphere receives 960W/m^2 at the subsolar point and nothing at the terminator. Because it has twice the area of the disc the dayside receives an average flux of
So, Graham, when will you break the double accounting news to EM?
The full comment, which I completely agree with:
"The simplest way to calculate the total incoming energy is to start with a disc the diameter of the Earth uniformly illuminated with 960 W/m^2.
The daylight hemisphere receives 960W/m^2 at the subsolar point and nothing at the terminator. Because it has twice the area of the disc the dayside receives an average flux of 960/2 = 480W/m^2.
Outgoing radiation transmits the same total energy to space from the whole of Earth’s surface, though intensity will vary with local temperature.
Since the whole surface has four times the area of the disc the average OLR flux will be 960/4 = 240W/m^2."
Here is one claim with which Graham agrees:
(C1) Since the whole surface has four times the area of the disc the average OLR flux will be 960/4 = 240W/m^2.
Here is another claim with which he agrees:
(C2) Energy in must balance energy out.
Yet he won’t have the courage to admit that this follow:
(C3) 240W/m^2 provides a hard limit as to how much energy the Earth receives at equilibrium.
Heck, he might never admit that C1 applies AT ALL TIMES and that his “when averaged over time” is a cope.
In fact, it’s more than a cope – it’s a total failure to understand what is a Joule or a Watt!
Your C1 is a sentence EM wrote about the output flux from the Earth (W/m^2), not the input flux to the Earth.
Your C2 is a sentence about how energy in must equal energy out. That’s energy (Joules), not flux (W/m^2). EM was quite clear in his statement that "fluxes do not have to balance".
Your C3 is:
"240W/m^2 provides a hard limit as to how much energy the Earth receives at equilibrium."
Remember: "fluxes (W/m^2) do not have to balance". Only energy (Joules) does. Throughout this discussion, you regularly conflate energy (Joules) with flux (W/m^2). You need to mind your units.
Yes, Graham. C1 alone does not work, and C2 alone does not work. It’s when you read them together that C3 obtains.
No wonder you are having so much problem making valid inferences.
In contrast to the lit side of the Earth where the 480 W/m^2 is only an average, each point on the dark side of the Earth receives exactly 0 W/m^2. When you average out the two sides, you get the same flux in as the flux out.
No wonder you are having so much problem specifying models and that your pseudo algebra works by double accounting.
It’s not that hard to convert flux into energy. All you need is to specify properly the surface that you want to study. Then you apply SB and you’re good to go. Should I recall all the times gator corrected you on this point?
"Yes, Graham. C1 alone does not work, and C2 alone does not work. It’s when you read them together that C3 obtains.
No wonder you are having so much problem making valid inferences."
False accusation, Little Willy. I know what you meant. Your C3 does not follow from your C1 and your C2…because "fluxes do not have to balance". Read my last comment again until you understand it.
"In contrast to the lit side of the Earth where the 480 W/m^2 is only an average, each point on the dark side of the Earth receives exactly 0 W/m^2. When you average out the two sides, you get the same flux in as the flux out."
Sure, you do. But, as I keep pointing out, should you really be averaging out the two sides? When you do that, you are applying insolation to areas of the Earth which are not receiving it. Basically, just read my 11:02 AM comment again.
"No wonder you are having so much problem specifying models and that your pseudo algebra works by double accounting."
More false accusations. Any more false accusations from you, and the discussion is over, Little Willy.
"It’s not that hard to convert flux into energy. All you need is to specify properly the surface that you want to study. Then you apply SB and you’re good to go."
Applying SB might convert flux into a related blackbody temperature, Little Willy. Not really involved in converting flux into energy. Don’t worry, I won’t expect you to admit your blunder.
> Your C3 does not follow from your C1 and your C2…because “fluxes do not have to balance”
Invalid, Graham. Fluxes don’t need to balance . . . outside well specified energy balance models.
In well-specified energy balance models, they must, otherwise energy in does not equal energy out.
Minding your units properly can help you with that.
You still have no idea why I was asking about the relationship between a sphere and a hemisphere, do you?
"Minding your units properly can help you with that."
You’re implying here that I’m not minding my units. That’s another false accusation. I warned you!
The discussion is over.
> Not really involved in converting flux into energy.
Allow gator to explain again, Gorgeous Graham:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190815
I’m glad that you finally agree.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham,
The temperature.
Of an object.
Depends on how.
It gets rid of its temperature.
I am glad you finally agree.
But just in case, from now on, you will hear it every time you return to this.
Thank you for your 72 months of trolling.
“You could increase the flux by concentrating the beam, without changing the total energy content. Does the object absorbing the energy suddenly get hotter? No…”
So using a magnifying glass to concentrate the Sun’s rays doesn’t work, according to gator. Little Willy laps it up, without question.
I told you, the discussion is over.
What discussion, Graham?
Again, allow gator to help solidify our agreement:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190962
You really have no idea how many things flew above your head in that exchange.
…and Postma agrees that the effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K. Nothing went over my head, Little Willy.
What was the last time you quoted Joe, Graham?
A quote to support your assertion would be nice.
The last two times I quoted Joe, you ran away.
🐉 🐉
From the document you claim to have read:
“the radiative equilibrium temperature is calculated to be: {9}
T = 255 K = 18 C {10}
which is said to be equivalent to the average solar input heating upon the surface of the Earth. This is more accurately known as the effective Blackbody temperature of the Earth.”
Help me with your translation, Graham. Does “is said to be” mean “I agree with” in the Sky Dragon Crank world? Also, the section that follows, entitled Faults of the Standard Atmospheric Greenhouse Model, starts with this:
Do you recall these equations, and would you agree with contradiction? By “contradiction” I am not referring to the act of contradicting, like you did every day on this website for 72 months. I am referring to the logical incompatibility of two propositions.
"Does “is said to be” mean “I agree with” in the Sky Dragon Crank world?"
No, he doesn’t agree that the 255 K is "equivalent to the average solar input heating". He makes sure it is understood that the 255 K is "more accurately known as the effective Blackbody temperature of the Earth". So, he agrees that the 255 K is the Earth’s effective temperature. He disagrees that it is equivalent to the "average solar input heating". Always happy to help you with your reading comprehension.
"Also, the section that follows, entitled Faults of the Standard Atmospheric Greenhouse Model, starts with this:
There exists a contradiction in the interpretation between equations {7} & {14}.
Do you recall these equations, and would you agree with contradiction?"
If you continue reading, you will see that he’s not disagreeing that 255 K is the effective temperature of the Earth. He’s arguing that it should never have been thought to apply to the Earth’s surface. Rather it should apply to the entire Earth system.
> He disagrees that it is equivalent to the “average solar input heating”.
So your assertion is unresponsive to gator’s point after all.
Here’s what you could quote to support that claim:
If you could clarify what being “physically equivalent in temperature” means, and more importantly how that meets gator’s point, that’d be great.
If you actually, sincerely, want to learn, then drop the attitude.
How is it unresponsive to gator’s point?
gator, based on his own argument, should agree with Postma that the 255 K is not “equivalent to the average solar input heating” and is in fact more accurately described as the Earth’s effective temperature.
If I wanted to learn, Gorgeous Graham, I would not be here.
You just got caught trying to bait me with some phony agreement, and once you get a reference to the relevant section of the Magnum Opus, you backtrack. Perhaps you finally read the paragraph I just quoted. Perhaps you should.
In any event, you tried to bypass a crucial point by appealing to a phony agreement.
72 months like this.
Please read the paragraph again, and recall that the StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.
Good luck trying to squirm your way out of that one!
“You just got caught trying to bait me with some phony agreement, and once you get a reference to the relevant section of the Magnum Opus, you backtrack.”
The false accusations keep on flying in, thick and fast.
Here is the full paragraph:
“Continuing, we categorically assert that the result of equation {7} (and {20}) cannot be interpreted so as to be physically equivalent in temperature to the actual average solar heating input. What the Stefan-Boltzmann analysis states is, specifically, the instantaneous average effective spherical radiative output of the system, with the system-ensemble as defined above. It does not state anything further than this. There exists no logical or physical justification for reversing the interpretation of the result of equation {7}, and arbitrarily equating the effective instantaneous spherical output radiative flux with the instantaneous average radiative heating input over the same system geometry. The obvious physical justification for this reality is that, in actuality, only half of the Earth’s surface physically accumulates radiative heating energy from the Sun in any moment. This is the actual and physically real average boundary condition that exists. The true, and physically accurate average of the system, is that half of the surface of the Earth absorbs twice as much energy [flux] as the entire surface of the Earth radiates. The incoming solar radiation is not equal, in energy flux density, and thus temperature, to the outgoing terrestrial radiation. Claiming otherwise forgets the reason for the difference in illumination between day and night, and is completely irrational within the frame of physics. Dividing the solar flux by a factor of four and thus spreading it instantaneously over the entire surface of the Earth as an input flux amounts to the denial of the existence of day-time and night-time, and violates the application on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which deals only with instantaneous radiative flux.”
What are you having trouble with?
You still fail to elucidate what it means to be physically equivalent in temperature in Joe’s world, gorgeous one.
The irrelevance is not that hard to spot:
[GATOR] Connecting energy flux with a blackbody temperature only makes sense for an object in thermal equilibrium *radiating* that power.
[THY WIKI] The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.
[JOE] There exists no logical or physical justification for reversing the interpretation of the result of equation {7}, and arbitrarily equating the effective instantaneous spherical output radiative flux with the instantaneous average radiative heating input over the same system geometry.
[GRAHAM] Joe agrees that the effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K.
One of these claims is unrelated to the others.
Nearly 73 months of trolling like that.
“You still fail to elucidate what it means to be physically equivalent in temperature in Joe’s world, gorgeous one.”
Well, 255 K (the temperature associated with 240 W/m^2 input flux) is not physically equivalent in temperature to 303 K (the temperature associated with 480 W/m^2 input flux). That’s what I assume he means.
It’s not that hard to understand what Joe means, Gorgeous:
The sentence follows the one I just quoted. Joe uses a hemisphere as the blackbody to which he applies SB. By some serendipity, he presents a hemispherical model.
Hence why the division by 4 disappears, both in his model and your equations. But since your own calculations only includes a disc, when you apply SB to get a temperature, you are using the disc as a blackbody.
The whole con is quite simple, once all artifice fizzles.
What you have just written is complete gibberish…but what I can gather from your previous comments is that you seem to think Postma is saying the Earth’s real effective temperature is 303 K, based on what you think of as a “hemispherical model”. Would that be a fair assessment of what you think?
It’s not actually what Postma is saying, but I’m just trying to get to the bottom of your nonsense once and for all.
It might very well be gibberish to you, Gorgeous. Does your obliviousness know any bound? Allow gator to explain again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190962
Flux never stands alone, and the blackbody climate scientists are modelling is the Earth. The hard limit is set by what the Earth emits. You won’t gain more energy by waving your arms and say “but second by second,” “the Earth rotates,” and any other of your copes.
Look at you. Nearing 73 months of trolling and you still can’t find Joe’s model. When comes the time to assert clearly your Sky Dragon Crank credo, you run away and pretend that we’re all in violent agreement after all.
Please respond to me again after having taken your leave three times at least.
What gator says does not explain your previous comment, Little Willy, nor does it answer my request for clarification of what your actual problem is.
We’re past you trolling me for room service by playing dumb, Graham.
You’re not gorgeous enough for that.
Another interesting tidbit in Joe’s tirade:
“Average solar radiative input heating”, “energy flux density and thus temperature,” Joe sure knows how to throw a smokescreen. The other bit when Joe tells that we forget about nights and days while underlining that the equation is instanteneous is also nice. Oh, and there’s also the bit where he says that the equation is directional.
Nevertheless, if you could acknowledge that this conflicts with what gator said in the quotes I provided so far and the usual interpretation of the SB law, that’d be great progress.
Most commenters here would agree that the SB relation works both ways. That you can convert blackbody temperatures to fluxes, and fluxes to temperatures.
You misunderstand Postma on the point about night and day.
Every comment from you is another Gish Gallop…you get so much wrong in every comment it would take forever to correct you…but you do not hang around to be corrected. You ignore any corrections and move on to the next Gish Gallop. The reason we make no progress is because you are impossible to communicate with. I am still waiting for you to answer my question from a couple of comments ago, but in your next response you will be away on another tangent…
“Both ways,” Gorgeous?
The SB law states that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Why the hell do you think space is so cold even if light traverses it?
You should cut your losses right now and PST me, or I’ll wipe you off this silly board, pretentious prick.
Yes. Both ways. You have never seen another commenter convert a flux value to a corresponding blackbody temperature?
“The incoming energy flux has no “temperature”. Connecting energy flux with a blackbody temperature only makes sense for an object in thermal equilibrium *radiating* that power.”
Another obvious problem with this is that the Earth is never in thermal equilibrium. It rotates, and thus different parts of it are perpetually warming then cooling.
Everybody is free to calculate however they please, Gorgeous, just like everybody is free to wear sunscreen. As long as everybody reach more or less the same results in a systematic manner. And Joe succeeds in systematically running a con by fooling marks like you.
Allow gator to explain again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
No wonder Tim has to constantly repeat his point about radiant emittance about every single thread to rebut Pup. Silly trolling that has been going on for years. Providing much of lulz to you and fellow Sky Dragon Cranks.
Oh, and I forgot to answer your earlier question: you need to include the dark side of the Earth because you are trying to model the Earth, not just the lit side. When you want to model the Earth, taking her into account is kind of a must. You are a married man, you should know.
Try to spin her as hard as you might, you will not bypass the hard limit of the energy she emits.
Yes, God only knows what sort of straw man gator was attacking there.
Care to address the point I made about Earth not ever being in thermal equilibrium? Or are we off on yet another tangent, and Gish Gallop, with your next comment?
“…you need to include the dark side of the Earth because you are trying to model the Earth, not just the lit side. When you want to model the Earth, taking her into account is kind of a must.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1368023
> Yes, God only knows what sort of straw man gator was attacking there.
Let’s hope God has the infinite wisdom not to fall for Graham’s gorgeous baits:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190815
All this because he cannot for the life of him realize that Joe’s contentions are PhILoSoPHiCAl, not algebraic.
In fairness, his geometric intuition sucks.
“This is the real power of sunshine and it can be converted into a temperature, which has a value of 121 degrees Celsius – boiling hot! Some of this sunshine power is actually reflected by the Earth though, about 30%, and therefore doesnt cause any heating; when you factor this in, the real power of sunshine is about 960 W/m2 which is a temperature of about 88 C.”
There is nothing wrong with what he’s saying, here. Especially considering it is simplified and written for laypeople. Actual recorded values can be in excess of 1,000 W/m^2 at some locations at some times of the day (checkout SURFRAD), and if you laid out a blackbody plate at that location, in the Sun, it has the potential to warm until it radiates that same 1,000 W/m^2 back at a temperature in excess of 88 C (it might not quite reach those temperatures due to energy loss through conduction and convection, but then – assuming for the sake of argument that you can simply add fluxes – you have to factor in the additional DWIR from the atmosphere, too).
That is what you can consider the 88 C and the 30 C (303 K) values to be…potential temperatures that the Sun can actually warm the surface to, at zenith for the former and averaged over the whole lit hemisphere for the latter.
You (and gator) still need to deal with the other point I made that counters this:
“The incoming energy flux has no “temperature”. Connecting energy flux with a blackbody temperature only makes sense for an object in thermal equilibrium *radiating* that power.”
Namely: that the Earth is never in thermal equilibrium. It rotates, and thus different parts of it are perpetually warming then cooling. He is trying to argue that it only makes sense to convert the 240 W/m^2 average output flux from the Earth to a temperature, to get 255 K, but actually this is no more justified than the considerations I make above. Different parts of the Earth are always going to be at different temperatures radiating different amounts at different times of the day or night. Should we never use SB at all!?
“Especially considering it is simplified and written for laypeople.”
Thats precisely the point. His intention is to mislead lay people, to obfuscate, with red-herring calculations that are ‘boiling hot’.
He hasnt made the case that averaging the daily variation of sunlight is an ACTUAL problem when the goal is to study decadal climate change.
Nor does he mention that GCM models consider the Earth as a sphere with all its complexity.
Of course Joe is writing for the laypeople, Graham. He is running a con.
But a very specific group of laypeople. The one gullible enough to believe all sorts of conspiracy theories. Laypeople like you.
Still, is it not a bit ironic to defend the TRUEST and REALEST model for the Earth by saying that he is using tricks to fool laypeople into thinking that the incoming flux has a black body temperature?
Check his ads again:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/zoomed-in-reality.jpg
REALITY for the laypeople.
Gorgeous.
So you have no valid rebuttal, just more false accusations and insults. Guess that’s that, then.
I will leave you with EM’s words, which you fought so valiantly against for so long, only to now pretend you never did:
“Fluxes do not have to balance.
For example, the incoming energy from the Sun is absorbed by the dayside half of Earth’s surface. The outgoing energy is radiates from the entire surface area. For a stable climate incoming total energy and outgoing total energy should be equal.
Since the incoming energy warms half the surface while outgoing energy radiates from the whole surface, you would expect the incoming flux to be twice the outgoing flux.”
and
“The simplest way to calculate the total incoming energy is to start with a disc the diameter of the Earth uniformly illuminated with 960 W/m^2.
The daylight hemisphere receives 960W/m^2 at the subsolar point and nothing at the terminator. Because it has twice the area of the disc the dayside receives an average flux of 960/2 = 480W/m^2.
Outgoing radiation transmits the same total energy to space from the whole of Earth’s surface, though intensity will vary with local temperature.
Since the whole surface has four times the area of the disc the average OLR flux will be 960/4 = 240W/m^2.”
Remind me, Graham – what would I need to rebut, again?
A con is a con is a con. It does not need a rebuttal. It needs regulation.
To remind the audience of the flux-as-blackbody-temperature trick ought to be enough.
All this is a sideshow anyway. A smokescreen if you please.
You are supposed to spin and spin like the Earth does so as to suggest that we need no damn greenhouse gases to have the actual temperatures we have.
Spin, gorgeous! Spin!
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Wise choice.
Well, I had already won the argument with my 2:07 AM comment…thought I may as well quit whilst I’m ahead.
The one who PSTs first is the loser, Graham.
Not at all. A PST just indicates that it has got to the stage where the loser has started trolling, and so should be asked to stop. I will probably have to continue asking you to stop trolling, since that is what you are now doing.
Incorrect, Graham. It got to that stage 72 months ago.
Loser loser loser.
See what I mean?
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Indeed I do, Graham.
You play the White Clown who does not realize he is a clown.
My points still stand – your claim was incorrect, and you are a loser by PSTing.
I am the winner of the argument because you had no substantive response to my 2:07 AM comment. Now you are simply trolling.
#4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham lost all the relevant points for this thread.
Loser loser loser now hides under his troll bridge.
72 months like that.
#5
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
#2
Wise choice.
#6
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
#3
Wise choice, loser loser loser.
#7
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hurricane Fiona enters over the Dominican Republic.
A visible eye of the hurricane on the east coast of the Dominican Republic.
Roy:
And reason that
2022 7 0.36 etc.
Year Mo Globe
does not reflect that data presented at the top of the page?
I have been on holiday for the last 2 weeks and expected that data to reflect in the links by now.
….Any reason that….
Though not updated yet (all LT, MT, TP, LS files still dated ‘2022-08-08’), the grid data certainly will be present somewhere:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/AUGUST2022/202208_Map.png
How else could this map have been made?
Gordon Robertson September 17, 2022 at 9:21 PM
“According to your logic, IR carries heat through a vacuum, yet basic science will tell you heat cannot travel through a vacuum.
…No heat passes through an intermediate medium unless its by conduction or convection.”
How JAMES WEBB TELESCOPE Sunshield Works
GR, you have been misinformed. It is important to read widely and not rely on any one source for your information. Most of the time it is better to ask good questions than to have all the answers.
“No heat passes through an intermediate medium unless its by conduction or convection”
So radiation does not cause any heat transfer, therefore the Sun does not warm the Earth. Idiot.
RLH, radiation (EMR) passes through an intermediate non-material medium (such as the near vacuum of space) but Clausius’ heat does not.
Ball4
I couldn’t imagine that you would insist on pointing out such obvious things.
Misinformation in and about science
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1912444117
Remember all the artctick ice free summers by now predictions ?
https://electroverse.net/years-of-failed-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/
https://i.postimg.cc/3JkFsCbp/arctic-sea-ice-extent-zoomed-2022-day-258-1981-2010.png
2007, 2008, 2010, 2012. But then in 2012 sea ice was quite low.
Here’s the most recent prediction in that article:
Is that a prediction you endorse, and how much are you willing to bet?
Willard
” But then in 2012 sea ice was quite low. ”
This is the typical blah blah you’ll find on every WUWT thread dealing with Arctic sea ice.
It tell you no more than half the truth.
Namely because while 2012 indeed had a strong Arctic sea ice melting phase, Pseudoskeptics ignore – or dissimulate – the facts that
– 2012 had a strong growing phase as well;
– 2012 was a year with all days above the 1981-2010 mean… in the Antarctic.
Sea ice till 2022, Sep 18
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
Reply
Source
https://tinyurl.com/s6d98by4
> 2012 was a year with all days above the 1981-2010 mean in the Antarctic.
Thanks, Binny. “But Antarctica” is exactly what’s needed to brand yourself as the truest skeptic there is:
https://climateball.net/but-this-odd-place/#antarctica
Here’s my own source:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/when-will-the-arctic-see-its-first-ice-free-summer/
“This year” refers to 2019.
If you’re too dumb to realize Eboy was talking the Arctic, then can write yourself your own favorite put down.
” If youre too dumb to realize Eboy was talking the Arctic… ”
It seems that you completely misunderstood my reply.
Oh, I thought your response was relevant to the one I made to Eboy.
My mistake.
Willard
Misunderstanding is no mistake; only misrepresenting imho is.
I just wanted to point out that most Pseudoskeptics permanently focus on the Arctic melting season, while ‘forgetting’ the growing season. Only yearly average comparisons in fact really make sense.
*
September ranking for Arctic sea ice (extent, i.e. 15 % min) since 2010, in Mkm^2:
2014 9 5.22
2013 9 5.21
2021 9 4.92
2010 9 4.87
2017 9 4.80
2018 9 4.71
2015 9 4.62
2011 9 4.56
2016 9 4.51
2019 9 4.32
2020 9 3.92
2012 9 3.57
(2022 probably will come around 2010/2017.)
March ranking
2012 3 15.20
2010 3 15.14
2013 3 15.03
2020 3 14.78
2014 3 14.76
2021 3 14.64
2022 3 14.59
2019 3 14.55
2011 3 14.55
2016 3 14.40
2015 3 14.37
2018 3 14.30
2017 3 14.27
*
What I however consider best is to compare the global, yearly sea ice extent averages, summing Arctic and Antarctic:
2014 23.539
2013 23.393
2015 22.955
2010 22.792
2012 22.401
2021 22.034
2011 21.956
2020 21.683
2016 21.340
2018 21.302
2017 21.097
2019 21.041
Here, you suddenly discover that 2012, the declared favorite of the Pseudo-skeptics, is above all years since 2016, what contradicts their idea of a ‘Recent Global Cooling Trend’.
In January 2023, we will see where 2022 will land in that ranking.
> I just wanted to point out that most [contrarians] permanently focus on the Arctic melting season, while “forgetting” the growing season.
That’s why you mentioned “But Antarctic,” no doubt.
The contrarian editorial under discussion was focusing on the Arctic melting seasons, but on the predictions made about them. Which is fair game if you ask me.
Bringing Antarctica or what “consider best” is the opposite of helping.
Willard you fool,
You wrote –
“Which is fair game if you ask me”. Pity nobody could be bothered to ask you for your worthless opinion on anything, then.
No wonder, when you followed it up by writing –
“Bringing Antarctica or what consider best is the opposite of helping.”
Do you need help to learn how to communicate your fantasies in English? No?
You are quite capable of looking stupid, all by yourself?
Phew, that’s a relief!
Mike Flynn,
You’re right – I should have written “But Ze Antarctique.”
Thank you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Two psychobabbling ankle biters collided in my thread
The bet is still on the table, Eboy.
There is only one ankle biter, babbling Edog: that’s you, and nobody else.
By the way, my reply to Willard was directed to Willard, and had nothing to do with your usual, primitive anti-warming blah blah.
Binny,
You wrote –
” . . . my reply to Willard was directed to Willard, . . . ”
That’s good to know. Do you have different customs in your village? Do you often direct your reply to someone to someone else completely?
Maybe you have been consuming too much sauerkraut, and it has addled your brain. Wouldnt want to see another village lose its idiot, would we?
Maybe you could direct your next reply to Willard to yourself, instead. Or to anybody except Willard, I suppose.
More thinking, less random keyboard pounding might help.
Mike, Mike,
Binny clicked on the “reply” link right under my comment.
In your turn you clicked on the “reply” link under Binny’s comment.
Just like I just clicked under the “reply” link right under yours.
My actual reply to you isn’t a reply to Binny.
Simples.
Cheers.
Willard,
Well, that’s good to know too. So you agree that a reply to Willard was directed at Willard, too. Do SkyDragons spend many sleepless nights conjuring up, with such profundities? Why do you think anyone would think that a reply to someone would be directed elsewhere?
Is English your second language?
A sauerkraut at least has that excuse. What’s yours?
By the way, the fact that the Earth fas cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of both atmosphere and CO2, shows that neither caused any heating, and cooling continued regardless.
How’s the GHE supposed to work, again?
Mike,
You asked how Binny could reply to me.
I explained it to you.
You are most welcome!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Wanted to gang up on me , tangling up their own antlers instead ,
because they can’t understand each others word salads babbles
It’s the same old colossal lie that the Arctic Sea Ice is melting. It does melt during one month of the Arctic summer and no one really cares how much does melt. The rest of the year is always business as usual, when the Sun disappears below the Arctic horizon and the Arctic ice forms to a thickness of 10 feet on average.
Between 1800 and 1850, exploring ships could not sail through the NW Passage in summer. The first traversal of the Passage involved explorers walking across an ice-covered ocean to meet up with explorers sailing in from the other side in the Lancaster Sound.
Alarmists would have us believe that a trace gas like CO2 has caused enough warming to melt all that ice during the Arctic summer. We know the truth, the preceding 400+ years before 1850 featured the Little Ice Age. After 1850, the planet began re-warming and that has caused more ice to melt in the Arctic during summer.
ps. the first fully claimed traversal of the Passage, by Amundsen, took 3 years. It was more luck than expert sailing.
When the RCMP cutter, St. Roch, traversed the Passage both ways in the early ’40s, it took them 2 years west to east. The captain, Henry Larsen, explained that the Arctic ice moves all the time and it’s a matter of luck whether one gets through or not.
Alarmists make it seem like ice sits on the ocean like a large blob, making it easy to estimate the ice extent. That is bs. The ice moves constantly, driven by the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift, which constantly dumps ice into the Atlantic.
When large island of ice collide, they form mountains of ice at the collision points that can be 40 feet high. There are thousands of such mounds of ice all over the ocean. There is simply no way to accurately measure ice-extent in the Arctic.
> The rest of the year is always business as usual
C’mon, Gordo:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Imagine if that was an earnings graph.
willard weasel points me to a computer model guesstimate of Arctic sea ice extent.
Come on, Gordo.
Since when do you consider satellite data computer games?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For those excited about the triple-dip La Nina putting an end to GW, it doesnt look promising.
See the last figure.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
While Nino 3.4 has trended significantly down since 2015, global T has trended quite flat.
IOW the underlying warming trend must still be present in global T.
Though being aware of the technical reasons leading to the choice of reference periods like 1880-1920, I don’t consider them really welcome in the public discussion, because they show anomalies far away from what is visible on many places in many series, which all use 1991-2020 in between.
Even 1951-1980 or 1961-1990, but also 1979-1998 should imho be given up over the long term.
That generates permanent misunderstanding and misrepresenting, e.g. like what I discussed in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
“the underlying warming trend must still be present in global T”
Which underlying warming trend is that then and caused by what?
P.S. It is a strange warming trend indeed that does not effect the El Nino maximum temperatures.
Anomalies or actual temperatures?
Both
“It is a strange warming trend indeed that does not effect the El Nino maximum temperatures.”
We’ve been over this ad nauseum.
There is nothing strange here other than your misunderstanding of statistics and what global average temperature means.
For the 47th time, AGW is not required to be monotonic or uniform over the Earth.
Regional weather still happens. Temp anomalies still happen. This year the North Pacific and the North Atlantic or both unusual warm.
“This year the North Pacific and the North Atlantic or both unusual warm.”
Atlantic.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2022/09/20/amo-for-aug-2022/
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/amo-detrended.jpeg
North Pacific
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/pdo.jpeg
says that you do not have your facts correct.
Central Pacific
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/nino34.jpeg
Absolute
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/nino34-absolute.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/meiv2.jpeg
Not talking about PDO or AMO.
https://psl.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst.shtml
See warm blobs in Northern Atlantic and Northern Pacific in the Seasonal Product map.
Anomalies, Latest Seasonal Product.
https://psl.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst.shtml
The point remains that there are regional year to year T anomalies that happen, regardless of what the Global average T is doing.
“Not talking about PDO or AMO”
because they do not fit your narrative.
https://imgur.com/CauL1SE
shows a much longer term ‘cycle’ does it not?
https://psl.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.month.anom.hov.io.gif
shows that it is quite cool recently in the eastern central pacific.
As we go further off topic…
Returning to the original point, the Earth has not warmed uniformly nor monotonically.
That AGW requires this is yet another of your strawmen.
“Not talking about PDO or AMO”
because they do not fit your narrative.”
Because they do not (as you claimed) contradict what I posted:
“Regional weather still happens. Temp anomalies still happen. This year the North Pacific and the North Atlantic or both unusual warm.”
“the Earth has not warmed uniformly nor monotonically”
Strawman. No-one, especially not me, has claimed that it has.
However it is a strange sort of warming that means the equator (the warmest part of the planet) does not warm as fast as the rest of the planet without a detailed physical explanation.
“This year the North Pacific and the North Atlantic or both unusual warm”
The data does not support your viewpoint. Neither oceans, as measured by series that concentrate on just those areas such as AMO and PDO, do not show any warming.
“the Earth has not warmed uniformly nor monotonically”
“Strawman. No-one, especially not me, has claimed that it has.
However it is a strange sort of warming that means the equator (the warmest part of the planet) does not warm as fast as the rest of the planet without a detailed physical explanation.”
IOW you continue to think it is strange that the Earth doesnt warm uniformly and monotonically, while offering no evidence that AGW requires that.
Your incredulity is not a valid argument.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Incredulity
“This year the North Pacific and the North Atlantic or both unusual warm’
The data does not support your viewpoint. Neither oceans, as measured by series that concentrate on just those areas such as AMO and PDO, do not show any warming.”
I showed you data that ABSOLUTELY agrees with my viewpoint. See warm blobs in Northern Atlantic and Northern Pacific in the Anomaly Seasonal Product map.
https://psl.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst.shtml
Did you look?
Are there very warm blobs in the seasonal average map? Yes there are.
PDO is NOT simply a measure of ocean T. AMO is very HIGH.
Ridiculous.
This is all beside the point of the discussion.
Did you look at the AMO and PDO?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/amo-detrended.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/pdo.jpeg
Yes,
The current negative PDO phase means:
https://images.dailykos.com/images/1012238/large/114PDOmodes.png?1638259155
a warm N. Pacific!
The current positive AMO phase means:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_key_figures_display/public/key_figures/climate_data_set/Zhang-AMOFig.png?itok=SBIU2Evd
a warm N.Atlantic!
nate…”There is nothing strange here other than your misunderstanding of statistics and what global average temperature means”.
***
Do you mean statistical theory derived from alarmist pseudo-science, like the statistical methods invented by the IPCC, or real statistical methods from real science?
No, yes.
Nate
” IOW the underlying warming trend must still be present in global T. ”
Yes it does.
When you extract ENSO and volcanic events out of an LT time series like RSS 3.3 (quite similar to UAH 6.0) the result is a series whose trend is about 70 % of the original series’ trend.
See for example
Volcanic Contribution to Decadal Changes in Tropospheric Temperature
Santer, Bonfils & al. (2014)
https://tinyurl.com/bday4pab
Show me the warming trend in Meiv2?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/meiv2.jpeg
Relevance?
You said that the Pacific had a recent warming trend but Meiv2 which covers that area does not.
North Pacific. MEI does not cover North Pacific, dimwit.
Stop misrepresenting my posts!
“The bi-monthly Multivariate El Nio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W)”
The PDO covers the Northern Pacific definitely covers that area but you claim it shows a recent warming.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/pdo.jpeg
Mei? 5 variables? None are the T of the North Pacific!
Maybe the T of the N Pacific would be a better choice! And sure enough I showed u that.
Stop wasting my time..
We ALREADY know that Nino 3.4 has had a downward trend, as shown above. So point??
Meiv2 covers a lot more area than the central nino areas.
so. No point.
Reminder what the topic of this thread is.
“For those excited about the triple-dip La Nina putting an end to GW, it doesnt look promising.
While Nino 3.4 has trended significantly down since 2015, global T has trended quite flat.
IOW the underlying warming trend must still be present in global T.”
Now try to address that topic.
So neither the PDO or Meiv2 supports your conclusions yet you continue of regardless.
Is there a point??
Neither pdo or mei2 make arguments at all.
Always the same, stubborn, opinionated pseudoargument about the alleged relevance of MEI’s decline.
It’s really incredible.
People like Linsley Hood aka RLH are really ready to any manipulation.
Why should a temperature decline in a minuscule part of the ocean in the Tropics have any relevance?
It’s exactly the same as if one would look at 40,000 weather stations worldwide, isolate 5,000 of them showing all a negative trend, and would say:
” Look, the Globe is cooling! ”
More stoopid you’d die.
Most figures have the 1951-1980 base.
This is beside the point.
nate…”While Nino 3.4 has trended significantly down since 2015, global T has trended quite flat”.
***
And it has been flat since 1998, some 25 years. There was a slight step-up due to the 2016 EN but other than that, the trend has been essentially flat since ’98.
Your fantasies do not agree with the facts.
Neither do yours.
If only you had a sensible argument…
It will be interesting to see how scientists will explain the record-breaking ozone hole in November and December in 2020 and 2021, especially since it could be similar this year. Such low temperatures above 60 S in the stratosphere in November and December prolong winter in the Southern Hemisphere, as it takes longer for the stratospheric polar vortex to disappear.
https://i.ibb.co/YpKY6hG/ozone-hole-plot.png
A strong polar vortex in November will also affect the duration of La Nia. Since the strength of the solar wind ripples a lot, the end of La Nia is not in sight.
We seem to underestimate the energy of the solar wind’s magnetic field, which hits the Earth’s magnetosphere.
La Nina Effect – who coined the phrase, where did you hear it first
https://youtu.be/q-gbIbgl0sk
They banned aerosols they blamed for creating the ozone hole a while back. They banned DDT because it theoretically interfered with the shells of raptor eggs, even though that was a problem known before DDT was invented.
Now they want to ban gasoline to cut anthropogenic emissions. I don’t know fully who ‘they’ could be because policies are being created behind closed doors without consultation. All we know is the policies are being created and we have no idea who is ultimately behind them.
That’s called anarchy, fascism, whatever you want to call it, it’s anything but democracy.
Just a thought. If there was a reduction in solar UV, that would produce less ozone, hence the holes. Or, since it happens at the Poles, the Earth’s magnetic field could be varying and diverting more UV.
Gordon,
Here’s another thought. The poles receive no direct UV for about 6 months of the year.
Ozone is formed by the interaction of high energy UV with O2 molecules. Less UV, less ozone. Of course, its a wee bit more complicated, due to air movements – Antarctica being a mountainous continent, up to 4900 m, with the highest average elevation of any continent. The North Pole has ocean. A lot lower and flatter.
Hence the difference in ozone “holes”, which are just more irrelevant SkyDragon nonsense. If no UV is present to create ozone, it cannot effect the surface at all. There isn’t any!
Basic chemistry and physics. People just like to be terrified by ignorant hucksters selling doom, gloom, and despondency.
swenson…”Heres another thought. The poles receive no direct UV for about 6 months of the year”.
***
Great point. The counter-argument will be that the UV still reaches the stratosphere but the stratosphere dips much at the poles. Perhaps all solar energy is absent from polar stratospheres in winter.
I think you may be in line for a Nobel. It seems to have occurred to no one that the ozone holes may be related to a lack of solar UV.
Gordon,
The UV cannot even reach the polar stratosphere during winter, as the Earth is inclined at about 23.5 to its orbital plane. To make matters worse, at the poles, the height of the stratosphere can get down to 7 km.
All in all, the total polar atmosphere in relation to the Earth is proportionally less than the skin is to an apple.
As to a Nobel, Rowlands and Molina received a Nobel for completely failing to realise that ozone requires only oxygen and UV for its creation. The only way ozone can be prevented from forming is to either turn off the Sun, or remove all oxygen from the atmosphere.
Just another example of an argument based on an analogy being treated as fact.
–Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Replying to @Erdayastronaut and @NASASpaceflight
Booster 7 now returns to high bay for robustness upgrades & booster 8 moves to pad for testing.
Next big test is probably full stack wet dress rehearsal, then 33 engine firing in a few weeks. —
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
So, taking longer than I thought AND going faster than I thought.
But it still seems we are waiting on FAA do their paper work.
Though SpaceX probably also paperwork, in terms results of test firing results, and also working with FAA.
There is question which will do the test launch first, SLS or Starship. SLS doesn’t seem to involve FAA, but it does involve NASA
paperwork. And can they fix SLS. I gave SLS a 70% chance of launching before the end of year- and I tend to be wildly optimistic. And it seems Starship has better than 70% chance. Though SLS has 50% of launching before Starship.
It seems most people assume NASA wants SLS to launch first and I think that tips the scale a bit. The planned next SLS launch attempt
is within a week, there are grime problems to doing that, and grime problems if that doesn’t happen. The drama!
And we have Fiona, which doesn’t seem like it’s predicted to be problem, but it’s one more, thing. Too bad we can’t predict hurricanes.
So, in 3 weeks we could have Starship test launch- assuming weather allows it. And they actually successful test the 33 engine firing.
And this could delay it by another month or 2. But of course there a chance of 6 month delay or longer.
But seems what Musk is saying is he is optimistic, in regards to FAA.
Though Musk’s habit is to be wildly optimistic regarding the FAA- at least in regards to what he says publicly.
It seems to me, we making a lot progress towards putting crew on Moon.
And it seems weather could larger problem for SLS, than Starship.
Also it appear Madeline is going have greater chance of affecting my weather:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Now, the sun:
Solar wind
speed: 502.7 km/sec
density: 7.60 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 51
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.21×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.3% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.8%
Neutron count went lower than I thought it would. And:
–SIMULTANEOUS EXPLOSIONS ON THE SUN: Yesterday, Sept. 18th, the sun’s southern hemisphere convulsed all at once.– and:
AN ACTIVE SUNSPOT RETURNS: It’s back. Active sunspot AR3089 is emerging over the sun’s southeastern limb following a 2-week trip around the farside of the sun.–
[But 3100 is also rotating away from us, it seems going to stay
about same or even weaken over next several days.
Or Neutron count shouldn’t lower much.]
Solar wind
speed: 452.5 km/sec
density: 5.38 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 74
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.21×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.2% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.9%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
3100 has almost disappeared. AR3089 looks and seems like it weaken.
Since it’s old, it might fade before the mid-point.
So other spots might start and/or rotate into view. Or will stay about same or weaken. Or total count for Sept, will be going sideways, rather than up or down.
Madeline died, but others are forming. It’s groundhog day
Fiona is a Category 3
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Solar wind
speed: 480.2 km/sec
density: 6.36 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 70
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.14×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.4% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.8%
It fell more than I thought it would.
“CHANCE OF MINOR STORMS: NOAA forecasters say that a minor G1-class geomagnetic storm is possible on Sept. 23rd when a high-speed stream of solar wind is expected to hit Earth’s magnetic field. The gaseous material is flowing from an equatorial hole in the sun’s atmosphere.”
Oh, I was wondering about holes, but that different one then I was wondering about. Holes suppose to lower Neutron Counts, but solar wind seem normal or even on low side.
On imaginary crew going to Mars, they only a few days at around +5 and today would be better day. Of course that applies to the crew in ISS, also.
Solar wind
speed: 434.6 km/sec
density: 6.77 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 70
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.15×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.9% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.4%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Neutron counts continue to fall, Don’t know why.
holes?
Let’s go with a hint:
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu is roughly equal to 75 to 85??
Or do the math {I don’t do math]:
The following equations are useful for converting between 10 cm flux (F) and sunspot number (R). The equations are valid on a statistical (ie, average) basis.
F = 67.0 + 0.572 R + (0.0575 R)2 – (0.0209 R)3
R = 1.61 FD – (0.0733 FD)2 + (0.0240 FD)3
where FD = F – 67.0
Not sure why do math if not exact- I used chart
https://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/2/5
We will play with it and see what happens
oh math is about 137 sfu = 102 sunspots
hmm. Nope 137 sfu = 91 sunspots
About 91 sunspots
I think I learned have do math and
And I don’t know if care so much about-
I rather have a chart which worked.
does 85 or 91 matter, rather than the counted
70 sunspots.
There that thing about odd and even cycles
Oh well, as said, *maybe* I will play with it.
But I will need more coffee.
bob d…”The temperature of the source has nothing to do with whether or not a photon is absorbed”.
***
Of course it does. The temperature of the receiving mass is determined by the state of excitation of the electrons in its atoms, how far they are excited above the ground state. It’s the same for the source.
The intensity and frequency of the emitted quanta is dependent on the state of excitation of the electrons in the atoms of the source. E = hf, E being intensity and f being the frequency imparted by the electrons. The E and f must match the requirements of the electrons in the target.
If the electrons in the target are at a higher temperature, the excitation state of the electrons will be at a higher energy state than the electrons in the source. You cannot transfer energy from a lower energy state to a higher energy state, simple as that.
Gordon,
“The temperature of the receiving mass is determined by the state of excitation of the electrons in its atoms, how far they are excited above the ground state. Its the same for the source.”
Nope, and you can look it up if you don’t believe me.
That make a partial contribution to temperature but temperature is mostly due to the kinetic energy of the component molecules.
“E being intensity and f being the frequency imparted by the electrons. ”
Nope, in this case E is the energy of the photon, not the intensity.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The donkeys, with their “energy balance” and “flux’ babblings, have tried to divert attention from the fact that none of their wishful thinking has managed to stop the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
If there is some newly discovered effect which has resulted in the Earth’s temperature magically rising, instead of presently losing energy at the rate of about 44 TW (based on measurement), then someone should be able to describe it.
Alas, there is not.
Just complete detachment from reality.
Why hasnt the GHE had any effect since the creation of the Earth?
Because its a figment of the imagination, that’s why!
> Why hasnt the GHE had any effect since the creation of the Earth?
For the same reason why you can’t stop hitting your children, Mike.
Willard,
You can’t seem to accept the fact that the Earth has cooled, and nothing at all stopped it – not the atmosphere, not CO2 – nothing!
Maybe you could say something pointless and stupid, and hope that people wouldn’t realise how pointless and stupid you are.
If your mythical GHE couldnt stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, what form of insanity leads you to think it can, now?
Not terribly conversant with facts, are you Willard? You might be better off preaching SkyDragon fantasies to other gullible idiots.
Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
The Earth has cooled.
I still can heat my house.
Your turn.
Willard,
The Earth has cooled – very good.
Now tell me why neither the atmosphere, CO2, H2O, nor anything at all, managed to stop this natural process.
I’ll guarantee you are not using the GHE to heat your house – apparently, as far as the Earth is concerned, the GHE doesn’t seem to have done anything at all. Certainly no heating effect.
Of course, you can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Mike Flynn,
The Earth has cooled.
Now tell me how I could drink hot tea this morning,
Cheers.
The Earth has warmed over the last 50 years. And over the last 20,000 years.
So please tell us how ‘the Earth cooled over the last 4.5 B’ years has stopped these warming periods from happening?
Or admit that your incessant posting of this information is pointless.
Nate,
Are you admitting that some GHE, after being totally unable to prevent the earth from cooling for about four and a half billion years or so, suddenly developed magical planetary heating properties 20,000 years ago?
What do you believe changed 20,000 years ago? The laws of physics?
Don’t be stupid. The Earth presently loses energy at the rate of 44 teraWatts, or thereabouts. Loses, not gains. More out than in – cooling, you nitwit!
As to why cooling stops warming from happening, it’s in the name – cooling. More energy out than in. Do you understand physics?
“As to why cooling stops warming from happening, its in the name cooling.”
And yet that is my point, that you keep missing, it hasnt stopped warming from happening!
Earth has bee warming for the last 50 y. And prior to that for the last 20,000 y. Your ‘cooling’ hasnt stopped it.
Your theory that it should stop AGW or the GHE from warming is MOOT.
Your repeated babbling about the Earth’s cooling for the last 4.5 Billion y is irrelevant, and surely a sign of severe insanity.
Keep posting about this irrelevant thing all you want. We will just file it immediately in the JUNK folder.
“The Earth presently loses energy at the rate of 44 teraWatts, or thereabouts. Loses, not gains. More out than in cooling, you nitwit!”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Nope. Gaining ~ 10^22 J/year ~ 300 terraWatts.
Another thing you keep getting wrong. Oh well!
Mike,
There is poverty in the world.
Now tell me why you ate a cheeseburger this morning.
“The average depth of the ocean is about 3,688 meters (12,100 feet)”
and your top 2000 meters of it is very sparsely measured. Care to give a reasonable error bar to those figures?
RLH says: Care to give a reasonable error bar to those figures?
Lyman and Johnson 2014
I note the latest silliness from Witless Willy.
He wrote –
“Imagine if the Earth received twice the energy it emitted each instant since the dawn of time Mike Molten Core Flynn might get a stroke!”
Unfortunately for Silly Willy, imaginings are not fact. If SkyDragons (and surprising number of otherwise intelligent people) choose not to believe the Earth’s core has a temperature in excess of 5000 K, then good for them!
Weird Wee Willy obviously does not want to accept reality as expressed by Mike Flynn, myself, his mate Ken Rice, or every other geophysicist and geologist of which I aware.
Willard is off with the fairies.
No GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, whether he wants to accept it or not.
Bad luck for SkyDragons – history proves that the “Greenhouse Effect” has had no effect whatsoever. The Earth cooled regardless!
Bunyak is a troll. Stop feeding the troll.
Don’t be so harsh on Mike Flynn, Kennui.
That’ll convince people you’re no fact free SkyDragon idiot, I’m sure.
Or maybe not.
You might be a dumb buffoon, Mike, but you’re our dumb buffoon.
Kennui had no right to treat you like that.
Weird Willard,
Ken has the unfettered right to as he wishes, as do I.
So do you. You can be as stupid, idiotic, and irrelevant as you wish. No one can stop you being yourself.
Telling people whether they have the “right” to do as they wish is the mark of a self-important fool.
You are quite obviously such a fool.
Carry on telling people what they may, or may not, do.
Idiot.
Mike,
We live in a society.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The cult ran from this comment upthread. That means it needs to be repeated:
It gets worse for the “energy imbalance” idiots. They can’t answer any of the relevant questions.
Here’s the link from Ent:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
So, pick any year, say 2015. Only the difference is shown, but what if a responsible adult asked: “What were the two values that produced the difference?”
IOW, what was the incoming solar flux at TOA, for the entire year. How was it measured? At what point was it measured, since there are no satellites at TOA? What is the margin of error?
Same for the advertised flux from Earth.
And when they produce some hokey answers, tell them “radiative fluxes dont simply add/subtract”.
This AGW nonsense is a hoax, folks.
(Next time it should be in bold, huh TM?)
clint…from the link…
“Increases in emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane due to human activity trap heat in the atmosphere, capturing outgoing radiation that would otherwise escape into space”.
***
After the nonsense claimed by NASA that the Moon rotates on its axis exactly once per orbit, we should not be surprised with the nonsense in the quote.
For the umpteenth time, heat cannot be trapped by atmospheric gases. Only a solid like glass in a greenhouse can trap heat because it traps the molecules of which heat is the associated energy.
Furthermore, anthropogenic gases ‘theoretically’ trap only 5% of the surface radiation. I think that is a major over-estimation but I’ll go with it.
Further furthermore, radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a very inefficient means of surface heat dissipation.
A basic revue of the Ideal Gas Law would set NASA straight if they were not so intent on climate alarm propaganda. A trace gas making up 0.04% of a gas mixture cannot add more heat to the mix than its mass percent, about 0.04C per 1C warming overall.
4/100th of a degree C is not going to make a significant change to any imbalance, if such an imbalance exists.
The two anti-science Flat Earth cultists join forces and babble about things they can not understand and refuse logical or rational thought in their endless posting.
Both make up nonsense and peddle it as fact. They both lack the thinking skills to attempt to grasp real science (based upon actual experiments and observations and derived by logical rational thought) but think they are so intelligent that the entire science community got things right and only in their deluded simplified thinking do they possess the truth. The only problem none of their nonsense is based upon any experimental evidence and none is based upon logical thinking. The will babble on and on like two hamsters running endlessly on their wheels. Spinning around endlessly but never advancing.
Once again troll Norman has no science. He’s got his insults and false accusations, but NO science.
He used to pretend he had some science, but now he’s full-on troll. His meltdown is total and complete. He’s got NOTHING.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
I think your friends at the flat earth society are waiting for you.
maguff…”Misinformation in and about science”
***
Yet another piece of worthless trash by our resident garbage collector, Maguff.
practicing [b]boldness[/b].
nope…doesn’t work like it does in normal html.
used [] instead of
The quick brown fox jumped over Willard dog.
that should be greater than () signs in place of the square brackets.
let me try to explain this better. For bold type you put a ‘b’ in front of the word(s) and surround it with a greater than and less than sign. Behind the word(s) you use a forward slash ‘b’ …/b///surrounded by the same grater than/less than signs.
Let’s see how WordPress messes this up.
I see it added three forward slashes after the last b, before surrounded. I know html can be weird but this is really weird.
Come on, Gordo.
Use strong and em instead.
Otherwise you will end up messing up your tags.
Square brackets are for PHPbb-based forums.
But we all know you ought to
delmost of your rants.That should be Willard’s dog. Or maybe…
The quick brown fox jumped over Willard the Rat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_(1971_film)
Come on, Gordo.
The rats are not named Willard.
Read. Then think.
Willard,
You can’t muster the cunning of the average rat. The rats would reject you as being worthy of rathood.
Mike Flynn,
Dehumanization is usually done by persons from the in-group.
You do not belong to the in-group.
Neither does Gordo.
Sorry.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ren…”We seem to underestimate the energy of the solar winds magnetic field, which hits the Earths magnetosphere”.
***
Syun Akasofu, who did pioneer work on the solar wind, suggested that it induced electrical currents in our atmosphere, surface, and oceans. It would not surprise me if ENSO is not related to those electrical currents in the oceans.
It would not surprise me either if the electrical activity does not affect our weather systems.
The solar wind is comprised of electrons and protons ejected from the Sun. Moving charges produce a magnetic field around them and they and their fields interact with our magnetic field to produce high voltages and current.
to the buffoons maguff and RLH…
[maguff]”GR, you have been misinformed. It is important to read widely and not rely on any one source for your information. Most of the time it is better to ask good questions than to have all the answers”.
At the link you provided, the commenter mixes up heat with radiation, a common error. He suggest that heat between the layers of the insulation medium radiates heat to space, which is nonsense. The heat is dissipated but that comes from its conversion from heat (aka kinetic energy of atoms) to radiated EM.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
*********************
RLH says:
September 19, 2022 at 8:49 AM
No heat passes through an intermediate medium unless its by conduction or convection
So radiation does not cause any heat transfer, therefore the Sun does not warm the Earth. Idiot”.
***
Richard I would think you are smart enough to learn some basic thermodynamics. Apparently not.
No heat is transferred between Sun and Earth via radiation. That’s a no-brainer since EM radiation consists of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. There is nowhere to store heat in an EM wave.
Maybe you’d be more at home with some communication theory. Elecrons, as current, run up and down an antenna and produce EM around the antenna which is generated trough the atmosphere. You are suggesting the EM carries the electrical current that created it. When it reaches a receiver’s antenna, the EM is converted back to electrical current. Again, you are suggesting the electrical current in the receiver is the same electrical current that produced the EM at the transmitter.
Clint was right, you are behaving like a stupid troll. Why don’t you try thinking before shooting off your mouth?
Although space between the Sun and Earth has plasma (solar wind) consisting of electrons and protons, it is essentially a vacuum. The solar wind transfers heat because it consists of electrons and protons, however, the amount of heat transferred is insignificant compared to the effect created by radiation when it is absorbed by the much cooler Earth..
Heat cannot travel through a vacuum, This is a no-brainer as well since heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms and if there are no atoms there can be no heat transfer. As I said, transfer of heat by the solar wind is insignificant compared to the heating supplied overall by solar radiation.
Here’s how it works Richard…again!!! Thermal energy is converted at the solar surface to EM. The EM travels through space and is absorbed by cooler masses on the Earth. The absorbed EM is converted back to heat.
The heating is local, dumbo!!!
Is that too complex for someone with a Masters degree?
The problem lies in the current knowledge about nuclear fusion. Obviously, the theory is wrong since no one has been able to develop a sustained nuclear fusion reaction that is of any use.
Th Sun is supposed to be made of hydrogen and helium and that suggests protons surrounded by electrons in hydrogen. However, the Sun is also described as plasma and that is a contradiction. It’s either comprised of whole hydrogen and helium atom or it is not. Which is it? Does the Sun exist as whole hydrogen and helium or just protons, electrons, and the neutrons of helium? If it’s the latter, solar physicist had better get busy revising their theories.
Here’s another problem. Stars are supposed to originate from dust clouds and free hydrogen in the universe, although that most abundant element exists in low density form. How does dust convert to hydrogen and/or how does hydrogen is a sparse format form the pressure and temperature required to ignite fusion?
Much of stellar theory is plain bs. About all we know for sure about stars is they are very hot and that heat cannot travel via radiation through space.
Naturally, the Earth warms due to electrons in surface mass absorbing solar SW EM. However, that heat does not come directly from the Sun. Furthermore, if that EM encountered a star of equivalent temperature to the Sun, or greater, nothing would happen.
2nd law!!!
“The Sun is supposed to be made of hydrogen and helium and that suggests protons surrounded by electrons in hydrogen. However, the Sun is also described as plasma and that is a contradiction. Its either comprised of whole hydrogen and helium atom or it is not. Which is it? Does the Sun exist as whole hydrogen and helium or just protons, electrons, and the neutrons of helium? If its the latter, solar physicist had better get busy revising their theories.”
Not that know much about the sun, but I would say the surface of Sun is plasma. And the surface of sun has huge amount gravity. The surface hot and not dense, but say 100 km depth, the gases are denser, and say 500 km, even denser with large atm pressure [because of the strong gravity] and some depth it’s no longer plasma.
Plasma can have more or less electron that molecular hydrogen or Helium as a gas normally has. But it seems the more imbalance of either way will create magnetic forces [or they don’t like it}.
In Earth cold atmosphere molecules moving about at faster than a bullet. And in very hot sun, they going at earth’s orbital velocity or much faster. A lot of them crowded together and going somewhere around 100,000 mph which is not anywhere near sun’s escape velocity -or even suborbital velocity. And magnetic forces can accelerate well about escape velocity, and can flick some protons to sub lightspeeds, sometimes/rarely, say up to say around 1/2 speed of light. [GCR goes closer to lightspeeds- but also sub lightspeeds].
So, I would guess Sun has whole H, 1 proton and 1 electron, and helium of 2 proton and 2 neutrons and 2 electron which are not in plasma state- yet very hot, and under a lot of pressure [densely packed and in howling traffic jam of molecules- but would say that the molecules are stable, but maybe most of time they could be.
–molecules- but would say that the molecules are stable, but maybe most of time they could be.–
Helium Atoms and hydrogen atoms and hydrogen molecules- but would say that the hydrogen molecules are NOT stable, mostly, but it seems some are and some are for some period of time.
But anyhow I don’t know if there is much H2 or how much atomic hydrogen- as I said, I don’t know much about stars or our sun.
Why is the sun made of plasma?
“It is not just the sun, 99.999% of detectable matter in the universe is made of plasma. That means every galaxy, every star, every nebula, every galactic jet, many formations that we cannot see with the naked eye are all made of plasma. Most of the plasma in space is in what is called Dark Mode. The next mode is called glow mode, which is what we see from the sun, from fire, and from fluorescent light bulbs. The final mode is arc mode, which is like lightning and arc welders. These modes are controlled by the amount of electrical current present in the plasma.”
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-sun-made-of-plasma-1
I had thought the extremely high pressure would have effect on not making some of it not plasma.
Another poster, Sven Nielsen said:
“No, its not. Whatever 100 percent plasma might mean. …”
Another said:
“At and very close to the surface, there can be some atoms that retain all their electrons for a little while, and are therefore gas, instead of plasma. ”
Well. 1 am just make simple for myself, and assume it’s all plasma unless I get some evidence, it’s not.
“No heat is transferred between Sun and Earth via radiation”
So standing n France is the Sun during the day for the last 2 weeks is a complete illusion. I’ll try and remember that. /sarc
….So standing in France in the Sun….
and I got a tan by ‘magic’.
rlh…”.So standing in France in the Sun.
and I got a tan by magic”.
***
It is ultraviolt radiation (EM) that causes a tan by altering the chemicals in the skin. You might notice as you tan that your skin gets hotter as well. If you lay in the Sun long enough it can cook your skin to the point of blistering.
That is not due to heat being transferred from the Sun, it is due to EM from the Sun being absorbed by electrons in atoms, in molecules, in the skin, and converting the EM to heat or to the chemical that produces a tan.
UV is EM which is ENERGY.
RLH, You have to remember that Gordon has his own definitions for things. His definition of “heat” is (and I quote) “the kinetic energy of atoms”. This is close to (but not the same as) what most scientists and engineers now call “internal energy”, denoted “U”.
Within Gordon’s world, it then makes perfect sense to say ‘no heat can be transferred through a vacuum’, since there are no atoms with kinetic energy to carry “Gordon_heat”.
I should ask how Gordon thinks microwave ovens work then.
“Microwave transmission is the transmission of information by electromagnetic waves with wavelengths in the microwave range (1 m – 1 mm) of the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwave signals are normally limited to the line of sight, so long-distance transmission using these signals requires a series of repeaters forming a microwave relay network. It is possible to use microwave signals in over-the-horizon communications using tropospheric scatter, but such systems are expensive and generally used only in specialist roles. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission
“Uses
Microwaves are widely used for point-to-point communications because their small wavelength allows conveniently-sized antennas to direct them in narrow beams, which can be pointed directly at the receiving antenna. This allows nearby microwave equipment to use the same frequencies without interfering with each other, as lower frequency radio waves do. This frequency reuse conserves scarce radio spectrum bandwidth. Another advantage is that the high frequency of microwaves gives the microwave band a very large information-carrying capacity; the microwave band has a bandwidth 30 times that of all the rest of the radio spectrum below it. A disadvantage is that microwaves are limited to line of sight propagation; they cannot pass around hills or mountains as lower frequency radio waves can.
Microwave radio transmission is commonly used in point-to-point communication systems on the surface of the Earth, in satellite communications, and in deep space radio communications. Other parts of the microwave radio band are used for radars, radio navigation systems, sensor systems, and radio astronomy.
The next higher frequency band of the radio spectrum, between 30 GHz and 300 GHz, are called “millimeter waves” because their wavelengths range from 10 mm to 1 mm. Radio waves in this band are strongly attenuated by the gases of the atmosphere. This limits their practical transmission distance to a few kilometers, so these frequencies cannot be used for long-distance communication. The electronic technologies needed in the millimeter wave band are also in an earlier state of development than those of the microwave band.”
There is story that some guy was stand between the transmission signal and it melted his candy bar, which inspired him to make a high efficiency oven to heat food up.
It’s also one way to beam energy from space- using a part spectrum of microwave which can pass thru clouds with little loss of signal.
Another way is using laser for transmission of energy.
The loss electrical power by converting to micowave [or laser] and then back to electrical power is problem with this.
But biggest problem is high cost of launch and therefore high cost of electrical power in space.
If and when we mine lunar water, it will lower electrical cost in space and launching anything from Moon can become very cheap.
‘
It has been claimed that to Space Power Satellites Earth launch cost have to reach $100 per kg of payload to LEO. And current cheapest launch is + $1000 per kg.
Musk thinks he needs it to be about $50 per kg, to have a city on Mars- and that’s what Starship is attempting to do.
But before that, Starship will provide a cheap way to explore Mars. As it would also
provide a cheap way to explore the Moon.
If after a decade or two, SpaceX can get launch to $100 per kg, one could use the Moon even if it didn’t have mineable lunar water.
Or a significant aspect of whether or not there is mineable lunar water is a way to lower earth and other launch costs. Or if Starship does this, lunar water, isn’t needed.
A “problem” with SPS, is that if electrical power is that cheap in space, it changes every regarding space use. But it works both, change everything of how we use space {suborbital travel, hotels in space, mining the Moon or living on Mars, will also lower launch cost. I tend to think we have SPS for Mars, before we have SPS for
Earth. But it this point all industry we move off Earth or going from Space to Earth surface has always been easy [cheap}. You want a refrigerator, it will fall from space to your porch.
But long before that we have server farms in space and etc. And that within 10 years. Or SPS is about +30 years before it happens, though small scale experimental stuff is happening now.
Microwave ovens heat water molecules via radiation.
“Microwaves are produced inside the oven by an electron tube called a magnetron. The microwaves are reflected within the metal interior of the oven where they are absorbed by food. Microwaves cause water molecules in food to vibrate, producing heat that cooks the food”
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/resources-you-radiation-emitting-products/microwave-oven-radiation
–RLH says:
September 20, 2022 at 4:52 PM
Microwave ovens heat water molecules via radiation.–
So, beam microwaves from space and heat a body of water?
That’s original idea- can’t remember anyone, else
who gave this solution.
Maybe, it would work.
That might work well for ocean settlements and for Mars.
rlh…”I should ask how Gordon thinks microwave ovens work then”.
***
I see you answered your own question. The microwaves are EM and they transfer no heat from the magnetron to the food or water. The microwaves cause molecules of water to vibrate since the H20 molecule has a slight dipole, meaning one end of the molecule is more positive/negative than the other. The microwave EM field causes the dipole to vibrate/rotate and the H2O molecules bump up against other H20 molecules and produce heat.
If you put a metallic device in the oven, like a spoon, the microwaves cause electrons in the atoms of the spoon to travel in circles caused eddy currents. That produces a short circuit condition that can burn out the magnetron. So don’t put metallic objects in your microwave.
The microwaves are EM and they transfer ENERGY from the magnetron to the food or water.
I have no problem, per se, with a person using their own definitions (or two groups using two different definitions, like 1 kilobyte = 1000 bytes vs 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes). Sometimes it is warranted.
But anyone who uses their own, non-standard definition should admit the definition is not standard. It would also be helpful (but not necessary) to explain carefully why the new definition is better or more useful in a given setting.
In this case, Gordon has what is apparently his own, unique definition of “heat” which is neither “U” nor “Q” as used by practicing engineers and physicists. As such, this definition is confusing to almost everyone. Since it is neither “Q” nor “U”, it has no place in Delta(U) = Q + W. When and where is this new quantity, “Gordon_heat = kinetic energy of atoms” more useful than the standard “U” or “Q”?
If you believe you’re going to correct all the wrong terminology out there, good luck!
You should start with your own cult. How many times do we see “trap heat”? How many times do they confuse flux with energy? How many times do the use “Q” instead of “Qdot”, and vice versa?
It would be best to just get the concepts correct, instead of promoting nonsense like ice can boil water.
Clint,
1) I agree that “heat trap” is not an ideal phrasing and has potential to produce misunderstanding. A lot of colloquial language sneaks into the discussion (especially when talking to non-specialists; I doubt such language is often used in technical papers).
2) I don’t know of people confusing flux and *energy*. Flux might more often be confused with *power* (W/m^2 vs W), but that is not something I have seen often. (Perhaps you were confusing “energy” and “power”.)
Also, when you have a fixed surface area (like the earth), then average flux and average power are directly proportional.
(average power) = (average flux) * (area)
So for example, the Trenberth Diagram lists everything in terms of global annual average *flux*, but if you simply multiply every number by the surface area (5.1E14 m^2), then you have global annual average *power*. (And multiply by 3.1E7 seconds in a year and get global annual energy.) If you know one, you know the other, so it really doesn’t matter which you state. Power/area is simply more intuitive in terms of meaning and magnitude.
3) There are legitimate differences in usage for Q. In physics, I have universally seen “Q” to have units of energy. Like:
Delta(U) = Q – W
Q = mc Delta(T)
Other times (often in engineering), “Q” has units of power, which would be what physicists would call “Qdot”.
As near as I can tell, people use the version they like, and rarely is there any confusion, since people say which they mean (or it is clear from context).
4) Yes, you DO need to stop promoting nonsense about “ice can boil water”. I have certainly never promoted that nonsense. You seem to be the only one confused about the concepts here. Try reading a text on radiant heat transfer.
1) WRONG. “Trap heat” is used in many “technical papers”, as well in many NASA and other institutional sites.
2) WRONG. Flux is confused with energy all throughout your cult. Open your eyes. The Trenberth nonsense even claims “energy imbalance”, as flux is used. And you can NOT arbitrarily multiply estimated/assumed/guessed flux by the area of an imaginary sphere and get anything but more cult garbage. That ain’t science.
3) WRONG. “Q” and “Qdot” are often confused, but they are different. “Q” is energy, “Qdot” is energy per time, or power. The terms can NOT be interchanged carelessly.
4) WRONG. It is YOU that is promoting the nonsense, Folkerts. Quit trying to weasel out. If your nonsense were true, you could boil water with ice cubes. Try learning about radiant heat transfer and 2LoT.
Clint R 2:11 pm goes 0 for 4 in physics 101 and flunks out:
1) Wrong Clint, the GHE ~33K energy has been trapped in our atm. as long as humans have been measuring the GHE.
2) Clint R wrongly confuses area (and seconds) in not understanding energy flux is conserved. That ain’t science.
3) Wrong again Clint, Q in 1LOT is always and everywhere a rate of heating, sometimes correctly written Qdot.
4) Wrong Clint, the GHE raises the earth surface temperature from ~255K to ~288K so ice can indeed be used to boil water as Dr. Spencer proved experimentally.
——
Tim 1:44 pm, again as I’ve pointed out before to you, in physics, it is universally seen “Q” to have units of energy per unit time. Like the time it takes for a process to experience a change in U:
Delta(U) over unit time = Q W where Q is a rate of heating and W is a rate of working. Some authors do correctly use symbol Qdot, Clint R got that tidbit right for once.
Also, Gordon is correctly using Clausius’ standard heat defn. not Gordon’s own heat defn.
Clausius’ heat defn. is way more useful to understand basic thermodynamics as employed usefully in relevant climate and weather processes.
… Delta(U) over unit time = Q – W …
Ball4: “Tim 1:44 pm, again as Ive pointed out before to you, in physics, it is universally seen Q to have units of energy per unit time. Like the time it takes for a process to experience a change in U:”
No!
Work, W, has units of energy (joules).
Heat, Q, has units of energy (joules).
Internal energy, U, has units of energy (joules).
Kinetic ENERGY, and potential ENERGY and chemical ENERGY have units of ENERGY and thermal ENERGY and work and heat all have the same units — energy (joules in SI units).
Whether it takes 1 second or 100 seconds, a 2 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 100 J of energy. The time for the energy to accumulate is immaterial!
Whether it take 10 second or 1000 seconds to warm 0.1 kg of water by 2 K, the heat, Q, is (0.1 kg)(4200 J/kg*K)(2 K) = 840 J of ENERGY added to the water.
… the rate of heating per sec., Q, is (0.1 kg)(4200 J/kg*K)(2 K)/10sec.s = 840 J amount of ENERGY added to the internal energy U of the water over the 10 sec. process, which is 84J/sec = Q a rate of heating during the 10sec. process of the deltaU. Here W is zero.
Every engineering text book I have seen, haven’t seen them all, has a process over time changing thermodynamic internal energy U:
Delta(U) = Q – W
Maybe Tim can find one that has U=Q-W, might take me some time to get a copy. If so, it’s not useful eqn. at all as U cannot be known but the rate of heating Q can be known from experiment and thus is deltaU known over time of the process which is useful.
NB: If encounter this equation in a slightly different form, it’s not in error. In thermodynamics textbooks for engineers the right side usually is written Q-W. This is hardly surprising given that engineers (as their name implies) often are interested in engines, which are systems that do work on their surroundings. Thus, engineers chose W to be positive if work is done by the system.
Because this positive work entails a decrease in internal energy U, where some have written W, engineers must write -W. One convention is not right and the other wrong, merely different.
I’m glad to see Ball4 continuing to claim ice can boil water, and Earth can be compared to an imaginary sphere.
With all of the cult meltdown happening, more and more are embarrassed by their nonsense. But not Ball4. He’ll be the one turning the lights off when everyone else has left the building.
Hope he remembers….
Clint.
1) Give one example of the term ‘trapped heat’. Not a website for general audiences, but an actual scientific paper or textbook (or even a website aimed at scientists, engineers, or university students). I suspect there might actually be a few because people are often casual about the word “heat”. But I also bet they will rare. And I bet they will go on to explain what they mean in more precise language.
You are the one who thinks this is in “many technical papers”, so you should not have any trouble finding them.
2) Since (flux)=(power)/(area), then you absolutely can meaningfully rearrange the equation to get (power) = (flux)*(area). And you absolutely can multiply to get (energy) = (power)*(time). This is high school math & physics. If you tell me the average annual global flux imbalance, I can absolutely tell you the annual energy imbalance.
3) I wish you were right here, but “Q” is often used for a rate, in watts. Here are a few examples:
“Q is the heat transfer per unit time” https://byjus.com/heat-flux-formula/
“Q: heat transfer per unit time” https://softschools.com/formulas/physics/heat_flow_rate_formula/509/
” q = heat transfer (W, J/s, Btu/hr)”
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html
This is a fact of life you need to deal with when studying heat flow.
4) “If your nonsense were true … ”
You keep repeating this, but that doesn’t make it any truer than the first time you said this. You STILL don’t seem to understand the difference between EMITTED flux and RECEIVED flux.
Once again, consider a cubic, empty room where the walls and ceiling are ice at 273 K. We have:
* 315 W/m^2 EMITTED from the ceiling
* 315 W/m^2 EMITTED from the north wall
* 315 W/m^2 EMITTED from the south wall
* 315 W/m^2 EMITTED from the east wall
* 315 W/m^2 EMITTED from the west wall.
By the time those 5 fluxes reach the floor, the distance and geometry has reduced the RECEIVED flux by 1/5th (ie 78 W/m^2). The floor:
* RECEIVES 78 W/m^2 from the ceiling
* RECEIVES 78 W/m^2 from the north wall
* RECEIVES 78 W/m^2 from the south wall
* RECEIVES 78 W/m^2 from the east wall
* RECEIVES 78 W/m^2 from the wall wall
The RECEIVED fluxes do indeed add. The total received flux is 5 x 78 = 315 W/m^2. That is my position. Any number fluxes with a strength of 315 W/m^2 LEAVING distant surfaces never add to more than 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface. Ice + ice + ice + ice is STILL no more than 315 W/m^2.
If you think any of that is ‘nonsense’ then point out what specifically you disagree with.
tim…”When and where is this new quantity, Gordon_heat = kinetic energy of atoms more useful than the standard U or Q?”
***
I am not concerned with usefulness I am concerned with the actual physical reality. I have found in my studies that if you strive to get a clear visualization of what is going on it makes the concept much easier to grasp and retain.
It’s not important to understand that no heat is transferred from the Sun to the Earth, even though the ultimate result is heating of the Earth. I am trying to understand the meaning of heat and what it can and cannot do.
It’s not always possible to visualize and we have to settle for close, or maybe in the ballpark. When it comes to electrons and atoms, there is no way to tell what relationship may exist. Visualizing electrons as small planets circling atomic nucleii is not really helpful but neither is the Schrodinger wave equation which supplies no visualization whatsoever.
You are talking about the usefulness of my definition of heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. No one yet knows what energy is. It’s a very loose description of something that motivates certain actions. So, what usefulness does the term internal energy provide? All it tells you is something is at work inside a mass.
When you see the expression U = Q – W, it should be immediately obvious that U must have properties related to Q and W. Therefore it must be related to both heat and work. It is not possible to state that relationship, however, since Q and W have different units of measurement.
Also Qext and Wext have different meanings than Qint and Wint. Clausius differentiated between the two claiming the only important values are the starting external Q and W and the final Q and W. Everything can be calculated from them. Therefore U is not really an important value for practical considerations even though it is vital to the 1st law.
The natural unit of Q is the calorie and the natural unit of W is the joule, but the 1st law uses only the oule but it could easily be stated in calories or BTU. That’s because the scientist Joule discovered a mechanical equivalent between heat and work that expresses calories as joules and vice-versa.
U must involve atoms, however, since it is an internal energy. Therefore the kinetic energy of those atoms is measured as heat. BUT….it can also be measured as work, since the atoms are vibration, meaning a force is working over a distance internally. Clausius described U as Qint + Wint with heat as the motivator of atomic vibration.
Tim,
You are accepting reality – to a degree.
What cunning calculations can you dream up show the Earth’s surface to be –
A) molten
B) just above 100 C (before the first liquid water appeared)
C) when the average was 20 C more than now
D) now.
Feel free to use as many hidden heat sources as you like.
Actually, I’m only joking. You can’t even figure out how the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so, can you? Or why nothing at all managed to stop the cooling!
Thats because you really have no clue at all, do you?
The Earth’s temperature is whatever you measure it to be. SkyDragon nutters claim measured temperatures should really be something else, but thats because they are quite mad.
Things are what they are, whether you think they should be something else or not.
Yes?
Everybody knows about entropy, Mike.
You are like a guy who discovered that inflation makes budgeting impossible.
Wow Folkerts, you have a lot of free time on your hands….
1) Are you unable to do a search on “trapped heat”? If I have to do it for you, do you agree to not comment here for 30 days for each example I find?
2) Yes, energy = flux*area. But in reality, you need accurate values or the result is worthless. No one knows Earth’s emitted flux within probably 10%, and no one knows Earth’s surface area within about 20%. That’s why they never do the calculation, but call it “energy imbalance”. They don’t have a clue what they’re doing.
3) You tend to admit I’m right here, but you still struggle to prove me wrong! Some people just like to argue because they have nothing else going in their lives.
4) You’ve tried the “EMITTED” deception before. The issue is about flux ARRIVING at the surface.
> Yes, energy = flux*area. But
I like big but’s and I cannot lie.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint
1) In the time it took you to type, you could have googled yourself and found the answer (assuming it is as easy as you think).
2) Wow. That is a major change! From “you can add or average fluxes” to “we just don’t have good numbers”. Its a small step, but you are making progress.
3) No, I show you are wrong with specific examples. I don’t have to LIKE that “Q” is sometimes used as a synonym for “Q dot” to realize that people so such things.
4) It is fascinating how you simply can’t understand. Learn some physics (or actually read my post) and this ‘deception’ you perceive should disappear.
tim…”His [GR] definition of heat is (and I quote) the kinetic energy of atoms. This is close to (but not the same as) what most scientists and engineers now call internal energy, denoted U”.
***
The phrase internal energy is non-specific. It says nothing about the energies involved. The same with kinetic or potential energy.
Clausius explained what is meant by internal energy and he should know since it’s his definition that is accepted as the U in the first law. He describes the internal energy related to atomic vibrations as work and the energy that produces the work as heat. Therefore U = qint + wint. Since work has a heat equivalent, and vice-versa, you could state U as heat r work.
We know this is true. If you add heat to a solid via a flame, the atoms vibrate harder in their lattices. Add enough heat, and they will break their atomic bonds and melt, or even explode.
Therefore modern scientists and engineers are wrong to restate the findings of Clausius as internal energy when it is, in fact, a combination of heat and work.
That should be obvious since U = Q – W in a macro sense. U must have components of work and heat is order for the relationship to hold.
Yep, there is Gordon_heat, Gordon_Thermodynamics, and Gordon_facts.
Not the same as heat, Thermodyanmics, or facts.
Let alone would Gordon_viruses, Gordon_time_dilation, Gordon_lunar_spin or even Gordon_Ukraine be the same as viruses, time dilation, lunar spin or Ukraine!
*
Robertson behaves exactly as did my lady’s uncle 12 years ago: Kurt lived in an own world with own rules and own explanations for everything, and heavily contradicted anyone thinking different.
Now Kurt is silent since a while, looking thru us in the far when we visit him.
That might very well be Robertson’s future…
The best, most physical, unconfused heat defn. is from the guy that wrote the seminal book on thermodynamics: R. Clausius.
Any different heat defn. that crept in behind is less physical, more confusing. Here, Gordon has correctly used Clausius’ heat. Gordon’s writing is physically confused much of the time but not when Gordon, or any other commenter, correctly employs Clausius’ heat.
speak for you.
comprare patente di Guida
A few weeks ago I was thinking of comparing data produced by different procedures for solar activity analysis: Sun Spot Number, Solar flux measured at 10.7 cm, and Bremen’s composite MgII index.
The data looks of course quite different depending on the procedure.
For the comparison, I choosed the daily data available for the year 2021; the (rounded) respective value ranges are
– SSN: 0 – 152
– F10.7: 61 – 121
– MgII: 0.15 – 0.16
The best is here to compute, for each daily series, the percentage of each daily value wrt the series’ maximum, and to display the percentage series relative to their respective mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGSouEaduFIbWvQxYOr-W16zv1Xh-ONO/view
I’ve known for years about the good correlation between the solar flux and SSN; nice to see that Bremen’s MgII fits too.
*
Extending the comparison period to 2004-2022 might be problematic, as MgII’s cylces differ a lot from those of SSN and F10.7cm.
Awesome discovery, nobody knew that, Nobel price for sure
Again a load of redundant bullshit from the ‘idiot de service’.
Go back to your youtube Pseudoscience stars, babbling Edog, quit stalking and boring me all the time.
Make me
The fundamental energy source for the atmosphere is the sun.
The sun’s energy is transmitted to the earth through the intervening vacuum of space as electromagnetic radiation.
The Clausius statement about the conservation of energy is incomplete because it gives no consideration of the energy which is associated with the light or, in general, with the electromagnetic field. The extended new law says that if energy goes away from a region, it is because it flows away through the boundaries of that region.
The energy flow vector of the electromagnetic field is the “Poynting’s vector,” named after its discoverer.
Or, if you’d rather not learn Poynting’s derivation, see Wikipedia instead.
If you see the tiger inside the cage one moment, and later you see the tiger outside the cage, you’d better look for a hole in the cage. The tiger didn’t just disappear and then re-appear outside the cage magically. As Feynman allegedly said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
> The tiger didn’t just disappear and then re-appear outside the cage magically.
Perhaps, Tyson, but what about Sky Dragon Cranks with Bolzmann brains disguised as tigers?
Tyson 2:14 pm, Clausius p. 365, ninth memoir, on conservation of energy does include the energy of light (EMR) in our universe succinctly: “… the two fundamental theorems of the mechanical theory of heat:
1. The energy of the universe is constant.”
being the 1st.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor04claugoog/page/n385/mode/2up
A Boltzmann brain.
Hard to believe it’s been 50 years!
Most of sunlight reaching the Earth surface, warms the tropical ocean. Tropical ocean surface temperature is fairly uniform and constant over thousands and millions of year.
The tropical ocean is the 40% of the class who have high grades.
And simply due to high grade, raise the class average to 15 C.
But the smart kids also help the other kids increase there score.
It is the other kids which change in terms of warmer and cooler periods, giving the class it’s score.
These kid are largely affected by the temperature of entire ocean, which is about 3.5 C.
If the average ocean was .5 C warmer, or about 4 C, this has large effect upon grades.
The warmest parts of interglacial periods in last million years, had ocean which was 4 C or warmer.
In our Holocene, interglacial period, the ocean may have come close to being around 4 C.
But something was different about our Holocene and didn’t reach higher class average.
Some think, 8000 year later, we going have a higher class average with ocean average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Can a government ever be right?
“The ocean absorbs excess heat from Earths system, acting to balance the excess heat from rising global temperatures. Scientists have determined that the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat, which is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. ”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/ocean-heat-content-rises
So, one could ask does more than 90% of “warming” matter?
Well is doesn’t matter to short term alarmist cargo cult members.
Even when a govt is using their religious terms of describing it.
Though in terms of terror, when we do get to do an ocean which is
about 4 C, it is the promise land of much higher global average temperatures.
But alarmist cargo cult members imagine a Venus- or no clue what a slightly warmer world is like.
None of their modelers, can model it, because they are still in denial that “more than 90% of warming” is warming the entire ocean.
All their religious ideas are about the atmosphere, and ocean is just
too hard and too unknown.
” All their religious ideas are about the atmosphere, and ocean is just too hard and too unknown. ”
Aha. A real, worldwide reknown specialist has spoken.
*
Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7.pdf
This is one of many.
Just because you aren’t informed is not a reason to discredit others.
— All their religious ideas are about the atmosphere, and ocean is just too hard and too unknown.
Aha. A real, worldwide reknown specialist has spoken.–
I am familiar with religions, and I have paid some attention to
a few worldwide renowned specialist on that topic.
–Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7.pdf
“Human-emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) have resulted in a long-term and unequivocal warming of the planet (IPCC,
2019). More than 90% of the excess heat is stored within the worlds oceans, where it accumulates and causes increases in
ocean temperature (Rhein et al., 2013; Abram et al., 2019). Because the oceans are the main repository of the Earths
energy imbalance, measuring ocean heat content (OHC) is one of the best ways to quantify the rate of global warming”
Right, as I said.
If we could more accurately measure ocean temperature, it would be Earth global average temperature- air temperature is just a proxy for it.
Binny,
If you uncritically accept nonsense authored by a known faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat named Michael E Mann, then you have laid claim to being a devout member of the SkyDragon cult.
The Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, during which time it possessed an atmosphere, oceans, CO2, and all the rest. It’s still cooling, losing energy at a rate of 44 teraWatts or so – losing, not gaining, you idiot!
You may choose to reject inconvenient facts, if you wish.
It won’t make the slightest difference, except to reinforce the view that you are definitely a sauerkraut of the climate crackpot variety.
Carry on.
Flynnson
you are such an ignorant and arrogant dumbass…
Binny,
You have appointed yourself the arbiter of ignorance, arrogance, and dumbassery.
Obviously, you consider yourself an expert in such things.
I can see why.
Episode 1872 Scott Adams: My Plan For Decreasing Fentanyl Overdoses And Celebrating Our Victories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNEdKmLpI78
Well make to end of this one.
IQ 185
If you predict future, is that high IQ?
Scott made me wonder.
Scott likes to predict the future.
And “it’s said” his IQ is 185.
I think I agree with Scott, knowing future
isn’t about IQ but being able to do ot, has
something to do with IQ.
I was thinking that this an advantage which news reporter
have, is the appearance of high IQ.
If braindead can successful string words together, then their
future is bright, I guess.
Well anyhow I am optimistic, and I think the news
will improve, soon.
And I think Scott doing something about it.
maguff…”The suns energy is transmitted to the earth through the intervening vacuum of space as electromagnetic radiation”.
***
There’s that word energy again. There is no dispute that energy is transmitted from the Sun to the Earth, my argument has been that it is not heat being transmitted. The end result is heat in the Earth but it comes via two transformations of energy: from heat to EM and from EM back to heat.
In the intermediate EM phase, where the energy is neither thermal nor mechanical energy, it should not be measured in w/m^2, wherein a watt is a measure of mechanical energy that CAN express a thermal equivalent, but not EM.
*****************************
“The Clausius statement about the conservation of energy is incomplete because it gives no consideration of the energy which is associated with the light or, in general, with the electromagnetic field. The extended new law says that if energy goes away from a region, it is because it flows away through the boundaries of that region”.
***
What Clausius statement about conservation of energy?
I have gone to great lengths to explain that Clausius in his day knew nothing about EM as we understand it now. In his day, all scientists thought heat moved through space as heat rays.
Give the guy a break. The electron was not discovered till after his death and Bohr did not formulate his theory relating electrons and EM till 1913.
Nate the idiot believes dummies at NASA, who apparently believe that after four and a half billion years or so of cooling, the Earth has decided to heat up, for mysterious reasons, not involving the atmosphere, CO2, or anything of that nature, because nothing stopped the cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Here’s something from real scientists –
“The paper was recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters adds that this cooling can weaken many tectonic activities.
The evolution of the Earth is a story of its cooling. According to the study, 4.5 billion years ago, the surface of young Earth was covered by magma and over the years, the planets surface has cooled to form the outer crust.”
In the best latter day “science” tradition, they are saying “it’s worse than we thought! Cooling faster than it should!”
Nate is not terribly bright, and refuses to face facts.
No GHE. Neither NASA nor Nate can explain what laws of physics changed, or why.
Willard the donkey is now reduced to comments like “Now tell me how I could drink hot tea this morning, . . .”.
I make no claim to mind reading powers. Maybe the donkey puts his tea out in Sun, and pretends that the GHE makes it 33 K warmer!
Willard is a fool, trying to avoid inconvenient facts, such as the Earth having cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
If Willard the fool doesn’t know how he drinks hot tea in the morning, he is even more stupid than I thought. Most people are able to boil water without asking me for instructions – not Witless Willard, apparently.
What a stupid fool he is.
[derisive snorting]
Mike Flynn,
There is poverty in the world.
Now tell me why you have all this money in your hands coming from the fossil fuel industry.
Wonky Willard,
You still can’t accept that nothing – not atmosphere, oceans, CO2, nor anything else – managed to stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, can you?
All you can do is blather about irrelevancies.
I suppose you dont want to accept that burning hydrocarbons produces, at a minimum, CO2 and H20. Maybe you are one of those genocidal dimwits who want to exterminate humanity by removing the necessities for plant life from the atmosphere. No plants, no animals, no food at all.
You are perfectly free to seal yourself up in an airtight room, in a a CO2 and H2O free atmosphere, if you like. Now try and survive!
What a delusional idiot you are!
Mike,
I accept that nothing, absolutely nothing, can make you understand that your silly talking point is irrelevant.
Adding “But Plant Food” provides a nice touch, however.
Keep on the good work!
Willard,
Until you can face the reality that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of atmosphere, CO2, or anything else, others are likely to snigger at you behind your back (if they suffer from excessive politeness), or laugh in your face (if otherwise).
Denying inconvenient truths wont make them disappear.
No GHE, unless the laws of physics have changed recently.
Do you have any more “silly semantic games”?
Mike,
Until you realize that your silly talking point is irrelevant, I’ll be there for you.
Love.
Whacky Willard,
You still dont accept that four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling shows that no GHE existed during that time – otherwise it wouldnt have cooled, you ninny!
If you have now decided that the GHE is irrelevant, good for you!
If not, keep on with your “silly semantic games”. The facts don’t change. Still no GHE, whether you think its relevant or not.
Carry on.
Mike,
I accept that you were not there 4.5 billion years ago.
Only Keith Richards was, and he can attest that your silly point is irrelevant.
Cheers.
Willard,
Keep being silly, if you wish.
However, others might ask why the supposed GHE (or the atmosphere or anything else, for that matter) was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling – let alone being able to do something ridiculous like make the Earth hotter!
You might claim that the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years to be irrelevant in your fantasy. You might even claim that climate being the average of past weather records over a nominal period to be irrelevant, as well.
Of course, anything that disagrees with your mad SkyDragon cultism has to be either denied or
declared irrelevant.
Keep being a fantasist. It wont hurt you, and it gives others a laugh from time to time, watching your attempts to avoid facing reality.
Oh, Mike, you are being too kind.
I wish I could be as silly as you while still being able to talk about entropy with a straight face as if it was of any relevance.
Alas, there is only one true dumb buffoon here, and it’s you.
Take the compliment, you deserve it.
You worked hard for it.
Ten years at Roy’s, right?
Wriggly Wee Willy,
Keep wriggling and evading.
It wont help you. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so – GHE notwithstanding.
You can babble all you like about entropy, Mike Flynn, Roy, Warnie, or anything you like.
You can’t change a single fact, can you? You can’t even name one person who values your opinion, but who cares?
Keep denying. Others may choose to accept reality.
There is nothing to evade, Mike.
You have rediscovered the Chewbacca Defense:
https://youtu.be/aV6NoNkDGsU
Look at the silly monkey!
Witless Willard,
As long as you are not trying to evade the obvious fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, thats good to know.
Post all the pointless and mysterious references you like. Chewbacca Defense?
Is that your defense against being known as an evasive SkyDragon cultist?
If so, its pretty stupid – just like you. Very relevant!
How are you going trying to find some idiot who claims they can define the GHE in a way that reflects the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so?
Not too well, I suppose.
Scuttle off like a cockroach – hide away and keep denying facts!
The Earth has cooled down, Mike.
That is why Keith Richards wears a coat nowadays.
Willard
That was good joke.
You might also like this rare photo of when Keith met feue the Queen for the first time:
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/xa8w3i/keith_richards_meets_queen_elizabeth_for_the/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Important New Paper Challenges IPCCs Claims about Climate Sensitivity
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/20/important-new-paper-challenges-ipccs-claims-about-climate-sensitivity/
“Lewis has critiqued a 2020 assessment of climate sensitivity by Sherwood et al., which strongly influenced the IPCCs Sixth Assessment Report, in 2021.”
“After correcting the Sherwood et al. methods and revising key input data to reflect, primarily, more recent evidence, the central estimate for climate sensitivity comes down from 3.1C per doubling of CO2 concentration in the original study to 2.16C in the new paper.”
“Climate sensitivity has always been a very important, but also highly uncertain, parameter in the climate change discourse. Earlier IPCC reports assessed its value as likely to be somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C, with a best estimate of 3C. However, prompted by the Sherwood paper, the 2021 Sixth Assessment Report moved that range upwards, to 2.5 to 4C. Although for outsiders this might sound boring, for insiders it was a revolutionary change.”
As an outsider, it is bit boring.
The “climate sensitivity” nonsense comes from the “climate forcing” nonsense. The cult believes that CO2 can violate 1LoT. The cult believes CO2 can create energy, even adding to the energy from Sun. That bogus “added energy” is then called “climate forcing”. And the supposed effect on the climate is then called “climate sensitivity”.
All bogus and all nonsense, but that’s what the cult believes.
Clint R
Your friends at at the Flat Earth Society are waiting for you to speak to them.
Norman, after your meltdown you’ll be much happier now as a full-time troll. You were always so frustrated and angry when you tried to pretend you understood science.
Trolling is easy, even for the braindead.
Clint R
I am curious. If you are not the idiot that posted here as g/e/r/a/n a few years ago then why do you use identical language in your posts??
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265142
The odds of having two idiots that believe the exact same thing and use the same language are remote.
Here is the idiot on Climate of Sophistry:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63855
Postma himself chastises him:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63901
It could be an extreme coincidence that their are two people who post the same and believe the same things are different. More likely you are the idiot g/e/r/a/n here to post stupid things like you did in the past.
I have forgotten, what Postma view, other than a “skeptic”?
Nice trolling, Norman. Too bad you’re not as interested in science.
Does the air layer used as an excellent insulator heat the house (or cool it in the summer)?
Does this layer radiate back to the inside of the house?
You mean bubbles of air in fiberglass insulation?
Air layer doesn’t inhibit convection heat loss [or gain] by much.
In my current cold nights, it keeps in warmer and day doesn’t warm enough for air conditioning- but that is even if had windows and doors open. But generally, one need to use less energy for heating and cooling. It hasn’t so cold that need any heating- but need to wear a coat when outside in the evening.
Thanks, that’s what I thought, that air absorbs radiation in only a few bands.
No.
Keeping houses warm or cool has nothing to do radiant effects, it’s about not having holes in house.
And convection heat transfer.
It’s mostly about the roof. Having a really good insulated roof is better than having small amount insulation on walls and roof.
So, more on roof, and some on walls, and weather strip doors.
Though you have work at a lot to completely seal your house and there problems doing this. One problem is the most pollution, is indoor pollution. Of course with Mars, you have to completely seal and have a lot more pressure in house- so you have solve such problems of completely sealing your house. Though in microgravity orbit, you also deal with not having gravity or not having convection. ISS is noisy with fans.
I was thinking of Mars window- though not Mars window under water- so Mars window which is in a Mars near vacuum. And it would have multiple panes. The most exterior pane would be disposal/replacable- thin tempered glass which is strong against 1/2 psi pressure difference. Though it might be made of water or CO2 transparent ice,
which could/would evaporate, and not thin as the stronger thinner tempered plate glass.
And say 2″ in, would be bullet proof glass/plexiglass, strong enough
to withstand 10 psi or more of pressure. Behind it, by 1/8″ another thin sheet of glass, and final window which doesn’t need any of windows to withstand to pressure difference.
And question is how warm is that window. If touch a single pane window on earth is going to around temperature of air outside temperature. And if double pane, the inner pane will closer to room
temperature, rather outside air temperature. And neither will be transparent IR light. With earth windows, there are not air spaces which are vacuum. And Mars ones will have vacuum between panes- which will inhibit convection heat transfer. So exterior pane can/will be at Mars air temperature. We might even want to make it colder, if made of water or CO2. And has vacuum [1/2 psi is vacuum in regards to Earth’s 14.7 psi] in space between bullet proof pane. So bullet proof
can not convect much heat to outer pane, but will radiate whatever it’s temperature at outer pane. So need to know what temperature it
is. But let’s just say it’s not more 50 K warmer or cooler than exterior. Not that would matter much if was 100 K difference- rather I think not more than 50 K is better guess. And going inward, say that pressure is 2 psi [which still a vacuum in regards to earth].
And again we say difference is less than 50 K- which leaves us the tast one which can stand alone and withstand the pressure difference.
Outside this window, Mars vacuum is not going to convect much heat, or the gain or loss has to do with mostly radiant heat loss [or gain from sunlight]. Or it seems windows are mostly about protecting if “someone” throwing a rock at window [maybe relate rocket exhaust or vehicles in general] or rock spaces impacting Mars. And washing the window [it’s dusty on Mars].
pane
This is the spectrum of incoming solar radiation. The yellow is the amount absor*bed by the atmosphere.
https://gotbooks.miracosta.edu/oceans/images/insolation_curve.jpg
This is the spectrum of outgoing infrared radiation.The white area below the red line and the brown rectangle are the amount of radiation absor*bed by the atmosphere.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
EM,
How did this affect the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Not at all?
I hope you are not trying to imply that having an atmosphere increases the Earth’s temperature, because it certainly hasn’t for the last four and a half billion years or so.
Why did you comment? For fun?
Quite amusing, I suppose.
Silly Swenson.
Swenson, How did this cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so affect the warming of the Earth over the last 20,000 years?
Not at all.
How did affect the accelerated warming of the last century?
Not at all.
but yet you persist in re-posting this red herring factoid.
Are you insane? It appears so.
You may have noticed that the Earth is losing heat to space at 240W/m^2, about 10^24 Joules/year.
That is enough to cool it by about 10C per day, yet the oceans have not frozen over.
I wonder why.
EM,
I’m sure that you are smart enough to answer your own gotcha.
In the meantime, try and figure out how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so. The GHE didn’t stop cooling for billions of years.
What do you think changed?
Nothing at all, that’s what!
Try another stupid gotcha, and avoid facing reality – no GHE, the Earth cooled anyway.
There is no gotcha, Mike.
The answer is simple – greenhouse gases.
It might look like a gotcha to Sky Dragon Cranks like you, however.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“NASA is just days away from a key fueling test of its new megarocket that may make or break the space agency’s chances of launching its Artemis 1 mission to the moon next week.
The fueling test, which NASA will attempt on Wednesday (Sept. 21), will test repairs of two hydrogen leaks on the rocket, called the Space Launch System, as well as a new, slower way to fuel up the 32-story booster at Pad 389A of the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. If all goes well, NASA make its third attempt to launch the Artemis 1 SLS rocket to the moon on Sept. 27 after two false starts in recent weeks.”
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-1-fueling-test-moon-launch
“Even if the fueling test is successful, it’s not a sure thing NASA will be able to launch on Sept. 27.
The space agency is currently seeking a waiver from the U.S. Space Force on the SLS rocket’s flight termination system, which has batteries that have to be checked every 25 days to make sure they’re working properly.”
Well, it’s the military- have something ready to shoot it, if something goes wrong.
Is this the beginning or the end of La Nia? I bet on the beginning.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
It’s La Nina 4eva, that A-Hole Bindidong cursed it with his false forecasts, now it will never end.
You are even too much a coward to write the word you insult me with.
I’ll do it 4u, Edog: ‘asshole’.
Your constant fondness for fecal-based language shows us once again what a disgusting person you are.
You forgot to mention the “pilot” thing , You keep mention it when complaining about my language,
But what about that time I flew over Germany and dropped bombs on you ?
Binny is French, silly Eboy.
Stimmt!
Aber er ist nichtsdestotrotz ein Franzose, der schon sehr, sehr lange in Deutschland lebt.
Vieleich whrend nicht des Zweiten Weltkrieges.
Binny,
So you are a variety of French sauerkraut, then?
sauerkraut-eating surrender monkey
Were you on a Petlyakov or a Tupolev, Eboy?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I can see Bindiclown getting tired of the beatings he is getting over the La Ninas denials and false forecasts wishing it would end but no such luck,
In fact it will get worse as we get into the solar maximum and his predictions of big solar cycle and because “SC25 Way ahead of the red line” and his misaligned flux charts and so on,
The fun will go on.
Better get used to being the board’s punchin bag
I thought it was me, Eboy.
Why don’t you try.
” … and his misaligned flux charts and so on… ”
Fecal Edog isn’t only a disgusting person.
He is also a persistent liar because he was requested to explain where my flux charts were ‘misaligned’ but he gave no answer.
Binny,
Why should anybody bow to your requests?
Do you have some awesome super power to compel obedience? Ho, ho, ho!
I think not.
I already explained it way back, and when I did he said he is not interested in my babbling, now he is asking for it again,
It just shows you can’t reason with stupid.
Later on it will make a better punch line, he will figure it out eventually
The BB (black body) profile spectrum is associated with a single BB emitting temperature.
A planet doesnt have a uniform surface temperature.
The planets mean surface temperature doesnt have a BB profile spectrum, because planet doesnt emit at mean surface temperature
Every spot on the planets surface at every given instant has a different emitting temperature
Every spot at that given instant emits with its own spectrum profile
A planets mean surface temperatures BB profile spectrum (theoretically expected) cannot be considered as the planets mean BB profile spectrum.
Planet mean surface temperature cannot be associated with any kind of BB profile spectrum.
Two planets with the same mean surface temperature may emit dramatically different amounts of IR outgoing EM energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A hundred years ago, or so, people looking at Mars and Venus with telescope could wonder how warm they were.
So, you have this thing called an Ideal thermal conductive blackbody
which give some rough idea of how cold or warm they were.
Though it works better with stars.
Some of them thought the planets could inhabited by human like creatures.
And so what happened to people of Venus, as it seemed the most like Earth.
Though Venus is not really vaguely like Earth.
It was never a water planet and it doesn’t have a large Moon.
It does have similar gravity.
If people back then knew, how many planets orbited around stars, they would made up other stories.
Maybe a (not only) scientifically educated person is able to explain where misaligned fluxes are visible in this chart?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
The meaning of people fixated on fecal language and lacking both scientific education and the technical skills to contradict what I do, of course is here of no interest.
I like the daily more than monthly.
I not sure that you have misaligned fluxes- or I can’t be much use
to you.
I would guess that since more about sun’s surface, it more useful in a more immediate reading of sun, and so I would guess daily is more useful. Not sure how, but should be connected to solar flares and such things as what effects Earth communication.
It reminds of a lady gives course on topic:
https://www.youtube.com/c/TamithaSkov
I spent some time listening to her- she is rather excitable.
Clint R
YOU: “Trolling is easy, even for the braindead.”
You finally made a correct comment. Trolling is quite easy for you it is all you have ever done since you started posting here.
Intelligent and rational posters have had to put up with your braindead trolling for some time now.
We had two other trolls similar to you (g/e/r/a/n and j/d/h/u/f/f/m/a/n) both had views like your own. Neither of these knew any science at all and did not care about evidence or facts. You are very similar.
I have linked you to several science articles. You never could understand even one of them.
> views like your own
It goes beyond views. The tropes are the same, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/#comment-114897
Vintage 2014.
I wonder if his previous sock knew the wavelength of a level 4 photon.
Willard,
You wrote “The Earth has cooled . . .”
Do you think fluxes are responsible? Maybe it was due to a trope or an argument?
You really are a dimwit, Willard. There is no GHE. The Earth cooled, as you said. Nothing stopped it – physics at work.
Keep trying to pretend that climate crackpots like Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) can explain why the GHE couldn’t stop the Earth cooling, if you wish.
What a gullible little SkyDragon you are!
Mike,
Do you like writing the same thing over and over again?
Why do you ask?
Willard,
You wrote The Earth has cooled . . .
Do you think fluxes are responsible? Maybe it was due to a trope or an argument?
You really are a dimwit, Willard. There is no GHE. The Earth cooled, as you said. Nothing stopped it physics at work.
Keep trying to pretend that climate crackpots like Michael Mann (faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat) can explain why the GHE couldnt stop the Earth cooling, if you wish.
What a gullible little SkyDragon you are!
Mike,
How does the fact that the Earth cooled down proves that there is no greenhouse effect, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
The troll here is clearly Swenson, but you don’t have the guts to tell him clearly.
Wrong, Little Willy is the troll.
Norman,
Willard, in a rare moment of accepting reality, said –
“The Earth has cooled down . . .”, but still wishes it wasn’t so, and blathers on about someone named Keith, and overcoats.
The point is that Willard, having accepted reality, now realises that the GHE was unable to prevent the inconvenient truth that the Earth cooled – up to now!
If the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth cooling for the past four and a half billion years or so, and the laws of physics haven’t changed in that time, why should the GHE suddenly start working now?
It apparently hasn’t stopped the Earth continuously losing about 44 teraWatts of energy, which of course, a sign of cooling – although idiotic SkyDragons convince themselves that slow cooling results in an increase in temperature!
Doesn’t seem to have worked for the past four and a half billion years or so, but SkyDragon cultists are sure the miracle will occur – next week, next year, next century . . .
Maybe they’re right, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting, if I were you.
Norman appears stuck in another rut. This happens often. He imagines I’m a “bot”, then he imagines I’m several other people.
Stuck in a rut, with NOTHING, he is.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> Stuck in a rut
Rings a bell:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272018
Vintage 2017-11.
Looks like poor Norman was stuck in a rut even back then.
I like the “con-man”. That seems to fit pretty well. But, he’s only conning other idiots.
> I like
Of course you still like what you wrote, Pup.
What was your response to Joe when he asked you to STFU?
I’m liking this collusion between you and Norman, Pup.
It’s like it was meant to be.
That’s why this is so much fun.
I don’t think the word collusion means what you make it mean, Pup.
Tell us more about the mass of the atmosphere.
Willard,
You admit the Earth has cooled.
Tell us why the GHE didn’t trap enough heat to stop the Earth cooling.
Insufficient SkyDragon chanting, perhaps?
Mike,
Nothing prevents entropy.
Are you suggesting that nothing exists?
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike,
Nothing prevents entropy.
Are you suggesting that nothing exists?”
Mike would probably also ask “What the hell are you blathering about, dummy?”
Mike,
You still fail to show the relevance of your factoid.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard,
What’s your response to the fact that the GHE didn’t work for four and a half billion years or so, as the Earth cooled.
Only an idiot would believe that something that hasn’t worked for four and a half billion years is likely to suddenly spring into action.
An idiot like you, I suppose.
My response is that your “as” creates an intriguing equivocation, Mike. You mean it as correlation or causation?
Whatever your silly semantic game, Keith Richards will rock on.
Willard,
Keep being evasive. “Silly semantic games” won’t keep people from realising that nothing at all (not even a mythical GHE), prevented the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
As you said, “The Earth has cooled . . . “.
I suppose you could claim that SkyDragons define cooling as heating, but nobody except a delusional nutter like you would accept that.
Do you agree?
Mike,
How does your factoid matter for the price and the warmth of hot tea?
Woeful Wee Willy,
What are you dribbling about?
Have you lost all contact with reality?
[laughs at delusional nitwit]
Mike,
Your factoid is irrelevant to explain current climate.
That is all.
“Whats your response to the fact that the GHE didnt work for four and a half billion years or so, as the Earth cooled.”
Does your coffee in your insulated cup ever cool down? Mine does. The insulation just slows the process.
The atmospheric GHE is insulation. It slows the process of cooling.
If only there were a source of warmth, then it could stop the Earth from cooling further.
Maybe there is!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim…” Q is the heat transfer per unit time https://byjus.com/heat-flux-formula/ ”
***
Let’s look at what the article actually says…
“Heat Flux
Heat flux is the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time to or from a surface. Basically, it is a derived quantity since it involves the principle of two quantities viz. the amount of heat transfer per unit time and the area to or from which the heat transfer occurs.
The derived SI unit of heat rate is joule per second or watt. Heat flux density describes the heat rate per unit area. In SI unit of heat flux density is measured in Watts per meter square (W/m2). Heat flux is a vector quantity that has both magnitude and direction”.
No mention of Q being the heat transfer per unit time.
There is really no such thing as heat flux from an external surface via radiation. They use the term internally to indicate heat passing through an internal area. If two masses of different temperature were butted against each other with a common surface, there would be a heat transfer between both bodies by conduction. That does not apply to radiation.
ps. you are mixing up total heat with the rate of heat transfer.
> No mention of Q being the heat transfer per unit time.
C’mon, Gordo.
Not that again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1366422
Read the rest of that sentence.
Willard,
The Earth has demonstrably cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Which cunning formula can you devise to explain this?
Feel free to use any units you wish, and as many letters of the various alphabets as you like. Maybe display your knowledge of path integrals or tensor calculus? Or just use Newton’s Law of Cooling, if you want to stick with the classics.
On the other hand, you could just look around, and notice the ground is no longer molten.
Dimwitted reality denier.
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
This is Keith Richards:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/keith-richards-wildest-escapades-19-insane-tales-from-a-legendary-life-169242/
Your argument is invalid.
Willard, you idiot,
I don’t argue with facts. I leave that to SkyDragon dummies like you.
You acknowledge that the Earth has cooled. You wrote –
“The Earth has cooled down . . . “.
Indeed it has. I suppose you are stupid enough to claim that some mythical GHE (just invented) is starting to make the Earth hotter. Garbage. The Earth cooled in spite of having an atmosphere containing far more GHGs, oceans, sunlight, and all the rest.
You SkyDragon idiots demand “equations” and bang on about “physics”, but can’t even explain why your GHE couldn’t stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so!
All about as stupid as Gavin Schmidt claiming that no manual was produced for one of his butchered and pointless computer models, because he was constantly discovering “new physics”. He must be a Government employee, with an excuse like that for avoiding work!
Best you stick with accepting reality – “The Earth has cooled down . . . “, rather than blathering about Keith Richards wearing an overcoat. You will look slightly less ridiculous.
Off you go now. Find another diversion.
Mike,
The Earth has cooled.
Keith Richards can still warm a crowd.
How do you explain that?
You seem disconnected from reality today, so I’ll repost
Willard, you idiot,
I dont argue with facts. I leave that to SkyDragon dummies like you.
You acknowledge that the Earth has cooled. You wrote
The Earth has cooled down . . . .
Indeed it has. I suppose you are stupid enough to claim that some mythical GHE (just invented) is starting to make the Earth hotter. Garbage. The Earth cooled in spite of having an atmosphere containing far more GHGs, oceans, sunlight, and all the rest.
You SkyDragon idiots demand equations and bang on about physics, but cant even explain why your GHE couldnt stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so!
All about as stupid as Gavin Schmidt claiming that no manual was produced for one of his butchered and pointless computer models, because he was constantly discovering new physics. He must be a Government employee, with an excuse like that for avoiding work!
Best you stick with accepting reality The Earth has cooled down . . . , rather than blathering about Keith Richards wearing an overcoat. You will look slightly less ridiculous.
Off you go now. Find another diversion.
Please repost your comment another time, Mike.
I just love to skip reading them!
Willard, you idiot, your attempted diversions don’t change facts.
I dont argue with facts. I leave that to SkyDragon dummies like you.
You acknowledge that the Earth has cooled. You wrote
The Earth has cooled down . . . .
Indeed it has. I suppose you are stupid enough to claim that some mythical GHE (just invented) is starting to make the Earth hotter. Garbage. The Earth cooled in spite of having an atmosphere containing far more GHGs, oceans, sunlight, and all the rest.
You SkyDragon idiots demand equations and bang on about physics, but cant even explain why your GHE couldnt stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so!
All about as stupid as Gavin Schmidt claiming that no manual was produced for one of his butchered and pointless computer models, because he was constantly discovering new physics. He must be a Government employee, with an excuse like that for avoiding work!
Best you stick with accepting reality The Earth has cooled down . . . , rather than blathering about Keith Richards wearing an overcoat. You will look slightly less ridiculous.
Off you go now. Find another diversion.
Mike,
You never argue, so I believe you when you say that you do not argue with facts.
Please do not argue with Keith Richards either.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”The watt (symbol: W) is the unit of power or radiant flux in the International System of Units (SI)”
***
Heat cannot be measured in watts since the watt is a measure of mechanical energy. When the watt is used as a unit of heat it is meant as a ‘mechanical equivalent’ of heat.
Look at the 1st law…U = Q – W
The units of Q are calories, BTU, etc. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water by 1C, However, based on Joule’s equivalent, a calorie can be related to a watt. If you want to use Q in the 1st law, you need to use the mechanical equivalent of heat.
It’s all explained in the work of Clausius.
When Joule found the equivalence he had a set up in which a small wooden panel turned in water. As the paddle turned the water warmed. By calculating the amount of work required to raise the water temperature by so many degrees, Joule was able to state an equivalence between heat and work. However, he used the calorie as a measure of heat and a joule as a measure of work.
It is very important to understand this. Heat is not work, it merely has an equivalence. It is very misleading in the 1st law to state heat in watts, since a watt is derived from a horsepower, a unit of mechanical work rate.
> Heat cannot be measured in watts
Come on, Gordo. Here’s what you quoted:
You claimed that there was no mention of Q being the heat transfer per unit time. A Watt is a joule per second.
I mean, srsly.
Willard,
You admit that the Earth has cooled. How do you think that happened?
What units is cooling measured in?
You really are an evasive and diversionary SkyDragon, aren’t you?
Grow a pair, Willard. Accept reality – your mythical GHE hasn’t worked for four and a half billion years or so. Why do you think it might work in the future?
What a fantasist you are!
Mike Flynn,
The Earth has cooled.
Keith Richards never lost his cool.
What’s your excuse?
Willard,
Possibly, you are in the grip of a fantasy which has scrambled your capacity for rational thought. I always do my best to assist the mentally disabled, so I will repeat my previous comment –
“You admit that the Earth has cooled. How do you think that happened?
What units is cooling measured in?
You really are an evasive and diversionary SkyDragon, arent you?
Grow a pair, Willard. Accept reality your mythical GHE hasnt worked for four and a half billion years or so. Why do you think it might work in the future?
What a fantasist you are!”
Let me know if you cannot understand my comment. I am happy to repeat it. I understand your mental condition.
Mike,
Please repeat your irrelevant comment for a third time.
See if Keith Richards cares.
Willard,
Still mired in your fantasy, I see. Maybe another SkyDragon can answer for you. This is obviously not addressed to you, as you are presently mentally absent.
“You admit that the Earth has cooled. How do you think that happened?
What units is cooling measured in?
You really are an evasive and diversionary SkyDragon, arent you?
Grow a pair, Willard. Accept reality your mythical GHE hasnt worked for four and a half billion years or so. Why do you think it might work in the future?
What a fantasist you are!
Mike,
The universe cooled down.
How do you explain that Keith Richards still flies to sun destinations?
More nonsense from you, Witless Willard?
Still mired in your fantasy, I see. Maybe another SkyDragon can answer for you. This is obviously not addressed to you, as you are presently mentally absent.
You admit that the Earth has cooled. How do you think that happened?
What units is cooling measured in?
You really are an evasive and diversionary SkyDragon, arent you?
Grow a pair, Willard. Accept reality your mythical GHE hasnt worked for four and a half billion years or so. Why do you think it might work in the future?
What a fantasist you are!
Still raving about that irrelevant talking point, Mike?
Please look at the graph at the top of this page and get over it.
Yeah, but what about Ronnie Wood?
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
tim…in your second example, the inference is wrong. The equation Q = -k (A/L) delta T, there is no reference to time. Obviously, Q refers to the total heat being transferred. Although Q is a function of area, length, and the coefficient K, it is mainly a function of the temperature differential.
The NEXT Cooling Period on Earth will be named after John Allen (Jack) Eddy and is forecast to last between 30-60 years
https://youtu.be/CimBO739fg8
Debil Bindidong is accusing me I talk about Grand Solar Minimum because I’m a paid agent of Hartland Institute and GSM is their conspiracy
this is From google answers
Scientists say the Sun may be going through a long period of decreased activity known as the Modern Grand Solar Minimum from 2020 to 2053.
This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 2526 and 2627, e.g. in the decade 20312043.
UAH Global Temperature graph indicates about .5 C, it seems we could lose .5 C in another 20 to 30 years.
But that not Little Ice Age, it’s 1980’s
But seems more unlikely to half as much {.25 C}
Or when is our .13 C per decade going lower to .12 C per decade.
Or for people imagine this Ice Age is going get a lot warmer,
when is going to go back up to .14 C per decade.
Or want to make longer prediction when is it going to be .10 per decade or .15 C per decade.
Or it’s close to that time when we predict what next month will be?
It’s been cold lately and forecasted to remain cold for next week, here. It seems when cold where I am, it’s warmer around to world- so going guess a bit warmer than last month’s uptick. Which might extend
the short pause a bit.
willard…”You claimed that there was no mention of Q being the heat transfer per unit time. A Watt is a joule per second”.
***
Don’t know how many times I have to repeat this before it penetrates your dense cranium. James Watt defined the horsepower based on the amount of work a horse could do in a minute. Later, the watt was defined as a measure of power where 1 HP = 746 watts.
It’s all about equivalence. Power can be measured in horsepower or watts but the watt was defined based on electrical current, namely the amount of work a current could produce if run through a device that could produce work. I imagine it had something to do with the heat produced in a resistor.
The point is, heat produced in a resistor does no work, and should be measured in calories. Circa 1840, the scientist Joule derived an equivalence between work and heat, but it’s an equivalence, not an equality. For it to be an equality, heat and work would need the same units, which they do not have.
Mind you, we could use the heat produced by a resistor to do work but heat in a resistor is generally regarded as a power loss. What then do they mean by electrical power? Again, it usually comes down to mechanical work. We rate an electric motor in HP, not watts, although kilowatts is sometimes used. We want to know how much force the current through a motor armature can produce.
Current running through a resistor, with a certain voltage across the resistor, is expressed as power, even though no external work is done. If the resistor is a light bulb rated at 100 watts, it gives of a certain amount of light, but the light is not measured in watts. It is measured in lumens. The wattage refers to the product of the current and voltage related to the tungsten filament.
The point is, physics has become seriously confused with its terminology. As long as no one questions it, like you, the confusion will be accepted as clarity.
It does not matter a hoot if heat is measured in watts, but accepting that as a truth leads to a confused analysis. Climate alarm is based on that confusion, where the 2nd law is no longer the 2nd law but a convoluted perversion of it.
We need to be precise and precision goes out the window when we insist on measuring heat or EM in watts without understanding why.
> James Watt
C’mon, Gordo.
SI stands for the International System of Units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
Please don’t ask me to choose between an international convention and what a crank from a contrarian website believes.
Yada Yada Yada,
As my high school physics teacher was known to jump up and down and up and down yelling joules equals joules equals joules.
bobdroege,
Maybe you can help Willard out.
He said, rightly, that the Earth has cooled, and that the GHE was unable to stop the cooling.
Maybe you could explain to Willard and his SkyDragon associates, why the GHE doesn’t stop the Earth cooling?
Do you think yelling “joules equals joules equals joules” might suffice?
Climate crackpots are no5 particularly bright.
Does Earth cool in constant manner over 4.5 billion year?
As in an amount per million years [or per .001 billion years]?
Or does rate go up and down depending things like being hit by
large space rocks or is it large amounts and small amount of global volcanic activity which change over time for whatever reason?
Or does India running into Asia have more [or less] cooling of entire
Earth.
I just go with mainstream thing, that we in an Ice Age because our
ocean is cold.
And it seems to me it doesn’t require much “change” whether by natural means or human means to warm the cold ocean.
Or we could warm up this cold world, pretty easily.
But it seems your way of looking at it, is that we have to get off this doom world which will just getting colder and colder.
gbaikie,
The rate of cooling of the Earth has not been constant.
The rate drops as temperature drops – Newton’s Law of Cooling in action. As well, radiogenic heat production drops as the isotopes are consumed – all having different half lives.
The cooling rate is asymptotic – currently about 1 to 4 millionths of a Kelvin per annum.
Wiki says:
“Chemical and physical models give estimated ranges of 1541 TW and 1230 TW for radiogenic heat and primordial heat, respectively.”
Which seems to indicates uncertain about amount radiogenic and primordial heat emitted from Earth’s rocky surface.
In terms of radiogenic heat, I would guess you can’t use Newtons Law of Cooling, though if on low end, one could roughly ignore it.
Wiki does say: “About 50% of the Earth’s internal heat originates from radioactive decay.” and says: “Most of the heat flow from the thicker continental crust is attributed to internal radiogenic sources;”
Of course, continental crust is only about 30% of surface and seems to me the radiogenic heat of continental crust would inhibit primordial heat flow. Plus also, it’s just much thicker, than ocean crust.
I can’t say I have much confidence in the measurement, and particularly in regards to our yet to be explored oceans. Though it’s not as though I think global land area has explored, much, either.
Anyhow how now much radiogenic heat do you think is involved?
IIRC geothermal heat flow, land or sea is less than 0.1W/m^2.
The hot spot under the Thwaites glacier is 0.1W/m^2. WUWT says it, so it must be true.
The dilemma is that if 0.1W/m^2 flows up out of the Earth, but 239W/m^2 flow out to space, where does the other 238.9W/m^2 come from?
Ent, the REAL dilemma is flux doesn’t balance. Earth’s surface has varying emissivities and temperatures. Add to that emission is non-linear, and you end up with errors as big as the actuals!
That’s why whenever you see Earth is “gaining” net 0.6 W/m^2, you know it’s nonsense, as the error is likely in excess of +/- 25 W/m^2.
Sometimes flux add, Pup, sometimes they do not.
Like your comments, in a way.
He choice is yours to repeat yourself ad nauseam.
Pup, I gauge my effectiveness by your ineffective flak. I was obviously hitting the target.
Thanks.
I love when you talk to yourself like that, Pup.
Confirmation bias strikes out again!
I scored again! Thanks for the confirmation, Pup.
And you responded in 5 minutes! Another day with nothing going in your life, huh?
No wonder you constantly seek attention.
(If I don’t have time to thank you each time, just know I always appreciate your worthless and ineffective flak.)
You forgot to respond to Bob the other day, Pup:
> Does the ice cube melt from the top or from the bottom?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-356358
Now you’re into “disinformation”, Pup. As you get more desperate, you tend to use more desperate measures.
I’ll let you retract that comment. There’s a certain anonymous troll, sometimes here, that might call you a “lying dog”.
And we wouldn’t want that to happen, would we?
You do seem to like the word flak, Pup:
> (You take a lot of flak from those unable to think for themselves. And, you seem to enjoy it, which makes them even madder! They have no tolerance for independent thinking. Keep up the great effort!)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321882
Your previous sock too.
Well Pup, you haven’t retracted your disinformation.
Kinda reveals your motives, huh?
I did not know that *disinformation* meant a true assertion, Pup.
You might like:
> Weird false religion, huh?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/how-the-media-help-to-destroy-rational-climate-debate/#comment-380723
Kinda weird that your previous sock used the same tropes and the same silly expressions as you do, huh?
Yeah Pup, running from your disinformation ain’t the same as retracting it. But, considering your track record, I’ll take what I can get.
Disinformation is promising me you will not respond to me while responding to me, Pup.
Silly sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
You know it wasn’t me jumping up and down, right.
But he had a point, lots of things energy wise can be measured in joules.
Work, heat, energy, even potential disorder, or entropy.
“He said, rightly, that the Earth has cooled, and that the GHE was unable to stop the cooling.”
Are you daft?
The GHE has stopped the Earth from cooling, it’s warming, see the graph at the top of the page.
Or maybe you understand that the Earth is still cooling, only that it is being warmed more than it is being cooled.
“The GHE has stopped the Earth from cooling, its warming, see the graph at the top of the page.”
Let’s say it this way, more that 90% of “the GHE” has warmed the entire ocean by say about .1 C
Does warming the ocean by .1 C stop the Earth from cooling?
Would you say, if X is anything and X warmed the ocean by .1 C, then you would say, X stopped the Earth from cooling?
In terms of heat, ocean is 1000 times more than atmosphere.
1000 times .1 = 100 C.
If X warmed the atmosphere by 100 C, has X stopped the Earth from cooling?
It’s kind of silly if atmosphere was 100 C warmer, it would not stop the Earth from cooling.
But in terms global climate, does it matter if the 3.5 C ocean
was .1 C warmer.
What happens if the ocean is warmed 5 times as much and it was .5 C
warmer?
It doesn’t seem that ocean of 4 C rather than 3.5 C is stopping the Earth from cooling, but does it have any effect global climate?
I have said a 4 C ocean has large effect upon global climate.
And it seems if ocean were 3 C, it would have large effect upon global climate.
I have said global climate is a long durational thing.
It is said you can’t measure global air temperature is a short period of 1 day and claim the global climate has warmed or cooled.
But I would say if measure the average temperature of the ocean in one day, AND you actually measured precisely enough, and the ocean cooled or warmed, than one can say the global climate has cooled or warmed.
Or if you measured global air temperature 10 times more precise, you can’t say a change in air temperature is happenning in one day.
But can say this about change in ocean temperature in one day.
Or if you have a 10 day period, and ocean warmed .01 C per day or
.1 C in 10 days.
And you knew it was accurate, is that trend alarming?
Say waited 100 days and ocean was 1 C warmer, when does it become a concern in terms of the issue of global warming?
Is more than 90% of all global warming not important?
So, say tomorrow, and within 1/2 of second of time Earth average air temperature of about 15 C warms up to 115 C.
How long does it to cool to 60 C.
Of course it matters how it heated and we could do it couple ways.
One way is just heat air the 10 feet about the surface.
Another way could be warming 100 times more air- a layer of 1000 feet of air, starting at elevation of 30,000 feet to 31000 feet.
Another way is heating entire troposphere by 100 C.
The first way doesn’t expand the atmosphere by much- but force of pressure kills everyone. Second way kills “more” people. And third way, absolutely kills everyone.
But we care the most about whales, and it seems to me that a only few would die.
And question is regarding global climate which has nothing to do with
humans.
A perhaps interesting question, is if Human wearing pressure suit / Spacesuit, would they survive any and all of the three? Or people who flying in an airliner. People in submarines will not even notice.
But how long this temperature last, is important in terms lives of
humans- the first one lasts for the shortest duration.
Related is say 10 feet layer of air at say 5000 meter elevation warming by 100 K. Is it possible no one even notices? It should make
a large noise, will humans or whales hear it?
In fact, the average width of the troposphere drops sharply in winter. Above the 60th parallel, the average height of the troposphere is only 6 km. Therefore, the pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex determines winter weather. The blocking of the polar vortex over the Bering Strait can already be observed, which, combined with La Nina, will bring a harsh winter to the US.
https://i.ibb.co/yF2n0Mx/gfs-z05-nh-f00.png
Polar Bear No Closer to Extinction Than It Was 18 Years Ago as Arctic Sea Ice Resists Tipping Point
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/21/polar-bear-no-closer-to-extinction-than-it-was-18-years-ago-as-arctic-sea-ice-resists-tipping-point/
I was wondering where the cargo cult religious climate news is.
World’s going to end. And very important. But all you get is crappy and infrequent news about the end of world, important stuff.
Anyways there is no shortage Polar bears- if you feel like you want to coddle them.
News alert, baby seals aren’t happy with this news.
The ice in the central Arctic looks very good.
https://i.ibb.co/wQKpz20/r11-Central-Arctic-ts-4km.png
Perhaps someone can explain how come meiv2 shows a continuous downwards trend since 1979.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/meiv2.jpeg
(OLS or otherwise).
Selection bias.
You have ended your sequence with a triple-dip La Nina.
If you don’t think that the data ending 2020 does not show a similar downwards trend then show our workings.
All the peak years (positive and negative) in the chart are lesser as we get towards today.
….show your workings….
Entropic man
” You have ended your sequence with a triple-dip La Nina. ”
Ending the period before the last episode started (Jun 2020) does not change very much: the trend moves from -0.21 MEI units /decade up to -0.15, hence stays well negative.
But the negative trend for 1979-now is only the end of a long period with on average decreasing MEI trends.
You see that when computing, from the beginning (1871) of MEI’s historical data till 1979, all consecutive decadal trends over the same period as that of MEI v2, i.e. right now 512 months:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b5GMk9ES2T5DHB9ElrGyK4OQeCN1vnjd/view
You see also that the last Nino trend peak with an amplitude similar to the current trend is nearly 100 years ago.
The recent major peak in Oct 1954 is a trend for a period including lots of El Ninos, including the strongest editions of 1982 and 1998:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AeK8oGGqzX27K60aYAn4JWDho-8lhwMl/view
*
What this means can only be understood when studying how MEI works.
It is way, way more complex than e.g. ONI, which is mainly based on the SSTs of the Nino3+4 region.
And when you compare the MEI series with the ‘coolest’ surface L+O series (JMA), you see that it has few in common with global temperatures:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KXfFI0ao-EUP9RRZZzsa2fWHDzlOWd0H/view
Source for JMA’s monthly global surface data
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/csv/mon_wld.csv
To obtain a better visual comparison to MEI, JMA data was scaled by a factor of 3.
So any idea why meiv2 shows a decline in the later years?
Any ideas for possible mechanisms?
There’s already noticeable pattern to the global warming since 1880. Areas at high latitudes are warming faster than the tropics and the land is warming faster than the ocean.
You would therefore expect the equatorial Pacific to be one of the slowest warming regions on the planet.
Various possibilities.
One that strikes me is the link between ENSO and ocean heat uptake.
El Nino tends to decrease ocean heat uptake, leaving more energy in the atmosphere and increasing surface temperatures. La Nina tends to boost ocean heat uptake, leaving less heat in the atmosphere and cooler surface temperatures.
Could it work the other way? As global warming increases ocean heat uptake, does that shift the ENSO strange attractor towards La Nina conditions?
Is the MEI series signalling long term global cooling, independent of global warming, or is the reduction a signal that we can expect a higher proportion of La Ninas in a warmer world?
That could be a useful negative feedback. Since La Nina tends to cool the system by about 0.3C, it might delay reaching 2C and 3C by a decade.
“You would therefore expect the equatorial Pacific”
Meiv2 covers the whole pacific area from 30N to 30S. Are you saying that it will cool (as shown) while the rest of the planet warms?
Entropic man
” One that strikes me is the link between ENSO and ocean heat uptake. ”
Sounds good.
Please note that 30N-30S is the majority of warming that hits the Earth. Outside of that it is mostly cooling.
https://imgur.com/gallery/QiqldXV
” Please note that 30N-30S is the majority of warming that hits the Earth. Outside of that it is mostly cooling. ”
Typical claim made by those I name the Coolistas.
Correct would be to write:
” Please note that 30N-30S is the region where most of the heat hits the Earth. Outside of that it’s cooler. ”
Coolistas intentionally misinterpret heat and cold, insidiously converting them into heating and cooling, what is fundamentally different.
Please note that 30N-30S is the region where most of the heat
is gained by the system from the Sun as it hits the Earth. Outside of that the balance is the other way.
Only atmospheric and oceans currents transfer heat from the highs to the lows.
It is not correct to think that the entire +30 to minus 30 region warms/cools in EL Nino/La Nina. There is a specific spatial pattern of warming in El Nino, and it is only a fraction of the total area that warms significantly, that roughly matches the nino 3 or 3.4 regions.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/ElNino/images/ssta_vir_2015305.png
You can clearly see here the 2015 El Nino the warm region was confined to plus-minus 5 degrees or so. Outside this region there is less warming and then is a cooler zone.
The 30 to -30 region is simply the range of latitude over which the spatial pattern of temperature and other variables is measured for MEI, and a Principle Component analysis is done to correlate the characteristic pattern with variables in each month.
For reference, 30 degrees N latitude is Houston, Texas.
“It is not correct to think that the entire +30 to minus 30 region warms/cools in EL Nino/La Nina”
I said that meiv2 shows a continuous decline since 1979. Is that only in temperature? I did not say that it was so I call strawman.
From the meiv2 page
“The bi-monthly Multivariate El Nio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W)”
“I said that meiv2 shows a continuous decline since 1979. Is that only in temperature? I did not say that it was so I call strawman.”
Where is a strawman?
On number of posts you seem to suggest that the ENSO warming/cooling is happening over the 30deg to -30 deg zone. Now you deny this?
Again and again: MEI is NOT a temperature index.
” The bi-monthly Multivariate El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index (MEI.v2) is the time series of the leading combined Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of five different variables (sea level pressure (SLP), sea surface temperature (SST), zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)) over the tropical Pacific basin (30S-30N and 100E-70W). ”
*
1. When we compare the MEI series with the coolest surface L+O series (JMA), we see that it has few in common with global temperatures:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KXfFI0ao-EUP9RRZZzsa2fWHDzlOWd0H/view
2. A comparison of MEI with the global time series for HadISST1 SST shows that the Globe around MEI’s observed surface clearly is warming, even if we look at absolute data instead of anomalies:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tTQbattgSRk4Z6yzC6WYxcyyuH-3GXm-/view
*
Deducing from MEI that the Globe is not warming is just plain perverse.
“MEI is NOT a temperature index”
So why is it on a downwards trend since 1979?
The first half of the period was dominated by El Ninos. The second half by La Ninas.
And?
La Nina dominance hasnt prevented GW.
On the contrary, the first half, 1979-2001, had a GISS4 global T trend of 0.122 C/decade.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
While the second half, 2001-2022, had 0.212 C/decade.
Nate persists in his strawman. I only asked why meiv2 has declined since 1979, nothing else.
“And?” is the question for you to answer here.
There is no strawman by me.
So why meiv2 has declined since 1979, nothing else.
“AND?”
And no point, then?
Just more red herrings.
Check these La Nina models
https://youtu.be/-Yay_9TTcbw
https://youtu.be/LasT6gCIoQI
Thanks for these.
While we begin to shift our focus in North America toward ski season, the winter in the Southern Hemisphere isnt quite over yet. Over the weekend, Australian ski resorts saw some major snow storms that grew their base depths. Here are the recent snow totals from Australias most famous ski resorts: Perisher Resort has received 65 c.m. (around 25.6 inches) of powder, Hotham Alpine Resort got 63 c.m. (nearly 25 inches) of snow, Thredbo received 53 c.m.(around 21 inches) of the white stuff, and Falls Creek got 52 c.m. (20.5 inches) of snow. While its Spring in Australia, it gives the ski resort some of the best conditions of the season so far.
While we begin to shift our focus in North America toward ski season, the winter in the Southern Hemisphere isnt quite over yet. Over the weekend, Australian ski resorts saw some major snow storms that grew their base depths. Here are the recent snow totals from Australias most famous ski resorts: Perisher Resort has received 65 c.m. (around 25.6 inches) of powder, Hotham Alpine Resort got 63 c.m. (nearly 25 inches) of snow, Thredbo received 53 c.m.(around 21 inches) of the white stuff, and Falls Creek got 52 c.m. (20.5 inches) of snow. While its Spring in Australia, it gives the ski resort some of the best conditions of the season so far.
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
–
( N*cp ) ^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin .
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
–
This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
–
What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures.
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon can be expressed now also QUANTITATIVELY. And it happens so to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.
…………
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the nighttime minimum temperature rises.
–
But there is something else very interesting happens. When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“But there is something else very interesting happens. When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet”.
***
Makes sense, Christos.
Except, of course, when we’re talking about the Moon!
The Sun’s radiant energy is practically the only source of energy that influences atmospheric motions and our climate. Approximately 95% of the sun’s energy lies within 0.3-2.4 microns, and only about one percent lies in wavelengths longer than 4.0 microns.
The Sun’s energy is produced through thermonuclear processes in the Sun’s core by the steady conversion of four hydrogen atoms to one helium atom in fusion reactions. As the products of the nuclear reactions have smaller mass in total than the initial elements, the mass discrepancy equals the amount of energy released by the reaction, i.e., the electromagnetic energy that ultimately leaves the surface.
Using Einstein’s law, E = mc^2, and converting the energy radiated by the sun, we find that almost 5 million tons of mass per second are radiated by the sun in the form of electromagnetic energy. In a billion years, the sun will radiate into space about 10^26 kg, which is less than one part in 10^4 of its total mass.
The temperature at the very center of the Sun is about 5,000,000K and the density is about 150 g/cc. Both the temperature and the density decrease outward from the center to about 5800K and 10^-7 g/cc at the surface. The nuclear burning is almost completely shut off beyond the outer edge of the core (about 25% of the distance to the surface or 175,000 km from the center).
Thanks TM.
That’s why we can always say “It’s the SUN, stupid”.
EM is obviously derived from moving charges which have natural electric and magnetic fields. Where do such fields exist in mass per se?
E = mc^2 is not a law, it’s theory, more likely a hypothesis. The article claims that fusion of larger masses results in the production of smaller masses, the difference in mass being released as EM.
That’s why we can’t build a fusion reactor that works, we don’t understand the theory. We don’t have the slightest idea why hydrogen gathers and ignites as a star while producing helium and other elements along the way.
The Sun loses mass through mass ejection. It ejects electrons and protons in large amounts daily. If E = mc^2 is correct then the amount of EM we intercep.t at Earth should steadily increase the mass of the Earth.
Einstein proposed this equation in 1905, nearly 10 years before Bohr revealed the relationship between the electron in hydrogen and the spectral lines of EM emission the electron produced. Bohr mentioned nothing about absorbed EM increasing the mass of an electron or the hydrogen atom.
There is nothing in quantum theory addresses an increase in mass of atoms when they absorb EM.
“E = mc^2 is not a law”
Einstein Was Right (Again): Experiments Confirm that E= mc^2
The theory of how the Sun produces energy is done by theorists who have never seen the sub-atomic particles and reactions they claim lie behind fusion theory.
In my field, no one knows how an electron behaves at the atomic level yet we apply theory as if electrons do behave the way we theorize. It doesn’t matter if the basic atomic-level theory of electrons is correct, the results work despite the fact the theory may be way off. As Feynman once claimed, quantum theory works but no one knows why.
Most likely, fusion is the same. Experts think they know how it works but in reality they are likely not even close. The notion that mass in the Sun is converted to EM is just plain silly.
GPS systems follow the implementation of Loran-C, a system where EM signals were broad.cast from different locations so ships could triangulate using them. GPS is nothing new, the difference being that satellites are used to broad.cast the EM rather than stationary antennas.
There are problems with moving antennas due to relativity and the time bases used on the sats. Atomic clocks are used in the sats as the basis of an independent system of time. However, the time generated does not exist in reality, it is a fabrication of the human mind based on the rotation of the Earth.
Wouldn’t you know that some idiot would come along with a slide rule and a transposed equation, where time ended up on the LHS, and claimed proof that time was dilating in GPS systems? And wouldn’t you know that some other idiot would fly atomic clocks in aircraft to prove the time in an atomic clock dilates?
Your word salad of a comment is duly noted.
Are scientists incapable of rational thought in many cases? Can none of those mentioned see that time is an invention of the human mind and has no physical reality. When time is claimed to dilate, what the heck is dilating? And what does flying an atomic clock in an aircraft have to do with time?
IMHO, we need to back up in physics and re-examine assump.tions. The same people who invented the theory behind nuclear fusion are the same people who are claiming the universe began as a Big Bang. That theory makes absolutely no sense yet it is produced as fact by many people.
It’s the same with nuclear fusion in the Sun. If we had any idea how it works, we’d have a fusion reactor by now. As long as we keep pretending that mass can be converted to electromagnetic energy, it won’t happen anytime soon.
This is an appropriate word salad dressing to top off your word salads of 7:10 PM & 7:13 PM.
“Where do such fields exist in mass per se?”
What constitutes mass?
I am happy to see you have finally abandoned the pretense of being a trained engineer.
TM,
More than 50% of the Sun’s energy is in the infrared portion of the spectrum, so you are wrong, but who cares?
After four and a half billion years or so of cooling, what makes you think the Earth should suddenly begin to heat up?
You can’t think of a single thing which makes sense, can you?
That’s why you try to sound intelligent by repeating what is easily found on the internet, but you can’t even get that right, irrelevant though it might be.
No GHE. You’re in the grip of religious mania!
Keep praying,
Mike Flynn,
The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Even an Exxon intern would get that, so I am sure you could.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Answer please? Tim or anyone?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1369103
I have had nothing to do with Principia Scientific International (PSI “Slayers”) for nearly a decade. My webpage “Slaying the Slayers” has had over 3,800 views. Feel free to cite it.
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
Here is the detail as to why PSI is totally and utterly wrong about this issue of calculating surface temperature. I have been first in the world to explain the necessary heat input not only for Earth’s surface but for surfaces of other planets, for the core of our Moon and much more.
http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI-2018-07-04.jpg
Nobody has ever proved my 2013 paper on such (or my book) wrong.
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
In the 1980’s very significant advances were made in our understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and even Wikipedia is actually up to date on this when it quotes: “The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
It seems that people like Tim here are still limited in their thinking to 19th century Clausius statements.
Entropy is affected by ALL forms of internal energy, not just kinetic energy, as explained in my 2013 paper.
Until you understand this correct concept of entropy you will never understand my world-first discovery of the non-radiative process I called “heat creep” which occurs only in force fields like gravity and centrifugal force … see http://climate-change-theory.com and watch my 15-minute video as over 3,200 others have already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI
As I’ve written in the ‘Talk’ page at Wiki..
The statement “Another form of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.” (for the Second Law) should be removed because it is merely a corollary which does not always apply in a force field like gravity or centrifugal force. See my paper “Planetary Core & Surface Temperatures” at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 for reasons why we physicists only ever define the Second Law in terms of entropy which is, in effect, a measure of progress in the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials, such energy potentials including any form of internal energy (including gravitational potential energy) not just kinetic energy that is associated with heat and temperatures.
Dug,
You can define away until the cows come home, but it won’t change the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Or do you have a different hypothesis? Do you think the Creator made a nice oblate, somewhat irregular, spheroid at absolute zero, threw it into orbit around the sun, and let it heat up internally rather than externally?
That would sound more like religion than physics, but Sir Isaac Newton wrote far more about religion than physics, so you would be in good company.
Do you think the Earth was originally a molten blob, or not?
Swenson
The Earth and all the planets are indeed cooling long term as shown in a graphic on my website …
http://climate-change-theory.com/hco-rwp-mwp.jpg
Based on correct physics they will certainly cool because the Sun’s radiation is gradually reducing. It is the Sun’s energy which slowed the original cooling from a molten state and now maintains observed temperatures.
The Creator is in control of everything. Even the planets play a role in regulating natural climate cycles. Click the link below to see a graph based on the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all planets and note the 1000 year and 60 year cycles corresponding with temperature observations.
http://climate-change-theory.com/planetcycles.jpg
The cycle of about 1000 years was warmer than now in the Medieval Warming period, then warmer still in Roman times and warmer than that about 3,200 years ago.
It is the Sun’s energy which, for example, causes a location on the equator of Venus to warm by about 5 degrees (732K to 737K) over the course of four months on the sunlit side. The energy gets down to the Venus surface via the “heat creep” process, not radiation. Of course that location cools by about the same amount on the dark side, much like Earth. This indicates that, without the Sun’s energy, the rate of cooling could have been about 150 degrees per century.
The Moon was also a molten mass, but the Sun’s energy maintains its core temperatures at more than 1,000 degrees above the hottest location on its surface. This also is due entirely to the “heat creep” process that takes place in force fields.
In fact, the only correct way to explain all these observations and many more is my “heat creep” hypothesis which you obviously have read before writing.
By the way, I completed 18 exams in a three year course in theology with First Class Honours in each of the three levels which covered the whole Bible plus church history and more.
Dug,
No, “heat creep” is about as silly as Loschmidt’s “gravitothermal” speculation.
The Sun’s radiation did not appear to be reducing over the last four and a half billion years or so, and the fact that the Moon’s molten core is much further below its surface than the Earth’s is easily explained by ordinary physics. The Moon’s surface to mass ratio is much greater, resulting in faster cooling, and it has no atmosphere, which assists the process.
There is no “heat creep” process taking place in “force fields” either – unless you can demonstrate the previously unknown phenomenon by reproducible experiment, and of course you can’t do that, can you?
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.”
Feel free to disagree, but don’t blame me if people think you’re nutty.
” As Richard Feynman said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
I am always amused by the climate change denialist who quote Feynman without considering that his quote also applies to the weird theories generated by Du’g, Robertson et al.
The Sun is gradually getting more luminous as it traverses the main sequence.
As it burns up its hydrogen fuel, there is less insulation between the core where the fusion occurs and the surface where the radiation can escape to space.
Semi-Regular Reminder:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-Roy
Willard,
You are definitely semi-regular.
Even completely irregular.
Thanks for reminding me.
[snort]
Have you considered to slow down on the coke, Mike?
We can hear you snort from the other hemisphere!
<3
Have you considered learning correct English expression?
If you cannot see anything wrong with your first sentence, you might be suffering from the mental defect called aphasia.
Or maybe you are just sloppy and inept.
[snort – derisive]
Mike,
I can still hear you snort.
Cheers.
Willard,
You not only address figments of your imagination, you hear them as well?
Have you tried talking to dead people? Do they talk back?
It sounds like you are off with the fairies again.
Have you managed to choose between the world cooling, or warming, or are you still claiming both are happening simultaneously?
SkyDragons are strange indeed!
Sky Dragon Cranks are really strange indeed, Mike.
But at least you’re strangely amusing too!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, EM attempted a singularly witless gotcha –
“The dilemma is that if 0.1W/m^2 flows up out of the Earth, but 239W/m^2 flow out to space, where does the other 238.9W/m^2 come from?”
As Fourier pointed out hundreds of years ago, during the night the surface dissipates all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s primordial heat. If some pea-brained “climate scientist” fantasy shows otherwise, he is obviously in denial of reality.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and the laws which govern the universe don’t seem to have changed in that time.
So there’s a gotcha for SkyDragon cultists like EM – why would four and a half billion years or so of cooling suddenly reverse itself?
These deluded souls just ignore inconvenient facts.
A month of no sunlight, doesn’t cool the ocean with an average of 3.5 C, by much.
The ocean surface temperature cools by less than 1 C during the night, or change of surface temperature per 24 hour is less than 1 C.
Land ground temperature varies a lot, and surface air over land during 24 hours fair amount. But air temperature over land would vary more, if 70% of Earth surface was not covered by the ocean.
Or the average ocean surface air temperature of 17 C, controls global average surface air temperature.
And tropical ocean which absorbs most of the sunlight reaching the entire Earth surface, this tropical ocean heat engine, warms the entire world.
Or night on the tropical ocean is warm, and if sunlight didn’t shine for a month, it would remain warm {though it would reduce warming the rest of world, by a very significant amount after first week.
Sorry to have to correct you gbaikie, but the direct solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface is of the order of only 168W/m^2 as per this NASA energy diagram, and the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculator (below the NASA diagram) shows only 233K (-40C) for that flux, even if it were uniform. Because it varies (and because of the T^4 in S-B) the mean temperature achievable by direct solar radiation to the planet’s surface would achieve a mean temperature even colder than -40C.
http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
It is the non-radiative “heat creep” process which supplies the required thermal energy to …
(a) warm the Venus surface by 5 degrees on the sunlit side
(b) maintain the base of the Uranus troposphere at about 320K
(c) do most of the warming of land and water on Earth
(d) make a Vortex cooling tube function as is observed
(e) maintain the core of the Moon over 1000 degrees above its maximum surface temperatures
(f) explain observations throughout the Solar System
Please don’t waste my time unless you are referring to the correct physics in my book and 2013 paper on planet temperatures at …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Dug,
You still haven’t explained how the Earth managed to cool for four and a half billion years or so.
I don’t think any of your “papers” face this inconvenient fact. Does “heat creep” explain the cooling, or is it related to ordinary physics?
If you can’t even explain an observed fact, you might have difficulty convincing people that you know what you are talking about.
Do you feel like facing reality?
To all commenting here:
Your answers will be found in my papers and even in comments above.
I am discussing the role (if any) of IR-active gases in relation to the surface temperatures in planets, not “global warming” or global cooling. We don’t know, for example, what the temperature of the core of Jupiter was when it first formed, but currently it is very hot and it is the process of “heat creep” that keeps it around current temperatures and controls any rate of very slow cooling such that, as for all planets, that rate is far slower than it would be without radiation coming from the Sun. Jupiter also gets warmed by the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy as the planet (unlike those with solid cores) is slowly collapsing. That is why more energy comes out of the Jupiter system than enters it.
A correct understanding of entropy leads to the conclusions in my 2013 paper on surface and core temperatures in planets at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
It’s no concern of mine who wants to learn about the “heat creep” process and who doesn’t. It will be common knowledge by about 2025 when the biggest scientific scam in history will start collapsing, I predict.
https://img.ifunny.co/images/1df86754a25bb2bcbd2e56bbbac0e288a669a4a12dd81e19d41a8bea7805ea75_1.webp
“Sorry to have to correct you gbaikie,”
Don’t be sorry. I patiently wait for any small correction
I can get.
–but the direct solar energy reaching the Earths surface is of the order of only 168W/m^2 as per this NASA energy diagram, and the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculator (below the NASA diagram) shows only 233K (-40C) for that flux, even if it were uniform. Because it varies (and because of the T^4 in S-B) the mean temperature achievable by direct solar radiation to the planets surface would achieve a mean temperature even colder than -40C.”
You do know, our ocean has 1000 times more heat than our atmosphere?
And though it’s cold ocean** but very warm compared to -40 C
**this cold ocean is why we in an ice house global climate.
Ice house global climate are also called Ice Ages. And they last for millions of years, and our Ice Age is 33.9 million years and last few million years have been the coldest time, in the Ice Age- which is called Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
All temperature records show it. And usually it taught in elementary school that we evolved and live in an Ice Age.
If want to correct me, how would Earth return to the other global climate which is a greenhouse global climate.
Granted it’s not something we can practical do- but theory how
could Earth warm so it returns to a greenhouse global climate.
If can’t do that, could describe what greenhouse global climate
would be “like”.
Gbaikie: You use the word “heat” when you are referring to thermal energy, not “heat” as used in physics where it refers to an effective transfer of thermal (ie kinetic) energy from a source to a target. In physics “heat” is not a property of some substance – heat has direction. So I hope you appreciate that small correction.
The relative amounts of thermal energy in the ocean and the atmosphere is not the issue here. Of course the ocean tends to dampen fluctuations in surface temperatures for nearby coastal land and islands. That is why I avoided such regions in my study of real-world data for 30 years in 15 inland locations on three continents. The ocean also creates high humidity which is very noticeable in Singapore and it is that IR-active (GH) gas water vapour which caps maximum temperatures such that they rarely exceed 33C any day of the year in Singapore. Likewise ocean temperatures are capped for the same reason. That demonstrates the cooling effect of water vapor and the correct physics in my 2013 paper explains why it is so. Click:
http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
— D’ug Cott’n says:
September 22, 2022 at 10:26 PM
Gbaikie: You use the word heat when you are referring to thermal energy, not heat as used in physics where it refers to an effective transfer of thermal (ie kinetic) energy from a source to a target. In physics heat is not a property of some substance heat has direction. So I hope you appreciate that small correction.–
Ah, but there is a source to target.
Otherwise, one could ignore the ocean.
You mentioned “even colder than -40C”
And obviously we presently have colder surface air, than -40 C.
And colder times when ocean covered in sea ice [and sea ice acts as insulation] more surface air temperature is -40 C or colder.
In US we have cold air invading from our northern friend {also we keep our cold friend a little bit warmer- as they huddle very close to our border.
“The relative amounts of thermal energy in the ocean and the atmosphere is not the issue here. Of course the ocean tends to dampen fluctuations in surface temperatures for nearby coastal land and islands.”
Since you mentioned it, small islands do had small warming effect on surrounding ocean closest to them. There is an insignificant amount warming caused be land to ocean. But globally, ocean warms the land by a lot.
But small effect could be bigger effect- if have a lot very shallow ocean. But in our world, the ocean is mostly very deep.
“That is why I avoided such regions in my study of real-world data for 30 years in 15 inland locations on three continents. The ocean also creates high humidity which is very noticeable in Singapore and it is that IR-active (GH) gas water vapour which caps maximum temperatures such that they rarely exceed 33C any day of the year in Singapore. Likewise ocean temperatures are capped for the same reason. That demonstrates the cooling effect of water vapor and the correct physics in my 2013 paper explains why it is so.”
Well, global climate in terms of warmer or cooler has little to do with the tropics. The tropics are roughly uniformly warm and this is case in icehouse or global greenhouse climates.
The warmth of tropics is why many think a snowball global climate is
unlikely/impossible, instead they might say a slushball earth might be possible.
Once you understand that global warming is solely about creating a more uniform global temperature, you will have less problems. And water vapor plays a large role in making the world have a more uniform temperature.
But current world is not close to having uniform air temperature and hence we are in an ice house global climate.
“Well, global climate in terms of warmer or cooler has little to do with the tropics”
The tropics are where most/all of the temperature input into the Earth comes from. The rest is just a drain.
https://imgur.com/gallery/QiqldXV
In terms of global temperature, the energy of tropics would cause a more uniform global temperature if the tropical energy added more heat to the entire ocean.
Since it doesn’t, we are in an Ice Age.
With a water planet, the tropical ocean must heat the entire ocean enough or it become dry and cold- or become our present world.
What is more common, is to say our polar region cause too much cold water to fall. And I am not saying this is untrue. But this could remedied by making more warm water fall in the tropics.
One could say the way our water planet is currently designed, it would be better to to be closer to the Sun. Or is designed to be in right spot when the sun output increases, enough.
But I don’t have any particular complaints about living in an Ice Age. Apparently some people prefer to live in cold regions, but these tropical creatures complain it’s too warm- even though they could easily find, even colder places to live in.
It’s possible these people actually just want to live on Mars.
Mars is not a water planet and provides conditions you can have on Earth. And it is said to be really cold, but it isn’t really.
So for these confused people, living on Mars might be there only solution.
Look at the arrows for heat distribution between the tropics and the rest of the world in the diagram I quoted.
Megagenius Flynnson ‘forgets’ that if there was no GHE blanket around Earth, its night temperature would be the same as Moon’s, because the IR emitted by Earth in response to solar radiation would reach outer space like on the Moon: N2 and O2 molecules don’t intercept IR, neither during the day nor during the night.
I think you meant “atmosphere” instead of “GHE blanket”, Bin.
Without an atmosphere, you could boil water on the ground during daylight.
No I didn’t.
Oh, that’s right. I keep forgetting how ignorant of science you are.
Sorry to have to correct you also Bindidon, but N2 and O2 molecules collide with IR-active molecules, transferring thermal energy in the process, whilst the IR-active ones then emit the energy to Space, acting like holes in a blanket. That is why valid studies show water vapour cools, as in my 2013 paper linked below.
I repeat also to you that the direct solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface is of the order of only 168W/m^2 as per this NASA energy diagram, and the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculator (below the NASA diagram) shows only 233K (-40C) for that flux, even if it were uniform. Because it varies (and because of the T^4 in S-B) the mean temperature achievable by direct solar radiation to the planet’s surface would achieve a mean temperature even colder than -40C.
http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
It is the non-radiative “heat creep” process which supplies the required thermal energy to …
(a) warm the Venus surface by 5 degrees on the sunlit side
(b) maintain the base of the Uranus troposphere at about 320K
(c) do most of the warming of land and water on Earth
(d) make a Vortex cooling tube function as is observed
(e) maintain the core of the Moon over 1000 degrees above its maximum surface temperatures
(f) explain observations throughout the Solar System
Please don’t waste my time unless you are referring to the correct physics in my book and 2013 paper on planet temperatures at …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Binny,
I forgot nothing, you idiot.
Without the atmosphere, daytime temperatures would also be like the Moon’s – around 127 C maximum.
Did you have to put a lot of effort into being so stupid, or did it come naturally?
Maybe you could explain why the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of having an atmosphere, CO2, H2O, oceans, and all the rest. Did the laws of physics change 20,000 years, 2,000 years, or even 200 years ago?
Don’t be a sauerkraut. Accept reality.
Calling Flynnson a megagenius won’t make anybody think you are any smarter. There is no commenter named Flynnson, Like most SkyDragon idiots, you just make stuff up, trying to look clever.
Dimwit.
Who else but a mega genius could have invented a sock puppet such as you?
Keith Richards, perhaps.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Maybe you could explain why the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of having an atmosphere, CO2, H2O, oceans, and all the rest. Did the laws of physics change 20,000 years, 2,000 years, or even 200 years ago?
Only joking. SkyDragons like you don’t have any answers, I know.
Oh well, keep on being an idiot trying to look clever.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you could explain how entropy invalidates global warming.
Make sure your explanation could be understood by anyone, including Keith Richards.
Weary Willard,
Well no, I can’t. One has nothing to do with the other, in light of the fact that, as you said, the Earth has cooled.
Maybe you have confused slow cooling with warming, as SkyDragons are wont to do.
Why are you blathering about entropy? Is it to provide a diversion from you claiming that the Earth is simultaneously cooling and warming?
You really are confused, even for a nitwit!
Of course you can’t explain how your silly talking point is of any relevance to global warming, Mike.
It’s irrelevant!
Willard,
Maybe you could explain why the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of having an atmosphere, CO2, H2O, oceans, and all the rest. Did the laws of physics change 20,000 years, 2,000 years, or even 200 years ago?
Only joking. SkyDragons like you dont have any answers, I know.
Oh well, keep on being an idiot trying to look clever.
Others will no doubt decide for themselves what is relevant. Or maybe they will just let you tell them what they should think.
Who knows?
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you could explain why anyone should care about your irrelevant talking point.
Just a thought.
Wriggling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Mike,
Maybe you are spamming.
Maybe.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ha ha ha haaah
Flynsson at his best.
” Maybe you could explain why the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so… ”
You repeat that nonsense now in each of your dumb posts.
Alzheimer still going on, Flynnson?
Binny,
Obviously, you cannot explain why the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of having an atmosphere with CO2 and H2O, because your silly claims of a GHE would have to involve magic!
Bad luck for you , dummy. Religious fervor does not overcome fact.
Mike,
Maybe you cannot explain Keith Richards.
That would explain why you keep ignoring him.
Willard,
Obviously, you cannot explain why the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of having an atmosphere with CO2 and H2O, because your silly claims of a GHE would have to involve magic!
Bad luck for you , dummy. Religious fervor does not overcome fact.
You’re right, Mike –
I certainly don’t have to explain your irrelevant crap.
Have you tried asking Keith Richards?
Willard,
Obviously, you cannot explain why the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of having an atmosphere with CO2 and H2O, because your silly claims of a GHE would have to involve magic!
Bad luck for you , dummy. Religious fervor does not overcome fact.
I suppose you claim that the GHE developed magic heating properties after four and a half billion years of cooling.
I hope you can find anybody stupid enough to believe that.
No wonder you cant explain it.
What does it have to do with Keith Richards, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I am listening to Scott Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCjHdUcLj64
Episode 1874 Scott Adams: Lots Of News About Fentanyl, Trump, Elections, And Affirmative Action
Who decided to be less restrained, he has finally decided
to cut loose {so, he claims- we will see if he has some freedom,
and who knows where he go}
But I am taking break from the video.
And want look at Sun’s weather report,
and will mention I got a clue from Bindidon.
Which was about the 10.7 cm flux, which decided
include as one elements:
Solar wind
speed: 443.8 km/sec
density: 4.68 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 70
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.12×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.6% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.3%
I was wondering why the Neutron Counts lower
then I guessed they would be. Apparently it also
has to do holes:
Coronal Holes: 22 Sep 22:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/22sep22/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
But was I doubting that is was whole explanation.
And then then I thought it could about the 10.7 cm flux
measurement, and then trying use the provided math and it seems 137 sfu is around the same as sunspot number of 91
Which seems to slightly make more sense.
So going to include the 10.7 cm flux and over time, see if it
helps. And read tea leaves with the holes:)
You cannot match it that way , each group of sunspots starts as count of 10, but each separate sunspot also starts count as 10 , so you could have 5 sunspots in a group counted as 15 or 5 separate ones counted as 55,
and in reality its just 5 actual spots in each case
“You cannot match it that way , ”
I am copy/pasting the Sunspot number: 70
From here:
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The only thing I am “matching” is I following
solar activity and trying to “see” it’s relationship
to levels of GCR radiation.
[which comes from outside of our solar system- Or GCR = Galactic Cosmic Radiation which are particles traveling close to speed of light and they are hitting our atmosphere which effect the count of neutrons which are being measured. Btw, GRC effect upon our atmosphere can measure in other ways than the shower neutrons they make]
GCR are the most radiation effect which crew of ISS, get- which related to the months of time they spend in Low Earth orbit.
Also the plus year of time Mars crew could get radiation in space in which they don’t have a planet which is blocking 1/2 of it.
And crew reach their lifetime limits, and therefore, can’t be crew going to space, anymore.
I believe NASA is trying have higher lifetime limits- but they already exceed other workplace limits.
nobody is going to Mars
They will, eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssdlRvpIv9I
I need more coffee before I gibber endlessly about the Moon
and Mars.
Solar wind
speed: 443.4 km/sec
density: 7.80 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 99
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.14×10^10 W Neutral
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.7% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.2%
Unchanged 10.7 cm flux and changed sunspot number
Or 10.7 = 91 and got 99 sunspots
Sunspot are growing and appearing.
But roughly one could call it as still a weak
solar max.
Solar wind
speed: 392.3 km/sec
density: 2.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 111
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.35×10^10 W Neutral
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.5% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.9%
10.7 cm flux went up, as did sunspots
Obviously could say solar max is stronger.
Tea leaving holes: looks like less and less facing
us. Holes and low solar wind could be why weak solar max
in terms of Neutron counts.
But sunspots are appearing out nowhere and growing
rather unchanging or decaying.
Neutron counts should not continue to get more elevated.
Solar wind
speed: 306.0 km/sec
density: 8.97 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 128
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.35×10^10 W Neutral
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 147 sfu
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.8% Elevated
48-hr change: +1.1%
It seems get a bit more in northern hemisphere- it
spent a lot time with sunspot mostly in south.
Solar wind
speed: 431.6 km/sec
density: 12.62 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 120
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.64×10^10 W Neutral
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.6% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.9%
10.7 cm flux, low, sunspots higher
Holes large- near equator
The bag of hurricanes broke open, Check this model
https://youtu.be/gx80oZf167M
whillard…”SI stands for the International System of Units:”
***
SI actually stands for Sports Illustrated. Or, in science, Silly Idiots. Sports Illustrated is a bunch of swim suit models who dabble in scientific units on the side. You know, curve equation, etc. Some of us help them by tracing the curves.
The horsepower was defined long before SI got into the action. They have managed to thoroughly confuse science by replacing phrases like ‘cycles per second’ with the name ‘hertz’. To that I say ‘nertz’.
I wish they’d go away. They are currently redefining time and distance based on space-time theory which is based on nothingness. The space and time reference have no existence.
Next they’ll be redefining gravity as cubic metres/second, or whatever jargon they use is in space-time propaganda.
Gordon,
Some idiots try to convince people that temperatures can be measured in W/m2, or something equally stupid.
It doesn’t really matter. As Feynman said in response to some of the wishfully thinking idiots at NASA “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Climate crackpots believe their computer models, and just change data from other sources to suit their crackpot ideas about “climate change” changing weather!
Nature cannot be fooled!
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
Real engineers ought to know this.
Willard,
Maybe when the US fully adopts the metric system (along with Liberia and Myanmar), the country can use the SI to its full extent.
While it sticks to feet, US gallons, cords, 10-32 threads, acre-feet, and all the other weird measurements that nearly 100% of the civilised world have abandoned, the US will isolate itself more and more from the rest of the world.
I suppose real engineers in the US get confused from time to time. This might explain why spacecraft built by Russian engineers have killed far fewer of their passengers than their US counterparts.
Oh well, the US will no doubt catch up (at least partially), with the rest of the world one day..
Not much hope for you though, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe Gordo is a Canuck.
Cheers.
You wrote –
“The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Mike,
Maybe you should get better material.
You seem to be repeating yourself.
Maybe.
Willard,
You wrote
The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe, although I doubt it. Others will no doubt come to their own conclusions.
Keith Richards, Mike.
Keith Richards.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Climate debate between Tom Nelson and Gerald Kutney
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/22/climate-debate-between-tom-nelson-and-gerald-kutney/
Not sure which one is Tom or Gerald.
But of one them drones on about some sort of worship of
authority.
As I said before the climate religion, needs to up its game.
So Gerald says he wants the global average temperature to be 1 C
colder. And Gerald says he doesn’t know anything about global climate. This is problem climate Scientist refuse to discuss issue regarding climate, you get people like Gerald not being helpful.
This a common problem with religion.
You can’t stop it, but you could engage the public and mitigation what damage Gerald doing for the cause.
Earlier Willard wrote –
“The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.”
“Global warming”, according to Willard, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to Willard. “Warming” is the same thing as “cooling” to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe Willard is reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Pretty obvious, but”
But what exactly?
You wrote –
“The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who dont, no explanation his possible.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
The same irrelevant talking point.
Ten years like that.
First it was at Judy.
Then here.
And now under a sock puppet.
Perhaps you are the one internally kicking and screaming right now.
What do you say?
What?
Who cares anyway.
Cheers.
You wrote
The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who dont, no explanation his possible.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote
The same irrelevant talking point.
Ten years like that.
First it was at Judy.
Then here.
And now under a sock puppet.
Perhaps you are the one internally kicking and screaming right now.
What do you say?
What?
Who cares anyway.
Cheers.
Willard,
You wrote “The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.”
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Maybe one day you will laugh your irrelevancy off with Keith Richards, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gerald reminds me that there are people that want to return to the times before the industrial revolution AND they want it to as cold as it was in the Little Ice Age.
I wonder if there are people who want to return to times before the industrial revolution, but would like those times to as warm as it right now.
[I think that would be quite an odd duck.]
Or might more common to just want return to older days but not be wanting it to be warmer or colder.
But in terms total numbers, I wonder which is more people in terms of those wanting to return to the good old days- the ones who want it colder, or the ones who don’t think it matters at all if colder or warmer?
I think we in the best of times.
Best of times are ended. We are now in ‘interesting times’ as per the Chinese curse.
Make sure you vote in the local election.
I was thinking one thing about US politicians- they no place to run to.
No one likes them, and we tolerate them.
They have been much worse in the past.
The world gets better but world doesn’t like our
politicians, better.
Willard, Tim, Swenson and others:
I have done all the explaining (and provided solid, compelling proof supported by valid physics and copious evidence) that I need to in my book and 2013 paper on surface and core temperatures at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
But you could also read my comment above at ..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1369273
… noting that real-world data confirms that water vapor cools the surface …
http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
… and until someone produces a counter study (which the CSIRO in Australia has not been able to do in four years now) there seems little point in my wasting more time here.
Those who want to learn about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how and why it leads to the “heat creep” process have only to read my book or 2013 paper which can be downloaded free at …
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
… as 830 others have done so.
Dug,
Maybe instead of demanding that people read your nonsensical “heat creep” ideas (some of us already have – thats why I call them nonsensical), you might explain why the world needs anything more than normal physics to explain why the globe cooled from its initial molten state.
A large molten blob of rock in space, a long way from the Sun, cools. You probably cannot understand why this happens at a deep level, but I dont blame you.
Suffice it to say, that if something is hotter than its surroundings, its temperature drops. Conversely, a body colder than its surroundings warms, to put it in simple terms.
No need for “heat creep”, which is just a term you have coined because you dont want to accept normal physical terms. Just like climate crackpots and their “back radiation”, “energy budgets”, and so on.
I agree you should not bother wasting your time here. You would no doubt be better off wasting it somewhere else.
PS:
Any PSI “Sky Dragons” writing here would do well to read my webpage “Slaying the Slayers” which exposes the fictitious, fiddled physics of Joseph Postma and others and which over 3,800 have viewed.
http://climate-change-theory.com/psi.html
Dug,
Youre talking nonsense. As Fourier pointed out, at night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its primordial heat.
After four and a half billion years of sunlight, the surface has managed to cool. Any talk of “energy budgets” that does not result in this factual outcome is specious garbage.
The Earth has cooled. No GHE, no ‘heat creep”. No need for either.
Keep preaching, if it gives you solace.
Your response is irrelevant to the content of my book and 2013 paper
which explain the “heat creep” process. The rate of cooling of the Venus surface at night (ie on the dark side) is 5 degrees in just 4 months. It wouldn’t need billions of years to cool right down on both sides without new energy from the Sun.
What you can’t explain is the physics relating to when and how it warms (getting that “heat of the day”) seeing that the solar radiation reaching its surface is about 10% of what Earth’s surface receives. But don’t feel bad about not being able to explain such surface warming on Venus because nobody in the world could do so until I did in 2013, not even Fourier with whom I do not disagree.
A bit more respect might be warranted.
In a comment above (and on my website) I have already provided the longest reasonably reliable temperature data known to mankind, but it only goes back about 9,300 years which is well within the current interglacial period wherein the world has warmed significantly since the latest glacial period. It certainly shows net cooling in that 9,300 year period. But clearly the graph is far from being linear as you seem to think it should be when you imply regular small cooling every day. There are plenty of periods of net warming.
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/hco-rwp-mwp.jpg
What you can’t explain (though I have in my 2013 paper) is those periods of net warming, even that shown in Roy’s graph up to 1998.
Dug,
There are precisely no periods where the Earth spontaneously warmed, you fool.
Nor has Venus warmed since its creation. Why should it?
You are confused. Obviously, seven billion people, generating and using as much energy as possible, results in increased ephemeral heat – 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
If you think this heat cannot be perceived by thermometers, you live in a dream world.
No need for silliness like “heat creep”. Conventional physics does fine.
If there is any thing else that confuses you, let me know. I”ll have a good laugh at your expense. No “global warming”. No GHE.
The Earth has cooled since its creation. Suck it up and face reality.
” The Earth has cooled since its creation. Suck it up and face reality.”
Do you agree with Dr. Spencer that it has warmed since 1979?
If you do the numbers the climate system is accumulating 10^22 Joules/year.
Human activity is producing 10^20 Joules/ year.
We are directly responsible for 1% of the accumulating energy.
Geothermal heat flow is about 10^21 Joules/year, but since it has been constant for millions of years it cannot explain recent warming.
Ent claims: “If you do the numbers the climate system is accumulating 10^22 Joules/year.”
Ent, define “do the numbers”. Does that mean a complete bastardization of the laws of physics ?
” Does that mean a complete bastardization of the laws of physics ? ”
No, that is your department.
See how you are, Ent?
I catch you trying to promote your nonsense, again. And you start with the false accusations.
You’re taking a bogus number (0.6 W/m^2), and converting it to energy by multiplying by Earth’s supposed area. What is the error range on all that nonsense?
Dug, and others:
tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Willard,
You wrote –
“The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Maybe you realize that your silly talking point is irrelevant, Mike.
Maybe.
Willard,
You wrote
The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe it’s the fifth time you post the same comment.
Maybe.
Willard,
You wrote
The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Mike,
Are you looking to take Graham’s job?
Willard,
You can be as stupid as you like, but you wrote –
“The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.”
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Why are you still spamming the same comment, Mike?
Willard,
You can be as stupid as you like, but you wrote
The Earth is cooling down, and global warming prevents the Earth from cooling more than it would otherwise.
Global warming, according to you, does not prevent the Earth from cooling. Pretty obvious, but physics are obviously a bit of a mystery to you. Warming is the same thing as cooling to SkyDragons!
The objects in a vacuum flask remain colder or hotter than they would be otherwise. The GHE at work? Only someone ignorant of physics, stupid, or a SkyDragon cultist like Willard would think so.
Maybe you are reluctantly being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards an acceptance of reality.
Maybe.
Or you can try avoidance and denial, I suppose.
K
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…you tinyURL link did not come through on my end.
C’mon, Gordo.
Nothing comes through on your end.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Please come to Brazil (por favor venha para o Brasil)
https://youtu.be/sIdwf717p0w
Earlier, Nate wrote –
“The atmospheric GHE is insulation. It slows the process of cooling.
If only there were a source of warmth, then it could stop the Earth from cooling further.”
Duh. Slow cooling is not heating.
No heating due to any mythical GHE.
The SkyDragons are facing reality, but refusing to accept it.
Tough.
swenson…from Nate…”The atmospheric GHE is insulation. It slows the process of cooling”.
***
On top of what you said, insulation used to slow the rate of cooling acts on heat transfer by conduction only. It has no effect on radiation.
Nate is suggesting that a trace gas making up 4/100th of 1% of the atmosphere acts to slow heat loss via conduction. We know that air is a poor conductor of heat.
Of course, he is referring to radiation, which is not heat. That brings in Newton’s Law of Cooling wherein the rate of heat dissipation of a surface depends on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment.
The environment for the Earth is the entire atmosphere, where it meets the surface. It’s the temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface that determines the rate of heat loss of the surface. That contact surface is 99% oxygen and nitrogen and 0.04% CO2.
How does Nate propose that 0.04% of CO2 can affect the rate of cooling compared to the 99% that is N2/O2?
D’ug Cott’n says:
Sorry to have to correct you gbaikie, but the direct solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface is of the order of only 168W/m^2 as per this NASA energy diagram, and the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculator (below the NASA diagram) shows only 233K (-40C) for that flux, even if it were uniform. Because it varies (and because of the T^4 in S-B) the mean temperature achievable by direct solar radiation to the planet’s surface would achieve a mean temperature even colder than -40C.
D’ug Cott’n says:
I repeat also to you that the direct solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface is of the order of only 168W/m^2 as per this NASA energy diagram, and the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculator (below the NASA diagram) shows only 233K (-40C) for that flux, even if it were uniform. Because it varies (and because of the T^4 in S-B) the mean temperature achievable by direct solar radiation to the planet’s surface would achieve a mean temperature even colder than -40C.
We see Dug repeating the same nonsense twice. He’s not making it up though. This is the nonsense put out by NASA. And, the cult swallows every bit of it.
I can understand people trained in weather being taken in by such nonsense. It is an elaborate ruse. But I can NOT understand someone that claims to have a knowledge of radiative physics being fooled. Yet, we see such people falling for it all the time.
You can NOT treat radiative flux as energy. You can NOT divide radiative flux so as to average it all over Earth, as NASA does. That reduces the heating ability of Sun. As Dug correctly pointed out, there would only be enough flux for a temperature of -40C.
So how do they work the scam?
* Start with the solar constant = 1360 W/m^2
* Divide by 4 to average over Earth’s entire surface = 340 W/m^2
* Adjust for albedo = 240 W/m^2
* Adjust again for albedo = 163 W/m^2
The cults agenda is to take Sun out of the picture so they can claim CO2 is heating the planet.
So Dug makes two big mistakes. He believes the scam, and he believes his heat creep is heating the planet. His nonsense is just as bad as the cults nonsense.
REALITY Its the SUN, stupid!
Pup,
That solar constant, if you cannot divide it, does it meant it is boiling hot everywhere on Earth?
Thanks.
No Pup, that’s NOT how it works.
Maybe someday, when you grow up, you can study science. Until then, watch some kiddy cartoons.
Even Joe divides flux, Pup.
Should I check if your previous socks did too?
Yes, that sounds perfectly kiddie to me.
Just find something to do so you don’t hurt yourself. I don’t have time to babysit you today.
I see we are having a tough customer, Pup.
How about:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
Willard,
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
Alright, Mike.
Here’s all you need to know on this:
https://tinyurl.com/4vx9ca5u
Enjoy!
Whinnying Willard,
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
Have you checked, Mike?
Try again:
https://tinyurl.com/4vx9ca5u
Many thanks!
Weary Willard,
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
Hv chckd, Mk?
Tr gn:
https://tinyurl.com/4vx9ca5u
Mn thnks!
Weary Willard,
Another stupid and irrelevant link, is it? If you posted it, it must be!
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
It is the same link, Mike, and it is no less relevant than your silly talking point.
Weary Willard,
Another stupid and irrelevant link, is it? If you posted it, it must be!
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
Deny reality all you like, pretend it doesn’t exist, try and convince anybody that reality is irrelevant. See how you go.
No heating from the GHE – as you said, the Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, GHE or no.
Sure, Mike.
And Keith Richards.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
clint…”We see Dug repeating the same nonsense twice. Hes not making it up though”.
***
Cott’n is a troll if I have ever seen one. His MO is obviously to get this blog shut down. Why else would he show up here rubbing Roy’s nose in it that he is going to post here using his real name, whether Roy likes it or not.
The only reason he came back to post here is that no one else wants to listen to his trash. His bs about advising the Australian government is pure delusion.
If I was Roy, and I could not control ignorant posters like cott’n, I’d close the blog part down and just keep presenting the monthly UAH data.
We are on the same side of the science and I will go on supporting you no matter what. However, I refuse to reply to any post made by this idiot.
> If I was Roy, and I could not control ignorant posters like cottn, I’d close the blog part down and just keep presenting the monthly UAH data.
C’mon Gordo.
Roy can’t control ignorant posters like Dug.
Check Pup, Graham, Christos, Mike Flynn, and you.
Think.
Agreed Gordon, Dug is an obnoxious troll. But, like the other trolls here, it’s necessary to show why their beliefs are wrong.
It’s not hard to do….
clint…”its necessary to show why their beliefs are wrong”.
***
Agreed.
Sun spots currently spiking over hundred , with one week to go it looks like it will finish around 80, so probably another data-point sliding sideways.
https://i.postimg.cc/rz6yYKWZ/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.jpg
La Nina gone by April
https://youtu.be/2yJslFcdoRM
In the core of the Sun four hydrogen atoms fuse to form one helium atom. If 4 grams of H are converted to He, only 2.8×10^-3 grams of the mass is converted to energy.
Using E=mc^2 = (2.8×10^-6 kg) (3×10^8 m/sec)^2 = 2.5×10^11 joules; enough energy to keep a 60-watt light bulb going for 133 years.
EM is not produced by the fusion of mass. It comes from the electric field of electrons which produce a magnetic field when they move. The same may be true of free protons.
There is no proof that 4 hydrogen atoms at the core of the Sun fuse to form 1 helium atom. No one has ever done it, otherwise we’d have a fusion reactor that worked.
The situation in the Sun is so far removed from our understanding of physics that we can only guess what is going on. The equation offered by Einstein is nonsense with regard to EM being absorbed by mass increasing the mass. No one has ever witnessed that.
Gordon, you are just way behind in your study of the field of physics, as usual. There exist working fusion reactors.
And when EMR is absorbed by a massive particle, the particle momentum (linear and/or angular) is increased not the mass. EMR has no mass to conserve in the process as far as science can test.
You keep saying “we” don’t understand this, “we” don’t understand that, when you really mean “you.” You’re missing out on a lot of great science.
Neutrinos reveal final secret of Suns nuclear
fusion. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01908-2
Tyson, please stop trolling.
119 PSTs so far.
Someone’s going for the pointless posts record.
#2
Tyson, please stop trolling.
This slide http://www.climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg asks:
“The flux of 324W/m^2 for back radiation cannot be added to the solar radiation of 168W/m^2 in order to calculate surface temperature. Do you feel it at night?”
A serious researcher would measure it: https://ibb.co/4tLfYRS
What good would measuring it do? It can’t be absorbed, the surface is much warmer than the source of the IR.
I do wish you’d read Clausius on the 2nd law. If you understood the law you wouldn’t make such dumb statements.
Gordon just doesn’t understand physics well enough to have learned if no incident EMR is absorbed by a surface warmer than the source, then there is no universe entropy increase in the natural process & that is a violation of Clausius’ 2LOT.
This process allows room temperature IR thermometers to display 32F when aimed at a lab glass of ice water.
ball4 doesn’t get it that universal entropy as described by Clausius applies to heat released by irreversible processes. EM absorbed by a surface has nothing to do with universal entropy, because it dos not represent a heat transfer in an irreversible process.
S = 1/T.integral dq
I see no reference in there to EM. You won’t find EM in the equation for entropy because entropy, like the 2nd law, refers to heat transfer only. If EM is absorbed by a mass, and the mass warms, then its entropy increases. That cannot happen with EM from a cooler mass encountering a warmer mass.
The simplest proof of that is that no energy can be transferred from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential. A more involved proof comes from quantum theory, but hey, you don’t even understand the 2nd law, or heat, so what’s the chance you will understand quantum theory?
Protip: if something can be measured, measure it!
As for my assertion that a serious researcher would measure downwelling IR rather than try and “feel it”, of course you’d think that’s dumb. You are a “feels” guy, not a science or engineering guy.
Gordon Robertson at 3:35 PM
“…
I do wish youd read Clausius on the 2nd law. If you understood the law you wouldnt make such dumb statements.”
I do wish you’d read J.C. Maxwell’s Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. If you understood his theory of Fields and, Emission and Transmission of Energy in a medium, you wouldn’t be so deliberately obtuse about measuring downwelling IR.
One of my favorite passages:
That’s a good example that radiative fluxes don’t simply add, TM.
Over 900 W/m^2 solar and 400 W/m^2 sky would simply add to 1300. Even with an adjustment for soil emissivity, that’s still about 1250 W/m^2 — well over the boiling point of water!
The cult doesn’t understand any of this.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Yes, Clint R, you really can get some physics right, since that much light energy incident on 1bar tap water surface of say 1m^2 6″ deep reasonably contained WOULD raise the water’s temperature “well over the boiling point” given enough time exposed for the fixed amount of water, as does, say, my mw. No cult needed, even Clint can do that experiment.
Ball4,
You idiot. It doesn’t matter how long you leave a bowl of water in the sun, it won’t boil!
The Earth has had four and a half billion years or so of sunlight, and its surface temperature is well below boiling.
Just how dumb are you? Have you been taking classes in dumbness from Willard? If so, they’re working.
You’re definitely getting dumber.
swenson…”As Feynman said in response to some of the wishfully thinking idiots at NASA For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
***
If you can track down, in your neck of the woods, the book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., it’s well worth the read to see how reality can be perverted by one man in the name of public relations.
Another good book, by Edward Snowden, ‘Permanent Record’, reveals the inner workings of the CIA and how they had a wide surveillance system in place to spy on ‘all’ US citizens. As a result of the book, the CIA were forced to back off but Snowden, a whistleblower, is in exile in Russia because he has been charged with espionage for revealing an illegal activity.
Snowden did not flee to Russia out of sympathy for the Russian system, he was trapped there en route to Ecuador from Hong Kong when the US government withdrew his passport. Since then the Russians have granted him sanctuary.
The EU has subsequently changed its laws on whistleblowers to give them protection. I shudder to think of how much illegal activity is going on to promote climate alarm.
ball4…”And when EMR is absorbed by a massive particle, the particle momentum (linear and/or angular) is increased not the mass. EMR has no mass to conserve in the process as far as science can test”.
***
An unprecedented moment in the annals of Roy’s blog, I agree with Ball4. Not trying to be a smart-ass, you make an excellent point, especially that EM has no mass. How then, does it transfer mass?
In Einstein’s iconic equation, it does not specify which energy is related to mass and it seems too cute that the relating quantity is the speed of light squared. What possibly could the speed of light have to do with a thermonuclear reactions involving the fusion of atoms of hydrogen?
Especially when Einstein had no idea of such a reaction in 1905.
Gordon,
Photons (EMR if you like) are tricky little devils. They have no rest mass, but do have momentum. After interacting with an electron (also a tricky little devil which cant be found in any particular place at any particular time), it may simply disappear!
The energy it possesses, however, does not disappear. Conservation of energy laws apply.
Where does the energy go?
It may show up as in increase in velocity of a gas molecule, for example, as can be seen when a gas absorbs photons, the gas gets “hotter”, that is, the average speed of the gas molecules increases. And, of course, the gas then starts emitting photons, which suddenly appear travelling at the speed of light, which of course some people say is impossible, because nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light without infinite energy being applied to it.
However, every experiment ever performed shows that the “impossible” happens all the time.
So far, it appears that photons having no rest mass, but possessing momentum when travelling at the speed of light, may literally disappear after interacting with an electron, but their energy does not. Einstein expressed this bizarre situation as e=mc2, in essence.
Atom bombs make a big bang. They work. The theory predicts that the big bang results from the conversion of matter to EMR (photons if you like). The radioactivity is another story.
It doesnt matter what we believe, the universe just keeps on. Richard Feynman said “Nature is absurd” in respect of what happens in the quantum world. The most rigorous experimentation in history (much of it designed to prove quantum electrodynamic theory wrong) has confirmed Feynmans view.
Oh well, to each his own. What works for you, works for you.
swenson…”Photons (EMR if you like) are tricky little devils. They have no rest mass, but do have momentum. After interacting with an electron (also a tricky little devil which cant be found in any particular place at any particular time), it may simply disappear!”
+++
You have to understand that the photon is DEFINED as a particle (or quantum) of EM having momentum but no mass. Einstein commented late in his life that no one knows if EM is a set of particle or a wave.
We do know that EM starts its life as a quantum of energy but somehow all the quanta emitted group together as a wave. That’s not to say that light is a wave with a single frequency, it has a broad range of frequencies, so looking at the wave would reveal a mess of amplitudes in a front. Still, when it goes through a prism, individual frequencies can be recovered.
That’s why I don’t like the concept of a photon. It has a frequency and particles don’t have a frequency. Therefore, what is called a photon must be far more than a particle of EM, it must have a significant length to give it a frequency.
I am thinking more along the line of a lighthouse emitting a beam of EM, except the beam is truncated and its amplitude varies with a regular frequency.
The EM originates from an electron, a particle with an electrical charge that is producing a magnetic field as it moves. When it suddenly moves down an energy level, it releases a quantum of EM that features the frequency of the electron with an intensity that equals the difference in energy levels between orbital levels.
So, when it’s emitted, does the EM quantum get emitted as a beam or as an isotropic wave?
swenson…”The energy it possesses, however, does not disappear. Conservation of energy laws apply.
Where does the energy go?”
***
The EM is absorbed by an electron in the atom/molecule and is converted to kinetic energy in the electron, causing it to jump (translate) to higher energy level.
If a free electron in free space encounters a photon, I don’t know what would happen. I don’t think anyone does vis-a-vis experiment.
Gordon,
Photons are neither particle nor wave in particular. As I said, tricky little devils – they act however you want them to. The double slit experiment shows that if you treat photons like particles, that’s what you get – particle behaviour. Treat them like waves – wavelike behaviour.
An electron interacting with photon will only “jump” to a higher “level” if the photon has sufficient energy. Fairly rare – sodium vapour lamps or fluorescent tubes use this principle.
As to free electrons in a vacuum, CRTs use photons (EMF if you like) to interact with electrons, and push them here, there, and everywhere. Radio tubes with grids – same thing.
As Richard Feynman said “In this one theory [quantum electrodynamics]we have the basic rules for all ordinary phenomena except for gravitation and nuclear processes. For example, out of quantum electrodynamics come all known electrical, mechanical, and chemical laws: the laws for the collision of billiard balls, the motions of wires in magnetic fields, the specific heat of carbon monoxide, the color of neon signs, the density of salt, and the reactions of hydrogen and oxygen to make water are all consequences of this one law.”
So far, nobody has managed to demonstrate otherwise.
swenson….”As to free electrons in a vacuum, CRTs use photons (EMF if you like) to interact with electrons, and push them here, there, and everywhere. Radio tubes with grids same thing”.
***
Based on my studies in the field, in vacuum tubes, electrons are boiled off a tungsten filament via an electric current to form a cloud of free electrons around this cathode. Sometimes a cylinder is placed around the filament to collect the electrons, still called a cathode. So, you do have free electrons in an evacuated space.
A high potential voltage (+400 volts or so) is placed on an outer cylinder, the plate, and it attracts the electrons to it. That’s a diode and there is no internal control over the electron current within the tube. It is controlled externally by a plate resistor between the plate and the +ve terminal of the power supply.
BTW…this is one proof that the theory still taught in EE lectures and textbooks, that electric current flow positive to negative is wrong. If that was the case, electrons would flow from the plate to the cathode and there would be no need to boil electrons off the negative cathode tungsten filament.
I think you are referring to the grid in a tube, which is a mesh cylinder between the cathode and anode, through which electrons flow freely….unless…there is a negative potential on the grid. The more negative, the lower the anode current till the current in cutoff. With one grid it’s a triode, with two it’s a tetrode, with three its a pentode. Tetrodes are not that common.
If the tube enclosure leaks, allowing air to enter, gas molecules will accumulate around the grid and block electron flow. Naturally, we call that a gassy tube and it normally reveals itself as a milky-white coating inside the glass.
With a CRT, you have something similar re the cathode/ filament but the plate is now a metalized surface around the cone-shaped glass tube, near the CRT face, and it is accessed via a hole in the glass of the cone where there is a connection to the plate. The potential (EMF) is a lot higher, in the thousands of volts (40,000 volts for a colour tube), because CRTs are a lot longer than vacuum tubes and use different principles for electron acceleration.
The face of the CRT has phosphors on the inside which light up when the accelerated electrons strike it. First, you have to focus them into a beam and that is done with a cylinder inline with the beam. It has a negative charge which forms the electrons into a beam due to its shape. If you left it at that, with the beam sitting at centre screen, the electrons would burn a hole in the phosphors. Seen that happen a few times.
Depending on whether the CRT is used in an oscilloscope or a TV, or computer display, there is a deflection mechanism through which the beam passes. With a scope, it’s a simple set of plates, one set vertical and one set horizontal. As the beam passes through them, an alternating potential across the plates, or just D.C, will deflect the beam across the CRT screen, lighting up the phosphors.
With a TV or computer display, the deflection is an electromagnetic yoke which sits around the neck of the tube where it meets the cone. In that case it is an electromagnetic field deflecting the electron beam. However, it is classified as near-field EM because it does not radiate far.
Magnets place either side of the electron beam would cause the same deflection. If you place a small magnet on the face of a colour TV it will cause deflection patterns on the screen. It scatters the electrons in the beam. Not a good idea, however, since it can mess withe the screen by causing a permanent magnetic field at that point. You get around that using a degausser, a coil with an alternating current that disrup.ts the magnetic field created by the magnet.
Apparently, the Earth’s magnetic field can cause the same sort of interference in a CRT.
Gordon,
Electromagnetic fields are photons. Luckily, Wikipedia states “A photon (from Ancient Greek φῶς, φωτός (phs, phōts) ‘light’) is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.”
Wikipedia can be excused for the terminology, but calling photons “particles” as photons, and “waves” as light and radio waves (misleading, they are the same thing – photons), is par for the course of people writing about things they don’t really understand.
Not to worry. A GHE which was ineffective at preventing cooling for four and a half billion years or so, is unlikely to be a problem anytime soon.
“BTWthis is one proof that the theory still taught in EE lectures and textbooks, that electric current flow positive to negative is wrong. “
This has been debated pretty much since electrons were discovered and understood.
The counter-argument is that electric current is defined as
I = dQ/dt
Change in *charge*, not change in *electrons*.
When 6.24E18 electrons move down a wire from left to right, 1 C of charge moves from right to left. If this happens in 10 s, the current is 0.1 A from right to left, even while electrons are moving left to right.
swenson….”Electromagnetic fields are photons”.
***
I am regarding this as an exchange of information. No need for the good guys to get into a beef over intangibles. I am not trying to speak as an authority, just offering opinions. If we don’t agree, that’s cool.
You’ll have to excuse my skepticism, I don’t think photons exist as defined. I think there is such a thing as EM quanta, which are poorly defined blobs of energy that have a frequency as in E = hf. I don’t think they have momentum since they have no mass, they were defined as having momentum.
I regard this as Mickey Mouse science. It’s based on Einstein’s photoelectric effect, circa 1905, which is valid. Einstein noted that EM shone on a surface caused electrons to be ejected, based on the frequency of light but not the intensity. That was affirmed in Bohr’s theory in 1913.
However, late in his life, Einstein claimed no one knows if EM moves through space as a wave or individual photons. The name ‘photon’ was not coined till 1928 and by then they should have known better. Calling a photon an elementary particle is plain bs.
When it comes to near-field EM, like the fields produced in an electric motor, the frequency of the field is 60 hz. The source of the EM is still electrons in conductors (motor windings) but those are free electrons which don’t transition between atomic energy levels. Therefore the frequency of the electromagnetic field is the same as the number of times the electrons change direction per second.
With a free electron moving through a conductor, it carries a negative electric charge and produces a magnetic field around the conductor. That’s the near-field EM I am talking about.
The frequency of that field depends on the frequency of the electric current through the conductor which is the number of times the electrons change direction per second. Typically, in North America, the frequency is 60 hz.
That EM field will not propagate far, being measured in metres, if that, because the near-field dissipates very quickly. The communication form of EM, which is closer to the EM you mention, required electrons to change direction hundreds of thousands of times per second. Still it is not produced by electron transition but free electrons changing direction in a conductor (antenna).
The reference to photons comes from EM generated via electron transitions between inter-atomic orbital energy levels. That’s where the E = hf comes in. I cannot see how that equation can be applied to free electrons moving in a conductor, therefore I don’t think photons are generated in that context.
All in all, I don’t think the energy transmitted by electron transitions is important in the overall scheme of things, its the final product that matters. Somehow, the total individual electron transitions combine into a wavefront that travels through space as a unit.
I don’t know how that works in a stellar environment where electrons get separated from their hydrogen nucleus. I don’t buy the theory that EM is generated by hydrogen nucleii being merged into helium nucleii. If the H or He nucleii lack electrons, they are neither H or He, are they?
For example, when hydrogen nucleii are ejected as the solar wind, along with electrons, they are called protons, not hydrogen nucleii. Inside the star, how do you distinguish a proton from a hydrogen nucleus?
The theory is far too vague to be accepted carte blanche.
When an electron moves through a conductor, electrons are moving copper nucleus to copper nucleus. Modern theory for metals refers to electron clouds which is plain silly. Copper exists as a lattice of copper nucleii bonded by electrons. The theorists make it sound like there are clouds of free electrons existing between nucleii but where would they exist in such a lattice structure?
It’s better to take modern theory with a generous pinch of salt. Electrons can only move from the outer shell of a copper atom to an empty position on the outer shell of an adjacent copper atom. In other words, they move atom to atom. However, the electron charge can move much faster, near the speed of light.
If they can’t get it straight about electrons through copper conductors right in front of them, how can they get it straight about the interior of stars and photons?
tim…”The counter-argument is that electric current is defined as I = dQ/dt”.
***
True. However, the only particle able to move through a conductor is the electron, and it is the negative charge on the electron that matters. The only other charge would be on the protons in the nucleus, and they don’t move.
Besides, current depends on the applied voltage, which is the driving force for current. It’s the polarity of the applied voltage that is in question. In EE lectures, students are taught that current flows out the positive terminal and into the negative terminal, but what is the current they claim is flowing?
In EE, current is defined on the positive test charge which is a hypothetical charge for a generalized physics context. That hypothesis may have made sense in 1925 when it was formulated but it is obviously false today.
A battery works via chemical means to accumulate electrons around the negative terminal. That would mean equivalent positive current carriers would have to accumulate around the positive terminal and be able to move through a copper conductor. Only electrons can move through a conductor since the move between valence bands of atoms.
Backing up a bit, an anode is normally a positive terminal but in a battery it is the negative terminal. That is a seriously mixed up combination of conventional current flow theory and the actual direction in which electron current flows.
If you look at the chemical formula for a battery, they show a small ‘e’ to indicate an electron has been released. There is never an indication that a proton has been release since that would be silly since protons cannot flow through a conductor or a device.
There is a confusion with semiconductors that holes left when electrons move out of one atom’s valence band to an adjacent valence band of another atom. Some people think the holes, which are apparently moving in the opposite direction constitute a hole current. Sheer nonsense.
A hole is a hole, there is nothing there. The theory comes from Shockley, who clearly explained he invented the notion of hole flow to aid in visualization of semiconductor theory. Some people may find the notion of thinking in hole flow as a visualization, I find it confusing. It’s far easier for me to remain in the electron context.
Conventional devices like a diode have the arrow pointing for conventional current, positive to negative. I have always visualized electrons flowing against the arrow direction and had no problem.
“However, the only particle able to move through a conductor is the electron”
No. Salt water is a conductor, and the moving particles are Na+ and Cl-. Both protons and electrons move in the plasma of the sun.
You are thinking too concretely about one or two or three circumstances. I will admit that metal conductors are a VERY common and VERY important class of conductors, but there is value in thinking more generally and abstractly.
If a container has 10 liters of water, and later has 4 liters, we say a current has flown out of the container.
If a container has 10 C of charge, and later has 4 coulombs, we similarly would say a current has flown out of the container. Whether that is due to positive charges flowing OUT of the container, or negative charges flowing INTO the container, the current, I = Delta(Q)/Delta(t) is still OUT of the container!
Like I said, I get the reasons for the ‘electron flow’ model. For electricians, I am OK with the more physical, more intuitive idea that “the electrons move this way, so the current moves this way”. But this is a simplistic approach, insufficient for ionic conductors or proton beams.
It’s hard to behave more ignorant and arrogant than Ignoramus Robertson.
Binny,
I know you try your hardest.
Maybe you need to try even harder?
[chortle]
Is that what she told you, Mike?
Back to the point Witless Willy,
“Willard,
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, aren’t you?”
Mike,
You still forget about Keith Richards.
Why is that – are you jealous that he alone knows what happened to the Earth 4.5B years ago?
Willard,
Your witless comment explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
No wonder others seek you out to give them lessons in stupidity!
You still are ignoring Keith Richards, Mike.
Willard,
Your witless comment explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
No wonder others seek you out to give them lessons in stupidity!
Do you charge them, or do you emanate stupidity for free?
But Keith Richards, Mike.
Willard,
Your witless comment explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
No wonder others seek you out to give them lessons in stupidity!
Do you charge them, or do you communicate stupidity for free?
Your spam does not explain Keith Richards, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
EM thought he came up wth the ultimate gotcha, a real zinger. He responded to me earlier-
“Do you agree with Dr. Spencer that it has warmed since 1979?
What a masterstroke! Maybe he can achieve what the idiotic troll Willard couldnt, and manipulate Dr Spencer into banning me!
Oh dear! Colour me terrified and shaking in my boots – not.
EM cannot comprehend plain English. As I have repeatedly asked – if the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and during that time a GHE existed, why did the GHE not stop the Earth from cooling?
If Dr Spencer claims that some new physical laws magically appeared in recent history, I am unaware of it. If Dr Spencer claims that remote temperature sensing is not affected by more than seven billion humans generating and using energy as fast as they can, I am unaware of such a claim.
So no, if Dr Spencer claims that four and a half billion years of demonstrable cooling has reversed itself for reasons which rely on magic or miracles, I would not agree with him, without seeing some reproducible experimental results to show that an object exposed to a constant heat source can spontaneously heat up, after cooling.
If you wish to believe in magic or physical miracles, you are free to do so.
I suspect your attempt to annoy Dr Spencer arises from your inability to explain why four and a half billion years of cooling should cease, and then reverse itself. If you have an explanation, I would be glad to hear it. I fear the silence will be deafening.
Carry on – try a better type of gotcha, next time.
Its fascinating that you completely avoid the simple yes/no question.
Has the earth warmed in the last 4 decades?
Similarly, did the earth warm as it came out of the last glacial period (about 15k years ago)?
Tim,
Learn to read. Dr Spencer has not said that the Earth has warmed. He has measured nominal troposheric temperatures over a portion of the Earth’s surface from afar, as going up and down at different times.
So no, the Earth has never “warmed”, as you misleadingly put it. It is a physical impossibility. What’s more, you cannot show that the Earth has ever “warmed”. You can’t even define what the “surface” is, in any meaningful way, so purporting to measure the temperature of something you can’t even define is just SkyDragon stupidity!
You need to think more before you start hammering on your keyboard. The Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, to now. During most of that time, it had an atmosphere, which contained CO2 and H2O. Cooling resulted.
The laws of physics remained the same.
What particular form of mental defect leads you to believe that the laws of physics changed recently to suit your fantasy?
It’s a simple question. I hope you can provide a simple answer. You appear pretty simple to me.
Or does demanding answers only work one way?
Idiot.
“You cant even define what the ‘surface’ is, in any meaningful way, so purporting to measure the temperature of something you cant even define is just SkyDragon stupidity!”
I can define “surface” in a variety of meaningful ways.
1) I could define the surface at the very top of the crust (including loose rocks or soil).
2) I could define ‘surface’ to be the top of the crust or any
H2O on the crust. (In other words, where you would walk or boat or ski).
3) I could define the surface at the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere.
4) I could define the surface as the top of the atmosphere (say 100 km above sea level).
By any of those definitions, there has been warming ‘below that surface’ of varying magnitudes during various time periods. You could pick your favorite definition, and we could use that for future discussion.
I will agree that during any long enough time period, the earth has shown cooling. But during some short periods, warming has indeed been observed. For example, there has been more than 44 GW of heat INTO the oceans from above for the past few decades, so clearly by definition 2, the “earth” has warmed.
Tim,
Don’t be silly. Nobody has accurately measured the temperature of any of those things over the whole globe.
As to crustal sub surface temperatures, Fourier and others have pointed out (backed up by measurement), that the Sun’s influence, on an annual basis, is imperceptible beyond about 10 meters.
Given that the internal temperature of the Earth is higher than the surface, by some thousands of Kelvins, unless you invent some new physical laws, heat inexorably flows to space from the core. The globe’s surface does not magically heat up and cool down without reason.
As you acknowledge, the Earth cools. No amount of mythical GHE, nor devout wishful thinking, nor even “silly semantic games” interferes with physical processes.
As to the oceans, water at the surface, heated by the Sun, loses all its heat at night. As a matter of fact, the almost freezing point of deep water (fresh or salt) is due the same basic physical processes, not nonsense about water cooling at the poles and then magically transporting itself around a sphere – presumably to pile up at the Equator!
Do the idiots who come up with this nonsense have any understanding of physics? They dont seem to realise that heating water surface just results in a hot surface! Only dimwits like you and Trenberth believe in magical physics where warm, less dense water sinks into the ocean – and stays there!
No GHE. Four and a half billion years or so of history shows that nothing stopped the Earth cooling.
Try some more fantasy. You might convince someone that you actually know what you are babbling about,
Carry on.
Flynnson wrote:
Sorry for editing problem, it’s past my bed time….
ES,
I suppose you think I would also be “dissing” the idiots at the National Science Foundation, who insisted for years that melting sea ice would cause sea levels to rise? They refused to believe that dead Greek, Archimedes, and thought his principle didn’t apply to “climate science”. The NSF grudgingly admitted they were wrong – eventually.
You really are a gullible little SkyDragon, arent you?
If you want to believe in fairytales which require magic to make them come true, you might even believe that a GHE which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, suddenly developed magical heating powers recently.
In the meantime, here’s part of experiments to demonstrate what happens when water i# heated from above and below –
“What happens when water is heated at the surface
If we heat water at the surface, its temperature will rise and its density will decrease. Hotter water with lower density will stay at the surface and colder water with higher density will stay at the bottom. Water is a bad heat conductor. Therefore, if we heat water from above, water will boil at the surface, but will be cold at the bottom.”
As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Keep appealing to “Oceanography”. Real scientists actually understand their subjects, in most cases. Oceanographers are no exception – unless they are made aware that their grant funding depends on following the SkyDragon cult beliefs.
Like some idiots at the NSF.
” unless you invent some new physical laws, heat inexorably flows to space from the core. The globes surface does not magically heat up and cool down without reason.”
No invention needed. Just ‘discovery’ of the old ones by our resident ignoramus.
The Earth’s crust is a good insulator, and incredibly thick. Its like R 47 million…
Flynnson offered a quote from ??:
I suppose that you now agree that the deeper layers of the world’s oceans, which includes most of the volume, are waters sourced from regions where the surface waters are at temperatures near freezing. That’s the polar regions during Winter, particularly the G-I-N Seas, the Arctic Ocean and the waters around the Antarctic.
“Nobody has accurately measured the temperature …”
Trying the move the goalposts? Before it was ‘you can’t define a surface’ and now it is ‘you can’t measure accurately’ which is a completely different issue!
“Given that the internal temperature of the Earth is higher than the surface, by some thousands of Kelvins, unless you invent some new physical laws, heat inexorably flows to space from the core. “
Close, but not quite. The temperature of the core is immaterial when it comes to the heat flow through the last few meters. If the temperature of the surface is higher than the temperature a meter below the surface, then heat flows INWARD at the surface at that location (which happens every spring and summer!). If the temperature at the surface is higher at enough locations, the net flow can and will be INWARD sometimes.
No new physics needed. Just the proper application of well-known physics.
Swanson, Tim, please stop trolling.
I read above a typical sentence:
” Meiv2 covers the whole pacific area from 30N to 30S. Are you saying that it will cool (as shown) while the rest of the planet warms? ”
*
Again and again: MEI is NOT a temperature index.
I have shown that upthread by comparing MEI to the global surface data monitored by the Japanese Met Agency.
But an even better way to understand it is to compare the MEI index with
– global HadISST1 SST temperatures,
and
– HadISST1 SST temperatures measured in the region where it is observed:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1db8kClZFOtRQ7JnNixc_9_Bl2A2MQ9fG/view
Linear estimates for the Savitzky-Golay filter smoothings for 1979-2022, in C / decade:
– MEI index: -0.16 +- 0.01
– SST (MEI region): +0.29 +- 0.005
– SST (global): +0.35 +- 0.004
Conclusion: while the MEI index decreases, the HadISST1 SST series show, for 1979-2022, increasing temperature anomalies.
Since 2016, however, all three decrease.
“MEI is NOT a temperature index”
Agreed. Now tell me why it is on a downwards trend since 1979.
As shown by the HadISST1 SST time series for MEI’s observation region, it is very certainly not due to the temperature measured there.
Thus the downwards trend (-0.21 units/decade) must be due to the remaining four factors.
And by the the way, Linsley Hood: why don’t you first tell me why MEI’s trend during 2008-2022 is +0.04 units/decade?
Now tell me why meiv2is on a downwards trend since 1979.
I.e. which of those 4 ‘other’ factors is declining fast enough to overcome the ‘increase’ in SST and how is it caused.
How bout you explain it and tell us the significance..if any.
Meiv2 is declining. It has 2 temperature related components. The others govern the distribution of temperature from the tropics. It is your reasoning that requires you to explain why the total meiv2 is declining since 1979.
“It is your reasoning that requires you to explain”
What reasoning? I don’t recall claiming that MEI cannot have had a downward trend since 1979.
Because, again, this is not preventing GW. Nor is it inconsistent with AGW predictions.
It is you who desire that to be the case. But that is a genuine strawman.
“I don’t recall claiming that MEI cannot have had a downward trend since 1979”
I was just asking what of the various factors that make up meiv2 has made it continuously decline since 1979?
You specifically stated “It is your reasoning that requires you to explain”
What reasoning requires me to explain?
In a fit of petulance, Weepy Willard wrote –
“Roy cant control ignorant posters like Dug.
Check Pup, Graham, Christos, Mike Flynn, and you.
Think.”
Oh dear, “Roy” (presumably Dr Roy Spencer) is not acceding to Whingeing Willy’s attempts to avoid facing the sad reality that the supposed GHE couldnt stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, and is thus unlikely to do so in the future.
Hence his pathetic attempts to have people “banned”.
Whining Wee Willard’s slimy attitude is summed up in Winston Churchill’s words “Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”, or, in Witless Willard’s case, grounds for demanding that a blog operator bans people who disagree with Willard’s fantasies.
Poor Willard. I suspect that the universe is not unfolding as Willard believes it should. Maybe Willard is not really the Master of the Universe?
C’mon, Mike.
The whinging was all Gordo’s.
Think.
In a fit of petulance, Weepy Willard wrote
Roy cant control ignorant posters like Dug.
Check Pup, Graham, Christos, Mike Flynn, and you.
Think.”
Oh dear, Roy (presumably Dr Roy Spencer) is not acceding to Whingeing Willys attempts to avoid facing the sad reality that the supposed GHE couldnt stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, and is thus unlikely to do so in the future.
Hence his pathetic attempts to have people banned.
Whining Wee Willards slimy attitude is summed up in Winston Churchills words Some peoples idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage., or, in Witless Willards case, grounds for demanding that a blog operator bans people who disagree with Willards fantasies.
Poor Willard. I suspect that the universe is not unfolding as Willard believes it should. Maybe Willard is not really the Master of the Universe?
Mike, Mike,
Gordo’s the one who said:
Gordo is trying to get you out.
Please go settle this with him.
In a fit of petulance, Weepy Willard wrote
Roy can’t control ignorant posters like Dug.
Check Pup, Graham, Christos, Mike Flynn, and you.
Think.
Oh dear, Roy (presumably Dr Roy Spencer) is not acceding to Whingeing Willys attempts to avoid facing the sad reality that the supposed GHE couldnt stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, and is thus unlikely to do so in the future.
Hence his pathetic attempts to have people banned.
Whining Wee Willards slimy attitude is summed up in Winston Churchills words Some peoples idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage., or, in Witless Willards case, grounds for demanding that a blog operator bans people who disagree with Willards fantasies.
Poor Willard. I suspect that the universe is not unfolding as Willard believes it should. Maybe Willard is not really the Master of the Universe?
He tries to be a slimy little sneak, and scuttle away. Oh dear!
Mike, Mike,
Gordos the one who said:
> If I was Roy, and I could not control ignorant posters like cottn, Id close the blog part down and just keep presenting the monthly UAH data.
Gordo is trying to get you out.
Please go settle this with him.
Not even a good evasion. You still haven’t addressed –
Willard,
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
You see? Trying stupid diversions is not making you look any less like a dimwitted reality denier, does it?
Carry on.
Perhaps, Mike, but what about Keith Richards?
Whacky Willard,
That explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
You see? Trying stupid diversions is not making you look any less like a dimwitted reality denier, does it?
Carry on with your witless attempts to avoid facing reality. As you said, the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and your GHE was completely powerless to halt the cooling!
Keep spamming, Mike.
Make Keith Richards sad.
Whacky Willard,
Your comment explains why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, does it?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
You see? Trying stupid diversions is not making you look any less like a dimwitted reality denier, does it?
Carry on with your witless attempts to avoid facing reality. As you said, the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and your GHE was completely powerless to halt the cooling!
Please keep spamming, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Poor Wee Willy – reduced to blathering about “Keith Richards”.
He probably realises that calling him “Keith” would probably make Wee Willy look even more witless and wriggly than he is.
Oh well, I suppose he has to do his best to deflect attention away from the fact that a supposed GHE, powerless to prevent the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, suddenly developed a miraculous capacity to heat a planet!
Wee Willy Wanker, faced with reality, is reduced to dribbling nonsense.
He might have to resort to babbling his sacred words of power – “Roy”, “Mike”, “Gordo”, “Pup”, “Keith”, and all the rest.
Fat lot of good it will do him. Onlookers will just laugh all the harder at his mad SkyDragon capering,
What a donkey he is!
Keith Richards is Keith Richards.
Just like you are Mike Flynn.
Try not to be paranoid, will you?
Whacky Willard,
Does you pointless comment explain why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
You see? Trying stupid diversions is not making you look any less like a dimwitted reality denier, does it?
Carry on with your witless attempts to avoid facing reality. As you said, the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and your GHE was completely powerless to halt the cooling!
Mike,
Keith Richards.
Whacky Willard,
Does you pointless comment explain why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Or is it supposed to explain why the Earth will suddenly stop cooling and start getting hotter?
You really are a simpleton, arent you?
You see? Trying stupid diversions is not making you look any less like a dimwitted reality denier, does it?
Carry on with your witless attempts to avoid facing reality. As you said, the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and your GHE was completely powerless to halt the cooling!
Mike Flynn,
Does your spamming explain Keith Richards?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Interacting-Emitting Universal Law
–
Here it is the ENTIRE planet surface IR emittance Universal Law
–
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
–
The solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) does not emit as a uniform temperature sphere in accordance to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law:
–
4πrσΤmean⁴ (W)
–
No, the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance with both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the Newly discovered Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Let’s continue…
Planet Energy Budget:
Jnot.reflected = Jemit
–
πrΦ*S*(1-a) = 4πrσTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
–
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Instead of:
4πr
It should read:
4πr^2
But… Φ still is your unreviewed invention, lacking any REAL proof.
Don’t come again with your
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
as this is NO review AT ALL.
Binny,
The GHE allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so.
Now you believe it is suddenly heating the Earth!
Are you quite mad, or do you have some reason for this belief?
Feel free to avoid inconvenient facts, if you wish.
Start whining about anything you wish.
Carry on.
” The GHE allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so. ”
Flynnson now finally definitely switched to the Alzheimer troll folks.
Binny,
If you dont accept the reality that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years (in spite to the mythical GHE), good for you!
Other people might. Im happy to let them decide for themselves.
Bindidon,
When solar flux hits the flat disk of the same as planet diameter the not reflected portion of solar flux is:
(1-a) S (W/m^2)
But solar flux actually hits not a flat disk, but a sphere (planets are spheres)
Thus,
the not reflected portion of solar flux, when it hits planet (sphere) is:
Φ(1-a) S (W/m^2)
I hope it helped.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Bond Albedo *already* includes geometry (in fact it is sometime called the “spheric albedo”). It is the fraction of the total power incident on a planet that is reflected back out into space. And (1-a) is already the ‘not reflected portion”.
To add an additional “Phi” implies either:
1) astronomers have been badly mis-measuring Bond Albedo all these years.
2) you are mistaken.
I know which one my money is on.
Thank you, Tim, for your respond.
–
Astronomers have very much precisely measured Bond Albedo not only for Earth, but for every planet and moon in solar system.
–
Bond Albedo includes geometry, all right, but by that Bond Albedo succeeds to precisely measure for the spherical surface the average surface Diffuse Albedo.
–
Albedo is the incident SW flux’s diffuse reflection.
–
There is also an unseen by the satellite’s sensors reflection, which is very strong for smooth surface planets without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, like Earth’s.
–
When satellite measures outgoing SW EM radiation, it measures what falls on its sensor’s plate.
Satellite cannot “see” the specular SW EM radiation going away because of the planet surface sphericity curvature.
.
Of course, there are planets, which, because of their surface high level of roughness manage to multiply reflect that, not seen by satellites, specular SW EM reflected energy.
Usually, those planets and moons are which have the highest values of Albedo.
–
And, usually, planets and moons with low values of Albedo are those with smooth surfaces without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
” I hope it helped. ”
Of course it didn’t.
Because
” When solar flux hits the flat disk… ”
is a completely dumb assertion.
There is NO flat disk anywhere.
The surface of a sphere hit by (parallel) solar radiation is
2πR²
But to obtain the total solar radiation hitting that hemisphere, you have to weight the radiation with the square of the cosine of the radiation’s angle of incidence on the surface.
Integrating cos²(α)dα from 0 to π/2 gives 0.5, what gives πR² and the bloody impression that people would use a ‘flat disk’.
Yes, Bindidon, you are absolutely right!
–
“But to obtain the total solar radiation hitting that hemisphere, you have to weight the radiation with the square of the cosine of the radiations angle of incidence on the surface.”
–
Now, Bindidon, that you have the right impression, please reconsider your views about the ways a smooth spherical surface reflects the parallel solar beams.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Now, Bindidon, that you have the right impression… ”
I don’t have any ‘impression’: this is what everybody can learn.
*
” … please reconsider your views about the ways a smooth spherical surface reflects the parallel solar beams. ”
I have no views to reconsider; YOU have to present yours to a competent academic community – exactly what you until now carefully avoided.
“I have no views to reconsider”
–
Please, Bindidon, make the effort!
Then you will become a competent scientist – but first try to understand what someone else (vournas) says to you, because you should become a competent scientist first, and help others to become competent scientists too.
–
It will take a while, I know, but then – when you become a competent scientist, and when you will have helped others to become competent scientists
YOU will present your views to a competent academic community exactly what you until now carefully avoided.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I was sure you would keep dodging.
You will NEVER present your thoughts to any review team.
christos…”Please, Bindidon, make the effort!”
***
Binny has no interest in making an effort, he is a troll who gets his enjoyment from being disruptive.
Better to ignore him.
The flat disc is a mathematical trick, a shortcut which allows you to calculate the total solar energy hitting the Earth without having to account for the angle of incidence of every point on the surface of Earth’s sphere.
I would be very surprised if anyone thought that there was a real disc.
Similarly for the simplest energy budget you can consider the Earth as a black box.
You don’t need to consider details of albedo, surface roughness, specular reflection, clouds etc. All you need is the Bond albedo, which combines them all into a single figure for the fraction of reflected shortwave radiation.
The budget for a stable climate then becomes
Solar insolation – albedo = outward longwave radiation
That gives you the size of the budget and you can then go into as much more detail as your resources allow.
Interestingly even this simple budget allows you to detect global warming.If the system is out of balance the difference tells you if the Earth is cooling (more energy leaving than entering) or warming (more energy entering than leaving).
Entropic man
” I would be very surprised if anyone thought that there was a real disc. ”
Maybe you didn’t have enough opportunities to read related posts written by Pseudoskeptics on this blog since years.
” … he is a troll who gets his enjoyment from being disruptive. ”
Better to be ‘disruptive’ than to deny everything, to discredit and denigrate all people thinking different, and to lie about anything, Robertson.
How warm is Venus at Earth distance?
Let’s start with Venus having 10 atm of pressure [and retaining all
it’s nitrogen which what? 3.5% of ~4.8 x 10^20 kg
0.168 x 10^20 or 16.8 x 10^18
Earth has Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
16.8 / 5.1 = 3.294 Atm or 6.7 atm of CO2
And rest of CO2 liquid or frozen
And Venus starts with average global surface temperature of 15 C
Venus axis tilt of 2.64 degrees
And has 2802 hours vs Earth’s: 24 hours
Or it’s day is more than 100 times longer than Earth day.
So, it’s got Earth sun, and standing at similar location as Canadian
border or at 49th latitude and it’s noon and summer
49 – 2.64 = 46.36 or 46.36 degree below zenith, 43.64 degrees above horizon. And it too cold to have clouds, so it’s clear with blue skies.
The sun will be there for many Earth days, you could set up a solar panel and get days of constant solar energy. How much energy will you get from solar panel which pointed directly at the sun but the sun is going thru more than 10 atm of atmosphere.
Whenever on Earth the sun is going thru 10 atm [late or earlier in the day when sun very low on the horizon, one is no longer in peak solar hours. And this also the case when going thru 5 or more atm of Earth atmosphere. Or this why peak solar hours is only about 6 hours of a 12 hour day]. So the sun will be bright but you would get less solar energy, but you will have many many hours of solar power.
Now, let’s say it similar to Vancouver and go East thru many time zones. At Ottawa 3 time zones or 3 hours East. And Venus day is more than 100 times longer it would more 300 hours East.
With Earth and it’s 1 atm, at 3 pm Ottawa would leaving it’s peak solar hours, but 10 atm is much worse. And if 10 degrees more north
from Ottawa, it’s worse. And 20 degree north, it’s 7/8th of the time
it’s darkness, 1/8th of time you could read a book by the light.
But let’s go to tropic, so now you get 6 hours of the 24, or quarter of the where have fairly light. Or 6 times 100 = 600 hours of light and 18 times 100 1800 hours dim and darkness 1800 / 24 = 75 days
It’s sort of like the Earth’s polar regions but with less yearly sunlight.
It seems the polar region are going to get a lot of frozen CO2.
And once you get down to 5 atm of atmosphere, you will get a lot more sunlight, but still less than Earth gets.
To make Venus start at 15 C, block all sunlight from reaching Venus, then once it’s surface is 15 C, stop blocking the sunlight.
Or if don’t move planet Venus to Earth distance, then allow sunlight equal to earth distance, reach Venus.
Venus is not “clear with blue skies” as its atmosphere reflects and absorbs in total about 98% of the solar radiation. Russian probes dropped to the surface of Venus measured less than 20 w/m^2 of solar radiation getting down there. So the solar radiation does not raise the surface temperature and nor can radiation from the less hot atmosphere. That’s why nobody (except myself) has ever correctly explained the way in which the necessary heat gets down there.
Only the non-radiative process that I was first in the world to explain from the Second Law of Thermodynamics can (and does) cause the necessary heat into the surface.
Those silent readers who want to learn about my discovery can click …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be
P.S. Apparently gb you don’t understand that radiation does not have a cumulative effect. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives the absolute MAXIMUM temperature that any given flux could achieve at equilibrium, no matter how long that flux continues. A meteorite in Space (but within the Solar System) only warms to about that maximum temperature depending on its distance from the Sun, of course. The top of the Uranus atmosphere is only maintained at a temperature just below 60K. No solar radiation reaches the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere, but the “heat creep” process (which can only occur in a force field) is what supplies the necessary thermal energy input to balance the inevitable fairly fast cooling that would take place without it. There is no compelling evidence of any net energy loss at all from the whole Uranus system, so it has stopped cooling significantly from its original molten state.
“supplies the necessary thermal energy input”
This contracts the 2nd Law. Heat does not — even a in gravitational field — move from cold to hot. (I know you think you have discovered an exemption to the 2nd Law, but you are an army of one on that front!)
“to balance the inevitable fairly fast cooling that would take place without it. “
*WHY* would there be fast cooling? The troposphere temperature gradient on Uranus is on the order of 300 K in 300km = 1 K/km = 0.001 K/m. Gases are excellent insulators, on the order of k = 0.1 W/m*K. There would only be *milliwatts* of cooling per m^2 by conduction. And no convection. And low radiative heat since much of the troposphere contains clouds that block thermal IR.
Meanwhile, the very dangerous Hurricane Ian will reach Florida. The water surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico exceeds 30 degrees C. Ian is moving very slowly and may be blocked from the north, increasing the danger.
the storm bag broke open
https://youtu.be/b50RJfR4ioo
More than 500,000 homes were without electricity on Saturday, September 24 on the Atlantic coast of Canada, hit by hurricane Fiona, according to the cumulative figures provided by several operators.
In the province of Nova Scotia alone, the operator Nova Scotia Power reported, for example, around 1:05 p.m. GMT of 414,163 customers without electricity.
*
No problem! The usual trolls will say.
Caused by CO2 ! The usual climate debils will say.
Biden will stop hurricanes
https://youtu.be/p9MY_rWehGY
The problem with power outages is idiotic environmentalists conning governments into leaving trees adjacent to power lines. Every time there is a high wind, never mind a hurricane, the trees fall on the power lines, breaking them, or shorting the lines to ground, blowing a transformer.
Here on the ‘Wet’ Coast of Canada, we have power lines running right through tree branches and every year we have outages due to winds.
Besides, Binny, what’s your point?
The most resilient power lines are buried.
The real problem is that the government, the companies and the consumers are tight.
The consumers won’t pay the higher electricity bills necessary to build and maintain underground lines.
The companies won’t spend extra money on infrastructure and maintainance, reducing their profits.
The government won’t tighten regulations when companies lobby against tighter regulations and consumers wont vote for them.
You also have the freedom problem. Would you grant the companies the compulsory right to go onto your land and cut down your trees when they get too near the power lines?
–London, 23 September A prominent climate scientist has warned that the picture of climate change presented in the IPCCs narrative is simplistic, ill-conceived, and undermined by observational evidence.
In a new discussion paper, Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) points out that the official picture, focusing narrowly on carbon dioxide as a warming agent, becomes implausible when applied to the details of the climate system. —
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
That posted, others didn’t. One thing Richard Lindzen said in his
paper was:
“they are assumed
to be positive rather than negative feedbacks. It is on the egregiousness of these assumptions rather than on the greenhouse effect itself, that most sceptics (including myself) have focused”
And I don’t do that. Of course if you are climate scientist, I guess you are forced to do that. I take short cuts, first I will assess the source of information. Then assume it might true or more practically, mostly true and what is the suggested action which follows.
For instance I have wondered why we don’t lunar bases- cause that what I expected to happen when was a kid. But short story is NASA failed to do it, and I thought more interesting the existence or non existence of lunar base was why NASA failed.
And then back to this global warming issue- and the government is suppose to do something about climate- and they are not even vaguely organized to do this. If space rock was going to hit Earth, and we got this same response, we have murder all politicians for their high crimes. And then govt can’t do something if they ware as organized as NASA. So this a religion.
Maybe the religion is right [or mostly right]. So, is there anyone vague sane in this religion- I am still looking.
So, we got the religious aspect. And we got the political aspect.
So two major political parties of US, are not serious about it.
So one look at other countries- they are even less serious about it.
How about politics which isn’t the government?
Well Berkley Earth decided to estimate the global land average temperature. That is something vaguely serious. And we have Argo float thing- a lot more serious than Berkeley Earth- that involved a lot of people working together. Similar looking space rocks which could hit Earth.
And anyone add anything along these lines, which has or is being done, which I am not remembering?
Stop talking to yourself , people will think you’re crazy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOGHZdOHhHM
What I thought that was interesting is the artificial gravity station I don’t why they decided to make it that way.
I was thinking maybe if put a lot mass [like water] in central thing which spins it, it could make some sense. Of course LOX is also massive, but it makes less sense.
And news about SLS was interesting. But didn’t say anything about a possible Cat 3 heading towards it.
Anyhow recently back at extending a falcon-9 second stage’s height to make it into a Mars artificial gravity station {which would cost very little money to do].
Gbaikie
You are confusing me.
Are you saying that global warming is a problem and that governments should be doing something or that there is no global warming and governments should be doing nothing?I’m
Remember that a government is a device for reelecting itself. It is not rational.
A Republican government will do nothing about global warming because that is what their voters want. A Democrat government will do something because that is what their voters want. This is a matter of belief among voters and entirely separate from reality.
This means that you cannot infer whether or not global warming is a problem from what governments do.
— You are confusing me.
Are you saying that global warming is a problem and that governments should be doing something or that there is no global warming and governments should be doing nothing?–
There has been some global warming, we left the Little Ice Age.
What I find interesting question, is, why do people like the LIA.
I think now is great.
There are lot’s problems.
There will always be lot’s of problems.
In terms government doing something, they should explore the Moon- and they are.
You could say their efforts to explore the Moon has been and will
be a train wreck. But has been and should be less of train wreck then what they have done about global warming.
Governments can’t do nothing- they filled with people trying to look busy- or hiding, so that people can imagine they are busy.
They should pray or maybe perhaps do more yoga.
“A Republican government will do nothing about global warming because that is what their voters want.”
A Republican government are better at making vast governmental bureaucracies [which they claim to be opposed- and are who empowered the FBI [and the alphabet soup} to go after parents are concerned about their child’s education].
“A Democrat government will do something because that is what their voters want.”
I have yet to find a dem who got what he/she/it wanted from Dem Party. Lots of hope, and they have been brainwashed.
It would appear they want other people to be brainwashed, but they are brainwashed. Or you can’t feel sorry for them.
They get what they want.
gb…”One thing Richard Lindzen said in his
paper was:
they are assumed to be positive rather than negative feedbacks. It is on the egregiousness of these assumptions rather than on the greenhouse effect itself, that most sceptics (including myself) have focused
***
More skeptics should be focused on this point. Positive feedbacks are not possible in the atmosphere, there are no amplifiers. PF requires an amplifier. Yet PF is a basis of climate model theory.
However, climate alarmists and their buddies in government have no interest in science. They operate purely on a belief system.
Without PF and arbitrarily assigning a warming factor of 9% – 25% on CO2, the model predictions would insignificant. That would not suit the agenda of climate alarmists.
“More skeptics should be focused on this point. Positive feedbacks are not possible in the atmosphere, there are no amplifiers. PF requires an amplifier. Yet PF is a basis of climate model theory.”?
It seems this related to claim that CO2 causing more global water vapor.
If someone said agriculture and wanting a lawn, increases water vapor, one can see their point. Though whether this is global effect on a water planet, what one could say, how much and isn’t really mostly a regional thing??
Or maybe this is like UHI effect and affecting land temperature measurement. And one can see how it’s not a political advantage.
But back to point, the big claim of CO2 is it effect global water vapor AND somehow with a world filled with deserts, water vapor is
bad.
Yes I know floods do more damage and deaths than anything else- it one favorable point about ocean settlements- it’s unfloodable.
But things have been done about flooding and more could done about it if politicians were not some kind of sub human.
Anyways other than warming the ocean surface, I can’t see how CO2 causes water vapor.
And it seems to me, increase the temperature of our cold ocean, is the way which increases global water vapor.
Or our cold ocean is why more than 1/3rd of land is desert.
An ocean which was about 4 C, would cause more global water vapor and warms the world in other ways.
gb…”It seems this related to claim that CO2 causing more global water vapor”.
***
We need to keep in mind we are talking about warming….heat. There is no proof that CO2 or WV is producing warming. Modelers go on the basis it is true.
Besides, CO2 causing more WV is not a positive feedback. The theory that more heat in the atmosphere will warm the oceans and other water sources more, releasing more WV, does not meet the classical definition of PF.
The hypothesis just described is just that, a hypothesis. There is no scientific proof it is true.
“We need to keep in mind we are talking about warming.heat. There is no proof that CO2 or WV is producing warming. Modelers go on the basis it is true. ”
Well to make it clear, when I say global warming, I mean a more uniform global temperature.
A warmer ocean does NOT cause hotter weather or hotter daytime temperature.
A ice house global climate is a drier and less uniform global temperature.
The tropics is not hotter, is a more uniform temperature [certainly warm as high room temperature is warm]. Or never been in house in which is made on propose hot, but house too warm certainly a thing.
So people might want to make their house too damn warm, but they don’t make them hot {except in terms of saunas- which normally are hotter than any day I have ever experienced, The Finns do 100 C, but most are happy with a sauna air temperature of around 80 C}
Anyways actual hot air temperature weather is usually relate to heatwaves- a weather effect and it’s made worse by UHI effects.
I live in desert. Deserts are dry. Hottest temperature this summer was 111 F. That pretty hot, by also dry. And going to be 100 F tomorrow, that hot, and I would say it marks end of cold period I having where night time temperature were below 59 F {15 C} which is obviously cold air. And tonite is going to be 67 F which is still a low room temperature but warm enough for me and considering lowest night temperature- though would not want to let that cold air enter my house. Though in winter I am ok with such cold air in the house.
Or like being warmer in summer, and ok with cooler temperature in winter, but not as cold as 15 C in my house.
And how we could be in middle of coldest time of glaciation and the world can have hot days. And since drier, more often.
“classical definition of PF. ”
Your definition of OF is rooted in electrical engineering. Positive feedback drives an initially stable system to an extreme state, limited only by the power available.
Unfortunately treating the global climate as an electronic circuit is not appropriate. A better analogy would be biological homeostasis.
A disturbance to the system does not cause the system to run away to a limit. Instead, it quickly damps out to a new equilibrium.
This a warming disturbance such as a brighter Sun will raise surface temperature. By the engineering definition this would run away to the limit (Venus?).
In practice absolute humidity increases, which traps more heat. It also causes extra low cloud cover which increases cloud cover and albedo. The system stabilised at a slightly warmer temperature. This tendency towards homeostasis in climate systems is one factor which inspired Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis.
A lot of climate scientist accept the weak Gaia hypothesis in which the climate system has physical mechanisms which maintain stable equilibrium temperatures.
In fact there is a limit beyond which Earth would run away to Venus conditions. There is an upper limit to outgoing radiation of 365 W/m^2. If a brighter Sun increased incoming radiation above that Komayabashi-Ingersoll limit global temperatures would undergo unlimited positive feedback.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi%E2%80%93Ingersoll_limit
Fortunately the solar constant for Earth is only 240W/m^2 so we have plenty of margin.
Earth Curvature Calculator
https://earthcurvature.com/
So over distance 1000 km the earth surface lowers by 78.3196 km.
And when Sun is exactly at zenith, then 1000 km away from that point in any direction, is pretty darn close to zenith.
If convert 1000 km into long and Latitude it’s about 111 km per a degree: 1000 /111 = 9.009 degrees.
Of course near equator when sun at zenith, 15 degree longitude is about 1 hour. Or due to Earth spin sunlight racing around at about 1000 mph [or about 1600 kph].
Of course if talking 5000 km, the angle to sun keeps on increasing,
5000 /111 = 45 degrees
I had the figure of 5 metres over 8000 metres. Close enough to the 7+ metres over 10 km on your chart.
It’s interesting that during freefall, a body moves 9.8 metres vertically during the first second. That has to be factored into satellite linear velocity so the distance they fall keeps them at a constant altitude. If the curvature of the Earth is such that the sat falls enough over a second, it follows the curvature of the Earth.
“Its interesting that during freefall, a body moves 9.8 metres vertically during the first second. ”
No. A body moves 4.9 m in the first second.
It’s kind of stupid to expect everyone to be climate scientists so as be concerned about the trillions of dollars our governments spend and what they are doing which also are having zero effects upon CO2 levels or on Global Climate.
The faith that government has or will have any useful effect upon global climate is dumbest faith, ever.
I don’t have much faith in NASA, but if wanted to change global climate, it better to faith in that, as compared any politician or all politicians- who don’t care one bit about anyone other then themselves being re-elected. And they do a really bad job at getting elected and usually requires mob of idiotic reporters to get them elected. And one can argue the reporter care even less about people.
Of course, everyone knows this. As everyone knows we living in Ice Age. When I was a lad, I knew we were in an Ice Age, but it seems rather unconnected to present reality- it was matter history.
One could be interested in the building of Pyramids, but lacks close relation to the present. If living in pyramid, or was closer to one, it could more connected to my present reality.
But we in Ice Age in the sense, it is now and we living in it.
We living in warmer part of Ice Age, but we also at coldest part of this 33.9 million year old Ice Age.
Or in earlier parts of this Ice Age, during it’s coldest times, it was warmer than we now. So, relative to last few million years, we are warmer, but compared to the 33.9 million, we are now at the coldest times of this very long period.
So, humans and polar bear evolved during the later part of this
Ice Age. Since the time humans started to evolve, it is now colder.
And later in time, when polar bears started to evolving, it’s now colder time as compared to when they started evolving.
And in terms of very recent, in last 5000 years we have been cooling.
And warmest and highest sea level of Holocene was coldest time of our 33.9 million year, and probably the coolest warm period of any interglacial period, and we have significantly cooled over thousands year from this peak Holocene maximum thermal period.
An outsider observer might imagine, that we want to freeze the polar bears into extinction. They might say, sure human say they like polar polar bears, but what they want to do [and failing badly] is to kill them].
A mile ice over North America is not really a problem for Humans- but it might cause Polar bears to become extinct if for no other reason then forcing them to be closer to more humans {which is very dangerous creature- only a top predator, like dolphins could want play or pet other dangerous predators].
Humans are like, hey we no longer have a water shortage and we got cheaper ice cubes. Look I got billion dollar ski resort. Let’s make caves in it. Wow so many opportunities that we can’t imagine them all.
The only “real” problem which is tied to “globally warming” is overpopulation and lack of cheap energy sources.
These are not really problems, but one could argue they are serious problems. A more serious issue is under population and our current glut of cheap energy. Russian has so much natural gas, that we seemed to have to risk nuclear war, by poking that Bear {an insane and very dumb bear}.
maguff…re Maxwell…
“One of my favorite passages:
light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and the combination of the optical with the electrical evidence will produce a conviction of the reality of the medium similar to that which we obtain, in the case of other kinds of matter, from the combined evidence of the senses”.
***
I am a fan of Maxwell, partly because we are both Scottish by birth, and partly because he was a brilliant guy. I get a kick out of the fact he was called Daftie Maxwell by his school peers because they regarded him as daft, or crazy.
However, we need to put his work in the context of the times. When he published his work on EM, it was generally related to EM devices like motors in relation to the work of Faraday in the mid-19th century. That was worked out around 1865.
When Maxwell did his important work, the electron had not even been visualized. It was discovered nearly 20 years after Maxwell died. Quantum theory, in which Bohr hypothesized the relationship between electrons and EM, was developed in 1913, more than 30 years after his death. Therefore, Maxwell knew nothing about how EM interacted with mass.
Based on that, I don’t see how you can infer he supports your notion that back-radiated EM can be absorbed by the warmer surface.
I might add that it was brilliant of Maxwell to deduce that light is related to EM. Not only that, he produced a speed for light that was close.
In terms of Hurricanes, Ian seems the most significant- it’s tropical depression which is suppose to become Hurricane. And is moving at 12 knots:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
One might find something interesting about tropical depression Gaston and Hermine [in terms of it’s potential].
I am slightly interested in Newton which somewhat near me, but the tropical storm is not moving fast nor going anywhere {things could change- but probably not}.
One could say the season picked up a bit, but rather than a strong season, it more of a odd season. Of course, it could be more odd by going on, way past the season.
tim f…”Has the earth warmed in the last 4 decades?”
***
If it has, not by a lot. I realize the UAH graph shows 0.12C/decade but we need to look at the context in which that claim exists.
If you draw a straight line from 1979 – 2022, the slope of the line is 0.12C/decade but what does that mean?
If you look at Roy’s UAH graph above, the baseline is the average from 1991 – 2020. Based on that, drawing a straight line from -0.3C in 1979 to +0.3C in 2022, that’s 0.6C/43 years = 0.014C/year. Times 10, it’s 0.14C/decade.
The first thing that stands out is the first 20 years almost is below the baseline, meaning that was a relative period of cooling. UAH puts it down to aerosols from 3 volcanoes. Of course, that does not give us the overall picture of warming over a century but it does get us in the ballpark of warming since 1970. Obviously, a period of cooling did not begin abruptly in 1979 so there must have been some years of cooling prior to 1979.
It definitely puts the boots to Mann’s hockey stick claim that the 1990s decade was the warmest in 1000 years. In Mann’s bs. there is a sharp trend in the 1990s that simply does not exist.
If you follow the re-warming trend from 1979, suddenly as it approaches the baseline, there is a very strong El Nino in 1998, which pushes the global average about 0.8C above normal. When the EN abates, there is a drop below the baseline then, for some reason, it rebounds to about 0.2C above the baseline. That’s based on an early baseline range.
From there, the trend flattens and remains flat till about 2015, some 18 years. The IPCC admitted to 15 years of that flat trend. Then, another super-EN strikes in early 2016, driving the global average back up to around 0.9c. That does not show in the current graph because the baseline has been changed since 2016.
That’s what I don’t like about anomalies, they fictionalize the reality. They also grossly exaggerate warming of less than 1C. When the vertical scale is extended to 15C, the warming experienced looks almost like a flat line.
In summary, we have at least 4 different contexts since 1979. We have a trend of re-warming, another flat trend of 18 years, a brief trend due to another supper EN, and another flat trend through 2022.
As John Christy put it, ‘true warming’, that is warming above the baseline, has been no more than about 0.25C gained in 2016 by a super EN that never went away. I would hardly call that the kind of warming we discuss in this blog re anthropogenic warming.
0.25C warming created by a powerful EN is unpredictable, will it last? It was re-enforced by another EN in 2020.
“true warming, that is warming above the baseline”
Which baseline?
UAH keeps moving it.
Earlier this year the baseline was raised by IIRC 0.11C.
This had the effect of reducing all anomaly temperatures by 0.11C
So which value for August 2022 should we use; 0.37C above the old baseline or 0.26C above the most recent baseline?
According to “greenhouse effect theory”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
It’s 15 C:
“while Earth’s average surface temperatureat about 15 C (59 F)”
And as far as we know, it’s currently about 15 C
And obviously at some time when group of non scientist made up
there mission statement, it as about 15 C.
But some saying when the self appointed committee of concerned wackos
claimed it was about 15 C it was colder than about 15 C.
It’s the weird that “global warming theory” doesn’t have an author, it could be due to a humbleness inherent in this great unknown committee. But not to worry it has fathers and mothers which are nominated at various times- also something best left to some “committee of experts” or perhaps a group of editors {maybe}.
I have a hypnosis that it’s largely related to drug use.
Back in day, drug use was considered the answer.
> Back in day, drug use was considered the answer.
That does not seem to work very well for you, gb.
I do like coffee.
Fair. Try to keep away from anything stronger:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12095001/
binny…to Christos…
“I have no views to reconsider; YOU have to present yours to a competent academic community exactly what you until now carefully avoided”.
***
Binny, you’re even more of an idiot than when I started calling you an idiot several years ago.
Doesn’t matter, Robertson.
I will never be able to match your level of ignorance and stupidity on any subject, even if it is that simple:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
You are this blog’s absolutely greatest failure, Robertson.
binny…”I will never be able to match your level of ignorance and stupidity…”
***
Or my good-looks!!!
tim f…”However, the only particle able to move through a conductor is the electron
No. Salt water is a conductor, and the moving particles are Na+ and Cl-. Both protons and electrons move in the plasma of the sun”.
***
Salt water is not a conductor as we know a conductor, or have been discussing conductors. Conductors normally pass an electrical current by way of electron flow, but if you want to play conductor games, I’ll go with it.
Electrons do not flow through a salt water solution between electrodes. NaCl breaks into Na+ and Cl- ions in water as you mentioned. Cl- ions are attracted to the positive terminal in the solution, the anode, which connects to the battery +ve terminal. Na+ ions are drawn to the negative terminal, the cathode, connected to the battery negative terminal.
The ions are not carrying an electron current, they are contribution electrons from the solution and accepting them into the solution. New products are formed as a result.
When the +ve ion connects with the negative terminal, it receives an electron and is neutralized to pure sodium. The sodium can combine with a water OH- ion to form sodium hydroxide.
At the negative terminal, a Cl- ion gives up its electron to the terminal leaving chlorine gas. So, current can flow as electrons in the external circuit but not through the solution. You are essentially pumping electrons into the -ve terminal and drawing them from the +ve terminal but the electrons at the +ve terminal are being drawn from electrons already in the solution in Cl- ions.
To get a current flowing, however, the negative terminal needs to accept electrons from the external circuit. Those electrons do not flow through the solution, they are absorbed by the solution to produce sodium.
The current of course is D.C. A D.C current applied to a capacitor does essentially the same thing. During the time constant period, the capacitor allows current to run into the plate attached to the negative terminal. An ammeter connected in series will read a current briefly even though the capacitor represents an open circuit resistance-wise.
As you know, the circuit with just a capacitor behaves differently then the circuit with salt water..because the salt-water is a conductor.
nate…a capacitor behaves like a conductor during its charging time range. Current flowing into it can be measured by an ammeter, thrughout a closed circuit. Once it’s charged, the current stops. However, you can use that property with D.C to form pulses.
With AC, the capacitor always behaves as a conductor, in fact, it has an impedance, Xc, which is frequency dependent. Even though, with AC, current only flow in one end and out the same end, over an entire AC cycle, the capacitor appears as a passive component which passes AC.
In an amplifier circuit, a capacitor is used to block D.C from the power supply and pass AC from stage to stage, or to the input or from the output.
Because the capacitor’s impedance, or reactance, is frequency dependent, it can be used in filter circuits with the appropriate resistor and/or inductor.
nate and tim…a conductor passes an electrical current via electron/charge flow through the conductor. Salt-water appears to be passing an electron current but electrons from the battery and external circuit do not flow through the salt-water electrolyte.
Rather, the salt in water breaks down into ions of Na+ and Cl-. The + indicates the Na has an electron short of filling its outer orbital shell and the – in Cl- indicates the Cl has an extra electron to offer. They have +ve and -ve charges respectively.
With a battery attached to electrodes immersed in the electrolyte, the +ve terminal attracts the negatively charged Cl while the negative terminal attracts the positively charged Na. At the +ve electronde, the Cl gives up its electron and forms chlorine gas. At the -ve terminal. the power supply donates an electron to the Na+ ion, making it neutral Na.
No electrons pass through the solution from ion to ion. Instead, the Cl- in the solution donates an electron to the circuit while the circuit donates an electron to the Na+ ion. Once the ions donate/accept an electron, they are no longer ions and no longer take part in the electrolyte. Therefore the activity re electrons is injecting electrons at the positive terminal and removing them at the -ve terminal.
None of these electrons pass through the solution.
A current is a flow of charge. Both electrons and protons carry charge, and both can carry current. Positively charged ions can certainly produce a current.
Faraday figured this out. A Faraday is the amount of charge moved through an ionic solution by a mole of singly charged ions.
“Salt water is not a conductor as we know a conductor”
Sure it is! Apply a voltage and current flows! That is a conductor.
Everything you write is interesting, but does not address what I wrote.
When the amount of water in a container becomes MORE positive (say from 2 liters to 11 liters), we define the current as flowing INTO the container. When the amount of water in a container becomes LESS positive (say from 10 liters to 6 liters), we define the current as flowing OUT OF the container.
Likewise …. when the amount of charge on one plate of a capacitor becomes MORE positive (say from 0C to 2 uC), we would logically define the current as flowing INTO that plate from the battery. When the amount of charge on one plate of a capacitor becomes LESS positive (say from 0C to 2 uC), we would define the current as flowing OUT OF that plate to the battery.
It comes down to personal preference, but the ‘positive flow’ model has many advantages.
Tim,
If you want to talk about electricity, why not use appropriate units?
Maybe you imagine your audience is composed of SkyDragon cultists, or “climate” scientists, who cannot accept reality.
I’m pretty sure that people can understand Amperes, Volts, Ohms, Coulombs, etc., and can use resources like books and the internet, if they don’t.
Why bother with stupid analogies involving liters of water, when you can just explain using SI terms relating to matters electrical?
The flow of electrons around a circuit is not a matter of “personal preference”, although people who were executed by means of electricity would probably have expressed a “personal preference” against electrons flowing in any direction. The direction of flow certainly didn’t concern them after a short time!
Joke.
swenson…I get the humour, but having received shocks more than once I can testify that electrocution is a very unpleasant way to leave this world.
What electricians fear most is being in contact with voltages that can do some serious damage. Those are the voltages that can push enough current through you to burn flesh and freeze muscles. The level of voltage applied in executions by electrocutions is of that variety and much more.
I think it is a brutal way to die. Fortunately, I only ever encountered the minor kinds of shocks, those with voltages like 120 VAC where you can let go, if not physically trapped. Of course, it depends on factors like your skin being relatively dry and having no cuts through which the current can enter. Dry skin can be an amazing insulator but when the skin is compromised by a cut, it reduces body resistance to the point where lethal currents can flow.
It only takes 10 milliamps through the heart to stop it or seriously damage it. That’s why I scoff at claims the Taser is safe. When the twin barbs break your skin, there is no way to determine the path the Taser currents will travel through your body. If they happen to go through your heart, you are toast.
Defenders of Tasers claim people die of an undefined ‘excited delirium’, as if the enjoyment of being shocked till your muscles become unresponsive is so exciting that you die of excitement in a state of delirium.
Gordon,
Defenders of a GHE which resulted in four and a half billion years or so of cooling, are probably suffering from “excited delirium”.
Either that, or they’re barking mad!
Neither.
Swenson, you need to read more carefully!
“If you want to talk about electricity, why not use appropriate units?”
Coulombs and microcoulombs ARE the correct unit for electricity!
“The flow of electrons around a circuit is not a matter of “personal preference” ”
I never said it was! Negatively charged electrons definitely move from the negative terminal of a battery to the positive terminal.
The ACTUAL issue is whether to DEFINE a positive current to be the direction positive charges move or the direction that negative charges move. To me (and every EE and physicist) the better choice is DEFINITELY that a positive current is the direction that positive charges move. A beam of protons moving left to right is a current directed left to right.
Here is another reason to prefer positive flow over electron flow. Water currents flow from high potential energy to low potential energy (ie from high elevation to low elevation). Electrical currents should ALSO logically flow from high potential to low potential (ie from the high voltage + terminal to the low potential – terminal).
Tim,
Here’s what you wrote –
“It comes down to personal preference, but the positive flow model has many advantages.”
You also wrote –
“Here is another reason to prefer positive flow over electron flow. Water currents flow from high potential energy to low potential energy (ie from high elevation to low elevation).”
Can’t help talking about water, can you? Maybe you have some on the brain!
Have you been taking lessons in how to play “silly semantic games” from the idiot Willard?
In the meantime, you might try to explain how the GHE caused the Earth to cool from its initial molten state to its present temperature. How hard can it be?
Yes, that is what I wrote.
There are two models to describe currents. One model draws currents the direction that electrons move (neg to pos). The other model draws currents in the direction that positive charges would move to produce the same transfer of charge (pos to neg).
Both models agree which way electrons move; that is NOT personal preference. The personal preference is deciding which way to draw the arrows on a circuit diagram (and related, follow-on impacts).
Can’t help but talk about the core of the earth, can you? Even though it is 0% related to this discussion, and about 0.01% related to global warming.
tim…”when the amount of charge on one plate of a capacitor becomes MORE positive (say from 0C to 2 uC), we would logically define the current as flowing INTO that plate from the battery”.
***
Yes, current does flow into one plate, but not through the capacitor. When the -ve charges on that plate reach a certain level, they begin to repel electrons trying to enter. That’s why the charging curve for a capacitor is an exponential curve, with a fast rising curve along the y-axis which curves till it is parallel with the x-axis.
Initially, as charges/electrons flow into a capacitor plate the capacitor appears like a short circuit. It’s not, it just acts like one. The current reduces exponentially as charges build up on the plate and repel incoming electrons.
As you know, a capacitor is two metal plates with an insulator sandwiched between them. The atoms in the insulator are stressed by charge on one plate if the opposite plate is connected to the circuit. If the level of charge exceeds the working voltage of the capacitor, the insulation can break down, usually with a nifty explosion.
There is not much as scary as an electrolytic capacitor suddenly blowing. Its like a firecracker, smoke and all, and the smell is unique.
I regard an electrolyte as behaving in a similar manner.
Gordon, again this is all interesting but doesn’t address the actual issue of which option is more useful and self-consistent to use a definition for the direction of a positive current.
Manila will be submerged tonight by super typhoon Noru.
La Nia will bring very heavy downpours to Southeast Asia.
Latest Ian’s route forecast.
https://i.ibb.co/N6gp5g2/308989989-493259235952765-1984680901774548208-n.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/mcclureWX
“true warming, that is warming above the baseline”
Which baseline?
UAH keeps moving it.
Earlier this year the baseline was raised by IIRC 0.11C.
This had the effect of reducing all anomaly temperatures by 0.11C
So which value for August 2022 should we use; 0.37C above the old baseline or 0.26C above the most recent baseline?
Graph of the Week: https://tinyurl.com/Graph-of-the-Week
Good find, TM.
NASA (Neurotic Anti-Science Assembly) tries again to pervert reality.
Actually, Greenland could use a drop in snow accumulation. The last two years have been way above average. With this season starting above average again, people are concerned the island might tip over….
The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis. This difference between snowfall and runoff is known as the SURFACE mass balance.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20220924.png
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20220924.png
ibid
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1361383
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1361402
Yup, almost 100 GT above the mean, last season.
Anyone calculated the “tipping point” yet?
And yet NET annual losses continue..
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2021/
Here thru June 2022.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Oh well…
Because…FYI
Total Mass Balance = SMB – (ice-berg discharges)
https://www.climato.uliege.be/upload/docs/image/png/2020-04/smb_2020-04-18_14-53-45_861.png
Ireneusz Palmowski provided the latest DMI data:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20220924.png
Then troll Nate (above) and braindead Bin (below) had to find some way to confuse the issue. They can’t stand reality.
With all the recent snow on the Greenland ice sheet, I’m reminded of “Children just won’t know what snow is anymore”!
“confuse the issue.”
For some people, basic logic and arithmetic is confusing.
They get confused when you point out that total mass gain/loss = total gain/loss at the surface minus mass loss at the edges.
Total Mass Balance = SMB (ice-berg discharges)
That’s because Bin Barry and Nate are Gurkentruppe forecasting trio
arrggh, should be
Total Mass Balance = SMB – (ice-berg discharges)
Eben also seems confused by arithmetic…
Why don’t you give us an update on that La Nina early exit, and then we will take it from there
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1130926
Go way off-topic. Nice evasion.
Searching and finding my posts from 9 months ago is how you find gratification, Eben?
Weird and sad.
Nate doesn’t like the topic of being a member of Gurkentruppe forecasting trio.
If you don’t like to be reminded your failed predictions don’t make them. and don’t attack those of others.
ps; you have more coming
I vaguely recall bd keeping tabs on your predictions, Eboy.
Would you like me to find them back?
Yeah, Willtard was a Bididongs Gurkentruppe forecasting member until he found out I started reposting back their failed forecasts, then he promptly stopped side-kicking in their predictions posts.
I don’t recall which prediction I made that you reposted, Eboy.
But I found back bg’s bookmark:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1305046
Eben,,
“dont make them. and dont attack those of others.”
Get a clue about this discussion. No one is attacking anyone’s predictions here.
Just correcting people on the facts.
FYI, back then I said La Nina “MAY be departing early”, and it did then approach neutrality, but then strengthened again.
a. Not a prediction.
b. Nobody cares about my non-prediction from 9 months ago but you.
c. Why does my bad La Nina non-prediction excite you months later?
d. Is because on the larger issues you keep losing?
Must be.
GEUS (the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland)
https://eng.geus.dk/products-services-facilities/data-and-maps/glaciological-data-from-greenland-promice
monitors the Promice (Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet); you can obtain, among other series, daily SMB data for Greenland:
https://dataverse.geus.dk/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z/ZPFHZJ&version=325.0
Until now, the available data goes only up to 2022, Sep 13:
https://tinyurl.com/mtv6epuc
Just one glance is enough to see that 2020 and 2021 are both not at all ‘way above the mean’.
What looks by eye-balling way above is for example 2018 and… 2022.
But the chart mainly focuses on the strength of the melting season; the only way to get the real picture is to look at annual SMB averages:
2018 437.12 (Gt)
2017 412.67
2013 407.65
mean 369.61
2020 342.85
2021 333.46
2014 331.89
2015 304.03
2016 253.24
2011 175.64
2019 96.19
2012 86.79
It is by the way quite typical and amusing to see people insisting about 2022, 2021 and 2020, but deliberately ignoring the huge difference between 2018 and 2019!
The five lowest SMB averages occurred in 1931, 2012, 2019, 1926 and 1935.
” Total Mass Balance = SMB (iceberg discharges) ”
Nate is of course 100 % right.
Bloody blog scanner!
Total Mass Balance = SMB – (iceberg discharges)
Clint R and the ‘reality’
” The last two years have been way above average. ”
I repeat
2018 437.12 (Gt)
2017 412.67
2013 407.65
mean 369.61 Here is Clint R’s [1991-2020] average
2020 342.85
2021 333.46
2014 331.89
2015 304.03
2016 253.24
2011 175.64
2019 96.19
2012 86.79
This is official Danish data, Clint R.
Your problem is that you’re conveniently looking at charts instead of looking at numbers that anyone can download.
Download the data, and do the same job.
*
The same remark is valid for the all time boasting and babbling Edog, of course.
For the third time:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20220924.png
You know what they say — “The third times the charm.”
I was sure you are too stubborn to understand what I wrote, let alone to accept it.
Do the job and check the numbers, instead of eye-balling a chart like do children, and those who reduce complex problems to a ball-on-a-string.
No Bin, I’ve just learned how you try to deny reality. It’s just like your ongoing effort to deny the ball-on-a-string.
Its just not working for you. Kinda like your La Niña predictions.
” Its just like your ongoing effort to deny the ball-on-a-string. ”
Oh did you possibly forget that the babbling Edog aka Eben denies the ball-on-a-string as well?
He too is convinced that the Moon rotates about its polar axis :- )
*
” Kinda like your La Nina predictions. ”
Show me them! I mean my OWN predictions, Clint R.
And not what the babbling Edog stalker permanently writes.
* Science is NOT done by consensus.
* If you attack someone else’s prediction, that could be considered making a prediction.
If you understand the system you can predict the future results, in Bindidongs case that is zero.
His endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast.
> If you understand the system you can predict the future results
You must be Very Good at craps, Eboy.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Have you worked out a mechanism that would magically result in global heating rather than the cooling of the past four and a half billion years?
Make sure it doesn’t rely on an atmosphere, CO2, H2O, or anything else that didn’t stop cooling.
Maybe SkyDragon Secret Super Powers?
Or you can just keep running away, and avoiding the subject entirely.
What’s your choice, dummy?
We could anticipate it:
” His endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast. ”
The aggressive babbling Edog stalker still did not manage to grasp that ALL PROFESSIONAL people busy in forecasting HAVE TO DISSECT THE PAST in order to succeed.
Bunny,
You wrote –
“The aggressive babbling Edog stalker still did not manage to grasp that ALL PROFESSIONAL people busy in forecasting HAVE TO DISSECT THE PAST in order to succeed.”
All “professional” people involved in “forecasting” are delusional. Thats why they invariably have to depend on being paid by suckers, to feed themselves. They dont even trust their “forecasting” skills sufficiently to be able to use them to generate an income.
Most people confuse forecasting with guessing or assuming. For example, idiots will claim the they are forecasting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Not only is that an assumption,, but is one that can be made by a 12 year old child equally well.
Can the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve forecast anything at all of use? All that the past shows is that sometimes he guesses right, and sometimes wrong.
Forecasting weather(and hence the average of weather, climate) is impossible.
You dont even believe your own babbling – the past shows that the Earth has cooled! Try and dissect that into forecasting heating. Youre a blithering delusional idiot, whether you are French, German or Calathumpian. You are an equal opportunity idiot, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.
Forecast away!
You should find another hobby, this is clearly not working for you
I dare you talk to Mike Flynn like that, Eboy!
What would Roy’s become without his irrelevant spamming?
Willard,
Ooooooh! “I dare you talk to Mike Flynn like that, Eboy!”
And if doesn’t, you’ll stamp your little foot and hold your breath until you turn blue, will you?
Oh well, acting like a petulant child will divert attention away from your belief in a non-existent GHE, won’t it? That’s the GHE which didn’t prevent the earth from cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so, but maybe you believe in some other GHE.
What a donkey you are!
> And if doesn’t
Do you even English, Mike?
Willard,
Many apologies for my typo. Laughing at you sometimes causes my fiendishly fast flying fingers to falter.
But hey, Im glad to see you paying enough attention to provide guidance when I err.
Keep it up.
By the way, have you figured out why the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and half billion years or so? No?
Colour me unsurprised.
You are all forgiven, dearest Mike Flynn, for being a dumb buffoon.
But typos???
NEVER.
In this house we will only accept well-written inanities from you!
Witless Willard,
By the way, have you figured out why the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and half billion years or so? No?
Colour me unsurprised.
You already my answer to that silly talking point, Mike.
It’s Keith Richards.
Witless Willard,
By the way, have you figured out why the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and half billion years or so? No?
Colour me unsurprised.
You might just as well say something pointless, like “Keith Richards”.
Typical Flynnson egomaniac blah blah above:
” All professional people involved in forecasting are delusional. ”
He should tell that to ren, to Linsley Hood or to the babbling Edog!
*
Are the professional people at NOAA, accurately forecasting La Nina
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
suddenly all delusional?
“For the third time:”
The Clint method:
When caught saying a stupidity, just triple down on it.
The third time was NOT the charm for troll Nate.
No surprise there….
Being proven wrong, pretending they are still right and losing all remaining credibility, just doesn’t seem to bother trolls like Clint.
Troll Nate, your ineffective flak and false accusations are just more climate war medals for me. You braindead idiots don’t bother me at all.
Lets see, how many of the simple physics problems did you correctly solve? ZERO!
How many did you even attempt to solve? ZERO!
That’s because you’ve got NOTHING.
So troll here all day. I won’t be responding.
One wonders if Nate made zero attempts to solve the physics problems, then how could Nate be accused of having correctly solved zero of them??
Nate 12:19 pm is correct, Clint R does work hard earning this physics blog laughing stock award having flunked physics 101 awhile back. Many do wish Clint R would stop responding but that’s not going to happen; Clint R’s comments will continue to provoke much laughter among the more astute commenters.
“false accusations”
Less focus on lies and ad-homs and more on science answers would be the best route to recovering your rep.
For what reason should mass loss from ice-bergs not be counted in the total mass balance of Greenland?
Do you think ice bergs have no mass, or ice bergs are not calving?
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Shockingly, Clint doesnt seem to know why icebergs can be ignored. But he does it anyway.
Thats how we recognize trolling.
TM,
“Compared with bright new snow, these darker surfaces absorb more solar energy, which amplifies melting during the Arctics long sunlit days.”
And of course, emit more energy, which amplifies freezing during the Arctic’s long nights – for the same reasons.
Your point is so obscure, it looks like you don’t have one at all.
Obscure surfaces retain more energy than whiter ones, Mike Flynn.
It is more a point about obscurity than an obscure point.
Swenson at 9:01 PM
What part of positive feedback do you not understand?
https://ibb.co/WcGtNQ6
Little Willy, Tyson, please stop trolling.
The Neutrino is a neutral, nearly massless particle that moves at nearly the speed of light and easily passes through matter.
The neutrino, when postulated by Pauli in 1930, was assigned to the role of carrying away the missing energy, momentum, and spin in the beta-decay process, making it possible to retain the conservation laws. Pauli’s neutrino hypothesis was no less radical at the time than the alternative view that energy and momentum are not conserved.
Experimental evidence won out when the Homestake solar neutrino experiment became the first experiment able to detect solar neutrinos.
The Sun derives its energy from fusion reactions in which hydrogen is transformed into helium. Every time four protons are turned into a helium nucleus, two neutrinos are produced. These neutrinos take only two seconds to reach the surface of the Sun and another eight minutes or so to reach the Earth. Thus, neutrinos tell us what happened in the center of the Sun eight minutes ago.
The Sun produces 1.8×10^39 neutrinos per second. About 100 billion pass through each 1 cm^2 of area on Earth every second. They pass through the Earth as if it weren’t there, and the atoms in the human body capture a neutrino about every seventy years, or once in a lifetime.
I guess you’ll soon be told by the 360 degree denier that neutrinos cannot exist.
TM,
Whats the difference e between solar neutrinos and neutrinos from other stars? Or those that were generated at CERN?
None at all?
Gee, whod ‘a’thought?
Mind you the man made neutrinos might be really special –
“Over 3 years, OPERA researchers timed the roughly 16,000 neutrinos that started at CERN and registered a hit in the detector. They found that, on average, the neutrinos made the 730-kilometer, 2.43-millisecond trip roughly 60 nanoseconds faster than expected if they were traveling at light speed.”
Tricky little buggers – faster than light and all! Maybe.
maguff…”Every time four protons are turned into a helium nucleus, two neutrinos are produced”.
***
Last time I looked, hydrogen has one proton and one electron. Have the theoretical physics poobahs changed that? And if they have, why?
The question is, why should 4 hydrogen nucleii fuse into one helium nucleus, which has two protons, two electrons, and two neutrons. Where do the neutrons come from, and the extra electrons?
People talk about plasma but no one can see inside plasma to corroborate the theory about it. That’s especially true deep inside the Sun. If they knew what was going on, they’d have a fusion reactor that could deliver significant power.
Talking about neutrinos at this point is pre-mature. Very little is known about them simply because they are so elusive.
Gordon Robertson a.k.a. Rip Van Winkle, what part of Beta Decay do you not understand?
Gordon,
This might be helpful or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#:~:text=Hydrogen%20fusion%20(nuclear%20fusion%20of,hydrogen%20in%20an%20oxidizing%20atmosphere.
The first step being the fusion of two protons into a deuterium nucleus, a positron, and a neutrino.
That’s where the neutrons come from.
Tyson, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Now the August update for the zonal/regional series is available, together with the grid data.
Frogs say
” Mieux vaut tard que jamais! ”
*
On September 2, 2022 at 6:03 AM, Roy Spencer wrote:
” Our lower stratosphere (LS) product shows the lowest temperature anomaly yet for August, 2022. Maybe related to the volcano? ”
What exactly did Mr Spencer mean?
1. Here is the ascending sort of all global LS anomalies since December 1978:
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
2022 isn’t even present.
2. And here is that for all global LS August anomalies:
2020 8 -0.51
2016 8 -0.46
2022 8 -0.40
2017 8 -0.31
2007 8 -0.29
2018 8 -0.25
2021 8 -0.23
1996 8 -0.22
2005 8 -0.22
2011 8 -0.22
Did something change since September 2?
*
What certainly became ‘quite cold’ in the LS since last March is the ocean series for ‘SoExt’ (Southern Extratropics if I well remember):
-0.43
-0.68
-0.76
-1.04
-1.36
-2.09
Over two degrees C below the mean: that’s a lot!
We can see that in the grid data.
*
Here is a rectangular representation of the 2.5 degree grid for UAH’s LS layer in August 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n6rXv2cSP0mRCE2nJ4DHeflLVmvF0jmD/view
The dark blue surface within 30S-60S, 60E-130E (between 6 and 8 C below mean!) tells us a lot.
*
What is this sudden, heavy anomaly drop in the South exactly due to?
Maybe Mr Spencer has in the near future some idle time to write a head post about how to adequately interpret his LS grid…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n6rXv2cSP0mRCE2nJ4DHeflLVmvF0jmD/view
does not seem to agree with
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
for Aug 2022.
Where one shows positive, the other shows negative.
Linsley Hood
Didn’t you see that I was talking above about the LS layer, while
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/AUGUST2022/202208_Map.png
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10EWgmM6srLCoFMqyZoNviZ20oc_NGAHc/view
tell us rather about LT?
No I did not. So what is your explanation for a dimetric opposite between LS and LT?
The old time Ham operators know about Sun
https://youtu.be/VF_K7UzykJ0
Happy days for the Coolistas!
Apart from some few exceptions (3 of 27 I think), all zonal and regional LT anomalies for August 2022 are lower than those of July.
The Globe is coooohling!
Sauve qui peut!
How much will next month, which published in a week, be?
Or 8 days, so, on Monday, 3rd {unless it’s holiday or something}.
No se.
Bunny,
You wrote –
“The Globe is coooohling!”
As it has for the last four and half billion years. Currently between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum, depending on which geophysicists you fancy.
The only thing that has changed in the history of the world, is that there are now more than seven billion humans all generating, converting, and using energy which all eventually escapes to space as waste heat.
Humans also invented a wondrous thing called a thermometer, which registers this increased energy.
Maybe you have an alternative explanation?
> *all* eventually escapes
The *all* might not cohere with Roy’s graph at the top of the page, Mike Flynn. You might need to clarify what you mean by “eventually.”
Weird Willard,
“Might”? Or “might” not?
If you don’t understand the meaning of a word such as “eventually”, maybe you could provide a link to a dictionary, click on it, and look up the meaning, dummy.
In the meantime, whatever Dr Spencer’s graph represents, it certainly doesn’t purport to be related in any definite way to the temperature of planet Earth – however you choose to define it.
However, when you get sick of playing your “silly semantic games”, you might like to explain what miraculous circumstances have occurred recently, to reverse four and a half billion years or so of cooling – of the surface, if you wish.
Make sure your explanation does not involve things like the atmosphere, CO2, H2O, or anything else which has been shown by four and a half billion years or so of cooling to have been ineffective at preventing the surface temperature from dropping.
Try not to look like too much of a SkyDragon cultist idiot while you do it.
Or just run away, if you prefer.
Mike Flynn,
“Might” as in “try not to be an idiot.”
“Eventually” should imply a relevant time frame.
“Whatever Roy’s graph represents” is +0.28 C in August.
Hope this helps.
Willard,
I see you took the “run away, if you prefer” option.
Very wise of you.
Much easier than trying to explain how the SkyDragon GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Mike Flynn,
I am right here.
Is there something you did not understand in my comment?
Returning to your safe space does not look very courageous.
Not-so-Wily Wee Willy,
I see you took the run away, if you prefer option.
Very wise of you.
Much easier than trying to explain how the SkyDragon GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Mike Flynn,
I see that you are returning to spamming.
Go on.
Not-so-Wily Wee Willy,
I see you took the “run away, if you prefer” option.
Very wise of you.
Much easier than trying to explain how the SkyDragon GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
You are one of the few Sky Dragon Cranks, Mike.
A rare breed, You are their dumbest exemplar.
Not-so-Wily Wee Willy,
I see you took the run away, if you prefer option.
Very wise of you.
Much easier than trying to explain how the SkyDragon GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Maybe you could try a diversion?
Speaking of running away, Mike, you still deny you are Mike Flynn.
What are you afraid of?
Not-so-Wily Wee Willy,
I see you took the run away, if you prefer option.
Very wise of you.
Much easier than trying to explain how the SkyDragon GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Maybe you could try a diversion, do you think?
I see you are still running away from Keith Richards, Mike.
Witless Wee Willy,
I see you took the run away, if you prefer option.
Very wise of you.
Much easier than trying to explain how the SkyDragon GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Maybe you could try a diversion, do you think?
You are still running away from explaining how your Sky Drsgon Crank nonsense allows you to deny greenhouse gases, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
E Swanson demonstrated his complete physical cluelessness, when he wrote –
“I suppose that you now agree that the deeper layers of the worlds oceans, which includes most of the volume, are waters sourced from regions where the surface waters are at temperatures near freezing. Thats the polar regions during Winter, particularly the G-I-N Seas, the Arctic Ocean and the waters around the Antarctic.”
No of course not. Swanson is a fool. Any deep water will (in the absence of excessive heat from the crust – crustal hot spots, geothermal vents, mid ocean trenches etc. – will eventually reach a point where the bottom waters are at maximum density. Depending on salinity, this will generally be around 1 – 4 C. Not below freezing because water is peculiar. Its density decreases with falling temperature, past a certain point, which is why ice floats, and lakes past a certain depth can never freeze right through.
Some idiots at NOAA, NASA, and the NSF, obviously dont understand physics. They get paid regardless, so why bother their tiny brains? Plenty of other idiots believe them.
At least some of the aforementioned idiots are not quite so keen on claiming ocean currents are caused by wind, as they used to be. Luckily, some internet pages are saved along the way, which show how facts magically “change” from time to time. Offical temperature records, for example.
All good fun.
“Depending on salinity, this will generally be around 1 4 C.”
90% of the ocean is 3 C or colder. And since it’s saltwater it can liquid water below 1 C.
What is coldest deep ocean water, google:
One result: A tiny temperature change has a huge effect
At 1.94C, this water is highly significant from a climate perspective. Dr Stevens says while it is only slightly colder than freezing, that tiny temperature change is physically huge, because ice starts to form and the ocean changes its state.
What is the coldest part of the ocean that is still liquid and what temperature is it?
” However, the coldest point in the ocean is the water that flows in the southern sea at -2 degrees celcius, or 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”
And finally:
Coldest, Deepest Ocean Water Mysteriously Disappears
By Live Science Staff
published March 22, 2012
With concluding remarks:
“We need to continue to measure the full depth of the oceans, including these deep ocean waters, to assess the role and significance that these reported changes and others like them play in the Earth’s climate,” Johnson said.”
Let’s just guess there a lot of water at -1 C and 0 C
Until we actually explore the ocean, which might guess begins in earnest some time after we have a city on Mars.
Silly Flynnson proves his ignorance again, writting:
While it’s true that pure water exhibits a maximum density at 4 deg C, this is not true for seawater, because of it’s salt content. The density of seawater continues to increase with decreasing temperature all the way down to the freezing point at about -2 deg C.
ES,
As I said – all the way to the freezing point.
Not below.
Try harder not to look so foolish next time.
Mike Flynn,
You also wrote –
“Depending on salinity, this will generally be around 1 4 C.”
Willard,
I dont know about Mike Flynn, but I did. And of course, 1 – 4 C is above freezing, you idiot, otherwise the abyssal depths would be littered with ice.
Just how stupid are you?
Run away and play some of your “silly semantic games” why you try and figure out how the GHE resulted in the earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
[mild laughter]
Mike Flynn,
You also wrote –
“Any deep water will (in the absence of excessive heat from the crust – crustal hot spots, geothermal vents, mid ocean trenches etc. will eventually reach a point where the bottom waters are at maximum density.”
Do continue to play dumb.
Wonky Willard,
You quoted me, not Mike Flynn, and thank you for doing so.
Obviously, you think that SkyDragons need to be told about reality over and over.
Keep it up.
Still no explanation of the cooling properties of the GHE over the last four and a half billion years or so, yet?
Tut, tut.
Oh well, you might as well keep supporting me, then.
I quoted you, Mike Flynn,
And even gb had the right of it for once.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You quoted me, not Mike Flynn, and thank you for doing so.
Obviously, you think that SkyDragons need to be told about reality over and over.
Keep it up.
Still no explanation of the cooling properties of the GHE over the last four and a half billion years or so, yet?
Tut, tut.
Oh well, you might as well keep supporting me, then.
You are Mike Flynn, Mike.
Everyone knows it.
Do you think lying helps you promote Sky Dragon Cranks crap?
Swenson mikey flynn,
Maximum density of seawater is at about 28 F or -2 C, not 1-4 C.
That’s for seawater in the normal range of 33 to 37 grams of salt per liter.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You quoted me, not Mike Flynn, and thank you for doing so.
Obviously, you think that SkyDragons need to be told about reality over and over.
Keep it up.
Still no explanation of the cooling properties of the GHE over the last four and a half billion years or so, yet?
Tut, tut.
Oh well, you might as well keep supporting me, then.
Why not?
bobdroege,
Here’s what I wrote –
“Any deep water will (in the absence of excessive heat from the crust crustal hot spots, geothermal vents, mid ocean trenches etc. will eventually reach a point where the bottom waters are at maximum density. Depending on salinity, this will generally be around 1 4 C. ”
You idiot, of course the water at the bottom is the densest, otherwise it wouldn’t be on the bottom, would it?
But even the densest water is not nearly as dense as you!
Maybe you could learn to disagree with something I said, rather than something I didn’t.
Are all SkyDragons of a similar density to you?
Swenson,
Obviously I wasn’t correcting you on the temperature of the water, only the temperature at which seawater is densest.
That’s the temperature just above the freezing point of seawater.
Yes this is what you wrote
Any deep water will (in the absence of excessive heat from the crust crustal hot spots, geothermal vents, mid ocean trenches etc. will eventually reach a point where the bottom waters are at maximum density. Depending on salinity, this will generally be around 1 4 C.
Except the waters at the bottom of the oceans are not at -2 C, except of course in the shallow arctic, they are at about 0-3 C, where they are not the densest.
“You idiot, of course the water at the bottom is the densest, otherwise it wouldnt be on the bottom, would it?”
Except it’s not the densest at the bottom, it’s densest under the ice, this I know because I have been there done that.
I have measured the temperature of ocean water under the frozen Artic ice.
bobdroege,
Are you really so silly that you don’t realise that denser water sinks and displaces less dense water?
I’m guessing no submarine commander ever sought your advice on how to command his crew.
So where do you think the denser water finally settles? On the surface?
You don’t have to answer.
Swenson,
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
I never wrote that dense water doesn’t sink, did I?
Seawater is densest right under the ice, from there it sinks, replacing warmer water, and warming in the process.
Water at the deepest is 0-3 C, it’s not the densest there, so you figure it out.
Not that I think you are capable.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Flynnson, Ice floats on water because of it’s crystal structure, which results in it exhibiting a lower density than liquid water.
ES,
Thanks for agreeing with me that ice floats on water – regardless of how cold it gets.
What’s the densiest, Mike Flynn – you or saltwater?
Densiest?
How will that help you to avoid acknowledging that the GHE resulted in global cooling for four and a half billion years years or so?
Maybe you could try playing “silly semantic games” with yourself.
Or just play with yourself, for all the good it will do.
Off you go now – try for your Oh! Oh! Oh! happy ending.
Witless donkey.
Yes, Mike.
Densiest:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Densiest
Cheers.
How will that help you to avoid acknowledging that the GHE resulted in global cooling for four and a half billion years years or so?
Maybe you could try playing silly semantic games with yourself.
Or just play with yourself, for all the good it will do.
Off you go now try for your Oh! Oh! Oh! happy ending.
Witless donkey.
How does your usual squirelling help you explain Keith Richards, Mike?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
How does your nonsense help you to avoid acknowledging that the GHE resulted in global cooling for four and a half billion years years or so?
How does your nonsense allow you to deny greenhouse gases, Mike?
Willard,
Are these the greenhouse gases which didn’t prevent the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, or some other greenhouse gases?
Which ones am I supposed to be “denying”?
What does that term even mean, you clueless nitwit?
Yes, Mike, the gases that did not prevent the Earth from cooling since the dawn of time are the ones who make sure we have a difference temperature profile than the Moon.
If you have other silly gotchas, feel free to rhetorically ask.
“Neither your stupid greenhouse gases nor anything else managed to prevent the Earth cooling, over the past four and a half billion years or so.”
Mike seems to ignorantly believe insulated hot things can never cool!
Cover a fresh corpse with a blanket and it will never cool down?
The insane guy continues to post red herrings.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Some idiots at NOAA, NASA, and the NSF, obviously dont understand physics”
Tee hee hee.
As spectacularly demonstrated yesterday, NASA’s science and engineering is again right on target!
What would global average temperature be, if Earth had twice as much atmosphere?
It’s: Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
So, was instead 11.2 x 10^18 kg
Surface air is about 1.2 kg per cubic meter but averages 1.1685 kg
1000 meter high, so cubic km is 1.1685 billion kg
And times that 510 million cubic km: 595.935 billion million kg or
5.959 x 10^17 kg and want mass of atmosphere under it:
1.347 + 1.225 = 1.286 and times 510 = 655.86 billion million kg or
6.5586 x 10^17 kg which has 1.1393 atm at sea level rather 1 atm
so going have our atmospheric 1 atm about 8 to 9 km above where is
now. Or next 7.1 x 10^17 kg, 7.7 x 10^17 kg, etc.
But will depend on average temperatures, I just wanted a clue, and
air density would be about 3 kg per cubic meter at sea level.
So, airplane would need less take off speed, balloons could lift more weight, and if fell out of plane or balloon, you have lower terminal velocity, and airlines would just need to fly 8 to 9 km higher.
Solar panels would be worse. Wind mills would get more energy from same wind speed. And high winds would be far more destructive.
Mountains would not be problem for small planes or hot air balloon.
Hmm, it seems sea level air could hold more water vapor and at 1 atm
elevation- it seems one would have less water vapor.
A question is that on average, would have higher or lower clouds?
I first thought is one would have more cloud and much higher clouds, but if more water vapor can be held in lower atmosphere, it atmosphere would get drier, quicker.
I am going to skip the cloud thing and look at climate rather rather weather stuff.
So a 2 atm Earth is going to like 1 atm Earth- most of the sunlight will warm the tropical ocean. And it seems ocean surface temperature
will vary less than 1 Atm Earth. So 1 atm is less than 1 C daily change and so, less than that.
And let start with average ocean temperature of 4 C.
And like 1 atm earth, that average ocean temperature will not change much in a century.
If 1 atm Earth had 4 C ocean it’s average global temperature would around 20 C and have higher global water vapor.
With 1 atm Earth, land heats up quickly and cools down quickly, and 2 atm Earth, land will heat and cool down, a lot slower.
Global warming is a more uniform global temperature, 2 atm Earth will have a more uniform global temperature.
But both 1 and 2 atm have only 30% of surface area being land.
But desert near or in tropics will have a more uniform temperature- they could be a dry desert and have more uniform temperature.
On 1 atm earth a dry surface could heat to 70 C if air is near 40 C and due to stronger convection loss with 2 atm it seem unlike ground could reach 70, rather it seems reaching more 50 C seems unlikely and also reaching 40 C air temperature unlikely. It could get to surface air temperature of 35 C and at night cool by 5 to 10 C. And be more uniform if it wasn’t a dry desert.
It seems this world land could be wetter than Earth and particularly because ocean starts off at 4 C. But could start by considering all land as deserts. The land outside the tropics would get a lot less
sunlight reaching the surface. Europe summer will be significantly dimmer, and winter will be a lot dimmer.
One also say all terrian effects that Earth has are lessen by having a larger atmosphere.
Also got issue/problem having colder upper atmosphere: if 20 C at sea level, 20 km up, it’s 130 K colder or -110 C or troposphere is 8 km higher so around 28 to 15 km at polar region?
Or maybe tropical troposphere is say 30 K or higher?
I would guess a 2 atm Earth would have average temperature of about 10 C as compared our average temperature of 15 C.
The 2 Atm Earth would a cooler tropics and a more uniform global temperature.
I think a 2 atm Earth would have more polar ice sea in summer than we do and would have a slightly higher ocean temperature and ocean would need to be about 5 C to have ice free summer sea ice, which it could have during it’s peak temperature of it’s interglacial periods.
But right now, Earth with 2 atm would look like times when we not in an interglacial periods, or would have ice sheets in North America and/or elsewhere. Earth with 2 atm would need stronger jets streams in order to have much affect upon surface weather conditions, but it seems in general, it’s weather would quite different then our global weather.
But it seems to me, that if “Greenhouse Effect theory” was a theory and if people can model Earth climate, they should able to better than my guesses.
A religious question is what happens if double everything [or have twice as CO2 but the same parts per million of CO2?].
entropic….”[GR]classical definition of PF.
“Your definition of OF is rooted in electrical engineering. Positive feedback drives an initially stable system to an extreme state, limited only by the power available”.
***
It’s a general definition in physics. The reason it is more closely associated with electrical engineering is due to the formula…
G = 1/(1 – AB)
That is the only real example of how positive feedback can occur. G is the overall gain, A = amplification and B = feedback.
The only way to get +ve feedback from that equation is to make B positive. With B positive (1 – AB) is always 1. As the amplification cycle repeats due to B, G becomes progressively larger.
How else would you apply positive feedback in a system where a signal fed back to an input could be re-amplified. If there is no amplification, the only feedback possible is negative feedback.
Without an amplifier, G will always be 1 or < 1, hence it is negative feedback.
With regard to CO2 and heat, how does CO2 become involved with increasing the level of heat in the atmosphere? It is often suggested that CO2 increases the surface temperature which releases more water vapour, which increases the overall GHG quantity. There is no proof that back-radiated IR from GHGs can warm the surface.
Besides, such a system would be rife with losses and the amount back-radiated could not begin to make up for the losses.
There is another type of positive feedback used in EE. It's often called a servo system and depends on the sign of a voltage sent back to a controller from something like a tachometer measuring motor RPM. If the tack indicates an RPM that is too high, it sends back a negative voltage and if too high, a negative voltage. That causes the controller to speed up or slow down the motor by adjusting the current to the motor.
That kind of feedback is more inline with the use of positive feedback with reference to GHGs. However, it will never produce a tipping point, runaway situation.
The notion that GHGs can radiate IR from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, to increase the surface temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy does not cut it. Even if GHGs could do that it would not be positive feedback.
The truth is, positive feedback is very poorly defined on the Net and in climate science because no one can explain it properly. Gavin Schmidt made a complete mess of explaining it and he is head of NASA GISS. As a mathematician he could not supply an equation that explains PF.
With B positive (1 AB) is always 1.
The less than sign was lost. Should read…
With B positive (1 AB) is always less than 1.
***
“As the amplification cycle repeats due to B, G becomes progressively larger”.
That’s because B will get larger during each iteration.
Now the minus sign is missing…
With B positive (1 minus AB) is always less than 1.
Gordon,
You don’t even understand your own equations.
If there is no amplification, then A = 1
If you have a little feedback, say B = 0.01,
Then AB is 0.01,
And G is 1.01, and increasing with each step.
bob…I got the equation from wiki and apparently it is wrong. I have two electrical engineering textbooks dealing with the issue and both claim it should be…
Af = Eo/Ei = 1/(1 + AB)
And…that is not meant to be the open-loop gain as wiki claims but the difference in gain, A, between a system with no feedback and a system with feedback. With negative feedback, the amplifier gain is reduced. That’s a lot different than the inference in wiki.
My other textbook gives an example…
If B = 0.1, and A = 90. the gain without feedback is 90.
With feedback, Af = A/(1 + AB) = 90 /[1 + (0.1)90] = 9
In that case, feedback reduces the amplifier gain, A, from 90 to 9.
That’s an example of negative feedback.
However, if B is negative as in -0.01, and A = 90, then…
Af = 90/(1 – 0.9) = 90/0.1 = 900
That is positive feedback.
The books disagree on the meaning of Af. One refers to it as forward gain while the other refers to it as gain with feedback.
The plot thickens.
Gordon
Simple growth formulae are often exponential, with no defined limit, like the first population growth formulae here.
https://www.kristakingmath.com/blog/exponential-growth-for-population-growth
It does not reflect reality. If it reflected the growth of a codfish population the universe would soon be filled with codfish.
The second formula reflects reality. After an initial exponential growth phase environmental resistance sets in and the graph starts to level off, becoming sigmoid or oscillatory.
Some species reach a constant population at the carrying capacity of their environment. Others overshoot, suffer a population crash and repeat.
The physics of our current climate system rather resembles the second population formula. An increase in incoming energy, from whatever cause, triggers initial exponential positive feedback warming, but also quickly generates negative feedback which stops warming at a new, higher equilibrium.
ent…”Simple growth formulae are often exponential, with no defined limit, like the first population growth formulae here”.
***
I have no argument with your point in general. I am arguing against Hansen’s tipping point which requires a runaway positive feedback. I am arguing there is no evidence that heat can be amplified by a trace gas.
EM,
Try the logistic equation.
No overall increase in energy, because the Earth continues to cool – as it has been for four and a half billion years or so.
However, because all the components of the system behave chaotically, it is impossible to predict future states of say, the atmosphere, aquasphere or lithosphere.
And, of course, the energy distribution within the system which we perceive as heat, or even matter distribution such as H2O, is unpredictable. Even crustal hotspots wander about without apparent rhyme or reason. Try stopping the magnetic poles or the continents from wandering, or predicting their future positions.
Chaos, and more chaos. What fun!
Climate sensitivity is an example of positive feedback with definite limits.
15,000 years ago changes in orbital cycles warmer the Northern Hemisphere by 1.2C. Positive feedback increased this to 5C after which negative feedback stabilised temperatures s
in the Holcene Optimum.
Note also that Earth’s global temperature has stayed between 4C and 25C for the last 700 million years. No runaway warming.
EM,
There is no “climate sensitivity”, you fool. Climate is the average of past weather – no more, no less.
You are obviously off with the fairies, suffering from an altered state of consciousness.
When you resume your connection with reality, you don’t need to thank me for pointing out the blindingly obvious.
> Climate is the average of past weather
And climate sensitivity is the average change in global mean surface temperature in response to a radiative forcing, Mike.
Try to keep up.
Willard,
What a load of garbage!
Four and a half billion years or so of your “radiative forcing” has resulted in cooling, you nong.
That’s what you get for making up sciency sounding nonsense.
You wrote –
“And climate sensitivity is the average change in global mean surface temperature in response to a radiative forcing, Mike.”
What a peculiar plate of assorted word salad, Willard. You can’t even get my name right – which just shows you are either completely delusional, or doing your best in trying to be gratuitously offensive.
Oh dear, Wee Willy, you should know that I generally decline to be offended, insulted or annoyed by dimwits, and I don’t feel like making an exception in your case. Why should I?
Carry on.
[laughing at looney SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
If climate was not sensitive to radiative forcing, it would never change.
Do keep up.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Four and a half billion years or so of your radiative forcing has resulted in cooling, you nong.
Climate is the average of past weather. Weather changes.
How could that happen without climate sensitivity, Mike?
Willard,
You tell me. All you have to do is deny that climate is the average of past weather, and then try and convince anybody that you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
But hey, if you want to believe Gavin Schmidt is a scientist of any type, or that Michael Mann is not an incompetent fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat that’s fine. You might have difficulty convincing rational people that the IPCC or the Met Office are credible sources of factual information.
Climate sensitivity. Complete nonsense, a figment of the collective SkyDragon imagination.
No sensivity, no forcing, Mike.
Willard,
You wrote –
“No sensivity, no forcing, Mike.”
Apart from the apparent sloppy spelling mistake (or maybe a pathetic attempt at a gotcha), and the fact that “Mike” is part of your fantasy world, you are entirely correct – there is no “sensitivity”, nor any “forcing”.
That is why the Earth no longer has a molten surface, and has cooled.
Feel free to reject reality, and believe your SkyDragon fantasies.
You’re a real human bean, Mike.
If there’s no forcing, there’s no weather either.
Willard,
You are an idiot.
While there is a gaseous atmosphere and the uncertainty principle (or chaos, if you prefer that), there is weather.
Nothing else is needed.
You may have noticed that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and there has been weather during that period.
Believe your SkyDragon fantasies if you wish.
Mike Flynn,
No forcing, no deterministic chaos.
Sorry.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Best hurricane forecasting model
https://youtu.be/Nyl1LPG2vsg
Now Roy has updated the full data at the top of the page.
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-nh.jpeg
Northern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-noext.jpeg
Northern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-nopol.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-sh.jpeg
Southern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-soext.jpeg
Southern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-sopol.jpeg
Long term trend
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-long-term-1.jpeg
Residuals
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-residuals.jpeg
Month on Month
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
LT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah_lt.jpg
MT
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah_mt.jpg
TP
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah_tp.jpg
LS
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/uah_ls.jpg
Upthread, I caught Ent trying to pervert reality, again.
“Fortunately the solar constant for Earth is only 240W/m^2 so we have plenty of margin.”
No, the solar constant is about 1365 W/m^2. The cult HAS to reduce that, to make it believable that CO2 is warming the planet.
When it comes down to one’s agenda and beliefs, science be damned! If you have some personal agenda, like the GHE nonsense, or the “heat creep” nonsense, then you want to adjust solar to be as low as possible, even so low as to be unable to melt ice!
If you prefer reality, you realize the full solar constant, adjusted for albedo, must be used. Sun has plenty of power to keep Earth at 288K. No “33K nonsense” needed.
People seem to prefer their own agenda over reality, more often than not.
The problem, for those people, is that reality always wins.
> The cult HAS to reduce that,
It does not, Pup:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
Please mind your units.
Dear oh dear, Willard.
Linking to another piece of SkyDragon nonsense is unlikely to help. Is that site run by the singularly deluded SkyDragon cultist Ken Rice?
Have you asked him why the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so? I believe your friend Ken Rice is an astrophysicist or something, so he might know. Does he believe the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has heated up since then, due to the GHE?
I doubt it, of course, but maybe you could ask him, and let me know.
I won’t object to more laughter at your expense.
Carry on.
You are the funniest Sky Dragon Crank, Mike.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You still haven’t answered why you think the GHE hasn’t resulted in global cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
The surface has cooled, even on average, so babbling ” . . . but averages . . . ” won’t get you out of the SkyDragon hole you have dug for yourself.
Even Dug Cttn doesn’t seem to be as delusional as you, and that’s saying something!
C’mon, Willard, confess – you’re an idiot, aren’t you?
That would explain a lot of things, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
You still have not answered why you think Keith Richards could not stop the planet from cooling.
You still have not explained why you will not concede why Eric and Bob were right about seawater density.
You still have not explained why it is hard for you to understand why darker ice retains more energy.
And you still deny being Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You still havent answered why you think the GHE hasnt resulted in global cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
All you can do is dribble nonsense, trying to avoid facing reality.
The surface has cooled, even on average, so babbling . . . but averages . . . wont get you out of the SkyDragon hole you have dug for yourself.
Even Dug Cttn doesnt seem to be as delusional as you, and thats saying something!
Cmon, Willard, confess youre an idiot, arent you?
That would explain a lot of things, I guess.
Mike Flynn,
You still have not answered how your nonsense helps you to deny greenhouse gases.
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither your stupid “greenhouse gases” nor anything else managed to prevent the Earth cooling, over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Why would I deny that fact?
Are you quite mad, or just exceptionally confused?
I won’t ask you to accept reality – your mental defect precludes such a cognitive marvel.
Carry on denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so. Maybe you and your fellow SkyDragons can abolish this inconvenient fact. Have a vote, perhaps? Form a consensus?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Still no explanation as to how your nonsense helps you deny greenhouse gases, Mike.
Weird Wee Willy idiot,
Neither your stupid greenhouse gases nor anything else managed to prevent the Earth cooling, over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Why would I deny that fact?
Are you quite mad, or just exceptionally confused?
I wont ask you to accept reality your mental defect precludes such a cognitive marvel.
Carry on denying that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so. Maybe you and your fellow SkyDragons can abolish this inconvenient fact. Have a vote, perhaps? Form a consensus?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Still awaiting for an answer as to how your Sky Dragon Crank nonsense helps you deny greenhouse gases, Mike.
Whenever you’re ready.
Pup, no one is denying CO2 exists.
It’s simply that CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
You already told me that greenhouse gases exist but are not greenhouse gases, Pup.
That’s why you’re so much fun.
Willard, you dimwit,
Greenhouse contain gases.
That’s reality.
Do you believe there is some secret principle at work, and that greenhouse gases are really something else?
Only a rhetorical question of course. Of course you do.
To a SkyDragon, nothing is what it seems – cooling is really heating, the Earth hasn’t really cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, climate is not the average of past weather, and the future can be predicted by dissecting the past, according to them!
You inhabit a richly bizarre fantasy world. The rest of us live in the real world.
Enjoy your fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s also reality –
Greenhouses are made of glass.
Keith Richards is older than any of us.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
” No, the solar constant is about 1365 W/m^2. ”
Entropic man used the wrong word.
He of course did not mean the solar constant but the solar power flux density hitting Earth’s full sphere on latitudinal average.
Sun hits one hemisphere, half Earth’s surface; the latitudinal average is computed by weighting the flux density with the square of the cosine of the incidence angle of Sun’s radiation, i.e. 0.5.
Thus you have to divide by… 4.
Ent knew what he was doing Binny, as you do now. He was trying to pervert reality. That’s what your cult does.
You can NOT divide flux. Doing so destroys the heating ability. The solar constant, adjusted for albedo, is 960 W/m^2. The corresponding S/B temperature is 361K (88C, 190F). Dividing by 4 gives 240 W/m^2, which results in an S/B temperature of 255K (-18C, 0F).
Dividing by 4 is ridiculous. It’s a perversion of reality. Accepting your cult’s nonsense without question is why you’re a cult idiot. Refusing to accept reality, and learn, is why you’re braindead.
You’re a braindead cult idiot, as is Entropic man. Thanks for re-affirming that.
> Dividing by 4 is ridiculous.
Joe divides by 2 in his hemispherical model, Pup.
Yes Pup, and that gives much more realistic results. You don’t divide at all, if reality is your goal.
That’s not how that works, Pup.
Either you CAN divide flux or you CAN’T.
Which is it?
Pup, that IS how it works. You don’t divide at all, if reality is your goal.
So Joe’s objective is not reality.
I can live with that.
Suppose you don’t need to divide and measure each square meter of the surface. What are you going to do with your measurements, Pup – add them up?
YOUR objective is not reality, Pup.
Maybe when you grow up, huh?
(I won’t have time to babysit you anymore today.)
My own objective is LOGIC, Pup.
Either one can divide or one can’t.
You want both.
You won’t.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R still does not understand – or better: he very well does understand, but is pernicious enough to dissimulate it.
No one divides any flux here.
We are talking about power density fluxes weighted by latitude on half the terrestrial surface: that hit by the Sun.
The maximal solar power flux density hitting Earths surface is valid only at the Ecliptic’s equator, i.e. the circle where the Ecliptic (the plane encompassing Earth’s orbit around the Sun) crosses Earth.
At the Ecliptic’s poles (the two points on Earth’s surface located on the line passing thru Earth’s center and perpendicular to the Ecliptic), the flux density hitting Earths surface is equal to ZERO.
Thus, a latitudinal average must be computed, by weighting the flux density with the square of the cosine of the incidence angle of Suns radiation.
The weighting is 1.0 at the equator, and 0.0 at the poles; its integral from 0.0 up to π/2 is 0.5.
*
Or does Clint R want to insidiously manipulate us, by denying the fact that the Sun has way, way more power at the Equator than at the poles?
Nice rambling diatribe there, binny. But, your cult DOES divide the solar constant by 4. That’s where the 340 W/m^2 comes from in your bogus “energy imbalances”.
” That’s where the 340 W/m^2 comes from in your bogus ‘energy imbalances’. ”
NO.
Thanks Clint R for
– not answering the facts, and keeping on your unscientific, polemic line
and thus
– blatantly acknowledging youre a troll.
YES.
1360 W/m^2 divided by 4 = 340 W/m^2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Reality always wins.
“Since the [A-word] varies with location as well as with diurnal, seasonal and annual variations, the numbers quoted are multi-year averages obtained from multiple satellite measurements.”
Wanna take the test, Pup?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Binny,
So the result of your calculations is that the Earth has cooled, is it?
Whatever happened to “global warming”.
Did some SkyDragon high priest decree that cooling was to be redefined to be heating?
You really are a gullible French sauerkraut, aren’t you?
Flynnson
Again, you blatantly acknowledge being a troll.
Or maybe some form of Alzheimer is at work in the remnants of your brain – if you ever had one?
Thank you, Entropic man, for your respond.
Entropic man says:
September 25, 2022 at 3:22 AM
“The flat disc is a mathematical trick, a shortcut which allows you to calculate the total solar energy hitting the Earth without having to account for the angle of incidence of every point on the surface of Earths sphere.
I would be very surprised if anyone thought that there was a real disc.
Similarly for the simplest energy budget you can consider the Earth as a black box.
You dont need to consider details of albedo, surface roughness, specular reflection, clouds etc. All you need is the Bond albedo, which combines them all into a single figure for the fraction of reflected shortwave radiation.
The budget for a stable climate then becomes
Solar insolation albedo = outward longwave radiation”
Yes, that is right for the rough surface planets and moons, for which the Φ = 1, and those planets and moons are:
1. Io
2. Callisto
3. Enceladus
4. Tethys
5. Rhea
6. Pluto
7. Charon
And it is right for gases planets and moons:
1. Venus
2. Titan
3. Jupiter
4. Saturn
5. Uranus
6. Neptune
For the smooth surface planets, or planets with thin atmosphere (Earth included) the Φ = 0,47
Thus, the not reflected portion of solar SW incident flux is:
Φ(1-a)S W/m^2
and the budget for a stable climate then becomes
Solar insolation Reflected SW (diffuse and specular) = Φ(1-a)S = outward longwave radiation.
–
Those smooth surface planets and moons are:
1. Mercury
2. Earth
3. Moon
4. Mars
5. Europa
6. Ganymede
–
Bond albedo is precisely measured for all planets and moons in solar system.
Bond albedo represents the solar SW diffuse reflection only. Bond albedo does not “see” the escaping from the smooth surface planets and moons the specular reflection, because specular reflection does not enter into the measuring sensors plates.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Instead of:
“Solar insolation Reflected SW (diffuse and specular) = Φ(1-a)S = outward longwave radiation.”
Should read:
“Solar insolation – Reflected SW (diffuse and specular) = Φ(1-a)S = outward longwave radiation.”
or
“Solar insolation minus Reflected SW (diffuse and specular) = Φ(1-a)S = outward longwave radiation.”
… and still does this Φ remain your unproven invention.
Publish a small paper, Vournas, e.g. on
https://arxiv.org/help/submit
and we’ll see the reactions.
Thank you, Bindidon!
–
I, ll think about it, maybe it is a good idea…
Christie
“specular reflection does not enter into the measuring sensors plates. ”
Why not? They may miss the specular reflection from one square metre and pick it up from another. Overall it all averages out.
There’s also earthlight. Measuring the amount of reflected light from Earth illuminating the new moon gives a measure of albedo independent of the satellites and including specular reflection. Satellites and earthlight agree on the value of albedo.
I’m pretty sure that the specular radiation is included in the measured albedo because the energy budgets work.
If the satellites and daylight were not detecting specular radiation then the measured albedo would be too low.
Then if Solar insolation – albedo = outgoing long wave radiation.
then measured outgoing longwave radiation would disagree with other evidence and the budget would not balance.
Em,
You wrote –
“I’m pretty sure that the specular radiation is included in the measured albedo because the energy budgets work.”
These would be the “energy budgets” showing four and a half billion years or so of cooling, would they? Or imaginary “energy budgets” with exactly the same inputs, but showing future “heating”?
Oh well, as long as you’re “pretty sure”, maybe the universe will reverse four and a half billion years or so of factual cooling, and replace it with “global warming”.
Yeah, right.
[derisive snorting]
Swenson
I’m trying to have a sensible conversation with Chrisos here. If you want to join in, could you please leave your “silly Swenson” persona at the door.
EM,
No, you’re talking SkyDragon nonsense about “energy budgets”.
I can assure you that if “energy in” equals “energy out”, temperature is unchanging.
As the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, “energy out” demonstrably exceeded “energy in”, unless you have managed to change the laws of thermodynamics.
If you want to talk nonsense to Christos, a public forum might not be the best place to do it, but that is your decision.
If you can produce something better than “I’m pretty sure”, then I’m pretty sure you will embarrass yourself less. Only pretty sure, mind you.
Carry on.
” As the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, ‘energy out’ demonstrably exceeded ‘energy in’… ”
As usual, the demonstrably deepest nonsense anyone could write.
Only ignorant & arrogant people like Flynnson can write that.
Yes, Flynnson: some billions of years ago, that clearly was true. No one would ever doubt about such plain evidence.
But… how far do you Hypergenius think we have to go back from now in Earth history, to get a terrestrial power flux density that would have exceeded 1 watt/m^2 (i.e. about 0.5 % of Sun’s) ?
Binny,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and no amount of your silliness about dissecting the past can change that fact.
Unfortunately, all your SkyDragon GHE nonsense apparently depends on things like the existence of the atmosphere, and its constituents, which have existed for billions of years – up to the present time.
Waffling about irrelevant nonsense like “terrestrial flux density” which has obviously not prevented the Earth from cooling, just makes you like someone who is steadfastly refusing to accept reality.
But keep at it – keep dodging and ducking. Maybe you can come up with some new physics to explain why the GHE failed to prevent the Earth cooling. Have you a reference that claims that the GHE depends on “terrestrial flux density”, or did you just make that up, hoping to impress the stupid, ignorant, or gullible?
Thanks Flynnson for blatantly acknowledging you’re a troll.
Binny,
Surely you are not the hypocrite who wrote to another commenter –
“Thank you for confirming your inability to show us where we can see that . . . ”
That would make your statement “Thanks Flynnson for blatantly acknowledging youre a troll.”, quite laughable, wouldn’t it, considering I did no such thing.
You just make stuff up as you go along, and hope nobody will call you out as a lying swine.
You can’t stand the inconvenient fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, in spite of having sunlight, an atmosphere, CO2, H2O, and all the rest during that time – just like the present. Thanks Flynnson for blatantly acknowledging youre a troll.
What miracle created “global warming”? Certainly nothing involved in the past four and a half billion years or so – as the Earth cooled.
Back to your brightly coloured crayons, and dissect the past so you can confidently predict the future. You might rename yourself as Nostradamus, if you think that will help.
Off you go now, scribble away.
“Theres also earthlight. Measuring the amount of reflected light from Earth illuminating the new moon gives a measure of albedo independent of the satellites and including specular reflection. Satellites and earthlight agree on the value of albedo.”
–
Specular reflection from Earth never reaches Moon. And specular reflection from Moon never reaches Earth.
Mercury albedo = 0,068 (Φ=0,47)
–
Moon albedo = 0,11 (Φ=0,47)
–
Earth albedo = 0, 306 (without clouds a = 0,08) (Φ=0,47)
–
Mars albedo = 0,250 (Φ=0,47)
–
Io albedo = 0,63 (Φ=1)
–
Europa albedo = 0,63 (Φ=0,47) but Europa is the smoothest object in entire solar system
–
Ganymede albedo = 0,41 (Φ=0,47)
–
Callisto albedo = 0,22 (Φ=1) but Callisto is the most cratered object in entire solar system.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Look from the ISS towards the Sun low above the horizon. Look down towards the ocean and you see the a bright spot where the sunlight reflects off the ocean surface.
Is this specular reflection?
If so, it certainly reaches orbit.
Near New moon an observer on the Moon’s surface would see a similar reflection through a telescope. The specular reflection reaches the Moon.
Unless, of course, you have a completely different definition of specular reflection.
“Look down towards the ocean and you see the a bright spot where the sunlight reflects off the ocean surface.”
–
The bright spot,s light we see is the diffuse reflection. The specular reflection is the strong light that comes from the spot in an opposite to sun direction.
–
Yes, we see the spot, but we do not see the specular reflection coming out of it.
–
The specular reflection is when you look at the ocean from a certain direction opposite to the sun, and the reflection blinds you like you look at the sun.
–
It is the reflection from a mirror, when you capture sun in the mirror, and it blinds you.
–
From different orbits to witness it, sensor should be on a different angular orientation towards Earth.
–
A spacecraft should follow that reflection, to have it monitored, but spacecraft does not follow that reflection.
Thus, specular reflection escapes being measured from the orbit.
–
When looking towards Moon from Earth we see sun,s diffuse reflected light only.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think this is also called, glint.
Earth has glint.
People have looked for lunar glint, but apparently it doesn’t have much.
Average albedo a = 0,306 measured from spacecrafts
Solar flux So = 1.361 W/m^2
Not a great help.
If the average albedo is O.306 as measured by spacecraft, what is the average albedo when you include specular reflection?
Oops, got my geometry backwards. You should only see specular reflection from the oceans on the Moon either side of the full moon.
What do you mean, please explain.
The consensus value for albedo is 100W/m^2. Insolation is 340W/m^2 and OLR is 240W/m^2. All three are averaged over the whole Earth surface
Thus 340-100=240.
If you are correct albedo would be larger and OLR smaller. What values do you think they should be?
Ent, all three figures are bogus. Your simple arithmetic is meaningless.
For Planet Earth
Average albedo a = 0,306 measured from spacecrafts
Solar flux So = 1.361 W/m^2
********
I do not average neither incident solar flux, no outgoing IR EM energy, because they do not interact with surface on average basis.
–
What we have here for earth radiative balance is:
the TOTAL not reflected SW EM energy is:
Jsw.not-reflected = πr^2*Φ*(1-a)*So =
Jsw.not-reflected = πr^2*0,47*(1-0,306)*1.361 W/m^2 =
= πr^2*0,47*0,694*1.361 W/m = πr^2*444,26 (W)
Thus, the TOTAL OUTGOING IR = πr^2*444,26 (W)
********
Shall we continue tomorrow,
Good night
Entropic man says:
September 27, 2022 at 2:43 PM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critical%20angle
Light coming from the zenith onto water is always refracted. Light coming in at low angles is all reflected. The critical angle at which you change from refraction to reflection is 45 degrees.
Try sketching this, as seen from above Earths North Pole. Draw a line from the Sun drawn through the Earth. All light comes in to Earth almost parallel to that line.
Position the Earth at noon UTC so that the Sun is vertically above the Equator at 0 degrees longitude.
Any water on the Equator between 45 degrees West and 45 degrees East longitude will receive light from above the critical angle and absorb it.
At 45 degrees East or West specular reflection starts.The sunlight hits the surface at 45 degrees and reflects at 45 degrees. The reflected light heads into space perpendicular to the Sun -Earth line.
At 90 degrees West or 90 degrees East longitude the Sun is on the horizon. The sunlight hits the ocean almost flat and the reflected light heads out into space almost directly away from the Sun parallel to the Sun-Earth line.
Got those lines drawn? You can see that all specular reflected light will leave Earth at 90 degrees to the Sun-Earth line or travel further from the Sun. It will only be visible to observers further from the Sun than the Earth.
Now draw the Moons orbit around the Earth. Draw the new moon, half moons and full Moon.
Now for our observer watching the Earth from the Moon.
The only times that specular reflection from the Earth will be visible to them are when the Moon is further from the Sun than the Earth. That is the half of the Moons orbit between the half moons and full moon.
Reply
ET: Air/water refraction is not as simple as you seem to think it is.
https://mammothmemory.net/physics/refraction/part-reflection-part-refraction/part-reflection-part-refraction.html
Specular and diffuse reflected solar light is of the same SW EM energy emitted from sun.
–
Specular is more directionally oriented.
Diffuse is more dispersed.
–
Satellites cannot “see” and measure the specularly reflected part.
–
Fortunately, the Φ=0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons corrects the planet radiative energy balance to almost precise level:
Φ*(1-a)S*πr^2
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
{sarc} Perfect recovery from the LIA {/sarc}
German Alps, Zugspitze, Südlicher Schneeferner
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/d3cc6b21-ef80-4aad-8af9-67bfdbc24042/e30568701557487e1ca267c531e16187/51434ce0-10d1-407e-a6c2-334e2ad3d42a.jpg
Left: Aug ’22
Right: Aug ’21
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/S%C3%BCdl.Schneeferner.jpg/1024px-S%C3%BCdl.Schneeferner.jpg
2003
The funny part is that braindead bindidon believes CO2 did that!
You can’t help stupid….
” The funny part is that braindead bindidon believes CO2 did that! ”
Proof I do?
Do you want to take the test?
Stop dodging as usual and show us exactly where we can see that I believe CO2 is at the origin of this German glacier’s disappearance.
You are such a dishonest person!
Sorry bin, but you reap what you sow.
You don’t understand the science, and you deny reality. You attack skeptics without hesitancy. You deny that your cult divides the solar constant by 4, even though that means you have to deny all of the clear examples. To cover for your dishonesty, you falsely accuse others of dishonesty.
You’re a braindead cult idiot.
Thank you for confirming your inability to show us where we can see that
” … braindead bindidon believes CO2 did that! ”
Now, as for our respective understanding of science… Hmmmmh.
Best hurricane forecasting model update
https://youtu.be/4HNVys0lL7o
On related note – Voting democruts will stop hurricanes hitting Florida
https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar-suggests-voting-democrat-will-help-stop-hurricanes-thats-why-weve-got-win-this
Because Fox News is always SO correct.
I read Fox News because it’s the only mainstream media outlet that gives an alternative view of the global situation. That does not mean I have to accept everything written, in fact, I don’t.
If you can get past the right-wing rhetoric on Fox, you can garner a pretty decent few of life on the other side of fake news.
Or
https://youtu.be/I7V4hIQZzbM
Norway is raising the level of security readiness at all its oil and gas installations, including the continental self. The explosions on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines (and sighting of drones in the Nord Sea) are prompting Europe to take very seriously the risk of sabotage.
First released image: https://ibb.co/qyHvHC7
Locator map: https://ibb.co/cb2Vb08
Unconfirmed sighting: https://ibb.co/pRbLtHg
It’s stronger than me: Whenever I see Putin, I can’t help but think of this impressive image:
https://i.f1g.fr/media/cms/1194×804/2021/09/13/b9a4e26af2441adff570693ec003d313ffc105912d23fd8ac39ed870b99967cb.jpg
The two guys must have something delicate in common.
I think of the Helsinki Summit: https://ibb.co/6PFKvBv
Great.
You strike me as being the type who automatically believes the interpretations of your seriously conditioned mind. You lack the ability to look beyond your prejudice.
Gordon Robertson
Putin is a sick liar, horrible leader of Russia, cruel and cold. Nothing at all praise worthy. He is a twisted sick mind. He launched his evil invasion torturing and killing civilians (investigated by war crimes specialists) and now when his forces are getting their sorry asses whipped by a highly motivated population that does not want to live under his tyrannical system he wants to threaten nukes. What a complete total asshole!! That you support this sick mind suggests you have many loose marbles. He is a monster of epic proportion. Not sure why any sane person would defend anything about him.
Good, old, open-minded Norman. Has no idea who Putin is, as do most of us, but that doesn’t stop Norman smearing him.
When this war started, I took the same narrow-minded view, till I started reading experts on the Ukraine and Russia like US foreign-policy expert Dr. John Mearsheimer and award winning journalist Robert Parry. Of course, fake news ignores both as they spread propaganda about the Ukraine and Russia.
That information prompted me to branch out into the history of the Ukraine and it is pretty dismal. This country has been deemed the most corrupt government in Europe and the corruption continues with the liar Zelensky. As a Jew, he lacks the guts to rescind a law passed in 2016 which creates heroes out of Ukrainians like Stepan Bandera, who participated with the Nazis in exterminating Jews during WW II.
Gordon Robertson
You are indeed a denier personality. You ignore all evidence that does not fit your limited views (which you think are open-minded, they are not).
There are outside agencies looking at the war crimes issue. You are quite blind.
Not Ukraine but Russia is the most corrupt Nation in the current list.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-index?continent=europe
What lies has Zelensky stated? He was invaded by a much larger Nation. You can blame the US and NATO for that. I think all blame is on Russia. The Russian army is a vile and terrorist entity that is quite cruel to anyone in its way.
Read things and look at the bigger picture. Putin is a vile evil human who threatens to use nuclear weapons. Wake up and see what is real just once. The guy is bad to the bone and he is treating his own citizens quite poorly. Only because he still have force units loyal to him does he remain in power.
Gordon, after 6 months of killing Ukrainians, what is the purpose of Russia the continued war on Ukraine?
Pls explain why Russia needs to annex the territory of its neighbor Ukraine?
Pls explain why Russia is threatening to use Nuclear weapons on a neighboring country?
Does a sovereign nation have a right to defend itself? And if succeeding at that, need to be slaughtered eN masse with nuclear weapons?
“The explosions on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines (and sighting of drones in the Nord Sea) are prompting Europe to take very seriously the risk of sabotage”.
Not from Russians, as you may be inferring, but from your buddies in the eco-alarmist movement.
Robertson, once again caught as a brazen, gullible supporter of Russian neo-Nazi propaganda glorifying a brutal war, with as only goal to recover Святая Русь, the Holy Russia.
How dumb is one allowed to be in life?
Ten thousands of French, German, British people are, like does Robertson on this blog, endlessly replicating and propagating that.
Don’t you know it was Joe Biden who blew that pipeline ?
The eco-terrorists work on behalf of Biden.
By Robert Bradley Jr. September 27, 2022
James Hansen is a mixed bag. In important areas, he speaks truth to power and is a thorn in the side of magical thinking wind-and-solar environmentalists.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/27/james-hansens-latest-climate-alarmism-energy-realism-continues/
I don’t want to insult Moses, but Hansen is sort of like Moses when he came down from mountains.
gb..are you trying to say Moses was bsing when he claimed to get the 10 commandments directly from God? I base that on your defense of Hansen, who was a major bs-artist.
I get everything directly from God- if I got more, I might believe.
Said differently, if Moses created the 10 commandments, that seems a lot to expect from some dude called Moses.
A common idiot like Hansen would give 100 or more commandments- and
every one of them, would be, wrong.
Now, if thanked God every time drank some coffee {even if wasn’t the best coffee, ever].
Maybe I would get more.
But it seems there is the possibility that I would be drinking some crappy coffee, and kidding myself that it was the best coffee.
But when I admit it’s the best times, that could be seen as thanking God.
But I just think it is a correct assessment.
I simply don’t get how pre-industrial times was better in any way.
I don’t even see how, any time before 1950 was better.
I might imagine any one born today is luckier.
My cup of coffee is pretty good. And I thank God.
Though I might imagine I made a good cup- but I am always trying to do that, but this one better, but not quite the best.
Sun spot number forecasts at the Belgian Silso SSN site
Yesterday I recalled having seen such forecasts some years ago.
Here is the current situation:
https://tinyurl.com/3wpkjns9
There are three of these forecast methods:
1. Standard curves method (Waldmeier)
https://tinyurl.com/4d2kt4h8
2. Combined method (Denkmayr – Cugnon)
https://tinyurl.com/vs49ed-ca
{This time, the tinyURL itself contains the d-c sequence! Oh Noes. Please remove the minus sign.}
3. McNish&Lincoln method
https://tinyurl.com/2bm6k7c9
*
While Denkmayr & Cugnon depict the SC25 as soon to reach its maximum, Waldmayer’s standard curve method shows exactly the opposite, an SC25 with a furious incline.
We’ll see in a few years who will win the race.
You forgot your misaligned 10.7 flux , and “way ahead of the red line” nonsense
Ba
Babbling Edog
” You forgot your misaligned 10.7 flux ”
Once more you stalk me with your false claim about allegedly misaligned fluxes.
You still were not able to show a chart containing them.
C’mon Edog! Show us the chart, instead of cowardly dodging with your ‘I already explained it way back’.
And about your ‘way ahead of the red line’, read this again, it might help you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1366175
Rewrite it in English
No need to do: you perfectly understood what Google’s Translator generated.
And the very best here, stoopid babbling Edog, is that instead of trying to contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion about SILSO’s SC25 forecasts, you did nothing else than discrediting and denigrating.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critical%20angle
Light coming from the zenith onto water is always refracted. Light coming in at low angles is all reflected. The critical angle at which you change from refraction to reflection is 45 degrees.
Try sketching this, as seen from above Earth’s North Pole. Draw a line from the Sun drawn through the Earth. All light comes in to Earth almost parallel to that line.
Position the Earth at noon UTC so that the Sun is vertically above the Equator at 0 degrees longitude.
Any water on the Equator between 45 degrees West and 45 degrees East longitude will receive light from above the critical angle and absorb it.
At 45 degrees East or West specular reflection starts.The sunlight hits the surface at 45 degrees and reflects at 45 degrees. The reflected light heads into space perpendicular to the Sun -Earth line.
At 90 degrees West or 90 degrees East longitude the Sun is on the horizon. The sunlight hits the ocean almost flat and the reflected light heads out into space almost directly away from the Sun parallel to the Sun-Earth line.
Got those lines drawn? You can see that all specular reflected light will leave Earth at 90 degrees to the Sun-Earth line or travel further from the Sun. It will only be visible to observers further from the Sun than the Earth.
Now draw the Moon’s orbit around the Earth. Draw the new moon, half moons and full Moon.
Now for our observer watching the Earth from the Moon.
The only times that specular reflection from the Earth will be visible to them are when the Moon is further from the Sun than the Earth. That is the half of the Moon’s orbit between the half moons and full moon.
ET: Things are not so simple as that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1371306
“Now for our observer watching the Earth from the Moon.
The only times that specular reflection from the Earth will be visible to them are when the Moon is further from the Sun than the Earth.”
If you can suggest a geometry which allows specular reflection by an observer closer to the Sun than the Earth I would be fascinated.
No, I am suggesting that reflection/refraction is not simply 100% as you claim.
EM,
Presumably you believe you have discovered the reason that the Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Or did you have some other reason for an apparently pointless comment, perhaps?
Not to say incorrect as well.
You might need to pull your head out of the SkyDragon Manual, and accept reality. Some reflection from a transparent medium such as glass or water occurs even when the incident ray is normal to the surface. Sir Isaac Newton speculated on the reasons, and was able to dismiss several commonly held scientific beliefs, based on his personal experience of lens and mirror grinding.
You might like to rethink some of your more obvious errors and omissions, or you may not.
Either way, facts don’t change, as much as you might want them to, to suit your SkyDragon religion.
ent…you make it sound like the Earth is a billiard ball from which light is reflected uniformly.
Even in the regions whoyou classify as being purely reflective, the terrain is so undulating that sections absorb light directly. There are bound to be bazzillions of surface facets that face the Sun at a perpendicular angle and absorb the light.
On the oceans, wave action is such that water will absorb rather than reflect light. How would ice ever melt in the Arctic if ice did not absorb solar energy?
Last night, I accidently left CBC News running in the background till I heard an expose by CBC meteorologist Johana Wagstaffe. Without mentioning La Nina once, she noted the Pacific Ocean is warmer than usual because the missing heat is being stored in the oceans.
That was a direct quote of the bs offered by Kevin Trenberth over 10 years ago after being caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting global warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why.
Given time to regroup, Trenberth then offered the astounding claim that the missing heat was being stored in the oceans. He did not offer a shred of thermodynamic evidence as to how it got there and from whence it came.
Johana Wagstaffe, who strikes me as being more of a Barbie Doll than a meteorologist, has obviously been deeply affected by Treneberth’s lie.
Gordon do have any opinion how much colder our ocean average temperature is, compared to past interglacial periods.
I think the ocean is at least .5 C colder at the moment as compared to warmest periods of past interglacial periods. And these warmer oceans were warmer for more thousand years- no, make that longer than 3000 years.
And it seems a fact to me, the ocean temperature has about 1000 times more heat content than our atmosphere. And seems many think that change in Atmosphere temperature takes decades of time. And to change the ocean temperature takes a much longer time.
So you said:
“Trenberth then offered the astounding claim that the missing heat was being stored in the oceans. He did not offer a shred of thermodynamic evidence as to how it got there and from whence it came.”
I thought he said lost.
At least, it sounds a lot more, amusing. And I like to laugh.
Every climate guy should know that the ocean was a lot warmer in the past- therefore, the joke.
gb…”Gordon do have any opinion how much colder our ocean average temperature is, compared to past interglacial periods”.
***
Not a clue. My eyes glaze over when talking about eras where there were no eye witnesses.
I was watching something on TV about the walls of Jericho, a biblical story. The point made was that carbon dating proved the find was there 10,000 years before the Biblical account.
This is one area where I think the Bible may be relatively more accurate. I don’t trust the accuracy of dating methods and eye-witness accounts may be more reliable. However, we don’t know exactly what time-scales were used in the Bible.
Proxy studies have their good points but far too much is claimed based on them. When someone claims the Holocene happened between this year and that year, I tune out. Same thing for a mile of ice piled up over land.
Well, I think the new theories such as Plate tectonics and idea that Earth is hit impactors is important. And both would roughly say, recent is millions of years ago.
And I regard both as related with Apollo Program- of going to Moon and bringing back lunar samples.
In regards us being in Ice Age:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
“During the past billion years, the Earth’s climate has fluctuated between warm periods – sometimes even completely ice-free – and cold periods, when glaciers scoured the continents”
“Any water on the Equator between 45 degrees West and 45 degrees East longitude will receive light from above the critical angle and absorb it.”
No. This is wrong on two fronts.
1) The critical angle applies to light coming to the surface of the water FROM BELOW. (And the angle is closer to 49 degrees).
2) For light FROM ABOVE, reflection is small at small angles of incidence, gets larger as the angle increases (approaching 100% at 90 degrees. So no matter the angle of incidence, there will be some reflection.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108878/reconciling-total-internal-reflection-and-the-evanescent-wave
(And RLH seems to have made the same point)
Then both christos and I are wrong.
You do.
If you look at the calculations and/or graphs, you will see that up to about 45 degrees, about 90% of the light is absorbed. So saying “the light is absorbed’ is at least a pretty good approximation.
“about 90% of the light is absorbed. ”
–
Yes, light is “absorbed” = not reflected, but interacted with surface.
Only a portion of it is accumulated then in inner layers. The rest amount of “not reflected” on the instant of incidence is IR EM outgoing energy emitted to space.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Scott Adams: “When Elon Musk says something is true, and you don’t think it’s true, what do you do?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjDgnQdt5Yc
“What happens to your brain?”
I say, my brain or whatever, goes, “this is cool”.
Or this might be interesting. I might learn something.
Scott says, he immediately discards his old opinion.
Scott is kind of weird guy. But he accepts that we are in Sim-
so, I guess not weird if starting from weird.
Anyways, the point: “Here is problem with what Musk is saying,
he saying we could handle all our energy needs with solar”
….”First, is Elon correct in his math”
That wouldn’t be my first question.
I would ask, “Does Musk means solar energy collected from space”
Because “everyone” says we get all our electrical energy needs from
space.
But let’s assume Elon is talking about solar energy collected from
the earth surface. Well, you could have to solar grid go across some time zones and/or some kind of energy storage.
And there are political problems connected to this.
[With ocean settlements one “could” have less political problems.]
If just limit it math and physical realities- not really a much problem. But Musk is space guy, a better solution involves space.
I think Musk what pick the easier solution so, it’s in regards to using space environment.
Another strange Willard comment (in full) –
“My own objective is LOGIC, Pup.
Either one can divide or one cant.
You want both.
You wont.”
Well, thats certainly solved the inconvenient fact that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, hasnt it?
Willard is either an idiot – or he is an idiot.
You pick.
Mike Flynn,
There’s nothing inconvenient about that favorite factoid.
A bit like your ankle biting, but less funny.
Willard,
Well, thats certainly solved the inconvenient fact that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, (in spite of any stupid SkyDragon claims that CO2 in the atmosphere makes the Earth hotter), hasn’t it?
Willard, you are either an idiot or an idiot.
Take your pick.
Mike, Mike,
Either the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so and greenhouse gases are a thing, or the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so and Sky Dragon Cranks like you have a way to replace greenhouse gases.
Which is it?
Willard you idiot,
” . . . greenhouse gases are a thing . . . “, you say? And just what sort of a “thing” do you think the atmosphere is?
Greenhouses contain air. The Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of being surrounded by air, for most of that period, and certainly up to the present time.
Why would anybody want to rid the world of air, or even of some of its constituents – CO2 and H2O, to mention just a couple?
Your pathetic attempt at a gotcha is a miserable failure.
Have you figured out how to define the GHE in such a way that it explains the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so?
Don’t worry – no other SkyDragon (or anybody at all) has managed to.
It must be a “thing”!
Mike, Mike,
Here:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/be-a-thing
You are supposed to be good at that English thing.
Act like it.
Willard,
You idiot. What sort of a “thing” are greenhouse gases? The gases which are found in greenhouses, perhaps?
These gases are commonly referred to as air, and have been surrounding the Earth for billions of years as the Earth cooled.
If you want to ascribe mystical properties to your “thing”, which appears to be nothing more than air, be my guest.
Have you figured out how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so, in spite of anything, something, or even everything, yet? Surely, those include all your “things”, including greenhouse gases, commonly referred to as air.
Go away and brush up on your stupid.
Mike,
Greenhouse gases are things that capture radiant heat within infrared range.
Ten years of trolling this website and you did not know that?
Tsk tsk.
Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Greenhouse gases are things that capture radiant heat within infrared range.”
Bananas are things that capture radiant heat too, but the atmosphere (which absorbs infrared, too, that is why it is a gas, you idiot) has been around for billions of years while the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
I suppose that you are trying to say something, but nothing seems to be happening. Maybe you need to think about things a bit more, or others might think you are clueless about everything.
That’s the thing about “things”, isn’t it?
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and you can’t explain how this has occurred.
Thar’s because you are a dimwitted SkyDragon, mired in a fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Bananas are more relevant to AGW than your silly factoid.
Maniacal buffoon.
Wee Willy,
You wrote
Greenhouse gases are things that capture radiant heat within infrared range.
Bananas are things that capture radiant heat too, but the atmosphere (which absorbs infrared, too, that is why it is a gas, you idiot) has been around for billions of years while the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
I suppose that you are trying to say something, but nothing seems to be happening. Maybe you need to think about things a bit more, or others might think you are clueless about everything.
Thats the thing about things, isnt it?
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and you cant explain how this has occurred.
Thars because you are a dimwitted SkyDragon, mired in a fantasy.
Just look at your response “Bananas are more relevant to AGW than your silly factoid.”
You just make up stupidities like AGW, and hope no one will ask you to explain your idiocy.
Bad luck for you.
Mike Flynn,
Sky Dragon Cranks like you have no scientific standing.
Reading you shows everyone why.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Today in history.
On this day (September 27, 1905) Einstein’s paper titled Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content? was received by the Annalen der Physik. In it he expressed the equivalence of mass and energy by applying his equation E=mc^2. Full confirmation of his theory didn’t come until 1933, in Paris, in the work of Irene and Frederic Joliot-Curie.
maguff…”In it he expressed the equivalence of mass and energy by applying his equation E=mc^2. Full confirmation of his theory didnt come until 1933, in Paris, in the work of Irene and Frederic Joliot-Curie”.
***
Got a link to the work of Curie applicable to E = mc^2? This seems to be the daughter of the well-known Curie’s and her work in theoretical physics is hardly stellar.
Besides, a bit of real-world logic is required. We have no idea what energy is yet Einstein made the claim that it can increase the mass of a body. How? By what mechanicsm?
He is claiming essentially that EM received by the Earth increases it’s mass.
I fear that some of the work done by Einstein in the early 20th century needs an objective review. That’s not likely to come from modernists who blindly worship him.
Another not-so-brilliant comment (in full) from the eminently clueless Willard,
“Mike Flynn,
No forcing, no deterministic chaos.
Sorry.”
Of course “forcing” means whatever Willard the SkyDragon wants it to mean, but he won’t tell anyone in advance!
However, there is no minimum change to initial conditions which can be shown to result in either chaotic and non-chaotic behaviour. Bad luck for idiots like Willard, trying to sound intelligent.
If referring to systems like the atmosphere, and you find the idea of chaos repugnant, Richard Feynman pointed out that it is impossible to predict any future state of the system, due to the operation of the uncertainty principle. Willard doesn’t like reality, so I have copied a little quote from the occasionally correct Wikipedia –
“The uncertainty principle implies that it is in general not possible to predict the value of a quantity with arbitrary certainty, even if all initial conditions are specified.”
So no “forcing” necessary, no matter how he tries to redefine “forcing”. The fact that he resorts to to using such a stupid term just shows how deranged you he is.
What sort of “forcing” does he think “forced” the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so?
What a donkey.
Mike, Mike,
A forcing is simple a change in energy flux.
If there is more in than out, le planet warms.
If there is more out than in, the planet cools.
Sky Dragon Cranks like you got NOTHING.
Willard,
The planet cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Negative change in “energy flux” – a complete nonsensical term, but that’s typical of SkyDragons – demonstrated by the planet cooling.
So far, so good.
Now what miracle that involves something that hadn’t resulted in cooling, occurred?
Your fervid imagination? Go on, try and think of something, dummy.
Witless fool.
Yes, Mike.
And next you will say that the Great Depression never happened.
Willard,
The planet cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Negative change in energy flux a complete nonsensical term, but thats typical of SkyDragons demonstrated by the planet cooling.
So far, so good.
Now what miracle that involves something that hadnt resulted in cooling, occurred?
Your fervid imagination? Go on, try and think of something, dummy.
Witless fool, dribbling irrelevancies.
Mike Flynn,
The S&P500 gained about 12% per year since its inception in 1957.
According to your logic, it cannot be down -22% since January.
What a sad buffoon you are!
Willard,
The planet cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Negative change in energy flux a complete nonsensical term, but thats typical of SkyDragons demonstrated by the planet cooling.
So far, so good.
Now what miracle that involves something that hadnt resulted in cooling, occurred?
Your fervid imagination? Go on, try and think of something, dummy.
Witless fool, dribbling irrelevancies, like the S&P 500.
Mike Flynn,
There is absolutely no logical connection between your factoid and greenhouse theory.
Flamboyant buffoon.
Willard,
The planet cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Negative change in energy flux a complete nonsensical term, but thats typical of SkyDragons demonstrated by the planet cooling.
So far, so good.
Now what miracle that involves something that hadnt resulted in cooling, occurred?
Your fervid imagination? Go on, try and think of something, dummy.
Witless fool, dribbling irrelevancies, like the S&P 500.
There is no greenhouse theory relating to the cooling of the Earth, you donkey.
You are not only a stupid SkyDragon, but a supremely gullible one into the bargain! I suppose dimwits like you believe the globe has heated up recently – for no reason in particular!
Mike Flynn,
There is absolutely no logical connection between your factoid and greenhouse theory.
Flimsy buffoon.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Without describing the “factoid”, or the “greenhouse theory”, you are just trying to divert attention away from the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Nothing at all stopped the process.
You are just another stupid SkyDragon rejecting reality, in favour of your fantasies.
Others are free to reject reality if they wish. Many do – SkyDragons who believe in the miraculous future heating properties of CO2, for example.
I say “future”, because there has been no CO2 heating for the past four and a half billion years. This might explain why SkyDragon “tipping points” and “climate catastrophes” are always in the future.
Get out your “Stop Climate Change!” placard,and prance down the street. Wear a multicoloured gay flag if you like, and whine about how Big Oil is hiding the truth!
You idiot, neither you nor anybody else can stop the climate from changing (climate is the average of weather, after all), and Big Oil doesnt care whether you live or die, to my knowledge.
I suppose you could always clam that Big Oil means something else – give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
That does not compute.
Fanatical Buffoon.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Without describing the factoid, or the greenhouse theory, you are just trying to divert attention away from the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Nothing at all stopped the process.
You are just another stupid SkyDragon rejecting reality, in favour of your fantasies.
Others are free to reject reality if they wish. Many do SkyDragons who believe in the miraculous future heating properties of CO2, for example.
I say future, because there has been no CO2 heating for the past four and a half billion years. This might explain why SkyDragon tipping points and climate catastrophes are always in the future.
Get out your Stop Climate Change! placard,and prance down the street. Wear a multicoloured gay flag if you like, and whine about how Big Oil is hiding the truth!
You idiot, neither you nor anybody else can stop the climate from changing (climate is the average of weather, after all), and Big Oil doesnt care whether you live or die, to my knowledge.
I suppose you could always claim that Big Oil means something else give it a try.
“The planet cooled for four and a half billion years or so.”
A factoid that is a red herring is posted, and convinced no one of anything 647 times in a row.
But surely the 648th try will produce dramatic results!
Mike’s either ever the optimist, or just plain bonkers.
Readers, what say you?
Why not both?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
posted this in the wrong thread…
Last night, I accidently left CBC News running in the background till I heard an expose by CBC meteorologist Johana Wagstaffe. Without mentioning La Nina once, she noted the Pacific Ocean is warmer than usual because the missing heat is being stored in the oceans.
That was a direct quote of the bs offered by Kevin Trenberth over 10 years ago after being caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting global warming has stopped and it is a travesty that no one knows why.
Given time to regroup, Trenberth then offered the astounding claim that the missing heat was being stored in the oceans. He did not offer a shred of thermodynamic evidence as to how it got there and from whence it came.
Johana Wagstaffe, who strikes me as being more of a Barbie Doll than a meteorologist, has obviously been deeply affected by Treneberths lie.
Gordon,
Any warming of the ocean is gradual recovery from lia and also natural variability pdo ect. On the subject of media, I noticed an interesting conflicting statement by Time mag when reading about attempts to navigate the northwest passage. Though they did mention the first attempts were during the lia, they later blamed climate change for its easy navigation now. Haha. Though they did leave off man made which is good.
Today, the leftie that I debate who constantly defends the indefensible asked me if there is smoke particulate in CO2. I said that explains a lot. Now were debating it like whether the moon rotates debate. No and no. Your thoughts?
darwin…how’s it going?
I don’t claim the ocean does not store heat, I just don’t think the stored heat has anything to do with anthropogenic warming. The northern Pacific Ocean has warmed about 4 C recently due to La Nina activity. If you look at a map of the area, there is a long blob of cool water between Australia and the west coast of South America. It forces warmer tropical water north and does the same with the atmosphere.
The oceans have definitely warmed gradually since the LIA. Between 1600 and 1850 no one could sail through the NW Passage even in summer. It was blocked by solid ice.
Even Amundsen took a couple of years to get through and that was 60 years after the LIA ended. The first traversal of the NW Passage both ways was done by Captain Henry Larsen in the RCMP cutter, the St. Roch. If you are ever in Vancouver, Canada the St. Roch is in the maritime museum near Kits Beach a mile on the east side of Kits.
Larsen claimed that Arctic ice moves around constantly and it took him and his crew two years to go west to east. On the return journey, they did it in 87 days, east to west. That was in the early 1940s and between Vancouver and Halifax, both ways.
The smoke particulate bit is often used to depict CO2. As you know, it’s an invisible gas. If you look at alarmist photos of the Tar Sands, you see great clouds of steam and or water vapour pouring from stacks which the alarmists suggest is CO2.
The way to kill the Moon debate is to demonstrate it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on its axis while keeping the same face pointed to Earth. If you represent the action with a rotating radial line and tangent lines to represent the near side and the far side of the Moon, it is blatantly obvious the Moon is not rotating on its axis. It can’t when both tangent lines are moving in parallel.
Beware, the spinners will use red-herring arguments based on reference frames. If the Moon cannot rotate in one reference frame it cannot rotate in any reference frame.
> The way to kill the Moon debate is to demonstrate it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on its axis while keeping the same face pointed to Earth.
Tough luck:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Wi95cH3JMmPJtR4rUe4yWX-1920-80.gif
Willard doesn’t understand how that video was made. He’s a child with no understanding of any of this.
If Moon actually rotated on its axis, that video is how it would look from Earth. We would see all sides of it. That’s how we know it’s NOT rotating. We only see one side.
> If Moon actually rotated on its axis, that video is how it would look from Earth.
Yet you can’t prove that part, Pup.
Funny that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There is here only one red herring argument concerning lunar spin, and it is
” If you represent the action with a rotating radial line and tangent lines to represent the near side and the far side of the Moon, it is blatantly obvious the Moon is not rotating on its axis. It cant when both tangent lines are moving in parallel. ”
Written by the most ignorant and arrogant person posting on this blog.
A 360 degree denier gullibly following denial-based web sites, and who denies the existence of viruses, the accuracy of Einstein’s work, the lunar spin etc etc etc.
And above all who isn’t even able to accurately compare temperature time series:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
*
Anyone who believes such a thoroughly inexperienced person has only themselves to blame.
Bindidon, if you deny the ball-on-a-string is a suitable model for “orbital motion without axial spin”, then what model do you use?
Jetzt geht das schon wieder los…
Only lunar spin deniers like you need a model for ‘orbital motion without axial spin’.
Thus I don’t need such a model.
When will you finally understand such simple things?
Correct bin, you don’t need anything to remain braindead.
What model of orbit?
Ever heard of Kepler and Newton? They have a real model that has worked for 300 y.
Troll Nate, you never understand any of this.
At least you’re consistent.
Trolls pretend that facts don’t matter…just as you did there.
Oh, I know that troll Nate. Facts don’t matter to you at all. Generally you run from facts, until you find some way to pervert them. Facts are your enemy, since you hate reality.
Just look at your most recent example, above. You started taking about a “model of orbit”. Then, you mentioned Kepler and Newton. That was you effort to pervert the conversation, while hiding behind actual scientists.
Your efforts are as pathetic as they are absurd.
You’ve got NOTHING.
So what will you try next? Obviously you will continue avoiding reality.
“Your efforts are as pathetic as they are absurd.”
So many sentences. No science answers, rebuttals, or anything of value.
So many missed opportunities to show that you have a clue.
Thats how we recognize trolling.
Gordon,
The first traversal of the NW Passage both ways was done by Captain Henry Larsen in the RCMP cutter, the St. Roch. If you are ever in Vancouver, Canada the St. Roch is in the maritime museum near Kits Beach a mile on the east side of Kits.
Doing good. Had covid twice and the first time got pretty sore from coughing. My sis got me some quercetine and w/zinc it turned me around overnight.
I visited the St. Roch in the mid 80s on a field trip when I attended Skagit Valley college. Amazing view of Vancouvers waterfront.
Thanks for answering my question. I think he knows I have him cause hes dissembling lol.
willard…”A forcing is simple a change in energy flux”.
***
It’s actually a term from differential equation theory used by climate alarmists to suggest it is real.
If you have a differential equation for an amplifier, you can force anther equation representing an input signal onto the equation to see how it reacts. The applied signal is a function and it is called a forcing function.
An example would be the equation for unit impulse function, like a square wave, which forces an amplifier in real life to do silly things. If you apply the equation fr the impulse function onto the equation for an amplifier, you can get an idea beforehand how the real amp should react.
The climate modelers, who are all alarmists, began speaking of mathematical representations of the atmosphere in a climate model as if they actually exist.
Come on, Gordo.
Check the graph at the top of the page.
Then think.
That’s correct, Gordon. The input signal contains energy to the amplifier. So energy is being added to the system. The forcing equation just provides the calculated results.
The GHE nonsense “forcing” creates energy from nowhere. A violation of 1LoT.
Wait, Pup.
Are you telling me that you’re not believing in climate drivers either?
Sorry Puppy, I don’t have time to babysit you today.
Remember to take your nap, and don’t stick sharp objects in your ears.
Can’t hear you, Pup, got this in my ear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtL1huin9EE
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Climate is the average of past weather events.
Babbling nonsense like “climate drivers” just reinforces your SkyDragon cult beliefs.
You may not want to accept that none of your drivers, forcings, back radiation, GHE, nor anything else have prevented the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so, but that’s reality.
Have all the petulant tantrums you like, the Earth has still cooled.
Foolish denier!
Mike Flynn,
No climate drivers, no need to average weather.
You know why?
Take a wild guess, foolish buffoon.
Willard,
Climate is the average of past weather events.
Babbling nonsense like climate drivers just reinforces your SkyDragon cult beliefs.
You may not want to accept that none of your drivers, forcings, back radiation, GHE, nor anything else have prevented the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so, but thats reality.
Have all the petulant tantrums you like, the Earth has still cooled.
Keep dribbling obscure gotchas.
Foolish denier!
Swenson, you always miss Earth’s atm. has also cooled from 4.5billion years ago. That is, from a higher GHE to the currently measured 33K atm. GHE.
The currently measured atm. 33K GHE has recently stopped cooling and is measured heating up again as shown in the top post during the satellite era. You have no idea how high the ancient earthen GHE used to be, do you? Gotcha!
Ball4,
You are a complete donkey.
There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. You are completely delusional talking about cooling from a higher GHE to a lower GHE.
Maybe you believe temperatures are measured in units of GHE, but they arent!
As an example, what is the temperature of molten rock in GHEs? How about the freezing point of water – measured in GHEs?
You are a complete nutter – the GHE supposedly stands for the Greenhouse Effect, which obviously does nothing at all. The Earth cooled for four and a half billion years – in spite of a GHE, CO2, mad calculations by idiot SkyDragons, or anything else!
Temperatures are measured in degrees of hotness – arbitrarily.
Mike Flynn,
There is absolutely no logical connection between your factoid and greenhouse theory.
Fancy buffoon.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Without describing the factoid, or the greenhouse theory, you are just trying to divert attention away from the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Nothing at all stopped the process.
You are just another stupid SkyDragon rejecting reality, in favour of your fantasies.
Others are free to reject reality if they wish. Many do SkyDragons who believe in the miraculous future heating properties of CO2, for example.
I say future, because there has been no CO2 heating for the past four and a half billion years. This might explain why SkyDragon tipping points and climate catastrophes are always in the future.
Get out your Stop Climate Change! placard,and prance down the street. Wear a multicoloured gay flag if you like, and whine about how Big Oil is hiding the truth!
You idiot, neither you nor anybody else can stop the climate from changing (climate is the average of weather, after all), and Big Oil doesnt care whether you live or die, to my knowledge.
I suppose you could always claim that Big Oil means something else give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
There is no logic behind your silly talking point.
Fraudulent Buffoon.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Without describing the factoid, or the greenhouse theory, you are just trying to divert attention away from the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Nothing at all stopped the process.
You are just another stupid SkyDragon rejecting reality, in favour of your fantasies.
Others are free to reject reality if they wish. Many do SkyDragons who believe in the miraculous future heating properties of CO2, for example.
I say future, because there has been no CO2 heating for the past four and a half billion years. This might explain why SkyDragon tipping points and climate catastrophes are always in the future.
Get out your Stop Climate Change! placard,and prance down the street. Wear a multicoloured gay flag if you like, and whine about how Big Oil is hiding the truth!
You idiot, neither you nor anybody else can stop the climate from changing (climate is the average of weather, after all), and Big Oil doesnt care whether you live or die, to my knowledge.
I suppose you could always claim that Big Oil means something else – give it a try.
You are stuck on repeat, frenetic buffoon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Check Sour Lemon trying to bait NOAA’s Hurricane Director into blaming the hurricane on CO2, then in the end concluding he knows more about hurricanes than than the NOAA’s director does
https://youtu.be/4a8OQq5-xsI
No gas for you
https://youtu.be/-5L2sfWAmSI
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/29509180.jpg
Area Troglodyte Haz Gut Sourz
https://www.patreon.com/AntonioChavez
The troposphere higher in tropics, does Earth spin cause it to be higher, and if so, by how much?
” … does Earth spin cause it to be higher … ”
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/338603/why-is-the-tropopause-at-a-higher-altitude-at-the-equator
Russian miners and oilmen go to war
A few hours after President Putin announced a so-called partial mobilization, the Ministry of Energy sent out a letter to the country’s energy, mining and ore processing companies requesting compliance with the president’s order.
The letter is addressed to leaders of the country’s most powerful companies and is signed by Deputy Minister Pavel Sorokin.
Over the next two weeks, all men in the industry are to be given a day off to register at the drafting offices, the ministry says.
Only top company leaders, their deputies and heads of the production units will be exempted from the requirement.
https://ibb.co/nRBxs3Y
” https://ibb.co/nRBxs3Y ”
Oh, would many be happy if that were only the reality!
Gee, what will Putin do when the Ukrainians kill all his oil and gas workers?
Richard Feynman on Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity…
“Both the error and its correction were discovered by Einstein in 1905”
It is interesting that Newton did not know that gravity has a velocity (the speed of light) and so did not include that in his calculation of the orbit of Mercury.
rlh…”It is interesting that Newton did not know that gravity has a velocity (the speed of light) and so did not include that in his calculation of the orbit of Mercury”.
***
Gravity is force and any velocity it may have does not affect a mass in the vicinity of the gravitational field. If it did, we’d notice it in measurements. The speed of light has nothing to do with gravity.
To put it more succinctly, if you had an aircraft carrier moving with a velocity of 30 knots, and you had two cars on its deck traveling at 10 MPH, their speedometers would read the same on the carrier as they would on land, whether the speed of light was a constant or not.
Of course, it would be wise to hit the brakes before reaching the end of the deck. It would be even wiser to let go of thought experiments and stick to what works here in Earth.
“The speed of light has nothing to do with gravity”
So you dispute that gravity has the same speed as that of light. Even though measurements have confirmed it to be so.
https://www.sciencealert.com/speed-of-gravitational-waves-and-light-same
” Both the error and its correction were discovered by Einstein in 1905. ”
Einstein produced a genial synthesis of the work of many at that time, e.g. Lorentz, Poincaré and Hasenöhrl.
See for example
Fritz Hasenöhrl and E = mc²
Stephen Boughn (2012)
https://www.epj.org/images/stories/news/2013/epj_h_1-1-13.pdf
There is also a very interesting article written around 1952 by Herbert E. Yves in which he proves that Einstein was not the real origin of the E = mc² equation, but I lost the link to it.
Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation
Herbert E. Yves (1952)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IL001QEt6qeEB2zXA7waAYAxOZDiOtas/view
Bindidon, you have given an example of Stigler’s law of eponymy: “No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer.” The law of exponential attenuation for example, often called Lambert’s law, was first stated by Pierre Bouguer 1729. Though Bouguer may not have done the experimental proof.
See Stephen M. Stigler, 1999: “Statistics on the Table”, Harvard University Press, Ch. 14. Another name for this “supremely important law of the history of science” is “the Infinite Chain of Priority: Somebody Else Always Did It First”: Tony Rothman, 2003 “Everything’s Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology” John Wiley & Sons, p. xiii.
Yes.
Blinny: So what correction do you think is needed to account for Newton’s lack of knowledge of the speed of gravity?
maguff…”Newtons Second Law was stated with the tacit assumption that m is a constant, but we now know that this is not true, and that the mass of a body increases with velocity”.
***
Feynman is egregiously in error. Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body. Feynman is claiming the amount of matter increases with velocity.
It is understood that a quantity of matter under the influence of a gravitational field, say at the Earth’s surface at sea level, exhibits an acceleration it does not have in free space. That’s why the same quantity of mass not under the influence of a gravitational field is claimed to be weightless. However, the quantity of mass remains the same.
Even if a mass becomes more dense due to external pressure, it is still the same quantity of matter.
Newton was right, mass is a constant, just as he was right that time is absolute. Newton II applies in our gravitational field whereas the Einstein/Feynman variety of mass has to exist in a parallel universe.
The difference between Newton and Einstein/Feynman, is that he thought through problems using physical reality whereas the latter tend to get lost in thought experiment.
I predict, in the future, Einstein’s thought experiments will be laughed at.
Here’s a critique of Feynman. Like most people, I idolized Feynman without really understanding what he did. I don’t know what to make of the critique.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnCDVrBSDFk&ab_channel=Unzicker%27sRealPhysics
I do think the condemnation of Newton is unwarranted and unproved.
The guy in the video claims quantum electrodynamics is bogus and although I have no idea what QED is about, I did watch a Feynman lecture on it. I was not impressed. I’ll have to look at the lecture again.
Should we trust Gordon, or Feynman and Einstein on this issue?
Hmmm, tough call.
Should we trust Gordon and Russian State Media, or the free press on the Ukraine issue?
Hmmm, tough call.
No gas / no oil from Putin’s neonazi warriors who behave exactly like did Hitler’s nazis.
Trump warned them was right
https://youtu.be/eKEycjREgPE
Still laughing much ???
https://youtu.be/_aZXPAHpGC8
Apart from speaking a lot, Trump did nothing else than to deny he lost the 2020 election!
You definitely should know a Nazi, Bindi.
If we are going t mess around with sanctions and arming the Ukraine, what do you expect the Russians to do? Remember, the Russians helped us big time to beat Hitler’s Nazis, even though we propped them up initially by supplying them with arms.
Today, Robertson dumbass, the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin ara the new Nazis.
But an Ignoramus like you will never be able to grasp such evidence.
It is always amazing to see that while idiots deny lunar spin by using incredibly trivial analogies like ball-on-a-string, coins, tangents, merry-go-round and other MOTL-MOTR nonsense, real scientists perform really hard work:
MRS2016: RIGID MOON ROTATION SERIES IN THE RELATIVISTIC
APPROXIMATION
V.V. Pashkevich (2016)
https://tinyurl.com/2sa3yax5
This article describes among other things the transition of lunar spin considerations from the Newtonian world to the relativistic world.
Bindidon, did you find another link you don’t understand?
You don’t have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, yet you keep searching. After you’ve searched the entire web, the answer will be a ball-on-a-string.
Now, rather than me showing you what is wrong with your link. You get to explain how it has any relevance to the issue. For example, explain the relativistic considerations necessary for an object that is NOT moving anywhere close to relativistic speeds.
I won’t hold my breath….
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits, no matter how often you claim otherwise.
Trolling has nothing to do with reality, no matter how often you try it, RLH.
You’re just another braindead cult idiot with no knowledge of science. You couldn’t answer any of the simple problems. You couldn’t even understand the solution to the vector problem.
You’re all froth, no beer.
rlh…well, here’s another claim to oppose your theory. A ball on a string keeps the same face toward the end of the string acting as an orbital axis. The Moon keeps the same face toward the Earth, acting as an orbital axis. I’d say there is a whole lot in common.
The common point is they are both moving with curvilinear translation without rotation. That’s the only explanation for bodies moving in that manner.
The common point is they are both moving with curvilinear translation without rotation as viewed from the center of their orbit, Gordon.
ball4…and if they are moving with curvilinear rotation without rotation from the centre of the orbit the Moon is not rotating on its axis. Therefore, no matter the reference frame it is still not rotating on its axis.
However, a flat surface, say the tangential plane represented by the side always facing the Earth, will appear to rotate through 360 degrees during an orbit. The rotation is not about the lunar axis, however, it is an apparent rotation, not an actual rotation.
Gordon…and if they are moving with curvilinear rotation without rotation observed from the centre of the orbit then Moon is of course seen not rotating on its own axis since we see only one lunar face.
“A ball on a string keeps the same face toward the end of the string acting as an orbital axis”
A ball-on-a-string is exactly the same ,logically, as a stick-rotating-about-one-end and a section-of-a-disk.
All have NOTHING to do with orbits.
RLH, you’re perverting the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string because it shows your cult beliefs to be wrong.
Your attempt to use a bicycle pedal as a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation” fails because the pedal has axial rotation.
You’ve got NOTHING, so you just keep trolling.
At no time does the author talk about the Moon rotating on a local axis. He is talking only of libration.
Jupiters Atmosphere is Surprisingly Hot
Jupiter is a big planet, but its still a planet. That means it doesnt heat itself through fancy mechanisms like nuclear fusion. Its interior is heated through its own weight, squeezing the interior through hydrostatic equilibrium, and its surface is heated mostly by the Sun. Since Jupiter only gets about 4% of the light per square meter that Earth gets, youd expect its upper atmosphere to be pretty cold. Traditional models estimate it should be about -70 degrees Celsius. But recent measurements show the upper atmosphere is over 400 degrees Celsius, and in the polar regions as much as 700 degrees Celsius. In the words of Ruby Rhod from the movie The Fifth Element, Its Hot Hot Hot!
https://www.universetoday.com/157817/jupiters-atmosphere-is-surprisingly-hot/
I was thinking that Jupiter, got hit by impactors, recently.
Maybe it’s surface is hot from the impactors.
So, looked up how fast Jupiter spins:
“Jupiter, for example, makes one rotation in 9h 55m but moves 27 times faster than Earth at its equator, spinning at a whopping 45,583 km/h!”
And I suppose it has wider diameter at it’s equator due to this fast spin.
I was also wondering if Earth spin, helps with the tropical ocean heat engine.
gbaikie.
Some idiot wrote “Its interior is heated through its own weight, squeezing the interior through hydrostatic equilibrium, . . ”
Complete nonsense, like Loschmidt’s “gravitothermal” speculation, or Dug Cttn’s “heat creep”.
It may be noted that the temperature of the water at 10 km depth (great pressure) can be much colder than surface, while the Earth’s crust at 10 km depth is 200 – 300 C.
When work is done, heat is created. When the work stops, the heat flees – to outer space. It is often measured as the temperature of the matter emitting it.
It may also be noted than 10 km below ocean floor crust is hotter than 10 km below land surface crust.
For the dumbies who still doubt about time dilation:
https://www.space.com/42641-einstein-gravitational-time-dilation-galileo-probes.html
binny…from your link…”the closer a clock is to a massive object, the more slowly its hands will move, as seen by an outside observer”.
***
What does a clock have to do with time? A clock is a machine that has gears which control its rate of rotation. I think it’s feasible that a stronger gravitational field would affect its rate of rotation but what is the clock measuring?
Would gravity affect a digital clock in the same way to the same degree? A mechanical and digital clock would have to show the same change in time exactly in order for the theory to have credence.
Is it not obvious, that all clocks on Earth are measuring the rate at which the Earth rotates, with the Sun as a reference point? All clocks would show different times were they not synchronized to one clock in Greenwich, England.
Furthermore, a clock in Vancouver Canada is set to be 8 hours behind the clock in Greenwich. Why? Because, Vancouver is 6000 miles around the planet from Greenwich and sees the Sun 8 hours out of sync with Greenwich.
Whoever wrote your article is an idiot. I won’t go so far as to call Einstein an idiot but he certainly committed a major gaffe when he associated time with clocks.
In Einstein’s world time was a creation of the human mind and it still is today. Why he missed the obvious I cannot say but time expert, Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, did not miss it. He chastised Einstein for misunderstanding measurement. He also concluded that Einstein’s theory of relativity was not even a theory but a collection of thought experiments with no proof.
What you get at your link is an idiot trying to prove time dilation without having a clue as to what time is or what is dilating. He talks about shifts, a reference to a change in wavelength of an EM wave due to gravity, some serious nonsense.
If our ocean had an uniform temperature of 10 C, how long would it take to cool to average temperature of 5 C?
Well there is problem, it it wouldn’t cool.
Or average surface temperature of Earth is 17 C.
It seems me if mixed the 17 C so it had an uniform surface temperature of 10 C. After few months or years, the surface temperature should warm back up to around an average surface temperature of about 17 C.
So, for it to cool down, without first warming up, let’s allow surface waters warmer than 10 C to stay where they are and put the uniform 10 C water to replacing surface waters which are colder then 10 C.
So tropical ocean surface water averages about 26 C and it’s thick slabs of water warmer than 10 C. And just but the uniform ocean of 10 C under that warmer water. And the 60% of rest of ocean averages around 11 C, so wherever that 60% of ocean has surface water which are cooler than 10 C, than we have the uniform ocean of 10C, be the
surface. And so than we could say it should cool, rather first warm up, than then cool.
So, how long would take to cool the mostly 10 C ocean which uniform,
to cool to average ocean temperature of 5 C?
I would guess more than 100 thousand years, or we have much higher average global temperature for more than 100 thousand years.
Maybe a million or 10 million years would my assumption.
Voting for Republicans is essentially voting against Democrats because when you vote for Republicans you’re not voting for anything. Republicans are mostly unimaginative, ineffective, nonintellectual, lazy, and boring. Democrats are none of those things. But, Democrats are also evil, conniving, pathological, diabolical narcissistic, and even psychopathic. If Republicans gain a Congressional majority they should investigate the Bidens, investigate the last election, and investigate the Border. I doubt they do any of these things except just bumble along with mostly ineffectual committees, interviews, and press conferences.
> Republicans are mostly unimaginative, ineffective, nonintellectual, lazy, and boring.
Counterpoint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1371813
And Republicans are lazy- and they rather be in the minority.
But though Republican politicians are just as much socialist or lefties as Dems, the Rep pols are accountable to Republicans voters. And Dem voters are sheep.
Or where is something like dem “Tea Party”? With the Tea Party there was a lot lazy Republicans politicians who really didn’t like it at all.
Both play the game of promises given, and not delivering on the promises. Trump did what said he would do- it drove both parties, quite insane. None of them want to deliver. Talk is cheap.
stephen p. anderson
Your view seems oversimplified and unimaginative like you paint the Republicans. Quite a broad brush to paint people with. I am sure there are some intelligent Republicans and I doubt all Democrats are evil etc. I think you have this highly polarized brain that only can see black or white based upon your own limited perceptions. I think it is sad so many are like you.
With science you have the totally stupid Clint R and Swenson. You can give them facts, link them to articles, present evidence and yet they babble on and on with the same stupid ideas they make up in their empty heads. Then we have polarizers like you that are exceedingly judgmental with little or no facts. You must be a consumer of hard right Conspiracy blogs and you must not think for yourself but accept any stupid idea these bloggers claim. I suggest you break away from that garbage and go back to your scientific background. You have greatly reduced your thinking mind in favor of ignorant emotional reactionary mentality. It is really sad to see this happen to a person but it is taking place at an accelerating pace.
Case of point would be the blind stupidity of Alex Jones followers on Sandy Hook. It is sick how deprived people get when they listen to liars and frauds.
Case of point, Gordon Robertson believes the liar Putin and thinks Zelensky is a bad person for trying to defend his Nation against a very brutal invading military. It is just sad that lies and deception can grab so many minds that they then forget how to think.
This blog is a real depressing place when you have Willard pulling up past blogs and the same ideas go around and around with no growth of any kind. No evidence or fact seems to alter any point of view. Sorry you have lowered your intellect to the point of a slobbering fanatic. Really it is sad, I am sad for you and depressed because your fanatic mentality is one of millions. The lies and fanactics are trying to stir up a Civil War in our Nation. For What??!! It will not solve anything and only amplify any problems now perceived.
You would do much better to get out of the lies that have destroyed your thinking mind and turned you into a fanatic.
Norman,
Maybe you can deny that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years?
If it did, nothing at all stopped it cooling, did it?
Not the atmosphere, not oceans, not CO2, not SkyDragon calculations – nothing.
The planet cooled.
Dont blame me if I point out the blindingly obvious. I didnt invent the laws of the universe.
You could try blaming God for ignoring your fantasies, but I dont think it will change anything at all.
You are a silly goose, arent you?
norman…”Case of point, Gordon Robertson believes the liar Putin and thinks Zelensky is a bad person for trying to defend his Nation against a very brutal invading military. It is just sad that lies and deception can grab so many minds that they then forget how to think”.
***
Zelensky is not only a bad person he’s a lying wanker. He lied to the Ukrainian people to get elected, portraying himself as the idiot he portrayed in his television series.
Here’s the real Zelensky as described by a Ukrainian journalist. Complete idiot.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
Come on, Gordo.
At least 194K Russians know better than you:
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-estonia-kazakhstan-d851fdd9e99bedbf4e01b98efd18d14b
You should try to get recruited by the Khadirov elite, they need some privates to take turns with their goats.
Gee whillikers, Willard, 1/100th of 1% the Russian population ran away.
The current Russian army has 1 million people with 2 million in reserve. According to my basic math, they have at least 20 – 30 million to call up for a draft.
Do you think maybe the fake news is trying their hardest to make it look like Russia is in trouble?
I’ll tell you who is in trouble, the Ukrainians. As long as they are lead by the idiot Zelensky, who is in the clutches of Nazi-based nationalist, Ukrainians will go on dying.
That’s the real shame.
Wee Willy Wanker,
I’m sure you could exercise your privates on a goat – maybe of the SkyDragon variety?
While you’re at it, you might think about why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding having an atmosphere, CO2, and all the rest.
Here’s a tip – when you’re looking for a goat, put a bag over your head. It’s not good form to unnecessarily frighten dumb animals.
Good luck anyway. I’m sure you’re brave enough to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.
I’m a bit of a pacifist, so you could fight twice as hard on my behalf!
Have fun.
Come on, Gordo.
14K is more Han 10% of the 137K the ZZ in chief you bootlick decreed to serve, and you omit the reason why he did:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-russian-militarys-ill-fated-force-design/
They do not have 1M on the ground, and they lose at least one battalion every day.
Vlad is losing. Deal with it.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Im sure you could exercise your privates on a goat maybe of the SkyDragon variety?
While youre at it, you might think about why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding having an atmosphere, CO2, and all the rest.
Heres a tip when youre looking for a goat, put a bag over your head. Its not good form to unnecessarily frighten dumb animals.
Good luck anyway. Im sure youre brave enough to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.
Good luck with predicting conflict outcome. The US, for example is pretty hopeless.
Have fun.
I’m going to remind Gordon of the one sensible thing he said about the war early on:
“I am hoping the Russians will put an end to this nonsense, root-out the neo-Nazis, then leave when order is re-imposed. If they do not, I will re-evaluate my views.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/#comment-1264347
Not only have they not left, they have now annexed large sections of Ukraine into mother Russia.
Will you now do as promised and re-evaluate your views?
Hey Mike –
Repeat your copy-pasta under my comment.
Wee Willy Wanker,
I’m sure you could exercise your privates on a goat maybe of the SkyDragon variety?
While youre at it, you might think about why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, notwithstanding having an atmosphere, CO2, and all the rest.
Heres a tip when youre looking for a goat, put a bag over your head. Its not good form to unnecessarily frighten dumb animals.
Good luck anyway. Im sure youre brave enough to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.
Good luck with predicting conflict outcome. The US, for example has been pretty hopeless.
Have fun.
Perfect copypasta, Mike!
Can you do it one more time for me?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
Did you look at the credentials of who wrote the smear article on Zelensky?
Norman,
The Republican Party is a limp dick and the Democrat Party is pathological. That’s why Trump was so scary to both of them. They’re afraid he will destroy the Republican Party. The Democrats don’t want that. If the Republicans really want to energize their base then they will elect Trump as Speaker of the House. They have no temerity. They want the status quo.
stephen…”The Republican Party is a limp dick and the Democrat Party is pathological. Thats why Trump was so scary to both of them”.
***
Interesting perspective. I don’t know much about either party but I suspected there were traitors in the Republican Party ho interfered with Trump.
I know John McCain was in the Ukraine fanning the flames of a coup that started the current war. McCain hated Trump.
“I dont know much about either party but I suspected there were traitors in the Republican Party who interfered with Trump.”
Can’t call them traitors [though you could call the whole lot of them traitors]. Trump was a New York Dem. One needs to ask, why Trump didn’t run as Dem?
It was because, Rep party would allow him to run as Candidate for President. Dem political machine would make it harder for Trump to run as Dem candidate. If course Rep have a political machine but it not designed to prevent “outsiders” from running {or you could say the machine was not strong enough to stop outsiders from running}.
A big concern of Rep machine, is that dem pols would side with Trump {everyone knew Trump was a dem} but dems aren’t dems- or the left eats it’s own.
So Trump was not a politician, but he dealt with politicians. So he talked to Rep politicians to get their help, to run as republican candidate. Newt Gingrich was one of them. There is some inside baseball to it, but you do polling to get public opinion and base our campaign on what likely voters will vote for.
The southern border was one issue, which large majority wanted a solution to, as example. And Trump had this as major campaign promise.
[Trump was builder, building a wall, is kind of predictable.]
In terms building the wall, one could say, there was Rep traitors.
Or not having a wall, was a good excuse not to deal with making the laws governing immigration. So it was first build wall, then next step {the hard part] was come to some political “deal” regarding immigration laws.
But the “traitors” were the Deep State- FBI and CIA and Etc.
The FBI has proven beyond any doubt that they are traitors to the American people.
Among our Sky Dragon cranks, one troglodyte defends one coup, the other two.
Fascism goes so well with AGW denial.
AGW megalomania is Fascist.
Sky Dragon Cranks have mental health issues.
Blog comments have limited therapeutic virtues.
“Sky Dragon Cranks have mental health issues”
More shameless gaslighting from the worst troll we’ve ever had.
“they will elect Trump as Speaker of the House”
Yeah that’s what we need. Congress to become a full-time trolling operation.
Only one with the balls to stand up to the psychopath in the White House. Republicans don’t want to stand up to him. Republicans and Democrats are two sides to the same coin. Trump isn’t either side of the coin.
Indeed Rs are promising to impeach Biden if they win the house. If Trump is speaker, then its guaranteed.
But when asked impeached for for what, they have no answer. The answer is just for being a D.
IOW, the Job1 of Rs under Trumps leadership, is to troll the Ds.
Job 2 is to overturn lost elections.
Job 3 is to block as many voters from voting as possible.
Job 4 is to put as many election deniers into election operations as possible.
Job 5 is to cheerlead for foreign fascists.
.
.
Job 47 is to govern.
Oh, maybe Venus has global wind:
“The upper layer of troposphere exhibits a phenomenon of super-rotation, in which the atmosphere circles the planet in just four Earth days, much faster than the planet’s sidereal day of 243 days.”
wiki
Because it is caused by air falling it in poles and replaced air warmed nearer the equator.
Or we have higher troposphere because our tropics is heats more from the sun. And because Earth spins. Venus doesn’t spin much, but it would be more heat in it’s “tropics” or also have higher troposphere near equator.
So higher air falls to Venus polar region, and Venus polar air returns back to the Venus tropics at lower elevation.
And sort of have a chicken and egg thing- is colder polar region “driving it” or is warmer tropical air driving. Or is it both.
And if both for Venus, maybe it’s both for Earth.
gb…you can see the effect warmer oceans have on a hurricane and over the surface, on tornadoes. Can you imagine the hurricane and tornado strengths if our surface temperature was 450C, as on Venus?
binny…”[GR] If you represent the action with a rotating radial line and tangent lines to represent the near side and the far side of the Moon, it is blatantly obvious the Moon is not rotating on its axis. It cant when both tangent lines are moving in parallel. ”
***
Still awaiting your proof that I am wrong. Instead of rushing to your authority figures on the Net, why not try doing some simple math yourself?
To dumb it down for you, the inner tangent line representing the side always facing the Earth, will represent each point on an inner circle traced out by that face. The same for a tangent line representing the outer face.
Here’s the clincher. Add another tangent lie to represent the COG. Now you have three concentric circles with the inner side, the COG and the far side all moving in parallel at each instant.
It’s called curvilinear translation without rotation.
Where’s Dremt, is he on tour with his band?
Come on, Gordo.
Your Bat-Signal was already clear enough.
You are on your own.
C’mon Weird Willy,
You wrote –
“Come on, Gordo.
Your Bat-Signal was already clear enough.
You are on your own.”
I see you can’t explain how the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, so you just dribble puerile gibberish in an attempt to appear clever.
Maybe you could look up another diversion in the SkyDragon Manual of Excuses, Diversions, and Scuttling Away, if you can find the time, do you think?
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Your pet topic has nothing to do with AGW, the Moon, or Gordo.
Feverish buffoon.
Cmon Weird Willy,
You wrote
Come on, Gordo.
Your Bat-Signal was already clear enough.
You are on your own.
I see you cant explain how the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, so you just dribble puerile gibberish in an attempt to appear clever.
Maybe you could look up another diversion in the SkyDragon Manual of Excuses, Diversions, and Scuttling Away, if you can find the time, do you think?
[more sniggering]
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
Something.
Who cares?
Cmon Weird Willy,
You wrote
“Come on, Gordo.
Your Bat-Signal was already clear enough.
You are on your own.”
I see you can’t explain how the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, so you just dribble puerile gibberish in an attempt to appear clever.
Maybe you could look up another diversion in the SkyDragon Manual of Excuses, Diversions, and Scuttling Away, if you can find the time, do you think?
[even more sniggering]
Mike Flynn,
All you had to do is to copy-paste in the proper subthread.
Try again, futile buffoon!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Robertson
” Still awaiting your proof that I am wrong. ”
Why should I loose my time in proving you wrong when real scientists did that since centuries?
You are such an arrogant idiot who thinks he can solve such a complex problem as lunar spin by using such a megatrivial idea!
*
” Instead of rushing to your authority figures on the Net… ”
I don’t rush to any ‘authority figures on the Net’, you poor Ignoramus.
I rely on what I have learned, and on original documents which – luckily – are available on the Net, and not just in a few public libraries around the world!
*
YOU, Robertson, are the one who permanently rush on ‘authority’ figures on the Net, with the difference that all these ‘authorities’ (Roy Spencer excepted) are Pseudoscientists who all write unproven things based on their personal view.
*
” … why not try doing some simple math yourself? ”
Simply because it is not simple AT ALL, Robertson.
Only deniers and Ignoramuses like you and a couple of others can be ‘convinced’ that contradicting the scientists who computed the lunar spin is as simple as talking about a ‘ball-on-a-string’ and similar idiocies.
*
By the way: why should anybody trust in the trivial thoughts of a person even unable to properly consider and compare simple things as temperature series?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
I sincerely hope, Robertson, that all people who think they should gullibly follow all your nonsense begin to understand what a failure you are.
Gordon Robertson
Have you checked your source? Grayzone promotes Russian propaganda. It is not the best source of information concerning anything Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Blumenthal
More realistic information is what the average Ukrainian thinks of Zelensky.
https://www.iri.org/news/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-overwhelming-support-for-zelensky-confidence-in-winning-the-war-desire-for-eu-membership/
” Have you checked your source? ”
Of course he did!
Robertson only publishes links to misleading and misrepresenting trash, especially concerning authoritarian regimes like China’s or Russia’s.
He dares to accuse Ukraine of hosting Neo-Nazis! That is exactly what Russian propagandists in Europe endlessly propagate.
There are, per square kilometer, many more Neo-Nazis in Northern America and Western Russia than in the Ukraine.
binny…I am not claiming the Ukraine hosts neo-Nazis, I am claiming many Ukrainians ARE neo-Nazis.
There is proof of that going back to the 1920s. One example is Stepan Bandera who is still popular in western Ukraine even though he has been dead since 1959. Bandera was wanted at the Nuremberg Trials for war crimes yet the Ukraine decreed him a hero by law. That decree was revoked later and then re-instated in 2016 to included other Nazi war criminals and those in the OUN who were fascists and white supremacists.
Zelensky, a Jew, has done nothing to revoke the law even though those made a hero by the law participated in the extermination of Jews. I think Zelensky is afraid of the scumbag nationalists who still worship the likes of Bandera.
Norman, I’d like to see more intelligence out of you than that. The interview is by Grayzone but the person being interviewed is a genuine Ukrainian journalist.
Read what she had to say and verify it. Not rocket science.
Solar wind
speed: 516.3 km/sec
density: 10.72 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Sep 22
Sunspot number: 72
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.70×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.6% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.6%
So month of Sept sunspots should be sideways
and what will it do, next month.
More sideways??
Crashing or leaping up for next month seems possible
and relatively meaningless either way. Or what going to
do in 6 months or a year would be more significant.
But it seems easier to guess, what going be like in a week.
It seems likely Neutron Counts are going be +3 elevated within
a week. Or sun’s active will weaken in next week but at some point,
say, months, it’s going strengthen a lot. Or giving -5 in Neutron counts.
It will go sideways more or less for the next two years
Is that based on Valentina Zharkova:
https://solargsm.com/grand-solar-cycle-and-minimum/
Or something else?
It is based on Heartland and the GWPF Grand Minimum conspiracy and me being their paid agent.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2022-0-06-deg-c/#comment-1331842
So, yes?
And why and how does that indicate sideways for 2 years?
gbaikie
Didn’t you look at the top of the page?
” Valentina Zharkova‘s GSM
A site to report about my research in solar activity and energetic particles ”
*
As for the controversy about the Heartland Institute and the Global Warming ‘Policy Foundation’ with regard to Zharkova, anyone who reads threads about GSM and/or Zharkova at WUWT (owned by Anthony Watts, a ‘senior consultant’ for Heartland), will inevitably scrutinize the interest of people who often post GSM stuff to Roy Spencer’s blog.
Just like Warmistas exceedingly hint on warming events, so do Coolistas conversely.
“will inevitably scrutinize the interest of people who often post GSM stuff to Roy Spencers blog.”
Probably cause Eben posts about it.
“Just like Warmistas exceedingly hint on warming events, so do Coolistas conversely.”
As I said, it seems it could effect weather.
I don’t confuse weather with global climate.
But I also don’t know what cause the dip of little ice age, but appears to me, we have recovery from cooing, as many past instances
of recovery from other centuries of cooling in the past, but 5000 year trend seems to cooling, or long term we should continue to cool.
Also no one has measured an amount of warming which should be caused by doubling of CO2. I assume at some point in time, it will be measured.
I have always been doubtful about how much global CO2 levels will rise, and lately it seems they might rise as much I thought, therefore there is less hope it rise enough so it might be measured.
Or I tend to optimistic, and perhaps no one will be able to measure it any time soon.
Things seem to take longer than I expect that they might occur.
We of course in an Ice Age. And 15 C is cold air.
Past times when Earth was warmer, the ocean average temperature was 4 C or warmer. So ocean is not warming much nor CO2 doing much.
I used to think, .2 C of cooling would be bad, but from this point, now, it seems less of problem. And it could happen within couple decade, but rather it warmed .2 in couple decades.
Does anyone think, it going warm more than .1 C in 10 years?
Or that it’s going to return to .14 C per decade any time soon?
Does anyone think 1 C per century is too fast to warm?
“It will go sideways more or less for the next two years”
Suprised Eben is in the guessing (er prediction) business at all, given his lack of expertise on this subject..
But we’ll take note of it.
Write it in your Gurkentruppe forecasdting diary
U.S. embassy in Moscow urges American citizens to leave Russia ‘immediately’
“U.S. citizens should not travel to Russia and those residing or traveling in Russia should depart Russia immediately while limited commercial travel options remain,” the embassy said in a security alert issued Tuesday.
The embassy urged U.S. citizens to make independent arrangements “as soon as possible,” as commercial flight options are extremely limited but overland car and bus routes are still open. The embassy said it has limited options to help Americans in Russia, whose transportation options “may suddenly become even more limited.”
The alert also warned Americans that Russia may refuse to acknowledge U.S. citizenship for dual nationals, try to prevent their departure from Russia, prevent access to consular assistance or even conscript dual nationals for military service. The embassy added that basic human rights such as the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are not guaranteed in Russia.
Serious propaganda. I’ll wait and see how many US citizens living in Russia take Brandon’s advice.
One US citizen living in Russia is Edward Snowden. He can’t return home because he is charged with espionage for reporting illegal activity within the CIA and NSA, whereby they were illegally spying on US citizens. His information forced the European Union into protecting whistleblowers like Snowden in Europe.
Putin has granted Snowden Russian citizenship. No doubt there is a political motivation there but I think Putin admires people who will take the risks taken by Snowden. Snowden would also like dual citizenship but his own government has disowned him for being honest and having integrity.
It’s ironic that the US government is urging US citizens to leave Russia following Snowden’s appeal for dual citizenship.
The fact that the Russians have not put pressure on Snowden to reveal CIA and NSA secrets speaks volumes. On his arrival in Russia, en route to Ecuador, his passport was revoked by the US, stranding him in Russia. According to Snowden, US security officials approached him about cooperating re revealing secrets but he adamantly refused.
I have no idea what goes on in Russia. All I know is what I have read in several books written by people recently traveling through Russia. No one hassled them and most Russians were kind to them. They did report occasionally being stopped and asked for ID. They were not taken to a centre and interrogated, if their ID was legit they were free to go.
> I have no idea what goes on in Russia.
C’mon, Gordo.
Duh!!!
I read upthread Robertson’s usual trash about time dilation:
” Is it not obvious, that all clocks on Earth are measuring the rate at which the Earth rotates, with the Sun as a reference point? All clocks would show different times were they not synchronized to one clock in Greenwich, England. ”
How is it possible to write such nonsense in 2022?
*
” Whoever wrote your article is an idiot. I wont go so far as to call Einstein an idiot but he certainly committed a major gaffe when he associated time with clocks.
Say this blog’s most arrogant Ignoramus, who never had anything to do with GPS, and does not know anything
Who believes in the permanent trash of such a failure?
*
Let us look at the original article instead (only the abstract is available):
Gravitational Redshift Test Using Eccentric Galileo Satellites
P. Delva & al. (2018)
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.231101
” We report on a new test of the gravitational redshift and thus of local position invariance, an integral part of the Einstein equivalence principle, which is the foundation of general relativity and all metric theories of gravitation.
We use data spanning 1008 days from two satellites of Galileo, Europes global satellite navigation system, which were launched in 2014, but accidentally delivered on elliptic rather than circular orbits. The resulting modulation of the gravitational redshift of the onboard atomic clocks allows the redshift determination with high accuracy.
Additionally, specific laser ranging campaigns to the two satellites have enabled a good estimation of systematic effects related to orbit uncertainties.
Together with a careful conservative modeling and control of other systematic effects we measure the fractional deviation of the gravitational redshift from the prediction by general relativity to be (0.19±2.48)×10−5 at 1 sigma, improving the best previous test by a factor 5.6.
To our knowledge, this represents the first reported improvement on one of the longest standing results in experimental gravitation, the Gravity Probe A hydrogen maser rocket experiment back in 1976. ”
*
How is it possible that a scientific blog allows such arrogant and ignorant persons like this ‘Gordon Robertson’ (certainly a nickname) to deny science in such an incompetent and woeful way?
binny…from article…”The resulting modulation of the gravitational redshift of the onboard atomic clocks allows the redshift determination with high accuracy”.
***
Gullible people will accept the statement above as fact. However, it is sheer nonsense. Redshift suggests an EM frequency has been shifted toward the red end of the EM spectrum.
Reference to a redshift in a star means a spectral line from an element like hydrogen is not at the wavelength/frequency where it is normally found. It has relocated to a wavelength/frequency toward the red end of the EM spectrum, meaning it is now appears to be at a lower frequency/wavelength.
That is caused by the star moving relative to Earth at a significant velocity causing the velocity of the star to be added to or subtracted from the speed of light.
But wait!!! Isn’t the speed of light supposed to be a constant?
Gravitational redshift is pseudo-science based on the ridiculous theory proposed by Einstein that time dilates with increased velocity of an object. Furthermore, he claimed the dimensions of the object will change.
An atomic clock is based on the transitions of electrons in the cesium atom. The transitions occur at a very regular rate and will produce emission spectra corresponding to a particular transition. Knowing the frequency of a spectral line, that frequency can be divided down till it measures 1 second, derived from the Earth’s rotational period.
If gravity somehow interferes with the transitions of electrons in a cesium atom, that has absolutely nothing to do with time. It means the timebase we are relying on is now corrupt.
For the umpteenth time, time has no physical existence. Time exists only in the mind of those humans who created clocks to synchronize with the Earth’s rotational period. The period was arbitrarily divided into hours, minutes, and seconds.
The fact that the same hours, minutes, and second are used to measure distances along the equator should clue an astute mind into the superficiality of time. The only way time could dilate under those circumstances is if the Earth’s rotational rate sped up or slowed down significantly.
An atomic clock has nothing to do with the Earth’s rotation, it is based on the natural transitions of electrons in the cesium atom.
Stock Market is making new lows. S&P is now below where Biden came in.
Let’s go Brandon!
I did not know you were a closet Obama fan, Pup:
https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president
GFY!
Thanks.
Clicking on the guy Frogs name Dobeliou is surprising, isn’t it.
Call him Dubya for the same, but with the Texin accint.
Hard to beat Hoover’s -77%, whom was so Republican there’s a
think tankresearch center to his name:https://www.hoover.org/
Let’s hope they’re as good at advancing the human condition as Hubert was at crushing the S&P.
clint…a few other things to note about Bidon’s era…
1)a million illegal immigrants being welcomed to the US.
2)murder rates skyrocketing in major cities due to Democratic state governments turning a blind eye to crime.
3)Defunding police.
4)Throwing police in jail for doing their jobs.
5)Making heroes out of criminals and drug addicts who got themselves killed by police doing their jobs. House speaker, Pelosi, actually called one a hero.
6)Removal of legal rights from citizens over an alleged pandemic being claimed to be caused by a virus no one can physically isolate.
6a)Illegally forcing experimental gene therapy on US citizens while lying to them about the effectiveness.
7)major inflation caused by incompetent fiscal management.
8) dramatically reducing or eliminating bail for known and repeat criminals and offenders.
9)freeing murderers from jail before their sentence has been served.
10)Help start a civil war in the Ukraine by interfering in the affairs of the Ukraine. Tried to coerce the Ukraine into joining NATO knowing Russia would not stand for it and after promising Russia that would not happen.
11)Fled Afghanistan, leaving US citizens and soldiers stranded.
” Let’s Go Brandon ”
For those whose don’t know what it means, and whose healthy brain keeps off such woeful polemic, here is a bit of Wiki:
” “Let’s Go Brandon” is a political slogan and Internet meme, used as a substitute for the profane phrase “Fuck Joe Biden”, a scornful statement levied toward Joe Biden, the 46th and current president of the United States, and his supporters. ”
Chants of “Fuck Joe Biden” began during sporting events in early September 2021.
On October 2, 2021, during a televised interview of the Sparks 300 race winner Brandon Brown at Talladega Superspeedway, NBC Sports reporter Kelli Stavast incorrectly described the chant in the background as “Let’s Go Brandon”, which sparked the meme.
The slogan has become well known through use by Republican politicians and critics of Biden.
The phrase quickly spread to popular culture, with rap songs using the phrase placing high on record charts. “
Duh!!! Are you just figuring that out?
I think if ocean warmed up to 4 C, it would cause an average global air temperature of about 20 C.
And 20 C doesn’t seem as cold as 15 C.
But the issue/point is would average global surface air temperature
of 20 C melt away any of ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica.
It seems possible it could add glacial ice to Greenland and Antarctica.
Or in past when global air temperature was 20 C, we were in different part of Milankovitch cycle.
Or everyone agree where we are at in terms Milankovitch cycle, is heading toward a glaciation period.
And many said that rising CO2 levels will save us from entering an glaciation period any time soon.
But let’s imagine that higher CO2 levels are warming our ocean, and centuries into the future, warms ocean to 4 C.
It seems since are at wrong part of Milankovitch cycle, it might add glaciers rather than remove glacial mass from our ice sheets.
Now apparently a lot mass thought to loss from Greenland was instead loss the northern islands in Canada. And with a much warmer ocean, it seems possible even more glacial mass could removed from low elevation islands. Maybe 1/2 meter sea level rise from that.
Of course another thing is that 4 C ocean could green the Sahara desert and add that 1/2 meter to the desert.
“Or everyone agree where we are at in terms Milankovitch cycle, is heading toward a glaciation period.”
Milankovitch cycle should be read REVERSED!
–
When Milankovitch cycle is read REVERSED – it becomes a very good demonstration of the current, the orbitally forced Global Warming TREND.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Milankovitch cycle in terms any significant changes involve many centuries.
And we have been slightly cooling for about 5000 years.
gbaikie
I recently explained to you already that there are THREE Milankovitch cycles:
https://geol105.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
and that none of them shows any serious transition to global cooling.
We are in the middle of everything.
Why do you persist? Ideology?
–and that none of them shows any serious transition to global cooling.
We are in the middle of everything.
Why do you persist? Ideology?–
It’s not because of wiki, but wiki is handy:
“The current trend of decreasing tilt, by itself, will promote milder seasons (warmer winters and colder summers), as well as an overall cooling trend. Because most of the planet’s snow and ice lies at high latitude, decreasing tilt may encourage the termination of an interglacial period and the onset of a glacial period for two reasons: 1) there is less overall summer insolation, and, 2) there is less insolation at higher latitudes (which melts less of the previous winter’s snow and ice)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
More from wiki:
“The angle of the Earth’s axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane (the obliquity of the ecliptic) varies between 22.1 degrees and 24.5 degrees, over a cycle of about 41,000 years. The current tilt is 23.44 degrees, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt last reached its maximum in 8,700 BCE. It is now in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum around the year 11,800 CE.”
8700 + 2022 = 10722
10722 years ago it was at 24.5 degree and also mean:
10722 + 10722 = 21444 years ago it was at our current tilt, but going up, instead of down.
11800 – 2022 = 9778 years from now it reaches lowest angle and start coming up again.
and 9778 + 9778 = 19556 year it will back our tilt and going up.
But of course, that doesn’t mean there be another interglacial period
in 19556 years. Because there are other orbital factors.
So, in say 3000 years, it will be colder- but it doesn’t mean will have ice sheets on North America which are mile up- that comes much much later {if history repeats itself}. But it’s possible Canada has a lot more skiing opportunities. It might fun to have ice sheet 1 mile high, within next 1000 years, but I would not count on it.
Nor would I count on centuries of warming. It seems to me we have at couple centuries where doesn’t get as cold as Little Ice Age.
gb…the north Pacific Ocean is currently 4C warmer than normal and it’s not caused by global warming. The cause is the 3 year La Nina, which is pumping tropical water into the north Pacific.
I imagine the PDO has something to do with it.
You think September will have much higher global temperature?
It should be posted next Monday.
gb…I’m not much at forecasting but it would not surprise me if that’s the case.
The never ending surprises. I was thinking about that in regards
to space exploration- in terms of it being a “problem”.
binny the dumbass whines…”Today, Robertson dumbass, the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin ara the new Nazis”.
***
Where are the death camps, that started as death camps for any Germans who opposed the Nazis? Where are there Russian Jews being exterminated along with Russians and Slavs, and anyone deemed undesirable to the Reich? Where is the Russian equivalent of the SS and the Gestapo? Anyone from any part of the world is free to visit Russia today and travels about freely.
There is the occasional ID check but nothing like the days in the Third Reich where people were hustled into cars by the Gestapo and tortured till they revealed information. Entire villages, including children and women, are not being exterminated because a patriot killed a German.
You are ignorant of your own heritage. But what’s new, you are ignorant of just about anything you talk about?
> There is the occasional ID check but
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps_for_Ukrainians
Witless Wee Willy
Beatings, torture by electricity, waterboarding, and killings have been reported by people interrogated in the US “black sites” – secret torture prisons.
You were saying?
What about Whataboutism, Mike?
Don’t be stupid, Willard. If you bring a group of people into Russia from the Ukraine, for their own protection, you need to know which ones are legit and which ones are anti-Russian. That’s why they are called filtration camps, to filter out the legit from the terrorists.
> If you bring a group of people into Russia
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps_for_Ukrainians
That’s against the Laws of War, and falls under Article II of the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
willard…”According to the Ukrainian government, some 1.6 million Ukrainians have been forcibly relocated to Russia, with about 250,000 of these being children”.
***
Yeah, Willard, I really trust reports from the Ukrainian government [/sarc off]. These liars will say anything to win international sympathy.
If the Russians did take that many people, they were all people with pro-Russian sympathies from the Donbas area. Did you expect them to leave the children on their own in a war zone?
The Ukrainians in western Ukraine could have fixed the problem years ago by honestly negotiating with the people in eastern Ukraine.
If you had voted for Biden, and a group of armed right wingers had kicked him out of office, how would you have felt? That’s what happened in the Ukraine in 2014. We know that is very unlikely in the US because the police and army would prevent it. In the Ukraine, the police and army did nothing.
That’s why I don’t trust these creeps.
Also, no one who had expressed neo-Nazi sympathies would be allowed to sit in Congress. In the Ukraine, there are politicians sitting in their Parliament who have openly expressed neo-Nazi sympathies in the past.
Come on, Gordo. You are a Dragon Crank. Who cares what you trust or not. Your trust module should be replaced with a new one.
You are defending war criminals, more precisely you are bowing to a genocidal maniac.
If only you had as much knowledge about Donbas than the Dumbass state.
“If the Russians did take that many people, they were all people..”
IOW, Gordon, you seem to de-facto trust the Russians to do only the right thing, while we have a huge pile of independent evidence to the contrary.
Why?
That simply makes you an apologist. No different from the apologists for Hitler or Stalin.
Robertson, you’re getting more and more ridiculous.
No one has talked about the GESTAPO, Robertson, although it’s reminiscent of the days of the GESTAPO when we hear that all you have to do in Russia is to say publicly that Russia has invaded Ukraine and you’ll be sentenced up to 15 years in prison!
Putin and his nomenklatura behave perfectly like neo-Nazis.
They didn’t invade Ukraine to save the people there from neo-Nazis: they did it because they want to restore Holy Great Russia, no matter what it costs Ukraine and its people, no matter what it costs Russian soldiers.
Do you know how many Ukrainians were killed by Russian missiles?
Do you know how many buildings and houses in the cities and villages of Ukraine were destroyed by Russian missiles during the Russian invasion?
I have seen all that nearly every day, Robertson. You VERY CERTAINLY DID NOT.
What does this all have to do with the alleged denazification of Ukraine that Lavrov is still brazenly promoting in the UN Security Council?
What Putin & co are doing, Robertson, is exactly what Hitler and his henchmen were doing in Poland in 1939.
And a little later they began to invade France, Belgium, the Netherlands and so on.
You are such an ignorant and arrogant person, living far, far away from what you think you are aware of.
No one is claiming Putin is a good guy or that Russia is a Utopia. I am claiming Russia is a far better place than it was under Stalin and that many people who should know better are still regarding Russia as if it is still such a despotic nation.
I don’t think for a second that people can freely speak their minds in Russia but I do know that westerners can now travel freely through Russia if they mind their Ps and Qs and don’t irritate officials. I am optimistic that things will improve in the future but that won’t happen as long as we are under the impression that Russians are evil people, and continually attack Russian leadership with outright lies. We need to communicate with them and urge them toward democracy, provided we have an example to show them.
We should be making an effort to communicate with Putin, as did Trump, but small minds are bent on old grudges. With regard to the Ukraine, Putin has been smeared by western fake news. They have made no attempt to understand let alone portray the truth.
You have made no attempt to understand either, You are a typical dumbass who believes everything he is told by fake news and the status quo.
Gordon Robertson
You are truly gullible. A foolish person who believes lies and false hood and will never change course regardless of evidence.
You should analyze your own words and use them to correct your own inner flaws.
YOU: “You have made no attempt to understand either, You are a typical dumbass who believes everything he is told by fake news and the status quo.”
You believe the lies of Putin. The asshole threatens to use nuclear weapons and still you support him. You do have some type of sick mind. Maybe you are suicidal and want the world destroyed. I far rather see Putin overthrown and in prison and charged with war crimes.
Here is evidence for you to deny. You always do and always will.
You must be one of the most gullible humans alive.
Reality for you to ignore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxjyGVnAsdg
The New York Times…ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Get serious, Norman, the new fake news rag on the block. They are down there with the National Enquirer and News of the World.
Imagine faking Russian soldiers offering opinions and passing it off as a real interview.
binny…”they want to restore Holy Great Russia”
***
So, they captured a small area in the southeast where all the pro-Russian Ukrainians live? This is why you cannot grasp that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on its axis while keeping the same side pointed at the Earth.
Graham,
You are needed in aisle 3.
Gordo made another mess and Mike is busy in the other aisle,
“So, they captured a small area in the southeast where all the pro-Russian Ukrainians live?”
No, they ANNEXED the most mineral-rich and strategic part of Ukraine. That’s ok with you?
Maybe the US should annex Ontario, since you disagree with the Canadian govt anyway?
And recall, YOU stated previously that Russia should achieve their war aims (whatever they were) than leave Ukraine.
What happened?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-stat/graphics/ai2html/ukraineSEPT/XPGSLEF5UJDPHKCUM3WDZ2FH3U/ukraineSEPT-medium.jpg?v=9
Annexed area of Ukraine. Note it included most of their access to the sea and the mineral-rich East.
Thought I’d move this down here. It was posted in a thread created by Binny and I fear no one is stupid enough to read his trash besides me.
***
binny…from article…”The resulting modulation of the gravitational redshift of the onboard atomic clocks allows the redshift determination with high accuracy”.
***
Gullible people will accept the statement above as fact. However, it is sheer nonsense. Redshift suggests an EM frequency has been shifted toward the red end of the EM spectrum.
Reference to a redshift in a star means a spectral line from an element like hydrogen is not at the wavelength/frequency where it is normally found. It has relocated to a wavelength/frequency toward the red end of the EM spectrum, meaning it is now appears to be at a lower frequency/wavelength.
That is caused by the star moving relative to Earth at a significant velocity causing the velocity of the star to be added to or subtracted from the speed of light.
But wait!!! Isn’t the speed of light supposed to be a constant?
Gravitational redshift is pseudo-science based on the ridiculous theory proposed by Einstein that time dilates with increased velocity of an object. Furthermore, he claimed the dimensions of the object will change.
An atomic clock is based on the transitions of electrons in the cesium atom. The transitions occur at a very regular rate and will produce emission spectra corresponding to a particular transition. Knowing the frequency of a spectral line, that frequency can be divided down till it measures 1 second, derived from the Earth’s rotational period.
If gravity somehow interferes with the transitions of electrons in a cesium atom, that has absolutely nothing to do with time. It means the timebase we are relying on is now corrupt.
For the umpteenth time, time has no physical existence. Time exists only in the mind of those humans who created clocks to synchronize with the Earth’s rotational period. The period was arbitrarily divided into hours, minutes, and seconds.
The fact that the same hours, minutes, and second are used to measure distances along the equator should clue an astute mind into the superficiality of time. The only way time could dilate under those circumstances is if the Earth’s rotational rate sped up or slowed down significantly.
An atomic clock has nothing to do with the Earth’s rotation, it is based on the natural transitions of electrons in the cesium atom.
> Gravitational redshift is pseudo-science
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Experimental_verification
🤦
willard…they are not measuring effects related to gravity but effects created by electromagnetic energy interacting with strong electric and magnetic field is stars. They are simply too stupid to understand the difference.
> They are simply too stupid to understand the difference.
🤦 🤦 🤦
There is only one person living in a world full of pseudoscience, Robertson: that’s you and no one else.
Don’t you see yourself the strange similarity between
– your pseudarguing against Einstein’s time dilation concepts
– your stupid and ignorant denial of the lunar spin even Newton was aware of
– your ridiculous denial of virus existence
– your absolutely wrong impressions about Putin’s dictatorial invasion of Ukraine, reminding us all of Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939?
You are such an absolutely ignorant and arrogant person, Robertson.
binny…”Dont you see yourself the strange similarity between
your pseudarguing against Einsteins time dilation concepts
your stupid and ignorant denial of the lunar spin even Newton was aware of
your ridiculous denial of virus existence
your absolutely wrong impressions about Putins dictatorial invasion of Ukraine, reminding us all of Hitlers invasion of Poland in 1939?
***
You did not finish your thought. Strange similarity between your points and what?
-I explained clearly that time has no physical existence therefore Einstein is full of horse bleep.
-I have explained by refutation of lunar spin in great detail and you have been unable to discredit my claims.
-I have not denied the existence of viruses, I have merely agreed with Lanka that no scientific proof exists that any major virus has been physically isolated. Dr. Luc Montagnier admitted he has never seen HIV on an electron microscope and covid is based on his inferred theory of a virus.
What should concern you is that a member of Montagnier’s team, Dr. Barre Sinoussi, sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute in Paris where a gold standard was set for detecting a virus. When the team tried to follow the gold standard they failed at the stage where the virus was supposed to be seen on an electron microscope. It did not bother Sinoussi when no virus appeared and that they carried on inferring a virus.
-nothing wrong with my interpretation of why Putin is in the Ukraine. You have simply bought into your usual schtick of accepting an appeal to authority over the facts.
Putin claimed he was going after Ukrainian Nazi criminals and the Donbas region. He eliminated the Azov neo-Nazi battalion in Mariupol and he is currently consolidating the Donbas region.
Ukrainians in that region are pro-Russian and asked Putin for help. They asked him for help because fellow Ukrainians had turned on them by ousting a democratically-elected pro Russian president who had been elected largely by Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine.
It was armed neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists who ousted the president while the Ukrainian army and police stood by and watched. That’s why Putin is in the Ukraine today.
> Putin claimed he was going after Ukrainian Nazi criminals and the Donbas region.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)
While Kyiv is more than 800 km away from Donbass, you will always be right in the middle of Dumbass.
The battle around Kyiv was a feint to draw the Ukrainian army north and away from the intended attack point in Donbas. The Ukrainians fell for it hook, line, and sinker. You can tell by the general lack of damage in Kyiv and the old tanks used in the northern attack that it was a ruse.
Really, Willard, you need to bone up on basic battle strategy.
> The battle around Kyiv was a feint
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_generals_killed_during_the_2022_invasion_of_Ukraine
Don’t be an idiot.
Me an idiot??? Which idiot uses the Ukrainians as a source, a desperate nation trying to make themselves look important?
let’s confirm that. Swenson, do you think Willard is an idiot?
Yes, Gordo, you the useful idiot who keeps citing that Tankie scholar who works for the ZZs:
https://darik.news/en/the-russian-generals-left-by-helicopter-for-a-restaurant-in-kyiv.html
I bet you do not even recall that we have been over all of this already.
Mike Flynn,
You are required in aisle 4.
Gordo made a mess, and he needs your help.
Graham is MIA for now.
gb…”But the traitors were the Deep State- FBI and CIA and Etc.
The FBI has proven beyond any doubt that they are traitors to the American people”.
***
I am sure a lot of people working for the FBI, CIA, etc., have their hearts in the right place, the problem seems to be a system in which such organizations get to be small countries within the mother country.
That happens when certain individuals are allowed to rise to the top and become accountable to no one. The leader of the FBI during the Obama era hated Trump. He made no bones about it and that kind of attitude simply cannot be allowed to happen in an organization like the FBI.
In other words, we need better checks and balances on all police and security agencies without overly interfering with their need for secrecy and covert activity. Here in Canada, the police are hampered by an illegal search and seizure law that prevents them stopping and searching known gang members and other criminals.
When a security agency like the FBI interferes in a political issue on behalf of one party, as the FBI did in the witch-hunt against Trump, that is another matter. And when they engage in illegal activity and a whistleblower like Edward Snowden is charged with espionage for blowing the whistle, that is certainly unacceptable.
The question is, how do you control such agencies? My view is that far too many issues are classified as secret that should not be secret. And spying on citizens as a matter of course is not acceptable either. Sure, it makes things easier for the security agencies, which they might argue, but it flies in the face of basic democracy, if such an entity exists these days.
norman….”The ***hole [Putin] threatens to use nuclear weapons and still you support him”.
***
He threatened to use nukes against the West if they interfered on behalf of the Ukraine. He has no other option. If he allows the West to run over him, his country is finished.
If we in the West had minded our own business and stayed out of the Ukrainian civil war, which we helped start in 2014, this war would never have happened. We could have helped end the civil war by mediating between east and west Ukraine, rather we used it as an opportunity to draw the Ukraine into NATO. We promised the Russians there would be no more NATO expansion in Europe and we lied.
Of course, you are far too stupid to understand any of this nor do you want to understand it.
> He has no other option.
C’mon, Gordo.
Vlad has lots of options. Try to listen to Marko Papic:
https://youtu.be/ks6sRZE-PJ8
Time is running out on teh Vlad. He had all the chances to end this.
Obviously you have not listened to what Papic is saying. He calls the current call up of reserves a big nothing burger. He think they are being called up to re-enforce the current military positions he calls a stasis. He made the important point that the Ukraine knows the war is nearing the point where negotiations will begin and they are on an offensive to reclaim as much land as possible before negotiations begin.
That’s the point I have been making, that the Russians have what they set out to get in the Donbas region and now they are fortifying their position.
More importantly, this is what Putin claimed he intended to do. He said he had no interest in taking over the Ukraine as a nation, he simply wanted to sort out neo-Nazis in the Donbas region and reclaim it for pro-Russian Ukrainians.
I am waiting to see whether he annexes the land into Russia or whether he recognizes it as an independent state. I think the latter would be in his best interest, however, I don’t think he trusts the West to keep our noses out of a newly defined state.
I can also see the Ukraine eventually getting the land back if they smarten up and deal with their idiotic neo-Nazi nationalists. They represent a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. If armed militias began trying to call the shots in the US, how long do you think they would last?
Come on, Gordo.
The nothingburger is about the military effect of the mobilization, not about the political effect within the country. As he says later on, you are only at around 5:00 right now, is that patriotism erodes faster than Vlad has to gain ground before the stalemate obtains, after which negotiations will of course happen. Once local public opinion turns against them, the ZZ will settle for any Pyrhic victory they will have left, which is prolly Donetsk.
Wishful thinking cannot compensate for a lack of comprehension.
Ukrainian forces encircle Russian troops in Lyman, a day after annexation claims
Ukraine forces have encircled the Lyman pocket, in which an estimated 5,500 Russian troops are trapped. They have 4 possible options: attempt to escape, suicide, surrender, or die while trying to defend an indefensible position. Nearly all the routes used to retreat or deliver ammunition have been blocked.
Here’s to Putin for giving a frigging ‘NOT ONE STEP BACK’ order; an actual honest to God encirclement in the year 2022!
Lyman is a key transport hub in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine.
Looks like the Russians announced that they have (are?) withdrawn from Lyman. It appears that their route to the east is under Ukrainian artillery attack.
https://tinyurl.com/Amended-Decree
where is this 5 months after temperature drop anyway??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hXnQNU8ANo
Russian Mobilisation – what does it mean for the war in Ukraine?
More than a hour.
Evidence of Russia failing.
And I would say evidence that Russia is determined
spend a long time, failing.
Or if want this war to end before Christmas, world leaders [if you don’t count Trump] are not going to end it, and it will be up to the Ukrainians to end it quickly.
Another data point moving sideways extending the flat line to 7 month
https://i.postimg.cc/FzMbvJcK/Clipboard011.jpg
I see some Solar scientists, the ones that predicted very high SC25, starting to signal the arrival of the Solar maximum already, this is only two month after I and Ren first called it,
that is very surprising , I didn’t expect them to come around so quickly.
Solar wind
speed: 399.5 km/sec
density: 0.42 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 100
Daily Sun: 01 Oct 22
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.48×10^10 W Neutral
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.2% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.1%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
A lot more sunspots in Northern {and less in
Southern}. Seems like it will get a bit more active
in next couple days.
I got a hurricane, Orlene:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Powerful Hurricane Orlene nears Puerto Vallarta Mexico – Live Coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17N0POSeGo8
105 mph
“Although Hurricane Orlene is weakening as it approaches Mexico, it still threatens Islas Marias as a Category 3 hurricane and will maintain hurricane status as it makes landfall in Mexico.”
https://www.weatherbug.com/news/Hurricane-Orlene-Eyes-Western-Mexico
“Hurricane Orlene is expected to continue weakening as it approaches Mexico. As it crawls toward Islas Marias, it will maintain major hurricane status before weakening into a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Wind Scale by tomorrow morning. As Monday evening approaches, Orlene will be a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Wind Scale as it makes landfall along the southwestern Mexican coast. It will weaken over Mexico throughout Tuesday and devolve into a remnant low by the end of the day.”
“As it crawls” so again it dump lots of rain.
If it wasn’t for coastal hills, and then then all mountains, then vast deserts, you might think it wants of visit Starbase in Texas.
Solar wind
speed: 434.1 km/sec
density: 25.52 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Oct 22
Sunspot number: 102
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.53×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.1% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.2%
X-FLARE! Earth-orbiting satellites have just detected an X1-class solar flare (Oct. 2nd @ 2025 UT). Ironically, it did not come from big dangerous sunspot AR3112, described below, but rather from AR3110, a smaller and apparently less threatening active region.
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Well, AR3110 isn’t small, but small compared to AR3112
“A BIG DANGEROUS SUNSPOT: One of the biggest sunspots in years has just rotated over the sun’s northeastern limb.”
Which is big, and might grow bigger, they all seem to want to grow bigger.
The big holes are leaving, but it seems Neutron Counts will lower more over next several days
I was reading a bit about how we get lower price of carbon fiber,
but it is still pretty expensive- as titanium. One thing about both is that carbon and titanium are quite abundant, but both carbon fiber and titanium require a energy to make and finding out how to use less energy to make them, is a main way of lower their cost. Though another way making a lot them, and having competitive market doing it. The world uses small amount of both.
Of course, from my point of view, this related to using Space environment and ocean settlement.
So in terms carbon fiber, one expensive aspect is heating carbon complex compounds into carbon fiber at high temperature in environment which doesn’t have oxygen [and there a lot space which doesn’t oxygen in it] and some concern about pollution this process makes [again not much of issue in space environment- not to mention that one could find this “pollution” has use for something else].
The upshot is, that one make stuff hot with magnified sunlight. But was wondering if process needs a type thermal which doesn’t involve UV and/or visible light. Which wouldn’t be issue if sunlight heating some kind vessel/container.
But question it brought up is if split away the visible light, and just used the sun’s shortwave IR {1/2 energy of sunlight- what temperature could that magnified sunlight make?
{We don’t tend to split up sunlight, but it can be done and probably will be done, once solar energy is more important]
Oh, knew that answer [just not enough coffee] and dull red star temperature is that answer, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MyKuWSqxoA
So Scott starts with claim the housing is the big market and something about a town which “storm proof”.
And a focus of a ocean settlement is to make it, wave proof.
Which you do with floating breakwaters.
And I would use titanium because it’s cheaper if talking more than 40 years- which what should do, if making any kind of town/settlement or
house. Seawater corrodes everything, but not titanium. Carbon fiber might work- but it’s more expensive and it seems it would as good or
not as good as stainless steel or marine aluminum.
And of course a ocean settlement is flood proof. And Scott was saying that town was flood proof.
I tend not to make ocean settlement wind proof, because in beginning I would have an ocean settlement near land settlements [cities] and I think the ocean settlement have a low profile- not have anything higher than 2 stories, and breakwater itself is low profile.
I was also thinking one could move the ocean settlement away from direct path of hurricane, if you have good enough prediction of path and had enough time.
Anyhow no amount of rain could be problem, and of course not getting over full rivers flowing at you.
Of course another thing, I think ocean settlement should have is freshwater lakes. Of course if were someplace which rain a lot, it wouldn’t be as much about making freshwater lake, more a matter of containing the amount of rain which fell. Or if in place with lots of
rain, you could collect the freshwater from rain. But I would tend to avoid living a places which rained that much.
One could imagine hunter/gathering of rain, but I tend think dragging polar ice [which floating] would be better.
Any the general issue is can we make our primitive living conditions,
a lot better.
I not eager to live on Mars, but if they better towns, I might change
my mind about it.
And as I have said, I think Mars settlements, will cause ocean settlements on Earth.
Or never-mind Mars, specifically, being spacefaring civilization, will cause ocean settlements on Earth. And it’s possible the Moon could have more mineable water, than I think is likely/possible, and Moon could be primary driver of becoming a spacefaring civilization.
gbaikie watched one episode of “Mars” Series too many
That’s a negative.
No Mars series for me. I don’t know anything about it. And I wouldn’t want to watch that kind of stuff.
Solar wind
speed: 536.5 km/sec
density: 9.69 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Oct 22
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 160 sfu
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +5.1% High
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“The giant sunspot has been strangely quiet since it rotated over the sun’s eastern limb last week. Is this the calm before the storm? Another possibility exists: NOAA analysts suggest that AR3112 could be 2 or 3 separate sunspots traveling together, masquerading as a single behemoth. If so, the apparent magnetic complexity of AR3112–i.e., the quality that makes it dangerous–may be a sham.”
That was a test.
Here is another test:
Biden is a genius, says Scott Adams.
It’s a simple test also other tests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMo-26mE9Rk
Of course Biden probably is braindead- I am
not denying that evidence, nor is Scott.
But just he giving credit for what happens under Biden’s
watch. Or if on the other shoe and Trump was president,
he would say, he was genius. Though not denying that there are
risks and the future is uncertain.
The simple test is other posts, didn’t post.
And turned off my computer, and then tried, again.
And here was one that failed before:
Ye West is a good guy.
And people say he is crazy. Ye even says he was crazy.
You can’t really be crazy if you know you have been and
could be crazy.
Which is obvious.
What might be less obvious is that only good people can
see evil.
Arguing this point just indicates your ignorance.
But interesting question is do you want to be good, if
you can see evil.
But let’s make an easier question, do you want to see
a bit less of evil.
I think the answer to that question is always, yes.
Every human has limits, and Ye West is dancing near
his limits.
Scott later asks on if you just move the homeless to nice wilderness area, wouldn’t they just burn it down?
{Scott has said we should move the homeless to nice wilderness area- and yes, Scott that is exactly what they would do. Another advantage
of ocean settlement is it’s hard to burn it, down}.
I’ll right away take hold of your rss feed as I can’t in finding your
email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service. Do you have
any? Kindly let me know in order that I may subscribe.
Thanks.
Nice post
يا بطشا!